Second source, this one just a maybe it breached...
http://www.bellinghamherald...s-with-possible.html

TOKYO Japanese officials warned Tuesday that the threat of radioactive fallout has intensified because explosions at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant may have breached a reactor's inner containment vessel, the most serious development yet at the crippled facility.

"Radiation levels around the compound have risen to fairly high levels," said Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan in a morning news conference. "There is a danger of even higher radiation levels."

Kan said 400 millisieverts of radiation were detected at the plant at about 10:30. That is 20 times the amount a radiation worker may be exposed to annually.

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald...e.html#ixzz1GhQUZG2a

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Don't know anything about the source, but if this is true.... http://www.bellona.org/arti...2011/apparent_breach "The containment vessel at the embattled No 2 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has apparently been breached, according to the Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), which runs the earthquake-stricken facility."

That was reported somewhere else as the outer containment, not the reactor vessel itself. Not sure if the result of a full breech would really have any particularly negative consequences.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

"In something of a contradiction, officials at Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that, even in a worst-case scenario, the three troubled reactors at Fukushima had been depressurized by the release of radioactive steam, which would decrease the destructiveness of any breach, according to Kyodo News.

But other nuclear experts said it remained possible that an overheated uranium core in any of these reactors could melt down and breach its containment vessel, exposing the environment to a radioactive plume."

http://www.eagletribune.com...after-reactor-breach


"But other nuclear experts said it remained possible that an overheated uranium core in any of these reactors could melt down and breach its containment vessel, exposing the environment to a radioactive plume." I think I recall saying something like this in the past.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I'm not hanging my hat on anything. I merely put forth my opinion on the subject of energy and why I have that opinion. There's nothing nefarious in my opinion that energy independence is a worthy goal nor is there anything wrong with my opinion that energy independence will be a key part of our survival as a nation long-term. I"m being quite civil in saying that.

I have issue with the fact that you eliminate energy sources that include any fuels that are obtained inside the US but are non-renewable.

Interesting article on these type of reactors. There have been concerns about their design for many years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...ld_news-asiapacific/

Just in case you wanted to find out if your local reactor is a pressurized or boiling type:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors...r-reactor-units.html

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: I have issue with the fact that you eliminate energy sources that include any fuels that are obtained inside the US but are non-renewable.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: ...For instance, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, hydro, Peltier, tidal, nuclear fusion, nuclear thorium, are all existing or potential technologies whose fuel or source cannot be imported.

Every source I listed is renewable except for the Thorium, so unless the sun stops shining, the Moon disappears, the Earth's core freezes, and water disappears from the surface of the Earth we won't have problems with supply in any foreseeable future. The Thorium is estimated to be about as common as lead, and US reserves are fairly substantial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium so I think that's a much more viable approach. We've lost the lead on Thorium reactor technology to India and China, but it's not too late to play catch-up. Also, every source I listed is climate-neutral.

By the way, I'm not anti-nuclear energy. I just think that the disadvantages of uranium reactors heavily outweigh their advantages in all arenas of cost and performance, plus the side effect of producing what is in effect a terrorist's wet dream as waste products, plus we have to import uranium from Russia, a nominally hostile country.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

This is the one that I worked at



http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/poin1.html

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: I see your outer containment and raise you... TOKYO Japanese officials warned Tuesday that the threat of radioactive fallout has intensified because explosions at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant may have breached a reactor's inner containment vessel, the most serious development yet at the crippled facility.

Unfortunately, I'llI raise you one fire at reactor # 4 (just on the news)that will help spread the fallout.

Here is an article about how much the news media is overreacting over the nuclear reactors:

http://online.wsj.com/artic...=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

quote Nuclear Overreactions Modern life requires learning from disasters, not fleeing all risk..Article Video Comments (327) more in Opinion ». EmailPrintSave This ↓ More. .Twitter Digg + More close Yahoo! BuzzMySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookLinkedInFarkViadeoOrkut Text After a once-in-300-years earthquake, the Japanese have been keeping cool amid the chaos, organizing an enormous relief and rescue operation, and generally earning the world's admiration. We wish we could say the same for the reaction in the U.S., where the troubles at Japan's nuclear reactors have produced an overreaction about the risks of modern life and technology. Part of the problem is the lack of media proportion about the disaster itself. The quake and tsunami have killed hundreds, and probably thousands, with tens of billions of dollars in damage. The energy released by the quake off Sendei is equivalent to about 336 megatons of TNT, or 100 more megatons than last year's quake in Chile and thousands of times the yield of the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima. The scale of the tragedy is epic. Yet the bulk of U.S. media coverage has focused on a nuclear accident whose damage has so far been limited and contained to the plant sites. In simple human terms, the natural destruction of Earth and sea have far surpassed any errors committed by man. Given the incomplete news reports, it is impossible to say how much worse the nuclear damage will be. Unlike the Soviets at Chernobyl, the Japanese have been taking sensible precautions like evacuating people near the plants and handing out iodine pills even if they may never be needed. These precautions increase public worry, but better to take them even if they prove to be unnecessary. We will have plenty of time to dissect events at the reactors and the safety lessons going forward. William Tucker provides some useful context nearby, and one crucial point is that the containment walls seem to have held. These walls are designed to withstand quakes and explosions, and it is good news if they have done so. The crisis seems to have been triggered by the failure of diesel generators that provided electricity to cool the reactors once they were shut down. Mr. Tucker explains that this weakness has been corrected in new nuclear plant designs. We have no special brief for nuclear power over any other energy source. Our view is that it should compete with other sources on a market basis, without subsidies or government loan guarantees. Every energy source has risks and economic externalities, whether they are noise and bird kills (wind), huge land requirements (solar), rig explosions and tanker spills (oil), or mining accidents (coal). But more than other energy sources, nuclear plants have had their costs increased by artificial political obstacles and delay. The U.S. hasn't built a new nuclear plant since 1979, after the Three Mile Island meltdown, even as older nuclear plants continue to provide 20% of the nation's electricity. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a couple of years away from completing a reactor at Watts Bar after years of effort. Proposals for 20 new reactors to be built over the next 15 to 20 years are in various stages of review in the multiyear approval process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with two each in Georgia and South Carolina at the front of the line. But the much-ballyhooed "nuclear renaissance" is a long way off, and it will be longer after events in Japan. Our larger point is less about nuclear power than how we react as a society to inevitable disasters, both natural and man-made. Because a plane crashes, we don't stop flying. Because an oil rig explodes in the Gulf, we don't (or at least we shouldn't) stop drilling for oil. And because the Challenger space shuttle blew up, we didn't stop shuttle flights—though we do seem to have lost much of our national will for further manned space exploration. We should learn from the Japanese nuclear crisis, not let it feed a political panic over nuclear power in general. *** The paradox of material and technological progress is that we seem to become more risk-averse the safer it makes us. The more comfortable we become, the less eager we are to take the risks that are the only route to future progress. The irony is that one reason Japan has survived this catastrophic event as well as it has is its great material development and wealth. Modern civilization is in the daily business of measuring and mitigating risk, but its advance requires that we continue to take risk. It would compound Japan's tragedy if the lesson America learns is that we should pursue the illusory and counterproductive goal of eliminating all risk. Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

quote Originally posted by carnut122: I thought they moving that spent fuel to an old salt mine out west (TX NV?)?

That was the plan until Obama said "no". The site was Yucca Mountain.

Fire is out, fire isn't out, fire is back..

TEPCO lies.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: I thought they moving that spent fuel to an old salt mine out west (TX NV?)?

In 2009 the Obama Administration stated that the site(Yucca Mountian) was no longer an option and proposed to eliminate all funding in the 2009 United States federal budget, prompting inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ear_waste_repository

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Here is an article about how much the news media is overreacting over the nuclear reactors: http://online.wsj.com/artic...=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop [QUOTE] Nuclear Overreactions Modern life requires learning from disasters, not fleeing all risk..Article Video Comments (327) more in Opinion ». EmailPrintSave This ↓ More. .Twitter Digg + More close Yahoo! BuzzMySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookLinkedInFarkViadeoOrkut Text After a once-in-300-years earthquake, the Japanese have been keeping cool amid the chaos, organizing an enormous relief and rescue operation, and generally earning the world's admiration. We wish we could say the same for the reaction in the U.S., where the troubles at Japan's nuclear reactors have produced an overreaction about the risks of modern life and technology. Part of the problem is the lack of media proportion about the disaster itself. The quake and tsunami have killed hundreds, and probably thousands, with tens of billions of dollars in damage. The energy released by the quake off Sendei is equivalent to about 336 megatons of TNT, or 100 more megatons than last year's quake in Chile and thousands of times the yield of the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima. The scale of the tragedy is epic. Yet the bulk of U.S. media coverage has focused on a nuclear accident whose damage has so far been limited and contained to the plant sites. In simple human terms, the natural destruction of Earth and sea have far surpassed any errors committed by man. Given the incomplete news reports, it is impossible to say how much worse the nuclear damage will be. Unlike the Soviets at Chernobyl, the Japanese have been taking sensible precautions like evacuating people near the plants and handing out iodine pills even if they may never be needed. These precautions increase public worry, but better to take them even if they prove to be unnecessary. We will have plenty of time to dissect events at the reactors and the safety lessons going forward. William Tucker provides some useful context nearby, and one crucial point is that the containment walls seem to have held. These walls are designed to withstand quakes and explosions, and it is good news if they have done so. The crisis seems to have been triggered by the failure of diesel generators that provided electricity to cool the reactors once they were shut down. Mr. Tucker explains that this weakness has been corrected in new nuclear plant designs. We have no special brief for nuclear power over any other energy source. Our view is that it should compete with other sources on a market basis, without subsidies or government loan guarantees. Every energy source has risks and economic externalities, whether they are noise and bird kills (wind), huge land requirements (solar), rig explosions and tanker spills (oil), or mining accidents (coal). But more than other energy sources, nuclear plants have had their costs increased by artificial political obstacles and delay. The U.S. hasn't built a new nuclear plant since 1979, after the Three Mile Island meltdown, even as older nuclear plants continue to provide 20% of the nation's electricity. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a couple of years away from completing a reactor at Watts Bar after years of effort. Proposals for 20 new reactors to be built over the next 15 to 20 years are in various stages of review in the multiyear approval process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with two each in Georgia and South Carolina at the front of the line. But the much-ballyhooed "nuclear renaissance" is a long way off, and it will be longer after events in Japan. Our larger point is less about nuclear power than how we react as a society to inevitable disasters, both natural and man-made. Because a plane crashes, we don't stop flying. Because an oil rig explodes in the Gulf, we don't (or at least we shouldn't) stop drilling for oil. And because the Challenger space shuttle blew up, we didn't stop shuttle flights—though we do seem to have lost much of our national will for further manned space exploration. We should learn from the Japanese nuclear crisis, not let it feed a political panic over nuclear power in general. *** The paradox of material and technological progress is that we seem to become more risk-averse the safer it makes us. The more comfortable we become, the less eager we are to take the risks that are the only route to future progress. The irony is that one reason Japan has survived this catastrophic event as well as it has is its great material development and wealth. Modern civilization is in the daily business of measuring and mitigating risk, but its advance requires that we continue to take risk. It would compound Japan's tragedy if the lesson America learns is that we should pursue the illusory and counterproductive goal of eliminating all risk. Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[/QUOTE]

I am all for nuclear power, but this article downplays the potential of the nuclear disaster. Sounds a lot like pro nuclear power industry spin.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: TOKYO Japanese officials warned Tuesday that the threat of radioactive fallout has intensified because explosions at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant may have breached a reactor's inner containment vessel, the most serious development yet at the crippled facility.

Oh, what the Fukushima are they going to do now?

MSNBC said that there was a surge in radiation and everyone was evacuated from the plant. Everyone.
They said that the level had dropped back down a bit later. No word on whether they were going to let or ask people go back in.
Not looking good.

Reuters reports the same thing--all remaining workers ordered out--with 2 missing.
(where's the talking head?)

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps...km-20110315_12333631
Two Nuclear Plant Workers Missing

Updated: Tuesday, 15 Mar 2011, 6:51 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 15 Mar 2011, 6:51 PM EDT

(NewsCore) - TOKYO -- Two plant workers have been missing at a Japanese nuclear reactor since a massive earthquake and tsunami hit the plant late last week, authorities said Wednesday.

The two employees of Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) were working at the turbine facility adjacent to the No. 4 reactor of Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant when the quake and massive waves struck the region Friday.

"Since then, the two have been still missing," said Masami Nishimura, an official of the country's nuclear safety agency.

The official denied news reports that the two went missing after Tuesday's explosion at the reactor.

The official also confirmed a fire that broke out Tuesday had caused a crack in the roof of the reactor building.

Copyright 2011 AFP. All rights reserved.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/th...ng-at-japan-reactor/
Two workers still missing at Japan reactor
AAP March 16, 2011, 9:52 am


Two plant workers have been missing at a Japanese nuclear reactor since a massive earthquake and tsunami hit the plant late last week, authorities say.

The two employees of Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) were working at the turbine facility adjacent to the number four reactor of Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant when the quake and massive waves struck the region on Friday.

"Since then, the two have been still missing," said Masami Nishimura, an official of the country's nuclear safety agency.

The official denied news reports that the two went missing after Tuesday's explosion at the reactor.
The official also confirmed that a fire broke out on Tuesday and caused a crack in the roof of the reactor building.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 03-15-2011).]

Ruptured torus. Not good. Radiation levels in some parts of Tokyo 20X normal--Still "safe".

quote Those buildings are fortresslike structures of steel and reinforced concrete, designed to absorb the impact of a plane crash and minimize radiation leaks. After a series of conflicting reports about how much damage the reactor had sustained after that blast, Mr. Edano said, “There is a very high probability that a portion of the containment vessel was damaged.” Japanese officials subsequently said that the explosion had damaged a doughnut-shaped steel container of water, known as a torus, that surrounds the base of the reactor vessel inside the primary containment building. Ruptures in the torus are serious, said Michael Friedlander, a senior nuclear power plant operator for 13 years at three plants in the United States, including three years at a General Electric boiling water reactor very similar to the ones in trouble in Japan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011.../asia/17nuclear.html

Here is an article I was emailed.

quote FYI: A lot of “the sky is falling” has been recently bandied about re > nuclear reactors. The expert below is quite interesting to read. MARCH > 14, 2011 WSJJapan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl The containment > structures appear to be working, and the latest reactor designs aren't > vulnerable to the coolant problem at issue here.By WILLIAM TUCKER > Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole > neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control, > press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the > troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe. > Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power, has > warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could > happen here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension of > licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation III" > reactor that has been laboring through design review at the Nuclear > Regulatory Commission for seven years. > Before we respond with such panic, though, it would be useful to review > exactly what is happening in Japan and what we have to fear from it. > The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, > well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter > than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods > immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a > "runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A > commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although > both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially > explosive material. > Once the reactor has shut down, there remains "decay heat" from traces > of other radioactive isotopes. This can take more than a week to cool > down, and the rods must be continually bathed in cooling waters to keep > them from overheating. > On all Generation II reactors—the ones currently in operation—the > cooling water is circulated by electric pumps. The new Generation III > reactors such as the AP1000 have a simplified "passive" cooling system > where the water circulates by natural convection with no pumping > required. > If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactor—as they were at > Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunami—the water in the cooling system can > overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure > that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at > Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at > Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one > dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate. > If the coolant continues to evaporate, the water level can fall below > the level of the fuel rods, exposing them. This will cause a meltdown, > meaning the fuel rods melt to the bottom of the steel pressure vessel. > Early speculation was that in a case like this the fuel might continue > melting right through the steel and perhaps even through the concrete > containment structure—the so-called China syndrome, where the fuel > would melt all the way to China. But Three Mile Island proved this > doesn't happen. The melted fuel rods simply aren't hot enough to melt > steel or concrete. > The decay heat must still be absorbed, however, and as a last-ditch > effort the emergency core cooling system can be activated to flood the > entire containment structure with water. This will do considerable > damage to the reactor but will prevent any further steam releases. The > Japanese have now reportedly done this using seawater in at least two > of the troubled reactors. These reactors will never be restarted. Getty > Images > None of this amounts to "another Chernobyl." The Chernobyl reactor had > two crucial design flaws. First, it used graphite (carbon) instead of > water to "moderate" the neutrons, which makes possible the nuclear > reaction. The graphite caught fire in April 1986 and burned for four > days. Water does not catch fire. > Second, Chernobyl had no containment structure. When the graphite > caught fire, it spouted a plume of radioactive smoke that spread across > the globe. A containment structure would have both smothered the fire > and contained the radioactivity. > If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo > Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam > releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30 > years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three > Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death, > devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it > is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about > damage to a nuclear reactor. > What the Japanese earthquake has proved is that even the oldest > containment structures can withstand the impact of one of the largest > earthquakes in recorded history. The problem has been with the > electrical pumps required to operate the cooling system. It would be > tragic if the result of the Japanese accident were to prevent > development of Generation III reactors, which eliminate this design > flaw. > Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will > Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey" (Bartleby > Press, 2010).

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Yep - That is why they have primary, secondary and tertiary cooling pumps with multiple sources of power (grid, onsite gas turbine, onsite diesel started by compressed air, and battery)

And still it isn't enough. Maybe someday we'll achieve perfection... When we do, will we be Gods?

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: When we do, will we be Gods?

Was this checked religious ? Are you inviting a religious discussion ?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: . . . . fission uranium power generation was a bad idea from the beginning.

I think it's too early to write off nuclear fission as a future power source. There are new reactor designs on the drawing board that address the safety problems and also the nuclear waste problem. Reactors that are radically different from the ones that are operating today. Some of the designs emphasize safety. Other designs focus on reducing the nuclear waste problem. Maybe they will come up with a design that does both--safety and waste reduction. I've only done a little reading on it, so I am not on top of the details.

Nuclear fission may have a low or negative media profile for a time, in the wake of this Japan situation, but in the long run I don't think it is going away in any of our lifetimes. I think it will take more than any of our lifetimes for nuclear fusion or anything else really "big" to work out, that would become a new main energy source. The search for new energy looks (to me) to be very divergent at the moment, with all kinds of "stuff" being pursued: Bio-fuels, perhaps from genetically modified organisms. Gigantic solar stations in orbit, beaming energy back down to the surface. Ocean tides, surface winds and even high altitude winds. Carbon-sequestered coal. Almost anything you can dream up has somebody or other pushing for it. In such a wide-open situation, I would say that nuclear fission is still a strong player.

I have to admit, I'm a (global) "warmer". But perhaps some of the people on this forum who are on the opposite side of that fence can see other (non-climate related) reasons to continue with nuclear fission in some form or another.

Anyway it's been fun "pontificating" like this.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-16-2011).]

quote have to admit, I'm a (global) "warmer". But perhaps some of the people on this forum who are on the opposite side of that fence can see other (non-climate related) reasons to continue with nuclear fission in some form or another

That's me.

But, yes, I like nuclear power, because the electricity it provides is just too dang cheap to even bother metering--not to mention that I have an affinity for anything that has the potential, regardless of how remote that potential may be--that can kill thousands of people without them even being aware it's happening.

And yes, they can build one in my back yard and even use my little lake for cooling water.

http://www.azcentral.com/ne...sunami-meltdown.html

FUKUSHIMA, Japan - Japan suspended operations to keep its stricken nuclear plant from melting down today after surging radiation made it too dangerous to stay.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the workers dousing the reactors in a frantic effort to cool them needed to withdraw.

"The workers cannot carry out even minimal work at the plant now," Edano said. "Because of the radiation risk, we are on standby."

The nuclear crisis has triggered international alarm and partly overshadowed the human tragedy caused by Friday's earthquake and tsunami, which pulverized Japan's northeastern coastline, killing an estimated 10,000 people and severely damaging the nuclear plant.

Since then, authorities have tried frantically to avert an environmental catastrophe at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex in northeastern Japan 170 miles north of Tokyo.

Edano said the government is likely to ask the U.S. military for help. He did not elaborate. He said the government still is considering whether and how to take up the various offers of help from other countries.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/ne...n.html#ixzz1GmRhooeW

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That's not worded clearly. Though 7% of uranium is produced in Russia, we actually import almost all of our uranium for reactor fuel from Russia and Canada: http://answers.yahoo.com/qu...0071223212029AA8Xb4n http://www.trendsimwatching...us-imports-92-o.html http://www.bellona.org/arti...07/Uranium_USimports

Well it's cool with me if we currently import the uranium from Russia from their decommissioned nuclear weapons. Win win the way I see it. The way I see it if we have a diverse pool of suppliers with a fair amount of them being friendly that is fairly cool. It would be nice to have more from the US however.

The way I see it is we need to have diverse power sources. Right now Nuclear Fission fills a hole nothing else does. We need to continue to research other sources however at this time we can only chose to build plants using technologies that work.

Waste - What we really need to be doing is recycling our nuclear waste. We are just storing it currently at the power plants in spent fuel pools till cool enough, and then in dry casks. I am not a supporter of the idea of putting usable resources into a mountain to just sit there forever. It seems incomprehensible to me to think our government/military can not come up with safeguards that work with recycling the fuel. Other countries do it. If you want to worry about terrorists getting bomb material, I suggest you worry about them getting it from places other than inside the US.

In the past when we found out issues with technologies we worked on solutions to make them work rather than remove them from the possibilities. Comparing the number of deaths from Nuclear vs Coal, the way I see it Nuclear is MUCH safer. What happened in Japan should scream to us that the safety can and MUST be improved. Simple things like locating the back up power in locations that are not affected by local foreseeable crises. New regular buildings on ocean shores are built to be hurricane resilient. Who missed this in Japan? This should have been foreseeable. I am really disappointed with the heavy thinkers who are supposed to be involved in this. I also question if US coastal located power plants have thought of it. Very heavy localized flooding must be considered for any plant located on an ocean shore.

fyi - Our diesel generators were/are located in the lower levels of the facility. Not a basement but not a higher floor. Being on the shore of Lake Michigan I don't know what the actual potential of flooding is. The Natural Gas generator is located behind the building when looking at it from the lake shore. I don't remember how high they were.

I worked at a nuclear power plant as a Nuclear Power plant Operator Trainee (NPOT) for about 9 months. This was back in the mid 80s. I was in training the entire time. I decided I didn't like the extreme boredom involved in the position. A mistake as I see it now but whatever. One of the things they drilled into us was if you F up, whatever it is, if it can cause a problem you are told to report it. You will not be 'punished' for anything you self report. Safety was a top concern. Meeting the regulators requirements was a top concern. I was impressed by the level of thought they put into the safe operation of the plant. Considering the safety record of Nuclear power plants I think they have done a fairly good job. I also know there were other plants that lacked that from reports I read. idk if ours was different, or if I just never saw the level of issues at other plants because of my position.

One of the things that we did discuss is what would happen if multiple failures occurred. It was an area that was very hard to get a good understanding of the risk levels. What would be the odds of failure of the grid, failure of the batteries, and failure of both generators (we had both diesel and natural gas)

Yes Nuclear has a level of danger associated with it. MANY other industrial operations also have a danger level associated with them. Clearly many other industries have been shown to be much more dangerous to the general public than Nuclear Power. Clearly many other power sources are much more dangerous to the workers that produce the power.

