Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Problem Explained (CNN)

This is the explanation video about the chain of events which have caused nuclear reactor problems in Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan.

These problems were caused by earthquake and following tsunami near to Sendai town in north-east of Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Sen... ).

Here is the original source:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/...

• Category

  News & Politics

[dee jay]

maybe putting a nuclear power plant on the beach in a high risk tsunami area isn't such a good idea.. jus sayin

[yescharliesurfs]

Would I be correct in saying that the hype around fukushima is overblown?

[fireofenergy]

Ya, but why use hydrogen (oh, I mean water) under very high pressures that only fission 0.5% of the fuel when you can use molten salt or metal and burn almost all of it... and it being thorium which is 4x less rare.

Why use the stupid LWR when the public (and I) WON'T accept it, when you can use LFTR (or similar) which the public MUST accept as safe (because it is).

Nuclear's ONLY mishap was the LACK of water (so ditch the LWR already) !!!

[fireofenergy]

This was a typical LWR which requires water at high pressures (and LOTS of "engineered safety" to overcome it's inability to be safe within natural laws of physics).

Had it been a LFTR, the disaster would NOT have happened!

Now, please educate about that. If, for any reason you don't agree with the concept of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (or similar), contact me.

The LACK of water is nuclear's ONLY problem, so ditch the Light Water Reactor, but don't ditch nuclear !

[yescharliesurfs]

PUN NOT INTENDED :)

[jaskbi]

Da Da Tisk

[Ndoki Hasaki]

I'm assuming by "fault zone" you're referring to seismic zones? Using the Instrumental Intensity scale developed by the US Geological Survey, with a threshold of 0.2g as a potential damage rating of "moderate" I found that out of the 47 nuclear power stations (producing more than 1000w of power) in the U.S. alone, only 1 was in the upper tier of moderate and two were in the moderate to heavy damage zones, and one of those two was shut down for upgrading.

I'm curious where you got your data.

[Ndoki Hasaki]

1. The Fukushima 1 actually survived the STRONGEST earthquake to ever hit the country (and 5th strongest quake ever recorded) but no, they are dangerous.

Also, when you were doing all your research before forming this opinion, I guess you missed lead-bismuth reactors? An EMP wouldn't be able to cause a meltdown. Also, a meteor disabling multiple reactors? Seriously?

And please, enlighten me, what power source do you recommend that's immune to EMP's, meteors, and not bad for the environment?

[SPAGHETTIMONSTER1]

Fukashima is having a very hard time getting any prefecture to take the waste, I'll let them know you want it. a meteor or CME EMP could screw the whole planet for several thousands of years if it disabled multiple reactors and if you mean salt domes/storage just look at the one collapsing in the U.S. not to mention EVERY reactor seems to be built on a fault zone.. bad idea

[Ndoki Hasaki]

You DO realize that ALL power options leave waste that's bad for the environment right?

Also, there are many natural below-ground repositories that have been found for safely storing it right? There's one a short drive from where I live, and it wouldn't bother me at all if they used it.

[SPAGHETTIMONSTER1]

Nuke waste is good too, oh wait nobody wants it.. safe?

[maplesandy]

But they would need the water to cool the power plant, and it can be costly to pump all those water from somewhere else,. jus sayin