TEPCO repairing more reactors near Fukushima

National Jul. 05, 2012 - 06:59AM JST ( 30 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

30 Comments

5

warispeaceJul. 05, 2012 - 02:49PM JST

basroil,

You're pretty much asking the mods to delete that post for "being impolite to user". Though anti-nuclear posts seem to never get deleted unless they actually mention killing someone.

I am not asking, but you seem to be. So your answer to anyone who challenges your authoritative and technocratic rhetorical method is to try to silence them. This is the same thing the people in the nuclear village do. They can't stand to have anyone reveal and challenge their very self-interested "truth". It is never about what is good for the nation or for future generations, though it's always framed that way by the anti-life/pro-nuke side. Or technocrats use lots of statistics and technical details to disguise their real intentions.

As for Tepco's interest in Dai-ni and anyone who supports restarting this power plant, this is a very disrespectful act considering all the people in Fukushima who have suffered long-term health effects and have been displaced from their homes and communities.
4

zichiJul. 05, 2012 - 01:46PM JST

basroil,

Luckily Fukushima has no say in it. From a structural and safety standpoint.

Now you are contradicting yourself because it suits your cause. When we were discussing the Oi reactors, you said that only the local communities should get to say if the reactors should be started or not?

The cable story at the first plant is irrevelant, because the switchgear was destroyed by the tsunami or under water.

I could also say, had TEPCO used common sense safety standards at the Fukushima plant the nuclear disaster would not happened, but they didn't so the type of reactor is irrevelant.

You constant defending of the nuke village does not seem to winning you many supporters on this forum?
3

warispeaceJul. 05, 2012 - 10:32AM JST

Same old basroil, refusing to think outside the box. I thought engineers were suppose to put dreams into reality, to find solutions to what people thought couldn't be done. Are you not really just a technocrat, always pushing the status quo to protect your position and authority?

The people of Japan have expressed their desire to find alternatives, including conservation, efficiency measures and alternative energies. They are willing to pay the price. They finally know that nuclear energy is not a match for an earthquake prone country with nowhere to put the toxic waste.
2

wacknessJul. 05, 2012 - 07:30AM JST

spud, protest in Japan doesn't always have to be that way...it is possible for it to gain clout.

I can't imagine Dai-ni ever coming back to life, that"s a scary thought. I hope the fact that they're considering it, doesn't imply some sort of government backing or endorsement.
2

nandakandamandaJul. 05, 2012 - 10:24AM JST

Did they use fresh water or seawater to cool them? I seem to remember the two reactors shut down with the advent of the earthquake and tsunami, but then for some weeks and months the temperatures in the reactor vessels oscillated in strangely unpredictable ways, following puzzling patterns. Then they kind of dropped out of the news.
2

warispeaceJul. 05, 2012 - 10:20PM JST

Blair Herron

I have been trying to understand what health hazard people get from radiation exposure.

As I mentioned, we must look at the long-term effects, from both external and internal exposure.

If you want to know the health effects, you should look at all the studies done after the Chernobyl disaster. Most were reported in Slavic languages, but some of these have been translated into English.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

Also other studies are available by groups not tied to the nuclear industry. Here is an example.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html

Of course the pro-industry International Atomic Energy Agency provides different figures, but if we consider that they have a interest in promoting the use of nuclear energy, their reports must be considered highly biased.
2

basroilJul. 06, 2012 - 10:03AM JST

FadamorJul. 06, 2012 - 04:02AM JST

Hmmm, I wonder if it was the lack of radiation that increased the mortality rates, or the radical environment they had to place the animals in in order to achieve the lack of radiation?

I would expect that they had gone through and made all containers the same considering they went through the effort of minimizing radiation from even food. I'll try to find the article again and post a link (though most likely only those with site access will be able to read)
1

Blair HerronJul. 05, 2012 - 07:55PM JST

long-term health effects

I have been trying to understand what health hazard people get from radiation exposure.

basroil and zichi said in another thread 1.22microSv/h=10.693milliSv/y is not a problem.

What about internal exposure? According to Cabinet office, 38,469 Fukushima residents were examined their presence of radioactive materials in the body by whole body counters. (6/27/2011-4/30/2012)

[the result]

3mSv: 2 people

2mSv: 10 people

1mSv: 14 people

Below 1mSv: 38,443 people

What problem would “3mSv/2mSv/1mSv” cause?

http://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/bukyoku/hoken/yobo/fukushimakensa.pdf
1

warnerbroJul. 05, 2012 - 10:14PM JST

basroil, Japan has been responding to the fall in nuclear electricity production by increasing imports of natural gas. There is no need to create an imaginary threat from coal.
1

Blair HerronJul. 05, 2012 - 10:26PM JST

@basroil, Thank you very much for your help, alwasy :)

@warispeace, Thank you very much for the links. The Chernobyl one is very long, but looks informative. I'm a very slow learner when it comes to science, so I'll read it very carefully. Thanks again :)
1

FadamorJul. 06, 2012 - 03:05AM JST

I see no reason why they shouldn't repair the facility if it is still able to function. After all, repairing them doesn't guarantee they will be restarted right after repair. After the repairs are made, then they have to look into upgrades and reinforcement to prevent what happened at Daichi. Maybe after all THAT is done, then they could start riling up the neighborhood by requesting a restart.
1

FadamorJul. 06, 2012 - 03:09AM JST

If you're lucky, by the time all that was completed, fusion reactors will be viable. They're aiming for a sustained fusion ignition that generates more power than it uses at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories this Fall.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/
1

FadamorJul. 06, 2012 - 04:02AM JST

Interestingly, some ultra-low dose experiments say that's not good either. Apparently ultra low (zero) dose causes an increase in mortality in animal experiments. One of the many pieces of evidence refuting the linear no-threshold model for low doses and low exposure rates.

Hmmm, I wonder if it was the lack of radiation that increased the mortality rates, or the radical environment they had to place the animals in in order to achieve the lack of radiation?
1

basroilJul. 06, 2012 - 10:06AM JST

FadamorJul. 06, 2012 - 03:09AM JST

If you're lucky, by the time all that was completed, fusion reactors will be viable. They're aiming for a sustained fusion ignition that generates more power than it uses at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories this Fall.

I doubt that they've managed to solve the issue with the high level waste produced that would make commercialization difficult due to decommissioning costs... It surprisingly creates more high level waste than a fission plant.
1

FadamorJul. 07, 2012 - 12:11AM JST

I doubt that they've managed to solve the issue with the high level waste produced that would make commercialization difficult due to decommissioning costs... It surprisingly creates more high level waste than a fission plant.

Do you have a source for this amazing claim? I have a source for mine:

A fusion power plant would produce no climate-changing gases, as well as considerably lower amounts and less environmentally harmful radioactive byproducts than current nuclear power plants. And there would be no danger of a runaway reaction or core meltdown in a fusion power plant.

Source: https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/ife/

The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.

...

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy#Waste_management
0

spudmanreincarnatedJul. 05, 2012 - 07:26AM JST

Local community took the cash happily for years, now they learn that there is no free lunch. Protest in Japan is symbolic with no real punch so expect this to go full speed ahead.
0

zichiJul. 05, 2012 - 11:41AM JST

Yesterday, I watched a delayed live video stream from the second Fukushima plant, Daini. A group of journalists, reporters and the new chairman and president visited the plant. The video stream lasted a couple of hours.

What point to note, because this plant is very close to the first plant, about 8 km, the radiation levels inside the reactor buildings were lower than outside with radiation from the nuclear disaster.

This plant, according to the plant manager came very close to having its own nuclear meltdowns. At least some of the reactor buildings are still without mains power. TEPCO is installing huge gas fired turbines on trucks to generate power. Basically, the inside of the reactor buildings and the spent fuel pools looked good.

There was some damage outside but nothing like the first Fukushima plant.

Air cooled gas turbines

http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2012/201207-e/120703_02e.html

The visit to the plant.

http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2012/201207-e/120704_01e.html

I think TEPCO would like to restart the Daini atomic plant once repairs are made, the reactor stress tests and some improvement in safety standards but there are a number of problems.

The close distance to the first plant. The governor of Fukushima stating there will never again be nuclear power plants in the prefecture. Almost 100% opposition from the people of Fukushima including those who work at the plants or lived near the plants.
0

Blair HerronJul. 05, 2012 - 04:08PM JST

all the people in Fukushima who have suffered long-term health effects

Will you please help me understand? How badly have they been affected? What would possibly happen later on?
0

basroilJul. 05, 2012 - 10:12PM JST

Blair HerronJul. 05, 2012 - 07:55PM JST

What problem would “3mSv/2mSv/1mSv” cause?

Well, the worldwide average is 3mSv/yr from background only, and average medical exposure in Japan is above 2mSv, while background rates are about 1.5mSv in most (but not all) of Japan.

According to LNT, an extra 0.01%-0.03% increase in cancer rates (impossible to statistically prove a change), and according to modern thinking absolutely nothing.
0

marcelitoJul. 06, 2012 - 10:38AM JST

So people are stil living in shelters, thousands are unable to go back home due to the contamination from Dai ichi and TEPCO is considering repairing Dai ni plant which is 10l km away with the obvious aim of restarting it in the future? Is there any more blatant way to say we don@t give a s%$#..about what happened to you , we just want to get our cash cows back on as quick as possible so bend over some more and to hell with you..Can this company and the rest of nuclear village get any more despicable? I really have no words... Basroil you should go to the eavcuees housing and tell them directly that locals should not have a say when it comes to Dai ni restart...
0

gonemadJul. 06, 2012 - 09:12PM JST

Well, the worldwide average is 3mSv/yr from background only, and average medical exposure in Japan is above 2mSv, while background rates are about 1.5mSv in most (but not all) of Japan.

According to LNT, an extra 0.01%-0.03% increase in cancer rates (impossible to statistically prove a change), and according to modern thinking absolutely nothing.

basroil, the numbers given were for internal radiation. I think you do quite well understand the difference of the impact which external and internal radiation sources have on the body, so it seems you deliberately want to mislead people which don't have enough background knowledge?
-1

basroilJul. 06, 2012 - 01:00PM JST

marcelitoJul. 06, 2012 - 10:38AM JST

So people are stil living in shelters, thousands are unable to go back home due to the contamination from Dai ich

No, at most a few hundred. Thousands are not let back because the government refuses to admit that a circle was a very stupid idea when they had plenty of fallout maps to properly evacuate people in the order of most need. Most areas are not much higher radiation than the Japanese average (and considering the rock structure there, probably no higher than one chest xray above their normal background). Almost all are under the legal limit, and only a tiny portion of the area above that is above the WHO recommended limits.
-2

zichiJul. 05, 2012 - 10:44PM JST

Blair Herron

please don't quote me out of context without stating what the original comment. You said you didn't understand the figures of radiation in reference to the park in Tokyo. I realised later, you clearly understand the figures. Anyway, I explained to you what it meant and the radiation someone would receive if they stood on the contaminated spot 24/7 for one year. Well if someone did do that, they wouldn't receive any further radiation from anywhere else since they would remain stationary for one year.
-2

basroilJul. 05, 2012 - 11:15PM JST

Thomas AndersonJul. 05, 2012 - 09:16PM JST

Ideally you would want to receive as little radiation as possible.

Interestingly, some ultra-low dose experiments say that's not good either. Apparently ultra low (zero) dose causes an increase in mortality in animal experiments. One of the many pieces of evidence refuting the linear no-threshold model for low doses and low exposure rates.
-3

Thomas AndersonJul. 05, 2012 - 09:16PM JST

basroil and zichi said in another thread 1.22microSv/h=10.693milliSv/y is not a problem.

Wait, why would 10milliSv/y not be a problem? We all know that radiation will damage the DNA cells. And that means that the chance of incurring cancer will increase, no matter how minuscule.

Ideally you would want to receive as little radiation as possible.
-7

basroilJul. 05, 2012 - 07:45AM JST

Dai-ni isn't that close unless they consider Narita to be nearby Haneda. The plant was damaged, but the reactor cores are intact and safety systems never in question. Since the government put a freeze on new plant construction, TEPCO has no choice but to fix dai-ni or else increase cost to customers to levels that are just not good for the country. Or build a lot of coal plants and kill everyone with carcinogens and mercury poisoning.
-8

YuriOtaniJul. 05, 2012 - 10:43AM JST

As the posters say here, "the local communities should not dictate national policy".
-8

basroilJul. 05, 2012 - 11:21AM JST

warispeaceJul. 05, 2012 - 10:32AM JST

Are you not really just a technocrat, always pushing the status quo to protect your position and authority?

You're pretty much asking the mods to delete that post for "being impolite to user". Though anti-nuclear posts seem to never get deleted unless they actually mention killing someone.
-10

basroilJul. 05, 2012 - 01:02PM JST

zichiJul. 05, 2012 - 11:41AM JST

I think TEPCO would like to restart the Daini atomic plant once repairs are made, the reactor stress tests and some improvement in safety standards but there are a number of problems.

The close distance to the first plant. The governor of Fukushima stating there will never again be nuclear power plants in the prefecture. Almost 100% opposition from the people of Fukushima including those who work at the plants or lived near the plants.

Luckily Fukushima has no say in it. From a structural and safety standpoint, Dai-ni is an a whole other level. While no MKIII, the MKII is much better than the old MKI designs used in Dai-ichi, and all reactors are BWR-5 types that have a few extra core cooling modes (but still no passive core cooling as with Gen4 type reactors or automated response systems like the ABWR) that if used at Dai-ichi would have prevented most of the excess energy buildup and hydrogen production.

That site still has issue with redundant power systems, but at least they had the right cable types to connect external power, unlike in Dai-ichi (really, who goes and grabs the wrong cable? Their emergency plans did need some major overhauls)
-11

basroilJul. 05, 2012 - 11:19AM JST

warispeaceJul. 05, 2012 - 10:32AM JST

They are willing to pay the price.

Yet the first thing they did when TEPCO wanted to raise prices is to complain. Toyota even stopped producing a car (an it's parts) in Japan over energy issues.

Personally, I am not willing to pay the price of a thousand lives a year to replace nuclear with coal, which Japan has many times said it would, just like Germany. Coal pollution actually kills more people than nuclear is capable of, and as a base load type power generation energy, Japan will use it.

There is no box to think outside of, just cold hard facts pushing some some further away than others.