all know what is happening in Japan, so my words can clarify anything about it, but I'd like leyeseis this interview with Director Nuclear Agency of the OECD. To have a version other, less alarmist television channels.
- Are there opportunities to stabilize Fukushima?
"Yes, it seems to have gotten the external supply of the electricity network, which is very important because they enable the use of computers so far can not work. If confirmed, it would be very good news and much easier to recover the reactors. What happens in the next few hours will depend on the possibility of getting a chill in the reactors.
- What would be the use of energy?
"If you have a cooling 100% and now only need to cool the 0.5% Central would be truly fantastic. Also recover part or all of the instrumentation, which could better measure the temperatures, pressures, water levels. With all this would be easier to further deteriorating the fuel and, therefore, not expel more nuclear fission products, but would also have to repair the damage to containments. If you got these two things, to stabilize the exhaust outside.
- How much radioactivity had gone outside?
"It's pretty, but it is still relatively manageable. Direct effects on health occur in the order of a sievert, so do not start until 200 or 400 times the amounts reported so far, which are about 4,000 hourly microsievert. The real risk is the exposure time.
- Are we doing the right thing at the plant?
"They're doing everything humanly possible. Operators are suffering more than anyone because they are receiving large doses. But keep in mind they are also in a country with a tremendous chaos, with thousands killed by the tsunami.
- When would be safe Fukushima?
"There are four standards that need to meet before reaching a stable situation. First you must get a constant cooling and maintained in all reactors, closing all possible cracks from which emits radioactivity, ensure that there are again no hydrogen explosions that could damage the structures again and, finally, to assess levels radiation from the central to decontaminate. All this could take several days.
- What do you think the commissioner of EU Energy compare the situation in Japan with the apocalypse?
"It's a bit sad because do not need those big adjectives. You have to make the European Union is to help Japan. Tell those levels something I do not think that helps at all to a better understanding of the situation in the European population.
- What scale would frame the accident?
"Right now is probably a 6 out of 7. While it would have to see the effects of radiation for completion. We must be cautious and wait to finish everything because there is still a risk that can evolve in a direction not positive. Has not yet reached a checkpoint.
- What are the lessons of this disaster?
"We must review all seismic criteria because this has been an earthquake greater than expected. We must also reconsider the principles of plant location in terms of other fenónemos as tsunamis, floods and fires. Also should seek alternative systems that can ensure the electricity emergency, ensure cooling of the reactor and prevent the accumulation of hydrogen, which has produced the explosion.
- Should more requirements required to build nuclear power plants?
-most likely as a result of this accident is reached that conclusion. The central Fukushima was well designed but was not prepared for a disaster of this level. Still, it best have endured before a tsunami of 17 meters high swept entire villages.
- How do you rate the extent of the Twenty-seven of testing its 143 reactors extreme?
"The EU has not defined what they are extreme. Therefore, do not know what he is referring. What we do know is that all regulators have begun a specific revision in each of the nuclear plants, depending on the causes and effects of the accident in Fukushima.
- Do you believe that European plants are able to withstand a similar disaster?
"I doubt they could withstand a tsunami of 17 meters. This analysis has never been done and has not thought of. Yes they are prepared for major floods and earthquakes of maximum levels. For more events which are designed itself is well designed. But keep in mind that nature can create much more serious situations we imagine. Still, I would be comfortable with the security of central Europe.
- Is it necessary to reopen a new debate on nuclear energy?
"It would be a mistake to start a discussion now. We have to wait to know well all that has happened in the accident and the ultimate consequences to know exactly what is involved Fukushima. However, the debate must exist. Nuclear power requires social support and if people do not want any, is best not to produce it.
- Does feasible to replace nuclear power stations?
-No. In the coming decades is not possible. You can close a reactor, opening new ones that are not built as many as were expected, but it is an indispensable power in Europe and worldwide. I am sure that will continue.
Well, I will try to make another post about the moment just say my deep admiration for the Japanese people and the wonderful way of dealing with this catastrophe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment