Reactor #4 Completely Breached

reply to post by MindSpin


Oooh "Warlord" what a fear mongery sounding title. *Shivers*

Give the OP a break. He may not have the facts 100% straight, but he is not fear mongering. Are you going to condemn him for having emotions and fears and getting caught up in this? He may not be "to the T" but his intent is honest. Tell me, please, under what conditions is a person going to selectively ingest, imbibe, consume, ONE particle of Plutonium anyway??

If inhaled into the body, the alpha particle will go in through the respiratory tract, and enter the lung. Due to its long half-life, it will stay in the body permanently, emitting alpha radiation, and killing the surrounding tissues by strong ionization.

Hmm, surrounding tissue killed...yeah that sounds like it could certainly lead to death to me. But then again, a bullet to the brain is death too right? Oh but no, people HAVE survived such things. You are taking the OP's word as if he is stating a finite fact. In most cases YES plutonium in small amounts is death. Just like bullets to the head are death. What you are doing is splitting hairs, sitting back and getting a giggle out of hurting the feelings of someone that is already worried, freaked and concerned for the humans caught in this. I wouldn't worry about the OP "Fear mongering" I would worry about Mister Warlord showing NO emotion, callously stating "facts" about a devastating situation.

Oh and you seem to deny the danger of spent fuel rods.
Here:

I would love to see a source that spent fuel can start an active nuclear reaction if they get too hot.

The fuel rods, which are highly radioactive, also stay thermally hot. They can potentially get hot enough to melt, in which case the structures keeping them together are compromised. That results in a release of radiation.

techyum.com...

Now do I ahve to link you to a definition of a Nuclear reaction?
I don't like spoon feeding people.

Yes, the rods can melt down once exposed. At that point, they can either break apart and end up in the sky, or they can melt down into the ground, and get into the environment that way. This can be researched online, or just watch CNN - they've had several nuclear experts on in the last few days who have said just this. Either way is a bad situation.

Also, a fire ignited at Reactor 4, thought to be caused by a large pile of spent fuel rods in a pond. Spent fuel rods need to be kept fully submerged in water for cooling, but the lack of water has left some of the rods partially exposed. Smoke from the fire temporarily increased radiation levels around the reactor, so preventing future fires is very important. The Fukushima plant has seven ponds of spent fuel rods from the past few decades. By some estimates, there may be as many as half a million spent fuel rods that are still radioactive and could catch fire if not kept cool

One word for Mindspin, and Ultra thingy (sorry can't remember your name)

GUTTED !!!

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


So you retain the risk of cancer for over 150,000 years? Just the fact that they say this should tell you this author is fear mongering, just like you are. In this day and age you find a quote from a fear mongerer on just about everything.

lol @ all the people that think because they call them spent fuel rods that they are not dangerous or capable of sustaining fission if they are in a critical mass... the reality is wet storage is so dangerous because the mass of nuclear material is so close together that without the moderating effect of water the radiation can start triggering and generating MORE HEAT... which would be a NUCLEAR REACTION.

And if you get enough of it together especially considering the coating they use on the pools you have a bad situation. cannot remember the name of it they have made rotary engine blocks out of it though it's a ceramic.

As far as sources... I won't bother reposting the same sources which are ALL OVER the ten thousand threads about this. Honestly much of this information is stuff I've learned recently as the intricacies of nuclear power generation were not high on my list of stuff to study. BUT I did indeed take the time to read the sources before I started calling people on stuff.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

So you retain the risk of cancer for over 150,000 years? Just the fact that they say this should tell you this author is fear mongering, just like you are. In this day and age you find a quote from a fear mongerer on just about everything.

You know if you try to warn someone, someone else already could say fear mongerer.
But if the facts are correct, the one's who says fear mongerer are suffering from collective self-deception.