[quote=“yuli”][quote=“bereal”]Here’s a CNN report with Arnie Gunderson just came in a few hours ago. I like this guy,he’s been on the money since day one. youtube.com/watch?v=oFfCkU4klhA[/quote]
I’ve mentioned it before: I’d be very careful about Gunderson, since he has been shown to use data selectively.
(This is not to say that he may not be right about some things - i can’t see that video, so I don’t know what he is talking about this time - and, anyway, it is only my personal point of view here, but i prefer to keep my facts straight and not to get into his boat.)[/quote]
Fair enough. I try to form an opinion based on many experts analysis/professional experience but I will keep A.G at the top of my list based on his experience and expertise past and present.
Re your claim of AG ,was that anything to do with when he served as a witness in the investigation of the Three Mile Island accident? just curious
Posted this in the economics thread, but thought it has a place here.
Domestic media reports in Japan today say the government is going to cap Tepco’s liability, and force other nuclear utilities to shoulder some of the cost. That’s probably why (let’s face it, no one really knows) Tepco’s shares ended up 12% today, while the other utilities fell . . on the day after it’s nuke accident went to a belated after the fact sort of 7.
More broken windows, I’d suggest, Yuli, as I reckon the next step is going to be the government offering the utilities a tariff hike to ease demand and recompensate the utilities. Sorry, that is speculation, but it would make sense.
Well, they are now trading at roughly 25% of their share price before the accident, so the stock market currently assumes they have lost 75% of the company’s value rather than 85%.
Understand… wouldn’t want to stop you…that was just my own view which calls for a note of caution…
No, i was referring to some stuff he published a few weeks ago, about Fukushima 1, where he had used incorrect data and arrived at certain conclusions that did not stand up to informed critique. In the same context someone had also reported that Gunderson had not reacted to e-mail with the correct data. I feel uncomfortable about someone who tends to quickly turn educated guesses and questions into assertions of fact (of course, the public prefer answers to questions. so the man is popular - but in science popularity is not an indicator of truth). Have you followed up on his reports about the “deadly beam of neutrons” from reactor 1, for example?
(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)
I wonder if they can safely seal off the entire powerplant in 50 foot of concrete or something. Or will the reaction inside be still so volatile that is not a solution. The tsunami itself was absolutely horrendous in its destruction and loss of life and the nuclear situation makes it neigh impossible to get life back to normal for that area of Japan. Are bodies being removed from the exclusion zone? Will that zone become much larger and make an area permanently abandoned like chernobyl?
Curious series of statements: first government adviser Kenichi Matsumoto passed on this view as a quote from the prime minister, but then “retracts” that saying “The prime minister may share the perception but he did not say such a thing at all”. No actual denial from the prime minister.
Seems like the government’s view of the situation is increasingly bleak. I suppose somehow I had hoped that they’d find a way to decontaminate the area or something - I didn’t really believe it intellectually, but there was still that hope. Feels strange now.
These are some of the things that i am sure a lot of people would like to know:
Right: as long as heat is being generated in the reactors and stored fuel pools, the equipment has to be cooled; and since the closed cooling system is not working, the currentprocess of pumping water into various parts of the plant (and creating radioactive waste water in the process) will continue.
See my next post on “Will there be an uninhabitable area?” below…
Short answer: according to what i have read in the news, no.
[quote=“StefanMuc”]Looks like some people in the Japanese government now believe the evacuated area around the plant will be uninhabitable for 10 to 20 years. news24.com/World/News/Japan- … s-20110413
Curious series of statements: first government adviser Kenichi Matsumoto passed on this view as a quote from the prime minister, but then “retracts” that saying “The prime minister may share the perception but he did not say such a thing at all”. No actual denial from the prime minister.[/quote]
(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)
It is realistic, from the point of view of physics, to consider the possibility that there will be an uninhabitable area near the damaged power plant for some time to come. Whether one uses the term “temporarily uninhabitable” or “permanently uninhabitable” is in this context of little consequence for the many of the people alive now: for them even just a few decades would man “permanent”, and for the rest of humanity, a few hundred or thousand years would mean “as good as permanent”. It is, of course, too early to tell what will be decided about the affected area, since the emission of radioactive material from the power plant appears to continue at this time.
Hope and other emotions are natural but also irrational (in the neutral sense of the word) - consider again at this report:
“Kan Denies Quoted “Uninhabitable” Remark on Evacuation Zone” jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011041300986
Here you see an irrational response on part of a leading politician who basically says, “We don’t want to hear about the possibility of a negative outcome, because the timing of such information interferes with actions we have initiated based on our hopes”. Or, as variously some Canadian and US politicians have been credited as saying, “Don’t confuse me with facts”. Although i find the feeling of “unbelievable” very understandable, as far as politicians (who are assumed to be leaders) go, however, public statetements of this sort, and anger directed at the messenger, are in my opinion absolutely inappropriate.
(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)
This is an interesting report - delived with the usual attitude of “may”, “appears to be”, “is believed”, and so on…
Of course, people who understand physics and people who understand politics are wondering (or speculating) what worse news will be deliverd next - see for example: physicsforums.com/showthread … 0&page=227
(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)
[/quote]
[quote=“yuli”][quote=“StefanMuc”]
Curious series of statements: first government adviser Kenichi Matsumoto passed on this view as a quote from the prime minister, but then “retracts” that saying “The prime minister may share the perception but he did not say such a thing at all”. No actual denial from the prime minister.[/quote]
Yeah sorry, I didn’t express this very well. (Kan’s response is in the news24 article, as well.) I meant: no denial of the statement itself. Nothing along the lines of “I don’t believe the area will have to be evacuated for so long” or “Once the situation is under control we expect people will be able to move back soon.” And on top of that Matsumoto’s statement basically amounting to: “he didn’t say that, but I guess he believes it just as I do”.
On a lighter note: I like the “German-style eco-town” and the “German garden city” - unfortunately I don’t think we have either of those in Germany.
There are, of course, good things to report about the recovery in other areas: there are reports about temporary housing having been constructed, about factories having reopened, and about many other signs of recovery. And even though about 150,000 thousand people are reported to still live in public facilities (shelters), in that context, too, improvements are being reported, see for example this item:
“Creative shelters bring privacy to Tohoku evacuees” blog.japantimes.co.jp/japan-puls … -evacuees/
15,150 confirmed missing
(as reported earlier, data from some of the destroyed towns and from parts of Fukushima - the evacuation zone near the damaged power plant - are not yet available)
(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)
[/quote]
This whole dance is about politics… under the circumstances nobody can believe the denial anyway… but messengers bringing bad news are still being attacked (nicely(?) supporting my contention that the main reason why nuclear power is not viable for the future is the nature of human being - but the discussion about that topic can be found in another thread…)
Oh, don’t make the same mistake now of trying to bring facts into the discussion!
I suppose the advisor who used such terms is referring to some concepts that may have been developed in Germany…
So the Diet (Japanese parliament) has taken up the issue of Prime Minister Kan having said something about parts of Fukushima becoming uninhabitable for 10, 20 years.
See: mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/n … 8000c.html (in Japanese)
(In case you wonder why this article is in the weather section: earthquake related information is usually handled by the weather office)
The Prime Minister still denies having made such a remark (a stupid denial to start with), the governor of Fukushima Prefecture is on record as having been angered by the remark (see related post from yesterday), and opposition politicians are accusing the Prime Minister of not properly minding his words and having caused the citizens worry.
I wonder whether i should feel embarrassed that i have to say this about my own country - as you can see for yourself, our politicians are skilled at making fools of themselves and wasting their (and our) time.
What next? Here is my proposal: Dear world, please take notice that in Japan it is considered inappropriate for the leadership to talk about uncomfortable issues in public, because that might cause concern in the population. Would you therefore please stop all media reports about the nuclear accident now, so that we in Japan can return to pretending that there is really nothing to be concerned about. Thank you for your kind understanding!
(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)
Note the two decimal point accuracy of the reported data! Now, considering that it has also been reported on several occasions that workers have been seen moving around without even carrying dosimeters (one report even stated that there weren’t enough dosimeters for all workers)… what does that mean?
Nevermind, in a few years we will see numbers like that presented as facts.
So in two days they have been pumping out 1%… that makes only 198 more days to go - assuming we don’t add any more water (but that is precisely what we have to do to keep those whatchamacallits from blowing up)
I wonder why…
Um, likely: you are on to something, sir…
Take heart: we all are feeling the difficulty…
[quote]TEPCO is preparing to transfer more of the highly radioactive water into a facility for nuclear waste disposal at the plant, which can accommodate 30,000 tons of liquid.
Work is under way to ensure that the facility will be able to contain highly radioactive water safely without fear of the stored liquid leaking outside, but Nishiyama told the press conference that he was not sure when it will end.[/quote]
How about trying physics: it won’t end until the heat has subsided to the point where you can stop pumping water into the plant.
As you can see this is a faith based operation: the company in charge of the plant “believes” that they have a problem at hand…and silly me: i was thinking they might have ways of ascertaining such things as concentrations of radioactive substances in waste water. Sorry about making hasty assumptions here…
[quote=“Ducked”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]In haste, I posted this in another thread, but I think it bears a wider view in this arena.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and , nope, love;s not right here, but stopped worrying certainly is. Why Fukushima Isn’t Like Chernobyl[quote]Is the kind of massive radiation release that occurred with Chernobyl possible at the Fukushima plant?
No, it can’t have that kind of massive release. It simply can’t do that. The question is to what extent the zirconium alloy, which clads the fuel pellets, is damaged in the core, and how much of the fuel has failed. And I don’t necessarily mean melted, I mean failed. There’s been an ambiguous use of the word ‘melting’ applied to the core. But when people talk about meltdown, they should be very specific about what they mean by the word.
At Fukushima, there are four primary barriers to releases: the fuel zircalloy cladding, a pressure vessel, an inner containment structure, and a confinement building. To a large extent, the core material seems to be contained. Apart from, of course—and this is where the speculation runs wild—there’s the question of the source of the radiation they’re detecting in certain areas where water has accumulated. Indications today are that it isn’t the cores. They’ve been dumping or spraying tremendous amounts of water onto and into the damaged buildings, so surely someone is considering this water as a possible source.
But until they go in and see, we have little more than speculation to go on, because they don’t know to what extent—if any—the cores are damaged, and they don’t know to what extent the pressure vessels are damaged, although that’s unlikely. They also don’t know to what extent the pipes are damaged, and they don’t know to what extent the lower portion of the containment building is damaged. So, on the one hand, I can’t speculate on what is going on inside. But even so, and given what nuclear engineers know in terms of the plant layout, it’s just not true that it’s a Chernobyl situation.[/quote]
More reassurance at the link.
First bit is what, IIRC, Woodward and Birnstein called a non-denial denial. Essentially he’s saying “I/we don’t know anything about the current situation (discounting all the available evidence, IOW, particularly that on short-lived fission products in the water) but it must be OK”
Waste of space, hardly worth detailed criticism, and I know you find detailed criticism boring and ignore it anyway, so I’ll limit it to one point.
“They’ve been dumping or spraying tremendous amounts of water onto and into the damaged buildings, so surely someone is considering this water as a possible source.”
Not unless they’re an idiot, or assume that “they” have been spraying tremendous amounts of radioactive water onto and into the damaged buildings.
The radiation has to come from the core or the spent fuel rods. If you remember that other “reassuring” source you quoted (the one I rather immoderately but unavoidably referred to as possibly a shit and a charlatan) says there isn’t any radio-iodine in spent fuel rods. That’s bullshit, but its true there wont be much I-131 in spent fuel rods, so the I-131 and other short-lived products observed strongly suggest a core source, and your comforters conflict with the evidence and with each other.
(If the radiation were coming from scattered fuel rods, rather than the core, that would be better but its not exactly great news either.)
But hey, details don’t matter, the market will decide, right?.[/quote]
Actually, there’s another, perhaps worse possibility, which is now looking more probable, according to the boys over on the physics thread. Its apparently considered possible (and consistent with the observations) that the fuel rods in open storage have gone critical, which would explain the amounts of short-lived nucleides observed. They are referring to this as an “open-air reactor”.
Pronouncements that this “couldn’t possibly be as bad as Chernobyl” are even less convincing in this scenario.
I’d largely discounted this because I’d assumed that they’d store this shit at low density, packed out with neutron absorbers so that if it melted it’d be reliably sub-critical.
I assumed this because I thought you’d have to be absolutely fucking insane to do anything else. I reckoned without the heavy-duty hubris that is apparently inseparable from a successful career in the nuclear industry.
According to the physics boys they store at almost the same density as in the reactor core, (presumably to save space?) and the boron jacketing is sufficient to keep it sub-critical as long as cooling is maintained and its intact.
