Solutions to the Japanese nuclear crisis?

Fred J. McCall wrote:
rick_s wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
rick_s wrote:

snip

If I had a pregnant wife or small child I would be seriously worried for
their health right now.

That's because you're nuts.

Yeah me and Harvard med school.


I wasn't aware that Harvard med school was in FRANCE.

http://enenews.com/french-radiation-...-contamination


Yeah. Your 'independent commission' is anti-nuke everything. No
agenda THERE. Did you even bother to go look at the source for these
claims? Of course you didn't. Are you another dumb**** like Bobbert
and the Guthball? Of course you are.


I have followed the incident since square one.

Tepco has put up a webcam, and you can watch what happens daily.

Want to see the fire that was inside the building yesterday?

http://img.47news.jp/PN/201104/PN201...-.-.CI0003.jpg

And it is there on the enews site.

All you will find are rational quotes regarding EPA standards of exposure.

If you have a problem with the standards, take it up with the
environmental protection agency, we assume they did their homework.

If you are one of those who hope to find a safe cave somewhere, that
might have a natural spring in it, don't forget to pick up one of these...

A solar charger. For 600 bucks, it will power your lap top computer for
the rest of your life.

I am also getting one because it will power my electric bug out scooter.

So I can make it to a cave in a reasonable period of time.

http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_d...45524442625524

One more thing.

Now that we have our laptops, and we have our solar chargers, we will
need to reestablish a global network. We will suppose the Internet is
down, almost everyone is dead or dying and people are in various
enclaves round the world.

The logical way to proceed would be through ham radio.

Packet radio.

Now I don't know much about this technology, but that is probably the
best way to get a Internet or Bulletin Board system up and running
during the apocalypse. And so that people can report to each other and
send photos.

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

It would be a good idea if people did some work on that and maybe made
some hand held battery operated devices if it was possible.

rick_s wrote:
One more thing.

Now that we have our laptops, and we have our solar chargers, we will
need to reestablish a global network. We will suppose the Internet is
down, almost everyone is dead or dying and people are in various
enclaves round the world.

The logical way to proceed would be through ham radio.

Packet radio.

Now I don't know much about this technology, but that is probably the
best way to get a Internet or Bulletin Board system up and running
during the apocalypse. And so that people can report to each other and
send photos.

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

It would be a good idea if people did some work on that and maybe made
some hand held battery operated devices if it was possible.

I vote we call it the Multichannel Electronic Exchange Kinematic
network. Or MEEK for short.

(and if you ever want to get laid again by a real person after the
apocalypse, you might want to know how to locate one. Hence the need for
rapid development on this issue.)

rick_s wrote:
One more thing.

Now that we have our laptops, and we have our solar chargers, we will
need to reestablish a global network. We will suppose the Internet is
down, almost everyone is dead or dying and people are in various
enclaves round the world.

The logical way to proceed would be through ham radio.

Packet radio.

Now I don't know much about this technology, but that is probably the
best way to get a Internet or Bulletin Board system up and running
during the apocalypse. And so that people can report to each other and
send photos.

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

It would be a good idea if people did some work on that and maybe made
some hand held battery operated devices if it was possible.

http://www.ke4nyv.com/portapacket.htm

You know this isn't my field of expertise, I want to go to the store and
buy one. Lets say with an app for the Ipad II.

Plug and play. I will hook up my portable radio from circuit city, and
interface with the Ipad II, and upload and download images to a BBS.

And I can make a BBS if necessary, that I can do.

Now I am not suggesting that physicists might once again have to save
the world in the event of global holocost, I am suggesting they will
want to get more anime pictures, lets not kid ourselves.

All right, lets assume that in case of total apocalypse, everyone will
have their laptop, the solar charger, and one of these

YAESU
FT-817 The Ultimate Backpacker!
Multi-mode Portable Transceiver

quote

With five Watts and even simple, portable vertical antennas, it should
be possible to work over 100 countries within a few weeks in the Spring
and Fall contest seasons. Every effort must be made, of course, to
devise and use effective antennas, but five watts is only 13 dB down
from 100 Watts. How many stations running 100 Watts have you worked that
were S9? A five-Watt signal would be only very slightly less than S7,
for comparison purposes!

unquote

http://www.yaesu.com/indexvs.cfm?cmd...5&isArchived=0

and one of these for packet radio to set up a global BBS network...

http://paccomm.com/images/pico2.jpg

or similar.

On Mar 29, 3:58*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*It is unlikely that the four nuclear reactors under duress at
Fukushima will ever be used again. There have been some suggestions
that all four reactors be entombed under a sarcophagus as was done
with Chernobyl. This however is not an ideal solution. In such a
scenario there is the constant fear that the nuclear material will
come in contact with the water table as time goes on leading to
widespread contamination of drinking water. This is already a concern
with the discovery of leaks of contaminated water out of the
reactors.
*Another danger is large steam explosions with a meltdown if the hot
fuel melting through floors of the plant reaches a large source of
water such as ground water under the plant. This could lead to large
explosions leading to large scale radioactivity release. This was a
worry for years later with Chernobyl even with the sarcophagus
covering the reactor.
*On the other hand there is a worry that the crisis could go on for
months or even years:

More radioactive water spills at Japan nuke plant.
By SHINO YUASA, Associated Press – Mon Mar 28, 5:49 pm EThttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake

*I therefore suggest means be explored for removing the radioactive
material from the area over a short time frame. One possibility: move
the entire buildings. Truly large buildings have been moved in the
past up to 15,000 tons:

The Five Heaviest Buildings Ever Moved.
by Molly Edmondshttp://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/heaviest-buil...

*The heaviest parts of the Fukushima buildings that would have to be
moved would be the concrete and steel containment vessels. This
article on p. 6 estimates their mass as about 2,500 tons:

Nuclear Accident in Japan.http://www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/news/...NuclearAcciden...

* On the other hand this article gives the containment vessel weight
of a more modern nuclear reactor type as 910 tons:

Construction progresses at Shimane 3.
27 July 2009http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction_progresses_at_Shima...

*The GE Mark I reactors used at Fukushima are known for their
leightweight containment vessels so they actually might weigh less
than the Shimane 3 containment vessel.
*Japan is a small island country so there would really be no where
safe to put these damaged reactors. Then it might be necessary to move
them by sea on barges to some large deserted region.
*Another problem is that large electricity generation buildings block
the path to the pier. These could be razed, an expensive and time
consuming prospect, or you might have to first move the reactor
buildings sideways, leveling much smaller buildings on the side, then
move the reactor buildings towards the pier.
* In the article on the moving of the large buildings its surprising
how low the cost is. For instance the second biggest move was at about
7,400 tons and cost only $6 million. However, a consideration is that
for these moves the engineers had to add extra supports inside the
buildings to ensure they would remain intact during the lifting and
the transportation. This would be a problem if this was necessary for
the reactor buildings if this was required inside the highly
irradiated areas.

* *Bob Clark

I'd be curious whether, in this particular case, it makes sense to
take the containment vessels out to deep sea and let them sink to the
bottom. The dispersion of contaminants in the water might possibly
(depending on strength of currents) dilute radioactivity levels within
a mile or so of the dumped core, and if the sea floor is more than a
couple miles down that might be acceptable. Furthermore, it seems
unlikely that meltdown would occur or that steam would be produced in
any sizable quantities.

PD

On Apr 12, 7:09*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
herbert glazier wrote:

So you can see why I keep posting.

Yeah, we can. *It's because you're so rat**** crazy that you don't
realize how you look to sane people.

As opposed to declaring "Nothing to see here" about a severity 7
accident.


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

On Apr 12, 11:43*pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 29, 3:58*pm, Robert Clark wrote:









*It is unlikely that the four nuclear reactors under duress at
Fukushima will ever be used again. There have been some suggestions
that all four reactors be entombed under a sarcophagus as was done
with Chernobyl. This however is not an ideal solution. In such a
scenario there is the constant fear that the nuclear material will
come in contact with the water table as time goes on leading to
widespread contamination of drinking water. This is already a concern
with the discovery of leaks of contaminated water out of the
reactors.
*Another danger is large steam explosions with a meltdown if the hot
fuel melting through floors of the plant reaches a large source of
water such as ground water under the plant. This could lead to large
explosions leading to large scale radioactivity release. This was a
worry for years later with Chernobyl even with the sarcophagus
covering the reactor.
*On the other hand there is a worry that the crisis could go on for
months or even years:

More radioactive water spills at Japan nuke plant.
By SHINO YUASA, Associated Press – Mon Mar 28, 5:49 pm EThttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake

*I therefore suggest means be explored for removing the radioactive
material from the area over a short time frame. One possibility: move
the entire buildings. Truly large buildings have been moved in the
past up to 15,000 tons:

The Five Heaviest Buildings Ever Moved.
by Molly Edmondshttp://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/heaviest-buil...

*The heaviest parts of the Fukushima buildings that would have to be
moved would be the concrete and steel containment vessels. This
article on p. 6 estimates their mass as about 2,500 tons:

Nuclear Accident in Japan.http://www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/news/...NuclearAcciden...

* On the other hand this article gives the containment vessel weight
of a more modern nuclear reactor type as 910 tons:

Construction progresses at Shimane 3.
27 July 2009http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction_progresses_at_Shima...

*The GE Mark I reactors used at Fukushima are known for their
leightweight containment vessels so they actually might weigh less
than the Shimane 3 containment vessel.
*Japan is a small island country so there would really be no where
safe to put these damaged reactors. Then it might be necessary to move
them by sea on barges to some large deserted region.
*Another problem is that large electricity generation buildings block
the path to the pier. These could be razed, an expensive and time
consuming prospect, or you might have to first move the reactor
buildings sideways, leveling much smaller buildings on the side, then
move the reactor buildings towards the pier.
* In the article on the moving of the large buildings its surprising
how low the cost is. For instance the second biggest move was at about
7,400 tons and cost only $6 million. However, a consideration is that
for these moves the engineers had to add extra supports inside the
buildings to ensure they would remain intact during the lifting and
the transportation. This would be a problem if this was necessary for
the reactor buildings if this was required inside the highly
irradiated areas.

* *Bob Clark

I'd be curious whether, in this particular case, it makes sense to
take the containment vessels out to deep sea and let them sink to the
bottom. The dispersion of contaminants in the water might possibly
(depending on strength of currents) dilute radioactivity levels within
a mile or so of the dumped core, and if the sea floor is more than a
couple miles down that might be acceptable. Furthermore, it seems
unlikely that meltdown would occur or that steam would be produced in
any sizable quantities.

PD

Yes, the deep ocean may be an option, as mentioned by others as of
nearly a month ago.

Problem is, Japan doesn't have the heavy duty equipment necessary for
the task, and they seem to insist upon salvaging stuff instead of
giving it all away.

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

On Apr 12, 7:56*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
rick_s wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
rick_s wrote:

snip

If I had a pregnant wife or small child I would be seriously worried for
their health right now.

That's because you're nuts.

Yeah me and Harvard med school.

I wasn't aware that Harvard med school was in FRANCE.



http://enenews.com/french-radiation-...rope-health-ri...

Yeah. *Your 'independent commission' is anti-nuke everything. *No
agenda THERE. *Did you even bother to go look at the source for these
claims? *Of course you didn't. *Are you another dumb**** like Bobbert
and the Guthball? *Of course you are.

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

by the time the japanese nuke disaster is contained most of the world
will be anti nuke, for very solid reasons.

TMI came very close to a total melt down, and containment failure..

the japanese appear to have much worse troubles, like those stll
overheated fuel pools

that fred said were no trouble at all