An Idea For Gaining Control Over The Damaged Reactors In Japan (Page 3)

StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy, I'll repeat the last thing I said:
"You [hellbhoy] apparently ignored my examples of how radio technology works just fine in radioactive environments. Perhaps you could go back, review those examples, and then explain why those things work, but radio near a power plant wouldn't."

hellbhoy says:
"I already explained electronic equipment is no good near a reactor as in up close and personal."

First, read my abovoe comment. The explain how the videocams "up close and personal" are working. Explain how helicopters making very tight orbits around the reactor buildings are working - you’d think if there was the SLIGHTEST danger of electronic failure due to radiation, a modern copter, HEAVILY dependant upon electronics, would go NOWHERE NEAR that source of radiation.

hellbhoy says:
"Also smoke belting out can mask even a drone with a camera."

Of course it can. But it’s not creating a blanket mask obscuring any view, is it? I assume you've seen some of the video images shot from helicopters flying in close, getting some of those spectacular shots of the massive damage that have been all over the news. I think it's a given that the scientists and technical experts dealing with this problem are examining that video footage very closely. The news crews making those videos are, needless to say, exposing themselves, and it would be reasonable to assume that they are swooping in quickly to get the shots and quickly retreating to minimize exposure.

Imagine a small UAV that can hang around with impunity, get in closer, make repeated passes over the same area, etc., and if it crashes through operator error or mechanical failure, simply send up another instead of having to send in a rescue team for the human passengers. Not only that, the small, military UAVs I cited as an example have infrared capability, allowing them to capture images in smoky environments (a rather valuable capability when working in a combat environment).

hellbhoy says:
"There is no option but human intervention in these emergencies were millions of lives are at stake."

I'm sure you're right that it would always require SOME human exposure. But "no option" other than human exposure? The idea would be to minimize human exposure only to that which would be absolutely necessary, and let technological devices replace them when possible. You seem dedicated to the proposal that doing so in any way would be impossible. Your arguments aren't convincing. (shrugs)

hellbhoy says:
"As for your original question ideally a machine to help cool the reactor would be ideal"

Well, that's EXACTLY what I've been arguing. Jeesh!

hellbhoy says:
"more to the point would be better safety measures to ensure there are no such emergencies be better."

No one would argue that, but that is outside of the purview of the intent of this thread. This thread was meant to address the emergency that DOES happen, not to address an improvement of safety measure. After this catastrophe, I doubt many are arguing that safety improvements would be a worthwhile pursuit.

hellbhoy says:
"Better still lets just not build anymore reactors as the consequences outweigh the benefits."

Again, that is outside of the purview of the intent of this thread. Perhaps you could create a thread to address those subjects.

hellbhoy: OK then,there are more cleverer and smarter people than me and you involved in dealing with nuclear meltdowns.Some have spent a lifetime in the subject but still we use human intervention,this suggests that remote vehicles of any kind are completely useless in this sort of disasters.I'm no expert on the subject but do know that they would if they could use robots or machines to contain a disaster like this.

This is from Wikipedia on Radiation hardening.

Nuclear reactors produce gamma radiation and neutron radiation which can affect sensor and control circuits in nuclear power plants.

StuckInTheSixties: Here is the actual Wiki link, for anyone interested:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening

The information in that link confirms what I've been saying. It directly refutes your claim that "electronic equipment is no good near a reactor as in up close and personal." Thanks for making my argument for me.

hellbhoy says:
"[The fact that they were not used] suggests that remote vehicles of any kind are completely useless in this sort of disasters.I'm no expert on the subject but do know that they would if they could use robots or machines to contain a disaster like this."

If you will look on page 1 of this thread, my third post, you will read this:


"No one has what I proposed. It's not a genius idea or anything, so I can only assume that there must be some reason they don't have remote controlled firefighting equipment. But I don't know why."


All of the various skepticisms you have voiced were exactly the same things that went through my mind before I created this thread. I sat there, watching the footage on TV, thinking about all of those things, and kind of checking them off one by one, much like I've been doing in my replies to you. Thus far, I have not seen any reason why what I have described can't exist.

Yet it apparently doesn't. Why?

There might very well be a technological reason, like that which you’ve been digging for. But if there is, I don't know what it is, and any of the things that you have brought up were figuratively checked off the check list, so to speak. If there is a technological reason, and the argument was convincing, I'd accept that without reservation. I'm not attached to the validity of my idea like a religious zealot is attached to his God. If someone shows me why it can't happen, so be it. No problem. If the very next post is a solid, convincing reason why the idea is invalid, I'll simply say, "Oh yeah. I hadn't thought of that" or "Oh yeah. I wasn't aware of that."

So common sense suggests to me that it's not happening for one of these reasons:

~ a technological reason I (and everyone reading this, thus far) am not aware of
~ economics (I addressed this concern, and I HOPE that isn't the reason)
~ the ignorance/arrogance inherent in human technological endeavors - we always seem to think we have everything covered ... until the eventuality occurs that we didn't cover
~ politics - If you're in the nuclear power business, you really aren't going to be enthused about providing equipment that would only be used when the main argument behind your business (that nuclear power is reasonably safe) fails

I can think of no reason why this equipment doesn't exist. It might be nothing more than stupidity, who knows. Remember, the reason these reactors failed in the first place was because of something that can only be looked at in hindsight as incredibly stupid:

They didn't think to put their back up generators up high enough to be safe from a tsunami.

This catastrophe happened because of that STUPID oversight.

AussieOi: At what point does cost and politics feed into oversights? Maybe we need to melt one down every now and then so we can get scared again and do something about it again

hellbhoy: I've been trying to say that electronic equipment of any kind can be directly interfered by the emissions in such a disaster.Anything that relies on a microprocessor can suffer from radiation degradation,the silicon switches work slower the sensors become erratic.This is no ordinary nuclear reactor emission explained in Wikipedia,this is a nuclear meltdown were the hotter the fuel rods get the more it emits radiation of all sorts.The Fukushima plant is in critical condition,the fuel rods are close to an explosion.They are not contained properly behind lead containers in a cooling system.PEOPLE are going to die to remedy the problem because no machine will work in this situation.Pouring water over the fuel rods will help but the fuel rods are exposed releasing ten thousand times plus of acceptable limits of radiation a nuclear power plant should emit.The simple truth is any microprocessor controlled device has a shelf life in a nuclear meltdown,closer or worse the fuel rods get the quicker it will malfunction.I do hope you will understand Sits why we don't have the machines to deal with this problem as I would love them to have to save lives.

davidk14: .

The technology is available. We have "technology" in space that gets bombarded by radiation and does just fine. Do we actually have equipment to handle nuclear disasters...maybe...maybe not....but the technology is available.

.

StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy, this has become repetitious. I've addressed your points in great detail, yet when I've asked you to reconcile some obvious facts, you repeatedly ignore my questions. I'll try one last time:

If the microprocessors used in video equipment works in close proximity to the reactors, why would they not work in firefighting equipment?

If the microprocessors used in helicopters work in close proximity to the reactors, why would they not work in firefighting equipment?

If the micoprocessors used in the Messenger Mercury probe (a FAR more intense radiation environment than Fukushima), why would they not work in firefighting equipment?

Your argument seems to be:

Well, it'll work in that other stuff, but not firefighting equipment.

Explain why, please.

hellbhoy says:
"I do hope you will understand Sits why we don't have the machines to deal with this problem"

Didn't you read my last post? I made a big point of saying that I DID NOT "understand ... why we don't have the machines to deal with this problem"

davidk14: .

US sending robots to Japan to help nuclear plant
Published March 29, 2011

| Associated Press
AP/Kyodo News.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government is sending some robotic help to Japan to help regain control of the tsunami-damaged nuclear plant.

A top Energy Department official told a Senate panel Tuesday that a shipment of "radiation hardened robotics" will be sent to Japan to assist in the crisis. A department spokeswoman said a robotic device from the Energy Department's Idaho National Laboratory is being shipped to Japan along with several radiation-hardened cameras.

Peter Lyons, an acting assistant energy secretary, said Japanese officials were "very, very interested" in learning more about the capabilities of U.S robots. The United States is also sending robot operators who would be used to train Japanese operators, Lyons said.

Robots with electronics built to withstand radiation could presumably work in areas where radiation levels would harm or even kill a person. Workers at the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi plant have been exposed to high levels of radiation and burned.

Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said remote-controlled robotic machines have been used to conduct environmental cleanup and other activities in contaminated environments, although not at a compromised nuclear reactor such as the ones in Japan.

The device being shipped to Japan is equipped to provide visuals, radiological surveys and mapping data in areas of the plant that are not accessible to humans due to potential elevated radiation levels that are above recommended safety guidelines.

In addition to the robots, the Energy Department has sent about 40 employees and more than 17,000 pounds of equipment to Japan, Lyons said.,

.

flashie: its a great idea. and like most good ideas a simple one, unfortunately it seems the government would rather just cull a few thousand human lives.


robots?


too easy.

hellbhoy: OK Sits I googled and searched for answers in response to your original posting of why no remote controlled firefighting equipment .... from what I gathered it would appear that human involvement is still the preferred option of trying to bring the fire and exposed core under control in terms of response times to critical conditions of where to spray the water and when to spray the water and how much water is needed if such times should arise to make the electronic cooling system operational to bring the radioactive core safe and back into line ..... could be more to it but didn't find another reason why we shouldn't use remote or robotic firefighting equipment .... also I do agree with you WHY THE Fyw^ NOT !!!!.

Well if the US do send in a radiation hardened robot guys and enters the core and functions normally ......
I'll bend over present my ANUS for abuse and humiliation har har.

StuckInTheSixties: Actually entering the reactor building is an entirely differnet thing than approaching the outside of it. Over the last few days I've seen some video taken of Japanese teams acually INSIDE the building trying to ascertain what is damaged, the extent of the damage, provide repairs, etc. It's a mess in there. Rubble everywhere. They were having to crawl under and climb over things. It looked awful.

Only in science fiction does remote control/robotic equipment exist capable of doing what they were doing.

davidk14: .

Just had a thought...

From news reports, they are encountering very high radiation levels in water and surrounding areas from the damaged reactor(s) anywhere from 3,000 times to...well very, very high levels.

Perhaps...the problem is this...the reactor(s) have melted down and they have no idea what to do.

.

StuckInTheSixties: It appears that Reactor #3 may have a c#$w@ or hole in the actual reactor vessel. They're still not sure, and they're not even sure if the reactor vessels in other units may be similarly damaged. It'll be a while, if ever, that they're able to tell just what is what.

They're struggling now with a water problem. They've managed to get water in to the reactor buildings and keep things cool enough in there to prevent the stored fuel rods from burning or keep the reactor cores from melting ( "China Syndrome" ), but they're now struggling with two issues related to that:

1. The water is being drained into a sort of holding pool - actually more like a concrete-lined trench - but that trench has a leak, and the radioactive water is leaking into the sea. They're trying various methods to stem the leak, and might finally have that controlled.
2. But this doesn't address a second, less immediate, but nevertheless, very serious problem: What do they do with all of that radioactive water? A number of "solutions" have been bandied around, such as this huge barge thing they have, or putting it into a tanker ship, but these "solutions" don't address the problem of what to do with it on a permanent basis? What in the fwxz are you supposed to do with millons and millions of gallons of radioactive water?

There was also some grossly erroneous information given to the news media, who subsequently reported that the water contained "10 million times the usual level of radioactive substances." Shortly after that, officials with the power company that owns and operated the Fukushima plant apologized and explained that there had been a "miscalculation." This led to the unusual event of the Japanese Interior Minister publically criticizing the utility.

No one should be surprised that confusion would, and will continue to, impose itself on the efforts to deal with this catastrophe.

StuckInTheSixties: I was just watching the news on television, and they showed some dramatic images of the damaged reactor buildings that they are getting from a remote controlled helicopter, much more close-up and detailed than those that they were able to get before.

So it would appear that some of the ideas which I stated as the premise of this thread are being realized. Too bad they didn't have these things ready to go at a moment's notice. Given the costs of such equipment, a pittance compared to the cost of a reactor, it's a hard argument to make that every nuclear power plant doesn't have such equipment standing by, ready to go.

Wampum6: I agree on all your statements and comments, SITS, but consider myself nothing more than someone who is interested in the steps available, taken, and others that may have been considered. I do remember reading, however, that the USN assisted by taking some radioactive water that needed to be disposed of, and dumping it in the sea. That may have taken place at a different time than at the time of this discussion, though, and may not have been what you were discussing here.

StuckInTheSixties: I don't believe anything like that happened. A Google search reveals nothing like that. Frankly, any "dumping at sea" of radioactive water would be pretty significant news, as it would obviously be potentially damaging for all sorts of reasons, and considering ocean currents, etc. it would also obviously potentially affect many countries. So I don't know what to tell you on that one.

Monday, April 18, NHK (a Japanese television network) showed video taken from remote controlled (American-made/supplied) robots that have entered parts of the Fukushima #1 and #3 reactor buildings that are too radioactive for humans to enter. They appear to be much like the robots used by armed forces for bomb disposal, etc. The robots weren't able to get too far into the buildings, though, due to debris, etc. but they were able to get radiation-level readings in a number of locations in the buildings. They are trying to find out if workers will be able to enter the buildings to make repairs needed ultimately bring the reactors under control, shut them down completely and decommission them safely.

Next week Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will begin spraying a polymer emulsion "hardening agent" around the outside of the damaged buildings in order to prevent radioactive dust from spreading in wind, etc.

Wampum6: SITS----my Google search, for whatever value, indicates that the Japanese dumped low level radioactive water into the Pacific, on or about 4/4/11, raising concern from a variety of sources.

StuckInTheSixties: Oh, indeed!

They've been putting a great deal of water into those reactor buildings to keep the fuel rods inside from either melting down within the reactor core, or igniting and burning for those that are spent and in storage. That water has to go somewhere. Before the reactors were damaged, water was in a closed system, heating up, being cooled off, and recirculating in that closed system. That system no longer functions, and they're just hosing water into the buildings instead. A lot of that radioactive water has simply drained into the nearby ocean. It's gotta go somewhere ...

There have been discussions about what to do with the water, as I pointed out above. But I can assure you that the US Navy did not move any of their water, nor dump any at sea, etc.

Kered66: hey sits interesting question you pose. You'd imagine if the us army can control live firing drones in Iraq and Afghanistan from us soil that someone would have made what you are postulating. However the main trouble we have is money. Thats right the almighty shareholder is much more important than the general population that is why the parent company has told so many lies over a number of decades to keep these obsolete reactors running!!! We have now experienced i believe only two meltdowns in history and the knowledge of how to stop or fix the problem simply does not exist. As a result of the radiation now polluting the skies, rainwater and oceans across the northern hemisphere the US EPA has now raised the bottom limits US citizens are allowed to be exposed to so as to not cause hysteria among the US population when they discover they have been irradiated by the fallout. Very cynical indeed.

StuckInTheSixties: I really don't see the cost of having such equipment on hand as the main impediment. I've made the point numerous times that while equipment is expensive, compared to the cost of the reactor facilites themselves, it's a drop in the bucket. That sort of equipment costs millions. Nuclear plants cost billions.

As for the EPA raising the acceptable limits of exposure, etc.:

As you might tell, I've been monitoring the news on a daily basis on this story. Actually, I've been archiving recordings almost every day. I've not heard anything like what you describe. I, of course, made an internet search, starting with the EPA's official website where I found no mention of an elevating of what they consider acceptable levels of contamination. While there are plenty of websites ranting about this topic, but they are all of the alarmist variety, and have little credibility. There is no mention of this in conventional news sources. I suspect that this might be one of those episodes of viral misinformation, where someone posts erroneous information, other sources repeat it, etc.

So I would ask you to please see if you can provide a credible source of information on this, as I was unable to find one.

StuckInTheSixties: Japanese television network NHK World had an interesting segment on their "Newsline" program today, which I watched. Last week Newsline mentioned that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was going to begin a program of spraying a polymer emulsion "hardening agent" around the outside of the damaged buildings in order to prevent radioactive dust from spreading in wind, etc. and that plan was put into action today.

As Newsline explained today: "The plan is to coat the 500 thousand square meter site with 1 million cubic meters of that agent by the end of June. The test spraying was done by workers using hoses, but a remote control vehicle will now be used to minimize worker's radiation exposure. TEPCO said three weeks of test spraying proved the hardening agent keeps radioactive dust from being blown away."

The news segment showed a picture of the remote controlled spraying vehicle, which was amazingly similar to the fire-fighting vehicle that I had imagined, the main idea behind the creation of this Forum thread. It's a very large tracked (not wheeled) vehicle, apparently what we in the USA would call a "dump truck." The driver's area has been equipped with remote control gear. It appears that the main load area of the vehicle is holding a large square vat or tank containing the liquid hardening agent, and it has a large spray-nozzle attached to it which can be aimed. This link will show it:

http://www.japannewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/RemoteControlledCrawlerDump.jpg

This, I think, completely puts to rest any arguments about whether it is technologically feasible to have the same kind of modifications made on fire-fighting equipment. As I've maintained from the beginning of this thread, I'm no genius, and I don't think it requires any great brilliance to conceive of this kind of equipment. There's no doubt in my mind that the people in the nuclear industry have considered these concepts.

So why do the remain conceptual, and not real?

I have to assume that the only reasons such equipment doesn't exist at every nuclear power plant are purely because of politics and public relations. For a nuclear power plant to even consider having such equipment on hand, even though vitally useful in a dire emergency, is an admission that such a dire emergency is a real, tangible possibility.