8.9 Magnitude Earthquake Hits Japan + Tsunami and Alerts

I would not say that the Japanese are incompetent. This 41 year old nuclear reactor got hit by a 9 magnitude earthquake, slammed with a 20 ft. tall wave and an explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen gas that blew off the freaking roof of the building. Yet the core was, at that point, intact and contained. It was, for a small amount of time after the distilled water went under a certain level, under meltdown. However, they did not reach up to the 3000 degree Celsius which is required to melt uranium. Therefore, only cesium and iodine was released during a very short amount of time. If you were at the top of the chimneys when the Cesium and Iodine isotopes came out, you would probably have to quit smoking in order to get the average life expectancy back, but that's roughly about it.

Surely, earlier events may have been incompetence, but that does not prove the current event is not handled professionally. All of the reactors are under control - the only reason seawater isn't put into all the reactors is because it will make the reactor unusable for some years - if not half a decade.

Also, if you knew anything about nuclear radiation, you'd know that in most cases it takes time for radiation poisoning to kill and it's effects last decades. It will take time for us to start seeing the death toll from radiation.
Regarding the man that died of fright, link?

We will not see any radiation poisoning or any suffering from radiation here.

I would not say that the Japanese are incompetent. This 41 year old nuclear reactor got hit by a 9 magnitude earthquake, slammed with a 20 ft. tall wave and an explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen gas that blew off the freaking roof of the building. Yet the core was, at that point, intact and contained. It was, for a small amount of time after the distilled water went under a certain level, under meltdown. However, they did not reach up to the 3000 degree celsius which is required to melt uranium. Therefore, only cesium and iodine was released during a very short amount of time. If you were at the top of the chimneys when the cesium and iodine isotopes came out, you would probably have to quit smoking in order to get the average life expectancy back, but that's roughly about it.

You missed the point entirely. The reactor should have been taken down years ago, but instead the japanese government decided that they would push the plant to it's limits.
Age may or may not have been a contributing factor today, but the point is that it shows the poor choice of the government, and there are claims that they have a history of poor choices. Their poorest choice, obviously being the design and location of the power plants.

And I'll bring this up again, according to ABC regarding events of 2003:
"But they were serious in the sense that lives were threatened, systems broke down, there were failures to report and there were cover-ups. People pretended things hadn't happened."

"It should have been shut down years ago because it's 40 years old this month."
And once again, this plant is too old.

Once again, all you do is ignore the facts with no less than pathetic excusses.

If you classify "local opposition" as a member of THE FACTS, I feel obliged to ignore every fact you give. Not that that is what I do, I just don't feel ready to take you seriously on that very note.

If you classify "local opposition" as a member of THE FACTS, I feel obliged to ignore every fact you give. Not that that is what I do, I just don't feel ready to take you seriously on that very note.

Once again, you are misrepresenting the facts and creating a strawman again.
Local opposition is no more than the title of the second portion of the article.

Did a little digging and I think you have a huge misconception on who's primarily to blame here. Yes the Japanese government may have needed to crack down on regulations more, but doesn't it all come down to the energy company, TEPCO? The plant is privately owned by TEPCO and the history of scandal is TEPCO's as well. I expect, in classic Japanese fashion, that the current CEO of the company along with it's board of directors are going to resign after the whole fiasco ends.

Also, to add: I bet you dozens of Nuclear power plants are about the same age, or even older than 40 years old.

Once again, you are misrepresenting the facts and creating a strawman again.
Local opposition is no more than the title of the second portion of the article.

Which is a compilation of the opinions opposing the nuclear industry. If the title of an article isn't the gist of said article, I don't know what the hell I've been learning in all my school years. And of course, unless I manage to squint my eyes enough to see the part (in that article) which refers to a set of rules dictating on a nuclear plant's life expectancy, I'm going to call "40 years is too old" an opinion. If you call it a fact, oh wait, you did, I'm going to have to question your filtering ability here:

and its hard to completely remove "fear-mongering" as the media inject fear into everything (its what they live off of... that and destroying celebrity lives), whether it is something we should be afraid of or not. Its what they do, and what I filter out as I skim for the facts.

You missed the point entirely. The reactor should have been taken down years ago, but instead the japanese government decided that they would push the plant to it's limits.
Age may or may not have been a contributing factor today,

Could you put a source on the appropriate lifetime of a BWR reactor of this design? Evidence that 40 years is too long? The only flaw I've seen that could be attributed to age is that the portable generators couldn't be hooked up, presumably due to a change in wiring standards.

I expect, in classic Japanese fashion, that the current CEO of the company along with it's board of directors are going to resign after the whole fiasco ends.

I hope they take the time to apportion the blame appropriately before doing that - with the majority obviously lying with the earthquake.

Which is a compilation of the opinions opposing the nuclear industry. If the title of an article isn't the gist of said article, I don't know what the hell I've been learning in all my school years.

"Mr Barrell says the latest crisis will continue to fuel local opposition to the plants."
Read again, the reason for the title is to say that this event will be used to oppose newer nuclear power plants, just like how 3-mile island and Chernobyl where used in opposition of nuclear power.


Anyway, the Japanese government is incompetent they where warned of this sort of disaster years ago.
"A JAPANESE expert on nuclear safety warned more than three years ago that the policy of building large numbers of reactors in the middle of a volatile earthquake zone could lead to catastrophe. "
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/japans-n...6020553408



@Jinn: I'll look into that. Its probably like how the Gulf Oil spill was both the government's and BP's responsibility.

@above: It would take some time to find the exact age limit, but we also have to keep in mind that Japans reactors are unique, and the age limits would vary based on the conditions, materials and design.
If I come across it I'll tell you, but 40 years is extremely old of any plant built decades ago.

You missed the point entirely. The reactor should have been taken down years ago, but instead the japanese government decided that they would push the plant to it's limits.
Age may or may not have been a contributing factor today, but the point is that it shows the poor choice of the government, and there are claims that they have a history of poor choices. Their poorest choice, obviously being the design and location of the power plants.

I did not. I am saying that they have handled the situation here correctly. No matter whether it was wrong or right to keep the reactor going, it still didn't have any radiation leakage which may be harmful to any human.

Also, before playing the "it was too old"-card, could you please elaborate why it matters that this reactor is 40 years old? It's not like they have been using the exact same tools and items for 40 years, they have changed them.

And I'll bring this up again, according to ABC regarding events of 2003:
"But they were serious in the sense that lives were threatened, systems broke down, there were failures to report and there were cover-ups. People pretended things hadn't happened."

Even though this is true, it still does not matter - they managed the current situation they had correctly and well.

Edit: Cold shutdowns:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Col...03112.html
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsun...ate01.html

Which means we don't have to worry about those reactors anymore for now.

"Mr Barrell says the latest crisis will continue to fuel local opposition to the plants."
Read again, the reason for the title is to say that this event will be used to oppose newer nuclear power plants, just like how 3-mile island and Chernobyl where used in opposition of nuclear power.

And that makes "40 years is too old" a valid fact because?

Anyway, the Japanese government is incompetent they where warned of this sort of disaster years ago.
"A JAPANESE expert on nuclear safety warned more than three years ago that the policy of building large numbers of reactors in the middle of a volatile earthquake zone could lead to catastrophe. "
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/japans-n...6020553408

Why even live there at all? Why did the IAEA allow the Japanese to, or at least not disallow them to, build the plants in the first place?

Also, it does not make them any more incompetent when a warning has been issued priorly, why you ask? Because it's pineappleing common sense that Japan is on a hot stove, they don't need warning to know that they live in "a volatile earthquake zone" and that putting a bomb on it is kinda a bad idea. I can give any of those warnings too, if you want.

I did not. I am saying that they have handled the situation here correctly. No matter whether it was wrong or right to keep the reactor going, it still didn't have any radiation leakage which may be harmful to any human.

Also, before playing the "it was too old"-card, could you please elaborate why it matters that this reactor is 40 years old? It's not like they have been using the exact same tools and items for 40 years, they have changed them.



Even though this is true, it still does not matter - they managed the current situation they had correctly and well.

Edit: Cold shutdowns:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Col...03112.html
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsun...ate01.html

Which means we don't have to worry about those reactors anymore for now.

If they handled the issue correctly and well, then they would have acted on the warnings they had 3 years ago.

Regarding the shutdowns, its good news, but it doesnt mean that we are safe yet. We still have the issue of the current amount of radiation being released (and some have been hospitalized). Then we might still have more aftershocks on the way, and I believe 3 power plants where at risk (although the other two where not as bad off as Fukushima).
We'll just have to see what other information comes out.

And that makes "40 years is too old" a valid fact because?



Why even live there at all? Why did UAEA allow the Japanese to, or at least not disallow them to, build the plants in the first place?

Also, it does not make them any more incompetent when a warning has been issued priorly, why you ask? Because it's pineappleing common sense that Japan is on a hot stove, they don't need warning to know that they live in "a volatile earthquake zone" and that putting a bomb on it is kinda a bad idea. I can give any of those warnings too, if you want.

Well, why dont you look up the information for the life expectancy of the plant? Maybe ask ABC where they get their facts from and why they say it should have been taken down years ago.
Of course, I'm not asking you to do anything I'm not doing myself

And actually read a damn article. The Japanese government was warned that their prevention systems were too lax, that a disaster was immient.

A JAPANESE expert on nuclear safety warned more than three years ago that the policy of building large numbers of reactors in the middle of a volatile earthquake zone could lead to catastrophe.
As the authorities battled to avert a meltdown at the Fukushima plant, it emerged that a senior figure in Japan's nuclear community resigned in protest from a safety panel saying guidelines to protect atomic power plants from earthquake damage were too lax.

Ishibashi Katsuhiko, a professor at Kobe university, said seismic guidelines brought in to protect Japan's 55 reactors in 2006 were "still seriously flawed".

He pointed out that big quakes had taken place in "close proximity" to three nuclear power plants in Japan from 2005 to 2007. In each case, the ground motion caused by the quake was stronger than that for which the plants had been designed.

A tremor at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant, about 300km across the main island from Fukushima, had experienced a tremor with ground motion of 993 gal (a measure of ground movement), far beyond its design value of 450 gal.

"Not only are the new design guidelines defective but the system to enforce them is in a shambles," wrote Professor Katsuhiko after his resignation. He said it was just a matter of luck that the epicentre of each earthquake had not been nearer.

In an article in 2007 explaining his resignation, Professor Katsuhiko said almost all of the Japanese archipelago had entered a period of brisk seismic activity since the Kobe earthquake of 1995.

"Unless radical steps are taken now to reduce the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to earthquakes, Japan could experience a true nuclear catastrophe in the near future," he wrote.

Scientists say early assessments indicate that Japan should not fear a nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl in 1986, where both the pressure vessel housing the reactor and the building containing it were breached in an explosion.

Robin Grimes, director of the Nuclear Energy Centre at Imperial College London, said the Japanese authorities had reported that the steel containment walls housing the reactor's core had not been breached, even though an explosion has blown the roof off the power plant.

"That's really good news. It means no nuclear fuel will have leaked from the reactor and scattered around the surrounding area as happened with Chernobyl," he said.

Mr Grimes said the incident was more like Three Mile Island in America in 1979, where contaminated coolant leaked into the reactor building after an accident that partly melted the reactor's core.

"There could still be significant damage to the core of the reactor and we know that caused sufficient concerns that led to the nuclear program stopping in the US," he said.

Experts said pictures of mist above the plant indicated that engineers may have deliberately released gas from the core to prevent hydrogen accumulating and blowing up the steel core. By contrast, vast radioactive clouds spewed out of Chernobyl, turning the area of Ukraine into a ghost zone.

Timothy Abram, professor of nuclear fuel technology at Manchester University, said any damage to the reactor's core should become evident from monitoring radioactivity.

"The thing they will be looking for is whether there is any evidence of the fuel degrading. If the fuel is substantially intact, there will be a much, much lower release of radioactivity and the explosion that's happened might just be due to a build-up of steam in the reactor circuit."

The Sunday Times "

Of course we can say that it is good that there are differences from chernobyl. But the japanese ignored the warnings and the clear and present threat to their country.

Edit: Not the best source, but its something:

PWR's and BWR's have been licensed for 40 year life, but subject to possible repair work if there are doubts about integrity, especially of the primary pressure circuit. Only two plants have operated more than 30 years in practice. A number have been shutdown as uneconomic to do necessary repairs.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_...z1GcM9T7M0

If I'm correct this is by US standards, and this would mean that full 40 years has not been sufficiently tested and that most power plants would stop operating long before the 40 year mark

I heard another person say what Sayaka said before on Facebook :

http://maplestory.nexon.co.jp/community/...?sn=511397

これはほんとかどうか
分かりませんが
大阪にマグネチュード7
が来るという事を聞きました

"I don't know if this is true, but I heard there is going to be a magnitude 7 in Oosaka."



I haven't seen any notices or anything in the news, but I'm in the United States, so this may only be circulating throughout the nation of Japan.

Just to reiterate that right now, the situation regarding the power plant is serious, but not absolutely threatening to human life.

http://mitnse.com/

Here's a nice article regarding how the plant in question works, how it failed, and why it isn't something to actually worry too much on. Seriously, the fear mongering needs to stop.

Well, why dont you look up the information for the life expectancy of the plant? Maybe ask ABC where they get their facts from and why they say it should have been taken down years ago.
Of course, I'm not asking you to do anything I'm not doing myselfEdit: Not the best source, but its something:

PWR's and BWR's have been licensed for 40 year life, but subject to possible repair work if there are doubts about integrity, especially of the primary pressure circuit. Only two plants have operated more than 30 years in practice. A number have been shutdown as uneconomic to do necessary repairs.

If I'm correct this is by US standards, and this would mean that full 40 years has not been sufficiently tested and that most power plants would stop operating long before the 40 year mark

If you'd look a little further you'd find that 40 years is the target lifespan on most reactors, not the life expectancy. Generally they go through certifications every decade, and then they decide whether it's worthwhile to keep operating them at current efficiency/projected costs. As far as I can ascertain, the actual reactor core is the only part that is not outright replaced over time - the rest of the cooling and external systems are updated or repaired as necessary to keep the reactor up to standards. If it meets those standards, that means it's considered safe to operate, and can be kept running. And nuclear safety standards are probably some of the highest in any energy business.

If you'd look a little further you'd find that 40 years is the target lifespan on most reactors. Generally they go through certifications every decade, and then they decide whether it's worthwhile to keep operating them at current efficiency/projected costs. As far as I can ascertain, the actual reactor core is the only part that is not outright replaced over time - the rest of the cooling and external systems are updated or repaired as necessary to keep the reactor up to standards. If it meets those standards, that means it's considered safe to operate, and can be kept running. And nuclear safety standards are probably some of the highest in any energy business.

And yet... you have no link like I asked.
Also, keep in mind that todays reactors are obviously designed to last longer than the reactors 40 years ago.

I'd be happy to oblige you

The initial design lifespan is usually 30 to 40 years. This is the figure used for the financial depreciation of the investment in the plant. However, nearly all elements in a nuclear power plant can be replaced except for the reactor vessel. This is consequently the crucial element in determining the true life expectancy of the plant. The safe and useful life of a reactor vessel depends on the degree to which it is neutron leak proof. This factor is monitored by surveillance capsules.

http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/1530

30 to 40 years isn't the absolute lifespan, it's the target age in order to make it viable to maintain a plant. The actual lifespan depends on the maintenance of the plant.

Oops, sniped.

I'd be happy to oblige you


http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/1530

30 to 40 years isn't the absolute lifespan, it's the target age in order to make it viable to maintain a plant. The actual lifespan depends on the maintenance of the plant.

You have my thanks. Although, there is one problem, I dont think any of us know the legal regulations for Japan, and considering their history it still doesnt look good.

As I posted earlier, one problem is that Japan had falsified records. That would easily bring the integrity of these plants into question.

That would easily bring the integrity of these plants into question.

But out of the accusation of being an oldtart, thank God.