Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Massive 8.9 earthquake and tsunami devastate Japan

Mar 11, 2011#1

Tress

The damage is massive.

It's odd, but one of the first things I felt was some small measure of relief that Japan may be better equipped to handle something like this compared to other countries.

As of right now they're watching to see if the tsunami will reach Hawaii, Russia, Guam, and other areas in the Pacific.

Mar 11, 2011#2

DarkAudit

Mike Alt of CNN said that as he was running around like a chicken with his head cut off (his words), his wife knew exactly what to do. Japanese are trained from childhood for just such emergencies, even though this is larger than anyone can remember.

Live streaming video from NHK World is on http://www.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/

Mar 11, 2011#3

@Li3n

Tress said:
It's odd, but one of the first things I felt was some small measure of relief that Japan may be better equipped to handle something like this compared to other countries.

Considering that an 8.8 quake would have killed thousands anywhere else i'd say that's an understatement.

And i'm guessing that most deaths will be because of the tsunami too.

Mar 11, 2011#4

Dave

Jesus fuck 8.9?!? I have no words for this.

Mar 11, 2011#5

TommiR

At the risk of being tasteless:

Perhaps the whales are retaliating?

Mar 11, 2011#6

Dave

TommiR said:
At the risk of being tasteless:

Perhaps the whales are retaliating?

fukka-YOU, whale! And fukka-YOU, dolphin!

Mar 11, 2011#7

sixpackshaker

Such a devastating event.

Who is our resident Geophysicist?

Mar 11, 2011#8

Dave

Fuck. No more jokes from me about this. I'm an asshole for the one I did above.

This video makes me want to cry. Can you imagine the terror of the people in these cars?

Mar 11, 2011#9

MindDetective

Ugh. I can't see the video, as usual.

Mar 11, 2011#10

Allen who is Quiet

MindDetective said:
Ugh. I can't see the video, as usual.

Here's a link to it

Mar 11, 2011#11

MindDetective

Thanks! I don't know why XenForo hates the Mac version of Chrome. I can see videos without problem everyone else but here it is very hit or miss.

Mar 11, 2011#12

Espy

Holy crap. That video... oh man.

Mar 11, 2011#13

SpecialKO

That video is horrifying. I can't imagine being in those cars and watching it coming. Hope they got away.

Mar 11, 2011#14

Hylian

I guess there is no such thing as too soon for the internet

Mar 11, 2011#15

Jiarn

It's pronounced "Gozirra".

Mar 11, 2011#16

GasBandit

Dave said:
Fuck. No more jokes from me about this. I'm an asshole for the one I did above.

This video makes me want to cry. Can you imagine the terror of the people in these cars?

Hollywood only wishes it could evoke even half the raw horror watching that amorphous, detritus-laden, flame-spewing blob spreading across all and sundry does.

Mar 11, 2011#17

ScytheRexx

I am actually rather scared right now. I have a close friend that lives in Japan.

Mar 11, 2011#18

sixpackshaker

ScytheRexx said:
I am actually rather scared right now. I have a close friend that lives in Japan.

I am pretty sure he's fine. The loss of life has been fairly low for such a catastrophe.

Mar 11, 2011#19

ThatNickGuy

From what I understand (bearing in mind I haven't been able to reach a LOT of detail on this yet), most of the disaster is among the coastal areas. Some of the larger populated areas wouldn't be as affected. I think. Plus, as others have said, Japan is prepared for these sort of things. The death toll will likely reach over 1,000 but compared to a lot of other countires, it won't be nearly as bad.

Over 1,000 lost lives is still terrible, though.

Mar 11, 2011#20

Gryfter

Wow, that video is.... wow.

Mar 11, 2011#21

ThatNickGuy

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/japan-decl...nt-no-radiation-leak-20110311-055215-362.html

Oh, fuck. When it rains, it pours.

Mar 11, 2011#22

Tress

Here in California we got some light tsunami damage. Mostly boats and harbors get smashed by waves. I'm just amazed that an earthquake on the complete other side of the ocean could cause a tsunami in California strong enough to do damage. That was definitely one hell of a quake.

Mar 11, 2011#23

Jiarn

I know we have members in China, any in Japan or nearby areas?

Mar 11, 2011#24

Krisken

Watching that video made me sick to my stomach.

Mar 11, 2011#25

North_Ranger

Holy hell, that is like five flavours of terrible reading the articles and watching the videos.

Mar 11, 2011#26

Jiarn

For once I'm glad I can't watch any vids at work....

Mar 11, 2011#27

sixpackshaker

Maybe it is the moon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110310/sc_space/willmarch19supermoontriggernaturaldisasters

An astrologer says that the Full Moon next weekend could trigger catastrophe...

WTF?! Why is a story about what ever the hell an astrologer has to say listed on Yahoo's Live Science page?!?!?

Mar 11, 2011#28

SpecialKO

Wave-height projections.

Mar 11, 2011#29

sixpackshaker

That's some scary sh!t that those waves travel just a little bit slower than a Jumbo Jet.

Mar 11, 2011#30

HCGLNS

Reports now that a new 6.6 magnitude quake has just occurred in Japan.

Mar 11, 2011#31

MindDetective

sixpackshaker said:
Maybe it is the moon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110310/sc_space/willmarch19supermoontriggernaturaldisasters

An astrologer says that the Full Moon next weekend could trigger catastrophe...

WTF?! Why is a story about what ever the hell an astrologer has to say listed on Yahoo's Live Science page?!?!?

Phil Plait responds reasonably (but is probably quietly outraged): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...upermoon-didnt-cause-the-japanese-earthquake/

Mar 11, 2011#32

GasBandit

Tokyo’s iconic 60-foot Gundam RX-78 did not emerge from Japan’s devastating earthquake unscathed.

Mar 11, 2011#33

Wahad

The tsunami has crossed the entirety of the Pacific Ocean - boats in SF harbor were crushed by ~8ft waves. Think about that scale for a second. It's terrifying.

Mar 11, 2011#34

Mathias

sixpackshaker said:
Maybe it is the moon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110310/sc_space/willmarch19supermoontriggernaturaldisasters

An astrologer says that the Full Moon next weekend could trigger catastrophe...

WTF?! Why is a story about what ever the hell an astrologer has to say listed on Yahoo's Live Science page?!?!?

FUKKAAAA YOU MOOOOOOONNNN!!!!

Mar 11, 2011#35

Jiarn

They need to turn off the damn advertisements on Youtube for today. Seriously.

Mar 11, 2011#36

North_Ranger

Wahad said:
The tsunami has crossed the entirety of the Pacific Ocean - boats in SF harbor were crushed by ~8ft waves. Think about that scale for a second. It's terrifying.

That's why you don't wanna fuck around with Mother Nature.

She crazy.

Mar 11, 2011#37

Hylian

Jiarn said:
They need to turn off the damn advertisements on Youtube for today. Seriously.

I use Firefox with adblock plus and no script and between those two I never have to watch the youtube ads.

Mar 11, 2011#38

Wahad

Jiarn said:
They need to turn off the damn advertisements on Youtube for today. Seriously.

Or make all revenue go to whatever Aid Japan Fund there is.

Mar 11, 2011#39

GasBandit

Jiarn said:
They need to turn off the damn advertisements on Youtube for today. Seriously.

What advertisements....?
Added at: 16:37

Hylian said:
I use Firefox with adblock plus and no script and between those two I never have to watch the youtube ads.

Ohhh that explains it. Heh. I don't even use noscript, just adblock plus it seems is enough.

Mar 11, 2011#40

GasBandit

Re: the gundam picture I posted earlier. Turns out... that photo is not a recent one, but was actually taken over a year ago during a dismantling accident.

My bad.

Mar 11, 2011#41

bhamv3

Jiarn said:
I know we have members in China, any in Japan or nearby areas?

Well, Taiwan for one is fine. We had a tsunami alert for three hours after the quake hit Japan, and many areas along our eastern coast were evacuated.

In the end though, the wave that hit us was 12 centimeters (approximately 5 inches) tall.

There's not as big a backlash against the unnecessary evacuation as I'd've imagined, though. Guess most people here appreciate the "better safe than sorry" approach.

Mar 11, 2011#42

Far

There was a tsunami advisory for much of vancouver island today though I live on the eastern coast of the island, the one facing mainland Canada, so it didn't really cover much of where I am and was later called off without any thing happening.

Tragic what happened over in Japan. I had heard about the nuclear plants possible failure earlier this morning and then had to go to work and hadn't heard much else about them during. Considering the tv in the break room was on news reports all day about the quake and tsunami, I was suprised not to hear much else about them until I got home and looked into it myself. I hope that they re able to get them under control as I can only imagine how much worse the situation would be if something further went wrong at the plants.

As far as I'm aware they've have been shut down and are in the process of cooling. There seems to be reports of radiation spikes in the area but I'm not entirely sure how valid those claims are.

Mar 12, 2011#43

figmentPez

Some reports are saying that the reactor is in serious trouble:
Japan warns of meltdown at quake-hit plant: Kyodo
"Authorities said that there was a high possibility that nuclear fuel rods at the reactor of Tepco's Daiichi plant may be melting or have melted, Reuters reported, citing Jiji news."

Mar 12, 2011#44

FnordBear

There has been a blast post-earthquake and it looks like the reactor could be going in to full meltdown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Mar 12, 2011#45

strawman

It's a boiling water type reactor. A steel pressurized reactor vessel (which is inside the containment building) holds the fuel rods, control rods, etc. The control rods are below the fuel rods, so in theory if the fuel rods do melt, then they melt down into the control rods which slow (but won't completely stop) the reaction.

Water circulates around the fuel rods, and this water is inside the pressure vessel and circulation system, and is not allowed to escape, to avoid radiation leakage. However, if this water is pressurized too high, then the pressure vessel and circulation system could explode.

Yesterday they released some of this water into the atmosphere as steam to prevent a much larger explosion that would result if they didn't relieve the pressure. It is this steam that has caused the radiation detectors, and a few people, to test as radioactive, and it's why that radiation has fallen back down - they relieved the pressure and stopped releasing the steam once the pressure was within safe limits. The radiation that was released was minimal on the scale of things.

I suspect that they started pumping sea water directly on the pressure vessel inside the containment building, and that they didn't have adequate means of draining the building, let alone enough venting so the pressure inside the containment building didn't get too high. Once the water hit the reactor, it steamed up, and pressurized the containment building, and eventually it failed.

From the articles, it sounds like radiation has not increased appreciably since the containment building fell, which indicates the pressure vessel is still intact. And, in fact, it should be a lot easier to cool the reactor core from the outside.

As long as they can cool it enough to keep it from melting down too much, and they can get the regular cooling system back online, then things will be fine.

If they can't cool it fast enough for long enough, then a meltdown will cause a large-scale environmental disaster, however it is unlikely that it would be as bad as chernobyl. Not only did Chernobyl NOT have a containment building to start out with, they did not bleed off the excess pressure inside the pressure vessel quickly enough, and it exploded, sending all sorts of radioactive material into the air. As long as they release the pressure at this plant as needed, and keep pumping cool water in to replace the water lost as steam, then they should be able to prevent an explosion, and even if radioactive steam is released it will be significantly less radioactive than a pressure vessel breach.

The fact that they blew up the containment building indicates that either someone made a really bad mistake (not just a poor choice) or that the situation is so bad that they are pulling out all the stops. The "dust" from the "explosion" is more likely to be the huge amount of steam that was contained in the building before it failed, along with some real dust and debris. It's not a small thing, though. In the US the containment building itself, by regulation, must be able to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger jet without breach.

The pressure vessel has concrete walls that are measured in meters of concrete and steel thick. If it does go into full meltdown, and they can't control the heat, then the explosion that results will be astonishing, and radiation detectors worldwide would be going off, depending on the air currents. The fuel will be liquid by that time, which will make it easier to disperse aerially. The fuel load of these reactors is in the area of 150 tons of Uranium, which is about a speck of uranium per person on the planet.

Unfortunately that thick concrete and steel pressure vessel also makes it harder to effectively cool it from the outside, so they have to get the regular cooling system online as quickly as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor

Mar 12, 2011#46

Kovac

At least one family who experienced the Christchurch earthquake then moved to Japan in time to get hit by this earthquake as well.

Christchurch and now Japan earthquake survivor Jo Andrew says her nerves are shot. After living through Christchurch's killer quake she found herself trapped in Japan's massive shake.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/japan-earthquake/4762603/Jo-flees-NZ-quake-for-Japan-ordeal

Mar 12, 2011#47

SpecialKO

Re: FLP's post.

I don't think I've ever read a post that simultaneously calmed and scared the shit out of me at the same time in the way this one did.

Mar 12, 2011#48

Hailey Knight

So basically, once they get things in order it's fine and it'll be smooth sailing... but getting to that point is going to take a lot of work done correctly and quickly.

Mar 12, 2011#49

ThatNickGuy

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/03...rbor-joke-in-response-to-japanese-earthquake/

Hurm.

Mar 12, 2011#50

Hailey Knight

Didn't you know? They're not funny even when they're off-duty from their crappy show. Herp derp.

Mar 12, 2011#51

Tress

Family Guy writer Alec Sulkin said:
If you wanna feel better about this earthquake in Japan, google “Pearl Harbor death toll”.

Classy. I wonder if that moron actually thought that was funny?

Mar 12, 2011#52

Krisken

Family Guy- sad on screen and off.

Mar 12, 2011#53

North_Ranger

Okay, I forgive Family Guy for a lot, but the Da-Cow bit and this? Fuck it.

Mar 12, 2011#54

Tress

Da-Cow?

Mar 12, 2011#55

North_Ranger

An episode about beef... and a reference to Dachau.

Mar 12, 2011#56

Tress

Mar 12, 2011#57

strawman

On one hand, I don't intend to scare monger, but on the other hand, it's a very serious situation. They have an analysis of the containment building explosion:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.nuclear.quesions/index.html?hpt=T1

Which suggests that they were, in fact, pumping water directly into the containment building, hoping to cool the reactor down a bit. Rather than it being a steam explosion, though, the sea water reacted with some other materials inside the building, generating hydrogen gas, which then led to the explosion.

They are relatively certain that reactor 1 (460MW) has at least one or more fuel rods that have melted, and they have reason to believe now that reactor 5 (780 MW) is suspected of having a partial meltdown as well. At the time of the earthquake, only three of the 6 reactors at this site were operating, so it's very unlikely that the three idling reactors would have a problem. If it were just the earthquake, or just the tsunami, they would likely have been fine (the plants go into automatic shutdown when an earthquake is sensed). But the earthquake caused the reactors to go into shutdown (meaning the power plant can't supply its own power - needed to run the cooling pumps) and the subsequent tsunami shut down the diesel generators that were keeping the pumps going. They don't note which other reactor was running, but if it was #6 (1GW) then hopefully they've got that one well under control. It's a later design, but they were all built in the 1970's, and #6 is particularly large.

While all of this is alarming, keep in mind that the worst nuclear power plant disaster we've ever had can only be linked directly to about 30 deaths from radiation poisoning (workers sealing the reactor away in concrete), and while some hundreds of birth defects, and thousands of cancers may be attributable to the Chernobyl accident (mostly related to the workers and their families - very few civilians were affected), the overall effect of this japanese plant failing catastrophically would be a mere fraction of the death and destruction that the earthquake and tsunami have caused. Not that this makes it any better, but I think a sense of scale is important when you're discussing potentially scary things. Also it's important to note that while the workers suffered the most, we've progressed to the point where the workers are being protected far more than they were at the time of the chernobyl disaster.

Not a good thing to have happen, but not something worth losing any sleep over.
Added at: 23:31
Notably, Japan has moved by about 8 feet. (All your GPS street maps are now off by 8 feet!)

Further, the axis of the earth was shifted by about 4 inches (10cm).

For a mass of stuff that's nearly eight thousands miles in diameter, shifting the entire axis of the planet is no small feat, even if it's only 4 inches.

Mar 12, 2011#58

Dave

Japanese authorities:

A meltdown has more than likely occurred.

Mar 12, 2011#59

Wasabi Poptart

Keehi Small Boat Harbor is about 1.5 miles from my house. They don't have estimates on the damage yet because there are so many boats in the water and debris from the pier that needs to be cleaned up.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14238003

Mar 12, 2011#60

bhamv3

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Further, the axis of the earth was shifted by about 4 inches (10cm).

Well, good thing we didn't break the 10 feet threshold, or otherwise we'd be freezing to death or burning up!

/obscure?

Mar 13, 2011#61

Chad Sexington

Well if it's obscure it takes no time to resolve: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldwfw1mECv1qzium9o1_500.jpg

I assume that is to what you were referring, anyways.

Mar 13, 2011#62

bhamv3

Yes, yes it was.

Mar 13, 2011#63

North_Ranger

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Notably, Japan has moved by about 8 feet. (All your GPS street maps are now off by 8 feet!)

Actually, this was a false duck according to some later reports. One of the GPS markers had shifted eight feet because of the earthquake. The whole island nation hasn't shifted, just the marker.

Mar 13, 2011#64

figmentPez

North_Ranger said:
Actually, this was a false duck according to some later reports. One of the GPS markers had shifted eight feet because of the earthquake. The whole island nation hasn't shifted, just the marker.

Well, it was more than just the marker, but not the entire island:
Earthquake causes Japan's coastline to move as much as 13 feet, tilts Earth's axis 10 inches: Report

Friday's devastating 8.9 earthquake in Japan moved Japan's coastline as much as 13 feet, averaging eight feet along a stretch measuring 300 miles, according to the Geographical Survey Institute.

....
"At this point, we know that one GPS station moved, and we have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass,” said Kenneth Hudnut, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey's Earthquake Hazards Program in Pasadena, California.

Mar 13, 2011#65

fade

sixpackshaker said:
Such a devastating event.

Who is our resident Geophysicist?

That'd be me.

8.9 is large, but at the same time, an 8.9 earthquake at a major convergent plate boundary is, like the NZ quake, unsurprising. At least Japan has developed a weak early warning system. I mean, Japan itself exists because of the upward trickling of molten subducted plate. It's a volcanic island arc. Early warning is difficult anywhere though.

One thing I was happy to see in the media this time was an actual explanation of magnitudes. Hollywood needs to take notes. The Richter magnitude is a logarithm base 32, so that a magnitude 5 quake means roughly 32 to the 5th Joules of energy released. Which means that each magnitude is actually 32 times greater than the previous. Though honestly the Richter magnitude is terribly outdated and woefully inaccurate outside of Southern California. "Internally", we usually use the moment magnitude scale. Long story short, though, it was nice to see acknowledgement that there's a HUGE difference between a 7 and an 8.

Mar 13, 2011#66

Jiarn

I think it's safe to say the Earthquake was NOT the major cause of damage in Japan.

Mar 14, 2011#67

@Li3n

Jiarn said:
I think it's safe to say the Earthquake was NOT the major cause of damage in Japan.

Well the tsunami didn't start itself, now did it?

And they probably would have been able to save a lot of people if the epicentre wasn't so close to the island and they had more warning of the tsunami.

Mar 14, 2011#68

ThatNickGuy

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/volcano-so...struggles-earthquake-20110313-081017-634.html

Cripes, like an earthquake, a tsunami and TWO potential nuclear meltdowns weren't enough.

Mar 14, 2011#69

strawman

An excellent writeup on the nuclear plant situation, including awesome pictorial diagrams, which should serve well to correct my mistakes and poor assumptions, and should set everyone's mind at ease concerning the possibility of glowing:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Upshot - Yes, things didn't go as well as they would like, but the radiation that was released is of the fast decaying type (on the order of seconds for a half life), and was is very low levels (even if you are close to the plant, it's not more than you'd get from an 8 hour plane flight from solar radiation), and there's no possibility of significant radioactive release due to the the reactor design and the multiple levels of safety and protection.

Very interesting information.

Mar 14, 2011#70

Tress

@Li3n said:
Well the tsunami didn't start itself, now did it?

And they probably would have been able to save a lot of people if the epicentre wasn't so close to the island and they had more warning of the tsunami.

Okay, I'm not sure what Japan did... but they need to apologize for it right away.

Mar 14, 2011#71

sixpackshaker

Jimmy Carter needs to put his rubber boots back on and go help with the nuclear emergency like he did at Three Mile Island.

Mar 14, 2011#72

Null

Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdowns, and a volcano? It's like Japan decided to do all the disaster movie cliches at once.

But seriously, this is a situation that I literally cannot imagine the multitude of. I've donated money to the red cross japan aid fund, which is about all I can do.

Mar 14, 2011#73

GasBandit

Tress said:
Okay, I'm not sure what Japan did... but they need to apologize for it right away.

My guess is the concentration of pure, unadulterated "wierd shit" caused the veil to be worn thin, and bad things are coming through from the fade/warp/nether/whathaveyou.

Mar 14, 2011#74

Frankie Williamson

Tress said:
Okay, I'm not sure what Japan did... but they need to apologize for it right away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY&feature=youtu.be

Mar 14, 2011#75

Tress

Frankie Williamson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY&feature=youtu.be

FUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

I was kidding. That woman is nuts, as well as a horrible, hateful, twisted version of what a Christian should be.

Mar 14, 2011#76

Baerdog

Frankie Williamson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY&feature=youtu.be

What the fuck.

Mar 14, 2011#77

Espy

Apparently there is a rumor going around that she might be an epic troll of sorts. I'll be honest, she sounds fake to me, just the way she's talking sounds very rehearsed. Watching some of her other videos... I dunno... she's using very particular Christian lingo that is very oddly used...

I'm hoping it's true because... yikes.

Mar 14, 2011#78

Mathias

Frankie Williamson said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY&feature=youtu.be

Mar 14, 2011#79

Espy

Lol, just found this on a blog about the crazy video girl:

"Don’t take tamtampamela too seriously. She called it Lentil season, after all. Supreme Bean? #Atheist#Atheism #PoorlyDoneSpoof"

Mar 14, 2011#80

sixpackshaker

the comments for that are just exploding.

150 comments in the time it took me to watch half of it.

Mar 14, 2011#81

sixpackshaker

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis

Sounds like the containment is breached. We may be seeing the next Chernobyl not Three Mile Island.

Mar 14, 2011#82

MindDetective

A Chernobyl event is unlikely with this kind of reactor.

Mar 14, 2011#83

SpecialKO

I'm not sure the AP is a reliable source right now. Their updates are just too short and sparse on actual information.

NEI has more info from the same press conference, and they're much more complete, and point out that Edano noted he was making assumptions for safety's sake.

Mar 15, 2011#84

ThatNickGuy

Oh shit:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/residents-...iation-leak-japanese-20110315-021553-554.html
(Not sure if that's the same info as Sixpack's.)

But..now it's potentially worse:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/winds-blowing-japan-radioactivity-over-ocean-wmo-20110315-043342-386.html

I've got friends over in China and Korea. Hope to hell they're okay.

Mar 15, 2011#85

sixpackshaker

MindDetective said:
A Chernobyl event is unlikely with this kind of reactor.

Not Chernobyl, but you crack the top off of a nuclear reactor, you have screwed up more than those guys at Three Mile Island.

Mar 15, 2011#86

SpecialKO

The IAEA feed has a lot more numbers and info. It's bad, but it's not as bad as the MSM seem to think.

Mar 15, 2011#87

Jay

Mar 15, 2011#88

Krisken

Horrifying beyond words. I can't imagine seeing this in person. The worst part is you can see the water slowly growing higher and higher. This is just heart breaking.

Mar 15, 2011#89

Jay

Watching ENTIRE houses float by? Cool as hell but terrible if that's like... you know.... your house.

Mar 15, 2011#90

Espy

I don't even have any words to express what I feel after watching that video.

Mar 15, 2011#91

Espy

Nice to know I was right.

Mar 15, 2011#92

Tress

What a pathetic piece of shit.

Mar 16, 2011#93

sixpackshaker

AFLAC Duck Tweets and loses his job.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110315/ap_on_en_ot/us_aflac_fires_gottfried

Gilbert Gottfried is now looking for work.

Mar 16, 2011#94

Azurephoenix

Isn't there a danger of the spent fuel rods burning and releasing toxic cesium-137 all over the place?

Mar 16, 2011#95

sixpackshaker

Yes, that was the most recent fire. Of course the information is all over the place.

Not all the rods are "spent," some will be some that was taken out as part of maintenance. They are in a containing pool next to one of the reactors.

Mar 16, 2011#96

Ravenpoe

sixpackshaker said:
AFLAC Duck Tweets and loses his job.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110315/ap_on_en_ot/us_aflac_fires_gottfried

Gilbert Gottfried is now looking for work.

Those aren't even the worst things he's ever said. Saying horrible things is his entire schtick.

Mar 16, 2011#97

SpecialKO

Grrr...I am so pissed at CNN right now.

I was just watching Newsroom, and they're going on about "RADIATION SPEWING ALL OVER" and "400 MILLISIEVERTS IS 2,000 CHEST X-RAYS!!!111" while the IAEA report says that the 400 millisieverts per hour reading was in a single location at one reactor at one point in time and has long since reduced to 0.6 millisieverts per hour.

They're so desperate to fill their 24hr newscycle that they willing to scare the crap out of people even more. The reality of the situation is grim enough.

Mar 16, 2011#98

sixpackshaker

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-worst-gilbert-gottfried-tsunami-jokes

Some of the jokes that got him fired.
Added at: 17:07
http://www.patheos.com/community/mainlineportal/2011/03/15/glenn-becks-god-of-tsunamis/

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...ssage-god-gilbert-gottfried/story?id=13139648

I find his comments way more offensive than Gilbert's jokes.

Mar 16, 2011#99

Frankie Williamson

Espy said:
Nice to know I was right.

Yeah, it seemed to nuts to be real.

Doesn't make her any less of a loathsome cunt. It still utterly offends me that I can call anyone a dick, cock, penis or pecker but say CUNT is off limits.

Mar 16, 2011#100

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-worst-gilbert-gottfried-tsunami-jokes

Some of the jokes that got him fired.
Added at: 17:07
http://www.patheos.com/community/mainlineportal/2011/03/15/glenn-becks-god-of-tsunamis/

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...ssage-god-gilbert-gottfried/story?id=13139648

I find his comments way more offensive than Gilbert's jokes.

The Mayor of Tokyo said much the same thing

http://asiancorrespondent.com/50335/tokyo-mayor-tsunami-was-divine-punishment/

He's since apologized.

Mar 16, 2011#101

sixpackshaker

To say that their own view of religion is punishing them, is a bit different than....

Our God is punishing you for your religion's sins.

Mar 16, 2011#102

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
To say that their own view of religion is punishing them, is a bit different than....

Our God is punishing you for your religion's sins.

Which is, to put it generously, not an accurate portrayal of the statements made.

Glenn Beck said:
I’m not saying God is, you know, causing earthquakes. I’m not not saying that either….there’s a message being sent. And that is, ‘Hey, you know that stuff we’re doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.’ I’m just saying.

(side note - consider how often the phrase "I'm just saying," full stop at the end, appears in the statements of assholes. Heh)
Note the lack of "our god is punishing your heathen religion" fire and brimstone.

If anything, the Tokyo Mayor's version was much more pointed -

Shintaro Ishihara said:
The identity of the Japanese people is selfishness. The Japanese people must take advantage of this tsunami as means of washing away their selfish greed. I really do think this is divine punishment.

The IDENTITY of the Japanese people is selfishness? As in, it is a defining characteristic, if not THE defining characteristic? Even those of us often boggled by "moon people!" probably wouldn't go that far. It seems particularly out of place as well when there has been a very noteworthy lack of looting going on.
Added at: 16:26
Oh, also on the Gilbert Gottfried front - I'm very strongly reminded of the jokes so many people were saying about the Challenger explosion in the 80s ("What does NASA stand for? Needs Another Seven Astronauts! What were the sharks off Cape Canaveral eating that day? LAUNCH meat!").

Probably not the smartest thing to be doing if you're the public face (or voice) of a company that doesn't want that kind of tastelessness associated with it, but it's hardly something we need to drag him to Nuremberg for.

Mar 16, 2011#103

Chibibar

Well. I got two friends in Tokyo and they said it is getting better and the news are over sensationalizing it. They are more worry about the people still trapped than radiation (current "leak" would be about 3 years of constant exposure before it will effect humans so they said)

Mar 16, 2011#104

Ravenpoe

Will I be fired from Halforums if I found Gilbert's jokes funny? Not really lol funny, more that's terrible and I'm going to hell funny.

I still think firing him was a dick move. If you don't want your spokesman making crass jokes, maybe don't hire Gilbert Gottfried.

Then again, those duck commercials were getting tiring. This is probably for the best.

Mar 16, 2011#105

sixpackshaker

They are "you are going to hell for laughing" funny.

Mar 16, 2011#106

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
Will I be fired from Halforums if I found Gilbert's jokes funny? Not really lol funny, more that's terrible and I'm going to hell funny.

You can come sit at the Pariah table with the rest of us misanthropes.

I still think firing him was a dick move. If you don't want your spokesman making crass jokes, maybe don't hire Gilbert Gottfried.

