News: Japan's Earthquake

[LadyCrimson]

Agrees with and echoes Monte Carlo.

 

My parents know a lot of people in Japan (through my father's long ago work)...they'd always bring me little kiddie toys or some elegant small piece of art when they visited. Don't know if mom still stays in contact w/any of them. I hope they're all ok.

[Calax]

What's next? A meteor strike?

 

I guess making all those hentai movies involving 14 year old girls and tentacles finally caught up with them..

THEY WERE [legal age of concent]! GET IT RIGHT!

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

What's next? A meteor strike?

 

I guess making all those hentai movies involving 14 year old girls and tentacles finally caught up with them..

At this point Godzilla wouldn't be surprising.

[Gorth]

At this point Godzilla wouldn't be surprising.

 

They are leaking a lot of radioactive stuff into the environment at the moment. You never know what the future may bring.

[Zoraptor]

I've been hearing talk these last few days of "nuclear explosions" and "exploding reactors"

The exploding reactor bit is perfectly plausible and we've effectively seen reactors exploding (as a common usage definition) even if the reactor core itself wasn't breached. And while there cannot be a nuclear explosion in the classical sense there is plenty of potential for something equivalent to a "dirty bomb" in superheated (plutono-) uranic slag hitting a water source directly.

 

I'd agree that "nuclear explosion" really should not be used though.

[Nightshape]

I've been hearing talk these last few days of "nuclear explosions" and "exploding reactors"

The exploding reactor bit is perfectly plausible and we've effectively seen reactors exploding (as a common usage definition) even if the reactor core itself wasn't breached. And while there cannot be a nuclear explosion in the classical sense there is plenty of potential for something equivalent to a "dirty bomb" in superheated (plutono-) uranic slag hitting a water source directly.

 

I'd agree that "nuclear explosion" really should not be used though.

 

Media scare mongering.

[Walsingham]

A further explosion, with serious levels of radiation now being relased at the site.

 

I understand from the BBC that contingency planning accepted the possibility of earthquake but failed to grasp the way natural disasters hit several points at once. The diesel gennies weren't able to cope with a (to me entirely obvious) tsunami, and the backup system (the batteries) presupposed that the roads and other facilities would be available for use. Whereas in reality of course anything which smacks point A hard enough to necessitate point B will also hurt B and C.

 

This is not mere hindsight. If you read any journal to do with disaster response, or insurance underwiting from the period post Hurricane Katrina you will see this criticism underpinning the failure of both 'industries'. I would then regard it as inexcusable that disaster response was not re-examined elsewhere in light of that.

 

It may be understandable, in light of human social and organisational pressure to fail to red flag something which means a big overhaul and shakeup - and disatser planning usually does - but that does not excuse.

[Oblarg]

A further explosion, with serious levels of radiation now being relased at the site.

 

I understand from the BBC that contingency planning accepted the possibility of earthquake but failed to grasp the way natural disasters hit several points at once. The diesel gennies weren't able to cope with a (to me entirely obvious) tsunami, and the backup system (the batteries) presupposed that the roads and other facilities would be available for use. Whereas in reality of course anything which smacks point A hard enough to necessitate point B will also hurt B and C.

 

This is not mere hindsight. If you read any journal to do with disaster response, or insurance underwiting from the period post Hurricane Katrina you will see this criticism underpinning the failure of both 'industries'. I would then regard it as inexcusable that disaster response was not re-examined elsewhere in light of that.

 

It may be understandable, in light of human social and organisational pressure to fail to red flag something which means a big overhaul and shakeup - and disatser planning usually does - but that does not excuse.

 

This reactor wasn't horribly designed - it was never built to cope with an earthquake of this magnitude. It was built to withstand a magnitude 8.2 earthquake - that's a factor of 7 smaller than the one which hit it. The fact that they were able to contain the problems in reactors 1 and 3 is impressive enough. You can't failsafe against every possible calamity. Standard practice, I believe, is to plan for the worst single possible problem you can cope with, and design the system to be able to withstand that plus one other failure. The amount of things that went wrong was unprecedented and not easily foreseeable. This was not some huge ****up on the part of the Japanese, this was simply a horrible natural disaster.

[Walsingham]

This reactor wasn't horribly designed - it was never built to cope with an earthquake of this magnitude. It was built to withstand a magnitude 8.2 earthquake - that's a factor of 7 smaller than the one which hit it. The fact that they were able to contain the problems in reactors 1 and 3 is impressive enough. You can't failsafe against every possible calamity. Standard practice, I believe, is to plan for the worst single possible problem you can cope with, and design the system to be able to withstand that plus one other failure. The amount of things that went wrong was unprecedented and not easily foreseeable. This was not some huge ****up on the part of the Japanese, this was simply a horrible natural disaster.

 

I'm not going to suggest this is some massive personal failure on your part, but you've not understood the nature of resilience. Obviously you can't proof against force X hitting a system at above z value in one dimension. That's why you have response plans, and redundant systems designed to tackle the failures associated with the primary system.

 

The failure here, as I say is that the multiplicity of damage was not just foreseeable in terms of a very large earthquake/tsunami combination. But that - more importantly - there was a professional/public awareness that disasters should be viewed as multi-dimensional failures. hence to a degree one can excuse the planners for Katrina, but not here.

 

Or are you seriously telling me that you've never heard anyone say "the modern world is increasingly complex and interconnected". If so, ,where have you been for the last five years? Swinging gleefully from the tail of a burmese pony?

[Oblarg]

I'm not going to suggest this is some massive personal failure on your part, but you've not understood the nature of resilience. Obviously you can't proof against force X hitting a system at above z value in one dimension. That's why you have response plans, and redundant systems designed to tackle the failures associated with the primary system.

 

The failure here, as I say is that the multiplicity of damage was not just foreseeable in terms of a very large earthquake/tsunami combination. But that - more importantly - there was a professional/public awareness that disasters should be viewed as multi-dimensional failures. hence to a degree one can excuse the planners for Katrina, but not here.

 

Or are you seriously telling me that you've never heard anyone say "the modern world is increasingly complex and interconnected". If so, ,where have you been for the last five years? Swinging gleefully from the tail of a burmese pony?

 

Stop it with the nonsequiturs - A plant got hit by a quake which it was not designed to withstand. That's all that happened. It's not unreasonable, either - it was an old plant, and it's almost impossible to design things to be able to withstand an 8.9 quake.

 

Or are you really naive enough to think that crisis response is logistically trivial, especially given the huge destruction of infrastructure following a disaster such as this?

Edited March 15, 2011 by Oblarg

[Humodour]

Mother Nature yet again proves how evil and vicious she is. No mercy for her. I'm gonna got cut downa tree today just out of spite and not use it for anything.

 

Yes, but that's because you're a moron.

[Walsingham]

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes, Oblarg, old son.

 

You are seeking to excuse the planning and response with generalities.

 

I am condemning the planing and response of professional responders by pointing out that their profession has been aware of and warning about these exact failures for several years. I can't link to the Financial Times, because it's subscription only online, but it ran many many articles on this topic in the year post Katrina. And that's not even an 'industry' journal.

 

I can't emphasise this enough: the problem has not been that the reactor itself broke down. The problem has been that the system of systems has been unable to cope with the main failure because the system of systems got damaged at the same time.

[Oblarg]

You're missing the point - the plant was never designed to deal with this type of quake in the first place. That includes the system for restoring the reactor after the damage is done. This is not a failure of the system to do what it's designed to do, because the system was not designed to deal with this type of damage. Whether or not it should (or even could) have been designed to deal with a disaster of this magnitude is another issue entirely.

[Humodour]

It wasn't an 8.9 quake, it was upgraded to 9.0 after further readings were examined.

 

I am not being pedantic here - earthquake strength is measured logarithmically, so an 9.0 is something like twice as strong as an 8.9. Quite a difference!

[Walsingham]

You're missing the point - the plant was never designed to deal with this type of quake in the first place. That includes the system for restoring the reactor after the damage is done. This is not a failure of the system to do what it's designed to do, because the system was not designed to deal with this type of damage. Whether or not it should (or even could) have been designed to deal with a disaster of this magnitude is another issue entirely.

 

No, with respect you can't be actually reading what I'm writing. This isn't about the failure of the reactor building or vessel, which is a single system. In and of itself this need not have been dangerous, provided backup and response measures had been capable of moving to and responding with relevant counter-measures in containment. That's what I mean by the 'system of systems'. What some people call the "so what?" factor.

 

EDIT INSERT: in our era robust systems are designed to transfer resilience to this response phase. So you don't make the original system 'tougher'. But you make its failure easier to cope with. hence the multiple containment areas around a modern reactor.

 

If I have time later today* I'll try to find you some more detailed articles on the subject. But you could also look them up yourself with relative ease. I seem to have the impression that you are at University, or near one (could be my imagination). If so, get access to the Journal of Disaster Management Response.

 

*I won't.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Walsingham

[213374U]

I've been hearing talk these last few days of "nuclear explosions" and "exploding reactors"

The exploding reactor bit is perfectly plausible and we've effectively seen reactors exploding (as a common usage definition) even if the reactor core itself wasn't breached. And while there cannot be a nuclear explosion in the classical sense there is plenty of potential for something equivalent to a "dirty bomb" in superheated (plutono-) uranic slag hitting a water source directly.

 

I'd agree that "nuclear explosion" really should not be used though.

