[Ghostwheel]

Makes me wish I had moved to an organic farm in rural New Zealand long ago.

Fukushima: Hanging by a Thread By Dr. Mark Sircus theintelhub.com April 27, 2012 [....] It has taken a year but finally “a U.S. Senator finally got off his ass and went to Japan to see what is going on over there. What he saw was horrific. Reactor No. 4 building is on the verge of collapsing. Seismicity standards rate the building at a zero, meaning even a small earthquake could send it into a heap of rubble. And sitting at the top of the building, in a pool that is cracked, leaking, and precarious even without an earthquake, are 1,565 fuel rods.” If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain, this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire that could wipe out most of the northern hemisphere; certainly it would be a massive civilization-breaking event. [....] 1,565 fuel rods translates into 460 tons of nuclear fuel stored in pool in a barely intact building on its third and fourth floors. If the storage pool breaks and runs dry, the nuclear fuel inside will overheat and explode. The worst-case scenario drawn up by the government includes not only the collapse of the No. 4 reactor pool, but also the disintegration of spent-fuel rods from all the plant’s other reactors. The wall of the south side is falling apart at reactor No. 4 and Dr. Helen Caldicott said she would evacuate her family from Boston if it did. Consolo says, “If this pool collapses, as Senator Wyden is now saying too, we would face a mass extinction event from the release of radiation in those rods. This may be the most important thing you ever pay attention to for the sake of your family, friends, your neighbors, every one you know and meet, all of humanity....” Link: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[RBM]

Yup, it's a mess over there.

There are many degrees of impact possible besides the worst case mass extinction event.

[Autumnleaf]

Didn't the earth quake happen over 6 months ago? Why is it taking so long to clean things up?

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Didn't the earth quake happen over 6 months ago? Why is it taking so long to clean things up?

From the article, I gather nobody really knows how under the present conditions:

Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming reconstruction effort and will involve charting in unknown waters. Reports indicate that things are so hopeless at the plant that workers are not even working on weekends and certainly governments around the world have not gotten together in a desperate Manhattan Project (in reverse) to save humanity. Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear power industry executive, is claiming that the Fukushima nuclear disaster is already 10 times worse than the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the former Soviet Union.

IIUC, the spent fuel rods, apparently, must be surrounded by coolant liquid at all times, or they will spew out large volumes of radioactive gases:

	Consolo says, “If this pool collapses, as Senator Wyden is now saying too, we would face a mass extinction event from the release of radiation in those rods. This may be the most important thing you ever pay attention to for the sake of your family, friends, your neighbors, every one you know and meet, all of humanity.

I think I'll go out and buy some iodine....

[EdR]

At Fukushima there are many possibilities, with a mass extinction event in the very low probability spectrum of outcomes.

I've been keeping an eye on news about the plant ever since the tsunami, when I had major concerns about the ability to get enough water into the spent fuel pools. My researches did not find any significent concern by Nuclear Engineers for an explosion. There is a much higher probabilty that a coolant loss will result in a meltdown with the rods burning a hole into to earth to a depth of "no one knows" and an unknown magnitude radiation leak.

I am at a loss to understand the lack of urgency in removing the spent rods. Obviously everyone is aware of the magnitude of the problem they represent, making the pace of events mysterious.

The only explanation that comes to me is cost. The cheap bastards are willing to sacrifice the unknown to minimize how much they spend on the problem.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by EdR
	I am at a loss to understand the lack of urgency in removing the spent rods. Obviously everyone is aware of the magnitude of the problem they represent, making the pace of events mysterious.

You and I don't read the same sources if you aren't seeing a sense of urgency regarding spent rod removal. I also found it quite easy to find out what the practical obstacles were regarding said removal.

I didn't even go looking for the info, initially. Since then I do go looking to those sources for updates.

[EdR]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You and I don't read the same sources if you aren't seeing a sense of urgency regarding spent rod removal. I also found it quite easy to find out what the practical obstacles were regarding said removal. I didn't even go looking for the info, initially. Since then I do go looking to those sources for updates.

The tsunami stuck the power plant early March last year, almost 14 months have past since and I have not seen anything that I consider progress towards negating the fuel rod issues.

There have been two likely possibilities presented for the fuel rod problem, remove the spent rods or bury them in concrete. I have no idea how to estimate the effectiveness of the concrete burial, but the concrete plan was rejected about 6 months ago by Tepco Power as too expensive.

That leaves removal. The mandatory first step for removal requires cleaning up the debris and very likely a parallel effort for reinforcement of the fuel rod storage tanks to ensure their integrity until removal is completed, a process of unknown duration. There has been no progress reported in debris removal that would indicate that this option is moving forward. The problems associated with actually removing the rods don't even come into play until the means to physically access the rods is accomplished.

[Frosted]

We're fucking up this planet proper. Look what happened 2 years ago with BP, then a year later we get this. At this rate everyone's gonna start getting some weird fucking cancers or we may see a large-scale extinction in ocean life. If the phytoplankton go pretty much everything goes.

[Dung]

Unfortunately, Japanese pride makes it very hard to assess the severity of the disaster (from the start, cover-up is only gradually released) and take the necessary action.

Here is IAEA's
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
on Fukushima which says little about spent fuel pools concern and does not bring forward a solution.

[RBM]

Originally Posted by EdR To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The tsunami stuck the power plant early March last year, almost 14 months have past since and I have not seen anything that I consider progress towards negating the fuel rod issues. There have been two likely possibilities presented for the fuel rod problem, remove the spent rods or bury them in concrete. I have no idea how to estimate the effectiveness of the concrete burial, but the concrete plan was rejected about 6 months ago by Tepco Power as too expensive. That leaves removal. The mandatory first step for removal requires cleaning up the debris and very likely a parallel effort for reinforcement of the fuel rod storage tanks to ensure their integrity until removal is completed, a process of unknown duration. There has been no progress reported in debris removal that would indicate that this option is moving forward. The problems associated with actually removing the rods don't even come into play until the means to physically access the rods is accomplished.

This is a good nontechnical general description regarding removal. So, now consider this description with it's core technical aspect - radioactivity.

It's a daunting undertaking.

[VF1J]

Can't Japan send in loads of robots? I thought they were good with robots.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Frosted To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We're fucking up this planet proper. Look what happened 2 years ago with BP, then a year later we get this. At this rate everyone's gonna start getting some weird fucking cancers or we may see a large-scale extinction in ocean life. If the phytoplankton go pretty much everything goes.

It will have to get a lot more 'fucked up' before some people will relent in their ways, I'm sorry to say. My sentiment is determined by nuclear asvocates who point out no one died the day of the damage due to the nukes.

Which really misses the point, willfully.

---------- Post added 04-29-2012 at 08:32 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by VF1J To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can't Japan send in loads of robots? I thought they were good with robots.

I don't have handy the links that would be useful to answer this question but you might be able to look up the crane Dungs link before destruction. Dungs link doesn't give a sense of size and scale of which the pic's I saw do.

In addition the site is strewn with debris. There isn't a robot made that is as nimble as a human being.


Here's a link to the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for an idea of 'nimbleness' in robot. That link has a humanoid iCub robot and you can look up Asimo for aother humanoid example.

[EdR]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is a good nontechnical general description regarding removal. So, now consider this description with it's core technical aspect - radioactivity. It's a daunting undertaking.

I'm an engineer and am aware of the magnitude of the difficulties of the task. Completing tasks might be considered one of my core competencies.

That is why my task list started with obtaining access to the storage pools. The vast majority of the articles address the problems associated with removing the spent rods without the normal shielding procedures.

It has been over a year without any indication of a viable plan. I've seen similar (way less dangerous) situations before. Call it the "flogging a dead horse", or "hoping for a miracle" plan.

[RBM]

Originally Posted by EdR To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm an engineer and am aware of the magnitude of the difficulties of the task. Completing tasks might be considered one of my core competencies. That is why my task list started with obtaining access to the storage pools. The vast majority of the articles address the problems associated with removing the spent rods without the normal shielding procedures. It has been over a year without any indication of a viable plan. I've seen similar (way less dangerous) situations before. Call it the "flogging a dead horse", or "hoping for a miracle" plan.

Perhaps you would be interested in Arnie Gundersen's work ?

[EdR]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps you would be interested in Arnie Gundersen's work ?

Thanks for the reference. I will look him up later. We're off to a birthday party shortly.

