Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

    http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/151571

    this means the meltdown hits in the first 50 minutes and not later from the tsunami!

    this also prove that the NEW US-Nuclear Reactors are UNSAVE! because the passive cooling system are unsave in the first 30 minutes!

    this means the newest and greatest US nuclear reactors are just nuclear nukes if a earthquake hits the reactor.

    the "NEW" ones are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 and they can not stand a Fukushima accident!!!

    because its not passiv cooled in the first 30 minutes after the accident!

    Obama is so happy in getting the next Fukushima accident in the USA!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    It's been a while, but I'll bite...

    Apart from the failure of one emergency diesel generator, all of the safety systems at Fukushima operated correctly and there was no loss of cooling, core melt or any danger to the operators or the public due to the earthquake.

    Had the sea defences been adequate, then we would never have heard of Fukushima at all.

    Unlike your sources, I rely on accurate scientific and engineering reports:

    UK HSE Report with relevant extract here:

    "The magnitude-9 earthquake caused severe ground motions that lasted for several minutes at the Daiichi plant. The measured motions reasonably matched the predictions of the designers of the seismic protection measures. Upon detection of these ground motions, the safety systems at Daiichi shut down the reactors and started the back-up systems. All the evidence I have seen, including from the other Japanese nuclear power plants that witnessed similar ground motions, supports the view that the Daiichi plant safely survived this massive earthquake.

    However, the flood protection measures at the Daiichi plant were originally designed to withstand a 3.1m high tsunami, whereas the largest wave that crashed into the site in March inundated it to around 15m. A review in 2002 by the operators of the Daiichi plant did result in increases to the tsunami defences to enable it to better survive a 5.7m high tsunami. This improvement still proved to be inadequate, especially considering the history of tsunamis along that coast over the past century."

    IAEA report

    Both of these reports (admittedly, the HSE report references the IAEA report) indicate that all safety systems were working until they were taken out by the tsunami.

    And for a summary of the story from day 1, see the WNN portal on Fukushima.

    Now, these reports were written by experts, looking at the facts. They were able to follow the progression of the accident, from the first shake up to the declaration of cold shutdown.

    I think they know more than the blogger you quote Q.

    >Sits back and waits for the scream of emotionally charged rubbish to spew forth <

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Sorry about the double post, but I'v ejust been made aware of this: Journal of Radiological Protection special on Fukushima.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Unlike your sources, I rely on accurate scientific and engineering reports:
    LOL you must be tripping my source is an accurate scientific source. the source is: http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/fuk...gau_studie.pdf

    but yes you prefer to Spam FUD instead of reading my source.

    hey my source is double language english+german this means you can read it easily.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    a doku with multible sources about the 'Fukushima caused byearthquake' http://videos.arte.tv/de/videos/fuku...u-6439122.html

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    a doku with multible sources about the 'Fukushima caused byearthquake' http://videos.arte.tv/de/videos/fuku...u-6439122.html
    this source also prove a nuclear explosion in reactor 4 and not a hydrogen explosion.

    this video also prove that the company violate ALL security rules and they just fired the workers if they found a security problem years before the accident.

    this video also prove that the company and the gov lie multiple times to hold back the dirty secrets about nuclear power.

    this video also prove that all areas in a distance of 200km are DOOMED! high dangerous nuclear particles are found in the lungs and car filters 200km away!

    this video also prove that the US company "General Electric" know the FAIL construction of there power plant many years before.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    this source also prove a nuclear explosion in reactor 4 and not a hydrogen explosion.
    Hmmm, if it was a nuclear explosion, why are the buildings still there? Why haven't they been vapourised?

    Sorry, but the energy released by a nuclear explosion would have totally destroyed the site, not just 'blown the bloody doors off'!

    Oh, and if you are saying that my references are biased, then the authors of this report definately are:

    "Henrik Paulitz, expert on nuclear energy, IPPNW Germany
    Reinhold Thiel, member of the board of directors, IPPNW Germany"

    What is the IPPNW? It is the "German Affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War"

    I liked the section that said there was no evidence that the tsunami was the cause of the loss of cooling. Did they not look at the photographs from the plant?

    How about these?

    "The trigger factor does not even have to be an earthquake. Storms and strokes of lightening, water damage in the reactor (internal flooding), a minute fault in one of the numerous weld seams or just a simple turbine shutdown involving valve failure (malfunction of the main heat sink) can suffice for a worst-case disaster. According to experts’ analyses, even a “normal” SCRAM can be followed by an unfortunate chain of events involving component-failures and result in a reactor meltdown." What??? Storms cannot damage reactors. There are numerous reactors in America and Japan that continue to operate even in Category 5 hurricanes! Lightening strikes are dealt with in the same manner as on normal buildings (lightening conductor), water damage in the reactor (how?), minute fault in a weld seam, maybe, but these scenarios are modelled to death with numerous reactor codes and with practical (non-radioactive) experients. Turbine trips are also handled as normal operational occurrences. Basically, these so called experts have no idea what they are talking about.

    "The lesson to be learned from Fukushima is that even after a successful shutdown, a nuclear reactor can continue to generate such immense amounts of heat that even a relatively short break in the cooling process can cause the core to overheat and result in the massive release of lethal radioactive substances, which are imbibed by the population not only through the air and drinking water, but in particular via the food chain." Erm, this has been known about since we started building power reactors. It isn't a lesson to be learnt, it is an example of what can happen if the safety systems are completely disabled.

    New generation (AP1000 at least) reactors are designed to be passively safe (for 72 hours) following a fault like that which occurred at Fukushima. This would give the operators enough time to bring in the external power supplies and sort out the cooling.

    Like all industrial processes, there are lessons to be learnt from Fukushima, but this paper seemed to have been written with a definite agenda in mind. It wasn't objective, and from what I could read (only the summary was in English) bore no relation to reality.

    Nice try, but like my son's teachers sometimes say, "try harder next time."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Hmmm, if it was a nuclear explosion, why are the buildings still there? Why haven't they been vapourised?
    this is the same why they don't use the nuclear bomb against germany back in 1945 because german towns are made by stone and stone do not burn.
    they prefer to use it against Japanese towns because they are made of wood means it burns.
    just watch the stone churches in Japanese after the nuclear bomb the stone are still there.
    thats the same in Fukusima a nuclear explosion do not mean strong explosion for example the Father of all bombs is stronger than a smal nuke.

    the simple answer is: the explosion was not strong enav to vapourise the building but yes stupid people like you think nuclear bombs are always explosion like "Tsar" fusion bombs

    sure with a Tsar your effect shows up. but its a fusion bomb not a atom split bomb.

    ok for stupid people need pictures here the Hiroshima church after the nuclear bomb:

    why the church is not molten glas on the flor ? o yes you are an expert i know it my picture is a fake LOL.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    New generation (AP1000 at least) reactors are designed to be passively safe (for 72 hours) following a fault like that which occurred at Fukushima. This would give the operators enough time to bring in the external power supplies and sort out the cooling.
    this is just wrong the AP1000 is not save the first 72hours because the passiv cooling solution can not backup the first 32minutes.

    and fuskishima shows if something goes wrong then it goes wrong on the first 32 minutes.

    you can read this on the wikipedia page about the AP1000

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Oh, and if you are saying that my references are biased, then the authors of this report definately are:
    "Henrik Paulitz, expert on nuclear energy, IPPNW Germany
    Reinhold Thiel, member of the board of directors, IPPNW Germany"
    What is the IPPNW? It is the "German Affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War"
    sure you are Biased if you are not a nuclear fanboy LOL!!! what a irony!

    one is for sure German anti-nuclear scientists know better than you!

    to be against nuclear-weapons and nuclear-power plant is a sign of competence!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •