Former U.S. Nuclear Official Warns: It Can Happen Here

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

The key difference in danger and potential hazard in the crowd of power generation facilities is that nuclear has a more immediate and substantially longer lasting local (and in some cases like Chernobyl, global) impact in the radioactivity which the resulting slag and lava from a meltdown.

Now, this isn't to say that it is proper to use the radiation as a bludgeon to beat nuclear power over the head with. A more proper use of that fact would be as motivation for anti-radiation technology to receive more attention. Gen IV reactors are already possible to build, we just have to get past the hurdle of cleanup and limiting of the medium to long term impacts of a reactor failure.

Let's decommission buildings and replace them with clean/safe/cheap nuclear plants with diesel generators mounted at sea level in a flood plain.

What could possibly go wrong?

"I'm concerned, I'm very concerned," he says. "I have yet to see anybody from the plant who's an engineer that can actually tell us what's happening - they can't see inside there because it's highly radioactive."

So far, Japanese officials say the explosion caused no damage to the inside of the reactor. But Karzmar wonders how officials know that.

"I'm not sure the politicians are terribly right because they're using some phraseology that isn't quite appropriate," he says.

Friday's devastating megaquake knocked out electricity to Dai-Ichi while the tsunami flooded back-up generators.


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117909924.html

I understand that they are currently at a "4" on the 7-point nuclear incident scale, and that TMI was a "5".

But this is multiple reactors... at least two of which have hit that level.

Surely two fours make a five?

Then there are four more with variations of similar problems. How many fours before it's worse than a single five?

According to this document about the international nuclear event scale:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50586605/International-Nuclear-Event-Scale

Read the example given, doesn't it sound familiar?

Seems to me that there are 6s at present which surely seems like it
might warrant a combined 7.

"INES Level 6: Serious accident
Impact on People and Environment
Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.

Example• Kyshtym disasteratMayak, Soviet Union, 29 September 1957. A failed cooling system at a military nuclear waste reprocessing facility caused a steam explosion that released 70-80 tons of highly radioactive material into the environment. Impact on local population is not fully known."

Assuming the measurements are honest and accurate.

However, the widespread nature of the failures across multiple reactors, and 4 reactors who's status is questionable, probably automatically warrants a five.

Honestly, it's already worse than I expected.

I think it's a bit of a disgrace that the armchair pro nucular cybernauts still rest assured in the limited
reports, clear spin doctoring, and back of the napkin calculations that you all have been doing.

Hyperventilate? Throw furniture around?

What ever happened to 'don't worry be happy'? I will worry and take appropriate measures if and when some crazy shit like radioactive iodine isotopes are on their way.

Until then, no action need be taken on my part. I seriously suggest people not get all emotionally wrecked over this POSSIBLE widespread disaster, when we have a real, physical widespread disaster on our hands already.

Seems to me that there are 6s at present which surely seems like it might warrant a combined 7.

You follow that by giving an example of a six. I can't see how you can look at an example that said "released 70-80 tons of highly radioactive material into the environment" and compare the two with a straight face. I don't know whether the reported releases add up to ounces or pounds... or perhaps tens or even hundreds of pounds... but tens of tons?

We're not talking the same ballpark here... that six was thousands of times worse than what has been reported.

But let's return your evaluation of me. "i think you're underestimating things as per usual"

It's true that I'm assuming that what has been reported so far is accurate. That there have been releases of radiation, but no breach of containment. That there is some amount of core damage in at least 2-3 of the reactors which means that "meltdown" is appropriate. That activity level reports and checks of potentially impacted civilians correctly represent reality.

I can tell you that so far they are at least consistent. There isn't anything that says "Hey! How could you see that number with the release they claim this is limited to???"

So no... I'm not underestimating anything. You on the other hand are assuming that everything is really far FAR FAR worse than what has been reported. And that's fine. You see a history of lies and naturally assume that they must be lying now. That's your prerogative. But let's not pretend that I'm assuming things are better than reported while you're calling it straight. In reality it's you that are assuming that things are much worse.

In the end you might turn out to be right. Who knows? But it has to happen first before you can chastise others for getting it wrong.

It's like you're badly in debt and just bought a lottery ticket and now you're assuming that you won and are already reprimanding everyone who ever told you that your debt was a problem.

It has to actually happen first. :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393

Quoted from the article:

But the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) cast doubt on Japan's classification of the crisis at Fukushima as level 4 of 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Chernobyl was classified as level 7.

"Level four is a serious level," ASN chief Andre-Claude Lacoste said, but added: "We feel that we are at least at level five or even at level six."