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

Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#21

Post by gh02t »

mrschwabe wrote: post #15
gh02t wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would be neat to see an open technology solution for the purposes of monitoring It's trivial to do so. Decay of Cs-137 releases a 662 keV gamma ray that is easily measured and the count rate is proportional to the source activity (or ultimately the total amount of Cs-137 present). You can calibrate an inexpensive NaI detector such that it will tell you how much Cs-137 is in a given volume of water. If you place…

Good info! If the technology is cheap, as you point out, then the next logical step might be a collaborative project to get a network of inexpensive, miniature, buoyant craft's out to sea - for the purpose of actively measuring levels of cesium 137; sharing these results for everyone to see, to graph, and to check on at any given time of the day. One-time results from a fish is useful data but to have a whole swarm o…

Not going to happen, nor is there much reason to do so. For one, the NaI detectors are relatively inexpensive, but still you're talking about $10K each minimum for such a setup. There are other detectors that would work for this (EJ-309 for instance, you need a detector capable of energy spectroscopy), but they're even more expensive and often extremely toxic. What I was describing is a setup to measure contamination of the water while it's still at the plant.

These sorts of statistics are monitored and the data is available ( http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/6045/2013/bg-10-6045-2013.p... ), but the contamination levels are so low that you have to use a very different method. Basically they go out and collect a bunch of sea water (linked report uses 100 liters), then filter it through a microfilter and the filter, which traps all of the cesium, is measured back in a laboratory using a very sensitive HPGe detector (which cost $100K+ and require cryogenic cooling at all times).

The measured activity levels in that report were in the range of about 1-15 Bq/m^3 of sea water. That's 1-15 atoms disintegrating per second (there's ~10^29 atoms in a cubic meter of water). Those levels are far too low to reasonably measure at sea, end of discussion. Even the highest observed dispersal of about 140Bq/m^3 (which was actually Cs-134 and was in a small area immediately after the disaster) would be very tough to measure in real time like you suggest.

Much more practical is to monitor the rate of dispersal at the outlet (i.e., the pipes pumping water into the ocean at Fukushima) and simulate the fluid dynamics to calculate the dispersal. These results you then validate by comparing to spot measurements taken in the manner described in the linked paper. In fact, this is again exactly what they do. This work is widely published and openly available, but not well known to the general public because it's rather technical. My own research work is on a related subject, but different application (finding the position of a concentrated radioactive source in an urban environment).

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#22

Post by tedunangst »

baseballmerpeak wrote: post #13
ohitsdom wrote: post #8

Wow, the concept of citizens' panels sounds awesome. I wish we had something similar in the US. It's the perfect solution for dealing with police shootings, where prosecutors are reluctant to indict an officer (since they need to work closely with police in their everyday work).

A pre-trial in the court of public opinion? I thought that is the purpose of grand juries. After all, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich . (Though not all pork, evidently) On one hand, it's a massive waste of judicial bandwidth. On the other, it's an effective check on the coziness between AGs, DAs, and law enforcement organizations.

Isn't this the role fulfilled by Nancy Grace? When she decides somebody needs to be prosecuted, she talks about it on her show until charges are filed. (And then pronounces the defendant guilty.)

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#23

Post by mrschwabe »

slapshot wrote: post #18
mrschwabe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good info! If the technology is cheap, as you point out, then the next logical step might be a collaborative project to get a network of inexpensive, miniature, buoyant craft's out to sea - for the purpose of actively measuring levels of cesium 137; sharing these results for everyone to see, to graph, and to check on at any given time of the day. One-time results from a fish is useful data but to have a whole swarm o…

Somebody did this. Before the experiment, they expected a background level of Cesium 137 of between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 (caused by 1950s nuclear testing, which released a ton of it). They found actual levels between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 across the Pacific with some small variation above and below: http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html Think about it this way. Worst-case estimates are that 2-4 kilos of Cesium 137 were rele…

Thanks for the headsup - but there's nothing wrong with some competition and not to mention getting more coverage; for example it doesn't look like they have any data near the coast of Fukushima preficture which is the most important spot. Also the monitoring does not appear in realtime and if we are getting nitpicky there are certainly a few UX issues with how the data is presented.

On a related note, I'm sure Ken Buesseler is a good guy and his site is nice and I have nothing bad to say about him; I don't know him - but you can find comments about him from people who claim he's a "nuclear shill" and so regardless as a matter of principal it would be prudent to get more independent researchers involved in gathering data.

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#24

Post by gh02t »

mrschwabe wrote: post #23
slapshot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody did this. Before the experiment, they expected a background level of Cesium 137 of between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 (caused by 1950s nuclear testing, which released a ton of it). They found actual levels between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 across the Pacific with some small variation above and below: http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html Think about it this way. Worst-case estimates are that 2-4 kilos of Cesium 137 were rele…

Thanks for the headsup - but there's nothing wrong with some competition and not to mention getting more coverage; for example it doesn't look like they have any data near the coast of Fukushima preficture which is the most important spot. Also the monitoring does not appear in realtime and if we are getting nitpicky there are certainly a few UX issues with how the data is presented. On a related note, I'm sure Ken B…

> but you can find comments about him from people who claim he's a "nuclear shill" and so regardless as a matter of principle it would be prudent to get more independent researchers involved in gathering data.

You can also find a large number of people on the Internet who claim Obama is a lizard alien (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/polling-theory-embarrassment-453096). This comparison is hyperbole, I know, but his data and methodologies are peer-reviewed and support his claims. He's far from the only person studying the issue, it's a hot topic (pun intended) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=fukushima+radiati... .

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#25

Post by mrschwabe »

gh02t wrote: post #21
mrschwabe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good info! If the technology is cheap, as you point out, then the next logical step might be a collaborative project to get a network of inexpensive, miniature, buoyant craft's out to sea - for the purpose of actively measuring levels of cesium 137; sharing these results for everyone to see, to graph, and to check on at any given time of the day. One-time results from a fish is useful data but to have a whole swarm o…

Not going to happen, nor is there much reason to do so. For one, the NaI detectors are relatively inexpensive, but still you're talking about $10K each minimum for such a setup. There are other detectors that would work for this (EJ-309 for instance, you need a detector capable of energy spectroscopy), but they're even more expensive and often extremely toxic. What I was describing is a setup to measure contamination…

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I guess that ups the challenge quite significantly.

Your research sounds interesting and vitally important - the kind of work that could help save lives even; at least warn people of nearby dangers. Do you have anything public on it?

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#26

Post by gh02t »

mrschwabe wrote: post #25
gh02t wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not going to happen, nor is there much reason to do so. For one, the NaI detectors are relatively inexpensive, but still you're talking about $10K each minimum for such a setup. There are other detectors that would work for this (EJ-309 for instance, you need a detector capable of energy spectroscopy), but they're even more expensive and often extremely toxic. What I was describing is a setup to measure contamination…

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I guess that ups the challenge quite significantly. Your research sounds interesting and vitally important - the kind of work that could help save lives even; at least warn people of nearby dangers. Do you have anything public on it?

Nope, still in development. It'll be freely available once it is. My work wouldn't make a particularly good read anyway as it's intended for a specialist audience and the mathematics get pretty involved.

For radiation detection in general though, probably the most approachable introduction is this book http://www.amazon.com/Techniques-Nuclear-Particle-Physics-Ex... . You can find a free PDF copy if you google around a bit.

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#27

Post by yellowapple »

kazinator wrote: post #16

Can someone kindly explain how the photo of Norio Kimura and its caption relates to the article?

I was wondering the same thing. It feels like the article is implicitly blaming the Fukushima meltdown for the tsunami somehow.

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#28

Post by ChuckMcM »

stcredzero wrote: post #14
baseballmerpeak wrote: post #3

NOVA's documentary on Fukushima [1] is a very informative watch and shows the immense challenges faced by TEPCO. I don't think they will be convicted. [1] - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/nuclear-disaster.html

The blame should not be with the operators, but with decision makers who signed off on a fatally flawed plant design. Really, you'd think it was common sense: if you absolutely need these generators in case of a disaster, like a flood, don't put the generators and their gear/infrastructure at a lower flood level! Much the same mistake was repeated many times in Houston, and came to light after Hurricane Ike. Other th…

In hindsight it is obvious, but at the time of construction, you would have to justify spending money to protect against both a 9.0 earthquake (pretty rare) and a tsunami larger than one ever recorded at the same time. Which can only happen if you have the 9.0 quake right off your coastline.

At the time the plants were built, there was no geologist on the planet that believed Japan could even have a 9.0 quake, or a 30 meter tsunami (which you needed the quake for anyway). Thus, at the time, the plant was over designed for all possible scenarios.

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#29

Post by walshemj »

baseballmerpeak wrote: post #13
ohitsdom wrote: post #8

Wow, the concept of citizens' panels sounds awesome. I wish we had something similar in the US. It's the perfect solution for dealing with police shootings, where prosecutors are reluctant to indict an officer (since they need to work closely with police in their everyday work).

A pre-trial in the court of public opinion? I thought that is the purpose of grand juries. After all, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich . (Though not all pork, evidently) On one hand, it's a massive waste of judicial bandwidth. On the other, it's an effective check on the coziness between AGs, DAs, and law enforcement organizations.

Or as we know it in the UK trial by tabloid :-(

Re: Power plant executives to face Fukushima charges for first time

#30

Post by SapphireSun »

slapshot wrote: post #18
mrschwabe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good info! If the technology is cheap, as you point out, then the next logical step might be a collaborative project to get a network of inexpensive, miniature, buoyant craft's out to sea - for the purpose of actively measuring levels of cesium 137; sharing these results for everyone to see, to graph, and to check on at any given time of the day. One-time results from a fish is useful data but to have a whole swarm o…

Somebody did this. Before the experiment, they expected a background level of Cesium 137 of between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 (caused by 1950s nuclear testing, which released a ton of it). They found actual levels between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 across the Pacific with some small variation above and below: http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html Think about it this way. Worst-case estimates are that 2-4 kilos of Cesium 137 were rele…

I think the exact position of the dumping matters though. Unless the ocean is well mixed, the concentration will not be uniformly distributed. For instance, the entire stream might stay integrated as it travels along deep ocean currents (not saying that's actually the case by any means).
Post reply on HN