Some of you know my mother moved to Japan after the passing of my father over 4 years ago.

Chiba. Approximately 200 miles south south west from the epicenter. 100 miles from the meltdown in Fukushima.

As of this date, 03-13-11, no word from my mother or any other members of my Japanese family who also live in Chiba Prefecture.

Confidence is high that she is safe. I have continuously tried to get through on her land line and cell phone, and emails to family with no success. I know that electricity is down throughout the area.

Sections of Chiba were not in the tsumani danger zone. My mother lives in a eight-story condo. She lives on the 4th floor.

Having been in several Japanese EQs, there is no such thing as liquefaction. You are literally thrown about any room since Japan sits on tip of solid rock.

My computer is on the USGS website. My eyes are glued to CNN. CNN? I never watched CNN until now.

Yes, the news is grim as to the casualties. No, my mother is not one of them.

I will keep my "family" up to date with the latest news.

Thank you for your prayers and your words in advance.

Just to maintain that positive thing: My mother probably got a ride on a tsumani wave on a tatami mat to Frisco (in particular Richmond, CA, where my wife is undergoing training for the SSA).

Only bad thing is that my mother doesn't swim good. My mother's maiden name translated means "rocky ground." Only rocks I know that float are pumice.

BTW, wifey-pooh is high and dry although she lives NEXT to the ocean.

My American family is also trying to contact my mother with the same results. I advised them to not call my mother and let me be the POC. Once I get that word of the "all clear, all safe" I will let them know.

During this time, it is not time to have fun, but to...

Have faith.

Listen to Auntie.

The BBC minute by minute coverage is the best there is. CNN is US-Centric & slow. The Sydney Morning Herald coverage is unbiased in my biased opinion. Some amazing photos at the NYT site here.

Best wishes for your family and all shell-shocked Japanese.

Latest news just in - another explosion at reactor #3.

Prayers for your family. We know you have that positive attitude.

Google has a disaster message board.

It irks me that some people will likely say the nuclear reactor problem as a call for moratorium.

There was far, far, far more death and destruction from Mother Nature herself! ( even if the nuclear thing gets worse)

This is a good summary of how things stack up nuclear-wise, compared to Chernobyl or other accidents:
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2011/03/12/situation-at-fukushima-nuclear-power-station/

I don't follow your logic. One is man-made, the other is an act of nature. One we have some control over, the other little if any.

Be that as it may - a quick google shows that countries around the world are calling for reviews. Germany is considering shutting down two of its oldest plants.

Most countries with plants will conduct reviews. Whether it will happen in the US is anyone's guess. Given the fact that a leading Republican presidential candidate doesn't know the state in which the first shot of the Revolution occurred doesn't leave me hopeful.

I see that very differently, but probably only because I was exposed to the Chernobyl fallout. Chernobyl is still inaccessible wasteland. Places that have been destroyed by tsunamis can be repopulated.

The discussion in the US has started, with an early comment from a supporter of nuclear power (see also this).

In all reality, is this any different then when other catastrophies have caused some sort of structural damage leading to re-evaluations of building codes, structural integrity and resistance ability?

If we're keeping the discussion strictly to earthquakes, look at the catastrophic failure of the Cypress Street Viaduct (I-880)and the collapse of a 50' of the Oakland Bay Bridge and during the 1989 Lome Prieta quake....

(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/retrofit.htm)

It may not be literally true that we humans learn only from disasters, but we do seem to have a tendency in that direction.

Ever since the first passenger departed an inverted biplane, the FAA said "gotta have seatbelts". Somewhere along the line we found out that square windows on a pressurized jet passenger liner was a bad idea. Laws were made. And so it continues.

Alan, I wasn't trying to infer that humans only learn from disasters... but instead that the reaction to step back and look at the way that reactors (and other buildings) are built isn't something "special" in relation to just this earthquake...

I think it's a bit stupid to compare what has happened or what is going to happen in Japan to other sources of nuclear power and decide to build or not. The lesson learned from Japan is not that nuclear power is too dangerous to use but it's just too stupid to build nuclear power plants on or near massive earth quake faults. There are plenty of places in the world where no earthquakes occur and it is safe enough. I'm all for clean energy but until something practical can be done to offset nuclear energy I say build more of them.

I've lived in Southern California since I was four years old. As long as I can remember, it seems like the San Onofre nuclear power plant has been in So Cal. I once applied for a job at San Onofre, I believe I was suppose to interview with So Cal Edison, the company that ran the plant. I remember walking into a trailer in the parking lot and given paperwork and told to walk down into the plant where I would find an office where my interview would be conducted. I walked to the security gate which led down into the plant while holding my papers, stopped to show the guard my paperwork and then given authorization to pass through the gate and down into the plant. As I walked down I scanned my surroundings and saw lots of barbed wired and warning signs, etc. Before I reached the office for my interview I began to start getting really weird feelings in my gut and my brain started saying, NO, NO, NO, TURN AROUND, DON'T GO THERE. I listened to my brain and hi-tailed it out of there. I don't think I told a soul I was leaving, I just jumped into my car and left. I'll never forget that day. I was much younger, probably in my early 30's. As I got older I began to think that nuclear power plants aren't so bad, I was even beginning to support the idea of more nuclear power plants, but since Friday and the troubles Japan is having with their nuclear power plant, I'm beginning to have second thoughts. I'm ignorant when it comes to knowing about radiation and how it affects the body, but I've heard enough experts say the exact same things over the past couple of days so I beginning to think I know a little bit more now and it alarms me. We depend on others to protect us (as if they really know what they're doing, especially government officials). The Japanese nuclear experts couldn't even get their backup generators to start to keep the cooling system working and rescue efforts couldn't seem to deliver any new generators in time to keep and explosion for happening and their backup to their backup system is batteries. Batteries don't last forever. I don't believe their batteries worked either.

I don't know what the answer is to our energy problems in the world or how to ensure clean air, but I do know it takes energy to make everything in this world. Heck, the nuclear power plant can't even operate without energy to make it function. Anyone driving a hybrid car is really not doing anything to save our planet, instead they're creating more waste because they need batteries to run their cars and it takes a lot of energy to make the batteries and once those batteries are used up they're nothing more than hazardous waste.

I'm just venting so I don't blow up and I chose the ears of my friends on the WZ to tell my woes. Thank you for listening.

The San Onofre plant was designed to withstand a 7.0 quake based on an expert assessment in the 1960s that the biggest quake it was likely to ever see was a 6.5. Its seawall is designed to withstand a 25 foot tsunami. So, as long as 7.0 and 25 feet were not underestimated... "what, me worry?"

Just to be clear, I agreed with your point and figured that any inference was mine.

Thanks Alan....

And as I read the ensuing posts and see the ability of this thread to quickly dissipate into something not nice... I'm going to respectivly bow myself out of the conversation...


+@ti2d... I will pray for the safety of your Mother, family and friends.. as well as everyone else who is suffering, and will continue to do so, amid all of the catastrophic damage in Japan as they attempt to return to some semblance of normalcy in their STILL shaking and dangerous homes and country.

A month or two ago I was driving home from a hike on a Sunday afternoon, listening to NPR on XM radio. There was a lecture by an expert on energy, being delivered to some reputable organization - the details of who it was, and to whom it was delivered I don't recall, but he certainly sounded like a credible individual. Anyway, he methodically explained the world's energy usage, the sources from which it was derived, and the practical limitations of each. He pointed out that, even if our reservations about nuclear energy could be mitigated, and extraction/creation of the fuel done in a less harmful way, that in order to meet the world's energy needs a nuclear power plant would have to come online, once a week for the next 40 years.

I got home before before his talk ended, so didn't hear his conclusions. Based upon what I did hear, it seems likely we'll be burning fossil fuel for a long time to come, especially since there's little financial motivation to do otherwise.

Considering the largest quake California ever had was a 7.9 I don't think 7.0 is enough lol.

A good point Lynn made is how much energy it takes to make something like an energy efficient alternative. Too often I hear people pushing ideas to save from oil usage when it actually can take more oil then it saves. You always need to look at the whole picture. Take incandescent light bulbs for example. The ban in America is in place and the bulbs have deadlines for when they are illegal. Those light bulbs though are made in America. You think it is more energy efficient to ship 200 pounds of fluorescent light bulbs in a 8000 pound cargo container thousands of miles over the seas from China? In the end it will use more energy then it saves.

Actually, that IS the point. We all consciously elect to take calculated risks, none foolproof; a ride in the car, a flight on a 747, turning on the gas heat, sitting in the radioactive sunshine, or building a nuclear reactor. Otherwise, we would live in a unheated hut wondering if there will be a next meal.

My point is that no matter how much radiation is released, and no matter how much biological significance it attains, it is unlikely to come anywhere close to the deaths caused by the earthquake/tsunami. So the anti-nuclear sentiment that is already arising is comparing apples and oranges, both in terms of reactor type, and in terms of numbers of unfortunate victims from either natural or man-made cause.

Disclaimer: I am a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and Authorized User(AU). We administer medical radioactive iodine obtained as a fission byproduct of a Canadian reactor. I also live about 50 miles downwind of North Anna Nuclear Power Station in Virginia.

You can shout that from the rooftops, but I doubt world leaders will forgo reviews simply because other calamities could result in greater loss of life.

A fellow I occasionally hike with told me of a review he was involved in following the Chernobyl incident. Despite assurances that such an incident could never happen in the US, the President still ordered a review. According to this fellow, a few of our reactors were indeed vulnerable, and changes were made to diminish the risk.

I heard on the news or read in the paper (can't remember which source this came from) that after the Chernobyl disaster, radiation was found in Sweeden, specifically in the sand of children's playgrounds. After finding radiation in Sweeden, radiation was found in other parts of Europe which killed livestock, lots of livestock and made the ground in parts of Europe unsafe for growing crops. Currently, according to reports I've heard on radio talk shows, specifically Charles Payne's talk show, he reported that the USA's food supply in the face of a major disaster at one time would last 79 days, but now that same supply would last only 60 days and that food supplies the world over are lower. Food takes energy to produce and the only way the world is currently producing as much food as it is, is because of the artificial fertilizers we now produce so we can produce more food. If the earths soil is contaminated by radiation it will probably take years until the soil is safe for crops. Currently, the world cannot feed all the people on this earth without artificial fertilizers and a day will come when we may not have enough resources to produce these fertilizers either. Fertilizers can even be harmful to rivers when watersheds after a rain carry nitrates to our streams and this is also true of soil contaminated with radiation. The problem escalates when a person thinks about everything affected by this type of disaster.

I'm not totally against nuclear power. Society may have to depend on it someday. I hope we learn more fail-safe ways to contain it, unfortunately by the misfortunes of the Japanese and the disaster at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

This is just for info-sake on the dilemma under discussion.

Note that the unshielded-design Chernobyl accident was in a class by itself, almost as much as all (!) of the Nevada bomb tests, out near many of you.

Total Estimated Amount of I-131 Released from the Site
(in curies) Site Time Period

150,000,000 Ci Nevada Test Site, Nevada 1952-1970
50,000,000 Ci Chernobyl (former Soviet Union) 1986
740,000 Ci Hanford Reservation, Washington 1944-1972
60,000 Ci Savannah River Site, South Carolina 1955-1990
8,000-42,000 Ci Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee 1944-1956
20,000 Ci Windscale, United Kingdom 1957
15-21 Ci Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania 1979

From today's LA Times.

I agree with Harvey, at least in part. The Japanese situation will be used by opponents of nuclear energy to try to stop it's development. Even if the situation in Japan gets no worse than it is, the objections may very well succeed in killing new reactors in the US (which were in trouble already -- see above article).

That said, we have multiple reactors damaged in a natural disaster, with breached containment, at least partial meltdowns, and some radiation release, with the possibility of things getting a lot worse. Officials everywhere are going to have to take a step back and review things in the light of this development. To do otherwise would be highly irresponsible.

Will they over-react? History certainly allows for the possibility.

However, the pressure to develop nuclear power will not go away. We have used half of the world's known oil supply, and that was the easy (to extract) half. Things will get tougher. Demand is not going away, but supply will decrease. Oil prices (in real dollars) fell throughout the 20th century (with temporary exceptions like WWII and the 1970's OPEC-driven shortages). They have been rising in the 21st, with a respite due to the 2008 economic meltdown. One effect of rising prices will be to make economical technologies that are not economical today. Another will be damage to the economy.

Gary, I know you're very proud of your Nipponese heritage, and that this disaster must disturb you greatly. Good thoughts and prayers for the safety of your family, and the speedy restoration of normalcy in the country.

As to the nuclear power discussion, I certainly don't want to glow in the dark. Nor do I want to be in the dark. Safer, more sustainable power sources exist all around us but, as is often the case, the devil is in the details and economics. I read somewhere not long ago that a single moderately-sized thunderstorm generates enough electricity to theoretically power the entire US for something like an hour. Capturing and storing that energy? Not feasible - at least not yet. Nuclear-oil-coal-gas will be with us for quite a while to come, despite their various flaws. Hobson's choice.

Gary aka Bulldog34:

Hobson's choice. BD34, you are very educated man and I have the utmost respect. TYVM. Indeed a southern gentleman with compassion.

I still wait word...My apologies for making this post a "vent" for for pro- and anti-nuclear. I, too, have my reasons for "that" and for "this." I...wait...for the word.

My "asian" family knows all too well the effects of "nuclear" fall out. Hiroshima in particular.

Have faith.

Have faith.

I hope this ends well for your family. One of my cousins lives there with his family. We got word they're OK - they're inland a bit, too far for the tidal wave. They're without power, so have to get their water in the village, but they're safe.

As for discussions regarding nuclear power - mostly I think they're a waste of time. The US hasn't built a plant since the Three Mile Island incident (1979), and all it takes is a periodic disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima and public opinion against them is renewed. It's more visceral than rational. Just the way it is.

But you assume it will always be that way. Not so long after Three Mile Island, oil got really cheap again and stayed that way. By the turn of the century, it was at all time lows in real dollars. But things have changed. The oil industry knows that the long term trend in oil prices will be up. This has never happened before. Attitudes towards a lot of things will change. We'll see how nuclear power fares. Maybe the problem will really be that we can't build plants fast enough.

Dear + @ti2d,

I, too, pray your mother is safe. I look forward to hearing happy news that you and she have reunited by phone or some other means of communication.

Best regards,

Lynn

P.S. Watch or record Nightline, last night they brought news to two or three families in the USA their loved ones are safe.

Mostly I agree with you Alan, except for my assumption. I don't assume it will always be that way, but for the foreseeable future I think it's a waste of time.

I doubt the general public will invest time and energy in listening to advances in nuclear power plant designs and safety unless there are very few other options. Extremely high oil prices might force them to. But I think before there's a big investment in more nuclear power plants people will want to know why the same power needs can't be met with some version of solar.

I'm not convinced that oil prices will remain high. A week or two ago I read how new drilling techniques are showing huge deposits in the upper midwest. Whether this was a puff piece by the oil industry time will tell.

That's my crystal ball, about as cloudy as the next.

Probably an accurate guess.

Yes, time will tell. We are doing the experiment as we speak.

US oil discoveries peaked nearly 80 years ago and US oil production peaked around 40 years ago. The industry figures are sobering: Our proven oil reserves are 19 billion barrels (in 2009 -- they were 39 billion barrels in 1970). We consume 19 million barrels per day and we produce about half of that. So we have around 2000 days of proven reserves. Estimates of undiscovered recoverable reserves (including offshore) are 134 billion barrels, which would fill our needs at the current rate of consumption for around 20 years.

There is a lot of reason to believe that the long term price trend is a lot higher than what we are seeing now.

Alan -

While the article I read recently on these "new" oil finds didn't mention the method of extraction, I reasonably sure they use a technique called fracking. It's controversial due to the chemicals injected into the ground and the potential for screwing up the aquifers for centuries to come.

Energy companies are meeting stiff resistance to that method of natural gas extraction in NY and PA. I suspect they'll have a better time of it in places like Wyoming, South Dakota and Colorado.

Some time ago, on this or a cousin board, someone posted a comment about a mile-long coal train arriving at a power plant weekly versus a few semi-trailers of nuclear fuel annually.

Does anybody remember?

TIA

Wagga, I tried doing a search for you on the power plant and semi-trailers, but did not find what you were asking for, I'm sure you searched too.

WARNING: TEAR JERKER LINK BELOW (animal loyalty in Japan)watch till the end for somewhat happy ending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3TM9GL2iLI

We've seen the people of Japan reaching out to their neighbors lending a helping hand. Even the animals in Japan are loyal to each other. I have a great respect for the Country of Japan, it's citizens are wonderful human beings and their pets are so well behaved...probably because they're cared for well and treated well.

I believe that the entire fuel assembly weighs well under a ton. Fuel rods spend several years inside of a reactor. That's a major part of the attraction of nuclear reactors -- not a lot of truckloads of fuel going in.

As for mile long coal trains: 1 ton of coal produces 6150 kWh of electrical energy, so a 1000 MW plant would use 163 tons of coal per hour (6.5 tractor trailer loads of 25 tons each). I'll let someone else convert that to mile long trains per day.

Great news! My mother and all of my Japanese family are safe. "Shaken" but not stirred.

My mother was no where near her condo when the EQ struck. She was renewing her dependent ID card at Yokosuka. She was just at the gate at the naval base in a taxi when it happened. She was with my cousin. They had to stay at a hotel for the night since everything shut down.

They left the hotel and returned home. Took them 9 hours to get home from Yokosuka to Chiba.

My mom's phone line and cell phone were down. She couldn't recharge her cell since power was out.

Damage to her condo was minimal. Few broken pieces here and there. No structural damage.

Aftershocks continue to keep everyone on edge. Mom says there are big aftershocks around 10:30 at night. She says at least 4 to 5 huge AS continue to pommel the area.

My aunt, who lives nearby, panicked when the big one hit. Everyone is laughing now. I asked for a YouTube. I can imagine my aunt Kimiko running around like a chicken with its head cut off. She does NOT like earthquakes.

Power has since been restored. People are buying up loaves of bread.

It is March 17, 2011 over there. St. Patrick's Day. It is my mother's "diamond" birthday. She turns 75. A large bouquet of flowers is in transit as we speak.

I wonder if my mother is part Irish? Naw. But her favorite color is green. Well, her favorite colors are a lovely display of flowers of all colors.

Thank you all for your prayers.

I can breathe again.

That is just great news!

That's really great news!! What a way to mark a 75th birthday. A very Happy Birthday to your mother.

Now, find some time to Have Fun. Maybe enjoy some corned beef, cabbage and green beer for St. Pats.

I think I am going to get a good night's rest.

If it is "organic" I think my wife would approve.

But she is in Richmond, CA, and I am here in Fuggowhee aka Coarsegold, CA.

That's a good thing considering I still have an electric blanket on the bed as an ignition source...


DID I SAY THAT?

Great news Gary! Very glad to hear the family is safe and sound. I may just have to quaff a pint in their honor tomorrow at some local Irish pub!

My cousin and his family live in Chiba-Ken. Is that near your family's home?

Higashichiba Heights, Higashichiba Chuo-ku, Chiba-shi. To-may-toh, To-mah-toh. Chiba-shi, Chiba-ken. All the same. Imagine that.

Hope your cousin and his family are safe.

This is a good read. From the Sydney Morning Herald.

"THINGS here in Sendai have been rather surreal. But I am very blessed to have wonderful friends who are helping me a lot. I am now staying at a friend's home. We share supplies like water, food and a kerosene heater. We sleep lined up in one room, eat by candlelight, share stories. It is warm, friendly, and beautiful."

They are, thanks. They lost power for a time which impacted their well, and so needed to go into the village for it, but it's been restored.

Now, if they can just get the reactors cooled down ...

Really good news!
Thanks for the update.

CaT

I suppose once the radiation cloud begins reaching southern California tomorrow it wont be as safe to go out in the rain for awhile. I love how the U.S. Government likes to say don't worry be happy but they have no credibility in these matters. After all these are the same people that conducted Project SHAD and told us the air was safe to breath after 9/11.

Same people? Project SHAD was half a century ago!

One, two three....what are we waiting fo.....Wooopie, we're all going to Glow!

# 1: Good luck to all the people of Japan. You could tell from the beginning that their government was lying to them.

# 2: I've had more PETScans than I can count.....so I'm sure the tiny bit of radiation traveling with the tradewinds won't come close to the small amounts of radioactive glucose I've had injected into my body.

# 3: Kudos to the Fukashima 50 (actually 180). They have gone beyond heroism.

# 4: I don't trust Obama, Biden, Sarah Palin, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Jerry Brown, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, etc. (sorry, too many to list)

God Bless Americans

[quote=quillansculpture] # 2: I've had more PETScans than I can count.....so I'm sure the tiny bit of radiation traveling with the tradewinds won't come close to the small amounts of radioactive glucose I've had injected into my body. [/quote]

you are spot on.

A person came to my office today asking where she could buy iodine tablets to ship to her friend in California.

the issue is not whether we will receive some radiation [u]here[/u] in US (yes, we will), but will it be significant? (no).

Here are some lessons from Chernobyl:

The zone of concern may be larger than expected. I suspect that is why the US is suggesting a wider safety zone. From a [u]practical[/u] standpoint, the Japanese may just have their hands full dealing with the greater tragedy (tsunami)and simply cannot evacuate everybody.

Iodine tablets worked in Chernobyl for those who got them (or at the right time). The tablets prevented thyroid cancer for those peoples.

There have been no increased cancers in Chernobyl area, other than thyroid.

Iodine tablets do not prevent acute radiation poisoning. We may find that some workers have had that much exposure. The also do not protect against non-iodine radiation like uranium, cesium, plutonium, etc.

You left out "Gimme an F..."

Although some of the policy makers are still alive I meant more specifically the same people as an originization. General policy never changes in America no matter what dancing puppet is paraded in the public eye to make people feel better about what happens. I think the time is right to start referring to it as "The Party" like 1984.

To get back on subject though the dangers of radiation is always down played in all things in life. Nearly a million people died from Chernobyl and the full effects of disease has not fully been researched. The book "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" gives a good up to date look at the disaster. I have only read reviews on it all but looks like a good read.

But of course in the end it doesn't really matter what happens because it all is what it is. Not like there is anything we can do.

I see. That's why we still have slavery and women can't vote. Got it.

I've never considered NatGeo as a paragon of scientific virtue, but this article guesses about 4000 Chernobyl-related deaths and cautions that 25 years after Hiroshima, some cancers were still appearing.

"A report last year from the Chernobyl Forum, a group of experts convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and other United Nations agencies estimated that among the millions exposed to Chernobyl's radioactive cloud, nearly 4,000 will ultimately die from leukemia and other radiation-induced cancers. It's a measure of the health fears immediately after the accident that this number comes as a relief."

The IAEA number is 4000. Greenpeace (hardly an apologist for the US or Russian governments or the nuclear industry) did a study a few years ago and estimated that there may eventually be as many as 100,000 cancer deaths, although no one seriously claims that many to date.

Well we are reaching further back then intended but to be fair long standing domestic policies that have the potential to incite rebellion among masses are abolished to maintain a level of living standard and tyranny imposed on it just above organized resistance to oppose it. I was reviewing the Declaration of Independence today and kind of laughed at how almost every single oppression listed as a reason the colonies had to go to war the U.S. Government is guilty of against us.

As for Chernobyl I am aware of the other listings of casualties from a number of organizations. At this time though I can not give a decent opinion on the matter because I don't know what they are counting or not counting as a casualty. I think the majority of the casualties they list in their near million figure are from the hundreds of thousands of people that participated in clean up efforts that have all died now. I have not though read as to the cause of their deaths and if it could be linked to their actions in clean up.

