"safety, security, safeguard"

title:  "Safety, Security, Safeguard"

date: Monday, 8th August 2011

time: 2:00-4:00pm

venue: BL Lecture Theater 

One intresting thing that i obtained from the talk is the approach that they took to make people to accept nuclear energy. First of all, create a powerful positive public opinion about nuclear so that it will affect the government decision making. Hence, the government will proceed in considering the nuclear as one of the future alternative energy resource. Then, to make this happen we need to educate people to be comfort with nuclear power. Try to change the misconception of nuclear power since they only see the after math of the nuclear disaster. By using, the current technologies and precautions, nuclear incident such in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl can be avoid. 

People tend to scare of what they can't understand for example of what happen when the electricity was first found. People still prefer of using lantern because they thought that electricity would bring harm but with proper handling it can really improve human's living. However, the decision is still depend on the majority. Keep on trying to open their mind so that they can see the picture clearly and not just rejecting the nuclear power blindly. In the end, eventhough the nuclear is being refuse but at least we have tried.

NUCLEAR FIX YOU

THANKS FOR ABDUL RAHMAN AND FAHMI FOR SHARING THIS VIDEO.

Fission and Fusion

Check out Fission and Fusion and find out how we can get energy both from splitting an atom and from joining them together!

NUCLEAR RADIATION

Nuclear radiation arises from hundreds of different kinds of unstable atoms. While many exist in nature, the majority are created in nuclear reactions. Ionizing radiation which can damage living tissue is emitted as the unstable atoms (radionuclides) change ('decay') spontaneously to become different kinds of atoms.

The principal kinds of ionizing radiation are:

Alpha particles

These are helium nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons and are emitted from naturally-occurring heavy elements such as uranium and radium, as well as from some man-made transuranic elements. They are intensely ionizing but cannot penetrate the skin, so are dangerous only if emitted inside the body.

Beta particles

These are fast-moving electrons emitted by many radioactive elements. They are more penetrating than alpha particles, but easily shielded – they can be stopped by a few millimetres of wood or aluminium. They can penetrate a little way into human flesh but are generally less dangerous to people than gamma radiation. Exposure produces an effect like sunburn, but which is slower to heal. Beta-radioactive substances are also safe if kept in appropriate sealed containers.

Gamma rays

These are high-energy beams much the same as X-rays. They are emitted in many radioactive decays and are very penetrating, so require more substantial shielding. Gamma rays are the main hazard to people dealing with sealed radioactive materials used, for example, in industrial gauges and radiotherapy machines. Radiation dose badges are worn by workers in exposed situations to detect them and hence monitor exposure. All of us receive about 0.5-1 mSv per year of gamma radiation from cosmic rays and from rocks, and in some places, much more. Gamma activity in a substance  can be measured with a scintillometer or Geiger counter.

SOURCE

The Facts on Nuclear Energy

In the era of $4-a-gallon gas, nuclear energy is getting new scrutiny. Depending on which side you listen to, nuclear power is either the fresh, young, can-do face of the future or the tired, old, ticking time bomb of the past. Although the United States gets almost 20 percent of its energy from nuclear power plants, no new reactors have been built since the meltdown at Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979.

 After three decades of exile-during which Europe and Asia left U.S. nuclear technology in the coal dust-nuclear plants are applying for permits to build new reactors (nine permits are in the pipeline), pushing for a national nuclear-waste dump, and forging international partnerships that make the once unattainable goal of recycling spent nuclear fuel look inevitable. Given the spate of brownouts and blackouts, perhaps it’s not surprising that 63 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy as one way to provide electricity.

The antinuke chorus hasn’t given up; in fact, it’s been joined by several states worried about the relicensing of old nuclear plants. But with the population surging, fossil fuel prices soaring, and climate change scaring just about everyone, the prospect of clean, cheap nuclear energy is clouding those meltdown memories. To critics’ cries of nuclear proliferation and radiation leaks, proponents gently whisper, “Zero carbon footprint.” Oddly, the nuclear rebirth comes when planet-friendly energy sources like the sun and wind are making strides of their own, advances that could make them competitive with nuclear energy.

The Time Line

1945 – United States drops nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, effectively ending World War II.

1950s — Desert tests in Nevada clear way for commercial nuclear industry. First U.S. reactor (Shippingport, in Pennsylvania) goes online, in 1957.

1979 – March 16 The China Syndrome (Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas), about lax safety at nuclear power plants, is released.

March 28 — Three Mile Island meltdown. No fatalities; studies show “negligible” health risk.

1983 – Silkwood (Cher, Meryl Streep), about nuclear skulduggery, is released.

1986 – Chernobyl disaster in the U.S.S.R. kills 31 and spews massive amounts of radioactive dust into the atmosphere. Ultimate death toll from cancer: 4,000 (estimate).

1987 – Congress authorizes national nuclear- waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, set to start in 1998.

1996 – Last reactor added to U.S. power grid (Watts Bar, in Tennessee).

1997 – Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) waylays plans to open Yucca Mountain in his state.

2005 – Energy Policy Act authorizes $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy plants, including nuclear ones.

2007 – First new application to build a nuclear reactor in 30 years.

2015 — Earliest date new nuclear reactor could be brought online.

2020 — Latest estimated opening of Yucca Mountain repository.

source

Video of Japanese Nuclear Plant Explosion

Shortly after the 8.9 magnitude earthquake on Friday that shook Japan and generated tsunami waves across the Pacific Ocean, reports emerged of damage at one of Japan’s nuclear power plants. On Saturday, Japanese authorities began evacuating residents nearby the Fukushima nuclear power plant due to the release of radioactive elements into the environment, signs of a possible meltdown at one of the reactors.

As officials worked to repair damage Saturday afternoon, an explosion occurred at the nuclear power plant, damaging one of the buildings.

The English-language news service Russia Today posted video of the explosion as it occurred to its YouTube channel.

IS MALAYSIA PREPARED FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY?

YAB Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Najib Tun Razak and the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water Datuk Seri Peter Chin Fah Kui had announced on 11 January 2011 as follows:

The government is studying the possibility of deploying nuclear energy to meet future demand and diversify the energy mix for Peninsular Malaysia. The formation of the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation to be headed by Dr Mohd Zamzam bin Jaafar as its CEO to lead the planning based on the current development timeline of 11 to 12 years, from pre-project to commissioning;

NOW look at Japan, what had happen today (bear in mind Japan is a developed country)

source

is this the nuclear fusion breakthrough?

Sceptics and environmentalists may be locked into endless arguments around global warming, but there's little debate that an energy crisis looms large.

A Florida based research team, however, may have found a solution to the world's energy woes that could provide a clean and near limitless supply of energy in as little as a decade.

The Energy Crisis

Global energy production and consumption is a complex beast and many nations remain heavily reliant on a lethal mix of oil and coal, both of which are finite, and have huge impacts on the environment.

While there is much conjecture on just how long oil and coal reserves will last, the stark reality is that they will both eventually run out.

In the 1950s, many thought atomic energy would allow humanity to dodge the energy crisis, with newly nuclear fission reactors providing an affordable and near limitless supply of energy.

More recently however, incidents such as the Chernobyl meltdown, the growing pile of incredibly toxic nuclear waste and the spectre of rogue nations manufacturing weapons- grade plutonium have taken the shine off nuclear fission.

With the energy requirements of developed nations continuing to grow, and developing nations gaining a serious appetite for energy consumption, demand will soon outstrip supply, and many predict that massive economic and social impacts are probable.

The fusion magic bullet?

Thankfully, a new type of nuclear fusion energy generation technology holds the potential to provide a cheap and clean source of energy without toxic radioactive waste or the environmental impacts of oil or coal.

Unlike nuclear fission, where the nucleus of an atom is split to release energy, nuclear fusion uses the same process as our sun and works by fusing atoms together to release of large amounts of energy.

Nuclear fusion generates energy leaving little to nothing in the way of by-products, and uses fuels that are plentiful but far less dangerous than the uranium used with conventional nuclear fission reactors.

Whilst physicists have generated nuclear fusion reactions, doing has involved creating the earthbound equivalent of a small star, which in turn has required ultra-strong magnetic fields to contain superheated gases many times hotter than the surface of the sun.

Unfortunately, doing so has tended to consume almost as much energy as was being generated by the fusion reaction. Creating a nuclear fusion reactor that is commercially viable and able to output surplus energy beyond sustaining its own reaction was thought to be at least 20-30 years away.

Thanks to work being done by a group of physicists at the University of Florida, all things fusion related could however be set to change in as little as a decade.

