8 ms·

Fukishima is Worse than Ever

56 points by rfreytag 10y ago

xianshou 10y ago
If Cringely claims authority on the topic, he could at least spell "Fukushima" correctly. Both the link above and the article misspell it as "Fukishima," the article 4 of 6 times!
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Apparently spelling "Fukushima" is as hard as spelling "Ph.D.". Link subject is so clickbaity that I'll avoid it.
baq 10y ago
The linked article (http://www.sciencealert.com/radiation-levels-in-the-fukushima-reactor-have-started-unexpectedly-climbing http://www.sciencealert.com/radiation-levels-in-the-fukushim...) has a most interesting picture from inside the Reactor 2 building depicting the floor beneath the pressure vessel, or rather, what's left of it.
nl 10y ago
Damn, the comments on that are... bad. Having said that I have followed the Fukushima situation somewhat, and it certainly has given me pretty serious pause in my conversion to a nuclear "new fission" advocate (like many on HN seem to be). The general argument seems to be "Oh, new reactors are much safer than the old ones." To be honest, that argument doesn't seem very compelling. The most compelling version of this argument involves using Thorium reactors instead of Uranium. This does seem somewhat safer, but actually reading it turns out it is only a question of degree[1][2]. It seems to me renewables + power storage seems a much better solution. [1] http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thorium2009factsheet.pdf http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thorium2009fac... [2] https://theconversation.com/should-australia-consider-thorium-nuclear-power-37850 https://theconversation.com/should-australia-consider-thoriu...
- JorgeGT 10y ago
  > "Oh, new reactors are much safer than the old ones." You're aware that Fukushima Daiichi NPP was older than Chernobyl NPP, right?
  - nl 10y ago
    Yes(?) I'm just relaying the argument as I understand it.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      The point being that in the 30 years since Chernobyl we have had no serious accidents involving any modern nuclear reactor models and one serious accident involving a reactor older than Chernobyl. We may just have too little data, but at least so far the data all points to the argument that modern reactors are safer being reasonably likely to be true. The only reason we don't have clear evidence either way is that the risks even with the older models is very low.
      - nl 10y ago
        The incidence of accidents with any reactors is very low. The risks associated with those accidents are extremely high.
        vidarh 10y ago
        > The risks associated with those accidents are extremely high. And yet they are low enough that nuclear is one of the safest alternatives we have, given the low incident rate.
- Mtinie 10y ago
  Not building reactors in regions of high tectonic action would be a good start, too. It's also probably a better idea to go with lots of small, simple reactors versus larger singular points of failure, but I haven't done a lot of research into how viable that strategy really is beyond the sci-fi scenario of a reactor outside every house.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
> molten uranium that has melted its way through the steel pressure vessel, through the reinforced concrete containment, through the reinforced concrete foundation of the nuclear facility, and is now working its way through whatever rock or soil lies underneath the foundation, dropping lower each day. Is this really what happens? How does a quantity of molten metal-oxide burn a hole through "hundreds or thousands of feet" of earth? Where does all the earth / rock go? Does it just vaporise off?
- vidarh 10y ago
  His claims are not in any way supported by the article he links to, nor by the article the article he links to links to. If he has other sources, perhaps he should have mentioned them. Otherwise he's posting pure speculation. EDIT: From the source of the source of his blog post [1]. Clearly it is serious not to know with certainty where the fuel is, and that makes it possible that he could be right, but it's still pure speculation: > The firm said radiation was not leaking outside the reactor, adding that the robot would still prove useful since it would move from one spot to the other and encounter radiation of varying levels. > Tepco and its network of partner companies at Fukushima Daiichi have yet to identify the location and condition of melted fuel in the three most seriously damaged reactors. Removing it safely represents a challenge unprecedented in the history of nuclear power. > Quantities of melted fuel are believed to have accumulated at the bottom of the damaged reactors’ containment vessels, but dangerously high radiation has prevented engineers from accurately gauging the state of the fuel deposits. [1] https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushim...
- DrJokepu 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    From the link you provided: The fast erosion phase of the concrete basemat lasts for about an hour and progresses to about one meter in depth, then slows to several centimeters per hour, and stops completely when the melt cools below the decomposition temperature of concrete (about 1100 °C). Complete melt-through can occur in several days even through several meters of concrete; the corium then penetrates several meters into the underlying soil, spreads around, cools and solidifies.[3] This would seem to counter the claim that the molten core material could burn through hundreds or thousands of feet of earth.
Tepix 10y ago
HN has been quite pro-nuclear in the past. However, this is the grim reality of nuclear power: It's a mess we won't be able to clean up for many generations. The operators cannot cover these limitless risks, they will have to be shouldered by the entire country (or world). And Fukushima isn't the only accident. It's merely the most recent big one. Even if nuclear reactors work as designed, we still haven't solved terminal storage of nuclear waste after more than 60 years.
- vidarh 10y ago
  HN has been quite pro-nuclear because despite these accidents, the effect is limited. You could crush the radioactive material in that reactor and pump all of it into the atmosphere, and nuclear would still be one of the safer methods of generating power. Compare it to e.g. the vast on-going death toll caused by pollution from coal, and decommission nuclear power plants becomes outright immoral if it is replaced by coal. If you can replace it by e.g. concentrated solar or wind, then fine, but even hydro is likely to cause more deaths of time (dam accidents - construction, maintenance and failures - kill a lot of people).
  - Macha 10y ago
    One Chernobyl a decade would have less global impact than fossil fuels are having. A much higher local impact, sure, but that is the failure case while the problems with fossil fuels is the expected case. We're doing much better than that and technology is getting even safer as time goes on.
    - jorangreef 10y ago
      Have you ever hunted wild boar in Germany? The global impact of "one Chernobyl a decade" is enormous. Each event takes thousands of years to recover from. After a century or two, most countries would be significantly uninhabitable, with indirect consequences affecting entire continents.
      - Luc 10y ago
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
I've been looking at what's going on his comment threads recently and it looks like he pulled a near-con on Kickstarter. It's kind of amazing how one can completely ignore people you've hurt and keep posting as if nothing happened, when they keep asking for explanation. Why is no media talking about this? It looks like a huge scandal.
- baby 10y ago
  There are bigger scandals, like people getting offended by Pewdiepie.
dvcrn 10y ago
Here in Japan the government tries to actively shape the public opinion about Fukushima. You often see ads and projects advertising what a beautiful place it still is and how everything will soon be fine. Then you have companies helping with this by proudly (in the sense of putting big posters stating it) importing ingredients, fruits and food from Fukushima. It's probably still the main reasons why I don't want to be here. It's easy to forget about everything but things could go sour very quickly without us being able to react in time.
iSnow 10y ago
I doubt he gets his facts straight. I very much doubt the 250t of Corium haven't cooled down enough in 6 years to solidify.
stargrazer 10y ago
If I remember correctly, the thing that killed Fukushima was the wave of water from the ocean killing the water pumps at the ocean's edge. And there was no backup water supply. So it isn't necessarily true that nuclear power is not safe, it is it's relationship to the environment and how it is constructed. I guess there was no anticipation of such a significant event. Which I suppose is an indicator of the failure mode. It isn't the technology itself, it is unforseen accidents. Which is how any technology evolves: newer generations improve due to observations of past mistakes.
DrScump 10y ago
His entire rant is based on fake news. The whole “The radiation levels inside Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor No. 2 have soared in recent weeks” is bogus. The new, higher readings are from areas never measured before[0]; levels measured from consistent points are falling consistently! [0] http://blog.safecast.org/2017/02/no-radiation-levels-at-fukushima-daiichi-are-not-rising/ http://blog.safecast.org/2017/02/no-radiation-levels-at-fuku...

56 points by rfreytag 10y ago

If Cringely claims authority on the topic, he could at least spell "Fukushima" correctly. Both the link above and the article misspell it as "Fukishima," the article 4 of 6 times!

ptaipale 10y ago
Apparently spelling "Fukushima" is as hard as spelling "Ph.D.". Link subject is so clickbaity that I'll avoid it.

baq 10y ago

The linked article (http://www.sciencealert.com/radiation-levels-in-the-fukushima-reactor-have-started-unexpectedly-climbing http://www.sciencealert.com/radiation-levels-in-the-fukushim...) has a most interesting picture from inside the Reactor 2 building depicting the floor beneath the pressure vessel, or rather, what's left of it.

nl 10y ago

Damn, the comments on that are... bad. Having said that I have followed the Fukushima situation somewhat, and it certainly has given me pretty serious pause in my conversion to a nuclear "new fission" advocate (like many on HN seem to be). The general argument seems to be "Oh, new reactors are much safer than the old ones." To be honest, that argument doesn't seem very compelling. The most compelling version of this argument involves using Thorium reactors instead of Uranium. This does seem somewhat safer, but actually reading it turns out it is only a question of degree[1][2]. It seems to me renewables + power storage seems a much better solution. [1] http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thorium2009factsheet.pdf http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thorium2009fac... [2] https://theconversation.com/should-australia-consider-thorium-nuclear-power-37850 https://theconversation.com/should-australia-consider-thoriu...

JorgeGT 10y ago
> "Oh, new reactors are much safer than the old ones." You're aware that Fukushima Daiichi NPP was older than Chernobyl NPP, right?
- nl 10y ago
  Yes(?) I'm just relaying the argument as I understand it.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    The point being that in the 30 years since Chernobyl we have had no serious accidents involving any modern nuclear reactor models and one serious accident involving a reactor older than Chernobyl. We may just have too little data, but at least so far the data all points to the argument that modern reactors are safer being reasonably likely to be true. The only reason we don't have clear evidence either way is that the risks even with the older models is very low.
    - nl 10y ago
      The incidence of accidents with any reactors is very low. The risks associated with those accidents are extremely high.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        > The risks associated with those accidents are extremely high. And yet they are low enough that nuclear is one of the safest alternatives we have, given the low incident rate.
Mtinie 10y ago
Not building reactors in regions of high tectonic action would be a good start, too. It's also probably a better idea to go with lots of small, simple reactors versus larger singular points of failure, but I haven't done a lot of research into how viable that strategy really is beyond the sci-fi scenario of a reactor outside every house.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

> molten uranium that has melted its way through the steel pressure vessel, through the reinforced concrete containment, through the reinforced concrete foundation of the nuclear facility, and is now working its way through whatever rock or soil lies underneath the foundation, dropping lower each day. Is this really what happens? How does a quantity of molten metal-oxide burn a hole through "hundreds or thousands of feet" of earth? Where does all the earth / rock go? Does it just vaporise off?

vidarh 10y ago
His claims are not in any way supported by the article he links to, nor by the article the article he links to links to. If he has other sources, perhaps he should have mentioned them. Otherwise he's posting pure speculation. EDIT: From the source of the source of his blog post [1]. Clearly it is serious not to know with certainty where the fuel is, and that makes it possible that he could be right, but it's still pure speculation: > The firm said radiation was not leaking outside the reactor, adding that the robot would still prove useful since it would move from one spot to the other and encounter radiation of varying levels. > Tepco and its network of partner companies at Fukushima Daiichi have yet to identify the location and condition of melted fuel in the three most seriously damaged reactors. Removing it safely represents a challenge unprecedented in the history of nuclear power. > Quantities of melted fuel are believed to have accumulated at the bottom of the damaged reactors’ containment vessels, but dangerously high radiation has prevented engineers from accurately gauging the state of the fuel deposits. [1] https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushim...
DrJokepu 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  From the link you provided: The fast erosion phase of the concrete basemat lasts for about an hour and progresses to about one meter in depth, then slows to several centimeters per hour, and stops completely when the melt cools below the decomposition temperature of concrete (about 1100 °C). Complete melt-through can occur in several days even through several meters of concrete; the corium then penetrates several meters into the underlying soil, spreads around, cools and solidifies.[3] This would seem to counter the claim that the molten core material could burn through hundreds or thousands of feet of earth.

Tepix 10y ago

HN has been quite pro-nuclear in the past. However, this is the grim reality of nuclear power: It's a mess we won't be able to clean up for many generations. The operators cannot cover these limitless risks, they will have to be shouldered by the entire country (or world). And Fukushima isn't the only accident. It's merely the most recent big one. Even if nuclear reactors work as designed, we still haven't solved terminal storage of nuclear waste after more than 60 years.

vidarh 10y ago
HN has been quite pro-nuclear because despite these accidents, the effect is limited. You could crush the radioactive material in that reactor and pump all of it into the atmosphere, and nuclear would still be one of the safer methods of generating power. Compare it to e.g. the vast on-going death toll caused by pollution from coal, and decommission nuclear power plants becomes outright immoral if it is replaced by coal. If you can replace it by e.g. concentrated solar or wind, then fine, but even hydro is likely to cause more deaths of time (dam accidents - construction, maintenance and failures - kill a lot of people).
- Macha 10y ago
  One Chernobyl a decade would have less global impact than fossil fuels are having. A much higher local impact, sure, but that is the failure case while the problems with fossil fuels is the expected case. We're doing much better than that and technology is getting even safer as time goes on.
  - jorangreef 10y ago
    Have you ever hunted wild boar in Germany? The global impact of "one Chernobyl a decade" is enormous. Each event takes thousands of years to recover from. After a century or two, most countries would be significantly uninhabitable, with indirect consequences affecting entire continents.
    - Luc 10y ago

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago

I've been looking at what's going on his comment threads recently and it looks like he pulled a near-con on Kickstarter. It's kind of amazing how one can completely ignore people you've hurt and keep posting as if nothing happened, when they keep asking for explanation. Why is no media talking about this? It looks like a huge scandal.

baby 10y ago
There are bigger scandals, like people getting offended by Pewdiepie.

dvcrn 10y ago

Here in Japan the government tries to actively shape the public opinion about Fukushima. You often see ads and projects advertising what a beautiful place it still is and how everything will soon be fine. Then you have companies helping with this by proudly (in the sense of putting big posters stating it) importing ingredients, fruits and food from Fukushima. It's probably still the main reasons why I don't want to be here. It's easy to forget about everything but things could go sour very quickly without us being able to react in time.

iSnow 10y ago

I doubt he gets his facts straight. I very much doubt the 250t of Corium haven't cooled down enough in 6 years to solidify.

stargrazer 10y ago

If I remember correctly, the thing that killed Fukushima was the wave of water from the ocean killing the water pumps at the ocean's edge. And there was no backup water supply. So it isn't necessarily true that nuclear power is not safe, it is it's relationship to the environment and how it is constructed. I guess there was no anticipation of such a significant event. Which I suppose is an indicator of the failure mode. It isn't the technology itself, it is unforseen accidents. Which is how any technology evolves: newer generations improve due to observations of past mistakes.

DrScump 10y ago

His entire rant is based on fake news. The whole “The radiation levels inside Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor No. 2 have soared in recent weeks” is bogus. The new, higher readings are from areas never measured before[0]; levels measured from consistent points are falling consistently! [0] http://blog.safecast.org/2017/02/no-radiation-levels-at-fukushima-daiichi-are-not-rising/ http://blog.safecast.org/2017/02/no-radiation-levels-at-fuku...