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.
Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
yes and no. it does literally melt into the earth, but thats when it gets dangerous and has a chance to explode, spewing radioactive contagion into the jetstream and everywhere around it. it would cause a disaster before it got its way to the water, but in the end is almost worse.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Newbomb Turk
I love how the news is telling everyone
"it is not as bad as it sounds. Everything will be okay. Only small amounts of radiation. Experts are predicting nothing big will happen.
Oh, and by the way . . . the evacuation zone was expanded from 6 miles to 12 miles."
WTF is that?
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by shadowkhas
Link
--So, if it can't explode, what does happen in a nuclear reactor? The answer is what is called a meltdown. When a meltdown occurs in a reactor, the reactor "melts". That is, the temperature rises in the core so much that the fuel rods actually turn to liquid, like ice turns into water when heated. If the core continued to heat, the reactor would get so hot that the steel walls of the core would also melt. In a complete reactor meltdown, the extremely hot (about 2700� Celsius) molten uranium fuel rods would melt through the bottom of the reactor and actually sink about 50 feet into the earth beneath the power plant. The molten uranium would react with groundwater, producing large explosions of radioactive steam and debris that would affect nearby towns and population centers. --edit on 3/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)
Reuters: The emergency cooling system is no longer functioning at the Fukushima No. 3 reactor, an official from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has told journalists.
Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by Amaterasu
I certainly think that we ought to review the safety guidelines for nuclear power in the wake of this.
If they do manage to contain and avoid a disastrous meltdown (which I think is very possible) the nuclear industry will be making a lot of noise about how all of Japans reactors surviving such a pwerful natural disaster is a big PASS for nuclear safety and sustainability.
However, we must remember how close this came to something worse, and it reminds me of warnings a fellow ATSer posted some time back about how vulnerable (US) nuclear power plants may be to other natural disasters - also I think highlighting cooling system/control system damage - but from say mega-eruption deep ash-falls...?