- This topic has 525 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
spdrun.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM #677634March 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM #676489
KSMountain
Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster 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.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
March 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM #676545Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster 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.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
March 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM #677154Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster 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.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
March 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM #677290Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster 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.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
March 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM #677639Participant[quote=ILoveRegulation]Poster 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.[/quote]
The motherjones article was a lot better (can’t believe I’m saying that).
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.
March 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM #676494ILoveRegulation
Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
March 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM #676550Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
March 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM #677159Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
March 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM #677295Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
March 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM #677644Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
March 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM #676499ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
March 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM #676555ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
March 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM #677163ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
March 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM #677300ParticipantAgree.
Btw, after reading further, I see now my bravenewclimate site is *extremely* pro Nuc. There is still good info there though.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.