Radiation at Fukushima nuclear plant at unimaginable levels

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The most shell is designed to be the last line of containment defense to prevent contamination to the environment. The outer shell in the USA is supposed to keep everything thing in, and explosions and jet strikes out. The shell is very important.

And where did the say containment is in place? The news is full of the most outer containment leaking contaminations to environment.

There is no containment. I don't know who is saying containment is not breeched?

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know who is saying containment is not breeched?

The article I was referring to.

We have to be more precise, containment-issues with contaminated water doesn't equal a containment-breach aka meltdown down through the containment vessel.
That's just the worst case scenario I'd work with for now, but we don't know that for sure. Do we?

a reply to: Phage

Purely hypothetical, we both know that.

If Tepco can confirm...

... that I'm wrong, I'd be very happy. Of course. But I'd still hold my breath until a third party confirms their assessment.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Purely hypothetical, we both know that.

No. It is evidence.
You said there was none.

Radio active bread crumbs.

Aw yiss.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Contamination is designed to keep all and any contamination from the environment and the public.

A leaking reactor containment due to structural flaws spilling contamination into the sea is lost containment.

a reply to: baburak

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ?

nuclear bombings is totally different than nuclear meltdown..bombs release all what they have to release instantly..meltdowns release it for thousands of years

a reply to: Phage

It's no proof for the alleged fact that it didn't melt down further. The holes right next to that stuff actually indicate the contrary, what's your point?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

It's no proof for the alleged fact that it didn't melt down further.

You have moved the goalpost.
From "evidence" to proof.

Guess what, there's no evidence to the contrary either.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

You are probably remembering the mammoth effort finally put into place at Chernobyl which is still only a temporary solution...

ok, I guess it must have been that one then. My mistake. Although I did find this about the Fuki one (vid on page)

www.asahi.com...

IWAKI, Fukushima Prefecture--A dress rehearsal is under way to install a huge "hat" over a crippled reactor building at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The bulky dome-shaped cover is meant to stop the spread of radioactive material and protect equipment necessary to retrieve 566 bundles of nuclear fuel rods from a storage pool in the No. 3 reactor building.

www.oregonlive.com...

"We're more than a thousand-fold below even the drinking water standard in the coastal waters being sampled at this point. Those levels are much, much, much lower than what's allowable in our drinking water."

a reply to: Phage

With big holes right next to said 'evidence'? I don't think so, Phage. Define evidence and spare me the semantics, please!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Hard to provide a definition without "semantics" but ok:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

originally posted by: boogiegk
So the media has kept their mouth shut and everyone has turned a blind eye since 2011, instead of working together to try to prevent it from ever getting this bad. They said three meltdowns. Will the 4th follow? what could possibly be done at this point?

Odds are it was always this bad. They just now got something this far in to measure the radiation.

It's not like these levels just intensifiedovernight. They've always been like this, but we haven't had the measurement.

a reply to: loam

My question is, how far is this radiation in the ocean reaching. It could be in effect poisoning us all, globally. Heavens knows what could be happening to the sea life too.

Imagine in some random mad circle that it turns out it makes us all superhuman?

..... well I had to put something funny as this isnt that funny is it.

originally posted by: heineken
a reply to: baburak

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ?

nuclear bombings is totally different than nuclear meltdown..bombs release all what they have to release instantly..meltdowns release it for thousands of years

Many naturally occurring radioactive isotopes release radiation for thousands of years.

I am guessing the radiation is not from a core that could achieve a self sustained nuclear reactions.

The radiation is mostly from a mass of concentrated fission products, spent fuel. It's going to radiate no matter its location. The emitted radiation has more to due with half lives of radioactive isotopes and radioactive decay.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Phage

With big holes right next to said 'evidence'? I don't think so, Phage. Define evidence and spare me the semantics, please!

Your splitting hairs. The last line of defense to protect the environment and public from contamination is releasing contamination into the sea. There is no containment.

originally posted by: heineken
a reply to: baburak

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ?

nuclear bombings is totally different than nuclear meltdown..bombs release all what they have to release instantly..meltdowns release it for thousands of years

Well then...

Bomb it :p

No but seriously what would happen if we detonate say a 25Mt hydrogen bomb (for good measure) smack on top of Fukushima?

Can you vaporize a nuclear meltdown?

a reply to: merka

Nope, the only way to stop radioactive decay is to get the radioactive isotopes to a stable atom.

But.......
Dilution is the solution.

What is bad? The mass of radioactive material is so concentrated, radioactive decay of spent fuel is causing problems.

a reply to: neutronflux

Vaporization would result in dilution. No?

Not that I think it's a particularly good idea.

This video is at a link in the op. It's interesting to watch.

www.fairewinds.org...

The belief is that a hydrogen explosion destroyed two of the building but a third explosion actually breached the containment structure in a third. At 8:00.

Also he notes that the GE design is problematic and is more likely to end in what has happened. Not surprising the fuel would melt through the bottom.