Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by universaldistress, Mar 15, 2011.
Wonder what that would do to the pipes in and out of the reactor?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If there is a breach then they really should be trying to cover up that reactor with concrete not letting more contamination get out into the environment as is now happening.
Makes much more sense to do what they are doing.
Cool the reactors, clean up the buildings and then remove the fuel and put it in storage.
Moving on past Rabon's nonsense and other guess-work, the latest development is that one reactor is leaking highly radioactive water. It's already sent two workers to the hospital with burns - and all they did was simply step in a puddle of it.
Not quite accurate, apparently they worked in it for several hours.
I wouldn't judge too quickly. I simply reported what I read and yours is from a different report. Also, it was two workers in one story and three in the other. So, from that perspective, it's impossible to tell which is accurate.
And yeah, I know the media *over*plays things - but officials also tend to *under* play serious ones.
Mine is from the equiv of our NRC, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, or NISA which publishes an ongoing log of the events as well as updates them when new info comes in and so I have seen no indication that the NISA has been underplaying anything.
As to your "discrepancy", there is none: Two of three workers were burned but all three workers were kept at the hospital for observation:
First off, I'm about as FAR from a conspiracy theorist as one can be - but I still never put *full* trust in any governmental agency. In addition to that, a report I read on BBC about a week ago stated that there was "more than one political connection" between the government, the plant owners/operators and the NISA." It also said that they have a tendency to support and "cover" for each other but that the full blame is expected to fall on the plant owners.
You may take that for whatever you think it's worth - I consider myself to be in NO position to be judgmental about it.
Look - at this point let me make this whole business perfectly clear! I'm not here to argue or debate anything - I've no interest in doing so. We ALL know that news reports frequently become more accurate with the second and third generation of reports. My ONLY purpose here is to report what I've seen published, nothing beyond that. I have no personal interest or agenda of any type.
It's not a question of trust, you claimed there was a discrepancy because of the reports about 2 vs 3 workers.
But clearly there was no discrepancy, three workers were involved, two got burnt, all three were kept for observation.
Some news reports only mentioned the two that got burnt is all.
Oh, for Pete's sake - SHOW me where I "claimed there was a discrepancy" - go back and read it again. ALL I said was that the reports were different, nothing more nothing less.
Sorry, I thought I was dealing with an adult here - but this has become childish so I'm moving on. That is unless you can answer my challenge above - which you cannot!!:bugeye:
You said: Also, it was two workers in one story and three in the other. So, from that perspective, it's impossible to tell which is accurate.
So you were discounting the official report because of the supposed discrepancy between the number of workers involved, but reading the official report it is clear that there was no discrepancy in the number of workers involved/burnt.
Atomic chain reactions will still occur but not as in man made nuclear reactors.
In nature the chain reaction have a end of the chain atom, this is most likly a Carbon, Silicon,Magnisum, Sulfur, Potassium, a few other may exist. these end results have a companion, such as Lead or Vanadium the companion is of higher atomic weight.
The background atoms or atoms that surround uranium or decay material have a residual effect,two abundant residual forces are magnisum and silicon, the content of magnisum in the Ocean means a background effect of magnisum.
In nuclear reactors the chain reaction is faster producing a different percentage of isotpes and causing faster decay.
Dumping all of the nuclear material in to the ocean, such as at the bottom of the mariana trench would increase decay time form what would occur natually on the land suface near the nuclear facility, but it would not be faster than decay in the nuclear reactor. Dumping the nuclear material into the ocean changes neutron chemistry and electron chemistry.
The current phase is now that of Zirconium, which is best for releasing rampant particles that speed up nuclear decay. For example the next few days at the Japanese Nuclear Facility it will release material,make new material Isotopes, and generate radation. During the Zirconium Phase it will release bottled up rampant materials such as alpha particles, protons and end of chain reaction atoms, this will occur for about 6 hours(Zirconium Phase). After six hours it wil begin to drop off and then change to Isotope Phase for about 12 hours, During Isotope stage atom start to form new rampant particle, and radatioins, which may gain motion and increase radation furthur.
At the current advertised reading of 100 Degrees Celsius, 20,000 coulumbs is the undetectable energy in the area in any one direction. with a static background of 825,059,224.8 coulumbs per second. over the restricted area most distrubance occuring within a range of 16,181.38ft. to lesser exstent 60,194.7 feet, causing a disturbance in motion of 188.74 pounds.
The advertised readings of 100 degrees come from equipement that has been at the facility and by thermal reading done by helicopter, Certainly the equipemt that has been put on the ground taking readings needs to be changed so that accurate readings can be made, Varartion in Static Background can change readings.
The Desired tempiture would be 11 degrees Celsius, 2,239 coulumbs undetectable energy,with a background varaiation of 21 pounds.
Water in the basement can be electrified and vaporized.
Dwayne, give up, stop posting and get an education.
Dwayne, there's a little problem with your theory. you seem to have gotten every single word wrong, and when not wrong, in the wrong place. Then there's the fact that it's written down, which is wrong, in the wonderful descriptive language that is English, but somehow that came out wrong as well. But it does have some letters in it, so I guess that's a start, but that's probably wrong as well.
BUT it was very funny!
Yes but we should assess validity of any new introduction after considering:-
1.What & how all countries can manage in general? If Japan could mange some but if India can't manage, new introduction can still me more gangerous as it deviates the mind on looking glamour/example by bigger countries.
2. Since it is anticipated that Science(modern?) can never be absolute & final and it is in process, any odd outcome can be possible.
Will fuel & radiation not cool down into the sea. What can be the possibilty by blasting & dumping into sea instantly, if physically impossible?
Can't say for sure whether nature or maintainer of nature see nature's imbalances & act accordingly to balance it. But it is said, nature balances itself--mostly by creation, maintainance & destruction.
Will other means say concreting not have such backround atoms eg. Silicon in concrete?
There fore I say that energy production by nuclear means is faster than other sources.
But will adverse effects in leaking or exploded reactors not be more instant & prevalent?
Separate names with a comma.