# Japan Nuke meltdowns/water contaminate?



## secretcreek (Jan 24, 2010)

Obviously the nuke plants in Japn experiencing possible meltdown's is a real possibility if they can't figure out how to cool the reactor et al. I know that's a bad scenario esp for a country reeling and probably short on supplies and the infrastructure to get supply to plants etc.

BUT say there is a nuke event that releases radiation into the atmosphere... The USA is right in line for fallout as the winds blow....right? 

I'm just thinking that if folks haven't stored up water yet, it might really be the time to do so IF our natural resources of air/ water sources might be contaminated...ie: if we had to stay indoors for a while, and wouldn't have clean water...

Maybe I'm overthinking. I know the media over dramatizes the nuke info to the nth degree whenever the NRC speaks....BUT this Japan situation seems to be a REAL concern for Japan and anyone else due east...=us.

I'm hoping folks with knowledge might know. It's good to have water stored up yep...but if we don't yet... is this now critical? 

-scrt crk


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

CNN live jsut said the rods in one of them has melted. The fukishima one


----------



## secretcreek (Jan 24, 2010)

I just saw that over at Gen chat the regulars here were poo pooing the "little bit of" radiation vapor... So I'm concerned over no big deal??? I'm serious, not being sarcastic...


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

the ones poo pooing it are the ones who are all for nuclear power--they SURE wouldn NOT want to be wrong about that which they have defended so hard. There is nothing little about nuclear radiation IMHO


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

I have tried to get ahold of my fil. He ran nuke reactors for years and he would personally know what all this ment and how bad we are about to get screwed (sorry potty mouth) But cant get ahold of him. But its normal for him to take over a month to get back to us. SO I guess we will see how good we have preped here.


----------



## halfpint (Jan 24, 2005)

I couldn't find on CNN where it says that some of the rods have melted. It appears that what happened was when the earthquake hit, the reactor automatically shut down. However, due to the extremely high temperatures in the reactor and other power systems, the cooling systems are needed to run to cool everything down. After the earthquake, the plant was able to run the cooling system using backup generators - until the Tsunami hit. Apparently the backup diesel generators were knocked out by the Tsunami, causing the plant to lose all power. The only 'quick' fix that I can think of would be to fly in some of the large military diesel generators or aircraft engines to run the cooling system. With the control rods inserted, if temperatures get high enough there should only be a minimal amount of meltdown and not a major issue like Chernobyl, so I don't think much fallout would reach the US - a lot of that depends on how long the reactor was shut down before the tsunami hit, and the design of their system. But we'll have to wait and see since I'm not familiar with Japan's nuclear designs.

In the pictures of the facility, I didn't see any type of cooling tower - so I suspect that they pull water from the ocean for their cooling. So in addition to the power being out, their intake area may be filled with debris, which would also prevent proper cooling - even with power.
Dawn


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I imagine the danger and gravity of the situation are being downplayed for the sake of the tender hearts everywhere.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Forerunner said:


> I imagine the danger and gravity of the situation are being downplayed for the sake of the tender hearts everywhere.


I imagine exactly the opposite. I noted that the Katie news had a reporter claiming the plant was too hot and there was the possibility of a meltdown. Real professionals were in short supply.

I don't fly. I hate even thinking about flying in this day and age. But if you really think there is going to be a meltdown and you want to prove your point, buy me a ticket to Japan and my fare to that reactor, and I'll stand outside it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I think rather than a lot of wild speculation and spreading of rumors, the best thing is to wait for the facts.

Reporters are going to hype things up, and it doesn't serve any purpose to get caught up in it.



> The only 'quick' fix that I can think of would be to* fly in some of the large military diesel generators *or aircraft engines to run the cooling system


That's what they are doing according to several sources I've seen


----------



## AR Cattails (Dec 22, 2005)

Reports are just now coming in from Japan that there has been an explosion in the nuclear power plant. The reactor ceiling has collasped. This is coming from Japanese tv and has not been confirmed.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Last night, ZeroHedge had lots of info and the what ifs, as it had not exploded at that time. I think it is on End Times Report that you can find a link to maps of major wind currents. 
I believe it was a Reuters report that said if the plant exploded there is a real danger of a melt down, which is where tue real danger comes in.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Harry chickpea, would you like to rephrase that?

Have respect for Murphy and his law.


----------



## JIL (Aug 25, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

I believe this is a General Electric design and I have been in a couple of these type reactors during construction. Believe me, they are massive concrete structures with walsl 15' thick or so made out of reinforced concrete. Even if the reactor leaks, there is still the containment vessel surrounding everything and they also are massive. The reactors in Russia are a totally different design and do not apply here.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

megafatcat said:


> Harry chickpea, would you like to rephrase that?
> 
> Have respect for Murphy and his law.


the nuclear power supportors can't possibly be wrong about anything man made, nope. Not at all....go ahead and book that flight and lets see how confidant he really is to be there.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

megafatcat said:


> Harry chickpea, would you like to rephrase that?
> 
> Have respect for Murphy and his law.


the nuclear power supports can't possibly be wrong about anything man made, nope. Not at all....go ahead and book that flight and lets see how confidant he really is to be there.

Cause the Japanese officials evacuated 12 miles around, they don't seem as confident as our friends here do.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

NickieL said:


> the nuclear power supports can't possibly be wrong about anything man made, nope. Not at all....go ahead and book that flight and lets see how confidant he really is to be there.
> 
> Cause the Japanese officials evacuated 12 miles around, they don't seem as confident as our friends here do.


So if it doesn't leak... Will you admit that nuclear power is safe? Even in the face of massive natural destruction.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

It's already BEEN leaking. They are telling residents to keep under cover and do not drink the tap water.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Three Mile Island, how quickly we forget.


----------



## Wisconsin Ann (Feb 27, 2007)

The Japanese set up their nuclear plants VERY effectively. Each plant has it's own deep seismic sensor. If the sensor trips, it starts an automatic shutdown. They had over a minute and a half of warning before the shock was felt, and the shutdowns were in process. 

The reporting says there were 5 that were shut down, with 2 losing power to the cooling systems. 1 of those has now been shut down and is safe. 

The Japanese are great people for preparedness and safety. First thing you're taught (I'm told by friends who live there) is "if shaking starts, go outside. when shaking stops, if you're on the coast...LEAVE."

oh dear. They're now confirming that they simply don't know where Sendei people are. 9,500 missing. Since the tsunami hit just 30 minutes after the quake, it's likely they are going to remain missing. wow....

eta: Sendei being the town that was hit first, and quite simply doesn't exist anymore. 

btw, I think we're seeing what will happen to LosAngeles and the west coast if they have "the big one". Not just the tsunami, but subsidence...where land simply sinks below sea level. There have been videos of areas that appear to have no debris left from a tsunami...no real destruction...but they are simply flooded. Interesting. How do you prepare for that? 

hmm....And in this case..I'd say anyone trying to find items to eat and drink wouldn't be looting..they'd be surviving.


----------



## Wisconsin Ann (Feb 27, 2007)

Oh yes...and HOW EXCELLENT are facebook and twitter?!  again...cell phones are not working. (no cell towers left in the north..or at least very very scanty) so people are turning to satellite systems or land lines (DSL computers). 

This brings up the idea of going with the 4G technology quickly. Pure satellite, that has a backup of cell towers. AND a land line for when the EMP hits. 

I never did get that HAM license with everything else going on here. Radiofish needs to march to Wisconsin and kick my behind.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://jamespwillis.blogspot.com/
deaconjim was on nuclear sub - here's his blog about Nuclear Energy

NickieL - before you have a melt down, read and watch. Things are happening, but relax for now.

I'm hoping ETSII will come along, I am pretty sure he was nuclear sub person also.

Yes, there are problems, and seems Japan is taking precautionary steps around these reactors, and who knows NickieL may see her worse fears play out. But, not quite yet.

Stay calm and see what you need to do, if anything.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

Sendai is a city of about 1 million and only the lower lying areas were inundated by the Tsunami. There are many homes in the low area along the river. They may never know how many died in this disaster.

Reports of explosion do not seem to be confirmed yet. They were using secondary cooling systems in the plants. Our military is prepared to assist and I expect will help get things under control shortly. I certainly wouldn't panic over it. I would suggest that if you don't stock KI it would be a real good idea because when you do need it you won't have time to get it.

People are nearly always told not to drink the tap water after any disaster that could break water mains and lower pressure in the lines. Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with nuclear contamination.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

Explosion is confirmed, but only the building around the containment enclosure.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110312/D9LTO0MG0.html



> Mar 12, 9:17 AM (ET)
> 
> By ERIC TALMADGE and YURI KAGEYAMA
> 
> ...


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Cyngbaeld said:


> People are nearly always told not to drink the tap water after any disaster that could break water mains and lower pressure in the lines. Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with nuclear contamination.


It is also very, very, very. Unlikely that tap water would be contaminated with radio activity. Air borne dust... Well water. Yeah, not so much. Lakes and rivers. Maybe if they forgot to add sediment filters. Maybe possible in parts of the world but I'd suspect not likely in Japan. They may not be a western country. But they are as developed as the "west".


----------



## Wisconsin Ann (Feb 27, 2007)

It was confirmed quite a while ago. There are videos of it happening. Sounds like there were TWO things going on..one they say was a hydrogen explosion and that's what people saw...Now they're saying there's a manmade explosion somehow. Just saw a news thing with the guy in charge. Something about bringing the roof down and sea water in to cool it? it seemed a bit...odd. The interpreter was having some trouble.

I doubt we'll know anything for certain until a long time AFTER whatever happens happens. 

ah well. early days//er, hours.


----------



## secretcreek (Jan 24, 2010)

tab said:


> Three Mile Island, how quickly we forget.


Exactly. 

My husband did contractor work at various Nuke plants ( David Besse, Vermont Yankee, Indian River, Vogel, Fermi) in the 1990's. He ws frequently inside the buildings but of course not in the reactor area's at all. He does have a good working knowledge and did grasp the intricacies of the inner workings, etc. We know to not grow excited anytime you hear something about a nuke plant, or if the NRC ( Nuke Reg Comm.) makes a statement or performs a task, or shuts down a plant. 

Nuke plants are built to withstand tornadoes, jet liner crashes, etc... BUT earthquakes can not be totally overcome.

So I'm trying to not be a "Henny Penny"...BUT the reactor containment walls have now been breached...and that's when it's really not good for Japan's regions..

BUT how about particle fallout that floats in the wind??? Being that I live in the Mid-Atlantic region the problem isn't a panic for me, but what about a week or so...especially if there are two nuke plant disasters?

-scrt crk
*Forget tinfoil, gonna switch to my cement hat*


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Before you all get all crazy.... I'll put on Alan's hat for a moment.. :soap:



This isn't going to have any effect on the USA. They are saying it is leaking about 28 millirem an hour. Here is a nice little chart.











For instance all of you that live in the inter mountain west get more radiation than this just planting your garden.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/radexp.html

From this link... 

The millirem is a unit of absorbed radiation dose.

A person would get this amount of radiation from

* Three days of living in Atlanta
* Two days of living in Denver
* About seven hours in some spots in the Espirito Santo State of Brazil.


----------



## secretcreek (Jan 24, 2010)

Thank you Stanb999. I recognize the sky is not falling, but it's a bad problem for the region in Japan, especially under the circumstances there. I agree that nuke energy is good- just don't like it when breaches occur ...because it's an imperfect system for such power.

I'll always feel like we are not being told everything..

-scrt crk


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

wind in her hair said:


> thanks angie - and jim. I read the blog which i found to be very informrative and understandable - and reassuring. :thumb:


+1000%


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

I haven't really paid much attention to radiation since high school science classes, but I did remember the difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation.
There is even a link on the internet that will tell you that you get a higher dose of radiation from a banana than standing outside a nuclear plant. This is true.
You also receive doses of radiation everyday from the sun (a suntan) and naturally decomposing elements in the earth (radon, uranium, carbon-14, etc).
What you're not going to be told, however is that naturally occurring radiation and the type released from a nuclear plant malfunction are as different as apples and oranges...........or bananas.
That is why iodine tablets are being dispensed in the immediate area, to prevent the specific isotope (Iodine-131 I believe) from harming people's thyroids.
That is also why I doubt that even if you bought a plane ticket to Japan, they'd allow you stand outside the plant.
There is little danger that the fallout will significantly contaminate the U.S., but you can bet that it is an entirely different scenario within the 100 mile radius of that nuclear plant.


----------



## Sunbee (Sep 30, 2008)

Finally found an article with a number: http://en.rian.ru/natural/20110312/162973901.html

TOKYO, March 12 (RIA Novosti) - The radiation level near the Fukushima Number One nuclear power station rose to 1,015 mircrosieverts per hour on Saturday, the prefecture said.

Not sure how reliable this news site is as I've never even heard of them before. Now I've got to go figure out what that number means.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

you know what, I just gotta say the threads about this disaster and the ongoing nuke situation here on HT have been really..interesting...in the way of observing personality. This is a huge disaster, STILL IN THE MAKING. Some posters have pursued real facts and striven to understand the situation and gain more knowledge(like about fallout). Others snark off and straighten their tin foil.

Thanks for the folks who've been tracking down good information, I really appreciate it.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Wisconsin Ann said:


> It was confirmed quite a while ago. There are videos of it happening. Sounds like there were TWO things going on..one they say was a hydrogen explosion and that's what people saw...Now they're saying there's a manmade explosion somehow. Just saw a news thing with the guy in charge. Something about bringing the roof down and sea water in to cool it? it seemed a bit...odd. The interpreter was having some trouble.
> 
> I doubt we'll know anything for certain until a long time AFTER whatever happens happens.
> 
> ah well. early days//er, hours.


Hydrogen is used to cool the generator. The generator/turbine is outside the containment vessel in this design.


----------



## secretcreek (Jan 24, 2010)

wyld thang said:


> you know what, I just gotta say the threads about this disaster and the ongoing nuke situation here on HT have been really..interesting...in the way of observing personality. This is a huge disaster, STILL IN THE MAKING. Some posters have pursued real facts and striven to understand the situation and gain more knowledge(like about fallout). Others snark off and straighten their tin foil.
> 
> Thanks for the folks who've been tracking down good information, I really appreciate it.


The high emotions may mean fear. Think?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

secretcreek said:


> The high emotions may mean fear. Think?


:baby04::goodjob:

maybe it's good to consider how one handles fear, do they funnel it into something productive, or sit n spin? even in small things(in that we are watching this unfold in a foreign country) you get insight into how someone will handle the "big" stuff.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Or concern, as there is incorrect "news". I do not fault anyone for posting and asking. That in itself is trying to avail themselves of the knowledge that is often freely given here. There is a lot of uncertainty with this situation, just "wargaming" can be helpful.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

3 days ago DS (8) and I were having a discussion as to why I was not a nuclear energy fan and him thinking I was being silly and shortsighted.
After today.. He agrees I have won the 'discussion'.
We are watching this all very closely.
Not just the reactor, but all of the aspects of the Japan tragedy.. 6 million people hungry, cold etc.. 1 interview had a man who hadn't gotten a chance to sleep in 35+ hours. It gives me a lot to think about.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

My personal view, living within a close distance to a nuclear plant, I do not like them. The waste alone is an issue not readily solved. Also, there was an issue with the local plant about some concrete that had passed inspection, and it should not have done so. It was a while ago, have to look up the details. My hope is that Japan made enough fail safe features that there is not a true melt down. No matter how well designed something is, unless it is built to the design, it is not going to work. This is really a wait and see situation.
Has there been any news about the other plants that were having issues? A quick scan of the news did not find any.


