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: 397.htm
513
<< 394  395  396    398  399  400 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


steam explosion or flash over has to due with thermal conductivity time and temperature differential , water ins one of the best things to move heat ever , but it will do a duck and cover if some heavy hitting heat comes it's way ( water vapor is ten times less dense than air per unit volumne so it expands very rapidly when being transformed into vapor, and just like gun powder rapid expansion is what powers the explosion)

check out the video of kids farting around with molten coper
hell since it's the top of the page i'll re-post it

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




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So do they "last longer than 10 minutes" or not?

I assume you're worried abut that steam explosion for a reason other than the immediate ten minutes afterwards, right? I mean, hopefully you're wrong and they're absolutely nothing to be worried about further than 10 minutes from their source, but I'd like to clarify in either case because there's very conflicting information, and it's hard to know what's right when someone asserts something like neutron insignificance flippantly and confidently, and people like myself who seem to have missed the "what kind of nuclear stuff is dangerous" lesson in school can't discern who's right.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok

check out the video of kids farting around with molten coper


I shouldn't be laughing here, but that line at the end "Lets not do that again"

Was priceless.



edit on 28-3-2011 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by okiecowboy
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?



I would imagine it would accumulate over time. So in 2 months time if they are still leaking radiation at the current rate the amount in various world wide locations will increase based on weather patterns.

I see it like a dripping tap. One drop in a bath won't hurt. But in a few months it could drown you!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SDoradus
 


I do appreciate your assurances, but can you link me to something that explains how neutron radiation caused by decay or fission in a nuclear reactor accident behaves when released as steam into the atmosphere? I would like to read about the process of its being made safe within a short amount of time.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by Silverlok

check out the video of kids farting around with molten coper


I shouldn't be laughing here, but that line at the end "Lets not do that again"

Was priceless.



edit on 28-3-2011 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)

Yeah, that had my wife and myself rolling.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I know the Japanese situation is appalling and depressing , and for Europeans probably a little scary seeing as we her ein the U.S. have about ten of those types of plants ( with storage pools over flowing with waste rods) situated on or near the New Madrid quake zone , but I think we should all take a moment and let this little guy re-friend us on nukes:





I know he's so loveable, right? gosh how could I ever have want to dump this cute little fella and according to
Nuclear Britian, those rods that no one wants and on one knows what do to with aren't called "waste"
oh no
They are called 'spent fuel' , see doesn't that just make you feel warm all over?
and peter joseph goes on to say,


The handling of the reactor issues in Japan, far from being a catastrophe and a 'death blow' to nuclear power actually demonstrate that in the face of the largest natural disaster the country has ever experienced problems can be overcome. So let's do whatever we can to ensure than the events of Fukushima over the past few days will be remembered for the right reasons rather than wrong ones because the coming wave of baseless, unnecessary anti-nuclear bile will pose a direct threat to Britain's (and the worlds) future energy security.


See, it's important to focus on the right reasons.... because I am SURE that a nuclear reactor will never , ever , ever have any problems with MAGNOX fuel rods, I mean they are only uranium INSIDE OF MAGNESIUM CLADDING inside of graphite, which in the event of any emergency are not flamable in anyway, right?






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



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 

I love the quote ... "Yeah, let's not do that again."
Spoken like a potential Darwin-Award winner!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
i have been following this thread since the beginning, but got lost in all the pages. anyways, i cane across a couple newer interesting videos and dont think they have been posted here yet. thought they where good.



and this one with a nuclear expert


edit on 06/02/2010 by letscit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


LOL, yep, just "spent" like a tired boxer.
But they're right, they're still not waste----because soon they'll be shoved into the ground in Utah to heat up all the oil trapped in the shale there so it can be extracted CHEAPLY! Yay! Just think, no more nuclear waste, only repurposed "spent" rods traveling all over the country on truck beds and freight trains.....those never have accidents or safety issues themselves, right? Oh, no matter, if they're safe enough to shove into the ground, they must be safe enough to spill all over the ground.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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

Yes, bacteria are hardy buggers.
Even if radiation kills 99% of them, the remaining 1% will proliferate rapidly with no competition, and pass on their ability to survive to their descendants.

One of the problems in treating victims of radiation exposure is treating the opportunistic infections which their bodies can no longer fight off. It's a bit like treating AIDS patients in that way.

That's evolution for you.
... I've been following the evolution/creation threads for a while.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

steam explosion or flash over has to due with thermal conductivity time and temperature differential , water ins one of the best things to move heat ever , but it will do a duck and cover if some heavy hitting heat comes it's way

In terms of "heavy heat", I think we were talking about several thousand degrees Celsius.
From the Wikipedia Article ...


The temperature of corium can be as high as 2400°C in the first hours after the meltdown and can reach over 2800°C



The Chernobyl corium is composed from the reactor uranium dioxide fuel, its zircaloy cladding, molten concrete, and decomposed and molten serpentinite packed around the reactor as its thermal insulation. Analysis has shown that the corium was heated to at most 2255 °C, and remained above 1660 °C for at least 4 days.


I guess that qualifies?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
reply to post by Kailassa
 

That link is 404

7? damn. I though only two of them had rods though, if all seven had rods then the initial explosion at numbers three powdered a few doughnuts


Yes. Sadly, it was seven.
- And the spent fuel pool above reactor 3 contained MOX fuel.
www.nytimes.com...

That link works fine for me, just tried it again.
But here's another site with the same chart. I hope this one works for you.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Do you think they will make provision for plant No2's 4 rectors to be self sustaining should a full melt down occur at any of the 6 reactors at plant No1?

Molten radiative lava pouring on to the beach could cause even the guys at Plant 2 to need to evacuate.

There has been no mention of the workers at Fukshima Dani.

2.bp.blogspot.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
You know when you look at that latest video, knowing that there WERE containment pools for waste rods full to overflowing at the top of each and every reactor in "flimsy containment":




Where did they go? The #4 pool has been reported on fire twice so far, but it's hard to image that those first two blasts didn't blow that stuff sky high, seriously does anyone see anything like the containment vessel from the diagram above in any of those wrecked buildings?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hello everyone,

having read through a lot of pages to catch up I have to say again how much I appreciate the overall way things are presented here.

It really seems like "they" are folllowing this thread and announcing stuff a day after we make it plain that they should have already.

Not sure if that makes sense. Hope it does. Frankly right now my head is spinning from trying to assimilate so much. So, please forgive me, but I can't recall exactly who were discussing how many gallons/tons of water had been pumped/sprayed into the reactor buildings and hence how much might need to be pumped out again.

Obviously, there have been -- errrm -- losses of water via leaks and steam released, but all the same I figured any reference to amounts might be useful. I recall some days ago reading a news report that mentioned a figure of 3,000 tons of water being pumped in by fire engines, and though I wasn't able to find that report I did find this .pdf that mentions the same figure, plus a higher one of 3,900 tons. Most of these thousands of tons of water were pumped into reactor building 3.

Something that might help. Or I dunno, maybe it won't as I guess most US based members also know metrics anyway. But for the few who might not, the simple formula is that 1 litre of water weighs 1 kilo, and one (metric) ton of water is 1,000 kilos and therefore 1,000 litres. One ton of water also 1 cubic metre.

So, as there are around 3.8 litres to one US gallon, you can easily work out your gallons if you know any of the following: how many tons of water, or how many litres, or what volume of water in cubic metres. Yes, I know you can do all that with gallons and cubic feet and so forth, but this might be faster.

Rough figure: 3,000 tons of water is 3,000,000 litres. That's a bit under 790,000 US gallons.

Oh, in case you're wondering about the fact that as the water was sea water (which is denser than fresh water) then the number of gallons will be less. Frankly I don't think that will matter for the purposes of any calculations you want to do on how much water is where. This is because the fire truck pumps are rated in litres/hr, or even cubic metres/hr (it amounts to the same thing as the conversion is a snap in a base ten system). (In the US they'd be GPH.) They don't meter the mass (and hence the density) of the water, just its volume. That "3,000 ton" figure would have been derived by getting the pump rate and hours details from the pump crews and then converting the total litres back into tons, and very likely they didn't bother to factor in the density differences between salt water and fresh.

I recall that Washington Post seven-page report we've discussed (and which mentioned Pu-239 release on page 7) also shows a schematic of a reactor building with measurements included.

Okay I'm off to bed. Night, all.

Darn, wait a minute, one other thing I wanted to mention. Four days after the quake, the spent rod pool in reactor building #5 was losing water. In just a couple of hours it lost six times the amount it should lose in a whole day from boiling and evaporation. Ergo, it apparently leaked or did a lot of boiling. But since then I've not heard a word more about it and that worries me a bit. Again, it's in the Washington Post report. Here's the link. Details on page 5.

By the way, that report, which was seven pages, has now been revised down to six pages. I'm not sure what they took out or edited down. Perhaps something that was no longer relevant or superceded. But that stuff about #5 and its water loss is still there.

If someone has the time, perhaps getting copies of that report wouldn't be a bad idea. Hard to say when they'll revise it down again.

Okay it's after 1 am so I have to sleep.

Mike
edit on 28/3/11 by JustMike because: typos. Sorry if I missed any.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


There is that pesky chart again..showing seawater being pumped into reactor 4....

but yet all the rods were removed from the reactor before the earthquake?????



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Am I the only one who think that the 1000 millisiervert number SUSPECT?

I mean... exactly 1000 millisievert? Really? Sounds like an ``Hollywood number`` to me... or the ``maximum reading`` on your counter...

Why is it not 1065 millisievert? Or 985? Why is it exactly 1000? That number is not the reality IMO.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


That one worked thanks , I just love how the times gives us figures like

has either 64 large fuel rods or 81 slightly smaller fuel rods. A typical fuel rod assembly has roughly 380 pounds of uranium.

that don't allow for calculation as to how much total fuel was there exactly. And even less info about the MOX, two interesting things though this bit about another containment problem at a different location

A spent fuel pool at Rokkasho spilled over, and power at the plant was lost, triggering backup generators, Japan Nuclear Fuel said.


and the fact we are seeing media creeping (again) as the MSM dial moves a little farther away from our NUCLEAR BRITAIN friends view and a little closer to the disaster view

I think that if anything good comes from this disaster it will be the fact that all these reactors (especially in the U.S.) are nuclear waste time bombs that need to be address NOW no matter the cost ( and after watching this Tepco debacle if the try to make the tax payer pay for it I am getting out my pitch fork torch and goon boots )
edit on 28-3-2011 by Silverlok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

In the original NHK TV reports, the TEPCO representative said the amounts were "more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour".

As to how much more? Well, he didn't say. And apparently (and incredibly), no-one asked!

Best regards and I am definitely off to get some zzzz's,

MIke



new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 394  395  396    398  399  400 >>

log in

join