choffer Posted March 14, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2011 Interesting Q&A on the beeb here, BOF. The answer to your specific question: Could there be a Chernobyl-like disaster? Experts say this is highly unlikely. The chain reaction at all Fukushima reactors has ceased and reactor 1 is reported already to be in a stable condition. The explosions that have occurred have taken place outside the steel and concrete containment vessels enclosing the reactors, which apparently remain solid. At Chernobyl an explosion exposed the core of the reactor to the air, and a fire raged for days sending its contents in a plume up into the atmosphere. At Fukushima the explosions - caused by hydrogen and oxygen vented from the reactor - have damaged only the roof and walls erected around the containment vessels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2011 OK cheers for that Choffer. So if we take that at face value, the reactors or 'containment vessels' currently remain solid and that's what is preventing a Chernobyl. I hope we can take it at face value because I refer back to me previous concerns re- saving face and the assuaging of valid fears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Honest question here TheDon. Given that Chernobyl gave a lot of Europe acid rain and to this day contaminates a huge area around the plant with untold suffering, what's to say that the whole of Japan won't be geiger-central for the next 50 years and that we haven't seen anything like the worst of it yet. Entirely different reactor type. The Chernobyl reactors would never have been built anywhere other than Russia. In Chernobyl the reactor vessel ruptured due to huge flaws in the design of it, exposing the material to the air, which ignited the graphite cooling rods, which cause an explosion that ejected the nuclear material into the atmosphere. In the Japanese reactors there's nothing in there that can explode. The explosions so far are outside the reactor due to hydrogen build ups, there's literally no way this can happen within the actual core. There's also nothing in the core that can ignite like the graphite in the Chernobyl reactor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I hope we can take it at face value because I refer back to me previous concerns re- saving face and the assuaging of valid fears. But if they were in the business of saving face why have they told the world that twice the core has been exposed giving the potential for a meltdown? Surely if you wan't to play the "it's all ok" game you don't say things like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2011 Would a meltdown (of which they've been theorising) not turn the whole site into one amorphous blob that was exposed to the atmosphere? Or am I taking the term 'meltdown' too literally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2011 I hope we can take it at face value because I refer back to me previous concerns re- saving face and the assuaging of valid fears. But if they were in the business of saving face why have they told the world that twice the core has been exposed giving the potential for a meltdown? Surely if you wan't to play the "it's all ok" game you don't say things like that? Yeah it might be that I'm being paranoid (though in some cases that's a safer thing to do...). My logic being that you take whatever they are willing to admit to and you multiply it by your own paranoia index () which brings you to the real problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted March 14, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted March 14, 2011 This is an interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I don't mind the government erring on the side of caution when announcing how many people may or may not be missing/dead. Afterall, it serves no purpose only to unnecessarily panic a population with more immediate things on their mind. But I very much mind when a government tries to play down something like what may or may not be happening at a nuclear plant. If you're not sure then you must assume the worst or assume the worst could happen any minute. They need to be telling people that the safest thing is to get the hell away from the area. Way more than the few miles they've asked for. That to me is very much a necessary life or death announcement and it just smacks of them trying to save face and play down something and putting lives in danger in the meantime. Afterall, if it turns out to be OK, people can always move back with their head of hair still intact. BOF you have a point. If everythings all OK... why did the French govt advise all of their staff to leave Tokyo a couple of days ago in case they became contaminated? I don't think anyone could fail to be a little alarmed when you see nuclear reactor plants exploding live on TV and then you're told... it's not really all that bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2011 If everythings all OK... why did the French govt advise all of their staff to leave Tokyo a couple of days ago in case they became contaminated? I think they adopted the approach that I would, which is that I'd rather be safe than sorry - we can always go back in a week/month. Whereas if it turns out to be bad and we don't leave, then we're all dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevMur Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Tsunami footage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2011 If everythings all OK... why did the French govt advise all of their staff to leave Tokyo a couple of days ago in case they became contaminated? I think they adopted the approach that I would, which is that I'd rather be safe than sorry - we can always go back in a week/month. Whereas if it turns out to be bad and we don't leave, then we're all dead. I'm shocked BOF just didn't go for the "Because they're French" defence ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 BOF you have a point. If everythings all OK... why did the French govt advise all of their staff to leave Tokyo a couple of days ago in case they became contaminated? I don't think anyone could fail to be a little alarmed when you see nuclear reactor plants exploding live on TV and then you're told... it's not really all that bad! Because the people that made that decision will not have been nuclear scientists. Anyone hearing that radiation levels were rising in the area and that the core was at risk of meltdown would have had a pretty severe reaction of "lets get our people out of there", it doesn't mean there was actually any risk there. The dangers of nuclear power plants are greatly over hyped, and because of that knee jerk decisions will have been made based not on fact or risk. If you just follow the media reports you really can't help but be alarmed, because almost every single news report out has been full of wrong information. It then needs people that actually understand what's going on to tell people that it's fine, the media exist to sell stories, not to inform with facts. I failed to be alarmed watching the footage, as will a great many other people, because it wasn't like it was the reactor exploding, it wasn't even part of the levels of containment exploding. It was just the outer building due to a hydrogen build up (admittedly having the steam venting into the building and not outside may not be the smartest thing, but it also meant the radioactive material in the steam had more time to decay before being released into the environment). It's not really all that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancsVillan Posted March 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2011 Tsunami footage Now that is some seriously scary footage, the tsunami warning that can be heard obviously worked well judging by the lack of people in the footage too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 This is an interesting read. After the intro stuff, when it gets to the real content, it says There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity. By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on – say – a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation. And yet I read that US officials said military personnel taking part in rescue efforts registered low levels of radioactive contamination after flying by helicopter back to their ships off the Japanese coast. They were cleared after a scrub-down but the ships moved position as a precaution. US Navy being paranoid? Or is the comparison with a flight or a glass of beer misplaced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2011 I know this is wrong, but I'll be a teensy bit disappointed if the reactor doesn't go bang. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I know this is wrong, but I'll be a teensy bit disappointed if the reactor doesn't go bang. Sorry. Because you believe that nuclear power is ultimately a bad thing and only a serious tragedy can shock us into realising this, or because you just like fireworks? :shock: You're right, it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 This is an interesting read. After the intro stuff, when it gets to the real content, it says There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity. By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on – say – a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation. And yet I read that US officials said military personnel taking part in rescue efforts registered low levels of radioactive contamination after flying by helicopter back to their ships off the Japanese coast. They were cleared after a scrub-down but the ships moved position as a precaution. US Navy being paranoid? Or is the comparison with a flight or a glass of beer misplaced? Yes. Paranoia is SOP for the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I know this is wrong, but I'll be a teensy bit disappointed if the reactor doesn't go bang. Sorry. You should get a job with the bbc then I stuck the news on tonight and that george alibi-liar geezer was standing on a street at night giving the news out whilst in the back was a wrecked blue truck piled up on debris and crap all light up by the production crew. How pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I know this is wrong, but I'll be a teensy bit disappointed if the reactor doesn't go bang. Sorry. It's not just you. There's nothing like a bit of human tragedy for some entertainment, if you don't know anyone involved. Explosions, volcanoes, tsunamis, give it to me with action replays from multiple angles. I'd buy that on PPV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 US Navy being paranoid? Or is the comparison with a flight or a glass of beer misplaced? Yes. Paranoia is SOP for the military. Further quotes, both from here. Monitoring posts to the northwest of the power station recorded radiation levels of 680 microsieverts per hour on Monday, a dose roughly equivalent to four months of natural background radiation. Tepco said nuclear fuel rods at the reactor are exposed and overheating, raising the risk of them melting. Up to 190 people are suspected of being exposed to radiation, according to officials. In the second quote, I'm assuming "exposed to radiation" means exposed at a higher level than they would be in ordinary life, or else the sentence is without any useful meaning. It is clear that there's a stream of experts being wheeled out to reassure us, combined with a steady release of successively more information which suggests that things are not under control to the degree intended, and that things could get quite a bit worse, but may not. I remain unreassured. More importantly, so do many people in Japan, I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts