0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Reactor types with core catchers, besides the EPR, are: the "Fast Breeder" SNR-300, VVER-1000/428, SWR1000 and Atmea I
Thus, in early 2011, the two reactors of the Chinese Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant are the only working nuclear reactors with core catchers.
QuoteThus, in early 2011, the two reactors of the Chinese Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant are the only working nuclear reactors with core catchers.Why post that? I doubt they will be able to fit one and even if they could they will not be able to with the radiation levels currently present at the plants.
Sorry it wasnt letting me post and my last reply disappered
Quote from: Wiybit on 05/04/2011 00:08:45Sorry it wasnt letting me post and my last reply disapperedOK - so answer my question now please.
OK, but there was nothing wrong with BC's post. Despite anything he might have said, I don't think he really is clairvoyant.
"it is said that it will burn down through the floor of the reactor into the crust"It is also said that it won't.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_SyndromePerhaps more importantly it has been observed that it doesn'thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdowns_that_have_occurred
"it is said that it will burn down through the floor of the reactor into the crust"It is also said that it won't.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Syndrome
Perhaps more importantly it has been observed that it doesn'thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdowns_that_have_occurred
In practice, however, a nuclear meltdown is often part of a larger chain of disasters (although there have been so few meltdowns in the history of nuclear power that there is not a large pool of statistical information from which to draw a credible conclusion as to what "often" happens in such circumstances).[/quote]
Re."Aljazeera on core melt downs:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxzQPiy_U1M" an unsupported assertion is made at about 1:08 that a meltdown will occur; it might or it might not.
Nmbr 4 is what makes me nervous
Especially if they are correct in that this pond contain twenty years of spent fuel rods. Wonder how many that would come too?
It's not a good thing storing them in the reactor building, slightly better to store them somewhere else in the nuclear plant.
But considering the devastation that wouldn't have helped that much either this time.
Does anyone have a reliable estimate of the reduction in life expectancy of the guys dealing with the emergency?My suspicion is that they are not at that big a risk.
"I suppose it depends on the radiation levels they come into contact with, "That's what I suppose too. In fact that's why I asked if anyone had any information.Since radiation doses are cumulative, a day's exposure to 10,000 times "normal" is only the equivalent of a lifetime's normal exposure (very roughly).
Since some people's "normal" is six or more times other people's "normal" it's rather hard to get any real conclusion.Does anyone have any real data on these people's risk?
Wiybit, I keep asking if anyone has any real data on this but, before anyone can answer you keep jumping in and saying that you don't know anything.I'm not sure that helps.Does anyone have any real quantitative data about the health risks to the people directly involved in the clean up?
"No BC I said the only people that know are The IAEA and Tepco- Tepco are as always not being forth comming. "Which is why you don't know- like I said.