# Nuke Failure in Japan,CANT HAPPEN right?



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I hear the cooling system has failed and pressure is rising so they are releasing 'radioactive vapor'

So lets hear all you Nuke lovers defend that,remember IT CANT HAPPEN,hmmmmm?

I know I want that here....must be because the Japanese are using INFERIOR reactors,Ive heard THAT argument here too....Cant happen with good reactors.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> I hear the cooling system has failed and pressure is rising so they are releasing 'radioactive vapor'
> 
> So lets hear all you Nuke lovers defend that,remember IT CANT HAPPEN,hmmmmm?
> 
> I know I want that here....must be because the Japanese are using INFERIOR reactors,Ive heard THAT argument here too....Cant happen with good reactors.


Oh that's right you would power the world off of solar and wind.. Then cry when there wasn't enough to recharge your electric car..

I'll stop feeding the trolls now...

Oh one last thing...

Run! The wind from Japan and across the ocean may bring that radioactive vapor right towards you and since you are on the "left" coast you will get hit before most of us do...


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yup,put one in YOUR backyard,this cant happen.

So It is TROLLING to point out ALL MACHINES FAIL,all of em?

LOL.I just want to hear again how safe and failure proof they are.As they are releasing radioactive vapor as I type.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2011)

Yes, they're going to release a small amount of slightly radioactive vapor so that they don't have to resort to the use of their tertiary coolant system that is still intact.

It will be quantified and tracked. The hand-wringers will worry themselves sick over it all the while ignoring the very real megatons of toxic wastes in the water and air produced by the earthquake and tsunamis that the Japanese will have to spend years cleaning up.

And for what it's worth I do have one in my backyard and they're going to build another one closer still. I'd rather have it than even more one coal fired power plant.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Im still waiting for a solar plant or windmill to release radioactive vapor.I can tell you for sure THAT cant happen.

But your nuclear plant....the cooling system is OUT,no problemo......


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Hey AT,this CANT happen.It has so been stated here,only OLD Soviet reactors can fail.

But wth,its just a little radiation,get over it. Its a 'planned release'? I feel so much better about it now.

*Fact remains,the nuke is releasing radioactive vapor.
*

Guess thats part of the 'design',release radioactivity. I LOVE that design,it ROCKS!

BTW,if the back up cooling is working,why is the pressure increasing,hmmmmm? Why are they having to vent over pressure radioactivity?

NICE,I want one.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2011)

mightybooboo said:


> Im still waiting for a solar plant or windmill to release radioactive vapor.I can tell you for sure THAT cant happen.
> 
> But your nuclear plant....the cooling system is OUT,no problemo......


 I'm still waiting for the solar plant that works when the sun isn't shining or the wind plant that works when the wind isn't blowing.

ONE of their cooling systems is out. They have three.



mightybooboo said:


> Hey AT,this CANT happen.It has so been stated here,only OLD Soviet reactors can fail.
> 
> But wth,its just a little radiation,get over it. Its a 'planned release'? I feel so much better about it now.
> 
> ...


 A minor amount of slightly radioactive vapor. These things are quantifiable and understandable. They know very well what affects there will be. Except for the folks who enjoy being hysterical about such things.

Meanwhile the coal fired power plants of the world are releasing tons of mercury into the atmosphere every year that bioaccumulates in the environment to the point that I don't think there is a single stream left in Florida that doesn't have warnings about eating too many fish taken from them. Never mind about any other pollutants?

Oh, and back to the solar and wind plants. Still not ready for prime time. May never be ready unless we get some major breakthroughs in storage technology. Not everyone lives in a windy desert. And even the ones that do scream when someone suggests building big wind and solar plants there.

At least a thousand dead in Japan right now. Tens of thousands missing. God only knows how much damage. And you're whining about a minor release of radioactive vapor.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,put one in YOUR backyard,this cant happen.
> 
> So It is TROLLING to point out ALL MACHINES FAIL,all of em?
> 
> LOL.I just want to hear again how safe and failure proof they are.As they are releasing radioactive vapor as I type.


Got one in my back yard!

You should know of it....TMI...

If it goes I don't' have to worry because I won't feel a thing..

Yet you want to get rid of the machines that are the most reliable because you don't like "Big Oil" but love "Big Government" and "Big Solar", "Big Wind", which can't produce enough to power this country.

Read _"Big Government" and "Big Solar", "Big Wind" _ as Liberal Hot Air.

Nothing at all to do with Homesteading, since it's main crux is socialism and the dependence on government..


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Anyone know if its a heavy water reactor or a graphite core? Are there other types??


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Considering we dropped two nuclear bombs in their country I don't think we have a right to point out how bad a little radioactive vapor is.....


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Considering we dropped two nuclear bombs in their country I don't think we have a right to point out how bad a little radioactive vapor is.....


I seriously hope you are not apologizing for us?

If they had not attacked us we wouldn't have gotten into the war when we did.. 

But I guess Pearl Harbor is forgotten.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2011)

Ross said:


> Anyone know if its a heavy water reactor or a graphite core? Are there other types??


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

I am not scared....we set off alot bombs on our own soil in the desert and people function just fine...even russia was not that big of a deal today..


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Ross said:


> Anyone know if its a heavy water reactor or a graphite core? Are there other types??


It's a BWR (boiling water reactor). Same type that most of ours use - with demineralized water serving as a neutron moderator, and a secondary loop that transfers heat from the primary (reactor) loop, used to drive the turbines.

And from what I'm reading, they're operating normally. The reactors automatically SCRAMmed - just as they should in a situation like this - and as several have pointed out, they're venting some radioactive gas to atmosphere as a safety precaution. As nuts as people are going about this, I'd prefer to find out exact measurements of radioactivity levels (as in rads or roentgens) before getting all uptight.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Yes, anything made by man can fail, including nuclear power plants. The cooling system has failed, yet China is still safe. Pressure is rising in the plant, and the vapor is being released to maintain the pressure at a safe level while other measures are being taken to restore cooling to the plant.

Under the circumstances, I'd say the plant has held up quite well, and if this is the worst that happens, I'm satisfied that the plant is safe enough. I'd be fine with one in my back yard. I'd be much more concerned about an oil burning facility with huge oil storage tanks standing around waiting to burn.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Kung said:


> It's a BWR (boiling water reactor). Same type that most of ours use - with demineralized water serving as a neutron moderator, and a secondary loop that transfers heat from the primary (reactor) loop, used to drive the turbines.
> 
> And from what I'm reading, they're operating normally. The reactors automatically SCRAMmed - just as they should in a situation like this - and as several have pointed out, they're venting some radioactive gas to atmosphere as a safety precaution. As nuts as people are going about this, I'd prefer to find out exact measurements of radioactivity levels (as in rads or roentgens) before getting all uptight.


My guess would be that the total amount of radioactivity released would be less than that released by a coal plant.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Thanks for the link Allen, I was reading a link from the wiki article about BWR and that some of the water's radioactivity is of a nature that has a half life measured in seconds. If thats what they are venting, is it really a problem for anybody? Interesting stuff I'm almost glad to be off work today.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Yes, anything made by man can fail, including nuclear power plants. The cooling system has failed, yet China is still safe. Pressure is rising in the plant, and the vapor is being released to maintain the pressure at a safe level while other measures are being taken to restore cooling to the plant.
> 
> Under the circumstances, I'd say the plant has held up quite well, and if this is the worst that happens, I'm satisfied that the plant is safe enough. I'd be fine with one in my back yard. I'd be much more concerned about an oil burning facility with huge oil storage tanks standing around waiting to burn.


What he said. If theirs are designed ANYTHING like ours - and it appears that they are - then they've got safeguards upon safeguards. I'd like to point out that one of their WORST EARTHQUAKES IN HISTORY just happened, and only ONE of their THREE cooling systems has failed. Everything else I've read shows that things are operating as they normally would

Releasing radioactive gas in a situation like this, if I'm correct, would be like pulling over and turning off your car because you had a pinhole leak in your coolant overflow tank...when you can simply monitor it, add coolant as required, until you get to where you can fix it.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> My guess would be that the total amount of radioactivity released would be less than that released by a coal plant.


I can't give specifics (mainly because I don't know), but I do know that the normal amount of radiation given off by a Naval nuclear reactor (and they're held to about the same standards as Japanese reactors, from what I know) in a year or so is less than the amount of radiation you'll get by spending one DAY at the beach.

This being said, if they DO release any to atmosphere, the radioactivity level will most likely be nowhere near the level where one would need to worry about any health effects.

I'd also like to point out something - people often refer to the Three Mile Island 'accident' when thinking about this. Technically, no, TMI was NOT an 'accident', even as bad as it was. An accident is when a failure of such magnitude occurs that serious amounts of radioactivity are released, that can threaten health and safety. As bad as TMI was, only minute amounts of radioactivity were released, qualifying it as an 'incident.'

I can tell you for a fact that TMI was *TONS* worse than I believe this reactor will EVER get, for many reasons - not the least of which is that symptoms @ the TMI facility were masked for HOURS before a problem was discovered.

Additionally, there's virtually no way that the same thing can happen here as happened in Chernobyl, for tons of reasons. First, completely different reactor designs. Russian designs not only had an inferior cooling system (I want to say they were sodium cooled, but I am not sure), but their designs had what is called a positive steam coefficient of reactivity. In short, power is directly proportional to reactivity....so if power went up, positive reactivity was added, which increased temp, which increased power/pressure, and the cycle repeats. 

That's why Chernobyl blew....once a loss of coolant was realized, temperature, of course, went up....which raised reactivity...which raised power....and so on. It shot up exponentially, until a core designed to realize 3Mw of power, max, experienced something like *20K* Mw.

HOWEVER, most water-moderated designs, such as the Japanese and American designs, have a negative steam coefficient of reactivity; power and reactivity are INVERSELY proportional. Power goes up, temperature goes up...and NEGATIVE reactivity is added, dropping temperature, dropping power...which RAISES reactivity...and it self-levels.

On top of that, the people @ Chernobyl manually OVERRODE tons of safety systems in order to perform testing. So when power shot up, the safety systems designed to stop it - didn't because they were shut OFF.

In other words, ALL safety systems would have to fail, and the Japanese plant managers would have to make tons of mistakes, before this got CLOSE to an incident.

(For those who wonder - I almost became a Navy 'nuke' - I made it all the way through ALL schools. I just got too much stage fright to pass the final oral board. )


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes I knew this would bring out some that would say no nukes. Well with Japan getting 30% of their power from those plants where is the USA? 
We should be even higher. We would not be having to worry about 4 dollar or higher gas. We need as many plants built in this country that can be built.
Where are all those "Green" cars going to get their battery charged? LOL


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,put one in YOUR backyard,this cant happen.
> 
> So It is TROLLING to point out ALL MACHINES FAIL,all of em?
> 
> LOL.I just want to hear again how safe and failure proof they are.As they are releasing radioactive vapor as I type.


Uh, how many tsunami have we had?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Im still waiting for a solar plant or windmill to release radioactive vapor.I can tell you for sure THAT cant happen.
> 
> But your nuclear plant....the cooling system is OUT,no problemo......


I'm still waiting for a solar plant or windmill to generate enough electricity to matter. They just aren't far enough along with the technology yet to make the switch, they are still at the Model T stage. We still need power plants. And that the thing survived the biggest earthquake in Japan's recorded history without a Chernobyl type failure is a pretty darn good testament to the designers and builders.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

If the wirley gigs are so great, whay didn't Obama build all of them he promised with our stimulus money?


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Im still waiting for a solar plant or windmill to release radioactive vapor.I can tell you for sure THAT cant happen.
> 
> But your nuclear plant....the cooling system is OUT,no problemo......


Really?

How about the huge amounts of radioactive Thorium waste from mining for the rare earth materials for the all these big windmills..

Or the silicon tetrachloride from producing solar panels, not to mention disposing of the toxic wastes in the panels themselves...



> That many solar panels contain lead and cadmium, which are being phased out by computer manufacturers, is no small matter. In the coming years, SVTC estimates that 1.5 billion pounds of solar panel waste containing 2 million pounds of lead and 600,000 pounds of cadmium will be disposed of in California alone. Some older solar panels are already being ditched well ahead of their 20-year lifespans as cheaper, more efficient versions hit the market. Nevertheless, even the stringent recyling laws of California and Europe exempt solar panels (though Europe's may soon include them). SVTC wants to see solar panel recycling become standard practice along with efforts by solar manufacturers to phase out toxins. "In order for a product to be really green," says SVTC executive director Sheila Davis, "it needs to be green throughout its entire lifecycle."





> The SVTC warns that solar panel production creates many of the same toxic byproducts as those found in semiconductor production, including silicon tetrachloride, dusts, and greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride. These byproducts arenât anything to scoff atâ silicon tetrachloride, for example, makes land unsuitable for growing crops. And for each ton of polysilicon produced, four tons of silicon tetrachloride are generated.


So pick your poison.... Nothing is free dude..


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> I'm still waiting for a solar plant or windmill to generate enough electricity to matter. They just aren't far enough along with the technology yet to make the switch, they are still at the Model T stage. We still need power plants. And that the thing survived the biggest earthquake in Japan's recorded history without a Chernobyl type failure is a pretty darn good testament to the designers and builders.


We produce around 6,000 megawatts of wind power here in Texas, that's enough to matter.. enough for about 6% of the power we use in the state.

We also have a nuke plant, have for 20 years, and we aren't likely to have a big earthquake any time soon.. I don;t think the nuke plant has been very cost effective though. Certainly not as abundant and cheap electricity as they promised.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Hmmmmm....*radioactivity has SURGED to 8 times normal around the plant and the evacuation zone has been increased to 10 kilometers.
*
Yup,great thing isnt it.

Working just as planned. Nothing to see here....move along.

See you all want to change the subject which is 

NUCLEAR RADIOACTIVE STEAM is being released (and rumors it may NOT just be the 'planned release' either),and the plant is having serious cooling problems.

This has NOTHING to do with solar or windmills,it is about NUCLEAR POWER and the failure of this plant to contain it. Nice try at ignoring/deflecting the issue,this plant is spewing radioactive steam.*DENY THAT*.

Now lets hear it again,this CAN NOT HAPPEN,they are built to withstand earthquakes.....now WHERE have I heard THAT before? Hmmmmmm????????


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Txrider said:


> We produce around 6,000 megawatts of wind power here in Texas, that's enough to matter.. enough for about 6% of the power we use in the state.
> ...


I think your info is dated. According to stuff I've recently seen, we now have around 10,000 MW of wind power. If you've ever done much driving around Lubbock, you'll see that it's absolutely incredible the number of windmills that have gone up in the last five years.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

People are not going to remember the 53 power plants that either made it through safely or shut down properly, they are going to remember the one or two that caused a second disaster (third if you count earthquake, wave, meltdown).
There is no way the USA can just rely on windy power. as a back up yes, but no way can it be done. So Nuclear plants are still the Best Option to create CHEAP Power. All those jobs going to China to make those whirlybirds sure helps Americans get back to work. Oh sure a few are working here, but not at all that was promised. Nor will it be in the future either. Drove past 40 of those fans and guess what NONE were turning. Why? No Wind. Boy That helps a lot now doesn't it. Water don't stop, natural gas don't stop Nuclear power plants don't have to have wind to make them work. Bot those blades sure need wind to make power.


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

They can build one on my place if they pay the rent. Oh, and I want free juice. Wouldn't surprise me to learn I got hit with more radioctivity from my old luminous dial watch than those folks are getting. 

I suggest you take a little nap and maybe have some warm milk to calm your nerves.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

CNBC reporting TEPCO,that runs 4 nukes,has reported they have lost control at 2 units.As of 2 hours ago the Japanese Prime Minister is heading to the area.

No problem....move along,nothing to see here.....this is what they are designed to do.
-------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_quake_power_plant

*Japan quake causes emergencies at 5 nuke reactors*

By MARI YAMAGUCHI and JEFF DONN, Associated Press Mari Yamaguchi And Jeff Donn, Associated Press â 23 mins ago

TOKYO â* Japan declared states of emergency for five nuclear reactors at two power plants after the units lost cooling ability in the aftermath of Friday's powerful earthquake. Thousands of residents were evacuated as workers struggled to get the reactors under control to prevent meltdowns.*

A single reactor in northeastern Japan had been the focus of much of the concern in the initial hours after the 8.9 magnitude quake, but the government declared new states of emergency at three other plants in the area Saturday morning.

The earthquake knocked out power at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and because a backup generator failed, the cooling system was unable to supply water to cool the 460-megawatt No. 1 reactor. Although a backup cooling system is being used, Japan's nuclear safety agency said pressure inside the reactor had risen to 1.5 times the level considered normal.

*Authorities said radiation levels had jumped 1,000 times normal inside Unit 1 *and were measured at eight times normal outside the plant. They expanded an earlier evacuation zone more than threefold, from 3 to 10 kilometers (2 miles to 6.2 miles). Some 3,000 people had been urged to leave their homes in the first announcement.

*The government declared a state of emergency, its first ever at a nuclear plant*. And plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. warned of power shortages and an "extremely challenging situation in power supply for a while."


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Gotta up date ya AK . . china is making clones of small wind stuff.
The big stuff is coming out of Europe and Germany. . .The Stony Corners 'farm' is extreme quality German made 2.5MW Furlacker(sp)...I worked this site.
Even Michigan now has a mano of a 2.2MW wind turbine. Several are going to a site I worked on in the UP.

Your argument of 'chinese' jobs and GOOD wind turbines is not true.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Yes, nuclear plants can fail, major earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, other natural disasters can cause them to fail, and like any natural disaster, may cause some collateral damage, similar to houses collapsing on folks - Should we stop building houses because an earthquake caused them to fail???

People die every year from heat, freezing to death, lack of water, starvation, etc. because they have no electricity. 

The question you must ask is this, is it worth all those folks dying because one is too scared to build a nuke plant that has a minute possibility of failing, or would it be better to save many, many lives by providing much needed energy???


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Kung said:


> I can't give specifics (mainly because I don't know), but I do know that the normal amount of radiation given off by a Naval nuclear reactor (and they're held to about the same standards as Japanese reactors, from what I know) in a year or so is less than the amount of radiation you'll get by spending one DAY at the beach.
> 
> This being said, if they DO release any to atmosphere, the radioactivity level will most likely be nowhere near the level where one would need to worry about any health effects.
> 
> ...


Kung, you're absolutely right. I was a Navy 'nuke'. I actually read the incident report from TMI, and it looked like they were trying to make every possible mistake they could have made.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

tgmr05 said:


> Yes, nuclear plants can fail


Not in General Chat, they are infallible,period.100% safe.Foolproof.Best safest power ever.

*Except when they declare a state of emergency on FIVE of em*....then we deny we ever made those claims,correct GC'ers??


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Hmmmmm....*radioactivity has SURGED to 8 times normal around the plant and the evacuation zone has been increased to 10 kilometers.
> *
> Yup,great thing isnt it.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's gotten worse than it was. The critical part - so far - is that levels OUTSIDE the reactor are 8x normal.

Which is still nowhere NEAR the amount it would need to be for people to be worried. Even those who are 'worried' about the Japanese reactors say that this is and will be nothing like Chernobyl, even IF the worst happens - night and day.

They're evacuating as a huge precaution, obviously...because you don't mess around with nuclear reactors. They're ALSO evacuating to ensure that the radioactive steam will dissipate to the point where it will truly be nothing to worry about if it does get to anyone.

And if it DOES fail completely...then it's failing INTO a containment dome designed to contain it. That does not sound like a 'failure of the plant to contain it.'

Sure, it can get worse; it can always get worse. But you're crying chicken little way too early.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Not in General Chat, they are infallible,period.100% safe.Foolproof.Best safest power ever.
> 
> *Except when they declare a state of emergency on FIVE of em*....then we deny we ever made those claims,correct?


Show me where anyone said they were foolproof.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Kung, you're absolutely right. I was a Navy 'nuke'. I actually read the incident report from TMI, and it looked like they were trying to make every possible mistake they could have made.


Oh yeah. And what people aren't paying attention to (hint to some) is that as bad as it was, it was STILL, for the most part, like 98% contained.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

mightybooboo said:


> Not in General Chat, they are infallible,period.100% safe.Foolproof.Best safest power ever.
> 
> *Except when they declare a state of emergency on FIVE of em*....then we deny we ever made those claims,correct?


I have no idea, as I would never make such a statement. Anything can fail, nothing is 100% guaranteed, well, maybe with the exception for death and taxes.....

But you may be correct about the best safest power ever. If you do some unbiased research, you may be surprised...

And, with the 5th strongest earthquake on record, none have melted down, much less killed anyone, have they? Yet how many people have been killed/injured by the natural disaster???


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> then we deny we ever made those claims,correct?


You still haven't established anyone ever made the claim to begin with.

You just keep repeating it.

Get back to us when one of the nuke plants actually melts down or has a major radiation leak.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Even if it did melt down, what possible good in the world is all this hair tearing, hand wringing, bed wetting going to do? Seriously. One could take any global event on any given day and say "See? You guys said this or that could never happen, and now it has". For example, diesel fuel has never been as high as it is today. Civil wars haven't swept the middle east the way they are today. My bunion has never hurt as badly as it does today. Etc. etc. etc. I'm not tearing my hair over the cost of fuel, civil wars or my bunion. 

Considering the fact that the power plant is located in the area immediately around one of the five most powerful earthquakes in recorded history, it sounds as if it was designed remarkably well.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yup,I knew you would all deny it.

Me,Im loving it,just more PROOF that these things are dangerous,and deny that too,add in the waste problems,deny that too,and youre good to go.

Sorry sports,your nukes are dead.

BTW,if you want some FACTS the gov spokesperson there says they have identified where one plant is leaking,the other they havent.Again,no problem,its just a radioactive leak we cant find.

But no problem,leaking radiation is perfectly safe.

Also saw a nuclear specialist hedge his bet on every statement he made re: what is happening and said its POSSIBLE that in just 2 more hours a TMI event could occur,but unlikely.

Oh,the pressure is now DOUBLE so the cooling is obviously NOT working,or is that normal too?

Of course,what problem is a TMI? Nothing,perfectly safe,just as designed,foolproof,triple redundancy. Thats some hubris there.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,I knew you would all deny it.
> 
> Me,Im loving it,just more PROOF that these things are dangerous,and deny that too,add in the waste problems,deny that too,and youre good to go.
> 
> ...


Of course we would deny it, it never happened. If you weren't getting so hysterical over this, you might take the time to understand what we've been trying to tell you, but I guess you'd rather continue your rant.

I spent many years working in and around nuclear power plants, so I do know a little bit about the subject. How much do you actually know about nuclear power? Did you learn it all from Jane Fonda or have you actually had any experience?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

*BIGGER* picture??? How many have died as a direct result of the quake? 
How about from the tsunami? Don't have any answer on those right??? Here's a _*REAL*_ easy 
one for you then......how many have died from that small release of radioactive vapor??? 

A bible verse comes to mind ......Matthew 23:24 -*"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! *
*****************************************************


mightybooboo said:


> Hmmmmm....*radioactivity has SURGED to 8 times normal around the plant and the evacuation zone has been increased to 10 kilometers.
> *
> Yup,great thing isnt it.
> 
> ...





mightybooboo said:


> CNBC reporting TEPCO,that runs 4 nukes,has reported they have lost control at 2 units.As of 2 hours ago the Japanese Prime Minister is heading to the area.
> 
> No problem....move along,nothing to see here.....this is what they are designed to do.
> -------------------------------
> ...


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

My only real concern with nuclear power plants are the spent fuel rods.
Dangerous for 10,000 years.
All your 'nuclear power is safe and cheap' goes out the window in view of that one thing.
They'll be a problem for 300 generation's, that is, if mankind makes it that long.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

mightybooboo said:


> Im still waiting for a solar plant or windmill to release radioactive vapor.I can tell you for sure THAT cant happen.
> 
> But your nuclear plant....the cooling system is OUT,no problemo......


I'd not want to be taking a nap underneath a solar plant or windmill, if a 8.9 R Earthquake occured. :stars:

I'm an 'oil man' myself. Solar/wind are great niche power sources (I lived off grid for 13 years)... but solar/wind isn't going to power Tokyo, with it's ???13M??? or so inhabitants...

I thought global warming enthusiasts were starting to love nukes, as they're the cleanest, carbon neutral power out there.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> My only real concern with nuclear power plants are the spent fuel rods.
> Dangerous for 10,000 years.
> All your 'nuclear power is safe and cheap' goes out the window in view of that one thing.
> They'll be a problem for 300 generation's, that is, if mankind makes it that long.


Thats why they should be recycling them instead of one use. You can thank Ole jimmy carter for that regulation. 

IF you recycle them you can run them in a different reactor. THis can be done several times. Eventually you will end up with components that are used in a lot of industry and medical field.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yup,I knew you would all deny it.


Unless you can prove it was* actually said*, you're just ranting aimlessly


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

SteveD(TX) said:


> I think your info is dated. According to stuff I've recently seen, we now have around 10,000 MW of wind power. If you've ever done much driving around Lubbock, you'll see that it's absolutely incredible the number of windmills that have gone up in the last five years.


10,000 is nameplate capacity... Theoretically what they could produce... You never actually produce that much in reality...

I think the record so far was like 6700MW last year..


Still the rare earth needed to produce the win mills leaves tons and tons of radioactive Thorium as a by product of mining it.. which is exactly why we buy it from China and don't mine our own rare earth reserves because we don't want to deal with the massive amount of radioactive waste it leaves to mine the rare earth to make the windmills.

As for these nuke plants, detractors will jumping the shark on this like we see here, but we don't know what is happening there and won't for bit. Personally I'll wait to see what is real and not wild speculation before I form an opinion.. 

It is going to be a good worst case test scenario case for nuclear power plants. If they come through this ok with so many affected plants you gotta say they are pretty safe even built close to earthquake zones, if they don't come through ok then we know they aren't.. It's a bit soon to be jumping to conclusions and hollering I told ya so for anyone on either side.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I ordered my KI tonight. This was the little "umph" I needed, even though I am pretty sure this is a "non-event" at MY location, I am downwind of some Nuke facilities in Ohio that I'd catch in a day or so of a major melt down... possibly... all depending on the winds of the day.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Of course we would deny it, it never happened. If you weren't getting so hysterical over this, you might take the time to understand what we've been trying to tell you, but I guess you'd rather continue your rant.
> 
> I spent many years working in and around nuclear power plants, so I do know a little bit about the subject. How much do you actually know about nuclear power? Did you learn it all from Jane Fonda or have you actually had any experience?


Don't worry, he's just mad because he told me to put one in my back yard..

And I did.. TMI ! If I go to the top of the hill TMI sits about 8 miles away up river from me. Their 10 mile warning siren is about 1/4 to a 1/2 from me, the other direction.

Now went TMI had their accident in '79 I wasn't here, I was in the Military, but I was born and raised in this area..

And guess what!

I don't glow at night!

Darn it.. I was hoping to do some night fishing at rockhill dam (a water break dam that connects Three Mile Island to the east shore of the Susquehanna River) with out having to carry a lantern... Now I have to carry all my fishing gear and a lantern.. Drats...:gaptooth:

Oh and another thing, What happens when those solar panels or wind turbines are in an earthquake or Tsunami?

The get destroyed and might just fall on people and kill them or poison the water in the area from their toxic components..

But I guess some want to pay more for energy.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Kinda interesting someone living in a state with a 97% chance of a 7.0 quake hitting in the next 30 years (according to the USGS) freaking out over nuke plants in Japan that have been damaged by a 9.0 quake. Sounds like he has more things to worry about...enough to give a guy an ulcer!!!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

salmonslayer said:


> Kinda interesting someone living in a state with a 97% chance of a 7.0 quake hitting in the next 30 years (according to the USGS) freaking out over nuke plants in Japan that have been damaged by a 9.0 quake. Sounds like he has more things to worry about...enough to give a guy an ulcer!!!


Yea I considered buying land in AZ or Nev because I wanted beach front property when the Freakshow State slid into the ocean.. But then I thought better of it and decide not to waste my money on that, but figured I could do better by donating it to HAARP...




I'm Joking people..:duel:


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Here is some good information on a "meltdown": Meltdown - _What it is and is not_


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

And now boom.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I live two miles from the BrownsFerry Nuclear Plant, it is quiet with no smells, never has there been an accident and my neighbor lady worked there for many years, said it is a very well run facility.

I figure this: if we worried ourselves into a panic state over all the different ways we COULD die, we never really live. I appreciate the lowered electric bills, no coal dust or oil fumes and the quietness of the BrownsFerry TVA nuclear plant. If it melts down and spews forth radioactive particles, I reckon I wouldn't have enough time to worry much about what would happen anyway, I'd be toast.

So far the plant here has been operating as planned, I don't see it falling apart anytime soon.

Saddened by all the deaths in Japan, I am sure those folks were as well prepared as they could be, but warning times are slight for an EQ of that magnitude and I feel for the survivors as they try to pick up the pieces of their lives. I believe the nuclear power plant venting a slight amount of radioactive material is the least of their worries when one has lost one's family members and home, food, car, clothing, and way of life.

May God bless those that are in need at this time.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

And I'd STILL like to know what caused it. This isn't to say that any explosion @ a nuclear plant isn't serious - I don't think anyone here denies it, despite what mbb thinks - but the reactor's not the only thing that can explode. Instead of going nuts, I'd like to have numbers - what's the level of radiation, was the core involved, what's the series of events leading up to it, etc.

I'd ALSO like to point out - one huge thing mbb missed - is that the mere fact that Japanese officials were evacuating ahead of time is part of the reason I'm not freaking out. If they took precautions with the populace, they most likely did so with the plant itself.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

If Jap plants are held to the same standards as Navy nucs..I'd take 8x normal levels without any complaining...
And I agree...8x normal is a nice scary number for most folks, but what are the actual hard numbers?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

This was just posted in S&EP.



Shygal said:


> According to this, one of the reactor buildings just exploded
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake


.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

sammyd said:


> If Jap plants are held to the same standards as Navy nucs..I'd take 8x normal levels without any complaining...
> And I agree...8x normal is a nice scary number for most folks, but what are the actual hard numbers?


Exactly. An EXPLOSION is scary for most folks - myself included - but I'd like numbers before freaking out. People have been evacuated, they had plenty of warning, and to be totally blunt, I think that if this were anywhere even approaching the level of Chernobyl, people would be dying NOW.

Would ALSO like to point out that evidently the reactor's container itself is INTACT, according to news sources.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

They're now reporting that radiation levels are DECREASING.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Just for kicks, what, exactly, happened at Chernobyl.....and how did it escalate where the Japan situation seems to be under control ?

I'm rather neutral so for as nuke plants go, though I often wonder whether the Creator ever intended men to build nukes or skyscrapers.... seems to be a matter of pride over practicality, in the long run.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I don't mind nukes because the risk from them is known. My biggest fear is that a level 5 tornado could pick up a wind turbine, carry it who knows how far, and launch it through the window of a 1st grade classroom killing several children. It could happen.:gaptooth:


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I have posted a more detailed explaination of things at my blog, My View Of The World


----------



## SueMc (Jan 10, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Me,Im loving it,just more PROOF.....


That is a horribly inhumane stance and statement considering what is going on.

I'm not denying the possible dangers of ANY power source but to be gleeful about this is just mind boggling.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Well one of them just went bang....

[youtube]KPQ9qgry9C8[/youtube]


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txrider said:


> Well one of them just went bang....
> 
> [youtube]KPQ9qgry9C8[/youtube]


But it is still not the critical containment building. 
There are about to start to pump in sea water now as the water they have been is getting warmed up and not cold anymore because their are "recycling" it.
Yes this is not good.
But how many Nuclear Plants would have THAT kind of a One Two Three Punch?
First the Earthquake stopped the electricity,
The Generators kicked in which is a good thing. THEN the Huge Wave came and shorted out the Generators.
Now they are just using Battery Back ups, which I am sure by now getting weak.
One Perfect One Two Three Punch.
But like a 100 year storm, doesn't mean Nuclear Plants are not safe. It is still the best way to help the ever increasing demand for electric power. Wind mills sure can't keep up with that at all. They can help but they sure can't keep up with the ever increasing world demand.
This was just too many bad scenarios that hit at once and all of a sudden.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,I knew you would all deny it.
> 
> Me,Im loving it,just more PROOF that these things are dangerous,and deny that too,add in the waste problems,deny that too,and youre good to go.
> 
> ...


Wanna Bet the Grand Gulf site is functioning just fine this morning...all this hype is nonsense...and DOE Knows it....


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yup.all going according to plan.

Whats a little Cesium release among friends,its DESIGNED to do this right?

I see they doubled the evacuation zone...no problemo.They did that because its safe and no danger.Or maybe they knew all along and were trying to avoid PANIC by a controlled slower evacuation? Hmmmmm????

I see they are handing out iodine tabs....Thats because its safe and no radiation release,correct?Yup,nothing to see here....just dont open your eyes and figure out WHY they are handing them out.

And that explosion? No problem. Its designed to do that.

The meltdown scenario? More and more talk that may have already happened.....but its designed to do that so no problem.
-------------------------------------------
As for Farmer Willy....you still want that in YOUR backyard? Wouldnt bother me a bit if it were,LOL!

As for gloating? YUP,Im gloating that we are seeing PROOF just how dangerous nuclear power is,of course the Rush DrugBlow,Fox News crowd wont ever get it.

For the people being exposed to the Cesium,thats quite a tragedy no doubt.

But WTH,its clean safe power.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup.all going according to plan.
> 
> Whats a little Cesium release among friends,its DESIGNED to do this right?
> 
> ...


In a 9.1 magnitude earthquake, a brick house isn't safe. Same thing for a 23 ft tsunami. Thousands of people have been killed, but none of them as a result of any of the five or so nuclear plants that are experiencing problems.

Your glee is a bit unwarranted, as well as being pathetic.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

BTW,isnt that a GE reactor,not some old SOVIET reactor...you know,the ONLY reactor that can fail?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> In a 9.1 magnitude earthquake, a brick house isn't safe. Same thing for a 23 ft tsunami. Thousands of people have been killed, but none of them as a result of any of the five or so nuclear plants that are experiencing problems.
> 
> Your glee is a bit unwarranted, as well as being pathetic.


No,your blind acceptance of nuclear power and pitiful defense by trying to now say BUT BUT BUT we could never HAVE FIGURED on this?

Guess what? The Rush/Fox crowd HERE has been saying all along NO Earthquake could EVER damage one.Now its the AFTER effects of the direct quake,WE NEVER said or could EVER have figured on this?!

PATHETIC!

But the bottom line remains,Its hurt,BAD.

But as long as it keeps more from being built here :nanner: (GLEE GLEE!)....then so be it,the tragedy does have a cesium lining.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> No,your blind acceptance of nuclear power and pitiful defense by trying to now say BUT BUT BUT we could never HAVE FIGURED on this?


I have years of training and experience in the nuclear power field, so my acceptance of nuclear power is not only not blind, it is pretty well founded. Your opposition however, does appear to be blind, or have you ever worked in the industry?



mightybooboo said:


> Guess what? The Rush/Fox crowd HERE has been saying all along NO Earthquake could EVER damage one.Now its the AFTER effects of the direct quake,WE NEVER said or could EVER have figured on this?!


Can you provide direct quotes where anyone here has ever said this? No, because it has never happened. You aren't really interested in the truth however, you're more interested in making your shrill denunciation of something you know nothing about. Feel free to continue, but you should know that you're destroying any credibility you might ever have had on the subject.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Give it up Rush. 

I dont have to have a heart attack either to know what one is. Play with poison,pay the price.

I dont need any credibility in YOUR eyes,you mean squat to me.Nothing YOU have ever said here EVER has carried ANY credibility with me.

I do have EYES and can see what is happening,and what it can mean without your oh so impressive (Oh my,faint) job experience.

matters not what I say,the REALITY is all over the news,and all over the WORLD.

SHRILL denunciation,as opposed to your blind ignorance? Sorry bub,the news is what it is,sorry you dont like it,what a shame,let me play the worlds smallest violin for you.

YOUR Nukes are DEAD,LOVE IT!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This has nothing to do at all as the safety in Nuclear plants.
This was a One Two Punch that might never happen again, and this plant IS 40 Years old. And still held up pretty dern well despite all that happened.
And Huge Earthquake and that then triggered the Shut Down phase just like it was suppose to do.
The Generators kicked in just fine like they were set up to do.
BUT then comes that Huge Wall Of Water that took the generators out.
A One Two Punch so big that it is off the scale as a probability in happening.
So what was left was battery power to keep the pumps up and running and now they are slowing their output.
What is the 5 That THIS exact things would happen again in that order of things???? Pretty dern high. So it is still a safe bet that these plants are the the wave of the future, and should not under any circumstances be stopped in building new ones. And there is NO Other alternative energy system that can keep up with nuclear plants in output. None


----------



## Sunbee (Sep 30, 2008)

Actually, I saw one article that someone has died at that plant--as a result of the explosion, not as a result of any radioactive material.
I'd like to see the numbers, not just decreasing, but it was at x and has decreased to y. I'd like to know why the reporters are such lazy bums that they can't get up and ask for those numbers. Do they think people are too stupid to go look up what the numbers mean, or is it that the reporters are? Can we change their job title from reporter to repeater, since they don't seem to be able to actually report, but only repeat whatever they've heard from the government officials?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Give it up Rush.
> 
> I dont have to have a heart attack either to know what one is. Play with poison,pay the price.
> 
> ...


By all means, carry on with your hysterics.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sunbee said:


> Actually, I saw one article that someone has died at that plant--as a result of the explosion, not as a result of any radioactive material.
> I'd like to see the numbers, not just decreasing, but it was at x and has decreased to y. I'd like to know why the reporters are such lazy bums that they can't get up and ask for those numbers. Do they think people are too stupid to go look up what the numbers mean, or is it that the reporters are? Can we change their job title from reporter to repeater, since they don't seem to be able to actually report, but only repeat whatever they've heard from the government officials?


Well lets see now even during the Worst accident ever that is Chernobyl. ONLY 200 people died. Yes that is bad. But that was a plant that was NOT Following the strict rules. And people paid for it by their lives.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

*I did read cesium was identified outside the plant which is an early indicator of melt down.*

True or not? I'd like to know

Also heard containment vessel still intact,hope thats true,nothing to point to it isnt except the above line?

Just saw the explosion was possibly a hydrogen buildup? Is that normal he asked? Im not in the field so in my ignorance Im going to say a hydrogen explosion is not a good thing?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Hmm, now was that directed at me?
If so, read what The True Facts on Chernobyl really is.
The 1986 reactor accident at Chernobyl in the then U.S.S.R. was the worst in the history of nuclear energy; and too many people have died and been injured as a result. *The myth *is that the deaths have run into the tens of thousands: even as high as 125,000 has been quoted. In 1991 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was quoting 10,000 to 15,000 immediate deaths, without qualification.* The facts are* that* 31 people died* as an immediate result of the accident and fighting the resulting fire (*28 from radiation injuries*, two from non-radiation blast injuries and one due to a coronary thrombosis), and *134 were diagnosed with acute radiation* syndrome. Of the latter, *14 people have since died*, but their deaths were not necessarily attributable to radiation exposure. In addition, about 800 cases of thyroid cancers have been reported in children, of whom *three have died*. The total of 48 deaths, tragic as it is, has to be compared with the hundreds that die in other natural and man-caused disasters.
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> *I did read cesium was identified outside the plant which is an early indicator of melt down.*
> 
> True or not? I'd like to know
> 
> Also heard containment vessel still intact,hope thats true,nothing to point to it isnt except the above line?


 Yes there was a SMALL amount detected that is all.
Even if it went into melt down, It CAN NOT EXPLODE LIKE AN ATOMIC BOMB. So relax, its means almost nothing unless of course you live next to the darn thing. Have a drink and relax.....this means nothing


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

WOW,now they are saying BOTH the hydrogen and cesium are BOTH indicators the fuel has been damaged and that its now pretty much a given that has happened... and that its really possible this could get a lot worse and currently they are at their last ditch effort of cooling with sea water,and for sure the seawater will destroy the plant at best.And that a meltdown could be a release of all the radiation if this cooling effort doesnt work? Not good.

Just what they are saying on the news.

So what does 'damaged' fuel mean exactly,that the nuclear reaction is NOT stopped? Does 'damaged' mean partial meltdown?

AK,you are so funny....yup,a meltdown and fallout means nothing,only an explosion 'like a bomb'???? :smiley-laughing013: ....except if it falls on you.SHEESH!!!!


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Ya know, trying to downplay the seriousness of Chernobyl gives one about the same amount of credibility as the people trying to hype the latest disaster into Armageddon proportions.
I doubt that either the Russians or Japanese or going to be exactly eager to share all the facts that they know.

It's like the fact that I'm a smoker, but even *I* won't buy the arguement that the tobacco execs try to sell - that there's no connection between cigarettes and cancer.

C'mon now.
I was born at night.............but not last night.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Kung said:


> I'd like to point out that one of their WORST EARTHQUAKES IN HISTORY just happened, and only ONE of their THREE cooling systems has failed. Everything else I've read shows that things are operating as they normally would


Really?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Kung said:


> Yes, it's gotten worse than it was.
> Which is still nowhere NEAR the amount it would need to be for people to be worried. Even those who are 'worried' about the Japanese reactors say that this is and will be nothing like Chernobyl, even IF the worst happens - night and day.
> 
> And if it DOES fail completely...then it's failing INTO a containment dome designed to contain it. *That does not sound like a 'failure of the plant to contain it.'*
> ...


OK,lets get something straight,for ONE its an American GE reactor Ive been reading,not Japanese.

Lets see,cesium released (does THAT not sound like a failure to contain radiation? Hmmm?),hydrogen gas explosion(Where did that hydrogen come from and where was it 'contained' before the blast,the containment dome perhaps? Or did it leak out of the containment dome and blow up the building? Does it matter where the breach of hydrogen occurred,SOMETHING is leaking and SOMETHING is producing a lot of hydrogen they cant deal with!).But all is safely contained,ok,whatever you say.

EXPERTS saying fuel is damaged and LAST DITCH cooling measures employed.

And EXPERTS saying YES,it CAN meltdown and release the whole shebang.But what do EXPERTS in the field know?

Yup,cant happen,except it is.

Im not crying ANYTHING on whats happening there,IM reporting THE NEWS being released and asking questions. Cant deal with the *news*,so be it.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Give it up Rush.
> 
> I dont have to have a heart attack either to know what one is. Play with poison,pay the price.
> 
> ...


"There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California."--Edward Abbey.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Boo, I reccommend you watch some news footage of the devastation in Japan. Watch whole towns get swept away. Learn of the thousands missing and dead. 

Maybe that will give you some perspective of the gravity of the situation, instead of your being so gleeful about a possible nuclear disaster on top of it all.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Get back to us when one of the nuke plants actually melts down or has a major radiation leak.


What is major,what is a failure? Nothing short of Chernobyl would ever do for you.Of course fuel damage,cesium release and hydrogen explosions wont mean anything to you.

Fortunately for those who think Its a death sentence for nukes here,thank goodness.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yup,easy enough question,I would take ANY form of power production over nuclear.There is ZERO reason they cant pack the ocean with windmills,load roofs with solar panels and water heating panels,there Is ZERO reason they cant produce *all *their power with semi clean nat gas.

So yes indeed,they have plenty options besides nukes,but that was their choice,so be it,and deal with it,which is what they did and are doing.

Yup,nuclear hater for sure,thats accurate. Gloating that PROOF of failure is here,YUP!It certainly will go a long way to keep more from being built here I fervently hope.

Heard too much carp here about how safe and wonderful it is,and that FAILURE CANNOT happen,it can and it has,what a surprise.NOT! So yeah,pointing that out with pleasure,you better believe it,I listened to enough carp from the other side here,the right wing FOX,Rush Drugblow crowd to last a lifetime.

Sorrow for those affected,without a doubt.I dont want ANYONE ANYWHERE,UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE to suffer from the failure of nuclear exposure. I want Nukes GONE,off the planet!

Glad nuclear exposed as a failure on their shores instead of ours,yup,*its going to happen and Im GLAD it isnt happening here.*Maybe we can protect OUR country from that danger.That they didnt deem to protect themslves,I have no power over that.

I can work to protect America,and I will.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Really pathetic! What is YOUR solution? And please don't insult us and say wind or solar, we know better, don't we!


I gave a very workable solution,all doable,workable and here.Alternate sources with back up peaker nat gas and primary nat gas plants.

Your intelligence cant read that?

OK,I wish it had happened here,you happy? IT WILL FAIL,IM GLAD IT DIDNT HAPPEN HERE.Period! But it will fail,FACT,no machine EVER is infallible.

Yup,nukes are pathetic INDEED.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

*I dont want ANYONE ANYWHERE,UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE to suffer from the failure of nuclear exposure. I want Nukes GONE,off the planet!*
------------------------
Guess you missed that?????


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

I used to live in southern Alberta. 2km from prospective "sour gas" wells.

I'd take the nuclear reactor any day.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Could you point out to any issues france has had?
> Thanks!


All is good,right until they fail.And they have,do and will.Or deny history,your choice.

The only SAFE nuclear reactor is the sun.Gods Reactor.

Mans reactors,they fail.Just like man does.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> *I dont want ANYONE ANYWHERE,UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE to suffer from the failure of nuclear exposure. I want Nukes GONE,off the planet!*
> ------------------------
> Guess you missed that?????


Have you ever seen a natural gas explosion? What happened up north? Mechanical things fail, right? What about when energy costs soar due to environuts blocking new energy facilities? Will you be ok when the old and indegent die cause they can't pay their power bill, because people like you don't like low cost energy?

I get your obsessed with nuclear power! I like it, let's build more and decrease or dependence on others!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

That will never happen, They ARE safe, sure things can happen. But all in all, only a few people in the History of Nucleaer desaters have died.
Comparer that to all the natural desasters.
Nuclear is one of the safest methods of getting electricity made. Now back to your local Station.
Now how about Natural gas plants? Oh no they can Blow up killing countless. 
Just living is a Risk. driving a car is a risk, walking across the street is not without its risk.
You can't just crawl under a tree and let the others fend for themselves.
And soon the Storage shed size self contained nuclear power plants will be showing up around the world.
As more and more countries get using more and more power.
There is not enough dams around to build for hydro power. OH NO the Dam could fail killing 10's of thousands. 
Where do you Stop?
Better take a "pill" and relax, put in a good movie or something, settle down with a hot cup of Joe. Put the feet up take a deep breath, as say I am alive today. Live for today.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Heard *too much carp here about how safe and wonderful it is,and that *FAILURE CANNOT happen*


You keep repeating that without ever proving anyone said it.

It makes you look foolish, and lessens your credibility


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Wonder how many folks would have to die from nuclear accidents to match the number of deaths from coal mining (and burning), oil and gas, and windmill accidents?


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

tinknal said:


> Wonder how many folks would have to die from nuclear accidents to match the number of deaths from coal mining (and burning), oil and gas, and windmill accidents?



I wonder if dead people actually care what killed them...............???

OK, sorry.
I coiuldn't resist the temptation after watching this thread.


----------



## SueMc (Jan 10, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> What is major,what is a failure? Nothing short of Chernobyl would ever do for you.Of course fuel damage,cesium release and hydrogen explosions wont mean anything to you.
> 
> Fortunately for those who think Its a death sentence for nukes here,thank goodness.


I am NOT arguing for or against reactors here, BUT will advise that you don't hold your breath until they go away. The plant failures in the US and USSR were not a death sentence for the technology, rather, reactors have proliferated. They are the genie, and like or not they are out of the box. 
The only way that I can see this form of energy going by the wayside is a total end of funding for the industry. That's not going to happen either.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

SueMc said:


> I am NOT arguing for or against reactors here, BUT will advise that you don't hold your breath until they go away. The plant failures in the US and USSR were not a death sentence for the technology, rather, reactors have proliferated. They are the genie, and like or not they are out of the box.
> The only way that I can see this form of energy going by the wayside is a total end of funding for the industry. That's not going to happen either.


Sue, unless you have pedals on your 'puter you are fun ding it right now!


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Yes, I went to college. Will a BS in Nuclear Technology suffice?


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Its not the end of reactors, It is probably going to be a major boost in them. Now the reactors have actually been tested in a massive natural disaster and NOW they know what is needed to boost the reactor to survive a 9,10, or 15 level event with a tsunami. 

So far it looks like things have gone the way it was designed to until the loss of the cooling generators. Bet ya they have a new design for gensets to be in waterproof bunkers with o2 pipes laid to supply air for them, actually set up a system where the bunkers close off when waves crash, then open up after initial waves pass. Engines could run for 30 min or so with bunkers closed up.

But anyway, the explosion was expected, I.E. they were venting off steam because the HO gas was building up. It does happen when cold water is mixed into a heat source in a oxygenated environment. Read up on HO Generation.

Last of all, if you notice the reactors appear to be built in a shallow sea water corral, which if this is so is a smart idea. That way if there is a event like now, the water can warm up before being injected into the core to cool it down. Once the water is in, the reactor will cool off, heat will be displaced, and HO won't be generated.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

BTW Emergency proceedures do not dictate that nothing is released. The Emergency protocol is to shut it down, get it cooled off so that repairs can be made without having a major disaster. This is not a major event.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

For battered Japan, a new threat: nuclear meltdown
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake

By ERIC TALMADGE and YURI KAGEYAMA, Associated Press Eric Talmadge And Yuri Kageyama, Associated Press â 34 mins ago

IWAKI, Japan â An explosion at a nuclear power plant on Japan's devastated coast destroyed a building Saturday and made leaking radiation, or even outright meltdown, the central threat menacing a nation just beginning to grasp the scale of a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami.

The Japanese government said radiation emanating from the plant appeared to have decreased after the blast, which produced a cloud of white smoke that obscured the complex. But the danger was grave enough that officials pumped seawater into the reactor to avoid disaster and moved 170,000 people from the area.

The explosion at the nuclear plant, Fukushima Dai-ichi, 170 miles northeast of Tokyo, appeared to be a consequence of steps taken to prevent a meltdown after the quake and tsunami knocked out power to the plant, crippling the system used to cool fuel rods there.

The blast destroyed the building housing the reactor, but not the reactor itself, which is enveloped by stainless steel 6 inches thick.

Inside that superheated steel vessel, water being poured over the fuel rods to cool them formed hydrogen. When officials released some of the hydrogen gas to relieve pressure inside the reactor, the hydrogen apparently reacted with oxygen, either in the air or the cooling water, and caused the explosion.

"They are working furiously to find a solution to cool the core," said Mark Hibbs, a senior associate at the Nuclear Policy Program for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Nuclear agency officials said Japan was injecting seawater into the core â an indication, Hibbs said, of "how serious the problem is and how the Japanese had to resort to unusual and improvised solutions to cool the reactor core."

Officials declined to say what the temperature was inside the troubled reactor, Unit 1. At 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit, the zirconium casings of the fuel rods can react with the cooling water and create hydrogen. At 4,000 degrees, the uranium fuel pellets inside the rods start to melt, the beginning of a meltdown.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said radiation around the plant had fallen, not risen, after the blast but did not offer an explanation. Virtually any increase in dispersed radiation can raise the risk of cancer, and authorities were planning to distribute iodine, which helps protect against thyroid cancer. Authorities moved 170,000 people out of the area within 12 miles of the reactor, said the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, citing information from Japanese officials.


Officials have said that radiation levels at Fukushima were elevated before the blast: At one point, the plant was releasing each hour the amount of radiation a person normally absorbs from the environment each year.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Give me a break.
But did you bother to read the last paragraph????


> Yaroslov Shtrombakh, a Russian nuclear expert, said it was unlikely that the Japanese plant would suffer a meltdown like the one in 1986 at Chernobyl, when a reactor exploded and sent a cloud of radiation over much of Europe. That reactor,* unlike the reactor at Fukushima, was not housed in a sealed container.*



It is just part of the disaster going on in Japan. They will deal with like they are after the Quake.
And again the headlines Don't always tell the complete story of whats in the entire article~!
One must Read the complete story. And not just go by the HYPED Header~!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I personally accept the simple fact that due to being alive I will die. Nothing I or anyone else can do to stop death. In many cases we can control the time of death by delaying death but death will happen.

Perhaps fear of death (something no one can stop) limits some persons from living.


----------



## SueMc (Jan 10, 2010)

tinknal said:


> Sue, unless you have pedals on your 'puter you are fun ding it right now!


Stupid thing might be a little faster with pedals!

This is off topic, but I've been wondering about the effect of sea water on the soil? Will the fields ever recover from that?


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

I sure hope you pro-nuclear people are right!
They're reporting an emergency at a second plant.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

stormwalker said:


> I sure hope you pro-nuclear people are right!
> They're reporting an emergency at a second plant.


Look, No one is saying it isn't serious. What we're saying is that it is going as expected. There is significant damage and they are working to contain it. IF they could have predicted the failure of the cooling systems, they could have prepared for it. But come on now, who would have thought that two natural disasters happening one after the other hitting this plant would happen? Better question is who would have thunk that this plant could have survived two natural disasters of these proportions like this reactor has! To boot it was built 40 years ago! 

IF the plant wasn't safe, the dang thing would have been scatttered out to sea or worse all over the land.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Really?


At the time, I was going by what the news said. You know this; you just like to misrepresent. 

While I'm at it...you've said "If your intelligence can't see it...." and called DJ "Rush" and other stuff. Knock off the insulting, or I'll close the thread, regardless of what we think/believe/read about reactors.


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

barelahh said:


> Look, No one is saying it isn't serious. What we're saying is that it is going as expected. There is significant damage and they are working to contain it. IF they could have predicted the failure of the cooling systems, they could have prepared for it. But come on now, who would have thought that two natural disasters happening one after the other hitting this plant would happen? Better question is who would have thunk that this plant could have survived two natural disasters of these proportions like this reactor has! To boot it was built 40 years ago!
> 
> IF the plant wasn't safe, the dang thing would have been scatttered out to sea or worse all over the land.


I hope that's consolation to the dead, dying, and those left behind.They're on the ring of fire and they have 55 nuclear reactors.

The irony is, as I see it- unlike us, they have nowhere to go. Of course, if you look at our response to Katrina, it may be a moot point.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

barelahh said:


> Look, No one is saying it isn't serious.



???
I counted 10 posts on this thread that pretty much said exactly that.
Now to be fair some of them were before the explosion, but even after that some have a hard time laying down ideology long enough to be objective.

I happen to think nuclear power has advantages over coal and oil, but I would never be so naive to think it's "safe" or that a problem like this isn't "serious."


----------



## fordson major (Jul 12, 2003)

SueMc said:


> This is off topic, but I've been wondering about the effect of sea water on the soil? Will the fields ever recover from that?


the dutch have turned sea bed to fertile ground, partly by desalinating the soil.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

stormwalker said:


> I hope that's consolation to the dead, dying, and those left behind.They're on the ring of fire and they have 55 nuclear reactors.
> 
> The irony is, as I see it- unlike us, they have nowhere to go. Of course, if you look at our response to Katrina, it may be a moot point.


Come on now, tell me how many are dying from the reactor? How many are dead from it going nuclear!???


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

stormwalker said:


> I hope that's consolation to the dead, dying, and those left behind.*They're on the ring of fire and they have 55 nuclear reactors.*


And just look how many Earthquakes they have gone through over all those years, without a single thing happening.
But This one was different. The Earthquake Did not cause the problems.
The problems started when the huge wave came on in and stopped the generators. 
So a One Two Punch, and the plant then was only operating on battery back ups.
They only last so long.
So even if they are on The Ring Of Fire, the plants have gone through many quakes before this one. Like I said it was the huge wave of water shutting down the generators. Sure they are not 100% safe but the track record is very good in nuclear plants over as many years and as many nuclear plants there are throughout the world.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I hear the cooling system has now failed at reactor #3.

I'll leave you to it.I see you have one standard here,only the right wing,and only the right can sling it.Sling the character assasinations and whine away how mistreated *you* are.

Nothings changed.

Enjoy the meltdown and the now failed system at yet another reactor.

Hasta.


----------



## SueMc (Jan 10, 2010)

Prayers to those in Japan who are suffering through no fault of their own.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> All is good,right until they fail.And they have,do and will.Or deny history,your choice.
> 
> The only SAFE nuclear reactor is the sun.Gods Reactor.
> 
> Mans reactors,they fail.Just like man does.


And it isn't safe either.. It's a ticking time bomb too.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

stormwalker said:


> I sure hope you pro-nuclear people are right!
> They're reporting an emergency at a second plant.


I'm not pro or con, just trying to get the facts. And so far the facts are they haven't had a Chernobyl type disaster. 

They may, or may not, but hopping up and down hoping they will so you can say I told ya so is bordering on depravity.

It would appear the big problem was that they overlooked protection for the backup generators from a huge tsunami event, and the backup generators got flooded. Something pretty easily fixed in the future.

From what I understand from friends who know much more about it than I, the reactor is now surely toast.. As in never usable again, but the design should prevent any massive radiation release or Chernobyl style meltdown or release..

Time will tell, and prayers go out for the locals there and the poor slobs who are at ground zero scrambling to do their best at the plants.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txrider said:


> And it isn't safe either.. It's a ticking time bomb too.


Ya really just wait till that huge EMI spike, taking out all Sats, and bringing down all electric generating stations. Ya the sun is safe, nothing is 100% safe when it comes to either being man made or nature, just look at what could be 10's of thousands of people dead in Japan because of the massive tsunami. May have even wiped a town of 9.500 out of existence.


----------



## dranger1108 (Aug 7, 2010)

http://www.ki4u.com/guide.pdf


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A melt down is not that big, if any, danger. All it does is ruins the reactor. All the big, bad radioactive stuff stays in the containment vessel. That's what it was built for!!! Once you have a melt down the nuclear reaction STOPS!

Let me give you a quick primer. In a reaction you have a neutron hitting an atom which causes that atom to become unstable and split. When it splits it releases two things; a LOT of energy (heat) and another neutron. Now for the reaction to continue you have to have two things: another atom close enough to be hit by the freed neutron (critical geometry) and enough atoms to keep capturing neutrons and splitting (critical mass). Once you lose either of these two things the reaction stops.

When the core gets hot and melts it loses these things and the reaction stops. There's no chance for a run away reaction, no chance for the core to melt through the floor (aka "China Syndrome") and there's no chance for a nuclear explosion.

Take a few minutes and educate yourself so you can stop being terrified every time someone mentions the word "nuclear".

All of this reminds me of my grandpa's fear of electricity. He didn't understand it but he knew it could kill you therefore he was scared to death of it. I know it can kill me but I understand it, so I respect it but I don't fear it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again. A melt down is not that big, if any, danger. All it does is ruins the reactor. All the big, bad radioactive stuff stays in the containment vessel. That's what it was built for!!! Once you have a melt down the nuclear reaction STOPS!
> 
> Let me give you a quick primer. In a reaction you have a neutron hitting an atom which causes that atom to become unstable and split. When it splits it releases two things; a LOT of energy (heat) and another neutron. Now for the reaction to continue you have to have two things: another atom close enough to be hit by the freed neutron (critical geometry) and enough atoms to keep capturing neutrons and splitting (critical mass). Once you lose either of these two things the reaction stops.
> 
> ...


Ya really it is not going to explode like a atomic bomb.
i went to that site that was linked to. "What to do after the bomb". WOW
Well that is not what is happening, or is going to happen.
The precautions that they are doing by taking those pills, they last 24 hours. by that time it will be dissipated.
This is nothing at all like a "fall out" not in the least. Sure the building will never again to used again, but it will be contained, that is why those thick walls around it are built like they are.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And now Japan is closer to the USA by 8 feet, we got a little closer to those nuclear plants, because of the quake.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> And now Japan is closer to the USA by 8 feet, we got a little closer to those nuclear plants, because of the quake.


Oh no the environmentalist or MMB will sue them for being too close.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

*Radioactive Cranberries* anyone? No?? Mmmmm. More for me.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> The only SAFE nuclear reactor is the sun.Gods Reactor.


LOL

Betcha the sun causes more cancer worldwide than all the nuc plants put together...


----------



## DavidUnderwood (Jul 5, 2007)

Looky here now, some people will not be
happy till a nuclear incident takes out a
country or two. Then they will jump for
joy and say "I told you so"!
Originally Posted by mightybooboo 

Me,Im loving it,just more PROOF.....
Maybe the sickest, sadest statement I've
ever read on any forum.
Go ahead and be delighted.


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

Myself, I'm horrified!
I'm afraid I can imagine what they are going through.
The count is now up to six reactors in trouble.
By the way A K, the earthquake caused the tsunami.
I'm also afraid they may have lost some of their Living National Treasures.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

stormwalker said:


> By the way A K, the earthquake caused the tsunami.


 But look how many years this same reactor has made it through countless number of quakes, and nothing like this happened now did it?
Why because a Huge Wave Swept over and took out the Gens.
Now they will learn from that and place even more generators around and make them in spots that are not so aped to get swamped.
Japan has 55 nuclear reactors, and many many quakes have happened over the years, I say that is a pretty dern good safety record on just have safe these plants are.
If the wave had not been generated the plant would not be in the trouble it is going through.
So even if our plants now are getting older, How Many are on the coast?
And how many would be affected by a huge wave like that?
I doubt if there is many, if not one or so that close to get swamped. So they will make it through a quake of that size. No sense to loose sleep over this at all.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

BTW, booboo, you seem to be ignoring the fact we had a meltdown at TMI back in the 80's. That proved the design. The reactor pressure vessel never failed.

Do some research on radon and coal fired power plants. Coal plants release more radiation than nukes.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> But look how many years this same reactor has made it through countless number of quakes, and nothing like this happened now did it?
> Why because a Huge Wave Swept over and took out the Gens.
> Now they will learn from that and place even more generators around and make them in spots that are not so aped to get swamped.
> Japan has 55 nuclear reactors, and many many quakes have happened over the years, I say that is a pretty dern good safety record on just have safe these plants are.
> ...


By the design all of them are on the coast. They take a lot of water to cool them and run them and they don't have enough river water to place them their. When building the one in Arkansas they had to dam the Arkansas river and create a lake to supply the enough water.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> By the design all of them are on the coast.


No, not all US nuclear plants are near the coast.
In fact, the majority are nowhere near the coastlines at all:

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/north_america.php


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes but some of those are Up Hill From the water line, they are not sitting right at the level of the ocean like the one that is having trouble in Japan is.That is the difference.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, not all US nuclear plants are near the coast.
> In fact, the majority are nowhere near the coastlines at all:
> 
> http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/north_america.php


Oh for sure.
And how about Palo Verde?
Smack dab in the middle of the Desert~! Just 45 miles west of Phoenix, sure is no where near the ocean. And sure is not next to any lake, dam or anything, that is for sure. LOL


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Old Vet said:


> By the design all of them are on the coast. They take a lot of water to cool them and run them and they don't have enough river water to place them their. When building the one in Arkansas they had to dam the Arkansas river and create a lake to supply the enough water.





Bearfootfarm said:


> No, not all US nuclear plants are near the coast.
> In fact, the majority are nowhere near the coastlines at all:
> 
> http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/north_america.php


As a matter of fact, the first plant I worked at was in upstate New York. The funny thing was that college students from Albany would come up every Friday and protest at the entrance of the plant and pass out literature. They claimed that the Navy was using the plant to secretly refuel nuclear submarines that traveled up from the coast in an underground river that flowed directly under the plant. 

Anyone here go to college in Albany NY?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

"As a matter of fact, the first plant I worked at was in upstate New York. The funny thing was that college students from Albany would come up every Friday and protest at the entrance of the plant and pass out literature. They claimed that the Navy was using the plant to secretly refuel nuclear submarines that traveled up from the coast in an underground river that flowed directly under the plant. "

Let me guess. They were majoring in stupidity.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

sammyd said:


> LOL
> 
> Betcha the sun causes more cancer worldwide than all the nuc plants put together...


Yup that safe old sun kills more folks through it's radiation and skin cancer than all the nuke plants and nuclear bombs ever made have.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, not all US nuclear plants are near the coast.
> In fact, the majority are nowhere near the coastlines at all:
> 
> http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/north_america.php


I was talking about the ones in Japan not in the US. We have enough river water to cool them but in Japan there is not enough. In the US most of them are inland far from the coast and are not subject to huge waves. It is my fault for not reading the post right they were talking about the 55 plants in Japan then changed to our facilities.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Here is a fairly informative article in the WSJ.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> Here is a fairly informative article in the WSJ.


There was an article on Yahoo yesterday (Saturday) that said the containment vesicle blew apart and the fuel rods were going to burn through the concrete floor and in to the ground then blow up. That is the kind of journalism that is fueling the debate.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> As a matter of fact, the first plant I worked at was in upstate New York.


By any chance was this near GE Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Schenectady?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> By any chance was this near GE Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Schenectady?


No, I was in Ballston Spa.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

How about that?

A SECOND plant with a hydrogen explosion,the USS Ronald Reagan steaming thru a nuclear plume of radiation 60-100 miles offshore,our helicoptors getting decontaminated after missions,17 crew members getting decommed.

Yup,try and ignore the news,play the game of semantics...

THE WORLD knows what is going on if GC doesnt and tries to downplay it.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> How about that?
> 
> A SECOND plant with a hydrogen explosion,the USS Ronald Reagan steaming thru a nuclear plume of radiation 60-100 miles offshore,our helicoptors getting decontaminated after missions,17 crew members getting decommed.
> 
> ...


Yep they said it was about the amount of a month worth of background radiation. But it is likely to kill anybody that is on the west coast.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

nobody is downplaying anything.
They are pointing out the great over reaction by the initiated and overly scared.
Over reaction and foolishness needs to be nipped in the bud.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Fox news just reported or at least I just heard it. There are fuel rods exposed to air in one of the plants. 

Any one care to tell me what MOX fuel is?

Dave


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> How about that?
> 
> A SECOND plant with a hydrogen explosion,the USS Ronald Reagan steaming thru a nuclear plume of radiation 60-100 miles offshore,our helicoptors getting decontaminated after missions,17 crew members getting decommed.
> 
> ...


So much for your statement that you were done posting here.  I just knew you'd come back to gloat over....well, anything, really.

I'll echo what others have said about a million times, since you don't seem to be getting it (and indeed, don't WANT to get it, so I'll just say this once.)

NO ONE has said 'can't happen' or 'no big deal.' What we ARE doing is refraining from going "OMG the world is ending!" You can carry on, however.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The "Core" is still "intact" Nothing but "vapors" have made it into the air. It IS still not a world wide concern, just drink that 2nd cup of coffee, relax. And this better not stop ANY new building of plants in this country slowed up. That plant is 40 years old, with what we have learned over the years there no sense in any time delay because of what is happening in Japan.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Everything I've read or seen from news readers has had factual errors. People are so focused on the hydrogen explosions and the radiation that they are panicking. The problem is that understanding these requires technical knowledge. The surprising thing is none of it is rocket science. It simply goes to the fact that many people have a preformed opinion and they do not bother to truly check anything out in depth to truly understand the situation.

We're all ignorant to some degree on many subjects. To continue holding on to that ignorance in the face of historical fact that can easily be checked is mind boggling. What is it about humanity that many want to either panic or spread panic inadvertantly through ignorance? The ones of us that have tried to provide facts, even when we get no benefit from it, continue to see comments that only disclose the poster's continued ignorance and quasi-panic.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes there is a huge difference between "Low Level Radiation" and Radiation that is "fallout" from the bomb. WAY different.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

davel745 said:


> Fox news just reported or at least I just heard it. There are fuel rods exposed to air in one of the plants.
> 
> Any one care to tell me what MOX fuel is?
> 
> Dave


The reactor core consists of fuel rods that are normally covered by water. When the water level drops and the fuel rods are exposed to air within the reactor pressure vessel, the zircoloy cladding making the up the outside of the fuel rod starts to corrode. One of the byproducts is hydrogen. Keep in mind the temperature inside the reactor when operating is about 550 degrees F. You read that right. It is slightly more than the temperature that the oven in your stove can reach. 

Even if the fuel rods melt (meltdown) the temperature reached is no where near what is needed to melt through a reactor with 4" thick steel walls. The accident at TMI proved that a meltdown will not escape the reactor. In other words, the China Syndrome is BS.

MOX is a type of fuel that contains plutonium.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Darren said:


> Everything I've read or seen from news readers has had factual errors. People are so focused on the hydrogen explosions and the radiation that they are panicking. The problem is that understanding these requires technical knowledge. The surprising thing is none of it is rocket science. It simply goes to the fact that many people have a preformed opinion and they do not bother to truly check anything out in depth to truly understand the situation.


THANK you. I'm no expert, but I did make it almost all the way through the Naval nuclear program (just couldn't pass the final oral board due to stage fright - lol) and DJ was a full-on Nuke.

And the guys that actually have a clue are worried/concerned, yes, but not panicking. The first 'explosion' was a great example. It was not the core; it was the building, due to having to vent hydrogen from the reactor and the subsequent reaction between hydrogen and oxygen demolishing the building. People think "OMG meltdown" when all that happened was the building surrounding it got blown down; the reactor core, as I understand it, was still intact 100%.

And people do forget TMI - that was a HUGE meltdown but it was STILL completely contained. And even if it wasn't, people aren't aware at all of the big differences between Chernobyl - bad design (IMHO), STUPID disabling of many safeguards, etc. - and other reactors. Suffice to say that I think they'd have to do NOTHING to the reactors at all for it to even get close to approaching Chernobyl.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Kung said:


> And people do forget TMI - that was a HUGE meltdown but it was STILL completely contained. And even if it wasn't, people aren't aware at all of the big differences between Chernobyl - bad design (IMHO), STUPID disabling of many safeguards, etc. - and other reactors. Suffice to say that I think they'd have to do NOTHING to the reactors at all for it to even get close to approaching Chernobyl.


It is worth noting that there have been no health impacts from any of the exposure at TMI. As for Chernobyl, the main cause of the problems there was the totalitarian Communuist government that built and operated the plant.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Heard a third reactor has had its cooling system fail now,'possibly' related to the 2nd hydrogen explosion at the 2nd plant.

Lets see....now up to 3 disabled nukes,proven radioactive cloud over the pacific according to the US Navy.So much for 'its contained',its proven they are releasing radioactivity.The Navy has evacuated the area because the level is so safe.

Also FACT that the control rods are damaged in one now,at least whats being reported.

Really could care less to debate your expert opinions here,I'll just report the news and let you think whatever you want.

Nothing but the FACTS,I'll be sure to keep you updated.

Enjoy your meltdown and semantics,FACT is they are experiencing meltdowns right now,the degree of meltdown unknown,but MELTDOWN is now being reported as FACT all over the news.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

To those on the left coast.. HIDE!

Climb into your fall out shelters till the cloud of radioactivity dissipates. You will get hit first before those of us East of you...



Okay, now with that said, maybe the rest of us can have a civil discussion of what is happening without those wishing for others deaths...

Shame really that some here are elated that others have/may die, just to prove their political agenda.

I really can't imagine the terror that the people of Japan are going through.. 
May the Gods watch over the survivors and lead them back from the Hades they are living...


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Kung said:


> THANK you. I'm no expert, but I did make it almost all the way through the Naval nuclear program (just couldn't pass the final oral board due to stage fright - lol) and DJ was a full-on Nuke.
> 
> And the guys that actually have a clue are worried/concerned, yes, but not panicking. The first 'explosion' was a great example. It was not the core; it was the building, due to having to vent hydrogen from the reactor and the subsequent reaction between hydrogen and oxygen demolishing the building. People think "OMG meltdown" when all that happened was the building surrounding it got blown down; the reactor core, as I understand it, was still intact 100%.
> 
> And people do forget TMI - that was a HUGE meltdown but it was STILL completely contained. And even if it wasn't, people aren't aware at all of the big differences between Chernobyl - bad design (IMHO), STUPID disabling of many safeguards, etc. - and other reactors. Suffice to say that I think they'd have to do NOTHING to the reactors at all for it to even get close to approaching Chernobyl.


One other thing to add to TMI is that about 20 miles downstream is another reactor, Peach Bottom... So here I am sitting between the 2 plants.. 
Now I wasn't here in '79 when TMI had trouble, but beign that I was born and raised here I've seen no anecdotal evidence of radiation poisoning and the farms in the area are all producing, even the factory farms...


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrAzE4MGtmbGVlYXNqYQ--
-----------------------------
More than 180,000 people have evacuated the area in recent days, and up to 160 may have been exposed to radiation pouring misery onto those already devastated by the twin disasters.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Kung the main containment building did not blow up. The portion that did was a structural steel and sheet metal clad structure on the top of the concrete structure. That pole barn like structure normally serves to contain vented gases until they can be filtered. 

What booboo doesn't undertand is that during a meltdown such as ocurred at TMI, everything inside the reactor vessel will melt into something that looks like a pile of large rocks. It isn't a public health issue. The plant may never operate again but even that isn't certain. TMI taught us many things. Westinghouse gave the utility a price for replacing the reactor at TMI. Because of other concerns, the utility elected to decommision the plant.

A BWR has a more complicated internal containment design due to the fact that the steam from the main steam relief valves (MSRVs) is released into an internal pool of water instead of into the atmosphere. That is the tradeoff with the steam generators required for a PWR design in which the MSRVs vent to the atmosphere. You can't do that in a BWR.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Darren said:


> Kung the main containment building did not blow up. The portion that did was a structural steel and sheet metal clad structure on the top of the concrete structure. That pole barn like structure normally serves to contain vented gases until they can be filtered.


Ah, I wasn't aware of that - and I've been poring over news sources so as not to make the same mistakes as others. Thanks for the correction.



> What booboo doesn't undertand is that during a meltdown such as ocurred at TMI, everything inside the reactor vessel will melt into something that looks like a pile of large rocks. It isn't a public health issue. The plant may never operate again but even that isn't certain. TMI taught us many things. Westinghouse gave the utility a price for replacing the reactor at TMI. Because of other concerns, the utility elected to decommision the plant.
> 
> A BWR has a more complicated internal containment design due to the fact that the steam from the main steam relief valves (MSRVs) is released into an internal pool of water instead of into the atmosphere. That is the tradeoff with the steam generators required for a PWR design in which the MSRVs vent to the atmosphere. You can't do that in a BWR.


I was aware of the TMI issue...but not of the difference between the MSRVs in a PWR and a BWR plant. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mightybooboo said:


> How about that?
> 
> A SECOND plant with a hydrogen explosion,the USS Ronald Reagan steaming thru a nuclear plume of radiation 60-100 miles offshore,our helicoptors getting decontaminated after missions,17 crew members getting decommed.
> 
> ...


I haven't commented on this thread because I am not too knowledgeable in this area and your posts offer no evidence that you are either. Your obvious anti-nuke bias is very clear even if your grasp of the facts is poor. You post sensationalism without regard for the truth. Why haven't you posted the fact that the dose of radiation the crew got was very low and equal to what you would get from being in the sun for 30 days and that they were decontaminated with soap and water and all are fine and back on duty? Not scary enough?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> proven radioactive cloud over the pacific according to the US Navy.So much for 'its contained',its proven they are releasing radioactivity.The Navy has evacuated the area because the level is so safe.


They have to because the Navy's regs on this are tons more stringent than even governmental or Japanese regs, if I am not mistaken.

Speaking of "FACTS".....you forgot to add what was mentioned after the moving of the ships:



> The Navy emphasized that the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's personnel was less than the radiation exposure they would have gotten from one month's exposure to the sun.
> 
> The levels were very low and were only found on the clothing and on the skin of one sailor, said Lt. Gen. Burton Field, commander of U.S. Forces Japan. "We scrub it with soap and water."


So ONE sailor received about as much radiation as a beach bum.....and the emergency procedures for this involved following ALREADY ESTABLISHED procedures, and telling the guy to essentially take a bath.

You're right - a sailor taking a bath is cause for alarm.



> Also FACT that the control rods are damaged in one now,at least whats being reported.


No one's denied that.



> Really could care less to debate your expert opinions here


That's because they're informed with not only "FACTS" but actual KNOWLEDGE of the subject matter at hand....something you don't have.



> I'll just report the news and let you think whatever you want.


That's what people should be doing anyways.



> Nothing but the FACTS,I'll be sure to keep you updated.


Trust us...we know.



> Enjoy your meltdown and semantics,FACT is they are experiencing meltdowns right now,the degree of meltdown unknown,but MELTDOWN is now being reported as FACT all over the news.


Again...show me where people have denied this.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

U.S. stock futures drop; Japan in focus
Renewable energy stocks point higher in premarket trading

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...k-uranium-miners-drop-2011-03-14?siteid=yhoof

March 14, 2011, 8:41 a.m. EDT
U.S. stock futures drop; Japan in focus
Renewable energy stocks point higher in premarket trading

Companies with links to the nuclear industry were among the hardest hit after a second explosion at a nuclear plant that was damaged by Friday&#8217;s earthquake. Read more about nuclear, energy stocks.

Shares of General Electric Co. (GE 19.78, -0.58, -2.85%) dropped 2.4% in premarket trading. The company designed all six of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan.

Several uranium producers also fell heavily in U.S. premarket trading. Shares of Denison Mines Corp. (DNN 2.39, -0.90, -27.48%) and Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC 3.73, -1.13, -23.20%) dropped 24% and 18%, respectively, ahead of the open, and Uranerz Energy Corp. (URZ 2.88, -1.07, -27.09%) fell 23%.

Premarket gainers included stocks linked to renewable energy sources. The American depositary receipts of Renesola Ltd. (SOL 9.03, +0.32, +3.67%) rose 10%, and Suntech Power Holdings Co.(STP 8.31, +0.27, +3.36%) rallied 12%.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Is it true a containment vessel is broken? Havent verifed that yet,may not be true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> More than 180,000 people have evacuated the area in recent days


And that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact the homes were all destroyed 

Carry on with your* hysteria*


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Booboo I posted the pictures of a containment building of another plant on this site. Can you wrap your mind around a building that has three foot thick concrete walls with a one inch steel liner that is designed to survive an airliner crashing into it? The answer is that the containment buildings in the Japanese plants are still fine. so was the one at TMI when the meltdown ocurred thirty years ago.

The key point is that beyond the mechanical systems which are designed to protect the plant equipment, the structures including the reactor are designed as multiple layers of defense to prevent a meltdown from getting into the environment if the backup systems fail. What you've missed by sucking up the drivel from the news readers is they've provided no comparison as in *we've already seen the worse that could happen* and other than ending the usefullness of the plant it was nonissue for public health. Everything at TMI verified the design. Similarly the events at the Japanese plants have also proved the design works.

You would probably be dumbstruck if you could see inside a nuke power plant. The folks that were able to tour a plant before fuel load were astonished by the massive construction.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Meltdown threat rises at Japanese nuclear plant
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110314/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis

By ERIC TALMADGE and MARI YAMAGUCHI, Associated Press Eric Talmadge And Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press &#8211; 6 mins ago
SOMA, Japan &#8211; Water levels dropped precipitously Monday inside a stricken Japanese nuclear reactor, twice leaving the uranium fuel rods completely exposed and raising the threat of a meltdown, hours after a hydrogen explosion tore through the building housing a different reactor.

Water levels were restored after the first decrease but the rods remained exposed late Monday night after the second episode, increasing the risk of the spread of radiation and the potential for an eventual meltdown.

The cascading troubles in the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant compounded the immense challenges faced by the Tokyo government, already struggling to send relief to hundreds of thousands of people along the country's quake- and tsunami-ravaged coast where at least 10,000 people are believed to have died.

*Later, a top Japanese official said the fuel rods in all three of the most troubled nuclear reactors appeared to be melting.*


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I just heard they are trying to cool the plants using Fire Engines.

I can say,without ANY doubt,this is NOT how they are designed.

MSNBC just said that the cooling is NOT working,and temperatures are continuing to rise.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Right now saying the rods are fully exposed again.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

The bad news:
*Multiple explosions now, probably due to using seawater as a last ditch effort to cool off fuel rods.
*16 people now hospitalized and 160 sick, likely plant workers, but for some reason authorities are tight-lipped about this.
*Radiation contamination detected on 17 U.S. soldiers who've been flying over area, but don't worry - just another day at the beach.
*Oh, and the seawater thing? This just means those reactors will have a lot of corrosion and other damage and never be used for power again. Don't worry about corrosion affecting the integrity of the containment building though.

OK, now the good news:

*Everything is going according to plan, just like we designed it. So move along folks.
Nothing to see here.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

Energy Rebel said:


> The bad news:
> *Multiple explosions now, probably due to using seawater as a last ditch effort to cool off fuel rods.
> *16 people now hospitalized and 160 sick, likely plant workers, but for some reason authorities are tight-lipped about this.
> *Radiation contamination detected on 17 U.S. soldiers who've been flying over area, but don't worry - just another day at the beach.
> ...


:nono:
How dare you question the authorities!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> Meltdown threat rises at Japanese nuclear plant
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110314/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis
> 
> By ERIC TALMADGE and MARI YAMAGUCHI, Associated Press Eric Talmadge And Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press â 6 mins ago
> ...


Relax and listen to something other than a news program which wants you to hear the worse so you will keep listening. Think about the last time anything happened locally. Didn't all the local stations "interupt normally scheulded programing" to cover it and use the worse possible terms and senarios all the while telling you nothing at all?

Take a deep breath and read the following slowly. A melt down is not that big of a deal in the terms of danger to anyone. The plant isn't not going to blow up like Chernobyl because it physically can not.

Let me see if I can use something else an a poor example. Lead vapors are dangerous therefor when they melt lead in a factory they have a really big closed pot inside inside a closed building where the vapors of the boiling/melting lead can be contained. Suddenly the pot with the boiling lead springs a leak. What's going to happen? The hot lead is going to pour out of the pot, hit the floor, cool off and from a really big chunk of solid lead. But before that happens you are going to have a large volume of lead vapor in the building. Some of which might **GASP** escape the containment building. Would you be all alarmed it this was what was happening in Japan? No because you know that 1) the lead isn't going to melt to keep generating heat and melt through the floor of the containment building [FYI, the melted fuel rods aren't either]. 2) the amount of lead vapor released will be so small there is no way it could ever effect your life [FYI, the radiation released from the nuke plant won't either]. 

You are scared because of your ignorance. Take time to educate yourself. Listen to people who KNOW about this stuff, people who have either worked with it or have been schooled in it. Not talking heads on a TV who couldn't tell you the chemical formula of the radioactive materials used for fuel unless it was on their teleprompter! 

One other thing. Let me tell you just how dangerous the fuel in nuke plants is. I don't want to scare you any more than you already are by telling you where but there are nuke fuel processing plants in the US. I've been in them. I've actually held a nuke fuel pellet in my hand with nothing between it and my skin than a latex glove. It was about the side of the first joint of your pinky but much heavier. You know what? I still have all my hair, my teeth haven't fallen out and neither of my kids are mutants. Radiation isn't this great monster which can kill you with mere milliseconds of exposure.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

"Some experts would consider that a partial meltdown. Others, though, reserve that term for times when nuclear fuel melts through a reactor's innermost chamber but not through the outer containment shell.

Officials held out the possibility that, too, may be happening.

"It's impossible to say whether there has or has not been damage" to the vessels, nuclear agency official Naoki Kumagai said.

If a complete reactor meltdown &#8212; where the uranium core melts through the outer containment shell &#8212; were to occur, _*a wave of radiation would be released, resulting in major, widespread health problems."*_http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110314/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

You know its interesting, everyone on this thread and any place else I've looked says this is serious, I've seen no one downplay this tragedy even when they try to explain what is likely happening or likely to happen and yet a couple people keep posting about how everyone is doing the opposite.

I think what is happening is that some people are truly afraid of this and have let emotions run a bit wild. We should all be concerned, we should all recognize that we dont really know what is happening, and most of all we should direct our concern to the people of Japan who are reeling from multiple catastrophic events. Cutting and pasting news clips with breathlessness each time one comes out is kind of pointless since most of us are monitoring the news anyway.

Too me some of these posts appear to be gleefull over the tragedy...I know thats not the intent and I doubt the poster feels that way but it sure would come across better if they related how concerned they were about this situation in a rational manner and left the "gotcha" tactics behind. We havent had any new nuclear power plants built in something like 30 years so there is time to debate this without seeming to be dancing on the graves of the Japanese.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> I just heard they are trying to cool the plants using Fire Engines.
> 
> I can say,without ANY doubt,this is NOT how they are designed.


Then let me put some doubt into your mind. If it wasn't designed this way how could they do it? To add even more doubt, I can tell you there is at least one working reactor in the US where one of their backup cooling systems is specifically designed to supply cooling water by pumping water into the system via fire hoses. They even have a couple of hundred feet of fire hose on hand. I have to admit when I first heard I thought this was something really screwy, but after thinking about it I though it was brilliant. We used to joke if the fire hose didn't work there was a supply of funnels kept in the mensroom.

You have to realize us engineers tend to be quite paranoid and make back up systems to back up the back up systems.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

I can only speak for myself, but I'm in no way glad that this happened.
I have used a little sarcasm because I find it disingenuous to try to downplay radiation exposure by comparing it to a month at the beach.
Let's examine that for a moment.
I've had sun poisoning from a lengthy catamaran race on a lake in Florida many years ago.
It was from one day without any SPF protection. 2nd degree burns, fatigue and nasea.
Now, this 30 days at the beach, is that the equivalent of being exposed to the sun all day without protection, or is it at some more protected level?
Are we talking just alpha rays, or gamma?
It does make a great deal of difference and having an hysterical level of concern is just as bad as having too little.
I don't favor either extreme. It reminds me of the ideological rhetoric you find in extreme political arguements.
Both sides seem to wallow in ignorance rather than open their eyes and ears to the facts.
Just my opinion.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yup,fire trucks are designed to push water into a* high pressure* vessel...yup,they were designed this way to be cooled with firetruck pumps.

That has to be about the most ridiculous statement Ive seen yet.Especially since they are reporting IT ISNT WORKING and temps continue to rise.

Lets HOPE the darn thing doesnt do a China Syndrome,or that CANT happen either? 

Only news Im seeing is worse and worse as this unfolds.

The NEWS,not my speculation as an 'expert' here,which somehow is supposed to trump those in the know,you know the scientists who really KNOW what is happening.

Sorry guys but you arent my source for expert knowledge.By a long stretch.LONG STRETCH.

Again reporting melt downs in all three reactors and saying a 3rd explosion 'LIKELY'

Whatever,the NEWS is what it is.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,fire trucks are designed to push water into a* high pressure* vessel...yup,they were designed this way to be cooled with firetruck pumps.
> 
> That has to be about the most ridiculous statement Ive seen yet.Especially since they are reporting IT ISNT WORKING and temps continue to rise.
> 
> ...


Yep, meltdowns in all three reactors and China is still safe.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote "Sorry guys but you arent my source for expert knowledge.By a long stretch.LONG STRETCH"

And apparently neither are the news reporters or most tv networks. The vast majority of what I have seen and read on mulitple tv and website news is sensationalism, hysteria, and factual errors.

Nope, I'm not an expert either. Don't even play one on tv. But the network news is clearly pandering to the ignorant by reporting hysteria, plain and simple. 

I'm seeing no expert knowlege---but the scary part is that IT'S THE MEDIA WHO ARE SHOWING THIS LACK OF EXPERT KNOWLEGE.

ETA 'Meltdown' seems to be the big, scary word. Conjures up all sorts of terrible things. Like the exposed core of Chernobyl. Yeah, I remember seeing it way back when. But at the time, and my age of about 19, I also understood it was a very flawed design. But from the information I have seen on the design of the reactors in Japan, 'meltdown' is contained inside an impermeable vessel. Let it melt down, it's not going anywhere, and certainly not through the planet, as children fear. 

Anyone remember Jane Fonda's movie from the 70's?...


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

It wasent suppose to happen to BP either...but it did.

I believe very little that is reported on the news...I know from experience how they dont report both sides and very little truth. After all have you ever heard anything bad about Obama? They will cover up the truth and pull from your hysteria...and basically tell you what you want to hear...

Japan's people are in my thoughts right now.


----------



## Stush (Aug 27, 2002)

Really don't want to enter this fray, but want to post a link to a good article on the BBC. Amazingly, this topic is addressed in a balanced manner in the article. The bottom line? While this is a very serious situation, it is not the absolute disaster being portrayed in the US media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12726628


----------



## Stush (Aug 27, 2002)

Another one for anyone looking for some real factual information:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Its interesting to read an article like this and then realize how badly the news media butcher the facts when reporting.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> The NEWS,not my speculation as an 'expert' here,which somehow is supposed to trump those in the know,you know the scientists who really KNOW what is happening.
> 
> Sorry guys but you arent my source for expert knowledge.By a long stretch.LONG STRETCH.
> 
> ...


The trouble is, is that we actually have bona fide experts here and you continue to ignore them. 
These experts are reporting facts that do not conform to your preexisting thoughts and you are rejecting them because they do not support your agenda.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Energy Rebel said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I'm in no way glad that this happened.
> I have used a little sarcasm because I find it disingenuous to try to downplay radiation exposure by comparing it to a month at the beach.
> Let's examine that for a moment.
> I've had sun poisoning from a lengthy catamaran race on a lake in Florida many years ago.
> ...


No, it is the amount of radiation you would get during a normal 30 days of the average American life. 

If you live in Denver, you get 2 times the amount of those living at sea level...meaning you live there your whole life and you've had 2 lifetimes of radiation.

If you fly commercial, cross country, by the time you reach cruising altitude...say 39,000 ft...you are now receiving 64 times the amount of radiation than you do on the coast.

To put it in perspective....they didn't get blasted. They didn't even get a sunburn...they got the exact same exposure they would if they would have flown from New York to Tokyo.


----------



## Stush (Aug 27, 2002)

tinknal said:


> The trouble is, is that we actually have bona fide experts here and you continue to ignore them.
> These experts are reporting facts that do not conform to your preexisting thoughts and you are rejecting them because they do not support your agenda.


This is an instance where you likely would never be able to provide enough factual expert documentation to change some people's minds. The word "nuclear" is enough to send some people into a tizzy. They are uninformed and do not want to be educated to the contrary. It seems that they are quite happy in their ignorance.

Unfortunately, the media outlets in the US seem to be more than happy to fuel the fires of the uninformed. I remember quite well as a kid the hysteria over the TMI accident in Harrisburg. It was a nightly story on the news for years. At that time, I didn't know any better, so I believed what I heard on the news. 

Years later, I got to spend a good bit of time hunting with an old timer that worked in the industry for years as a nuclear physicist. He was an extremely well educated and reasonable man. One time the TMI story came up and naturally, around a table in a hunting camp in Centre County, PA, there was a lot of misinformation. Instead of dismissing us all as idiots, this gentleman took the time to spend about two hours explaining to us what had REALLY happened there. Of course, he simplified things. He had to so that we understood the concepts. However, the end result was that we were all able to see that there were some mistakes made there, and that some things went wrong, but the truth was that there was a very MINIMAL amount of danger to the general public around the plant. Thats a little different perspective than what you would have if the 6PM news were your sole source of enlightenment. 

FWIW, I don't work for an energy company, or any company even remotely related to the nuke industry. I do have enough sense to realize though that nuclear power is going to be a part of any developed nation's energy generation portfolio.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Stush said:


> Really don't want to enter this fray, but want to post a link to a good article on the BBC. Amazingly, this topic is addressed in a balanced manner in the article. The bottom line? While this is a very serious situation, it is not the absolute disaster being portrayed in the US media.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12726628


This link, as well as the one following it, are not only

a) "news" (like it or not, mightybooboo), but
b) saying

*EXACTLY*

what the 4 or 5 people here who have actually

*WORKED IN A NUCLEAR PLANT*

have been saying.

Any other time people would appeal for 'experts' to pull information from. Now that we actually HAVE people here who have direct knowledge....suddenly it matters not at all.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,fire trucks are designed to push water into a* high pressure* vessel...yup,they were designed this way to be cooled with firetruck pumps.
> 
> That has to be about the most ridiculous statement Ive seen yet.Especially since they are reporting IT ISNT WORKING and temps continue to rise.
> 
> ...


That is correct. Firetrucks were designed to pump water anywhere it is needed. They are also designed to rescue trapped kittens in trees and run over possums in their way. I would like to appoint you to the honored post of Forum Lookout. Please go to this site

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/RadiationNetwork.htm

and warn us when the radiation levels in this country reach the danger level. It will require 24 hour dedication and diligence on your part by I know you can handle the job due to your dedication to facts.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,fire trucks are designed to push water into a* high pressure* vessel...yup,they were designed this way to be cooled with firetruck pumps.
> 
> That has to be about the most ridiculous statement Ive seen yet.Especially since they are reporting IT ISNT WORKING and temps continue to rise.
> 
> ...


Ok if you don't take us as knowledgable how about a PhD research scientist from MIT? Here's what Dr Josef Oehmen wrote.

_I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single (!) report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). By ânot free of errorsâ I do not refer to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism â that is quite normal these days. By ânot free of errorsâ I mean blatant errors regarding physics and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of facts, due to an obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of the way nuclear reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error.

We will have to cover some fundamentals, before we get into what is going on._

Here's two places you can read what he has to say:

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-reactors-pose-no-risk-2011-3

http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

nTrue and the ONLYU people that have been sent to hospitals were the Workers At The Plant.
None of the surrounding area folks have been.
And as far as he ship Yes they did Detect LOW LEVELS of radiation.
Know what that means?
They took they clothes off and Took a Shower. ! That is all, then moved the ship away from getting any More LOW LEVEL radiation. Still No Worries.
But is the left really have a field day with their anti-nuke roderick. And the uninformed sure are running around without facts. Besides the "China Syndrome" is a fictitious movie without True Facts behind it. Or at least without todays harden incased containment cores.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Yep, meltdowns in all three reactors and China is still safe.


Want to bet on that? Im going to assume you meant Japan? If you are current the news coming out from the THIRD explosion is pretty grim,may be some disastrous news coming shortly.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

poppy said:


> That is correct. Firetrucks were designed to pump water anywhere it is needed. They are also designed to rescue trapped kittens in trees and run over possums in their way. I would like to appoint you to the honored post of Forum Lookout. Please go to this site
> 
> http://www.radiationnetwork.com/RadiationNetwork.htm
> 
> and warn us when the radiation levels in this country reach the danger level. It will require 24 hour dedication and diligence on your part by I know you can handle the job due to your dedication to facts.


Fire engines arent designed to pump high pressure as is in a nuclear reactor by any stretch. And it hasnt been working because they cant overcome the vessel pressure with a fire truck pump. But Im sure you knew that.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

So I guess I will fill you in.The third explosion is reported to have been in the MAIN CONTAINMENT VESSEL.

NHK is reporting radiation leaks of high level material,and water leaks. They are saying something about abandoning the plant.

The news is extremely sketchy but thats what I heard in CNN on their NHK feed,then they abruptly cut the report.

This has all been reported in the last 20 minutes on the CNN Im watching.So expect more bad news looks pretty obvious from what is being reported from Japan.

Reporting what Ive heard

As for your assertion Im saying this will effect us,Ive never said this is OUR disaster,it doesnt really look like it will be.

But even the experts are saying a total meltdown could indeed send it to the jetstream and yes,affect us. But that looks highly unlikely they are saying.

And yes,I am editing as Im posting for those of you who have trouble with that concept.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> nTrue and the ONLYU people that have been sent to hospitals were the Workers At The Plant.
> None of the surrounding area folks have been.
> And as far as he ship Yes they did Detect LOW LEVELS of radiation.
> Know what that means?
> ...


Assuming that nuclear power will have to become the standard to meet futire power needs, what do you think is the answer to the obvious safety issue?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

No new nukes,we can certainly live without them,society will not stop when the nukes do.No matter what the Fox news crowd thinks.

They are hardly essential to our survival by any stretch.

TMI stopped em from being built for over 30 years,this will stop em for another 30 years,people wont forget this,especially with the way its going now and starting to look like a total meltdown now that the main containment vessel has been breached as the Japanese are reporting.

Lets see if its true,what they were saying........Tomorrow will certainly be interesting.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> No new nukes,we can certainly live without them,society will not stop when the nukes do.
> 
> They are hardly essential to our survival by any stretch.


The primary assumption in my question was that nuclear power would NEED to become the standard.

Actually, as left-leaning as I am, I don't see "no new nukes" as an option. It's going to happen so we might as well resign ourselves to the need for safer operations.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Too bad the 'experts' are usually biased as all get-out. Just as an example, this morning I was listening to the radio where an 'expert' on nuclear power told the listening audience that 'only 2 people died from the radiation at Chernobyl, and 'wind and solar are absolutely USELESS for providing electricity'. I wanted to punch the guy out for spreading such absolute bald faced lies. And this is on the AM 1120 KMOX 'blowtorch' station that reaches all over the midwest.
I've got a rooftop array that provides 60% of our household energy needs, on an average annual basis. That is accounting for nighttime AND cloudy days.
To be pro-nuclear is one thing, to propagate lies, or to spread misinformation is another...

But I gotta admit, a nuclear facility that can take an 8.9 earthquake without contaminating a thousand square miles is impressive. The engineers did a good job on those containment vessels. Lets hope they hold together. 
Although I would guess the seawater they are using to cool them with is going to be fairly radioactive...


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Nevada said:


> The primary assumption in my question was that nuclear power would NEED to become the standard.
> 
> Actually, as left-leaning as I am, I don't see "no new nukes" as an option. It's going to happen so we might as well resign ourselves to the need for safer operations.


Well, deep shaft coal mining is still dangerous, but it gets safer all the time. I think we need to do the same with nuclear. Keep learning and keep improving. All life is risk, and nuclear is just another one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> To be pro-nuclear is one thing, to propagate lies, or to spread misinformation is another...


I don't see it as a political or emotional issue. It's just another technology to me.



greg273 said:


> But I gotta admit, a nuclear facility that can take an 8.9 earthquake without contaminating a thousand square miles is impressive. The engineers did a good job on that containment vessels. Lets hope they hold together.


Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the design criteria was and what really happened. I don't know either at this point.



greg273 said:


> Although I would guess the seawater they are using to cool them with is going to be fairly radioactive...


It better not be or heads will roll.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Did I speak too soon on the containment vessel? I actually typed my previous message earlier when I got home, did some chores then just posted it a few minutes ago... guess I need to check out the news.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tinknal said:


> Well, deep shaft coal mining is still dangerous, but it gets safer all the time. I think we need to do the same with nuclear. Keep learning and keep improving. All life is risk, and nuclear is just another one.


If you are suggesting that we simply accept nuclear failure risk, I'm not prepared to do that. We can do a lot better.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I'm more concerned with the reactor being built in Iran. Did the Russians learn anything after the fiasco in Chernobyl, or are they creating the same kind of disaster?


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

I wonder if that reactor was operating beyond it's designed lifespan?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

CNN says blast in reactor 2. Pressure dropped in reactor,radiation spiked outside reactor to what you can handle in a years exposure.They put more water into reactor,water level did not rise.Also this plant spent several hours today with the rods fully exposed to the air.

Fire in reactor #4

Japanese Prime Minister saying more radiation release coming.Again a quick statement with a bunch of mumbling/fumbling on verbalizing that statement then nothing more.

Hard to even understand what they are reporting,but expect word from the Prime Minister to be coming I guess.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tinknal said:


> I'm more concerned with the reactor being built in Iran.


Iranians are pretty advanced technically. I'm not that concerned.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Nevada said:


> If you are suggesting that we simply accept nuclear failure risk, I'm not prepared to do that. We can do a lot better.


Nope, not saying that at all. I'm saying we take what we learn here and figure out improvements to ensure it doesn't happen again.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

I was just reading it was supposed to be shut down next year?? But you read a lot of different versions of the stories these days. I'm guessing this is number three, in case you haven't run across this photo yet.










Here's a link to larger/different views..


ETA - two to three


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

What I have heard reported tonight is that one reactor that has internal pressure dropping in the containment vessel.

The means quite likely a leak, either a valve, pipe or containment vessel itself venting water or gas and not maintaining pressure. More than that is not known.

I also heard they are requesting assistance in handling the reactor from U.S. personnel. It appears a real meltdown is now possible.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tinknal said:


> Nope, not saying that at all. I'm saying we take what we learn here and figure out improvements to ensure it doesn't happen again.


While we should always develop out knowledge base for any technology, it's not enough to rely on a solution as passive as learning as we go. Nuclear safeguards need to be mandated in some way.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Txrider said:


> What I have heard reported tonight is that one reactor that has internal pressure dropping in the containment vessel.
> 
> The means quite likely a leak, either a valve, pipe or containment vessel itself venting water or gas and not maintaining pressure. More than that is not known.
> 
> I also heard they are requesting assistance in handling the reactor from U.S. personnel. It appears a real meltdown is now possible.



I think that is number two. In between the two that already blew. Anyone else heard more about number 4 being on fire?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Japanese reporting radiation levels at levels that can impact human health.

Havent heard anything more about number 4 fire.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

tinknal said:


> I'm more concerned with the reactor being built in Iran. Did the Russians learn anything after the fiasco in Chernobyl, or are they creating the same kind of disaster?


IMHO, the kind of reactor being built/operated there is much more inherently safe. It's a VVER reactor; it is water-cooled and water-moderated, much like ours, although the overall design is quite a bit different than others I've seen.

However, the fact that the plant is located at the junction of three tectonic plates is a bit concerning. lol


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Darren said:


> Booboo I posted the pictures of a containment building of another plant on this site. Can you wrap your mind around a building that has three foot thick concrete walls with a one inch steel liner that is designed to survive an airliner crashing into it? The answer is that the containment buildings in the Japanese plants are still fine. so was the one at TMI when the meltdown ocurred thirty years ago.
> 
> The key point is that beyond the mechanical systems which are designed to protect the plant equipment, the structures including the reactor are designed as multiple layers of defense to prevent a meltdown from getting into the environment if the backup systems fail. What you've missed by sucking up the drivel from the news readers is they've provided no comparison as in *we've already seen the worse that could happen* and other than ending the usefullness of the plant it was nonissue for public health. Everything at TMI verified the design. Similarly the events at the Japanese plants have also proved the design works.


Took what,10 hours to shoot this one down.

Thanks for the education.

Glad weve already seen the worse that can happen.

I stand properly chastised.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

First article I could find on it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110315/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis



> SOMA, Japan &#8211; Radiation is spewing from damaged reactors at a crippled nuclear power plant in tsunami-ravaged northeastern Japan in a dramatic escalation of the 4-day-old catastrophe. The prime minister has warned residents to stay inside or risk getting radiation sickness.
> 
> Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Tuesday that a fourth reactor at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex was on fire and that more radiation was released


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

I'm still not seeing that this is 'threatening health.' The same story says that



> Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts.


This isn't to say that it can't happen. Just that it's going on 4 days, and it's STILL not 'terrible' or 'Chernobyl' and due to the design and many other things, won't be similar to Chernobyl.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> First article I could find on it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110315/...nuclear_crisis


Yahoo is the source that was reporting new tsunami warnings yesterday that turned out to be fabricated.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Kung said:


> I'm still not seeing that this is 'threatening health.' .


The Japanese just reported IT IS at human threatening levels.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yahoo is the source that was reporting new tsunami warnings yesterday that turned out to be fabricated.


Careful, your perimeter is shrinking.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

If you want to shoot this one down, I'm sure I could fine another 

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html



> Loud noises were heard at Fukushima Daiichi 2 at 6.10am this morning. A major component beneath the reactor is confirmed to be damaged. A fire is burning at unit 4 and evacuation to 30 kilometres is being urged.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> The Japanese just reported IT IS at human threatening levels.


Uh, yeah, and the SAME STORY posted in conjunction with this said at the beginning of the story that it was 'threatening health' and then at the END, from the earlier story, said that it was 'less radiation than an X-ray.'

SO evidently it's up from that - at what level? Get it through your head that I have NO PROBLEMS accepting facts, but to me, 'facts' means levels of radiation, actual numbers, etc. All the link says is that the prime minister is "warning people to stay inside, or risk getting radiation sickness." No actual empirical data.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Quote "Increase in levels that could impact Human health". From Japanese gov. official.

Apparently the Japanese government thinks thats sufficient information that the danger is a risk to human health. Sorry it doesnt measure up to YOUR standards,whatever,somehow the Government thinks thats a sufficient warning.

Evacuation radius now increased to 30 kilometers from 20.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Ah, ok, so it "could" impact human health.

STILL no empirical data. I don't doubt it's serious over there; but it'd be nice to have actual information and not just quotes from some official that it 'could' impact human health. Loads of things impact human health.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Nevada said:


> While we should always develop out knowledge base for any technology, it's not enough to rely on a solution as passive as learning as we go. Nuclear safeguards need to be mandated in some way.


I agree, but now that it has actually happened it would be just plain silly to suggest that we not learn from it.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Ya'll can keep poo pooing it,its bad,and its been getting worse all day,and the radiation escaping is now a threat to human health.

So much for the 'it cant escape' arguments here.

It IS,FACT. At a level the Government calls an impact to human health.

It is what it is,sorry.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It is still contained in a sealed unit. It is the steam being let out that has some radiation in it. It has not breached at this point in time. And until something like that happens it is no worse then TMI and no where near Chernobyl.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

BREAKING NEWS: Hydrogen explosion occurs at Fukushima No. 4 reactor 11:53 15 March

NEWS ADVISORY: Radiation of up to 9 times normal level briefly detected in Kanagawa 11:40 15 March

BREAKING NEWS: Radiation 400 times annual legal limit measured near No. 3 reactor 11:37 15 March


http://english.kyodonews.jp/

I asked Google what time it is in Japan: 12:04pm Tuesday (JST) - Time in Japan

Best info I can come up with at the moment Kung.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

A lot of "sensationalizing" has been going on from the different news agencies, depending on how there views have been in the past about nuclear plants.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

mightybooboo said:


> Ya'll can keep poo pooing it,its bad,and its been getting worse all day,and the radiation escaping is now a threat to human health.
> 
> So much for the 'it cant escape' arguments here.
> 
> ...


 I dont see anyone poo pooing anything, all I see is your obvious giddyness over every release of information as if your breathlessly excited. Kind of unseemly there Boo Boo.

Interesting post on BBC LIve that about sums it up:

" 0159: Ben Slaney, from Asaka City, Saitama, Japan, writes: "Most of the shops are closed and quite a few Japanese people have left Tokyo to stay with relatives further west. Right now it's very difficult to understand who to trust. While the government wants to minimise panic, the foreign media wants to exaggerate the importance of the latest developments to create a more compelling story. This is leaving many foreign nationals in Japan confused as to who to believe."


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It is still contained in a sealed unit. It is the steam being let out that has some radiation in it. It has not breached at this point in time. And until something like that happens it is no worse then TMI and no where near Chernobyl.


Sorry AK,the reactor/ vessel is leaking and NOT holding water .

Get up to date,youre way off here.

Yup,its BooBoo's fault the reactors are failing.

Yup,I find this news dynamic and extremely interesting to be a witness to history.And yup,Im going to report evey tidbit so its out here and can be read by all.

Yup,and if it breaches I will be right there reporting it ASAP. Its called BREAKING NEWS.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I just wonder if the offer still stands to fly over there, hold hands and play ring around the nuclear non-event.

I don't much subscribe to the sensationalizing, but there comes a time when the opposition may have to take the chip off, as well.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

BREAKING NEWS: Fire at No.4 reactor apparently put out: Tokyo Electric
http://english.kyodonews.jp/ Latest headlines: headline only, without link to article


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

They are reporting radiation 400 times legal levels on site, all operators not directly involved with the reactor evacuated.

Japanese news telling people outside the 30km zone stay inside, bring any clothing inside from outside and not to go out unless necessary etc..

Sounds like one of the reactor vessels is compromised, hopefully the containment vessel is not.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> BREAKING NEWS: Fire at No.4 reactor apparently put out: Tokyo Electric
> http://english.kyodonews.jp/ Latest headlines: headline only, without link to article


Good news!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tinknal said:


> I agree, but now that it has actually happened it would be just plain silly to suggest that we not learn from it.


That's just stating the obvious, but the system needs to be changed to really make nukes safer.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

More news..

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78063.html



> The agency said the explosion at the No. 2 reactor may have damaged the ''suppression chamber,'' a facility connected to the reactor's container which is designed to cool down radiation steam and lower the pressure in the reactor. It said a sharp decline in the pressure level of the chamber suggests damage.
> 
> Following the incident, the radiation level near the main gate of the Fukushima No. 1 plant exceeded the legal limit to reach 965.5 micro sievert per hour at 7:00 a.m. and jumped to 8,217 micro sievert at 8:31 a.m., the agency said. The latter amount is more than eight times the 1,000 micro sievert level to which people can safely be exposed in one year.
> 
> Given that the building housing the reactor has already been damaged by Monday's hydrogen blast at the neighboring No. 3 reactor, a spread of radiation outside the plant has become a serious threat, experts say.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

A lot of contradictory reports.



"The agency said the explosion at the No. 2 reactor may have damaged the ''suppression chamber,'' a facility connected to the reactor's container which is designed to cool down radiation steam and lower the pressure in the reactor. It said a sharp decline in the pressure level of the chamber suggests damage.

Following the incident, the radiation level near the main gate of the Fukushima No. 1 plant exceeded the legal limit to reach 965.5 micro sievert per hour at 7:00 a.m. and jumped to 8,217 micro sievert at 8:31 a.m., the agency said. The latter amount is more than eight times the 1,000 micro sievert level to which people can safely be exposed in one year.

Given that the building housing the reactor has already been damaged by Monday's hydrogen blast at the neighboring No. 3 reactor, a spread of radiation outside the plant has become a serious threat, experts say."
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78063.html

And then this;


"Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said. He said there was no immediate health risk because the higher measurement was less radiation that a person receives from an X-ray. He said experts would worry about health risks if levels exceed 100,000 microsieverts."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqYXBhbm5ld3JhZGk-


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The suppression chamber in the Mark 1 BWR plants is a torus (think of a giant steel sealed chamber like a wheel which receives steam vented from the reactor. The torus contains water which reduces the pressure. If water leaks out of the torus it is still contained in the bottom of the containment building which is the primary containment. Later designs did not use the closed torus but have an open suppression pool in the bottom of the containment building.

We built a 200,000 gal water tank at TMI to provide for storage of the water that filled the "basement" in the containment during the accident. The water was demineralized (radioactive particles removed) before it was routed to the storage tank. The water was eventually processed by an evaporator.

An interesting item about TMI is that they have radiation monitors in the Susquehanna River. The only time they where set off, the radiation was tracked to a medical lab upstream that was dumping radioactive isotopes into the river.


----------



## snoozy (May 10, 2002)

How bad does it have to be? Do you need to see people glowing in the dark to admit that nuclear power is not safe??


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Another reason not to use Nuclear energy...


snoozy said:


> How bad does it have to be? Do you need to see people glowing in the dark to admit that nuclear power is not safe??


At least the vehicles are easier to find.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Good news!


You said you'd report *all* the "breaking news"

How is it you forgot to post the GOOD NEWS?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do you need to see people glowing in the dark to admit that nuclear power is not safe??


It's as safe as most anything else in the world.

Think about how many thousands of reactors are NOT having any problems, and are providing CLEAN power to millions on homes right now.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

snoozy said:


> How bad does it have to be? Do you need to see people glowing in the dark to admit that nuclear power is not safe??


By what standard do you decide whether or not a particular type of power plant is "safe"?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I think nuclear power is currently the best option we have. Of course there's things like solar and wind and water that are better in theory but they can't serve the country as well, or keep up with the over all demand that is constancy growing. Nuclear done right and understand strict regulation is just fine.
I heard on the news today that they're talking about putting a hold on nuclear power because of this. Someone else sensibly commented that during the after effects of major disaster is not the time to be forming new policy. There's going to be a knee jerk reaction and it would be unfortunate to let that rule over careful research. And this happens all the time, just sick and tired of all this.
If something comes along that is a clear winning replacement to nuclear, by all means. But burning coal and oil and such isn't better, and hiding in fear from nuclear power because some were built in an earthquake zone and are having issues isn't the answer either.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

snoozy said:


> How bad does it have to be? Do you need to see people glowing in the dark to admit that nuclear power is not safe??


Neither is coal mining....can you even compare the numbers that die doing that with the entire history of nuke power?

Neither is gas extraction....how many oil workers die, completely unsung, every single year?

Neither is natural gas....keep in mind that the gas facility massively exploded, killing many, and are one of the most volatile of fuels.

Neither is hydroelectric...how many die building those? What happens to fish populations after they are built?

There is risk associated with just about everything we do that has power. Even solar has risks associated with glare as many recent suits have shown.

Nuke power is the LOWEST casualty power to this point by far. It is merely that the risk, while low, can be the worst in an absolute worst case scenario.

That means we have to minimize the risk. That plant almost made it through a 9.0 quake and 200 aftershocks as high as 6.7. That is construction at its finest. Rather than kneejerk back into the stone age, let's utilize the lessons to build even safer ones and let them work on containing the problem.

(Keeping in mind that was built 30 years ago and ones being built today are WAY better and even more safe.)


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Big deal,its just nuclear fallout after all.
------------------------------------------------------

By ERIC TALMADGE and SHINO YUASA, Associated Press Eric Talmadge And Shino Yuasa, Associated Press â 3 mins ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110315/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake

SOMA, Japan â Dangerous levels of radiation leaking from a crippled nuclear plant forced Japan to order 140,000 people to seal themselves indoors Tuesday after an explosion and a fire dramatically escalated the crisis spawned by a deadly tsunami.

In a nationally televised statement, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said r*adiation had spread *from the four stricken reactors of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant *along Japan's northeastern coast*. 

Japanese officials told the International Atomic Energy Agency that the reactor fire was in a fuel storage pond â an area where used nuclear fuel is kept cool â and that "*radioactivity is being released directly into the atmosphere*." Long after the fire was extinguished, a Japanese official said the pool might still be boiling, though the reported levels of radiation had dropped dramatically by the end of the day.

That reactor, Unit 4, had been shut down before the quake for maintenance.

If the water boils, it could evaporate, exposing the rods. The fuel rods are encased in safety containers meant to prevent them from resuming nuclear reactions, nuclear officials said. But they acknowledged that there could have been damage to the containers. They also confirmed that the walls of the storage pool building were damaged.

Experts noted that much of the leaking radiation was apparently in steam from boiling water. It had not been emitted directly by fuel rods, which would be far more virulent, they said.

"It's not good, but I don't think it's a disaster," said Steve Crossley, an Australia-based radiation physicist.

Even the highest detected rates were not automatically harmful for brief periods, he said.

"*If you were to spend a significant amount of time â in the order of hours â that could be significant*," Crossley said.

Less clear were the results of the blast in Unit 2, near a suppression pool, which removes heat under a reactor vessel, said plant owner Tokyo Electric Power Co. *The nuclear core was not damaged but the bottom of the surrounding container may have been*, said Shigekazu Omukai, a spokesman for Japan's nuclear safety agency.

Though Kan and other officials urged calm, Tuesday's developments fueled a growing panic in Japan and around the world amid widespread uncertainty over what would happen next. In the worst case scenario, one or more of the reactor cores would completely melt down, a disaster that could spew large amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere.

The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, along that battered coastline, has been the focus of the worries. Workers there have been desperately trying to use seawater to cool the fuel rods in the complex's three reactors, all of which lost their cooling ability after Friday's quake and tsunami.

On Tuesday, the complex was hit by its third explosion since Friday, and then a fire in a separate reactor.

Afterward, officials in Ibaraki, a neighboring prefecture just south of the area, said up to 100 times the normal levels of radiation were detected Tuesday. While those figures are worrying if there is prolonged exposure, they are far from fatal.
*
Tokyo reported slightly elevated radiation levels*, but officials said the increase was too small to threaten the 39 million people in and around the capital, about 170 miles (270 kilometers) away. Closer to the stricken nuclear complex, the streets in the coastal city of Soma were empty as the few residents who remained there heeded the government's warning to stay indoors.

*Kan and other officials warned there is a danger of more leaks* and told people living within 19 miles (30 kilometers) of the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex to stay indoors to avoid exposure that could make people sick.

"Please do not go outside. Please stay indoors. *Please close windows and make your homes airtight*," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told residents in the danger zone.

"*These are figures that potentially affect health. There is no mistake about that*," he said.



Some *70,000 people had already been evacuated* from a 12-mile (20-kilometer) radius from the Dai-ichi complex. *About 140,000 remain in the new danger zone*.

Officials said 70 workers were at the complex, struggling with its myriad problems. *The workers, all of them wearing protective gear, are being rotated in and out of the danger zone quickly to reduce their radiation exposure.*

Another 800 staff were evacuated. The fires and explosions at the reactors have injured 15 workers and military personnel and exposed up to 190 people to elevated radiation.

Temperatures in at least two of the complex's reactors, units 5 and 6, were also slightly elevated, Edano said.

"*The power for cooling is not working well and the temperature is gradually rising*, so it is necessary to control it," he said.

*Fourteen pumps have been brought in to get seawater into the other reactors. They are not yet pumping water into Unit 4 but are trying to figure out how to do that.*

In Tokyo, slightly higher-than-normal radiation levels were detected Tuesday but officials insisted there are no health dangers.

"The amount is extremely small, and it does not raise health concerns. It will not affect us," Takayuki Fujiki, a Tokyo government official said.

Edano said the radiation readings had fallen significantly by the evening.

Japanese government officials are being rightly cautious, said Donald Olander, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at University of California at Berkeley. He believed even the heavily elevated levels of radiation around Dai-ichi are "not a health hazard." But without knowing specific dose levels, he said it was hard to make judgments.

*"Right now it's worse than Three Mile Island*," Olander said. But it's nowhere near the levels released during Chernobyl.

On Three Mile Island, the radiation leak was held inside the containment shell â thick concrete armor around the reactor. The Chernobyl reactor had no shell and was also operational when the disaster struck. The Japanese reactors automatically shut down when the quake hit and are encased in containment shells.

The Dai-ichi plant is the most severely affected of three nuclear complexes that were declared emergencies after suffering damage in Friday's quake and tsunami


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Mighty boo is correct, nobody in their right mind can deny the dangers inherent in nuclear energy.

Despite what many have been spoon fed, solar and wind power are viable options. Here is a town in Italy that supplies 100% of it's energy needs...in fact it is producing more than it needs and is selling its left over to it's neighbors ( who claimed that wind power isn't practical) and rebuilding the town with the extra money;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/science/earth/29fossil.html

IMO the only reason people think that current dependence on fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear energy is the only 'viable' solution is simply because that is what we are currently using. People are ignorant because they haven't seen it done, and because they are told by energy interests that it is not practical or viable.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> Nuke power is the LOWEST casualty power to this point by far. It is merely that the risk, while low, can be the worst in an absolute worst case scenario.


Jason Gallagher Jason Gallagher â 27 mins ago
Contribute content like this. Start here.

Chernobyl 1986

The worst nuclear disaster the world has ever seen occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. The problems that occurred in Chernobyl started with a routine check of electrical systems, and problems began compounding after that. While 31 people were killed immediately when the accident occurred, over 600,000 people, including clean-up workers, were exposed to high levels of radiation. Within a day and a half everyone within an 18-mile radius of the plant, about 116,000 people, were relocated.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> Mighty boo is correct, nobody in their right mind can deny the dangers inherent in nuclear energy.


Your post is completely correct.The Fred Flintstone mindset is afraid of any new technology,it goes outside their comfort zone.And then you have the propagandized who think what they are told to think by their political controllers,not thinking for themselves,but hey,its the world. Propaganda works,and people lap it up,not even aware of where they get their opinions.And will defend it to their deaths,be it natural or a nuclear meltdown.

And thank you to those who have offered the same message as kirk in PM's.

Dont be afraid to post,so they dogpile ya,call you names,who cares? You have an opinion on it,post it whether the oh so vocal GC majority likes it or not.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Dont worry about wind and solar.We are making HUGE strides in rolling it out and will continue to do so while nuclear will receive the death blow it deserves.

BTW,the US Government is dishing out 86 BILLION DOLLARS to the nuclear industry this year.So so much for the stupid assertion that RENEWABLE wind and solar arent economically feasible without gov support,THE MAJORITY of gov Subsidy money GOES TO NUKES,FACT.

Also in the last couple years we have put out around 10,000 MW WIND power in last couple years alone .Thats 10 LARGE Nuclear Plants alone.Wind with peaker Nat Gas plants is a very doable far safer alternative than Nuclear fallout,like is happening right now as i type this.

It will be 2020 before the FIRST new nuke could be built to put out a measly 1000MW.

So dont worry.CLEAN SAFE Renewables will continue their march while the nuclear fallout will NOT get swept under the rug,or poo pooed as no big deal by the dirty,power makers of the most dangerous power on the planet,NUCLEAR.

Sorry folks,we who think wont forget that ANY fallout is too much,and that the benefit doesnt begin to outweigh the risk.

Chernobyl,TMI,Japan....they wont go away,sorry!

As for renewable CLEAN SAFE power?While they scream it wont work,it is working RIGHT NOW and expanding...Reality. Gotta love it!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Just how safe and sustainable are the current means for dealing with the spent rods ?

Perhaps nuclear is statistically safe because the piper won't need to be paid for a generation or two ?

I don't believe we were meant to have universal, convenient, cheap and easy energy.
By the laws of nature, such must come with a heavy price.

Reminds me of the tower of babel.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Just how safe and sustainable are the current means for dealing with the spent rods ?
> 
> Perhaps nuclear is statistically safe because _*the piper won't need to be paid for a generation or two*_ ?
> 
> ...


And THAT right there is my biggest gripe. Who cares what the consequences are, it won't be US that has to deal with it, right?:1pig:


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

snoozy said:


> How bad does it have to be? Do you need to see people glowing in the dark to admit that nuclear power is not safe??


WTH we cant burn fossil fuels we cant use clean nuclear power you eco nuts want us all to live in a cave and do what? accidents happen, TMI happened, Chernobyl happened...people survived...radiation is all around you it covers you daily from terrestrial an non terestrial sources...you people need a grip how many megawatts have been produced accident free?....how many? does any one know the countless trillions that were produced safe?...guess what caca happens they had the largest earthquake in their history followed by a tsunami of major destruction, its expected that some damage will occur....get over it....do you think Nuclear power will go away>? no the records to safe......your dreaming boo boo...the world works on money and its clean and cheap....end of story.;...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

This has produced a demonstration of some interesting aspects of human nature. We seem to be inured to deaths caused by activities in some areas but not others. As pointed out the number of deaths associated with some activities doesn't seem to matter. While the fictional possibility assigned by some to nuclear power is truly less than miniscule compared to getting in your car and driving.

In the late 1800's there was a battle between George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison. Westinghouse had already made his fortune by designing the air brake which improved the safety of railroads. When Westinghouse with Telsa's AC designs began promoting AC current, Edison and his financial backers saw a direct threat to their investment in DC power. Edison tried demonizing AC power by playing on public fears including using the electric chair to scare people. 

Of course over time that didn't work and Tesla's designs laid the foundation for civilization as we know it. From the standpoint of intellect and creativity Tesla ranks up there with Einstein. The interesting thing is that Tesla after he came to this country worked for Edison. Unfortunately Edision did not have the intellect to begin to understand Tesla's designs. 

It's hard to consider how dark and cumbersome life was at a time without electricity. The Columbian Exposition was the turning point when Westinghouse produced the fantastic, for that day and age, light displays. Of course having electricity powered light doesn't amaze us today. However, nuclear power plants producing the electricity to power those plants sends some into a tizzy.

I don't think any of us are scared of electricity to the point of crawling under the bed today. Back then some people were as scared of AC power as some are of nuclear power plants today. They seem to ignore the fact that radiation from many sources including coal fired power plants exposes us to far more radiation than nuclear power. 

For another comparison, the pandemic flu during WW I killed some individuals within a day of showing symptoms. With todays air travel there is potential for someone sneezing in a mall to kill us if they've been infected with a virulent disease. One of the reasons for the WW I "Spanish" flu pandemic was President Wilson's insistence on mobilizing men for the war effort. That flu began in this country. What is it about human nature that makes some of us less than rational when considering risk? Some never seem to be able to put things into perspsective.

That applies to a wide range of human activities including relationships. Others can try to intervene to help, yet the individual never seems to be able to truly understand.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> Mighty boo is correct, nobody in their right mind can deny the dangers inherent in nuclear energy.
> 
> Despite what many have been spoon fed, solar and wind power are viable options. Here is a town in Italy that supplies 100% of it's energy needs...in fact it is producing more than it needs and is selling its left over to it's neighbors ( who claimed that wind power isn't practical) and rebuilding the town with the extra money;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/science/earth/29fossil.html
> 
> IMO the only reason people think that current dependence on fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear energy is the only 'viable' solution is simply because that is what we are currently using. People are ignorant because they haven't seen it done, and because they are told by energy interests that it is not practical or viable.


Oh and how many electric cars are they running?

Wind and solar at this time can't replace the energy we use.. Yet new coal fired plants aren't being built without massive regulation and costs. Which increases the cost of electric. New Gas fired plants aren't being constructed without massive regulation and costs. Which raises the cost of power..

Wind turbines and solar panels can't even provide a steady 20% of the electric we use, yet that is your only solution.. Sorry won't work! Then you want to add electirc cars on top of that..

So how do you plan to power all of these utopia dreams?

In fact here in PA we have at least 250 years of coal to fire the power plants, yet because of massive regulation most of it is being left untouched..

It also has major environmental issues, so what would you suggest?

Nuclear?
Coal?
Natural Gas?
Wind?
Solar?
Hydro?

We will be waiting for your solution...

Deleted by me!


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> The Fred Flintstone mindset is afraid of any new technology,it goes outside their comfort zone.


Yup the Fred Flintstone mindset is certainly scared to death of that newfangled nuclear technology..

Wind and solar are far older tech..



> And then you have the propagandized who think what they are told to think by their political controllers,not thinking for themselves,but hey,its the world. Propaganda works,and people lap it up,not even aware of where they get their opinions.And will defend it to their deaths.


Pot, meet kettle..  There is plenty of propaganda on both sides.



Sure we can have wind and solar, but as I said before it doesn't come without massive amounts of radioactive waste of it's own.. 

And the fact it'll take a very long time to get enough of it up and running, if we even can find enough rare earth to supply that amount. They have worked for years in Texas and we have the worlds largest wind farm here, but we only supply 6% of the states needs. The nuke plant here has done a better job. The coal plants an even better job than that..

And much if not most of the U.S. just doesn't have the constant wind west Texas does. You can't just stick a windmill anywhere. Nor a solar panel.

Solar is the same, your talking millions of tons of toxic waste that has to be put somewhere..

I guess we can pile up the mountains of radioactive Thorium waste from windmill production and the mountains of poisonous cadmium and silicon tetrachloride from solar panels in your back yard... You would obviously be ok with that right?

Of course, we could use the giant piles of radioactive thorium waste from making windmills to power nuclear plants... 

Here is company mining rare earth for the magnets for wind turbines..
http://www.vancouversun.com/China+lose+monopoly+rare+earth+minerals/4434648/story.html



> What has provoked controversy, however, is that Lynas chose to set up the processing plant about 4,000 kilometres away in Malaysia.
> 
> The company has invested about $230 million in a refinery covering about 20 hectares which in September is due to start processing about 11,000 tonnes of rare earth oxide a year.
> 
> ...


I'm sure the people in Malaysia that will be suffering from cancers would jump right in behind you on how wonderful wind power is for America..

Now what were you saying about lapping up propaganda? When is the last time the wind power folks talked about their little radioactive waste problem?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Oh and how many electric cars are they running?
-----------------------------
the world works on money and its clean and cheap....end of story
----------------------------

And how many NUCLEAR cars are you driving.

And so you have the Walmart mindset,its all costs,---- the consequences,who cares???? That wont fly either,and yet *right NOW Nuke gets 86 BILLION this year in subsidies*,renewable wind /solar doesnt get 10% IIRC.

So much for which can compete economically. 

Hate to break it to you but wind and solar are pretty much on parity with fossil fuels cost wise.SORRY!!!

And THEY are being built,unlike Nukes.For a reason...they DO make economic sense.

But DENY away what is HAPPENING,close your eyes,find problems that dont exist.We are rolling ,nukes are DYING and TMI showed,its 30 years to get a new generation back up who didnt live the history,and of course havent learned it.So get back to me in 30 years on how safe nukes are.Youre dead in the water for the next 30 years,HALLELUJAH!

FALLOUT! Thats all people need to hear.

BooHoo Nukies.:hammer:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Tx,your post contains so much nonsense its incredible,but that folks believe that,perfectly understandable.Propaganda and ignorance on the subject is well known and often parroted

Take your OLD SCHOOL nuclear grid power,we ARE putting up NEW AGE grid power.

The wind doesnt blow? PEAKER NAT GAS. Kinda like how the solar plants have nat gas to run the boiler when the sun doesnt shine.

Look up SOLAR power,its mirrors and heat making steam,not coal or NUKE making steam.

But Im not going to educate you here today because you dont want to be educated,the bottom line is 

RENEWABLES are rolling out,Nukes arent

Now thats the facts.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I'm not crazy about nuclear power and I'm surprised at some of the folks here who are in favor of it. Not because they have a differing opinion, but because when something goes wrong, we'll have to rely upon the government to tell us. We'll have to rely on them to be honest and to notify us in a timely manner. If they don't let us know in time, then our families will be at risk.

I listened to an expert on CNN this morning. He mentioned that he didn't think that average citizens should buy KI tablets. He said that we wouldn't know when to take them and that it would be better for the government to just dispense them in the event of an emergency. Would you really want to rely on the government in a disaster and hope that they get to you in time to save your family?

The solution is for people to dial back their consumption. We use far too much power. If we used less, then we'd be able to supply our needs with cleaner energy. 

I do agree with some of the folks who mentioned that wind turbines could become airborne in a tornado and cause damage. It could be that turbines are not the best form of energy for those areas and solar panels are a better option. In my area, the risk of a tornado is minimal and the ones that do come through NY are low-level twisters. I'd rather have a turbine in my neighborhood over the risks of having a nuclear power plant.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

How much would nuclear really cost if we kicked the subsidy crutches out from under it? Alternatively, how much would wind/solar cost if the two traded their share of subsidies?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Oh and how many electric cars are they running?
> -----------------------------
> the world works on money and its clean and cheap....end of story
> ----------------------------
> ...



Oh great wise one!

Speak to us how you will save us from ourselves!

Save us from your hysteria and gloom and doom!


Give us your words on how to provide power to the world without any consequences!



As to wind and solar being on par with oil cost wise. That is pure manure!

But you can believe what ever you want.. You sit here making hysterical claims with media headlines from a left wing media who will do anything to make big headlines... You tout some type of knowledge on the subject, yet don't' believe those who do know...

So tell us how to solve the worlds problems!


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

How Do I said:


> How much would nuclear really cost if we kicked the subsidy crutches out from under it? Alternatively, how much would wind/solar cost if the two traded their share of subsidies?


Whats really amazing is the folks screaming renewables dont / wont work when right NOW,Real World,their growth rate is exploding.

Is anyone reality based anymore? They cant see what is actually happening in the real world? Its EXPLODING in growth,not physically exploding like the nukes.

Amazing!!!!

Tout whatever nonsense you want,*alt energy growth is real*,open your eyes people. ITS REALITY,a pretty tough pill to swallow when it gores your dogma,eh?


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Tx,your post contains so much nonsense its incredible,but that folks believe that,perfectly understandable.Propaganda and ignorance on the subject is well known and often parroted
> 
> Take your OLD SCHOOL nuclear grid power,we ARE putting up NEW AGE grid power.
> 
> ...


I don't care of nukes are rolling out or not..

But to ignore the massive amount of folks who have and will be suffering from radioactive waste and toxic waste dumps due to wind and solar construction is just as bad as folks ignoring the dangers of nuclear plants.

Solar towers are great for Nevada and southern Arizona.. Not so good in most places though.. Take a good look at Spain's experience.. And natural gas is still a limited fossil fuel. Not to mention the evils of fracking that everyone is so hopping mad at we have to do to get that natural gas..

One of the most interesting solutions is to go ahead and mine our rare earth deposits, which we require for all the wind generators and for electric cars, and spend all the thorium waste in nuclear reactors instead of dumping it somewhere as radioactive waste.

Sadly it appears you have very little overall knowledge of any of these forms of energy, and what it takes to build them from mining for raw materials and manufacturing components, the waste products involved, the lifecycles of the technology, the scales at which they must be constructed etc. You certainly have not shown it here.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Hate to break it to you but wind and solar are pretty much on parity with fossil fuels cost wise.SORRY!!!
> 
> And THEY are being built,unlike Nukes.For a reason...they DO make economic sense.


We've built the biggest windfarm on the planet here in Texas... It isn't cheaper and would not be built without subsidies.

Oil is much cheaper.. Well, at least it is until it hits about $200 a barrel. Then alternatives would be competitive.. Which is just a matter of time really.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

How has "Yuca" mountain been funded ???
Could it be public funds--taxes ???
What is the "Yuca" price tag thus far ???
And it still is not operational ???
Why doesn't any one want a nuke trash pile ??? (in their backyard)


And we have enough Coal for 200 plus years . . . .?!?!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Looks to mew we have fanatics on both sides. I am actually all for solar, wind, and tidal power generation but we are a long way from being able to replace our fossile fueld power plants with solar and wind power...partly because there is no real grid to support wind power in particular where it needs to be. I agree with Boo Boo on one thing though and that it we need to invest more in solar and wind generation to bring the costs down. We are slowly switching to solar and wind power generation on our farm but its incredibly expensive and I would have to live to about 150 just to amortise the costs. A 60 watt solar panel is going for $550.00 right now and we are getting ready to drop about 2K on a wind generator. My highest electric bill for our 1600 sq foot house this winter using the power from Missouris mainly coal fired power plants? $109.00.

I think we need to take a serious look at nuclear power in light of this disaster in Japan and I admit I dont want to live by one but running around like scared school girls hysterically salivating over every turn of events is just as bad as those who try to claim it could never happen here. Like most things I seriously am suspect of zealots.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> I think we need to take a serious look at nuclear power in light of this disaster in Japan and I admit I dont want to live by one but running around like scared school girls hysterically salivating over every turn of events is just as bad as those who try to claim it could never happen here. Like most things I seriously am suspect of zealots.


We need to take a serious look at all of it. All these forms of energy.

But for every wind turbin and parking lot full of electric cars... Somebody is living next to huge pile of radioactive waste...

So far those huge piles of waste are in China or Malaysia etc. and villagers there are dying of leukemia, not us folks in the U.S. We shut down mines here due to radioactive waste pollution. We don't tolerate it like the Chinese have, but are now clamping down on.

But China just cut off their exports of rare earth materials. So we may just have that in our own back yard soon.

Here's one of our rare earth mines... Used to be the top supplier of rare earth materials before the Chinese undercut them I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine#Environmental_impact



> In 1998, chemical processing at the mine was stopped after a series of wastewater leaks. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water carrying radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry Lake.[7]
> 
> In the 1980s, the company began piping wastewater as far as 14 miles to evaporation ponds on or near Ivanpah Dry Lake, east of Interstate 15 near Nevada. This pipeline repeatedly ruptured during cleaning operations to remove mineral deposits called scale. The scale is radioactive because of the presence of thorium and radium, which occur naturally in the rare earth ore. A federal investigation later found that some 60 spills&#8212;some unreported&#8212;occurred between 1984 and 1998, when the pipeline was shut down. In all, about 600,000 gallons of radioactive and other hazardous waste flowed onto the desert floor, according to federal authorities.


Solar panels produce tons of their own toxic if not radioactive waste to produce, so far that too has been dumped mainly in China.. They last about 30 years and then they too become a toxic waste disposal problem.

Coal is cheap and plentiful, but pollutes in ways that will be very harmful in the long run not the least of which is mercury that is making our fish unsafe to eat.

We have plenty of gas reserves to last for a while but it costs us all the hydraulic fracturing that people are so up in arms about.

Nuclear power we are currently seeing some of the down sides of.

There is no free lunch here... There is no totally clean way to produce the energy we need.

What will most likely happen is that we will plod on using whatever form is cheapest for us to use at the time, regardless of the environmental cost as we have always done.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Japanese have declared a no fly zone over nuclear area to prevent spread of radioactivity.

More hysteria from the left wing Japanese Government,no wait...

Thats hysteria from BooBoo,who is reporting it.

Attack the messenger when you cant deal with the FACTS

Gotta love it.

Hystrical BooBoo with your morning BREAKING NEWS of the unfolding Nuclear Disaster.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

> Thank you for voting!
> Yes. The risks of nuclear power are too great. 9.36% (8,455 votes)
> 
> No. Today's technology would keep us safe. 80.28% (72,502 votes)
> ...


 Todays front page of fox polls...LOL 80% say no its okay for Nuke power...boo boo your kind is in an extreme minority...eco nuts will break this country......or attemtp to.....


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I totally agree TxRider. There is also a serious environmental concern over wind turbines and I sure dont want one of the big ones close to me anymore than I want a Nuc plant or a coal fired plant.

Everything has a consequence...I heat with wood, its free for me and is renewable but I am putting particulate matter into the atmosphere...like you said, no free lunch.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Japanese have declared a no fly zone over nuclear area to prevent spread of radioactivity.
> 
> More hysteria from the left wing Japanese Government,no wait...
> 
> ...


Meanwhile, at a processing plant for the materials used to produce wind power generator magnets...



> BUKIT MERAH, Malaysia &#8212; Hidden here in the jungles of north-central Malaysia, in a broad valley fringed with cave-pocked limestone cliffs topped with acacia and durian trees, lies the site of the largest radiation cleanup yet in the rare earth industry.
> 
> Residents blamed a rare earth refinery for birth defects and eight leukemia cases within five years in a community of 11,000 &#8212; after many years with no leukemia cases. Seven of the leukemia victims have since died.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> we have put out around 10,000 MW WIND power


You can't compare ALL the wind generators to ONE nuclear power plant.

If you're going to count ALL of one, you have to count ALL of the other.



> Look up *SOLAR* power,its mirrors and heat making steam,not coal or NUKE making steam.


That's great if you only want power *10 hours a day*
I prefer my lights on at night


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> Whats really amazing is the folks screaming renewables dont / wont work when right NOW,Real World,their growth rate is exploding.
> 
> Is anyone reality based anymore? They cant see what is actually happening in the real world? Its EXPLODING in growth,not physically exploding like the nukes.
> 
> ...


Do you remember back when Oschtrig and Emu farming was the "thing of the future"? People all over were buying them and setting 'farms' because they bought the hype. At that time the growth was very real. But look at it today, how many farms do you see? How much Emu meat do you find in your local grocery store?

There is no one thing which will replace oil and there is no one thing which will replace coal. That's just the facts of life. Solar and wind have some big problems. They are not dependable nor predictable. You can not know how much power you are going to get from them in the next hour much less the next 24 hrs. There are not that many places which wind even begins to make sense. Check out the alt energy forum here and see how many people were thinking about windmills until they checked the wind records. 

Nuke power is safe, is it perfectly safe? Nope. Of all the nations of the world which one would you think would be the most cautious about nuke power? Maybe the only nation in the world which had been on the receiving end of TWO nuke bombs? Seeing as how they seem to be less panicked than you are might you stop and wonder why? Could it be they realize that the danger from the reactors isn't all that big? IOW, YOU are over reacting because you are afraid when ever anyone mentions "nuclear" anything.

Look at the worse case. All three reactor cores melt down and somehow the containment vessel and containment building both fail catastrophically. How many people would die? Do you think it would be any more than died in the earthquake and tidal wave? More than died in the 2004 Christmas tsunami? More people that the Khmer Rouge killed? Give me a figure and lets go from there.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Jim-mi said:


> How has "Yuca" mountain been funded ???
> Could it be public funds--taxes ???
> What is the "Yuca" price tag thus far ???
> And it still is not operational ???
> ...


The only reason we need a place like Yuca mountain is because of the ignorance of the American people. Ever wonder what other nations do with their waste and why they don't seem to have tons upon tons of it to get rid of? Its because they recycle/reprocess their "spent" fuel. I believe less than 10% of the fuel is 'used' in a spent fuel rod. That mean if we had 100 spent rods we could reduce that number to 10 just by reprocessing them.


If we use the right type of reactors and recycled the 'waste' from those reactors the amount of real waste we'd need to dispose of would be tiny. IIRC, think of a 12 oz soda can. That's about the size of the waste from one reactor every 5 years.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> Japanese have declared a no fly zone over nuclear area to prevent spread of radioactivity.
> 
> More hysteria from the left wing Japanese Government,no wait...
> 
> ...


Ok, I'll bite. How is flying over a radioactive area going to spread anything?


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Information?


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

watcher said:


> The only reason we need a place like Yuca mountain is because of the ignorance of the American people. Ever wonder what other nations do with their waste and why they don't seem to have tons upon tons of it to get rid of? Its because they recycle/reprocess their "spent" fuel. I believe less than 10% of the fuel is 'used' in a spent fuel rod. That mean if we had 100 spent rods we could reduce that number to 10 just by reprocessing them.
> 
> 
> If we use the right type of reactors and recycled the 'waste' from those reactors the amount of real waste we'd need to dispose of would be tiny. IIRC, think of a 12 oz soda can. That's about the size of the waste from one reactor every 5 years.


You can reprocess a spent rod into a new rod to use in a different type of reactor, and continue doing this until theres virtually nothing left. ANd out of that, they can harvest isotopes that are used in medicine.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm neither here nor there in this argument but I am curious . If the spent rods can be reprocessed & used until there is practically nothing left , why aren't they ?


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

NIMBY. Not in my back yard.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I'm all for recycling, and I imagine if there was more of a frugality and stewardship mentality here in the US, that would be the most common practice for handling spent rods.
But new is likely more profitable for those who buy and sell congressmen, etc. every day, so....
But, the talk of late is New Madrid.

How many reactors are within striking distance of the New Madrid fault ?
What if it pulls another 1811-1812 ?
Japan really got off lucky, so far as the land mass. 
Last time the New Madrid went off, the landscape was turned inside out.
If there is any threat of radiation from a cracked, melted or completely annihilated nuclear reactor, an 8.5 or above on the New Madrid will be curtains for the bulk of the nation.

I can't see that being the case with coal, oil, wind or solar, though I agree each carries it's price.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I can understand being pro or anti nuclear.

I cannot understand ghoulishness.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If the spent rods can be reprocessed & used until there is practically nothing left , *why aren't they *?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing



> Despite the energy and waste disposal benefits obtainable through nuclear reprocessing, reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the *potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation*, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, and because of its *high cost *compared to the once-through fuel cycle.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

salmonslayer said:


> Looks to mew we have fanatics on both sides. I am actually all for solar, wind, and tidal power generation but we are a long way from being able to replace our fossile fueld power plants with solar and wind power...partly because there is no real grid to support wind power in particular where it needs to be. I agree with Boo Boo on one thing though and that it we need to invest more in solar and wind generation to bring the costs down. We are slowly switching to solar and wind power generation on our farm but its incredibly expensive and I would have to live to about 150 just to amortise the costs. A 60 watt solar panel is going for $550.00 right now and we are getting ready to drop about 2K on a wind generator. My highest electric bill for our 1600 sq foot house this winter using the power from Missouris mainly coal fired power plants? $109.00.
> 
> I think we need to take a serious look at nuclear power in light of this disaster in Japan and I admit I dont want to live by one but running around like scared school girls hysterically salivating over every turn of events is just as bad as those who try to claim it could never happen here. Like most things I seriously am suspect of zealots.


 '60 watt solar panel for $550??', uh, sorry but I paid $600 for a 200 Watt panel over 2 years ago. Your numbers are a little outdated, or you are paying way too much.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

greg273 said:


> '60 watt solar panel for $550??', uh, sorry but I paid $600 for a 200 Watt panel over 2 years ago. Your numbers are a little outdated, or you are paying way too much.


 Help me out then Greg, seriously. I about croaked and that price was from just a few days ago.

I didnt buy it due to the price and it did have a 7 amp charge controller but even on line I havent found the same for less than $400.00. If you found a 200 watt for $600.00 I am interested.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

What should be taking place now, is NOT even talking about stopping new Nuclear Plants being built in the USA and else where, BUT concentrate on whats happening in Japan and the disaster itself.
And LEARN what went wrong and how to prevent such a thing from happening in the future. If that means 3 back ups as ion generators, and make them water prove So Be It.
It was NOT the earthquake that did the Japan reactors in it was the tsunami after effect. 
I am not sure which is worse right now. 
The Reactor itself. 
Or those that are Over Reacting.
Which takes in a bunch of media as well.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> What should be taking place now, is NOT even talking about stopping new Nuclear Plants being built in the USA and else where, BUT concentrate on whats happening in Japan and the disaster itself.
> And LEARN what went wrong and how to prevent such a thing from happening in the future. If that means 3 back ups as ion generators, and make them water prove So Be It.
> It was NOT the earthquake that did the Japan reactors in it was the tsunami after effect.
> I am not sure which is worse right now.
> ...


I think that the reactors build in Arkansas has a rubber pad that is supposed to react in an earthquake. I know they do in New York on skyscrapers. I remember it being mention when they were planing the one in Arkansas. But I guess a tsunami could have happen in Arkansas but it will be a long shot.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txrider said:


> We need to take a serious look at all of it. All these forms of energy.
> 
> But for every wind turbin and parking lot full of electric cars... Somebody is living next to huge pile of radioactive waste...
> 
> ...


 Using solar energy is indeed the cleanest of the options. You want to emphasize the waste from PV production, yet what about the waste from every other modern industry? Cell phones, computers, TVs, ALL have some form of 'toxic waste' associated with them.
And PV panels are also 'recycleable' at the end of thier very long lifespan. The energy it takes to make ONE panel is paid back by the SUN in less than 2 years, after that they continue to produce energy for decades,with NO moving parts, and while emitting no pollution. Meanwhile, that nuke plant still needs fuel, still needs maintenence, and still needs to have its waste dealt with.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

greg273 said:


> Using solar energy is indeed the cleanest of the options. You want to emphasize the waste from PV production, yet what about the waste from every other modern industry? Cell phones, computers, TVs, ALL have some form of 'toxic waste' associated with them.
> And PV panels are also 'recycleable' at the end of thier very long lifespan. The energy it takes to make ONE panel is paid back by the SUN in less than 2 years, after that they continue to produce energy for decades,with NO moving parts, and while emitting no pollution. Meanwhile, that nuke plant still needs fuel, still needs maintenence, and still needs to have its waste dealt with.


 Just out of curiosity, we are strictly on a 12 volt system right now and mainly using it for our outside lighting and outbuildings. Are you on a grid tie system and if so do you care to start another thread on it? I think lots of us would be interested.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

salmonslayer said:


> Help me out then Greg, seriously. I about croaked and that price was from just a few days ago.
> 
> I didnt buy it due to the price and it did have a 7 amp charge controller but even on line I havent found the same for less than $400.00. If you found a 200 watt for $600.00 I am interested.


salmonslayer try these sites http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=250, http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/kyocera/KD135SX-UPU.html


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*Coming soon to a location near you.*





































"Honey."

"Yes dear."

"Did you remember to unplug the windmill while we're away?"

"Uhh." :teehee:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QIvJGE1Nx0[/ame]


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Using solar energy is indeed the cleanest of the options. You want to emphasize the waste from PV production, yet what about the waste from every other modern industry? Cell phones, computers, TVs, ALL have some form of 'toxic waste' associated with them.
> And PV panels are also 'recycleable' at the end of thier very long lifespan. The energy it takes to make ONE panel is paid back by the SUN in less than 2 years, after that they continue to produce energy for decades,with NO moving parts, and while emitting no pollution. Meanwhile, that nuke plant still needs fuel, still needs maintenence, and still needs to have its waste dealt with.


2 years is an optimistic number depending on several optimal assumptions.. It can easily be as long as 6 years or more.. Depending on how it was produced and where it is installed.

Recycled panels are a better payback as the mining and purification steps are reduced as well as the waste reduced.

Then there is the toxic waste to dispose of.

Of course solar panels aren't the only game in town.. Solar collectors feeding Stirling engines and other methods are also looking promising.

But if we are going to produce millions of tons of radioactive waste making electric cars and wind turbines, it might make sense to consume that waste as fuel for a reactor for cloudy and non windy days.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

WV Hillbilly said:


> I'm neither here nor there in this argument but I am curious . If the spent rods can be reprocessed & used until there is practically nothing left , why aren't they ?


in late 70's Jimmy carter had reprocessing banned to prevent plutonium from being recovered from the rods. Now they don't do it due to politics.
It can pretty much be reused and reused and reused til there isn't much of it left. In 1981 President Reagan lifted the ban but by that time the commercial reprocessing industry in this country was gone.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

I've been noticing several posts referencing the radioactive wastes used to produce wind turbines, so I did a little checking on this.
I guess it's a reference to the rare earth metals used in the magnets. As has been pointed out by many of the same people, this is a naturally occuring radiation and only a small percentage of each particular metal composes the radioactive isotopes.
Ex: There's a lot of carbon in the world, but most of it is the common type (carbon-12) not carbon-14, the radioactive isotope.
And of course, they don't use the radioactive kind in the magnets, but it would be found among the byproducts when they mine it. Also the half life is days or even seconds.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium



It is also true that since this mining is primarily going on in China, there is no big, bad EPA to keep them in check, so a lot of toxic pollution is produced, not necessarily radioactive.
So, much like the story of radioactive bananas, it is true, just not the whole truth.
BTW, the radioactive bananas was repeated on ABC news again tonight, with the reporter falsely claiming that potassium was radioactive.
Not true, just the uncommon isotope is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

http://mitnse.com/
MIT has weighed in with a balanced view on what is happening, IMHO.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

megafatcat said:


> http://mitnse.com/
> MIT has weighed in with a balanced view on what is happening, IMHO.


Thanks for the link. They have some very good explainations of what is going on.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Close all nuclear plants, and seek alternative forms of energy. 27.37% (1,949 votes)

Halt the building of new plants. 23.62% (1,682 votes)

Continue its current nuclear power policy without change. 49.02% (3,491 votes)


Total Votes: 7,122

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Interesting poll~!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

mrpink said:


> salmonslayer try these sites http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=250, http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/kyocera/KD135SX-UPU.html


 Thanks man, the Wholesale solar site has some interesting package deals for grid tie systems that actually produce some useful power and are expandable. They are a heck of a lot cheaper than 12 volt systems for some reason. Not too many people are interested in solar in my neck of the woods because our electric rates are so low but with the new restrictions on coal fired plants costs are going to go up significantly. Most of the Missouri electrical coops have been counting on a new Nuclear plant (Missouri already has one) to take the heat off the coal issue but with this disaster in Japan that looks less likely.

I still dont think the technology is capable of powering industrial and urban loads not to mention areas with little sun (I moved from Alaska last year where we had overcast sky 90% of the time) but it would be feasible for my situation on the farm even if I never totally go off grid.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya and the Obama administration stopping coal plants is really a dumb move. With 65% of the country getting their electricity from "Coal Fired Plants".
That alone will stop any growth in the economy, if it is starting to get better in some areas. We have so much coal we need to be using even more of it.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

I've been in Yucka Mountain, an interesting expirience.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

salmonslayer said:


> Thanks man, the Wholesale solar site has some interesting package deals for grid tie systems that actually produce some useful power and are expandable. They are a heck of a lot cheaper than 12 volt systems for some reason. Not too many people are interested in solar in my neck of the woods because our electric rates are so low but with the new restrictions on coal fired plants costs are going to go up significantly. Most of the Missouri electrical coops have been counting on a new Nuclear plant (Missouri already has one) to take the heat off the coal issue but with this disaster in Japan that looks less likely.
> 
> I still dont think the technology is capable of powering industrial and urban loads not to mention areas with little sun (I moved from Alaska last year where we had overcast sky 90% of the time) but it would be feasible for my situation on the farm even if I never totally go off grid.


why can it not help to reduce the load on the grid though? If an industrial plant covers an acre why not install grid tied panels to reduce the load where possible? I don't think I would use solar panels in Alaska. as with anything the more that is sold then prices go down and efficiency goes up.I don't expect renewable energy to replace to replace any of our current sources but I do see how it could extend our current reserves. renewable energy is one area that I disagree with some on the right. I do not understand why they choose to be against it

salmonslayer I have personally bought from wholesale solar and had a good experience with them. the other link I gave then I have had no dealings with


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Energy Rebel said:


> I've been noticing several posts referencing the radioactive wastes used to produce wind turbines, so I did a little checking on this.
> I guess it's a reference to the rare earth metals used in the magnets. As has been pointed out by many of the same people, this is a naturally occuring radiation and only a small percentage of each particular metal composes the radioactive isotopes.
> Ex: There's a lot of carbon in the world, but most of it is the common type (carbon-12) not carbon-14, the radioactive isotope.
> And of course, they don't use the radioactive kind in the magnets, but it would be found among the byproducts when they mine it. Also the half life is days or even seconds.
> ...


You might want to check more...

Rare earth metals like Neodymium are found in ore that also contains Radium and Thorium with a half life of 13.9 billion years.. sometimes as much as 10% of the ore. Which is left behind and must be disposed of after separation.

It isn't used in the magnets, it's left behind in waste from rare earth extraction from the ore.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/rare-earth-mine



> Ten states are known to have significant rare-earth deposits, according to a 2010 study by the USGS. Most are in the western U.S., but the Pea Ridge deposit has the highest grade of any site in the country, averaging 12 percent rare earth oxide concentration. Mountain Pass has much more tonnage, but at an average of only 8 percent concentration (and the vast majority is &#8220;light&#8221; rare earths).
> 
> Given its resources and existing infrastructure, why isn't Pea Ridge already producing rare earths? *There&#8217;s a catch. Along with iron, the heavy rare earths at Pea Ridge are found intermingled with thorium, a radioactive element that requires special processing and cleanup.*


Which is why it is being dumped in China and Malaysia etc. and not here. There are some ore deposits with a lot less radioactive material but at a couple tons of magnet per wind turbine, not nearly enough.

Radioactive bananas, indeed..

Thorium: Rare Earth Liability Or Asset?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11044016/1/thorium-rare-earth-liability-or-asset.html


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

WV Hillbilly said:


> I'm neither here nor there in this argument but I am curious . If the spent rods can be reprocessed & used until there is practically nothing left , why aren't they ?


Bambist, NIMBYist, hystrical anti-nukes, etc., etc., etc.

FYI, the US is the only place where "spent" fuel is *NOT* reprocessed/recycled.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

texican said:


> I can understand being pro or anti nuclear.
> 
> I cannot understand ghoulishness.


Why not? After all its basic human nature. Ever notice how many funny videos are of people getting hurt?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

mrpink said:


> why can it not help to reduce the load on the grid though? If an industrial plant covers an acre why not install grid tied panels to reduce the load where possible? I don't think I would use solar panels in Alaska. as with anything the more that is sold then prices go down and efficiency goes up.I don't expect renewable energy to replace to replace any of our current sources but I do see how it could extend our current reserves. renewable energy is one area that I disagree with some on the right. I do not understand why they choose to be against it
> 
> salmonslayer I have personally bought from wholesale solar and had a good experience with them. the other link I gave then I have had no dealings with


 I actually agree with you completely, I see it supplementing our existing energy sources and I would like to see the government put more resources into the technology and research. I suspect that someday most of our electrical production will come from non-fossil fuel and non-hydro and whether Nuclear is part of the mix remains to be seen.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

*BREAKING NEWS:Japan spokesman: Nuclear plant workers must stop due to radiation risk
AP*


*Japan abandons stricken nuke plant over radiation*

By ERIC TALMADGE and SHINO YUASA, Associated Press Eric Talmadge And Shino Yuasa, Associated Press &#8211; 5 mins ago

FUKUSHIMA, Japan &#8211; Japan suspended operations to prevent a stricken nuclear plant from melting down Wednesday after a surge in radiation made it too dangerous for workers to remain at the facility.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said work on dousing reactors with water was disrupted by the need to withdraw.

Earlier officials said 70 percent of fuel rods at one of the six reactors at the plant were significantly damaged in the aftermath of Friday's calamitous earthquake and tsunami.

News reports said 33 percent of fuel rods were also damaged at another reactor. Officials said they would use helicopters and fire trucks to spray water in a desperate effort to prevent further radiation leaks and to cool down the reactors.

The nuclear crisis has triggered international alarm


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

This is BREAKING NEWS,no other details.

"All the workers have suspended operations,even the minimum ones,and they have been evacuated to safe area"

Thats it,all thats known.

BTW,thats Cesium137 being released.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

mightybooboo in my opinion you are hurting your credibility which is hurting what you wish to achieve more then you are hurting the nuke world. I support renewable energy but I do not wish to be associated with the posts that you are making.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

salmonslayer said:


> I actually agree with you completely, I see it supplementing our existing energy sources and I would like to see the government put more resources into the technology and research. I suspect that someday most of our electrical production will come from non-fossil fuel and non-hydro and whether Nuclear is part of the mix remains to be seen.


I hope other right wingers get aboard with that view


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

mightybooboo said:


> *BREAKING NEWS:Japan spokesman: Nuclear plant workers must stop due to radiation risk
> AP*
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I saw that> Scary stuff for sure. :grumble: I feel for those poor people.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Bigkat80 said:


> Todays front page of fox polls...LOL 80% say no its okay for Nuke power...boo boo your kind is in an extreme minority...eco nuts will break this country......or attemtp to.....


Yup,Rush DrugBlow,Rupert Murdoch extreme right wing vote,Im impressed,always said they were a piece of work.

*Did you catch that BTW,they are abandoning the plant the Japanese Government announced*,something about CAESIUM 137,an extremely high level extremely dangerous form of radiation.
------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137

It has a half-life of about 30.17 years, and decays by beta emission to a metastable nuclear isomer of barium-137:

Small amounts of cesium-134 and caesium-137 were released into the environment during nearly all nuclear weapon tests and some nuclear accidents, most notably the Chernobyl disaster. As of 2005, *caesium-137 is the principal source of radiation in the zone of alienation around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.* Together with cesium-134, iodine-131, and strontium-90, caesium-137 was among the isotopes with greatest health impact distributed by the reactor explosion.

Health risk of radioactive caesium

Caesium-137 is water-soluble and chemically toxic in small amounts. The biological behavior of caesium-137 is similar to that of potassium and rubidium. After entering the body, caesium gets more or less uniformly distributed through the body, with higher concentration in muscle tissues and lower in bones. The biological half-life of caesium is rather short at about 70 days.[4] Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3800 &#956;Ci/kg (approx. 44 &#956;g/kg of caesium-137) is lethal within three weeks.[5]


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mrpink said:


> mightybooboo in my opinion you are hurting your credibility which is hurting what you wish to achieve more then you are hurting the nuke world. I support renewable energy but I do not wish to be associated with the posts that you are making.


Much as I dislike sensationalism, it's a factual post. That particular plant is too much of a risk for them to remain on site. There are still ways to combat it (e.g., dumping boric acid and other stuff) without actually remaining on site.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

mrpink said:


> mightybooboo in my opinion you are hurting your credibility which is hurting what you wish to achieve more then you are hurting the nuke world. I support renewable energy but I do not wish to be associated with the posts that you are making.


Sorry Greg,the Facts are the Facts,Period.

If you dont like Solar because of me I would re-evaluate how I make my energy decisions.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Kung said:


> Much as I dislike sensationalism, it's a factual post. That particular plant is too much of a risk for them to remain on site. There are still ways to combat it (e.g., dumping boric acid and other stuff) without actually remaining on site.


Much in common with the Chernobyl response its starting to appear,far beyond TMI.

Doesnt look good.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

mrpink said:


> why can it not help to reduce the load on the grid though? If an industrial plant covers an acre why not install grid tied panels to reduce the load where possible? I don't think I would use solar panels in Alaska. as with anything the more that is sold then prices go down and efficiency goes up.I don't expect renewable energy to replace to replace any of our current sources but I do see how it could extend our current reserves. renewable energy is one area that I disagree with some on the right. I do not understand why they choose to be against it
> 
> salmonslayer I have personally bought from wholesale solar and had a good experience with them. the other link I gave then I have had no dealings with






salmonslayer said:


> I actually agree with you completely, I see it supplementing our existing energy sources and I would like to see the government put more resources into the technology and research. I suspect that someday most of our electrical production will come from non-fossil fuel and non-hydro and whether Nuclear is part of the mix remains to be seen.




No, No, No.
If you guys don't stay on either side of the ideological fence and start seeing logical compromises that don't require 100% agreement one way or the other, you might get to a real solution.
Haven't you been paying attention?
:duel:
[Sarcasm off]


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Energy Rebel said:


> No, No, No.
> If you guys don't stay on either side of the ideological fence and start seeing logical compromises that don't require 100% agreement one way or the other, you might get to a real solution.
> Haven't you been paying attention?
> :duel:
> [Sarcasm off]


 You know the funny thing is we farm (truck garden) organically (but I dont want to go through the government to certify organic), we heat with wood which is renewable (but it adds particulate matter to the air), we are slowly moving to solar and a wind generator (but probably will never get totally off grid), compost etc. and we (the Mrs and I) are pretty conservative. But like most people we have our own views of things and just about everything is a compromise. Neither of us needs someone or some ideology to speak for us.

I find some of these posts to be frankly despicable because they appear to be enjoying the calamity of Japan and regardless of your views on nuclear energy using a disaster of this magitude for political purposes while the disaster is still unfolding is just as bad to me as Gilbert Gottfied and 50 Cent with their tasteless jokes. I think everyone understands how serious the situation is.

I will be the first to admit I would not want to live next to a nuclear power plant just like I would not want to live close to a dam or a coal or oil fired power plant. It has nothing to do with being right or left wing. How anyone liberal or conservative can watch this slow moving train wreck and not think first of the people who are directly affected by this is beyond me. 

Personally, I am hoping and the Mrs is praying for some good news and some relief for this country and its people.


----------



## snoozy (May 10, 2002)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12755739

Fukushima workers withdraw after radiation spikes
A plume of white smoke rises above the Fukushima plant. Photo: 16 March 2011 It is unclear what produced the white smoke that arose from reactor three.

A rise in radiation levels at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear plant has forced workers to suspend operations, a government spokesman says.

He was speaking after smoke was seen rising from reactor three. Earlier, a blaze struck reactor four for the second time in two days...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sorry Greg,the *Facts are the Facts*,Period.


Then please *post your sources *for those "facts" since often "facts" aren't what they seem, and you're obviously *biased*

You've totally ignored the FACT that most of the "spikes" in radiation have been short lived, and then it dropped back to very low levels


http://www.rferl.org/content/japanese_nuclear_disaster/2338428.html



> Japan says radiation at a quake-damaged nuclear plant has dropped after earlier reaching levels dangerous to human health.





> Even in Japan, not far from the reactors - the actual threat is relatively low, radiation experts say





> "There is an evacuation zone, that means very few people are going to get doses even comparable to a chest X-ray, which is a pretty low radiation dose," Brenner added.





> Reports say radiation levels were as high as 400 milisieverts an hour at the plant Tuesday. But they fell dramatically -- first to 11.9, then to zero-point-six.





> *To put this in perspective*: in Chernobyl, among people who became sick the radiation dose ranged from 800 to 1.6 million millisieverts - much higher than what's being measured so far in Japan.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/15/eveningnews/main20043579.shtml


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And even at that it is a far cry from Chernobyl.
Like Hannity was asking which is worse the Reactors, or the Over-Reactors? That is the 100K question. This is not The National Inquirer. Nor should it be. There are some places on the net where Doom and Gloom is a way of life. It is a downer just looking at the posts.
Life is better then that, and with many 10's of thousands of Japan people who Really Are In Trouble that is what we should be praying for and hoping they get the needed help necessary.
It is still safe to have nuclear plants being built around the world, as Quakes are not the problem but the tsunami that took out the Generators, not the quake itself. and that may not happen again for another 50 years, 100 years. The risk is not that great. But they are Quakes Prove, as time has made that true in the Japan one of the highest spot for quakes, around the Ring Of Fire.
This will be a lesson, that will make Reactors even safer in years to come with many different types of Back Up Power, to keep water flowing. And should not be a stopping stone but a "Setting Stone" for even safer reactors.
Cars did not become safer ways of transportation over night, it took time and unfortunate lives.
Even Nascar got a whole lot safer after it took the life of a one of the greatest driver ever, Dale Earnhardt.
And many of those safety features are in the cars we drive today. Soon even more will be added.
The learning curve unfortunately takes lives, to make changes better in the future.
Even the Shuttle was made safer after it took a few lives.
But we will learn from this. mark my words. It is not the time to stop something in a and rush to judgment because of what is happening in Japan.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Seems they were only gone for an hour:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/fire-japan-nuclear-reactor-heightens-radiation-20110315-171920-237.html



> All those remaining were pulled out for almost an hour on Wednesday because radiation levels were too high, but *they were later allowed to return*.





> Reuters now reports that Kyodo News has said that the evacuated *workers are being allowed back into Fukushima Daiichi,* as *radiation levels there have subsided to tolerable amounts*. Although we have no reason to doubt the Reuters report, as of 11:30pm Pacific Daylight Time The Reg has as yet been unable to turn up the Kyodo News report upon which it is based.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/16/fukushima_workers_evacuated/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes again it is the over sensationalizing something again from the head lines, before letting a little time go by to see what develops.
The workers were allowed back into the plant less than an hour later after the radiation levels receded, Reuters reported.
Nad another report said *Briefly. *That should have given a clue it was not that big a deal. But it sure looks good in The National Inquirer front cover..


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Ok what can happen now that nobody is tending the plants at all? Is a meltdown likely? What does that mean for us here in the USA?

Dave


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Much in common with the Chernobyl response its starting to appear,far beyond TMI.
> 
> Doesnt look good.


It passed TMI a couple of days ago. But not much in common with Chernobyl at all yet.

Looking worse all the time. It's also become clear the company that runs the plant has a fairly long history of covering up accidents and leaks and a pretty bad safety record. Could be a lot incompetence involved also like TMI.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Close all nuclear plants, and seek alternative forms of energy. 27.37% (1,949 votes)
> 
> Halt the building of new plants. 23.62% (1,682 votes)
> 
> ...


How about the 4th option? Study the after action report closely and make policy changes based on sound, level-headed analysis?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

davel745 said:


> Ok what can happen now that nobody is tending the plants at all? Is a meltdown likely? What does that mean for us here in the USA?
> 
> Dave


 They are there, it was less then an hour they moved back some as the radiation spiked some what high. When it went back down in less then an hour later they went back.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Beowulf said:


> How about the 4th option? Study the after action report closely and make policy changes based on sound, level-headed analysis?


I have no doubt that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already started reviewing which nuclear power plants in the US might be susceptible to a tsunami. This is something that is already considered in the design. The question to be answered is why did the diesel generators at the Japanese plants stop running two hours after the earthquake and tsunami?

All I've seen at this point is conjecture. Whatever reason is found for the stoppage of the generators in Japan, changes will be made here in the US to eliminate that possibility. That review happened here in the US after TMI. The utilities that operated nuclear power plants at that time spent billions of dollars making changes.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

What happened to booboo and the the breaking news? Check this out

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/16/japan-prepares-to-send-to-workers-back-in-dai-ichi-plant-after-e/?icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|50230

Now they are planning to return to the plant, since levels have dropped. Where is the comments on this? Oh, wait, does not fit the agenda....


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

IAEA can't be relied upon to help, considering their agenda...


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Much in common with the Chernobyl response its starting to appear,far beyond TMI.
> 
> Doesnt look good.


Well, in my mind, there are two BIG pluses so far.

1. The RBMK reactors in Chernobyl were graphite-moderated; and when the plant blew up (which the Fukushima reactors still haven't - not in the way that the RBMK reactors did), it blew those graphite particles all over God's green earth.....contaminating a *LOT* of stuff. On the other hand, Fukushima reactors are water moderated, and water will eventually evaporate. So it poses nowhere near the contamination threat.

2. The safety and evacuation responses are FAR and above what it was in Chernobyl.

Not saying this is 'good' at all but it's still better than Chernobyl for those 2 main reasons, IMHO. Plus, as others are saying, it's not an uncontrolled continuous rise in radiation; and that's a good thing. (So far.)


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Darren said:


> I have no doubt that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already started reviewing which nuclear power plants in the US might be susceptible to a tsunami. This is something that is already considered in the design. The question to be answered is why did the diesel generators at the Japanese plants stop running two hours after the earthquake and tsunami?
> 
> All I've seen at this point is conjecture. Whatever reason is found for the stoppage of the generators in Japan, changes will be made here in the US to eliminate that possibility. That review happened here in the US after TMI. The utilities that operated nuclear power plants at that time spent billions of dollars making changes.


No doubt, that will be looked at. More importantly, they will be looking at what to do if the diesel generators don't work for whatever reason.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

The workers were allowed to return because Japan raised the max exposure allowed for nuclear plant workers from 100 to 250.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Kung said:


> Well, in my mind, there are two BIG pluses so far.
> 
> 1. The RBMK reactors in Chernobyl were graphite-moderated; and when the plant blew up (which the Fukushima reactors still haven't - not in the way that the RBMK reactors did), it blew those graphite particles all over God's green earth.....contaminating a *LOT* of stuff. On the other hand, Fukushima reactors are water moderated, and water will eventually evaporate. So it poses nowhere near the contamination threat.
> 
> ...


That graphite in the reactor is what did contaminate everything. They recovered it and buried it in the town cemetary. Most of the initial deaths were firefighters that had no clue as to what was going on when they responded. In fact many of them ran in and were immediately roasted. 

People stood on rooftops for days afterwards watching the glow above the reactor. The reactor blew its top and that was all she wrote. 
Good site that explains it and how chernobyl is recovering is at....
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/author.html


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> No doubt, that will be looked at. More importantly, they will be looking at what to do if the diesel generators don't work for whatever reason.


I would say the gensets were flooded, water got into the oil and caused a failure in them. Secondly water got into the air intake and might have shut them down and when the levels receeded enough to allow air back in, the auto starters more than likely killed the batteries to restart the engines as it attempted to flush out the water from the cylendars. Plus you have trash that had to have ggotten into the cylendars.

The only idea i would have on building a tsunami proof genset would be to build a water tight room big enough to contain enough air to fuel the gensets if it were closed off.

OR build tunnels to the room to a high elevaton where water would not get in it.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

One "fact" is that you don't sustain a world population of 7 billion people, many of which live an indulgent western lifestyle, without abundant, cheap energy. ALL ways of collecting and using energy that we currently have the technology for have their drawbacks. Oil is a dirty business which does nasty things to the environment; nuclear power... well, you're looking at what happens; solar technology doesn't provide enough reliable power to power our entire lives without major personal investment or some serious thought into how we use it (budgeting our energy needs) which VERY few people are willing to even consider; and wind power.... have you priced out one of those wind generators? I know I couldn't afford one.

Yes, we need, as a society, to address our energy needs -- and that will necessitate exploring new sources, better managing those that we have, and not being such power gluttons -- but RIGHT NOW, this is what we have. 

You know, when they brought gas lamps into the streets of London in the early part of the 1800s, it wasn't without accidents. The lamps had to be lit by hand, and many lamplighters were injured by exploding light standards. A factory which provided the fuel for the lights exploded, and, understandably, these accidents frightened people, many called for the abolishment of the gas lights -- but they still wanted their streets lit, and so it didn't mean that they stopped exploring ways to light the city; it simply meant that accidents happen... inevitably.... in every industry. Some of those accidents are big, dangerous, and with LONG-TERM ramifications, without question, but people still want abundant, cheap energy at the flick of a switch.

I admire the way the Japanese people have responded to this succession of catastrophes. Their stoicism is to be admired.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

megafatcat said:


> The workers were allowed to return because Japan raised the max exposure allowed for nuclear plant workers from 100 to 250.


Exposure limits are normally set at very low levels, and can be raised when needed. When I was working in the industry, there were a couple of occasions during routine maintenance when my exposure limits were raised. 

The reason they were allowed back in was because the spike in the radiation level abated. Two options were available, to either raise the worker's exposure limits and allow them back in, or to send in new workers that had not yet been exposed. I suspect the decision was made to allow these workers a higher exposure before replacing them to limit the number of people being exposed. Once these people have reached the new limit, I would expect them to be relieved by another crew.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mrpink said:


> I hope other right wingers get aboard with that view


There's the problem!

You think "right Wingers" don't believe in renewable eneergy.. When that is the far from the truth.

Most Fiscal / Constitutional conservatives like my self would love alternative energies if;

They could supply the demand required at a lower cost.
They could be done without a whole host of problems with toxic waste.
(The problems with coal and oil have been addressed and there are means and ways to solve them)
They could do it without violating my Rights (Obamacare is the perfect example of what I'm talking about.. They have FORCED us under threat of fines or jail. Which violates the Constitution. The Obama Admin continue to violate the Constitution even though a Judge has ruled against them..)

Another example is the Ethanol.. To produce it costs more then producing gas. But we are forced to use it, even though most of us get worse gas mileage when using it.. Yet the Government raises the CAFE standards while forcing us to use an inferior fuel.. Typical hypocrisy..

Anyway I got off track there..

The point is some of us do use alternatives when and where we can, but it isn't the magic silver bullet a lot of folks claim... 
If and when it becomes affordable with out creating new toxic problems then maybe it will replace the current set up.

But at this time it isn't possible unless you give up your current lifestyle. Some of us are already living on a "beer pocketbook" lifestyle, why should we give up more to please the ECO-TERRORISTS?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Kung said:


> Well, in my mind, there are two BIG pluses so far.
> 
> 1. The RBMK reactors in Chernobyl were graphite-moderated; and when the plant blew up (which the Fukushima reactors still haven't - not in the way that the RBMK reactors did), it blew those graphite particles all over God's green earth.....contaminating a *LOT* of stuff. On the other hand, Fukushima reactors are water moderated, and water will eventually evaporate. So it poses nowhere near the contamination threat.
> 
> ...


Its looking like the spent fuel in the ponds is a great risk.Maybe not a Chernobyl (explosion high altitude spew) Thank God,but then again,Not much to Japan,its a tiny Country.

A little is going to go a long way re: contamination.

Man the news is really getting sparse now.One says they went back to plant,another says they cant even fly to it its so hot there.

Scary indeed.In a couple days the wind shifts from out to sea to into Tokyo.

Like Chuck Yeager said ...we are entering the Ughknown.

Very bad situation.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It is finally being realized that this sensationalizing a report like this was not working, and people were getting wise to what the liberal media was doing.'Bout time too.
There is an old saying in reporting. "If It Bleeds It Reads, and gets reported". Well you see how far that Got the voice of the AFLAC duck, comedian Gilbert Gottfried, making stupid jokes about the disaster, he Got Fired. Trying to keep the sensationalizing alive and well didn't get him far now did it?


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

barelahh said:


> That graphite in the reactor is what did contaminate everything. They recovered it and buried it in the town cemetary. Most of the initial deaths were firefighters that had no clue as to what was going on when they responded. In fact many of them ran in and were immediately roasted.
> 
> People stood on rooftops for days afterwards watching the glow above the reactor. The reactor blew its top and that was all she wrote.
> Good site that explains it and how chernobyl is recovering is at....
> http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/author.html


Hate to burst your bubble, but that is not exactly a good website to quote. If you knew the history behind it, you would know why. She started out claiming to have hand built her motorcycle with all kinds of parts all over the place, and to be one of the only people ever to sneak/ride her motorcycle through the area with some special permit only she could receive and you should have seen the facts/stories quoted - this was over 10 years ago. It was during a time when the first tours were allowed in to view the area, but no one was allowed to drive their own vehicle. It all went downhill from there. The site has improved, most of the pictures are real, but a lot of the facts are still incorrect. But, it makes for a good story, though, and anti-nuke folks flock to the site. You can find other very interesting/entertaining web sites with the exact same girl. One is locating old munitions, another is something to do with another war, etc. She knows how to draw a crowd.....


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Here is a link to the wikipedia page for the website mentioned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Filatova

If you saw the original site, the pictures, and the story, you would understand why she got caught. Especially since it was a motorcycle group that first questioned the photos. Check out ZZR1200.net, but you will have to search back 10 years or so.......


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

mightybooboo said:


> Beowulf,stop it with the personal attacks.
> 
> Its all you have because of the tragedy and its very sorry indeed. Typical right,attack the messenger which is all the right has left at this time.
> 
> ...


I realize that I am not the Beowulf you are referring to, but...

I am generally on board with the need to improve/research alternative power, *including* making nuclear power safer and more stustainable through the entire nuclear life cycle, so I agree with you (regarding solar/wind) but also disagree with you (regarding nuclear) at the same time.

The problem is that from the start you have been gleefully reporting bad news about this incident that supports your agenda, while at the same time not reporting improvements in the situation even when those improvements are reported in the same news articles that you are citing. It has come off as a ghoulish disregard for the suffering of the people who are going through this tragedy as long as it supports your agenda. Even those who might otherwise agree with you are keeping distant because of it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Typical right,attack the messenger which is all the right has left at this time.


The "messenger" keeps posting only the "news" that supports his view, while ignoring anything that mitigates it.

Pointing that out is not a "personal attack", but simply reality, which is what you keep saying you strive for, although your actions say otherwise


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

MSNBC reporting a 'Nuclear Accident' expert saying its out of control? Others saying it isnt.

They are saying no flights into it,too hot for planes or helicopters,that effort has been thwarted.

So BFF,put in your good news,Im putting in ANY news I can find.

You have good news,PRINT IT.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yes Im filled with GLEE that Japan is getting irradiated. Isnt that Great ! I love it!!!

What a stupid thing to say!

Sorry,but it has ONLY gotten worse from the instant they were hit,guess therefore what the NEWS will be????

Lets hear your good news on whats happening.

I am glad that thru this tragedy there WILL be lessons learned,as all tragedies have lessons learned.DUH!

Do I want them to fry,NO! Do I want this to keep others from glowing,YES!!

And the lesson being learned is radiation is dangerous.....

That this tragedy continues to worsen isnt a fallacy....

IT IS WHAT IT IS,I do not control it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Booboo, your posts do come across as being delighted about the problems at the nuclear power plants. I can understand that given your apparent dislike for nuclear power. The reality is that the new nuclear steam supply systems (NSSS) designs incorporate new safety features which don't require electrical power to put a reactor into cold shutdown. The Westinghouse AP1000 is one. I worked on the project early on during the design of the preceding AP600. America needs new nuclear power plants built with those designs to play a part in a future of being independent from foreign oil.

Alternative energy systems have a role to play. The problem is that if you look at the generation capacity in this country, there is no way alternative energy can replace that any time soon or even reasonably far out. One modern nuclear power plant or a coal fire plant typically generates more than one thousand million watts of power. Many sites have more than one unit. Those generate power day or night and whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.

The latest design natural gas fired turbines from GE generate 165 million watts. Those can be run as base load plants or peaking units. Solar and wind power can serve neither requirement. As long as you want industry and the associated jobs in this country, we'll need a reliable constant source of high voltage power. 

During construction of a nuclear power plant, it's not unusual to have 3,000 construction jobs for many years. Afterwards a much smaller amount of jobs remain for the forty plus year life of the plant along with hefty payments of tax revenue to the local government. There are places in this country where the construction of a nuclear power plant has raised the living standards of a lot of families not only through payrolls but also through better schools and other community infrastructure improvements.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Darren said:


> The latest design natural gas fired turbines from GE generate 165 million watts. Those can be run as base load plants or peaking units. Solar and wind power can serve neither requirement.


Wrong! I have a solar plant not 70 miles from me.Its THE MOST RELIABLE energy plant on the SCE grid,PER SCE but what do they know?

It also has NAT GAS backup to run the plant at night or if the sun doesnt shine,but they havent bothered to do so.

It performs exactly as a solar plant is designed to,provide maximum power during time of day when max energy use is needed.

They are required to have nat gas hookup to the boiler the last time I looked,if thats changed please let me know.

Look up Kramer Junction and the other plants in the area if you want a primer on solar electric generation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

"Solar and wind power can serve neither requirement without a standby source of power." There, I fixed it, Booboo. What you're telling me is they don't use the plant at night which is somewhat obvious.

BTW, how much power does that put out? A quick check shows five million watts. At that rate SCE will have to build 200 more to have the equivalent power of a nuke *DURING THE DAYTIME* only. BTW, solar plants don't work economically in many parts of the US.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Do some more Homework,you arent even close.

BUT BUT BUT! They wont work.

They do,and very well,we live with them

So poo poo it away,Its REALITY,ITS HERE,And ITS NOW

Working.

Im probably typing right now with their electrons.

EDIT-Of COURSE they dont work at night,until storage developed they wont. They Are PART of the grid,doing what they do,provide max output during max energy demand,ie: during THE DAY.

Its what they do.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

MSNBC says "A second nuclear reactor has ruptured"

What they are saying........awaiting details. 

As always,news very sketchy during this dynamic situation.

Good news? They think they have a powerline heading into to the plant to power pumps......

US citizens evacuated 50 miles.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Do some more Homework,you arent even close.
> 
> BUT BUT BUT! They wont work.
> 
> ...


Now you're getting silly. Darren didn't say 'they won't work.' He said they produce nowhere near the amount of energy that a nuclear power plant will. And he's right by far.

The largest solar plant I've seen so far will produce as much as 300Mw. Fukushima has a combined output of 4.7 GIGAWATTS. That's about 15 times the BIGGEST solar plant around. Even standard sized plants, such as the Three Mile Island plant (which is, obviously, operating without one reactor), run around 800Mw - about 2.5x the size of the BIGGEST solar plant.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

They work.

Period.

They work when the sun dont shine if they choose to do so.

Find any roadblock you can,we have em,RIGHT HERE,they work,and per the utility its *THE MOST RELIABLE plant on the grid*.

And economically feasible too,my utility bill is quite reasonable.

Bottom line,*they work*,and we continue to build them.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> They work.
> 
> Period.
> 
> ...


Aside from deleting your posts because they are just silly, I'll make ONE more attempt.

AGAIN...NO ONE has said they DON'T WORK. We AGREE with you that they work just fine, and yes, sunlight's about as reliable and safe as you can get. I didn't even say 'they won't work when the sun doesn't shine" because you CAN design a means to store that energy - though technically, no, if there's no sunlight, there's no power.

What we HAVE said is that the output of a solar plant is going to be nowhere near as large as your standard nuclear plant. That's no dig on you; that's just scientific fact. :shrug:

And I said "Now you're getting silly" because you keep repeating "they work, they work, they work" when NO ONE has said they don't work. My apologies if you're taking this as an insult...but it IS silly to point out "they work" several times when no one has said they DON'T work.

Now, let's knock off (from EVERYONE) insults/attacks and keep this civil, or I'll close the thread. :shrug:

Edited: Well, evidently it needs to be closed for now, pending review from mods. And for the record, I MISSED the comments by beowulf, and have accordingly deleted them. I'm sick; I can't read everything.


----------