From the NatGeo article...

"During the days after the explosion thousands of other workers, called liquidators, were rushed to Chernobyl to tame the radioactive inferno. Coal miners dug underneath the seething core to allow liquid nitrogen to be pumped in and cool the nuclear fuel. Helicopter pilots dumped 5,000 tons of lead, sand, clay, and other material in an effort to douse the flames. Soldiers made timed dashes onto the roof to shovel smoking graphite blocks blown out of the reactor back into the core. Referred to, sardonically, as "bio-robots," many of the 3,400 surreally brave men who took part in this operation absorbed a lifetime radiation dose in seconds.

On May 6 the fires in the mangled reactor were finally extinguished, and an army of liquidators went to work building the sarcophagus and consolidating radioactive waste at several hundred dumps near Chernobyl. In those early days doctors monitoring the liquidators watched white blood cell counts drop and feared for their health. Most recovered."

Wagga, thanks for the NatGeo article.

I don't know if anyone cared about my earlier rantings on food supplies, but I feel it's very important to protect our natural resources so we have viable soil to grow our crops and raise our livestock. With the USA having 104 nuclear power plants it's a scarey thought that if our plants were to have disasters similar to Chernobyl we could lose our farmland to radiation for many, many, many years. In the NatGeo article Wagga posted, the harmful effects from Chernobyl are pointed out, as follows:

"Those who stayed behind still inhabit a contaminated landscape. The two most pervasive radionuclides from Chernobyl, cesium 137 and strontium 90, will remain in the environment for decades. Schools and other public buildings in southern Belarus are regularly washed down. Fields are fertilized with potassium to limit the uptake of cesium into crops and lime to block strontium. Lengthy regulations spell out what should be grown in which soils (only potatoes in peat but a wider range of crops in clayey soils, which lock up radionuclides). The most contaminated land—several hundred thousand acres—still lies fallow, though the government of Belarus is taking steps to reclaim it. At a gate and guardhouse 18 miles from the reactor, cultivation stops entirely."

To Wagga,



....for stating a traceable source!!

One of these days, in spite of counsel from my peers, I'll try to launch a thread treating nuclear energy scientifically instead of widely-disseminated popular opinion. But it will probably decay (thank you HKL) into the realm of Urban Legend.

Fantastic news +@ti2d.

When I read a new murder/mystery novel, the chief figure of merit is the number of pages before the word "sardonic" or "sardonically" turns up. Kellerman (all 3) are dismal failures. Today is St. Patty's day, so all is forgiven.

Lol Bee.

I can't post the sources of research associated with the book I mentioned because I don't have a copy of it. This is one of the articles I read from April 2010 when this book was released.

Since we have at least indirect requests for reading matter...

Greenpeace Chernobyl study story

Greenpeace Chernobyl study

a friend of mine works on Nuclear plants. I asked him about the Fukushima disaster.

Here is his response (two different responses, but you'll get the gist.

----------------------------------------------
As for Japan, well, you know my distrust and disdain for the traditional media...so I tried not to listen. Too many people talking about stuff they don't know about or think they do, or thought they did. Also, it makes catchier headlines to overreact, hype, and spread fear.

When the quake hit the reactors scrammed...automatically...as designed. At that moment, the fissioning process stops and then the concern is controlling residual heat until it dissipates. The plant lost all outside electricity when the transmission lines were swept away by the tsunami, and they can't make any on their own...their reactor has shut down.

So they use the back-up generators to run the coolant pumps, until they quit from water in the fuel. So they go to battery back-up until they're used up. Now they have NO power. This is all in the first 12 or so hours.....lot's of stuff going on.

As for a meltdown (China Syndrome) happening....I don't think so. The fissioning process had been stopped, there's simply not enough heat to melt through the RPV (Reactor Pressure Vessel). However, there is a tremendous amout of steam pressure remaining.

From what I've read, the explosions occurred in the containment building...which is esssentially a metal barn. Meant to keep weather out, but nothing in. It has nothing to do with primary nor secondary containment of the reactor.

When somebody compares the Japan situation to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island I turn away.

First of all, Chernobyl had NO containment...just a graphite cooled reactor. (bad design, but cheap). The reactor exploded, the graphite caught fire, and sent highly radioactive material in the air. The reasons for the explosion are many...much too involved for here. Further reading is suggested.

As for TMI, it was under full power for many hours with reduced water inventory, and the fuel did melt down. However, it was all contained inside the RPV and containment structures....as designed. Only a very little gas was vented.

So in answer to your question....how much should we believe?

I'm not sure how much or what you have heard....but I'd say overall very little.

The main question that we don't have an answer to, yet...and won't for awhile...did the containment structures survive the initial quake?

What has happened in Japan is a tragedy, but the real tragedy is in the loss of human life and a society....not a nuke plant.
------------------------------------------
Until they give quantities or the details of their findings, I am a little suspect.

Here's why...

The average person receives between 360 and 630mr (millirem) per year from normal background radiation. (depends on who you read). So that equates to 1 to 2 mr a day.

The other day when I linked that picture of a core and fuel bundle, I had just spent 20 hours over the course of 2 days working right over the core. On one of our 'jumps', I picked up 22 mr. Not a lot, but you could truthfully write a headline that screams "Nuke worker picks up 10 to 20 times normal radiation", investigation continues.

So until they publish quantifiable amounts or what they were measuring, you really don't know what they're comparing.

Up until a couple of years ago...5 Rem or R (5,000 millirem) was the annual limit for a nuke worker. You could have 4.99R on December 31st and then on January 1st your count for the year would reset.

Most of the industry has recently changed to a 2R (2,000 millirem) yearly limit. My company has a 2R rolling limit. Meaning in that any 12 months...that is your limit.

These are ultra conservative amounts. It takes 50R (50,000 millirem) before any kind of visible change to blood cells. So we are working under a 4% threshold.

The work I was doing recently was very low dose. I have been on jobs doing RPV head inspections that were in areas known as "Locked High Rad Areas". Yes, they are locked with key.

Anyhow, say our dose limit for that one 'jump' was 800mr with a maximum dose rate of 1R (1,000 millirem) per hour.

And...let's say I picked up my 800mr limit. You could write another headline that screamed "Nuke worker picks up 80 times normal radiation", investigation continues.

So...until you see amounts listed, who knows what they're trying to say.

From what I've read, the most exposure that anybody has received is 10R...a crane operator.

To put that in perspective....ever had a whole body CT scan?

You then received 1.5 to 10R (1,500 to 10,000 millirem) dose from such a scan.

Okay....that was for dose, or the amount of energy received.

Now there is also contamination.

Any amount of radioactive material where it is not wanted is contamination. So, if some material is found anywhere where it is not wanted the headline can truthfully scream "****(pick any number) times higher than normal detected."

Truthfully? Yes

Does it mean anything? Maybe.

Is this situation serious. YES!!

The fact that they're venting is not good, but is it the end of mankind as some would have you to believe? I don't think so.

There is opportunity in every situation...I'll be heading West with my newly processed iodine pills, shortly. I don't have any kelp, but do have piles of buffalo chips.[/sarcasm]

I think the news had perfect timing in the way that I read all that last night and thought it was a bit funny because he is saying that the media is playing it all up and it's probably not as bad when everything I had been reading was saying the media is down playing it all and especially the Japanese government was and now I see the news this morning that the government has admitted that the disaster is far worse then they have been letting on. I'm just glad they did admit they partially melted down and that the radiation is so dangerous because covering things up will cost more lives.

tdtz - Thanks for the many insights and Nuke 101 course. Very helpful.

CaT

Agreed.

If you want to elevate your radiation exposure to something approaching 1 mrem per hour (instead of per day), just fly across the country in an airplane (Ref).

This enlightening material turned up on The Register.

Pretty high-brow stuff.

I got sucked into reading a piece from Ann Coulter a few days ago. Among others things I learned that only 30 people had died at Chernobyl - just those people within the reactor area itself. Also - there's "scientific" evidence that we can be "inoculated" against radiation by regular exposure to radiation well above what many consider safe limits.

You gotta love the Wing Nuts. When the science doesn't match their belief system, they just make stuff up.

The sad part is how many people actually believe some of this stuff.

I can make up better stuff than that: No one died at Chernobyl. In fact, thousands of people were healed of all manner of illnesses. Radiation is good for you.

Coulter is the reason we have off-switches on our TVs (or no TV). I'd love to see Dr. Kiki spar with her - either in the studio or on the mat (Dr. Kiki has a black belt in some form of warfare I can't comprehend).

Here's an early "Food Science" episode. (I think this was posted previously, when we only had a few dozen members). Sorry for the ads. That's what it takes.

Nowadays, she has the "Science Hour".Here is an example. Sorenson has given some lectures on Google Tech Talks. You can Google them. No comment on the eyebrow malfunction.

"Politicians of the day understand that science, facts, and reason are not the way into the voters hearts. So do the news channels, cable and otherwise. People are using opinion in place of knowledge, and opinion will always rule the day because it is easier to align with a person's belief system than are facts." Dr. Kiki.

Excellent statement in the "sad but true" category.

Physics for Future Presidents
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Future-Pre...7488&sr=8-1

an excellent primer.

The laws of physics are great and immutable. Sadly, politicians seem to feel they are immune. Perhaps a requirement before election should be that said politician should lead some easy, but vulnerable route such as the East Face "Fresh Air". No, that wouldn't work, that would just reinforce their false confidence.

I know! - a 10 meter belayed drop off "Shark Fin". That should ground them.

When I meet someone who thinks that evolution is "just a theory" I remind them that so is gravity. Show some real cojones and deny that theory! The Shark Fin trick would be a perfect demo.

Added to the Czar Of The Planet List Of Rules.

And don't overlook 'Intelligent Falling' as an explanation for gravity..

Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good

Interesting article. A 40 year-old reactor (Vernon, VT), the same design as the one in Japan, was given a 20-year extension about a week before the earthquake.

In recent years, nuclear energy has been touted in some quarters as green. Interest was reviving, even in the US, where we have not seen a new plant since Three Mile Island. However, the real reason that no one has built a nuclear power plant in the US is cost. That and Fukashima will kill nuclear power in the US for a while. However, with oil production peaking and going into permanent decline, nuclear power will eventually look cost-effective again. Will Fukashima be forgotten by then?

I doubt it. Even as technology makes nuclear plants "safer", the industry has low credibility in terms of safety and disclosures of accidents/incidents. Not just in the US, but Japan and elsewhere. As an example - the plant in Vernon released a video a few months back - while awaiting a renewal of its license - the video said, in effect "We know we lied to you in the past, but please trust us that we'll do better in the future".

It would be like Faux News saying - "No, really that last piece was legit. We didn't make up or omit critical facts/slant it in any way" - how many of us would say "Oh, OK, this time I believe them".

A thoughtful person once wrote "Be impeccable with your word". That applies to humans as well as other entities. Once credibility is lost, it's very difficult to restore it.

Alan, I've read that basic sentence a lot recently, but I'm not sure what the media's definition is for a "new nuclear plant". I suspect it probably applies to permitting, and not necessarily construction, since the first two reactors of Plant Vogtle here in Georgia came on line in 1987 and 1989, several years after TMI. Additionally, according to Wikipedia, units 3 & 4 are to be "the first agreement for new nuclear development (in the US) since Three Mile Island." In 2009, the NRC issued an Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization, and construction has been underway for two years.

It'll be interesting to watch how/if Fukashima affects this. Wiki article here . Excerpt:

On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors designed by Westinghouse (owned by Toshiba) and the Shaw Group. The contract represents the first agreement for new nuclear development since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and received approval from the Georgia Public Service Commission on March 17, 2009. As stated by a Georgia Power spokesperson Carol Boatright: "If the PSC approves, we are going forward with the new units." On August 26, 2009 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. Construction activities have begun.

Here is a decent article. The media are generally correct in reporting that no U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI.

Another good article -

What's behind our conflicted feelings on nukes?.

High-res photos of the plant from yesterday.

George Monbiot had an interesting take on this. If Fukishima is obsolete/inferior design/construction, and a Richter 9 EQ is as bad as it gets, this is the worst case scenario for natural disaster at a nuke. If this is as bad as it is likely to get, vulnerabiity to natural disaster is no reason not to support nuke development. In fact the opposite is true: it has a superior safety record vis a vis natural forces as compared with any other energy source.

Monbiot's argument, not mine, but not easy to refute, if you consider that Chernobyl and TMI were both pilot error events.

I have had similar thoughts. Of course, the spent fuel problem and the fact that one cannot permanently wish away operator error leave plenty to worry about. But, dealing with this argument, I think it is hubris to argue that this is the worst that nature can do. I don't expect much bigger earthquakes, but I would love to hear from experts how the experience at the Fukushima plant really ranked in terms of ground shaking, tsunami magnitude, etc. Maybe it's as bad as it gets, maybe not.

Apparently one of the big issues facing nuclear power plants is keeping the reactors cool, and this is a factor regardless of age/design. From articles I've read, plants are required to have 8 hours of battery backup for cooling, but there's concern that this may be inadequate. I won't be surprised to see additions/modifications made to plants in the US as result of seeing how difficult it is to contain a plant after a sustained outage. Any number of severe weather events, earthquakes, operator accidents, etc could impact a plant, requiring emergency cooling for weeks/months on end until a complete shutdown could occur.

AlanK: Very thoughtful comment. But. Hubris? Ok, quantum theory tells us that there is a non-zero probability of say a black hole emerging at the reactor core at Vermont Yankee at any given moment, and a somewhat greater probability of a pyroclastic event at the same spot (see, e.g. Paricutin, 1943). But a plausible, realistic worse case other than a Richter 9 seismic event? If anything, its the antithesis of hubris to admit I can't come come up with one.

A 5Km asteroid could hit a plant. There are around 60 or so craters on the Earth, up to hundreds of Km wide. If one were to hit Fukushima, though, that would be the least of our worries.

I was aiming the hubris comment at George Monbiot, not you. But you inspired me to go read some of his commentary on the subject. I found a lot to like in it. He is attracting criticism, of course, but I would not use "hubris" to describe his thinking.

I'm going to wait for the 5Km asteroid to hit a plant.

I wish a 5K asteroid would hit the moon on a nice clear night. Nice show.