[RBM]

Here's a random article found from my usual reading sources>


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Systemic inattentiveness. Distrust and meddling. Confusion and friction. These turns of phrase would be bad news on anyone’s job review. But when the job that’s under review is how a government handled the worst nuclear accident in 25 years, it’s bad news for everyone. Less than two weeks before Japan will mark the one-year anniversary of the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that struck its northeast coast, an independent panel released a scathing review of the government’s handling of the crisis that unfolded last March at the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. The report, based on hundreds of interviews with lawmakers, administrators and plant workers, confirms many of the suspicions about the government response

It's got several embedded links that may be of interest to those looking deeper for context.

Edited to add>


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Daoist]

^One of the strangest aspects of such reports is that I've heard they get little play in the Japanese media.

Anyway, good thread, and I look forward to hearing any more analysis of the situation.

[Ghostwheel]

The more I read about this, the worse it appears.

Why Nuclear Scientists Have Missed the Danger of Spent Fuel Pools by Gordon Edwards January 23, 2012 [Why has there been] so little warning from the “nuclear establishment” (TEPCO and the regulatory agency) about the potential for catastrophic accidents involving the spent fuel pool in reactor number 4? In the field of nuclear safety, the focus of attention has always been on analyzing and preventing catastrophic accidents involving the core of the reactor. In comparison, little attention has been paid over the years to catastrophic accident scenarios involving the spent fuel pool. Since the very first US Reactor Safety Study, the “Brookhaven Report” in 1957, to the major 12-volume US NRC Reactor Safety Study (the Rasmussen Report) of 1974, and continuing right down to the present day, virtually all of the attention has been directed to extreme conditions that might develop in the core of the reactor — unterminated power excursions, loss of coolant accidents, breach of the reactor vessel, core meltdowns, and so on. Most nuclear engineers and nuclear regulators have developed a “blind spot” about the catastrophe potential associated with the spent fuel bay because of years of neglect. Such considerations have never played a significant role in their training as nuclear engineers or in their many subsequent years of experience in the field of nuclear safety analysis. As a result we have backup pumps, backup electrical supply systems, and backup cooling systems for the core of the reactor, but no backup pumps or electrical supply or cooling system for the spent fuel bay. We have extravagant containment systems for the core of the reactor, but no comparable containment systems for the spent fuel pool. This absence of backup systems for the spent fuel pool is testimony to the lack of effort and lack of forethought that has been devoted to the spent fuel bay. Nevertheless, the radioactive inventory in the spent fuel pool is often much greater than that in the core of the reactor, and a prolonged loss of coolant — or even loss of circulation of coolant — will lead to overheating of the fuel and extensive fuel damage. This will result in significant releases of radioactive fission products into the atmosphere due to the inadequate or even non-existent containment provided for the spent fuel pool. Moreover, a loss of coolant in the spent fuel pool — whether by leakage, spillage, or boiling off of the cooling water — will lead to intense gamma radiation that would prevent human access for hundreds of metres in all directions around the spent fuel pool, making it very difficult to take corrective actions. Under adverse circumstances there can even be a fuel meltdown in the spent fuel pool, if the temperature climbs to about 2800 degrees C, which would vastly increase the radioactive releases and spread those releases over a much wider area. The overheating of the spent fuel in the pool can be exacerbated by the intense exothermic reaction between the zirconium cladding and the steam produced from the overheated water, and can even result (at around 1000 degrees C) in a very intense zirconium fire which can result in tiny particles of intensely radioactive spent fuel being liberated into the atmosphere. Depending on the diameter of these “hot particles” (sometimes referred to as “nuclear fleas”) they can be transported greater or lesser distances by the wind, possibly affecting populations hundreds of kilometers from the spent fuel pool. Once dispersed into the environment, these hot particles will constitute a source of radiation exposure and environmental contamination for centuries to come. In addition to the possibility of zirconium fires (which have for a long time been almost completely overlooked by nuclear engineers and regulators) there is another, even more dangerous possibility. An alteration in the geometry of the spent fuel in the pool, by which the separation between the spent fuel rods is slightly but significantly reduced, can lead to re-initiation of the chain reaction in the pool. This “accidental criticality” will not only drive the temperature up rapidly, but will also replenish the supply of short-lived heat-producing fission products, accelerating the damage to the fuel, magnifying the heat loading, increasing the probability of a fuel pool meltdown, and vastly increasing the atmospheric releases of radioactivity. It has been a standard practice in the nuclear industry to avoid consideration of all of these possibilities, based on the assumption that there will be “lots of time” to react to any emergency involving the spent fuel pool, as it will normally take days for the spent fuel to reach the melting point and it will be a “simple matter” to refill the pools with water if necessary. This ignores the fact that major structural damage may make it impossible to approach the spent fuel pool due to the lethal levels of gamma radiation emanating from the spent fuel once the protective shielding of the water is gone. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and is the recipient of the 2006 Nuclear-Free Future Award. Link: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[EdR]

That is an interesting and thorough report Ghost. I had not seen it previously, and I check for Fukushima news once or twice a month.

My first guess for the reasons why the fuel rods have been neglected by regulatory agencies is that they are an after thought and the pools were initially considered a short term solution. Most likely the original plan was for the rods to be shipped to some disposal site, but it turned out that no one wanted a spent fuel rod disposal site in the backyard and others did not want the rods to transit in travel too close to them. So the rods piled up, and piled up some more, and everyone was sure that an answer was just around the corner; but it wasn't. Now the inertia of the "hoping it works out" plan has caused multiple new problems on many levels. Meanwhile the rods just keep piling up and most of the involved parties are still either "hoping it works out" or "hoping for a miracle".

The magnitude of the spent fuel rod piling up problem crosses a critical threshhold when an unexpected/unmanagable problem occurs, such as the tsanumi at Fukushima. Of course, that happened in Japan; it couldn't happen here.

Thanks.

[Doggzilla]

Ive actually predicted the disaster pretty well from the start, having a pretty in depth knowledge of what happened in most other disasters. I dont believe this at all. I dont believe it is technically possible for this to wipe out Japan, let alone the northern hemisphere. There is only a few times the fuel as Chernobyl, which released the majority of its fuel into the air. Chernobyl has effected a few hundred thousand people at most, and only a few thousand actual deaths.
From a numbers perspective, Fukishima cant even hope to match the annual number of people dying of other causes.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by EdR To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most likely the original plan was for the rods to be shipped to some disposal site, but it turned out that no one wanted a spent fuel rod disposal site in the backyard and others did not want the rods to transit in travel too close to them.

Small wonder, considering how that spent fuel was being shipped unsafely. A student at one of my unis a few years before that had done some research on management of spent fuel, and it entailed a road trip that tracked the rail cars shipping it from the plant to a disposal site. Much to their shock the fuel was swapped between cars right in...the town where our uni was. And left on sidings near the roundhouse. And there they sat for months.

No one knew this stuff was just sitting around for months and not properly shielded.

If it hadn't been for something that looked like it should've been a Hollywood movie like "China Syndrome", where this student and a few fellows were sneaking around at night with geiger counters taking measurements and compiling data, no one would've known.

That was in the the mid-to-late 70s. The student wrote his thesis on the subject. Even in local gov't they tried to keep things hush hush to avoid a panic.

I can't say I have any great theoretical objections to nuclear power. What I do have is safety objections because the bean counters are in charge and I've seen how that works.

---------- Post added 04-30-2012 at 08:47 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by EdR To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The magnitude of the spent fuel rod piling up problem crosses a critical threshhold when an unexpected/unmanagable problem occurs, such as the tsanumi at Fukushima.

Obviously this is out of my field, but I've been sitting here for a year wondering how it would even be possible to transport that much spent fuel out of the area while it's emitting so many sieverts. I heard a couple of nuclear engineers a long while ago speculate that odds are it would have to be capped in concrete like Chernobyl, but even that presents problems, as the caps crack and leak over time and things can still overheat and head downward into lower levels of earth.

Is that consistent with what you've been reading, EdR?

[RBM]

Originally Posted by Booko

Obviously this is out of my field, but I've been sitting here for a year wondering how it would even be possible to transport that much spent fuel out of the area while it's emitting so many sieverts. I heard a couple of nuclear engineers a long while ago speculate that odds are it would have to be capped in concrete like Chernobyl, but even that presents problems, as the caps crack and leak over time and things can still overheat and head downward into lower levels of earth.

Also out of my field, but not out of my reading sources reach. I read The Oil Drum most days and they have had numerous comments in the news threads and dedicated threads on the topic.
It gets a little heated at times on the topic.

In short, the capping is seen as the most likely 'solution' at this point, by the consensus of that readership.

[EdR]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Small wonder, considering how that spent fuel was being shipped unsafely. No one knew this stuff was just sitting around for months and not properly shielded. That was in the the mid-to-late 70s. The student wrote his thesis on the subject. Even in local gov't they tried to keep things hush hush to avoid a panic. I can't say I have any great theoretical objections to nuclear power. What I do have is safety objections because the bean counters are in charge and I've seen how that works.

There were a couple tales quite similar to this one that I have come acrosss over the years. It would not be difficult to imagine that such carelessness was responsible for the creation of the spent fuel rod pools. For just a short time. (sic)

It is not the bean counters that are the problem, it is the MBA's. The accountants have not moved up in my estimation, and the bar they set is quite low, but the MBA's have managed to get so far under that bar high power telescopes are required to see the bottom of the bar.

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Obviously this is out of my field, but I've been sitting here for a year wondering how it would even be possible to transport that much spent fuel out of the area while it's emitting so many sieverts. I heard a couple of nuclear engineers a long while ago speculate that odds are it would have to be capped in concrete like Chernobyl, but even that presents problems, as the caps crack and leak over time and things can still overheat and head downward into lower levels of earth. Is that consistent with what you've been reading, EdR?

It is also out of my field, but I have to agree that the concrete option seems to be the least bad choice. There just does not seem to be any practical means of removing the rods with some sort of effective shielding. Removing the rods without shielding surely would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

That might be a significent source of the inertia; there are not any good solutions to the problem. (Been there, often...too often) Then you are forced into choosing among bad choices for the least bad alternative. Least bad is always a much harder decision than a "That's a really good idea".

[Doggzilla]

On the subject of storage, I find the opposition to using Yucca mountain to be kind of absurd. Especially the arguments that state that it would somehow contaminate the area more. Yucca mountain was chosen specifically because it is already the most contaminated site in the entire continent. The area has been the site of HUNDREDS of nuclear tests, the destruction of the worlds largest bunker in a nuclear test, as well as the willing contamination of the area by miss-detonating nuclear weapons on purpose. They actually set up a farm nearby, just to see how the contaminants would make their way from the produce into dairy supplies. Pretty much, the area is completely ruined. Storing waste in the finest storage solutions that man can come up with, is not going to ruin the area more than it already is.
As it pertains to the movement of the waste, the elements which are harmful to people are actually locked inside the fuel pellets. They pose little to no risk, unless they are blown into dust. Plutonium is actually much more of a concern than nuclear waste, as plutonium is soluble in water. This is why everyone was so concerned about the one Japanese reactor that used plutonium.

I feel confident in saying that the anti-nuclear activists brought this apon themselves. The disaster would have been contained if it was not for the storage of the waste due to activists forcing the waste to be stored there.

[Thinker]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can't say I have any great theoretical objections to nuclear power. What I do have is safety objections because the bean counters are in charge and I've seen how that works.

	Originally Posted by EdR To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is not the bean counters that are the problem, it is the MBA's. The accountants have not moved up in my estimation, and the bar they set is quite low, but the MBA's have managed to get so far under that bar high power telescopes are required to see the bottom of the bar.

As an accountant I have to speak up here....perhaps it is your culture that allows "bean counters" to make decisions like this without anyone else speaking up. .....or perhaps it is a culture focused on profits before humanity?

Leaders don't make decisions in a vacuum. If the decision makers are primarily focused on cost in a situation where risk is high and the potential outcome is cataclysmic (let's say)....then their accounting advisors haven't done accounting 101. The education system is failing you....

My suggestion is that the decision makers are not the "bean counters" but "politicians" and business leaders who are happy to secretly move risks onto the community to protect profits.

It is interesting this view that "bean counters" drive decisions. I have heard it time and time again in the science and engineering community. The fact is ....that is what they want to believe. I currently work in R&D and if ever there were a group of narrow minded people..... engineers and scientists take that bag every time.