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

  • #31
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    At what time in the video?
    no you don't get it the hole video is about this scandal.

    but sure the first 10 minutes is just the intro after the first 10 minutes it comes to the main tropic then the tropic is the same for 40-50 minutes.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
      no you don't get it the hole video is about this scandal.

      but sure the first 10 minutes is just the intro after the first 10 minutes it comes to the main tropic then the tropic is the same for 40-50 minutes.
      You said that the explosion at reactor 4 had a dramatically different look than the explosions at the other reactors. Is there some kind of visual evidence for this? I would like to see these differences myself.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by johnc View Post
        Where is there video of the reactor 4 explosion?
        the first quote about the nuclear explosion in reactor 4 comes after 29,05 minutes

        the second is 31 minutes and the 3. is 32 minutes.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by johnc View Post
          You said that the explosion at reactor 4 had a dramatically different look than the explosions at the other reactors. Is there some kind of visual evidence for this? I would like to see these differences myself.
          after 32 minutes there are the one with the pictures and videos.

          he shows the flash light coming up and the shock wave

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by johnc View Post
            You said that the explosion at reactor 4 had a dramatically different look than the explosions at the other reactors. Is there some kind of visual evidence for this? I would like to see these differences myself.
            the full explosion comes after 33,20 minutes but the pictures after 32 show the "flash"

            in the full scene you can watch the shock wave and the "Mushroom"

            Comment


            • #36
              They're talking about the explosion at reactor 3. So I believe your argument is that there was a nuclear explosion at reactor 3, not in building 4. This is important because there was no fuel in building 4 except that which was contained in the spent fuel pool. And I think we could say that there was no explosion of any type at the spent fuel pool at building 4 since the pool remains nearly completely intact.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                They're talking about the explosion at reactor 3. So I believe your argument is that there was a nuclear explosion at reactor 3, not in building 4.
                ubs yes my confusion sorry.

                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                This is important because there was no fuel in building 4 except that which was contained in the spent fuel pool. And I think we could say that there was no explosion of any type at the spent fuel pool at building 4 since the pool remains nearly completely intact.

                yes you are right i was confused sorry. nuclear explosion is reactor 3.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by johnc View Post
                  So I believe your argument is that there was a nuclear explosion at reactor 3,
                  the real scandal is.. the nuclear power plant companies always claim that its impossible to get a nuclear explosion in a nuclear power plant.

                  if every nuclear power-plant is a nuclear Bomb then all nuclear power plants are really dangerous.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    To get a nuclear explosion you need to have a supercritical mass of fissile material held in a specific configuration for a specific length of time.

                    There is no way to get that in a nuclear reactor. Even if all the fuel is melted there is no way you can have a criticality because of all the other rubbish that has melted along with the fuel.

                    The design of a water reactor is such that if the coolant, which is also the moderator, heats up, the reaction will slow down, so the power output drops. If there is no coolant, and hence, no moderator, then it is impossible for a water reactor to be critical. They are designed like that, and have been since they started building power reactors.

                    No criticality, no explosion.

                    Oh, and a prompt criticality also requires a specific set of circumstances. None of which were found in Fukushima.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                      To get a nuclear explosion you need to have a supercritical mass of fissile material held in a specific configuration for a specific length of time.
                      There is no way to get that in a nuclear reactor. Even if all the fuel is melted there is no way you can have a criticality because of all the other rubbish that has melted along with the fuel.
                      The design of a water reactor is such that if the coolant, which is also the moderator, heats up, the reaction will slow down, so the power output drops. If there is no coolant, and hence, no moderator, then it is impossible for a water reactor to be critical. They are designed like that, and have been since they started building power reactors.
                      No criticality, no explosion.
                      Oh, and a prompt criticality also requires a specific set of circumstances. None of which were found in Fukushima.
                      you trying an argumentation with low level theoretical school knowledge but in the video there are 4 high skilled people pointing out that a prompt critical nuclear explosion is possible and the explosion strength and the particle fallout range show it was a prompt critical explosion!
                      And really sorry you are not more skilled than the experts in the video.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I was trying to dumb it down for you to understand. Obviously it was still too complicated for you.

                        I'll put it as simply as possible:

                        There

                        was

                        no

                        nuclear

                        explosion

                        at

                        Fukushima.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                          I was trying to dumb it down for you to understand. Obviously it was still too complicated for you.
                          I'll put it as simply as possible:
                          There
                          was
                          no
                          nuclear
                          explosion
                          at
                          Fukushima.

                          you are just not an expert! an real expert say it different!

