Reactor 4 is falling apart, Arnie Gundersen said "If #4 collapses, get the hell out of Japan"

page: 8
139
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Just sharing the most recent article I could find today...



And Japan's government admitted this week that dismantling the reactors and the 260-tonne lethal cargo of nuclear fuel will take up to 40 years.


Wow, up to 40 years



according to Tomohiko Suzuki, who spent a month working at the plant during the summer and has released a book this week about his experiences. "The question is, can they maintain this temperature for years and years?" he told reporters in Tokyo yesterday. "I believe the problems there are just starting."






Nuclear experts say the state of the molten fuel is still uncertain, with some speculating that the government is preparing to build a giant concrete "nappy" underneath the complex to stop radioactive substances leaking into the ground.

They're gonna build a "diaper" to try to stop the leaking into the ground

www.independent.co.uk...

Around June of this year they said it would all be under control by January....

Not that I believed it of course.




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeNF
 


Greetings:

We, too, are interested in just what the real deal is, and herewith share some recent research into this "cold shutdown" phenomenon.

Please investigate and then share your opinion, if you are so inclined.

BBC News - Japan PM says Fukushima nuclear site finally stabilised



More NukeSpeak ... Quote of the Day!

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda:
'[color=FDD017]This is a challenge to not only our nation but also the whole of humanity.'


'[color=3BB9FF]The nuclear reactors have reached a state of cold shutdown and therefore we can now confirm that we have come to the end of the accident phase of the actual reactors,' Mr Noda told a news conference.


...Earlier this year, the government said it was aiming for a cold shutdown by the end of the year.

This is where water that cools nuclear fuel rods remains below boiling point, meaning that the fuel cannot reheat.

[color=Chartreuse]Tepco has also defined it as bringing the release of radioactive materials under control and reducing public radiation exposure to a level that does not exceed 1mSv/year at the site boundary...

Let's see how this is played in various media:

16 December 2011
Fukushima reaches cold shutdown : Nature News & Comment

According to the latest data from the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, which tracks the reactors’ vital statistics, unit 1 is now at 38.3°C, unit 2 is at 68.7°C and unit 3 is at 64.1°C.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which runs Fukushima, had imposed an additional requirement that the release of radioactivity is 'under control and public radiation exposure by additional release is being significantly held down.'

It has been months since any major release from the reactors, and it seems reasonable to consider this condition achieved as well.

Speechless.

From the horse’s, errrrr, mouth...


NRC: Glossary -- Cold shutdown

The term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit following a reactor cool down.

And then this:

Shutdown (nuclear reactor) - Wikipedia

In a nuclear reactor, shutdown refers to the state of the reactor when it is subcritical by at least a margin defined in the reactor's technical specifications. [color=3BB9FF]Further requirements for being shut down may include having the reactor control key be secured and having no fuel movements or control systems maintenance in progress.

The shutdown margin is defined in terms of reactivity, frequently in units of delta-k/k (where k is taken to mean k-effective, the effective multiplication factor) or occasionally in dollars (the dollar is a unit equal to the change in reactivity needed to go from critical to prompt critical).

Shutdown margin can refer either to the margin by which the reactor is subcritical when all control rods are inserted or to the margin by which the reactor would be shut down in the event of a scram. Hence, care must be taken to define shutdown margin in the most conservative way in the reactor's technical specifications; a typical research reactor will specify the margin when in the cold condition, without xenon.

[color=3BB9FF]Under this specification, the shutdown margin can be simply calculated as the sum of the control rod worths minus the core excess...



Minimum shutdown margin can be calculated in the same way as shutdown margin, except that the negative reactivity of the most reactive control rod and non-scramable rods is ignored.

[color=3BB9FF]This definition allows the reactor to be designed so that it remains safely shut down even if that most reactive control rod becomes stuck out of the core.

[color=Chartreuse]A reactor is in cold shutdown when, in addition, its coolant system is at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit (approx. 95 degrees Celsius).


To be continued ...


Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

(continued from previous post)


[color=Chartreuse]A reactor is in cold shutdown when, in addition, its coolant system is at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit (approx. 95 degrees Celsius).

This temperature is low enough that the water cooling the fuel in a light water reactor does not boil even when the reactor coolant system is de-pressurized.

[color=Salmon]It is a misuse of the term to describe a reactor after meltdown as 'in cold shutdown.'

[color=Cyan] As the fuel assembly is destroyed no shutdown is possible. Fuel is melted together and impossible to control directly.

Even if pressure and temperature are unalarming momentarily 'cold shutdown' implies complete control which is impossible after meltdown.




From other news sites

Reuters UK UPDATE 5-Japan says stricken nuclear power plant in cold shutdown 



France24 JAPAN: Japan declares 'cold shutdown' at Fukushima 



Yahoo! UK and Ireland Japan says stricken nuclear power plant in cold shutdown

BusinessWeek Fukushima Dismantling to Start as Cold Shutdown Announced

Australia: NEWS.com.au Japan says Fukushima reactors stable

And from the same source, less than three weeks ago:
Fukushima nuclear catastrophe closer than thought | The Australian

The Australian December 02, 2011 12:00AM

[color=3BB9FF]MOLTEN nuclear fuel in one reactor at Japan's stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant burned through the steel pressure vessel and three-quarters of the surrounding concrete containment vessel that formed the reactor's last substantial internal barrier.

[color=Chartreuse]The revelation of the near ‘China Syndrome’ meltdown is yet another revision of the severity of the disaster following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami...




And now for something completely different:

19 December 2011
Hosono Says Fukushima Plant Is in ‘Equivalent of Cold Shutdown'

Goshi Hosono


Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s crippled reactors in Fukushima are in a state “equivalent to cold shutdown” even though the definition would be different in the case of an undamaged plant, Goshi Hosono, the minister in charge of responding to the disaster, said today.

‘[color=Cyan]We understand that there is a difference between the cold shutdown state for a normal nuclear reactor and the state of cold shutdown that we have achieved at Fukushima Dai-Ichi,’ Hosono told reporters in Tokyo.

'The goal is to have nuclear fuel where it is kept in a cold state and to ensure that radioactive materials are not emitted. That is the whole point of the cooling system that we have in place.'

Speechless.

Cold shutdown doesn't apply to melted reactors.

In-your-face NUKESPEAK!

There is no way to peaceably win this war when the opponents keep moving the goalposts and changing the rules of the game in mid-play.

Feeling somewhat frustrated and helpless, we wonder what do we do now?

How to channel all this pent-up frustration and intense energy?

Perhaps we go to the “end,” the radioactive waste?

Beginning premise:

Creating additional radioactive waste on a daily basis with no solution in sight is foolhardy at best.

Such myopia should be called what it REALLY is: Criminal Negligence.

To be continued ...


Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]
edit on 22/12/2011 by thorfourwinds because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeNF
 


(continued from previous post)

Creating additional radioactive waste on a daily basis with no solution in sight is foolhardy at best.

Such myopia should be called what it REALLY is: Criminal Negligence.

In 1987 Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the future repository for all nuclear waste in this country. Yucca Mountain is inside a government nuclear test site in the Nevada desert. So far, over $9 billion has been spent constructing an intricate maze of underground tunnels and chambers designed to house nuclear waste safely for at least a million years. 

Yucca Mountain has been designed as a specialized storage center to keep nuclear waste safely contained in an underground facility deep inside a mountain, long after the material is believed safe and no longer radioactive. The storage center is on a military base almost one hundred miles from civilization (and that's Las Vegas, for what it's worth), in the middle of the Nevada desert.



Due in part to its complexity, the site wasn’t expected to receive any nuclear waste until 2020. Currently, all such waste is being stored in temporary facilities. 

One more thing…Yucca Mountain is the only long term nuclear waste site this country has.


Closing Yucca Mountain will leave 130,000 metric tons of nuclear waste stranded at 131 different sites spread across 39 states. The federal government will be at risk of breach-of-contract lawsuits for breaking agreements with utility companies. Some estimates indicate the potential for the Obama DOE could incur more than 50 billion dollars of legal liability in the case.





You can do all the recycling in the world, but you are still going to be left with a residue that has to be stored somewhere, preferably underground. You’ve got this residue. Where are you going to put it?

Mitch Singer, a spokesperson for the nuclear energy industry.


One may be wondering how critical the problem of storing nuclear waste has become. 

According to an article on CNN.com, "Currently, 70,000 tons of radioactive waste are stored at more than 100 nuclear sites around the country, and 2,000 tons are added every year."

How is all this stuff being stored today?  Expended nuclear waste is typically kept in special canisters stored above ground and constructed of concrete, steel, and lead at the reactor's plants, which generate them as a temporary solution.



The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified the expected lifespan of these containers to be ninety years, though how that number was determined is unclear.

Nuclear energy didn't exist ninety years ago, and therefore nuclear waste hasn't been kept in one of these containers for ninety years to test the theory.

Why would Obama close the only viable answer to long-term storage of nuclear waste while he simultaneously calls for additional nuclear power plants?

Nuclear waste piling up faster than solutions can be dreamed

In 1987, Washington unilaterally decided the waste was going to Yucca without seriously considering other potential sites. Not surprisingly, Nevada citizens have railed against the top-down plan ever since. 

If the government doesn’t bow to pressure and reverse its decision, US nuclear waste planners will be going back to the drawing board for what promises to be another very prolonged and expensive exercise.


So, what’s the real deal?


The root reason the waste problem isn't solved is technical. Since radioactive emissions are strong enough to destroy ANY container, the "technical" problem will NEVER be solved.

New alloys, new crystal structures, microbes that eat radioactive waste, vitrification -- all worthless. Rocketing the waste into space, subduction zones in the sea, deep holes -- won't work either.

And, it seems that nobody wants the stuff in their back yard.


On December 20, 2011, The First Nations of the North Shore Tribal Council strongly rejected the prospect of the North Shore of Lake Huron becoming a site for the long-term storage of nuclear waste for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).
 

To be continued ...


Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeNF
 


(continued from previous post)


On December 20, 2011, The First Nations of the North Shore Tribal Council strongly rejected the prospect of the North Shore of Lake Huron becoming a site for the long-term storage of nuclear waste for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).
 
This may be of interest:

Elliot Lake has a long history of uranium mining that resulted in the boom and bust of the city, as well as significant and lasting environmental damage to the local watershed and nearby ceremonial grounds.


“We cannot idly stand by and watch as they inject Mother Earth with this cancer,” says Chief Lyle Sayers, chairman of the North Shore Tribal Council. “We must ensure that the future natural resources of this area are there for our children, generations to come, and businesses alike.”

The half-life of this material is hundreds of thousands of years old and could impact generation after generation.

No site can ever be totally safe for nuclear waste storage.

Let’s follow the money.

In 1982, the Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which required the Department of Energy to safely and permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel no later than January 1998. The Act also created the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund, which required ratepayers, through their electricity bills, to pay for the safe transportation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.


Almost 30 years ago, Uncle Sam entered into a contract with utilities to dispose of their nuclear waste beginning in 1998.  That disposal was supposed to happen at Yucca Mountain.  Under the law, all nuclear facilities were required to pay an annual fee to the nuclear waste trust fund to cover the cost of Yucca Mountain.

When the federal government missed the 1998 deadline, utilities sued the government to recover their costs incurred in storing the waste.  So far, according to federal officials, it will cost the government some $16.2 billion to pay the legal judgments entered against the government…assuming  there will be a completed federal disposal site by 2020.

There is a small problem, though…the $25 billion fund does not exist. 

All of the fees collected in excess of the costs of building the Yucca Mountain facility, instead of being placed in a trust fund, were simply spent by the government as quickly as they were received. 

As a result, a group of state regulators and the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade organization, are suing the Department of Energy, seeking to suspend collection of the annual fees utilities pay into the waste fund.  ‘There’s no sense paying a fee if you are not getting a program for it’ said NEI’s Steven Kraft...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:


Every day, there is more waste, more radioactive pollution, such as tritium, which is killing our citizens, and more of the "ignoble seven" whose daughter products include noble gases, which are freely released by nuclear power plants in copious quantities.

The "ignoble seven" are: Technetium-99, Tin-126, Selenium-79, Zirconium-93, Cesium-135, Palladium-107, and Iodine-129.

All have half-lives > 200,000 years.

Someone seems to have missed the elephant in the room.


All nuclear power plants need to be closed NOW. They are old, corroded, embrittled, dilapidated and their employees have repeatedly abdicated their responsibilities - from proper training, to doing their fire rounds, to numerous problems with top management, to not giving a second thought to possible irreversible catastrophe only ONE accident away, and so on.

Every day the plants run, they increase the total risk, the total cost, the immediate risk, and the immediate cost -- costs in terms of health effects around the plants, and delayed costs from accidents or just from fuel storage.

Even if we stop making nuclear waste, every movement of the fuel entails enormous risk. And there will be tens of thousands of shipments from all around the country.


A really safe transport of nuclear waste is impossible and any transportation is a big production. Consider the staggering number of caravans that will be needed. Each shipping container will hold "only" about 15 tons of spent fuel.

With more than 2,500 tons -- 5,000,000 pounds -- of waste (of which any millionth of a gram will poison you fatally) already created in California alone, it will take decades to do anything with the waste.

But what, when, how and where? Scientists don't know.

Each trip is a terrorist's best friend and a sane person's worst nightmare.



Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I henceforth hope and wish this disaster and all other disasters and forms of hurt and harm shall vanish from human existence and that we will live again in plenty and in light and in love.

No more hate. No more pain. We will live no longer in the grip of torment.
edit on 22-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   





posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   





posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
They should cut the area off and just shut the whole thing down when its safe.....but then again we don't know what there doing behind closed doors do we....



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I dont know about any new reactor problems but this is worth taking a look at:




Radiation health effects are related to the magnitude and duration of exposure. The radiation levels in Tokyo and most parts of Japan are now within the normal range of variation of background radiation and are of minimal health consequence. Low level radiation exposure produces no physical symptoms. There is no specific health test available for low level radiation exposure and no medical treatment is required.


and:

No Current Restriction on Flights and Shipping to Japan




A joint communiqué from the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Meteorological Organization, the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization advises that there is no current restriction (PDF 1610kb) on international flight and maritime operations can continue normally into and out of Japan's major airports and sea ports.


www.smartraveller.gov.au...

It was updated 22 December 2011

Lets not forget that this can happen anyplace and the Japanese, primarily the ones who worked on the reactor after the tsunami acted heroically. In the long run maybe will figure out, from this, how to get these things to be completely safe.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by nuttin4U
 




the only answer to your question is that WE have done nothing


it has been allowed over and over and over and over................................. even though there could be horrible side effects nobody wanted to talk about.

well we have come very close to the expiration date of everything we have sat and watched them do
and we will continue to sit and watch the monkey parade like idiots instead of doing the things we need to do to survive.

its sick

everyone needs to get the hell out of japan now. please have a team cover that reactor before leaving but everyone else get out!





new topics
top topics
 
139
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join