Author Topic: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake (Read 583471 times)

Xenon_Free · « **Reply #475 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 07:16 »

I absolutely could not disagree with you more doc. "Total core meltdown" is by no means a certainty, in fact the situation seems to be getting [marginally] better not worse. This is not based on hopes and wishes but actual operating experience and many years of training. This event is on the order of weeks to stabilize not days, give it some time. As I posted also, right now there is no way to "entomb" anything without making the situation even worse. If it gets worse, then by all means they should do what needs to be done. I am not advocating waiting to do anything, I am advocating that we give countermeasures being taken a real chance of making things better - throwing in the towel will make things much, much worse right now. That is a fact.

XF

navynukedoc · « **Reply #476 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 07:27 »

Quote from: Xenon_Free on Mar 17, 2011, 07:16

I absolutely could not disagree with you more doc. "Total core meltdown" is by no means a certainty, in fact the situation seems to be getting [marginally] better not worse. This is not based on hopes and wishes but actual operating experience and many years of training. This event is on the order of weeks to stabilize not days, give it some time. As I posted also, right now there is no way to "entomb" anything without making the situation even worse. If it gets worse, then by all means they should do what needs to be done. I am not advocating waiting to do anything, I am advocating that we give countermeasures being taken a real chance of making things better - throwing in the towel will make things much, much worse right now. That is a fact.

XF

Not trying to sound disrespectful by any means, but does anyone have any concrete proof in front of them?? CNN is reporting one thing one day and totally opposite the next. And Fox entertainment may as well be a Madd Magazine.

Japanese officials are saying no no no, we are doing ok and the levels are acceptable, but #1 has anyone been inside to see the pools??? And why is an exec from Tokyo power siding with American analysts saying it is worse than what is being reported?

I know I am new on this forum, but when they are pulling the rest of their people out, sounds like it may be more than they can handle and aren't giving the whole truth.

Again, I am not an expert in nuc physics, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.......

navynukedoc · « **Reply #477 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 07:34 »

And regardless of the outcome, I hope the people that live remotely close to the plant fair well. It isn't bad enough that they had an earthquake and tsunami, but the rescue forces are still divided between this and trying to save those who are still alive in the mess.

Xenon_Free · « **Reply #478 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 07:41 »

I have no experience with core damage

I have no idea what the SFP looks like

I have very little hard data that supports my position

But I have been in this industry for some time, so I also have the following:

I understand nuclear physics (I do not possess a degree)

I understand plant design (I am not a designer)

I have knowledge of plant procedures, including those that are being used now

I have great trust in our industry for solving problems

I have tremendous respect for the personnel over there fighting this disaster

I have confidence in the tenacity and selflessness of the Japanese people

I have an unshakable faith in the combined efforts of the world to see this thing appropriately resolved. I may end up being wrong, but I will remain committed to my beliefs.

XF

Marvin · « **Reply #479 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 08:05 »

I have a healthy sense of uneasiness for potential failure modes

...a sensitivity to operations

...a reluctance to oversimplify and, a

...deference to expertise when things go south

And it ain't looking good for Fukushima

Cycoticpenguin · « **Reply #480 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 08:47 »

Quote from: Barbie on Mar 17, 2011, 08:05

I have a healthy sense of uneasiness for potential failure modes

...a sensitivity to operations

...a reluctance to oversimplify and, a

...deference to expertise when things go south

And it ain't looking good for Fukushima

Eloquent speech. Utterly useless.

What are you basing your prognosis on Fukishima on? The fact they finally have power? The fact they finally have the cores covered with stable water supply? Or maybe its the new bodies coming in to take the place of the battle scarred and weary initial responders? No... It must be the fuel pools getting recovered in water.

yes, that just sounds awful...

JustinHEMI05 · « **Reply #481 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 08:52 »

Let's focus. All viewpoints are valid.

Justin

Xenon_Free · « **Reply #482 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:09 »

I am no cheerleader for the industry. I am a realist, but I am optomistic about the outcome. I can quote facts like minimum steam cooling water level, the height of the fuel, pressure vs. temperature in containment... but ultimately no one gives a damn. Is it safe... hell no - they have major issues they have to deal with. First of all they need power back to all 6 units, then they need to get some decay heat removal pumps running at 3 of the units when they can get the pumps working. They need to stabilize water level in, and commence cooling, their spent fuel pools. They need to get cooled back down so the discharge of radioactive steam from containment can be stopped. Their buildings are open to atmosphere, they will need temporary repairs at some point. They have a massive amount of contamination to clean up. The reactors at units 1-4 will never work again, that's fine, but are they "melting down"? No, I doubt it, there is a lot of fuel damage. Is it worse than 3 mile island, oh yeah - as bad as chernobyl - not even close. So I absolutely agree with you Barbie, it does not look good for Fukushima, but it does not look like the end.

Here is some good news from NISA:
Cable installation to receive electricity from the transmission line of
Tohoku Electric Power Company. Schedule to be connected to Unit 2
after the completion of discharge work. (17:30 March 17th)
・ Emergency Diesel Generator (1 unit) for Unit 6 operable. Supplying
electricity to Unit 5 and 6. Water injection to Spent Fuel Pool through
the Make up Water Condensate System (MUWC) progressing. Schedule
to inject water to the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) after the recovery of
external power source.

XF

Marvin · « **Reply #483 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:17 »

I am sorry...it was obviously taken out of context...here's a hint:

http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Unexpected-Resilient-Performance-Uncertainty/dp/0787996491/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300410677&sr=8-1

It's called High Reliability Operations...spawned by some guy named Hyman in the last century.

So, they have the fuel covered? I must have missed that.

hatrai07 · « **Reply #484 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:18 »

ABCNEWS.COM is reporting

"Radiation levels have soared in some places around the plant in the last 24 hours. The highest readings outside the area have come 30 kilometers northwest of the plant, where levels of 170 millisieverts were measured. "

I don't think so

Marvin · « **Reply #485 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:29 »

Let's see...170 millisieverts is 17 rem...30 kilometers from the plant...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It sounds like fuel melting and releasing radioactivity into the atmosphere. I can't help but hope the report is incorrect.

I hope the best for the Japanese people and all those downwind...

01changeup · « **Reply #486 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:34 »

I heard an interview on the radio today in the Seattle area. The woman being interviewed was an Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Idaho State. I didn't have a pen handy to write down her name. If any of you know who this might be, can you please let me know or pass on a "BZ" from me please? She did a very good job during the interview. David Bose (the host) was asking her a lot of questions that were leading to the "this is going to be bad in the US right?" line of thinking, and she did an excellent job of answering his questions ("no") and steering the conversation back to more accurate lines of thinking, all while explaining the situation very well for the lay man. She also did a good job of not speaking down to the host or the audience (something I have a problem with most of the time). I wish I could remember her name so I could try to tell her this myself, but I am hoping that word can get to her somehow from this forum. The community needs more people like her to try to educate the general public.

V/R
01changeup

PJMcG · « **Reply #487 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:45 »

01 Change Up,

Only one women listed on the ISU Nuclear Engineering Faculty Page

Dunzik-Gougar, Mary Lou Ph.D. - Assistant Professor

Dr. Dunzik-Gougar received her Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University in 2003. Her research interests include the nuclear fuel cycle, systems modeling, spent fuel processing, and waste form development.
mldg@isu.edu

OT: Seattle - You a Zag Fan?

01changeup · « **Reply #488 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:47 »

Quote from: PJMcG on Mar 17, 2011, 09:45

OT: Seattle - You a Zag Fan?

Nope, Buckeyes all the way! I am just stationed here for now...
V/R
01changeup

01changeup · « **Reply #489 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 09:48 »

Quote from: PJMcG on Mar 17, 2011, 09:45

01 Change Up,

Only one women listed on the ISU Nuclear Engineering Faculty Page

Dunzik-Gougar, Mary Lou Ph.D. - Assistant Professor

Dr. Dunzik-Gougar received her Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University in 2003. Her research interests include the nuclear fuel cycle, systems modeling, spent fuel processing, and waste form development.
mldg@isu.edu

Thanks for the info. I must have had too much St. Patrick's Day juice already; I didn't even think of looking at the site! My bad. Thanks for doing the leg work for me.

V/R
01changeup

Xenon_Free · « **Reply #490 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 10:08 »

Quote from: Barbie on Mar 17, 2011, 09:29

Let's see...170 millisieverts is 17 rem...30 kilometers from the plant...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It sounds like fuel melting and releasing radioactivity into the atmosphere. I can't help but hope the report is incorrect.

Maybe I am arguing too fine a point on melt down... there is fuel damage, a lot of it - you're getting no argument from me. It seems more than likely there was a partial melting of fuel, I don't know how long the reactors or the spent fuel pool went without water. If the damaged fuel, whether from the spent fuel pool or the reactor or containment, can be covered then the continued release of airborne should slow or stop. When I hear "meltdown" I think a loss of coolable geometry of the core (or the fuel in the fuel pool). I am not sure they are there yet. I don't know the gap release so I don't know the extent of damage, so really I have no basis at all for any argument They are in the RP and e-plan realm now and I defer to their better judgement. You may be right.

