Where on your cite it does say that?
Or to backtrack a little, do you have a cite that there is no way for the concrete containment part of the reactor to deal with the meltdown?
Where on your cite it does say that?
Or to backtrack a little, do you have a cite that there is no way for the concrete containment part of the reactor to deal with the meltdown?
I think everybody understands what ‘worst case’ means. In the current disaster, worst case actually means much much worse that a meltdown. I don’t even want to think about it.
That is OK, it is really not nice to think where those unconfirmed alarmist bits like the images leaked of dead victims of the radiation came from, specially when pulled from one’s ass.
Since you refuse to read about Chernobyl, I dub thee troll.
The smoldering graphite, fuel and other material above, at more than 1200 °C,[38] started to burn through the reactor floor and mixed with molten concrete that had lined the reactor, creating corium, a radioactive semi-liquid material comparable to lava.[37][39]
If this mixture had melted through the floor into the pool of water, it would have created a massive steam explosion that would have ejected more radioactive material from the reactor. It became an immediate priority to drain the pool.[40] The bubbler pool could be drained by opening its sluice gates.
Volunteers in diving suits entered the radioactive water and managed to open the gates. These were engineers Alexei Ananenko (who knew where the valves were) and Valeri Bezpalov, accompanied by a third man, Boris Baranov, who provided them with light from a lamp, though this lamp failed, leaving them to find the valves by feeling their way along a pipe. All of them returned to the surface and according to Ananenko, their colleagues jumped for joy when they heard they had managed to open the valves.
Fire brigade pumps were then used to drain the basement. The operation was not completed until 8 May, after 20,000 metric tons of highly radioactive water were pumped out.
With the bubbler pool gone, a meltdown was less likely to produce a powerful steam explosion. To do so, the molten core would now have to reach the water table below the reactor. To reduce the likelihood of this, it was decided to freeze the earth beneath the reactor, which would also stabilize the foundations.
Using oil drilling equipment, injection of liquid nitrogen began on 4 May. It was estimated that 25 metric tons of liquid nitrogen per day would be required to keep the soil frozen at −100 °C.[6]:59 This idea[clarification needed] was soon scrapped and the bottom room where the cooling system would have been installed was filled with concrete.
In short, the extreme worst case scenario is a meltdown, where the fuel is no longer moderated, and it reaches temperatures hot enough to melt steel and burn or melt concrete and rock. What happens after that depends on a lot of things.
You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest idea of “worst case scenario” means…
This should make it clear why keeping everything covered with water, any water, is so critical.
If you can’t cover fuel rods or fuel in the core with water, bad things happen. several really bad things already happened. I think we all would agree we really do not another bad thing to happen.
And this post somehow proves that nuclear power is bad, how?
Wrong thread. This is about the current events at 6 reactors in Japan. The political nonsense is in the other thread.
FXMastermind you are such a demonstrated idiot, I already posted and quoted **that *I did read about Chernobyl, and I already pointed out that in reality the disaster was not caused by the less important meltdown, it there had been just a meltdown and a proper containment vessel the radiation release would had been less.
*Proper containment vessel and concrete chambers that **are **present at the Japanese plant. But never mind, it is more fun to continue to be a fearmonger.
Who is this directed at?
Wrongo, this is the pit and you are now a certified troll, I’m only posting to inform others not only about that, but also to demonstrate what a bullshitter you are.
Any source for your say so that there are images of victims? Or even your ass has run out of sources?
A flooded reactor containment would be a very bad thing if the fuel melts through the vessel.
What’s so strange, is that nobody, even when they are supposed to be explaining the worst case scenario, ever actually does.
Like here
And that is the end of the story. Read it for yourself. That is an expert explaining the worst case scenario.
I’m not interested in convincing anyone that this can happen, as in it is physically possible. If you don’t get that yet, there is no hope.
No, it’s what happens next, that nobody will say, that’s the really bad part.
Who *are *you talking to? Yourself? You’re just posting post after post of your anti-nuclear clap-trap. You are not responding to anyone or engaging in any meaningful conversation. You’re as bad as Le Jackalope.
Now here is a grimmer explanation by a different expert.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42181303/ns/health-health_care/
But of course he stops short of describing what could actually happen, especially if there is a steam explosion.
When nobody will bother to post any scientific or even published material, just keep making things up, one might have to resort to taking both sides in a discussion.
None of the worst case scenarios I can find come anywhere close to what ‘could’ happen. And I agree, it’s best not to think about that, or describe it.
You and your ilk are the ones making things up. We have yet to have a cite or any evidence of the dead bodies from radiation poisoning that you lied about, and the core radiation that was released that gonzo lied about.
TravisFromOR, his previous post from scientific American was the worst that could happen… from March 12. And the other report is an opinion piece from a doctor, not an expert on the issue, his focus is to have better ways to help heroes like the plant workers after this crisis passes.
As things have improved, I will go for more confidence than fear mongering.
Chernobyl is a “worse case scenario”.
For nuclear plants it does not get worse.
The China Syndrome is a movie. Melting through the floor of the reactor and down to…somewhere…can’t happen. CANNOT HAPPEN
Three Mile Island saw half its core melt in four hours. It never breached the reactor much less the containment vessel.
Chernobyl had NO containment vessel.
Chernobyl also had a supremely bad design that these reactors do not have.
Nothing bad happened, nor can anything worse than the nothing that happened already occur. The animals in the 12 mile zone that had to move haven’t said anything to you, have they? If they aren’t bothered, why should you be?
Uranium reactions, bringing electrical power to a community to you soon. And your milk is now fortified with Strontium 90! Our children will not have super powers without the spider bites of irradiated spiders and such. Is that what you want?
Returning to some actual facts in the matter:
Nobody who understand nuclear reactors disputes this. It’s exactly why the situation is so critical. You do not want melted fuel and exposed fuel rods. It’s very serious.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42181303/ns/health-health_care/
The problem in this case, is that unlike Chernobyl, there is a tremendous amount of spent fuel rods above the very area you really don’t want any explosions in.
And that there are 6 reactors, and spent fuel for four of them in the intimidate area. And one reactor is a Plutonium based reactor.
That’s the real bad news. If that one fails, or blows up (steam, not nuclear bomb type explosion), it is game over. But actually that is true for the other two as well. If just one reactor has a steam explosion, they all go. Along with all the spent fuel rods.
So it really is a tense situation.