If Fermi was Fukushima Who Would be "Sheltering in Place"?

The nuclear fallout from the effects of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami tragedy that damaged the Fukushima nuclear power plant, whose reactors seem to be falling like dominoes, lead the Japanese government to warn people within a 30 kilometers [over 18 Miles] radius to seal themselves indoors or "Shelter in Place" and declared a no-fly zone over the area.

To try to comprehend this in Detroit terms I constructed the image below to display who would be sheltering is place if the Fermi nuclear power plant had experienced the same disaster and the same warning was declared here. As you can see from the Michigan-Ohio border to Romulus [DTW], Taylor, Wyandotte and Amherstburg would all be under the shelter in place warning.
Attachment 9054

How prepared are we? What would you do in such a scenario? I'd have to think about visiting my sister out west of Jackson for a few days. What would this mean for the Detroit economy? So many questions...

"Shelter in place" means the fallout is of rather low energy, and will dissipate after a few days.

The situation in Japan isn't great, but it isn't as bad as the media makes it out to be. It's weird that it seems like all you see on TV talking about the situation over there is Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer, and Michio Kaku, a particle physicist - both very smart guys but neither one is a nuclear engineer.

We are 10 to the 100th power safer now then we were on October 5th, 1966 when a Sodium Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor called Fermi 1 experienced a partial meltdown.
I was looking for a little more information about the Fermi 1 partial meltdown other than the book "We Almost Lost Detroit" and found a blog from a current Fermi 2 nuclear power plant worker:http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/06/fermi-chronicles-part-19-nuclear-events.htmlBoth videos on here are great.
Fukushima would have already overtaken Chernobyl if they had been like the Sodium cooled Fermi 1 near Detroit.
The important thing to do in this scenario is to not pick up a hot particle by ingestion or respiration. A good respirator and a Geiger counter would be extremely beneficial. Depending where the wind was blowing on that day would determine what part of the region becomes the new “Nature Preserve”[[like the Kyshtym Disaster).

Fascinating topic! Great map, thanks for cooking that up.

I am pro-nuclear energy. I hope we don't let this situation in Japan stop us from getting off of fossil fuels. We need to learn our lessons from Japan of how to make our nuclear impervious to the "perfect storm" of natural disasters.

Folks need to keep in mind that what happened in Japan is the worse case scenario that I can think a nuclear reactor would have to go through, a 9.0 earthquake followed by a 30 foot tall, 6 miles on-shore tsunami.

I wish the best for the Japanese people.

Two days ago it didn't sound like things would get out of control at these plants, as long as containment wasn't breached. Now I'm not so sure, the blast yesterday, a possible leaky reactor, and a damaged containment structure all sound bad.

All that said, reports in the Detroit News, CNN, MSNBC talking about "how safe are our nuclear power plants" are rubbish, just meant to scare people and push an anti-nuclear agenda. What happened in Japan is beyond a worst case scenario. The plants amazingly survived a 9.0 earthquake, plants shut down and coolant was being pumped properly. Only after a 25 foot tsunami swept inland were backup systems knocked out. There is no nuke plant in the United States that would be subject to a 9.0 earthquake followed by a 25 foot tsunami.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schulzte

The plants amazingly survived a 9.0 earthquake, plants shut down and coolant was being pumped properly. Only after a 25 foot tsunami swept inland were backup systems knocked out. There is no nuke plant in the United States that would be subject to a 9.0 earthquake followed by a 25 foot tsunami.

---

What about San Clemente?

I think it's good to re-evaluate nuclear power. 300 years is a long time and it's cheaper to invade foreign countries than to clean up contaminated sites.

San Onofre, CA. is right on the water and could be susceptible to this scenario.

All kinds of energy generation have negative effects. I seem to remember some kind of energy-related disaster last year. Coal burning almost certainly releases more radiation into the environment than nuclear generation. There has been a lot of discussion recently about the bad side effects of natural gas production. Dams are bad for rivers and the things that live in them. I think solar and wind are less damaging, but they have large footprints that have impacts on animal habitats. We have a serious global CO2 problem.

