Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

    http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/151571

    this means the meltdown hits in the first 50 minutes and not later from the tsunami!

    this also prove that the NEW US-Nuclear Reactors are UNSAVE! because the passive cooling system are unsave in the first 30 minutes!

    this means the newest and greatest US nuclear reactors are just nuclear nukes if a earthquake hits the reactor.

    the "NEW" ones are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 and they can not stand a Fukushima accident!!!

    because its not passiv cooled in the first 30 minutes after the accident!

    Obama is so happy in getting the next Fukushima accident in the USA!

  • #2
    It's been a while, but I'll bite...

    Apart from the failure of one emergency diesel generator, all of the safety systems at Fukushima operated correctly and there was no loss of cooling, core melt or any danger to the operators or the public due to the earthquake.

    Had the sea defences been adequate, then we would never have heard of Fukushima at all.

    Unlike your sources, I rely on accurate scientific and engineering reports:

    UK HSE Report with relevant extract here:

    "The magnitude-9 earthquake caused severe ground motions that lasted for several minutes at the Daiichi plant. The measured motions reasonably matched the predictions of the designers of the seismic protection measures. Upon detection of these ground motions, the safety systems at Daiichi shut down the reactors and started the back-up systems. All the evidence I have seen, including from the other Japanese nuclear power plants that witnessed similar ground motions, supports the view that the Daiichi plant safely survived this massive earthquake.

    However, the flood protection measures at the Daiichi plant were originally designed to withstand a 3.1m high tsunami, whereas the largest wave that crashed into the site in March inundated it to around 15m. A review in 2002 by the operators of the Daiichi plant did result in increases to the tsunami defences to enable it to better survive a 5.7m high tsunami. This improvement still proved to be inadequate, especially considering the history of tsunamis along that coast over the past century."

    IAEA report

    Both of these reports (admittedly, the HSE report references the IAEA report) indicate that all safety systems were working until they were taken out by the tsunami.

    And for a summary of the story from day 1, see the WNN portal on Fukushima.

    Now, these reports were written by experts, looking at the facts. They were able to follow the progression of the accident, from the first shake up to the declaration of cold shutdown.

    I think they know more than the blogger you quote Q.

    >Sits back and waits for the scream of emotionally charged rubbish to spew forth <

    Comment


    • #3
      Sorry about the double post, but I'v ejust been made aware of this: Journal of Radiological Protection special on Fukushima.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Shielder View Post
        Unlike your sources, I rely on accurate scientific and engineering reports:
        LOL you must be tripping my source is an accurate scientific source. the source is: http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/fuk...gau_studie.pdf

        but yes you prefer to Spam FUD instead of reading my source.

        hey my source is double language english+german this means you can read it easily.

        Comment


        • #5
          a doku with multible sources about the 'Fukushima caused byearthquake' http://videos.arte.tv/de/videos/fuku...u-6439122.html

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
            a doku with multible sources about the 'Fukushima caused byearthquake' http://videos.arte.tv/de/videos/fuku...u-6439122.html
            this source also prove a nuclear explosion in reactor 4 and not a hydrogen explosion.

            this video also prove that the company violate ALL security rules and they just fired the workers if they found a security problem years before the accident.

            this video also prove that the company and the gov lie multiple times to hold back the dirty secrets about nuclear power.

            this video also prove that all areas in a distance of 200km are DOOMED! high dangerous nuclear particles are found in the lungs and car filters 200km away!

            this video also prove that the US company "General Electric" know the FAIL construction of there power plant many years before.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              this source also prove a nuclear explosion in reactor 4 and not a hydrogen explosion.
              Hmmm, if it was a nuclear explosion, why are the buildings still there? Why haven't they been vapourised?

              Sorry, but the energy released by a nuclear explosion would have totally destroyed the site, not just 'blown the bloody doors off'!

              Oh, and if you are saying that my references are biased, then the authors of this report definately are:

              "Henrik Paulitz, expert on nuclear energy, IPPNW Germany
              Reinhold Thiel, member of the board of directors, IPPNW Germany"

              What is the IPPNW? It is the "German Affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War"

              I liked the section that said there was no evidence that the tsunami was the cause of the loss of cooling. Did they not look at the photographs from the plant?

              How about these?

              "The trigger factor does not even have to be an earthquake. Storms and strokes of lightening, water damage in the reactor (internal flooding), a minute fault in one of the numerous weld seams or just a simple turbine shutdown involving valve failure (malfunction of the main heat sink) can suffice for a worst-case disaster. According to experts’ analyses, even a “normal” SCRAM can be followed by an unfortunate chain of events involving component-failures and result in a reactor meltdown." What??? Storms cannot damage reactors. There are numerous reactors in America and Japan that continue to operate even in Category 5 hurricanes! Lightening strikes are dealt with in the same manner as on normal buildings (lightening conductor), water damage in the reactor (how?), minute fault in a weld seam, maybe, but these scenarios are modelled to death with numerous reactor codes and with practical (non-radioactive) experients. Turbine trips are also handled as normal operational occurrences. Basically, these so called experts have no idea what they are talking about.

              "The lesson to be learned from Fukushima is that even after a successful shutdown, a nuclear reactor can continue to generate such immense amounts of heat that even a relatively short break in the cooling process can cause the core to overheat and result in the massive release of lethal radioactive substances, which are imbibed by the population not only through the air and drinking water, but in particular via the food chain." Erm, this has been known about since we started building power reactors. It isn't a lesson to be learnt, it is an example of what can happen if the safety systems are completely disabled.

              New generation (AP1000 at least) reactors are designed to be passively safe (for 72 hours) following a fault like that which occurred at Fukushima. This would give the operators enough time to bring in the external power supplies and sort out the cooling.

              Like all industrial processes, there are lessons to be learnt from Fukushima, but this paper seemed to have been written with a definite agenda in mind. It wasn't objective, and from what I could read (only the summary was in English) bore no relation to reality.

              Nice try, but like my son's teachers sometimes say, "try harder next time."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                Hmmm, if it was a nuclear explosion, why are the buildings still there? Why haven't they been vapourised?
                this is the same why they don't use the nuclear bomb against germany back in 1945 because german towns are made by stone and stone do not burn.
                they prefer to use it against Japanese towns because they are made of wood means it burns.
                just watch the stone churches in Japanese after the nuclear bomb the stone are still there.
                thats the same in Fukusima a nuclear explosion do not mean strong explosion for example the Father of all bombs is stronger than a smal nuke.

                the simple answer is: the explosion was not strong enav to vapourise the building but yes stupid people like you think nuclear bombs are always explosion like "Tsar" fusion bombs

                sure with a Tsar your effect shows up. but its a fusion bomb not a atom split bomb.

                ok for stupid people need pictures here the Hiroshima church after the nuclear bomb:

                why the church is not molten glas on the flor ? o yes you are an expert i know it my picture is a fake LOL.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                  New generation (AP1000 at least) reactors are designed to be passively safe (for 72 hours) following a fault like that which occurred at Fukushima. This would give the operators enough time to bring in the external power supplies and sort out the cooling.
                  this is just wrong the AP1000 is not save the first 72hours because the passiv cooling solution can not backup the first 32minutes.

                  and fuskishima shows if something goes wrong then it goes wrong on the first 32 minutes.

                  you can read this on the wikipedia page about the AP1000

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                    Oh, and if you are saying that my references are biased, then the authors of this report definately are:
                    "Henrik Paulitz, expert on nuclear energy, IPPNW Germany
                    Reinhold Thiel, member of the board of directors, IPPNW Germany"
                    What is the IPPNW? It is the "German Affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War"
                    sure you are Biased if you are not a nuclear fanboy LOL!!! what a irony!

                    one is for sure German anti-nuclear scientists know better than you!

                    to be against nuclear-weapons and nuclear-power plant is a sign of competence!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      this is the same why they don't use the nuclear bomb against germany back in 1945 because german towns are made by stone and stone do not burn.
                      they prefer to use it against Japanese towns because they are made of wood means it burns.
                      just watch the stone churches in Japanese after the nuclear bomb the stone are still there.
                      thats the same in Fukusima a nuclear explosion do not mean strong explosion for example the Father of all bombs is stronger than a smal nuke.

                      the simple answer is: the explosion was not strong enav to vapourise the building but yes stupid people like you think nuclear bombs are always explosion like "Tsar" fusion bombs

                      sure with a Tsar your effect shows up. but its a fusion bomb not a atom split bomb.

                      ok for stupid people need pictures here the Hiroshima church after the nuclear bomb:

                      why the church is not molten glas on the flor ? o yes you are an expert i know it my picture is a fake LOL.
                      No, that building is still there. It is now the Hiroshima monument. Why is it still there? I point you to the film Armageddon for a fine example of basic explosive dynamics. In one of the scenes where they are discussing the best method to destroy the meteor, one of the scientists uses the analogy of a firecracker. Place it on your hand, you get a nasty burn. Hold it in your hand, it'll blow your hand off!

                      The same principle applies to buildings. Have an explosion on the outside of a building, it isn't contained, so the energy release dissipates. Inside the building, it is contained and causes much more damage. If this was a nuclear explosion, as you wish to think, then the reactor would not be there any more, neither would the reactor building. It was a hydrogen explosion, nothing more, despite what you would like it to be.

                      "this is just wrong the AP1000 is not save the first 72hours because the passiv cooling solution can not backup the first 32minutes." I can't see anything on the wiki page about this claim. Wikipedia does say this: "In the AP1000, Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System uses multiple explosively-operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action."

                      "sure you are Biased if you are not a nuclear fanboy LOL!!! what a irony!" No, don't try and twist my posts to suit your own agenda. I just stated that they were not writing objectively.

                      Face it, you don't know what you're talking about and are relying on questionable, and to some extent, ignorant, sources to get your information. I'm relying on knowledgeable, peer reviewed, sources. Scientific and engineering publications that don't rely on the emotional and unfounded accusations of ignorant people.

                      But, yet again, any discussion with you has turned into name calling and personal insults. If you can't type anything without insulting me, don't bother typing it at all.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                        No, that building is still there. It is now the Hiroshima monument. Why is it still there? I point you to the film Armageddon for a fine example of basic explosive dynamics. In one of the scenes where they are discussing the best method to destroy the meteor, one of the scientists uses the analogy of a firecracker. Place it on your hand, you get a nasty burn. Hold it in your hand, it'll blow your hand off!

                        The same principle applies to buildings. Have an explosion on the outside of a building, it isn't contained, so the energy release dissipates. Inside the building, it is contained and causes much more damage. If this was a nuclear explosion, as you wish to think, then the reactor would not be there any more, neither would the reactor building. It was a hydrogen explosion, nothing more, despite what you would like it to be.
                        you make a logical mistake here because: it doesn't care if the explosion is nuclear or not only the "Power" of the explosion care.
                        you suggest that a nuclear explosion is stronger than a chemical but this is WRONG!
                        this is the prove you are wrong: a chemical explosion can be stronger than a nuclear explosion.
                        you are just wrong... watch fukushima reactor 1 and 2 and 3 these explosions are chemical!
                        much different to reactor 4 explosion! in 1-3 there is no "mushroom"

                        also a hydrogen explosion can be stronger than a nuclear one! but your nativity think: nuclear is stronger than chemical.. this is just wrong!

                        reactor 4 was a tiny small nuclear explosion and not a hydrogen explosion. with a hydrogen explosion you never get a ""mushroom""

                        "If this was a nuclear explosion, as you wish to think, then the reactor would not be there any more"

                        this is just stupidness! its the "energy" nuclear do not mean more energy than chemical! you can build a smal nuke and a smaler nuke and this was the smalest nuke but hey dump people can not compare the hydrogen explosion from reactor 1-3 to reactor 4 "mushroom"

                        just test it by your own hydrogen never NEVER makes a "Mushroom"

                        you can watch this on youtube! yes even you can learn this from youtube!

                        you will never watch a MUSHROOM with hydrogen.

                        Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                        "this is just wrong the AP1000 is not save the first 72hours because the passiv cooling solution can not backup the first 32minutes." I can't see anything on the wiki page about this claim. Wikipedia does say this: "In the AP1000, Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System uses multiple explosively-operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action."
                        LOL you are to stupid to read: "must operate within the first 30 minutes." this means no they do not operate within the first 30 minutes and because of this the security system FAIL completely!

                        Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                        No, don't try and twist my posts to suit your own agenda. I just stated that they were not writing objectively.
                        you are just a liar because: NO ONE IS OBJECTIVELY!

                        your fake FUD propaganda material are just nuclear fan-boy stuff!

                        Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                        Face it, you don't know what you're talking about and are relying on questionable, and to some extent, ignorant, sources to get your information. I'm relying on knowledgeable, peer reviewed, sources. Scientific and engineering publications that don't rely on the emotional and unfounded accusations of ignorant people.
                        LOL you can't make a different between a hydrogen explosion (watch it on youtube!) and a mushroom nuclear explosion!
                        also you make the stupidness of all conclusion like: nuclear explosion is stronger than chemical this is just BULLSHIT! chemical can serve more "energy" than a nuke!

                        you talk about "emotional" but your nuclear fanboyism stinks to the sky!

                        my video also prove your "nuclear-fanboy" sources wrong and prove they LIE! but yes you can't watch the video because its "German" LOL

                        Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                        But, yet again, any discussion with you has turned into name calling and personal insults. If you can't type anything without insulting me, don't bother typing it at all.
                        learn the difference between a factual assertion and a insult.

                        if you make stupid conclusions like: nuclear explosion are stronger than chemical then you are dump! it can be nuclear even its LESS strong!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          just for the dump people a hydrogen explosion in daylight:

                          noo mushroom and no fire. and no dirty black particles in the air.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                            just for the dump people a hydrogen explosion in daylight:

                            noo mushroom and no fire. and no dirty black particles in the air.
                            compare this clean hydrogen explosion to a nuclear "Mushroom" explosion with dirty black particles:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Isn't it funny that a merely 60 Kg of uranium on the Hiroshima bomb released an amount of energy equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT? Do you even have a basic insight of how nuclear fission works? Hydrogen bombs are nuclear bombs, but those release energy by means of nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission. Per mass, nuclear reactions have much much more energy potential than compared to chemical ones. Starting a nuclear explotion requires you getting the reactant to a critical mass point very fast, which requires a lot of energy. Hiroshima bombs had more chemical explosives by mass to do this part than the nuclear shit that was supposed to light up. Now i dare you to put what i have said into perpective, as i don't want to explain this furthermore, and stop being such a smart-ass.

                              (Though now i think what you refer as hydrogen explotions is the literal meaning of it, not the nucler kind, my point holds still, no way a nuclear explotion could've happened at fukushima)
                              Last edited by WillyThePimp; 03-10-2012, 01:57 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X