Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

FUKUSHIMA earthquake and tsunami thread and aftermath


geezer466
 Share

Recommended Posts

Charlie, more on the insurance front.

Thanks OM, very interesting, likewise I`ve found talking to some HOs here that many are seriously under insured, myself I pay for maximum cover on Home and Car Insurance, hoping not to claim, but if ever a disaster struck I would not lose everything. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks OM, very interesting, likewise I`ve found talking to some HOs here that many are seriously under insured, myself I pay for maximum cover on Home and Car Insurance, hoping not to claim, but if ever a disaster struck I would not lose everything. :)

I think the real insurance story is the exposure of re-insurers, most based in Europe.

Wait for howls about lawyers fees and fraudulent claims in motor insurance, when what's really happening is a rise in premiums to cover risky stuff like disaster insurance. Sound similar to the banking industry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that the "8.9" is measured at the point where it happened. So 200K away it is a lot less, with (I'd guess, I'm not a seismologist...) force declining with the cube of the distance. So if your reactor is 200K from the fault line, you'd be able to make sensible assumptions about what would actually hit you. If they had had an 8.9 actually on land, it would be very different indeed.

On cooling, they've got electric pumps that are either driven by offsite power, or backup generators. Usually there are multiple sets of generators. As long as the cooling system is intact, convection will continue to circulate the coolant to an extent - yes it will get very hot, but nothing bad happens.

Though it could be ******** reporting. It could be cooling just fine on convection, the pressure rising per design, and reporters note that "the pressure is going up" and assume that it is the end of the world.

Everyone holds up Three Mile Island as the inevitable outcome: in that case, they let all of the coolant out by accident and the core was exposed, which is very bad indeed. Still not "the end of the world as we know it" though. Containment held up just fine.

are you a nuclear engineer? I thought we didn't have any of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ this Nuclear power thing pisses me off!

It's practically a "get out of jail free" card for our energy needs FFS. Just put the SCRAM facilities in place (seems to have been done) and make sure you can cool the F***er while it shuts down! NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! Just cool it! We've been cooling things since the indusdrial revolution! Low Tech! Costs a bit more money, but if you live on a fault line isnt it worth investing that bit extra? If its uneconomical - then just build it to a size that MAKES it econimical! I'm thinking

Water + Liquid Nitrogen

Above

Control rods

above

reactor

As we all know here - gravity is your friend when TSHTF

Radiation now 8000 times above normal second reactor now having coolant problems

If nuclear power is so safe why does its safety systems have safety backups ?

Its a dangerous way to boil water

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radiation now 8000 times above normal second reactor now having coolant problems

If nuclear power is so safe why does its safety systems have safety backups ?

Its a dangerous way to boil water

DAMN right its dangerous!!!!!

Unfortunately, it seems that in this case its safety systems DIDNT have safety backups!

My argument is that in the case of something THIS dangerous the backup safety sytems should have backups and then they should have backups! If that makes it too expensive - design it bigger to the point where it becomes economically sensible.

Build a handfull of huge b'tards with rockets on them to blast them into space if TSHTF!

Puerile suggestion i know!, but there must be some sort of way to get these buggers produced on a scale that can be effectively entombed should the worst happen... maybe smaller is the way to go, I dont know.

Edited by sbn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radiation now 8000 times above normal second reactor now having coolant problems

If nuclear power is so safe why does its safety systems have safety backups ?

Its a dangerous way to boil water

The petrochemical route doesn't look much safer does it....

Oil Refinery Explosion after Japan Quake

15950514.jpg

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Japan-Earthquake-Tokyo-Tsunami-Fears-After-89-Magnitude-Quake-Rocks-Buildings-In-Capital/Article/201103215950160

And what would a tsunami do to tidal, wave and offshore wind --- it'd be the debris getting pushed along at the front...

Edited by noodle doodle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...apologies if this has been posted already..... :unsure:

http://www.space.com/11084-supermoon-earthquake-storm-natural-disasters.html

Oh No. Don''t start that debate again.

You will get all those crashing internet bores back on here who like hanging around message forums and accusing people of being pseudo scientists the moment any currently unprovable hypothesis is postulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The petrochemical route doesn't look much safer does it....

Oil Refinery Explosion after Japan Quake

15950514.jpg

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Japan-Earthquake-Tokyo-Tsunami-Fears-After-89-Magnitude-Quake-Rocks-Buildings-In-Capital/Article/201103215950160

And what would a tsunami do to tidal, wave and offshore wind --- it'd be the debris getting pushed along at the front...

Maybe it would do less damage. Offshore wind at least, and some tidal and wave installations are far enough out to sea that the tsunami will pass by before it has time to rise too high and become too destructive?

Tidal generators that are like underwater wind turbines would have a safety mode if the current is too strong - the same as wind turbines stop generating if the wind is too strong.

It could do more damage to the power cables back to land though, I guess.

On the other hand, maybe they would never get built in a tsunami zone in the first place so it's a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh No. Don''t start that debate again.

You will get all those crashing internet bores back on here who like hanging around message forums and accusing people of being pseudo scientists the moment any currently unprovable hypothesis is postulated.

Richard Nolle, a noted astrologer who runs the website astropro.com, has famously termed the upcoming full moon at lunar perigee (the closest approach during its orbit) an "extreme supermoon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The petrochemical route doesn't look much safer does it....

Oil Refinery Explosion after Japan Quake

15950514.jpg

http://news.sky.com/...201103215950160

And what would a tsunami do to tidal, wave and offshore wind --- it'd be the debris getting pushed along at the front...

Yeah.... but in 2000 (or even 20) years the residue of the aftermath would not be as lethal as the day the accident happened

Edited by Tankus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.... but in 2000 (or even 20) years the residue of the aftermath would not be as lethal as the day the accident happened

neither would it be with a nuclear accident, half-lifes and all that

I think it's just because we're unfamiliar with nuclear, the word scares us, unlike an oil/gas leak, where we've just assimilated the high costs of oil/gas on our health as a fact of life, like car crashes and smoking. So the potential of a radiation leak is more scary than an actual fact of a refinery exploding (those are supertankers in the foreground btw, that fireball must be nearly a kilometre across)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh No. Don''t start that debate again.

You will get all those crashing internet bores back on here who like hanging around message forums and accusing people of being pseudo scientists the moment any currently unprovable hypothesis is postulated.

...oh ...sorry I missed that....must page back a bit more....thanks.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you a nuclear engineer? I thought we didn't have any of those.

Many years ago I did some time in the UK nuclear business - part of my degree. I used to be a "qualified radiation worker".

As we all know here - gravity is your friend when TSHTF

Yes and no - if I had to get a control rod into a buckled tube, or one full of high pressure gas, I'd go for hydraulics every time.

The problem is that we don't know the quality of the reporting. We hear that the reactors shut down cleanly, good. We hear that there was no initial radiation release, good, there is no physical damage. And yet they are having cooling problems in a core, perhaps due to lack of power, but they should have been able to fix that by now, and anyway it should be convection cooling.

If the reports of "8000x normal" radiation levels are true...that's bad. There are several different ways of expressing this, but 8000x times normal would make the place uninhabitable as a working environment (approximately lethal dose over a year). I doubt this is the case, the shit would have hit the fan in far greater style.

Dumping pressure from the primary circuit is no big deal. BWRs run a single circuit, which means the turbines run on primary coolant. This means they have to be shielded, but if maintenance is needed, they just shut down and wait for a while - the products are very short lived. If the wind is blowing offshore, the products would have fully decayed a few hours later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read elsewhere that earthquakes are more likely to happen when the Moon is closer to the earth. Just as the moon is the main cause of tides in the oceans, it is believed that it causes tides in the molten rock under the crust, and presumably these would be stronger when the Moon's at its closest.

Apparently within the next few days the Moon will be closer to earth than any time since 1992.

...must have been like this....

On March 19, the moon will swing around Earth more closely than it has in the past 18 years, lighting up the night sky from just 221,567 miles (356,577 kilometers) away. On top of that, it will be full. And one astrologer believes it could inflict massive damage on the planet.

Richard Nolle, a noted astrologer who runs the website astropro.com, has famously termed the upcoming full moon at lunar perigee (the closest approach during its orbit) an "extreme supermoon."

When the moon goes super-extreme, Nolle says, chaos will ensue: Huge storms, earthquakes, volcanoes and other natural disasters can be expected to wreak havoc on Earth. (It should be noted that astrology is not a real science, but merely makes connections between astronomical and mystical events.)

Ads by GoogleVIPRE™ AntiVirusWon't Slow Down Your Computer. Download Free 30 Day Trial Now!www.VIPREAntivirus.comGFI WebMonitor™ WebinarIncrease Employee Productivity. Register For a Free Webinar!www.gfi.comFree Forex Trade SeminarEarn £2,000 - £5,000 per week from 30 mins work a day! Sign up Today.www.KnowledgeToAction.co.uk/Forex

But do we really need to start stocking survival shelters in preparation for the supermoon?

http://www.space.com/11084-supermoon-earthquake-storm-natural-disasters.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neither would it be with a nuclear accident, half-lifes and all that

I think it's just because we're unfamiliar with nuclear, the word scares us, unlike an oil/gas leak, where we've just assimilated the high costs of oil/gas on our health as a fact of life, like car crashes and smoking. So the potential of a radiation leak is more scary than an actual fact of a refinery exploding (those are supertankers in the foreground btw, that fireball must be nearly a kilometre across)

234U has a half-life of 245,500 years.

238U has a half-life of 4.468 billion years

part of my degree was radio isotope dating , its given me a rational fear

Buildings destroyed after 2 years and 1 mile from the Buncefield Oil Depot explosion

3721-Keystone%202.jpg

chernobyl3.jpg

Still deserted 2011........ its all to do with "half-lifes and all that"

Go figure

Edited by Tankus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

234U has a half-life of 245,500 years.

238U has a half-life of 4.468 billion years

part of my degree was radio isotope dating , its given me a rational fear

Still deserted 2011........ its all to do with "half-lifes and all that"

Go figure

4.68 billion years. Wow. That's almost, well, not radioactive at all.

Personally, I wouldn't build nuclear power stations, which are dirty messy things.

Interesting though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and as for building the reactors .....!

Plants built to cost ... the amount of final layered safety protection finally being decided by an accountant doing a cost risk analysis ...

Concrete rot ..... corners cut ... subcontractor cost cutting ... substandard parts .... bad design ....costs hidden or fudged , whole life cycle of the plant not costed (ie decommissioning ) or the environmental destruction in obtaining yellowcake .....

We've still good lots of good quality (high carbon low sulphur anthracite ) Coal ..............air fluidized bed burners on coal powder at very high temps , particulate scrubbers on the chimney venting into heat exchangers connected to greenhouses the size of Thanet earth ...Job done , and cheap salads and low emission !

Backed up by tidal barrages (the severn should have been built by now ) and kiss goodbye to a few more valleys in Wales and Scotland for hydroelectric

job done ...cheaper too

Edited by Tankus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tide forming forces and earthquakes. 1966/7.

Looks like definite clustering of earthquakes, at least in terms of frequency of earthquakes lunar apogeee / perogee have a clear effect - if the data and analysis in this paper have been done correctly.

http://www.opteryx.de/docs/tamrazyan/Tamrazyan_1967.pdf

This one requires more reading to digest, makes some links between phase, earthwuake magnitudes, quiet and active earthquake periods.

http://www.opteryx.de/docs/tamrazyan/Tamrazyan_1968.pdf

Edited by OnlyMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago I did some time in the UK nuclear business - part of my degree. I used to be a "qualified radiation worker".

Yes and no - if I had to get a control rod into a buckled tube, or one full of high pressure gas, I'd go for hydraulics every time.

The problem is that we don't know the quality of the reporting. We hear that the reactors shut down cleanly, good. We hear that there was no initial radiation release, good, there is no physical damage. And yet they are having cooling problems in a core, perhaps due to lack of power, but they should have been able to fix that by now, and anyway it should be convection cooling.

If the reports of "8000x normal" radiation levels are true...that's bad. There are several different ways of expressing this, but 8000x times normal would make the place uninhabitable as a working environment (approximately lethal dose over a year). I doubt this is the case, the shit would have hit the fan in far greater style.

Dumping pressure from the primary circuit is no big deal. BWRs run a single circuit, which means the turbines run on primary coolant. This means they have to be shielded, but if maintenance is needed, they just shut down and wait for a while - the products are very short lived. If the wind is blowing offshore, the products would have fully decayed a few hours later.

Yes, as another poster has already stated, the isotopes are probably those with a half-life of a few seconds.

A leak would pose a moderate risk to a few people, which is still unacceptable, hence the evacuation.

If nuclear power is so safe why does its safety systems have safety backups ?

It's safe because of the safety systems and safety backups. (in principle!) Pointing out the safety measures does not show that the technology is unsafe; quite the contrary.

People don't seem to understand risk assessment or management.

The odds of a serious nuclear accident can be calculated statistically (the big unnown is operator error).

The odds are designed to be very low, but, because the consequences of an accident could be so serious, multiple safety systems are used and people the industry is ultra cautious.

Note that the reactors are IAEA approved. I have very big doubts that power to the cooling systems have failed without there being a backup* as some are reporting. I trust the designers more that I trust the accuracy of the press, who have a VI in making drama.

The evacuation will be a precaution; if there was a really serious risk, or threat of a big accident, they would be evacuating a HUGE area.

I think the story will turn out to be that all the nuclear reactors were so well designed that they all survived a huge earthquake with only a minor release of radiation in one case, amounting to the equivalent of spending a few days in Cornwall (without the cider and pasties). Speaking seriously, as I write, there HASN'T been a meltdown, nor a release to reduce pressure.

To date I believe this will be the worse disaster in modern times ever to happen across the World. :(

Really? I don't think anywhere has been harmed, except Japan, and the loss of life (which is what really matters) may be in the thousands, but not the hundreds of thousands.

Compared with Haiti, or the 2004 Tsunami, or Tokyo in the 1920's, this will minor, thanks to good planning and building design.

Sorry to put the damper on things, but the way I read it, it is not TEOTWAWKI. The press is getting excited, and the TFHers here are getting even more excited.

Last year the threads decided we would all be dead from flu by now, and thus would presumably not be troubled by the collapse of the Euro or the wars with China and N Korea, and the millions of deaths from planes falling out of the sky over Iceland onto the rabid bankrupt man-eating rioting Icelanders below

I'm an engineer, but not a nuclear engineer. I don't have a VI in nuclear power, I'm just trying to be level-headed rather than over-excited. I hope I'm right about all this, anyway.

Edit to add * some reports are confirming that there are power backups, but they failed. <_< .

Edited by happy_renting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Yes, as another poster has already stated, the isotopes are probably those with a half-life of a few seconds.

2.. A leak would pose a moderate risk to a few people, which is still unacceptable, hence the evacuation.

3.. It's safe because of the safety systems and safety backups. (in principle!) Pointing out the safety measures does not show that the technology is unsafe; quite the contrary.

4..People don't seem to understand risk assessment or management.

5..The odds of a serious nuclear accident can be calculated statistically (the big unnown is operator error).

1..Isotopes with quick half life's ...it could be only that , otherwise they couldn't ...or could they ? depending on what the consequence could be if they don't .., not just a risk assessment , but a cost/ risk ..you think .....?..by the way one of the reactors was vented tonight . The second one will be when the batteries run out ..in about 6 hours , lets hope there's not going to be another hydrogen bubble ...eh ?

2.. that really depends on what leaks

3.. That it needs multiple safety systems , it is by default ...unsafe !

4... Anyone one who has run a business will have risk assessment forms coming out of their **** , It is primarily about covering it !

5.. As the most usual cause is operator error ,by your own words it blows your statistics out of the water .

leaks are not an irregular occurrence

But you could do it on the basis of cost , for the full life cycle ,with no subsidy .its uneconomic

Heres a good one , just like the hill sheep in Cumbria and Wales became unfit for human consumption from the ingestion of Chernobyl fallout , Italian pigs in the Po valley suffered the same fate . The Italian solution ? up the minimum legal acceptance dosage levels , so making them fit for human consumption again ...yum yum an arbitrary choice .

Windscale fallout was going to be withheld from the public....... It became public because the Dutch detected the fall out and kicked off forcing the governments hand

Do you think the decisions were based on risk , or some other agenda ?

Airthat may contain radioactive materials will be vented from a nuclearpower plant in quake-stricken Fukushima Prefecture. The TokyoElectric Power Company has decided to release air from the reactor'scontainment vessels, aiming to avoid their breakdown.The companyissued a warning about its Fukushima Number One Plant early onSaturday morning. It said the pressure value for the reactor'scontainment vessels had risen, and that if the value was correct, the vessels could break down.

Tokyo Electric says the amount of air to be released will be small and that it will notify residents near the plant before it starts releasing the air. The company says it will check the amount of radioactive materials in the air before the release.

Earlier, the government issued an evacuation advisory topeople living within a 3-kilometer (now 10) radius of the Fukushima Number Oneplant

http://www3.nhk.or.j...lish/12_15.html

They are going to vent it , then try to work out was was vented...... as the other option is containment failure , Its going to be spun as nothing stronger than a birds fart , they have no other option. it seems !

te that the reactors are IAEA approved. I have very big doubts that power to the cooling systems have failed without there being a backup* as some are reporting. I trust the designers more that I trust the accuracy of the press, who have a VI in making drama.

" Prime minister Naoto Kan declared a nuclear emergency as his trade minister admitted that a radiation leak might occur at the Fukushima powplant"

from the horses mouth

Im not overexcited ....I just believe that its a really stupid way to boil water

There is far too much secrecy and dishonesty in the business

edit , out of the 11 reactors that scrammed , 3 have problems

"the Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2 plants and the Tokai No. 2 plant"

Edited by Tankus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1..Isotopes with quick half life's ...it could be only that , otherwise they couldn't .......by the way one of the reactors was vented tonight . The second one will be when the batteries run out ..in about 6 hours , lets hope there's not going to be another hydrogen bubble ...eh ?

2.. that really depends on what leaks

3.. That it needs multiple safety systems , it is by default ...unsafe !

4... Anyone one who has run a business will have risk assessment forms coming out of their **** , It is primarily about covering it !

5.. As the most usual cause is operator error ,by your own words it blows your statistics out of the water .

leaks are not an irregular occurrence

But you could do it on the basis of cost , for the full life cycle ,with no subsidy .its uneconomic

Heres a good one , just like the hill sheep in Cumbria and Wales became unfit for human consumption from the ingestion of Chernobyl fallout , Italian pigs in the Po valley suffered the same fate . The Italian solution ? up the minimum legal acceptance dosage levels , so making them fit for human consumption again ...yum yum an arbitrary choice .

Windscale fallout was going to be withheld from the public....... It became public because the Dutch detected the fall out and kicked off forcing the governments hand

Do you think the decisions were based on risk , or some other agenda ?

1. As someone else has explained: 'When a BWR is "scrammed" - or undergoes an emergency shutdown - decay heat from the fuel is removed by venting of overpressure from the main reactor circuit into a water pool in the containment, unsurprisingly called the suppression pool. This condenses the steam, but over time temperatures and pressure rise in the containment, and the system is designed to vent (via filters) to atmosphere. There are some short-lived activation products in the steam, but nothing hazardous to health.'

50% excess pressure within the containment vessel would be utterly normal within the operation of shutdown systems.

'As to the power loss - these systems are usually supplied with mains power, or by back-up generators. It sounds as though neither is available, but all of these systems have a fall back, by which they are powered by steam generated by the decay heat itself. It sounds as though the plant is running on these.'

2. The products in the steam is is N16 which has a very short half life and is safe after a few minutes

3. The system, including the multiple safety measures, is designed to make it safe. Bear in mind that no energy source is totally safe. An oil refinery is ablaze in Japan. Consider the toxic products from THAT. Which will include radioactivity, by the way. What radioactivity do you consider acceptable for the contamination of sheep, if the radioactivity is from the burning of fossil fuels? And why?

4 OK, you don't like risk assessments. You are clearly emotive about them. Fortunately, engineers take them seriously.

5. Safety systems can reduce the likelihood and impact of operator error

I don't deny that nuclear poses dangers and risks. If people applied the same criteria to other energy sources they would realise that they are dangerous too. Mining for rare earths for the magnets for wind generators is dangerous. Mining coal is. Drilling for oil has made fish at least as inedible as the sheep you refer to. Burning coal or natural gas produces mercury and other heavy metals. And so on.

The press are saying that the reactor coolant is boiling (duh... It's a Boiling Water Reactor FFS), has vented (normal and safe shutdown procedure) and that the US cavalry Navy has stepped in by providing 'coolant' (Water is available from lots of places really).

Not as exciting as a nuclear disaster. Sorry to disappont everyone.

The point of my last post was that things are not as bad as people in the press and here are saying, because the press is hyping the story, and the TFH glass-half-empty crowd are acting as if the reactor core is already halfway to china, based on the idiotic press stories.

The tragedy is the earthquake and tsunami, and the loss of life from those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. As someone else has explained: 'When a BWR is "scrammed" - or undergoes an emergency shutdown - decay heat from the fuel is removed by venting of overpressure from the main reactor circuit into a water pool in the containment, unsurprisingly called the suppression pool. This condenses the steam, but over time temperatures and pressure rise in the containment, and the system is designed to vent (via filters) to atmosphere. There are some short-lived activation products in the steam, but nothing hazardous to health.'

50% excess pressure within the containment vessel would be utterly normal within the operation of shutdown systems.

'As to the power loss - these systems are usually supplied with mains power, or by back-up generators. It sounds as though neither is available, but all of these systems have a fall back, by which they are powered by steam generated by the decay heat itself. It sounds as though the plant is running on these.'

2. The products in the steam is is N16 which has a very short half life and is safe after a few minutes

3. The system, including the multiple safety measures, is designed to make it safe. Bear in mind that no energy source is totally safe. An oil refinery is ablaze in Japan. Consider the toxic products from THAT. Which will include radioactivity, by the way. What radioactivity do you consider acceptable for the contamination of sheep, if the radioactivity is from the burning of fossil fuels? And why?

4 OK, you don't like risk assessments. You are clearly emotive about them. Fortunately, engineers take them seriously.

5. Safety systems can reduce the likelihood and impact of operator error

I don't deny that nuclear poses dangers and risks. If people applied the same criteria to other energy sources they would realise that they are dangerous too. Mining for rare earths for the magnets for wind generators is dangerous. Mining coal is. Drilling for oil has made fish at least as inedible as the sheep you refer to. Burning coal or natural gas produces mercury and other heavy metals. And so on.

The press are saying that the reactor coolant is boiling (duh... It's a Boiling Water Reactor FFS), has vented (normal and safe shutdown procedure) and that the US cavalry Navy has stepped in by providing 'coolant' (Water is available from lots of places really).

Not as exciting as a nuclear disaster. Sorry to disappont everyone.

The point of my last post was that things are not as bad as people in the press and here are saying, because the press is hyping the story, and the TFH glass-half-empty crowd are acting as if the reactor core is already halfway to china, based on the idiotic press stories.

The tragedy is the earthquake and tsunami, and the loss of life from those.

I just don't like nuclear power

1 ... why are they not running the turbines to supply power and dissipate the heat ? I don't get that bit , Batteries for the control system ? there is something going on more than we are being told

2.. Mostly N16 , its a 30 year old reactor and it depends on if there has been no damage

3 .. refinery explosions don't result in debris that needs containment , once the fire out you can go in there with bulldozers , you don't need a sarcophagus to last longer than the pyramids

4 ,,risk analysis is fine l.. but in the end the final decision will be decided by an accountant doing a cost risk analysis , resulting in a compromise , or value for money

5 exactly , compare that to oldschool steam engine (release plug and water dampener )

Coolant ?.....Maybe they are in a hard water area ,and they have run out of distilled , they could get it from the aircraft carrier perhaps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

japan state media saying that a nuclear meltdown now a possibility at one of the plants.

cesium being detected. cesium is a by product of a nuclear chain reaction.

God .......its not as if they have enough on their plate

If there is damage that "steam " is going to be well nasty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.