Fukushima fuel pool is urgent national security issue for America, 'top threat facing humanity', page 2

reply to post by crankyoldman

---

Yes, what you are referring to is the Common Spent Fuel Pool (CSFP) and it holds many more times the amount of spent fuel than the R4 SFP. That building however, does nto seem to have been damaged by either earthquake, tsunami or explosion (even though it is right next to R4, just to the west) and seems to have held up more so than the reactors that have exploded.

So far as I know, the CSFP is still at about 90% capacity:



The other reactors have spent fuel pools as well:



Caltech .pdf <- Direct link to 20.64 MB .pdf, very large file, dial up users be aware.

So there are more than one SFP that are in a precarious position.

Cryptome has a great section dedicated to Nuclear Power and WMDs which contains many high def pictures of the site, including the ones from the early T-Hawk overflights.

This is indeed worse than Chernobyl, that was one (1) level seven event, this is three (3) level 7 events and a level 3 event on top of that:



Source: Earthquake and Tsunami In Japan on March 11, 2011 and Consequences for Fukushima And other Nuclear Power Plants <-- direct link to 4.9 MB .pdf

reply to post by amongus

---

I was thinking of this as well, unless they have some bases underground that create oxygen and expel CO2 without letting any radiation in, then everyone is pretty much out of luck.

... and if we assume that they do have that, they'd have no problem starting a nuclear war to do the job. But that hasn't happened, so therefore I don't know if such a thing exists (plus it's hard for me to comprehend what would be done with all the CO2 that builds up for the rest of everyone's lives down there.


Also if they want to 'enslave us', they're risking a total ecological collapse which could just as easily eliminate the entire human race.

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by crankyoldman

---

Yes, what you are referring to is the Common Spent Fuel Pool (CSFP) and it holds many more times the amount of spent fuel than the R4 SFP. That building however, does nto seem to have been damaged by either earthquake, tsunami or explosion (even though it is right next to R4, just to the west) and seems to have held up more so than the reactors that have exploded.

So far as I know, the CSFP is still at about 90% capacity:

The other reactors have spent fuel pools as well:

Caltech .pdf <- Direct link to 20.64 MB .pdf, very large file, dial up users be aware.

So there are more than one SFP that are in a precarious position.

Cryptome has a great section dedicated to Nuclear Power and WMDs which contains many high def pictures of the site, including the ones from the early T-Hawk overflights.

This is indeed worse than Chernobyl, that was one (1) level seven event, this is three (3) level 7 events and a level 3 event on top of that:



Source: Earthquake and Tsunami In Japan on March 11, 2011 and Consequences for Fukushima And other Nuclear Power Plants <-- direct link to 4.9 MB .pdf



The obvious question RE: all the spent fuel just lying around is: should 4 fall, what keeps the water cooling the rest if no one can get near the entire place? Do those rods need to be cooled in the same way? Will the radiation that emanates from the blown up stuff weaken any other containment systems, if so how fast? My sense is there will be another large jolt, in the 7.4+ range come summer, with a small tsunami. Should this happen, spent fuel does what?

reply to post by jadedANDcynical

---

The impending problem though is the difficulty in accessing the sources of radiation emission right now, with corium somewhere below the containment vessels in the case of three of the Daiichi units, and likely sunk into the very bed rock, and there is the building Unit 4 with its storage pool of fuel rods from multiple reactors teetoring precariously. At the moment they cannot contain what has already gone south.

If say a tornado strikes a direct hit on the power plant structures remaining, or a substantial earthquake hits the Daiichi, or Unit 4 does collapse...then that building you speak of will be inaccessible and the cooling processes may well break down eventually and maybe frighteningly fast. Then we I think we can say we have a much more serious source of radioactive emissions. Probably overkill so far as extinction events go.

reply to post by NuclearMitochondria

---

That would be easy to do in an underground bunker.
All you would need to do is get rid of your waste.
You can grow food and the plants would produce your oxygen and filter out your CO2. You can even produce your own water, remember the thread with the wind turbine that produces water from the air well you can set up something similar.

reply to post by crankyoldman

---

The spent fuel needs to be cooled continually for years before it reaches a point that it can then be transferred top a dry cask (to the tune of ~$1million/cask), otherwise it heats up.

Depending on the makeup of the assemblies in each bundle, a different max temp will be reached. In nearly all cases, though, this temperature is above the melting point of concrete.

Fukushima is sited on sandstone/mudstone and it is also riddled with underground streams.

The above two points are the reason why we can't just bury it in sand/concrete/lead. Should the cooling stop, the fuel assemblies will melt through whatever they are sitting in and should that occur, a massive steam explosion wuold take place once the molten blob of corium hit groundwater.

That would be a VERY. BAD. THING.

Lofting megatons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere to circle the globe. At this point (as Wrabbit suggests) nuking the site might be preferable to letting all of that dust/radionuclides be ejected sky high.

The only thing is, you would have to make sure the majority of the nastiest of nasties are within the vaporization zone, otherwise you're in the same boat as if you did nothing and let it melt down (then go boom in a steam explosion) in the aforementioned fashion.

reply to post by amongus

---

Don't try to reason with this member. She is a pathological liar, else extremely delusional.

"a friend" tells her information quite often...I wonder if this "friend" is an alter she hears in her head...

Not kidding about this. This member is just nuts.

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by crankyoldman

---

The spent fuel needs to be cooled continually for years before it reaches a point that it can then be transferred top a dry cask (to the tune of ~$1million/cask), otherwise it heats up.

Depending on the makeup of the assemblies in each bundle, a different max temp will be reached. In nearly all cases, though, this temperature is above the melting point of concrete.

Fukushima is sited on sandstone/mudstone and it is also riddled with underground streams.

The above two points are the reason why we can't just bury it in sand/concrete/lead. Should the cooling stop, the fuel assemblies will melt through whatever they are sitting in and should that occur, a massive steam explosion wuold take place once the molten blob of corium hit groundwater.

That would be a VERY. BAD. THING.

Lofting megatons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere to circle the globe. At this point (as Wrabbit suggests) nuking the site might be preferable to letting all of that dust/radionuclides be ejected sky high.

The only thing is, you would have to make sure the majority of the nastiest of nasties are within the vaporization zone, otherwise you're in the same boat as if you did nothing and let it melt down (then go boom in a steam explosion) in the aforementioned fashion.

So it seems, depending on the state of decay of each Spent Fuel pile, and its stacking relative to each rod, a stop in cooling could result in an explosion along the lines of 4's potential issue. The assumption is that cooling in those areas will go on without issue: no power issues, no degradation issues, no man power issues, until sometime in the future: that alone is crazy to me, as one should at least remove all removable threats. My imagination says "what if all the power goes out, and some or all the water gets tossed from each of these pools with 4 taking the lead...?"

The idea of Nuking it is funny, no two people can agree on the time of day, I can't imagine the three stooges like argument over which country will drop the thing, of course it'd have to be a country that admits to having one. On the one hand dropping it is a disgrace, on the other it's a source of pride.

Would it at least be possible to drop a "well cap" SFP 4 to at least keep spillage, from tossing via a quake, from happening (adds more weight I know)? Flooding the base with concrete to support the pool? Of course logistics are obscene. It is so funny how global crises in movies are met with big meetings with all the interested parties, but in reality, a global crises in our day is being handled by the bankrupt company that caused the problem. Man is that priceless irony.

Good thread - but no solution offered. So ...

THE SOLUTION IS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES, NOT SHUTDOWN.

SHUTTING THEM DOWN only makes them less safe by removing one of the critical power sources (Nuc, grid, generators).

The ONLY solution I know is THORIUM. PLEASE help - UPGRADE the reactors to a safer fuel that can eliminate both the older dangerous fuel as well as the highly toxic waste.

Meanwhile...that comment earns this slightly spam'ish emphasis:

reply to post by crankyoldman

---

If Pool 4 building collapsed , soon enough the site would have to be abandoned due to the insane radiation levels. That means no-one is there to attend the other pools, to keep them replenished with water. This has been pointed out in articles I've read at any rate - in other words, eventually the whole site could "go". Reactor 3 building/pool is in a right state as it is, and that one has the MOX fuel in it.

reply to post by reitze

---

Two reasons we won't see thorium as fuel for nuclear reactors in general use anytime soon.

1). Profit motive. They are more expensive to run then conventional nuclear power plants running uranium, plutonium you know the regular 1000 year plus radioactive waste producers.

2). Profit motive. They are not compatible with a nuclear weapons program which plutonium fueled reactor operations are. BTW although the USA were not aware of it at the time Japan's interest in adopting nuclear energy was primarily motivated by the need to have nuclear weapons of their own. A not generally known fact, and not something the Japanese people were aware of either as it happens.

While India trials a thorium reactor, it is most likely part of a strategy to win over the general public to nuclear energy in general, just as Japan's nuclear energy program pushed by the US was adopted initially at least by Japan's elite to the ends of their own agenda which was to soften up the general public to a nuclear weapons program.

Originally posted by Tallone
reply to post by reitze

---

Two reasons we won't see thorium as fuel for nuclear reactors in general use anytime soon.

1). Profit motive. They are more expensive to run then conventional nuclear power plants running uranium, plutonium you know the regular 1000 year plus radioactive waste producers.

2). Profit motive. They are not compatible with a nuclear weapons program which plutonium fueled reactor operations are. BTW although the USA were not aware of it at the time Japan's interest in adopting nuclear energy was primarily motivated by the need to have nuclear weapons of their own. A not generally known fact, and not something the Japanese people were aware of either as it happens.

While India trials a thorium reactor, it is most likely part of a strategy to win over the general public to nuclear energy in general, just as Japan's nuclear energy program pushed by the US was adopted initially at least by Japan's elite to the ends of their own agenda which was to soften up the general public to a nuclear weapons program.

The main reason why thorium isn't used is because it doesn't appear in deposits that can be mined. Uranium can be mined. Thorium is found in areas where rare earth is found (I believe). To get any quantity of thorium 1000's of tons of earth must be refined. I don't know exactly how much.

I understood that uranium leads to enriched plutonium and is desirable for creating nuclear weapons but the fact is, you can't really get at a usable amount of thorium.

Sad but true.

Originally posted by IncognitoGhostman
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria

---

That would be easy to do in an underground bunker.
All you would need to do is get rid of your waste.

you don't need to 'get rid' of it. you use number two as worm food (and then feed the worms to your chickens which then lay your eggs) then you use that processed worm food (castings) as the most awesome fertilizer for your food crops. urine is also a very good fertilizer. of course, you can't be using urine if it's contaminated with pharmaceuticals though.

You can grow food and the plants would produce your oxygen and filter out your CO2. You can even produce your own water, remember the thread with the wind turbine that produces water from the air well you can set up something similar.

edit on 7-5-2012 by IncognitoGhostman because: (no reason given)

got a link for that water producing turbine thread? i would really appreciate a u2u on that.

Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags

Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags

Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags

Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags

Russia announces enormous finds of radioactive waste and nuclear reactors in Arctic seas
  Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags

TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags

Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags

Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: