'Worse Than Chernobyl': When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater

[FourScore]

This article is a couple of weeks old, but I did not find it in the archives; so, I thought I would post it. So sorry if it is a dupe.

Published on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 by Hawaii News Daily
'Worse Than Chernobyl': When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater
by Tom Burnett

Fukushima is going to dwarf Chenobyl. The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week but won’t admit it.

The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it.

If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like lava. But Fukushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply cool down. It will explode – not a nuclear explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel rods at the facility.

Pouring concrete on a critical reactor makes no sense – it will simply explode and release more radioactive particulate matter. The concrete will melt and the problem will get worse. Chernobyl was different – a critical reactor exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactor cores are still melting down. The ONLY way to stop that is to detonate a ~10 kiloton fission device inside each reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores. That’s probably a bad solution...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/29-6

[aquart]

1. So when will it explode?

Is that, at this point, a good thing?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

2. no, it's the worst case scenario, a massive plume of high level radiation

[AndyTiedye]

3. Very Very Bad Thing

The explosion would eject the core high into the atmosphere.
It would likely take the spent fuel rods (in a pool suspended ABOVE the reactor) with it.

The resulting radiation would force abandonment of efforts to cool the remaining reactors
and spent-fuel pools.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke: :hide:

[aquart]

6. And then what?

[Javaman]

11. Very bad things.

contaminated water, soil, ocean, air, etc. This is not including a radiation plume that would contain the vaporized remains of what was once the reactors.

That plume would then travel the jet stream to us and, more than likely, eventually around the world.

Not knowing the particular half-life of the various isotopes, they can vary greatly. From as little as a few minutes to as much as hundreds of years.

And depending on the particular isotopes, some attach themselves very easily to various soft tissues in the body. Some to bone, some to the thyroid, some to the blood, etc, thus creating various cases of cancer.

It's not a happy ending to say the least.

[Liberty Belle]

4. What are this author's credentials to make such a claim? He lists none.

I am skeptical of people who make dire forecasts about anything and don't provide their expetise or qualifications. Just being a frequent contributor to a Hawaii newspaper is hardly qualification to expound on nuclear science.

[upi402]

5. "Why so hysterical?", Nuclear is the safest energy source available

:sarcasm:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[stillwaiting]

10. Cleanest too!! OMG is it CLEANNNNNNNNNNNN! nt

[bahrbearian]

7. I've been told that there is a lot of concrete and re bar under the reactors.

Lots and lots, and thats from someone here, who witnessed a reactor being built. There is no way, there can be a meltdown. :sarcasm:

[BeFree]

13. Actually

There most likely is a meltdown of the core and it is melting the core's metal container.
If it does melt through the metal container the concrete is the last barrier to groundwater.

Problem is: Metal is much stronger than concrete. Concrete will actually decompose rather rapidly compared to metal.

So if the meltdown eats through the metal container, it is then just a matter of minutes before it eats through the concrete.

[thereismore]

8. This author is pulling this shit right out of his ass. He is obviously not an expert,

to put it mildly.

[FourScore]

9. He said it was already a 7 accident when he wrote it a couple of weeks ago.

Yesterday, the official in Japan said they are basing the level 7 rating on events from a couple of weeks ago. I'm not so sure.

It makes sense to me and many other people I know of. Maybe not. But no one will tell us the worst case scenario

[Javaman]

12. Of course no one will state what the worst case is...

because, imagine if you will, some guy comes out and says, "we fully expect the core to completely melt down and totally contaminate the water table. On top of that, we have no way to stop the meltdown other than another nuclear bomb being detonated to stop it".

Could you just imagine the colossal shit storm that would create in Japan let alone internationally?

The financial markets would drop through the floor.

This whole parceling out of information is purely to save the financial sector from itself melting down.

They are fully aware of what is happening in those reactors and they are fully aware of the outcome.

It's just a game of hedging bets at this point to save things internationally from going tilt.

[thereismore]

14. Arnie Gundersen has been saying "Chernobyl on steroids" since day one. nt