Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Japan nuclear power stations

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Japan nuclear power stations

Old 21st Jun 2011, 06:34
  #721 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
And look at the dock workers union

Fears of radioactive cars in Australia | News.com.au

fallout-ravaged Asian nation
great reporting
rh200 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 08:35
  #722 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 37
Posts: 13
I'm pretty sure a shipping container filled with bananas forms a bigger radiation hazard than these cars And did anyone ever bother to measure coal for radioactivity? It makes a Geiger counter go nuts because of the many radioactive substances in it. It should also be noted that exposure limits have been set far too low to be realistic due to pressure from environment groups. This means that even the 250 mSv limit set for workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is unlikely to change their cancer prospects in the slightest. Sunbathing still forms a more significant risk
Elledan is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2011, 13:53
  #723 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,863
Uncertainty in the Japanese nuclear industry.

BBC News - Sellafield plant to cut 600 posts
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2011, 14:36
  #724 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 81
I dont think the MOXplant at Sellafield has ever made money but there are others who post here that may ha ve better info .
HuntandFish is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2011, 15:34
  #725 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: WA
Posts: 65
Record levels of radioactivity
Record radiation level at Japan nuclear plant - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English
heated ice detector is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2011, 05:09
  #726 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,291
What about the organic mung bean situation in Germany? Statistics don't lie - they're more dangerous than 33 Fukishimas ....
reynoldsno1 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2011, 11:05
  #727 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 501
Yamagata Ken, dreadful stuff on BBC news report from Tsunami affected areas this morning; quite apart from the harrowing conditions the survivors are having to live in, those whose houses were destroyed have been told that they still have to pay off their mortgages!
27mm is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2012, 07:01
  #728 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,863
One of Japan's crippled nuclear reactors still has fatally high radiation levels and hardly any water to cool it,
The other two reactors that had meltdowns could be in worse condition.
Plant officials previously said more than half of the melted fuel had breached the core and dropped to the floor of the primary containment vessel, some of it splashing against the wall or the floor.
The probe also found that the containment vessel - a beaker-shaped container enclosing the core - had cooling water up to only 60cm from the bottom, far below the 10 metres estimated when the government declared the plant stable.
Three Dai-ichi reactors had meltdowns, but the No 2 reactor is the only one that has been examined because radiation levels inside the reactor building are relatively low and its container is designed with a convenient slot to send in the endoscope.
The exact conditions of the other two reactors, where hydrogen explosions damaged their buildings, are still unknown. Simulations have indicated that more fuel inside No 1 has breached the core than the other two,
The data showed the damage from the disaster was so severe the plant operator will have to develop special equipment and technology to tolerate the harsh environment and decommission the plant, a process expected to last decades.
From (and more at):-
Reactor radiation fatally high - UK & World News - News - JournalLive
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2012, 14:31
  #729 (permalink)  
cheerful pessimist
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fenland
Posts: 70
A report has been released into the disaster planning at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

The Register has been looking into it:
Fukushima operator feared shutdown if risks revealed ? The Register

Here is the pdf:
eticket is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2012, 15:07
  #730 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
I've just been to a interesting presentation by a very senior Japanese guy involved with the Japanese Tsunami. The following points came out.

The Japanese Government had been in denial for along time about risks. This year, a Government risk assessment for a Japanese south coast tsunami has a predicted death toll 13 times larger than the previous study. They claim it's based on new data, but fundamentally it isn't.

The risk of legal action has been a strong driver for concealing information. There is no proposed legislation to make politicians or senior management liable for deliberate concealment of information. Anyone think that the situation will therefore change much?

This chap has 30 years experience dealing with major disasters. It was his opinion that, at best, one can cope with 10% more than you planned for. Thus only planning for small emergencies (because you downplayed the risk) pretty much guarantees you will be overwhelmed by a big one.

There is an awful lot of rubble left behind, and much of it in the Fukushima area will need to be decontaminated.

The great problem in the energy world is the lack of awareness of true whole product costs. Factor in the Invasion of Iraq into the cost of oil and it gets somewhat more expensive - and let's face it, Kuwait would currently be the 13th province of Iraq if it hadn't got any oil. Coal-fired plants cause lung diseases, 100,000 km2 of Eastern Europe is contaminated, and wild game meat in Germany is still banned from use 26 years later Rare earth metals in renewable energy components come 95% from China, and their environmental record leaves a bit to be desired.

What we need is some honest whole cycle analysis, and disaster planning based on all the evidence. Sadly I don't think we are going to get it any time soon.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2014, 10:01
  #731 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: usa
Posts: 0
Meanwhile, unlike japan, nuclear waste spot is mainly used to treat low-level radioactive materials from EDF’s power plants, as well as some medical research and hospital waste. None of it, company spokesperson Carole Trivi said, comes from weapons manufacturing, The Nuclear Safety Authority also said that the plant personnel acted in accordance with written safety procedures. No quarantine or evacuation was required. Read more: Explosion in French nuclear facility kills one, injures four
johnny_smith is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2015, 18:02
  #732 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
TEPCO, the company running Fukushima, has delivered a litany of lies since tbis thing happened. The press releases are jokes when read in chronological order after the fact.

One day: "There was no explosion, it was a release of steam.
Next day (after photos emerge of a destroyed building) "There was an explosion but no radiation was released".
etc etc

On a brighter note for our readers on the US West Coast..

Originally Posted by Tokyo Electric Power Company Press Release, January 12, 2015
For pumping water groundwater observation hole No.1-12 taken on January 12, cesium 134, cesium 137, cobalt 60 and total beta value is higher as compared with the previous value,.

Cesium-134: 140 Bq/L [~7,500% above Jan. 5 2015 level; new record high]
Cesium-137: 470 Bq/L [~7,500% above Jan. 5 2015 level; new record high]
Cobalt-60: 1.9 Bq/L [Quadruple previous record high set in 2013]
β (all beta): 15,000 Bq/L [~6,000% above Jan. 8 2015 level; ~1,300% above previous record high]

Reference: last time (January 8 2015)
Cesium-134: 2.8 Bq / L
Cesium 137: 7.8 Bq / L
Cobalt 60: less than detection limit
β (all beta): 260 Bq / L

Note those readings were taken 5 days ago. For reference, WHO considers 28Bq/L the limit for 'safe' drinking water for Cesium.

Oh, and all that 'groundwater' is going straight into the North Pacific, they cant seem to fix the leaks.. Engineer: Outright failures continue to plague Fukushima plant ? ?Public may think worst is over? Nothing could be further from the truth? ? Japan TV: New method failing to stop flow of highly contaminated water ? Experts: ?Diluting? radiation in oce

They predicted 5 years to hit the West Coast, seems its arrived a bit early
Radiation from Fukushima is reaching the West Coast ? but you don?t need to freak out - The Washington Post

Pity they are only just setting records in 2015 though.

p.s Japanese, you live on a tectonic fault line. If you can't build earthquake and tsunami proof nuclear power plants, please don't build any. Thanks.
Hempy is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2015, 18:31
  #733 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
Well said that man.
glad rag is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2015, 20:56
  #734 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
Yaaawn, a bit more anti nuclear hysteria. Radiation, love it, most natural stuff in the universe, like every thing else, to much of it is a bad thing.

50 to 100 years time nuclear power plants will be popping up like toadstills. Just look at France, sitting around laughing at the so called CO2 problem of other countrys.
rh200 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2015, 02:11
  #735 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Thank you for that insightful input Dr Curie. Care to reason your assertions or is it just your 'expert opinion'?
Hempy is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2015, 02:18
  #736 (permalink)  
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,822
28Bq/L the limit for 'safe' drinking water
It helps to understand why the numbers are chosen. Also, limits are radionuclide-specific. So, off-hand, the Canadian limit of Cs137 is 10 Bq/L, but the limit for all uraniums is 7000 Bq/L. While the WHO limit for Cs 137 and Cs 134 is 10 Bq/L, the limit for, say, H3 and Be7 is up at 10,000 Bq/L and even U231 is 1000 Bq/L. Basically, if it's naturally occurring, the limits are high because no-one can do anything about it.

In various jurisdictions the total legal load for drinking water ranges from 0 Bq/L (unenforced) to 22,000 Bq/L or more. The latter limit was set in the 1970's, and would have been revised upwards to 60,000 Bq/L except it was regarded as politically difficult.

If 28 Bq/L gets you foaming, you'll poop yourself when you learn about bananas and brazil nuts.
Bushfiva is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2015, 08:29
  #737 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
Thank you for that insightful input Dr Curie. Care to reason your assertions or is it just your 'expert opinion'?
Its rather simple logic, if we are to continue economically developing and bringing poor counties forward, we need sh!t loads of power. There's only a few technology which are viable at the moment to provide long term stable humongous base load.

If we look at Mankinds total energy usage today, about 2 or so Terrawatts and multiply that by a factor of 2 or 3, it gets frightning.

So at the moment there is only, coal, gas or Nuclear that can provide obscene amounts of power, reliably. We see that with forward projections from China and India. Yes they are getting into renewable, but as a percentage of total usage it just won't cut it.

France is already on a for all intents and purposes greenhouse gas free economy, why Nuclear power drives the vast majority of the power usage. If we think we need to radically cut back on greenhouse gases in a big way, there really no other technology for the foreseeable future.
rh200 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2015, 08:46
  #738 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 76
Posts: 723
France: Drive up the Rhone valley or look out of the TGV windows as you speed along and count the number of nuclear power stations you pass. Then ask yourself how many of them are nearing end of life. Then look at the French economy and wonder where the money is going to come from to decommission them and build new ones.

50 to 100 years time nuclear power plants will be popping up like toadstills.

True. And reading about the problems Africans are having through lack of maintenance of non-nuclear power stations, I'm glad I won't be around then.
OFSO is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2015, 09:16
  #739 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 751
In Japan many are afraid of the cavalier attitude of the power authorities, and the nuclear lobby that smooths things over. 100km x 80km of land (8,000 sq km) in the north east has been rendered virtually uninhabitable already. Hamaoka NPP is the really scary scenario-in-waiting.

People should also be more afraid (than they are) that China is presently building 75 new reactors just upwind of them. South Korea discovered in recent years that many of their plants were built with cheap parts stamped with false certification, causing those at the top to step down.

Loads of cheap Nuclear power looks great on paper.
jolihokistix is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.