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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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)
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?
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.