Busby: 'Can't seal Fukushima like Chernobyl - it all goes into sea'

[DeSwiss]

Run time: 06:38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI   Posted on YouTube: April 25, 2011 By YouTube Member: RussiaToday Views on YouTube: 307   Posted on DU: April 25, 2011 By DU Member: DeSwiss Views on DU: 3977

 

[aquart]

1. "It all goes into sea." Well, wasn't that a genius plan.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Lots of precedent, unfortunately.

Many entire reactors have been totally lost at sea, at unrecoverable depths, while they were in operation. Hundreds of unexploded plutonium and uranium warheads. Even plutonium torpedos. All crushed, and lost into the deep. Scattered. Leaking.

Naval reactors are smaller, and didn't have the stored fuel issue, but I can think of at least 8 reactors lost at sea. Warheads would be in the hundred(s), and I don't think Russia has come clean on the exact number of nuclear torpedos lost.

And that doesn't even touch spent nuclear fuel and waste, put in lousy 55 gallon drums and dumped at sea.

[spooked911]

12. well ain't that a fine kettle of fish

Not
:(

[defendandprotect]

19. Interesting comments by Dr. Helen Caldicott -- in 9/11 forum -- !!!

Who knows how it got there --

but she discusses the fact that 3 of those involved with the project at

high levels resigned -- can't recall if she said the designers or what and

have to watch it again -- it's like an 8 minute video.

But she also discusses the reality of the immense radioactivity of the RODS

-- how being near them for only seconds can lead to death.

And they are now exposed -- roofless.

It's here ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x311994

[bahrbearian]

24. Thanks for the link,, Why is it in 911 forum,, oh Move along.

[spooked911]

26. oh yeah, only totally unreliable kook stuff there

:eyes:

[marions ghost]

2. excellent video

:thumbsup:

thanks for posting

[Gregorian]

3. No words. I can only shake my head. Just plain sad.

The human being is the animal that didn't know when to stop, and had the power to keep nature from stopping it before it became a threat to itself. Just like the financial bailout.

[barbtries]

4. thank you for posting

important stuff. :(

[90-percent]

5. Geeee Ziz Kerristttt

Does the world have to suffer through a nuclear disaster that blows up half a fuckling continent before these fucking jerks start getting on this like the fucking BIBLICAL DISASTER THAT IT IS!

This could cause the premature death or disease of millions of people. So this is how people deal with BIBLICAL DISASTERS NOW? This is it? This is all we got in the whole fucking world!

-90% Jimmy

[FourScore]

6. Busby and Gundersen have been the most reliable sources. n/t

[TheWraith]

10. If by "reliable," you mean "Busby is a kook who is not taken seriously by anyone."

Not even the people who share his theories about low doses of radiation. More to the point, he's claiming to be able to "diagnose" this as a nuclear explosion, not a hydrogen explosion, based on some video. Aside from the Bill-Frist-diagnosing-Terri-Schiavo level of ridiculousness found in making a supposed scientific pronunciation based on a little film clip, what he says is literally impossible. A nuclear detonation produces an electromagnetic pulse which shuts down unshielded electronics within range. If it had been a nuclear detonation, there would not have BEEN video, because the cameras would have fried.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I think the correct term (Which also sheds question on his credibility) is 'nuclear excursion'.

Specifically a "Prompt Criticality Excursion"

The initial explosion of Chernobyl would likely be considered/is considered to be this type of event.
It is not impossible for such an event to occur on a smaller scale in the cooling pool, if the fuel rods were totally exposed, fractured, and dumping pellets all over the bottom of the pool.

It seems somewhat unlikely (and I see no flash of blue light in the dark/black explosion) but it is not impossible, and may explain the presence (and continued presence) of short-lived isotopes near the reactor complex.

[FourScore]

37. Actually, Arnie Gunddersen is making a similar analysis from video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x577747

[industry_]

11. the stuff i agree with is always the most reliable

screw those unreliable assholes who say stuff that contradicts my feelings and opinions.

[spooked911]

13. yep. that's generally how it works

;)

I think nonetheless, there is a semi-reasonable tendency to disbelieve official sources and latch onto "truth-tellers"

[axollot]

18. Gundersen absolutely. I'm about 50/50 w/this guy. Maybe it's his beret lol ;) n/t

[Marblehead]

7. Chernobyl may pale in comparison to Fukushima.

:cry:

[spooked911]

15. I don't think there's any doubt that it will be worse now

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Why?

It's released a fraction of the total radiation release from Chernobyl, and it's current, (revised) release estimates per day will require a VERY long time to reach the same levels as Chernobyl.

Quite a lot of opportunity to ensure that doesn't happen. Personally, I think the only way that could happen is with another massive tsunami hitting the complex in it's current state. (Not an impossibility, of course)

[liberation]

20. This is an ongoing event, the number of compromised reactors is larger than in Chernobyl

ergo the potential for damage is larger. Sure the assumption that this is already worse than Chernobyl is wrong, but so it is the dismissal of the implicit danger.

Your premise is a bit arbitrary, there is a higher possibility of the zirconium going "boom" if heated enough than another tsunami hitting. And that even would actually had a far worse outcome than the tsunami as far as these reactors are concerned.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Further damage of the plant pumping equipment

or scattering of the damaged fuel would probably result in that, as workers would no longer have much access to the site, and be unable to work in reactors 1-3. An additional tsunami would be very, very bad. It would also take out the concrete pumpers sitting outside the reactors, currently pumping water into the storage pools, and again cut power to the site.

I can't think of a worse-case scenario than that right now.

I don't think I 'dismissed' the implicit danger. It could still go very, very wrong from this point. But they seem to be making solid progress, so i'm cautiously optimistic.

[liberation]

27. zirconium goes poof, radioactive cloud formed, winds pick it up down to Tokyo

that can happen with or without another tsunami as long as the reaction is not controlled, given the damage to the reactors and the radioactivity in the site that ensued. You're simply thinking of a very rare variable, and tackling the odds to the undesirable outcome to it, thus making yourself think the worst outcome has the same probably as another tsunami happening.

In any case, until this situation is controlled, this has the probability of a worse outcome than Chernobyl. Hopefully that will not come the pass, but we will not know that until all the reactors compromised reactors are neutralized somehow.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Quite a lot of the zircalloy has gone poof already.

That's the smoking gun in the presence of hydrogen that shredded the outer buildings. High heat oxidizes the zircalloy, ripping oxygen out of the water molecules, and freeing up two hydrogen atoms.

I don't see any reason why the reactors would suddenly go prompt critical now (or again, depending on what the hell happened to Reactor 2). Something monumentally wierd would have to happen. The only mechanism I can think of is the continued geological instability of the region.

I am a little concerned with the plan to fill the containment itself with water. If somethin goes really wrong, I don't think anyone has done much modeling on what those old containments will do with significant hydrostatic pressure inside. Plus, we don't know how much damage the containments may have sustained, from the earthquake itself, in which ground accelerations exceeded the rated design limits of the reactors.

[pocoloco]

21. Wow! Sounds like you need to be over there

supervising things!!

You could lead all the volunteer workers into the site
that otherwise might be afraid of a little bit
of radiation.

[industry_]

22. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!!!

chill out, duder. just because someone isn't getting all hot and bothered over nuclear disaster fantasy porn doesn't mean they're nuke-loving cesium chuggers.
no one's saying it's not dangerous, but when you try to label them as doing so it makes you look like a massive doofus.

[liberation]

28. Projection being what it is...

is what make these ad hominem posts so hilarious.

[industry_]

31. the way i see it

when people's responses are so emotion-based that there's no hope of having a reasonable debate on things, juvenile mockery is the most entertaining way to handle things :dunce:

[spooked911]

25. What??? They said it was as bad as Chernobyl a couple of weeks ago

and this is still ongoing, with multiple farked reactors. I don't see how this could possibly be better than Chernobyl.

I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but this is seriously bad.

"As the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan continues, it is highly likely that Fukushima will far surpass Chernobyl in terms of its human death toll and environmental damage. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/level-7-major-nuclear-acc_b_852666.html

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I'm getting my info from the various agencies that have estimated the total radiation released from

the site.

I note your source ignores the umpteen operational reactors, warheads, plutonium pit containing torpedoes, and nuclear waste lost and dumped at sea.

Fukushima is more complex than Chernobyl, and it's proximity to Tokyo is troubling. Beyond that, it has approached a fraction of the levels of radioactive particles released by Chernobyl.

Nihil novum sub sole.

[spooked911]

32. seriously?

"...a fraction of the levels of radioactive particles released by Chernobyl. "

What exact fraction is that and how did you calculate that? Link? And why do you trust these sources?

I'm not one to be afraid of radiation -- but still this incident is dreadful and will many thousands of people before their time.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. The numbers vary for both disasters.

Chernobyl has been estimated as high as 300,000 petabecquerels, but the number I currently accept as most likely is the 120,000 petabecquerels figure. By contrast, Fukushima has been solidly estimated as high as about 630 petabecquerels, and is currently leaking about 1 terabecquerel per day, and decreasing, for now.

That's a very small fraction. I am open to it being rated upwards, as we don't know for certain exactly how much Fukushima has emitted, but we also don't know exactly how much Chernobyl let rip with. It could have easily been DOUBLE the 'official' number.

There's an additional 'dangerous' factor at play, the ratio of isotopes released by these reactors, compared to Chernobyl. But again, the single indicator of Cesium is not enough by itself to claim one or the other was more dangerous. Not with any clear meaning, anyway.

We will know more precisely once the situation is under control, and the reactors are de-fueled/cleaned out, and we know exactly how much material is left, particularly in the reactor that blew so much black smoke when the building exploded. Currently all we have is 'best guess' based on measurements that do not tell the whole story.

There are even independent 'crowdsourced' monitoring efforts being tracked alongside the official numbers, so it is more difficult for TEPCO or others to pull a fast one.
http://current.com/12ggp4c

[spooked911]

35. after searching a bit, the problem is that estimates are all over the place

I guess partly because it is hard to get solid numbers. This piece seems reasonable and says Fukushima has released about 1/10th of the radiation of Chernobyl.

http://us.arevablog.com/tag/terabecquerel/

[AtheistCrusader]

36. It uses the most low-ball estimate of radiation released from Chernobyl I have

seen so far. I would not agree with that article. In it's defense, we don't truly know exactly how much stuff Chernobyl blew across the planet, but based on measurements in neighboring countries, I would guess that number is very low. (and other entities like the OSTI and OECD estimate MUCH higher levels)

[spooked911]

38. It does appear that getting a precise number of the contamination is

next to impossible. Thanks for pointing out the issue though.

[bertman]

8. What is with this guy's left arm? I have never seen anything quite like that.

If what he's saying is true, this is very bad news.

[spooked911]

14. it's definitely bad news

as far as his arm, he seems very fidgety; I think he's gesticulating with his left arm and they are not showing the lower part so it looks weird

[upi402]

29. but..but...but.... Nuclear is the safety energy EVER!

:nuke: :sarcasm: