FAQs about nuclear energy

Dixie

Farting Snowflakes
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
13,367
Reaction score
3
This is not necessarily a news thread but I had some questions pertaining to nuclear energy and I've done some googling to find the answers from government sites as well as the EPA and nuclear energy sites. I thought this might be useful in helping us have a better understanding of the nuclear situation in Japan. If you have a question or an answer (or both) feel free to post and share in this thread. I think a bit of knowledge can go a long way.

Q: Where does uranium come from?

A: Small amounts of uranium are found almost everywhere in soil, rock, and water. However, concentrated deposits of uranium ores are found in just a few places, usually in hard rock or sandstone. These deposits are normally covered over with earth and vegetation. Uranium has been mined in Canada, the southwest United States, Australia, parts of Europe, the former Soviet Union, Namibia, South Africa, Niger and elsewhere.
Source: FAQ 2-Where does uranium come from?

Q: Where does plutonium come from?

A: Plutonium is created from uranium in nuclear reactors. When uranium-238 absorbs a neutron, it becomes uranium-239 which ultimately decays to plutonium-239. Different isotopes of uranium and different combinations of neutron absorptions and radioactive decay, create different isotopes of plutonium.

Some of the plutonium-239 in the fuel rods burns (fissions) along with uranium and helps produce heat, which is converted into electricity. As fission continues, the reaction products remain in the fuel pellets and absorb neutrons, slowing ("poisoning") the fission process. Finally, the ratio of poisons to fissional materials reaches a point at which the fuel is said to be "spent" and must be replaced. However, even spent fuel contains some plutonium.

The majority of plutonium was produced for nuclear weapons in several government reactors designed to maximize the production of plutonium. Between 1944 and 1988, the U.S. built and operated these ‘production reactors' at high-security government facilities. In all, the U.S. produced about 100 metric tons of plutonium.

The reactors made plutonium by bombarding special fuel rods containing uranium with neutrons. Once the maximum amount of plutonium was produced, workers removed the fuel rods (now called ‘spent fuel') from the reactor. The spent fuel rods were extremely radioactive, and the process for recovering the plutonium used only remote-controlled equipment.

First workers used strong acid to dissolve the fuel rods. Then they treated the mixture with chemicals to precipitate the plutonium so that it would settle out. The process was very expensive and at the time made plutonium about the most expensive material on earth. This processing also left behind over 100 million gallons of exceedingly hazardous mixed wastes of acids and radioactive fission products. Part of our legacy of nuclear weapons production is dealing with these high-level wastes.

In extremely rare cases, rocks with a high localized concentration of uranium can provide the right conditions for making small amounts of plutonium naturally. This natural process is called spontaneous fission. Only very small (trace) amounts of natural plutonium have ever been found in nature.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: What are the properties of plutonium?


A: Plutonium is a silvery-grey metal that becomes yellowish when exposed to air. It is solid under normal conditions, and is chemically reactive.

Plutonium has at least 15 different isotopes, all of which are radioactive. The most common ones are Pu-238, Pu-239, and Pu-240. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,100, and Pu-240 has a half-life 6,560 years. The isotope Pu-238 gives off useable heat, because of its radioactivity.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: What is plutonium used for?

A: Plutonium-239 is used to make nuclear weapons. For example, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945, contained Pu-239. The plutonium in the bomb undergoes fission in an arrangement that assures enormous energy generation and destructive potential.

The isotope, plutonium-238, is not useful for nuclear weapons. However it generates significant heat through its decay process, which make it useful as a long-lived power source. Using a thermocouple, a device that converts heat into electric power, satellites rely on plutonium as a power source. Tiny amounts also provide power to heart pacemakers.

Some foreign countries mix isotopes of plutonium and uranium to manufacture special reactor fuel called mixed-oxide fuel, for commercial nuclear power reactors. The plutonium increases the power output. The U.S. does not currently manufacture mixed-oxide fuel, but is funding research in this type of reactor fuel as a means of dealing with excess plutonium in U.S. stockpiles.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: How does plutonium get into the environment?

A: Plutonium was dispersed world wide from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons conducted during the 1950s and ‘60s. The fallout from these tests left very low concentrations of plutonium in soils around the world.

Nuclear weapons production and testing facilities (Hanford, WA; Savannah River, GA; Rocky Flats, CO; and The Nevada Test Site, in the United States, and Mayak and Semi Plafinsk in the former Soviet Union), also released small amounts. Some releases have occurred in accidents with nuclear weapons, the reentry of satellites that used Pu-238, and from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: How does plutonium change the environment?

A: All isotopes of plutonium undergo radioactive decay. As plutonium decays, it releases radiation and forms other radioactive isotopes. For example, Pu-238 emits an alpha particle and becomes uranium-234; Pu-239 emits an alpha particle and becomes uranium-235.

This process happens slowly since the half-lives of plutonium isotopes tend to be relatively long: Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years; Pu-239 has a half-life is 24,100 years, and Pu-240 has a half-life of 6,560 years. The decay process continues until a stable, non-radioactive element is formed.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: How do people come in contact with plutonium?

A: Residual plutonium from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing is dispersed widely in the environment. As a result, virtually everyone comes into contact with extremely small amounts of plutonium.

People who live near nuclear weapons production or testing sites may have increased exposure to plutonium, primarily through particles in the air, but possibly from water as well. Plants growing in contaminated soil can absorb small amounts of plutonium.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: How do I know if I am near plutonium?


A: You must have special equipment to detect the presence of plutonium.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: How does plutonium get into the body?

A: People may inhale plutonium as a contaminant in dust. It can also be ingested with food or water. Most people have extremely low ingestion and inhalation of plutonium. However, people who live near government weapons production or testing facilities may have increased exposure. Plutonium exposure external to the body poses very little health risk.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: What does plutonium do once it gets into the body?

A: The stomach does not absorb plutonium very well, and most plutonium swallowed with food or water passes from the body through the feces. When inhaled, plutonium can remain in the lungs depending upon its particle size and how well the particular chemical form dissolves. The chemical forms that dissolve less easily may lodge in the lungs or move out with phlegm, and either be swallowed or spit out. But, the lungs may absorb chemical forms that dissolve more easily and pass them into the bloodstream.

Once in the bloodstream, plutonium moves throughout the body and into the bones, liver, or other body organs. Plutonium that reaches body organs generally stays in the body for decades and continues to expose the surrounding tissue to radiation.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: How can plutonium affect people's health?

A: External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk, since plutonium isotopes emit alpha radiation, and almost no beta or gamma radiation. In contrast, internal exposure to plutonium is an extremely serious health hazard. It generally stays in the body for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation, and increasing the risk of cancer. Plutonium is also a toxic metal, and may cause damage to the kidneys.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: Is there a medical test to determine exposure to plutonium?

A: There are tests that can reliably measure the amount of plutonium in a urine sample, even at very low levels. Using these measurements, scientists can estimate the total amount of plutonium present in the body. Other tests can measure plutonium in soft tissues (such as body organs) and in feces, bones, and milk. However, these tests are not routinely available in a doctor's office because they require special laboratory equipment.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: What can I do to protect myself and my family from plutonium?

A: Since plutonium levels in the environment are very low, they pose little risk to most people. However, people who live near government weapons production or testing sites may have higher exposure.

Plutonium particles in dust are the greatest concern, because they pose the greatest health risk. People living near government weapons facilities can track radiation monitoring data made available by site personnel. If radiation levels rise, they should follow the radiation protection instructions given by site personnel.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: What is the EPA doing to protect us from plutonium?

A: EPA sets health-based limits on radiation in air, soil, and water. Federal government agencies are required to meet EPA standards the same as commercial industries. Using its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA limits the amount of radiation in community water systems by establishing maximum contaminant levels. Maximum Contaminant Levels limit the amount of activity from alpha emitters, like plutonium, to 15 picocuries per liter.

EPA also protects people against exposure from soil and ground water from sites that have been contaminated with plutonium. We set criteria that soil and ground water from the sites must meet before releasing the sites for public use.

Rather than limiting the concentration of plutonium itself, the criteria limit the cancer risk the sites pose. A person's added risk of developing cancer is limited to no more than about 1-in-10,000 and if possible to 1-in-1,000,000, or less. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA limits the dose to humans from radionuclides to 10 millirem from emissions to air.

Additional Information: EPA sets standards for radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities. We can't treat plutonium or other radioactive materials to get rid of their radioactivity. We can only isolate and store them until they decay. The extremely long half-lives of some plutonium radioisotopes make the management of spent nuclear fuel, and wastes from nuclear weapons facilities a difficult problem.

One of EPA's responsibilities has been to develop public health and safety standards for the two major U.S. nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico stores transuranic wastes. They range from slightly contaminated clothing to barrels of waste so radioactive that it can only be handled with remote control equipment. The proposed Yucca Mountain repository is designed to store high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.

EPA also responds to radiation emergencies. Additionally, EPA helps state and local governments during emergencies that involve radioactive materials. We provide guidance on ways to protect people from harmful exposure to radiation. We can also monitor radiation levels in the environment and assess the threat to public health. We also work with international radiation protection organizations to prepare for large scale foreign emergencies such as Chernobyl. EPA also works with law enforcement agencies to develop counter terrorism plans.
Source: Plutonium | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Q: What is the difference between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear reactor?

A: * Nuclear Fission: In nuclear fission, the nuclei of atoms are split, causing energy to be released. The atomic bomb and nuclear reactors work by fission. The element uranium is the main fuel used to undergo nuclear fission to produce energy since it has many favorable properties. Uranium nuclei can be easily split by shooting neutrons at them. Also, once a uranium nucleus is split, multiple neutrons are released which are used to split other uranium nuclei. This phenomenon is known as a chain reaction.

Nuclear Fusion: In nuclear fusion, the nuclei of atoms are joined together, or fused. This happens only under very hot conditions. The Sun, like all other stars, creates heat and light through nuclear fusion. In the Sun, hydrogen nuclei fuse to make helium. The hydrogen bomb, humanity's most powerful and destructive weapon, also works by fusion. The heat required to start the fusion reaction is so great that an atomic bomb is used to provide it. Hydrogen nuclei fuse to form helium and in the process release huge amounts of energy thus producing a huge explosion.
Source: Nuclear Energy

Q: What are the advantages of nuclear energy?

A: o The Earth has limited supplies of coal and oil. Nuclear power plants could still produce electricity after coal and oil become scarce.

o Nuclear power plants need less fuel than ones which burn fossil fuels. One ton of uranium produces more energy than is produced by several million tons of coal or several million barrels of oil.

o Coal and oil burning plants pollute the air. Well-operated nuclear power plants do not release contaminants into the environment.
Source: Nuclear Energy

Q: What are the disadvantages of nuclear energy?

A: * Nuclear explosions produce radiation. The nuclear radiation harms the cells of the body which can make people sick or even kill them. Illness can strike people years after their exposure to nuclear radiation.
* One possible type of reactor disaster is known as a meltdown. In such an accident, the fission reaction goes out of control, leading to a nuclear explosion and the emission of great amounts of radiation.
o In 1979, the cooling system failed at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Radiation leaked, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee. The problem was solved minutes before a total meltdown would have occurred. Fortunately, there were no deaths.
o In 1986, a much worse disaster struck Russia's Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In this incident, a large amount of radiation escaped from the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the radiation. Several dozen died within a few days. In the years to come, thousands more may die of cancers induced by the radiation.
* Nuclear reactors also have waste disposal problems. Reactors produce nuclear waste products which emit dangerous radiation. Because they could kill people who touch them, they cannot be thrown away like ordinary garbage. Currently, many nuclear wastes are stored in special cooling pools at the nuclear reactors.
o The United States plans to move its nuclear waste to a remote underground dump by the year 2010.
o In 1957, at a dump site in Russia's Ural Mountains, several hundred miles from Moscow, buried nuclear wastes mysteriously exploded, killing dozens of people.
* Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years.
Source: Nuclear Energy

Q: How does a nuclear reactor work?

A: Most nuclear reactors, including those at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi generating station, are essentially high-tech kettles that efficiently boil water to produce electricity. They rely on harnessing nuclear fission—the splitting of an atom into two smaller atoms, which also yields heat and sends neutrons flying. If another atom absorbs one of those neutrons, the atom becomes unstable and undergoes fission itself, releasing more heat and more neutrons. The chain reaction becomes self-sustaining, producing a steady supply of heat to boil water, drive steam turbines and thereby generate electricity.
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American

Q: How much electricity does nuclear power provide in Japan and elsewhere?

A: With 54 nuclear reactors generating 280 billion kilowatt-hours annually, Japan is the world's third-largest producer of nuclear power, after the U.S. and France, according to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Fukushima Daiichi station, which has been hit hard by the March 11 earthquake, houses six of those reactors, all of which came online in the 1970s.

Worldwide, nuclear energy accounts for about 15 percent of electricity generation; Japan gets nearly 30 percent of its electricity from its nuclear plants. The U.S. produces more nuclear power overall, but nuclear constitutes a smaller share of its energy portfolio. About 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from nuclear power plants, making it the third-largest source of electricity in the country after coal (45 percent) and natural gas (23 percent).
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American

Q: What fuels a nuclear reactor?

A: Most nuclear reactors use uranium fuel that has been "enriched" in uranium 235, an isotope of uranium that fissions readily. (Isotopes are variants of elements with different atomic masses.) Uranium 238 is much more common in nature than uranium 235 but does not fission well, so fuel manufacturers boost the uranium 235 content to a few percent, which is enough to maintain a continuous fission reaction and generate electricity. Enriched uranium is manufactured into fuel rods that are encased in metal cladding made of alloys such as zirconium.

Reactor No. 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi station runs on so-called mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, in which uranium is mixed with other fissile materials such as plutonium from spent reactor fuel or from decommissioned nuclear weapons.
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American

Q: How do you turn off a nuclear reaction?

A: Sustained nuclear fission reactions rely on the passing of neutrons from one atom to another—the neutrons released in one atom's fissioning trigger the fissioning of the next atom. The way to cut off a fission chain reaction, then, is to intercept the neutrons. Nuclear reactors utilize control rods made from elements such as cadmium, boron or hafnium, all of which are efficient neutron absorbers. When the reactor malfunctions or when operators need to shut off the reactor for any other reason technicians can remotely plunge control rods into the reactor core to soak up neutrons and shut down the nuclear reaction.
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American

Q:
Can a reactor melt down once the nuclear reaction is stopped?


A: Even after the control rods have done their job and arrested the fission reaction the fuel rods retain a great deal of heat. What is more, the uranium atoms that have already split in two produce radioactive by-products that themselves give off a great deal of heat. So the reactor core continues to produce heat in the absence of fissioning.

If the rest of the reactor is operating normally, pumps will continue to circulate coolant (usually water) to carry away the reactor core's heat. In Japan the March 11 earthquake and tsunami caused blackouts that cut off the externally sourced AC power for the reactors' cooling system. According to published reports, backup diesel generators at the power plant failed shortly thereafter, leaving the reactors uncooled and in serious danger of overheating.

Without a steady coolant supply, a hot reactor core will continuously boil off the water surrounding it until the fuel is no longer immersed. If fuel rods remain uncovered, they may begin to melt, and hot, radioactive fuel can pool at the bottom of the vessel containing the reactor. In a worst-case meltdown scenario the puddle of hot fuel could melt through the steel containment vessel and through subsequent barriers meant to contain the nuclear material, exposing massive quantities of radioactivity to the outside world.
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American

Q: How can a meltdown be averted?

A: The Japanese plant's operators have made a number of attempts to cool the reactors, including pumping seawater into the reactor core to replenish the dwindling cooling fluid. The Tokyo Electric Power Company has also injected boric acid, an absorber of neutrons, into the reactors.
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American

Q:
How does this incident compare with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?


A: At present, three of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi station are seriously crippled. Units 1 and 3 have experienced explosions that destroyed exterior walls, apparently from buildups of hydrogen gas produced by the zirconium in the fuel rods reacting with coolant water at extremely high temperatures—but the interior containment vessels there thus far seem to be intact. A third explosion was reported March 15 at reactor No. 2, and the situation there appears direr. Pressure in the suppression pool—a doughnut-shaped water vessel below the reactor—dropped after the explosion, indicating that the containment vessel had been compromised.

In reactor Nos. 1, 2 and 3 water levels dropped enough to leave the fuel assemblies temporarily uncovered; those fuel rods are presumed to have suffered damage. And a fire at a pool storing spent fuel rods at dormant reactor No. 4 is posing additional hazards to the few workers remaining at the site.

Japanese officials initially rated the incident a level 4, an "accident with local consequences," on the seven-tier International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), but Princeton University physicist Frank von Hippel told The New York Times that the Fukushima Daiichi situation is "way past Three Mile Island already." Three Mile Island, the highest-profile U.S. nuclear accident, was classified level 5—an "accident with wider consequences".

At that Pennsylvania nuclear station in 1979 a cooling malfunction combined with worker error led to a partial meltdown—about half of the reactor core melted and formed a radioactive puddle at the bottom of the steel pressure vessel. The vessel remained intact, but some radiation did escape from the plant into the surrounding environment.

The 1986 Chernobyl accident was far more devastating; it rates as a 7, or a "major accident," on the INES scale. In Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, a power surge caused an explosion in one of the plant's reactors, releasing huge doses of radioactive fallout into the air. Two plant workers died within hours, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 28 more died in the following months from radiation poisoning. The fallout from Chernobyl was widespread, and the health effects of the disaster are difficult to quantify. A report from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation found that 6,000 individuals who were under the age of 18 in Ukraine, Belarus or Russia at the time of the disaster had by 2006 contracted thyroid cancer, "a substantial fraction" of whom likely contracted the disease due to radiation exposure.
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American

Q: How is a nuclear plant decommissioned?


