Japanese Nuclear Reactors

[piasabird]

They never thought the world trade center would fall down either. When you heat up a reactor hot enough, things are going to happen that you may not expect. Even an automatic shutdown has a degree of danger to it. You would think they would have robots they could send in that can turn levers and adjust controls remotely.

I worked in plant where we loaded gunpowder into ammunition cartridges. We had emergency systems to flood the loaders if sparks or fire or heat too high was detected. This was only for gun powder. Reactors are like controlled nuclear bombs.

Any idiot could drive a fueltruck full of fertilizer or fly an airplane into a nuclear reactor. They are nowhere near as safe as they are proported to be. Grow up and admit it!

 

[Tom]

Indeed. There are chemicals that cause such horrible painful death, that i rather sit for a week naked inside a nuclear reactor and die of other to me less horrible radiation disease. It is all a matter of perspective. It is very important to keep the proper attitude. And that is to increase safety of everything (man made or not)that can be potentially very dangerous. And to keep improving guidelines and technology.

Thinking about mass hysteria, i read that the meltdown turned about to be burning oil from a water pump of the cooling system ?
Is this the case ?

How would that account for the fluctuations in radiation readings ?

 

[extra]

the million plus cases of cancer already from Chernobyl.

Uhhhh...no. May wanna come back with some scientifically validated numbers about the deaths caused by Chernobyl--hint: it's extremely low. The crazy numbers are just people guessing and have no more bearing in reality than me making something up and posting it on the internet because it sounds scary and promotes my views.

 

[wuliheron]

You would think they would have robots they could send in that can turn levers and adjust controls remotely.

It's no longer a question of turning levers and adjusting controls. The reactors have been damaged and already shut down. The remaining problem is the fission reaction can get so hot it will melt the core itself and the surrounding concrete and steel.

You might compare it to an ordinary fire you are trying to put out. As long as you can keep it contained and keep the temperature down it won't spread and will eventually get cool enough you can go in and work with it. But, in this case, its a fire that won't cool down for weeks or months. If they can't keep it under control and keep the temperature down the whole structure may collapse on itself creating a giant bonfire of fissionable material.

 

[Muse]

That's really public perception, fear, panic, price gouging, etc. It doesn't really prove that radiation poisoning is inherently worse than chemical poisoning. Do you believe that chemical pollution isn't collectively worse than radioactive pollution?

No, I don't have a take on that. Obviously, it's a different matter, you're comparing way more different than even apples and oranges. However, you're not generating electricity with chemicals. What are the alternatives to uranium reactor generating plants, that's the appropriate question, is it not? That and how can we make those plants safer. Read my posts in this thread. Nowhere did I say that we should give up on those plants. What I'm saying is that they are extremely dangerous and people should stop poo pooing that notion, such as you see again and again in this ~100 post thread. The Japanese, technically advanced as they are and wise in the ways of preparation for earthquakes and tsunamis, failed to provide adequate safeguards at these Fukushima plants. As noted above, they were cavalier in the design of their backup power supply systems, foolishly assuming that the largest quake they might have to withstand was an 8.5. Their assumptions about the largest tsunami they'd have to withstand have proved woefully stupid. Now, how confident are you that the other ~400 reactors in the world are safe? D:

 

[Muse]

Uhhhh...no. May wanna come back with some scientifically validated numbers about the deaths caused by Chernobyl--hint: it's extremely low. The crazy numbers are just people guessing and have no more bearing in reality than me making something up and posting it on the internet because it sounds scary and promotes my views.

OK, I admit it, I have no supporting evidence. I saw it on TV. They said over 1,000,000 deaths from thyroid cancer in children in the USSR. They showed the face of a stricken child (not pretty). :'( Perhaps someone just made it up and put it in a prime time newscast. It would seem to have more credibility, however, than something made up by a jerk on the internet to support his position.

Of course, there's never going to be a tally that means much. The root causes of deaths from cancer are usually a matter of conjecture to a large extent. If you live 75 miles from Chernobyl and develop cancer, maybe it can't be blamed on the fallout from the accident but one thing's certain: the fallout didn't help. It increased your chances of contracting cancer. It will not be possible to blame the accident, but it's not unreasonable to suppose it was a contributing factor. Your body is constantly battling cancer. It usually wins, sometimes, under certain conditions the odds aren't good. Certainty is not possible in any particular case. This is why they have epidemiological studies.

 

[William Gaatjes]

How would that account for the fluctuations in radiation readings ?

I am not there present on the location, i cannot explain that. But i can copy for you the answer from someone else, an answer that seems reasonable to me. Short lived isotopes that radiate and stop radiating afterwards. Then you would have a stark increase of radiation for a short while and later on a sharp decline in radiation. However if seawater is used to cool without, longer lasting isotopes can be formed. Also, there are different types of radiation. Alpha decay, beta decay, short wave length EM like Xrays and then there is gamma rays. I am sure i missed something but you can look it up if you are really interested.

 

[wuliheron]

Fukushima Reactor Flaws Were Predicted – 35 Years Ago
By: NICK CARBONE (7 hours ago)

REUTERS

The failings of the Fukushima nuclear reactor were so substantial that three General Electric scientists who helped design the now imperiled reactors resigned from the company.

Dale Bridenbaugh helped assess the design of the Mark 1 nuclear reactor upon its creation back in 1975. His findings portray an extreme lack of confidence in the reactor's ability to contain pressure in case of a meltdown. Bridenbaugh and two engineering colleagues couldn't handle the pressure themselves, leading them to drop out of the project and resign their positions with the company.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant contains six total reactors, five of which are Mark 1s. And the problem the reactors are facing – a loss of power, leading to cooling uranium rods and rising pressure inside the core – is precisely the issue that drove Bridenbaugh's resignation from General Electric. The reactors “did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News.

GE says the problems were rectified in the early 80s, but it may be weeks before the full extent of the quake damage to the reactors is determined.

In a distinct (though not entirely unexpected) change of heart, Bridenbaugh and his colleagues, after leaving GE, went to work for an antinuke campaign. (via ABC News)

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16...ted-%e2%80%93-35-years-ago/#ixzz1GnIae2Bq

 

[William Gaatjes]

OK, I admit it, I have no supporting evidence. I saw it on TV. They said over 1,000,000 deaths from thyroid cancer in children in the USSR. They showed the face of a stricken child (not pretty). :'( Perhaps someone just made it up and put it in a prime time newscast. It would seem to have more credibility, however, than something made up by a jerk on the internet to support his position.

Of course, there's never going to be a tally that means much. The root causes of deaths from cancer are usually a matter of conjecture to a large extent. If you live 75 miles from Chernobyl and develop cancer, maybe it can't be blamed on the fallout from the accident but one thing's certain: the fallout didn't help. It increased your chances of contracting cancer. It will not be possible to blame the accident, but it's not unreasonable to suppose it was a contributing factor. Your body is constantly battling cancer. It usually wins, sometimes, under certain conditions the odds aren't good. Certainty is not possible in any particular case. This is why they have epidemiological studies.

You definitely are forgetting how much chemical pollution was going on in the USSR as well. And you are forgetting that incidents with contaminated vaccines for various diseases also have occurred at the time in the USSR. If you add everything together, it is not fair to only blame Chernobyl for cancer causes. Of course Chernobyl was a disaster. One that must never happen again. But it will never happen because no one will ever build an RMBK reactor again. And even if they did, never with such a high positive void coefficient. And no one will ever build a reactor again without enough containment. The reason why the Fukushima reactor is still not a nuclear disaster on it's own. You see, there is improvement. And other countries will not build on geological unstable location such as fault lines(except Turkey, if the news is correct) or where high volcanic activity exists. Furthermore if a reactor can be build below ground level in an artificial valley, there is also a means of cooling by use of gravity. There must be research done to bind the free hydrogen when it is generated as we have seen here from the hydrogen explosions. Nobody is writing that nuclear energy does not pose any danger. But when compared to other forms of electricity generation, the impact on the environment is minimal when done properly.

 

[Muse]

I am not there present on the location, i cannot explain that. But i can copy for you the answer from someone else, an answer that seems reasonable to me. Short lived isotopes that radiate and stop radiating afterwards. Then you would have a stark increase of radiation for a short while and later on a sharp decline in radiation. However if seawater is used to cool without, longer lasting isotopes can be formed. Also, there are different types of radiation. Alpha decay, beta decay, short wave length EM like Xrays and then there is gamma rays. I am sure i missed something but you can look it up if you are really interested.

The fluctuations are due to short term exigencies such as fires and explosions which are ejecting radioactive material, of this I am certain. Wind patterns would also factor in.

 

[Muse]

Fukushima Reactor Flaws Were Predicted – 35 Years Ago
By: NICK CARBONE (7 hours ago)

REUTERS

The failings of the Fukushima nuclear reactor were so substantial that three General Electric scientists who helped design the now imperiled reactors resigned from the company.

-snip-

Yep, I saw a piece on TV last night in which they interviewed Bridenbaugh . He said the reactors were inadequate to deal with the eventualities caused by lack of power available to supply coolant to the core. They said (and showed in diagrams) the storage of spent fuel just above the core without sealing containers, depending on coolant supply was an achilles heal of the design. He and colleagues resigned when GE didn't budge in the face of their objections. There are around 25 of those reactors in the US right now.

 

[Muse]

You definitely are forgetting how much chemical pollution was going on in the USSR as well. And you are forgetting that incidents with contaminated vaccines for various diseases also have occurred at the time in the USSR. If you add everything together, it is not fair to only blame Chernobyl for cancer causes. Of course Chernobyl was a disaster. One that must never happen again. But it will never happen because no one will ever build an RMBK reactor again. And even if they did, never with such a high positive void coefficient. And no one will ever build a reactor again without enough containment. The reason why the Fukushima reactor is still not a nuclear disaster on it's own. You see, there is improvement. And other countries will not build on geological unstable location such as fault lines(except Turkey, if the news is correct) or where high volcanic activity exists. Furthermore if a reactor can be build below ground level in an artificial valley, there is also a means of cooling by use of gravity. There must be research done to bind the free hydrogen when it is generated as we have seen here from the hydrogen explosions. Nobody is writing that nuclear energy does not pose any danger. But when compared to other forms of electricity generation, the impact on the environment is minimal when done properly.

Sounds like you have a stake in it. The impact is less when it doesn't break down. When it does break down it can be devastating, much more so than a natural gas electricity generation plant, for example. There have been to my knowledge 3 major nuclear reactor accidents, including this. There have been hundreds of other accidents, and most of them have been kept under wraps including in Japan. The story was on TV last night about that, hundreds in Japan unreported. Extrapolate that and you have thousands of incidents worldwide. Even with containment vessels the potential for container failure and catastrophic release of radiation exists. In fact it is believed that there has been a partial containment vessel failure in one of the Fukushima reactors already. The most disturbing aspect of what's going on in Japan right now is that the situation with the out of control reactors seems to be getting worse every day.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

They never thought the world trade center would fall down either. When you heat up a reactor hot enough, things are going to happen that you may not expect. Even an automatic shutdown has a degree of danger to it. You would think they would have robots they could send in that can turn levers and adjust controls remotely.

I worked in plant where we loaded gunpowder into ammunition cartridges. We had emergency systems to flood the loaders if sparks or fire or heat too high was detected. This was only for gun powder. Reactors are like controlled nuclear bombs.

Any idiot could drive a fueltruck full of fertilizer or fly an airplane into a nuclear reactor. They are nowhere near as safe as they are proported to be. Grow up and admit it!

Simply posting that sentence shows how ignorant and afraid you are. A reactor is nothing like a nuclear bomb.

 

[Acanthus]

OK, I admit it, I have no supporting evidence. I saw it on TV. They said over 1,000,000 deaths from thyroid cancer in children in the USSR. They showed the face of a stricken child (not pretty). :'( Perhaps someone just made it up and put it in a prime time newscast. It would seem to have more credibility, however, than something made up by a jerk on the internet to support his position.

