First of four Fukushima reactors cleared of nuclear fuel

Reactor four at Fukushima, pictured in April 9, 2011, has been cleared of radioactive fuel rods, the operator says
Reactor four at Fukushima, pictured in April 9, 2011, has been cleared of radioactive fuel rods, the operator says

One of four heavily damaged reactor buildings at Japan's tsunami-battered Fukushima nuclear power plant has been cleared of radioactive fuel rods, the operator said Saturday.

It was a significant step in the decommissioning efforts, but workers still have three heavily crippled to clean up after they were sent into meltdown in the 2011 quake-tsunami disaster.

The overall cleanup work of the Fukushima plant is expected to take decades.

A total of 1,535 fuel rod assemblies have been now taken out of the building after Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO's) yearlong operation, a company spokesman said.

"Completion of the removal work is a milestone, but the decommission work will continue," plant chief Akira Ono told reporters.

The was removed from a pool used to store the rods—which were mostly spent—in the reactor number 4 building, which was offline for regular checkups at the time of the March 2011 disaster.

The tsunami battered the plant's cooling system and sent reactors number 1 to 3 into meltdown, setting off the worst atomic accident in a generation.

TEPCO will remove fuel rod assemblies from the pools of other damaged buildings before extracting the melted from the reactors.


Explore further

Fukushima operator gives first glimpse of fuel rod removal

© 2014 AFP

Citation: First of four Fukushima reactors cleared of nuclear fuel (2014, December 20) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-12-fukushima-reactors-nuclear-fuel.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 20, 2014
Those rods were in the Spent Fuel Pool, not the reactor. No rods will be pulled from the three reactors, because they all melted down into Corium.

Good luck with the Spent Fuel Pools of the three remaining former reactors.

Just standing next to one of those 600-foot stacks (why do they need stacks, if it is so clean?), will give you a lethal dose of radiation in 20 minutes. There is no way to even view the interiors of the former plants, due to the intense radiation.

I want all the nuke lovers to tell us why they still think this dangerous technology is a good idea, and where we can put the waste. No pie-in-the-sky breeders, we tried those. Look up SL-1 and Fermi I, and Monju.

Dec 20, 2014
Unit 4 was not operating, and was actually unfueled when the earthquake hit. That is why it was so easy to get the fuel rods. The others are way too damaged and radioactive to attempt soon.

Dec 21, 2014
Meanwhile, scientists have yet to tie even a single death to Fukushima radiation and even the most pessimistic predictions of the alarmist linear no threshold statistical models put the number of deaths at low hundreds. Face it, nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity. Wont be long before Japan embraces their nuclear program again, that is unless they want to burn fossil fuels forever.

Waste should be put deep underground where it is safe at least for centuries, until it can be burned in breeders or humanity goes extinct and it wont matter anymore.

Dec 21, 2014
I think shotman has not been keeping up. I suggest Fukushima Diary to start.

http://fukushima-diary.com/

What do you know about nuclear processes and waste? Want to debate the issues and the specifics? I am hot to do it. Warning: I actually tested the BWR SRV components for the GE Mark I like in Fukushima.

Please do it.

Dec 22, 2014
You know what a massive spill of solar energy is called? A nice day.

The best time for the switch to safe renewable power is 20 years ago. The next best time is right now.

Dec 22, 2014
Meanwhile, scientists have yet to tie even a single death to Fukushima radiation and even the most pessimistic predictions of the alarmist linear no threshold statistical models put the number of deaths at low hundreds. Face it, nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity. Wont be long before Japan embraces their nuclear program again, that is unless they want to burn fossil fuels forever..


That really is the problem with people like you isn't it? Unless it violently kills someone on the spot then it didn't do any harm, right?

Wrong. It's poisoned the entire Pacific Ocean and all the air blowing into North America with dangerous levels of radioactivity.

Just because no one will fall over dead the instant it touches you doesn't mean that you're not going to die a lot sooner than if it didn't.

If you think not dieing on the spot means you're not hurt then I urge you to volunteer to help out with the cleanup.

Dec 22, 2014
According to the WHO not a single case of cancer is likley as a result of Fukushima.

Right on top of Dai Ichi the radiation is so low you'd have to camp there 24/7 for 47 days to even have a SLIGHT increased risk of cancer. 300 yards away you'd have no risk at all. Those are the actual facts, and they're available for anyone online. In fact the Japanese have a very useful site which tracks the radiation all over the islands, and it's updated every day. The units are in nano-sieverts so they're a bit onerous to convert, but the information is easily accessed.

http://jciv.iidj.net/map/


Dec 22, 2014
Now, MM can go to http://fukushima-diary.com and get some information on the amounts of radiation bleeding into our environment continuously.

Dec 22, 2014
Try this one, MM.

http://new.atmc.j...9b07f31c


If you did the conversions your map says the levels are ten times lower than mine at the same place. But since the radiation levels fall off SO dramatically with distance from the main reactor both could actually be correct. We're talking huge differences with only a few meters apart.

Now, MM can go to http://fukushima-diary.com and get some information on the amounts of radiation bleeding into our environment continuously.


Radiation doesn't bleed into the environment. Be more precise in what you're saying so that I know that you know what you're talking about.

Are you talking about Sr 90, or Cs 137/135? What??

Dec 22, 2014
Are you talking about Sr 90, or Cs 137/135? What??

Yes. Do not forget Tritium. Nor Americium or plutonium or other Alpha-emitters.

Dec 22, 2014
Are you talking about Sr 90, or Cs 137/135? What??

Yes. Do not forget Tritium. Nor Americium or plutonium or other Alpha-emitters.


So how much of each of the above is "bleeding" into the environment, at what rate, and from what source. And just to say it up front, Greenpeace isn't a valid source, nor is some activist site that has twenty pop-ups to buy solar panels and windmills...I'm talking about an OFFICIAL source.

You also MUST be specific about what isotope of which element you're talking about as they have VERY different half-lives and hence VERY different risks.

Dec 22, 2014
I have data from the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health, and according to them as of 22 December there is no detectable Cs 134/137, or I 131 in their tap water.

http://monitoring...o.jp/en/

Dec 22, 2014
Oh, OK, I'll do your research for you...

http://radioactiv...1215.pdf

Those levels are in Bq/L....now to give you an example the amount of radiation you get from a banana is 31 Bq/g. The figures listed are orders of magnitude lower than what the WHO considers allowable...

http://www.who.in...and2.pdf

page 7.

Dec 22, 2014
There's lots of radiation at Fukushima. Drink up!

I'm sure it's good for you, like it's good for GE.

Dec 22, 2014
There's lots of radiation at Fukushima. Drink up!

I'm sure it's good for you, like it's good for GE.


Actually, there's virtually no "radiation" in the water at Fukushima....as is shown clearly from the official source. You literally get more radiation from eating a banana than drinking a liter of seawater at Dai Ichi....

Sorry if you don't LIKE it, or that if it threatens your worldview, but those ARE the facts.

Dec 22, 2014
No, those are the "facts" fed to you by those sources you chose. I showed you independent sources. Abe and his government has instituted secrecy laws with draconian penalties, and do not allow negative reports to be issued regarding Fukushima.

Dec 22, 2014
No, those are the "facts" fed to you by those sources you chose. I showed you independent sources. Abe and his government has instituted secrecy laws with draconian penalties, and do not allow negative reports to be issued regarding Fukushima.


You showed me no such thing. You showed me sources that have an obvious bias. If you don't trust government sources then should we ignore the same government sources that tell us radiation in certain levels is unhealthy TO BEGIN WITH?

Have your cake or eat it.

You're getting your information from a crank pseudo science site with an axe to grind, so yea, I'll take the government source thanks.

Dec 22, 2014
Oh, so now you trust the guvmunt? Of Japan?

I'll take my experience with the GE Mark I BWR and my utility experience over your assertions.

Is it "too cheap to meter" yet?

Dec 22, 2014
Oh, so now you trust the guvmunt? Of Japan?

I'll take my experience with the GE Mark I BWR and my utility experience over your assertions.

Is it "too cheap to meter" yet?


So, you're comparing what again? How much electricity from nuclear power plants costs to radiation levels off of Japan???

Really?

Yep, THIS is the guy I'd listen to about what's fact vs. fiction.

How about next we get a comparison of a coat hanger and a giraffe anus and then get an "independent" estimate of the level of BS in gkam's posts.....

Dec 22, 2014
MM, you may wiggle and wriggle and do your best, but you are erroneous. You have little or no education into nuclear powerplants, and no experience at all. You may choose to believe what GE tells you, but I learned better.

How many years have you had to "develop" these monsters? How many trillions of dollars wasted on this deadly and failed technology? You had your chance, and blew it in the 60 criticalities we have had so far, at least reported ones. You have yet to show you can even STORE that deadly waste from your folly.

Did you google Hanford and babies? Did you look up SL-1, Fermi I, and Monju? Chernobyl?

Dec 23, 2014

Did you google Hanford and babies? Did you look up SL-1, Fermi I, and Monju? Chernobyl?


You know what I DID google, I googled the actual amount of radiation measured at FUKUSHIMA, which is what we're talking about here.

Now, do you have ANYTHING at all other than hyperbole, histrionics, and intentional intellectual dishonest distraction from the subject you want to add?

Dec 23, 2014
What do you know about nuclear processes and waste? Want to debate the issues and the specifics? I am hot to do it. Warning: I actually tested the BWR SRV components for the GE Mark I like in Fukushima
Translation: "I was a validation tech, meter-reader, and form filler-outer at a nuclear power plant and this qualifies me to know how they are designed and how they work. In addition I was an engineer without actually having an engineering education, degree or licence, which further qualifies me to spread anti-nuke propaganda written by hippies and tree-huggers with similar qualifications."

You are SO full of shit.

You lie about your qualifications and do not even realize it. And so we can assume you cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction in what you post.

Dec 23, 2014
The guy didn't even know tritium wasn't "radioactive water" until I explained it to him...

FYI gkam I can actually write down the fuel cycle of thorium from memory. I know it burns ALL the actinides. I know there is some low level waste that can be safely stored for 300 years. I know that WITHOUT nuclear reactors somewhere in the world there will be NO nuclear medicine, NO RTGs for the space program and a host of other things I can't be bothered to list here.

I also know that since the fuel in molten salt reactors are already in liquid form it's much easier to process the MINISCULE amount of waste they produce as opposed to LWRs that burn less than 1% of the fuel that goes into them and then they pull it out and call it "waste". You haven't a CLUE what you're talking about, molten salt reactors are a completely different technology than you had experience with. How about you exercise that education you say you have and READ about it instead of wallowing in ignorance.

Dec 23, 2014
More nonsense from outsiders. The view from the sidelines is not usually accurate.

You can blab about all the nuclear technologies you want, but should travel to Fukushima, and Chernobyl, and Hanford, and to WIPP first. You are getting your stuff from the folk who tell you what they want you to know.

Yes, you can assume anything about me you find comforting: The fact is I have experience with this technology and you do not. You probably thought TMI II was a non-event, did not understand how the core had melted, and how Met Ed way LYING to us. You seemto tune out Chernobyol completely.

Do it: Google Hanford and babies. Look into the effluent contaminating the Pacific at Fukushima. Tell us how WIPP worked for 10,000 years, like they promised.

Germany had two thorium reactors working until 1988 and 1989 respectively. If they were so good, why are they giving upon nuclear technology? It ain't politics, it is reality.

Dec 23, 2014
The fact is I have experience with this technology and you do not.


