3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake

[Dave]

>>The worst that we thought happened, really did.
>>However, they didn't blow up and we still don't know if the metldown resulted in a neutron event (irradiating the public).
>>
>>

3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms
June 06, 2011|By the CNN Wire Staff

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-06/w...er?_s=PM:WORLD

Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant experienced full meltdowns at three reactors in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami in March, the country's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters said Monday.

The nuclear group's new evaluation, released Monday, goes further than previous statements in describing the extent of the damage caused by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

The announcement will not change plans for how to stabilize the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the agency said.

Reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced a full meltdown, it said.

The plant's owner, Tokyo Electric Power Co., admitted last month that nuclear fuel rods in reactors 2 and 3 probably melted during the first week of the nuclear crisis.

It had already said fuel rods at the heart of reactor No. 1 melted almost completely in the first 16 hours after the disaster struck. The remnants of that core are now sitting in the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel at the heart of the unit and that vessel is now believed to be leaking.

A "major part" of the fuel rods in reactor No. 2 may have melted and fallen to the bottom of the pressure vessel 101 hours after the earthquake and tsunami that crippled the plant, Tokyo Electric said May 24.

The same thing happened within the first 60 hours at reactor No. 3, the company said, in what it called its worst-case scenario analysis, saying the fuel would be sitting at the bottom of the pressure vessel in each reactor building.

But Tokyo Electric at the same time released a second possible scenario for reactors 2 and 3, one that estimated a full meltdown did not occur. In that scenario, the company estimated the fuel rods may have broken but may not have completely melted.

Temperature data showed the two reactors had cooled substantially in the more than two months since the incident, Tokyo Electric said in May.

The earthquake and tsunami knocked out cooling systems at Fukushima Daiichi, causing the three operating reactors to overheat. That compounded a natural disaster by spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Tokyo Electric avoided using the term "meltdown," and says it was keeping the remnants of the core cool. But U.S. experts interviewed by CNN after the company's announcement in May said that while it may have been containing the situation, the damage had already been done.

"On the basis of what they showed, if there's not fuel left in the core, I don't know what it is other than a complete meltdown," said Gary Was, a University of Michigan nuclear engineering professor and CNN consultant. And given the damage reported at the other units, "It's hard to imagine the scenarios can differ that much for those reactors."

A massive hydrogen explosion -- a symptom of the reactor's overheating -- blew the roof off the No. 1 unit the day after the earthquake, and another hydrogen blast ripped apart the No. 3 reactor building two days later. A suspected hydrogen detonation within the No. 2 reactor is believed to have damaged that unit on March 15.

[moi621]

Bravo Germany, planning to phase out Nuc.
Unfortunately, they are downwind of France.
The magnitude of poisoning from a Nuc accident is not worth the gamble.

Although to be fair, all Green is not so Green. Wind turbines as built in mountain passes occupy the same wind corridor used by birds. I wonder if the windmill operators are allowed to sell their collection of eagle feathers?
Carpeting the desert with various solar designs is just plain disrespectful to the Desert ecosystem, same as the Tundra was once mistreated. Good Green energy is feasible but, Destructive Green energy needs to be acknowledged tool
Moi

[Riverwind]

we could all go back to walking and stop all electrical power, would that be green enough for you? You see you want it but you don't want it in your back yard.

As for Japan, my heart goes out to these people, this quake and all was more then you can plan for, I wish them the best.

River

[Dave]

Personally, I'm surprised at Germany's move away from Nuclear Power. I suppose they have their reasons. I don't understand why but then, I don't live there and I'm not sure of their current politics regarding green topics.

I can see Japan eventually decommissioning nuclear plants because of the destruction and havoc caused by these three.

I think that certain parts of the USA where nuclear plants are built near earthquake faults should be decommissioned. There's a couple locations in Central and South America where whole cities are built next to active volcanoes and I think those people are out of their minds.

[moi621]

River,
WHY carpet the desert, etc. when they can carpet roof tops?
Money. Money. Money. Money.
Money requires centralized production of electricity.
Solution:
Giving Green and smaller electricity producers an advantage on an independent "grid".
Besides biomass there is fuel cell electricity from hydrogen and probably methane. There is this big undulating ocean that is "free" energy if wisely harnessed. There are ways. Just not the willingness due to "their" control.
Moi

[Riverwind]

Because the amount of electricity generated from a desert farm is much greater then what you can get off your roof. Cost, if its in the desert its put there by a company on your roof you are paying for it. Now I would not mind having solar panels on my roof, I just don't want to pay to have them installed. I also like wind power, there are even ones that also fit on your roof, again I can't afford to have them installed either. So I am back to letting business provide that service, which is putting them back in the desert.

River

[StefanIsMe]

If you look at pictures of villages in Germany, you will frequently see a great many rooftops adorned with solar units.

I agree with both River and Moi; the society, both social and political, in America is such that using vast tracts of desert for mass-solar power collection is the more valid method. And if it's done in the most ecologically least-damaging areas (say, portions with the least amount of life), then really, the damage is fairly minimal.

However, the better way would be to absolutely cover all already-paved or -roofed over structures with cheap, efficient solar panels. Germany has worked toward this for years, by offering major subsidies to buyers of solar energy kits.

Also, while I apreciate Moi's feelings about wind energy, it's just such a clean and ultra-renewable energy source that even while I'm a nature-lover, I can't help but accept the deaths of some birds for the sake of power for my fridge and computer. Our town just had a 'farm' of 75 massive wind turbines go up just outside of town. Farmers who still own and work the land have to drive around the things, yes, but their royalty-income checks VASTLY overcome any worry about lost seedable land. A buddy of mine from work has two on his 3/4-section field, and is getting about 5,000 dollars a year in royalties. It's thousands more than the land is worth for planting, considering the footprint for each windmill is only a couple thousand square feet.

The only really safe and least-environmentally-damaging energy source (leaving Hydro dams out) left are those cool ocean wave-induced generators, that paddle or squirm or writhe in the waves to generate power. However transportation of that power all the way to the interior of the continent would not be efficient.

[feedback]

Doesn't anybody get it. We have 3 nuclear reactors in melt down and do we hear anything about it. No not a word. 3 Chernobl's and one big cover up because nobody knows what to do about. Do your research, we are being exposed to radiation levels here that are half of what they are in Japan already and the government just keeps us in the dark about the dangers. Is anyone worried about eating fish caught of the coast of Japan after all the radioactive water from the plant leaked into the ocean? Why has Russia banned all food stuffs coming from Japan? Why has the United States recommended a 80 mile safe zone around the plant and why has the Japanese government conscripted only men over 55 to work at clean up on the plant? Why is the Japanese government talking about moving the government out of Tokyo south to some other city? Is it because it is safe in Tokyo? We have a major nuclear disaster happening the likes the world has never seen and it is being covered up because nobody knows how to control it at this point. How many lives and cases of cancer is this one going to cause over the next 50 or 100 years? Estimates for the Chernoble disaster are placed at 1.4 million cases of cancer and it was controlled at great cost of lives very quickly compared to what is happening in Japan.

[Losethem]

Doesn't anybody get it. We have 3 nuclear reactors in melt down and do we hear anything about it. No not a word. 3 Chernobl's and one big cover up because nobody knows what to do about. Do your research, we are being exposed to radiation levels here that are half of what they are in Japan already and the government just keeps us in the dark about the dangers. Is anyone worried about eating fish caught of the coast of Japan after all the radioactive water from the plant leaked into the ocean? Why has Russia banned all food stuffs coming from Japan? Why has the United States recommended a 80 mile safe zone around the plant and why has the Japanese government conscripted only men over 55 to work at clean up on the plant? Why is the Japanese government talking about moving the government out of Tokyo south to some other city? Is it because it is safe in Tokyo? We have a major nuclear disaster happening the likes the world has never seen and it is being covered up because nobody knows how to control it at this point. How many lives and cases of cancer is this one going to cause over the next 50 or 100 years? Estimates for the Chernoble disaster are placed at 1.4 million cases of cancer and it was controlled at great cost of lives very quickly compared to what is happening in Japan.

OK, if you're so upset about this, get on a plane to Japan and volunteer to work in the contamination zone.

I recently voted to prevent nuclear power in the country of my second citizenship. If such a vote were to take place in the US, I would vote against it here as well.

--LT

[Dave]

What FEEDBACK is saying is that we have the evidence before our eyes inj the form of three meltdowns. Now just one failure (let's get the language correct - Chernobyl wasn't so much a meltdown as a complete failure of operation and safety measures) but three failures of reactors that the company said were safe.

Stop and think about that:
Three reactors built in earthquake and tsunami zones by companies fully cognizant of the earthquake and tsunami risk and analyzed by engineers as being safe, WERE NOT SAFE.
The safety and risk analyses predicted less severe earthquakes and tsunamis and thus failed in the Worst Case Scenario.

I, personally, have done or managed this type of risk analysis and I know what I am talking about. The Japanese company (And many in the USA) minimized the worst case scenario. They did this by reducing the damage an earthquake could cause, by minimizing the severity of the tsunami, by not requiring separate power feeds to all reactors, by not requiring more than 12 hours of emergency power... I can name these things now because it is after the fact.

A risk analysis is supposed to find just those weaknesses. From everything I understand, the risk analysis say that the earthquake would not happen, the tsunami would not be that large - and their conclusion then is for a weaker and cheaper set of safety measures and safeguards.

When FEEDBACK says "Why doesn't anyone get it" he means when are the political systems going to call out these companies that routine cheapen their safety measures and minimize consequence until they kust face the disaster and after that, merely apologize. A fine does not cure cancer. An apology does not remove plutonium from the environment.

[feedback]

Thank you Dave. You get it. Unfortunately for all of us it is to late to do anything about the Japanese situation and we will all pay for the next 100 years because of it. I just feel if more people knew what was going on there might be such an outcry that governments might be forced to act to protect there citizens. I personally feel nuclear power should never have been allowed until there was a way to deal with the spent fuel used. After 40 years they have 600,000 spent fuel rods in storage at Fukashima alone, and some of those storage pools are on fire adding to radiation pollution. I have watched to many people I know die of cancer and now many more people are going to suffer because big business only thought about profits. We are down wind and down current from Japan and are not going to get off easy. It is truly a global disaster that is being covered up by our governments.

[Riverwind]

Lets be fair here, who in there right mind plans for a 9.0 earthquake and plans for there country to drop 3 ft lower into the ocean? Waiting for a 35' tsunami, Who does that?

With all the whistle blowing in this country don't you think someone other then the government owns a geiger counter and has used it? Have you seen anything in the news on this?

The plant in Russia was open for months and months before they finally got it cased in cement. It did not happen in a week.

This was not like the oil spill in the gulf which was pore safety practices, a company looking at the bottom line and not safety first.

River

[Dave]

I was being fair and I stand by what I said in my post. They didn't do the risk analysis with the worst cases because they wanted to save money.

[Riverwind]

So let me see if I got this straight, You say they did not do a good risk analysis before the nuclear plants were built.

So your saying they should have had it in there plan to allow for a 3 foot drop of there country into the ocean? that they should have planed for a 9.5 earthquake? The reason I put 9.5 is because you must plan for worst case scenario, could you please show where anybody has ever done that? Never happened in this country. So why would someone in Japan plan for a 9.0 or high earthquake, when has it happened before and how often? How many times has there island dropped 3 feet in the past?

Its easy to say they did not plan ahead, its not so easy to tell the future, it must be based on past history, and best guess.

Now was the plants build to today's standards? no I think they said that, but they were when they were built. So are you saying that every building should be looked at for risk management and if it does not fall into safe today standards we should rip the thing down and start over? Of course not. If they were to build a new nuclear plant today in the same spot, do you thing they would do things a bit different, of course. But you are judging them on what they did years ago with todays knowledge. You see todays risk management for building a nuclear plant at that sight would be different then one written lets say last January.


River

[feedback]

I saw an article in Seattle paper middle of last month on the levels of Cesium 134 in milk being near the top of there safe levels for children and pregnant women or women who were nursing. The next day the article is gone. Nothing more said. That is only days after the first cloud of fallout from the plant reached the coast. Check some of the enviromental web sites and energy news sites as well as weather sites to see how winds aloft carry this pollution around the world. Check to see where it has rained when these radiation clouds are over land masses because the rain deposits the radio active particles on the ground where they get into the food chain etc. If we want to be fair it should be pointed out that that plant was never designed to operate for 40 years and had proper storage for only about half the spent fuel they have stored there. Also check and see how many ex government officials in Japan work for the power company. Check to see what was done when an engineer that worked for the company that made the containment vessel for the #4 reactor came forward and said it was flawed and should be put out of service. Also if there is a risk of water entering the plant why would you put the backup generator in the basement? I could go on and on but it wouldn't do anything other than to raise my blood pressure. Just hope this will bring some attention to the problems with nuclear power as it is being used today.