We can only hope. I am sure somebody out there is working the ROV angle now as I write. Sad it takes a bad thing to sometimes push us along with implementing something I am sure has been thought of by many, but they couldn't afford to test and build a prototype or more likely didnt see a market for one. Money is always a factor. There would be problem of only being able to use ROV's once if they get irradiated also....cost probably wouldn't concern people of japan right now though.
You need to remember that the problems at the Nuclear Stations are pretty far down the National Priority list. Transportation space for food, clothing, shelter, medicines, general power sources, water, sanitary products all rank far higher than ROVs for the power stations.
The news over here keeps plugging away at the "nuclear crisis" because it is popular, easy to cover and requires limited resources, but that has little to do with the actual nature of the problems facing Japan.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Well I guess the Japaneese govt asking I-ROBOT for assistance speaks volumes, read percy's link in the msg 149. ROV's could be used for many things non-nuclear, search and rescue, other industrial accidents, well fires....
I agree the nuclear issue is being used because people fear it, irrationally usualy, keeps people watching and there are many sides to put their 2 cents in.
And that's a very important point. It's very possible that many ROV's are being used, for example in search and rescue, even in infrastructure inspection and assessment, and those would have a far higher immediate priority than the nuclear power sites.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
And that's a very important point. It's very possible that many ROV's are being used, for example in search and rescue, even in infrastructure inspection and assessment, and those would have a far higher immediate priority than the nuclear power sites.
Looking at the role ROV's and other unmanned vehicle are playing in the military, off-shore drilling....it will only be a matter of time before we see their use more wide spread and affordable for many things including nuclear response.
I am no engineer, but working in a high radiation environment will present its own uniqe problems, shielding the electronics/ sensor package for one. Handling it after exposure for maintenance or to replace tool package....many things to be considered. Disposal of it after job is done, maybe?
I feel as you do though that they will play larger roles in inspection, Search and rescue, explosive ordnance/bomb removal.. as they should.
There is new imagery available on google earth of Japan after the quake/tsunami, the first ones I found are near Fukushima Nuke stations. I am sure there is more, but these of coastal area show the scope of what they face in rebuilding. The image dates I've been looking at are the 11th & 12th of this month, by turning on time line you can compare to older images.
Those who are still expecting a Chernobyl or worse are being unreasonably pessimistic.
quote:Japan ups nuke crisis severity to match Chernobyl
TOKYO – Japan raised the crisis level at its crippled nuclear plant Tuesday to a severity on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, citing high overall radiation leaks that have contaminated the air, tap water, vegetables and seawater.
Officials from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that the cumulative amount of radioactive particles released into the atmosphere since the incident had reached levels that apply to a Level 7 incident.
And yet, despite the classification change, the nature of this disaster as opposed to Chernobyl means that we can expect a lower cost in lives at Fukushima.
The problem with the "top level classification" is that, once you've gotten that high, there's no further way to distinguish the severity of events. One Level 7 incident could literally be twice as bad as another Level 7.
Come back to me when we have a final death toll (or at least a preliminary one). That's the best, most meaningful metric to judge real severity. If Fukushima kills more people than Chernobyl, I'll concede. If not, well...
I think a final CANCER toll would be AS revealing. Unfortunately, as I written previously, like Chernobyl and other radiation born catastrophes, good luck in finding SOLID numbers. I submit these dubious examples:
quote:A more recent, 2000, report, "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation", by the United Nations' Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation increased to 1,800 the number of thyroid cancers in individuals exposed in childhood to releases from the Chernobyl accident. http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm
The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predictsapproximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographicdata, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000. http://www.greenpeace.org/...eatures/chernobyl-deaths-180406
In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.