Quote:
Originally Posted by Type941
Please read this (reposting from page earlier buried in links) - if you really worried it's like Chernobyl and why it isn't anywhere near that.
http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/20...lear-reactors/
IN short - there is a lot of nonsense in Media and there are tons of links if you want to understand this. The problem isn't reactor, it's the aftermath of tsunami, load on the power network, etc, etc but reactor will be fine and is built to withstand this. If it melts, it melts and plant is facked but water will be decontaminated, and in general, they are just going through the book now, one after the other and if they can't cool the rods (to below 2200C) they'll just have fuel melt and than be cooled off in the catchment area which is bad of course.
On a side note, it's bizzare how world works - US nuked Japan in 45 and 55 years Japan is asking it for help from contaminating the region. |
Started reading that article and stopped when I got to here:
Quote:
|
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.
|
First, significant is a very subjective term, then he goes and uses *not*, which is a very absolute term. I stopped reading there.
That sentence is like saying "The Titanic will *never* sink". Which they did. And it did.
That sentence is implying he has omnipotence to the events going on.
I have trouble putting stock into technical documents that use such absolutes in their predictors of future events. Not saying that the rest of the article is wrong, but that it's just an opinion piece, and that one from an English teacher and his friend, who read some tech docs and rewrote them as an op-ed.