5 ms·

Potentially 3 meltdowns occurred, after a 'perfect storm' swamped badly-sited and antiquated reactors. The end result: a few people with radiation burns, a loc

by DanI-S 15y ago

Potentially 3 meltdowns occurred, after a 'perfect storm' swamped badly-sited and antiquated reactors. The end result: a few people with radiation burns, a local shortage of electricity, and a release of radiation that - while significant - doesn't come close to the radiation released by the thousands of atomic bomb tests performed in Nevada this last century. An area will be uninhabitable for a while. Lessons learned: nuclear power is pretty darn safe, although you shouldn't build 50s-style reactors near the coast in a tsunami zone. If you do, don't live nearby. No surprises there.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
kenjackson 15y ago
I know what you were trying to say, but "doesn't come close to the radiation released by the thousands of atomic bomb tests" isn't exactly the way to calm people about the amount of radiation leaked.
- DanI-S 15y ago
  This is true :) The most significant thing made apparent by this nuclear disaster, personally, has been how carefully authorities are forced to step around an uneducated public and a wild, hysterical mass media. How can we ever have transparency and full disclosure while the press are inclined to behave this way?
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Report all quantities of radiation in Banana Equivalent Doses rather than Sieverts.
- watmough 15y ago
  Is that even true? A bomb might have 100 pounds of nuclear material, fairly efficiently exploded, releasing a lot of energy. A burning, melting reactor might have 100s of TONS of fuel pellets, which can be aerosolized and distributed to the four corners.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    I am no expert, but I think a nuclear bomb exploding converts radioactive isotopes to other less massive/energetic radioactive isotopes, but the resulting material is (often) still radioactive. So I am not sure how efficiency factors in there.
  - brazzy 15y ago
    AFAIK even the most efficient bombs only convert a very small (sub 1) percentage of the fissible material to energy. And (in the case of the over 500 airblasts) "aerosolize" all of the rest 100% and spread it throughout the troposphere, ensuring that the whole world gets its share. While it's true that reactors contain far more radioactive material, they don't typically "aerosolize" much of it - Tchernobyl was pretty much a worst case scenario in that regard, and Fukushima thankfully was not.
smithian 15y ago
>Lessons learned: nuclear power is pretty darn safe, although you shouldn't build 50s-style reactors near the coast in a tsunami zone. If you do, don't live nearby. No surprises there. I would say that it was a surprise to everyone involved. Or are you saying that everyone who lives near a nuclear reactor shouldn't be surprised when their homes become uninhabitable? I wonder if the nuclear industry would agree with that statement.
scott_s 15y ago
Saying "lessons learned" and "no surprise there" about the same thing does not work.
nl 15y ago
It might have been a perfect storm, but it was entirely predictable. They just decided that the costs associated with removing the risks were too high, so they built for a 2M (or whatever it was they planned for) Tsunami instead. And it's misleading to call these reactors antiquated. They were built with projected lifespans that go well past the present day, and if you replace them or reduce the lifespans it (badly) affects the cost of Nuclear power. BTW, if you think that was badly-sites and antiquated then I've got a few others you might want to avoid: Diablo Canyon, California (Yes, that is the sea): http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/diablo_canyon_nuclear_power_plant.jpg http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/diablo_canyon_n... San Onofre, Ca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_S... (Yes, that's a beach it's build on)
nl 15y ago
Lessons learned: nuclear power is pretty darn safe, although you shouldn't build 50s-style reactors near the coast in a tsunami zone. If you do, don't live nearby. No surprises there. Yeah, better tell everyone in San Diego: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_S...
- Peaker 15y ago
  Is it really the same reactor design? Are they doing anything in light of the Fukushima disaster?
  - nl 15y ago
    Is it really the same reactor design? No, but similar age I think Are they doing anything in light of the Fukushima disaster I believe they put out some press releases telling people how safe it was.

by DanI-S 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

kenjackson 15y ago

I know what you were trying to say, but "doesn't come close to the radiation released by the thousands of atomic bomb tests" isn't exactly the way to calm people about the amount of radiation leaked.

DanI-S 15y ago
This is true :) The most significant thing made apparent by this nuclear disaster, personally, has been how carefully authorities are forced to step around an uneducated public and a wild, hysterical mass media. How can we ever have transparency and full disclosure while the press are inclined to behave this way?
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Report all quantities of radiation in Banana Equivalent Doses rather than Sieverts.
watmough 15y ago
Is that even true? A bomb might have 100 pounds of nuclear material, fairly efficiently exploded, releasing a lot of energy. A burning, melting reactor might have 100s of TONS of fuel pellets, which can be aerosolized and distributed to the four corners.
- Peaker 15y ago
  I am no expert, but I think a nuclear bomb exploding converts radioactive isotopes to other less massive/energetic radioactive isotopes, but the resulting material is (often) still radioactive. So I am not sure how efficiency factors in there.
- brazzy 15y ago
  AFAIK even the most efficient bombs only convert a very small (sub 1) percentage of the fissible material to energy. And (in the case of the over 500 airblasts) "aerosolize" all of the rest 100% and spread it throughout the troposphere, ensuring that the whole world gets its share. While it's true that reactors contain far more radioactive material, they don't typically "aerosolize" much of it - Tchernobyl was pretty much a worst case scenario in that regard, and Fukushima thankfully was not.

smithian 15y ago

>Lessons learned: nuclear power is pretty darn safe, although you shouldn't build 50s-style reactors near the coast in a tsunami zone. If you do, don't live nearby. No surprises there. I would say that it was a surprise to everyone involved. Or are you saying that everyone who lives near a nuclear reactor shouldn't be surprised when their homes become uninhabitable? I wonder if the nuclear industry would agree with that statement.

scott_s 15y ago

Saying "lessons learned" and "no surprise there" about the same thing does not work.

nl 15y ago

It might have been a perfect storm, but it was entirely predictable. They just decided that the costs associated with removing the risks were too high, so they built for a 2M (or whatever it was they planned for) Tsunami instead. And it's misleading to call these reactors antiquated. They were built with projected lifespans that go well past the present day, and if you replace them or reduce the lifespans it (badly) affects the cost of Nuclear power. BTW, if you think that was badly-sites and antiquated then I've got a few others you might want to avoid: Diablo Canyon, California (Yes, that is the sea): http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/diablo_canyon_nuclear_power_plant.jpg http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/diablo_canyon_n... San Onofre, Ca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_S... (Yes, that's a beach it's build on)

nl 15y ago

Lessons learned: nuclear power is pretty darn safe, although you shouldn't build 50s-style reactors near the coast in a tsunami zone. If you do, don't live nearby. No surprises there. Yeah, better tell everyone in San Diego: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_S...

Peaker 15y ago
Is it really the same reactor design? Are they doing anything in light of the Fukushima disaster?
- nl 15y ago
  Is it really the same reactor design? No, but similar age I think Are they doing anything in light of the Fukushima disaster I believe they put out some press releases telling people how safe it was.