This is what Prof. Haim Cohen from the Department of Biological Chemistry at the Ariel University Center in Samaria, who specializes in chemical reactions at the interface between radiation and matter, who follows what is happening in Japan and provides his insights in an interview with the Hidaan website, suggests.
Prof. Haim Cohen from the Department of Biological Chemistry at the Ariel University Center in Samaria, who specializes in chemical reactions at the interface between radiation and matter, follows what is happening in Japan. In an interview with the science website, he explains what exactly happened in the nuclear reactors, and how dangerous the situation is.
"At the site in Fukushima, six reactors are operating that together produce about 4,800 megawatts of electricity, which is about half of the maximum consumption of the State of Israel for comparison. So far, faults have been discovered in three reactors. An explosion occurred in one reactor, in the second the pressure is rising and if they haven't released it yet the reactor operators will have to release pressure and in a third reactor problems were discovered in the cooling system. In addition, in another reactor that exists in another city called Ungawa, radiation levels were discovered inside the reactor's reactor beyond normal. "
What exactly happened in Fukushima?
Cohen: "The problems in Fukushima happened because as soon as the earthquake occurred, activity at the reactors was automatically stopped, but the earthquake damaged the cooling system, such reactors must be continuously cooled. The function of the cooling is to take heat from the uranium core, this heat is converted into steam in heat exchangers and this steam drives turbo generators to produce electricity .”
"Since the cooling system was out of order due to the earthquake, a system of diesel generators that drive the replacement cooling system came into operation as a replacement, but when the tsunami wave reached the area, it disabled the generators and then a system of emergency batteries came into operation, but the emergency batteries provide cooling capacity for a very short time and as soon as the electricity When the batteries ran out, the system stopped working."
"As a result of this, the water in the pipes heated up to very high temperatures, created steam, and also released large amounts of hydrogen gas as a result of the chemical decomposition of the water as a result of the high temperature, and the hydrogen gas, which is explosive, exploded, cracked the concrete walls of the building in Reactor No. 1, and caused a large explosion of Steam clouds. These clouds were radioactive but to a very small extent, so they did not pose a risk to the surrounding population."
"Fortunately for the Japanese, the explosion did not happen inside the mat, which is made of all the steel that holds the uranium, but outside the mat. Inside the seal there is a very large amount of volatile radioactive materials, mainly radioactive iodine and radioactive cesium. If the reactor had ruptured, a very large amount of radioactive radiation would have been released, which would have endangered the surrounding population."
And what happens in the other miners?
"Then it became clear that the cooling system in reactor number 3 is also starting to go out of order, so it was decided to inject sea water as a last resort to cool the core in the two reactors where the failures happened in the last two days. Basically, as long as there is no breach of the seals, the level of risk is getting smaller because the core slowly cools down in the reactors and as soon as it drops below a temperature of several hundred degrees Celsius the risk of the seal breaking will pass. There are indications that there are also cooling problems in another reactor, the third of the six existing at the site in Fukushima. At this stage, it seems that the Japanese authorities are in control of the situation in terms of the risks of a nuclear incident of a significant leak of radioactive materials. that can endanger the civilian population."
What does the definition as a level 4 disaster mean?
Level 4 out of ten levels means that the situation is under the control of the system that handles the reactors. In addition, there was probably damage to at least one reactor in the city of Ungawa, this is based on the fact that the level of radiation inside the reactor's reactor increased beyond normal, but there are no indications that a dangerous situation is reaching there, and apparently the problem there is that the earthquake damage damaged some of the piping, so there are some leaks, but still Inside the mat, it doesn't go outside the mat. In general, due to the danger, it was decided to evacuate the civilian population that lives up to 20 kilometers from the Fukushima site. It should be remembered that these are six reactors where problems are clearly defined in two and perhaps also in the third. The Japanese authorities will distribute iodine pills in case there is a radioactive iodine breakout and then the residents will be instructed to swallow the iodine pills to prevent damage from absorption of radioactive iodine released into the atmosphere. As mentioned, this has not yet happened and the iodine pills are distributed as a safety measure, like the atropine injections that were distributed to us in the protective kits during the Gulf War, lest we be exposed to chemical warfare agents - nerve gas in this case."
What are the conclusions regarding the establishment of nuclear reactors in the future?
Cohen: "The conclusions are that nuclear reactors should not be built in an earthquake-prone area and in an area with tsunami risks, the rooms where the diesel generators are located, which is the first backup system - must be sealed so that they are not flooded with water, because that is what put the main backup system out of action and caused the major malfunction. Reactors must be near the sea due to the cooling system. If in the first wave these rooms were isolated and the tsunami water did not penetrate them, the generators would also continue to function and the cooling water should function."
47 תגובות
Although "a lot" of time has passed since the earthquake-tsunami disaster in Japan, I cannot escape the feeling that, for various reasons, distorted interpretations have been given to the consequences of the event on the issue of producing electrical energy using nuclear reactors.
First, let's remove Cora from our eyes and agree that without a particularly revolutionary breakthrough there is no chance to significantly stop the emission of greenhouse gases by using renewable energy sources. As long as the efficiency of the solar installations does not increase by an order of magnitude, and even with their price decreasing, salvation will not come from them, if only because of the huge areas that will be required in order to provide significant percentages of the demand for electrical energy.
The approach based on the accepted interpretation of the causes of the disaster, was used by all kinds of factors to distort the facts in order to serve, among other things, their political goals, such as the statements of German Chancellor Angela Merkel that she needed the support of the "Greens" in order to survive politically. All the greens who like to take extreme trends enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon of the Fukushima events while closing their eyes to what really happened there.
Well, what happened there? There was an earthquake of unprecedented intensity and a nuclear power plant collapsed, emitting radioactive radiation of dangerous intensities. What could be simpler than concluding that earthquakes endanger the proper operation of power plants powered by atomic energy to the point of radiation pollution of vast areas that cross borders of countries and continents.
However, it turns out that a correct interpretation of the facts leads to the opposite conclusion than the accepted one. The events in Fukushima actually testified to the resilience of the power plant in question. Because what happened? Despite the unusual intensity of the earthquake, was there any direct damage to the structure of the reactor? No evidence of this was found. The indirect cause of the events was the tsunami that disabled the pumping system used to cool the reactor. It can be argued that there was a design error here that did not take into account the possibility of flooding the pumping system, but this has nothing to do with the durability of the reactor structure.
It is time to internalize the fact that if global warming is caused by man-made activities, there is no more sweeping solution than the massive adoption of nuclear energy, see the already beaten example of France whose third largest component in its export basket is nuclear electricity, including for self-righteous people like Angela Merkel .
The obvious conclusion - to concentrate all the resources for the establishment of nuclear reactors at the maximum rate since they, as the events in Fukushima proved, are safe! Of course, the lessons learned must be applied (when was there a tsunami in Europe?)
Reuven Amir Ph. d.
I read the discussion that was created here. very interesting. A few comments that came to mind:
1. As in any case where a correlation is found between variables, the question arises as to whether there really is a causal relationship between them. During my undergraduate studies we were always given the example of the (positive) correlation between banana consumption and divorce cases in the UK.
2. As fate would have it, I am currently dealing with the issue of detecting and diagnosing thyroid cancer. Just to note that I am in the field of data mining and information systems and I do not have any medical background (except for my wife). I skimmed through the report on Chernobyl in the link given by Michael. I couldn't help but wonder, given the countries in question (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) and the years we are dealing with, is it not possible to attribute the increase (or part of it) in the diagnosis of cases to the increase in life expectancy in the quality of the medical system in these countries?
3. Regarding the claim that those who have cancer will always be detected - this is not the case. In the case of dead people, only the cause of death is recorded, without additional problems, and usually no autopsy is performed after death. So in a person who died of a heart attack, an autopsy will not be performed that will reveal cancer in the pancreas... I doubt if the researchers went through the medical files. And on the other hand, as we all experienced during the swine flu hysteria, in most cases the fact of the presence of underlying diseases in the deceased was downplayed for the sensation of publicizing the carnage of the dangerous disease... this, in addition to the fact that people indeed often try to link problems to sources that could provide additional compensation (as that accidents at home become work accidents). So I tend to accept Ehud's opinion on the matter.
4. I am very interested in the fact that there is such an in-depth discussion of the dangers of nuclear power plants in cases of failure. When comparing the dangers and the health/economic costs of the various options, why not discuss the total cost, including the dangers in normal operation? In the case of nuclear plants, dealing with their products, and in the case of coal plants with the health problems that arise from the chimney emissions (which have already been proven to cause cancer, for example lung cancer which is more common and deadly than thyroid cancer). It seems, based on past cases of flooding (such as in the Yellow River), that during a disaster the danger to the soul is greater in cases of hydraulic station failures...
5. Strange to me is the warning not to place nuclear plants in fractured areas. Stations based on the burning of fossil fuels are not recommended to be placed anywhere, and not only for fear of disasters, but from the results of normal operation.
I feel that there is panic due to the fact that the power plant is "nuclear" compared to another type. And what about solar/thermal baths?
sympathetic:
Even if you only look at the 4000 thyroid cancer patients who have been diagnosed and most of whom are estimated to be radiation victims, you are going through the hundreds.
A little after that (still in the summary chapter it is written that the estimates of the number of victims per soul are several thousand).
I state this without citing the quote because for some reason I am unable to copy (automatically) text from the document, but look for the sentence that begins with the phrase The projections indicate that and read it and the sentence that follows.
Michael
I apologize I did miss the last link. Unfortunately I don't have time to go through Alin seriously but from a quick skim I see first that he does not commit to the number of people who died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster and also claims that the estimates of tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths are exaggerated. I still maintain that the death toll is in the hundreds of thousands. You seem to claim otherwise, so I would appreciate it if you could substantiate your words with an accurate link to serious research.
Shahar Peer ?
My personal prediction for the next 100 years is that the number of nuclear reactors will be created
Electricity will increase. There are two reasons for this:
One - following the disaster in Japan, much stricter standards will be set for nuclear reactors than is customary today
Which will make them the safest.
The second - there is no other choice. Energy = life and with no other source of energy, nuclear energy is the solution to life
About the smell range
As a last safety measure, if all other protection systems fail, why not place the reactor over a pit 200 meters deep (or more). Then if an unexpected failure occurs, as in the case of the Japanese reactors, simply throw the damaged reactor into the pit. Maybe make lids too. In short, like a garbage can.
Who is for, who is against?
sympathetic:
Your last comment is not fair at all.
You claim that I did not bring a single document detailing how X was proven, while you did not bring any evidence to prove that X
And to be honest - I actually brought a quite detailed document (much more than you brought) that was prepared by a committee that included many scientists.
I repeat the link to this document:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaea.org%2FPublications%2FBooklets%2FChernobyl%2Fchernobyl.pdf
and. Doc
The explanation in the article is nonsense, I don't know where they found a miner safety expert who will claim that after a miner has been silenced in terms of criticality by safety rods, it can become critical again and vice versa. Miners must obtain permits before establishing them and before operating them. Very, very strict regulations. Reactors are built so that only under very certain conditions they are critical and every small change makes them sub-critical, this is the basic condition for obtaining permission to operate a reactor. There is no situation in the rented world that has been silenced in a standard way that will become critical. The explanation for the heat in the Japanese reactors is residual heat, it is a necessity of power with tremendous power, about 7% of this power comes from radioactive decays and not from fissions. These breakdowns continue even after the reactor is shut down, as unfortunately happens in Japan.
Michael
"There are lies, outright lies, and statistics" you must know and may have used this expression by Mark Twain.
When people have interests to inflate a certain case it is very easy to do so with the help of misleading statistics. You brought a lot of text but not a single document detailing how it was proven that there was an increase in the cancer case, who tested it and by what method. I happen to know a person who has looked into the matter in depth and I have already rebutted to you the claims of that person whom I trust. Is there a number of deaths that have been proven with statistical certainty to have originated in Chernobyl that you are willing to stand behind? My basic claim is that as a result of Chernobyl perhaps hundreds of people died and not thousands as is usually advertised without presenting the information leading to the claim.
The following is a good first explanation (even if approximate) for the faults in the Japanese reactors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608
sympathetic:
More cases of cancer were discovered.
In terms of the size of the relevant groups of people, it is clear that they did not go door to door and check. These are people whose cancer was discovered through the normal process.
In general - these numbers cannot be faked. Those who have cancer will always be discovered (if not following early diagnosis then following death) so the whole issue of increased testing - even if it were true - would be irrelevant.
This is not about linking a specific case to the event, but about linking the statistics to the event.
It's easy - both from a technical and legal point of view (because a specific case is always examined only as part of a lawsuit against a party that is probably defending itself).
and. Doc
It can take several days or even weeks for the bars to cool. It is not something hot that needs to be cooled, but a source of heat. The fuel rods constantly generate heat that must be removed.
Michael
Thanks for the links. I have no problem with the number of deaths recorded as 40 in number. As for people who were left destitute (and some even ended their lives), I can't argue on this issue either. Regarding the number of cancer patients who were discovered, several questions arise here:
First, every patient has an interest in linking his case to the disaster in Chernobyl, similar to any accident, for example the explosion of the military industry near Rishpon, after which all the residents of Rishpon claimed compensation for damages.
Second, following an accident, many studies are conducted and many more cancer cases are discovered because many more people are tested.
If we assume, as we did, that the radioactive cloud was spread over a large area, then this is a huge population and the fluctuations from year to year in such a sample are huge. So with all due respect to the estimates I am not sure what is behind them. In Israel, for example, I assume that you were impressed by how difficult it was to link the cancer cases in Sheyat to their dives in the Kishon or the cancer of the reactor workers to the accidents that supposedly occurred. It is very difficult to get reliable estimates in these cases. Beyond all that, the accident in Japan is not even remotely similar to the Chernobyl disaster.
How long does it take for the bars to cool? According to the reports, water has been raised there for five days?
Is Israel not prone to earthquakes?
Some relevant links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1806181.stm
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/index.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_were_killed_chernobyl_accident
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaea.org%2FPublications%2FBooklets%2FChernobyl%2Fchernobyl.pdf
sympathetic,
Indeed you are right that the damage potential of a hydroelectric plant like the Aswan Dam is probably much greater than that of a reactor. But psychologically radiation is a little scarier than water.
What is probably clear is that the disaster in Japan will significantly delay the construction of reactors in the world.
R.H
There is a lot of fear associated with nuclear energy because humanity has been exposed to its scary sides. the problems
The main issue with nuclear energy in general is as you mentioned its waste is during the normal operation of reactors that produce nuclear waste which takes thousands of years to disappear and especially in times of crisis like in Japan now. It is very easy to measure radioactive isotopes and it is easy to identify them, but while a nuclear facility is working normally, it emits less radioactive materials than an equivalent coal plant. The American marines who were exposed to radiation were also exposed
Much less radiation than they would be exposed to if they flew from the USA to Japan. We are exposed to radiation on flights, in photo shoots, even in some of the foods we eat. There is still no direct connection between the amount of radiation we are exposed to and the chance of getting sick. In his film, it is known that a large exposure to radiation is very dangerous and even fatal, but there is not enough information about medium or low exposure (some claim that low exposure even reduces the chance of getting cancer).
In addition to all this, the reactors in Japan, even though they were in Japan, a country that is very strict about procedures, were damaged, but on the other hand, they were old reactors, called second generation reactors, today there are more sophisticated reactors, generation 3, and also plans to build safer reactors, generation 4. Accidents in chemical or hydroelectric plants have potential Much more destructive.
Finally, on a point on which we agree, the economic damage of a reactor disaster is much greater because the reactor area is polluted and the purification processes are very expensive to the point of impossible, and therefore the area can remain contaminated for decades.
By the way, regarding thyroid cancer, it is true that the recovery rate is relatively high compared to other cancers, about 80% (still 1:5 die, yes?) and this is achieved after radiation therapy, chemotherapy and thyroidectomy, so I would not wish cancer on anyone Such "easy".
sympathetic,
The problem with a nuclear disaster is that it results in the closure of the contaminated area and its abandonment for an indefinite period as happened in Chernobyl. Do you know anything similar with some kind of energy generating device?
A second problem is that the radioactive fallout spreads according to the regime of winds and hits remote areas like what happened to the American destroyer now and like at the time it was possible to identify remnants of Chernobyl in all the streams of the country. Again, is there any other energy generating facility that a malfunction in which would cause such damage?
It is clear that nuclear energy without faults is cleaner and more efficient, but is it worth the risk? It is a fact that with all the risk assessment and Japanese pedantry, the defense mechanisms were not able to prevent a malfunction 100%.
sympathetic,
Let me mention some forgotten ones:
According to estimates, the amount of radioactive fallout released was 300 times greater than a normal nuclear fission bomb (13-16 kilotons of TNT) exploding on the ground.
This fallout was dispersed with the wind towards other areas in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and Sweden. In total, areas where about 200,000 residents lived were severely polluted.
As part of the treatment of the area, apart from the evacuation of the residents, the accident site was covered with lead to prevent a radioactive leak and then with a huge concrete structure ('sarcophagus').
Today they are working on the construction of a huge structure in the shape of a dome that will cover it and thereby seal the reactor hermetically. By the way, the masses of workers who were recruited to build the sarcophagus in the weeks after the disaster, were most severely affected by the accident, and many of them did not survive the effects of the radiation.
By the way, due to the lack of human activity in the thirty kilometer area that was evacuated from the settlement of Adam, a population of various wild animals flourished there and a unique ecosystem developed there that is an "unplanned park". You must understand that genetic mutations resulting from the reactor explosion have a direct and terrible connection to this 'park'.
And one more thing: several hundred victims of Chernobyl are (still) living in Israel. These people are treated intensively, and even a special law was passed in the Knesset for them. They are unhealthy people, and their life expectancy is not high.
and most importantly:
One must not be impressed by the official figures on the dead and injured. In this matter, for political reasons, severe censorship was imposed by the authorities, and all the official data are, how to say - biased and dubious. The least that can be said about them is that they are extremely minimalistic.
By the way, a scientist who questioned the official evaluations of the results became a victim of political repression. He was imprisoned between 2001 and 2005 after publishing in 1999 reports critical of the official studies conducted on the Chernobyl disaster. Knowing the type of regime in Ukraine then and today, we can understand why.
And I'm not sure that the Japanese are much more generous in their reports about their terrible case today.
Eddie and Michael
The harm to the soul as a result of Chernobyl was relatively small, as mentioned, 41 people were killed, most of them firefighters, and perhaps as a result of radiation damage, about a hundred more people died. I do not underestimate human life, but the numbers are smaller by an order of magnitude and more than the damage caused by the tsunami. By the way, the most significant damage following Chernobyl resulted from panic in one of the Eastern European countries which, following the disaster, decided that pregnant women should perform abortions. This decision resulted in approximately 100000 abortions in that country. Thyroid cancer (the spelling is probably incorrect, I think it is the thyroid gland) is one of the direct results of the Chernobyl disaster and there is indeed talk of an increase in the incidence of this cancer, but this cancer is one of the only cancers that can be cured and is not fatal. The rest of the cancer correlations are within the statistical noise.
The important point to understand is that the case of the Japanese miners is not like the Chernobyl case. The reactors in Japan have not been active for several days, this is not a criticality disaster like Chernobyl. Reactor steam also usually does not explode. There are relatively small explosions due to the formation of hydrogen from the sea at high temperatures. If there is no big explosion or fire (as in Chernobyl) the melting of the core is also not particularly dangerous, does it cause ground water pollution, which I don't think is problematic since the Mimla reactors are on the seashore. By the way, there is an American legend that talks about the Chinese syndrome (with a film by Gene Fonda of the same name) in which the melting of a reactor core in the USA will penetrate through the entire earth and reach China. Of course this is complete nonsense and China is also not exactly on the opposite side of the earth from the US.
Captain obvious!
cynically
Many people will die because of the greens' opposition to ideas to prevent nuclear and ecological disasters!
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663323_1669906,00.html
to Charles D.
The fish started to scream and shout Hams after reading your comment.
And only the wandering jellyfish are silent.
What does Jelly have to say?
Why don't they build reactors below sea level and flood them after an accident?
Release my response to Daniel please
Known to whom?
The solution is already here.
Italy January 2011 cold fusion
http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/
sympathetic,
With all due respect to you, it seems to me that you are making light of the risks arising from the network of miners in the world.
In both local and global terms, there is no comparison between the damage potential of a single exploding reactor and the damage potential of a single petrochemical industry unit.
By the way, it seems to me that your perception of the reactor damage in Chernobyl is extremely minimalistic. The immediate damage caused is dwarfed by the variety of direct and indirect damage caused to an entire nation, to an entire country (and also to neighboring countries - including as far as the Middle East) and hundreds of thousands of people in a very personal way, some of whom were condemned to an early death, and some of whom are sick and disabled to this day, candidates for an untimely death. And that's not the end... and guess in your mind what the possible cumulative results are from the explosion of many or even a few reactors - each of which has a much stronger production capacity (and risk potential) than in the case of Chernobyl. The Japanese case was not far from a terrible spectacle of this kind.
Daniel:
Please - don't let the facts confuse you!
I responded to a very specific thing Ehud said, while you responded to things I did not say.
Michael,
What does a heavy water reactor for the production of plutonium from the XNUMXs (whose whole purpose is to create fissile radioactive material) in Chernobyl have to do with a civilian reactor for the production of electricity that uses low-enriched uranium?
Bottom line nuclear energy is the cheapest, safest and cleanest. The fuel is recycled in special facilities and returned to the reactor for use. The only emission from a modern nuclear reactor comes in the form of clean water steam.
Don't let vested interests brainwash you. Today there is technology that prevents and in the worst case minimizes environmental damage in times of emergency.
And... that they will not work on you...!
Michael,
What does a heavy water reactor for the production of plutonium from the XNUMXs (whose whole purpose is to create fissile radioactive material) in Chernobyl have to do with a civilian reactor for the production of electricity that uses low-enriched uranium?
Bottom line nuclear energy is the cheapest, safest and cleanest. The fuel is recycled in special facilities and returned to the reactor for use. The only emission from a modern nuclear reactor comes in the form of clean water steam.
Don't let vested interests brainwash you. Today there is technology that prevents and in the worst case minimizes environmental damage in times of emergency.
And... that they will not work on you...!
sympathetic:
It seems to me that you really underestimate the results of the Chernobyl disaster.
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Eddie
I still think that miners are safe and becoming more and more safe. There is a primal fear of miners. There is a lot of nonsense in the media such as the saying "there are 10000 dead but that is dwarfed by what would happen if a meltdown of the core of one of the miners took place". You read in the newspaper today that in Chernobyl (where there was a criticality failure, i.e. the reactor became critical and uncontrollable) 41 people were killed, mostly firefighters who put out the fire. In Japan, there are victims of the compensation that has been so far, it is unfortunate, but there is still talk of about 10 people who were harmed. A core meltdown isn't such a big disaster either. The main damage in core melting is the creation of a radioactive cloud containing fission products that are dangerous to be near.
An earthquake at a hydroelectric station (green energy) located in a dam can kill many more people.
To sum up, I must state that I am surprised by the level of malfunctions that occur in reactors in Japan, but I still think that this is a certificate of honor for nuclear technology. An entire city was wiped off the map by a tsunami and still the miners continue to stand and their cores are still intact. I'm not sure the petrochemical industry would stand up to such a test. I still think that nuclear reactors are the future of humanity despite the challenges: safety, and disposal of nuclear waste.
Regarding the Japanese, I am also a little disappointed with their reports. It seems that an attempt was made to cover up the real situation and this is a mistake in my opinion. It was necessary to inform the public in real time.
The miners must be built deep in the ground. under the mountains far from the beach
and. Doc
The time it takes for the fuel rods to cool down depends on many parameters. In addition, they can continue to heat up as a result of the nuclear reactions of the fission products. Even without neutrons radioactive materials created in the reactor continue to decay and emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This emission of radiation heats the rods and the threat is a break in the rods or their complete melting. The time to cool depends on the amount of fission products in the fuel rods, the half-life time of the typical fission products and the way in which the heat is removed from the rods for example by contact with sea water or only by air convection (case of exposed rods).
deep… really deep…
And one more thing:
I am not sure that the Japanese are reporting everything they know, and alternatively I am not sure that they themselves know the whole truth about the situation and the risks created in the reactors. It is possible that the situation or at least the levels of danger created in the reactors are more serious than those reported.
Only an external, independent investigation - by a professional investigative body - can tell the truth about the Japanese story.
I hope that such an investigation will be carried out someday, and not too late. It is to be feared that the Japanese will oppose this on one level or another, but it is the duty of the entire world to force such an investigation on the Japanese.
sympathetic,
I remember the discussion we had a few months ago. If and as far as I remember correctly, your opinion was that in the form, standards and technologies accepted today in the construction of atomic reactors - the reactors of the new patterns - as opposed to the very old ones - are safe. You recommended the use of reactors as the source of clean energy and the most correct alternative to producing energy from coal and liquid fuel.
It turns out that the reality exceeds all imagination, and the problem that has arisen since the Japanese reactors is due to the paralysis of the cooling systems due to the flooding by the tsunami. It turns out that even the calculated and orderly Japanese were not ready for this. And actually - who does?
Prof. Cohen's recommendations should be read grammatically. Following the recent Japanese case, it was easy to recommend the construction of the cooling systems at a relative height, in order to promote the possibility of flooding by a tsunami. But this is not the recommendation of the aforementioned expert. He proposes to avoid at all the construction of reactors in dangerous areas in terms of earthquakes - and tsunamis. And in my opinion - not for nothing.
Since reactors are supposed to be built near the sea - it follows that reactors can only be built near bodies of water that are not oceanic - and hence only large rivers or seas of the maximum size of - say - the Mediterranean Sea are considered. And these are supposed to be built in quiet places in terms of noise hazards. Any other place is out of the question, apparently.
More than that: If I understand the experts correctly, if the earthquake had been stronger than 9 on the Richter scale - let's say a magnitude of 9.5 (as in Chile about fifty years ago) or 9.2 (as happened in Canada) - the problem would not have amounted to 'only' paralysis the cooling systems, and it is possible that the reactors would not have been able to withstand the pressures anyway, regardless of the danger of a tsunami; The cores would have melted, the steel dome (the 'damper') would have exploded and the Chernobyl scenario would have repeated itself but in a much more powerful way in several folds.
I can also assume that if the epicenter of the noise had been closer to the miners - the result would have been devastating.
And here, super powerful earthquakes happen once every few decades. There is always the risk of even stronger earthquakes.
The proximity of the epicenter to the reactor location is also a matter of considerable probability.
Therefore, the Japanese case implies much more than what actually happened - it implies something that might have happened and what might happen with a non-negligible probability, that is, a tremendous danger to humanity, not at all non-negligible.
In my opinion, in order to make the nuclear reactors 'safe', much more far-reaching concepts are needed than those that exist today - and significantly stronger technologies than what exists today. I am far from an expert in the field, but as a layman I can imagine conceptual and engineering solutions that may seem fanciful - such as floating reactors and extremely flexible steel constructions - as answers to the problem of very severe earthquakes. Other solutions can also be imagined, but I don't want to go into that. In any case, until this - that is, providing a revolutionary conceptual and practical response to noise and tsunami risks - does not happen, I think the expansion of the global network of reactors should be severely limited.
By the way, in the background of the issue of the miners there is always the danger posed by military actions - let's say aerial bombardments or missiles. Even if we assume that anti-missile and anti-missile defense systems will respond to the risks (including against missiles with fragmentation warheads of the latest type - a response that currently does not exist, since the 'Arrow' missile system has only been upgraded to the high Iranian level and a little beyond that) - There is also a danger of terrorism, between state terrorism and non-state terrorism, or from the danger of chaos that can arise during a war of occupation, a violent civil war, etc. And there are no shortage of places in the world (including the Islamic world) for which such horror scenarios are not unreasonable.
And this must also be taken into account when discussing the use of atomic reactors.
How long does it take until the rods cool down and are no longer in danger of melting?
In the absence of public supervision of Dimona, as well as the extreme age of the reactor there (as the age of the reactors that were damaged in Fife)
It can be assumed that if there is a major earthquake in the Syrian-African fault, a disaster will occur in Israel
and. Doc
Regarding the principle of operation of reactors in general (I am not sure about the type operating in Japan) the reactor has nuclear fuel rods (made of uranium and a cladding material such as aluminum) that are in a tank. In addition, there is a coolant that diverts the heat generated in the reactor and there is also a moderator, for example water or heavy water, whose role is to slow down the neutrons produced in the fission, thus increasing the chance of a slowed neutron fissioning another uranium nucleus. The critical mass is created by balancing the number of neutrons created with the number of leaking or absorbed neutrons. The balance is carried out by rods that keep the reactor in a critical state.
A supercritical state is known to be very dangerous and a subcritical state leads to the decay of the nuclear reaction.
and. Doc
The problem with reactors is not the neutrons or the nuclear reactions (apart from the fact that these created radioactive materials). As soon as an earthquake occurs, the reactor shuts down automatically, and so it also happened in Japan. Turns off, the chain reaction stops. What then is the problem with miners? The problem is the residual heat. in the nuclear fuel
There are a lot of these fission products that break down and generate heat and since the cold liquid has leaked out there is nothing to divert
the heat The heat created creates steam and hydrogen and as explained in the article the hydrogen created a chemical explosion. Seawater discharge
It is designed to cool the reactor, i.e. to remove the heat, there is no need to add Boren to the seawater because the chain reaction in the reactor stopped a long time ago (a few moments after the earthquake).
Do reactors of this generation not have a control system using control rods that absorb neutrons, capable of stopping the fission and shutting down the reactor?
Can any of the authors/guests of the site present an explanation for the operation of this type of miners? For example, how is the critical mass for fission created?
What does the flow of sea water (with boron?) into the core mean? in the short term? in the long run?
a thousand thanks
I have a more ingenious idea that they will build an earthquake-proof reactor and then there will be no need for ingenious proposals like this
The title of the news and the conclusions show a unique genius and a breakthrough and far-sighted thought.
Not for nothing is he a professor!
Breathe !!!