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.


Japan declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake

page: 133.htm
<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:48 PM
Just recieved this Ruters Flash:

US recommends U.S. citizens who live within 80km of Fukushima nuclear plant evacuate or take shelter indoors.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by Regenmacher

Another thing they fail to mentions is where is all this seawater draining too.
Good question. Back into the sea is my guess?

reply to post by Whisper67

Holy crap, that can't be a good indication.
edit on 16-3-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:50 PM
I'm in fawor of dumping, sand ,earth, concrete. Thats only thing they could do and whole world demands them to do something.

It will take weeks to battle the melting cores, but they should have enough helicopters to keep at least some of the radioactives down.

There is the steam explosion possibility of course, but I guess that has to be taken, you can't "secure" the place.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Styrge because: extended

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

Hope is fine as long as it is not a false hope. False hope can lead to actions that make things worse.

The boronated water in the reactor could flow between the fuel rods, effectively separating them. That would still work here if there was separation, but if they have completely melted down, we are talking about a pool of fuel, not separate rods. That's why they could not cool them sufficiently before; there was too much fuel that had melted and fused together. Also, just pouring it over the top instead of injecting it into the core would allow little of the water between the fuel rods.

I am afraid the Japanese are starting to latch onto false hopes and wild ideas... but I still wish them success. I would absolutely love to be wrong at this point.


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:00 PM
I have a question, maybe someone could help me with?....A friends brother spoke with me on saturday about the Japanese reactor situation. he worked in Sellafield for 20 years and told me to watch for specific markers.

The most important marker being an air drop of concrete over the cores. He said that they should be doing this today (Saturday) and couldnt understand why it was not an option then.

He also said, and this is where my question comes in....that each of the reactor cores were 1000 times more powerfull than Chernobyl. So does that mean that we are in a situation that is 60,000 times worse than Chernobyl? I have seen the results from 25 years ago as I live in Scotland where even today there is still livestock that cant be sold or eaten 25 years after that event.


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by apacheman

The spent fuel rods are not as radioactive as fresh ones undergoing reaction, but they contain fission products that themselves are very dangerous. If they are heating up, they still contain radioactive elements. There is also really no containment aside from the roof of the building. There wasn't any need for it before, as the things just have to decay themselves out naturally and water (especially boronated, which I am sure this was) will absorb most of the radiation and the heat.

As they heat up, though, and especially if they begin to melt and fuse together themselves, the reactions will speed up, releasing more radiation faster. Without water to absorb the radiation and cool them, and without the roof containment (which has been blown off, if I am correct?), they will be a massive source of radiation themselves.

The good news is, I do not think they will become hot enough to melt through the plant floor like new fuel can do. Meltdown, yes, but on a smaller scale. The radioactivity could be even worse than a reactor core, however.


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

I am afraid the Japanese are starting to latch onto false hopes and wild ideas... but I still wish them success. I would absolutely love to be wrong at this point.


TEPCO worker: Uh, everything's under control. Situation normal.

Japanese Government: What happened?

TEPCO worker: [getting nervous] Uh, we had a slight reactor malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?

Japanese Government: We're sending a squad up.

TEPCO worker: Uh, uh... negative, negative. We had a reactor leak here now. Give us a few minutes to lock it down. Large leak, very dangerous.

Japanese Government: Who is this? What's your operating number?

TEPCO worker: Uh...

[TEPCO worker shoots the intercom]

TEPCO worker: [muttering] Boring conversation, anyway.
edit on 16-3-2011 by AutOmatIc because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:13 PM
Reply to CAPTIVA:

Chernobyl was 800 MW, these reactors are not more powerful but together they contain tens of times the radioactivity Cherno had.

Dumping is tough decision as the spent fuel pools are relatively easy to cool (as reactors are now quite impossible being just a lump of nuke fuel), but if you cover them, they just burn and release radioactivity inevitably, only less than in open air. They didn't start it saturday as there was some hope... maybe your friend knew better! (But as he gave you those figures about Chernobyl reactor power - not.)
edit on 16-3-2011 by Styrge because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:15 PM
Can someone with some knowledge read the entire article and respond. The science guy here is suggesting that worst case scenario projections are less alarming than many of us here are currently imagining . Is he correct or is he overlooking something as there are others convinced it will be like Chernobyl on steroids if it all goes pear shaped

The Government's Chief Scientific Officer Professor John Beddington comments on the developments following the explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant.

