Entire human civilization in high risk to be exposed of nuclear radiation

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

A Yale professor warns all us on Earth are in danger to be exposed of nuclear radiation from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant. He tells that if Unit 4 pool can't be kept cool, the radiation will be 15000 times worse than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. At that number, it would expose all life on Earth, humans and animals, not sure about what will happen with the sea-animals.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fukushima-could-be-15000x-worse-than-hiroshima-with-removal-of-fuel-rods.html

A Yale Professor is compelling the world to wake up from its nuclear slumber and face some cold-hard facts, "All of humanity will be threatened for thousands of years" if the Fukushima Unit 4 pool can't be kept cool. Your worries about eating cesium-contaminated fish from the Pacific Ocean are grounded in fact, but this is a world-wide disaster of the most epic proportions just waiting to happen. If nothing else, it points to the necessity of nuclear-free power to fuel the planet, but in the meantime, more than 1,535 fuel rods must be meticulously removed from Unit 4, which in all likelihood is crumbling.
Charles Perrow, Professor Emeritus of Sociology from Yale University cautions:
"Conditions in the unit 4 pool, 100 feet from the ground, are perilous, and if any two of the rods touch it could cause a nuclear reaction that would be uncontrollable. The radiation emitted from all these rods, if they are not continually cool and kept separate, would require the evacuation of surrounding areas including Tokyo. Because of the radiation at the site the 6,375 rods in the common storage pool could not be continuously cooled; they would fission and all of humanity will be threatened, for thousands of years. [...]"
In early stages of the Fukushima disaster Tepco, under influence of the Nuclear and Industiral Safety Agency (NISA), tried to keep the full ramifications of Fukushima under wraps, and now the entire country faces a possible trillion dollar price tag and multiple decades of active clean up to make this go away, but that will all be a moot point if the fuel rods aren't removed properly.

All the boron between spent fuel rods has disintegrated. This means a nuclear chain reaction could ensue if the rods get too close together in the pools, causing nuclear mayhem like we've never endured. In less than two months, Tepco plans to try to remove these rods, admitting that they haven't the expertise or resources to do it perfectly – and that is what it would take – absolute perfection.
According to globalreasearch.ca, "Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000 times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima."
"More than 6,000 fuel assemblies now sit in a common pool just 50 meters from Unit Four. Some contain plutonium. The pool has no containment over it. It's vulnerable to loss of coolant, the collapse of a nearby building, another earthquake, another tsunami and more.
Overall, more than 11,000 fuel assemblies are scattered around the Fukushima site. According to long-time expert and former Department of Energy official Robert Alvarez, there is more than 85 times as much lethal cesium on site as was released at Chernobyl."

This is no time for Tepco or the Japanese government to try to save face, or the world to turn the other cheek. If we don't treat this as a global disaster it would be like waiting for the Russians to start nuclear war back in the 1980s – or worse. Harvey Wasserman has created a petition at NukeFree.org to alert our own president and other politicians about the extreme seriousness of this incident. All while they were planning to go to war with Syria, the nuclear disaster right under our noses was escalating to unfathomable proportions.
Not to sound doom and gloom, but it's important to recognize the ramifications if this issue isn't taken care of – properly.

[Taronyu Leleioae]

Ok.  I think in appropriate to have a little discussion in nuclear radiation contamination...

First...  I totally agree that the handling of the Japanese incident, not to mention the arrogance, has been unforgivable imo.  Not to mention, when the alarms sounded, all the senior / executives fled with their tails between their legs, and the workers stayed sacrificing themselves to try save the population.  Those workers, now gone or terminally ill, have my greatest respect.  

Further, the damage being done to the ocean is far and away the worst.  Not only the cesium, but what will happen is that the currents in the Pacific will actually circulate and collect in areas.  (We have a huge floating debris dump of garbage out there swirling from the last 100+ years.  Quite a bit from the tsunami in Japan...)  I agree that the fishing will be the most devastated, as will the farmers growing crops (strawberries are a no no...).  Locally, the Japanese people have a horrible problem.  Hiroshima was nothing compared to this.  However Hiroshima was a hydrogen detonation.  Essentially a thermal event.  This, is much more long term.

This all said, this event in Japan has essentially killed the nuclear power industry.  In part, their own fault because of arrogance in thinking their plant was indestructible, and that a Tsunami will never happen or affect it.  Oh, wait, I'm living very near the most vulnerable one in the US.    Same problem.  Generators aren't "waterproofed" against flooding/tsunami.  How hard is it to think of this as an engineer?  Not to mention burying some power cables under ground (sealed) to a hookup location a couple miles away so that a generator truck could pull up and supply backup power...  Hmmm....

So, I agree with you completely.  They are trying to brush this event off.  Because it couldn't possibly get any worse.  (Never in my life did I think we could see tv footage of a plant actually catastrophically failing in real time...)  They need to find a way to ask the international community for help at all cost, and get this thing under proper control.  Not keep downplaying it politically.

===============

Ok, about the airborne exposure part...  (This isn't reflective of the exposure living in that area of Japan, not to mention local weather patterns...)

However... as to destroying the world...  There is no question, we probably already see a spike in background radiation.  And, admittedly, the west coast US will be more exposed than the east.  Now... exposure.  There's three factors in nuclear exposure.  Time, distance, and shielding.  Further, there is the rough 7:10 rule when it comes to airborne material.  (This is straight out of cold war response; explosion happens and dirt/air is contaminated and falling over the countryside.)

The 7:10 rule, which still is a guideline today, is that for every factor of 7 in time, the radioactivity for short term (alpha and beta decay particles), the radioactivity for common nuclear material is 10% of the original.  (Yes, we can argue long term material such as cesium and other materials.)  But with the 7:10 rule for general airborne particulate, this means...  that if you had an event where the background radiation was say, 1000R, then in 7 hours, it's down to 100R.  In 49 hours (2 days), it's now 10R.  In 14 days (2 weeks), it's 1R.  This is why, if there was an event, it's soooo important to "shelter in place".  Have a place you have SEALED against the environment as best you can.  Air filters, etc.  Being outdoors or in your car won't help.  The biggest risk, is actually eating or touching something contaminated (think dust) which settles over everything.  Now... the above is for nuclear contamination of something else other than the original material.  The question is what is the likelihood of the actual nuclear fuel material vaporizing and going airborne into the winds aloft?  As they discovered at 3 Mile Island, it all melted and leaked/ran down through cracks, plumbing, etc. into the sub-basement.  Is it possible?  Yes.  But how much?

My point is that this Yale professor, (interesting he's in Sociology and not Physics btw...), is absolutely correct in how dangerous this could get.  And that the Japanese government needs to deal with this straight on, and not keep faking the number reports.  That they need to find ways to cool the pools, and keep them that way.  And sea water (horrible due to salts and extra contamination), may really be the only way in the long term.  Which means that fishing in that part of Japan is DONE.  And, clearly, the fish in the Pacific need to be closely monitored, especially if imported.  (Curious as to what will happen to Alaskan crab fishing as they are bottom feeders?)  This will likely affect fishing for Russia more than the US.

But this is still more of very very large area - regional problem.  We all need to be highly concerned.  But this Yale Professor is glossing over nuclear physics.  Regardless, I think this is the end of nuclear fission power generation.  We have a few licenses to build here in the US, but I doubt the investors will go forward.  I do think this will increase interest and push for alternative energy sourcing including ocean wave/current energy capture.  The problem now is that we need to contain and store all this highly radioactive waste, and deal with it for centuries to come until we discover how to use it again...

Edit/add:  I have to wonder if the point of this Professor's article, was more inferring the sociology side of the Japanese government and mindset vs. just how deadly this long term situation is?  That the article was meant to drive the academic and political minds to discuss and take responsibility of the problem.  But this Professor is writing it from a doomsday perspective.  That "all of humanity will be threatened...".  That this is nearly as bad as a nuclear, industrial accident can go?  YES!  But this is still a regional disaster event.

[Tìtstewan]

Oe mllte mengahu.

Chernobyl here in Europe, and Fukushima in Asia. It just missing America... Germany's goverment have decided to close all nuclear power plants in nearly future. But the problem is e.g. France. The have much more nuclear power plants (and they are old) than ours, and if one of them blowing up, we will have fun here.

I live 20 km away from the most powerful nuclear power plant (2 × 1344 MW) of Germany and if that giant want to go to hell, I would have less time to get out of there...
Also we have an annoying political discussion, where we put the radioactive material?

The menkind have opended pandora's box with the using this nuclear power...

[Clarke]

But with the 7:10 rule for general airborne particulate, this means...  that if you had an event where the background radiation was say, 1000R, then in 7 hours, it's down to 100R.  In 49 hours (2 days), it's now 10R.  In 14 days (2 weeks), it's 1R.

It's very late over here, but from my cursory understanding of half-life, that's not right.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

Also, China plans to open 500 new nuclear plants aswell. Just hope they cancel that project.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

here are the news from China
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5808-Chinese-nuclear-disaster-highly-probable-by-2-3-

[Taronyu Leleioae]

But with the 7:10 rule for general airborne particulate, this means...  that if you had an event where the background radiation was say, 1000R, then in 7 hours, it's down to 100R.  In 49 hours (2 days), it's now 10R.  In 14 days (2 weeks), it's 1R.

It's very late over here, but from my cursory understanding of half-life, that's not right.

It's a little hard to explain.  Because you are right.  Cesium half-life is about 30 years.  (Time it takes for 1/2 the mass to be reduced and energy released.)  And it's bad over there.  They've shown modern counters with 100x the safe limits.  The radioactive decay I'm referring to, is essentially dirt/dust that has been radiated into, and now is releasing that energy.  Alpha radiation (skin surface), Beta radiation (a bit more penetration) tend to be the concerns with fallout.  This isn't the primary material or anything so intense (gamma for example) that has a much longer 1/2 life to decay.  But the article is concerned that this core material (which is life ending material radioactive wise) is going to cover the planet.  And, that just isn't realistic.  You have almost an inconceivable amount of high local radiation.  Plus contaminated water in the bay.  Plus obviously the contamination in the air originally.  (I'm amazed they even bothered cleaning up the area so soon, actually.  Surface contamination would have been high.)  But for much of the radioactive "dirt" thrown up, the 7:10 rule was the guideline.  

Obviously it depends if source material is dispersed vs just secondary material exposed to radiation (like dust/dirt/water).  There's no question this is a catastrophic event, and harmful to life.  I'm just pointing out that I feel this article is somehow taken out of context.  Or was slanted towards the Japanese government and/or Tepco, and how facts/reality were downplayed vs protecting their own backsides politically.

EDIT:  Link to article from July 2013 about the cesium radiation.

The worse stuff in the long run (past 30 years) is Plutonium.  And there are different types.  P-238 (common) is 88 years.  Whereas P-239 (weapons and part of core waste) is 24K years.  One of the technology interests was to see if they can re-use this waste material and literally "burn" it down.  We're not there yet.  But with energy resources becoming more and more in demand, it wouldn't surprise me if "one day" we do have fusion reactors that can reprocess the old material.

Link to "fast reactors" research.

As to China...  Doesn't surprise me.  And won't surprise me if they shortcut their engineering and cause another major disaster sacrificing their people and environment for safety.  Likely as a result from an earthquake, as they are prone to them.  And they, too, depend upon the sea.  They still have to source the nuclear material to "fuel" these reactors and keep them online.  Plans are all well and good...

[Toruk Makto]

Couple of things. Hiroshima was a uranium fission bomb ("little boy" type), not a hydrogen fusion bomb. Also, the residual radiation effects from fissile material are much longer lasting than the decay curve you describe.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I think this article is overhyped. You would have to have perfect conditions for this kind of spread to happen, and those conditions simply don't exist. The material in the pools is not easily going to go critical. The control rods are in place, plus its is easy to add things to the water to stop a chain reaction. It would seem to me to be feasible to use a large crane and pick up the fuel assemblies, one by one, and transfer them to a more secure pool. In the long term, the more worrisome part of Fukishima is going to be dealing with the heavily damaged reactor cores. It is these that are causing most of the radioactive water problems.

This situation would have been much easier to deal with if those @$%#%@^ hydrogen explosions could have been prevented! They had problems with hydrogen explosions in Three Mile Island as well. But unlike Fukishima, the entire reactor, including the reactor vessel head, is in containment. The hydrogen explosion at TMI was so well contained, it was principally seen as a pressure spike on the containment instruments. The top of the reactor vessel in a boiling water reactor like Fukishima is technically not in containment. So, the hydrogen explosion blew the top of the building off, exposing the spent fuel pool and causing all sorts of other problems.

Fukishima and Chernoybl represent the worst cases of a nuclear accident. We have learned much since these plants were built (they are both old designs). We now have intrinsically safe reactor designs that can stand the heat of a 'loss of cooling accident'. Fusion is coming, but it at least 50 years away from being practical. We are going to need a combination of renewable and nuclear/hydroelectric/geothermal energy to power us until then and beyond.

I suspect that the transuranium elements (like plutonium) are the ones they are most worried about, as they have long chains of decay products. Most of the fission products from reactor operation (like Cesium 137) decay into nonradioactive species, and there the 7:10 rule applies. The plutonium in the spent fuel is very valuable as it can be reused for reactor fuel without enriching it enough to be weapons grade. Plutonium 238 is especially valuable as it is hard to produce, and is used to power spacecraft, like the Curiosity rover.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

a good idea is that China can use their nuclear on fuel to liftoff their rockets up to their new space station. They can become a space-nation, just like USA. And maybe, they could spend thw nuclear fuwl to maybe send their astronauts to the Moon? China is going to start with that mission, but now they are constructing thwir new spacestation, Tiangong Space Station. The 1st part ia already orbiting Earth.

[Taronyu Leleioae]

Couple of things. Hiroshima was a uranium fission bomb ("little boy" type), not a hydrogen fusion bomb. Also, the residual radiation effects from fissile material are much longer lasting than the decay curve you describe.

Oops.  Not sure why I called it an H bomb, knowing full well it was colloquially called an Atomic.   I hate making errors like that.  Especially at late hours...  (Primary fissile material for the Hiroshima era weapons was U-235.  About 60kg from what I remember.)

But with these weapons, this is a direct release of the fissile material into the atmosphere.  The article is suggesting that all the fissile material will suddenly vaporize and/or wash into the ocean.  (Disregarding that the fissile material is so heavy, the majority would more likely settle out of the water inside of the bay and along the shore.)

The curve I'm referencing is only the original US/CD/FEMA guideline for exposure for initial exposure particularly caused by radiated dirt/dust/plume caused in such an incident.  Absolutely NOT suggesting said such a plume isn't deadly.  But my point is that this "spread around the world" affects isn't valid, because most of it would have decayed.  Not to mention, that which hit the ocean currents would be diluted down to levels well below toxicity levels.  (Although the land and fishing areas around Fukashima are just finished.)

[Taronyu Leleioae]

a good idea is that China can use their nuclear on fuel to liftoff their rockets up to their new space station. They can become a space-nation, just like USA. And maybe, they could spend thw nuclear fuwl to maybe send their astronauts to the Moon? China is going to start with that mission, but now they are constructing thwir new spacestation, Tiangong Space Station. The 1st part ia already orbiting Earth.

I am NOT a fan of using nuclear fuel for conventional rockets.  Besides expensive, their accident rate will surely be high as they rush to compete to get into space.  I would agree that atomic reactors (psu) for the station might be used.  But I'll cringe for those first launches to get it up there.  Just one accident will impact the environment.  It's bad enough for every impressive shuttle launch made, the environmental impact we caused with the fuel exhaust.

[Tìtstewan]

a good idea is that China can use their nuclear on fuel to liftoff their rockets up to their new space station. They can become a space-nation, just like USA. And maybe, they could spend thw nuclear fuwl to maybe send their astronauts to the Moon? China is going to start with that mission, but now they are constructing thwir new spacestation, Tiangong Space Station. The 1st part ia already orbiting Earth.

Sorry, but exacly this I would not support, particularly in China. The best thing would be to let the finger away from such nuclear stuff. Chernobyl and Fukushima was enough, I think. And on Earth we have also enough radioactive polluted areas like Mayak in Russia or barrels thrown in the North Sea. China is known for enviroment pollution and they will do that not better.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

a good idea is that China can use their nuclear on fuel to liftoff their rockets up to their new space station. They can become a space-nation, just like USA. And maybe, they could spend thw nuclear fuwl to maybe send their astronauts to the Moon? China is going to start with that mission, but now they are constructing thwir new spacestation, Tiangong Space Station. The 1st part ia already orbiting Earth.

Sorry, but exacly this I would not support, particularly in China. The best thing would be to let the finger away from such nuclear stuff. Chernobyl and Fukushima was enough, I think. And on Earth we have also enough radioactive polluted areas like Mayak in Russia or barrels thrown in the North Sea. China is known for enviroment pollution and they will do that not better.

But who knows, maybe they will use something else. I am not sure yet, of what they used to Tiangong-1. I just can't find any information about what kind of fuel they used, i don't know.

It would be bad if they already is using nuclear fuel.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Nuclear rockets are not good choices for getting into orbit, as the exhaust plume is at least somewhat radioactive. They a good choice once in space, though, but only for manned interplanetary missions where a high output rocket will be needed to do things like drop into orbit after a fast cruise, and to get out of orbit at the end of the planetary portion of the mission. They are also expensive to build as they use expensive nuclear fuel in an expendible manner.

Tiangong is/was undoubtedly solar powered. Reactors in space only make sense when lots of power is needed for an extended period.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was an implosion device, using plutonium. The Nagasaki bomb was a 'gun type' bomb built with Uranium. As far as i know, it was the only gun-type device ever detonated.

[Toruk Makto]

Couple of things. Hiroshima was a uranium fission bomb ("little boy" type), not a hydrogen fusion bomb. Also, the residual radiation effects from fissile material are much longer lasting than the decay curve you describe.

Oops.  Not sure why I called it an H bomb, knowing full well it was colloquially called an Atomic.   I hate making errors like that.  Especially at late hours...  (Primary fissile material for the Hiroshima era weapons was U-235.  About 60kg from what I remember.)

But with these weapons, this is a direct release of the fissile material into the atmosphere.  The article is suggesting that all the fissile material will suddenly vaporize and/or wash into the ocean.  (Disregarding that the fissile matperial is so heavy, the majority would more likely settle out of the water inside of the bay and along the shore.)

The curve I'm referencing is only the original US/CD/FEMA guideline for exposure for initial exposure particularly caused by radiated dirt/dust/plume caused in such an incident.  Absolutely NOT suggesting said such a plume isn't deadly.  But my point is that this "spread around the world" affects isn't valid, because most of it would have decayed.  Not to mention, that which hit the ocean currents would be diluted down to levels well below toxicity levels.  (Although the land and fishing areas around Fukashima are just finished.)

I've never been a huge fan of the direct effect predictions. There are long period products that can and do travel long distances before embedding in the environment that can cause health problems.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I have to correct something I said that Toruk Makto had correct: The Hiroshima bomb was the gun-type, and the Nagasaki bomb the implosion type. I was confusing the first bomb with the Trinity test shot bomb, which was an implosion devcie. They decided to use the gun-type device for Hiroshima, as they physicists and engineers felt there was less to go wrong with it. It could also more easily handle the large mass of Uranium required for a bomb. A critical mass of U235 is something like 30 kg. A critical mass for Pu239 is something like 5 kg.

Your body needs to have some radiation exposure to keep the immune system working well. I believe some tests were done with animals in an environment as free of radiation as possible (very hard to do!). They found their immune systems didn't work quite as well.

There have been natural nuclear reactors as well. There was one in Africa that was 'critical' for millions of years. It was discovered by finding amounts of natural Plutonium, which is an element that is basically nonexistent elsewhere. As far as I know this reactor had no shielding, and was operated without a licnense

[Tìtstewan]

There have been natural nuclear reactors as well. There was one in Africa that was 'critical' for millions of years. It was discovered by finding amounts of natural Plutonium, which is an element that is basically nonexistent elsewhere. As far as I know this reactor had no shielding, and was operated without a licnense

That reactor what you mean was in Oklo in Gabon and it works 1.7 billion (Proterozoic age) years ago not "millions", this was a looooong time ago . That natural reactor was 500.000 years active. Ten tons of ²³⁵U was fissed nuclearly and ²³⁸U was fissed to four tons ²³⁹Pu, but not at the same time, of course.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

There have been natural nuclear reactors as well. There was one in Africa that was 'critical' for millions of years. It was discovered by finding amounts of natural Plutonium, which is an element that is basically nonexistent elsewhere. As far as I know this reactor had no shielding, and was operated without a licnense

That reactor what you mean was in Oklo in Gabon and it works 1.7 billion (Proterozoic age) years ago not "millions", this was a looooong time ago . That natural reactor was 500.000 years active. Ten tons of ²³⁵U was fissed nuclearly and ²³⁸U was fissed to four tons ²³⁹Pu, but not at the same time, of course.

Thanks for correcting my dates. I wonder how 'hot' this area was at the time? There were few land animals around at the time to be 'zapped' by radiation.

I wonder if this could ever happen again. It took a unique combination of circumstances for this 'reactor' to come to be.

[Tìtstewan]

Thanks for correcting my dates. I wonder how 'hot' this area was at the time? There were few land animals around at the time to be 'zapped' by radiation.

Nìprrte! As for your question:

The natural nuclear reactor formed when a uranium-rich mineral deposit became inundated with groundwater that acted as a neutron moderator, and a nuclear chain reaction took place. The heat generated from the nuclear fission caused the groundwater to boil away, which slowed or stopped the reaction. After cooling of the mineral deposit, the water returned and the reaction started again. These fission reactions were sustained for hundreds of thousands of years, until a chain reaction could no longer be supported.

Fission of uranium normally produces five known isotopes of the fission-product gas xenon; all five have been found trapped in the remnants of the natural reactor, in varying concentrations. The concentrations of xenon isotopes, found trapped in mineral formations 2 billion years later, make it possible to calculate the specific time intervals of reactor operation: approximately 30 minutes of criticality followed by 2 hours and 30 minutes of cooling down to complete a 3-hour cycle.

I wonder if this could ever happen again. It took a unique combination of circumstances for this 'reactor' to come to be.

I think, that cannot happend again. All radioactive material decaying with the time and its need a uranium-rich ore to make it possible.