Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mefustae on March 11, 2011, 02:38:03 am
-
Seems like New Zealand was just the tip of the iceberg in Mother Nature's war on humanity.
Japan just got hit by an earthquake (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning) close in strength to that of the 2004 Indian Ocean quake. I've seen figures ranging from 7.9 to 8.9 thrown around, so that'll develop as time goes on. Safe to say, the death toll is going to be pretty damn big. I'd say this is going to be worse than the Kobe earthquake.
There's some footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBt5VlZkdyY) of the tsunami moving into towns and farmland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKh-QaeT6rc). This looks absolutely terrifying, especially when you consider there's a nuclear plant in the vicinity of both the quake and possibly the water.
-
I like the guy standing on the overpass taking pictures with his cellphone. Looks surreal.
-
I was watching this live with some friends in AIM chat as some of the footage broke. Absolutely insane. I'm just glad a few people I know who are in Japan right now have reported in.
-
Wow. The first video shows just how easy the tsunami makes its way past the coastal farmland. I'm glad to live in the middle of Germany. The strongest earthquake we've had was 3.3 or so...
Nature is remorseless.
-
Seems it's been revised to 8.8.. oddly my best japanese friend is in london today, she lives in an area that got hit quite badly.. all my other friends over there are net-only friends but they've reported in already, death toll already up to 19 "and many missing".. :<
-
I'm waiting for someone to blame global warming.
-
:rolleyes:
-
I'm waiting for someone to blame global warming.
So am I
/me lovingly caresses ban hammer.
-
Keep that handy in case someone mentions the number after 2011 as well ;)
-
What, are you guys BLIND? How can you not link this to global warm- *SMACK*
Ow! Was that a ****ing hammer? Why the hell would you have a hammer? Christ, I'm going to have to put some ice on this. Damn it. I mean, it's not like I mentioned that stupid Mayan doomsday prophe- *SMACK*
-
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson..
If Mayas are so f***g smart, how come they're so f***g dead?
-
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson..
If Mayas are so f***g smart, how come they're so f***g dead?
:lol:
-
Back on topic, some incredible footage of a whirlpool caused by the quake taken from a copter off the Japanese coast...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709856
-
This is going to get a whole hell of a lot worse before it gets better. :(
-
I was watching the BBC News feed an hour ago. The images I saw were awe-inspiring and frightening.
This is the most powerful earthquake felt in Japan in 140 years. It's even more powerful than the 1923 earthquake, and that was bad enough.
Last I heard, the confirmed death toll was in the sixties, and there are some reports that 200 bodies have been found in Sendai alone. The number of people missing is not too far behind, in the fifties, and reports of a boat carrying 100 people being swept away by the tsunami, and an entire train unaccounted for.
If there is a country that can pull through such a disaster, it's Japan, but they will probably need some assistance. How the UK is going to juggle sending aid to them and handling Libya at the same time is anyone's guess.
Back on topic, some incredible footage of a whirlpool caused by the quake taken from a copter off the Japanese coast...
I hope nobody was in that boat...
-
Should be coming ashore in Hawaii about now.
-
And the coast of British Columbia soon enough.
-
With the world's massive population increase at hand, possibly more lives are lost in the faces of calamity??
Seriously, does this mean that karajorma actually opposes global warming as the cause of a helluva of natural disorder?
-
8 feet of water surge in Hawaii. That's the first floors on most of the hotels.
-
The couple people I know in Japan have already checked in online, but a friend of mine's sister sent a short email this morning and that's all he's heard. Couple quotes from the fellows over there:
Yeah, I felt it! Along with the dozen or so aftershocks we've had. I'm about 100km closer to the epicenter than you are, so it was pretty damned strong -and long! (I was waiting to cross an intersection when it hit, and the light changed twice in the time it took from start to finish!)
I've felt a lot of earthquakes over the years (Hawaii, California, Japan, etc.), but I've never felt anything like THAT before... I swear, the ground was moving like the deck of a ship - swaying and rolling!
I'm about 100km inland and the tsunami are topping out at @10m (33')... So, I'm not at all concerned. Spootie, on the other hand - well, I hope he likes to surf!
Frak - another aftershock... I'm actually starting to feel seasick standing on dry land (doesn't help my office is on the 2nd floor so the movement is more noticable).
Power just came back on, we're about 430km from Sendai and my wife said the trees on the hill behind the house were shaking violently from the ground up during the event. My son was in the front yard after just getting off the school bus and said the ground was and entire hill was moving.
We have a light hanging from the ceiling that swayed almost continuously from aftershocks until about an hour ago.
No cell signal for phone calls, but the internet worked, strange.
Looks like it's pretty bad up north. They're having trouble at a nuclear power plant too.
I honestly can't even begin to count the number of earthquakes I've experienced (including being within 50km of a 6.7 before) - but *that* was different! I have NEVER experienced anything quite like that before... Standing on (solid?) ground and feeling like you're on the deck of a rocking boat is *interesting* - and when it seems to last forever (2-3 minutes) it gets downright surreal.
-
Is it just me, or am I not reading a lot about building collapses? There are fires here and there and things swallowed by muck, but nothing large toppling over.
If that's actually the case, kudos to the engineers.
-
Man, some of the vids...
I'm probably the most unimpressive guy there is, still those shots from the tsunami wave and then reading these reports... It shakes me, down to the spine.
-
Is it just me, or am I not reading a lot about building collapses? There are fires here and there and things swallowed by muck, but nothing large toppling over.
If that's actually the case, kudos to the engineers.
Even with super stable buildings, nothing short of a military bunker will stop a several ton boat. Heck, nothing will stop the water if that's all there was.
-
I'm probably the most unimpressive guy there is...
I presume you meant "difficult to impress"?
Any news about sea level surges in the Americas yet?
-
I presume you meant "difficult to impress"?
Probably.
My cousin from Chile says they expect the wave to hit during the night, in like 10-11hs more.
-
Any news about sea level surges in the Americas yet?
Listening to news snippets [EDIT: On the radio] this morning, any surges on the US West Coast (California, Oregon, etc.) are in the range of inches (cm). Nothing to worry about here, until the next big quake hits. :shaking:
-
I live in Santa Cruz, CA. The harbor here got hit pretty badly (something like $14 million in damage estimated). One dock apparently exploded due to the water pressure, and a bunch of boats were capsize/thrown about/swept out to sea. No injuries that I can tell. I do know that one man is confirmed dead in Crescent City, and the harbor there got hit bad. Two more are still missing up there. The tsunami was 1-2 m high on the West Coast.
-
Really? Woah, I guess my sources suck. I wonder if somebody could get a hold of Kusanagi, he lives on the coast.
-
abc news is starting to piss me off. i've been at work and know nothing of this, and now i have to put up with sensationalist reporting, snide remarks, and misinformation. they seemingly just tried to incite mass panic by saying TMI is happeing over there right now. RADIOACTIVE STEAM IS GOING TO BE RELEASED! RADIATION IN THE REACTOR IS 1000 TIMES HIGHER THAN NORMAL!!!!
do NOT buy into this. problems, yes. crisis, absolutely not.
-
That's why I don't watch TV anymore.
Here we go: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_japan_earthquake_pacific
Internet news ftw!
-
Is it just me, or am I not reading a lot about building collapses? There are fires here and there and things swallowed by muck, but nothing large toppling over.
If that's actually the case, kudos to the engineers.
In the UK we get flooding on the River plains. Our solution : Lower house prices for buildings on Flood plains. In Japan/Korea etc, they'd start looking into building houses that could withstand it. It's one of the things that I've always felt Eastern cultures are far better at doing something about.
-
The headline you won't see: Millions saved by careful regulation and building codes.
-
I made that point on Facebook actually.
-
Is it just me, or am I not reading a lot about building collapses? There are fires here and there and things swallowed by muck, but nothing large toppling over.
If that's actually the case, kudos to the engineers.
In the UK we get flooding on the River plains. Our solution : Lower house prices for buildings on Flood plains. In Japan/Korea etc, they'd start looking into building houses that could withstand it. It's one of the things that I've always felt Eastern cultures are far better at doing something about.
Then we have China, home of stories about companies cutting corners in safety regulations for the sake of profits.
-
The problem with China is size, population, politics and economics. They are at the same stage, in many ways, as Japan was 40 years ago, the market is almost entirely geared around products for the West produced as cheaply as possible, so the actual money to spend on Social structure is extremely limited. The difference here is that both Japan and the UK are capable of producing houses that have a good level of defence against natural disaster, but only Japan have chosen to invest in it. Now, admittedly, Earthquakes are a lot more dangerous than Floods in most cases, but Floods tend to be a lot cheaper to defend against.
As much as I hate to say it, life is also cheap in China, 1000 people die in a landslide? That's like someone being hit by a car in the UK with regards to total population impact.
-
I was flipping through the papers earlier today and saw a report that stated that this most recent disaster might severely hamper Japan's economic recovery and reduce its GDP.
-
Fukushima prefecture says Tepco's no.1 reactor ceiling has collapsed - Jiji
by Reuters_TonyTharakan at 3/12/2011 8:34:47 AM3:34 AM
http://live.reuters.com/Event/Japan_earthquake2
Japan earthquake: nuclear disaster feared after power plant 'explosion' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8377506/Japan-earthquake-nuclear-disaster-feared-after-power-plant-explosion.html)
Oh dear...
EDIT: Look! More!
Jiji news agency said there had been an explosion at the stricken 40-year-old Daichi 1 reactor and TV footage showed vapour rising from the plant, which lies 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo
by Reuters_TonyTharakan at 3/12/2011 8:46:35 AM3:46 AM
------
Japan Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano: expands evacuation area at no.2 plant to 10 km
by Reuters_TonyTharakan at 3/12/2011 8:50:12 AM3:50 AM
EDIT 2:
Footage of explosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg4uogOEUrU)
-
Is it just me, or am I not reading a lot about building collapses? There are fires here and there and things swallowed by muck, but nothing large toppling over.
If that's actually the case, kudos to the engineers.
In the UK we get flooding on the River plains. Our solution : Lower house prices for buildings on Flood plains. In Japan/Korea etc, they'd start looking into building houses that could withstand it. It's one of the things that I've always felt Eastern cultures are far better at doing something about.
Us dutch just don't allow anyone to build there 0_o.
-
Is it just me, or am I not reading a lot about building collapses? There are fires here and there and things swallowed by muck, but nothing large toppling over.
If that's actually the case, kudos to the engineers.
In the UK we get flooding on the River plains. Our solution : Lower house prices for buildings on Flood plains. In Japan/Korea etc, they'd start looking into building houses that could withstand it. It's one of the things that I've always felt Eastern cultures are far better at doing something about.
Us dutch just don't allow anyone to build there 0_o.
Well, if there were one country in Europe that I would expect to be smart with regards to the risks of Flooding, it'd be you guys ;)
-
The problem is that now the rivers are getting higher, we can't assign new flood area's without pissing someone off somewhere... The Netherlands is rather overcrowded, so if you have to make space for the river, you will have to ruin someone else's space...
---
On Topic: A Nuclear Power Plant in Japan has exploded.
-
Some radiation leaked but they say it's not that bad. No danger of a serious meltdown at least, and if there is one most people within 6 miles have been evacuated. Noone knows why the thing blew up, and I have no clue why this would happen. Gas leak?
-
Radioactive metals that are used in the upper cooling mechanism reacting with the water(looks like a big swimming pool, cept slightly radioactive) and producing hydrogen make boomie.
Alternatives to this is bad.
-
They now appear to be hosing the plant down with seawater.
-
That was some damn big thing that hit there. One can only wish strength to all the Japanese there who were more or less affected with that. Well, allmost the whole nation I think...
Good thing that the plant did not go completely haywire.
-
someone needs to punch this "Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" square in the testicles. by "nuclear expert" they must mean an idiot with a liberal arts degree who declares himself qualified to dictate nuclear policy to people who actually know what the hell they are talking about.
2 really big and obvious reasons why chernobyl CAN'T happen here:
1 - chernobyl was only possible because of terrible reactor design with a positive reactivity coefficient (meaning increasing power tends to drive power up even more)
2 - the plant is already shut down.
the worst case scenario here is meltdown. and so long as either the reactor vessel or containment building holds, that is extremely bad for the company but not for public health. that was a hell of a hydrogen explosion though. makes me wonder if they didn't have some of the protection systems in place for that that we do, or if it wasn't actually a hydrogen explosion.
-
From what I heard, it appears that the containment building was breached as a result of excess pressure, but the reactor vessels are intact. Or something. Wanderer mentioned that there was a partial meltdown, so I might have misheard and/or misread.
-
The Japanese reactor can also not catch fire, and thus the fallout, if it happens, is more readily contained.
-
The problem is that now the rivers are getting higher, we can't assign new flood area's without pissing someone off somewhere... The Netherlands is rather overcrowded, so if you have to make space for the river, you will have to ruin someone else's space...
---
On Topic: A Nuclear Power Plant in Japan has exploded.
Let people live in the flood areas, then tell them it is their own damn fault when their houses are destroyed. Everyone wins.
-
The headline you won't see: Millions saved by careful regulation and building codes.
I've seen that headline quite a few times now, actually.
-
Yeah, pretty much every news broadcast has been making the point that Japan has the most stringent and effective earthquake-proofing building standards in the world. It's just that nothing is ever designed to withstand a 500-year monster event like this. And even so, the majority of the truly horrific damage in this case was caused by the tsunamis, not so much the quake itself.
-
here is an article written by a nuclear engineering grad student at NC State on why not to freak out about the reactor problems in Japan. i'm glad we have someone like steve who had the patience and remained calm enough to write this out. pretty much all of the rest of us are too pissed at the bull**** being spread around to respond in such an eloquent manner.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/steve-skutnik/japans-nuclear-situation-in-laymans-terms/10150118938121275 (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/steve-skutnik/japans-nuclear-situation-in-laymans-terms/10150118938121275)
hit the "share" button at the bottom to spread it around if you wouldn't mind. [cheezy]together, we can overcome ignorance[/cheezy] :D
-
Aaah Facebook!
If someone could copy+paste it where us who don't have Facebook could read it, would be awesome.
-
some of the formatting was lost. some of the text (usually right before the "UPDATE:") was crossed out and there were a fair few links to sites with real information.
-------------------------------
Aside from the mass devastation yesterday's record 8.9 quake in Japan had yesterday, one of the major consequences has been in some damage to one of Japan's nuclear facilities (Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1). As is usual, whenever anything involving a large-scale disaster is mixed with the term "nuclear" and reported by those with limited technical backgrounds, much tends to be lost.
First, the most authoritative place for news would be the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which is releasing regular press releases on the situation. Likewise, ANS nuclear cafe is featuring constant media updates on the situation. Rod Adams at Atomic Insights also has a good summary of the situation.
However, for the benefit of folks here, I'm going to attempt to try and boil some of this down for a lay audience. If any of my NE colleagues want to jump in and offer insights or corrections, by all means.
What happened to the reactors during the earthquake?
When the earthquake struck, Japan's reactors were immediately shut down by a quick insertion of control rods, stopping the chain reaction responsible for producing fission (known as a "scram.") This was successful in all of the reactors. However, the reactor still remains "hot" for a short time after shutdown, because of very short-lived radioactive fission products which are in the fuel. As these fission products decay, they produce heat - this heat still must be removed from the reactor in order to keep the fuel cool. (Update: As Cyrus points out, this can be 6-7% of full power at shutdown - in a larger reactor like Fukishima, this can be 60-70 MW, and around 10 MW right now.)
Normally, when the power is cut off in an emergency such as this, a diesel generator serves as a backup system, which powers pumps in order to circulate coolant (much like in your car's radiator). However, it appears that these diesel systems were damaged during the earthquake - thus, the pumps had to operate on limited battery power until this was exhausted. Contrary to early reports, the USAF wasn't "flying in coolant" (as this just consists of ordinary water); however, a backup diesel generator was flown in and installed to get the pumps working again. (Update: Cyrus points out that the diesel generator was working for about an hour until the subsequent tsunami struck, which is what disabled the diesel backup system.)
What is the big concern?
The biggest concern in this case is keeping the fuel cool - even though the reactor is "off" (e.g., not producing any more fissions), heat is still being produced which needs to be "wicked" away. Without the water circulating, what will happen is similar to in your car's radiator if the car's water pump fails - i.e., the coolant will continue to get hotter and hotter until it boils. This increases pressure inside containment (or your radiator). In each case, the pressure build-up can eventually cause a blow-out, where the containment (or your radiator) is breached. This is obviously undesirable.
To prevent this, some of the steam is being vented, to "bleed off" the pressure. The downside of this of course is that letting out steam means there's less water available for cooling now. Likewise, a very small amount of radiation may be released in the process (carried with the steam). However, the amounts are generally incredibly small - the largest dose indicated has been in the control room reactor building, where one worker received 1000 microsieverts - which sounds like a lot, but is in fact only 1 mrem. (For reference, a typical chest x-ray is about 10 times the dose.) (Update: The worker, who was in the reactor building received 106.3 mSv - elevated beyond regulatory limits, but far from fatal. Current estimates of the control room put the dose around 70 microsieverts/h, or about 7 mrem/h - elevated, but quite small. One would have to be exposed continuously for nearly an entire work year for it to begin to hit regulatory limits, which are themselves conservative.)
The big concern about keeping the fuel cool is to keep the fuel intact. When fissions occur, almost all of the radioactive isotopes created are trapped in the ceramic fuel itself - this is a safety feature. Thus, the main concern about keeping the fuel cool isn't a "China Syndrome" type of situation (which itself is physically impossible), but rather a matter of keeping the radioactivity safely confined.
As water is boiled away from the reactor, there is a chance that the fuel can be "uncovered," which is where the risk of partial melting of the fuel exists. (i.e., nothing is left to wick away heat from the element itself). However, the fuel itself is only the first radiation containment barrier - the containment building itself is also designed to prevent the release of radiation to the environment, specifically under these types of circumstances.
Has there been a meltdown? (Is this like Three-Mile Island or Chernobyl?)
