2 ms·

This link is simply wrong. Japan is indeed facing the release of a large cloud of highly radioactive steam carrying radioactive particles that were once part o

This link is simply wrong. Japan is indeed facing the release of a large cloud of highly radioactive steam carrying radioactive particles that were once part of the core. Right now both the cores of several reactors and the spent fuel rods that are stored on site face the possibility of turning entirely molten and ending up in the atmosphere. The reactors are fail-unsafe. If everybody walked away now, a disaster worse than Chernobyl would result. And as the situation at some of the reactors deteriorates, it becomes increasingly likely that workers are going to have to depart the area. Remember, Chernobyl was actually better off than Fukushima in many ways - while one reactor was screwed, the others at the same plant were undamaged and could continue operating normally - cooling systems could continue to run, and so on. The other 3 reactors were never in any danger at Chernobyl. That is not true at Fukushima. It is entirely possible - even likely at this point - that the fuel rods in at least 3 of Fukushima's reactors going to end up significantly spread over the Japanese countryside. Overreaction is not really possible at this point.

lutorm 16y ago
While I don't want to discount the risk of real badness happening, what you are saying is not possible. At Chernobyl, there was a fire in the reactor moderator and fuel itself. Loss of cooling in the present case will not cause that kind of massive dispersal of radioactive material. Even if the fuel melts, it does not vaporise. There will be lots of radioactive release, to be sure, but the fuel will stay in a molten clump.
- KVFinn 16y ago
  Few points: There are multiple reactors, each larger than Chernobyl, including the fuel rods in unit 4 which was down at the time of the accident so the fuel isn't spent. The real worst worst case is that loss of cooling causes a containment breach, the fuel melts through the bottom and contacts ground water, causes a steam explosion which is able to spread material over a decent distance. This would be comparable to Chernobyl. As the whole world is pulling for the workers doing their best to prevent such a scenario it's not too likely but it is not out of the question. We've already experienced failures at these reactors that were previously considered enough to be impossible.
- jellicle 16y ago
  In Chernobyl, there was a nuclear event and ensuing fires. There probably won't be a nuclear event at Fukushima (although it is theoretically possible, I think - the melted fuel rods will no longer be damped, and can run together in a clump that might achieve criticality) but there will be ensuing fires, and hot particles and steam will be distributed over a wide area. Ever seen a volcano? Did you notice that heavier-than-air particles (ash, rocks, dust) were widely dispersed from that volcano? Indeed, the most recent news articles are pointing out that the spent fuel ponds are running dry as well, and might melt and go critical as well. There is five times as much fuel in the spent fuel ponds as in the reactor cores themselves...

lutorm 16y ago

While I don't want to discount the risk of real badness happening, what you are saying is not possible. At Chernobyl, there was a fire in the reactor moderator and fuel itself. Loss of cooling in the present case will not cause that kind of massive dispersal of radioactive material. Even if the fuel melts, it does not vaporise. There will be lots of radioactive release, to be sure, but the fuel will stay in a molten clump.

KVFinn 16y ago
Few points: There are multiple reactors, each larger than Chernobyl, including the fuel rods in unit 4 which was down at the time of the accident so the fuel isn't spent. The real worst worst case is that loss of cooling causes a containment breach, the fuel melts through the bottom and contacts ground water, causes a steam explosion which is able to spread material over a decent distance. This would be comparable to Chernobyl. As the whole world is pulling for the workers doing their best to prevent such a scenario it's not too likely but it is not out of the question. We've already experienced failures at these reactors that were previously considered enough to be impossible.
jellicle 16y ago
In Chernobyl, there was a nuclear event and ensuing fires. There probably won't be a nuclear event at Fukushima (although it is theoretically possible, I think - the melted fuel rods will no longer be damped, and can run together in a clump that might achieve criticality) but there will be ensuing fires, and hot particles and steam will be distributed over a wide area. Ever seen a volcano? Did you notice that heavier-than-air particles (ash, rocks, dust) were widely dispersed from that volcano? Indeed, the most recent news articles are pointing out that the spent fuel ponds are running dry as well, and might melt and go critical as well. There is five times as much fuel in the spent fuel ponds as in the reactor cores themselves...