Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Options
1…8081838586…175

Comments

  • Options
    #2462
    kona
    Registered Users Posts: 7,525 ✭✭✭kona


    Is the US Aircraft Carrier Nuclear powered?


  • Options
    #2463
    Ev84
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Ev84


    FFS as if those poor people haven't got enough to worry about over the last few days without this nuclear threat aswell. There was talk of a second tsunami too, is this true?


  • Options
    #2464
    maquiladora
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭maquiladora


    Ev84 wrote: »
    There was talk of a second tsunami too, is this true?

    That was a false alarm.


  • Options
    #2465
    Fallschirmjager
    Registered Users Posts: 3,341 ✭✭✭Fallschirmjager


    kona wrote: »
    Is the US Aircraft Carrier Nuclear powered?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_ronald_reagan

    judging from wiki...yes


  • Options
    #2466
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    kona wrote: »
    Is the US Aircraft Carrier Nuclear powered?

    Yup:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan_%28CVN-76%29


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2467
    Ev84
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Ev84


    maquiladora wrote: »
    That was a false alarm.

    Thank GOD, talk about kicking someone when they're down! That would be absolutely awful...


  • Options
    #2468
    maquiladora
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭maquiladora


    Live translation of the press conference : http://www.ustream.tv/channel/yokosonews


  • Options
    #2469
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kona wrote: »
    Is the US Aircraft Carrier Nuclear powered?
    If its the Nimitz class it would be.


  • Options
    #2470
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    The plant workers attempting to avert disaster must be a bag of nerves at this stage considering they have been at it since Friday and have seen two explosions occur. Lets all keep them in our minds.

    +1. They must be in bits.


  • Options
    #2471
    Thrill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭Thrill


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    If its the Nimitz class it would be.

    It is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2472
    Thrill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭Thrill


    1. 1552: Japan has officially asked the UN nuclear watchdog the IAEA for experts to help in the current nuclear crisis, AFP reports, citing IAEA chief Yukiya Amano.



  • Options
    #2473
    Duiske
    Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    maquiladora wrote: »
    Anyone know why the rods are fully exposed again, only a few hours ago they had the water back up to a depth of 2 metres?

    They need to be able to pump water into the reactors at a higher pressure than is already contained within it. It appears that , at the moment, the coolant (sea water) is boiling off too quickly and increasing pressure inside the reactor, which in turn means they need to pump water in at even higher pressure, which they can't do because of insufficient pumping capacity.

    So they need to release pressure inside before they can get more water in, hence the release of hydrogen and explosions. This allow's them to get water back in, but then the boiling/pressure/need to release pressure cycle repeats. They are just going around in an ever decreasing vicious circle.

    Unless they can get a proper high pressure pumping system up and running, this is not going to end well.


  • Options
    #2474
    Rob A. Bank
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Rob A. Bank


    3.29pm: Japanese officials say the nuclear fuel rods appear to be melting inside all three of the most troubled nuclear reactors, according to Associated Press.

    Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said: "Although we cannot directly check it, it's highly likely happening."


  • Options
    #2475
    Saadyst
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Saadyst


    Rob A. Bank wrote: »
    3.29pm: Japanese officials say the nuclear fuel rods appear to be melting inside all three of the most troubled nuclear reactors, according to Associated Press.

    Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said: "Although we cannot directly check it, it's highly likely happening."

    Rob A. Bank,

    Can you tell me what you think is happening inside the reactors please?


  • Options
    #2476
    Raskolnikov
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Raskolnikov


    Saadyst wrote: »
    Rob A. Bank,

    Can you tell me what you think is happening inside the reactors please?
    Why doesn't he just pop off to Japan, crack open the container, have a look and get back to you :)


  • Options
    #2477
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Raskolnikov wrote: »
    Why doesn't he just pop off to Japan, crack open the container, have a look and get back to you :)

    :eek:


  • Options
    #2478
    maquiladora
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭maquiladora


    From what I understand of that translation, the fuel rods were exposed earlier today because the generator pumping the seawater ran out of diesel. That was resolved and then water was pumped back in. Now what has happened is that a valve has closed or become stuck, pressure has risen and they cannot release the pressure & cannot inject more water so as a result the water level dropped quickly and now the fuel is fully exposed again.


  • Options
    #2479
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,423 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Raskolnikov wrote: »
    Why doesn't he just pop off to Japan, crack open the container, have a look and get back to you :)
    Probably wouldn't be a very good idea to crack open up the containers.. we need them to stay closed, and to keep containing.

    If Rob A Bank could just use his x-ray vision instead, that would be better.


  • Options
    #2480
    Thrill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭Thrill


    1. 1611: Another four aftershocks in quick succession, measuring 5.1 and 5.2 magnitude, have again rattled the north-east coast of Japan, the US Geological Survey reports.



  • Options
    #2481
    Raskolnikov
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Raskolnikov


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Probably wouldn't be a very good idea to crack open up the containers.. we need them to stay closed, and to keep containing.

    If Rob A Bank could just use his x-ray vision instead, that would be better.
    *slaps forehead*

    I knew I was missing the obvious solution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2482
    cherryghost
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,134 Mod ✭✭✭✭cherryghost


    Wind direction is changing to a northerly breeze tonight and into tomorrow. :(


  • Options
    #2483
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Why aren't reactors buried underground, say at the bottom of a mine?


  • Options
    #2484
    Rob A. Bank
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Rob A. Bank


    Saadyst wrote: »
    Rob A. Bank,

    Can you tell me what you think is happening inside the reactors please?

    I don't think anyone knows for sure... which in itself is very worrying.

    All we see is a situation which appears to be getting more and more out of control due to the fact that they dont seem to be able to cool the reactors.

    If the rods melt and fall to the bottom of the containment vessel, there is a chance of serious nuclear contamination locally, though nothing like what happened in Chernobil.


  • Options
    #2485
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Why aren't reactors buried underground, say at the bottom of a mine?

    Earthquakes occur below the ground and would exert far more stress and strain on an underground reactor.


  • Options
    #2486
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Earthquakes occur below the ground and would exert far more stress and strain on an underground reactor.
    Yeah but if something like this happens ye can just shut the mine.


  • Options
    #2487
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Yeah but if something like this happens ye can just shut the mine.

    Which would be like building a power station that becomes useless once the first earthquake strikes - A huge waste of money.


  • Options
    #2488
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Which would be like building a power station that becomes useless once the first earthquake strikes - A huge waste of money.
    But much safer. I am sure then can have insulation underground too.


  • Options
    #2489
    Raskolnikov
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Raskolnikov


    OSI wrote: »
    Not really, would be far more difficult to control the release of radiation underground, and once it did leak it would be in the soil, the water, plants animals etc in no time.
    A reactor encased in concrete and steel a mile underground will never get nowhere near to spread radiation into the topsoil.


  • Options
    #2490
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Raskolnikov wrote: »
    A reactor encased in concrete and steel a mile underground will never get nowhere near to spread radiation into the topsoil.
    How much would it cost to build a nuclear power plant a mile underground?

    Seriously people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2491
    Saadyst
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Saadyst


    Raskolnikov wrote: »
    A reactor encased in concrete and steel a mile underground will never get nowhere near to spread radiation into the topsoil.

    Who wants to pay for it? It has to be economically viable as well.

    Anyway, it's just another layer of security on top of the considerable amount there is already...

    A magnitude 9.0 earthquake, 7m+ high tsunamis - and the power plant still hasn't blown the pacific rim off the face of the earth?? Why don't we just go further and stick it ten miles underground?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement