- This topic has 525 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by spdrun.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 12, 2011 at 5:01 PM #677605March 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM #676459KSMountainParticipant
That article was sensationalist and misleading in my opinion. Exclamation point in the title should have been an immediate clue I guess.
He says “The failsafe systems failed” without ever mentioning that the control rods dropped automatically, as they were supposed to.
Not to imply the situation isn’t very serious…
I’ve been trying to follow this super closely. If anyone has a link to an agenda-free site with detailed current information, I’d love to know about it.
March 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM #676516KSMountainParticipantThat article was sensationalist and misleading in my opinion. Exclamation point in the title should have been an immediate clue I guess.
He says “The failsafe systems failed” without ever mentioning that the control rods dropped automatically, as they were supposed to.
Not to imply the situation isn’t very serious…
I’ve been trying to follow this super closely. If anyone has a link to an agenda-free site with detailed current information, I’d love to know about it.
March 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM #677124KSMountainParticipantThat article was sensationalist and misleading in my opinion. Exclamation point in the title should have been an immediate clue I guess.
He says “The failsafe systems failed” without ever mentioning that the control rods dropped automatically, as they were supposed to.
Not to imply the situation isn’t very serious…
I’ve been trying to follow this super closely. If anyone has a link to an agenda-free site with detailed current information, I’d love to know about it.
March 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM #677260KSMountainParticipantThat article was sensationalist and misleading in my opinion. Exclamation point in the title should have been an immediate clue I guess.
He says “The failsafe systems failed” without ever mentioning that the control rods dropped automatically, as they were supposed to.
Not to imply the situation isn’t very serious…
I’ve been trying to follow this super closely. If anyone has a link to an agenda-free site with detailed current information, I’d love to know about it.
March 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM #677610KSMountainParticipantThat article was sensationalist and misleading in my opinion. Exclamation point in the title should have been an immediate clue I guess.
He says “The failsafe systems failed” without ever mentioning that the control rods dropped automatically, as they were supposed to.
Not to imply the situation isn’t very serious…
I’ve been trying to follow this super closely. If anyone has a link to an agenda-free site with detailed current information, I’d love to know about it.
March 12, 2011 at 5:45 PM #676479ILoveRegulationParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
March 12, 2011 at 5:45 PM #676536ILoveRegulationParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
March 12, 2011 at 5:45 PM #677144ILoveRegulationParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
March 12, 2011 at 5:45 PM #677280ILoveRegulationParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
March 12, 2011 at 5:45 PM #677630ILoveRegulationParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
March 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM #676484KSMountainParticipantThis seems to be a site that “Brings Data”:
Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake
There seems to be some good info in the comments.
The site overall appears to have a pro-Nuc slant, but that may be because folks in the biz are hanging out there.
March 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM #676541KSMountainParticipantThis seems to be a site that “Brings Data”:
Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake
There seems to be some good info in the comments.
The site overall appears to have a pro-Nuc slant, but that may be because folks in the biz are hanging out there.
March 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM #677149KSMountainParticipantThis seems to be a site that “Brings Data”:
Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake
There seems to be some good info in the comments.
The site overall appears to have a pro-Nuc slant, but that may be because folks in the biz are hanging out there.
March 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM #677285KSMountainParticipantThis seems to be a site that “Brings Data”:
Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake
There seems to be some good info in the comments.
The site overall appears to have a pro-Nuc slant, but that may be because folks in the biz are hanging out there.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.