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: 320.htm
513
<< 317  318  319    321  322  323 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator

Sea water is salty (duh!), mostly due to sodium chloride (NaCl, also known as table salt) dissolved in the water. So the question becomes, do any of the metals in the fuel or control rods react with chlorine? Uranium does exist as uranium tetrachloride (UCl4), and yes, that would be considered corrosion. I also found something else leafing through Ye Ole Chemistry Book... uranium tetrachloride sublimes (changes directly from a solid to a gas) at 500°C.

Think about this a moment.... we have enriched uranium fuel... flooded with water containing the Cl- ion... becoming UCl4... which can sublime under temperatures that may well exist... that UCl4 gas will float off with the steam... and the uranium may still be radioactive.

This just keeps getting more and more worrisome... UCl4 will combine with oxygen, giving off chlorine gas, and becoming the soluble uranyl ion. Soluble as in capable of being carried in solution in water. And which isotope of uranium we are discussing is irrelevant to the potential chemical reactions, since radioactive decay happens at a lower physical level (except of course when an element transmutes into another element, which engages a different set of potential chemical reactions).

I think we may know what it was in the water that burned those workers... not good. Not good at all! It appears injecting that seawater combined with venting may have actually released uranium in first gaseous, then soluble form!

I haven't had time to check the other metals, like zirconium, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had known reactions with the halides either...

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

In order for the boron to be effective, it has to be placed between non-critical-masses of uranium. Pouring it over, around, or underneath the fuel rods will do no good in slowing the chain reaction of rods melted together, only reduce the number of neutrons released from the mixture.

Boron does not suck up neutrons; it simply absorbs them if they hit it. In a working reactor, the control rods are positioned between the fuel rods so the boron shields them from each other.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by the seeker_713g
 


Thank you for the information - I understand now
how the water might occur where it did. Nothing in
Japan right now is good and the radiation problem
at the top of the list. I have nightmares about the
people and their suffering. I hope this doesn't
get as bad I think it might.
If the radiation gets any higher at the plant,
at what point would they evaucate all the workers,
how bad until it would have to be abandoned?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by the seeker_713g

Actually, the core water normally never gets to the turbine room. It cycles in and out of the vessel only enough to enter and leave the primary heat exchanger. The water going to the turbines is heated by the heat exchanger, not by the fuel directly.

The only way fuel-contaminated water could make it to the main steam lines in the turbine room is through a breach in the heat exchanger... which means the reactor vessel is toast.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
LOL, Reuters is reporting that the cavalry will be arriving shortly----US troops to provide water to the reactors. In other words, as Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction said, "You sendin' the Wolf? Sh*t, negro, that's all you had to say!"

Hopefully. If there's still a situation worth saving.

(Would quote and link, but Reuters doesn't let you copy all of their updates for some reason)

ETA: something copyable:

Accumulated 24-hour radiation 30 km northwest of Fukushima plant exceeds annual limit on natural dose - Kyodo

Reuters
edit on 24-3-2011 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I posted on previous page re the radiation of the workers as it doesn't seem to
add up as far as I understand...didn't want to repost, maybe the questions are dumb or irrelevant.
Just curious...Thank You so much for ALL your info!

Ektar



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
1st Post

I searched the internet and found your thread and I have been following since page 163.

What are your thoughts on this article form TEPCO?


Press Release (Mar 24,2011)
Detection of trace amounts of radioactive iodine around an exhaust stack and others of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station

"It is presumed that iodine 131 released into the atmosphere from
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station was collected and detected
in Kahiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station, since iodine 131 was detected
in radioactivity measurement of the exhaust air of some units and no
abnormality of iodine 131 in nuclear water was detected"


Full article here:-

www.tepco.co.jp...

Here we go again? Or are they telling the truth?



edit on Sat Mar 26 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: ex tags added



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Ektar

None of the measurements given have really added up. I am of the belief that the terms are being phrased in hard-to-understand ways in order to keep people confused about what is actually happening. And with the media's apparent lack of comprehension of nuclear physics, it probably isn't a hard task to make things confusing.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ektar
 


It's very likely the radiation doses are well past "safe" ( there is no "safe" level ) and far into "how much has this shortened my life span and what kind of cancer can I look forward to" levels

but straight from the EPA's website:


There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. Many sources emit radiation that is well below natural background levels. This makes it extremely difficult to isolate its stochastic effects. In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic effects...However, there do appear to be threshold exposures for the various non-stochastic effects.



The critical threshold from the EPA seems to occur at around 400 rems (1Sv= 100 rem so 4 Sv) which = probably death within two months, or 10 Seiverts certain death 1-2 weeks or 20 Seiverts =death 2-3 days

Their method :

called the 'linear no-threshold model.' It assumes there is no 'threshold,' that is to say there is no exposure level below which the risk is zero. It also assumes that the risk increases in proportion to the exposure. If the exposure doubles, the risk also doubles. Some scientists strongly dispute the no-threshold assumption.


So what you have is very similar to the Chernobyl "Liquidators", and it's kind of a crap shoot as many people died ( a lot of heart failure ) but some that you would think for sure that should have died did not:

Yuri Korneev, Boris Stolyarchuk and Alexander Yuvchenko are the last surviving members of the Reactor No.

Some comparative numbers from Chernobyl:

....based ground deposition of caesium-137) to be between 3 and 150 mSv [between a 1 in 6666.67 and a 1 in 133.33 chance of a fatal cancer, assuming the ICRP risk factor of a 5% of a fatal cancer per Sv of exposure] for adults (depending on the distance from the reactor and the day of evacuation) and for one year old children a dose estimate of between 10 and 700 mSv [between a 1 in 2000 and a 1 in 28.57 chance of fatal cancer] has been made.[1] Thyroid doses for adults were between 20 and 1000 mSv, while for the one year old infants these were higher at 20 to 6000 mSv.


(from here)


if you want to see a creepy video of victims from Chernobyl go Here(WARNING NOT FOR THE EASILY DISTURBED)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I've been doing research for my own edification and family.I find ALL of the govermental disinformation quite ...well....head in sand ish. are they thinking we won't find out and it will just wash off???
I'm amazed at the insistance that there is nothing to worry about...I see plenty.
How about our own reactors failed their fire inspections this month?
How about they are on a fault line?
If Japan can't handle theirs....
I'm speechless really...end of rant.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


given the levels of xe cs that are already known to have escaped chemical release of U might already be as high as 10%

if there is already slag (corium) then make that definitely 10% and probably 7-10% of the plutonium (from the molten mass whatever it may be), it's probably why we are not seeing 'official' people with alpha counters or neutron detection equipment taking readings out around fukushima



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


if there is already slag (corium) then make that definitely 10% and probably 7-10% of the plutonium (from the molten mass whatever it may be), it's probably why we are not seeing 'official' people with alpha counters or neutron detection equipment taking readings out around fukushima


Sorry, can you explain in layman's terms why we're not seeing 'official' people with alpha counters or neutron detection equipment? I didn't follow your logic there.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


(in response to ektar's post)

And they are certainly blurring adsorbed vs exposed, and external, internal , and how much of it is alpha /beta/gamma/neutrons (does anyone else remember the hoopla over neutron bombs?)
by the way did anyone else catch the shameless Ann Coulter on fox?




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by IDBIT

Nice find! Check out this little snippet...


TEPCO has measured exhaust air from an exhaust stack and vent of each
building of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station with a filter for
a week, and detected iodine 131 up to 2.4 X 10^-8 (becquerel/cm3) at
the exhaust stacks of all buildings, the exhaust vents of service
buildings and auxiliary buildings (Arahama-side) of Unit 3, 5 and 6.
Source: www.tepco.co.jp...

Bull-Hockey!

A beguerel is a tiny unit.... according to Wikipedia, the potassium in a human body produces about 4000 Bq! 2.4 X 10^-8 Bq is 0.000000024 Bq!

Another classic example of trying to confuse the public with erroneous information... and of posters here bringing it to light!
Welcome to ATS.


On the source of the contamination, that is about the only thing I have heard come out of Japan in days that sounds reasonable...

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ethancoop

If the radioactive water leak is in the turbine building then it could very well be from pipe damage due to the quakes from earlier. Were those yesterday or today? It's all starting to run together.


Quite likely... but that would mean the core is leaking out all its water, right? Seems the nuke guy says 'fuel damage' Went out for dinner will have to see if there is an update or confirmation out yet



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
aquaponics is huge in china and Aus. a much safer way to grow food especially in todays contaminated earth.


Not all that new... but it was called hydroponics before... Good way to grow food on a Moon base



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The thing that separates you from the rest of us is your knowledge. I'm running off of deductive reasoning, you're running off text books and experience.

I was assuming this was leaked reactor water that made it's way to the turbine building via pipes. I came to this conclusion through 3 details:
1) the high radioactivity of the water
2) the location of the incident
3) the depth of the water (15cm)

It seems I was mistaken in that water from the reactor shouldn't be able to reach the turbine building according to how you explained the loop but I'm left to wonder how a 15cm pool of water with those doses of radiation can accumulate a descent distance from the reactor which is where you'd expect to find water like that.

Redneck? Care to fire up that big brain of yours?
edit on 24-3-2011 by ethancoop because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Sea water is salty (duh!), mostly due to sodium chloride (NaCl, also known as table salt) dissolved in the water. So the question becomes,


Well MY question is since they still haven't fixed the power to the pumps, HOW exactly are they pumping seawater into the reactor core itself? They keep saying that they ar and at the same time they are saying they haven't yet got the pumps running and had to evacuate because of the smoke after they turned the lights on... so what am I missing here? How is the seawater getting into the reactors? ;puz;



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The only way fuel-contaminated water could make it to the main steam lines in the turbine room is through a breach in the heat exchanger... which means the reactor vessel is toast.
TheRedneck


There ya go
Where have ya been all day



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


Ostensibly because alpha radiation does not penetrate the skin,
BUT plutonium an Alpha emitter is highly toxic

a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose

, and like any alpha emitter it is only dangerous if you get it inside your body, so as an environmental polluter it is very dangerous , so highly energetic alpha readings would indicate plutonium had escaped and was floating around where is will enter the water or food chain ( plutonium is not a naturally occurring element on the surface of the Earth)

Neutron detection would indicate radioactive fission in an uncontrolled way exposing the environment for great distances to :


...neutron radiation is considered a fourth radiation hazard alongside the other types of radiation. Another, sometimes more severe hazard of neutron radiation, is neutron activation, the ability of neutron radiation to induce radioactivity in most substances it encounters, including the body tissues of the workers themselves. This occurs through the capture of neutrons by atomic nuclei, which are transformed to another nuclide, frequently a radionuclide. This process accounts for much of the radioactive material released by the detonation of a nuclear weapon. It is also a problem in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion installations, as it gradually renders the equipment radioactive; eventually the hardware must be replaced and disposed of as low-level radioactive waste.


Which means that a lot of stuff around could be made radioactive ( which appears to be happening) , both these things greatly increase the area time frame and severity of the disaster



new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 317  318  319    321  322  323 >>

log in

join