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 Nuclear Meltdown Confirmed

page: 12
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
An interesting AMA currently going on reddit.com

IMA (former) Nuclear Emergency Planner wanting to clear up some misconceptions about the accident at Fukushima (self.IAmA)

www.reddit.com...

______________________________________________________________________________________

First -- the earthquake and tsunami in Japan is a catastrophe. The impact on the people there is tragic.

Second -- the resulting accident at Fukushima is very bad and will impact people around the plant and cause the loss of millons of dollars of lost property but there are unlikely to be any public health effects from the radiation. There may be some health effects to plant workers who are bravely working to control the accident.

Third -- even if things get much, much worse the radiation levels in the US will not approach the levels I've seen on a "Nuclear Fallout Map" credited to Australian Radiation Services. While it might be theoretically possible to take the radiation in the Fukushima core and have everyone on the west coast receive hundreds of rads of exposure as that shows, it's not possible to do it by blowing it on the wind. As a professor of mine used to say -- "I could theoritically impregnate every woman on earth. I have enough sperm, but what I lack is the delivery system." It's the same with the radioactivity in the core of a nuclear reactor.

Some information on me. I have a degree in Nuclear Engineering and a Professional Engineering License in Mechanical Engineering. I worked in the Nuclear Industry for 22 years. My experience includes refueling nuclear submarines, and working at a commercial power plant as start up test engineer, project manager and emergency planning (which included creating scenarios like the one at Fukushima as part of extensive drills that tested emergency procedures and the response of people from the plant, local communities, the state and the federal government). I've been a member of the American Nuclear Society since 1973. Here is a link to credible information about the accident ansnuclearcafe.org...
______________________________________________________________________________________
edit on 13-3-2011 by JRCrowley because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by XtraTL
 

Cernobyl was only one reactor, also we don't know the power of the reactors, so if a total meltdown happens then yes it may be another cernobyl.


Yes we do know the power of the reactors.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Blindness is ignorance my friend. Never thrust the government they are puppets of high powerful corporations.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Draken
 


LOL is not funny but it actualy did. If you do not believe anyone,go and ask those, wom lived around that region,whom have sufferred or whom are continuing to suffer as a result.

Instead off trying to criticise someone do some reasearch, maybe then you would enlighten yourself eh.

Call them liars I dare you!!
edit on 13-3-2011 by AnonymousFem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


For the mainstream media, it's all about ratings. The old "if it bleeds, it leads" cliche.The majority of people aren't interested to watch good news, for some reason. I for one wouldn't mind watching some. But look at the reality shows, they stage scripted fights so people will watch. I agree about the coverage being all over the place, and stressing the worst case scenarios, even when that possibility has diminished greatly. The talking heads try and lead the experts to talk about the worst case scenarios, and the experts doing the interviews enjoy the spotlight so they play along.

Radiation is a scary word. It's easy to keep people glued to the TV jacking up ratings using that word. But, we were all born of radiation. We live under a huge nuclear reaction, and we would all be dead without it. Radiation of course can be used as a weapon, but it can also be used to heal. Like you said, it's all sensationalism.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Have we dismissed this yet - shouldn't it be in HOAX as there has been no meltdown, and is unlikely to be one?

The reactors weer shut down - but being older style they generate at 6% and then slowly go downwards from there - in an emergency the cooling for this is supposed to be provided by diesel engines, some of which were damaged, but most of het reactors are still beign cooled OK.

Boing Boing has a great article on what's happening there.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JRCrowley
(Snip) . No one is claiming that this might be the "end of the world". What a completely asinine thing to say. Just stop it already. Stop it. It's tiring and annoying to the nth degree.


Read through some of the threads on this, chief. And no, I won't stop it. You see, I have as much right to post my asinine statements as you do to post yours. SO sorry to annoy you. Not really.



As far as your silly comment "how many times have those accidents contaminated the rest of the world?" the answer is NONE. But there's a first for everything so wake the f up and prepare yourself, because that first time is coming.


Obviously it wasn't that silly, since you answered exactly to the point I was making. Unless you're blind or retarded, you will see clearly that many are suggesting dangerous levels of radiation will make it's way here to the states.
As far as there being a "first for everything"...I'll hold my breath and make sure I add extra salt to my fries in the meantime, thanks for the warning.




Last thing: I DO NOT HAVE A problem with anyone questioning me. It is YOU who has a problem with people questioning the MSM "facts.


Um, actually those of us saying this isn't going to spread to the rest of the world are the ones who are questioning the MSM. YOU chicken littles are the ones who are playing along with the MSM. And obviously you do have a problem being questioned, since your panties got into such a wad.



You seem proud of how long you've been here at ATS - ohhh such a veteran - but you'd think with such great experience (/sarcasm) you would have learned by now that people have differing opinions, and that all opinions should be respected.


I am proud of how long I've been here. I like this site, even when posters like yourself come and go.


edit on 13-3-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Draken

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Draken
 


I gotta say, when I read your post, and read XtraTL's post, XtraTL's is not the one that comes across as misinformed. Read up about the Chernobyl here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Very clearly details the explosions, and the graphite fire contributing to the spread of radiation. Don't mean to rain on everybody's doom and gloom parade, I know it's so much more fun to get all freaked out. We just got off a scary ride with the gulf oil spill, which according to many was going to be the end of the world. On to the next doomsday scenario..



Yes but the reactor didn't not explode from nuclear material, it was the build up of pressure, which WAS happening in japan.
All im saying is you can say this is nothing like Chernobyl. Its the exact same thing, the same thing could of happened.


I understand what you are saying. There was indeed a buildup of pressure at Fukushima Daichi. But steam cannot form under pressure. So the pressure buildup is not necessarily what you think.

There are numerous things that distinguish this disaster in scale from Chernobyl:

* At Chernobyl the moderator rods were jammed and did not go in to the nuclear fuel and so it was not possible to shut down the reactor.

* At Chernobyl there was a massive steam explosion inside the actual core.

* At Chernobyl graphite was used as a moderator and it caught fire.

* At Chernobyl the construction of the containment vessel was substandard and it failed.

It's safe to say that a worse accident could have occurred in Japan than did, and also safe to say that a worse accident could still happen. But it is not true that a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl could have happened or could still happen in Japan. These are entirely different kinds of reactors, constructed to entirely different standards, using entirely different materials and the cause of the accident is entirely different.

If the power had been cut to the reactors including the backup power at the same moment when the earthquake struck, resulting in meltdown before the control rods were inserted, then maybe something approaching the level of Chernobyl, but without the graphite fire, could have happened. The simple fact remains that the redundant systems did work for long enough to shut down the reactors before the redundant systems also failed due to the tsunami.

But the buildup of pressure in these reactors is in no way comparable to the steam explosion that happened at Chernobyl.

The power of these reactors when running was between 460 and 800 MW. After shutdown this reduced to below 48 MW equivalent.

The energy in the Chernobyl reactor when it exploded is modelled to be in the vicinity of 30GW, nearly 1000 times greater and certainly beyond the hopes of the poorly constructed containment vessel to contain. The explosion literally lifted a 2000 tonne lid off the reactor, exposing the core directly to the environment.

Whilst I understand and respect what you are saying, the actual figures just don't support what you are saying.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
to those who think it all ok nothing to worry about, il say one thing..... tell that to the heros who are at the reactor site saving peoples lives and bien exposed to very very harmful radiation levels and more than likely will end up with perminant helth problems.

also to the people who think this is a chernobyl event or 10x worse. you need to seriously read up on what happened.
japan has a steal containment vessal, chernobyl didn't, japan has shut down its reactors, chernobyl was running full power when it went into meltdown, and yes it did explode, look at some pics.

either people are fearmongering or they need to get their info right imo.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I truly wish it wasn’t my fellow Americans showing such abject stupidity. Wikipedia and a computer doth not make an education. I feel as though we are in the midst of some GE shills. For those who know EVERYTHING point me to the book that you and they have read detailing the accounts of the last full-on meltdown. Hmmm I couldn’t find any either, wonder why that is? We are on the armchair of a book writing event in the world’s history. Those who are following this with skepticism are rightly doing so. I have lived through the other 2 big events and this makes three. Here is a quick explanation for my ignorant American brethren: NUKULAR BOMBS is made to convert mass very quickly assuring a very nice fireball for your eyes to witness and go oooooohhhh ah. Nuclear power plants are meant to conserve energy and release in in the form of electricity and steam. So I wonder what happens if the rods get exposed to the atmosphere? Just going to have a big ole weenie roasting pit eh? Just think man may have created the first eternal weenie roaster. Going to go get a stick? Atoms of significance have been found (if the reports can be trusted), there has been release. The question un answered at this time is from where. The where will tell all. The fact that the flooding of the one reactor is failing tells us all we need to know, THE CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE IS COMPROMISED. This means the only thing separating all of gods little atoms from escaping is a metal containment vessel. That is a fact. If the rods are in and do stay in place and the vessel stays cool, thank what or who ever you choose go pat yourself on the back and rest assured you know everything, If it doesn’t stay contained don’t pretend you even have a clue, because you do not have a clue. The only ones who have a clue will probably not live to tell about it

I have to say I did love the reasoning the one fellow gave us explaining why we do not have more nuclear power plants. Yeah the logic is astounding, and flawless. Take something hazardous, make it really really hazardous, use it too, hmmm what could we do with this crap, oh I know, we can boil water with it!!!!! GENIUS I tell ya, what about the waste, hmmm I dunno, bury it I guess…..GENIUS!!!!!! Let’s go celebrate ourselves, we are truly masters of our environment… What could possibly go wrong?

I have seen a lot of disasters and the only one the Gov’t ever was honest about up front was Mt. Saint Helens and they couldn’t really deny it or hide it. All the rest, well, trust them at your own peril. But that’s just me. Oh by the way get a load of this, probably will call me liar right, did you know mercury used to be safe, and so did Asbestos, well it was safe until one day they said, Ahem, cough, we have some bad news. Anyone want to add to that list?

Perhaps we would all do better to think about those who will surely die so others they have never met will live. Not because they don’t want GE stock to tank when the market opens. Carry on.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
There is a meltdown going on in two reactors, but as long as the protective wall of the reactor is in place it doesn't essentially release huge amounts of radioactivity. Also it was so far not a massive meltdown but probably rather a partly meltdown.

It's even already in the wikipedia entry

Reactor 3 of Fukushima I which is also at risk even contains plutonium which is more dangerous than uranium.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Have we dismissed this yet - shouldn't it be in HOAX as there has been no meltdown, and is unlikely to be one?

The reactors weer shut down - but being older style they generate at 6% and then slowly go downwards from there - in an emergency the cooling for this is supposed to be provided by diesel engines, some of which were damaged, but most of het reactors are still beign cooled OK.

Boing Boing has a great article on what's happening there.


I think HOAX implies an intentional decision on the part of the OP to provide false information. I don't think that has happened here.

There was a partial meltdown, probably in two of the reactors and that was reported by the MSM.

However, the information is over a day old now and of limited value.

Edit: I just realised the OP actually posted it 24 hours ago.
edit on 13-3-2011 by XtraTL because: Corrected my complaint about the information being out-of-date



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL

Originally posted by Draken

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Draken
 


I gotta say, when I read your post, and read XtraTL's post, XtraTL's is not the one that comes across as misinformed. Read up about the Chernobyl here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Very clearly details the explosions, and the graphite fire contributing to the spread of radiation. Don't mean to rain on everybody's doom and gloom parade, I know it's so much more fun to get all freaked out. We just got off a scary ride with the gulf oil spill, which according to many was going to be the end of the world. On to the next doomsday scenario..



Yes but the reactor didn't not explode from nuclear material, it was the build up of pressure, which WAS happening in japan.
All im saying is you can say this is nothing like Chernobyl. Its the exact same thing, the same thing could of happened.


I understand what you are saying. There was indeed a buildup of pressure at Fukushima Daichi. But steam cannot form under pressure. So the pressure buildup is not necessarily what you think.

There are numerous things that distinguish this disaster in scale from Chernobyl:

* At Chernobyl the moderator rods were jammed and did not go in to the nuclear fuel and so it was not possible to shut down the reactor.

* At Chernobyl there was a massive steam explosion inside the actual core.

* At Chernobyl graphite was used as a moderator and it caught fire.

* At Chernobyl the construction of the containment vessel was substandard and it failed.


At Chernobyl there was a nuclear criticality accident (known as detonation, but not contained like a weapon) which caused the damage and subsequent the steam explosion. This was personally confirmed to me by a Ukranian physicist visiting the institute where I used to work; they measured the various isotope concentrations. By working back from the short term ones they recognized a spike (corresponding to a rapid point surge of fission) which must have occurred at the initial moment of the accident. Subsequently a graphite core caught on fire, and there was no reinforced containment building. It was worst-case of worst cases upon idiotic blunders. (and the planet still survived).

The Japanese accident will be a major financial problem. It will not likely be a major health or safety problem.

Japan already has suffered an actual catastrophe.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by scoobyrob
to those who think it all ok nothing to worry about, il say one thing..... tell that to the heros who are at the reactor site saving peoples lives and bien exposed to very very harmful radiation levels and more than likely will end up with perminant helth problems.


Actually, in the plants they have radiation monitors. They also wear protective gear.

The radiation level inside is measured at about 10 microsieverts, rising sometimes to 20 microsieverts. Long term exposure to that would slightly elevate your risk of cancer. However it's only marginally higher than going on an aeroplane.

I am of course assuming that TEPCO are telling the truth. This is not guaranteed, as I have read that the Japanese nuclear industry have tried to cover up disasters before. You can *almost* see why, given the unbelievable hysteria surrounding nuclear power generation.

Given the number of coal miners that die from lung cancer from coal dust and from explosions in coal mines, the number of oil and natural gas platform workers that die due to accidents on oil rigs, etc. many of the alternatives aren't exactly safe either. And of course massive environmental catastrophes occur on account of some of these other methods of power generation too.

Hydro, solar, geothermal are probably safer. Of course building hydro dams causes greenie protests due to the damning of river valleys that has to occur.
edit on 13-3-2011 by XtraTL because: corrected



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
You know for being so "technologically advanced" and on the "cutting edge" of nuclear power safety.. why on earth you you simply rely on diesel generators to provide cooling for the reaction?

They should have redundancies on top of redundancies. I just find it sickening you would even consider building one on fault lines and tsunami territory. Where was the finger shaking back when we helped develop these systems for the Japanese? Can I go build a power plant on a fault line? How do these freaking people get away with such carelessness? 8 feet containment walls is far from enough I dont care what an egg head says.

The ability to cool these things should be absolutely failsafe no exceptions. Did they test the generator assemblies for earthquake stability? You would think if they were so smart they would be designed to withstand a 20.0 magnitude quake.... am I wrong?
edit on 13-3-2011 by Mailman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
At Chernobyl there was a nuclear criticality accident (known as detonation, but not contained like a weapon) which caused the damage and subsequent the steam explosion. This was personally confirmed to me by a Ukranian physicist visiting the institute where I used to work; they measured the various isotope concentrations. By working back from the short term ones they recognized a spike (corresponding to a rapid point surge of fission) which must have occurred at the initial moment of the accident. Subsequently a graphite core caught on fire, and there was no reinforced containment building. It was worst-case of worst cases upon idiotic blunders. (and the planet still survived).


I can certainly believe all that. Thanks for the extra information.

An interesting thing that came out of the Chernobyl thing was a revelation of how persistently idiotic the media was. They repeated ad nauseum that there was no containment vessel at Chernobyl at all and that a similar nuclear accident could never happen in the US because they all had containment vessels.

This was of course an utter fabrication for the sake of sensationalisation and/or to paint the Russians as being inferior to the Americans. Of course nearly everyone believed this report at the time because almost no one questioned the media.

Nowadays of course the public just aren't interested. They prefer to read about what Jordan and Alex are up to and don't care if the info they are getting is sensationalised or not. My guess is the media make it as sensational as possible to try and get people's attention who would otherwise ignore it.

It's also very difficult to study an issue and figure out what the truth is before everyone has already made up their minds based on the information put out on the net by people who have absolutely no interest in the truth. It takes a whole lot less time to make something up than it does to read multiple sources and figure out who's doing the lying.
edit on 13-3-2011 by XtraTL because: Added story about the media at the time of Chernobyl.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
THIS IS JUST AN OBSERVATION: if we are all Nuclear Scientists and on the job with Japan what are we doing huddled around ATS ?

Sometimes I just realize I am taking myself way too seriously...( laughing at my self )

We dont have the answers.....



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mailman
You know for being so "technologically advanced" and on the "cutting edge" of nuclear power safety.. why on earth you you simply rely on diesel generators to provide cooling for the reaction?


They also have batteries I believe. And because the reaction doesn't shut completely off instantly, they can also still generate some electricity from the steam.


Originally posted by Mailman
They should have redundancies on top of redundancies. I just find it sickening you would even consider building one on fault lines and tsunami territory. Where was the finger shaking back when we helped develop these systems for the Japanese? Can I go build a power plant on a fault line? How do these freaking people get away with such carelessness? 8 feet containment walls is far from enough I dont care what an egg head says.


There aren't too many options for Japan. They have massive power requirements and few options for cheaply generating power. Something like 30% of their power comes from nuclear and they are still pretty stretched.
They were about to increase it to 40%.


Originally posted by Mailman
The ability to cool these things should be absolutely failsafe no exceptions. Did they test the generator assemblies for earthquake stability? You would think if they were so smart they would be designed to withstand a 20.0 magnitude quake.... am I wrong?
edit on 13-3-2011 by Mailman because: (no reason given)


They did actually test the assemblies for earthquake stability.

It's conjectured that earthquakes cannot exceed a certain level. The crust can only withstand so much deformation before "snapping" back. As the Richter scale is logarithmic, 20.0 is absolutely out of the question. That would rupture the solar system, not a puny fault line in Japan.

But you're right. You'd think this sort of accident just wouldn't be possible. I've heard they tested the structures for a quake up to about 8.0 and only for a single shock, not for multiple successive shocks. I don't know if this information is accurate or not. But I am sure there'll be lots of questions asked.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mailman
You know for being so "technologically advanced" and on the "cutting edge" of nuclear power safety.. why on earth you you simply rely on diesel generators to provide cooling for the reaction?

They should have redundancies on top of redundancies. I just find it sickening you would even consider building one on fault lines and tsunami territory. Where was the finger shaking back when we helped develop these systems for the Japanese? Can I go build a power plant on a fault line? How do these freaking people get away with such carelessness? 8 feet containment walls is far from enough I dont care what an egg head says.

The ability to cool these things should be absolutely failsafe no exceptions. Did they test the generator assemblies for earthquake stability? You would think if they were so smart they would be designed to withstand a 20.0 magnitude quake.... am I wrong?


One issue the atom industry have is that if nuclear power plants would operate at more than 99.95% safety plus if they assured safety of the nuclear waste for at least 100 years, it would cost much more than solar-, wind- or water power stations.


The safety of other western nuclear power stations is not considerable better. Only difference is that most western countries have much lower risk of serious earth quakes and tsunamis.
edit on 13-3-2011 by Fenrin because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mailman
You know for being so "technologically advanced" and on the "cutting edge" of nuclear power safety.. why on earth you you simply rely on diesel generators to provide cooling for the reaction?

They should have redundancies on top of redundancies.


They do. The diesel generators are the backup systems, and they have backups to the backups. In normal cases the diesel generators do not need to run, they get electricity from the generation turbines.

Electricity generation from the plant is obviously off and the grid is disconnected, so they're using the generators to power the control room & other functions. It appears to be functioning as intended.

Some modern reactors (designed, not yet built) have some emergency cooling systems which can operate with gravity alone.







 
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join