Holy crap!!!!!!!!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...explosion.html

Best Regards
Tom.

Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...explosion.html


Best Regards
Tom.

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...explosion.html


Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!

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.

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.

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.

i

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.

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.

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.

i

Chernobyl isn't really a good comparison to a commercial power reactor.
Chernobyl was a very old reactor design, with limited safety systems, in
a state of pretty poor maintenance, and it still performed safely up
until some idiots decided to play with it. Chernobyl is a great example
of how safe nuclear power actually is since it took real effort to get
it to fail.

On 2011-03-13, Pete C. wrote:

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.

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.

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.

i

Chernobyl isn't really a good comparison to a commercial power reactor.
Chernobyl was a very old reactor design, with limited safety systems, in
a state of pretty poor maintenance, and it still performed safely up
until some idiots decided to play with it. Chernobyl is a great example
of how safe nuclear power actually is since it took real effort to get
it to fail.

I agree with you, but the Japanese plant is also a very old design.

Instead of idiots, they had an earthquake and a tsunami.

i

One more thing.

The building that was blown up IS the containment building.

The reactor is inside a containment vessel -- a steel pressure
vessel. The vessel is inside the building, which by now is collapsed.

I hope that I am mistaken about it.

Here's a good read.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/382...ushima-reactor

i

On 2011-03-13, Ignoramus25538 wrote:
On 2011-03-13, Pete C. wrote:

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.

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.

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.

i

Chernobyl isn't really a good comparison to a commercial power reactor.
Chernobyl was a very old reactor design, with limited safety systems, in
a state of pretty poor maintenance, and it still performed safely up
until some idiots decided to play with it. Chernobyl is a great example
of how safe nuclear power actually is since it took real effort to get
it to fail.

I agree with you, but the Japanese plant is also a very old design.

Instead of idiots, they had an earthquake and a tsunami.

i

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:57:55 -0600, Ignoramus25538
wrote:

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

Bush did it.

Martin Eastburn wrote:

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Which will probably be about as much over background as you get in an
airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest X-ray.

Cheers!
Rich

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.


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.


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?

--
Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is
absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you
realize that the entire system is very easily controlled,
one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you
will not have to be told how periods of inflation and
depression originate. --James Garfield

John R. Carroll wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Martin Eastburn wrote:

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Which will probably be about as much over background as you get in an
airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest X-ray.

They were already reporting over 1000 times the normal background this
morning.

Yeah - about as much as in an airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest x-ray.

Cheers!
Rich

Ignoramus25538 wrote:

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

1) That explosion made the outer building crash,

What, exactly, does "made the outer building crash" mean?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:37:24 -0600, Ignoramus25538
wrote:

One more thing.

The building that was blown up IS the containment building.

The reactor is inside a containment vessel -- a steel pressure
vessel. The vessel is inside the building, which by now is collapsed.

I hope that I am mistaken about it.

Here's a good read.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/382...ushima-reactor

I saw lots of speculation there (the Union of Concerned Scientists is
anything BUT neutral) but not much meat. Where's the beef?

http://tinyurl.com/4uqqyot Check their other headlines. Who's leading
whom on? Libby AGWK anti-nuke "environmental campaign group" bastids.

I'll wait for Japan and the Fukishima crew to tell us the real deal
there.

--
Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is
absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you
realize that the entire system is very easily controlled,
one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you
will not have to be told how periods of inflation and
depression originate. --James Garfield

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Martin Eastburn wrote:

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Which will probably be about as much over background as you get in an
airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest X-ray.

They were already reporting over 1000 times the normal background this
morning.

Yeah - about as much as in an airplane at 35,000 feet, or a chest x-ray.

Cheers!
Rich


Rich,

1000 times backround (which is being measured at the Japanese plant not on
the west coast) is nothing to scoff at, and it is not to same as one chest
X-ray or long flight.

