Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (1 Viewer)

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Some expert on CNN said that the radiation you get during a CT scan is about 100 times greater than if you spent an hour at the nuclear plant right now. I don't know if that's true, but it made me feel better hearing it.

That's true. I've toured research and power reactors, been in nuclear fuel fabrication facilities, been to maybe half of the national nuclear laboratories in the country. I get a greater hit of radiation while flying on the plane to get to these places than I do being in them.I had a banana yesterday for breakfast and I smoked a cigarette last night with a friend. Got a radiation dose doing both of those things.

 

[Fennis]

Some expert on CNN said that the radiation you get during a CT scan is about 100 times greater than if you spent an hour at the nuclear plant right now. I don't know if that's true, but it made me feel better hearing it.

That's true. I've toured research and power reactors, been in nuclear fuel fabrication facilities, been to maybe half of the national nuclear laboratories in the country. I get a greater hit of radiation while flying on the plane to get to these places than I do being in them.I had a banana yesterday for breakfast and I smoked a cigarette last night with a friend. Got a radiation dose doing both of those things.

I guess the 15 people (maybe more, the Japanese government isn't releasing info) who are hospitalized for radiation poisoning ate a bunch of bananas.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Some expert on CNN said that the radiation you get during a CT scan is about 100 times greater than if you spent an hour at the nuclear plant right now. I don't know if that's true, but it made me feel better hearing it.

That's true. I've toured research and power reactors, been in nuclear fuel fabrication facilities, been to maybe half of the national nuclear laboratories in the country. I get a greater hit of radiation while flying on the plane to get to these places than I do being in them.I had a banana yesterday for breakfast and I smoked a cigarette last night with a friend. Got a radiation dose doing both of those things.

A day on the beach without sunscreen or a simple banana from Equador can give you one REM of gamma radiation. I've crawled all up inside reactor compartments and only ended up with 50 millirem over a 2 year period. The limits for exposure are set very low for nuclear workers.

 

[David Dodds]

The Fukushima issues are getting worse, according to Japanese former nuclear power plant designer Masashi Goto.

These are British Broadcasting Corporation tweets from the nuclear power plant designer regarding the gravity of the situation and his claims the Japanese and international officials are severely downplaying the risks at present:

A former nuclear power plant designer has said Japan is facing an extremely grave crisis and called on the government to release more information, which he said was being suppressed. Masashi Goto told a news conference in Tokyo that one of the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant was "highly unstable", and that if there was a meltdown the "consequences would be tremendous". He said such an event might be very likely indeed. So far, the government has said a meltdown would not lead to a sizeable leak of radioactive materials.

Mr Goto said the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant were suffering pressure build-ups way beyond that for which they were designed. There was a severe risk of an explosion, with radioactive material being strewn over a very wide area - beyond the 20km evacuation zone set up by the authorities - he added. Mr Goto calculated that because Reactor No 3 at Fukushima-Daiichi - where pressure is rising and there is a risk of an explosion - used a type of fuel known as Mox, a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, the radioactive fallout from any meltdown might be twice as bad.

He described the worst-case scenario: "It is difficult to say, but that would be a core meltdown. If the rods fall and mix with water, the result would be an explosion of solid material like a volcano spreading radioactive material. Steam or a hydrogen explosion caused by the mix would spread radioactive waste more than 50km. Also, this would be multiplied. There are many reactors in the area so there would be many Chernobyls."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-12307698

 

[Fennis]

The Fukushima issues are getting worse, according to Japanese former nuclear power plant designer Masashi Goto.

These are British Broadcasting Corporation tweets from the nuclear power plant designer regarding the gravity of the situation and his claims the Japanese and international officials are severely downplaying the risks at present:

A former nuclear power plant designer has said Japan is facing an extremely grave crisis and called on the government to release more information, which he said was being suppressed. Masashi Goto told a news conference in Tokyo that one of the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant was "highly unstable", and that if there was a meltdown the "consequences would be tremendous". He said such an event might be very likely indeed. So far, the government has said a meltdown would not lead to a sizeable leak of radioactive materials.

Mr Goto said the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant were suffering pressure build-ups way beyond that for which they were designed. There was a severe risk of an explosion, with radioactive material being strewn over a very wide area - beyond the 20km evacuation zone set up by the authorities - he added. Mr Goto calculated that because Reactor No 3 at Fukushima-Daiichi - where pressure is rising and there is a risk of an explosion - used a type of fuel known as Mox, a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, the radioactive fallout from any meltdown might be twice as bad.

He described the worst-case scenario: "It is difficult to say, but that would be a core meltdown. If the rods fall and mix with water, the result would be an explosion of solid material like a volcano spreading radioactive material. Steam or a hydrogen explosion caused by the mix would spread radioactive waste more than 50km. Also, this would be multiplied. There are many reactors in the area so there would be many Chernobyls."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-12307698

and good morning to you too!

 

[JaxBill]

I find it hard to believe that the entire backup cooling system and it's backup power sources/generators/pumps failed. Just unthinkable. Where I work, we have 6 1000KW Diesel Generators backing up twin 12470V feeders, with 120KGal UST's. We are required to test them monthly and the noise is deafening when they come online. And that isn't even a nuclear facility.

Ever try starting them under water?

Just spent some time at a place intimately familiar with the situation. Part of the problem with the backup power is that the power building and reactor building are separated by some distance. The transmission of power is by overhead lines. The waves were ten meters. The overhead lines snapped. The containment structure is in tact. The explosion was from excess pressure in the pumps. Pumped in sea water to that first reactor. It's a total loss. Five others are in trouble. That's what I remember. I've been up most of the last 2 days. Good night Irene...

If the containtment structure is intact and the weak link is the overhead transmission lines, what a design flaw! Transmission lines need to be localized or underground cable needed to be run to the reactor facility. And pumping sea water can't be in any emergency procedure manual. For all the acclaim that Japanese Nuclear reactors have been recently given, (or is it just damage control?) they are flying by the seat of thier pants with this emergency. I still think as long as the outer containment vessel holds, this wont be as bad as a lot of people think. But the radioactive steam off the seawater billowing out into the environment is going to be a concern.

How far above sea level is the plant? Could that be why they didn't go with underground power lines?

 

[David Dodds]

Radiation up 400x in Miyaga - Dozen Kilometers (6 miles) away:

No one commenting on this? If this is happening 6 miles away, isn't this really bad?

 

[Mr. Retukes]

David Dodds = Ham Lite

 

[Incogneto]

So much fear mongering....

 

[David Dodds]

so where does the seawater go after it's poured into the reactor? That's all hazardous waste right?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

so where does the seawater go after it's poured into the reactor? That's all hazardous waste right?

Radioactive organic material would be hazardous waste. Needs to be barrelled up and disposed of. That is for later. All the steam that goes up in the environment is not controlled. That is the most pressing cleanup concern.

 

[SofaKings]

so where does the seawater go after it's poured into the reactor? That's all hazardous waste right?

Radioactive organic material would be hazardous waste. Needs to be barrelled up and disposed of. That is for later. All the steam that goes up in the environment is not controlled. That is the most pressing cleanup concern.

Thank you for your informative posts in here RF3!

 

[identikit]

David Dodds = Ham Lite

Sure looking that way.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Thank you for your informative posts in here RF3!

You are welcome. I am outside with the laptap in backyard and sometimes checking the news and mostly kicking a soccer ball around with my 4 year old son. It's a beautiful day out. Perfect weather. I feel so guilty. I feel so sorry for the Japanese. I need to break away from the news and just enjoy the gifts I have. Peace.

 

[David Dodds]

http://www.novinite....s.php?id=126178

3rd Nuclear Plant in Japan Faces Problems after Earthquake, Tsunami

 

[Rohn Jambo]

so where does the seawater go after it's poured into the reactor? That's all hazardous waste right?

I have become much more knowledgeable about nuclear power plants because of this incident. The water that is pumped in will turn to steam, which will contain some radioactive material that has much shorter half life of decay (seconds to days) than the other elements that get released when there is a meltdown of the fuel rods.

 

[Incogneto]

http://www.novinite....s.php?id=126178

3rd Nuclear Plant in Japan Faces Problems after Earthquake, Tsunami

Who knew that Bulgaria was the epicenter of Nuclear news?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

http://www.novinite....s.php?id=126178

3rd Nuclear Plant in Japan Faces Problems after Earthquake, Tsunami

Are all these plants all on the shore for the Hail Mary option to be feasible. I almost said "nuclear option", heh.

 

[Fennis]

http://www.novinite....s.php?id=126178

3rd Nuclear Plant in Japan Faces Problems after Earthquake, Tsunami

Who knew that Bulgaria was the epicenter of Nuclear news?

well we know information doesn't come from Japan

 

[[icon]]

http://www.novinite....s.php?id=126178

3rd Nuclear Plant in Japan Faces Problems after Earthquake, Tsunami

Are all these plants all on the shore for the Hail Mary option to be feasible. I almost said "nuclear option", heh.

The images i've seen indicate they are built in clusters I would think they're all within range of water.

 

[David Dodds]

so where does the seawater go after it's poured into the reactor? That's all hazardous waste right?

I have become much more knowledgeable about nuclear power plants because of this incident. The water that is pumped in will turn to steam, which will contain some radioactive material that has much shorter half life of decay (seconds to days) than the other elements that get released when there is a meltdown of the fuel rods.

That makes sense. So dumping the ocean water should work as long as the steam being released isn't too harmful to people. How long will they need to cycle new saltwater through this reactor? And if the reports are correct that other reactors are suffering partial meltdowns, are they going to need to wipe out these reactors with saltwater too? That sure seems like a very bad fail safe plan as adding the saltwater surely kills these reactors from ever coming back on.

 

[jon_mx]

What is a partial meltdown? It is just a term to make us feel better about a meltdown? I have no idea, just wondering.

 

[David Dodds]

What is a partial meltdown? It is just a term to make us feel better about a meltdown? I have no idea, just wondering.

yes that would be my guess. I think it implies some ability to contain the radiation from getting out.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

so where does the seawater go after it's poured into the reactor? That's all hazardous waste right?

I have become much more knowledgeable about nuclear power plants because of this incident. The water that is pumped in will turn to steam, which will contain some radioactive material that has much shorter half life of decay (seconds to days) than the other elements that get released when there is a meltdown of the fuel rods.

That makes sense. So dumping the ocean water should work as long as the steam being released isn't too harmful to people. How long will they need to cycle new saltwater through this reactor? And if the reports are correct that other reactors are suffering partial meltdowns, are they going to need to wipe out these reactors with saltwater too? That sure seems like a very bad fail safe plan as adding the saltwater surely kills these reactors from ever coming back on.

The seawater has effectively destroyed the reactor but flooding it was probably the only short-term solution available. That's a billion dollar decision. If it was a !000 MW reactor, these cost about $5 to $7 billion to build.If things get worse, I'd imagine they will consider burying the core with specially treated concrete, but I don't know at what point one does this. This is what they did at Chernobyl but keep in mind that the Russian reactor had no containment built into it. That was the problem there.

 

[Osaurus]

Hamwhip. When do you sense the radioactive cloud will hit the west coast? TIA

 

[jon_mx]

The seawater has effectively destroyed the reactor but flooding it was probably the only short-term solution available. That's a billion dollar decision. If it was a !000 MW reactor, these cost about $5 to $7 billion to build.If things get worse, I'd imagine they will consider burying the core with specially treated concrete, but I don't know at what point one does this. This is what they did at Chernobyl but keep in mind that the Russian reactor had no containment built into it. That was the problem there.

All these reactors were 30 plus years old and getting towards end of life. Might have been able to get 5-10 more years, but I am guessing they were all going to be to rest in the next decade.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

What is a partial meltdown? It is just a term to make us feel better about a meltdown? I have no idea, just wondering.

yes that would be my guess. I think it implies some ability to contain the radiation from getting out.

