At the onset, I would like to offer my condolences to all the people who were in direct contact with the havoc and disaster that struck Japan. I believe that we should pray for them for two minutes.
Now, I have been hearing several reports and news telecasts about the situation of the Nuclear Reactors in Japan. There were several questions which arose in my mind after and while listening to these reports.
1. When the earthquake struck Japan, and they measured it to be quite larger (10 times more) than what the reactor had been designed to handle, why weren't the reactors shut down, why pull till the end? If they would have shut them down at that time, the damage and risk caused by the Tsunami which followed would have been minimal. Salt water was pumped into the reactor to cool it down, which toasted it. It can never be used again now. If they would have shut the reactor down following the earthquake, they could have restarted it at a later time, when all this was over; not to mention the huge risk or radiation and meltdown that they could have avoided.
A report said, that the reactor withstood the earthquake which was ten times more powerful than that for which the reactor was designed to withstand; but it is the Tsunami which caused it to blow up. So why not just shut it down when you saw the warning? Why try to be superman?
2. In Japan, or even the US for that matter; which by chance derives 20% of its energy from 104 nuclear reactors that it houses, why are all of them built in coastal areas? Why not centrally locate the reactors? If you see the location of the nuclear reactors in the US, you would fine, not even three built centrally, all, and I literally mean all, are located in coastal areas. What is the reason behind this?
I admit that perhaps when they were built, 10-15 years back, the world had not experienced the wrath of a Tsunami, but there were a zillion other disasters associated with water and sea which have been there for ever; cyclones, hurricanes, huge tidal waves, and what not. I also admit that I have not researched on the reason that they decided to build all the reactors in coastal ares, but i do feel what ever the reason was, it wasn't good enough.
3. What are the disaster preventive measure which are taken before building a reactor? I mean the report said that the reactor in Japan withstood ten times powerful earthquake than it was designed for, the magnitude of the earthquake was 8.9 on the richter scale. So does that mean that the reactor was built to withstand an earthquake measuring 0.89 in the richter scale? Cause for one thing, that is too low a preventive measure. You rarely find an earthquake of magnitude that low causing massive destruction, so how does that design classify as disaster preventive management? How does it become a preventive measure? Strange.
I know India is planning to build thorium reactors soon, i just hope that they are not coastal-ly located.
However, the biggest thing that bothers me right now is the supermoon coming up on the 19th of this month. If you are unaware, the moon on this 19th would be the closest to the earth in the last 20 years. And why is that a reason for worry? Because, the gravitational effects of the moon cause the tides that you see normaly, as in the low and high tides about which i am sure everybody would have read about in school geography. So when it is coming so close, imaging the effects on tides. It is expected to result in a lot of natural disasters like earthquakes etc. and also to wreck the power and communications.
Japan, facing a Tsunami already, and this coming up. I just hope that the Japanese government is preparing for that as well and not only working on the present. Because if the reactor withstood this Tsunami and earthquake, it would definitely not withstand the coming ones. So please shut them down, you can always restart them once all this is over.
Now, I have been hearing several reports and news telecasts about the situation of the Nuclear Reactors in Japan. There were several questions which arose in my mind after and while listening to these reports.
1. When the earthquake struck Japan, and they measured it to be quite larger (10 times more) than what the reactor had been designed to handle, why weren't the reactors shut down, why pull till the end? If they would have shut them down at that time, the damage and risk caused by the Tsunami which followed would have been minimal. Salt water was pumped into the reactor to cool it down, which toasted it. It can never be used again now. If they would have shut the reactor down following the earthquake, they could have restarted it at a later time, when all this was over; not to mention the huge risk or radiation and meltdown that they could have avoided.
A report said, that the reactor withstood the earthquake which was ten times more powerful than that for which the reactor was designed to withstand; but it is the Tsunami which caused it to blow up. So why not just shut it down when you saw the warning? Why try to be superman?
2. In Japan, or even the US for that matter; which by chance derives 20% of its energy from 104 nuclear reactors that it houses, why are all of them built in coastal areas? Why not centrally locate the reactors? If you see the location of the nuclear reactors in the US, you would fine, not even three built centrally, all, and I literally mean all, are located in coastal areas. What is the reason behind this?
I admit that perhaps when they were built, 10-15 years back, the world had not experienced the wrath of a Tsunami, but there were a zillion other disasters associated with water and sea which have been there for ever; cyclones, hurricanes, huge tidal waves, and what not. I also admit that I have not researched on the reason that they decided to build all the reactors in coastal ares, but i do feel what ever the reason was, it wasn't good enough.
3. What are the disaster preventive measure which are taken before building a reactor? I mean the report said that the reactor in Japan withstood ten times powerful earthquake than it was designed for, the magnitude of the earthquake was 8.9 on the richter scale. So does that mean that the reactor was built to withstand an earthquake measuring 0.89 in the richter scale? Cause for one thing, that is too low a preventive measure. You rarely find an earthquake of magnitude that low causing massive destruction, so how does that design classify as disaster preventive management? How does it become a preventive measure? Strange.
I know India is planning to build thorium reactors soon, i just hope that they are not coastal-ly located.
However, the biggest thing that bothers me right now is the supermoon coming up on the 19th of this month. If you are unaware, the moon on this 19th would be the closest to the earth in the last 20 years. And why is that a reason for worry? Because, the gravitational effects of the moon cause the tides that you see normaly, as in the low and high tides about which i am sure everybody would have read about in school geography. So when it is coming so close, imaging the effects on tides. It is expected to result in a lot of natural disasters like earthquakes etc. and also to wreck the power and communications.
Japan, facing a Tsunami already, and this coming up. I just hope that the Japanese government is preparing for that as well and not only working on the present. Because if the reactor withstood this Tsunami and earthquake, it would definitely not withstand the coming ones. So please shut them down, you can always restart them once all this is over.
Au Revoir... and see you soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments always welcome as they lead to betterment, but please keep them presentable, as other people read 'em too