Probably.Nuke safety guy being interviewed on CNN right now just said he thinks the JP gov is being honest.Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?
Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow,
Let's ask Glenn Beck what he thinks about chaos theory, and maybe Ed Schultz can teach us how to barbecue a rack of ribs.Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?
They're clearly hacks and/or liars.Probably.Nuke safety guy being interviewed on CNN right now just said he thinks the JP gov is being honest.Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?
Do you really think this is a reasonable analogy? Maddow's guest was a professor of nuclear physics from Princeton. He was a very reasonable guy IMO, and her questions to him were incisive and yet allowed the ignorant layman (me) to understand. This is the sort of issue where I find Rachel Maddow to be especially valuable. Unlike so many hosts, she does not sensationalize. Yes, she begins with a partisan point of view, but I don't care about that. I want information, and she gives it to me.Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow,Let's ask Glenn Beck what he thinks about chaos theory, and maybe Ed Schultz can teach us how to barbecue a rack of ribs.
Mine is a fair question, The fire was a grease fire - easily put out. The explosions were hydrogen gas. Neither was nuclear fuel.Define safeDefine fuelLink to where thy only needed just 50 people? From what I have read the fire started because all of the people were on other reactors. But a fuel fire poses no threat at all, so all is well.Why would you not send all non-essential personnel home? The government mandates exposure limits that are, to some extent, rectally extracted. Exceed those limits, you can't work where you might be exposed. You really need to understand there is a difference between what is mandated and what is safe. (Not that we are saying it is perfectly safe - there is a statistical chance there will be higher cancer incidences, but you can say that about sun-bathers too.Simple question to all the people saying a few of us are overblowing things:Why would you send all but 50 of the workers home when it's clear that every one of these reactors has issues (fires, needing sea water, etc)? Why would you cut that back to less than 10 people per reactor? Clearly it's safe for everyone to be in that area (that's been your argument all along, right?), so why send 600+ home and just keep 50 working when the plant has issues with all 6 reactors and pools?
They are spent - i.e. their supply of fissionable uranium was low enough that they could not be used for fission reactions anymore. There is still radioactive decay of course. But there is no potential for release of radioactive elements except for radon, which or course decays to a radioactive variety of bismuth and then lead. Of course radon is not an issue if the area is ventilated as many homeowners already know.Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow, they represent the biggest risk because the pools they are in are in lesser containment areas. This is why radioactivity is being released. (One of the reasons I like watching Maddow is that she is very clear in her explanations even when I disagree with her conclusions- in this case I don't know enough to agree or disagree.) Is Maddow right about this, that this is the biggest risk to public safety?
Well, at least it won't be the China syndrome. More like Argentina.Look, when the sky is falling, you don't want to act rational. Better to believe all mankind will perish in a nuclear holocaust. But look on the bright side; the nuclear winter will solve the global warming problem.Mine is a fair question, The fire was a grease fire - easily put out. The explosions were hydrogen gas. Neither was nuclear fuel.Define safeDefine fuelLink to where thy only needed just 50 people? From what I have read the fire started because all of the people were on other reactors. But a fuel fire poses no threat at all, so all is well.Why would you not send all non-essential personnel home? The government mandates exposure limits that are, to some extent, rectally extracted. Exceed those limits, you can't work where you might be exposed. You really need to understand there is a difference between what is mandated and what is safe. (Not that we are saying it is perfectly safe - there is a statistical chance there will be higher cancer incidences, but you can say that about sun-bathers too.Simple question to all the people saying a few of us are overblowing things:Why would you send all but 50 of the workers home when it's clear that every one of these reactors has issues (fires, needing sea water, etc)? Why would you cut that back to less than 10 people per reactor? Clearly it's safe for everyone to be in that area (that's been your argument all along, right?), so why send 600+ home and just keep 50 working when the plant has issues with all 6 reactors and pools?
Got a link?Yet you believe a few talking heads when they overstate the danger.Perhaps the fifty folks left behind are all that's needed to manage the situation. Perhaps all those other folks were sent packing out of an excess of caution, and there is no no cause for alarm. But, to expect folks to believe that, at the behest of a few talking heads, is not reasonable either.
If I get trying to explain something to a chicken little and the chicken little still runs around like it just met the headsman, I would stop talking to him eventually as well.How would we know when the Japanese have cut all talks with the press? We don't have any idea how many spent rods were there, have they been partially or fully exposed in the explosions, how many are left, how many melted down, etc?My guess is yes this elevated things significantly based on pictures of the designs and reports surfacing that up to 20 years of spent rods were in these things. But we really don't know many facts because that's the way this show is being run.That's why a lot of us are super frustrated. It's been lies, lies and then silence. I suspect the worst is happening based on the escalating actions we are seeing the government take.Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow, they represent the biggest risk because the pools they are in are in lesser containment areas. This is why radioactivity is being released. (One of the reasons I like watching Maddow is that she is very clear in her explanations even when I disagree with her conclusions- in this case I don't know enough to agree or disagree.) Is Maddow right about this, that this is the biggest risk to public safety?
lol... par for the course for you. I wasn't asking for Google links. I'd like to hear from a few of the knowledgable posters in this thread. I know that despite your efforts, you're not the center of attention in this thread, but it's ok Otis. Take a deep breath and touch yourself.Google broke?Wow. I was reading this thread, but it turned into a pissing match.Anyway, I understand the impact of radiation on human life for the most part, but I'd appreciate if some the more knowledageble posters in this thread could throw me a few links with information on the environmental impacts of radiation.
Not sure of the 100X but the object is to keep the core cool until short half-life daughter products completely decay. As there is no fission reactions going on, those daughters are not being produced. Once what was produced decays, no more heat.But still normal radioactive decay - which does not produce copius amounts of heat, but still produces admittedly smaller amounts of radiation.Howe.ver the first decay product is protactinium, which has a long half lifeSome guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?
Official: U.S. getting 'paucity of good data' on radiation from JapanAccording to an "official" who "spoke on background because he was not authorized to speak publicly" the gubmint is getting the same cold shoulder on this.How would we know when the Japanese have cut all talks with the press? We don't have any idea how many spent rods were there, have they been partially or fully exposed in the explosions, how many are left, how many melted down, etc?
Thanks, ham.quick aside/tangent.I usually get my news on the internet. But I started to watch more news on TV. CNN, FOX, and MSNBC have all been selling ads to the oil and gas industry and other private companies like Chevron. It makes my skin crawl. They are taking advantage of this horrible event to profit off of it and and create an illusion that gas and oil is producing jobs and touting sophisiticated oil drilling procedures. They would not dare run these ads around the time of the gulf oil spill. These ads are disgusting and the people who are the paid actors who are trying to represent joe everyman american have sold thier soul to the devil.
Every cloud has a silver lining. Just makes you glow inside, doesn't it?Well, at least it won't be the China syndrome. More like Argentina.Look, when the sky is falling, you don't want to act rational. Better to believe all mankind will perish in a nuclear holocaust. But look on the bright side; the nuclear winter will solve the global warming problem.Mine is a fair question, The fire was a grease fire - easily put out. The explosions were hydrogen gas. Neither was nuclear fuel.Define safeDefine fuelLink to where thy only needed just 50 people? From what I have read the fire started because all of the people were on other reactors. But a fuel fire poses no threat at all, so all is well.Why would you not send all non-essential personnel home? The government mandates exposure limits that are, to some extent, rectally extracted. Exceed those limits, you can't work where you might be exposed. You really need to understand there is a difference between what is mandated and what is safe. (Not that we are saying it is perfectly safe - there is a statistical chance there will be higher cancer incidences, but you can say that about sun-bathers too.Simple question to all the people saying a few of us are overblowing things:Why would you send all but 50 of the workers home when it's clear that every one of these reactors has issues (fires, needing sea water, etc)? Why would you cut that back to less than 10 people per reactor? Clearly it's safe for everyone to be in that area (that's been your argument all along, right?), so why send 600+ home and just keep 50 working when the plant has issues with all 6 reactors and pools?
To be clear, the no-fly zone has reasons for it that might have nothing to do with radiation. The plants are already somewhat compromised, and nuclear power plants are prime terror targets. I would expect a no fly zone to be instituted around ANY power plant ANYWHERE in the world that had any sort of containment porblems, regardless of the nature of the problem or the risk (or non-risk) to people on the planes. Don't read anything into a NF zone.Actually, not to pick nits, but the nuclear experts they had on CNN about 45 minutes ago said that each individual reactor on its own was already a worse nuclear incident than three-mile island - all six of them. Not to jump into the mud pit here, but I am worried about the direction this is headed for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don't have any idea what is actually happening on site. There is a no-fly zone around the plant, there are no people/reporters/video near the reactors and we cannot trust the info/propaganda/spin being fed to us by previously-proven corrupt Japanese nuclear officials that are now, oh by the way, verboten from talking publicly about the matter. I'm not with Dodds in wearing a tinfoil hat, but I am with Dodds in the belief that the less they tell/show us, the more worried we should all be for the safety and longevity of the Japanese people and their ecosystem in that area. In the days since this unfolded there isn't ANY reason to believe it's getting better...there's only a cascading trail of bad news that keeps getting worse.Yes, of course, if things get significantly worse, or if there is some kind of nuclear fission reaction, there is a problem. Until then, this is by all accounts this is barely three-mile island bad, and not even near Chernobyl bad, and even that wasn't so world-endingly terrible.
