TEPCO Confirms Partial Meltdown of No.2 and No.3 Reactors 209
blau writes with an article in NHK World. From the article "The operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant says findings show that fuel meltdowns may have occurred at the No.2 and No.3 reactors within days of the March 11th earthquake. But it says both reactors are now stable at relatively low temperatures."
TEPCO is also now blaming the tsunami for most of the damage rather than the earthquake.
relatively low temperatures (Score:4, Insightful)
Relative to what? The sun?
New news? Don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of the status reports from early on indicated a partial meltdown. (It was described as "fuel damage" - but that's meltdown).
So how is this news? We already knew the fuel rods had suffered from partial melting/damage. It's almost a given when you see status reports indicating fuel with only partial water coverage.
Now blaming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It would be funny if it weren't so damn serious (Score:0, Insightful)
Go away troll. The long term effects of this to the population: Nothing.
The levels are so low for the population that they're laughably small. It's *barely* above background levels..you get more dosage in a single flight across the country.
Re:It would be funny if it weren't so damn serious (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I haven't heard of any 3rd parties reporting anything unusual or notable regarding radioactive contamination above or beyond what has been reported already (and TEPCO can't exactly hide stuff that escapes the site.) Surely if it were so horrible then there would be accurate and reasonable reporting on the "true" radiation levels rather than what is reported, but I'm not seeing anything. And anecdotal rumors and information being spread via social networks (especially in a country like Japan that loves rumors) is suspect.
Re:It would be funny if it weren't so damn serious (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that the deaths due to radiation from this incident are well... zero. This was no Chernobyl. Yes, the immediate area will likely be unsafe for some time, but by any rational measurement, the worst that happened was the tsunami, which sadly has been pushed to page 5 by "OH MY GOD, RADIATION LEAK, GODZILLA ATTACK IMMINENT!!!!"
Re:It would be funny if it weren't so damn serious (Score:5, Insightful)
The long term effects of this to the population: Nothing. The levels are so low for the population that they're laughably small.
Don't pretend like 0 is the number of people affected by this meltdown. Nobody has been "laughing" since they got kicked out of homes they lost millions of yen for. It's not like someone's going to give that house back to them, nor their cash. School closings smack in the middle of the Japanese school year also mean lots of disrupted youths.
With Japan's prior issues with unemployment, fukushima was the straw breaking the camel's back for many souls now banned from living somewhere safe and known to them. But nobody is talking about the local lives in the cone of influence of the actual meltdown.
Because, you know, all gunshot wounds only hurt locally and we can just ignore the pain if we concentrate on the body parts not hurting. Right?
Re:Cracked Vessel (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, if the earthquake also knocked out the cooling systems.
But it didn't, so it's likely they could have pumped enough water to keep the rods from melting at all, though they would have had a hell of a time sealing the crack.
The fact is that losing electricity to the pumps led to a cascade of catastrophic explosions turned a cracked vessel from a bad thing into a months-long nightmare. And that fact points to naive, negligent, or deliberately penurious design.
Re:I hope you're right. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's amazing how fast you dorks moved on from "nothing happened at Fukushima" to "Fukushima isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl" and then on to "OK so the radiation release is of the same order of magnitude as Chernobyl, but Chernobyl wasn't a big deal anyway".
Re:It would be funny if it weren't so damn serious (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't be stupid. You're comparing apples to oranges. The OP's post was in regards to *radiation*. No economic damage, or health concerns for other reasons. That was what my comment was in reply to.
Of course there is massive economic damage. There will be more damage from the *scare* of the nuclear boogie man than the reactor itself. People going to the hospital after taking Anti-Rad meds and stressing themselves out.
There's massive damage due to the massive mother-nature event that occurred. There's massive damage done over-time due to the *over protective* safety measures..the evac zones radius isn't based on science, it's based on policy that's based on the idea that *it's better safe than sorry*...never mind the dosage would allow a nuclear worker to work year round and not approach the *time to leave* limit. There'll be more damage due to the fearmongering being done. But the radiation being emitted will not cause people to grow third arms or have birth defects or cancer. Anyone harping that is a fearmonger, and needs to be called out on it.
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:relatively low temperatures (Score:5, Insightful)
It's on both sides of the fence.
Some article came out shortly after stating that the radiation being emitted into the atmosphere was X% that of Chernobyl... when it was really 1/10th the percentage stated. You have people spreading panic and fear, as well as people saying "see this is why nuclear power is evil."
Meanwhile you have people there saying "no alarm, nothing to see here" and later that day we find out something major happened or people were being burned by the radioactive water.
So you have fear mongers and people trying to sweep it under the rug. It makes it very hard to get an accurate picture of what's going on.
Re:relatively low temperatures (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that was fairly obvious. You don't need to be a nuclear scientist (just someone who knows what historical accidents have been significant, which ones haven't, and what made the difference) to realize that TEPCO weren't being honest, but it helps if you are to understand what they were being dishonest about.
What bothers me, more than TEPCOs dishonesty (which, frankly, is only to be expected when a company relies on image as much or more than products), is the number of people here who went around marking those questioning TEPCO statements in previous discussions as trolls. Sorry, but the science doesn't leave much room for debate. It seemed to be mostly by pro-nuclear fanbois who failed to understand you could be ok with the technology but suspicious of the implementors. I hope they are now willing to admit their errors and apologise for their abuse of the moderation system.
Re:New news? Don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)
In the initial days of the reactor problems, there was concern that some of the core in reactor #1 might not have been fully covered by water, and that some fuel damage may have resulted -- as in a part of it. The claim was that a relatively small fraction was affected before they restored cooling water levels to normal levels, and that the core, while damaged, was largely intact. The "news" over the last week is that the entire core was uncovered for hours (the gauges were not functioning properly under the conditions), the core heated to 2800C or so, and most of it melted and pooled in the bottom of the reactor vessel. And now there is evidence the same thing has happened in reactor #2 and #3. That's meltdown for 3 out of 3 of the reactors operational at the time the tsunami hit.
If you think there isn't a difference between what was initially claimed in the first week of the reactor problems and what is being claimed now, then you haven't been paying attention. Up until the last week the potential for substantial amounts of the core being melted down and flowing into the bottom of the reactor vessel was only speculation by outside experts familiar with the situation. Now TEPCO has data confirming that is likely what has happened. That's the news: that this isn't theoretical anymore. It's likely.
None of this changes the external results of the disaster in terms of radiation release and so on. It's not like knowing it was a full-blown meltdown changes what has already happened. But it does change how difficult it will be to control and clean up (e.g., you can't pump water in and around the hot fuel as easily if it is a blob of solidified lava and metal), and it provokes serious questions about the ability to monitor exactly what's going on inside a reactor during a crisis. If you couldn't reliably tell that the reactor was actually in the process of melting down, then how can you react to the situation appropriately? It's like having faulty instrument readings while you're trying to safely land a plane with no visibility. The TEPCO crew could be the best reactor operators in the world, but if they don't know what is going on in there, they would be thoroughly borked.
Re:relatively low temperatures (Score:4, Insightful)
But for weeks afterwards, major news sources have run headlines like 'Reactor 1 known to have melted down, reactors 2 and 3 possible, ', even though it sounds like "possible" meant "overwhelmingly probable, on a par with the sun rising tomorrow, but we haven't actually gotten photos to confirm it yet, or at least we've carefully avoided showing them to the guy making this statement.". The general public is going to be influenced by those sorts of headlines without ever seeing the actual status updates,
I'm personally for building safely designed reactors under responsible management - trouble is, TEPCO has shown they are not in any way what I would call responsible management. The nuclear power industry may survive the blow of having major accidents like this, but can it survive being associated with such incompetence, overwhelming lies and arrogance?