1 posted on
03/13/2011 9:24:19 AM PDT by
Qbert
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: Qbert
2 posted on
03/13/2011 9:31:04 AM PDT by
goodnesswins
(Unlike the West, the Islamic world is serious.)
To: Qbert
4 posted on
03/13/2011 9:37:50 AM PDT by
EBH
( Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.)
To: Qbert
5 posted on
03/13/2011 9:39:06 AM PDT by
SteamShovel
("Does the noise in my head bother you?")
To: Qbert
Very lucid explanation. This guy should be on TV every channel. Thanks for posting this.
To: Qbert
We have our hysteria, its ours, we worked for it, we earned it and nobody is going to take it away!
7 posted on
03/13/2011 9:43:59 AM PDT by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Qbert
Fascinating stuff - thanks for posting.
8 posted on
03/13/2011 9:46:49 AM PDT by
andyk
(Wealth != Income)
To: Qbert
” But you will know more about nuclear power plants after reading it “.
And I thank you for that Qbert,
Good job
9 posted on
03/13/2011 9:50:31 AM PDT by
Joe Boucher
((FUBO))
To: Qbert
Best... Analysis... Yet...
Bravo!
To: Qbert
Thank you. Very interesting.
12 posted on
03/13/2011 10:00:33 AM PDT by
JimSEA
To: Qbert
Thanks for the post, but I’ll be damned before I hang out near that plant.
13 posted on
03/13/2011 10:05:12 AM PDT by
eyedigress
((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
To: Qbert
Thanks for the information. I haven't had time to read the whole article and am wondering if their spent-fuel facilities are safe. They have over fifty nuclear plants so there must be a lot of waste somewhere.
Afterthought . . . maybe your knowledge could be used in a constructive way to clean up the mess (among others) left at Hanford, Washington.
14 posted on
03/13/2011 10:05:50 AM PDT by
TiaS
To: Qbert
The Japanese BWRs do not have a core catcher. There is nothing like that incorporated in GE’s design unless it was some sort of add-on. At TMI the internals in the reactor including the fuel rods, control rods and the stainless steel rack support structures completely melted. All of that ended up in the bottom of the reactor looking like a pile of rubble. The reactor (4” thick steel) was never breached.
15 posted on
03/13/2011 10:10:59 AM PDT by
meatloaf
To: Qbert
To: Qbert; andyk
Fascinating stuff - thanks for posting.I agree. Thanks Qbert and thank to Dr Josef Oehmen.
17 posted on
03/13/2011 10:23:19 AM PDT by
PGalt
To: Qbert
Good post. Mostly accurate.
18 posted on
03/13/2011 10:23:31 AM PDT by
Nuc 1.1
(Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
To: Qbert; andyk
Fascinating stuff - thanks for posting.I agree. Thanks Qbert and thanks to Dr Josef Oehmen.
19 posted on
03/13/2011 10:23:41 AM PDT by
PGalt
To: Qbert
I wish this could be posted on the Front Page, I am SO tired of the chicken Littles on every quake thread on FR....
To: Qbert
I bow to your excellent post.
Love the fact that the material has a half life of mere seconds and is not really a threat.
Further, the entire containment system and Dr. Oehmen’s explanation is superb.
Now I can go on about my day and give a quick tutorial to others, hopefully giving them ease of mind.
21 posted on
03/13/2011 10:28:16 AM PDT by
Vendome
("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
To: Qbert
Thank you!
The reporting has been atrocious.
24 posted on
03/13/2011 10:36:48 AM PDT by
FrogMom
(There is no such thing as an honest democrat!)
To: Qbert
Very informative.
Can anyone verify there is, in fact, a 3rd containment at the reactor in question?
25 posted on
03/13/2011 10:37:36 AM PDT by
Mariner
(USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson