9 ms·

Fukushima 'Full Meltdown' Made Official

95 points by chailatte 15y ago

elithrar 15y ago
A short, but well written article that does a good job of taking on the "full meltdown" hysteria that some news organisations seem to clutch on to. Granted, the situation at Fukushima isn't good, but "meltdown" seems to trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for miles & miles to much of the general public. PS: As an aside, the dramas in Japan are disappointing, because I'm a strong believer in nuclear power going forward. Misconceptions & a lack of education, fuelled by crisis' like these, don't help the cause.
- jbm 15y ago
  I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Just because all of Japan hasn't been destroyed doesn't mean that therr hasn't been significant damage done. Lies, corruption/amakudari and incompetence has all been unearthed in the nuclear disaster. In what sense is it hysteria to point this out? (Oddly, I feel the Tsunami disaster itself was handled quite well by the gov't)
  - lwat 15y ago
    Suffering of thousands? Because of this nuclear incident? What?
    - jsz0 15y ago
      Thousands of people have been displaced from their homes in the mandatory evacuation area. Displacement is really a horrible thing. It destroys communities and they never fully recover afterwards because people can't or won't return.
- stellar678 15y ago
  I'm not trying to be snarky, but is your disappointment that it's turning out that nuclear power may not be as safe as we hoped? It seems that this is a valid data point to look at when considering whether or not we should deploy nuclear power more widely. Even if it hadn't happened, from our current vantage point it's obvious that it _can_ happen.
  - Qz 15y ago
    'Not as safe as we hoped' is still a million times safer than coal power. You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day.
    - jjs 15y ago
      > You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day. Eventually you'd run out of lives...
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Is nuclear power perfectly safe? No. Is it safer than coal?
    - elithrar 15y ago
      > I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Precisely. It's also crisis like Fukushima—using generations-older tech—that impedes development of safer nuclear generation technology (i.e thorium reactors, or even just better light-water reactors). > I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Perhaps I should have used stronger language. The situation is bad, most definitely, and Japan will be reeling from the effects for decades to come. Especially in the immediate area, and more depending on the extent of ground water contamination. I'm just saying that the lack of education about nuclear power prevents us from moving forward with it, when deaths or disasters linked with other forms of power generation don't get the same media attention.
- forgotusername 15y ago
  "meltdown" seems to trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for miles & miles to much of the general public. That's because when fuel makes it through containment and into the water table, this is exactly what happens.
  - sorbus 15y ago
    Radioactive material entering the water table causes huge explosions? And nuclear material in the water table falls out of the atmosphere[1]? Bullshit. Are you even paying attention to the claims you're making? [1] Fallout specifically refers to radioactive dust created by an explosion which then falls out of the atmosphere, contaminating the ground - it's radioactive dust, not a radioactive solution.
    - forgotusername 15y ago
      I regretted not editing out that part of the quotation immediately after hitting submit, since I knew that although almost everyone would understand what I meant, there will always be someone who'll call it out in some heated nit-picky reply that ignored the obvious intent of my statement. Thank you, sir.
      - sorbus 15y ago
        You're able to edit comments for an hour after they're originally submitted.
jshen 15y ago
I recall so many people here asserting absolutely that fukushima wouldn't be a problem at all. Those people should reflect a bit.
- jrockway 15y ago
  What's the problem? The reactor melted down and there was no major damage to any "civilian" interests.
  - jsz0 15y ago
    With all this radioactive water leaking on and off for the last 2 months, and likely well into the future, it's probably way too early to declare victory. I'm not sure anyone fully understands what impact this might have yet.
    - ajross 15y ago
      Indeed. Chernobyl tossed a plume into the air, which was easily measured, traveled fast, and dispersed within weeks. This thing is in the ground water. It will be, what, months until it's clear where it's going in the aquifer? Years?
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    Tens of thousands of people still not allowed to return to their homes, with no clear idea when they will be allowed to do so.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - hga 15y ago
      Do understand that's because the situation is not yet fully understood or controlled. These BWR reactors (Units 1-3) and their safety systems, especially the passive ones, are getting their first true test (unlike airplanes, we can't afford to test them to destruction, and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both of different design, PWR and the criminal (at least, illegal in the US) RBMK). The situation is not good ... but I'm sure the environmentalists are sure the casualties in Japan from coal electrical plants in Japan and the PRC are much greater (and they're likely right).
jsprinkles 15y ago
Can anybody who is going to make a political nuclear statement for either side please read the prior threads on this topic where your point has already been argued ad infinitum? Someone else already thought about it and used scare words to drive the point home more effectively than you can. I promise. Another article with Fukushima in the title! Yay! Now I get to argue like a moron because it is a polarizing topic! Stupid {atomheads,hippies}! Nothing has changed in Japan so there is no reason to expect the thread to change. Shut up, please, and do something productive instead of convincing other hackers with no power to make energy decisions about your take on nuclear power. I can recite this thread from memory it has been rehashed so much and I have flagged it as a result. What can possibly be discussed that hasn't been beat to death in the last two months? Here's some: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2315205 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2315205 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318552 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318552 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2325588 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2325588 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316390 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316390 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326726 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326726 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396258 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396258 Find your own: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=fukushima&sortby=points+desc http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=fuk...
- skybrian 15y ago
  Except that this is actually news, and some of us are interested in ongoing developments in Fukushima. It's one of the bigger engineering stories going on right now, after all. You don't have to read the comments or argue about nuclear power to be interested.
  - davidw 15y ago
    > You don't have to read the comments or argue about nuclear power to be interested. You could even go so far as to say you don't even have to be a hacker to be interested... And at that point you should flag the article for being off topic.
- raganwald 15y ago
extension 15y ago
The Fukushima disaster is already as bad as Chernobyl according to the International Atomic Energy Association's scale That is quite a logical leap based solely on the INES rating. Fukushima is in the same category as Chernobyl, but this is also the highest category there is, and Chernobyl was past the boundary by a huge margin. For example, the criteria for the total release of iodine-131 in a level 7 accident is "tens of thousands of TBq". Chernobyl released 1.8 million TBq. Fukushima has released about 370,000 TBq so far. Chernobyl had killed 31 people by this point while Fukushima has had negligible health effects so far due to much better emergency response. The INES rating does not account for this, only for the amount of material released.
- sesqu 15y ago
  20%? That's a lot closer to Chernobyl, radiation-wise, than I expected. Why haven't the effects been anywhere near as bad, given that the released radioactivities are of the same order of magnitude?
  - extension 15y ago
    The Chernobyl reactor blew wide open, sent core bits flying, then burned for a couple of weeks. Fukushima remains mostly contained. I think release has been mostly through water. But it's not over yet and we don't know what the total effects will be.
  - novas0x2a 15y ago
    You can get this from wikipedia, but the short answer is that the graphite moderator Chernobyl used ignited. The burning graphite released smoke fallout, which spread very far due to wind. Fukushima released about an order of magnitude less nastiness, and it hasn't spread as far in quantity (though some of it is in the ocean).
chailatte 15y ago
Fairwinds: Fukushima Groundwater Contamination Worst in Nuclear History "That (contaminated) water is seeping into the ground table, and there will be contamination on that site for a long time to come. It could also move inland. This is ground water, it doesn't have to move out into the ocean. It is clearly moving into the north" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAeixB19d4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAeixB19d4 I don't believe that TEPCO is actively monitoring plutonium and uranium, which is heavy and more likely to seep into ground water than to be blown into the air. I hope that people in Tokyo do have some independent monitoring stations setup. Anybody know any links?

95 points by chailatte 15y ago

A short, but well written article that does a good job of taking on the "full meltdown" hysteria that some news organisations seem to clutch on to. Granted, the situation at Fukushima isn't good, but "meltdown" seems to trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for miles & miles to much of the general public. PS: As an aside, the dramas in Japan are disappointing, because I'm a strong believer in nuclear power going forward. Misconceptions & a lack of education, fuelled by crisis' like these, don't help the cause.

jbm 15y ago
I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Just because all of Japan hasn't been destroyed doesn't mean that therr hasn't been significant damage done. Lies, corruption/amakudari and incompetence has all been unearthed in the nuclear disaster. In what sense is it hysteria to point this out? (Oddly, I feel the Tsunami disaster itself was handled quite well by the gov't)
- lwat 15y ago
  Suffering of thousands? Because of this nuclear incident? What?
  - jsz0 15y ago
    Thousands of people have been displaced from their homes in the mandatory evacuation area. Displacement is really a horrible thing. It destroys communities and they never fully recover afterwards because people can't or won't return.
stellar678 15y ago
I'm not trying to be snarky, but is your disappointment that it's turning out that nuclear power may not be as safe as we hoped? It seems that this is a valid data point to look at when considering whether or not we should deploy nuclear power more widely. Even if it hadn't happened, from our current vantage point it's obvious that it _can_ happen.
- Qz 15y ago
  'Not as safe as we hoped' is still a million times safer than coal power. You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day.
  - jjs 15y ago
    > You're more likely to die in a car accident. Every single day. Eventually you'd run out of lives...
- sukuriant 15y ago
  I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Is nuclear power perfectly safe? No. Is it safer than coal?
  - elithrar 15y ago
    > I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Precisely. It's also crisis like Fukushima—using generations-older tech—that impedes development of safer nuclear generation technology (i.e thorium reactors, or even just better light-water reactors). > I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Perhaps I should have used stronger language. The situation is bad, most definitely, and Japan will be reeling from the effects for decades to come. Especially in the immediate area, and more depending on the extent of ground water contamination. I'm just saying that the lack of education about nuclear power prevents us from moving forward with it, when deaths or disasters linked with other forms of power generation don't get the same media attention.
forgotusername 15y ago
"meltdown" seems to trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for miles & miles to much of the general public. That's because when fuel makes it through containment and into the water table, this is exactly what happens.
- sorbus 15y ago
  Radioactive material entering the water table causes huge explosions? And nuclear material in the water table falls out of the atmosphere[1]? Bullshit. Are you even paying attention to the claims you're making? [1] Fallout specifically refers to radioactive dust created by an explosion which then falls out of the atmosphere, contaminating the ground - it's radioactive dust, not a radioactive solution.
  - forgotusername 15y ago
    I regretted not editing out that part of the quotation immediately after hitting submit, since I knew that although almost everyone would understand what I meant, there will always be someone who'll call it out in some heated nit-picky reply that ignored the obvious intent of my statement. Thank you, sir.
    - sorbus 15y ago
      You're able to edit comments for an hour after they're originally submitted.

jshen 15y ago

I recall so many people here asserting absolutely that fukushima wouldn't be a problem at all. Those people should reflect a bit.

jrockway 15y ago
What's the problem? The reactor melted down and there was no major damage to any "civilian" interests.
- jsz0 15y ago
  With all this radioactive water leaking on and off for the last 2 months, and likely well into the future, it's probably way too early to declare victory. I'm not sure anyone fully understands what impact this might have yet.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Indeed. Chernobyl tossed a plume into the air, which was easily measured, traveled fast, and dispersed within weeks. This thing is in the ground water. It will be, what, months until it's clear where it's going in the aquifer? Years?
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Tens of thousands of people still not allowed to return to their homes, with no clear idea when they will be allowed to do so.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - hga 15y ago
    Do understand that's because the situation is not yet fully understood or controlled. These BWR reactors (Units 1-3) and their safety systems, especially the passive ones, are getting their first true test (unlike airplanes, we can't afford to test them to destruction, and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both of different design, PWR and the criminal (at least, illegal in the US) RBMK). The situation is not good ... but I'm sure the environmentalists are sure the casualties in Japan from coal electrical plants in Japan and the PRC are much greater (and they're likely right).

jsprinkles 15y ago

Can anybody who is going to make a political nuclear statement for either side please read the prior threads on this topic where your point has already been argued ad infinitum? Someone else already thought about it and used scare words to drive the point home more effectively than you can. I promise. Another article with Fukushima in the title! Yay! Now I get to argue like a moron because it is a polarizing topic! Stupid {atomheads,hippies}! Nothing has changed in Japan so there is no reason to expect the thread to change. Shut up, please, and do something productive instead of convincing other hackers with no power to make energy decisions about your take on nuclear power. I can recite this thread from memory it has been rehashed so much and I have flagged it as a result. What can possibly be discussed that hasn't been beat to death in the last two months? Here's some: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2315205 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2315205 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318552 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318552 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2325588 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2325588 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316390 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316390 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326726 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326726 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396258 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396258 Find your own: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=fukushima&sortby=points+desc http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=fuk...

skybrian 15y ago
Except that this is actually news, and some of us are interested in ongoing developments in Fukushima. It's one of the bigger engineering stories going on right now, after all. You don't have to read the comments or argue about nuclear power to be interested.
- davidw 15y ago
  > You don't have to read the comments or argue about nuclear power to be interested. You could even go so far as to say you don't even have to be a hacker to be interested... And at that point you should flag the article for being off topic.
raganwald 15y ago

extension 15y ago

The Fukushima disaster is already as bad as Chernobyl according to the International Atomic Energy Association's scale That is quite a logical leap based solely on the INES rating. Fukushima is in the same category as Chernobyl, but this is also the highest category there is, and Chernobyl was past the boundary by a huge margin. For example, the criteria for the total release of iodine-131 in a level 7 accident is "tens of thousands of TBq". Chernobyl released 1.8 million TBq. Fukushima has released about 370,000 TBq so far. Chernobyl had killed 31 people by this point while Fukushima has had negligible health effects so far due to much better emergency response. The INES rating does not account for this, only for the amount of material released.

sesqu 15y ago
20%? That's a lot closer to Chernobyl, radiation-wise, than I expected. Why haven't the effects been anywhere near as bad, given that the released radioactivities are of the same order of magnitude?
- extension 15y ago
  The Chernobyl reactor blew wide open, sent core bits flying, then burned for a couple of weeks. Fukushima remains mostly contained. I think release has been mostly through water. But it's not over yet and we don't know what the total effects will be.
- novas0x2a 15y ago
  You can get this from wikipedia, but the short answer is that the graphite moderator Chernobyl used ignited. The burning graphite released smoke fallout, which spread very far due to wind. Fukushima released about an order of magnitude less nastiness, and it hasn't spread as far in quantity (though some of it is in the ocean).

chailatte 15y ago

Fairwinds: Fukushima Groundwater Contamination Worst in Nuclear History "That (contaminated) water is seeping into the ground table, and there will be contamination on that site for a long time to come. It could also move inland. This is ground water, it doesn't have to move out into the ocean. It is clearly moving into the north" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAeixB19d4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAeixB19d4 I don't believe that TEPCO is actively monitoring plutonium and uranium, which is heavy and more likely to seep into ground water than to be blown into the air. I hope that people in Tokyo do have some independent monitoring stations setup. Anybody know any links?