"Meltdown Caused Nuke Plant Explosion: Safety Body"

[grahamhgreen]

Source: Nikkei

"TOKYO (Nikkei)--The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said Saturday afternoon the explosion at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core.

The same day, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501), which runs the plant, began to flood the damaged reactor with seawater to cool it down, resorting to measures that could rust the reactor and force the utility to scrap it.

Cesium and iodine, by-products of nuclear fission, were detected around the plant, which would make the explosion the worst accident in the roughly 50-year history of Japanese nuclear power generation.

An explosion was heard near the plant's No. 1 reactor about 3:30 p.m. and plumes of white smoke went up 10 minutes later. The ceiling of the building housing the reactor collapsed, according to information obtained by Fukushima prefectural authorities.
-------------------

NISA is affiliated with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry."


Read more: http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm

---

Nuclear power is simply to dirty, dangerous and expensive to be seriously considered by non-profiting parties as a viable energy source.

When you add in the health, cleanup and waste storage costs (over thousands of years) it is not cost-effective.

[Selatius]

1. It depends.

France generates over 75% of its electricity through nuclear power now. They did this following the Arab Oil Embargo and the resulting price shocks that hit world markets. The energy shortages were seen as a national security issue. Though it is expensive to store nuclear waste, they probably calculated the effects of further oil price shocks on their economy would inflict a greater cost in the form of high unemployment and economic disruption.

[grahamhgreen]

3. Of course there is the additional danger of terror attacks at nuke plants and vulnerability in

hot wars.

[bahrbearian]

5. When you add in the health, cleanup and waste storage costs (over thousands of years)

it is not cost-effective.

[fasttense]

167. And lets not forget the land is unusable for several hundred years. n/t

[Demeter]

9. And they dump their nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia

killing all the fish, thereby turning formerly peaceful fishermen into desperate pirates fighting for survival

....do try to keep abreast of ALL the little human details, unless, of course, you are part of the Masters of the Universe and the Smartest Guys in the Room, and therefore only suited for a life behind bars.

[defendandprotect]

117. OMG!! Really???

Otherwise -- love your post!!!

....do try to keep abreast of ALL the little human details, unless, of course, you are part of the Masters of the Universe and the Smartest Guys in the Room, and therefore only suited for a life behind bars.

:hug:

[girl gone mad]

141. Not only that..

but they've had to shut down plants several times over the past few years because they weren't able to keep them cool. Global warming and low water volume in the rivers they depend on to cool most of their plants were blamed. In addition, temperatures in these rivers have frequently reached dangerously high levels.

[underpants]

143. I didn't know that

thanks I will look it up

[underpants]

146. Great article here- I once again learned something on DU today

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html

This is actually an even better article
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html

[northernlights]

11. hasn't France been mitigating the costs of waste storage

by dumping it off the coast of Somalia? That's what I seem to remember reading a couple years ago. That radioactive waste from Europe washing ashore and contaminating the coast was one of the motivations behind piracy...

[CLANG]

16. All nuclear plants are destined to "go" at some point. The results are ultimately negative.

By the way - for all the smart-asses on DU, and I'm talking in the 100's of thousands, this is quite simply and humbly my own opinion that I just now pulled from deep within my own substantial ass, so please take it with a grain of cocaine.

[onehandle]

22. Wait? National Security over shoveling billions into states that sponsor terrorism?

How un-BushCoGOP of them.

Stoopid Yurpeons.

[defendandprotect]

116. France hasn't had an earthquake and tsunami -- an experience we should ALL learn from -- !!

Then there is also human error -- lots of it!!

Nuclear reactors aren't healthy or safe - or sane!

[Rex]

2. Accident or incident?

I'd still say there record is clean...this was mother natures fault-line.

[grahamhgreen]

4. I can grant you that.

[Rex]

145. Not to be shitty....just that it is an incident no one could have done

anything to prevent. Yeah, not build the reactors, I know. We did it and now have to deal with nature.

[Jamastiene]

6. Of course, it isn't their fault.

It's still happening though.

[CLANG]

18. It's not an accident if you could have foreseen it and prevented it.

I'm not saying that's true, just making a point.

[plumbob]

118. Mother Nature decided to build a reactor on a fault line?

Really, not people?

I'd say their record sucks, and for this location is, let's see, 1 failure for 1 reactor. Gosh, that's close to 100%, isn't it?

[Rex]

144. Mother nature caused the earthquake, unless you want to reword

your sentence, I stand correct.

[plumbob]

149. No, I said it correctly. So-called engineers built a nuclear reactor on a

fault line and now want off the hook because an earthquake happened on that very same fault line. Their fault. Mother Nature was there already, and they decided to gamble. Lost.

And those guys are only so or self-called engineers, because here's what an engineer really is:

The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET) has defined "engineering" as:
he creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property.

[boppers]

151. Nobody built a reactor on a fault line.

They built it miles away.

Now, if the reactor was underwater, where the fault actually occurred, that would be different.

[plumbob]

154. Ah, so who could have predicted that with fault lines all over the place,

that an earthquake could have effects some distance away?

They call it the rim of fire for a reason. It's very unstable.

But I'm guessing you must be a fan of insurance companies, so that if the company is not at fault, no pay, eh?

"Ignore the smoking ruin, folks, we did everything right!"

[boppers]

156. I didn't say it was a great idea.

I'm just trying to get the facts right.

[LiberalEsto]

7. This is a duplicate

I posted the same headline, snips and link in GD at 2:02 pm

[Marblehead]

8. too expensive

$13 Billion to build one, that's ridiculous. Renewables are the way to go.

[Confusious]

21. $13 billion to build two

Considering the fact that the newer designs will last 80 years, and wind and solar will have to be replaced every 20 for about the same price, a much better option.

[Marblehead]

23. study was done

2006, solar wind not deadly nuclear is and has killed thousands (that we know of)

[Confusious]

24. Coal has killed millions

Those are your choices.

If you want to wait, we should be 100% renewable by 2050. If the earth hasn't dried up sooner.

[Marblehead]

25. after

this disaster, no one is going to build a nuclear power plant. This will be a big boost for renewable s.

[Confusious]

26. Sure.

but if that happens, I don't think we'll be able to do anything about global warming, and the Midwest will either be a desert or a saltwater swamp.

We'll have to spend in the same percentages as the Apollo missions or world war two for the next 20 years to make it by 2050.

But no more nukes.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Sorry, but there is only 60 years of uranium left. Then we're back to square 1.

[Confusious]

159. number one, that's wrong

number two, by that time renewables will have been built up enough to cover the job.

[plumbob]

155. Any idea how much wind and solar you can build for that money?

Also love to have some link on that 80 years. None have yet.

I like my windpower, which uses no fuel of any kind, and so I am able to buy my electric for the next 13 months for less than last year and about 1/3 the cost of companies that don't use it.

[Confusious]

160. not enough.

Gen III 80 year lifespan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

[Chan790]

10. I disagree with your assessment of the reality of nuclear energy.

Compared to the technology we're currently using {coal, oil, LNG} for 90%+ of energy generation, Nuclear is far closer to the solar, wind and magic fairy dust end of the clean energy spectrum. It also presents possibly our (and Europe's) first-best opportunity to end dependence upon foreign hydrocarbons procured from hostile states in the near-immediate future. (If we started building tomorrow, we could cut US oil imports by 50% within 3 years and fully within 15.)

Factoring the costs of insuring our access to those hydrocarbons into the equation (this includes virtually the entirety of our foreign policy. $2T+ yearly between governmental and private-sector spending), nuclear is far cheaper than the status quo.

Even inclusive of every major nuclear disaster in history (and extrapolating those numbers out to a US-sized economy completely reliant upon nuclear energy), nuclear is still cleaner with less health effects than the status-quo.

Dangerous? Really? You're really going to say that? The net environmental and health impact of the gulf spill alone might well be 50x that of Chernobyl when assessed 20 years out...and we still really have no idea how bad it was. As a percentage of net oil spillage in 2010 globally...it was well under 10%.

Storage? We spent over $1B to research a perfect storage site which is...perfect. One which could protect more waste than we could generate in 500 years under fail-safed conditions for ~600 millennia at low cost in a remote uninhabited barren location. Then the anti-nuke NIMBYs freaked out. Solution? Fuck the NIMBYs, I say. (Really. I think that if we treated them the way we treat animal-rights and environmental activists, they'd cry and go home.) Put it in the mountain in NV. All that is independent of even current vitreous-state nuclear technology such as that done at my alma mater (Catholic University, here in Washington DC, less than 2 miles from the White House and 1.4 miles from the US Capitol.) Such technology renders even weapons-grade waste safe enough to eat off of. It's also truly beautiful glass coloration ranging from emerald green to obsidian black. (It is an expensive process but today costs 1/4 what it did 10 years ago. Even at today's cost, still cheaper than Afghanistan and peak-oil.)

Nuclear. A sane option pissed-upon by the rabid and uninformed.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Thank you.

There are so many people who think the solution to our energy solution is for everyone to go back to living like cave men.

I agree with your post 100%.

[CLANG]

19. I have never seen anyone here suggest we should live like cave men.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. It's the vibe I pick up.

Lots of people I have had this discussion with over the years see the solution to our energy problem as a problem of using less energy, to the point of people "going back to nature".

I think we need to focus on providing more energy at a lower cost rather than trying to conserve.

[CLANG]

32. OK, just keep that vibe to yourself!

:spray:

[Atypical Liberal]

133. I agree.

I don't know why people want to see a reversion of the advancement of mankind, but some do. Personally I want to see our horizons expand and that will undoubtedly mean learning to master and have access to more energy, not less.

The trick is finding energy sources that are not localized and able to be monopolized, as these seem to inspire war and strife.

I have high hopes that solar will ultimately be our ultimate source of energy.

[CLANG]

148. I truly believe it will be nuclear fusion.

But don't quote me on that.

I agree that if we could find a way to get more solar energy than we currently do from photo-voltaic technology, that would solve a lot of our problems!

[GSLevel9]

13. +100000!!! nt

[NM Independent]

15. This, right here, deserves it's own OP. If DU were sane it would be rec'd to the top! n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

34. "If DU were sane" - this meme has been popping up alot, why would you be here if

you did not know in your heart we are right?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix]

27. hahaha, "nuclear is far closer to solar, wind"---if you don't factor in nuke explosions, terrorism,

nuke waste, transporting the stuff to some "safe" storage site that no state wants...it goes on and on...yeah, nukes are the answer to the energy problem :sarcasm: :puke:

[fascisthunter]

30. more guns is also the answer to gun violence

dontcha know

[Chan790]

31. I see you didn't actually read past the first sentence...

as I addressed all of those issues already and why you're on the wrong side on every last one of them.

But, to recap:

*Meltdowns, even when extrapolated out to a US-sized economy, do less health and environmental damage than our current hydrocarbon energy policy does yearly when functioning as designed and intended.

*The terrorism to which you refer is largely the result of our foreign policy in the ME which exists solely to procure hydrocarbon fuel. End the demand for hydrocarbon fuel and you end the motivation to political violence. Hint: I know that a lot of people don't really pay attention to such things but Al Qaeda has solely one recurring demand...they want us to withdraw from the ME. Why are we in the ME? Solely to insure our access to hydrocarbon fuel sources. So yes, nuclear is the cure to the primary threat of international terror in its' current iteration.

*As I said at length, I don't care what the people of NV want, the waste should be going into the god-damned mountain. They took the money to build the storage facility, the facility was built. If they don't want the waste now, reimburse Uncle Sam in-full for all that spending. Further, as I explained, the technology already exists to make the question moot anyways but at an "unacceptable cost" that is still lower than the cost of the status quo.

Thanks for playing.

[wordpix]

134. I read it---still don't agree. Read up

snip: ....wind power alone already provides a significant share of electricity in some areas: for example, 14 percent in the U.S. state of Iowa, 40 percent in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 20 percent in Denmark. Some countries get most of their power from renewables, including Iceland (100 percent), Brazil (85 percent), Austria (62 percent), New Zealand (65 percent), and Sweden (54 percent).<19> snip

^ a b c REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report p. 53.

Wind power is growing at the rate of 30% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 158 gigawatts (GW) in 2009,<3><4> and is widely used in Europe, Asia, and the United States.<5> At the end of 2009, cumulative global photovoltaic (PV) installations surpassed 21 GW<6><7><8> and PV power stations are popular in Germany and Spain.<9> Solar thermal power stations operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354 megawatt (MW) SEGS power plant in the Mojave Desert.<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#cite_note-ren53-18

I know your puppetmasters in the nuke industry don't like such statistics but renewables are growing despite naysayers like you who think "clean, safe, cheap" :sarcasm: nukes are the answer.

[fascisthunter]

28. good lord

hahaha

[grahamhgreen]

33. I LOVE this post, people! Because this post show that no matter how horrific the accident,

the nuke defenders will defend nukes.

You could have an accident that makes half of Japan unlivable, and you would still have the nuclear advocates claim it is safe.

The accident isn't even over yet! With additional aftershocks, it could get even worse. And I can guarantee, at some time in the future, a worse accident will occur.

The poster, as do most nuke apologists, always try to set up the false dichotomy - either we have to use nukes, or, some other expiring, dirty fuel from a bygone era.

Unlimited, renewable sources are the only way to move into the future.

But let me ask chan790, if a nuclear accident occurred that made a city unlivable, would you then change your tune?

[Chan790]

36. Based on the absolute lack of any viable "Unlimited, renewable sources " on the horizon?

No. Because even in that scenario, the basic facts do not change which is that nuclear energy is *still* a better option than any other option we currently have or will have in the next 20 years. I don't make decisions based on gut-level reactions or feelings, I make them based on facts and evidence and data.

20 years from now, it'll be too late for any of the "unlimited, renewable sources" you want to proffer as an alternative to make any damned difference at all. (and realistically they're closer to 50 years from viable on any national scale) We'll be rather a ways down the path towards permanently fucked due to the anti-intellectual Luddite idiocy of the anti-nuclear crowd. You've been wrong all along and you'll still be wrong if you got your wet-dream of the annihilation of a few thousand people to rub in my face.

[bananas]

139. Wind is competitive with natural gas now, and in a few years so will PV

The CEO of Entergy - one of the largest nuclear companies in america - said "the numbers just don't work" for new nuclear.
Wind and solar and storage will continue to decrease in cost.
Nuclear energy is only loved by anti-science conservative luddites who are stuck in the 1950s.

[wordpix]

135. Chan will only change his tune when the nuke industry stops paying him to blog or

when his own home is unlivable and he's homeless due to a nuke meltdown

[boppers]

152. "You could have an accident that makes half of Japan unlivable"? Explain how this is possible.

Even nuclear weapons don't cause that much damage to that wide of an area.

[grahamhgreen]

161. Well,

[boppers]

162. Affected around 900 square miles or so.

Japan is 145,925 square miles.

So, for making "half of Japan unlivable", an event would have to affect roughly 70,000+ square miles.

900 vs 70,000.

Huge difference.

[plumbob]

119. Gee, if this location in Nevada is so perfect, then why are they dumping

this waste 30 miles from my house right on top of our water aquifer?

And some of the first waste to be dumped here is......waste from Hanford, which was disposed of there, and which leaked.

The reason it's cheaper for the private company who owns the dump is because the state of Texas has accepted all liability, monetary and otherwise, in case it leaks.

That lets Harold Simmons, the Dallas billionaire, off the hook. He even talked the folks in Andrews there to take out a bond issue with the proceeds to be loaned to him for practically nothing, to build it, which means his construction expense is zero, his risk is zero, and he lives 400 miles away, so it won't his drinking water destroyed WHEN this leaks.

So please tell me why this fantastic Nevada location, so spacious and roomy and safe, isn't being used by everyone?

[truth2power]

14. It's a very expensive and dangerous way to boil water...

That's what nuclear plants do. They boil water to produce steam to turn a turbine to generate electricity.

Absurd.

[boppers]

163. Well, wind turbines turn blades...

How is that more, or less, absurd?

[truedelphi]

17. Can anyone here correctly state the time this explosion happened?

And please offer which time system you are using - whether you are talking about time locally in Japan or elsewhere.

Here is a video from Russia Today, from one of their camera people or journalists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE&feature=relmfu

In a different video, the Russia Today people are discussing how the March 12th 2011 containment explosion differs from Chernobyl in that the area covered by white smoke is large than what was seen in the 25 year old disaster.

Please. regardless of where you live - be sure and eat something that has iodine in it. (Fish, popcorn laced with sea salt. Or iodine tablets) When Mt Helena exploded in Washington State in May of 1981, I was out rafting on a small lake in Lisle Illinois. My skin was covered in places with light ash, by 4 Pm that afternoon. But that ash was not radioactive. The air contaminants heading our way will be radioactive.

[underpants]

38. Meltdown may be under way at Fukushima Daiichi's nuclear power reactor, an official with Japan's saf

Source: CNN - just read on air

Meltdown may be under way at Fukushima Daiichi's nuclear power reactor, an official with Japan's safety agency says.

"catastrophic"

Read more: www.cnn.com

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Wait for it... all the pro energy going over how antis are so

irrational and all that.

[snagglepuss]

48. Absolutely mind boggling the number of DUers so quick to

accept official pronouncements and dimiss concern as irrational.

[mysterysoup]

110. Japanese govt officials are trying to prevent PANIC.

That's why they have been minimizing the risk. It's exactly what you would expect from government officials trying to manage a crisis. I do not fault them for it in these circumstances.

[closeupready]

74. Yup - "irrational", "unscientific" "woo" "pro-Cave Man"

Not sure if I missed any of the buzzwords..?

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. I think you hit all the widgets

oh yes, fearful and ignorant.

I know there are a couple more still...

Oh yes

Sensationalist.

Addicted to disasters.

[wordpix]

108. you missed "cheap energy," "safe alternative," "France does it," & "it's never happened before"

I'm sure there are a few others out there.

[boppers]

164. "education" eom

[jpak]

40. but..but...but...we were told the threat was receding, radiation levels dropping, reactor secure...

:mad:

[jpak]

42. If they have to evacuate that plant complex due to lethal radiation levels - all 3 reactors may go

:(

[jpak]

45. Nature.com reported serious problems with the attempt to cool the reactor with seawater

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/view_from_tokyo_meltdown_and_p.html

<snip>

Finally, around 9, Edano explained that hydrogen collecting in the facility exploded the walls of the facility but left the steel container holding the reactor in tact. At 8:20, they started pouring in seawater but an aftershock forced it to stop at 10:15. It doesn’t seem to be filling the tank, leading to fears that there is a leak and the reactor will never be properly cooled. Edano confirmed that the plant had been emitting 1,015 ?Sv per hour—about the same as one would be allowed for one year—before the explosion, but he said large amounts of radiation were not being reported now. There are, however, reports that 190 people are affected by radiation.

<more>

[snagglepuss]

51. OMG you must be posting this because you can't wait for a catastrophic disaster

to happen. :sarcasm:


I am stunned by a number of DUers attempting to downplay what's happening and spin as rationality. I wonder how this inconvenient fact will be spun.

[Duer 157099]

57. Sheesh, "Nature," that pseudoscientific rag

When The Enquirer reports it, I'll believe it.

[stockholmer]

68. Nature is one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, or did I miss sarcasm? n/t

[Duer 157099]

69. You missed the sarcasm

LOL. No really, you mean the part where I said I'd believe the Enquirer first didn't tip you off? :rofl:

[stockholmer]

76. lolol, thought so, but there are so many papers named Enquirer, didn't know which one you meant

I now believe that you refer to the rag in the US that is similar to the horrific UK-based News of The World.


cheers

[CountAllVotes]

46. worse than Chernobyl

I'll come right out and say it, holy shit and stop the damn lies!

The people have the absolute right to know and know NOW not in 10 years!

:kick:

[Pharaoh]

52. A lot worse!

This is still breaking~

[Abq_Sarah]

59. Worse than Chernobyl?

Chernobyl was a completely different type of reactor. The containment system in the is far superior and there's no graphite to fuel a fire and spread a radioactive plume.

