Comments on: Japan quake, tsunami, nuke news 01

By: John Macgregor

John Macgregor — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:11:33 +0000

Greg, any possibility of having a stab at what a worst case scenario would import for the people in different parts of Japan?

By: UPDATED...

UPDATED... — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:00:42 +0000

Just in case you didn’t notice, I’m putting headlines and some brief snippets as they happen at the end of this post a couple of times a day, for the purpose of showing the march of news across time in particular in relation to the Nuke situation and the death toll.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:50 +0000

“The tsunami seems to have been far more of a danger than the nuclear plant.”

Laura, the sun exploding some day will be a far more important danger than, say, someone mugging you, taking your stuff, and beating you up. So, it’s OK if that happens to you, right? (Not to me, it’s not. I want you protected by a civil society.)

I’m seeing this absurd comparison made in a number of places and I’m starting to think these are Nuke-industry talking points going around. I won’t have it unchallenged here.

By: Samantha Vimes

Samantha Vimes — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:47:34 +0000

Laura, I think it’s more that the tsunami came and went and there wasn’t a thing anyone could do. And if another big quake triggers another tsunami, not much can be done, either.
But the power stations are manmade and should be controllable. We want the truth, we want caution, we want the government and technicians to be able to handle it. There’s at least a sense that our attention does something, by putting pressure on the right people. What I’m saying is, it’s a useful trait, usually, to direct our attention to things that we can influence rather than things we can’t. So we talk about the power plant, not the tsunami and volcano.

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:20:16 +0000

The tsunami seems to have been far more of a danger than the nuclear plant. I doubt the people in Sendai and places like that were able to get out before the tsunami.
But, humans like water and find it cool, even in giant amounts and moving fast. While nuclear power we think is of the Devil, having seen it used in war.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:23:32 +0000

Melting of cooling rods is not good. But the most important thing is the containment vessel.

By: Maureen Lycaon

Maureen Lycaon — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:30:45 +0000

Japan's nuclear power operator has checkered past: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-nuclear-operator-idUSTRE72B1B420110312 (Reuters story)

By: Ana

Ana — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:17:42 +0000

Bill Nye thinks the situation is much worse than the government would have us believe.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:49:12 +0000

Maybe, but the design of these reactors is different. The containment vessel is fairly wimpy compared to TMI.

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:10:19 +0000

Hydrogen is also produced by ionizing radiation in water.

If the containment structure remains intact, there likely won’t be much release of radioactivity, even if the core does melt.

In TMI there was core melting and very little radiation release. I think this will be less serious than TMI was.

The fuel has to get very hot to melt. I don’t think there is a chance of that now because the decay heat is much lower than it was at first.