# Japan Earthquake and Tsunami



## thetrailboss (Mar 11, 2011)

Holy sh%^!!



8.9 earthquake and tsunami. 

http://www.cnn.com/


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 11, 2011)




----------



## drjeff (Mar 11, 2011)




----------



## Greg (Mar 11, 2011)

The footage from this is unreal. Thoughts go out to he people of Japan.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 11, 2011)

I read one report that said water traveled inland 60 miles in some places.  

That means if it were New England, Mt. Wachusette would be ocean front property


----------



## billski (Mar 11, 2011)

BBC news has some of the most alarming footage. 
88,000 people missing.

Go to the live coverage.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 11, 2011)

Thoughts and prayers for ALL affected by this disaster of epic proportions


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I read one report that said water traveled inland 60 miles in some places.
> 
> That means if it were New England, Mt. Wachusette would be ocean front property



I think there's more elevation gain here that would stop it well before it got that far.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 11, 2011)

I lived in CA during the Loma Preita quake(7.1).  I can't imagine a 8.9.  We are waiting to hear from customers about our machines.  We may have to send people out to get them back up.


----------



## snowmonster (Mar 11, 2011)

Just got word from a friend in Tokyo. No power, no trains and they're stuck in the office for the night. The Japanese building code and safety procedures are built around earthquakes and tsunamis. The high casualty count is unnerving. Unbelievable scenes from Japan. Thoughts and prayers.


----------



## billski (Mar 11, 2011)

The good news is that it is one of the most earthquake prepared countries in the world.
Most buildings are up to earthquake code and most people are trained.

Regardless, this is freakin' scary:

"Motorists could be seen trying to speed away from the wall of water.
         A passenger train with an unknown number of people aboard was missing in one coastal area, police told Kyodo.
         And a ship carrying 100 people was swept away, Japanese media  reported, quoting police in Miyagi. It is not clear what happened to  the vessel."


----------



## billski (Mar 11, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> Just got word from a friend in Tokyo. No power, no trains and they're stuck in the office for the night. The Japanese building code and safety procedures are built around earthquakes and tsunamis. The high casualty count is unnerving. Unbelievable scenes from Japan. Thoughts and prayers.



That's good.  But nobody's yet talking about the elephant in the room: aftershocks.


----------



## snowmonster (Mar 11, 2011)

^ Actually, that's what my friend also talked about. They're sitting around the office and things haven't settled down yet. Minor swaying. They're bracing for the aftershocks. First NZ, then Japan. It looks like the Ring of Fire is very active.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 11, 2011)

Not to make light of a truly catastrophic event, but this picture was really scary!






Those toppled tanks are fermenting tanks at a *BREWERY* in Sendai!


----------



## Puck it (Mar 11, 2011)

Look at the number of >5's  Quite swarm leading up to it and after.  It will go on for weeks.




http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40_eqs.php


----------



## dmc (Mar 11, 2011)

Haven't heard from my "sister"(exchange student when I was young) in okayama Japan yet - or from her daughter in Tokyo.   Pretty nervous..     Not answering her phone..  Maybe not working...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 11, 2011)

dmc said:


> Haven't heard from my "sister"(exchange student when I was young) in okayama Japan yet - or from her daughter in Tokyo. Pretty nervous.. Not answering her phone.. Maybe not working...


 

Cell phones are working but jammed with traffic.


----------



## dmc (Mar 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Cell phones are working but jammed with traffic.



Got an email... Said her daughters phone is dead in Tokyo - no SMS either...
Internet working..  scary stuff...  Everyone's ok...


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 11, 2011)

this dude predicted the quake back in December.  freaky

http://www.december212012.com/phpBB...&start=0&sid=3fa2e4f14f2c97bc5a9d9626c18b8b1f


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2011)

dmc said:


> Got an email... Said her daughters phone is dead in Tokyo - no SMS either...
> Internet working..  scary stuff...  Everyone's ok...



Good news.

this is some freaky shit...all the more reason for me to stay in CNY


----------



## Puck it (Mar 11, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Good news.
> 
> this is some freaky shit...all the more reason for me to stay in CNY


 
Not to burst your bubble, but there are some major faults in NY and they are overdue for one.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Not to burst your bubble, but there are some major faults in NY and they are overdue for one.



I'll take my chances


----------



## dmc (Mar 11, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Good news.
> 
> this is some freaky shit...all the more reason for me to stay in CNY



yeah.... no shti...  

Not a lot of hurricanes... Tornadoes... Earthquakes.. land slides... wild fires...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 11, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> I'll take my chances


 

Don't get me wrong.  I got the tee shirt in CA.  I will my chances here as they are a lot less likely.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 11, 2011)

dmc said:


> yeah.... no shti...
> 
> Not a lot of hurricanes... Tornadoes... Earthquakes.. land slides... wild fires...


 

you left off drought and pestilence from your description


----------



## 4aprice (Mar 11, 2011)

dmc said:


> Got an email... Said her daughters phone is dead in Tokyo - no SMS either...
> Internet working..  scary stuff...  Everyone's ok...



Glad to hear everyones ok.  My sick mind had to put on The Doobie Brothers "Livin on the Fault Line" this morning.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Don't get me wrong.  I got the tee shirt in CA.  I will my chances here as they are a lot less likely.



I hear ya


----------



## hiroto (Mar 11, 2011)

That northern area have hit so many time in recent years and finally this one...   

Me and my wife's family in Tokyo area are fine although some of them couldn't get back to home from work/school due to transportation shutdown.   Phone line were jammed but I could skype call with them no problem.  My sister in law said that for the first hour was after shock after after shock and it was shaking more than not.


----------



## severine (Mar 11, 2011)

You can text REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10 in support of the Japan earthquakes and pacific tsunami. You can also give at http://american.redcross.org/rcchatnews

Unreal... I know that's an active area as far as earthquakes go, but this is one hell of a knock around.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 11, 2011)

I just can't imagine. It was all most 100x bigger then the Loma Prieta.  I think the tsunami is going to the source of the damage outside of the area closest to the epicenter.  It was a deep quake too. 24km deep.


----------



## dmc (Mar 12, 2011)

The amount of video footage of the event is insane...  Totally overwhelming - you could lay on the couch all day and watch new stuff streaming in...

TVs are off...  Going to practice drums and head out to ride...  

Got this last night from my friend Kazumi - Japanese are rightfully terrified of Nuclear events:

"We are now most afraid  that 2 nuclear power plants in Fukushima can be melt down.  They are left without electricity to circulate the cooling water into the plant. Already people in the 10 km (some 7 miles) area are ordered to leave ( just in case, the government says)."


----------



## Puck it (Mar 12, 2011)

dmc said:


> The amount of video footage of the event is insane...  Totally overwhelming - you could lay on the couch all day and watch new stuff streaming in...
> 
> TVs are off...  Going to practice drums and head out to ride...
> 
> ...



Reports now say a hydrogen explosion occurred but reactor vessel is okay. I have a feeling there is a meltdown occurring then they are in containment mode. Similar to partial meltdown at Three Mile Island but a little worse. Good luck to the engineers on site.


----------



## billski (Mar 12, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Reports now say a hydrogen explosion occurred but reactor vessel is okay. I have a feeling there is a meltdown occurring then they are in containment mode. Similar to partial meltdown at Three Mile Island but a little worse. Good luck to the engineers on site.



It happened at 8:30AM eastern time.  A 6.0 aftershock hit this morning too.  And now reports that three trains are missing and cannot be located.  Dreadful.

So the crisis in Libya is buried well beneath this reportage.  Grim news, I am glad our nation can lend a hand in both situations. /Political End Discussion.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 12, 2011)

billski said:


> It happened at 8:30AM eastern time.  A 6.0 aftershock hit this morning too.  And now reports that three trains are missing and cannot be located.  Dreadful.
> 
> So the crisis in Libya is buried well beneath this reportage.  Grim news, I am glad our nation can lend a hand in both situations. /Political End Discussion.



I was reading from things and it looks like Cesium has been detected outside of the reactor. Not good news.  Human exposure to Cesium is not a good thing.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 12, 2011)

seems like they are reporting a full meltdown now ...


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 12, 2011)

OMG how horrible !!!  Japan has suffered a mortal blow with this human , economic and nuclear tragedy , they need our help and our prayers


----------



## Puck it (Mar 12, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> seems like they are reporting a full meltdown now ...



Full meltdown is a breach on the reactor vessel. Very bad. Cesium is from directly venting core. Not good but better then then the former.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 13, 2011)

Meltdown inevitable... this is very bad news that it would appear they have been trying to keep quiet.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 13, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Meltdown inevitable... this is very bad news that it would appear they have been trying to keep quiet.



Meltdown in one has occurred only partial though. A full meltdown is a breach of confinement vessel that has not happened at this point. Radiation would be through the roof.  The partial meltdown occurs when they have to release the direct coolant which contain the cesium that is radioactive. The problem is using sea water and its affect on the all ready brittle stainless steel confinement vessel.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 13, 2011)

They are not admitting to much but they have admitted to a partial meltdown. If they cant control that reactor, they will all go. Nuclear power is a lousy option.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 13, 2011)

Morwax said:


> They are not admitting to much but they have admitted to a partial meltdown. If they cant control that reactor, they will all go. Nuclear power is a lousy option.



The reactors are forty years old and were slated for decommissiong shortly. It was not the earthquake that caused the problem. It was the tsunami that caused the cooling flow to stop.  Although the result could be horrific if things escalate,, but considering what the plants went through and their age. They faired well. Could have been worse. Hopefully they contian the problem to where it is now.

The nuclear worldwide industry when this is over will take what has been learned and implement measures to prohibit it from happening again. 

Not going to touch the nuke option as lousy, but we have plenty of nukes floating around on ships. Technology can be safe.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 13, 2011)

If they are dumping seawater on the core to cool it down, sh(t has hit the fan :-(


----------



## Geoff (Mar 13, 2011)

Morwax said:


> If they are dumping seawater on the core to cool it down, sh(t has hit the fan :-(



So what do they call it in Japan when the core melts through the crust of the earth?   The America Syndrome?


----------



## billski (Mar 13, 2011)

The big difference I see in Chernobyl and Japan is neglect/poor operations vs. state of the art, fully compliant with modern standards.  This is what's scary - no matter how well they've planned for to protect the reactor, it simply wasn't enough.  Tragic.  It's too bad our world will not curtail its use of electricity.  No matter what is used to generate electricity there is a price to pay.  Even wind turbines have issues with non-recycleable materials used.   It's as bad as our dependency on oil.  /End politic rant/


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 13, 2011)

billski said:


> It's too bad our world will not curtail its use of electricity.  No matter what is used to generate electricity there is a price to pay.  Even wind turbines have issues with non-recycleable materials used.   It's as bad as our dependency on oil.  /End politic rant/


We are all culpable. We all need energy to live the lifestyle that everyone has grown to expect. If the Nukes weren't there, we'd need to get that energy another way. But alternative energy is damn near impossible. There is a lot of resistance in NH for the Northern Pass. The same folks that are pro-green are also NIMBY even though the wires would pipe in hydro power. Just one example. We saw what happened with the wind towers off Cape Cod. And that type of alternative stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to a few nukes. There are no easy answers. Especially when energy critics are relying on the very power that is being addressed. I don't think the problem is not curtailing energy usage. I think the problem is energy is still cheap. It will get curtailed when it gets expensive. And $3.60 at the pump is not that expensive, IMO, even though psychologically people and markets seem to think it is.

Any ways, hopefully lessons can be learned and better plans can be put in place to avert this problem in the future.


----------



## billski (Mar 13, 2011)

Agreed.  If we all learned to live in tiny houses instead of Mansions with electric substations we could all contribute at least to reducing the amount of waste we leave behind.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 14, 2011)

Genies out of the bottle now, meltdown inevitable : (
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 14, 2011)

billski said:


> Agreed.  If we all learned to live in tiny houses instead of Mansions with electric substations we could all contribute at least to reducing the amount of waste we leave behind.



I think efficiency is more important than size these days.  There are modern 2500 sqft homes these days that cost less to power than older homes half that size.

My wife and I make a 2 bedroom and 700 sqft condo work for us, but it still feels pretty tight for 2.  We'll want double the space at minimum when we have kids.


----------



## billski (Mar 14, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think efficiency is more important than size these days.  There are modern 2500 sqft homes these days that cost less to power than older homes half that size.
> 
> My wife and I make a 2 bedroom and 700 sqft condo work for us, but it still feels pretty tight for 2.  We'll want double the space at minimum when we have kids.



I'll meet you halfway regarding efficiency.  A big part of it is consumption behavior - leaving lights on, having excessive electrical equipment, vehicles that get 14-15 Mpg, running water excessively.  And the less obvious - constant turnover of clothes, having the latest technology, lack of recycling behavior.  For each and every item consumed, for each and every home built there is a manufacturing expense /impact, and then there is the hidden expense and impact of disposal.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 14, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Genies out of the bottle now, meltdown inevitable : (
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis



I didn't get that from that article at all.


----------



## Greg (Mar 14, 2011)

Before/after comparison pics. Slide back and forth. Wow:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?hp


----------



## bvibert (Mar 14, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I didn't get that from that article at all.



Me either.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 14, 2011)

Greg said:


> Before/after comparison pics. Slide back and forth. Wow:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?hp



Holy crap, that's amazing!


----------



## Euler (Mar 14, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I think efficiency is more important than size these days.  There are modern 2500 sqft homes these days that cost less to power than older homes half that size.
> 
> My wife and I make a 2 bedroom and 700 sqft condo work for us, but it still feels pretty tight for 2.  We'll want double the space at minimum when we have kids.



Efficiency X size = amazing potential!  Imagine if we all went to reasonable sized homes/stores/cars/buildings and combined it with the efficiencies of modern technology.

Until we man/woman up and deal with the fact that we need to seriously reduce consumption, our energy woes will remain with us,


----------



## Morwax (Mar 14, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I didn't get that from that article at all.


 Thats because Im ellaborating on the situation. IT IS going to melt down period. If you understand the gravity of exposed fuel rods you would also realize they have been and still are downplaying the severity of whats going on. Get back to me in a day or so. 
 Chernobyl was one reactor.. This is a six pack of reactors which will all go.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 14, 2011)

This looks like a helpful article:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42071355

However the situation is not looking good no matter how you look at it. The chances of this being as bad as Chernobyl are slim since that was essentially a nuclear explosion. This is more of a semi-controlled meltdown where most of the radioactive material can be contained. Hopefully :worried:


----------



## bvibert (Mar 14, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> This looks like a helpful article:
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/42071355
> 
> However the situation is not looking good no matter how you look at it. The chances of this being as bad as Chernobyl are slim since that was essentially a nuclear explosion. This is more of a semi-controlled meltdown where most of the radioactive material can be contained. Hopefully :worried:



Thanks, enlightening article.  I agree that it's not good no matter how you look at it, but I don't think it's the end of the world like some people are making it out to be.  I'm sure they're not letting on to everything that's going on over there, but it does seem like they have a decent handle on things.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 14, 2011)

bvibert said:


> Thanks, enlightening article.  I agree that it's not good no matter how you look at it, but I don't think it's the end of the world like some people are making it out to be.  I'm sure they're not letting on to everything that's going on over there, but it does seem like they have a decent handle on things.



 I havnt heard any end of world scenarios yet but exposed fuel rods is not "having a decent handle on things". It is and will continue to get worse.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 14, 2011)

Wild video of the Tsunami
http://gizmodo.com/#!5781566/this-is-the-scariest-first+person-video-of-the-japan-tsunami-yet


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

I am going to oversimplify this.

There are basiclly two type of reactors in the world. One that generates the steam via direct contact with the fuel, thus creating contaminated turbines. This is the type that Chernobyl is or was. Very obselete technology, but it allowed for very big reactors thus making the output higher.

The second is pressurized steam system. The core has its own cooling loop that is self contained. The steam is generated outside of the core and is not in contact with the radiation directly. This type of the reactor used on all of our Navy ships, demostic plants along with the Japanese and French plants.

With Chernobyl, it was not the core radiation that caused the problems, it was the release of the radioactive gases. The strontium and cesium release was quite large. This made it into the food chain rather rapidly by animals eating the contamnated plants.

This plant has the stainless containment vessel and a concrete sheath over that. This should protect from any escaping as long as the vessel does not become brittle from the heat. The problem here lies in the potential breach of the core cooling system. If they pumping seawater, it most likely pumping onto the vessel itself. There would more signficant steam clouds if the vessels had been breached. If they can maintain cooling and slow the decay reaction down then it should be fine. The vessel design has done its job so far.

Exposed fuels rods doe not mean exposed to atmosphere.  It means they are immersed in the cooling liquid. BTW


----------



## Morwax (Mar 14, 2011)

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/clarifying-japans-nuclear-disaster.html


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I am going to oversimplify this.



....fail....   complicated....


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> ....fail....   complicated....



You are such a dick head, but I am not going to push the button like you do.  Stay out of things you know nothing about.  Reactor design is very complicated. I was trying to put it into a short form to make easier to understand the differences between a BKW reactor and a RBMK  reactor (Chernobyl).  Try and not make light of this situation. This could be very bad since there are 6 having trouble now. I am intensely following this due to my field of study.


----------



## billski (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Y I am intensely following this due to my field of study.



Do you belong to IEEE?  I was badgering one of their societies to write an article for it's members that focused a bit more deeply on the technology for us EE's who can grasp such matters.  I know there is a lot of speculation, but it's probably more informed that the stuff the networks condense down to a three minute sound bite.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

billski said:


> Do you belong to IEEE?  I was badgering one of their societies to write an article for it's members that focused a bit more deeply on the technology for us EE's who can grasp such matters.  I know there is a lot of speculation, but it's probably more informed that the stuff the networks condense down to a three minute sound bite.



I am a physicist. I currently work on particle accelerators for use in the semiconductor industry..  I never joined the IEEE, but I know some physicists that belong though. Nuclear reactor tech is very complicated and has come along since these BKM types were made. Considering, what has happened they have held up well.  I have been looking for specs on the plants to see what they were rated for. I venture they were rated for 7 to 8 but not a 9. The people working on these reactors are deciding things on the fly based on theoretical physics.  It is bad but very interesting to understand how things will play out. One thing for sure, engineers will develop methods for not letting this happen at other plants.

Unit 2 suffered an explosion origami due to releasing steam. Will have to see in the morning.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 14, 2011)

puck it said:


> i am a physicist.


winning!!!


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> You are such a dick head, but I am not going to push the button like you do.  Stay out of things you know nothing about.  Reactor design is very complicated. I was trying to put it into a short form to make easier to understand the differences between a BKW reactor and a RBMK  reactor (Chernobyl).  Try and not make light of this situation. This could be very bad since there are 6 having trouble now. I am intensely following this due to my field of study.



You gotta learn to relax there Puck...   Maybe unpucker yourself...  

You talk about it here.... I have every right to not "stay out"

I may actually know more then you may think I do...  I'm very well read and I have Google just like you....haha


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I am a physicist



I'm a dickhead...


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 14, 2011)

A new explosion tonight ...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> You gotta learn to relax there Puck...   Maybe unpucker yourself...
> 
> You talk about it here.... I have every right to not "stay out"
> 
> I may actually know more then you may think I do...  I'm very well read and I have Google just like you....haha



Well read does not make you knowledgable.   Stick to your network stuff.   I only bust your balls on nonsensitive crap. So stay out.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> A new explosion tonight ...



Yes.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> I'm a dickhead...



Yes, you are.


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

All joking aside...

By coincidence I have English language  NHK at my hotel room in Chicago...  Pretty interesting.

My Japanese "sister" and her family live in Okayama - so i did a quick search and found a map of Nuke plants in Japan...  To see if there were any around her..
Found this map..
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/japan.php






Japan isn't a'll that big but it's got a lot of nuke plants..


----------



## billski (Mar 14, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> A new explosion tonight ...



chit.


----------



## billski (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> All joking aside...
> 
> By coincidence I have English language  NHK at my hotel room in Chicago...  Pretty interesting.
> 
> ...



I checked out where Hiroshima and Nagasaki are.  quite some distance to the south.  I imagine any survivor of WW2 is freakin' right now.


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Well read does not make you knowledgable.   Stick to your network stuff.



Actually.... Reading does make one knowledgeable..  I'm stuggling thinking of another way to learn stuff when you don't have a nuclear physicist living next door to go on and on about stuff...

I know enough to understand - can i build a reactor... no...


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

billski said:


> I checked out where Hiroshima and Nagasaki are.  quite some distance to the south.  I imagine any survivor of WW2 is freakin' right now.



No doubt.... thats something I've been thinking about as well...


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Yes.



is that your "professional" opinion?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> All joking aside...
> 
> By coincidence I have English language  NHK at my hotel room in Chicago...  Pretty interesting.
> 
> ...



They have enough to produce 30% of their power need.  They were slated to be 100% nuke by 2050.  The one directly north of these two wa actually closer to epicenter. I have not as to it's status.  Most likely it was scrammed and is safely shutdown.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> is that your "professional" opinion?



Correction my professional opinion is you are a dick head and a half.


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> They have enough to produce 30% of their power need.  They were slated to be 100% nuke by 2050.  The one directly north of these two wa actually closer to epicenter. I have not as to it's status.  Most likely it was scrammed and is safely shutdown.



NHK keeps saying Fukushima #1 but on the map there's 2
Fukushima Daiichi 1
Fukushima Daini 1


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Correction my professional opinion is you are a dick head and a half.



Nice!  I got another half...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> NHK keeps saying Fukushima #1 but on the map there's 2
> Fukushima Daiichi 1
> Fukushima Daini 1



These are the six reactors that are having the problems. There are three at each site and all have cooling water problems. The other site has been shutdown and cooling water is on but intermittent from thevreports that I have read.  Obviously not as well read as you say.


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Japanese Prime Minster live on NHK now...  
He's telling people to move 20 miles away from one of them and  6 miles from another..
And stay indoors... 

Injecting water to cool the reactors..  
hopes to avoid further radiation leakage..

Asking nation to act calmly..


----------



## Greg (Mar 14, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Wild video of the Tsunami
> http://gizmodo.com/#!5781566/this-is-the-scariest-first+person-video-of-the-japan-tsunami-yet



THAT is crazy. Watch the whole thing.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 14, 2011)

Container breached, radiation leaking.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

dmc said:


> Japanese Prime Minster live on NHK now...
> He's telling people to move 20 miles away from one of them and  6 miles from another..
> And stay indoors...
> 
> ...



Where have you been under a rock!  They started using sea water on Saturday to cool #1 reactor.  If that is not bad enough, they are using fire pumper trucks to get the water to the cores.  This means that cooling infrastructure for all reactors is gone.  I read that radiation readings in tokoyo are rising.  It will be intreating if this is confirmed.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Container breached, radiation leaking.



Will need to see some video first.  There would be a constant plume if vessel is breached especially with the low temps currently.  Chernobyl had a constant plume when it went.


----------



## dmc (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Where have you been under a rock!  They started using sea water on Saturday to cool #1 reactor.  If that is not bad enough, they are using fire pumper trucks to get the water to the cores.  This means that cooling infrastructure for all reactors is gone.  I read that radiation readings in tokoyo are rising.  It will be intreating if this is confirmed.



relax there Einstein.. 

I was just repeating what the Prime Minister was saying live on the tube...  

The guy on now is saying if your within 20km get out - if your within that and 30km stay inside..


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Will need to see some video first.  There would be a constant plume if vessel is breached especially with the low temps currently.  Chernobyl had a constant plume when it went.



They're saying the latest explosion breached the containment structure. I don't know any more than that.


----------



## Euler (Mar 14, 2011)

Latest explosion has caused so much damage that all emergency workers have been removed from the site, and without any people onsite to manage the crisis it will likely get bad fast


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Lots of good nuke info here: http://allthingsnuclear.org/


----------



## Glenn (Mar 15, 2011)

Greg said:


> THAT is crazy. Watch the whole thing.



x2. That's unreal.


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Where have you been under a rock!  They started using sea water on Saturday to cool #1 reactor.  If that is not bad enough, they are using fire pumper trucks to get the water to the cores.  This means that cooling infrastructure for all reactors is gone.  I read that radiation readings in tokoyo are rising.  It will be intreating if this is confirmed.



I thought they could not pump the water because there back up power systems were down?  The sea water was the last resort cause when they use that basically the reactors are shot.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I thought they could not pump the water because there back up power systems were down? The sea water was the last resort cause when they use that basically the reactors are shot.


 
Yes, last resort after the battery back up died.  Batteries were the third back up, which only last an hour.
The tsumani took out the diesel storage tanks based on the reports that I have not the genrators. They had no diesel to start them.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

I just saw this.  There are 10 reactors on that site.  I thought there was only 6.

_Individual units at the plant site:_ *Fukushima Daiichi*Fukushima Daiichi 1 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 2 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 3 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 4 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 5 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 6 BWR Japan Operable
_Individual units at the plant site:_ *Fukushima Daini*Fukushima Daini 1 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daini 2 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daini 3 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daini 4 BWR Japan Operable


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 15, 2011)

Is there anything they can do to stop it over there or are they going to jsut keep heating up till they all blow?   They have nowhere to ship the power they are producing as I understand it and they will just keep winding them selves up hotter and hotter till they explode.  Am i correct?


----------



## billski (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Yes, last resort after the battery back up died.  Batteries were the third back up, which only last an hour.
> The tsumani took out the diesel storage tanks based on the reports that I have not the genrators. They had no diesel to start them.



OK, I'll ask the dumbest question of the day.  Could they not transport diesel fuel in somehow?  I understand there is carnage all around, but somehow the hundreds of other operations staff were evacuated.  <naive exposed>


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Is there anything they can do to stop it over there or are they going to jsut keep heating up till they all blow? They have nowhere to ship the power they are producing as I understand it and they will just keep winding them selves up hotter and hotter till they explode. Am i correct?


 
The problem is that if the nuclear material has melted. There is no way to get material in to control the fission reaction.  The boron rods aka control rods are spaced in between the fuel rods.  These rods control the emitted particles off of the fuel that create the fission.  If it is just a pool of molten fuel then there is no way to control it with fission limiting material.  Cooling is the only way to keep things from going critical.  The reaction will not explode but will self sustain and keep going until it melts through the vessel. This is bad needless to say.  The "explosion" occurs when the material melts thorugh the vessel and concrete and then comes into contact with ground water. This is what will release the radiation to the atmosphere and get transported with the wind.  The radiation from the reactor core is bad but very limited in area.  The good thing is there appears to be no constant plume of steam emitting from the reactors which would mean a breach.

Does this help?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I just saw this.  There are 10 reactors on that site.  I thought there was only 6.
> 
> _Individual units at the plant site:_ *Fukushima Daiichi*Fukushima Daiichi 1 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 2 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 3 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 4 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 5 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daiichi 6 BWR Japan Operable
> _Individual units at the plant site:_ *Fukushima Daini*Fukushima Daini 1 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daini 2 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daini 3 BWR Japan OperableFukushima Daini 4 BWR Japan Operable



Fukushima Daini and Fukushima Daiichi are two separate plants about 7.5 miles apart.

According to its Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant )Fukushima Daiichi has 6 active reactors with two more planned to be built. This facility is the one with the worst problems at the moment.

Fukushima Daini has 4 active reactors and has experience similar issues with cooling but there has yet to be any explosions reported there.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

billski said:


> OK, I'll ask the dumbest question of the day. Could they not transport diesel fuel in somehow? I understand there is carnage all around, but somehow the hundreds of other operations staff were evacuated. <naive exposed>


 
I am not sure. You would think so, that makes me believe that the generators were also damaged.  You think they could have pulled a ship up to off load since there appears to a break water and a dock.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Is there anything they can do to stop it over there or are they going to jsut keep heating up till they all blow?   They have nowhere to ship the power they are producing as I understand it and they will just keep winding them selves up hotter and hotter till they explode.  Am i correct?



Not having an offtake for the electricity doesn't have anything to do with the cores "heating up." The nuclear reaction in the core, simplisticly, does nothing but produce heat to boil water, producing steam. The amount of heat created is controlled in several ways, but if those methods aren't working, all you can do is try to cool things off with water. However, it's not a one-shot deal- the coolingw ater has to be in continuous supply. If the core is allowed to get too hot, you have a meltdown, generally with a massive release of radioactive material. Fortunately, it's unlikely it will degrade into a nuclear explosion, a la a bomb going off. Instead, it's like a massive pile of highly radioactive thermite. Hence the term "China Syndrome," based on the idea that an uncontrolled meltdown would send the core melting through the Earth all the way to China.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I am not sure. You would think so, that makes me believe that the generators were also damaged.  You think they could have pulled a ship up to off load since there appears to a break water and a dock.



The two potential issues I heard with that option was that #1 (and highly likely), there's so much debris both floating and submerged in the immediate shoreline water now that it's highly questionable that they could get a sizeable enough ship into the dock to make a difference and #2, if they could get a ship into the dock with enough pumping capacity to make a difference, is the piping system still intact enough to handle the sustain, high volume/pressure of water needed to make a difference??


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I am not sure. You would think so, that makes me believe that the generators were also damaged.  You think they could have pulled a ship up to off load since there appears to a break water and a dock.



I was thinking that, too, but it's pretty likely the fuel pumps, lines, and tanks are all damaged/full of water/full of sand/all of the above.


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> The problem is that if the nuclear material has melted. There is no way to get material in to control the fission reaction.  The boron rods aka control rods are spaced in between the fuel rods.  These rods control the emitted particles off of the fuel that create the fission.  If it is just a pool of molten fuel then there is no way to control it with fission limiting material.  Cooling is the only way to keep things from going critical.  The reaction will not explode but will self sustain and keep going until it melts through the vessel. This is bad needless to say.  The "explosion" occurs when the material melts thorugh the vessel and concrete and then comes into contact with ground water. This is what will release the radiation to the atmosphere and get transported with the wind.  The radiation from the reactor core is bad but very limited in area.  The good thing is there appears to be no constant plume of steam emitting from the reactors which would mean a breach.
> 
> Does this help?


Yup make sense to me... Thanks


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 15, 2011)

Puckster :  keep the analysis fllowing -- its helpful to those of us who are /were :dunce: 's in Physics.

I appreciate the insights


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Fukushima Daini and Fukushima Daiichi are two separate plants about 7.5 miles apart.
> 
> According to its Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant )Fukushima Daiichi has 6 active reactors with two more planned to be built. This facility is the one with the worst problems at the moment.
> 
> Fukushima Daini has 4 active reactors and has experience similar issues with cooling but there has yet to be any explosions reported there.


 
My point was I thought there was only 6 between the two sites until I heard about  #4 and then did some more research.  The plant to the north is having cooling problems also and is also the same type(BWR).

_Individual units at the plant site:_ *Onagawa*Onagawa 1 BWR Japan OperableOnagawa 2 BWR Japan Operable


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I was thinking that, too, but it's pretty likely the fuel pumps, lines, and tanks are all damaged/full of water/full of sand/all of the above.


 

With regards to the tanks, the word is gone when look at the satelite images.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

billski said:


> OK, I'll ask the dumbest question of the day.  Could they not transport diesel fuel in somehow?  I understand there is carnage all around, but somehow the hundreds of other operations staff were evacuated.  <naive exposed>



It sounds like they got the diesel in to run the pumps but in the time it took to do so, the water levels inside the reactor dropped below the tops of the fuel rods. When this happened the super heated (500 degree) pressurized water around the rods begins to boil and makes returning a full water jacket around the rods difficult as it boils away on contact. The water pressure in the reactor chambers is very high to keep the water in a liquid state even at the high temps. If the water gets to 700 degrees, that is when water molecules start to break up and release Hydrogen. 

At this point they should hook onto these drag them out to sea 100 miles and drop them in the Japan Trench where the water is 20,000ft deep. That would keep a lot of radiation out of the atmosphere but who knows what it would do to the ocean. :sad:


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Not having an offtake for the electricity doesn't have anything to do with the cores "heating up." The nuclear reaction in the core, simplisticly, does nothing but produce heat to boil water, producing steam. The amount of heat created is controlled in several ways, but if those methods aren't working, all you can do is try to cool things off with water. However, it's not a one-shot deal- the coolingw ater has to be in continuous supply. If the core is allowed to get too hot, you have a meltdown, generally with a massive release of radioactive material. Fortunately, it's unlikely it will degrade into a nuclear explosion, a la a bomb going off. Instead, it's like a massive pile of highly radioactive thermite. Hence the term "China Syndrome," based on the idea that an uncontrolled meltdown would send the core melting through the Earth all the way to China.


 

Until it hits a ground water source, then becomes an "explosion" of radioactive steam.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Until it hits a ground water source, then becomes an "explosion" of radioactive steam.



Which, in some ways, may be worse...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> It sounds like they got the diesel in to run the pumps but in the time it took to do so, the water levels inside the reactor dropped below the tops of the fuel rods. When this happened the super heated (500 degree) pressurized water around the rods begins to boil and makes returning a full water jacket around the rods difficult as it boils away on contact. The water pressure in the reactor chambers is very high to keep the water in a liquid state even at the high temps. If the water gets to 700 degrees, that is when water molecules start to break up and release Hydrogen.
> 
> At this point they should hook onto these drag them out to sea 100 miles and drop them in the Japan Trench where the water is 20,000ft deep. That would keep a lot of radiation out of the atmosphere but who knows what it would do to the ocean. :sad:


 

Very true about the fractionization of the water at those temps.  Hooking onto a vessel in cased in concrete is not viable.  The vessel is 6 inches thick and weighs several tons. Again, the radiation from the core itself is easily contained, if one can control the fission reaction.  The sea water with the boric acid is a last ditch effort to control the reaction.  It is the byproducts of the fission that will get transported to atmosphere if it comes into contact with the atmosphere such Cesium-137 and Strontium-90.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Which, in some ways, may be worse...


 
Yes, it is.  This is what happened in Chernobyl.  The plume was the release of steam which contain the byproducts of the fissionable material and also operator error.

These reactors were immediatley scrammed which measn the boron rods were inserted immediately at the detection of the quake.  The reaction shuts down very quickly but it is an exponential decay.  There is latent heat that decays very slowly form the reaction though.  From 100%,  I think it decays to 6%(need to look up the number, it has been years since Nuke Physics) then that percentage of reaction left takes weeks to stop.  And this remaining decay still needs cooling, if not then the material heats up and starts to self propgate creating more cooling problems until things melt and get to this situation.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Hooking onto a vessel in cased in concrete is not viable.  The vessel is 6 inches thick and weighs several tons.



I know, the core vessel would become an immediate boat anchor if they tried to "pull it out to sea". I was just kind of playing on the rather dire situation.

Keep pumping the water boys...

It was mentioned above but does anyone have any idea how long these contanment vessel are designed to hold an uncontrolled melt down before it burns through the bottom?

Additionally, I'm not clear on what happens after the Fuel rods melt and the material falls to the bottom of the chamber away from the control rods. Can the build up of extreme heat cause the nuclear reaction resume without the control rods to halt it?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> Puckster : keep the analysis fllowing -- its helpful to those of us who are /were :dunce: 's in Physics.
> 
> I appreciate the insights


 
I hate to say this but right now I have a feeling that there is a lot of experimental physics going on there.  We are going beyond where we have gone before.  Too cliche!!!


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I hate to say this but right now I have a feeling that there is a lot of experimental physics going on there.  We are going beyond where we have gone before.  Too cliche!!!



Frankly i assumed that much and certainly comprehend the ensuing difficulty of frankly TELLING the public TOO much at this point which could only add to the chaos , panic and despair that is no doubt setting in .

My deepest respect for those who are staying the course INSIDE the plants and sacrificing THEMSELVES for their fellow man .


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> I know, the core vessel would become an immediate boat anchor if they tried to "pull it out to sea". I was just kind of playing on the rather dire situation.
> 
> Keep pumping the water boys...
> 
> It was mentioned above but does anyone have any idea how long these contanment vessel are designed to hold an uncontrolled melt down before it burns through the bottom?


 

It depends on the temperature in the core and how much water is cooling it.  Stainless "plain old" melts @ 2750F.  The core reaction can get to 2200F in very little time with no cooling.  It then has about 6 feet of concrete around(secondary confinement).  Hours wold be a good approximation for the SS vessel with no cooling and direct contact of the material to the vessel walls.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> Frankly i assumed that much and certainly comprehend the ensuing difficulty of frankly TELLING the public TOO much at this point which could only add to the chaos , panic and despair that is no doubt setting in .
> 
> My deepest respect for those who are staying the course INSIDE the plants and sacrificing THEMSELVES for their fellow man .


 

I am sure they are monitoring dose rates on the workers and cycling them out.  All said I would not want to do it, but knowing the ramifications I think I would. I can only imagine what they are going through

During Loma Prieta in CA, I was working at Intel in a wafer fab and a memeber of the ERT (emegency repsonse team).  No real radiation sources in fab except X-rays from our machines when running. However, there are a lot nasty arse chemcials that go into the chips that allow us to do this forum thing.  Silane is one and ignites on contact with air.  Phosphine also ignites and has TLV in the ppm's and Arsine which smells like garlic but if you smell it.  It is too late, TLV is ppb.  Boron trifluoride which produces HF in contact with air.  This is just some of the ones in our tools.  We had to sweep the fab for injuries and shut down the equipment. No major problems but the threat was there.  Only a few machines had potential leaks.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Very true about the fractionization of the water at those temps.  Hooking onto a vessel in cased in concrete is not viable.  The vessel is 6 inches thick and weighs several tons. Again, the radiation from the core itself is easily contained, if one can control the fission reaction.  The sea water with the boric acid is a last ditch effort to control the reaction.  It is the byproducts of the fission that will get transported to atmosphere if it comes into contact with the atmosphere such Cesium-137 and Strontium-90.



 Im convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.
 The fission reaction was shut down automaticaly after the quake and not whats creating the heat. Ive bit my tongue a bunch of times like when you stated the vessel was stainless steel. You may know some things but this subject is out of your league and your getting your google facts mixed up:beer:


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Im convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.
> The fission reaction was shut down automaticaly after the quake and not whats creating the heat. Ive bit my tongue a bunch of times like when you stated the vessel was stainless steel. You may know some things but this subject is out of your league and your getting your google facts mixed up:beer:



Wow, there's a lot I don't agree with Puck it on. But I'd say you're the one being the moron here. And not to mention all around a-hole. If you've got something constructive to say on the subject please show us the light.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Im convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.
> The fission reaction was shut down automaticaly after the quake and not whats creating the heat. Ive bit my tongue a bunch of times like when you stated the vessel was stainless steel. You may know some things but this subject is out of your league and your getting your google facts mixed up:beer:



Wow dude, I think someone needs a little salt water poured on them to cool their reaction :razz: this is a skiing forum not a nuclear engineer forum. We are free to discuss to the best of our abilities. If you have something more accurate to add go for it. Just keep the attacks to a minimum.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Wow dude, I think someone needs a little salt water poured on them to cool their reaction :razz: this is a skiing forum not a nuclear engineer forum. We are free to discuss to the best of our abilities. If you have something more accurate to add go for it. Just keep the attacks to a minimum.


 This may be a skiing forum but arnt we having a nuclear reactor discussion?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Wow I never called anyone an a-hole. Is that your perception? You perception makes you seem like an a-hole:-(



Again, if you have some thing more accurate to add, by all means, we are listening...


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Wow I never called anyone an a-hole. Is that your perception? You perception makes you seem like an a-hole:-(



You have a reading comprehension problem. I said you were acting like an a-hole, not calling anyone one. :dunce:


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> You have a reading comprehension problem. I said you were acting like an a-hole, not calling anyone one. :dunce:



 Ya you said I was acting like an a-hole and I was a moron...Must be a Mass thing


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Again, if you have some thing more accurate to add, by all means, we are listening...



 Read my post again...I did add two things


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Reactor vessel = not stainless steel, fission reaction no longer taking place. These are huge facts.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Ya you said I was acting like an a-hole and I was a moron...Must be a Mass thing



Still waiting for your expert opinion on the subject here Einstein.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Im convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.
> The fission reaction was shut down automaticaly after the quake and not whats creating the heat. Ive bit my tongue a bunch of times like when you stated the vessel was stainless steel. You may know some things but this subject is out of your league and your getting your google facts mixed up:beer:


You obviously do not know. The reactors were scrammed on the earthquake. Normal procedure. Would you like to go into the discussion of nuclear physics or take about tuning skis again and how it is not a personal preference.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Still waiting for your expert opinion on the subject here Einstein.


 Look above your post MORON!


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> You obviously do not know. The reactors were scrammed on the earthquake. Normal procedure. Would you like to go into the discussion of nuclear physics or take about tuning skis again and how it is not a personal preference.


 So then why are you saying they are still cooling the fission reaction? I dont want to talk about your dull skis and skid steer technique


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Reactor vessel = not stainless steel, fission reaction no longer taking place. These are huge facts.



Both of which are wrong.

The reactor vessel is lined with about 6 inches of stainless steal, and fission is most assuredly occuring.

If fission is not occuring, what's creating the heat? Godzilla? Maybe Mothra?

/haven't we had the your/you're conversation already? Or was that they're/their/there?


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> So then why are you saying they are still cooling the fission reaction?



Scramming the reactors drops the control rods all the way, which stops the majority of the fission reaction immediately. But not all. What's still going on generates heat, which needs to be cooled.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Reactor vessel = not stainless steel, fission reaction no longer taking place. These are huge facts.


 

Yes, it is and it can go through another issue called embrittlement if it is heated too high. Read my repsonses. I will reword it. The fission reaction was slowed with the insertion of the rods upon the earthquake. The decay is exponential sois the latent heat decaying exponentially. Nuclear decay obeys an exponential equation. Do you know what that means?
So there is heat left and it was this heat that needs to be cooled, if uncooled it can runaway again.

Taking lessons form dmc.


----------



## billski (Mar 15, 2011)

Note to Greg:

Alpine Zone - Your place for the latest news on skiing, boarding, hiking, gear, lodging and nuclear physics.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> So then why are you saying they are still cooling the fission reaction? I dont want to talk about your dull skis and skid steer technique


 

To each their own and you just don't get it. Read the post above, moron.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Look above your post MORON!



You are claiming some sort of fact without backing it up with either a good explanation or pointing to an example. You are a terrible debater.

There is no on/off switch on a nuclear reactor, they only can slow the reaction by inserting the control rods and cooling the whole thing. If any of those go wrong the whole thing heats up again. Fully shutting it down take's a very long time.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> If fission is not occuring, what's creating the heat? Godzilla? Maybe Mothra?



Radioactive decay continues to produce heat after the fission process is stopped by the control rods. It takes several months to completely cool off to where it won't melt down.

My question is that if the fuel rods do melt and the material falls to the floor of the reactor core, away from the control rods, can the fission process resume?


----------



## billski (Mar 15, 2011)

Well, here we go again.  The weather gets warm and wet and the AZ forum gets cranky.
Please Ullr, send us some snow....


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Both of which are wrong.
> 
> The reactor vessel is lined with about 6 inches of stainless steal, and fission is most assuredly occuring.
> 
> ...


 

Obviously, you have some engineering or scientific background.  It could be Ghidra!!!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

billski said:


> Note to Greg:
> 
> Alpine Zone - Your place for the latest news on skiing, boarding, hiking, gear, lodging and nuclear physics.



I like it! I expect that to be the rallying cry at the AZ gathering at Sugarloaf :beer:


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Radioactive decay continues to produce heat after the fission process is stopped by the control rods. It takes several months to completely cool off to where it won't melt down.
> 
> My question is that if the fuel rods do melt and the material falls to the floor of the reactor core, away from the control rods, can the fission process resume?



To the first point: Yes, that's what I implied. Godzilla was a joke. Mothra, maybe not so much.

To the second point: I believe it can potentially ramp back up, depending on what happens to the rods- melted in, maybe not as fast. PuckIt probably knows better.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Obviously, you have some engineering or scientific background.  It could be Ghidra!!!



Biology major/physics minor for a period.

I forgot about Ghidra. That would be, as we say in the business, sub-optimal. Rodan's on vacation this week, so it could get ugly...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Radioactive decay continues to produce heat after the fission process is stopped by the control rods. It takes several months to completely cool off to where it won't melt down.
> 
> My question is that if the fuel rods do melt and the material falls to the floor of the reactor core, away from the control rods, can the fission process resume?


 
Yes that is the issue with  the rods melting.  Control rods can no longer be inserted into the material.  This is why the fuel rods are pellets stacked on top of each other to make the rods.  The control rods are between and control the fission by accepting the emitted particle from the radioatcive material in the rods.  The boron rods are actuallt B10 not the abundant B11 isotope.  B10 is a neutron asborber. The larger mass of radioactive material con not be controlled and go "critical", that is meltdown thru vessel.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> To the first point: Yes, that's what I implied. Godzilla was a joke. Mothra, maybe not so much.
> 
> To the second point: I believe it can potentially ramp back up, depending on what happens to the rods- melted in, maybe not as fast. PuckIt probably knows better.





> If fission is not occuring, what's creating the heat? Godzilla? Maybe Mothra?



But just so it is clear for everybody, fission and decay are two somewhat separate forms of energy release.

Fission is the physical process of splitting atoms via neutron bombardment.

Decay is the process of unstable atoms releasing radioactive energy particles as they degrade into lighter elements. Different materials have different rates of decay.

Edit: That advanced physics class in high school is starting to come back to me. Nuclear Physics is the one part of that class I did well in


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Biology major/physics minor for a period.
> 
> I forgot about Ghidra. That would be, as we say in the business, sub-optimal. Rodan's on vacation this week, so it could get ugly...


 

Strange combo though

For me
BS - Physics, Math Minor, Concentration in Geology
MS - Physics
Phd - Solid State Physics


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> But just so it is clear for everybody, fission and decay are two somewhat separate forms of energy release.
> 
> Fission is the physical process of splitting atoms via neutron bombardment.
> 
> ...


 

Yes and no.  Both occur in the reactor.  Things are naturally decaying in the reactor but the fission is what is producing the heat for the reactor to generate the steam.  Make sense, since you know something unlike Mororlesswax


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> You are claiming some sort of fact without backing it up with either a good explanation or pointing to an example. You are a terrible debater.
> 
> There is no on/off switch on a nuclear reactor, they only can slow the reaction by inserting the control rods and cooling the whole thing. If any of those go wrong the whole thing heats up again. Fully shutting it down take's a very long time.


 
BTW, what haven't we agreed on?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Scramming the reactors drops the control rods all the way, which stops the majority of the fission reaction immediately. But not all. What's still going on generates heat, which needs to be cooled.



Just two minutes ago some dude on NPR said it takes a couple of years for all of the heat from the rods to cool in the pool of water.  That is why spent rods are not taken to storage facilities right away.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Yes that is the issue with  the rods melting.  Control rods can no longer be inserted into the material.  This is why the fuel rods are pellets stacked on top of each other to make the rods.  The control rods are between and control the fission by accepting the emitted particle from the radioatcive material in the rods.  The boron rods are actuallt B10 not the abundant B11 isotope.  B10 is a neutron asborber. The larger mass of radioactive material con not be controlled and go "critical", that is meltdown thru vessel.



Thanks!

I wonder how long the uncontrolled reaction could be expected to last? Probably depends on last time the fuel rods were replaced?


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Strange combo though



Especially since I ended up, 8 years later, with a BSBA in Finance, and then an MBA.
I'm a triple threat- science, numbers, and bullshit. I can do it all.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> BTW, what haven't we agreed on?



Nothing in this thread. Some old politics stuff. :beer:


----------



## billski (Mar 15, 2011)

Children,

Can we get back to nuclear reactors and behave like nerdy scientists again?

If you must insult each other, there's a perfect forum that goes by the name TGR.  Let's get back to our "dull and boring" old selves.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 15, 2011)

billski said:


> Children,
> 
> Can we get back to nuclear reactors and behave like nerdy scientists again?
> 
> If you must insult each other, there's a perfect forum that goes by the name TGR.  Let's get back to our "dull and boring" old selves.




Noted,  but I think since the "wax" guy left the discussion, we have already returned to civil discourse. :beer:


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 15, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Especially since I ended up, 8 years later, with a BSBA in Finance, and then an MBA.
> I'm a triple threat- science, numbers, and bullshit. I can do it all.



  C-10-------------------------- POTD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   nice to see a little bit o humor again


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Nothing in this thread. Some old politics stuff. :beer:



Oh yeah.  Remember, I a morally liberally and fiscally conservative.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> C-10-------------------------- POTD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   nice to see a little bit o humor again



One of the guys that I hate.  You can not spend anymore money, we are over budget.  Then, I say "Can igo home for the rest of the quarter?"


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Noted,  but I think since the "wax" guy left the discussion, we have already returned to civil discourse. :beer:


 Just listening now:beer:


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)




----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


>



Referring to yourself I see.  

What was the offense to stainless steel and vessel?


----------



## billski (Mar 15, 2011)

Just leave the carnage for the tow truck driver to clean up, after the ambulance has left the scene.
I talked to a tow truck driver last summer.  It's pretty disgusting to see the stuff the police insist the tow truck driver clean up.

Move along folks, nothing to see here...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

billski said:


> Just leave the carnage for the tow truck driver to clean up, after the ambulance has left the scene.
> I talked to a tow truck driver last summer.  It's pretty disgusting to see the stuff the police insist the tow truck driver clean up.
> 
> Move along folks, nothing to see here...



I want to know what his problem was.  He did not like the word vessel or does not believe the vessel is SS.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Just two minutes ago some dude on NPR said it takes a couple of years for all of the heat from the rods to cool in the pool of water. That is why spent rods are not taken to storage facilities right away.


 

Again, it is a yes and no.  The rods are cool enough after a few months to be removed and placed in the storage pool  facilty.  In the case of these reactors the storage facility is reported to be above the reactor in pools of water and boric acid.  Remember boron slows the fission process thus keeping the fissionable material at bay.  The rods themselves can then be transferred to separate storage containers out side of the facility or another site, usually one year.  Called dry cask storage.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

http://www.babcock.com/products/commercial_nuclear_plant_components/reactor_vessels.html


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Oh yeah.  Remember, I a morally liberally and fiscally conservative.



And crappy at grammar...

That made absolutely no sense... Stick to physics Einstein..  yawn...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> http://www.babcock.com/products/commercial_nuclear_plant_components/reactor_vessels.html


 

And your point is that you were wrong about my knowledge.  What an idiot. You just posted a linked to a site that confirms the vessel is stainless steel. The model is only clad on the inside with stainless though.  It reduces the cost to make it this way, but you forget these are 40 year reactors.  They were using all stainless back then to my understanding.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I am going to oversimplify this.
> 
> 
> This plant has the stainless containment vessel and a concrete sheath over that.


 Are you sure?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> And crappy at grammar...
> 
> That made absolutely no sense... Stick to physics Einstein.. yawn...


 

Forgive the typo.  I never proof.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Are you sure?


 

Yes, the inner vessel is stainless from looking at the info on the designs and also the spent fuel storage is above the vessel in a concrete pool which is also part of the secondary confinement building. They then have a sheet metal structure around that.  I see the drawing that you posted now.  It is a matter of what is called primary confinement.  I think of the vessel as the primary confinement and the concrete as secondary.


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Forgive the typo.  I never proof.



"morally liberally "

wtf does that men?


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Forgive the typo.  I never proof.



  Me 2 --------------i CAN relate to THAT --  --- my  Brain races ahead of my fingers


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> "morally liberal "
> 
> wtf does that men?


 

fixed typo again


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> You just posted a linked to a site that confirms the vessel is stainless steel. The model is only clad on the inside with stainless though.  It reduces the cost to make it this way, but you forget these are 40 year reactors.  They were using all stainless back then to my understanding.


 So "clad" is the same as "Made of"?


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 15, 2011)

Jesus this thing is out of control and only getting worse.  God bless the workers I think they r on a death mission.   The media is disgusting with the shameless footage.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> It reduces the cost to make it this way,


 Yes im sure saving a buck is high on the priority list when designing reactor vessels:beer:


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Again, it is a yes and no.  The rods are cool enough after a few months to be removed and placed in the storage pool  facilty.  In the case of these reactors the storage facility is reported to be above the reactor in pools of water and boric acid.  Remember boron slows the fission process thus keeping the fissionable material at bay.  The rods themselves can then be transferred to separate storage containers out side of the facility or another site, usually one year.  Called dry cask storage.



From what I heard on the radio, unlike France which recycles all of it's spent rods and the US where we have off site storage, all the spent rods are stored on-site in Japan.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Oh yeah.  Remember, I a morally liberally and fiscally conservative.



Socially liberal? ;-)


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> So "clad" is the same as "Made of"?


 
Read the post again, jack arse.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Socially liberal? ;-)


 

Yes doing to many things at once.  Fingers are not keeping.  You knew what I meant.


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Read the post again, jack arse.



You could've just said "yes it is" instead of acting like an uppity, know it all  - douche bag..

Socially Liberal... i highly doubt it...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> From what I heard on the radio, unlike France which recycles all of it's spent rods and the US where we have off site storage, all the spent rods are stored on-site in Japan.


 

I can see that.  Space is limited in Japan and they have no Yucca Mountain to store it all.


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Yes doing to many things at once.  Fingers are not keeping.  You knew what I meant.



yes we all are supposed to speak PickUt language...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> You could've just said "yes it is" instead of acting like an uppity, know it all - douche bag..
> 
> Socially Liberal... i highly doubt it...


 

Clad is not the same. I stated the vessels at these plant are all stainless to my knowledge due to their age.

And yes I am.  I could give to 2 cents what you do as long as it does not affect me.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

This one?
 Says "This plant has the stainless containment vessel"



Puck it said:


> I am going to oversimplify this.
> 
> There are basiclly two type of reactors in the world. One that generates the steam via direct contact with the fuel, thus creating contaminated turbines. This is the type that Chernobyl is or was. Very obselete technology, but it allowed for very big reactors thus making the output higher.
> 
> ...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> yes we all are supposed to speak PickUt language...


 

Wa-Loaf does.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> This one?
> Says "This plant has the stainless containment vessel"


 
Yes and the one above where I state that age of the reactors make the vessel all stainless for the designs that I have seen.

Good god man, open your eyes and read.


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Clad is not the same. I stated the vessels at these plant are all stainless to my knowledge due to their age.
> 
> And yes I am.  I could give to 2 cents what you do as long as it does not affect me.




Now why couldn't you just say that to the poster instead of calling him names?

And i still highly doubt it you are liberal anything..


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> The problem is using sea water and its affect on the all ready brittle stainless steel confinement vessel.



 This one?


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

A physicist would know stainless steel is not strong enough and would never be used for containment alone.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> This one?


 

And your point is?


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Good god man, open your eyes and read.



just remember that PuckTi says reading does not make you knowledgeable...  So why even pay attention to what he says...???



			
				Puck it said:
			
		

> Well read does not make you knowledgable.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> And your point is?


 They are not, never have been and never will be made of stainless steel. :beer:


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> A physicist would know stainless steel is not strong enough and would never be used for containment alone.


 
Moronwax - Talk about what you know
Cold rolled SS 302 has a strength 860 MPa
Low Carbon Steel 1090 has strength 841 MPa

We use stainless in ultra high vacuum chambers all time. Low e-7 or -8 torr. Lot of inward force on it and hold up well.

Were you referring to some other steel?


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> They are not, never have been and never will be made of stainless steel. :beer:


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> just remember that PuckTi says reading does not make you knowledgeable... So why even pay attention to what he says...???


 

Stay the f-ing out of it unless you have something less offensive.


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Stay the f-ing out of it unless you have something less offensive.




Less offensive then what?  You acting like a pompous know it all?  Being offensive yourself?
Spelling like a 4 year old?  Telling me i can't learn from reading?


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Typically, the vessel is constructed of low alloy steel with an internal stainless steel cladding to protect the vessel from corrosion. http://www.babcock.com/products/commercial_nuclear_plant_components/reactor_vessels.html
 Im beginning to think they should have used your head for a containment vessel...its pretty thick


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Im beginning to think they should have used your head for a containment vessel...its pretty thick



No - to porous....  And big...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Typically, the vessel is constructed of low alloy steel with an internal stainless steel cladding to protect the vessel from corrosion. http://www.babcock.com/products/commercial_nuclear_plant_components/reactor_vessels.html
> Im beginning to think they should have used your head for a containment vessel...its pretty thick


 
Again the documents that I have been reading on these plants have stated a 6in SS conefinement vessel, with respects to the cladding with low carbon steel.  I have been looking for reference to the plants but have not found any.  If you have found info on their designs then please link it.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> We use stainless in ultra high vacuum chambers all time.  Low e-7 or -8 torr.


  In other words, you suck at your job LOL:beer:


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Again the documents that I have been reading on these plants have stated a 6in SS conefinement vessel, with respects to the cladding with low carbon steel.  I have been looking for reference to the plants but have not found any.  If you have found info on their designs then please link it.



 That stuff is classified.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> No - to porous.... And big...


 

Go play with your drums and stay out.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> That stuff is classified.


 
Not really. I will dig further and see if this design is clad. I think the reactor at this site was manufactured by Westinghouse. I should be able to dig it up and find out. Stainless steel is able to handle the pressure with a strength of ultimately 860MPa. The cooling water in BWR is maintained at about 7.6MPa. The PWR reactor is higher at 16MPa. It may be cladded now due to cost of the stainless and the experience of 40 years.

BTW, if you had a problem with my information. Do not act like dmz.  I would have been happy to discuss your information, but you went about it with an attack and that pisses me off more then you think.

Thanks to C-10 and Wa.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 15, 2011)

FWIW

Nuke expert on NPR today claimed the internal contianment vessels are stainless steel, then surrounded by 6 inch thick concrete.

Also said that Japan recycles spent rods


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 15, 2011)

This is valuable stuff.  I have stopped listening to all other media outlets and am now getting my news about the disaster in Japan only from the miscellaneous discussion section of a northeast US skiing forum.  DMC makes for a great new transcriber, drawing on sources as far reaching as Youtube.  And Puck it is the go to guy for in-depth “I work in a similar field and know some people who do this stuff” analysis.  Plus it’s highly informative to get differing analysis from other specialists who also know how to use Google.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 15, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> This is valuable stuff.  I have stopped listening to all other media outlets and am now getting my news about the disaster in Japan only from the miscellaneous discussion section of a northeast US skiing forum.  DMC makes for a great new transcriber, drawing on sources as far reaching as Youtube.  And Puck it is the go to guy for in-depth “I work in a similar field and know some people who do this stuff” analysis.  Plus it’s highly informative to get differing analysis from other specialists who also know how to use Google.



Come on man.  Don't I get any credit for reporting what I hear on NPR?  :lol:


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Come on man.  Don't I get any credit for reporting what I hear on NPR?  :lol:



Not unless it is vetted through Puck it


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> FWIW
> 
> Nuke expert on NPR today claimed the internal contianment vessels are stainless steel, then surrounded by 6 inch thick concrete.
> 
> Also said that Japan recycles spent rods



The concrete is what I am referring to as secondary confinement. The question morwax is bringing up is the primary confinement aka vessel all stainless or stainless lined clad by a low carbon steel. I am researching that.  I have heard what you have that the vessel was all stainless and 6 inches thick.   I am mining now for the manufacturer info. Stay tuned.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Not unless it is vetted through Puck it



You skiing at Cannon on Thursday.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Come on man.  Don't I get any credit for reporting what I hear on NPR?  :lol:



You want me to start on NPR.  Come on another time.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> You skiing at Cannon on Thursday.



yes.  

edit: actually riding that day.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> yes.
> 
> edit: actually riding that day.


 
Wanna meet up. I was supposed to go with some guys from work but they are bagging I think.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Wanna meet up. I was supposed to go with some guys from work but they are bagging I think.



Sure.  I have a buddy coming up who's good rider but it'll be his first time out this year (tough times).  That could impact my usual plan of attack and could make for a slower day.  Still, should be good spring conditions and good fun.  I'll PM my #.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Sorry, it did not paste well from the pdf file that I found.

The vessel is listed below as ASTM A533 bCl 1 alloy, which is Tempered Manganese-Molybdenum-Nickel. This a non-reactive steel alloy desgin for pressure vessels. This could where the reports may have assume it was stainless from what I was reading I should have dug farther. The wall thickness is alittle over 6 inches. The cladding is 5mm and the wall thickness is 160mm. I need to dig more to find what material the cladding is and what material the wall is. Containment vessel design pressure is about 62psi. Well within any steel or stainless steel strength. The other question is this alloy handle embrittlement better. Stayed tuned.


Full specs on Mark 1 General Electric BWR/3 design


*Fuel and Cladding* 
Fuel UO2 pelletCladding Zr-2 Enrichment Initial: 2.1 %
Reload: 3.4 %
Pellet Height 10.3 mmPellet Diameter 10.4 mmClad Thickness 0.86 mmPin Height 3945 mmPin Outside Diameter 12.3 mmMaximum Clad Temperature 310 deg CMaximum Centerline Temperature 1690 deg C

*Fuel Assemblies* 
Assembly Model Initial Core: 7x7 
Reloads: 8x8 high burnup 
Number of Rods per Assembly 60 Fuel Rod Pitch 1.6 cmTotal Number of Assemblies 400 Fuel Assembly Pitch 15.2 cmGeometry 8x8 

*Core Configuration* 
Active Core Height 3.66 mActive Core Diameter 3.44 mFuel Inventory 68 tHMAverage Core Power Density 40.6 kWt/literAverage Assembly Discharge Burnup 39500 MWd/tUPeak Assemby Discharge Burnup 50000 MWd/tUNumber of Cycles to Full Burnup 4 Axial Blankets yes Axially Zoned Fuel yes Axially Zoned Burnable Poisons yes Average Linear Fuel Rating 15.10 kW/mPeak Linear Fuel Rating 44.00 kW/m

*Control System* 
Control Rod Material B4C/Hf Control Rod Drive Type hydraulic Number of Coarse Control Rods 97 total Number of Rods Containing Burnable Poison 9/11 Burnable Poison Material Gd2O3 Other Control Systems burnable poison/recirculating 

*Primary Coolant* 
Coolant Material H2O Weight in Primary Circuit 148 tPressure 70.7 kg/sq cmCore Inlet Temperature 183 deg CCore Outlet Temperature 285 deg CNumber of Primary Pumps 2 Total Mass Flow 21800 t/h

*Coolant Systems* 
Number of Loops 2 Water Chemistry 

*Turbines* 
Number of Turbines 1 Turbine Speed 1500 rev/minTurbine Undefined subroutine &main::newrx_data_finish called at /opt/netscape/htdocs/insp/cgi-bin/rperl/sql_interface line 48. Rating 460 MWeStop Valve Pressure 66.8 kg/sq cmStop Valve Temperature 282 deg C

Vessel and Containment 
Vessel Material ASTM A 533 B Cl 1 Vessel Shape cylinder Height 19.7 mInner Diameter 4.8 mWall Thickness 160 mmClad Thickness 5 mmContainment Type pressure suppression Containment Design Pressure 4.35 kg/sq cm

*Reactor Operations* 
Cycle Length 13 monthsNormal Planned Outage Length 90 daysFuel Loading 10 tHM/yFraction of Core Reloaded Each Cycle 25 %Operational Strategy Low Leakage Fuel Management


*Spent Fuel Management* Number of Operating Cycles Completed 15 Pool Capacity Increase Strategy 75.0 Total Increase in Pool Capacity Reracking %Other On-Site Storage Common storage pool Supplier of Additional Storage Toshiba


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Sure. I have a buddy coming up who's good rider but it'll be his first time out this year (tough times). That could impact my usual plan of attack and could make for a slower day. Still, should be good spring conditions and good fun. I'll PM my #.


 
I park over at Zoomer with my silver FJ cruiser.  PM your number.


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> In other words, you suck at your job LOL:beer:




Good one...


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> In other words, you suck at your job LOL:beer:


 

No, we just use blow hards like you to suck down the chambers.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

dmc said:


> Good one...


 

I have a new friend!!!!


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I have a new friend!!!!



He's funny...


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> DMC makes for a great new transcriber, drawing on sources as far reaching as Youtube.



I didn't major in physics in college.. I majored in journalism.. 

Although i enjoy the effects of physics on my snowboarding...


----------



## dmc (Mar 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Also said that Japan recycles spent rods



Do they have to separate paper. plastic and spent rods..?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

More info on the one of the materials in vessel

ASTM A 533 B Cl 1 alloy is a low ferritic steel that is less susceptible to embrittlement caused by the nuclear reaction. This fission process releases neutrons which causes this. The question is which is the outer and which is the inner of the vessel. Still digging.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Calling it quits for tongiht.  It has been enjoyable.  Love digging for this stuff.  I will need to call a colleague in the nuke industry to see if he knows.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 15, 2011)

Id use forged nickel alloy if it were me but im no physicist


----------



## Puck it (Mar 15, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Id use forged nickel alloy if it were me but im no physicist



Funny, but why forged?  ddt would use cold rolled  since he is so liberal.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

Not good, latest images are showing plumes of white smoke coming from what looks like Unit 4. Radiation levels have jumped to dangerous levels even for workers rotating.


----------



## dmc (Mar 16, 2011)

CNN reporting radiation in the tap water up to 50 miles away....


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

dmc said:


> CNN reporting radiation in the tap water up to 50 miles away....


 

Not good if true.  Air samples would be the first to register though.


----------



## dmc (Mar 16, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Not good if true.  Air samples would be the first to register though.



Why wouldn't it be true?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

dmc said:


> Why wouldn't it be true?


 
Need to know who and where the reading taken and with what type of detection device? How high? What type of radiation was measured?  There is more to it then just saying the level is high.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 16, 2011)

Japanese flag was flying on the WGBH video screen over the Pike.


----------



## billski (Mar 16, 2011)

The situation is even more grave when you view it in summary fashion.  I fear that the response teams are being overwhelmed with issues.

*Fukushima Daiichi crisis*



 *Reactor 1:* Was first to be rocked an explosion on Saturday; fuel rods reportedly 70% damaged
 *Reactor 2:* There are fears a blast on Tuesday breached a containment system; fuel rods reportedly 33% damaged
 *Reactor 3:* Explosion on Monday; smoke or steam seen rising on Wednesday; damage to roof and possibly also to a containment system
 *Reactor 4:* Hit by a major blaze on Tuesday and another fire on Wednesday
Source: BBC


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 16, 2011)

Nuke plants with the greatest chance of failure in an earthquake? Right here in the North East ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asiapacific/


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 16, 2011)

billski said:


> The situation is even more grave when you view it in summary fashion.  I fear that the response teams are being overwhelmed with issues.
> 
> *Fukushima Daiichi crisis*
> 
> ...



Add to that: reactors 5 and 6 are also having "difficulty cooling" :sad:

Even these reactors that were "off line" prior to the quake/tsunami are in danger of failure. When I heard they had pulled all workers from the site last night all I could think of was all 6 of the reactors possibly ending up in meltdown, multipling the chances that at least one of the containment systems would fail.


----------



## billski (Mar 16, 2011)

*Sources*

*355:* Simon in Oita, Japan writes: "The  sensationalist approach of some of the media is starting to grate -  stoking fear to sell their product. The British Embassy have provided a  very calm and rational analysis of the nuclear threat, along with the  Massachusetts Institute of Technology blog and other sources of  knowledge (the BBC site has been a lifeline). The engineers at the plant  are obviously facing a chain reaction of problems in the most logical  manner and deserve our support.

*1339:* The BBC's Tim Wilcox has met many  foreigners waiting to take flights out of Japan at Tokyo's Narita  airport. Many, like Aiko - flying home to San Francisco - have resigned  from their jobs to leave the country.
*
1324:* Japan has raised the maximum  radiation dose allowed for nuclear workers, to 250 millisieverts from  100 millisieverts. It described the move as "unavoidable due to the  circumstances", AP reports.

*1214:* Japanese police have been asked to send  watercannon truck to hose down the nuclear plant, Japan's broadcaster  NHK is reporting, according to AFP


Source BBC


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Nuke plants with the greatest chance of failure in an earthquake? Right here in the North East ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asiapacific/



Good to see Seabrook, NH not in the top 10.

They test the warning sirens fairly often and they can be heard from our home.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Add to that: reactors 5 and 6 are also having "difficulty cooling" :sad:
> 
> Even these reactors that were "off line" prior to the quake/tsunami are in danger of failure. When I heard they had pulled all workers from the site last night all I could think of was all 6 of the reactors possibly ending up in meltdown, multipling the chances that at least one of the containment systems would fail.


 

#4 was offline too as reports say.  Reactor #2 is also running MOX as fuel.  There may be others too.  MOX is a mixture of uranium and plutonium(left over from surplus weapons grade).


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 16, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Good to see Seabrook, NH not in the top 10.
> 
> They test the warning sirens fairly often and they can be heard from our home.



I was thinking about Seabrook. I would say it would be pretty high up on the Tsunami risk list. as there have been faily large events in the fairly recent past:

http://geology.com/noaa/atlantic-ocean-tsunami/


----------



## billski (Mar 16, 2011)

I did not realize there were six.  I thought it was four.

*440:* Dr Sally Leivesley, a risk management  advisor, says huge amounts are being asked of the "very fatigued"  workers battling fires at the Fukushima site. "They've been asked by the  emperor to give their all, and they will," she tells BBC News.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 16, 2011)

billski said:


> I did not realize there were six.  I thought it was four.
> 
> *440:* Dr Sally Leivesley, a risk management  advisor, says huge amounts are being asked of the "very fatigued"  workers battling fires at the Fukushima site. "They've been asked by the  emperor to give their all, and they will," she tells BBC News.



There are four reactors in the main section of the facility and the other two are adjacent.






Reactors 5-6 are on the far right side of the pic.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> I was thinking about Seabrook. I would say it would be pretty high up on the Tsunami risk list.


 

Atlantic is *less* prone to tsunamis but can happen.  The main reason is there are no subduction zone faults in the basin except for in the east side of the Caribbean island chain and off od South America.  These are small zone compared to the Pacific.  Submarine landslides caused by earthquakes are another source but rare also.

If one does occurred the consequences would be bad due to the population along the eastern seaboard.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> There are four reactors in the main section of the facility and the other two are adjacent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

And 4 at the other Fukushima Daini facilty and 2 at the Onagawa, all of these are troublesome too.

Also just found that 7 and 8 were preparing for construction at this site too.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> I was thinking about Seabrook. I would say it would be pretty high up on the Tsunami risk list.



absolutely  

There's really nothing in terms of barrier islands off the coast of NH to slow down a tsunami.  Since the weekend I've thought quite a bit about what the situation would be like here should we ever experience something like what's going on in Japan.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Atlantic is *less* prone to tsunamis but can happen.  The main reason is there are no subduction zone faults in the basin except for in the east side of the Caribbean island chain and off od South America.  These are small zone compared to the Pacific.  Submarine landslides caused by earthquakes are another source but rare also.
> 
> If one does occurred the consequences would be bad due to the population along the eastern seaboard.



Usually the TV shows I see on potential East Coast Tsunamis talk of large landslides off of the Elusian Islands or North Aftrica.  It's almost always on a science channel catostrophe marathon followed by stuff like Yellowstone Super Volcano.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Usually the TV shows I see on potential East Coast Tsunamis talk of large landslides off of the Elusian Islands or North Aftrica. It's almost always on a science channel catostrophe marathon followed by stuff like Yellowstone Super Volcano.


 

Where do you mean by Elusian Islands?

The article below talks about that potential off the Canary Islands
*N.E. is not immune, scientists warn*

By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | December 28, 2004
Three hours after an offshore earthquake shook Canada in 1929, three giant ocean surges hurtled onto Newfoundland's coast at 78 miles per hour. Twenty-nine people were killed by the estimated 20-foot waves, and entire salt cod-fishing villages were dismantled as pulses from the tsunami reverberated as far away as Portugal.
Today, the Burin Peninsula disaster serves as a poignant reminder that eastern North America is not immune to the devastating force of a tsunami. Fearsome ocean surges of the kind that killed thousands in Asia this week are far more common in the Pacific, but they have the potential to cause widespread devastation along New England's coast.
''Just because they don't happen [that often] doesn't mean there is no risk or hazard to the New England coast," said Klaus Jacob, senior scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York. There are no records of a tsunami hitting New England's coast during modern times, and Jacob estimates that a tsunami of the strength that hit in 1929 has lower than a 1-in-1,000 chance of occurring in eastern North America in any given year. ''Still, it can happen virtually anywhere along the North America coast," he said.
Because of the low probability, eastern North America does not have a system in place like the elaborate network along the Pacific coast that warns when a strong earthquake has the potential to produce tsunamis. Some scientists say that because of careful seismic monitoring, they will probably know when one is coming toward New England, but others say a warning system or public education campaign is needed to warn people to stay away from coastal areas if they feel tremors. In the Indian Ocean, devastating tsunamis are so rare, the last big one before Sunday's was in the 19th century, officials did not establish a warning system.
A tsunami is a series of extraordinarily large ocean waves caused by the sudden displacement of water by earthquakes or landslides on the ocean floor. Usually, the giant waves occur when earthquakes hit above magnitude 7 on the Richter scale, pushing walls of water outward from the epicenter with the speed of a jet plane. In the open, deep ocean, boaters probably wouldn't even notice if they are atop a tsunami. But as the giant wave hits coastal areas, the enormous energy underwater is transferred into the wave crashing on shore.
Scientists aren't exactly sure what causes some earthquakes off eastern North America. While there are hot spots of geological activity in some Caribbean areas and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge 2,000 miles off New England, the swath of ocean floor is considered a relatively stable place in the North Atlantic plate. Still, earthquakes do occur, and some scientists believe it stems from some unknown stress on the plate or perhaps a response to the release of pressure from the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago.
''With the exception of a few areas, we don't have the same geology as the Pacific," said Robert Marvinney, Maine state geologist. ''Still, there is no [coastal] place on earth where the risk is zero from a tsunami."
Scientists do know that the 1929 tsunami was triggered by a 7.2 earthquake about 11 miles below the seafloor south of the Burin Peninsula on the south coast of Newfoundland. It was felt as far away as New England and Montreal.
Twelve trans-Atlantic telegraph cables snapped in multiple places. More than 40 villages in Newfoundland were damaged, and the area also suffered the loss of livestock, fishing gear, ships, and 280,000 pounds of salt cod, according to historical reports. Property losses were estimated at more than $20 million in 2004 dollars.
While underwater earthquakes can cause local tsunamis, enormous geological events elsewhere in the world may also send huge waves our way, much as this week's earthquake sent devastating waves 3,000 miles away. One London researcher contends that an unstable chunk of La Palma, a volcanically active island in the Canary Islands, could cause a catastrophic wall of water to hit the US East Coast if it falls into the sea.
''I'd worry a lot more about hurricanes [in New England] than tsunamis," said John Goff, a senior research scientist at the University of Texas.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 16, 2011)

Is it just me, or are all scientist comments on any potential risk immediately turned into FUD by reporters?


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 16, 2011)

So, to summarize,
Things have gone from bad to worse to much, much worse, and things may be on their way to really bloody awful.
Stainless steel probably factors in to the reactor design at some level, but it doesn't make a gnat's fart in a hurricane's woth of difference how much stainless steel is in it once the rods start their melting thing.
Japanese design is to store spent rods above the reactors, which seems a bit silly. The US stores on site, but seperated from the reactors, but until recently couldn't recycle rods, which seems a bit silly. The French wear berets, which look a bit silly, but they do recycle their spent rods.

Did I miss anything important?


----------



## billski (Mar 16, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Is it just me, or are all scientist comments on any potential risk immediately turned into FUD by reporters?



It's my impression that 3-5 minute sound bites are insuffient to explain such a complex issue while showing pictures of the current carnage.  As such, it's the interpretation of the viewers to draw erroneous conclusions in haste.  I think it's more or less a result of abbreviated reportage and the short attention span of most viewers.

Why else would these meteorologists be standing alongside Route 95 during a snowstorm?  It's certainly not their idea.

Only a few news outlets are providing robust coverage.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> So, to summarize,
> Things have gone from bad to worse to much, much worse, and things may be on their way to really bloody awful.
> Stainless steel probably factors in to the reactor design at some level, but it doesn't make a gnat's fart in a hurricane's woth of difference how much stainless steel is in it once the rods start their melting thing.
> Japanese design is to store spent rods above the reactors, which seems a bit silly. The US stores on site, but seperated from the reactors, but until recently couldn't recycle rods, which seems a bit silly. The French wear berets, which look a bit silly, but they do recycle their spent rods.
> ...


 
You forgot the white flag for the French and this great defense design Maginot Line of the French.

And you wrote stainless you know.


----------



## billski (Mar 16, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> So, to summarize,
> Things have gone from bad to worse to much, much worse, and things may be on their way to really bloody awful.
> Stainless steel probably factors in to the reactor design at some level, but it doesn't make a gnat's fart in a hurricane's woth of difference how much stainless steel is in it once the rods start their melting thing.
> Japanese design is to store spent rods above the reactors, which seems a bit silly. The US stores on site, but seperated from the reactors, but until recently couldn't recycle rods, which seems a bit silly. The French wear berets, which look a bit silly, but they do recycle their spent rods.
> ...



*525:* The EU's energy chief Guenther Oettinger has  said that in the coming hours "there could be further catastrophic  events, which could pose a threat to the lives of people on the island".  He told the European Parliament the Fukushima nuclear site was  "effectively out of control". "The cooling systems did not work, and as a  result we are somewhere between a disaster and a major disaster."
Source: BBC


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 16, 2011)

billski said:


> we are somewhere between a disaster and a major disaster."
> Source: BBC



So, pretty frickin' bad, but not yet really bloody awful.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Where do you mean by Elusian Islands?
> 
> .



Nevermind

I was thinking of the Azores.  The shows suggest they have the potential for massive volcanic eruptions that would cause a landslide similar to Mt. St Helens, resulting in a substantial tsunami to hit the east coast.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 16, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Biology major/physics minor for a period.
> 
> I forgot about Ghidra. That would be, as we say in the business, sub-optimal. Rodan's on vacation this week, so it could get ugly...





Puck it said:


> Strange combo though
> 
> For me
> BS - Physics, Math Minor, Concentration in Geology
> ...





ctenidae said:


> Especially since I ended up, 8 years later, with a BSBA in Finance, and then an MBA.
> I'm a triple threat- science, numbers, and bullshit. I can do it all.



stroke me, stroke me......


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Nevermind
> 
> I was thinking of the Azores. The shows suggest they have the potential for massive volcanic eruptions that would cause a landslide similar to Mt. St Helens, resulting in a substantial tsunami to hit the east coast.


 

I did not know where you meant. And yes to the Azores just like the Canary Islands.  These have spread from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

2knees said:


> stroke me, stroke me......


 

Keep your thoughts to yourself, real bad mental picture.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 16, 2011)

2knees said:


> stroke me, stroke me......


----------



## Glenn (Mar 16, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> So, to summarize,
> The French wear berets, which look a bit silly, but they do recycle their spent rods.



LOL! Classic!


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

These workers better be set for life, however short they are.  Along with their families.



*The Fukushima 50: Not afraid to die*

*If the Fukushima nuclear plant's crisis is not calmed soon, Japan will need more brave volunteers to battle it*

(CBS News)  Since the disaster struck in Japan, about 800 workers have been evacuated from the damaged nuclear complex in Fukushima. The radiation danger is that great.
However, CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that a handful have stayed on the job, risking their lives, to try to save the lives of countless people they don't even know.

Although communication with the workers inside the nuclear plant is nearly impossible, a CBS News consultant spoke to a Japanese official who made contact with one of the 50 inside the control center.

The official said that his friend, one of the Fukushima 50, told him that he was not afraid to die, that that was his job. 

Cham Dallas, who led teams responding to the Chernobyl disaster, said that kind of response is not out of the normal for some workers in the nuclear energy sector. 

"(In) my experience of people in the action area of nuclear power is much like that," Dallas said.


The 50 are working amid decreasing but still dangerously high levels of radiation.

"The longer they stay the more dangerous it becomes for them," said expert Margaret Harding. "I think it is a testament to their guts for them to say, 'We'll stay and if that means we go, we go.'"

If the contamination threat isn't contained in a few weeks, finding enough workers willing to face the risks could become a crucial challenge.

Dallas said he expects that in that scenario, the Japanese energy authorities may have to find volunteers willing to undergo similar dangers, which will be hard to do, but not impossible.

Keep in mind they'd be volunteering to head into a place so potentially dangerous, that anyone within 20 miles of it was just asked to evacuate. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/15/eveningnews/main20043554.shtml


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

dmc said:


> CNN reporting radiation in the tap water up to 50 miles away....


 

From the Kyodo news

The impact of the recent development involving the release of radioactive substances continued to widen, with the Fukushima prefecutural government announcing that it had detected a small amount of radioactive substances -- iodine and cesium -- from tap water extracted at 8 a.m. in the city of Fukushima. The substances were not detected in water taken in the afternoon.

Does not sound like it is 50 miles though. Need to look at a map to be sure.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

you would think that in this days technology, we would have robots of some sort to assist in such dangerous environments


----------



## mondeo (Mar 16, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> you would think that in this days technology, we would have robots of some sort to assist in such dangerous environments


The mechanics are simple, the controls aren't. It takes a supercomputer with advanced logic just to play Jeopardy; robots at this point in time are still only good for specific programmed tasks. AI just isn't adaptable enough yet, and it's probably still a long way off.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

mondeo said:


> The mechanics are simple, the controls aren't. It takes a supercomputer with advanced logic just to play Jeopardy; robots at this point in time are still only good for specific programmed tasks. AI just isn't adaptable enough yet, and it's probably still a long way off.



guess I just have this image in my head of Mars Rovers with water cannons :lol:


----------



## billski (Mar 16, 2011)

Information about the incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Plants in Japan  hosted by http://web.mit.edu/nse/ :: Maintained by the students of the  Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT

http://mitnse.com/


----------



## dmc (Mar 16, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Go play with your drums and stay out.



No.  I'll always be here. Watching and waiting.


----------



## dmc (Mar 16, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Need to know who and where the reading taken and with what type of detection device? How high? What type of radiation was measured?  There is more to it then just saying the level is high.



Not me.  I let the REAL experts tell me.  It's their job.


----------



## dmc (Mar 16, 2011)

billski said:


> Information about the incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Plants in Japan  hosted by http://web.mit.edu/nse/ :: Maintained by the students of the  Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT
> 
> http://mitnse.com/



I bet THEY learn from reading


----------



## billski (Mar 16, 2011)

*1837:* Gregory  Jaczko, head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has said  there is no water left in the spent fuel pool in reactor four, adding:  "We believe that radiation levels are extremely high." Mr Jaczko was  speaking to Congress in Washington and it was not immediately clear  where his information had come from.
*1832:* The  AP news agency is quoting Tepco as saying a new power line is almost  ready which could end the crisis. The disruption of power to the pumps  which send coolant through the reactors is what led to their  overheating.


Source: BBC 3/16/11


----------



## mondeo (Mar 16, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> guess I just have this image in my head of Mars Rovers with water cannons :lol:


I think the issue with that is not all that many people are in the market for robotic fire fighting equipment for nuclear disaster sites. And during spikes in interest, lead times are too long to satisfy the market.

It's an improvised solution, the planned earthquake safety systems did their job until the tsunami took them out. Double failures typically aren't designed for unless the probability of occurrence of either within a given time frame is higher than some threshold (in airplanes, I think I've usually seen 1 in a billion flights.) The odds of an earthquake in a given time and a tsunami within the 3 weeks it takes to cool down the cores are extremely low if you consider them as seperate events. The failure in risk analysis is that they often aren't seperate events.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

Picture says it all. The concrete secondary containment looks to be destroyed on unit 3


----------



## hiroto (Mar 16, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I think the issue with that is not all that many people are in the market for robotic fire fighting equipment for nuclear disaster sites. And during spikes in interest, lead times are too long to satisfy the market.



Well, not fire fighting, but this monitoring robot is being deployed.   






I don't know why it took them this long, but this research vehicle (I don't believe it was ever used in the real accident) is capable of getting critical measurements within nuclear power plant, and capable of dropping wireless relay station along the way to maintain radio contact within a building.   Hope it works.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Picture says it all. The concrete secondary containment looks to be destroyed on unit 3



wonder how long it will be until we see aerial footage like Chernobyl showing exposure to the outside environment.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> wonder how long it will be until we see aerial footage like Chernobyl showing exposure to the outside environment.



Remember watching the reports during college. Deja Vu.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

In that video, is that the actual rods glowing?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> In that video, is that the actual rods glowing?



That is left of the molten core materials. It still is pretty freaky to look at. We had discussions in quantum mechanics and thermodynamic classes about the accident.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 16, 2011)

Just a couple small hydrogen gas explosions, nothing to worry about. 
 They have played this down big-time. Meltdown imminent.
 Puck did you get to Inconel?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 16, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Puck did you get to Inconel?



Lost me, dude?  You mean the alloy? Get into it in what?

We have used it at but it is used in the turbo pumps on the blades, if I remember correctly.  Ever use mu metal?


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 16, 2011)

Sounds like the US and Japan are now arguing over how bad it is.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2011)

According to CNN they have restarted helicopter operations dropping water on the facility.

They showed a picture of that on TV at the gym this morning.  The guy next to me goes, I'm no nuclear engineer, I'm just a mailman, but it would appear to me that what they're doing is the equivalent of spitting on a roaring campfire, ain't gonna do much. :lol:


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 17, 2011)




----------



## Puck it (Mar 17, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


>



Those do not look like water can be restored to them.  The steam coming out is not good.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 18, 2011)

Looking at those pictures, I find it hard to believe that the pipes running into the reactor core are still able to carry water. There is a lot of damage.

That link to the MIT site BillSki posted has a lot of really good explanations about what is going on there and what could happen. Most recently, they gave a good analysis on what happens if the nuclear fuel melts through the core and onto the outer containment vessel's floor.

Here it is again for those that missed it:
http://mitnse.com/


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 18, 2011)

Puck it said:


> That is left of the molten core materials. It still is pretty freaky to look at. We had discussions in quantum mechanics and thermodynamic classes about the accident.


 
  Definitely freaky.  That looks like something out of a sci-fi movie.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 18, 2011)

Hearing a bit more talk that the likelyhood that they'll need to employ a sand, clay and concrete kill like they did in Chernobyl is quite possible. 

While I tend to be pro-nuclear, if I were Obama, I'd order an immediate shut down of the nuclear plant north of NYC along the Hudson and possibly other high population areas as well.  If there was ever a problem at the Hudson facility, over 20 million people would need to evacuate the area based upon the same guidelines the US gov't is suggesting the zone should be in Japan.  You want to talk a financial crisis the world has never known?  The risk is too great to operate such a facility so close to the heart of the american economy.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 18, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> The risk is too great to operate such a facility so close to the heart of the american economy.


The severity is massive, but risk needs to include probability. That's where failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) comes into play. Take each failure scenario, assess probability of occurrence and effects of failure. Add up the risk from all scenarios and ensure, with some factor of safety, that they don't fall below some threshold.

The likelihood of another disaster occuring in the next 6 months is pretty damn small. Let them take the time to review safety requirements, reassess the risk, etc. before doing anything dramatic. Keep the permit process open, but make operation of any new reactors known to be at risk of needing to meet new safety requirements.

Any industry regulated for safety faces this type of stuff all the time, they just usually don't make headlines (unless some "whislteblower" goes public with claims that industry and regulators are too cozy, citing some trivial safety violation that has been caught and reported by the company at fault and is already in the process of being corrected) and are less severe in consequence. There are a lot of fears, irrational and rational, surrounding nuclear power. Without being incredibly safe, the industry dies; it's in their own best interest to be honest in their own risk assessments. Have patience and let the experts do their thing.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 18, 2011)

mondeo said:


> The severity is massive, but risk needs to include probability. That's where failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) comes into play. Take each failure scenario, assess probability of occurrence and effects of failure. Add up the risk from all scenarios and ensure, with some factor of safety, that they don't fall below some threshold.
> 
> The likelihood of another disaster occuring in the next 6 months is pretty damn small. Let them take the time to review safety requirements, reassess the risk, etc. before doing anything dramatic. Keep the permit process open, but make operation of any new reactors known to be at risk of needing to meet new safety requirements.
> 
> Any industry regulated for safety faces this type of stuff all the time, they just usually don't make headlines (unless some "whislteblower" goes public with claims that industry and regulators are too cozy, citing some trivial safety violation that has been caught and reported by the company at fault and is already in the process of being corrected) and are less severe in consequence. There are a lot of fears, irrational and rational, surrounding nuclear power. Without being incredibly safe, the industry dies; it's in their own best interest to be honest in their own risk assessments. Have patience and let the experts do their thing.


 
I would like to read the FA report after it is done on this.  What was the failure on the back up systems?  Were the tanks of diesel wipe out or was it the generators?  Where were these located?  I would think that the original FMEA analysis would have taken into account an earthquake and tsunami, since they are in an active subduction zone.  Big F-up if they did not.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 18, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I would like to read the FA report after it is done on this. What was the failure on the back up systems? Were the tanks of diesel wipe out or was it the generators? Where were these located? I would think that the original FMEA analysis would have taken into account an earthquake and tsunami, since they are in an active subduction zone. Big F-up if they did not.


One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 18, 2011)

mondeo said:


> One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.



I read that, too, and thought it odd that they didn't relate them. Especially since the most common cause of a tsunami is, well, an earthquake...


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 18, 2011)

Here's a question.  I'd have to assume that the military has a massive aresenal of mobilie diesel generators that can be dropped by helicopter.  Shouldn't that have been the first attempt to restore power to the cooling systems instead of trying to rebuild actual power lines to the facility?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 18, 2011)

mondeo said:


> One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.



Apparently the facility on the Hudson is designed to handle a 6.0 quake.  It sits right on fault.  Lets hope that that fault isn't capable of ever producing a quake larger than 6.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 18, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I read that, too, and thought it odd that they didn't relate them. Especially since the most common cause of a tsunami is, well, an earthquake...


 

If that is then that was a big oops.  In geological active subduction, those two events pretty much go hand in hand.  I find it unfathomable that the FMEA would treat it that way.


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 18, 2011)

Puck it said:


> If that is then that was a big oops.  In geological active subduction, those two events pretty much go hand in hand.  I find it unfathomable that the FMEA would treat it that way.



Thats the way I read it.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 18, 2011)

So in effect letting the Experts  do their thing ( FMEA)  in isolation may be prudent   yet not necessarily an effective stratagem ,   when in fact IN THIS case  their  pre- event planning  correlations failed to link the potential for co -extant   events leading to this disaster. 

H'mm sounds to me( an admitted layman ) like we need to re-assess our assessment protocols for analyzing potentialities as related to Nukie Poo's


----------



## Puck it (Mar 18, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> So in effect letting the Experts do their thing ( FMEA) in isolation may be prudent yet not necessarily an effective stratagem , when in fact IN THIS case their pre- event planning correlations failed to link the potential for co -extant events leading to this disaster.
> 
> H'mm sounds to me( an admitted layman ) like we need to re-assess our assessment protocols for analyzing potentialities as related to Nukie Poo's


 
When we do FMEA here, it usually involves a large group of experts and some outside of the current product.  It amazes me that this was left off as a possibility of two events occuring given the location or even a tsnumai by itself.

When they get power back on, I will be very surprised if any of those cooling loops and tanks are intact.  Those blasts took out reinforced concrete looking at the pics.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 18, 2011)

mondeo said:


> One of the articles I read said the FMEA considered both, but counted them as seperate incidents with probabilities not being correlated so they didn't consider a 9.0 with tsunami. Which, obviously, was a bad assumption.


 

Have a link to the article?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 18, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Here's a question. I'd have to assume that the military has a massive aresenal of mobilie diesel generators that can be dropped by helicopter. Shouldn't that have been the first attempt to restore power to the cooling systems instead of trying to rebuild actual power lines to the facility?


 
We were just talking about this at work too. There are huge generators on the flatbeds that should have been able to be flown in.  

This could be a culture thing, were they trying to save face and not admit an issue.  At work here, I run into this all of the time with dealing the Asian sites.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 18, 2011)

Puck it said:


> When we do FMEA here, it usually involves a large group of experts and some outside of the current product. It amazes me that this was left off as a possibility of two events occuring given the location or even a tsnumai by itself.
> 
> When they get power back on, I will be very surprised if any of those cooling loops and tanks are intact. Those blasts took out reinforced concrete looking at the pics.


 
I'm wondering how much of the FMEA issue is age-related. My understanding is that there's been a lot of development in quality methods over the last 30-40 years; pre 1970 we just pushed stuff until it broke, now everything's by analysis with testing pretty much purely for model validation.



Puck it said:


> Have a link to the article?


 
I think it was Christian Science Monitor. I'll try to dig it out later.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 18, 2011)

A back up system a few miles inland? Ponds pumps and generators on quake pads? GENIUS:beer:


----------



## Puck it (Mar 18, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I'm wondering how much of the FMEA issue is age-related. My understanding is that there's been a lot of development in quality methods over the last 30-40 years; pre 1970 we just pushed stuff until it broke, now everything's by analysis with testing pretty much purely for model validation.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was Christian Science Monitor. I'll try to dig it out later.



I would guess that procedures and systems would have to be updated. One would think things would be reevaluated over the 40 years.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 18, 2011)

Nuclear plants around the world will tsunami proof and continue poisoning the the planet. Im ready to pedal a stationary bike to make my toast in the morning if thats what it takes.


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 18, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Have a link to the article?



It was on msmc when they updated the most dangerous plants in the US


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 18, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Nuclear plants around the world will tsunami proof and continue poisoning the the planet. Im ready to pedal a stationary bike to make my toast in the morning if thats what it takes.



Now you r just being silly.  Nuclear is and will be part of our energy plan now and far into the future.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 19, 2011)

Just watched the Chernobyl documentary on the Green Channel. Very sobering. 600 heli pilots died of radiation exposure dropping the lead on the reactor. The other three reactors were back in operation after unit 4 was entombed.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 20, 2011)

Cool radiation exposure chart: http://xkcd.com/radiation/


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 20, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Cool radiation exposure chart: http://xkcd.com/radiation/


Oh, nice preview! I recall other xkcd's that used similar graphic representation, can't recall which off the top of my head.

So... how many Sv's do you suppose took Spock down in ST:II?

Too soon? :-?


----------



## billski (Mar 20, 2011)

NHK broadcasting from Japan.  Good reportage

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/


----------



## Edd (Mar 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> So... how many Sv's do you suppose took Spock down in ST:II?
> 
> Too soon? :-?



The comedic value of this comment should be acknowledged.  I hearby declare this remark *funny.*


----------



## Puck it (Mar 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Oh, nice preview! I recall other xkcd's that used similar graphic representation, can't recall which off the top of my head.
> 
> So... how many Sv's do you suppose took Spock down in ST:II?
> 
> Too soon? :-?



As much as the "volunteers" at Chernobyl.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 25, 2011)

Looks like reactor 3 has a big problem. Reports are saying the core may be breached. This is the reactor with the MOX fuel.


----------



## dmc (Mar 25, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Looks like reactor 3 has a big problem. Reports are saying the core may be breached. This is the reactor with the MOX fuel.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel


----------



## Morwax (Mar 25, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Now you r just being silly.  Nuclear is and will be part of our energy plan now and far into the future.


 Because its such a clean, earth friendly option...http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/stewart_brand_a.php


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 25, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Because its such a clean, earth friendly option...http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/stewart_brand_a.php



Better than most of the other alternatives.

Coal pollutes the air
Nat Gas pollutes the ground water
Oil funds terrorists
Windmills kill birds and bats
Solar costs too much
Geothermal is in all the wrong places
Tidal kills the whales
Hydro kills the fish

Nuclear just makes you glow in the dark, which reduces the amount of power we need at night. Win, win.


----------



## Glenn (Mar 25, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Better than most of the other alternatives.
> 
> Coal pollutes the air
> Nat Gas pollutes the ground water
> ...



:lol:


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 25, 2011)

Also important to point out that, using the figures in that Treehugger article, nuclear power in Canada produces about 0.006 metric tonnes of CO2 per MWh produced. In the US, coal fired power plants produce 1 tonne per MWh. That's 13 pounds, full cycle, per MWh for nuclear, 2,000 pounds, just burning, for coal.

You do the math. No, wait, I already did.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 25, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Because its such a clean, earth friendly option...http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/stewart_brand_a.php


18 million tonnes of waste rock! Oh, no! I mean, it was taken out of the ground and then...put on the ground probably pretty close to where it was taken out. Possibly used as fill for previous uranium mines. An environmental tragedy.



ctenidae said:


> Also important to point out that, using the figures in that Treehugger article, nuclear power in Canada produces about 0.006 metric tonnes of CO2 per MWh produced. In the US, coal fired power plants produce 1 tonne per MWh. That's 13 pounds, full cycle, per MWh for nuclear, 2,000 pounds, just burning, for coal.
> 
> You do the math. No, wait, I already did.


But the mining process for coal and nickle (used for all those incredibly environmentally friendly hybrids) are so much cleaner.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 25, 2011)

mondeo said:


> 18 million tonnes of waste rock! Oh, no! I mean, it was taken out of the ground and then...put on the ground probably pretty close to where it was taken out. Possibly used as fill for previous uranium mines. An environmental tragedy.
> 
> 
> But the mining process for coal and nickle (used for all those incredibly environmentally friendly hybrids) are so much cleaner.



Meh! Big hole in the ground = new potential ski area development!  Winning!   :lol:


----------



## mondeo (Mar 25, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Meh! Big hole in the ground = new potential ski area development! Winning!  :lol:


That's one hell of a pillow line...


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 25, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Meh! Big hole in the ground = new potential ski area development!  Winning!   :lol:



But a lot of coal mining is is done via mtn top removal, making mtns shorter... FAIL!


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 25, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> But a lot of coal mining is is done via mtn top removal, making mtns shorter... FAIL!



Ooh, that's a good point.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 25, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Ooh, that's a good point.


You don't even ski, what do you care?


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 25, 2011)

mondeo said:


> You don't even ski, what do you care?



Hey now, I managed to get out all of 4 or 5 times this year. I even skied with dmc, and that's got to count for something.

Why must you hurt me so?


----------



## hammer (Mar 25, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Better than most of the other alternatives.
> 
> Coal pollutes the air
> Nat Gas pollutes the ground water
> ...


+1...well maybe not on the last point...

Only two problems I see with nuclear power are the risk (albeit slight) of something really bad happening like we are seeing in Japan and the question of what to do with the waste that is created.  Both problems could be significant but when weighed against the positives nuclear power comes up ahead IMHO.

Nevertheless, I do wish we had viable alternatives.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 25, 2011)

hammer said:


> +1...well maybe not on the last point...
> 
> Only two problems I see with nuclear power are the risk (albeit slight) of something really bad happening like we are seeing in Japan and the question of what to do with the waste that is created.  Both problems could be significant but when weighed against the positives nuclear power comes up ahead IMHO.
> 
> Nevertheless, I do wish we had viable alternatives.



The problem is that with essentially everything we do, from generating nuclear power to taking a shower, there's some level of risk.  And it's having the rational ability(and not be swayed by emotion) to take a look at what the risk is and then determining if that is an "acceptable" risk for the vast majority of those involved.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 25, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> But a lot of coal mining is is done via mtn top removal, making mtns shorter... FAIL!



But look at that awesome new double black diamond with cliff drops they created out of that previously flat, boring hill top!  I'd gladly loose a few verts for some real, legit terrain (terrain worthy of a Highwaystar ski off :lol: ) over just another bunny slope for a bunch of high plains residing mid-westerners!  :lol:


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 25, 2011)

hammer said:


> +1...well maybe not on the last point...
> 
> Only two problems I see with nuclear power are the risk (albeit slight) of something really bad happening like we are seeing in Japan and the question of what to do with the waste that is created.  Both problems could be significant but when weighed against the positives nuclear power comes up ahead IMHO.
> 
> Nevertheless, I do wish we had viable alternatives.



The waste problem wouldn't be so much of a problem if reprocessing were better, I think. If the French can do it, we should be able to, too.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 25, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> The waste problem wouldn't be so much of a problem if reprocessing were better, I think. If the French can do it, we should be able to, too.


 

But they do not do it in August!


----------



## Morwax (Mar 25, 2011)

I wasnt using the tree hugger article to campare coal to nuclear... Just wanted to point out that "Clean Nuclear power" is an oximoron.  I guess for some people everything is black or white when there really is no easy answer to the need to find clean energy alternatives. There is one answer, USE LESS:beer:


----------



## Nick (Mar 25, 2011)

I used to be in the Air National Guard and worked with a guy who worked at the plant down in CT (Yankey, I think). It was pretty interesting hearing all the stories about what he did, how he did it, etc. I don't even know exactly what he did, some kind of technician.


----------



## Nick (Mar 25, 2011)

Morwax said:


> USE LESS:beer:



 Says "More Wax" 

:wink:


----------



## Nick (Mar 28, 2011)

Just saw this video here via Gizmodo: 



It's just unreal.


----------



## billski (Mar 28, 2011)

Nick said:


> Just saw this video here via Gizmodo:
> 
> 
> It's just unreal.



Seconds, not minutes, total destruction.  Looks like the end of the world.  Did you see all the peeps on that building.  I would be in tears, what can they do?  Nothing.
The people that perished were probably gone in seconds.   Imagine the toxic waste that was scattered inland and to the see.  Tragedy.


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

Nick said:


> Just saw this video here via Gizmodo:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just unreal.



thats the craziest thing I've ever seen... for real...


----------



## Nick (Mar 28, 2011)

dmc said:


> thats the craziest thing I've ever seen... for real...



I know it looks like a movie or something. All I can think about when I watch that is if I were the guy filming it I would be praying my building didn't collapse while I was standing on it.


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

Nick said:


> I know it looks like a movie or something. All I can think about when I watch that is if I were the guy filming it I would be praying my building didn't collapse while I was standing on it.



I fired off an email to my friend Kazumi as soon as I saw that..
I'm trying to get her to come here for a while... But she's a public defender and says she needs to stay to help all the people with their legal battles and stuff caused by the earthquake..  Which is cool... But i fear for her and her family..  Even though they are not near any of the nukes..


----------



## ScottySkis (Mar 28, 2011)

Its so bad,I couldn't even image what it is like to be living their going through all that it is just crazy


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 29, 2011)

Subie buyers....with what has happened in Japan inventory levels will soon be at an all time low....don't mess around if you're seriously in the market or you'll miss out.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 29, 2011)

I thought many Subie's were manufactured in the US??  Don't they have a plant somewhere that sets the standard for green manufacturing for cars?  thought I saw a commercial


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I thought many Subie's were manufactured in the US??  Don't they have a plant somewhere that sets the standard for green manufacturing for cars?  thought I saw a commercial



The problem is with the supply lines. Lots of parts still come from Japan. It's affecting US car companies too. Factories are shutting down because they don't have the parts,


----------



## mondeo (Mar 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I thought many Subie's were manufactured in the US?? Don't they have a plant somewhere that sets the standard for green manufacturing for cars? thought I saw a commercial


Final assembly is in Indiana, but even if 0.5% of the parts are sole sourced to the area affected, they can't make cars. This is affecting everyone, including the US companies.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 29, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> The problem is with the supply lines. Lots of parts still come from Japan. It's affecting US car companies too. Factories are shutting down because they don't have the parts,





mondeo said:


> Final assembly is in Indiana, but even if 0.5% of the parts are sole sourced to the area affected, they can't make cars. This is affecting everyone, including the US companies.



This....it's gonna get bad

We're getting updates daily....none of it good


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 29, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Final assembly is in Indiana, but even if 0.5% of the parts are sole sourced to the area affected, they can't make cars. This is affecting everyone, including the US companies.



That's why I drive German.

/not really


----------



## drjeff (Mar 29, 2011)

Between the quake/tsunami a few years back in Sumatra and now this quake/tsunsami in Japan, I think if people learn only one thing from it, it will be that if you have a big quake hit and you're near the coast,  do whatever you can as quick as you can to get away from the coast and up to high ground.  Massive quantities of raging water isn't something anyone wants to mess with


----------



## Edd (Mar 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I thought many Subie's were manufactured in the US??  Don't they have a plant somewhere that sets the standard for green manufacturing for cars?  thought I saw a commercial



I totally thought my Forester was made in Indiana because my last car (Legacy) was but I recently discovered the Forester/Impreza is still made in Japan.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 29, 2011)

Edd said:


> I totally thought my Forester was made in Indiana because my last car (Legacy) was but I recently discovered the Forester/Impreza is still made in Japan.



I saw a news clip yesterday where even Ford is asking that their dealers right now NOT take orders on F150's in the color Tuxedo Black, as that color paint is manufactured by a Japanese based company, and the back-order now for that color is atleast 2 months (and likely longer they're thinking)


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 29, 2011)

Maybe its a good time for Dodge to ramp up their imported from Detroit ad campaign


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 29, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Maybe its a good time for Dodge to ramp up their imported from Detroit ad campaign



Right on...the Durango is coming back just in time for $5/ gallon gas....genius!!


----------



## hammer (Mar 29, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Right on...the Durango is coming back just in time for $5/ gallon gas....genius!!


I saw one of the new 2011s when shopping for a Jeep Grand Cherokee...they actually look like a nice vehicle (may be because they are similar to the Jeep in many ways).  I wouldn't get one, however, unless I felt I needed something that big.  The gas mileage numbers aren't that great but they aren't bad for the type of vehicle they are.

Not to get into a car argument, but I don't think that Japanese makes have the market cornered on higher MPG vehicles...

What other consumer products are looking at shortages?


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 29, 2011)

hammer said:


> I saw one of the new 2011s when shopping for a Jeep Grand Cherokee...they actually look like a nice vehicle (may be because they are similar to the Jeep in many ways).  I wouldn't get one, however, unless I felt I needed something that big.  The gas mileage numbers aren't that great but they aren't bad for the type of vehicle they are.
> 
> Not to get into a car argument, but I don't think that Japanese makes have the market cornered on higher MPG vehicles...
> 
> What other consumer products are looking at shortages?



Agree, on the MPG, heck most cars trucks are all pretty close anymore.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 29, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> Agree, on the MPG, heck most cars trucks are all pretty close anymore.



With the introduction of Ethanol, now they are all crappy :smash:


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 29, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> With the introduction of Ethanol, now they are all crappy :smash:



Ahhhh the good old days


----------



## billski (Mar 29, 2011)

Worst video of the tsunami I've seen so far.  An edit from Japanese television showing it hit across several regions.

At 1:05 you can see people running.  Dreadful.


----------



## campgottagopee (Mar 31, 2011)

Must be rear bumper covers for Rouges are made in Japan. They're dropping of my in-bound units like crazy!!!


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 7, 2011)

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/-New-Earthquake-Hits-Japan-Tsunami-Warning-Issued-119402639.html


----------



## Puck it (Apr 7, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> http://www.voanews.com/english/news/-New-Earthquake-Hits-Japan-Tsunami-Warning-Issued-119402639.html


 

It depends on the depth of the quake and the total area of the sea floor affected. They have had some 7 aftershocks all ready. It is ~1000 times less, too. But not good for the reactor though.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Apr 7, 2011)

Puck it said:


> It depends on the depth of the quake and the total area of the sea floor affected.  They have had some 7 aftershocks all ready.  It is ~100 times less, too. But not good for the reactor though.



100x "bigger" yes.

However the amount of energy released is vastly different:

A 7.1 is about 700 times less powerful than a 9.0 as far as the amount of energy released. But still nothing to take lightly 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/how_much_bigger.php


----------



## Puck it (Apr 7, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> 100x "bigger" yes.
> 
> However the amount of energy released is vastly different:
> 
> ...


 
Sorry for the typo.  I fixed it.  Left a 0 in the post above.  I was approximating from 9 to 7.


----------



## billski (Sep 20, 2011)

*Fukushima nuclear plant "Level 7" rating and reality*

"Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) has raised the seriousness rating of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to level 7, the same number given to the 1986 accident in Chernobyl. The assessment was based on the amount of radioactive material released by the series of problems at Fukushima. However, some people question whether the two accidents are truly comparable. Chernobyl, at least by some other measures, was far worse. Specialists will explain the basis of the assessment and provide possible scenarios for the current situation."

Source: NHK World

April 14, 2011 (Thursday)
Data
Data 2

Apr. 16, Sa


----------



## Nick (Sep 20, 2011)

Wow, it's amazing how time numbs memories. I nearly forgot abou the horror of this until this thread bump.


----------



## billski (Sep 20, 2011)

To make matters worse, today's news:
"A very strong typhoon is approaching western Japan, bringing downpours and increasing the risk of mudslides and river flooding"  "Forecasters say the typhoon will gradually pick up speed and make landfall in western or eastern Japan on Wednesday.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 02:13 +0900 (JST)"

On the opposite side from the Nuke site.  

Dunno if that is good or bad.


----------

