Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant director warns Britain it may be next!

reply to post by BobAthome


I hope you know that he get Money for the Interviews he gave and give,
he is doing his Fearmongering not for free but get Money for it,
he is the professional Shill (someone who earn his Bread by it)
and he want to do this for the next years too,
so he need to keep the Fire (of interest) burning!

There would be no further or less Interviews from and by him when he is saying
that the Situation get better!

In the beginning many People liked him because he is a charismatic Person
but when you start to look behind of the Media you would see very quick
what he is doing, and what he is doing is bad, he create Fear and he create
kind of a addictive Relationship with the People who look for answers!

vkey08
Ever notice that the places that continue to say doom and gloom are always Naturalnews and Fairewinds, two organizations hell bent on getting rid of anything that isn't 100% all natural?

What is wrong with wanting to power the world with 100% natural resources?

vkey08
It's simple, on the whole, it is most certainly cheaper and more environmentally friendly to run a Nuclear Plant, than it is say to run a coal fired plant. Nuclear plants provide much more energy for the buck and, when combined with Wind Farms can totally replace a slew of Coal fired plants..

That is true when comparing nuclear to fossil fuel. But it should be made clear that the technology is there to power the earth from the sun alone. Why don't we use it? Because there is too much money to be made from fossil fuels and nuclear fuel.

Once the investment has been made to harness the suns power which would provide more than enough power for the entire planet for the next 4 or 5 billion years then energy problems and environmental issues will be a thing of the past. But at the same time the cost of energy must drop dramatically meaning less profits for those big cuddly corporations.

Fossil fuels are hazardous to the planet. Nuclear fuel is a disaster waiting to happen at which point it also becomes hazardous to the planet.

There is only one correct solution. But there are too many rich suits standing in the way

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo


Yup, it's all about money.

There's no doubt that the entire world could easily transition into renewable energies that will always be here. Such as tidal, solar, and wind. And among others.

But, there is a huge downfall to this, from a corporate perspective. Since these sources are renewable, there wouldn't really be any money in it. It comes down to supply and demand. There's obviously only a certain amount of oil, coal, uranium, etc around. So they become commodities due to their scarcity.

And if you come along and introduce something that never runs out, there will be no money made. If you look at solar power for example, the suns always going to be around. And if the sun were to be destroyed, we would go along with it. Since the sun is a major factor in the life cycle on Earth. And it's estimated that the sun has around 4.5 billion years left until it "dies" and goes supernova.

As the person you replied to said. Yes, nuclear power is very useful. And it is definitely one of, if not the best sources of energy. I mean, stars harness this type of energy out in the cosmos. So needless to say, it's got a lot of power to it. That's all a star really is, just a huge flaming nuclear reactor.

But, there are better ways we can go about receiving energy. Nuclear power always has the potential to meltdown and spread radiation. And radiation is not something good at all. Just look at Fuskishma there, or somewhere else such as Chernobyl. And Ironically enough, Japan had two nuclear weapons dropped on it about 70 years ago. And now there spreading basically the exact same contaminates. That's not a very good learning curve if you ask me.

I dont see how. Last time I checked Britain wasnt tsunami risk zone.

And as for flooding? well there pelnty of high ground to wack a nuclear plant on.

reply to post by crazyewok


You do not know the Risk of Tsunami in the UK?

Have a look for it via Google:
Tsunami Risk for the UK

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo


Actually we couldn't rely ONLY on solar or only on Wind, cloudy days, windless days all play into those factors, however as far as renewable resources go yes we could definitely look into Hydrogen Fuel cells (water based) and that looks promising, and I'm all for converting to renewable resources, however, that does not change the fact that the people that are really leading this charge against, are paid to rally against, it would be like Jeff Butler from NU/CL&P days after Alfred saying that everyone was going to be back up and running because they had a great power grid and three weeks later, when there was still no power, sticking to that story (and he did which is why I used the example)

Bang for the buck (and pun is intended) Nuclear Power (if they could go Fusion then awesome) is still the best resource we have, do we need to look at how to make it safer, of course, noone is debating that, does it have the ability to cause a HUGE disaster? Of course, again that is a fact, but all in all, it's not the ominous specter of human doom some people make it out to be..

Human0815
reply to post by crazyewok

 

You do not know the Risk of Tsunami in the UK?

Have a look for it via Google:
Tsunami Risk for the UK

That one small area. The solution would be not to put a Nuclear plant in Bristol. As for the whole canary island thing? Well just dont put the damed plant of the damed coast, problem solved. There are plenty of inland area on high ground here.

Sheesh you dont have to be a world class engineer to sort the issue out.

reply to post by crazyewok


It would be not a Problem when our Language is clearer,
for me your Statement sounded like:
"there are no Tsunamis in the UK" which is wrong.

The Tsunami Pattern from 3/11 is ca. 1.000 Years,
the last Tsunami "that big" happened afaik. in 850AD.,
all the other ones was much smaller!

The possible Canary Island Tsunami is imo.mnot "that" dangerous
for the UK., i fear much more the Undersea Mountain Slides in
the North which are also waiting to happen since Decades,
but i am just a Googleloge and not a Oceanologe

PS: I don't like this old Plants at the Coast or inside,
the Russian Model to put it on the Sea could be a Alternative,
at least for Japan!

reply to post by Human0815


THE ONLY THING RELEVANT TOO THE WHOLE ARGUMENT ARE facts.

WHERE are the Cores?

reply to post by BobAthome


Can we at least get the terminology right if you're going to start the fear mongering Bob? The core is part of the reactor assembly, it's the part of the reactor where, you guessed it, the reaction takes place, therefore all 4 cores are where they were when the plant was built, in the respective reactor buildings.

Now, what you wish to know is where are the fuel rod assemblies that fit into those cores. The rod assemblies are sets of 20 uranium filled rods that get lowered into the core, when that fuel can no longer make a fission reaction they are removed and sent to the cooling ponds, to wait until such time as they are cool enough (lower than 700 degrees) to be moved, approximately 10 years or so.. The rod assemblies (no 400 truckloads by any stretch) that were in the reactor cores at the time of the accident are still in those reactor cores, they will not be able to be removed for some time.. For example, the TMI2 fuel assembly is still in the TMI2 reactor core, pictures taken recently show that it was damaged in the accident and we JUST got those photos, 30 years later..

The spent fuel at Fuki is where it always has been (and again, it's hardly 400 truckloads worth, as each rod is only 1/4 inch in diameter and about 3 feet long) in the cooling pools, which were UNDAMAGED by wither the quake or the Tsunami, the problem with the cooling pools was the lack of power to keep the water temp below 120 degrees, that has been rectified and the pools are functioning normally. Trust me you would know if a cooling pool caught on fire, there would have been a zone of death, an immediate one, for about 10 miles around the plant where NOTHING would be living not even insects.

This is why I say that Gunderson et al are fear mongering, each fuel assembly that is in the ool could fit theoretically if it could be moved that way in the back of a pickup, in fact, you could fit about 40 of them ina pickup, so to say there are 400 large truckloads is a bit of a misnomer. Also after 10 years they are cool enough to remove from the pools, and while they are in the pools they do NOT release radioactivity on anywhere near the level needed to hurt anyone, if they caught on fire, that would be another story.. but none of them are even close...

reply to post by BobAthome


They are not on top of the Building,
not left and not right,
also there are no Holes under the final Containment.
(in Nr. 2 and Nr. 3)

I go here with the Common Sense,
a part is still in the Reactor Pressure Vessel,
a bit is under it, in the final Containment
(the big Vessel) and on/ in the Concrete Saddle
(in the case of Nr.1)

But maybe it is not that important?

reply to post by Human0815


never mind i found them,, "therefore all 4 cores are where they were when the plant was built, in the respective reactor buildings. "


CASE solved,, well done everyone.

reply to post by vkey08


see below/or above, ur pick,,

reply to post by Human0815


your right,,,,"But maybe it is not that important?.


never give up.

i guess it isn't.

reply to post by vkey08


"fear mongering" whats a bag of mongrel fur,, i mean,fear, worth these days?

,,just so i can put some "value" too any silver that cross's my palm.
just curious.

reply to post by MariaLida


if you keep asking what if for long enough you might realize it's too late. I propose the idea that it is already too late and we should mothball all the technology (which would create jobs all over the place) and switch over (which would also create jobs) to any and all alternatives that don't involve using nuclear or fossil fuels. Well actually cold fusion research should be at the forefront with no infringement whatsoever. But we should completely decentralize the fuel/energy production systems and allow whichever methods conforms to that particular state's laws. Why not line the interstates with wind turbines and solar panels? that's got to be enough surface area to run the world and how harmful would that be? and you can't compare (saying that rhetorically) and aesthetic argument with the nuclear argument they are not even close in the importance to our survival. it's a hierarchical difference and I would rather put up with looking at windmills and solar panels than living in fear of the nuclear prospects looming. I just don't see a comparison anymore. And the people who argue that oil and nuclear are much cheaper than solar or other alternatives can just go fly a kite.

reply to post by vkey08


" it's not the ominous specter of human doom some people make it out to be.. "

neither is Russian Roulette when everybody is a consenting participant. you might not really care so you take it lightly. Maybe you think you will just move somewhere else? I don't want to move somewhere else that in the end would most likely end up being just as toxic anyway. It's foolish and naive to think we can just keep beating the odds with our high level of technological expertise. And once the scale is tipped and we're told it's too late what are you going to do, blast off to Mars?

vkey08
... when that fuel can no longer make a fission reaction they are removed and sent to the cooling ponds, to wait until such time as they are cool enough (lower than 700 degrees) to be moved, approximately 10 years or so..

this is why I don't get why a nuclear plant needs generators to make electricity to run pumps and other systems. If these rods stay well over boiling temp why can't this residual heat be used to make steam to turn turbines? And don't tell me it's because there are no turbines or steam recovery systems over top of the cooling ponds in other words don't tell me it's because they weren't designed like that. Don't even try to tell me it would cost too much to design them like that because then the argument is not that they CAN'T design it that way but because they didn't want to spend the money to make it safer and don't tell me we as taxpayers should subsidize the industry if we want them to design them that way.

reply to post by vkey08

" a site like Natural News that has a most certain and definite agenda to push as far as these things go"

wow what an evil agenda!!! if I had to choose between a group with a more natural agenda and one with a totally toxic potentially ending life on Earth as we know it kind of agenda I'm goin with the Birkenstocks, no question.

bottleslingguy

vkey08
... when that fuel can no longer make a fission reaction they are removed and sent to the cooling ponds, to wait until such time as they are cool enough (lower than 700 degrees) to be moved, approximately 10 years or so..

this is why I don't get why a nuclear plant needs generators to make electricity to run pumps and other systems. If these rods stay well over boiling temp why can't this residual heat be used to make steam to turn turbines? And don't tell me it's because there are no turbines or steam recovery systems over top of the cooling ponds in other words don't tell me it's because they weren't designed like that. Don't even try to tell me it would cost too much to design them like that because then the argument is not that they CAN'T design it that way but because they didn't want to spend the money to make it safer and don't tell me we as taxpayers should subsidize the industry if we want them to design them that way.

Actually they could be designed like that but it would defeat the purpose of them being "cooling ponds"

You don't want the water that's in the cooling ponds to turn to steam, if the water dips below the level of the top of the rods, they will spontaneously combust and then you will have a nasty radiological disaster on your hands. The point of the cooling pools is to do just that, cool the rods, and it takes about ten years of that water being kept at temperature (about 120 degrees F OR Cooler) to attain that coolness, by making them steam producers you would be exposing countless people to a disaster that would make Chernobyl look like a walk in the park. Remember when they come out of the core, the rods are about 2000 degrees, after about ten years they can be safely handled by machinery our of the pool but you're still talking about something in the area of 400-500 degree rods.

Just an FYI 700 Degrees is the target temp, if they hit that magic number with no cooling water over them, then it's game over, think Earth Shattering KA-Boom...