Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Meltdown Now Looking More Likely

I was probably too hasty in saying that the situation in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi reactors was going to be less severe than Three Mile Island. In my defense, I was working on the available information at the time, that suggested that seawater was being used successfully to cool the reactor cores.

It seems now that those efforts have been less successful than originally suggested and that significant damage has resulted. Given the state of devastation in Japan, this is understandable. Imagine if the entire state of Pennsylvania had been devastated before Three Mile Island. Thinking of it that way puts the failures in perspective, I think.

It is one of the many tragedies about this situation that we continue to be more fascinated and absorbed by a terrible but as yet non-fatal situation than the devastation that has killed so many thousands all around. Although the risk of a serious incident has increased, we should not be bandying about terms like disaster and catastrophe: Japan has already suffered those. For continuing coverage, I recommend Brave New Climate.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   26

EXPAND  

   03/14/11 23:09

Another good site for coverage is World Nuclear News.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/14/11 23:23

I don't really get it. couldn't diesel generators and equipment be choppered in from elsewhere in the country or from our aircraft carriers?

Also of the backup generators are susceptible to flooding why aren't they 30 feet off the ground on a gantry or some such?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/14/11 23:42

I don't know the full details, but considering that the tsunami was up 30 feet, the generators likely stood no chance. And even if they survived, they have probably been hopelessly contaminated with dirty seawater.

"portable" generators may not be up to the task.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/14/11 23:42

Read your own links, please.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
wisco
   03/15/11 00:06

"We should not be bandying about terms like disaster and catastrophe"

They're detecting elevated levels of radiation in Tokyo. External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 00:13

I agree with ROC. Given the danger, do whatever it takes, by whomever, to get more pumping equipment onsite. I used to be a project manager, and sometimes, during the execution of the project, you get pretty much free reign to any and all available resources. I would HOPE that any country asked would help here. I am beginning to wonder if there hasn't been more of a coverup than let on, or maybe wishful thinking. On BBC website, there is an article that claims reactor 2 rods were exposed because the fire truck pumping seawater ran low on diesel. Are you kidding me? What is going on that someone in charge could not have called the top dog somehwere and had copious quantities choppered in before it ran out? I realize many of the workers may have lost their homes and/or families, and may be distracted, but this is so big you bring in relief from wherever you can.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 00:44

Wotan- susceptible is a loaded analysis. Nobody can predict all of the possible scenarios, and even if they could, when you are performing any engineering task, you have to put your limit somewhere, or else the project will never go forward.

Put it this way, if the tsunami had been 10x bigger and had knocked out 10x more power plants, many would be saying "why didn't they put the generators 50 feet above the ground". And if Los Angeles gets hit by a 10.0 earthquake, we'll be asking why they didn't build buildings to meet those specifications.

Why didn't they build the reactors to take a comet strike?

At the end of the day, we have to look at the risks and do our best to engineer things to the best extent of cost effectiveness (or not build them at all). Sometimes the risks, however unlikely, catch up with us. Japan rolled 100 snake-eyes in a row, and now is not the time for hindsight.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Cris Angelini
   03/15/11 01:57

Human advancement requires risk. There is no leftist utopia, where over burdensome rules and regulations, with statist oversight over everything can guarantee complete safety and bliss for everyone. The structures were built to withstand the strongest earth quake scenario Japan had previously experienced since modern measurement protocols were established. Just as it would be impossible to foresee a comet falling from space, as the prior comment suggested, so too was it unreasonable to expend the resources which would be necessary to construct a facility able to survive a 9.0 earthquake undamaged; given no prior earthquake had come close to this magnitude in Japan’s history. The Japanese are an honorable people, who will persevere; all we can do if pray for the best outcome and be diligent not to let the left use this tragedy as a red herring to thwart future human progress.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 03:41

The alarming thing here is the level of ignorant panic. The Tokyo stock market has lost $600 billion in value in 2 days on relentless doom mongering by utterly clueless media commentators. As a fact, flooding caused most of the damage and the earthquake itself most of the rest, and all the nuclear bother is tiny in comparison. So guess which part the whole world is going bat crazy over?

We are ruled by Matt Drudge's panic and hypochondria, which has run the globe before the truth could get its boots on...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 06:12

From what I'm reading now, it looks like the nuclear plant has been hit unbelievably hard, even worse than I thought before The sensors are off line, and all of the work needs manual inspection to determine what is actually going on. That's why it is so chaotic - a flammable mixture can accumulate without them knowing, a radiation leak can occur and they don't notice until later.

Also, I'm really worried about local chem plants and refineries in the area. If the quake did this to a nuclear plant with a containment and redundant systems, other large facilities are probably toast.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 06:16

@Overt,

yeah, who could have seen this coming?

External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Q.
   03/15/11 06:53

This "nuclear bother" will have lasting impact long after the damage from the earthquake and tsunami are cleaned up.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 06:54

I agree with JasonC. Even though this is a serious problem, it's not the catastrophe that's being hyped in the media (who have an incentive to hype catastrophe because scaring people is good for ratings).

Part of it is the word "meltdown," because it's come into the vernacular as meaning "Charlie Sheen." Chernobyl was a Charlie Sheen event. The reactors in Japan are not going Charlie Sheen. They might be going Luke Wilson, but they are highly unlikely to go Charlie Sheen.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
wpa38
   03/15/11 07:21

Frankly I can't work up any sympathy for Japan. They spent much of the 20th century brutally enslaving Asia. They attacked us in 1941. After we defeated them at tremendous cost, we rebuilt them at tremendous cost. How did they repay us? By stealing our industries and jobs.

No sympathy.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 08:13

What would our country look like if every building and form of transportation was designed to withstand any conceivable (even ultra-low probability) event? Would anything have been built, considering the added cost? There is always some kind of cost-benefit analysis.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kevin McGreevy
   03/15/11 08:31

WPA38,
Japan didn't "steal" our industries and jobs. No one "steals" jobs. They may have performed those jobs more efficiently, but they didn't steal them.

And what would you have had Japan do? They adopted a democratic form of government. They embraced capitalism (and "stole" those jobs). They renounced their formerly militaristic ways (too much I'd say - Germany too - but I understand the social dynamic). They've become a dependable partner of the U.S.

Your lack of sympathy shows a lack of compassion, not outraged righteousness.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 08:31

Overt, I'm not sure why you directed that specifically to me. I was responding to ROC (and posting from my phone, so I left out the remark that that is what I was doing.) I'm well aware you can't engineer for every scenario (and it was thought that the tectonics of that part of the Japan Trench would make a ~9.0 Mw earthquake highly unlikely), and even if you could, the expense would be prohibitive.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 08:36

I am afraid the tsunami defense does not hold water.

What is the difference between a 30' tsunami and a 30' storm surge from the confluence of a typhoon and full moon?

And submerged diesels? They have these things called metal tubing and seals which allows them to run under water just as in submarines. This in conjunction with a sealed room and sump pump should have made the backup generator not only tsunami proof but rapture proof.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 08:48

As a former physics teacher, I used to think nuclear power was much of the answer to America’s energy shortfall.

But about simultaneously, gas came on-line and the Japanese disaster once again made nuclear power a pariah.

So now I think gas-powered power plants are the way to go.

(But notice I was wrong before, so let the market decide.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/15/11 08:58

bmp: So it is your contention that they should have engineered the plant to survive any contigency, regardless of likelihood? One difference between a tsunami and a storm surge is warning. You have days to prepare for a storm surge, minutes to prepare for a tsunami. Additionally, a tsunami comes ashore much faster, so when the first wave hits, it does a lot more damage.

Do you have any idea how thick the walls would have had to be to withstand being submerged under 30 feet of water?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact