Forum: Author Hangout

Fiber optics, however, would NOT be damaged.

Why is that true? What is it about fiber optics that makes it not susceptible?

Fiber optic equipment can be hit.. They could be harmed by the E1 component directly, and the E3 components indirectly. The line itself would be immune, but not the routers, power supplies, fusion splicers (think repairs), microwave towers, etc.

Agreed, which is why I stated the fiber optic cable itself was immune.

Fiber optics, however, would NOT be damaged. The equipment that converts the electrical signal to the light that is transmitted down the fibers might, but the actual fiber infrastructure itself should be relatively unharmed.

Yes and no.

Fibre optic cables would not be damaged by a power surge, EMP etc.

BUT

The gizmo that converts the digital signal to the optical one gets fried by EMP and often by a serious power surge.

Not my opinion, that of the engineers brought in to replace the entire system that was destroyed by a lightening strike, the fire optic cable survived, the electronics were trashed. I asked out of sheer boredom what else could damage the system. They answered as above and added that without the gizmo stuff the fibre optic cable is unusable, so in terms of an EMP strike, the system would be effectively unusable.

A nearby lightning strike sent a power surge down my (copper) telephone line.

Are all telephone lines made of copper? Or are you just unlucky?

And how does any of that change the communications system?

Does that affect the communications system?

Does that affect the communications system?

Sorry, Bob. I may have exaggerated the extent of my "knowledge" already.

An EMP pulse will affect all electrical and electronic equipment. The stronger the pulse's strength is when it reaches the equipment, the greater the damage.

Many electrical and electronic systems have EMP protection built in. But if the pulse is strong enough, the equipment can still be damaged.

As we do another round of agreeing with each other but disagreeing over the nits that we're mutually picking at:

Fiber Optic Communications are light based and as such immune to Electromagnetic Interference. It would take a physical event disrupting continuity of the fiberoptic (glass) line to disrupt those lines.

That said, Fiber Optics Communications are not just that long strand of extruded glass. It also is the electronics at both ends of the cable.

The Electronics are vulnerable to EMP and other electromagnetic interference.

So the Fiber Optic Cables themselves would be fine. The Electronics needed in order to make the Fiber Optic Cable useful, that's a much more wildly variable factor.

The Fukushima disaster would have been a non-event if only the power station had asked the military for that once they knew they couldn't be certain of getting their flooded diesel generators operational in time. Perhaps worst of all would be if the electronics which control the pumps of the cooling systems of nuclear power stations get fried. The circuits of nearby spares would have been fried too.

The entirety of that is BS. There was nothing that could be done with or without the generators. In order for the cooling pumps to work, they would have to have piping to run the coolant through. The internals of that plant were effectively shattered, including the piping.
When you saw the place exploding within hours, it was clear the reactors had already started melting down. TEPCO ignored upgrades advised by GE for that design. Too much money they said.
They further ignored IAEA advisories to dry cask store spent fuel. They still had 89% of all fuel they ever burned sitting in the spent fuel pool when that happened.
TEPCO rolled the dice and the general public along with them lost.

The entirety of that is BS. There was nothing that could be done with or without the generators.

I believe what you are saying is complete rubbish but I will not assert that is so. I suspect you've been looking at sites which have been peddling misinformation to pursue some political agenda.

But, I am open to being convinced otherwise. Can you cite any news articles from sources whose name us here will all instantly recognise?

As far as I know the reactor(s) which melted down had been functioning normally before the earthquake. When that hit they shit down automatically without a hitch. When the tidal wave hit, the building containing the reactors survived without damage, however, the back-up diesel generators were flooded. The management at the plant attempted to get those generators running again. All would have been okay if they'd contacted the civil defense force at that time - to be certain power for the cooling system's pumps would be restored before the temperature reached dangerous levels.

I'll gladly revise my opinions and say so here if you prove otherwise, and I confess I did not spend many hours researching what had happened, but don't expect me to give any credence to any old thing you found on the internet.

don't expect me to give any credence to any old thing you found on the internet

What do you mean? If it's on the Internet it must be true! And the more sensational it is the truer it must be! If you don't believe me, just ask Donald ...

As far as I know the reactor(s) which melted down had been functioning normally before the earthquake. When that hit they shit down automatically without a hitch. When the tidal wave hit, the building containing the reactors survived without damage, however, the back-up diesel generators were flooded. The management at the plant attempted to get those generators running again. All would have been okay if they'd contacted the civil defense force at that time - to be certain power for the cooling system's pumps would be restored before the temperature reached dangerous levels.

I checked Wiki which suggests that is not entirely true.

It suggests neither the reactors nor the cooling systems were damaged by either the earthquake or tsunami. However, they knocked out all sources of energy to run the cooling system - except for some batteries which would last about 8 hours.

The power plant notified the civil defense authorities immediately. They sent generators by road! In all the chaos, it took 6 hours for them to get there. There were then problems getting the right cables to get to power to the cooling system.

Apart from some design weaknesses, such as installing back-up generators on higher ground which wasn't high enough, the equipment did everything it should and the company did all it could. The fault for the overheating and eventual meltdown, which all started many hours after the tsunami, appears to rest entirely on the civil defense forces for not ensuring those cooling systems would have power - come what may - within 8 hours.

IAEA, USNRC, TEPCO, general physics for that matter. Btw, asking for reputable sources and then quoting wiki isn't one of wiser things I've ever seen you do.

I'll give you a head start in 'your' homework though. Look up how heat can create hydrogen gas, and more specifically, how much heat is required. The latter being the source of the explosions broadcast hours after the event.

Anyone with two brain cells and some research can verify everything I've stated if they want to. Do your own homework.

Edit;
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/352434/

15 seconds with google. Imagine what you could do if you actually put some effort in.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/352434/

I find that link unconvincing. It is portrayed as if it's an "expose" debunking the "official story". You don't need to read much to see it's a beat-up. Which does not necessarily mean is doesn't contain any relevant information.

What is the actual "evidence" it presents? For starters, there are some anonymous quotes from a few employees who say they saw "some damage". I expect there was. It was a very strong earthquake and very close. But was there anything to show that damage had knocked out the plant's cooling systems?

One of the employees said there was an explosion soon after the earthquake. Maybe there was. But again, what is the evidence that one explosion knocked out the cooling systems of the multiple reactors which later melted down?

It then goes on to quote at length someone with an obvious agenda of self-promotion: wanting to claim he'd been proven right about his prior warnings that all of Japan's nuclear plants are unsafe.

I couldn't be bothered reading any further.

I haven't seen anything remotely convincing yet. What I've seen looks more like some hack's hope that subsequent revelations might end up delivering them a Pulitzer Prize.

And you tossing a list of acronyms at me hardly constitutes "evidence" either.

My official opinion remains I do not know and I do not care.

And as for me not doing homework? I never claimed to know all the facts. I have not misrepresented what I know in any way.

My initial comment was nothing more than a throw-away line in the middle of a post about something else. I thought the OP may have been investigating a plot line for a story, and was wondering if an EMP would cause sufficient damage for his needs. I suggested a blast near a nuclear power plant may serve his needs if he was looking for a disaster scenario, because knocking out a plant's cooling system for long enough will cause a meltdown.

I had not then, and I still don't, have any desire to discuss what actually happened at Fukushima. I mentioned it only as evidence of how critical cooling systems are to the safety of nuclear power plants.

And if it is one huge cover-up, does that make my suggestion to the OP any less valuable? If it's good enough for a real-life cover-up, wouldn't it would be good enough for someone's novel?

This, in context, is what I posted:

If you're looking for a scenario with long-term catastrophic consequences, EMP events near nuclear power stations could easily do that. Whether they are transmitting power into the grid or not, they cannot afford to have their cooling systems out of action for no longer than a few hours to prevent meltdowns. An EMP event nearby would knockout their ability to send energy away, but also fry the electronics of their diesel back-up generators. If there are multiple EMP events, would the military be too preoccupied to airlift in mobile generators? The Fukushima disaster would have been a non-event if only the power station had asked the military for that once they knew they couldn't be certain of getting their flooded diesel generators operational in time. Perhaps worst of all would be if the electronics which control the pumps of the cooling systems of nuclear power stations get fried. The circuits of nearby spares would have been fried too.

I now know of one statement in that which is incorrect. The military were asked promptly. Also, this statement was a bit confused: 'An EMP event nearby would knockout their ability to send energy away'. I meant to say the two usual power sources for nuclear plants would be gone: using power they are generating or drawing power from the grid.

You quoted the same words as I just have and began your reply with:

The entirety of that is BS.

You could have said, "The official version of what happened is BS," unless you were intentionally trying to cause offence. If you had said that, I would probably have asked you for some further evidence before dismissing you as a conspiracy-theory-swallowing-and-espousing loonie tune.

Instead, I politely asked for evidence, but being clear I would disregard anything from sources which were not credible.

Later on, I had a look at Wiki. Based on that, I wanted to correct the mistaken impression I had given that there was a delay in the military being asked to send generators.

That post was not directed at you! I was still waiting for whatever "evidence" you might provide. I directed that at my previous post which I quoted and then corrected.

You started your next post with this???

Btw, asking for reputable sources and then quoting wiki isn't one of wiser things I've ever seen you do.

Read what is said before mouthing off!

I started my post with this (my emphasis added):

I checked Wiki which suggests that is not entirely true.
It suggests …

Does that sound like someone who believes Wiki is a reliable source of information?

Then you become very insulting and condescending with this:

I'll give you a head start in 'your' homework though. Look up how heat can create hydrogen gas, and more specifically, how much heat is required. The latter being the source of the explosions broadcast hours after the event.

Anyone with two brain cells and some research can verify everything I've stated if they want to. Do your own homework.

I have no need to do any homework. I'm not the one jumping up and down claiming to know all the facts. I have no need to research every little-known and little-believed conspiracy theory out there on the internet!

I never wanted to discuss what happened there. I never claimed to know all the facts. In fact, I explicitly said I did not.

This is what I said in my first response to you:

I confess I did not spend many hours researching what had happened

I had spent some time looking into it, enough to know some basics about the generally accepted or "official" version. You claim that's all a massive cover-up by Japanese authorities. Maybe it is? Whether it is or not, it is grossly offensive of you to suggest I have been negligent or lack intelligence if, on the basis of limited research, I am unaware that some dispute the official version of events.

If you want to try to convince me of the "real facts", go ahead. I do not care one way or the other. I'll give it a look if you extract something credible from all those acronyms, but I won't promise to give it more than a cursory scan.

But I would have an open mind. The official version is not entirely convincing. It taking 6 hours for generators to reach the plant because of road conditions seems like a plausible human cock-up. It's not so convincing that, presumably, a team of army engineers could not cobble together a functional electrical connection within two hours after getting there because they didn't have the right cables.

Who knows? I might even end up revising my current opinion of you that, whether you're right about this one or not, you are a needlessly-offensive, conspiracy-theory-believing-and-espousing loonie tune!