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

Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

#101

Post by Nrsolis »

bobfunk wrote: post #67
ck2 wrote: post #8

http://news.google.com/news/more?ncl=d_LFixACgsQEvVMNHMag3MA... There is almost guaranteed significant radiation release. quote from slashdot: The outer walls of the Reactor 1 building have partially blown off, leaving only what looks like a steel frame. NHK is saying that a sensor within 5km of the plant is detecting radiation levels approaching 1015 microsieverts - that is apparently a year's worth of radiation exp…

This guy from that thread seems to know his stuff: http://slashdot.org/~TopSpin But who knows...

I read his comment and I can't say that I disagree with his assessment given the amount of information that we have. I spent some time on a US nuclear warship and he's probably got some nuclear engineering background.

Right now, my main concern is the release of Caesium-137. If that has been detected, then there is a solid chance that the core has been at least partially exposed. Caesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years and is a gamma emitter. It's also water-soluble. Not a good combination.

Re: Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

#102

Post by mortenjorck »

by wrote: post #89
oemera wrote: post #50

Real quick, what does that mean for the rest of the world? Do we have to fear something?

The things we should fear are myocardial infarction [1] and cerebrovascular accident [2]. These are what will probably kill us in developed countries [3]. The good news is that we know how to prevent many of these deaths: regular exercise, not over-eating, not smoking and moderation in alcohol and drug consumption. Other causes of death and ill-health are also reduced by these actions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

An excellent response to nearly any concern of disaster, terrorism, or other highly-visible but highly-unlikely danger. Fear is only natural, but it's amazing how quickly it can be allayed with a little perspective.

Re: Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

#103

Post by jensnockert »

jensnockert wrote: post #78

Got a mail from WANO relayed to me, below is the interesting part about the explosion. ----- 1. Hydrogen explosion occurred at 15:36 between containment and reactor building of Fukushima Daiichi unit 1. Walls of reactor building were blown out or damaged. 2. It was confirmed that unit 1 containment integrity was maintained. Explosion was not inside the containment as it is inert. 3. Radiation level at the Fukushima D…

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_ear... was updated again, with news that the sea water injection was paused due to a new tsunami warning and that the event is now classified as a level 4 event on the INES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sca...) scale, TMI was classified as 5 and Chernobyl 7.

Re: Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

#105

Post by ScotterC »

btmorex wrote: post #46
koski wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japanese authorities are extending the evacuation zone around the two Fukushima nuclear plants from 10km to 20km, according to local media.

Well, judging from past nuclear accidents (Chernobyl, 3 mile island), I would: 1.) Not trust the government, the plant operator, the plant designer, hell anyone remotely involved. They always downplay whatever is really going on to prevent panic (or divert blame) 2.) Get as far away as possible, preferably in the opposite direction of prevailing winds.

Yea, let's not listen to the people that know what they're talking about. Let's spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. That always improves the situation.

Give me one example of when the government, the plant operator, the plant designer knowingly lied about the situation.

Give me one example of someone who was harmed by Three Mile Island which had a full meltdown with containment. (Chernobyl is irrelevant, it did not have containment.)

Re: Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

#107

Post by rphlx »

Retric wrote: post #90
mistermann wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling most people on HN know how to calculate the area of a circle. ;)

True, but calculating the land area by doing so is a mistake because ~50% of that 20KM circle is over the ocean. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=864&bih=471&#3...

Should we count lakes and other self-contained bodies of water on land?

Re: Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

#108

Post by marshray »

patrickgzill wrote: post #82
adrianN wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Even if shit gets real and the reactor goes Chernobyl, Japan is sufficiently far away from the western world that it doesn't matter at all. People weren't concerned about radiation from the nukes in Bikini either.

Except the prevailing winds called the westerlies would put the radiation over California in a matter of days.

At which point it would likely be so dilute as to not be a significant contributor to mortality.

Re: Video of reactor 1 at Fukushima plant

#109

Post by OpieCunningham »

ScotterC wrote: post #105
btmorex wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, judging from past nuclear accidents (Chernobyl, 3 mile island), I would: 1.) Not trust the government, the plant operator, the plant designer, hell anyone remotely involved. They always downplay whatever is really going on to prevent panic (or divert blame) 2.) Get as far away as possible, preferably in the opposite direction of prevailing winds.

Yea, let's not listen to the people that know what they're talking about. Let's spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. That always improves the situation. Give me one example of when the government, the plant operator, the plant designer knowingly lied about the situation. Give me one example of someone who was harmed by Three Mile Island which had a full meltdown with containment. (Chernobyl is irrelevant, it did not h…

> Yea, let's not listen to the people that know what they're talking about.

Really? People with reputations at stake rarely or never spin information that minimizes impact to their reputations? People with dangerous information rarely or never, rightly or wrongly, minimize the impact of that dangerous information for concern over spreading panic?

Next you'll tell me POTUS never lies, Congress is looking out for our best interests, and nuclear power is essentially 100% safe.

> Give me one example of someone who was harmed by Three Mile Island which had a full meltdown with containment.

http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm

Quote: A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html

Quote: Exposure to high doses of radiation shortly after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island may have increased cancer among Pennsylvanians downwind of the plant, scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say.

That's two.

> Chernobyl is irrelevant

Excellent news.

--

Another angle is that the "people that know what they're talking about" very often don't know what they're talking about, particularly in the minutes/hours/days following emergency conditions. TMI timeline:

Scranton held a press conference in which he was reassuring, yet confusing, about this possibility, stating that though there had been a "small release of radiation,... no increase in normal radiation levels" had been detected. These were contradicted by another official, and by statements from Met Ed, who both claimed that no radiation had been released.[21] In fact, readings from instruments at the plant and off-site detectors had detected radiation releases, albeit at levels that were unlikely to threaten public health as long as they were temporary, and providing that containment of the then highly contaminated reactor was maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Post reply on HN