User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:06:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AKsala, tell me about the capabilities if modern nuclear containment vessels, as you understand them...without looking it up. This might provide an interesting point of view. If everything works right, a molten pile of radioactive metal stays in a sealed chamber forever. Let's say everything goes to shit, kind of like it has. It looks like No. 2 is breached. How many outside the wire do you expect to be dosed with a life threatening degree of radiation? Does thyroid cancer 3 years later, or leukemia count? Absolutely! I dont know, 50,000.  Well on the bright side, you did say you just a guy from Alaska whos opinion doesn't matter, and I think we can all agree that is a good thing.Yeah, well youre in the same boat as me, only you are in Nevada, so thats why you are posting on ar15.com, and not out changing the world. I am nowhere near in the same boat as you, I post when I have opionions based on confirmed facts or confirmable sources, and when I don't, I shut up, refrain from sensationalising things I obviously don't know enough about, and try to take in information from those that do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:07:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I remember reading about a possible natural nuclear reactor that could have occured in a deposit of uranium ore. There are two that are known to have existed, both in the past. One in Africa somewhere, the other in Colorado. Both achieved criticality when filled with water. After those were discovered, Plutonium and several other "artificial" elements technically are now naturally occurring, as they are present in the rock formations in those locations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:08:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
I remember reading about a possible natural nuclear reactor that could have occured in a deposit of uranium ore. 2 billion years ago, give or take, happened repeatedly. Groundwater would act as a moderator for uranium deposits causing them to initiate reaction, and they would "burn" for quite a while (thousands of years). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:08:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If everyone is aware of the cultural difference they why are they saying it means the Japanese are lying? I said its what they are not saying. Also the history of coverup. Does not saying = a lie? Tepco’s attempt to impart information has left the public mostly confused and incredulous. At press conferences, anxious-looking junior executives hang their heads like naughty schoolboys, and apologise for "causing inconvenience”, a stock Japanese phrase. In matters of substance, they appear to know little.
"The public relations of Tepco is very poor,” said Shijuro Ogata, a retired Bank of Japan official who has hardly ventured outside his house in a Tokyo suburb since Friday’s earthquake struck. "It is very clumsy and they don’t seem to be so knowledgeable.”
Michael Cucek, a political analyst living in Tokyo, was more damning still about the nuclear agency and Tepco. "They have no crisis management because they were never ready for a crisis,” he said. "The fear is Tepco is not telling the whole truth. They are not in the habit of telling everything they know.”
When it comes to keeping the public informed, the record of Japan’s nuclear industry is not inspiring. And again that is not proof that they are not telling all they know. And given the amount of damage, they probably don't know much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:10:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
<snip> I must not be privy to popular understanding or people I have been associated with also knowing this popular "definition". I've always heard the term of a meltdown as the nuclear fuel melted down, meaning it's all melted. I never heard of a meltdown being strictly in terms that a meltdown is when the nuclear fuel melts through to the ground. My real point is that "meltdown" is a term people use to refer to a very wide range of conditions, anywhere from "melting is detected" to "it's nuclear lava tunneling to China". By your view, Three Mile Island did not suffer a meltdown. But it's been reported that TMI did suffer a meltdown. It didn't by the "all melted" definition, but that didn't stop people from calling it that. Which is correct? I'm not disagreeing with you, really, I'm just trying to point out that "meltdown" isn't a technically useful term because it's been used for a very wide range of conditions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:10:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh for fucks sake. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?_r=1 Excerpt... Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.
Fuck this fear-mongering shit. And fuck the UN. ((ETA)) It's a local event that is bad...This is not the end of the fucking world. Honestly, I don't read that as fear mongering at all. What am I missing? Sorry. Think I misquoted. Read something earlier that set my blood boiling. Though if you you take what the UN says, versus others? ((shrugs)) I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:14:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh for fucks sake. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?_r=1 Excerpt... Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.
Fuck this fear-mongering shit. And fuck the UN. ((ETA)) It's a local event that is bad...This is not the end of the fucking world. Honestly, I don't read that as fear mongering at all. What am I missing? Sorry. Think I misquoted. Read something earlier that set my blood boiling. Though if you you take what the UN says, versus others? ((shrugs)) I don't know. The statement, just taken on its own, seemed very reasonable and not fear-mongering in the least. Doesn't matter if it came from the UN, Glenn Beck or Jesus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:15:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of people die from cancer years later, it kills about half of all people eventually.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id like to read about that, could you post a link. Kid is awake, ill read all the nasty responses later. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident "On 21 August 1945, Los Alamos scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. suffered fatal radiation poisoning after dropping a tungsten carbide brick onto a sphere of plutonium. The brick acted as a neutron reflector, bringing the mass to criticality. This was the first known criticality accident causing a fatality.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#cite_note-3][4][/url]" I think this was related less to dropping something on the plutonium, and more about putting a neutron reflector on it. There was another guy killed by the same plutonium core, Louis Slotin. It was nicknamed the "demon core". The most rediculous part about Slotin dying is he was using a screwdriver to keep the core seperated from the neutron reflector.....a screwdriver, really? Now I am no physicist but for Christ's sake if I am dealing with potentially deadly sources of radiation I am going to be taking a little more precautions than a screwdriver. They had played around with so many small samples with no ill effect that they became complacent about the radiation danger. And most of the guys who worked in the early nuclear program, did die of cancer years later. But how many would have died of something else at a later point in life instead of cancer. Just because I might die of rectal cancer when Im 60, doesnt make feel better to die of bone cancer at 35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:16:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Hah! A blogger on YokosoNews just posted "So, do you think Anderson Cooper is going to get beat up by a cosplayer this time?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:16:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> I never heard of a meltdown being strictly in terms that a meltdown is when the nuclear fuel melts through to the ground. That's crazy talk. Under that definition Chernobyl was not a "meltdown", since the melted core material is currently resting in various locations on the concrete floors of the structure. "Meltdown" has no scientific definition, it's a colloquial term, but I'd agree with you that if the fuel elements in the core melt, I would call that a "meltdown". FWIW, he was responding to me, where I was giving some examples of the range of situations that people have called "meltdown". He wasn't claiming the red quoted statement, but rather disputing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:17:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
BTW... Before you get on your high-horse, Aksala...Coal provides about 45% of the power you use...Nuclear, another 20%. (National figures) Soooo. Want to do with less this next winter? We have diesel, wind, and hydro here on the island. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:19:29 PM EDT
[#12]
FWIW
http://cs2.town.yanaizu.fukushima.jp/-wvhttp-01-/GetOneShot?REQUEST_ID=129988484073 From my limited research thus far, this appears to be a geothermal plant, in case anyone was wondering. As far as the Tepco feed, am I the only one surprised at how clean it looks? No steam, smoke or anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:19:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AKsala, tell me about the capabilities if modern nuclear containment vessels, as you understand them...without looking it up. This might provide an interesting point of view. If everything works right, a molten pile of radioactive metal stays in a sealed chamber forever. Let's say everything goes to shit, kind of like it has. It looks like No. 2 is breached. How many outside the wire do you expect to be dosed with a life threatening degree of radiation? Does thyroid cancer 3 years later, or leukemia count? Absolutely! I dont know, 50,000. Well on the bright side, you did say you just a guy from Alaska whos opinion doesn't matter, and I think we can all agree that is a good thing.Yeah, well youre in the same boat as me, only you are in Nevada, so thats why you are posting on ar15.com, and not out changing the world. I am nowhere near in the same boat as you, I post when I have opionions based on confirmed facts or confirmable sources, and when I don't, I shut up, refrain from sensationalising things I obviously don't know enough about, and try to take in information from those that do. Youre a very important man in this world, I can tell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:23:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am nowhere near in the same boat as you, I post when I have opionions based on confirmed facts or confirmable sources, and when I don't, I shut up, refrain from sensationalising things I obviously don't know enough about, and try to take in information from those that do. Youre a very important man in this world, I can tell. I like both of you guys. Please reconsider. We're in the same fight here. Keep a good thread going. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:23:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> I never heard of a meltdown being strictly in terms that a meltdown is when the nuclear fuel melts through to the ground. That's crazy talk. Under that definition Chernobyl was not a "meltdown", since the melted core material is currently resting in various locations on the concrete floors of the structure. "Meltdown" has no scientific definition, it's a colloquial term, but I'd agree with you that if the fuel elements in the core melt, I would call that a "meltdown". FWIW, he was responding to me, where I was giving some examples of the range of situations that people have called "meltdown". He wasn't claiming the red quoted statement, but rather disputing it. I never posted that, i dont know how that came to be quoted under my name. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:24:34 PM EDT
[#16]
And for those freaked out about what it might do in the wind, check this fallout chart from just one series of Atomic tests done in Nevada.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:26:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember reading about a possible natural nuclear reactor that could have occured in a deposit of uranium ore. 2 billion years ago, give or take, happened repeatedly. Groundwater would act as a moderator for uranium deposits causing them to initiate reaction, and they would "burn" for quite a while (thousands of years). You know that those are actually the remains of the nuclear power plants from the Cylon and human ships...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:29:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: IOW, take your pee-pee slap fight elsewhere. There are a lot of folks watching this thread for facts, not drama.Quoted: Quoted: I am nowhere near in the same boat as you, I post when I have opionions based on confirmed facts or confirmable sources, and when I don't, I shut up, refrain from sensationalising things I obviously don't know enough about, and try to take in information from those that do. Youre a very important man in this world, I can tell. I like both of you guys. Please reconsider. We're in the same fight here. Keep a good thread going. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:31:13 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am nowhere near in the same boat as you, I post when I have opionions based on confirmed facts or confirmable sources, and when I don't, I shut up, refrain from sensationalising things I obviously don't know enough about, and try to take in information from those that do. Youre a very important man in this world, I can tell. I like both of you guys. Please reconsider. We're in the same fight here. Keep a good thread going. You're right. I will ignore that stuff in the future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:32:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
IOW, take your pee-pee slap fight elsewhere. There are a lot of folks watching this thread for facts, not drama.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am nowhere near in the same boat as you, I post when I have opionions based on confirmed facts or confirmable sources, and when I don't, I shut up, refrain from sensationalising things I obviously don't know enough about, and try to take in information from those that do. Youre a very important man in this world, I can tell. I like both of you guys. Please reconsider. We're in the same fight here. Keep a good thread going. What he said...keep the focus. What's needed is a 24/7 Mongo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:33:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
FWIW http://cs2.town.yanaizu.fukushima.jp/-wvhttp-01-/GetOneShot?REQUEST_ID=129988484073 From my limited research thus far, this appears to be a geothermal plant, in case anyone was wondering. As far as the Tepco feed, am I the only one surprised at how clean it looks? No steam, smoke or anything. I am not really surprised. Water is covering all the spent fuel from what I understand. I also believe we are on the down hill side of all of the problems there.. The news coming in is all but stopped as well. But this has been a game of whack a mole for those guys so anything could happen.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:34:49 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
FWIW http://cs2.town.yanaizu.fukushima.jp/-wvhttp-01-/GetOneShot?REQUEST_ID=129988484073 From my limited research thus far, this appears to be a geothermal plant, in case anyone was wondering. As far as the Tepco feed, am I the only one surprised at how clean it looks? No steam, smoke or anything. I am not really surprised. Water is covering all the spent fuel from what I understand. I also believe we are on the down hill side of all of the problems there.. The news coming in is all but stopped as well. But this has been a game of whack a mole for those guys so anything could happen.. I don't know shit about this sort of thing, but wouldn't it still be hot enough to create large amounts of steam? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:41:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Typical talking heads. Those folks are their in front of the camera because of their good looks and not what they know. They really don't understand what they're talking about because most of them were probably literature, art, English majors in college. How can you talk about science when they have no idea what it is. They are pretty much like fish out of water, literally.
Uhggg CNN is making me sick. They cannot understand the concept of a cascading failure and they think every time something new breaks that the Japanese have been lying... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:43:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
On-site storage is a bad idea and that's why I've been very PRO Yucca Mountain. Of course, in 2010 Obama in his infinite wisdom pulled the application for approval of the Yucca site and now it would take a damn act of Congress to bring it back online. Real stupid to, because we would have been able to safely store spent fuel there already. Actually if we would just recycle the spent fuel, the amount of waste would be <2% of what it is now. Consider some very rough numbers just for discussion. Fuel rod with 5% enriched fuel. So it's 5% fuel, 95% non-fissionable uranium. Put that in a reactor and use it. After a couple years, it's probably down to 3.5% (guess) enrichment, so it has to come out of the reactor. Can't go much lower than that and still achieve criticality. So now you have spent fuel which is 94.5% inert, 3.5% fuel, and 2% waste (ignoring the very small percentage of mass lost to energy conversion). As it is now, in the US that entire spent fuel element goes into storage. With recycling/reprocessing, you separate the actual waste from both the usable fuel as well as the inert uranium, so the volume of actual waste is miniscule. The fuel and inert parts get remade into new fuel elements (with a little boost of enrichment), the waste gets mined for useful isotopes (things like cesium and cobalt radioisotopes have industrial and scientific uses), the remaining waste gets stored somewhere. There's actually a reactor design that would even burn as fuel much of the waste from current reactors along with normal fuel isotopes (the "Integral Fast Reactor"), converting that waste to energy. We could actually achieve a nearly zero waste nuclear fuel stream if there was the political will to allow it to happen. I think that is what France does with their waste, is that correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:43:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FWIW http://cs2.town.yanaizu.fukushima.jp/-wvhttp-01-/GetOneShot?REQUEST_ID=129988484073 From my limited research thus far, this appears to be a geothermal plant, in case anyone was wondering. As far as the Tepco feed, am I the only one surprised at how clean it looks? No steam, smoke or anything. I am not really surprised. Water is covering all the spent fuel from what I understand. I also believe we are on the down hill side of all of the problems there.. The news coming in is all but stopped as well. But this has been a game of whack a mole for those guys so anything could happen.. I don't know shit about this sort of thing, but wouldn't it still be hot enough to create large amounts of steam? Just curious. I don't know. When the next jaif report comes out it will clear up some confusion about the water levels and pool integrity.. (hope) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:54:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FWIW http://cs2.town.yanaizu.fukushima.jp/-wvhttp-01-/GetOneShot?REQUEST_ID=129988484073 From my limited research thus far, this appears to be a geothermal plant, in case anyone was wondering. As far as the Tepco feed, am I the only one surprised at how clean it looks? No steam, smoke or anything. I am not really surprised. Water is covering all the spent fuel from what I understand. I also believe we are on the down hill side of all of the problems there.. The news coming in is all but stopped as well. But this has been a game of whack a mole for those guys so anything could happen.. I don't know shit about this sort of thing, but wouldn't it still be hot enough to create large amounts of steam? Just curious. I don't know. When the next jaif report comes out it will clear up some confusion about the water levels and pool integrity.. (hope) Do you have the one dated 0900 Mar 17th? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 10:57:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I must not be privy to popular understanding or people I have been associated with also knowing this popular "definition". I've always heard the term of a meltdown as the nuclear fuel melted down, meaning it's all melted. I never heard of a meltdown being strictly in terms that a meltdown is when the nuclear fuel melts through to the ground. My real point is that "meltdown" is a term people use to refer to a very wide range of conditions, anywhere from "melting is detected" to "it's nuclear lava tunneling to China". By your view, Three Mile Island did not suffer a meltdown. But it's been reported that TMI did suffer a meltdown. It didn't by the "all melted" definition, but that didn't stop people from calling it that. Which is correct? I'm not disagreeing with you, really, I'm just trying to point out that "meltdown" isn't a technically useful term because it's been used for a very wide range of conditions. I was just watching "Meltdown at 3 Mile Island", an old documentary on PBS. and a chief engineer working directly under Harold Denton who took charge of the situation, said that 5 feet of the core had melted, and he said yes the core DID meltdown, that is what you call a meltdown, when nuclear fuel melts. It doesn't have to escape the containment vessel to then consider it a "meltdown", just that it is melting or has melted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:11:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FWIW http://cs2.town.yanaizu.fukushima.jp/-wvhttp-01-/GetOneShot?REQUEST_ID=129988484073 From my limited research thus far, this appears to be a geothermal plant, in case anyone was wondering. As far as the Tepco feed, am I the only one surprised at how clean it looks? No steam, smoke or anything. I am not really surprised. Water is covering all the spent fuel from what I understand. I also believe we are on the down hill side of all of the problems there.. The news coming in is all but stopped as well. But this has been a game of whack a mole for those guys so anything could happen.. I don't know shit about this sort of thing, but wouldn't it still be hot enough to create large amounts of steam? Just curious. I don't know. When the next jaif report comes out it will clear up some confusion about the water levels and pool integrity.. (hope) Do you have the one dated 0900 Mar 17th? Yeah http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:16:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Another bullshit, no information report, basically providing nothing solid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:19:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id like to read about that, could you post a link. Kid is awake, ill read all the nasty responses later. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident "On 21 August 1945, Los Alamos scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. suffered fatal radiation poisoning after dropping a tungsten carbide brick onto a sphere of plutonium. The brick acted as a neutron reflector, bringing the mass to criticality. This was the first known criticality accident causing a fatality.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#cite_note-3][4][/url]" I think this was related less to dropping something on the plutonium, and more about putting a neutron reflector on it. It's crazy how quickly and easily you can turn a "relatively" safe core of plutonium into an instant lethal radiation dose. It's also pretty interesting to note how the 2 brief moments of criticality in that Pu core increased it's yield when they eventually used it in the Able test during Operation Crossroads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:22:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Another bullshit, no information report, basically providing nothing solid. It is like 7 hours old. They have been doing 2 a day. Anyone check the local radiation levels recently? I am hearing rumors there is an information blackout |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:23:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
I think the same thing happen during the BP oil spill, the news media were calling on the .GOV to replace BP to plug the well. I think the .GOV only has a few people who are even vaguely familiar with that stuff, and I believe the same situation in Japan, those .GOV people are bureaucraps.
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip The CNN is appalled that the Japanese goverment is still "letting" TEPCO be involved in containing this emergency  They somehow think that the Japanese goverment can replace the TEPCO employees.
And then, because CNN keeps translating what the Japanese are saying WRONG, they are now openly saying that the Japanese are lying to them... yah i had CNN on last night, i think it was the ac360 program, they would cut to some nuke expert they had on from MIT.. they would ask him stuff and he would just go into a off topic tirade about how the japanese gov is so dumb for not taking over operations from tepco and letting these small ammount of workers stay there to protect the plant. he got that way everytime they put him on to ask technical info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:42:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Here is a live stream of the reactor.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-gtv |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:52:37 PM EDT
[#34]
I must be drunk I cant understand a word he says  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:55:19 PM EDT
[#35]
#
SDF: Dousing of Reactor No. 3 from ground-based trucks will begin at around 6 pm JST /via @nhk_news # Kyodo reports 87,7 millisieverts radiation per hour above reactor No. 3 at a height of 300 ft. falling at 4,13 millisieverts per hour at 1000 ft. english.kyodonews.jp 1min reuters |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:55:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip The CNN is appalled that the Japanese goverment is still "letting" TEPCO be involved in containing this emergency They somehow think that the Japanese goverment can replace the TEPCO employees.
And then, because CNN keeps translating what the Japanese are saying WRONG, they are now openly saying that the Japanese are lying to them... yah i had CNN on last night, i think it was the ac360 program, they would cut to some nuke expert they had on from MIT.. they would ask him stuff and he would just go into a off topic tirade about how the japanese gov is so dumb for not taking over operations from tepco and letting these small ammount of workers stay there to protect the plant. he got that way everytime they put him on to ask technical info. so many what ifs. how about the other one talking about these water drops potentially toppling over the fuel rods creating yet another reaction / disaster. these water drops are desperate and almost pathetic but what else, ice cubes? and great the winds are easterly out to sea. wait a minute Actually... that's a genius idea.... More weight to hit the target without initially dispersing into a mist.... Plenty of snow there.. plenty of icy water in lakes I'm sure. + all we need are freaking RC controlled full sized helos too. it's dang 2011 don't we have them??? totally expendable. Large unmanned choppers do not exist in any significant quantity, and the few that probably exist are not fit to use in a situation like this. This is not a nuclear-reactor-on-a-treadmill thread to speculate about what might be possible... We need to focus on what can be done with the resources that actually exist and can be brought into play at the site. TR85. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:07:34 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id like to read about that, could you post a link. Kid is awake, ill read all the nasty responses later. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident "On 21 August 1945, Los Alamos scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. suffered fatal radiation poisoning after dropping a tungsten carbide brick onto a sphere of plutonium. The brick acted as a neutron reflector, bringing the mass to criticality. This was the first known criticality accident causing a fatality.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#cite_note-3][4][/url]" I think this was related less to dropping something on the plutonium, and more about putting a neutron reflector on it. It's crazy how quickly and easily you can turn a "relatively" safe core of plutonium into an instant lethal radiation dose. It's also pretty interesting to note how the 2 brief moments of criticality in that Pu core increased it's yield when they eventually used it in the Able test during Operation Crossroads. Looking at the mockup of the second experiment, can you imagine holding that screwdriver? That would be like holding a wide open chainsaw to your neck just to see how close you can get without harming yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:08:46 AM EDT
[#38]
1700hrs there wasn't one for 1600
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:21:27 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id like to read about that, could you post a link. Kid is awake, ill read all the nasty responses later. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident "On 21 August 1945, Los Alamos scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. suffered fatal radiation poisoning after dropping a tungsten carbide brick onto a sphere of plutonium. The brick acted as a neutron reflector, bringing the mass to criticality. This was the first known criticality accident causing a fatality.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#cite_note-3][4][/url]" I think this was related less to dropping something on the plutonium, and more about putting a neutron reflector on it. It's crazy how quickly and easily you can turn a "relatively" safe core of plutonium into an instant lethal radiation dose. It's also pretty interesting to note how the 2 brief moments of criticality in that Pu core increased it's yield when they eventually used it in the Able test during Operation Crossroads. Looking at the mockup of the second experiment, can you imagine holding that screwdriver? That would be like holding a wide open chainsaw to your neck just to see how close you can get without harming yourself. Anyone who thinks that a nuclear reactor, or puddle of melted reactor fuel or anything similar could explode like a nuclear weapon should consider these events. There you had an actual pure fissionable metal bomb core, raised to critical mass starting a fission chain reaction and..... no boom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:31:39 AM EDT
[#40]
Japan's nuclear safety agency says reactors 1, 5 and 6 at Daiichi are relatively stable. No new comment on 2, 3 and 4.
reuters 1 min |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:33:43 AM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 1:05:04 AM EDT
[#42]
1800 hrs
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 1:14:16 AM EDT
[#43]
Question: What happens to the control rods? I understand they're made of boron, what happens when the are hit by neutrons? Do they last forever, and if not, is there any radioactive waste from them? I can't seem to find anything on google
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 1:20:16 AM EDT
[#44]
I'm starting to feel more and more optimistic that today will be the day we start turning the corner and making significant progress. Finally it appears that there will be enough pumping capacity on-site to deliver significant quantities of water which will go a long way toward getting those exposed fuel rods covered. Even if there are leaks in the tanks, hopefully the water supply will be able to keep up with the demand and be able to cool those rods. There is even decent prospects of getting some electrical power back online at the plant, which will also aid the efforts tremendously. The key is to start regaining what has been lost, even if only a little at a time. Each step of forward progress the workers can make will not only lessen the severity of the problem, but buy more time, allowing more assets to be moved into place. While the situation there isn't great, it also isn't hopeless. If the workers can catch a few breaks today, perhaps they will be able to do just enough to make ensure that the worst of the radiation problem remains a very localized issue. And once again, every victory, even a tiny one, makes conditions that much more favorable to create further success. But cooling those damn rods is priority # 1. Accomplish that and hopefully the radiation levels will fall low enough to allow for more aggressive and decisive action.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 1:47:13 AM EDT
[#45]
Morning all, time for some information:
Radiation level reading from locations inside Fukushima Daiichi (in Japanese): There are also readings from "near MP-4", not sure where that is: For comparison here are earlier readings: The highest earlier readings were spikes to 12 mSv at 09:00 JST on 3/15 and 10 mSv at 12:30 JST on 3/16. Both of those readings were taken at "portal" (possibly what they have reported as the main gate of the plant.) The 10 mSv spike corresponded to the fire at #4 when they also reported 400 mSv near reactor #3. Radiation reading at "portal" today are 0.65 mSv. Speculation: on 3/16 readings as "portal" were 1/40th the highest source at the reactor, if that holds true we get a current high outside the reactors of 26mSv, "low" enough to allow several hours work in that location. At MP-4 readings were 30 uSv on 3/14, 60 uSv on 3/15, and 17 uSv today. Column 1 is time Column 2 is location (from top on 110317b document: west gate, portal, "Secretary Tate Kitamoto"??, side of gym, then back to west gate Column 3 is radiation reading (in uSv, divide by 1000 for mSv) Column 4 is neutron radiation reading Column 5 is wind direction (see http://thejapanesepage.com/lessons/directions for translation) Column 6 is wind speed |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 1:59:09 AM EDT
[#46]
TEPCO's latest (lack of) information release:
Only changes listed are: Unit 3: At 6:15 am Today, March 17th, the pressure of the Suppression Chamber temporally increased, but currently it is stable in a certain range. Monitoring will be continued. In order to cool spent fuel pool, water discharge by helicopters has been conducted today on March 17th with the cooperation of Self-Defense Force. They list no useful status for #4 beyond "there was a fire and we are monitoring the situation", there is no mention of temperatures in the spent fuel pool at #5 or #6, there has been zero mention since the quake of the status of the 6,000+ spent fuel assemblies in the common pool which is also (assumption) without power.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 2:03:03 AM EDT
[#47]
IAEA report of injuries so far at Fukushima:
Injuries
Radiological Contamination
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 2:07:34 AM EDT
[#48]
This is a pretty cool animation of all the earthquake epicenters from the 8th to the 16 around japan..
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Neuestes/Aus+den+Abteilungen+-+Archive/Ressourcen/110316_Erdbebenanimation_gross;jsessionid=9FC1265287A3422F69813E07060D3FD7 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 2:10:40 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id like to read about that, could you post a link. Kid is awake, ill read all the nasty responses later. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident "On 21 August 1945, Los Alamos scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. suffered fatal radiation poisoning after dropping a tungsten carbide brick onto a sphere of plutonium. The brick acted as a neutron reflector, bringing the mass to criticality. This was the first known criticality accident causing a fatality.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident#cite_note-3][4][/url]" I think this was related less to dropping something on the plutonium, and more about putting a neutron reflector on it. It's crazy how quickly and easily you can turn a "relatively" safe core of plutonium into an instant lethal radiation dose. It's also pretty interesting to note how the 2 brief moments of criticality in that Pu core increased it's yield when they eventually used it in the Able test during Operation Crossroads. Looking at the mockup of the second experiment, can you imagine holding that screwdriver? That would be like holding a wide open chainsaw to your neck just to see how close you can get without harming yourself. Anyone who thinks that a nuclear reactor, or puddle of melted reactor fuel or anything similar could explode like a nuclear weapon should consider these events. There you had an actual pure fissionable metal bomb core, raised to critical mass starting a fission chain reaction and..... no boom. No boom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2011 2:12:48 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
# SDF: Dousing of Reactor No. 3 from ground-based trucks will begin at around 6 pm JST /via @nhk_news # Kyodo reports 87,7 millisieverts radiation per hour above reactor No. 3 at a height of 300 ft. falling at 4,13 millisieverts per hour at 1000 ft. english.kyodonews.jp 1min reuters That's pretty high. You can't spend much time in 8 R and 4 R, but IMO, you can spend more time than the chopper pilots were last night. The one had it right. Play the wind and don't be directly above the fuel pool. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
