TheDon Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 If anything, it appears as though day by day my initial fears are becoming closer to reality. They say some of it is now exposed? Seemingly this is now a '6' on whatever scale they use, where Chernobyl was a '7'. There's talk of them maybe needing a new scale. "exposed" = not covered in water, not exposed exposed. The problems are with reactor 2, where for some reason they didn't vent the hydrogen containing steam away from the reactor into the building but instead into the torus, where it ignited compromising the integrity of the containment vessel, and reactor 4, where the spent fuel pool is heating up, presumably because the spent rods are exposed. It sounds to me like the problems with reactor 4 are due to them potentially not paying the spent rods as much attention as they should have, they've been on a long shut down so they may have wrongly assumed they were cold and stable, when there was still enough residual heat to boil away the water and cause the casings to melt. The reactor 2 issues the only real serious one though, all the others are relatively easy to deal with by just throwing water at them, reactor 2 though, if the containment vessel has been compromised (and if it has there are SERIOUS questions to answer over why the steam was vented into the torus rather than out of the containment vessel like the other reactors) is a much more tricky situation. The scale is the "International Nuclear Event Scale", you can't really get higher than a 7 as 7 is a major event, any higher would be "oh shit we've just wiped ourselves out". The incident was initially categorised as level 4 by the Japanese, which is an "Accident With Local Consequences", the French feel it should be a 6, which is a "Serious Accident". The Japanese are more right than the French, three mile island was only a 5, and this has no where near that level of nuclear release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracker1234 Posted March 16, 2011 Author Share Posted March 16, 2011 Video of Japan's Shinmoedake volcano erupting. Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 16, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2011 "exposed" = not covered in water, not exposed exposed. That's not what I heard yesterday. I understand the very important distinction between the 2. My point is that I heard on the radio that there was proper exposure and that "they might need a new scale for this". Haven't they now even pulled the skeleton crew (pun intended) emergency shift out of one of the areas because not even minimal work can now be done. I think both sides of the opinion are opining on different timelines. I am commenting on the inevitable; on pro-actively getting out because of what could very well happen. Others are commenting on the current state of affairs with little thought for extrapolating that outward. As I said, it is getting worse from day to day and each time it does, it gets closer to what I asked in the first place. Put it this way, if you lived over there would you be comfortable to stay just on the periphery of the exclusion zone the government has advised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 "exposed" = not covered in water, not exposed exposed. That's not what I heard yesterday. I understand the very important distinction between the 2. My point is that I heard on the radio that there was proper exposure and that "they might need a new scale for this". Haven't they now even pulled the skeleton crew (pun intended) emergency shift out of one of the areas because not even minimal work can now be done. I think both sides of the opinion are opining on different timelines. I am commenting on the inevitable; on pro-actively getting out because of what could very well happen. Others are commenting on the current state of affairs with little thought for extrapolating that outward. As I said, it is getting worse from day to day and each time it does, it gets closer to what I asked in the first place. Put it this way, if you lived over there would you be comfortable to stay just on the periphery of the exclusion zone the government has advised? The only primary containment vessel that might have been breached is reactor 2, which still isn't full on exposure as there's still the outer containment in place. They pulled the workers out of reactor 4 due to the rods in the spent fuel pool being exposed. Fuel pools work differently to reactors, the only thing seperating them from the workers is water. It's literally a huge deep pool of water with the fuel rods at the bottom. The water is enough to stop the radiation so people work around the fuel pool. Because the water level dropped it was no longer safe to work there, so workers were pulled out. The building should still contain the nuclear material, but was no longer safe to work in until they get the rods back under water. It's not really getting worse though. Reactors 1 and 3 are completely under control. Reactor 2 very much depends on the level of damage to the torus, there's nothing that says it's been fully breached, if it is then that's an oh shit situation right there, but even the the worst case then isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl. I'm not saying people shouldn't get away, right at the start I said that the government information was entirely appropriate to the risks, the exclusion zones are there for a reason, people in them should move out of them. I certainly wouldn't stay within them, but I wouldn't be too worried if I lived outside of them either. On the scale of what could go wrong they're not at the top end, not be a long shot. There really is no way they'll need a new scale because the possibility of nuclear material being spread over huge areas a la Chernobyl just isn't there, there's just no way for an explosion or fire to occur within the reactor that that'd need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 16, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2011 There really is no way they'll need a new scale because the possibility of nuclear material being spread over huge areas a la Chernobyl just isn't there, there's just no way for an explosion or fire to occur within the reactor that that'd need.I obviously hope you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 That's not saying there can't be harmful levels of radiation spread over localised areas though The fuel rods at reactor 4 probably have the best chance of spreading harmful levels of radiation, from what I understand there's less capability there to get more water in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 ^^^^^^^^^^ Breaking news - Radiation really high, not good. FO saying get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Yeah, it's reactor 4 that's causing the issues. Spent fuel rod pool is completely dry. Schoolboy error right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Yeah, it's reactor 4 that's causing the issues. Spent fuel rod pool is completely dry. Schoolboy error right there. Yeah i'm sure the nuclear scientists working on it were not doing everything they can and need some help from internet experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted March 16, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted March 16, 2011 Yeah, it's reactor 4 that's causing the issues. Spent fuel rod pool is completely dry. Schoolboy error right there. Yeah i'm sure the nuclear scientists working on it were not doing everything they can and need some help from internet experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Yeah, it's reactor 4 that's causing the issues. Spent fuel rod pool is completely dry. Schoolboy error right there. Yeah i'm sure the nuclear scientists working on it were not doing everything they can and need some help from internet experts. to be fair, he is 'TheDon'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Yeah, it's reactor 4 that's causing the issues. Spent fuel rod pool is completely dry. Schoolboy error right there. Yeah i'm sure the nuclear scientists working on it were not doing everything they can and need some help from internet experts. Well, their nuclear scientists will be saying exactly the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I've been out the house since 7am so just catching up on latest developments. Maybe it's not such a good idea to switch the news on! Chatting to a client earlier who is married to a Japanese girl & asking how her family was as I know they are from Tokyo. As it happens his in laws are flying out for a couple of weeks to the UK for a holiday this weekend, but everyone is obviously very concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Bloody hell with each day the situation at the damned nuclear plant just gets worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Seems like they're dropping water on it now, I thought that was supposed to be a bad idea given the steam reaction only further damages the containers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 That's not saying there can't be harmful levels of radiation spread over localised areas though The fuel rods at reactor 4 probably have the best chance of spreading harmful levels of radiation, from what I understand there's less capability there to get more water in. How about reactor 3, which I gather is where the most toxic material is? What happens if that reignites? Are the helicopters actually having any effect? I read that each pool holds 2,000 tonnes, they need to be about a third full, and the helicopter drops 7.5 tons, most of which from the video seems to miss the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracker1234 Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 Reuters Reuters Top News FLASH: Emergency crew at Japanese nuclear plant temporarily calls off spraying reactor no.3 with water cannon due to high radiation - NHK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 SKY News's coverage of this is pathetic. Its not a **** film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Seems like they're dropping water on it now, I thought that was supposed to be a bad idea given the steam reaction only further damages the containers? And more importantly, thats what caused the problem in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 17, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2011 Perhaps they should drop a bomb on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts