Japan: "No cause for alarm"

[bobz z]

Re: [email protected]

Doug Freyburger wrote:


All of what you wrote makes sense to me, except that I think they need to
reevaluate every reactor on the planet in view of what has happened in
Japan, and, although I know they won't, shut down and replace any reactor
which isn't designed to withstand the maximum possible natural disaster
threat to that area. I can't think of a logical reason why that shoudl not
be a good idea. Of course those who are heavily invested in such facilities
will never allow it to happen.

There is a reactor near NYC which supposedly is at serious risk based on
faults which were discovered after its contruction, although I don't know
more than that as it was reported on the news. I'm not hysterically against
nuclear power as another poster misunderstands, but I am in favor of making
damn sure such a potentially dangerous energy source is operated under the
very latest and safest methods humanly possible, and I'm opposed to running
reactors which are not designed to withstand any potential threat as it is
presently understood.

[xtremelybored]

In article ,
[email protected]d says...

So you're saying that they evacuated 50 miles and claimed they evacuated
20? If not what are you saying?


No, I have no idea what you meant. Are you a native speaker of English?


I'm trying to figure out what your Chinglish or whatever language you're
writing means. If you would answer a reasonable question rather than
making some smartass remark you might actually be able to have a
conversation.


You haven't explained why it's better to encase a reactor core in
concrete than it is to remove it completely.

You're acting like a reactor that has suffered some minor damage but is
now in cold shutdown should be treated the same way as one that could
not be brought to cold shutdown and destroyed itself while running far
above full rated power.

Of course you _want_ Fukushima to be another Chernobyl, don't you.


Three of the reactors are shot. The three that were not in operation
should work just fine. Why do you want to leave radioactive material in
place when it can be removed and recycled?

As to the surrounding area not being "habitable or workable", please
present your evidence.

[icystar12]

Re: [email protected] cal

J. Clarke wrote:


Now you're a psychiatrist too? What else you got, mister amateur expert?


Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Dumbest assed remark reaffirmed. Try simple interpretation of the obvious
some time.


Which proves nothing. When does your flight leave so I can celebrate?


Neither have you, actually. But go ahead and pretend you never heard of
Chernobyl. I'm not going to present anything for you when you can read it
for yourself without my help. You just choose, or pretend, not to.

Go away, you're a waste of time and bandwidth.

[Niz]

On 3/21/2011 9:56 PM, Andy wrote:

This doesn't surprise me at all - it's typically Japanese to
downplay/minimize bad news.

[Yanqui Rojo en el Sur]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:45:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Unless you can provide photos, how do you know that there are not huge
chunks of concrete and fuel rods on the ground? Even if there were,
we would not hear about it. They have to protect their businesses so
they can continue to make big profits from this killer form of power.

[Niko N]

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Nuclear energy is not safe and I do not want it!

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

[sissyb]

Re: [email protected]

Doug Freyburger wrote:


OK, so it's not as bad as Chernobyl, but it's also been understated by those
saying it is the same as Three Mile Island in terms of impact where no such
release of radiation occurred. But the fact still seems to be that Fukushima
was underengineered for the potential impact of a fairly predictable
multiple natural disaster. The natural events are a matter of when, not if,
and how intense is a crapshoot. I don't think you shoot craps when operating
a nuclear reactor. There are serious lessons to be learned worldwide and
changes that should be made in retrospect.

MartyB

[Hello Kitty!!]

In article , [email protected] says...

However it's difficult to get far from the coast in Japan. Remember
that for all its population and economic dynamism, it's still a group of
fairly small islands.


You're trading one vulnerability for another there. Underground it's
difficult to float the tanks so that they will resist earthquake damage.
Above ground it's much easier. Perhaps they should be duplicated.

[sue_genie]

On 22 Mar 2011, you wrote in rec.food.cooking:



dsi1,

When I learned NHK was a government run news network, I became suspect,
without proof.

Best,

Andy

[Exotic_Star]

In article , [email protected] says...

"Containment" has a specific engineering meaning. The steel pressure
veseel containing the reactor is not generally called the "containment",
it is called the "pressure vessel". The heavily reinforced concrete
structure many feet thick that encloses the pressure vessel is called
the "containment".

Then there is an ordinary building that surrounds the containment proper
and serves as a missile shield and machinery space.

There's a nice diagram at
that shows the
pieces.

The square building is not the "containment", it is just a building
around the containment. The containment is inside that building, is
round, and is shaped kind of like an upside-down light bulb. Inside the
containment is the steel structure that you are calling the
"containment".

If you're seeing something round looking down into the building from
above it's not the pressure vessel, it's the containment.

Looking at the photos, I see that the curtain wall has come off the
front or side of some of the buildings leaving the steel frame intact.
It's not possible to see clearly enough beyond that to tell if the
containment itself is open, however if it is then the huge chunks of
concrete that would have come off would have knocked that steel framing
down or plowed huge holes in it, and there are none in evidence.