Actually that wasn't luck, the plant is designed to handle violent earthquakes, it would be astonishing if there were an aftershock greater than the main shock. Anything signficantly less than an 8.0 was part of the design.
And yet the reactor vessel was breached. Given that it was already breached, I believe a significant aftershock (not of 8 magnitude, but maybe a 6.5-7) would have caused additional damage and/or spread contamination worse than it was.
>>People are told these reactors are safe in the event of a terrorist missile attack - it's pretty clear they are no where near that safe.
Think about that statement for a moment. The energy released ina 9.0 earthquake is the equivalent to 475 million tons of TNT, or 23,000 bombs the size of the one that hit Nagasaki. [4] If North Korea dropped a nuclear bomb into the plant it would clearly destroy it, but there isn't a terrorist organization on the planet that has the capability of deploying that much energy to the plant.
You and I both know comparing the "energy released by the earthquake" with something like a deliberately positioned shaped charge on the reactor vessel is silly. A properly designed shaped charge would be almost infinity smaller, and yet almost sure to cause a breach - eg: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m15...
It's pretty clear that a "sensible" terrorist organization wouldn't need anything like a nuclear bomb to cause a significant incident, and probably a leak too. It's always been claimed (since Chernobyl anyway) that the reactors have defenses in depth and multiple containment layers. It turns out that this is misleading at best, or a lie at worst, because the outer containment vessels are - in some cases - only designed to contain a pressure leak. Sometimes (eg this case) they are designed to blow out if the pressure is too much!
I disagree. I think the second-worse nuclear disaster in history is a huge disaster, especially since it looks like it will leave a large area uninhabitable.
This isn't born out by the monitoring done by the US Dept of Energy [1] and others. There has been some Cesium-137 detected outside the plant, but its in trace amounts rather than large quantities.
If you look at the data collected by the DoE you will see two things, first that they haven't detected any deposits that have occurred after March 19th, and second that their highest reading was 91uSV/hr (9.1mRem) which corresponds to 218 mRem/day. which is high (relative to background radiation) and below what is considered a public health hazard of 1000mRm over 4 days. (slide #10 in the link). Third to get that dosage you would have to lay down in the dirt 24/7.
So no area outside the plant will be 'uninhabitable' [2] Some places will no doubt be targeted for local decontamination, the Cesium will decay on its own making each year after the accident less of an issue than the day before. Is it great? No.
It's not, and not by a long way. For example, there was no damage caused by any aftershocks, which was incredibly lucky.
Actually that wasn't luck, the plant is designed to handle violent earthquakes, it would be astonishing if there were an aftershock greater than the main shock. Anything signficantly less than an 8.0 was part of the design.[3]
People are told these reactors are safe in the event of a terrorist missile attack - it's pretty clear they are no where near that safe.
Think about that statement for a moment. The energy released ina 9.0 earthquake is the equivalent to 475 million tons of TNT, or 23,000 bombs the size of the one that hit Nagasaki. [4] If North Korea dropped a nuclear bomb into the plant it would clearly destroy it, but there isn't a terrorist organization on the planet that has the capability of deploying that much energy to the plant.
I understand that nuclear power can be a scary thing to some people. But if you take the time to educate yourself on the risks and the engineering which goes into keeping those risks from turning into accidents. It might be possible to get past the fear factor and see them in a more balanced light of power delivered over time vs their risk factors.
[1] http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/
[2] I am predicating that on no further release of any material which is unlikely given the state of the reactors.
[3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870355540457619...
[4] "Question: How much energy was released by this [9.0 quake off Indonesian coast] earthquake?
Answer: Es 20X10^17 Joules, or 475,000 kilotons (475 megatons) of TNT, or the equivalent of 23,000 Nagasaki bombs. "
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2004/us20...