Watch: Powerful Explosion At Nuclear Plant In Japan
A day after an 8.9-magnitude earthquake and subsequent devastating tsunami claimed scores of lives in Japan, an explosion rocked the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant that had been damaged in the northern part of that country. The Japanese government has announced that a building housing the nuclear reactor has been destroyed.
NPR is reporting the radiation leak that first occurred on the day of the quake is decreasing but the reactor's cooling system has experienced problems, generating fears of a possible metldown.
Watch video of the explosion, AFTER THE JUMP.
This is unreal! Wow!
Posted by: Murphy | Mar 12, 2011 12:09:59 PM
@Murphy Wow is not the word in my mind.
It is a shocking and horrible thing.
Posted by: Matt26 | Mar 12, 2011 12:33:25 PM
One thing is clear though, we wont get another Chernobyl. Its a completely different kind of reactor, it wont 'burn' like the Russian core, so if it does meltdown it wont spread nearly as much radioactive material. Even so, its a horrible situation.
Posted by: Rovex | Mar 12, 2011 12:35:01 PM
"Explosion at Nuclear Plant" has to be one of the scariest headlines I can imagine. Hope they can contain this...
Posted by: Blake | Mar 12, 2011 1:24:07 PM
rovex
not necessarily true
its diff thus it will be a diff result as in we don't know for sure the result
It won't be Chernobyl like but that does not mean it couldn't be worse due to never experiencing this kind of meltdown before
No true scientist will ever speak in absolutes till an actually observed phenomena is documented
theories and speculation with probabilities break downs based on percentages are all well and good, but nothing is 100% unless actually observed
Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Mar 12, 2011 1:59:54 PM
Curiously, none of Japan's solar or wind power facilities have exploded, spreading radioactivity across the landscape.
Posted by: Jacknasty | Mar 12, 2011 2:50:37 PM
@Jacknasty And curiously none of the solar or wind power facilities provide nearly enough power to support the Japanese infrastructure, and curiously, while most people like to bleat on about the benefits of solar and wind power, no one wants them to consume their own back yard.
@mstrozfckslv Do you even know what you're talking about? There's leaps and bounds between this accident and Chernobyl, and even this accident and TMI.
Posted by: Ben | Mar 12, 2011 3:21:38 PM
ben
do u know how to read?
re-read my post
In fact I said it would not be like chernobyl
What the end result will be can be theorized BUT! it can not be spoken of in absolutes since it has never happened before with this kind of reactor type
learn to read
also learn what "theory and hypothesis" means as vs observed documented absolute reality known phenomena
Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Mar 12, 2011 3:39:02 PM
PS read up on thorium and thorium reactors = the way the world should have gone with nuke tech but thorium reactors do not produce weapons grade material thus why we went the more dangerous and less efficient way with uranium
Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Mar 12, 2011 3:41:16 PM
Isn't this how Godzilla is born?
Posted by: Mike | Mar 12, 2011 4:51:20 PM
I think Chernobyl used sodium or molten salt to contain the nuclear reaction in the core, while this plant uses water, which is much more effective because sodium can ignite and lead to an explosion. Also the control rods in Chernobyl were completely removable (which lead to the meltdown) but non-Soviet plants' control rods are not removable. The containment buildings are supposed to "contain" a meltdown, unlike Chernobyl's, but that could just be slick corporate PR-speak, like "safe" offshore drilling.
Posted by: Joshua | Mar 12, 2011 5:01:23 PM
"Presumably, an explosion like that is something you would want to avoid?" she asks the "expert". Geezus, where do they get these anchor people? Obviously, intelligence isn't a factor -- they must be hired simply for their talent to fill up minutes with endless talk.
Posted by: bierce | Mar 12, 2011 6:02:33 PM
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It might actually end up boosting the push for nuclear power, once the initial hysteria dies down. This reactor is old. The newer GenIII+ and GenIV reactors are designed to deal with this sort of emergency. So if in an old plant in a seismically active region in the wake of the worst earthquake in recorded history, they can contain the damage to relatively minor radioactive leakage, it might add to the nuclear renaissance momentum. The media loves to whip up hysteria over any radioactive spill.
Posted by: candide | Mar 12, 2011 7:06:37 PM
This post contains a factual error. As per CNN and MSNBC.com the reactor containment building was not compromised by this explosion.
Posted by: Bill_HB | Mar 12, 2011 9:15:52 PM
Isn't it about time for Godzilla to come up out of Tokyo Bay?
Posted by: ratbastard | Mar 12, 2011 9:16:58 PM
Joshua: Control rods are removable in US plants, that wasn't the problem with Chernobyl. Chernobyl's rods were graphite tipped, which was the problem, as they helped cause the initial power excursion. (Also, graphite can burn, where-as water cannot). The fundamental difference between the RMK-1000 plants such as Chernobyl and plants we see today is the Russians did not bother with a containment whatsoever, so when the reactor blew itself apart due to it's power excursion, it threw it's fuel, radioactive gases, etc, right into the atmosphere. Modern reactors are housed by a containment which is re-inforced with steel and rebar and rated for an airplane strike straight into them. This is why there was no significant release of radiation to the public at Three Mile Island Unit 1, due to the fact that they indeed had containment. While the fuel did melt and release fission product gases and solids, it was contained.
