General Discussion

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

63. Tepco admitted to rod chunks

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:26 AM

Nov 2013

You can have your theories, but I have shown why a hydrogen explosion can be discounted.

Being as that close inspections of the first three reactors has not been able to be made yet, and that new info about #4 pool is coming out daily, and that info states certain, shall we say, "peculiarities", it is safe to say we don't know.

The info from Tepco has been on a "you don't need to know" basis, yet the outsiders who, say for instance saw the hole in the roof #4, have been proven to be quite accurate with their theories.

But if you really have a hang-up on declaring you "know" what happened have fun.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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