Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93

Thread: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

  1. #11
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I don't recall debating anyone so misinformed. Fukushima was built with and inadequate seawall in a place that had stone tsunami markers identifying previous tsunami levels. These were ignored by the engineering geniuses with the hugely safe design parameters and cost effectiveness mitigating factors. Translated. Screw the people. If it happens we'll claim it was an unforeseeable act of nature and laugh all the way to the bank. Remember the stone tsunami markers. There are no excuses here. Right now the molten coriums from the three reactors are in unknown locations somewhere beneath their original locations. Most likely will cook their way into the underground flowing water that will cool them and send their deadly mother lode into the Pacific, slowly and deadly. Hubris and arrogance combine with greed to engineer a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. Yeh, them nukes gotta be wonderful stuff.
    And a simple solution is to put backup generators for the coolant system higher up. Which newer reactors do. Let me know when your cataclysm occurs. Death count so far: zero
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #12
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    And a simple solution is to put backup generators for the coolant system higher up. Which newer reactors do. Let me know when your cataclysm occurs. Death count so far: zero
    Google Fort Calhoun Nuclear. Have a dandy. photos floods

  3. #13
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Google Fort Calhoun Nuclear. Have a dandy. photos floods
    I'm familiar with it. Another example of zero casualties. Safety precautions worked as intended. Plant shut down safely. Backup cooling systems were supplied with additional fuel just in case.

    still waiting for your cataclysm.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #14
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I'm familiar with it. Another example of zero casualties. Safety precautions worked as intended. Plant shut down safely. Backup cooling systems were supplied with additional fuel just in case.

    still waiting for your cataclysm.
    Interesting, so you discount premature deaths from cancers and the like directly attributable to exposure from nuclear accidents? And yes, the safety precautions worked soooo well that there was no noticable increase in radiation for thousands of miles because of the fukashima event, right?

  5. #15
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I'm familiar with it. Another example of zero casualties. Safety precautions worked as intended. Plant shut down safely. Backup cooling systems were supplied with additional fuel just in case.

    still waiting for your cataclysm.
    I know that you are not troubled by the seven nuclear reactors littering the ocean floors from lost/sunken/super safe nuclear submarines, eh? Not to worry, you can't see that radiation anyway. Hanford. Fernald. Bikini. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Kursk. Thrasher. ad infinitum.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    You also might make a note that every Nuclear Plant in the USA has stored fuel rods in aging pools and no long term plan for their disposal. If a Nuclear Utility stops making a profit, it can declare bankruptcy and baptize us citizenry with these fuel storage pools, among other things. That is just Corporate business per usual. Bankruptcy is always an option to shed liability.
    If you are under the impression that we will be bathed in radiation from stored fuel rods if a utility company goes bankrupt then you can rest assured because that isn't what happens.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I know that you are not troubled by the seven nuclear reactors littering the ocean floors from lost/sunken/super safe nuclear submarines, eh? Not to worry, you can't see that radiation anyway. Hanford. Fernald. Bikini. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Kursk. Thrasher. ad infinitum.
    Of course not. They are much safer underwater than they could be anywhere else. Deep water is one of the best places to put waste if you are trying to avoid health or contamination risks.

  8. #18
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Of course not. They are much safer underwater than they could be anywhere else. Deep water is one of the best places to put waste if you are trying to avoid health or contamination risks.
    Yeah because we all know radiation disappears when it's out of sight and underwater. Classic sweeping the problem under the rug. Heck, you may have stumbled onto something, let's dump our medical waste in the deep, that'll fix the problem.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yeah because we all know radiation disappears when it's out of sight and underwater. Classic sweeping the problem under the rug.
    Deep sea trench disposal has many benefits including isolation, the dilution of the waste, the limited field of contamination, the long term possibility of geological subduction, the positive anti-radioactive benefits of submerging it in water, etc.

    Even if a breach in containment occurs it really isn't that big a deal. I think you underestimate how vast the ocean is, and the positive impact water has on radioactive materials. This is the IAEA's inventory of waste sites at sea, and the studies that have been conducted don't indicate any significant contamination worthy of our attention.

    http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publica...e_1105_prn.pdf

  10. #20
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Deep sea trench disposal has many benefits including isolation, the dilution of the waste, the limited field of contamination, the long term possibility of geological subduction, the positive anti-radioactive benefits of submerging it in water, etc.

    Even if a breach in containment occurs it really isn't that big a deal. I think you underestimate how vast the ocean is, and the positive impact water has on radioactive materials. This is the IAEA's inventory of waste sites at sea, and the studies that have been conducted don't indicate any significant contamination worthy of our attention.

    http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publica...e_1105_prn.pdf
    Once again, just sweeping the problem under the rug. The oceans are vast, but there is a tipping point no matter how vast a system is. We don't know enough about subduction zones to nail what's going to happen to that waste. We have a general idea of the subduction system, but we're nowhere near predicting behavior long term or short term.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •