Questions About Fukushima.

[galexander]

Placing a nuclear reactor right on the shoreline on the most tsunami ridden country in the world is surely asking for trouble?

It doesn't take a genius to work this out.

I was just watching the latest TV advert for Guiness in the UK and some of the imagery in the advert is a bit strange to say the least. I wonder how long it will be before it is taken off the air?

A night-time scene of an oriental city is shown (didn't recognise any Japanese writing on the billboards) and clouds of black smoke descend on the skyscrapers apparently leading to collapse accompanied by apparent cheering of onlookers.

Poor taste or what?

FACT:

The film The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda and which depicts the meltdown of a nuclear plant was released just 12 days before the partial meltdown of a reactor on Three Mile Island.

Just a coincidence?

OBSERVATION:

On TV we are shown images inside a nuclear power station which show a reactor core sitting quietly at the bottom of a pool of water. And please note you can clearly see the ripples on the water's surface.

But how realistic is this? To generate power the reactor core heats water to generate steam. I see no steam bubbling to the surface of this pool of water.

Okay, so in actual fact the cooling water around the reactor core which becomes superheated and which is in reality under too great a pressure to produce steam actually transfers its heat to a second reservoir of water which is not pressurized and which does produce steam.

Fine. But how does a superheated pressurized containment as described above actually produce a surface complete with ripples on?

What we are being shown on TV can't be the real thing surely?

Can anyone make any sense of any of this?

[Hillbilly_Hippie]

[quote=galexander;73906]Placing a nuclear reactor right on the shoreline on the most tsunami ridden country in the world is surely asking for trouble?

It doesn't take a genius to work this out.
quote]

I am sure some expert somewhere calculated that there was zero probability that an earthquake greater than 8.0 would ever strike that region in a thousand year period; therefore, it was perfectly alright to place it there and to cut corners to save money.

This is why they should not allow any of the so-called "experts" to do anything without first consulting the general population concerning "common sense," since the experts seem to be heavily lacking in this most basic thought process.

[galexander]

[quote=Hillbilly_Hippie;74305]

Originally Posted by galexander

Placing a nuclear reactor right on the shoreline on the most tsunami ridden country in the world is surely asking for trouble?

It doesn't take a genius to work this out.
quote]

I am sure some expert somewhere calculated that there was zero probability that an earthquake greater than 8.0 would ever strike that region in a thousand year period; therefore, it was perfectly alright to place it there and to cut corners to save money.

This is why they should not allow any of the so-called "experts" to do anything without first consulting the general population concerning "common sense," since the experts seem to be heavily lacking in this most basic thought process.

Yes indeed.

And further there are a whole string of nuclear reactors along that part of the coast. The damaged reactor at Fukushima is just one.