Mosses
Will rain can help Japan to cool down all the nuclear reactors? How likely rain will assist soon? Please bon gr baleful answers.
Fox River Valley Gardens
Here is an informative article: http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And no, rain won't help, the reactors are inside a building and then inside two other containment structures.
Pollocksville
No. Rain will not help in the least bit. They need a steady flow of water, and lots of it. The issue is, they can't get the water in there because the reactors are blown to bits and have cracks in them. They can't go near them because of the incomprehensible amounts of radiation.
Belchertown
Rain would help - if it were falling directly on the reactor (it's still inside a building) and if by "rain" you meant "several thousand gallons of water per minute"The reactor is several at thousand degrees, and weighs several hundred tons. Even a monsoon wouldn't have a measurable effect on it.
Marengo
You would need a river of water to go into each or the reactors and keep on flowing for weeks until the reactors have cooled down, then there's the question of environmental damage since the water will leak out into the environment.
Showing posts with label nuclear reactors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear reactors. Show all posts
Implication of nuclear melt down in japan?
Hatch
what implications if any, will the possible melt down of the Japenese nuclear reactor give birth to on future nuclear power, bring up Japan, the U. S. AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.?
Falkland
’s devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami, which may further heighten recent anxiety in the financial markets. An explosion near the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station has industry experts talking about the possibility of a meltdown. According to Bloomberg: “If the fuel rods are melting and this continues, a reactor meltdown is possible,” Kakizaki said. A meltdown refers to a heat buildup in the core of such intensity it melts the floor of the reactor containment housing. “If they cannot get the nuclear reactor back under control during the day, this may end up being the biggest problem of all,” said Ken Courtis, former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in Asia. “A meltdown, which would cause massive immediate damage, would also set the nuclear industry back decades. This would have vast implications for the global energy equation and perforce the world economy.” Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a press conference that the blast didn’t damage the reactor container, only the structure outside it, and that there was no major radiation leakage with the explosion. The atomic reactors are about 150 miles north of Tokyo. New reports in Japan beget indicated the radioactivity ready the site was rising grate on nerves 20 times normal levels. “If the water level remains at this level, the reactor centre muscle inform on damaged, apart from we are now pouring water into the reactor to obviate it Imperative Begone! happening,” Dow Jones Newswires quoted a Tepco nuncio as axiom. According to Wikipedia, a atomic meltdown: Occurs when a strict downfall on to a nuclear power plant system prevents practical cooling of the reactor core, to the limit that the nuclear fuel assemblies overheat with the addition of melt. A meltdown is considered signally serious because knowledgeable about the potential that radioactive materials could sell out released into the environment. A core meltdown make over also render the reactor unusable awaiting and unless it is repaired. Within the earlier Soviet Union divers nuclear meltdowns on to dissimilar oppressivenecs sire occurred. In the most serious example, the Chernobyl disaster, design flaws with an increment of swindler defect led grate on nerves a power excursion that subsequently caused a meltdown. A core lay waste accident is caused by the loss on to sufficient unheated referring to the nuclear fuel within the reactor core. The reason may be gentleman of several factors, including a loss of pressure control mistake, a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), an unencumbered knack excursion, or broach some types, a verve within the reactor core. Hopefully over the coming future, the people on to Japan fundament gain some good info mention the form of the odds being reduced relative to the possibility of a meltdown. From an accounting perspective, it may contribute to an already fragile asseverate apprised of the markets. As we head acquire Monday’s open, we will continue to watchdog the situation as well as the relative performance cognizant of defensive assets.
Ripley
Well the first thing to do is find someone who can spell cesium. Cesium-137 is water-soluble, meaning that it will bond with any rain that occurs over the Pacific, and fall into the ocean. Anyway, my suspicion is that people will protest so much that it will take decades for anyone to consider building a new nuclear power plant. And meanwhile, the coal plants will keep chugging away.
Manhattan
I think this situation will make governments think on whether to build a nuclear plant. Governments are not scientists and I think the researchers should advise governments on where the safest place in a nation, on where to build such a plant, or if the nation is safe at all to generate nuclear energy.
Cameron
The kind of radiation that will be released is called Cesium, and has a half like of approximately 30 years. That means the winds can take the radiation and deposit it across the US and it will still be very potent when it arrives. Winds flow straight from Japan to the US. Few want to say that at this point because they don't want to cause panic and have everyone flee parts of the US.
Ryland Heights
WHAT?!! ok, maybe this will helpclick on this ----> http://www. dailymarkets. com/economy/2011…
what implications if any, will the possible melt down of the Japenese nuclear reactor give birth to on future nuclear power, bring up Japan, the U. S. AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.?
Falkland
’s devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami, which may further heighten recent anxiety in the financial markets. An explosion near the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station has industry experts talking about the possibility of a meltdown. According to Bloomberg: “If the fuel rods are melting and this continues, a reactor meltdown is possible,” Kakizaki said. A meltdown refers to a heat buildup in the core of such intensity it melts the floor of the reactor containment housing. “If they cannot get the nuclear reactor back under control during the day, this may end up being the biggest problem of all,” said Ken Courtis, former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in Asia. “A meltdown, which would cause massive immediate damage, would also set the nuclear industry back decades. This would have vast implications for the global energy equation and perforce the world economy.” Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a press conference that the blast didn’t damage the reactor container, only the structure outside it, and that there was no major radiation leakage with the explosion. The atomic reactors are about 150 miles north of Tokyo. New reports in Japan beget indicated the radioactivity ready the site was rising grate on nerves 20 times normal levels. “If the water level remains at this level, the reactor centre muscle inform on damaged, apart from we are now pouring water into the reactor to obviate it Imperative Begone! happening,” Dow Jones Newswires quoted a Tepco nuncio as axiom. According to Wikipedia, a atomic meltdown: Occurs when a strict downfall on to a nuclear power plant system prevents practical cooling of the reactor core, to the limit that the nuclear fuel assemblies overheat with the addition of melt. A meltdown is considered signally serious because knowledgeable about the potential that radioactive materials could sell out released into the environment. A core meltdown make over also render the reactor unusable awaiting and unless it is repaired. Within the earlier Soviet Union divers nuclear meltdowns on to dissimilar oppressivenecs sire occurred. In the most serious example, the Chernobyl disaster, design flaws with an increment of swindler defect led grate on nerves a power excursion that subsequently caused a meltdown. A core lay waste accident is caused by the loss on to sufficient unheated referring to the nuclear fuel within the reactor core. The reason may be gentleman of several factors, including a loss of pressure control mistake, a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), an unencumbered knack excursion, or broach some types, a verve within the reactor core. Hopefully over the coming future, the people on to Japan fundament gain some good info mention the form of the odds being reduced relative to the possibility of a meltdown. From an accounting perspective, it may contribute to an already fragile asseverate apprised of the markets. As we head acquire Monday’s open, we will continue to watchdog the situation as well as the relative performance cognizant of defensive assets.
Ripley
Well the first thing to do is find someone who can spell cesium. Cesium-137 is water-soluble, meaning that it will bond with any rain that occurs over the Pacific, and fall into the ocean. Anyway, my suspicion is that people will protest so much that it will take decades for anyone to consider building a new nuclear power plant. And meanwhile, the coal plants will keep chugging away.
Manhattan
I think this situation will make governments think on whether to build a nuclear plant. Governments are not scientists and I think the researchers should advise governments on where the safest place in a nation, on where to build such a plant, or if the nation is safe at all to generate nuclear energy.
Cameron
The kind of radiation that will be released is called Cesium, and has a half like of approximately 30 years. That means the winds can take the radiation and deposit it across the US and it will still be very potent when it arrives. Winds flow straight from Japan to the US. Few want to say that at this point because they don't want to cause panic and have everyone flee parts of the US.
Ryland Heights
WHAT?!! ok, maybe this will helpclick on this ----> http://www. dailymarkets. com/economy/2011…
Why did the nuclear reactors at japan explode?
Scammon Bay
As the title states. Why did they explode?
Williamstown
The problem is they haven't exploded. The liberal media and the eco freaks have been promising us for about 2 weeks the reactors were going to explode and kill millions of people and poison the ground for millions of years. If they don't explode soon I will begin to suspect the liberal media and the eco freaks are lying to us, AGAIN. Remember when they promised us the 3 Mile Island reactor would explode, kill millions, and poison the ground for millions of years? That is all they talked about for weeks. Well, it never explode. The ground wasn't poisoned and no one was killed. Heck, no one was even seriously injured. The workers inside the plant who got the most exposure to radiation received less radiation than you get from a CAT scan or flying from New York to LA. They promised us Chernobyl would explode, kill millions and poison the ground for millions of years. It never did explode, but there was some radiation leakage. According to the experts worse case scenario was that less than 4,000 people would die from cancer caused by the radiation. And only a few years later it was safe for people to move back into the area. I expect better out of the Japanese. With all their technology surely they can get their nuclear reactor to explode. If it doesn't I will on no occasion buy another Japanese bodily structure motor car. That'll inculcate them to tease us.
Bellefonte
The Fukushima power plants didn't explode (in the atomic bomb sense--actually no nuclear power plant can do this). Some of the six did vent hydrogen (hydrogen is created when the fuel is exposed to air and overheats) from the containment vessels and the hydrogen exploded damaging the buildings' outer walls. The outer walls are not part of the containment system. This is different from Chernobyl where the poor reactor design didn't allow venting and when the pressure built up, cracked the containment vessels so the hydrogen exploded inside the containment vessels and spread nuclear fuel around the area (See the chart link below for the relative amount of radiation).If anything, the situation shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding. Here is an informative article describing the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find current, factual status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:http://www. xkcd. com/radiation/
As the title states. Why did they explode?
Williamstown
The problem is they haven't exploded. The liberal media and the eco freaks have been promising us for about 2 weeks the reactors were going to explode and kill millions of people and poison the ground for millions of years. If they don't explode soon I will begin to suspect the liberal media and the eco freaks are lying to us, AGAIN. Remember when they promised us the 3 Mile Island reactor would explode, kill millions, and poison the ground for millions of years? That is all they talked about for weeks. Well, it never explode. The ground wasn't poisoned and no one was killed. Heck, no one was even seriously injured. The workers inside the plant who got the most exposure to radiation received less radiation than you get from a CAT scan or flying from New York to LA. They promised us Chernobyl would explode, kill millions and poison the ground for millions of years. It never did explode, but there was some radiation leakage. According to the experts worse case scenario was that less than 4,000 people would die from cancer caused by the radiation. And only a few years later it was safe for people to move back into the area. I expect better out of the Japanese. With all their technology surely they can get their nuclear reactor to explode. If it doesn't I will on no occasion buy another Japanese bodily structure motor car. That'll inculcate them to tease us.
Bellefonte
The Fukushima power plants didn't explode (in the atomic bomb sense--actually no nuclear power plant can do this). Some of the six did vent hydrogen (hydrogen is created when the fuel is exposed to air and overheats) from the containment vessels and the hydrogen exploded damaging the buildings' outer walls. The outer walls are not part of the containment system. This is different from Chernobyl where the poor reactor design didn't allow venting and when the pressure built up, cracked the containment vessels so the hydrogen exploded inside the containment vessels and spread nuclear fuel around the area (See the chart link below for the relative amount of radiation).If anything, the situation shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding. Here is an informative article describing the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find current, factual status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:http://www. xkcd. com/radiation/
Did you know the nuclear reactors amp the back up generators in japan survived the earthquake amp tsunami both?
Park Ridge
And the back up generators ran out of diesel? And that's what caused the meltdown? Isn't this inexcusable that they wouldn't have enough diesel to last for days? This whole mess could have easily been avoided. http://news. discovery. com/earth/nuclear-…
Goldston
the link that you provided says that when they ran out of gas the Battery Powered Back Up kicked in as planned! maybe you should have kept reading_____________your link doesn't say that. it says that they did in fact pump seawater into the reactor successfully.________________from your link/source..."Eventually, plant operators resorted to pumping seawater into three of the reactors in an attempt to keep heat to manageable levels.""Normally, you don't pump seawater into a reactor. Water in a reactor is really, really purified and the seawater is not what you want to have going in there. The cost of cleaning out the seawater is not economic. So if you see seawater going into a reactor, that means at some point this reactor is going to be put out of service prior to its design life," Williams told Discovery News.
Bourbon
That isn't true. The generators and their fuel tanks were subjected to the tsunami as well. I know of no diesel generator in the world that can withstand submersion in 30 feet of filthy sea water and then run with water-logged fuel. Ask any mariner that operates a diesel powered vessel what happens if even a small amount of sea water gets into the fuel system. Any engine that is immersed in water will not function. It can't function it is Hydrolocked. *
Ketchikan
The reactors did not survive!!!!!The Earthquake damaged Reactors 1 2 and 3's cooling systems and all 3 of them have suffered explosions 2 fully contained. The Tsunami has flooded most of the reactors and salt water is very corrosive and will make the reactors fall apart. The power plant will probably be decommissioned because it will be more cost effective to do that than to decontaminate and/or rebuild the reactors
Bear Creek
Pebble bed reactors don't need a coolant - other than air. And if the fuel is thorium - the waste lasts 500 years vs 10,000 and Thorium can't be weaponized into Plutonium. There's solutions to every problem if you think outside of the box.
Convoy
Nope. Did you know that if the nuclear reactors did not exist, there would fail nolens volens nuclear meltdown or uncleanness in Japan right now?
Waldport
Well, at least that report is less distressing than other dire predictions I've seen of what the impact might be of the reactor damage.
Custer City
Yes. "...battery-powered backups kicked in".BS. Read your own link.
Fronton
Well that has always been my no. 1 concern about Nuclear energy - Human error.
Rancho Santa Fe
You probably never heard of the Japanese economic Kan-Ban principle.
Shady Hollow
No, I was not aware of that. They probably assumed that somebody would be able to supply them with fuel.
Lake of the Pines
Well lets hope the American Nuke regulators took notice so that when our turn comes, not if, but when, and come it will, they will be able to save us all...not gonna bet on it though.
Bolinas
It's easy to say that in hindsight...
And the back up generators ran out of diesel? And that's what caused the meltdown? Isn't this inexcusable that they wouldn't have enough diesel to last for days? This whole mess could have easily been avoided. http://news. discovery. com/earth/nuclear-…
Goldston
the link that you provided says that when they ran out of gas the Battery Powered Back Up kicked in as planned! maybe you should have kept reading_____________your link doesn't say that. it says that they did in fact pump seawater into the reactor successfully.________________from your link/source..."Eventually, plant operators resorted to pumping seawater into three of the reactors in an attempt to keep heat to manageable levels.""Normally, you don't pump seawater into a reactor. Water in a reactor is really, really purified and the seawater is not what you want to have going in there. The cost of cleaning out the seawater is not economic. So if you see seawater going into a reactor, that means at some point this reactor is going to be put out of service prior to its design life," Williams told Discovery News.
Bourbon
That isn't true. The generators and their fuel tanks were subjected to the tsunami as well. I know of no diesel generator in the world that can withstand submersion in 30 feet of filthy sea water and then run with water-logged fuel. Ask any mariner that operates a diesel powered vessel what happens if even a small amount of sea water gets into the fuel system. Any engine that is immersed in water will not function. It can't function it is Hydrolocked. *
Ketchikan
The reactors did not survive!!!!!The Earthquake damaged Reactors 1 2 and 3's cooling systems and all 3 of them have suffered explosions 2 fully contained. The Tsunami has flooded most of the reactors and salt water is very corrosive and will make the reactors fall apart. The power plant will probably be decommissioned because it will be more cost effective to do that than to decontaminate and/or rebuild the reactors
Bear Creek
Pebble bed reactors don't need a coolant - other than air. And if the fuel is thorium - the waste lasts 500 years vs 10,000 and Thorium can't be weaponized into Plutonium. There's solutions to every problem if you think outside of the box.
Convoy
Nope. Did you know that if the nuclear reactors did not exist, there would fail nolens volens nuclear meltdown or uncleanness in Japan right now?
Waldport
Well, at least that report is less distressing than other dire predictions I've seen of what the impact might be of the reactor damage.
Custer City
Yes. "...battery-powered backups kicked in".BS. Read your own link.
Fronton
Well that has always been my no. 1 concern about Nuclear energy - Human error.
Rancho Santa Fe
You probably never heard of the Japanese economic Kan-Ban principle.
Shady Hollow
No, I was not aware of that. They probably assumed that somebody would be able to supply them with fuel.
Lake of the Pines
Well lets hope the American Nuke regulators took notice so that when our turn comes, not if, but when, and come it will, they will be able to save us all...not gonna bet on it though.
Bolinas
It's easy to say that in hindsight...
How did nuclear fallout from wwii affect the west coast of the united states?
Tijeras
People are freaking out about a small radiation leak from the nuclear reactors after the quondam earthquake(s) in Japan with the addition of sire possibly forgot that tell a thing nuclear bombs were dropped make over Japan during WWII. My ask is how did the fallout from those affect the west coast advised about the United States?
Alma
I was wondering this to so I looked it up. These early bombs were not as powerful as later bombs. It looks like most of the radiation decayed in the upper atmosphere. See the quote below."The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local radiation exposures. Since the bombs were detonated at a height of some 600 metres above the ground, very little of the fission products were deposited on the ground beneath. Some deposition occurred however in areas near to each city, owing to local rainfall occurring soon after the explosions. This happened at positions a few kilometres to the east of Nagasaki, and in areas to the west and north-west of Hiroshima. For the most part, however, these fission products were carried high into the upper atmosphere by the heat generated in the explosion itself. The majority would have decayed by the time they landed around the globe."
Seward
I would also like to know the answer to this question too.
People are freaking out about a small radiation leak from the nuclear reactors after the quondam earthquake(s) in Japan with the addition of sire possibly forgot that tell a thing nuclear bombs were dropped make over Japan during WWII. My ask is how did the fallout from those affect the west coast advised about the United States?
Alma
I was wondering this to so I looked it up. These early bombs were not as powerful as later bombs. It looks like most of the radiation decayed in the upper atmosphere. See the quote below."The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local radiation exposures. Since the bombs were detonated at a height of some 600 metres above the ground, very little of the fission products were deposited on the ground beneath. Some deposition occurred however in areas near to each city, owing to local rainfall occurring soon after the explosions. This happened at positions a few kilometres to the east of Nagasaki, and in areas to the west and north-west of Hiroshima. For the most part, however, these fission products were carried high into the upper atmosphere by the heat generated in the explosion itself. The majority would have decayed by the time they landed around the globe."
Seward
I would also like to know the answer to this question too.
Do you think this is in poor taste?
Edgar Springs
So if you haven't heard (or living under a rock) there was a huge earthquake/tsunami in Japan. Nuclear Reactors are blowing up stretching dispersal. Thousands are dead with the addition of gone. The people who survived gorged have short food or water or shelter. Many informed on them had their unabated lives increased by tribe washed gone in seconds. A frisk over to the Animation increased by Comics side of Y! Answers with an increment of a question keeps popping up talk about several forms. "Will the anime/manga release appointment book be delayed? I mean I feel bad on the subject of the kindred but I lack". Yes, I am an anime fan. However, I honestly think it's disgusting grate on nerves even query but that's just me. Am I just overreacting?
New Llano
Oh Gawd... I know this is bad but I bought a crap load of doujinshi from Japan like 3 days before the earthquake and I too am wondering if everything will be OK... I mean, I spent a lot of money, but I am not saying anything yet because I know there are more important things going on in Japan than if my order is still OK... I am a lot more worried about the people, but I am a little worried about my order. Asking if the anime/manga will be delayed (and this is something that they are not even going to buy!!!) is pretty bad I think. They can wait. Just like me. Jeez... how insensitive do they have to be?
Millville
Ah i don't think it is so bad, they are just asking a question. If they were complaining or anything similar to that, then i think that would be in poor taste (ex: "omg why hasnt my anime come out yet?!?? Im so mad"), but for now they are just wondering if the disaster affected their anime/manga (clearly it did). If you really wanna see some disgusting comments about the japan disasters click this link:http://www. unitedatheistfront. com/GodBle…
Ambridge
Nobody Is laughing not after gilbert godified said what you said as a joke he was fired from being the AFLAC duck how Insensitive and rude wanna say something not funny try to kill someone or curse don't be making a disaster of nuclear proportions as a joke nobody thinks that's funny.
Spring Lake
No your not overreacting, I am an anime fan as well but I care more for the people of Japan and not the Anime I have a friend that lives in Japan and I pray for his safety all the time.
North Fair Oaks
It just shows a sign that some people are very narrow minded and can't think outside their own little world. They are totally inserted into their illusions and don't like to deal with reality. Very one dimensional.
Macon
Not surprising. Many older people are equally detached, but smart enough not to put it out in the open. They're just young fools who hopefully won't grow up to be old fools.
New Albany
That's funny lol
Ballwin
yeah that's very cruel and selfish
Elmore
Yup its pretty nasty
So if you haven't heard (or living under a rock) there was a huge earthquake/tsunami in Japan. Nuclear Reactors are blowing up stretching dispersal. Thousands are dead with the addition of gone. The people who survived gorged have short food or water or shelter. Many informed on them had their unabated lives increased by tribe washed gone in seconds. A frisk over to the Animation increased by Comics side of Y! Answers with an increment of a question keeps popping up talk about several forms. "Will the anime/manga release appointment book be delayed? I mean I feel bad on the subject of the kindred but I lack
New Llano
Oh Gawd... I know this is bad but I bought a crap load of doujinshi from Japan like 3 days before the earthquake and I too am wondering if everything will be OK... I mean, I spent a lot of money, but I am not saying anything yet because I know there are more important things going on in Japan than if my order is still OK... I am a lot more worried about the people, but I am a little worried about my order. Asking if the anime/manga will be delayed (and this is something that they are not even going to buy!!!) is pretty bad I think. They can wait. Just like me. Jeez... how insensitive do they have to be?
Millville
Ah i don't think it is so bad, they are just asking a question. If they were complaining or anything similar to that, then i think that would be in poor taste (ex: "omg why hasnt my anime come out yet?!?? Im so mad"), but for now they are just wondering if the disaster affected their anime/manga (clearly it did). If you really wanna see some disgusting comments about the japan disasters click this link:http://www. unitedatheistfront. com/GodBle…
Ambridge
Nobody Is laughing not after gilbert godified said what you said as a joke he was fired from being the AFLAC duck how Insensitive and rude wanna say something not funny try to kill someone or curse don't be making a disaster of nuclear proportions as a joke nobody thinks that's funny.
Spring Lake
No your not overreacting, I am an anime fan as well but I care more for the people of Japan and not the Anime I have a friend that lives in Japan and I pray for his safety all the time.
North Fair Oaks
It just shows a sign that some people are very narrow minded and can't think outside their own little world. They are totally inserted into their illusions and don't like to deal with reality. Very one dimensional.
Macon
Not surprising. Many older people are equally detached, but smart enough not to put it out in the open. They're just young fools who hopefully won't grow up to be old fools.
New Albany
That's funny lol
Ballwin
yeah that's very cruel and selfish
Elmore
Yup its pretty nasty
Are the nuclear reactors in japan located underground?
Rimersburg
http://www. nytimes. com/2011/03/22/world/…The reason I ask is that in this photograph of Unit No. 3, there appears to be very little left but smoldering ruins. Is this part just the outer shell, and is the actual containment vessel underground?
East Palo Alto
Here is an informative article describing the situation, it also has some diagrams: http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…Note that the explosions were hydrogen gas explosions and were outside the containment vessel (unlike Chernobyl which had the hydrogen gas explosion inside the containment vessel because of poor reactor design). They blew away the outer shell of the building, but that's not part of the containment process. Given that the forty year old power plants were first subject to an earthquake five times the force they were designed for and then they were hit with a tsunami, they're actually doing incredibly well. It says a lot for the safety of nuclear power.
Atwood
Good question, but my understanding is the containment building is above ground and intact. I suspect the picture just doesn't show the containment building. The areas in the most trouble, from what I've read, were the spent fuel storage pools, which would be outside the containment building. The explosion (non-nuclear) might have cause the ruin shown in the picture. I would not trust the N. Y. Times to show an informative (rather than argumentative) picture.
Teaticket
nope all 6 are top ground see pic from google search. IT'S DOMED i call it operation sandman drop sand bag full of lead in the holes and make a concrete dome around the core's and fill it with concrete and a foot of lead on the outside to keep the radiation leakage low. http://www. techmagdaily. com/google-earth…http://www. wired. co. uk/news/archive/2011…http://www. bighaber. com/haber/3-nuclear-…
http://www. nytimes. com/2011/03/22/world/…The reason I ask is that in this photograph of Unit No. 3, there appears to be very little left but smoldering ruins. Is this part just the outer shell, and is the actual containment vessel underground?
East Palo Alto
Here is an informative article describing the situation, it also has some diagrams: http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…Note that the explosions were hydrogen gas explosions and were outside the containment vessel (unlike Chernobyl which had the hydrogen gas explosion inside the containment vessel because of poor reactor design). They blew away the outer shell of the building, but that's not part of the containment process. Given that the forty year old power plants were first subject to an earthquake five times the force they were designed for and then they were hit with a tsunami, they're actually doing incredibly well. It says a lot for the safety of nuclear power.
Atwood
Good question, but my understanding is the containment building is above ground and intact. I suspect the picture just doesn't show the containment building. The areas in the most trouble, from what I've read, were the spent fuel storage pools, which would be outside the containment building. The explosion (non-nuclear) might have cause the ruin shown in the picture. I would not trust the N. Y. Times to show an informative (rather than argumentative) picture.
Teaticket
nope all 6 are top ground see pic from google search. IT'S DOMED i call it operation sandman drop sand bag full of lead in the holes and make a concrete dome around the core's and fill it with concrete and a foot of lead on the outside to keep the radiation leakage low. http://www. techmagdaily. com/google-earth…http://www. wired. co. uk/news/archive/2011…http://www. bighaber. com/haber/3-nuclear-…
Will it be safe to live in japan after the they clean up all the radiation leaks and whatnot?
Comerнo
I want to go live in Tokyo, but after this terrible earthquake, and more seriously, the nuclear reactors baring, will it prove false safe to live filled up anytime a minute, without overlay long term effects pass on my health from the radiation leaks with the addition of such?
Ocean Beach
yea i bet it would
Summerfield
It's safe to go to Tokyo now. Only a small radius around the Fukushima nuclear plant is at low risk. However you cannot live in Tokyo without a work or student visa. I believe if you want to be a Japanese citizen you must also need to speak Japanese fluently. However you can still be a Japanese resident without being able to do that but you'll still need a job.
Beallsville
Study it. It depends on how much radiattion you get and whether or not they fixt he power plant which may take a while...so just wait and see. I was gonna go this summer but im not sure if i can go now becasue of the radiation it caused. the earthquake wasnt a problmes
Sherburn
.... Nuclear power can never be 100% safe, as we are seeing demonstrated right now in Japan. If it scares you (it does me) don't live near it. As to the extent of what is going on in Japan with the nuclear power plants, the end result is not yet known as the story is still ongoing. So far as we know right now it's just low levels of radiation that went up in steam and the likely outcome is their cancer rate is expected to rise over the next few decades. We are all praying the news won't get any worse. As of now though it is still relatively safe to live in Tokyo, not 50km near the nuclear plants but still radiation is very low and harmless so its safe.....for now
Laverne
-- and more seriously, the nuclear reactors You've got it backwards. The tsunami did most of the lay waste. The know-how plant problem is minimal. A small radius was evacuated, with the exception of the radiation there should betray gone in a few weeks. If anything, the environment shows how sure-fire nuclear power is. Consider that forty year elderly plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were prepared in the matter of and notwidhstanding they lethargic close up down safely. The generators came devise like they were suspected to when grid power was abridge. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup inactive worked with regabd to the designed eight hours. The snag happened when no avant-garde generators could be put introduce. Even so the problems beget been borderline--media scare mongering for ratings irresistibly withstanding. Here is an informative article recording the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find ongoing, manifest status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…Note primarily:"So, in epigrammatic: there are some explicit indications on the site; precautionary restrictions around the site dransmit stabilize eatables; with an increment of monitoring of the environment is long-lasting posolutely the drawing out territori with an increment of elbow sea. No meaningful risk to anthropoid constitution has been identified."
Cheswick
Most of Japan is safe now. Barring unforeseen circumstances, everywhere except the immediate vicinity of the damaged nuclear plant should be safe within a year or two.
Canby
You'll get more radiation from eating a banana, sleeping next to someone, or flying on a plane than you will from living in Japan.
Plymouth
Japan in general will be safe, but not Fukushima. Check out this site. Chernobyl is still abandoned to this day due to high radiation levels. (Chernobyl suffered a similar melt down in 1986):http://villageofjoy. com/chernobyl-today-…
Owl Creek
Of course it will be safe eventually, that is as safe as an earthquake prone area can be.
Freeburg
don't come to Japan if the radiation scares you, we sure as hell won't miss you at all.
I want to go live in Tokyo, but after this terrible earthquake, and more seriously, the nuclear reactors baring, will it prove false safe to live filled up anytime a minute, without overlay long term effects pass on my health from the radiation leaks with the addition of such?
Ocean Beach
yea i bet it would
Summerfield
It's safe to go to Tokyo now. Only a small radius around the Fukushima nuclear plant is at low risk. However you cannot live in Tokyo without a work or student visa. I believe if you want to be a Japanese citizen you must also need to speak Japanese fluently. However you can still be a Japanese resident without being able to do that but you'll still need a job.
Beallsville
Study it. It depends on how much radiattion you get and whether or not they fixt he power plant which may take a while...so just wait and see. I was gonna go this summer but im not sure if i can go now becasue of the radiation it caused. the earthquake wasnt a problmes
Sherburn
.... Nuclear power can never be 100% safe, as we are seeing demonstrated right now in Japan. If it scares you (it does me) don't live near it. As to the extent of what is going on in Japan with the nuclear power plants, the end result is not yet known as the story is still ongoing. So far as we know right now it's just low levels of radiation that went up in steam and the likely outcome is their cancer rate is expected to rise over the next few decades. We are all praying the news won't get any worse. As of now though it is still relatively safe to live in Tokyo, not 50km near the nuclear plants but still radiation is very low and harmless so its safe.....for now
Laverne
-- and more seriously, the nuclear reactors You've got it backwards. The tsunami did most of the lay waste. The know-how plant problem is minimal. A small radius was evacuated, with the exception of the radiation there should betray gone in a few weeks. If anything, the environment shows how sure-fire nuclear power is. Consider that forty year elderly plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were prepared in the matter of and notwidhstanding they lethargic close up down safely. The generators came devise like they were suspected to when grid power was abridge. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup inactive worked with regabd to the designed eight hours. The snag happened when no avant-garde generators could be put introduce. Even so the problems beget been borderline--media scare mongering for ratings irresistibly withstanding. Here is an informative article recording the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find ongoing, manifest status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…Note primarily:"So, in epigrammatic: there are some explicit indications on the site; precautionary restrictions around the site dransmit stabilize eatables; with an increment of monitoring of the environment is long-lasting posolutely the drawing out territori with an increment of elbow sea. No meaningful risk to anthropoid constitution has been identified."
Cheswick
Most of Japan is safe now. Barring unforeseen circumstances, everywhere except the immediate vicinity of the damaged nuclear plant should be safe within a year or two.
Canby
You'll get more radiation from eating a banana, sleeping next to someone, or flying on a plane than you will from living in Japan.
Plymouth
Japan in general will be safe, but not Fukushima. Check out this site. Chernobyl is still abandoned to this day due to high radiation levels. (Chernobyl suffered a similar melt down in 1986):http://villageofjoy. com/chernobyl-today-…
Owl Creek
Of course it will be safe eventually, that is as safe as an earthquake prone area can be.
Freeburg
don't come to Japan if the radiation scares you, we sure as hell won't miss you at all.
Now are you convinced that nuclear power plants are a bad idea?
Caledonia
An earthquake can happen anywhere on earth. Japan Nuclear Reactor EXPLOSION Fukushima Meltdown Radioactive FALLOUThttp://www. youtube. com/watch? v=LvC4WQrQw…Explosion at Japan nuke plant, disaster toll riseshttp://www. newstimes. com/news/article/Sh…BREAKING: EXPLOSION ROCKS NUCLEAR PLANT AT FUKUSHIMA
Grady
INJURIES, PLUMES OF SMOKE, WALLS COLLAPSEDhttp://www. bradblog. com/?p=8390
Carlisle
I already knew they were a bad idea. Nuclear energy is uneconomical compared to other sources. Plutonium is the most toxic substance in existence. The waste problem hasn't been solved. Nuclear reactors produce plutonium, together with plutonium is terrible because it behind be used grate on nerves make bombs. Nuclear reactors are predisposed to have accidents beside autocratic consequences for humanitarianism. (Doesn't sire to be decamp an earthquake.)Radiation retreat manipulation atomic reactors, uranium mining plus additional atomic activities mutilation selflessness. Energy forced to prove false generated locally moderately than by important knack stations. The risk grate on nerves an discontinuous informed on harm from a nuclear mishap is an unconsidered risk, as compared grate on nerves the much larger risk from propelling a vehicle, which is uncoerced. I am sickened to listen the bad info retire Japan. The pictures on tap Bradblog are brutal, alongside that whole building suddenly gone. You can see the belching forth hint at the video. Thanks in the matter of posting the urls. Hey, if you guys are all so mad as a March hare about them, push them in YOUR neighborhood, inevitably mine. fh
Ducor
No, actually, this shows how safe nuclear power actually is in tectonically stable areas. People have known for years that nuclear power in Japan, which sits on the ring of fire, is not really a good idea. If they wanted to do it correctly, they should have basically built better quality nuclear reactors (which do exist). But, I am sure they cut corners, to save money. That's the Japanese way. They knew very well they were taking a risk when they built the reactors, which is why they are right on the coast, where the fallout would predominately travel across the pacific ocean. Fortunately, from what I am reading, they have been able to keep the radiation level relatively low. (Although, what you read, and the truth are often two completely different things.) Overall, for the power it generates, nuclear is very safe, and can be made much safer in the future. So, again, my answer is no.
Avenal
This is a disaster waiting to happen. We are literally playing with fire. The accident at the Three Mile Island and the melt-down in Chernobyl had nothing to do with earthquakes. It costs over $2 billion to build a reactor and we still have not figured out how to safely store the radioactive rods. An old technology from the days of Cold War that is neither safe or cheap. In the era of Internet, there are decentralized technologies we can use to collect energy.
Ridgefield Park
No. Nuclear power still remains the safest and cleanest form of energy. All your options simply won't even work on the scale necessary to replace nuclear. We do need to pour money into energy research and we are, but we will likely never replace nuclear. Just as Chernobyl was not a good reason to get rid of nuclear plants neither was this. That there has not been a full blown meltdown resulting in thousands of deaths and serious radiation exposure just shows us how safe nuclear energy is under the worst conditions.
Grand Cane
No. How many people die in car accidents every year? NOW are you convinced drilling for oil is a bad idea? How many explosions are caused by natural gas every year? NOW are you convinced natural gas use is a bad idea? As soon as you figure out an effective, safe and profitable way to produce energy, let us know about it. We don't even know yet what's going on in Japan, there are no clear answers at the moment. Why don't we wait before you go around crying the sky is falling.
Hurley
You don't get to isolate one plant that was simply put in the wrong place as a way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reality just does not work that way. If you had asked the question, "Why isn't every single person who signed off on putting a nuclear power plant in one of the most seismically active places in the world PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW?" I'd have been on the same page with you. Using a bad example of something with which to form an argument against that thing just doesn't work.
Arrow Point
It proves how stupid humans really are. The Japanese considered one of the most engineering wise people on earth that building a nuke plant in a quake zone only needs to be built to the standards of the "average" quake strength not build it for "the big one".Fear not though when it melts down and begins to burn a hole in the earths crust the nearby sea will hopefully rush in to extinguish it.
Newberry
No, though building them on faultlines is probably not a great idea. They're still probably the least bad option, and almost certainly the cheapest, for electricity generation in the medium term.
Burlington
Show me where thorium is as volatile as Uranium and I will say that nuclear power is not the future. But you won't be able to do that. Thorium based nuclear energy is the best option out there by a long shot.
St. Elizabeth
Do you have a suggestion for a source of power that would be available in the amounts we need to support our economy? I am aware that it took an 8.9 quake to do this, how many of those have we had?
Browning
no. driving a car is 19 times more deadly than flying. NOW are you conviced that driving is a bad idea???typical liberal pap.
Green River
Near or on fault lines yes, other then that they are a proven source of safe energy for the USA. Other countries may be stupid, but we have been using nuclear power for many decades safely.
Hawaiian Acres
No, an 8.9 earthquake cannot happen anywhere on earth. You get to list this one under "shyte happens".
Chokoloskee
No. Some idiot stuck in in JAPAN. Seismically active. It took an 8.9 to take that sucker out. Largest one that nation has ever seen.
Everson
You make the same for building anything which would be dumb in my eyes.
Corning
No. We need power. Solar and wind isn't going to cut it.
La Salle
No.
Espino
No.
Sebastian
Nope
Cottage Grove
no
An earthquake can happen anywhere on earth. Japan Nuclear Reactor EXPLOSION Fukushima Meltdown Radioactive FALLOUThttp://www. youtube. com/watch? v=LvC4WQrQw…Explosion at Japan nuke plant, disaster toll riseshttp://www. newstimes. com/news/article/Sh…BREAKING: EXPLOSION ROCKS NUCLEAR PLANT AT FUKUSHIMA
Grady
INJURIES, PLUMES OF SMOKE, WALLS COLLAPSEDhttp://www. bradblog. com/?p=8390
Carlisle
I already knew they were a bad idea. Nuclear energy is uneconomical compared to other sources. Plutonium is the most toxic substance in existence. The waste problem hasn't been solved. Nuclear reactors produce plutonium, together with plutonium is terrible because it behind be used grate on nerves make bombs. Nuclear reactors are predisposed to have accidents beside autocratic consequences for humanitarianism. (Doesn't sire to be decamp an earthquake.)Radiation retreat manipulation atomic reactors, uranium mining plus additional atomic activities mutilation selflessness. Energy forced to prove false generated locally moderately than by important knack stations. The risk grate on nerves an discontinuous informed on harm from a nuclear mishap is an unconsidered risk, as compared grate on nerves the much larger risk from propelling a vehicle, which is uncoerced. I am sickened to listen the bad info retire Japan. The pictures on tap Bradblog are brutal, alongside that whole building suddenly gone. You can see the belching forth hint at the video. Thanks in the matter of posting the urls. Hey, if you guys are all so mad as a March hare about them, push them in YOUR neighborhood, inevitably mine. fh
Ducor
No, actually, this shows how safe nuclear power actually is in tectonically stable areas. People have known for years that nuclear power in Japan, which sits on the ring of fire, is not really a good idea. If they wanted to do it correctly, they should have basically built better quality nuclear reactors (which do exist). But, I am sure they cut corners, to save money. That's the Japanese way. They knew very well they were taking a risk when they built the reactors, which is why they are right on the coast, where the fallout would predominately travel across the pacific ocean. Fortunately, from what I am reading, they have been able to keep the radiation level relatively low. (Although, what you read, and the truth are often two completely different things.) Overall, for the power it generates, nuclear is very safe, and can be made much safer in the future. So, again, my answer is no.
Avenal
This is a disaster waiting to happen. We are literally playing with fire. The accident at the Three Mile Island and the melt-down in Chernobyl had nothing to do with earthquakes. It costs over $2 billion to build a reactor and we still have not figured out how to safely store the radioactive rods. An old technology from the days of Cold War that is neither safe or cheap. In the era of Internet, there are decentralized technologies we can use to collect energy.
Ridgefield Park
No. Nuclear power still remains the safest and cleanest form of energy. All your options simply won't even work on the scale necessary to replace nuclear. We do need to pour money into energy research and we are, but we will likely never replace nuclear. Just as Chernobyl was not a good reason to get rid of nuclear plants neither was this. That there has not been a full blown meltdown resulting in thousands of deaths and serious radiation exposure just shows us how safe nuclear energy is under the worst conditions.
Grand Cane
No. How many people die in car accidents every year? NOW are you convinced drilling for oil is a bad idea? How many explosions are caused by natural gas every year? NOW are you convinced natural gas use is a bad idea? As soon as you figure out an effective, safe and profitable way to produce energy, let us know about it. We don't even know yet what's going on in Japan, there are no clear answers at the moment. Why don't we wait before you go around crying the sky is falling.
Hurley
You don't get to isolate one plant that was simply put in the wrong place as a way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reality just does not work that way. If you had asked the question, "Why isn't every single person who signed off on putting a nuclear power plant in one of the most seismically active places in the world PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW?" I'd have been on the same page with you. Using a bad example of something with which to form an argument against that thing just doesn't work.
Arrow Point
It proves how stupid humans really are. The Japanese considered one of the most engineering wise people on earth that building a nuke plant in a quake zone only needs to be built to the standards of the "average" quake strength not build it for "the big one".Fear not though when it melts down and begins to burn a hole in the earths crust the nearby sea will hopefully rush in to extinguish it.
Newberry
No, though building them on faultlines is probably not a great idea. They're still probably the least bad option, and almost certainly the cheapest, for electricity generation in the medium term.
Burlington
Show me where thorium is as volatile as Uranium and I will say that nuclear power is not the future. But you won't be able to do that. Thorium based nuclear energy is the best option out there by a long shot.
St. Elizabeth
Do you have a suggestion for a source of power that would be available in the amounts we need to support our economy? I am aware that it took an 8.9 quake to do this, how many of those have we had?
Browning
no. driving a car is 19 times more deadly than flying. NOW are you conviced that driving is a bad idea???typical liberal pap.
Green River
Near or on fault lines yes, other then that they are a proven source of safe energy for the USA. Other countries may be stupid, but we have been using nuclear power for many decades safely.
Hawaiian Acres
No, an 8.9 earthquake cannot happen anywhere on earth. You get to list this one under "shyte happens".
Chokoloskee
No. Some idiot stuck in in JAPAN. Seismically active. It took an 8.9 to take that sucker out. Largest one that nation has ever seen.
Everson
You make the same for building anything which would be dumb in my eyes.
Corning
No. We need power. Solar and wind isn't going to cut it.
La Salle
No.
Espino
No.
Sebastian
Nope
Cottage Grove
no
What would happen to japan if the nuclear reactors reached critical and explodedmeltdown?
Hartleton
I've been watching the news and all that and I'm just curious that if either happened what would happen to the surrounding area, how far the disaster would reach, how badly it would effect the country, etc. so can someone explain it to me?
Bayonne
fortunately, the vast majority of people in a large exclusion zone have been evacuated so the loss of human life would be far lower than it could be. however, the long term saftey of animal and vegetable products would be in doubt, and they would probably have to import a lot more of their food supplies. the surrounding villages would probably not be rebuilt, there would be a dead abandonned zone around the fukushima plants. i expect the incidnence of thyroid cancer and birth defects would go up. likely, nculear power for old reactors would be in question across japan. Licencese for plant life extension in europe and all over the world would also be under scrutiny and it is likely that there would be some change in regulations regarding how long old nuclear power plants are allowed to continue operating as a result. ironically, i expect japan would have to build more nuclear reactors grate on nerves supply the performance lost hard by the steadfast shutdown of 6 plants. many survivors would not at all exchange stand behind grate on nerves their dwelling-place towns. the japanese economy would go into deep recession. life would go make over though, other than i don't conjure up people would move back to the area on the subject of a good 20 years, perchance those concerning whom dhe whole shooting match they've got is broach that neighbourhood. i think the majority on to folks would try grate on nerves cut their losses, get as much back on insurance as workable, added to live elsewhere.
St. Donatus
They'll probably resort to what they did in Chernobyl: fill the entire area with sand and concrete.. that way instead of the radiation escaping, it will stay in the ground (the actual rod will melt through the steel container, through the floor, and into the ground and then covered with sand), although this will affect Japan horribly, it will help the rest of the world.. They probably won't be able to farm in the northern half of the country for a long long time. The people evacuated would probably be permanently relocated. The factories and business shut down would be closed, the economy would most likely plummet. This affects the whole world on a grand scale. This is why everyone is trying to frantically keep this reactor under control.
New Salem
If the reactors "explode" it will release radioactive material which can be bad for health depending on how radioactive the material is. Everyone is exposed to tiny amounts of background radiation in day to day life it would need to be 500x normal amount to cause cancer etc and 2500x to cause death within a week (although this is extremely unlikely to happen in this case) the distant around the reactors of 19 miles is being evacuated to try and minimise casualties. It will most likely only affect this area unless the wind changes and blows the cloud over tokyo etc then the risk or casualties will be a lot higher. They are hoping the cloud will blow into the pacific ocean to disperse the radiation. It is wiping billions off the stock market every day it will take japan a while to recover from this. I hope this answers your question and please don't worry as it's unlikely to affect us health wise :)
Farmington
A large area around the plant would have so much problems with radiation poisoning so that everyone leaves and that location is made unlivable. This would be similar to what happened in Chernobyl.
Conyers
Japan will get a huge *ss rape when that happens. Japan will either shove it off, ask for mental help, or go completely insane and destroy itself.
I've been watching the news and all that and I'm just curious that if either happened what would happen to the surrounding area, how far the disaster would reach, how badly it would effect the country, etc. so can someone explain it to me?
Bayonne
fortunately, the vast majority of people in a large exclusion zone have been evacuated so the loss of human life would be far lower than it could be. however, the long term saftey of animal and vegetable products would be in doubt, and they would probably have to import a lot more of their food supplies. the surrounding villages would probably not be rebuilt, there would be a dead abandonned zone around the fukushima plants. i expect the incidnence of thyroid cancer and birth defects would go up. likely, nculear power for old reactors would be in question across japan. Licencese for plant life extension in europe and all over the world would also be under scrutiny and it is likely that there would be some change in regulations regarding how long old nuclear power plants are allowed to continue operating as a result. ironically, i expect japan would have to build more nuclear reactors grate on nerves supply the performance lost hard by the steadfast shutdown of 6 plants. many survivors would not at all exchange stand behind grate on nerves their dwelling-place towns. the japanese economy would go into deep recession. life would go make over though, other than i don't conjure up people would move back to the area on the subject of a good 20 years, perchance those concerning whom dhe whole shooting match they've got is broach that neighbourhood. i think the majority on to folks would try grate on nerves cut their losses, get as much back on insurance as workable, added to live elsewhere.
St. Donatus
They'll probably resort to what they did in Chernobyl: fill the entire area with sand and concrete.. that way instead of the radiation escaping, it will stay in the ground (the actual rod will melt through the steel container, through the floor, and into the ground and then covered with sand), although this will affect Japan horribly, it will help the rest of the world.. They probably won't be able to farm in the northern half of the country for a long long time. The people evacuated would probably be permanently relocated. The factories and business shut down would be closed, the economy would most likely plummet. This affects the whole world on a grand scale. This is why everyone is trying to frantically keep this reactor under control.
New Salem
If the reactors "explode" it will release radioactive material which can be bad for health depending on how radioactive the material is. Everyone is exposed to tiny amounts of background radiation in day to day life it would need to be 500x normal amount to cause cancer etc and 2500x to cause death within a week (although this is extremely unlikely to happen in this case) the distant around the reactors of 19 miles is being evacuated to try and minimise casualties. It will most likely only affect this area unless the wind changes and blows the cloud over tokyo etc then the risk or casualties will be a lot higher. They are hoping the cloud will blow into the pacific ocean to disperse the radiation. It is wiping billions off the stock market every day it will take japan a while to recover from this. I hope this answers your question and please don't worry as it's unlikely to affect us health wise :)
Farmington
A large area around the plant would have so much problems with radiation poisoning so that everyone leaves and that location is made unlivable. This would be similar to what happened in Chernobyl.
Conyers
Japan will get a huge *ss rape when that happens. Japan will either shove it off, ask for mental help, or go completely insane and destroy itself.
Why does japan rely on nuclear energy so much what about hydrosolarwind etc? are they widely used in japan?
Lakeview
I know Japan doesn't have very many natural resources in the way of gas, oil etc but what about the above mentioned options such as huge wind turbine "farms", solar energy, hydroelectric energy? No offence but isn't it rather silly to build nuclear reactors touch on such an earthquake prone area? Here introduce Ireland we professor't use nuclear energy and we definitely lecturer't use enough sustainable vigour, I'm inexorably in all respects disinclined to nuclear but if we did in any case arbitrate to take durns that way at tiniest we'referring to not in an earthquake minded zone. It's terrible what happened in Japan added to it's awful what could yet come across due to diffusion but surely that could sire been foreseen as Japan is bring up an earthquake zone? Thanks.
Aurora
Solar water heaters are popular in Japan. There are wind turbines, and hydro dams on every river worth damming. Geothermal and tidal have their projects as well. However solar obviously doesn't work at night, and it isn't always windy. A reactor turns out electricity 24/7, rain or shine. Therefore wind turbines, etc. can add electricity to a grid, but not anchor it. No matter where they are installed wind turbines are mostly just for show, they need %100 backup from another source of energy. Solar water heaters on the other hand can heat up a tank of water every day and it stays warm overnight. I really doubt that Japan will turn away from nuclear due to the incident at Fukushima #1, which is 40 years old. Therefore the argument will be that it is time to construct a new generation of safer reactors that incorporate the lessons learned from this incident.
Alpena
Well Try this link :) http://u96.info/gas-oil
Alva
Think about it...please....If there was a better way, they'd already be using it.
Chignik Lake
Solar energy is used in Japan a lot, many people have solar panels in the roof of their house. No good in northern areas or during the winter though and the energy gathered this way is a mere drop in the ocean in terms of Japans power needs. There are hydroelectric dams but again this doesn't generate enough power and the recent calamity shows dams are also breached during earthquakes. Japan spends a fortune on importing gas, coal and oil from abroad and are trying to cut down on this by planning to build more atomic reactors (as is the UK) ergo not to have confidence in will other countries concerning faculty. Japan has no recourse but to use nuclear adeptness, and utmost of Japan is forest weedy mountains, momentary of which is impossible to clear for simple logistical purposes.
I know Japan doesn't have very many natural resources in the way of gas, oil etc but what about the above mentioned options such as huge wind turbine "farms", solar energy, hydroelectric energy? No offence but isn't it rather silly to build nuclear reactors touch on such an earthquake prone area? Here introduce Ireland we professor't use nuclear energy and we definitely lecturer't use enough sustainable vigour, I'm inexorably in all respects disinclined to nuclear but if we did in any case arbitrate to take durns that way at tiniest we'referring to not in an earthquake minded zone. It's terrible what happened in Japan added to it's awful what could yet come across due to diffusion but surely that could sire been foreseen as Japan is bring up an earthquake zone? Thanks.
Aurora
Solar water heaters are popular in Japan. There are wind turbines, and hydro dams on every river worth damming. Geothermal and tidal have their projects as well. However solar obviously doesn't work at night, and it isn't always windy. A reactor turns out electricity 24/7, rain or shine. Therefore wind turbines, etc. can add electricity to a grid, but not anchor it. No matter where they are installed wind turbines are mostly just for show, they need %100 backup from another source of energy. Solar water heaters on the other hand can heat up a tank of water every day and it stays warm overnight. I really doubt that Japan will turn away from nuclear due to the incident at Fukushima #1, which is 40 years old. Therefore the argument will be that it is time to construct a new generation of safer reactors that incorporate the lessons learned from this incident.
Alpena
Well Try this link :) http://u96.info/gas-oil
Alva
Think about it...please....If there was a better way, they'd already be using it.
Chignik Lake
Solar energy is used in Japan a lot, many people have solar panels in the roof of their house. No good in northern areas or during the winter though and the energy gathered this way is a mere drop in the ocean in terms of Japans power needs. There are hydroelectric dams but again this doesn't generate enough power and the recent calamity shows dams are also breached during earthquakes. Japan spends a fortune on importing gas, coal and oil from abroad and are trying to cut down on this by planning to build more atomic reactors (as is the UK) ergo not to have confidence in will other countries concerning faculty. Japan has no recourse but to use nuclear adeptness, and utmost of Japan is forest weedy mountains, momentary of which is impossible to clear for simple logistical purposes.
How is the radioation leaking from the nuclear reactors in japan?
Oak Hill
what is the reason of the radio ation being leaked in japan? what is wrong with the reactors?
Houston Lake
What's radio ation?
Dike
What is wrong with the power plants is that they were in an earthquake five times as strong as the level they were designed for and then got hit by a giant tsunami. Actually, they've stood up really well considering what happened. Here is an informative article describing the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find current, factual status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:http://www. xkcd. com/radiation/
Mapleton
In short: Cooling got shut off to places like the containment and spent fuel rod pool. This caused heat to build up which eventually damaged the structure exposing radioactive material to the outside air.
Dooling
We are not scientists - we only see what you see on the news
what is the reason of the radio ation being leaked in japan? what is wrong with the reactors?
Houston Lake
What's radio ation?
Dike
What is wrong with the power plants is that they were in an earthquake five times as strong as the level they were designed for and then got hit by a giant tsunami. Actually, they've stood up really well considering what happened. Here is an informative article describing the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find current, factual status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:http://www. xkcd. com/radiation/
Mapleton
In short: Cooling got shut off to places like the containment and spent fuel rod pool. This caused heat to build up which eventually damaged the structure exposing radioactive material to the outside air.
Dooling
We are not scientists - we only see what you see on the news
Why dont we use pius process inherent ultimate safety nuclear reactors?
Camilla
I was thinking of this lately due to the disaster in Japan and their Nuclear power problems. PIUS works the Sweetish guy came up with the idea in the 70's and no one has wanted to use this method because of the lack of welding power it hypothetically can produce.
Tortolita
I'm not too familiar with PIUS. As I understand the major safety feature was a "passive" or natural circulation cooling system that didn't require pumps in event of an emergency shutdown. Anyway, as you're probably aware, the problem with all water cooled reactors is the core continues to produce large amounts of heat after it's shut down. Even when there is no active fission taking place. This is due to the decay of short-lived fission products. The fuel will continue to produce significant heat for months, and will produce SOME heat for as long as it remains heavily radioactive. For this reason, the "scrammed" core needs to be actively cooled with thousands of gal./ min, or else it can still easily melt down. Pressurized light water reactors and boiling light water reactors are in a sense evolutionary generation 2 designs, They are descended from reactors designed expressly to produce plutonium. (In fact, spent fuel from most boiling water reactors contains maybe 1% Pu, as I understand it.) We use these kinds because they're supposedly "proven technology." (In this case, I believe "proven" means we've demonstrated their fatal flaws through application of Murphy's Law.)(Side note: it's an interesting fact that the majority of energy from current reactors comes from the creation, then fission, of Plutonium, and not from the uranium itself. The U-235 acts as a "seed' that gets the reaction going, and in a typical fuel cycle 5% or less of the U-235 is burned. Plutonium has a significantly larger "fission cross section" for neutrons. The reason fuel needs to be removed is some of the fission products that build up over time are neutron absorbing "poisons" that gradually halt the chain reaction. This is why fuel-reprocessing is a useful activity. Without the buildup of fission products the uranium fuel would actually get MORE reactive over time.)The amount of design, concept testing, and legal/regulatory red tape a new rector design is currently required to go through is monstrous, gigantic, very prohibitive. Most proposed reactor designs have never and will never see light for this reason. This is the same reason almost no new reactors have been built in the US in almost 30 years. That, and popular fears which may not be as paranoid as they seem. Even today the cost of fuel reflects less than 1/10 the cost per kWh of nuclear electricity, over the life of a plant. "natural circulation reactors" would be something of an improvement over the most popular designs. There's still a possible drawback. The direct reactor coolant would need to be in a closed-loop system since it would be heavily contaminated with radioactive substances from the core. The primary coolant itself would still need to be cooled continuously to avoid a boil-over, and subsequent loss of coolant as seen in both the TMI and Fukushima reactors. I'm not aware if PIUS accomplishes secondary cooling through natural circulation as well. PUIS describes itself as not being a major redesign of the inner workings of the core itself, only of the ancillary cooling systems. I feel that the current "gen 2 plus" canadian CANDU designs are safer than PIUS, so far they have an outstanding, though limited safety record. CANDU places individual fuel elements in their own separate pressurized tubes. In a way it's like having almost a hundred separate containment pressure vessels. the array of pressurized tubes is placed in a large pool of heavy water which acts as both a neutron moderator and a passive safety device. In this design, damage or even complete melting of one or two fuel elements within it's individual pressure tube is unlikely to affect the safety of the entire core, and can easily be repaired. Total core loss is rather unlikely, neither a major release of contaminated steam and/or hydrogen. this is due to the relatively low density of fuel in the rector compared with the volume of water surrounding it. Oak Ridge Laboratories operated an interesting experimental reactor called the "molten salt reactor." This would be conceivably much safer than a water reactor since the fuel itself is already liquid. This makes passive safety measures a lot simpler. For example a "freeze plug" that melts and dumps the fuel into a large tank filled with sodium borate.
I was thinking of this lately due to the disaster in Japan and their Nuclear power problems. PIUS works the Sweetish guy came up with the idea in the 70's and no one has wanted to use this method because of the lack of welding power it hypothetically can produce.
Tortolita
I'm not too familiar with PIUS. As I understand the major safety feature was a "passive" or natural circulation cooling system that didn't require pumps in event of an emergency shutdown. Anyway, as you're probably aware, the problem with all water cooled reactors is the core continues to produce large amounts of heat after it's shut down. Even when there is no active fission taking place. This is due to the decay of short-lived fission products. The fuel will continue to produce significant heat for months, and will produce SOME heat for as long as it remains heavily radioactive. For this reason, the "scrammed" core needs to be actively cooled with thousands of gal./ min, or else it can still easily melt down. Pressurized light water reactors and boiling light water reactors are in a sense evolutionary generation 2 designs, They are descended from reactors designed expressly to produce plutonium. (In fact, spent fuel from most boiling water reactors contains maybe 1% Pu, as I understand it.) We use these kinds because they're supposedly "proven technology." (In this case, I believe "proven" means we've demonstrated their fatal flaws through application of Murphy's Law.)(Side note: it's an interesting fact that the majority of energy from current reactors comes from the creation, then fission, of Plutonium, and not from the uranium itself. The U-235 acts as a "seed' that gets the reaction going, and in a typical fuel cycle 5% or less of the U-235 is burned. Plutonium has a significantly larger "fission cross section" for neutrons. The reason fuel needs to be removed is some of the fission products that build up over time are neutron absorbing "poisons" that gradually halt the chain reaction. This is why fuel-reprocessing is a useful activity. Without the buildup of fission products the uranium fuel would actually get MORE reactive over time.)The amount of design, concept testing, and legal/regulatory red tape a new rector design is currently required to go through is monstrous, gigantic, very prohibitive. Most proposed reactor designs have never and will never see light for this reason. This is the same reason almost no new reactors have been built in the US in almost 30 years. That, and popular fears which may not be as paranoid as they seem. Even today the cost of fuel reflects less than 1/10 the cost per kWh of nuclear electricity, over the life of a plant. "natural circulation reactors" would be something of an improvement over the most popular designs. There's still a possible drawback. The direct reactor coolant would need to be in a closed-loop system since it would be heavily contaminated with radioactive substances from the core. The primary coolant itself would still need to be cooled continuously to avoid a boil-over, and subsequent loss of coolant as seen in both the TMI and Fukushima reactors. I'm not aware if PIUS accomplishes secondary cooling through natural circulation as well. PUIS describes itself as not being a major redesign of the inner workings of the core itself, only of the ancillary cooling systems. I feel that the current "gen 2 plus" canadian CANDU designs are safer than PIUS, so far they have an outstanding, though limited safety record. CANDU places individual fuel elements in their own separate pressurized tubes. In a way it's like having almost a hundred separate containment pressure vessels. the array of pressurized tubes is placed in a large pool of heavy water which acts as both a neutron moderator and a passive safety device. In this design, damage or even complete melting of one or two fuel elements within it's individual pressure tube is unlikely to affect the safety of the entire core, and can easily be repaired. Total core loss is rather unlikely, neither a major release of contaminated steam and/or hydrogen. this is due to the relatively low density of fuel in the rector compared with the volume of water surrounding it. Oak Ridge Laboratories operated an interesting experimental reactor called the "molten salt reactor." This would be conceivably much safer than a water reactor since the fuel itself is already liquid. This makes passive safety measures a lot simpler. For example a "freeze plug" that melts and dumps the fuel into a large tank filled with sodium borate.
Will radiation emitted from the nuclear reactors in japan turn people into super mutants?
St. Joe
You know like turning green, talking slow and dumb, wielding clubs and hunting rifles.
Clarence
You have watched too many movies. You'll get more radiation from your microwave oven. Here is a factual article: http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…
Madisonville
you dummy, japan needs to be taken seriously, not turned into a idiodic joke!
Perry
Time will only tell. But I hope their government will avoid this situation where babies are born with unspeakable health conditions that cause nothing but suffering and death. We will know in the next 5 - 10 yrs from now. My God Protect The Nation Of Japan
Gilroy
as a founding member and lead scientist of the chernobyl international monitoring committee I'm afraid to report that we have we have not yet seen any evidence of this, although many of us are still hopeful.
Clinton
NopeThey will just die a horrible deathSo please don't fun of this event. Next time it could be you!!!Cheers from DOWNUNDER
You know like turning green, talking slow and dumb, wielding clubs and hunting rifles.
Clarence
You have watched too many movies. You'll get more radiation from your microwave oven. Here is a factual article: http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…
Madisonville
you dummy, japan needs to be taken seriously, not turned into a idiodic joke!
Perry
Time will only tell. But I hope their government will avoid this situation where babies are born with unspeakable health conditions that cause nothing but suffering and death. We will know in the next 5 - 10 yrs from now. My God Protect The Nation Of Japan
Gilroy
as a founding member and lead scientist of the chernobyl international monitoring committee I'm afraid to report that we have we have not yet seen any evidence of this, although many of us are still hopeful.
Clinton
NopeThey will just die a horrible deathSo please don't fun of this event. Next time it could be you!!!Cheers from DOWNUNDER
Why arent nuclear reactors and spent fuel storage built below water level?
Oto
I'm talking about reactors of the type that's in trouble in Japan. It seems that they're usually built next to a reliable body of water. Why aren't they built below the water level so that in a crisis situation like this, they have gravity working for them and can keep water flowing into the reactor indefinitely and without external power? I must be missing something, because it seems so obvious....
Senoia
Gravity feed for emergency cooling of reactor IS a good idea and used in 3rd generation designs of power plant nuclear reactors; its called lazy emergency cooling. However, this is done close to means of tanks of water positioned above the reactor. And altho passive means of chilling is finished inexorably w/o aux power and w/o operator control - this is only achievable for a limited time = 3-future before the tanks run dry and need refilling.
Anaheim
Reactors are built near large water sources (Oceans) but on directly connected to them. There is always a desalination plant built in proximity to filter and purify the water before it is brought in. And there is always a set of cooling towers and a retaining pool of some sort at the output to allow the water to cool to a normal temperatures after having been used to cool the plant. Building under the water table near the ocean is both cost prohibitive and the plant is then under constant environmental risk from the corrosive effects of seawater. You did happen to notice that the plant in Japan survived the earthquake with minimal damage. The problem is really the cooling of both the reactors and the spent-fuel containment facility. I wish the media would do more to that the explosions have been hydrogen and not containment facility breeches.
Indian Harbour Beach
You're missing quite a few things::1- Building a reactor underground would be enormously expensive and add even more technical challenges to the already-difficult exercise of building and operating it in the first place. Maintenance, modification, and expansion would be extremely difficult.2- The situation you suggest would flood the reactor entirely, which would be as much of a problem as the meltdown itself
Holiday
That would risk contaminating the entire water table. You don't want to let radioactive materials loose in a major body of water, which is what you're connected to if you're below water level.
I'm talking about reactors of the type that's in trouble in Japan. It seems that they're usually built next to a reliable body of water. Why aren't they built below the water level so that in a crisis situation like this, they have gravity working for them and can keep water flowing into the reactor indefinitely and without external power? I must be missing something, because it seems so obvious....
Senoia
Gravity feed for emergency cooling of reactor IS a good idea and used in 3rd generation designs of power plant nuclear reactors; its called lazy emergency cooling. However, this is done close to means of tanks of water positioned above the reactor. And altho passive means of chilling is finished inexorably w/o aux power and w/o operator control - this is only achievable for a limited time = 3-future before the tanks run dry and need refilling.
Anaheim
Reactors are built near large water sources (Oceans) but on directly connected to them. There is always a desalination plant built in proximity to filter and purify the water before it is brought in. And there is always a set of cooling towers and a retaining pool of some sort at the output to allow the water to cool to a normal temperatures after having been used to cool the plant. Building under the water table near the ocean is both cost prohibitive and the plant is then under constant environmental risk from the corrosive effects of seawater. You did happen to notice that the plant in Japan survived the earthquake with minimal damage. The problem is really the cooling of both the reactors and the spent-fuel containment facility. I wish the media would do more to that the explosions have been hydrogen and not containment facility breeches.
Indian Harbour Beach
You're missing quite a few things::1- Building a reactor underground would be enormously expensive and add even more technical challenges to the already-difficult exercise of building and operating it in the first place. Maintenance, modification, and expansion would be extremely difficult.2- The situation you suggest would flood the reactor entirely, which would be as much of a problem as the meltdown itself
Holiday
That would risk contaminating the entire water table. You don't want to let radioactive materials loose in a major body of water, which is what you're connected to if you're below water level.
How will pr0gressives capitalize on japan once the nuclear reactors finally explode?
Calvert City
And how will they use this crisis to further their globalist agenda
Onyx
The nuclear reactors won't explode unless the current laws of physics are repealed close to a eleemosynary congress.
Surfside
Head out towards the notable landmark that is Grimes Memorial. One of the most remarkable this city some of the most exciting photo backgrounds, the Grimes Memorial at 121 Bud road is rich and impressive. This landmark is famous for its exciting visits. It is some of the most notable photo backgrounds in Kishimoto.
Pavo
No. But the "capitalists" will be lined up, for GOVERNMENT money, to rebuild dangerous newklear power plants. Don't you find it ironic that the richest capitalists made their money off the public dime?
Karluk
The plan is to convert all of the Japanese to Scientology. There is some serious money to be made with religion.
Nazareth
Maybe a-little less libertarian reactiveism next time don`t put the nuke plant on the coast that has earthquake activity.
Mayfield
they wont explode. they will meltdownit is not a bomb
And how will they use this crisis to further their globalist agenda
Onyx
The nuclear reactors won't explode unless the current laws of physics are repealed close to a eleemosynary congress.
Surfside
Head out towards the notable landmark that is Grimes Memorial. One of the most remarkable this city some of the most exciting photo backgrounds, the Grimes Memorial at 121 Bud road is rich and impressive. This landmark is famous for its exciting visits. It is some of the most notable photo backgrounds in Kishimoto.
Pavo
No. But the "capitalists" will be lined up, for GOVERNMENT money, to rebuild dangerous newklear power plants. Don't you find it ironic that the richest capitalists made their money off the public dime?
Karluk
The plan is to convert all of the Japanese to Scientology. There is some serious money to be made with religion.
Nazareth
Maybe a-little less libertarian reactiveism next time don`t put the nuke plant on the coast that has earthquake activity.
Mayfield
they wont explode. they will meltdownit is not a bomb
Looting during haiti and new orleans disasters but none in nashville floods and japanese earthquake?
Eldersburg
I'm honestly curious...Could it be partly because of cultural values? (Haiti is poorer, so possibly they're used to using desperate measures to combat starvation, death, etc. Japan and Nashville are more affluent, so looting and such acts seem more foreign to them?) (or the higher emphasis on discipline/honor?)I know it's not an economic reason since the disaster was even worse in Japan than Haiti(They were in a more desperate situation due to Nuclear Reactors and more compacted cities with massively larger buildings).
Wahneta
There you go you answered your own question. Japan is Rich...Haiti is Poor. Cultural differences also play apart of it. Japanese are quiet, peaceful people. They are more United. Lmao that reminds me of when some stupid people in America looted over the Lakers Win Over Celtics game. Cultural differences.
Camp Douglas
Yes, it's cultural values. Though I do remind you that there was a severe amount of Looting during the Christchurch Earthquakes in New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly affluent society
Willow Springs
illusuion do not compare ppl
I'm honestly curious...Could it be partly because of cultural values? (Haiti is poorer, so possibly they're used to using desperate measures to combat starvation, death, etc. Japan and Nashville are more affluent, so looting and such acts seem more foreign to them?) (or the higher emphasis on discipline/honor?)I know it's not an economic reason since the disaster was even worse in Japan than Haiti(They were in a more desperate situation due to Nuclear Reactors and more compacted cities with massively larger buildings).
Wahneta
There you go you answered your own question. Japan is Rich...Haiti is Poor. Cultural differences also play apart of it. Japanese are quiet, peaceful people. They are more United. Lmao that reminds me of when some stupid people in America looted over the Lakers Win Over Celtics game. Cultural differences.
Camp Douglas
Yes, it's cultural values. Though I do remind you that there was a severe amount of Looting during the Christchurch Earthquakes in New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly affluent society
Willow Springs
illusuion do not compare ppl
Why and how did the nuclear reactors in japan fukushima partially meltdown?
Luther
i need an answer quick! Why and how did the nuclear reactors introduce Japan (Fukushima) partially meltdown? divert include full and precise widen. Information forth a website please as i have to write a bibliography regarding each reply. I backside't remember hugely but our don vocalized something involving the tsunami and earthquake (obviously), cool air, a fuel pool, leaks, fuel rods had to do with this. thanks!
Hartford
In nuclear reactors, the "fuel" is a fissionable substance such as uranium235. Typically uranium is enriched to about 3% uranium235 & then used in the form of UO2 pellets. These enriched uranium pellets are encased in zirconium or stainless steel tubes. Rods composed of materials such as cadmium or boron control the fission process by absorbing neutrons. These control rods regualte the flux of neutrons to keep the reaction chain self-sustaining while preventing the reactor core from overheating. The reactor is started by a neutron-emitting source; it is stopped by inserting the control rods more deeply into the reactor core, the site of the fission. The reactor core also contains a moderator which acts to slow down the neutrons so that thay can be captured more readily by the fuel. A cooling liquid circulates through the reactor core to carry off the heat generated by the nuclear fission. Most of the time the reactor core which contains the control rods, fuel rods & circulating cooling fluid cannot reach supercritical levels and explode which the violence of an atomic bomb (full meltdown) because the concentration of uranium 235 is too low. However if the core overheats sufficient damage might be done to release radioactive materials into the environment (partial meltdown) which is what is happening in the case of Japan. The tsunami & earthquake has damaged the electrical connections in the reactor, the primary coolant which passes through the core is in low levels in the reactor core. Hence the fuel rods faces a risk of overheating & burning their way through the steel pressure vessel reactor core they are confined in. That is why Japan is trying hard now to pour seawater into the plant to keep the fuel rods inside the reactor core from being exposed to the air where they could reach critical stage and go into full meltdown.
Rosalie
Here is an informative article describing the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find current, factual status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:http://www. xkcd. com/radiation/Polly, great answer, but one point. The seawater has now been replaced with freshwater, except for the storage pools.
Parkton
Made in America. Look up GE BWE reactors and their design flaw on CNN or google.
i need an answer quick! Why and how did the nuclear reactors introduce Japan (Fukushima) partially meltdown? divert include full and precise widen. Information forth a website please as i have to write a bibliography regarding each reply. I backside't remember hugely but our don vocalized something involving the tsunami and earthquake (obviously), cool air, a fuel pool, leaks, fuel rods had to do with this. thanks!
Hartford
In nuclear reactors, the "fuel" is a fissionable substance such as uranium235. Typically uranium is enriched to about 3% uranium235 & then used in the form of UO2 pellets. These enriched uranium pellets are encased in zirconium or stainless steel tubes. Rods composed of materials such as cadmium or boron control the fission process by absorbing neutrons. These control rods regualte the flux of neutrons to keep the reaction chain self-sustaining while preventing the reactor core from overheating. The reactor is started by a neutron-emitting source; it is stopped by inserting the control rods more deeply into the reactor core, the site of the fission. The reactor core also contains a moderator which acts to slow down the neutrons so that thay can be captured more readily by the fuel. A cooling liquid circulates through the reactor core to carry off the heat generated by the nuclear fission. Most of the time the reactor core which contains the control rods, fuel rods & circulating cooling fluid cannot reach supercritical levels and explode which the violence of an atomic bomb (full meltdown) because the concentration of uranium 235 is too low. However if the core overheats sufficient damage might be done to release radioactive materials into the environment (partial meltdown) which is what is happening in the case of Japan. The tsunami & earthquake has damaged the electrical connections in the reactor, the primary coolant which passes through the core is in low levels in the reactor core. Hence the fuel rods faces a risk of overheating & burning their way through the steel pressure vessel reactor core they are confined in. That is why Japan is trying hard now to pour seawater into the plant to keep the fuel rods inside the reactor core from being exposed to the air where they could reach critical stage and go into full meltdown.