Maybe nuclear power is worse than the alternatives, but that isn't clear to me. What is clear is that no one was willing to build nuclear plants in the US without massive subsidies before this, and this isn't likely to encourage them. The question is whether this is going to make it harder to preserve those subsidies.

Just saw this link on digg:

http://twitpic.com/49mm4l

Looks like, as of this morning, the levels were around 11mSv, which is about twice what you'd get in a CT scan.

I live close enough to Fermi to get the yearly information guides and vouchers for free Potassium Iodide pills. Last year when that tornado hit the cooling tower I could hear the sirens at the plan, very very uneasy feeling.

Hopefully lessons will be learned from this situation so that it wont happen in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

Fascinating topic! Great map, thanks for cooking that up.

I am pro-nuclear energy. I hope we don't let this situation in Japan stop us from getting off of fossil fuels. We need to learn our lessons from Japan of how to make our nuclear impervious to the "perfect storm" of natural disasters.

Folks need to keep in mind that what happened in Japan is the worse case scenario that I can think a nuclear reactor would have to go through, a 9.0 earthquake followed by a 30 foot tall, 6 miles on-shore tsunami.

I wish the best for the Japanese people.

---

Folks need to keep in mind that worst case scenarios do happen - Japan has taught us this. Just because we don't have tsunamis doesn't mean we are somehow safer. We also have a much more imminent threat of terrorism in this country, for example.
Learn our lessons from Japan? They are just about the most disaster-prepared country on earth. We can't stop the forces of nature. There is no way to make anything impervious to natural disasters, at least if its going to be above ground

I'm not really emphatically pro or anti nuclear power, but we need to give up our delusions of imperviousness in this country. September 11 should have taught us that. What happened to the nuclear reactor in Japan could happen here albeit under different circumstances, and I'm honestly not sure how you can make a force like nuclear energy safe enough anymore. I'm all for weaning off fossil fuels, but it seems to me that no matter what lengths we go through, we can't keep nuclear power under our control at all times, and the consequences are too horrific to risk it.

It looks like the prevailing winds would stretch that circle out toward Ontario. :eek:

At least in Japan it's mostly going to go out to sea.

There was a Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Planet accident and spilled a ton of radiation inot Lake Erie in the early 1990s but that's been clear out unless we see mutated fish and exotic plants. No meltdown occured. If a there was another Nuclear accident [[ A Meltdown) Tons of radiation will be spilled from some parts of southeast Michigan [[Most parts of Metro-Detroit will not be affected) The Northwest winds ot Prevailing Westernlies winds will carry radiation From Toledo and Colombus, OH. to Cleveland, Ohio and other Ohio cities most parts of Canada, Toronto, ONT. will be affected and toxic cloud will be spreading all over the New England States, including New York City.

There are 104 Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. The U.S. have serveral small nuclear accidents. The biggest one was Three Mile Island, PA. But employees ans scientists stop the meltdown in time. THAT'S WAS CLOSE!!!!

The 2 Nuclear Power Plants that are in the Earthquake zone was San Onfre and Diablo Canyon, California. It can withstand up to 7.5 R.S. If an Earthquake its over that limit, then a toxic disaster will spread anythere in the U.S. from the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPole

Folks need to keep in mind that worst case scenarios do happen - Japan has taught us this. Just because we don't have tsunamis doesn't mean we are somehow safer. We also have a much more imminent threat of terrorism in this country, for example.
Learn our lessons from Japan? They are just about the most disaster-prepared country on earth. We can't stop the forces of nature. There is no way to make anything impervious to natural disasters, at least if its going to be above ground

I'm not really emphatically pro or anti nuclear power, but we need to give up our delusions of imperviousness in this country. September 11 should have taught us that. What happened to the nuclear reactor in Japan could happen here albeit under different circumstances, and I'm honestly not sure how you can make a force like nuclear energy safe enough anymore. I'm all for weaning off fossil fuels, but it seems to me that no matter what lengths we go through, we can't keep nuclear power under our control at all times, and the consequences are too horrific to risk it.

---

It would cost money to fix those things and prepare for a disaster. It may even require a tax on certain goods to subsidize such remedial measures to prevent against disaster. Thus it is a marxist socialist plan to redistribute wealth and our Attorney General will sue Barack HUSSIEN Obama if he even mentions doing any such thing.

Who's to say we wouldn't have a tsunami type problem at Fermi 2? It sits at the eastern terminus of Lake Erie. What about other Great Lakes nuclear plants such as the decrepit nuclear plant east of Toledo implicated in the huge eastern US blackout of a few years ago? There are plants dotting the shores of the Great Lakes. Yes, they may need the water, but wouldn't they be safer and better off further away from the shores? For doubters of tsunami effects on the Great Lakes, spend some time along the shores when high winds kick up running the length and breadth of the lakes resulting in a massive build up of waves and water height. Add in an earthquake, and heavens knows what might take place. It seems, at this early stage, that the problems in Japan weren't so much about the nuclear plants operation and redundancy, as about the unforeseen consequences of the tsunami waves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Who's to say we wouldn't have a tsunami type problem at Fermi 2? It sits at the eastern terminus of Lake Erie. What about other Great Lakes nuclear plants such as the decrepit nuclear plant east of Toledo implicated in the huge eastern US blackout of a few years ago? There are plants dotting the shores of the Great Lakes. Yes, they may need the water, but wouldn't they be safer and better off further away from the shores? For doubters of tsunami effects on the Great Lakes, spend some time along the shores when high winds kick up running the length and breadth of the lakes resulting in a massive build up of waves and water height. Add in an earthquake, and heavens knows what might take place. It seems, at this early stage, that the problems in Japan weren't so much about the nuclear plants operation and redundancy, as about the unforeseen consequences of the tsunami waves.

---

:mad: Stop this nonsense. Michigan has never had an earthquake over 6.0 that I've ever heard of. We're several hundred miles from the nearest area of earthquake activity, which is the New Madrid, Missouri fault. Rivers are more likely to flood than lakes, so why build a nuke plant on a river, when you can build one on a lake?

My understanding is that the 30 KM radius was arrived at seemingly arbitrarily, with no hard science or mathematical equation to support it as opposed to, say, 25 KM or 40 KM.

I would be very interested to know why both back up systems [[diesel generators and batteries) failed. I would like to know if those systems were in working order before the earthquake, or if the earthquake took out the back up systems.

We cannot protect ourselves from everything that will go wrong, and everyone has a different definition of "reasonable" caution. Accidents and natural disasters happen every day. But nuclear power is an immense power and an immense responsibility. I did not know until a few days ago that there were nuclear power plants so close to the intersection of tectonic plates.

Even if a full scale meltdown does not occur in Japan, I hope this will be a big wake up call to all countries that have nuclear reactors.

I've got enough bourbon and Better Made in the man cave to last 3 days. I've got friends that work at Fermi and they have me on speed dial, so if things get really bad I'll be the first to know. If you see me blasting east on I-94 you'll know theres big trouble.

There I am, reding about Fukushima, and the paper says "the cooling system failed and then the backup system failed."

So I says to myself, "Self, there was only one backup system?"

And Self responded, "That's moronic! Even a high school kid knows the worst thing that can happen to a nuclear reactor is for the fuel rods to uncover and overheat. Common sense says YOU BUILD TWENTY BACKUP SYSTEMS to cool the rods, not just one."

Have Self and I missed something here?

That said: good post, Lowell, and fascinating map.

Ray, you and Self have not missed something. Your assessment is right on.

If there were a meltdown in Monroe, the Detroit area would be uninhabitable for several years. It's not like you clean up and move back. As enormous as the earthquake and tsunami damage are, once the areas are cleaned up, people can move back and rebuild their lives. This will not be the case if a meltdown occurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

How prepared are we? What would you do in such a scenario? I'd have to think about visiting my sister out west of Jackson for a few days. What would this mean for the Detroit economy? So many questions...

---

-Well I am not that prepared because there is a greater risk of the Teaparty causing environmental damage than Fermi. Lets see: chance of 8.9 Earthquake in SE Michigan? Almost impossible. Chance of Tsunami from Lake Erie? Also next to impossible. It is something I am willing to risk. Let's put what is happening in Japan in proper context. The mercury from all the coal burned at the areas coal-fired power plants has done way more eco-damage than a nuclear plant.

Ray1936... I think the had 3 backup systems... each of which failed... and the final backup was to bring in seawater... also [[it appears) a failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Who's to say we wouldn't have a tsunami type problem at Fermi 2? It sits at the eastern terminus of Lake Erie. What about other Great Lakes nuclear plants such as the decrepit nuclear plant east of Toledo implicated in the huge eastern US blackout of a few years ago? There are plants dotting the shores of the Great Lakes. Yes, they may need the water, but wouldn't they be safer and better off further away from the shores? For doubters of tsunami effects on the Great Lakes, spend some time along the shores when high winds kick up running the length and breadth of the lakes resulting in a massive build up of waves and water height. Add in an earthquake, and heavens knows what might take place. It seems, at this early stage, that the problems in Japan weren't so much about the nuclear plants operation and redundancy, as about the unforeseen consequences of the tsunami waves.

---

No.

Tsunami waves are different from waves caused by wind. The continuous drive of large volumes of waters is very different from the slim occurance of an abrupt 40' wave caused by wind.

Yes, a serious wave can do damage, but nothing aside from what we normally might see. The big storm in Chicago did generate some high waves, and here's what they did:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5139/...7f3ed96f_z.jpg



But the damage stops at the seawall. Waves caused by wind lose energy very fast where tsunamis hold great amounts of energy to push them very far inland.

As for earthquakes, I wouldn't be all that concerned as far as where Detroit is located. New Madrid is becoming more unlikely to produce a large earthquake, whereas the Wabash Valley has become a bigger threat. St. Louis and Chicago should probably be a bit nervous, but what would reach Detroit would be fairly insignificant and unlikely to cause any damage....alot of which has to do with the Earth's crust characteristics in this region.

I've seen this question pop up once before, and I managed to find it

Quote:

---

July 28, 1998

Dear Tom,
Could an earthquake in Lake Michigan cause a catastrophic tidal wave to hit Chicago like the one that happened at Papau, New Guinea?
MTM, Bartlett

Dear MTM,
There is no known historical precedent for a tsunami even remotely close to the magnitude of the Papau, New Guinea, event on the Great Lakes. The probability of such an event here has to be considered exceedingly low. says Guy Urban, geophysicist at the Palmer, Alaska, based West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center.
Urban does add that several catastrophic, rare and rather improbable occurrences would be required to set up a tsunami here. He's quick to point out the near impossibility, absent careful modeling of such an event, of even beginning to speculate on the dimensions of such a wave. Only a direct asteroid strike, a huge thermonuclear explosion beneath the lake or a massive earthquake might initiate one, and while not impossible, the odds are not high.
Copyright © 2004, WGN-TV

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schulzte

:mad: Stop this nonsense. Michigan has never had an earthquake over 6.0 that I've ever heard of. We're several hundred miles from the nearest area of earthquake activity, which is the New Madrid, Missouri fault. Rivers are more likely to flood than lakes, so why build a nuke plant on a river, when you can build one on a lake?

---

There has been continual earthquake activity in Lake Erie. While these rarely get above the 5.0 magnitude, it is not like it is unknown. Since the history of this continent is so short we do not have a records beyond a 2 or 3 of centuries, so no one knows if an event such at the 4 7.2 – 8.1 New Madrid quakes may or may not be possible. While I agree that a large scale quake with a resultant tsunami sweeping over Fermi is unlikely, it is not totally out of the question.

I find is puzzling how some like to adopt and 'it can never happen here' attitude then trot out the 'technology has improved since then' lines when it does.

Nuclear energy only exists because it is subsidized and given a liability waver. [look at your home owners insurance if you don't believe me]. The industry is not held responsible for the damage it can do nor for the impossible task of guaranteeing the long-term security of its waste which remains toxic for thousands of years and always will be a target for terrorist dirty bomb-making. Nuclear energy is only 'clean' and 'cheap' because it gets a pass the other industries do not.

Coal has its vices, as pointed out above, but if a coal-fired plant goes haywire, will it make thousands of square miles uninhabitable? Will people be sheltering in place for a 30KM radius? The problem with nukes is that there is no room for error. The Japanese with all their knowledge of earthquakes, tsunamis, experience with radiation, and precision know-how still screwed up.