----------



## Sunbee (Sep 30, 2008)

So that per hour is what one would naturally get in a year. I'm seeing several articles from Japan indicating that some of the fuel may have already melted, but has not escaped. Where we are is in no risk of fallout from this facility anyway, but that the concrete building that was intended to function as secondary containment has exploded is bad news.
Wyld Thang, I think some of us just have the sort of curiosity that killed the cat, you know?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Sunbee said:


> Wyld Thang, I think some of us just have the sort of curiosity that killed the cat, you know?


Sunbee, I'm not saying asking questions and looking for REAL answers is killing the cat...but (taking into account another thread elsewhere on this topic) snark and bringing up conspiracy paranoia is unproductive.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Y'all are in cahoots with Oggie!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Ok I didn't read the entire thread so if someone else has explained this you can just get a second dose.

A reactor melt down isn't really that dangerous. Now before you start screaming that I'm nuts let me explain some things to you.

For a nuke reaction to take place you MUST have two things; critical mass AND critical geometry (I'll explain what this is in a bit). If you lose either of these the reaction stops therefore any "China Syndrome" is impossible.

The way a reaction works is one atom gets hit by a neutron which causes it to go unstable and split. When it splits it releases two things, LOTS of heat and one or more neutrons. Now for a reaction to continue there must be another atom close enough to capture those released neutrons (critical geometry) and there must be enough atoms around to keep the reaction going (critical mass).

The fuel in a reactor has a very specific geometry, once that geometry is gone the reaction ends. The fuel will stay very hot for a long time but it will not melt through the floor of the containment building.

Also there is zero (0) chance of a nuclear explosion.

So as someone asked, yes you are worrying about nothing. 

FYI, I have stood and watched a running reactor pile. I have also held uranium fuel pellet in my hand protected by nothing but a latex glove.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Sunbee said:


> So that per hour is what one would naturally get in a year. I'm seeing several articles from Japan indicating that some of the fuel may have already melted, but has not escaped. Where we are is in no risk of fallout from this facility anyway, but that the concrete building that was intended to function as secondary containment has exploded is bad news.
> Wyld Thang, I think some of us just have the sort of curiosity that killed the cat, you know?


The reactor can't "melt". So that's that. Not possible, no water no reaction As Jim pointed out. The part of the building that exploded wasn't exactly strong. It was built like a pole barn. It's purpose is to cover the area and for storage of equipment.

Here is an image from a different forum 











As you can see the area on top is what exploded. Not the reactor. Or the containment.


----------



## Hike4beer (Aug 18, 2006)

TOKYO (Nikkei)--The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said Saturday afternoon the explosion at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core.
Just posting, no real opinion, not looking for a fight....http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I've spent over twenty years in the nuclear power industry including time at TMI after the incident there. I've worked at two plants that used the same design nuclear steam supply system as those in Japan. Those are boiling water reactors (BWR) designed by GE. The actual reactor is a vertical cylindrical pressure vessel made from 4" thick steel. In newer designs, the reactor weighs about 400 tons.

During the incident at TMI, all of the internals including the fuel rods inside the reactor melted. Afterwards pictures taken inside with a robotic camera showed what looked to be pile of rubble instead of the stainless steel racks and fuel rods. The reactor itself never melted.

Here's pictures of a BWR reactor being lifted by a gantry crane to move it inside a containment. The containment building has three foot thick walls made from concrete. Inside the walls is a 1" thick welded steel liner. The dome you see at the left the picture was eventually placed on top and welded inplace to seal the containment building. Concrete was also poured on top of that. The reinforcing steel used in the 3' conrete was #18 bars. Those are 2 1/4" diameter reinforcing bars. There is a double layer of those criss-crossed on a 45 degree diagonal in that wall. That's why an airliner can hit one of walls and not destroy it or crack it.



















One the concrete is finished, a steel structure something akin to a pole building is constructed around it covered with sheet metal. That is what was damaged during the incident at the Japanese plant.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> I imagine the danger and gravity of the situation are being downplayed for the sake of the tender hearts everywhere.


A radiation leak, even a small one, lowers the average global life expectancy by a few points depending upon the severity. 

The Russians sent up this one satellite with a specific radioactive element in it back at the beginning of the space race. About a gram or two worth. The satellite fell out of orbit and disintegrated in the upper atmosphere. To this day, every human being on the face of the planet has trace radiation in their body from that one satellite. Just a few atoms, but enough to detect.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

That....... and..... the Japanese are going to a lot of trouble to cool things off for the meltdown to be a non-event.......or, so we are told.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ernie, you're thinking of the Russian satellite that used plutonium for power generation that crashed back to Earth. Plutonium is a deadly poison. That isn't something you find released from a nuclear power plant.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/plutonium.html

Radiation is all around us. I don't think folks using tritium gun sights are going to get eyeball cancer. Nor will folks that used wristwatches with radium dials have their wrist rot off. Even though granite and marble emit radiation. I'm not planning on staying away from kitchen counter tops, head stones in cemeteries or the local court house. Even smoke detectors have a radioactive device.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Here's one for yuhz.......

In 2001, I went to a conference in Colorado that was focused pretty much on a lot of what was going wrong in this country.
Unbeknownst to me at the time I was invited to go, a guest speaker had been invited.
He was an old fellow, kind of an odd bent to his demeanor.
He was the man who had designed and overseen the construction of most of the nuclear power plants in Illinois and a few other locations.
I don't recall his name. His purpose at the conference was to educate all in attendance as to the non-issue of residual fallout anywhere in the vicinity of a meltdown or nuclear explosion, up or downwind, save at ground zero.
His basic message was that the only way one could experience an overdose of radiation was at the hand of a licensed medical radiologist.
He passed around several radioactive mineral samples.
To this day I honestly really have no idea what to believe about nuclear radiation and it's true danger or lack thereof to the human body.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

So what exactly was the cause of this explosion if it wasn't because of a leak? Obviously it's more then they're letting out to the media


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Forerunner said:


> Here's one for yuhz.......
> 
> In 2001, I went to a conference in Colorado that was focused pretty much on a lot of what was going wrong in this country.
> Unbeknownst to me at the time I was invited to go, a guest speaker had been invited.
> ...


The issue is a lack of understanding of exponents... A basic concept that most Americans can't fathom.

Radiation exposure is figured in decay rate, shielding and distance.
Which means a source where you would receive 1 rem at 1 foot. At 2 feet it would be half. 4 feet it would be a quarter. On and on. 

Your all worried about radiation that @ a yard is less than 1 rem even if it was a full rem. Do the math. You will find that your safe.

3 ft = 1 rem 
6ft = .5 rem or 500 Millirem 
12ft = 250 millirem
24ft = 125 millirem
48ft = 75 millirem
96ft = 35 millirem
192ft = 17.5 millierems
348ft = 8.75 millierems
696 = 4.375
1392 = 2.1875 around the level of background radiation......
2784ft or around a half mile = 1.09375

Your what 5000 miles away? You also have some rather solid stuff in the way earth's crust.


The above is very poor in that it gives the worst case scenario. Nothing to block it some. like buildings, trees, rocks or mountains. But I'm sure you get the idea.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

I agree Stan. Like Shakespeare said "Much Ado About Nothing".


----------



## maddy (Oct 30, 2010)

> Plutonium is a deadly poison. That isn't something you find released from a nuclear power plant.


Not true. They were using MOX fuel rods, a real dirty and very dangerous mix of plutonium, uranium, and other nasties. From the UK Guardian:



> The company notified the government on Sunday morning that the No. 3 reactor had lost the ability to cool the reactor core, and that radiactive steam was being released. Kyodo News quoted Tepco as saying that the up to three metres of MOX fuel rods were exposed above water at the Fukushima plant.
> 
> Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear energy consultant and forner head of nuclear campaigns at Greenpeace, said the presence of a percentage of fuel core loaded with plutonium MOX fuel in the No. 3 reactor posed a grave threat to the surrounding area.
> 
> ...


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

tab said:


> Three Mile Island, how quickly we forget.


Yes, good point. Whenever we allow the crazed media control a situation. We turn a nothing into a massive disaster quickly.

A minor blip that could have been fixed immediately, has instead caused that entire power plant to be shut down for years.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> http://jamespwillis.blogspot.com/
> deaconjim was on nuclear sub - here's his blog about Nuclear Energy
> 
> NickieL - before you have a melt down, read and watch. Things are happening, but relax for now.
> ...


What I do not see in this media frenzy so far.

Is did they scram the reactor?

It should have been the first immediate reaction. 

Once the rods are down, all nuclear chain-reactions stop. No further heat is produced and all focus turns to releasing the hat from the previous operations.

However nobody is saying.

I have seen releases of steam previously, it is in the plant design. They are made to release steam should the internal pressure ever build-up so high. So what appears to a news reporter as an 'explosion', is not really.

Yes, high pressure steam is really hot and it wants to expand. A release looks and sounds like an explosion. For an island that just moved 8+ foot the entire place has been devastated. You can't just shake and move a tectonic plate like that without leaving buildings and killing thousands.

I have been rather quite, waiting for the talking heads to shut-up and hear what really happened.

So much mis-information is flying around that it makes this very difficult to sift through.

'rods' are not going to melt. What can happen is the upper connection joint that holds them up, can melt. A design feature so that if the operator failed to drop the rods, the rods will drop automatically. The top mechanical joint melts, the rod drops and the chain reaction stops instantly.


Throwing around the phrases 'melting' and 'explosion' are only creating fear and panic. 

Many people have died, and that is being entirely swept aside by this unfounded fear that the media is stirring up.

I certainly hope that the media does not cause this to go in the direction of 3-mile island.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So what exactly was *the cause of this explosion *if it wasn't because of a leak? Obviously it's more then they're letting out to the media


When a nuke reactor reaches a certain temperature, and you flood it with water, it releases large amounts of *Hydrogen *gas.

That, and steam pressure is what caused the containment building to explode, but the reactor vessel itself is supposedly still intact

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...apanese-nuclear-plant-not-nuclear-no-meltdown



> "A nuclear industry body official said on Saturday he believed a blast at a Japanese atomic power plant was due to *hydrogen *igniting, adding it may not necessarily have caused radiation leakage. 'It is *obviously an hydrogen explosion *... due to hydrogen igniting,' Ian Hore-Lacy, communications director at the World Nuclear Association, a London-based industry body, told Reuters after reports of the explosion in Japan."


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

As I said earlier, fail safe design is great. Whether or not it is actually built and utilized is another issue. Still think this is a wait and see because the whole gamet of "news" is out there.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When a nuke reactor reaches a certain temperature, and you flood it with water, it releases large amounts of *Hydrogen *gas.
> 
> That, and steam pressure is what caused the containment building to explode, but the reactor vessel itself is supposedly still intact
> 
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...apanese-nuclear-plant-not-nuclear-no-meltdown


Here is an example of the hype....

When you say this.


An explosion caused by hydrogen buildup Saturday blew the roof off a concrete building housing the plant's No. 1 reactor, but the reactor and its containment system were not damaged in the explosion.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/japan.nuclear.reactors/




Sounds an awful lot worse than the simple truth.

The tin roof blew off the secondary containment area.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When a nuke reactor reaches a certain temperature, and you flood it with water, it releases large amounts of *Hydrogen *gas.
> 
> That, and steam pressure is what caused the containment building to explode, but the reactor vessel itself is supposedly still intact


Commonly one wall has an special pressure release, like an iris made of sheet metal designed to 'blow-out' if the pressure ever reaches Xpsi.

A build up of steam will cause it to 'explode' that one wall out, to release the pressure. I tis a common design feature.

Now did they build a wood and sheetrock building around the outside to make a pretty facade? How do you think that sheetrock holds up to high-pressure steam?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Commonly one wall has an special pressure release, like an iris made of sheet metal designed to 'blow-out' if the pressure ever reaches Xpsi.


Lots of industrial buildings are designed that way
It "looks bad", but actually is a "safety valve"


----------



## maddy (Oct 30, 2010)

> Now did they build a wood and sheetrock building around the outside to make a pretty facade?


Sheetrock? We're talking reinforced concrete walls, six to eight feet thick. The hydrogen explosion was so powerful that the whole top part of the building is gone, and the reactor vessel is exposed. 

The official word out of Japan, as of approximately midnight last night, is that there was a partial meltdown of the core in Fukushima No. 1 and that a possible meltdown of No. 3 was in progress. This morning it was confirmed that approximately three meters of the six-meter-long MOX rods were exposed, indicating probable damage to the reactor vessel.



> According to technical documents translated by Aileen Mioko Smith of Green Action in Japan, if the coolant level dropped to the top of the active fuel rods in the core, damage to the core would begin about 40 minutes later, and damage to the reactor vessel would occur 90 minutes after that.


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release....

As of this morning, a sixth reactor has been declared in a state of emergency. Radiation levels in Miyagi (sp?) are 400 times normal level.


I'm amazed at the amount of stuff being asserted here as fact but having absolutely no foundation.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

maddy said:


> Not true. They were using MOX fuel rods, a real dirty and very dangerous mix of plutonium, uranium, and other nasties. From the UK Guardian:


Did the article say the percentage of plutonium in the MOX mixture? Usually less than about 1%, but if the plant was designed to use MOX it could have been higher.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I am really surprised that there are so many experts on nuclear power plant design and safety on this forum. 

Somehow though, I'm not feeling a whole lot better. Experts always seem to be those people who show up to tell you something can never happen, and then later when it DOES happen they tell you how it's not as bad as you think it is.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

maddy said:


> Sheetrock? We're talking reinforced concrete walls, six to eight feet thick. The hydrogen explosion was so powerful that the whole top part of the building is gone, and the reactor vessel is exposed.
> 
> The official word out of Japan, as of approximately midnight last night, is that there was a partial meltdown of the core in Fukushima No. 1 and that a possible meltdown of No. 3 was in progress. This morning it was confirmed that approximately three meters of the six-meter-long MOX rods were exposed.
> 
> ...



No what blew off was mostly the tin roof. No concrete.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Ernie said:


> I am really surprised that there are so many experts on nuclear power plant design and safety on this forum.
> 
> Somehow though, I'm not feeling a whole lot better. Experts always seem to be those people who show up to tell you something can never happen, and then later when it DOES happen they tell you how it's not as bad as you think it is.


Ernie, I'm no expert. But their are people taking KI. They are out of their minds with fear for no reason. 

Did the majority of the western US die at the end of WW2, have high cancer rates, need fallout shelters in their basements? The radiation released in Japan from that was millions of times more. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances to be sure. But it isn't a US issue it's a Japanese one.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

It's a US issue for those who have family over there.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

1. The reactor was not exposed when the hydrogen exploded. It is still inside the concrete containment building. The primary containement is still intact.

2. I didn't know about the MOX fuel rods. So yes now you have plutonium involved INSIDE THE REACTOR.

3. The reactor SCRAM happened automatically. The plant instrumentation at the first sign of the eartquake and possibly other internal signs would insert the control rods.

4. In a GE BWR design the control rods are inserted from the bottom of the reactor vessel. There is no link that melts and allows the control rods to drop. The rods are inserted using hydraulic pressure.

5. Because of the build up of hydrogen, it had to be vented into what is called the secondary containment, which was the sheet metal structure around the top of the concrete containment building. The hydrogen explosion was not the equivalent of a dirty bomb explosion. 

6. The pressure has to be released. The main steam relief valves (MSRVs) open automatically when the reactor SCRAMs. In a BWR design that steam is not released outside the containment. It's directed/released into a pool of water inside the concrete containment building that is contained inside a steel torus structure. Those are the early design BWRs. Later ones used a containment pool that you can think of as a moat within the concrete building. During that situation the MSRVs direct the steam through pipes into spargers which spread the steam out under water.

7. The reason the BWR design uses that pool of water is that the steam MAY be radioactive. That depends on water chemistry. Absolutely pure (demineralized) water is not radioactive. Now that the Zircoly clading on the outside of the fuel rods have started corroding (that's why the hydrogen was released) the water is radioactive. At TMI the "basement" of the containment was filled with radioactive water. None of that escaped from the concrete containment building. All of that water was processed through demineralizers to remove the radioactive particles. Even after that water was "cleaned" it was not released. The absolutely clean non-radioactive water was stored in a 200,000 gallon storage tank,

8. In a BWR design the steam goes directly to the turbine. That means you normally have some minor level of radioactivity around the operating floor of the turbine building.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Ok, I don't know much about nuclear power plants except that I don't want to live next to one. I also am not an expert on earthquakes, tsunamis, or Japanese culture.

But I have some questions ...

For 2,000+ years, earthquakes were such a part of Japanese life that they built their homes out of light wood and paper so it didn't cost a lot of money when they fell down, and if you got caught inside one when it fell down you weren't crushed to death. Did they forget that? Or were they just not able to figure out how to build a nuclear power plant out of soft pine and rice paper?


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Nevermind


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ernie, maybe we should ask why they don't make cars out of pine and rice paper. Could it have something to do with engineering use of the appropriate materials. Could be!

Many people don't know how many changes were made at nuclear power plants after TMI. Every plant had to build a simulator which was a lookalike control room ran by a computer. If you were placed blindfolded into the simulator and did not turn around to see the instructor area behind you after removing the blindfold, you could not tell it from the real control room. Training was a key finding from TMI.

Besides training there were many physical changes and additions to power plants. The situation occuring in Japan will be studied extensively. I suspect if any possibility of a problem with our nuke plants is found no matter how small, more changes will be made here. In particular the reason that the diesel generators stopped will be studied closely. That also means the possibility, no matter how small, of a tsunami affecting one of our nuclear plants will also be studied. That has already been considered in locating the plants here, but it will be revisited.

I worked at a nuclear power plant that was hit directly by a tornado. The containment building wasn't even scratched in a manner of speaking.

Since TMI, the nuclear industry in the US has consolidated. By that I mean some utilities that were not up to maintaining the standards required to operate a nuke sold out to utilities that can maintain the high standards required.

In a nutshell TMI was a watershed moment for the nuclear industry. This may or may not be another depending on what happened in Japan. It's really an opportunity to ensure that nuclear power plants can improve the safety of operation by determining if the same thing can happen here. And if it can, how can we eliminate the possibility.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Again, that is well and good if those safety features actually are there. How old are these facilities? How much retrofitting happens for new technology? Why did the deisel generators fail? My understanding is they were a KEY safety backup feature of this plant. The more I read in this thread the less convinced I am that this is not going to have world wide implications. The more I go elsewhere and read and listen, the more I am hearing real concern. Heck, some assumed, or seemed to assume, the content of the fuel rods. If the quoted news article is correct, the rods are not what some thought. Just sayin'.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Ok, I don't know much about nuclear power plants except that I don't want to live next to one. I also am not an expert on earthquakes, tsunamis, or Japanese culture.
> 
> But I have some questions ...
> 
> For 2,000+ years, earthquakes were such a part of Japanese life that they built their homes out of light wood and paper so it didn't cost a lot of money when they fell down, and if you got caught inside one when it fell down you weren't crushed to death. Did they forget that? Or were they just not able to figure out how to build a nuclear power plant out of soft pine and rice paper?


The country of Japan as a whole was largely unaffected by the earthquake. The reactors were also not heavily affected by the earthquake. 

The tsunami was the issue for the plants and the country.


----------



## Sunbee (Sep 30, 2008)

Darren, what I'm most concerned about in the USA is that the engineers and scientists will say we need to do X, Y, and Z in order to prevent what happened in Japan, and their bosses will say that's too expensive, we can't do it and make our budget. What needs to be done won't be, and New Madrid, San Andreas, and the others will eventually go (not all at once) and something will happen with the plants that could have been prevented. I'd be surprised if at least one of our plants isn't in a place that could get hit by a river course change or a ruptured dam, even if not a tsunami.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Darren said:


> Ernie, maybe we should ask why they don't make cars out of pine and rice paper. Could it have something to do with engineering use of the appropriate materials. Could be!


I'm using a facetious argument to underscore a point, which seems to have been lost on you since you really only addressed the facetiousness of the argument itself.

How many of our OWN communities are propped up by irrational dependence upon technology that is out of place in that geological region?

Vast suburban sprawl in the Arizona desert, perhaps? Los Angeles? Oil pipelines stretching across mile after mile of tundra?

A BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico?

How many times do we have to see the technological wonders of man destroyed by nature before we start to get it?


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

"I am really surprised that there are so many experts on nuclear power plant design and safety on this forum."

*Ernie, you have it backward. The real issue is not the intelligence of people here, but the COMPLETE LACK of intelligence of the media reporting of the event.*

Consider for a moment that power reactors do not "explode" PERIOD. And yet the headlines at CNN run "EXPLOSION at reactor"

Consider for a moment that a _worst_ case scenario would be the release of some radioactive gasses that would affect a limited area and make a handful of people slightly more likely to have cancer over the course of their lives, and a difficult and expensive clean-up job. I have a friend who just last week INTENTIONALLY received nuclear medication to kill any final cells in a thyroid tumor. Her doctors expect her to live a normal life other than having to take a replacement thyroid hormone.

Now consider that while the news is gleefully masturbating about the "nuclear threat", there are thousands of people missing, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, thousands of stories to be told that are getting short shrift. The attention time being wasted on this is preventing stories that would help focus aid efforts, and inform the world.

Finally, strictly for a news and readership angle, people are beginning to see through the hype and abandoning the "no-action" coverage of the nukes, except in passing. They are now searching for pictures of the devastation, which are slow in coming. A number of news directors, editors, and producers may have some very serious explaining to do at upcoming board meetings, and I hope that many of them pay for their poor judgment with their jobs.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Info at www.endtimesreport.com
Click on Jet Stream and Fallout Patterns on the left side. He has some links to recent news articles and wind maps.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ernie, your facetiousness doesn't apply to the nuclear power industry. The changes REQUIRED after TMI added billions of dollars of costs. Plant owners had the choice of either making the changes within a set period of time or closing the plants. No iffs and or buts were allowed.

I agree with you on the precariousness of much of our infrastructure. In the event of a severe New Madrd earthquake like the one before much settlement, I suspect the casualties would run into ten of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. There's no way I'd would live in the areas of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee that would be destroyed. 

For many years a much bigger issue has involved a potential change in the course of the Mississippi River. If the diversion structure fails, the damages would make Katrina look like a backyard brush fire. Major pipelines and other infrastructure would simply cease to exist if the Mississippi river changes its course. Much of the infrastructure in that area including the major gasoline pipeline that feeds much of the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states would be gone.

" Despite several close calls, the ORCS still manages to keep the Mississippi River in check. How long this will last, however, is a matter of opinion. The Army corps claims to have the situation in control; the Mississippi will not divert to the Atchafalaya as long as they are there to prevent it. However, what if the control structures necessary to prevent the Mississippi's diversion to the Atchafalaya River were completely undermined and swept away during a flood such as the one in 1973? The ORCS has almost failed in the face of the Mississippi's might before, and it could still do so. Can the Army corps withstand nature's might indefinitely, or will physics and the Mississippi River win out in the end?"

http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/FloodControl.htm

One of the reasons I live in West Virginia is the relative imperviousness to huge natural disasters and the state's energy independence. We'll never see a tsunami here. New Madrid, no matter how bad, won't bother us much. Hurricanes don't have much affect on the western side of the Appalachians. Tornadoes are rare. And did I mention our relative energy independence as far as electrical power and natural gas?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Harry Chickpea said:


> "I am really surprised that there are so many experts on nuclear power plant design and safety on this forum."
> 
> *Ernie, you have it backward. The real issue is not the intelligence of people here, but the COMPLETE LACK of intelligence of the media reporting of the event.*
> 
> ...


Heh. I expect the news to usually get it wrong.

"Explosion at nuclear power plant" didn't really bother me. I did some extensive reading awhile back on what happened at Chernobyl and learned a little. However I expect that a facility as large as a nuclear plant also has some other ingredients laying around that might go boom.

For example, we all wouldn't expect farms to explode but a quick tour of mine would probably reveal 2-3 things that would blow up under the right conditions. 

Granted, I haven't been paying too much attention to this. I've had my head buried in a current project for the past few days and haven't looked up.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Darren said:


> One of the reasons I live in West Virginia is the relative imperviousness to huge natural disasters and the state's energy independence. We'll never see a tsunami here. New Madrid, no matter how bad, won't bother us much. Hurricanes don't have much affect on the western side of the Appalachians. Tornadoes are rare. And did I mention our relative energy independence as far as electrical power and natural gas?


I have seriously considered West Virginia as a new home, but ultimately I discarded it due to its proximity to that one big national disaster ... Washington, DC.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Prevailing winds would take care of that. We had a cabinet secretary that scammed the feds out of millions to plan for refugees from the D.C. area. What they can't do is supply the gasoline for a mass exodus. Some would make it into the eastern panhandle. On this side of the mountains it would be a yawner. I70 is going to end up as a massive parking lot.

The point is that here like many other very rural places the "you aren't from around here" ethic is firmly in place. In a manner of speaking many rural parts of WV are a millon miles away from the high tide mark of any exodus or effect of DC going blam.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

stanb999 said:


> Ernie, I'm no expert. But their are people taking KI. They are out of their minds with fear for no reason.
> 
> Did the majority of the western US die at the end of WW2, have high cancer rates, need fallout shelters in their basements? The radiation released in Japan from that was millions of times more. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances to be sure. But it isn't a US issue it's a Japanese one.


Who is taking KI?

I finally ordered some, but I didn't see anyone saying they are taking it.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When a nuke reactor reaches a certain temperature, and you flood it with water, it releases large amounts of *Hydrogen *gas.
> 
> That, and steam pressure is what caused the containment building to explode, but the reactor vessel itself is supposedly still intact
> 
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...apanese-nuclear-plant-not-nuclear-no-meltdown


Thank you for explaining it


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

NickieL said:


> It's a US issue for those who have family over there.


My family is there, in Tokyo, they said the goverenment is handing out possassium iodide tablets to all the citizens. There is no food or water, although lucky my family was prepped. There are also saying the the news is reporting that Japanese officials have told the us to warn its citazens that if the reactors blew that the fallout would come to us via the jet stream. This is not a joke.

My father advised us to start taking our potassium iodide. Hes a doctor and I trust him.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The concrete containment building did not explode. A steel and sheet metal structure on the top of the containment in which the hydrogen was vented was the part that was damaged.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

NamasteMama said:


> My family is there, in Tokyo, they said the goverenment is handing out possassium iodide tablets to all the citizens. There is no food or water, although lucky my family was prepped. There are also saying the the news is reporting that Japanese officials have told the us to warn its citazens that if the reactors blew that the fallout would come to us via the jet stream. This is not a joke.
> 
> My father advised us to start taking our potassium iodide. Hes a doctor and I trust him.


If the reactors blow I'll have plenty of time to break out the pills. I'm not taking them now. Those have some pretty nasty potential problems associated with them.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

NamasteMama said:


> My family is there, in Tokyo, they said the goverenment is handing out possassium iodide tablets to all the citizens. There is no food or water, although lucky my family was prepped. There are also saying the the news is reporting that Japanese officials have told the us to warn its citazens that if the reactors blew that the fallout would come to us via the jet stream. This is not a joke.
> 
> My father advised us to start taking our potassium iodide. Hes a doctor and I trust him.


Yes, I have family there too. they too have no water and are being tested for radiation. They sure are taking is serious over there. Which is why I'm not putting too much stock into those here who are trying to convince everyone "nothing is wrong"


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

I just checked on the weather map for wind patterns and it looks like anything from Japan will just turn back on itself out in the middle of the pacific. So I'd be hoping that very little radiation will continue on to our continent. If any makes it here it looks like the pacific nw will get the brunt of it. 
Personally I'm not worried about any radiation effects because I went through radiation 44 years ago for cancer treatment and I also had radioactive dye injected for bone scans.....I'm alive and kicking after all that.


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

Ernie said:


> If the reactors blow I'll have plenty of time to break out the pills. I'm not taking them now. Those have some pretty nasty potential problems associated with them.


 First it take up to 5 days for you to get enough in your system to protect you. Second, you are taking too much iodide if you are scared of the side effects.


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

NickieL said:


> Yes, I have family there too. they too have no water and are being tested for radiation. They sure are taking is serious over there. Which is why I'm not putting too much stock into those here who are trying to convince everyone "nothing is wrong"


 I thank God that my family finally listened and got food storage. They rented a storage unit to get the food they needed stored. I was told they are feeding their family and they neighbors right now. My stepdad tried to charter a private jet to go and get them and was unable to do so.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

NamasteMama said:


> I thank God that my family finally listened and got food storage. They rented a storage unit to get the food they needed stored. I was told they are feeding their family and they neighbors right now. My stepdad tried to charter a private jet to go and get them and was unable to do so.



I'm sure glad they listened to you, and it's helping them out.


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

Not just them but their nieghbors.

My dad just sent me this hopeit helps...


ifferences And Dangers Of Potassium Iodide And Iodate

i do not agree with the dosages. On tablet or 12.5 mgs of potassium iodine should be
enough unless we are under direct assult in which case I would take about 50mgs of
potassium iodine. May I suggest rather than taking large amounts for a day of two
take a therapeutic amount every day and elevate it only if radiation is coming our
way. Of course they lie out their teeth so elevate toward the safe side. Iodoral or
SSKI is also a great antibiotic and makes the thyroid work well. T4 or thyroid
thyroxine means four molecules of iodine.

Love to all, Dad 

Remember, iodine DOES NOT protect you from rads of gamma radiation only the uptake
of radiation in the thyroid whichs causes thyroid cancer. You are protected from the
BULLETS of gamma rays by 150 pounds per square foot which means one mile of feathers
or two feet of dirt or one inch of steel. E-mail me with questions



Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!







Differences And Dangers Of 
Potassium Iodide And Iodate
3-12-11

Potassium iodide Side Effects from Drugs.com 

Note the differences between Potassium Iodide (KI) and Potassium Iodate
(KI03). 
Potassium iodide protects the thyroid gland against internal uptake of
radioiodines that may be released in the unlikely event of a nuclear
reactor accident. 
Potassium Iodide (KI) vs Potassium Iodate (KI03): Potassium Iodide is
safer and has less side effects. KI is superior from "effectiveness"
standpoint. Iodide breaks down and is absorbed by the body much faster and
more thoroughly compared to iodate. 

The blocking effectiveness of potassium iodide is "almost complete". 
Iodide is better because of the degree of blocking achieved; the rapidity
of onset of the blocking effect; the duration of the blocking effect; the
safety of the blocking agent; ingestion is less likely to give stomach
ache.

There are long lists of pretty severe reactions - includes Hyper and Hypo
thyroidism in some people, and goiter. 
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/potassium-iodide-side-effects.html 

EXCERPT from CDC page below - 

"Adults: Adults older than 40 years should not take KI unless public
health or emergency management officials say that contamination with a
very large dose of radioactive iodine is expected. Adults older than 40
years have the lowest chance of developing thyroid cancer or thyroid
injury after contamination with radioactive iodine. They also have a
greater chance of having allergic reactions to KI. 

"How often should I take KI? 

"A single dose of KI protects the thyroid gland for 24 hours. A one-time
dose at the levels recommended in this fact sheet is usually all that is
needed to protect the thyroid gland. In some cases, radioactive iodine
might be in the environment for more than 24 hours. If that happens, local
emergency management or public health officials may tell you to take one
dose of KI every 24 hours for a few days. You should do this only on the
advice of emergency management officials, public health officials, or your
doctor. Avoid repeat dosing with KI for pregnant and breastfeeding women
and newborn infants. Those individuals may need to be evacuated until
levels of radioactive iodine in the environment fall. " 

CDC Radiation Emergencies | Potassium Iodide (KI) 

Potassium Iodide (KI) 

What is Potassium Iodide (KI)? 

Potassium iodide (also called KI) is a salt of stable (not radioactive)
iodine. Stable iodine is an important chemical needed by the body to make
thyroid hormones. Most of the stable iodine in our bodies comes from the
food we eat. KI is stable iodine in a medicine form. This fact sheet from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gives you some basic
information about KI. It explains what you should think about before you
or a family member takes KI. 

What does KI do? 

Following a radiological or nuclear event, radioactive iodine may be
released into the air and then be breathed into the lungs. Radioactive
iodine may also contaminate the local food supply and get into the body
through food or through drink. When radioactive materials get into the
body through breathing, eating, or drinking, we say that
"</radiation/contamination.asp>internal contamination" has occurred. In
the case of internal contamination with radioactive iodine, the thyroid
gland quickly absorbs this chemical. Radioactive iodine absorbed by the
thyroid can then injure the gland. Because non-radioactive KI acts to
block radioactive iodine from being taken into the thyroid gland, it can
help protect this gland from injury. 

What KI cannot do 

Knowing what KI cannot do is also important. KI cannot prevent radioactive
iodine from entering the body. KI canprotect only the thyroid from
radioactive iodine, not other parts of the body. KI cannot reverse the
health effects caused by radioactive iodine once damage to the thyroid has
occurred. KI cannotprotect the body from radioactive elements other than
radioactive iodine-if radioactive iodine is not present, taking KI is not
protective. 

How does KI work? 

The thyroid gland cannot tell the difference between stable and
radioactive iodine and will absorb both. KI works by blocking radioactive
iodine from entering the thyroid. When a person takes KI, the stable
iodine in the medicine gets absorbed by the thyroid. Because KI contains
so much stable iodine, the thyroid gland becomes "full" and cannot absorb
any more iodine-either stable or radioactive-for the next 24 hours. 

Iodized table salt also contains iodine; iodized table salt contains
enough iodine to keep most people healthy under normal conditions.
However, table salt does not contain enough iodine to block radioactive
iodine from getting into your thyroid gland. You should not use table salt
as a substitute for KI. 

How well does KI work? 

Knowing that KI may not give a person 100% protection against radioactive
iodine is important. How well KI blocks radioactive iodine depends on 

how much time passes between contamination with radioactive iodine and the
taking of KI (the sooner a person takes KI, the better), 
how fast KI is absorbed into the blood, and 
the total amount of radioactive iodine to which a person is exposed. 

Who should take KI? 

The thyroid glands of a fetus and of an infant are most at risk of injury
from radioactive iodine. Young children and people with low stores of
iodine in their thyroid are also at risk of thyroid injury. 

Infants (including breast-fed infants): Infants need to be given the
recommended dosage of KI for babies (<#howmuchki>see How much KI should I
take?). The amount of KI that gets into breast milk is not enough to
protect breast-fed infants from exposure to radioactive iodine. The proper
dose of KI given to a nursing infant will help protect it from radioactive
iodine that it breathes in or drinks in breast milk. 

Children: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends
that all children internally contaminated with (or likely to be internally
contaminated with) radioactive iodine take KI, unless they have known
allergies to iodine. Children from newborn to 18 years of age are the most
sensitive to the potentially harmful effects of radioactive iodine. 

Young Adults: The FDA recommends that young adults (between the ages of 18
and 40 years) internally contaminated with (or likely to be internally
contaminated with) radioactive iodine take the recommended dose of KI.
Young adults are less sensitive to the effects of radioactive iodine than
are children. 

Pregnant Women: Because all forms of iodine cross the placenta, pregnant
women should take KI to protect the growing fetus. However, pregnant women
should take only one dose of KI following internal contamination with (or
likely internal contamination with) radioactive iodine. 

Breastfeeding Women: Women who are breastfeeding should take only one dose
of KI if they have been internally contaminated with (or are likely to be
internally contaminated with) radioactive iodine. Because radioactive
iodine quickly gets into breast milk, CDC recommends that women internally
contaminated with (or are likely to be internally contaminated with)
radioactive iodine stop breastfeeding and feed their child baby formula or
other food if it is available. If breast milk is the only food available
for an infant, nursing should continue. 

Adults: Adults older than 40 years should not take KI unless public health
or emergency management officials say that contamination with a very large
dose of radioactive iodine is expected. Adults older than 40 years have
the lowest chance of developing thyroid cancer or thyroid injury after
contamination with radioactive iodine. They also have a greater chance of
having allergic reactions to KI. 

When should I take KI?


----------



## JIL (Aug 25, 2007)

update 180k evacuated and 160k exposed to radiation!!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDMTgwa2ZsZWVhc2ph


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

JIL said:


> update 180k evacuated and 160k exposed to radiation!!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDMTgwa2ZsZWVhc2ph





No... you better read that again.



> More than 180,000 people have evacuated the area, and up to 160 may have been exposed to radiation.


160

not

160,000


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Where I buy my Idoral that I take daily.

http://www.quackcenter.com/iodoral.html


----------



## JIL (Aug 25, 2007)

sorry bout that, just so sad for all those people.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Ok, I've been reading up on what's happening ...

Those plants are in dire shape. They've basically destroyed the one plant trying to prevent a meltdown, and the other plant they believe is already in meltdown. Never before have authorities had to deal with TWO plants going critical at the same time. This is new. However they've still got mostly full power to the mainland. So if they have full power, why did they effectively have TWO extra nuclear power plants?

One scientist believes that if the one plant does go critical it could release massive amounts of radiation into the Pacific ... and we all know what happens then.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Ernie said:


> However they've still got mostly full power to the mainland. *So if they have full power, why did they effectively have TWO extra nuclear power plants*?


Can you explain why you're questioning them having two "extra" nuclear power plants? They have 55 nuclear power plants altogether.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Can you explain why you're questioning them having two "extra" nuclear power plants? They have 55 nuclear power plants altogether.


If I dig one water well that supplies full capacity to my house, I don't dig a second one. 

It just seems to me that they have excess reactor capacity with so many plants, and I can't understand why. I'm sure nuclear reactors aren't cheap, even with BOJ printing magic money.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

They are expecting another Tsunami now.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I would also like to point out the absolute _irony_ in a nuclear reactor whose purpose is generating electricity going critical because it _lost power._


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Jeez Ernie!

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/

FWIW, the fuel rods in the reactor stopped "being critical" when the reactor SCRAMed. Once the control rods were inserted all that was/is left is to remove the residual heat. That operation is underway with the injection of the borated sea water. Your so-called absolute irony missed the point that a reactor does not generate electricity. It's quite a bit more involved than that.

As for the extra two plants, did you ever think that maybe electrical demand changes during the year? In the US we use more power in the Summer because of air conditioning usage. Do you think all of the power plant capacity we have in this country is always operating? Nope! At times quite a bit is off line because of scheduled maintenance, fuel costs, etc.

Got anymore straws to grasp?


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

Ernie said:


> If I dig one water well that supplies full capacity to my house, I don't dig a second one.
> 
> It just seems to me that they have excess reactor capacity with so many plants, and I can't understand why. I'm sure nuclear reactors aren't cheap, even with BOJ printing magic money.


They are actually doing rolling blackouts in the rest of Japan to preseve power.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Ernie said:


> If I dig one water well that supplies full capacity to my house, I don't dig a second one.
> 
> It just seems to me that they have excess reactor capacity with so many plants, and I can't understand why. I'm sure nuclear reactors aren't cheap, even with BOJ printing magic money.


Okay, I see. I suspect if they have them it's because they need them, plus they have backups in the event of failures somewhere. You might find this explains some of that then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan

Your analogy about only one well being necessary for you may be unique to you. I think many people like to have an additional backup system of some kind in the event of a failure - for example, whenever I could access and use 2 or more full capacity fresh water sources on my properties I have done so and it's always paid off in the long run.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

The max power load in an area (country) varies with the seasons. Here in AZ the summer is our peak load while in other areas of the north it could be winter. The utilities have to prepare for the maximum load they can expect. A few years ago while I was still intimately involved with the power industry a 20% reserve was common in this country.

If they go to some kind of power saving (rationing) mode they could have even more reserve (called spinning reserve).


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

there was a second explosion and people have been hurt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/ts_nm/us_japan_quake


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

An update and review of sorts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6198421680697248.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

"Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control, press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe.

Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power, has warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could happen here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension of licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation III" reactor that has been laboring through design review at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for seven years.

Before we respond with such panic, though, it would be useful to review exactly what is happening in Japan and what we have to fear from it.

*The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction.You can't have a "runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially explosive material.*

Once the reactor has shut down, there remains "decay heat" from traces of other radioactive isotopes. This can take more than a week to cool down, and the rods must be continually bathed in cooling waters to keep them from overheating.

On all Generation II reactorsâthe ones currently in operationâthe cooling water is circulated by electric pumps. The new Generation III reactors such as the AP1000 have a simplified "passive" cooling system where the water circulates by natural convection with no pumping required.

If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactorâas they were at Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunamiâthe water in the cooling system can overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate.

If the coolant continues to evaporate, the water level can fall below the level of the fuel rods, exposing them. This will cause a meltdown, meaning the fuel rods melt to the bottom of the steel pressure vessel.

*Early speculation was that in a case like this the fuel might continue melting right through the steel and perhaps even through the concrete containment structureâthe so-called China syndrome, where the fuel would melt all the way to China. But Three Mile Island proved this doesn't happen. The melted fuel rods simply aren't hot enough to melt steel or concrete.*

The decay heat must still be absorbed, however, and as a last-ditch effort the emergency core cooling system can be activated to flood the entire containment structure with water. This will do considerable damage to the reactor but will prevent any further steam releases. The Japanese have now reportedly done this using seawater in at least two of the troubled reactors. These reactors will never be restarted."


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

At this point, based on reading news from multiple sources, methinks the actions, US ships pulling back, large diameter evacuations when resources could be used elsewhere, etc. Indicate that the situation is more dire than anyone really wants. 
Just a thought, radiation used in cancer treatment is targeted. Fallout is random and it affects all creatures.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> If the reactors blow I'll have plenty of time to break out the pills. I'm not taking them now. Those have some pretty nasty potential problems associated with them.


Questions:

How does one prep for this kind of disaster.......A meltdown in Japan and you live in the midwest of the USA?

Is there a comprehensive list?
What are the 'pills' you speak of?
I live no where near a nuclear facility, so it never, crossed my mind?
Thanks!!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Look, Darren. You'll find I'm asking questions because I don't know. Nuclear reactors are not my bag, nor do I pretend to be an expert in them. 

HOWEVER, I will point out that for all your self-appointed expertise in them, this "failproof" system was designed by experts who also claimed to know all about nuclear power plants. It was supposedly going to be contained by experts who claimed to know all about nuclear power plants. And now it's melting down and being described by experts who claim to know all about nuclear power plants.

So in the face of all that, you'll not be too surprised if we take your expert credentials with a grain of salt.


----------



## Milo (Apr 11, 2006)

Ernie said:


> Ok, I've been reading up on what's happening ...
> 
> Those plants are in dire shape. They've basically destroyed the one plant trying to prevent a meltdown, and the other plant they believe is already in meltdown. Never before have authorities had to deal with TWO plants going critical at the same time. This is new. However they've still got mostly full power to the mainland. So if they have full power, why did they effectively have TWO extra nuclear power plants?
> 
> One scientist believes that if the one plant does go critical it could release massive amounts of radiation into the Pacific ... and we all know what happens then.


You must also consider the large damaged areas that are not currently using any power.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Look, Darren. You'll find I'm asking questions because I don't know. Nuclear reactors are not my bag, nor do I pretend to be an expert in them.
> 
> HOWEVER, I will point out that for all your self-appointed expertise in them, this "failproof" system was designed by experts who also claimed to know all about nuclear power plants. It was supposedly going to be contained by experts who claimed to know all about nuclear power plants. And now it's melting down and being described by experts who claim to know all about nuclear power plants.
> 
> So in the face of all that, you'll not be too surprised if we take your expert credentials with a grain of salt.


amen.

it's like listening to a bunch of government FEMA officials...."everything will be all right".....As I was telling my husband earlier, there sure are a lot of armchair nuclear experts here.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Another issue that I haven't seen even mentioned in MSM is the fact that these three reactors each have a storage pool for spent fuel rods located above the reactor itself, maybe two stories up in the same containment buildings. Some net posters I've seen think these storage areas are meant to hold spent rods accumulating over many replacement cycles; others comment such a design would be nuts and the storage must be temporary or at least limited. One calculation claimed that if these areas are by design for robust storage, each area for these three reactors could hold Cs-137 equivalent to all that released in the Northern Hemisphere during atmospheric bomb testing, more than ten times the amount released from Chernobyl.

I see no way that second red-orange explosion at reactor #3 didn't at least blow the roof off and drain this storage area, if not physically eject rod fragments into the air. These spent fuel rods wouldn't boil remaining water instantly, but would do so over maybe four days then deteriorate further. All this really bothers me, since TPTB can go on and on about "meltdown" and "reactor containment" and "reactor fuel rod cooling with boron and seawater" without at all addressing what might be an even more dangerous issue. Anybody really *know* how the spent rods are stored at this location?


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

I don't know how they do it in Japan, but a US practice may be helpful. When I was at a nuke plant in upstate New York they were stored in a maybe a 20 by 40 foot rectangular pool on the grounds of the plant. The water was between 20 and 30 feet deep and at the bottom you could see the bluish glow from the rods. To me that would seem like a huge weight to have above everything.


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

You need to be prepared.

Reactor 1 and 3 exploded. Reactor 3 was burning MOX fuel which is a VERY radioactive fuel when used.

MOX is bad because it will burn hotter then regular uranium. This was warned to be a bad fuel IF the plant were to come close to meltdown. Basically a MOX burning plant will meltdown sooner, easier. It will also push much more radiation into the air. More on that in a minute...

A hydrogen explosion has been confirmed at reactor #3, the MOX burning reactor. The hydrogen was created when the fuel rods are above water and interact with steam. If the hydrogen explodes then the rods that made the hydrogen are also exposed to the atmosphere. The shields are blown wide open now.

First off, this means a lot of radiation is being ejected from the plant and will poison many in the direct vicinity and those down winds. And if this isn't bad enough, it gets worse, WAY WORSE!!!

MOX naturally burns hotter. When the meltdown fuel rods receive fresh oxygen it begins to burn even hotter. And when I say burn, I mean the fission process. Normal Uranium Fuel will begin the "China Syndrome" when mixed with fresh oxygen.

The China Syndrome is when the core and everything around it melts into a super hot blob. The ground melts away and the blob sinks into the Earth. It would continue all the way to the core but it won't. It will hit a water table eventually. And when it does.......KABOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!

The instant steam bomb mixed with used and unused MOX fuel will travel up the carved tube to the surface. Nothing man made will hold this back. It will eject this super heated steam far into the atmosphere where the steam will flash freeze and form radioactive clouds really high up. These clouds will be caught up by the Jet Stream. Which happens to be directly over head of the reactor.


----------

