Fukushima Vs Chernobyl - Compare And Contrast

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 04/12/2011 - 07:50 | 1160979 Jiiins
Jiiins's picture

Potassium Iodide bitchez!

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 07:52 | 1160982 Tunga
Tunga's picture

"... but operators have since succeeded in cooling both the reactors and the spent fuel pools and no chain reaction is happening now." said the evil step mother. 


A comedy tonight!


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 07:56 | 1160989 Lord Welligton
Lord Welligton's picture

Bungling, yes. Disorganised, incoherent and sometimes contradictory, yes. But it is difficult to accuse Japanese officials or TEPCO of intentionally covering up information, with round-the-clock updates and a steady stream of data.

Not difficult at all I would have thought.


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:04 | 1161012 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

That steady stream of data has been a trickle.

We need more.ocean testing and real.time.continuous monitoring of the air above the plants.

But they dont want us to know how much.leakage.continues. they just give us the occasional soil or water sample.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:11 | 1161029 Lord Welligton
Lord Welligton's picture

That steady stream of data has been a trickle.

Well exactly.

How Reuters can concluded otherwise is odd to say the least.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:00 | 1161347 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Well, we're now at a level 7, so I guess Fukushima can't possibly be any more fucked.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 21:18 | 1163698 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Ever see antique maps where the "Terra Incognita" was marked:  "Here be monsters"?  7 is an arbitrary number and the Universe laughs at our puny efforts to measure where we're at...

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:03 | 1160996 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

no end in sight since they are not comprehending the magnitude.   Its like a slow motion nuclear explosion just shooting radioactive all over the earth.  Over many weeks, months and years.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:01 | 1160999 cheesewizz
cheesewizz's picture

 Video of people running from tsunami...



Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:12 | 1161387 Sweet Chicken
Sweet Chicken's picture

Dear god that was terrifying. Look at how fast that entire area became a whirlpool of hell! I couldn't tell but did all the people running in that shot make it onto the hill?

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:03 | 1161004 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Good call.

And i believed the bullshit that a few days after the flood they were just going to flip the power back on and the plants would run smoothly.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:04 | 1161010 Hollywood
Hollywood's picture

If Rueters said that it is too difficult to cover up, then it must be true.  Did a scientist write this article?

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:17 | 1161048 Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

you saw the same thing I did, I didn't see your post before hitting the save button.  I obviously agree with you.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:06 | 1161011 Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

I don't find it difficult to accuse TEPCo of a coverup. 

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:09 | 1161024 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

The coverup continues.

I want continuous real time monitoring of the air above each plant so we know how much leakage continues.

A once per week ocean sample is.insufficient.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:05 | 1161016 umop episdn
umop episdn's picture

Chernobyl was a quarter century ago, and the rest fo the world has had time to pick apart the lies and learn more or less what actually happened. Meanwhile, Tepco continues to obfusticate. I doubt we know how much radiation has been released, especially the quantity into the Pacific, because Tepco doesn't really want to know. Exactly like BP didn't want to know how much oil was spewing from its undersea hole. In all these cases, the general public and their geiger counters and video cameras are NOT welcome in the disaster areas, and official words tend to be whoreporate words. Remind me to 'compare and contrast' a few years from now.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:10 | 1161034 Note to self
Note to self's picture

Reuters must be on the take.  How is it that people can watch a reactor building get blown sky high, and still expect the spent fuel pool to be somehpow intact, holding water, and keeping the rods cool?  WTF?  How can they report everything is being cooled and under control?  Did they forget what they saw?  Jesus H W Christ - it blew up!!! 

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 09:30 | 1161268 Herman Strandsc...
Herman Strandschnecke's picture

I used to trust in reuters. Not now since reading that fairytale.

Lead lined chinooks and earthquakes tell me this ain't over. damm I'm getting angry now.


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 09:57 | 1161341 primalplasma
primalplasma's picture

That's Hollywood programming and mind-control. The MSM is linked to Hollywood. People grow up with suspension of disbelief.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:17 | 1161402 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

and still expect the spent fuel pool to be somehpow intact,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Big difference for exterior walls to give way due to over-pressure from a hydrogen-based explosion in contrast to load-bearing floors and other internal structures ...

