Fukushima Unit 4 sinking, structure on verge of complete collapse

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle
 


Interesting thought. I'm pretty sure the radiation concerns would be more about being in unshielded space itself, rather than any nuclear engine. Just jumping on a cross continental flight gives someone a fair dose. Check out the life expectancy rates for pilots and stewardists. Now imagine what being in the space shuttle would do to someone


Data collected by NASA and a Russian-Austrian collaboration show that astronauts on the ISS are subjected to about 1 millisievert of radiation per day, about the same as someone would get from natural sources on Earth in a whole year. Spending three months in these conditions translates into about one-tenth the long-term cancer risk incurred by regular smokers.


Space station radiation shields 'disappointing'

edit on 18-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle


the area around the site would become so hot that no equipment known to mankind could get near it for hundreds to thousands of years, let alone humans.


We may have already reached that point...


One and a half years later, the consensus seems to be that the site of the Fukushima nuclear accident cannot be cleaned up or contained until future generations invent the technology to do so, Washington’s Blog notes:

World-renowned physicist Michio Kaku said recently: “It will take years to invent a new generation of robots able to withstand the radiation.” The world leader in decommissioning nuclear reactors, and one of the main contractors hired to clean up Fukushima – EnergySolutions – made a similar point in May:

Concerning the extraction of fuel debris [at Fukushima], “There is no technology which may be directly applied,” said [top EnergySolutions executive] Morant.A top American government nuclear expert – William D. Magwood – told the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

There will need to be new technologies and new methodologies created to be able to enable them to clean the site up and some of these technologies don’t exist yet, so there’s a long way to go with that…There’s a long, long way to go.


www.disinfo.com...
edit on 18-10-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Japan was so willing to send its people into suicide to kill the enemy, why cant they have the same mentality to save the planet?

Get all those DEATH ROW inmates from the US & Japan and order them to clean it up.

Build a rocket.
Send it to the sun.
Problem solved.

Seriously.. we need to consider the sacrifice of a few for the survival of the many.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Build a rocket.
Send it to the sun.
Problem solved.


You need to turn off the t.v. this isn't futurama.

We can't risk sending it in a somewhat controlled explosive penis with a trajectory to space on the hope that it doesn't explode and spew out back on this rock.

Even if we were insane enough to take that risk, how the hell are you going to contain that radioactivity to the extent that you can chunk it on this massive ship?

I like lala land as well, but c'mon now!
edit on 18-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniesisfun

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Build a rocket.
Send it to the sun.
Problem solved.


You need to turn off the t.v. this isn't futurama.

We can't risk sending it in a somewhat controlled explosive penis with a trajectory to space on the hope that it doesn't explode and spew out back on this rock.

Even if we were insane enough to take that risk, how the hell are you going to contain that radioactivity to the extent that you can chunk it on this massive ship?

I like lala land as well, but c'mon now!
edit on 18-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)


Actually thats a better idea than what they want to do.

Blow the area up with a nuke strong enough to vaporize that area!!!! ? wtf thats not going to work



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I'm just wondering.

Did anybody at the time, during the construction of these things think outloud?

" Hey bob?"

"Yeah Jim?"

" You think building Nuclear Reactors on the side of the ocean, close to the most active tectonic hotspots on the planet is a good idea?"

" Um..Some science guys said it was a good idea, and that they planned for all disasters.."

Really?

It just seems like the whole thing was meant to fail from the beginning. You'd have to be an idiot to think that the location for those was a good idea.

~Tenth


Not to go off topic but based on your post...I had to bring this up. In the state of Arkansas, the Nuclear plant called "Arkansas nuclear one" sits slap in the middle of the New Madrid Fault...whose clever placement was that? I mean...seriously...it's not like they didn't know it was there and once had a mighty powerful shaker...so why?...why in the world would someone say "Hey that sounds like a great place!"



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
My gieger counter is still reading normal here in the Northeast!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


It seems you're pretty educated about the subject, so I have a question.

Are the temperatures reached known for the exposed fuel rods ? and if so do you have an estimate ?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Your right, How dare people think outside the box right?



Lets just wait and hope for the best...



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


It seems you're pretty educated about the subject, so I have a question.

Are the temperatures reached known for the exposed fuel rods ? and if so do you have an estimate ?


I realize that english is not your first language, so please excuse me for asking for clarification.

You are asking what the current temperatures are for the exposed fuel rods, or what the temperatures could possibly reach if the fuel rods are exposed?

Honestly, either way I have no clue. I haven't followed the Fukushima disaster for some time now. I was fed up with the lack of credible information coming out, and realized that the majority of individuals didn't care to really get to the bottom of it. So apathy set in, and I was left with a "let them burn" kind of mentality.

From what I can tell, this is far from an ELE. At the highest estimates of greatest potential disaster, I think we're looking at a chunk of Japan that is uninhabitable for some time, increased mutations, and cancer rates in the region, and subtle effects worldwide.

I let it go once reaching that conclusion. This is just one in a long list of historical "oops"!! that we apparently didn't care to think of. We can speculate till our last breathe on a variety of things, but ultimately it's out of our control.


reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


C'mon now. Don't be so dishonest. You come up with a decent idea and I'd hope to be one the first to back you up. It's more how you said it, than what you said. It's as if you truly believe nobody is trying anything. For shame.
edit on 18-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Give it to Iran they would take it....
oops sorry Zionists....



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniesisfun


I wanted to write this.
Are the temperatures reached, known for the exposed fuel rods ? and if so, do you have an estimate ?


I realize that english is not your first language, so please excuse me for asking for clarification.


You are asking what the current temperatures are for the exposed fuel rods, or what the temperatures could possibly reach if the fuel rods are exposed?


And yes. English is not my native tongue. You are the first to comment about it, in a long time. How refreshing.

I sort of wanted to know the current temperatures. Cause I wasn't thinking about them, getting even higher yet.
The answer is giving me a reason not to do so yet. I'll try and find out myself then. Nothing wrong with that.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Hey no offense intended.

I have problems interpreting imprecise language all the time. Too many possibilities pop out...it's a problem I have, not really so much on your end.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


No worries. If I'm making mistakes, I won't learn from it, if somebody doesn't point it out to me.

The reason I asked, was because of the following:

the hypothesis derived from a 1967 report by a group of nuclear physicists, headed by W. K. Ergen.[17]
The geographic, planet-piercing concept of the China syndrome derives from the misperception that China is the antipode of the United States; to many Americans, it is the “the other side of the world”.[18][19][20] Moreover, the hypothetical transit of a meltdown product to the other side of the Earth (i.e. China) ignores the fact that the Earth's gravity tends to pull all masses towards its center. Assuming a meltdown product could persist in a mobile molten form for long enough to reach the center of the Earth; gravity would prevent it continuing to the other side.


wiki source

The only numbers I found yet, for the rods temperatures, are 2000 C / 3700 F, but a fully molten core would get even hotter, I imagine.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Yes, there is a way to stop this catastrophe in it's tracks (underfilling), but the corporate powers that be at TEPCO will never do that because it would hurt their bottom line.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


From your source, it seems to be an irrelevant issue, if the scenario played out as such.
Centrifugal force would keep the radioactive material in the inner core indefinitely, relatively speaking.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Revelation 8:10-11

10 Then the third angel sounded: And a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. 11 The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the water, because it was made bitter.

Drinking bitter water from a star, sounds like radiation poisoning yeah?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Apparently not...nor did the same considerations stop the El Diablo plant in California...next to the Ocean, near a major fault line. In fact three....the third is human fault.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


The question is really how long-term is the sinking of the ground under the reactor. I mean, if the geologists see no end in sight, then it's a futile effort to try to mitigate the effects of the decrease at this point. But if they see it as slowing and potentially reaching a maximum low point, then grouting can take place to reinforce the concrete floor of the containment area. There are engineering ways to remediate this IF the ground subsidence is considered a temporary phenomenon.





top topics
 
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join