Fukushima Status as of 6am EDT March 16th

Zero Hedge ^ | 3/16/2011 | Zero Hedge

[GonzoGOP]

The Japanese said they were going to use a bulldozer and a fire truck. Then shoot the water in through a hole in the wall. All I was saying is that when possible use robots to minimize human exposure to radiation. Especially in cases where a robot nearly ideal for the job already exists.

We also have the Fire Scout robot helicopter prototypes. Their payload is limited, but they could certainly be used for recon and radiation sampling.

[CondorFlight]

Why not just BOMB the reactors (with bunker-busters) ?

That would scatter pieces of radioactive material for a few hundred yards, and contaminate the local area...

BUT, it would put out the fires, and prevent radiation from
spreading to Tokyo and further.

The local topsoil could be cleaned up later by remotely controlled bulldozers.

[junta]

by example, gasoline being heated, quite a curve Obviously I’m not a physics major, but in all honesty I’ve a better handle on it than the “what me worry” types whose assumptions have all been toasted by events.

[sam_paine]

It is certainly interesting that in the remote-viewer of TV/Radio/Internut media, everyone distrusts the "other side" as determined by each person's predetermined agenda.

People who are pro-nuke want to find out that the meme will be similar to GlobalWarmism or DeepHorizon....that the reality turns out to be much less severe than the breathless hype.

People who are anti-nuke want to prepare the battlefield for their "I told you so" glory.

Conspiracists want to prove that the governments or companies or both conspired to hide the truth.

Meanhile technomilitarists cling to notions that super-secret block-ops teams have alien technology which could zoom out of the sky with super-secret flying concrete trucks and entomb the problem if only Obama would give them the go aheead.

In reality, we know that nobody can go in and take a peek through the steam and rubble and report first-hand what's going on. Even remote Mr Roboto's could not really tell us much at this point. Everything is being surmised through remote radiation sensing stations and thermocouples and other second-hand data by the operators and the expert teams supervising the indirect operators.

And as far as action, once the control rods were dropped and the initial shutdowns occured, there may not be much else which can or cannot be done to "control" the situation other than to try to get rid of as much heat as possible and let the reactor vessels simmer down and pray that the design allows it fail down intact in in a reasonably orderly manner, such as when a spillway on a dam overflows...it's going to allow dangerous flooding, but in a more orderly manner than having the dam break.

While we should always distrust governments and to a similar extent, potentially terminally doomed companies like TEPCO, we also should consider that the inconsistencies in stories are possibly due to incomplete information to begin with (nobody really knows,) and incomplete ability to actually control all aspects of the situation and not necessarily some conspiracy.

You can keep a fire "controlled" in a fireplace, but you cannot "control" which sticks burn when and where the smoke dissipates to. But that doesn't mean the fire is a danger to everyone.

[sam_paine]

Ok. I’ll take your example.

If I heat a gallon of gasoline in a bucket and pour it on a buddhist protester and set it on fire, it will cause an immense amount of discomfort for the buddhist.

If I vaporize a gallon of gasoline over 100 cubic feet and then ignite it, then I cause a big bang which can concussively kill a whole bunch of buddhists, but not really that much sustained heating capacity.

If I vaporize a gallon of gas over 1000 cubic miles, I couldn’t even smell it, much less be harmed by it or set it on fire.

And that example is a chemical one. Radiological effects work differently yet again.

So no, I don’t understand your point.

[CondorFlight]

If necessary, we could even nuke the plant (thereby burning up all the material). There would be far less radiation spread
than from a plant which turns into a Chernobyl (if that is in the offing—which btw I doubt).

Politically this would be impossible; yet if it were offered to the Japanese as a chance for the US to save lives rather than destroy them (ie, as a kind of atonement for 1945), it might
be accepted.

[Professional]

Clearly, someone had to have thought of all this stuff before....right? I mean, after Chernobyl, you’d especially think about remote controlled equipment to fight fires, or bury a site? We have drones and such, and I’d find it shocking that the worlds nuke powers contingent plan with nukes doesn’t have procedures to deal with an event that doesn’t allow human inter-action? The US Navy extensively uses nuke power on ships, is there no plan to deal with a disaster there either?

As far as nuke power goes, what were all these nations plans should a war break out? On the first day, there wouldn’t be electricity, anywhere?

[aces]

well said..

[silverleaf]

of course, anyone who points out that the China Syndrome, Chernobyl, Hiroshima, nuclear winter, and 2012 end-of-days are not going to happen here even in the worst case, is now being labled as “pro nuke”

If we had a US energy secretary with balls, and who wasn't bought and paid for by enviro globalists, he'd be briefing the American people factually every day

and broadcasting straight facts to people in Japan who are feeding off the world press hysteria

[junta]

I’m pro-nuke, pro tech, but the fools running their mouths, take Karl Denninger for example are flat out embarrasing. On Friday he states they SCRAMed and is was just a small amount of heat needed to be dissapated and in days this would be over and no big deal. Nearly a week later its “dire” and he acts like he never wrote what he wrote, and all the “experts” sound like this, which gives the anti-nuke types more grist. The “expert” on Savage’s show same dif, change by the day and forget what was said the previous day, and if the whole industry is like that they are their own worst enemy.

[winoneforthegipper]

Nobel,

Could u comment on this article?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608

It’s the first time I read that it was possible?

[junta]

I’m sure you are a nuke tech good luck to you.

[stefanbatory]

In other words: “Yes, your guess is correct, stefanbatory.”

[GonzoGOP]

The US Navy extensively uses nuke power on ships, is there no plan to deal with a disaster there either?

The problem of keeping a ships reactor covered in water is a bit easier. Tow it to deep water and open the seacocks. You would need to boil away the entire planets oceans before the rods could become exposed.

[Nobel_1]

Reply to BBC article (emperor is concerned) is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2689586/posts?q=1&;page=92#92

[Uncle Miltie]

Has anyone died?

I remember dead coal miners, dead oil workers, dead natural gas workers.

I rate risk in terms of death. While Fukushima sounds series, I haven’t heard of one death yet.

[sam_paine]

I’m pro-nuke, pro tech, but the fools running their mouths, take Karl Denninger for example are flat out embarrasing. On Friday he states they SCRAMed and is was just a small amount of heat needed to be dissapated and in days this would be over and no big deal. Nearly a week later its “dire” and he acts like he never wrote what he wrote, and all the “experts” sound like this, which gives the anti-nuke types more grist. The “expert” on Savage’s show same dif, change by the day and forget what was said the previous day, and if the whole industry is like that they are their own worst enemy.

You mention Karl Denninger and Michael Savage, but of course they're not experts on anything but tirades on financial reports, and "pasta with olive oil and salt."

I suspect that "experts" which go on TV don't have enough expertise to earn enough business working in their "fields" to keep them busy and that's why they go on TV.

And I also suspect, and have seen, real experts that I know are very sharp on their subject matter, unable to give a coherent public presentation, much less handle a combative talking airhead on a TV soundbite show.

[junta]

Agreed

[Moleman]

THANK YOU!!! Best most logical post of the day.

[Liberty1970]

It is certainly interesting that in the remote-viewer of TV/Radio/Internut media, everyone distrusts the "other side" as determined by each person's predetermined agenda.

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of polarization on this subject myself, both here and on other websites. I'm more of what I hope is the silent majority in the middle: concerned but not panicking, basically pro-nuclear but not wanting to downplay the risks or pretend they don't exist. The level of ignorance we face in this case renders the extremists on both sides reckless in their unverifiable and presumptuous claims.

I do hope (as an engineer) the lessons learned from this episode are incorporated in future reactor designs. One lesson I'm getting is, no matter how good your design and your 'Plan B' is, you had better have a Plan C and Plan D and Plan E and Plan F and so on for multiple catastrophic failures when something like this happens.

Because sooner or later this is going to happen again, or a nuke reactor is going to be on the front lines of a heavy artillery barrage in some war or a well-equipped terrorist squad is going to make a well-planned and executed attempt to force a reactor meltdown, and someone is going to have to figure out how to cope with that.