It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan to create mini nuclear melt down

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ikonoklast
 


Correct. TEPCO will go blissfully forward lying to our faces that all is well when, in fact, there are three disasters waiting to happen. All will irradiate the planet, Northern hemisphere first.




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by ENrgLee
 


melt·down noun ˈmelt-ˌdau̇n
: an accident in which the core of a nuclear reactor melts and releases radiation

: a very fast collapse or failure

: a very fast loss of emotional self-control

So a meltdown means a rapid loss of control, and you are going to try and control that?
Seems like an oxymoron too me. Make sure you ask why not as well when you ask why


Kinda like "Spent Fuel".

At the point that rods are removed a spent, they are considered to be their most unpredictable and less economically valuable. Fuel rods are the most benign when dropped into the reactor for the first time. There is no need for anyone to challenge me on that, you can find verification on the NRC's site. It's semantic slight-of-hand. Call a rabid dog a fuzzy puppy and people won't be quite so put off...

edit on 11-1-2014 by CornShucker because: added dropped word



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I agree with another poster - why reinvent the wheel. If the US and France have done this - read their material that shows the results. They probably even made a video of it.
Unless they want to test something other than water for an intervention. We do need to find effective ways to stop a meltdown so if that's the aim and the research is new I can see the purpose.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 



So a meltdown means a rapid loss of control


if you are talking about emotions... yes.

IF you are talking about a DELIBERATE nuclear reactor meltdown, then no.


Seems like an oxymoron too me.


That's only because you cannot distinguish between emotions and nuclear reactors.

And it's "To", not "Too"


Make sure you ask why not as well when you ask why


What?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Actually i welcome this, we need to know much more about Radiation
and the use of nuclear Fuel!

At the moment we only guess what happen in the case of a Melt-Down
but we do not know much about for sure, this Experiment will help
us to get a higher knowledge and only with knowledge we start to
act Wise and only the educated and wise People could decide if we
use nuclear Power Stations in our whole Future!

I don't see a Danger for the People/Scientist of this Project
or the People in the Outside because of the Size of this Experiment.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbiy666
 


Hmmm....perhaps not linked in any way, but this is curious considering the Keshe Foundation has publicly stated that they are to begin releasing their technology to the world, beginning with using it (in some fashion) to clean up Fukushima, despite claimed resistance from TEPCO for some reason.

The Keshe Foundation, states on their website that they will begin clearing the radiation from Fukushima starting sometime this month, so now i'm wondering if this rather odd announcement from TEPCO has any connection?

As far as the validity of Keshe's technology goes, i'll believe it when and if i see it...but the announcement about cleaning the place up, is there in black and white and would be pretty foolish to publicly claim to be able to do so, if they cannot. Come the end of January, we'd all know one way or the other, so it's a bold claim either way you look at it.

Maybe there's no connection whatsoever.

Even though this 'mini-meldown' plan is scheduled for April, i thought the timing of the two announcement's was curious.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Control rods.

These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it.* In some PWR reactors, special control rods are used to enable the core to sustain a low level of power efficiently. (Secondary control systems involve other neutron absorbers, usually boron in the coolant – its concentration can be adjusted over time as the fuel burns up.) * In fission, most of the neutrons are released promptly, but some are delayed. These are crucial in enabling a chain reacting system (or reactor) to be controllable and to be able to be held precisely critical.


World Nuclear Association

There's probably a very good reason why it can't be done, but would blanketing the melted UO2 fuel with any one or combination of the material used for making the control rods contain the neutrons from the fuel and halt the fission?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


The Experiment is afaik not done by Tepco but by the JAEA!


To combat this sort of disaster occurring again, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency said it was working on a project using a scaled-down version of a reactor which they would deliberately cause to malfunction at a research facility in Ibaraki, north of Tokyo.

Source

In the Original they explain a bit more, the Experiment is done with one Fuel Rod
with a length of ca. 30 Cm:
Sankei Source



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ENrgLee
 


So you think a meltdown can be controlled? Because thats where the idea of it being a oxymoron comes form, trying to control something that is an accident to begin with...

melt·down noun ˈmelt-ˌdau̇n
: an accident in which the core of a nuclear reactor melts and releases radiation

: a very fast collapse or failure

So I can tell the difference between emotions and reactors, see how it has another definition that doesn't mention emotions?

And the last sentence is easy to figure out, ask you self why not, when you ask why. You may even answer your own question is what i was getting at. I don't mind breaking it down for you though



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I smell a rat.

The test is more likely designed to work out exactly what effect the Fukushima disaster is about to have on the world.

I don't think our current technology can predict with enough accuracy the full disaster scenario, so by using a micro meltdown in a controlled global environment they will be able to work out the correct evacuation and re populating location procedure.

The reasoning behind the test is a cloak of the actual agenda.

Everyone should pay close attention to this experiment, it might directly affect you.

Just my opinion.


(post by loveguy removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 



trying to control something that is an accident to begin with...


So, you are saying that a DELIBERATE meltdown scenario is always an accident?

Despite being deliberate?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Why so close to the capital?

For anyone willing.




edit on (1/12/1414 by loveguy because:




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It is a controlled experiment, not an uncontrolled meltdown. Just because the reactor melts down doesnt mean radiation will be released to the environment. Not if it is done in some lab in a planned manner as opposed to a nuclear accident.

Now if we only could tap the fear-mongering present in this thread as an energy source, thered be enough energy to power industrial world for a century.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Because Japan knows how to work with nuclear melt downs so well. I'm quite sure they do not have a plan other than to cause the melt down and then lie about what happens afterward. I'm sure it will involve sea water and homeless people at some point too. I sure hope Tepco get's involved at some point in this. Sarcasm there.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

ENrgLee
reply to post by Sremmos80
 



trying to control something that is an accident to begin with...


So, you are saying that a DELIBERATE meltdown scenario is always an accident?

Despite being deliberate?


Why not post the whole quote, you didn't even answer the question I asked you so why should I answer yours?

What I am saying, which was in response to your in depth "why" post, is that a "controlled meltdown" is an oxymoron. Not what to do with the definition of meltdown if the event is planned.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Spruce
Seems a bit redundant since they've got three reactors melting down as we speak.
What better place to start?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

MysterX
There's probably a very good reason why it can't be done, but would blanketing the melted UO2 fuel with any one or combination of the material used for making the control rods contain the neutrons from the fuel and halt the fission?


The reason this wouldn't work is because it is neutrons striking other atoms within the fuel that cause the chain reaction. More atoms split, which causes more neutrons to strike and split more atoms, etc.

If the fuel was all in one mass, putting the control material around the outside to prevent neutrons from leaving the fuel mass would not affect the chain reaction at all. The problem is the neutrons that are striking into the other fuel atoms within the fuel mass rather than the neutrons that are exiting the fuel mass without striking other fuel atoms.

I can't quite picture how they could do this experiment with one fuel rod. I guess what must make the difference in this case would be the shape of the fuel rod (long length relative to the diameter) versus the shape of a melted mass of fuel. Assuming that's the case, I would think you would still have a problem in that once the fuel melts, how are you going to stop the reaction after the experiment?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I don;t know why the Japanese are going to do this, as it has been done for many years in the USA, I don't think the results will be any different.

Simulating core melt accidents helps improve nuclear reactor safety -
See more at:
www.anl.gov...
edit on 12-1-2014 by GaryN because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


Maybe the Americanos, the Russians, English, French,etc.
do not share every single Result from this Test because
of a financial Purpose?

It is a Business and we should not forget it!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join