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 ANNED
Forget Chernobyl. think Three Mile Island.
www.world-nuclear.org...
www.world-nuclear.org...
The reactors in japan are of a completely different type.
...
The act of burning through the reactor vessel floor and the containment building floor will dilute the fuel to a non critical mass and stop the reaction.
Originally posted by Thepreye
One more reason to get off the nuclear weapons train and start using Thorium reactors for our civil needs, at the very least around the ring of fire or other earthquake hot spots, if Iran had gone the Thorium route there would be no hassle there either.
You can have cake, just don't eat too much
Originally posted by 12voltz
Humans are not smart enough to be messing around with nuclear power,if we were this scenario would not be taking place.Earthquake or no earthquake .You cant have your yellowcake and eat it tooedit on 12-3-2011 by 12voltz because: of the inevitable consequences
Originally posted by jonnywhite
You can have cake, just don't eat too much
Originally posted by 12voltz
Humans are not smart enough to be messing around with nuclear power,if we were this scenario would not be taking place.Earthquake or no earthquake .You cant have your yellowcake and eat it tooedit on 12-3-2011 by 12voltz because: of the inevitable consequences
And you know coal power plants in the USA, it's estimated, kill more than 13,000 people and cost us about $100 billion in healthcare costs (heart attacks, lung cancer, etc) EVERY YEAR. This is a conservative estimate, of course. Studies 10 years ago were substantially worse because in the past 10 years we have installed over a hundred scrubbers which clean away some of hte fine particles that were previously emitted. Nonetheless, a lot of people suffer from health problems due to particles released from the burning of coal every year in the US.
If you added up total number of losses due to coal and total number of losses due to nuclear I don't think the results would be even in the same ballpark. Not comparable. Coal is worse.
And keep in mind that this nuclear power plant having the problems is 40 years old. Later generation designs do not suffer from the same dangers. In fact, they're virtually 100% safe. The issue of waste is still a concern, though. Until we move to fast-breeders or something else.edit on 12-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by westcoast
Originally posted by Zona
reply to post by Newbomb Turk
Nice find OP. I hope this guy is wrong, but I fear he is not. I think this reactor is on its way to a full-blown meltdown.
I agree with the other poster who is asking for prayers.
PLEASE...Does anyone know what a full-blown melt-down means?????? What would happen?
Originally posted by baraka
reply to post by Seekeye2
Well i dont think hell is going to break loose and you shouldnt compare the reactors of fukushima with chernobyl because they have a diferent architecture and are more robust...
the worst case scenario is a new earthquake that would crack that massive protective concrete of the reactors and then u would have a problem... but what are the odds of that happen? (gotta stay positive on this )
Another thing: i believe there were only 2 faulty reactors (the fukushima ones) and not 5!edit on 12-3-2011 by baraka because: (no reason given)