Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fukushima Reactor 4: “Capable Of Extinguishing All Life On Earth”

page: 5
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I don't know the accuracy of these claims:

watchdog article


But if we stick to the raw data on fuel Tepco plant accident, there was, at the time of the earthquake of March 11, 2011, 548 assemblies in the heart of the reactor 3. And 30% of 548, this is 164 MOX assemblies


Ok , 168 MOX assemblies.

300kg Plutonium per assembly or per rod or total all assemblies combined? This guy doesn't make that info clear enough, I'll have to keep digging. (I found next that he meant all assemblies combined).

Here at nci.org it says "

The U.K. is shipping 8 MOX fuel assemblies to the Kansai Electric Power Company's Takahama 4 reactor. Approximately 32 fuel assemblies have been fabricated in Belgium for the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima 3 reactor. The two ships, the Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Teal, will leave from the French port of Cherbourg and the U.K. port, Barrow-in-Furness. The combined MOX orders these ships will carry contain an estimated 450 kgs. of weapons-usable plutonium, enough for nearly 60 nuclear weapons. MOX is classified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a Class 1 nuclear material requiring the highest level of security. Plutonium in fresh MOX fuel can be extracted by a straightforward chemical process.


8 + 32 = 40 assemblies total.

450 kgs plutonium / 40 assemblies =
11.25 kgs per assembly.

11.25 kgs x 168 total assemblies =
1890 kg plutonium.

Now something is wrong here, how did Chernobyl have 3000 kg of plutonium but Fukushima's entire MOX fuel collection amounts to only 1890kg?

I must be totally ignorant and leaving out all sorts of aspects because this is not adding up at all!
edit on 1-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by allintoaccount
 


i think the best thing they could do with it is give it back to the earth, find a magmatic vein that is on the return cycle back into the mantle, and feed it in, how else could it EVER be gotten rid of, at least this way it would spend a considerable length of time being diluted and losing energy before it rises again, and when it does it will be entombed in lava flows, they last a very long time are very stable, in the sense that they may get subsumed back into the mantle or covered eventually by a thick layer of detritus from the processes of life.

What else could they do with it??.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheesy
reply to post by Sek82
 


this is insane!! why scientists all around the world not helping japanese goverment? thats very dengerous situation!!
Maybe because they know there is nothing that can be done.

Look at all the posters just bashing the messenger with no debate, just "you lie because I don't like your source",these are called "SHILLS", there just here to derail the thread with rhidacule.

There are articles all over the net about Mr Mitsuhei Murata asking the world for help to contain #4 with all its spent fuel rods and all these clowns can do is bash the source the OP used with no debate of there own as to why no one should worry about #4, ............what does that tell you.

edit on 1-5-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I want to formally and publicly apologize to you for jumping at you like that earlier.

After reviewing this much deeper I see that not only was I wrong initially, but this whole article may be wrong as well.

Just by comparing the supposed weight in kg of materials I am finding issues to direct me towards the conclusion that Fukushima is more like 5-10x worse than Chernobyl worse case scenario.

That is not considering anything except the weight of material present alone, no other factors are included in that assessment. And it is subject to change as more reliable information is presented that may dispute or clarify it.

It's a tough subject, you could spend your entire life reading facts on nuclear technology and still never see everything. So I apologize for coming off the wrong way and I thank you for challenging me to question my own beliefs and to do the research necessary to support or debunk them, and that is very important.

So thank you very much, and I am embarrassed and sorry for making that mistake in the first place.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


Might actually be news, if it wasn't coming from a website run by tinfoil hat wearing nut jobs.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
"I must be totally ignorant and leaving out all sorts of aspects because this is not adding up at all!
edit on 1-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)
"



I wonder if the measurement/scale used to gauge the increase in radioactive isotopes is akin to the measurement of earthquake intensity by using the Modified Mercalli or Shindo scale. Meaning the larger the output of radiation, the exponentially more lethal it becomes. Sort of like saying a 7.0 earthquake is only 7 times more powerful than a 1.0 earthquake. That might explain the discrepancy in the comparison.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3n19m470

Originally posted by amongus
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


No offense OP, but...ok, maybe do take offense.

Why would someone with almost 3,000 posts...such as yourself...post an article from a source you KNOW is satire? Not reputable? Why?



Why would a poster with 2,500+ posts ,like you, continually portray yourself as a jackass? Seriously, your first two posts consisted of nothing but the name of the source used and thumbs down symbols... And now you are gonna call this satire when the op is concerned about the future of our species due to an obvious danger? Now I'm starting to wonder if this is a mere portrayal or perhaps, the real you?


I coudnt agree with you more... I honestly cant stand some of the members here on ATS....Amongus decided to make himself look like a total ass becasue he doesnt agree with the OP and his source...



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
My real problem stemmed from my ignorance of the technical aspects of the Chernobyl Reactor Core and exactly the weights of the materials composing it.

After reviewing various conflicting sources and determining which sources had the highest probability of being accurate, I realized I had been downplaying Chernobyl due to media misrepresentation of the facts and complete over generalization of detailed aspects of the situation. The media completely skews reality.

I have various times watched documentaries about Chernobyl, Pripyat, etc, and when I was in college at TTU my biology professor had special guests give lectures, and one of them was a seemingly intelligent man who was studying the ecosystem around Chernobyl and he presented his findings.

From all of these sources I have never had anyone list technical aspects, but instead I was mostly provided with opinions and rationalizations or cliches. So as a result my brain incorrectly assumed that Chernobyl was a minor nuclear event. However if there was actually 1700 fuel assemblies (with 130-170 rods each) in Chernobyl's reactor core, and roughly 50% of them melted, (800-900), than I would have termed that "800 meltdowns within one reactor".

See in the text the scientists had claimed that they figured each fuel assembly would be separately contained, and they "did not expect" them to bleed into each other.

So really my entire point of misconception derives from an innate misunderstanding of the vast quantities of materials that were in Chernobyl.

I am always open for clarification and more accurate information so of course I quickly began to realize my mistake as the ideas began to set into my skull.

I wasn't fear-mongering Fukushima, I was downplaying and misunderstanding the nightmare that was Chernobyl.
That's where my mistake was.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


While I get just as much entertainment from ignorant fear mongering as the next person around these parts, I still am able to maintain both feet firmly planted in reality when it comes down to it.

The whole Fukashima "wiping us all out" scare is total bunk. For one, you can bet your sorry butt if there was a glint of truth to this it would be all over the MSM. Yeah, yeah....you are going to say the MSM is bought and paid for by "the man", and a certain part of it is. But it is more bought and paid for by the ratings. An other than "sex sells" the next best thing to get viewers is fear-mongering like this. The fact that you only read about how this will end the world on ignorant and questionable websites should tell you something. And I totally get it, most people who post threads like this and are into conspiracy stuff have a need to feel special. Maybe they hate their life, or maybe life is too boring for them....but by wrapping themselves up in nonsense like this they make themselves feel special, better than those who, in their minds, are sheeple.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Might be the most sensationalist thread title I've seen yet.

Keep your feet on the ground, but keep reaching for the stars, ATS.


Originally posted by gameisupman
And I totally get it, most people who post threads like this and are into conspiracy stuff have a need to feel special. Maybe they hate their life, or maybe life is too boring for them....but by wrapping themselves up in nonsense like this they make themselves feel special, better than those who, in their minds, are sheeple.


Where's the "applause" smiley?
edit on 1-5-2012 by ColAngus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by disclosure
"



I wonder if the measurement/scale used to gauge the increase in radioactive isotopes is akin to the measurement of earthquake intensity by using the Modified Mercalli or Shindo scale. Meaning the larger the output of radiation, the exponentially more lethal it becomes. Sort of like saying a 7.0 earthquake is only 7 times more powerful than a 1.0 earthquake. That might explain the discrepancy in the comparison.

That's the thing we humans don't really have a scale (at least to my knowledge) that truly takes into consideration all of the countless aspects you have to process in situations like this.

The current nuclear disaster scale is incomplete and over-generalized, it doesn't really provide a catch all equation where we can just plug a few numbers in and find a easy answer.

The media doesn't know what it's talking about, the scientists aren't providing us with simple short and easy charts/graphs that give all relevant facts in correct context, etc.

I doubt the government officials or organizations really even have a good grip on any of this yet.

Remember we have only recently been messing with nuclear technology in the last century so we are actually just learning about how not to screw things up still.

If we had a reasonable society that embraced academia and wanted to educate people, maybe we would have trustworthy systems of rating things like this. But instead $$$ rules the day so no one trusts anyone.

But also in that educated society, I wouldn't need to look up a million and one facts about nuclear physics in order to attempt to get a handle on things in intricate detail because everyone is telling me totally different stories. Hell in that alternate universe humans would be wise and prudent, and we could use nuclear tech safely and responsibly. It wouldn't even be a major issue.
edit on 1-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
double post my mistake.
edit on 1-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I was going to point out "WHY WAS THIS EVER BUILT, LMPOSVTIKOMCASMT??!!" when I saw this comment below the article.


How incredibly stupid is mankind to have ever constructed energy systems that could, if catastrophically failed, result in the possible deaths of millions if not billions of people? If you step back and really consider the complete idiocy of the decision by humanity to purse nuclear power, it is profoundly astonishing.


This person put what I put in a more articulate, detailed manner, and likely with the same passion. Too bad they were anon because I would have friended them! What are the chances?? XD



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nahahh
 


If they had any real intelligence they certainly wouldn't have build nuclear reactors on a fualt line right on the ocean coast. It is a wonder they put PhD in front of their names. Again, the faulty and utterly stupid logic was a justification to short cut a means to quick money and energy.

The world CLEARLY is run by IDIOTS!

That is one of the most unstable faultlines as of late. The probability of further earth quakes in that area are very high. So the question isn't IF but when.

edit on 1-5-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-5-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by amongus
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


No offense OP, but...ok, maybe do take offense.

Why would someone with almost 3,000 posts...such as yourself...post an article from a source you KNOW is satire? Not reputable? Why?



because i contribute to them as well. ATS'ers, you gotta understand what before its news is. this is not your traditional news website. it can come from anyone, anywhere. its the youtube of news, it works the same way. also, they have feeds from dozens and dozens of reputable sites and blogs... and i happen to know that sorcha faal is banned from the site. it really fulfills the promise of a free press and gives you, the reader, the respect enough for you to do decide for yourselves whether you want to believe it or not. i know we are conditioned to believe whatever traditional news sources say (CNN, Fox, etc.) but with BIN, that is not the case. So all im saying is show some respect because BIN is on your side.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by gameisupman
 


his words, not mine



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


Here's a blog saying the same thing dated Tuesday, 15 March 2011

I think we're safe.


As a layman, which most of us here are (I doubt there are many nuclear physicists here), I always like when things are put into perspective..


Each Fukushima spent fuel pool holds about 100 metric tons, he says, while each US pool holds from 500-700 metric tons. A single pool fire would release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity, rendering 17-22,000 square miles of area uninhabitable. That’s about the size of New Hampshire and Vermont – from one pool fire.
quoted from this story

This means that it would not be a world-wide catastrophe, assuming the author of that article knows anything what he's talking about, but I'd venture to say he's probably a lot closer.. I can't see a meltdown in that plant in Japan causing worldwide extinction.
edit on 1-5-2012 by garbageface because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-5-2012 by garbageface because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
why not consider exploding a megaton or bigger nuke on the broken reactor ?

if it is steadily poisoning the area already... why not destroy the forever radiation leaking device ?

a cloud of radioactive fallout --- in a single, instantaneous blast would be preferable to the horrific contamination from a run-away core melt that can last for the half-life of the radioactive fuel rods ( what 1,000 years?)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
10,000 assemblies in Fukushima vs 1 assembly at Chernobyl.

But somehow even though at Fuku one reactor has MOX which is far more dangerous, there is only 85 Chernobyls worth of Cesium available to release?

This is very simple math.

How does 10,000 : 1 ratio turn into
85 : 1
??????
edit on 1-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


Well, easy. There is less in each assembly. It's the total amount of radioactive material that matters, not how many assemblies there are. Say I have 2 liters of soda in 10 glasses. They spill. Say I have 4 liters of soda in 500 glasses. It spills. I have a soda mess equal to the size of the 4 liters of soda, not the 500 glasses.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Three
 


How incredibly stupid is mankind to have ever constructed energy systems that could, if catastrophically failed, result in the possible deaths of millions if not billions of people? If you step back and really consider the complete idiocy of the decision by humanity to purse nuclear power, it is profoundly astonishing.

For any reasoning person, it seems like stupidity beyond the pale to place reactors near large sources of water like major rivers and oceans. Personally nuclear power itself is beyond stupid, but I wanted to add to your ex quote.

They do that so the reactors can use the large supplies of water to keep the cores and spent fuel pools cool. It is absolutely vital to operations. It also provides a place to wash or hose down any contaminants. As long as the reactors are functioning properly. In the case of FUKU and others like Chernobyl, then it becomes apparent that when failure does occur, proximity to water is handy to flush any disaster down river or out to sea.

We can't have the stuff piling up around the melted reactor cores, right? Send it out to sea where it "disappears". Then feign ignorance or claim it's no longer our problem, which is exactly what Tepco did. Nobody expected this to actually happen, but here we are and the plan to wash the debris out to sea is going just fine.






top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join