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.

 

EMERGENCY! report from TWITTER - Nuclear power plant - attempts to save plant STOPPED

page: 19
104
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dbriefed
 


Bingo!

Absolutely right. A meltdown is a meltdown, is a meltdown. Core melts "slightly', 'moderately', extensively',...is it any less melted?


Love the semantic game...sort of...if decent innocent people wouldn't die as a result

edit on 13-3-2011 by servumlibertatem because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Well correct me if I'm wrong but the steam that's created buy cooling the reactors down is getting vented into the atmosphere, So that means theres still going to be alot of radiation until there totally contained. Which is why they made a 70km radius around the sites. But still how much is being released and for how long is the question. If what there saying is true.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Newbomb Turk
 



Experts: Chernobyl-style meltdown highly unlikely

This from my local news. Nuclear capital of the world.

Jim Walther, the Director of the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History, NM. I watched this segment today he said the walls are 4 feet thick, and even more for the plants in Japan (double) Then showed how the plant was built in Japan. He said what someone on the board here said in another thread ; and that is that gases built up and blew the top off the reactor. The reactor should be ok though. The video was 10 times better than the article though.

“The heat and pressure was too high causing an explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility on Saturday, possibly releasing radiation. Walther says the event wasn't even close to the "worst case scenario."

During this video at the local Nuclear Museum. (Not found in the article though. )I noticed he never ruled out a meltdown. In addition he also stated that the Chernobyl plant was built entirely different, meaning that is was a one-of- kind reactor in the world. “So, you will not see the same the kind of melt down in the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it’s entirely different plant with an entirely different conditions. “

He never ruled out a reactor meltdown though. Interesting to watch from the experts’ The Japanese visit the national labs almost monthly here for ways on improving their nuclear power plants. My neighbor up the street also nuclear physicist said the same as the director; he did not rule out a meltdown either, due to the conditions, but it’s possible then telling me there is three more things that need to happen for that. If the reactor melts it will melt into the earth first. I guess my neighbor has first hand knowledge of how this plant was built also. I don’t know what the other three are he did not elaborate on it.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oklastatefan
Well correct me if I'm wrong but the steam that's created buy cooling the reactors down is getting vented into the atmosphere, So that means theres still going to be alot of radiation until there totally contained. Which is why they made a 70km radius around the sites. But still how much is being released and for how long is the question. If what there saying is true.


My neighbor up the street a real nuclear physicist, mentioned this also. he told me that they were monitoring this closely at the national lab, since they are the nuclear consultants for the plants in japan. I hate talking this doom and gloom stuff to him. He always answers with a straight face, kind of hard to gauge his reaction, but also said it should not be at critical levels when the top exploded off. he said there will be radiation in the steam and that whats he very concerned about and the containment vessel as well. He mention the radius is going to get bigger and the conditions are not looking that good for the plant due to the EQ after-shocks. He feels the concrete around the reactor might be cracking with every aftershock. Worst case, the reactor melts into the earth like it was designed to do.

No argument here with you, your on the money with this. but it's scary hearing this from a nuclear physicist. Then we had a beer.
edit on 13-3-2011 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by servumlibertatem
 


It's called thermochemical splitting. It happens when water is split at temperatures above 1000 degrees.

The gas was in the process of deliberately being released to lower the pressure in the vessel. It then presumably ignited.

I'm quite sure there is an absolute state of panic there, and there are reports that a number of people were injured and one or two people killed as a result of the explosion. Given the trouble they're having I'd be unsurprised if the exact cause is not known. Superheated water can cause explosions as can hydrogen if it ignites.

If the containment vessel for the reactor was blown up as people are supposing, you wouldn't have such "low" radiation levels.

As for the type of the reactors, they are boiling water reactors. They may have a double closed loop cooling system, but if you get a dangerous buildup of hydrogen gas and no electricity to get rid of it, explosions may occur.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Update from BBC website around 4 minutes ago..



The Japanese government has sought to play down fears of a radiation leak at the Fukushima plant.

But the plant's operators, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), said radiation levels around the plant had now risen above permissible limits.

Government spokesman Yukio Edano acknowledged it was possible that a meltdown had occurred at reactor 3.

The BBC's Chris Hogg in Tokyo says a meltdown at reactor 3 would be potentially more serious than at the other reactors, because it is fuelled by plutonium and uranium, unlike the other units which carry only uranium.

Experts say as long as authorities can keep fuel rods in the core covered with water, they should be able to avoid a major disaster.

Emergency workers were pumping in seawater to cool the rods, but one report suggested the tops of the rods had briefly been exposed.

Technicians opened valves at reactor 3, allowing small amounts of radioactive vapour to escape in a bid to reduce the pressure in the unit.

They performed a similar operation on the first reactor, hours before the explosion that wrecked the building it was housed in.

