Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-22/japan-pictures-likely-show-melted-fukushima-fuel-for-first-time
127 comments
A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management of nuclear, and when things do go wrong with fossil fuels they don't have the same potential to go quite so spectacularly bad. Yes an oil spill can affect a large area, but you don't get harmful particles washing up on the coast of the US from a spill in Japan in the same way, for example.
The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out.
Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say, eh, at least it doesn't go badly wrong like nuclear does.
Put another way: coal kills more people each year than nuclear ever has over its entire history, including the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.
And yes, you do get harmful particles on the coast of the US from activity in Asia:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094/...
People are suffering and dying from fossil fuel pollution emitted half a world away. Pollution from Fukushima can only be detected on the US west coast with the most sensitive instruments, and has no health effects.
Nuclear isn't perfect, but if you want to compare it with fossil fuels, you need to look at the constant deadly impact of fossil fuels, not merely look at big splashy accidents.
Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say, eh, at least it doesn't go badly wrong like nuclear does.
Put another way: coal kills more people each year than nuclear ever has over its entire history, including the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.
And yes, you do get harmful particles on the coast of the US from activity in Asia:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094/...
People are suffering and dying from fossil fuel pollution emitted half a world away. Pollution from Fukushima can only be detected on the US west coast with the most sensitive instruments, and has no health effects.
Nuclear isn't perfect, but if you want to compare it with fossil fuels, you need to look at the constant deadly impact of fossil fuels, not merely look at big splashy accidents.
Furthermore, coal releases more radiation into the environment than nuclear power.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
All that shows is people are spectacularly bad at assessing risks. Many people, for example, are terrified that what happened in today's headline will happen to them. But the reason it is a headline is it is rare. The mundane deadly things that are very likely to happen to you are not reported in the paper.
The thing that always fascinates me is how people constantly bring up the long lifespan of nuclear waste, while ignoring the essentially infinite lifespan of many forms of toxic chemical pollution.
Tell people that the mercury that comes out of a coal plant will outlast the Earth itself, and you get a shrug. Tell them that nuclear waste will remain dangerous for 10,000 years and suddenly it's a Big Problem that needs Extraordinary Measures in order to Safeguard Future Civilizations.
Tell people that the mercury that comes out of a coal plant will outlast the Earth itself, and you get a shrug. Tell them that nuclear waste will remain dangerous for 10,000 years and suddenly it's a Big Problem that needs Extraordinary Measures in order to Safeguard Future Civilizations.
The other thing about a half-life of 10,000 years is it means the actual radiation is very, very small. If it was large, it wouldn't last 10,000 years.
The way to make nuclear waste safe is not to concentrate it and bury it. It's to disperse it in such low concentrations that it doesn't make any difference.
The way to make nuclear waste safe is not to concentrate it and bury it. It's to disperse it in such low concentrations that it doesn't make any difference.
That's too far the other way. Material that's safe in 10,000 years (which means the half-life is significantly less) is highly active and not something you want to hang out with unless it's shielded. The longer-lived stuff isn't all that great either when it gets inside you. Being near a bunch of uranium is fine, but breathing it in is considerably less fine.
Several countries tried your approach around the middle of the last century, pulverizing large amounts of radioactive material and dispersing it into the atmosphere. The results weren't catastrophic, but thousands did die from it.
We shouldn't be irrationally fearful of nuclear waste, but we shouldn't be completely blase about it either. The stuff is dangerous... just not dangerous on a level beyond anything else out there, the way many treat it.
Several countries tried your approach around the middle of the last century, pulverizing large amounts of radioactive material and dispersing it into the atmosphere. The results weren't catastrophic, but thousands did die from it.
We shouldn't be irrationally fearful of nuclear waste, but we shouldn't be completely blase about it either. The stuff is dangerous... just not dangerous on a level beyond anything else out there, the way many treat it.
There's also a considerable difference between the poisonous chemical properties of heavy metals, which will persist, and their radioactive danger.
..you also need to consider that we still have no proven way of handling high level waste, and that nuclear accidents can render huge areas completely unusable for decades, and that clean up of nuclear sites can consume utterly huge amounts of money. The same is not true of fossil fuels. Also don't discount the utterly huge amounts of energy required to construct, operate, and decommission nuclear plants. Nuclear industry apologists often conveniently exclude these from their analyses.
I don't see that you have refuted my point - you just have to look at the record (thousands of nuclear incidents worldwide over decades) to see that humanity apparently is not capable of safely using nuclear, and I'm sceptical that the benefits in terms of reduced exigencies are as great as is often claimed. And personally I'd far rather have the damage spread out over a wide area if it means we don't have to every now and then throw away all the milk in Wales for years and distribute iodine tablets to thousands..
I don't see that you have refuted my point - you just have to look at the record (thousands of nuclear incidents worldwide over decades) to see that humanity apparently is not capable of safely using nuclear, and I'm sceptical that the benefits in terms of reduced exigencies are as great as is often claimed. And personally I'd far rather have the damage spread out over a wide area if it means we don't have to every now and then throw away all the milk in Wales for years and distribute iodine tablets to thousands..
If you look at the record, you see that fossil power is vastly more dangerous.
Do you really prefer killing a million people a year, every year, to "every now and then" throwing away all the milk in Wales, just because the million deaths are spread out? I can't fathom this.
Do you really prefer killing a million people a year, every year, to "every now and then" throwing away all the milk in Wales, just because the million deaths are spread out? I can't fathom this.
By some analyses the C02 output of nuclear is on a par with fossil fuels once the whole cycle is taken into account. Let's not forget that uranium has to be dug out of the ground, processed etc., power plants built which generally uses a lot of concrete, big holes dug in the ground to put the waste into (since we have no good way of reprocessing much of this waste). None of this comes cheap in C02 terms. I get it, you love nuclear, but supporters of nuclear often conveniently ignore.
I don't think that's a fair comparison.
To me (and I suspect to many others), the huge difference lies in the indelibility of the damages of nuclear power.
Sure, coal might kill a million people a year, but the remnants of a nuclear incident will remain for thousands of years and affect hundreds of generations after that, in ways we don't even fully understand yet.
To me (and I suspect to many others), the huge difference lies in the indelibility of the damages of nuclear power.
Sure, coal might kill a million people a year, but the remnants of a nuclear incident will remain for thousands of years and affect hundreds of generations after that, in ways we don't even fully understand yet.
How long will the mercury, arsenic, and other nasty pollutants emitted by coal plants stick around? What strange effects will they cause on hundreds of future generations?
For example, children and pregnant women are warned to be careful about the fish they eat because of mercury contamination. A large part of that mercury contamination comes from burning coal. That's food from 70% of the planet rendered partially unfit for human consumption by coal.
There's nothing like that for nuclear. Yes, you should avoid food grown around Chernobyl, and there have been incidents where farmers had to dump milk for a while and things like that, but no nuclear accident has ever (nor could one ever conceivably) contaminate food from so much of the planet so badly.
For example, children and pregnant women are warned to be careful about the fish they eat because of mercury contamination. A large part of that mercury contamination comes from burning coal. That's food from 70% of the planet rendered partially unfit for human consumption by coal.
There's nothing like that for nuclear. Yes, you should avoid food grown around Chernobyl, and there have been incidents where farmers had to dump milk for a while and things like that, but no nuclear accident has ever (nor could one ever conceivably) contaminate food from so much of the planet so badly.
What about when Japan dumps all the contaminated water into the ocean, what, do I just move to a different planet?
I'm in no ways a defender or a supporter of coal here; I think we should be moving to clean energies as fast as we can. Still, the damages from nuclear catastrophes are orders of magnitude bigger than those of coal, imo.
I'm in no ways a defender or a supporter of coal here; I think we should be moving to clean energies as fast as we can. Still, the damages from nuclear catastrophes are orders of magnitude bigger than those of coal, imo.
There are multiple nuclear reactors sunk into the ocean already. Japan could shove the entire Fukushima complex into the sea and it wouldn't come close to doing what coal has done to poison the oceans.
Note that even if you think radiation is particularly scary and vastly worse than chemical poisons, coal power plants emit many tons of uranium in addition to all the other nasty pollution.
What is your basis for that last statement? Coal: about a million deaths per year. Nuclear: about half a million ever, including weapons. Given that, how can you possibly say that damage from nuclear is orders of magnitude bigger?
Note that even if you think radiation is particularly scary and vastly worse than chemical poisons, coal power plants emit many tons of uranium in addition to all the other nasty pollution.
What is your basis for that last statement? Coal: about a million deaths per year. Nuclear: about half a million ever, including weapons. Given that, how can you possibly say that damage from nuclear is orders of magnitude bigger?
Have you calculated the dose you experience from that and the impact on life expectancy vs. coal?
The remnants of the Chernobyl accident, far worse than any other, do not affect the surrounding area anymore. Pripyat could be built up again if there was any interest.
Why only compare it with fossils fuels?
Because that's what the parent comment did. Obviously a full analysis should include all forms of power generation, but that comment compared fossil favorably to nuclear on the basis that its failures aren't so spectacular.
[deleted]
When a coal plant fails, it just turns off. When a nuclear plant fails, you've got to get the best people on Earth and tens of billions to contain (not fix) the problem, in one of the most advanced nations on Earth. It made a huge mess that spread to Europe when Chernobyl failed. If nuclear is wide spread, what happens when human incompetence causes a plant failure in a place like Nigeria or Venezuela?
Edit: also, I frequently hear this argument about coal, but it's not a choice between nuclear and coal. Nuclear advocates promote investment in nuclear, but if we were to invest huge amounts into new energy infrastructure, we might as well invest in renewables, rather than another dirty hard to manage source.
Edit: also, I frequently hear this argument about coal, but it's not a choice between nuclear and coal. Nuclear advocates promote investment in nuclear, but if we were to invest huge amounts into new energy infrastructure, we might as well invest in renewables, rather than another dirty hard to manage source.
Nuclear plants sometimes kill people when they fail. Coal plants kill vast numbers of people when they work. And the latter number is far, far larger than the former. Why is that an indictment of nuclear?
At least nuclear is possible to contain. It would cost vastly more than mere billions to contain the damage of coal. So no one even tries. And it has killed vastly more people.
But the news can't get flashy photos of areas destroyed by coal damage. It doesn't happen in big single events that the news likes to cover. So the damage seems basically invisible compared to nuclear. If the news reported on every death and environmental incident caused by coal et al, it would be banned within a year.
But the news can't get flashy photos of areas destroyed by coal damage. It doesn't happen in big single events that the news likes to cover. So the damage seems basically invisible compared to nuclear. If the news reported on every death and environmental incident caused by coal et al, it would be banned within a year.
You're forgetting about coal mining, which is one of the most life expectancy reducing occupations there is.
Furthermore, coal plants can and do explode - aerosolised coal dust goes with a bang.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
Furthermore, coal plants can and do explode - aerosolised coal dust goes with a bang.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
It's not just "well managed" nuclear that is better than fossil fuels. It's the use of nuclear entirely, including the horrible accidents, that is still better than burning fossil fuels.
We could have 100 more Fukushimas and not even touch the number of people who have died of respiratory conditions due to coal.
Please don't let the outsized, dramatic media stories about nuclear sway you. It's a viable, efficient, almost limitless power source that should be a major part of the world's energy mix.
We could have 100 more Fukushimas and not even touch the number of people who have died of respiratory conditions due to coal.
Please don't let the outsized, dramatic media stories about nuclear sway you. It's a viable, efficient, almost limitless power source that should be a major part of the world's energy mix.
Just because there isn't a single event to point at and say 'that is the cause' doesn't mean that the damage wasn't done.
Auto accidents probably kill a few orders of magnitude more people than a nuclear accident, yet you don't see the evangelical preachings against cars like you do nuclear.
The other forms of power need to be well managed also, and they historically have not. I don't need to go into detail about the huge amounts of pollution the power industry has generated.
What is worse? A handful of accidents that kill a few hundred people? Or several thousand people dying from various cancers and respiratory illnesses cause by decades of pollution from coal plants? Not to mention the dangers of mining it.
Current where I live there is a huge push towards natural gas due to the increased supply/decreased costs thanks to fracking. I don't think we have even begun to understand the environmental impact of fracking, yet industry has unanimously declared it safe. Another huge mismanagement of our environment, in my opinion.
Auto accidents probably kill a few orders of magnitude more people than a nuclear accident, yet you don't see the evangelical preachings against cars like you do nuclear.
The other forms of power need to be well managed also, and they historically have not. I don't need to go into detail about the huge amounts of pollution the power industry has generated.
What is worse? A handful of accidents that kill a few hundred people? Or several thousand people dying from various cancers and respiratory illnesses cause by decades of pollution from coal plants? Not to mention the dangers of mining it.
Current where I live there is a huge push towards natural gas due to the increased supply/decreased costs thanks to fracking. I don't think we have even begun to understand the environmental impact of fracking, yet industry has unanimously declared it safe. Another huge mismanagement of our environment, in my opinion.
> Yes an oil spill can affect a large area, but you don't get harmful particles washing up on the coast of the US from a spill in Japan in the same way, for example.
There is a natural level of background radiation, but it's not equal in all places. I think it's possible to detect some isotopes that crossed the ocean from Japan to USA, but if you compare the amount of additional radioactivity with the background level additional difference is tiny.
I'd like to give some tranquility with some numbers that compare the amount of additional radioactivity with other sources. (If you leave with someone, he/she is slightly radioactive. Some food are more radioactive than other. And other radiation sources like X-ray, CT, plane flight, sunbath ...)
Anyway, I prefer to post something to make you more nervous. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... Coal plants also emit a lot of radioactive particles that are distributed worldwide.
There is a natural level of background radiation, but it's not equal in all places. I think it's possible to detect some isotopes that crossed the ocean from Japan to USA, but if you compare the amount of additional radioactivity with the background level additional difference is tiny.
I'd like to give some tranquility with some numbers that compare the amount of additional radioactivity with other sources. (If you leave with someone, he/she is slightly radioactive. Some food are more radioactive than other. And other radiation sources like X-ray, CT, plane flight, sunbath ...)
Anyway, I prefer to post something to make you more nervous. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... Coal plants also emit a lot of radioactive particles that are distributed worldwide.
As you note, both nuclear and traditional energy can fail spectacularly (e.g., Brightwater Horizon,) but a good comparison of these events can be tricky. Particularly, for nuclear "harm," careful how much is real science vs how much is merely the scariness of radioactive materials; yes, scientists could detect radioactive caesium and iodine from Fukushima washing up on California, but there's orders of magnitude difference between what is "detectable" and has any real chance of effecting you.
I was going to point out something similar. Scientists can also detect the pollution from coal plants in China in California[1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/world/asia/china-also-exp...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/world/asia/china-also-exp...
Think about it as daily car crashes and pollution-related deaths versus an Airbus A380 full of people exploding live on prime time TV. I bet my ass people will keep talking about flight safety for weeks, non-stop, which is absolutely nonsensical. How many times you noticed people talking about the fossil fuels at a waiting line of a random place?
I am not pro nuclear, but fossil fuels are presently responsible for the active die off of the earths oceans and melting of its ice caps, id say things are being managed catastrophically poorly for those fuels as much if not worse than nuclear. Fall out zones like Chernobyl seem to have vibrant resurgent nature once people are gone. I am making a twisted argument I suppose for meltdowns, but all I'm trying to say is that this argument against nuclear applies just as devastatingly to everything but renewables.
Underground coal fires like the Centralia mine fire are an interesting and not as well known problem as oil spills.
> The fire is burning in underground coal mines at depths of up to 300 feet (90 m) over an 8-mile (13 km) stretch of 3,700 acres (15 km2). At its current rate, it could continue to burn for over 250 years.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire
> The fire is burning in underground coal mines at depths of up to 300 feet (90 m) over an 8-mile (13 km) stretch of 3,700 acres (15 km2). At its current rate, it could continue to burn for over 250 years.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire
The only nuclear accident that has killed any significant number of people was Chernobyl: which used the most dangerous reactor design that had ever existed, had tons of corners cut, was being operated by barely-trained staff, and the safeties were turned off temporarily. This was the Soviet Union, where failure could end in the manager's imprisonment in the GULAG or even death. As a result, it was not exactly run properly...
Today, Pripyat is perfectly safe except for the immediate vicinity of the reactor. People could live there.
Today, Pripyat is perfectly safe except for the immediate vicinity of the reactor. People could live there.
[deleted]
> fossil fuels they don't have the same potential to go quite so spectacularly bad
No, that's not quite right. In fact with all oil-based energy consumption, we get harmful particles. And its worse, because: oil-based consumption is massively distributed, and it is therefore harder to turn off.
Apropros management of energy, we humans are surrounded by free energy we haven't yet learned to manage. If we will perish because of oil-greed, then the lesson learned in all of this is that we must continue to go "local" in production and consumption.
(Myself, I'd be happy to transition to 100% solar-power, and I de-incentivize my own personal oil consumption, i.e. I ride a bicycle to work.)
No, that's not quite right. In fact with all oil-based energy consumption, we get harmful particles. And its worse, because: oil-based consumption is massively distributed, and it is therefore harder to turn off.
Apropros management of energy, we humans are surrounded by free energy we haven't yet learned to manage. If we will perish because of oil-greed, then the lesson learned in all of this is that we must continue to go "local" in production and consumption.
(Myself, I'd be happy to transition to 100% solar-power, and I de-incentivize my own personal oil consumption, i.e. I ride a bicycle to work.)
I've been pro-nuclear (fission) most of my life but I changed my opinion when I saw that Humanity can't manage when things go south.
Still waiting for nuclear fusion though.
Still waiting for nuclear fusion though.
[deleted]
Historically I was a supporter of nuclear power, but as time has gone on, I've been questioning this.
My belief in the technology hasn't changed. It's my belief in humanity that has faltered.
It's not the technology that needs improvement before it can be safely used.
My belief in the technology hasn't changed. It's my belief in humanity that has faltered.
It's not the technology that needs improvement before it can be safely used.
Probably far off in the future but assuming we perfect robotics and A.I. wouldn't it be possible to manage nuclear with no human-hands?
The thing then will be who takes responsibility for accidents caused by robots..
The thing then will be who takes responsibility for accidents caused by robots..
I'm not so optimistic:
* Fuckushima: A giant tsunami hit the plant, cut the external power lines and drawn the emergency generators. Not even waterproof robot will fix that. (You can blame bad design or not enough preparation, but robots will not solve that.)
* Chernobyl: They disable a few safety system to make some stupid tests. Apparently the safety system were necessary. If you can override the orders of the robots with a password, they will obey stupid orders. (You can blame bad design here too, to make the accident bigger.)
* Three Mile Island: Apparently it was partially an human error. Robots may have helped. (Let's blame also bad design a little.)
* Fuckushima: A giant tsunami hit the plant, cut the external power lines and drawn the emergency generators. Not even waterproof robot will fix that. (You can blame bad design or not enough preparation, but robots will not solve that.)
* Chernobyl: They disable a few safety system to make some stupid tests. Apparently the safety system were necessary. If you can override the orders of the robots with a password, they will obey stupid orders. (You can blame bad design here too, to make the accident bigger.)
* Three Mile Island: Apparently it was partially an human error. Robots may have helped. (Let's blame also bad design a little.)
You have to be aware that Japan government took a very unprofessional approach to this disaster.
Attributing the damage of this to general nuclear accident is inappropriate.
Attributing the damage of this to general nuclear accident is inappropriate.
Keep in mind that the death toll from Fukushima was zero.
There are other considerations than immediate direct deaths.
From Wikipedia:
> though there have been no fatalities linked to radiation due to the accident, the eventual number of cancer deaths, according to the linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety, that will be caused by the accident is expected to be around 130–640 people in the years and decades ahead...in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher relative risk of developing thyroid cancer for females exposed as infants...
> However, an estimated 1,600 deaths are believed to have occurred due to the resultant evacuation conditions...
> Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.
> We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years – not because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big.
> A frozen soil barrier has been constructed in an attempt to prevent further contamination of seeping groundwater, but in July 2016 TEPCO revealed that the ice wall had failed to stop groundwater from flowing in and mixing with highly radioactive water inside the wrecked reactor buildings, adding that they are "technically incapable of blocking off groundwater with the frozen wall"...every day 300 tons of contaminated water leak from the crippled nuclear plant...
> On 22 August 2011, a government spokesman mentioned the possibility that some areas around the plant "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone".
> The amount of compensation to be paid by TEPCO is expected to reach 7 trillion yen. Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion). In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate.
> In 2014 Japan enacted the State Secrecy Law. The Fukushima incident falls under this law and, as a "state secret", independent investigations and reports are forbidden by law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
From Wikipedia:
> though there have been no fatalities linked to radiation due to the accident, the eventual number of cancer deaths, according to the linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety, that will be caused by the accident is expected to be around 130–640 people in the years and decades ahead...in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher relative risk of developing thyroid cancer for females exposed as infants...
> However, an estimated 1,600 deaths are believed to have occurred due to the resultant evacuation conditions...
> Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.
> We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years – not because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big.
> A frozen soil barrier has been constructed in an attempt to prevent further contamination of seeping groundwater, but in July 2016 TEPCO revealed that the ice wall had failed to stop groundwater from flowing in and mixing with highly radioactive water inside the wrecked reactor buildings, adding that they are "technically incapable of blocking off groundwater with the frozen wall"...every day 300 tons of contaminated water leak from the crippled nuclear plant...
> On 22 August 2011, a government spokesman mentioned the possibility that some areas around the plant "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone".
> The amount of compensation to be paid by TEPCO is expected to reach 7 trillion yen. Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion). In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate.
> In 2014 Japan enacted the State Secrecy Law. The Fukushima incident falls under this law and, as a "state secret", independent investigations and reports are forbidden by law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
> ...are "technically incapable of blocking off groundwater with the frozen wall"...every day 300 tons of contaminated water leak from the crippled nuclear plant...
That article is out of date. The frozen wall has been working for quite a while but TEPCO wasn't (isn't) allowed to completely close it.
June 29, 2017
I would also like to give a pointer to the "Fukushima Accident Updates" blog-page at hiroshimasyndrome.com. It collects and summarizes a lot of Japanse news and updates concerning Fukishima and related on a regular basis that will never reach the mainstream/ international press.
http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates....
That article is out of date. The frozen wall has been working for quite a while but TEPCO wasn't (isn't) allowed to completely close it.
June 29, 2017
Tepco applies to the NRA for permission to finish the Fukushima Daiichi ice wall. Closure of the wall has been throttled down by Tokyo’s Nuclear Regulation Authority due to fears concerning groundwater outside the turbine buildings falling below the level of water inside. Tepco has been forced to freeze the last half-dozen seven-meter-wide sections individually, wait to see what it does to external groundwater levels, and then proceed to the next section if groundwater level is maintained according to plan. One section on the inland side of the 1.5 kilometer ice structure is all that needs to be activated to complete the wall. To date, the sequential closure of Tokyo-mandated gaps has dropped the groundwater influx from 400 tons per day down to about 100 tons per day. No projections are being made as to how much more the in-flow will abate after the last part of the wall is frozen.
I would also like to give a pointer to the "Fukushima Accident Updates" blog-page at hiroshimasyndrome.com. It collects and summarizes a lot of Japanse news and updates concerning Fukishima and related on a regular basis that will never reach the mainstream/ international press.
http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates....
> We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years – not because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big.
In other words, nuclear accident is (pardon the Orwellianism) so un-dangerous that "fear of radioactivity" is more lethal than radioactivity itself.
Another way to put it is: when I see a group of anti-nuclear activists posing with children of Fukushima prefecture, asking "How long can they live?", it makes me shake my fist with anger, because they are literally harming these children more than the nuclear accident itself.
In other words, nuclear accident is (pardon the Orwellianism) so un-dangerous that "fear of radioactivity" is more lethal than radioactivity itself.
Another way to put it is: when I see a group of anti-nuclear activists posing with children of Fukushima prefecture, asking "How long can they live?", it makes me shake my fist with anger, because they are literally harming these children more than the nuclear accident itself.
Compare that number to the number who died in or were displaced by the tsunami.
To the parent's point, this is entirely untrue. The yakuza colluded with the energy companies to round to their debtors and homeless people to clean up contamination.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ho...
https://www.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE9BT00520131230
The idea that they all escaped unscathed with no impact on their health or some weren't simply "offed" for being uncooperative is laughable on its face.
That there were no deaths associated with Fukushima is only possible if you accept a demonstrably false construction of the energy industry in Japan that ignores its intersection with organized crime and government corruption, which is something that goes back decades.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ho...
https://www.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE9BT00520131230
The idea that they all escaped unscathed with no impact on their health or some weren't simply "offed" for being uncooperative is laughable on its face.
That there were no deaths associated with Fukushima is only possible if you accept a demonstrably false construction of the energy industry in Japan that ignores its intersection with organized crime and government corruption, which is something that goes back decades.
Let me rephrase that: "Keep in mind that more people were killed by organized crime making a buck off the disaster, than by the disaster itself."
See: global warming. Things are about to go very wrong with fossil fuels / you might say they already have.
I was going to say, I thought computers can't normally operate in those conditions
> Because of the high radioactivity levels inside the reactor, only specially designed robots can probe the unit
There must be some sort of really powerful shielding on the robot. Cool stuff.
> Because of the high radioactivity levels inside the reactor, only specially designed robots can probe the unit
There must be some sort of really powerful shielding on the robot. Cool stuff.
Edit - Dragon blog post describes "software radiation mitigation" better than I can:
http://aviationweek.com/blog/dragons-radiation-tolerant-desi...
Radioactive shielding is just a bunch of heavy metal. The robot probably has terrible maneuverability and even worse battery life :p
The problem with the "heavy metal" approach is also secondary radiation. Sure, you've protected your package (robot, whatever) from the beta and alpha, but now your metal is re-radiating in the gamma spectrum and practically cooking your goose.
Shielding is hard.
Shielding is hard.
We've seen pictures of the melted core of Chernobyl too (the "Elephant's Foot") havent' we?
How do you think those photos were taken?
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KxRuWaD0sXg/U7MHoNyBuiI/AAAAAAAAJ...
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KxRuWaD0sXg/U7MHoNyBuiI/AAAAAAAAJ...
.jpg){kind=link}
Yes, and here is an article and a pretty scary shot from the Elephants foot.
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-che...
I couldn't find if robots were used here, but I'm sure more were later.
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-che...
I couldn't find if robots were used here, but I'm sure more were later.
Your link says
> From a safe distance, workers – or “liquidators” as they were called – rigged up a crude wheeled camera contraption and pushed it towards the Elephant’s Foot
> From a safe distance, workers – or “liquidators” as they were called – rigged up a crude wheeled camera contraption and pushed it towards the Elephant’s Foot
Humans, not robots, take the shot
[deleted]
As I feel incompetent to comment on the article's content, I'll be glad to start a thread on the linguistics of that car crash of a headline. It took me three or four fresh starts to parse it correctly. The linguistic term for this is garden path sentence[1][2] and it's such a good one that it makes me wonder if it's deliberate.
Even just some small adjustments would make it more readable: "Japanese pictures may show melted fuel from Fukushima for the first time."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldT2g2qDQNQ
Even just some small adjustments would make it more readable: "Japanese pictures may show melted fuel from Fukushima for the first time."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldT2g2qDQNQ
Melted Fukushima fuel photographed for the first time.
First photos of melted Fukushima fuel.
If you take away the tentativeness of "may", "likely", etc., you can make the sentence much easier to read. I wouldn't mind a slight lack of qualifiers as long as the whole thing is not too linkbaity and the content puts the qualifiers back where they belong.
First photos of melted Fukushima fuel.
If you take away the tentativeness of "may", "likely", etc., you can make the sentence much easier to read. I wouldn't mind a slight lack of qualifiers as long as the whole thing is not too linkbaity and the content puts the qualifiers back where they belong.
The second one would never fly as a news headline, even though I agree it's clear, readable and descriptive. The Bloomberg News style guide probably specifies that headlines should have a verb in them, and maybe encourages the active mood which would rule out your first suggestion too. Looking at the front page of bloomberg.com, the same pattern is universal with one exception: "Trump, Russia and the Early Murmurs About Pardons". Looking further down, their opinion pieces seem to be allowed a wider variety of styles.
Good point, those are definitely easier to read, although in this age of clickbait I give them credit for admitting a degree of uncertainty right in the headline.
Melted Fukushima fuel likely photographed for the first time :)
[deleted]
You have to say it's Japan, though. Otherwise people may hear "Fukushima" and think it's in Germany.
The only real difference from your version to the titles is -ese on Japan. 'Likely' is a fine substitute for 'may show', from my perspective.
The OP may have started to read it as "Japan (noun) pictures (verb) likely (adjective)...". Changing "Japan" to "Japanese" and "likely" to "may" eliminates that as a possible interpretation.
That's exactly what I did. I think my brain even went on to read "show" as a noun, and "may" would have prevented that. Title Case Didn't Help Much Either.
Besides that, I'm not sure either "Japan" or "Japanese" is really necessary, because "Fukushima" makes it clear that the pictures are from Japan.
Besides that, I'm not sure either "Japan" or "Japanese" is really necessary, because "Fukushima" makes it clear that the pictures are from Japan.
The nation of Japan imagines, for the first time, Fukushima fuel that has probably been melted for display purposes.
Which is nice.
Which is nice.
When you usually write headlines, you go for the most concise or compact version possible to conserve space.
Even though I'm a non native speaker, I haven't experienced any difficulties parsing and processing this headline. I am not sure what part of it that got you off balance.
Even though I'm a non native speaker, I haven't experienced any difficulties parsing and processing this headline. I am not sure what part of it that got you off balance.
For me it was the fact that 'pictures', 'show' and 'fuel' can be either verbs or nouns. Since I first parsed 'pictures' as a verb, it went downhill pretty fast.
I still don't see why they are spending years trying to make rad hard robots.
A long steel tube with fiber optics to pipe in light, mirrors and optics to transmit an image down the tube would be infinitely easier. They'd need to burn a few holes, but none of the reactor vessels are intact so that wouldn't allow additional radioactive material to escape.
I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium contaminated water into the ocean hasn't made more news.
A long steel tube with fiber optics to pipe in light, mirrors and optics to transmit an image down the tube would be infinitely easier. They'd need to burn a few holes, but none of the reactor vessels are intact so that wouldn't allow additional radioactive material to escape.
I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium contaminated water into the ocean hasn't made more news.
Complex problems often require complex solutions. I imagine that your suggestion works for some situations but not all. The cynical side of me thinks that one of the few benefits of the disaster will be new technology and robots that will help prevent future disasters. I imagine there's a very high priced market for these kinds of hardened robots.
[deleted]
Radiation safe robots could be a plus in space one day.
If a solution does the job, it does the job. In the six years since the meltdowns, they've been building these robots, which up until this year, have all failed.
With an electronics-free periscope, they could have saved five years. And keep in mind, the radioisotopes are still flowing into the ocean this whole time.
With an electronics-free periscope, they could have saved five years. And keep in mind, the radioisotopes are still flowing into the ocean this whole time.
I'm pretty sure the accident in Fukushima accelerated the development in this niche. Especially in Japan.
There was a documentary about Tchernobyl surrounding forest few years ago. Most of the vegetation grew back, healthily for my naked eye. Anyways, the most surprising part is that mammals were back too; even though the radiation level was higher than average. I concluded that only a few generation of darwinian selection is needed to breed radiation hardened humans.
Alternatively, the animals aren't radiation hardened and do die of cancer, but not fast enough to get in the way of breeding and multiplying. Or, in other words, while radioactive waste is unhealthy, it fatality rate is lower than having humans around.
... which is why nuclear holocaust is a risk for individuals and nations but not an extinction risk for the species as a whole.
Why would you draw such a concrete conclusion?
What about the animals you possibly didn't see and how many animals reach fertility in 2-3 years?
What about the animals you possibly didn't see and how many animals reach fertility in 2-3 years?
Because I watch too many X-Men movies
Keep in mind that the Chernobyl exclusion zone has not been fully enforced, and people do live there:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-26/30-years-after-cherno...
It's probably unwise, but it's not super deadly.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-26/30-years-after-cherno...
It's probably unwise, but it's not super deadly.
Animals that die within 5 years probably don't have enough time to succumb to the effects of radiation. That's just a guess though.
It's also quite random, they may live there and the background radiation isn't bad enough on average to kill them, but then if they accidentally ingest a few hot particles it could be game over pretty quickly. For most animals this might not even register in the top 10 existential threats, but for humans the psychological stress would be debilitating.
Possibly, and maybe with lower radiation levels they don't exhibit mutations...
[deleted]
>A long steel tube with fiber optics to pipe in light, mirrors and optics to transmit an image down the tube would be infinitely easier.
That seems likely to degrade the fiber, or the signal and I'm having trouble thinking of any tested fiber in the range of a molten reactor core. The flux is really crazy near that thing, and not just photons, but relativistic electrons and some very angry helium nuclei.
That seems likely to degrade the fiber, or the signal and I'm having trouble thinking of any tested fiber in the range of a molten reactor core. The flux is really crazy near that thing, and not just photons, but relativistic electrons and some very angry helium nuclei.
Cladding would degrade. But a large diameter glass rod would be fine. There are a lot of options, including a scanning the light source combined with a non imaging sensor.
Or you could put a scintillating detector in a lead ball with a hole, and scan by rotation and pipe the light from the scintillator out to external electronics. All you need is a long pipe installed to get started.
Or you could put a scintillating detector in a lead ball with a hole, and scan by rotation and pipe the light from the scintillator out to external electronics. All you need is a long pipe installed to get started.
> That seems likely to degrade the fiber, or the signal
Could you go into more detail?
Could you go into more detail?
Glass darkens from radiation exposure. Even UV does it, Coke bottles at old high altitude mines in Colorado turn a purple color.
[deleted]
> I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium contaminated water into the ocean hasn't made more news.
Oh you mean the dump that had 4 grams of tritium in it?
Not drinking water for sure, but less worrying than it seems at first
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6nenrd/fukushima...
Oh you mean the dump that had 4 grams of tritium in it?
Not drinking water for sure, but less worrying than it seems at first
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6nenrd/fukushima...
Honest question: do you really think they haven't thought of this? You think that none of these engineers and scientists have yet thought of your shielded fiber optics idea? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm really curious.
Radiation shielding is a hard problem. For meaningful reduction of xray and gamma radiation in this environment, we're talking inches of lead cladding [0]. And even that won't ensure a useful lifespan for your fiber, exposed to at least tens of Sv/h along much of its length. And cladding doesn't even begin to address the problem posed by neutron radiation.
The environment in Reactor 2 isn't just hostile to life; it's hostile to organized matter.
http://www.eichrom.com/PDF/gamma-ray-attenuation-white-paper...
Radiation shielding is a hard problem. For meaningful reduction of xray and gamma radiation in this environment, we're talking inches of lead cladding [0]. And even that won't ensure a useful lifespan for your fiber, exposed to at least tens of Sv/h along much of its length. And cladding doesn't even begin to address the problem posed by neutron radiation.
The environment in Reactor 2 isn't just hostile to life; it's hostile to organized matter.
http://www.eichrom.com/PDF/gamma-ray-attenuation-white-paper...
* Fiber cables (that OP and I wrote) means a cable made out of glass - no problem at all for radiation. (face palm #1)
* You can transfer light through such cables. This means you use one cable to send light into the scene and another cable to see to the scene. Please just look up how endoscopy works for many many many decades, long before computers were a thing. (face palm #2) You probably have a SPDIF connector at your home entertainment devices. Have a look at the fiber cable and hold it against a light or look through it, to get the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF (it's about a single fiber cable, not a multi-fiber cable that is nowadays more common)
* Endoscopes are operated with wires, mechanical wires operated by a human (or could be by low tech remote pneumatic construct many feets away from the scene) - just look up endoscop (face palm #3)
So a low tech solution would work in such environments, though it's not as news worthy and not as cool as some robots, but it would be useful for a long time, not die at all.
I am surprised by the lacking education here, unfortunately the site got mainstream and attracted average joes from everywhere - with even basic education like in physics and mechanical engineering we could have a proper conversation here. Even CS and startup topics are now littered by corporate drones and fanboys of minor things. Maybe different tags/channels would help to channel the news.
* You can transfer light through such cables. This means you use one cable to send light into the scene and another cable to see to the scene. Please just look up how endoscopy works for many many many decades, long before computers were a thing. (face palm #2) You probably have a SPDIF connector at your home entertainment devices. Have a look at the fiber cable and hold it against a light or look through it, to get the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF (it's about a single fiber cable, not a multi-fiber cable that is nowadays more common)
* Endoscopes are operated with wires, mechanical wires operated by a human (or could be by low tech remote pneumatic construct many feets away from the scene) - just look up endoscop (face palm #3)
So a low tech solution would work in such environments, though it's not as news worthy and not as cool as some robots, but it would be useful for a long time, not die at all.
I am surprised by the lacking education here, unfortunately the site got mainstream and attracted average joes from everywhere - with even basic education like in physics and mechanical engineering we could have a proper conversation here. Even CS and startup topics are now littered by corporate drones and fanboys of minor things. Maybe different tags/channels would help to channel the news.
> "a cable made out of glass - no problem at all for radiation"
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's very wrong. Optical glasses of all kinds are quite vulnerable to darkening, clouding, and embrittlement by much lower levels of ionizing radiation than those at Fukushima [0].
Even if you shielded the fibers with centimeters of lead, the radiation received along the fiber's length would quickly render it useless for either imaging or lighting. And with that much shielding, good luck moving it around. How exactly do you think you'll get your low-tech thingy into place, maneuvering it hundreds of meters of abandoned building, ruble and industrial wreckage? Remember that you can't even be in the parking lot unless you're in a heavily shielded truck. How would you protect the optical assemblies at the working end of your cable, which cannot be shielded and are thus exposed to hundreds of Sv/hr? Do you know how Toshiba designed the optics on their Scorpion robot? How would you improve on their materials or lens arrangements? Have you considered the thermal effects of this much radiation, which is capable of heating the internal elements of your assembly to hundreds of degrees?
Read the links I gave, maybe do a bit of googling, and be assured that you have not actually outsmarted hundreds of nuclear physicists and robot experts with your super clever idea.
0: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a013786.pdf
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's very wrong. Optical glasses of all kinds are quite vulnerable to darkening, clouding, and embrittlement by much lower levels of ionizing radiation than those at Fukushima [0].
Even if you shielded the fibers with centimeters of lead, the radiation received along the fiber's length would quickly render it useless for either imaging or lighting. And with that much shielding, good luck moving it around. How exactly do you think you'll get your low-tech thingy into place, maneuvering it hundreds of meters of abandoned building, ruble and industrial wreckage? Remember that you can't even be in the parking lot unless you're in a heavily shielded truck. How would you protect the optical assemblies at the working end of your cable, which cannot be shielded and are thus exposed to hundreds of Sv/hr? Do you know how Toshiba designed the optics on their Scorpion robot? How would you improve on their materials or lens arrangements? Have you considered the thermal effects of this much radiation, which is capable of heating the internal elements of your assembly to hundreds of degrees?
Read the links I gave, maybe do a bit of googling, and be assured that you have not actually outsmarted hundreds of nuclear physicists and robot experts with your super clever idea.
0: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a013786.pdf
Look at the OP news article, they took a picture - so they have already a transparent material (type of glass or plastic). There you go. My comment was about a low tech bigger scale endoscope instead of error prone high-tech robotics.
And glass and probably types of plastics can be quite hardened against negative effects of radiation. Think of transparent windows where you can look at the reactor core of research reactors, NASA space missions with high precision optics that last for decades, etc.
The issue in Japan is their culture, their problem with "loss of face" which inevitably caused problems in the hours when the worst case scenario unleashed - and the whole world watched 24h live while they did little and USA proposed (and had them ready on the nearby ship) to send in helicopters with backup generators but Japan made no official request for help - lesson learned, in the end US should have crossed their border and fixed the generators because Japan hasn't acted rational at all. Even the years later, they could have learned from Russia how to fix it quickly by sending in human people. But again false bride, and "loss of face" gets in their way. They keep going on with business as usual, and the leaks aren't fixed or anything worth mentioning. Chinese and Japanese have a related culture, yet Chinese know what they are doing and are very successful.
"All optical fibers undergo some darkening depending on a number of factors that include: ionization type, optical fiber core glass composition, operating wavelength, dose rate, total accumulated dose, temperature and power propagating through the core. Since attenuation is composition dependent, it is observed that fibers having pure silica cores and fluorine down doped claddings are amongst the most radiation hard fibers. To minimize damage consequences, it is better to use a pure silica core fiber at higher operating wavelength, higher temperature (accelerated recovery) and higher signal power (photo-bleaching)." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_on_optical_f... -- (shortened snip)
And glass and probably types of plastics can be quite hardened against negative effects of radiation. Think of transparent windows where you can look at the reactor core of research reactors, NASA space missions with high precision optics that last for decades, etc.
The issue in Japan is their culture, their problem with "loss of face" which inevitably caused problems in the hours when the worst case scenario unleashed - and the whole world watched 24h live while they did little and USA proposed (and had them ready on the nearby ship) to send in helicopters with backup generators but Japan made no official request for help - lesson learned, in the end US should have crossed their border and fixed the generators because Japan hasn't acted rational at all. Even the years later, they could have learned from Russia how to fix it quickly by sending in human people. But again false bride, and "loss of face" gets in their way. They keep going on with business as usual, and the leaks aren't fixed or anything worth mentioning. Chinese and Japanese have a related culture, yet Chinese know what they are doing and are very successful.
"All optical fibers undergo some darkening depending on a number of factors that include: ionization type, optical fiber core glass composition, operating wavelength, dose rate, total accumulated dose, temperature and power propagating through the core. Since attenuation is composition dependent, it is observed that fibers having pure silica cores and fluorine down doped claddings are amongst the most radiation hard fibers. To minimize damage consequences, it is better to use a pure silica core fiber at higher operating wavelength, higher temperature (accelerated recovery) and higher signal power (photo-bleaching)." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_on_optical_f... -- (shortened snip)
LOL, please show me an example of a "window where you can look at a reactor core". Show me a window protecting someone from thousands of rads/hr from an active reactor core. Please :) And no, the radiation seen in space exploration is not comparable to the levels at Fukushima. Not anywhere close.
Have you ever actually seen an endoscope? Do you have any idea how complicated they are, how many optical elements they have and how precise the tolerances must be?
Did your study of wikipedia reveal the extent of transmission loss in rad-hard optical materials after exposure to levels of radiation near those at Fukushima? Because the link I gave you does. Read that and tell me how long you expect your fiber optics to last down there. I'll give you a hint: not very long.
Tell you what, just make a sketch of your "low-tech" endoscope that withstands hundreds of Sv/hr, deals with hundreds of degrees of internal heating, is waterproof of course, and is robust to extreme physical abuse. And then come up with a way to remotely maneuver it into place through hundreds of meters of industrial wreckage, without using a robot.
Then get ready to be famous, for your brilliant low-tech solution will be lauded by the international team of scientists and engineers working on Fukushima who simply hadn't thought of it for over 6 years.
Have you ever actually seen an endoscope? Do you have any idea how complicated they are, how many optical elements they have and how precise the tolerances must be?
Did your study of wikipedia reveal the extent of transmission loss in rad-hard optical materials after exposure to levels of radiation near those at Fukushima? Because the link I gave you does. Read that and tell me how long you expect your fiber optics to last down there. I'll give you a hint: not very long.
Tell you what, just make a sketch of your "low-tech" endoscope that withstands hundreds of Sv/hr, deals with hundreds of degrees of internal heating, is waterproof of course, and is robust to extreme physical abuse. And then come up with a way to remotely maneuver it into place through hundreds of meters of industrial wreckage, without using a robot.
Then get ready to be famous, for your brilliant low-tech solution will be lauded by the international team of scientists and engineers working on Fukushima who simply hadn't thought of it for over 6 years.
You don't need cladding on a simple light pipe.
Did they consider non-electronics solutions? Who knows. It may be the sooner they discover where the fuel went, the sooner they need to start spending the $80B to dig it out. So slow is a feature.
Did they consider non-electronics solutions? Who knows. It may be the sooner they discover where the fuel went, the sooner they need to start spending the $80B to dig it out. So slow is a feature.
Where'd you get that idea? :)
You absolutely would need cladding on a light pipe, and lots of it. All kinds of optical materials are subject to darkening, clouding, and embrittlement by much lower levels of ionizing radiation than exist in the reactor [0]. Again, here we're talking about tremendous amounts of radiation over much of the pipe's length, so even small amounts of damage per unit length are going to quickly render the pipe useless for imaging.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a013786.pdf
You absolutely would need cladding on a light pipe, and lots of it. All kinds of optical materials are subject to darkening, clouding, and embrittlement by much lower levels of ionizing radiation than exist in the reactor [0]. Again, here we're talking about tremendous amounts of radiation over much of the pipe's length, so even small amounts of damage per unit length are going to quickly render the pipe useless for imaging.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a013786.pdf
I see the problem, you are misunderstanding the proposal. I suggested using optics for imaging, and fiber to bring in illumination. You'd have a telescope-like camera at the far end. No image transmission through a fiber bundle. You would need refractive elements that would work in the high radiation environment.
As for the illumination, collimated light down a polish steel tube would obviously work, but a rod of glass should work as well.
As for the illumination, collimated light down a polish steel tube would obviously work, but a rod of glass should work as well.
Yes but illumination is not the problem here. The robots have no problem with lighting.
Imaging is a problem. Your search for "refractive elements that would work in the high radiation environment" would likely lead you to something like the optics that Toshiba has developed for these robots. Remember to also account for the thermal effects; radiation of this magnitude is capable of heating the internal elements of your assembly by hundreds of degrees, and your telescope-like camera must maintain its tolerances very precisely to produce a usable image. And perhaps the hardest problem of all: how to maneuver all of this stuff into place through hundreds of meters of industrial hell, where humans can't even stay long in the parking lot outside of a shielded truck. Tackle these problems using no robotics, and you'll be famous, I guarantee it :)
Imaging is a problem. Your search for "refractive elements that would work in the high radiation environment" would likely lead you to something like the optics that Toshiba has developed for these robots. Remember to also account for the thermal effects; radiation of this magnitude is capable of heating the internal elements of your assembly by hundreds of degrees, and your telescope-like camera must maintain its tolerances very precisely to produce a usable image. And perhaps the hardest problem of all: how to maneuver all of this stuff into place through hundreds of meters of industrial hell, where humans can't even stay long in the parking lot outside of a shielded truck. Tackle these problems using no robotics, and you'll be famous, I guarantee it :)
[deleted]
> I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium contaminated water into the ocean hasn't made more news.
Why? It seems relatively safe, and there doesn't seem to be much else to do with it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...
Why? It seems relatively safe, and there doesn't seem to be much else to do with it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...
Quick summary:
They are putting a little over 50mL of a weakly radioactive, fast decaying isotope into the ocean. It will be undetectable within a few years.
Natural tritium production (from cosmic rays) occurs at at a rate 3 orders of magnitude higher [0] than is occurring at Fukushima [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Cosmic_rays
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Fukushima_Daiichi
They are putting a little over 50mL of a weakly radioactive, fast decaying isotope into the ocean. It will be undetectable within a few years.
Natural tritium production (from cosmic rays) occurs at at a rate 3 orders of magnitude higher [0] than is occurring at Fukushima [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Cosmic_rays
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Fukushima_Daiichi
They want to retrieve samples and eventually remove the melted fuel.
The robots will likely at least be useful for retrieving the samples.
The robots will likely at least be useful for retrieving the samples.
Pictures aren't the ultimate goal. This is a first step towards cleanup, and that'll need more than optics.
>I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium contaminated water into the ocean hasn't made more news.
Why does that surprise you?
Why does that surprise you?
You know, NASA didn't actually spend all that money developing the space pen.
Well written, fully agree with your points. An bigger size endoscope with fiber cable would be best solution - low tech is better in such use case. And dumping contaminated water is really bad, unfortunately news gets censored everywhere in 2017.
[deleted]
This swimming robot is exploring a failed nuclear reactor in Fukushima
http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-robot-swimming-expl...
http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-robot-swimming-expl...
In terms of a hardened robot, hydraulic or pneumatic movement powered by an diesel engine seems like the way to go. depending on the location you could run the pressure lines to the robot and keep the engine outside.
Is the actuation really the part which needs radiation hardening? The cameras, sensors and processing unit seems more likely affected by radiation than, say a battery and motor.
"Decommissioning the reactors will cost 8 trillion yen ($72 billion), according to an estimate in December from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Removing the fuel is one of the most important steps in a cleanup that may take as long as 40 years."
Hmm, pricey.
Hmm, pricey.
This would be a problem if decommissioning costs for every nuclear reactor were 24 billion dollars (three reactors melted-down at Fukushima). However, decommissioning a reactor is a lot cheaper if it's done normally at the end of the reactor's operational lifetime, rather than done earlier after a melt down, which is a really extraordinary circumstance.
And remember that the Fukushima circumstances were pretty extraordinary indeed -- the reactor meltdowns were the consequence of a thousand year tsunami which directly killed nearly 20,000 people.
And remember that the Fukushima circumstances were pretty extraordinary indeed -- the reactor meltdowns were the consequence of a thousand year tsunami which directly killed nearly 20,000 people.