Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (1 Viewer)

[Raiderfan32904]

Well you can't exactly break it into little pieces and reprocess it until they kill the reactor can you? once we get to that point, what makes more sense to you -encasing it on site in concrete and hope it is contained for longer than the human race will likely last, or reprocessing the fuel? Seems like a non-brainer decision to me.

Of course, we need to try to remove the fuel. But is that possible anymore? Radiation levels are heightened to the point it would be a suicide mission. Is there a way to airlift the vessel(s) out to deep sea and drop them. Understanding that the helicoptors would be suicide missions?

 

[Mario Kart]

Makes the BP oil spill seem like small potatoes, huh?

Where is a map of this area? How near to Tokyo? Fallout hit Alaska?

 

[Mario Kart]

Why would anyone stick around anywhere near this thing? They government can tell me 40km, but if I live within 100km of this thing I'm packing my family and all our things into a car and driving away.

You do realize Japan is an island or network of islands, right?

 

[bueno]

This is getting a bit more serious than the naysayers have been naysaying.

Sounds like it, but I still don't know what that means. I'm not clear what "concerned" means in this context, or what "meltdown" means, or what "breach" means. When I use the word "means", I'm taling about what it means for the Japanese public, and for the world. Are we talking about thousands of people getting cancer? Dying? Clouds of radioactive gas spreading around the Earth? Apocalypse? What the heck are we talking about??

We are talking about the core melting into the core catcher. There will be some loss of daughter products to steam explosions. A possible fire (as in combustion) is a bit scary though. Need more data.

 

[bueno]

Well you can't exactly break it into little pieces and reprocess it until they kill the reactor can you? once we get to that point, what makes more sense to you -encasing it on site in concrete and hope it is contained for longer than the human race will likely last, or reprocessing the fuel? Seems like a non-brainer decision to me.

Of course, we need to try to remove the fuel. But is that possible anymore? Radiation levels are heightened to the point it would be a suicide mission. Is there a way to airlift the vessel(s) out to deep sea and drop them. Understanding that the helicoptors would be suicide missions?

Yes.No.

 

[timschochet]

Makes the BP oil spill seem like small potatoes, huh?

Where is a map of this area? How near to Tokyo? Fallout hit Alaska?

Fallout? I thought fallout was from a nuclear explosion.

 

[Otis]

Why would anyone stick around anywhere near this thing? They government can tell me 40km, but if I live within 100km of this thing I'm packing my family and all our things into a car and driving away.

You do realize Japan is an island or network of islands, right?

Yes. And?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

[ Need more data.

40 rem confirmed at the site to the environment. And rising....

 

[timschochet]

This is getting a bit more serious than the naysayers have been naysaying.

Sounds like it, but I still don't know what that means. I'm not clear what "concerned" means in this context, or what "meltdown" means, or what "breach" means. When I use the word "means", I'm taling about what it means for the Japanese public, and for the world. Are we talking about thousands of people getting cancer? Dying? Clouds of radioactive gas spreading around the Earth? Apocalypse? What the heck are we talking about??

We are talking about the core melting into the core catcher. There will be some loss of daughter products to steam explosions. A possible fire (as in combustion) is a bit scary though. Need more data.

Sorry Bueno, your answer doesn't tell me what I want to know. And that is: How will this affect the population of Japan?

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

This is getting a bit more serious than the naysayers have been naysaying.

Sounds like it, but I still don't know what that means. I'm not clear what "concerned" means in this context, or what "meltdown" means, or what "breach" means. When I use the word "means", I'm taling about what it means for the Japanese public, and for the world. Are we talking about thousands of people getting cancer? Dying? Clouds of radioactive gas spreading around the Earth? Apocalypse? What the heck are we talking about??

We are talking about the core melting into the core catcher. There will be some loss of daughter products to steam explosions. A possible fire (as in combustion) is a bit scary though. Need more data.

I'll feel a lot better if you can provide evidence that a core catcher exists.

 

[bueno]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

 

[jamny]

•0 - 5 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect observable health effects.

•5 - 10 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect observable health effects. At this level, an effect is either nonexistent or too small to observe.

•10 - 50 rem received in a short period or over a long period—we don’t expect observable health effects although above 10 rem your chances of getting cancer are slightly increased. We may also see short-term blood cell decreases for doses of about 50 rem received in a matter of minutes.

•50 - 100 rem received in a short period will likely cause some observable health effects and received over a long period will increase your chances of getting cancer. Above 50 rem we may see some changes in blood cells, but the blood system quickly recovers.

•100 - 200 rem received in a short period will cause nausea and fatigue. 100 - 200 rem received over a long period will increase your chances of getting cancer.

•200 - 300 rem received in a short period will cause nausea and vomiting within 24-48 hours. Medical attention should be sought.

•300 - 500 rem received in a short period will cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea within hours. Loss of hair and appetite occurs within a week. Medical attention must be sought for survival; half of the people exposed to radiation at this level will die if they receive no medical attention.

•500 - 1,200 rem in a short period will likely lead to death within a few days.

•>10,000 rem in a short period will lead to death within a few hours.

link

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Japan's nuclear agency suspects the explosion early Tuesday may have damaged the reactor's suppression chamber, a water-filled tube at the bottom of the container that surrounds the nuclear core. That chamber is part of the container wall, so damage to it could allow radiation to escape.

Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand. Spokesperson said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.

.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I'll feel a lot better if you can provide evidence that a core catcher exists.

my concern as well.

 

[JbizzleMan]

Okay... At what level of rem does all hell break loose?

 

[Mario Kart]

Why would anyone stick around anywhere near this thing? They government can tell me 40km, but if I live within 100km of this thing I'm packing my family and all our things into a car and driving away.

You do realize Japan is an island or network of islands, right?

Yes. And?

Where do you plan on driving?

 

[The Z Machine]

Where is this radiation coming from?

Radioactive decay would be my first guess.The situation has gotten to the point where it is approaching worst case scenario.

No ####, but I'm asking which reactor and by what means.

 

[bueno]

This is getting a bit more serious than the naysayers have been naysaying.

Sounds like it, but I still don't know what that means. I'm not clear what "concerned" means in this context, or what "meltdown" means, or what "breach" means. When I use the word "means", I'm taling about what it means for the Japanese public, and for the world. Are we talking about thousands of people getting cancer? Dying? Clouds of radioactive gas spreading around the Earth? Apocalypse? What the heck are we talking about??

We are talking about the core melting into the core catcher. There will be some loss of daughter products to steam explosions. A possible fire (as in combustion) is a bit scary though. Need more data.

Sorry Bueno, your answer doesn't tell me what I want to know. And that is: How will this affect the population of Japan?

Godzilla, Mothra and the smog monster won't wake up, Tim. The workers at the site will have an increased chance of cancer, everyone else is probably okay.

 

[ffldrew]

The company at the centre of a nuclear reactor crisis following the biggest earthquake in Japan's recorded history has had a rocky past in an industry plagued by scandal. The Japanese government said on Saturday that there had been radiation leakage at Tokyo Electric Power's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi plant following an explosion there. The blast came as TEPCO was working desperately to reduce pressures in the core of a reactor at the 40-year-old plant, which lies 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo. In 2002, the president of the country's largest power utility was forced to resign along with four other senior executives, taking responsibility for suspected falsification of nuclear plant safety records. The company was suspected of 29 cases involving falsified repair records at nuclear reactors. It had to stop operations at five reactors, including the two damaged in the latest tremor, for safety inspections. A few years later it ran into trouble again over accusations of falsifying data. In late 2006, the government ordered TEPCO to check past data after it reported that it had found falsification of coolant water temperatures at its Fukushima Daiichi plant in 1985 and 1988, and that the tweaked data was used in mandatory inspections at the plant, which were completed in October 2005. And in 2007, TEPCO reported that it had found more past data falsifications, though this time it did not have to close any of its plants.

 

[timschochet]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

Bueno, I haven't heard a single "expert" on TV mention the "core catcher". You're the only one I've read anywhere that mentions it, so I googled, and this is what I found:A popular blog post entitled "Why I am not worried a about Japan's nuclear reactors" claims that meltdown at Fukushima I would be contained, as a last resort, by the reactor's core catcher.

However a comment purporting to be from a young Japanese Atomic Energy Agency researcher claims that Fukushima I has no core catcher: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.co...

Fukushima I was built in 1970 and the earliest reference to core catchers that I can find is this 1978 patent.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...

It seems unlikely therefore that a core catcher was installed, and since they go underneath the reactor I would assume they are not easy to retrofit. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

 

[bueno]

Where is this radiation coming from?

Radioactive decay would be my first guess.The situation has gotten to the point where it is approaching worst case scenario.

No ####, but I'm asking which reactor and by what means.

The one that is leaking steam.

 

[Mario Kart]

•0 - 5 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect observable health effects.

•5 - 10 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect observable health effects. At this level, an effect is either nonexistent or too small to observe.

•10 - 50 rem received in a short period or over a long period—we don’t expect observable health effects although above 10 rem your chances of getting cancer are slightly increased. We may also see short-term blood cell decreases for doses of about 50 rem received in a matter of minutes.

•50 - 100 rem received in a short period will likely cause some observable health effects and received over a long period will increase your chances of getting cancer. Above 50 rem we may see some changes in blood cells, but the blood system quickly recovers.

•100 - 200 rem received in a short period will cause nausea and fatigue. 100 - 200 rem received over a long period will increase your chances of getting cancer.

•200 - 300 rem received in a short period will cause nausea and vomiting within 24-48 hours. Medical attention should be sought.

•300 - 500 rem received in a short period will cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea within hours. Loss of hair and appetite occurs within a week. Medical attention must be sought for survival; half of the people exposed to radiation at this level will die if they receive no medical attention.

•500 - 1,200 rem in a short period will likely lead to death within a few days.

•>10,000 rem in a short period will lead to death within a few hours.

link

How much rem did the two atomic bombs create?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Why would anyone stick around anywhere near this thing? They government can tell me 40km, but if I live within 100km of this thing I'm packing my family and all our things into a car and driving away.

There is a fuel shortage. Maybe roads are damaged too?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Okay... At what level of rem does all hell break loose?

Someone posted a couple post up from you the effects. The limit for US Navy nuclear workers per year is 1/2 rem or 500 millirems. 40 rems of intensity is very large and it's time to head indoors, or better yet away as quickly as possible.

 

[culdeus]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

 

[bueno]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

Bueno, I haven't heard a single "expert" on TV mention the "core catcher". You're the only one I've read anywhere that mentions it, so I googled, and this is what I found:A popular blog post entitled "Why I am not worried a about Japan's nuclear reactors" claims that meltdown at Fukushima I would be contained, as a last resort, by the reactor's core catcher.

However a comment purporting to be from a young Japanese Atomic Energy Agency researcher claims that Fukushima I has no core catcher: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.co...

Fukushima I was built in 1970 and the earliest reference to core catchers that I can find is this 1978 patent.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...

It seems unlikely therefore that a core catcher was installed, and since they go underneath the reactor I would assume they are not easy to retrofit. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

I sure hope there is one Tim. There is a third containment vessel. The base of that vessel is a concrete basin filled with graphite (I would have used boron) designed to catch the core.

 

[Fennis]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

more or less often than Japanese nuclear power plants?

 

[bueno]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

more or less often than Japanese nuclear power plants?

Definitely more.

 

[timschochet]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

Bueno, I haven't heard a single "expert" on TV mention the "core catcher". You're the only one I've read anywhere that mentions it, so I googled, and this is what I found:A popular blog post entitled "Why I am not worried a about Japan's nuclear reactors" claims that meltdown at Fukushima I would be contained, as a last resort, by the reactor's core catcher.

However a comment purporting to be from a young Japanese Atomic Energy Agency researcher claims that Fukushima I has no core catcher: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.co...

Fukushima I was built in 1970 and the earliest reference to core catchers that I can find is this 1978 patent.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...

It seems unlikely therefore that a core catcher was installed, and since they go underneath the reactor I would assume they are not easy to retrofit. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

I sure hope there is one Tim. There is a third containment vessel. The base of that vessel is a concrete basin filled with graphite (I would have used boron) designed to catch the core.

OK, suppose there isn't. Does your statement about no danger to the Japanese people at large change?

 

[Fennis]

This is getting a bit more serious than the naysayers have been naysaying.

Sounds like it, but I still don't know what that means. I'm not clear what "concerned" means in this context, or what "meltdown" means, or what "breach" means. When I use the word "means", I'm taling about what it means for the Japanese public, and for the world. Are we talking about thousands of people getting cancer? Dying? Clouds of radioactive gas spreading around the Earth? Apocalypse? What the heck are we talking about??

We are talking about the core melting into the core catcher. There will be some loss of daughter products to steam explosions. A possible fire (as in combustion) is a bit scary though. Need more data.

Sorry Bueno, your answer doesn't tell me what I want to know. And that is: How will this affect the population of Japan?

Godzilla, Mothra and the smog monster won't wake up, Tim. The workers at the site will have an increased chance of cancer, everyone else is probably okay.

so why do you suppose they evacuated people 20 KM from the plant and told people within 30 KM to stay indoors?

 

[Fennis]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

more or less often than Japanese nuclear power plants?

Definitely more.

I'd like a rocket scientist to weigh in

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

Bueno, I haven't heard a single "expert" on TV mention the "core catcher". You're the only one I've read anywhere that mentions it, so I googled, and this is what I found:A popular blog post entitled "Why I am not worried a about Japan's nuclear reactors" claims that meltdown at Fukushima I would be contained, as a last resort, by the reactor's core catcher.

However a comment purporting to be from a young Japanese Atomic Energy Agency researcher claims that Fukushima I has no core catcher: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.co...

Fukushima I was built in 1970 and the earliest reference to core catchers that I can find is this 1978 patent.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...

It seems unlikely therefore that a core catcher was installed, and since they go underneath the reactor I would assume they are not easy to retrofit. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

I sure hope there is one Tim. There is a third containment vessel. The base of that vessel is a concrete basin filled with graphite (I would have used boron) designed to catch the core.

I keep hearing from someone on CNN that there have been a series of environmental and safety violations associated with these reactors. Maybe it's unfounded. But if that is their track record, I doubt that they did the necessary retrofit. Especially on reactors within their final 5 years of service.

 

[Mario Kart]

Makes the BP oil spill seem like small potatoes, huh?

Where is a map of this area? How near to Tokyo? Fallout hit Alaska?

Fallout? I thought fallout was from a nuclear explosion.

In SimCity, when a nuclear power plant blows up, there is fallout over a large area making the land useless and such. The fallout would never affect other cities adjacent to the explosion though, that is why it is good to build the plants near the edges. But, I don't think Japan has that ability.

 

[bueno]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

Bueno, I haven't heard a single "expert" on TV mention the "core catcher". You're the only one I've read anywhere that mentions it, so I googled, and this is what I found:A popular blog post entitled "Why I am not worried a about Japan's nuclear reactors" claims that meltdown at Fukushima I would be contained, as a last resort, by the reactor's core catcher.

However a comment purporting to be from a young Japanese Atomic Energy Agency researcher claims that Fukushima I has no core catcher: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.co...

Fukushima I was built in 1970 and the earliest reference to core catchers that I can find is this 1978 patent.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...

It seems unlikely therefore that a core catcher was installed, and since they go underneath the reactor I would assume they are not easy to retrofit. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

I sure hope there is one Tim. There is a third containment vessel. The base of that vessel is a concrete basin filled with graphite (I would have used boron) designed to catch the core.

OK, suppose there isn't. Does your statement about no danger to the Japanese people at large change?

Worst case? Hot fuel hits the water table, water flashes to steam, carries radioactive material into the atmosphere.

 

[David Dodds]

Why would anyone stick around anywhere near this thing?  They government can tell me 40km, but if I live within 100km of this thing I'm packing my family and all our things into a car and driving away.

Are you over on he darkside with some of us tinfoil hat guys now?

 

[bueno]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

more or less often than Japanese nuclear power plants?

Definitely more.

I'd like a rocket scientist to weigh in

How many shuttles have we lost?

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

more or less often than Japanese nuclear power plants?

Definitely more.

I'd like a rocket scientist to weigh in

I'm a rocket scientist. Definitely more is correct.I'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

not to be an alarmist, but if this thing is emanating 40 rems and is out of control, whose to say it wont be 400 rem in the morning?

 

[Fennis]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

more or less often than Japanese nuclear power plants?

Definitely more.

I'd like a rocket scientist to weigh in

How many shuttles have we lost?

well I was just kidding, but if we want to count: how many Japanese nuclear power plants have we lost?

 

[Fennis]

I'm a rocket scientist. Definitely more is correct.I'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

on the more on the dumping nuclear waste into the ocean

 

[Raiderfan32904]

[i'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

I agree with your nuke friend. Deep water is the best shield for radioactivity. 36 feet of water = 1 inch of lead shielding. As you go deeper, the shielding is most effective in deep sea.

 

[bueno]

Is there any reason we can't put nuclear waste somewhere else off the planet?

it's not cost effective

How many kilos of nuclear waste are generated per year? Say $5,000 per kilo for Proton rocketry, the 10B cleanup would get what, 2*106 Kgs out of our hair.

Rockets occasionally blow up.

more or less often than Japanese nuclear power plants?

Definitely more.

I'd like a rocket scientist to weigh in

I'm a rocket scientist. Definitely more is correct.I'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

Maybe you should ask a geologist if that is a good idea.

 

[bueno]

I'm a rocket scientist. Definitely more is correct.I'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

on the more on the dumping nuclear waste into the ocean

Only AIU could make me agree with Fennis.

 

[Fennis]

I'm a rocket scientist. Definitely more is correct.I'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

on the more on the dumping nuclear waste into the ocean

Only AIU could make me agree with Fennis.

 

[timschochet]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

Bueno, I haven't heard a single "expert" on TV mention the "core catcher". You're the only one I've read anywhere that mentions it, so I googled, and this is what I found:A popular blog post entitled "Why I am not worried a about Japan's nuclear reactors" claims that meltdown at Fukushima I would be contained, as a last resort, by the reactor's core catcher.

However a comment purporting to be from a young Japanese Atomic Energy Agency researcher claims that Fukushima I has no core catcher: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.co...

Fukushima I was built in 1970 and the earliest reference to core catchers that I can find is this 1978 patent.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...

It seems unlikely therefore that a core catcher was installed, and since they go underneath the reactor I would assume they are not easy to retrofit. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

I sure hope there is one Tim. There is a third containment vessel. The base of that vessel is a concrete basin filled with graphite (I would have used boron) designed to catch the core.

OK, suppose there isn't. Does your statement about no danger to the Japanese people at large change?

Worst case? Hot fuel hits the water table, water flashes to steam, carries radioactive material into the atmosphere.

And what does that mean? Thousands of Japanese getting cancer and dying? Worse?

 

[bueno]

[i'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

I agree with your nuke friend. Deep water is the best shield for radioactivity. 36 feet of water = 1 inch of lead shielding. As you go deeper, the shielding is most effective in deep sea.

You have any clue what the mid-Atlantic Ridge is?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Why would anyone stick around anywhere near this thing?  They government can tell me 40km, but if I live within 100km of this thing I'm packing my family and all our things into a car and driving away.

Are you over on he darkside with some of us tinfoil hat guys now?

I think Otis wants a ride in your balloon.

 

[jamny]

2011 is shaping up to be some year.

T&P to the people of Japan. I can't even imagine the fear and horror they are going through.

 

[bueno]

The core catcher will be designed such that the fuel will be retrievable once it is safe and prudent to do so. Leaving it there to me would be equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

Bueno, I haven't heard a single "expert" on TV mention the "core catcher". You're the only one I've read anywhere that mentions it, so I googled, and this is what I found:A popular blog post entitled "Why I am not worried a about Japan's nuclear reactors" claims that meltdown at Fukushima I would be contained, as a last resort, by the reactor's core catcher.

However a comment purporting to be from a young Japanese Atomic Energy Agency researcher claims that Fukushima I has no core catcher: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.co...

Fukushima I was built in 1970 and the earliest reference to core catchers that I can find is this 1978 patent.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...

It seems unlikely therefore that a core catcher was installed, and since they go underneath the reactor I would assume they are not easy to retrofit. Does anyone have a definitive answer?

I sure hope there is one Tim. There is a third containment vessel. The base of that vessel is a concrete basin filled with graphite (I would have used boron) designed to catch the core.

OK, suppose there isn't. Does your statement about no danger to the Japanese people at large change?

Worst case? Hot fuel hits the water table, water flashes to steam, carries radioactive material into the atmosphere.

And what does that mean? Thousands of Japanese getting cancer and dying? Worse?

Dirty bomb. Which is why there had better be a core-catcher.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

[i'm not a nuclear engineer, but my nuclear engineer friend says that we should just seal all waste into big drums and dump them into the mid-Atlantic ridge. He says they'd be safely buried there for long enough that they'd be so dilute by the time they escape there would be no hazard, even for long half-life isotopes.

I agree with your nuke friend. Deep water is the best shield for radioactivity. 36 feet of water = 1 inch of lead shielding. As you go deeper, the shielding is most effective in deep sea.

You have any clue what the mid-Atlantic Ridge is?

no...yes?