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

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

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.

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

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

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 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 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.

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