Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by christopher::: » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:50 am

There are areas of science that deal with this, chaos theory, complexity theory. If you watch the movie Jurassic Park Jeff Goldblum's charactor is a chaos theorist, he talks of this. Along with ignoring very minor probabilities with super high risks scientists also sometimes ignore cumulative and synergistic effects, such as exposure to multiple drugs or toxins that then have a powerful damaging effect. Actually, that seems to also be the case here, it wasn't one thing going wrong but several things going wrong at the same time, which then trigger additional problems. In something like the Challenger space craft explosion it was one very minor thing, a small sealing ring, which then set everything else in motion.

:toilet:
Last edited by christopher::: on Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by octathlon » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:54 am

Unfortunately, a third explosion, at reactor#2 this time, appears to have damaged the reactor itself and they have evacuated all but a minimal number of workers.
Last edited by octathlon on Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by christopher::: » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:56 am

octathlon wrote:Unfortunately, a third explosion, at reactor#2 this time, appears to have damaged the reactor itself and they have evacuated all but a minimal number of workers.
Right. Let's hope this isn't as bad as it sounds, or that a solution is found, quickly.

Japan suspects nuclear reactor container damaged
– 1 min ago
TOKYO – Japan's nuclear safety agency said an explosion Tuesday at an earthquake-damaged nuclear power plant may have damaged a reactor's containment vessel and that a radiation leak is feared. The nuclear core of Unit 2 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in northeast Japan was undamaged, said a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Shigekazu Omukai.

The agency suspects the explosion early Tuesday may have damaged the reactor's suppression chamber, a water-filled tube at the bottom of the container that surrounds the nuclear core, said another agency spokesman, Shinji Kinjo. He said that chamber is part of the container wall, so damage to it could allow radiation to escape.

"A leak of nuclear material is feared," said another agency spokesman, Shinji Kinjo. He said the agency had no details of possible damage to the chamber.
Radiation levels measured at the front gate of the Dai-ichi plant spiked following Tuesday's explosion, Kinjo said.

Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4968
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:28 am

Here's a good clear explanation of the technology and the damage up to the time it was written - i.e. not including the latest events.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/f ... planation/

:namaste:
Kim

Jhana4
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Jhana4 » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:51 am

The explanations by nuclear energy fans have been reassuring, but those explanations keep coming before the news gets worse and worse.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19963
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:53 am

Greetings,
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.
I don't find this logic particularly convincing, because how long are you exposed to X-rays for when you go for an X-ray?

Alternatively if 11,900 microsieverts is the 'ambient environment', it's a continuous exposure over time.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by christopher::: » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:58 am

Newest release from the Japanese government...
23 mins ago
SOMA, Japan – Radiation is spewing from damaged reactors at a crippled nuclear power plant in tsunami-ravaged northeastern Japan in a dramatic escalation of the 4-day-old catastrophe. The prime minister has warned residents to stay inside or risk getting radiation sickness.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Tuesday that a fourth reactor at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex was on fire and that more radiation was released. Prime Minister Naoto Kan warned that there are dangers of more leaks and told people living within 19 miles (30 kilometers) of the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex stay indoors.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
vs.
I am writing this text (Mar 12) to give you some peace of mind regarding some of the troubles in Japan, that is the safety of Japan’s nuclear reactors. Up front, the situation is serious, but under control. And this text is long! But you will know more about nuclear power plants after reading it than all journalists on this planet put together.
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.
By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on – say – a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by christopher::: » Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:20 am

This is a very good explanation (short video and with visuals) from NHK News, translated at CNN, of how the 3 safety systems failed bringing them to the point where salt water was pumped in. It doesn't explain what's happened since...

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

User avatar
GIDGE
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by GIDGE » Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:37 am

:(

An incredibly brutal reminder that EVERYTHING is impermanent. Even the containment vessel.

chownah
Posts: 7372
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:42 am

Mawkish1983 wrote:Good point Kim, although I'm not sure I'd call 20% 'significant'

Aaaanyway, I've said what I wanted to say, so I'll stop.
Mawkish1983,
If you're not sure if 20% is significant then I guess you are not sure if nuclear power contributes significantly to the US electric supply because it only provides 19.6% of the total electric supply.

So....looks like many countries get a larger (more significant) amount of their energy from renewables than the US gets from nuclear.........if the US invested as much in renewables as it has already on nuclear I dare say that they would in a few years have more than 20% generated by renewables just like all those other many countries which presently do.....

