General Discussion

MineralMan

(151,892 posts)

11. Perhaps so. However, I've not heard of any proposals that do not involve Tepco.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 10:36 AM

Oct 2013

I'm sure that advice has been sought from many sources for this operation. Expertise in handling nuclear materials is certainly needed, and I don't believe that Tepco has the equipment needed, nor the expertise in using that equipment. It stands to reason that others have been consulting on the planned removal, since other expertise in materials handling will be needed. The complexity of the situation is almost mind-boggling, which is why it has taken so long to create a plan for removal of these materials.

One way or another, removing the fuel rod assemblies is essential, if an even worse disaster is to be prevented. That must be clear to everyone who has bothered to think about the situation at any serious level. I don't think this is some amateurish, unplanned effort. I'm quite sure it has been carefully planned and hope that it is done safely. I can't imagine that anyone doesn't hope it is done safely, including Tepco.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fukushima Is a Disaster - No Question about It. [View all] MineralMan Oct 2013 OP

no one cares maindawg Oct 2013 #1

And if they don't remove the material? MineralMan Oct 2013 #2

It's a major disaster either way malaise Oct 2013 #50

It has been a major disaster since the earthquake and tsunami. MineralMan Oct 2013 #51

Hopefully they'll stop building them malaise Oct 2013 #52

That would be excellent! MineralMan Oct 2013 #53

+1 to this, but I'd say also, people are stupid generally. closeupready Oct 2013 #59

Excuse me? 99Forever Oct 2013 #3

No, that isn't my premise. MineralMan Oct 2013 #4

Sure sounds like it is. 99Forever Oct 2013 #5

Nope. Read it again. MineralMan Oct 2013 #7

K&R nt Bonobo Oct 2013 #6

Thanks. I appreciate that. MineralMan Oct 2013 #8

I think the genuine concern is that Tepco is in charge of the operation muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #9

Perhaps so. However, I've not heard of any proposals that do not involve Tepco. MineralMan Oct 2013 #11

^^This^^ 99Forever Oct 2013 #12

And who would you recommend to be in charge? MineralMan Oct 2013 #14

That's a whole bunch of assuming there. 99Forever Oct 2013 #15

Again, who would you suggest to be in charge of this process? MineralMan Oct 2013 #16

Where have I claimed... 99Forever Oct 2013 #19

No, I don't want anyone to shut up. MineralMan Oct 2013 #24

IAEA oversight might make some more assured. GeorgeGist Oct 2013 #54

That organization is already involved with the Fukushima disaster. MineralMan Oct 2013 #55

No one in Japan wants anything but success and I, for one, greatly appreciate Bonobo Oct 2013 #10

It is my sincere hope that the planning involved in this MineralMan Oct 2013 #13

yes they do need to get the stored stuff off the beach. I suggest storage deep in their mountians Sunlei Oct 2013 #17

My own belief is that no nuclear power plants should have been built anywhere. MineralMan Oct 2013 #20

I agree. They should not have built next to the sea & where it is a fact Tsunamis will come. Sunlei Oct 2013 #26

Yes. But they WERE built. MineralMan Oct 2013 #27

yes it's a clean-up now. They already have dumped enough into the sea to have effect on seafood. Sunlei Oct 2013 #28

Why not shoot for the Moon? randome Oct 2013 #21

Far too much backseat driving on this subject. randome Oct 2013 #18

Yes. I've always opposed nuclear power generation. MineralMan Oct 2013 #22

I was not against it. But I am now. randome Oct 2013 #23

I've been opposed to it since the late 1950s. MineralMan Oct 2013 #25

I'm sorry but I've been here a long time madokie Oct 2013 #47

Building a nuclear plant on a beach in a tsunami/earthquake area Rosa Luxemburg Oct 2013 #29

You are absolutely right. Fukushima should never have been built. MineralMan Oct 2013 #30

But an accupuncturist who thinks that baking soda cures cancer... SidDithers Oct 2013 #31

Yes, well... MineralMan Oct 2013 #32

For Those Who Wonder Why I Oppose Nuclear Power Generation: MineralMan Oct 2013 #33

Arnie Gundersen was asked what he would do if he were in charge: Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #34

Which large engineering company? MineralMan Oct 2013 #36

Arnie says there are 4 or 5 firms capable of the job... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #38

Ah. OK. Well, if you find his list, let me know. MineralMan Oct 2013 #41

I just emailed Arnie. I'll let you know.... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #56

Arnie Gundersen interview on TheRealNews... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #43

I agree with Arne about the need for an international effort. pa28 Oct 2013 #44

The three points he keeps emphasizing: Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #45

Rand Paul says danger is overstated. BootinUp Oct 2013 #35

Does he? MineralMan Oct 2013 #37

Ok, not yet but he probably will, lol. BootinUp Oct 2013 #39

Never mind, then. MineralMan Oct 2013 #40

I had humor though. BootinUp Oct 2013 #42

What is the risk? FreeJoe Oct 2013 #46

The risk is that the fuel rods will break as they're being removed. MineralMan Oct 2013 #48

Good question. Honest answer is No One Knows for Sure..... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #49

The experts are doing the best that is humanly possible to do. What else need be said? nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #57

Not all that long ago I learned on DU that it wasnt really a big deal. bunnies Oct 2013 #58

Another important point: there's a bunny with a pancake on its head. closeupready Oct 2013 #60

And let us not foget... bunnies Oct 2013 #61