posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:23 AM
Originally posted by XtraTL
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Originally posted by ethancoop
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
the design is such that it can't melt down to the bedrock. that's why it's called a containment vessel.
"Containment Vessel" DOES NOT mean; cannot melt through. It only means it "contains" the heat and radiation. 6 feet of steel and graphite or
concrete, is there to STOP the Neutrinos and contain a blast from gases -- it CANNOT stop a melt down.
It can't stop a meltdown, You are right. Only cooling will prevent that.
However, the containment vessel is designed to contain it. What happens if the steel vessel melts is the molten fuel drops out and distributes over
the very thick concrete, spreading it out and cooling it. Then there's one big cleanup bill. Of course you don't just abandon the reactor and let
that happen. It's the last line of defense.
Fortunately we are not at that stage yet.
Here's a link to a diagram. Note the fuel is encased in zirconium inside the core. Then you see the big steel vessel in the middle of the building.
Outside that is the enormous concrete vessel I'm talking about.
edit on 13-3-2011 by XtraTL because: Added link to diagram.
on 13-3-2011 by XtraTL because: Broken link
>> Since you seem to be more versed in the containment on these reactors -- does the design work if there is NO POWER or water to cool it? Meaning --
does it work with simple gravity?
The "burn down" into graphite or other "gravity cooling" designs, seem to be good for dealing with catastrophic failures.
>> HOWEVER, the venting going on, and does not bode well. If there is a steady stream of steam -- or hydrogen gas release -- that means it's at
critical temperatures, and THAT would mean -- the Uranium is molten and pooling. The release of radioactive gases at a certain level, isn't a need
for panic -- but the releasing of GAS, means something worse.
The problem is; it's not likely that the TRUTH would come out until it is too late. They would be working to suppress a melt down -- and admitting to
a "melt down" would cause more disaster and panic. How do you evacuate 100 miles around a reactor? So, whether well intentioned or not -- standard
"humans" in charge would lie about a melt down as long as they could. The truth won't change whether they can control it or not -- and if they can
control it, no harm, no foul. If they CAN'T control it -- a lot of people are going to die for sure. A panic, however, will guarantee a large loss of
>> Also, in the BP oil spill -- we saw a desire to hide everything, and say nothing but "it's not so bad." In ten years, when people are affected
by the oil and dispersants, those closest to being a fault, can act surprised and speculate that something else caused all the fish to die or people
to die decades earlier than they should have.
Hopefully, the CYA factor is NOT a primary concern for those handling this mess -- but you always need to look out for the CYA factor when speculating
about how bad a threat from some large plant is going to be.