Tohoku Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster!!!

[matsuki]

How many shoganai's does it take to make this one go away?

[Ganma]

my gf is from Kansai. But people here really do look weird. I am not saying I am any better.

If you look anything like this, I'm sure you'll fit right in.

[Russell]

If you look anything like this, I'm sure you'll fit right in.

Wow, with those flappers, he can locate all bugs in a mile's radius...

[Russell]

[Coligny]

[Coligny]

[Coligny]

0.13-0.15 micro sievert/hour in the corridor (usually 0.08 )...

Dem winds be blowing in the wrong direction...

[cstaylor]

Yokohama area is at normal levels when it's not raining

[dimwit]

(1) so they took the guy who knew the job over the guys with no clues... BUT is sure as hell just meant to say the locals love their nukular... depsite the fact they don't want it restarted... (getting confuding though...)
(2) ok... so the old guy dont like nukular either... so what do they meant by "city long association with nuclear power"
(3) Would have been nice to separate the weigh of the two components... but putting it this way make it feels like it was avoided because it would have killed the argument...

The funny thing is that of all the nuclear reactors site in Japan, even the most ardents supporters of nuclear power have big problems with Hamaoka. It is in an exposed location, very vulnerable to both tsuanmis and quake damage (due to it's age), and if it did suffer a meltdown, the fallout which cover most of the Kanto area would make Fukushima look like a minor incident.

Personally, I don't think any reactor of the Pacific side of Japan can be made Tsunami proof.

[Coligny]

Yokohama area is at normal levels when it's not raining

Does this link really state that normal radiation in Yokohama is 0.03 microsieverts/h ?

Where/how do they take their measure ? here I've never been below 0.06

[Coligny]

The funny thing is that of all the nuclear reactors site in Japan, even the most ardents supporters of nuclear power have big problems with Hamaoka. It is in an exposed location, very vulnerable to both tsuanmis and quake damage (due to it's age), and if it did suffer a meltdown, the fallout which cover most of the Kanto area would make Fukushima look like a minor incident.

Personally, I don't think any reactor of the Pacific side of Japan can be made Tsunami proof.

The Hamaoka plant IS RIGHT OVER the fault line. she can be seen on the surface going through the installation. If some quake happen there, the tsunami will (once again in fact) be the least of their worries... While it was stupid to build Fukushima _so low_ ... It was stupid to build Hamaoka... period...

[Yokohammer]

The Hamaoka plant IS RIGHT OVER the fault line. she can be seen on the surface going through the installation. If some quake happen there, the tsunami will (once again in fact) be the least of their worries... While it was stupid to build Fukushima _so low_ ... It was stupid to build Hamaoka... period...

While I often disagree with you in this thread, this is one case where I agree completely.

What a stupid fucking place to put a nuclear power plant.

[matsuki]

While I often disagree with you in this thread, this is one case where I agree completely.

What a stupid fucking place to put a nuclear power plant.

But Japan is a small country, it can't be helped...

[CrankyBastard]

Does this link really state that normal radiation in Yokohama is 0.03 microsieverts/h ?

Where/how do they take their measure ? here I've never been below 0.06

http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kankyo/saigai/
These readings are taken in Takigashira, Isogo ku. (23 meters above ground level.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kankyo/saigai/bukkou.html
These readings are taken in West Hodagaya ku (1 meter above ground level.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not taking into account the different locations, though both are in the city of Yokohama;
A difference of twenty two meters seems to show an increase/decrease of about one nGy/h for every meter in height.

[Coligny]

http://enenews.com/must-see-report-introduced-by-top-govt-official-hosono-actually-other-reactors-are-all-in-considerably-severe-condition-besides-fukushima-daiichi-14-reactors-total-dai-ni-onagawa-tokai

Try not to focus on "Enews" as a source but a little more on who the author of the report is.

TL/DR: Daichi wents tit's up... and that's a good news... Because Fukushima Dai-Ni (emergency DG Reac1) and Tokai Dai-Ni (outside power lost) had quite some showstoppers troubles too...

[Coligny]

[quote="CrankyBastard"]http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kankyo/saigai/
These readings are taken in Takigashira, Isogo ku. (23 meters above ground level.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kankyo/saigai/bukkou.html
These readings are taken in West Hodagaya ku (1 meter above ground level.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not taking into account the different locations, though both are in the city of Yokohama]

You mean the higher the less radioactive... because the 1m reading are just a bit lower than my values, seems much more normal... (albeit not necessarily legit)

As for the 23 m reading... since when is this considered surface ?

[CrankyBastard]

You mean the higher the less radioactive... because the 1m reading are just a bit lower than my values, seems much more normal... (albeit not necessarily legit)

As for the 23 m reading... since when is this considered surface ?

Yes, sorry I should have written,
"A difference of twenty two meters seems to show a decrease of about one nGy/h for every meter in height".

As for the 23 m reading, I'm not really sure, but I think that's the original place where readings were taken from before 3/11, so in order to compare pre disaster readings with post disaster ones, perhaps!!
Who knows? (TIJ)

[cstaylor]

With my blackcat, I get readings varying between 30 ~ 50 during the day. With a 30-year half-life, all of this cesium is piling up somewhere...

[Yokohammer]

A lot of these readings are apparently taken by counters installed on the roofs of tall buildings. The original rationale for doing that, I have been told, was to monitor radiation blowing over from Chernobyl. Or nuclear tests.

That's not very useful in this situation though, and I don't know why they persist in taking measurements that way ... unless they're specifically looking at airborne radiation, in which case they should bloody well say so.

What most of us want to know is how much radioactive crud has permanently or semi-permanently moved into town, and that needs to be measured at a level where people actually live and go about their daily business.

[CrankyBastard]

As for the 23 m reading... since when is this considered surface ?

I think I've got it figured.
I was using the Japanese page.
This time I used Google translate!!!

[Coligny]

With my blackcat, I get readings varying between 30 ~ 50 during the day. With a 30-year half-life, all of this cesium is piling up somewhere...

So between 0.03 and 0.05 micro sievert/hour..

Here... just now at mah desk:

[Coligny]

With my blackcat, I get readings varying between 30 ~ 50 during the day. With a 30-year half-life, all of this cesium is piling up somewhere...

Would you mind giving the purchase link for your model. Despite the fact that my gamma scout (with alert... but no working sound it seems) and the terra MKS05 (who's bluetooth stack is a definition of non standard nightmare) give me the same values i'd rather go with an outside probe.

Just hope it get linux support as a standar /dev/sumthing don't really want to add a virtual server just for this

[cstaylor]

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/products/GM45GeigerCounter.html

I have the GM-45. It runs on a standard RS-232 line, so a simple C program just needs to count incoming bytes. I can send you some Java code for it that works on either Linux, Windows or Mac.

[Mike Oxlong]

[SIZE="3"]Fukushima: Probability theory is unsafe[/SIZE]

By KENICHI OHMAE
[SIZE="1"]Special to The Japan Times[/SIZE]

A year has now passed since the complete core meltdowns of three boiling water reactors at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 plant. Because of the limited and biased information issued by the Japanese government, the world does not know what really happened when the earthquake and the tsunami hit the six Fukushima nuclear reactors. There are many important lessons that must be learned to avoid a future disaster. These lessons can be applied to all the nuclear reactors globally. People around the world deserve the right to know what happened.

As a nuclear core designer and someone who earned a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear engineering, I volunteered to look into the situation at Fukushima No. 1 in June of 2011. Mr. Goushi Hosono, minister of nuclear power and environment, personally gave me access to the information and personnel who were directly involved in the containment operations of the postdisaster nuclear plants. After three months of investigation, I analyzed and wrote a long report detailing minute by minute how the nuclear reactors were actually disabled (pr.bbt757.com/eng/)

Here are the highlights of my findings...

[Big Booger]

Fukushima: Probability theory is unsafe

By KENICHI OHMAE
Special to The Japan Times

A year has now passed since the complete core meltdowns of three boiling water reactors at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 plant. Because of the limited and biased information issued by the Japanese government, the world does not know what really happened when the earthquake and the tsunami hit the six Fukushima nuclear reactors. There are many important lessons that must be learned to avoid a future disaster. These lessons can be applied to all the nuclear reactors globally. People around the world deserve the right to know what happened.

As a nuclear core designer and someone who earned a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear engineering, I volunteered to look into the situation at Fukushima No. 1 in June of 2011. Mr. Goushi Hosono, minister of nuclear power and environment, personally gave me access to the information and personnel who were directly involved in the containment operations of the postdisaster nuclear plants. After three months of investigation, I analyzed and wrote a long report detailing minute by minute how the nuclear reactors were actually disabled (pr.bbt757.com/eng/)

Here are the highlights of my findings...

Wow, seems like they should hire him to redesign the remaining nuclear reactors and plan for any future new builds.

[Coligny]

Fukushima: Probability theory is unsafe
...

Tadaaaaaa...

aka:

Lies, big lies, and probabilities...

[Coligny]

Wow, seems like they should hire him to redesign the remaining nuclear reactors and plan for any future new builds.

You say that like if the plants were built somewhat randomly with nobody really understanding what they are doing...

While the biggest problem has always been aboot the proper mix between cost of safety versus expected profit. Probabilities are just used to justify cutting corners. Since it's a game of garbage in - garbage out just act like if it was statistics... start with the number you want to obtain... and work your way up...

[Big Booger]

You say that like if the plants were built somewhat randomly with nobody really understanding what they are doing...

While the biggest problem has always been aboot the proper mix between cost of safety versus expected profit. Probabilities are just used to justify cutting corners. Since it's a game of garbage in - garbage out just act like if it was statistics... start with the number you want to obtain... and work your way up...

What I was saying was he analyzed what went wrong, and now they need to take heed. I am sure they planned and used probabilities to cut corners.. but just as he said this is a fallacy that needs corrected.

[matsuki]

[SIZE="3"]Fukushima: Probability theory is unsafe[/SIZE]

By KENICHI OHMAE
[SIZE="1"]Special to The Japan Times[/SIZE]

A year has now passed since the complete core meltdowns of three boiling water reactors at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 plant. Because of the limited and biased information issued by the Japanese government, the world does not know what really happened when the earthquake and the tsunami hit the six Fukushima nuclear reactors. There are many important lessons that must be learned to avoid a future disaster. These lessons can be applied to all the nuclear reactors globally. People around the world deserve the right to know what happened.

As a nuclear core designer and someone who earned a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear engineering, I volunteered to look into the situation at Fukushima No. 1 in June of 2011. Mr. Goushi Hosono, minister of nuclear power and environment, personally gave me access to the information and personnel who were directly involved in the containment operations of the postdisaster nuclear plants. After three months of investigation, I analyzed and wrote a long report detailing minute by minute how the nuclear reactors were actually disabled (pr.bbt757.com/eng/)

Here are the highlights of my findings...

Best explanation so far

(and fuck TEPCO)

[Sa_Race]

Chernobyl, Fukushima, how to clean this crap. This article extract from the french newspaper Le Monde, about Chernobyl new sarcophagus, gives us some details.
Courtesy of me, myself and I. Intelligible english with the help of google translate.

To enable its workers to work in acceptable conditions of security, the consortium had to decontaminate 9 hectares of land. "We have poured 25,000 cubic meters of concrete, 30 inches thick, to prevent any release of radioactivity from the ground," says Stéphane Abry, COO at Vinci Construction.

By itself, this operation took a year and a half. A total of 55 000 cubic meters of contaminated material, "twisted metal beams, pieces of cranes, a mess of scraps", and 135,000 cubic meters of clean material were excavated up to four meters high.

A complicated operation, which now allows 1,200 workers on the site to work normally. "They no longer need for special protections," assures us the Novarka company. The 150 French expatriates present at Chernobyl does also not perceive risk premium, since the site is considered "standard" by Bouygues and Vinci.

Well, almost : the workers who laid the foundations of the arch around the plant had to operate without protective screens made from concrete and lead. And each employee had to keep a personal dosimeter around the neck, to measure its exposure to radiation. Once a worker reached 60% of the eligible dose, he had to leave the site.

Once the ark completed and placed on the reactor, they will need to dismantle the central tens or even hundreds of tons of radioactive waste which are indeed still under the rubbles of the reactor No. 4.

A crane of 100 meters long (the size of a football field), capable of towing loads of 50 tons, will be installed under the dome by the French construction giants. Currently under construction in the United States, it must be delivered in three pieces in late 2013 Chernobyl.

A platform will then be grafted on it, from which robots will be remotely operated to break the old sarcophagus and collect contaminated material. "But that is not part of our contract, it is the responsibility of the Ukrainians," says one at Bouygues. According to experts, no recovery attempt should take place before ... a century.