The Japanese government doubled the size of the evacuation zone around Fukushima 1 to 20km (12.4 miles) after the blast.


www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadwalkk
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


the radiation released from those 2 bombs is peanuts compared to the radiation that can be released from these reactors


If you take it and spread it out over a very long period of time, then yes. Of course such exposer is far less dangerous. For instance I could say the exact same thing about the radiation just in the background level of everyday life. If I were to total up the amount over a great many years, then I would easily come to a number greater than a bomb blast....so its really comparing apples and oranges. As far as the jet stream.....it is normally 3000 ft high, occasionally coming down far enough to skim the tops of extremely high mountains. In general though it stays up there around 6 miles. Now if you have something DESIGNED to travel that high....like say the Fu-Go balloons that the Japanese released in WWII...then you might have a practical delivery method....There is no really good mechanism to get radioactive dust into the Jet Stream 6 miles above it....I'm not saying it can't make it up there....some of the particles just might be fine enough to be able to....But they are fine enough that they are likely to remain suspended for a long time before they enter into it, because they would have to be so fine as not to fall back to the ground. Giving them plenty of time to disperse to lower, and lower levels as they mix with the atmosphere. Its been said that even in a nuclear war, in order to get inter continental contamination on a large scale the warheads would have to be AT LEAST within the 150 kilotons range....in comparison the 2 used in Japan during WWII were around the 10-20 Kilotons range. Now it IS possible for contamination to spread here....in the 60's China tested Nuclear Weapons....most had no effect whatsoever (to the U.S.) But they did test a few VERY large yield nuclear weapons,(probably in the upper atmosphere making it more prone to getting into the jet stream....however I can't remember that for a fact) and some of that radiation indeed did make it here, where very low levels were measured in the milk of some cattle that had grazed on grass that had been slightly irradiated. Something like 900 picocuries, if I remember correctly.

To put this all in perspective our military performed a worst case scenario test in the Utah desert which amounted to 8 intentional meltdowns of small nuclear reactors, with the wind blowing just right to spread it. They tracked the radiation clouds across 210 sq miles, all according to FOIA documents. Of course it traveled farther than that....lets just say it was a borderline criminal testing of radioactivity on the US soil. Eh, forget the borderline...it was plain criminal in my book. Communities of Wendover and Knolls were in the path of the clouds. The total amount of radiation was 14 times that of the 3 mile Island incident. Even that wasn't the worst thing they have ever done. Daniel Hirch, former Director of Nuclear policy institute at the University of Santa Cruz claims that our atmospheric tests were far more dangerous, and damaging...but lets stick to the Utah case for the moment. Hirch's opinion is typical of a large number of scientists who consider the testing to have been far too extreme and to have endangered the lives of many Utah's people. So what does he think the result of the tests were? He believes it may have caused tens to hundreds of cases of Cancer through the years......
Yes...that is horrible...any Cancer death is...but consider this: if an intentional release of radiation meant to simulate 8 small reactors melting down was done INSIDE our own country....and over the years it only caused from 10's to 100's of deaths over the years....why would you think that one that has already traveled thousands of miles would really cause much of anything over here?

PS a good book to read which is well researched, and blunt, is Nuclear War Survival Skills written by Cresson H. Kearny. It does a good job of showing many of the myths that alarmists will try to frightened everyone with, without downplaying any of the true dangers.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

edit on 13-3-2011 by servumlibertatem because: another failpost



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


But isn't that what there saying blew or the reason why it lead to it blowing up was the cooling system ? If so then theres no control over the steam/radiation being released It's just continuously flowing.


Oh my I just read Storyboards post and if thats true wouldn't a plutonium and uranium cause a explosion if things went bad ?
edit on 13-3-2011 by Oklastatefan because:


edit on 13-3-2011 by Oklastatefan because: Bad grammar



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by servumlibertatem
 


Well of course it wasnt...you are correct. At the same time I wasn't basing anything I was saying on any such study...but rather the fact that there were no large scale radiation deaths, or mysterious illness reported in America within the next couple of years after the bombs were dropped. Also check out my last reply to thedeadwalkk's reply to my comment in this thread...I go into a lot more detail there, and I wouldn't want to repeat myself here



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JRCrowley
 


. Please check out my last reply to thedeadwalkk's reply to my comment in this thread...I go into a lot more detail there, and I wouldn't want to repeat myself here



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


More info, not that anyone actually cares about having that: the equivalent dose reached 21 microsieverts per hour this morning.

For comparison, going on an aeroplane exposes you to about 3 microsieverts per hour, and at various points on tours of Chernobyl you'd be exposed to about 10 microsieverts per hour.

Of course long term exposure at that level would carry some health risk.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


I do very much so. I have friends there in Japan.
Please keep it coming..



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL
reply to post by servumlibertatem
 


It's called thermochemical splitting. It happens when water is split at temperatures above 1000 degrees.

The gas was in the process of deliberately being released to lower the pressure in the vessel. It then presumably ignited.

I'm quite sure there is an absolute state of panic there, and there are reports that a number of people were injured and one or two people killed as a result of the explosion. Given the trouble they're having I'd be unsurprised if the exact cause is not known. Superheated water can cause explosions as can hydrogen if it ignites.

If the containment vessel for the reactor was blown up as people are supposing, you wouldn't have such "low" radiation levels.

As for the type of the reactors, they are boiling water reactors. They may have a double closed loop cooling system, but if you get a dangerous buildup of hydrogen gas and no electricity to get rid of it, explosions may occur.


Quite...and what temperature does fuel begin to melt? Or, rather, cladding?

I get that it's a perfectly reasonable story to release to the public...."Some H2 was created, and we just vented it into a confined space (mixing it with O2) and blew the roof off our secondary containment. No biggie."

H2, if created, is in the primary loop. Obviously, there are releases designed to vent in cases where H2 is created, or for overpressure situations.

So how does this explain blowing the lid off secondary??? The only LOGICAL conclusions are that either:

1. H2 was cracked and vented (somehow) into secondary, igniting and blowing the roof off.
2. Steam overpressure from a reactor/primary breach blew the top off...

Either case indicates a failure of primary containment, and entails an argument over best-worst, or worst-case scenarios...IMHO...

My premise i'm arguing, is that the MSM is currently LYING to people to avoid panic...and thouroughly to be expected



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Thanks, that was a good post
And somewhat made my point as well...borderline criminal



I live on the east side of the rockies, in Canada, smack-bang under the jetstream..Due to the compression of moist air from the coast/Pacific ( I forget the name of the meterorlogical effect) all the moisture 'crashes' out on the Eastern slopes and southern Alberta..IMHO, any radio crap from this event is going to fall here, if it makes it over the Pacific (which i think is a coin toss)

From what I understand of nuclear events, a meltdown is worse than any airburst, and most groundbursts.
I don't trust government/msm info at this point, given TMI/Chernobyl 'disseminations'...and have no means of self-monitoring.

As such, I shall be taking basic radiological precaution for myself and be advising the same for those I care about...or even anyone else that would listen :/

What say you, sir? Would you do the same in my shoes?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oklastatefan
reply to post by XtraTL
 


But isn't that what there saying blew or the reason why it lead to it blowing up was the cooling system ? If so then theres no control over the steam/radiation being released It's just continuously flowing.


Oh my I just read Storyboards post and if thats true wouldn't a plutonium and uranium cause a explosion if things went bad ?
edit on 13-3-2011 by Oklastatefan because:


edit on 13-3-2011 by Oklastatefan because: Bad grammar


Any explosion would be due to exploding gases. A nuclear explosion is not possible as the reactors were successfully shut down immediately when the earthquake damaged them.

Also, the reactor cores are contained inside extremely thick concrete containment vessels. These are designed to prevent release of radioactive fuel to the environment in the case of a meltdown.

There are certainly still big dangers, but possibly not of the sort people imagine. A significant release of radioactive material into the surrounding environment is still possible. It's clear that there is a constant battle going on to keep the fuel covered with water. So far it hasn't always been going well. But things are not completely out of control. Even if the entire core becomes exposed and melts, the containment vessel should contain the resulting mess.

A disaster on the scale of Chernobyl is basically not possible:

* the reactor was successfully shut down with the control rods being inserted shortly after the earthquake

* the reactor has a containment vessel designed to contain any disaster -- the containment at Chernobyl was constructed poorly

* there is no graphite fire as happened at Chernobyl.

In short, a massive environmental catastrophe due to the reactors in Japan is unlikely. Let's hope anyhow!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


I'm going to have to dig around and find the link I was talking about. They said that a uranium untis we would see what we are seeing now but with a plutonium and uranium units the problems could be much more severe due to both elements.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Oklastatefan
 


I caught that one earlier too... MESH or MOSH fuels, or something to that effect?

The 'worse' extends to radiological effects only, I believe...the decay effects of Plutonium are worse/longer lasting than that of Ur :S



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by servumlibertatem
 


I'm certain the media is not lying. They are ignorant, pure and simple. Always have been, always will be.

The Japanese officials are no doubt playing things down. And I bet the electric company has absolutely no financial incentive to report every detail of what is going on.

That there has been a leak is obvious. And no doubt the leak is ongoing. In fact, it is is no doubt deliberate, to release the pressure.

I'm only complaining about people who think the primary containment exploded exposing the core entirely to the atmosphere. There's no way you can cover something like that up. There'd be no point lying about it.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oklastatefan
reply to post by XtraTL
 


I'm going to have to dig around and find the link I was talking about. They said that a uranium untis we would see what we are seeing now but with a plutonium and uranium units the problems could be much more severe due to both elements.


Yeah some BBC reporter said this, based I think on something a greenpeace representative said.

I don't know if the reactors use some plutonium, if they run hotter or if it is more dangerous if released. The probability of plutonium being released is small anyway. And its produced in uranium reactors anyway I think. It occurs in trace amounts only naturally.
edit on 13-3-2011 by XtraTL because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
104
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join