A Better Understanding of Chernobyl Will Help Me to Better Understand Fukushima

My questions about Chernobyl are focused on the new steel sarcophagus that is being constructed.

Lifespan estimates of this new sarcophagus (approximately 100 years) tell me that the danger(s) of Chernobyl will continue for quite some time beyond the next century.

News reports say that the new sarcophagus may never be completed due to its financing running out or due to the civil strife that is occurring in Ukraine.

Here's my key question: the new sarcophagus is intended to protect whom from what?

Elaborating on the key question...

Is the new sarcophagus intended to protect all of Europe from the danger of Chernobyl?

Will the danger of Chernobyl go that far when the old sarcophagus finally and completely fails?

Is the new sarcophagus to protect the whole world, and will the danger of Chernobyl go that far?

Is it just to protect the neighboring nuclear power plant(s) and the workers there from radiation? Which brings me to this question: is the sarcophagus intended to just block radiation, or is intended to block the release of radionuclides from which radiation is emitted? I ask because it seems to me that the release of radionuclides from Chernobyl would occur during an explosion or the creation of steam due to some cooling action upon the meltdown, and it seems to me that such events settled down at Chernobyl long ago.

From what I can tell, the new sarcophagus at Chernobyl will only shield the sides and top the stricken nuclear power plant, and, so, it would seem that, if the sarcophagus does not wrap under the power plant, then there is nothing to protect the groundwater from nuclear waste that may contaminate that water which may flow lord-knows-how-far-and-wide.

There were suggestions on the Net to just dump big wads of concrete over the stricken reactors at Fukushima thereby entombing the radioactive problem. As far as I know, there has been no mention of consideration of such a proposal by the powers-that-be in Japan. Similarly, there has been no mention of consideration of a steel sarcophagus for Fukushima like the one being constructed for Chernobyl.

Can this be because of the different nature of the geology of Fukushima with the ground under the stricken plants turning to so much mud that that ground is subject to liquefaction eventually causing the collapse of the structures during a relatively minor earthquake or possibly causing the whole Fukushima Daiichi complex to slip into the ocean?

P.M.

The Russians intercepted the corium mass by tunnelling under the reactor and installing a huge Boron pad at great cost of soldiers lives.

That cannot be achieved at Fukushima due to several factors:

The reactors are built on shifting ground above an underground aquifer.

The actual location of the corium is not known, but believed to be somewhere beneath the reactors themselves.

There are three active fission reactions ongoing at Fukushima, as opposed to only one at Chernobyl.

The soil itself is completely saturated with Tritium making it impossible to excavate.

Humans can't get close enough to the reactors to do anything.

It is not possible to encapsulate the coriums of Fukushima without being able to get underneath them.

Massive amounts of seawater is the only thing keeping the fission chain reaction from combusting.

An unrestricted Fission reaction can not be encapsulated or the massive amounts of hydrogen will detonate.

Such an explosion could result in a chain reaction bringing all 14,000 times the amount of fissionable material as Hiroshima into a single gigantic chain reaction with the power to destroy all life in the Northern Hemisphere, if not the entire planet.

originally posted by: Psynic
The Russians intercepted the corium mass by tunnelling under the reactor and installing a huge Boron pad at great cost of soldiers lives.

Thank you for responding and explaining how the corium at Chernobyl was addressed.

But I would still like to know: what would spread from Chernobyl in the absence of a sarcophagus – radioactivity... radionuclides.. both? – and how far and wide would these things endanger people? How high up would the danger go? Would the danger go up 35,000 feet to adversely affect the passengers of a commercial airliner?

Also, what do you thing about the engineering proposal for an ice wall at Fukushima (which, by all accounts, is roundly criticized and not going too well)?

Is the real purpose of the ice wall not to prevent contamination of groundwater that ultimately flows into the ocean? Is the real purpose of the ice wall to prevent the force of such groundwater from pushing, pushing, pushing the compromised Daiichi complex in its entirety inch by inch towards going over the seawall and into the ocean?

originally posted by: Psynic
Humans can't get close enough to the reactors to do anything.

In a previous post, I questioned whether or not work was actually going on in the reactor 4 building to extract fuel rods from the spent fuel pool considering the amount of radioactivity being emitted from the neighboring reactor buildings not to mention a nearby smoke stack that is reputed to be extremely radioactive.

P.M.

a reply to: Psynic

Great questions and good answers. What is a corium? Is it the molden 'core' of the reactor? Or???? As to the Boron Pad - does that last forever? I know that Boron dampens reaction but does it's ablitiy decline over time as it absorbs ions?

I've had many of the same questions about Chernobyl and am grateful for then being presented so clearly. And am grateful Psynic for your answers.

I hope this discussion gets the serious attention and we can all learn more about these life-threatening and on-going catastrophes.

Here's a picture that puts entombment at Fukushima into perspective.


Also you can't really entomb Fukushima because you can't get under it to seal it off there and water is going to flow out threw the damaged foundations making all of the concrete you put on top of it basically useless.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Psynic

What is a corium?

Basically a self sustaining 5000 degree fahrenheit, lava like amalgam of fissioning, uranium, plutonium, zirconium, caesium, boric acid, etc., combined with molten steel and concrete and emitting oxidizing radiation and when in contact with water, toxic aerosol compositions of radioactive nuclides, gases and steam.

TEPCO doesn't even know where the corium is, other than somewhere beneath Fukushima Daiichi's reactors.

My theory is the 7,1 triggered the 9.0 the 9.0 was fukishima going boom. Time is precious.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Psynic

What is a corium?

Basically a self sustaining 5000 degree fahrenheit, lava like amalgam of fissioning, uranium, plutonium, zirconium, caesium, boric acid, etc., combined with molten steel and concrete and emitting oxidizing radiation and when in contact with water, toxic aerosol compositions of radioactive nuclides, gases and steam.

As far as I know, this doesn't seem to be going on anymore at Chernobyl, yet there must be some ongoing major threat there otherwise the original sarcophagus would not have deteriorated (presumably from the Wigner Effect of radiation) and there would be no need for a new steel sarcophagus as a replacement.

So back to one of my questions: whom is to be protected by the new sarcophagus? The workers of Chernobyl... the population of Europe... the population of the entire Eastern Hemisphere... the entire population of the world... who?

P.M.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Psynic

What is a corium?

Basically a self sustaining 5000 degree fahrenheit, lava like amalgam of fissioning, uranium, plutonium, zirconium, caesium, boric acid, etc., combined with molten steel and concrete and emitting oxidizing radiation and when in contact with water, toxic aerosol compositions of radioactive nuclides, gases and steam.

TEPCO doesn't even know where the corium is, other than somewhere beneath Fukushima Daiichi's reactors.

First the fissioning stops once the spacial pattern of the fuel is lost and the fuel also has to be in the presence of a moderator (in the case of Fukushima it was H2O) so basically the fuel stops most of it fissioning once it all melts and is not self stating. The heat comes from decay products that emit radiation and that is why the fuel needs to be cooled for about 5 years and fission stops. It neither produces H2O nor does it move it's self into a fissile geometry so it is not self sustaining. Also boric acid is not present in melted nuclear fuel unless added by humans the fuel can contain boron which is what the control rods are made of. And its not oxidizing radiation its Ionizing radiation I don't think there is such a thing as oxidizing radiation. An oxidant is something that contains a lot of free oxygen that is not bonded to another atom so it is free to oxidize another atom.

The reason for the new structure at Chernobyl is if the old one collapse that a plume of radionuclide laden dust will be created and contaminate the land surrounding it. No one really knows how far or high this plume will travel there are just to many variables that can effect the situation where it to happen.

originally posted by: symptomoftheuniverse
My theory is the 7,1 triggered the 9.0 the 9.0 was fukishima going boom. Time is precious.

a 9.0m (320,000,000,000 ton of tnt) earthquake releases 1,777,778 time more energy than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima(18,000 tons of tnt) Im not even going to relate it to the more powerful hydrogen bombs because no fusion took place at Fukushima so it is not even relevant. There is no way that much energy could have been released at a nuclear facility. If you would like me to show you the math in joules I can show it to you.

originally posted by: BGTM90
The reason for the new structure at Chernobyl is if the old one collapse that a plume of radionuclide laden dust will be created and contaminate the land surrounding it. No one really knows how far or high this plume will travel there are just to many variables that can effect the situation where it to happen.

That's quite interesting. So, a dust plume of radionuclides is the main concern in Chernobyl.

A good number of people expect the stricken reactor buildings at Fukushima to collapse at any time.

My guess is that, in the event of collapses in Fukushima, a dust plume, like the one that might be expected in Chernobyl, would be the least of people's worries.

I am still wondering. Is there any satellite imaging that can determine if the four Fukushima reactor buildings have moved any number of inches eastward toward the sea, their being on mud (and figuratively, on a slippery slope)?

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Yes at Fukushima the spent fuel in the fuel pools is still producing enough heat that if a building did collapse the cooling water would be released and the fuel would catch fire and eventually melt and release more radionuclides there is also far more fuel at fukushima that there was at Chenobyl.

originally posted by: BGTM90

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Psynic

What is a corium?

Basically a self sustaining 5000 degree fahrenheit, lava like amalgam of fissioning, uranium, plutonium, zirconium, caesium, boric acid, etc., combined with molten steel and concrete and emitting oxidizing radiation and when in contact with water, toxic aerosol compositions of radioactive nuclides, gases and steam.

TEPCO doesn't even know where the corium is, other than somewhere beneath Fukushima Daiichi's reactors.

First the fissioning stops once the spacial pattern of the fuel is lost and the fuel also has to be in the presence of a moderator (in the case of Fukushima it was H2O) so basically the fuel stops most of it fissioning once it all melts and is not self stating. The heat comes from decay products that emit radiation and that is why the fuel needs to be cooled for about 5 years and fission stops. It neither produces H2O nor does it move it's self into a fissile geometry so it is not self sustaining. Also boric acid is not present in melted nuclear fuel unless added by humans the fuel can contain boron which is what the control rods are made of. And its not oxidizing radiation its Ionizing radiation I don't think there is such a thing as oxidizing radiation. An oxidant is something that contains a lot of free oxygen that is not bonded to another atom so it is free to oxidize another atom.

Thank you for correcting me.

a reply to: Psynic

No problem chemistry and physics terms can sound very similar but mean completely different things. I guess you can say they are finicky.

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Yes at Fukushima the spent fuel in the fuel pools is still producing enough heat that if a building did collapse the cooling water would be released and the fuel would catch fire and eventually melt and release more radionuclides there is also far more fuel at fukushima that there was at Chenobyl.

OK, let's recap by putting things into perspective.

The potential hazard of Chernobyl In the absence of a sarcophagus is so great that it warrants the construction of a new steel sarcophagus at an extraordinary cost of over $1,000,000,000.

The potential hazard of Fukushima is much, much greater than the aforementioned potential hazard of Chernobyl.

I put this out there yet again: does anybody know if any portion of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex has moved any degree toward the ocean? You know, there are warnings after warnings about the great force that moving water (groundwater in the case of Fukushima) can exert and about how only a mere foot of moving water can sweep a passenger car away.

P.M.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Yes at Fukushima the spent fuel in the fuel pools is still producing enough heat that if a building did collapse the cooling water would be released and the fuel would catch fire and eventually melt and release more radionuclides there is also far more fuel at fukushima that there was at Chenobyl.

OK, let's recap by putting things into perspective.

The potential hazard of Chernobyl In the absence of a sarcophagus is so great that it warrants the construction of a new steel sarcophagus at an extraordinary cost of over $1,000,000,000.

The potential hazard of Fukushima is much, much greater than the aforementioned potential hazard of Chernobyl.

I put this out there yet again: does anybody know if any portion of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex has moved any degree toward the ocean? You know, there are warnings after warnings about the great force that moving water (groundwater in the case of Fukushima) can exert and about how only a mere foot of moving water can sweep a passenger car away.

P.M.

I don't know where you are going with this, but I have seen nothing to suggest the site is slipping into the sea.

There is no such movement of the structures.

Piles are being driven 100 meters into the ground for the refrigeration pipes which obviously could not happen if the ground was as unstable as you seem to think it is.

As long as you see vertical smokestacks, nothing has shifted.

There are myriad issues and problems to be dealt with, so unless you have some sort of evidence, please don't confuse matters further by introducing your personal theories into the situation.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Yes at Fukushima the spent fuel in the fuel pools is still producing enough heat that if a building did collapse the cooling water would be released and the fuel would catch fire and eventually melt and release more radionuclides there is also far more fuel at fukushima that there was at Chenobyl.

OK, let's recap by putting things into perspective.

The potential hazard of Chernobyl In the absence of a sarcophagus is so great that it warrants the construction of a new steel sarcophagus at an extraordinary cost of over $1,000,000,000.

The potential hazard of Fukushima is much, much greater than the aforementioned potential hazard of Chernobyl.

I put this out there yet again: does anybody know if any portion of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex has moved any degree toward the ocean? You know, there are warnings after warnings about the great force that moving water (groundwater in the case of Fukushima) can exert and about how only a mere foot of moving water can sweep a passenger car away.

P.M.

I don't know where you are going with this, but I have seen nothing to suggest the site is slipping into the sea.

There is no such movement of the structures.

Piles are being driven 100 meters into the ground for the refrigeration pipes which obviously could not happen if the ground was as unstable as you seem to think it is.

As long as you see vertical smokestacks, nothing has shifted.

There are myriad issues and problems to be dealt with, so unless you have some sort of evidence, please don't confuse matters further by introducing your personal theories into the situation.

I did not put forth a theory.

I put forth a question.

It is pretty well publicized, and not by me, that the ground near the reactor buildings is saturated with water used to cool the [I guess] "coriums," so much so that that ground is actually mud.

The pipes that are being put into the ground, if this is in fact still the case in light of a poor initial test, are not right up against the buildings but at a distance most likely in ground that is not yet subject to the liquefaction problem which is reputed to exist at the reactor buildings. Remember, many people have not placed much credible hope in this project which they pretty much characterize as foolishly loony anyway.

You have to wonder, with the enactment of the state's secrecy law in Japan, just what exactly do they wish to keep secret?

P.M. P.S. Do you know what was once said in a documentary about lawn watering in Las Vegas?

The extent of lawn watering, which, by the way, is not non-stop, in Las Vegas has been enough to cause liquefaction of the ground in the event of an earthquake with the further result of the collapse of some of the tall high-rise buildings there. They said that hotel buildings that are of "hub and spoke" design with three wings jutting from a central core would fare well in spite of an earthquake and liquefaction. What in Fukushima follows this architectural design?

I believe your OP has run it's course.

"Lawn watering in Vegas" bears no relationship to Chernobyl.

Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread with a title more representative of your focus, that being your "question" that the actual ground Fukushima Daiichi is built on is in danger of being washed into the sea.

Tritium IS being washed into the sea and is being discussed in detail on existing threads.

The Pacific ocean is dying as a result.

This thread is distracting from REAL issues and for that reason I will be bowing out.

originally posted by: Psynic
I believe your OP has run it's course.

"Lawn watering in Vegas" bears no relationship to Chernobyl.

Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread with a title more representative of your focus, that being your "question" that the actual ground Fukushima Daiichi is built on is in danger of being washed into the sea.

Tritium IS being washed into the sea and is being discussed in detail on existing threads.

The Pacific ocean is dying as a result.

This thread is distracting from REAL issues and for that reason I will be bowing out.

Psynic: it's people like you who incite (and I don't use the term, "incite," loosely) further speculation and suspicion on my part.

The point of my bringing up lawn watering in Las Vegas is that geology that has evolved over eons to be dry will show consequences when watered. Similarly, the geology at Fukushima was something else eons before the site was prepared for the nuclear power plants there. That land, from what I understand, had an elevation 80 feet higher than it has now, and, with so much land shaved off, it will not handle water the same way as nature originally intended.

So thanks to you I am more convinced than ever that the planned ice wall is not to prevent the nuclear power plants from affecting the groundwater; the ice wall is to prevent the groundwater from affecting the nuclear power plants.

Again, thanks for your contribution to this thread.

P.M.