Let me now talk about what would be a reasonable worst case scenario. If the Japanese fail to keep the reactors cool and fail to keep the pressure in the containment vessels at an appropriate level, you can get this, you know, the dramatic word “meltdown”. But what does that actually mean? What a meltdown involves is the basic reactor core melts, and as it melts, nuclear material will fall through to the floor of the container. There it will react with concrete and other materials … that is likely… remember this is the reasonable worst case, we don’t think anything worse is going to happen. In this reasonable worst case you get an explosion. You get some radioactive material going up to about 500 metres up into the air. Now, that’s really serious, but it’s serious again for the local area. It’s not serious for elsewhere even if you get a combination of that explosion it would only have nuclear material going in to the air up to about 500 metres. If you then couple that with the worst possible weather situation i.e. prevailing weather taking radioactive material in the direction of Greater Tokyo and you had maybe rainfall which would bring the radioactive material down do we have a problem? The answer is unequivocally no. Absolutely no issue. The problems are within 30 km of the reactor. And to give you a flavour for that, when Chernobyl had a massive fire at the graphite core, material was going up not just 500 metres but to 30,000 feet. It was lasting not for the odd hour or so but lasted months, and that was putting nuclear radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere for a very long period of time. But even in the case of Chernobyl, the exclusion zone that they had was about 30 kilometres. And in that exclusion zone, outside that, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate people had problems

transcript of entire conferance with Q and A here

There is also this article out today suggesting things are stabilizing

edit on 16/3/11 by cosmicpixie because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:19 PM
BBC have a ticker with:

BREAKING NEWS:UK now suggesting British nationals in Tokyo 'should consider leaving the area'

Nothing else yet though on that story.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by Styrge

Thanks and Im sorry but "Powerfull" was my own word in describing the 1000 x 6 times more powerfull than Chernobyl.

Im sure he meant the amount of radiation contained and created. Powerfull was my own wrong choice of descriptive word to translate his discussion with me.


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:22 PM
2:13 PM EDT - More comments from the NRC chair, says spent fuel pool at Reactor 4 has no water, radiation levels are "extremely high"

2:15 PM EDT - U.S. urges citizens within 80 km of Japan plant to leave.

2:21 PM EDT - More comments from the NRC Chairman, who says high radiation levels at reactor 4 may affect the ability to "take corrective measures"


edit on 3/16/2011 by JackBauer because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:28 PM
I gotta ask the question. I'm looking at maps of the area. The ocean is right there.

Why aren' they brining in the largest cranes in the area, and setting them up with a water pump system using ocean water?

Crane, firetruck pumps and hoses. Or bring in a ship that is used for setting up ocean rigs, and use the tech used for extraction to pump water to a cannon.

This isn't a forest fire. It is a stationary situation. Mobility isn't as necessary.

Fancy isn't necessary, and using techniques for fire suppression isn't really that sensible here.

Even several mile of tubing going from a water source to the reactors like a big freaking garden hose would work. The water supply if it came from the municipal level could be controlled by the government, or if its pumping from the ocean it could be controlled remotely to turn it off.

If a water cannon will work, so would any of these - but after the initial scurry of work - these all require less manpower in the danger zone.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by cosmicpixie

Key words "Reasonable worst case" self explanatory.

Redneck, I hope you are wrong too.

I really hope they can contain this godforsaken mess before it goes critical and beyond any known methods of containment.

"worst case" is not something we should even be discussing, but as the hours and days pass, it leaves few other likely outcomes, and even fewer options for a workable solution.

At least they haven't given up.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:32 PM
Worst Case should always be on the menu. Worst Case isn't the ONLY thing to be considered, but not considering it at all means you are excluding important information, and excluding consequences as a part of your solution.

Being STUCK on the worst case isn't useful. Pretending worst case doesn't exist because its is scary means you are failing to properly evaluate consequences.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:33 PM
No matter, CAPTIVA, you made me check Chernobyl reactor power and now we are all wiser. Then the article, COSMICPIXIE:

"going up not just 500 metres but to 30,000 feet."

Who is this guy mixing up meters and feet? I'm so sick of those pro-nukes who downplay the situation, and this is the worst I've seen about Fukushima.

Also Reuters had somebody bloggin:
"Nuclear accident is not the disaster, but tsunami and the quake."

He was referring to immediate death count as masses haven't died on radiation yet! What about japanese not being able to farm or even inhabit large areas of their land? Or the fact their genes well become quite polluted? Radiation causes all kinds of disease, not just cancer, and it will greatly reduce the quality of life where it hits.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Styrge because: more readable

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by Aeons

I personally think they are out of time and options, In fact I have seen the reports of the helicopters pulling out due to radiation levels getting to high..If helicopters can't stay on station I doubt if there is much else to be done..

I also feel they have been lying about the radiation levels at the plant all along, They just do not add up..they have admited several containment failures..and yet we still have radiation levels being measured in milliseiverts ? doubtful

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:37 PM
Can someone explain why tepco is still handling the situation? As there seems to be problems and a lot of lying from them in the past. Why wouldn't some other group step in and tell them to take a hike?

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

The Reactor Status Summary Table looks like the best place to go for the latest information.
- Reactor Status Summary Table -

You have to scroll half way down the page to find the table.
There is also a link to the latest summary.

edit on 16-3-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:40 PM
I got more. I don't know the geology here at all, nor do I know how the site is layed out.

As I understand it, some of the problems are in the pits that the rods have dropped into. And that these pits don't have the liquid for cooling them.

Can you get a fast drilling rig in, and do a horizontal drill to under the reactors effected? Then use the natural water table, ocean water, water to pump water into the pits? The drill doesn't have to go down far. However, they might not have any of that tech THERE.

(clean up after is going to have to include cementing in the entire formation area to prevent continuing pollution of the aquifer).

Russia probably has this stuff.
edit on 2011/3/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 130  131  132    134  135  136 >>

log in