Japan running out of options to deal with nuke crisis: U.S. experts (kyodonews)

[jannyk]

The steps being taken by Japan ''are not steps that are anywhere near the top of the options'' normally available, said Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and an adviser to the U.S. secretary of energy in the 1990s. The efforts, Alvarez said, were ''improvisations on the playbook'' for stopping a nuclear meltdown. Alvarez's claim that there are no good options left for addressing the crisis is evidenced by the risky approach Tokyo has taken to cooling the reactors.

This is what you call the last-ditch stuff,'' Alvarez said, noting that the severity of the crisis had taken the standard, safer options for responding ''off the table.'' In the short term, Alvarez expects that even these extreme measures will be unable to stop the crisis. ''It doesn't appear at this time that they are working. The accident is likely to unfold over a period of weeks,'' he said.

Asked about the decision to change the rating, Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he expected the threat level would be raised again. ''It's very hard for me to believe that at the end of the day, this accident will be seen as being the same level as Three Mile Island, which was also a level 5,'' Bradford said.

Jeffrey Patterson, a radiation exposure specialist, had an even bleaker assessment. Unlike natural disasters, such as earthquakes, with nuclear accidents, ''the end never comes,'' Patterson said. ''This just goes on forever, because the effects of radiation go on forever,'' he said.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/79504.html

[Tx4obama]

1. 5? I thought someone had already rated Dai-ichi a SIX. n/t

[Marblehead]

2. was a 6

now a 5, my gut says a 7. My gut was right about the gulf gusher too

[Tx4obama]

4. Hard to believe they changed it 'down'. I think it will be a 7 too before this is all over. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

8. it was never rated a 6, so it was never rated "down". the reports about a "6"

were about the opinion of an official of a french nuclear agency.

which has no authority to issue ratings of japanese nuclear incidents. or any nuclear accidents but their own.

each country's nuclear authorities do the initial ratings of their own nuclear accidents & iaea makes final determination.

as i told various people, with citation, at the time, but unfortunately to no avail.

people who want to believe the worst will in the face of evidence otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

[Tx4obama]

13. It was the head of France's Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN). And also...

The nuclear authorities of Finland and the USA have unofficially rated Dai-ichi as level 6

[Hannah Bell]

14. The asn has no authority to rate international nuclear incidents. Their opinion is their opinion.

there is no "unofficial" rating.

it is their opinion.

if posters had made that clear i'd have no problem.

btw, asn had already (on the 14th) stated their opinion that the incident was a "5 or 6" at the time the japanese initially rated it a 4.

that was their opinion then as well.

http://www.bestgrowthstock.com/stock-market-news/2011/03/14/update-2-french-nuclear-agency-rates-japan-accident-5-or-6/

[Tx4obama]

15. You are the one that posted the Wiki link.They used the word 'unoffiical'

And besides there is no difference between an 'unofficial rating' and an 'opinion' - neither one is 'official'. ;)

[jschurchin]

3. Not officially that I know of

But from the information that has been disseminated so far, I fear the level will be raised again.

[jannyk]

6. The Japanese never upped their own rating until now nt

[Hannah Bell]

7. no, someone (various someones) posted the opinion of a member of a french

nuclear agency about what the rating *should* be.

and many people misinterpreted it as though it were what the rating *is*.

the french nuclear agency has no authority to rate any nuclear accidents but its own.

the authorities in the respective countries issue initial ratings & the iaea does final determination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

[Cetacea]

9. Including some American experts.

Besides, the French know a thing or two about Nuke plants.

[Hannah Bell]

11. the french can issue whatever opinions they like. their opinions are not the ines official rating.

as was wrongly reported or inferred from unclear reports.

this is a matter of *fact*.

& confusion/blurring of factual matters leads to more confusion.

as can be seen now as people scratch their heads & go, "wait a minute, i thought they rated it a 6 already?"

[Cetacea]

16. I'm all for facts.

[jpak]

10. There are 3 reactors with partial meltdowns and multiple spent fuel pools with loss of coolant

and multiple hydrogen explosions

and lethal radiation levels

NOTHING REMOTELY LIKE THIS HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND

and everything is hunky dory?

NO

IT

ISN'T

6-7

yup

[k2qb3]

12. The ratings mean specific things.

Assuming we're getting accurate numbers, as bad as the situation is, nobody has received a lethal radiation dose yet, and as far as anyone can tell there have not been large amounts of radioactive material that have gotten airborne, so the situation is so far contained to a small area, the cleanup will be incredibly expensive and that area will be uninhabitable for a long time but it really doesn't meet the criteria for a higher rating yet.

If one of the fuel pools catches fire, then it will be a 7, that or an uncontained critcality accident are really the only likely scenarios where this gets bad enough to warrant a higher rating, there's no other way for enough radioactive material to get airborne, so long as it stays on the site as a point source of radiation and not an emission of radioactive material it will remain a local catastrophe with limited impacts outside the immediate area.

There will not be a boom. There could be an unshielded criticality accident but that wouldn't be a boom or a large emission of material either, it would be a really bad point-source that would kill the workers on site.

[flamingdem]

18. This one might be an 8 over time, especially with the unknowns involved nt

[applegrove]

5. Then need canadian water bombers to dump water on all four reactors at the same time.

Okay. I'm a little over the top. Still I feel less helpless for having suggested something...anything...

[flamingdem]

17. Not many will volunteer for flying over the reactors

This is the problem, no one wants to die for a lost cause and they don't have anything surefire.

So what they do is not intensive enough though at least they got power to No. 5 and No. 6 today I think