Re:Fukushima Reactor 1 melted down, 2 and 3 may have too
by nl on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @08:05PM
(#2558513)
>>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.
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!
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!