You have experience with molten salt reactors? When and where? With whom?

Didn't think so....

Now to the rest of the nonsense you posted, since it's all emotional and has nothing at all to do with the posted facts that still stand, it's easily ignored as crank emotionalism motivated entirely by a quasi religious irrational hatred. Fukushima is not bleeding radiation anywhere. If it were someone should be able to post some actual data that shows it. They haven't because it doesn't exist.

Dec 23, 2014
More silly semantics? No, I have little experience with nukes, but you have none at all. You have no idea how the industry protects itself, do you?

No irrationality here, I worked with all types of power systems in my life, and looked behind the scenes. If I get the numbers of radioactive pollution from Fukushima will you believe them? Probably not.

We tried all those types, MM, from BWR to PWR to HTGC, to pebble bed, to thorium, through liquid metal, . . . all of them. We have given up on them. They are dangerous and deadly, and a disaster for those who will inherit our folly.

Dec 23, 2014
Watch to see what happens to Georgia Power, who just got an $6,500,000,000 bailout in the form of a guarantee by the government, the same one who gives a few cents/kWh to wind.

The cost of those ridiculous AP1000 plants will kill that utility. And did you see the brilliant idea of the AP 1000? It is a hat of water on top, so if it melts down, the water will cool it. Except water does not "put out" nuclear processes, does it? It can moderate the materials for more Neutron capture, can't it?

Almost all of a nuclear plant is composed of systems to keep it from killing us, as is admitted by GE in their BWR discussions. Look them up, and see what they go through to keep them from killing us.

Don't go away, . . . I am just starting. Bring in the offensive otto, and I will start to read his silliness again.

Dec 23, 2014
We've hardly given up on nuclear power, we get 20% of our power from it. Now what's YOUR personal crazy gkam definition of "given up on"? We get 4% from wind...have we given up on it?

Also nuclear is extremely safe power. I challenge you to show statistics from a governmental source (ie not an environmentalist crank site) that shows how many deaths we've had from nuclear accidents compared to...say hydro :)

We have facts and science on our side. You have emotion and Jane Fonda. Good luck in the long run.

Dec 23, 2014
Here is a place to start:
http://en.wikiped...n_health

Jane Fonda? I guess she was a big deal to you civilians, but those of us in the war ignored all that, being a little busy at the time. Turns out she was right about all of that, huh?

Dec 23, 2014
Also if you have no experience with molten salt reactors...which you don't, then wouldn't the REASONABLE thing to do is READ about them before you dismiss them?

I dunno, call me crazy, but I thought that's what science and EDUCATION was all about....

Dec 23, 2014
Here is a place to start:
http://en.wikiped...n_health

Jane Fonda? I guess she was a big deal to you civilians, but those of us in the war ignored all that, being a little busy at the time. Turns out she was right about all of that, huh?


http://en.wikiped...qiao_Dam

How about a chart that compares them? I have one, but since YOU'RE making the assertion it's dangerous the onus of proof is on you to do your OWN research.

Dec 23, 2014
I am against dams. In most cases, they are losers, with taxable and arable land taken out of production, and the environment changed. We are taking them down in California, and elsewhere. The days of brute force stuff is over, and we are becoming more intelligent in our selection of technologies.

There is no measure of what it will cost ALL future generations to deal with the numerous disasters we have laid for them, with toxics pumped into the ground everywhere, radioactive products all over, thousands of tons of high-level waste, millions of tons of toxic coal ash, . . . .

All for what, . . so you can have "cheap" electricity?

Dec 23, 2014
Still waiting for PROOF of your claims...

My facts still stand.

Dec 23, 2014
I suggest they go stand on Unit Three, which was fueled with MOX.

Dec 23, 2014
I suggest they go stand on Unit Three, which was fueled with MOX.


Was that supposed to be proof? Have you educated yourself since your last post, or does your ignorance persist?

http://en.wikiped...reactors

Huh, they burn up all the MOX...

Dec 23, 2014
"burn up the MOX"? Have you no idea the actinides resulting from this dangerous operation? Plutonium was found over 60 miles away. I'll get the reference.

Your "facts" were just proven to be propaganda, which shows us the different technologies which have been tried and which have been found not appropriate.

http://www3.nhk.o..._16.html

For my "claims" regarding Hanford and WIPP, all you have to do is go look them up, and come back and report what you found. Then, you can tell me off.

Okay?

Dec 23, 2014
Want to reprocess for breeders? Here is a start for you, already in progress:
http://ex-skf.blo...ste.html

And some more re: Fuku:
http://www.ncbi.n...22206700

Dec 23, 2014
Okay, we can take it down to one or two points: Read the reference on MOX you sent me, . . the whole thing. Now tell me why it is appropriate for us to work with that deadly stuff, nasty stuff we make which will curse humanity essentially forever in Human terms. Did you see the zoo of nasty elements we create when we play with this stuff? If they only have to "burn it up", why haven't they done so? Why is even France turning away from nukes?

Why not put up wind and solar, and drill for geothermal, and use more efficient technologies, and work WITH Nature instead of trying to be the Sorcerer's Apprentice?

Dec 23, 2014
The blog isn't a reliable source, your other source shows the radiation in MICRO Becquerels....you realize just how little radiation that is don't you? No of course you don't, your an uneducated blowhard trying to PRETEND you know something.

Your first reference is incomprehensible because they talk about 470,000 terabecquerels being released...but that's a measure of decays/second NOT a measure of nuclides. IOW, they honestly don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's completely meaningless because it has to be in relation to something. What the Ocean? Well there's 1.32 billion trillion liters in the ocean....that really means not that much was released when you do the math, but it's impossible to know because the source you're using is meant to SCARE...not inform.

Dec 23, 2014
I apologize for being so combative. I came back from the service with a lack of patience.

And an attitude, at times.

MM, the blog just proves the spread of plutonium, something heatedly denied by many. And I will not go through to address what I think are erroneous or irrelevant claims. And it is not up to us to decide which technologies to use. I am informing you of my own concerns, and why I think you are naive in your assessment of the actual use of this stuff.


Dec 23, 2014
Okay, we can take it down to one or two points: Read the reference on MOX you sent me, . . the whole thing. Now tell me why it is appropriate for us to work with that deadly stuff


I'd rather use thorium, but I see no issue working with MOX as long as a fast reactor can burn it up given the stellar safety record of the industry as a whole when compared to other forms of power. In case you forgot you STILL haven't provided a comparison....


Dec 23, 2014
"I'd rather use thorium, but I see no issue working with MOX, . . ."

Then do it. Those who tried it are giving it up.

Don't let it kill you.

Dec 23, 2014
Mr bullshit artist
More nonsense from outsiders. The view from the sidelines is not usually accurate
Gkam thinks he is an insider because he used the toilet in a nuclear plant. Or the equivalent. What, did you obtain your extensive knowledge by osmosis? You certainly didnt go to school for it like genuine experts.

You stood in a plant for awhile and you think this is enough to understand how they are designed and how they work
You can blab about all the nuclear technologies you want, but should travel to Fukushima, and Chernobyl, and Hanford, and to WIPP first
-All places YOUVE never been you fucking bullshitter.
You are getting your stuff from the folk who tell you what they want you to know
-And youre getting your stuff from mother jones, and your ass.
I apologize for being so combative. I came back from the service with a lack of patience
-And so much more. For instance you think others cant tell when youre bullshitting.

Dec 23, 2014
Yes, you can assume anything about me you find comforting: The fact is I have experience with this technology and you do not
We dont have to assume. We can read the lies you post and see you dont care whether they are obvious lies or not. Its enough for you to lie about your training and experience because youre so full of yourself that people are naturally going to believe you anyway, right?

Theyre not. You are a liar. Youve admitted as much many times and despite being called on it, you continue to lie.

Dec 23, 2014
Otto, I knew you could not debate the technology, so I opened your post with the foul language. Embarrassing, for a science site.

Do you not understand you have revealed more about your own character than mine?

Dec 23, 2014
Otto, I knew you could not debate the technology, so I opened your post with the foul language. Embarrassing, for a science site.

Do you not understand you have revealed more about your own character than mine?
Pros curse a lot. You would know this if you were one. Sometimes its the only way to accurately express their disgust.

Embarrassing for a science site to have someone claiming to be a pro who is allowed by so many mutual buttrubbers to get away with it.

Youre no engineer. You have no engineering perspective on how nukes work. Quit lying about your qualifications and using it to justify the bullshit you post.

Otto what is that smell? Someone pretending to be what theyre not? Should I gnaw on them and bury them like a bone?

Dec 23, 2014
I knew you could not debate the technology

Well neither can you without lying through your teeth. For instance
"I'd rather use thorium, but I see no issue working with MOX, . . ."


Then do it. Those who tried it are giving it up

But youve been shown this before:

"India has one of the largest supplies of thorium in the world, with comparatively poor quantities of uranium. India has projected meeting as much as 30% of its electrical demands through thorium by 2030."

-Along with many other countries.
http://en.wikiped...projects

-Ergo, youre a liar and a fraud.

Dec 23, 2014
"Otto what is that smell? "
------------------------------

Hey, Bow-wow, it all depends on where you have your nose.

Ooooo, . . . it's cold!

Dec 23, 2014
The topic is Fukushima and the GE Mark I BWR, and the fact that events which were "impossible" occur relatively frequently, putting the entire world at risk.

Why? Politics and money. Big Money.

We were interested in "quenchers" and SRV. We tested tees, perforated tees and drums, ramsheads, and others before someone decided on an X-quencher, after I left for my Master of Science.

Did you see China Syndrome? When the place shook after turbine trip, and Jack ripped the graph paper off the printer, it was the same graph we had been reading for weeks, one of the pressure spikes in the Suppression Pool from the water hammer of SRV operation and the oscillation of the steam bubbles. It's real stuff. But I was a Research Engineer, working for the nukers, as required by NRC. They require outsiders do the tests under supervision of and for the contractors who work in nuclear field.

It is how it is done.

Dec 24, 2014
The topic is Fukushima and the GE Mark I BWR, and the fact that events which were "impossible" occur relatively frequently, putting the entire world at risk
No the topic is whatever you choose to bullshit about. You chose to bullshit about your qualifications (you have none.) You chose to bullshit about thorium, which you know nothing about; easy to demonstrate.
But I was a Research Engineer
You were NEVER any fucking engineer you liar. Your job shop gave you a fancy title to make you feel good.

You've never denied any of these conclusions. Why not? Because they're true. WHAT WAS YOUR MS IN? Nothing relevant - another obvious conclusion.

What a piece of shit you are.

Dec 24, 2014

Did you see China Syndrome?


BAHAHHAhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahah.....omg thanks for that one.

Yeah, I KNEW someone at some point would bring that MOVIE up as some kind of point to something somewhere. So, now it's not your "EDUCATION" you're relying on, it's Hollywood....nice.

Too bad the reactor in the movie isn't the kind we're talking about with using thorium, but you know that if you actually cared to discuss or learn anything.

And FTR the kind of reactor they DID use in the movie has a STELLAR safety record compared to other power plants...that is one of those inconvenient facts you never pay attention to.

Dec 24, 2014
I guess you are unaware that movie contained actual events, all put together in that movie? The technical advisors were GE Nuclear engineers, who had the mockup of the control room and the events from reality.

Next, you are going to tell me there is no pool swell problem or hydraulic shock from SRV operation in BWRs. And Fukushima and Chernobyl are still operating cleanly.

Dec 24, 2014
Otto screams: "You were NEVER any fucking engineer you liar. Your job shop gave you a fancy title to make you feel good. What a piece of shit you are."
---------------------------------------------

Unable to debate the topic, otto reveals his character.

When you find out I really did all those things while you drove your taxi, are you going to get nastier?

Dec 24, 2014
I guess you are unaware that movie contained actual events, all put together in that movie? The technical advisors were GE Nuclear engineers, who had the mockup of the control room and the events from reality.

Next, you are going to tell me there is no pool swell problem or hydraulic shock from SRV operation in BWRs. And Fukushima and Chernobyl are still operating cleanly.


Actually I'm still waiting for your "proof" that Fukushima is "bleeding radiation" into the environment and to stop changing the subject....as entertaining as pointing out your errors is. Either way it's all good to me. Merry Christmas BTW (no sarcasm, sincerely) :)

Dec 24, 2014
All you have to do is look it up.

But I am sure that radiation is good for us!

Dec 24, 2014
All you have to do is look it up.

But I am sure that radiation is good for us!


I did look it up, you just didn't look at it...

ALL of the tests done in the seawater around Fukushima, and ALL of the measurements around Fukushima (except for right on top of the reactor) are perfectly safe...and that INCLUDES the source you posted yourself.

Those continue to be the undisputed facts. If anyone has another legitimate source, please post it.

Dec 24, 2014
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all.


Dec 24, 2014
http://new.atmc.j...9b07f31c


Thank you.

That shows a rate of 10.5 microsieverts/hour. Now there's about 8,760 hours in a year. If you multiply the two you get 91,980 microsieverts/year exposure. If you convert this to millisieverts you get 91.98 millisieverts /year. One must be exposed to 100 millisieverts per year to have ANY increased risk of cancer...period. This falls UNDER that limit, AND it's right on top of the reactor.

Now, were you trying to demonstrate how SAFE the area is, or how "dangerous"?

Dec 24, 2014
"One must be exposed to 100 millisieverts per year to have ANY increased risk of cancer...period."
---------------------------------------

Uh, . . no. They are not all alike. The 5.4 MeV particle from an Alpha emitter such as plutonium causes cancer in unprotected tissue. The particles they found over 160 km away were Plutonium, and there is no doubt many folk inhaled it. Look for a tsunami of cancers soon. BTW, look up the worldwide increases in thyroid cancer in kids.

Dec 24, 2014
"One must be exposed to 100 millisieverts per year to have ANY increased risk of cancer...period."
---------------------------------------

Uh, . . no. They are not all alike. The 5.4 MeV particle from an Alpha emitter such as plutonium causes cancer in unprotected tissue. The particles they found over 160 km away were Plutonium, and there is no doubt many folk inhaled it. Look for a tsunami of cancers soon. BTW, look up the worldwide increases in thyroid cancer in kids.


First of all if they aren't alike then why did you post the link?

If you're trying to show how dangerous the area is then POST a link that includes information on actinides, because what you POSTED shows safe radiation levels.

Also radiation damage is CUMULATIVE...IOW your link is valid without the information on actinides because, if you knew anything about biology (which is MY field), a single 5.4 MeV particle will not give you cancer.

Dec 24, 2014
(cont.)

You ALSO need to include which isotope of plutonium you're hysterical about, because some of them don't even EMIT alpha particles as they decay...but why would I expect YOU to know that....

Dec 24, 2014
"if you knew anything about biology (which is MY field), a single 5.4 MeV particle will not give you cancer."
------------------------------------

If biology is your field, then you know it is a numbers game. What does a 5.4 Million Electron Volt particle do to DNA?

At Raychem, we made heat-shrink plastics and wire insulation using 0.5 to 3.0 MeV electron beams. I promise you they are deleterious to living tissue.

Dec 24, 2014
"if you knew anything about biology (which is MY field), a single 5.4 MeV particle will not give you cancer."
------------------------------------

If biology is your field, then you know it is a numbers game. What does a 5.4 Million Electron Volt particle do to DNA?


If it actually hits it...it damages it, but that doesn't automatically mean CANCER. It means you get damaged DNA that probably does NOT cause cancer. It's an accumulation of damage that can cause cancer.

Again, your post shows a safe level. Thanks for proving my point.

Dec 24, 2014
At Raychem, we made heat-shrink plastics and wire insulation using 0.5 to 3.0 MeV electron beams. I promise you they are deleterious to living tissue.


Assuming they actually hit anything as they pass through your body, and assuming they hit DNA, and assuming they hit the right spot on the DNA, and assuming that enough of the right spots have been hit on a specific strand of DNA, then yes you can have a problem. We get bombarded by cosmic rays ALL THE TIME that are more energetic. It's all about probability and exposure. Your source shows no problems with either.

Dec 24, 2014
" . .but that doesn't automatically mean CANCER. It means you get damaged DNA that probably does NOT cause cancer. It's an accumulation of damage that can cause cancer."
----------------------------------------------

Weasel words. We KNOW radiation causes cancer, and there is no question about it. You want proof of every particle? It does not work that way, and you do not usually inhale only one particle if you are in a radiological environment.

And where are you going to store this deadly residue of our folly? No pie in the sky stuff, you have had over 60 years to find a way, and have failed.

Dec 24, 2014
Weasel words. We KNOW radiation causes cancer, and there is no question about it.


Indeed we do. We also KNOW what a safe level is and isn't. You've not demonstrated levels that cause cancer...period.

Dec 24, 2014
Looked into the rash of thyroid cancers?

Dec 24, 2014
There are Monazite beaches in Brazil which will give you 800 mSv/a, which gives you a statistically increased (albeit low) chance of cancer and which are 8 TIMES what you posted that kids play on every single day....

Be pissed at the Brazilians of you wanna rail against radiation...


Looked into the rash of thyroid cancers?


Gimme an official source...not a site filled with hysterics with axes to grind....

Dec 24, 2014
MM, we have the numbers tied to exposure to radionuclides. I'll try to look it up. When working on the Industrial Hardening Manual, I kept up on these effects, but that was in 1979. Buried in my stacks of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are the studies and reports, from the days of nuclear testing. If I remember right, it was the Russian nuclear scientists most concerned about their own tests, as well as ours.

Dec 24, 2014
MM, we have the numbers tied to exposure to radionuclides. I'll try to look it up. When working on the Industrial Hardening Manual, I kept up on these effects, but that was in 1979.


Don't bother. We've refined our numbers a LOT since the 70s. The maximum recommended exposure for workers is about 50 mSv/a, and we also know (empirically know) that anything less than 100 mSv/a doesn't cause cancer. We err on the side of caution as we should. When you post those links you should be aware that you are talking about MINISCULE doses of radiation....I'm talking VERY minimal. There are places in Iran that naturally give you 130 mSv/a and there is no statistical difference in their cancer rates than anywhere else.

Seriously bud, if you have the energy to spend on it I encourage you to read about it, but you're just plain wrong that it's dangerous.

http://en.wikiped..._effects

Dec 24, 2014
I sure hope you are more correct than I.

Dec 26, 2014

Is it "too cheap to meter" yet?


This often misused quote was originaly said about fusion power, not fission.

https://en.wikipe...to_meter

Dec 26, 2014
Otto screams: "You were NEVER any fucking engineer you liar. Your job shop gave you a fancy title to make you feel good. What a piece of shit you are."
---------------------------------------------

Unable to debate the topic, otto reveals his character.
Gkam, unable to refute the arguments against him, makes up lies about his past because he thinks people will be impressed enough To ignore hiss lies about thorium, and plutonium raining down on Idaho.
When you find out I really did all those things while you drove your taxi, are you going to get nastier?
I say again - NOBODY GIVES A SHIT. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT. Understand? Most people here have better qualifications than the ones you invent for yourself.

You come off as a braggart and a liar, not an authority. WHY is this so hard for you to understand? Are you senile?

Dec 26, 2014
Shotman, there was no fusion even in the dreams of scientists when that phrase was publicized. I was in High School in 1958 when I heard it refer to fission plants.

Dec 26, 2014
I have started to read otto again, in parts. It seems my comments are haunting his dreams or something. His fascination with my veracity will be rewarded eventually with an indentity, . . . . to his dismay.

Everybody's job is harder than it looks to outsiders, and I am sure otto's cab is not an easy drive. I refuse to denigrate him for not having a real job.

Dec 26, 2014
I will add something to the discussion gkam, but I only do so AFTER it appears reason and facts are beginning to rule the discussion between you and I.

It's important to say that during the initial phase of the accident you didn't want to be ANYWHERE near reactors one and two. The radiation levels were actually ABOVE 10 sieverts per hour...that's a 100% fatal dose. Forget cancer, you'd be dead in a few days to a week at those levels unprotected.

It's also important to say that if the operators of the plant would have just LET the safety systems work instead of bowing to political pressure to "do something" the explosion very likely would NOT have happened and there would have been almost no release of nuclides to the environment. When they doused the plant with seawater it created hydrogen which in turn BLEW UP (as is common for hydrogen) and allowed the "SPENT FUEL" to be exposed to the environment. (cont)

Dec 26, 2014
(cont) it also quenched the core in a geometric configuration which actually ALLOWED fission to continue. If they would have just let the damn thing completely melt down the molten core would have poured out to the boron moderated water at the base of the containment vessel and fission would have STOPPED. No hydrogen, no explosion, just a building you have to avoid like the plague for a few months.

The reason I mention this is because it's important to point out that these accidents ARE dangerous, and can be made WORSE by public fear and reaction. More people died in the unnecessary evacuation than have even a remote chance of getting cancer from anything connected to the plant.

Dec 26, 2014
MM, The Hydrogen is generated not by the sea water, but the high-temperature reactions with the zirconium cladding and the steam when the rods are uncovered.

And the "damn thing" did melt down, and had eaten its way through meters of concrete and steel, and is now a few inches from the Earth. You cannot get anywhere near those molten blobs of Corium, which they keep trying to keep immobile with huge amounts of water, which turns highly radioactive, and much of which leaks into the ocean, no matter what the Japanese government wants you to hear.

One of the problems seems to lie in the MOX used in Unit 3. We really did have signs of a prompt criticality after the hydrogen explosion, which is what probably accounted for the sky-high explosion, in which you can see major parts of the reactor vessel fall back to earth. Hydrogen explosion wound be on top of the reactor, but this one happened at the bottom, sending it all in the air, plutonium and the rest.

Dec 26, 2014
MM, The Hydrogen is generated not by the sea water, but the high-temperature reactions with the zirconium cladding and the steam when the rods are uncovered.


Indeed, which is my point. If there is no water, there is no hydrogen and hence no explosion.

And the "damn thing" did melt down, and had eaten its way through meters of concrete and steel, and is now a few inches from the Earth.


Bud, you need to really start HEARING what I say. I already said that when they quenched the DAMN THING it was still in a geometric configuration that allowed fission to CONTINUE...which is why it was able to eat as far as it did. When you allow it to melt down without the benefit if idiotic bureaucrats it does so in a fashion that "dribbles" to the floor and allows the core to be sufficiently spread out as to not allow fission to continue.

You do realize that it's actually HARD to get the core to fission...right? (cont)

Dec 26, 2014
Fission is kind of like a fire burning. If you spread out the logs then the fire burns out (ever build a campfire?). Fission doesn't occur naturally except in the core of the Earth where everything is held TOGETHER in proximity. Those neutrons have to be nice and cozy with fissile material in order to be of any use in making power. When you spread out fissile material over even a small area none of it is close enough (especially when it's in water moderated with boron) to allow for a chain reaction...in short you just have actinides in water slowly decaying and at (relatively) low temperature...nothing that will eat through concrete.

Dec 26, 2014
" I already said that when they quenched the DAMN THING it was still in a geometric configuration that allowed fission to CONTINUE."
-----------------------------------------

There was no quenching. You cannot put out this as you do a fire. The cores got uncovered, they started melting and undergoing steam-zirconium reactions generating hydrogen. Unit three, fueled with MOX, (spiked with Plutonium), seems to have had an explosion at the top of the reactor vessel, where the H2 gas resides, which compressed the MOX into a critical mass. Look into the activation products at Fukushima Dai-ini, kilometers away.

Dec 26, 2014
The cores got uncovered, they started melting and undergoing steam-zirconium reactions generating hydrogen.


If there was no quenching, and the cores were uncovered...where the hell did the water come from for the steam necessary for the reaction???

You understand what steam is right?

They DID pour sea water in in an attempt to cool off the cores, when they did it it was in the process of a meltdown which wouldn't have caused as big a problem as when they poured water on the thing and it re-solidified in a geometric shape that allowed fission to continue.

The bureaucrats $%$$ED UP...badly.

On edit: Also understand you don't HAVE to put this out like a fire..all you have to do is let the material spread out and the reaction STOPS...period.

Dec 26, 2014
The water was already in the reactor vessel, in the cooling loop, too. It did not require sea water for the meltdown and the H2. And the greatest releases were days after the meltdowns, showing us things were going on there we did not understand, and some they are still hiding.


Dec 26, 2014
The water was already in the reactor vessel, in the cooling loop, too.


If the core was uncovered none of it was still steam. Have your cake or eat it.

It did not require sea water for the meltdown and the H2.


Now try to HEAR what I actually say vs. what you THINK I'm saying...

Meltdowns require no water. We agree on that. Explosions DO require water OVER the core to produce steam and hydrogen. IF you let a core get uncovered...and LET it melt down without trying to quench it with more water, it's IMPOSSIBLE to get hydrogen in the containment vessel. Moreover, as long as you have water in the bottom of the vessel (preferably moderated with boron like all western reactors are) the core will stop fission as it spills out. This is because it isn't close enough to other fissile material to sustain a reaction. It's actually VERY easy to understand, but apparently not easy enough for Japanese politicians...

Dec 26, 2014
I think your problem is that you don't understand that geometry is very important in this situation. There is a big difference between a semi-square/sphere and a puddle...

Specifically in this case the difference of thousands of degrees of heat because in the former case you're still getting a fission reaction and in the latter you aren't....

Dec 26, 2014
fascination with my veracity will be rewarded eventually with an indentity
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.
Everybody's job is harder than it looks to outsiders, and I am sure otto's cab is not an easy drive
Everybody here knows I am a retired professional with a real degree and a real licence. You on the other hand are none of those things.

And still you continue to LIE about them.

How come? Why make claims about yourself that are easy to disprove? What makes you think these add to the veracity of the facts you post? Cant you resist LYING about yourself? What makes you think that a compulsive neurotic is easier to believe than someone who is relatively sane?
denigrate him for not having a real job.
Youre 70 years old. You havent worked in years. You crapped out as a 'consultant' because thats all you had left.

And now youre here bragging about degrees you dont have and things you never did despite being exposed as a fraud.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Dec 26, 2014
I think without the insertion of control rods, the core will overheat without water. In GE Mark I vessels, the rods must be inserted from below, using power. If the core is uncovered, it will melt down. Not a safe system.

Dec 26, 2014
I think without the insertion of control rods, the core will overheat without water. In GE Mark I vessels, the rods must be inserted from below, using power. If the core is uncovered, it will melt down. Not a safe system.


Of course it will melt down without water, but that wasn't an option at Fukushima...the core was already uncovered....damage done. They actually made it WORSE by trying to quench the core before it was out of a geometrically fissile configuration. The reason for control rods is exactly the same principle of core geometry. The core, by definition, can't be too spread out or the reaction stops. If you insert rods in the core it stops the reaction because it's absorbing the neutrons. if the core is too spread out, the neutrons can't reach another fissile atom and hence the reaction stops.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing....

Dec 26, 2014
"Everybody here knows I am a retired professional with a real degree and a real licence. You on the other hand are none of those things."
---------------------------------------

Really? All I see is a nasty man with a foul mouth, accusing others of what he would do in similar circumstances.

I is real, otto, but we do not know about you, . . . except for your very unprofessional mouth.

Tell you what, . . we can identify ourselves, . . what'cha say?

Dec 26, 2014
MM, when the zirconium burned, the game was over, the rods being destroyed. When the molten materials drop to the bottom of the reactor vessel, they can and do assume conditions which can crate secondary fissions, secondary and uncontrolled crticalities.

The secrecy regarding Unit 3 is suspicious to many in the field, who think Japan was carrying out secret experiments with Plutonium.

Dec 26, 2014
molten materials drop to the bottom of the reactor vessel, they can and do assume conditions which can crate secondary fissions, secondary and uncontrolled crticalities.


No they can't...unless they have been solidified in a critical geometry before they hit the water at the bottom of the vessel. These materials aren't critical by "magic"...it only happens if they are close to each other in the proper geometry. It's an EXTREMELY deliberate process that doesn't "just happen" when the stuff spills out all over the place.

Dec 26, 2014
All I see is a nasty man with a foul mouth, accusing others of what he would do in similar circumstances.

I is real, otto
Youve proven yourself to be a liar and a fraud. THAT is what is real.
but we do not know about you, . . . except for your very unprofessional mouth.

Tell you what, . . we can identify ourselves, . . what'cha say?
The people here know that WHO WE ARE has nothing to do with the FACTS we post. Only a self-centered moron would think otherwise.

Like I SAY, NOBODY GIVES A SHIT who you are or what youve done. Who you are has nothing to do with what you post, especially when it is easy to expose as nonsense.

Further, like an ass youve already offered to expose yourself but then you lied your way out of it. More evidence that you are nothing BUT full of shit.

You post new bullshit every day. You didnt understand mm's point about H2 from seawater and so you tried to bullshit your way out of it. Didnt work.

Dec 26, 2014
otto, I knew you were too SCARED to do it.

You are terrified I may be correct. Wouldn't that be a big hit to otto?

And did you ever have a mother? Who taught you to speak like an uneducated clown, with filthy words to cover the lack of knowledge?

And to MM, I ask if he wants me to supply the information on the meltdown, from official sources.

He says, "It's an EXTREMELY deliberate process that doesn't "just happen" when the stuff spills out all over the place." but it did happen in several places. It occurred at TMI II, and at all three Fukushima reactors. I guess it is not so remote after all.

Dec 26, 2014
" but it did happen in several places. It occurred at TMI II, and at all three Fukushima reactors. I guess it is not so remote after all.


Jesus Christ! I already said we knew how it happened at Fukishima. It's because they...and listen closely puuulllllleeeease....they quenched it in a geometrically critical configuration!

What the HELL have we been talking about?!

As far as three mile island; exactly what I said would happen did. 1/3 of the fuel was released to the plenum and natural cooling was established. IOW the core became sub-critical because enough of it melted away.

Sorry, but damn man, sometimes you really have trouble following a line of reasoning....

Dec 26, 2014
otto, I knew you were too SCARED to do it
You mean like the gutless coward who offers to do it and then doesnt? The gutless coward who pretends to be someone he's not because hes afraid his arguments cant stand by themselves?
And did you ever have a mother? Who taught you to speak like an uneducated clown, with filthy words to cover the lack of knowledge?
-says the ass who lies about his qualifications to cover up for his lack of knowledge.

Gkam thinks Im wrong because I use naughty words? Youre lies are much more obscene and offensive sir.

Dec 26, 2014
otto, I was looking up some GE BWR references to show what we worked on in the late 1970's. I only wrote the interim report, "Small-scale Quencher Screening Tests", but could only find others, and some references to the NASA reports we did on graphite materials and their dangers.

Maybe if you were not too scared to reveal your own experience, I could put my statements into language you understand. But you have to stop this silly fascination with me personally, and look into the factors of which I warn you.

Dec 26, 2014
MM, I disagree with your notion of the cores being "solidified in a critical geometry". They were not solidified at all, but liquified by the 5,000 degree C events. They dripped down to the bottom of the reactor vessel, where they burned their way all the way through, hitting the floor of the containment, and now reside only inches from the Earth. We are try8ing to keep them cool with massive amounts of water, so they do not once again become liquid.

Nobody can see in those areas at all, and will not be able to for years, requiring the development of special equipment.

Dec 26, 2014

And did you ever have a mother? Who taught you to speak like an uneducated clown, with filthy words to cover the lack of knowledge?

Asked and answered!

gkam -
Do you really want to give personal information to Otto?
He would reject it and use it against you, like he has already done to many others.

I see the only day you didn't post this year was Christmas, Otto. Hmmmmm.

Mommy drag you to grandmas house again? To learn more self-righteous potty mouth?

Went to Church perhaps?

You're a disgrace.


Dec 26, 2014
MM, I disagree with your notion of the cores being "solidified in a critical geometry". They were not solidified at all, but liquified by the 5,000 degree C events.


They were...until someone dumped seawater on them, produced copious amounts of hydrogen, and then blew the roof off of buildings containing spent fuel which contaminated the surrounding area with nuclides. Thankfully it wasn't much, and the short half lives of the most potent isotopes made the area safe in relative short order. Some of the best evidence that a criticallity accident happened was the observation of neutron beams that ionized the air around the reactor. This has ONLY been observed in the presence of strong ionizing radiation. It was observed at Chernobyl, two fatal Manhattan project experiments, and as a matter of course in the cores of nuclear reactors. So, it's the best explanation given the evidence.

NONE of that happened at TMI where the engineers were listened to.

Dec 26, 2014
otto, I was looking up some GE BWR references to show what we worked on in the late 1970's. I only wrote the interim report, "Small-scale Quencher Screening Tests", but could only find others, and some references to the NASA reports we did on graphite materials and their dangers
WHO GIVES A SHIT? Even if true it adds no weight to the crap you post. You were a validation tech. You were NEVER an engineer no matter what your job shop told you.
Maybe if you were not too scared to reveal your own experience, I could put my statements into language you understand
Oh sorry I dont speak bullshit.
But you have to stop this silly fascination with me personally, and look into the factors of which I warn you.
Stop lying about your qualifications and experience and I'll be happy to.

I treat any lying bullshitter here exactly the same way.

Dec 26, 2014
"I treat any lying bullshitter here exactly the same way."
--------------------------------------------------

Technically, isn't that self-abuse?

"Do you really want to give personal information to Otto?
He would reject it and use it against you, like he has already done to many others."

Good point. I was about to do so, to shut him up, but he would zero into some small item and make a big deal about his misrepresentation of it.

Dec 26, 2014
Hi there little ass-pimple!
see the only day you didn't post this year was Christmas, Otto. Mommy drag you to grandmas house again?
-This from the infant whose biggest thrill is to show up to 1/5 me every day, of every week, of every month, for the last - what? - 3 years is it? My, time does fly when youre completely impotent doesnt it?
To learn more self-righteous potty mouth
ESTEVANS CHARACTER: "to fuck your mother Otto" "son of a dead smoking whore" "Otto leckt seiner toten Mutter rauchigen Geruch Genitalien"..."Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me." "Have you quit fucking your dog yet?" "Ignorant bed-wetter"
You're a disgrace
-says the apparent CEO of the only CNC shop in oregon that makes lower receivers for AR15s. With 48 employees. Says the guy who gave up debating me because he couldnt control his emotions and ended up exposing his family, his company, his customers, and his employees to scrutiny.

Disgrace?

Dec 26, 2014
Good point. I was about to do so, to shut him up, but he would zero into some small item and make a big deal about his misrepresentation of it
Yeah and youre a liar, we've already established that. Give it to stumpy like you said.

Not that it would mean anything, because it doesnt. Thats obvious to everyone but you. How come?

In the meantime, explain what your MS is in and why its relevant to anything youve discussed. Explain how filling out validation forms makes you an engineer. Explain how your job shop can make you an engineer just by giving you a title with that word in it.

Explain how delivering powerpoint presentations prepared by real experts qualifies you to be one. And explain how being a 'consultant' and generating 0 income makes you employed.

At least refute these obvious conclusions. Can you do that?

Dec 26, 2014
otto, let's get out of this rut. When I see a statement like the ones I make, I respond with questions regarding the knowledge, experience, lessons, the parameters and the factors, a learning experience. I usually do not assume the person is lying and certainly do not make it public, especially without proof.

If you had asked how we tested the SRV downcomers, I would have told you everything. I do not have to impress you, . . you are only an offensive name online.

If you had asked me which products were mine at National, I would have told you.

If you had asked what developments we made in the foundry industry to save Ductile Iron production, I would have told you.

I would give you references to the tests of graphite materials which could be a big concern soon. I could have told you the chemistry and thermodynamics of the alternative energy system that ran on pollution and produced farm fuels.

Isn't that better than screaming insults?

Dec 26, 2014
Want more? Want to know what it is like to be a part of sending a pilot into space at over 4,000 miles/hour in an aircraft he has to pilot? Did you know the G forces were so high, the X-15 was controlled with thumbwheels on the sidestick?

Did you know we had F-104's with old X-15 rocket engines in them and extended wingtips and nose with reaction motors to go above the effective atmosphere and teach the Apollo Astronauts to use reaction systems? I was surprised at the size of the U-2, and fascinated by the XB-70, which they used to park outside our shop door a day before a flight.

I was an avionics tech, for communications, and everything had communications, so I got into almost everything. And Eddie's had almost everything. I did not get to work directly on the Blackbirds or the XB-70s, or the X-15s, . . but almost everything else.

That's not bragging, it is just what happened to me. Everybody had to be somewhere, and that is where they had me.

Dec 26, 2014
A few quotes from Otto -
"I say again - NOBODY GIVES A SHIT. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.
You are SO full of shit.
WHO GIVES A SHIT?
You were NEVER any fucking engineer you liar.
-All places YOUVE never been you fucking bullshitter.
-And youre getting your stuff from mother jones, and your ass.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Oh sorry I dont speak bullshit
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.
Disgrace?"

Yes, Otto. You are a disgrace.

"My, time does fly when youre completely impotent doesnt it?" - Otto

My goodness, what a revealing question!

Dec 26, 2014
Estevan57, let's drop it and start anew. I invite otto and others to ask questions - it is experience, not Absolute Truth we are relating. If I have something wrong, I expect somebody with intelligence and patience to inform me. This site should be for learning.

Dec 28, 2014
Yes otto you're a disgrace
Oh I forgot - estivan pays little girls 5 cents to stalk otto and downrate him. And enjoys bragging about it.
experience, not Absolute Truth we are relating
If that were true you wouldn't have to make up lies about your past would you? But you're only here to talk about yourself. Facts are optional.

You want to start over? Admit that you've been lying about being an engineer. Stop using 'airman' for 'mechanic' and 'engineer' for form filler-outer and 'consultant' for PowerPoint jockey. Stop making up lies about plutonium and thorium.
Want more?
None of thats relevant. Most is inflated. Have people here shown any interest whatsoever? Of course not.

If I want to know about the X15 I go to the wiki page which was contributed by real experts, not mechanics with inflated opinions of themselves.

Dec 28, 2014
When is the nuclear industry going to clean this up? The answer is, they can't.

Yet, they keep on building more, enabled by the politicians they own.

Dec 28, 2014
When is the nuclear industry going to clean this up? The answer is, they can't.

Yet, they keep on building more, enabled by the politicians they own.
Where did you get the info on thorium being abandoned worldwide?

Dec 28, 2014
Keep your eye on Georgia Power, which is building two AP1000 Nuclear Turkeys. It required US to guarantee the billions of dollars in loans to do it. So much for eliminating subsidies to loser technologies.

Those monsters are ridiculous: Look into their design. They think when they melt down, a big hat of water on them will "put it out"?? Do they not understand water is a moderator, letting the fast Neutrons slow down enough for capture and more fission?

Dec 28, 2014
Keep your eye on Georgia Power, which is building two AP1000 Nuclear Turkeys. It required US to guarantee the billions of dollars in loans to do it. So much for eliminating subsidies to loser technologies.

Those monsters are ridiculous: Look into their design. They think when they melt down, a big hat of water on them will "put it out"?? Do they not understand water is a moderator, letting the fast Neutrons slow down enough for capture and more fission?
I suppose this is how they might look to laymen and activist/hobbyists. But not to engineers and scientists who understand how they are designed and how they operate.

How about that thorium? Provide a source please.

Dec 28, 2014
Otto, why do you start out with the assumption that you are correct? I did not say thorium was being abandoned worldwide. You mis-read it, looking for cracks in my statements.

I said those who have been using and trying it are abandoning it - the Germans. Those with no experience with it, such as India, are going ahead to make their own terrible realizations of this Faustian Bargain.

Dec 28, 2014
How many nuclear "hobbyists" do you know aside from our own money-hungry corporations?

And tell me how a meltdown in an AP 1000 is "safe". ALL the reactors have most of their equipment to keep them from killing us. You like that?

Dec 28, 2014
"I suppose this is how they might look to laymen and activist/hobbyists. But not to engineers and scientists who understand how they are designed and how they operate."
-----------------------------------------

Oh, good. Let's discuss it. How did Plutonium get 130 km away from Fukushima? It included parts of reactor vessel and the fuel components. Hydrogen explosions do not happen in the reactor vessel where the water is deaerated, but out of them, after they vented high-level gases into the confinement structure around it. That means a prompt criticality, which forced the entire reactor vessel into the air. It takes an explosion from the bottom to do that, not the top.

That also explains the activation products they found in the steel of Fukushima Dai-ini, kilometers away.

Dec 28, 2014
I read that you said it was being abandoned. Which isn't true.

"Research and development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, primarily the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor, (LFTR), MSR design, has been or is now being done in the U.S., U.K., Germany, Brazil, India, China, France, the Czech Republic, Japan, Russia, Canada, Israel and the Netherlands.[13][15] Conferences with experts from as many as 32 countries are held, including one by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in 2013, which focuses on thorium as an alternative nuclear technology without requiring production of nuclear waste.[31] Recognized experts, such as Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls for expanded support of new nuclear power technology, and states, "the thorium option offers the world not only a new sustainable supply of fuel for nuclear power but also one that makes better use of the fuel's energy content."

Dec 28, 2014
How many nuclear "hobbyists" do you know
Well you for one. You talk like a hobbyist. For instance you start out with an incendiary question:
How did Plutonium get 130 km away from Fukushima?
-and then proceed with a lot of unwarranted, unsubstantiated speculation. Did you look for an explanation from experts? No. Would you have understood it if you did? No. Because you're not trained to do so.

But this lack of training enables you to speculate because you're blissfully ignorant of the amount of effort needed to understand.

No I'm not going to waste time researching to disprove you. MM and others have done so but you're oblivious to evidence.

As far as parts of the vessel being blown 130km away, do you have a source for that? How far is Idaho from Fukushima?

Dec 28, 2014
Gosh, otto,if you are not trying to disparage my character, it appears you have nothing to say.

Want the references to the Plutonium? The German trials with Thorium? References to the Georgia Vogtle plants? References to what? Tell me,. so we can get it straight.

Don't run away!

Dec 28, 2014
Gosh, otto,if you are not trying to disparage my character, it appears you have nothing to say.

Want the references to the Plutonium? The German trials with Thorium? References to the Georgia Vogtle plants? References to what? Tell me,. so we can get it straight.

Don't run away!
I read the wiki page. Did you read my quotes? Many countries are pursuing this. It's far from being abandoned as you said.

And absolutely, you need to reference what you say because your cred is nil.

You claim to be an expert as the basis for your unsubstantiated opinions. Disproving your expert status is an easy way of discrediting those opinions. For starters, reference the vessel parts being 130km away from the explosion.

If you don't want personal attacks, stop posting obviously false personal info. Nobody else does. Can't you resist your compulsions?

Dec 28, 2014
No, otto, I did not claim to be any expert, not even in my own field. I am a generalist, having done all those things I mentioned, and more, if truth be told. I am not famous, nor very important, just a guy who got cast around by fate, and learned a lot. My attitude of not enduring any BS gave me many opportunities to change professions.

If you want to actually discuss these technologies and what I learned from all those years, we can do that, but not personal attacks. I earlier gave you several references of where to find my name and picture, but you refused to follow them up. And my name is unimportant, the lessons are the important parts.

I was warned by others to not reveal my name here.

Dec 28, 2014
" For starters, reference the vessel parts being 130km away from the explosion."
----------------------------------------------------

http://fukushima-...rconium/

I have others, if you wish to read them.

Dec 28, 2014
" For starters, reference the vessel parts being 130km away from the explosion."
----------------------------------------------------

http://fukushima-...rconium/

I have others, if you wish to read them.
Sorry, a single '2μm diameter particle' is dust, not a 'part'. 'Parts' implies an explosion capable of throwing macroscopic objects that far. Something entirely different, as any expert would tell you. Dust is carried by prevailing winds. 'Parts' is no doubt a translation error from the original Japanese.

The fact that you fall for such incendiary anti-nuke propaganda further indicates your amateur status.

Dec 28, 2014
If you want to actually discuss these technologies and what I learned from all those years, we can do that, but not personal attacks
You didn't 'learn' them. Learning them is going to school, studying, taking tests, earning a degree, and gaining experience as a professional.

You 'learned' them as a hobbyist, by hearing rumors, skimming through a few manuals perhaps, watching a documentary or 2 (written by amateurs) and reading screeds like the 'Fukushima watch' website. Actually being on a site doesn't mean you know anything about it.

What does being an X15 mechanic have to do with knowing anything about nukes? You weren't even that, we're you?

Dec 28, 2014
http://http://www.helmho...dex.html

"Airborne Plutonium and Non-Natural Uranium from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Found at 120 km Distance a Few Days after Reactor Hydrogen Explosions"

Go to some of the offers I made many posts above above, and let's discuss them.

Dec 28, 2014
Toots, I was a communications tech, as I said. I was in certain places doing things I was assigned to do, and learned what I related to you. Apparently, you do not even read my posts.

Wait until I tell you how I got to personally and professionally piss off Chuck Yeager.

Dec 28, 2014
http://http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/iss/highlights/highlight-ag1/index.html

"Airborne Plutonium and Non-Natural Uranium from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Found at 120 km Distance a Few Days after Reactor Hydrogen Explosions"

Go to some of the offers I made many posts above above, and let's discuss them.
Right. Nothing in there about 'parts'. Let's discuss why you don't know the difference between dust and parts, or why you would read '2μm diameter particle' and not think dust.

That's pretty rudimentary gkam. Somebody with an adequate education would know the difference. YOU DONT.

Dec 28, 2014
Toots, I was a communications tech, as I said. I was in certain places doing things I was assigned to do, and learned what I related to you. Apparently, you do not even read my posts.

Wait until I tell you how I got to personally and professionally piss off Chuck Yeager.
Irrelevant. Nobody cares. I saw somebody throw an egg at the president. Does that mean he knows anything about politics?

Explain why you don't know what '2μm diameter particle' means. You know anything about fallout at all?

Dec 28, 2014
Here is the download link for the report.

http://www.helmho...961w.pdf

Dec 28, 2014
Here is the download link for the report.

http://www.helmho...961w.pdf
Theres nothing in there about parts being blasted 120km from the site. Answer the question; why don't you know the difference between dust and parts?

Dec 28, 2014
Yes, it is the size of particles which lodge in the lung, and are especially harmful. Look up the 2.5 standards for air pollution.

And it is an Alpha emitter, with a massive 5.4 MeV emitted particle. When I was a Beam Tech for Raychem, our 2 and 3 million MeV beams made the air glow. What do you think happens to lung tissue at 5 MeV?
------------------------------------------
"Theres nothing in there about parts being blasted 120km from the site."

otto, you did not even open the pdf. it is titled:
"Airborne Plutonium and Non-Natural Uranium from the Fukushima DNPP Found at 120 km Distance a Few Days after Reactor Hydrogen Explosions"

Dec 28, 2014
Oops, I meant 2-3 Million electron Volt beams, not 2-3 million MeV beams.

Otto, I also wrote parts of the Industrial Hardening Manual to protect American industry form the effects of nuclear weapons. I did the effects part. That's why I went to get a Master of Science in something more beneficial to mankind. I already tried war. It didn't work.

Dec 28, 2014
That does not answer the question. WHY did you say that PARTS were blasted 120 from the site?

I didn't have to read the pdf as I know that no reactor vessel or fuel rod PARTS were found 120km away from the explosion, which is what you said. Isn't it?

Dec 28, 2014
YES, otto, those bits were part of Unit Three, fueled with MOX, spiked with Plutonium.

What did you expect, cams and gears? Those particles were RESPIRABLE!

Dec 28, 2014
YES, otto, those bits were part of Unit Three, fueled with MOX, spiked with Plutonium.

What did you expect, cams and gears?
Well that's what parts means isn't it? Shards, slivers, shrapnel.
Those particles were RESPIRABLE!
OMG! Irrelevant. No massive explosion capable of hurling PARTS for 120km. Which is what you were selling before I corrected you.

Dec 28, 2014
"OMG! Irrelevant."
----------------

No, otto, most relevant. A camshaft is big enough to see and have picked up, while the particle is small enough to lodge in the lung, without the protection of the outer epidermis. That big 5.4 MeV emitter can only really hurt us from the inside.

otto,you are making things up, not understanding the important factors in radiation protection.

Dec 28, 2014
"OMG! Irrelevant."
----------------

No, otto, most relevant. A camshaft is big enough to see and have picked up, while the particle is small enough to lodge in the lung, without the protection of the outer epidermis. That big 5.4 MeV emitter can only really hurt us from the inside.

otto,you are making things up, not understanding the important factors in radiation protection.
True. So why did you lie about the parts flying through the air for 120km? Did you think people wouldnt check?

Why did you lie about plutonium in idaho and thorium?

See, at some point you start to lie about what you said, which were themselves lies, and carp about your 'experience' in order to try to gloss over your lies. Because youre far too intelligent and interesting and experienced not to know what you are talking about. Right?

What makes you think this isnt obvious? Because you are very good at lying to yourself?

Dec 28, 2014
otto thinks "part" of the fuel rods means an engine block, I guess. Sorry otto, it was only Plutonium. And did you look up the 2.5 limits in air pollution? They are very specific, being the sizes which lodge in the lung.

Do you know the differences between the Mark I and the Mark II BWR? Between the BWR and the PWR?

Come on, otto, you have insufficient education and experience to discuss this issue. So you accuse me of having your character.

Dec 28, 2014
Just wondering how many millions of gallons of diesel fuel does an 'average' nuclear power plant use on a daily basis? In the US nuclear plants are required by law to run their backup diesel generators about 40 hours per month, just as a precaution to make sure they run and are in working order, and Fukushima Daishi had 13 of those generators. These are the size of two story houses, each generator, so not your garden variety, and so they obviously use large amounts of diesel on a daily basis, would anyone have that figure or know the answer to the amount of CO2 each nuclear power plant produces? A bit off topic.

Dec 29, 2014
When is the nuclear industry going to clean this up? The answer is, they can't.

Yet, they keep on building more, enabled by the politicians they own.


When are they going to clean up monzonite beaches that are 8 times more radioactive than anywhere in Mutsu province, that people regularly visit, that people live around without getting massive increases in cancer incidence. This is hysteria amplified by ignorance with a dash of political intransigence.

If you break a glass on your floor most people think sweeping it up is sufficient...even if there is a small risk that you didn't get it all. Others break out the hoover and really go over it well. Still others hire a professional cleaning service to be SURE they get every little last speck...and hysterics; like the environmental movement REQUIRE that you tear the house down and rebuild it to preclude ANY possibility of anyone stepping on a sliver of glass. NO, I'm not exaggerating.

Dec 29, 2014
otto thinks "part" of the fuel rods means an engine block, I guess. Sorry otto, it was only Plutonium. And did you look up the 2.5 limits in air pollution?
Gkam thinks throwing random facts around will make him look knowledgable. But when he says
How did Plutonium get 130 km away from Fukushima? It included parts of reactor vessel
-we know he's not very much so. 'Only plutonium' -? Do you think reactor vessels are made of plutonium??
Do you know the differences between
I know where to look them up as do you. And I know the difference between 'parts' and dust. You should have looked that one up.
Come on, otto, you have insufficient education
Well I admit that freely. Admit that you have NO formal education in nuclear-related fields.
So you accuse me of having your character.
Admit that you read the article you referenced about parts flying 120km away, and didn't realize it was fallout. Come on, be a man.

Dec 29, 2014
This "accident" was HUGELY amplified by bureaucratic incompetence. All western reactors are designed to be passively safe. If they would have behaved rationally this would have been no more a problem than three mile island. As it stands any people who lived within about 20 km of the plant would receive an annual radiation dose that would give them statistically a ZERO percent chance of getting cancer....

Ask the Russians how many people live in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl (which is about as bad as an accident can get)....then ask them how many of them have cancer.

In contrast ask the CHINESE how many people have cancer in the villages surrounding the major rare Earth processing centers of the country that we use to power our "green" wind turbines and solar cells...

Oh, and gkam what isotope of plutonium are you going on about? In what levels specifically? And from which official source are you getting your information?

Dec 29, 2014
Oh, I see, you got it from a crank site...well at least they show that there are no harmful levels...

Pu was calculated as (130±21) nBq/m3


There is 33Bq/g in a BANANA...much less a cubic meter of air.

See, people like this put out numbers as if they are scary...assuming no one will actually look up what they mean.

On edit: OMG correction...their measurements are in NANO Bq...which is a BILLIONTH of a Bq....yeah I'm surprised and skeptical that they were even able to measure that above background.

On edit edit; I'm actually laughing here...they SERIOUSLY put out those figures for everyone to see...NANO Bq. That is less harmful...LESS harmful than eating a sliver of a banana a day.

Dec 29, 2014
What are you going to do when you find out I am correct? Oh, . . . you will not check.

You poor folk have gone down the personal attack road in debates which displays a lack of knowledge and is an admission of defeat.

And MM thinks all disintegrations are the same, no Gamma, Beta or Alpha factors need be weighed. You folk are SO eager to take shots, you blow your own "theories". Go to a reputable nuclear site, not affiliated with the industry.

Look up what happens to Vermont Yankee today. Others are following. You are beating your dead horse into lifeless atoms. Or better yet, go buy shares of Georgia Power!! You, too, can own a part of a Nuclear Turkey, one we hope will not kill us. The government put up multiple billions to coddle this project, surely you will make even more money!!

Dec 29, 2014

And MM thinks all disintegrations are the same, no Gamma, Beta or Alpha factors need be weighed. You folk are SO eager to take shots, you blow your own "theories". Go to a reputable nuclear site, not affiliated with the industry.


Quite honestly at BILLIONTHS of a Bq...it DOESN'T matter one nit...You're talking levels FAR below background. Besides if you BOTHERED to read your own source it actually DOES weigh the differences in alpha and beta decay (I dare you to show me a source that says PU in any form has GAMMA decay)...because they conveniently added SV/Bq in the chart....READ IT.

THAT is a fact. THAT is science. What you're peddling here is FEAR and emotionalism...

Dec 29, 2014
"Vermont Yankee is the fifth American reactor forced shut in the last two years."
--------------------------------------------

It is time for the "noocular" folk to strike the tent and find ways to clean up what they did to the Earth. I suggest a vacation in Fukushima, so they can see for themselves what happens with this technology they seem to love at a distance.

Dec 29, 2014
I suggest a vacation in Fukushima, so they can see for themselves what happens with this technology they seem to love at a distance.


Actually an intelligent person with the capitol to spare should be buying up that land for pennies on the thousands of dollars when people finally come to their senses about just how low the radiation levels are.

Hasn't it even penetrated your narrow view of the world in the SLIGHTEST that you can't provide ONE SINGLE credible source that says there's dangerous levels of radiation?

Dec 29, 2014
MM looks at irrelevant information, otto takes personal shots, but none of them will look into what is really going on at Fukushima, choosing instead to deny it.

Why do they need 600-foot stacks in a facility with no emissions? Why so HIGH?? Why would you get a lethal dose of radiation while standing by one now?

What are the states of the three blobs of molten Corium, so intensely radioactive, we cannot even view it, because it destroys our equipment? What are you going to do with them? How to handle it, if you cannot even see it? How to get sufficiently close to do it? Can you do it before it eats through to the water table? It is only inches away now.

You without experience are suckers for manipulation, like with "WMD!". One of the good points of being a generalist, is working in the professions of others. otto should try it sometime. You, too.

Dec 29, 2014
You can hand wave all you want, but the FACT is that you can't provide a SINGLE source to back up your...well quite FRANKLY your LIES.

I don't know what else to call you at this point but a liar. I don't like to make such accusations, but you continually fail to produce your claims and you continually refuse to modify your position even when faced with irrefutable facts. You're either a liar or COMPLETELY unwilling or unable to learn.

On edit: As for the corium...well it wouldn't be a problem if the idiot (yes IDIOT) bureaucrats wouldn't have interfered and quenched it in a geometrically critical state. We have no such problems at TMI....

Even so, even after they blew up a building and blasted actinides all over the landscape, AND possibly still have some critical corium in the building the radiation levels are safe...DESPITE all that...

Dec 29, 2014
"Hasn't it even penetrated your narrow view of the world in the SLIGHTEST that you can't provide ONE SINGLE credible source that says there's dangerous levels of radiation?"
---------------------------------------------------
Why is the area completely off-limits? Why does everyone there have to wear complete protection? Liberals?

I want you to probe me wrong. I do not want the nuke folk to really have ruined the Earth, but it is inescapable. What are you going to do with Hanford? Read the lists of babies which died there? Read the lists of the babies now being born with incomplete brains?

If you say no, I will give you the references you cannot ignore.

14.658μSv/h is the current reading. Want to live there?

Dec 29, 2014
If you say no, I will give you the references you cannot ignore.


No.

The levels from Chernobyl and above ground testing are well known and FAR below anything dangerous...JUST like Fukushima...

Detailed here;

http://en.wikiped...adiation

Dec 29, 2014
Can any of you technical experts tell me about reactor types and their history? Let's get it on!

If I show you the Corium has eaten its way through the steel-reinforced concrete and is now only inches from the Earth and the Water Table, will you be concerned?

Probably not. You will think the water can "put it out", instead of blowing up in a steam explosion.

MM, go to the official videos of the GE Mark I BWR melting down, so you can understand it. Come back with questions. Otherwise, you are just bleating what they tell you.

Dec 29, 2014
14.658�ĽSv/h is the current reading. Want to live there?


Actually YES, that's LOWER than the background in Ramsar Iran, and there has been no statistically significant deviation in cancer rates there....period.


Dec 29, 2014
If I show you the Corium has eaten its way through the steel-reinforced concrete and is now only inches from the Earth and the Water Table, will you be concerned?


Have we seen any evidence of ionizing radiation since the first few months?

Lest we forget the corium would NOT be a problem if the safeties of the plant were ALLOWED to function.

Can any of you technical experts tell me about reactor types and their history? Let's get it on!


Actually yes, I can. Can YOU tell us about NEW reactor technology and how it actually functions?

Dec 29, 2014
Well, I am sure glad you outsiders are so convinced about the safety of nuclear technology, never having worked with it, or even seen one up close. And those areas are so safe, they are being filled up with people right now, . . . oh, . . they're not?

Can I send you photos of Chernobyl children? Look up those words, and be embarrassed.
-------------------------------------
"Actually yes, I can. Can YOU tell us about NEW reactor technology and how it actually functions?"

Yes. Let's get it on! But we have to have REAL facilities, not ones of fantasy or planning. We have seen way too many failures in that industry.

We can start with the GE BWR and the concerns with the undersized containment, the main selling point. You go first. Or shall I? Why so many different designs of this simple system? Why does even GE admit most of the plant is there to keep it from killing us?

Dec 29, 2014
Well, I am sure glad you outsiders are so convinced about the safety of nuclear technology, never having worked with it, or even seen one up close. And those areas are so safe, they are being filled up with people right now, . . . oh, . . they're not?

Can I send you photos of Chernobyl children? Look up those words, and be embarrassed.



You can squawk all you want. Unless you have facts to back it up you're simply appealing to emotion.

The FACT is that every SINGLE source you posted shows safe levels of radiation. The only source that doesn't is the one I PROVIDED and that one spot is right on top of Dai Ichi....and even THAT is still lower than a beach in Brazil.

Dec 29, 2014

Alpha, Beta, and Gamma are NOT alike.

You are being taken,like most of you were with "WMD!". Big Guvmunt screaming exactly what you want to hear and believe. Go with it, what could go wrong, . . at Fermi I, at Brown's Ferry, at Chernobyl, at Monju, at Hanford, at WIPP?

Dec 29, 2014
Yes. Let's get it on!


I'm waiting for a specific concern or question...

In lieu of that I think that they have an EXCEPTIONAL operational record...unless a tsunami hit's them and bureaucrats are allowed to dictate safety procedures...DESPITE those events the area surrounding the planet is perfectly safe...

Alpha, Beta, and Gamma are NOT alike.


Never said they were. DID I.

Now kindly quit putting words in my mouth and answer the FACTS.

I DO have a specific question for you...what are the operating principles and differences between LWRs and MSRs

Dec 29, 2014
Your silly analysis of "freezing" the core into a bad position is ridiculous. Go look up the design of the system, go to the videos of the system and see for yourself. You do not even understand the design of the system, yet you are so sure of yourself. Why?

Did you fall for "WMD!", too? I didn't because I had experience in the lies of war. You have none in this industry, yet assume you know more than those who do, with your irrelevant statistics of things which are not alike.

We will not solve anything here but education. You will get it.

Dec 29, 2014
Your assertion of Bequerels assumes they are all alike. They are not.

How many molten salt reactors do we have working right now? HTGR? Liquid metal? Why don't we use all those we have already tried?

Dec 29, 2014
We will not solve anything here but education. You will get it.


I have "got it", it's you that can't face numbers and facts.

Here they are once more...

The facts are that, excluding the building that Dai Ichi is housed in, radiation levels in ALL of the surrounding area are below those which cause an increased risk in cancer in humans. That nuclear power is extremely safe, and that new reactor designs will not only burn up all the current "waste" we have, but will produce LESS high level waste than if we got FUSION reactors online...

Dec 29, 2014
BTW, the headline is inaccurate. Unit Four was not even fueled, so the reactor could not be "cleared" of fuel it did not contain. The fuel was removed from the Spent Fuel Pool. Yes, it makes a difference to those who understand.

They are trying to assume it is all okay, when they can still get deadly doses if they stand in the wrong place.
--------------------------------------

"That nuclear power is extremely safe, and that new reactor designs will not only burn up all the current "waste" we have, but will produce LESS high level waste than if we got FUSION reactors online..."
---------------------------------

Yes, . . and it will be "too cheap to meter!".

You DID fall for "WMD!", didn't you?


Dec 29, 2014
Your assertion of Bequerels assumes they are all alike. They are not.


I'll bite, show me a source that says nano Bq are dangerous. We're talking about alpha and beta decay here...and even IF we were talking about gamma it's still safe. You WON'T do that though, because you don't want to be CONFUSED with facts...you're like a religious zealot who's incapable of actually assimilating facts and changing his mind. I get it, I've seen it in the Jehovah's witnesses that some to my door.

And leaving ALL of that aside the radiation levels (regardless of the Bq) shows the sieverts/h which INCLUDES all the decays per second and THOSE are safe. There now you've been educated.

Dec 29, 2014
MM, you are the Jehovah's Witness, falling for silly stuff told to you by those with axes to grind, . . BIG MONEY axes. Go behind the altar and see what they really do.

Dec 29, 2014
They are trying to assume it is all okay, when they can still get deadly doses if they stand in the wrong place.


You can do this in a reactor that HASN'T blown up. Those areas are miniscule, and alpha particles can be shielded by CENTIMETERS of air...or a piece of paper...

http://en.wikiped...Toxicity

MM, you are the Jehovah's Witness, falling for silly stuff told to you by those with axes to grind, . . BIG MONEY axes. Go behind the altar and see what they really do.


I'm not the one throwing around extraordinary claims without a SHRED of evidence to back them up. I do things like...oh give actual SOURCES to actual FACTS which actually support my claims, as opposed to you who gives sources which back your opponents claims...

Dec 29, 2014
No arguing with true believers of what is essentially superstition to them, since they have no understanding of the technology. We will not solve anything here, but I had to grind the facts into the "believers".

Did they look into the GE reports admitting most of the plant is to keep it from killing us? No. Did they look into the babies at Hanford? No. Did they look into the rise in thyroid cancers world-wide? No. Did they look into the disgusting incompetence at WIPP? No.

over and out.

Dec 29, 2014
Did you look at the safety record of nuclear vs. other power?
Did you look at the radiation levels around Fukushima?
Did you look at the new nuclear technology coming online?


Dec 29, 2014
Safety? Are you kidding? We have hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable near Prypiat. Do you really think you can survive living in Fukushima?

How many cancers will be started this year by wind turbines? How about by PV operation? How much deadly waste do we get from PV? Wind?

When we have a solar "spill", it is a nice day, and a wind "spill" is always welcome at the same time. They are relatively easy to clean up, aren't they?

Show me the dead babies from wind turbine operation, and I will match that number with those from nuclear technology. Then, we can do it with PV.

They need workers at Fukushima. Go volunteer. If you do, I will pay your way over.


Dec 29, 2014
If it is all so simple, why do we still have three to five million gallons of the deadliest material on Earth eating its way through the newest set of tanks at Hanford? The material at Hanford is from weapons manufacture, but nuclear power just makes more, tons of it every year, and there is no storage for it.

We cannot store it. We tried vitrification, but the materials form loci of nucleation, starting crystallization, fracturing and allowing the release of the radionuclides. We buried it, and found the thermal plumes from the decay heat attracted water in the surrounding Earth, dissolving the high-level waste, and carrying it to the surface where it was carried away by the winds.

Please understand I am not just looking this stuff up on wiki, it is from experience, and study.

Dec 29, 2014
Safety? Are you kidding? We have hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable near Prypiat.


In Prypiat the levels are VERY safe, at 1 micro-sievert/hour....multiplying out to 8.7 mSv/a, which is FAR lower than what is considered safe.

http://en.wikiped...t#Safety

Do you really think you can survive living in Fukushima?


Absolutely. Those levels are all consistently below what's considered necessary for even a SLIGHT increased cancer risk.

How many cancers will be started this year by wind turbines?


http://www.dailym...ale.html

http://www.pbs.or...a_12-14/

http://www.dailym...tes.html


Dec 29, 2014
"Science" in the Daily Mail, . . a political rag?

We are not going to solve this. but you CAN invest in Georgia Power, with its two AP1000s, the greatest bungle in their history. They are good folk, and my former customers, but nukes are a bad decision.

Dec 29, 2014
"Science" in the Daily Mail, . . a political rag?


Here's another then ...

http://www.thegua...ollution

Is PBS a political rag? :)

Dec 29, 2014
Go look into gold mining and extraction. Then, look into resource substitution, and pollution controls. Large generators do not use rare earths for magnets, they use exciters. Look up how it works.

You are taking shots in a field you do not understand.

Dec 29, 2014
Go look into gold mining and extraction. Then, look into resource substitution, and pollution controls. Large generators do not use rare earths for magnets, they use exciters. Look up how it works.

You are taking shots in a field you do not understand.


I'm giving facts. You give none and appeal to emotion and an (apparently) non-existent experience in "the field"...as if being at a nuclear plant gives you some kind of knowledge by osmosis....maybe it's the secret radiation GE isn't telling you about that made you paranoid??

Dec 29, 2014
If it is all so simple, why do we still have three to five million gallons of the deadliest material on Earth eating its way through the newest set of tanks at Hanford?


They had Botulinum toxin at Hanford?

http://en.wikiped...um_toxin

Dec 29, 2014
Hanford babies.

Dec 29, 2014
Hanford babies.


No, you said they had, and I quote..."the deadliest material on Earth" at Hanford. Well the deadliest material on Earth is Botulinum toxin. I'm just taking you at your word...unless of course you were being histrionic again...

Also it is well to note that, if they were keeping actinides there, they could be burned up by molten salt reactors as opposed to stored in Hanford. It's impossible to say though, because you're so emotional about the topic and tend to exaggerate everything like a teenage school girl....

Dec 29, 2014
Also the tritium leaking at Hanford is about 1/5th the level the WHO deems safe...

http://en.wikiped...concerns

then look here...

http://www.who.in...and2.pdf

Page 7 Under H3.

Dec 29, 2014
MM, if it could be done, it would be done.

Look up the Wanapum Dam, right upstream of Hanford. How long is the crack in the support?

Did you look up what is happening at WIPP? They can't even store soiled gloves.

Can you really show me one successful storage site? I want to see the technology.

Dec 29, 2014
Can you really show me one successful storage site? I want to see the technology.


The spent fuel pools are "fairly" effective...until a bureaucrat gives the order to quench an already partially molten core with sea water and blows the building up....

HOWEVER, if ignorant people like you would simply get out of the way we could burn 99%...let me say that again....99% of the current "waste" we're storing...

Dec 29, 2014
" . . . and the Fairies will carry away the rest!"

MM, I want your references to the radiation levels, please.

Dec 29, 2014
" . . . and the Fairies will carry away the rest!"

MM, I want your references to the background radiation levels, please.

Dec 29, 2014
" . . . and the Fairies will carry away the rest!"

MM, I want your references to the background radiation levels, please.


I already gave them....I won't do it again so ACTUALLY look at them this time.

Fukushima and all of Japan...

http://jciv.iidj.net/map/

Pripyat

http://en.wikiped...t#Safety

Explanation of sieverts

http://en.wikiped.../Sievert

Background radiation

http://en.wikiped...adiation

You have all the opportunity to relieve yourself of your ignorance with the above links...kindly DO it this time...


Dec 29, 2014
More than 1500 people died during or as a direct result of the evacuation at Fukushima according to the NEI. Nuclear apologists always claim that had nothing to do with Nuclear energy, that its the bureacracy that really killed them for having to have an evacuation plan in the first place. The brainwashing is complete. Or they work for the nuclear industry in some capacity..

Dec 29, 2014
More than 1500 people died during or as a direct result of the evacuation at Fukushima according to the NEI. Nuclear apologists always claim that had nothing to do with Nuclear energy, that its the bureacracy [sic] that really killed them for having to have an evacuation plan in the first place. The brainwashing is complete. Or they work for the nuclear industry in some capacity..


Interesting that you ASSERT brainwashing without any supporting FACTS that anything at Fukushima is dangerous, and in fact the evacuation killed more people than any contamination will according to the W.H.O.

I don't work for the nuclear industry. I have a brain, can read, and do arithmetic...what's your excuse?

Dec 29, 2014
MM, are you otto in disguise? You are sounding like him.

Meanwhile, why did they evacuate the area, and why can't they come back? Why is everyone wearing complete body suits and respirators?

And why are we using this dangerous technology? Tell you what, clean up Fukushima so we cannot tell what happened, tell us what you did with the intensely-radioactive waste, and we may let you build another one.

Dec 29, 2014
The background radiation at my house is just under 0.1 microSievert/hr. The readings at Fuku are over 14.5 microSieverts/hr. At 14.0 that gives you 122,640 microSieierts/year.

Dec 29, 2014
MM, are you otto in disguise? You are sounding like him.


Not even close, but you deserve what you get from him....every bit of it.

Meanwhile, why did they evacuate the area, and why can't they come back? Why is everyone wearing complete body suits and respirators?


They could come back, more bureaucratic BS...

And why are we using this dangerous technology?


Because it isn't dangerous...just to small minded hysterics...

Tell you what, clean up Fukushima so we cannot tell what happened, tell us what you did with the intensely-radioactive waste, and we may let you build another one.


You can't tell what happened there without a Geiger counter...you'd never know or never be any more unhealthy.

So when do we "get" to build another one. After all you hysterics are gone?

Dec 29, 2014
The background radiation at my house is just under 0.1 microSievert/hr. The readings at Fuku are over 14.5 microSieverts/hr. At 14.0 that gives you 122,640 microSieierts/year.


Which is 122 mSv/a, which is slightly above the minimum dose per year at which you can possibly detect a noticeable increase in cancer. Those are the HIGHEST readings, yes, and that puts them below beaches in Brazil and villages in Iran where there have been no increased incidence of cancer.

Dec 29, 2014
Show me one worker at Fukushima who is not in full protective dress, including respirator.

Dec 29, 2014
The rule is for every full sievert (which is a thousand times what you're talking about) there is a 5% increased incidence of cancer. So, based on that we know that anyone who gets an annual dosage of 120 mSv/a has a .1% chance of getting cancer due to the extra background radiation.

Show me one worker at Fukushima who is not in full protective dress, including respirator.


Indeed, fear is a powerful emotion. Especially when reinforced by the government and mass media. How many people actually got Ebola? How much FEAR was caused by the news cycle and the government agencies needing justification surrounding that whole bunch of idiocy?

However, the levels AT the reactor building are ten times what you're reporting. Which means someone unprotected there...who worked there a full year would have a 1% extra chance per year of getting cancer. Probably worth wearing a suit at the reactor site...

Dec 29, 2014
122,640 microSieierts equals 122.6 milliSieverts, which is 1.22%. How many folk in the Northern Hemisphere? Run the numbers, Toots.

Dec 29, 2014
The 1500+ deaths directly attributed to the evacuation are from NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute, as clearly stated. You might be able to read but you have little understanding of facts. Nearly 1/5th of a million people had to be evacuated and 80,000 are still homeless. This means nothing to an apologist. And of course, radiation deaths show up years later, so you are being disingenuous to say the least. But you know that.



Dec 29, 2014
you outsiders are so convinced about the safety of nuclear technology, never having worked with it, or even seen one up close
The osmosis argument again. Most people who drive cars dont have the slightest idea how they work. And you have no idea what youre talking about.
Go look up the design of the system, go to the videos of the system and see for yourself. You do not even understand the design of the system
Provide links to back up your empty innuendo.

You notice that the as-good-as-an-engineer-no-no-better gkam hasnt figured out how to use the quote button yet?
Show me one worker at Fukushima who is not in full protective dress, including respirator
Well thats easy.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1253036/thumbs/o-FUKUSHIMA-RADIATION-facebook.jpg

-Google 'fukushima worker - images' and youll see dozens. Why do you ask such idiot questions? You really dont think anyone would check?

Dec 29, 2014
Before I go, . . . look at the videos I suggested above. Normally, NHK is viewed as a government mouthpiece, but this set seems to be pretty fair.

The issue of the radioactive water, 400 more tons each day, has been answered by a TEPCO bureaucrat, who will just dump it into the ocean.

Dec 30, 2014
122,640 microSieierts equals 122.6 milliSieverts, which is 1.22%. How many folk in the Northern Hemisphere? Run the numbers, Toots.


Nope, up to 100 mSv/a is not cancer causing. We know this EMPIRICALLY...look it up.

The extra 22.6 mSv is where you calculate from

Dec 30, 2014
The 1500+ deaths directly attributed to the evacuation are from NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute, as clearly stated. You might be able to read but you have little understanding of facts. Nearly 1/5th of a million people had to be evacuated and 80,000 are still homeless. This means nothing to an apologist. And of course, radiation deaths show up years later, so you are being disingenuous to say the least. But you know that.



They are homeless because of hysterics like YOU. The area is as 8 times safer than beaches in Brazil and about as safe as a town in Iran which has been occupied for a long time. It's you who's being "disingenuous"...or willfully ignorant one of the two.

Dec 30, 2014

The issue of the radioactive water, 400 more tons each day, has been answered by a TEPCO bureaucrat, who will just dump it into the ocean.


And yet we know empirically that the radiation just off the shore is virtually undetectable and FAR below what is considered dangerous. I provided that source up-thread, so all anyone who wants to know the truth has to do is look it up...

:)

Dec 30, 2014
Actually what I said in response to KampahsArt is incorrect. The VAST MAJORITY of the area is far safer than either of those two areas. There are a few places where one can measure radiation as "high" as 125 mSv/a...most of the surrounding area is far lower.

Dec 30, 2014
Show me one worker at Fukushima who is not in full protective dress, including respirator.
Show me one bullshit pronouncement by the phoney expert engineer gkam that can't be discredited in a few minutes. You harm your cause by attempting to argue it in public.

Dec 30, 2014
I also must continually apologize for my hostile attitude on this subject. Usually I like to keep that in check, but I will admit on THIS issue it's easy for me to get "hooked". This issue is of such importance to the future of the planet (AGW), and the overall prosperity of the human race (just look at how energy availability and standard of living correlate) that I find it difficult to divest myself from the implications if we don't start using a viable energy source in the VERY near future.

Don't think for one second I don't think there AREN'T risks....they've just been shown to be so miniscule compared to the payoffs (especially now that we have the "waste" issue under control) it's simple politics and emotionalism that stand in the way. It's DIFFICULT to argue with fear, it's much easier to discuss using reason. I encourage my "opponents" to endeavor to do the same...as I will continue to do my best (scant as that can be at times).

Dec 30, 2014
Hey, otto, I was Senior Engineer of what was then the largest non-governmental power company on earth.

Show me I wasn't. Show me I wasn't a communications tech at the Air Force Flight Test Center, and AFFTC Airman of the Month for October, 1966. Show me.

Why don't you ask about specifics, things you can check without my name. Most folk do not bring up personal items, for fear they will run into an otto, a nasty man with a foul mouth, unable to debate issues, like a kid screaming nasties across the playground.

Did you view the you tube videos I recommended? There you can see how the BWR actually works, and what happened. Are you afraid to do it?

If you go to the youtube videos of the reactors melting down, there is one error. Can you find it?

Dec 30, 2014
Let's all discuss the error in the Youtube video of Unit Two melting down. Do you see the pipes leading to the Torus? In the Mark I, the Suppression Pool is in the shape of a doughnut, a torus. In the Mark II, it is a large pool under it all.

The downcomers which reach into the water, release the intensely-radioactive steam in case of a shutdown. When it occurs, the steam condenses as it travels, pushing a slug of water, with tremendous water hammer, as you could have seen in the movie China Syndrome,which was overseen by real GE BWR engineers.

As the bubbles come out, they contract, then re-expand, oscillating at certain frequencies and amplitudes. We were testing various configurations of techniques and fittings to mitigate the problem. I want otto to show me I did not do it.

Dec 30, 2014
All that personal stuff aside, how are we going to even SEE the intensely-radioactive molten blobs of what used to be nuclear reactors? We heard forever that meltdowns were impossible: They had "Defense in Depth"!

At first, they lied about the meltdowns at TMI, not admitting it for YEARS, when we knew within hours. But you folk just continue to trust them like you did with "WMD!".

Dec 30, 2014
Again, did any of you see the error in the video? It is pretty obvious, actually.

If we are to debate the issue, we should be aware of the technology. The reason they use a Suppression Pool is because ALL of the working fluid in the system, and all its components get very radioactive and lethal to living things, unlike the PWR. The containment is too small to hold the fluids in case of disaster, so they count on condensing it in the pool. That only works if you can actually shut down the reactor. The small containment was a selling point, trading safety for money.

The design is unsafe, . . . . and you can just wait for Indian Point to happen.

Dec 30, 2014
At first, they lied about the meltdowns at TMI, not admitting it for YEARS, when we knew within hours. But you folk just continue to trust them like you did with "WMD!".


Why bring up WMD...seriously. You have no idea what my position is on that, and even IF it was what you think it is it would have no relation to the facts of the subject. THIS is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. Recall Dragnet..."Just the facts Ma'am".

Now, as to the FACTS of TMI, yes it did melt down, and yes it was perfectly safe. Approx. 2 million people got the equivalent dose of 1/5th of a chest x-ray. THAT'S what happens when you let the safety features built into the plant actually function, as opposed to blowing up the building with hydrogen trying to mollify the hysterical public....

The design is unsafe, . . . . and you can just wait for Indian Point to happen


They are extremely safe, as the record shows. Gen 4s are even more safe.

Dec 30, 2014
Now I WILL say that this design...

http://en.wikiped...iki/RBMK

IS unsafe, and basically built to meltdown...