A: Because the answer to this is actually quite lengthy, a full explanation of the process can be found here: NRC: Fact Sheet on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

That is all I have time to answer but if anyone here has a question that can be answered or has an answer to share to a question please post or if you have a question and an answer that you think should be shared, please post it as well.

I am not trying to sway anyone from nuclear power has I understand it has it's advantages as well as disadvantages, but my hope is that with a little information sharing maybe we can have a better understanding of what is happening in Japan and have a lesser 'freak out' reaction.

I apologize for the lengthy post, but when it comes to nuclear energy and it's processes, there's seldom a short explanation.

Have a good day,
-Dix
 
Wirelessly posted (sent from a smartphone. )

1 ton of nuclear fuel rods vs few million tons of coal or million barrels of oil to produce electricity. Big difference for sure. I learned that plutonium and uranium come from nature. Plutonium only in trace amounts.
 
Last edited:
Q: What are the disadvantages of nuclear energy?

A: * Nuclear explosions produce radiation. The nuclear radiation harms the cells of the body which can make people sick or even kill them. Illness can strike people years after their exposure to nuclear radiation.
* One possible type of reactor disaster is known as a meltdown. In such an accident, the fission reaction goes out of control, leading to a nuclear explosion and the emission of great amounts of radiation.
o In 1979, the cooling system failed at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Radiation leaked, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee. The problem was solved minutes before a total meltdown would have occurred. Fortunately, there were no deaths.
o In 1986, a much worse disaster struck Russia's Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In this incident, a large amount of radiation escaped from the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the radiation. Several dozen died within a few days. In the years to come, thousands more may die of cancers induced by the radiation.
* Nuclear reactors also have waste disposal problems. Reactors produce nuclear waste products which emit dangerous radiation. Because they could kill people who touch them, they cannot be thrown away like ordinary garbage. Currently, many nuclear wastes are stored in special cooling pools at the nuclear reactors.
o The United States plans to move its nuclear waste to a remote underground dump by the year 2010.
o In 1957, at a dump site in Russia's Ural Mountains, several hundred miles from Moscow, buried nuclear wastes mysteriously exploded, killing dozens of people.
* Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years.
Source: Nuclear Energy

I have a bit problem with that.

"Nuclear Explosion"... it's bit misleading. What happened at Fukushima wasn't a "nuclear explosion". It was the result of massive build-up of pressure & intense heat that led to hydrogen explosion.... "thar she blows"....

it's so hot that it can separate hydrogen from steam due to partial meltdown. One little spark... it goes boom. This happened at 3 Miles Island too.

Nuclear material used at nuclear power plant... it can never explode like nuclear weapon. it's not the same thing. 2 completely different things.
 
another one -

Q: How do you turn off a nuclear reaction?

A: Sustained nuclear fission reactions rely on the passing of neutrons from one atom to another—the neutrons released in one atom's fissioning trigger the fissioning of the next atom. The way to cut off a fission chain reaction, then, is to intercept the neutrons. Nuclear reactors utilize control rods made from elements such as cadmium, boron or hafnium, all of which are efficient neutron absorbers. When the reactor malfunctions or when operators need to shut off the reactor for any other reason technicians can remotely plunge control rods into the reactor core to soak up neutrons and shut down the nuclear reaction.
Source: What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?: Scientific American
simple answer - you can never turn it off. period. you can only slow down its chain reaction but you can never turn it off. Look at Chernobyl. It's still churning heat and radiation. Right now - they're planning to put a giant cap on it but that poses another problem. Since radiation is so intense in that area... how are helicopters or people going to do it? So a logical solution is to just leave it alone for future generation to come up with new technology to fix it.

At Fukushima power plants, the control rods were already inserted at the first sign of earthquake but the reactor will continue to produce heat (but less heat than without control rod in). But the problem is - backup power and redundancy system have ceased to work to keep cooling system running. the only way out of this situation is get the cooling system running back again... which is what Fukushima 50 will attempt to do so.

Meanwhile - the government is working on setting up power line all the way to nuclear power plant... thru impassable roads... for hundreds of miles...

and helicopters are dumping water on it.... utterly useless because the water would quickly dissipate from intense heat before it even gets near the reactor.

this situation is bleak... very bleak.... :(
 
Wirelessly posted (sent from a smartphone. )

Do bugs that can eat radioactive materials exist? I am not sure if thats true. It is difficult to dispose wasted nuclear fuel rods cheaply and safely, sucks.
 
Do bugs that can eat radioactive materials exist?
ah yes I've heard of some organisms that can eat radioactive material. It's some microbes. But... it's purely experimental. I don't know if it can be used for Fukushima in case of meltdown but I doubt it.

I am not sure if thats true. It is difficult to dispose wasted nuclear fuel rods cheaply and safely, sucks.
yup. That's why we just "sweep" them under the carpet (Yucca Mountain). Hopefully - our future generation can come up with a better way to dispose it before shit happens. I don't want to imagine what's gonna happen if Yucca Mountain was filled to capacity and some accident happened :Ohno:

It would make Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters looks like a cute volcano science experiment :Ohno:
 
What I want to know is how it will affect the United States. I must research it....
 
What I want to know is how it will affect the United States. I must research it....

no need to research. Simply look at what happened to USA after Chernobyl and 3-Miles Island disasters.

we moved on. we lived on. and we forgot about it already (till now). and we'll forget about Fukushima too.

sad, huh?
 
no need to research. Simply look at what happened to USA after Chernobyl and 3-Miles Island disasters.

we moved on. we lived on. and we forgot about it already (till now). and we'll forget about Fukushima too.

sad, huh?

I was barley one when that happened and didn't know about it "til now" but a quick wiki search tells me that it had no impact on America. Thanks!
 
I was barley one when that happened and didn't know about it "til now" but a quick wiki search tells me that it had no impact on America. Thanks!

well it did have an impact on USA..... and the world. All nuclear accidents are an international crisis. But we get over it quickly and move on.

Whatever happens at Fukushima... we'll move on and learn from it...... and continue to build more nuclear power plants :)
 
well it did have an impact on USA..... and the world. All nuclear accidents are an international crisis. But we get over it quickly and move on.

Whatever happens at Fukushima... we'll move on and learn from it...... and continue to build more nuclear power plants :)

I'm sure you're right but wiki made no mention of any effects (lasting or not) on America.. Just Russia and other neighboring countries.
 
I'm sure you're right but wiki made no mention of any effects (lasting or not) on America.. Just Russia and other neighboring countries.

lol I wouldn't look at wiki for an answer to your question
 
lol I wouldn't look at wiki for an answer to your question

I like wiki... I understand why you said that. The info may not always be 100% accurate but for a website where anybody can add anything, it's pretty damn good. But I like how it's structured and organized. I'm a wiki fan.
 
lol I wouldn't look at wiki for an answer to your question

"Since Wikipedia is open to correction by anyone, it stands to reason that the articles attracting more potential editors will be of a higher quality. Rather than a failure, this is a great demonstration of Wikipedia's efficient allocation of resources. The project, like any other, has a finite amount of productivity to apply to its various activities. It is a positive thing that those articles in greatest demand — those about topics of popular curiosity — would be the ones that are the most complete and reliable.

The entire system, which is fabulously complex and robust to the contributing editor, is remarkably simple for the basic user, who only wants to find data on an unfamiliar topic. So long as one exercises discretion in accepting information from Wikipedia, and so long as one's research extends beyond the Wikipedia article to the sources it cites, Wikipedia is an exceptional resource that is unique to our generation.
"
Mises Dailies
 
"Since Wikipedia is open to correction by anyone, it stands to reason that the articles attracting more potential editors will be of a higher quality. Rather than a failure, this is a great demonstration of Wikipedia's efficient allocation of resources. The project, like any other, has a finite amount of productivity to apply to its various activities. It is a positive thing that those articles in greatest demand — those about topics of popular curiosity — would be the ones that are the most complete and reliable.

The entire system, which is fabulously complex and robust to the contributing editor, is remarkably simple for the basic user, who only wants to find data on an unfamiliar topic. So long as one exercises discretion in accepting information from Wikipedia, and so long as one's research extends beyond the Wikipedia article to the sources it cites, Wikipedia is an exceptional resource that is unique to our generation.
"
Mises Dailies

oh no.... not another wikipedia debate again! :giggle:

but the problem is - what you read now may contain errors which will be corrected at later time so misinformation & confusion spreads from there. If I forget something, then I'll refer to wiki as a quick reminder on knowledge I already know.

I like wiki... I understand why you said that. The info may not always be 100% accurate but for a website where anybody can add anything, it's pretty damn good. But I like how it's structured and organized. I'm a wiki fan.
For something technical especially nuclear-related, I'd refer to actual source like NRC, IAEA, or any nuclear engineering-related sites. If you're gonna spend time to read wiki on that subject, why not read the actual source? It boggles me to why people would refer to wiki on complex subject when it's known to have erroneous information. :dizzy:
 
The US is already suffering the effects.... Seen the stock market? Up today but still down overall.

Will radiation reach the West Coast? obama says no so I am guessing yes. Surgeon General was here in the bay yesterday and said getting iodine tablets would not be an over reaction..... Whatever that means. Some Austrian folks are saying we will get hit this weekend by a cloud. But our own science dudes say no way.

100% truthful answer.....drumroll please.....

Nobody F'ing knows.
My advice.....call your folks, hug your kids and walk your dogs. Then no matter what happens your covered
 
oh no.... not another wikipedia debate again! :giggle:

but the problem is - what you read now may contain errors which will be corrected at later time so misinformation & confusion spreads from there. If I forget something, then I'll refer to wiki as a quick reminder on knowledge I already know.


For something technical especially nuclear-related, I'd refer to actual source like NRC or IAEA. If you're gonna spend time to read wiki on that subject, why not read the actual source? It boggles me to why people would refer to wiki on complex subject when it's known to have erroneous information. :dizzy:

Because "wiki" (yay!!!!) is a fun word as opposed to boring acronyms like NRC or IAEA *yawn*

Kidding.. For serious projects that require totally factual info, I go straight to the source but when getting info I just kinda want to know, I google it and click whatever the top result is.
 
this is far better than wikipedia - MIT Nuclear Science & Engineering

this article is edited by MIT NSE - Fukushima Nuclear Accident
What happened at Fukushima (as of March 12, 2011)

The following is a summary of the main facts. The earthquake that hit Japan was several times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for (the Richter scale works logarithmically; for example the difference between an 8.2 and the 8.9 that happened is 5 times, not 0.7).

When the earthquake hit, the nuclear reactors all automatically shutdown. Within seconds after the earthquake started, the control rods had been inserted into the core and the nuclear chain reaction stopped. At this point, the cooling system has to carry away the residual heat, about 7% of the full power heat load under normal operating conditions.

The earthquake destroyed the external power supply of the nuclear reactor. This is a challenging accident for a nuclear power plant, and is referred to as a “loss of offsite power.” The reactor and its backup systems are designed to handle this type of accident by including backup power systems to keep the coolant pumps working. Furthermore, since the power plant had been shut down, it cannot produce any electricity by itself.

For the first hour, the first set of multiple emergency diesel power generators started and provided the electricity that was needed. However, when the tsunami arrived (a very rare and larger than anticipated tsunami) it flooded the diesel generators, causing them to fail.

One of the fundamental tenets of nuclear power plant design is “Defense in Depth.” This approach leads engineers to design a plant that can withstand severe catastrophes, even when several systems fail. A large tsunami that disables all the diesel generators at once is such a scenario, but the tsunami of March 11th was beyond all expectations. To mitigate such an event, engineers designed an extra line of defense by putting everything into the containment structure (see above), that is designed to contain everything inside the structure.

When the diesel generators failed after the tsunami, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backup systems to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did.

After 8 hours, the batteries ran out, and the residual heat could not be carried away any more. At this point the plant operators begin to follow emergency procedures that are in place for a “loss of cooling event.” These are procedural steps following the “Depth in Defense” approach. All of this, however shocking it seems to us, is part of the day-to-day training you go through as an operator.

At this time people started talking about the possibility of core meltdown, because if cooling cannot be restored, the core will eventually melt (after several days), and will likely be contained in the containment. Note that the term “meltdown” has a vague definition. “Fuel failure” is a better term to describe the failure of the fuel rod barrier (Zircaloy). This will occur before the fuel melts, and results from mechanical, chemical, or thermal failures (too much pressure, too much oxidation, or too hot).

However, melting was a long ways from happening and at this time, the primary goal was to manage the core while it was heating up, while ensuring that the fuel cladding remain intact and operational for as long as possible.

Because cooling the core is a priority, the reactor has a number of independent and diverse cooling systems (the reactor water cleanup system, the decay heat removal, the reactor core isolating cooling, the standby liquid cooling system, and others that make up the emergency core cooling system). Which one(s) failed when or did not fail is not clear at this point in time.

Since the operators lost most of their cooling capabilities due to the loss of power, they had to use whatever cooling system capacity they had to get rid of as much heat as possible. But as long as the heat production exceeds the heat removal capacity, the pressure starts increasing as more water boils into steam. The priority now is to maintain the integrity of the fuel rods by keeping the temperature below 1200°C, as well as keeping the pressure at a manageable level. In order to maintain the pressure of the system at a manageable level, steam (and other gases present in the reactor) have to be released from time to time. This process is important during an accident so the pressure does not exceed what the components can handle, so the reactor pressure vessel and the containment structure are designed with several pressure relief valves. So to protect the integrity of the vessel and containment, the operators started venting steam from time to time to control the pressure.

As mentioned previously, steam and other gases are vented. Some of these gases are radioactive fission products, but they exist in small quantities. Therefore, when the operators started venting the system, some radioactive gases were released to the environment in a controlled manner (ie in small quantities through filters and scrubbers). While some of these gases are radioactive, they did not pose a significant risk to public safety to even the workers on site. This procedure is justified as its consequences are very low, especially when compared to the potential consequences of not venting and risking the containment structures’ integrity.

During this time, mobile generators were transported to the site and some power was restored. However, more water was boiling off and being vented than was being added to the reactor, thus decreasing the cooling ability of the remaining cooling systems. At some stage during this venting process, the water level may have dropped below the top of the fuel rods. Regardless, the temperature of some of the fuel rod cladding exceeded 1200 °C, initiating a reaction between the Zircaloy and water. This oxidizing reaction produces hydrogen gas, which mixes with the gas-steam mixture being vented. This is a known and anticipated process, but the amount of hydrogen gas produced was unknown because the operators didn’t know the exact temperature of the fuel rods or the water level. Since hydrogen gas is extremely combustible, when enough hydrogen gas is mixed with air, it reacts with oxygen. If there is enough hydrogen gas, it will react rapidly, producing an explosion. At some point during the venting process enough hydrogen gas built up inside the containment (there is no air in the containment), so when it was vented to the air an explosion occurred. The explosion took place outside of the containment, but inside and around the reactor building (which has no safety function). Note that a subsequent and similar explosion occurred at the Unit 3 reactor. This explosion destroyed the top and some of the sides of the reactor building, but did not damage the containment structure or the pressure vessel. While this was not an anticipated event, it happened outside the containment and did not pose a risk to the plant’s safety structures.

Since some of the fuel rod cladding exceeded 1200 °C, some fuel damage occurred. The nuclear material itself was still intact, but the surrounding Zircaloy shell had started failing. At this time, some of the radioactive fission products (cesium, iodine, etc.) started to mix with the water and steam. It was reported that a small amount of cesium and iodine was measured in the steam that was released into the atmosphere.

Since the reactor’s cooling capability was limited, and the water inventory in the reactor was decreasing, engineers decided to inject sea water (mixed with boric acid – a neutron absorber) to ensure the rods remain covered with water. Although the reactor had been shut down, boric acid is added as a conservative measure to ensure the reactor stays shut down. Boric acid is also capable of trapping some of the remaining iodine in the water so that it cannot escape, however this trapping is not the primary function of the boric acid.

The water used in the cooling system is purified, demineralized water. The reason to use pure water is to limit the corrosion potential of the coolant water during normal operation. Injecting seawater will require more cleanup after the event, but provided cooling at the time.

This process decreased the temperature of the fuel rods to a non-damaging level. Because the reactor had been shut down a long time ago, the decay heat had decreased to a significantly lower level, so the pressure in the plant stabilized, and venting was no longer required.

if you want to read about the construction of nuclear power plant and basic of nuclear reaction... click on the link above to read more about it.
 
The US is already suffering the effects.... Seen the stock market? Up today but still down overall.

Will radiation reach the West Coast? obama says no so I am guessing yes. Surgeon General was here in the bay yesterday and said getting iodine tablets would not be an over reaction..... Whatever that means. Some Austrian folks are saying we will get hit this weekend by a cloud. But our own science dudes say no way.

100% truthful answer.....drumroll please.....

Nobody F'ing knows.
My advice.....call your folks, hug your kids and walk your dogs. Then no matter what happens your covered

True, 30 billions was wiped off the Aussie market. Now the Aussie dollar is down just a tad bit *whimpers*

Who knows how far the radiation will go.....

Govt don't know what the truth is just like anyone else, I'm thinking. But if they do, then they and their families will be better prepared than majority of their citizens.

I'll be sure to gave my cat some lap time today. :)
 
this is far better than wikipedia - MIT Nuclear Science & Engineering

this article is edited by MIT NSE - Fukushima Nuclear Accident


if you want to read about the construction of nuclear power plant and basic of nuclear reaction... click on the link above to read more about it.

I don't want to read about the construction of a nuclear power plant. I just wanted to know how it will affect the people I know in California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. The NY Times says there's nothing to be concerned about. So that's that... For now, anyway :)
 
Back
Top