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

On Mar 13, 10:30*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Jacob" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:30:55 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

Compare the size of the smoke plume at the start of this video
to the point before the explosion at 47 seconds.
The smoke plume grows by some four times in size
in just 40 seconds. Then bang! It fits the worst case scenario
sequence cited below. And the govt statement a pipe burst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvC4WQrQwTs

So your point is the government hasn't told all? Probably not.

The "worst case" hasn't happened. Saying it has is hype.

Fukushima Reactor

This reactor is a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), *an early BWR mark 2
with the earliest mark 1 outer containment. Built in 1967. Most reactors
today are Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). And btw, a BWR doesn't
have top mounted control rods which automatically fall if power is lost..
They're bottom mounted and hydraulically inserted. And it may be the
large suppression pools described below they're trying to fill with
sea-water now I would guess. And it should be noted, below it states
the outer containment building is designed to ...contain...a meltdown.

Hence, the name, *containment* building. You don't want them to build
nukes in a building that would do this?

The failure scenario design assumption is that a coolant pile to the steel
reactor containment vessel broke, causing a melt-down and pressurizing
the outer concrete containment building. But that outer building should
survive even in this worst case. *But it appears this early version outer
building didn't have the added safety systems which would vent and filter
the outer building when the pressure built up.

It appears this is the worst case, in terms of level of accident /and/
lack of safety systems.

Snip Wiki quotes.

It's not the worse case unless another hydrogen explosion from all
that seawater causes their primary stainless containment vessel to
further rupture and vent in a bad way. That could still happen, but
it's not as likely to happen unless the next earthquake or something
else disrupts their delivery of seawater.

Radiation inside their damaged reactor building has to be lethal at
much over a few hours exposure. The seawater being discharged from
that facility can't be good for any kind of ocean life.

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

On Mar 13, 9:09*am, Jacob wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote:
Sadly, a public perception that the reactor suffered a catastrophic
meltdown will probably persist, and spoil the chances of nuclear
reactors being built in the future. Since power is still required, coal
will be used instead.

Sylvia,

Joe liberman on face the Nation today called for a moratorium on any
new nuke plants till this is sorted out, in addition 23 US plants are
like the japanese plants.

at least 2 plants and possibly 3 are in meltdown...

A politician called for less action, more study. You needed to watch a
"news" program to learn that? Does it matter which one said it?

How much progress was encouraged by a politician putting the brakes on
in 1979?

The news says "23 US plants are like the japanese plants." It makes a
scary sound bite. In what ways are they "like the japanese plants?"

Are they situated near an 8+ magnitude earthquake?

You want to stop burning fossil fuels (with their emission of evil
CO2), and reduce dependence on foreign oil? Build nuclear power
plants.
Only if fueled by thorium, and not engineered by your kind of morons
that have no concept of "failsafe".

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

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:38:22 -0500, "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.

Boiling water reactors don't have heavy containment buildings like
pressurized water plants do. It's one of the reasons they haven't been
built since the 1970s and won't be built again.

The contamination released will disperse significantly before
prevailing winds can bring it as far as the US. Only very sensitive
instruments will be able to detect it by the time it gets this far.


Bill Smith

On Mar 13, 11:47*am, Bill Smith wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:38:22 -0500, "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.

Boiling water reactors don't have heavy containment buildings like
pressurized water plants do. It's one of the reasons they haven't been
built since the 1970s and won't be built again.

*The contamination released will disperse significantly before
prevailing winds can bring it as far as the US. Only very sensitive
instruments will be able to detect it by the time it gets this far.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bill Smith

If your local smoke alarms start going off, it's a wee bit more than
slight.

So far so good, as nothing significant of their primary containment
vessel has exploded, although that could change real quick.

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

On Mar 12, 5:38*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
|
| An earthquake is going to hit Los Angeles. Are they rushing to leave?
| No, of course not, they haven't been discovered as great movie stars
| yet. But when it does, please help, we need your money. Lots of money..
|
|
| Better hope the 30 foot sea wall protects the California coast
| nuclear reactor when the great waves come into shore from
| the big one off shore.
|
| The devil is in the details with type of disaster.
|
| Some designs are less dangerous than others.
| I won't say some are safer than others ;-)............rig
|

Better hope the levies can protect New Orleans against Katrina... oh
wait, they didn't. Too late, never mind. Still, Americans can always
pray, they are good at that. Thank gawd I'm saved, and if I'm not
then its gawd's will. Send money.

New Orleans was warned repeatedly before the fact.
Big oil cut canals thru the swamps and made paths
for the progress of the waters.
There were at least two TV expose of risk before the
Katrina disaster.

Russians and Americans are too often similar.................Trig

On Mar 12, 8:38*am, "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 Meltdownhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvC4WQrQwTs

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

Fukushima overhead viewhttp://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.

s


On that note, I wonder what the radiation exposure maps looked like
after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs exploded. Oh well, humanity
still survived on the West Coast, so it shouldn't have been too bad.

Michael

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:17:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Bill Smith wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:38:22 -0500, "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.


Boiling water reactors don't have heavy containment buildings like
pressurized water plants do. It's one of the reasons they haven't been
built since the 1970s and won't be built again.


There's nothing that says they can't. The shape of the internal
equipment generally leads to a pair of square buildings rather than a
big semi-spherical dome.

There are lots of other problems with BWRs. I'm glad that they aren't
being built anymore.

Bill Smith

The contamination released will disperse significantly before
prevailing winds can bring it as far as the US. Only very sensitive
instruments will be able to detect it by the time it gets this far.


Quite correct, unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong.

On Mar 12, 8:38*am, "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 Meltdownhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvC4WQrQwTs

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

Fukushima overhead viewhttp://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.

s

That MOX/plutonium fueled reactor (No.3) could become seriously
problematic, even if it were only 7% plutonium is representing an
impressive tonnage that could be a whole lot worse than Chernobyl. I
bet the locals had no real idea that a source of potentially weapons
grade plutonium was so nearby.

So why hasn't the public been officially notified by Japan and our DoD
that had to know the worst threat was yet to come? (“spent MOX fuel,
as it is much more radioactive and generates twice the heat of spent
uranium fuel”, so you can just imagine how extra super-hot the good
stuff is)

With any significant amount of overheated plutonium in the reactor
core that has lost it’s original fuel-rod containment integrity, all
the seawater on Earth is not going to put that kind of molten nuclear
fire out, because its heat is coming from within.

I mean to say that recycled unclear fuel is certainly a good thing
(even if it’s spendy as hell), however what exactly is Japan doing
with a fast breeder reactor that’s specifically capable of providing
or certainly capable of loosing track of potentially weapons grade
plutonium?

http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009...sed_fuel/1602/
“After uranium is burned in a typical reactor, the spent nuclear fuel
still holds 50 percent of its potential power – 20 percent as uranium
and 30 percent as plutonium.”

“Storage and transport of the fuel also requires more care and cost to
prevent its handlers’ exposure to radiation. Another difficulty is the
handling of spent MOX fuel, as it is much more radioactive and
generates twice the heat of spent uranium fuel.”

Of course running a reactor on thorium fuel kinda eliminates any
chance of creating plutonium or need for involving plutonium, though
not that plutonium isn’t one of several methods for controlling the
heat/energy density that can be safely extracted from thorium.

By now it seems fairly obvious, having a fully reliable and failsafe
backup for control power and cooling system(s) is really more
critically important engineering than the reactor itself, because no
amount of robust reactor vessel can insure our safety without
controlled cooling, and especially if it’s running on MOX fuel.

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

On Mar 12, 2:57*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:43*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Mar 12, 7:38*am, "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 Meltdownhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvC4WQrQwTs

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

Fukushima overhead viewhttp://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.

s

That kind of reactor coolant dispersed radiation is certainly bad
news, especially downwind of those secondary spent fuel elements like
plutonium, but it's not likely to be quite as bad off as it could be.
Most of that reactor core will manage to burn its way through the
foundation of its containment, and due to gravity it'll eventually
sink out of sight without another steam explosion unless water is
added.

There’s a good chance that their primary containment vessel is either
badly damaged or nearly worthless. (it’s certainly no longer a sealed
containment)

However, this could get a whole lot worse, if any storm(s) or odd
weather brings any of that nasty cloud of radioactive steam/vapor back
towards land, they may have no option but to abandon ship (so to
speak).

Unfortunately, the ongoing ocean contamination until that containment
burn-through and its fuel sinking into the bedrock/crust of Earth may
take months, or possibly years before it’s 100% nullified. *On it’s
way into the crust/bedrock, there will be geothermal and radioactive
fuel saturated vapor explosions as that extremely hot core of mostly
uranium continues to interact with ground water or whatever artificial
coolant seawater getting pumped down the hole that’s melting its way
through basalt, and that superheated steam transported radiation will
likely become atmospheric and downwind nasty. *The local and global
cleanup cost to Japan should only be a few trillion dollars per year,
and with 128 million should only cost each and every person $10,000/
year once the bulk of those damaged reactors are nullified.

The good corporate news for other Big Energy, is this makes their BP
blowout fiasco seem woefully insignificant, and their oil as well as
coal worth even more. *Other than that, Japan has just put itself into
a no-win foreclosure, unless their rich and powerful start forking out
tens of billions per month.

Again, where and why were all those radon gas detections of pending
earthquakes kept secret or ignored?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

scientists treport nuke plants worldwide arent built to survive 8 and
9 earthquakes since they are so rare, and would cost so much to build
they wouldnt be cost effective so entually a big one hits. They are
now pumping sea water to try and cool the core.

Will a big chunk of japan end up resembling this?

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/

The 9.0 earthquake occurred far out at sea. They are designed to shut
down when an earthquake is detected. Well before any damage. There
are over 50 nuclear reactors operating in Japan. ALL of them, except
these three shut down.

This shut down happens in microseconds. There are problems with the
power generation system when you do this, so its not normal
operation. The nuclear reaction itself takes only seconds to shut
off, in an emergency situation. As these pulse tests show;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgNwtepP-6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I3JKYdGWTE

So, the control rods move rather quickly.

In the event of an earthquake, the system is designed to shut down the
core of the reactor automatically without human intervention as soon
as a strong shake is detected. Well before things break or can't
work.

Then the computer goes about the business of trying to salvage the
steam generating hardware, and then the turbine and generator, and
then the network - in that order.

After the reactor core is shut down, following detection of local
shaking its up to the humans to pick up the pieces.

All this happens within one second of the seismometer in the reactor
sending a signal to the controlling computer.

So why didn't it happen in these two reactors?

Remember, it was minutes before the tsunami hit.
It was seconds before the big quake hit.

It didn't happen.

Well, one possibility is that there might be a failure in the
computerized control system. A signal wasn't sent because the
software was compromised somehow.

It just so happened that US intelligence in conjunction with Israeli
intelligence in February 2010 released a Stuxnet worm that was
specifically designed to cause a meltdown in Iran's nuclear reactor by
exploiting vulnerabilities in the software used to control systems
with computers. At the time in August 2010 when Fukushima was being
refueled over 100,000 infections were known world wide. 60,000 of
these in Iran. 40,000 of these elsewhere, including 2,600 in the
USA.

Could Stuxnet be the culprit here?

Well consider;

The system didn't shut down as 52 other reactors did when their
seismometers told the computer to execute the shut down procedure.

The systems that didn't shut down - but the software thinking it was
shut down - which is how the stuxnet works - proceeds to shut off
water to the reactor it thinks is not operating. This makes matters
worse and leads directly to the scenario we are faced with here.

To those who wrongly believe stuxnet is not a problem, please listen
to those who know about this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9pvQ5CFnGw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYI1MYBKNK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf0jlzVCyOI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6bG8Db09sY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkcxi-D5_C0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAqaG3WyJus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA8I_0mI9Z8

About the BWR at Fukushima that exploded, according to Wiki
it used the earliest Mark 1 Containment building. Built in 1967
and is a GE design.


List of BWRs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BWRs

Fukushima 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushi...ar_Power_Plant


HAZARDS OF BOILING WATER REACTORS
IN THE UNITED STATES

"However, as early as 1972, Dr. Stephen Hanuaer, an Atomic Energy
Commission safety official, recommended that the pressure suppression
system be discontinued and any further designs not be accepted for
construction permits. Shortly thereafter, three General Electric nuclear
engineers publicly resigned their prestigious positions citing dangerous
shortcomings in the GE design."

An NRC analysis of the potential failure of the Mark I under accident
conditions concluded in a 1985 report that Mark I failure within the first
few hours following core melt would appear rather likely."

In 1986, Harold Denton, then the NRC's top safety official, told an industry
trade group that the "Mark I containment, especially being smaller with
lower design pressure, in spite of the suppression pool, if you look at the
WASH 1400 safety study, you'll find something like a 90% probability of that
containment failing." In order to protect the Mark I containment from a
total rupture it was determined necessary to vent any high pressure buildup.
As a result, an industry workgroup designed and installed the "direct torus
vent system" at all Mark I reactors. Operated from the control room, the
vent is a reinforced pipe installed in the torus and designed to release
radioactive high pressure steam generated in a severe accident by allowing
the unfiltered release directly to the atmosphere through the 300 foot vent
stack. Reactor operators now have the option by direct action to expose the
public and the environment to unknown amounts of harmful radiation in order
to "save containment." As a result of GE's design deficiency, the original
idea for a passive containment system has been dangerously compromised and
given over to human control with all its associated risks of error and
technical failure.

DETERIORATION OF BWR SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS

It is becoming increasingly clear that the aging of reactor components poses
serious economic and safety risks at BWRs. A report by NRC published in 1993
confirmed that age-related degradation in BWRs will damage or destroy many
vital safety-related components inside the reactor vessel before the forty
year license expires. The NRC report states "Failure of internals could
create conditions that may challenge the integrity the reactor primary
containment systems."
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm