Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Sky-High Radiation Found in Fukushima Fish [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)56. Bvar was correct
Fukushima's reactors were boiling water reactors and the steam was contaminated.
Switching the discussion to pressurized water reactors is a transparently dishonest tactic.
The boiling water reactor (BWR) is a type of light water nuclear reactor used for the generation of electrical power. It is the second most common type of electricity-generating nuclear reactor after the pressurized water reactor (PWR), also a type of light water nuclear reactor. The main difference between a BWR and PWR is that in a BWR, the reactor core heats water, which turns to steam and then drives a steam turbine. In a PWR, the reactor core heats water, which does not boil. This hot water then exchanges heat with a lower pressure water system, which turns to steam and drives the turbine. The BWR was developed by the Idaho National Laboratory and General Electric in the mid-1950s. The main present manufacturer is GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, which specializes in the design and construction of this type of reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
List of BWRs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BWRs
They are large segment of the global reactor fleet.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
When exactly is this going to be deemed a global threat? Wonder when the cancer rates will show
mother earth
Jan 2013
#2
Sounds like you'd be a great help to the Japanese gov't...dump everything into the ocean, our work
mother earth
Jan 2013
#14
You are assuming that ocean currents don't exist and sea life does not move around.
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#51
Rep. Markey wrote an excellent letter to NOAA and the FDA asking pertinent questions...
PearliePoo2
Jan 2013
#4
Another WTF???!!? Adding radiation into the deadly mix isn't helping the planet or humanity.
mother earth
Jan 2013
#15
Maybe your number is applicable today, but the worst of it is yet to be realized IMHO. I think
mother earth
Jan 2013
#20
Whether people invest in solar, wind or nuclear, the profit motive is always involved
wtmusic
Jan 2013
#23
The risks for nuclear power are far too great, and the companies in charge of the sites are
mother earth
Jan 2013
#24
You forgot how "scientists" can be stifled & paid off, or must answer to the corporate sponsor or
mother earth
Jan 2013
#40
BS, tell that to those that GWB enlisted for his agenda, climate deniers...sorry, YOU have it wrong.
mother earth
Jan 2013
#43
Spare me your long winded comparisons & try to be succinct. You are writing off alternatives when
mother earth
Jan 2013
#49
Alternative energy is within the realms of science. You are just being ignorant to say it isn't.
mother earth
Jan 2013
#52
I probably have, but since this OT is about Fukushima, I didn't bring up these other issues as you
mother earth
Jan 2013
#21