Didja ever consider that?

Prolly not ...


      'Buy on the rumor and and sell on the news'


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:24 | 1161436 Note to self
Note to self's picture

I'm an engineer, dickhead.  Have you seen the photos?  Its rubble.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:30 | 1161454 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

Photo interpretation is not your strong suite (notice floors are still intact!); speculation, however, may be ...

Use of deductive reasoning, again, not so much there either, referring again to the points I raised above.


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:48 | 1161538 Note to self
Note to self's picture

I will heretofore add the notion of your being an idiot to my speculation.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:53 | 1161738 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

No address of issue; 'aggressive capitulation' noted when confronted with logic and facts.

Thank you for participating ...


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:57 | 1161576 MGA_1
MGA_1's picture

I've always throught of explosions at nuclear power plants as a bad thing.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:10 | 1161035 Coffin Dodger
Coffin Dodger's picture

I try not to prophecise too often, but intuition tells me that Fukushima is a show-stopper for humankind. Beyond the financial and economic impact (both of which will become increasingly evident in the coming months), the completely out-of-control situation at the reactors can poison our habitat worldwide.

A very fine line is being walked - too much information of a deadly serious kind could paralyse everything - after all, who would want to turn up for their job at the generator plant, or the police force, or the hospital...if you were being irradiated by a killer you can't see, smell or touch?

We truly have entered the twilight zone. I suppose if this really is IT, I'd rather not know all the details.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:19 | 1161050 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

They have been handling this like an fraud accounting issue.  Coverup and redirect, media control.  It really looks like bankers have been calling the shots on this.  They are no good at real world problems. 

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:39 | 1161089 Lord Welligton
Lord Welligton's picture

Let's hope you're wrong.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:30 | 1161688 Natasha Fatale
Natasha Fatale's picture

Agreed, there's something about this that feels like a game-changing moment. 

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 13:10 | 1162087 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

One more dose of radioactivity in the environment on top of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bikini Atol, Chernobyl, thousands of above ground and underground test explosions, hundreds of reactors and processing facilities around the world.

Millions will die but millions have already died and the world goes on. 100 years ago cancer accounted for 1 death out of 20, now it is nearly 1 out of 2.

All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:16 | 1161038 TexDenim
TexDenim's picture

although in absolute terms Fukushima still has a ways to go before surpassing the Soviet accident.

In spades! Comparing the Japan incident to Chernobyl really is hyperbole. In Chernobyl, the nuclear core actually exploded into the atmosphere releasing tons of fissionable material.


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:24 | 1161060 MGA_1
MGA_1's picture

I read the explosion at unit #4 blew spent fuel several thousand feet into the air and all over the site.  Unfortunately, it was MOX fuel which includes plutonium.... very nasty stuff.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:36 | 1161086 avonaltendorf
avonaltendorf's picture

Negatory. It was Reactor #3, about 1000 ft in the air.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:13 | 1161388 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

I read the explosion at unit #4 blew spent fuel 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Where did you read that?


Anyplace reputable? (unsourced rumors are not reputable)


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:37 | 1161494 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

The report entitled "RST Assessment of Fukushima Daiichi Units" March 26, has some good information. It's hard to find but it's worth it.

Basically, they said they found fuel on the ground outside in between 3 & 4. They couldn't tell exactly which it came from.

It's little consolation, just sayin'

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:39 | 1161731 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

Basically, they said they found fuel on the ground ..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I recall that report, and I recall that they found traces of what they thought to be traces of the 'fuel' on the ground ... no mention of fuel rods per se.


Now, it's possible a single fuel rod/assembly was attached to the fuel handling rig on the refueling floor (and not to be confused with the large crane that removes the containment cap) and when all hell blew loose with reactor buildings 1,  3, or 4 it is possible that a single fuel rod was 'disbursed' in the area ... far cry from a disbursement of a cooling pool's complement of rods, which we *know* still contain rods since they smoke/steam during presumably low water-level states before they are 'refilled' using the Putzmeister concrete tricks ...


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:28 | 1161052 Dagny Taggart
Dagny Taggart's picture

Was there a fission meltdown that was in danger of hitting the water table and exploding beneath other unstable reactors at Chernobyl? 



Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:45 | 1161108 Lord Welligton
Lord Welligton's picture

A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on now. But it will be messy.

Not encouraging is it.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:37 | 1161488 trav7777
trav7777's picture

this is just complete bullshit.  Fission in reactors requires moderation.  This crap about nuking reactors is nonsensical idiocy and anyone who says it should be ignored immediately.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:38 | 1161507 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:26 | 1161428 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

a fission meltdown that was in danger of hitting the water table 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OMG, you're sitting next to a LARGE BODY OF WATER, biggest in the world - with rising LAND to your west ... what do you suppose the 'slope' of the water table is:


A) TOWARDS the large body of water and away from the land


B) TOWARDS the land and away from the large body of water?


Besides, how is this any different ('meltdown into the water table') from pumping either seawater or fresh water on the 'lumps of molten fuel rods' creating large amounts of radioactive steam anyway?



Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:41 | 1161498 Sweet Chicken
Sweet Chicken's picture

You serious Clark?! The obvious difference would be the large scale nuclear steam explosion that would occur sending millions of particles thousands of feet into the atmosphere.

I'd call that a pretty big difference.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:45 | 1161533 trav7777
trav7777's picture

you guys learnt everything you know about nuclear reactor accidents from "China Syndrome," didn't you?

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:51 | 1161548 Sweet Chicken
Sweet Chicken's picture

I don't know if that remark was directed at me but certainly a melted core falling into water would result in a steam explosion, no?!

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:45 | 1161528 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Dr. Tom Burnett is utterly full of shit.

Fission did not stop at Chernobyl upon the initial core excursion precisely because portions of fissile material remained along with graphite moderation.  This is how the Bridge of Death came to be such a thing.  Chernobyl was fissioning during the accident until the army airlifted in enough boron, sand, and lead to absorb sufficient neutrons and to mobilize the core elements downward and out of the reactor.

There is no analog at Fukushima.  It is WATER moderated.  While the core will melt, without water inside the reactor, there can be no fission due to scientific concepts such as doppler broadening that Dr. Tom appears to be clueless about.  A BWR meltdown is NOT self-sustaining for this reason. 

Those who say that the Japs should have done what the USSR did are similarly clueless; there is nothing here to pour boron on (other than SFPs) as the reactor vessels roughly contain the reactants.  Chernobyl's reactor interior was open to the atmosphere, consequently things could be dumped into it.  That is not the case at Fukushima Dai 1.  Basic knowledge of the reactor designs should be a prerequisite for comment on this issue

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:01 | 1161586 MGA_1
MGA_1's picture

Err wait, so looks like I don't understand how reactor's work.  Doesn't water "Moderate" the reaction and slow it down?  Therefore, you remove the water and the reaction speeds up?

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:55 | 1161978 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Under normal operating conditions, water controls the heat generated by the reaction, not the reaction itself.  When the fuel rods become sufficiently hot (in a not normal situation), water can moderate the reaction, as briefly explained below.

It has been stated earlier on ZH that neutrons are the key to the fission reaction.  With no water to slow them down, they speed away from the fuel rods and are less likely to be captured and used for fission.  If the rods are submerged in water, the neutrons slow down in their escape.  They are then more likely to be captured and used for fission.

This relationship between speed of neutrons and water led to the conclusion that there comes a point in the heating up when it could be a bad thing to add water to the spent fuel rod storage pools.  The water would enable increased fission, which would lead to increased heat in the already-overheated spent fuel rods.

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 13:38 | 1162201 Maxter
Maxter's picture

Water does 2 thing in the reactor:

-first it slows the neutron so that the rods can absorb them more easily --> mean it helps the nuclear reaction

-second it remove exces heat produced my the reaction


Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:18 | 1161053 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Tue, 04/12/2011 - 08:25 | 1161064 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

I am curious if the data out of Japan is reliable, is there any way to cross reference and verify? 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!