5 ms·

They said that based on the information that was available at the time, which was reasonably comforting, given the circumstances. Those that said that it was a

They said that based on the information that was available at the time, which was reasonably comforting, given the circumstances. Those that said that it was a major disaster were speculating wildly, mostly based on unofficial (and mostly wrong, even in hindsight) information. That they were right in hindsight doesn't change that.

marshray 15y ago
Five GE MK I reactors lost all forms of cooling for a period of many hours to days. Some had fresh fuel and were operating right up until the time they lost power. They began emitting high levels of radiation and the outer buildings were exploding. Cesium and Iodine were detected externally. Most of this basic information was very well established and confirmed by multiple sources. Those of us who knew this was a huge disaster unfolding were not "right by accident".
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  You wrote: "Five GE MK I reactors lost all forms of cooling for a period of many hours to days." And you missed the second part "After experiencing a 9.0 earthquake, which scrammed the reactors, and then a 47' tsunami which destroyed the cooling systems." And you missed the third part "Nobody was killed." Everytime we have a 9.0 earthquake and a 40' foot Tsunami I expect to have deal with a lot of damage and loss of life and general scrambling around because so many things are put under strain at the same time. You could look at this and say "How often do we have 9.0 earthquakes?" and you could see that over the last 112 years we've had six. You might ask about how many of those occurred where we might build a nuclear plant (2) and how many were accompanied by a tsunami on the same coast (1). And you might conclude that this is a pretty rare occurence, probability suggests that it is one you, your children (if you have any), and their children (if they have any) will never see again. You also said "Most of this basic information was very well established and confirmed by multiple sources. Those of us who knew this was a huge disaster unfolding were not 'right by accident'." The place where I and perhaps other disagree with you is when you use the phrase 'huge disaster' here. I've not checked all the comments but most people said early on that this was no doubt the worst possible accident these plants could experience, there were folks who expressed confidence in the layers of systems which are designed to keep such accidents from becoming 'disasters.' What wasn't clearly articulated I guess was the definition of disaster. There are many square kilometers around Chernobyl which were rendered uninhabitable from that accident. In Fukushima's case nowhere will be rendered un-inhabitable. While there are people evacuated currently, those evacuations are temporary. In all likelyhood no one will have died or suffered permanent injury from the Fukushima accident (again due to a variety of safety systems). That wasn't the case in Chernobyl. So an accident which doesn't harm human life, doesn't damage any property not belonging to the power company, and doesn't do any lasting or even long lived damage to the environment, does not rise to the level of 'huge disaster' in my opinion. And looking back at some of those comments they acknowledge that the lack of data from the plants directly left only speculation as an option and they covered the scenario that TEPCO seems to have observed after regaining access to reactor #1's control room. That the engineering of the plants defensive systems, in the absence of the cooling system, the backup system, and the backup backup system, contained the accident's results to the pressure vessel and the containment structure. Water used in the response has collected in the concrete basements under the reactors. The longer lived radioactive by products of the fission process have (as far as anyone can tell) remained contained within the structures designed to contain them. The reactors themselves are a total loss and can probably not be economically be recovered so will no doubt be dismantled. It is the worst possible accident you could have at the plant. As with a luxury car's crumple zones and air bags and other safety gear, the plants systems designed to contain and mitigate the accident have done their jobs. Protecting lives and property. From the moment the wave washed over the plant everyone knew it was a serious accident, the only question has ever been what were the long term ramifications of that accident. My guess is that the plan will involve dismantling reactor #4, using the building and space as a processing center to process recovered material from reactors 1, 2, and 3 separating out the long lived waste from the low energy / short lived waste. The low level waste will become non-waste on its own by alpha/beta decay and the remains of the fuel will be stored with other high level waste that the plants generate. [1] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763403.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763403.html
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    Good post but I think you're probably wasting your time. If it makes you feel any better the Japanese public's reaction for the moment is basically 'Hmmm... we'll have to temporarily put off building a few of the reactors we had planned until we can better verify their safety.'
  - sesqu 15y ago
    This comment reminded me about the most overlooked detail of the whole shebang, in my opinion: There was a 9.0 earthquake near a population center. There are 15037 people confirmed dead and 9487 people missing. Estimates of material loss range up to $300000000000. Also, a powerplant broke.
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      I don't understand why this isn't the dominant view of this disaster. A dam also broke and killed more people than Fukushima has to date. Nobody pays attention to such things because it doesn't have the novelty and sex appeal of a reactor meltdown. The reactor was hit by a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions, it broke, it caused dangerous side effects. Congrats, welcome to the technological age. What happens when a tsunami or a 9.0 quake hits an LNG storage facility that creates a giant explosion that destroys a lot of real estate and kills a lot of people? Will people blame the technology of LNG or will they just blame the natural disaster?
    - Confusion 15y ago
      That is not overlooked: it's just that everyone agrees on that, so there's no need to 'discuss' those facts. The consequences of it have been spoken of at lengt, in both moving and practical ways.
  - nl 15y ago
    So an accident which doesn't harm human life, doesn't damage any property not belonging to the power company, and doesn't do any lasting or even long lived damage to the environment, does not rise to the level of 'huge disaster' in my opinion. I disagree. I think the second-worse nuclear disaster in history is a huge disaster, especially since it looks like it will leave a large area uninhabitable. Even by the INES standards, INES 7 (ie, Fukushima) is defined as a "Major Accident": Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures I do understand your point of view here though. It is the worst possible accident you could have at the plant. It's not, and not by a long way. For example, there was no damage caused by any aftershocks, which was incredibly lucky. People are told these reactors are safe in the event of a terrorist missile attack - it's pretty clear they are no where near that safe. From the moment the wave washed over the plant everyone knew it was a serious accident, the only question has ever been what were the long term ramifications of that accident. This is wrong. Read, for example Brave New Climate (one of the main envio-nuclear advocacy sites). Quote: There is no credible risk of a serious accident. 12 March (ie, 2 days after the Tsunami): http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/ http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthqua...

marshray 15y ago

Five GE MK I reactors lost all forms of cooling for a period of many hours to days. Some had fresh fuel and were operating right up until the time they lost power. They began emitting high levels of radiation and the outer buildings were exploding. Cesium and Iodine were detected externally. Most of this basic information was very well established and confirmed by multiple sources. Those of us who knew this was a huge disaster unfolding were not "right by accident".

ChuckMcM 15y ago
You wrote: "Five GE MK I reactors lost all forms of cooling for a period of many hours to days." And you missed the second part "After experiencing a 9.0 earthquake, which scrammed the reactors, and then a 47' tsunami which destroyed the cooling systems." And you missed the third part "Nobody was killed." Everytime we have a 9.0 earthquake and a 40' foot Tsunami I expect to have deal with a lot of damage and loss of life and general scrambling around because so many things are put under strain at the same time. You could look at this and say "How often do we have 9.0 earthquakes?" and you could see that over the last 112 years we've had six. You might ask about how many of those occurred where we might build a nuclear plant (2) and how many were accompanied by a tsunami on the same coast (1). And you might conclude that this is a pretty rare occurence, probability suggests that it is one you, your children (if you have any), and their children (if they have any) will never see again. You also said "Most of this basic information was very well established and confirmed by multiple sources. Those of us who knew this was a huge disaster unfolding were not 'right by accident'." The place where I and perhaps other disagree with you is when you use the phrase 'huge disaster' here. I've not checked all the comments but most people said early on that this was no doubt the worst possible accident these plants could experience, there were folks who expressed confidence in the layers of systems which are designed to keep such accidents from becoming 'disasters.' What wasn't clearly articulated I guess was the definition of disaster. There are many square kilometers around Chernobyl which were rendered uninhabitable from that accident. In Fukushima's case nowhere will be rendered un-inhabitable. While there are people evacuated currently, those evacuations are temporary. In all likelyhood no one will have died or suffered permanent injury from the Fukushima accident (again due to a variety of safety systems). That wasn't the case in Chernobyl. So an accident which doesn't harm human life, doesn't damage any property not belonging to the power company, and doesn't do any lasting or even long lived damage to the environment, does not rise to the level of 'huge disaster' in my opinion. And looking back at some of those comments they acknowledge that the lack of data from the plants directly left only speculation as an option and they covered the scenario that TEPCO seems to have observed after regaining access to reactor #1's control room. That the engineering of the plants defensive systems, in the absence of the cooling system, the backup system, and the backup backup system, contained the accident's results to the pressure vessel and the containment structure. Water used in the response has collected in the concrete basements under the reactors. The longer lived radioactive by products of the fission process have (as far as anyone can tell) remained contained within the structures designed to contain them. The reactors themselves are a total loss and can probably not be economically be recovered so will no doubt be dismantled. It is the worst possible accident you could have at the plant. As with a luxury car's crumple zones and air bags and other safety gear, the plants systems designed to contain and mitigate the accident have done their jobs. Protecting lives and property. From the moment the wave washed over the plant everyone knew it was a serious accident, the only question has ever been what were the long term ramifications of that accident. My guess is that the plan will involve dismantling reactor #4, using the building and space as a processing center to process recovered material from reactors 1, 2, and 3 separating out the long lived waste from the low energy / short lived waste. The low level waste will become non-waste on its own by alpha/beta decay and the remains of the fuel will be stored with other high level waste that the plants generate. [1] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763403.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763403.html
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  Good post but I think you're probably wasting your time. If it makes you feel any better the Japanese public's reaction for the moment is basically 'Hmmm... we'll have to temporarily put off building a few of the reactors we had planned until we can better verify their safety.'
- sesqu 15y ago
  This comment reminded me about the most overlooked detail of the whole shebang, in my opinion: There was a 9.0 earthquake near a population center. There are 15037 people confirmed dead and 9487 people missing. Estimates of material loss range up to $300000000000. Also, a powerplant broke.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    I don't understand why this isn't the dominant view of this disaster. A dam also broke and killed more people than Fukushima has to date. Nobody pays attention to such things because it doesn't have the novelty and sex appeal of a reactor meltdown. The reactor was hit by a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions, it broke, it caused dangerous side effects. Congrats, welcome to the technological age. What happens when a tsunami or a 9.0 quake hits an LNG storage facility that creates a giant explosion that destroys a lot of real estate and kills a lot of people? Will people blame the technology of LNG or will they just blame the natural disaster?
  - Confusion 15y ago
    That is not overlooked: it's just that everyone agrees on that, so there's no need to 'discuss' those facts. The consequences of it have been spoken of at lengt, in both moving and practical ways.
- nl 15y ago
  So an accident which doesn't harm human life, doesn't damage any property not belonging to the power company, and doesn't do any lasting or even long lived damage to the environment, does not rise to the level of 'huge disaster' in my opinion. I disagree. I think the second-worse nuclear disaster in history is a huge disaster, especially since it looks like it will leave a large area uninhabitable. Even by the INES standards, INES 7 (ie, Fukushima) is defined as a "Major Accident": Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures I do understand your point of view here though. It is the worst possible accident you could have at the plant. It's not, and not by a long way. For example, there was no damage caused by any aftershocks, which was incredibly lucky. People are told these reactors are safe in the event of a terrorist missile attack - it's pretty clear they are no where near that safe. From the moment the wave washed over the plant everyone knew it was a serious accident, the only question has ever been what were the long term ramifications of that accident. This is wrong. Read, for example Brave New Climate (one of the main envio-nuclear advocacy sites). Quote: There is no credible risk of a serious accident. 12 March (ie, 2 days after the Tsunami): http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/ http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthqua...