|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
...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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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” |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear...Jap Containment design deemed unsafe since 1972
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” |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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” |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???
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? |
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 |