So no I don't have an education invested in Nuclear Power. I also don't work in the field. I have knowledge of it. I am of course somewhat biased by being involved in it.

My opinion of if nuclear power can be safe? Yes.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 03-16-2011).]

Just finished reading through the Three Mile Island accident report at wiki. Wow. Just wow.... A classic chain of events failure that exploited unforeseen weakpoints much like what's happening in Japan today, and what happened in Chernobyl in the 1980's.

Cleanup cost nearly one billion dollars, no way the ratepayers paid for that, and tens of millions paid out for other reasons related to that. And it's not really "clean" because radioactive concrete and other structures were left in place. Safe, in the sense that as long as you stay away you'll be fine, but not clean.

What's the latest? Are all four reactors in meltdown yet? Or was it six? I can't keep track, there's too much conflicting pro/anti propaganda flying around.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

Just compiling a video for my channel after taking a day of from nuke overload.

Latest reports filtered through the IAEA are tracking that Fukushima Daini (aka Fukushima #2) is reported in cold shutdown and external power has the pumps fully operation.

Reports on Fukushima Dai-ichi (aka Fukushima #1) has a variety of ongoing issue including plans to pump water onto the complex from outside as well as drop water from helicopters. News reports suggest debris is now an issue, but no identification of if it is just physical obstruction or radioactive.

From IAEA site. (Note Report on #5 which apparently is boiling off or leaking water.)

Japanese Earthquake Update (16 March 14:55 UTC)

Japanese authorities have reported concerns about the condition of the spent nuclear fuel pool at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 and Unit 4. Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa announced Wednesday that Special Defence Forces helicopters planned to drop water onto Unit 3, and officials are also preparing to spray water into Unit 4 from ground positions, and possibly later into Unit 3. Some debris on the ground from the 14 March explosion at Unit 3 may need to be removed before the spraying can begin.

japanese authorities have also informed the IAEA that at 12:00 UTC of 15 March the water level in Unit 5 had decreased to 201 cm above the top of the fuel. This was a 40 cm decrease since 07:00 UTC of 15 March. Officials at the plant were planning to use an operational diesel generator in Unit 6 to supply water to Unit 5.

Japan Earthquake Update (15 March 2011, 18:00 UTC)

Unit 4 was shut down for a routine, planned maintenance outage on 30 November 2010. After the outage, all fuel from the reactor was transferred to the spent fuel pool.

Units 5 and 6 were shut down at the time of the earthquake. Unit 5 was shut down as of 3 January 2011. Unit 6 was shut down as of 14 August 2010. Both reactors are currently loaded with fuel.


All units at the Fukushima Daini, Onagawa, and Tokai nuclear power plants are in a safe and stable condition (i.e. cold shutdown).

All Fukushima Daini units in cold shutdown
15 March 2011
All four units at the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant have now achieved cold shutdown - where coolant water is at less than 100ºC - with full operation of cooling systems, Tepco reported. All the reactors shut down automatically during last week's earthquake and have remained safe. While unit 3's shutdown went as expected, damage to the emergency core cooling systems of units 1, 2 and 4 led to the announcement of emergency status. These three reactors were prepared for potential pressure release, but this was never required. Unit 1 announced cold shutdown at 1.24 am on 14 March and unit 2 followed at 3.52 am. Tepco has now announced that unit 4 achieved cold shutdown at 7.15 pm on 15 March. Water levels are now stable in all four reactors and offsite power is available, the company said.

NHK Japan TV Reported that the radiation level is too high for air drop.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv

Remember also there is no way for them to know what is exactly happening inside the core. There are no webcams inside the pressure vessel. The only way they know what is happening is to look at what is coming out and sometime later to disassemble it. That will happen sometime but far into the future.

Sounds like they are going to get grid power to the plant soon. That should put an end to the crisis mode of what is happening there.

I didn't hear if they found the missing two workers or not. I don't expect a good outcome on them.