Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

On Saturday, 17 December 2016 12:35:30 UTC, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Nightjar
escribió:

Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down.

What was interesting was that Tepco had actually built new diesel backup
generators in a more secure location and these weren't affected, but
they didn't relocate the switchgear from the basement of the reactor
building, so when that flooded with tsunami seawater the generators were
effectively disabled.

wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for
Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the
hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were
given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent
power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for
Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings.
The switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark
II reactor building and continued to function.[63] All three of the
generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami.
If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings
or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by
these generators to the reactors' cooling systems"

--
Flooding of switchgear doesn't have to mean a shutdown, they just needed to disable the earth-leakage and overcurrent trips, and supply would have been maintained.

It suggests that the engineer who designed that bit of the plant didn't think things through, they just designed to protect the distribution system regardless of the consequences of a supply failure.

What they should have done was provide minimum short-circuit protection only, to prevent a fault on one pump motor from disrupting the supply to others, other than that allow for 'run to burnout'.

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

On 20/12/16 19:39, Jaffna Dog wrote:
Flooding of switchgear doesn't have to mean a shutdown, they just needed to disable the earth-leakage and overcurrent trips, and supply would have been maintained.

The electric motors ran flooded until the batteries ran out.

The diesels were flooded.

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

On 20-Dec-16 3:47 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would
be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing
a panic.

You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have
happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should
return to their homes and get on with their lives as before?

Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct
result of the evacuation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

They had low radiation exposure because they were evacuated.
If they hadn't been evacuated, most would be dead by now.


Wrong again Harry. As I said, The French team found that, outside the
plant, the dose was unlikely to exceed 30mSv/y, and there is absolutely
no evidence of any adverse effects from exposure levels below 100mSv/y.
IOW, continuing to live in even the most highly irradiated areas outside
the plant would have been safe.
--
--

Colin Bignell

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:58:25 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


What do they think is going to happen to cause that?

Mass alteration of the laws of physics and biology to match the
discredited LNT radiation models.

They are not discredited - the Japanese don't like them though. I
wonder why.

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would
be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing
a panic.

You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have
happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should
return to their homes and get on with their lives as before?

Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct
result of the evacuation.

They had low radiation exposure because they were evacuated.
If they hadn't been evacuated, most would be dead by now.

Even more pig ignorant that you usually manage.

Those who were working in the reactor buildings got a MUCH
higher level of radiation and NOT ONE OF THEM IS NOW DEAD.

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 09:27:26 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would
be from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing
a panic.

You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have
happened if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should
return to their homes and get on with their lives as before?

Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an
exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

Because they were evacuated.


An exercise that directly resulted in the deaths of 761 people who, had
they remained, would still not have received dangerous doses of
radiation.

So why haven't they all gone back?

Because the authoritys stupidly wont allow that.

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 19:11:03 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

To put that into perspective Fukushima was classed as a radiation
event the same level as Chernobyl, the worst possible radioactive
release. And yet no one has died, or will die. Or even get sick,
as a result.

http://www.fukushimaradiationvictims.net/
US sailors not gagged like Japanese workers apparently.

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

On 20/12/16 22:03, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:58:25 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


What do they think is going to happen to cause that?

Mass alteration of the laws of physics and biology to match the
discredited LNT radiation models.

They are not discredited - the Japanese don't like them though. I
wonder why.

They are discredited, and the Japanese seem to love them.

Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN
 

On 20/12/2016 15:48, harry wrote:
So why haven't they all gone back?

It says in one of Mechanic's links. They'd lose lots of benefits.

Andy