[CountAllVotes]

66. except now we have five reactors

not one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. are these things in a cascade system?

And what happens when you loose the system?

Jaysus!!!!!!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

83. 7 times worse...7 of the 10 reactors are in danger of meltdown

[boppers]

157. All 7 have redundant containment systems.

Chernobyl did not have a containment system.

So, it's bad, but so far, all 7 could melt down and it would *still* be better than Chernobyl....

....Provided that no single reactor takes out *both* of its containment systems.

[tavalon]

54. This is one area that while I knew they we're dissembling,

I decided that political butt covering aside, they needed to downplay it to keep the panic level down to possibly save some lives.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Yep this is partly panic prevention

[mysterysoup]

112. Exactly right.

Can you imagine the fear people in Japan must be feeling right now? That fear is itself a danger. So it's reasonable to break the news slowly and gently while evacuating people as quickly as possible in an orderly way.

[Teaser]

55. when were we told that?

I've heard nothing but increasing concern for the last 2 days.

[Modern_Matthew]

41. This just got real. nt

[Duer 157099]

43. BULLSHIT!!!

This *has* to be bullshit, because... um... because it just DOES!!!

[NeoConsSuck]

44. It just keeps getting worse

my prayers are with the people of Japan.

[underpants]

47. No kidding

there are no words

[jpak]

50. This was reported this AM - is this a new incident?

:shrug:

[underpants]

71. Yes

I flipped over from the ACC game and got a reprieve from watching kids shows and this was on.

[LaurenG]

49. uh oh.

:(

[appleannie1]

53. Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant Read more: Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown

A March 12 explosion at the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown.

The key piece of technology in a nuclear reactor is the control rods. Nuclear fuel generates neutrons; controlling the flow and production rate of these neutrons is what generates heat, and from the heat, electricity. Control rods absorb neutrons — the rods slide in and out of the fuel mass to regulate neutron emission, and with it, heat and electricity generation.

A meltdown occurs when the control rods fail to contain the neutron emission and the heat levels inside the reactor thus rise to a point that the fuel itself melts, generally temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing uncontrolled radiation-generating reactions and making approaching the reactor incredibly hazardous. A meltdown does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster. As long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the core breaches but the containment facility built around the core remains intact, the melted fuel can still be dealt with — typically entombed within specialized concrete — but the cost and difficulty of such containment increases exponentially.



(click here to enlarge image)

However, the earthquake in Japan, in addition to damaging the ability of the control rods to regulate the fuel — and the reactor’s coolant system — appears to have damaged the containment facility, and the explosion almost certainly did. There have been reports of “white smoke,” perhaps burning concrete, coming from the scene of the explosion, indicating a containment breach and the almost certain escape of significant amounts of radiation.

At this point, events in Japan bear many similarities to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Reports indicate that up to 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) of the reactor fuel was exposed. The reactor fuel appears to have at least partially melted, and the subsequent explosion has shattered the walls and roof of the containment vessel — and likely the remaining useful parts of the control and coolant systems.



(click here to enlarge image)

And so now the question is simple: Did the floor of the containment vessel crack? If not, the situation can still be salvaged by somehow re-containing the nuclear core. But if the floor has cracked, it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through the floor of the containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before but has always been the nightmare scenario for a nuclear power event — in this scenario, containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible.



Read more: Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant | STRATFOR

[tavalon]

58. Could you paste a blue link in?

I'm actually supposed to be asleep and it would make it easier for me to get back to bed, or not.

[appleannie1]

72. Here are two links

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110312-red-alert-nuclear-meltdown-quake-damaged-japanese-plant or this one

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-alert-nuclear-emergency-in-japan-2011-3

[Modern_Matthew]

56. DELETED... False Information nt

[subterranean]

60. Check the website for that Australian agency.

You won't find that map anywhere. It's a hoax.

http://www.australian-radiation-services.com.au/

[Modern_Matthew]

62. Doh. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. nt

[subterranean]

65. You're not the only one.

I've debunked it three times today!

[Duer 157099]

61. Whoa dude!

In 10 days I'll be 750 times more rad than I already am! :thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

63. "may" is such a qualifer, but just found this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
2318: US nuclear experts warn that pumping sea water to cool a quake-hit Japanese nuclear reactor is an "act of desperation" that may foreshadow a Chernobyl-like disaster, AFP reports. "The situation has become desperate enough that they apparently don't have the capability to deliver fresh water or plain water to cool the reactor and stabilise it, and now, in an act of desperation, are having to resort to diverting and using sea water," said Robert Alvarez, who works on nuclear disarmament at the Institute for Policy Studies

[ellie]

64. Jesus that's awful.

[godai]

67. I just watched a newsconference that indicated seawater has covered the rods.

This was on NHKWorld. So, meltdown may be underway, or, meltdown may have been arrested. This looks like a 3
Mile Island final result to me, bad, but not 'catastrophic'.

[underpants]

73. Not to argue but the sea water was the ploy this morning (our time)

CNN (Wolf) had a reporter who said that all the nuclear experts she had talked to said that the seawater was "the bottom of their toolbox" they had run out of options to cool the reactors.

[godai]

77. Agree...it's not the best approach.

Looks like we're going to find out what happens when this is used. I hope it works to keep the rods covered and under better control.

[evrstrong]

70. Japan has a history of downplaying their accidents...

but when they keep increasing the distance for evacuation, up to 20 kilometers now, and tell everyone not to drink the water...wear clothes that cover them entirely...take iodine pills...stay inside...I THINK THIS IS REAL!

[Poll_Blind]

75. Please don't hit the water table or the ocean, that's my humble prayer.

PB

[joentokyo]

81. I am in Tokyo about 150 miles from the reactors and I am not afraid why are you

guys panicking?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

84. take your potasium iodine pills if it does

[ElsewheresDaughter]

82. if 1 goes all 7 recactor cores will go....7 oof the 10...dear god

[midnight armadillo]

85. Proof for that claim or just fearmongering?

What is it about nuclear energy that just makes people lose their shit?

[boppers]

153. They've never built one.

Most people only know about reactors from the news.

[Turborama]

86. A Meltdown May Have Occurred At At Least 1 Nuclear Power Reactor In Japan (Chief Cabinet Secretary)

Source: CNN International

(9:54 p.m. ET, 11:54 a.m. Tokyo) A meltdown may have occurred at at least one nuclear power reactor in Japan, the country's chief cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, said Sunday.

He also said that authorities are concerned over the possibility of another meltdown at a second reactor.

"We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred. It is inside the reactor. We can't see. However, we are assuming that a meltdown has occurred," he said of the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility. "And with reactor No. 3, we are also assuming that the possibility of a meltdown as we carry out measures."

Edano's comments confirm an earlier report from an official with Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, who said, "we see the possibility of a meltdown."

Read more: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/12/japan-earthquake-live-blog-death-toll-rises-amid-widespread-destruction/

---

(Emphasis mine)

Any weather experts know if Indonesia is literally "downwind" from Japan?

For anyone who hasn't seen me post this before, the reason I ask is because I live in Indonesia and my wife is nearly 4 months pregnant.

List of live blogs from The Guardian, BBC, Al Jazeera English and more, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x615852

[Demeter]

87. NS, Sherlock

hello, Chernobyl!

[FBaggins]

89. Does "meltdown" really equal "chernobyl" to you?

There's really no range of possible outcomes at all, eh?

[jimlup]

92. I don't know if the melted core will be contained in the reactor vessel

This is now the key question but even in the best case this has very bad long term consequences. At least if it is contained we may avoid contaminating the whole area but the vessel will be off limits and unmovable for another 10,000 years.

[FBaggins]

95. I don't think that anyone "knows"

But the chances improve as each hour goes by.

This is now the key question but even in the best case this has very bad long term consequences.

That's not really true. The BEST case still involves no deaths (unless a couple workers were killed in the explosion... One report I read said that two were missing) and almost no radiation sickness. We might just be debating a 10% increase in thyroid cancer in the region ten years from now. That's the BEST case... but it's still quite possible. Even likely.

Though of course the economic impact will be significant

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Well sure, I mean, the core is still inside TMI-2 right? No? It isn't? Well, it sounded like a good

theory, anyway.

[OhioChick]

88. How awful....

I was hoping this wouldn't happen. :(

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Edano denied this earlier today

and so did the Ambassador.

Wait for the happy talk...

(Now let's hope the vessel holds and I wonder when they will upgrade from a L-4 incident to at least 5)

By the way the quake has been upgraded to 9.0

[FBaggins]

96. No need for "happy talk"

"Meltdown" could be very minor... or it could be Three-Mile-Island-ish... or it could be a pool of molten material sitting under what was once the core.

We just really don't know at this point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Let me reach for these guys

Ah yes, now I feel much better... it does change the perspective and they look good.

Sorry... but what can I say.

[FBaggins]

104. Hey. Paranoia isn't as uncommon as some people think.

And you know what they say. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

Or to be more relevant. Just because the chances of something are slim doesn't mean that it won't happen.

The example I like to give is the lottery. I could tell you all day long that buying a ticket is a waste of money. If you get lucky and win... does that make me wrong?

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Ah yes, and the old saying from emergency services applies here

if you think something cannot happen, you are in for a surprise.

Keep your pink glasses.. oh and back to iggy list you go...

Last night we could not get a meltdown... well NHK is RIGHT NOW going over the fact that they had one...

Bye

[FBaggins]

113. Where did anyone say that there couldn't be a meltdown?

This entire incident has been an issue of lack of cooling. Of course it's possible.

The unknown here is STILL "what amount of meltdown are we talking about?"

It really makes a difference.

[Mojorabbit]

91. I am following this site

http://www.greenaction-japan.org/modules/wordpress1/index.php?p=2
It has had some decent updates. Wishing you the best.
I have no ideas on the prevailing winds.

[Turborama]

99. Thank you for the link.

Definitely one to add to the list and keep an eye on.

Thanks for your best wishes. :hi:

[htuttle]

93. I checked the prevailing winds on Wikipedia a few days ago

This time of year, I think they go toward the North West. I think that means toward the Koreas.

But that's an average, of course. I don't know if they ever go North to South.

