Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation

An excellent article that ALL media outlets should read. I've been following this story since the earthquake first struck, and the media talking heads are unbelievably ignorant of even the basics of nuclear power plants - and the article you linked to here is only the very basics.

I worked for a while at a nuclear power plant myself. I started as a "jumper" at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) during a scheduled shutdown of "Unit 1" for refueling and maintenance.

Part of the maintenance in this case was to be the plugging of leaking tubes in the plant's steam generators - but this was changed to an experimental project to "sleeve" the leaking tubes.

Rather than BWR's, SONGS uses PWR (Pressurized Water Reactors). The plant employed a three loop system, with the primary loop being the reactor coolant loop, the secondary loop being the one converted to steam to drive the turbines, and the tertiary loop (in this case the Pacific Ocean) being the one to condense the steam back into water.

Here's a very basic diagram...



My job was working on that experimental project to "sleeve" the leaking tubes in one of the steam generators so as to maintain the full efficiency of the generator (plugging leaking tubes, as was normally done, does reduce the efficiency of those generators). Since it took 5 years to built one of those steam generators, it seemed like a good idea to see if they could extend the life of the generators in place.

Of course the project meant that people would have to work longer times inside the primary coolant loop (a short swim to the reactor vessel btw) in a slightly radioactive environment. As a "jumper" I worked in the steam generator's channel head (think a manifold - the point at which water enters and leaves the steam generator - at the very bottom of the generator and literally just a short distance down the mainline to the reactor vessel).

I found out very quickly that while a nuclear power plant can be a dangerous place, it is not nearly as dangerous as hyped as long as it is being run properly. I've been literally in the belly of the beast, inside containment, inside the primary coolant loop, and my total time inside the channel head was about 25 minutes over the course of a couple of months before I "burned out" ie, hit the radiation exposure limit set by law (1800 millirems per quarter at the time), and I lived to tell about it.

I would not be worrying about these Japanese power plants, unless I was an investor in the company.

Fascinating article!

In the last 48 hours most people have learned more about nuclear reactors than in their entire lives!

Indeed! And this sent me out to look for other information and I stumbled upon this term "banana equivalent dose." Another fascinating bit of info you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

I must say the BBC's reporting on this subject has been excellent, informative and rational. Case in point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12749444

They also had a nuclear physicist on this morning explaining the basics.

Yeah, I'm sick of the whole scaremongering "China Syndrome" bullshit. It might sell headlines but it doesn't help. No wonder so many people are so ignorant of science.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Yeah, I'm sick of the whole scaremongering "China Syndrome" bullshit. It might sell headlines but it doesn't help. No wonder so many people are so ignorant of science.

Yeah, ABC News is doing that as you made your post. "This isn't 3 Mile Island. It's worse than Chernobyl."





I'm still laughing at the left in the comments sections of these stories in the Minneapolis paper. The end is near. We need to get rid our "nukular" power plants here in Minnesota and not build any more.

"This isn't 3 Mile Island. It's worse than Chernobyl."

Seriously?! A nuclear physicist was on BBC this morning saying the exact opposite, that it doesn't even begin to approach Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island.

Its irresponsible reporting of them to claim that. There's nothing wrong with warning of the potential dangers, but lets stick to the facts.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

"This isn't 3 Mile Island. It's worse than Chernobyl."

Seriously?! A nuclear physicist was on BBC this morning saying the exact opposite, that it doesn't even begin to approach Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island.

Its irresponsible reporting of them to claim that. There's nothing wrong with warning of the potential dangers, but lets stick to the facts.

Here's the exact quote and a link to the story.

"When this crisis started we compared it to what Americans are familiar with the 1979 Three Mile Island crisis and the 1986 Chernobyl crisis," said Joe Cirincione, a nuclear policy expert and ABC News consultant. "This is way past Three Mile Island and we are heading into Chernobyl territory."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-earthquake-radiation-leaking-fukushima-reactors-containment-vessel/story?id=13136890

Neal Boortz has the same take in one of his blog posts on the silly hysteria by TV media.........

What's Up In Japan?

Neal Boortz
March 15, 2011

Yesterday I quoted several experts on the show who opined that while the situation with the nuclear plants in Japan was serious... the containment vessels had not been ruptured or breached, and there was no danger of a Chernobyl-type nuclear disaster. The Soviets built Chernobyl on a shoestring and that meant without a containment vessel. Not so in Japan, and not so with the 100+ nuclear power plants in this country.

Last evening was quite interesting in terms of the coverage of the nuclear situation in Japan... especially on the cable TV networks. Perhaps the apex of ignorance was reached when CNN's Piers Morgan announced that there had been an "nuclear explosion" at one of the plants. If you do a little Googling you will find that Morgan wasn't alone. A Fox 31 news in Southwest Georgia reported a nuclear explosion on its website. Albany, NY TV station WNYT reported not only one, but four nuclear explosions in Japan. Fact is... there have been no nuclear explosions in Japan since 1945. A nuclear explosion is what we used to call an atomic bomb. While there have been explosions at the nuclear power plants, they have not been "nuclear." These explosions were not sudden releases of energy from an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

I've taken quite a bit of heat for my comments yesterday about the news coverage of the nuclear problems in Japan. The point I was trying to make is that some elements of the media are more focused on the idea of nuclear catastrophe in Japan than they are of the other aspects of the earthquake and tsunami. Other aspects? Well, for instance:

* The human suffering as the Japanese people try to pick up the pieces of their lives and search for loved ones who in many cases never will be found.

* The economic impact of the tragedy, not only on the nation of Japan but on world financial markets.

* How the American economy will be affected by the situation in Japan, including possible influences on our employment picture as America ramps up to help the Japanese deal with this event.

* What this means for the future of nuclear energy in America and addressing the changing possibilities for addressing our future energy needs.

My point here is that the media - especially television - has been going for the sensational rather than for the informative. It seems to me that they are more interested in keeping people tuned in through sensationalist reporting than they are in imparting accurate and valuable information. Remember Friday? On Friday the story was not so much the nuclear power plants as it was the tsunami "barreling down" on our west coast and what will happen when it "plows into" California beaches. Cable TV networks were even featuring an "expert" who was telling people that the tsunami's arrival in California would be the biggest event in their lifetimes. Yeah ... as the waves were lapping on the shores of Laguna Beach I was thinking "Dayum! This is bigger than the fall of the Berlin Wall!"

Bottom line this morning? There is no news of any breach of the containment vessels in the Japanese reactors. The experts say it can't happen... that even a meltdown of the core would not produce the heat necessary to breach the containment structures. Radiation? Sure, there is going to be radiation, and it could be bad in the areas surrounding the power plants. Will a radioactive cloud waft across the United States causing illness and death? Very unlikely. But that is the picture the TV-types wish to generate to keep those people tuned in.

The fact is if you want the best and most comprehensive reporting on what is happening you move away from the TV screens and pick up a newspaper or start scouring the Internet. You will also get more objective reporting from radio. We're learning a lot of things from this horrible event in Japan, and one is that when it comes to journalism television is going to go for the sensational. Get your images from TV... your news elsewhere.

Oh... and while we're at it, you might be interested in knowing just who Piers Morgan dragged in off the streets last night. The CNN producers thought it would be helpful to put a well-known expert on Japanese culture on the air to explain how the Japanese people seem to maintain such a sense of dignity while dealing with unimaginable tragedy. So... CNN viewers, all six of them, were treated to an interview with none other than...

Yoko Ono!

Lord help us.

So very sad, so very true.

You guys should watch BBC, they've pretty much been following the subject as the author of that article says it ought to be addressed.

Is anyone else starting to worry that the most serious long-term consequence of this earthquake / tsunami could be a global backlash against nuclear power?

This EU 'stress test' business sounds the usual vague psychobabble beloved of Eurocrats, and Germany's response has been so out of proportion I can't help wondering if the Fukushima incident is being used as a pretext for a prior agenda or as a quick crowd pleaser - which is not the basis on which energy policy should be conducted. Even if the Fukushima facility had exploded into a giant mushroom cloud on Friday, it still wouldn't have had a great bearing on Northern European countries because we don't get major earthquakes. Not only that, but everything I have read so far suggests that the facility dealt with the earthquake fairly well, and the reactors shut down automatically, ceasing fission. The resulting tsunami was what compromised their ability to keep the reactors cool. So what lessons could Britain's prospective nuclear plants learn from this? That if there is a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, and then a 20m high tsunami directly striking the nuclear power plant, there is a danger that stuff could go wrong?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

"This isn't 3 Mile Island. It's worse than Chernobyl."

Seriously?! A nuclear physicist was on BBC this morning saying the exact opposite, that it doesn't even begin to approach Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island.

Its irresponsible reporting of them to claim that. There's nothing wrong with warning of the potential dangers, but lets stick to the facts.

Yes they had a handful of experts on now and then, but yesterday I still thought the tone was rather apocalyptic concerning the nuclear plants. I haven't watched much of it today.

Of course the BBC is not even in the same doomsday league as Sky News, which since Saturday has gone to every advert break with a montage of stuff collapsing or blowing up or burning, accompanied by a dissonant soundtrack of metallic grinding noises that I can best liken to the beginning of a Lost episode.

bigger_guns_nearby wrote:Is anyone else starting to worry that the most serious long-term consequence of this earthquake / tsunami could be a global backlash against nuclear power?

That's exactly what's happening here with the American left. The hysteria is almost laughable. This disaster in Japan is just getting started. We don't know how it's going to end.

The Minnesota Republican-controlled legislature repealed a ban on building new nuke plants and now the Minnesota Democrats want it to stay banned. But all we get here is snow and tornadoes. I'm sorry, but neither of those two phenomenons are going to cause nuclear problems, not now and never in the future.

That's Sky News for you...

I too am concerned that a fanatic anti-nuclear movement is going to jump on this as a reason why we should do away with it. For me, this represents the opposite: why it requires more investment to make it safer and more efficient.

What are the French saying? They get 98% of their power from nukes.

I don't have any problem with nuclear energy. It's obviously an improvement over coal. But I am concerned about the risks, but not really in the "usual" sense. What I mean is, we seem to know how to harness it and (generally speaking) we seem to know what we're doing in a pretty safe way. The track-record seems to support that... What I do disagree with (and always have) is how some "entities" (whether they be people, businesses or even governments) will go out of their way to disregard any possibilty that a problem could occur - especially when spending more money is involved. IMO, that's just asking for trouble... As far as I'm concerned, in the nuclear world, safety should outweigh everything - especially economics. It seems we're now seeing just the opposite in Japan.

And it might be slightly off-topic (and perhaps inappropriate, although I certainly don't mean it to be), I got "The China Syndrome" DVD just after Christmas. It's a cheesy movie, but it does explain how reactors work (briefly). It also shows what happens when politics gets involved. It's interesting to watch.

Another very good article:

Fear the Media Meltdown, Not the Nuclear One
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fear-the-media-meltdown-not-the-nuclear-one/?singlepage=true

Apparently, whoever owns this plant ignored health and safety advice that it could not withstand an earthquake, yet the plant got built anyway...

bigger_guns_nearby wrote:Is anyone else starting to worry that the most serious long-term consequence of this earthquake / tsunami could be a global backlash against nuclear power?

This EU 'stress test' business sounds the usual vague psychobabble beloved of Eurocrats, and Germany's response has been so out of proportion I can't help wondering if the Fukushima incident is being used as a pretext for a prior agenda or as a quick crowd pleaser - which is not the basis on which energy policy should be conducted. Even if the Fukushima facility had exploded into a giant mushroom cloud on Friday, it still wouldn't have had a great bearing on Northern European countries because we don't get major earthquakes. Not only that, but everything I have read so far suggests that the facility dealt with the earthquake fairly well, and the reactors shut down automatically, ceasing fission. The resulting tsunami was what compromised their ability to keep the reactors cool. So what lessons could Britain's prospective nuclear plants learn from this? That if there is a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, and then a 20m high tsunami directly striking the nuclear power plant, there is a danger that stuff could go wrong?

I don't think so. We may not get Earthquakes, but the fact is that most Nuclear Facilities would not withhold as much as a small rocket or a small plane crash. That's what's frightening. And don't get me wrong, I'm not for shutting down all those facilities, but I do believe that the transition to alternative energy sources should occur as fast as possible. The crisis in Japan just shows how uncontrollable Nuclear material really is, once it reaches a certain stage.

My bro sent me this fascinating image on the radiation topic:

BubbleBliss wrote:

bigger_guns_nearby wrote:Is anyone else starting to worry that the most serious long-term consequence of this earthquake / tsunami could be a global backlash against nuclear power?

This EU 'stress test' business sounds the usual vague psychobabble beloved of Eurocrats, and Germany's response has been so out of proportion I can't help wondering if the Fukushima incident is being used as a pretext for a prior agenda or as a quick crowd pleaser - which is not the basis on which energy policy should be conducted. Even if the Fukushima facility had exploded into a giant mushroom cloud on Friday, it still wouldn't have had a great bearing on Northern European countries because we don't get major earthquakes. Not only that, but everything I have read so far suggests that the facility dealt with the earthquake fairly well, and the reactors shut down automatically, ceasing fission. The resulting tsunami was what compromised their ability to keep the reactors cool. So what lessons could Britain's prospective nuclear plants learn from this? That if there is a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, and then a 20m high tsunami directly striking the nuclear power plant, there is a danger that stuff could go wrong?

I don't think so. We may not get Earthquakes, but the fact is that most Nuclear Facilities would not withhold as much as a small rocket or a small plane crash. That's what's frightening. And don't get me wrong, I'm not for shutting down all those facilities, but I do believe that the transition to alternative energy sources should occur as fast as possible. The crisis in Japan just shows how uncontrollable Nuclear material really is, once it reaches a certain stage.

Well, I can't speak for German nuclear plants, but in the US, the outer containment structure (usually a big concrete dome) has been proven to withstand a 767-400 making a direct hit on the structure without breaching it. And that is just the outer-most layer of protection... inside is a solid steel sphere over an inch thick that is designed to contain the explosive force of all the water within that sphere turning to steam instantaneously. And within that sphere is the reactor vessel itself, which contains the reactor core - itself an intensely solid steel alloy structure that is 7-8 inches thick designed to withstand the maximum temperatures reached during a core meltdown.

I know this from having actually worked at a nuclear power plant myself. The biggest threat that the Fukushima plant faces is the spent fuel rods in the cooling pools which lie outside the inner containment structures (not a great idea - the cooling pool in the plant I worked at were within the inner steel sphere). As these begin to overheat and melt, they can release some radiation into the atmosphere. But even then, I would not worry all that much. The effects of this release are actually pretty much localized.

Honestly, the media hysteria being whipped up over this is absolutely shameful.

dblboggie wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

bigger_guns_nearby wrote:Is anyone else starting to worry that the most serious long-term consequence of this earthquake / tsunami could be a global backlash against nuclear power?

This EU 'stress test' business sounds the usual vague psychobabble beloved of Eurocrats, and Germany's response has been so out of proportion I can't help wondering if the Fukushima incident is being used as a pretext for a prior agenda or as a quick crowd pleaser - which is not the basis on which energy policy should be conducted. Even if the Fukushima facility had exploded into a giant mushroom cloud on Friday, it still wouldn't have had a great bearing on Northern European countries because we don't get major earthquakes. Not only that, but everything I have read so far suggests that the facility dealt with the earthquake fairly well, and the reactors shut down automatically, ceasing fission. The resulting tsunami was what compromised their ability to keep the reactors cool. So what lessons could Britain's prospective nuclear plants learn from this? That if there is a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, and then a 20m high tsunami directly striking the nuclear power plant, there is a danger that stuff could go wrong?

I don't think so. We may not get Earthquakes, but the fact is that most Nuclear Facilities would not withhold as much as a small rocket or a small plane crash. That's what's frightening. And don't get me wrong, I'm not for shutting down all those facilities, but I do believe that the transition to alternative energy sources should occur as fast as possible. The crisis in Japan just shows how uncontrollable Nuclear material really is, once it reaches a certain stage.

Well, I can't speak for German nuclear plants, but in the US, the outer containment structure (usually a big concrete dome) has been proven to withstand a 767-400 making a direct hit on the structure without breaching it. And that is just the outer-most layer of protection... inside is a solid steel sphere over an inch thick that is designed to contain the explosive force of all the water within that sphere turning to steam instantaneously. And within that sphere is the reactor vessel itself, which contains the reactor core - itself an intensely solid steel alloy structure that is 7-8 inches thick designed to withstand the maximum temperatures reached during a core meltdown.

I know this from having actually worked at a nuclear power plant myself. The biggest threat that the Fukushima plant faces is the spent fuel rods in the cooling pools which lie outside the inner containment structures (not a great idea - the cooling pool in the plant I worked at were within the inner steel sphere). As these begin to overheat and melt, they can release some radiation into the atmosphere. But even then, I would not worry all that much. The effects of this release are actually pretty much localized.

Honestly, the media hysteria being whipped up over this is absolutely shameful.

I should correct my earlier statement. Most OLD Nuclear Facilities won't withhold that kind of damage, the new ones will. Germany still has 2 Nuclear Facilities on the grid that were built prior to 1973, those are the ones I was referring to. Those facilities are being taken off the grid as we speak though.