DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Japanese products and radiation
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 139, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/16/2011 11:43:15 AM · #26
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK, so both of California's operating nuclear plants are each near an active fault (you didn't address those).
-SNIP for Brevity-
BTW: I am familiar with the difference between "radiation" and "fallout" -- the latter is particulate in nature and can indeed lodge in tissue. I'm not saying that any fallout has been released so far, but the potential is there if there is a complete meltdown which compromises the integrity of the containment vessel.


I didn't address Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, because there was nothing new to say. They are indeed operating, and are located near active faults. Seismic considerations were made during the construction, and updating of both units. However, could they withstand a Japan style event? I don't know. I don't know if a Japan style event is realistic in those areas either. However, I would heartily agree that it should be looked at. That if those considerations were not dealt with, or studies of the events in Japan show that the provisions are not adequate, then they need to make them adequate or plan to replace them. It should be noted that the plants in Japan are boiling water reactors, and not pressurized reactors as are found at the California locations. The care and feeding of each is a bit different. There are Japan style reactors in the US, just not in California. I certainly agree that the events unfolding in Japan are a wake up call to ensure that what we need to work, will work in our units.

Disclaimer: I do not currently work in the nuclear industry. However I have in the past, for over 20 years. That does not make me an all knowing expert, but I do make an excellent night light... ;-)
 03/16/2011 11:45:10 AM · #27
The implosion of the Trojan cooling tower was a bit of an event with people lining the I-5 to watch it. I feel like it was a year ago, but it could have been two by now.

Implosion of Trojan cooling tower
 03/16/2011 12:52:36 PM · #28
I agree that modern facilities need to be looked at, in the case of japan, the structure itself withstood the earthquake, it was the failure of the auxiliary system that is casing problems, its possible that they made sure a seismic event wouldn't crack the containment unit, but its also possible no one looked at that and said "hey, what happens if our backup system fail from a tsunami in the same event? maybe we shouldn't put the generators here."

unfortunately, designers and engineers follow certain design guidelines and those design guidelines are currently based on a statistical likelihood of an event happening, ethics aside, its done that way to keep costs inline.

this goes for a number of criteria, for instance snow loads on roofs. that number is higher in the northern US but is very low in florida, now what happens if miami gets a freak snowstorm that dumps 2-3 feet of snow and ice and roofs collapse? What if new york, not in a volatile seismic area were to experience a strong earthquake? it wouldn't be pretty, but statistically its likely never to happen.

What im saying is we cant design for every conceivable outcome becuase its not plausible, but we can note deficiencies in a current system and fix them, unfortunately those deficiencies only come to light in catastrophes.

I'm sure in the wake of this event those guidelines will be looked at and revisions will be made to current systems at facilities in high risk areas.

03/16/2011 12:58:49 PM · #29
Lots of photo gear is already radioactive.

I had a WA lens for a Mamiya camera that contained enough radioactive material (in the glass and coatings) that it set off the detector when I took it in or out of the Nuke plant I was photographing. The first time I took it out, the Health Physicists kinda freaked out and were going to impound my lens for decontamination until we figured out what was really going on.

I know that the Kodak Aero-Ektar lenses are radioactive...the glass elements turn brown with age as the radioactive component in the glass decays. (You can reverse the effect with exposure to high levels of UV).

03/16/2011 01:04:11 PM · #30
Ken posted this most excellent link on facebook, explaining the nuclear issue in Japan.
 03/16/2011 01:13:22 PM · #31
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ken posted this most excellent link on facebook, explaining the nuclear issue in Japan.


This is indeed a very comprehensive and explanatory link, thanks all.
 03/16/2011 01:17:50 PM · #32
Originally posted by mike_311:
I'm sure in the wake of this event those guidelines will be looked at and revisions will be made to current systems at facilities in high risk areas.


Frankly, I would be surprised if anything changes. Japan already has the highest standards for seismic structural resistance in the world, and while they, and we in the more earthquake prone areas of the rest of the world, are building to resist 7.5 events, no one can afford to build for 9.0 monsters like the one they just had. Its a bit like trying to build a camera lens that could work after a four story drop, it might be a good thing to have but the resulting product would be so big and so expensive that no one would want to use it, even if they could afford it.
 03/16/2011 01:21:34 PM · #33
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ken posted this most excellent link on facebook, explaining the nuclear issue in Japan.


This is indeed a very comprehensive and explanatory link, thanks all.


yes, very good. its good to see how it points out the auxiliary systems did indeed work as planned, but this event just overwhelmed all planning.

one thing to note is that modern nuclear facilities are designed contain melted down fuel, while the plant itself may become unusable ever again, it will in all likely hood contain the radioactive material from the contaminating the surrounding environment. Chernobyl never had a containment system, one had to be built and now that one is falling apart.

there isn't going to be any radioactive fallout (that's when a nuclear explosion blows a bunch of radioactive dirt and dust into the atmosphere.

Message edited by author 2011-03-16 13:23:36.
 03/16/2011 01:22:35 PM · #34
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
I'm sure in the wake of this event those guidelines will be looked at and revisions will be made to current systems at facilities in high risk areas.


Frankly, I would be surprised if anything changes. Japan already has the highest standards for seismic structural resistance in the world, and while they, and we in the more earthquake prone areas of the rest of the world, are building to resist 7.5 events, no one can afford to build for 9.0 monsters like the one they just had. Its a bit like trying to build a camera lens that could work after a four story drop, it might be a good thing to have but the resulting product would be so big and so expensive that no one would want to use it, even if they could afford it.


well yes, but they may decide to move the backup generators to an area where they wont get wet :)

Message edited by author 2011-03-16 13:22:44.
 03/16/2011 01:34:52 PM · #35
Originally posted by mike_311:

well yes, but they may decide to move the backup generators to an area where they wont get wet :)


Well they seemed to have not learned that one in Katrina when all the hospitals went dark, but may be this time it will sink in ;)
 03/16/2011 01:54:43 PM · #36
yeah, there probably wont be funding either, i withdrawal my original statement.
 03/16/2011 03:16:18 PM · #37
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
I'm sure in the wake of this event those guidelines will be looked at and revisions will be made to current systems at facilities in high risk areas.


Frankly, I would be surprised if anything changes. Japan already has the highest standards for seismic structural resistance in the world, and while they, and we in the more earthquake prone areas of the rest of the world, are building to resist 7.5 events, no one can afford to build for 9.0 monsters like the one they just had. Its a bit like trying to build a camera lens that could work after a four story drop, it might be a good thing to have but the resulting product would be so big and so expensive that no one would want to use it, even if they could afford it.


The plant survived the earthquake fine. It was the tsunami that took out the backup generator and started the whole thing.
 03/16/2011 03:28:49 PM · #38
I never ceases to amaze me that, with all the supposed "education" these nuclear engineers and designers have gotten, none of them seem to have been informed of the immutability of Murphy's Law ... :-(
 03/16/2011 03:44:57 PM · #39
Originally posted by jmsetzler:


Radiation doesn't "lodge" in anything.


General is right. "Fallout" can be ingested or breathed into the lungs. The chance of any fallout on the West coast from these reactors will be close to zero. The trip across the ocean will dilute the particles, if any, a great deal. Since those reactors probably don't produce plutonium, I don't think we have to worry about that. The Japanese people near the plant are going to be the real losers if meltdown is serious and escapes the containment.
 03/16/2011 03:46:12 PM · #40
Originally posted by glennc:
This thread really is a little removed for the subject at hand, namely photography.
Also it is most stupidly alarmist to think that all out Japanese cameras will be shipped to our doors glowing with plutonium dust.
As someone said earlier, I'll take them all off your hands for a knock-down price. In fact I may ask you to pay me to take them away in view of the life threatening risk they pose.



Might be a good way to never have fungus in those lens. heheheh
 03/16/2011 03:51:51 PM · #41
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by glennc:
This thread really is a little removed for the subject at hand, namely photography.
Also it is most stupidly alarmist to think that all out Japanese cameras will be shipped to our doors glowing with plutonium dust.

Might be a good way to never have fungus in those lens. heheheh

But what if it becomes a mutant fungus which eats your sensor!

Message edited by author 2011-03-16 15:52:35.
 03/16/2011 04:06:07 PM · #42
Originally posted by mike_311:
Chernobyl never had a containment system, one had to be built and now that one is falling apart.

t


I believe Chernobyl also used graphite as structural material in the core. Graphite burns. Disaster waiting to happen.
The only reactors in the US that used this construction have been decommissioned. The very first atomic pile in Chicago,
one or two at the Savannah River Plant in SC/GA, and I believe a couple in Washington state.
 03/16/2011 04:10:59 PM · #43
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I never ceases to amaze me that, with all the supposed "education" these nuclear engineers and designers have gotten, none of them seem to have been informed of the immutability of Murphy's Law ... :-(


The hindsight of the armchair quarterback is always 20/20.

No design of anything is completely safe. Engineering isn't about making things failure proof, it's about managing risk based on current knowledge.

03/16/2011 04:13:37 PM · #44
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ken posted this most excellent link on facebook, explaining the nuclear issue in Japan.


This is indeed a very comprehensive and explanatory link, thanks all.


yes, very good. its good to see how it points out the auxiliary systems did indeed work as planned, but this event just overwhelmed all planning.

one thing to note is that modern nuclear facilities are designed contain melted down fuel, while the plant itself may become unusable ever again, it will in all likely hood contain the radioactive material from the contaminating the surrounding environment. Chernobyl never had a containment system, one had to be built and now that one is falling apart.

there isn't going to be any radioactive fallout (that's when a nuclear explosion blows a bunch of radioactive dirt and dust into the atmosphere.


My understanding is that one, possibly two of the containment vessels at Fukushima have indeed been breached.
 03/16/2011 04:16:16 PM · #45
Yes, Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor, of a type referred to as RBMK. The graphite was there to "moderate" the neutrons emitted by the fuel.
 03/16/2011 04:20:54 PM · #46
Originally posted by Spork99:
No design of anything is completely safe. Engineering isn't about making things failure proof, it's about managing risk based on current knowledge.

I understand that. I disagree with the risk/benefit analysis result reached by the proponents of nuclear energy, regarding current construction techniques and parameters and waste disposal/treatment options.

I'm not saying that it's not possible to have "safe" nuclear power, just that it (what I consider "safe") would come at a far higher cost than the safer alternatives, or that the taxpayers (and ratepayers) should be willing to bear.
 03/16/2011 04:32:25 PM · #47
What are the alternatives? Not that's I'm a huge nuclear advocate, but it seems every energy source has trouble:

Coal: High carbon, pollution, danger in mining.
natural gas: carbon emissions, transportation
wind: eyesore, noise, bird deaths
solar: very expensive, space consuming, doesn't work at night or need batteries (which have their own issues)
hydro: ecosystem killer
geothermal: not widely available
wave: infancy stage

We gotta make power somehow. What do we do?

Message edited by author 2011-03-16 16:32:56.
 03/16/2011 04:34:31 PM · #48
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We gotta make power somehow. What do we do?


Solar farms in orbit, microwave beaming of energy to earth :-)

R.
 03/16/2011 04:43:25 PM · #49
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We gotta make power somehow. What do we do?


Solar farms in orbit, microwave beaming of energy to earth :-)

R.


But then Dr. Evil gets ahold of the controls and scorches LA. I've seen that flick!
 03/16/2011 04:56:19 PM · #50
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are the alternatives? Not that's I'm a huge nuclear advocate, but it seems every energy source has trouble:

Coal: High carbon, pollution, danger in mining.
natural gas: carbon emissions, transportation
wind: eyesore, noise, bird deaths
solar: very expensive, space consuming, doesn't work at night or need batteries (which have their own issues)
hydro: ecosystem killer
geothermal: not widely available
wave: infancy stage

We gotta make power somehow. What do we do?


I remember that it was quite a few years ago that a system was perfected whereby 2 holes are drilled deep into the Earth where the rock temperature is roughly 325 degrees F. Water is injected in one tube to the depths, goes through pourous rock and comes back as steam to turn a turbine. It depends on the geothermal nature of the area, but could require drilling several thousand feet. The beauty of this is that it could be done anywhere, even in a downtown metropolitan area. It is relatively simple and doesn't require transmission of electricity over huge, and expensive, distances. Could it be that our corporate structure is only looking for the most expensive ways to do things for maximum profit?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/20/2025 07:01:00 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/20/2025 07:01:00 AM EDT.