|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan...look at the video again!
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” |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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” |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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” |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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” |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear...Jap Containment design deemed unsafe since 1972
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The End For Japan---Thank You Officer Warhol For Japan Earthquake Warning | nightbat[_1_] | Misc | 45 | April 2nd 11 08:33 PM |
JSC *seriously* threatened by Hurricane Ike? | OM[_6_] | Space Shuttle | 88 | September 26th 08 12:59 AM |
JSC *seriously* threatened by Hurricane Ike? | OM[_6_] | History | 122 | September 26th 08 12:59 AM |
JSC *seriously* threatened by Hurricane Ike? | John Doe | Space Station | 0 | September 13th 08 03:08 AM |