Horrendous Earthquake / Tsunami in Japan

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Which of the three questions is "yes" the answer to?

[Jason Thompson]

The one about siting them on the coast. Sorry, meant to clip that in the quote.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Okay. Well the unwritten follow-up question was "and if so what is it"?

[Paul Monk]

Basically the power stations need to be by a constant supply of water in order to cool the steam so building by the coast is the obviously answer. They're accessible to a vast body of water. I guess they could be built inland but then they would need huge cooling towers so I guess they choose the first option to reduce the cost.

[Jason Thompson]

Great report in the Metro today which condenses to:

'one lot of experts say they are losing control of the reactor, and another lot says they're not.'

That's taking 'balanced reporting' to a whole new level...

[Paul Monk]

I was dismayed to see a report that said that Americans had been panic buying potassium iodide tablets.

[Si Hunt]

What are they? And where do I get some?!?

Si.

[Si Hunt]

A spokesman for the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan has admitted the situation is now considered to be "severe".

"This is a severe incident that is occurring right now," the spokesman said at a Thursday evening news conference.

"We have vented and used seawater as cooling, followed the accident management plan but this is a very severe operation."

The admission comes as plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) continues attempts to stop the six-reactor Fukushima 1 complex from going into nuclear meltdown.

"We have to keep cooling the fuel so it doesn't reach criticality," the Tepco spokesman said, adding that radiation levels have barely fallen at the site.

So if it goes into meltdown, what will that mean? And how wide an area would it affect?

Is there any chance of any kind of chain reaction?

Si.

[Paul Monk]

I've just skim read this article and think its pretty good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

[Jason Thompson]

What are they? And where do I get some?!?

Si.

They are exactly what they claim to be: tablets of potassium iodide. They are useful for reducing your risk of thyroid cancer from inhalation of iodine-129, a fission product from nucelar reactors. Your thyroid uses iodine in the production of thyroxine, an important hormone. The tablets reduce the risk of radioactive iodine being incorporated by the simple method of making sure your body has a whole bunch of non-radioactive iodine floating around in it, ths reducing the chance that any conaminating radioactive material will be incorporated into your metabolic pathways.

Since the air around here is unlikely to have any more radioactive iodine in it than at any other time just at the moment, I wouldn't go rushing off to the shops to buy any just yet.

[Jason Thompson]

And how wide an area would it affect?

As with most things concerning radiation, that depends on your definition of being affected. It could affect a very wide area indeed, but the effects beyond a mile or so may be no more than some slightly elevated background radiation levels. There are too many variables to predict with certainty.

Is there any chance of any kind of chain reaction?

In terms of the rods fissioning and heating as they are supposed to in a reactor anyway, yes. This will be a problem if there is insufficient moderation and cooling, as they will heat up a lot faster than normal and will generate a lot of radioactive by-products that may not be suitably contained.

In terms of a nuclear explosion, no.

If they could just get the power back on they could activate the plant's existing cooling equipment. No-one will ever have been so pleased to see a lightbulb go on as those guys will!

[Zbigniev Hamson]

So if it goes into meltdown, what will that mean? And how wide an area would it affect?

Is there any chance of any kind of chain reaction?

Si.

Nice sly use of the word "admission" in that article, as if anyone's actually done anything wrong.

[Rob McCow]

If they could just get the power back on

Question at the back!

It's a power station. Surely there must be a way they can convert the power generated to useful energy?

[Jason Thompson]

Not necessarily. Nuclear power stations rely on a tightly controlled set of circumstances to generate their power. The first safety measure is usually to shut them down (which is what they all did when the quake struck). Starting them up again is a very laborious process. There is a backup generator to maintain power to critical systems when the power station shuts down, but that was taken out by the tsunami.

[Larry]

yet again this shows that despite all our intelligence and advanced technology man is simply nothing compared to the forces of nature the devestation is like those old photos from Aug 1945 when the two A bombs were dropped on Japan . You just can't get your head round the devestation and death toll in fact when I was watching the news last night and seeing the rescue teams in the devestated areas I was thinking where do you even start looking for survivors.

[Junkyard]

They are exactly what they claim to be: tablets of potassium iodide. They are useful for reducing your risk of thyroid cancer from inhalation of iodine-129, a fission product from nucelar reactors. Your thyroid uses iodine in the production of thyroxine, an important hormone. The tablets reduce the risk of radioactive iodine being incorporated by the simple method of making sure your body has a whole bunch of non-radioactive iodine floating around in it, ths reducing the chance that any conaminating radioactive material will be incorporated into your metabolic pathways.

Since the air around here is unlikely to have any more radioactive iodine in it than at any other time just at the moment, I wouldn't go rushing off to the shops to buy any just yet.

I work for a pharmaceutical company in NE London; the Japanese embassy asked us for all the potassium iodide capsules we have in stock. We're selling them for cost price (no profit), of course. Our capsule plant is churning them out as fast as they can.

[Jason Thompson]

Extremely annoyed this morning to see the Daily Express headline 'TSUNAMI NUCLEAR FALLOUT HITS UK', accompanied by an article using phrases like 'officials insisted' and 'officials played down the risks', and a line about radiation causing cancer, illness, and death in high enough doses. It is exactly this kind of sensationalist reporting with scant regard for the actual facts (nowhere does it report the actual amounts of radioactive iodine detected) that leads to the problems of public perception of nuclear issues and science in general.

Yes, radioactve iodine levels have been elevated today, but a tiny elevation over a tiny background amount is still a tiny amount. I have not seen the exact figures yet, bt I would not be surprised if some regions of the UK still have higher normal background levels of radiation than this increase in radioactive iodine has caused in the areas it has been detected. There is no 'risk' or 'danger' as yet, nor is there ever likely to be from an event that took place on the other side of the globe.

And a statement from an anti-nuclear expert that advising that there is no risk is not right, and the public should decide. How can the public decide when most of them don't know enough to make informed decisions in the first place? That's why we have experts and advisory panels in the first place!

[Si Hunt]

And so far there's only been a small amount detected in Scotland, so nothing to worry about yet.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

Well that's precisely the point, Si. The health risk is so close to nil as to be negligible - and if you try holding on to that, then you're really pushing things. Like the Telegraph.

[Jason Thompson]

Exactly the point, and yet the papers scream about it as if we're all going to keel over from radiation sickness any minute, and couch their articles in terms that suggest that the official story is just bullshit to keep the population calm and ignorant of the imminent grisly death we are all facing.

It's crap, and grossly irresponsible reporting.