So does Fukushima Daiichi have full containment

[Fledermaus]

No, it has a removable lid to refuel. Why do think they were freaking out when the pressure started to rise? Pop!!


Maybe this one won't but there is another melting down.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Actually, it is full containment.

Just becasue you can open the containment doesn't mean it isn't full containment when in proper operation.

So #1 went blooey, but is 'under control'
#2 has been radio silence in the news.
#3 was 'under control' and the heat and pressure was down to safe levels, but an hour ago, it lost coolant again, so is it already cold enough with the core scrammed, or do they have another huge problem mounting with #3?



What is going on with #2 at this site?

[Fledermaus]

2. Same design principal as Chernobyl.

I bew its 1000 ton lid off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE2G-KE93bM&feature=related

[FBaggins]

4. Not even close.

You're making yourself look silly.

The "1000 ton lid" was not a solid piece for one.

You constantly leap to unfounded conclusions... all designed to avoid having to realize that you were wrong before.

[PamW]

5. Not even close...

Same design principal as Chernobyl.
==================================

Once again you are no where close to being correct on this.

With the Japanese reactor, there's no "new" nuclear energy being generated.
The reactor is both thermally and radioactively hot - but that's not enough
to blow a 1000 ton lid off. There's just not enough energy to do that.

Chernobyl was different. Chernobyl was not shutdown at the time. Chernobyl was
an operating critical reactor at the time it blew. Chernobyl was releasing
new nuclear energy at the time. Because Chernobyl was an unstable reactor design,
it acted like a small nuclear bomb and had a lot more energy to do damage with.
Read the following from a course at MIT as to how Chernobyl was unstable:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-05-neutron-science-and-reactor-physics-fall-2006/lecture-notes/lecture30.pdf

Additionally, the area immediately above the reactor has windows. This is
the entry for one of Chernobyl's sister RBMK reactors in Lithuania:

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

Look at the picture showing the reactor top:

"h_t_t_p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RBMK_reactor_from_Ignalina.gif"

See the wall at right has windows!!!! You see any windows
in your diagram of the GE BWR?

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Nope. The rods would have been exposed to atmosphere if that were the case.

Totally different design. The rods are still safely inside the primary containment. 'safely' being relative, I guess.

[FBaggins]

9. The poster doesn't take correction very well.

Six months from now he'll find some obscure document on Google that he misinterprets to mean that this thread was only 98% wrong instead of entirely wrong and you'll get an all-new thread that translates to "see! I really was right!"

In fact... that's what this very thread is (and something like 8th in the series). :)

But... who among us likes to be told that we were wrong?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I like being told I am wrong.

If I am also clearly told why, and the person telling me I am wrong is correct.

But I've been told many times by different people that I should not use myself as a gauge for human behavior.

[FBaggins]

11. No you don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Hahaaha

Thank you, I needed a smile.

[FBaggins]

3. Boy... you really still don't get the concept of containment, do you?

Pretty much all power reactors are designed to be refueled... which means that whatever containment vessel exists can be opened.

This really isn't all that complicated, MG. I'm sure that you can get it.

[PamW]

6. Spoon-feeding!!!

Pretty much all power reactors are designed to be refueled... which means that whatever containment vessel exists can be opened.
==================

It's amazing how much one has to "spoon feed" some people. One has to explain the
concepts in the most minute detail otherwise they can't grasp the concepts.

What was he expecting - a containment that was sealed once for ever and ever?

What machine has that type of containment. We have to have access to the machine
for refueling and maintenance. The question is what the containment system looks
like when the machine is operating.

It's like sealing up your house against burglars when you go away. You can seal all the
doors and windows and lock them - save one - the front door. If that front door is left
unlocked - it doesn't matter that the others are locked - the burglar will just waltz in.

Likewise, when you are away, the front door is locked. It's locked when it needs to be
locked - when you are not there. The fact that you have a key to unlock it doesn't
invalidate the security afforded by the locked door when you are gone.

It's so blasted simple. How can anyone not get the whole concept??????

PamW

[FBaggins]

7. "Refuel"

One was designed to be refueled by completely shutting it down and waiting for it to cool... THEN opening the containment and removing the fuel assemblies.

The other was designed to be refueled without shutting down. The "lid" was not a solid object, it was pierced with separate little "lids" for each assembly.


Your image, BTW, is of a much more advances design than what we're discussing.