Japan Nuclear Explosions & Radiation Not Fully Reported, Nuclear Expert Arjun Makhijani

[MrBrianlowdown]

how about the wonderful black out..when people start dying of cancer who will be held for murder?the heated rods keep melting and going down,then hit the water what happens with heat from a red hot fuel rod hits the water table under the ground ?? you get super hot steam straight up into the stratophere...good bye big peice of the ozone..you trust the gov? remember what the epa told the 911 searchers? they sais it was safe.now they are dying.why does obama have all news cut off about this??

[neo5365]

"dude wheres the party?"

[wildridetoo]

To all: iodine pills wil ONLY protect you from radioactive iodine (the iodine pills will saturate your thyroid so that the radioactive iodine won't end up in your thyroid). The pills WILL NOT protect you from any other types of radioactive gases or particles that could have an effect on your body.

[chrisduran86]

Hi, I have just learned about LUGOLS IODINE and i think everyone should buy a bottle. It is quite cheap and can go a long way in keeping radiactive particles out of the body. Im playing it on the safe side and have bought six bottles to keep safe just incase. Im sure the situation is going to get far worse!

[stoltobot]

@chrisduran86 it'll cure what ails ya!

[MsDarbrown]

No, just my thoughts, we, I live in America. I believe Japan Is in need and the USA has a history of accepting human beings from other countries, during times of need I feel (my own thoughts) we should welcome them with open arms. If it was us, human being from the USA, would"nt we want to be treated the same?

[Kardiatheon]

It is just a matter of time before the heat levels will pass the ability to pump in water

[2Majesties]

Very level-headed, knowledgable guest. Good interview, David. Thanks.

[eswyatt]

"Nuclear Explosions" really Dave, have there been nuclear explosions in Japan? When I logged on I checked MSNBC to see if I missed someting, like, maybe, an nuclear explosion. Turns out I didn't.

[stoltobot]

@eswyatt 1945. 

[kazooga1234]

this is an awesome interview after i just watched cenks upload about the newest info about japan and it was 4 reactors

[fiercedragoon1982]

Instead of worrying about comparisons to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, there needs to be a discussion about how to properly dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Some of this stuff stays radioactive for up to 50 years, so simply burying it in Nevada wont be a long term solution. If anybody can address this question or tell us any research being done then by all means, please do.

[1RadicalOne]

Actually, it is not that bad. The worst of all the fission products, Sr90, has a halflife of 29 years, so a 50 year "quarantine time" is sufficient to make it safe to dispose of more conventionally. And that is not that big of a problem to do.

More, reactors produce very little high-level waste; only a few tons per hundreds to thousands of tons of fuel (depending on efficiency).

A meltdown is the worst risk from a reactor, and those are rare. It took THIS, and a meltdown is far from certain.

[fiercedragoon1982]

@1RadicalOne Thats still a long time! Wouldnt that pose a problem with using nuclear energy as a long term solution for using it as an alternative source of energy? You can only bury so much right? And havent there been incidents where radiation has leaked to the surface and contaminated parts of our environment?

[1RadicalOne]

50 years? Hardly. And there is plenty of space to put it. There are plenty of places sufficiently sealed from groundwater and air currents.

The only issue with nuclear energy in the VERY long run is that Uranium is a limited resource. That said, there are centuries' worth of it.

There have been no significant incidents that are of more than minor concern, because it is usually done right - another reason not to privatize it, another issue entirely.

[Elemarth]

Nuclear fusion is a bit the wrong field. But it's good to hear from experts, and I wish we'd get more information.

But even with the fire that has happened, this is still a relatively local accident. It can get worse, but it's not a disaster yet and won't be if it keeps going the way it's going. That's not to say I don't think the situation can change enough to make it a disaster.

[greycloud24]

@Elemarth i am fairly sure this is a fission reactor. a fusion reactor isn't possible just yet, and would be extreemly dangerous if it were (at least outside of a vaccum it would be excessively dangerous).

[SmogHouseTradingCo]

A full meltdown has occurred , there is a large threat. Evacuations were slower than expected.

[1RadicalOne]

No, a full meltdown has not occurred. Unless you want to believe that there is some conspiracy hiding information, the information given indicates that a meltdown is just a risk (albeit increasing in Reactor 2).

A full meltdown would look like Chernobyl.

[SmogHouseTradingCo]

@1RadicalOne I don't think the whole reactor failed, but there was a release of radioactive materials.

[1RadicalOne]

Yes, that is true, but I quote your original statement:

"A full meltdown has occurred , there is a large threat..."

The first half of which is simply false and the latter half mildly misleading, implying a danger more suited to a true meltdown.

[SmogHouseTradingCo]

@1RadicalOne It is a large threat, not all the reactors had been stabilized in a country that already had a disaster. The damage to one of the plants was called a core melt accident, the others were partial, and that's a meltdown. There were adequate fail safes but radiation has been released, very harmful to certain people (and not much better for the average person). I do not think you understand the severity of these melt downs.

[1RadicalOne]

No, a partial melting of the fuel rods is NOT a meltdown.

A meltdown is a specific term for when the fuel melts, and then melts the rest of the reactor, including moderator, control rods, any piping or machinery, and the concrete and steel housing. This slag is termed "corium", and floods out of the containment area.

THAT is a meltdown.

And I am not some random person on YT; I am an engineer who works with nuclear reactors, albeit fusion ones, and not for power generation.

[SmogHouseTradingCo]

@1RadicalOne Thenyou should know meltdown is not a term defined by the IAEA or the NRC. It's a layman's term for melting of the core. One reactors core was fully melted, so.... It's a meltdown, if you have a different definition have fun trying to find legitimize it...

[1RadicalOne]

Official term or not, it, like near any other word, carries a specific, fixed, objective meaning. And you are clinging to an incorrect one.

And no, for the third time, one reactor's core was NOT fully melted.

[SmogHouseTradingCo]

@1RadicalOne If it was not fully melted than I may have my facts wrong, but the meaning of meltdown is a melting of the core, even partial. I'm sorry but you cannot provide any evidence of this. Here is the Merriam Websters definition of the word 1 : the accidental melting of the core of a nuclear reactor. Are you going to argue that you are a better source for definitions than the dictionary? Is there a department of linguistics at your reactor? I didn't think so...

[1RadicalOne]

I hope for your sake that you realize that the definition you provided is closer to my description than yours.

[SmogHouseTradingCo]

@1RadicalOne Accidental melting of the core, part of the core melted accidentally... I hope for your sake and anyone working with you that you have some common sense...

[sophiemarissa]

great interview.

[harr7959]

I live 70 miles from the reactor. We sent school kids home at noon and told them to stay indoors and don't touch rainwater. The French government told its citizens to evacuate if possible on Sunday.

[sweetman683]

First!!