- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,327
- Reaction score
- 282
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
LOL, that's what you take from all of this?
yeah pretty much.
LOL, that's what you take from all of this?
New nuclear fuel can be handled without danger. But once installed in a reactor and used for a short time, it is VERY radioactive, and has to be kept in the core or in storage UNDER WATER, in deep tanks. If it melts down into a big glob, removing it would be difficult. It would depend on the severity of the meltdown. Three Mile Island had to be decommissioned and abandoned in place. The remaining reactor at the site is still operating, I think...Is it just where the nuclear power plant was or is it a much wider area that can not be rebuilt on after a meltdown?
New nuclear fuel can be handled without danger. But once installed in a reactor and used for a short time, it is VERY radioactive, and has to be kept in the core or in storage UNDER WATER, in deep tanks. If it melts down into a big glob, removing it would be difficult. It would depend on the severity of the meltdown. Three Mile Island had to be decommissioned and abandoned in place. The remaining reactor at the site is still operating, I think...
This is terrible. As a side issue for us here, I wonder what impact it will have on nuclear power in the USA? It certainly cannot help win over more converts to nuclear power.
But there is only a very small area around Three Mile Island that is prohibited to live. It did not have a full meltdown. Chernobyl, on the other hand, has like a 30 km radius area around it which is completely uninhabitable due to its full meltdown and subsequent contamination of the surrounding area.
I was just thinking the same thing. President Jug Ears is likely giddy too, just as the Gulf oil spill gave him reason to ban deep water drilling, the Jap's catastrophe will be Bammy's opportunity. Wind and Sun, as efficient as a horse and buggy.
I don't that part about TMI is true...to my knowledge, there was no contamination requiring any land to be abandoned....
Ok, I think you are right. I wasn't sure, so I threw it in there that there was a small area uninhabitable. Shame on me. I did a quick web search and found nothing. Seems there is still activism and active monitoring, but no exclusionary zone.
You are thinking of Love Canal, maybe.- Love Canal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are thinking of Love Canal, maybe.- Love Canal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The chemical industry has has a free ride for a long time. Back when we had lots of protests against nuclear power, the chemical companies were polluting like they had a right to do it....
I am mostly fiscally conservative and like government out of industry. However, industry has shown over and over that it will take shortcuts for profit at the expense of the health of the people and be completely irresponsible and immoral. While I respect the goal of a vibrant free market, government regulation and the civil and criminal fines and sentences around them, are absolutely necessary to restrain abuses. The chemical and food industries are great examples of where this is necessary.
The recent financial crisis also illuminates an area where more regulation and oversight is needed. My particular gripe was in the area of rating the creditworthiness of the CDOs, etc. That completely failed to specify risk in the valuation of these financial artifacts.
Sorry for making this side trip even more off topic to the thread.
Did anyone notice the large shock wave, where water is forced out of the air by pressure, that preceded the ‘smoke’ of the explosion? Generally you only see this with a high explosive. I don’t think I’m getting an accurate description from the nukes management.
Dust, it’s not about the dust?How about dust? If my house exploded, there would be a lot of dust in the air. It was built in 94, so it isn't that old. I climbed into the attic last week to place a TV antenna. Almost puked from all the dust I stirrred up...
Dust, it’s not about the dust?
The explosion was not like a vessel of some sort failing under pressure; it was more like a bomb. I’m thinking the reactor it toast, in pieces, inside what is left of the containment vessel.
I have been involved in nuclear power since 1966....if the reactor vessel exploded, all the water would have turned to steam, and all the shielding provided by the water would be gone, and the operators dead or dying.
Give it some time....you'll see that a meltdown is probably all that will happen.
I have been involved in nuclear power since 1966....if the reactor vessel exploded, all the water would have turned to steam, and all the shielding provided by the water would be gone, and the operators dead or dying.
Give it some time....you'll see that a meltdown is probably all that will happen.
Did anyone notice the large shock wave, where water is forced out of the air by pressure, that preceded the ‘smoke’ of the explosion? Generally you only see this with a high explosive. I don’t think I’m getting an accurate description from the nukes management.
Russia's infrastructure hadn't taken the hit that Japan's has, in this instance, either.
No more bare backing a Jap girl.
Moderator's Warning: |
Gray_Fox_86 has been thread banned. |
Doesn't matter. An earthquake is nothing but a defined excitation and shock load. Perfectly possible to design for higher shock loads to ensure reactor safety in the event of an earth quake. Cost is the limiting factor, is all.
Anyone know how old this japanese reactor was?
I’ll wait. So what do think caused the pressure wave that preceded the expulsion of material at the beginning of the explosion?
Your answer sounds good, except for the fact lab experiments and even modeling and simulation don't account for everything. And my answer wasn't in that context anyway, but in response to someone's statements. A nuclear engineer friend of mine said he thought they were relatively old.