Japan Readies Robot For Work At Crippled Nuclear Reactor 78
angry tapir writes "A Japanese robotics lab has developed a new emergency response prototype that will soon be put to work at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in northern Japan. The robot, called 'Rosemary,' is about the size of a lawn mower and has four extended treaded feet that swivel up and down to help it climb over obstacles."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? They can filter for too many caps, but not for this constant, endless bullshit?
Any post with the text 'mycleanpc' in it should be automatically rejected and the IP address that attempts to post it blocked from posting for a 24 hour cooling off period. Most trolls have short attention spans and will quickly lose interest.
It's a really great robot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they did have the robot ready already a year ago.
But it took them a year to figure out how it could retain its full mobility while being fitted with a schoolgirl uniform.
Re: (Score:3)
"global environmental catastrophe"
them's fightin' words.
gonna need a rundown of the effects this will have.
Re:Cringely: Next Japan Nuke Accident Will Be Wors (Score:5, Insightful)
the linked article is quite the troll, too. peppered with terms like "it is my belief", or "probably". it's an interesting opinion, but i call shenanigans on any authority the writer claims (and he claims a lot - talking about TMI like it's at all relevant).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
jesus. on one side we have tepco and the iaea (both of whom have enormous vested interests in maintaining the reputation of nuclear power as being 100% A++++++++ safe would buy again!!), and on the other we have people claiming that the cores are currently melting through the earth into borneo and spawning lizard people.
as of right now, all that matters if that if a major quake hits, the fuel pools could very well collapse, and the sky shine caused by fractured and burning fuel rods will make further work a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
as of right now, all that matters if that if a major quake hits, the fuel pools could very well collapse
We already had the largest quake that particular area is likely to see for the next few centuries and these fuel pools didn't collapse. It's one thing to claim uncertainty when we don't have evidence available one way or another. And another to claim uncertainty in the face of a solid demonstration to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
There is another huge earthquake well overdue on the three fault line which underlie Tokyo, not so far from Fukushima.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic is astounding - this means that you can build a reactor with no protection from Tsunami or earthquake because it will be decommissioned by the time the next event happens! All because they already had one.
Those predictions are only based on educated guesses, and there is no reason why they couldn't have an identical quake with similar destructive power a couple months apart.
Re: (Score:2)
And can you predict for 100% that the next huge earthquake will be in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years? Current we can only do possibility estimates, that in X years an earthquake in the strength of Y might come in the chance of Z%.
Re: (Score:2)
And can you predict for 100% that the next huge earthquake will be in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years? Current we can only do possibility estimates, that in X years an earthquake in the strength of Y might come in the chance of Z%.
And I have seen 50 year floods that came two years apart.
Re: (Score:2)
You still cannot predict it.
So anyone who tells you, it can predicted is lying.
But, that of course, that does not mean to ignore it and not build to the worst possible thing that can happen. Or ignore all scientists that tell you, you should do it ...
Re: (Score:2)
and there is no reason why they couldn't have an identical quake with similar destructive power a couple months apart.
Sure, there is. Where's the energy for that second quake going to come from?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, there is. Where's the energy for that second quake going to come from?
The same place the other quake came from. Can you state with 100 percent surety that all the energy in the first quake was spent, and that it was starting again at zero.
Do you know the if the rate of movement has remained the same as prior to the last earthquake? Are all variables the same? If the predictions are for an earthquake of X magnitude every X years, is that a lock?
You are trying to play statistical games with a greater degree of confidence than the statisticians would be comfortable with.
Re: (Score:1)
Can you state with 100 percent surety that all the energy in the first quake was spent, and that it was starting again at zero.
Sure, that's what an earthquake is by definition. An expending of built-up potential energy.
Re: (Score:1)
You are trying to play statistical games with a greater degree of confidence than the statisticians would be comfortable with.
Physics is not statistics. This is where your problem lies. Earthquakes dissipate energy which doesn't magically return. Further, we have a fair idea how much builds up on a particular fault. This not only tells us the rate at which earthquakes can happen, but also how much energy can build up on those faults. The Japanese quake was big enough that it used up most of the potential energy built up on that fault segment. We'll have to wait for that potential energy to build up again before we'll have another
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that's what an earthquake is by definition. An expending of built-up potential energy.
The concept that an earthquake will release 100 percent of stored energy is not possible to predict, nor likely to happen The stored energy might not be released totally because of either the landmass being stopped before that happens, or the energy might just be transferred to another section as stress. In any event, your concept might be of interest to those who try to predict earthquakes, because if removes a whole lot of uncertainty - if it was true.
Re: (Score:2)
Physics is not statistics. This is where your problem lies. Earthquakes dissipate energy which doesn't magically return.
You really need to show exactly how all the energy is gone after the earthquake. Allow me to show how it might be, but is not a given.
Take potential energy. Have a rock on top of a 100 foot cliff that falls to a ledge 50 feet below, but not 100 feet below at the bottom of the cliff.
Does the rock dissipate all it's potential energy? Is there none left? If all the energy is dissipated, the rock will have nothing left to fall the last 50 feet. Obviously false.
So now let us take this concept and turn it
Re: (Score:2)
Best estimates put any earthquake centered around Tokyo at magnitude-7 - the effect felt at Fukushima would be negligible.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I am sure if whales and dolphins could talk they would say to the Japanese in a Samuel Jackson voice; "Karma mother fuckers, have some!"
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, the polar opposite opinions shit me to tears.
just saying the linked article is in the "sky is falling" camp, which i grow tired of.
i also grow tired of the "nothing to see here" camp.
i'm just saying the truth is always somewhere in between. i'd much rather everything be okay, but i know it's not peachy (and TEPCO isn't really saying it is, either. they use bucketloads of saving-face-speak, but from the beginning i've been able to read between the lines without much difficulty - things are bad, but d
Re: (Score:1)
"global environmental catastrophe"
them's fightin' words.
gonna need a rundown of the effects this will have.
Simply the existence of radioactive material in the environment would be enough - it would mean large areas of land, water tables and ocean would be off limits and would put severe limits on local industries - especially farming and fishing.
The actual risk to human life or destruction of nature would probably be minimal if managed properly. Still be a massive pain in the butt.
Re:Cringely: Next Japan Nuke Accident Will Be Wors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cringely: Next Japan Nuke Accident Will Be Wors (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what some people forget is that the plant was hit with the worst natural disaster, short of a meteor strike, that it could be. A 9.0 quake, which are exceedingly rare (and remember the scale is logarithmic) and a massive tsunami. Then there were a number of fuckups in the response, like not having the right kind of generator on hand. All that, and it still didn't "do a Chernobyl."
None of that is to say it is perfectly safe, but it should provide some perspective on the thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I think what some people forget is that the plant was hit with the worst natural disaster, short of a meteor strike, that it could be.
I think what you're forgetting is that a lot of people didn't think what happened could happen. Now you're making a totally unsupported declarative statement about the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, since March 2011 there has been a lot of catastrophic articles about "what if a meltdown?" (there was a meltdown) "what if another earthquakes?" (there has been a lot of 7+ aftershocks not far from Fukushima). As of today, while the situation is bad, it stays far from the cataclysmic future that was predicted in March/April 2011.
There has been a ton of scientific publications predicting deaths in thousands (official WHO predicted minimum 4000) in 1986 after Chernobyl. Turns out people didnt die en masse, in fact cancer levels stayed at a global average level.
Re: (Score:1)
And does the WHO estimate include the 50% of the liquidators who cleaned it up who are now dead? And the other 50% who are now crippled old men as they turn 45 and 50?
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer rates near Chernobyl did not stay at average. Cancers of the throat and especially thyroid suddenly became very common for quite a few years in the surrounding areas, as did birth problems (premature, miscarriage, defects).
And does the WHO estimate include the 50% of the liquidators who cleaned it up who are now dead? And the other 50% who are now crippled old men as they turn 45 and 50?
WHO report is about those 170K workers, and in fact they were able to only (you can almost feel the sadness of the person writing it, sadness that people didnt die like it was predicted) account for average cancer rates (0.5% leukemia, etc).
Re:Cringely: Next Japan Nuke Accident Will Be Wors (Score:5, Funny)
Spent nuclear fuel rods isn't the real danger. The real danger is the iron used in the steel construction of the pool. When that steel hits the ocean water of the next tsunami (which is all but guaranteed to happen in the next 20 days), it will slowly dissolve and raise the iron content of the Pacific ocean to a level above what life can survive. I'm talking a huge global catastrophy of dead fish, whales, plankton, seaweeds, etc, becuase of elevated levels of iron. All the biological material will then float to the top of the ocean where it will collect, and since fish are full of oils, it is only a matter of time before lightning or some sailer tossing his cigarette initiates a conflagration that consumes all the world's oxygen in a huge fire. 7 Billion people dead, suffocated to death, because the Japanese are negligent about their nuclear facility.
Fearmongering from idiots. Am I doing it right?
Re:Cringely: Next Japan Nuke Accident Will Be Wors (Score:5, Funny)
Me: Cringely is a moron (Score:5, Informative)
The guy is a professional troll (actual name Mark Stephens). Literally, he writes stupid shit designed to inflame people. He's wrong all the time (he predicted big Y2K problems on account of Windows NT), he's a liar (claimed to have a PhD from Stanford, was in fact a TA) and so on.
Don't give his dumb ass the ad revenue from links.
Just as a simple counterpoint, his data about earthquakes is totally fucked. This was the biggest quake on record in Japan, previous winner was an 8.6 in 1707. Also, while quakes happen over there all the time, they don't all happen in the same spot. For example in 2003 there was a pretty big one in Hokkaido, an 8.3, that only caused one death. However if you look at a map you find that Hokkaido is quite a distance from Tohoku where the last quake was off of. So even if a quake happens in 10 years (like he has any idea if that will happen) there's no saying if it happens in the same place.
Guy is a moronic troll that has made a good living of it for years. Stop feeding him.
Re:Me: Cringely is a moron (Score:5, Informative)
Seconded, and further: Even if another 9.0 happened in the same place, it wouldn't magically release all the radioactive material. The scary problem was when it required huge amounts of very high pressure water to cool. At this point the reactors are in cold shutdown. The fuel might fall over and a few rods may break open. The situation might get a little worse, but no quake can release any significant percentage of the fuel at this point.
Also, Cringley's a fucking dumbass troll and should be ignored. Normally I hate taking the bait, but this issue's too easy to get people stirred up, so extra debunking is in order.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not an alarmist claiming the reactor buildings are in imminent danger of falling over at Fukushima, but I think you're wrong about the consequences of spent fuel rods breaking open. That would be a very bad thing indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
It is bad! But consider that a significant percentage of the fuel has already failed, likely a lot of it being completely melted. Breaking some more won't be a catastrophic "85 Chernobyls" release; it's just an incremental increase over what's already happened. It's also not likely to be a large increment: the catastrophic failure was not due not to the earthquake, but rather to the tsunami wiping out the generators which were critical for cooling. That's no longer a problem.
The thing to be concerned ab
Re: (Score:2)
bad assumptions made (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Last years quake/tsunami did little or no direct damage to the containment structure. What caused the big mess was the inundation of backup generators and subsequent loss of cooling at a running plant. The plant is now shut down and cool. So a similar seismic event will be a non issue.
A big quake might cause the rubble to settle a bit more and kick up some cesium dust. But they could throw up a lightweight tent (inflatable dome) over the sites to keep rain water out and dust in.
Re: (Score:2)
unless Godzilla will come to the site, eat all the Cesium and starts farting.
Oh great, now I have *another* thing to worry about!
Re:Cringely: Next Japan Nuke Accident Will Be Wors (Score:4, Funny)
there is a 90 percent chance of a large earthquake in the minimum three year...[snip]...magical thinking
So your saying that specific area is levelled by a major earthquake and a tsunami every 3yrs or so? Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Japs would have to rebuild every 3yrs or so with the full knowledge that they will have to do it all over again in another 3yrs? It is not remarkable that Fukushima Daiichi was built 41yrs ago, so by your calculations had already survived a dozen such events before it fell apart?
The incident was a catastrophe, with or without the nuclear reactors, there's no need for hyperbolic "what ifs" based on what are clearly dubious claims.
Re: (Score:1)
Priorities:
1. Keep the damaged reactors in cold shutdown.
2. Maintain and enhance water treatment.
3. Fix the leaks in the containments.
4. Decontaminate the site.
5. Remove fuel from spent fuel pools.
These have to be performed in order. In order to remove fuel from the spent fuel pools you will need to have people rebuild and operate the cranes to move the fuel. To do that, the site has to be decontaminated enough to allow humans to work in the reactor buildings which requires the first three priorities to be
Re:Cringely: Next Japan Nuke Accident Will Be Wors (Score:4, Insightful)
And despite the things that you probably said in your TL;DR post more people die from basically any other form of energy generation than have or likely will die from either Fukushima Daiichi or Chernobyl.
Banqiao dam? Coal mine accidents? Toxic chemicals from solar panels? No, but the real problem is 2 japanese workers who were hospitalized for 1 day for mild radiation exposure and a population that might have cancer levels slightly above "margin of error" compared to control.
Hooray for perspective!
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being scared stupid, and think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
They need the space in the reactor building pools to take the damaged rods and debris from reactors 1 through 3. In the case of reactor 4 the spent fuel pool is pretty much full of fuel rod assemblies, some of which were due to be transferred to the site's longer-term storage pond some time last year but without a working crane this didn't happen.
The next step in the TEPCO plan is to build a weather shield over reactor 4 similar to the one they put over reactor 1. They can then rebuild the crane system on
Re: (Score:2)
'The amount of Cesium 137 in the fuel rods at Fukushima Daiichi is the equivalent of 85 Chernobyls.,,If a big earthquake happens before that fuel is gone there will be global environmental catastrophe with many deaths...
you mean 85 x 50 = ~4000 people will die? .. EVERY YEAR.
This is LESS than deaths from vehicle accidents in Japan
I dont see anyone banning cars, but OH NOES EVUL NUCULAR ENERGY lets ban it!117one
Re: (Score:2)
What's the robot for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The maneuverability on non-level and obstacle-covered surfaces may open more areas to inspection. That was the capability they emphasized.
Re: (Score:2)
Earth-shattering robots, that's the LAST thing we need!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I see that it can carry about 130lb. [..] What is the real purpose of this robot?
Carrying out the dead bodies?
Robot makes demands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember what turned a newt into Godzilla? (Score:3)
The robot, called 'Rosemary,' is about the size of a lawn mower and has four extended treaded feet that swivel up and down to help it climb over obstacles.
But after a few hours in the Fukushima Daiichi EZ-Bake-Nuclear Oven, it will morph into this critter: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Mechagodzilla.jpg [wikimedia.org].
Call it Rosilla. Maybe a real life Roseanne Barr can battle it, while crushing paper houses, and being attacked by plastic model tanks, with fire crackers on their gun barrels?
So what do they do with the highly radioactive robot Rosemary after it crawls out of the reactor? Can they de-radioactivize it, or something like that? Or does it get buried in a concrete coffin for future generations to deal with?
Yes, but (Score:2)
does it use vacuum tubes?
A Japanese Robot huh? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Must have cost a bit to refit it so it's mouth didn't move sensuously.
And it doesn't have enought tentacles.
Robots? (Score:1)
Use robots?
How fleshist of you! Sending in peaceful, sentient machines to dangerous areas. You think you're better than them? Huh?
When asked for a comment... (Score:3)
...the robot replied, "Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they're making me clean up dangerous radioactive waste."