Japan Nuclear Coverage

[JimC]

Mind you, a big enough quake would render that academic, I imagine...

This was a Richter 9 earthquake. No Richter 10 earthquake has ever been recorded.

What I meant was a big earth movement at the actual site of the reactor. The recent earthquake in Japan was out to sea, and the damage cause to buildings on land purely by shaking before the tsunami hit was not nearly as severe as other earthquakes have produced in urban areas in the past...

[Warren Dew]

What I meant was a big earth movement at the actual site of the reactor. The recent earthquake in Japan was out to sea, and the damage cause to buildings on land purely by shaking before the tsunami hit was not nearly as severe as other earthquakes have produced in urban areas in the past...

Nice try, but the epicenter of the earthquake was only 50 miles from the Onagawa plant, and about 75 miles from Fukushima practically on top of each other, as such things go. The reason the building damage was not that severe was because Japan has done a lot of earthquake proofing in the last decade or two.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[JimC]

What I meant was a big earth movement at the actual site of the reactor. The recent earthquake in Japan was out to sea, and the damage cause to buildings on land purely by shaking before the tsunami hit was not nearly as severe as other earthquakes have produced in urban areas in the past...

Nice try, but the epicenter of the earthquake was only 50 miles from the Onagawa plant, and about 75 miles from Fukushima practically on top of each other, as such things go. The reason the building damage was not that severe was because Japan has done a lot of earthquake proofing in the last decade or two.

Unless I read the media reports completelywrong, the actual amount of earth movement on land during this quake was not nearly as severe as some previous quakes with shallower epicentres closer to the locale. Sure, the building design is important, but it was not fully tested by this event.

I agree, however, that the Japanese reactors are pretty well place to withstand all but the worst possible quakes, and the issue here was the interruptions to emergency cooling caused by the large tsunami.

[egbert]

Advice: more time looking at information, less time posting. The hydrogen explosions removed secondary containment. The issue at Chernobyl was an exposed reactor core being torn apart by graphite explosions.

Well, gee, I defer to your obvious VASTLY superior nuclear knowledge. "Graphite explosions", huh?

Well, it happens to be true that the Chernobyl reactor design included a graphite moderator, whose combustion after the initial failure was a major factor in the explosion which spread fission products far and wide...

Back pedalling from "Graphite explosions" as "the issue" at Chernobyl, are we?

[egbert]

It was fine while the power was on. All the tsunami did was cut off the power. That could happen here without a tsunami.

In the U.S., there was actually a "station blackout" initiative in the early 1990s that required all plants to show they could survive a loss of power.

I suspect Fukushima could also have survived if the tsunami hadn't flooded out their switchgear. Disabling of the diesel generators was separate from the loss of power to the site.

Generators were my job in the Navy. Drop a building on them and they don't work so good.

Tell us more - I'm dying to hear details of the buildings dropped on the diesel generators! You must have a very unique inside source of news.

Aah, those chirping crickets...

[egbert]

The American Midwest used to be an sea. Just sayin'.

Yo, egbert, try to read the whole thread, you're going out-of-context for the past two pages. Nothing sayin' that's a bad thing, just that you look totally confused. (And that's quite a feat around here.)

Outta context, huh. There's that ole fundie dodge! Chris Hedges was right when he compared atheists to fundamentalists!
What a laugh. So I'M CONFUSED? It ain't me claiming Chernobyl was caused by graphite explosions! Or gthaty buildings fell on the Jap diesel generators!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Just suggesting you get your head out of your ass, that's all.

[egbert]

But golly, FOUR COUNT 'EM FOUR reactors sounds a lot scarier.

Why don't you tell us about the AMOUNT of nuclear material, potentially at risk of environmental exposure, compared to the amount of nuclear fuel at Chernobyl? We like FACTS, not BS.

OK 'bert, how 'bout YOU stun us with your comprehensive knowledge and perfect understanding the the subject and its related issues and expose calmly and clearly where the other posters flubbed and what really happened and what consequence's are to be expected?

Why don't you answer my question -

Why don't you tell us about the AMOUNT of nuclear material, potentially at risk of environmental exposure, compared to the amount of nuclear fuel at Chernobyl? We like FACTS, not BS.

- rather than employing typical fundie evasion tactics.

[egbert]

Just suggesting you get your head out of your ass, that's all.

WOW! What a FACT FILLED Rebuttal!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Just suggesting you get your head out of your ass, that's all.

WOW! What FACT FILLED Rebuttal!

Not a rebuttal, a dismal.

[egbert]

Just suggesting you get your head out of your ass, that's all.

WOW! What FACT FILLED Rebuttal!

Not a rebuttal, a dismal.

Well at least you admit how dismal it is!

[Svartalf]

But golly, FOUR COUNT 'EM FOUR reactors sounds a lot scarier.

Why don't you tell us about the AMOUNT of nuclear material, potentially at risk of environmental exposure, compared to the amount of nuclear fuel at Chernobyl? We like FACTS, not BS.

OK 'bert, how 'bout YOU stun us with your comprehensive knowledge and perfect understanding the the subject and its related issues and expose calmly and clearly where the other posters flubbed and what really happened and what consequence's are to be expected?

Why don't you answer my question -

Why don't you tell us about the AMOUNT of nuclear material, potentially at risk of environmental exposure, compared to the amount of nuclear fuel at Chernobyl? We like FACTS, not BS.

- rather than employing typical fundie evasion tactics.

a) because I don't have the answer, not that the question was asked of me.
b) because the way you have been contemptuous and dismissive, you obviously know the answer better than anybody else on these boards
c) because I am the one asking you to stop basking in your smugness and to share your expertise with us and to correct my ignorant and misdirected colleagues

[egbert]

But golly, FOUR COUNT 'EM FOUR reactors sounds a lot scarier.

Why don't you tell us about the AMOUNT of nuclear material, potentially at risk of environmental exposure, compared to the amount of nuclear fuel at Chernobyl? We like FACTS, not BS.

OK 'bert, how 'bout YOU stun us with your comprehensive knowledge and perfect understanding the the subject and its related issues and expose calmly and clearly where the other posters flubbed and what really happened and what consequence's are to be expected?

I already have. Unfortunately, it's hardly fair of you to expect ME to overcome other's reading comprehension problems and aversion to critical thinking.
See, if someone wants to believe that the Chernobyl incident was caused by graphite explosions, or holy water miracles, I've got better things to do with my time that try to dissuade such delusions. After all, the full IAEA reports are available with only a little typing and a mouse click or two. Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever.
And, if someone wants to mock me because I point out that four burning reactors and five burning/boiling spent fuel pools are more of a potential hazard that a single runaway reactor, why should I expend a moment of my time arguing the point.

[JimC]

Advice: more time looking at information, less time posting. The hydrogen explosions removed secondary containment. The issue at Chernobyl was an exposed reactor core being torn apart by graphite explosions.

Well, gee, I defer to your obvious VASTLY superior nuclear knowledge. "Graphite explosions", huh?

Well, it happens to be true that the Chernobyl reactor design included a graphite moderator, whose combustion after the initial failure was a major factor in the explosion which spread fission products far and wide...

Back pedalling from "Graphite explosions" as "the issue" at Chernobyl, are we?

I don't back pedal...

It's just that your extremely witty post seemed to suggest that graphite had nothing to do with Chernobyl. Of course, it was not an ultimate cause, but the combustion of the graphite was responsible for the explosive release of a large amount of highly radioactive material. That particular possibility is absent from Fukishima...