G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Maybe we shouldn't put out next wave of nuclear plants on top of active fault lines. I'm jist saying, **** happens. That's life. Anyone who thinks they can predict and prepare for everything is a fool. And it just seems to me that in a world such as ours, nuclear power is the last thing you should be wanting to take any chances on. Serious question: What if an F5 tornado hits a nuclear power plant head on? oh come on. let the uninformed have their rant Yes, please excuse my one sentence "rant". Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Serious question: What if an F5 tornado hits a nuclear power plant head on? http://www.fluther.com/87915/what-will-happen-when-an-f5-tornado-hits-a-nuclear-power/ Japan is in a unique situation in that they're a country with a large population and almost no natural resources. Nuclear power was a godsend for such a people, but sitting atop 3 active faultlines provides them with some very unique challenges. Like with any other technology, scientists are figuring out all kinds of creative ways to counteract such issues, but any plant built before such technology comes to fruition will not benefit from it. Asking what happens if an F5 tornado hits a nuclear plant (and implying that such plants are bad as a result) are like asking if we should bother building nuclear plants because one could get hit by a meteorite. A failure would be catashtropic, no doubt, but you can plan for tornadoes and earthquakes because of how common they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'm jist saying, **** happens. That's life. Anyone who thinks they can predict and prepare for everything is a fool. And it just seems to me that in a world such as ours, nuclear power is the last thing you should be wanting to take any chances on. If you really want to be honest about the safety take away from this event, why aren't you railing against people living and working and playing along the pacific coast of the US? It seems to me that even building nuclear power plants right along a major fault line (which we would NOT do in this country) has caused the Japanese less trouble than the simple act of living near the coastline. But "relocate coastal residents!" doesn't have the same visceral impact as "stop nuclear power!" for some reason so that doesn't come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'm jist saying, **** happens. That's life. Anyone who thinks they can predict and prepare for everything is a fool. And it just seems to me that in a world such as ours, nuclear power is the last thing you should be wanting to take any chances on.Serious question: What if an F5 tornado hits a nuclear power plant head on? I think wind is something you can easily prepare for and it's not nearly as devastating to fortified structures as it is to things like residential housing (don't get me started). I don't for example this a massive tornado passing over the pentagon would do much significant damage to the structure. Keep in mind that Japans plant just took a earth quake and a tsunami head on and has yet to suffer a meltdown. I hate to think of an ongoing crisis as a test but nuclear energy is going to learn a lot from this situation. This is an extreme event that is extremely rare, if no melt down occurs it will do a lot to confirm the safety of nuclear power. If it does melt down nuclear energy companies are going to have to make design changes based on what they learn. You can prepare for earthquakes, floods, high winds, and other predictable scenarios. In fact, you must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The Pentagon is an outlier. A mile-wide F5 tornado would take down any building not reinforced with steel. It's the debris flying at 260 + mph, not the raw wind itself. They did a thing on Discovery about the power of the 1999 Ok City suburbs F5 tornado wit 318 mph winds...it would take a piece of debris and send it right through brick and concrete. ...Of course F5 tornadoes are outliers also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 If you really want to be honest about the safety take away from this event, why aren't you railing against people living and working and playing along the pacific coast of the US? It seems to me that even building nuclear power plants right along a major fault line (which we would NOT do in this country) has caused the Japanese less trouble than the simple act of living near the coastline. But "relocate coastal residents!" doesn't have the same visceral impact as "stop nuclear power!" for some reason so that doesn't come up. Humanity has always and will always live near water. It's the way the human animal is instinctively and socially inclined to behave. Also in the case of an island like Japan asking folks to not live near coast lines would sound like a bad joke. Unless they develop cloud cities that suggestion simply isn't realistic. Now as for the nuclear issue. Humans can be warned and they can leave an area in the event of a disaster. Unless we develop mobile nuclear power plants the same can not be said for them. The only path forward is to build them in such a manner that they can withstand natural disasters. Fault lines aren't highways you can't just avoid them entirely same applies for flooding which can engulf a much larger area than people would have thought if things play out just right. The plants have to be able to sustain the damage if they are anywhere near water or earth quake "zones" which are huge areas. ---------- Post added March-12th-2011 at 07:53 PM ---------- The Pentagon is an outlier. A mile-wide F5 tornado would take down any building not reinforced with steel. It's the debris flying at 260 + mph, not the raw wind itself. They did a thing on Discovery about the power of the 1999 Ok City suburbs F5 tornado wit 318 mph winds...it would take a piece of debris and send it right through brick and concrete....Of course F5 tornadoes are outliers also. There is no reason a nuclear plant can't be constructed to be "an outlier" as you put it. After all the consequences of a meltdown are catastrophic in their own right. A f5 tornado is a minor concern compared to a nuclear meltdown for instance. The genie has to be kept in the bottle even if mother nature throws a hissy fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Not sure why you all are acting like I'm sort of anti-nuclear zealot. I just have concerns that have been spurred by what's going on in Japan. I've never really given too much thought on the issue until now. Also, not sure how asking about an F5 tornado is the same as worrying about a meteor strike on a plant, when, as you acknowledge, tornados are much more common. And as we're seeing in Japan, all the preparation in the world can only do so much. (Also know about their resources. Their participation in WW2 was largely a cause of that.) And I'm struggling to see how a tsunami on the West Coast and a complete nuclear meltdown are similar outside of the loss of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 So I guess you guys are out protesting FOR the expansion of nuclear power in your area? The plant in North Anna and in Calvert Cliffs were trying to expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 If it does melt down nuclear energy companies are going to have to make design changes based on what they learn. The nuclear industry within Japan has undertaken an extensive review of the design criteria attached to their fleet of reactors following a nuclear incident in 2007, resulting from an earthquake on its West Coast. This resulted in the short-term closure of some facilities and subsequent delay of new build construction. All at a cost running into several billion dollars. The problem they have is that they have numerous aging facilities approachig the end of their initial 40 year license period. Back fitting design improvements to these reactors whilst undertaking a phase of nuclear re-build ( >10 new reactors proposed / approved for construction) just isn't going to happen. Or at least it wasn't. They are just so dependent on nuclear energy, dating back to it's 50 year legacy of promoting this form of energy supply. I agree with one of your other points, if no melt-down occurs, this would be a hugh plus for nuclear safety given the magnitude of this natural disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I haven't read a detailed report of what is actually happening in the Japanese plant, but a leak is not necessarily a big deal, dependent on the source, and a meltdown doesn't necessarily mean a mass release of radiation. Also the containment vessel of an appropriately designed nuclear reactor makes the Pentagon look like a house of cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 What exactly happened at the nuclear plant ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 If a F-5 was a real concern,simply going below surface is a relatively easy option...though as stated it is the ancillary support systems that are more vulnerable than the containment vessel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 My whole point about nukes was just that it's not an investment into future energy and will never be fully stable, that's all. Problems happen, that's life. If the things that can go wrong with a nuclear plant, do go wrong, the effects are irreversible and the harm far outweighs the good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehogs Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 What exactly happened at the nuclear plant ? when the reactor went in to automatic shutdown it should still have kept water pumping around the reactor vessel. This operation failed, which obviously is a big deal. The explosion looks to have been a build up of hydrogen due to the lack of coolant. The hydrogen escaped causing an almighty explosion but doesnt appear to have caused any damaged to the reactor vessel thankfully. They are now filling the reactor vessel area with sea water which will basicallt write-off the reactor but make it safe. However....as I write this the BBC news is reporting that the other reactor on the same site is also showing signs that its coolant system has failed..... This particular reactor is about 40 years old and not quite up to the standards of current reactors so its creaking at the edges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Bear in mind that Chernobyl didn't have a containment vessel. There has to be a total failure of the cooling and shutdown system and the containment vessel has to fail for there to be a dangerous release. But if they are putting in sea water the cooling system has failed and the reactor will not operate again. But whomever called it a "hail Mary" pass doesn't know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehogs Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Bear in mind that Chernobyl didn't have a containment vessel. There has to be a total failure of the cooling and shutdown system and the containment vessel has to fail for there to be a dangerous release.But if they are putting in sea water the plant is done. Whomever called it a "hail Mary" pass doesn't know what it means. yes, the 'China syndrome' angle is overplayed with this problem but I woudnt be happy if I was living near it! the biggest problem is its age. One expert interviewed by the Beeb said that writing it off is neither here nor there as the plant must have been due for shutdown anyway after 40 years. Hopefully the other reactor gets sorted out too. Hopefully all injured are ok too in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I am shocked at the orderly way their population appears to be reacting. A huge earthquake, after shocks, a tsunami, and now a nuclear reactor incidident would seem a huge test for any society. I think it's a huge testiment to the character of Japan to see more stories of the best humanity than the least of society. I think disasters bring out both in a society, and it says a lot to see mostly positive stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 when the reactor went in to automatic shutdown it should still have kept water pumping around the reactor vessel. This operation failed, which obviously is a big deal. The explosion looks to have been a build up of hydrogen due to the lack of coolant. The hydrogen escaped causing an almighty explosion but doesnt appear to have caused any damaged to the reactor vessel thankfully. They are now filling the reactor vessel area with sea water which will basicallt write-off the reactor but make it safe.However....as I write this the BBC news is reporting that the other reactor on the same site is also showing signs that its coolant system has failed..... This particular reactor is about 40 years old and not quite up to the standards of current reactors so its creaking at the edges So, basically no radiation damage yet, but the threat of an effect is still possible ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehogs Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 So, basically no radiation damage yet, but the threat of an effect is still possible ? there was certainly some radiation leakage, the Japanese nuclear authority didnt deny that. But it was very much local to the reactor and once the sea water was pumped in and they gained some control, those radiation levels started to drop. It looks like they have the same kind of issue now with reactor No 3 on the same site. Not sure where they stand with that. Of course even if they get it all under control they will then be faced with how they get rid of two written-off reactors safely. Thousands of people are being tested for radiation levels but there are no indications so far of anything to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 nevermind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Link to local coverage in english http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=C2 Looks like a loop of about 20 minutes....compeling EDIT More video here Japan earthquake: Footage of moment tsunami hit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12725646 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 as if things were not bad enough http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/ Japanese volcano erupts A volcano in southwestern Japan erupted Sunday after nearly two weeks of relative silence, sending ash and rocks up to four kilometres (two and a half miles) into the air, a local official says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 A interesting set of interactive before/after satellite images http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I am shocked at the orderly way their population appears to be reacting. A huge earthquake, after shocks, a tsunami, and now a nuclear reactor incidident would seem a huge test for any society. I think it's a huge testiment to the character of Japan to see more stories of the best humanity than the least of society. I think disasters bring out both in a society, and it says a lot to see mostly positive stories. Yes. It is truly amazing. My God, here in California... well, first of all a 8.9 would devastate this city. No one has stricter building codes or prepares for earthquakes for more than Japan (they have monthly drills in some cities) and mother nature just laughed at them. So many more buildings would topple here. And the people... shots would be fired the moment anyone had to wait in line more than five minutes for anything. Hell, shots would be fired thirty minutes after people lost their internet connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 USS Ronald Reagan contaminated 100 miles offshore: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42066534/ns/world_news-asiapacific/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.