Well, I'm of the opinion they can fire whoever they want for whatever reason, and this is a better than most reason, but if it makes it sit better with you, consider it as them "un-hiring" him, having come to the realization that "Gee, maybe we shouldn't have hired Gilbert Gottfried, as it really was just a matter of time until he started ridiculing human tragedy in a public venue."

Then again, those duck commercials were getting tiring. This is probably for the best.

I also refuse to believe that Gottfried is the only person who could do that voice.

Mar 16, 2011#107

Ravenpoe

Oh, I also agree they can fire whoever they want. I'm not trying to claim Gottfried as an innocent victim. I just find the thought of firing him for doing what he's made a career out of doing to be kinda odd.

I wonder how much he got paid... I can totally do that voice.

Mar 16, 2011#108

strawman

I can't believe they hired him to do the duck's voice anyway. All he ever did was say, "aflac!" They'll get a cheaper voice actor, and everyone will come out ahead.

And yes, his jokes were funny. However, it's tactless to make fun of someone while they are still suffering. Making jokes about someone's house burning down years after it happened? Sure, they probably laugh about it themselves from time to time. Bringing marshmallows and sticks to roast as you watch it burn? Tactless, not to mention carcinogenic.

Besides, the jokes the Japanese themselves are coming up with are going to be far funnier and darker than what Gilbert said. I can only hope the best ones are translated and published...

Mar 16, 2011#109

ThatNickGuy

Noooo! Not Mr. Mxyzpltk's voice! *sob!* I'll never be able to watch my favourite Superman episode again.

Mar 18, 2011#110

strawman

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-reactor-damage-20110318,0,6146639.story

Radiation from the plant is now reaching the west coast of the US. The amounts are insignificant in terms of human, plant, and animal health, but the increase and type of radiation is measurable and verified to be from this plant. Keep in mind that the radiation we are receiving now was emitted days ago, when they weren't leaking very much. Now that the storage pool of reactor 4 is actively spewing material we may see increases on our coast soon, though after a trans-pacific flight they should still be minimal.

Japan now officially considers this nuclear disaster to be a 5 on the scale of one to 7, where Chernobyl was 7, and 3 mile island was also a 5. Notably, the Japanese plant is spewing radiation, whereas there was no radiation emitted from the 3 mile island accident.

The winds over the plant are now shifting such that Tokyo is in the path of the radiation.

They should have power at the plant in the next 24 hours. They aren't sure if the pumps were damaged in the hydrogen explosions that occurred last week, however even if they are, getting power is critically important for the control and monitoring systems to work. They can't go anywhere near the reactors right now, but once they get the systems online they should have a lot of monitoring equipment (temperature, pressure) they can use to understand the situation, and control equipment (valves, etc) they can use to move coolant around the plant with external pumps if needed. They are operating in the dark at the moment, but with power they should have a lot more information, even if a lot of sensors were destroyed. The sensors inside the reactor should still be fine.

Mar 18, 2011#111

Espy

NPR has been doing some really fantastic reporting on this. Today on Science Friday I believe a good portion of Science Friday today will focus on it as well.

Mar 18, 2011#112

strawman

ooh, I have to tune in on that! In fact, I think science friday is on now...

Indeed it is:

http://wamu.org/listen/

I very much enjoy science Friday!

Mar 18, 2011#113

Espy

I loves me some Science Friday.

Mar 18, 2011#114

GasBandit

I didn't know bananas are naturally radioactive because of their potassium content. But you can apparently measure radiation in banana equivalents. I think that helps put things in perspective.

Mar 18, 2011#115

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I didn't know bananas are naturally radioactive because of their potassium content. But you can apparently measure radiation in banana equivalents. I think that helps put things in perspective.

There was an interested footnote at the bottom of that article:

Note: This is not a "nuclear accident". It is damage from an earthquake and tsunami. The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labeled “the third worst train accident ever".

Mar 18, 2011#116

bhamv3

Any mention so far of the Fukushima 50? I read a news article about these guys and got choked up. A bunch of scientists, technicians and emergency services personnel volunteered to stay behind, risking their lives to keep the plant under control.

These guys are willingly exposing themselves to radiation and other dangers, to keep the rest of the region and possibly the rest of Japan safe. They're the few who are sacrificing themselves to protect the many. It's like seeing a modern version of 300 or something like that.

The most admirable part, I think, is that this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision on their part. They've been in there for days. They've had days to reconsider their decision, and leave if they want to. But they don't.

Mar 19, 2011#117

Null

They're people doing their job when it really matters, because completing it means more to them than their own safety. That's admirable indeed. I don't think the term "hero" would be wrong to use.

So this is about the same as Three Mile Island in terms of radiation leakage? That's actually pretty good - the radiation level from TMI was equivalent to a 6 hour flight in terms of exposure.

Mar 19, 2011#118

strawman

Null said:
So this is about the same as Three Mile Island in terms of radiation leakage?

No, the radiation leakage from this situation is far greater than that of 3 mile island. Having the same number on the rating system doesn't mean the same amount of leakage.

Mar 19, 2011#119

Null

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
No, the radiation leakage from this situation is far greater than that of 3 mile island. Having the same number on the rating system doesn't mean the same amount of leakage.

Oh, okay. I was unclear about that.

Mar 19, 2011#120

strawman

You may have seen before and after photos, but the ones I've seen cover large areas, and while it's easy to see the after is more damaged, it's not as clear as it is now:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?hp

Select smaller areas. The photos are overlayed. There's a slider in the middle of each photo, move it one way to reveal the devastation, move it the other way to see the images captured prior to the tsunami and earthquake.

Very, very easy to see and comprehend the damage done.

Mar 20, 2011#121

fade

GasBandit said:
I didn't know bananas are naturally radioactive because of their potassium content. But you can apparently measure radiation in banana equivalents. I think that helps put things in perspective.

Clay is fairly radioactive, too. Any clay-heavy areas like Louisiana or Mississippi have fairly high background readings.

Mar 20, 2011#122

SpecialKO

Fantastic chart on XKCD about the radiation.

Mar 20, 2011#123

Baerdog

I love his infographics. Very nice.

Mar 21, 2011#124

Chibibar

wow. that is an awesome chart.

Mar 28, 2011#125

strawman

In addition to soil samples outside the plant's exclusion zone showing plutonium, places as far away as Massachusetts are now detecting trace amounts of radiation in their rainwater due to the earthquake and tsunami's effect on the nuclear plant:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/uk-nuclear-japan-massachusetts-idUSLNE72R01I20110328

While the radiation amounts are trivial and pose no risk, we can pretty conclusively state that the earth is now blanketed with the effects of this nuclear accident.

Also, in semi-related news, I called DTE Energy this morning and found that the Fermi 2 Nuclear plant visitor's center has been closed for years. I'm checking the other plants, but it sounds like they locked things down due to 9/11. I was hoping to include visitor center info in my iphone app...

Mar 28, 2011#126

Ravenpoe

Is it a nuclear accident? I thought it was the result of a natural disaster. It wasn't the result of someone accidentally sitting on the meltdown button.

Mar 28, 2011#127

strawman

Well, what would you call it? "nuclear __________" (fill in the blank please)

The plant was not designed to withstand the magnitude of either the earthquake alone or the tsunami alone. Lesser earthquakes and tsunamis, yes, but not the ones that hit, never mind the one-two punch of one right after the other.

The connotation of accident often implies human misconduct, but that's not necessary for something to be considered an accident:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

The first definition is fine by itself, although many ignore that one and only consider the second.

I just don't want to add a lot of qualifiers when talking about it, so hopefully there's a short two or three word phrase that can cover it. I don't want to call it a nuclear disaster, that seems to have a very heavy connotation of widespread destruction. The earthquake and tsunami are worthy of that moniker.

Mar 28, 2011#128

Tress

MindDetective pointed something out earlier in the thread.

MindDetective said:
There was an interesting footnote at the bottom of that article:

Note: This is not a "nuclear accident". It is damage from an earthquake and tsunami. The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labeled “the third worst train accident ever".

Click to expand...

Mar 28, 2011#129

strawman

The author of that article uses definition number two. They want to avoid the word accident because many people assume it means that it was preventable and avoidable. However, the word doesn't necessarily mean that.

I agree that it can be ambiguous. Suggest an alternative. I'm not happy with problem, issue, damage, disaster and others for a variety of reasons.

An accident is an unforeseen, undesirable event, so it fits. Is there a better word? You tell me.

Mar 28, 2011#130

doomdragon6

Nuclear Mishap.

Mar 29, 2011#131

Tress

All I know is that the preexisting connotation for "nuclear accident" is incorrect for the actual circumstances of this problem, damage, disaster, and others. While you can pull out various definitions for the word "accident" and discuss how it may be technically accurate, the more popular usage denotes circumstances that lead people to a false understanding (somehow this is a failure of the very idea of nuclear power, for example). So, in the same way you are unhappy with problem, issue, damage, etc., I am unhappy with accident.

As you asked, is there a better word? Probably. But just because I don't have it right now doesn't mean the wrong word suddenly becomes acceptable.

Mar 29, 2011#132

strawman

Sounds like propaganda. The nuclear industry is pushing against using the word accident in connection with this problem. That's fine, they can use whatever words they see fit in their news briefings and press releases.

I am curious, however, how you arrived at the conclusion that this is the pre existing connotation and is popular usage.

Is saying "I was involved in an accident when the windstorm blew the utility pole over into the road in front of me" incorrect and wrong, as you indicate? "the tornado caused an accident"

People and news reports use the word accident for situations not involving human error frequently enough that I can't come to the same conclusion you have regarding common usage. Accident is not a synonym for mistake, and I'm not interested in it becoming one.

Mar 29, 2011#133

strawman

I asked here:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/18449/must-an-accident-evolve-from-human-error

And got back "accident of fate" as a possible suggestion. Since it could be either way, adding fate specifies that it had no component of human error. Can't say I'm going to use it, although when others are obviously confused it is easier than giving a whole paragraph of explanation.

Mar 29, 2011#134

GasBandit

stienman said:
People and news reports use the word accident for situations not involving human error frequently enough that I can't come to the same conclusion you have regarding common usage.

People also say they could care less, use the word "deceptively" like it "supposably" means something, and use "I know" when they didn't know but merely agree emphatically.

Mar 29, 2011#135

strawman

So am I demanding too much from my audience here?

Mar 29, 2011#136

Tress

stienman said:
So am I demanding too much from my audience here?

Yes. I'm sorry I don't have an exact source to point to at the moment, but I am supremely confident that when most (dumb) people hear "nuclear accident" they think of a problem that results directly from a failure to plan and/or manage the nuclear plant. Thus it's better to use another phrase, since that would be an unfair connotation.

Now, I fully understand that using accident should be considered correct. Technically you're right. It's just that there are too many people who won't see it that way.

Mar 29, 2011#137

Dave

Nuclear SNAFU?

Nuclear oops?

Unfortunate nuclear situation?

Mar 29, 2011#138

GasBandit

Heh. Act of NUCLEAR GOD?

Mar 29, 2011#139

Ravenpoe

I would fear nuclear god(zilla)

Mar 29, 2011#140

strawman

Tress said:
Yes. I am supremely confident that when most (dumb) people hear "nuclear accident" they think of a problem that results directly from a failure to plan and/or manage the nuclear plant.

I didn't realize you had such a low opinion of halforums regulars.

Oh well. You use the words you are comfortable with, I'll use the words I'm comfortable with, and if there's any confusion please refer to my previous (comprehensive) statements on the causes of the accident.

In regards to your inability to find a source, you would probably be happy with the following explanation from Wikipedia: "An accident is a specific, unpredictable, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence."

The implication is what you find fault with. The events leading to the accident could not have been avoided or prevented. Whether the accident could have been mitigated better than it was will have to wait until a full investigation, which will undoubtedly take years, is completed.

Back on topic:

As of today it appears that one of the reactors has melted through its steel pressure container into the secondary containment (concrete). Due to the explosion in the secondary containment previously, they are not sure that it is still intact, and radioactive products found in water outside the secondary reactor containment suggest that it is not intact. The radiation emitted from the water is significant and will harm human health with exposures on the order of 15 minutes.

It is clear that significant radioactive products are leaking into the environment, but since they are not significantly airborne the release is not comparable to what happened at chernobyl.

Latest reports suggest that efforts have switched from possibly saving the plant to merely trying to contain the radiation as much as possible. They have apparently given up on the idea that the plant can be saved for possible future use, and it's likely that it will be one of the more expensive nuclear cleanups in history.

Mar 29, 2011#141

Tress

stienman said:
I didn't realize you had such a low opinion of halforums regulars.

Wait wait wait, I thought we were speaking in general terms. I wasn't talking about people around here. I meant the public, not Halforums.

Mar 29, 2011#142

fade

The OED agrees with Adam. I think the problem might be solved by changing the word "nuclear" rather than "accident".

The quoted paragraph above regarding the train is a bit of a non-sequiter. You wouldn't refer to that as a train accident because the character of the accident doesn't involve anything inherently "train-y". The danger to life and damage to property were the direct result of the water from the tsunami. It is appropriate to assign the blame or emphasis to the tsunami. In contrast, the danger to life and property from the power plant are inherently nuclear, and not the direct result of the tsunami. It is therefore appropriate to assign action to the nuclear side.

A counter analogy to the train damage might be to consider a train hitting a car, which then hits a pedestrian. Calling the nuclear incident a tsunami thing would be kind of like saying the pedestrian was hit by the train.

In the end it's psychological damage control, and unfortunately people have such a fear of nuclear power as it is, that the overreaction to the use of the term "nuclear accident" probably is warranted (despite everything I just said). Logic is irrelevant in this type of situation, so it really doesn't matter what "accident" logically translates to if the objective is to prevent a gut uprising against nuclear power.

Mar 29, 2011#143

Tress

fade said:
In the end it's psychological damage control, and unfortunately people have such a fear of nuclear power as it is, that the overreaction to the use of the term "nuclear accident" probably is warranted (despite everything I just said). Logic is irrelevant in this type of situation, so it really doesn't matter what "accident" logically translates to if the objective is to prevent a gut uprising against nuclear power.

This is the heart of what I was getting at, but fade said it so much better than I ever could.

Aug 22, 2013#144

strawman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

The Japanese nuclear energy watchdog raised the incident level from one to three on the international scale that measures the severity of atomic accidents. This was an acknowledgement that the power station was in its greatest crisis since the reactors melted down after the tsunami in 2011. But some nuclear experts are concerned that the problem is a good deal worse than either Tepco or the Japanese government are willing to admit. They are worried about the enormous quantities of water, used to cool the reactor cores, which are now being stored on site.

Some 1,000 tanks have been built to hold the water. But these are believed to be at around 85% of their capacity and every day an extra 400 tonnes of water are being added.

"The quantities of water they are dealing with are absolutely gigantic," said Mycle Schneider, who has consulted widely for a variety of organisations and countries on nuclear issues. What is the worse is the water leakage everywhere else - not just from the tanks. It is leaking out from the basements, it is leaking out from the cracks all over the place. Nobody can measure that."

Aug 22, 2013#145

Dave

Yikes.

Aug 22, 2013#146

Charlie Don't Surf

geez, threadbump, I thought it had happened again

Aug 22, 2013#147

Far

Me too.

Aug 22, 2013#148

sixpackshaker

ditto

Aug 28, 2013#149

strawman

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/asia/japan-fukushima-leak-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Toshimitsu Motegi, the industry minister, said Monday after visiting the plant that "from now on, the government is going to step forward." His ministry has been tasked by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to come up with measures to tackle the mounting problems at Fukushima Daiichi.

Yes, this entire time the government has been monitoring the situation, and only now feels it may be time to step in. For the last 900 days, or 2.5 years, the only entity standing between worldwide environmental radiological disaster is a power company. A company that is not yet bankrupt only because Japan gave them 1 trillion yen (~$10 billion[USD]) last year.

The broken reactors are not yet cold. Without active cooling they will heat up and crack or destroy their containment vessels, releasing radioactive gasses into the air. The cooling systems are damaged, so any cooling water used becomes radioactive. They cannot clean the water at a rate anywhere near their usage rate. They have been, and continue to, build "temporary" water storage on site to hold the contaminated water. If you've got thousands of temporary water containers, eventually one or more will leak, and this is where the current leaks (that they are admitting to, anyway) originate from.

So a committee has been formed to consider whether the government should intervene. Which is apparently a big step forward. Or so they tell us.[DOUBLEPOST=1377704088,1377703839][/DOUBLEPOST]Do note that the money Japan gave the company in 2012 was an investment, and gave Japan 50.11% of the company - a controlling vote. They just haven't used that power yet.

Also note that in 2012 due to growing public distrust nearly all Japanese nuclear reactors were closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

However this is meant to be temporary, and they are working on restarting many, if not all, of them, over time.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/japan-prepares-to-restart-nuclear-plants

Aug 28, 2013#150

GasBandit

I'm not a nuclear scientist, so perhaps someone here who knows better can illuminate me - is there a detriment to cooling a reactor with water that is already radioactive? I am guessing the water is mostly (except for the damage, obviously) kept outside the reactor housing, so does it increase the reaction intensity to a great degree just flushing it through and out again?

Aug 28, 2013#151

strawman

GasBandit said:
I'm not a nuclear scientist, so perhaps someone here who knows better can illuminate me - is there a detriment to cooling a reactor with water that is already radioactive? I am guessing the water is mostly (except for the damage, obviously) kept outside the reactor housing, so does it increase the reaction intensity to a great degree just flushing it through and out again?

I was wondering that as well. They can't use the usual cooling setup where they expose the water to air in cooling towers and let steam carry away most of the heat, but couldn't they use a heat exchanger which transferred the heat from a radioactive cooling loop to a nonradioactive cooling loop, then use either seawater, air cooling, or another normal method to cool them down?

My guess is that they were hoping to use very cold seawater to cool the reactors down far enough to fix them, and using that water very directly in the core would result in the greatest amount of heat taken away the most quickly. However they haven't cooled them down far enough, but there's enough progress that they think it is still the best solution. Any other cooling method would be much slower. So the question perhaps was go with a safer cooling technique that took longer (and extended the risk out to many more years) or go with a riskier cooling technique that cooled it more quickly.

It could also be that it isn't even a choice - no other cooling technique may be able to keep up with the heat output. Keep in mind that at least one of the reactors is completely melted down - it's probably generating significantly more than its rated maximum of 780MW of heat continuously, with no methods to slow the reaction down they may only have one choice for preventing further containment building breaches. If this is the case, they pretty much would have to bring the plant back online with multiple gigawatt heat exchangers and cooling towers - far more than was required when the reaction could be controlled - and perhaps more than they can bring back up quickly.

Further, no workers are allowed on site for any significant length of time. The plumbing and everything else is still a mess.

But I'm literally just making this up. I don't see any other reasons they might have chosen this route, but I'm only taking a stab in the dark.

Aug 28, 2013#152

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
I'm not a nuclear scientist, so perhaps someone here who knows better can illuminate me - is there a detriment to cooling a reactor with water that is already radioactive? I am guessing the water is mostly (except for the damage, obviously) kept outside the reactor housing, so does it increase the reaction intensity to a great degree just flushing it through and out again?

I'm pretty sure that repeatedly using the same water would eventually irradiate it to the point that we couldn't clean it and/or it becomes incredibly difficult to store... and it's not like they can just flush the stuff out when they are done with it.

As for the previous comment about how many nuclear reactors were shutdown in Japan after the incident... this is actually a very bad thing because it's required Japan to switch to coal, oil, and natural gas plants, which has only increased their pollution problem. It also exacerbated an already overtaxed power system. I understand why they are upset, but the reason the Fukushima accident happened was...

- Because of a perfect storm. It got nailed with a Tsunami AND a high intensity earthquake. The fact that the building withstood any of it is a marvel.

- More importantly, because TEPCO had been lying about the safety status of it's reactors for years because it wasn't willing to pay for the repairs and upgrades it needed. Because this is Japan and accusing someone of lying is kind of a big deal there, what ended up happening is everyone just accepted the lies because to do otherwise would be making waves. You make waves in Japan, your company rubber room's you or worse.

... and shutting down the reactors does nothing unless they can provide an alternative source of power or fix the old reactors. It's just making the problem worse.

Aug 28, 2013#153

Hailey Knight

So, I too am no nuclear physicist and must ask, on a scale of 1 to 10 in light of this new info, how fucked are we?

Aug 28, 2013#154

AshburnerX

Quotemander Prime said:
So, I too am no nuclear physicist and must ask, on a scale of 1 to 10 in light of this new info, how fucked are we?

It's pretty bad. The Japanese government and TEPCO will drag their feet and try to downplay the problem to save face, while making some half-hearted efforts to fix the problem. If it works, then good. But it's more likely it will be a continuing problem for years, until it eventually gets so bad that the international bodies step in to fix it.

Aug 28, 2013#155

strawman

Leaking radioactive water into the sea in amounts that measurably increase the radiation across an ocean is not good.

It won't end the world. Some people will have an increased chance for cancers, and if too much leaks we'll be told not to eat fish from some parts of the sea.

It's not yet enough to appreciably affect birth defects outside Japan. Don't know about inside Japan, though, particularly near the plant.

Aug 28, 2013#156

Krisken

stienman said:
Leaking radioactive water into the sea in amounts that measurably increase the radiation across an ocean is not good.

It won't end the world. Some people will have an increased chance for cancers, and if too much leaks we'll be told not to eat fish from some parts of the sea.

It's not yet enough to appreciably affect birth defects outside Japan. Don't know about inside Japan, though, particularly near the plant.

Their birth rates are already being, presumably, affected by the plastic the fish are eating.

Aug 28, 2013#157

GasBandit

Anime's about to get a whole lot wierder.

Aug 29, 2013#158

bhamv3

... Great, I'm near Japan. I'll be mutating and sprouting tentacles any day now.

Aug 29, 2013#159

Bubble181

bhamv3 said:
... Great, I'm near Japan. I'll be mutating and sprouting tentacles any day now.

What, after getting married? You're reading the pervert's handbook upside-down again, aren't you?

Anyway, yeah, it's a big problem, and we're all kind of fucked. The estimated amount of leaked radiation is being talked about in multiples of Tchernobyl. As in, "oh, today we've only allowed 1/10th of a Tchernobyl out into the ocean untreated". The ocean's ap retty big place, but it's still going to bite all of us in the ass at high speed.

It's not being talked about much, but one of THE biggest dangers isn't birth defects or inedible fish - it's a mass die-off of plankton and algae. The sea's responsible for well over 3/4s of all our greenhouse gas capturing and photosynthesis. We could technically survive without the rainforests - we can't survive without the Pacific full of green. Combined with already-climbing sea temperatures, an increase in radiation could theoretically lead to a 50%+ drop in amount of weeds and plankton in the Pacific, which would cripple oxygen production to below the amount we need to survive. Odds are fairly low (different types of algae and bacteria seem to be taking over with no ill effects....yet), but if it does start happening, we'll have no way at all of stopping it or slowing it down. This could very quickly lead to "kill off enough people so the rest can survive or all suffocate together" - aka, some sort of post-nuclear scifi movie setting thing. In theatres, summer 201....errr.....yeah.

Most likely, though, is this won't happen, and it'll mostly effect wildlife and people in and around Japan.

Aug 29, 2013#160

Tress

I thought the protocol for a reactor heating up out of control was to bury it. Is that not an option? It seems better than simply irradiating more and more water while making no real progress.

Aug 29, 2013#161

strawman

Most reactors are designed so when the core melts down it drops into an area where the reaction is dampened by control rods. It's still putting out heat, though, so even if the reaction is slowed it's not stopped, and you still have to cool it actively until you can go in and take out, or separate, or add more control material until the reaction is letting off so little heat that burying it won't result in an explosion.

The safety area that the reactor drops into doesn't have enough control material to fully stop the reaction, only to slow it down.

I don't know exactly what went wrong here, but early articles suggested that the reactor melted down past the safety area and ended up flowing partially into the secondary containment vessel. I don't know if that's the case or not - I'm sure there's more information out there - but if this is what happened, then it explains the strange cooling protocol they're following since the secondary vessel wasn't built for cooling, doesn't have the control rods, and so they're probably just flooding it with water and sucking it back out continuously. Until they can get robots in there and remove or separate the material, which may still be molten, they're going to be cooling it for years and possible decades before it's cool enough to deal with. Note that the robots must not only be waterproof, but must operate under high temperatures and pressures.

Of course, this is again all off the top of my head. I'm adding lots of disclaimers because I haven't thoroughly researched it since this time last year.

Aug 29, 2013#162

Frank

At the rate it's going, in decades the Pacific will glow.

Aug 29, 2013#163

Bubble181

And for the moment, robots still aren't an option - they can't get anything to work in the conditions, not even robots designed for space travel (which is the other highest-radiation area to work in).

Still, any somewhat modern nuclear power plant should have a triple loop cooling system - I can understand them needing more direct cooling methods and everything, but you'd expect them to have been able to rig something to limit/minimize outside irradiation.

Aug 29, 2013#164

strawman

Yeah, I'm really scratching my head here. It took us 8 years to go from announcement to landing a human on the moon. You'd think that we could cool and contain a relatively small pool of radioactive material on earth in 2 years.

Buy up the surrounding land, build 10 huge cooling towers, build a new building to house the pumps and heat exchangers, and start cooling the containment building aggressively. The site is already a disaster area. I hope they're not trying to recover it.

But 2 years is more than enough time to build a superhuge cooling plant that wouldn't need to store radioactive water. Yes, as the radioactive loop became more radioactive they'd have to remove some for storage and add more in to dilute, but the storage requirements should be lower.

There are a number of materials that are uranium solvents - they'd cause the uranium to go into the solution. I wonder if they could add some of those to the cooling water, then use reverse osmosis to filter them out of the loop and remove the reactive material from the core slowly as they're cooling it...

Aug 29, 2013#165

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Buy up the surrounding land, build 10 huge cooling towers, build a new building to house the pumps and heat exchangers, and start cooling the containment building aggressively. The site is already a disaster area. I hope they're not trying to recover it.

They recovered Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They WILL recover this area in time, if only because it's a very Japanese thing to do. In the mean time though, they really need to just level the area and build cooling towers and containment vessels.

Aug 29, 2013#166

Shakey

Sounds like the long term plan is to build a recovery plant on site to do the clean up. Hopefully the government takes over soon and gets someone capable in charge of the containment and clean up. These guys sound like they're way over their head in this.

Another article on it.

Massive amounts of radioactive fluids are accumulating at the plant as Tepco floods reactor cores via an improvised system to keep melted uranium fuel rods cool and stable.
The water in the cooling system then flows into basements and trenches that have been leaking since the disaster.
Highly contaminated excess water is pumped out and stored in steel tanks on elevated ground away from the reactors. About 400 metric tons of radioactive water a day has been stored at Fukushima.
In order to keep up with the pace of the flow, Tepco has mostly relied on tanks bolted together with plastic sealing around the joints. Those tanks are less robust - but quicker to assemble - than the welded tanks it has started installing.
The latest leak came from the more fragile tank, which Tepco plans to carry on using, although it is looking at ways to improve their strength, said Tepco official Masayuki Ono.
A puddle that formed near the leaking tank is emitting a radiation dose of 100 millisieverts an hour about 50 cm above the water surface, Ono told reporters at a news briefing

Aug 29, 2013#167

strawman

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

100millisieverts is twice the maximum exposure allowed in the US per year to workers. So you can't spend more than 30 minutes within half a meter of that puddle without protection.

Sep 3, 2013#168

strawman

In order to stem the flow of leaks from the plant, Japan is going to freeze the ground around the plant, forming an underground ice wall that should at least contain leaks, and prevent groundwater from drawing radioactive waste to the ocean.

The wall will only extend around the plant itself, though, not around the storage area where leaks are another big problem - but are all above ground leaks so can be more easily identified and solved in an ongoing basis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

Sep 3, 2013#169

AshburnerX

That's a clever solution and it certainly gets cold enough in winter for that to hold.

Sep 3, 2013#170

Ravenpoe

bhamv3 said:
... Great, I'm near Japan. I'll be mutating and sprouting tentacles any day now.

That'll make you a big hit with the japanese ladies.

Sep 3, 2013#171

strawman

Ravenpoe said:
That'll make you a big hit with the japanese ladies.

... because they love to cook with seafood.

Sep 4, 2013#172

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
That'll make you a big hit with the japanese ladies.

Based on the animated documentaries I've seen, no it won't. Rarely are the ladies all that thrilled about encountering tentacles.

Sep 4, 2013#173

Terrik

bhamv3 said:
Based on the animated documentaries I've seen, no it won't. Rarely are the ladies all that thrilled about encountering tentacles.

No? I'll have to do my own research.

Sep 4, 2013#174

GasBandit

bhamv3 said:
Based on the animated documentaries I've seen, no it won't. Rarely are the ladies all that thrilled about encountering tentacles.

But then every so often... (nsfw comics)

Forums