Where conventional fission reactors use uranium which can be refined to make nuclear weapons, the University of Florida's concept uses hydrogen and an isotope of boron called Boron 11, both of which are abundant on earth and can't be used to make atomic weapons.

When fusion reactions occur in the heart of a star such as our sun, atoms are subject to intense heat and pressure which stops the atoms from repelling each other, allowing them to fuse.

To date, experimental fusion projects have largely been focused on generating intense heat so they can fuse, and containing the super hot gases from this reaction consumes most if not all of the energy being produced by the fusion reaction.

The University of Florida have taken a different tack, by putting hydrogen and boron fuel into an accelerator that fires them towards each other at incredibly high velocities. When the hydrogen and boron 11 atoms smash into each other, they fuse, producing fast moving helium nuclei whose motion is converted into electricity.

This new process is clean, highly efficient and most important of all, simple. The output of the new reactor is electricity with its by-product being the same helium gas used to make voices squeaky and party balloons float, so there's no toxic radioactive waste to dispose of.

Initial calculations also show that this new type of fusion generation could produce clean electricity at similar levels but far more cheaply than oil or coal.

Because the reactor also operates using relatively simple engineering principles (especially compared to the current crop of fusion reactors), commercialising it is likely to involve significantly shorter time-frames than other fusion technologies.

Although technology is still however very experimental and has yet to be fully proven, a feasibility study into this new fusion process has been kicked off, and if it is found to be viable, it could become commercially available in as little as a decade, here's hoping.

nuclear fusion in the future perhaps?

Physicists may be one step closer to achieving a form of clean energy known as nuclear fusion, which is what happens deep inside the cores of stars.

A recent experiment with a giant levitating magnet was able to coax matter in the lab to extremely high densities — a necessary step for nuclear fusion.

When the density is high enough, atomic nuclei — the protons and neutrons of atoms — literally fuse together, creating a heavier element. And if the conditions are right that fusion can release loads of energy.

Depending on the mass of this element, energy could be created by fusion without any greenhouse gas emissions. So it could present a tantalizing clean power source, if scientists could achieve it.

"Fusion energy could provide a long-term solution to the planet’s energy needs without contributing to global warming," said Columbia University physicist Michael Mauel, co-leader of the recent study.

Such a power source would produce far less radioactive waste than current nuclear energy plants, which involve splitting atoms apart — called fission — the opposite of fusion.

For the new study scientists built a Levitated Dipole Experiment, or LDX, which involves suspending a giant donut-shaped magnet in midair using an electromagnetic field.

The magnet weighs about a half-ton, and is made of superconducting wire coiled inside a stainless steel container about the size and shape of a large truck tire. The researchers used the magnet to control the motion of an extremely hot gas of charged particles, called a plasma, contained within its outer chamber.

The doughnut-shaped magnet creates a turbulence that causes the plasma to condense, instead of becoming more spread out, as usually happens with turbulence. Such "turbulent pinching" has been observed with space plasma in the magnetic fields of Earth and Jupiter, but never before in the lab.

The approach "could produce an alternative path to fusion," said co-leader Jay Kesner of MIT, but to reach the density levels needed for commercial fusion, scientists would have to build a much larger version of the experiment.

A key to the device is the fact that the LDX magnet is levitating, rather than suspended by any struts, because the magnetic field used to confine the plasma would be disturbed by any objects in its way.

In the experiment, the doughnut magnet was held aloft by a magnetic field from an electromagnet overhead, which is controlled by a computer based on readings from laser beam sensors. This set-up can adjust the position of the giant magnet to within half a millimeter.

Just in case the magnetic levitating system fails, the experiment included a cone-shaped support with springs underneath the magnet to catch it if need be.

TEPCO Detects Highest Radiation Level From Fukushima No 1 Plant

FUKUSHIMA, Aug 2 (Bernama) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. said on Monday that it has detected the highest level of radiation from a facility of the Fukushima No 1 power plant since the nuclear crisis began in March, reported Japan's Jiji Press.The reading stood at 10 sieverts per hour on the surface of an exhaust 

stack between the No 1 and No 2 reactor buildings.

Read More

Malaysia says to go ahead with nuclear plans, to learn from Japan crisis

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysia-says-to-go-ahead-with-nuclear-plans/

PUTRAJAYA March 15 — Malaysia is taking note of the Japan nuclear crisis when implementing its plan to build two nuclear power plants in the future Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said today He hat while the government is concerned about public safety and is watching developments in Japan he remained confident that Malaysia would “implement what is the best” for the country The deputy prime minister stressed that the government would learn from Japan to ensure public safety “I think it is something which every country in the world is taking note of what is happening in Japan There are many things that we can learn but what is important is the safety of the country and the people “In this matter we have an agency that is responsible and they know what they are doing and we are confident that they will implement what is the best ” he told reporters during a press conference today Energy Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Peter Chin had also said that the “government will not do it secretly without informing the public” Chin added that the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation had opened a tender to international consultants to conduct a study on the location suitability and safety of the location type of technology and public acceptance of the proposal However MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek yesterday had called on the government to reconsider building a nuclear plant following the explosions to nuclear reactors in Japan after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that devastated the country He said the government must re-evaluate nuclear power in the country Reuters reported today that Japan’s Prime Minister Naota Kan has warned that radioactive level in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi plant had become high and that the risk of more radioactive leakage was increasing.

Nuclear Waste

The creation of huge quantities of long-lived radioactive waste is the most formidable problem facing the nuclear power industry today. The difficulty of waste disposal was not considered to be a big problem during the time when power plants were first introduced; it was assumed that waste could be recycled or buried. Unfortunately, finding safe ways of storing radioactive wastes so that they do not leak radiation into the environment has proved to be a much more difficult task than anticipated.

What is Radioactivity?

Radioactivity occurs when unstable nuclei of atoms decay and emit particles. These particles may have high energy and can have bad effects on living tissue. There are many types of radiation. 

How does nuclear waste get to you?

The planet's water cycle is the main way radiation gets spread about the environment. When radioactive waste mixes with water, it is ferried through this water cycle. Radionuclides in water are absorbed by surrounding vegetation and ingested by local marine and animal life. Radiation can also be in the air and can get deposited on people, plants, animals, and soil. People can inhale or ingest radionuclides in air, drinking water, or food. Depending on the half life of the radiation, it could stay in a person for much longer than a lifetime. The half life is the amount of time it takes for a radioactive material to decay to one half of its original amount. Some materials have half-lives of more than 1,000 years!
Paths of Radiation to the Body

Radioactive wastes come in many different forms including the following:

• protective clothing of people in contact with radioactive materials
• the remains of lab animals used in experiments with radionuclides
• cooling water, used fuel rods, and old tools and parts from nuclear power plants
• mill tailings from uranium-enrichment factories
• old medical radiation equipment from hospitals and clinics
• used smoke detectors which contain radioactive americium-241 sensors

Types of nuclear waste

High-level waste

Nuclear waste is divided into several categories. High-level waste consists mostly of spent nuclear reactor fuel from both commerical power plants and military facilities, as well as reprocessed materials which can emit large amounts of radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. We take an example for U.S. Commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. produce 3,000 tons of high-level waste each year. The amount of spent fuel removed annually from the approximately 100 reactors in the U.S. would fill a football field to a depth of one foot. When spent fuel is removed from a reactor core, it still emits millions of rems of radiation.  In the absence of high-level waste repositories, nuclear power plants genearlly store their spent fuel rods in lead-lined conceete pools of water. These pools somewhat contain the spread of gamma radiation by keeping the rods relatively cool. They also help prevent fission. The average commercial power plant puts 60 used assemblies into temporary storage each year and will probably continue to do so until the year 2000, when responsibility for spent fuel will be transferred to the Department of Energy. Space is running out at many plants though. The plants have another option of storing their spent fuel at other plants still under construction. It is theoretically possible to reduce the amount of storage space that spent fuel rods require by removing them from their assemblies, bundling them tightly, and then packing them into heavily shielded dry storage, but repacking these highly radioactive rods may present too much of a challenge. For long-term storage of high-level waste, a waterproof, geologically stable repository and leak-proof waste container is required. Packaging has to be tailored to the volume of the waste, the actual radioactive isotopes of elements it contains, how radioactive it is, its isotopes' half-lives, and how much heat it still generates. One technique for packaging high-level wastes involves melting them with glass and pouring the molten material into impermeable containers. The containers could be buried in soil or in a rock pile and surrounded by fill material and a barrier wall. From the 1940s through the 1960s, barrels of radioactive waste were frequently dumped in oceans. This ended in 1970 when the EPA (Energy Protection Agency) determined that at least one-fourth of these barrels were leaking. A new, possibly safer proposal under consideration for long-term ocean storage includes offshore drilling and a procedure known as self-burial. In offshore drilling, holes would be drilled into the seabed and filled with barrels of waste. In self-burial, specially shaped barrels would be dumped and left to sink to the ocean floor. Geologic disposal is currently the most popular solution for waste disposal. During the 1980s, the U.S. government invested more than $2 billion into geologic disposal. In this form of disposal, mined tunnels with deep holes for waste canisters would be built using conventional mining techniques. Monitoring and waste retrieval would be relatively easy. In 1987, a site was chosen for the first permanent high-level commercial nuclear waste storage repository in the United States--Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Expected to cost up to $15 billion, this repository is scheduled to go into operation by the year 2010. Over the years, a number of other ideas for high-level waste disposal have been proposed and, at least temporarily, abandoned. One was disposal in space, in which sealed containers of radioactive material would be sent up into distant orbits. This would be an expensive and risky operation, as problems on the launchpad or in space could expose the earth and atmostphere to an enormous amount of radiation. Another suggestion was burying waste under the Antarctic ice sheets. However, this would risk irradiating that area and the surrounding sea. A much safer idea, which would render disposal unnecessary, is to bombard radioactive waste with subatomic particles to transform it into less harmful isotopes. Unfortunately, this attractive proposal awaits still unrealized technology.

