11 ms·

Dramatic escalation in Japan (Fukushima Nuke Plant)

133 points by Element_ 16y ago

radicaldreamer 16y ago
Radiation has been measured at a rate of 400 mili sieverts near reactor 3. 100 mili sieverts is enough to make a male infertile. Previous measurements were in micro sieverts. Source: https://twitter.com/#!/timeouttokyo/status/47480888463859712 https://twitter.com/#!/timeouttokyo/status/47480888463859712
- burke 16y ago
  Just as an added data point, one of the earliest measurements released (just before or after the first explosion) was 1015 µSv.
pessimist 16y ago
Turns out the optimistic reports upvoted by hacker news were polyannish. There appear to be 2 borderline catastrophes right now - 1. In reactor 4 spent fuel rods are burning and radioactivity is being freely vented in to the air. NONE of the optimistic reports suggested this possibility but I see a prophetic article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15fuel.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15fuel.html. 2. Reactor 2 has had an explosion that has damaged the core containment structure - something we were assured would not happen. Why were engineers so optimistic, while the ground reality is so much worse? Probably the complexity of the system escapes us and look at small parts of the issue and assume they are under control. In reality many things are interacting and the combination can overwhelm defences. For eg. as water is being routed to reactors 1, 2 and 3 to prevent meltdowns, the spent fuel rods are overheating. Hubris strikes again.
- gnosis 16y ago
  "Turns out the optimistic reports upvoted by hacker news were polyannish." There are way too many people on here who've been drinking too much of the radioactive koolaid doled out by the nuclear industry. The general consensus here tends to be that nuclear power is wonderful and amazingly safe. Well, we're seeing them being proven wrong yet again. How much more proof are they going to need? How many more nuclear disasters is it going to take?
  - pyre 16y ago
    I generally see people talking about how safe the new reactor designs are, and how it's a tragedy that people are so afraid of nuclear that they won't let them be built. The reactors in Japan are 40-year-old designs. You can't compare them on the same level. It's like saying that people in favor of nuclear power claim that Chernobyl never happened because 'safe nuclear' == 'never was a reactor that was unsafe ever built.'
    - exch 16y ago
      Add to that the fact that the other reactors there have stood up to a 9.1 quake with about 600 aftershocks -- ranging from mild to "I'm a pretty decent disaster all by myself" -- A sizable tidal wave and numerous fires with hydrogen explosions. This could definitely have been far, far worse by now.
      - gnosis 16y ago
        "This could definitely have been far, far worse by now." It still can. The disaster may be far from over. And it may take quite a while to calculate the real cost of this disaster, both economically and in terms of human life.
    - dialtone 16y ago
      You might be surprised to discover that a 40 year old life is fairly standard in nuclear power plants[1], in fact some countries hope to keep their plants active for closer to 60 years. At close to $7B+ investment in just the building phase of a modern nuclear plant and close to 7-10 years construction time per plant[2], the limited lifetime of the plant does start to become a concern in the financial sense though. [1]: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
      - pyre 16y ago
        I'm not balking at the age and saying that the place is 'falling apart.' I'm saying that they were designed 40 years ago, and that it's possible that we've learned things since then and can build better plants (starting at the design phase). I'm no expert though, so I'm making no claims.
- redwood 16y ago
  Well put. This is a highly chaotic situation unfolding as we speak. If any of that fuel catches fire, those of us sitting on our couches in silicon valley may very get a nice early spring gift from jet stream. Even if AT THIS POINT the chances of such a fire are <1% (which quite frankly seems optimistic) we should be very very concerned... Software engineers especially, but engineers in general, have a tendency to love complex machines. But engineers of all kinds SHOULD know best: that there are ALWAYS bugs, and where you least expect them. We ought to put aside the politics here: whether you like nuclear power or you don't: we've all been very much dependent on it, and benefited from it greatly. It's impact on life is different, but not clearly better or worse than other sources. Let's hope the engineers on the ground in Japan are getting very very creative.
  - timerickson 16y ago
    "those of us sitting on our couches in silicon valley may very get a nice early spring gift from jet stream." This brings up a question I've been wanting to ask since the ordeal started. How much do we know about the severity of radioactivity being spread to Hawaii, California or countries outside of Japan? Assuming worst case scenarios, are the citizens of Hawaii in real danger of poisoning? Should neighboring countries be stocking up on potassium iodine?
    - dublinclontarf 16y ago
      Well in a worse case scenario, which is not as bad as chernobyl then the answer is no, they dont really have anything to worry about. Chernobyl has actually killed very few people or cases of cancer. The death toll directly killed by the accident was around 50, with 4000 affected by radiation.
      - timerickson 16y ago
        According to the WHO, yes. Other reports have claimed up to 15,000 deaths, and 50,000 people handicapped after the disaster. McIntyre, P (May-June 2006). Chernobyl 20 years on. Cancer World, 40-44.
- chc 16y ago
  Alternative explanation: Being a pessimist is not productive. Woo-hoo, you were something in the ballpark of right. Is the world better because of it? If you look at every situation and assume the worst, you'll be right sometimes, but you'll never accomplish anything.
  - Aetius 16y ago
    Only the paranoid survive.
    - snth 16y ago
      No, paranoid means unreasonably anxious. If people had an appropriate level of concern that kept them alive, they were by definition not paranoid.
  - waterlesscloud 16y ago
    The wise man knows when pessimism is warranted.
  - gamble 16y ago
    I prefer my nuclear engineers to pay attention to the worst-case scenario, even if it does make them a wet blanket at parties.
    - chc 16y ago
      You're conflating the question of nuclear engineers preparing for the worst with question of whether, given two possible scenarios, we should just assume the worst (and, as implied by the GP, suggest that there is something defective with people who didn't make the negative assumption). The differences are incalculable.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    However, nuclear power generation is serious. Things happen very fast and can turn nasty in milliseconds if you don't pay attention, if you don't understand what is happening, if you don't know what you are doing and if you don't have the right tools at hand to deal with whatever is going on. One thing I learned in school is that you respect any machine bigger than you. I have no idea why things went so completely wrong there. I always assumed people who design and build nuclear reactors do so in ways they can't fail. Now I am more inclined to believe they are happy to have plans B through G instead of having a really bulletproof plan A. It's certainly more impressive to list a long series of failsafe devices than just having a very unimpressive core that can cool itself in the event of an emergency. It appears they were much less respectful than they should have been. Some people may end up paying with their lives.
- btucker 16y ago
  I think a big part of it is we've had it drilled into us that fears of nuclear meltdowns are irrational. That people are just misinformed & scared of something they can't see or possibly understand. And we like to think we're smarter than the general population. But clearly no one knows how bad this situation is going to get.
- hartror 16y ago
  1. The building on 4 is on fire, not the spent fuel rods. 2. The hydrogen explosion on 2 may have damaged containment.
  - pessimist 16y ago
    Well, at least one of the 2 possibilities is closer to the worst case since radioactivity levels are 500x (400 mill-sievert, from 800 u-sievert) what they were a few hours ago.
    - mistermann 16y ago
      Well, just cross your fingers and pray, it may get worse, if you are lucky. I get the distinct feeling that you want there to be a nuclear catastrophe....most detractors are content with imagining (and genuinely believing) that there have been several catastrophes in our past. But you seem drawn to want an actual catastrophe. Am I wrong? If you could somehow magically snap your fingers and make nuclear power 100% safe, would you do it?
    - bbb 16y ago
      Where are you getting the milli from? Kyodo reports 8000 micro sievert. So it's an ~5.5x increase from the previous high-water-mark of 1,500 microsievert. http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78063.html http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78063.html
      - pessimist 16y ago
        Japanese chief secretary's press conference which I was watching on NHK. NHK repeated the number several times. Found a press report here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/japan-appeals-for-international-aid-in-fight-to-prevent-a-nuclear-meltdown.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/japan-appeals-for-i...
        bbb 16y ago
        Thanks! I am not sure what reports to believe anymore...
- gamble 16y ago
  Yes, the upbeat reaction to Fukushima outside Japan has been disturbing. The fact that it would be hard to equal Chernobyl doesn't diminish the reality that this is easily the second-worst disaster in the history of nuclear power. People have been killed, and the entire complex is effectively trashed. One reactor at TMI took 14 years and a billion dollars to clean up; Fukushima is going to be a nightmare to set right even if things don't get worse. Of course, this is assuming that things aren't worse than the official statements let on. The sordid history of the Japanese nuclear industry, including falsification of safety records at Fukushima, doesn't inspire confidence. Japanese nuclear officials are notoriously slippery in front of the press, and the lack of reliable information from Fukushima has been very frustrating. No one really knows what's going on there, and every time the officials claim to have it under control another building explodes.
  - timerickson 16y ago
    Some context for the ongoing cost of Chernobyl: In Ukraine, Chernobyl related benefits and programs are still funded by 5-7 percentage of government spending each year. In Belarus, government spending on Chernobyl reached 22.3 percent of the national budget in 1991, declining gradually to 6.1 percent in 2002. Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl from 1991 through 2003 was more than US $13 billion. (Chernobyl Forum, 2006)
    - gnosis 16y ago
      The area around Chernobyl was also very lightly populated compared to Japan. In Japan live over 100 million people, in an area the size of California. If the Fukushima disaster grows anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl, the damage (both economically and in terms of human life) will likely be much, much greater.
      - timerickson 16y ago
        According to the IAEA (2005), the radiation contamination from the radioactive fallout exposed up to 6 million people in the surrounding area (including Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia) with radiation.
- sp332 16y ago
  This is a longish, very specific (but apparently also overoptimistic) description of the mechanics of the reactor problems. http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nuclear-accident-simple-and-accurate-explanation http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nu...
- pessimist 16y ago
  To update, NHK is reporting the fire at reactor 4 is out.
jedsmith 16y ago
The information coming out of Japan right now is very piecemeal and very incomplete. We are also depending on an organization without a stellar reputation when it comes to telling the truth[1], and a culture programmed to downplay very bad things. It has really pained me to see people rush to believe that everything is fine. Conclusions at any stage of this crisis have been premature, but HN seems to want a heavy dose of finality to a crisis that isn't even over yet. Apparently people don't want it to be a big deal, but it's slowly turning into a big deal. It just is. Instead of big essays and conclusions about how the powers-that-be have it under control complete with inaccurate depictions of how a reactor works, why don't we focus on facts? With that in mind, we do not know how bad it is. Anyone who says they do is lying to you. It isn't over, and it is a basic fact of logic that we will not be able to reflect on how bad this is or was until it is over. At the risk of a neener-neener I told you so, I presented some of this viewpoint[2] on the self-aggrandizing risk management Ph.D.'s everything's fine piece, but my viewpoint was drowned out by people wanting to rush to a conclusion so they can put the crisis out of sight and out of mind. [1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.scandal/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.s... [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305
- forensic 16y ago
  Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types is that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved. It's inconceivable (cue sound clip from Princess Bride) to most of us that extremely extensive and effective contingency plans are not in place. The nuclear risk is obvious, and so any nuclear construction's main emphasis must be on handling all possible contingencies... right? If Fukushima does end up being a "Big Deal" that is going to forcibly shift the world view of many many engineers and hackers. It will represent a piece of data that is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world. The facts will eventually win out, but for the short term, it is necessary that we go through these cycles of disbelief and then shock. Because that's just reality. I will be shocked if Fukushima causes serious harm to humans because until now it has been inconceivable to me that people making nuke plants could possibly underestimate the risks. If my inaccurate beliefs are shattered by the harsh reality of nuclear related deaths then... that's just how it will have to be. I'll have to eat my hat. I'm not looking forward to it. In the meantime I have to go with what I know. Which is that this should not be an issue that threatens human life.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- hartror 16y ago
  They're not in full melt down . . .
chailatte 16y ago
Japan's warning that all people within 30 kilometers from Fukushima should stay indoors and that the radioactive winds may reach Tokyo in as little as 8 hours Nikkei Flash Crash - Futures Plummet 16% http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nikkei-flash-crash-futures-plummet-16-all-hell-breaks-loose-japan#comments http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nikkei-flash-crash-futures-...
wbhart 16y ago
As near as I can make out the details: From the Japanese Prime Minister and Chief Cabinet Secretary. My source is NHK World (Japan News): People up to 30km from Dai-ichi (number-1) plant are being asked to remain indoors. ALL people within 20km of PLANT 1 are being asked to evacuate. The Japanese Govt. have asked the Japanese people to act calmly. (My comment: Watch the stock market now.) Here we go (information for PLANT 1 - Dai-ichi): Number 4 reactor: is on fire. There has been a hydrogen explosion there. There was an implosion of the building structure. Radiation is being released into the environment. Note reactor 4 was not in operation, but the fire has caused spent fuel to heat up generating hydrogen. Number 2 reactor: there was a blast 30 minutes after number 4's explosion. A hole/crack (trans?) has been observed in the reactor. Radioactive material has been released to the environment. At 10:22am between reactor 2 and 3, 30milliSievert and at reactor 4, 100 milliSievert. At reactor 3 the reading was 400 MILLI Sieverts. Note MILLI, not micro. They believe the fire at reactor number 4 is likely the main cause of the dramatic increase in radiation. The roof of a containment facility for spent fuel has also been damaged. It is possible that a leak exists there too.
- pyre 16y ago
  > A hole has been observed in the reactor. Radioactive > material has been released to the environment. I was just watching the press conference, and I could have sworn they said that the hole was in the reactor housing, and that little to no radiation was being released from this reactor. I was only paying half-attention though.
  - wbhart 16y ago
    I agree that the information was highly confusing. I also thought I heard this, but what I wrote is I believe correct nonetheless. :-( The english translation is very poor. Yesterday they used the phrase: "there is a small chance of a massive release of radioactive material". The correct translation was in fact, "there is little chance that there has been any substantial release of radioactive material"
ashbrahma 16y ago
Didn't we just have a top story on HN yesterday which talked about how everything was safe? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - icarus_drowning 16y ago
    Which facts that he posted were inaccurate? And note that I'm not talking about his opinions based on the facts, but rather the facts that he used as evidence? UPDATE: I'm not trying to be snarky here. I'm very interested in this situation and want a clearer picture of it, and it would be nice if someone who understands the complexities of this matter would comment, as the facts in the original post (which is now being slammed) seemed to indicate at the very least cautious optimism. (FYI, the post that was originally on the FP has moved here: http://mitnse.com/ http://mitnse.com/)
    - sho_hn 16y ago
      Apparently at least reactor 1 at Dai-ichi (which was the primary one to make trouble at the time he wrote the text, AFAIR) is too old a model to have the "core catcher" that he was saying would contain the corium in the case of a full meltdown.
      - wbhart 16y ago
        I could be wrong, but based on news this morning it was my understanding that it in fact had a concrete "tertiary" containment including a dry and wet-well. There were apparently some minor inaccuracies in what he wrote, which were pointed out by HN readers. Not that any of this is terribly relevant now.
  - archgoon 16y ago
    Hi! You seem to be somewhat misinformed about Dr. Josef Oehman. You are correct, he does not have a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. And yes, he is currently teaching English in Japan. He is not a English Teacher by training, he is a research scientist "working on working on product development processes with MIT's Lean Advancement Initiative and the MIT-KFUPM Center for Clean Water and Energy." His undergraduate schooling is in Mechanical Engineering (looks like a focus on process design). To be honest, the scorn you are heaping on English Teachers is misplaced to begin with, but if you're going to mock him, mock him as "Mr. Research Scientist". It's more accurate, and since you seem to be concerned with accuracy and titles, it would be appropriate. Here is the source for most of this information. http://lean.mit.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=845&Itemid=816 http://lean.mit.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...
gnosis 16y ago
"Something that has not gotten much mention yet are the pools of high-level radioactive waste at these very same reactors, which also need cooling... ...if the fuel pools are not cooled, they will melt down, in which case we’re going to have Chernobyl on steroids." http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/japan_facing_biggest_catastrophe_since_dawn http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/japan_facing_biggest_c...
jfoley 16y ago
A live geiger counter that is set up in Western Tokyo. That upward tail is pretty troubling. http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html
- ronnier 16y ago
  Site is slow and not all graphs are loading, here's a SS I took of it with both this years and last years graph: http://imgur.com/L8WKW?full http://imgur.com/L8WKW?full
  - pero 16y ago
    The top graph is now nosediving. An hour ago the upward-trend doubled in a 10 minute span. What is the bottom graph representing?
    - jfoley 16y ago
      I believe the bottom graph indicates levels as measured one year ago. EDIT: Looks like data from a little over a year ago- The date range in the screenshot is from Dec 4th to 5th 2010.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - patio11 16y ago
        The Japanese reads "For comparison: data from December 2010." Other text: "100 CPM is equivalent to exposure of 1 micro-sievert per hour". Or, approximately one tenth your rate of exposure when flying commercial.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
ronnier 16y ago
Here's the English dubbed LIVE NHK news from Japan: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/r/movie/ http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/r/movie/
dmm 16y ago
Something I don't understand: I keep hearing about seawater being pumped into the reactor chamber but apparently the chamber is still very hot. Where is all this seawater going? Steam? How big is this chamber? EDIT: Also I've heard of at least two explosions. Does this mean that containment vessels are compromised? What exactly exploded?
- wbhart 16y ago
  Whilst I can't claim to know the answer to your question, my guess/understanding is that it goes around the circuit and condenses in the heat exchange. It is then recycled. Some steam is lost when they vent hydrogen, presumably.
- dmm 16y ago
  Regarding the explosions, according to http://mitnse.com/ http://mitnse.com/, the Fukushima explosion occured in the ventilation system, outside of all containment vessels.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  The water heats up, building pressure, and then they vent some steam to try and lower the pressure (and then, obviously, have to re-add water). The explosions happen because the steam separates into Hydrogen & Oxygen due to a reaction, and once outside that is an explosive mix. The chamber is pretty large, several meters deep around the core. The explosions are as a result of the release of the hydrogen/oxygen mix - which does not take much to catch - but they occurred outside the pressure vessel. Such a situations is technically planned for, the building structure "fails outward" allowing the blast out and away from the pressure containment. It is relatively unlikely to damage the integrity of the vessel in such a situation; they are very very strong pieces of kit (at three mile island the explosion took place inside the vessel and I believe it did not compromise its integrity). At this stage is somewhat unclear but it appears that the third explosion has damaged one of the pressure vessels. However the technical explanations I am seeing are stating that it hasn't compromised the integrity of the containment; instead it appears to be saying that parts of the mechanism inside the containment are damaged (in this case the "torus" which is used as an emergency pressure relief system). This is actually, though, a significant problem, if true, because it could affect what happens if it finally does meltdown (as I mention in another comment, my working knowledge of this form of reactor is incomplete, but IIRC the torus also forms part of the final emergency response to a meltdown). Bottom line is; at this stage we know there have been 3 hydrogen explosions at 3 of the units, and one fire at another of the reactors. But it is still unclear the level of damage and risk with each unit - TEPCO (and indeed Japanese companies in general) tend to play down or not discuss details and risk publicly. Take this fire; no one really picked it up until it was out - at which point TEPCO appear to have started mentioning it. If I had to lay a claim I suspect that reactor 2 at this stage will probably meltdown; loss of the torus is significant enough that it raises the risk of what they are currently doing (i.e. trying to cool the core).
dmfdmf 16y ago
I'll step in and defend nuclear power. This crisis looks horrible and might even lead to multiple core melts with containment breach. But let's not forget this was a horrible natural disaster first. We engineers never said a meltdown could never happen but that we have done everything possible to minimize the risk. I can predict that the amount of lives lost and property damaged due to this accident will pale when compared to other forms of energy including coal, gas or oil when things go wrong -- a price we pay every single day and is so common it hardly registers as news. What was cost of the BP oil spill? Read your local news for local gas explosions, oil spills, injured workers, etc. People are killed in the coal industry every single year. These are such every day occurrences they don't even register unless many people are killed or it involves barrels of oil. This accident is like a plane crash that draws attention to the horrors of flight when things go wrong -- but we still fly and flying is orders of magnitude safer then getting in your car. All energy sources have risks and I believe that nuclear can be safe and reliable and better than any of the alternatives. In the end we will build nuclear power plants because there is no other large scale source of energy that can power an industrial civilization. (If you think so-called green energy and solar power can save us you need to learn some math. You are an environmentalist dupe). Need I remind all the ambitious hackers on HN that computers and the internet do not run on pixie dust -- it is running on oil, gas, coal and, yes, nuclear power right now. We know that at some point the oil will run out or become too expensive to mine. At that point its nuclear or turn off the lights and the drastic drop in living standards that implies. This accident will teach us a lot about how to design and build reactors and nuclear power stations and maybe will delay the construction of those new plants which would be the real tragedy of this accident. We need to start building them now.
- piguy314 16y ago
  It's instructive that we've already engineered ways of preventing the problems TEPCO is experiencing at their Fukushima. Many newer reactor designs have a passive residual heat removal system that removes decay heat even without electrical power to run cooling pumps. http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.html http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.h...
- mmaro 16y ago
Element_ 16y ago
Live geiger counter readings from Tokyo: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo Rough translation of the prime ministers speech on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_explosions_reported_at_reactor_2/ http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...
squidsoup 16y ago
Kyodo News (http://english.kyodonews.jp/ http://english.kyodonews.jp/) are reporting that radiation levels in Chiba are twice to 4 times normal level and 33 times normal level in Utsunomiya, Tochigi.
cdellin 16y ago
Just a note - all radiation levels reported from around the plant are measured in milli(m)/micro(u)-sieverts(Sv) per hour. For comparison, the worldwide average background radiation level is approx. 0.274 uSv/h, and the usa recommended continuous occupational limit is 5.71 uSv/h. For example, the highest level I've seen reported is 400 mSv/h, or 70000x the recommended limit. Info from wikipedia.
- Natsu 16y ago
  I feel bad for posting the same thing so much, but there are just too many discussions of this going on. "As of 0:30 pm, the measured value of radiation dose near MP6 was 4μSv/h. The increase of the radiation dose cannot be confirmed at this time." http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031405-e.html http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031405-e.... I've seen lots of things reported, but I'm always leery of things that have gone through two or three languages to get to us. We've all played that translation party where things get translated into gibberish. I'm going to have to take it with a grain of salt when people get their news from the French embassy (which, last I knew, was not known for nuclear expertise, but feel free to prove me wrong).

133 points by Element_ 16y ago

Radiation has been measured at a rate of 400 mili sieverts near reactor 3. 100 mili sieverts is enough to make a male infertile. Previous measurements were in micro sieverts. Source: https://twitter.com/#!/timeouttokyo/status/47480888463859712 https://twitter.com/#!/timeouttokyo/status/47480888463859712

burke 16y ago
Just as an added data point, one of the earliest measurements released (just before or after the first explosion) was 1015 µSv.

pessimist 16y ago

Turns out the optimistic reports upvoted by hacker news were polyannish. There appear to be 2 borderline catastrophes right now - 1. In reactor 4 spent fuel rods are burning and radioactivity is being freely vented in to the air. NONE of the optimistic reports suggested this possibility but I see a prophetic article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15fuel.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15fuel.html. 2. Reactor 2 has had an explosion that has damaged the core containment structure - something we were assured would not happen. Why were engineers so optimistic, while the ground reality is so much worse? Probably the complexity of the system escapes us and look at small parts of the issue and assume they are under control. In reality many things are interacting and the combination can overwhelm defences. For eg. as water is being routed to reactors 1, 2 and 3 to prevent meltdowns, the spent fuel rods are overheating. Hubris strikes again.

gnosis 16y ago
"Turns out the optimistic reports upvoted by hacker news were polyannish." There are way too many people on here who've been drinking too much of the radioactive koolaid doled out by the nuclear industry. The general consensus here tends to be that nuclear power is wonderful and amazingly safe. Well, we're seeing them being proven wrong yet again. How much more proof are they going to need? How many more nuclear disasters is it going to take?
- pyre 16y ago
  I generally see people talking about how safe the new reactor designs are, and how it's a tragedy that people are so afraid of nuclear that they won't let them be built. The reactors in Japan are 40-year-old designs. You can't compare them on the same level. It's like saying that people in favor of nuclear power claim that Chernobyl never happened because 'safe nuclear' == 'never was a reactor that was unsafe ever built.'
  - exch 16y ago
    Add to that the fact that the other reactors there have stood up to a 9.1 quake with about 600 aftershocks -- ranging from mild to "I'm a pretty decent disaster all by myself" -- A sizable tidal wave and numerous fires with hydrogen explosions. This could definitely have been far, far worse by now.
    - gnosis 16y ago
      "This could definitely have been far, far worse by now." It still can. The disaster may be far from over. And it may take quite a while to calculate the real cost of this disaster, both economically and in terms of human life.
  - dialtone 16y ago
    You might be surprised to discover that a 40 year old life is fairly standard in nuclear power plants[1], in fact some countries hope to keep their plants active for closer to 60 years. At close to $7B+ investment in just the building phase of a modern nuclear plant and close to 7-10 years construction time per plant[2], the limited lifetime of the plant does start to become a concern in the financial sense though. [1]: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
    - pyre 16y ago
      I'm not balking at the age and saying that the place is 'falling apart.' I'm saying that they were designed 40 years ago, and that it's possible that we've learned things since then and can build better plants (starting at the design phase). I'm no expert though, so I'm making no claims.
redwood 16y ago
Well put. This is a highly chaotic situation unfolding as we speak. If any of that fuel catches fire, those of us sitting on our couches in silicon valley may very get a nice early spring gift from jet stream. Even if AT THIS POINT the chances of such a fire are <1% (which quite frankly seems optimistic) we should be very very concerned... Software engineers especially, but engineers in general, have a tendency to love complex machines. But engineers of all kinds SHOULD know best: that there are ALWAYS bugs, and where you least expect them. We ought to put aside the politics here: whether you like nuclear power or you don't: we've all been very much dependent on it, and benefited from it greatly. It's impact on life is different, but not clearly better or worse than other sources. Let's hope the engineers on the ground in Japan are getting very very creative.
- timerickson 16y ago
  "those of us sitting on our couches in silicon valley may very get a nice early spring gift from jet stream." This brings up a question I've been wanting to ask since the ordeal started. How much do we know about the severity of radioactivity being spread to Hawaii, California or countries outside of Japan? Assuming worst case scenarios, are the citizens of Hawaii in real danger of poisoning? Should neighboring countries be stocking up on potassium iodine?
  - dublinclontarf 16y ago
    Well in a worse case scenario, which is not as bad as chernobyl then the answer is no, they dont really have anything to worry about. Chernobyl has actually killed very few people or cases of cancer. The death toll directly killed by the accident was around 50, with 4000 affected by radiation.
    - timerickson 16y ago
      According to the WHO, yes. Other reports have claimed up to 15,000 deaths, and 50,000 people handicapped after the disaster. McIntyre, P (May-June 2006). Chernobyl 20 years on. Cancer World, 40-44.
chc 16y ago
Alternative explanation: Being a pessimist is not productive. Woo-hoo, you were something in the ballpark of right. Is the world better because of it? If you look at every situation and assume the worst, you'll be right sometimes, but you'll never accomplish anything.
- Aetius 16y ago
  Only the paranoid survive.
  - snth 16y ago
    No, paranoid means unreasonably anxious. If people had an appropriate level of concern that kept them alive, they were by definition not paranoid.
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  The wise man knows when pessimism is warranted.
- gamble 16y ago
  I prefer my nuclear engineers to pay attention to the worst-case scenario, even if it does make them a wet blanket at parties.
  - chc 16y ago
    You're conflating the question of nuclear engineers preparing for the worst with question of whether, given two possible scenarios, we should just assume the worst (and, as implied by the GP, suggest that there is something defective with people who didn't make the negative assumption). The differences are incalculable.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- rbanffy 16y ago
  However, nuclear power generation is serious. Things happen very fast and can turn nasty in milliseconds if you don't pay attention, if you don't understand what is happening, if you don't know what you are doing and if you don't have the right tools at hand to deal with whatever is going on. One thing I learned in school is that you respect any machine bigger than you. I have no idea why things went so completely wrong there. I always assumed people who design and build nuclear reactors do so in ways they can't fail. Now I am more inclined to believe they are happy to have plans B through G instead of having a really bulletproof plan A. It's certainly more impressive to list a long series of failsafe devices than just having a very unimpressive core that can cool itself in the event of an emergency. It appears they were much less respectful than they should have been. Some people may end up paying with their lives.
btucker 16y ago
I think a big part of it is we've had it drilled into us that fears of nuclear meltdowns are irrational. That people are just misinformed & scared of something they can't see or possibly understand. And we like to think we're smarter than the general population. But clearly no one knows how bad this situation is going to get.
hartror 16y ago
1. The building on 4 is on fire, not the spent fuel rods. 2. The hydrogen explosion on 2 may have damaged containment.
- pessimist 16y ago
  Well, at least one of the 2 possibilities is closer to the worst case since radioactivity levels are 500x (400 mill-sievert, from 800 u-sievert) what they were a few hours ago.
  - mistermann 16y ago
    Well, just cross your fingers and pray, it may get worse, if you are lucky. I get the distinct feeling that you want there to be a nuclear catastrophe....most detractors are content with imagining (and genuinely believing) that there have been several catastrophes in our past. But you seem drawn to want an actual catastrophe. Am I wrong? If you could somehow magically snap your fingers and make nuclear power 100% safe, would you do it?
  - bbb 16y ago
    Where are you getting the milli from? Kyodo reports 8000 micro sievert. So it's an ~5.5x increase from the previous high-water-mark of 1,500 microsievert. http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78063.html http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78063.html
    - pessimist 16y ago
      Japanese chief secretary's press conference which I was watching on NHK. NHK repeated the number several times. Found a press report here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/japan-appeals-for-international-aid-in-fight-to-prevent-a-nuclear-meltdown.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/japan-appeals-for-i...
      - bbb 16y ago
        Thanks! I am not sure what reports to believe anymore...
gamble 16y ago
Yes, the upbeat reaction to Fukushima outside Japan has been disturbing. The fact that it would be hard to equal Chernobyl doesn't diminish the reality that this is easily the second-worst disaster in the history of nuclear power. People have been killed, and the entire complex is effectively trashed. One reactor at TMI took 14 years and a billion dollars to clean up; Fukushima is going to be a nightmare to set right even if things don't get worse. Of course, this is assuming that things aren't worse than the official statements let on. The sordid history of the Japanese nuclear industry, including falsification of safety records at Fukushima, doesn't inspire confidence. Japanese nuclear officials are notoriously slippery in front of the press, and the lack of reliable information from Fukushima has been very frustrating. No one really knows what's going on there, and every time the officials claim to have it under control another building explodes.
- timerickson 16y ago
  Some context for the ongoing cost of Chernobyl: In Ukraine, Chernobyl related benefits and programs are still funded by 5-7 percentage of government spending each year. In Belarus, government spending on Chernobyl reached 22.3 percent of the national budget in 1991, declining gradually to 6.1 percent in 2002. Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl from 1991 through 2003 was more than US $13 billion. (Chernobyl Forum, 2006)
  - gnosis 16y ago
    The area around Chernobyl was also very lightly populated compared to Japan. In Japan live over 100 million people, in an area the size of California. If the Fukushima disaster grows anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl, the damage (both economically and in terms of human life) will likely be much, much greater.
    - timerickson 16y ago
      According to the IAEA (2005), the radiation contamination from the radioactive fallout exposed up to 6 million people in the surrounding area (including Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia) with radiation.
sp332 16y ago
This is a longish, very specific (but apparently also overoptimistic) description of the mechanics of the reactor problems. http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nuclear-accident-simple-and-accurate-explanation http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nu...
pessimist 16y ago
To update, NHK is reporting the fire at reactor 4 is out.

jedsmith 16y ago

The information coming out of Japan right now is very piecemeal and very incomplete. We are also depending on an organization without a stellar reputation when it comes to telling the truth[1], and a culture programmed to downplay very bad things. It has really pained me to see people rush to believe that everything is fine. Conclusions at any stage of this crisis have been premature, but HN seems to want a heavy dose of finality to a crisis that isn't even over yet. Apparently people don't want it to be a big deal, but it's slowly turning into a big deal. It just is. Instead of big essays and conclusions about how the powers-that-be have it under control complete with inaccurate depictions of how a reactor works, why don't we focus on facts? With that in mind, we do not know how bad it is. Anyone who says they do is lying to you. It isn't over, and it is a basic fact of logic that we will not be able to reflect on how bad this is or was until it is over. At the risk of a neener-neener I told you so, I presented some of this viewpoint[2] on the self-aggrandizing risk management Ph.D.'s everything's fine piece, but my viewpoint was drowned out by people wanting to rush to a conclusion so they can put the crisis out of sight and out of mind. [1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.scandal/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/17/tokyo.s... [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319305

forensic 16y ago
Whether you like it or not, the beliefs of most intellectual engineer types is that the nuclear power plant dangers have been solved. It's inconceivable (cue sound clip from Princess Bride) to most of us that extremely extensive and effective contingency plans are not in place. The nuclear risk is obvious, and so any nuclear construction's main emphasis must be on handling all possible contingencies... right? If Fukushima does end up being a "Big Deal" that is going to forcibly shift the world view of many many engineers and hackers. It will represent a piece of data that is fundamentally at odds with our view of the world. The facts will eventually win out, but for the short term, it is necessary that we go through these cycles of disbelief and then shock. Because that's just reality. I will be shocked if Fukushima causes serious harm to humans because until now it has been inconceivable to me that people making nuke plants could possibly underestimate the risks. If my inaccurate beliefs are shattered by the harsh reality of nuclear related deaths then... that's just how it will have to be. I'll have to eat my hat. I'm not looking forward to it. In the meantime I have to go with what I know. Which is that this should not be an issue that threatens human life.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

hartror 16y ago
They're not in full melt down . . .

chailatte 16y ago

Japan's warning that all people within 30 kilometers from Fukushima should stay indoors and that the radioactive winds may reach Tokyo in as little as 8 hours Nikkei Flash Crash - Futures Plummet 16% http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nikkei-flash-crash-futures-plummet-16-all-hell-breaks-loose-japan#comments http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nikkei-flash-crash-futures-...

wbhart 16y ago

As near as I can make out the details: From the Japanese Prime Minister and Chief Cabinet Secretary. My source is NHK World (Japan News): People up to 30km from Dai-ichi (number-1) plant are being asked to remain indoors. ALL people within 20km of PLANT 1 are being asked to evacuate. The Japanese Govt. have asked the Japanese people to act calmly. (My comment: Watch the stock market now.) Here we go (information for PLANT 1 - Dai-ichi): Number 4 reactor: is on fire. There has been a hydrogen explosion there. There was an implosion of the building structure. Radiation is being released into the environment. Note reactor 4 was not in operation, but the fire has caused spent fuel to heat up generating hydrogen. Number 2 reactor: there was a blast 30 minutes after number 4's explosion. A hole/crack (trans?) has been observed in the reactor. Radioactive material has been released to the environment. At 10:22am between reactor 2 and 3, 30milliSievert and at reactor 4, 100 milliSievert. At reactor 3 the reading was 400 MILLI Sieverts. Note MILLI, not micro. They believe the fire at reactor number 4 is likely the main cause of the dramatic increase in radiation. The roof of a containment facility for spent fuel has also been damaged. It is possible that a leak exists there too.

pyre 16y ago
> A hole has been observed in the reactor. Radioactive > material has been released to the environment. I was just watching the press conference, and I could have sworn they said that the hole was in the reactor housing, and that little to no radiation was being released from this reactor. I was only paying half-attention though.
- wbhart 16y ago
  I agree that the information was highly confusing. I also thought I heard this, but what I wrote is I believe correct nonetheless. :-( The english translation is very poor. Yesterday they used the phrase: "there is a small chance of a massive release of radioactive material". The correct translation was in fact, "there is little chance that there has been any substantial release of radioactive material"

ashbrahma 16y ago

Didn't we just have a top story on HN yesterday which talked about how everything was safe? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- icarus_drowning 16y ago
  Which facts that he posted were inaccurate? And note that I'm not talking about his opinions based on the facts, but rather the facts that he used as evidence? UPDATE: I'm not trying to be snarky here. I'm very interested in this situation and want a clearer picture of it, and it would be nice if someone who understands the complexities of this matter would comment, as the facts in the original post (which is now being slammed) seemed to indicate at the very least cautious optimism. (FYI, the post that was originally on the FP has moved here: http://mitnse.com/ http://mitnse.com/)
  - sho_hn 16y ago
    Apparently at least reactor 1 at Dai-ichi (which was the primary one to make trouble at the time he wrote the text, AFAIR) is too old a model to have the "core catcher" that he was saying would contain the corium in the case of a full meltdown.
    - wbhart 16y ago
      I could be wrong, but based on news this morning it was my understanding that it in fact had a concrete "tertiary" containment including a dry and wet-well. There were apparently some minor inaccuracies in what he wrote, which were pointed out by HN readers. Not that any of this is terribly relevant now.
- archgoon 16y ago
  Hi! You seem to be somewhat misinformed about Dr. Josef Oehman. You are correct, he does not have a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. And yes, he is currently teaching English in Japan. He is not a English Teacher by training, he is a research scientist "working on working on product development processes with MIT's Lean Advancement Initiative and the MIT-KFUPM Center for Clean Water and Energy." His undergraduate schooling is in Mechanical Engineering (looks like a focus on process design). To be honest, the scorn you are heaping on English Teachers is misplaced to begin with, but if you're going to mock him, mock him as "Mr. Research Scientist". It's more accurate, and since you seem to be concerned with accuracy and titles, it would be appropriate. Here is the source for most of this information. http://lean.mit.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=845&Itemid=816 http://lean.mit.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...

gnosis 16y ago

"Something that has not gotten much mention yet are the pools of high-level radioactive waste at these very same reactors, which also need cooling... ...if the fuel pools are not cooled, they will melt down, in which case we’re going to have Chernobyl on steroids." http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/japan_facing_biggest_catastrophe_since_dawn http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/japan_facing_biggest_c...

jfoley 16y ago

A live geiger counter that is set up in Western Tokyo. That upward tail is pretty troubling. http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html

ronnier 16y ago
Site is slow and not all graphs are loading, here's a SS I took of it with both this years and last years graph: http://imgur.com/L8WKW?full http://imgur.com/L8WKW?full
- pero 16y ago
  The top graph is now nosediving. An hour ago the upward-trend doubled in a 10 minute span. What is the bottom graph representing?
  - jfoley 16y ago
    I believe the bottom graph indicates levels as measured one year ago. EDIT: Looks like data from a little over a year ago- The date range in the screenshot is from Dec 4th to 5th 2010.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - patio11 16y ago
      The Japanese reads "For comparison: data from December 2010." Other text: "100 CPM is equivalent to exposure of 1 micro-sievert per hour". Or, approximately one tenth your rate of exposure when flying commercial.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

ronnier 16y ago

Here's the English dubbed LIVE NHK news from Japan: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/r/movie/ http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/r/movie/

dmm 16y ago

Something I don't understand: I keep hearing about seawater being pumped into the reactor chamber but apparently the chamber is still very hot. Where is all this seawater going? Steam? How big is this chamber? EDIT: Also I've heard of at least two explosions. Does this mean that containment vessels are compromised? What exactly exploded?

wbhart 16y ago
Whilst I can't claim to know the answer to your question, my guess/understanding is that it goes around the circuit and condenses in the heat exchange. It is then recycled. Some steam is lost when they vent hydrogen, presumably.
dmm 16y ago
Regarding the explosions, according to http://mitnse.com/ http://mitnse.com/, the Fukushima explosion occured in the ventilation system, outside of all containment vessels.
ErrantX 16y ago
The water heats up, building pressure, and then they vent some steam to try and lower the pressure (and then, obviously, have to re-add water). The explosions happen because the steam separates into Hydrogen & Oxygen due to a reaction, and once outside that is an explosive mix. The chamber is pretty large, several meters deep around the core. The explosions are as a result of the release of the hydrogen/oxygen mix - which does not take much to catch - but they occurred outside the pressure vessel. Such a situations is technically planned for, the building structure "fails outward" allowing the blast out and away from the pressure containment. It is relatively unlikely to damage the integrity of the vessel in such a situation; they are very very strong pieces of kit (at three mile island the explosion took place inside the vessel and I believe it did not compromise its integrity). At this stage is somewhat unclear but it appears that the third explosion has damaged one of the pressure vessels. However the technical explanations I am seeing are stating that it hasn't compromised the integrity of the containment; instead it appears to be saying that parts of the mechanism inside the containment are damaged (in this case the "torus" which is used as an emergency pressure relief system). This is actually, though, a significant problem, if true, because it could affect what happens if it finally does meltdown (as I mention in another comment, my working knowledge of this form of reactor is incomplete, but IIRC the torus also forms part of the final emergency response to a meltdown). Bottom line is; at this stage we know there have been 3 hydrogen explosions at 3 of the units, and one fire at another of the reactors. But it is still unclear the level of damage and risk with each unit - TEPCO (and indeed Japanese companies in general) tend to play down or not discuss details and risk publicly. Take this fire; no one really picked it up until it was out - at which point TEPCO appear to have started mentioning it. If I had to lay a claim I suspect that reactor 2 at this stage will probably meltdown; loss of the torus is significant enough that it raises the risk of what they are currently doing (i.e. trying to cool the core).

dmfdmf 16y ago

I'll step in and defend nuclear power. This crisis looks horrible and might even lead to multiple core melts with containment breach. But let's not forget this was a horrible natural disaster first. We engineers never said a meltdown could never happen but that we have done everything possible to minimize the risk. I can predict that the amount of lives lost and property damaged due to this accident will pale when compared to other forms of energy including coal, gas or oil when things go wrong -- a price we pay every single day and is so common it hardly registers as news. What was cost of the BP oil spill? Read your local news for local gas explosions, oil spills, injured workers, etc. People are killed in the coal industry every single year. These are such every day occurrences they don't even register unless many people are killed or it involves barrels of oil. This accident is like a plane crash that draws attention to the horrors of flight when things go wrong -- but we still fly and flying is orders of magnitude safer then getting in your car. All energy sources have risks and I believe that nuclear can be safe and reliable and better than any of the alternatives. In the end we will build nuclear power plants because there is no other large scale source of energy that can power an industrial civilization. (If you think so-called green energy and solar power can save us you need to learn some math. You are an environmentalist dupe). Need I remind all the ambitious hackers on HN that computers and the internet do not run on pixie dust -- it is running on oil, gas, coal and, yes, nuclear power right now. We know that at some point the oil will run out or become too expensive to mine. At that point its nuclear or turn off the lights and the drastic drop in living standards that implies. This accident will teach us a lot about how to design and build reactors and nuclear power stations and maybe will delay the construction of those new plants which would be the real tragedy of this accident. We need to start building them now.

piguy314 16y ago
It's instructive that we've already engineered ways of preventing the problems TEPCO is experiencing at their Fukushima. Many newer reactor designs have a passive residual heat removal system that removes decay heat even without electrical power to run cooling pumps. http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.html http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_psrs_pccs.h...
mmaro 16y ago

Element_ 16y ago

Live geiger counter readings from Tokyo: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-tokyo Rough translation of the prime ministers speech on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_explosions_reported_at_reactor_2/ http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g3zel/breaking_ex...

squidsoup 16y ago

Kyodo News (http://english.kyodonews.jp/ http://english.kyodonews.jp/) are reporting that radiation levels in Chiba are twice to 4 times normal level and 33 times normal level in Utsunomiya, Tochigi.

cdellin 16y ago

Just a note - all radiation levels reported from around the plant are measured in milli(m)/micro(u)-sieverts(Sv) per hour. For comparison, the worldwide average background radiation level is approx. 0.274 uSv/h, and the usa recommended continuous occupational limit is 5.71 uSv/h. For example, the highest level I've seen reported is 400 mSv/h, or 70000x the recommended limit. Info from wikipedia.

Natsu 16y ago
I feel bad for posting the same thing so much, but there are just too many discussions of this going on. "As of 0:30 pm, the measured value of radiation dose near MP6 was 4μSv/h. The increase of the radiation dose cannot be confirmed at this time." http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031405-e.html http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031405-e.... I've seen lots of things reported, but I'm always leery of things that have gone through two or three languages to get to us. We've all played that translation party where things get translated into gibberish. I'm going to have to take it with a grain of salt when people get their news from the French embassy (which, last I knew, was not known for nuclear expertise, but feel free to prove me wrong).