Posted on 08/18/2013 6:40:01 PM PDT by SteveH
Even the tiniest mistake during an operation to extract over 1,300 fuel rods at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan could lead to a series of cascading failures with an apocalyptic outcome, fallout researcher Christina Consolo told RT.
Fukushima operator TEPCO wants to extract 400 tons worth of spent fuel rods stored in a pool at the plant’s damaged Reactor No. 4. The removal would have to be done manually from the top store of the damaged building in the radiation-contaminated environment.
In the worst-case scenario, a mishandled rod may go critical, resulting in an above-ground meltdown releasing radioactive fallout with no way to stop it, said Consolo, who is the founder and host of Nuked Radio. But leaving the things as they are is not an option, because statistical risk of a similarly bad outcome increases every day, she said.
RT: How serious is the fuel rod situation compared to the danger of contaminated water build-up which we already know about?
Christina Consolo: Although fuel rod removal happens on a daily basis at the 430+ nuclear sites around the world, it is a very delicate procedure even under the best of circumstances. What makes fuel removal at Fukushima so dangerous and complex is that it will be attempted on a fuel pool whose integrity has been severely compromised. However, it must be attempted as Reactor 4 has the most significant problems structurally, and this pool is on the top floor of the building.
There are numerous other reasons that this will be a dangerous undertaking.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
I should probably get some of that.
“exactly - I am disheartened by even Freeepers ignorance on this -”
It is how you pick out the people that you know that you don’t want to listen to. If they can dismiss such obvious harm then why listen to them on anything else. I wish I could get those people to all go for an extended Chemotherapy treatment.
Not necessarily. It looks like she is highly qualified to photograph the hysteria.
It depends on the difference between relative and absolute measurements. Natural exposures vary enormously due to mere geography, using relative measurements, due to radon from thorium in granite. Areas with really rocky ground and lots of basements can even have biologically significant exposures. Areas with alluvial soils don’t have this problem at all.
Doomies emit alarm, mismeasurements, lies and ignorance concerning anything nuclear.
______________________________
I understand the differences between absolute and relative measurements. I understand the different exposures people receive due to variations in natural sources, types of strata. I understand that basements can have biologically significant exposures. Geology plays a role in background sources - yes.
Do you understand how Fukushima is unrelated to these variations? For example - do you understand the differences between radon in a basement and exposure to radioactive wastes distributed en masse daily from Fukushima? Further, threads like these are not lamenting exposure to natural sources. Threads like these lament the incompetence of the nuke industry which is damaging the health of the human population and lying about it.
Supposedly nuclear experts would have at their disposal accurate information to share with the public. Fukushima has shown me that nuclear types routinely excuse incompetent mismanagement and deception by citing false or unrelated information about radiation as if they were knowledgeable on the subject. The dosimetry calculations that nuke engineers have thrown in my face while demanding I perform the calculations and post them and “show my work” don’t even take into account the way in which potassium in bananas differs from radioactive cesium from Fukushima.
Incompetence, ignorance and lies from the nuke industry and they have no clue that the calculations they are using are not accurate even if the numbers falsely (obviously) indicate that radioactive cesium is less harmful than the natural radiation in bananas. I mean where is the “professional development” on the part of the nuclear industry if I am the one that has to point out that radon is not relevant to this discussion? Why don’t their employees and supporters know anything about how radiation damages human tissues and how one source of radiation can cause such different damage compared with other sources of radiation?
Doomies? Is that the new name nuke apologists like to call people who have bothered to study the issue and understand the medical effects and long term ramifications of what’s going on in Fukushima and are sharing this information with the public? No one is panicking here.
“a mishandled rod may go critical”
I don’t think a single rod can go critical under any circumstances.
____________________________________________________
Supposedly a broken rod can lose “cooling geometry” (e.g., crumble into a pile at the bottom of the tank in such a way that water cannot sufficiently circulate to keep it cool). If it melts in water it can melt through the tank and if water drains out of the tank then all those tons of fuel evaporate into the air or melt through the remaining tank. Many caution scenarios involve anything that would make the area too radioactive to be serviced by people so that the fuel remains immersed and cool.
I was very likely familiar with these matters before you were born, and have ruined careers over radiological matters.
Doomie: The new name nuke apologists like to call people who have bothered to study the issue and understand the medical effects and long term ramifications of what’s going on in Fukushima and are sharing this information with the public.
Fukushima is very bad, but an article from RT(!) saying that millions wil die makes it funny.
Chernobyl, anyone?
Well it did seem a tad bit emotional.
Billions indeed.
:-))
You make FR look like a joke by posting material from RT.com.
Nuke power is dangerous. More so than coal. The trick is to manage the risk. But as with all risk management, that comes with a cost. At some point the ones writing the check will tell you to stop spending money on risk management.
My plant has a lot of chemicals that fall under the “dangerous” heading. But the likelihood of anything impressive happening is slight, so we don't try to manage every known risk. For instance, the building would not survive a jumbo jet hitting it.
For us, worst case is we vent ammonia, and make a big sticky mess. For a nuke plant, you have a melt down (much more impressive).
Limited? That's funny, he has zero credibility.
Maybe Obama could start a war with Japan. After all, they are causing millions of deaths.
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.