Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (March 11, 2011)

[helois]

i know that this request is quite indifferent to the nuclear effects,but i ask for a link with the anime and manga people safe..

i'm so worried..

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by helois

i know that this request is quite indifferent to the nuclear effects,but i ask for a link with the anime and manga people safe..

i'm so worried..

This link has info on all the mangakas and other celebs whose safety was confirmed and not confirmed:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?a...Q&f=true&gid=1

EDIT: Having checked it again, it is indeed up to date

[Jeffry2009]

This charity concert for Japan earthquake was held by Taro Hakase at London Mitsukoshi.

[helois]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

This link has info on all the mangakas and other celebs whose safety was confirmed and not confirmed:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?a...Q&f=true&gid=1

EDIT: Having checked it again, it is indeed up to date

thank you vey much...

so what i've heard is true..

Kentario Miura unconfirmed safe..

[Random32]

Originally Posted by omimon

I'm no nuclear scientist here so I want to pose a question. Is it possible to just completely shut down the nuclear plants and take out all the "nuclear" stuff? I mean if you can destroy everything and start from scratch it's better than people dying.

No. They are shut down automatically when the quake starts, but it takes a long time to cool down. If you want to see the cold shutdown process without any major problems, look at Fukushima Daini. I think they are at cold shutdown for 3 out of their 4 reactors as of now, though I haven't really been keeping track.

[-Sho-]

Omg , so much unconfirmed mangakas....
Keep strong in mind and soul japanese people...

[RRW]

IAEA head says core damage at units 1-3 of Japan's quake-hit nuclear plant confirmed, situation very serious via Reuters

[-Sho-]

Yeah saw it too and lot of people say it too...

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by rrw

Spoiler for .:

Nuclear engineer Emilio Baglietto sees the situation in Tokyo not yet as dangerous. He happened to be there when the earthquake took place and has not fled, like many foreigners in Tokyo. The sinking of the nuclear Fukushima Dai'ichi inspires no fear in the Italian working in New York. "There is no risk in Tokyo, although I would advise anyone outside Japan to temporarily wait until this is over, prior to travel to Tokyo," Baglietto said by telephone from Tokyo.

Baglietto is on familiar territory ever since he finished his PhD at the Tokyo Instute of Technology. Now he works in the U.S. for a supplier to the nuclear industry. "The work in nuclear reactors consists for 90 percent preparing for problems and accidents, so a reactor under all conditions can be shut down properly, so an accident like this never occurs. We should've never had this situation. "

How could this accident then happen?
"Because they were prepared for a tsunami of five meters, but a wave of ten meters hit them. And because it is forty years old reactors of the first generation. The more modern reactor close to Fuskushima was hit just as hard but there are no major problems. These reactors are of a old generation. The reactors at Fukushima anyway Dai'ichi were about to be turned off forever. "

What is the problem with Dai'ichi?
"After the power went out in the earthquake the diesel generators took over. But they did not survive the tsunami, however. The fuel tanks were washed away. A second backup system - batteries - lasted only eight hours. In the meantime we needed a new solution, but because of the enormous damage it did not work in time. Modern reactors have emergency cooling systems that can function even without electricity. "

"In the meantime, the water level was so low that hydrogen was formed in the heat. Second structural problem: the security enclosure around the reactor vessel is so small that the pressure inside to overheat quickly became too high and they had to let steam escape. It was also extremely flammable gas that exploded and the roof of the building was blown off. A modern reactor has a larger case so that excess pressure is not as fast and more time for such a problem." "Now they've chosen the ultimate remedy: salt water inside pump."

The safety cabinet of Unit 2 would be damaged.
"This morning there was a hydrogen explosion. Probably in view of the security cabinet and the sound pressure measurements. Certainty about this we don't have. That problem should be solved, even though there are no dangerous radiation from the reactor. "

And the problems with the fuel tank used in reactor 4?
"At 4 reactor today there was - for a short period - a dangerous level of radiation: 400 mSv. If you stay two hours in that you're gonna be pretty sick. But that radiation was soon back to normal and probably caused by the fire. " "The point at reactor four is that they must ensure that the spent fuel rods underwater. There is nothing wrong. "

Which reactor is the most dangerous?
"Reactor 4 has the maximum radiation included, but as an engineer, I consider the damage to the security housing unit 2 as the greatest defeat for our profession. That should never have happened. "
"I am not worried. Why not? Because these reactors can not explode like Chernobyl. They can not throw large quantities of radioactive material into the air. "

But the damage to No. 2?
"We are dealing with steam with a low level of radioactivity to escape. No core that is thrown into the air by an explosion. Fukushima and Chernobyl are not comparable. "

Are there human errors in play or was this entirely the cause of this accident?
"As far as I can see the people in the facilities made no mistake. Those who want to point an accusing finger should focus on the engineers who were unable to imagine a tsunami of about ten meters high. "

Why was Prime Minister Naoto Kan today so angry at TEPCO?
"Lack of communication. The Prime Minister had to hear on television this morning that there was a new fire in the plant. TEPCO provides no continuous flow of information, including dates of radioactivity. They occasionally give a press conference when it suits them. "

Elitist arrogance?
"Partly. I also think they're just overloaded/overworked because they have so much information on so many different agencies to give. The quality of the information is good. I do not think they're actually withholding information on purpose."

Are current levels of radiation deadly? Or could babies be affected by this?
"No. These are levels that are lower than what can affect your health. "

But the 400 mSv?
Only if you're in it for a long time. But that peak lasted only briefly. There are speculated to be nine employees of the plant that are removed now because they have a certain maximum radiation exposure levels."

What is the worst possible scenario?
"Another 400 millisievert releasing from of one of the tanks."

The basins are not more dangerous than that?
"They are more exposed to the air than the fuel in the reactor vessels, but as long as the basins are filled with water and the fuel rods will not break, there is no radiation hazard. In reactor 4 there the problems were probably due to lack of water and heat a rod broke so some gas was released. Hence the short burst of radioactivity. "

What happens next?
"The point is that the water levels are good, the cooling is ok and no radioactivity released. When the reactors will be turned off completely once the whole region of contamination and radiation surveys. I just think the immediate perimeter. In Tokyo today, we had a nivea radiation of 0.0002 mSv. That's four times the normal level, but still lower than the radiation that a person undergoes a chest x-ray. "

Is this accident fundamentally going to change the debate about nuclear energy?
Definitely. And rightfully so. The choice for or against nuclear energie should always be taken on the basis of a properly though-out energy policy. Not because someone thinks nuclear energy is 'nice'."

While preparations had been underway, the Defense Ministry has decided to hold off on sending helicopters up into the air to drop water down on the reactors in an attempt to cool them off. It is believed that prohibitively high amounts of radiation in the vicinity of the power plant is the main reason behind this change of heart.

This is exactly what I don't like about people who just studied the technical side of nuclear power plants. They trivialize how radiation affects health. Some of them surely know that not just the quantity of radiation is a factor but also the quality (alpha, beta gamma rays... heavy vs. light isotopes... isotopes that remain very long in biological organisms after they came into the organsim by air, water or food).

He is very good with the technical side of the incident, but the trivialized health effects reduce the overall quality of the analysis. The view of the health risk ends with an analysis of short time exposures, but the long term effects do not seem to care. (Now I am not saying that Tokyo is in the risk zone... but as I already mentioned in one of my first comments... if I was living near the reactor, I'ld move away).

But its their profession, and if they are too negative about it, they are without work tomorrow. So there is a natural interest to trivialize the health risks I suppose.

Originally Posted by rrw

CNN was just reporting that Japanese officials believe the containment vessel has been breached on Reactor #3. Anyone know exactly what this means and what are the repercussions?

There are 2 containment vessels, the primary and the secondary and than there is the reactor pressure vessel.

If at least one of the three is okay, there is no reason to be overly concerned. Since there are still two containments that are structurally intact and able to keep the core's material/radiation inside (unless they need to be vented again).

[omimon]

Originally Posted by Random32

No. They are shut down automatically when the quake starts, but it takes a long time to cool down. If you want to see the cold shutdown process without any major problems, look at Fukushima Daini. I think they are at cold shutdown for 3 out of their 4 reactors as of now, though I haven't really been keeping track.

What would happen if there was a meltdown? Isn't it possible for the government to tell the people to evacuate 10000km from the area and just let it meltdown?

[Quarkboy]

Originally Posted by omimon

What would happen if there was a meltdown? Isn't it possible for the government to tell the people to evacuate 10000km from the area and just let it meltdown?

The circumference of the earth is 40,000 km, so... no.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by omimon

What would happen if there was a meltdown? Isn't it possible for the government to tell the people to evacuate 10000km from the area and just let it meltdown?

I don't remember if it was here but this nytimes article explains it.

The problem with letting it meltdown is that nobody knows what the final result will actually be, despite all the models. You may get the best case scenario where it doesn't leave the containment or it might actually break the containment somehow and make the vicinity uninhabitable for years to come.

[Ithekro]

Country isn't big enough to move away that far. Meltdown, if it got out of the reactor's shielding, might contaminate any ground water in the area and the radiation would make the region uninhabitable for a long time (area I can't say since I have no clue how much radiation that would put out). Bascially it gets away from them into the soil were they can't contain it or suppess it easily.

Basic thing is to not have it meltdown to that point. Japan has limited amounts of space as it is. They need all the land they can get and having a several square kilometer region off limits for a few generations or more is not something they can afford.

[Xellos-_^]

just curious is it possible to built Nuke plants underground?

[Green²]

"1738: The US is advising its citizens living within 80km (50 miles) of Fukushima to evacuate or stay indoors."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Edit:

"UK advising British nationals in Tokyo and to the north of Tokyo to consider leaving the area"
http://twitter.com/Reuters

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

just curious is it possible to built Nuke plants underground?

While it was technically possible it would be very expensive (building costs and operation costs) it would also take away some of the safety options... like for example passive coolers like huge evaporators. I am also not sure if you can design a quake resistant underground complex that can house a 2-4GW nuclear power plant. It would certainly be a death trap in the Fukushima incident, since the energy of explosions and the released radiation cannot escape.
So, basically I think it is a bad idea.

[Quarkboy]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

just curious is it possible to built Nuke plants underground?

Sure, but that doesn't really help in the case of a meltdown.

In fact it would just make it harder to contain the nuclear material if it was all escaping deep into the Earth.

Now if you really want a crazy idea, what you should do is build all nuclear power plants with emergency rocket boosters.

That way, in the case of a possible meltdown, you just fire up the rockets and shoot the entire thing into orbit. If you're nervous about it up in orbit you can also attach more rockets later and blast it out into the sun.

The downside of keeping all that highly flammable rocket fuel next to a nuclear reactor is nothing to be concerned about, obviously.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

just curious is it possible to built Nuke plants underground?

I was curious about that too, I am glad that I work with Navy Sub Officers, they say that it is possible that you can have a plant underground as long you can find a way to cool it down (like being close to Body of Water or natural Vent system).

[sa547]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

just curious is it possible to built Nuke plants underground?

Some articles postulated about locating them below the ground:
http://caltecheql.library.caltech.edu/15/
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-L...ng=en&id=97482
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1193024

The biggest hurdle in building such power plants isn't just the considerable amount of protection needed to ensure that nothing leaks out in case of an accident, but the adverse psychological effects it may bring to the general public: no one wants to discover that the ground below his home has a nuke plant.

[Slice of Life]

If you want to get rich then invent a mechanism that stops an ongoing meltdown until after the next elections.