It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 226.htm
513
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Besides, if what you said even begins to happen, I think we might as well just nuke it, and make it all into plasma. Sometimes a bigger fire puts out the flame.


WoW! really???..
Talk about a good way to make a bad situation worse.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by captiva
Radioactive materials have half-lives, that is, time periods during which half of a sample will decay. That is different than what we are used to seeing in terms of other types of fuel. If you put 10 gallons of gas in a car, for example, it will use that gas at a fairly constant rate (if you drive at a constant speed) until it is gone. Nuclear fuel does not work that way. The more of it there is, the faster it reacts. If you could put 10 gallons of uranium in your tank and drive at a constant rate, 5 gallons would be used in the same amount of time as it would take to use the next 2.5 gallons, or the next 1.25 gallons, or the next 0.625 gallons... until finally there isn't enough energy in the uranium to power the car. It would still produce some energy for many many such time periods, until finally the energy produced is too low to measure.

I think your analogy with gasoline is misleading. It seems to imply that if you had nuclear fuel in you car your mileage would effectively double every half-life period.

It's not that the radioactive material reacts faster when there is more. It's a statical function. Imagine your radioisotope as 256 coins with heads showing and the half-life as the time it takes to flip them all. And imagine of a flipped coin lands on tails it becomes a stable isotope. So you flip all the coins and about half of them (128) will now have "decayed" to tails giving off energy, leaving you with 128 coins showing heads. Do it again and about 64 coins decay, but you only had half as many to begin the second iteration, so nothing has slowed down.

A gasoline analogy would be to say a given car can go 400 miles on a half of the gas in the tank. It could then only go 200 miles on half of the remaining gas and after that only one hundred miles on the following half, etc. You aren't burning fuel any faster you are starting with half as much fuel for each subsequent iteration--the mileage per gallon remains the same.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
New Fuk-Ichi photo;

isis-online.org...



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RickyD
reply to post by predator0187
 


That would be really really bad for the planet...basically the ocean would be screwed and in turn so would all of us and the whole environment we live in!


I figured so, but all these tons of water they are throwing on the reactors right now is going somewhere, which is the ocean.

Will the amount they have dumped on the reactors and let wash into the ocean affect it horribly or will it be too dispersed?

Thanks buddy.


Pred...



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by sepermeru
 

Besides, if what you said even begins to happen, I think we might as well just nuke it, and make it all into plasma. Sometimes a bigger fire puts out the flame.


Wouldn't take be like trying to put out a fire with a flamethrower?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dvrt10
 


Sucks out the air. If the only solution to end something is to completely vaporize it, then perhaps a nuke would do. All radioactive molecules would be broken down into smaller pieces. It would be undone.

I mean this is from complete ignorance of what would happen. IS it a solution?
edit on 18-3-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I want to ask everyone something... What happens if at least one reactor or stored fuel rods go into full meltdown? Will it be too late by then to bury the plant in cement due to extreme radiation levels?
edit on 18-3-2011 by MedievalGhost because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
ALL THE EXPERTS FAILED.

Look. It's their job to build adequate designs.

They knew it was seismically active area.
They knew tsunami could come.

Now they want to get us to keep buying into the idea that nuclear power stations can be built safely. Tornado, flood, hurricane, earthquake. War? Meteor strike?

What they do is equivocate when something goes wrong. "We never could have anticipated it" -- well then don't build it. Millions of lives are at stake and you admit there are things you can't anticipate? Scrap this idea. Don't use this technology.

Japanese people have a right to be thoroughly PISSED OFF right now that they were lied to and told this plant was 100% safe. We are told the same things. What they should say is "it's safe provided nothing we don't expect should occur" and they don't expect or design for the worst. THAT IS EVIDENT RIGHT NOW.

It's doubtful if they are even safe. These things leak all the time (we just had another leak at Pickering). Forget the environmental consequences of uranium mining, the CO2 emissions from the mining process (which nobody even talks about), the radioactive tailings, the waste from the spent fuel etc etc. This whole "clean" technology is just so much BS when you look at the whole lifecyle of the mining to the storage of this crap. We're sacrificing our planet and our lives for this energy. The dollars could be put into solar tower power projects and other green sustainable energies to get them up to the MW we need. I'm sure panels could be put on every rooftop, windturbines and micro hydro solutions injected with enough $$ capitol that even one of these billion $ plants get could be a huge step.

I'm highly suspicious of the nuke experts now and we all should be (I exclude RedNeck and a few others from this). THEY CAUSED THIS BY THEIR FAILURE. I'm not blaming the Japanese. I'm blaming the designers and engineers and approvers who FAILED to ANTICIPATE. People are going to die from this and every one of these deaths is ON THEIR HEADS.

PISSED OFF? DAM RIGHT. We all should be!

END RANT.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I know this series of events is far from other, but I'm trying to look forward and see where we go after all this is over.

Beyond the debate on nuclear power as whole (so that we don't completely de-rail this thread), what would be the "industry" take-away from this series of events?

Here's what I see. Some of these are probably obvious (now, if not before), maybe other's are not ...

  • Don't build reactor's in active fault zones. I assume this was discussed before this event?
  • Don't build reactor's where they can be hit by tsunami's. Was discussed in the industry before this event?
  • Don't store spend fuel-rods on top of the reactors. Was discussed in the industry before this event?
  • Build better "containment" for spent fuel-rods? Was discussed in the industry before this event?
  • Don't build reactors so f-ing close together! OMG! So obvious now!
  • ... any others? RedNeck? input from others here?


edit on 2011-3-18 by EnhancedInterrogator because: spelling, grammar, formatting, etc.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Nice idea but wouldn't that just send tons of radioactive material straight up into the atmosphere and create an even bigger problem - I'm guessing, i failed my advanced nuclear theory test



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopeforeveryone
 


Well that's the thing. A nuke sends it's own inputed radioactivity into the air. WOULD a nuclear bomb vaporize and break down the radioactive materials in the act of adding its own?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


So basically what you are saying is that we should give up totally and run for the hills and never try anything ever again?? that seems a little defeatist to me IMO. I'm not saying that this is a bad situation but if we had this idea for everything that ever went wrong, we wouldn't have safer cars, airplanes or any other piece of technology.

ok just had to get that off my chest, sorry if its off topic.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I think if it was a viable option they would have tried it at chernobyl. From what i understand they've got to try and cool it down and add things like boron to decrease the nuclear reaction, When it's stabilised enough then they should shroud it with a huge concrete container.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
www3.nhk.or.jp...


IAEA: Radiation assessment begins Friday night

The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said a team will begin an assessment of radiation levels at multiple points of Tokyo as early as Friday night.

Yukio Amano spoke to reporters at a news conference in Tokyo on Friday. He is visiting Japan to address trouble at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following a major quake one week earlier.

Amano said he is discussing how to evaluate the levels with an IAEA expert team. He said that once he and his team finishes the discussion, they will begin to gauge the radiation levels in Tokyo.

He said the IAEA had already set up a radiation monitoring device on Friday afternoon on the roof of the building where its Tokyo office is located.

Amano said many countries are concerned about the radiation levels in Japan. He also said he thinks it is significant that not only the Japanese government but also an international organization will evaluate the levels.

His remarks came after some countries issued evacuation advisories to their citizens in Japan, setting a much wider zone than the Japanese government has declared.

Amano said the IAEA will promptly make public the data it obtains and respond to the concerns of the international community.

Saturday, March 19, 2011 08:04 +0900 (JST)


Tokyo? Is it just me?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbillshow
New Fuk-Ichi photo;

isis-online.org...


I really like this photo you posted.




You can compare this damage photo for better orientation and a better look of the structural damage.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopeforeveryone
 


Well yea, that's to stop it. What if we go in the opposite direction? Total obliteration. Let them go off, vaporize, and be put into the air. Would they be instantly turned into lead?

Reason I ask is because the big problem here is that it is a slow reaction. But would it not technically be safer to just flat out nuke it, quickly break up most of the material, and then clean up what's left?

I'm just saying because I cannot find any precedence for the thought.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Well that's the thing. A nuke sends it's own inputed radioactivity into the air. WOULD a nuclear bomb vaporize and break down the radioactive materials in the act of adding its own?


well think about this...
Little boy dropped over Japan


It contained 64 kg of uranium, of which less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission, and of this mass only 0.6 g was transformed into energy


source

so you tell me the size of bomb it would take to transform 20,000+ tons into energy...


and think about this...have you even looked at what else is in the area???
or underground nearby??....I have...
it would not be pretty....this isn't like some oil well fire where ya can blast out the flame

edit on 18-3-2011 by okiecowboy because: add link



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyzan
reply to post by Wertwog
 


So basically what you are saying is that we should give up totally and run for the hills and never try anything ever again?? that seems a little defeatist to me IMO. I'm not saying that this is a bad situation but if we had this idea for everything that ever went wrong, we wouldn't have safer cars, airplanes or any other piece of technology.

ok just had to get that off my chest, sorry if its off topic.


I see what you are saying, we want to create. Sure, we want to innovate and solve things. We have a choice not use use this technology because it is SO dangerous and we can't anticipate every event. Can you? Can anyone? Are you prepared to continually sacrifice or endanger millions of lives in trial and error?

We are all part of a nuclear science experiment everyday. I don't want to derail the thread either.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You'd have to discuss that with more educated and informed people than me
It just seems like a bad idea though. If by your theory that nuclear energy would somehow cancel out other nuclear energy we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Just saying ... i think theres a thread for thinking outside the box ideas



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by okiecowboy
 


Are the rods 20,000+ tons? because that would be the goal. The vaporization of the problem. You only need to hit the radioactive material. Nothing else happens. If the radioactive material becomes lead dust, the problem is no more. Heat speeds of a chemical reaction, and radioactivity would be sped up.

The question is, How much energy is needed to quickly cause the rods to become lead?



new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join