It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Fukushime in meltdown??

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:17 AM
Just be careful of wild-caught foodstuffs in general. I ate a fair amount of crab at a birthday party around when I spied a bigfoot so I guess I got some radiation juice but at least it was tasty.

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:31 PM
Science is a pretty good source.

a reply to: and14263

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:19 PM

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Soloprotocol

It is true that we have never had an actual meltdown. If this is the true it is not good.

As I understand it, if the highly concentrated fuel rods melt and get hot enough, they can burn through the earth's crust potentially striking the water table whereupon a radioactive steam geyser will be produced.

Actually, I think you may be speaking of a Hydrovolcanic Explosion, which was discussed at length immediately after Day One and still is a concern, because even if t escaped corium doesn't immediately explode, it will cause contamination of underground water, soil, and the Pacific Ocean.

“Moreover, if the underground water vein keeps being heated for long time, a massive hydrovolcanic explosion will be caused,” according to Uehara Haruo, architect of Fukushima Daiichi’s Reactor No. 3 and former president of Saga University

It is true that we have never had an actual meltdown.

Please explain this comment.

Who is "we"?

"never had an actual meltdown"

Worldwide? Fukushima? United States?

What are you speaking of?

Fukushima = three MELT-THROUGHS: #1, #2, #3.

Well, actually, #3 vaporized a few hundred kilos of Plutonium when the MOX-laden SPF exploded and launched both the RPV lid and the fuel crane 100's of meters in the air and spewed radioactive particles upwards to be picked up by the Jet Stream to arrive in North America about 72 hours later.

#4 is still under debate.

Come on over to the deep end of the pool where the real info resides…

posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:07 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

Where do we start with this?

Funding? Bias? Corporation control? Flawed scientific models? Pre-determined results to fit customer requirements? Peer review controversies?

Just because it's science doesn't make it valid.

Here is your science.

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in