Quote of the Day
'Tis distance lends enchantment to the view, And robes the mountain in its azure hue.
Thomas Campbell
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
NEI has the following updates:
- radiation doses at the Daiichi plant continue to decrease, well within the range for worker safety
- the Fukushima Daiichi spent fuel pool 3 water levels are stabilizing; replenishment of pool 4 is commencing; temperature of pool 5 is improving with heat removal pumps operational, with some cooling functionality restored to reactors 5 and 6
- manual injection of coolant into reactors 1 through 3 is ongoing
- other plants (Fukushima Daini, Onagawa, Tokai Daini) are in cold shutdown
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes:
- even as attempts to restore externally-supplied power to reactor 2 (followed by reactor 1), there is no status available on functionality of relevant pumps or other components, which may have been damaged by the earthquake
- holes in the roofs above spent fuel pools 5 and 6 have been proactively opened to control for the risk of accumulated hydrogen
- radiation traces have been reported for some milk and vegetable (spinach) sources. One should note that the half-life for radioactive iodine is 8 days, and the amounts pose no immediate threat (up to the equivalent of a CT scan if ingested for a year), although some Japanese agencies are proactively advocating relevant restrictions.
- radiation levels in major Japanese cities remain stable, well below threshold considered risky for human health
World Nuclear News reports that that the coolant level at fuel pond 3 has stabilized but is being monitored.
The Michelle Kearney nuclear wire blog adds:
- the IAEA reclassification of the event from 4 to 5 did NOT imply a worsening status at Daiichi (e.g., the earlier rating was based on incomplete information)
- the reactor 5, in addition to diesel generation power, now has AC power as well
Brave New Climate suggests that seismic activity may have resulted in loss of coolant from spent fuel pools, and spent fuel 4 also held nearly 60% more fuel rod assemblies (250 tons total) than the next ranking pond, which could have accelerated pond heating and coolant evaporation after power failures. Nuclear scientists and engineers are aghast at how media have been incompetently hyping nuclear-related risks, especially given the de facto context of the earthquake/tsunami which tragically killed confirmed thousands with even more thousands unaccounted for and presumed dead.
Nuclear Fabrication has a very good Japan nuclear power fact sheet which provides a readable overview of various reactor components and resources, along with a chronology of salient events. I found corroboration of certain facts referenced by Hiroshima Syndrome: for example, Tuesday's fire at reactor 4 was caused by an oil leak in the water recirculation system. There is also some reason to infer some structural damage (coolant leaks) to the reactor pressurized vessel 2 (given comparably more effort to sustain coolant level) and/or spent fuel pools 3 and 4 (due to comparably lower coolant levels). [See above comments about amount of spent fuel stored, natural causes, etc.] The amount of contamination (if applicable) is contingent on the (unknown) nature of compromises to zirconium cladding, radioactive decay, and any leaks. It is likely some cladding damage in spent fuel pool 4 has occurred, given reference to a relevant hydrogen explosion. However, oxidation risk lessens with fuel storage time in the pond, conditions for melting in a pool are less conducive than those in a reactor pressurized vessel, and so-called zirconium fires are highly improbable (Brave New Climate references how a blowtorch was applied to a zirconium rod, and it never caught fire).
ANS Nuclear Cafe maintains a useful collection of relevant links for humanitarian disaster relief, more reputable scientific/technical websites, key Japanese news feeds, and resource links (NEI, USGS), along with updated news items.
Wikipedia is also maintaining a more detailed chronology of related statuses and reports.
Hiroshima Syndrome continues to do an excellent job over and beyond status reports; it provides a readable insight and perspective from a degreed nuclear power practitioner and designer. In today's post, he explains the variables (e.g., fuel age) of estimating possible ongoing damage from radioactive decay. In other words, the meltdown damage has stabilized. Note that this does not mean that the rods don't need to be cooled; many radioactive elements have long half-lives. The author cites a number of relevant scientific/technical websites (like I've cited above), plus more reputable popular/scientific websites.
A Day Late, A Dollar Short:
Analysis Paralysis on Libya
Failed Leadership: Thumbs DOWN!
French jets pounded selective Libyan positions and American and British ships fired over 100 missiles against Libyan air defense targets, as Qaddafi's mercenaries and military continued to violate their own ceasefire orders against the beleaguered Libyan revolutionaries. This followed previous diplomatic developments, including the Arab League's backing of the no-fly zone and the UN Security Council's approval. Predictably, the Qaddafi government, which by Western journalist/observers has been shooting intentionally at both revolutionaries and innocent civilians, has sought to manipulate world/Muslim opinion by portraying events as an unprovoked Western attack on the Libyan people. There is, of course, a significant difference between collateral damage and Qaddafi's crimes against his people.
First of all, let me quote from my Feb. 23 post: "Obama [should be] doing things like recalling the American ambassador from Libya, announcing the dispatch of more ships to the area, establishing no-fly areas over Libya, calling for Col. Qaddafi's full, immediate, unconditional resignation, etc." I said in my Mar. 10 post: "I oppose US ground forces in Libya. I do support military assistance (supplies, anti-aircraft, etc.) to rebel forces. "
For all practical purposes, Obama has finally come around to taking positions I recommended weeks ago. So why am I critical? There are a variety of reasons. The international community has not been very responsive to genocidal acts like Qaddafi's revenge killings after the uprising. Analysis paralysis is taken to be a predictable sign of weakness, and emboldened, Qaddafi, who seemed to be on the ropes just a few weeks ago, used his Air Force with devastating effectiveness to reverse his fortune, with more experienced ground forces pounding the less trained but more numerous revolutionaries. For all practical purposes, Quaddafi managed to pen up retreating revolutionaries and was ready to lock in his gains by the time the UN Security Council was ready to vote.
I think once there were confirmed reports of Qaddafi killing innocent people, you have to act first and apologize later. I'm not necessarily arguing for taking military action, but there are some symbolic things you can do--e.g., fly some planes in the area, bring Navy boats off the coast of Libya. Get a first step UN resolution against Qaddafi to cease and desist, suggesting that any future acts against civilians will have consequences. Try to encourage the military command to abandon their support for Qaddafi.
The problem is that US foreign policy was not only caught up in a fundamental inconsistency but had backed itself into a corner: how could Secretary of State Clinton argue for the government of Bahrain to respect the rights of protesters when, in fact, Qaddafi was ruthlessly repressing his, especially after the Obama Administration had argued that Qaddafi, like Egypt's Mubarak, had lost his moral authority to lead? Have we learned nothing about what happened to the majority Shiites in Iraq after President G.H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein--and then sat on his hands as Hussein brutally cracked down on them? It was morally unconscionable then--and it's morally unconscionable now. The administration could have made the decision not to interfere in Libya's internal affairs--but once it argued that Qaddafi was an illegitimate authority, it couldn't put that genie back in the bottle.
The issue for me had more to do with crimes against humanity, not for the West to become the de facto air force for revolutionaries against Qaddafi. I would prefer Libya not go through a civil war, and I certainly don't want the US government to get caught up in the middle of the battle. The problem is--how do you know (in advance) what Qaddafi's military missions are? I'm convinced the attacks on civilians are intentional: he wants to set an example of what happens to civilians whom aid and abet the revolutionaries.
I suppose the administration could argue better late than never. But the time to act was when Qaddafi was on the defensive; there were unconfirmed rumors that the rebels rejected a deal for Qaddafi to go into exile with his family and enough resources to live comfortably. Whereas prosecution of Qaddafi for crimes against humanity serves justice, one should never underestimate what a man like Qaddafi is capable of doing when backed into a corner, including revenge. Now the world is stuck with a status quo where Qaddafi has regained control over almost all Libya--and exacted revenge in the process.
George Will and other conservatives make compelling points: in effect, are we exceeding our national defense mandate? Are we the world's policeman? Are we setting false expectations all over the globe that we will get involved militarily behind each and every insurgency? What if the post-Qaddafi government is even worse? Why would we want to get involved in a third African/Middle Eastern nation--isn't the national debt already high enough? If Libya is thrown into chaos, are we morally responsible to fix it? How long are we prepared to maintain a Libyan commitment?
Was I being inconsistent to my own principles? Fair question; I'll point out that I've seen Libya as more of a regional/Mediterranean problem and didn't envision a no-fly zone as an American-led effort. After all, it isn't America which will have to deal with Libyan refugees. I thought Qaddafi, who had given up his nuclear ambitions in the aftermath of the liberation of Iraq, might be influenced by the presence of the American military in the area.
Of course, Barack Obama has set up various limits (no ground troops, no indefinite period). That's not the point. The UN and regional organizations must be reformed to provide more responsive actions to regionally-based issues; in essence, we need to see a decentralization. I would prefer to see the UN dealing with interregional issues, more of a federation than an assembly of nations. (I do realize, of course, some unique issues, like the Israel-Palestinian dispute, a special case because of the Jewish diaspora.)
The problem is that we currently have a tactical (vs. strategic), reactive (vs. proactive) foreign policy, marked by lack of leadership, inexperience, questionable judgment, incoherence and indecision. For example, one would expect a President to anticipate the likely difference in responses to a popular rebellion between, say, Hosni Mubarak and Qaddafi. (Remember Pan Am Flight 103?)
Political Humor
A few originals:
- Everyone is buzzing about President Obama's Final 4 selections for March Madness: Qaddafi, Charlie Sheen, John Galliano, and Gilbert Gottfried.
- President Obama brought his teleprompter skills to announcing his Final Four selections on ESPN: as soon as he read the first name in each bracket, they switched to the next one...
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
America, "You Can Do Magic"
