We could build our pavements and roads out of that bouncy substance they coat children's playgrounds with then when we fall over we will just bounce back up.
Cover Up Of Fukushima Chain Reaction Underway
Scary, if true?
Edit - Check out the nutjob comments for a giggle!
Last edited by CHR1S; 15th March 2011 at 04:16 PM.
Withstood the 4th biggest earthquake in history(while only being rated to withstand a magnitude of 7.9) , no dead, little to no environmental impact, i'd say that's a pretty big triumph for a 50 year old reactor.
Last edited by tommej; 15th March 2011 at 04:29 PM.
It simply isn't possible to design for every occurance, and the design as it stands has held up pretty damn well! No chance of meltdown, no deaths from them (and it is unlikely any will occur), and all the systems designed and put in place have worked as planned, only they then failed due to the tsunami.
Its kinda like someone designing a building to resist a quake, and to withstand a plane crashing into it. Its unlikely that it could withstand both at the same time!
Still burning.Originally Posted by http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110315-703984.html
They're just getting started on this fire that's been going since the start.Originally Posted by http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/refinery-operations-jx-idUSTKZ00683720110315
Trying to find more info on these is impossible, since there is so much coverage of the nuclear plant which will have no environmental impact.Originally Posted by http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hn4fTE-KPYIpxE0Xa7-NTq8AT8NA?docId=efc4329ea548462cb22e010578f220ae
Last edited by tommej; 15th March 2011 at 06:12 PM.
Tepco spokesman Hajimi Motujuku says the fire at reactor four is in the outer housing of the containment vessel. Its cause is not yet known, AP reports.
Same situation as this morning really.
Fire is apparently out now. And radiation levels are falling:
(updates every 10 minutes measured in tokyo)
1 CPM = approx .01uSv/hr
For reference, the highest level of radiation recorded at the reactor site was 400mSv/hr, which would be 40,000,000 CPM on that chart.
Last edited by tommej; 15th March 2011 at 11:25 PM.
list of significant quakes and note the number of quakes that have exceeded the design spec of 7.9. Give the number of quakes that have exceeded the spec, is the spec, in your view reasonable?
No, but an earthquake followed by a tsunami in Japan is not every occurrence - it's not even an outlier over the lifetimes of the reactors. The fact that it was the biggest quake is actually marginal, any quake accompanied by a large tsunami could have had the same effect - even a much smaller quake.It simply isn't possible to design for every occurance,
That indicates a serious failure in assessing and analysing risk. And that isn't a problem that is solely the responsibility of Japanese government/industry. It comes under the purview of the IAEA - an international organisation which has a significant influence on how nuclear power is operated worldwide. If they can get the risks wrong in Japan, could they be making similar mistakes elsewhere? That IMO is not an unreasonable question to ask in the circumstances and while Germany's decision to shut down a couple of 40 year old reactors may be in part politically motivated by upcoming elections, a full safety review is not an unnecessary knee jerk reaction of the "it's health and safety gone mad Guv!" ilk.
Yes, the spec was reasonable. Pretty much every single quake on that list comes in under 7.9. Why would that not be sensible?
The latest research shows that this sort of tsunami is a 1000 year event. No designer ever designs anything for 1000 year events.
There hasn't been a failure of assessing risk. The last tsunami of this strength occurred around year 869. Why would someone plan for that sort of event?
And safety inspections can be done without shutting anything down. Germany is in a geologically stable location, they don't get events like those in Japan. So, looking at their plants because of this event is ridiculous.
Nuclear design engineers should - or would you be happy living near a reactor which has a 1 in 50 chance of experiencing an event which is beyond the design spec. How about if you have 50 of them in the country?The latest research shows that this sort of tsunami is a 1000 year event. No designer ever designs anything for 1000 year events.
Because the probability might be small (although frankly it's not THAT small) but the consequences if it happens are potentially catastrophic. Risk management is about probability AND consequences. If you were designing a house to survive those kind of events then I might agree that the event can be ignored - the consequences of a house falling down are a few lives and/or inconvenience to a very limited number of people. On a nuclear power plant with 40 year operating lifetimes, 1 in 1000 year events are actually too high a probability.There hasn't been a failure of assessing risk. The last tsunami of this strength occurred around year 869. Why would someone plan for that sort of event?
I am not talking about quakes in Germany. I'm talking about a failure of risk management. We didn't have terrorists flying planes into things 40 years ago and we seem to be experiencing a lot of once in a couple of hundred years weather events. The question "what other risks might have been missed or are being mismanaged" seems to me in the circumstances, to be a reasonable one.And safety inspections can be done without shutting anything down. Germany is in a geologically stable location, they don't get events like those in Japan. So, looking at their plants because of this event is ridiculous.
Last edited by pcstru; 16th March 2011 at 08:53 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)