We receive about 0.8 to 1 millirem per day of background, so 1000 times
this would be 800 to 1000 millirems per day. A chest X-ray is about 8
millirems, so this would be equivalent to 100 to 125 chest X rays every
single day! Actuarial tables say that 1000 millirems takes 51 days off your
life.

But the radiation you receive from external sources is not even the most
worrying thing. If you breathe in a particle of radioactive material and it
lodges in your lung, the constant intense bombardment of adjacent cells
means a greatly increased risk of cancer in that area.

On Mar 13, 12:19*am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...





Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
* *containment building. *It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. *The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. *That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
* *and reverted to pumping sea water.
*That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea....

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...





Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over. Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.

"Tom Gardner" w@w wrote in message
...

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...





Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt
and see this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power.
Good for you! Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS
justifies the means, doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people
die, lose their homes and livelihoods as long as it benefits your
politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything not in your pamphlet that tells
you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate list, it means I'm on
the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder" thing
like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over.
Instead, why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your
hatred but it consumes you. With proper therapy, you might become a
productive member of society.


I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades. I wonder if a few decades
into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.

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.


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.


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.

i

On 2011-03-13, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:37:24 -0600, Ignoramus25538
wrote:

One more thing.

The building that was blown up IS the containment building.

The reactor is inside a containment vessel -- a steel pressure
vessel. The vessel is inside the building, which by now is collapsed.

I hope that I am mistaken about it.

Here's a good read.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/382...ushima-reactor

I saw lots of speculation there (the Union of Concerned Scientists is
anything BUT neutral) but not much meat. Where's the beef?

http://tinyurl.com/4uqqyot Check their other headlines. Who's leading
whom on? Libby AGWK anti-nuke "environmental campaign group" bastids.

I'll wait for Japan and the Fukishima crew to tell us the real deal
there.


As far as I can tell, no real news came overnight, just more of people
repeating each other.

i

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:12:49 +0800, "Dennis #1"
wrote:


I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.

Yeah, damnit, it appears that way, but please wait until the truth
comes out. All that's happening right now is that the anti-nuke groups
are spewing bull**** fears.


I wonder if a few decades
into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.

I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
to prove how bad it could be. Crazy mofos.

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

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?


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.


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.

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

On Mar 13, 11:04*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
...
I wonder if a few decades
into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.

I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
to prove how bad it could be. *Crazy mofos.


Lets see them learn to live with the consequences; rolling blackouts
and rationed electricity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/us/14meters.html

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 Japans legal
limit, Mr. Edano said.''

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


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.



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

One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

i

On 2011-03-13, 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 Japans legal
limit, Mr. Edano said.''

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


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.



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

On 3/13/2011 6:08 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner"w@w wrote:
"Martin wrote in message

...





Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over. Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.


I see we have here a great example of the pot calling the kettle black -
thank you for the delicious irony of your response - may it live with
you always.

On Mar 13, 9:08*am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:









"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...

Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea....

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! *Coming from you, that's a complement. *You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. *Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! *The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? *You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. *You libs ALWAYS hate everything not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. *I'm GLAD I'm on your hate list,
it means I'm on the correct track. *But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over. *Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? *I know you relish your hatred but it consumes
you. *With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.

You really are out of your mind. I suggest you go back and read my
other recent posts in this group regarding nuclear powerplants, and
then come back and apologize. But you won't.

On Mar 13, 4:04*pm, Ignoramus858
wrote:
One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

i

Reports mention filling the containment, not circulating the water.

Is it time for a drop of iodine disinfectant in the coffee?
http://www.livescience.com/13203-jap...ills-work.html

What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
second part.

jsw

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:12:49 +0800, "Dennis #1"
wrote:


I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.

Yeah, damnit, it appears that way, but please wait until the truth
comes out. All that's happening right now is that the anti-nuke groups
are spewing bull**** fears.


I wonder if a few decades
into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.

I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
to prove how bad it could be. Crazy mofos.

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

I have a number of friends and relatives in Japan that I know I won't find out about
for a long, long time and these idiots gleefully mark a win in their column.

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.


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?

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:04:18 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.

P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:11:16 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:12:49 +0800, "Dennis #1"
wrote:


I agree Tom, the failures in Japan are going to put chances of many of us
(eg Australia) getting nuclear power back decades.

Yeah, damnit, it appears that way, but please wait until the truth
comes out. All that's happening right now is that the anti-nuke groups
are spewing bull**** fears.


I wonder if a few decades
into the future those like the anti-nuclear greenies will be effectively be
viewed as those who stuffed our evironment.

I already view them as the anti-environment terrorists. I wouldn't put
it past one of the venomous anti-nuke fidiots to blow up a plant, just
to prove how bad it could be. Crazy mofos.

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

I have a number of friends and relatives in Japan that I know I won't find out about
for a long, long time and these idiots gleefully mark a win in their column.


I've been corresponding with people I know in Tokyo over email
throughout all of this. Phone service is sketchy but internet appears
to be solid.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 9:08 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 13, 12:19 am, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:









"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

...

Thread should read an explosion at a Nuclear Power Plant.

If the plant exploded, not much would be left.

1. It was likely a Hydrogen gas explosion in the outer
containment building. It has two domes.

The unit is in serious condition - The rods are dropped,
but loss of power and the emergency backup failed the
pool let off steam. The outer dome was damaged in the
quake. That is one issue.

2. the scary issue is they still don't have coolant water
and reverted to pumping sea water.
That is a last level response as the salt does nothing good.

My understanding that with the salt water pumping the internal
temperature has dropped.

3. There isn't enough fuel to have a nuke explosion or implosion.

I expect detectors will pick up radiation of one sort or another
sometime this week on the west coast.

Martin

On 3/12/2011 2:49 AM, azotic wrote:
Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...77506/Japan-ea...

Best Regards
Tom.

The anti-nuke people are celebrating!-

celebrating? CELEBRATING? You really are a ****ing asshole, Tom.

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a complement. You are anti-nuke no doubt and see
this as a great opportunity to press the case for no nuke power. Good for you!
Anything that furthers your goals is A-Okay! The end ALWAYS justifies the means,
doesn't it? You don't give a damn how many people die, lose their homes and
livelihoods as long as it benefits your politics. You libs ALWAYS hate everything
not
in your pamphlet that tells you what and who to hate. I'm GLAD I'm on your hate
list,
it means I'm on the correct track. But, please don't do the "liberal mass-murder"
thing like you guys do when you don't get your way or your hate boils over. Instead,
why don't you seek psychological help? I know you relish your hatred but it consumes
you. With proper therapy, you might become a productive member of society.

You really are out of your mind. I suggest you go back and read my
other recent posts in this group regarding nuclear powerplants, and
then come back and apologize. But you won't.
****************

You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in the
troll section of Usenet?

On 3/12/2011 11:15 PM, Pete C. wrote:

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.

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.

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.

i

Chernobyl isn't really a good comparison to a commercial power reactor.
Chernobyl was a very old reactor design, with limited safety systems, in
a state of pretty poor maintenance, and it still performed safely up
until some idiots decided to play with it. Chernobyl is a great example
of how safe nuclear power actually is since it took real effort to get
it to fail.
right.

Chernobyl was a carbon unit. Not a tank of water. If one lowers a very
hot tube into carbon - it gives off CO2 and starts to burn. It then
destroys itself and you can't lower all of the way - preventing
shutdown. The carbon doesn't cool but shuts down interaction and volume
mass. Water does the same but also cools.

In water, the rods are dropped and if the coolant is there they get
cool. If not - or the tank is low or not conditioned with water
through an exchanger the pool will be heated and steam / boil out.
It then gets hotter with less water. Thus the want to add sea water.
The sea water is a stop gap and short lived. As they add more sea water
it cools and cools - steams and steams. But it will cool off.

The core is forever dead. Sea water killed all pipes.

The report was the outer containment building was cracked by the
earthquake. Pipes go in / out of the system - and it is these that
breached due to high pressure and temperature.

Naturally the steam given off from the salt water is likely nuke marked.

Martin

Martin Eastburn wrote:


On 3/12/2011 11:15 PM, Pete C. wrote:

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.

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.

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.

i

Chernobyl isn't really a good comparison to a commercial power reactor.
Chernobyl was a very old reactor design, with limited safety systems, in
a state of pretty poor maintenance, and it still performed safely up
until some idiots decided to play with it. Chernobyl is a great example
of how safe nuclear power actually is since it took real effort to get
it to fail.
right.

Chernobyl was a carbon unit. Not a tank of water. If one lowers a very
hot tube into carbon - it gives off CO2 and starts to burn. It then
destroys itself and you can't lower all of the way - preventing
shutdown. The carbon doesn't cool but shuts down interaction and volume
mass. Water does the same but also cools.

In water, the rods are dropped and if the coolant is there they get
cool. If not - or the tank is low or not conditioned with water
through an exchanger the pool will be heated and steam / boil out.
It then gets hotter with less water. Thus the want to add sea water.
The sea water is a stop gap and short lived. As they add more sea water
it cools and cools - steams and steams. But it will cool off.

The core is forever dead. Sea water killed all pipes.

The report was the outer containment building was cracked by the
earthquake. Pipes go in / out of the system - and it is these that
breached due to high pressure and temperature.

Naturally the steam given off from the salt water is likely nuke marked.

Martin



The Nuke plant that is over the hill from me has a couple of million
gallons of water stored for just such an emergency. It is uphill from
the reactors and therefore doesn't need to be pumped in if there is an
emergency.

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

John

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

On 2011-03-14, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:04:18 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.

P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.


Thanks. I lucked out big time. I am still not certain if Chernobyl is
to blame.

i

On 2011-03-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:04?pm, Ignoramus858
wrote:
One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

i

Reports mention filling the containment, not circulating the water.

Is it time for a drop of iodine disinfectant in the coffee?
http://www.livescience.com/13203-jap...ills-work.html

What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
second part.

jsw


Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:

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

i

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:20:14 -0400, "Tom Gardner" w@w wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
--nothing of value, as usual--

You call me an "asshole" and expect an apology? Does vulgarity make you feel
important and powerful? Good for you! You show your tiny little mentality with
everything you post, troll. Have you ever posted on-topic? Why don't you stay in the
troll section of Usenet?

You -know- he's a troll and still you talk with him? sigh

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen

Ignoramus858 wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Larry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:04:18 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

One more thing.

They are pumping seawater into the reactor.

I am smart enough to figure out that seawater comes from the sea.

But where does it go TO after it comes out of the reactor?

And are they cooling the inside of the reactor, or outside of this
shell?

That's just dumb. Let it melt. It's not going anywhere. Adding water
just increases the chance of radioactive steam release.

P.S: I forgot to say "Congrats" on having found and removed your
tumor. That's gotta be scary as hell.


Thanks. I lucked out big time. I am still not certain if Chernobyl is
to blame.

i


One of the workers at the local Nuke plant would set off the radiation
detector that they scan everyone with when they enter the plant. Come
to find out he took a vacation in Europe and brought back some food
products that he was consuming. The products had enough radiation to
set off the alarms.



John

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:45:37 -0500, Ignoramus858
wrote:

On 2011-03-13, Jim Wilkins wrote:
What exactly does "Chernobyl" mean? I know the color but not the
second part.

Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:

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

Not grass, it's usually called sagebrush or wormwood. I have some
planted in my front yard for the wonderful, rural smell. I think it's
A. ludoviciana rather than vulgaris.

--
You create your opportunities by asking for them.
-- Patty Hansen