Japan fears second (H2) explosion

#6
#6
Apparently hydrogen/steam explosions are equivalent to nuclear bombs in the time of capital.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
TennTradition said:
Apparently hydrogen/steam explosions are equivalent to nuclear bombs in the time of capital.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

.... we have discussed this tntrad. It's definately not good, but a far cry from a nuclear holocaust, wouldn't you agree? Light water reactors do not equal the apacalypse.

The thing that does puzzle me, said it before, construction was great for the quake. Why not have better alternatives to deal with a tsunami from knocking out secondary/tertiary cooling? One would think if they could built a reactor to withstand a huge quake, they could have forseen/had better planning for the wave being they are seaside.

BTW thanks for the all the info. You in the nuke field to any degree?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
Rasputin_Vol said:
1. Nagasaki
2. Hiroshima
3. ???
:ermm:
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the first explosion at the reactor. TennTrad will probably jump my case since the radiation levels after blast one "were within the permissible limits."

But, just so we are clear, I think any conventional explosion which distributes a radioactive component should rightly be considered "nuclear". :hi:

Regardless, they are pumping seawater into the facility. The plant is done. I will be interested, especially from Tenn Trad, what the recourse will be for the remaining fuel.
 
#9
#9
JayVols said:
.... we have discussed this tntrad. It's definately not good, but a far cry from a nuclear holocaust, wouldn't you agree? Light water reactors do not equal the apacalypse.

The thing that does puzzle me, said it before, construction was great for the quake. Why not have better alternatives to deal with a tsunami from knocking out secondary/tertiary cooling? One would think if they could built a reactor to withstand a huge quake, they could have forseen/had better planning for the wave being they are seaside.

BTW thanks for the all the info. You in the nuke field to any degree?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Considering all that has gone wrong, the performance of the primary containment has been encouraging. This scenario is beyond the anticipated worst-case scenario for this plant. Radiation levels are still at reasonable levels (considering what has happened).

The discouraging part is that the problem continues to be exacerbated by additional failures. Also, as you note, the apparent destruction of the secondary and tertiary pumping systems by the tsunami is troubling. Hopefully we will learn more about this in the future. Was a tsunami of this magnitude not planned for? If so, what did we miss? Something doesn't compute, there.

As for the my experience, I am not a nuclear engineer, I am a chemical engineer. I've worked in and around the nuclear industry in a couple of capacities, though never in a power plant. So, my thoughts on the matter come more from my general technical familiarity with nuclear safety and my work in nuclear science policy. I work in the chemicals industry now, so I'm out of the nuclear biz (at the moment, at least).
 
#10
#10
utgibbs said:
I was thinking of the first explosion at the reactor. TennTrad will probably jump my case since the radiation levels after blast one "were within the permissible limits."

But, just so we are clear, I think any conventional explosion which distributes a radioactive component should rightly be considered "nuclear". :hi:

Regardless, they are pumping seawater into the facility. The plant is done. I will be interested, especially from Tenn Trad, what the recourse will be for the remaining fuel.
Click to expand...

I think that there is no doubt that there is a serious nuclear accident underway in Japan.

I personally find it hyperbolic and destructive to call it a nuclear explosion, particularly with regard to a country that knows all to well the effects of nuclear blasts. I just don't see it as constructive to lump them together.
 
#11
#11
TennTradition said:
Considering all that has gone wrong, the performance of the primary containment has been encouraging. This scenario is beyond the anticipated worst-case scenario for this plant. Radiation levels are still at reasonable levels (considering what has happened).

The discouraging part is that the problem continues to be exacerbated by additional failures. Also, as you note, the apparent destruction of the secondary and tertiary pumping systems by the tsunami is troubling. Hopefully we will learn more about this in the future. Was a tsunami of this magnitude not planned for? If so, what did we miss? Something doesn't compute, there.

As for the my experience, I am not a nuclear engineer, I am a chemical engineer. I've worked in and around the nuclear industry in a couple of capacities, though never in a power plant. So, my thoughts on the matter come more from my general technical familiarity with nuclear safety and my work in nuclear science policy. I work in the chemicals industry now, so I'm out of the nuclear biz (at the moment, at least).
Click to expand...
Better resume than me. I am limited to some buds that were formerly in the nuke fuel industry, and some reading on my own. Some of those guys are working for chemical company now.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
TennTradition said:
I think that there is no doubt that there is a serious nuclear accident underway in Japan.

I personally find it hyperbolic and destructive to call it a nuclear explosion, particularly with regard to a country that knows all to well the effects of nuclear blasts. I just don't see it as constructive to lump them together.
Click to expand...

Will those living within 15-miles of the plant see it as hyperbolic or as a nuclear explosion? Especially if they won't be returning to their homes any time soon?

I think the Japanese themselves are "lumping them together" far more than myself in reading some of the reports.

Moreover, the official line right now gives me little confidence. Never believe anything until it is officially denied. I believe it will prove far more serious than these official platitudes trying to create calm.

I absolutely hope I'm wrong, and the Japanese are far less mendacious than our own official channels.

I want to be a nuclear believer, but it strikes me we have four reactors on the California coast as well. Nobody, but Capital, would make that decision. These things would all be built in Nevada with high efficiency lines, or something to that effect.
 
#13
#13
You arguing that a decision to build something in California that could just as easily have been built in Nevada was driven by... Capital?
 
#14
#14
utgibbs said:
Will those living within 15-miles of the plant see it as hyperbolic or as a nuclear explosion? Especially if they won't be returning to their homes any time soon?

I think the Japanese themselves are "lumping them together" far more than myself in reading some of the reports.

Moreover, the official line right now gives me little confidence. Never believe anything until it is officially denied. I believe it will prove far more serious than these official platitudes trying to create calm.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe given the extent of what has happened so far and what we currently know, it would most certainly be hyperbolic.

As for as the truth of what we know - I will agree with you there. The potential certainly exists that we do not have a full understanding of what the extent of radioactive material release is.

I just think that there are too many degrees of radioactive material spreading to lump them all together. Every time a Coleman lantern explodes or a house explodes from a gas leak, radioactive material in the lantern and the house's smoke detectors is spread. I'm not going to call that a nuclear explosion.

Clearly what happened in Japan is much more serious and has a root cause much more closely tied to nuclear sources, but to call it a nuclear blast is not accurate. Yes, there was nuclear material that was spread because there were existing levels of radioactivity (existing contamination as well as radioactive gases that had been vented) in the secondary containment structure, but the explosion was not nuclear in nature.
 
#15
#15
Talk about a bad time to get away this weekend. I've got a lot of reading to catch up on. It's awful that a nuclear accident has happened, but so far, from what I've heard the damages brought on by the Tsunami and Quakes are a hell of a lot more concerning than three X-rays worth of radiation.
 
#16
#16
TennTradition said:
Yes, I believe given the extent of what has happened so far and what we currently know, it would most certainly be hyperbolic.

As for as the truth of what we know - I will agree with you there. The potential certainly exists that we do not have a full understanding of what the extent of radioactive material release is.

I just think that there are too many degrees of radioactive material spreading to lump them all together. Every time a Coleman lantern explodes or a house explodes from a gas leak, radioactive material in the lantern and the house's smoke detectors is spread. I'm not going to call that a nuclear explosion.

Clearly what happened in Japan is much more serious and has a root cause much more closely tied to nuclear sources, but to call it a nuclear blast is not accurate. Yes, there was nuclear material that was spread because there were existing levels of radioactivity (existing contamination as well as radioactive gases that had been vented) in the secondary containment structure, but the explosion was not nuclear in nature.
Click to expand...

I probably would have agreed with you on Thursday last, TennTrad, but I've had an about face. I was always skeptical of Capital and its time-requirements being able to plan for the nuclear question, but it seems all too clear now. Capital, with no historical time dimension, cannot plan for the lethal products which will affect 1000 human generations. And we seem to have a few on the Ring of Fire. Just seems preposterous to me, admittedly in hindsight now.

I would almost guarantee the Japanese had more stringent earthquake requirements than California for their nuclear commissioning (utgibbs assumption at this point) which gives me great pause for the US reactors located on the Ring of Fire.

Regardless, I will say your points are fair enough, although naturally the matter of scale is important. It seems like the word "explosion" is at issue - and I concede you have the more rigorous definition. Could we get a suitable phrase we could all agree upon for a "radioactive event" like a dirty bomb or nuclear plant escape?
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
Weezy said:
Talk about a bad time to get away this weekend. I've got a lot of reading to catch up on. It's awful that a nuclear accident has happened, but so far, from what I've heard the damages brought on by the Tsunami and Quakes are a hell of a lot more concerning than three X-rays worth of radiation.
Click to expand...

I absolutely concur at this point. However, the tragedy of the earthquake + tsunami can be fixed (at great cost and already great sacrifice of the Japanese people).

If the nuclear plant goes, much more difficult to fix. I'm sure there will be those who believe we can "sweep" the area and make the Geiger counters beep slower, but the long term consequence would be monumental and far-reaching.
 
#18
#18
can government plan 1000 human generations ahead?

you do realize that that is roughly 20 thousand years?
 
#19
#19
MG1968 said:
can government plan 1000 human generations ahead?

you do realize that that is roughly 20 thousand years?
Click to expand...

One million generations then. I tried to underdo it since I've been "hyperbolic".

Government could far better than Capital. But it would absolutely have to be independent and hegemonic over Capital.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
utgibbs said:
One million generations then. I tried to underdo it since I've been "hyperbolic".

Government could far better than Capital. But it would absolutely have to be independent and hegemonic over Capital.
Click to expand...

and how does government better plan 25 million years into the future?
 
#22
#22
utgibbs said:
I would almost guarantee the Japanese had more stringent earthquake requirements than California for their nuclear commissioning (utgibbs assumption at this point) which gives me great pause for the US reactors located on the Ring of Fire.?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take that bet. It's no coincidence the death toll in california from major earthquakes has been far lower than other countries. And california isn't reallyin the ring of fire. Not close to japan level activity
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
MG1968 said:
and how does government better plan 25 million years into the future?
Click to expand...

Capital, by its nature, only has an instantaneous time-horizon. It cannot plan in any sense of the word, and that is why we have these post festum correctives which must constantly be administered (last one > $12.8 trillion USD).
 
#24
#24
droski said:
I wouldn't take that bet. It's no coincidence the death toll in california from major earthquakes has been far lower than other countries. And california isn't reallyin the ring of fire. Not close to japan level activity
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I admit I may be wrong, and I absolutely do not want to play the GSM card on this one. Because that's the real world gorilla throwing you out of the duck blind in a mighty lethal way.

Tokyo is on the trifecta of bad geology. Yet, let's not underestimate the faults our Pacific coast reactors are on.
 
#25
#25
The containment vessel should keep the "genie in the bottle" looks as though they have had a partial fuel melt, there will be no nuclear related explosion unless the melt gets bad enough for the molton fuel to go critical, which would take "some" time (and highly unlikely). The unit 1 that had to be filled with sea water had a hydrogen explosion, which was due to venting pressure to secondary containment, looks as though a second similar explosion will happen again at another unit as it must be vented as well

The reason they had hydrogen build up was do to partial exposed fuel which separates H20. This is due to the zirocony on the fuel rods combining with the Oxygen in the water and releasing the hydrogen atoms. Based on that is my reason for assuming at least a partial melt. Just IMO on the sketchy reports coming out, so more info may be coming to refute this.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top