[QUOTE=Zeke129;28629408]Let's dump really cold stuff on really hot things! That won't cause massive amounts of damage at all.[/QUOTE]Not to mention liquid nitrogen evaporates almost instantly, pressure would skyrocket very quickly.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28629527][img_thumb]http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/ep88140.jpg[/img_thumb]
Shit does not look good.[/QUOTE]I'm having difficulty making that out, where in the reactor complex is it?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28632103]Not to mention liquid nitrogen evaporates almost instantly, pressure would skyrocket very quickly.
I'm having difficulty making that out, where in the reactor complex is it?[/QUOTE]
It was showing reactor 3 and 4 with the 4th on fire at the time, I believe.
fuck man, this sucks
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28632103]
I'm having difficulty making that out, where in the reactor complex is it?[/QUOTE]
It's taken from the northwest. Reactor 3 is in the foreground, with 4 in the background.
Better picture:
[IMG]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li4u44EnuV1qznj5do1_500.jpg[/IMG]
Picture outlining reactors 3 and 4, this will help clarify things:
[img]http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i439/Wildferret82/16_25_v_s.jpg?t=1300263036[/img]
Hope that helps. I need to go to bed now.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28625392]Blowout soon, fellow stalker!
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Stalker joke" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
lithifold what are you doing
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28632103]I'm having difficulty making that out, where in the reactor complex is it?[/QUOTE]
On the japan news before they had these annotations (excuse my crude paint job)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/MSQCC.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28631822]how can the main reason radioactive material spread for chernobyl apply here when that material isn't there?[/QUOTE]
?
Instead of there being graphite, radioactive water will be dispursed.
The difference is, there is no graphite to cause an explosion, however there is the potential for pressure to build up.
Plus fire was the main cause of radio active material being spread so widely in Chernobyl, and there is the potential for that.
Well this shit seriously looks fucked, man.
Every time someone says "reactor no.3" or "reactor no.4" I think of final fantasy 7.
Edit: ow, you act like I was trying to be mean :(
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28629551]Yeah. Boron absorbs neutrons.[/QUOTE]
How could it absorb particles with a neutral charge?
[QUOTE=Dragonblz;28632557]Every time someone says "reactor no.3" or "reactor no.4" I think of final fantasy 7.[/QUOTE]
Quit posting shit that people care about, man.
[QUOTE=wildferret82;28632006]A brief spot of good news from the BBC:[/QUOTE]
Isn't flying helicopters over the reactor how a bunch of Russians died in Chernobyl?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28632517]?
Instead of there being graphite, radioactive water will be dispursed.
The difference is, there is no graphite to cause an explosion, however there is the potential for pressure to build up.
Plus fire was the main cause of radio active material being spread so widely in Chernobyl, and there is the potential for that.[/QUOTE]
The main cause for the radioactive spread in Chernobyl was that GRAPHITE was on fire. That's right, the moderator.
It burned for about ten days, and I'm not sure if you've missed a couple science lessons, but water cannot burn for ten days.
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632610]How could it absorb particles with a neutral charge?[/QUOTE]
Absorbing neutrons slows down the fission process.
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632623]Isn't flying helicopters over the reactor how a bunch of Russians died in Chernobyl?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but there was a huge cloud of radiation over the plant. I'm sure if that was the case here, they wouldn't.
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632623]Isn't flying helicopters over the reactor how a bunch of Russians died in Chernobyl?[/QUOTE]
Radioactive material was carried up by the smoke, but that's not the case here.
[QUOTE=:e:;28632637]Absorbing neutrons slows down the fission process.
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
Yeah, but there was a huge cloud of radiation over the plant. I'm sure if that was the case here, they wouldn't.[/QUOTE]
How can an atom attract a neutral particle?
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632610]How could it absorb particles with a neutral charge?[/QUOTE]
Because charges are only required for chemical reactions, not nuclear ones.
It slows them down enough to be captured, and then captures them because it's a fairly stable molecule/compound.
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632688]How can an atom attract a neutral particle?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't attract the particles knuckle dragger, the particles just fly around so the trick is:
LOTS OF BORON RODS
Also an atomic nucleus actually has an overall positive charge.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;28632627]The main cause for the radioactive spread in Chernobyl was that GRAPHITE was on fire. That's right, the moderator.
It burned for about ten days, and I'm not sure if you've missed a couple science lessons, but water cannot burn for ten days.[/QUOTE]
Yes... I said that, but it won't be the water that burns - it will be the other materials inside the plant.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28632774]Yes... I said that, but it won't be the water that burns - it will be the other materials inside the plant.[/QUOTE]
Which isn't nearly as bad as radioactive graphite on fire.
Don't get me wrong, it could get really, really bad, but it should be impossible for a reactor like this to get as bad as Chernobyl.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;28632627]water cannot burn for ten days.[/QUOTE]
it CAN, however, evaporate and leave everything exposed so the zirconium fuel rod casings start oxidizing and directly expose the uranium to the outside world.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;28632784]Which isn't nearly as bad as radioactive graphite on fire.
Don't get me wrong, it could get really, really bad, but it should be impossible for a reactor like this to get as bad as Chernobyl.[/QUOTE]
Never said it would get as bad as Chernobyl, but it can turn out like it.
Ala, meltdown, explosion, fire, radioactive spread.
[QUOTE=bravehat;28632718]Because charges are only required for chemical reactions, not nuclear ones.
It slows them down enough to be captured, and then captures them because it's a fairly stable molecule/compound.
[editline]16th March 2011[/editline]
It doesn't attract the particles knuckle dragger, the particles just fly around so the trick is:
LOTS OF BORON RODS
Also an atomic nucleus actually has an overall positive charge.[/QUOTE]
It was the knowledge that protons and electrons carry a =/- charge respectively that made me question how Boron could absorb the neutrons, but I have never been taught anything about nuclear power over than it can cause Chernobyl like events.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;28632794]it CAN, however, evaporate and leave everything exposed so the zirconium fuel rod casings start oxidizing and directly expose the uranium to the outside world.[/QUOTE]
I've never said it can't.
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632688]How can an atom attract a neutral particle?[/QUOTE]
If the material you use for neutron absorption is dense enough and it's thick enough eventually almost all of the emitted neutrons will have simply collided with an atomic nuclei within the control material.
Even though it's highly unlikely that any single individual neutron will collide with any single individual nuclei (due to them being so small compared to the total size of the atom), eventually it will happen. When this happens, the neutron becomes a part of the control material (boron in this case).
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632802]It was the knowledge that protons and electrons carry a =/- charge respectively that made me question how Boron could absorb the neutrons, but I have never been taught anything about nuclear power over than it can cause Chernobyl like events.[/QUOTE]
All that happens is the neutrons are moving slow enough that when they meet a boron nucleus they are captured by the nucleus.
And whoever taught you about nuclear physics deserves a sledgehammer to the jaw for being a fear mongering idiot, nuclear power rarely causes an event of any magnitude let alone a chernobyl event, the only reason that happened was because the russians purposely drove the reactor to the brink of destruction to test it to it's limits and then completely fucked up and didn't manage to cool the reactor down fast enough.
That was human error, not inherent dangers in nuclear power generation.
It's goddamn Japan. That's why we need huge robots.
Robots could navigate through the building and fix the reactor when it was still possible.
Please take a note that the reactor was 40 years old and was [b]already supposed to be taken down because of safety reasons.[/b] It got additional time because [b]building new nuclear power plants is not in fashion because of the anti-nuclear hysteria and media exaggeration[/b].
I've said it before, and I say it again: Considering that there's been a 9M earthquake and a massive tsunami, these forty year old reactors have held up incredibly well.
[QUOTE=bravehat;28632834]All that happens is the neutrons are moving slow enough that when they meet a boron nucleus they are captured by the nucleus.
And whoever taught you about nuclear physics deserves a sledgehammer to the jaw for being a fear mongering idiot, nuclear power rarely causes an event of any magnitude let alone a chernobyl event, the only reason that happened was because the russians purposely drove the reactor to the brink of destruction to test it to it's limits and then completely fucked up and didn't manage to cool the reactor down fast enough.
That was human error, not inherent dangers in nuclear power generation.[/QUOTE]
The media taught me about Nuclear power, but I'm not stupid enough to take everything they say as 100% fact
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28632955]The media taught me about Nuclear power, but I'm not stupid enough to take everything they say as 100% fact[/QUOTE]
Then don't make a comment on the intricacies of a situation without suitable knowledge, all it does is enrage people and make yourself look like a twat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.