And don't forget that renewable technology is in its infancy and is gaining both in technical efficiencies and economic efficiencies....while nuclear is pretty much topped out for fission...let's hope that fusion is cleaner....we already know that it will be safe...seems like the best bet is to promote development of renewables for the next 30 years and then see if fusion is acceptable.....just skip further fusion[edit "fusion" here to read "fission"] development altogether....too many long term costs and uncertainty with fusion[edit "fusion" here to read "fission"] I think....
chownah

Edit: Corrections are added above in the text. I'm such a dummy....I was trying to say that we should develop renewables for the next 30 years and then re-evaluate the possibility of fusion and SKIP ANY FURTHER DEPLOYMENT OF FISSION ALTOGETHER in that there are too many uncertainties and long term costs with present fission technology....and in my view we can probably just leapfrog over fission into fusion but of course fusion is still not a sure thing. Kim O'Hara will probably be perturbed by this edit in that she responded quite nicely to the post in its original form....sorry about that.
chownah
Last edited by chownah on Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

chownah
Posts: 7372
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:48 am

Mawkish1983 wrote:There hasn't been a nuclear explosion. There isn't even a chain reaction in the core.
Mawkish1983,
If there is not a chain reaction in the core then the core would not be generating so much heat that massive cooling efforts are necessary.....is that right?.........seems like there in fact IS a chain reaction going on....at least by commonly held definitions of chain reaction...of course a physicist might try to spin the topic by choosing some esoteric definition for chain reaction........of course I don't think that you would do that........
chownah

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16291
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by mikenz66 » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:02 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.
I don't find this logic particularly convincing, because how long are you exposed to X-rays for when you go for an X-ray?

Alternatively if 11,900 microsieverts is the 'ambient environment', it's a continuous exposure over time.

Metta,
Retro. :)
You're right. Sieverts is a dose, not a dose rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps he means microsieverts per hour.

11,900 microsieverts is 12 millisieverts, which, using the figures from the link, is about 5 times the dose you'd get in one year from ambient sources (if you didn't fly or do X-rays, etc). So if it's that dose per hour then it's not wise to hang around, but not impossible to work (for short times and/or with protection).

Note that the US tends to still use the rem unit, which is 100 times smaller...

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4968
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:10 am

chownah wrote:... don't forget that renewable technology is in its infancy and is gaining both in technical efficiencies and economic efficiencies....while nuclear is pretty much topped out for fission...let's hope that fusion is cleaner....we already know that it will be safe...seems like the best bet is to promote development of renewables for the next 30 years and then see if fusion is acceptable.....just skip further fusion development altogether....too many long term costs and uncertainty with fusion I think....
chownah
Indeed.
Fusion is now only ten or fifteen years away - but then again, it has been 'only ten or fifteen years away' for about the last forty years.
:thinking:

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Annapurna » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:26 am

Sorry, renewable technology is NOT in it's infancy!

Perhaps for nations who have difficulties to fulfil the Kyoto protocol, or refuse to, like USA and China, but not for those who can fulfil them!

Green tech is effective and working, it is just NOT YET being installed in some lands, because another one is already running!

You simply don't invest money into another energy in a financial crisis, when you try to avoid bankruptcy and when you hold stocks of nuke plants!

Example:

Germany will phase out of nuclear energy. The exit dates were set under the Green goverment,.

When the conservative government took over, they delayed the exit times, and told us we CAN'T get out now, because we would get energy shortages!

Now, after Japan, and before elections, with 60 % of the People vehemently demanding an exit as son as possible, they put their delay plans on ice for 3 months and suddenly tell us now, that they will turn off at least one nuclear plant in Southern Germany, probably a few more, because now, all of a sudden, they are not safe enough anymore!

Huh??? In a high-tech- land such as Germany???


And SUDDENLY; we will not get an energy crisis through turning it off...!!

Aha....!


Odd?

No, TRANSPARENT, when you study the matter in depth and over years.

Fact is, that the companies which run nuclear plants had top grade stocks, and politicians got hold of a few!

Google greenpeace.

Btw, NOW all the nuclear experts Germany and Greenpeace have are being invited by the news channels to tell us more, and now, everybody listens and is waking up to reality.

Medium radioactive waste will radiate 15 000 years, uranium 200 000 years.

Where is Japan's nuclear waste stored?

What happened to it during the earthquake?

What will happen to ours?

We also get earthquakes, and what, if a plane falls onto a plant, or is being flown ionto it?

What , if a hacker virus messes the electronis up??

If our ancestors had begun with nuclear energy at Buddhas times, we would still be dealing with the waste today and for another 2500 years minimum!

Isn't it insane to even start something like this????

It is crazy!

AS CRAZY AS SAMSARA!

And just as hard to wake up from...

User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Annapurna » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:52 am

PS:

I won't have as much time as I would like to have to participate here, but besides holding more than one job, I am also engaged in a fund raising project for Japan.

I need to spend more time there than here, where some minds appear to be made up anyways...

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 14 guests