Basically, no. First, it's helpful to define the term "meltdown." Were the reactor completely devoid of coolant, eventually the entire core assembly would heat and melt - producing a large, very hot radioactive pool of metal on the floor of the containment building. (Rod Adams helpfully points out that it's unlikely it would even get this far - in Three Mile Island's case, a substantial portion of the core melted, however it cooled into a lump of metal - "corium" - at the bottom of the pressure vessel.) This is not what is happening, nor is it the danger. The risk is in "uncovering" fuel from coolant, where the top portion of the fuel may melt and release radioactive fission products.
What has happened is that the fuel in Unit 1 may have been exposed for some time due to loss of coolant, which may have resulted in some loss of radioactivity.
Three-Mile Island was a partial fuel melt due in part to operator errors - operators incorrectly believed the reactor was being flooded with coolant (when in fact a pump was stuck closed), turning off coolant to the reactor. While the core itself was rendered unusable and the unit shut down, the actual dose received by the public was extremely minimal.
Chernobyl was a reactor different than the kind operated in Japan or the United States (and in fact would be illegal to build in the U.S. for technical reasons). Chernobyl operators were conducting tests with poor communication and had bypassed several safety devices. This was a full "meltdown" in the true sense, resulting in an explosion in the containment building and a release of radioactivity. However, it should be noted that the death toll was relatively small, and most of the dose received (and subsequent casualties) were in the first responders to the accident.
In the case of Japan, the operators have been doing things correctly - the fuel has been kept as cool as possible to prevent any possible overheating of the fuel. Everything they've done so far has been to minimize the risk of damage to the core or accidental release of radiation to the public.
Wasn't there a radiation leak at one of the reactors?
Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 appears to have released a small amount of radioactivity when the containment was vented in order to relieve pressue (due to the buildup of boiling water). However, this release appears to have been very small and of no real danger to the public. Update: The measured radiological levels near the plant have been reported to have been elevated from 0.007 rem/hr to 0.67 rem/hr. While this is elevated beyond normal acceptable limits, this is far below the levels of Three Mile Island (itself quite small) or Chernobyl (much larger). The IAEA has given the incident a 4 on its International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (on a scale of 1-7; TMI was a "5", and Chernobyl was a "7").
Why are they evacuating the area?
This is done as a preventative precaution to protect the public. While so far there has been no known escape of radioactivity (save for what may have been released when the containment was vented), the evacuation is to ensure that this can be verified without putting anyone at risk.
What caused the explosion? (Is this a meltown?)
There was an explosion in the reactor building (not the reactor or the containment building). Official sources speculate that this was due to an ignition of hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas can build up due to the extreme heating of the water and dissolution into hydrogen and oxygen. As the pressure built up, the hydrogen may have ignited as containment was vented, causing an explosion. However, this is not a meltdown - so far, there has been no good indication that any kind of catastrophic fuel failure (melt) has occurred.
Why are they flooding the containment building with seawater?
Basically, they need to keep the temperature down in the reactor. Because they've been losing water to boiling, they need to quickly cool the reactor. In order to do this, the operators have made the decision to flood the containment building with seawater containing boron (boron is used to "quench" nuclear reactions by absorbing neutrons - the point here is as an added safety precaution). What this ultimately means is that Unit 1 is likely a total loss - i.e., it will never operate again. However, this appear to be the only reactor which was so significantly impacted. Again, the three other reactors on the same site (along with four other reactors in the general area) have shut down and been cooled normally.
Doesn't this prove nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe?
No no no. A thousand times no. First, bear in mind that earthquakes are part of the design basis for every single reactor built today. Second, after an magnitude 8.9 earthquake - the largest in Japan's recorded history, and the fifth largest earthquake in human history - and a subsequent tsunami, the integrity of the reactor (and all of the other 3 units at this same site) are intact. While breaking reports indicate that this reactor may have been "ruined" by the catastrophe, the danger to the public has been extremely minimal - namely, because engineered safety systems worked as planned.
Let me re-emphasize: nuclear reactors are often over-designed for the point of safety. The very first safety system to kick in was to turn off the reactor. This worked for every single unit. The second safety system, a diesel generator, worked in most cases - it would appear that the severity of the quake / tsnunami damaged the diesel backup in the case of Unit 1. However, battery backup systems gave operators time to provide a contingency. Second, the physical containment itself has operated as designed in providing a means of containing potential releases. (Update: As Cyrus points out, nuclear systems are designed with a "defense in depth" - with the fuel, clad, pressure vessel, and containment building providing multiple layers against a radioactive release. At the moment, the main concern is at the level of the fuel / clad - not beyond this.)
What this proves is that in the very worst scenario - a once-in-a-lifetime earthquake beyond the design basis - that the systems can safely contain the integrity of the reactor, particularly with well-trained personnel.
To put a further point to it, this is what is going on right now at a liquified natural gas facility in the same area. (More images of the devastation here.) Basically, no system out there is going to stand up favorably to a disaster like this, but nuclear systems are specifically engineered against situations like this - again, unlike natural gas.
-
Thanks for posting it.
You're right, this guy really covers a lot of key points. I especially like when he mentions:
Doesn't this prove nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe?
No no no. A thousand times no. First, bear in mind that earthquakes are part of the design basis for every single reactor built today. Second, after an magnitude 8.9 earthquake - the largest in Japan's recorded history, and the fifth largest earthquake in human history - and a subsequent tsunami, the integrity of the reactor (and all of the other 3 units at this same site) are intact. While breaking reports indicate that this reactor may have been "ruined" by the catastrophe, the danger to the public has been extremely minimal - namely, because engineered safety systems worked as planned.
This, and this fact alone, proves just how easily unnecessary panic can spread.
-
it has just come to my attention that some news stations have been using video footage of the natural gas plant that was on fire and passing it off as the reactor that exploded. rest assured, the reactor is NOT on fire. i hope a LOT of people get fired for that.
-
I'll just leave this here. (http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html)
-
Thanks for posting it.
You're right, this guy really covers a lot of key points. I especially like when he mentions:
Doesn't this prove nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe?
No no no. A thousand times no. First, bear in mind that earthquakes are part of the design basis for every single reactor built today. Second, after an magnitude 8.9 earthquake - the largest in Japan's recorded history, and the fifth largest earthquake in human history - and a subsequent tsunami, the integrity of the reactor (and all of the other 3 units at this same site) are intact. While breaking reports indicate that this reactor may have been "ruined" by the catastrophe, the danger to the public has been extremely minimal - namely, because engineered safety systems worked as planned.
This, and this fact alone, proves just how easily unnecessary panic can spread.
Unfortunately people are stupid and don't like to listen to reason, only fear mongering. Remember the plastic sheeting and duct tape incident of '03?
-
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article965229.ece/Japanese-volcano-erupts
They already had the place cleared out, but it's a little bit more crap to deal with.
Poor Japan. :(
EDIT: Video of said eruption. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04HPOmJ8vfE)
-
Well that's not good. Ash clouds will disrupt aid flights.
I don't know what to say in this thread. Things suck in Japan. A million people lived in Sendai. That city doesn't exist anymore.
-
And it's the second volcano (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y44fKaTDjLI#t=1m12s) that's gone off since the quake, apparently.
-
There were also reports of an eruption in Indonesia. It's not a good time to be living on the Ring of Fire.
-
There's also an increase in Volcanic activity in Hawaii.
http://www.earthweek.com/2011/ew110311/ew110311d.html
Thing is though, this was being predicted to be on the cards when I was younger. It's just part of a cycle that the ring of fire goes through.
-
How many people died?
-
There were also reports of an eruption in Indonesia. It's not a good time to be living on the Ring of Fire.
I don't think there's ever a good time to be living on the Ring of Fire... that is to say within close proximity of an active volcano.
Both eruptions took place at volcanoes that have seen lots of activity in the recent past, and I remain skeptical of any real causal link between the quake and the eruptions. Especially in the case of Hawaii, since it's a hotspot smack in the middle of the Pacific Plate and thus not related to the fault system that caused the Japanese quake.
-
Well, Earthquakes send shockwaves across and, more importantly, through the planet, but, yes, I'm inclined to agree to no direct causal link (Since that Hawaii episode happened some time before the quake, on March 5th), but tectonic activity tends to go through cycles much like anything else, and I remember being in the Natural History museum at 16 and being told the Earth was close to entering a new period of higher tectonic activity, but that this was nothing to get overly concerned about on the larger scale (though obviously on the 'smaller' per-event scale, events like this are obviously another matter).
-
it burns burns burns
that burning ring of fire
-
There were also reports of an eruption in Indonesia. It's not a good time to be living on the Ring of Fire.
I don't think there's ever a good time to be living on the Ring of Fire... that is to say within close proximity of an active volcano.
Both eruptions took place at volcanoes that have seen lots of activity in the recent past, and I remain skeptical of any real causal link between the quake and the eruptions. Especially in the case of Hawaii, since it's a hotspot smack in the middle of the Pacific Plate and thus not related to the fault system that caused the Japanese quake.
See, I've also heard scientists state that it's difficult to draw causal links even between recent tectonic events in the same area of the world, but something about that has always bothered me. When an earthquake occurs, continental plates jerk or shift along a particular fault line. So if movement occurs to release pressure along one edge of a tectonic plate, wouldn't it follow that some other border of that plate might be put under greater pressure as a result, possibly leading to tectonic activity along another fault line? Granted, I'm not saying that something like the Hawaii eruption is related, but when you look at something like the Christchurch earthquake...things get a bit murkier.
-
Oh I don't doubt one bit that earthquakes themselves can be linked in such a way, especially if they are occurring on the same plate boundary. Come to think of it I do recall seeing research that suggested how an earthquake at one location on a fault would increase or decrease stresses in other areas, in some cases going so far as to cause a linear progression of earthquakes, one by one, down the fault line. I can't remember offhand where I saw this though.
I'm just skeptical of earthquakes having any profound effect on volcanic activity, particularly over large distances. I think that the recent volcanic activity taking place after the March 11th earthquake is simply coincidence, or perhaps its due to some cyclic pattern in how the "ring of fire" goes off. Certainly the Christchurch quake may provide some support for the latter theory.
-
well, I don't think it is inconceivable that some sort of phenomena exists that results in increased magma pressure under a plate that triggers volcanism and earth quakes. that said 'not inconceivable' != 'likely'
-
the most geology i had was in high school "earth science" class, but i don't think it's too much of a strech that earthquakes and volcanic activity can be related, even over great distances. the shift in the plate that caused the earthquake could also potentially open up a gap and release magma. now hawaii, being smack dab in the middle of the pacific plate, wouldn't really fit this idea.
-
well, I don't think it is inconceivable that some sort of phenomena exists that results in increased magma pressure under a plate that triggers volcanism and earth quakes. that said 'not inconceivable' != 'likely'
Actually it does lead to volcanism, though usually not immediately. The ocean plate subducts and gets melted, creating more magma which in turn increases the magma pressure.
-
well that is clearly not something that would link the Hawaii volcanism and the west pacific earthquakes.
-
Another explosion has occurred at the Fukushima plant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12729138
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393
Not good, Not good at all.... Looks like the reactor rods has been exposed, causing a meltdown alert....
-
So, how long does it take for the radioactivity in the fuel rods to die down enough that active cooling (pumping) is no longer needed? A couple weeks?
-
A couple of billion years. They're made of uranium.
-
:rolleyes: I really don't think my question was worded that poorly, but to clarify: How long must active cooling be maintained before the radioactivity from short-term daughter reactions has died down enough that there is no longer a risk of the fuel rods melting? The fission reaction has been effectively killed, but there is still a lot of short-term radioactive decay going on from fission by-products that will last for "a little while," i.e. days and weeks. We are not talking million-year plus half lives here. These are extremely fast decaying byproducts that, while the reactor is operating, are present in relatively steady amounts. They form once the reaction is brought online, then they eventually reach a steady-state maximum as the rate of their formation and rate of decay find an equilibrium. Now that the fission reaction is dead, the rate at which these byproducts are are being made should be... I don't know if it would be zero, but it would be several orders of magnitude lower than the rate of decay. So those byproducts will be present and accounting for most of the heat still being produced until enough has decayed that the heat output is so low that natural convection and radiant heat transfer can prevent melting.
I am probably not using the correct terms (or using them incorrectly) since this is not my field, but I think I'm asking the right questions? Isn't this the one that really matters? If they can find a way to keep the fuel rods from getting too hot for a few more days, enough of the high-rate radioactives will have been decayed that the problem will fix itself?
-
It doesn't take long to stabilise so long as there is a supply of coolant flowing over the rods. They have managed to get some sort of system in place, so hopefully that will hold until a more permanent system can be put in place.
The rods themselves will just go on reacting regardless. The danger of the exposed core is that the rods will get so hot they will melt through the bottom of the reactor, if that happens, the land over it will be radioactive for centuries at the least. The reactions themselves will stop eventually, but so much radiation will have been pumped out by then that it won't matter.
The other factor is the fact that it's going to be years before these stations are safe to use again regardless of outcome.
-
[sigh] I guess I'm either not communicating effectively or am talking about technical details most people don't know about. Klaustraphobia, would you help me out a little?
I am not talking about radioactivity in general. I am talking about specific short-lived byproducts that contribute a significant amount to the total heat output of a functioning fission reactor (I've heard 6 - 7% bandied about, but it's been awhile since I read up). The fuel rods will be nasty and radioactive for uncounted years, yes, but their heat output will only be sufficient to cause them to melt until enough of the short-term fission byproducts have decayed. When the rate of heat generated by decay drops down to the rate at which heat can be passively removed from the fuel rods (without an active cooling loop in motion) there is no longer a risk of the fuel rods melting.
Those pumps eventually get shut down during turnaround. It isn't like the fuel rods must have water circulating over them indefinitely.
EDIT: Now reading I may be incorrect in this assumption. The fuel rods may not cool off enough that they are passively safe from melt down for years. Apparently spent fuel pools are actively cooled as well. I did not think this was the case.
-
How long it takes depends on how well they can sustain the coolant flow without incident, and the concentration//efficacy of poison (boric acid still?) in the coolant flow. It could be as little as a week or maybe two of a fully filled reactor vessel and no interruption of flow, or this could go on for months. I suspect that, as the further it goes past the lower number, the closer the Japanese government comes to
nuking it from orbit writing the area off and dumping as much boric acid and concrete as they can find on top of it.
-
[sigh] I guess I'm either not communicating effectively or am talking about technical details most people don't know about. Klaustraphobia, would you help me out a little?
I am not talking about radioactivity in general. I am talking about specific short-lived byproducts that contribute a significant amount to the total heat output of a functioning fission reactor (I've heard 6 - 7% bandied about, but it's been awhile since I read up). The fuel rods will be nasty and radioactive for uncounted years, yes, but their heat output will only be sufficient to cause them to melt until enough of the short-term fission byproducts have decayed. When the rate of heat generated by decay drops down to the rate at which heat can be passively removed from the fuel rods (without an active cooling loop in motion) there is no longer a risk of the fuel rods melting.
Those pumps eventually get shut down during turnaround. It isn't like the fuel rods must have water circulating over them indefinitely.
EDIT: Now reading I may be incorrect in this assumption. The fuel rods may not cool off enough that they are passively safe from melt down for years. Apparently spent fuel pools are actively cooled as well. I did not think this was the case.
i understand you. to be honest, i don't know the answer to that. it's not something i've ever explicitly dealt with, but i might be able to hunt down an equation in my notes that will give the decay power as a function of time. it does take quite a while before NO cooling is necessary, but long before that you can put it in a pool and let natural circulation take care of it.
flipside, the rods are NOT reacting any more. they are just decaying. the fission reaction was shut down as soon as the quake was detected. yes, it can still melt if it becomes uncovered (because 7% of 1GW is 70 megawatts, 70 times more powerful than my school's reactor at full power), but it's not going to burn through the 8 inches of steel and however many feet of concrete below it. it kindof turns into a puddle and re-solidifies into what they call "corium" in the lower internals of the reactor vessel.
at this point, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference what happens as far as the end results. it does seem that we're on the way to melting based on what i've heard (hearsay, i haven't been actively following to a high degree), but even if not, the core is a total loss. it will never operate again after they put sea water in it. the difference is that if it doesn't melt, they can eventually deactivate the plant like normal, pulling the intact fuel out and storing it, and mothball the plant. if they REALLY wanted to, they could replace all the primary structure, but then you might as well just build a new plant. with a meltdown, it's just going to sit there encased in it's containment festering for a long time, like TMI.
suongadon, you are also mistaken. neutron poison has nothing to do with it at this point. the reason for the boron added to the emergency coolant was as a fail-safe. the fission reaction is and has been shut down since the beginning. all we are concerned with at this point is keeping the fuel cool. the amount of coolant flow has no bearing on the heat production of the reactor, all that matters is that you have at least enough to remove the heat being generated. the ONLY thing controlling the rate of cooldown of the core is the decay of built-up fission products.
EDIT: i ran the numbers as best i could to get an estimate of the current power level. i assumed a power history of 18 months at 3000 MW thermal. i have no idea what the actual time of operation was, but 18 months is the standard operating cycle so the result will be conservative. shutdown time of roughly 3.5 days give approximately 9.5 megawatts of heat still generated in the core.
attached is a plot of the percent of reactor power vs. days shutdown.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
So, how long does it take for the radioactivity in the fuel rods to die down enough that active cooling (pumping) is no longer needed? A couple weeks?
3~10 days. Depend on reactor type / fuel status...
-
On another board, people were saying that no reactor containment has been breached by any of the three explosions. The building shell is meant to keep the weather out, and is not part of the containment system, for those that don't know. Latest word from the IAEA is that Reactors 1, 2, and 3 are in cold shutdown, and no longer a danger. However, the vicinity of reactor 4 is now on fire. This is bad. You see, TEPCO did something very, very stupid: the spent fuel cooling pond drained and/or evaporated away in the days since the earthquake, and they didn't monitor it at all after the earthquake hit (!?). So, predictably, the rods heated up and ignited, spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere. Jesus. Latest radiation figure I could find was something like 8 Sv/hr (the IAEA says peak levels were around 400 mSv/hr).
At this point, Fukushima's design, and TEPCO's administration of it, seems pretty bad. Not because of anything in the reactor itself, but in the support structure around it. From what I've heard, someone had the bright idea to stick all the backup diesel generators in a low spot on the plant grounds, causing to all die in the tsunami. This wouldn't be so bad, since the battery backups all then engaged, and did give enough time for them to bring new diesels and other portable power sources in. Only problem? The plugs weren't the right type (!?!?). If you haven't facepalmed yet, you should. Then TEPCO concentrated so much on saving the damn reactors (ain't gonna do that without sufficient power, guys), they seem to have clean forgot that, oh hey, the spent fuel is really ****ing radioactive and gives off a lot of heat! So now we have this mess.
Despite all this, we should remember that even with all the stupidity, plus the fact that the facility was hit with a earthquake far stronger than it was designed for, and then got smacked by a ~10 m tsunami, for the reactors themselves, the worst we're looking at is a partial meltdown; indeed the main concern was whether the reactors would remain viable as power generators! The hydrogen explosions did jack and **** to the containment vessels, the safety systems all kicked in as designed. This is no Chernobyl. Not even close.
On a more somber note, it looks like the death toll in Japan is going to climb higher because of this incident. Because the quake's effects have been so widespread, much of the power grid in northeastern Honshu is offline, and it is now very difficult to effectively bring food, water, and shelter to the affected population due in part to the lack of electric power. Already, many people there are going into their fourth night without potable water, food, or heating. Bodies are washing ashore, and they can't burn them fast enough. At this point, if the death toll stops at 50,000 it'd be a blessing.
-
Yeah. I probably used the wrong phrase with 'still reacting' :)
It's now been announced that the last explosion has thrown health-threatening amounts of radioactive material out..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12741133
:(
-
@ Klaustrophobia, thanks for the detailed insight.
As for everything else going on, I am at a loss for words.
-
Russian politicians have offered to relocate the Japanese people in Russia.
Sorry, only RU link: http://top.rbc.ru/special/japan/13/03/2011/558417.shtml
"The Voice of Russia" is helping in the emergency area
EN link: http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/15/47462956.html
Recall that “The Voice of Russia” is one of a few media available to the affected regions of Japan. We broadcast there on short and medium waves in Japanese, Russian, English and Chinese. We decided to take part in the search for those who are missing. Everyone who does not know anything about their relatives and friends in Japan can leave messages with the number +7 (495) 950 64 84 or write a letter to the e-mail address [email protected]. We will broadcast your information. The same number and address can be used for expressing your support to the Japanese people. Such letters are coming from all over Russia now.
-
Kind of assistance to Japan offered by Somali pirates. The sum of ransom for captured Japanese ships before they will be reduced by 10%.
:eek2:
-
Well, that's an unlikely discount...
A Singaporean businesswoman has donated S$1M to the Japanese embassy here. I hope that this money, along with the government's S$500K and everybody else's donations, will be used to provide food and aid for the homeless and contribute to the rebuilding of Japan.
-
In related news, China ran out of salt. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/health/news/article_1626731.php/Worried-Chinese-panic-buy-salt-iodine
-
Interestingly, it's apparently possible that there could be sufficient amount of used nuclear fuel rods in those cooling pools that if it all melts and forms one puddle on the bottom of the dried cooling pool, the mass could go critical.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608)
Fun and games.
I think the cooling pools are within the reactor containment building, but obviously not within the reactor pressure vessel.
I don't think it's necessary to state that this would complicate things quite significantly.
-
The whole situation seems to be waffling back and forth between being under control and being out of control, so which is it now?
P.S. Thanks for enhancing my vocabulary, Goober! Much obliged!
-
I've read several lengthy posts by people who work in the nuclear power field, and based on what they've said, I'm not really sure what to think about the entire situation anymore. I can understand the spent fuel pools being a major concern, since there's far less containment around them (which seems to be a bit of a flaw in this type of reactor's layout), but the reactors themselves have so many fail-safe cooling systems, and are so well contained, that it's hard to see how they could pose any sort of significant radiation threat, even in a partial-meltdown scenario. Besides that, it's been long enough since reactor shutdown occurred that the decay heat in the reactors should have decreased dramatically by now. I'm just not sure exactly what the helicopter water drops are accomplishing; we don't have nearly enough information available.
And of course, as the media goes crazy over the "scary nuclear catastrophe," it's somehow overshadowed the fact that more than 10,000 people are dead, hundreds of thousands are now homeless, and tens of billions of dollars in damage have occurred across a wide swath of northern Japan. That's the true catastrophe here.
-
The whole situation seems to be waffling back and forth between being under control and being out of control, so which is it now?
P.S. Thanks for enhancing my vocabulary, Goober! Much obliged!
well it really IS waffling back and forth. they get it under control for the most part, until something happens like the hydrogen explosion or the fuel pool ignition.
herra, i haven't read the link yet, but i'm highly skeptical of a melted spent fuel critical mass. first and most importantly, if the fuel in the pools melts, they have BEYOND screwed up to the point where it's just not believable. spent fuel in pools is still decaying, but at a slow enough rate all you have to do is have some changeout of warm water with cold to keep the pool temp down. i'm guessing what happened initially is that the quake knocked out the heat exchanging system on the pools and it got overlooked because of the core worries. second, it is spent fuel. it was nearing the edge of sustaining criticality in the actual core, mixed with once and twice burned fuel. it's going to be hard as **** to make a critical mass with pure thrice-burned. third, a puddle of fuel is a non-optimal geometry with very high neutron leakage. even if you have a "critical mass," you won't get criticality unless it's arranged right. criticality accidents happen with things like sphere halves of plutonium dropped together or fuel in a solution collected in a bucket. the same bucket spilled over the floor wouldn't be a problem.
that said, let me now go read the article and see if i need to stick my foot in my mouth.
EDIT: yeah, they are basically just saying there is an outside chance. which there is, but it's REALLY outside.
-
In related news, China ran out of salt. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/health/news/article_1626731.php/Worried-Chinese-panic-buy-salt-iodine
They at least have a reason to be worried. Although it is unlikely to hit much of China if a significant release did occur North East China isn't that far from Japan. This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12765401) is much more mystifying. :p
-
/me :wtf: then face palms then :banghead: then :nono: and finally :nervous:
-
I hope people know dropping iodine won't really help you when nuclear fallout wafts into town.
-
I hope people know dropping iodine won't really help you when nuclear fallout wafts into town.
Correct. You must use vodka instead.
-
And of course, as the media goes crazy over the "scary nuclear catastrophe," it's somehow overshadowed the fact that more than 10,000 people are dead, hundreds of thousands are now homeless, and tens of billions of dollars in damage have occurred across a wide swath of northern Japan. That's the true catastrophe here.
What's even worse is that the only real solution to kicking coal IS nuclear, but this is going to cause people to pointless start chasing windmills again.
-
Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants?
That's pretty much how ridiculous I think the media is for crying excessively about nuclear. Even if all four reactors in Japan melt down, it doesn't make the technology any less legitimate.
-
Interestingly, it's apparently possible that there could be sufficient amount of used nuclear fuel rods in those cooling pools that if it all melts and forms one puddle on the bottom of the dried cooling pool, the mass could go critical.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608)
Fun and games.
I think the cooling pools are within the reactor containment building, but obviously not within the reactor pressure vessel.
I don't think it's necessary to state that this would complicate things quite significantly.
Klaustrophobia already covered this, but only the pools at No. 4, 5, and 6 have a hope in hell of doing that; the rest contain only spent fuel, which cannot go critical inside the reactor. The reactor has a geometry designed to encourage criticality, since that is what generates most of the heat. And if it's so poisoned by fission products it can't go critical in a place where it is encouraged to do so, how can it do so laying in a pool?
Although pools 5 and 6 are at higher temperatures than normal (60 C instead of 25), I wouldn't be too worried about them yet. The big question is pool 4, which may have gone completely dry (apparently the NRC seems to think so). Certainly, some of the rods there were exposed for several hours (the two fires).
They at least have a reason to be worried. Although it is unlikely to hit much of China if a significant release did occur North East China isn't that far from Japan. This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12765401) is much more mystifying. :p
The prevailing winds blow away from China across the Pacific. The Chinese have no reason to be worried at all. And America is full of anti-nuclear hysteria on the best of days; believe me, I've encountered a lot of people like that.
-
Klaustrophobia already covered this, but only the pools at No. 4, 5, and 6 have a hope in hell of doing that; the rest contain only spent fuel, which cannot go critical inside the reactor. The reactor has a geometry designed to encourage criticality, since that is what generates most of the heat. And if it's so poisoned by fission products it can't go critical in a place where it is encouraged to do so, how can it do so laying in a pool?
The risk is probably very small and would require all the used fuel rods to melt and accumulate in one thick puddle on the floor of the pool.
Depending on the geometry of the floor of the pool, this might be impossible or not. I doubt it's going to happen, but the officials have mentioned the probability is not zero, and I'm certainly not qualified to revoke that assessment in any way.
Although pools 5 and 6 are at higher temperatures than normal (60 C instead of 25), I wouldn't be too worried about them yet. The big question is pool 4, which may have gone completely dry (apparently the NRC seems to think so). Certainly, some of the rods there were exposed for several hours (the two fires).
Yeah, pool #4 is the biggest problem right now. They have also managed to get electricity to the number two reactor, and other reactors should soon follow, so they now have at least power to possibly run the fluid circulation pumps, assuming those systems are not excessively damaged.
-
I hope people know dropping iodine won't really help you when nuclear fallout wafts into town.
Correct. You must use vodka instead.
Does it really work? :doubt:
-
Does it really work? :doubt:
If you have to do the walking-ghost thing, I can think of worse ways to ease it.
-
i received a bit of info at work today that suggests to me the fuel pool did in fact go dry. as herra said, it isn't COMPLETELY impossible for the fuel to go critical. subcriticality is less about fission product poisons than it is about lack of fissile material, so it COULD go critical just by sheer mass of fuel from the pool. provided it melts, all runs together, solidifies into a sphere, contains some moderator, etc. we can't know for sure unless it actually does go critical, or with about a decade of modeling and calculations. hopefully we don't find out.
iodine tablets work against ONE particularly dangerous method of uptake for internal dose. they are very effective against it, but do nothing against external dose. rules about distributing it within X miles of nuke plants is as much placebo as actual effect (one that unfortunately is necessary and i actually agree with). if you might potentially be exposed to airborne radioactive contaminants, yes go ahead and pop some iodine. it can only help. but don't think that makes you immune. and ANY form of iodine intake will do. you don't have to buy the pills. dump a bunch of iodized salt on your lunch.
-
To be more specific, iodine tablets prevent the accumulation of radioactive iodine in the body by saturating it with regular iodine (specifically thyroid gland).
The radioactive iodine isotopes that temporarily enters the body will still do damage until it naturally exits - the only thing regular iodine does is prevent long term exposure from that particular element.
Oh and I don't know about other places, but in Finland, food salt is laced with iodine for this exact reason. It provides a certain source of continuous, sufficient iodine intake, which prevents iodine deficiency.
The thing is, if a person has been deprived of iodine and then exposed to radioactive iodine, the body basically takes it all in and stores it to thyroid gland, which is not exactly a good thing for health. So basically, if your iodine intake is already keeping you fully supplied with it, additional iodine tablets will have less of an effect anyway.
It's best to just avoid fallout altogether by protective gear or re-location, anyway.
-
Germany is getting out of nukes completely because of this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12769810)
Let the windmill chasing begin.
-
:rolleyes: It was inevitable, really.
Would Germany even be at risk of similar earthquakes?
-
The prevailing winds blow away from China across the Pacific. The Chinese have no reason to be worried at all.
I know. It's pretty unlikely that the winds would blow in the right direction to cause a problem but if you live 600-700 miles from the site I can see a reason for concern at least. It's much stranger for America to be worried.
-
The prevailing winds blow away from China across the Pacific. The Chinese have no reason to be worried at all.
I know. It's pretty unlikely that the winds would blow in the right direction to cause a problem but if you live 600-700 miles from the site I can see a reason for concern at least. It's much stranger for America to be worried.
We have twenty-four hour cable news hammering us with any tenuous theory/fiction that they can find that suggests the Daiichi plant will be the next Chernobyl. It's an irresponsible ploy to drive up ratings, since people watch the news, when there's a crisis that they believe will affect them. The round-the-clock news stations will milk the fear for absolutely as long as possible, until another disaster occurs or the ratings return to their normal levels, despite the fear-mongering.
Incidentally, I heard the phrase, "China Syndrome" at work today and almost popped a vein for the sheer stupidity of the conversation in which it was mentioned.
-
The prevailing winds blow away from China across the Pacific. The Chinese have no reason to be worried at all.
You may be surprised, but pretty much the whole of Asia has banged their panic buttons to pieces. Only those who do their research see no reason to panic.
-
Panic and bad PR the word "nuclear" produces at the moment aside, personally I'll be glad if this incident has an effect of us investing in infrastructure and research that allows us to gradually and eventually completely replace nuclear power. You can preach about people panicking and modern nuclear plants being safe in more tectonically stable parts of the world all you want; if the Fukushima incident proved anything it's the fact that there is -always- a set of circumstances you simply didn't account for.
I see a lot of people making fun of the people with anti-nuclear sentiments; the self-congratulatory "I'm so smart but the rest of the world doesn't understand my genius" attitude nearly every human on the planet has regarding some topic. Let me bottom line this for the aforementioned geniuses. I've been listening about nuclear power being safe for a better part of two decades. Yet in my relatively short 30 year long life I've now experienced two major nuclear incidents. Don't talk to me about safety, the only sane course of action is researching and developing infrastructure to eventually replace this inherently unsafe power generation method.
-
plant gets hit by the fifth strongest earthquake IN RECORDED HISTORY and has yet to actually cause any true damage and you call it "inherently unsafe" tell you what, you live 20 miles down stream of the hover dam on the day its hit by a 9.0 earthquake and tell me which is the safer technology. including this one, there have been a total of 3 major nuclear incidents seance the technology was invented, only one of them has caused any true havoc, your full of it man.
-
Tell you what, go sell your smug genius to the families of the irradiated workers. While you're at it explain to them your concept of "true harm".
Also, if you can't discuss something without comments like "you're full of it", maybe you should grow up before entering a discussion. Rationalize your arguments in a civil manner or be dismissed as an immature kid. To be clear, I don't suggest we suddenly pull the plug on all nuclear power. I know full well we can't do that. But let's be realistic here: the world is run by people with money organized into structures, sometimes called lobbies. The nuclear lobby will have to be silent for a while, meaning now is a very good time to begin more serious research into better ways of power generation. I'm not Greenpeace so I'm not going to suggest we do away with what we have currently without having something to replace it. I'd just think that a safer way of generating power that doesn't include radioactive material would be a good thing, no? Things only get properly researched and implemented if there's a political will to do it.
-
Mayhap it would be most productive to continue discussion about nuclear energy in a dedicated topic, but just a few pointers:
There's nothing inherently unsafe about nuclear power itself. Like most other energy extraction methods, it has a certain amount of issues that need to be addressed for safe and ecologically sustainable operation.
Evidently, the degree of redundancy in Fukushima was not sufficiently high, as all auxiliary methods of cooling the reactors and spent fuel pools were apparently knocked out as the diesel generators were incapacitated. In hindsight, this was a serious oversight, and it surprises me that the Japanese would have taken such a risk even back in 70's and not have upgraded the redundant safeguard systems to sufficient level, but Bobboau does have a point - considering the plant was hit by a major earthquake and the subsequent tsunami whose height overrode the protective barriers, there has been remarkably little damage - mainly because the containment buildings of the plant have mostly done their job, since so far it seems that releases of radioactive materials have been in small quantities and locally, as opposed to the case of Chernobyl where there was no containment building and the reactor blew its top away as it went critical, exposing the innards to atmosphere and causing hydrogen explosion and graphite fire that spread a lot of particles in the air with the smoke.
Compared to that event, Fukushima events have been very minor and caused by a good reason, as opposed to Chernobyl which was entirely caused by fundamental reactor design oversights and human error in operating the reactor; in both cases, insufficient safety measures have obviously contributed to the events, but hey, at least the Japanese HAD safety measures - the tsunami just happened to be bigger than anticipated. Plus the main protection against radioactive emissions have mostly worked as intended so far, even if cooling system redundancies have been knocked out.
TL;DR
Problem here is not so much nuclear power being unsafe, but an underestimation of the risks of natural hazards and the subsequently underwhelming protective measures taken against them.
-
Nuclear power will always have inherent risk and it also depends on the region where it's located. Where I live (yes, Utah) the governor is still insisting on building a nuke plant, especially when our beautiful state has a truly bad record of safety mandates, enforcement, and falsified building permits. Between the exploding gas refineries, leaking chemical plants, and bad construction permits; If the people were competent, I wouldn't be nervous, but for said human reasons, there's a serious consideration to leave if they actually approve it.
-
There's nothing inherently unsafe about nuclear power itself.
Anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of humans coming in contact with nuclear material is potentially unsafe. You know, a few years ago I'd be right in your camp defending nuclear power. I was younger, cocky, and so damn sure that there's always a way to account for every possible eventuality. There isn't.
-
Tell you what, go sell your smug genius to the families of the irradiated workers. While you're at it explain to them your concept of "true harm".
right after you talk to a few families who have had loved ones burred alive in a coal mine, and guess what there are a **** ton more of them.
but I guess you are the only person who is allowed to be a genius, either that or you think it's some sort of insult, you know who else talks like that creationists, you have yet to justify your fearmongering tone so maybe you should learn to to grow up a little rather than running around like the sky is falling and everyone who doesn't agree with you does so only because they are arrogant and not educated.
-
Seriously man, why do you keep insisting on personal attacks? Is that the only way you can rationalize your arguments? Pretty much all I'm saying here is that now's a great time to start some more serious R&D into safer power generation ways, since the political climate for that couldn't be better right now. I really don't understand what's with the OMG STONE THE BASTARD thing?
-
Nuclear fission is about as unsafe as we have ever gone in terms of power generation, it is literally the mechanics of a nuclear bomb with the breaks applied. the thing is we have learned a large number of lessons about how to use it and minimize the risks, though constant vigilance and rigorous maintenance will always be required up to the point in time where the there is no nuclear material on the site.
I think the problem here is the questionable sanity in constructing a fission plant in a country that straddles 3 tectonic plates and is very close to the fault line for a 4th. I know i am talking in hind sight and what a wonderful thing it is and i know that Japan has some unique energy issues but it still strikes me as an odd decision to make.
-
Would a tidal energy project suggestion and note that it would have been super-effective in the last few weeks be a bad idea?
That said, modern nuclear is seriously really safe.
1970s nuclear is not modern.
-
Bob, Newman, Cool it you two, you're obviously rubbing each other up the wrong way about what should be a calm rational discussion.
-
I tend to agree. I can see how parts of my original post might have been misconstrued. So for clarity's sake...
what I was saying:
- nuclear lobby has a product they want to sell, nuclear power. There's some research into cold fusion and other power generation methods being done, but imo not enough. Nuclear lobbies are powerful enough to somewhat impede the development of power generation methods that could cut into their profits. With the tragic going-ons at Fukushima, they will need to lay low for a while meaning now's a great time to push into R&D funding for better power generation methods. If this happens at least something good will have come out of the tragedy.
- there's always a set of circumstances you couldn't have taken into account; an extraordinary natural event, terrorist attack, whatever. With that in mind the less things with actual nuclear material out there, the better.
- I disagree about fission reactors being safe under all circumstances no matter how modern they are. Modern ones are safer, yes. A lot safer. That's great. With nuclear power even "a lot safer" sometimes isn't good enough, though. Granted, there are no completely safe power generation methods, but nuclear mishaps tend to have a potential for more global and lasting effects than others. I realize that until we have something better "a lot safer" will just have to do. My point was, I hope this event sparks more serious efforts into getting that something better.
what I was not saying:
- we need to shut down all nuclear plants now;
- we need to stop building new nuclear plants before we have a better alternative;
Those two points would be just silly. As for personal attacks and comparisons to creationist ramblings... less coffee, man.
-
Gotta say, I'm with bobboau. I mean, Japan was always a silly place for a nuclear reactor, so too would be New Zealand, California, Argentina etc. etc. But a modern reactor in Western Australia? No problem. Same with many parts of Russia, china, Canada - anywhere where you've got a big, stable craton.
As for the direct damage, I'd love to compare the number of people directly harmed by nucler power incidents to the number who have or will be harmed by global warming induced climatic disasters, or the number affected by hydro dam formation (Aswan, 3 gorges etc.) - there basically is no such thing as a completely non-intrusive, non damaging form of base-load electricity generation. A good analogy is aeroplanes - millions of people travel safely every day on planes, but people are terrified because of the media attention that plane crashes get. Whereas probably billions of people travel by car/bus, and the road death rate is much, much higher, yet nobody minds because less attention is paid.
-
Nuclear fission is about as unsafe as we have ever gone in terms of power generation, it is literally the mechanics of a nuclear bomb with the breaks applied. the thing is we have learned a large number of lessons about how to use it and minimize the risks, though constant vigilance and rigorous maintenance will always be required up to the point in time where the there is no nuclear material on the site.
I think the problem here is the questionable sanity in constructing a fission plant in a country that straddles 3 tectonic plates and is very close to the fault line for a 4th. I know i am talking in hind sight and what a wonderful thing it is and i know that Japan has some unique energy issues but it still strikes me as an odd decision to make.
The air pollution from coal fired powerplants is responsible for killing thirteen thousand people a year in the US alone, not to mention all the miners that are killed from mining that **** around the world. To match that kind of an annual body count we'd need 3 Chernobyl's a year, which frankly isn't going to happen. What's the death toll directly attributable to the reactor? You should be more worried about all the toxic chemicals that were potentially released from the destroyed factories in the area.
It's also worth mentioning that the reactor facility was only designed to withstand a 8.something quake, and that the reactor vessel is still intact shows that contrary to the scaremongering it isn't nearly as dangerous as it sounds.
Anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of humans coming in contact with nuclear material is potentially unsafe. You know, a few years ago I'd be right in your camp defending nuclear power. I was younger, cocky, and so damn sure that there's always a way to account for every possible eventuality. There isn't.
There's trace amounts of nuclear material in your food. Also Cobalt 60 is used in many applications.
-
Nuclear fission is about as unsafe as we have ever gone in terms of power generation
In terms of power generation? I seem to remember a link within a post on page 3 that says quite the opposite.
And Newman, would you be interested in comparing the number of deaths related to nuclear power versus coal power? Or how about hydroelectric dam breaks? Oh yeah, lots of people remember Chernobol, but does anyone remember Bianqiao Dam? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)
I see nothing wrong with people discussing the potential risks of nuclear power, but if you're going to argue that it's bad or needs to be gotten rid of because it poses a threat to human lives, then please also take a moment and have a good, hard look at the loss of life that has been incurred through other means of power generation.
edit: mixed up who I was quoting, sorry.
-
i don't have time for a proper response to all this (because i have to go work on keeping reactors operating safely), but newman please go back to page three and read the link/copied text. i will be happy to calmly and respectfully explain why nuclear is not inherintly dangerous when i get back.
-
And Newman, would you be interested in comparing the number of deaths related to nuclear power versus coal power? Or how about hydroelectric dam breaks? Oh yeah, lots of people remember Chernobol...
In a word, no. Mainly because a) I know the point you're making and b) I agree with it. That's not the point I was making. I refer you to my clarification post above yours where I pretty much said we can't do away with nuclear power at present, but the political climate is good to get some more serious funding into r&d for future, safer power generation technologies.
I don't and never did dispute your points. The issue here was people misinterpreting the point I was making and not any outright disagreement about nuclear power being less safe than other, older methods.
By the way, it's Chernobyl, not Chernobol ;)
-
Well, a matter where I can certainly agree is that advanced nuclear power research is not getting nearly enough funding and resources as it should.
I suspect it's the same deal as with cars: There's no incentive to come up with a better alternative as long as it's good business to build cars that eat gasoline.
Similarly, since fission reactors are still a profitable business, there's really no commercial interest in researching something like fusion. Why would the energy industry shoot themselves in the leg and come up with a way to produce abundant amounts of energy from practically* endless resource? After all, all business is built on scarcity. Saturating the energy market will lead to the collapse of the price of energy and make it unfeasible to operate current power plants.
So, I wouldn't count on the energy industry being too eager to fund fusion research, and for some reason governmental funding doesn't seem to be very high either.
What this approach ignores is that there are many, many better uses for fossil fuels than burning them for energy production. The energy density of hydrocarbons makes them a very good fuel for vehicles such as aeroplanes and, until widespread hydrogen refueling infrastructure is in place, regular automobiles too. Oil would still be a valuable resource for production of plastic, too.
Should this tangent be split into a dedicated thread? It seems somewhat inappropriate to keep discussing it on this particular thread - while the topic is interesting I feel it detracts from the rest of the events in Japan, which have caused by far more damage than negligible (so far) leaks of radioactive material.
-
Should this tangent be split into a dedicated thread? It seems somewhat inappropriate to keep discussing it on this particular thread - while the topic is interesting I feel it detracts from the rest of the events in Japan, which have caused by far more damage than negligible (so far) leaks of radioactive material.
...we are so good at derailing topics, I don't even notice any more. :blah:
-
Should this tangent be split into a dedicated thread? It seems somewhat inappropriate to keep discussing it on this particular thread - while the topic is interesting I feel it detracts from the rest of the events in Japan, which have caused by far more damage than negligible (so far) leaks of radioactive material.
The only reason the nuclear incident even happened was because of the earthquake/tsunami, and unfortunately the media is really dead centered on this matter, making it relevant.
And guys, fusion is a real long ways off, even if the ITER meets its expectations. In the meantime fission is the best we have so lets keep building them to get rid coal for good.
-
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
-
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
I assume death tolls arising from wind power plants are a direct result of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty-vH42H_7k). :drevil:
Maybe the reason why the death toll related to nuclear power is low is because it's new compared to the other energy sources and because of more safety measures as compared to plants that generate other forms of energy.
-
Squaddie coping mechanisms in effect (http://www.arrse.co.uk/sick-jokes/159405-ahhh-so.html), please don't click if you are easily offended.......
-
Maybe the reason why the death toll related to nuclear power is low is because it's new compared to the other energy sources ...
I would think that that would make the death toll higher, unless it was brand-spanking-invented-less-than-ten-years-ago new.
And please note, the deaths are per Tera-Watt-hour. ;)
-
The problem is, people aren't very good at risk assessment. We consider a super catastrophic but super rare disaster as being more risky than something with common and constant lower-level danger. Nukes vs Coal and Flying vs Driving are two very good examples...
We aren't really programmed to take the long-term, empirical view of things.
By the way, If anyone has a chart with price per kWh for various power sources (like the deaths per TWh one) I'd love to see it.
-
I know. It's pretty unlikely that the winds would blow in the right direction to cause a problem but if you live 600-700 miles from the site I can see a reason for concern at least. It's much stranger for America to be worried.
I bet you feel pretty silly now! Look at this headline: Diplomat says minuscule fallout reaches Calif. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_us/us_west_coast_radiation_monitors)
Sure, the article itself says that the levels are practically zero and as harmless as anything, but this is America got-dangit! I reserve my right to panic! Now where's my potassium iodide?!
(Obligatory :) to indicate sarcasm)
-
I assume death tolls arising from wind power plants are a direct result of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty-vH42H_7k). :drevil:
Damn...when those things fail, they really fail. :eek2:
What I find most telling about this entire topic is that everyone seems to have forgotten those spectacular images of that refinery near Tokyo that went off like a Michael Bay movie, and for all we know is still burning to some extent. How much toxic crap did that fire spew into the atmosphere? And I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't the only refinery fire that occurred.
-
Yeah I know. I imagine a conventional power plant operating normally wouldn't react very well to what those reactors just went through. Fireworks, anyone?
-
If that had been an LNG plant you could simply erase a couple miles of the map, I expect.
-
back from work, but frankly i'm too tired/lazy to hunt back through the about 3 pages of this thread that happened since i read it last and figure out what is still floating around. so how bout yall tell me if there's any outstanding issues or whatever else if anyone cares for my opinion.
-
So I just had this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN2hSVxA) linked on another forum I visit, and...well...just watch it. :D
-
Awesomesauce. :D
i will be happy to calmly and respectfully explain why nuclear is not inherintly dangerous when i get back.
Please. I'd like to know some of the more technical reasons behind its safety.
In my mind it's like flying on a 747.
(http://www.fspilotshop.com/images/744X_FSX_01.jpg)
You are in a hollow metal tube with thousands of gallons of flammable fuel, supported by two metal wings bouncing happily up and down in the turbulence at 35,000 feet, where the air pressure outside is low enough to kill you and the temperature is -40 to -80, and there are 4 engines, each containing multiple turbines spinning at tens of thousands of rotations per minute suspended under said bouncing wings which also house part of the before-mentioned fuel. ... And it's still safer than driving my year 2000 Saturn SL2 down the street. Am I scared to drive my Saturn? No. Am I scared to fly in a modern airliner? Yes. Do I refuse to fly in them and say those that do are asking for trouble and not smart enough to realize that airliners are 'inherently dangerous'? No. And flying in an airliner IS inherently dangerous. ...Just not as dangerous as driving my car.
(http://www.kleenkarsof-fl.us/images/125476327565675.jpg)
Airliners are safer than most conventional transportation in much the same way as a nuclear power plant is safer than a coal power plant. Because flying is so potentially dangerous, multiple layers of safety are used, thousands of man-hours in training, procedure, and inspection and millions of dollars go into correct training and ensuring the safe and proper operating of the equipment.
PS Weirdly enough, I actually enjoy flying, even though I'm scared every time. I'm afraid of heights and like flying. :lol:
-
Actually, I believe the reason driving is so dangerous is because of the human factor - any single individual can quickly and easily cause a critical situation on the roads. The responsibility of being a driver is, ahh, how shall I put it? It's not monitored. :D
-
True. But, by the same token, if both the pilot and copilot err, it affects the safety of +/- 400 individuals plus if you happen to be over a populated area, those on the ground, not just 1-12 or maybe about 50 or so if you're driving a bus. So yeah the human factor but wouldn't the human factor in an aircraft be worse?
Although I suppose a huge number of reckless drivers are tolerated whereas a reckless pilot wouldn't be.
-
True. But, by the same token, if both the pilot and copilot err, it affects the safety of +/- 400 individuals plus if you happen to be over a populated area, those on the ground, not just 1-12 or maybe about 50 or so if you're driving a bus. So yeah the human factor but wouldn't the human factor in an aircraft be worse?
Although I suppose a huge number of reckless drivers are tolerated whereas a reckless pilot wouldn't be.
Most of the flight is done on autopilot.
-
True. But, by the same token, if both the pilot and copilot err, it affects the safety of +/- 400 individuals plus if you happen to be over a populated area, those on the ground, not just 1-12 or maybe about 50 or so if you're driving a bus. So yeah the human factor but wouldn't the human factor in an aircraft be worse?
Although I suppose a huge number of reckless drivers are tolerated whereas a reckless pilot wouldn't be.
Potentially worse per incident, sure. But the human factor in commercial flight is more regulated, controlled, has more fail-safes, and even has a backup human on-hand should the main human go bonkers. Finally, add on top of that the rigorous screening and training process aspiring pilots need to go through before setting foot inside the cockpit.
Now compare that to your average 15-year-old getting their license.
I think I'll fly, thanks.
-
Most of the flight is done on autopilot.
Human error is the primary or contributing factor in vast majority of airplane accidents. In most of these cases, it's pilot error. In the rest, it's usually negligent maintenance, incorrect preparations of the plane (for which the captain is primarily responsible) such as bad cargo loading (incorrect centre of gravity calculations), bad fuel loading (too little fuel to reach destination) or other reason. Usually it's a series of human errors, rather than one single bad decision event.
Second most important reason is bad flight conditions, ie. weather related factors. These often contribute to the accidents by exacerbating the pilot errors by reducing recovery margins - if the pilot makes a bad decision, weather can make it harder or impossible to recover from.
Third most important reason is mechanical or electronical failures, of which majority can be attributed to negligent maintenance or ignoring safety protocols. The rest are usually material failures or design flaws, and these are the minority here.
Autopilot as such is little more than glorified cruise control, using automobile analogy, with an integrated navigator (GPS or VOR based). It only does what it's told to do. In all exceptional situations, pilots are required to deal with the situation.
Flight computers in modern airliners can help with controlling the aircraft itself and not exceeding safety limits, but the pilots are the ones who fly the plane and the captain of the plane is the one who makes the decisions on what to do and how to fly the plane.
In many ways, this is the exact same thing that causes the majority of automobile accidents. The reasons for accidents are in same order, even: The most important factor is the driver, then weather and road conditions (and driver's responsibility is to adapt their way of driving to changing conditions), and then mechanical failures which rarely if ever cause fatal accidents.
Ironically, same pattern can be noticed in the present nuclear incidents.
Human operator error has been the primary reason in most nuclear incidents (Chernobyl (exacerbated by design flaws and lack of safety culture) SL-1)
Second most important have been forces of nature. (Fukushima - caused technological failures due to insufficient systems redundancies)
Third most important, technological failures (TMI (exacerbated by human operator errors) and Kyshtym (though arguably Kyshtym disaster was worse than Fukushima and TMI, just less known) )
I can't help but notice this conversation getting de-railed worse every day.
-
I can name a few airplane accidents that were caused by human error. The one at Tenerife, for instance, or KAL 007...
I can't help but notice this conversation getting de-railed worse every day.
Must you? :rolleyes:
-
I don't know if the fact that I only hear the causes of major crashes is skewing my feeling on this but from memory,
British Airways at Heathrow - Design Flaw
Hudson River Crash - Bird Strike
Air France from Brazil - No one ****ing knows
I suspect the airline you choose to fly with might also affect the cause.
-
The vast majority of air transport, and even moreso, general aviation accidents are mostly attributed to human factors. The same applies to most "technical operator" industries I would assume.
-
Four NC State professors are holding a symposium tomorrow at 5 pm (eastern). These four guys are about as expert as they come. Dr. Turinsky in particular has done goddamn near everything in the commercial nuclear world. He teaches the nuclear systems class and has a story for EVERYTHING. He was involved in the TMI investigation, and currently heads a huge government-grant research project with a bunch of other universities and national labs.
Info and live stream here (http://www.ne.ncsu.edu/press-releases-awards/news2011/fukushima-symposium.html) for anyone interested.
-
Nice, that's just when I get home from class. I'll try to catch it. :)
-
Wow here is a video of the tsunami before it reached the coast - creepy.
Tsunami of Tohoku Earthquake Before Wrecking the Coast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fqyOpqnJyw&feature=player_embedded)
-
Good link, T-Low. I've always wondered how a tsunami would look like when a video of it is shot on a boat out at sea. Now I know. :)
It's amazing how the boat went over it so easily. My Top Gear experience tells me that the seas around Dover are occasionally much more violent.
-
well unfortunately there wasn't a whole lot new in the discussion. i was hoping they might have better info than what we've been getting, but they were working off the same mess of inconsistent data and conjecture as the rest of us.
-
It's amazing how the boat went over it so easily. My Top Gear experience tells me that the seas around Dover are occasionally much more violent.
The reason for that is due to the sea depth; the farther out at sea, the deeper the ocean floor, the less of a wave you'll see on the surface. It's only the compression of all that moving water as it reaches shallow depths that gives the larger waves typically associated with tsunamis. Same thing goes for your run-of-the-mill ocean waves, btw.
The reason the boat handled the wave so easily was because they were steaming into the wave head-on. Any other orientation would be foolish.