3 ms·

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

by 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...

by lutorm 16y ago

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...