Candide: You're exactly right. The new style AP1000, ESBWR, etc, all use passive core cooling systems which do not rely on electricity to provide the basic functions of core cooling. These style reactors would be much safer in this type of environment. People aren't realizing that this earthquake and tsunami was basically a design basis accident (and then some) thrown at them, and when all is said and done, while the reactor is going to be trashed from the sea water, the effects to the general public will be minimal, and the toxins and hazards released from everything else crumbling around them will be much more dangerous (but not reported on).
Posted by: Ben | Mar 12, 2011 9:24:10 PM
@Ben
It's too bad the networks aren't using people like you as expert analysts instead of the professional anti-nuclear shills like Edwin Lyman. Again, when the hysteria subsides, this event will actually have provided the "worst case" scenario. And if, as most experts believe, the contamination will be minimal even in these extreme conditions, the nuclear renaissance will proceed full steam ahead. Remember how the sky was going to fall at the time of the minor leaks in 2007 and 2008?
Posted by: candide | Mar 12, 2011 10:02:48 PM
@Candide I'm far from an expert analyst, I'm just someone who's operated both Navy as well as civilian nuclear reactors, so I actually understand the science behind them, unlike most the people spouting on TV. I'm as liberal as they come, but I understand the need for electricity. People bleat on about solar and wind power, but then they don't want it in their backyard, and they don't want to pay the costs associated with it. (Electricity bills would skyrocket.). Everyone wants to basically pay as little as possible for electricity, they want to be able to run their air conditioning at any time to cool their house to 68 degrees, and they want it to be 100% environment friendly. You can't have all it all. Even given accidents of this nature in Japan, the overall health risks imposed by fossil plants (see: oil, coal, etc) are far worse when it comes to cancers, etc, let alone global warming and the O-zone layer. People would be amazed with how much coal gets transported into EVERY SINGLE coal plant EVERY DAY via train, it's absolutely incredible. Nuclear power plants have a NEGATIVE carbon footprint, which means they off-set more carbon emissions then they produce, where-as the carbon footprint for fossil plants is massive.
Are there better technologies out there? (Such as fission)? Sure, but the technology isn't there yet to harvest the energy at an economic rate. No one is saying nuclear is perfect, but it's the best current large scale economic option available today.
Posted by: Ben | Mar 12, 2011 11:13:52 PM
I can't even bring myself to watch the video.
We need to be mature adults and get out of denial. Nuclear power is far too dangerous and needs to be phased out completely. Our government's policy of subsidizing the nuclear industry is reckless and foolish.
Posted by: libhomo | Mar 12, 2011 11:21:48 PM
"unreal" is not a word I'd use. Clearly, it's real.
It was a reactor building that blew up, according to the Guardian. The reactor itself didn't suffer a failure due to that, but I think we ought to take claims that it was "unharmed" with a grain of salt. Certainly it will have been weakened.
Posted by: Randy | Mar 12, 2011 11:41:03 PM
ben
not exactly true
the cost of production does not factor in all the tax payers extra payments supplied via the gov for said electricity generated
nuke energy utilizing horribly inefficient and dangerous uranium reactors are heavily subsidized by governments and the actual price is not reflected in the energy bill
Thorium was the way to go = way cheaper with 1 ton of thorium providing the same amount of energy 200 tons of uranium would provide while being a much more abundant resource = very common in the world as compared to uranium
unimaginably safer due to melt down scenarios not possible utilizing thorium
clean up? thorium becomes harmless by a factor of 10-100x times fewer years than uranium without the extra costs and precautions necessary to store like we have to with uranium
The only benefit to uranium reactors was/is they produce weapons grade material
The 1 and only reason that uranium reactors no matter how improved are used as verses thorium reactors
The tech for a thorium reactor was well known in the late 60's but no nuke weapons can be produced (which is a very good thing despite what your gov might tell you, there already are more than enough nukes to destroy all human life on the planet a few times over)
Thorium nuke reactors was the way we should have gone, we didn't BUT!!!!!!!!!!! it is the way we should go now but most likely won't due to having to have even more missiles to destroy all life on earth a thousand times over
The future was thorium reactors but the future was strangled in its cribs a long a time ago
Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Mar 12, 2011 11:47:47 PM
@libhomo So how do you propose you get your electricity then? Coal and Oil are much more hazardous to your health and environment.
@Randy Apparently you're now an expert on the nuclear industry. The media is sensationalizing this entire event. They're taking shreds of facts and trying to spin them into a sensational story.
Posted by: Ben | Mar 12, 2011 11:49:34 PM
PS
india and china are investing in thorium reactors
China few years ago had not solar pannel producing industry at all, now within a few years they are the world's largest producer of solar cells
China is doing the same now vis a vi gov investment in thorium reactors and again will surpass america with something america knew how to do and could have done decades ago
Posted by: mstrozfckslv@yahoo.com | Mar 12, 2011 11:57:37 PM
LMAO @ Mike's comment. Platinum.
Posted by: Your Mom | Mar 13, 2011 3:04:52 AM
Radiation exposure is a grim part of Japanese history. How sad that they need to pass out iodine now. My heart aches for them.
Posted by: Rob | Mar 13, 2011 8:28:22 AM