Earthquake off Japan

[Thanas]

I think this pollution angle kinda misses the point. The problem is that the public has two things in mind:

a) Chernobyl
When a coal plant goes up, then it will not destroy a whole country. That this risk is somewhat minimal is not on the mind of the public. It happened in the Soviet Union and apparently even the regulators in a country known for its neatness (Japan) failed spectacularly.

b) coal waste will not stay around for tens of thousands of years. Especially the german public is very concerned about the later fact, especially as it turned out that the energy industry colluded with the government to hide facts about the safety and security of the depots. Cancer rates in villages around them are three times higher than in other villages in Germany, but nobody warned the inhabitants of that risk.

So you get a general sense of distrust, and not without reason.

[somnick]

Our local TV was telling people to take the money they were planning to spend on iodide pills and send it to a reputable relief charity for the tsunami victims.

And I wasn't intending to buy the pills anyhow.

Tell that to the people who buy Geiger counters for 300-500 Euros a piece. Apparently these are in high demand right now over here in Germany, as well as iodine/iodide tablets

[Thanas]

Our local TV was telling people to take the money they were planning to spend on iodide pills and send it to a reputable relief charity for the tsunami victims.

And I wasn't intending to buy the pills anyhow.

Tell that to the people who buy Geiger counters for 300-500 Euros a piece. Apparently these are in high demand right now over here in Germany, as well as iodine/iodide tablets

Really? I haven't noticed any change in behaviour over here.

[Erik von Nein]

That's correct: the Southern California faults aren't associated with big subduction zones (unless you count them as continuing all the way north to the Juan de Fuca Plate in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California).

Also, the plant does sit up on a cliff. The out- and in-takes obviously are underwater, but the plant itself is well above sea-level.

Here, for reference:


Also, most people's concerns are about an earthquake under the plant itself. Not that there's any historical precedence for any earthquakes that damaging, though there wasn't for Japan, either. These fault-lines are different, one being much smaller and of (if I recall correctly) a different type.

[Tribun]

Geiger counters aren't exactly mass produced products. So if a small minority panics and busy them, it shouldn't be so unusual that they get short in supply. So it's no wonder that you propably didn't notice that at all.

[Magis]

b) coal waste will not stay around for tens of thousands of years.

It absolutely will. Fly ash from coal plants is significantly radioactive, consisting of a high concentration of actinides, which have half lives on the order of a billion years. Overall, the radiological consequences of burning coal will outlast those of splitting the atom in a nuclear power station.

[Magis]

It lacks the heat exchanger of the PWR design.

I don't see why you think this is an issue.

There is also generally better provision for introduction of neutron poison into a PWR design than a BWR, given that low levels of boron compounds are part of the design to regulate power output.

Both PWRs and BWRs (even in the early days) use a borated moderator in cores loaded with fresh fuel. This creates the ironic situation that in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident occurring in a core loaded with fresh fuel, the emergency core cooling system represents a positive reactivity insertion.

I do actually quite like the ESBWR model, but it's not been implemented at large

Thus far, they haven't been implemented at all. None have been built.

The proposed 7 and 8 reactors would have been much better designs in terms of passive potential for cooling, but this style lacks robustness in the face of damage to the primary loop and the provision for back up seems to have been sorely lacking. There seems to have been particular problems dealing with the hydrogen releases as the temperature has reached the point it cracks the bonds in water. There's been engineering concerns expressed over this particular type of BWR dating back to the mid 70's and its robustness under suboptimal conditions.

The biggest design problems with the Fukushima reactors is the weak primary containment structure, which is nominally rated for something near 400kPa, compared to contemporary containment structures which are rated up to approximately 1.5 MPa. On the subject of passive cooling, no nuclear generating station worldwide would be likely to cope with a station blackout for as long as has occurred at Fukushima. All in all, I think the reactors have stood up remarkably well given the circumstances, and this should definitely be sold to the media as a nuclear success story rather than a failure.

[FSTargetDrone]

Coal Ash Vs. Nuclear Waste:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

By Mara Hvistendahl | December 13, 2007

The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock.

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."

Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.

With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.

The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

The above is from Scientific American.

[Raxmei]

Well the US Surgeon General told people to buy iodine 'just to be safe'. Never mind they're more likely to make themselves sick by taking too much iodine unnecessarily than actually preventing radiation exposure.

I'm just not sure how much radiation people realistically expect to reach us. I mean you're probably soaking in tons of radiation if you live in the vicinity of a coal plant as it is and you don't hear about those people buying up iodide tablets by the dozens.

The above image is a hoax seemingly intended to spread panic among Americans. Apparently its been spreading around the net like wildfire. Australian Radiation Services is a real company but it did not produce this image or authorize use of its logo.

[Zixinus]

My first impression of people in the USA buying Iodine tablets is that the US seems to be a nation that is paranoid and violent: it will lash out violently against any percieved threat and panic at any minor one appearing.

Then it seems people are doing the same in Europe? Really, in Europe people are buying medicine against radiation from an accident that happened on the other side of the fucking globe???

That makes the people in the USA seem sane in comparison. At least, if you live on the West Coast, there is the valid-looking-rationalization that winds may blow radioactive iodine trough the sea. But Europe? Seriously?

The Surgeon General is nothelping by saying that people should buy thse "just to be safe": it automatically translates "yeah, we don't really dare say it but get it while you can".
Unless a nuclear health specialist can prove me wrong, I am fairly certain that there is no way you would be effected by anything from Fukushima (sp?) unless you are twenty kilometres within it.

I guess this is yet another example of the public refusing to acknowledge any expert opinion.

[Aaron]

Uh dude, the Surgeon General would be the expert opinion for the US, would he not?

[Broomstick]

I'm just not sure how much radiation people realistically expect to reach us. I mean you're probably soaking in tons of radiation if you live in the vicinity of a coal plant as it is and you don't hear about those people buying up iodide tablets by the dozens.

I suspect that information is carefully concealed by the coal industry.

Not really, there was an article in scientific american about this subject.

But on the other hand, who reads scientific american?

Well, I do, but I'm weird (I'm sure you knew that already).

And it's not called Scientific Australian down there?

[someone_else]

And in fact they seem to correct their position on that.
Article

A spokeswoman for the U.S. surgeon general has clarified her position on whether people should stock up on potassium iodide as protection against nuclear radiation from Japan.

Click to learn more about the effects of radiation Potassium iodide, or KI, can prevent the thyroid from absorbing radioactive iodine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During a visit Tuesday to California, U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin appeared to contradict the message from other public health officials that the pills are unnecessary and may have harmful side effects.

"It's a precaution," Benjamin told a Bay Area NBC reporter during a tour of a local hospital.

Benjamin, who rebuilt her Gulf Coast clinic after Hurricane Katrina, framed her comment within the broad context of disaster preparedness.

"We can't be over-prepared -- we learned that with 9/11, we learned that with Katrina and we learned that this week with the tsunami," she said. "Even if it's one life we save by being prepared, it's worth it."

Benjamin told the reporter she had not heard about panicked California residents stocking up on potassium iodide.

Her comments came as state and local health officials attempted to quell Californians' fears after reports of potassium iodide shortages at pharmacies and vitamin stores. Dr. Jonathan E. Fielding, Los Angeles County’s public health chief, issued warnings against taking potassium iodide.
"We want to urge you not to take potassium iodide unnecessarily," Fielding said, noting that some people may be allergic and suffer side effects including intestinal upset, nausea and rashes.

"It's definitely not recommended as a precautionary medication," he said.

On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for the federal Department of Health and Human Services clarified Benjamin's position.

"She commented that it is always important to be prepared, however she wouldn't recommend that anyone go out and purchase KI for themselves at this time," said spokeswoman Kate Migliaccio in an e-mail, referring to the compound by its scientific name.

"It's important for residents who have concerns to listen to state and local health authorities," Migliaccio said.

And don't read the comments some idiots posted below the article in that site.

All in all, iodine tablets (although it would be more correct to say "human stupidity") may do more damage than that poor power plant.

[bz249]

It would be interesting to see how many cases of iodine/iodide poisoning will occur in the world in the next days. That stuff is a fockin poison, the lethal dose is rather high, but there is always enough creative people on the globe, who can circumvent such trivial issues.

[The Yosemite Bear]

coal more dadioactive than uranium, I knew there was a reason people considered the inhabitants of Wales and the Appalachians sub human mutants.... (jk)

my family is from there before they moved to cali.

[Tribun]

News report that the fuel pond of building 4 is now completely dry.

This is bad, right?

[Zixinus]

Depends. On one hand, the reactor is still hot and the heat created by by-prodcuts can make futher damage to the reactor. On the other hand, there is less of a problem of overpressure and all that.
Can't tell which risk is worse.

EDIT:
To clarify my bit on the Surgeon General: talking about "preaction" and the like is NOT HELPING with the blind panic. It is easy to misread what the SG is saying as a warning. The "be-prepared-for-all-possibilities-no-matter-how-inprobable" mentality is NOT what should come out of a public authority

[AniThyng]

b) coal waste will not stay around for tens of thousands of years.

It absolutely will. Fly ash from coal plants is significantly radioactive, consisting of a high concentration of actinides, which have half lives on the order of a billion years. Overall, the radiological consequences of burning coal will outlast those of splitting the atom in a nuclear power station.

Yes, but people just aren't going to get over the fact that when a nuclear accident does occur, people can die of acute radiation poisoning, and the people fighting the incident now are dead men walking. Getting slowly poisoned by coal (or for that matter, chemicals and asbestos etc from being at say, WTC) is nothing by comparision. You do not put an exclusion zone around an exploding coal plant that may last for decades.

[PeZook]

Jesus, people believe that picture? The doses posted there mean the entire west coast would be sterilized by now. Hell of a chance of that happening, even if all four reactors suddenly and spontaneously exploded.

[AniThyng]

Sorry for doublepost, but reading up on what happened with the vaunted pebble bed reactor in Germany doesn't inspire great confidence either - accidents happen,mishaps happen, we learn from them etc etc, but I think when a jetliner plunges into the sea and we learn about how not to let it happen again, it's different than when a nuke goes wrong and we now have an exclusion zone the size of a large city to remind us.
'
We can talk about statistics and how its more dangerous to drive/fly/breathe in smog/smoke, but at the end of the day, I think the difference is analogous to the difference between flying and driving a car. We all know the former is safer than the latter, but when a commerical jetliner goes down, it's a single catastrophe that can jolt the world, while a car accident is a car accident, even if there's a thousand more of them.

[Simon_Jester]

Most people have no mental frame of reference for what "750 rads" means. That picture is as absurd as saying "by rubbing a cat with this amber rod, we will generate five million kilowatt-hours of electricity!" But while a fair number of people more or less grasp what a kilowatt-hour is from their electric bill, they don't know what a "rad" is, or how hard it is to generate that amount of radiation over such a huge area.

[FSTargetDrone]

So MSNBC looked at a report from the NRC concerning the risks of earthquakes at the various US nuclear power plants and they have come to the conclusion that Exelon's Limerick 1 and Limerick 2 reactors (which we happen to live a few miles from, here) are now third on the list of the top ten:

What are the odds? US nuke plants ranked by quake risk

So much for San Andreas: Reactors in East, Midwest, South have highest chance of damage

By Bill Dedman Investigative reporter

What are the odds that a nuclear emergency like the one at Fukushima Dai-ichi could happen in the central or eastern United States? They'd have to be astronomical, right? As a pro-nuclear commenter on msnbc.com put it this weekend, "There's a power plant just like these in Omaha. If it gets hit by a tsunami...."

It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance that the core could be damaged by an earthquake, exposing the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145.

And it turns out that the nuclear reactor in the United States with the highest risk of core damage from a quake is not the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, with its twin reactors tucked between the California coastline and the San Andreas Fault.

It's not the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, a four-hour drive down the Pacific coast at San Clemente, surrounded by fault lines on land and under the ocean.

It's not on the Pacific Coast at all. It's on the Hudson River.

One in 10,000

The reactor with the highest risk rating is 24 miles north of New York City, in the village of Buchanan, N.Y., at the Indian Point Energy Center. There, on the east bank of the Hudson, Indian Point nuclear reactor No. 3 has the highest risk of earthquake damage in the country, according to new NRC risk estimates provided to msnbc.com.

A ranking of the 104 nuclear reactors is shown at the bottom of this article, listing the NRC estimate of risk of catastrophic failure caused by earthquake.

The chance of a core damage from a quake at Indian Point 3 is estimated at 1 in 10,000 each year. Under NRC guidelines, that's right on the verge of requiring "immediate concern regarding adequate protection" of the public. The two reactors at Indian Point generate up to one-third of the electricity for New York City. The second reactor, Indian Point 2, doesn't rate as risky, with 1 chance in 30,303 each year.

The plant with the second highest risk? It's in Massachusetts. Third? Pennsylvania. Then Tennessee, Pennsylvania again, Florida, Virginia and South Carolina. Only then does California's Diablo Canyon appear on the list, followed by Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island.

The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance of a serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.

Nuclear power plants built in the areas usually thought of as earthquake zones, such as the California coastline, have a surprisingly low risk of damage from those earthquakes. Why? They built anticipating a major quake.

Other plants in the East, South and Midwest, where the design standards may have been lower because the earthquake risk was thought to be minimal, now find themselves at the top of the NRC's danger list.

The chance of serious damage from a quake ranges from Indian Point's 1 chance in 10,000 each year, a relatively higher risk, to the Callaway nuclear plant in Fulton, Mo., where the NRC set the lowest risk, 1 chance in 500,000 each year.

Playing the odds

The NRC, the federal agency responsible for nuclear power safety, says the odds are in the public's favor. "Operating nuclear power plants are safe," the NRC said when it reported the new risk estimates.

Every plant is designed with a margin of safety beyond the strongest earthquake anticipated in that area, the NRC says.

But the NRC also says the margin of safety has been reduced.

In the 35 years since Indian Point 3 got its license to operate in 1976, the same era when most of today's U.S. nuclear reactors were built, geologists have learned a lot about the dangers of earthquakes in the eastern and central U.S.

No one alive now has memories of the South Carolina quakes of 1886, which toppled 14,000 chimneys in Charleston and were felt in 30 states. Or the New Madrid quakes of 1811-1812 in Missouri and Arkansas — the big one made the Mississippi River run backward for a time.

But the geologists and seismologists remember, learning their history from rocks, and steadily raising their estimates of the risk of severe quakes. New faults are found, and new computer models change predictions for how the ground shakes. The latest estimates are drawn from the 2008 maps of the U.S. Geological Survey. Of special note, the USGS said, was an allowance for waves of large earthquakes in the New Madrid fault area roughly centered on the Missouri Bootheel, as well as inclusion of offshore faults near Charleston, S.C., and new data from the mountains of East Tennessee. With each new map, the areas of negligible risks have receded.

Based on those new maps, the NRC published in August 2010 new estimates of the earthquake risk at nuclear power reactors in the eastern and central states. Besides the proximity, severity and frequency of earthquakes, the new estimates take into account the design standards used at each plant, along with the type of rock or soil it's built on. This week, the NRC provided additional data to msnbc.com for the relatively few reactors in the Western states, allowing a ranking to be made of all 104 reactors with the latest data.

The top 10

Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data.

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

(This short list of the top 10 sites, or plants, groups together reactors at the same site if they have the same risk rating, such as Sequoyah 1 and 2. The full list of 104 separate reactors is below at the bottom of the text.)

A rising risk

Northeast of Chattanooga, Tenn., the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 and 2 nuclear plants had been thought to have a risk of core damage from an earthquake happening once every 102,041 years. The new estimate is once every 19,608 years.

That kind of change was typical. Out of 104 reactors, the risk estimate declined at only eight. (There were 19 for which no older estimate was available for comparison.)

The increase in risk is so rapid that an NRC research task force in September sent two recommendations to NRC management:

First, it is time to move the issue over from the research staff to the regulatory staff, moving from study to action.

Second, start figuring out whether some nuclear power plants need a "backfit," or additional construction to protect them from earthquakes.

Another indication of how fast the risk estimates rose: The median, or middle value out of all 104 reactors, a measure of the risk at the typical plant, is now at a 1 in 74,176 chance each year of core damage from a quake. In the old estimate, it was 1 in 263,158. In other words, the estimated risk, though still low by NRC standards, has more than tripled.

What happens next?

This NRC process began in 2005 when its staff recommended taking a look at updated seismic hazards. It was late 2008 before NRC staff started working with a contractor, Electric Power Research Institute, on the design of a study. Overall, it took five years and three months from the staff recommendation until the seismic task force submitted its report in August 2010.

One problem is a lack of data about the nuclear reactors themselves. The NRC task force said the agency has detailed data on what it calls plant fragility — the probability that the expected earthquake would damage the reactor's core — for only one-third of the nation's nuclear plants. That's because only the plants that had been thought to be in areas of higher seismic risk had done detailed studies. For the rest, the scientists had to estimate from other information submitted by plant operators.

Now the NRC is playing catch-up.

An NRC spokesman, Scott Burnell, said Tuesday that the NRC is preparing a letter to send to certain nuclear plants, asking them for the more detailed data on equipment, soil conditions and seismic preparedness. Then the plants and NRC staff will have an opportunity to analyze that data.

That process could stretch into 2012, Burnell said. Then the NRC will have to decide, he said, "where the ability to respond to seismic events can be improved."

In the middle of that process, perhaps late this year, a new round of geologic data will come out. That will be folded into new calculations.

Industry is "addressing that issue"

The nuclear power industry is watching this process. A document distributed to the public by the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute on Sunday, after the Japanese plant emergency began, referred to this NRC study and the possibility of changes, saying, "The industry is working with the NRC to develop a methodology for addressing that issue."

The industry statement did not mention that the study increased the estimates of earthquake risk for nearly every nuclear power plant in the U.S.

(One of the leading nuclear power companies, General Electric, which designed the reactors at Fukushima, is a part owner of NBCUniversal, which co-owns msnbc.com through a joint venture with Microsoft.)

Good odds or bad?

How much risk is too much? Is a roller coaster safe only if no one ever dies? If one passenger dies every 100 years? Every year?

When the NRC saw that the new earthquake maps had pushed the level of risk into the range between 1 in 100,000 and the more likely 1 in 10,000, that change was enough to study the issue further, the task force said in its report. But because the risks didn't go beyond 1 in 10,000, "there was no immediate concern regarding adequate protection." The new estimates put Indian River right at that boundary, and a few others in reach.

By comparison, the chance of winning the grand prize in the next Powerball lottery: 1 in 195,249,054.

The article continues with the full ranking of all the country's nuclear power plants.

The local paper here and some of the TV news are playing this up a bit, but I don't see any particular concern in town. As an aside, back on 25 or 26 February (Friday or Saturday, I forget which day it was), the number 2 reactor scrammed after there was an issue with one of the cooling pumps. I happened to have been near the site with my camera that Saturday:



There hadn't been an unplanned interruption at the site since last June, I believe, when there was a similar issue with cooling pumps. Before that, there was a 3-week shutdown of one of the reactors for refueling earlier in 2010.

[Mr Bean]

Sorry for doublepost, but reading up on what happened with the vaunted pebble bed reactor in Germany doesn't inspire great confidence either - accidents happen,mishaps happen, we learn from them etc etc, but I think when a jetliner plunges into the sea and we learn about how not to let it happen again, it's different than when a nuke goes wrong and we now have an exclusion zone the size of a large city to remind us.
'

Well let me ease your mind because we are not talking about the vaunted German pebble bed reactor but the Chineese HTR-10 and the South Africa PBMR (Before it was killed via funding cutbacks) the German plant was out an out and out experimental model which they were trying to break including tossing in new fuel mixtures every six weeks to see how the reactor handled. Color me surprised they found the ideal fuel mixture early on but tested out two dozen more some of which ran very hot and some of which melted inside the reactor due to much heat being produced (They were aiming for 750 C to 1000 C temperatures (1383*F to 1831 *F) but some of the fuel mixes pushed that up to 1200 C and one pushed the heat all the way up to 1600 C before they pulled the plug.

Your conventional oven is designed for 315 C * (600*F) or less temperatures and it can be expected to fair as well if suddenly having to deal with twice as much heat.

[Chris OFarrell]

News report that the fuel pond of building 4 is now completely dry.

This is bad, right?

Unless I'm mistaken, yes it IS that bad.
This pond has not got the containment that the reactors themselves have, but it has dozens of times the fuel rods, even if they are partially spent. Reports are coming out that they are literally out of water, which means they are exposed. Which means we could be looking at, if we don't have already, a criticality accident where they start a fission chain reaction, especially if they have been jumbled around by the Earthquake.

And/or they may catch on fire as they melt, like the rods in the reactor core, but without containment, they will spew radioactive smoke out.

Even worse, is the situation at Reactor #3, which has MOX fuel rods, which are a whole new ballgame of bad.

So the situation is a little dicey right now, far more then it was with the reactors themselves.

[cosmicalstorm]

Another view of Minmisamriku, pretty sobering to look at. And at the beginning I think even a few sea birds were taken out by the wave as it rolled into the bay
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=027_1300214407