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: 396.htm
513
<< 393  394  395    397  398  399 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
So I was watching some videos about the radioactive rainwater found in MA and something stuck out to me.


…John Auerback, from the Department of Public Health said, “there are no anticipated public health concerns associated with this finding.” … “It is still 25 times less risky than it would need to be in order to cause any health concerns.” …


enenews.com...

The quote is said during the second video on that site.

Is it just me or does 25 times less risky sound bad? Wouldn't that mean only 25 times more radiation would need to come to the states for there to be health concerns? Maybe it's just me, but I find that a bit alarming.




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
For general info. www.nrc.gov...

Nuclear Reactors > Operating Reactors > List of Power Reactor Units
List of Power Reactor Units

oops...didn't realize how long the post was....sowwy.

Edited to remove list of all Nuclear Power Plants, and what types they are, in the U.S.

Link above has all info
edit on 03/28/2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok

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


The very last restrictions on sheep in Scotland have only just been lifted....

www.government-news.co.uk...#

www.foodanddrinkdigital.com...

"Last Chernobyl sheep monitoring restrictions lifted in Scotland

Thursday 24 June 2010
www.foodanddrinkdigital.com... " target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

The Food Standards Agency has released the last Scottish sheep farm affected by the 1986 Chernobyl accident from monitoring requirements imposed under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

In 1986, an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the former USSR (now Ukraine) released large quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere. Some of this radioactivity (primarily radiocaesium) was deposited on upland areas of the UK where sheep are farmed. To protect consumers, statutory restrictions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 were placed on the movement, sale and supply of sheep from the affected areas."



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLastStand

I have a feeling it would take a LOT of C4, but that idea might just have some merit...


Of course, burying it without letting it dissipate into the lava in the mantle means we still have a highly radioactive area, just one that has been buried.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Yikes.

Can you elaborate on the neutrons that could (in the unlikely scenario) come over here? I mean, neutrons of what? Just from the fission reaction going on, kind of the same as the neutron rays/beams? They wouldn't be in any certain form that they could test for? Is there a "mark" of these besides just geiger counter readings? Any way we can tell if they're here or not?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Hello Redneck,
Thanks for your response to my post. I have been thinking things through and I still think a boron (boric acid or?) and ceramic aggregate slurry or sand could be pumped to drop on top of the “partially” melting fuel rods now to help slow the decay rate and also create a boundary layer where it seems that seawater is in direct contact with the core.
The contact between the seawater (dumping into the Pacific Ocean) and core materials is no doubt producing a long list of “by products”.
However, Uranyl Chloride, which is created “when chlorine gas is passed over hot Uranium Dioxide (fuel rods) is UBER toxic and fully water soluble and “bio-absorbable”. This is most likely the cause of the “Tokyo yellow rain” and must also be falling down in smaller amounts in Western North America.
See: en.wikipedia.org...
I wonder if Plutonium can also for water soluble compounds under such conditions?

We need to isolate and “dilute” the corium or “partial corium” from the Pacific Ocean and a source of chlorine. Otherwise this will at the very least be pumping vast amounts of yellow death into the biosphere. Cover it with hot ceramic lava as the ceramic blends with the core.
It might also help to “seal” containment breaches in the core??? Imagine the core becoming a “cooler” magma than just corium alone. In a full meltdown we are going to lose the containment vessel at some point…..?
Thoughts?
Thanks again for all you contributions at ATS,
BKGump



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00

Yikes indeed. Which is why I was watching before for a steam explosion.

Neutrons are not detected by Geiger counters, although the gamma rays they emit can be. And outside of some complicated chemical testing, there is really no way to find them. They would come from nuclear fission and decay, making the water radioactive just as the decay makes other elements radioactive through neutron absorption.

I consider neutron radiation to be one of the most dangerous types because it is so hard to remove.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Silverlok

At fukushima there were two pools of 'waste' rods NOT IN CONTAINMENT CORES and six cores , of which only two have some power restored, and none have anywhere fully functioning cooling systems , and most of them are leaking badly. Plus we have a very bad design (single cooling loop) and a history of safety violations including a previously cracked core.


As I understand it there were seven pools of waste rods, one in each reactor building, situated, (stupidly) above the reactors, and one separate, ground-level pool in which waste was stored after it had been in the reactor cooling pools long enough to cool down sufficiently.

www.consciousbeingalliance.com...


Till now I still don't know where the ground level spent fuel pool was. I heard it had smashed windows from the tsunami. Were any rods damaged or washed away?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


In essence isn't what your saying is the definition of radioactive contamination?

Is that why fears of groundwater contamination are so high now?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


[Deep breath]

Please tell me they can't get into the jet stream or even very high above the source of decay or fission and travel any significant distances unless water vapor carries them.....right?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Procharmo

In theory there would be no MOX in the spent pool. I have no idea where they keep fresh rods?


Greater Danger Lies in Spent Fuel Than in Reactors

According to Tokyo Electric, 32 of the 514 fuel rod assemblies in the storage pond at Reactor No. 3 contain mox.

Perhaps it's fresh MOX rods being stored in the No. # spent fuel pool.


Can anyone please confirm the spent fuel rods are not the brown mushroom we saw!

No.



Has any one seen a photo of the yellow or red top of the reactor vessel in No3?

Are you sure it's not white?
There was something round and white showing in a photo of the wreckage of No. 3 reactor which I was thinking might be the top of the reactor vessel.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Yikes.

Can you elaborate on the neutrons that could (in the unlikely scenario) come over here? I mean, neutrons of what? Just from the fission reaction going on, kind of the same as the neutron rays/beams? They wouldn't be in any certain form that they could test for? Is there a "mark" of these besides just geiger counter readings? Any way we can tell if they're here or not?


Oh gawd ... free neutrons have a half life of about 10 minutes unless they are moving very fast, don't worry about it.
(They decay into a proton and electron if you are interested.)

You would be worried about Pu or Cs-137 contamination and that's about it.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Thinking about a blob of corium melting it's way through the various rock strata sends rather uneasMt shivers down my spine. Reminds me of a maggot eating it's way through And leaving a wandering tunnel behind.

The direction of flow would depend upon the material it encounters, lower melting point minerals would go first before those of higher temperatures. The ground composition is not uniform so it would likely travel a very winding path, at least I think it would.

I've also been giving some thought to the possible steam explosion. Would the ratiant heat of the corium spread through the surrounding ground causing it to dry out through evaporation? Or would it being so close to the sea preclude this?
edit on 28-3-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: Stupid iPhone

edit on 28-3-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: Stupid typos



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
What's TEPCO doing at the moment, besides pumping and flipping dead switches hoping they will come back alive again?
Shouldn't they repare to build a casing of some sort? Would it be wise to start to dump lead an sand into/onto what's left of reactor 3 with the possible upcoming steam explosion? Many nuclear testing was also done underground, also, if I'm informed correctly to test without the danger of radiation spreading. So if they throw a huge pile of lead and sand on it, couldn't that prevent worse?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BKGump

Thank you for alerting me to uranyl chloride. As you mentioned, the number of potential chemical combinations in this mess is astronomical.

Uranyl Chloride MSDS

That's some nasty stuff... exposure limit: none... extremely toxic (not including the radioactive aspects)... method of contamination: skin, eyes, injection, respiratory... recommended protection for cleanup includes self-contained respirators...

If I can find the catalog from my trucking days, I will try to scan in the immediate response sheet and placard requirements for transport... should be interesting!

Yeah, anyone in Japan... do not eat yellow snow!


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

That is a lot of it. In Japan, though, there are additional problems of dissolved radioactive elements, like the iodine-131 and cesium.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by 00nunya00

Yikes indeed. Which is why I was watching before for a steam explosion.

Neutrons are not detected by Geiger counters, although the gamma rays they emit can be. And outside of some complicated chemical testing, there is really no way to find them. They would come from nuclear fission and decay, making the water radioactive just as the decay makes other elements radioactive through neutron absorption.

I consider neutron radiation to be one of the most dangerous types because it is so hard to remove.


Neutrons decay in about 10 min, they are only dangerous next to a working reactor, they don't travel very far because they wack into stuff and slow down.

Because they are so heavy they are expensive to shield against (though H2O works well) but not hard to remove, wait 10 min.

(me hiding behind my aquarium ;-) )



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


There are neutron detectors used every day at nuclear power plants. BF3 detectors and also scintillation detectors. The scintillation detectors ar more common.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00

They [energetic neutrons] can't get into the jet stream or even very high above the source of decay or fission and travel any significant distances unless something carries them... it doesn't have to be water vapor, but that is the hardest thing to screen out of the environment and water is easily contaminated by neutrons through absorption.

Now are you seeing why I am concerned about a steam explosion?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Most of the other short-lived isotopes like iodine-131 will have decayed before they get here, and the heavier ones like Pu-239 will probably drop out over the Pacific


I notice you use the word "most"
Given the fact that the situation in Japan. is what it is and isn't stopping anytime soon...
At what levels do you think we will have any accumulation of things like iodine-131 in the U.S to affect the food chain here?



new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 393  394  395    397  398  399 >>

log in

join