Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-31-2011, 05:39 PM   #151
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
There is however no question that extremely hot graphite was ejected from the core and at a temperature sufficient to ignite adjacent combustible materials.
Which did not happen at Fukushima, and will not happen at any modern commercial reactor. Such reactors use water, not graphite. While there's debate about how easy it is to burn graphite, there's no such debate about water.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 06:28 PM   #152
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Tenyu Hamaki wrote:
There is however no question that extremely hot graphite was ejected from the core and at a temperature sufficient to ignite adjacent combustible materials.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Which did not happen at Fukushima, and will not happen at any modern commercial reactor. Such reactors use water, not graphite. While there's debate about how easy it is to burn graphite, there's no such debate about water.
Still, it's clear that Chernobyl was not a graphite fire. So....it seems you don't really understand this as well as you would have us believe....and you're trying to slip a superior appearance past us for some reason....

So I'm wondering if you really understand this issue well enough to be lecturing us on it.

And Tenyu has shown extensive documentation that (as I've seriously suspected all along) there have not been three nuclear incidents (or four, counting Brown's Ferry) but several, some with serious melt-downs. And all very nicely covered up.

Why have the various radiation monitors, icluding the one in Huntsville shut down?

And regardless of how minor the radiation and harmless the ejected materials, how would you like to be in the position of some of the honest home-owners around Fukushima? How long are you willing to live in a gymnasium because a plant is spewing "harmless" radiation?

Clearly, even a "harmless" accident at very best, is a very bad situation.

Today I read that not only Fukushima Daiichi and Daini plants have emitted radiation and smoke, but also Onagawa, owned by Tohoku Electric, further up the coast from Fukushima.

Lecture us all you like, but nuclear plants are NOT safe in inhabited areas.

Last edited by David Orange : 03-31-2011 at 06:33 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 10:48 PM   #153
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Still, it's clear that Chernobyl was not a graphite fire. So....it seems you don't really understand this as well as you would have us believe....and you're trying to slip a superior appearance past us for some reason....
My bio is readily available and has already been posted to this thread once.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 11:12 PM   #154
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Less than two weeks ago 20,000 gallons of radioactive water from the spent fuel pools at the Pickering plant 22 miles east of Toronto was leaked into Lake Ontario. Of course the radioactivity is all "negligible" for the millions of people whose drinking water comes from the lake.

Toronto News
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 11:19 PM   #155
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco was 18,100% above federal drinking water standard
"but safe to drink"

link
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 11:39 PM   #156
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
My bio is readily available and has already been posted to this thread once.
But you belittled my comparison of Fukushima to Chernobyl because the Chernobyl plant was a graphite fire, while Fukushima was not....and now we see that Chernobyl was not a graphite fire, either.

So you really don't understand this matter any better than I, even with your bio.

My question is why you feel compelled to pass yourself off as a nuclear expert as well as a thin-film expert. I'm sure I'd take your opinion on thin film solar with a good bit of weight. But on nuclear power, you just seem to have some opinions based largely on misinformation.

So why not admit that the Fukushima situation is a major disaster? And that nuclear plants do "blow up"?

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 11:41 PM   #157
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
"but safe to drink"

link
I have to hand it to you, Tenyu. You've made some excellent contributions to this thread. Your earlier documentation of the many nuclear disasters we've already faced, in the UK, US, Russia and Canada, have advanced the conversation in a powerful way.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co...vering-up.html

The clip on the Rocketdyne sodium meltdown was really an eye-opener.

Nice going.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 03-31-2011 at 11:47 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 12:04 AM   #158
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
My question is why you feel compelled to pass yourself off as a nuclear expert as well as a thin-film expert. I'm sure I'd take your opinion on thin film solar with a good bit of weight. But on nuclear power, you just seem to have some opinions based largely on misinformation.
"When I asked the academician, Alexandrov, he told me the reactor was absolutely safe. It could even be set up on Red Square. It wouldn't be any dfferent than a samovar, like putting a kettle on Red Square." Mikhail Gorbachev on Chernobyl.

Now the "experts" ( ) are telling us similar things about Fukushima.

Why not just admit that you know jack about the true conditions at Fukushima or the long-term implications of this disaster? True, it's not obviously up to the level of Chernobyl, but it's really foolish to brush this off as a simple thing that will soon be "back to normal".

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 08:22 AM   #159
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

David,

Are you familiar with the Kyshtym disaster?

Quote:
The Kyshtym disaster was a radiation contamination incident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Russia (then a part of the Soviet Union). It measured as a Level 6 disaster on the International Nuclear Event Scale, making it the second most serious nuclear accident ever recorded (after the Chernobyl disaster). The event occurred in the town of Ozyorsk, a closed city built around the Mayak plant. Since Ozyorsk/Mayak (also known as Chelyabinsk-40 and Chelyabinsk-65) was not marked on maps, the disaster was named after Kyshtym, the nearest known town.

Initially Mayak was dumping high-level radioactive waste into a nearby river, which was taking waste to the river Ob, flowing farther down to the Arctic Ocean. Later on, Lake Karachay was used for open-air storage.

In September 1957 the cooling system in one of the tanks containing about 70--80 tons of liquid radioactive waste failed and was not repaired. The temperature in it started to rise, resulting in evaporation and a chemical explosion of the dried waste, consisting mainly of ammonium nitrate and acetates (see ammonium nitrate bomb). The explosion, estimated to have a force of about 70--100 tons of TNT threw the concrete lid, weighing 160 tons, into the air. There were no immediate casualties as a result of the explosion, which released an estimated 2 to 50 MCi (74 to 1850 PBq) of radioactivity. In the next 10 to 11 hours the radioactive cloud moved towards the northeast, reaching 300--350 kilometers from the accident. The fallout of the cloud resulted in a long-term contamination of an area of more than 800 square kilometers, primarily with caesium-137 and strontium-90. This area is usually referred to as the East-Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT).

Because of the secrecy surrounding Mayak, the populations of affected areas were not initially informed of the accident. A week later (on 6 October) an operation for evacuating 10,000 people from the affected area started, still without giving an explanation of the reasons for evacuation. People "grew hysterical with fear with the incidence of unknown 'mysterious' diseases breaking out. Victims were seen with skin 'sloughing off' their faces, hands and other exposed parts of their bodies." It was Zhores Medvedev who revealed the nature and extent of the disaster to the world. To reduce the spread of radioactive contamination after the accident, contaminated soil was excavated and stockpiled in fenced enclosures that were called "graveyards of the earth". The Soviet government in 1968 disguised the EURT area by creating the East-Ural Nature Reserve, which prohibited any unauthorised access to the affected area. Rumours of a nuclear mishap somewhere in the vicinity of Chelyabinsk had long been circulating in the West. That there had been a serious nuclear accident east of the Urals was eventually inferred from research on the effects of radioactivity on plants, animals, and ecosystems, published by Professor Leo Tumerman, former head of the Biophysics Laboratory at the Institute of Molecular Biology in Moscow, and associates. According to Gyorgy, who invoked the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to the relevant Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) files, the CIA knew of the 1957 Mayak accident all along, but kept it secret to prevent adverse consequences for the fledgling American nuclear industry. Only in 1990 did the Soviet government declassify documents pertaining to the disaster.

The level of radiation in Ozyorsk itself is claimed to be safe for humans, but the area of EURT is still heavily contaminated with radioactivity.
You can read more history of non-classified nuclear accidents here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 08:43 AM   #160
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Gunderson has good updates:

Vimeo Link
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 09:11 AM   #161
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Katherine & anyone living in North America,

You might be interested in learning about the Petkau Effect.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 05:34 PM   #162
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 05:56 PM   #163
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
The IAEA (a UN agency which reports to the Security Council) is mandated to "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". It is in fact a lobby, industrial and military, which should have no role to play in public health policy-making or research.

The IAEA has vetoed conferences planned by WHO on radioactivity and health and, in turn, the WHO has endorsed the nuclear lobby's grotesque statistics on mortality and morbidity relating to the Chernobyl accident -- 56 dead and 4,000 thyroid cancers.

Denial of disease inevitably implies denial of health care. Nine million people live in areas with very high levels of radioactivity; for 21 years now these populations have had no choice but to consume contaminated food, with devastating effects on their health

For the nuclear lobby, any research indicating harm from ionizing radiation represents a commercial threat that must at all costs be averted. Research on damage to the human genome (one of the most serious consequences of the contamination) was not part of the international project requested of the WHO in 1991 by the health ministers of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation. Yet dental caries was made a research priority.

Hundreds of epidemiological studies in Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation have established that there has been a significant rise in all types of cancer causing thousands of deaths, an increase in infant and perinatal mortality, a large number of spontaneous abortions, a growing number of deformities and genetic anomalies, disturbance and retardation of mental development, neuropsychological illness, blindness, and diseases of the respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, urogenital and endocrine systems

Four months after the meltdown Morris Rosen, the IAEA's director of nuclear safety, said: "Even if there were an accident of this type every year, I would still regard nuclear power as a valuable source of energy"
link
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 01:34 AM   #164
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....



Japanese government not evacuating areas with extreme radiation.

link

Last edited by Tenyu : 04-02-2011 at 01:42 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 08:49 AM   #165
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....



The new - hat - is almost twice as tall as the largest sports stadium in the world.

Link
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 09:33 AM   #166
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

David Orange wrote: "the word "nuclear" does mean uranium in today's economy, ruled by the uranium interests. And that almost guarantees explosions and devastations."

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
Almost guarantees. How many power plants have exploded in the history of this form of energy? Almost guaranteed....laughable.
It would be laughable if not for the deadly consequences. I hope you've checked out Tenyu's many links on serious nuclear accidents by now. MANY plants have effectively "exploded" in that they have released massive radiation into the environment--two in Russia, where vast tracts of land were sealed off and remain uninhabitable after decades and several (less extreme, but still poisonous) in the US, UK and Canada that the general public still doesn't know about. What's laughable is that anyone can continue to pretend they know so much about this stuff that they can really control it and make it safe. Uranium-based nuclear power is not and never will be safe.

David Orange wrote:
Hold it right there, Don. Quote it or take it back. I haven't even mentione fusion. Find the quote or apologize, bud.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
You are right, I somehow attached your name to Ron Ragusa's comments. I will admit I was wrong. My point however, even though it does not reflect on you still holds true.
I hear you say it, but I seriously doubt it. You show far too much trust for people with a long history of lying to us about very deadly dangers. I doubt you'd accept this kind of lying related to your income or investments. Why you accept it in something like nuclear accidents is beyond me, unless that's exactly it: it's beyond you. You don't see it. It's not in your backyard. You can't do anything about it, so you just shrug it off and dismiss it as not very important. We can't continue to do that.

David Orange wrote:
Okay. Then you'll accept living in a house with asbestos insulation? It's no worse than radiation? It's not a matter of which is worse. It's a matter that only a fool would accept any of it if there's a choice around it.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
Asbestos, while dangerous to work with proved safe for many generations when applied properly.
I'm afraid you're wrong there, Don. I've studied this through work records of major corporations, going back decades. I don't believe there is any proper way to use asbestos that doesn't expose people to terrible health risks.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
There is however no reason to continue to use it because there are more efficient insulations.
No, Don. Even with nothing better than paper, there is no excuse to introduce asbestos into any environment with breathing creatures. It is deadly.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
Unlike our power conversation where this is no superior solution. I've stated we need to continue to improve and design better power solutions and that nuclear is the best of what we have now. I'm sorry, I don't see my position as being weak or assailable.
Sorry, Don. It's as weak and assailable and blind as George Bush's drive into Baghdad for all the phony reasons he gave.

David Orange wrote:
Obviously, it isn't nearly as easy to control as you make it out. Who's paying you to broadcast this kind of false "information"?

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
I'm payed to voice this opinion by the US government and the CIA.
I already knew that, Don. I was the guy who recruited you--the newspaper? The park bench? The sunglasses?

That was me. I'm also the guy you send those messages to on that little radio we gave you. Codename "ROGUE". I'm so passionate about this because I'm a rebel and I know my time is limited.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
It's my job to quiet those who really know the truth.
That's not what we assigned you to do and you know it. You're only supposed to make those people look foolish with your "reasonable" arguments and superior dismissals.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
Our expressed goal is to make the planet uninhabitable and terraform mars so we can move the rich elite there while letting you pesants work our mines. For my part in this, I get unlimited internet access and a toyota corolla. Oh and as many cheese frys as I can eat.
And I know that, as well. But I will tell you something about those cheese fries: they're to set you up for the fall if you should ever go rogue like me. The only reason they haven't already activated mine is because I quit eating them. I started using a clever mustard-mayonnaise mixture with a touch of yellow food coloring that looks good on surveillance cameras but doesn't contain the nano-bots. Remember the nano-bots if you ever think about "leaving".

David Orange wrote:
Yet, you still have to qualify your statement, don't you: "IF the plant does somehow...explode..." Which it has already done quite well enough to have sent radiation into Alabama. You're just saying it can't get worse (which it is doing day by day) when the last guy telling me this said that it couldn't happen at all. You're both very seriously wrong.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
Prove it exploded? There has not been a nuclear explosion at the plant. There was a hydrogen explosion.
Even if it wasn't direct nuclear explosion like Chernobyl, Don, the plant exploded. Several times. Which was the point I made in the first thread.

But where did the hydrogen come from, Don?

It was caused by a core meltdown. That hydrogen wasn't just sitting around and it doesn't occur in normal operations of a nuclear plant. It was caused by a core meltdown. The explosion came from venting the hydrogen into the air--not by a spark as Katherine misinformed us. I mean, argue what you can or what you believe, but don't interject pure baloney into the facts. And the plant is, Fukushima Dai Ichi exploded. And non-normal emissions have also come from Fukushima Dai Ni and the Onagawa plant, run by Tohoku Electric, a good distance up the coast.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
The reactor is not going to explode. I'd hope I don't need to explain how and why hydrogen explosion happens.
It sounds like you don't know. And what about the consequences of that explosion? There is evidence that the original hydrogen explosion at Dai Ichi actually cracked open the reactor core containment vessel--which means that reactor may well explode, regardless of your assertion that "the reactor is not going to explode." You seriously do not know that.

David Orange wrote:
Yeah. Since the Gulf is already ruined, let's just crack all the reactors open. It won't be as bad as an oil spill?

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
Never said that. I simply implied it strange that this nuclear danger is somehow more immediate and less damaging.
But it is not "less damaging," Don. I don't have to eat seafood from the Gulf, but I have to breathe the air in Alabama, where they shut down the radiation monitoring system so that no one would know how high the fall out is getting all the way over here--so that no one will realize how bad it is all the way over there.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
I also was intending to imply that the technologies we need to use to eliminate this ominous and "almost guarantees explosions and devastations" (quoted you properly this time) technology is just as bad (and in my opinion worse).
As we "repaired" the dastardly situation in Iraq by plunging that whole nation into chaos, screwing our own efforts in Afghanistan and ruining our own economy (for all but the super-wealthy, who got far richer from the debacle). Coal power is bad. Nuclear power is hell on earth.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
First, to have a more meaningful conversation. I suggest you research and study radiation level measurements, the kinds of radiation, the kinds of chemicals being released and their associated half-life. At this point, all those evacuations have been as a precaution due to rising radiation levels. It would actually be safe for people to go home and gather up their belongings. The most recent readings I can find show about 2 mSv per day in the areas around the plant that have been evacuated. That is often reported at 2 times the level the EPA allows one of us to receive in a year! Scary right? Well not so scary when you actually look at getting a CT scan, which is 5 mSv or the max yearly dose the EPA let's power plant workers receive which is 50 mSv. On the extreme side a full body CT can can be as much as 720 mSv! 2 mSv doesn't seem so ominous now...
Well, you posted this about two days ago. The situation appears much worse, now, which is only because more factual information has leaked out--but still not as much of that as the radiation....

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
Levels at this point that have mostly been rising (from what I've been reading) due to iodine 124 and 131 which both have short half-lives. Iodine 134 having a half-life of 53 minutes and iodine 131 with a half-life of 8 days. That means within months those will be of no concern to us.
The weak point in your statement s "from what I've been reading." We've had to rely on information from TEPCO, which has a history of covering up the real situations at their plants, the real facts of their negligent "accidents". Also, from the Japanese government which is more concerned with their economy than with the lives of common citizens.

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
There are other substances that last much longer (cesium-137 is around 30 years), but when we talk about the dangers of drinking milk, we are talking about iodine.
Wild boars in Germany are still radioactive and unsafe to eat because of the Cesium-137 fall-out from Chernobyl, 25 years ago. Mushrooms in the region are unsafe to eat. Why do you brush off the release of Cesium 137 and jump back to the iodine? Your clothes are on fire, but you're concerned about your milk mustache?

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
I'm a man of science, reason, and logic. To change my mind I simply require facts, statistics, education, and alternatives. Otherwise we are just having a "no you didn't, yes I did" conversation. Not really worthy of all the electricity we are wasting keeping our computers up and this forum running.
Sadly, this kind of thing is one of the most appropriate uses of electricity and computers. You have far more than enough facts and statistics to prove that we are in grave danger now. People like Tenyu and I must hammer the real and important information just to keep "cooler heads" (buried in the sand) from dismissing it.

But would you like to wager on how long the citizens from the Fukushima "exclusion zone" will be kept away from their homes? How long would you consider "reasonable" to be kept at least 25 miles from your own home? Two weeks? Two months? Two decades?

I'm confident at this point that none of those people will be allowed to return permanently to their homes in less than a year. Want to bet?

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 09:38 AM   #167
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Another silly idea is that "We have nothing better a yet, so we have to continue using nuclear power."

That's the same argument the Aghan poppy farmers use to justify their continued production of the base ingredients for heroin.

And "jobs" are used to justify Americans' shipping death by the ton of tobacco in many parts of the country.

It's a foolish excuse and nothing but an excuse to profit from exposing human beings to deadly risk.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 10:27 AM   #168
RonRagusa
Dojo: Berkshire Hills Aikido
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 799
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Phi Truong wrote: View Post
don't know if you have seen this or not http://www.iter.org/ it will be in 20 years.
Well Phi, let's check back in 20 years and see if it's still 20 years off. For the record I hope you're right.

Best,

Ron
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 10:40 AM   #169
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
It was caused by a core meltdown. That hydrogen wasn't just sitting around and it doesn't occur in normal operations of a nuclear plant. It was caused by a core meltdown. The explosion came from venting the hydrogen into the air--not by a spark as Katherine misinformed us.
*sigh*

If you take a cylinder of pure hydrogen gas, set it in the middle of a field, and crack the valve open, it will not explode. It will just quietly dissipate into the air. An explosion will only occur if you have a sufficiently high concentration of hydrogen (and oxygen!) in the presence of an ignition source: that source could be an electrical spark, it could be a spark from flint on steel, or it could be contact with a sufficiently hot surface or an open flame.

I've actually been in the room with a hydrogen explosion: science museums conduct them all the time. Except for the speed of the reaction, it's no different than any other kind of combustion. Cleaner than most, since the combustion product is water.

(To be clear, I am referring to the rapid combustion of hydrogen:
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O I don't know what sort of "explosion" David has in mind.)

No one -- not even Tepco -- is denying that a partial core meltdown has occurred at Fukushima. The debate is about what the consequences of that are.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 10:45 AM   #170
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Sadly, this kind of thing is one of the most appropriate uses of electricity and computers. You have far more than enough facts and statistics to prove that we are in grave danger now. People like Tenyu and I must hammer the real and important information just to keep "cooler heads" (buried in the sand) from dismissing it.
Given the sources Tenyu has been relying on, I wouldn't be quite so quick to take his side...

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 10:58 AM   #171
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

There's no proof a nuclear explosion happened at Chernobyl either. It was most likely a hydrogen explosion just like Fukushima as stated in the same link dismissing the 'graphite' fires.

Video of Fukushima explosion.

There are 2500 tons of fuel at Fukushima, only 180 tons were/are at Chernobyl. Fukushima is MUCH worse than Chernobyl, the only reason it's not being reported that way because most of the fallout's going over and into the ocean.

Last edited by Tenyu : 04-02-2011 at 11:05 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 11:01 AM   #172
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Given the sources Tenyu has been relying on, I wouldn't be quite so quick to take his side...

Katherine
Which sources don't you like? Would you prefer me to site university researchers who receive their funding from the military industry?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 11:23 AM   #173
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
There's no proof a nuclear explosion happened at Chernobyl either. It was most likely a hydrogen explosion just like Fukushima as stated in the same link dismissing the 'graphite' fires.
Actually, I think the IAEA concluded that a criticality incident occurred at Chernobyl, and that's what ignited the subsequent fires.

Since the hydrogen at Fukushima came from the breakdown of water in the reactor, and the Chernobyl reactor was moderated by graphite, it's not clear where any hydrogen at Chernobyl would have come from. Chernobyl used water to produce steam, but it wouldn't have been in contact with the core until *after* the initial explosion had already occurred, bursting the pipes.

As a side note, this whole conversation has been tossing terms like "explosion" around with wild abandon, and I think at least some of the confusion may result because different people are using them in different ways.

Technically speaking, an explosion is simply the rapid release of energy, from any source. Increase the pressure in a steam boiler beyond its design limits, and it will explode. Controlled explosions are what make internal combustion engines work. So I don't view an "an explosion at Fukushima" as necessarily any more hazardous to human health than "an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon." Suppose, for example, that one of the fuel tanks for the backup generators had blown up: well clear of the reactor vessel, and therefore not in itself a terribly big deal. And yes, I suppose that a fuel tank explosion would technically meet David's claim that a "nuclear plant can blow up," but I think we all know that wasn't what he had in mind.

The scary stuff starts to happen if the rapid release of energy takes place *inside* the reactor vessel. That's what happened at Chernobyl, and that's what shot highly radioactive material all over the place. But there is no evidence that such a situation has occurred -- or could occur -- at Fukushima.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 11:29 AM   #174
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
Which sources don't you like? Would you prefer me to site university researchers who receive their funding from the military industry?
At least those researchers have probably actually studied nuclear physics. At least those researchers have a professional stake in making sure their public statements are scientifically accurate.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 11:49 AM   #175
RonRagusa
Dojo: Berkshire Hills Aikido
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 799
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

The latest news from Fukushima is of radioactive water leaking into the ocean from a breached maintenance pit. We get these little tidbits interspersed between the stories about how things are looking up, super pumps being brought in that can pump concrete as well as water etc. Still, the salient fact is that the plant continues to leak radiation.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 18 Peter Goldsbury Columns 187 09-08-2011 02:41 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 17 Peter Goldsbury Columns 41 06-03-2010 09:46 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 14 Peter Goldsbury Columns 38 07-31-2009 11:19 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 12 Peter Goldsbury Columns 32 05-16-2009 06:05 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 10 Peter Goldsbury Columns 200 02-04-2009 06:45 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate