"Meltdown may be underway" in Japan

[Anonymous]

"Catastrophic failure" "uncharted territory" according to CNN reading the breaking news right now.

[Anonymous]

But I just read they are confident they will be able to contain it. I hope so.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of conflicting reports. I guess only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of conflicting reports. I guess only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

You're right. CNN read it 'straight from the wire' as if something new were happening but now they're debating what is going on. So I guess there hasn't been a change after all.

[Anonymous]

18:16 here. I will say that I think anyone who claims the situation is under control is lying. They are experimenting at the moment so no one should be saying that with any certainty. They are using seawater to try to cool the reactors, which is desperate - and they are also adding boron to the mix (boron absorbs neutrons and therefor could stop or reduce potential nuclear reactions).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:18:16 here. I will say that I think anyone who claims the situation is under control is lying. They are experimenting at the moment so no one should be saying that with any certainty. They are using seawater to try to cool the reactors, which is desperate - and they are also adding boron to the mix (boron absorbs neutrons and therefor could stop or reduce potential nuclear reactions).

It's also not "the end of the world as we know it," either.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/12/nuclear-energy-insid.html

[Anonymous]

I've been monitoring the news and I find CNN to be a little more "overexcited" than other sources. (Actually Al-Jazeera English has been much more sober about the whole thing.) That said, NHK, a Japanese station (you can get it on broadcast at 30-2) has reported that Japanese officials say there was a partial meltdown. This is obviously not good but if the containment holds it won't be catastrophic although it will definitely suck big-time. (A contained partial meltdown is what occurred at Three Mile Island.)

I am very opposed to nuclear power and I am very concerned about what is happening in Japan but it's also important to treat all claims carefully. Because what will almost certainly happen after this event is that the nuclear industry will claim that the average person is ignorant about the actual risks and is responding hysterically to false claims by the anti-nuke movement. For me a credible source of info is here: http://www.nirs.org/

I am hoping for the best but I am worrying about this third reactor which apparently has lost its cooling system.

[Anonymous]

Nightmare anyway you slice it.

[Anonymous]

It's not good but all things told, the earthquake and tsumai were worse. There may be long-term consequences but the scale won't big significant--presuming containment holds (and so far, it has and is expected to).

I have some knowledge of nuclear physics and reactors in particular. My guess is at least a partial meltdown.

CNN is oversensationalizing this story and the headlines have been really misleading. At some point they were saying a "nuclear explosion" had occurred which is just not correct. I don't want to make it sound as if this is no big deal but I do not think we can even compare it to Chernobyl (which I have visited professionally) because of containment--even though multiple reactors are involved. This is unprecedented and it's hard to say exactly what's happening (not even the people onsite know exactly because of the heat and danger involved).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not good but all things told, the earthquake and tsumai were worse. There may be long-term consequences but the scale won't big significant--presuming containment holds (and so far, it has and is expected to).

I have some knowledge of nuclear physics and reactors in particular. My guess is at least a partial meltdown.

CNN is oversensationalizing this story and the headlines have been really misleading. At some point they were saying a "nuclear explosion" had occurred which is just not correct. I don't want to make it sound as if this is no big deal but I do not think we can even compare it to Chernobyl (which I have visited professionally) because of containment--even though multiple reactors are involved. This is unprecedented and it's hard to say exactly what's happening (not even the people onsite know exactly because of the heat and danger involved).

Thanks for your post. I read that some of the employees are showing signs of acute radiation poisoning--is this something treatable, or will they likely have long term consequences?

[Anonymous]

I'm not the PP, but if they received doses high enough to show symptoms in a few days, I don't the chance of survival is good.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP. It's probably unknown right now what the prognosis is for the plant workers who have become ill. I haven't seen reports yet about how ill they seem. It's not unusual to have pretty quick onset of symptoms--even lower doses produce sytmpoms within hours. It's true that the stronger the exposure, the more rapid the symptom onset and the more severe, but that workers are already being treated and are symptomatic is not surprising and it doesn't mean that prognosis is poor. Acute radiation sickness is to some extent treatable. In the immediate period after exposure, there are some treatments that can help reduce damage to the thyroid, etc. but there isn't anything that can protect all the organs. As time goes on, people with ARS will need treatment to help prevent infections and and manage symptoms. If the exposure had been very severe, it would have been fatal by now. It still could be, but pretty high doses will bring fatality certainly within 2 weeks and more likely within days. If exposure was less severe, it can still be fatal, and two people can experience the same levels of exposure but have different outcomes. Time will tell. Even with survival, someone with ARS is at an inreased long term risk of cancers and other maladies, though many would take many years or decades to develop.

The general public's risk is quite low. Certainly those working at the plant who have to take front-line action are putting their lives at risk.

[Anonymous]

Definitely alarming at this point. NYTimes is reporting the seriousness of it - basically they are at the extreme panic mode. So devastating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?_r=1&hp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not good but all things told, the earthquake and tsumai were worse. There may be long-term consequences but the scale won't big significant--presuming containment holds (and so far, it has and is expected to).

I have some knowledge of nuclear physics and reactors in particular. My guess is at least a partial meltdown.

CNN is oversensationalizing this story and the headlines have been really misleading. At some point they were saying a "nuclear explosion" had occurred which is just not correct. I don't want to make it sound as if this is no big deal but I do not think we can even compare it to Chernobyl (which I have visited professionally) because of containment--even though multiple reactors are involved. This is unprecedented and it's hard to say exactly what's happening (not even the people onsite know exactly because of the heat and danger involved).

I agree about this mischaracterization. It's not a nuclear explosion and the reactor didn't explode. It was an explosion caused by a build up of hydrogen - which, as you indicated, could result from a partial meltdown. I also think it's a mistake to compare it to Chernobyl. This is really much more like Three Mile Island - several of them all at once - and it's not over yet. But while I worry about a fullscale meltdown I think it is still unlikely and I wish people wouldn't obsess about it. However, it is catastrophic enough that at this point there are at least three reactors that will never operate again and that will cost a gazillion dollars to clean up. That's reason enough to oppose the building of new nuclear plants. Yes, it's most likely that the earthquake and tsunami will have killed more people when this is all over but taking out at least three generating plants is going to hurt the economy enormously.

[Anonymous]

horrible. how long will the fuel rods burn? until they melt the entire containment structure or do they run out of fuel sooner or later if surrounded by seawater?