...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???

Jonathan wrote:

Look at this explosion at 47 seconds into the video.
A violent hydrogen explosion, demolishing such a
heavily reinforced containment building, must have
been the result of a badly overheated reactor.

Japan claims the reactor is intact. But that large of an explosion
could have caused all kinds of damage and leaks that
have yet to be found, or admitted by the Japanese govt.

Japan Nuclear Reactor EXPLOSION Fukushima Meltdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvC4WQrQwTs

Japan Nuclear Fallout Map? (gulp)
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/438/fallout.jpg

Fukushima overhead view
http://everist.org/pics/misc/fukushima_worse.png

Japan is reporting the prevailing winds are out to sea.
They've already evacuated 300,000 from the area.
And Fukushima #1 is one of the largest 25 reactors
in the world. And was built ...way back..in 1970.
The first reactor built by it's builder.

I would think that all of the cold water
that they keep pouring on the reactor fuel cells
would act as a moderator and increase the fission rate.

--
pete

On Mar 14, 9:50*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
|" wrote:

Three hydrogen blasts in three different reactors. And if the
outer building shells are damaged it seem fair to assume
greater release than at Three Mile Island.

Why?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Three reactors and the reports seem to indicate that at least of
one of the reactor containments is cracked and leaking.

Anyway most of the release will radioactive Xenon which
isn't going to give a concentrated dose to anyone other than
someone standing on top of the mess out there.

So why not? Dazzle me but don't blind me or alienate
me as I am merely a representative of the unwashed masses.

hoping for hormesis.................Trig

On Mar 15, 10:44*am, Jacob wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:01:45 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
.. .
In article d2527d39-015a-4f2d-8bb9-

I think many (here and in the media) are overreacting to the problems
Japan is having with their earthquake and tsunami damaged nuclear power
facilities.

That may be correct. But there're many good reasons to err on the side
of caution.

Why aim to err?

Now that is so easy as the first err will help cover the
next err to create a positive outcome. Or so the hope
goes.

Hoping the next tsunami along the coast of
the golden state is 10 feet and not forty feet
high.............................................. .............Trig

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:20:41 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote:
And now that it seems two more reactors are having
problems, and our pilots have to be decontamined
after flying through the cloud line,


Cite for that claim about 'decontaminated'? Yeah, I thought not.

Apparently there WAS some very low-level contamination. I believe
that they took a hose and washed off the choppers and had the pilots
remove their clothes and take a shower.

Let's see... (does a quick google search)

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...3129409&page=1

(a few relevant passages)

"The ship's crew was exposed to a very low level of radiation."

""The maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force
personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less
than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure
to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and
the sun," Davis said."


(My own note - compared to your lifetime background radiation
exposure, this is an increase of roughly 1 part in 1000. This is NOT
exactly a cause for alarm.)


"According to Davis, the radiation was first detected by air
particulate detectors aboard three helicopters located 60 miles away
from the shoreline."

"The low level radioactivity from affected personnel was removed by
washing with soap and water. Their clothes were also discarded.
They were subsequently surveyed and no further contamination was
detected."

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:19:45 -0500, pete
wrote:

I would think that all of the cold water
that they keep pouring on the reactor fuel cells
would act as a moderator and increase the fission rate.
pete

They add boron to the water, which reduces the fission rate by
absorbing neutrons.

They use boron (along with other neutron-absorbing materials like
cadmium) in making the control rods used to shut down the reaction.
So it's sort of like adding in a whole bunch more control rods.

On Mar 15, 12:20*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:

That was an example chart of a theoretical release.
Can't anyone read? *It didn't claim those are the actual levels
of radiation release. *I guess I shouldn't assume anyone
has the first lick of common sense, I mean how could
anyone say how much was released at this point in the
middle of an ongoing accident???

Well, one would certainly have to be an absolute idiot to put such a
chart forward as if it was germane to, well, ANYTHING.



I took it for granted the only useful info on that chart
was the fallout direction and rate of change.

You took too much for granted. *No reason to believe those, either.



If you think that's wrong well show me your sources instead
of just spewing mindless b.s.

Show us yours, supporting the mindless b.s. you spewed.



That's a load of crap, when no one has the foggiest idea
how much radiaion is/was and will continue being released
assuming the worst case is the prudent position to take.

No, it isn't. *It leads to wasting effort that could be better spent
elsewhere and to not even attempting some things that might be quite
useful to do.



Only idiots would assume the best case given the enormous
magnitudeof this disaster.

Ditto 'worst case' and it take a REAL buffoon to defend that as "the
prudent position to take".



And now that it seems two more reactors are having
problems, and our pilots have to be decontamined
after flying through the cloud line,

Cite for that claim about 'decontaminated'? *Yeah, I thought not.



it seems the worst
case is far more likely than not.

Only to Chicken Little.



One wonders if all these loons will feel properly chagrined in a few
weeks or will they merely be telling themselves just how close they
were to being right?

I'm glad your so confident over a reactor built in 1967, built to the
cheapest standards possible, ...

Cite?



... and a design which caused the GE
engineering management to resign in protest over it's flaws, back
in 1972 by the way.

It took 'em 5 years to quit over it? *REALLY???



And as I type CNN just reported reactor #2 just exploded
after fully exposed rods, according to the report.

Cite?



The latter is my guess.

Right! *Don't worry, I don't play the "I told you so" card~

Oh, I'm not worried. *But you should be. *You could get hit by a piece
of the sky on its way down, you see...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

well 3 reactors have now exploded, a storage pool appears to be
boiling, and its been days and things arent getting better they are
detoriating

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/15/ja...ay-be-boiling/

On Mar 15, 12:55*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

As if that isn't bad enough, there was a fire in reactor #4 reported a
couple of hours back:

The fire was meaningless noise. *It was at a reactor that had already
been shut down for some time and was put out in pretty short order.

The potential for cracks in the 'wet well' is serious.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
* * live in the real world." *
* * * * * * * * * * * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

fred the fire was very meaningful, since it was in the spent core
cooling pool, which has a damaged wall.

radiation went up 10 times what it was.

of course you reassured everyone spent core pools are perfectly safe,
what could possibly go wrong?

In article 8c119e42-d7f2-412b-af76-eebbad8a7f52
@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com, says...

fred the fire was very meaningful, since it was in the spent core
cooling pool, which has a damaged wall.

radiation went up 10 times what it was.

of course you reassured everyone spent core pools are perfectly safe,
what could possibly go wrong?

10 times really isn't much. This is not the same as a carbon core
reactor burning (i.e. Chernobyl). This whole thing is being blown out
of proportion. The biggest impact to Japan won't be from the small
amounts of radiation being released from the reactor, as they're trying
to cool them down, but from the economic impact of all of those nuclear
reactors being off-line for months or years.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On 3/14/2011 9:59 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
As if that isn't bad enough, there was a fire in reactor #4 reported a
couple of hours back:
http://www.suntimes.com/4317306-417/...ear-plant.html

Well, the good news is that the fire in reactor building #4 is now out.
The bad news is that the fire was in the used fuel rods storage tank and
the rods were what was on fire.

Pat

On Mar 15, 3:14*am, (Harold Groot) wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:19:45 -0500, pete
wrote:

I would think that all of the cold water
that they keep pouring on the reactor fuel cells
would act as a moderator and increase the fission rate.
pete

They add boron to the water, which reduces the fission rate by
absorbing neutrons. *

They use boron (along with other neutron-absorbing materials like
cadmium) in making the control rods used to shut down the reaction.
So it's sort of like adding in a whole bunch more control rods.

Obviously they didn't have enough boron.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”