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.

 

Reuters: Russia says Japan may face meltdown at six reactors

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Searched, couldn't find this posted yet.


(Reuters) - Russia's nuclear chief warned on Tuesday that all six reactors at a stricken Japanese nuclear plant could melt down unless the authorities scrambled to cool down the nuclear fuel rods. [ID:LDE72E0A0]

Japan is grappling with a nuclear disaster after the quake-crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant exploded in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Soviet Ukraine.


www.reuters.com...

It says this won't result in an explosion (chain reaction), but 6 cores melting down will be a even more serious radiation leak than we're already facing. Which isn't good.
edit on 15-3-2011 by amcdermott20 because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Mar 15 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: EXTERNAL QUOTE TAGS NEEDED IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by amcdermott20
 


Wow I'm typing this a lot today:




Nuclear fission takes place when an atom of fissile material (uranium) decays. In this radioactive decay, the atom loses a neutrino. When this happens, some of the atoms mass is converted into energy. In a nuclear power plant large amounts of fissile material and gathered together to give a neutrino a better chance of hitting an atom, which releases a neutrino, which hits and atom, etc etc etc. They use graphite medium to capture some of the neutrinos, essentially keeping the reaction at a barely sustainable level. Atoms are mostly space, which is why they need so much fuel in a reactor. A bomb uses the same principle but is different. A power plant is a controlled reaction, and bomb is uncontrolled. With a bomb, a conventional explosive is used to push the fissile material closely together to reach what is called "critical mass". This is essentially saying the material is packed so densely that any neutrino is guaranteed to hit an atom. Once this starts, it's an uncontrollable (and unstoppable) chain reaction. As each atom splits, converting some mass to energy, we get a nuclear blast. Because the fuel used in reactors is not crunched into critical mass, it can not sustain a chain reaction. The nuke plants won't explode like atomic weapons.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

The plants can't explode in a nuclear chain reaction. What can happen is they fail to cool the rods, they create another hydrogen explosion, the rods meltdown, breach the floor of the containment field, and start making its way to the center of the earth, like Chernobyl.

The danger for anyone outside of Japan comes from the potential fires and non nuclear explosions, blasting irradiated particulate into the air.
edit on Tue Mar 15 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS


I've added a link to the source thread I quoted myself from, hope that clears it up? This is a quote of myself. I was unaware I had to provide source links for quotes of myself. I figured the header explaining that I've typed it a lot would be a tip off. no harm no foul.
edit on 15-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
How dangerous is it all REALLY?

I ask because my husband thinks all of the news "hype" is just that - hype to sell the news and create something interesting for its listeners/readers.

He believes that nuclear power is the Safest form of power. That because "only" a few people have actually died from ANY/ALL of the "meltdowns" that this new problem in Japan is not something to worry about.

I have No Idea what to think! I find it all very scary and just can't imagine what the people of Japan are going through - it is beyond my imagination!!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
So much for my four nuclear horsemen of the apocalypse.
It just keeps getting worse and worse.
And let's keep an eye on that Saudi/Bahrain situation too.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
All six reactors …. really?

That’s interesting …… but perhaps “Russia's nuclear chief” can explain how all six reactors are going to melt down when two of them aren’t even fueled.

Think about it for a second and apply some skepticism to what you read regarding this event. When “experts” cant even get the basic facts of the story strait, what does it tell you about their analysis?
edit on 15-3-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mappam
How dangerous is it all REALLY?

I ask because my husband thinks all of the news "hype" is just that - hype to sell the news and create something interesting for its listeners/readers.

He believes that nuclear power is the Safest form of power. That because "only" a few people have actually died from ANY/ALL of the "meltdowns" that this new problem in Japan is not something to worry about.

I have No Idea what to think! I find it all very scary and just can't imagine what the people of Japan are going through - it is beyond my imagination!!


I'd say fairly dangerous

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Chernobyl was obviously much worse, our only Level 7 incident ever, but you included "ANY/ALL meltdowns".

70 dead immediately and...


Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. However, compared to the total amount released by nuclear weapons testing during the 1950s and 1960s, the Chernobyl disaster released 100 to 1000 times less radioactivity.[49] The fallout was detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula.


For instance, the infamous three mile island incident was far more contained
en.wikipedia.org...-accident



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
All six reactors …. really?

That’s interesting …… but perhaps “Russia's nuclear chief” can explain how all six reactors are going to melt down when two of them aren’t even fueled.

Think about it for a second and apply some skepticism to what you read regarding this event. When “experts” cant even get the basic facts of the story strait, what does it tell you about their analysis?
edit on 15-3-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)


It tells volumes, I didn't know two of the reactors were not supplied with fuel. I only did a quick search, do you mind posting a source for this? Not calling you out, just interested.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


The problem is my man Phish (DAVID BOWIE!!!) that there will be fires from the core that will put it in the atmosphere.....but yes i agree to many people hear nuclear and think boom



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
All six reactors …. really?

That’s interesting …… but perhaps “Russia's nuclear chief” can explain how all six reactors are going to melt down when two of them aren’t even fueled.

Think about it for a second and apply some skepticism to what you read regarding this event. When “experts” cant even get the basic facts of the story strait, what does it tell you about their analysis?
edit on 15-3-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)


My guess is that the "expert" was talking about the used fuel rod storage. Those can still melt down if they have not cooled down enough in storage -- #4 yesterday had a hydrogen explosion because of the used fuel rods and it was not fueled.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


edition.cnn.com...

www.monstersandcritics.com...

Agreeably vague, but these two sources seem to indicate that the cooling systems aren't functioning right on 5 and 6.

I don't know a great deal about nuclear power (obviously) but does this not mean that they reactors are fueled and running? They are certainly generating heat at least.

edit: whoops rogerstigers answered my question about them being fueled already, sorry!
edit on 15-3-2011 by amcdermott20 because: my own ignorance



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
not so vague news.yahoo.com...

Japan braces for potential radiation catastrophe

How Likely Is Full-Scale Meltdown? Play Video ABC News – How Likely Is Full-Scale Meltdown?

* Japan hit by huge earthquake, tsunami Slideshow:Japan hit by huge earthquake, tsunami
* Japan's Rescue Teams Persist Play Video Video:Japan's Rescue Teams Persist ABC News
* Japan Tsunami Engulfs Fishing Village Play Video Video:Japan Tsunami Engulfs Fishing Village ABC News

A man looks at the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Ofunato town, in Iwate Prefecture Reuters – A man looks at the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Ofunato town, in Iwate Prefecture March …
By Shinichi Saoshiro and Chisa Fujioka Shinichi Saoshiro And Chisa Fujioka – 58 mins ago

TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan faced a potential catastrophe on Tuesday after a quake-crippled nuclear power plant exploded and sent low levels of radiation floating toward Tokyo, prompting some people to flee the capital and others to stock up on essential supplies.
from the posted link, and then get this, also from link

Officials in Tokyo -- 240 km (150 miles) to the south of the plant -- said radiation in the capital was 10 times normal by evening but posed no threat to human health in the sprawling high-tech city of 13 million people.
i think if you have a bomb dropped on you then this is just a day at the beach.
edit on 15-3-2011 by bekod because: added info. and word edit.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


I don’t know if its just a translation or copyediting issue, but they are clearly referring to the reactors. Units 5 and 6 are down for an outgae and have no fuel in them. While spent fuel can be dangerous if left uncooled it can’t “melt down”.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


I don’t know if its just a translation or copyediting issue, but they are clearly referring to the reactors. Units 5 and 6 are down for an outgae and have no fuel in them. While spent fuel can be dangerous if left uncooled it can’t “melt down”.


Won't argue that.. I am no nuclear expert. I know it gets hot, so I assumed that it could continue getting hot enough to melt. Probably should have qualified my statement with a "probably".



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


The spent fuel is still hot and can cause explosions. Those hydrogen explosions could easily be caused by spent fuel rods boiling the water, which is what at least 1 article indicated was happening.




top topics



 
4

log in

join