Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 02:23 PM Feb 2014

Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island

http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4397

In March of 2011, an undersea earthquake sent tsunamis thundering across Japan, killing nearly 20,000 people and creating the most expensive natural disaster in history. Among the casualities was the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which was almost completely submerged by the tsunamis; an unprecedented event. Power was lost (obviously), cooling systems stopped, and the net result was a complete meltdown of three of the plant's reactor cores. It was a perfect storm of worst case scenarios. And now, even years afterward, some are calling it a worldwide radiation disaster, worse than even Chernobyl, that will produce a staggering death count for decades or even centuries. Today we're going to evaluate these assertions and see if we can separate fact from fiction.

With the shocking end-of-the-world-scenario headlines — such as "Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over" and "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima" — either Fukushima was the worst environmental disaster ever, or some of the worst misinformation ever is being trumpeted. To find out which, we'll put it into context with the two other best known nuclear disasters: the 1986 explosion of a reactor at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine, and the 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.

The most important technical point to understand about various reactor kinds is the moderator. The moderator is a substance that slows down the fast neutrons being shed by the radioactive uranium fuel, converts the kinetic energy into thermal energy, and turns them into slow, thermal neutrons. A thermal neutron is much more likely to strike another uranium nucleus. This allows a chain reaction, in which the fuel produces enough heat to power a conventional steam generator. Most nuclear reactors use water as the moderator. Put uranium fuel rods into water, in the proper configuration, and you'll get a chain reaction.

Chernobyl, however, was a very different type of machine. It was what we call an atomic pile, the devices first designed during World War II to produce plutonium for atomic weapons. The atomic pile is literally a pile of graphite blocks, half a meter long and a quarter meter square, with a hole bored through the long axis. These graphite blocks were used as the moderator.


Some good comparisons between the three nuclear incidents.

Sid
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island (Original Post) SidDithers Feb 2014 OP
The Friend of the Amazing Randi? Octafish Feb 2014 #1
But the ELEers will not pay attention, they would rather panic. hobbit709 Feb 2014 #2
Lots of differences RobertEarl Feb 2014 #3
Well, it's not ENEnews.... SidDithers Feb 2014 #4
Going? RobertEarl Feb 2014 #5
OK, BeFree. If you say so... SidDithers Feb 2014 #6
How come you don't respond to me anymore and let Sid have all the fun! snooper2 Feb 2014 #7
Stop all the arguing!! nikto Jun 2014 #8
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
3. Lots of differences
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 02:40 PM
Feb 2014

Chernobyl was one reactor, on dry land, and is covered up to reduce airborne emissions, and there is no offsite discharge of watery radioactivity.

Fukushima was three reactors melting down, two blowing up, is on the ocean and is being flooded with water that is flowing into the Pacific ocean for who-knows-how-long, and is not covered by anything thereby being allowed to spew airborne radioactivity.

This skeptoid site must be a nuke-lovers paradise, eh?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
5. Going?
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 02:48 PM
Feb 2014

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2014, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, skepty is going all right, going down the toilet.

It's almost as if a first grader copied and pasted something found on a nuke industry website.

ENEnews.com? Now that's real. And is no shit.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
7. How come you don't respond to me anymore and let Sid have all the fun!
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 03:02 PM
Feb 2014

snooper getting lonely LOL

 

nikto

(3,284 posts)
8. Stop all the arguing!!
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:23 PM
Jun 2014

I think we all an agree that nuclear radiation is GOOD for you,
and we ask God Himself (or Herself)
to give us lots more of it
, especially for our children.

All agreed?

Good.

End of argument.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs...