The accident began when workers were converting enriched uranium into oxide powder for use in preparing fuel for the Joyo experimental fast breeder reactor...
An inadvertent nuclear chain reaction, or so-called “criticality accident,” began at 10:35 AM local time on Thursday, September 30 at the JCO Co. Ltd. Conversion Test Building at Tokai-mura, Japan, about 75 miles northeast of Tokyo. The chain reaction, which gave off intense heat and radiation, could not be stopped until 18 hours later....
It appears that workers deliberately circumvented safety measures to save time. A solution of uranyl nitrate was transferred into a large-volume precipitation tank, rather than the smaller, cylindrical container required by regulations. According to JCO Inc. official Yutaka Tatsuta, one of the injured workers reported that some 16 kilograms of uranium solution had been poured into the precipitation tank, nearly eight times more than its criticality safety limit of 2.4 kilograms.
Workers reported seeing a blue flash and then started to feel ill. According to one report, “the area was wrapped in a haze of blue smoke.” Workers told plant staff that “they saw a blue flame rising from the fuel.” Kenji Sumida, a member of Japanese government’s Nuclear Safety Commission, concluded, “I know this is difficult to believe, but I think that we have no choice but to recognize this accident as having been critical.” The criticality continued for about 18 hours until the water that was moderating the flow of neutrons and allowing the chain reaction to continue was drained and the tank was flooded with boron, a neutron absorber.
Tokyo Electric Power, Japan's largest utility, made people even more nervous when it was found to have falsified its nuclear plant repair reports for 15 years.
Maybe the anti-nuclear power sentiment is fading though, as 8 new nuclear plants opened last year from Hokkaido to Kyushu.
I still don't think I'd be comfortable living next to a nuclear power plant, even if it gave off less greenhouse gases than a fossil fuel plant. Then again there are 18 nuclear-powered submarines at Pearl Harbor just a few miles from Honolulu. Each has a mini nuclear power plant on board.
30 comments:
After talking at length with Fugu's scientist dad about this, I would gladly live right next door to (okay, but upstream from) a heavily regulated and monitored nuclear power plant. The alternative to the risk of radiation is the certainty of the eventual (or abrupt) and catastrophic loss of the cheap energy produced by ever-dwindling fossil fuels. When the oil runs out, transportation doesn't work, government doesn't work, farming doesn't work; and here on the most remote island chain in the world, we're eating each other inside of two weeks.
It's clear that these guys in Japan were acting like dingbats. Now that we all know that nuclear power plants are serious business, though, is it so hard to believe that we can find the right people to run them, and the right safeguards to keep them safe?
Note that I wasn't the one to invoke peak oil. But, Pony, I could kiss you all over the face.
My grandparents lived about a mile away from one my entire life—we'd walk over to it all the time and not see a single three eyed fish, 10-leafed clover, tentacled dear... much to my disappointment. It could power 500,000 homes, which is pretty choice. Maybe they were lucky as no one would bother to terrorist-attack Connecticut. As for Hawaii, well, all you'd have to do is fluoridate the water and everyone would flip out into a murderous rage, which would be much easier than breaking into a nuclear power plant.
Hey Odori, wasn't there a guy running for a local office a while ago who's whole agenda was to get all of Oahu powered by those nuclear subs? He didn't win of course since he was a loon, but hindsight, 20/20 and all that. And aren't a few bases already powered by the subs? There was something about them at least being able to isolate their grids if they needed to. You know. On volleyball nights and stuff.
Also, this is why Japan has Godzilla, and we have… what, Gizmo?
between dwindling fossil fuels and global warming, people are going to have two choices: use less energy, or get it from another source. there's no way on earth we're going to use less energy, and nukes seem to be the most cost-effective alternative at the moment. that's right: "alternative." even greenpeace's cofounder's on board.
Lungclops makes a great point. I lived 4 miles away from a nuclear power plant for 2 years. They sent a very odd calendar out to all residents each year full of pictures of people living happily near the plant.
No one I hung out or worked with in the area had anything bad to say about the joint and many of them had been living there for 20+ years. And none of us were complaining about our ridiculously low energy bills each month.
Fugu, I hate to call you out on this, But technically if you are referring to Gizmo of Gremlins fame, That creature is of Chinese origin.
Mogwai.
But we do get Phoebe Cates, so decent trade off.
Did you know the legendary actor Keye Luke played the ancient Chinese salesman in Gremlins? I didn't.
I stand corrected! It's all coming back to me now, as well as the frogurt simpsons ref...
The Frogurt is also cursed!
I hate to say this but the idea of human error (and stupidity) is always in the back of my mind. Maybe Odori can confirm or denounce this but I recall hearing that the Cherynobyl incident came about when a couple of the engineers had a pissing contest on how far they could push the safety limits of the reactor. Is it true?
Oh, and, uhm...I didn't understand the gizmo ref, but that's just me.
I'm with Heeero on the human error thing-- once nuclear plants are really widespread, the number of people Mr. Pony's trusting to run them well is going to get really big. The problem with nuclear power is that it only takes one screw-up to make an area uninhabitable for a pretty long time, not to mention increasing the background radiation of the entire world.
So, based on my experience of the world & large systems, I feel like at least one such accident is pretty inevitable, due to cost-cutting, individual incompetence, terrorism or bad luck... Maybe everyone who really really trusts other people to take care the nuclear plants can live right next to them?
I totally agree with you, and in the present supercomfort in which we find ourselves, the risks of nuclear power don't seem worth it. But I think that cost-benefit analysis will change when energy scarcity makes things a little more uncomfortable.
It's true. The message is not that nuclear power will save us. The messages is that we are royally screwed.
If I were President/Prime Minister, I would put all of my nuclear power plants in the bottom right corner of the map.
why, is something wrong with nunavut?
HAHA I used to do that, too. SimCity had radiation, but no radiation levels.
Fugu's dad also suggested putting the reactors on ships, so that in case of an emergency, they could sail out to sea to blow the fuck up.
While existing nuclear submarines could theoretically power some of the smaller islands, that's never actually happened, according to this completely objective blog.
I'm pretty sure I remember some groovy-ass sci-fi story where someone powers their small remote island place with a decommissioned nuclear sub. What the fuck was that in? Someone should try it and see if it works out. I mean, if someone isn't trying it already in say, the Laptev Sea.
I agree with Ruby - the consequences of a nuclear power accident are so great that I don't think it's worth the risk.
I'd prefer to see investments in solar, wind and even wave energy.
Wouldn't energy sources like this be enough to replace oil?
Gals: I think that was in "World War Z".
Actually, for what we use fossil fuels for, the only source of energy that would satisfy the "every-man" need (so-to-speak) would be biofuels. I don't think we're going to be able to mass produce and maximize the output or minimize the size of wind, solar, geothermal, and wave energy to make them feasible on everyday cars, trucks, buses, and other people movers. Well, maybe railway and other mass people movers + battery operated vehicles may do the trick, but I wonder then, if we can really effectively recycle or reuse the battery components without causing some other harm to the habitability of our environment.
Was it World War Z? I read that so fast I don't remember much other than that one pitched battle and that lobotomizer tool. And that he thanked his mom when it was all done.
Not to keep quoting Fugu's dad, but I believe his main point was this: This is really no about how we're going to charge our cell phones when the oil runs out, or how we're going to power our cars, or light our homes. This is about how we're going to feed the huge surplus of human beings created by the incredibly abundant food supply brought about by the industrialization of farming. I think someone posted a nice chart a while back about how American occupations have changed over the past century, but the site's search being what it is, I totally can't find it.
Direct your attention, then, to page two of this far less attractive pdf and see how the percentage of farm workers in the population has dropped from over 30% of the population in 1910 to less that 2% in 2000. All that labor was replaced by cheap energy from fossil fuels. The industrialized farm requires far fewer laborers, and can produce far more food, but also requires a great deal of energy to run.
in 1900, the world could support 1.6 billion dudes. In just over a hundred years, we've managed to get that figure up to 6.7 billion dudes. This ballooning coincides pretty nicely with the industrial revolution, and the beginning of serious use of fossil fuels.
The problem, then is that the current population is artificially inflated, and when the cheap energy that sustains it starts to go away, we will experience food error. If you agree with Fugu's scientist dad, this food error will happen really really fast, and kind of sooner than many people expect. (Not all scientists agree with Fugu's dad, it should be noted.) Still. Even a gradual decline in all this cheap energy won't just be inconvenient. It will be painful, and sad.
"And that", I said, slowly standing and buttoning my suit, "is why we are totally hosed."
(Just before posting this, I saw Heeero's post about bio-fuels. I don't know enough about those; specifically, I don't know how much energy goes into creating them compared to how much you get out. I'm suspicious, because I know subsidies are involved. I've heard some things about converting algae into fuel... That may be a good alternative, since we're doing bizarre things to the oceans anyway.)
Say, that's a great idea!! Maybe the horrifyingly giant masses of algae formed by the excess carbon dioxide will totally save us! Thank you, Greenhouse effect! Thank you, global warming! Suck it, polar bear lovers!
BTW...hey Pone you want to go recycle booze bottles again? my garage is full.
I'd just like to point out, re: Fugu's dad, that geologists have a penchant for apocalyptic thinking. It probably has something to do with the geologic time scale being based on mass extinction events.
As for the alternative energy stuff (biofuels, solar, wind, OTEC, etc.) I think we're still in the "gee whiz!" phase. Implementation of new technology like that on a large scale can only happen when it's economically viable. Sure, the energy providers will do pilot programs for PR purposes, but I think they are really focused on the $/watt number.
Fun fact: Hawaii more dependent on oil than any of the other states. This is partially due to the necessity of air travel, but we also use it to generate ~80% of our power.
Personally, for where we are in the technological development cycle, I think nuclear power is a pretty good idea.
Finally, In World War Z, it was a rogue Chinese nuclear sub that was powering an island of survivors.
Oh, hey, why don't we just put a big pot of seawater on the volcano and run a generator from the steam?
True story about geologists. Same goes for astronomers. Interestingly, medical doctors have the opposite problem of believing we can fix everything--and if we can't--it's someone else's problem so just put a bandaid on it and punt them off to a specialist.
Another point about perspective: Now I love polar bears (double goes for armored one), but even if we hunt them down for fur coats and soap, melt all the ice caps and then nuke the entire planet just to be sure and kill off 99% of everything else we know in the process, in a few million years the Earth will be completely repopulated by cooler and weirder things. Nature will be peeved, but also satisfied in knowing that the most probable future of this planet is that humans will not be there. This kind of apocalypse will happen multiple times in the future, by the way, from a variety of causes unrelated to us. Then, in 4.5 billion years, the Sun will go nova and the planet will dutifully explode. True story.
You'd think this would result in scientists being a bunch of hedonistic live-in-the-now sex fiends, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Likely because scientists are not good with FEEEEELINGS.
Pony: Because of the shitty EROEI. I might post a long and boring post on this sometime this weekend.
Energy Return On Energy Invested. Thanks. I was trying to remember that acronym you told me about. Surely it's better than growing corn to turn it into gasoline and trucking it all over the country. I mean, if I lived near a volcano, and wanted to boil some eggs, I could do it for free, if I had good shoes.
Fugu, I agree that the earth will eventually be populated by cooler and weirder things (in our human opinions) in the future. I disagree that nature will be peeved or satisfied by this eventuality. I don't feel that nature, and the laws of science, have any vested interest in the longevity of any particular species on this planet. Humans are no different than any other life form in the universe. We aren't special. Unless you believe that we've been created in the image of an omnipotent creator. Then all bets are off.
Not to sound like a total downer, but Pone's "cheap energy = food" debate could happen sooner that people think. People that start focusing on growing crops for biofuels are taking away agricultural resources for growing food for sustenance. Kinda bad especially in 3rd world countries where food supplies are already limited and people are starting to have to choose between sustaining themselves or growing a buck. Personally, I kinda like eating, so the prospect of food losing out to fuel kinda scares me.
Heeero, I appreciate your concern for keeping the tone of this conversation positive.
Post a Comment