I vehemently disagree. The fact that deadly radiation levels aren't found 1/2 mile from the plant is a VERY strong suggestion that the problem is generally being controlled, and that the apocolyptic scenarios espoused simply aren't happening or going to happen.ETA: There's at least two people in this thread who've had intimate, first hand experiance with NUC power...and some folks in here have categorically ignored us in favor of talking heads on TV that have been made to look foolish virtually every time they interview a credible source.In the days since this unfolded there isn't ANY reason to believe it's getting better...there's only a cascading trail of bad news that keeps getting worse.
I understand your frustration. As an American, we take withholding of information/intel as lying. It's ingrained in us from all the cop shows we watch. But in Japan, they have a culture of withholding information and sending it out to thier convenience. And the Japanese culture willingly stands by and abides. It's a culture shock. I think the spent rods even if they catch fire only pose a risk to the immediate area of those who would put out the fire. The half-lives of these spent rods is not going to produce the daughters that will contribute to airborne radiation. We'll see if the international community puts any pressure on the Japanese Gov't to verify this information. I don't think the Japanese are willingly withholding information we need to know. It will all come out soon enough and they would not risk loss of face for telling us a misleading story.How would we know when the Japanese have cut all talks with the press? We don't have any idea how many spent rods were there, have they been partially or fully exposed in the explosions, how many are left, how many melted down, etc?My guess is yes this elevated things significantly based on pictures of the designs and reports surfacing that up to 20 years of spent rods were in these things. But we really don't know many facts because that's the way this show is being run.That's why a lot of us are super frustrated. It's been lies, lies and then silence. I suspect the worst is happening based on the escalating actions we are seeing the government take.Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow, they represent the biggest risk because the pools they are in are in lesser containment areas. This is why radioactivity is being released. (One of the reasons I like watching Maddow is that she is very clear in her explanations even when I disagree with her conclusions- in this case I don't know enough to agree or disagree.) Is Maddow right about this, that this is the biggest risk to public safety?
Really, you and who else? Sure you are not leaving anyone else out?I vehemently disagree. The fact that deadly radiation levels aren't found 1/2 mile from the plant is a VERY strong suggestion that the problem is generally being controlled, and that the apocolyptic scenarios espoused simply aren't happening or going to happen.ETA: There's at least two people in this thread who've had intimate, first hand experiance with NUC power...and some folks in here have categorically ignored us in favor of talking heads on TV that have been made to look foolish virtually every time they interview a credible source.In the days since this unfolded there isn't ANY reason to believe it's getting better...there's only a cascading trail of bad news that keeps getting worse.
Indeed. But remember, I was Illuminati before everyone became Illuminati.Every cloud has a silver lining. Just makes you glow inside, doesn't it?Well, at least it won't be the China syndrome. More like Argentina.Look, when the sky is falling, you don't want to act rational. Better to believe all mankind will perish in a nuclear holocaust. But look on the bright side; the nuclear winter will solve the global warming problem.Mine is a fair question, The fire was a grease fire - easily put out. The explosions were hydrogen gas. Neither was nuclear fuel.Define safeDefine fuelLink to where thy only needed just 50 people? From what I have read the fire started because all of the people were on other reactors. But a fuel fire poses no threat at all, so all is well.Why would you not send all non-essential personnel home? The government mandates exposure limits that are, to some extent, rectally extracted. Exceed those limits, you can't work where you might be exposed. You really need to understand there is a difference between what is mandated and what is safe. (Not that we are saying it is perfectly safe - there is a statistical chance there will be higher cancer incidences, but you can say that about sun-bathers too.Simple question to all the people saying a few of us are overblowing things:Why would you send all but 50 of the workers home when it's clear that every one of these reactors has issues (fires, needing sea water, etc)? Why would you cut that back to less than 10 people per reactor? Clearly it's safe for everyone to be in that area (that's been your argument all along, right?), so why send 600+ home and just keep 50 working when the plant has issues with all 6 reactors and pools?
Possibly, if personel can't find a way to keep them covered, AND they are exposed to fire, etc. This should be relatively simple though...as we are literaly talking about a simple pool of water covering solid objects which are essentially spent and dormant. Without that pool, they still only pose a threat (to the public) if they are somehow being ravaged by something like fire. Uncovered and with nothing like fire, they are a serious source of RADIATION...NOT AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION. Radiation alone = LOCAL (as in IMMEDIATE vicinity) danger.Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow, they represent the biggest risk because the pools they are in are in lesser containment areas. This is why radioactivity is being released. (One of the reasons I like watching Maddow is that she is very clear in her explanations even when I disagree with her conclusions- in this case I don't know enough to agree or disagree.) Is Maddow right about this, that this is the biggest risk to public safety?
Just to add to that renesauz said, it will take weeks for the daughter products to decay and the fuel to cool down. You can expect this drama to continue until things are cool enough to start clean up.I vehemently disagree. The fact that deadly radiation levels aren't found 1/2 mile from the plant is a VERY strong suggestion that the problem is generally being controlled, and that the apocolyptic scenarios espoused simply aren't happening or going to happen.ETA: There's at least two people in this thread who've had intimate, first hand experiance with NUC power...and some folks in here have categorically ignored us in favor of talking heads on TV that have been made to look foolish virtually every time they interview a credible source.In the days since this unfolded there isn't ANY reason to believe it's getting better...there's only a cascading trail of bad news that keeps getting worse.
yes. (in laymans terms anyway)Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?
I callyes. (in laymans terms anyway)Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?

BuenoReally, you and who else? Sure you are not leaving anyone else out?
Really, he is the graduate of the university of google. No there is someone else.BuenoReally, you and who else? Sure you are not leaving anyone else out?
Love to hear your reasoning here.I callyes. (in laymans terms anyway)Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?![]()
You forgot wilkedBuenoReally, you and who else? Sure you are not leaving anyone else out?
I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.Love to hear your reasoning here.I callyes. (in laymans terms anyway)Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?![]()
You're just saying that because you know I'm a Broncos fan.Really, he is the graduate of the university of google. No there is someone else.BuenoReally, you and who else? Sure you are not leaving anyone else out?
Isn't this exactly what they fear is now happening in reactor 4 where spent rods are stored? That they are both exposed and on fire?And renesauz, I'm pretty sure that one can be both concerned AND interested in learning about the realities of what is going on - they aren't mutually exclusive ideas.Possibly, if personel can't find a way to keep them covered, AND they are exposed to fire, etc. This should be relatively simple though...as we are literaly talking about a simple pool of water covering solid objects which are essentially spent and dormant. Without that pool, they still only pose a threat (to the public) if they are somehow being ravaged by something like fire. Uncovered and with nothing like fire, they are a serious source of RADIATION...NOT AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION. Radiation alone = LOCAL (as in IMMEDIATE vicinity) danger.Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow, they represent the biggest risk because the pools they are in are in lesser containment areas. This is why radioactivity is being released. (One of the reasons I like watching Maddow is that she is very clear in her explanations even when I disagree with her conclusions- in this case I don't know enough to agree or disagree.) Is Maddow right about this, that this is the biggest risk to public safety?
You're just saying that because you know I'm a Broncos fan.Really, he is the graduate of the university of google. No there is someone else.BuenoReally, you and who else? Sure you are not leaving anyone else out?
I suppose I should be more clear. While the impact would be less, the actual risk for a full meltdown DRAMATICALLY decreases every day. To call the total risk 100X less every day the fuel is kept covered, even with seawater, is a very fair analogy/figure. (Thus the "laymans terms" note.)Meltdown is a frequently misused term. It actually means the fuel has melted and distorted such that it is no longer a viable power core. It does NOT necessarily mean that it has turned into some molten slag that is burrowing its way into the earth while still undergoing fission (like at Chernobyl). Saying that these reactors have had a "meltdown" is PROBABLY correct, but it does not mean the end of the world as we know it.yes. (in laymans terms anyway)Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?
There are in the NAVY.I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.
It probably is what they fear,but as I said, this problem is relatively easy to handle if they can get anywher close to that fire and fuel, which it appears they can. IE: It may be a very grave danger, but it's a very simple one to fight.Isn't this exactly what they fear is now happening in reactor 4 where spent rods are stored? That they are both exposed and on fire?And renesauz, I'm pretty sure that one can be both concerned AND interested in learning about the realities of what is going on - they aren't mutually exclusive ideas.Possibly, if personel can't find a way to keep them covered, AND they are exposed to fire, etc. This should be relatively simple though...as we are literaly talking about a simple pool of water covering solid objects which are essentially spent and dormant. Without that pool, they still only pose a threat (to the public) if they are somehow being ravaged by something like fire. Uncovered and with nothing like fire, they are a serious source of RADIATION...NOT AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION. Radiation alone = LOCAL (as in IMMEDIATE vicinity) danger.Let's talk about the spent fuel rods. According to Rachel Maddow, they represent the biggest risk because the pools they are in are in lesser containment areas. This is why radioactivity is being released. (One of the reasons I like watching Maddow is that she is very clear in her explanations even when I disagree with her conclusions- in this case I don't know enough to agree or disagree.) Is Maddow right about this, that this is the biggest risk to public safety?
This deserves a (insert ex Viking great Chris Carter) "CMON MAAAN!!!". Since when did the Navy get soft about explaining things in "laymans terms"? Either you know your #### or shut the #### up in the Navy. They eat their young. And the lowest ranked officer is encouraged to call BS in loud voice if someone is caught stuttering. That's the Navy I know.I suppose I should be more clear. While the impact would be less, the actual risk for a full meltdown DRAMATICALLY decreases every day. To call the total risk 100X less every day the fuel is kept covered, even with seawater, is a very fair analogy/figure. (Thus the "laymans terms" note.)Meltdown is a frequently misused term. It actually means the fuel has melted and distorted such that it is no longer a viable power core. It does NOT necessarily mean that it has turned into some molten slag that is burrowing its way into the earth while still undergoing fission (like at Chernobyl). Saying that these reactors have had a "meltdown" is PROBABLY correct, but it does not mean the end of the world as we know it.yes. (in laymans terms anyway)Some guy on npr said that for every day they can keep the thing in seawater the impact of a full meltdown decreases by 100x. Is this even close to correct?
No, they are not.There are in the NAVY.I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.
LMAO You gonna tell me about what we discussed and talked about in NPS? I was an INSTRUCTOR at NPTU Ballston Spa. Machinsts Mate First Class/Leading Engineering Laboratory Technician. I handled chemistry and RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS. I was also certified to supervise relatively high level radiological work.My expertise then, is in smaller pressurized water reactors, but it is very real. Seawater is a viable, and discussed, last resort source for cooling water. I would expect any civilian plant close to an ocean would have a (deep in the books) emergency procedure for implementing its use as a last resort.No, they are not.There are in the NAVY.I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.
he's right. i've read a lot of Tom ClancyLMAO You gonna tell me about what we discussed and talked about in NPS? I was an INSTRUCTOR at NPTU Ballston Spa. Machinsts Mate First Class/Leading Engineering Laboratory Technician. I handled chemistry and RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS. I was also certified to supervise relatively high level radiological work.My expertise then, is in smaller boiling water reactors, but it is very real. Seawater is a viable, and discussed, last resort source for cooling water. I would expect any civilian plant close to an ocean would have a (deep in the books) emergency procedure for implementing its use as a last resort.No, they are not.There are in the NAVY.I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.
Oh, I see. I used to order you squids around on test procedures in the shipyard. I imagine if you wanted to scuttle a boat, you could discuss that, but that is almost unfathomable. Not ever discussed in any procedures I did.LMAO You gonna tell me about what we discussed and talked about in NPS? I was an INSTRUCTOR at NPTU Ballston Spa. Machinsts Mate First Class/Leading Engineering Laboratory Technician. I handled chemistry and RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS. I was also certified to supervise relatively high level radiological work.My expertise then, is in smaller boiling water reactors, but it is very real. Seawater is a viable, and discussed, last resort source for cooling water. I would expect any civilian plant close to an ocean would have a (deep in the books) emergency procedure for implementing its use as a last resort.No, they are not.There are in the NAVY.I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.
Are you going to sit here with your head on a swivel yelling "NUH UH!!!!" over and over again or are you going to present some information? Reading over what renesauz has posted and what you've posted in this thread it's pretty damn clear one of you knows what they're talking about. Let me cut any suspense for ya... it ain't you.No, they are not.There are in the NAVY.I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.
it's classified. I could tell you but then I have to kill you.Link?No, they are not.There are in the NAVY.I am not defending my comment. I am waiting to hear his reasoning. There are no procedures for flooding reactors with seawater in Reactor Plant Systems school.

If you're using seawater, the plant is gonna be scuttled anyway.Oh, I see. I used to order you squids around on test procedures in the shipyard. I imagine if you wanted to scuttle a boat, you could discuss that, but that is almost unfathomable. Not ever discussed in any procedures I did.