• 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?

Bluespaceoddity said:
The 19:00 (JST) JAIF status update lists (No Info) for the "Spent Fuel Integrity" in reactor buildings 1,2 and 3 while for reactor 4 there is a listing of "SPF level low, injecting water". 4 & 5 are listed as "SFP temp. Increasing".
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300189582P.pdf

Containment integrity for 4 has a listing "Damage Suspected".
Overall still INES level 4 according to this status estimate.
Click to expand...

Then why were they saying it was level 6 ?
 
DC said:
wow, when you dont know that, you are like 25 years late......

read about it.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny reading from a person who himself constantly refuses to read the informations and links that have been given already and continually demands that evidence is spoon-fed to him/her.

Oh the sweet taste of hypocrisy...
 
Christian Klippel said:
Now that's funny reading from a person who himself constantly refuses to read the informations and links that have been given already and continually demands that evidence is spoon-fed to him/her.

Oh the sweet taste of hypocrisy...
Click to expand...

aren't you the guy that made up a fantastic story and then was unable to provide a source. now that's funny.
 
Christian Klippel said:
Care to point the people here to a story that i supposedly made up?

And while you are it, care to point the people here to the stories that you made up so far?
Click to expand...

you told me a story about the plant not being vented and an explosion was risked to prevent fearmongering, i asked for a source, you failed to provide it.
once you provide a source for your story, i will read it, but you dint do so.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
There deffinitely seems to be an issue with terminology here. The units (seaverts) have been covered in other posts, but the description of the levals "decaying" as a function of distance is just plain stupid.

Certainly gamma radiation, as an EM energy, obeys the inverse square law in respect to the decrease in energy as a function of distance.

Radioactive decay is defined as a function over time.
Click to expand...

Well, radionuclide nobel gas effluent does levels DO decay with distance in a function that includes wind speed and mixing.

First, they are very short in half-life. If the wind is ten miles per hour, the gas carried on the wind will be at half-strength 100 miles away.

Second, there is a LOT of mixing.

This gas volume is very small. Concentrated, the dose is very high. But mixed well with the air, the dose level falls off pretty quickly. Ten miles out with a moderate wind, even a worst-case scenario is not an alarming body dose.
 
Belz... said:
Your "what about Chernobyl's children ?" emotional talk when I said living with some radiation poisoning might be better than death.
Click to expand...

well i am not so sure if i would want to be living death sick or rather death.

for you this all seems to be nothing.
 
That the situation in Japan is serious should be a no brainer.

Here is an excerpt from the Greenpeace history of nuclear weapons testing to put things into perspective.

Yes, it's a Greenpeace document, but I believe it to be reasonably accurate.

"Of the 2,044 nuclear weapons tests worldwide, there have been 711 in the atmosphere or underwater: 215 by the U.S., 207 by the Soviet Union, 21 by Britain, 45 by France and, 23 by China.

The last atmospheric nuclear weapons test occurred on 16 October 1980 in China. The first was on 16 July 1945 in the U.S.
It is estimated that the total yield of all the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted is 438 megatons.

That's equivalent to 29,200 Hiroshima size bombs. In the 36 years between 1945 and 1980 when atmospheric testing was being conducted this would have been equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima size bomb in the atmosphere every 11 hours."

Approximately 3,830 kilograms of plutonium has been left in the ground as a result of all underground nuclear testing and some 4,200 kilograms of plutonium has been discharged into the atmosphere as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/ctbt/read9.html
 
timhau said:
As far as fear-mongering goes, this might take the cake: some investigative journalist wannabe at a local economics newspaper has figured out that if there was no electricity anywhere in Finland, we'd be in deep :rule10. You couldn't even buy stuff because neither ATMs nor credit cards would work.
Click to expand...

You don't have paper money anymore?

Folks, give this man a Pulitzer.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? He should obviously be instated as the King of Finland.
 
Skwinty said:
That the situation in Japan is serious should be a no brainer.

Here is an excerpt from the Greenpeace history of nuclear weapons testing to put things into perspective.

Yes, it's a Greenpeace document, but I believe it to be reasonably accurate.

"Of the 2,044 nuclear weapons tests worldwide, there have been 711 in the atmosphere or underwater: 215 by the U.S., 207 by the Soviet Union, 21 by Britain, 45 by France and, 23 by China.

The last atmospheric nuclear weapons test occurred on 16 October 1980 in China. The first was on 16 July 1945 in the U.S.
It is estimated that the total yield of all the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted is 438 megatons.

That's equivalent to 29,200 Hiroshima size bombs. In the 36 years between 1945 and 1980 when atmospheric testing was being conducted this would have been equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima size bomb in the atmosphere every 11 hours."

Approximately 3,830 kilograms of plutonium has been left in the ground as a result of all underground nuclear testing and some 4,200 kilograms of plutonium has been discharged into the atmosphere as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/ctbt/read9.html
Click to expand...

...and the number of people killed by that fallout has been staggering. Right?
 
Belz... said:
I don't know who did. But someone reported that earlier.
Click to expand...
I had a quick look around and it appears the Level 6 designation has been given by the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN).
http://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/index.php/Site-de-l-ASN-Special-Japon/Communiques-de-presse

According to AFP, they're: " ...citing the deterioration of the containment structure at Daiichi 2 as one of the key elements supporting the ASN's more pessimistic assessment."

At the moment the status of the containment at reactor 2 hasn't been confirmed, however. At 19:00 JST JAIF still listed it as "Damage Suspected".
Most of the talk on Japanese TV stations was about the torus of that reactor possibly being damaged...
 
DC said:
well i am not so sure if i would want to be living death sick or rather death.

for you this all seems to be nothing.
Click to expand...

For the lurkers, since DC appears to be trollin' away to the hills now:

The problem at Fukushima is a serious one. No one doubts that, and no one expects anyone to ignore it like it's a small car crash. Nuclear facilities going into meltdown is a big thing, and if the worst case scenario happens, will be a dangerous thing too. However, as has been pointed out time and time again, meltdown doesn't mean nuclear waste/fuel/radiation being pumped into the atmosphere. Nuclear meltdown doesn't mean the ground will be poisoned for decades. Nuclear meltdown with intact and fairly stable containment means a big mess and a lot of expensive cleaning up.

If the containment was absent as it was in Chernobyl, yes, we would be seeing radiation entering the air at a fairly alarming rate, and if the containment is destroyed we might also see some smallscale but highly dangerous leakage. As it happens though, at worst one reactor containment area has been mildly damaged. This sounds alarming as hell, but all it means is a small amount of radiation is being leaked. So far this has peaked at a level that is not dangerous for small scale exposure, but prolonged and continuous exposure could well be harmful. However, it is notable that this peak was short lived, as far as I am aware, although if anyone wants to contradict me, show your sources.

All this means is that in order to be in any danger whatsoever, you would have to stand in the affected area (between two reactors mark you, so not somewhere John Q Public is likely to be) for a prolonged time without a protective suit.

Further to this, as it stands the radiation levels are dropping and plant cooling is occurring. A couple of the reactors have already gone into cold shut-down, meaning that they are now safe, and only one other reactor, Fukushima reactor 2, is still being cooled. This procedure seems to be going as smoothly as it can given the devastation wrought upon the area by the natural disasters that occurred. The same can not be said for the petrochemical plants in the area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom