Possible reactor meltdown in Japan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Astro14

Hundreds of tons in a molton (sic) pile? What's your source on that? Please, did someone aggregate all the fuel from the reactor sites and heap it together? The scientific illiteracy in the press has made it challenging to keep the facts straight, but this is over the top...this is what I mean by "fear-mongering".


Hmmmmm

Originally Posted By: Al

As a former power plant worker for 30 years...trust me they are in zero danger. They got a little noble short lived gas on them. Its not even worth an "O by the way" At the exposure they got they could spend 24/7 and get not much above background. This is fear mongering at the least.


Originally Posted By: BITOG


Profile: Al
Occupation: Retired Engineer
Location: Elizabethtown, Pa


From this link:
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf

There are 1,760 tons of spent fuel on site.

And from what Volvo ST1 has mentioned:

-Reactor No. 1 fuel pool: 50 tons of nuclear fuel
-Reactor No. 2 fuel pool: 81 tons
-Reactor No. 3 fuel pool: 88 tons
-Reactor No. 4 fuel pool: 135 tons
-Reactor No. 5 fuel pool: 142 tons
-Reactor No. 6 fuel pool: 151 tons

Total: 647 tons.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Astro14

Hundreds of tons in a molton (sic) pile? What's your source on that? Please, did someone aggregate all the fuel from the reactor sites and heap it together? The scientific illiteracy in the press has made it challenging to keep the facts straight, but this is over the top...this is what I mean by "fear-mongering".


Hmmmmm

Originally Posted By: Al

As a former power plant worker for 30 years...trust me they are in zero danger. They got a little noble short lived gas on them. Its not even worth an "O by the way" At the exposure they got they could spend 24/7 and get not much above background. This is fear mongering at the least.


Originally Posted By: BITOG


Profile: Al
Occupation: Retired Engineer
Location: Elizabethtown, Pa


From this link:
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf

There are 1,760 tons of spent fuel on site.

And from what Volvo ST1 has mentioned:

-Reactor No. 1 fuel pool: 50 tons of nuclear fuel
-Reactor No. 2 fuel pool: 81 tons
-Reactor No. 3 fuel pool: 88 tons
-Reactor No. 4 fuel pool: 135 tons
-Reactor No. 5 fuel pool: 142 tons
-Reactor No. 6 fuel pool: 151 tons

Total: 647 tons.


I did not dispute how much fuel is on site.

In a molton (sic) pile is another matter.

I was objecting to the accuracy of the singular molten pile...it is in 6 locations...and it is not all molten.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I was objecting to the accuracy of the singular molten pile...it is in 6 locations...and it is not all molten.


Not yet.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Reuters is reporting 13 "neutron beams" have been seen coming from number 2, the one that uses plutonium?

neutron beams


You get neutron emissions from any fission. The fact there is Plutonium there is somewhat irrelevant...they would be present from U-235 as well...and radium....and thorium, and the other actinides...you get the idea...by the way, there is a lot more thorium in the earth's crust than uranium...

Which is part of why there is life on earth. Radioactive decay of thorium (among others) has helped to maintain the earth's core as a liquid, enabling (ironically) both plate tectonics, and the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere protects us from the solar wind (ionized plasma). When the solar wind penetrates the atmosphere at the magnetic poles, you get the aurora borealis...

So, radioactive elements in the earth serve to protect us from the sun's radiation...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
molton (sic)


OK, we all know he misspelled a word. You've pointed it out very well. We all know that it invalidates his credibility completely. We all know you've never done that, so you can let it go now.
 
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
Originally Posted By: Astro14
molton (sic)


OK, we all know he misspelled a word. You've pointed it out very well. We all know that it invalidates his credibility completely. We all know you've never done that, so you can let it go now.

Yea..several times. I'll just shut up. Its just as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
So, let's talk cost/benefit...everyone is up in arms about climate change and carbon footprint, but nuclear power has no carbon footprint.


Theoretically it could be that way in the unforeseeable future, but it would be absurd to suggest that contemporary nuclear power has no carbon footprint. The cost of building, maintaining, and operating the plant, as well as mining, refining, and delivering fuel is primarily paid for by fossil fuel energy. If it can operate profitably, then it probably uses less energy than it creates, and I'll give it credit for that. It's a necessary evil, just like every other energy source.
 
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
I'd much rather have a carbon footprint than a radioactive one.

Please, let's not oversimplify here. The comparison here is between a massive carbon footprint and a very small radioactive footprint. There is hardly an equivalence there.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
I'd much rather have a carbon footprint than a radioactive one.

Please, let's not oversimplify here. The comparison here is between a massive carbon footprint and a very small radioactive footprint. There is hardly an equivalence there.


agreed. Carbon won't cause people to be their own night lights.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
I'd much rather have a carbon footprint than a radioactive one.

Please, let's not oversimplify here. The comparison here is between a massive carbon footprint and a very small radioactive footprint. There is hardly an equivalence there.


agreed. Carbon won't cause people to be their own night lights.


Oh please...if you're going to have a credible intellectual postion...then can we avoid the hyperbole? Part of what interested me in BITOG in the first place was technical accuracy, something that this thread clearly lacks...

If it was a joke (and I do have a sense of humor...) then let me know...

And yeah, if you're going to take a scientific stance, then spelling matters too...If you can't spell, or don't take the time to spell, then why would you expect me to believe that you looked things up? That you took as much thought in posting as others? That you understood the ideas?
 
Last edited:
it's a joke.

I disagree with spelling though. After living on a cell phone for weeks on end, typo's and faux-auto-corrects are part of the experience.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
it's a joke.

I disagree with spelling though. After living on a cell phone for weeks on end, typo's and faux-auto-corrects are part of the experience.


Fair enough...

Cheers,
 
Astro14,

Do you have an engineering or science background ?
21.gif


You seem to know a lot about science/chemistry/physics.... etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Astro14,

Do you have an engineering or science background ?
21.gif


You seem to know a lot about science/chemistry/physics.... etc.



My quick bio - prep school, 6 years of Latin and AP Physics, Chem, etc. Went to college on a scholarship and financial aid. Majored in Astrophysics, took all the pre-med classes, but got distracted by airplanes. Joined the Navy, flew the F-14 and F/A-18 and a few others. Worked in aircraft maintenance and quality assurance. Instructor on the 747-400 for UAL, flew the globe. Flew the 757, A-320 and then got recalled to the USN a few years back to do operational analysis and lead a project team.

So...you can likely guess that as part of that, I have lived on a nuke carrier for years at at time and that risk analysis is something I frequently do...critical thinking is what I get paid to do now...

Opinionated? yep. Read a lot...worked on cars and motorcycles my whole life...

And I appreciate the kind words.
 
Last edited:
Astro14,
So human nature being what it is, for example, my nuclear robotics buddy has seen contractors who think its fun to work with 110V live...
How often do you think a nuclear accident like the one in Japan is going to happen? It's pretty obvious in highsight that a tsunami was very possible at their location, and I'm sure someone brought that possibility up in the design stage, but it seems nothing was done.
I don't have your resume but I think given the external pressure of a company trying to make money on running a plant, short cuts and inspections that aren't very thorough are going to occur.
Also many many reactors are nearing or have exceeded their design age and there is going to be huge pressure to run them longer and longer... As not many countries seem to have the billions needed to build new ones right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SC Maintenance
  • Locked
South Korea now under martial law?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
1K
dnewton3
Al
  • Locked
Be Afraid. Be VERY Afraid
Replies
8
Views
774
M56959
y_p_w
Northern California fireworks warehouse explosion
Replies
8
Views
283
y_p_w
Owen Lucas
  • Locked
Russian drone strikes Chernobyl reactor protective shell
Replies
2
Views
401
Astro14
R
Four Soldiers and a Tank Lost possibly dead Lithuania
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
Ranger83
Back
Top Bottom