No, we haven't seen reactors exploding, effectively or otherwise. Hydrogen explosions happened inside the reactor building but not within the reactor proper, meaning that until today, containment structures hadn't been damaged and emergency cooling operations hadn't been compromised. This is just an instance of "common usage" expressions being misleading in a situation where there's no excuse for a lack of rigor. Being precise doesn't require convoluted technical explanations and said lack of rigor contributes to misinformation in a subject that's already controversial enough. That's why we have professional journalists to begin with, don't you think?

 

Unfortunately, we may yet see an actual reactor explosion as the process you mention follows the Japanese inability to prevent a full meltdown. We don't need that to have a serious disaster though, apparently a fire getting out of hand at one of the now-exposed spent fuel cooling pools is a likely possibility as well, and it would no doubt further deteriorate working conditions on site. Fun.

Edited March 15, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I agree with Numbers, in that lots of people are talking about tsunami damaged spent fuel containment, rather than the main reactors. And the scuttle seems plausible in that respect.

[Walsingham]

Scam text claiming to be from BBC panics people across Asia.

 

According to the article in the link, disasters are often linked to scams. Makes me utterly furious. Anyone found guilty of scamming by exploiting an emergency situation should be subject to additional - and the severest additional - penalties. Communit y service picking up litter - in the disaster zone - is a fun notion.

[Oblarg]

No, with respect you can't be actually reading what I'm writing.

 

Ah, irony.

 

Reread the second sentence of my post.

[Gfted1]

Everyone should check out this website which has pictures with a before and after slider. Unbelievable.

[Walsingham]

No, with respect you can't be actually reading what I'm writing.

 

Ah, irony.

 

Reread the second sentence of my post.

 

I'll be honest, I hadn't read that.

 

*coughs*

 

Nonetheless, I don't see how you could have said that as if it helps your case. I'm saying that the repair mechanism wasn't designed for this sort of accident, and that the industry consensus prior to the incident probably was that it bloody well should have been. If you disagree that's your prerogative, but I'd suggest that disagreeing with such a slew of opinion would make even me stop and wonder.

[Oblarg]

No, with respect you can't be actually reading what I'm writing.

 

Ah, irony.

 

Reread the second sentence of my post.

 

I'll be honest, I hadn't read that.

 

*coughs*

 

Nonetheless, I don't see how you could have said that as if it helps your case. I'm saying that the repair mechanism wasn't designed for this sort of accident, and that the industry consensus prior to the incident probably was that it bloody well should have been. If you disagree that's your prerogative, but I'd suggest that disagreeing with such a slew of opinion would make even me stop and wonder.

 

No - it's not trivial to design your system to cope with a quake of this magnitude, and I think it's very easy to say "it should have been" without appreciation for how hard it is to do.

[Walsingham]

I didn't intend to dig in on this point, Oblarg. I'm not sure an apology is necessary, but perhaps I should signal a behind-the-scenes cooling off.

 

Nevertheless, I don't think you're giving sufficient thought to what you're saying. I never argued that counter-measures were trivial. But what we have seen heer is a reliance on thinking that is at least 5 years out of date.

 

Confident I could get something easily I hit up the 'flood plan UK' site, and looked at their community action guide:

 

http://www.floodplanuk.org/userfiles/file/...lan%20Guide.pdf

 

If you look on page 15 you will see that even members of the public are advised to evisage that flood responders are themselves struggling with flood damage.

 

By contrast, as I say, the difficulties being experienced by the nuclear accident responders in terms of getting access to the site, maintaining the responders and so on seem consistent with a failure to grasp that the primary (diesels) and secondary (battery) systems* would be hit at the same time as the main system.

 

Yes, this has been a massive quake, but I suggest that proper plans consistent with a lower degree of quake - which you would agree was foreseen - should have coped.

 

 

*By which I mean the battery resupply.

[Tale]

Mother Nature yet again proves how evil and vicious she is. No mercy for her. I'm gonna got cut downa tree today just out of spite and not use it for anything.

 

Yes, but that's because you're a moron.

Oh, come on! That was bloody hilarious. It's almost funny enough for me to take him off ignore.

 

 

Everyone should check out this website which has pictures with a before and after slider. Unbelievable.

You hear about a 13 foot tidal wave and you just think "oh, it'll break on land and some houses'll get flooded." Then you look at these pictures and realize they're $#@%ing GONE. Entire neighbourhoods. Speachless.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Tale

[Calax]

Wals, you do realize that planning for an earthquake in the magnitude of 9.0 is damn near impossible right? There have only been 3 such earthquakes that have EVER been recorded, and the amount of power cut loose by them is just.... insane. 6 or 7 is plannable, but once you're up that high, the sheer amount of damage that's going to be done is just gonna throw any possible plan out the window.

 

9.0 is approx the power of 474 MEGATONS of TNT being detonated.

 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqi...001xgp/#details

 

There's a link to the US Geological Survey article. According to them the only earthquake near this strong in this area was in 869. And that's simply theoretical.