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

"Bill Smith" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building



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.



To say that you must know exactly how much radiation was
released. How much was it? And the only fallout map I've seen
shows it dissipates only by about a fourth by the time it gets to
the west coast. What are your sources?

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/438/fallout.jpg


Bill Smith

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. 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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

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.



To say that you must know exactly how much radiation was
released. How much was it? And the only fallout map I've seen
shows it dissipates only by about a fourth by the time it gets to
the west coast. What are your sources?

Dispersal is about 30,000 to one upon release and increases rapidly
with distance from the release point. That's what they taught me in
Navy nuclear power school.


http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/438/fallout.jpg


This is pretty much nonsense. 750 rads? Where did they get that
number? First, they are talking radiation, which not what's being
released, it's contamination, which, essentially, radioactive dirt
(for lack of a better term). The dirt emits radiation. The dirt is
dispersed very widely as it travels across the ocean. A significant
portion will be removed by rain, it falls in the ocean, which further
disperses it. Some will decay to less than minimum detectable levels,
the rest scattered so widely that detecting it will be difficult at
best.

If you have a lot of nuclear accidents it reduces the environment's
ability to disperse it to harmless levels, but we haven't had many
because the systems mostly work as they should. This is no small
thing, but it isn't the end of civilization as we know it either.

Don't panic, it never helps.

After the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fallout was
barely detectable in the US, and that was Armageddon by comparison to
what's happened, so far, in Japan.


Bill Smith

On Mar 13, 3:47*pm, wrote:
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=mgNwt...?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=_9pvQ...?v=S6bG8Db09sY

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

In theory, a 100% plutonium fueled reactor is technically doable.
However, should anything go the least bit wrong (such as control logic
being infected with Stuxnet), it’s not going to end well (especially
if there’s not a 9+ seismic bullet-proof backup cooling system).

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.

Perhaps the French EPR reactors or ones like their Civaux Super Phenix
would offer better failsafe options.
http://hubrismachine.files.wordpress...structions.jpg

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

On Mar 13, 4:27*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
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 BWRshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BWRs

Fukushima 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_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

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

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.

Perhaps the French EPR reactors or ones like their Civaux Super Phenix
would offer better failsafe options.
http://hubrismachine.files.wordpress...structions.jpg

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

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.

Pat

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.

BWRs don't require steam generators (primary to secondary heat
exchangers, two to four per plant) a very expensive item and
maintenance wise, the Achilles heel of those kinds of plants. BWRs
have cracking problems with feed water dispersion manifolds in the
reactor vessel that require frequent weld repair, yearly in most
plants. Navy plants are expected to run for the life of the core
without major maintenance, meaning removing the reactor vessel head.
Power density is important on a ship because space is always at a
premium, not because it's cheaper. A lot of features on Navy plants
are designed to reduce the amount of contaminants in the primary
system to reduce radiation exposure to operators that commercial
plants don't bother with. After seeing radiation levels in commercial
plants after being in the Navy I was astonished.



Dispersal is about 30,000 to one upon release and increases rapidly
with distance from the release point. That's what they taught me in
Navy nuclear power school.


http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/438/fallout.jpg


This is pretty much nonsense.


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


750 rads? Where did they get that number?


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.

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?

The latter is my guess.

Bill Smith

On Mar 13, 6:31*pm, Bill Smith wrote:
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. *

*BWRs don't require steam generators (primary to secondary heat
exchangers, two to four per plant) a very expensive item and
maintenance wise, the Achilles heel of those kinds of plants. BWRs
have cracking problems with feed water dispersion manifolds in the
reactor vessel that require frequent weld repair, yearly in most
plants. Navy plants are expected to run for the life of the core
without major maintenance, meaning removing the reactor vessel head.
Power density is important on a ship because space is always at a
premium, not because it's cheaper. A lot of features on Navy plants
are designed to reduce the amount of contaminants in the primary
system to reduce radiation exposure to operators that commercial
plants don't bother with. After seeing radiation levels in commercial
plants after being in the Navy I was astonished.





Dispersal is about 30,000 to one upon release and increases rapidly
with distance from the release point. That's what they taught me in
Navy nuclear power school.

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/438/fallout.jpg

This is pretty much nonsense.

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

750 rads? Where did they get that number?

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.

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?

The latter is my guess.

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

Fred simply knows everything, but then so does William Mook. I happen
to like our bipolar Mook a whole lot better than Fred, because at
least Mook means well.

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

I can't help feeling that given that Japan is frequently the subject of
tsunamis (even if not usually this bad), and that there is a clear link
between tsunamis and earthquakes, the nuclear plant backup generators
should have been in a place that is hardened so as to resist a tsunami.

Sylvia.

On Mar 13, 10:49*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
I can't help feeling that given that Japan is frequently the subject of
tsunamis (even if not usually this bad), and that there is a clear link
between tsunamis and earthquakes, the nuclear plant backup generators
should have been in a place that is hardened so as to resist a tsunami.

Sylvia.

plants werent built to survive much more than a 7.1 since larger
earthquakes are very rare, and the plants would cost ar more.

news now reports 2 reactors exploded and 6 are in trouble.

if the core melts down completely does anyone really know what will
happen?

On Mar 14, 11:25*am, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:49*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

I can't help feeling that given that Japan is frequently the subject of
tsunamis (even if not usually this bad), and that there is a clear link
between tsunamis and earthquakes, the nuclear plant backup generators
should have been in a place that is hardened so as to resist a tsunami.

Sylvia.

plants werent built to survive much more than a 7.1 since larger
earthquakes are very rare, and the plants would cost ar more.

news now reports 2 reactors exploded and 6 are in trouble.

if the core melts down completely does anyone really know what will
happen?

I think there are no more problems. In Chernobyl, the core is
operational when it explodes. In Japan, the control rods were lowered
that controls and stopped the nuclear reactions, so it's not getting
hot anymore and I think what they are doing are simply lowering the
temperature that occured before it shuts off. So there may not be in
danger anymore.. unless the control rods fail to lower down? The
control rods absorb neutrons from the uranium.

During a real meltdown, the nuclear reaction continues and the uranium
becomes molten and bore thru the 6 inches of stainless steel and if it
bore thru the cement floor, it can get underneath the facility and
when it reacts with water, it can contaminate the surrounding, even if
it didn't get out of the cement floor, if it explodes inside the air
contamination can also get out.

But the problem in japan seems to be minor now because the nuclear
reactions are no longer occuring and it is only the prior temperature
of the reactor that is being lowered, right?

Btw... how many miles in outer space before leaking nuclear fuels are
no longer in danger of reaching the earth?