General Discussion

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

31. "Fukishima makes Chernobyl look like a boyscouts campfie." - Patently absurd.

Reply to Katashi_itto (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:16 PM

Nov 2013

The amount of radiation released by the Chernobyl explosion is many times greater than was released at Fukushima.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TEPCO’s Risky Operation at Fukushima - The Nation [View all] flamingdem Nov 2013 OP

It got hot once already RobertEarl Nov 2013 #1

No, the explosion was caused by a hydrogen gas buildup. Sirveri Nov 2013 #11

Hydrogen? Nah RobertEarl Nov 2013 #25

So then what, specifically, exploded? Sirveri Nov 2013 #29

MOX RobertEarl Nov 2013 #35

That MOX exploded makes absolutely ZERO sense. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #42

Plutonium IS reactive, in that it oxidizes quickly. Sirveri Nov 2013 #50

Hydrogen explosions have occurred before in partial meltdowns. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #51

The data I have seen about TMI said they didn't suffer a hydrogen explosion. Sirveri Nov 2013 #55

You didn't see the hole? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #52

I'm looking at the before pictures, perhaps they were pre-Tsunami Sirveri Nov 2013 #57

The hole in #4 RobertEarl Nov 2013 #59

So then the building could still have trapped hydrogen. Sirveri Nov 2013 #61

Tepco admitted to rod chunks RobertEarl Nov 2013 #63

Do you have a cite for that information? Sirveri Nov 2013 #69

Tepco admitted it two years ago RobertEarl Nov 2013 #70

Your kind of claims belong in creative speculation because they're a conspiracy theory. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #40

I just explained the common sense RobertEarl Nov 2013 #44

No, climate deniers make things up. Which is exactly what you're doing. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #47

You are projecting? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #48

"Just talking real science" - Yes, real science like believing MOX could go critical... Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #49

to be fair, reactors DO heat the ocean. Sirveri Nov 2013 #53

The argument was not that the reactors are emitting heat into the ocean... Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #54

I know, I was giving you a hard time. Sirveri Nov 2013 #62

The steel reinforced building of #4 was wrecked. RobertEarl Nov 2013 #56

Yes, and I've stated elsewhere in this thread that a criticality in the pool would destroy it. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #58

All reactor criticality accidents of that nature were typically steam explosions Sirveri Nov 2013 #60

The official report does not mention exactly how each man died. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #67

So your theory is golden but other theories are CS? rhett o rick Nov 2013 #78

For those that think that nuclear power is clean and inexpensive, think again. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #2

The other thing is there is not many places to store nuclear waste in Japan davidpdx Nov 2013 #7

Good question. nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #8

Many countries ship out waste for reprocessing into products like PUREX. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #13

Do you have any links for that information? nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #14

Yes, I do. Japan possesses stockpiles of reprocessed material in France and the UK Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #15

Interesting info davidpdx Nov 2013 #23

Thanks. The nuclear waste isnt reprocessed into Purex. It's reprocessed into weapons grade rhett o rick Nov 2013 #64

I believe there is more than one method of reprocessing at the plants... Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #68

They were counting on storing some at Fukishima. Fail. nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #66

Yeah, Fukashima is already a waste dump as it is davidpdx Nov 2013 #72

We have figured out how to permanently store spent fuel. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #12

Yep davidpdx Nov 2013 #22

I like deep borehole disposal. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #24

Wrong. We do not have a plan for long term storage of spent nuclear fuel. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #65

I know that there is a dispute over where to store it davidpdx Nov 2013 #71

"We have figured out how to permanently store spent fuel" BZzzzt RobertEarl Nov 2013 #26

Deep borehole disposal is actually a permanent, safe solution. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #28

Well, you better get on it, then. RobertEarl Nov 2013 #37

That is apocalypse porn and it has no basis in reality. Stop scaring people unnecessarily. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #38

Porn? No. Just Science RobertEarl Nov 2013 #41

None of the claims you are making in here are scientifically accurate. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #43

You are projecting? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #45

So in fact we havent figured out a way that is acceptable to the public. So a lot of good "figuring rhett o rick Nov 2013 #80

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #3

K & R !!! WillyT Nov 2013 #4

Discussed this with my students yesterday ybbor Nov 2013 #5

Well, hey RobertEarl Nov 2013 #6

400 tons of highly irradiated ANYTHING is mind boggling. freshwest Nov 2013 #9

Yes, as well as the amount of time some of the nuclear elements take flamingdem Nov 2013 #10

The half-life of the elements used at nuke power plants always... freshwest Nov 2013 #27

There won't be any plucking. The Rods are damaged and will fragment the moment they are fooled with Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #16

Will they even bother to carry it out flamingdem Nov 2013 #17

It's a scam. The entire thing is catch 22. Stop pouring water, and you have to evacuate the Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #18

What have you heard about the impact on the West Coast? flamingdem Nov 2013 #19

Listen carefully to this. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #20

thanks flamingdem Nov 2013 #21

Pretty good assessment Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #32

"Fukishima makes Chernobyl look like a boyscouts campfie." - Patently absurd. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #31

Snicker. Remember you said that. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #33

What's up with the snickering? What exactly is so funny? Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #36

Whatever you say. I'm not bothering to convince you, it's important to you that Fukishima's isnt a Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #73

It won't matter if they do fragment. They will be safely under water. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #30

Nothing is getting taken anywhere. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #34

What exactly does that mean? Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #39

Figure it out. Katashi_itto Nov 2013 #74

Cross posted to this thread: Bennyboy Nov 2013 #46

As someone who was (and still is) 100 miles south of Ground Zero Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #75

EVERYONE who is concerned about or discussing this disaster chervilant Nov 2013 #76

There's a contingent who only appear to discuss the nuclear issue flamingdem Nov 2013 #77

The fuel rod removal is dangerous, to be sure. MineralMan Nov 2013 #79