ScribbleLive

hmmm, if cesium is relatively harmless when spread out but deadly when concentrated, doesn't that pose a problem if the objective of decontamination is to remove it from wide areas and dump it into a much smaller volume/area???

Labour conference: Jack Dromey says UK nuclear 'safe' Labour conference: Jack Dromey says UK nuclear 'safe'

@elainekirk aaaaaaaaahhhh.

@elainekirk as long as it's not just blowing the radiation right back inland

@lillymunster I believe your hunch the guy next to the 10SV spot is mr. acute lukemia is absolutely correct, and am astounded I can't find anybody else (besides me) who independently agrees that isn't just some random youtube commenter. Sometimes these hunches are brilliant when there is no hard evidence to go on, such as who was the guy pointing at the camera. Perhaps the Japanese could show enough outrage to demand they set the facts straight, only so much we can do on this sde of the pond in english.

The primary and secondary containments in a Mark 1 BWR are designed to prevent ANY escape of signficant amounts of radioactive anything, solid, liquid or gas. That is withing a design-basis event. That is what the manual and GE says. The building has negative air pressure so any gases are supposed to go through a filtration system and out the stack, but that's assuming the building hasn't blown up. The supression pool is supposed to quench any sudden steam event from a breaking pipe, but the pool was already at boiling point so it had no effect, and wasn't based on hot fuel hitting a pool of water at the bottom of the containment which is supposed to be the DRY well. The system is designed so that it will FAIL MISERABLY in event of a meltdown, so the design parameter is so that it WON'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, not that it will never happen. I have yet to see mention of Murphy's law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Corallary - Murphy was an optimist. When we get cities and governments to train and plan for a fukushima event, people will figure out there is a problem.

"I was interested to watch the recent Horizon documentary on Fukushima. However, I was concerned by the way the issue was represented and many of the issues raised by Fukushima were not addressed.
I think some of my concerns are a result of the choice of presenter. I agree that Professor Al-Khalili is a good choice for someone who understands the theoretical workings of nuclear power, but this leads him to saying he wants to leave the politics and economics to one side and focus solely on the science.
Particles may be bound by the rules of physics, but build, operation and maintenance of power stations is impacted by politics and economics – this is not just a scientific issue and cannot just be based on a “careful assessment of rational science”. (For instance, see recent reports on low quality concrete being used in the build of Chinese nuclear power stations.)
Some points I noted as I watched the film:
• The repeated claim of partial meltdowns is extremely misleading. Japanese authorities have confirmed three complete meltdowns.
• The program seems to be presenting a clear message that the main health issue is from stress caused by worry about radiation and evacuation. (Yet Professor Al-Khalili requires wellies for protection to walk in a school playground outside the main evacuation area.) Whether or not this is true, is it a sign that people shouldn’t worry about the radiation or a sign that we should avoid nuclear power stations exploding?
• Professor Al-Khalili covers the controversy around the impact of low dose rates. He recognizes that the consensus is that low dose rates are dangerous, but does not seem to address the implications of a linear model of impact – that Fukushima will cause many deaths. He prefers just to leave an open question on its validity. For authorities and locals surely working on the scientific consensus with allowance for worse case is actually reasonable and the evacuation in an unavoidable consequence of the nuclear plant explosion.
• Professor Al-Khalili states, as a fact, that "[Nuclear power] provides vast amounts of cheap and reliable energy". One recent article from TIME has stated that "Once hailed as ‘too cheap to meter,’ nuclear fission turns out to be an outlandishly expensive method of generating juice for our Xboxes." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2059603,00.html) Should Professor Al-Khalili’s statement have been justified?
• The BBC has reported on the clean up process at Dounreay - a massive effort to clean a seabed after a (relatively) small release. Why if this release was so hazardous is Fukushima not massively more hazardous?
• Fukushima is still not in cold shutdown and is still releasing radioactivity. Why is this point not covered?
• There was no real attempt to look at the broader picture of nuclear safety. For example, there is a long history of failures at Japanese power stations and, since Fukushima, four US Nuclear power stations have been threatened - by earthquake, flood, power cuts and wild fires. Whilst no significant releases are believed to have occurred in these cases, primary power was lost and it is clear that a Fukushima type event is not unthinkable elsewhere.
I would really love the BBC to put produce a really rigorous documentary on Fukushima. As Professor Al-Kalili points out nuclear power has major advantages in light of the climate change issues, so people’s concerns needed to be addressed properly.
Unfortunately, this rigorous approach was not delivered by Horizon. In this situation, that is extremely dangerous. Maybe the BBC should consider a wider more thorough documentary including people knowledgeable about Japan, the politics involved in the nuclear industry and the role of powerful industries like Tepco in Japanese society.
"