But to what end EF. What do they stand to gain? Everyone's watching the news anyway.. New generation N-Plants might be more technical, but that means more potential to fail usually. Technical robustness, the best of now, but bomb-proofed (literally) might ba an answer.
Obviously they have come a long way since the 80's considering the strength of the quake and the tsunami. Japan has over 50 N-plants.
This plant started operation in 1971. It is due for decommissioning. This is one reason why the operators have decided to flood the core with sea water - something that will render the reactor unusable.
Do you mean the fact it has a containment dome (unlike Chernobyl)? Let see if one news agency was just talking about people being buried under rubble and other was talking about "MELTDOWN!!!11!" which one do you think people will watch? The news industry has evolved to focus on the most attention garbing issues possible, they do it out of instinct at this point. aaaah, no, look up passive safety, if anything the latest designs are simpler, replacing redundant pumps with natural convection for example, many "4th generation" reactor designs like the pebble bed reactors are passively safe and are technically simpler then say a BWR, the only problem is they require materials and designs which are alien to most nuclear power companies and thus why they don't touch them: they would have to retool and throw away all they have invested in their own archaic ways.
That wasn't what I was asking. I am well aware of why Japan has nuclear energy. Sea water is not used for cooling in nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants are normally cooled with ultra-pure water, as any contamination can become radioactive (as well as interfere with the reactor's processes). Flooding the reactor with ocean water will almost certainly ruin the unit permanently. As Walt Patterson, an independent nuclear consultant, put it to BBC News: "This reactor will now be a write-off." (Source) Yes. So why would you build a nuclear power plant right on the ocean in an area that is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis? Why not build it further inland or on higher ground so that the risk associated with tsunamis is reduced or removed entirely? Remember, another reactor is also having major issues. And unfortunately, this is likely to get worse before it gets better.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nuclear power plants have several coolant loops in series (the above diagram shows a general example). The primary coolant loop runs radioisotope contaminated water through the reactor and to a heat exchanger, the secondary loop runs distilled water from the heat exchanger through a turbine and then to another heat exchanger, the third loop can consist of any water, be it river water, sea water, condenser water and takes heat from the final heat exchanger and dumps into the environment: into a river for river water, into the sea for sea water into the air for condenser water. Sea water is of course the cheapest dump, not using fresh water and not needing huge cooling towers. The water being spoken of in the article you cite in primary and secondary water, the tertiary water from the sea is usually not any where near the reactor core or radiation (its separated by two loops!) dumping it into the containment dome on the other hand likely flooding the reactor its self with salt water is certianly not normal is a irreversible maneuver. Clearly the operates know the fuel elements are melted and the reactor is thus damaged beyond repair, if the news of iodine and cesium detected is true that is clear sign the fuel elements have melted and are directly exposed to the cooling water.
So this is nothing like a nuclear submarine. When they're scrammed they are off line. The only thing you need to contain is any radioactive gases. So in effect these are bombs waiting to go off?
Did you hear a second reactor has also become unstable. This is another reactor thats miles away from the one we are discussing here.
Might this have anything to do with this ...experimental fuel CNN was talking about on Friday? They said it was dangerous.
Anyone else think that we are not being told everything? The evacuation radius is 20km, and they are turning people back from 60km. For nuclear power incidents, the Japanese are known offenders when it comes to accurate disclosure. I think it would be a good precaution for people to give their children multimineral and vitamin tablets (children's version). In order to give them a full dose of iodide over the next month or so. Won't do any harm. Except to your pocket if it's a waste of time. I remember Chernobyl well, and even when we were in the direct path of radioactive rain (UK) they didn't tell us to take any precautions whatever. No problem at all they said. Subsequently, we have an increase in thyroid cancers for Brits in affected areas. Iodide is dirt-cheap, but they don't want to frighten the sheeple. The half life of the radioactive iodide from power stations is 8 days.
They may well be telling us the whole truth, undiluted. My experience of such an event, in Europe, leads me to be cautious. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. People who were told not to worry at all now have children with cancer. Or they have cancer themselves. Just do a search for Chernobyl thyroid cancer.
I'm not sure whether you are still disagreeing. Your quotes are accurate. Belarus is a small country about the size of Kansas, close to the disaster. 4,000 extra incidences of cancer there. In children and young people. Other countries were affected, but less so. Are you saying thyroid cancer isn't a problem? As I say, there may be no problem at all. Do as you wish.
I'm saying the problem was grossly exaggerated. No one complains about the thousands of deaths from lung disease and lung disorders from coal pollution for example like they complain about "radiation", radiation is a bogey man when there are much more mundane things killing far more of us to worry about. Think about this: The dosage for those few that still live in the Chernobyl area is 9 mSv, the average dosage from Chernoby "recovery operation workers" was 120 mSv.[1] Yet the highest yearly dosage of the people of the naturally radioactive city of Ramsar, Iran is 260 mSv[2], these people have been living in a place for generations with background radiation levels many times higher then Chernobyl is now, and yet they have no increase cancer rates or birth defects. [1] http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html [2] http://www.probeinternational.org/Ramsar.pdf
Latest update from the wire service Reuters: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110313 The power-plants seem to be teetering on the edge of disaster. For one, I'm glad the Japs are in control of this, they are hard workers and feel they have something to prove to the world. If anyone can save these plants, the Japs can. Nobody does technology like they do. Good luck fellas..
