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.

 

When reactor 3 exploded, it blew the core lid into the building next door.

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


I was on this the night (3-13-11 10:30pm) it happened. And my gut reaction was exactly what you are saying. I posted this ATS thread to let it be known. It was quickly buried seemingly the rest of the breaking events and maybe because it was a Sunday night. Or maybe nobody likes me....whaaaa


I saw it the way you see it. So see-saw.....whatever. S&F




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SammyB
 
I agree the diference in colors certainly implies that the explosions were of different origins hydgrogyn basically water would be white as in reactor one but other materials would be of other colors i am by no means ny expert but this seems a no brainer white water black or red much harder materials



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
There are TWO lids,
There is a lid on the containment structure this is a large steel reinforced concrete plug that sets over the reactor vessel.

Then there is the reactor vessel lid. this is a massive 6 to 8 inch thick steel lid that is bolted down on the reactor vessel with about 60 3inch bolts.
This lid is still in place, what blew off was the concrete containment structure lid.
This blew off because of the hydrogen buildup in the area between the outer containment structure and the reactor vessel.

The core in the reactor vessel is not exposed because its more likely the steel reactor vessel would split before the lid blew off.

.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
So what does a typical nuclear explosion look like?



like this




i don't subscribe to the notion of an actual atomic blast (complete with runaway chain reaction) but it's imho obvious that this eruption came from the pressure vessel. maybe it melted down with some water in the bottom for 'propellant' maybe they just failed to vent pressure until it popped, we won't know either way for a while, i'm afraid. btw, has anyone seen the explosion of block #4 on TV? it seems as if the life feed was abandoned after #3 had blown.

PS the spent fuel from the pools must have been scattered about, too, which paradoxically might make it easier to access and cool.
edit on 2011.4.3 by Long Lance because: url didn't parse correctly



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Here is the footage of the building 1 explosion, notice the lack of orange fireball, and giant towering black mushroom cloud. You will see a shock wave, as it was a very energetic event, and I cannot say if the building 1 reactor exploded, but the part of the building that houses the reactor core is still intact on building 1.




Here is reactor #3 exploding, notice the orange fireball, and the extreme amount of destruction that it caused. The only reason I say it is a nuclear explosion is that the reactor core exploded and whether it was hydrogen, or the achievement of critical mass, doesn't matter because there was an insane amount of fissile materiel involved in the explosion.



So you claim it was more like this?







posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
the more is see it, i have to admit, the explosion looks like atomic.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm sorry but what I saw was not even close to a hydrogen explosion. Those have dirty white clouds of smoke. They kept showing that first explosion and saying the second was similar. Why not show the actual footage of the second? They did for the first couple of hours in the middle of the night. It was because it was completely different. I have heard no one address the unnatural red chemical-like glow streaming up afterwards in a tremendous output. I have been studying enough to know something extremely serious happened and there is no question they are trying to hide it.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SammyB
I'm sorry but what I saw was not even close to a hydrogen explosion. Those have dirty white clouds of smoke.
What is your source for that information?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


I would really love to see a picture that shows the reactor core lid intact. It is yellow. Please produce the pic.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My point exactly. Where is the source? They are hiding the footage of that explosion so I have absolutely no source but my own eyes. The only thing you can find, which the MSM doesn't even show, is the black mushroom cloud for a few seconds. No one seems to know about the huge amount of chemical red clouds streaming up afterwards. But I trust my eyes and told my family the next morning that according to my calculations, the radiation from that explosion would reach California by Friday evening. A few days later, that was confirmed by the media.

We know the government and MSM is working to hide the truth. We should not have to ignore our own eyes just to follow the 'source' rule when it is being purposely hidden. Anyone on here who says differently is probably a disinfo agent, and I have had personal experience with them and in my opinion and from my experience, I do believe there are a few of those here on this site.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Grifter.be
 


these are all above the surface and will produce a bright fireball and an initially glowing mushroom cloud.

the one i linked was at 190m below the surface, not too good either, but probably the closest we can get and voilà, the top portion looks quite similar while the arcing bits of debris are different, because they had to clear the crater, requiring at least a slight vertical component.


let me propose the following mechanism: sea water injection was said to have already commenced when the explosion occurred, so:

1) cover the (already damaged ?) core with water, which will keep it cool for a while at the expense of predictability, since the geometry of the core may have been compromised earlier due to overheating

2) sea water causes corrosion, especially at high temperatures, this won't affect the oxide pellets but steel parts will suffer very quickly, especially more delicate equipment like valves. buildup of precipitates at critical points will exacerbate the situation further.

3) pressure rises again, either quickly, due to material failure and unexpected recriticality or slowly from decay heat, but with some crucial valve(s) stuck on 'OMG!!'

______________

interjection: BWRs are operating with considerable voids in the core (steam bubbles) which means the core becomes progressively under moderated (moderation scales with density d'uh...) with height, so the top portion contributes relatively less to the chain reaction in normal operations. by contrast, PWRs don't have such voids and therefore tend to utilise the fuel more efficiently....
______________

4) with the core fully covered in (now pressurized) water, pressure goes off the scale (which may or may not go unnoticed, depending on the plant's condition) - and forcibly ejects the control rods.

5) with the loss of neutron absorbing control rods and underlying overmoderation (for a BWR), the reactor becomes prompt critical....

6) KABOOM

7) water is gone, so is an undetermined fraction of the core, no more chain reactions for now. unfortunately, decay heat is directly proportional to the power level at shutdown (aka: kaboom), ie. sky high, which explains the prominent plume emanating from the wreck immediately after the explosion.

any thoughts?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
There is uranium AND plutonium together in the cooling pools. Reactors were made for Uranium.

They started using the new fuel with plutonium a couple years ago. It's gone Super Critical now.

No cooling rods can stop the process happening now, nor water.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

No cooling rods can stop the process happening now, nor water.


cooling rods?

supercritical?


what the h###?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
No, it can not be a nuclear explosion. It is not possible with the type of fuel......Not to mention a gas tanker truck makes a bigger fireball than both explosions put together.

This looks to me like their was an explosion and then the building fell into itself allowing for the rest of the force to go upward......looks more like a bleve type of blast than a nuke.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
4) with the core fully covered in (now pressurized) water, pressure goes off the scale (which may or may not go unnoticed, depending on the plant's condition) - and forcibly ejects the control rods.
any thoughts?
How would pressure forcibly eject the control rods?

I thought the pressure would be equal in all directions, at least before the explosion. Maybe after an explosion, material would be forced out the breach in containment by the release of pressure, but you seem to be proposing displacement of the control rods prior to the explosion, and I don't follow the mechanism that would cause that. The pressure might go up (and probably did), but it would go up uniformly in all directions so it wouldn't necessarily cause anything to move before the explosion.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SammyB
My point exactly. Where is the source?
No I was asking a different question. What makes you think a hydrogen explosion always presents itself as a dirty white cloud of smoke? And are you also claiming that other types of explosions can't also make a dirty white cloud of smoke, like an explosion caused by steam?

I propose that a hydrogen explosion can have more than one appearance and that you probably don't know what all of those appearances are. Besides a white cloud sounds like it could also be the result of a steam explosion, if you just see a white cloud how do you know if it was hydrogen or steam that caused it, maybe with some debris from the building mixed in if the explosion also damaged the building?
edit on 3-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Okay, fair question. It was dramatically different than the first explosion and I've heard experts on news programs describe the white to dirty white color of a hydrogen explosion, but here is a little info.

The following is from: www.powermag.com...
(notice that is says hydrogen rises faster than other materials, and what I saw was a black mushroom cloud, followed by slow rising chemically red (not fire) clouds. I couldn't find anything to connect hydrogen with that)

Comparison with Other Flammable Materials
Hydrogen is lighter than air and diffuses rapidly — 3.8 times faster than natural gas — which means that when released, it dilutes quickly into a nonflammable concentration.

Hydrogen rises two times faster than helium and six times faster than natural gas at a speed of almost 45 mph (65.6 feet/second). Therefore, unless a roof, a poorly ventilated room, or some other structure contains the rising gas, the laws of physics prevent hydrogen from lingering near a leak (or near people using hydrogen-filled equipment). Simply stated, to become a fire hazard, hydrogen must first be confined; however, because hydrogen is the lightest element in the universe, it is very difficult to confine. Industry takes these properties into account when designing structures in which hydrogen will be used. The designs help hydrogen escape up and away from the user in case of an unexpected release.

Hydrogen is odorless, colorless, and tasteless, so human senses won’t detect a leak. However, given hydrogen’s tendency to rise quickly, a hydrogen leak indoors would briefly collect on the ceiling and eventually move toward the corners. For that and other reasons, industry often uses hydrogen sensors to help detect hydrogen leaks and has maintained a high safety record using them for decades.

...Furthermore, there is very little likelihood that hydrogen will explode in open air due to its tendency to rise quickly. This is the opposite of what we find for heavier gases such as propane or gasoline fumes, which hover near the ground, creating a greater danger for explosion.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Surely if the actual reactor had blown the radiation readings would be off the scale? The readings they're getting so far seem indicative of radioactive steam and material leaking into the ground - plus I'm sure some was blown out from the hydrogen explosions. I know the Japanese are playing down the amount of radiation leaked, but the kind of readings a reactor blast would cause would be impossible to hide.

It was also definitely NOT an "atomic" explosion - there would be no hiding that no matter how small it was. It was just a bigger hydrogen explosion than the others - they don't have to be a fixed size.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Curio
 


I certainly disagree, and yes, I believe they are able to hide the information. The MSM is complicit and they will do anything to protect the bottom line...money, stock market, etc.

Photos show that reactor 3 is basically destroyed. A hydrogen explosion would not have done that.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SammyB
 


Photos show that the building housing the reactor has sustained heavy damage, but from the photos I've seen, it is unclear what the state of the reactor is because of the debris and the fact that the reactor is deep within the building. I'm sure it's not in great shape, but a clear understanding of the extent of the damage can't be made conclusively from any image I've seen.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join