Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#41

Post by webXL »

vilhelm_s wrote: post #33

I certainly agree with his main point: the nuclear reactor accidents are a comparatively small part of the earthquake catastrophe. But the rest of the article reads like pure propaganda-- like he started out writing the article with the goal of downplaying rather than assessing the risks involved. I can spot at least one inaccuracy. He claims that TMI showed that there is no risk of nuclear fuel melting through the s…

I wouldn't call it propaganda if your merely trying to get people to put facts of an entire tragedy into the proper context. Yesterday morning I turned on the ABC and saw this: http://yfrog.com/h7r6rmcj CNN has been treating the nuclear accidents with equal importance, just because they know it freaks people out, publishing numerous errors on their website, according to one MIT scientist (Dr Josef Oehmen): https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-w...

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely propaganda on both sides, but the anti-nuclear crowd pouncing on this before we have all the facts, and while there's a race against the clock to find survivors and prevent more loss of life, is counter-productive.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#42

Post by face »

I think it's relevant to point out that this is not a news article written by a reporter; it is an opinion piece written by someone who has a very specific viewpoint.

This is not ad hominem, I am not claiming anything about the correctness of his claims. However, I think it is important to distinguish this from the other numerous WSJ pieces on the situation of nuclear plants in Japan right now.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#43

Post by fxj »

bhousel wrote: post #24
fxj wrote: post #23

do the math: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/14/japan.us.nav... says the USS Ronald Reagan has been 100 miles away when "airborne radioactivity" was detected, and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366055/Japan-earthq... says that U.S. Navy crew in relief effort get a month's radiation in just one hour. From wikipedia: The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisiever…

The pilots picked up the radiation while flying around the plant as it was venting steam. They didn't pick up that radiation at the aircraft carrier 100 miles away, so your assumptions about crazy high levels of radiation at the facility don't add up at all.

the ship personnel got the dose!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/uss-carrier-ronald-reaga...

"The maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun," Davis said.

According to 7th Fleet Commander and Spokesman Jeff Davis, the ships were moved away from the downwind direction of the plant as a precautionary measure on Sunday.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#44

Post by tea3 »

_delirium wrote: post #30
tea3 wrote: post #16

If there is no risk of the second containment level being breached why do newer reactors have a third level containment (which is missing from these older reactors)? I'm just curious.

One reason is "the last level of containment held" doesn't give engineers the safety margin they want, or the public-reassuring PR they'd want. Much better to be able to say that the last level of containment is never even relied on, but is purely insurance.

Thank you. If the fission reaction has indeed stopped, I wonder if whatever heat is still being generated (especially if the fuel rods are exposed and enough heat exists to melt the cladding) would still pose some danger to the pressure vessel?

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#45

Post by moblivu »

zeigotaro wrote: post #20
moblivu wrote: post #4

With everything the Japanese are passing through at least they have some good news! I hope there will be a good ending to this !

Not sure I would describe the permanent loss of a critical power plant as "good news," but the aversion of a large radiation leakage is certainly less bad.

Well with what their living knowing that a nuclear reactor won't blow up is still good news. I really hope it doesn't get worst...

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#46

Post by krschultz »

adsr wrote: post #32
mistermann wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the other hand, all their safety mechanisms so far have failed. Electric, diesel based and the automatic steam based. Wrong and wrong. Some backup cooling mechanisms have failed, not all safety mechanisms. The electric backup worked as designed. The diesel backup did not, as I understand it, because it was affected by the tsunami (which is inexcusable in my opinion). And the backup diesel generators brought in fr…

>The electric backup worked as designed. No, that is the reason they where suppose to fall back on diesel based pumps. The electrical outage after the quake made the electric pumps fail. The diesel based pumps also failed as we agree upon. After that there was a mechanism simply based on preasure which supposed to push out hot steam, cool it off and feed it back as water. However this mechanism led a decreased level…

There are batteries, they ran the pumps for almost 8 hours. That was one of the backups.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#47

Post by fxj »

fxj wrote: post #23

do the math: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/14/japan.us.nav... says the USS Ronald Reagan has been 100 miles away when "airborne radioactivity" was detected, and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366055/Japan-earthq... says that U.S. Navy crew in relief effort get a month's radiation in just one hour. From wikipedia: The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisiever…

here are some real data (sorry, in german):

http://www.grs.de/informationen-zur-lage-den-japanischen-ker...

there was a peak at 1.2 mSv/h when the meltdown occured. All in all the values are in the range of 0.4-1 mSv/h. At least a factor 10 lower as I found in the approximation above.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#48

Post by adsr »

krschultz wrote: post #46
adsr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The electric backup worked as designed. No, that is the reason they where suppose to fall back on diesel based pumps. The electrical outage after the quake made the electric pumps fail. The diesel based pumps also failed as we agree upon. After that there was a mechanism simply based on preasure which supposed to push out hot steam, cool it off and feed it back as water. However this mechanism led a decreased level…

There are batteries, they ran the pumps for almost 8 hours. That was one of the backups.

Yeah you are right, but that wasn't sufficient enough to solve this on the other hand.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#49

Post by adsr »

dicemoose wrote: post #27
adsr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three reactors are affected, and two plants, Fukushima and Onagawa. I would say that an earth quake and tsunami is outside the well defined.

Actually, two plants in Fukushima. Onagawa is in Miyagi and is not affected, though they did detect heightened radiation readings probably from Fukushima.

I guess your right.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/quake-japan-nuclea...

And then later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/japan-quake-onagaw...

Which at least points to the uncertainty and conflicting messages. But it's good to know that the situation has stabilized and it now is clear that it does not face the same difficulties.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#50

Post by kahirsch »

gallamine wrote: post #38
orblivion wrote: post #34

"These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate." How do you compare nuclear radiation/poisoning (apples) to electro-magnetic radiation (oranges)?

It's all electro magnetic. It's an issue of energy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

No, it's not all electromagnetic. Alpha, beta, and neutron radiation are not electromagnetic radiation.

There's also a very big difference between radiation and radioactive isotopes, which can be inhaled or ingested.

Post reply on HN