Is Fukushima About to Blow?


mt_pockets1000
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But the earthquake didn't cause any damage to the plant, so what's that got to do with anything?

Tell me you're not serious. I must have been watching a different news story then, because I swear I heard the earthquake occurred causing a massive tsunami knocking out the power plant? If you want to split hairs on whether the earthquake caused the problem be my guest.
 
Johnny Utah
+1
#32

 
Walter
#33
I fondly remember a former girlfriend who was always about to blow.
 
MHz
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000View Post

I must have been watching a different news story then, because I swear I heard the earthquake occurred causing a massive tsunami knocking out the power plant? If you want to split hairs on whether the earthquake caused the problem be my guest.

That may have been the cause of any pipes/connection being damaged as they could survive a little stream of water. The crane that is said to have fallen into one of the pools is not a light piece and it was some floors aboce the high water mark. Is that a design flaw or was it just in the wrong place at the wrong time? (above the pool)
Maybe next time it will be emergency generators up high (and dry) and radioactive goodies kept in the lower oarts (that can be entirely filled with water and whatever)

Even if the power company and/or design company were found guilty they would keep it in court till nobody cared anymore. Exxon didn't pay all their fines and the GOM show that even man-made disasters are passed onto the tax-payers, and even then they get a ****ty job for the amount they dish out. Why would Japan be any different. Haiti has no real wealth, look how far long they aren't in all that time that has passed. The reconstruction should be over than than not having started yet.
 
TenPenny
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000View Post

Tell me you're not serious. I must have been watching a different news story then, because I swear I heard the earthquake occurred causing a massive tsunami knocking out the power plant? If you want to split hairs on whether the earthquake caused the problem be my guest.

What you've just said above is almost correct, however, it only confirms that what you said earlier was incorrect. The earthquake did not damage the plant.
 
mt_pockets1000
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

What you've just said above is almost correct, however, it only confirms that what you said earlier was incorrect. The earthquake did not damage the plant.

Continue to split hairs if you must. But before you go any further, do yourself a favor and go back and read my post my quibbling friend. Nowhere did I say the earthquake caused the problem. I simply pointed out that building a nuclear plant in an earthquake zone is asking for trouble. Just ask any 12 year old.

Tsunamis don't just form out of thin air (or calm waters). Some external force (like, say, an earthquake under the ocean floor!) must be present that causes displacement of the water with enough force to inflict damage such as we're seeing in Japan today. And as MHz said, we don't yet know how much damage the initial force of the earthquake had on the plant prior to the tsunami hitting the coast. A 9.0 magnitude quake would jar your teeth and shake you to the bone. I can't imagine the impact it would have on rigid piping, wiring & conduit, motor mountings, communications and a whole host of other systems within the plant.
 
TenPenny
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000View Post

Continue to split hairs if you must. But before you go any further, do yourself a favor and go back and read my post my quibbling friend. Nowhere did I say the earthquake caused the problem. I simply pointed out that building a nuclear plant in an earthquake zone is asking for trouble. Just ask any 12 year old.

And now, before you turn 13 and enter puberty, reread my post, which asked: why is it asking for trouble, since the earthquake didn't cause any damage to the plant?

Would it not be better to avoid building a nuclear plant in a tsunami zone, since it was the tsunami that knocked out the diesels that caused the problem?
 
MHz
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Would it not be better to avoid building a nuclear plant in a tsunami zone, since it was the tsunami that knocked out the diesels that caused the problem?

In hindsight, that would be true. In foresight how do they maintain current levels of power production (before the quake) without nuclear power. If anybody is allowed to find an alternative it should be them just due to it being in their own best interest in the short and long terms.

Just because this looks like it might take some time I would like to ask this question. In keeping with the concept that 'sinister' does exist why are these 4 reactors all messed up while the 2 that were just a short distance away not damaged to any great degree (that I have heard). The same quake and the same wave would have hit them. They are probably the newest ones built so did they have some upgrades to them or did stuxnet infect those systems. that failed and had not been in the two reactors that were separated by some distance. That would put the hackers who made it responsible for all damages, watch Tokyo power up the amount of damages. It's like hitting a egg-laying chicken in Mexico, suddenly the dead bird become the most beloved member of the 'large family' when the Judge is the one who is listening.
 
CDNBear
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

stuxnet

See, I knew it was the Joos!!!
 
MHz
#40
Maybe they didn't know who wanted to use the basement floors under their own reactor for some experiments? Looks like OBL got past their security, ....... AGAIN
 
CDNBear
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Maybe they didn't know who wanted to use the basement floors under their own reactor for some experiments? Looks like OSB got past their security, ....... AGAIN

OSB?

Oriented Strand Board?

Ontario Savings Bonds?

Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy?

Old Silly Bears?
 
MHz
#42
None of the above, I usually do my editing after I hit the post, habit I picked on on boards that used to disconnect after a certain time. Apparently sometimes I don't get that done fast enough.
 
CDNBear
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

None of the above, I usually do my editing after I hit the post, habit I picked on on boards that used to disconnect after a certain time. Apparently sometimes I don't get that done fast enough.

So which is it? OBL or the Joos, behind the earthquake?
 
TenPenny
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

In hindsight, that would be true. In foresight how do they maintain current levels of power production (before the quake) without nuclear power. If anybody is allowed to find an alternative it should be them just due to it being in their own best interest in the short and long terms.

Just because this looks like it might take some time I would like to ask this question. In keeping with the concept that 'sinister' does exist why are these 4 reactors all messed up while the 2 that were just a short distance away not damaged to any great degree (that I have heard). The same quake and the same wave would have hit them. They are probably the newest ones built so did they have some upgrades to them or did stuxnet infect those systems. that failed and had not been in the two reactors that were separated by some distance. That would put the hackers who made it responsible for all damages, watch Tokyo power up the amount of damages. It's like hitting a egg-laying chicken in Mexico, suddenly the dead bird become the most beloved member of the 'large family' when the Judge is the one who is listening.

Reactor units 5 and 6
Both reactors were off line at the time the earthquake struck (reactor 5 had been shut down on 3 January 2011 and reactor 6 on 14 August 2010), although they were still fueled, unlike reactor 4 where the fuel rods had been removed prior to the earthquake.[243] (external - login to view)
Government spokesman Edano stated on 15 March that reactors 5 and 6 were being closely monitored, as cooling processes were not functioning well.[252] (external - login to view)[280] (external - login to view) At 09:16 JST the removal of roof panels from reactor buildings 5 and 6 was being considered in order to allow any hydrogen build-up to escape.[2] (external - login to view) At 21:00 on 15 March, water levels in unit 5 were reported to be 2 m above fuel rods, but were falling at a rate of 8 cm per hour.[2] (external - login to view)
On 17 March, Unit 6 was reported to have operational diesel-generated power and this was to be used to power pumps in unit 5 to run the Make up Water Condensate System (MUWC) to supply more water.[2] (external - login to view) Preparations were made to inject water into the reactor pressure vessel once external power could be restored to the plant, as water levels in the reactors were said to be declining.[2] (external - login to view) It was estimated that grid power might be restored on 20 March through cables laid from a new temporary supply being constructed at units 1 and 2.[281] (external - login to view)
Information provided to the IAEA indicated that storage pool temperatures at both units 5 and 6 remained steady around 6068 C between 19:00 JST 14 March and 21:00 JST 18 March, though rising slowly.[2] (external - login to view) On 18 March reactor water levels remained around 2m above the top of fuel rods.[164] (external - login to view)[281] (external - login to view) It was confirmed that panels had been removed from the roofs of units 5 and 6 to allow any hydrogen gas to escape.[2] (external - login to view) At 04:22 on 19 March the second unit of emergency generator A for unit 6 was restarted which allowed operation of pump C of the residual heat removal system (RHR) in unit 5 to cool the spent fuel storage pool.[282] (external - login to view) Later in the day pump B in unit 6 was also restarted to allow cooling of the spent fuel pool there.[2] (external - login to view)[283] (external - login to view) Temperature at unit 5 pool decreased to 48 C on 19 March 18:00 JST,[284] (external - login to view) and 37 C on 20 March when unit 6 pool temperature had fallen to 41 C.[63] (external - login to view) On 20 March NISA announced that both reactors had been returned to a condition of cold shutdown.[65] (external - login to view) External power was partially restored to unit 5 via transformers at unit 6 connected to the Yonoromi power transmission line on 21 March.[65] (external - login to view)
On 23 March, it was reported that the cooling pump at reactor No 5 stopped working when it was transferred from backup power to the grid supply.[285] (external - login to view)[286] (external - login to view) This was repaired and the cooling restarted approximately 24 hours later. RHR cooling in unit 6 was switched to the permanent power supply on 25 March[287 (external - login to view)
 
mt_pockets1000
#45
And now, before you turn 13 and enter puberty, reread my post, which asked: why is it asking for trouble, since the earthquake didn't cause any damage to the plant?

You have that on good authority? Building a nuclear plant in an earthquake zone is tempting fate. Sooner or later you're gonna get burned.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny:1401534

Would it not be better to avoid building a nuclear plant in a tsunami zone, since it was the tsunami that knocked out the diesels that caused the problem?

Sounds logical to me. That would cover most coastlines along the Pacific Ocean, including California.
 
petros
#46
Well Gents. Japan "had" a 10m Tsunami wall protecting 60% of it's coastline. They never thought of the ground dropping by a couple meters during a quake. At Sundai this happened. If the ground had not have dropped, the wall would have stopped the wave.
 
