A terrible thing, too bad it didn't happen in China instead :) (just kidding)

Wall Street & our the corporate whores from both parties in Congress & Senate are a MUCH bigger threat to the average American than a minor radiation from Japan.

Stop watching Faux News !!!

But what if the containment shells have somehow become cracked or otherwise compromised, due to Japan's earthquake or explosions? "There's always been a debate within the technical community over whether [nuclear core material] can melt and mix with the soil," Lewis told me. "It's hard to model something that's never happened."

this is what i think might be more a concern, keeping an event like this from happening. we are talking about an active chemical 5,000 F, possibly hitting the ground, becoming molten for who knows how long, and going down how deep. At least the way it sounds from my end, this isnt going to just cool off as soon as it hits soil, or soon after. say be the case, they cant do much till it cools enough to actually contain it. if there is a defect in the chamber to contain a meltdown, at 5,000 degrees it will pop a hole right thru the concrete. drip into the ground, where then immediate contamination of the soil obviously will occure, i think the measure of radious is what they are un knowing, and for how long this will continue to keep melting the actual ground it comes into contact with. This eats a hole deep enough into the ground it could hit the water table, not sure if thats going to be a good deal as far as cooling, vs water contamination. Wondering if it would go boom, or just stop with contamination? obviously i dont know crap, but then it amounts to what we are being told anyway, as far as what possibilites could incure...crap. i'd like to know just how long this stuff might stay active, as in hot enough to maintain a melting point for whatever it touches.

Chernobyl's corium didn't get past the concrete foundation, but it did melt about 6 feet into it.

From what I've read Chernobyl's biggest problem was they didn't have a concrete containment vessel to melt through. From Wikipedia:

The burning graphite moderator increased the emission of radioactive particles, carried by the smoke, as the reactor had not been contained by any kind of hard containment vessel (unlike reactors in all Western plants).

That sort of makes me feel better tho my cousin in Germany, in her first trimester, developed MS (does not run in our family, she is first) and passed due to Chernobyl. Many women in their first trimester were at risk for a multitude of bad stuff. So I am wondering since it didn't really reach American soil are we in danger?

I think we are being over-optimistic if we are breathing a sigh of relief because the core doesn't sink through the shielding floor. Quiter frankly, for the nuclear plant to have gotten to the stage it has, as the article has mentioned, seems to have been a case where the worst may have already happened. Good article, by the way. The shame is that even if it all stops here and gets better, it is too late to prevent the devastating tragedy.

Another good article, by the way, points out that the reactor most at risk in the US is the Indian point power plant, 24 miles north of New York City. And its been that way for years.

I have checked the background radiation after a recent rain and got 0.05 micro Sv/hr - which is perfectly normal. A watch with glow in the dark hands gives a reading of about 0.2 microSv/hr. A level around 50 microSv/hr is definitely harmful, and should not be tolerated for more than a couple of hours.

Max^108: Where are you taking these readings (city)?

I'd like to ask a question I haven't been able to find the answer to yet:

Does concrete actually MELT & if it does, at what temperature? Surely it MUST!?

GendoIkari: How deep WAS the Chernobyl concrete that the corium melted into?

Thanks all & any who can answer these questions?

To supermc: I took those readings yesterday after a light rain in very rural south Virginia. I plan to check radiation levels after every rain for a while, to see if we get any radioactivity from Japan. I do not trust the official media.

Bevis: The concrete does not really melt. When the temperature is high (more than 1000°C) the concrete crumbles like sugar and the melted uranium core moves through it easily (it is much heavier than concrete). The components of concrete have a different behavior. Stone and sand melts at 2600°C, the steel melts at 2500°.

I used to work in a steel plant. In three months there were two significant incidents. In one case a supervisor failed to make sure rainwater had not collected in the slag pots used to dispose of the residue from the steelmaking process. The crane operator dumped slag into a pot that had water in it. Blew the windows out of the crane, and nearly killed the operator. In the second incident, molten steel in the vessel was thought to have flopped over onto water that had somehow gotten into the vessel, and the thing shot like a cannon, blowing out a portion of the upper wall on one side of the plant (just sheet metal panels polted onto I-beams.

Moral of the story: you can't presict what will happen when hot metal comes into contact with water, and right now they're trying to get water in with fire hoses and heliocopter drops (they're not controlling where the water is going), and there's no telling how or where the corium might flow. No one can say what will happen if the core melts, but in light of all the screw-ups to date, I think it would be a mistake to think an explosion isn't something to worry about.

In Cherenyoble, as far as I understand, 6 feet of the floor of the shielding was melted, so the uranium never penetrated to earth. As I also understand it, the floor of the Japanese (and all) western reactors are designed to prevent the slag from melting through to the earth. Of course, they were also designed to prevent things from getting to the point they are at now....

If the core did indeed burn through the Earth, the China-Syndrom scenario, it would not end up in New York. It would end up off the coast of Urugay. Don't contribute to the fear by "reporting" widely inaccurate statements that can be check through the simplest of searches.

You know what I find hysterical about this story and all of the questions? How ludicrous it all is. The plain fact is that NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Its all a bunch of speculation until the next event, then that's "analyzed," then more speculation. Its an enormous JOKE!

We build technologies that we know we really cannot control, so-called "fail safe" safety systems are designed based on political decisions of cost versus probability, and then event after event happens because we cannot or will not admit that we cannot ensure that our technology is safe. Yet commerce rules all decisions.

Well, now we have the latest sh*t storm, which in a worst case scenario may render large swaths of the country of Japan uninhabitable for the rest of recorded history. This after we poked a hole in the Earth's crust at the bottom of the ocean and oil gushed out of it for months, the results of which we have no clue about to this day.

What's next? How many people will have to die before the modeling must take human life and health much more into account?

I'm afraid even a million deaths will not stop us from continuing to take huge risks with technologies we must admit we cannot really control.

GendoIkari: How deep WAS the Chernobyl concrete that the corium melted into?

From what I read, a few more feet would have made it through the foundation. At least some of the corium went down a large steel pipe before getting to the foundation. There are some creepy photos of the solidified corium to be found with a google search.

Apparently, corium should cool enough to solidify in a month or less, depending on what percentage of it is uranium. Plutonium in the mix will increase the molten time (if reactor #3 melts down). Chernobyl's corium was tested at around 70% uranium, with most of the rest being Zirconium and Iron. The higher the percentage, the longer it will take to cool enough to solidify. Today Chernobyl's corium is just barely above the ambient temperature.

There's are very thick slabs of concrete under the Fukashima reactors, so let's hope that it hasn't gone as far as a complete core breach where the 'China Syndrome' scenario actually plays out as it did at Chernobyl.

I've never heard of the "China Syndrome," but it seems to me that the deepest a molten blob of corium could go would be the core of the Earth -- unless it's capable of traveling thousands of miles upward against the pull of gravity. Of course, even a few hundred miles down the Earth is molten, so the corium should just mix with ordinary magma and become completely diluted.

No need to panic. Aside from muggers, New York City is safe.

I wouldn't be too worried about the stuff entering the ground in that unlikely senario. Even if it did happen, if there is any significant amount of graphite, the melting point of graphite is around 3650 degrees C where uranium is 2800 degrees C

I think the key to a China Syndrome is the molten core going critical and sustaining fission which creates even higher temperatures. The thing is that the more contaminated the molten mass gets, the more unlikely that a sustained fission could be achieved. You don't have anywhere near the purity to produce a "runaway" like in a nuclear explosion. As you melt through the containment, the molten pool gets more contaminated with other elements. If fission were somehow able to spontaneously restart, all the added contaminants would serve as moderators, so very shortly, the fission should stop. You've still got all the heat to deal with, but as new material gets melted, it absorbs and draws off some of the heat. I believe it is ultimately this contamination and absorption of heat that eventually stops the process.

They have been adding boric acid to the sea water because it serves as a moderator slowing down the reactions. The control rods are made from boron or an alloy of same. They serve to slow and stop fission in the same way. What happens when the molten corium becomes combined with numerous other elements from the containment shell or soil is, you're going to end up with ever changing alloys in the molten pool. Could some of those elements serve as accelerators while others serve as moderators? It seems entirely possible. The thing is though, that as the molten mix gets less pure the processes slow down. Just how predictable this is, is something you'd probably never get any expert to commit on, but it is part of that "dilution solution".

To make a nuke, you need highly "enriched", very "pure" fuel and it needs to be geometricaly configured into an ideal arrangement to support the runaway chain reaction. For a controllable nuclear reactor, the enrichment level is low and through the geometry and the use of moderators, that's how the reaction is controlled. A meltdown happens because you can't effectively extract the heat. Will you get melt through 6 feet, 20 feet or 100 feet? I don't think anybody can really predict that with a high degree of assuredness, but eventually it will stop.

Steam and or hydrogen explosions which scatter the material are the big risk. Water and molten metal don't mix very well, but as long as the resultant steam has somewhere to expand to, it's fine. Generally you can put water on molten metal all day as long as you don't confine the steam, but you don't want to do the opposite. I've seen liquid water sitting on top of molten iron, separated by a layer of steam which actually acts as an insulator. Very weird and very scary. But don't pour molten metal onto a puddle of water. It will explode violently. It doesn't take a lot of water.

Steam, hydrogen and to a lesser degree, even carbon monoxide created during the melting process are the real explosion threats. As long as these byproducts can be dispersed, then it's just a matter of extracting and dissipating the heat.

Sending nuclear waste deep into the earth through a drill platform. positioned on a slipping tectonic plate that will eventually take it deep into the magma is one of the handfull of nuclear waste disposal scenarios that has been discussed in the industry. the link leads to a 2004 guardian article discussing a few ideas. I worked for an Uranium exploration company a few years ago and this seemed to be as good an idea as what has been offered.

To be fair, the media is and always has over-hyped the dangers of radiation. Some radiation, in fact, is healthy - without it, your immune system simply closes up shop. There's a reason why people who live in areas with higher background radiation actually have lower cancer rates on average - the constant but slight damage that the radiation does to cells keeps your immune system on "yellow alert", allowing it to kill cancer cells before they go out of control. Heck, because human beings evolved two million years ago, when radiation levels on Earth were higher (a lot of elements have gone through their half-life cycles in those two million years), you could say that we currently live in an unhealthily un-radioactive environment. Our bodies were designed with higher background radiation in mind, in other words!

I'm not saying I'd drink nuclear waste, just that there is an acceptable tolerance level for radiation that is surprisingly higher than you would expect. Also, because most people are generally ignorant about nuclear power, it is easy for the mainstream media to exaggerate the dangers for the sake of drama and ratings.

Sadly, this means that posters like siva pillai are holding back a technology that has proven itself to be far safer than any of the alternatives. Tens of thousands of Chinese coal-miners die before hitting the age of thirty due to lung cancers every single year. In terms of humans killed, coal is by far the most dangerous power source around. As for nuclear power, outside of Chernobyl and a few other poorly-built Russian reactors, not a single human being has been killed by nuclear power. No one died at three-mile island, no one has died in Japan, and even in Chernobyl (which the Russians brought on themselves by ignoring obvious safety measures) the only deaths directly linked to the disaster are those that died in the fire, not from radiation exposure. In total, about seventy people died from Chernobyl, period, and they died trying to put out the fire, not from radiation exposure.

By the way, thylakoid cancer is one of the most treatable cancers on Earth, with a 98% survival rate if properly diagnosed early enough. You are more likely to die from cancer tanning than from a nuclear disaster. So I say stop worrying and learn to love nuclear power.

If "absolute knowledge" were the prerequisite we would still be living in the stone age.

Life presents many challenges. Generating new, sustainable, environmentally friendly energy sources is the current great human "race" if you will. Nuclear power plants have proven sustainable with very little environmental damage over all. There are great risks and great rewards from generating nuclear based energy. The experts never anticipated destruction on the scale it has happened in Japan. There is no way to "really" predict the future, however earthquakes are a well known occurence in Japan. Perhaps there was no other "viable" energy source for the Japanese people; so they have taken great risks to rise as an Economic Super Power. All the stock piles of SSKI in the world would not have helped the people when they were washed out to sea...some events can not be "disaster training mitgated". Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of Japan. Now is the opportunity to focus on "better" renewable energy sources that break the grip of oil consumption and the price gouging fleecing the world of it's wealth while "redistributing" that wealth to other nations and ruthless "speculators". All energy sources have risks and benefits. People would be plunged back into the Middle Ages over night without electricity; and nature pays a price...just saying-Thank You, April

I think that the more professor emeritus that are used as experts the better, because who needs the academic thought that goes into actually earning a degree? An expert emeritus has had the degree conferred for real achievements, like maybe being on tv-- or giving good parties.

Bioelectricclam: Russian? none of the crew was Russia nor from Russia. They were Ukrainian, Estonian and one Kazakhstan. Russia was occupied country under the soviet union and most of government was not ethnic Russia.

Bioelectricclam: There are a lot of good arguments for the use of nuclear power, but yours is not one of them. To somehow suggest that humans thrive in an environment with elevated levels of radiation is not only laughable, but is revealing of the attempts by you and others to dumb down the rest of us into complacency.

And, if I die of cancer because of a choice that I made to lie in the sun to tan myself, then so be it. But comparing that to the upheaval and human misery that befell an entire population as a result of the Chernobyl disaster is callous.

topcateast...

Thank you, you are so right on with correcting Bioelectricclam

How long is this current situation going to go on?

My understanding is that the rods generate heat themselves, so it's not like enough water is going to bring them down to room temperature and the danger will be over. Are they going to have to dump water on these things for years until the radioactive decay stops? Will things ever reach a point where they can move the uranium and dump it in the middle of the ocean or put it back in the ground or something?

Thank you Bioelectricclam. Finally some common sense in this ridiculously twisted attempt at ratings by the media establishments. What a joke. These people don't even attempt to put this incident into proper perspective. This hype will eventually die out, and the final analysis will once again show that nuclear power is an extremely safe and efficient means of generating power. Let's power up on nuclear!

Topcateast - just to note about the Chernobyl disaster - 1000 people developed leukemia from the radiation, but 998 of them were cured. The radioactive fallout produced no health effects on Europe as was feared, and this was from a worst case scenario where a poorly managed and poorly designed nuclear power plant totally blew up! The Japanese reactor designs are much much superior to the Chernobyl design and therefore will not pose nearly the risk.

Even when faced with a crisis of global proportions you still think it's safe. Unbelievable. Look at the obvious evidence to the contrary. Radiation causes cancer. I'd like to even one fact to back up your outrageous statement that humans have a significant tolerance to radiation. The levels of radionuclide exposure in this incident are deadly. To compound the danger the Japanese government is lying about the current and potential threat to humans. This facility should have closed in February as was planned.

lilian101, dear, your sarcasm is based on a misunderstanding of terminology. "Professor emeritus" is not an honorary degree - it is a title that may be given to a full professor (with real ACADEMIC achievements!) who has retired in good standing. Different countries and different academic institutions have different standards for awarding this title. These are generally people with a great deal of experience and knowledge, and their input is typically treated with respect.

Bio is wrong about deaths associated with Chernobyl. Many died due to radiation exposure...yes, they were firefighters - but they didnt die in flames. They died because they rushed in, unprotected, to put out the fire.

from Wikipedia "In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.^[63][64] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was."

regarding higher background radiation - i believe even the scientists agree there's a difference between natural radiation exposure, and man-made. and while most of us arent being exposed to much of the "man-made" variety unless we smoke, work in a coal factory, or live downwind from a coal factory...or live on islands in which nuclear testing occured, we arent really being exposed to much radiation aside from natural.

as for the benefit of living in higher natural radiation area's, the theory goes that constant even exposure builds up an immunity of sorts...which, is applied to a lot of things in life.

of course, we dont all live in area's with high levels of natural radiation, and substituting man-made radition doesnt appear to be the solution. we'd all basically have to be born in those higher radiation area's to get the full, long term benefits.

not gonna happen.

the folks in japan are not going to benefit positively from this nuclear leak...not in any way, shape or form.

Im not saying Nuclear isnt a good, viable power solution - its way better than coal, its way better than oil in my opinion. HOWEVER, per usual - we dont generally want to learn from situations like this, nor does anyone do a whole lot of "what if" type thinking.

Did no one, ever, really consider what would happen if japan got smacked with a massive earthquake that triggered a tsunami and think perhaps having more than 1 backup battery with an 8 hr life would have been a good idea? Im betting someone, at some level did - but the "cost" overruled common sense.

Do you think the american nuke plants will upgrade their 4 hr batteries after this? Im not betting any money on it...we aren't even reactive, we are inactive at best.

1. The Russian firemen, like all brave men, talked themselves into their own invincibility (knowing different) and saw the need.
2. We cannot do without this stuff. Many, mostly navies, have a really good handle on it. The alternative is a strike on our way of life those of us thoughtful enough to understand will reject.
3. The first steam locomotive we had in America blew up, killing many. Over the years, all significant engines of progress have killed many.
4. Progress has a cost. Sometimes you and I have to accept the risk.

Ok, is anyone else wondering why the plant was built on the east coast (right on the coast) in a zone that was know to be in a tsunami prone area? Say all you want about how safe nuclear power is, you're right it is relatively safe as long as the plant doesn't take a direct hit from a tsunami. Human ingenuity trumped once again by our complete lack of careful and thoughtful planning. Will we ever learn? Doubtful.

Paul-567568,

Just like San Onofre in San Diego County and two more at Diablo Canyon, these reactors use 'Sea Water' for the secondary cooling, of the reactors and used fuel rod pools.

There are numerous reactor facilities throughout the USA that use river water and ground water as sources for cooling water. Due to the US Droughts of the last decade, many of these facilities have had to either shut-down or be limited in their power production... Something else the Pro-Nuclear advocates FAIL to Mention...

Siara,

The decay of the uranium itself has been reduced to normal levels, which is too slow to produce any real heat. The heat being produced now is from the byproducts of decay that built up during operation. Things like Iodine-131 and Cesium-137. Iodine's half-life is only 8 days, but cesium's is something like a month and a half. Now, those are half-lives, meaning half of the material will have decayed in that time, releasing heat and using itself up. There are two things to learn from that description:

1.) while cesium has a longer half-life and will last longer, that also means it puts out less heat in the same amount of time, because less of it decays.

2.) as time passes, the heat produced by either element will decrease in an exponential curve, meaning the longer it goes the faster that heat production decreases (because there's less material decaying in every half-life).

Except that the water tower or tank would have been destroyed by either the earthquake or tsunami leaving them in the same position they are now.

The New Reactor Designs have this EXTRA cooling water stored in the ceiling of the containment building. see *AP1000™ pressurized water reactor (PWR) design.

The Diablo Canyon has extra cooling water stored in lakes above the nuclear facility.

A modern reactor probably wouldn't even need that feature. The reactors in Japan are actively cooled while modern designs, like molten salt, are passively cooled. The problem in Japan was a 9.0 earthquake knocked out power. Fine go to diesel backup. Then the massive tsunami took out the diesels. Fine, go to battery back up. In the 2.5 hours they had of battery back up they brought an alternative power supply but the connections didn't fit. Now we've got a sorta meltdown.

It took an 9.0 earthquake with aftershocks in the 7s, a tsunami with 33 foot waves, and human fallibility to actually damage reactors almost 30 years old and we're still just wondering when it will actually get bad. Right now it's a problem but manageable.

The way the American media portrays the events and anti-nuke crowd squawks you'd think the reactors had killed a million people. But only one person has died at the nuclear site.

I believe he fell off a crane.

Yeah?

Excellent post, and something everyone needs to remember. The Japanese security blanket failed at one point: when the backup-backup-backup generators didn't fit properly (and it still hasn't caused a real disaster so much as a very scary, worrying situation where everyone's waiting to see if it actually get's bad).

This is how reactors are designed: It will fail, somehow, someday, so let's make sure it fails safely. Oh, and if the safety systems fail, let's make sure they fail safely, too. Oh, and if those safety systems fail...

Even the backup-backup-backup power failing wasn't the end of the safety features. The reactor itself is designed to contain even fully melted fuel material. And even if that fails, the whole reactor is in a containment building designed to contain critical corium. And even if that fails the end-state fallout will likely be limited to a 20 mile radius, which has already been evacuated.

it is scary when the obvious idiot suggestions may be better than what the brightest minds in the world seem to be coming up with. I mean why were they not wearing taller boots? or perhaps a radiation suit? I have some hip waders I could send their way, The first thing I thought when there was problems getting water to the reactor was load a dredging machine onto a barge or a ship and back it into place. Why waste several days trying obviously Mickey mouse solutions like fire trucks and helicopter bombing when a barge with a crane could pump out many times the volume. Latest obvious idiot theory, use the barge add solution of 95 parts water the rest concrete mix and lead to the reactor-cooling core. Eventually the water will boil off in the containment vessel and the concrete and lead will solidify. I know it’s obvious and idiotic but could it work?

Amen, Amen, Amen!!!!!

"One of the best allies we have in the US had just suffered the sort of catastrophe we didnt wish on our worst enemies."

Anyone else find this as ironic as I did? Maybe you shouldn't have fallen asleep in history class when they were teaching about Hiroshima and Nagisaki.

that was ages ago. Most Japanese are over it, just like most Americans are over Pearl Harbor.

World War II was an extremely volatile time for our world. Our nuclear scientists underestimated the amount of devastation the atomic bomb would actually bring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nearly everyone wishes it didn't have to come to that, but when considering the estimated level of devastation an Allied invasion of mainland Japan would cause to both sides, the bomb was seen as the better option.

The Japanese have the honor of having been the most formidable adversary that the United States has ever directly confronted. You have to respect their sheer determination to win the war, an unyielding determination that really could have only been brought to a halt by two horrifically destructive nuclear detonations. We know far more about just how detrimental nuclear weapons are now than we did at the time we used them against Japan. I would hope that the wretched horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will continue to be the ultimate two examples of why nuclear weapons are a pure evil that should never be used again.

Hey Tony. I'm not sure if you were paying attention in history class, but the animosity between our two nations has been mended since then. It actually is possible for enemies to make up with one another and become allies. Shocking, I know.

I will continue to support Japan and their citizens because it's the right thing to do. Any country that's seen the amount of destruction and loss of life that the Japanese have seen in the past week are more than deserving of our help and sympathies.

@ Tony

The Japanese are not the same as they were back then. Generations have been born since and they have NOTHING to do with what happened before and during the war. Good gawd, are you so bitter and must carry a grudge forever and ever? The Japanese have PROVEN themselves over and over and over since then. Come on - get over it. They are one of our best allies now if not THE best.

TKDrob, I am with you. There is still so much that we do not know about atomic power. (Except that it is dangerous. Even Einstein said that what he has found out is not something that is all wonderful.) For sure, what has happened in Japan will help add to our repository of knowledge regarding this most potent source of energy. Future atomic powerplants design will benefit greatly, for one thing from all that is happening. Better ways to manage nuclear emergencies too, I am sure, will be found. I look forward to seeing a full case study of this catastrophe soon. It is my hope that nuclear power engineers from all countries will learn from this and that they will pool their knowledge for the good of the world.

Hopefully, all the reactors in Fukushima will be brought under control in the next few weeks. I take my hat off to the Japanese technicians tasked with the job of handling the situation. Let's give them the support they need. They know how to work things out. Is Japan not one of the world's most technically advanced countries?

From what I understand, actually seeing the damage, would be of immense help. We (United States) have aircraft and satellites that can read the date of a dime from extreme altitude. Why aren't we using them? Re-directing a satelliteis more difficult and expensive. An aircraft can fly high enough to photograph the damage without risk of contamination. Then we would have a better idea of the damage and possibly come up with a solution. Also, if there are cracks in the walls, as stated above robotic imaging would be an idea. We (the World) need to figure this out quickly. Put away all the BS politics. We are all in this together. BTW, I have seen on FOX news that the Japanese are still struggling trying to find food and potable (drinking) water. WHY? The US has has a small task force in the area. Bottled water and cases of MRE (meals ready eat) should be airlifted to the safest area, along with bladders of gasoline so the emergency vehicles can distribute them. Fox stated even the police and ambulances are out of gas. The people in charge need to pull their heads out and get things in work. Semper Fi!

J - Dont think for a second that the powers at be have not tasked the satellites over the area to confirm what is going on. But FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS do NOT need to have access or more material for their sensational reporting.

I mean c'mon, Diane Sawyer peering into a ravaged home...saying "Hello, anybody in there?"

If any civilization could come out of this, it will be the Japanese. I for one am so impressed with the orderliness. Standing and waiting for hours just for water, fuel or food. You dont see the looting and chaos. It must not exist, cause damn sure FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC would be right there with their cameras!!!

Bobby, I feel sorry for you. Really. Seek counseling for that hate of yours.

Bobby,

That "genetic code that holds such hate and horror" that didn't 'die in WWII'... That'd be the HUMAN genetic code, right? Because, I mean, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Inquisition, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Crusades, crucifixion, impaling, Chinese water torture, bamboo torture, etc. It seems to have pretty well permeated all of us, really.

you have already been dusted with reactor core material..

the US gov dumped three tons of reactor waste from a plane off of the west coast to measure fallout patterns in the late fifties.

We were also dusted by a lot of fallout from nuclear bomb testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s, especially in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa. Chernobyl fallout pretty much ended up everywhere in trace amounts. The Russians, British, French, India, Pakistan, and possibly Israel have performed above ground test detonations in the same time frame. A Russian satellite powered by plutonium fell back and burned up in the atmosphere decades ago, another thing that contaminated the entire world in trace amounts.

If you don't live in Japan, then there's not really anything concerning this crisis that is worth worrying about. Despite what the Bible thumpin' apocalypse crowd would like to believe, we Americans are 8,000+ miles away. This isn't Chernobyl. The Japanese haven't had a massive reactor core explosion throwing tons of vaporized, highly radioactive nuclear fuel high into the stratosphere.

ALL of our nuclear materials came from the very Earth you're standing on. It was all radioactive to begin with. It was dispersed in the Earth's crust. We refined it into something useful. Back in it's dispersed diluted state, it's not a real concern.

Some folks just need to calm down. Take a pill. Hit the Bong. Shoot some smack. Do whatever it is you've got to do. Please, just chill the f out.

THANK YOU! Some of these other articles about the demand of potassium iodide (protects your thyroid from raidiation) in America show how paranoid we Americans can get about anything that happens anywhere. Lets try not to make EVERYTHING about America.

It's not a bad idea to have some potassium iodide pills stored somewhere in your house IF you live near a nuclear power complex.

If the people in the U.S. are buying them up to eat them right away, then they really are ignorant, pathetic, and paranoid.

It isn't the "Bible thumping" types who are going crazy in the most noticeable way - it's all the blasted "it's the start of 2012!" types who think this is the prelude to the end of us all because some calendar (which, BTW, continues to have dates on it going out another 2000 years or so) made special note of 2012 (because it is the end of a lucky epoch, not because we're all going to face sure doom).

I'm sure there are some Armageddon people screaming from the hilltops, but their getting drowned out by the chorus from the 2012 types. As a Christian, I find all the howling rather amusing. It'd be nice if both groups would put that energy into something constructive to help Japan - the Japanese are tough, but they need all the help they can get.

tuxkevin- to me the "it's the start of 2012" and the Armageddon types ARE the Bible-thumpers. They are united by the fact that their concept of reality is not based on a trial and error, look at the data, scientific approach. We have made a big mistake by seeing Faith as an alternative to science. People in Asia have faith but they ALSO believe in science.

my point was actually that it happened, and millions did NOT drop dead of cancer in the following weeks. (or even years)

Umm, that'd be Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, right? Three Mile Island killed NO ONE. It was a nuclear scare, not a nuclear disaster. Chernobyl was a disaster, and it happened because idiots didn't know what they were doing, in the design of the reactor, the operation of the reactor, and the management of the crisis. This won't be another Chernobyl. It really can't end up like that. If there ever is another Chernobyl, the idiots that let it happen should be lined up and shot.

In other words, we did learn. We learned the one was more scary than dangerous (or at least, some of us did; the rest still need to learn that part) and we learned how to avoid the other.

Sometimes we have been taking a risk that we hadn't quite perceived as such until disaster strikes.

This very antiquated G.E. BWR design, along with the ever so rare set of circumstances that led up to this entire crisis are big ones that the entire nuclear industry will learn a great deal from.

There's no reason to point fingers at G.E. That's like blaming Hyundai for the the Deepwater Horizon spill just because they built the rig.

GendoIkari,

These Mark 1 reactor designes were known to have design flaws for the last 30+Years. The USA made modifications to these and later models of this GE design.

They have been many EXPERTS in the nuclear field that have been calling for EARLY Decommission of these reactors... see http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us

I never understand why anti-nuke people even bring up Three Mile Island. It was a partial meltdown that may have been prevented if it weren't for human failure (modern designs are computer regulated so there would have been no valve confusion). Further, the failsafe measures worked. The radiation exposure to civilians was between 8 mrem and 100 mrem. 8 mrem is a chest X-ray and 100 mrem is the average Americans yearly total of background radiation.

Wow, how terrible. TMI didn't show how bad nuclear plants are; it showed that even when things go really wrong safeguards minimize the damage.

And Chernobyl. Well, the best comment I've ever heard about that was from a poster on Slashdot. Paraphrasing: "In an emergency you have a book titled 'Everything you should do in an emergency' and a book titled 'Everything you should NOT do in an emergency.' Guess which one the Russians used." Seriously, Chernobyl was negligently operated from the moment it was switched on. The only lesson from Chernobyl is to have safety regulations and to actually follow those regulations.

Coal fire plants kill people and Mexico wants them banned to protect innocent Mexicans

Modern reactors have something kind of like what you've described. You're right, it's not that simple, but it is doable. These reactors aren't modern, though.

yes, laymen and folks off the street are far better judges of highly technical things than the "experts" are...

Wow...I'm just assuming you've never seen a story about coal miners trapped in a mine shaft? Your right, keep digging that black gold that killed 48 Americans in mining accidents in 2010. Thats so much better than the 63 people that have died from nuclear meltdowns since 1952. Keep dreaming, nuclear power is a MUCH better source of electricity than fossil fuels.

Thanks for playing jollieroger, but, as numerous people have already pointed out, coal is far more dangerous than nuclear power. Many more people have died in the production of coal energy than nuclear energy. This tree hugging liberal is all for coal, and nuclear energy, as well as every other alternative fuel out there. We will need all of them, combined, if we hope to break our addiction to oil and become energy independent.

Have you ever heard of global warming...or...pollution...Who needs coal there are other manners to create electricity today...we don't need more pollutants...Go suck on a coal smoke stack and see...!It's not a political partisanship debate...It's about keeping the planet safe for our children and "their" future...Maybe looking beyond small minded brain deprivation!

Since nuclear power is fairly "new" technology compared to coal, of course there have been more deaths contributed to mining and have been isolated to just the miners....not an entire city, nation, or continent that have been put in harms way when something goes wrong. I could say that there have been more fatalities in automobile accidents than in the coal industry, so let's ban travel. That's how stupid your comments sound when you try to justify the possibility of nuclear fallout that may affect an entire continent! Let's face it, coal is what produces 80 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S. and without it, you would freeze your tree huggin' arse off in the dark!

Lets break down all 4 sentences in your latest comment jollieroger1:

1. Just Google the term "Deaths from coal power" and read the headlines and you will see its not "isolated to just the miners", obviously.

2.Yes, there have been more automobile ACCIDENTS (keyword), but the deaths attributed to coal mining/usage for electricity are caused by NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Plus, this is just an absurd distraction from your flawed arguement.

3. "POSSIBILITY of nuclear fallout that MAY affect and entire continent (country?)" Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster ever, and 60% of the fallout landed in next-door Belarus. This is a localised disaster and thoughts of major, disease causing fallout hitting the US are ridiculous IMHO.

4. Pulling random percentages from the air doesnt help anyone...45% of electricity generation in the US was from coal in 2009, about half of what you believe.

From,

My Warm-Nuclear-Powered-Tree-Hugging-Arse


Dear tree hugging arse,......these coal powered deaths were in fact industry related as are many incidents in occupational hazards which would include law enforcement, steel workers, etc.... and by no means are "normal" circumstances as you were inclined to call them. However, I never called a nuclear meltdown "normal", but when things go badly (accident, disaster, circumstances, malfunction, etc.) the risk to the general population from nuclear fallout does not compare! I assume you think a localized disaster is ok as long as it doesn't include hitting the US? (in your honest opinion?)

Cancer deaths from carcinogens in smoke pollution from coal plants is not something i consider "industy related". Smoke pollution happens during perfect operating conditions of a coal plant. Nuclear reactors risk the safty of the general population ONLY when "things go badly".

As for you last sentence, you clearly misunderstood what i was trying to convey. By localized disaster, i meant that the radioactive fallout (DISASTER) affects a small (LOCALIZED) area. Americans should stop worring about if the fallout may reach them (Almost impossible) and start helping the people that live in the country affected by the disaster. Plus you know what happens when u assume :)

IMHO

There have been great strides made in the reduction of smoke pollution in coal fired electrical plants due to EPA regulations in recent years. However, there is no clear number of cancer deaths that are directly related to the carcinogens in smoke pollution from coal powered plants, no more than there are cancer deaths directly related to radiation contamination from nuclear powered plants even when things are operating under normal conditions. Furthermore, I don't believe the nuclear fallout from this incident would actually reach the US from Japan, but I do think it will be devastating to a very populated localized area such as Japan. There are no "green" totally safe and reliable alternatives for generating electricity. Even wind and solar power rely on battery storage which lead poisoning during manufacturing is an issue, not to mention disposal issues and cost effectiveness. In my opinion, coal is still our best option.

You people act as if the coal itself is some malicious entity. The danger in coal mining comes from poorly maintained saftey standards,the trade off being between those corporations profit margins and the health of their employees.

By that same token nuclear energy could be as dangerous but remains safer simply because of the regulations and the strict adherance to safety standards. This in large part is due to the global fear of nuclear power,such fear and paranoia of its potential lethality keeps it directly in the spotlight. Meanwhile Its easy to dismiss the dangers of mining and the issues of saftey when everything is hidden from world view two miles below the earth.

Trust me, Hunt....We have very strict safety standards in the coal mining industry. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) along with state and federal inspectors continually monitor the operations of coal mining facilities in addition to strict company safety policies. I assure you the dangers which ARE present are NOT dismissed more so than many other dangerous occupations. I regularly see inspectors in our mines quite often and we just happen to be five miles underground. I must say, I have received much more safety training in the coal mining industry than I ever did when I was working in law enforcement or while I was working in a maximum security correctional facility.

Nuclear power would be a safer source of energy if its residues were treated properly and, most of all, if nuclear plants weren't placed in violent earthquaque and tsunami areas... where is the International Nuclear Power Convention (if there is one) and why the hell is this safer than letting Iran have enriched uranium?

Under normal operation a coal plant emits more radioactive particles that a nuclear plant. Those particles from the coal plant are spread out all over this country.

Dangrs is absolutely correct, coal power plants emit more radiation than Nuclear Power plants. I think that people should do more research on Nuclear power plants and other sources of energy before they make assumptions about things they know nothing about.

Every thing that goes into a Nuclear plant is tested for earthquakes, flooding, airplane crashes, etc. The issue is not that plants cannot handle earthquakes, it is that the cooling system failed.

Do note that there are areas around the US where houses are abandoned because of the coal fires from the mines beneath them. It is a slow process, not like what is happening in Japan.

Also take note that there are areas where coal slurry disasters have killed people and destroyed communities.

Of course, a lot of the coal mining related problems are caused by ignorance, cost cutting, or safety standard violations. Even with strict safety standards, if they aren't enforced in ALL areas, you can have exceptions that result in problems.

jollieroger:

There's one thing you aren't understanding. Deaths from nuclear power accidents don't happen when things go badly. They happen when things go badly repeatedly. Over and over and over and over and over again, in chains.:

Worst earthquake in Japanese history (badly), followed by major tsunami (badly), followed by back-up back-up back-up power generators not having the right plug (badly, but this is the first human badly), followed by no new backup generators being delivered (another human badly), followed by repeated hydrogen explosions before one of them manages to expose a storage pool several days after the disaster (badly), and we're still only looking at one death.

And I believe that one died from falling off a crane.

After reading all of the comments from everyone I realize that no-one has mentioned solar power as a means to generate usable power , as a solar designer over the past 13 years I have developed a solar thermal dish system that is both inexpensive to build and cost effective to use for power generation with the use of dense array PV thats photo-voltaic for you so called brains out there that tracks the sun and generates usable power ,see spectrolab website, If I had all the money it takes to mine and concentrate and build a nuclear plant then I could produce enough solar thermal dish systems to power the world at a cost of 6000 dollars each for each household we would not need powerplants each home connected to the grid would power thier neighbors who cannot afford power this is what I am doing to help the earth now how about some of you concerned citizens help me to achive this by ordering these units from my company advancedsolartech.com just email me at Tom@advancedsolartech.com and donate some cash for the good of mankind to achive this dream of mine USpat#6,336,452-B1 for all you good people

They are. These reactors took a more-or-less direct hit from one of the most powerful earthquakes in world history followed by a 30-foot wall of water and it was the external power supply that failed. The reactors took all this with no appreciable harm.

You are aware that we also mine for aluminium, copper, iron, salt....right? Should we also ban these things from society? Nuclear energy is "clean" when compared to buring natural gas and coal. Also, you dont "burn" uranium reactor...thats why there called "Nuclear reactors" and not "Uranium furnaces", it the fission of uranium that produces heat and creates steam to push a turbine that makes power. I am with you though on the solar power thing, its a huge untapped (currently) source of energy.

Solar is a great idea, but it's not ready for prime time as a base load power source. Nuclear is.

The future of nuclear is Thorium not Uranium. Thorium is much more plentiful, non-fissile itself (this is important for safety), needs no enrichment, and cannot be used to make a bomb.

You are right that we need a more diverse energy portfolio, but solar isn't ready to take over for coal. PV panels are still very low efficiency and contain large amounts of toxic chemicals. Nuclear provides more on demand power, efficiently, and the waste products can be disposed of at a site like the WIPP while the toxic chemicals in PV panels may end up in a landfill where the heavy metals will leach into groundwater.

No energy source is free of side-effects.

A. Rose,

You complain about uranium mining yet have the gall to recommend solar power? Do you know what kind of mining they have to do to get the materials for those things? And, of course, solar power is neither reliable enough nor efficient enough (yet) to play a major part of America's energy supply.

Good point, i doubt people would call for a ban of hydroelectric power if Hoover damn collapsed.

Yes they would Tony...as long as there are still readers and believers of the National Inquirer, there will be people that will call for bans after any disaster. My point being there are a lot of ignorant people and note I didnt call them stupid, just ignorant of the facts.

Look at the people who complain about wind farms because the blades kill a few birds. Maybe we should stop flying airplanes..cause guess what....they kill birds too!!

Hopefully there will be a good storm in the Pacific Ocean to wash all the radio active material into the ocean.

Somehow I don't find that sentiment very comforting.

But it points to the general denial when it comes to nuclear radiation and natural disasters. Nuclear facilities simply shouldn't be built in earthquake prone areas and wherever they are built they should be built to withstand incredible torture.

Then there is the ever present earthquake/tsunami threat. But, maybe nukes could come in handy there; not the power plants, but the bombs.

We know earthquakes are going to happen, we know their cause, we know where to expect them and we have a good idea of when to expect them by their history of destruction. Maybe, by setting off underground nukes along the fault lines, we should induce them and take them on our own terms; evacuated and prepared ... or when the next big one happens, as it has in Japan, we should now plan to set off underground nukes along the fault line every few years to create 'mini-quakes' so the tectonic plates might be induced to move slowly over the years instead of in a snap after a few centuries.

......so...you want to stop earthquakes....by nuking fault lines every few years....to set off "mini-earthquakes".....so we can try to stop earthquakes? Hmmmm, im pretty sure thats not going to work.

That old Lex Luther plot won't work.

The energy pent up in any major fault line is vast compared to nuclear weapons. This 9.0 quake was many times more energy than all the world's nuclear weapons combined.

@GendoIkari

Thank you for your reply, but I think it also contains a clue as to why my suggestion might work. You say all that "energy" is "pent up" and that's exactly my point. The nukes wouldn't actually be the cause of the earthquake; they would induce that "pent up" energy to be released much in the way avalanches are commonly induced by explosives.

And when they induce avalanches (release all that "pent up" energy), they do it before the snow builds up so high it will destroy everything in its path; they induce small avalanches and they are prepared for them, people are evacuated & etc. There never is a loss of life and property is rarely damaged, as compared to what might happen if they just sat back and waited for the snow to build up and avalanche on its own. Might not earthquakes be handled in a similar manner? And, if it's too late to start inducing mini-quakes, say along the Cascadia fault line (nuke it and we'll get a big one), wouldn't it be a better idea to do so anyhow? Even though it would induce a powerfully destructive earthquake, at least we'd know exactly when it's coming and we could evacuate and be prepared.

People can't live near Chernobyl? You should go tell the 500 people that live there to leave. And it's not the radiation that keeps the number that low. There's just nothing much there. Why leave a modern town to move to a ghost town. St. Elmo's in Colorado is lovely, but I'm not moving there.