Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 2233

Do you see two lines on the bottom half of the fig? these are acute death probability by distance.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:08:09 AM

Two simple lines which decline sharply.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:08:46 AM

One has TC in parenthesis, and the other has TQUV in it.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:09:15 AM

Greatings all. Hi @ikrockhopper
by bo 8/25/2011 9:09:27 AM

@bo Hi bo!
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:09:41 AM

yes following Hi @bo
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:09:47 AM

TC=原子炉スクラム失敗. I dont know what it is, but it sounds like... failure of reactor scram.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:10:23 AM

TQUV means the failure of water cooling into reactor core. So, TC and TQUV cause acute death. according to the fig.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:11:36 AM

Other lines (more flat than the two lines) show conditional probabilities of late-onset death by accident situations by distance from the emitting place.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:12:53 AM

So, like, if it's 2km from the plant with failure of reactor scram (TC), probability of acute death would be 10(-8). Am I right?
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:15:20 AM

@ikrockhopper
I am thinking you are edano will be here soon hwe may know
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:16:04 AM

So, I will translate words in the boxes...
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:16:09 AM

@ikrockhopper thank you please
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:18:00 AM

I am sure Edano-san will know. The box on the top (left hand side one) = 過圧破損 = over-pressure damage (?) Another box on the top (right side) = 早期破損 =Early damage (it says... I don't know what it means). The middle box =管理放出 =Managed vent. Right-hand side bottom = 事故終息 = end of the accident.
by ikrockhopper edited by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:19:18 AM

So, in the case of Fukushima, was it 'over-pressured damage'? If so, you can follow the second line from the top with the triangle.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:20:59 AM

@ikrockhopper I really hope @edano gets here soon ! who found the doc it is very valuable
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:22:04 AM

This means, at a 10km place, late-onset death probability would be between 10(-2) and 10(-3)
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:22:14 AM

@ikrockhopper it is terrible that they ignore this
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:23:06 AM

I copy and paste the abbreviations here. So that you can use Google Translation for them. However, the Fukushima case is the loss of electricity (TB). 高圧系作動崩壊熱除去失敗=TW、低圧系作動崩壊熱除去失敗=TQUVIW、炉心注水失敗=TQUV、全交流電源喪失=TB、原子炉スクラム失敗=TC
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:24:33 AM

@elainekirk Yes, the blog's person said, it is terrible.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:24:49 AM

I am going back to the text to see whether they have something important. Wait a few minutes.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:25:47 AM

oops, some parts look strange. I will do it again.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:27:29 AM

@ikrockhopper no problem tell me if you want that one deleting
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:28:09 AM

This is the part of text which describes the fig.

一方、環境影響評価については、上記のエナジェティック現象を含む広範な事故シナリオのソースタームを用い、平成13年度には、確率論的環境影響評価コードOSCAARで公衆に対する被ばく線量評価及び健康影響評価を実施した。第2.5・5図に、炉心損傷シーケンス及び格納容器破損シナリオ毎に、個人の早期死亡確率及び晩発性がん死亡確率(気象条件に関する期待値)を放出点からの距離の関数として示す。
この結果から、リスクのレベルについては、原研でこれまでに実施したモデルプラントのレベル2PSAでは格納容器破損頻度が約2X10-7/炉年となっていること、圏内での格納容器破損事故の発生頻度評価値は10匂炉年程度またはそれ以下とされていることを併せて考えれば、ここで考慮した事故シナリオの範囲では、周辺公衆の早期の健康影響及び晩発性健康影響の平均個人リスクは米国の安全目標を大幅に下回るとの見通しが得られた。
また、リスクの支配因子については、全集団線量の被ばく経路は長期の地表沈着外部被ばくと食物摂取による内部被ぱくが支配的であり、その大きさは主にヨウ素及びセシウム類の放出割合に依存すること、早期の被ばく線量では、放射性雲からの外部被ばくと吸入による内部被ぱくが支配的であり、前者は主として希ガス、後者は主としてヨウ素によること等の知見が得られた。また、エナジェティック現象を含む事故シナリオは、環境への放出のタイミングが早いため、周辺公衆に対する早期の健康影響のリスクに支配的なシナリオであり、早期被ばくにはここで仮定した非揮発性の放射性物質の吸入による内部被ぱくが大きく寄与していることが明らかとなった。しかしながら、簡易な仮定を基に解析したエナジェティック現象のソーズタームは不確実さが大きいため、今後、不確実さ評価等を行い、最終的な公衆のリスクへの影響について検討する必要がある。
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:28:28 AM

@elainekirk could you? the second one is correct. Thank you!
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:28:52 AM

The text says... They used OSCAAR (no full name, but JP says... Conditional probabilistic environmental effect estimation code) to make the figure.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:31:10 AM

This fig shows relationships between acute and late-onset death probability and distance from the emitting place by reactor core damage sequences and container vessel damage scenarios.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:33:13 AM

@ikrockhopper here is a doc that may help article.nuclear.or.kr
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:35:15 AM

yeah, the end of the text says that they need to do uncertainty study and others. Oh, I found the important part on the text... wait a minute.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:37:36 AM

"According to level 2 PSA (Probabilistic Safety Assessment) for a model plant, likelihood of container vessel damage is approx 2*10(-7)/reactor/year. Plus, in Japan the likelihood of container vessel damage is 1*10(-6)or lower. Based on the numbers, within the accident scenarios we considered here, average individual risk of acute/late-onset health effects to residents around a reactor are estimated much lower than US's safety goal.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:43:08 AM

@ikrockhopper I dont understand how they worked that out
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:44:28 AM

@elainekirk ?
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:44:49 AM

which part?
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:45:29 AM

@ikrockhopper how they worked out there was less chance of container damage in Japan
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:45:34 AM

I don't know. It's weird.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:47:06 AM

@ikrockhopper I will understand better when I have seen it discussed here
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:47:26 AM

@ikrockhopper can I ask you another question?
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:47:42 AM

sure.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:47:53 AM

@ikrockhopper happy tweeted
Happy20790 ハッピー
5号機6号機の稼働なんて有り得ないと思うよ。東電はどう考えてるかわかんないけど。5,6号機もかなりのダメージあるし、まして発電するには単独の号機だけじゃなく様々な設備や施設が必要なんだ。
which translates in google as
Can not be running I think Unit 5 Unit 6. What I do not know what you're thinking TEPCO. There is also considerable damage to Unit No. 5 and 6, to generate electricity, let alone I need a variety of amenities and facilities not just a single Unit.
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:48:34 AM

@ikrockhopper is the google right are tepco talking of starting up 5 or 6?
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:49:04 AM

I didn't translate them because he seemed to talk to someone who spread a rumor that TEPCO are trying to restart Reactors 5 and 6. He gave a clear No, based on the damages at the reactors.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:50:45 AM

@ikrockhopper there is a lot of upset caused by rumour in life isn't there :(
by elainekirk 8/25/2011 9:51:50 AM

It's so funny... like I can understand Eng>JP translation on Google even if it's crappy, but I cant tell the other way around is correct or not :) Yes, he seemed really upset.
by ikrockhopper 8/25/2011 9:52:25 AM