[Mojorabbit]

94. I found this

The latest predictions have indicated winds moving to the Northeast, away from Japanese coast over the next three days.



http://www.iaea.org/press/?p=1164

[Turborama]

102. Thanks for that link, too

Very informative and much appreciated.

[1776Forever]

97. Wind Direction monitored near quake article link:

TOKYO | Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:37pm EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/us-japan-quake-wind-idUSTRE72C0G420110313

TOKYO (Reuters) - The wind over a Japanese nuclear plant that is leaking radiation will continue blowing from the south, which could affect residents north of the facility, an official at Japan's Meteorological Agency said on Sunday.

The Fukushima Daiichi plant, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co's, is located about 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo on the country's northeast coast.

The wind will keep blowing from the south in the area from noon until early evening, the official said.

The direction of the wind is a key factor in judging possible damage to the environment from the radiation leaking from the plant, which was devastated on Friday by Japan's biggest earthquake on record and a subsequent tsunami.

(more at link)

[Turborama]

98. Thank you for that informative article.

That's reassuring for us, for now, but of course it's still very worrisome news for whomever lives in the vicinity of wherever the wind is going and our hearts and best wishes go out to them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Remember, part of this is time (of exposure) and distance

the danger goes down exponentially.

That said keep eye on local authorities and do get some water, bottled water. I'd avoid tap for a while. (Milk and fresh vegies will be without doubt)

[Turborama]

105. We use well water

Considering the info other posters have provided about the direction of the winds, I don't think we will have to worry about our well being contaminated for a while. Will we?

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix]

111. did you forget the sarcasm smiley? Sweet?

[Brother Buzz]

114. Japan Meteorological Agency page

showing weather satellite imagery, 24 hour loop animation
http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/

[Arrowhead2k1]

109. Possible fusion in two reactors - AFP, quoting government

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

What does this even mean?!

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. I think out of control

[ElsewheresDaughter]

120. Japan says partial meltdown likely at 2nd reactor

Source: Associated Press

A partial meltdown was likely under way at a second nuclear reactor, a top Japanese official said Sunday, as operators frantically tried to prevent a similar threat from a nearby unit at the same facility

Unit 3 is one of the three working reactors at the Fukushima plant that were damaged, losing the cooling functions necessary to keep the fuel rods working properly. The other unit in trouble is called Unit 1. The facility's Unit 2 has not been affected.

He said radiation levels briefly rose above legal limits, but that it has since declined significantly. Also, fuel rods were exposed briefly, he said, indicating that coolant water didn't cover the rods for some time. That would contribute further to raising the temperature in the reactor vessel.



Read more: http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story/Japan-says-partial-meltdown-likely-at-2nd-reactor/zn_lHjingUy0lFMNipv4_Q.cspx

---

jesus christ japan suffers the biggest earthquake ever recorded there and i think in the top 5 ever recorded world-wide, then get the tsunami and NOW they have to worry about nuclear meltdown. havent they suffered enough already??

1:51 AM CNN just said it is official 2 reactors are in "MELTDOWN".....2 meltdowns!!!!

[fairfaxvadem]

121. well, when you have no fossil fuel resources...

Nukes are a great idea. In fact, "except for all the possible drawbacks," Nuke Power Plants are great! On a ho-hum day, they emit zero emissions, they provide the KW we need to run factories and cities (water, hydro and solar cannot, yet), and seem a rationale solution.

Until you have a massive earthquake.

Maybe we need nuke plants in space and send the power to earth via I Don't Know What, Yet.


Cheers!

[defendandprotect]

122. Misplaced --

[fairfaxvadem]

125. Hey, that's not ME, that's the NEI....

You should hear the rap from the Nukes lobby. And in an ideal world, they may not be wrong, but we don't live in an ideal world. But they insist....

[defendandprotect]

131. Think I was responding to someone else ....

and my message misplaced -- I deleted it!!

The nukes lobby has a lot to lose -- Obama was giving them loan guarantees of something

like 36 Billion -- a big push from US government that we don't see for GREEN!!

If Obama goes thru with anything like that I want a RECALL!!!


:)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

124. those emissions are measured in RADS, no?

[fairfaxvadem]

128. Not until there's a problem!

All that "stuff" coming out of a nuke stack is not CO or other pollutants. It's steam. As I said earlier, on a perfect day, it's a perfect fuel source.

Throw in a natural disaster or two, and we have a tiger by the tail.

I'm not sold on nuke power. Period.

[Gregorian]

126. It's hard to argue against photovoltaics, wind, etc.

Unless you just like bad news.

[quakerboy]

130. I would be curious

How much of japan would have to be covered with solar to provide the energy they are accustomed to? I am looking into it for my place, but rooftop would only cover 1/3 of my power, and I don't use much, according to most of what I read. But when you start looking at highrises and such, I presume thats a whole lot more draw per foot of roof space.

[Gregorian]

142. I'm also preparing to do it.

There is off grid and grid tied. I'm looking at a property that is off grid. That's a whole different subject, as I'm now realizing. Grid tied is a collection of methods of energy generation. Wind, thermal, tidal, photovoltaic. That can provide enough power. Even solar is phenomenal, if we could capture it.

I am all for looking at the other side of the equation. I believe in being frugal. The frivolous behavior of so many people just sickens me. And that is an easy way of changing things. We've designed our lives around the car. We need to change that.

Nothing is "green". That concept is a lie. And I think that in our numbers we're headed for a rapid decline of the planet. The only real solution is to make our numbers smaller. That's a quick solution too. Hell, in 100 years there could very well be no human beings at all. Sometimes I think that might be a good thing. But that's sort of an unrealistic conversation. But the concept is extremely important. Drop from 7 billion to 3 billion. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be palatable to most people. So, we only deal with the other factors in the equation. The hard ones. Engineering, etc.

All we have to do is stop building militaries. Put our effort into solving these far bigger problems.

Sorry about the diatribe. I get carried away on this subject.

[wordpix]

136. yet people like Chan on this board still do

[defendandprotect]

123. And I imagine we really have no idea what's actually going on -- two explosions ...!!

7 plants to worry about -- Yikes!!

And the storage pools -- how much of that has been spilled out into the ocean?

jesus christ japan suffers the biggest earthquake ever recorded there and i think in the top 5 ever recorded world-wide, then get the tsunami and NOW they have to worry about nuclear meltdown. havent they suffered enough already??

Agree with that! Also ... It's ironic that Japan having suffered our dropping two atomic bombs

on them would even get involved with nuclear energy!??

[ElsewheresDaughter]

127. isn't it ironic....cyclical...where we began it may be the end of it. NONUKES

[wordpix]

137. Tell Obama to get his $38 billion proposed for the nuke industry out of his budget

:puke:
From Greenpeace to my mailbox:

Our thoughts are with our colleagues, friends and all the people of Japan as they continue to deal with the aftereffects of yesterday’s earthquake and tsunami. And now those living near the nuclear power plant in Fukushima have been evacuated because of the possibility of a nuclear meltdown.

In the past 24 hours, the situation in Fukushima has gone from bad to worse. Reports out of Japan are suggesting that the cooling units on a number of reactors at the plant could fail at anytime. The simple truth is that no matter how advanced the technology and how prepared a country might be to deal with a disaster it doesn’t change the fact that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and always will be.

That hasn’t stopped President Obama from putting $38 billion in giveaways to the nuclear industry in his latest budget proposal to Congress. But it’s not too late. Congress and the President can still take this money out of the final budget but they’re not going to do it if they don’t hear from you.

Tell the President and your members of Congress that there is no place for taxpayer giveaways to the nuclear industry in this year’s budget.

Wall Street refuses to invest in new nuclear plants. Investors know the risks and have decided it’s simply not worth it. That’s why these nuclear companies are turning to the federal government for money to build new plants.

The American people actually agree with Wall Street on this one. In fact, 57% of the public named nuclear subsidies as their most popular spending cut in a recent Wall Street Journal poll. Unfortunately, the events in Japan are a reminder that the risks of nuclear power are not merely financial.

No matter what the industry tries to tell you, disasters like this are going to happen. Let’s hope the worst is avoided in Japan and tell our elected officials that there’s no place for nuclear giveaways in this year’s budget.

No Nukes,
Jim Riccio
Greenpeace Nuclear Policy Analyst

[Zorra]

140. It is really scary that President Obama is not conscious enough to comprehend

the inherent constant danger of nuclear reactors. They are lethal and and every one of them is vulnerable to an earthquake every millisecond of every day. Thousands of people could be killed and/or exposed to a lethal dose of radiation in a heartbeat.

How could such a smart guy not get this? I can't understand this at all.

Hopefully, the events in Japan will lead him to an awareness of the foolishness of promoting and funding nuclear energy, and transfers the billions of dollars of our money that he is giving away to the nuclear energy industry to responsible alternative energy industries.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

129. CNN just reported" it's official 2 reactors are iin meltdown" by Japanese officials

[defendandprotect]

132. K/R --

Thanks for the confirmation -- sad as it is !!

I'm so tired wasn't sure that's what they were saying!

Wow !!

[Jamastiene]

147. Don't forget Shinmoedake Volcano erupting.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article965229.ece/Japanese-volcano-erupts

They can't catch a break. This is just awful all the way around.

:(

[benh57]

150. Modern designs don't have these risks

"Nuclear power is simply to dirty, dangerous and expensive to be seriously considered by non-profiting parties as a viable energy source."

That's just flamebait and false to boot.

40-year-old nuclear power is that, yes.

Modern nuclear plant designs have no such risks as they do not need to be actively cooled.

-- Liberal, but pro nuclear power.

[avaistheone1]

158. Bullshit.

We were told the old designs were safe when they were built too.

Nuclear power is very expensive. So expensive that the no one will insure nuclear plants because they are too risky. So the taxpayers are forced to pay the insurance for these private profit-making corporations.

Also we are also forced to clean up the nuclear power plants disasters as well. Just another wonderful example of socializing losses and privatizing risk for greedy corporations.

[boppers]

165. Run a DHMO study.

http://dhmo.org/

Pretty sad results.

[fasttense]

166. Lets not forget the fact that the land is also unusable for several hundred years. n/t