On 2011-03-14, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:59:07 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

On 2011-03-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:13:55 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

On 2011-03-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:57:55 -0600, Ignoramus25538
wrote:

I disagree with those who say that "it was just a hydrogen
explosion".

1) That explosion made the outer building crash, so, there is little
access to the reactor and likely all pipes are damaged too.

The reactor is likely impossible to control and even to access, in
fact if the containment vessel is undamaged but access to it is
prevented, I am not sure how they can pump seawater into it.

Perhaps they can find a way to just hook up the reactor to a huge
steel cable and use an aircraft carrier to drag it to the ocean.

What for, to create an environmental hazard of untold magnitude?
It stays where it is, if it -is- truly damaged beyond repair, until it
can be safely dismantled and stored underground in glass.

It is already an environmental hazard, emitting radioactive materials,
so it is breached in one way or another.

I couldn't find a cite for any level of radioactivity being produced.
All I find is fearmongering. Can you list a specific link for me?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/wo...l?pagewanted=2

``Radiation levels outside the plant, which had retreated overnight,
shot up to 1,204 microsieverts per hour, or over twice Japan????????s legal
limit, Mr. Edano said.''

It is not that much, but it does mean that the reactor is no longer
isolated.

Well, still isolated but still hot and producing enough steam to
require some release.


2) The hydrogen could only be produced inside the reactor, by exposure
of water to superheated rod cladding. If so, this means that the
reactor was, well, superheated even at that time, so I would surmise
it has gone worse since then.

For some reason, I find myself very skeptical about what will happen
to the reactor in the future.

We'll see once the paranoid speculation stops and the truth comes out.
Have they even gotten inside yet? News online is sparse.

They cannot get there de to radiation, the reactor is not accessible,
as far as I can tell.

All I see is speculation. Newscritters seem to be filling in all the
data holes with fears and wild speculation.

Not much data comes out, it seems.


``an explosion caused by hydrogen that tore the outer wall and roof off
the building housing the reactor, although the steel containment of
the reactor remained in place''

The building housing the reactor is the containment building.

You would figure that the reactor is in its rubble.

In that same article it mentions that the explosion was in the turbine
building, not the reactor building. That makes sense: A ten meter
diameter turbine wheel was spinning and when it got hammered by an 8.9
quake, it fractured, releasing lots of steam and shrapnel. I saw the
turbine wheels exposed at the Encina Power plant in Carlsbad, CA about
30 years ago and they're really something. I wouldn't want to be in
line with one when it cut loose.


You need to read a few more recent articles. It is the reactor
containment building that exlpoded and collapsed.

3) Even if it explodes like the Chernobyl reactor, the damage to
mankind will be limited due to prevailing western winds, which will
carry most of the fallout into the Pacific.

Myself, I had a benign thyroid tumor in 1993, 7 years after
Chernobyl. I was in the Ukraine at the moment when it exploded. I was
lucky that the tumor was found during a routine medical check.

Are you saying that you got cancer from Chernobyl, Ig?

It was not a cancerous tumor, it was a benign one, but since it could
turn cancerous any time, it was removed. Along with it went 2/3 of my
thyroid.

You skirted the question nicely, Ig. Were you told or did you discern
that your tumor was a direct cause of Chernobyl radioactivity? Yes or
no, please.


I have no idea if it was related or not. How can anyone be certain?
But I know that thyroid disease increased greatly after it.

http://thyroid.about.com/cs/nucleare.../a/chernob.htm

``According to the World Health Organization, the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster will cause 50,000 new cases of thyroid cancer among young
people living in the areas most affected by the nuclear
disaster. Specifically, the rate of thyroid cancer in adolescents aged
15 to 18 is also now three times higher than it was before the 1986
disaster took place. The incidence of thyroid cancer in children rose
10-fold in children who lived in the Ukraine region.''

Based on this, the answer is, probably yes, it was related. I am lucky
that I had annual medical checkups then.

I says nothing about benign tumors, which are non-cancerous, so I'm
still wondering. Were you beside it, upwind, or downwind that day?


I was kind of beside it. My mom thinks that I was downwind. It is hard
to tell by now.

i