Of course, there's never going to be a tally that means much. The root causes of deaths from cancer are usually a matter of conjecture to a large extent. If you live 75 miles from Chernobyl and develop cancer, maybe it can't be blamed on the fallout from the accident but one thing's certain: the fallout didn't help. It increased your chances of contracting cancer. It will not be possible to blame the accident, but it's not unreasonable to suppose it was a contributing factor. Your body is constantly battling cancer. It usually wins, sometimes, under certain conditions the odds aren't good. Certainty is not possible in any particular case. This is why they have epidemiological studies.

there is no way that this is true.

There weren't that many children in the area of the disaster, on top of that, thyroid cancer is extremely treatable. The mortality rates are below 10%.

 

[piasabird]

You know how they shut down the Chernobyl Reactor?

Metal cerchophygus, and lots of Cement. Also someone had to go into this area with a reactor which was putting out 30,000 rads and emitting Gamma Radiation. Anyone that came near it was going to die either slowly or all at once.

Solution was to use lots of volunteers that all died. Sure heavy equipment and shielding helps, but there was no easy solution without busloads of peole goint to their death. They even had Ships nearby that they left behind because they were contaminated.

What if some of our Navy Vessels get so contaminated, they can no longer be used? What if all the fish for the surrounding 300 mile radious die? What if large areas in Japan become so contaminated, that it is unsafe to enter? All of these things could happen. Imagine evacuating a large city like Tokyo forever?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Sounds like you have a stake in it. The impact is less when it doesn't break down. When it does break down it can be devastating, much more so than a natural gas electricity generation plant, for example. There have been to my knowledge 3 major nuclear reactor accidents, including this. There have been hundreds of other accidents, and most of them have been kept under wraps including in Japan. The story was on TV last night about that, hundreds in Japan unreported. Extrapolate that and you have thousands of incidents worldwide. Even with containment vessels the potential for container failure and catastrophic release of radiation exists. In fact it is believed that there has been a partial containment vessel failure in one of the Fukushima reactors already. The most disturbing aspect of what's going on in Japan right now is that the situation with the out of control reactors seems to be getting worse every day.

First of all, i do not have a stake in nuclear energy besides the background reading that i have done. That i come up with solutions to problems is just my nature. Some of my idea's may be too far fetched or too futuristic or just perhaps crazy but i share them anyway on the forum because always someone will think : "hmm, a bit far fetched but what if i...". Other idea's i present are just a gathering of background information on existing technologies or knowledge. I just do honest research on my own and i prefer to listen to people that actually know what they are talking about. I may not always share the opinion of these people as for example on this forum but i always treasure their creative input and information. It encourages me to read more and think about it and filter through the mass hysteria and mindless remarks most people make.


My personal view :
This is a bit of topic, the reason why i posted my other post about Libya and Egypt is because the extreme hypocrisy some people in the west have.
People are fine with natural gas oil and everything else but you will not look into the eyes of a child that has lost parents in wars or have been raped by regimes that are supported to keep the natural gas or oil flowing. People are fine with kissing ass to dictators and mass murderers as long as you get your precious materials and can watch fake tits at night while gorging yourself with unhealthy food. But i am wondering of...
With nuclear energy at least some western countries become more independent and as such can more easily condemn certain behaviour. Especially with the modern reactor designs(which when the technology is reliable and understood enough will use thorium). That is my dream, that people in the future do not have to slit each other throats for energy or food or look the other way when someone else does it for them. What is your excuse...

 

[Darwin333]

You know how they shut down the Chernobyl Reactor?

Metal cerchophygus, and lots of Cement. Also someone had to go into this area with a reactor which was putting out 30,000 rads and emitting Gamma Radiation. Anyone that came near it was going to die either slowly or all at once.

Solution was to use lots of volunteers that all died. Sure heavy equipment and shielding helps, but there was no easy solution without busloads of peole goint to their death. They even had Ships nearby that they left behind because they were contaminated.

What if some of our Navy Vessels get so contaminated, they can no longer be used? What if all the fish for the surrounding 300 mile radious die? What if large areas in Japan become so contaminated, that it is unsafe to enter? All of these things could happen. Imagine evacuating a large city like Tokyo forever?

Today there is something called the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. It already exists and varies in size but it is roughly 6,000-7,000 square miles. Why does it exist? Mostly because of farming or more specifically fertilizers used for farming.

Are you going to stop eating now?