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: 339.htm
513
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Could we get some industry promoters to volunteer for the cleanup and entombment of the reactor? Is it too much to ask?

You know the ones that insist that nuclear energy is "safe". Could we get some of the reactor engineers and plant engineers to "volunteer" for cleanup duty? I think it would be a morale booster for everyone!

You wouldn't want anyone to think that the industry elite would let some overzealous patriots make all the sacrafice and hence grab ALL the glory! There is plenty of glory to share. Plenty of sacrafice to share!

So what do you say engineers, designers, financiers, regulators, politicians, boosters here is your chance to demonstrate your belief in nuclear energy. Help entomb fukushima! GE please share some of those profits from your nuclear reactor business to aid in the relief effort!




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
And speaking of the DIY nuclear reactor....

I don't want to live next door to this guy

Extreme DIY



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


I believe that if the fuel is molten. It would not matter if there was a crack in the vessel. The molten puddle of mess would melt right through the containment vessel. It would be lying at the bottom somewhere. The crack allows the vessel to vent any steam or pressure held by the vessel. This is not good because the system need pressure to stay properly cooled. Like a radiator in a car.
edit on 25-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by boaby_phet
If their is a crack in the reactor and a potential for molten fuel to leak down through this,and if was to fall into the water which had/has pooled round and below this from pumping in all this water, is their not a chance of a massive explosion similar to what scientists were fearing would happen at chernobyl ?


Meltdown hits water...




I think ...

The biggest fear in Russia right now is that the glass that has encased the fuel is deteriorating and water is getting in again. If that happens it will just start things up again
edit on 25-3-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator
 


Yes of course, plant 1 not 2, mind you, I am fairly certain that the guys at the Pentagon have plenty of images of all of the plants thought to have been affected by the quake/tsunami.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


yes but only if it happens somewhat like you say ...a sudden quenching

Once the corium (lava) gets moving it kind of 'pulses' along :

as it melts through stuff it starts to cool and the outer layers become not so molten and act like a thermal blanket trapping in heat as the mas slows down ...

as the mass slows down it heats it's general environment...

the heat trap inside the 'thermal blanket' of the corium blob increases internal temps and kicks fission up a notch increasing the internal heat....

until the outer shell melts again and begins to melt through the environment, cooling as it goes ...(return to beginning)

the mitigating factors are HOW big is the blob adn has it gotten into the environement (or is it still in the core ( as theredneck noted), and how many of these nuclear stacks are at this critical condition....



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Nevermind
edit on 25-3-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 




We are not at war with Japan... so we have to ask


Hmmm, perhaps, as in not at war with Libya? - Oh but there's a pressing moral duty to respond to the humanitarian and political situation in Libya - not at all like what they have seen on their imagery in Japan?

Surely this is more down to the $$$$££££££ and political ramifications both international and domestic, and the fact that the USA, France and UK may all get severely chastised for their involvements with the MOX and reactor design safety down the road rather than the USA being polite?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
www.nytimes.com...


It appears Japan is now asking people to evacuate
further away from the reactors.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I was watching the discovery channel documentry on chernobyl and thought i would ask as the russians in that said this was one of their major fears , which makes the japaneese seem absolute crazy pumping all this water into the reactors as (a) the water aids the nuclear reaction and (b) theirs this risk of an epic explosion .

I believe they forcast that if this had happened at chernobyl most of europe would still be wasteland now as the explosion and radiation would have been so severe!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I believe that nuclear energy can be safe. Just not sitting on the edge of the ocean in an earthquake and tsunami zone. Please do not let the scare tactics win. If these people would of payed attention to where to put these reactors and properly maintained them, this mess would not have happened.

The problem is when companies put profits above safety.

A nuclear reactor in a tsunami and earthquake zone. Now that is a crazy idea. Do not let the facts cloud your judgement. The power has to come from somewhere. I know there is alot of damage here but it is the fault of the Japanese govt and the industry savages. I believe that if nuclear power plants were properly regulated and maintained we would not have these problems. But this is only my opinion and many upon many people overlook the problems that causes these situations. We need to educate ourselves so this cannot happen.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype
Hmmm, perhaps, as in not at war with Libya? -


Well we are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan either... didn't stop us from blasting them into the stone age. but then they haz oil



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I believe that nuclear energy can be safe.


When we can learn to utilize the radiation directly like the way we collect solar energy in cells, then it will be safe. As long as we are just making nuclear kettles we are asking for trouble

Paul Brown invented a device that could absorb radiation directly, including from nuclear waste. To bad he dies suddenly in a car crash and his invention went to Washington.... never to see the light of day

Though I do have to wonder why Russia is buying out nuclear waste from over seas facilities



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I think if we are going to have reactors that have teh potential to pollute half a world , then we should have punishments for their misuse that equal the risk:

SO if people want use MOX (or other dangerous materials) the penalty for disaster is death for the owners of the company the government agents that approaved it and the inspectors that O.k. it.

or

make it illegal to make a profit off of ( as in do not allow private parties with no accountability to run , and profit from it )



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


I agree.

Nuclear power should not be for profit. This is the mistake because profits are king. Everything else is secondary.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I just wonder whether in the light of this incident, and what has been learnt about seismology, geology, tsunamis, and other natural and man-made hazards in say the past 40 years, the nuclear industry can really assume that it is enough to 100% rule out admittedly rare (this was meant to be a once in a millenium event for instance) yet powerful events that could destabilise or open ANY nuclear plant or storage facility, e.g. in the wake of a meteorite impact (which apart from explosive forces could also create tsunamis ANYWHERE in the oceans...

The point is surely that the nuclear industry can no longer say well we've engineered these things to be safe to so-and-so tollerances, because the fundamental issue is IF something really powerful hits it, could it lead to a situation where it will leak out real nasties - and if the answer = yes then I think it will be increasingly difficult to justify what will anyway become a more expensive way of generating energy in the wake of the safety measures already implied as coming down the pipeline from this incident?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazydaisy
www.nytimes.com...


It appears Japan is now asking people to evacuate
further away from the reactors.


Too bad its coming about 10 days late, Those people should have been out of there already.
In my opinion the lack of information and contant downplaying of this incident by TEPCO has been criminal. Their actions, or lack of action, will end up costing thousands of lives over the next several years. When the US recommended an 80km evacuation zone you knew it was much worse than they were saying.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 



the fact that the USA, France and UK may all get severely chastised for their involvements with the MOX and reactor design safety down the road rather than the USA being polite?


What is really strange about the fall out situation is how we here in the US have technology that our personal nuclear reactors don't even have for back up in case of nuclear catastrophe, for instance, the special suits that were sent to the Japanese scientists and recovery military assistance personnel. They don't even have those suit's in the arsenals of the nuclear reactor facilities as a stand by because of the $ issue.
When they had demonstrated the effective repellent of the radioactivity with the nanotechnology fibers of this suit, it nearly dropped all radiation to zero for any one who would be wearing it as a protection barrier.
So, if I had to wager a guess, I think that the USA citizens are much more effective and helpful than the USA government, other than military being put in harms way with radiation fallout, with their meager suits of the fifties and sixties, our scientists and public do genuinely care for the Japanese culture and their endeavors after such a catastrophe of this nature.
And Zorgon is right about the eager acceptance of the UN busying themselves with the Libyan ordeal, we are not at war, yet we spend millions and probably will spend billions more on trying to protect societies from tyrants and Dictators such as Qaddafi to preserve the ways of the people and not the greed of one insane madman.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Indeed, this is kind of what I was trying to say with Zorgon earlier, if the USA have/had intel/surveillance that showed that this incident was/is posing a much more serious, and mortal, threat to thousands of innocent civilians (democratic ones at that), why are they not publishing the data/images and jumping up and down at the UN calling for international action and action from Japan, yet with Libya establishing the safety of civilians is arguably being pursued in an altogether different manner?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)Under the combined effects of stress and certain corrosive environments stainless steels can be subject to this very rapid and severe form of corrosion. The stresses must be tensile and can result from loads applied in service, or stresses set up by the type of assembly e.g. interference fits of pins in holes, or from residual stresses resulting from the method of fabrication such as cold working. The most damaging environment is a solution of chlorides in water such as sea water, particularly at elevated temperatures. As a consequence stainless steels are limited in their application for holding hot waters (above about 50°C) containing even trace amounts of chlorides (more than a few parts per million). This form of corrosion is only applicable to the austenitic group of steels and is related to the nickel content. Grade 316 is not significantly more resistant to SCC than is 304.

S.S.




top topics



 
513
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join