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.

 

Neutron beam observed 13 times at crippled Fukushima nuke plant

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
"TOKYO, March 23, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday it has observed a neutron beam, a kind of radioactive ray, 13 times on the premises of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was crippled by the massive March 11 quake-tsunami disaster."

"But the measured neutron beam may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission."

english.kyodonews.jp...

Is this bad?




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by demetriandlucy
 


Is this something that happens every day?? No.... That means it's not good no matter what the press or people tell you. Do not answer questions starting with bahahahaha (or however sheep talk). "They" want you to follow every word they speak and do as you are told.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by demetriandlucy
 


Yes it was bad when the rods started to melt. Go back and find my post I said worst case has already happenes. No the beams aren't bad unless they are active beams and your standing in front of it.

Think of it like an x-ray device.

The inonizing radiation comes out in a shaped beam and is directed in a specific vicinity. Same with this stuff except they beams coming out may be wide and unfocused and if a beam is coming out it trravels and degrades at farther distances.

Now the guys working on the paln.

Well they will be lucky to make it through the year.

Sad very sad.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Or some are firing them into it to calm the busy neutrons.... Maybe help

edit on 3/23/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Sounds scary... Especially because the government seems so concerned about it.
How many people in the world actually know about neutron beams and the effects that would have on the environment/people? Hopefully there's somebody here who knows about it and is willing to share the info.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by demetriandlucy
"TOKYO, March 23, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday it has observed a neutron beam, a kind of radioactive ray, 13 times on the premises of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was crippled by the massive March 11 quake-tsunami disaster."

"But the measured neutron beam may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission."

english.kyodonews.jp...

Is this bad?




There are 700 tons of nuclear material there. If a neutron beam hits any of it, well, lets just say Japan won't have to worry about rebuilding.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by demetriandlucy
 


Is this something that happens every day?? No.... That means it's not good no matter what the press or people tell you. Do not answer questions starting with bahahahaha (or however sheep talk). "They" want you to follow every word they speak and do as you are told.



"BAA-AAA-AAA-AAH "

is what sheep, say,, in english words
edit on 3/23/11 by darrman because: at leist THAT is what they say to me.. LOL



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocky Black
reply to post by demetriandlucy
 


Yes it was bad when the rods started to melt. Go back and find my post I said worst case has already happenes. No the beams aren't bad unless they are active beams and your standing in front of it.

Think of it like an x-ray device.

The inonizing radiation comes out in a shaped beam and is directed in a specific vicinity. Same with this stuff except they beams coming out may be wide and unfocused and if a beam is coming out it trravels and degrades at farther distances.

Now the guys working on the paln.

Well they will be lucky to make it through the year.

Sad very sad.


So it's accepted that Uranium and Plutonium are being leaked? And isn't this bad. I don't buy into the fact that the radiation will dilute while spreading.

And I should have italicized the "is this bad?". the sarcasm would have translated better. I still strongly believe that nuclear radiation will effect the whole world. I'm not one of the sheople by any chance.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by darrman
 


Thank you, I tried it over and over in my head and just couldn't word it like it sounds. Thanks for the clarity, but either way you knew what I meant.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by demetriandlucy
So it's accepted that Uranium and Plutonium are being leaked? And isn't this bad. I don't buy into the fact that the radiation will dilute while spreading.


No it will disperse after distance I'm pretty sure.

That's the only reason we aren't all dead already a long time ago.
Also semantically "spread" in it's very essence is a dilution action, think of "spreading butter" on a piece of toast, you get it everywhere eventually but originally it was in the form of a chunk.


But yes it's bad.
Sorry for the analogy of spreading butter on toast with nuclear disasters, but in a way I think it applies really well.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I know this is very serious and I'm praying for the folks in Japan (and everywhere now) but I just could not help myself.......

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by demetriandlucy
 


No I agree. Think about the water table in the earth. All the contamination is flowing into the ground water. Very bad. Very very bad.

The only way to treat that is to not drink it.

I'm thinking of opeing a water bottle company. But the state has so many restrictions that you have to be a big corp to pay them all off.


Sick.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
It's a funky Japanese-English translation glitch. Actually, that whole article looks like it went through the computer translator without proofing, or they're down to using the puroresu sports desk guys to translate science articles now.

Try "neutron flux" in place of "neutron beam" and "particle" instead of "ray" and it'll be a lot closer to the sense of the original.

There's not some sort of death beam stabbing out at the sky. What they're saying is that they've detected bursts of neutron emissions 13 times.

Why is that noteworthy. Well, there really shouldn't BE a lot of neutron emissivity at this point, unless something new and bad is starting to happen. You get some background emission of neutrons from uranium and plutonium, which they're implying COULD be the source if they're actively leaking aerosolized core materials now instead of just cladding debris from flaming rods, radioiodine and radiocesium. The alternative is that maybe there was "a small amount of neutron flux through nuclear fission".

OOOOOk. Both of these are Bad Things. One is worse than the other, but they're really downplaying both of them.

Possibility one: They're measuring neutrons from escaped reaction mass that's wafting by. Upshot: you've got rods that have burned through their zirc cladding and the rods are on fire, emitting aerosols of uranium, and in the case of reactor 3, plutonium. Not good - both are chemically toxic and have comparatively long half-lives. Radioiodine has a half-life of 8 days. That's nothing compared to these guys. You really don't want this to be happening. It tells you that it's likely the spent fuel pools are dry, or the spent fuel has been scattered out of the pool and is burning down in the rubble. Hard to fix, nasty.

Possibility two: You've got an active reaction going again somewhere.

Something has regained criticality. Only, that ought not happen. What are the two ways that COULD be happening? Well, they might have had a spent fuel pool that was really overloaded, that's gone dry, and is melting into a nice puddle in the bottom. Where they're aaaaalmost about to get enough reaction mass in one place to go critical. It COULD be that there's enough, but when it oozes together and reaches criticality you see a neutron burst as the stuff splats itself around the walls of the pool, where it slowly oozes back down to the bottom, reaches criticality again and repeats, 13 times so far. Or you could have a situation where the rods have sort of fallen in a heap at the bottom and are aaaalmost critical, and when they dump seawater on, the water acts as a moderator and produces a neutron burst until it boils off. That would be what you'd hope for.

Or you've got a meltdown going in one of the reactors that's progressed to the point that you've got enough melty goo in the bottom that it's going critical in bursts the same way.

Not as sexy as neutron ray beams, I guess, but bad just the same.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


A beam of neutrons isn't going to cause a nuclear explosion. That seems to be what you suggest, so I thought I'd mention it. It takes immense pressure and heat to initiate such a reaction.

There are neutrons flying about all the time btw... Unless you are standing in front of this beam, you aren't in danger. However, of course, this isn't good. It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know though. Containment is breached to some extent, the fussion reaction in one or more cores is not under precise control. Same as yesterday at this point.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Something has regained criticality.

Not as sexy as neutron ray beams, I guess, but bad just the same.


Amen! Except its very unlikley that something regained criticality. 'Criticality' is the STABLE state of the neutron population in a reactor core. Sub critical means there aren't enough neutrons to sustain the reaction indefinitely. and 'Super-critical' is when the neutron population is too high causing the reaction to steadily gain speed/energy output. Reactors are brought on line with a super-critical reaction then subdued into 'criticality'. So if the reactors are emitting neutrons in there current damaged state, they're more likely to be either sub-critical or super-critical circumstances. but don't worry, nothing to see here, move along.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
your kidding me right?
13 times?
get real =\
maybe i should just go back to sleep and not care anymore



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx
reply to post by Fromabove
 




There are neutrons flying about all the time btw... .


True, but the neutrons 'flying around' from natural sources are really scarce check this from the PTB site(fitting name donchathink?) www.ptb.de... 9.3 nSv h-1.... thats nanosevierts(a billionth)

In any case neutron radiation from fukushima denotes the that nuclear fission is taking place.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BecauseiSaidso...they're more likely to be either sub-critical or super-critical circumstances. but don't worry, nothing to see here, move along.


If they're sub-critical, the neutron gain will be less than one, and you won't see much more than background neutron emission.

If they're just barely sub-critical and you're moderating them into criticality with non-borated water or the like, you'll see sporadic neutron emissions like these. However, it's more likely the reactors are venting uranium or plutonium oxides.

That 1999 criticality accident the article mentions was just on the edge of criticality - the water in the solution was moderating it into action. Also the water in the surrounding cooling jacket. When it dried up and they drained the cooling system, the reaction ceased. Spraying non-borated water onto a pile of nuclear material can sometimes not be a good thing.

edit - they could tell immediately if they had neutron detectors around the plant in somewhat of a ring with time stamps on the levels - if you get a spike upwind at the same time you get one downwind, the plume o' uranium theory is out the window.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by BecauseiSaidso...they're more likely to be either sub-critical or super-critical circumstances. but don't worry, nothing to see here, move along.


If they're sub-critical, the neutron gain will be less than one, and you won't see much more than background neutron emission.
.

edit - they could tell immediately if they had neutron detectors around the plant in somewhat of a ring with time stamps on the levels - if you get a spike upwind at the same time you get one downwind, the plume o' uranium theory is out the window.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


TRUTH!
i was insinuating that supercritical was more likely the cause via full or 'partial' meltdown.

but yea im wondering where this kinda monitoring is as well...if they weren't in place before, where is the army of iRobots weilding test equipment?!?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BecauseiSaidso
 




Looks like Mothra showed up.




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join