Has the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster changed your mind?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know the details, but they are smaller reactors of a few megawatts rather than hundreds or gigawatts. There are newer variations of the TRIGA reactor. Know little detail otherwise, except that as the core increases in temperature, the reaction decreases. It becomes self regulating that way.

If you don't know the details, how do you know for certain? Do you just trust what you've read without verification?

[DarrinS]

It hasn't changed my mind in that I want nuclear power but not the uranium-plutonium kind, which unfortunately is the mainstream type of reactors nowadays. They produce incredible amounts of waste, they're super expensive, but at the time they also produced enriched uranium which was 'needed' during the nuclear arms race.

We were discussing Thorium not long ago, a much safer type of reactor. I rather invest in more R&D on that as a viable energy source than wind/solar, which we already know are severely limited in capacity.

agreed

[Wild Cobra]

If you don't know the details, how do you know for certain? Do you just trust what you've read without verification?

You want me to remember stuff from almost a decade back, and find links? I'm not going to bother. Believe if you wish, don't if you don't want to. Just do a little research on TRIGA reactor designs, then consider what more modern proprietary design variation could hold.

I have heard some good things I believe from people within my state. There is one of these reactors at Oregon State University. Maybe you can find some specifics if you have access to academic materials that I don't have access to.

[Agloco]

I never claimed that it is a "doomsday scenario" - my point was simply that we shouldn't trivialise the short or long-term effects of nuclear accidents of any scale.

I could tell you work with radiation because it's clear that you know what you are talking about. I'm definitely making some assumptions based on what I've seen (significant explosions, reports of increased radiation levels further afield, reports of materials that could only come from fuel rods in the air, new reports of greatly elevated radiation levels around the plant), and also the Japanese propensity to downplay things (which they have done all throughout this crisis, only to backflip the next day). You are correct though, we don't have enough information to predict anything concrete at this point.

I never said this was a Chernobyl-level disaster (although it still has the potential to be if the rods in either the cooling ponds or reactors become exposed), but any significant release of radioactive isotopes (depending on type, half-life, etc.) is going to have effects on human health and ecosystems, in the localised area at the very least. The question you pose regarding human health and fish is impossible to answer without more information (as you have ably pointed out), as would be the effect on soils and surface/groundwater of any radioactive particle being blown inland.

Point taken. Let's wait until the true extent of this disaster comes out and then discuss it again, but given the dribs and drabs of unfortunate evidence coming out I bet it's a lot worse than is currently being reported.

By the way, do you work in nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, or do you use radioisotopes in your work? I ask not to have a go at you but because I'm curious. It's always good to learn from an expert.

Yes, I work in a field known as radiologic physics. I did a lot of work at reactors and in design earlier on as well. It a broad based field encompassing radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, as well as radiation safety for those types of practices. We also do a lot of field work to train folks for missions such as this one. Most of the military members over there were probably trained by a colleague or even myself at some point.

I appreciate your point of view here Ruff, and I understand that the ecosystems are quite sensitive to these sorts of things. It's been my experience that the information given is usually suspect as you point out. I base much of what I think on the actions of the crews on the ground though. Are they still there? Did they leave all of a sudden (like last night)? Putting the two together gives a clearer picture than either alone. It's borne of experience and not really anything you can teach from a book, much lss adequately convey in a typewritten message.

Apologies if my tone came across as harsh. I was simply attempting to clarify my point as it's tricky to do online sometimes.

[RandomGuy]

However, I am supportive of IV gen nuclear using the thorium cycle - it can't melt down, and it runs on spent fuel rods from III gen! It also produces a much lower volume of radioactive waste, although the waste produced is more dangerous than III gen waste.

Which then still requires high levels of security, because of the desirability of such waste for a dirty bomb on the part of certain elements of humanity that hate the west with a murderous rage.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes, I work in a field known as radiologic physics. I did a lot of work at reactors and in design earlier on as well. It a broad based field encompassing radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, as well as radiation safety for those types of practices. We also do a lot of field work to train folks for missions such as this one. Most of the military members over there were probably trained by a colleague or even myself at some point.

I appreciate your point of view here Ruff, and I understand that the ecosystems are quite sensitive to these sorts of things. It's been my experience that the information given is usually suspect as you point out. I base much of what I think on the actions of the crews on the ground though. Are they still there? Did they leave all of a sudden (like last night)? Putting the two together gives a clearer picture than either alone. It's borne of experience and not really anything you can teach from a book, much lss adequately convey in a typewritten message.

Apologies if my tone came across as harsh. I was simply attempting to clarify my point as it's tricky to do online sometimes.

Glad you are here posting...

[Wild Cobra]

Here is another thing to ponder. Although completely safe, the Westinghouse AP1000's are now being built in China. OSU has a 1/4 scale AP1000 on site.

Power Surge, Vol. 4 No. 2, Spring 2009

wiki: Sanmen Nuclear Power Station

wiki: AP1000

wiki: TRIGA reactor

[RandomGuy]

I appreciate your point of view here Ruff, and I understand that the ecosystems are quite sensitive to these sorts of things.

You might want to browse the pages here for a thread started by Marcus Bryant about biologists studying the Chernobyl area. I seem to remember he had a thread on the subject, or maybe it was something I read.

The faster breeding things like mice, have developed resistance to radiation, and overall evolution is proceding at a much quicker pace due to increased mutations.

The mice are of particular interest for cancer research, obviously.

[RandomGuy]

Completely safe in the aspect that there cannot be thermal runaway, meltdowns, etc.

(shrugs)

So you keep saying. I am highly dubious of such "infallible" technology.

If some engineer took the time to walk me through it so I could see for myself, I might be somewhat assured, but still would prefer not to accept the risk.

The problem is that I would think such designs would end up being so expensive that the alternatives would be far more economical.

Nuclear power for the sake of nuclear power, when there are other things to generate electricity available, is not a very convincing argument IMO.

As I have said here there are a lot of things completely unresolved in my mind:

Safety of fuel shipments (accident/terrorism)
safety of waste shimpments/storage (accident/terrorism)
Safety of plants themselves (accident/terrorism)
NIMBY lawsuits

[Agloco]

What kind of waste is that? AFAIK, the beauty of thorium reactors is that they don't produce such a thing.

They do. Understand that every sort of reactor which depends on neutron capture/fission reactions has a chance of producing transuranics, which are the primary cons uents of the waste products you're discussing. In the thorium fuel cycle though, it takes more neutron captures to produce those wastes than in a conventional UO or MOX reactor ( 6 compared to 1 to be exact).

What that translates to is: On average about 95%-97% of the initial fuel would fission before producing a transuranic waste product, hence the lower overall toxicity in the long run.

So then the two main advantages to Thorium:

1) The relative abundance

2) Less "longer-lived" by products. You can read about transuranic and actinide production if you feel like torturing yourself.

There are others, but a bit more technical in nature. I won't bore you with the details.

I think Ruff posted some good links to pages which discuss the process as well.

[Agloco]

You might want to browse the pages here for a thread started by Marcus Bryant about biologists studying the Chernobyl area. I seem to remember he had a thread on the subject, or maybe it was something I read.

The faster breeding things like mice, have developed resistance to radiation, and overall evolution is proceding at a much quicker pace due to increased mutations.

The mice are of particular interest for cancer research, obviously.

Yeah, I do most of my cancer research with mice and rats since the technologies we're developing and studying aren't FDA approved yet.

It's a very complex puzzle and made even more complicated by the machinery involved in cancer suppression/progression. One look at a molecular oncology text usually has students running for the hills.

The frustrating thing about translational research is that, well, things don't always translate.

Thanks for the tip. I'll browse through.

[RandomGuy]

Since it seems relevant to the discussion:

Most Vulnerable U.S. Nuclear Plants by the Daily Beast.

Methodology of ranking:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...e-methodology/

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, I do most of my cancer research with mice and rats since the technologies we're developing and studying aren't FDA approved yet.

It's a very complex puzzle and made even more complicated by the machinery involved in cancer suppression/progression. One look at a molecular oncology text usually has students running for the hills.

The frustrating thing about translational research is that, well, things don't always translate.

Thanks for the tip. I'll browse through.

Found it. Shoulda just have done the legwork when I first mentioned it, given it took less than 30 seconds to find:
"Chernobyl, My Primeval, Teeming, Irradiated Eden"
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174226

[Muser]

If Chernobyl didn't change my mind why would this.

[RandomGuy]

If Chernobyl didn't change my mind why would this.

If the Japanese, who presumedly design their plants with such events in mind, can't really ensure the safety of their reactors, what makes you think future or present reactors elsewhere are any safer?

[LnGrrrR]

You want me to remember stuff from almost a decade back, and find links? I'm not going to bother. Believe if you wish, don't if you don't want to. Just do a little research on TRIGA reactor designs, then consider what more modern proprietary design variation could hold.

I choose to believe that NO design is free from flaws.

[Agloco]

Found it. Shoulda just have done the legwork when I first mentioned it, given it took less than 30 seconds to find:
"Chernobyl, My Primeval, Teeming, Irradiated Eden"
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174226

Thanks.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

If the Japanese, who presumedly design their plants with such events in mind, can't really ensure the safety of their reactors, what makes you think future or present reactors elsewhere are any safer?

But did they really? Right by an ocean? I mean this is no "I can see Russia from my backyard". It's right ing there.

[RandomGuy]

But did they really? Right by an ocean? I mean this is no "I can see Russia from my backyard". It's right ing there.

They didn't really. That is kinda my point.

The switching room that controls the generators meant to power the cooling systems was... in the basement. Whoops.

It is too early to say how Fukushima fared with the calamity, all things considered. Much of the damage seems to have been caused by the tsunami wrecking the diesel generators—a single failure that resulted in a series of others, and was, in turn, compounded by them. Surely, though, planning for such contingencies can reasonably be considered part and parcel of the technology writ large. And this failed on too many fronts. Switching rooms were flooded. Auxiliary power systems failed. And that is before the full extent of the damage suffered by the reactors is known for sure. True, in accordance with safety regulations, these were designed to withstand tremors of magnitude 8.2. That they survived relatively unscathed through a magnitude 9.0 earthquake—ie, one that, given the scale's logarithmic nature, was approximately 15 times more powerful—seems remarkable.

The best designs in the world are still vulnerable to human error, and events outside of what was planned.

Nuclear power for the sake of nuclear power doesn't seem to me to be a good idea, and the consequences of failure can be pretty damn severe.

Any power source has its own set of risks, but the risks involved with nuclear power go far beyond what I find acceptable.

Mitigating those rather extreme risks ends up making nukes uneconomical, so why bother when there are alternatives?

[coyotes_geek]

They didn't really. That is kinda my point.

The switching room that controls the generators meant to power the cooling systems was... in the basement. Whoops.

Designers are constantly faced with situations where multiple threats result in protection measures that are in conflict with each other. Put the control room in the basement and the flood gets you, then the question is why didn't you put the control room up high in a building. Put the control room up high in a building and the earthquake topples that building, the question is why didn't you put the control room in a basement.

[boutons_deux]

"best designs in the world are still vulnerable to human error"

The human error in Japan is buying GE reactors to save money with thin containment walls. The human error in BP oil spill was BP, etc saving money on oversight, safety, controls.

Individuals don't have the power to screw up so much so badly. It takes govts and corporations to have enough power to screw up.

Security and safety always cost, but "broke ass" UCA govt and corporations will always cut safety and security corners to save money.

[Yonivore]

I'm more confident in its safety.

All the alarmist, apocalyptic nattering aside, it appears (as of now) the reactor cores will maintain their integrity and the radioactivity will mostly be confined to the area around the plant.

Given the worst of cir stances, it does not appear we are going to see another Chernobyl.

[jacobdrj]

First, I find it interesting that the right wing seems to be the side pushing the hardest to continue to develop nuclear resources, ironically, Wall Street seems reluctant to back big business in terms of investments into nuclear power. Perhaps investors are just not willing to put their money where some peoples' mouths are...

Second, deaths from wind turbine accidents and coal mine accidents are completely different from possible long term damage caused to the public (deaths or increased cancer rates or increased birth defect rates) as those workers made a conscious choice, making a calculated informed decision to risk their own lives at an acceptable compensation to them. The public gets little, if any say, whether or not they accept the risks posed by a nuclear plant when they fail. People who have a nuclear plant built near their homes have no choice accepting or denying the risk from the long term damage, in terms of lost usable land, contaminated food and water supplies, and do not receive compensation the way a coal miner would, and a coal miner's death rarely contaminates an area for 6000 years, while making surrounding areas risky to live in. Sure, there are counter examples, like the coal-mine fire that is still smoldering through Pennsylvania. But even the land that was made useless there does not significantly contaminate the surrounding down-wind areas to anywhere near the extent of a core meltdown...

[Agloco]

I'm more confident in its safety.

All the alarmist, apocalyptic nattering aside, it appears (as of now) the reactor cores will maintain their integrity and the radioactivity will mostly be confined to the area around the plant.

Given the worst of cir stances, it does not appear we are going to see another Chernobyl.

It was never about the reactor cores. It's all about the spent fuel pools. Those aren't shielded and are in the open. Once a situation occurs where the water drops to critical levels, those may ignite. It would be a la Chernobyl.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I'm more confident in its safety.

All the alarmist, apocalyptic nattering aside, it appears (as of now) the reactor cores will maintain their integrity and the radioactivity will mostly be confined to the area around the plant.

Given the worst of cir stances, it does not appear we are going to see another Chernobyl.

Check the news again. There appears to be a major problem with the reactor 4 cooling pools, possibly exposed rods. Radiation levels around the plant have risen significantly, the exclusion zone has been widened, and the situation continues to worsen. Your faith in technology that has so clearly failed is absurd to say the least.

The 50 remaining workers at the plant are staying put and risking their lives to do so - they are heroes in this horrible crisis like the men who died at Chernobyl. Radiation poisoning is a horrific death, but with typical Japanese stoicism they are willing to sacrifice themselves to help the greater good.

To everyone - take a look at the number of nuclear reactors currently sitting on the world's major faultlines and ask yourself whether that makes any sense whatsoever, or whether there should be a serious push to move nuclear power away from earthquake-vulnerable areas.