Planet Earth is a bad place for nuclear reactors.

The 4,000 fatalities figure from Chernobyl is from the IAEC, an industry front group that cheerleads and lobbies for nuclear. That figure has been heavily criticized by many other experts for it's ommission of several countries in Western and Northern Europe which experienced fallout. The IAEC report on Chernobyl only counted the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in its epidemiological studies, when the fallout cloud patterns clearly included places like Germany and as far noth as Finland.

The US is able to fly in tanks to war theaters. The Russians have some even larger planes. US coastal power plants have staged generators for such situations. They must have some way of delivering them quickly.

Also there are industrial and military generators specifically designed for portability. I don't know how many of what size they would have needed... but that is a question they should have asked after they had mobilized all resources to deliver whatever was deliverable.

This isn't the first time these Japanese Power company mopes have screwed up. How come they were left in charge after their prior screw ups? They hadn't yet done enough damage?

Shame Shame Shame on whoever left these mopes in authority and in charge of reactors. Sepukku.

Only time and careful review will tell if this is the case. I will point out that comparisons to planes are not quite fair. Helicopters have real limits. AFAIK the most powerful helicopters cannot lift >50 tons. Even a simple 1MW diesel generator will exceed this, not counting the fuel. The M1 Abrams exceeds 50 tons as well.

Planes are not helicopters. Big planes even less so. Where is the nearest functioning runway that'll take a C130, or bigger, and how will you get the generator from there to the nuke plant? From what I've heard recently there are logistical issues moving heavy plant around even within the grounds of the nuke plant that requires bulldozers to move tsunami debris out of the way. If the nearest airport that can take a large plane is 30 miles away, what hope then?!

This is not a war zone, it's a disaster zone. They're not the same thing.

Considering the circumstances -- the biggest tsunami & earthquake to hit Japan in recorded history -- and the scale of the chaos and damage inflicted, I think CES's condemnation of the utility/plant management is overly critical. IMO, lax maintenance & safety practices are not uncommon in nuclear power plants all over the world -- even tho there haven't been major accidents, you can be guaramteed there are umpteen little ones all the time, just as in airports all over the world.

Having said that, the situation of those 6 reactors looks more dire every day. The analogy to a slow-moving train wreck seems apt; it ain't over yet.

You are right. Afghanistan and Iraq were much much much more remote and difficult than Sedai.

2. There are lots of reasons to sit on your hands and do nothing. They should have given several teams of people objectives and resources... and let them go to it. Even a 10% chance of success would have been worth it.

3. Let me get this: You are saying there are no industrial or military grade generators designed to be airlifted (in multiple parts or whole) by cargo lifting helicopters. Is that what you are saying?

That such animals don't exist in the inventory of the US Army? (that is a yes or no question)

That no major oil company has anything like that? (that is a yes or no question)

That no US nuclear power company has anything like that? (that is a yes or no question)

That you believe the power company mopes gave serious considerations to these options as they were sending in employees with squirt guns to get burned by radiation (that is a yes or no question)

Sepukku. That is what I say. Sepukku.

Coal power releases more radiation per MWh than nuclear. Burning that much of something that contains even tiny traces of radioisoptopes releases huge amounts. Coal also comes with a massive CO2 footprint. If we were to burn all of the coal in the world, we wouldn't just have a little climate change, we would make the earth uninhabitable just in terms of O2/CO2 balance in the atmosphere. Air polution acutely kills thousands a year from asthamtic attacks and also harms unborn children. The numbers you are looking there makes the nuclear option safer.


I'm afraid you've miss-cited here. That was the IAEA which reports to the UN. This report was co-puplished by the WHO and UN Development Fund. Hardly biased groups there.

5 million people die each year from smoking related illnesses. You are looking at a very difficult statistical problem to solve there and previous models on long term effects of radiation do not appear to be ringing true. Previously we based such calculations on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs where concentrated populations had large doses. The model from this only looked at the really massive doses, not the large population exposed to a low level as a result of Chenobyl. The natural background radiation in the world differs greatly from 1-35mSv per year depending upon the geology of the area. If you were to take the Hiroshima/Nagasaki model you would find cancer cases to vary across the world by natural background radiation level. This simply is not the case. The body does have levels of imunity to radiation exposure built in. Radiation sickness is possibly an evolutionary response to get out of the body something that has been ingested. At a lower level too some of the first genes to mutate under hard gamma bombardment appear to have an anti-cancer role.

Internationally there is a limit of 50mSv dosage for radiation workers (up to 250 is allowed in a disaster response situation). Within the UK we run things much tighter at 20mSv and where I used to work our internal limit was 10mSv. To be at a substantial cancer risk you need to be in the hundreds of mSv.

Chenobyl was a bad accident, yes. I know people who've been there and it's over a Sv a year at the perimeter which is definitely bad for you. It, or the current events in Japan, or Kyshtym, or Windscale, or TMI aren't events that can happen with modern, well designed nuclear plants. Designing safety systems is a good investment. Now is not the time but I would expect TEPCO will come under a lot of scrutiny for the lack of defense in depth built into their cooling systems. One line of defense is just silly.

In terms of planes the An-225 has previously carried 189 tonnes so should be able to carry any plant big enough.

Agreed. This issue I am bringing up is management of the response once the disaster hit.

I think you could characterize it as even shrill. Still, I am confident it will turn out, by and large, to be valid after the investigations are done. Only time will tell.

And this is not a little "almost" airport accident. This is a multi-point failure to staunch a slowly unfolding world disaster with a cascading "too little too late", "let's sweep it under the rug" failure of leadership.

When the Emperor of Japan gets on the Radio to speak to the Japanese people, it is not about a minor accident or a forgivable one.

Looking the other way, sweeping it under the carpet, or that's OK everyone does it... are assessments that just don't sit well with me. I am somewhat surprised that I seem to be alone in this sentiment here.

And their impromptu requirements for 100+kilo-watts of power delivered by helicopter is what?!



If you say so.



What is their capacity? Is it sufficient? That is a yes or no question.



What is their capacity? Is it sufficient? That is a yes or no question.



What is their capacity? Is it sufficient? That is a yes or no question.



What is their capacity? Is it sufficient? That is a yes or no question.

Given your almost OCD-level of obssession with gathering details of stuff demonstrated in other threads, these should be easy questions for you to answer!

More difficult will be this question - why should the resources available to the US be relevant to this scenario? Japan is a proud nation with a long history of self-sufficiency. Never mind that their experiences with the US and nuclear fission haven't been the best to date.

You ship in as many as you need. You move as much water as you can... that would be more than 3 small helicopter dumps in 24 hours

They had only to ask.

And they have an honorable tradition when worthless leaders fail those whom they serve: Sepukku

I am not seeking that form of honor expressed here. I don't know how many innocent lives have been laid to waste by failed human decisions in the aftermath of this disaster. But it is a lot.

Before I respond to this one, please explain its relevance to moving portable generation capacity and/or water? The only people who have had negative experience with the US armed forces to deploy into hostile environments have been adversary armies.

Whatever one can say about the US armed forces, their logistical capabilities are respected by all armed forces as the best in the world.

Or are you saying that Japanese leadership distrusted US Logistical capabilities? Or considered theirs (3 copter loads in 24 hours) to be superior?

ummmm..... ever heard of Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Know who dropped those nuclear bombs? Know who ignored impending signs of surrender so that these shiny new weapons developed in secrecy at such high cost could actually be tried on real targets before the war was formally ended?

Yes, the answer to all the questions is the same: The US military/fed govt.

People are not, as your sig suggests, only rational creatures. We are complex beings with many needs/wants. I can definitely understand why Japan's first choice might not be to seek help from the US.

1. Name the only country to have ever use a deployable nuclear fission weapon during time of war (in the strictest sense of the word).
2. Name the only country to have ever been on the receiving end of this particular style of "logistical assistance".
3. Realise that this happened within living memory.

Then get back to us.

You only win an argument when convert someone to your way of thinking. But this is a close second

There may be some residual cautiousness there. I can't know. The rest of the civilized world had resources in aggregate perhaps almost as great as that of the US. It was all there for the asking. Actually Japan probably had within it borders those resources... they just weren't deployed.

PS: I heard something surprising, besides Okinawa the US currently has something like 10 military bases in Japan. The commentator was saying that as a result of the US response that the removal of the contentious Okinawa military base is likely to be reversed. So it seems like the US is not feared in Japan. In any event Europe, Russia and the international Oil companies had plenty of resources that were available for request. water surface pumpers, mobile pumpers, quick deployable industrial or military generators... they were there for the asking..... NO ONE ASKED! We'll see how many in Japan alone are adversely affected by the refusal to admit they had a major problem that required a major response.... that is until it was too late.

Please heed this.

Lots of people who do not enjoy the cover of anonymity have made fools of themselves by relying on dubious sources and insisting on spreading misinformation. Do not follow their example.
Some people in this thread are entierly too sure of their command of facts which will not be in the public domain for some time (if ever).

Panic-mongering is irresponsible. Some media outlets and European officials have induldged in criminally irresponsible behavior but I believe every last one is capable of listening to reason instead of following suit. Even if you don't care about the feelings of people whose loved ones are at risk, understand that in situations such as this one, rumors sometimes kill more people than the actual problem.

This disaster is by no means over.
In this context, these reckless fabrications and gratuitous calls for someone to commit suicide in particular are grossly disgraceful. Enough people have died already. Have you no shame?

HFat, I had promised myself I would never respond to one of your posts. But I can't help myself just this once.
What "dubious sources"
What "misinformation"
What "Panic-mongering"
"rumors sometimes kill more people than the actual problem" What rumors?
What "fabrications"

No need to respond. Those are rhetorical questions with self evident answers. All one need do is read this thread looking for these items. They are either there or not.

How do you know what the Japanese may or may not have needed, what they may or may not have been offered, what they may or may not have declined?

You do remember Hurrican Katherina, do you? You do remember the chaos? Believe it or not, this earthquake and tsunami was way worse.

What gives you the certainty, at this point, with no official investigation of the disaster response (because it's not yet over), and from what I can only guess is the comfort of your desk chair, to claim that the Japanese handling of the situation could have been better, that pride stood in their way and that international help would have made a difference?

These catastrophes can never be fully prevented or handled with grace.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

After a week: 3 helicopter water drops in 24 hours all missing the target. 3 drops????

One expert on the news mocked this as using toys. And he wasn't laughing. I have seem him multiple times before on television - never have I seen him other than smiling and jovial. He seemed pretty angry this time... he had the same smile... but it was frozen and he was gritting his teeth as he spoke. He was almost another person... a bit scary even. He is a Japanese American physicist and seemed to be taking the mediocrity with which the problems were being handled somewhat personally. He seemed to share my contempt for those in charge.

I know in the US, and probably Russia, there are experienced airborne fire fighter teams that can do better (more accurately)... and a lot of equipment that lay down much greater volumes of water. How long does it take to deploy some of the capability from Russia to Japan? It's all airborne, isn't it?

"Katherina"?, yeah I remember Bush declining medical assistance from Cuba. And "Doing a great job" Browny, the horse expert, in charge of the debacle. And the mopes in charge of inspecting oil platforms in the gulf. Or for that matter the people in charge of regulating the financial industry during the recent financial collapse. Giethner actually got promoted. Clearly Sarbanes Oxley, which criminalized the sale of securities without full disclosure, was violated... but no perp walks. Why do you think that was?

Someone else said pride stood in their way. I never made any such assertion.

Either I am right or wrong. Time well tell.

It can't be argued that human error didn't cause the many deaths, many homeless and many disrupted lives. What do you think should be the consequence of that human error?

Don't forget this company has a history of problems. They talked their way out of consequences in the past. Do you think they should be able to talk their way out again? Do you think they will be able to do so this time?

The proof will be in the pudding. This thread will be around in 6 months. Come back then and tell me off. Or if you are man enough, you admit that I was right.

They had diesel generators on site; but they were located underground (probably because they thought this was better?) and they were flooded, and are inoperable. I think they need at least 2 sets of back up generators. And I think that the spent fuel rods will have to have containment structures in the future, and gravity fed backup cooling water supply.

Using a dirty, dangerous energy source to justify another dangerous energy source isn't an argument for either.



Yes, I missed the last letter of the acronym. The IAEA wrote the report, based on studies from only three countries (those deemed most affected). Ironically, it was high levels of radioactivity detected in Sweden that ultimately led researchers and officials to the source of the emissions in the Ukraine. Instead of laughing at the IAEA report, the WHO passed it on as gospel. This is from the IAEA website:

"The IAEA is the world´s center of cooperation in the nuclear field. It was set up as the world´s "Atoms for Peace" organization in 1957 within the United Nations family. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies."

Hardly the mission statement of a disinterested organization. There's the usual pablum on the website pertaining to 'safety', easily recognizable as PR spin. The WHO and UN are not biased? Can you say H1N1 pandemic? Or how about UN Oil for Food Program? C'mon, you're smarter than that.



1). Smoking is irrelevant.
2). Radioisotopes from bombs are slightly different than those from nuclear power plants, nuclear waste and radon, so not sure what point you were trying to make here.
3). There is ample evidence that supports the fact that background radiation (approx. 50% from radon) induces a linear dose response. (Since you're in Britain, here is a BMJ study on Radon and Lung cancer: British Medical Journal http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7485/223.long). There is no such thing as a "safe" dose. We've known this for a while. It comes from the linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation dose-risk theory. The LNT model states that any radiation dose carries some level of risk. The higher the dose, the higher the risk; the lower the dose, the lower the risk. It has a linear relationship. That means even at the lowest possible dose, there is still a risk, and therefore no actual true "safe" threshold ('safe', meaning zero risk). Yes, the biological cellular mechanisms will repair DNA and chromosomes, but not 100%. They don't work perfectly. Some lesions aren't repairable, sometimes the mechanisms can't reach the damaged site, and some repairs are misrepairs. Thus, even at low doses, a certain percentage of residual DNA damage isn't repaired. For there to be a "safe" threshold, there would have to be a level of radiation at which 100% of the DNA was repaired perfectly. The lowest possible dose is theoretically one nuclear track going through one nucleus of a cell. The lowest possible unit is one particle. You can't have a fraction of a particle going through a fraction of a cell. Either that particle goes through a cell and creates damage or it doesn't. Ionizing radiation isn't like poison, where dilution can create a safe threshold. It comes in units of particles that either pass through cells or don't. The LNT model isn't perfect, but it is simple, elegant, and predicts outcomes fairly well. Many research groups like the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee use it. That said, I know there are some good, honest scientists who disagree with it. So far, it has stood up to scrutiny.
4). The "a little bit of radiation is good for you" line is a fraud. It's also known in more polite circles as Radiation Hormesis. The US Deapartment of Energy promotes this incessantly, for obvious reasons. Interestingly, even the UN body UNSCEAR doesn't support it.




I agree, TEPCO after this will be (or should be) in very in hot water (pun intended). They told residents in Myagi prefecture back in 1970 that the Fukushima plants were 'safe' and that there was nothing to worry about, and that there was no history of earthquakes in that specific location. Same old sales pitch. Some things never change. Just like saying, 'Our modern reactors are well designed and all those other accidents could never happen with our new and improved safety technology.'

Whispercat I'm not getting it. Why do you think everyone is jumping to the defense of mediocrity, mopery and self destructive ignorance. Oops... I forgot to read my own signature line

And the Japanese don't? You know that because you've researched it, right?
When the Japanese watched the Katrina Desaster, should they have thought the Americans had no cars or boats or people who could operate them?

You mispoke, I think. If not, I think the earthquake was no man's fault. If it was, that dude needs an a$$kicking. Or our worship, if he threatens to do it again.

That wasn't the topic of the debate. Don't switch it. You asserted that the official Japanese response was lacklustre.
If the company operating the nuclear power plant is guilty of negligence and other offenses will be seen.

Are you kidding me?!
You are not seriously trying to question my manhood and tying this to my agreeing with you? That is stupid on so many levels.

I have no idea if the Japanese acted irresponsibly during the nuclear crisis; however, I have traveled to Japan several times for business and worked with Japanese people there. I was working with Japanese who worked for the same very large company as I did (based in the USA).

There is an interesting cultural phenomenon that I noticed while working in Japan, in that they seemed very reluctant to ask for help even when clearly needed (for fear of humiliating themselves). And at the same time, they don't seem to volunteer to help others unless asked (for fear of offending the other person). But I have no idea if this played any part in their response to the nuclear plant crisis.

The siting, design, construction and management of the Nuclear reactor are governed by human decision making. As has been the response to it's failure. None of this had to be this way.... and it was all under human control.

Huh? What you say makes no sense to me.... I am unable to see the substance of a point that I can agree or disagree with.

The only thing I can make out of what you say is an assumption you appear to be making... that I think there were insufficient resources within Japan to deal with the problem.

I mentioned that I believed there probably were... and they could have located them in hours by contacting the companies that manufactured them. But I knew for certain there were such resources outside of Japan. So my references to resources outside of Japan was for purposes of negating any excuse for what has and is continuing to occur... other than ineptitude.

As far as I can tell, the cascading "too little too late" continues. They are now doing what they should have done a week ago. In my informal opinion, they are likely now at the point where they should be encasing the reactors in concrete and boric acid... instead they are only now bring electrical power on site and getting ready to use large volumes of water. This is an opinion I adopted from the Japanese American Physicist that I mentioned earlier.

Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello, or the three stooges.... I am torn as to which provides the most appropriate analogy (referring to the reactors as opposed to the dialog on this thread). Which analogy do you vote for?

I see it all as a part of one seamless whole. It was the topic I was addressing.

While there is a debate going on, and I am participating in one facet of it, I don't consider our exchanges debate. Seems more like some how you are trying to prove you are smarter than me... and I am having a little fun playing along.

You are taking this way to seriously. Relax.

Yes, I think maybe I am.... at an intellectual level.... with the wild flailing and all... and getting all wrapped around an axle over an exchange of electronic comments. Lighten up and have a little fun...

See... sooner or later we were bound to agree on something.