The "scream" face looks like an upside-down GE Mark I BWR reactor primary containment structure.
Posted on 03/17/2011 10:39:24 AM PDT by milwguy
The media as usual is Waaayyy behind the curve. To anyone with a basic understanding of what is going on in Japan, it is obvious containment has been lost at a minimum of three reactors, #1,#3, and #4. The ability to restore electricity and cooling (doubtful due to the damage of the explosions) to the reactors does not change the fact that radiation is leaking from the site in vast quantities.
The Russians in sense had an easier problem to deal with because the reactor blew up, spewing a lot of the fuel asemblies and radioactive stuff hundreds of meters from the plant. The reaction kept going, but it was only at one plant and a lot of the fuel was ejected by the explosion, not 3 or 4 like in Japan......The Russians (and I think the Japanese) only solution was to entomb the destroyed reactor and building that housed it.....Here is how they had to do it................
The designing of the sarcophagus started on May, 20, 1986. Subsequent construction lasted for 206 days, from June to late November of the same year.[2] The first task before construction started was to build a cooling slab under the reactor to prevent the hot nuclear fuel from burning a hole in the base. Coal miners were called up to dig the necessary tunnel below the reactor and by June 24, 1986 four hundred coal miners had built the 168 metre (551 ft) long tunnel.[4] When the building became overly radioactive it became impossible to directly screw down the nuts and bolts or apply any direct welding to the sarcophagus, so this work was done by robots.[1] The seams of the sarcophagus, however, were not properly sealed. The entire construction process consisted of eight stages: clearing and concreting of territory around reactor unit 4, erection of initial ferro-concrete protective walls around the perimeter, construction of separation walls between units 3 and 4, cascade wall construction, covering of the turbine hall, mounting of a high-rise buttress wall, erection of supports and installation of a reactor compartment covering and finally the installation of a ventilation system.
More than 400,000 m3 of concrete and 7,300 tonnes of metal framework were used during the erection of the sarcophagus.[2] The building ultimately enclosed 740,000 m3 of heavily contaminated debris inside,[1] together with contaminated soil.[4] On October 11, 1986 the Soviet Governmental Commission accepted "Conclusion on Reliability and Durability of a Covering Constructions and Radiation Safety of Chernobyl NPP Unit 4 Reactor Compartment".[5] The sarcophagus has over 60 bore holes to allow observation of the interior of the core.[6] In many places the structure was designed to have ventilation shafts to allow some convection inside.[6] Filtration systems have been put in place so that no radioactive material will escape through these holes.[6]
When a relative newbie is pushing the same agenda of fear-mongering as the MSM, expect to get questioned roughly.
I tried to put some perspective to historical events that people already know the results.
I think some people are afraid from lack of knowledge and that can be fixed, right here on Free Republic.
I think those that give false information or questionable information should be challenged to support it. I've made mistakes and had correction made as well.
Nobody has asked me what I believe...but they sure are quick to ridicule, call names, threaten...
Relative newbie? Oh, I must not be a freeper as long as you, eh?
fearmongering, to you is me posting info I have found or repeated...
Not very tolerant of other’s posts are you?
Let us put that in perspective. At that level, if you stayed there for an hour, you would receive the equivalent dosage of an upper GI tract X-ray or a CT Colonography.
8,912 microsieverts/hr = 8.9 millisieverts/hr
Radiation Exposure in X-ray and CT Examination
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray
You don't want to get Medical X-ray's all day long, but being exposed to few isn't causing long term damage. It is why they are rotating workers in and out. And the values have since lowered.
You probably want to quote that one, then, if your point is that the level is dangerous to human health. The other one is pretty tame in comparison, and personally I could have no problem walking past or through that environment, or even performing tasks in it (the lower levey you quoted before)
Do you know, is that high level sustained, or did it peak at that level, and for how long?
Those are important questions to ask when you are trying to determine risk when dealing with radiation.
I thought that was how you and I started this last round.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2690331/posts?page=38#38
You asked?
First words, post #38,
“I ask this in all seriousness. Do you actually believe...”
The "scream" face looks like an upside-down GE Mark I BWR reactor primary containment structure.
I'll drop it or take the conversation to private messages if you prefer.
I’m not very tolerant of the spread of known idiocy and/or fear mongering.
Why do you ask?
According to the latest reports, the fire trucks were successful, and the temperature was lowered in the #3 spent fuel ponds, although the radiation level at that reactor was unchanged, I believe at 3.7 milliseverts/hour.
At that level, a worker could spend up to 69 hours there, and then would not be allowed any more exposure for a year. But that is the “safety factor” value; you could spend 278 hours at 3.7 millisevierts/hour before you would likely show signs of radiation sickness.
So stop doing it then.
Reactor #3 had readings of over 8900 millisieverts an hour earlier today. I am not sure where you are getting your info. The fire trucks, according to the info I saw on Japanese Tv were not successful, and spent less than 30 minutes spraying water at the reactor. They had to withdraw due to high radiation levels and the water did not get into the building
There isn’t an inherent relative worth in two people’s beliefs when dealing with physics or mathematics.
One person can believe that high taxes are bad and another may believe that high taxes are ruinous, and there may be a case made by each person that can be evaluated.
But when someone says that 292 microsieverts/hour is an indication that an environment is too hot to work in and is further evidence that a situation is out of control, where someone else says it is not indicative of those things at all and has a large body of research and derived information to back it up, then it it is not a situation of people agreeing to disagree.
Facts are facts, and as thackney pointed out, we all get them wrong occasionally. Pointing out errors that distort a situation does not make someone a shill for the nuclear industry, an ostrich, a troll, a visitor from DU or an “Obamaite”.
weird how you cut the rest of that sentence off...because you did not ask me what I thought...you asked me did I seriously think —and then you put the words there...not me.
That is not asking what one thinks....I never said I thought those things, you made an accusation, asking me If I seriously believed it....
Your accusations are yours.
who is ‘someone’ who said 292 ?
agreed.....A lot of conflicting infomation has come out about the radiation levels. I try to quote what I hear at this link because it is from Japan and the TEPCO guys are often shown speaking to the press.
http://globaltravelerinternational.blogspot.com/2011/03/nhk-tokyo-japan-live-tv.html
You clearly do mean to hound me.
and I see no reason whatsoever this need be done ‘in private’ unless you want insults not published that would have to be removed...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.