Fukushima, No Cause for Alarm

[Doer]

I am beginning to think there is. And it is such a simple calculation, there actually may be only one outcome.

Extinction Event.

There I said it.

There are already, on the site, 1000+ water storage tanks of the highest radioactive level, that it is almost un-imaginable.

If you leaned on this tank for a few minutes it will kill you.

If you stood at the 2 feet line, for one hour, you are exposed at, LD 50. That will kill 1/2 of humans exposed this way. Lethal dose for 50%. That horror calculation I remember from the Cold War.

Now, why is all that water like that? Cooling the mass of exposed fuel rods.

What about the containment? Loop is broken. Spray cooling only.

But, all that water??? Right.

How much is contaminated? An Olympic sized swimming pool per week. 660,000 US gals. 2640 Tons per week.

But, But, but...???? Right.

When can they stop? They cannot stop the cooling.

Why not? Well, the fuel piles will melt together and form critical mass and explode.

Ugduimdk a=./' !!! yes

So, not a big bomb right? Wrong. Fukushima fuel density is hundreds of times the yield of a Chernobyl event and tens of thousands of times stronger than Hiroshima. Crust buster. And a Winter Maker.

OR, if no critical mass is achieved, then the Syndrome. Melt into the Crust and expose high pressure mantle material. A super volcano.

AND, the corker, is what they are already doing, accidentally and, on purpose. They have to dump it in the ocean. They can't store it and the entire ocean cannot cool it, IAC.

Checkmate?

 

[NLXSK1]

I think you need a lot more heat for it to reach critical mass and explode. Therefore, we are just worried about the pollution.

If the individual radioactive ion's (or whatever) are distributed in an enormous amount of ocean water, they are dispersed enough to not cause fatal damage to anything.

We BLEW UP 2 cities in Japan and now they are thriving economic centers. How long did that take? And that was on land with massive fallout...

It is a huge problem if you are close to it but as you get farther away from the pollution event it becomes geometrically less dangerous.

The earth is covered by 80% water. The volumes you are talking about are insignificant when compared.

I am more worried about asteroids...

 

[Harrekin]

I think you need a lot more heat for it to reach critical mass and explode. Therefore, we are just worried about the pollution.

If the individual radioactive ion's (or whatever) are distributed in an enormous amount of ocean water, they are dispersed enough to not cause fatal damage to anything.

We BLEW UP 2 cities in Japan and now they are thriving economic centers. How long did that take? And that was on land with massive fallout...

It is a huge problem if you are close to it but as you get farther away from the pollution event it becomes geometrically less dangerous.

The earth is covered by 80% water. The volumes you are talking about are insignificant when compared.

I am more worried about asteroids...

So so much to learn, young padawan.

 

[smokinafatty]

Shima sucks, hence the name. I heard he kills bees, so I think you're right about extinction. Fuk u, Shima.

 

[NLXSK1]

So so much to learn, young padawan.

Ok, lets start with you showing me a credible scientific article about how a nuclear pile will explode if it gets hot enough...

Then lets work on the whole *Melting through the crust of the earth* idea...

 

[Rob Roy]

With all that ooze...I'm thinking at a minimum there will be an explosion of Ninja Turtles. The sad thing is most of them will not even get Renaissance painters names...just too damn many of them.

 

[Harrekin]

Ok, lets start with you showing me a credible scientific article about how a nuclear pile will explode if it gets hot enough...

Then lets work on the whole *Melting through the crust of the earth* idea...

It's nothing to do with heat, it's to do with critical mass...the hint is in the name.

 

[NLXSK1]

It's nothing to do with heat, it's to do with critical mass...the hint is in the name.

Ok, but that doesnt prove either theory.

Do you know the difference between weapons grade nuclear material and the stuff they used in that reactor? Weapons grade material has to be MUCH more refined to achieve the critical mass we are talking about.

So again, please provide some scientific evidence or citations to back up either theory that it could blow up or melt through the earths crust...

I think you are the one who has a lot to learn.

 

[Flaming Pie]

I was talking about this like two weeks ago.

 

[Doer]

I think you need a lot more heat for it to reach critical mass and explode. Therefore, we are just worried about the pollution.

If the individual radioactive ion's (or whatever) are distributed in an enormous amount of ocean water, they are dispersed enough to not cause fatal damage to anything.

We BLEW UP 2 cities in Japan and now they are thriving economic centers. How long did that take? And that was on land with massive fallout...

It is a huge problem if you are close to it but as you get farther away from the pollution event it becomes geometrically less dangerous.

The earth is covered by 80% water. The volumes you are talking about are insignificant when compared.

I am more worried about asteroids...

Well, you have to do the math. There is enough fuel for 100,000 Hiroshima bombs....so I don't think you see it. But, I agree it less likely to explode, than to melt down. And a melt down sends those materials into the statosphere.

I also, don't think you understand the concept of poisoning the ocean. Do you really think it is nothing, if you dissolve the entire fuel mass of the Fukushima reactors in sea water? That is a killer of top of the food chain.....us. And they are busy doing that.

One particle of Strontium-90, in you bones, will ruin your life.

 

[Flaming Pie]

If the individual radioactive ion's (or whatever) are distributed in an enormous amount of ocean water, they are dispersed enough to not cause fatal damage to anything.

We BLEW UP 2 cities in Japan and now they are thriving economic centers. How long did that take? And that was on land with massive fallout...

QUOTE]

You really believe that dumping all that radioactive waste into the ocean won't kill anything?

 

[NLXSK1]

Well, you have to do the math. There is enough fuel for 100,000 Hiroshima bombs....so I don't think you see it. But, I agree it less likely to explode, than to melt down. And a melt down sends those materials into the statosphere.

I also, don't think you understand the concept of poisoning the ocean. Do you really think it is nothing, if you dissolve the entire fuel mass of the Fukushima reactors in sea water? That is a killer of top of the food chain.....us. And they are busy doing that.

One particle of Strontium-90, in you bones, will ruin your life.

You are a believer of the hystericals...

Where did we get that radioactive material from? Oh yeah, we mined it up out of the ground... OH SHIT, IT IS IN THE GROUND WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! *sigh* It all came naturally out of the earth. There are tons and tons more of it where it came from.

There is no way that the material will reach critical mass and no way it will melt through the bedrock into the core of the earth. We are not all going to die of radiation poisoning.

 

[NLXSK1]

If the individual radioactive ion's (or whatever) are distributed in an enormous amount of ocean water, they are dispersed enough to not cause fatal damage to anything.

We BLEW UP 2 cities in Japan and now they are thriving economic centers. How long did that take? And that was on land with massive fallout...

QUOTE]

You really believe that dumping all that radioactive waste into the ocean won't kill anything?

You just moved the goal posts quite a bit there...

Yes, it will kill things near the site of the pollution. It just is not going to be a global issue, and it will not significantly affect America.

 

[Flaming Pie]

The radiation would kill all the wildlife on its way to the middle of the Pacific. That is quite deadly in my opinion. Not to mention the effect on fish eating birds.

 

[Doer]

Ok, lets start with you showing me a credible scientific article about how a nuclear pile will explode if it gets hot enough...

Then lets work on the whole *Melting through the crust of the earth* idea...

So, you don't know about the China Syndrome? That is a stupid name for something that is a lot worse than melting though to China. That is impossible considering it is heading toward the earth's core. And if they are already saying that somehow you can mass evacuate Tokyo and that's the worse case? Oh hell, no. There is no way to do that without killing thousands in the evacuation. And they go.....where?

"You have 100,000 cubic meters in basements that have never been designed to deal with this water. The big danger - and it was identified by Japan's atomic energy commission - is if you lose water in one of the spent fuel pools and you get a spent fuel fire. This would lead to respiratory contamination." This would be a worse-case scenario and could lead to the mass evacuation of 10 million people in the Tokyo region, which is 150 miles to the south of the Fukushima plant, Schneider warned.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100999199

That is just the beginning of a "spent fuel fire." Have you see a coal slag hills on fire? I have. They burn in PA even today. This however, is catch-22, you must do something, and yet there is nothing you can do.

I'm not sure you are aware but, Chernobyl is busy burning through its containment. And there are not but a decade or so to go. All that underpass concrete block they built is more that 1/2 way burned through. It is also FUBAR but, small in comparison.

(Susquehanna, in PA, had an event last week. Had to release radio-steam, btw)

If you evacuate Tokyo, that will panic the West Coast, and evacuation will begin here spontaneously. Where do we go?

The cloud could be over London is a week, in the Jet Stream.

An asteroid strike not theory, but there is no clear and present danger.

This fellow is sure they are releasing raw melted fuel core material, right now.


John Large, nuclear consultant: At Chernobyl […] the radioactivity was controlled and held within a landmass, and there were very few opportunities for that radioactivity to seep a long way out beyond the 30 km zone.


What we have in Fukushima is an accident with about 1/3 in terms of radioactivity the size of Chernobyl [See also: Study: Fukushima released 100 quadrillion becquerels of cesium into atmosphere... In just ONE day -- About equal to Chernobyl's total release], but it hasn’t finished yet, so this accident is ongoing and there’s opportunity for the radioactivity on the site — which involved 3 reactors and not one as at Chernobyl, very roughly 3-4 times the amount of radioactivity is available for release — we can see that accident is still going on 2 years after the event.
It’s not as though like Chernobyl, the situation was controlled and contained by a sarcophagus built around the damaged reactor, here we have a situation where the reactor fuel, the intensely radioactive fuel, is being carried away into the marine environment and beyond man’s control as to how further it disperses away from the site. [...]
The problem with it going into the marine environment, not only does it spread much further, but it also gets ingested and re-concentrated by fish and filter feeders like oysters who re-concentrate the amount of radioactivity in a cubic meter of water from a few hundred becquerels, counts on a Geiger counter, to several hundred thousand becquerels because they re-concentrate it in their flesh. That’s another chain, another uptake route, to members of the public.


The other uptake route is as its swept along the eastern seaboard coastline of Japan, the tides will take it into the beach line, you get the intertidal strip […] here we’re talking about tiny particles of metal fuel being washed up on the beach line. They dry out between the tides, re-suspend and blow over the local communities. So you have a very efficient and effective way of dispersing the radioactivity to human beings a long way away from the plant. That’s the concern here.

 

[Doer]

The radiation would kill all the wildlife on its way to the middle of the Pacific. That is quite deadly in my opinion. Not to mention the effect on fish eating birds.

If it was a big still pool of water, that is one thing. We know it is not. Nothing goes to the middle, at first. But, (and this minor!!!)

See that gyre. There are megatons of material there, sorted to depths of hundreds of feet. All undissolved floating material, ends up there.

Could you imagine an area the size of Alaska, in the ocean that is so Nuke hot, it is boiling on it's own?

 

[NLXSK1]

What happens if the fuel melts it's way to the earth's core? This is not possible as it will cool down as it goes but let's just work with that for a minute.

Are we all going to die? LOL!!!

Since it is not physically possible for it to melt through, what would happen if we drilled down towards the earth's core? Oh yeah, we would eventually get to magma... You know, Lava.... If it was under pressure it might flow back upwards and erupt as a micro volcano.. Well, Japan has those already. Maybe we can make an amusement park out of it!!!

Radiation is a natural occurence on earth. We have just concentrated it in a small location and when concentrated it becomes deadly and a pollution issue. If it is dispersed again it is not the earth ending event some people are just dying (pun intended) to have happen.

 

[Flaming Pie]

If it was a big still pool of water, that is one thing. We know it is not. Nothing goes to the middle, at first. But, (and this minor!!!)

See that gyre. There are megatons of material there, sorted to depths of hundreds of feet. All undissolved floating material, ends up there.

Could you imagine an area the size of Alaska, in the ocean that is so Nuke hot, it is boiling on it's own?

It still is traveling across the ocean.

 

[420God]

We'll be fine.

 

[Doer]

This is whistling past the grave yard...my Mom would actually do that.

Why do you say it is physically impossible? I never said it would get to the core, that is the only direction it goes.

And I don't know why you say micro-volcano. HELL NO. Super Volcano, if you expose the mantle you will get a terminator caldera structure like Yellowstone, but deeper and worse. Those old chambers still exist under Yellowstone, and it may blow again.

Fuk will have to cut its own chambers. And there is no cooling happening. Crust material is becomes radioactive and adds even more heat.

A melt down is a gathering snowball to Hell.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/nuclear-expert-fukushima-spent-fuel-has-85-times-more-cesium-released-chernobyl-—-“it-woul
[...] I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods.

I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:
In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.

Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival. [...]