Japan Raises Severity Rating of Nuclear Disaster

[cali]

VOA News March 18, 2011


Japan has raised the severity rating of its nuclear disaster, as firefighters continue efforts to cool highly radioactive fuel rods at a nuclear reactor complex crippled by last week's earthquake and tsunami.

Japan on Friday increased the severity of the crisis at the Fukushima site from 4 to 5 on a 7-point international nuclear event scale.

Firefighters are dousing water on damaged reactor buildings with powerful hoses. But they have to limit their time inside the complex due to the high radiation levels.

Japanese engineers also are extending an emergency power cable to the nuclear reactor complex. A steady supply of power could enable workers at the Fukushima plant to get water pumps working again.

<snip>

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/east-pacific/Japan-Raises-Severity-Rating-of-Nuclear-Disaster-118228669.html

[onehandle]

1. How do you raise a 6 to a 5?

Nice try.

[cali]

2. huh? it says it was raised from 4 to a 5. And nice try at what, might I ask?

I'm simply posting the top google story, not trying to push anything. duh.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. maybe the 4 looks like a 6 to someone with an agenda? nt

[FBaggins]

8. A two looks like a six to someone with an agenda.

They're "near misses".

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. good point nt

[onehandle]

19. I wasn't blaming you. The teevee has been saying level 6 for days.

We don't really know what is happening.

[Quixote1818]

20. News reports had been already calling it a 6 so it's strange to see

it's now a 5?

[FBaggins]

4. Some guy in france calling it a six doesn't make it a six.

Having said that, the scale needs some work. The current crisis is clearly worse than TMI (a five), but nowhere near as bad (so far) as the only six on record.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. +1 nt

[distantearlywarning]

16. Are you referring to Chernobyl?

Chernobyl is the only SEVEN on record.

I was unable to find any mention of a six other than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster (but there might be others I don't know about).

A quick skim of the Kyshtym disaster suggests to me at least that it would not be unreasonable to assign the same level to the Fukushima disaster, and that the Fukushima disaster might even be somewhat worse. I also think at this point that any reasonable person could argue that Fukushima is substantially beyond the types of problems experienced at Three Mile Island.

I would agree however that we certainly have not yet reached the level of seriousness that would qualify classifying Fukushima in the same category as Chernobyl, and hopefully nothing will happen in the next few days or weeks that would change that.

I would also suggest that perhaps Japan has as much or more of a vested interest in keeping that number low than the French guy might in keeping it high.

This is an extremely serious and dangerous nuclear accident. I confess to being a bit puzzled as to why a handful of individuals on DU are taking it so lightly. :-(

[FBaggins]

18. No. As you said, that was a seven.

A quick skim of the Kyshtym disaster suggests to me at least that it would not be unreasonable to assign the same level to the Fukushima disaster

Then you need to skim a bit farther. Something like 80 tons of highly radioactive material sent out into the environment. No reliable death toll, but certainly substantial (in the hundreds). Nobody can deny that Fukushima could still get much worse, but to date the radiation released has been far FAR below that point. Most of it has come from releases of radioactive steam (which is very dangerous in close proximity to the reactors, but which has an incredibly short half-life - it's mostly gone in minutes). The remaining elements that have been released have resulted in only very low transient exposure levels at any real distance from the reactor.

I think a fair comparison would be: Imagine that the spent-fuel in the pools was converted to dust and 100 tons of TNT were places under it and detonated. In order for something comparable to happen here, you have to have the pool run dry (possibly already happened), have the fuel overheat and burst, have it catch fire and burn uncontrolled for days on end.

Then it's a six.

Alternatively, if the unit with the cracked torus had melted down further and burst through containment... that too would be a six.

I also think at this point that any reasonable person could argue that Fukushima is substantially beyond the types of problems experienced at Three Mile Island.

I agree (which was the reason for my comment). I think that the problem is that TMI probably should have been a four.

[pintobean]

9. Who rated it as a 6?

I saw that it had been rated as a 6, but I don't know who rated it. Maybe the IAEA? This story refers to Japan's rating.

[Statistical]

14. Nobody with rating authority. Some scientist in France said it is a 6. n/t

[pintobean]

17. Thanks. It was widely reported without a source.

Media hype - what a surprise.

[Jersey Devil]

3. Ridiculous of course, but what worries me more

is that they are admitting it is getting worse by raising it to any higher level. Just a totally uneducated guess on my part, but it would seem to me that the only chance they may have to get the entire complex from completely melting down would be to bury #4 and maybe #2 in concrete ASAP to lower the levels so they can work on the plant as a whole.

[FBaggins]

7. Actually, the pools are the largest remaining problem.

(which isn't to say that the others aren't problems, just that the danger has declined significantly).

But you can't get to the pools if you're encasing them in concrete.

[Jersey Devil]

10. They can't get to the pools now

As I said, I am no expert, but wouldn't concrete over the top of #4 at least cut down radiation going into the air so they could work on the pumping system for the other reactors? #4 has no fuel in the reactor, only the pool, which as I understand it is the main thing keeping them from going in closer to work on the entire plant. Entombing #4 in concrete would mean maybe forever making an area near the site uninhabitable, but what is the alternative if it means all 6 will meltdown without closer access?

[Statistical]

15. Maybe just concrete the spent fuel pond #4.

Reactor #4 is critical but stable.

It is the fuel pond. I think within a few days they may need to do something like that.

I wonder why they haven't looked into something like a boom.

Build a scaffolding as tall as the reactor buildings. Build it where radiation isn't too high (as close as they can get to #4 spent fuel pond).

Put a pipe on the scaffolding. Slide it partially off the scaffolding and connect another pipe, then another, then another.
Essentially building a sideways "pipe bridge". When you get it over the reactor building connect water supply to douse the #4 pond.

Maybe they don't have the resources, maybe they have too many other problems going on but just like the deep water horizon it will take some out of the box thinking.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. just a note on the INES levels

good overview here : http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp


sP