                          but yes you don't understand this this fact shows you are just stupid!

                          Real experts like: "Arnold Gundersen, chief engineer" pointing out that there was a nuclear explosion!

                          and i prefer to believe REAL experts more than you the JOKE expert with the name "Shielder"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                            I was trying to dumb it down for you to understand. Obviously it was still too complicated for you. I'll put it as simply as possible: There was no nuclear explosion at Fukushima.
                            What the video says, starting at minute four, is, that the earthquake damaged the cooling system in block 1 to a point where cooling was no longer possible. The following tsunami apparently did the same for blocks 2 and 3.

                            Here are some notes I took while watching the video:
                            7:30; Mentions hydrogen explosions
                            11:00; Some background information on block 4
                            14:00; Mentions hydrogen explosion in block 4
                            16:00; The official story is, that hydrogen from block 3 went into block 4 due to a shared ventilation system. However, scientists theorize, that the hydrogen did in fact originate in block 4 itself. The reason is: Block 4 was switched off. Due to this the cores were not inside the shield, but in a cooling pond which was rapidly running out of water.

                            In between some infomation on how radioactive material can be found at lot further from the reactors than should be possible, following a chemical explosion.

                            28:50; The video starts talking about a possible nuclear explosion in block 3
                            29:30; Christopher Busby "If this had been a simple hydrogen explosion, we would not find radioactive particles as far from the plant as we do."
                            30:30; Adrian P. Heymer: "We are very convinced it was not a spontaneous nuclear explosion. It was in fact, a hydrogen explosion"
                            31:00; Yukio Yamguchi: "It cannot, with certainty, be ruled out that it might have been a nuclear explosion."
                            31:40; Detailed analysis of explosion by Arnold Gundersen
                            32:45; Arnold Gundersen: "a so called Prompt Criticality, a fast nuclear reaction, stronger than a chemical bomb, less strong than a nuclear bomb, somewhere in between" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical)

                            So yes, the video does say that is was a sort of nuclear explosion. Not a nuclear explosion like that of a nuclear bomb, but still stronger than a mere chemical explosion.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
                              What the video says, starting at minute four, is, that the earthquake damaged the cooling system in block 1 to a point where cooling was no longer possible. The following tsunami apparently did the same for blocks 2 and 3.

                              Here are some notes I took while watching the video:
                              7:30; Mentions hydrogen explosions
                              11:00; Some background information on block 4
                              14:00; Mentions hydrogen explosion in block 4
                              16:00; The official story is, that hydrogen from block 3 went into block 4 due to a shared ventilation system. However, scientists theorize, that the hydrogen did in fact originate in block 4 itself. The reason is: Block 4 was switched off. Due to this the cores were not inside the shield, but in a cooling pond which was rapidly running out of water.

                              In between some infomation on how radioactive material can be found at lot further from the reactors than should be possible, following a chemical explosion.

                              28:50; The video starts talking about a possible nuclear explosion in block 3
                              29:30; Christopher Busby "If this had been a simple hydrogen explosion, we would not find radioactive particles as far from the plant as we do."
                              30:30; Adrian P. Heymer: "We are very convinced it was not a spontaneous nuclear explosion. It was in fact, a hydrogen explosion"
                              31:00; Yukio Yamguchi: "It cannot, with certainty, be ruled out that it might have been a nuclear explosion."
                              31:40; Detailed analysis of explosion by Arnold Gundersen
                              32:45; Arnold Gundersen: "a so called Prompt Criticality, a fast nuclear reaction, stronger than a chemical bomb, less strong than a nuclear bomb, somewhere in between" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical)

                              So yes, the video does say that is was a sort of nuclear explosion. Not a nuclear explosion like that of a nuclear bomb, but still stronger than a mere chemical explosion.
                              thank you very much for your help for you translation and pointing out the most important facts.

                              its pointless if i do this because they just call me a liar if i translate it.

                              so yes you are very helpful

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                                you are just not an expert! an real expert say it different!

                                but yes you don't understand this this fact shows you are just stupid!
                                Hmmm, my employer would say different.

                                But, when the facts aren't on your side, you, Q, resort to insults. So I'm bowing out of this now.

                                It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't know their arse from their elbow and insists that they are always right.

                                By the way, I do, as you may have guessed, work in the nuclear industry. I'm a radiation and criticality safety expert, so I believe that I do know what I'm talking about, but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says. I report the truth. It doesn't bother me if they don't like it, I say it how it is. Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But that is for another thread.

                                Goodbye.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X