Anybody see this drivel from ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287I responded with this, but ran out of characters:
1. The story is the human tragedy of thousands dead, injured, homeless, lost, hungry, ruined, and devastated by a 9.0 quake followed by a tsunami.
a very distant second
2. Japan relies on nuclear power for about 30% of its energy, plant operators and engineers are experiencing cooling issues and have elevated radiation levels at the Fukushima Daiichi. 11 plants that were automatically shutdown (scrammed) as designed due to high seismic activity.
Now there are problems with potential for serious consequences, but let's catch our breath and let the professionals go to work. Most in the press have no idea what they're talking about. This article is just another of far too many examples.
1. The reactor is not a Mark I - Unit 1 is a BWR-3, Units 2 - 6 are BWR-4.
2. Units 1 - 5 have Mark I containments.
3. Unit 6 has a Mark II containment.
4. The problem is not the containment, they are functioning as designed. The only reported exception to that is the explosion on March 15 in Unit 2 - and that possible damage is not confirmed.
5. The hydrogen explosions in units 1 & 3 caused blow out panels in the reactor buildings to do what they are designed to do - blow out. Look at the drawings of a Mark 1 reactor building and the before and after photographs - the exposed iron at the top of the building with the missing panels is too precise not to be design behavior. The hydrogen explosions in units 1 & 3 did not breach their containments.
6. The problem is related to a sustained station blackout due to nearly coincident design basis accidents. The plants survived the 9.0 earth quake. The three operating units at Fukushima Daiichi shutdown as designed due to excess seismic activity; the diesels started and powered the emergency core cooling systems (EECS). Then the tsunami wiped out the diesels (exactly how is not clear yet; some have said the fuel tanks were destroyed, in time we'll learn more)
Then I ran out of space. Some of my responses were addressing some comments posted by readers. I sent my response to the editors at ABC News. Over the week I wrote to Fox News after they got their facts wrong. Last night I wrote to O'Reilly, his fair and balanced reporting had two guest 'experts' an MD who founded a Chernobyl society (noble work, but not relevant to Japan's nuclear problems) and a journalist who formerly covered the nuclear industry.
I urge all of you to respond to media that don't get the facts right. I'm furious with talking heads breathlessly whipping up a frenzy and they can't even get their facts straight. That is the easy part, design debates, engineering trade-offs, public policy, and other stuff is hard. Respectfully and professionally correct them on their errors.
And kudos to CNN - they interviewed one of my professors (emeritus) from the UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Department; Donald Olander; one of the leading authorities on nuclear fuel design, transient behavior, and nuclear materials. He also happens to be a brilliant man, a great teacher, and a kind human being.
PJ