EagleSmack
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000View Post

Sounds logical to me. That would cover most coastlines along the Pacific Ocean, including California.


Including California!!!!!! Holy CRAP!

Well no kidding, geez.
 
MHz
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

So which is it? OBL or the Joos, behind the earthquake?

Security contracts, 9/11, their own nuclear plant (as that is the facility the virus came from) and Japan where they had the security contracts (apparently). Notice they were the first to voice that food was being banned, I believe it was Kosher Sushi. How it got started is irrelevant at this point for Japan, as for the safety of many in the future some actual changes might be in order. That is the financiers of all large projects, the collective known as the elite bankers. If their had been an uproar from the world community when Union Carbide gassed a whole bunch of people in India. Stockholder were happy to see the settlement and cleanup cost as little as possible, that hasn't changed except it is more blatant as it has gotten worse. The GOM being the last best example.

naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=604AB3...F6E34EC5E8C8A0 (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Well Gents. Japan "had" a 10m Tsunami wall protecting 60% of it's coastline. They never thought of the ground dropping by a couple meters during a quake. At Sundai this happened. If the ground had not have dropped, the wall would have stopped the wave.

So the wave wasn't too tall, .... the shore was too short. There is something a little disturbing about that. I read one report that said they were only 20ft above sea level, before the drop. If that was the original design would an option have been move to ground that is 50 ft higher and scrap the wall altogether as part of the protection for the plant

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

On 23 March, it was reported that the cooling pump at reactor No 5 stopped working when it was transferred from backup power to the grid supply.[285] (external - login to view)[286] (external - login to view) This was repaired and the cooling restarted approximately 24 hours later. RHR cooling in unit 6 was switched to the permanent power supply on 25 March[287 (external - login to view)

Thanks, not as safe as I thought. If any of the others go then all 6 are going to pop.
Going with stuxnet is that similar to what would happen, 24 hrs to restart a pump that is simply shut down for a few moments.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post


Going with stuxnet is that similar to what would happen, 24 hrs to restart a pump that is simply shut down for a few moments.

Hey I think Rhode Island has a town called Pawstuxnet.

Coincidence?
 
mt_pockets1000
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Including California!!!!!! Holy CRAP!

Well no kidding, geez.

Keep your eye on the horizon.

Better yet, move to Idaho.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000View Post

Keep your eye on the horizon.

Better yet, move to Idaho.

Why would I move closer to California?
 
mt_pockets1000
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Why would I move closer to California?

Oh right, Massechusetts. You're safe...for now.
 
petros
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post


So the wave wasn't too tall, .... the shore was too short. There is something a little disturbing about that. I read one report that said they were only 20ft above sea level, before the drop. If that was the original design would an option have been move to ground that is 50 ft higher and scrap the wall altogether as part of the protection for the plant

Yeah the island dropped on the east coast by as much as 2.5m which exacerbated the effects of the tsunami that much more.

The length of our day is altered. This quake effected the entire planet.
 
Kreskin
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Something tells me that there are some people in here that are actually rooting for the worse case scenario.

Something tells me that they REALLY want a full scale meltdown and all of the crazy s*** that goes along with it.

Not sure about that however the fault is evenly split between Bush and Obama.
 
Cliffy
#55
Why wait for the Holocaust? Mutate now!
 
Stretch
#56
Three Raging Nuclear Meltdowns In Progress (external - login to view)


Friday, 01 April 2011 07:43


'Japan's Prime Minister calls breach at nuclear plant "grave and serious". This means that there is uncontrolled release of radiation into the environment. The gravity of the situation is expected to far exceed the scale of Chernobyl.
According to Dr. Kaku, "If it goes to a full-scale evacuation of all personnel, it means that firefighters are no longer putting water onto the cores. That's the only thing preventing a full-scale meltdown at three reactor sites. Once they evacuate, then we past the point of no return. Meltdowns are inevitable at three reactor sites, leading to a tragedy far beyond that of Chernobyl, creating permanent dead zones in Japan".'

httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvWUCGhlayerembedded

 
bill barilko
+1
#57
Wake me up when the world ends would you?
 
MHz
#58
Sounds like it already has for you. I wonder how much we (you really, I've got other plans) could make picking up radiated bodies? Might as well do something useful and make a whole lot of money at the same time.
 
petros
#59
If there is cesium 137 being detected worldwide there is without any doubt a major ****ing probem.


Have a nice day!
 
mt_pockets1000
#60
Nice knowing you all...
 

Similar Threads

31
Before you Liberals blow a gasket...
by CDNBear | Dec 7th, 2006
7
Where's Gonda Blow
by galianomama | Jan 2nd, 2005
no new posts