Page 103 of 103 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103
Results 3,061 to 3,083 of 3083

Thread: [Fukushima, power stations, nuclear scare]

  1. #3061
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,948
    What I mean is, if they put enough shielding for gamma to protect a robot, it couldn't move. Of course you can shield, but the weight prevents a robot from being able to work.

  2. #3062
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
    So at Fukashima, what is the robot killer, particle radiation or high energy photons?

    And wouldn't a mechanical, pneumatically driven robot guided by physical lenses and fiber optics circumvent a lot of the issues?
    Actually, I was thinking the same thing. I was thinking that the tricky part might be keeping the operator far enough away. But I like the idea.
    As above, so below

  3. #3063
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,323
    What about neutrons? Are they detecting those?
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  4. #3064
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    What about neutrons? Are they detecting those?
    Neutrons are being released since fission is taking place. However, they aren't the problem for electronics.
    As above, so below

  5. #3065
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Neutrons are being released since fission is taking place. However, they aren't the problem for electronics.
    Are you sure? When I was briefly involved in a project to test for errors caused by radiation, we used a neutron beam as the source.

  6. #3066
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    5,811
    I doubt the neutron flux is high enough to seriously affect the robot.

    How about vacuum tube electronics ('valves' for you Brits) to control the robot? Tubes aren't nearly as susceptible to ionizing radiation as are semi-conductors.

  7. #3067
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,948
    It's the camera that dies, meaning the robot becomes useless.

  8. #3068
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,948
    Both gamma radiation and neutron radiation destroy electronics. And almost everything living as well.

  9. #3069
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigabyte View Post
    It's the camera that dies, meaning the robot becomes useless.
    Good point. Well, maybe they're looking into trailing a fiber optic cable, leaving the CCD some distance behind. Maybe two robots - one to hold the CCD and other electronics that doesn't approach far into the super high gamma flux, while the other carries a lens further in.

  10. #3070
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,516
    Scaremongers and apocalyptists claim that the Pacific Ocean is almost devoid of life or full of radioactive, dissolving diseased mutating sea life, and that eventually Fukushima will become an ELE.

    At the other extreme are those who say that Fukushima's sole effect will be a 2% increase in thyroid cancer cases in the Fukushima area.

    If Chernobyl had not been encased in a sarcophagus and left in situ 30 years ago, would the Ukraine, Europe & the world be any different from today?

    The 2010 Gulf of Mexico BP oil leak. although small, had the potential if they hadn't managed to plug it to leak indefinitely, and would gradually have covered the ocean with an oily surface tension sheen that could have become an ELE for many species, and even threatened humanity.

    The Japanese are investing $188 billion to either clear up the radioactive debris, or entomb it Chernobyl-style, something that my take decades.

    Is it conceivable that they could fail, and if so, 50 years from now with it still leaking indefintely ceteris paribus radiation in to the sea, land and air, would either of the best or worst scenarios depicted above still apply?
    Last edited by wd40; 2017-Mar-18 at 10:12 PM.

  11. #3071
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,288
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    Is it conceivable that they could fail, and if so, 50 years from now with it still leaking indefintely ceteris paribus radiation in to the sea, land and air, would either of the best or worst scenarios depicted above still apply?
    That is not how radioactive material works. The highly active materials are the ones decaying most rapidly, so much so that after 10 years or so the total level of radiation emitted will have fallen to 10% or so of the initial activity. It then holds steady at this level for quite a long time.

    This is the danger of people taking a single point and extrapolating it forwards without any consideration of the physics. Your oil leak example is the same. Oil breaks down, gets trapped. Eventually an equilibrium would have been reached. That equilibrium point would not have been every part of the Earth's oceans covered in oil. Otherwise the natural oil seeps found all over the world would have done this a long time ago.

  12. #3072
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigabyte View Post
    Of course you can shield, but the weight prevents a robot from being able to work.
    After thinking about it, since the critical failure would be the camera, they can't shield the lens with enough lead, so that is the weakest link. Even a gigantic heavily lead shielded robot has to see. It's much like the problem with humans, you can't make a suit with enough shielding to work near gamma radiation, because you can't shield the eyes, which is why you can't work near high levels of gamma radiation.

    Flooding with water will help, but even then, you get near enough to core material, all eyes and cameras will fail. It's a serious problem, and one that has never been solved so far.

  13. #3073
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,047
    Would shielding the lens work if the lens is used in a periscope like manner? (using mirrors so there's no direct line of sight?)

  14. #3074
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,323
    Have they tried a periscope?
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  15. #3075
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigabyte View Post
    It's the camera that dies, meaning the robot becomes useless.
    Although a quick bit of research yields: https://www.mirion.com/products/r93-...iation-camera/
    Apparently able to survive 30,000 Grays/hour. So the 5-700 sieverts/hour, even if they are all alphas (which would put it at 1400 Grays.hour) is within what the camera can take. The cameras on the robots sent in were rated to 1000 sieverts cumulative dose, so rather than this being a case of the environment being too dangerous for robots it looks more like the robots being under-spec for the environment they found.

    I've had a quick look and so far actually most of the robot 'casualties' seem to have had more to do with getting stuck than radiation.

  16. #3076
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    10,329
    This link may be of interest: It seems there is a new way to get a look at things
    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Vi...ation_999.html
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep41972

  17. #3077
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    This link may be of interest: It seems there is a new way to get a look at things
    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Vi...ation_999.html
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep41972
    That is interesting. I know from experience that producing surveys of contaminated and radioactive areas can be labor intensive and can be limited by the need to keep personnel doses low.

  18. #3078
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,516
    Given current events, what would be the immediate physical effects of a not totally implausible 1) rocket with 1 ton of explosive, 2) a MOAB with 10 tons of explosive, and 3) a rocket with a 15kT atom bomb, directly impacting the Fukushima site in its current state?

  19. #3079
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,472
    Closed pending moderator discussion
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  20. #3080
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,353
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    Given current events, what would be the immediate physical effects of a not totally implausible 1) rocket with 1 ton of explosive, 2) a MOAB with 10 tons of explosive, and 3) a rocket with a 15kT atom bomb, directly impacting the Fukushima site in its current state?
    wd40,

    At best, this is a very off-topic and derailing post. But there are also political implications (you did mention "current events") that make it even worse. This will earn you an infraction and some time off.

    And the thread is reopened.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #3081
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    I think it's a legitimate question to ask about the vulnerability of a nuclear plant, including one that is shut down, to a missile strike. I think that the damage would be fairly limited. At Fukushima, you have these large lumps of melted fuel. But they are made of heavy elements, so they are not going to go very far. I think a missile strike would likely increase the speed of leakage into the ocean and make the site more difficult to clean up. When you talk about a nuclear device, I think a lot would depend on where it's detonated.
    As above, so below

  22. #3082
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think it's a legitimate question to ask about the vulnerability of a nuclear plant, including one that is shut down, to a missile strike.
    It is a legit question for Science & Technology, as a general, technology question (in fact, I vaguely remember past discussions about it). But it is a derailment for a thread that is already a large and complex enough topic. A new thread should have been started for it.

    And, when you make it specific for Fukushima, and specific for "current events" and rockets, it starts to get into geopolitics.

    I would also suggest dropping any further discussion in this thread - it is starting to look like questioning moderation. If you wish to do that, please take it to Feedback or another recourse.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #3083
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    4,002
    In other news, Toshiba appears to be in dire financial straits, mainly due to losses in their nuclear power division. Apparently, this is not a good time to be in the nuclear power business.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

Similar Threads

  1. Hydroelectric Power Stations and Doomsday What Ifs
    By caveat in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2014-Dec-15, 09:29 AM
  2. Orbital Solar Power Stations, a need to push someone?
    By Graham2001 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 2013-Nov-11, 01:20 AM
  3. Nuclear submarines vs nuclear power plants
    By peterkienle in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-02, 06:32 AM
  4. Do we really want more nuclear power stations?
    By William_Thompson in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-25, 08:31 PM
  5. Nuclear Clarifications Related to Fukushima
    By NEOWatcher in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-20, 05:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •