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

In sci.space.policy Jonathan wrote:
On CNN they're reporting a US helicopter flew through the smoke line
and17 crew members were contaminated with radiation.

What level of radiation?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


It's all too little too late now, especially if No.3 can't be
controlled.

They better get it cooled before the wind changes, it's still
heading right out to sea, but a shift to the south could contaminate
the ...entire country. Looks to me they have 24 hrs at most before
the winds change. Quite a drama going on over there I bet.
The stakes are enormous.

Northwest Pacific infrared loop
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/mtsat/nwpac/loop-ir2.html

Northeast Pacific infrared loop
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/loop-avn.html

NHC Latest satellite imagery
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/satellite.shtml



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.


It looks to me like this reactor went very quickly. From the growth
of the smoke plume in the seconds before the explosion it appears
the event started just seconds before the video started. It seems likely
some pipe to the steel reactor vessel broke, and in minutes it would
overheat and start filling up the concrete containment vessel. The
hydrogen explosion meant some level of meltdown. All three backups
failed, since this reactor type overheats so quickly without full water
levels, I don't see how it didn't fully melt down right before or just after
the explosion.

Just imagine right after the explosion, the primary large cooling pools
are inside that concrete containment building. There's no way
that was functioning after the explosion, so all they had were
the tsunami damaged diesels, and the 8 hour batter back up.

After that the core would overheat and quickly turn all the
water to steam, with no water to replenish the steam, the core
would be fully exposed in minutes after the last back up failed.

I think the whole sea water thing is just to keep it from burning
through the steel vessel, but the core must be totally melted.


Video of explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvC4WQrQwTs



Perhaps the French EPR reactors or ones like their Civaux Super Phenix
would offer better failsafe options.


I bet those reactors rate as among the oldest and most flawed design
of any in the western world. If you had a price chart of cheapest to most
expensive reactors/containment packages, this reactor would be the
first one (cheapest) listed.

All those other reactors in the area didn't seem to fail!


http://hubrismachine.files.wordpress...ogle.com/#Brad Guth, Brad Guth, Brad.Guth,BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


Perhaps the French EPR reactors or ones like their Civaux Super Phenix
would offer better failsafe options.



Below I was talking about the japanese reactors that failed, not the French
ones.


I bet those reactors rate as among the oldest and most flawed design
of any in the western world. If you had a price chart of cheapest to most
expensive reactors/containment packages, this reactor would be the
first one (cheapest) listed.

All those other reactors in the area didn't seem to fail!

On 3/13/2011 8:15 PM, WarrenC wrote:
I don't think the core containers are damaged. Where did you hear it?
Also the control rods are functionining property. This seem to be what
this nuclear expert Fred Mccall is convincing us. That there is
nothing to be concerned about. The Japanese are just lowering the
temperature which existed prior to the Earthquake. It is no longer
producing new heat because the neclear reactions are already off when
the control rods are lowered. You were just speculating the control
rod didn't function property. We assume they are. If not, then it's
going to be a problem because the nuclear reactions can generate new
heat... but this is unlikely. Control rods are lowered by simple
actuator machine which seldom fail especially in mil spec
configuration used in nuclear power plants.

There's video of the explosion at reactor building #3 over he
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/13...at-fukush.html
It looks a lot more severe than the explosion at reactor #1, and note
the large amount of debris falling back to earth from the blast cloud.
The speed it falls at makes it look like heavy material, rather than the
lightweight building covering in the reactor #1 explosion.
A photo of the building makes it look a lot more damaged than the first
building also:
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/a...UA_502441a.jpg


Pat

"WarrenC" wrote in message
...

I don't think the core containers are damaged. Where did you hear it?
Also the control rods are functioning property.


On this type of reactor, even if the control rods were fully
inserted, the core has to be cooled for several days
or it'll still melt down. And this very old type of reactor
melts down is minutes once the core is exposed.

So IF they're keeping the core cooled by sea-water, which
is not part of any recognized failure scenario, all that water
would be quickly leaking back out and it would be heavily
contaminated. Probably being flushed out to sea.

I think at this point they're trying to keep the core from melting
through the steel vessel, if that happened then massive amounts
of radiation would be carried away by the winds. Right now
it's all going into the sea water I think.

On CNN they're reporting a US helicopter flew through the
smoke line and17 crew members were contaminated with radiation.




This seem to be what
this nuclear expert Fred Mccall is convincing us. That there is
nothing to be concerned about. The Japanese are just lowering the
temperature which existed prior to the Earthquake. It is no longer
producing new heat because the nuclear reactions are already off when
the control rods are lowered.


That's a faulty assumption with these very old reactors, it may be
true for most reactors, but these need to be cooled after the
rods are fully inserted for an extended period of time.



You were just speculating the control
rod didn't function property. We assume they are. If not, then it's
going to be a problem because the nuclear reactions can generate new
heat... but this is unlikely. Control rods are lowered by simple
actuator machine which seldom fail especially in mil spec
configuration used in nuclear power plants.


Most nuclear plants have their control rods held in place
above the core by electro-magnets. So if the power fails
the rods must fall completely into the core. But not this
reactor, they are hydraulically raised from below.

I think the reason these reactors failed, when so many others in the
region didn't, is because of their age (1967) and very simple
and....cheap design. Right now I bet they're furiously trying to
cool those reactors before the wind changes to the south.

Right now any radiation is going out to sea in the water and wind.
But in a day or two, the winds could shift south and the
radiation could contaminate the ...entire nation.

Quite a drama going on right now over there I bet.

On Mar 14, 7:40*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d2527d39-015a-4f2d-8bb9-
,
says...



There seems to be little perils in the 3 nuclear reactors in Japan.
Anyway. Wonder if the following is true:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/...magnitude_quak...

"If the Same Magnitude Quake Had Hit California, We Could Have Been
Nuked

An 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake could have ripped apart at least four
coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the
entire United States."

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.

After all, a recent report says "Approximately 2,000 bodies were found
Monday in Miyagi Prefecture on Japan's northeast coast, the Kyodo news
agency reported." *These deaths were all a direct result of the
earthquake/tsunami. *

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

Your positive optimism is noted. Most of us are being conservative at
10,000 deaths, and at least ten fold that many again as injured.

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

On Mar 14, 7:21*am, WarrenC wrote:
There seems to be little perils in the 3 nuclear reactors in Japan.
Anyway. Wonder if the following is true:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/...magnitude_quak...

"If the Same Magnitude Quake Had Hit California, We Could Have Been
Nuked

An 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake could have ripped apart at least four
coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the
entire United States."

That's true enough, although I believe our backup power systems are
somewhat better configured, and they sure as hell wouldn't run out of
fuel. Therefore our core shut-downs would likely function well enough
to prevent most of what Japan is going through.

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

"Bill Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:37:25 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Bill Smith wrote:



It had a steel reinforced concrete outer containment building
that was supposed to ...contain a meltdown ...from spreading
radiation to the air, except for deliberate releases to lower
the pressure.


What you are looking at is a PWR, or pressurized water plant. What
these plants are is BWR's or boiling water plants which don't have
heavy containments.


Not quite so correct. Also note that the containment on the Japanese
reactors is intact.

How can you tell? Containments on PWRs are round topped heavily
re-enforced concrete structures. The Only BWR I've been in was
rectangular topped sheet metal building on top of the refueling floor
where the reactor vessel head was plainly visible. getting an accurate
description from new reports is far all intents and purposes,
impossible. I doubt very much that these plants are substantially
different from others of the time.


there are a lot of problems with these kind of
plants, which is why they don't build them anymore. We have several
operating in the US. They were cheaper, I never liked them.


No, PWRs are actually 'cheaper'. They give higher power density,
which is why the Navy went with them.


One is cheaper short term, the other cheaper long term.





Of course it is. This *is* Jonathan we're talking about, after all.


750 rads? Where did they get that number?


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???

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

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




They pulled it out of their arse, of course.


Don't panic, it never helps.


But Jonathan has argued that 'worst case' is the way to go if you're
too ignorant to understand the information that's out there.



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

And now that it seems two more reactors are having
problems, and our pilots have to be decontamined
after flying through the cloud line, it seems the worst
case is far more likely than not.


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

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


The latter is my guess.


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


s





Bill Smith

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
telephone...
On 3/13/2011 12:54 PM, Michael wrote:

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.

We had two incidents that occurred here in North Dakota related to nuclear
tests when I was a kid. IIRC one was due to the Soviet detonation of their
Czar Bomb - in that case we were told not to drink milk that was bottled
after a particular date until further notice, due to the fact that the
dairy cattle may have consumed fallout from the detonation that ended up
in their milk. Milk bottling stopped for a few weeks.
The other time was related to a Chinese test and happened in winter; in
that case we were told to make sure we didn't eat any snow if we were
playing outside.


I lived in Michigan during the years when some farmer accidently switched
a bag of cow feed, with a bag of PCB's. Contaminated the entire food chain.
Last estimate I remember is that anyone that ate meat that year in Michigan
got a nice (un)healthy dose.




Pat

On Mar 14, 4:36*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Bill Smith" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:37:25 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Bill Smith wrote:

It had a steel reinforced concrete outer containment building
that was supposed to ...contain a meltdown ...from spreading
radiation to the air, except for deliberate releases to lower
the pressure.

What you are looking at is a PWR, or pressurized water plant. What
these plants are is BWR's or boiling water plants which don't have
heavy containments.

Not quite so correct. *Also note that the containment on the Japanese
reactors is intact.

How can you tell? Containments on PWRs are round topped heavily
re-enforced concrete structures. The Only BWR I've been in was
rectangular topped sheet metal building on top of the refueling floor
where the reactor vessel head was plainly visible. getting an accurate
description from new reports is far all intents and purposes,
impossible. I doubt very much that these plants are substantially
different from others of the time.

there are a lot of problems with these kind of
plants, which is why they don't build them anymore. We have several
operating in the US. They were cheaper, I never liked them.

No, PWRs are actually 'cheaper'. *They give higher power density,
which is why the Navy went with them.

One is cheaper short term, the other cheaper long term.



Of course it is. *This *is* Jonathan we're talking about, after all.

750 rads? Where did they get that number?

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???

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

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



They pulled it out of their arse, of course.

Don't panic, it never helps.

But Jonathan has argued that 'worst case' is the way to go if you're
too ignorant to understand the information that's out there.

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

And now that it seems two more reactors are having
problems, and our pilots have to be decontamined
after flying through the cloud line, it seems the worst
case is far more likely than not.

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

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



The latter is my guess.

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

s



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

Japan is officially obfuscating their Asian butts off. They obviously
value life considerably less than we do, and that's really pathetic
because we've been known to lie about WMD just to start and sustain a
bogus war that has killed over a million innocent Muslim civilians,
not to mention all the other collateral damage and loss of American
lives.

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