Japanese reactor not damaged, steam buildup caused building collapse

[txlibdem]

"

Japan Earthquake 2011: Nuclear Plant Explosion, No Radiation Rise

Contrary to reports at The Huffington Post, the explosion at the massive Tokyo Power Electric Co. Fukushima Dai-ichi plant did not cause a rise in radiation levels.

AlJazeeraEnglish on YouTube just issued a new video, the one above, reporting that the metal container that shelters the reactor has not been effected. Radiation is not rising, but decreasing. This information was released by the Japanese Government."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=84884

"(CNN) -- An explosion at an earthquake-damaged nuclear plant was not caused by damage to the nuclear reactor but by a pumping system that failed as crews tried to bring the reactor's temperature down, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Saturday.

The next step for workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will be to flood the reactor containment structure with sea water to bring the reactor's temperature down to safe levels, he said. The effort is expected to take two days.

Radiation levels have fallen since the explosion and there is no immediate danger, Edano said. But authorities were nevertheless expanding the evacuation to include a radius of 20 kilometers (about 12.5 miles) around the plant. The evacuation previously reached out to 10 kilometers.

...snip...

The walls of a concrete building surrounding the reactor container collapsed, but the reactor and its containment system were not damaged in the explosion, Edano said."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.nuclear/

Truth will extinguish the flames fanned by the fear mongers. Long live truth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Typical western media in its rush to be first with the bleeding headline

and that to the anti nuke crowd, and then you get some of the nonsense seen here and elsewhere

[txlibdem]

4. Sensational journalism gets headlines, can make a career. Temptation to sensationalize too great

for some to avoid. It is sad that this tragedy is being used by the anti-nuke crowd to further their agenda. Compare the environmental damage and death caused by the oil refinery explosion and fire in Japan. The danger is far greater from the oil refinery. It will take months for proper investigations to bring out the full story but these anti-nuke nuts have jumped to their conclusions before anyone has had a chance to look into anything.

The fact that this reactor is a 50 year old design tells me that we need to accelerate a program to build new nuclear power plants of the Generation IV type, Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, LFTR, or SMR varieties only -- with a goal of replacing all the older reactors and building additional nuclear power plants to provide for increasing demand for electricity.

[leveymg]

2. The reactor cooling system was damaged, that overheated the core which was vented, releasing

radioactive cesium and iodine. The outer concrete container was blown apart by a hydrogen gas explosion when they flooded the overheated core. The situation is dire, but perhaps manageable, provided that the fuel rods remain intact and adequately cooled. In order to keep the pumps running, they will have to keep at least one of the other reactor-powered generators running.

[TheMadMonk]

3. Actually they have diesel generators for that. Apparently they failed.

Furthermore, according to the reports it was the weatherproof/cosmetic building around the actual containment dome that collapsed. The primary (reactor vessel) and secondary (dome) containment systems are reportedly intact and holding.

[amandabeech]

7. I have read that the secondary was the one that blew up.

I don't believe that all secondaries are in the dome shape.

If the secondary were still standing, it would be great.

Do you have a link?

[txlibdem]

5. You'll have to provide a link to back up your claim

Until then it's just fear mongering as far as I can tell. You can't just post something and expect everyone to fall for it.

Where did the hydrogen come from? There is no hydrogen used in or near that reactor.

Read the links and news reports from reputable sources and you will see that it was a buildup of steam that caused the collapse of the concrete building housing the reactor. Neither the reactor nor its containment have been breached. The one nugget of truth from your post: the situation is manageable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Here's your reputable sources:

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano confirmed there was an explosion and radiation leak, but not inside the reactor container. Due to the falling level of cooling water, hydrogen was generated and that leaked to the space between the building and the container. The explosion happened when the hydrogen mixed with oxygen there, he said.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_rescuers_join_Japan_rescue_efforts.html?cid=29708964

The World Nuclear Association, a London-based industry body, said the blast was probably due to hydrogen igniting and that this was unlikely to cause a big accident by itself.

"It is obviously an hydrogen explosion," communications director Ian Hore-Lacy said. "If the hydrogen has ignited, then it is gone, it doesn't pose any further threat."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-nuclear-qa-idUSTRE72B2ET20110312

This was not just 'steam build-up'. That didn't appear in either of your links.

[FBaggins]

10. There are conflcting reports

From sources that are variably "reputable" and authoritative.

But there have been problems with every one I've seen so far.

Take the ones like those you found that say that the core created hydrogen which exploded. I'm not sure how that happens without particular thermochemical reagents, but I could be wrong so let's set that aside. If it were true, where is the hydrogen coming from? Obviously by breaking it from the water. What's left of the water when you do that? Oxygen, right?

So why is it that every one of those reports speculates that the hydrogen somehow combined with oxygen when it leaked into the building... or (as some have reported it) that oxygen somehow got into the sealed building that the hydrogen had leaked into?

It sounds as if those who are making the statements don't really know what's happening. If this was a hydrogen explosion, then we know where the oxygen came from.

I can't imagine anyone who is competent to determine that it was a hydrogen explosion... but who wouldn't know that oxygen would naturally be there if hydrogen was cracked out of water.

So there's still a great deal of confusion over what really happened.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Have we seen any reputable sources that say it *wasn't* a hydrogen explosion?

The Japanese government, and the World Nuclear Association, are about as definitive as you can get.

I don't know why you have a problem with oxygen - (a) you get it when water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen (b) it's in the air.

[FBaggins]

17. I have... but they're still all incomplete.

The Japanese government, and the World Nuclear Association, are about as definitive as you can get.

True... IF they were definitive statements by people in a position to know. I can't tell whether that's the case or not.

I don't know why you have a problem with oxygen - (a) you get it when water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen (b) it's in the air.

I don't have any problem with oxygen. Your "(a)" above WAS my concern. Yes, when water is broken into H2 and O2 you have both and it's in the air. The problem is that I couldn't think of any mechanism by which the reactor is supposed to do that. Electrolysis really wasn't an answer. And large amounts of heat (as another poster speculated yesterday) just turns liquid water to steam... it doesn't break it into H2 and O2. And if it DID happen, I didn't understand why they would need to speculate where the O2 came from since (as you noted above), that would be a natural byproduct of the process. What was needed was a process that created H2 without creating and O2 gas.

PamW's post below really clears things up. It's still possible that there is some other source of the explosion, but this seems like a very plausible theory.

[txlibdem]

20. The post I replied to stated that the core was breached and vented -- untrue, inflammatory

Here is the post #2: "The reactor cooling system was damaged, that overheated the core which was vented, releasing
radioactive cesium and iodine."
Edited on Sat Mar-12-11 08:25 AM by leveymg

Note the time of the post, then compare that to the time of the "officials" stating hydrogen may have been part of the cause of the explosion: 1600 hours for the first, 2:02pm for the second link.

So at the time I wrote my post, there *were* no credible links that opined that hydrogen could have exploded. I simply asked "where did this hydrogen come from?"

Hydrogen begins separating from water at 2,200 degrees C (5% at that temperature), and significant hydrogen production at 3,000 degrees C (50% then). Details were sketchy and I saw no source that said anything about temperatures going that high (far higher than the temperature to melt steel: "Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)." (refer to http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html )

How about Titanium, that's a pretty hard metal to melt:

"Titanium readily reacts with oxygen at 1,200 °C (2,190 °F) in air, and at 610 °C (1,130 °F) in pure oxygen, forming titanium dioxide.<7> As a result, the metal cannot be melted in open air since it burns before the melting point is reached. Melting is only possible in an inert atmosphere or in a vacuum. At 550 °C (1,022 °F), it combines with chlorine.<3> It also reacts with the other halogens and absorbs hydrogen.<4>

Titanium is one of the few elements that burns in pure nitrogen gas, reacting at 800 °C (1,470 °F) to form titanium nitride, which causes embrittlement.<16>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium

It just seemed to me that there would be one heck of a lot more going on if the temperatures inside the outer containment building had actually been high enough to separate hydrogen from the coolant water in the reactor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. You realise it's a different report of the official you quoted in the OP, don't you?

Here's the Reuters report for what Edano said - timestamped 6:16pm, IST (Indian Standard Time), ie 1246 GMT:

"We've confirmed that the reactor container was not damaged. The explosion didn't occur inside the reactor container. As such there was no large amount of radiation leakage outside," he said.

"At this point, there has been no major change to the level of radiation leakage outside (from before and after the explosion), so we'd like everyone to respond calmly," Edano said.

"We've decided to fill the reactor container with sea water. Trade minister Kaieda has instructed us to do so. By doing this, we will use boric acid to prevent criticality."

Edano said it would take about five to 10 hours to fill the reactor core with sea water and around 10 days to complete the process.

Edano said due to the falling level of cooling water, hydrogen was generated and that leaked to the space between the building and the container and the explosion happened when the hydrogen mixed with oxygen there.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/idINIndia-55526220110312

That was over an hour before you posted the OP. The second link was clearly originally posted before 2:12pm EST, because I linked to it at 12:55pm EST. Here's the same quote, in a timeline from RTE, the Irish broadcaster (and therefore GMT, which you can check by seeing the latest report at the moment is timestamped 2233):

1038 A nuclear industry body official has said he believed the blast was due to hydrogen igniting, adding it may not necessarily have caused radiation leakage.

'It is obviously an hydrogen explosion ... due to hydrogen igniting,' Ian Hore-Lacy, communications director at the World Nuclear Association, a London-based industry body, told Reuters after reports of the explosion in Japan.

'If the hydrogen has ignited, then it is gone, it doesn't pose any further threat.'

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0312/japan.html

We see that post #2 was acutally pretty accurate - I'm not sure if "when they flooded the core" was correct, but "The reactor cooling system was damaged, that overheated the core which was vented, releasing radioactive cesium and iodine. The outer concrete container was blown apart by a hydrogen gas explosion" was.


So, we've established that hydrogen was the official explanation before you even started this thread. As for temperatures:

The explosion at the nuclear plant, Fukushima Dai-ichi, 170 miles northeast of Tokyo, appeared to be a consequence of steps taken to prevent a meltdown after the quake and tsunami knocked out power to the plant, crippling the system used to cool fuel rods there.

The blast destroyed the building housing the reactor, but not the reactor itself, which is enveloped by stainless steel 6 inches thick.

Inside that superheated steel vessel, water being poured over the fuel rods to cool them formed hydrogen. When officials released some of the hydrogen gas to relieve pressure inside the reactor, the hydrogen apparently reacted with oxygen, either in the air or the cooling water, and caused the explosion.
...
Officials declined to say what the temperature was inside the troubled reactor, Unit 1. At 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit, the zirconium casings of the fuel rods can react with the cooling water and create hydrogen. At 4,000 degrees, the uranium fuel pellets inside the rods start to melt, the beginning of a meltdown.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/brings-41882-dawn-quake.html

The problem of the zirconium was noted even before the explosion:

It also was not immediately clear how closely the reactor had moved toward dangerous pressure or temperature levels. If temperatures were to keep rising to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, it could set off a chemical reaction that begins to embrittle the metallic zirconium that sheathes the radioactive uranium fuel.

That reaction releases hydrogen, which can explode when cooling water finally floods back into the reactor. That was also concern for a time during the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/japan-quake-causes-emergencies-at-5-nuke-reactors-91159

[txlibdem]

24. The core was not vented

The core was never breached, as stated in the link I posted. Had the core been vented it would have released a lot more radiation, which would have been blasted all over the news. In this case, silence is golden. What was vented was the steam building up in the secondary containment, as I understand what I've read on the topic. Both our links state clearly that the core is intact. I think that clearly points to an incorrect statement being made in post #2. Accept it if you will. Or don't, either way is ok with me.

Please save your link spamming for someone who truly cares. I posted a request for a link in response to a post that contained incorrect information and a statement I could not find in numerous google searches at the time. Case closed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Link spamming? You asked for links. I've provided them to make up for your failure

to research before you posted your inaccurate OP. If you "don't care" about getting accurate information in your own thread, it shows what crappy threads you start.

If you think the core was never breached, where do you claim the cesium and iodine came from? Oooh, there's another evil link, rather than your uninformed speculation. Mind you, the CNN link you spammedgave was getting updated through the day. Let's see what it says now:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters that officials still do not know if there have been meltdowns in the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi's nuclear facility in northeast Japan. But as they attempt to cool down radioactive material and release pressure inside the reactors, he said authorities were working under the presumption that such meltdowns have taken place.

"We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred. It is inside the reactor. We can't see. However, we are assuming that a meltdown has occurred," he said of the No. 1 reactor. "And with reactor No. 3, we are also assuming that the possibility of a meltdown as we carry out measures."
...
Though Toshihiro Bannai, director of the agency's international affairs office, said engineers have been unable to get close enough to the core to know what's going on, he based his conclusion on the fact that they measured radioactive isotopes in the air Saturday night.

"What we have seen is only the slight indication from a monitoring post of cesium and iodine," he said.

Cesium and iodine must have come from the core. Well, fuck, now it looks like everyone says reply #2 was right, and you are wrong.

[leveymg]

13. Your question is tendentious. Hydrogen is the result of electrolysis when cooling water

is exposed to electrical current or ionizing radiation, like in an overheating reactor.

Frankly, your objection reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of physics.

[PamW]

15. Radiolytic decomposition...

is exposed to electrical current or ionizing radiation, like in an overheating reactor.
======================

Hydrogen can be produced by radiolytic decomposition - that's when water is exposed
to ionizing radiation. However, the level of ionizing radiation is not related to
the fact that the reactor is overheating. The only ionizing radiation is due to
the radioactivity of the fuel.

There was a hell of a lot more ionizing radiation when the reactor was operating
normally from the fission reactions.

The concern for an overheating reactor is zirconium oxidation. When the reactor
overheats, the zirconium metal tubes that serve as the fuel cladding can oxidize -
getting their oxygen atoms from the water / steam. If the zirconium grabs the oxygen
atom away from a molecule of water, H2O - what do you have left? H2 - i.e. molecular
hydrogen.

PamW

[FBaggins]

16. Thanks Pam! That finally makes sense.

I kept reading all of these theories that all the heat would break the water hydrogen and oxygen and I thought "no... that would make steam". Then there was this claim of electrolysis and I wondered where there was supposed to be current flowing in the core. Ionizing radiation didn't make sense either (for the reasons you mentioned).

Then all of the speculation re: hydrogen explosions seemed to say that oxygen had somehow mixed with the hydrogen to create an explosive environment. Since those who claimed this was a danger were saying things like above (electrolysis, etc) the oxygen would necessarily have been created with the hydrogen.

This finally makes sense. I majored in physics, but my chemistry experience is far less extensive.

Thanks again!

[leveymg]

18. Thank you, Pam. That makes sense.

Radiolytic decomposition. Hmm, one can learn a lot at DU in crises . . . if the volume of emergency cooling water inside the secondary container became so pressurized by superheating that it caused the structure to burst, what does that tell you about how hot the fuel rods were? Hot enough to start burning the cladding and to create a hydrogen bubble? Steam pressure could have caused the burst, but it seems that much heat would indicate some burning of the rod cladding, as well. We'll find out, for better or for worse.

I try to keep an open mind, and acknowledge that all this is just speculation and group education here, as we really aren't being given enough information by the authorities, anyway.

[txlibdem]

21. Your post reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of human communications

Post #2 stated, "The reactor cooling system was damaged, that overheated the core which was vented, releasing radioactive cesium and iodine." This is untrue and inflammatory. Is it your belief that untrue comments should be unchallenged? That sounds like Fox News standard operating procedure, not a policy of DU.

Your post also fails to explain where or how the electrical current would have come into contact with the coolant water -- obviously not something that would happen during normal operation. It is another "coulda, mighta, maybe" post that contains no factual content. Ionizing radiation could create hydrogen, as stated in the links provided from later in the day, long after I asked for a link to prove a contentious statement.

In short, your post is just an attempt to prop up "your buddy" and fails to address the criticisms I leveled against an inflammatory and incorrect post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. It was true, and in no way deserves to be compared to Fox

See #22 for why reply #2 was accurate - more so that your OP.

[txlibdem]

25. Again, your post is spreading incorrect information

See #14 and the OP to verify that the core was not vented, the core integrity was never breached -- it remained fully intact. That makes post #2 incorrect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Nothing 'incorrect' in that post

The Japanese authorities are assuming that the cesium and iodine were released from the core (because wher eelse would they come from?) - just as #2 said.

No apology from you for saying something accurate from a DUer was 'like Fox', then? You just want to continue insulting the integrity of fellow DUers, huh?

[txlibdem]

28. What does the term "the core was vented" mean to you?

Perhaps it means something different than what I took it to mean?!?

If a simple request for a link results in such a flame war then I guess I'll have to rethink how reasonable a request it was to begin with. Sheesh!

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. The cesium and iodine got from the core to the outside

which must have been through venting of the space the core was in. As NPR puts it:

HAMILTON: Well, government officials are now saying that yes, it's probably not from the explosion, mind you. What it probably came from was as pressure built up, they have several times, it appears, vented steam, and that steam has been near the core, so it's a little bit radioactive. So there has been a release of some radioactive material.

And there also have been reports of higher radiation levels inside and outside the plant. And there's been talk about whether there was some cesium, which is something you get in a nuclear reactor.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/12/134484967/Japan-Nuclear-Plant-Explodes

The flame war was started by you. Your OP talks about "flames fanned by the fear mongers"; when leveymg replied to you saying nothing at all about how you described things, you described his reply as "just fear mongering" until links were provided. When I provided links from "reputable sources", as you demanded, you have called this 'link spamming', and said you don't care after all about getting accurate information about the hydrogen; and you call what leveymg said 'inflammatory', and say his attitude "sounds like Fox News standard operating procedure". It's your continued behaviour that has led me to describe this thread as 'crappy'; and I think you thoroughly deserve that criticism.

[txlibdem]

30. It's a BWR. PamW posted the best explanation of that

I'm not a nuclear engineer, nor do I play one on TV. I'm simply a person who asked for a link to prove an assertion made on a forum. I have yet to see that link. The rest is all petulant squabbling that detracts from the root of the matter.

Watching CNN just now I saw video of a British nuclear energy expert who stated that the "Pressure Vessel" was probably vented to maintain safety, that this could have contained hydrogen which reacted with oxygen inside the main building and caused the explosion. Further, that this release of pressure should normally contain some radioactive elements, just a natural result of how a BWR works. So, 20 hours later, I have the answer I was asking for all along: the release of radioactive cesium and iodine was a normal occurrence in disaster scenarios such as this and was unfortunate but planned and understood by the authorities in charge at the scene; that is why they asked for the evacuation of the area. There was no (and will be no) meltdown, no breach of the containment in the reactor, and so no story here. That the oldest reactor in Japan came through this disaster with nothing more than a planned venting of pressure is a testament of the safety and reliability of nuclear power.

So, far from the hyperventilated "we're all gonna die" context of post #2 we have a series of rational and reasonable actions by authorities. We also have a clear and undeniable example of the need to build more nuclear reactors, first to replace these older reactors then to add more stable, safe, and reliable power generation to the energy mix.

Japan has 55 nuclear reactors and 2 have had issues: the oldest 2. This literally screams that we need to build new nuclear reactors to replace all of the old reactors, wherever they may be.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. An explosion destroying the building is not "nothing more than a planned venting of pressure"

You seem oblivious to what actually happened.

The system to cool the core failed; that is not an indication of "the safety and reliability of nuclear power", it shows this power station was unreliable, and unsafe. Because they had no choice, they then had to vent the containment vessel, and the material that came out included radioactive cesium and iodine, and hydrogen that had been formed because water came into contact with the zirconium at far higher temperatures than it should have. This is not "a normal occurrence". It's an indication there probably was a meltdown, which is what the Japanese authorities themselves are now assuming:

Asked if fuel rods were partially melting in the No. 1 reactor, Edano said: "There is that possibility. We cannot confirm this because it is in the reactor. But we are dealing with it under that assumption ."

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/japan-another-nuclear-plant-explosion-feared/145790-2.html

It may have seemed like the least worst option, after the failure of the design, but they released the hydrogen outside the containment vessel, and it then exploded, destroying the building.

You call that "a testament of the safety and reliability of nuclear power"? :banghead: And, no, this does not scream, literally or otherwise, the need to build new nuclear power stations. It shows the old ones were badly designed, and, if new ones are built, the safety philosophy behind all nuclear designs needs re-examining - 'failsafe' systems have been shown not to be safe in the event of a failure.

[txlibdem]

33. the safety philosophy behind all nuclear designs needs re-examining = already done

The two reactors in Japan that are causing all the worry were designed in the 1960s, completed in 1971 and 1974, and are the oldest reactors in Japan's fleet of 55 nuclear power plants. In light of the devastation in the region due to the earthquake and then a 30 foot high wall of water tsunami, that the 40 year old reactor (a 50 year old design) has done this well is a testament to the both the skill of the nuclear engineers in Japan and the safety and reliability of nuclear power. Notice the exploding oil refineries, they went kaboom! But the two nuclear reactors in the news have been shut down and will only temporarily need herculean efforts to keep the reactor temperature under control: it will eventually cool down enough and no longer require constant water pumping to keep cool.

Yet, even with the success of the Japanese engineers, these old reactors need to be replaced with newer designs that are passively safe. As I stated in other posts, we need to immediately begin to focus on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, and SMRs as the replacements for these outdated reactors.

You don't have to believe it but this is a success story for nuclear power. Compare that to the oil refineries exploding.

[Tesha]

6. Given that cesium and iodine have now been detected, we can know with certainty...

...that at least a few fuel rods have ruptured their
cladding. How many are eventually found to damaged
will be an interesting question!

Tesha

[CRH]

8. With no damage to the reactor or containment system, ...

How does cesium and iodine end up outside the containment vessel. Perhaps though intentional venting? At very least there has been a partial melt of the rods as cesium and iodine are product of nuclear fission.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x278026

[PamW]

14. It's a BWR..

How does cesium and iodine end up outside the containment vessel.
============================

It's a BWR. There's a small amount of cesium and iodine in the reactor coolant.

In a BWR, the reactor coolant is turned to steam and drives the turbine, and since
the turbine is not in the containment, it is normal for there to be a small amount
of cesium and iodine outside the containment in a BWR.

In a PWR, the reactor coolant water never leaves the containment. The heat is transferred
to another loop of water to drive the turbine.

In order to make conclusions, one needs to know amounts at this point.
However, those details are not readily at hand.

PamW

[leveymg]

19. If that was a "normal" amount of C and I for a BWR, as you say, why didn't the NYT say so?

I really have to fault the level of "expertise" that the major media has consulted and propagated. The MSM is their own (and the public's) worst enemy.

BTW, why do you assume that the C and I were normal trace amounts?

[GliderGuider]

11. No "America Syndrome"???

The fear-mongers will be so disappointed.

[madokie]

31. I'm sorry but I think it will be you that is disappointed

We pretty much knew that in time this would happen somewhere. Just the nature of the beast is all it is.
Some of us know that, some of you don't, trouble is we have to live with you all.

[txlibdem]

34. It hasn't happened yet. Let's hope it never does...

I find it curious how so many on DU are hoping for a nuclear disaster: perhaps they think that would "prove" their belief system. The truth is, it would prove that 1960s designed reactors need to be replaced with newer reactors such as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, and SMRs (which solve both the issue of skyrocketing nuclear plant construction costs because they are mass produced in a factory) --all of which are passively safe and cannot melt down. Even the Gen III and Gen III+ reactors are many times safer than the 50 year old designs but I do not recommend any of these because the construction companies are still able to jack up the costs. I only recommend mass produced components (or in the case of SMRs the entire reactor is a mass produced module).

[madokie]

35. To start with no one, especially me, is hoping for a nuclear disaster

that it has is already a fact.

[tiny elvis]

36. what say you all now?

[Tansy_Gold]

37. my rubber stamp

[tiny elvis]

38. but in truth, what say you all now? to extinguish flames and whatnot

[bananas]

39. It was a hydrogen explosion, not a steam explosion.

The OP was wrong.