Rosalie
Here is an informative article describing the situation:http://bravenewclimate. com/2011/03/13/fu…And here is where you find current, factual status information:http://www. iaea. org/newscenter/news/tsun…And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:http://www. xkcd. com/radiation/Polly, great answer, but one point. The seawater has now been replaced with freshwater, except for the storage pools.
Parkton
Made in America. Look up GE BWE reactors and their design flaw on CNN or google.
How can nuclear fuel rods be exposed yet radiation levels remain low?
Kirtland
I know Japan has a full plate right now and public panic isn't in the interest of keeping order, but there is no way fuel rods can be out in the open air environment even having ocean water poured on them creating steam, yet have radiation remain at safe levels. I think nuclear power plants could be made safe and could be a viable energy option. However if it becomes acceptable practice to lie to the public about radiation exposure I am fully against it. I want to see the video of the guy next to the reactor with a radiation counter to show that levels are safe. Lying to the public is potential genocide.
Timber Lake
I think these Japanese scientists 'are playing-down/lying' regarding this event - so not not too panic the public - how can exposed' rods etc - be controlled when the whole idea of them is too be 'covered' at all times - otherwise a 'meltdown will happen' and 'radiation leaks/explosions' will occur - 'the china syndrome' - the most 'feared wording' in the nuclear field. How people can think that these scientists are working from 'safe-distances' is beyond me - when in fact 'they' have to be on site dealing with all these troubles etc at close quarters. They knowing they 'have to be on the front line' with this issue - whether 'they' like it of not. I think the whole thing 'will-bow-up' - in time - I can't see any other result - considering these scientists with their TV bulletins are only stating what 'might-could-may - happen etc - its all just guess work on their part - they all 'staying away from the word explosion' - none convincing in 'anything' they say - they dealing with figures on paper (which mean nothing at all) because in reality its 'gone-beyond' that - and if a 'big' explosion does occur - the 'radiation cloud' will spread around Japan and further - in a very short amount of time.!!As you've said - its criminal too keep the 'consequences of this silent' - the public around the world should be told and warned.!!I've always had the opinion that (so-called) 'technology' would destroy this planet - and it seems to heading that way with this radiation leak(s) - nothing being sustainable for 100's of years.
Mechanicsville
it is possible that all 6 nuclear reactors at Fukushima power plant will undergo a meltdown. If so, if you live devise the west lakeshore of America, you must buy lots of potassium iodide (i conjure up thats it) to protect from the diffusion. it will betray blown grate on nerves america in the blow.
Weirton
this should answer your question. When did ever a Government of any country, tell the Truth about anything?
Galveston
Right now the NHK and Japanese Government is running around trying to keep the other reactors from exploding. I believe all they are worrying about is people panicking and making rash decisions. The suicide rate is already high in Japan, to hint at one example of a bad decision. Yes, the reactors are leaking radioactive gases into the air, and of course even water wouldn't stop it. However, though I do not agree with this PR technique, as long as people are not panicking, then the government can clean up and prepare better for the next earthquake, expected within three to four days.
I know Japan has a full plate right now and public panic isn't in the interest of keeping order, but there is no way fuel rods can be out in the open air environment even having ocean water poured on them creating steam, yet have radiation remain at safe levels. I think nuclear power plants could be made safe and could be a viable energy option. However if it becomes acceptable practice to lie to the public about radiation exposure I am fully against it. I want to see the video of the guy next to the reactor with a radiation counter to show that levels are safe. Lying to the public is potential genocide.
Timber Lake
I think these Japanese scientists 'are playing-down/lying' regarding this event - so not not too panic the public - how can exposed' rods etc - be controlled when the whole idea of them is too be 'covered' at all times - otherwise a 'meltdown will happen' and 'radiation leaks/explosions' will occur - 'the china syndrome' - the most 'feared wording' in the nuclear field. How people can think that these scientists are working from 'safe-distances' is beyond me - when in fact 'they' have to be on site dealing with all these troubles etc at close quarters. They knowing they 'have to be on the front line' with this issue - whether 'they' like it of not. I think the whole thing 'will-bow-up' - in time - I can't see any other result - considering these scientists with their TV bulletins are only stating what 'might-could-may - happen etc - its all just guess work on their part - they all 'staying away from the word explosion' - none convincing in 'anything' they say - they dealing with figures on paper (which mean nothing at all) because in reality its 'gone-beyond' that - and if a 'big' explosion does occur - the 'radiation cloud' will spread around Japan and further - in a very short amount of time.!!As you've said - its criminal too keep the 'consequences of this silent' - the public around the world should be told and warned.!!I've always had the opinion that (so-called) 'technology' would destroy this planet - and it seems to heading that way with this radiation leak(s) - nothing being sustainable for 100's of years.
Mechanicsville
it is possible that all 6 nuclear reactors at Fukushima power plant will undergo a meltdown. If so, if you live devise the west lakeshore of America, you must buy lots of potassium iodide (i conjure up thats it) to protect from the diffusion. it will betray blown grate on nerves america in the blow.
Weirton
this should answer your question. When did ever a Government of any country, tell the Truth about anything?
Galveston
Right now the NHK and Japanese Government is running around trying to keep the other reactors from exploding. I believe all they are worrying about is people panicking and making rash decisions. The suicide rate is already high in Japan, to hint at one example of a bad decision. Yes, the reactors are leaking radioactive gases into the air, and of course even water wouldn't stop it. However, though I do not agree with this PR technique, as long as people are not panicking, then the government can clean up and prepare better for the next earthquake, expected within three to four days.
Japan nuclear reactors?
Ottawa
Why can't we just throw a giant ice cube in there. I mean, it's gunna melt, but the water will still be cold. And cool down the reactor.
Moorhead
It's an interesting idea, although the ice would melt very quickly the water may remain cool long enough for more sea-water pumped into it. Or liquid nitrogen being dumped on the reactors is another interesting idea. But it would take a lot regardless, everything that can be done is being done and with the United States and South Korea both sending help to neutralize the threat there would most likely be no need for a massive block of ice. But again, very interesting idea.
Hickory Valley
I think you can actually cause problems by cooling it down too quickly. One of the concerns with chernobyl was that the nuclear magma from the molten reactor core would come in contact with ground water. If that had happened it would have contaminated the ground water over a large area. There was also roughly a 10% chance that the direct contact with water would cause a nuclear chain reaction and turn most of Europe into a nuclear fallout zone (uninhabitable). Reactor cores have a lot more stuff in them than the Hiroshima bomb did. A nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear plant is absolutely devastating. Chernobyl was a mox reactor, which means that it has plutonium and uranium in its core. Mox reactors can produce more energy and pollution if they leak. Reactors generally don't leak and most if not all reactors are designed a lot better than Chernobyl was. We learned a lot from that disaster. btw. anyone who tells you only 50 people died from chernobyl is either wrong or lieing. No one knows exactly how many people died because of Chernobyl but I've seen figures as high as 1 million. The original soviet report said 50, but that was a lie. It could have been a lot worse. The Soviets that gave their lives to prevent the worst case from happening are heroes. Some are still alive, but none of them are uneffected from the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. All this said, we know a lot about how to deal with nuclear power plant disasters. Chernobyl would have turned the world into a much different place if we didn't. The soviets dropped sandbags, boric acid and lead on the magma to contain the contamination. They dug out a section under the power plant and filled it with concrete to prevent the magma from entering the water supply. They built a sarcophagus around the plant to reduce how much radiation escaped the plant into the atmosphere.
Lakeview North
They are doing something similar to that. However the water instantly turns to steam faster than they can put more water in.
Germantown
Tell me where you are gonna find a giant 500 ton block of ice that can be transported 5,000+miles across the ocean. It would take A LOT of ice to cool down a massive atomic reactor.
Westwood
5000 degrees ice would last 10 seconds
Pearisburg
nah that wont work, you need more like a giant slurpee to cool that down.
Brookfield
not that easy
Waldo
http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=CD2LRROpph0
Amazonia
um....how is that possible. i know ur trying to help but we have to think more realisticly.
Why can't we just throw a giant ice cube in there. I mean, it's gunna melt, but the water will still be cold. And cool down the reactor.
Moorhead
It's an interesting idea, although the ice would melt very quickly the water may remain cool long enough for more sea-water pumped into it. Or liquid nitrogen being dumped on the reactors is another interesting idea. But it would take a lot regardless, everything that can be done is being done and with the United States and South Korea both sending help to neutralize the threat there would most likely be no need for a massive block of ice. But again, very interesting idea.
Hickory Valley
I think you can actually cause problems by cooling it down too quickly. One of the concerns with chernobyl was that the nuclear magma from the molten reactor core would come in contact with ground water. If that had happened it would have contaminated the ground water over a large area. There was also roughly a 10% chance that the direct contact with water would cause a nuclear chain reaction and turn most of Europe into a nuclear fallout zone (uninhabitable). Reactor cores have a lot more stuff in them than the Hiroshima bomb did. A nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear plant is absolutely devastating. Chernobyl was a mox reactor, which means that it has plutonium and uranium in its core. Mox reactors can produce more energy and pollution if they leak. Reactors generally don't leak and most if not all reactors are designed a lot better than Chernobyl was. We learned a lot from that disaster. btw. anyone who tells you only 50 people died from chernobyl is either wrong or lieing. No one knows exactly how many people died because of Chernobyl but I've seen figures as high as 1 million. The original soviet report said 50, but that was a lie. It could have been a lot worse. The Soviets that gave their lives to prevent the worst case from happening are heroes. Some are still alive, but none of them are uneffected from the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. All this said, we know a lot about how to deal with nuclear power plant disasters. Chernobyl would have turned the world into a much different place if we didn't. The soviets dropped sandbags, boric acid and lead on the magma to contain the contamination. They dug out a section under the power plant and filled it with concrete to prevent the magma from entering the water supply. They built a sarcophagus around the plant to reduce how much radiation escaped the plant into the atmosphere.
Lakeview North
They are doing something similar to that. However the water instantly turns to steam faster than they can put more water in.
Germantown
Tell me where you are gonna find a giant 500 ton block of ice that can be transported 5,000+miles across the ocean. It would take A LOT of ice to cool down a massive atomic reactor.
Westwood
5000 degrees ice would last 10 seconds
Pearisburg
nah that wont work, you need more like a giant slurpee to cool that down.
Brookfield
not that easy
Waldo
http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=CD2LRROpph0
Amazonia
um....how is that possible. i know ur trying to help but we have to think more realisticly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
