An Idea For Gaining Control Over The Damaged Reactors In Japan (Page 2) StuckInTheSixties: It's both. The stored spent fuel rods could present a grave problem if they're allowed to start burning. The smoke from them would contain a really nasty mix of particles, including Plutonium, which is about as toxic as a substance can be if inhaled. But if I understand right, Reactor 3 (maybe others) might have cracks in the actual reactor vessel, and there's some possibility that molten fuel could escape. As I understand it, the unspent fuel rods melt when uncooled, the spent fuel rods burn. Both present potential for some really bad consequences if they aren't kept cooled.  davidk14: . We may not need to wait for the Mayan calendar to count down to zero. Bad situation any way we look at it. Perhaps those reactors will be off line for years if not forever. Japan is the third largest economy or should I say "was" the third largest economy. They depended on those reactors to power their economy and from what I understand, there are rolling blackouts all over the country. Bad situation any way we look at it. . StuckInTheSixties: I tried to put this into perspective in a different thread. While this situation with the nukes in Japan is grave, compared to other things that could happen, that have happened, it's pretty small. For instance, when other Wireclub users were voicing some very strong concern about fallout being carried to other parts of the globe, I hastened to point out that for many years, the USA and USSR conducted many, literally hundreds, of above ground nuc-bomb detonations. The relative amounts of fallout from years of those tests render what we could get from Japan to a pittance. But I also don't want to seem flippant. It's a BAD situation there, and could very easily get MUCH worse. It has the potential to mess up a big part of their country for a long, long time. And they don't have nearly the space to write off as they did in the Ukraine after Chernobyl. davidk14: . I have heard the same Sixties. Seems Libya is now in the number one news slot for the time being. You hear the termoil with Hillary and the administration on the handling or lack of handling of the Libya situation? (I'll read your response in the morning. Got to get up at 3 am. Long, long day tomorrow.) . . StuckInTheSixties: Malo, here is a size comparison of the Fukushima plant and the Three Mile Island plant. I think that for some reason, you either think Three Mile Island is much bigger than it is, or Fukushima is much smaller than it is. http://www.wireclub.com/Galleries/ViewImage.aspx?ImageId=3668303  Malobear: I have never been to either,so I dont mind admitting I dont have a clue.I was probably looking at the wrong thing at 3Mile. I really dont know how they are comparing the two though. I have 4 brothers and one younger one that retired from the Navy lives close to San Diego. One of his port-of-calls was Japan. He said the peoples homes are very tight together and not alot of living space. I would suspect thats why some experts are saying that the plant in Japan is worse,more serious than 3 mile. I hope their plans work out with the electricity.If not,it sounds like they are going to have a huge concrete mountain that no one can or wants to live around.And I would hate to think if another quake was to hit and split that mountain open. geeeez. I keep praying StuckInTheSixties: I'm guessing you might have been looking at those tall, modern looking cooling towers at Three Mile Island. The actual reactor buildings at Three Mile Island are bigger than those at Fukushima. Malobear: Thats right. Ive never had the desire to go anywhere near a nuclear plant. There is one maybe 40 miles south of here. But I hope they can aleast get those rods out of there and rebuild if they wish or close it down. StuckInTheSixties: They're totally safe ... until they're not. (laughs) No way will they rebuild Fukushima. That thing is very likely going to be encased in concrete and stand as a monument to unforseen consequences. I was arrested twice at the Diablo Canyon plant in central California. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant They built that thing, and as it was nearing completion, a major earthquake fault was discovered to be running under it.  My first arrest was when I sneaked into the property hiking over the hills, and walking down a service road until I ran into a security guy, who FREAKED when someone said "Hello!" to him in the darkness. The second time I chained myself to the front gate. Both times the San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Department were exceedingly friendly and accomodating. There was no political endorsing of the plant. The construction of it produced few local jobs, and no local jobs once it got running, so the locals hated it's presence. Thus, the cops were very nice to the protesters. When I chained myself to the gate, the deputy got his bolt cutters from the trunk of his car, came over, inspected the padlock, and said, "That looks like a decent lock that you could use later. You want me to cut a link on the chain so you can keep the lock?" The treated us really well in the county jail, too.  AussieOi: kkk thehehe, yeah well its all degrees, just like comparing one lot of deadly radiation to another. StuckInTheSixties: Yeah, you have a point. It was at a nuke plant, which Malo said he'd never go near. But it didn't have much to do with my original intent of this thread.  hellbhoy: The reason why there's no robo-firefighters ! have you seen the state of the reactors building ?.It has collapsed around it making the terrain way TOOOOOO difficult for a remote-bot to operate and not to mention the radiation interfering with wireless signal operation or even a hard wired one.Would be ideal to have one and I am sure they have tried to build them unsuccessfully. StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says: "have you seen the state of the reactors building ?.It has collapsed around it making the terrain way TOOOOOO difficult for a remote-bot to operate" Absolutely wrong. As I type this there are firefighting vehicles right next to those reactor buildings spraying water into them. One of them is EXACTLY like I envisioned: a large vehicle with a very tall boom, with water piped up to the top of that boom where it can be directed in a fat, high-pressure stream very accurately right down into its target. Those are wheeled vehicles. I proposed tracked vehicles. A tracked vehicle could go over obstacles that wheeled vehicles can't, so I'm quite sure they could also be right there, pumping water into those reactors, just like is happening now. hellbhoy says: "and not to mention the radiation interfering with wireless signal operation or even a hard wired one." Wrong. Notice that the vehicles are there. Those brave guys there are communicating by radio. Notice the video on the news of the above mentioned vehicles. Nice, clear pictures, taken right along side of the fire vehicles, with no difficulty due to radiation. Note that as we speak, there is a NASA research probe, called Messenger, orbiting Mercury, right there next to the sun where it's getting FRIED by every wavelength of nasty radiation you can imagine. How do you suppose Messenger is remaining operational there in such a high radiation environment? How do you suppose that the data collected by Messenger is being sent back to us here on Earth? Admittedly, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the "ionizing radiation," alpha, beta, neutron, x-ray, gamma, is of a frequency far higher than the kinds of radiation emitted from radio transmitters. One thing for sure, a cursory search for what you have stated produced no results, so unless you can provide documentation for such claim, I'll have to assume that the claim is not valid. (Standard rule in debate: He who makes the claim is responsible for providing the evidence of such claim.) "Would be ideal to have one and I am sure they have tried to build them unsuccessfully." Are you sure? Frankly, I'm surprised that such a vehicle doesn't exist, and that every working reactor doesn't have a nearby garage with such vehicles. But apparently, they don't. The question is: Why? I don't think you've answered that question. hellbhoy: Your missing the point Sits,would you trust a machine that could in a nano second be prone to program failure if the reactor should emit a large burst of radiation causing the electronic components and software to fail and render the camera sensors useless whilst holding a nuclear rod ?.WELL WOULD YOU ?. And yes walkies talkies work near the reactor with noise interference. AussieOi: In summary I think we are finding as myriad bosses have done in the past that human labour is actually very cheap, useful and expendable. Perhaps a powerful robust and accountable democracy will make robots economical in such a role. The poor sods who are dead from or dying of radiation sicknesses may then 'speak' with a strong political and ultimately economic voice. And before you ask yes martyrs can 'speak' from beyond the grave. But not for long. hellbhoy: Yeh a sad fact human life is cheap AussieOi,but also they are heroes as well and will be remembered because the Japanese honour their dead.Takes a very brave man to stare at immanent death in the face,and my hat goes off to them fighting to safe lives.If there was such a machine to help cool and stabilize the reactors I'm damn certain it would be used to save human lives,the sad fact is humans are more reliable at instantaneous response needed in a split second in this type of emergency incase the reactor should go critical or explode GOD forbid. StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says: "Your missing the point Sits,would you trust a machine that could in a nano second be prone to program failure if the reactor should emit a large burst of radiation causing the electronic components and software to fail and render the camera sensors useless whilst holding a nuclear rod ?." Did I ever say anything about a computer programmed machine? No. Did I ever say anything about a machine that would be "holding a nuclear [fuel] rod. No? I've only been talking about a vehicle that could approach the accident (as they have right now in Japan), and which can put a high pressure stream of water on target (as they have right now in Japan), but without having to expose humans to the risk of radiation exposure from being that close (as they unfortunately DON'T have right not in Japan). Besides, you're confusing the powerful transient "bursts" that accompany the detonation of a nuclear weapon with the kind of radiation attendant to a damaged power reactor. They are nowhere near the same thing. hellbhoy says: "And yes walkies talkies work near the reactor with noise interference." They work fine. As I explained, radio frequencies are in a completely different range of the spectrum, WAY, WAY lower than ionizing radiation. You apparently ignored my examples of how radio technology works just fine in radioactive environments. Perhaps you could go back, review those examples, and then explain why those things work, but radio near a power plant wouldn't. hellbhoy: Sits here's a quote you typed back at ya from the start of this thread. Sits says "Why is it not possible to have remotely controlled vehicles to do this? TRACKED vehicles that can climb over a fair amount of rubble". Stop dissing my answers here.The hoses they are using at Fukushima right now are mechanically controlled and not electronically ! whys that ?.And like I said if they had such a remote machine to do this then they certainly would be using such a machine at Fukushima.I already explained electronic equipment is no good near a reactor as in up close and personal.Also smoke belting out can mask even a drone with a camera.There is no option but human intervention in these emergencies were millions of lives are at stake. As for your original question ideally a machine to help cool the reactor would be ideal but more to the point would be better safety measures to ensure there are no such emergencies be better.Better still lets just not build anymore reactors as the consequences outweigh the benefits. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
