AshVilla Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 yes nuke the nuclear reactor would be one heck of an explosion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 SKY News's coverage of this is pathetic. Its not a **** film! This! dramatic music! :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Seems like they're dropping water on it now, I thought that was supposed to be a bad idea given the steam reaction only further damages the containers? You have a choice, either cover them in water and hope they cool, or don't cover them in water, have them melt, risk a re-criticality (which means the nuclear reaction starts again) and release a ton of nuclear material. The reaction with the steam isn't a major issue, it'll occur away from the fuel rods, might get a few explosions which look great on TV, but as long as it's away from the fuel rods it's all ok. How about reactor 3, which I gather is where the most toxic material is? What happens if that reignites? Are the helicopters actually having any effect? I read that each pool holds 2,000 tonnes, they need to be about a third full, and the helicopter drops 7.5 tons, most of which from the video seems to miss the target. Not much information seems to be available for reactor 3, other than the temperature rising and workers being evacuated, and then let back, and then evacuated again. Worst case is still not that bad, localised radiation, it certainly shouldn't spread material over large distances. The helicopters are certainly like pissing on a house fire to put it out, I doubt they'll have too much success but hey, every little helps. They've refuted claims the spent fuel pools are empty, and apparently indications are that the temperature of the pools is a mere 85 degrees, which while above the usual temperature of 35 that isn't at all bad. It needs to be 2,000 degrees to melt the casings, so maybe there isn't that much of a problem with them and the helicopters are able to just keep them topped up. In the event of a total failure and a meltdown then the area around these reactors will be lost, but anything further out, there isn't much of a risk. Chernobyl was bad because the reactor had a graphite core, graphite burns easily and for a long time, it was the fire from the graphite that lifted up the radioactive material and carried it for long distances, increasing the area of effect. Here there isn't scope for that, any material would be released by explosions alone, which simply won't have the force to spread it very far. All the fires so far have been away from the reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Perhaps they should drop a bomb on it. Everyone saw what happened to the whale. SKY News's coverage of this is pathetic. Its not a **** film! This! dramatic music! :evil: If everyone stops watching it'll go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 18, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2011 If everyone stops watching it'll go away. They said that about subscription football. People don't stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 they are trying to hook up a power cable to restart the pumps .........no generators in japan ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 SKY News's coverage of this is pathetic. Its not a **** film! SKY News's coverage of everything is pathetic. Tabloid Shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 they are trying to hook up a power cable to restart the pumps .........no generators in japan ? I was wondering why, if a helicopter can carry 7.5 tonnes of water, it can't land a generator close enough to be connected. Haven't seen this mentioned in the coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 There have been generators on site since the start. The fires at reactor 4 have been generator fires which show the risk of using them. Also generators require on site maintenance, and refueling, which has had to stop every time radiation levels rose slightly. It's FAR more efficient for them to have offsite power that they can just connect up and leave going, plus from what I understand this power will be going to the actual cooling systems rather than the emergency water pumps. With offsite power they can restart the normal cooling pumps rather than just pumping water in, which means no more venting of steam, and everything getting under control a lot easier. I see Japan have raised the rating of the disaster to a 5 in line with my earlier predications, maybe they do take advice from internet experts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 there saying someworkers will stay in the high radiation to keep the pumps etc going ...almost a certain death cert..............Well I would in my shyte !!! bury the **** thing in concrete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I see Japan have raised the rating of the disaster to a 5 in line with my earlier predications, maybe they do take advice from internet experts They were shitting themselves until they saw your name pop up on the VillaTalk users online list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I dont think this has been posted yet, but its a Japanese public information video aimed at kids. It's bonkers in a way that only the Japanese can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 18, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2011 Japan has now admitted that it has not been totally up front with how serious the nuclear crisis has been up to date. Which is precisely what I alluded to in this post. They've admitted a significant risk of exposure to the atmosphere. So my suspicions were right and I'm glad I got on that hypothetical plane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Where have they admitted that? All they've done is raised the severity, that doesn't mean they haven't been totally up front with how serious it was, just that as time has gone on it's got more serious than when it was first graded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Where have they admitted that? All they've done is raised the severity, that doesn't mean they haven't been totally up front with how serious it was, just that as time has gone on it's got more serious than when it was first graded. I don't know if they've admitted putting a gloss on it, but I do know that a) there is a documented history of the firm in charge lying about previous incidents, and falsifying safety records the advice given by the international commission and foreign governments would lead you to believe the incident is more serious than the Japanese govt and this company have stated c) the advice from the govt has now been amended to reflect a greater degree of risk. If I were in that area, I would take safety advice from the firm in charge and the Japanese government to about the same degree that I would seek political guidance from Jim Davidson. Which is to say, I'll make my own mind up, thanks for the offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I keep thinking Vault boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 18, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2011 Sorry, 'not up front' was a little editorialising on my part. They've admitted that they've been too slow in getting information out into the public domain to this point and have vowed to be quicker and more specific about it from now on. They have a legal obligation to the IAEA to do so. This comes as they increase the level to a 5 meaning not just a local threat anymore. Again something I asked about earlier. Meanwhile, it's not like America to use overly aggressive catchy hype names to summarise something. US officials say lack of information is like a 'Fog of War'. They got the word 'war' in. High fives all-round :rolly thing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Sorry, 'not up front' was a little editorialising on my part. They've admitted that they've been too slow in getting information out into the public domain to this point and have vowed to be quicker and more specific about it from now on. They have a legal obligation to the IAEA to do so. This comes as they increase the level to a 5 meaning not just a local threat anymore. Again something I asked about earlier. Yeah this I'll agree with. They could have definitely put more information out there, but as far as reactions and evacuation zones I think they've been pretty much correct, so it's hard to say they've down played the threat. It was obvious that they'd increase it as this went on, as I said before that it was more three island sort of issue (which was a 5) then chernobyl (a 7). The French are probably still trying to get it categorised as being over 9000 or something though. I'd be very surprised if it reached a 6, as long as the pumps aren't damaged when the power is back on all reactors it should really be plain sailing and onto containment of the material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 18, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'm probably hearing sensationalised news reports but from what I'm hearing, the Japanese are not ruling out a 7 - which is code for 'watch this space' because let's face it, if a 7 definitely couldn't happen then they'd definitely rule it out. Did you ever want to be wrong (even from a position of relative ignorance like myself) but suspect that you're not :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Well, there is a chance it'll reach a 7, if just about everything that could go wrong does go wrong, if the pumps are completely knackered, if there's more explosions, if there's some more fires, and if the wind changes so more material goes over the land rather than out to sea, it could feasibly reach a 7 so they can't really rule it out just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts