tigerbaywarrior

Drawing comparisons between this disaster and Chernobyl is wrong.

Chernobyl was an industrial building that was converted to a Nuclear plant. None of the design of that building was geared towards running a nuclear reaction. The equipment installed was prone to breakdowns and was obviously not well maintained.

The Japanese reactors were purpose built with safegaurds in place. I think we are lucky to have got this far without a serious accident although it is still a ticking timebomb.

Mother nature has a knack of changing the rules when planning your disaster recovery and disaster backup. I guess the engineers will need to get back to the drawing board. Hopefully they can learn something from this terrible tradegy.

Sally Redux

Like canning the whole stupid idea, hopefully.

N1cky

Same as the people who built the 2 around Los Angeles that are both on fault lines. Apparantly Diablo is built to withstand a 7.5 quake.

Sally Redux

Adios amigos

meauxna

I just got the following email from the beach:

There is increasing community concern re: the potential for radiation exposure in Oregon and Clatsop County as a result of the situation in Japan. At this time there is NO risk to Oregonians including residents of Clatsop County. Attached are two information sheets (Q&A and Fact Sheet) from the Public Health Division updated 3/14/2011. Clatsop County Department of Public Health will continue to provide the community with updated information as it becomes available. Please feel free to forward this information.

Thank you,

Margo


Additional information can be found at the following websites:
http://public.health.oregon.gov/Prep...ges/index.aspx

http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/index.asp



There have been a couple of articles in the local paper; I guess I'm not the only one who worried about radiation coming across the Pacific. Word is, it would not pose a problem to us on the West Coast.

Michael

Although I agree that it is unwise to build nuclear power plants anywhere along the west coast and Alaska, the chance of a tsunami occurring because of an earthquake in southern California is highly unlikely. Primarily because of the Cascadia fault 800 miles away, they built a 25' high wall to protect the plants from a possible tsunami.

The reason that the possibility of a tsunami is highly unlikely in southern California is that faults along the southern California coast are slip faults and not subduction (thrust) faults. A slip fault doesn't displace water so it doesn't produce a tsunami.

On the other hand, the Cascadia fault along Washington and Oregon is a subduction fault along with the faults near Japan.

N1cky

Has the failure in Japan been caused by the earthquake or the tsunami?

Michael

I agree that the nuclear plants are likely performing as well as can be expected without any power available but there appears to be misinformation or lack of information given out by the power company and Japanese government.

For example, reactors 4, 5, and 6 were supposed to have been shutdown well before the earthquake occurred for maintainance but all of a sudden there is a fire in reactor 4. The information given out was that it was just a grease fire outside the containment vessel. However, a day after the fire, they are now saying that the core has been exposed and they are having problems covering the core with water and is likely in a similar situation as reactor 2.

Then today the Japanese government made statements that they are looking at the possibility of flying helicopters loaded with water and dumping the water on the reactors. Unless the core is exposed, which they claim is not the case for any of the reactors, that wouldn't accomplish anything.

Maybe they meant that they are looking into the possibility of ferrying water to the site and the water will be used to pump it into the reactors.

Therefore when misinformation or lack of information is given out, people and newsmen speculate.

Sally Redux

"Though damaging tsunamis have occurred infrequently in California, they are a possibility that must be considered in coastal, and even deep-lake shoreline, communities. There are two sources for California tsunamis, based on distance and warning time"

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/g..._Tsunamis.aspx

Also if what Nicky says is correct, an earthquake with a greater magnitude than 7.5 is a distinct possibility here.

Bluegrass Lass

My understanding was that is was more caused by the tsunami because the waves knocked out the backup generators. If the backup generators had been located elsewhere, like possibly a roof, then we could speculate that perhaps this whole mess could have been avoided.

SultanOfSwing

Just because plant 4 was shut down (ie not generating power) doesn't mean that the fuel wasn't still emitting radiation and generating heat. They can switch off the turbines, but you can't stop the fuel itself (as I'm sure you know). You get hit with a 9.0 earthquake, and something that is generating heat touches something else, fires will start.

I'm sorry - I know I sound like I'm a patronising f**kwad, and I'll hold my hand up to that but I don't see this as a case against nuclear power. Rather I see it as a spotlight of how bloody well engineered this thing was in the first place that it could go through this quake/tsunami and be in as (relatively) good condition as it is.

I've stated elsewhere, that for clean power there are many alternatives. But for now, waste containment notwithstanding, for pure CO2 emissions elimination, nuclear is doing its thing right now. Ironically solar power is provided by the biggest nuclear fusion reactor in our immediate vicinity but I digress .

I'll concur that misinformation = speculation but cut the Japanese some slack - they're rebuilding after major damage to their infrastructure, they can be excused a few mistakes in reporting.

Michael

Mostly by the tsunami. Prior to the earthquake the plant was getting electricity for the power generated by the plant but started the shutdown for safety reasons due to the earthquake. The plants were then supposed to shift to external electrical power but that was knocked out by the earthquake so the diesel generators started up to provide the power. Then about 15 minutes later, the tsunami breached the 25' protection wall and destroyed the diesel generators which caused the battery backup to start supplying the power. About eight hours later, the battery backup died.

Normally it was assumed that the generators could be fixed within a few hours if they had problems but with the generators covered with mud and debris, that was impossible. Even airlifting new generators would be difficult or impossible since the old ones would new to be dug out with heavy equipment which isn't available.

Therefore the problems are caused by the lack of power to run the water pumps and controls.

It is likely that there wouldn't be any problems if they didn't attempt a shutdown. The shutdown was done to check for damage to the plants.

Bob

No alternatives on a cost effect analysis....They don't' have natural resources and have a need far greater than they can buy in.

Plus environmental disaster front, sure it's bad when it kicks off, and it all happens very quickly, but over a power plant life time, less deaths than a regular plant, miners per year, cancerous fumes from regular fossil sources etc.

N1cky

So potentially a powerful quake could take down the back-up generators, it wouldn't necessarily take a tsunami to take out the plant. If they say it can withstand up to 7.5, they presumably think it couldn't take a 8.9, a tsunami has nothing to do with the effect it could have.

I read on the BBC that plant 4 was storing the rods in what they describe as being like a swimming pool. Not being able to continually pump in water has resulted in the pool drying up.

Michael

Highly unlikely unless the plant is sitting over a fault and the earth splits or the building collapses on the generators. No plant can survive an earthquake where the fault is directly under the plant and the earth splits at that spot.

Also I believe when they say that the nuclear plants in southern California can withstand a 7.5 earthquake, it is assumed that the epic center is at the nearest point on the closest fault. If the epic center is further away, it should be able to withstand a greater magnitude quake.