Japan's nuclear reactors

Here's a link to a good explanation of what happened and why. Written up by some MIT people.

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

My prayers are with the people in Japan. 

My guess is those "mit people" have connections to GE and are trying to mitigate liability. Did you read the disclaimer?
Also the updates at the end seem incomplete. Seems like the japanese govt has admitted to a likley failure of at least one containment vessel likely fuel melting and radiation leakage. Do you remeber the govt/industry disinfo spread in the wake
3mi island? The situation has been rated as a 6 out of 7 in scale of severity. Personally im not that optimistic.
I wish the best for the Japanese people in this time of their living nightmare.

 

Ok go google the author of that piece jim posted. Mit maybe, physics NO! Hes got an MBA and studies risk management for large corporations. Buisness scum spewing lies to manage the risk of liability to the companies involved. Hes NOT a scientist. Take his word as you wish. As I type this fradulent puff piece is being debunked by trustworthy online news sources.

http://www.dcbureau.org/201103151304/Natural-Resources-News-Service/is-airborne-plutonium-a-threat-from-reactor-number-three.html

  Not so. One of the reactors uses  Mox fuel rods that are a mix of plutonium and uranium. Do a search for" mox + Japan" and check it out.

   One atom of of plutonium inhaled is bad news.

  I love Kurosawa movies.  Rented "Throne of Blood' last week just before the quake.
   
     Prayers.

Sharky, I was under the impression that a MIT student had written that. As of early yesterday that was the best explanation of what had occurred to that point in time that I could find. Since then the situation has become worse and I'm betting the guy that originally penned & titled that piece, on his personal blog, is wishing he had titled it differently. Those reactors were built to withstand big quakes but apparently not big, bigger than ever, tsunamis which took out the diesel generators needed for the cooling pumps when the quake knocked out the power. Hopefully the worst has past. jim

Yea Jim, it seems that some actual MIT physics profs were so alarmed with his piece that they edited some of the scientific inaccuracies. They didnt edit the intent. That doset change the fact that he is not a physics expert.

and the latest:  Radiation levels force workers to abandon nuke plant...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hr2sPhUE6ja0EMclJeUeGSQAON-g?docId=7e3dd7128b804f5d965554ff69375e76

Little irony in the name of that place FUKUShima

Sharky, yeah I never read what he originally blogged. I was just surfing the web looking for a better explanation of what had gone wrong at that first power plant and found that. I heard on the radio today that they were getting ready to decommision that plant this year. What a nightmare they've got going over there. jim

Here's another link to a 13 part pictorial description of what happened to the reactors. jim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12726591

If I hear another pundit/expert/reporter talk about the radiation falling harmlessly into the pacific, I'm gonna hunt them down and give them a nuclear wedgie. obviously its a  far better outcome, but hardly harmless.

My question is, when all is said and done, would they rebuild their Nuc reactors? IMO, it doesn't seem safe to build one (or a few) in an Island nation where earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons are prevalent. I'm no expert on the matter but perhaps I'm making some sense?  Is the juice worth the squeeze? (got that from a movie )

It's a conudrum wrapped in a riddle.  A catch-22.

They have very little natural resources, so if no nukes they'd have to go back to plundering China and burning coal.

It's a conudrum wrapped in a riddle.  A catch-22.

They have very little natural resources, so if no nukes they'd have to go back to plundering China and burning coal.

I agree, they need nuk power. Thise are the loder style. The newer ones are way more efficient, safer, and have VERY little waste. They should have never been that close to the ocean (sea level) though. They have plenty of land that is 40'+ above sea level. If it wasn't for the tsunami, we wouldn't even be talking about this still. They would have used back-up power until regular power was restored. Weather you agree/disagree, nuk power is one of the most efficient and cleanest power sourses.