Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ILoveRegulation
Participant[quote=Arraya]
Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately[/quote]Not true. Chernobyl blew on April 26 and on April 28 some workers going into a Swedish nuclear plant set off alarms.
I don’t know how bad this thing is going to get, but it seems like pretty much everyone has been underestimating the danger up to this point.
Participant[quote=Arraya]
Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately[/quote]Not true. Chernobyl blew on April 26 and on April 28 some workers going into a Swedish nuclear plant set off alarms.
I don’t know how bad this thing is going to get, but it seems like pretty much everyone has been underestimating the danger up to this point.
Participant[quote=Arraya]
Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately[/quote]Not true. Chernobyl blew on April 26 and on April 28 some workers going into a Swedish nuclear plant set off alarms.
I don’t know how bad this thing is going to get, but it seems like pretty much everyone has been underestimating the danger up to this point.
Participant[quote=Arraya]
Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately[/quote]Not true. Chernobyl blew on April 26 and on April 28 some workers going into a Swedish nuclear plant set off alarms.
I don’t know how bad this thing is going to get, but it seems like pretty much everyone has been underestimating the danger up to this point.
Participant[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.
From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.
Participant[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.
From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.
Participant[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.
From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.
Participant[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.
From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.
Participant[quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.
From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]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.[/quote]
If anything, the Big Think article underestimated the risk. The failsafe systems did indeed fail. Control rods are only used to stop the nuclear reaction. Continuous flow of water is then needed for months afterwards to cool the fuel. In this case, the backup power failed, they ran out of battery power, and the backup systems that should have provided a constant flow of water also failed.
The site you linked to clearly has a pro-nuclear agenda.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]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.[/quote]
If anything, the Big Think article underestimated the risk. The failsafe systems did indeed fail. Control rods are only used to stop the nuclear reaction. Continuous flow of water is then needed for months afterwards to cool the fuel. In this case, the backup power failed, they ran out of battery power, and the backup systems that should have provided a constant flow of water also failed.
The site you linked to clearly has a pro-nuclear agenda.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]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.[/quote]
If anything, the Big Think article underestimated the risk. The failsafe systems did indeed fail. Control rods are only used to stop the nuclear reaction. Continuous flow of water is then needed for months afterwards to cool the fuel. In this case, the backup power failed, they ran out of battery power, and the backup systems that should have provided a constant flow of water also failed.
The site you linked to clearly has a pro-nuclear agenda.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]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.[/quote]
If anything, the Big Think article underestimated the risk. The failsafe systems did indeed fail. Control rods are only used to stop the nuclear reaction. Continuous flow of water is then needed for months afterwards to cool the fuel. In this case, the backup power failed, they ran out of battery power, and the backup systems that should have provided a constant flow of water also failed.
The site you linked to clearly has a pro-nuclear agenda.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]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.[/quote]
If anything, the Big Think article underestimated the risk. The failsafe systems did indeed fail. Control rods are only used to stop the nuclear reaction. Continuous flow of water is then needed for months afterwards to cool the fuel. In this case, the backup power failed, they ran out of battery power, and the backup systems that should have provided a constant flow of water also failed.
The site you linked to clearly has a pro-nuclear agenda.
-
AuthorPosts