Category: Uncategorized
A Quick Note: Upcoming Interviews with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, and Lulu Book
Some Quick Announcements:
1. Upcoming Interviews:
While my dad and I wish we could stop doing our interview updates, the situation at Fukushima remains serious. We will discuss this more in our interview tonight, but keep in mind that the nuclear disaster at Fukushima will not be resolved in a matter of days; there are many long months and years of work ahead, especially since some of the reactors have been badly damaged by the earthquake, flooding (from the tsunami), and subsequent explosions. To fully clean-up the Fukushima site will require decades.
We probably won’t continue doing these interviews for decades, but we will continue them awhile longer.
This week we will be conducting interviews on Monday (3/28, later this evening), Tuesday (3/29), and Friday (4/1). Please send any questions or comments to georneysblog@gmail.com. You can also follow me on twitter @GeoEvelyn.
2. Lulu Book:
I just wanted to let you know that sometime soon (sometime in April, hopefully) I plan to self-publish a book titled “Conversations with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disater in Japan” on Lulu. In this book, I will compile all of the interview transcripts (which I will clean-up and check for errors) and also write brief summaries of the content in each interview. I will also include a chapter with some background on my father and I, including some pictures of us over the years, and a chapter with some of the many, many emails and comments we have received in response to these interviews. For the emails and comments, I will only use first names (or anonymous if the person did not give a name) and will avoid any personal details.
My father and I will donate 25% of the profits of each book to charities supporting Japan earthquake and tsunami disaster relief. If you have any interest in buying a book, let me know in a comment below or by email so that I have a rough idea of how many books might be ordered.
The interviews and audio files will remain freely available here always; I just thought that some people might like to have all of the interviews compiled in an easier-to-read book form. As I mentioned, I will try to have the book published sometime in April; I have a long plane flight to South Africa coming up in a few weeks when I can work on this. Depending on the situation at Fukushima, we may continue to do these interviews on a regular basis for some time. So, it’s possible that the book will need to be updated at some point if we continue interviews past April.
3. More Thank-Yous
Thanks again to all of the transcribers and audio helpers. I mailed pretty rocks to the volunteer helpers below (except Gerald– send me your address if you want a rock) earlier today. Rocks are heavy, so I mailed them parcel post, but they should arrive sometime in the not-too-distant future.
-Skype PR Representative
-Michelle, Gregg, Kirsten, Sophie, Chris, & Maria (transcription)
-Brandon (vimeo & audio help)
-Mike (audio help)
-Brad (YouTube help)
-Gerald (audio file hosting)
13th Interview with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster in Japan
12th Interview with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster in Japan
Update: Sorry that it took me so long to post this interview, which was recorded last night. I had trouble converting the video file at first, but I think I’ve sorted it out now.
You can listen to all the interviews on the new vimeo channel Brandon and I created. You can also listen to most of the interviews on Brad Go’s YouTube channel.
Here’s the vimeo channel:
This evening my dad and I recorded our 12th interview on the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. Please see the rest of the blog (sidebar) for previous interviews. Please keep sending questions and comments to georneysblog@gmail.com. You can also follow me on twitter @GeoEvelyn but please do not send questions via twitter.
In today’s interview:
1. My dad gives his usual update
2. We discuss:
a) why salt might be a problem for nuclear reactors
b) Fukushima has dropped off the front page of the news, and the mainstream media is not doing the best job of reporting about Fukushima in recent days (on a soapbox again)
c) monitoring of radiation by the Japanese government and radiation in the environment
d) why reports about radiation levels need to be in units people can understand and need to be in consistent units
Hope to have an audio link soon. Here is the interview on vimeo:
Please see the announcement page for more information about these interviews:
If you have time and interest, please transcribe this interview. Our next interview will be on Saturday, March 26th. Thanks to Kenyon, a transcript is now available after the jump.
Transcript for Interview 12:
11th Interview with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster in Japan
10th Interview with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster in Japan
![]() |
||
| Picture of a Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plant like the Fukushima Plants. My dad refers to this image in his interview. |
Update: Gerald has kindly hosted all of the new audio files. I will update all the audio links (some of which are broken) soon– I meant to do this yesterday or today but was overwhelmed with work. DONE Meanwhile, you can listen to all the audio files on the new vimeo channel Brandon and I created. You can also listen to most of the interviews on Brad Go’s YouTube channel.
Here’s the vimeo channel:
This evening my dad and I recorded our 10th interview on the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. Please see the rest of the blog (sidebar) for previous interviews. Please keep sending questions and comments to georneysblog@gmail.com. You can also follow me on twitter @GeoEvelyn but please do not send questions via twitter.
In today’s interview:
1. My dad gives his usual update
2. My dad and I step up on a soapbox and discuss: a) why nuclear organizations and the media need to be better about providing information about nuclear power and nuclear disasters, b) why the US should reprocess (recycle) nuclear fuel rods, c) long-term storage of nuclear fuel, and d) nuclear power, power plants in general, and the world’s energy needs
3. We address the questions “How do you move fuel rods?” and “Should the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant license have been renewed?”
Here are some websites we refer to in today’s interview:
Here is a statistic we discuss (from wikipedia, let me know if you have a better source):
Here is the audio file:
Hope to have an audio link soon. Here is the interview on vimeo:
Please see the announcement page for more information about these interviews:
If you have time and interest, please transcribe this interview. Our next interview will be on Thursday, March 24th. Thanks (again!) to Michelle, there is now a transcript after the jump.
Q: Good evening, Dad.
A: Good evening.
Q: Are you ready for our interview tonight?
A: I am.
Q: OK. Let me first say that my name is Evelyn Mervine and I’m gonna be
interviewing my dad, Mark Mervine, who’s a nuclear engineer. This is actually the
10th interview in a series of interviews that we’ve been doing about the Fukushima
nuclear power plant disaster in Japan. We’ve done interviews pretty much everyday
since the earthquake and tsunami. We’ve only missed a couple of days, we missed
yesterday because my dad was traveling and I had quite a bit of work on my
plate yesterday, and then also on Saturday, a few days ago, my dad was actually
interviewed by Anthony, who’s a Japanese citizen living in Japan, so other than
that, we’ve done these interviews everyday, but as I said, there wasn’t an interview
yesterday, so today we actually are going to do an update for the last 48 hours. And
then after my dad does his usual update, we’re gonna take some questions. And
since we’re doing many interviews, before we start, let me just say that today is the
22nd of March. And it is currently 9PM, Eastern Daylight Time. So with that, Dad, do
you want to give your update for today?
A: OK, so as a reminder to everybody, the Fukushima 1 nuclear power plant actually
consists of 6 reactors. We’ve been most concerned about Reactors 1 through 4.
And less concerned about Reactors 5 and 6. And there’s been a lot of activity in the
past 48 hours, but I will say that as I think is typical in most events, there’s a lot of
interest and information in the beginning, and then as time goes by, the press moves
on to something else and the amount of information gets a little harder to come by.
Now, maybe that isn’t the case within Japan, but it certainly is from North America.
So I’ll give the best update I can, based on the fact that information is getting a little
harder to come by.
Q: Is that mostly in the mainstream news? Are there still reports being released by
nuclear agencies in Japan and internationally?
A: There are, but the updates aren’t quite as frequent. Especially in the past couple
of days, there hasn’t been as many updates coming from Japan. But anyway, let me
give what I know. So probably the biggest news item is we now have power form
the grid to all 6 reactors.
A: Excellent.
Q: But that doesn’t mean that the pumps and the valves and the switch gear in those
reactors are powered up yet. They’ve just brought the power to those buildings, and
because of the damage from the earthquake and the tsunami and the explosions,
there’s still quite a bit of work to do within the buildings to get power restored,
so that you can actually use it. So the reports are a little bit hard to interpret, but
in Units 5 and 6, if people recall from previous updates, they had gotten 2 diesel
generators in Unit 6 started and were using power from Unit 6 to also power Unit
5, via the equivalent of a long extension cord. And based on what I could read, they
now have off-site power available to Units 5 and 6. Again, kinda the same way,
through the Unit 6 plant and then feeding over to Unit 5. But that’s very good news,
and also we had reported that a couple days ago that with the diesel generators,
they were able to restore the normal cooling systems to those plants and both of
those plants were in cold shutdown and clearly they have to continue to provide
power and cooling to them, but relatively speaking, they’re in a few safe condition.
The other thing we’ve talked about is the spent fuel pools at the site. There’s
actually 7 of them – one for each reactor building and then a common one. And the
reports are that the common pool is in good shape, that the temperature’s under
control and it’s not a concern. So let’s turn our attention to Units 1 through 4. So
we’ve brought an outside power to each of those units, but we haven’t actually been
able to power up pumps and valves and switch gear and that kind of stuff yet,
because of the extent of the damage. In the past 48 hours, a lot of attention has been
turned to the spent fuel pools at Units 2 through 4. And I would encourage people
to go to the International Atomic Agency website, which is – I believe – http://www.ie-
Q: IAEA, right?
A: Correct. Iaea.org [www.IAEA.org] . And they gave a very good summary today of
the status of the plant and the spent fuel pools. But in any event, the-
Q: So wait, someone’s doing our job now? That’s great!
A: Heh. Well, I’ve been using information gleaned from the NEI, from Wikipedia,
from news reports, from the IEAA- excuse me, International Atomic Agency to put
it all together so that we are able to give these updates. But they got a pretty good
overview there, which is worth taking a look at, and again, in the past 48 hours, a
lot of attention has been on spent fuel pools for Reactors 2, 3 and 4. And the fire
departments have pumped a lot of water on those. Now, today, they said they put
a fair amount of water on to the number 2 pool and cooled it way down. And since
that building is the most intact of all the buildings, I’m actually assuming that they
probably did that through a fire hose that they routed up through the inside of
building, as opposed to using the pumper trucks and the riot trucks that they had
used for the other builds. But in any event, they were able to put a lot of water in
that pool and cool it down, and if you want the specifics, I would encourage you to
go take a look at the website that we just mentioned.
There was some concern in the past 48 hours about Reactor number 3. It
had been reported that the pressure within the primary containment building had
gone up and they were considering whether or not they were going to have to do
some additional venting, but the pressure stabilized and they didn’t have to do that.
But then, yesterday, there was a bit of a scare in that there was some gray smoke
sighted coming from the vicinity of the spent fuel pool. And they actually evacuated
the site for a short period of time until they were able to verify radiation levels and
allow people to come back on site. I don’t think that they ever actually determined
what the cause of that was, but they continued to pour water- or shoot water at that
reactor building. So, go ahead, you gonna have a question?
Q: I was just going to ask, I know that in our last update, the radiation around,
I believe it was mostly spent fuel pool number 4 was so high that they weren’t
actually able to get very close, they were having to use these police water cannons.
Do you know, has the radiation level dropped? Are they able to actually get close
enough with fire trucks at fuel pool number 4 as well?
A: So in general, I think that the radiation levels were most elevated at Unit 3 and
4 and with these efforts that they’ve had to pour water onto these buildings, the
radiation levels have come down. They’re not great, but they’re better. But they’re
still requiring them to stay at some distance to be safe.
So the situation, from 48 hours ago, the situation is definitely improving.
They’re not making as much progress as I think we would all would like to fully
restore power and get pumps and valves and that kinda stuff going, but I think that’s
a reflection of the extent of damage that these plants incurred, due to the
earthquake and the tsunami and the subsequent explosions. The other thing I
thought that was interesting, and I saw this at the NEI website – the Nuclear Energy
Institute – which is http://www.NEI.org. They said on their website – and I can’t
remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but they thought that the
tsunami that hit was about a 14 meter height, so for folks in America, 14 meters…it’s
about 39 inches, but if you use 3 feet, that’s a pretty, pretty significant wave. That’s
40-some feet. And-
Q: Is this plant right on the ocean? Or how far- I don’t think I’ve ever asked you
before.
A: Is it right on the ocean, yeah. If you look at the satellite pictures, you can see that
it’s right on the ocean. And if I remember correctly, that was about double the size
that the plant was designed for. So a lot of the buildings were well-below this wave.
So that does help explain why the diesel generators and the electrical switch gear
and that kinda stuff have been so problematic to restore. So again, I don’t remember
the numbers off the top of my head, but the NEI website had a summary of what
they thought the wave height was and what the plant was actually designed for.
Q: This is very encouraging, because it sounds like some of the nuclear
organizations are starting to try and do what we’ve been trying to do since day one,
is actually provide people with some kind of coherent story about what has been
going on and I think that’s really encouraging because at the beginning, I don’t even
think that the nuclear organizations were doing a particularly good job of – y’know,
they were releasing bits and pieces of information, but they weren’t necessarily
providing a coherent story that the average person could look at and really digest
and have a good picture of what was going on. So…
A: It’s definitely better and I think it’s a little bit easier to digest. And I think that
they definitely are trying to do a little bit better job, but it’s still pretty difficult.
There’s still no one place that anyone can go and kind of pull the whole thing
together.
Q: And that’s problematic, because back when Chernobyl happened and Three Mile
Island happened, that was- correct me if I’m wrong, but Three Mile Island was in
1979, right? And Chernobyl was ’86 and there was no internet then, and so these
days, there’s almost too many places to go for information and there’s a lot of places
where you can get misinformation and so I think it’s-
A: Y’know, I
Q: Important for people to have one place that you can go.
A: Yeah, and I don’t think it’s so much of a nuclear issue. I think when we have
time to reflect, I think it’s a good lesson learned, if there’s any type of significant
emergency situation, that the government or the organization responsible needs
to figure out the best way in which to communicate to the public. In plain English.
I think these agencies are doing a good job, but the people that work there are
engineers and scientists and they still speak in that language.
Q: And we’re an engineer and scientist, but we’re trying to speak plain English. So
you can do it.
A: Well, we are. No, we are, but also, if it was some of their field that you or I were
not familiar with, we might have a hard time interpreting it, because although I have
a lot of experience in this field from my previous jobs, there’s other fields where I
don’t have any more insight or information than anybody, so I think that’s- like I
said, I think when we have time to reflect, we’ll have to look back and say, y’know,
because of the internet, because of the information age, is there a better way to
communicate and oh, by the way, it needs to be- y’know, I said English, which isn’t
really fair, because there’s so many people around the world and a lot of different
languages. But what I meant by that was not English per se, but in laymen’s terms,
so that the average person could understand it. That’s what I meant.
Q: And I think one thing that’s been really- I mean I know that we’ve both been
surprised at how many people who have listened to these interviews and it’s been
a little bit overwhelming for us, but I think that people are there, they wanna listen
and because this disaster has the potential to affect so many people, people wanna
know and they wanna hear some of the science and the technical details. They may
not be able to understand it in technical terms, but they-
A: Absolutely, as we said-
Q: They’re interested and we’ve had thousands upon thousands of page views and
your interviews have been circulated all over the internet and so people do wanna
listen to this sort of information and this sort of story and this sort of laymen’s
explanation. And hopefully we’ve been able to provide some people with that.
A: Yeah, when I say laymen’s, I’m not asking you to dumb it down. As we’ve said a
couple times, treat us as if we’re intelligent. Give us the information, but you’ve also
gotta explain it so that we can understand it, if we’re not an expert.
Q: OK. Well, do you have anything else about the plant? Any other updates?
A: Again, I’ll echo what I’ve said for the past 2 or 3 days. There may not be great
news there, but we’re no longer in a situation where everyday, the news is getting
worse and worse and worse. So I hesitate to use the word, but right now, we’re in
a relatively stable situation. Very precarious, but each day is bringing a little bit
of progress. And the other thing that I wanna say is at times, we’ve been critical
in terms of the information that’s available, and also maybe critical of the fact that
the situation of the spent fuel pools got out of control, which may or may not been
avoidable. We’re not there, we’re not under the pressure that those folks are under,
so it’s really not fair for us to judge. And the only thing that I would add is I think
we all need to have an appreciation for the folks that are at the site, that are working
round the clock, now for 8 or 9 or 10 days straight, to try to minimize the impact of
this event and put these plants in a stable condition. And not only does Japan owe
these folks some gratitude, I think the whole world community does. It’s, I think,
similar to the situation where we’ve had in the US where you don’t necessarily have
to agree with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but at least have appreciation for the
troops that went there and did what was asked of them, whether you agree with it
or not, I think whether you’re for or against nuclear power, you have to have some
appreciation for the dedication and the effort that these folks are putting in on the
ground in Japan.
Q: I certainly appreciate it and I hope that the health effects that especially the
people who stayed behind during the worst of the radiation, I hope that they’re able
to treat that and (number beeps audible)- oh, are you there, Dad?
A: Sorry, I accidentally bumped the phone.
Q: OK, well, that technical problem is your fault. But no, seriously, I mean, I really
hope that, y’know, I’m sure there will be some health problems as a result, but I
really hope that they’re able to treat those people and that they don’t have long-
lasting effects, and if they do, I really appreciate what they did, because if they
hadn’t have gone in there and taken care of that situation, things could’ve been
much worse and many, many people would’ve been affected by this more than they
haven’t already, so…
A: And I think the other thing to note is some people might say, well the people that
worked there, that’s kind of their responsibility, but let us not forget the firemen,
the military helicopter pilots, I mean these people have nothing to do with this, but
nonetheless-
Q: They’re risking their lives, too.
A: Absolutely.
Q: OK, well with that, why don’t we go on to some questions. And I just want to
say something quickly… Many people have asked us to comment on new nuclear
technologies, including Thorium reactors. And what my dad and I have decided to
do is we’re actually- at the end, towards the end of these interviews – we’re gonna
give an interview where we talk about the latest technologies. We’ll talk a little
bit about it today, but one thing that we’ve really been trying to do is not comment
on things for which we – and by “we”, I mean my dad – don’t have information or
firsthand knowledge, because we don’t want to have any more misinformation
being spread, so my dad has promised to do a little bit of homework about some
of these future technologies that have been proposed and at the end, we’ll sort of
maybe reflect on this disaster and try and discuss some of these future possibilities
and some of the debate about future nuclear power at the end.
A: OK, so speaking of homework, you actually gave me a homework assignment a
couple days ago, you asked me a question about how much of the core of the Three
Mile Island Unit 2 plant was damaged.
Q: Yes. And I know you emailed-
A: And (inaudible) there. I did. So it was approximately 50% core damage and
about 90% of the fuel cladding was damaged in some way.
Q: And that’s the zirconium coating on the fuel?
A: Right.
Q: And can you just go over again, what is the purpose of that coating? Is that to
make it have some shielding so you can handle the fuel rods a little bit more easily
and control the reactions, is that what the zirconium is for?
A: Well, what actually- So the fuel is actually made into Uranium dioxide pellets.
And these pellets are approximately about a half inch in diameter and – don’t quote
me on this because it’s been a while – about ¾ of an inch high. And so you put a
whole bunch of these pellets in this tube of zirconium and then on the end, you
actually leave a gap and you put a spring in there to hold it in place. And that gap,
what happens with these fuel pellets is they actually do get a little bit of cracking
in them from the fissioning and the decay of the subsequent fission products. And
some of the fission products are gaseous, and so they’ll leak a little bit from the
pellets, but they’ll stay within the zirconium tube. And the gap that you leave with
the spring allows for that- for the expansion of that gas. Of those gaseous products.
So it’s not really like, a rod, all of one piece, it’s a bunch of pellets stacked on
top of each other. Of these cylindrical pellets. And then a spring and then an air gap,
which allows any gas that is released from the pellets themselves, will be contained
within the- what we call the fuel rod, which is really that zirconium tube, which gets
obviously welded off at each end, or sealed off at each end, and then a bunch of
pellets stacked up, and a big spring and an air gap.
Q: So why do they use Zirconium? Is there something in particular about
zirconium?
A: It’s got really good properties for use in a reactor. It sustains fairly high
temperatures, it’s got good corrosion resistance, there’s a bunch of other great
things about it that I would have to dust off 25 years-ago-studies that I did in the
Navy nuclear power program.
Q: But basically it’s just to provide some kind of structure to these pellets, which
otherwise would be loose? It’s to put them into this fuel rod.
A: Right, that’s the way that- so there is no fuel rod, per se, it’s really the zirconium
tube that these ceramic pellets are put into, which forms the fuel rod.
Q: OK, so this is actually a good thing to discuss, going into our first question. And
this came in from actually someone that I know, who said- she sent me an email and
she said that she was watching a movie – and I don’t know the movie – but at some
point in the movie, there was a nuclear power plant and they had an emergency
and to deal with the emergency, they took the fuel rods out of the reactor and they
put them onto a truck and they drove away, so that they wouldn’t be dangerous.
And she said that I ruined the movie because after listening to these interviews,
she realized that that was impossible, that you couldn’t just pick the spent fuel
rods out of the reactor and put them on a truck. So she was wondering, actually,
because she asked me, well, how do they actually move the fuel rods? How do they
take them out of the reactor and put them in the spent fuel pools, because as we’ve
discussed, why can’t they just take the fuel rods away from the site and put them
into a different tank and we discussed how the equipment to move them has been
damaged and you really have to keep them in water. But I was just wondering if
you could talk a little more about that and I guess talk about how you move spent
fuel rods and also when you move them? Does it depend on how long ago they have
been in the critical in the core, how long do they have to sit around before you move
them, that sorta thing, just about the technical aspects of moving fuel rods.
A: OK, so I haven’t looked at your website for a few days. Do you still have that
picture up that I sent?
Q: I do. And I can actually put it up again with this interview.
A: Well, so that’s as good of a picture as I think we need. So it shows where the
spent fuel pool is in relationship to the reactor. And it shows how it’s, y’know, high
up. And what actually happens is you shut down for refueling and then on top of the
reactor will kinda be this big concrete plug. And then you can take the top off the
reactor vessel. So the reactor vessel is this big, steel forging, but it has a lid that’s
held down by a bunch of bolts and you can take that off. So what you do is if you
– I think it shows it in that picture, I don’t have it in front of me – but you basically
extend the spent fuel pool. And there’s a channel that goes from the pool over to
where the reactor vessel is. And you basically fill all that up with water, as part of
the refueling process. And then you remove the concrete plug and then the top of
the reactor vessel. And so the whole reactor vessel and then channel and the spent
fuel pool become one body of water. And you use the crane that’s shown in the
picture to actually go over to the reactor, pick up a fuel assembly. So normally in
a boiling water reactor, it’s not an individual fuel rod, it’s an assembly of fuel rods,
and they’re normally 7 by 7. So 49 fuel rods are build into an assembly. And you’ll
pick up that assembly with the crane, you’ll be able to keep it under water the whole
way, move it over to the spent fuel pool and put it in its proper place.
When we refuel a reactor, we normally replace about a third of the fuel
assemblies with new ones. But, as we’ve talked about, sometimes do a maintenance
or inspections, we actually have to take all of the fuel out of the reactor and
temporarily put it in the spent fuel pool.
Q: And that’s what happened at Reactor 4, sorry, saying it at the same time.
A: Exactly.
Q: That’s why that spent fuel pool was probably- I mean, we don’t know the details,
but that’s very likely why it was more of a problem sooner than the other spent fuel
pools.
A: So actually, on the International Atomic Energy Agency website today, they
actually said on there, the dates- the last date that new spent fuel was added to
those pools. And in the case of Reactor number 4, that core was moved over there in
approximately sometime in November. Or maybe early-
Q: So that’s fairly recent, actually.
A: Early December. So that was more recent and that fuel had more decay heat in it,
which is why that one was more problematic.
Q: How often do you have to refuel a nuclear reactor, generally?
A: It depends a little bit on what we call the fuel cycle. In the early days of nuclear
power, we would do it about once a year. And then as technology improved and
we had better quality control of the fuel and we were able to do a better job of
engineering the core designs, we’ve been able to improve that to 18 months, and
in some cases, some reactors are only refueled every 2 years, now. So somewhere
between 12 and 24 months, depending on the vintage of the reactor, the core design
and the- the other factor is planning of outages. So-
Q: ‘Cause you have to shut the reactor down for that time period?
A: Right. And so the whole- all of the power sources to a grid have to be planned.
You can’t literally shut down every power plant at the same time. So part of the
determining factor is not just design, but it’s also schedule. So if you have, y’know,
pick a number. In a particular section of the grid, you have 20 different power
plants. Maybe some gas, some coal, some nuclear. The outage times of when those
are shut down have to be planned, so that you don’t have too many shut down at
the same time, because then you wouldn’t have enough power for supplying the
grid. And so normally, most of the outages take place in the early Spring and in the
Fall, because the peak power demands are during the Summer, when everybody
needs air conditioning, and in the Winter, when everybody needs heat. But even
with that said, we have to plan for not too many power plants to be shut down for
maintenance at the same time.
Q: And how long does it take to actually change out the fuel? Is that a day process,
week process, how long does it generally take?
A: To change out the fuel, normally takes a few days. It’s a- as you can imagine, it’s a
very important process and a very critical process to get exactly right, because each-
so in addition to just replacing the fuel, you often times have to move a fuel bundle
from one place in the reactor to another. Because the core design is critical. You
want to get even power distribution within the reactor. You don’t want one part of
the core to be generating more power than another part of the core. So in addition
to just replacing fuel elements, you also have to move them to different places in
the core, so that when it’s all said and done, you’re going to get a balanced power
distribution in that entire core.
Q: So is that sort of the lifespan of a fuel rod, is about a year to two years and then
you can no longer use it for fuel?
A: No, in fact, we only do- only replace about a third of the fuel assemblies, or
bundles, in an outage, so if we refuel every 18 months, then that means a fuel
assembly’s in there for 3 cycles, or 4 and a half years.
Q: OK, and at that point, and I know another- we haven’t really talked about this, but
unless you do some recycling of the fuel rod, at that point, the fuel rod is considered
spent and it can no longer be put back into the reactor?
A: That would be correct.
Q: OK. So then you move the fuel rods to the spent fuel pool. And then they have
to sit there for a time period and then- I mean, this is one of the big problems of
nuclear power, and then they have to do something else with those fuel rods. And
so-
A: So normally what happens is they’ll be in the spent fuel pool for a number of
years, to completely cool down. And then in the US, the original plan was that the
United States Government was going to take possession of the fuel assemblies and
they were going to store them all in Yucca Mountain.
Q: Which has now been shut down.
A: And after many, many dollars were spent and studies and research and
construction, ultimately, we decided not to do that. So we’ve run out of space in the
spent fuel pools at a lot of the reactors. So what’s happened is – I mentioned this in
one of the interviews – we do what’s called “dry cast storage”. And at Fukushima,
they actually have some dry cast storage, as well. Even though Japan is a country
where they do some fuel reprocessing, or recycling. And what it is is it’s a big
concrete container and you can take the very old fuel rods that don’t really need
any significant cooling anymore. And you can take them out of the pool and you
can put them in these big concrete paths and they’re kept physically separated so
there’s a little bit of air flow around them, and they’ve cooled off enough that just
the natural air that would be out there would be enough to provide the remaining
cooling that they would need. And they basically sit in these casts until there’s a
solution for either disposing of them or hopefully recycling. Because one of the
things we haven’t talked about is, in a reactor – and it’s not a good word, because
fuel doesn’t actually burn, but because of the, I think, the history of power plants,
we talk about burn. You can only burn the amount of fuel above what’s required to
have a critical mass(?). And so when the- without going into a lot of detail, when
a fuel rod is spent and can be no longer used in a reactor, there’s still a lot of good
stuff in there. There’s still Uranium, there’s Plutonium, that we talked about that can
also be used as a fuel, and the amount of nuclear waste there would be significantly
reduced if we could recycle that- the good stuff, and reuse it in another fuel rod and
that- We talked about Reactor 3, which does use mix oxide fuel. And that mix oxide
fuel is fuel that’s partially recycled and made into a new fuel rod.
Q: And just to repeat, we currently do not do this in the United States, we currently
do not recycle fuel rods?
A: We do not recycle fuel rods in the US for commercial nuclear power plants, but
many countries around the world – France, Japan – do recycle their fuel.
Q: And the problem with that is if you do do recycling, you can significantly reduce
the amount of nuclear waste that you ultimately have to store in spent fuel pools
and in dry cast storage. Plus, the other thing we haven’t really talked about is, and
I don’t think we wanna get into this tonight, is you also don’t have to then go in and
mine more Uranium and more fuel for these power plants, you can actually recycle
some of what you’ve already used.
A: Correct, no it’s – it would definitely be a step forward, I think, if we were to
reprocess fuel. We’d reduce the amount of waste that we have and be able to
reuse the good stuff as new fuel. It’s kinda the same thing, if people recycle their
aluminum cans, their plastic bottles, y’know, you can make it into usable things and
reduce the amount of waste, so…
Q: So do you have any insight – I know this is probably a politically-charged
question – but why don’t we recycle in the United States?
A: The concern in the US was because these spent fuel rods have Plutonium in
them, that somehow they were going to fall into the wrong hands and somebody
was going to make a nuclear bomb out of it. But the reality of it is that it takes
such sophisticated technology, and it’d have to be handled with such care, because
they are very radioactive, that it’s pretty implausible for anybody besides the
government or a utility consorting sponsored by the government that would have
the wherewithal and the technology and the equipment to do this kind of work.
This is rocket science, y’know…
Q: Nuclear version.
A: It really is, I mean – and I think that’s part of the reason why it’s been helpful to
have these conversations is, let’s face it, and this is rocket science that we’re talking
about, it’s not something that’s intuitive and I hope that we’ve been able with these
talks to better explain this stuff to you, but it’s pretty far-fetched scenario to think
that some terrorist group would be able to get their hands on a fuel rod and have all
the technology and the equipment to reprocess that and get the Plutonium out of it
and make a bomb out of it. I mean, that’s-
Q: And clearly other countries, such as Japan and France, are not concerned about
this and they’ve not had any problems, so…
A: Well, concern is not the right word. I mean, a lot of precautions have to be taken.
If the technology upon which the spent fuel is transported, y’know, police escorts, I
mean there is a lot of precaution taken. But again, even if somebody should get their
hands on one of these, to have built a multi-million dollar plant to reprocess these,
without anybody knowing about it, it’s a bit of a stretch.
Q: OK. And just to finish this story, so at some point, you either, y’know, you’re
not allowed to recycle or you can’t recycle anymore. At some point, you do have
to consider long-term storage of the fuel rods and you’ve talked about this before,
there’s actually 2 types of nuclear waste, there’s the fuel rods and then there’s
everything else that has been made radioactive, like gloves and suits and things.
And those are the two types of waste that you have to worry about, sorta what to do
with long-term. So I guess let’s just stick with the fuel rods to start with. So I know
that they were thinking about putting them in Yucca Mountain, and I won’t talk
about this today – I actually visited Yucca Mountain several years ago on a geology
field trip and something that was interesting – and I won’t talk about the details – is
that that’s actually a region that is…there are many faults, there’s been volcanism,
it’s not actually the most geologically-stable region, it’s wouldn’t be a place that I
would personally recommend, as a geologist, that you would want to store your fuel
long-term. But for whatever reason, maybe because of the geology, they’ve decided
not to go through with that. But you do need some place where you can store these
for a long time and I guess the question is how long do you have to store these
before you can insure that they’re not going to be causing any problems for people?
A: A very long time.
Q: Where do you store them?
A: A very long time.
Q: Can you define “very long”? Thousands of years? Millions of years?
A: Thousands of years.
Q: OK. And it’s really difficult, I mean, I know one thing, y’know, at Yucca Mountain,
they have to predict what the geology is going to be doing a thousand years
in advance and that’s something that’s very challenging to do, I mean we have
trouble predicting climate, we have trouble predicting what a volcano’s gonna do
a thousand years from now and you can do the best you can, but it’s not- y’know, if
you look at how difficult it is to predict the weather, sometimes, forecasting in the
future and it can be challenging and there’s many variables and so finding a safe
place to store these is, y’know, there are places to do it, but it’s challenging.
A: As somebody that worked in that field, there’s no doubt that this is a major issue
that there is no perfect solution for. And I think especially for people from the US.
We’re- we represent what percent of the world population?
Q: I don’t know, but it’s not very much.
A: 5 percent or less?
Q: I’m gonna Google it. Continue.
A: It’s a few percent. And we use something on the order of 25% of the world’s
energy. And so first and foremost, I think that it’s incumbent upon the United
States and other Western societies to find a way to use less energy on a per capita
basis than we currently do. Because no matter what choice you pick, whether
it be natural gas fire plant, coal plant, nuclear plants, there’s something that’s
fundamentally unacceptable about all those things, in terms of the impact that is has
on the Earth. And so first and foremost, I think we need to challenge ourselves to do
a better job of finding ways to reduce our energy usage. And then you-
Q: And also-
A: Then you can get into a debate of what’s the best choice and definitely
everybody- a lot of countries now have set goals for renewables. And renewables
are good, obviously. You have solar, you have wind, they have downsides, too, in
terms of sometimes they’re not available. If the wind’s not blowing, or if the sun’s
not shining, then you can’t always count on those, so somewhere along the line,
with today’s technology, you are going to have to use some coal, some gas and
probably also some nuclear, but – And then you have to balance the pros and cons
of all of those. And I think the challenge for us is can we do that objectively and
scientifically? Because a lot of times, the decisions are made emotionally. And
again, there- the best kilowatt is the one we don’t use. We’ve got- Western Society
has to find a way to be more energy efficient.
Q: I’ll just add a couple things to that. First thing I wanna say, too, is I travel in
my geology research and for personal travel quite a bit in the 3rd world and the
standard of living there is obviously- my fiancé is actually from South Africa and
traveling in South Africa, you see the way that people live and it’s terrible and you
want to improve the living conditions of these people. And if you think about that, if
you think about world population increasing. And also I really hope that we are able
to improve living conditions in many of these 3rd world countries. There are many
developing countries, if you look at China and India. So if there are- our energy
needs are really going to increase and if everybody uses energy the same way that
we do here in the United States, there’s just no way that we’re going to be able to
supply it and these issues – debates about nuclear power and other power – they’re
just going to become more intense, because if everyone has the standard of living
and the same energy use that we do- the average person in the US does, there’s
just no way that we can sustain that, so we really do have to think about these
things. And I also want to say – the second thing – is I really agree with what you’re
saying, that, y’know, when you have this many people living on a planet, you’re
gonna have to choose something and it’s not gonna be perfect. But if we make that
choice, it shouldn’t be emotional, it should be scientific and we’ve really tried in
these interviews to stick to the facts and stick to the science. And I think that, again,
whatever your opinions are about nuclear power, please don’t make those opinions
based on emotion, make those opinions based on on the science and on the facts and
really try to educate yourself – not just about nuclear power, but about all energy
options. So…
A: There- y’know, I mean… There’s no such- in my opinion, there’s no such thing
as a good power plant of any type. And the best thing that we can do as a society,
or as a global society is to continue to use our brains and our engineering and our
science to come up with ways that we can be more efficient with our energy use.
And we are making great strides there. But as you pointed out, as the population
expands, even if we reduce the per capita consumption, the overall consumption
may go up. And I think we have to re-double our efforts to be more energy efficient,
so that we don’t need as many power plants of any kind. And we definitely need
to continue to use our technology in the renewable areas. We need to get solar to
the point where it’s really, truly economically viable without subsidies. And there’s
great strides being made, from shingles that you can put on your house that are
solar panels as well. Without actually having to have a fragile solar panel up there,
that’s a technology that can be made right into the roof of your house and so I’m
confident that with all the smart people we have in the world and all of the science
and engineering talent that we have, that as a global society, we will engineer our
way out of this, but we got quite a bit of work to do.
Q: I agree and I also don’t think that you should pick your favorite power plant and
vet(?) that power plant against everything else, I mean I think that we need to work
our many fronts and I don’t think that any one energy source – and I would love to
be proved wrong on this – I don’t think there’s ever going to be one energy source
that’s perfect or that can meet all of our energy needs, and so I think you need to
continue forth scientific research in as many fields of energy as you can and some of
those might end up being dead-ends, but I think only if we do that, are we going to
really make sure that we are going to meet our energy needs in the future and to do
that in the future in the safest way possible and the way that impacts our planet the
least. So…All right…
A: The other consideration we have – and we can get off of our soapbox – is that
different countries around the world have different natural resources. So some
countries, if they choose that they want to have a lot of nuclear power plants, that
may also be the countries that don’t have other choices. And I think that’s important
for all of us to keep in mind, that not everybody has gas or oil or coal as options.
Not everybody has a climate that’s conducive to a lot of wind power or solar. So
different decisions are going to be made in different parts of the globe and again, I
just hope, as a global community, as time moves forward and we can improve our
science and engineering and our energy efficiency, that we can do a better job going
forward and we just won’t need as many power plants of any kind.
Q: OK, well, since we’ve been on our soapbox for a while, I think one of the
questions that I was going to ask you, I’m actually going to ask in a later interview.
Somebody wanted to know if you thought this was a setback for nuclear power and
if you could comment on some future technologies and I think we’ve sorta promised
to do that, kind of devote a whole interview to that – talking about how nuclear
power technology power has improved. Again, the Fukushima plants were built in
the 60’s and 70’s and there has been a lot of progress made, so I think we’ll save that
for another interview.
A: Yeah, let’s save that- let’s answer that question when we kinda do our wrap-up,
whenever that comes.
Q: Yeah, and again, that’s been a very common question and we’ve kinda
purposefully avoided that question because at first, when there was a crisis,
it wasn’t really relevant to the situation at hand, because as great as the new
technology is, it wasn’t at Fukushima, so we tried to really focus on the situation at
hand, but we will address that, we will try to research that.
A: Alright, well, let’s answer a couple questions and then we’re gonna need to wrap
up.
Q: Yeah, so this is the last one. And I think it’s actually relevant. So somebody
wrote in and they were concerned because the Vermont Yankee Power plant, which
you actually used to work for Vermont Yankee, so maybe you can comment on
this. It has been around for 40 years and either just received or is requesting to
extend its license for 20 more years, so that it can run for 60 years and, from what I
understand, and what this listener understands, Vermont Yankee is actually pretty
similar to Fukushima- the Fukushima 1. And this person wanted to know if, in light
of the recent events in Fukushima, if you think it’s a good idea that they’re extending
that license or not?
A: OK. So I don’t work in the industry anymore, so I don’t keep up with everything
that’s going on. But with respect to Vermont Yankee, originally, when the titles
were licensed, they were licensed for 40 years. And that 40 years started from the
day that you start doing construction on the plant. Or the day that the NRC granted
that license. What plants were able to do was make a construction recapture, so
that the 40 years started from the first time that you started operating. So that
would involve-
Q: How long does it take to build a power plant?
A: It wasn’t uncommon to take 4 or 5 years to build a power plant. Some of the
later ones stretch longer than that, because of all of the design changes that were
required after the Three Mile Incident, but typically again today, it takes about 4 to 5
years to build a nuclear power plant, in the time you turn that first shovel of dirt
until you’re able to operate. So in any event, that was done and the 40 years for the
original license was from the date that they first started operating. A lot of plants in
the US have been licensed for an additional 20 years and I think we talked about it
in one of the interviews. Even though the plant is 40 years old, most of it isn’t 40
years old. Many, many pieces and parts are replaced, turbine rotors… Vermont
Yankee went through a power upgrade a few years ago, so a lot of parts in the plant
were replaced, new electrical generator, so there are parts that are 40 years old, but
it’s not like your car. You can imagine that if you had- if your car is a nuclear power
plant, the frame might be 40 years old, but everything else – the engine, the interior,
all the body panels, they’ve all been replaced and they’re not 40 years old. But
nonetheless, the process is to basically demonstrate that you’ve come up with the
plant, you’ve made all the safety improvements and you apply for this 20 year
license extension. And it’s really complicated for the older plants, because they have
changed over the years. If you can imagine, these plants that were designed in the
60’s, we didn’t have computer-aided drawings and the computer technology that we
have today to do the calculations… I mean, these plants were designed with slide
rules, not computers. So the plants have spent a lot of money over the years to go
back and recalculate everything and revalidate all the assumptions that were made
in the engineering, from when the plant was originally built. In Vermont Yankee’s
case, the NRC did just grant their 20 year life extension, but in the state of Vermont,
they also need a certificate of public good from the Public Service Commission, and
last year, the Vermont State Senate voted to not authorize that. So Vermont Yankee,
as far as the NRC is concerned, can operate another 20 years, but unless the state of
Vermont Senate takes another vote, and authorizes the Public Service Order
Commission- I can’t remember what it’s called. To issue the certificate of public
good, they won’t have the green light to operate from the state of Vermont.
Now getting to the question that the person asked…. What do we think about
the fact? And I go back to what we said in one of the first couple of interviews that
we did. And I said, in light of what’s happened in Japan, where we had an
earthquake that’s beyond the design basis and we had a tsunami that was beyond
the design basis, we need to go back and look at all these plants and look at the
design basis and see if, given what we know today, we’re still OK on the design basis
of the plant. So Vermont is obviously more geologically stable than Japan, but we do
have earthquakes in New England. So are our assumptions still correct, about
what’s the worst-case earthquake? What’s the worst-case winds that we might have
from a hurricane? Or –
Q: A Nor’easter, for instance, could hit Vermont Yankee, theoretically.
A: A Nor’easter, or y’know, we don’t get tornadoes very much New England, but we
still get them occasionally.
Q: On speaking to the geology point, just for a minute, Vermont Yankee, geologically,
it’s very stable. There is a passive plate boundary, so if you want to know more
about why there was an earthquake in Japan, I’ll post a link, I’ve blogged about it
earlier, but basically, Japan, there are three tectonic plates that are interacting. And
that creates an area where there are going to be volcanoes and earthquakes and
on the East Coast of the United States, we don’t have plate boundaries, it’s actually
one plate that continues out all the way to the Mid-Atlantic ridge, it’s what’s called
a passive plate boundary, and so there’s really no friction or tension, so there isn’t
really a geological mechanism to get an earth quake of the magnitude that we
had in Japan and a tsunami that we had in Japan. However, on our other coast, in
California, we have the San Andreas Fault, which is a very large fault, and we also
have tectonic plates further north in Oregon and we have our volcanoes. And so
we, from a geologic perspective, I would actually be more concerned about nuclear
power plants that are out in California. And actually, thinking about the design basis
for those and really, I think that all power plants should consider this, I think that
what Japan is showing us is that maybe the design basis really isn’t the worst-case
scenario.
A: And so that I think is the key question to be asked is, in light of what we’ve
learned over the past couple weeks, are our assumption about the design basis
of the plant still valid? And Vermont Yankee’s on the Connecticut River. Are our
assumptions about the worst-case floods still valid? Or do we need to take a look at
earthquakes, natural disasters, those type of things, and make sure our assumptions
are still valid. And if they’re not, then that has to be looked at from an engineering
perspective and say, OK, then what are the new assumptions? And do we still meet
the criteria of whatever the new assumptions are? And if after all of that review,
the answer is yes, then by law and by practicality, the plant should continue to run
for the duration of their license. But I think one of the important things to do is to
apply the lessons learned and I know the president and the chairman of the NRC
has said they are going to go back now and take a look at all the plants in the US
and hopefully look at the design basis and make sure that, from an engineering
perspective, that any information we have is applied and that we still can- that
our assumptions are valid and that the risk – because there’s always a risk – is
acceptable.
Q: I think that some more geologists should be talking to some nuclear engineers
and some people who are experts at risk analysis. I guess not every geologist has a
father who’s a nuclear engineer, but it sounds like some dialogue between people
who have some knowledge about what these natural hazards might be and people
who know about nuclear power plants and people who are used to assessing risks
should all get together and really think about this issue seriously. And I’m glad to
hear that the president is pushing for that.
A: It’s not just geologists. So for every plant around the world, we’ve made
assumptions on what’s the worst-case scenario for when.
Q: Meteorologists, maybe lots of scientists.
A: And we need to look at what happened in Japan and say, well, if that was a- and
I don’t know, but if that was a 1 in 10 thousand year-event, how did it happen?
Were our assumptions invalid? Because it may turn out that there could be a
plant somewhere in the world where the worst-case wind that it was designed
for turns out to be too low because our assumptions were invalid. And that’s my
point. We’ve gotta go back and look at the design basis of each plant. We owe it to
ourselves, we owe it to the general population and make sure that our assumptions
are valid. And my guess is, in probably 99 percent of the cases, we’re gonna go
back and look at it and find that we’re fine. Especially for some of the older plants,
because they were designed with slide rules, a lot of times, they were over-designed,
because we didn’t have the computer technology to exactly calculate something. We
didn’t have computer drawings, so in a lot of cases, these plants were over-designed
and there’s a lot more design margin in them, versus maybe something that was
built more recently, that we’re able to calculate more precisely.
A good example of that would be, you take an airplane leg of a DC-9, a few of
which are still flying with Delta. Because of the time frame that those planes were
designed and built, those planes are just over-built, I mean you could probably
almost fly them forever, because they ‘re just really solid. And today, obviously,
when we build a plane, we got all the computer technology and we calculate how
many times you can take off and land before we break a landing gear. And it’s the
same type of thing, when we didn’t have the sophisticated technology to calculate
things as accurately as we’re able to do now, we built a lot more design margin into
it. So my guess is in a lot of cases – even if the design basis for some of these plants
change, we’re probably going to be OK because they were over constructed. But
there may be some cases, where we find out it could be higher than we thought. Or
that tsunami or wave from the ocean or that wind could be a little stronger than we
thought. And we might have to go back and make some modifications on some of
them.
Q: And also, not only has there been some advances in the nuclear power industry
and technology, but I would say that in geology and in other natural sciences, there
have been improvements in our estimates, we- compared to 40 years ago, we also
have computers and we have better models and so if the plants were designed-
and I don’t know if they’ve updated this, but if the plants were designed for what
we thought was the worst quake- earthquake or Nor’easter or winds or whatever
40 years ago, I imagine that because there are many scientists working on those
problems too, you’ve actually updated those estimates and there’s probably new
risk assessments available for those. I don’t know, they’ve probably gone back and
reassessed that to a point, but it’d be worth evaluating that on a large scale and I
think Fukushima will hopefully inspire the United States and other countries to take
a close look at that.
A: Yeah, I mean no doubt that over the years, these things have been looked at over
and over again. But now’s the time- definite time to take a step back and say, woah!
We just saw something here that nobody expected to happen. Does that apply
anywhere else?
Q: Or is that truly a one in a- I actually don’t know- one in 10 thousand case or
something. I should actually talk to some geologist friends about how common this
is, but… we should probably figure out what the probability of that event was. Was
this just a very unlucky improbable event, or was this something that is geologically
plausible, could happen again or could happen in a different way somewhere else? I
think it’s good to think about all these things again.
A: All right.
Q: All right, I think it’s time for both of us to get to bed, so… All right, have a safe
trip home, Dad, and I’ll talk to you- are we going to talk to you tomorrow?
A: I don’t think I’ll be able to because of my travel schedule, so maybe Thursday.
Q: OK, our next interview will be on Thursday. And please do continue to send
questions. Fortunately our readership has leveled off, probably because the interest
in the news is less, and so we’re receiving fewer questions, which is good because I
was pretty overwhelmed with them for a while. So if you didn’t get your question
answered before and you really want to know the answer, send it in again or send in
new questions and we’ll continue to answer questions for a while. So…all right.
A: OK.
Q: Good night, Dad.
A: Good night.
A Quick Note: Next Interview Scheduled for Evening of 3/22
My father and I were originally going to do another interview this evening. However, we’re both exhausted. Earlier today my dad had to make his way through a March snowstorm to fly out for a business trip, and he’s very tired. I’m also very tired– over the past few days, I have been doing hours upon hours of chemistry in lab in addition to the time I’ve been putting into these interviews. Thus, we are going to skip tonight’s interview so that we can both rest.
Tomorrow and Wednesday I am going to be measuring uranium and thorium isotopes (in uranium and thorium concentrates which I’ve extracted from rocks from Oman) on the NEPTUNE mass spectrometer here at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Since machine time on the NEPTUNE costs about $1300 per day, I will not be able to record tomorrow’s interview until the evening sometime. I need to make the best use of my time on the NEPTUNE. I’ll try to have Interview 10 posted by late evening tomorrow night (EDT). If you have any questions you want me to ask my dad tomorrow evening, please email them to georneysblog@gmail.com. Thanks!
9th Interview with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster in Japan
Update: Gerald has kindly hosted all of the new audio files. I will update all the audio links (some of which are broken) soon– tonight or tomorrow. DONE Meanwhile, you can listen to all the audio files on the new vimeo channel Brandon and I created. You can also listen to most of the interviews on Brad Go’s YouTube channel.
Here’s the vimeo channel:
In the interview today, we talked some about radioactivity and uranium isotopes. I actually study uranium-series isotope chemistry in rocks. A part of my PhD thesis research is using the decay of uranium-series isotopes found naturally in all rocks (at low, non-dangerous levels, in most cases) to determine ages of rocks and minerals. I am actually working on this chemistry today in lab. When I eventually return to blogging about geology, I promise to write more about my uranium-series research in geology. For now, I though it would be good to talk briefly about uranium and its isotopes since this is relevant to nuclear power. My dad and I also discuss this topic in our interview. You can see my isotope discussion and some useful figures after the jump.
Because of work obligations, our next interview will not be posted until late tomorrow evening (EDT).
There is text on uranium and its isotopes after the jump. Please transcribe this interview if you have time and interest– just post a comment below so that others do not duplicate your effort.
Update: Thanks to Michelle, a transcript is now available after the jump.
![]() |
| Cartoon of an atom. Note that this cartoon is not to scale and the nucleus is very, very small. Cartoon taken from here. |
|
Radioactive Decay of Uranium-238 and Uranium-235:
Uranium-238 and uranium-235 are both radioactive. A radioactive atom is an atom that does not have a stable nucleus. Because its nucleus is not stable, a radioactive atom will eventually decay to a different atom that is stable. This decay occurs at a steady rate that depends on nuclear properties but which can be measured (and used to date rocks!). Some radioactive atoms just go through one decay because the first decay brings them to a stable nucleus. However, sometimes radioactive atoms have to decay through a whole series of other radioactive atoms until they finally reach an atom that is stable. This is the case with uranium-238 and uranium-235. Uranium-238 decays through a whole bunch of intermediate, also radioactive atoms until it reaches stable lead-206. Similarly, uranium-235 decays through a whole different bunch of intermediate, also radioactive atoms until it reaches stable lead-207. |
![]() |
| Figure taken from Principles and Applications of Geochemistry by, Gunter Faure, 1998: pg.280. Click on the figure to view larger. |
***********************
Transcript for Interview 9:
Q: Good afternoon, Dad.
A: Good afternoon.
Q: All right, we’re gonna continue with out interview series. My name is Evelyn
Mervine and this is the 9th in a series of interviews with my dad, Mark Mervine, who
is a nuclear engineer. If you would like to listen to any of the previous interviews,
you can find them on my geology blog, Georneys, which is G-E-O-R-N-E-Y-S.
Georneys.blogspot.com. And in today’s interview- sorry, before we get started, I’ve
been try to give the time and date so…. Today is the 20th of March and it’s currently
4PM Eastern Daylight Time.
And as I was saying, in today’s interview, there’s gonna be 3 parts – the first
part, my dad is going to give his usual update about what’s going on at Fukushima.
In the next part, in the previous interviews, my dad has promised that he would do a
little homework and talk a little bit more about radioactivity and radiation, so he
will do that. And then finally we’re gonna ask as many questions- I’m gonna ask as
many questions as I can and my dad will answer those. And then again, because we
are receiving so many emails, we can’t answer every single question. With that said,
Dad, would you like to start with your update?
A: OK. So just as a reminder, we’re talking about the Fukushima 1 nuclear power
plant in Japan. And this power plant actually consists of 6 boiling water reactors.
And the ones that we have been most concerned about is Units 1 through 4. Let me
just quickly give an update on Units 5 and 6. So as we indicated a couple days ago,
they have been able to get a diesel generator started at Unit 6 and run a cable, which
essentially is the equivalent of a long extension cord over to Unit 5, to be able to
begin to restore power to both of those units. They now have 2 diesel generators
up at Unit 6 and they are supplying power to Unit 5. And in both of those reactors,
they’ve been able to establish normal heat removal capabilities. And they’ve also-
the reports conflict a little bit – but either removed some panels from the reactor
building or drove some holes in the reactor building, but if there was a buildup of
hydrogen, they would allow it to escape before it became at a level that it would
be explosive. Given that they were able to restore power and cooling, and hoping
they don’t have any more issues with those diesel generators, that’s probably not a
concern and we should consider that those two units are stable. Another reminder,
those two units were shut down for maintenance at the time of the earthquake.
Units 1 through 3 were operating at the time of the earthquake, and Unit 4
was shut down. And all the fuel in Unit 4 had been moved to the spent fuel pool –
the entire core had been taken out, not just 1/3 of it, which is normally done for a
refueling outage. And the (?) there would be that they were doing some more
extensive repairs or inspections of the reactor vessel and they needed to remove all
of the fuel, but in any case, all of that fuel was moved to the spent fuel pool for Unit
4.
Over the past few days, I think most people are aware of, they’ve been
pumping seawater into reactors 1, 2 and 3 and maintaining a relatively low pressure
in those reactors, while venting steam. The reactor buildings of Units 1 and 3 were
severely damaged by hydrogen explosions, early- relatively early into this event.
There’s also been an explosion in Unit 2, but it was less significant and there is less
damage in the Unit 2 reactor building. And they have removed a couple of panels
from the Reactor 2 building, such that if there were more hydrogen to build up, it
would vent out and not become combustible or explosive. In Unit 4, even though
the reactor was not operating and all the fuel had been removed, there was a
buildup of hydrogen in the reactor building, which did cause an explosion and the
Unit 4 reactor building has been seriously damaged.
What’s been going on in the last 24 to 36 hours is it’s continued to inject
seawater into reactors 1, 2 and 3, and maintain pressure by venting. They put a
tremendous amount of water into the reactor 3 building by using fire equipment
and water cannons and in the past 24 hours, they’ve done the same with Unit 4. And
the purpose of doing that was to try to get water into the spent fuel pools at those
two buildings. They are also in the process of trying to run power from the grid to
those units and although I haven’t heard a lot about the progress today, the last
update from yesterday was that they had managed to bring that cable over to Units
1 and 2. And they’re in the process of- first, they’re gonna restore power to the
control room and then try to work their way through and see if they can get power
back to at least 1 cooling system. And they’re starting with Unit 2, because the
damage from the earthquake and from the explosions is less significant in Unit 2
and I think that’s a good strategy – when you’re trying to manage a situation like
this, where you have multiple things going on…they’ve got Units 5 and 6 stable, so
for the most part, from an operational perspective, that’s not something they have to
worry about in real-time. If they can restore power into Unit 2, which is the least
damaged, and get that one in a better condition, then they can focus on the
remaining problems at 1, 3 and 4.
So that’s the current status. Now we got a lot of questions and I have- I said
last time, and I copied you, Evelyn, that I would try to answer some questions about
radiation and radioactivity. I actually ended up talking a little bit about it in my
interview with Anthony. But I’ll just do a little bit of a recap. First off, I would
encourage people to take a look at Wikipedia. There’s actually been some great
information added in the past 24 hours, so if you take a look at Wikipedia for the
Fukushima 1 Nuclear accident, there’s a lot of good information there. And also, if
you do a search for “nuclear fission product”. There’s a good article there. And
they’re a little bit technical, and maybe a little bit hard to understand, but in
conjunction with what I’m about to explain, hopefully that will form a complete
picture for folks.
So we talked about this over the past week or so, but when fuel’s initially put
into the reactor, it’s Uranium. And it’s slightly enriched, so it’s approximately 96,
97% Uranium-238 and 3 or 4% Uranium-235. Now, Uranium is radioactive and-
naturally radioactive- and it decays by giving off alpha particles. But as I’ve talked
about, alpha particles don’t have a good penetrating range, and they can actually be
stopped by just a sheet of paper. So normally, alpha particles are not much of a
concern if you get them on you, because you’re outer layer of skin will stop them,
certainly your clothing will. But the big concern with alpha particles is if you ingest
them, or if they get in your eyes, so if you breathe them in or they’re on your hands
and you get them in your food, or if you get them in your eye, where your eye
doesn’t have the same protection your skin does, there’s concern about that. But
normally, a fuel rod, when it’s new, because the fuel is encased in zirconium, the
alpha particles won’t even penetrate that and you can really- other than you wanna
be wearing gloves, because you don’t want to damage the fuel or scratch it – you can
actually handle that without any concern. Once it’s in the reactor, though, it’s a
different story. So Uranium-235 will absorb a neutron and fission and break apart.
And when it does, it forms another- a number of, what we call, fission products. And
that’s where that article on Wikipedia comes in really handy if you wanna get into a
little bit of detail of what the different fission products are. But the most significant
ones that we talk about from a human health perspective are Iodine, Caesium,
Strontium. In particular, the reason that those three are significant is iodine can be
absorbed by your thyroid and your thyroid is one of your more active glands. So if
you get a lot of radioactive iodine in there is bad because radiation, or radioactivity
on your glands would have a tendency to cause more cell damage than, say you got
something on your skin, where the outer couple layers of your skin are normally
dead, so on your skin, it’s not gonna have that much of an impact. The two others,
Strontium and Caesium also replace what’s naturally in your body. So Strontium
will be absorbed by your body, similar to calcium. And so it gets into your bones
and bone marrow. And then Caesium is a lot like potassium to your body, and we all
know that we have a lot of potassium in our bodies, so the Caesium will be absorbed
instead of the potassium. So we talk about those a lot. And that’s why it’s a concern
when these things get into the environment. So I thought about the (?) particulates
that would be found in Uranium. The other thing that happens in nuclear fuel,
which we talked about is, the Uranium-238 does not fission, but it will also absorb a
neutron. It just doesn’t spit apart, it becomes Plutonium-230- I’m sorry, it becomes
Uranium-239. And after a couple decays, it becomes Plutonium-239. And
Plutonium has a very long half-life and will stay in the environment for a long period
of time and again, you have the decay that was- of Plutonium that would be very
dangerous to human health if it was ingested.
Q: And Dad, just to interject, that’s because it decays more quickly than the
Uranium? Is that why it’s more hazardous?
A: Well, it actually- for a given quantity, it has a very long half-life, which means it
actually decays less quickly.
Q: OK, I wasn’t sure what the decay rate was.
A: But if it becomes airborne or gets onto, y’know, food that you might ingest and it
gets into your body, then that’s problematic. So just like it would be problematic to
get Uranium in your body as well, because it’s an alpha-omitter and externally, your
skin is a good shield, but internally, you don’t have that skin, so it’ll get into your
lungs, your stomach, your intestines, those types of things.
Now, the fission product that we talked about, the Caesium and Iodine and
Strontium also are radioactive and they decay. And they decay by giving off a beta
particle. Again, external to your body, beta particles penetrate a little bit farther
than alpha particles, but again, they’re not as much of a concern outside the body,
it’s: “did I get it in my eye?” “Did I get it in my mouth?” “Did I breathe it in?” That’s
more of a concern. Or if it gets into the food chain, “did I ingest it because it was in
the food chain?” So the other type of radiation that we talk about are the gamma, or
the gamma rays, which are very, very similar to x-rays. The gamma radiation that
would be coming from the plant is not much of a concern except for at the plant,
because the farther you get away from it, the lower the levels. So certainly if you’re
outside of the 30 kilometer zone, the gamma radiation from the plant is not a
concern. Now, it is true that some of these particles that decay- and I mention ones
that give off alpha particles and beta particles, some of them will give off a gamma
particle, and again, if that gets inside of you, in a significant quantity, it won’t be
good for you because it’s inside your body. And could be damaging cells inside your
body. But the gamma radiation, people have seen, oh the levels at the plant are so
many millirems or other units, and that’s really not a concern to the general public,
the gamma radiation.
Q: That’s just close to the plant, that that’s a concern?
A: It would be at the plant itself or within- I don’t know what the levels are today,
but yesterday, it was reported that the levels at the plant boundary were 1 to 2
millirem per hour. That’s actually now fairly low, compared to what it’s been and
if you were to just go a little bit farther away from the plant boundary, it would
probably be almost undetectable from the gamma radiation.
Q: And that’s important because I know there’s been a lot of panic in the news about
your clothing doesn’t protect you from gamma radiation, as we said, but we’re not
actually gonna get that radiation unless you’re close to the plant, right?
A: Right, so that’s a concern for the workers at the plant. But for the general public,
the bigger concern is the alpha and beta emitters. So the fission products that were
in the fuel, but now may have gone into the environment. I shouldn’t say may have
gotten into the environment, I think it’s been shown that they have gone into the
environment. And the key is what is the amount, or the quantities, that have gotten
into the environment and if they’re at a level that would be dangerous or not. So
I don’t know if that’s cleared things up anymore. Again, I would refer people to a
couple of these articles, in conjunction to the explanations we’ve given, so it’ll form a
good picture.
Q: Sure, and I just wanna say something quickly that I think maybe isn’t clear. I
actually- for my thesis research, I actually study the uranium decay chain in rocks.
I don’t work with anything that’s super-radioactive, but I do study these things
in very trace quantities in rocks. And I know that we’ve been talking a lot about
Uranium being enriched and maybe some people don’t understand what that means.
And basically, in nature- and I actually just looked up on the table with nuclides,
and I’ll put a link to this table on the blog – in nature, on average, it varies a little
bit in the environments, the Uranium-238 isotope is normally about 99.27% and
the Uranium-235 is normally about .72% and so when you say that you have 2 to
3% of Uranium-235, that means that you’ve enriched it from that natural isotopic
distribution. So I just don’t know if we said that very clearly, so I just wanted to add
that.
A: Correct and that takes a lot of technology. It’s done in stages using (???) fusion,
so Uranium is actually converted to a gas and goes through a series of stages and
membranes, which is the way that we increase- not gonna go into a lot of detail,
that’s the way that we increase a percentage of Uranium-235 to the percentage of
Uranium-238.
Q: Anyway, I just wanted to make that clear, and this is something that I do study,
so I know a little bit about it, unlike most nuclear power, which I have to rely on my
father for. And I just wanna ask a question, now, before I move on to the general
questions, that I know many people are concerned about in Japan. There’s been
quite a bit of concern about the food supply in Japan and there have been reports –
some people have sent me questions – there are people very worried about whether
or not it is safe to consume food, in particular things like milk and fresh produce.
Can you comment on that? Is the food source at all contaminated with radiation?
A: Radioactivity.
Q: Radioactivity, sorry.
A: Well, there have been reports in the past day or so that they were able to detect
some of these fission products – so Iodine, Caesium – in some spinach and milk and
very, very trace amounts in the water in Tokyo. In the reports that I saw, I didn’t see
any report on what the levels are. And honestly, I personally don’t know what the
allowable limits are in Japan. So I don’t know if these- in the spinach and the milk –
whether these were below the allowable limit or above the allowable limit.
Q: Has the Japanese government made a statement on that at all, do you know?
A: They have, but I haven’t actually seen anything specifically.
Q: I just wanted to see if you knew.
A: So the answer is, it is something that people should be concerned about. But I
don’t think it’s something that people should be panicked about. And I think we
talked about this, either with yourself or with Anthony. That we’re getting more
organized, we’re getting more monitoring teams on the ground, to be able to take
more samples on a reoccurring basis. And I think that clearly, you’re gonna find
some detectable levels of these fission products in the countryside and in the food
chain. The question is, is it a level that is a concern? And hopefully with the
exception of the immediate area surrounding the plant, the answer will be no. And
we talked about that, for sure, I think a couple days ago – that definitely in the
immediate area around the plant, we’re gonna have to do a lot of sampling to ensure
that we don’t have any concern there. But the farther away you get – we’ve been
vary fortunately during the worst of the releases during this event, that the winds
were blowing from the west to the east and carrying the vast majority of these
particles out over the ocean. But some obviously did go inland and the question
now is what is the level? I think people have to be rational. All food has all kinds of
bad stuff in it all the time. Bacteria, fertilizer, I mean all kinds of stuff, and the key is
the levels are normally low, so it’s not anything that’s a hazard to human health. I
think it’s the case here, that as long as we do sampling and we’re sure that we’re not
exceeding any limits, that we shouldn’t panic. We should be concerned, but we
shouldn’t panic. And we’ll have to have a little faith in the people that are doing the
surveys and the government, that they’re gonna keep the food chain safe.
Obviously, they are doing sampling or they wouldn’t have determined that there
was these particles in the spinach and in the milk. So I think that’s a good thing, in
that the sampling is happening. I think it’s also good – although personally, I don’t
know know what the levels are – that they were transparent and they made the
announcement. And they have announced also that very, very low levels were
found in the water in Tokyo, but nothing to be concerned about.
Q: Well, that’s good and I think they should be concerned and as a- I just wanna
echo something that you said yesterday in your call with Anthony, that the nuclear
power industry is obviously concerned about the radiation and radioactivity and
you said sometimes in power plants, they do such a good job of shielding, that
actually the levels at the power plant are lower than in nature, I found that very
interesting that you said that. So they are aware of this and they’re used to dealing
with this, so hopefully they will continue to be more transparent and let people
know about what they should be concerned about and what they should not be
concerned about.
OK, do you have anything else to say before I go on to some questions, Dad?
A: No, I’ll take some questions.
Q: OK, so again, we can’t answer every question, but we’ll go on ahead with the
ones we’ve decided to answer today and we have answered many questions, so if
you don’t see an answer to your question, check out the previous interviews, plus
the interview with Anthony. There are transcripts up for everything, and actually,-
except for the interview with Anthony, but that transcript should hopefully be up
soon.
OK, the first question is… I know we’ve talked a little about this, but I think
some people are still confused. Can you explain a little bit more about how control
rods work?
A: Sort of, OK. So in a boiling water reactor, the control rods are shaped like a cross.
And there’ll be fuel rods that are put together into what’s called a fuel element,
or fuel assembly. Usually 7 by 7, so 49 fuel rods, although that can vary with the
reactor or the design, those are put together in an assembly and the control rods
will go up between 4 of those. So the fuel rods- the fuel rods are obviously spaced
a little bit and the control rod will go up between 4 of those. Control rod has boron
in it and boron will absorb a neutron, but it won’t fission. And we talked a couple
days ago about a reactor has to be self-sustaining, or order to be critical, in order
to generate enough energy to be a power plant. And if we don’t have – or I should
say, if the amount of, what we call, thermal neutrons in the core isn’t a constant
and it’s going down, then the power will go down. If it’s a little bit above constant,
then power will go up. And so what you do with the control rods is if you want to
increase power, you’ll move the control rods out of the core a little bit. And that will
– just because of the surface area of the control rods, by taking them out of the core
a little bit, then less neutrons will be absorbed in the control rods and more will be
available to fission with the fuel. And that will cause power to go up and a little bit
more energy to be generated. The opposite is true. If you wanna reduce power, you
can just move the control rods up into the core a little bit and – one of my references
is on a boiling water reactor, the control rods actually come up through the bottom
of the reactor vessel, up through the bottom of the core. So if you move them up
a little, then they’ll absorb more neutrons and cause power to go down. And then
of course, in the case of an automatic shutdown, or SCRAM, the control rods would
be fully inserted into the core. So all approximately 14 feet of the core would have
control rods in them, and then that would cause the reactor to go significantly sub-
critical and shut down. Does that explain what you were looking for?
Q: I hope so. I think that clears it up for me, hopefully that clears it up for some
listeners.
A: The key is, the control rod absorbs neutrons and if you have- if you don’t have
enough neutrons to keep a self-sustaining reaction, then power will go down. Or in
the case where you fully insert them, like on an automatic shutdown, you’ll cause a
large number of neutrons to be absorbed by the control rods and power will drop
dramatically and the reactor will go sub-critical.
Q: OK, I think that’s enough on that one. For the next question, this is another- I
think now we’re sort of clearing up some confusion from some people. Someone
was writing to me because I guess reading various sources on the internet, they
weren’t sure if at any point during the nuclear disaster, any of the fuel rods at any
of the reactors or any of the spent fuel pools were either or partially or completely
uncovered, meaning that they didn’t have any water on top of them. Can you
answer that question, or do you know?
A: So based on what we’ve seen happen, which is we’ve have hydrogen explosions
in Units 1, 2 and 3 and from the spent fuel pool of Unit 4, and the reports that we
have from the site, we do believe that part of the fuel rods have been uncovered at
reactors 1, 2 and 3 and also in the spent fuel pool at Unit 4. And why do we think
that? Well, we think that because in order to generate hydrogen, temperature had
to get beyond 2200 degrees Fahrenheit for the zirconium to interact with water and
form hydrogen. We had those explosions. The fact that they were able to detect
the fission products in the environment tells us that the fuel has to be damaged in
one or more of those reactors, otherwise, they would’ve been still encased in the
zirconium cladding. And then reports from the site itself have reported that they
think in Unit 2, once there was the explosion in Unit 3 and we lost cooling in Unit
2 for a period of time, they think the core there got uncovered twice. And they’ve
been trying to maintain with the seawater injection the cores in those three reactors
at least half-covered. What we don’t know is the extent of the fuel damage. And the-
probably the only way that will determine that is the same way it was at Three Mile
Island, that after years of cooling and having the radiation levels drop in the plant,
they’ll actually be able to either remove the head of the reactor or do a camera-
type inspection and determine how much of the fuel was actually damaged and how
severely damaged. As we talked about before, was it blistered, was it warped, or did
it really melt.
Q: Do you know what the extent of the damage was a Chernobyl?
A: Chernobyl was a completely different situation.
Q: Or not Chernobyl, sorry. I meant Three Mile Island.
A: Well, we know at – boy, it’s been a long time and I probably shouldn’t say without
going back and looking at some information, but we know there was definitely fuel
damage at Three Mile Island. I just don’t recall the extent of it.
Q: Alright, well, you have a homework assignment, as if you don’t already have
enough homework assignments.
A: Oh, thank you.
Q: My job is to deal with the internet, your job is to get the information. OK, so
I think we answered that question. Let’s go on. This is a question that I believe
you talked about with Anthony yesterday, but again, I don’t think everyone’s
heard that interview and there isn’t a transcript up yet, so um, this has come in
from many, many people. They wanna know why they just can’t build power
plants underground. And I guess they wanna know first, wouldn’t building them
underground provide good shielding and second, if that’s true, why don’t they put
them underground?
A: OK, well that’s an interesting question and it might not be obvious why that’s
probably not realistic. So obviously if they were underground and you could seal
that, that would provide a lot of shielding. And you could contain the radiation and
the radioactivity. But the problem is these power plants are huge. And usually
a power plant has two ratings. You have the Megawatt Thermal Rating and the
Megawatt Electric Rating. You need to probably have been an engineer or taken
thermodynamics to understand power cycle efficiencies, but it’s not possible today,
with any kind of power plant, whether it’s the engine in your car or a coal-power
plant or a nuclear power plant, to be 100% efficient. And typically, these plants are
somewhere on the order of 30 to 40% efficient, depending on the specific design of
the plant and the technology that we had at the time it was built. So what does that
mean? Well, that means that in the reactor, you have to generate approximately
three times more power than actually becomes electricity and leaves that plant. The
other approximately 60 to 70% has to be- is lost. That’s all of the power that that
ends up, in this case, ultimately ending up in the ocean. So one of the problems you
would have building a power plant underground is where do you get enough cooling
or enough water to remove the heat? When the steam comes through the turbine, a
good 60% of that power is still there and it has to be cooled to turn the steam back
into water and back into the power plant. And that just has to do with the principles
of thermodynamics, that with the technology we have today, we’re nowhere close
to being 100% efficient. And so we have a big cooling requirement, for any power
plant, not just a nuclear power plant. Whether it be gas or coal, they all need a lot of
cooling to condense the steam back into water. So that would be one concern.
The other concern, of course, is you gotta connect these power plants to the
grid, so you need a lot of space on-site for power lines and transmission lines, circuit
breakers, there’s usually a big, huge switch yard. And of course, you would have to
have a way to get the power out of wherever underground place this was, this
would not be an impossible thing to overcome, but again, I think it’s- in conjunction
with the need for cooling, you’d be talking about having to build a huge cavern,
which would probably make it, if not technically impossible, economically
impossible.
Q: OK, is that all you have to say on that question?
A: Well, I don’t know what else I can say, other than I’m trying to imagine a scenario
where you would have a big enough cavern, far enough down, and yet still have
access to enough water for cooling and those type of things and I just- I think it
would be difficult, if not impossible.
Q: Sounds like it would not be very economically feasible, either. OK. –
A: And you being the geologist can tell people there’s all kinds of issues with that,
in terms of trying to put something underground and having all the problems that
people have just building tunnels.
Q: Absolutely, it would be- y’know, if you think about what it takes to build just
something like the tunnel that goes from France to England and all the problems
they have with that, it would be an enormous task to try and put a power plant
underground and there’s also problems, I mean, just because something’s
underground doesn’t mean that it’s gonna be safe. A lot of our ground water, it’s
in permeable layers that are quite deep down and so you’d have a lot of concerns
about any kind of nuclear contamination getting into ground water. I mean, they
can try and line it and contain it, but just because it’s deep in the earth doesn’t mean
that it isn’t going to become a problem for us at the surface, I can definitely say that.
Alright, let’s move on to our last question for today. And this question is
again- actually all of these questions are ones that have come in from multiple
people, so it’s interesting that multiple people have the same questions. But this one
is….we’ve talked before about how if you add seawater to a nuclear power plant for
cooling, rather than using freshwater, that’s bad because seawater is more corrosive
and it causes damage. And also we know that the explosions that have happened
have caused damage. So the question is do you think any of the 6 nuclear power
plants at Fukushima can be reopened for power, or are they all going to have to be
decommissioned?
A: Well, I think it’s pretty safe to say that Units 1 through 4 will no longer be viable
power plants. And they’ll have to be decommissioned. Units 5 and 6 have not really
been damaged and, to my knowledge, they haven’t used seawater in either one
of those units. So it’s possible, depending on radiation levels and contamination
levels at the site, that Units 5 and 6 may be viable. The question is, y’know, given
what happened, with respect to the earthquake and the tsunami, are they viable
from that perspective? In other words, now that we know what we know, we can’t
allow it to happen again. So it may turn out that the location of the site is not viable
going forward. So I would think in theory, that Units 5 and 6 may be OK. I think the
question is, given what’s happened, would we want to use those 2 units again or
not. And that’s something that a bunch of- again, assuming that the radiation and
contamination levels would allow them to operate, would that be something where
we could modify the facility enough to have protection or not, I don’t know. That
would be something a lot of engineers and the Japanese government would have to
look at. My guess is probably not, but I can’t really say.
Q: Well, that’s probably- I’m sure those are questions that people, y’know, not just
involved in Japan, but people are asking that about power plants in geologically
active regions all over the world.
A: So 1 through 4, definitely not. 5 and 6, maybe, but I kinda doubt it, given that
this has turned out to be not a good location. But y’know, these power plants cost
billions of dollars to build and it may turn out that 5 and 6 are physically separate,
they are on the same site, but they’re some distance away, it might be possible
to build a big wall or some seawall or something to protect them, but again, that
would be something that I think the Japanese equivalent of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission would have to take a look at. And we don’t know, specifically, how
badly damaged they were, in terms of their electrical systems. Apparently a lot less
damaged than the other ones. But we don’t know where all the systems are actually
located on the site and what they’re risk would be going forward.
Q: Alright, I think that that’s all for today.
A: OK.
Q: Do you have any last thoughts before we end?
A: I just wanna add one thing, we talked about radiation and radioactivity. And
I did see one news report that came out and corrected it, but even today, looking
in news reports, there was a lot of talk about Unit 3 today, because pressure was
building up in the containment, but that has stabilized out. They thought maybe
they would have to vent the containment there again, but they decided they didn’t
need to. And again, the news made a big deal of it, because that reactor has the mix
oxide fuel , which has both Uranium and Plutonium in it. As we discussed many,
many times, any fuel that’s been in a reactor has Plutonium in it.
Q: OK, Dad, that’s good for today.
A: OK.
Q: Take care, bye.
A: OK, bye.
Special Interview: My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, Talks with a Japanese Citizen in Nagoya, Japan
In Interview 7 I mentioned how my dad was threatening to replace me as his interviewer because of the problems I was having with call quality (high-pitch and echo on my side). Fortunately, the call quality has improved (thanks again to the Skype PR representative!), and my new internet tech friends are helping to improve the quality of all of the audios. Mike is enhancing the call quality to the best of his ability. He improved the audio for Interview 1 significantly and is doing his best with other ones. The echos are difficult to fix, but he is trying. Since kiwi6 took down most of the audio files, I have decided to host them elsewhere. Gerald kindly offered to host him on his server, which has good bandwidth. By the end of the weekend or early next week, I hope to update all of the audio links to the permanently-hosted, improved audio files. For now, everything is still available on the vimeo channel. Brandon, who is helping me run the vimeo channel, also plans to update all the audio on the vimeo videos. I hope that Brad is able to update the audio on his YouTube channel.
Also, I am happy to announce that all 8 Interviews now have full transcripts. Thank you to all of the transcribers: Ashlyn, Jesse, Chris, Kirsten, Gregg, Michelle, Maria, and Sophie.
Finally, thank you to everyone who has posted comments and sent me emails. Your kind words mean a great amount to my dad and I, and we will continue to answer as many of your questions as possible. Thank you also for spreading the word. Please do continue to take these interviews and spread them far and wide on the internet.
Thank you so much for all of the help. Because of time constraints, when it comes to technical problems and the transcripts, I have been executing what my dad calls “3D Leadership” : Decide, Delegate, Disappear. I appreciate that I have many volunteers to whom I can delegate. Without the help of volunteers, my dad and I could not do what we do here.
As I was saying, my dad jokingly threatened to replace me because of the technical difficulties we were having for a couple of days. I didn’t think my dad was serious– I mean, I’m his daughter– but he was serious! For today’s interview, my dad is interviewed by a Japanese citizen currently living in Nagoya, Japan. My dad informs me that I am not permanently fired– tomorrow we will continue with our regular update in Interview 9. If you have questions for tomorrow, please send them in by tonight (georneysblog@gmail.com).
Late last night (EDT) my dad did an interview with Anthony Tatekawa, who is currently in Nagoya, Japan and very concerned about the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. Anthony is a Japanese citizen of mixed descent. His mother is Japanese and his father is Columbian. Impressively, Anthony is fluent in Japanese, Spanish, and English!
Late Thursday night, I received this facebook message from Anthony:
Hi Evelyn,
How are you?
My name is Anthony Tatekawa, Japanese citizen currently refuged in Nagoya city in south Japan. Due to the problems with the reactor in Fukushima I decided to go south mainland Japan for safety.
I have been following your interviews with your dad since day 1, and I think they are extremely valuable. Some of my foreign friends in Japan have commented and contacted you already.
However, I would like to see if there is a possibility we could have an interview with your father regarding the current situation in Fukushima.
We have several concerns we would like to discuss. Do you think that could be possible. If not, are you planning to interview your father in the future? Maybe we could talk and I could give you a direct account of what is happening here so you can ask your dad.
I believe what your dad has been doing has made many people understand the complexity of nuclear issues, and that further explanation about the risks could save lives here in Japan.
Anyways contact me if you have any questions.
I replied to Anthony right away and called my dad. My dad and I had just decided that we didn’t have time for the few media interview requests that were coming in. Much as we would love to accommodate these requests, we just don’t have time. I told my dad about Anthony’s facebook message, and my dad asked “This is a Japanese citizen?” I said yes, and my dad said to tell Anthony to email him to set up a time to talk.
Late last night, Anthony spoke with my dad for about an hour and recorded the call. You can find Anthony’s interview on YouTube and on the Georneys vimeo channel (also see below). You also might want to check out Anthony’s blog.
After the interview, Anthony send me another facebook message:
Hi Evelyn,
How are you doing?
I just had a conversation with your dad over yahoo messenger. It was over an hour! It was great to have first hand information about all the different issues we are concerned here. I am currently splitting the conversations to upload them to YouTube. I’ll send you a link when its finished.
I really appreciate the work you and your dad are doing bringing hope to all this people.
Do not feel sorry about this tragedy, with the work you are doing you are doing more than enough, this is what we need, first hand scientific information.
Thank you, Anthony, for your kind facebook messages. And thank you, Dad, for taking the time last night to talk to Anthony.
Update: vimeo fixed.
Update: One YouTube seems to be missing (I’ll have to ask Anthony) and the vimeo is still slow. We will fix the vimeo soon, but there is now a better link (much faster) for the audio below.
Update: Because the vimeo is having trouble, below is the audio (again hosted at kiwi6, will move it soon). I’ve asked my tech team volunteers to look into this matter. The slow loading problem might be because this is in podcast format with chapters and such.
Here is their conversation on vimeo:
Please see the announcement page for more information about these interviews:
Q: Okay, sorry. Yeah, so, so we were on, uh, this information that is, this information that is going on in, in Tokyo, and uh, and uh the stuff that the, the media, the Japanese media, is not saying. What kind of information do you think that they have been withholding? Or they are afraid of …
A: No, I don’t know that… I don’t know that the media is necessarily withholding the information.
Q: Yeah.
A: Uh, I think, I think moreso the *inaudible* needs to be more forthcoming with the data.
Q: Yeah.
A: So the, the fire that was in the, the spent fuel pool of Reactor 4 was 2 or 3 days ago.
Q: Yeah.
A: And, and that was when they had the explosion…
Q: Yeah.
A: …that damaged that building.
Q: Yeah.
A: To my knowledge, there hasn’t been a fire since then.
Q: Yeah.
A: But the concern is that they’ve lost water…
Q: Mmmhmmm.
A: …in both the Number 3 and Number 4 spent fuel cooling pools.
Q: Yeah.
A: And that’s why you’ve seen on the news the attempts to drop water by helicopter…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and the use of the water cannons.
Q: Yeah.
A: So they, they’ve put a lot of water on the Number 3 reactor building today…
Q: Yeah. That’s true.
A: …um, in order to try to get, get uh, enough water, uh, in the pool to, to cool some of that spent fuel.
Q: Yeah, but that area…
A: And yesterday… Go ahead. I’m sorry.
Q: Yeah, in that area, the people that are working there are basically risking their lives. I mean, they’re, they’re going to die from radiation sickness or something like that. Do you think so?
A: Well, there’s no doubt that the people that are there are, are risking their lives.
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: It’s hard for me to speculate whether, um, any of them are at risk of either getting very sick or, or death.
Q: Yeah.
A: Hopefully, hopefully they are rotating those people enough…
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …that their radiation exposure is kept…
Q: Yeah.
A: …below a reasonable number, but the, the radiation levels at the plant are definitely limiting what they are able to do. That’s why the helicopters had to fly so high.
Q: Yeah.
A: And that’s why they wanted to use the water cannons…
Q: Yeah.
A: …so that they could, they could be farther away because it would not be possible for someone to go directly up there with a firehose.
Q: Mmmhmm. Yeah.
A: But, but, but that type of radiation, um, would be gamma radiation…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and, uh, the reports today say that the radiation levels at the site boundary are only 2-3 millirem…
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …which, which, uh, is quite, quite good *inaudbile* a couple days ago…
Q: Yeah.
A: …where there were reports of 35-40 millirem at the site boundary. But if you were to go a kilometer or so away from there…
Q: Yeah.
A: …you would not be picking up any radiation.
Q: But you, you mentioned before there were 3 types of radiation, right? How dangerous are those?
A: Right. So, so that’s the gamma radiation.
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: Um, if you are outside of the 30 kilometer evacuation area…
Q: Yeah.
A: …there’s absolutely no concern whatsoever.
Q: At the moment.
A: Right.
Q: But the worst case scenario? Even in the worst case scenario?
A: Worst case *inaudible* even at that distance should not be a problem.
Q: In the worst case.
A: The, the bigger concern is the particulate radioactivity.
Q: Yeah.
A: So, cesium, iodine, strontium, and, and others that would be released, uh, in larger quantities if there was more fuel damage or if there was more damage to the spent fuel pools.
Q: Yeah.
A: That, that can be carried by the wind and, and even though, uh, it’s a geometric expansion- in other words, the farther away you get, the…
Q: Yeah.
A: …the more volume there is and the concentrations are lower-
Q: Yeah, but the area is bigger.
A: *inaudible*
Q: The area of the damage is bigger.
A: Well, no, when, if you have a certain amount of radioactive particles released…
Q: Yeah.
A: …as it travels…
Q: Yeah.
A: …it, it expands…
Q: Uh, huh.
A: …right, to a larger and larger volume of air, so…
Q: Ah, okay.
A: …the, the concentration…
Q: Yeah.
A: …will be lower. So, so for instance, today they were able to detect some of the radiation in California…
Q: Oh.
A: …that came from Japan.
Q: Oh, really?
A: But the levels are so, so low that it’s of no concern.
Q: Oh, right. Right.
A: In… A couple of days ago in Tokyo, they were able to detect increased levels.
Q: Yeah.
A: But, but the levels were relatively low, and today they are even lower.
Q: That is…
A: But…
Q: *inaudible*
A: The particles are more of a concern…
Q: Mmmhmm. Yeah.
A: The particles are of more concern because they can travel distances…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and, and generally speaking, if they were, um, to get on your clothes or on, on your skin, it’s not really so much of a problem.
Q: Yeah.
A: The problem is if you were to breathe them in or ingest them or if some of them were to get in your eyes where you don’t have as much protection, because on your skin, of course…
Q: Yeah.
A: …you know you have several layers of skin…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and the first couple layers are actually dead, right…
Q: Yeah.
A: They’re, we’re, we’re at- You know, you don’t notice it so much but your outer layer of skin is always flaking off.
Q: Yeah. Yeah.
A: So those, those particles are not so much of a concern, um, except for breathing them in and ingesting them. That’s where *inaudible* because inside of you, you don’t have your, your skin to protect you.
Q: Ah, okay. That’s why they recommend to use soap?
A: Well, so that’s why, that’s why, often times they’ll be, people will be told, within a certain distance you should evacuate and then at a farther distance out you should shelter in place…
Q: Yes.
A: …where they will tell you to go in your house, close all your doors and windows…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and, and, because that will help keep the vast majority of the radioactivity out.
Q: Okay.
A: Um, again, um, where you’re at there’s really no concern whatsoever…
Q: Mmmhmm. Yeah, um, the other thing is like, uh, these part- particles, when they spread out, how long is the lifetime of these particles? I mean how long are they going to be around, right, radioactively speaking?
A: So, uh, a lot of these, uh, half lives on these materials are, are quite long.
Q: Yeah.
A: Many, many years, and in some cases, uh, you know, thousands of years…
Q: Oh, right.
A: …so again, the, the levels, you know, outside of the plant area, have, have, have not been of, of much concern, and again we have been very fortunate because of the winds.
Q: Oh, right. Yes.
A: …so the, the problem of course is, um, while, while the situation at the plant, um, hasn’t been getting any worse over the last day…
Q: Yeah.
A: …there is still, you know, much, much work to be done, and there is still the potential that something else could go wrong…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and, you know, the worst, the worst case scenario, obviously would be for there to be a, a major release of radiation in con-
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …in conjunction with the wind shifting inland.
Q: Yeah. Okay.
A: And certainly, um, in the, in the area of the plant…
Q: Yes.
A: …uh, they, when this, when this is all done and they’ve finally been able to get water and cool things off, they will have many, many years of dismantling and decontamination…
Q: Yeah.
A: … because these, there will be a lot of these particles, of course, right in the plant area.
Q: I understand. Uh…
A: But again, as far away as you are, um, I don’t think there’ll be any concern, like I said, unless there were some additional major release of radiation and the wind shifted and carried that all inland.
Q: Which is possible.
A: It’s possible, but, um, they are making progress so… I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest news report, but they have, they now have electricity to Units 1 and 2…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and they are now in the process of slowly trying to *inaudible* some of the equipment in those plants.
Q: Yeah.
A: And, um, if you heard the, the last couple of my updates…
Q: Yeah.
A: …they had restored, uh, power…
Q: Yeah.
A: …from a diesel generator…
Q: Yeah.
A: …to both Units 5 and 6. So Units 5 and 6 are stable, which is good news. I also saw a report that the, that the, the shared spent fuel pool is stable and the water level is stable so that’s good because there had been no news on that all week. So although we have a very, very serious situation, it’s at least not getting any worse. And, and as you know, everyday for the last week, it got worse everyday.
Q: Yeah, yeah.
A: So, so, and, you know, today, I don’t think we have any great news, but we have news that it’s not getting any worse.
Q: Where are you getting the news? What kind of source?
A: So, I, I have to take a lot of time to look at a lot of different websites.
Q: Yeah.
A: Um, the internet community has been great in, in keeping, uh, Wikipedia updated.
Q: Yeah.
A: Um, there’s actually information that is posted by, actually I would have to look, uh, the, the Japanese equivalent of the NRC has a website…
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …and they post information.
Q: Yes.
A: Um, the Nuclear Energy Institute here…
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …the International Atomic Energy Agency…
Q: Okay.
A: …in Vienna. So… And then, of course, the normal news, um, Yahoo, CNN…
Q: Okay.
A: Um, Associated Press.
Q: Yes.
A: And, I take all these little bits and pieces…
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …and, and try to put them together…
Q: Yes.
A: …um, so that I can do the updates everyday. It, it takes me normally about an hour, hour and a half, to, to collect all this information and then, uh, be ready to talk to Evelyn and give her an update.
Q: All right. Well, I’m really-
A: That’s, I think, frustrating because…
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …because there, there should be one place…
Q: Yeah.
A: …that people can go for information. And I will, I will say I think that after some days now…
Q: Yeah.
A: …more and more good information is out there, so today, or I should say in the past 24 hours, and I was, I’ll bring this up on the update tomorrow…
Q: Yeah.
A: …the, the Nuclear Energy Institute has posted a lot of good information. They’ve posted some YouTube videos…
Q: Yeah.
A: …that help explain things, and, uh, and I, I think that that’s really helpful and hopefully, you know, one of two things are going to happen. Either, either in a couple of days, uh, we’ll get, get power back and the situation will be better…
Q: Yeah.
A: …and the, there’ll be more information available on the internet so that my updates won’t be needed. The only concern I have is, um, once the immediate crisis passes…
Q: Yeah.
A: …then there’s no news anymore because it’s not, it, it’s nothing that they want to show on TV.
Q: I understand.
A: And, of course, this is going to be something that will take weeks and months to actually bring to a completely safe situation.
Q: I understand. We were speaking-
A: So we’ll have, we’ll have to judge how long we continue to do these updates because…
Q: Mmmhmm.
A: …um, I think there is getting to be some good, good news out there, but on the other hand, I’m, I’m afraid that once it’s no longer…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: I think there’s getting to be some good–good news out there, but on the other hand I’m afraid that, once it’s no longer sensational….
AT: Yeah.
MM: that the regular news will disappear; and, so, tonight….
AT: Yeah.
MM: I watched the news here…
AT: Yeah.
MM: and most of it was about Libya and…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: They only had like one minute….
AT: Yeah.
MM: On the nuclear power plants in Japan, so…
AT: So, it’s cooling down?
MM: It’s not, you know–unfortunately, I don’t know if the news in Japan is the same way, but here it’s, you know, whatever is the most sensational and then they move on to something else.
AT: Yeah, I think that in Japan the best source of information at the moment is the TV, but I haven’t seen the TV for the last two days because the place I moved there is no TV and…
MM: Okay.
AT: the internet is a little bit limited. Yeah, I wanted to ask you two more things. Continue with the radiation topic and a little bit about Chernobyl, okay? But the radiation–you were talking about the three types, right? So we’ve spoken so far about gamma radiation, the particulate radiation, and the other one would be?
MM: So there’s–well there’s two types of particulate radiation.
AT: Okay.
MM: There’s alpha and beta.
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: And I’m actually going to do a little bit of studying because it’s been a long time for me. And give a more complete update this weekend on Evelyn’s blog,
AT: Yeah.
MM: But the alpha particulate is essentially not much of a concern unless it’s inhaled or ingested because it will not penetrate the skin.
AT: Yes. Okay.
MM: So I had mentioned in one of the updates that in the U.S. we–in our houses–we normally have basements.
AT: Yes.
MM: And radon is a radioactive gas that is naturally occurring that comes out of the rocks here in the U.S.
AT: All right.
MM: And it’s normal when you buy a house to have it tested for radon.
AT: Uh-huh. Oh.
MM: And, if there’s too much, you have to install a ventilation system to remove it. And why that’s such a big concern is radon is an alpha emitter…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: And, although it can’t hurt you on your skin because it won’t even go through the first layer,
AT: Yeah.
MM: If you breathe it in, it gets in your lungs.
AT: All right.
MM: And you don’t have that protection.
AT: Okay. I see.
MM: And the concern about all types of–
AT: But it’s like a gas?
MM: particulate radiation.
AT: It’s like a gas or …?
MM: It’s a gas.
AT: It’s a gas. Okay.
MM: It’s a gas.
AT: Mm. Okay.
MM: And the concern about that is the long-term exposure of breathing that in could cause cancer.
AT: I see. But the…
MM: So it’s not going to kill–it’s not going–it’s not like you’re going to breathe it in and you’re going to die
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: It’s a long-term, cumulative effect.
AT: Oh, the–
MM: The–
AT: Yes, you were saying?
MM: The beta [particle]…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: is similar.
AT: Yeah.
MM: Except it does penetrate a little bit deeper. So it will go through the outer layer of your skin.
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: But, generally speaking, if you have clothing on and skin, again it’s not so much a big concern; it’s did you get it in your eyes or did you
ingest it or did you inhale it…
AT: Yeah.
MM: that makes it a concern. And, again, that’s why there would be one recommendation normally to evacuate up to a certain distance…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: [and] shelter in place a little bit farther out.
AT: Oh. I understand. The…
MM: And like I said, I’m going to do a little reading….
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: over the next day and give a more comprehensive update on Evelyn’s blog because it’s been many, many years.
AT: I see.
MM: I’ve actually had to do a lot of homework in the last week. (Laughs).
AT: (Laughs). That’s great. Thanks. So the Fukushima reactors are sources–are sources of these types of radiation–all three, right?
MM: They are. Yes.
AT: I understand. So the–for example, the radioactive iodine and cesium, it’s traveling through particles that it gets impregnating dust or something or it’s just like, you know, the…
MM: So some of the radioactivity will release in gaseous form…
AT: Uh-huh.
MM: Some of it is microscopic particles.
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: But all of it would be picked up by the wind and carried…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: you know, some distance.
AT: Yeah.
MM: And, of course, the farther it goes, the volume increases, so the concentration…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: becomes lower.
AT: I understand. So I understand–I believe that these airborne particles they land somewhere in time due to gravity…
MM: Yep.
AT: And then they will pollute, like, the land and crops and everything, right? Within that thir–
MM: Right.
AT: Thirty-kilometer radius?
MM: Correct. So, so you were going to ask about Chernobyl, so…
AT: Yeah.
MM: You probably know that for the area surrounding that plant…
AT: Yeah.
MM: it’s still very contaminated…
AT: Yeah.
MM: and it’s not possible for human beings to live there on a long-term basis.
AT: Yeah.
MM: And, again, in this instance, the release of radiation and radioactivity has been much lower….
AT: Yeah.
MM: the winds have been very favorable…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: So, without knowing any specific details, …
AT: Yeah.
MM: I think the amount of land…
AT: Yeah.
MM: that will be problematic is probably relatively small.
AT: I understand. But you think…
MM: It may turn out that it’s only, you know, the immediate area around the plant, but…
AT: Okay.
MM: we’ll have to ….
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: we’ll have to see, you know, if we get some data that we can look at.
AT: Is there–is there a way for another country to see the radiation levels through a satellite or, you know, some type of instrument that can measure radiation through, like, hundreds of kilometers of distance?
MM: So it’s my understand that the United States has actively supplied a specialized aircraft to do exactly that.
AT: Ah, okay. But there is–is there like…
MM: [unintelligible]
AT: Are they publishing or releasing results or measurements on this information?
MM: I have not seen anyone that’s put out a comprehensive report, but…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: my guess is that will be coming in the next few days
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: because resources from other countries are starting to arrive…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: to help with the sampling and the data; I know that we now have this aircraft available from the United States.
AT: Yes.
MM: I know that the International Atomic Agency
AT: Yeah.
MM: excuse me, Energy Agency has air teams that are arriving in Japan; so, there will be a lot more teams that will be able to collect samples
and do monitoring and I’m confident that in the next week or so…
AT: Yeah.
MM: that we’ll start to get those findings published. As you know, I mean, we can criticize TEPCO and the government and I think fairly so…
AT: Yeah.
MM: but part of the problem is, you know, it’s not just the nuclear catastrophe; we have extreme devastation in those areas so…
AT: Yeah.
MM: it’s very difficult to even move around as you know.
AT: Yeah, I know.
MM: which is–and, of course, a lot of resources have been lost with respect to telephone lines
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: And cellular telephone towers.
AT: Yeah.
MM: So it’s–I think that’s making it extra difficult…
AT: Yeah.
MM: for the response teams to get organized and for this data to be made available.
AT: Yeah. And there’s a little bit of panic for the misunderstanding about the harmlessness at the moment of this radiation. That’s why people, they, like, they don’t want to get involved in many cases.
MM: Well, and I think part of the problem is if you feel like–if you feel like the company or the government are not being transparent…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: then you think they’re hiding something. So what happens is they actually hurt themselves because, when they tell the truth, people don’t believe it.
AT: Yeah, that’s true. (Laughs). That’s true.
MM: But again, my–you know, for your friends that are in Tokyo…
AT: Yeah.
MM: and, like I said, certainly where you’re located…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: to the best of my ability from the data that I have seen–what limited data is out there
AT: Yeah.
MM: there’s no concern at the moment.
AT: Okay, one concern and one question I have about the design of these reactors is why do they make them at ground level? Why don’t they make them, like, 200 feet underground or something like that, it could be safer, easier to contain because this is like…
MM: Yeah, that I don’t honestly–can’t explain. I mean I, you know, didn’t really have any familiarity with this power plant until this happened. And…
AT: Yeah.
MM: And it is quite puzzling…
AT: Yeah.
MM: to see a lot of the infrastructure so low.
AT: Yeah.
MM: I mean, I know this tsunami was quite a large one, but it didn’t even look like the plant would survive a small one.
AT: Yeah. (Laughs.) Yeah, it’s true.
MM: So I think that’s–you know, as a citizen, I think that’s a fair question…
AT: Yeah.
MM: to ask the government.
AT: Yeah.
MM: And I would think that it should be a requirement…
AT: Yeah.
MM: that any other plant that is in a similar situation
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: would either be shut down or not allowed to restart…
AT: Yeah.
MM: until there were changes made…
AT: Yeah.
MM: to protect the plant, either through construction of seawall barriers or by moving some of the more critical systems higher up.
AT: Or lower–underground.
MM: Well, underground might be problematic as well, depending on how well you’re able to seal things. The problem, of course, is diesels need exhaust
AT: Oh.
MM: You know, things need cooling. But, you know, clearly, if you look at the location of this plant
AT: Uh-huh.
MM: and where some key components are…
AT: Yes.
MM: it doesn’t look like it could survive much of a tsunami at all.
AT: Yeah.
MM: Much less, the one that we had.
AT: Yeah, the problem is in the design of the structure that, you know, created the whole problem too. [?? That’s my best guess] About the radiation, well the radiation now is pointing to the sea–right?–to the Pacific, it’s-is it going?– it’s going to definitely affect sea life, right?
MM: Somebody asked that question, which we tried to answer today, and again without any data it’s, you know, hard to give an exact answer.
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: But, again, my feeling would be, except in the immediate vicinity of the plant…
AT: Yeah.
MM: that because of the geometric expansion…
AT: Yeah.
MM: And how much water’s in the ocean and the fact that the currents cause the water to move….
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: I don’t think the concentration in the water…
AT: Yeah.
MM: is going to be of any concern. So I would, I would doubt that there would be any impact whatsoever beyond the immediate vicinity of the plant.
AT: I understand. Going back to Chernobyl, I–from a report I read, it said that the reactor meltdown provoked an explosion that launched radiation up to 3000 feet. What–how did that explosion occur?
MM: Well, there were–there were a couple of factors with Chernobyl. First, that was a graphite-moderated reactor.
AT: Yeah.
MM: And all of the power plants in the western world are water-cooled, water-moderated reactors.
AT: Yes.
MM: And I gave a brief explanation in one of the other interviews, but
AT: Yeah.
MM: In the RMBK reactor, which is what Chernobyl was, it’s inherently unstable.
AT: Yeah.
MM: And in a water-cooled reactor, it’s inherently stable. So–or I should say a water-moderated reactor is inherently stable.
AT: Yeah.
MM: And the way that works is–in order–when you have a fission, the neutrons that are generated– [end Part II]
[Beg of Part III ***Note: just a fragment to join up with next transcript correctly***]
MM: they can cause a fission.
AT: I understand.
MM: So when a water-cooled reactor [ed: water-moderated?] starts to heat up
MM: that would not require electricity for cooling. There are none of the new generation in existence yet except for some under construction in China, I believe.
AT: I see. Uh, Mr. Mervine, how…
MM: So what needs to be done–all, you know, is all the plants along the coast need to look at their protection against the ocean.
AT: Yeah. Especially in these, you know, earthquake-prone regions.
MM: Right and I don’t think that we can say “Well, it’s a newer plant, so it’s not a problem.” So every single plant in Japan that’s on the ocean needs to be looked at as well as every single plant around the world that’s on the ocean needs to be looked at because none of them are yet these–what they call Generation 3-plus plants that don’t require any cooling or electricity for, I think, the Westinghouse design for three days after an accident, they can run without any additional water or electricity.
AT: I understand. There’s another inquiry I have about the fuel content of the rods–I mean, I heard that there’s uranium and there’s also, like, plutonium. Is that true?
MM: All fuel rods that have been in a nuclear reactor…
AT: Yeah
MM: have both uranium and plutonium.
AT: Why is–
MM: as well as iodine, cesium, strontium, et cetera.
AT: So plutonium is part of the fuel mixture of this reactor.
MM: So a conventional fuel rod when it’s new…
AT: Yeah
MM: is uranium and it’s normally enriched to 3 or 4%. And what that means is that normally, natural uranium is about 1% uranium-235 …
AT: Yeah
MM: and 99% uranium-238.
AT: Yes
MM: And, in order to make it useful for a reactor, it’s enriched to, say, 96% uranium-238 and 4% uranium-235.
MM: And the reason why is in a reactor uranium-238 does not fission. Only the uranium-235 does. So only the uranium-235 percentage is used as a reactor fuel. But what does happen is uranium-238 will absorb a neutron…
AT: Yeah
MM: And it becomes uranium-239 and then after a couple of decays…
AT: Yep.
MM: it becomes plutonium-239.
AT: Okay.
MM: Plutonium-239 will fission. And so, in a normal commercial reactor, about 30-40% of the power generated actually comes from the fissioning of plutonium.
AT: Yes.
MM: And all spend fuel rods contain plutonium because it’s created as the neutrons bombard the uranium-238.
AT: Okay. So is plutonium more dangerous in terms of, like, radiation?
MM: Plutonium is considered more dangerous because it has more health impacts on human beings and–again, I have to do a little homework–but, from my memory, plutonium has a much longer half-life. So it will stick around in the environment much longer.**
AT: I see. Yesterday there was an announcement from the U.S. space here in Yusuka, the area close to the disaster area. They ordered the evacuation of all the personnel–all U.S. personnel–at the embassy from the U.S. Do you think this is a sign of–that things are not going to progress or the Americans are going to give up on Japan situation?
MM: I think that that was a result of one or two things. Either that was the result of a very, very conservative call…
AT: Yeah.
MM: Or it reflects the lack of confidence in getting good information from the Japanese government.
AT: Yes. Okay.
MM: So…but again, based on any information or data that’s seen, you know, outside of the recommended evacuation zone and even the expanded one from the U.S. of 50 miles or 80 kilometers, there doesn’t seem to be any concern. So I think it’s a very conservative call, but it also may have been a move to demonstrate to Japan the lack of confidence that we had….
AT: Uh huh.
MM: in how they were performing. You know, it may have been to make a very strong political statement.
AT: All right, I understand. I also thought that–you know, I was talking with a friend about that, that it was more political with the current situation anything it was not justifiable to make such a…
MM: Yeah, I’m only hypothesizing because the data doesn’t support evacuating anybody from Tokyo.
AT: I see. In the case of Chernobyl, the area was–the maximum area–I mean the area of evacuation was about also the same, like 30 kilometers, right, I heard?
MM: I honestly don’t remember it’s been so long.
AT: Okay.
MM: I do know that the released level of radioactivity was much higher…
AT: I see
MM: and, you know, could be detected in many countries around Europe.
AT: Is there some type of radiation that cannot be detected by the normal instruments? I mean, like the–for example, the instruments that are sold to the normal population and these Geiger counters and radiation meters that are about $300. Is there some type of…
MM: I’m really not familiar with those, so I couldn’t tell you. I can tell you that different types of radiation require different types of detectors.
AT: Yeah.
MM: So, I would speculate that, if it’s something that’s available to the general public and low cost, that it’s certainly not of the quality that would be used by a professional monitoring team and probably cannot detect all the different types of radiation and radioactivity.
AT: So I guess an instrument that’s very reliable would cost thousands of dollars.
MM: Correct.
AT: I see. Which type of radiation should I be most concerned about in this case?
MM: Well, again, at your distance, it’s really the particulates, the radiation…
AT: All right
MM: because it’s the alpha and beta particles that would be carried on the….
AT: Uh huh.
MM: Or it’s not so much that the alpha and beta particles are being carried, it’s the elements that decay and would release these particles.
Right?
AT: Should it be useful to start taking, like, potassium iodide pills?
MM: No.
AT: No?
MM: No. No. So what potassium iodide does is it will be absorbed in your thyroid
AT: Yeah
MM: and the principle is that it will absorb the iodine from those pills
AT: Yeah
MM: so that your thyroid can’t absorb any more iodine.
AT: Yeah
MM: So it’s the timing of when you take that is critical.
AT: uh huh.
MM: If you take it too early…
AT: Uh huh.
MM: it will come out of your body. And then, when bad radioactive iodine is there…
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: your thyroid will absorb it anyway.
AT: Ah, okay.
MM: If you take it too late…
AT: Yeah
MM: then you’ve already absorbed the radioactive iodine–then it does no good either. So, again, based on the data, there would be no reason to take that.
AT: Uh huh.
MM: And you wouldn’t want to take it until directed by your government because the timing is so critical.
AT: Yeah. It could be dangerous for your health too.
MM: Well, it wouldn’t be dangerous for your health to take the pills
AT: Uh huh.
MM: It’s just if you take it at the wrong time–you take it either too early or too late
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: It won’t have the effect to block the radioactive iodine.
AT: I understand. Is there any other pill or any other medication to avoid the particulate radiation?
MM: Well, you–No. So, in that case, you don’t really avoid it, you just avoid it being absorbed into your thyroid…and the reason why the thyroid is because it’s one of your most active glands in your body.
AT: Ah. I understand. So, during your career as a nuclear engineer, were you ever at risk of radiation sickness and contamination, or anything like that? I mean, were you ever exposed to a lot of radiation?
MM: So in my career I was never exposed to a significant amount of radiation. And, in some cases, we do such a good job during normal operations that the radiation levels are oftentimes lower than they are in the natural environment.
AT: Ha ha.
MM: You know some of the workers that receive the most radiation every year…
AT: Yeah
MM: Are people that work on airplanes.
AT: Yeah.
MM: Pilots and flight attendants.
AT: Yeah.
MM: Because they fly so far up in the atmosphere
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: The atmosphere is a very good shield against cosmic radiation.
AT: Yeah.
MM: And airline crews get a lot more radiation than nuclear power plant workers normally.
AT: Ha ha. That’s interesting.
MM: But I did work around places where there was a lot of radiation and radioactivity. And when we go and work on and open up systems where there would be radioactivity, of course, we have to wear the suits–depending on whether it was dry or wet, you might have a different suit–and there’s parts of plant in which you could expect contamination then you have to wear the suits, and then when you leave there you take the suits off and you have to be scanned.
AT: Yeah.
MM: But for myself, you know, personally no. Of course, a lot of the other people, the operators, and in particular the maintenance workers that had to do a lot of work during the outages would, of course, be exposed to a lot more radiation and radioactivity than I was.
AT: I see. So the suits are quite effective, right?
MM: They’re effective against getting particulates in your body or on your body.
AT: And the gamma radiation?
MM: They will have no effect against gamma rays, which are very similar to x-rays.
AT: They can [can’t?] stop that, right?
MM: They cannot stop that. The only thing that can stop that is either only working in that area for a short period of time…
AT: Uh huh.
MM: So that the amount you receive is less.
AT: Uh huh.
MM: Or sometimes, if we have to work in an area, we’ll install temporary shielding.
AT: Uh huh.
MM: Either lead sheets or concrete blocks that will attenuate the radiation.
AT: Uh huh. I understand.
MM: Or maybe it’s a job that takes an hour
AT: Mm-hmm.
MM: If it’s a very, very high radiation area…
AT: Yeah.
MM: You might have to split that against three people so that each individual person doesn’t get too much radiation.
AT: I understand. Okay, sir, I think I covered most of the information and the issues I was concerned about. I–if I have your permission, I would like to publish this interview–which, I think, it’s really valuable information and very critical at the moment. So, once again, I would like to thank you for your time and your patience and really this information could truly save lives here. Okay?
MM: Well, most importantly, I hope it gets people more information and …
AT: Yeah.
MM: helps them understand what’s going on.
AT: Okay. And yeah, I mean I’m also working with another friend and it’s Ruben. So he also helped me draft the questions for this interview. So, yeah, also thanks on behalf of my friend, okay?
MM: Okay. Thank you.
AT: Okay, thanks. Thanks to Evelyn too. Bye. Have a good night.
MM: Good night
AT: Bye.
8th Interview with My Dad, a Nuclear Engineer, about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster in Japan
Update: Overnight kiwi6 took down some of my audio files because (I think) they thought I was plagarizing myself. I am working on hosting all audio on another website. DONE- all audio files now kindly hosted by Gerald. Efforts are still underway by a volunteer to improve some of the earlier audios which were bad. Interview 1 has already been fixed. Meanwhile, you can listen to all the interviews on the new vimeo channel Brandon and I created. Here’s the vimeo channel:
Note: The audio still isn’t perfect, but I think it’s a big improvement over previous days. Unfortunately, I had to split this video into 4 parts (for now), but Brandon will fix this as soon as he can and turn it into 1 video. I’ve paid for the vimeo pro version, so we will be able to continue to upload long interviews.
Here is the 8th interview I have conducted with my dad, a nuclear engineer. Please see the rest of the blog (sidebar) for previous interviews.
Please keep sending questions and comments to georneysblog@gmail.com. You can also follow me on twitter @GeoEvelyn but please do not send questions via twitter.
Here is the audio file:
And here is the vimeo:
M: Hello, how are you?
E: I’m good.
M: It’s in the(?) afternoon.
E: Oh, is it afteroon? OK. It’s actually afternoon. Well, we’re gonna give the time in a minute. I just wanna first say, my name is Evelyn Mervine and this is an interview with my dad, Mark Mervine, who is a nuclear engineer. This is the 8th in a series of interviews that I’m doing with my dad. If you would like to see the rest of the interviews, either listen to them or-or read the transcripts, for the ones that have transcripts, you can find them on my geology blog, Georneys, which is G-E-O-R-N-E-Y-S, georneys dot blogspot dot com. And I, I would just like to thank, again, all the people who have been transcribing these interviews. There are still a few that have yet to be transcribed, if you have time and interest, and you could transcribe those, I know that would be very useful for those who prefer to read, rather than listen to these interviews. Before we begin, since we are doing many of these interviews, I just want to state that today is March 18th and it is 12:30 PM Eastern Daylight time.
And to start off with, Dad, I would like you to please, um, give an, give us an update about what is happening at Fukushima.
M: OK, again, we’re talking about the Fukushima I nuclear power plant, which consists six reactors. Now, we did a pretty comprehensive update yesterday evening, but I know you had some technical problems posting the files and they just got posted this morning. So, a lot of people probably haven’t had a, had the chance to listen to them. But, um, I’m gonna not go into quite as much detail, so I’m gonna encourage people to at least listen to the first part of, I guess, interview seven?
E: Yes, it’s interview seven.
M: To get a-a pretty comprehensive view of the status. But, anyways, let me jump in and first let me address the-the two plants that are in, um, the least, um, problematic situation and that’s units five and six. Those are the two newest units on the site and they’re physically separated, somewhat, from units one through four. And a couple of days ago, we had reported that they had been able to get a diesel generator started in unit six and that they were attempting to run the equivalent of a long extension cord from unit six to unit five, to be able to get some power back in unit 5. And, in my update last night, I reported that they had been successful, in that and that they were now working on getting cooling systems restored, and waterflow restored in both units five and six.
Now, turning our attention to the units that are of the most concern, which are units one, two, three and four. One through three were operating at the time of the earthquake and shut down automatically, and lost power approximately an hour after the earthquake, when the tsunami hit. Unit four had been in the, uh, process of doing a maintenance outage and all of the core for unit four had been offloaded into the spent fuel pool. In the past few days, we’ve seen, uh, a number of escalating problems at these units. And in the case of units one, two and three, uh, based on information that we have and various different releases, it’s confirmed that there is some fuel damage in each one of those three reactors. And also, we’ve had concern about the spent fuel pools at units three and four. One of the things that-that has been a concern, was that, perhaps the primary containment structure around the reactor, itself, might have been damaged in one or more of these units. And the latest reports that I’ve seen indicate that they believe that the primary containments for these three units are still in tact. So, despite some reports, that they may not be, the latest reports are indicating that the three containment units are holding and they’re holding some pressure, so that’s, obviously, good news.
The other good news is the situation with the three reactors has not gotten any worse in the, in the past forty-eight hours. So, they’ve been able to continue pumping, uh, seawater in, venting the steam off to reduce the pressure, which allows more seawater to be pumped in. The cores are not completely covered, but, they do have seawater in there and some cooling is taking place. And the situation is not substantially degrading, uh, on a, on an hourly or daily basis as it seemed that it was, um, uh, early on in this, um, situation, in the past week.
So, some of the bigger concerns that we’ve had, in the past couple of days, have been the loss of water from the unit three and four spent fuel pools and, uh, as a refresher, for everybody, there are seven spent fuel pools at this site, one for each power plant and then one common pool that they can all, um, share, uh, ‘share’ is maybe not a-a good word, but a common pool where fuel rods can be taken and stored. Um, in this, in this seventh pool. And all of the spent fuel pools are of concern. They all need to have water, they all need to have cooling, but three and four have been the most problematic, in that, um, the-they have lost a substantial amount of water and unit four, we believe, uh, lost enough water that, that some of the fuel there was damaged and we’ve discussed, a number of times, what can happen when the zirconium cladding around the fuel reaches a high temperature and causes the formation of hydrogen and we had a hydrogen explosion in unit four and that, since the core has been completely unloaded, that had to have come from the spent fuel pool. And in the past forty-eight hours, they have been trying a number of different methods to get water into those pools. They’ve been trying to use military helicopters to drop water similar to what you would do to stop a forest fire, they have brought in, uh, large water cannon trucks and fire trucks to pour water onto these buildings in the hopes that they can get some of it to go into the spent fuel pools. And they’ve been somewhat successful, but it’s difficult to measure how successful. The reason we know they’re somewhat successful is you can see steam rising, um, especially from unit four, um, after they added this water. So, clearly they were able to get some water, um, onto the fuel.
But there is a concern about the unit four spent fuel pool, in that, um, there was quite a bit of damage to that reactor building when this explosion happened. And it’s, ah, from the photos it looks as if a portion of the concrete wall of the refueling pool has collapsed, but it did look like the fuel liner was intact. Now, the latest reports that I’ve seen today indicate that they, they’re losing more water from that pool than they should based on evaporation rates and they think there might be a small leak, uh, in that pool as well. So, obviously it’s really important that they continue their efforts to drop or pump water into those pools. And I also saw that they’re starting to get concerned about the water level in the unit one spent fuel pool as well.
Now the other, um, news that’s very important is there, it’s taking longer than they had hoped, but they are very close to restoring electrical power to unit two from the grid. And, um, the big change in news, from last night to today, is that they’ve also, they’re also working to, um, to get power back to unit one. And once they’re able to restore power to both units one and two then they’ll be looking, this weekend, to also begin the work to restore power to unit three and four. Now, when power’s restored, that’s a very, very good thing. But, but, we’re not out of the woods. And, in fact, we, with all the damage to all these buildings, we don’t know the status of all of the pumps and valves and heat exchangers that woul-would be needed to restore normal cooling to these units. So, getting electrical power back is the first step, but, there may be quite a bit of challenges and quite a bit of work ahead in order to get pumps working. My hope is, because we have, um, a number of redundancies built in these plants that, at least, we would be able to piece together one workable cooling system in each unit, but, anybody that’s taken a look at the photos that are available on TV or on the internet, you can see with your own eyes the amount of damage that has been a-has been incurred to these reactor buildings due to the hydrogen explosions that have taken place during the past week. So, Evelyn, that’s my current update, um, I just wanna add one thing, before we …
M: turn to questions and that is, Evelyn has had a number of requests for us to, to do interviews for uh-a number of people and, we’re going to have to respectfully decline. We’ll, um, try to answer as many questions as we can, here, but this is taking several hours of our, of our time each day and, uh, we, we just don’t have the time to put, uh, more into it than, than we already are, so, we apologize, but, um, we’ll-we’ll have to confine ourselves to doing these updates and Evelyn has made these freely available. I know they’ve been replicated to many sites around the internet and-and unfortunately, that’s going to have to suffice just-just from a factor of how much time that we have.
E: OK, thank you, Dad. And I’ll echo that as much as we-we want this information out there, we really can’t do more than these interviews but as I, as I said, and if you don’t know this already, um, I encourage you to take these intervies and the transcripts and share them with as many people as possible. Put links on facebook or on your website and (??) and really, really do spread this information, but, as my dad said, unfortunately, this is all that we can commit to, right now.
so, I’m gonna ask a few questions, today, and, again I’ve been receiving many, many emails, um, almost more emails than I really have time to read, so if we miss your question, I’m very sorry. We are trying to answer as many questions as we have time for. SO, to start off with, I’m gonna paraphrase a question from someon who, who’s very concerned about the possible, I guess, sortof, long-lasting effects of radiation on the environment. And, in particular, on the fisheries industry in Japan, because I know that-how Japan does rely quite a bit on the fisheries industry. I know that you’re not a biologist, dad, but could you just comment on that, a little bit?
M: OK, uh, that’s a good question and, uh, anybody that’s watched the, um, news or looked at pictures on the internet, you can see that a number of the towns and villages that have been destroyed a-along the Northwest coast of Japan um, are, um, villages and towns that-that count a lot of the fishing industry. There’s a lot of fishing boats that are stranded on dry land, in these photos, so I think, I think it’s a really good question. Um, I wish I could give a really good answer. But, I-I’m just gonna have to give a general answer because, um, you know I-I don’t have the information as to how much radiation and radio activity has been released and, you know, since the situation is ongoing, we certainly hope that it doesn’t get any worse. I mean, it does appear that in the last 24 hours, or so, that, um, at least the situation is not getting dramatically worse. as it was every day in the past week. But, by no means, are we out of the woods, so, you know, we could have something, um, go wrong or get even worse and have more radiation and radio activity released to the environment, so, we don’t have a complete picture, today. Um, I know that th-th-the Japanese government and they’re being helped by a number of other governments and agencies to-to measure the radiation and radio activity, Will, certainly, as the immediate crisis winds down, make that a priority. Um, obviously, *clears throat* and, I think, I think the mainstream media has-has done a good job of this, of indicating that the, the biggest concern is the area immediately adjacent to the plant. Um, although, we’ve had very good luck on the wind going from the east to the west and, actually, I tihnk a couple days ago, I made a mistake and said west to east. But, in fact, in Japan, they’re very lucky that the wind’s been blowing from the east to the west, which takes a large amount of radiation or (??) radio activity, um, over water, but, since the plant is right on the water, um, you know, more than half of that radio activity is going into the atmosphere above the water and some of it is certainly settling and-and going into the water. Now, as we’ve described, um, it’s a volumetric expansion, so, as we get farther and farther away, the the-the density of radioactivity and any volume that you measure it will be constantly decreasing. And you’ll have the same result in the ocean. So, once this event is finally under control and we’re confident that we’re not going to have any significant additional release of radiation, um, they’ll be able to do samples and they’ll be able to estimate the amount of radioactivity released and be able to give a be-a better estimate. I would, I would say that, you know, for sure, in that, uh, 30 Kilometer, uh, evacuation zone, that, you probably wouldn’t wanna be fishing in that area. But, the farther away you get, the concentration would be so diluted that it probably would have no impact.
So, I know that’s not a very good answer, but it’s the best answer that I think that anybody could give, right now. That, it should definitely be a concern, it should be definitely something that people should be worried about but, um, the farther away you get, the less of a concern it is, and if we can stop the release of radiation, you know, get these plants cooled down and stop the rdiation, then we’ll be able to calculate what actually was, or, probably not calculate, but estimate, how much radiation and radio activity were released. And, um, what the potential impact would be, but, with the exception of that imediate viscinity of the plant and perhaps the water in the immediate viscinity of the plant, um, I don’t, I don’t think there will be a long-term consequence.
E: OK, excellent. Moving on to a second question, this is actually a question from some-from someone in Japan, and before I ask this question, I first want to say that in, I guess over the past couple of days, I have been receiving, um, emails and comments from people who are actually in Japan, many expatriots and even some Japanese people and so that means that this information is reaching Japan and people have said ‘thank you,’ um, and have been, I think those people have been most grateful because they’re right there and they’re dealing with this situation and they say that even in Japan it’s difficult to get information, so, I first wanna say, um, thank you, if you’re listening in Japan, and please pass this on and I hope that this continues to be useful for people and Japan and also elsewhere, in the World. So, I’m just gonna read this question ’cause I think this is maybe a question many people in Japan have, this is from Mike in Tokyo, he says, “Hi, I’m based in Tokyo and I thank you and your dad for all of your hard work. It’s a relief to both my wife and I to get some well-informed perspective on the issue. I wonder if your dad could go into some more detail regarding radiation types that can and cannot be sheilded with clothes and face masks. For example, I understand that workers in close proximity to gamma rays receive no protection with their clothes. On the other hand, people between the 20 KM and 30 KM radius, as instructed by the Japanese government (that’s the evacuation zone), are being instructed to stay inside for protection from radioactive materials in the air. It has also been stated that wearing face masks and body washing after being outside can help remove radioactive material.” Um, and he basically wants you to comment on this and give advice for anybody who isn’t in that area and might be affected by radiation.
M: OK, That’s a very good question and I’m sure one that a lot of people are interested in and, um, what I’m gonna do is give a, uh, um, a partial answer now and, um, I will do a little bit more more homework and w-we’ll address this a little bit more in a follow-up interview. But, there’s, um, generally three types of radiation that we’re concerned with it’s, uh, alpha decay, beta decay and then gamma radiation. So as, as the, um, as this person indicated in their email gamma radiation is primarily only of concern in the immediate viscinity of the plant. Um, and certianly somebody as far away as Tokyo does not have to be concerned about gamma radiation coming from the plant, because, we talked about the advantage of unit five and six being physically separated and um, the farther away you get from a-a gamma ray source, the more that radiation is attenuated and, um, yesterday, I don’t have the days numbered, yesterday evening, they said that the radiation level at the plant boundary was at 1-2 millirem per hour. So, once you get, you know, just a little bit farther away from that, you’re gonna be back down to very low levels of-of radiation. Their concern, for people in Japan is, the, um, particulates also get carried up in the steam and go into the atmosphere from either the venting of the reactors or from the spent fuel pools. And their, um, definitely, a concern. And the biggest concern you have is breathing in, uh, these particulates, because, um, in the case of, uh, alpha uh, radioactivity or decay, um, it, the, uh, it has a very low penetrating ability. So, normally, your skin, or certainly your clothing would, would stop that from being a concern. But if you breathe it in, it is a concern, and that’s why I mentioned I think it, I don’t know if it was yesterday or the day before, that in here, in the US, it’s very common when you buy a house to have it tested for radon. Uh, radon is a naturally occurring, uh, radioactivity from the rocks and the ground here, in the US, and it’s-it’s gaseous, so the concern is you breathe it in and, and if you breathe in, um, material containing alpha particles, um, it has a different effect because then you don’t have your skin or your clothes to protect you, even though it only penetrates a small distance, it’s going right inside your body. And to a similar extent, um, you have to worry about beta particulates, they will penetrate a little bit farther, but, again, the bigger concern is, uh, inhalation. So, for the, for the most part, uh, normal clothing, uh, face masks, will make a big difference if there are elevated levels of radioactive particulates in the atmosphere.
Again, I’d like to ephasize, at this point, that there’s no indication that there’s any concern, um, that the radioactivity levels in Tokyo have risen above normal background levels, but the levels they’re at there’s no concern and there should be no panic at this point. I encourage people to, you know follow the directions of the government and not panic or not be overly concerned. But, in the event that the situation got worse and the wind shifted it and there was a concern, um, the concern would be mostly from the particulates that are in the atmosphere and there are very good ways to protect yourself from that. And that’s why, oftentimes you’ll hear a request from the government rather to evacuate that you should shelter in place and you should seal all your doors and windows. Because, if you do that, then it’s not gonna get in your house, and if it doesn’t get in your house, you won’t get it on you, you won’t be able to breathe it in, or, at least, it will minimize it, no house, obviously, is completely air-tight, but, um, it will definitely minimize it. So, like I said, I’ll do a little bit more homework and try to give a little bit, uh, better overview of that in a subsequent interview, but, ah, right now, you know, outside of-of the evacuation areas, um, the levels are not such that there should be a concern for human health. And, certianly, um, all the way to Tokyo, there, there’s no concern, at the moment.
E: Thanks, Dad. I’m gonna go on to another question, and this one comes from Alberto, who’s actually in Chile and he asks a very good question he says, “I have one question, giving your father’s knowledge. Chile, a country in South America, as you might know, was devastated with an earthquake and a tsunami last year of somewhat similar intensity. Today, the Chile is evaluating the construction of nuclear plants and since this disaster struck in Japan, many citizens are fearing something similar could occur if one was built. knowing that, the question would be, how are the newer designs, existing today, better equipped to handle both an earthquake and a tsunami of this scale or bigger and would your father consider it dangerous to build them in a place such as Chile. Um, please remember that the biggest earthquake registered in the World was registered in Chile some 50 years ago.
M: OK, so that’s a good question, not just for people in Chile, but, I think, all over the World, because there are fault lines and earthquakes of different magnetudes all over the world. And, I-I think we actually talked about this in one of the interviews, already, but, um, so, you know, typically, typical way that this is done, when a nuclear power plant is built, is that there’s a requirement based on worst case scenario for an earthquake for the plant to be built to withstand that. And, um, here, in the US, I’ve gone to plants that are relatively stable areas and worked in some of those, I’ve gone to plants that are in more active areas. And the difference in the construction of the plants is, um, very interesting, actually. The plants that are in the more, uh, geographic, uh, sorry …
E: Geological, dad, this is my field now.
M: Geological, thank you,
(they laugh)
M: Um, areas, have to have a lot more supports for the piping, they use a lot of hydrolic dampers, which will allow things to move without breaking, um, there may be, uh, expansion-height systems built so that, uh, systems can, can move, uh, without breaking. So there’s a lot of different design requirements, and then, of course, things have to be built stronger so you might have to use more steel reinforcement in your concrete, uh, and those type of things, when you look at, at building a plant. Or, really, um, any structure. So, for instance, uh, in-in Tokyo the requirements for the building, uh, for the construction of a building are much more rigorous than they would be in another country that may only expect to have an of two or three on the richter scale. An-and the way they do that is the foundations are sunk much deeper, they normally need to go to bedrock. Um, they use a lot more concrete, a lot more steel reinforcements. Um, so, uh, obviously you have to go to more of an extent at a nuclear power plant, but, um, all buildings, you know, have to have, um, adaptations for when you’re in an area that is more prone to earthquakes than, uh, than another. Now, with respect to some of the newer designs, um, I think, I think it’s a good question. And, what I promise to do, is, is do a little bit of homework, because, my information would be a little bit out of date, since I haven’t been, actually been active in the industry for a few years. Um, and, and I know the designs have been updated substantially in the past few years. if I do a little homework, and I come back to this audience and give them a little perspective of some of the design changes that are being (??) into the new design for if you were to build a power plant now, versus, the plants that were built, um, in the 60s 70s and 80s.
E: OK, so we’ll return to that question.
M: Yeah, I’ll come back to that question, I mean i-in generality there’s been a lot of improvements. The designs have been simplified, there’s a lot more passive systems that don’t require, uh, operator intervention, that don’t require pumps. I know that some of the designs used, you know, significantly fewer, uh, moving pieces. Significantly fewer pumps, significantly fewer valves and, of course, the simpler you can make it, and, and, the more, uh, you can rely on the principles of, uh, passive cooling and those types of things, uh, the better you are, as evidenced by what we’ve seen in the past week. But, let me do a little bit of homework and come back some more up-to-date details for people.
E: Sounds great, dad. The last question that we have time for, today, this question is actually coming from several people, and I think that this is because, um, many people have seen this and been concerned by it, basically, there has been some footage that has been released to the general public from one of the helicopters that was dropping water on, I-I presume it was the pool, uh, the spent fuel rod pool at reactor number four. And, I think, um, people were, were quite shocked, um, when they saw this video, just at the extent of the damage and people wanted to know if you could comment on that, and also, if you learned anything new from that video that you didn’t know, already.
M: Well, I think that’s a good question, and, I think I had actually commented that, yesterday or the day before, that I’d finally gotten to see some close-up pictures of the damage and I was, uh, pretty surprised at what I saw. We were told, originally, that there’d been a hydrogen explosion in unit four and a couple of 8 ft. by 8 ft. square panels had been knocked out. But, when we saw the photos with our own eyes, we saw massive a-amounts of damage to the-the unit four reactor building. Um, and, if you, um, look at the photos you can see that there’s some fairly substantial amounts of damage to the units one, three and four reactor buildings. And, then, some of the questions that people have asked, we address that in some of our interviews, people asked about would it be possible to move the fuel and we said, well, because of the damage to the reactor building, no, because all the equipment that would be used to, to move it would be des-would be, would have beend damaged. And, I think my concern, which is shared by, by other people, um, I think, again, the main (??) media’s trying to do a better job, the soundbytes are a little bit longer, they’ve had a few more true experts, um, that they’ve been talking to. Have addressed concerns that it’s great that we’re gonna be getting power back, absolutely is a huge, huge step forward, but, given the photographs, given the amount of damage, given the radiation levels, it’s gonna be a long and difficult journey to get enough pumps and valves and heat exchangers functioning to truely cool these plants down and put them in a safe state. And, I think that’s a thing that concerns me the most about the photographs, is, um, how much, how much damage is there below what we can see. Because the, the systems that they’re gonna need to restore, in order to cool these reactors, would have been a couple levels down from what we can see in the photographs, so, my sincere hope is that the-the damage we see confined to what we can see and that, below that, there’s less damage. So, um, it is, um, pretty amazing to see those photographs, I must admit. And, the biggest concern about the damage that we see in those photographs is the concern for the spent fuel pools, which are in that rubble, uh, of those three reactors.
E: OK, uh, well that’s quite sobering to hear, but, thank you for commenting on that, Dad. Before we end, I just wanna say, I have been receiving so many emails and questions, please do keep sending those in. At first, I was replying to every person and then saying ‘thank you,’ um, if I don’t reply to you, I’m sorry, a-at this point, I’m just receiving so many emails that I-I can’t reply to every single one, but, but I do appreciate them, and, um, I am planning on going through all of them and showing them to my dad, at some point, so please do keep sending in your, your comments and your-your questions, um, we will look at them, and, um, we do appreciate them. That’s all, do you have anything else, Dad, before we end?
M: I don’t, I, again, I hope that this is helping people. I-I do wish that, you know, we could accomodate all the questions, and, um, all the requests that-that folks have had to talk with them, but they’re just, there isn’t enough time in the day, um, we’re each putting somewhere between three or four hours into this every day, in order to do the homework and-and be able to, um, maintain the site, and-and post these interviews. And, uh, both of us are also trying to do our day jobs, as well, so, um, we’ll keep doing it as long as we can and as long as there’s a need, but, um, again, apologies that we can’t respond to everybody.
E: Alright, thanks very much, dad, I’m gonna go try and get this posted right away.
M: OK, thank you.
E: Take care.



