Endoscopic Exam of Fukushima Reactor 120
mdsolar writes with this excerpt from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Radiation-blurred images taken inside one of Japan's tsunami-hit nuclear reactors show steam, unidentified parts and rusty metal surfaces scarred by 10 months of exposure to heat and humidity. The photos — the first inside-look since the disaster — showed none of the reactor's melted fuel or its cooling water but confirmed stable temperatures and showed no major ruptures caused by the earthquake last March, said Junichi Matsumoto, spokesman for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company." Here's a video.
Re:pravda.JP (Score:5, Interesting)
Coal kills thousands of people every year
You are off by a large margin. Coal contributes to approximately 1-2 MILLION early deaths EVERY YEAR. 1 in 7 people will die early because of coal pollution.
And if you don't believe me, just look at your "clear skies". If you want to see what clear sky looks like, then look at this,
http://good-wallpapers.com/pictures/4519/Deep_blue_sky_wallpaper.jpg [good-wallpapers.com]
Yes, this probably looks "touched up" to you guys, but the sky itself is how it looks around here on a really clear day (central canada - about 3000km from any coal plants and 1500km from any city larger than 50k people). When you look straight up, it is almost black. When you look at the horizon, there is no haze. No smog. No particulates. It is clear, right down to the horizon.
Now go outside in any of the cities you live in, and look up. I will bet your zenith looks more milky than my horizon.
When I came over from Eastern Europe, Toronto was "super clean" in comparison. In comparison to this place, Toronto air is extremely polluted. Eastern Europe is much worse and I can't even imagine places in China.
When snow falls here, it stays WHITE as the day it fell for 6 months. And when it melts, it is as white as 6 months prior. In Eastern Europe, snow became gray and black within HOURS thanks to coal soot.
So if you ask me what is the most dangerous pollutant on this planet, it is coal and oil and gas, in that order. Nuclear is super clean in comparison, and if any radiation escapes, it is because of a fault, not by design.
So, have seen a blue sky?
PS. CANDU has its problems. It is not as economical as some others. It is not as safe as some different others. But it is pretty good. But above all, nuclear doesn't pollute by design. And this is something that cannot be said about fossil fuels.
Re:No sign of the fuel? (Score:5, Interesting)
I recommend doing a Google Search on Arnie Gundersen's name. He is a hired consultant for anti-nuclear lobbyists. There is a record of people complaining about the exagerration of his experience. From what I have been able to find, he does indeed have a master's degree in nuclear engineering. He also worked briefly as a technician in a non-operational plant (I haven't been able to find reliable reports on how long he was employed in that capacity, but I have read that he has never worked at an operational plant. It seems likely that he last worked in a nuclear facility in the early 70s.). Most of his career has been as a high school math teacher.
As a high school teacher myself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that profession. But when these kinds of stories come out with quotes from him (and if you really do the googling, you will see that there are a *lot* of scary sounding predictions from him going back decades), you are always left with the impression that he is an insider in the nuclear industry. But rather he seems to be just a guy with an engineering degree who doesn't like nuclear power. At one point some anti-nuclear lobbyists latched on to him as being a credible source and have used him as an expert witness in trials or to make sound bites like the above. It appears (but I can not verify) that his 39 years of nuclear power engineering is mostly his work as a consultant for lobbyists rather than actively working as an engineer.
This is, of course, simply an opinion based on googling around. I recommend having a look yourself.
Re:No sign of the fuel? (Score:3, Interesting)
They've confirmed there are no major breaches . . .
in the places that they have looked at so far (which was difficult because of all the moister i.e. "steam"). They also confirmed that there was no water where they had been claiming the water level was, so they just say "oh, the water level must just be a couple more meters down . . ."
This, plus your comment, supports the notion that this is not a scientific endeavor that we are observing but a propaganda one . . . The most optimistic view that cannot be unproven at the moment becomes the assumed truth up until the point reality slams into it, and then they retreat to the next most optimistic view. This is all "Baghdad Bob," and those who are buying into it do so because they are either extremely naive or are part of the propaganda machine.
not so much a cause for alarm
You do realize that at 3M they sealed things for 7 and a half years before investigating (claiming no fuel had melted the whole time). In contrast, the Japanese government is already drilling holes in reactors less than a year later in desperation. Nothing to see here folks, no cause for alarm . . . RIGHT. . .