Japanese solution?

Hmmm... And I find people people who are to lazy to use capital letters "interesting."

Wait - that's not the word I wanted! But if I use THE word I intended to, I'd probably get in trouble with the moderators.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting, yes. But in a sad, sad deluded bubble of self-inflated importance kind of way. He should leave his brain-cell to science, they might find it's one of those "donut" brains that nobody knows how they operate. Or maybe he already has - you know what those military types are like. Maybe he's a failed experiment/ or scarily, a successful one!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is really a difficult situation, putting question marks on using nuclear energy, living near the sea & prefering concentrated (esp. nature's imbalancing) developments. Still what can be cost benefit raitio, if other initiations don't work?

Is it right in view of so said' for every action there is equal & opposite reaction and as nature balances itself, if we will send more thermodynamics(vibrations & heat) to nature, nature will react equal & opposite accordingly?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So?:shrug:

He can't spell, can't make coherent sentences, his ideas are off the wall, and I haven't seen him link anything, much less anything pertinent. With a name like Dwayne, it is his native language...so it's not unfamiliarity.

So it's not like he needs taking down. It takes highly-skilled verbosity to mislead.

 

Yes, English is his native language. And it's correct that he never links to anything - never. All he ever posts is directly off the top of his twisted, deluded mind.

I never once said he was misleading - he's just highly confused, deluded, and eaten up with ego. The latter most likely being the result of having overly-doting parents. (And I would specify the gender of which parent in particular - but then it might start Pjdude whining again.) :shrug:

 

My guess is he's still breastfeeding!

 

Well,
A spread of material would be costly,producing toxicty for the area, it would excced the nomral percentage of grams per cubic centimeter of soil. there are several hundred thousands tons of radioactive material.
But distribution of radioactive materail over area makes handling easiler for nuclear plant workers. dumping the reactors in to Sea Inlet would require building a dam to hold in the shoreline, the reactors and uranium would sink in the clay sediment of the beach sea floor. i assume it would have to be diluted by the use of sea water, magniusium would be the chemical means to work around in dissolving it.
I certainly would demolish the Nuclear Facility effectivily dismantle it. Recycling the radioactive matieral would require storing it at some location. Simply taking it apart so that it can be handled and re-arranged, so it can once again be stored.
Under the current motion of activities brodacasted, it will be dismantled manually, requiring worker protections. The nuclear facility still has to be moved to the shore line to be stored.
It is possible that uraniums paramagnetic properties will prove as usefull in picking it up or disovleing it.

Sub atomic particle cleaveage of the uranium, is changing its phase from TIN phase March 25th, to Vanadium Phase in materail preformance.

Possible Danger Still Exist

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

No.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107085
What you have just stated is a law of motion, not an overarching law of nature.
Don't confuse the two.

Is there any danger you'll stop posting tripe?

 

What??:shrug:

No, any fuel would still be sealed in the reactor.

No, it wouldn't.

Let's just make something up, shall we? No basis in fact. Hey, lads, we'll just chuck it in the sea! Err. No!

 

Thanks for details. I think all options should be well known to Japanese scientists. Let us see how they can handle.

Japan experianced two big nuclear impacts, still don't dislike it.

 

I think law should justify generalization.

Moreover all actions can also be motions.

 

Back to the Fukushima Daiichi power station.

When the earthquake struck, three out of six reactors were shut down for maintenance. The three still operating automatically shut down as designed to do. The problem was that the original designers had anticipated a tsunami, but not one as big as occurred. They had built a sea wall around the plant. The tsunami was taller than the sea wall and overflowed it, and flooded the interior. It was this flooding that wiped out the back-up generators, and stopped cooling water being pumped to the reactors.

Without new cooling water input, the water that was inside the reactors heated drastically and dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen gas. The explosions that followed were simple chemical explosions, with hydrogen gas igniting. They blew the roofs off the reactors. The reactor walls stayed sound.

When the emergency workers started pumping seawater into the reactors to cool them, this was a drastic step. Seawater (especially hot) is enormously corrosive, and those reactors were accordingly destroyed, and can never be used again.

Radiation leaks to date have been well below 1 millisievert per year dose to the surrounding countryside. To put this into perspective, the normal background dose is of the order of 3 mSv per year, and the minimum dose that can cause cancer is about 100 mSv in total.

Workers entering the plant, though, are exposed to massively higher doses. At one stage, briefly, inside the plant, it got to 400 mSv per hour. The emergency workers are real heroes! So far, no fatalities. There may be a high rate of cancers among those workers, though.

The workers wear suits that stop beta radiation, but not gamma. They breathe through filter masks to avoid inhaling radioactive particles. That is the best we can do with existing technology, and the gamma radiation can kill if it is intense enough.

Overall, the nuclear crisis pales into insignificance compared to the harm done by the earthquake and the tsunami, and the people they have killed.

 

The "high rate of cancers" is so far an unlikely outcome as they have been pretty good at keeping the exposure rates down

The International Atomic Energy Agency said that 17 personnel have now received radiation doses of over 100 millisieverts. This level remains below an international standard of 500 millisieverts for emergencies, as well as a temporary limit of 250 millisieverts allowed by authorities in the current situation.

The most any worker has yet recieved is 170 millisieverts (they were the two contractors who got beta burns when they ignored their wearable radiation meter alarms).

Arthur

 

According to the no-linear threshold model 170 mSv will raise your chances of cancer by 0.6-1.2%, so from ~20% to ~20.6-21.2%
With 17 people exposed and assuming that they all got exposed to 170 mSv, there will be 0.14+/-0.05 more cancers between them.

- This is not including radiation burns which is more like thermal burns in damage.

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...on,-Cancer,-and-the-Linear-No-Threshold-Model

 

A more realistic assessment:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/cancer-deaths-in-japan-will-be-from-alcohol-and-ciggies/

Arthur

 

Well, Kumar
I will say that they got the reactor cooled down before the 19th of March which is when the tin phase began, as during the Tin phase melting of the materail is more prevalent.

Still there are some most likly unseen circumstance,for example the effects of the static background in the area, where at just about 20 feet from the each reactor there is a varaiation of 12.104056 tons every 5 Square Inches, which means that each reactor can cause a collaspe of material in the area of 0.26313tons earth , or move surface water near by of about 1.2104056 tons, of disturb atmoshpere of 1.6 tons per area of 5 square inches.

The electrical distrubance is 1.058179896^11 columbs per second for the surrounding area. all the way out to the restricted area.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

Reg. my question about dumping reactors in sea intact or in parts, whether chain-reactions will still continue similar to as in reactors when reactors/fuel is deep into the sea?

 

A comprehensive list of recent nuclear accidents that have occured: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/nerlist.aspx?fid=812

 

There is absolutely no intention to dump the reactors at sea. It is physically impossible. Not only that, they would contaminate the water severely. They will be encased in concrete. Dwayne just likes to make stuff up.

 

What I would do is use nitric acid, added to the cooling water, to dissolve the plutonium and uranium fuel rods and then alter the solution to get the fuel to below critical geometry.