[Merged] nuclear power safe? - Page 8

Alferd_Packer · 14th March 2011, 09:23 AM

So, the antipodal point is in the south atlantic off the coast of Uraguay.

"The Uraguay Syndrome?"

Frank Newgent · 14th March 2011, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Skwinty

Containment 1 is the Zircalloy cladding and you cannot flood inside that.

Containment 2 is the pressure vessel which you can flood.

Containment 3 is the concrete containment structure which can be directly flooded.

Look at the cutaway drawing in the pdf file page 16.

As far as I understand, fire trucks are pumping the sea water into containment and not recirculating this water.

thanks

MattusMaximus · 14th March 2011, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110314/...us_japan_quake

so, if one or more of the cores does melt down due to lack of cooling..what is the probable result?

A mess, contained inside the primary containment vessel at Fukushima. That and a really expensive cleanup effort. That's all.

Quote:

are there any dangers to folks in the rest of Asia and the west coast of North & South America?

From the information I've been reading (from reputable sources - i.e. not the media), no.

Quote:

every morning I wake up, and the news gets worse.

I suggest you stop watching the news, because they are making a mountain out of a molehill regarding the nuclear plant issue.

If it puts your mind a bit more at ease, take a few minutes to read my blog post on the matter.

Last of the Fraggles · 14th March 2011, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Java Man

Obviously everyone is happy no more life was lost to radiation. But those reactors will have to be replaced. In the meantime there is a power shortage. Had that money been spent on upgrading them ten years ago with newer technology then those cores could be powered up again. Providing the needed energy. The money now needed to repair things would not need to be subdivided into cleaning and repairing melted cores.

My "crisis" isn't a nuclear blowout. Which would be the most dire, extreme and undesired event. Nevertheless the current situation is quite a nightmare that could have been prevented if the cores were replaced with newer models. The Japanese are looking at quite an expense down the road and that's without a blowout.

Well it would be good to decommission designs that can cause a meltdown in case of a cooling failure. Given we already have designs that work that way.

And by safe I don't only mean a huge radioactive cloud. But safe in the knowledge that it's working ok, that it shutdown ok, that you can now reactivate it to power the grid in this crisis, etc etc etc. It retrospect it begins to look a lot cheaper and better to have gone through the expense of upgrading it.

We can sure talk about that in another thread if you want to.

The reactors were going to be replaced anyway as they were due to be decommisioned shortly. The additional costs of the cleanup might be economically disasterous for the power company but weren't you arguing that economic decisions are being made that affect safety?

If the argument is that the company might have cost themselves more in the long run then you'd have to weigh up the cost of this one clean up vs the cost of upgrading/replacing and decommissioning the entire population of power plants every few years.

This wasn't a nuclear blowout and several people have noted that wasn't through luck but through design. This 'disaster' hasn't been a disaster at all except for the fact that they are going to have to spend shedloads cleaning up the mess.

I really doubt it would be cheaper to upgrade every power plant on a regular basis than to clean up the one problem that occurs once in a lifetime but I haven't seen the numbers, you might be right.

In any case, if the worst we can say is that this is going to be a costly cleanup operation then the power plant design has done bloody well and is certainly 'safe'

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

Fixed that

I am an optimist.

Alferd_Packer · 14th March 2011, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

In my understanding the containments are in order the fuel pellets, the zircaloy cladding, the reactor coolant, the pressure vessel, the drywell, the containment dome and the vapor shield.

It is my guess that the fuel pellets have swelled and the cladding on the pins may have burst.

In any case, the fuel system itself may be damaged from the swelling.

about 10 years ago, I spent some time at a facility that did research on fuel pin swelling. I was there for another purpose, but it was interesting to see how they studdied this phemonmina.

MattusMaximus · 14th March 2011, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Not sure if anyone has put this up here yet:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...iima_analysis/

Discuss...

I agree with this article, though - sadly - I think its sound advice could easily be lost amid the screeching and hyping spread by the media.

Thanks for sharing!

Rasmus · 14th March 2011, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's weird logic.

It is entirely illogical - just as pointing out that western plants have not malefunctioned so far -since my point was rather that thus far things went wrong because they were unforeseen rather than just unlikely.

It seems as if German power plants would not be able to withstand a direct attack with a large passenger airplane: Not only did nobody think that this might happen, the idea alone was never conceived off, even though (!) they did think that somebody might run a fighter jet into a plant.

Now the situation has changed and people are aware of the problem. New plants will be build even stronger and there is discussion about how one could protect existing power plants against such attacks.

But the problem existed before someone was aware of it, the reactors were deemed "safe" and it simply turned out that they never were.

I don't want to actually argue over what people knew and said before Chernobyl - this might just be my memory fooling me after all these years. I would simply like to see a more open discussion about the fact that we do not know every last risk.

And just to make this very clear: I am still all for nuclear power.

Alferd_Packer · 14th March 2011, 09:44 AM

I wonder if anyone has any idea how the sea salts in the water will react with the fuel rods.

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 09:47 AM

The pellets will not dissolve in water, salt or clean.

The reaction would probably be just cooling although the net effect of salt water will be accelerated corrosion of metal components.

These plants will never be used again.

Alferd_Packer · 14th March 2011, 09:48 AM

another interesting question is this: Did the tsunami and the loss of auxilery power (and the subsequent explosions) impact the spent fuel pools also?

Is there any risk for the fuel in these pools to overheat as well?

Alferd_Packer · 14th March 2011, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Skwinty

The pellets will not dissolve in water, salt or clean.

The reaction would probably be just cooling although the net effect of salt water will be accelerated corrosion of metal components.

These plants will never be used again.

I was thinking along the lines of hot corrosion effects. Sea water contains a lot of iodine which can react with certain types of fuel cladding.

Belz... · 14th March 2011, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

It is entirely illogical - just as pointing out that western plants have not malefunctioned so far -since my point was rather that thus far things went wrong because they were unforeseen rather than just unlikely.

I don't think anyone is saying that "it never broke, therefore won't." so it sounds pretty strawmanlike to me.

Rasmus · 14th March 2011, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I don't think anyone is saying that "it never broke, therefore won't." so it sounds pretty strawmanlike to me.

Post #219.

My issue is this

1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system."

2. Chernobyl goes BOOM.

3. "Nuclear power in the west is reasonably safe, because unlike those plants you cannot induce a core melt either willfully or accidentally pressing any of the buttons in the contropl room."

4. Terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

5. "Oops, we didn't see that coming, either ...."

6. Major earthquake and tsunami hit plant in Japan that then fails until the last line of defense.

7. "Oh, wait, hang on, we're still busy with the airplanes and terrorists here..."

8. "But anyway, it did not blow up and we didn't see all of that coming all at once and the last line of defense held like it should have, right? Also, we don't get tsunamis and earthquakes here."

9. - any bets on what will happen next ? -

10. "Oops, we totally didn't see that coming. We'll take care of it with the next design, though! Then we'll be safe!"

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 10:03 AM

Nobody sane included Russian reactors in any discussion of nuclear safety.

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 10:05 AM

My thoughts are:

The cladding is already reacting and producing hydrogen, heat and other products, so would the salt water have any extra effect, probably.

If the fuel pools run dry then there is a possibility of meltdown if the storage racks are high density and there is enough residual heat left in the fuel.

I would imagine that this possibility is being closely monitored.

Rasmus · 14th March 2011, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Nobody sane included Russian reactors in any discussion of nuclear safety.

I just don't remember them being *excluded* ever, either. That only happened after one blew up.

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

I just don't remember them being *excluded* ever, either. That only happened after one blew up.

Your memory is faulty. We could not speak to Russian plants because we could not know their details.

Thunder · 14th March 2011, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

A mess, contained inside the primary containment vessel at Fukushima. That and a really expensive cleanup effort. That's all.

i hope you are right.

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

i hope you are right.

Seriously, thunder, it's perfectly safe. The doomsday crap peddled by practically all media outlets, even reputable ones, is scaremongering nonsense.

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Seriously, thunder, it's perfectly safe. The doomsday crap peddled by practically all media outlets, even reputable ones, is scaremongering nonsense.

YES. The worst that could happen is tiny compared to what already has and is happening all over Japan.

Belz... · 14th March 2011, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system."

2. Chernobyl goes BOOM.

I don't think they were talking about nuclear plants they couldn't know anything about.

Quote:

3. "Nuclear power in the west is reasonably safe, because unlike those plants you cannot induce a core melt either willfully or accidentally pressing any of the buttons in the contropl room."

4. Terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

Trying to see the relationship between 3 and 4...

Quote:

8. "But anyway, it did not blow up and we didn't see all of that coming all at once and the last line of defense held like it should have, right? Also, we don't get tsunamis and earthquakes here."

Isn't it rather "so things worked out but we're still going to upgrade them to withstand something more dangerous." ?

Quote:

10. "Oops, we totally didn't see that coming. We'll take care of it with the next design, though! Then we'll be safe!"

Nonsense. There can ALWAYS be something that happens, no matter how safe you are. If this is what you're arguing against you're in a losing battle.

a_unique_person · 14th March 2011, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Well, I've seen that happen often on rigs. It's usually fixable with a hacksaw and a new plug. Or ductape and rebar.
Remember the CO2 scrubbers on Apollo 13?

That's what I was wondering, electrical power doesn't have to go through a magic plug, you can hard wire two cables once you hack off the offending plug and socket.

timhau · 14th March 2011, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

every morning I wake up, and the news gets worse.

Unless you went to sleep on Thursday and slept all through the weekend.

More than 10,000 people died in a terrible earthquake and the resultant tsunami, nearly 2000 homes were washed into the ocean when a dam broke near Sukagawa, a burning oil refinery releases chemicals into the air and into the ground, and the media is treating the Fukushima reactor as if it's the main news.

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Post #219.

My issue is this

1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system."

2. Chernobyl goes BOOM.

Chernobyl only went boom because the lazy [rule 10]ers who worked there decided they couldn't be bothered with safety protocols because they thought it was too much of a hassle, compounded by the containment being absolutely awfully built.

Frankly, the only reason people didn't bring up Chernobyl as a possible safety issue for nuclear power is because the Soviet Union wasn't exactly the most open nation in the world. A single, Soviet nuclear plant built in the 1950's with substandard safety features that were ignored anyway isn't an argument.

The current "issue" in Japan is a perfect example of why nuclear power is absolutely safe. A power plant built what, 10 years after Chernobyl? It managed to withstand an earthquake far in advance of any that it was built to withstand, followed by aftershocks, and then a tsunami for goodness sake and the safety features, now 40 years out of date, worked.

slingblade · 14th March 2011, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Skwinty

The pellets will not dissolve in water, salt or clean.

The reaction would probably be just cooling although the net effect of salt water will be accelerated corrosion of metal components.

These plants will never be used again.

That's what I heard some expert say on the TV news last night, as I was cooking dinner. That they are flooding with seawater means they'll never use the plants again, due to the corrosive nature of seawater.

BenBurch · 14th March 2011, 10:52 AM

Chernobyl did not have a containment. It had what we would have called a confinement structure.

Now, not all reactors need a containment; The 10,000 W and less research reactors, for example.

But Chernobyl was a very large reactor.

Belz... · 14th March 2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

The current "issue" in Japan is a perfect example of why nuclear power is absolutely safe. A power plant built what, 10 years after Chernobyl? It managed to withstand an earthquake far in advance of any that it was built to withstand, followed by aftershocks, and then a tsunami for goodness sake and the safety features, now 40 years out of date, worked.

I think we can finally agree on something !

Skwinty · 14th March 2011, 11:15 AM

Yes, the use of sea water is the last option for cooling.

I have worked at a nuclear power station since 1984.
The station is a first generation PWR made by Framatome. Original designer was Westinghouse.

There are 2 X 960MW units and the entire nuclear island is built on a seismic raft. There are seismic fault lines near Cape Town, but have been inactive for many years.

The plant was also designed to withstand a tsunami of average 8m and max of 14m waves. The plant is continually modified as technology progresses and will have it's life extended beyond 40 years. (currently achieved 26 years of safe operation)

The pipe work for use of sea water as emergency cooling has been in place since conception, so it is not a new idea. There are many redundant systems in place that need to be exhausted first though.

Belz... · 14th March 2011, 11:21 AM

Reading the Wikipedia page on Chernobyl, they mention a recent study that mentions "985,000" deaths resulting from the incident.

Isn't that like 100 times more than liberal estimates used to say ? Is that even possible ?

Kestrel · 14th March 2011, 11:26 AM

Has anyone here had the bogus fallout map that Snopes just debunked show up in their email?

Aepervius · 14th March 2011, 11:29 AM

Just watched a news stuff on TV. Their take : "expert are unanimous : in the worst case scenario this could be worst than chernobyl" (image shown : a nuclear reactor exploding litterally and the beton building burning).

At least I know those guy are clown now.

timhau · 14th March 2011, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Just watched a news stuff on TV. Their take : "expert are unanimous : in the worst case scenario this could be worst than chernobyl"

It could be way worse than Chernobyl. What if aliens attack tomorrow and it's all going to be like Independence Day without the computer virus?

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 11:36 AM

I love my BBC. It's a respectable, fairly honest and good quality news outlet and I'm proud of it, but the unbelievable crap it's spewing about this plant is making me write a letter of complaint.

MarkCorrigan · 14th March 2011, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Chernobyl did not have a containment. It had what we would have called a confinement structure. .

I was under the impression this was containment. Since it isn't, this scaremongering is even more insane. What experts are being asked about this and what questions are they being asked, I wonder to make the news people scream about the sky falling in?

technoextreme · 14th March 2011, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

That's what I was wondering, electrical power doesn't have to go through a magic plug, you can hard wire two cables once you hack off the offending plug and socket.

Having actually worked with industrial equipment I'm calling ********. There is no *********** plug on those generators.

Quote:

Well, I've seen that happen often on rigs. It's usually fixable with a hacksaw and a new plug. Or ductape and rebar.
Remember the CO2 scrubbers on Apollo 13?

Head hurts immensely. That is a horribly stupid idea that has a good chance of completely destroying the cooling system.

WildCat · 14th March 2011, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I'm sure this has come up already but could someone tell me, in a nutshell, what was so disastrous about Three Mile Island.

Mostly, it happened right after the movie The China Syndrome came out.

Great for the movie, bad for nuclear power in the US.

eta: I see timhau already mentioned this.

MattusMaximus · 14th March 2011, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Has anyone here had the bogus fallout map that Snopes just debunked show up in their email?

I saw a copy of that sometime this weekend, and I knew it had to be crap. I'm glad that Snopes is on the case; I will pass this along.

Thunder · 14th March 2011, 11:50 AM

my friend posted this map on FB.

i ripped him a new one for it. my sister and her bf freaked when they saw it.

Thunder · 14th March 2011, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Seriously, thunder, it's perfectly safe. The doomsday crap peddled by practically all media outlets, even reputable ones, is scaremongering nonsense.

but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days?

14th March 2011, 09:23 AM	#281
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,220	So, the antipodal point is in the south atlantic off the coast of Uraguay. "The Uraguay Syndrome?"
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

14th March 2011, 09:24 AM	#282
Frank Newgent Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,682	Originally Posted by Skwinty Containment 1 is the Zircalloy cladding and you cannot flood inside that. Containment 2 is the pressure vessel which you can flood. Containment 3 is the concrete containment structure which can be directly flooded. Look at the cutaway drawing in the pdf file page 16. As far as I understand, fire trucks are pumping the sea water into containment and not recirculating this water. thanks
	__________________ Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski

14th March 2011, 09:24 AM	#283
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Thunder http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110314/...us_japan_quake so, if one or more of the cores does melt down due to lack of cooling..what is the probable result? A mess, contained inside the primary containment vessel at Fukushima. That and a really expensive cleanup effort. That's all. Quote: are there any dangers to folks in the rest of Asia and the west coast of North & South America? From the information I've been reading (from reputable sources - i.e. not the media), no. Quote: every morning I wake up, and the news gets worse. I suggest you stop watching the news, because they are making a mountain out of a molehill regarding the nuclear plant issue. If it puts your mind a bit more at ease, take a few minutes to read my blog post on the matter.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

14th March 2011, 09:29 AM	#285
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,186	Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer Fixed that I am an optimist.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 09:31 AM	#286
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,220	Originally Posted by bobdroege7 In my understanding the containments are in order the fuel pellets, the zircaloy cladding, the reactor coolant, the pressure vessel, the drywell, the containment dome and the vapor shield. It is my guess that the fuel pellets have swelled and the cladding on the pins may have burst. In any case, the fuel system itself may be damaged from the swelling. about 10 years ago, I spent some time at a facility that did research on fuel pin swelling. I was there for another purpose, but it was interesting to see how they studdied this phemonmina.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post Last edited by Alferd_Packer; 14th March 2011 at 09:33 AM.

14th March 2011, 09:26 AM	#284
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,355	Originally Posted by Java Man Obviously everyone is happy no more life was lost to radiation. But those reactors will have to be replaced. In the meantime there is a power shortage. Had that money been spent on upgrading them ten years ago with newer technology then those cores could be powered up again. Providing the needed energy. The money now needed to repair things would not need to be subdivided into cleaning and repairing melted cores. My "crisis" isn't a nuclear blowout. Which would be the most dire, extreme and undesired event. Nevertheless the current situation is quite a nightmare that could have been prevented if the cores were replaced with newer models. The Japanese are looking at quite an expense down the road and that's without a blowout. Well it would be good to decommission designs that can cause a meltdown in case of a cooling failure. Given we already have designs that work that way. And by safe I don't only mean a huge radioactive cloud. But safe in the knowledge that it's working ok, that it shutdown ok, that you can now reactivate it to power the grid in this crisis, etc etc etc. It retrospect it begins to look a lot cheaper and better to have gone through the expense of upgrading it. We can sure talk about that in another thread if you want to. The reactors were going to be replaced anyway as they were due to be decommisioned shortly. The additional costs of the cleanup might be economically disasterous for the power company but weren't you arguing that economic decisions are being made that affect safety? If the argument is that the company might have cost themselves more in the long run then you'd have to weigh up the cost of this one clean up vs the cost of upgrading/replacing and decommissioning the entire population of power plants every few years. This wasn't a nuclear blowout and several people have noted that wasn't through luck but through design. This 'disaster' hasn't been a disaster at all except for the fact that they are going to have to spend shedloads cleaning up the mess. I really doubt it would be cheaper to upgrade every power plant on a regular basis than to clean up the one problem that occurs once in a lifetime but I haven't seen the numbers, you might be right. In any case, if the worst we can say is that this is going to be a costly cleanup operation then the power plant design has done bloody well and is certainly 'safe'

14th March 2011, 09:33 AM	#287
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by angrysoba Not sure if anyone has put this up here yet: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...iima_analysis/ Discuss... I agree with this article, though - sadly - I think its sound advice could easily be lost amid the screeching and hyping spread by the media. Thanks for sharing!
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

14th March 2011, 09:41 AM	#288
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by Belz... That's weird logic. It is entirely illogical - just as pointing out that western plants have not malefunctioned so far -since my point was rather that thus far things went wrong because they were unforeseen rather than just unlikely. It seems as if German power plants would not be able to withstand a direct attack with a large passenger airplane: Not only did nobody think that this might happen, the idea alone was never conceived off, even though (!) they did think that somebody might run a fighter jet into a plant. Now the situation has changed and people are aware of the problem. New plants will be build even stronger and there is discussion about how one could protect existing power plants against such attacks. But the problem existed before someone was aware of it, the reactors were deemed "safe" and it simply turned out that they never were. I don't want to actually argue over what people knew and said before Chernobyl - this might just be my memory fooling me after all these years. I would simply like to see a more open discussion about the fact that we do not know every last risk. And just to make this very clear: I am still all for nuclear power.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

14th March 2011, 09:44 AM	#289
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,220	I wonder if anyone has any idea how the sea salts in the water will react with the fuel rods.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

14th March 2011, 09:47 AM	#290
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	The pellets will not dissolve in water, salt or clean. The reaction would probably be just cooling although the net effect of salt water will be accelerated corrosion of metal components. These plants will never be used again.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 09:48 AM	#291
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,220	another interesting question is this: Did the tsunami and the loss of auxilery power (and the subsequent explosions) impact the spent fuel pools also? Is there any risk for the fuel in these pools to overheat as well?
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

14th March 2011, 09:50 AM	#292
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,220	Originally Posted by Skwinty The pellets will not dissolve in water, salt or clean. The reaction would probably be just cooling although the net effect of salt water will be accelerated corrosion of metal components. These plants will never be used again. I was thinking along the lines of hot corrosion effects. Sea water contains a lot of iodine which can react with certain types of fuel cladding.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

14th March 2011, 09:51 AM	#293
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by Rasmus It is entirely illogical - just as pointing out that western plants have not malefunctioned so far -since my point was rather that thus far things went wrong because they were unforeseen rather than just unlikely. I don't think anyone is saying that "it never broke, therefore won't." so it sounds pretty strawmanlike to me.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

14th March 2011, 10:00 AM	#294
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by Belz... I don't think anyone is saying that "it never broke, therefore won't." so it sounds pretty strawmanlike to me. Post #219. My issue is this 1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system." 2. Chernobyl goes BOOM. 3. "Nuclear power in the west is reasonably safe, because unlike those plants you cannot induce a core melt either willfully or accidentally pressing any of the buttons in the contropl room." 4. Terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. 5. "Oops, we didn't see that coming, either ...." 6. Major earthquake and tsunami hit plant in Japan that then fails until the last line of defense. 7. "Oh, wait, hang on, we're still busy with the airplanes and terrorists here..." 8. "But anyway, it did not blow up and we didn't see all of that coming all at once and the last line of defense held like it should have, right? Also, we don't get tsunamis and earthquakes here." 9. - any bets on what will happen next ? - 10. "Oops, we totally didn't see that coming. We'll take care of it with the next design, though! Then we'll be safe!"
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

14th March 2011, 10:03 AM	#295
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,186	Nobody sane included Russian reactors in any discussion of nuclear safety.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 10:05 AM	#296
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	My thoughts are: The cladding is already reacting and producing hydrogen, heat and other products, so would the salt water have any extra effect, probably. If the fuel pools run dry then there is a possibility of meltdown if the storage racks are high density and there is enough residual heat left in the fuel. I would imagine that this possibility is being closely monitored.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 10:06 AM	#297
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by BenBurch Nobody sane included Russian reactors in any discussion of nuclear safety. I just don't remember them being excluded ever, either. That only happened after one blew up.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,138	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

14th March 2011, 10:07 AM	#298
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,186	Originally Posted by Rasmus I just don't remember them being excluded ever, either. That only happened after one blew up. Your memory is faulty. We could not speak to Russian plants because we could not know their details.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 10:20 AM	#299
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus A mess, contained inside the primary containment vessel at Fukushima. That and a really expensive cleanup effort. That's all. i hope you are right.

14th March 2011, 10:26 AM	#300
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,119	Originally Posted by Thunder i hope you are right. Seriously, thunder, it's perfectly safe. The doomsday crap peddled by practically all media outlets, even reputable ones, is scaremongering nonsense.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

14th March 2011, 10:29 AM	#301
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,186	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan Seriously, thunder, it's perfectly safe. The doomsday crap peddled by practically all media outlets, even reputable ones, is scaremongering nonsense. YES. The worst that could happen is tiny compared to what already has and is happening all over Japan.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 10:29 AM	#302
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by Rasmus 1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system." 2. Chernobyl goes BOOM. I don't think they were talking about nuclear plants they couldn't know anything about. Quote: 3. "Nuclear power in the west is reasonably safe, because unlike those plants you cannot induce a core melt either willfully or accidentally pressing any of the buttons in the contropl room." 4. Terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. Trying to see the relationship between 3 and 4... Quote: 8. "But anyway, it did not blow up and we didn't see all of that coming all at once and the last line of defense held like it should have, right? Also, we don't get tsunamis and earthquakes here." Isn't it rather "so things worked out but we're still going to upgrade them to withstand something more dangerous." ? Quote: 10. "Oops, we totally didn't see that coming. We'll take care of it with the next design, though! Then we'll be safe!" Nonsense. There can ALWAYS be something that happens, no matter how safe you are. If this is what you're arguing against you're in a losing battle.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

14th March 2011, 10:32 AM	#303
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,329	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Well, I've seen that happen often on rigs. It's usually fixable with a hacksaw and a new plug. Or ductape and rebar. Remember the CO2 scrubbers on Apollo 13? That's what I was wondering, electrical power doesn't have to go through a magic plug, you can hard wire two cables once you hack off the offending plug and socket.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

14th March 2011, 10:39 AM	#304
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,683	Originally Posted by Thunder every morning I wake up, and the news gets worse. Unless you went to sleep on Thursday and slept all through the weekend. More than 10,000 people died in a terrible earthquake and the resultant tsunami, nearly 2000 homes were washed into the ocean when a dam broke near Sukagawa, a burning oil refinery releases chemicals into the air and into the ground, and the media is treating the Fukushima reactor as if it's the main news.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

14th March 2011, 10:41 AM	#305
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,119	Originally Posted by Rasmus Post #219. My issue is this 1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system." 2. Chernobyl goes BOOM. Chernobyl only went boom because the lazy [rule 10]ers who worked there decided they couldn't be bothered with safety protocols because they thought it was too much of a hassle, compounded by the containment being absolutely awfully built. Frankly, the only reason people didn't bring up Chernobyl as a possible safety issue for nuclear power is because the Soviet Union wasn't exactly the most open nation in the world. A single, Soviet nuclear plant built in the 1950's with substandard safety features that were ignored anyway isn't an argument. The current "issue" in Japan is a perfect example of why nuclear power is absolutely safe. A power plant built what, 10 years after Chernobyl? It managed to withstand an earthquake far in advance of any that it was built to withstand, followed by aftershocks, and then a tsunami for goodness sake and the safety features, now 40 years out of date, worked.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

14th March 2011, 10:49 AM	#306
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Skwinty The pellets will not dissolve in water, salt or clean. The reaction would probably be just cooling although the net effect of salt water will be accelerated corrosion of metal components. These plants will never be used again. That's what I heard some expert say on the TV news last night, as I was cooking dinner. That they are flooding with seawater means they'll never use the plants again, due to the corrosive nature of seawater.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

14th March 2011, 10:52 AM	#307
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,186	Chernobyl did not have a containment. It had what we would have called a confinement structure. Now, not all reactors need a containment; The 10,000 W and less research reactors, for example. But Chernobyl was a very large reactor.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th March 2011, 11:11 AM	#308
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan The current "issue" in Japan is a perfect example of why nuclear power is absolutely safe. A power plant built what, 10 years after Chernobyl? It managed to withstand an earthquake far in advance of any that it was built to withstand, followed by aftershocks, and then a tsunami for goodness sake and the safety features, now 40 years out of date, worked. I think we can finally agree on something !
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

14th March 2011, 11:15 AM	#309
Skwinty Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The far side Posts: 4,972	Yes, the use of sea water is the last option for cooling. I have worked at a nuclear power station since 1984. The station is a first generation PWR made by Framatome. Original designer was Westinghouse. There are 2 X 960MW units and the entire nuclear island is built on a seismic raft. There are seismic fault lines near Cape Town, but have been inactive for many years. The plant was also designed to withstand a tsunami of average 8m and max of 14m waves. The plant is continually modified as technology progresses and will have it's life extended beyond 40 years. (currently achieved 26 years of safe operation) The pipe work for use of sea water as emergency cooling has been in place since conception, so it is not a new idea. There are many redundant systems in place that need to be exhausted first though.
	__________________ What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin

14th March 2011, 11:21 AM	#310
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Reading the Wikipedia page on Chernobyl, they mention a recent study that mentions "985,000" deaths resulting from the incident. Isn't that like 100 times more than liberal estimates used to say ? Is that even possible ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

14th March 2011, 11:26 AM	#311
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Has anyone here had the bogus fallout map that Snopes just debunked show up in their email?

14th March 2011, 11:29 AM	#312
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,759	Just watched a news stuff on TV. Their take : "expert are unanimous : in the worst case scenario this could be worst than chernobyl" (image shown : a nuclear reactor exploding litterally and the beton building burning). At least I know those guy are clown now.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

14th March 2011, 11:36 AM	#313
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,683	Originally Posted by Aepervius Just watched a news stuff on TV. Their take : "expert are unanimous : in the worst case scenario this could be worst than chernobyl" It could be way worse than Chernobyl. What if aliens attack tomorrow and it's all going to be like Independence Day without the computer virus?
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

14th March 2011, 11:36 AM	#314
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,119	I love my BBC. It's a respectable, fairly honest and good quality news outlet and I'm proud of it, but the unbelievable crap it's spewing about this plant is making me write a letter of complaint.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

14th March 2011, 11:37 AM	#315
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,119	Originally Posted by BenBurch Chernobyl did not have a containment. It had what we would have called a confinement structure. . I was under the impression this was containment. Since it isn't, this scaremongering is even more insane. What experts are being asked about this and what questions are they being asked, I wonder to make the news people scream about the sky falling in?
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.