Before i explain a partial meltdown, you need to understand what is a full meltdown first.Full Meltdown

 

[bueno]

Turbines are in the turbine bldg, well away from the reactor bldg. Anything in the reactor bldg has to be contained within ridiculously thick walls. In addition, anything in there is (by definition) radioactive, so doing maintenance is all of a sudden a huuuuge PITA. In other words, unless it absolutely has to be in the reactor bldg, it is not put in there.You have it backwards on circulation, there are fail safes in order to maintain circulation. Without circulation you have meltdown. The rods have to be constantly cooled by water flowing through / over them. Now, you can slow the nuclear release (ie heating) by surrounding the nuclear fuel with graphite rods (which can be lowered / raised to control heat rate). The graphite acts as a moderator that slows down / absorbs neutrons being released. It appears that there may have been a problem with this mechanism for these two reactors.

I mis-spoke actually on the circulation issue, but your engineering knowledge is more current than mine, so I figured I'd ask a leading question or two..Another question for you: back in the Rocky Flats days we used boron rings. Graphite burns - boron doesn't. Of course that was making plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, but the objective was the same. Why did civilian nuclear power go to graphite instead of boron? Any ideas?

 

[Steve Tasker]

I find it hard to believe that the entire backup cooling system and it's backup power sources/generators/pumps failed. Just unthinkable. Where I work, we have 6 1000KW Diesel Generators backing up twin 12470V feeders, with 120KGal UST's. We are required to test them monthly and the noise is deafening when they come online. And that isn't even a nuclear facility.

You are joking right? 8.9+ earthquake then a tsunami. Pretty beleivable.Also, I would trust the Japanese gov't to tell it like it is a hell of a lot more than this country would. I laugh at the clowns on TV saying that pouring in seawater is desperation. Um..they are desperate. They are doing everyhting they can think of. Over here, we would be having hearings on capital hill as to what to do while it melts down and releases radiation. The republicans would blame Obama. The democrats would blame Bush.

The sad part is that I can actually picture this happening.

 

[bueno]

From Greenpeace (It's pretty scary stuff):Our thoughts are with our colleagues, friends and all the people of Japan as they continue to deal with the aftereffects of yesterday's earthquake and tsunami. We are tracking the developments at Japan's nuclear plants as they race to try to avoid a meltdown.

Nuclear plants like the one at Fukushima were never designed to withstand a meltdown of the reactor core and wont. This is an excerpt from our Greenpeace Report : American Chernobyl:

The MYTH of CONTAINMENT:

For a reactor accident to have Chernobyl like consequences a meltdown must be accompanied by containment failure. Unfortunately the term "containment" belies the facts. The public interest community has long been aware that the containments around many of the US reactors are more myth than reality.

As early as 1971, government regulators knew that the public's last line of defense against the radiation, the reactor containment, was virtually worthless yet licensed the General Electric (GE) and Westinghouse Ice Condenser reactors anyway. When an Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) staff member suggested that this type of containment design be banned in the U.S. the AEC's deputy director for technical review responded that it "could well be the end of nuclear power. It would throw into question the continued operation of licensed plants, could make unlicensable the GE and Westinghouse ice condenser plants now in review and would generally create more turmoil than I can think about." (See Appendix B.)

Of course the nuclear bureaucrats did not want to reveal the truth about the fallibility of the nuclear reactors they had already licensed as "safe" and attempted to withhold the information from the public.

Only though the efforts of the Union of Concerned Scientists, their attorneys and those at Public Citizen did the information eventually come to light under the Freedom of Information Act.

In 1986 Harold Denton, former director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, again acknowledged this vulnerability while speaking to utilities executives at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Denton noted that, according to NRC studies the GE Mark I reactors had "something like a 90% probability of that containment failing."

You really need to take statements from non-knowledgeable people with an agenda with a ton of salt.

 

[3C's]

I find it hard to believe that the entire backup cooling system and it's backup power sources/generators/pumps failed. Just unthinkable. Where I work, we have 6 1000KW Diesel Generators backing up twin 12470V feeders, with 120KGal UST's. We are required to test them monthly and the noise is deafening when they come online. And that isn't even a nuclear facility.

Ever try starting them under water?

Just spent some time at a place intimately familiar with the situation. Part of the problem with the backup power is that the power building and reactor building are separated by some distance. The transmission of power is by overhead lines. The waves were ten meters. The overhead lines snapped. The containment structure is in tact. The explosion was from excess pressure in the pumps. Pumped in sea water to that first reactor. It's a total loss. Five others are in trouble. That's what I remember. I've been up most of the last 2 days. Good night Irene...

If the containtment structure is intact and the weak link is the overhead transmission lines, what a design flaw! Transmission lines need to be localized or underground cable needed to be run to the reactor facility. And pumping sea water can't be in any emergency procedure manual. For all the acclaim that Japanese Nuclear reactors have been recently given, (or is it just damage control?) they are flying by the seat of thier pants with this emergency. I still think as long as the outer containment vessel holds, this wont be as bad as a lot of people think. But the radioactive steam off the seawater billowing out into the environment is going to be a concern.

How far above sea level is the plant? Could that be why they didn't go with underground power lines?

bolded was pretty much what I said. Got this from wiki and it may explain the overhead lines (and remember, this plant was built in 1971).Most electrical power in Japan is still provided by aerial cables. In Tokyo's 23 wards, according to Japan's Construction and Transport Ministry, just 7.3 percent of cables were laid underground as of March 2005.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

You really need to take statements from non-knowledgeable people with an agenda with a ton of salt.

I mis-spoke actually on the circulation issue

 

[bueno]

anyone have thoughts on the impact to US if there is a complete meltdown? Should I drive east?

Death Cloud article: http://www.helium.co...o-us-west-coast

Where's Ham when you need him?!?!?!

Writing under the pseudonym Terrance Aym?

 

[bueno]

http://www.infowars....erway-in-japan/

Another Chernobyl?

Speculation, but we're all doing that, aren't we?Tell you what though, reading the comments leaves me with the impression that there are a buttload of loons out there.

I'm being to worry that David might be one of them.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

What is a partial meltdown? It is just a term to make us feel better about a meltdown? I have no idea, just wondering.

yes that would be my guess. I think it implies some ability to contain the radiation from getting out.

Before i explain a partial meltdown, you need to understand what is a full meltdown first.Full Meltdown

Okay, Professor Jambo of Real Life University has the answer.A partial meltdown is when the fuel rods are melting but have not yet breached the reactor containment vessel, by either eating through the vessel or causing an explosion that damages it. This mean full melt down can still be avoided if the cooling systems is restored. However, if too much melting has occurred and the molten material becomes one big blob then the water's ability to wrap around it and cool the radioactive material can be greatly diminished.

 

[bueno]

so where does the seawater go after it's poured into the reactor? That's all hazardous waste right?

I have become much more knowledgeable about nuclear power plants because of this incident. The water that is pumped in will turn to steam, which will contain some radioactive material that has much shorter half life of decay (seconds to days) than the other elements that get released when there is a meltdown of the fuel rods.

That makes sense. So dumping the ocean water should work as long as the steam being released isn't too harmful to people. How long will they need to cycle new saltwater through this reactor? And if the reports are correct that other reactors are suffering partial meltdowns, are they going to need to wipe out these reactors with saltwater too? That sure seems like a very bad fail safe plan as adding the saltwater surely kills these reactors from ever coming back on.

Battery backup was the last fail safe plan. Sea water is is more like a last resort plan.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Turbines are in the turbine bldg, well away from the reactor bldg. Anything in the reactor bldg has to be contained within ridiculously thick walls. In addition, anything in there is (by definition) radioactive, so doing maintenance is all of a sudden a huuuuge PITA. In other words, unless it absolutely has to be in the reactor bldg, it is not put in there.You have it backwards on circulation, there are fail safes in order to maintain circulation. Without circulation you have meltdown. The rods have to be constantly cooled by water flowing through / over them. Now, you can slow the nuclear release (ie heating) by surrounding the nuclear fuel with graphite rods (which can be lowered / raised to control heat rate). The graphite acts as a moderator that slows down / absorbs neutrons being released. It appears that there may have been a problem with this mechanism for these two reactors.

I mis-spoke actually on the circulation issue, but your engineering knowledge is more current than mine, so I figured I'd ask a leading question or two..Another question for you: back in the Rocky Flats days we used boron rings. Graphite burns - boron doesn't. Of course that was making plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, but the objective was the same. Why did civilian nuclear power go to graphite instead of boron? Any ideas?

Graphite slows neutrons, which is why it's a great moderator; boron is used to absorb neutrons, which is why it's used in shielding.

 

[bueno]

Turbines are in the turbine bldg, well away from the reactor bldg. Anything in the reactor bldg has to be contained within ridiculously thick walls. In addition, anything in there is (by definition) radioactive, so doing maintenance is all of a sudden a huuuuge PITA. In other words, unless it absolutely has to be in the reactor bldg, it is not put in there.You have it backwards on circulation, there are fail safes in order to maintain circulation. Without circulation you have meltdown. The rods have to be constantly cooled by water flowing through / over them. Now, you can slow the nuclear release (ie heating) by surrounding the nuclear fuel with graphite rods (which can be lowered / raised to control heat rate). The graphite acts as a moderator that slows down / absorbs neutrons being released. It appears that there may have been a problem with this mechanism for these two reactors.

I mis-spoke actually on the circulation issue, but your engineering knowledge is more current than mine, so I figured I'd ask a leading question or two..Another question for you: back in the Rocky Flats days we used boron rings. Graphite burns - boron doesn't. Of course that was making plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, but the objective was the same. Why did civilian nuclear power go to graphite instead of boron? Any ideas?

Graphite slows neutrons, which is why it's a great moderator; boron is used to absorb neutrons, which is why it's used in shielding.

But in an emergency shutdown situation, boron would work better.

 

[jon_mx]

Since the meltdown is due to lack of cooling, it only follows we can blame global warming for this problem.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Turbines are in the turbine bldg, well away from the reactor bldg. Anything in the reactor bldg has to be contained within ridiculously thick walls. In addition, anything in there is (by definition) radioactive, so doing maintenance is all of a sudden a huuuuge PITA. In other words, unless it absolutely has to be in the reactor bldg, it is not put in there.You have it backwards on circulation, there are fail safes in order to maintain circulation. Without circulation you have meltdown. The rods have to be constantly cooled by water flowing through / over them. Now, you can slow the nuclear release (ie heating) by surrounding the nuclear fuel with graphite rods (which can be lowered / raised to control heat rate). The graphite acts as a moderator that slows down / absorbs neutrons being released. It appears that there may have been a problem with this mechanism for these two reactors.

I mis-spoke actually on the circulation issue, but your engineering knowledge is more current than mine, so I figured I'd ask a leading question or two..Another question for you: back in the Rocky Flats days we used boron rings. Graphite burns - boron doesn't. Of course that was making plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, but the objective was the same. Why did civilian nuclear power go to graphite instead of boron? Any ideas?

Graphite slows neutrons, which is why it's a great moderator; boron is used to absorb neutrons, which is why it's used in shielding.

But in an emergency shutdown situation, boron would work better.

It's not an either/or. You'd never make a pile made of boron. Boron is anti-fission. That's why it's used in control rods and probably seeded in the steel for the pressure vessel and the concrete surrounding the pressure vessel.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

bolded was pretty much what I said. Got this from wiki and it may explain the overhead lines (and remember, this plant was built in 1971).Most electrical power in Japan is still provided by aerial cables. In Tokyo's 23 wards, according to Japan's Construction and Transport Ministry, just 7.3 percent of cables were laid underground as of March 2005.

Then I agree with you. The neglect of the upgrade from overhead to underground electrical distribution should have been considered on a risk analysis study. These types of studies are performed periodically for all utilities. Someone had to know about this flaw, and the authorities knew and didn't make the necessary upgrades for some reason.

 

[wilked]

Bueno - I can't really speak from any knowledge on your last question...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Its a tough question to answer, I don't see it an easy answer. Is cheap(er) energy worth the risk?

If all we cared about was cheap energy, we'd stick with coal and oil. The issue is finding a source of energy that is (a) not associated with global warming, which we've all been told is catastrophic and (b) feasible. Nuclear power fits those two criteria. Wind and solar satisfy (a), but probably not (b), at least not at our current level of technology. Or at least that's my understanding of it.

 

[Sputnikv8]

Bueno - I can't really speak from any knowledge on your last question...

Posh! We don't require that here!

 

[Dr. Awesome]

You do realize the technologies involved, yes? This is a 1st generation plant. Newer plants work significantly differently and the need for pumped coolant isn't there. This is the argument you're going to see here in the US about nuclear. Lots of screaming from folks (environmental groups and politicians) who have no idea what the #### they are talking about. Or do and will scream despite knowing the facts. It really is pretty sad.(Though I also would like to see thorium based reactors rather than uranium).

I have no idea of the technologies involved but trust we'd have quality designs. It doesn't matter. Nuclear power can be a scary word and the meltdown isn't going to help change that.

 

[Otis]

David Dodds = Ham Lite

Seriously. Did Ham steal his keys? Everything I see on the news and everyone they interview seems to suggest things are not all that bad and under control, but Dodds seems like he is struggling to piece together a doomsday story here.



CYTOKINE MELTDOWN1!!11

 

[RudiStein]

David Dodds = Ham Lite

Seriously. Did Ham steal his keys? Everything I see on the news and everyone they interview seems to suggest things are not all that bad and under control, but Dodds seems like he is struggling to piece together a doomsday story here.



CYTOKINE MELTDOWN1!!11

 

[Dr. Awesome]

What is a partial meltdown? It is just a term to make us feel better about a meltdown? I have no idea, just wondering.

yes that would be my guess. I think it implies some ability to contain the radiation from getting out.

Before i explain a partial meltdown, you need to understand what is a full meltdown first.Full Meltdown

Okay, Professor Jambo of Real Life University has the answer.A partial meltdown is when the fuel rods are melting but have not yet breached the reactor containment vessel, by either eating through the vessel or causing an explosion that damages it. This mean full melt down can still be avoided if the cooling systems is restored. However, if too much melting has occurred and the molten material becomes one big blob then the water's ability to wrap around it and cool the radioactive material can be greatly diminished.

Thank you for educating me, oh wise Rohn Jambo!

 

[Fennis]

David Dodds = Ham Lite

Seriously. Did Ham steal his keys? Everything I see on the news and everyone they interview seems to suggest things are not all that bad and under control, but Dodds seems like he is struggling to piece together a doomsday story here.



CYTOKINE MELTDOWN1!!11

Your a fox news type of guy right?Headline on fox news:

Japan Fears Nuclear Meltdowns as Survivors Seek Water, Power and Food

KORIYAMA, Japan -- Japan's nuclear crisis intensified Sunday as authorities raced to combat the threat of multiple reactor meltdowns and more than 170,000 people evacuated the quake- and tsunami-savaged northeastern coast where fears spread over possible radioactive contamination.

Nuclear plant operators were frantically trying to keep temperatures down in a series of nuclear reactors -- including one where officials feared a partial meltdown could be happening Sunday -- to prevent the disaster from growing worse.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano also said Sunday that a hydrogen explosion could occur at Unit 3 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, the latest reactor to face a possible meltdown. That follows a blast the day before in the power plant's Unit 1, and operators attempted to prevent a meltdown there by injecting sea water into it.

I don't know maybe its just me, but that doesn't sound like its under control.

 

[Otis]

David Dodds = Ham Lite

Seriously. Did Ham steal his keys? Everything I see on the news and everyone they interview seems to suggest things are not all that bad and under control, but Dodds seems like he is struggling to piece together a doomsday story here.



CYTOKINE MELTDOWN1!!11

Your a fox news type of guy right?
Headline on fox news:

Japan Fears Nuclear Meltdowns as Survivors Seek Water, Power and Food

KORIYAMA, Japan -- Japan's nuclear crisis intensified Sunday as authorities raced to combat the threat of multiple reactor meltdowns and more than 170,000 people evacuated the quake- and tsunami-savaged northeastern coast where fears spread over possible radioactive contamination.

Nuclear plant operators were frantically trying to keep temperatures down in a series of nuclear reactors -- including one where officials feared a partial meltdown could be happening Sunday -- to prevent the disaster from growing worse.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano also said Sunday that a hydrogen explosion could occur at Unit 3 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, the latest reactor to face a possible meltdown. That follows a blast the day before in the power plant's Unit 1, and operators attempted to prevent a meltdown there by injecting sea water into it.

I don't know maybe its just me, but that doesn't sound like its under control.

No, not at all. A sensational headline on Fox news? YOU DON'T SAY.