XF

Content1 · « **Reply #491 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 10:25 »

Quote from: hatrai07 on Mar 17, 2011, 09:18

ABCNEWS.COM is reporting

"Radiation levels have soared in some places around the plant in the last 24 hours. The highest readings outside the area have come 30 kilometers northwest of the plant, where levels of 170 millisieverts were measured. "

I don't think so

I assume what is meant per hour rate. If at 30 km it is 17 rem, at one km it is around 15,300 Rem, an instantly fatal dose. How could there be workers there still? I thought the greater danger was contamination to the public and associated cancer rates that result.

hamsamich · « **Reply #492 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 10:27 »

17R at 30km. give me a break.

Marvin · « **Reply #493 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 10:29 »

Think airborne radioactivity, not inverse square law...

The number is possible considering plume dispersal; however, it certainly sounds high and like everything else should be taken with a grain of salt.

Which way has the wind been blowing?

01changeup · « **Reply #494 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 10:42 »

Quote from: 01changeup on Mar 17, 2011, 09:34

I heard an interview on the radio today in the Seattle area. The woman being interviewed was an Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Idaho State. I didn't have a pen handy to write down her name. If any of you know who this might be, can you please let me know or pass on a "BZ" from me please? She did a very good job during the interview. David Bose (the host) was asking her a lot of questions that were leading to the "this is going to be bad in the US right?" line of thinking, and she did an excellent job of answering his questions ("no") and steering the conversation back to more accurate lines of thinking, all while explaining the situation very well for the lay man. She also did a good job of not speaking down to the host or the audience (something I have a problem with most of the time). I wish I could remember her name so I could try to tell her this myself, but I am hoping that word can get to her somehow from this forum. The community needs more people like her to try to educate the general public.

V/R
01changeup

I have found the interview to which I was referring. For those who are interested, here is the link:
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=193

V/R
01changeup

PJMcG · « **Reply #495 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 10:51 »

Weather Underground:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/47595.html

Wind 13 MPH from the WNW

So it is blowing in the direction of the prevailing westerlies in the mid latitudes and supposed to continue for the rest of the week. It's blowing offshore - that is a blessing.

I am suspect of those radiation levels.

PJ

playswithairplanes · « **Reply #496 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 11:03 »

Quote from: hatrai07 on Mar 17, 2011, 09:18

ABCNEWS.COM is reporting

"Radiation levels have soared in some places around the plant in the last 24 hours. The highest readings outside the area have come 30 kilometers northwest of the plant, where levels of 170 millisieverts were measured. "

I don't think so

Sorry gotta call BS on this one. After Chernobyl the radiation levels in Pripyat (3Km from the plant) were 1r/hr. This incident is no where near Chernobyl. This is a case of some idiot reporter getting it wrong... yet again.

I have to say the workers at that plant have my utmost respect. When you look at pictures of the utter devastation in the area around the plant there and realize these guys have basically been cut off from the world since the Tsunami wiped out their city. These guys have been making silk purses out of sows ears for a week now. They are the ultimate in my book. True heroes.

Marvin · « **Reply #497 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 11:20 »

Possible, but highly improbable, particularly considering wind direction...probably microsieverts, not millisieverts

OldHP · « **Reply #498 on:** Mar 17, 2011, 11:36 »

Quote from: Barbie on Mar 17, 2011, 11:20

Possible, but highly improbable, particularly considering wind direction...probably microsieverts, not millisieverts

You have to think - the media has been having problems between milli and micro all week and if some of them are trying to convert between sieverts and rem - and then mixing the terms - well!

navynukedoc · « **Reply #499 on:** Mar 18, 2011, 12:59 »

Quote from: OldHP on Mar 17, 2011, 11:36

You have to think - the media has been having problems between milli and micro all week and if some of them are trying to convert between sieverts and rem - and then mixing the terms - well!

What??? The media doing incorrect calculations on activity levels?

? They don't know what they are talking about?

?

Good call Old1!!!!

Author Topic: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake (Read 583471 times)

Xenon_Free

Xenon_Free

Marvin

Cycoticpenguin

JustinHEMI05

Xenon_Free

Marvin

hatrai07

Marvin

01changeup

01changeup

01changeup

Xenon_Free

Content1

Marvin

01changeup

Marvin