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: 394.htm
513
<< 391  392  393    395  396  397 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I still can't wrap my brain around...what exactly, they plan to do with the "hundreds of tons of contaminated water", that needs to be pumped out, BEFORE anything else can be done....all that glow juice has to go somewhere.

And, IF, said glow juice, is being partially replenished by tidal actions from the ocean, through breached cooling systems...well...ouch.

Des




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Kailassa
 




I wouldn't put it past TEPCO to dispose of their dead contract workers that way.

If they die at work, just drive them 5k away and dump them.
Who's going to know?

They gonna know at some point using identification of the body. After all, TEPCO got lists of workers who worked at the plant right? And even if TEPCO were to ``delete`` those workers from the list... I bet those workers have families, friends, co-workers who would know that they did work at the plant.

Or maybe not, since 90% of those who work at those plants are immigrants, so their families is probably in another country... but even then, the co-workers who worked with them in the plant surely know them... But you never know, those workers might be silenced by TEPCO using bribes or threats.


The police didn't take the body with them, because it was dangerously radioactive. They left it there to rot.
So who is going to identify, at some distant date in the future, one more rotted corpse left over from a time when over 10,000 people lost their lives?

At best he'll get reported missing, and how many "reported missing" cases do you think the police have on file in Japan now?

No, if TEPCO are doing this, they are getting away with it.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Kailassa
 
I starred your post, you are absolutely right, Cl36 has a half-life of approx 300,000 years.

Ugly stuff indeed. Think of all the sea life that will take it into their bodies.


At this rate, with disasters like the BP oil "leaks", TEPCO irradiating the ocean, and god knows what else these greed-driven idiots will manage, one day people will have forgotten there ever used to be life in our oceans.


How long could we last on this planet with "dead" oceans?
I bet not long at all.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
[...]what exactly, they plan to do with the "hundreds of tons of contaminated water", that needs to be pumped out, BEFORE anything else can be done[...]

My money is on ... they just dump it directly into the ocean.

I really don't see what else they can do. I can't think of any facility that can be used to store/contain it? I suppose they could bring-in 100's (1,000's?) of 55-Gal drums, fill them up, and then put them ... eh, somewhere else on the same site?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Thank you. Then it seems that steam / vapor is still rising.

Looks as if the ripple effect of the plutonium news is starting.


The Tokyo Electric Power Company said today that plutonium particles have been found at five sites on the sprawling reactor complex. The news that plutonium has been detected from partially-melted MOX fuel assemblies at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has sent shock waves from Paris to Washington because the two governments have bet billions of dollars/euros in taxpayer funds as well as based arms control agreements on taking nuclear weapon plutonium pits and converting the deadly material into mixed oxide (MOX) civilian reactor fuel.

The news from Japan that plutonium elements are showing up in the environment outside the reactors raises serious questions about the safety of mixed oxide fuel. French-government-controlled AREVA, the largest nuclear reactor supply company in the world, provided the processed MOX fuel for Tokyo Electric Reactor Number 3. This version of MOX is far less powerful than the fuel that will be produced at the first-of-its-kind MOX plant being built by the U.S. Department of Energy at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The first nuclear-bomb-based fuel assemblies are promised by DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration, the weapons side of DOE in charge of the MOX project, from the AREVA-designed plant at SRS in 2017-18.

Even prior to the Fukushima disaster, the SRS MOX project was in serious trouble. After AREVA made test fuel assemblies out of weapons grade plutonium sent to France from the United States under armed guard, Duke Energy tested the units in its Catawba nuclear power plant. Duke stopped the test in mid-cycle when the fuel was not behaving as expected in the reactor. Duke dropped out of the entire MOX partnership with NNSA after the test failure and gave up its ten percent interest in the project. dcbureau.org...



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by getreadyalready

The first thing that would be encountered would likely be the water table... depending on several variables, such as the amount of water, the temperature of the corium, and the depth of the mantle, enough corium might survive the flash steam explosion to continue melting down. If that happened, then yes, the next stop would be the liquid mantle.

That would do a few things. Firstly, it would leave a tunnel for lava to erupt, forming a new volcano. It would also correct the radioactivity problem of the corium to some degree, as the lava would mix with the corium, dissipating it. But it also would create an explosion from the new volcanic vent, shooting radiation already on the surface in all directions (possibly far enough up to enter the Jet Stream, creating another Chernobyl-type event).

The thing is, this is all theory... unproven, untested... just what experts have theorized based on their knowledge. Whether or not it is likely, or even whether or not it is even possible, is a matter of experiment. This disaster is an experiment in progress. We are awaiting the result.

It also shows why no one has ran this particular experiment before.


TheRedneck


they have hit lava at least thrice, most geologist believe that most any artificial shaft would be too unstable and rising magma/lava would collapse it



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator

Originally posted by Destinyone
[...]what exactly, they plan to do with the "hundreds of tons of contaminated water", that needs to be pumped out, BEFORE anything else can be done[...]

My money is on ... they just dump it directly into the ocean.

I really don't see what else they can do. I can't think of any facility that can be used to store/contain it? I suppose they could bring-in 100's (1,000's?) of 55-Gal drums, fill them up, and then put them ... eh, somewhere else on the same site?


Sigh...yes, my thinking also. A snake eating it's own tail, never ending nightmare. But, are there any world standards of what can just arbitrarily be tossed in OUR oceans? EPA?...oh never mind...sigh...
edit on 03/28/2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This is a bit off topic, but yesterday I hit a little boy with my car.
Luckely no injuries. He came out of an alley on his bike, there was no way I could avoid him. I braked and I almost stood still when I hit the boy. I was driving way below the legal limit.
Man, that really does something to you, I was really shaking after it. It took me almost half an hour to find one of his parents, I had to ask other kids to find him because the boy was gone. I really wanted to make sure everything was ok
I'm very glad that, even though I like to drive very fast (I live in Germany, the autobahn is 5 min. away.
), when it comes to suburbs I always drive carefully, just because of that, It's called responsibility. It saved the boys live.

What TEPCO is doing, is driving an supercharged T-Ford with an overheated engine, a gas pedal that is stuck and overheated brakes going full speed down a steep hill right onto a group of playing children. He has a horn, but refuses to use it, he's convinced he's gonna stop or turn the other way in time but we all know he won't.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by burntheships
 


Thanks for the news on that, it prompts another question from me:

If the radiation levels are high enough to be unsafe for infants in tap water/mains supply, could this lead to a situation, or be indicative of a situation brewing, whereby we begin to see evidence of radiation 'building-up' in places so as to cause a more serious hazard to health.

I say this because, as I believe I read on this very thread a few pages ago, one of the issues with say the need to still cull sheep in the UK post Chernobyl fall-out is the fact that radiation levels were concentrated in certain circumstances (i.e. the food-chain/ecology/flocks of sheep that graze on afflicted soil/pasture). Could similar concerns be projected onto an urban water supply/environment?


They went out and killed all the animals around chernobyl to a distance of 30clicks if I remember correctly



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok

they have hit lava at least thrice, most geologist believe that most any artificial shaft would be too unstable and rising magma/lava would collapse it


Dude, that is crazy, thanks for the link! It brings up lots of non-nuclear-related questions (like how did it not just explode out the top of the drill hole, and they were able to keep drilling for days without getting anywhere or knowing they had hit lava?) so I hope there's a discussion thread about it on the science forums!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
Sigh...yes, my thinking also. A snake eating it's own tail, never ending nightmare. But, are there any world standards of what can just arbitrarily be tossed in OUR oceans?[...]

In theory, I suppose there are. In practice, the rule is ...
"Whatever you can get away with".

More importantly, I think it's a matter of not having another option. Maybe if they could gather it all up, and store it; then later it could be filtered or evaporated/distilled in someway - to separate the water from everything else (salt, pollutants, etc.)? Then, they would just have to deal with the much smaller volume of solids that would be trucked-off to wherever they are storing radioactive stuff long-term. All that assumes that the then "distilled" water itself would not be radioactive in some form (maybe somebody here know's if that would be the case)?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator

Originally posted by Moonbeams771
reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator
 

No probs... you've just proved my point about how easily it is to get confused with the different types of radiation measurements

Yeah ... not to mention, which reactor they're talking about - at any given time.
If I heard right on the news, it's unit #2's turbine building is where the guys the got over-exposed by radioactive water while working inside. I thought previously they said it was unit #3?

Also, all the talk about plutonium ... which should only be related to the MOX fuel in unit #3's reactor, but they are finding in the soil by unit #2? Maybe they mean in the soil between #2 and #3 - maybe that would make sense.

I hope they clarify this stuff soon!

All fuel used in nuclear reactors gradually accumulates plutonium. MOX fuels has much more than the rest, being made initially with a uranium/plutonium mix.


Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel

The plutonium, as an oxide, is then mixed with depleted uranium left over from an enrichment plant to form fresh mixed oxide fuel (MOX, which is UO2+PuO2). MOX fuel, consisting of about 7% plutonium mixed with depleted uranium, is equivalent to uranium oxide fuel enriched to about 4.5% U-235, assuming that the plutonium has about two thirds fissile isotopes. If weapons plutonium is used (>90% Pu-239), only about 5% plutonium is needed in the mix. Areva has stated that the plutonium content of commercial MOX fuel varies between 3 and 10% depending on the design of the fuel.


However, (from the same source):

In every nuclear reactor there is both fission of isotopes such as uranium-235, and the formation of new, heavier isotopes due to neutron capture, primarily by U-238. Most of the fuel mass in a reactor is U-238. This can become plutonium-239 and by successive neutron capture Pu-240, Pu-241 and Pu-242 as well as other transuranic isotopes (see page on Plutonium). Pu-239 and Pu-241 are fissile, like U-235. (Very small quantities of Pu-236 and Pu-238 are formed similarly from U-235.)

Normally, with the fuel being changed every three years or so, about half of the Pu-239 is 'burned' in the reactor, providing about one third of the total energy. It behaves like U-235 and its fission releases a similar amount of energy. The higher the burn-up, the less fissile plutonium remains in the used fuel. Typically about one percent of the used fuel discharged from a reactor is plutonium, and some two thirds of this is fissile (c. 50% Pu-239, 15% Pu-241). Worldwide, some 70 tonnes of plutonium contained in used fuel is removed when refuelling reactors each year.


So even the normal uranium spent rods contain plutonium, as it is formed during fission, and, in fact, is an important contributor to the energy produced by any nuclear power plant.

So all the burning/steaming spent rods which have been left in the open air by damage to the reactor buildings have been spewing plutonium particles into the atmosphere.


Of course it could be coming from melting cores in breached reactors too, but again, all the reactors will contain plutonium, not just the one containing MOX fuel.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Yes that's right! They can hit lava and probably have more than enough geothermal energy to power them and china but they develop nuke plants instead!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLastStand
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Yes that's right! They can hit lava and probably have more than enough geothermal energy to power them and china but they develop nuke plants instead!


Ah, but then where would their profits be...getting free, clean energy from good old Mother Earth...nuff said.

Des



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator
More importantly, I think it's a matter of not having another option. Maybe if they could gather it all up, and store it; then later it could be filtered or evaporated/distilled in someway - to separate the water from everything else (salt, pollutants, etc.)? Then, they would just have to deal with the much smaller volume of solids that would be trucked-off to wherever they are storing radioactive stuff long-term. All that assumes that the then "distilled" water itself would not be radioactive in some form (maybe somebody here know's if that would be the case)?


Been wondering this for two weeks, here's a little that I've found which looks promising:

Source

The question as to whether distillation of water containing these radioactive contaminants is effective can be predicted safely based on the chemical identity of the contaminants. If a particular element is removed by distillation when it is a non-radioactive isotope, it would be safe to predict removal if it is a radioactive isotope. For example laboratory tests show that the element iodine (normally not radioactive) is removed by distillation. It is safe to predict the removal of radioactive iodine as well. In other words the fact that an element is radioactive does not materially alter its other chemical and physical properties.

PWI had laboratory tests performed on water that was spiked 5 times the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) with radium 226 and radium 228. After allowances for background radioactivity, there was virtually no sign of gross alpha or gross beta activity. This could be predicted by the fact that radium is a heavy metal (in the same chemical family as calcium and magnesium) with a boiling point of 1737 degree centigrade. (This is more than 1600 degrees higher than the boiling point of water!) This means that the radium would be retained in the residue water that remains behind in the boiling chamber.


And this (selling distillers, but info still looks sound)

There have been many lab tests in the country where they contaminate the water 5 times higher than what EPA allows for consumption. They test this and distill water, retest and they find the residue that is left behind contains all the heavy metals, which are classed as radioactive.

Most of the heavy metals have a boiling point of 3092 degrees F, meaning the metals actually boil at that point. The boiling point of water is 212 F which is 2800 F below that. Heavy Metals are left behind as waste in the pot. Radiation is in the same family in the periodic chart as these heavy metals.

Does this mean you can take contaminated water and make it clean? Yes. The process is called thermo distillation which is heat. This can be very expensive to do for everyone’s supply but just for your own, this is very easy.

If you get an electric one, around $200, it distills a gallon of water overnight. There are distillers that can run on propane gas as well and wood fires for those who live OFF THE GRID.

edit on 28-3-2011 by 00nunya00 because: I think I've become typing-dyslexic lately?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by burntheships
 


Thanks for the news on that, it prompts another question from me:

If the radiation levels are high enough to be unsafe for infants in tap water/mains supply, could this lead to a situation, or be indicative of a situation brewing, whereby we begin to see evidence of radiation 'building-up' in places so as to cause a more serious hazard to health.


I think the simple answer is yes, we are seeing that now. Although not widely talked about, its hitting the news today.


The Tokyo Electric Company confirmed that AREVA-manufactured fuel assemblies containing plutonium have at least partially melted down when they said that plutonium was found on five separate sites on the reactor grounds, and they had matched the plutonium signature of fuel produced at AREVA’s La Hague facility. The fuel assemblies were first loaded in the reactor at Fukushima last September and were in Reactor 3 when the 14 meter tsunami overwhelmed the nuclear plant


The plutonium signatures match proving that the plutonium found is from the fuel rods.


The main carcinogenic property of plutonium-239 arises from the energetic alpha radiation it emits. Alpha particles, being heavy, transfer their energy to other atoms and molecules within fewer collisions than the far lighter electrons which are the primary means of radiation damage for both gamma and beta radiation.1 Alpha particles travel only a short distance within living tissue, repeatedly bombarding the cells and tissue nearby. This results in far more biological damage for the same amount of energy deposited in living tissue. The relative effectiveness of various kinds of radiation in causing biological damage is known as "relative biological effectiveness" (RBE). This varies according to the type of radiation, its energy, and the organ of the body being irradiated. A simple factor, called quality factor, is used to indicate the relative danger of alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation for regulatory purposes.www.ieer.org...


We have the Japanese Government asking for the water supply to be protected, and cut off from the rainfall and rivers...

This story just popped up on Bloomberg news:

ETA: Now Bloomberg has changed the title of the article to

Fatal Radiation Detected Outside Damaged Japanese Reactor
www.bloomberg.com...
Ok I think we get the drift...Fatal = Deadly.

Radiation Outside Damaged Japan Reactor May Cause Death Within Hours

Reads one headline - The other headline says Two Months


Radiation levels that can prove fatal were detected outside reactor buildings at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, signaling a partial fuel meltdown and complicating efforts to contain the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

Water in a tunnel outside the No. 2 reactor had radiation levels exceeding 1 sievert an hour, a spokesman for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. told reporters yesterday. Exposure to that dose for 30 minutes would trigger nausea and four hours might lead to death within two months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

topics.bloomberg.com...

www.bloomberg.com...

Again that statement is from the U.S. EPA, and most likely not being reported in Japan.

Thats sad, as maybe lives could be saved.



edit on 28-3-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa

Will the body rot if it is that radioactive? Rot is decomposition due to bacterial and invertebrate invasion of the tissues... can they even survive the radioactive contamination?

I really don't know... never thought of that before...

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Why oh why didn't the japanese creat some robots that can handle radiation and repare reactors instead of the well know Love Bots...what a waste!
gizmodo.com...#!288234/honey-doll-has-touch-sensors-moans-has-fake-orgasms



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator

Originally posted by Destinyone
[...]what exactly, they plan to do with the "hundreds of tons of contaminated water", that needs to be pumped out, BEFORE anything else can be done[...]

My money is on ... they just dump it directly into the ocean.

I really don't see what else they can do. I can't think of any facility that can be used to store/contain it? I suppose they could bring-in 100's (1,000's?) of 55-Gal drums, fill them up, and then put them ... eh, somewhere else on the same site?


Sigh...yes, my thinking also. A snake eating it's own tail, never ending nightmare. But, are there any world standards of what can just arbitrarily be tossed in OUR oceans? EPA?...oh never mind...sigh...
edit on 03/28/2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)


Let's see:


One Ton = 2000 lbs
One gallon of water = 8.34 lbs

2000/8.34 = 239.8 gallons of water in a ton.
100 tons = ~ 2398 gallons.

Of course this will vary depending on solids dissolved in the water but as a rough calculation it's "close enough for government work."

How many hundreds of tons though is a question we've no way of knowing. Regardless not an easy solution and not a question I've heard asked much outside this forum.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I was gunna wait but guess I have no choice, radiation or not I started my balcony garden anyways. Guess if I'm gunna eat it from my own garden I'll probably end up eating it from the grocery store. I've got lots of canned stuff but I just can't stand grocery store produce. Radioactive dust from 5000 miles away be damned, life has gotta go on regardless till we get the call to get away from the west coast here.




top topics



 
513
<< 391  392  393    395  396  397 >>

log in

join