Month: November 2012

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It was a series of nuclear meltdowns and releases of nuclear material that occurred after an earthquake and tsunami hit Japan on March 11, 2011. While only 38 people were injured and no one died (though some died as a result of the earthquake itself), it left many with deadly amounts of radiation, an area of land that would take decades to clean up, and a renewed fear of nuclear energy as a viable power source. When the earthquake and tsunami hit, this caused the beginnings of a meltdown to occur in many of the reactors used in the facility. These reactors heated up to unbelievable temperatures that required the Japanese to flood the reactors with seawater in an attempt to cool them down. But the attempt was in vain, because it was already too late to prevent the meltdowns of reactors 1,2, and 3 for occurring. Some of the reactors were able to be cooled when the electricity was reestablished so they did not meltdown. These problems were further exacerbated by poor planning and communication issues, like the failure to keep accurate reports of key meetings during the crisis, something which is considered very important in crisis management. And while no one saw this tragedy coming, there were signs that it very well could happen. The reactors of the facility were of an older design that most modern reactors, leading to an antiquated defense against meltdowns.

While low on actual death tolls, this event was truly a horrific thing. Thousands of people had to evacuate their homes to avoid radiation. Many people have received doses of radiation that will surely kill them in the future, as many as 1,000. The workers cleaning up after the disaster face some of the worst conditions imaginable, two of which have already died. It is also possible that there could be a very large radiation leak from the reactors, but that is yet to be seen. If the disaster should teach us anything, it should be that nuclear energy is a very powerful and dangerous technology, but when used safely and properly, can be well contained.

Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/japan.nuclear.meltdown/index.html?iref=NS1
http://www.hyer.eu/news/regional-news/hydrogen-in-nuclear-accidents-what-is-the-role-of-the-gas-in-fukushima

http://wayback.archive.org/web/jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1305772089000&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.nhk.or.jp%2Fdaily%2Fenglish%2F13_03.html&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20110519022809%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww3.nhk.or.jp%2Fdaily%2Fenglish%2F13_03.html

Hydrofracking, or hydraulic  fracturing, is the use of pressurized water to fracture rocks, typically below the Earth’s surface. This is typically used to access pockets of natural gas tucked away under rock. It works by basically putting so much pressure into the cracks of a rock, that those cracks spiderweb further through it, eventually compromising the integrity of the rock and reducing it to much smaller, and manageable pieces. This is a highly controlled and calculated process, because if done improperly, can cause a variety of problems that negatively affect the Earth’s atmosphere.

Hydrofracking is a technique that has been around for quite some time but has only been used commercially very recently. The first use of hydrofracking was in 1947, but the technology had to modernize before it was ready to be used industrially in 1998 in order to obtain natural gases. Since then it has been a rather controversial technology as it has been known to contaminate nearby water and release harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. It is seen as a destructive technology to the environment (on top of the product it delivers already) and has been outright banned in France and other countries. It has also been found to be harmful to those who work with the hydrofracking equipment as it releases crystalline silica, which makes the practice under fire by the  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. All in all, hydrofracking is a complex technology based on a simple idea, that, while providing and economically viable way to obtain petroleum and natural gases, is ultimately an environmental and health concern that should really be dealt with.

Sources:
http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/shale-gas
http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/05/silica-fracking/