It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The main reason why thorium isn't used is because it doesn't appear in deposits that can be mined. Uranium can be mined. Thorium is found in areas where rare earth is found (I believe). To get any quantity of thorium 1000's of tons of earth must be refined. I don't know exactly how much. I understood that uranium leads to enriched plutonium and is desirable for creating nuclear weapons but the fact is, you can't really get at a usable amount of thorium. Sad but true.
First off we need to talk about the actual structural design of these buildings.
The "floors" in the GE Mark I and Mark II containment are primarily supported by the containment vessel, not the outer wall. The containment has minimal structural damage compared to the outer part of the reactor building which consists of blowout panels and a frame only designed to carry a small amount of building load under normal conditions.
The site has already had structural support added to the #4 spent fuel pool and additional supports are going to be added. There definitely is a degradation of total structural integrity, however with supports installed the only way the spent fuel pool would have a catastrophic failure was if the entire reactor building had a catastrophic failure, which is unlikely given that the containment structure (which holds the majority of the structural load) is intact and was not put under the same tensile stresses that units 1-3 containments were. (The tensile stress was caused by units 1 through 3 reaching up to double their design pressure). This gives a level of assurance that the containment is structurally intact, as tensile stress is primarily what causes cracking in concrete.
Back to the point, you would need an earthquake capable of damaging the entire containment structure JUST to have a potential failure of the pool integrity, which is unlikely. Assuming this did happen, and the pools fell, the site would be evacuated. The only recourse then is to somehow get shielding over the fuel (>6ft of water or equivalent), as even a single unexposed spent nuclear fuel bundle can kill someone in minutes, and the radiation dose rates shining off the sky will be on the order of 10 mSv/hr at the site boundary up to >1000 Sv/Hr near the fuel. Covering the fuel with concrete may be a temporary stopgap, but it would have to be done from the air and would be incredibly dangerous. People say the fukushima 50 risked their lives, but what they did was a slight increase in risk compared to what you would have to do to handle this situation.
Assuming an abandonment of the site you would have the eventual loss and breakdown of cooling at all 6 units, boildown, meltdown, and uncontrolled release of radioactivity. It would not have a significant global impact, however a much larger radius of Japan would become contaminated to various degrees. It is a not a good outcome, however it is a worst case outcome and likely not a realistic one.
He is on the following thread at reddit, 2nd post dowb at this link
He also chimes in on some other threads covering Q's and Answers to do with "Reactor 4 Fuel Rods & Worldwide Mass Extinction?" that you can check out here
The upper part of the Reactor Building of Unit 4 was damaged due to a hydrogen explosion. We confirmed the items below and affirm that the building, including its spent fuel pool will not collapse should another earthquake occur.
1) We measured the distance between the water surface of the spent fuel pool and the floor surface of the building, and confirmed that the building has not tilted.
2) Our analyses show that the building, including the spent fuel pool, will not collapse even if an earthquake equivalent (seismic intensity 6) to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake occurs in the area.
3) In addition, we have improved the seismic safety margin by 20% by reinforcing the bottom of the spent fuel pool.
4) We will regularly check the reactor building and the spent fuel pool four times per year to confirm their soundness.
* Please refer to the attachment for the details of 1) to 4). (Attachment): We affirm that the reactor building and the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 will not collapse in the event of an earthquake. (PDF 162KB)
Originally posted by Gwampo
I feel like people aren't taking this issue seriously enough.. Who exactly is over there working to solve the problem? TEPCO or whoever?
2) Our analyses show that the building, including the spent fuel pool, will not collapse even if an earthquake equivalent (seismic intensity 6) to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake occurs in the area.
Originally posted by Maxmars
- We can't predict earthquakes, but there will surely be more;
based on mass and material, any disaster will result in an unmanageable scenario
millions of lives are at stake
we are purposefully deprived of factual unfiltered data, and
many officials are exclaiming the serious nature of our failure to act proactively.
Originally posted by Unity_99
PLUS USE THE REVERSE SINE TECHNOLOGY AND FREQUENCY ON THE RADIATION TO NEUTRALIZE IT.