Yeah. I know. I’m a damned alarmist and hysteric when it comes to the Japanese reactor difficulties. It seems I’m not the only one. Michio Kaku describes how things could go if they go bad wrong.
…the worst case scenario is quite different. If radiation levels continue to rise, then at some point the workers may have to evacuate. (A secondary earthquake or pipe break may also aggravate the situation). If the workers abandon the ship, it means that cooling water (which is being shot into the reactors by fire hose) will begin to fall, exposing the rods, and eventually creating 3 simultaneous meltdowns. Then perhaps a steam or hydrogen gas explosion will completely rupture the containment. This will create a nightmare beyond Chernobyl.
Here is a video of Mr. Kaku saying pretty much what he said in the excerpt above:
I’m not optimistic at this point. At all. I expect to see dead zones in Japan by the time the situation is under control.
Dr. Kaku in his latest blog post has some very disturbing news.
The reactor situation in Japan suffered yet another setback today, with water levels in Unit 2 registering 10 million times normal levels. The radiation was so high that workers fled the reactor rather than take a second reading. Radiation levels were an astonishing 1,000 msv/hour (which will cause radiation sickness within an hour and even deaths starting at 6 hours). Given this near-lethal radiation field, workers evacuated Unit 2.
One question is: where did this radiation come from? Most of it was in the form of iodine-134 (with a half-life of 53 minutes) and iodine-131 (with a half life of 8 days). This indicates that the radiation came directly from the core at Unit 2, rather than the spent fuel pond (where most of the iodine has already decayed). So there seems to be a direct path way from the core to the outside, meaning a breach of containment, similar to the situation in Unit 3. In other words, there could be a crack in the pressure vessel surrounding the super hot uranium core, as well as a crack in the outer primary containment vessel surrounding the pressure vessel.
A little math is in order. For ease of calculation let us say that the half-life of I134 is 1 hour and the measurement was made 10 days after the accident started. So let us see 24 hours in a day for 10 days = roughly 240 half lives. Or 1/2240 as much I134 as there was at shutdown. That would mean about 5E-73 as much I134 as there was at shutdown. i.e. basically none. If I134 is detectable the reactor is either not shut down or it is operating in some kind of meltdown mode. Which is to say things are very, very, bad when there are detectable amounts of I134 ten days or more after “shutdown”.
This all fits in well with my discussion Criticality Accident? Unfortunately.
Update: 28 March 2011 0812z
I have been advised that I134 is a daughter product of the decay of Tellurium 134. And the half life of Te134? About 42 minutes. That will not be a steady source of I131 over time. So my analysis stands. We have a criticality accident. Which is very bad news.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
21 responses to “Worst Case Scenario”
It’s my understanding that a nuclear explosion is not possible at Fukushima because there is no enriched uranium available, that the fuel and spent fuel could not cause one. If that is true, then what is the worst case, steam & rubble explosions when they melt through?
I know that would be bad, contaminating the surrounding area, but surely even a series of these wouldn’t come close to a nuclear bomb, would they?
My worry from the beginning has been the catch of so much fuel in one place, especially the open pools. Is that what you’re worried about also?
Above, that should have read highly enriched uranium.
I quit listening to Dr. Kaku weeks ago when it was pointed out to me by Erik Klemmeti who also Blogs at Big Think http://bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions and he took him to task for his sensationalism, then I started noticing him everywhere,TV,Radio and various MSM rags.He doesn’t know what he’s talking about he only speculates,and that’s bad,he’s a Theoretical Physicist,and? that makes him a nuclear engineer? I don’t think so,
Bob
Frank,
No nuclear bombs. But you will get a lot of radioactives emitted. Some folks are talking a 80 km (50 mi) exclusion zone. Some are saying 100 km (60 mi) will be required.
The main effect will not be bodies. It will be economic.
Following directly under your post it says “HAVE A NICE ACCIDENT!”
I didn’t mean it that way. Honest!
🙂
Bob,
I’m a former Naval Nuke. Graduated at the top of my class. And I can tell you Dr. Kaku knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately.
Of course “Worst Case” sells. From what I can tell we are headed for the worst case. Yeah. It sucks. Big time. We need nuclear power. But we need fail safe nuclear power. Nothing like current designs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku
***QUOTE***
Kaku has publicly stated his concerns over matters including the human cause of global warming, nuclear armament, nuclear power and the general misuse of science.[6] He was critical of the Cassini-Huygens space probe because of the 72 pounds of plutonium contained in the craft for use by its radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Conscious of the possibility of casualties if the probe’s fuel were dispersed into the environment during a malfunction and crash as the probe was making a ‘sling-shot’ maneuver around earth, Kaku publicly criticized NASA’s risk assessment.[7] He has also spoken on the dangers of space junk and called for more and better monitoring. Kaku is generally a vigorous supporter of the exploration of outer space, believing that the ultimate destiny of the human race may lie in extrasolar planets; but he is critical of some of the cost-ineffective missions and methods of NASA.
Kaku credits his anti-nuclear war position to programs he heard on the Pacifica Radio network, during his student years in California. It was during this period that he made the decision to turn away from a career developing the next generation of nuclear weapons in association with Teller and focused on research, teaching, writing and media. Kaku joined with others such as Helen Caldicott, Jonathan Schell, Peace Action and was instrumental in building a global anti-nuclear weapons movement that arose in the 1980s, during the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
***END QUOTE***
Eric,
I saw that and was amused.
He may be right in his overall assessment, but he seems to be wrong on one point. Japanese officials later said that the 10 million times figure was a mistake:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/03/stand-down-fukushima-radiation-level-not-10-million-times-above-normal/
I don’t know whether Kaku made note of it.
Eric,
Yeah. I wouldn’t trust Dr. Kaku on most subjects. Unfortunately when it comes to nuclear his understanding conforms to mine.
===
The problem is a human one. Suppose I propose paying you $1 million and give you two choices: A one in ten chance of losing a finger and a one in ten thousand chance of death.
Which do you choose?
Usually damage over catastrophe even if the chance of damage is much higher.
===
My 3:03 was in response to your 1:48.
Eric,
He corrected that in his latest blog post (the 28th).
The deal is: Any measurable amount of Iodine 134 indicates an unshielded uncontrolled chain reaction in the current instance.
It is generally thought that there are about 10^100 atoms in the universe. The chance that there is any detectable amount of I134 after 240 (or more) half lives is nil. BTW if you do the calculations based on the actual half life and 12 days of decay you come up with this: if the universe was filled with I134 at time zero after 12 days of decay there would be on the order of 100 atoms of I134 left.
Mere ruptured containment won’t get you “worse than Chernobyl”.
What’s the equivalent/worse than for the burning farkin’ graphite soaked with radioisotopes?
There isn’t one.
(And I want to know how much I134 it takes to be “detectable”; because it matters – rather a lot, in fact.
Part of it’s just that “detectable” sets off alarm bells – it’s not an actual amount, or a rate, or a concentration. It tells us nothing at all other than that something is not absent.
From my long exposure to pseudo-science, I see “detectable” as completely misleading weasel-wording. This may or may not be appropriate in this case, but that’s how it is.
Plus, well, I’m with Eric – if Kaku was pushing the old scare about plutonium from thermoelectric generators, he knows a lot less about the issue than I’d hope. It puts him on the knowledge/information curve there at the same level as Jello Biafra, and that is never a good place to be.)
That’s what I don’t understand: how could it possibly be worse than Chernobyl? Chernobyl was pretty much as bad as it could possibly be.
I remember Kaku’s dire predictions about Cassini-Huygens. He was as over-exposed on sensationalist no-nukes media as Sagan was with “Nuclear Winter”. I thought back then he was so over-the-top and so obviously emotionally invested in anti-nuclear positions that Kaku was verging on Teh Kooky. I did enjoy a couple of his books on theoretical physics, though.
On the other hand, nuclear poo is the stinkiest poo.
What’s the equivalent/worse than for the burning farkin’ graphite soaked with radioisotopes?
There isn’t one.
How about a pool of uranium/plutonium plus fission fragments that has gone critical? There is evidence of that. Which I will get to.
And I want to know how much I134 it takes to be “detectable”; because it matters – rather a lot, in fact.
It doesn’t matter at all, if you can follow the math above. Any detectable amount 10 days after shutdown indicates a criticality accident. Which gives you a heat source quite a bit better than burning graphite.
As to Kaku’s understanding – it conforms to mine and I’m US Navy Nuclear qualified (or was back in the day). We studied accidents a LOT because we expected them. You know 1,000 pound projectiles (for you 500 kg) filled with high explosives.
Now is a Chernobyl type accident a sure thing in this case? Of course not. We are in accident territory and very little is predictable. But neither is such an accident unlikely at this point. We got all the fixins.
Try this link for a much less hysterical viewpoint.
Kathy,
Thanks for that. Note that I didn’t say you should panic. But some people will.
If I lived in Japan I think I’d leave if that was an option. I’d move out of the US exclusion zone (50 mi) if leaving wasn’t an option and moving was.
BTW all reactors (burning Uranium) produce Plutonium.
Also note that it is early days yet. The Japanese expect to be dealing with this as an accident in progress for months possibly years. Things will be getting worse for a while.
I have seen way too much “nothing to worry about” for my taste.
Kathy, from the article you linked “Don’t Panic…”
Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says it remains unknown which reactor is the source of the new plutonium. However the BBC reports that plutonium was only used in the fuel mix of the number 3 reactor.
From everything I’ve read, the last sentence above is an attempt at misdirection, since plutonium is produced in the fission process and could come from any of the reactors.
Also, I don’t believe using the word hysterical to describe the knowledge founded concern of M.Simon is appropriate. No one at this time knows what will happen at Fukushima, but given what has gone wrong to date, the extent of radiation leaked already, the huge amount of fuel at that site (4,277 Tons), most of which is in open topped pools right next to & just above reactor cores that are showing signs of going critical, and the fact that ever changing events are driving the clean-up effort not allowing any kind of containment plan to emerge as of now, this and Murphy’s Law don’t paint a pretty picture going forward.
If anything, M.Simon’s posts understate the seriousness of the situation. But don’t worry, there is still time to get hysterical.
Frank,
What I’m seeing generally in places I frequent on the net is, “so far not so bad”, which is true.
What I’m looking at is, “what direction are things going?” And from that point of view along with fairly good knowledge of the technology I’m not optimistic.
And thanks for noting that Murphy is our silent partner in this venture.
I’m a big fan of worst case scenarios. They help you make the best plan. In my estimation the Japanese have been operating with a “best case” bias. Putting them continuously behind the curve.
Frank,
“But don’t worry, there is still time to get hysterical.”
I’ll wait till some of my non-anti-nuke sources get hysterical, thanks.
M. Simon,
“I have seen way too much “nothing to worry about” for my taste.”
And I’ve seen way too much “OMG they’re/we’re all gonna die!” for my taste.
Kathy,
Everything I have said on the subject is consistent with my Naval Nuke training.
See my latest here:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2011/03/exclusion_zone.html