[antistu]

I stand corrected, you nuclear folks know more than me evidently. I am a Geologist, so if you want to know anything about the tsunami and plate tectonics leading up to the meltdown, ask away.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But don't let's interfere with a good OMG PANIC or anything...

Yeah, no kidding. Once the ball gets rolling on mass-panic and catastrophizing, it's best just to let the freaked out masses yell and cry until reality slowly settles back in.

And with that, I'm going to blatantly repost the source I just did in a pitiful attempt to bring people back to earth. I was under the impression that people here would actually want to hear what people who actually know what they're talking about have to say about this...


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


Really... it's going to be okay...

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The reactor containment building was severely damaged in the explosion, hence why they ordered the mass-evacuation. There is nothing protecting the reactor core, and so the situation is tenuous.

Where are you getting this information?

[nacht]

	Anti-nuclear expert Kevin Kamp

I note that he is an anti-nuclear "expert" and not an actual expert in nuclear power. Perhaps we should listen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(thank you, Nemesis) instead of some random crackpot who has been railing against nuclear power for years.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I note that he is an anti-nuclear "expert" and not an actual expert in nuclear power. Perhaps we should listen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (thank you, Nemesis) instead of some random crackpot who has been railing against nuclear power for years.

Are you intimately familiar with Kamp's work ?

You call him a 'random crackpot'. Sound's like a pretty strong bias to me. I'm not familiar with his work so I won't comment.

To be clear, I think there's a lot of promise in the technology and believe this event could have a silver lining in that newer technology can be implemented if replacement occurs.

[Danny]

While "meltdown" is not a "technical" term, it refers to the severe overheating of the cores and inability to cool thus leading to the release of radiation.

This happened about 24 hours ago and was reported, but not by ALL news agencies. Of course, because no purpose is served in "wide-spread panic", but neither can much be done about it if one is in the fall-out zone, except to take precautions such as those taken by persons affected by Chernobyl: stay indoors, don't eat vegetation, etc.

What boggles my mind is people "arguing" over facts. "Meltdown" is a term that can be looked up on the web. The facts about yesterday's meltdown--when the core was exposed to air, prior to the explosion--can also be found on the web.

What I CAN'T find on the web--because I don't recall the sociology term--is the definition of said term that describes when people of an affected class see themselves as an exception to the class when they are in fact at risk of harm.

---------- Post added 03-12-2011 at 01:42 PM ----------

I just received this--contents of an email below--from an individual employed with our local energy commission:



NUCLEAR INFORMATION
AND RESOURCE SERVICE
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912
301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291

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.


FACT SHEET ON FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

UPDATE, 9:30 am, Saturday, March 12, 2011. An explosion has occurred at Fukushima
Daiichi Unit 1. Video of the aftermath of the explosion shows that the containment building
has been destroyed. In a General Electric Mark I reactor, the containment building is fairly
weak and is considered the secondary containment. The primary containment is a steel liner
that surrounds the reactor core. So far, video and photos have not been clear enough for us to
determine whether this steel liner is intact.

Radiation levels at the site are reported to be 1,015 micro/Sieverts per hour. This is roughly
equivalent to 100 millirems/hour. The allowable annual dose for members of the public from
nuclear facilities in the U.S. is 100 millirems/year. The allowable annual dose for nuclear
workers is 5,000 millirems/year. The average annual background dose from all radiation
sources in the U.S. is about 360 millirems/year.

The explosion in Unit 1 was almost surely a hydrogen explosion. Pressure has been building
up in the containment since offsite power was lost to the reactor because of the
earthquake/tsunami. The GE Mark I reactor design is called a “pressure suppression” design.
Rather than be built to withstand large pressure increases, General Electric sought with this
design to attempt to reduce such increases in an accident scenario. The design has been
criticized by independent nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff for
many years (see:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). In this case, the design clearly did
not work. 24 U.S. reactors use the GE Mark I design.

The evacuation zone around the site has been expanded to 20 kilometers (about 12 miles).
Another reactor at Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 2, is reported to be without cooling capability at
this time. Three reactors at the nearby Fukushima Daini site are reported to be without
cooling capability. These are GE Mark II designs, which are considered a mild improvement
over the Mark I design. Both sites are on the Pacific Ocean, about six miles apart.

Video of the site after the explosion from NHK TV in Japan:


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


Video of the explosion itself, from Japanese TV:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_X5b_8


General Electric Mark I Reactors in the United States

The Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 reactor that exploded on Saturday, March 12, 2011, was a General Electric
Mark I reactor. This design has been criticized by nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory
Commission staff for decades as being susceptible to explosion and containment failure.

As early as 1972, Dr. Stephen Hanuaer, an Atomic Energy Commission safety official, recommended that
the pressure suppression system be discontinued and any further designs not be accepted for construction
permits. Shortly thereafter, three General Electric nuclear engineers publicly resigned their prestigious
positions citing dangerous shortcomings in the GE design.

An NRC analysis of the potential failure of the Mark I under accident conditions concluded in a 1985
report that Mark I failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely."
In 1986, Harold Denton, then the NRC's top safety official, told an industry trade group that the "Mark I
containment, especially being smaller with lower design pressure, in spite of the suppression pool, if you
look at the WASH 1400 safety study, you'll find something like a 90% probability of that containment
failing."

For more information, see:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Reactor Location Size Year operation began
Browns Ferry 1 Decatur, AL 1065 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 2 Decatur, AL 1118 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 3 Decatur, AL 1114 MW 1976
Brunswick 1 Southport, NC 938 MW 1976
Brunswick 2 Southport, NC 900 MW 1974
Cooper Nebraska City, NE 760 MW 1974
Dresden 2 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Dresden 3 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Duane Arnold Cedar Rapids, IA 581 MW 1974
Hatch 1 Baxley, GA 876 MW 1974
Hatch 2 Baxley, GA 883 MW 1978
Fermi 2 Monroe, MI 1122 MW 1985
Hope Creek Hancocks Brdg, NJ 1061 MW 1986
Fitzpatrick Oswego, NY 852 MW 1974
Monticello Monticello, MN 572 MW 1971
Nine Mile Point 1 Oswego, NY 621 MW 1974
Oyster Creek Toms River, NJ 619 MW 1971
Peach Bottom 2 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1973
Peach Bottom 3 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1974
Pilgrim Plymouth, MA 685 MW 1972
Quad Cities 1 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Quad Cities 2 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 620 MW 1973

[nacht]

	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.
	Are you intimately familiar with Kamp's work ? You call him a 'random crackpot'. Sound's like a pretty strong bias to me. I'm not familiar with his work so I won't comment.

Anyone who talks about doomsday scenarios in total absence of evidence and uses a disaster to push their own agenda--an agenda they've pushed for years--independent of actual evidence is automatically a crackpot.

He is on the board of the organization
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
which has the goal of eliminating nuclear power. The fact that he is speaking at all right now in support of his cause is--to be blunt--downright unethical (both personally and professionally).

Before joining Beyond Nuclear, his "expertise" came from being a "Radioactive Waste Specialist" with the "Nuclear Information and Resource Service," which is...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and not an actual industry group of any sort. Before that he did more advocacy and worked in politics around pollution.

Before all of that, in school, he studied biology (at a Quaker school) and Chemistry (at Kalamazoo College).

If he was just that, he would simply be "unqualified to make statements," but the fact that he is using a disaster that has impacted millions of people as a vehicle to further a political agenda independent of the facts? That makes him a crackpot.

---------- Post added 03-12-2011 at 02:52 PM ----------

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

I just received this--contents of an email below--from an individual employed with our local energy commission: NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 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.

You might want to stop citing the lobbying organization NIRS here. They are pushing an agenda which they would push independent of whether there was any truth in their claims. I also note that your
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
which prevents you from using verifiable sources does not keep you from posting links to crackpots or to lobbying organizations, or the full text of statements from those organizations.

[Danny]

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

Anyone who talks about doomsday scenarios in total absence of evidence and uses a disaster to push their own agenda--an agenda they've pushed for years--independent of actual evidence is automatically a crackpot. He is on the board of the organization To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. which has the goal of eliminating nuclear power. The fact that he is speaking at all right now in support of his cause is--to be blunt--downright unethical (both personally and professionally). Before joining Beyond Nuclear, his "expertise" came from being a "Radioactive Waste Specialist" with the "Nuclear Information and Resource Service," which is... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and not an actual industry group of any sort. Before that he did more advocacy and worked in politics around pollution. Before all of that, in school, he studied biology (at a Quaker school) and Chemistry (at Kalamazoo College). If he was just that, he would simply be "unqualified to make statements," but the fact that he is using a disaster that has impacted millions of people as a vehicle to further a political agenda independent of the facts? That makes him a crackpot. ---------- Post added 03-12-2011 at 02:52 PM ---------- You might want to stop citing the lobbying organization NIRS here. They are pushing an agenda which they would push independent of whether there was any truth in their claims. I also note that your To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. which prevents you from using verifiable sources does not keep you from posting links to crackpots or to lobbying organizations, or the full text of statements from those organizations.

Feel free to interpret the information any way you desire; I have not "interpreted" it myself. What I DID do is SHARE it with you all on this forum. If you don't want this information shared, may I suggest you place a paper over your computer screen and perhaps anyone's screen around you!

I received this information from our PUBLIC Utility, and a PUBLIC servant thereof. I was pleased the information was shared.

Your welcome, I appreciate your gratitude.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Danny To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I received this information from our PUBLIC Utility, and a PUBLIC servant thereof.

= "The guy who mops the bathrooms at the office for the natural gas utility totally told me..."

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Danny To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Feel free to interpret the information any way you desire; I have not "interpreted" it myself.

Meaning that you are defending the fact that you are contributing to fearmongering and spreading misinformation by saying that it didn't originally come from you and you are putting absolutely zero thought into reposting it.

	If you don't want this information shared, may I suggest you place a paper over your computer screen and perhaps anyone's screen around you!

What I don't want is for the message of a guy who is using a tragedy to further his own political agenda to be spread around with zero critical analysis or any mention of the fact that the organizations in question are lobbying and advocacy organizations that have been harping this particular subject for years. If you don't want to be criticized for posting such drivel, then don't post it.

	I received this information from our PUBLIC Utility, and a PUBLIC servant thereof.

So... the guy who checks your meter totally told you...

	Your welcome, I appreciate your gratitude.

I am sorry no one ever taught you the difference between gratitude and criticism.

[Ray9]

There is no absolutely safe form of energy. Nuclear power has the problem of radioactivity, fossil fuels polute the environment etc. Natural disasters will occur because humans have no control over them. My guess is that the Japanese are in more danger from the fuel leaking from cars and boats washed away in the psunami than they are from radioactivity. It is completely disingenuous for anyone to jump on an opportunistic bandwagon and begin proslytizing about the dangers of nuclear power. This is tantamount to those who used the aids epidemic as God's punishment for gays.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is no absolutely safe form of energy.

I was completely attacked by a gang of solar panels in an alley strung out on crack the other night.

[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was completely attacked by a gang of solar panels in an alley strung out on crack the other night.

There is no absolutely safe (practical) form of energy.

[antistu]

I was once a member of a gym that used power generated from treadmills, exercise bikes, stairmasters, etc. to run the lights, A/C, and electricity. Outside of some poor chap keeling over from a heart attack, I’d say that was a pretty safe energy source.

I, myself am a bicycle commuter and although some will argue it isn’t exactly ‘safe’ among navigating through vehicular traffic, I consider it safer than driving in a vehicle any day.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by antistu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was once a member of a gym that used power generated from treadmills, exercise bikes, stairmasters, etc. to run the lights, A/C, and electricity. Outside of some poor chap keeling over from a heart attack, I’d say that was a pretty safe energy source.

It isn't, however, especially practical for anything more than a building with some very specific constraints (e.g., mostly used during the day with a lot of people using machines that can generate power, some form of backup power system leading into the building that can start things up, etc). The same is roughly true of solar panels: they simply aren't sufficiently efficient except on a limited individual level. For most people the math doesn't work out, but there will always be facilities where it makes more sense to go the other direction (for example, Japan has considered investment in
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
systems for their turnstiles, since they get foot traffic on the order of billions every year through some of their stations).

	I, myself am a bicycle commuter and although some will argue it isn’t exactly ‘safe’ among navigating through vehicular traffic, I consider it safer than driving in a vehicle any day.

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

[eagleseven]

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


In short, the damage to the containment building is preventing nuclear engineers from accessesing the inner reactor core, so it is impossible to know precisely what is going on at the Fukishima plant. We do know that the Reactor Containment Building is destroyed, and that dangerous levels of Cesium-137 is leaking into the environment. Thus far,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


In desperation, plant operators are flooding what's left of the containment building with seawater, as an ad-hoc way to cool the fuel rods, but there's no way to determine if it's having any effect.

At the same plant, a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is no absolutely safe (practical) form of energy.

It's so adorable when politicos try to go all scientific, attempting to pretend that they have no agenda.


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


This is what's available from present technology.

[Cooper]

The only thing coming out about this is conflicting reports. At this point no one knows for sure what is happening. There are different statements and reports all over the internet and other media. The worst thing anyone can do is panic. I have been involved in numerous stressful and sudden events, not once have I seen panic to be a positive and/or constructive reaction. I saw evidence of that yet again the other night during the evacuations here. The best course of action is to gather the facts and do what is needed at that point.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's so adorable when politicos try to go all scientific, attempting to pretend that they have no agenda. ( Show Spoiler ) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. This is what's available from present technology.

Please, you of all people are capable of making a cogent argument without stooping to misleading rhetoric in the form of graphs with a high lie factor, even independent of the inaccuracies in the data.

86,000 TW is the amount of power provided by the sun to the entire earth. We already use that power for a great many things: it keeps us warm, it grows plants that feed us and feed animals that feed us, it keeps things in the ocean alive, etc. When you consider that is diffused over the surface area of the earth in an uneven fashion, the difficulties of power storage and transportation, the relative inefficiency of commercial solar cells under average use, the price (particularly of solar cells), they start to look a lot less attractive.

This is not to say that they aren't a good idea to invest in or that they don't make sense in certain select situations (and more as time goes on), but citing the total input of the Earth from the sun as "what's available from present technology" is misleading at best.

[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's so adorable when politicos try to go all scientific, attempting to pretend that they have no agenda. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. This is what's available from present technology.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm simply pointing out that natural disasters are unpredictable and their consequences should not be politiciized.

[RBM]

What's the source for the graphic, something seems off ?

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Please, you of all people are capable of making a cogent argument without stooping to misleading rhetoric in the form of graphs with a high lie factor, even independent of the inaccuracies in the data.

Nerf. Apologies. My EE professor showed me that graph in class last week and told the class that this is what we could extract with present technology, not what was the total gross.

You are correct.

[Librorum]

I'm impressed by the apologists* on MSNBC claiming that the Japanese nuclear reactors are obviously earthquake-proof because they haven't blown up. First of all, this isn't over yet. Second of all, the backup generators were knocked out by the tsunami, so the plants are by definition not earthquake-proof. Thirdly there has already been releases of radioactive gases and particles, which, along with the hydrogen explosion, indicate cladding fire and fuel melting plus a leak in the containment system somewhere. If all is well and there is no possibility of a major radioactive release, why evacuate the region, distribute iodine, and keep reporters out? It's already a disaster, it's just a question of how big it will get.

*I'm guessing that 99% of nuclear scientists are employed or funded by the nuclear industry. These are sources to be taken with a big lump of salt (in this case, potassium iodide).

And does it strike anyone as cosmically stupid for a country that gave us the word "tsunami" to locate nuclear reactors right on the shoreline? If they were inland, the generators work and we don't have this conversation. To say nothing of the locating them in a seismically active zone, though that pretty much applies to all of Japan. Looking ahead, they might want to apply their technological wizardry to building gadgets that use far less electricity so they won't need those infernal power plants in the first place.

[reckful]

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

Shirakawa, Japan (CNN) -- Japanese authorities are operating on the presumption that possible meltdowns are under way at two nuclear reactors, a government official said Sunday, adding that there have been no indications yet of hazardous emissions of radioactive material into the atmosphere. ... Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters there is a "possibility" of a meltdown at the plant's No. 1 reactor, adding, "It is inside the reactor. We can't see." He then added that authorities are also "assuming the possibility of a meltdown" at the facility's No. 3 reactor. A meltdown is a catastrophic failure of the reactor core, with a potential for widespread radiation release.

[larrysb]

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

Please, you of all people are capable of making a cogent argument without stooping to misleading rhetoric in the form of graphs with a high lie factor, even independent of the inaccuracies in the data. 86,000 TW is the amount of power provided by the sun to the entire earth. We already use that power for a great many things: it keeps us warm, it grows plants that feed us and feed animals that feed us, it keeps things in the ocean alive, etc. When you consider that is diffused over the surface area of the earth in an uneven fashion, the difficulties of power storage and transportation, the relative inefficiency of commercial solar cells under average use, the price (particularly of solar cells), they start to look a lot less attractive. This is not to say that they aren't a good idea to invest in or that they don't make sense in certain select situations (and more as time goes on), but citing the total input of the Earth from the sun as "what's available from present technology" is misleading at best.

This.



Total worldwide energy consumption in 2003 was 423 quadrillion BTU/hrs.

Using the highest efficiency solar photovoltaic cells in *commercial* production today, integrating for daylight exposure and solar irradiance at sea level, it would take a band of solar cells, 3 miles wide, around the equator of the earth to produce this amount of energy annually. This does not include allowances for failures, storms, cloudy days, dust accumulations, etc.

At current rates of production, it would take about 100,000 years to produce the array, not including time to transport and install the assemblies, construct a means to support the array over water, mountains, various terrain.

This also does not allow for growth of energy consumption as the rest of the world becomes more affluent and demands things like electric lighting, refrigeration, heat and air conditioning, transportation, etc.