Mill Tailings

Mill tailings, left over when ore is refined and processed is the largest by volume of any form of radioactive waste. Only 1% of uranium ore contains uranium--the rest is left on-site as sandlike residue. These tailings are generally left outdoors in huge piles, where they blow around, releasing radioactive materials into the surrounding air and water. By 1989, some 140 million tons of mill tailings had accumulated in the United States alone, with 10 to 15 million tons added each year. Although their radiation is generally less concentrated than other types of waste, some of the isotopes in these tailings are long-lived and can be hazardous for many thousands of years. Until their radioactive risk was known, mill tailings were sometimes used as foundation and building materials, especially in western states. When their risk was discovered, these materials in the buildings had to be monitored. These monitored sites are generally safer, although some groundwater contamination still occurs at them. It has been recommended that tailings be stored underground in clay pits, far from population centers.

Low-Level Waste

Low-level wastes are usually defined in terms of what they are not. They are not spent fuel, milling tailings, reprocessed materials, or transuranic materials. Low-level waste includes the remainder of radioactive wastes and materials generated in power plants, such as contaminated reactor water, plus those wastes created in medical laboratories, hospitals, and industry. Wastes in this category usually, although not always, release smaller amounts of radiation for a shorter amount of time. "Low level" does not mean "not dangerous," though. Although its radioactivity is usually less concentrated than that of high-level waste, low-level waste can be dangerous for up to tens of thousands of years. Most low-level wastes come from reactors. These wastes can be divided up into two categories:
• Fuel wastes are fission products that leak out of fuel rods and into cooling water.
• Nonfuel wastes result when stray neutrons bombard anything in the core other than fuel--such as the reactor vessel itself--and cause them to become radioactive.
The remainder of low-level wastes comes from industry and institutional sources, including pharmaceutical plants, universities, and medical facilities. Instead of going to low-level waste dumps, these wastes are often kept on-site for the short time it takes for them to decay to safe levels. Then they are deposited into sanitary landsfills. However, it is likely that liquid wastes are literally poured down the drain, whether or not they are still radioactive. Low-level waste landfills were first built in the 1960s. In near-surface land burial, containers of waste fill a trench and are covered and surrounded by compacted earth.  There are a number of unresolved issues regarding disposal of low-level wastes. The current institution control period (the amount of time a waste site must remain under guard after it has been filled and closed) is only 100 years. Yet the hazards presented by some low-level wastes can continue for thousands of years. What will keep future generations from uncovering and being contaminated by these substances?

So, what about the future?

Currently, better methods are being developed to decrease waste volume and make methods of separating the waste by decay rate more efficient. Development of waste storage is far from complete. There are many alternatives to consider and many techniques to develop and improve upon. There has also been much controversy about site selection and disposal methods. Although urban areas consume most of nuclear-generated electricity, radioactive wastes are dumped in rural settings, where property values decline and public health is jeopardized. Although hazards of radioactive waste are less visible than some other problems associated with nuclear energy, such as reactor accidents and nuclear weapons, they are no less dangerous, and decisions made concerning this waste will be felt far into the future.  Full article Here.  Anything to comment? Thinkquest Forum.

Should Malaysia build a nuclear power plant?

Unlike a coal or gas power plant, a nuclear power plant can be considered green as it emits very little CO2 into the atmosphere. Then again, the same can be said of solar, wind and hydroelectric power plants as these are all not dependant on the use of fossil fuels.

Last year, the former Minister of Energy, Water & Communications mentioned that Malaysia will eventually use nuclear energy. Now that we have a new Minister and a renamed Ministry of Energy, Green Technologies and Water, will we soon see the building of a nuclear power plant?
Before any such plan is unveiled, let's educate ourselves.

A nuclear power plant generates radioactive waste

Power plants that depend on atomic energy don't operate that differently from a typical coal-burning power plant. The key difference between the two plants is the method of heating the water. While older plants burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants depend on the heat that occurs during nuclear fission, when one atom splits into two. When the water is heated, it turns into steam which drives a turbine, which spins a generator to produce power. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste.However, despite the astonishing amount of radioactive waste it generates, modern nuclear power plants are able to manage the waste well. There is danger of the waste leaking and affecting public health only if we were to hire someone like Homer Simpson to manage that.

A nuclear power plant can be used to build nuclear weapons
A nuclear power plant works by enriching uranium. To generate electricity, we will need to enrich uranium by only 2-3 percent. However, if anyone happened to be feeling ambitious and decide to secretly enrich the uranium up to 90 percent, he will be able to build nuclear weapons.Once you operate a nuclear power plant, the international watchdogs will be keeping an eye on you, and it will be almost impossible to secretly enrich uranium by up to 90 percent.

Other options 
Some time ago, we soaked 700sq km of rainforests in deep water to build a hydroelectric dam. After that, we refrained from using the electricity generated because it was discovered that the building of undersea cables to transmit the electricity from Sarawak to Peninsular Malaysia would be too high. We could still build the undersea cables.

So what do you think? Should Malaysia build a nuclear power plant?

Critics question need for Malaysia's nuclear power plan

Malaysia's plan to build its first nuclear power plant ran into opposition Wednesday from politicians and environmentalists who queried how necessary and safe it would be. The government on Tuesday said the country's growing energy needs would be met by a nuclear power station that would be up and running in 2021. But Lim Guan Eng, secretary general of the opposition Democratic Action Party said Malaysia already had enough capacity. "Clearly Malaysia has more energy than it needs. Without any economic grounds or energy security justification, why then does Malaysia need a nuclear power plant?" he asked. "Malaysians wonder what assurances can be given in relation to safety and environment following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant accident in Ukraine that claimed 56 lives and resulted in 4,000 cancer deaths," he added. Loh Chi Leong, executive director of the Malaysian Nature Society told AFP: "There are obvious concerns over nuclear power." Malaysia must develop energy efficiency technology and invest in solar, hydro and wind power, he said. Peter Chin, minister for energy, green technology and water, said Tuesday the nuclear option was the solution to Malaysia's energy needs, and indicated the government was not keen to debate with critics but would work to reassure those living near the eventual site. Loh said: "We would appreciate much more debate on this issue. We want an integrated formal power plan. We should concentrate on renewable energy." Mohideen Abdul Kader, advisor with the environmental group Friends of the Earth Malaysia, expressed anger at the announcement. "We are angry that the government does not want to engage with stakeholders. It is shocking news. Under ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, the government said it was not going nuclear. There is a U-turn in our policy," he said. Mohideen said his group also opposed the plan because Malaysia could obtain technology to make nuclear weapons. Malaysia last month said it would strictly enforce a new law to curb trafficking of nuclear weapon components after being linked to the illegal supply of sensitive technology to Iran and Libya. "There will be political repercussions if the government persists on building a nuclear power plant," Mohideen warned, adding that the country should concentrate on energy conservation. State energy firm Tenaga has said it could construct the country's first 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant at a cost of 3.1 billion dollars. The government had asked it to look at the option as oil prices surged and in view of the country's limited supply of oil and natural gas.

Malaysia ahead with nuclear plans learn from Japan crisis

The No. 3 nuclear reactor of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is seen burning after a blast yesterday, March 14, 2011. Muhyiddin said the Malaysian government will learn from Japan to ensure public safety.

PUTRAJAYA, March 15 — Malaysia is taking note of the Japan nuclear crisis when implementing its plan to build two nuclear power plants in the future, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said today. He hat while the government is concerned about public safety and is watching developments in Japan, he remained confident that Malaysia would “implement what is the best” for the country.The deputy prime minister stressed that the government would learn from Japan to ensure public safety.“I think it is something which every country in the world is taking note of, what is happening in Japan. There are many things that we can learn but what is important is the safety of the country and the people.“In this matter, we have an agency that is responsible and they know what they are doing and we are confident that they will implement what is the best,” he told reporters during a press conference today.Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Peter Chin had also said that the “government will not do it secretly without informing the public”.Chin added that the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation had opened a tender to international consultants to conduct a study on the location, suitability and safety of the location, type of technology and public acceptance of the proposal.However, MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek yesterday had called on the government to reconsider building a nuclear plant following the explosions to nuclear reactors in Japan after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that devastated the country.He said the government must re-evaluate nuclear power in the country.Reuters reported today that Japan’s Prime Minister Naota Kan has warned that radioactive level in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi plant had become high and that the risk of more radioactive leakage was increasing.

NIGHTMARE OF JAPAN!

On date 11 Mac 2011, the dark day for Japanese. The most powerful earthquake recorded in Japanese history, magnitude until 8.9. This Tohoku earthquake triggered extremely destructive waves up to 38.9 meters that struck Japan. The tremors were the result of a violent uplift of the sea floor 80 miles off the coast of Sendai, where the Pacific tectonic plate slides beneath the plate Japan sits on. Tens of miles of crust ruptured along the trench where the tectonic plates meet. The earthquake occurred at the relatively shallow depth of 15 miles, meaning much of its energy was released at the seafloor. Regular aftershocks have already hit Japan as the Earth's crust continues to rupture along the Japan Trench. Those tremors are expected to be weaker and are less likely to produce another tsunami.

On March 12th, the government ordered evacuation within a 20-km radius around the nuclear power plant. Most residents had already left by then; however, approximately 1,500 patients remained in hospitals or nursing facilities. In the early morning of the 14th, these patients were transported to the SOSO Healthcare Center a screening point located 24 km north of the damaged power plant by buses, police vehicles and Japan Self Defense Forces transport. However, the limited capacity of the hospitals in Fukushima caused difficulty in reallocating these patients to the appropriate facilities. Many patientshad to wait for more than 24 hours, in the transport vehicles, in the cold weather without water or food. Unfortunately, at least 21 elderly patients died from hypothermia or dehydration.

As the situation in the 20-30-km zone around the plant deteriorated, the government instructed on March 15th that residents in this zone should remain indoors. However, there was still great confusion and fear of the effects of radiation, causing vital supplies such as food, water and gasoline as well as medical supplies to not be received in most of the area. The shortage of supplies had severe impacts on the hospitals and care facilities where approximately 1,700 patients remained. The local government eventually decided to move all of the patients out of the zone, which was completed by the evening of March 20th.

Initially, a value of 13,000 counts per minute, as measured by a Geiger-Müller counter, was used to indicate the need for evacuee decontamination. However, because of the disrupted water supply, very low temperature, and the need to cope with thousands of evacuees, this was increased to 100,000 counts per minute. At least 13 screening points were established by the night of March 14th, and more than 20,000 people had been screened by the 16th.Although a radiation emergency medical system had been developed, few had expected the magnitude of the damage to the nuclear power plant. Doctors and health care specialists voluntarily gathered in Fukushima to set up a radiation emergency medical management panel, which coordinated activities. Although these efforts were started with minimum resources, they were at the core of the subsequent medical responses dealing with the most difficult situation in Fukushima.

The first Japan’s nuclear Fukushima totally corrupted and destroyed. Death toll increased very fast, of which most serious ongoing INES-level 7 event. There more hazards from the nuclear power plant, under normal conditions, it can effect by radiation. The radiation release is very low, but potential risk of radioactive materials as that released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Discount the recent accident in Fukushima caused by earthquake and tsunami, two major historical serious accidents were triggered by two equipment malfunction and human errors.

posting test:


nuclear test 1

(tuesday, 12th July 2011) 90min

Q1 - energy mix & NPP component

Q2 - atomic & nuclear physics

Q3 - reactor theory 1