• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Rolfe said:
It's now officially a 5. Has been for a couple of hours.
Click to expand...

Actually, based on the IAEA update, it seems like they're dealing with 3 separate level 5's (reactors 1, 2, and 3 in Daiichi) and at least two level 3s (Daiichi reactor 4, Daiini reactors 1, 2, and 4; Daiini is now again in cold shutdown, so that part is hopefully over).

All level 5s are due to damage to the core; no cases of radiation sickness have yet been reported. Let's hope it stays that way; I also hope that those guys working at the plant get something more than a handshake and lapel pin once this is over.
 
timhau said:
Yeah, and some Swedish "expert" was calling it a 7 because it's supposedly much worse than Chernobyl. What's your point?
Click to expand...

There were flash reaction of more than 300 Sievert (not a typo) at chernobyl with people xposed (and subsequently dead), and that does not even discuss the rest.

I am jsut wodnering what sort of scala they use. "chernobyl is long ago Fukushima today, so Fukushima is worst than chernobyl"-scale must be the scale. Or maybe the other scale is "chernobyl is old media dog food, Fukushima is more sellable to have really bloody and scary headline"-scale ?
 
technoextreme said:
I did. Thats not aluminum though.
Click to expand...

Um... When I was casting aluminum telescope parts what I was casting absolutely was aluminum. It's not rocket surgery. Aluminum fires are most often a problem in machining it where you have a combination of fine particles and cutting heat. When aluminum in a crucible burns, you get a surface flame that extinguishes quickly due to scale formation.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
let me know when it gets to 11.
Click to expand...

...
David St. Hubbins: Isle of Lucy. The Isle of Lucy jazz and blues festival.

Nigel Tufnel: And, uh, it was tragic, really. He exploded on stage.

Derek Smalls: Just like that.

David St. Hubbins: He just went up.

Nigel Tufnel: He just was like a flash of green light... And that was it. Nothing was left.

David St. Hubbins: Look at his face.

Nigel Tufnel: Well, there was...

David St. Hubbins: It's true, this really did happen.

Nigel Tufnel: It's true. There was a little green globule on his drum seat.

David St. Hubbins: Like a stain, really.

Nigel Tufnel: It was more of a stain than a globule, actually.

David St. Hubbins: You know, several, you know, dozens of people spontaneously combust each year. It's just not really widely reported.
Click to expand...
 
Skwinty said:
I agree, a picture can say more than screeds of text.
Click to expand...

Picture without text are like word without context, IMHO.

For example a picture don't tell you how much radioactivity there is left , at which place, and how much you would absorb from the environment in food by bioaccumulation (wild games, champignons, wheats , legumes etc...).

The picture don't tell you either how safe it is (or not) to stay and for how long. They are more akin to show you the place has been abandonned but not much more.

So while I agree they make for a chilling photo gallery, they don't give an accurate picture either way.

Still I like the artistic way they were assembled.
 
Aepervius, your comment about context is valid for those who are not aware of what happened at Chernobyl.

For me, the context has been permanently etched into my brain.
This is due to the fact that I have been in the nuclear industry for 27 years and the nuclear mistakes of the past have been compulsory reading.

I agree that the photographs are artistic and chilling at the same time, and quite frankly, I don't care one iota about the false narrative.
 
The National Geographic trip I posted a link to gives some idea of the truth of it, and actually verifies small bits of the text from the earlier link; such as the containment is in danger of failing and they are currently attempting to erect a new container. And that was in 2006; Skwinty, are you aware if it was ever completed?
 
Sabrina said:
The National Geographic trip I posted a link to gives some idea of the truth of it, and actually verifies small bits of the text from the earlier link; such as the containment is in danger of failing and they are currently attempting to erect a new container. And that was in 2006; Skwinty, are you aware if it was ever completed?
Click to expand...

It is expected to be complete in 2013 according to Wiki.

I will verify with a Russian colleague on Monday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Safe_Confinement

ETA: http://www.chernobylee.com/blog/2010/02/chernobyl-new-safe-confinement.php
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
No. You weren't. I freaking looked this up twenty times all ready.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm missing some issue with semantics, I'm also a bit confused by this. I've also casted aluminum in my backyard. technoextreme, why are you arguing this can't be done? Are you arguing that it's not pure Al? Or that it wasn't truly "melted"? I'm not sure why you're saying this isn't possible.
 
timhau said:
Actually, based on the IAEA update, it seems like they're dealing with 3 separate level 5's (reactors 1, 2, and 3 in Daiichi) and at least two level 3s (Daiichi reactor 4, Daiini reactors 1, 2, and 4; Daiini is now again in cold shutdown, so that part is hopefully over).

All level 5s are due to damage to the core; no cases of radiation sickness have yet been reported. Let's hope it stays that way; I also hope that those guys working at the plant get something more than a handshake and lapel pin once this is over.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with this is that the problem with spent fuel in reactor 4 looks to be the biggest problem even though it may only technical be a 3.
 
Skwinty said:
Just give some to your green polly avatar and you will be ok.:D
Click to expand...

Actually evacuating the killer bitch parrot from hell little darling in an emergency came up in discussion in the B household. The most likely sharp emergency round here would be forest fire and organising her 'parrot palace' into the car would be no joke. Whipping her out and into her travel cage would be even less of a joke, involving the loss of a finger or two :D

Meanwhile, the BBC website did have a much a calmer analysis of the nuke situation in Japan but it seems to have gone awol. Will keep looking.
 
GlennB said:
Actually evacuating the killer bitch parrot from hell little darling in an emergency came up in discussion in the B household. The most likely sharp emergency round here would be forest fire and organising her 'parrot palace' into the car would be no joke. Whipping her out and into her travel cage would be even less of a joke, involving the loss of a finger or two :D
Click to expand...


Living in earthquake country, we've discussed plans for our cat if we need to get out quickly. Best option so far seems to be shoving her into a pillow case and tying it shut so she's can't freak out and run off (then releasing her into our car, assuming that's an option). Could you bag the bird without causing permanent injury to either party?
 
Sabrina said:
Regardless of this, the photographs are still evocative and paint a picture of the worst case scenario.

ETA: This may be a better link

National Geographic Trip 20 Years after the disaster
Click to expand...

I found this link of someone's tour of Chernobyl, where he carries around a dosimeter:

http://www.benlovejoy.com/journeys/chernobyl/radiation/index.html

The first page is just intro, the following page is a set of (spooky) pictures from the tour. One thing he said that I thought was interesting is that workers inside the Chernobyl reactor hall itself are only allowed to work two minutes a month, and get paid ten times the national average.
 
volcano said:
Living in earthquake country, we've discussed plans for our cat if we need to get out quickly. Best option so far seems to be shoving her into a pillow case and tying it shut so she's can't freak out and run off (then releasing her into our car, assuming that's an option). Could you bag the bird without causing permanent injury to either party?
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be at least as easy to shove her into a cat carrier, and then you wouldn't have to consider the dangerous expedient of letting her loose in a moving car?

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom