5 ms·

It’s also worth noting that the cooling pool is not inside the protective container that houses the cores. As such, if the water were to drain off these pools,

It’s also worth noting that the cooling pool is not inside the protective container that houses the cores. As such, if the water were to drain off these pools, it would possibly render Tokyo uninhabitable for a very long time. That danger was mitigated a while ago, but moving the spent and spare fuel is still a major factor in making the site safe again.

vanattab 7y ago
Tokyo Or Fukushima? Isn't Tokyo 150 miles south of the plant.
- nihonde 7y ago
  Yes. Not sure why I’m being downvoted. There is no question that if the spare/spent fuel were exposed to air, the resulting radiation would have required evacuation of a 150+ mile radius. They originally brought in an elite firefighting team to refill the pools for this exact reason.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    No question that they would have evacuated, sure. But also little question that it would not have been required.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      It's interesting how fearful nuclear energy makes people. The worst disaster in the history of nuclear energy, Chernobyl, will over the full course of time cause 4,000 premature deaths as estimated by the IAEA. This figure includes first responders sent in by the USSR with inadequate protections. "A United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study estimates the final total of premature deaths associated with the disaster will be around 4,000 mostly from an estimated 3% increase in cancers, which are already common causes of death in the region." Interestingly, the most common cancer it caused was thyroid (due to the Iodine-131 released), which has a 98% survival rate. [1, 3] Whereas, currently, burning of fossil fuels is killing 7.3 million (1825 Chernobyls -- 4x the total number of civil nuclear reactors on Earth) per year. "According to the World Health Organization in 2012, urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 3 million deaths worldwide per year and indoor air pollution from biomass and fossil fuel burning is estimated to cause approximately 4.3 million premature deaths." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents [3] https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistics https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistic...
      - petschge 7y ago
        It is not just directly related deaths, but also the area of land made un-inhabitable and the duration for which it will remain un-inhabitable. And the fact that we have no workable way of dealing with the waste. Sure it only take a small storage space, but it will be lethal for a million years to come.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        I think there would be if we chose to invest in it, but it's a chicken and egg problem. The optics preclude investment which precludes development of ways of dealing with the waste. Nuclear power is sort of on hiatus. For instance, Thorium cycle reactors require no enrichment, product two to three orders of magnitude less nuclear waste (whose products have much shorter half-lives) and are much safer than Uranium cycle reactors -- though research only really resumed in 2008 after a 30 year break. One ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of Uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
        petre 7y ago
        Wildlife gets another chance with the land being uninhabitable by humans for 300 years until Cs137 and Sr99 pass 10 lifetimes. A million years is a gross exageration. There are also people currently living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. They even have a name: samosely.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        They actually continued to operate two of the other reactors at the Chernobyl power plant until Unit 2 was closed in 1991 and Unit 3 in 2000. [1] How crazy is that? [1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chernobyl-1-3-enter-decommissioning-phase https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chernobyl-1-3-en...
        petre 7y ago
        Well, it was the USSR. 'Gorbachev states, “The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, even more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later”' http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2017/8/21/the-reason-the-ussr-collapsed-chernobyl-gorbachev-and-glasnost http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2017/8/21/the-reaso...
  - jstandard 7y ago
    Where can I find information about the potential requirement for evacuation within a 150+ mile radius? I didn't downvote, just interested in learning more.
    - nihonde 7y ago
      I recommend the Nova episode about the 3/11 incident, which is streaming on Amazon Prime. Also, lots of sources online discuss the machinations behind the press conferences: http://world.time.com/2012/02/29/panel-government-told-people-to-keep-calm-while-mulling-tokyo-evacuation/#ixzz1ntRd4YIz http://world.time.com/2012/02/29/panel-government-told-peopl...
  - petre 7y ago
    More like 80 km or 50 miles US Advisory Zone and a 20-30 km evacuation zone initially. The actual pattern is a 50 km by 12 km trace extending NNW. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushi...

vanattab 7y ago

Tokyo Or Fukushima? Isn't Tokyo 150 miles south of the plant.

nihonde 7y ago
Yes. Not sure why I’m being downvoted. There is no question that if the spare/spent fuel were exposed to air, the resulting radiation would have required evacuation of a 150+ mile radius. They originally brought in an elite firefighting team to refill the pools for this exact reason.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  No question that they would have evacuated, sure. But also little question that it would not have been required.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    It's interesting how fearful nuclear energy makes people. The worst disaster in the history of nuclear energy, Chernobyl, will over the full course of time cause 4,000 premature deaths as estimated by the IAEA. This figure includes first responders sent in by the USSR with inadequate protections. "A United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study estimates the final total of premature deaths associated with the disaster will be around 4,000 mostly from an estimated 3% increase in cancers, which are already common causes of death in the region." Interestingly, the most common cancer it caused was thyroid (due to the Iodine-131 released), which has a 98% survival rate. [1, 3] Whereas, currently, burning of fossil fuels is killing 7.3 million (1825 Chernobyls -- 4x the total number of civil nuclear reactors on Earth) per year. "According to the World Health Organization in 2012, urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 3 million deaths worldwide per year and indoor air pollution from biomass and fossil fuel burning is estimated to cause approximately 4.3 million premature deaths." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents [3] https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistics https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/thyroid-cancer/statistic...
    - petschge 7y ago
      It is not just directly related deaths, but also the area of land made un-inhabitable and the duration for which it will remain un-inhabitable. And the fact that we have no workable way of dealing with the waste. Sure it only take a small storage space, but it will be lethal for a million years to come.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        I think there would be if we chose to invest in it, but it's a chicken and egg problem. The optics preclude investment which precludes development of ways of dealing with the waste. Nuclear power is sort of on hiatus. For instance, Thorium cycle reactors require no enrichment, product two to three orders of magnitude less nuclear waste (whose products have much shorter half-lives) and are much safer than Uranium cycle reactors -- though research only really resumed in 2008 after a 30 year break. One ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of Uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
      - petre 7y ago
        Wildlife gets another chance with the land being uninhabitable by humans for 300 years until Cs137 and Sr99 pass 10 lifetimes. A million years is a gross exageration. There are also people currently living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. They even have a name: samosely.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        They actually continued to operate two of the other reactors at the Chernobyl power plant until Unit 2 was closed in 1991 and Unit 3 in 2000. [1] How crazy is that? [1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chernobyl-1-3-enter-decommissioning-phase https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chernobyl-1-3-en...
        petre 7y ago
        Well, it was the USSR. 'Gorbachev states, “The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, even more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later”' http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2017/8/21/the-reason-the-ussr-collapsed-chernobyl-gorbachev-and-glasnost http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2017/8/21/the-reaso...
- jstandard 7y ago
  Where can I find information about the potential requirement for evacuation within a 150+ mile radius? I didn't downvote, just interested in learning more.
  - nihonde 7y ago
    I recommend the Nova episode about the 3/11 incident, which is streaming on Amazon Prime. Also, lots of sources online discuss the machinations behind the press conferences: http://world.time.com/2012/02/29/panel-government-told-people-to-keep-calm-while-mulling-tokyo-evacuation/#ixzz1ntRd4YIz http://world.time.com/2012/02/29/panel-government-told-peopl...
- petre 7y ago
  More like 80 km or 50 miles US Advisory Zone and a 20-30 km evacuation zone initially. The actual pattern is a 50 km by 12 km trace extending NNW. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushi...