I see conflicting reports, with CNN saying there was an explosion, other news agencies say Japan's govt says there was no explosion. I understand the reactor core itself hasn't exploded, and the reactor containment building is still intact, and yes I know there can be no "nuclear bomb" type explosion in a reactor, but what's really going on there? Just a steam explosion in one of the cooling systems?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WOR...03/12/japan.nuclear/

Last I heard, there was an explosion at or near the plant, but it didn't have any adverse effects on the stability of the reactor. In fact, Japanese officials are stating that the pressure and radiation levels have been steadily decreasing since the explosion.

There is video, was definitely an explosion. Looked like the roof literally blew off. Some are saying it's just a hydrogen explosion and not the fuel rods.
Looked pretty scary though.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: There is video, was definitely an explosion. Looked like the roof literally blew off. Some are saying it's just a hydrogen explosion and not the fuel rods. Looked pretty scary though.

Are you sure the video was the nuke plant? The news I was watching was talking about the nuke plant but kept showing the refinery fires/explosions, presumably because it was more dramatic than some smoke...

FoxNews just showed the video. Just a plume of smoke.

[This message has been edited by Silentassassin185 (edited 03-12-2011).]

There's video at the CNN link I posted but it's 16 minutes and I'm on dialup--it would take a couple of hrs for me to see it.

Evidently, the quake also moved Japan's coast about 8 feet and shifted the Earth's axis a few inches.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WOR...ami.earth/index.html

Even after shut down (full insertion of control rods and other procedures to stop the chain reaction) a nuclear reactor can/will still produce about 90% of the heat energy that it produced at nominal. This residual heating comes from short-lived radionuclides that are still decaying and liberating a lot of heat.

If the coolant flow is compromised, as it is in this case, the heat will become so great that cooling water will be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. There are pieces of equipment that can remove these gas bubbles from the coolant loops, but they can be overwhemled under circumstances like this. So, you end up with a situation where gaseous hydrogen and oxygen are in perfect proportion for an energetic reation -- basically a bomb waiting to happen. I suspect that this is what happened here.

This wasn't a "nuclear" explosion in any sense - although there may have been a little tritium (radioactive hydrogen) released in the blast.

The biggest concern in my opinion is a recent report that cesium 137 has been detected. Cs is a fission product. It has a half life of about 30 years, and is a fearsome gamma radiation emitter. The only way significant quantities of Cs could be liberated would be if the fuel rods have been compromised -- indicating a partial meltdown.

The containment vessel is still the last line of defense - this is a massive, thick, and very durable steel vessel desigend to contain any radioactive slag produced as the fuel rods melt. There shouldn't be a massive core release IF THINGS DON'T GET WORSE .... But in any event it's going to be an expen$ive clean-up.

[edited for spelling errors]

[This message has been edited by Doc John (edited 03-12-2011).]

Some guy on FoxNews just said Cs is 300 years.?

After 10 half lifes, it is "officially" considered to be gone. One half life=30, two=60, etc.

Cs 137 is one of the nastier fission products out there -- it is a powerful gamma emitter in its decay chain; it also forms salts (cesium chloride) that are water soluble and easily mobilized in the environment. Hopefully the designers did their homework and this reactor has a 3 meter thick containment vessel.

quote Originally posted by Silentassassin185: FoxNews just showed the video. Just a plume of smoke.

Watch the CNN video at MJ's link. At about 3:30 there's definitly an explosion.

Some Foreign countries will typicalley down play or deny,the severity of a disaster and sometimes even denying help.

Rense.com has a BUNCH of articals on it....there are some reports of rod meltdown.

Here is the fallout map

http://www.rense.com/general93/fallout.htm

Watch the video closely - right at the beginning you can see a subtle explosion and shock wave. That looks like a hydrogen blast to me -- hydrogen explosions can be very "non-showy." They are definately not a greasy, Hollywood-type, fireball explosion (hydrogen burns with a mostly invisible flame). The "explosion" in the rest of the video looks like concrete/cinder-block dust cloud.

This is going to be a long, drawn-out cleanup operation. Bring lots of money with you if you want to clean this mess up!

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Rense.com has a BUNCH of articals on it....there are some reports of rod meltdown. Here is the fallout map http://www.rense.com/general93/fallout.htm

Looks like payback from 1945.

Meltdown confirmed

http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tn...20110312D12JFF03.htm

Anyone else bummed about this because its another roadblock to America using nuclear energy?

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Rense.com has a BUNCH of articals on it....there are some reports of rod meltdown. Here is the fallout map http://www.rense.com/general93/fallout.htm

It looks like the West Coast will catch most of this fall out in about a week. I can tell you that this quake definitely has an effect on our psyche out here, in close proximity to both the San Andreas faultline and the Pacific Ocean. And now all of our food grown in the Salinas Valley is about to get dosed with radioactive fallout. Not to mention our ocean.

End of the world, baby. I feel fine.

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: Anyone else bummed about this because its another roadblock to America using nuclear energy?

Me.

The latest report is that the reactor operators are going to use seawater and boric acid to cool the core down. This suggests that they are getting desperate -- the boron in the boric acid is a natural neutron absorber, and the only reason to use it is if you are worried about an uncontrolled chain reaction. The only way that there could be an uncontrolled reaction is if the fuel rods have partially/fully melted and are puddling up at the bottom of the containment vessel.

Also, the salt in the seawater is going to corrode the crap out of the plumbing in the core. They will almost certainly be dumping the "used" seawater right back into the ocean, and it will have a fair load of radioactive particulates in it (more or less depending on how badly melted the fuel rods are). Might want to avoid oysters from this region for a while.

Between the salt-water induced corrosion and the boron contaminating the core, this reactor will not be repairable. They will need to let it cool off for a while (months to years), while the more active fission products decay away, and then carefully go in and disassemble the core. A few more billion on top of the rest of the reconstruction costs that Japan will incur in this disaster.

From Wikipedia:

quote Rad (unit)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For the unit of angular measure, see radian. The rad is a unit of absorbed radiation dose. The rad was first proposed in 1918 as "that quantity of X rays which when absorbed will cause the destruction of the [malignant mammalian] cells in question..."[1] It was defined in CGS units in 1953 as the dose causing 100 ergs of energy to be absorbed by one gram of matter. It was restated in SI units in 1970 as the dose causing 0.01 joule of energy to be absorbed per kilogram of matter. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires the use of the units curie, rad and rem as part of the Code of Federal Regulations 10CFR20. However, Systeme Internationale has introduced as a rival unit the gray; 1 rad is equal to 10 milligray, and 100 rads are equal to 1 Gy. The continued use of the rad is "strongly discouraged" by the author style guide of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.[2] Nevertheless, use of the rad remains widespread and is still an industry standard.[3] [edit] Radiation PoisoningMain article: Radiation poisoning To gauge biological effects the dose in rads is multiplied by a 'quality factor' which is dependent on the type of ionizing radiation. The modified dose is now measured in rems (roentgen equivalent mammal, or man)[4]. 100 rem = 1 sievert (Sv). A dose of under 100 rems is subclinical and will produce nothing other than blood changes. 100 to 200 rems will cause illness but will rarely be fatal. Doses of 200 to 1000 rems will likely cause serious illness with poor outlook at the upper end of the range. Doses of more than 1000 rems are almost invariably fatal[5].

Converting Rad to Rem.
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q3142.html

quote Q: How do you convert a rad to a rem? I am working on putting together a comparison list for radiation exposure to pregnant women during radiology procedures and find different studies list rad results and others list results in rem. I appreciate any help on this matter. A: The older quantity and unit of radiation exposure (ionization in dry air) is the "roentgen" (R), where 1 R is equal to 2.58 × 10-4. The older quantity and unit of absorbed dose is the "rad," where 1 rad = 0.01 J/kg. The material absorbing the radiation can be tissue or any other medium (for example, air, water, lead shielding, etc.). To convert absorbed dose to dose equivalent, or "rem," where we now consider the biological effects in man, one modifies with a quality factor. For practical scenarios, with low "linear energy transfer" (LET) radiation such as gamma or x rays, 1 R = 1 rad = 1 rem. You should be aware that today we use the "System International" (SI) of quantities and units. Exposure is now referenced to "air kerma," absorbed dose to gray (Gy), and dose equivalent to the sievert (Sv). 1 Gy = 100 rad, and 1 Sv = 100 rem.

I'm sure the scientists will be measuring the radiation levels and recommending evacuations if needed.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: Anyone else bummed about this because its another roadblock to America using nuclear energy?

I would take those 'leak' predictions not so much with a grain of salt as a boulder of it.

Hell, CNN that morning was on TV talking about there would be 5 foot high waves traveling miles inland in California and people should head to higher ground. Im no oceanographer but that sounded like sensationalist bullshit to me. Im not really getting how we have fallout 'predictions' when no one even knows what is really going on or has happened. Which will probably be stifled by Japan's governmental culture like Chernobyl was in its day.

I do like how so far, with little to no indication of any confirmed leakage, this is 'one of the three biggest nuclear disasters', yea, what you are really saying there is this is the third... in 40 some years, and TMI one of 'the worst' resulted in no real radiation leakage, and that was 32 years ago with 1970's technology. Chernobyl was a different story, but if you're harried by the idea of American nuclear tech in the late 70's god forbid how it compared to the USSR and their obvious dedication to human and environmental safety, being they didnt even bother with a real containment vessel, which is exactly why there was leakage.

Still though, Im not saying the San Fernando valley is a good place for America to restart its nuclear program, nor is New Orleans or Washington DC, but with a little proper planning...

[This message has been edited by 86GT3.4DOHC (edited 03-12-2011).]

Doc Jon thankyou for the explainations its a better summary than the newscasts.

Stock up on Iodine, if you can find any.

Heard on fox news the reactor in question is the oldest and of American design.

Fast forward to 45 seconds.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Heard on fox news the reactor in question is the oldest and of American design.

It's a boiling water reactor, based on a 1960's vintage U.S. design. Some are still in use here, but most of our commercial plants are pressurized water reactors. In a BWR the water is allowed to boil in the core; a PWR operates under higher operating pressures and prevents this. Both types are still "gen 1" reactors -- we've learned a lot since the '60s about nuclear plant design.....not the least of which is: a) don't put them on fault lines, and b) if you do, make certain that your backup diesel generators won't be wiped out by a tsunami (!)

quote Originally posted by Formula88: According to this link, that fallout map is a hoax. http://yournewreality.blogs...ans-will-not-be.html

I like that link. Sure probably biased by the 'my side' part of it, but it seems like a well written article with good facts, references, a little humor and a great writing style.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Heard on fox news the reactor in question is the oldest and of American design.

The real question though... Did the age or the American design result in the failure, or would any of the other reactors had the same issue in this location? I mean, they can point out all day long that it was an American design, but if that isn't why it failed then it is misleading. Conversely, if it failed because the American design was **** , then I guess it is worth pointing out.

Also keep in mind, while you cant much argue with the shockwave, steam and really any kind of hot air rapidly cooling makes a LOT of 'smoke' so the large billowing clouds could be bad, or it could just be cooling air billowing out. Just because there is a big cloud emanating from the area doesnt mean there was that much damage or there is any leakage or fire etc.

THAT is purely speculation though, I have no clue what it is, but I do know how 'bad' simple cooling towers can look as they billow off huge clouds of steam people automatically assume is smoke that is really just heat transfer.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: There will likely be a LOT of misinformation in the coming weeks. Take sensible precautions but there's no reason for people in the continental U.S. to panic. I'd still stock up on Iodine, though.

Absolutely right. The eco-nuts will use this as a reason why we need to switch to solar power (please show me a solar powered steel-mill, I'd LOVE to see one), and the conspiracy theorist nuts will claim that this was the Illuminati at work.

Hopefully the situation will stabilize with cool seawater running over the core.....but I still wouldn't want to eat any oysters or clams harvested from that area for a while!

quote Originally posted by Doc John: a) don't put them on fault lines, and b) if you do, make certain that your backup diesel generators won't be wiped out by a tsunami (!)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they were put near fault lines on purpose since that's the only location where there's seismic data going back far enough to predict whether it's a stable location or not. IIRC, they use locations on fault lines that have been stable for 100 years or something like that. (this from memory from when I toured a local nuke plant here in NC back in the 80's.)

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doc John: Absolutely right. The eco-nuts will use this as a reason why we need to switch to solar power (please show me a solar powered steel-mill, I'd LOVE to see one), and the conspiracy theorist nuts will claim that this was the Illuminati at work. Hopefully the situation will stabilize with cool seawater running over the core.....but I still wouldn't want to eat any oysters or clams harvested from that area for a while!

Thats the horrible part, there will be all this 'bad press' but in the end if it turns out nothing really happened, no one will remember that, they will just remember the fear and hype thrown together by the sensationalist ratings hungry news and profiteers.

Our mill with an EAF draws about 8 megawatts while running, im curious how many panels it would take to power that we're one of the smaller mills too.
And BTW im not anti-solar, I have a 80 panel project in the other room, and used to tweak on hybrids, I see there is potentials in the technology, but realize forcing it onto people, much less in the state it is now, is not a good idea. One day it will come around, in the meantime we need real sources of power.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they were put near fault lines on purpose since that's the only location where there's seismic data going back far enough to predict whether it's a stable location or not. IIRC, they use locations on fault lines that have been stable for 100 years or something like that. (this from memory from when I toured a local nuke plant here in NC back in the 80's.)

You are right, this is where the best data are for the last 100 years or so. That was the guiding principle for location in the '60's and early '70's. The problem is that BIG earthquakes usually have intervals of greater than 100 years, hence today we try to put them a little further away from the danger zones. It's worth mentioning that the reactor DID survive the actual earthquake in this case -- the design worked as it was supposed to, and they were able to put the control rods in and shut it down. The crisis started when the diesel generators that supply the backup cooling power were knocked out by the tsunami. That is the real tragedy in all this -- they were able to design around one disaster but missed the second one.

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: The real question though... Did the age or the American design result in the failure, or would any of the other reactors had the same issue in this location? I mean, they can point out all day long that it was an American design, but if that isn't why it failed then it is misleading. Conversely, if it failed because the American design was **** , then I guess it is worth pointing out.

well I posted that in response to 86gt3.4dohc's comment.

quote I would take those 'leak' predictions not so much with a grain of salt as a boulder of it. Hell, CNN that morning was on TV talking about there would be 5 foot high waves traveling miles inland in California and people should head to higher ground. Im no oceanographer but that sounded like sensationalist bullshit to me. Im not really getting how we have fallout 'predictions' when no one even knows what is really going on or has happened. Which will probably be stifled by Japan's governmental culture like Chernobyl was in its day. I do like how so far, with little to no indication of any confirmed leakage, this is 'one of the three biggest nuclear disasters', yea, what you are really saying there is this is the third... in 40 some years, and TMI one of 'the worst' resulted in no real radiation leakage, and that was 32 years ago with 1970's technology. Chernobyl was a different story, but if you're harried by the idea of American nuclear tech in the late 70's god forbid how it compared to the USSR and their obvious dedication to human and environmental safety, being they didnt even bother with a real containment vessel, which is exactly why there was leakage. Still though, Im not saying the San Fernando valley is a good place for America to restart its nuclear program, nor is New Orleans or Washington DC, but with a little proper planning...

[This message has been edited by Scottzilla79 (edited 03-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: Anyone else bummed about this because its another roadblock to America using nuclear energy?

I dont think it will be a road block. America is on a pretty stable tectonic surface aside from California I know of at least 2 reactors in my area that have been running flawlessly for years Limrick and Peach bottom. Also the united states i think has more resources to keep something like this from happening If the worst should happen. Bad thing is the east coast does sit on a pretty dangerous fault line. it just hasn't been active.

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: I dont think it will be a road block.

I think you are underestimating how naive and easily influential most of America is.

The smoke could clear and it could turn out that the Japanese systems functioned perfectly and it was a glorious success and you wont hear a fractions of it on the news as you are hearing about the 'leaks' and 'danger' and 'imminent death' nor the 5 foot wave that was supposed to wash a mile inland in California. Nor will those people who clamored about the fake radiation maps and other misinformation either take note, much less remember, the corrections to said misinformation.

It really doesn't matter if the worst predictions right now come true or are completely wrong...

quote Originally posted by Formula88: According to this link, that fallout map is a hoax. http://yournewreality.blogs...ans-will-not-be.html By comparison, look at Chernobyl which had a meltdown, explosion and ruptured containment vessel. vicinity of the reactor core: 30,000 rads fuel fragments 15,000–20,000 debris heap at the place of circulation pumps 10,000 debris near the electrolyzers 5,000–15,000 water in the Level +25 feedwater room 5,000 level 0 of the turbine hall 500–15,000 area of the affected unit 1,000–1,500 water in Room 712 1,000 control room, shortly after explosion 3–5 Gidroelektromontazh depot 30 nearby concrete mixing unit 10–15 From 30,000 rads to 10-15 rads all within the site. It's unlikely 3000 rads at Japan would still be 750 rads at the U.S. coast. There will likely be a LOT of misinformation in the coming weeks. Take sensible precautions but there's no reason for people in the continental U.S. to panic. I'd still stock up on Iodine, though.

Is that all of the US or just west coast for the iodine I mean. Or do people say in Ohio or PA have to worry about this?

[This message has been edited by Fierokid87 (edited 03-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Fierokid87: Is that all of the US or just west coast for the iodine I mean. Or do people say in Ohio or PA have to worry about this?

I think you're missing the point... no one this side of the Pacific has to worry about it, maybe not even that side of the Pacific.

While it's premature to panic it is also premature to say everything will be all right. Fox news said now 120,000 are being evacuated from the area surrounding the reactor.