News service now breaking genuine meltdown fears

#4
#4
Educate me: If this "meltdown" occurs, what are the effects/ logistics of a catastrophe.

I get that harmful radiation exposure may take place, but without a "primer" is that stuff not contained in a relatively confined location? I'm not understanding the logistics so, speak up.
 
#5
#5
TXVOL07 said:
Educate me: If this "meltdown" occurs, what are the effects/ logistics of a catastrophe.

I get that harmful radiation exposure may take place, but without a "primer" is that stuff not contained in a relatively confined location? I'm not understanding the logistics so, speak up.
Click to expand...

I'll appeal to Tenn Trad and NashVol on the answers as they are better informed.

The crux is the problem has ratcheted up a notch, but I may be seeing old news late. In essense, I think its the world's most important steel cage match. The steel containment vessel has to hold the nuclear lava, otherwise, there is no doubt a world of hurt awaits.
 
#7
#7
From the article, I read it as the radiation would likely make its way out to sea, which obviously impacts all of us.
 
#8
#8
The jet stream would pick it up and shift it to the US. and others not good for any country.
 
#9
#9
TXVOL07 said:
Educate me: If this "meltdown" occurs, what are the effects/ logistics of a catastrophe.

I get that harmful radiation exposure may take place, but without a "primer" is that stuff not contained in a relatively confined location? I'm not understanding the logistics so, speak up.
Click to expand...


Others on here are apparently familiar, but my understanding from the old days was basically that if the core is exposed (and not cooled by water) the fuel rods literally melt from the heat of the fission process. Once that begins, it is very difficult to stop, and the temperature is so hot that the melted core simply eats through the cement, steel, etc., below it.

When it hits the water table below the power plant, you get massive amounts of intense radiation steaming up out of the Earth, into the water supply, etc. Depending on what is below it, you could get some combination of radioactive gas or particles in the air, together with contamination of the area around the plant with varying degrees of intensity.

The criticism of these plants is that, no matter how many different things you plan for,no matter how intensely you account for them, over a 40 or 50 year period something is bound to go wrong or be extraordinarily catastrophic, breaching all of the fail safes somewhere along the way.
 
#10
#10
My question is if there is a full meltdown, are we talking about Chernobyl proportions or just a major disaster but not on that level?
 
#12
#12
TXVOL07 said:
From the article, I read it as the radiation would likely make its way out to sea, which obviously impacts all of us.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a lot of new noise on the news service wires about a meltdown.

I think the ocean is more than sufficient dilutant for the radioactive material (I believe ocean water contains enough uranium to power the earth for 1,000,000 years or so).

I've actually been pro-nuclear, and I think my Lefties can overstate the dangers of radioactivity. However, it would certainly be a catastrophe for that part of Japan.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
Others on here are apparently familiar, but my understanding from the old days was basically that if the core is exposed (and not cooled by water) the fuel rods literally melt from the heat of the fission process. Once that begins, it is very difficult to stop, and the temperature is so hot that the melted core simply eats through the cement, steel, etc., below it.

When it hits the water table below the power plant, you get massive amounts of intense radiation steaming up out of the Earth, into the water supply, etc. Depending on what is below it, you could get some combination of radioactive gas or particles in the air, together with contamination of the area around the plant with varying degrees of intensity.

The criticism of these plants is that, no matter how many different things you plan for,no matter how intensely you account for them, over a 40 or 50 year period something is bound to go wrong or be extraordinarily catastrophic, breaching all of the fail safes somewhere along the way.
Click to expand...

I believe you are absolutely right in paragraph 1, LG, but TennTrad knows more than I do on this issue. And I better defer to him.

I can't agree with you more on the latter part too. There is no way Capital has time-horizon to deal with the nuclear question. That's why we have four located on our own massive fault-lines. I know it's hindsight, but you just can't do that.
 
#16
#16
droski said:
from what i've read it's extremely unlikely it's a chernobyl type situation.
Click to expand...

"Never believe anything until it is officially denied."

Let's be honest, that line been fairly prescient with regards to how this has unfolded already.
 
#17
#17
utgibbs said:
"Never believe anything until it is officially denied."

Let's be honest, that line been fairly prescient with regards to how this has unfolded already.
Click to expand...

you mean just like the bp spill was going to be 100X worse than the exxon valdez?
 
#18
#18
pretty impressive that there are 55 of these plants and only 2 of them have any issues after an earthquake of this magnitude
 
#22
#22
From what I understand, a Chernobyl situation is basically impossible. Release of radiation/radioactive material is still possible however, and it could have wide-ranging effects. Just not to the extent of Chernobyl.
 
#24
#24
A meltdown means more radioactive material is openly exposed to the primary reactor containment structure (metal pressure cooker). The extent of damage from that depends on what happens from there. The water you are pumping in would now become highly contaminated. I'm not sure what there ability to recirculate is at this point. If they can't recirculate (they would requre functioning pumps and heat exchangers for this, which I'm not sure they have), then I THINK the water would either leave as waste or turn to steam. I think they are just flooding the core for now and venting off the steam as they need to for pressure control. I think that what happens from there depends on the integrity of the secondary containment structure. If it is structurally sound, the meltdown should proceed through the primary containment and into this structure. My understanding is that it could sit in this state, with possibly the need to vent some highly radioactive material to ensure structural integrity, but not much. If this structure us damaged, then you run the risk of local ground contamination at extremely high levels, along with water contamination. The reactor us physically designed to ensure that this does not end with a large explosive event that would spread radioactive material into the atmosphere. The effects of a leak from secondary containment would be very bad for the local area, but shouldn't have large effects outside that. Again, a meltdown could occur with no significant release of material...it just depends on a series if defenses in depth and their integrities.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
It appears that the recent rise in potential meltdown reports pertain to reactor two, whose cooling failed following the explosion at reactor three. There are reports that the rods were completely exposed at one point. Does anyone know if number two is a uranium reactor like reactor one, or a mox reactor, like reactor three? I haven't seen that written.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top