Nuclear power plant explodes

Mar 12, 2011 109 Replies

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?

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

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

Lets see them learn to live with the consequences; rolling blackouts and rationed electricity:

formatting link

Nunya is mistaken (or the Liberal lied. Imagine that.) He also can't spell Chernobyl and didn't take the time to find out. Hmm...

"Groundwater

Groundwater was not badly affected by the Chernobyl accident since radionuclides with short half-lives decayed away long before they could affect groundwater supplies, and longer-lived radionuclides such as radiocaesium and radiostrontium were adsorbed to surface soils before they could transfer to groundwater.[68] However, significant transfers of radionuclides to groundwater have occurred from waste disposal sites in the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion zone around Chernobyl. Although there is a potential for transfer of radionuclides from these disposal sites off-site (i.e. out of the 30 km (19 mi) exclusion zone), the IAEA Chernobyl Report[68] argues that this is not significant in comparison to current levels of washout of surface-deposited radioactivity."

formatting link

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

I wouldn't be so sure of that. New reactor technology bears little resemblance to what was being built in the 70's. Third generation facilities just stop completely on a catastrophic failure along the lines the Japanese plants have suffered.

The only money and effort going towards anti-nuke efforts is coming from the oil, gas and coal industries. At least in the US.

TMI was a PR disaster. An expensive one but the real failure was in it's operation. What put the kybosh on construction wasn't "the Greenies", it was that nobody wanted to make the huge investment required only to end up with a large concrete monument. These plants can't be put back into operation at all beyond a certain point and that's too big an investment to write off even once - especially in today's deregulated market. Dynergy is facing bankruptcy over smaller losses.

The chance of this sort of failure in a new GE reactor design are effectively ( and I think actualy) zero.

Your own cite contradicts you Larry.

"Recent tests (ca. 1997) have shown that caesium-137 levels in trees of the area are continuing to rise. There is some evidence that contamination is migrating into underground aquifers and closed bodies of water such as lakes and ponds (2001, Germenchuk). "

formatting link
``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.

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.

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.

formatting link
``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

Reports mention filling the containment, not circulating the water.

Is it time for a drop of iodine disinfectant in the coffee?

formatting link

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

jsw

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.

Probably not the only money but a significant source. "He who controls the Spice controls the Universe!"

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

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.

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

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

Something like that. As with most of these sorts of things, the first question I try and answer is who loses in the event of a change and benefits from stasis. Then the search for anecdotal and emperical evidence begins.

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.

formatting link
John

The new Duke/Progress Energy nuclear plant in Florida is to be a Westinghouse design.

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

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

i

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

i

Chernobyl means, in Ukrainian, this type of grass:

formatting link
i

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required