amerfayed
(61 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:07 PM
Original message |
Reactor No. 4 spent fuel pool at 212 Fahrenheit - 2:35 pm EDT |
|
Reactor 4… Resumption of spraying of water on the building to cool the spent fuel pool; the water temperature is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. http://enenews.com/boiling-point-reactor-4-spent-fuel-pool-at-212-fahrenheit
|
NV Whino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:19 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Looks like levels are up on the left coast |
|
It's been holding at between 21 and 26. Today it's reading 35 at SF. http://www.radiationnetwork.com/
|
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
NV Whino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Well Duh... the question is what units. |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-24-11 04:53 PM by FBaggins
I'm sure you agree that 24 inches per year is different than 24 miles per hour?
A number by itself is meaningless.
Looking at the map, it's in CPM. This is an entirely irrelevant amount of radiation.
But hey... it's all the way back down to 28 now. Best not to dose up on the potassium iodide yet. :)
|
AndyTiedye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Down to 28 now, but Boulder CO is up to 43 |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
3. This implies that the pool is quite shallow. |
|
There's no way it could heat up that far that fast unless the pool holds much less water than it used to.
The presumed leak must not be far above the level of the fuel... Which will make working up there an unacceptable hazard.
|
buddysmellgood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. I thought number 4 didn't hold water and went dry? |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. That was an unsupported statement by someone who wasn't in a position to know. |
|
It was immediately refuted, but some latched onto it.
It's reasonable to assume that it doesn't hold MUCH water however. Almost certainly not a full pool.
If it's the refeuling gates that are the problem (as has been speculated - by me and others), then the water level couldn't get higher than a few feet above the fuel.
That's plenty for safety of those on the ground and to avoid a fire and more harmful releases of radioactive material... but it's a very dangerous level for hanging out above the pool.
|
buddysmellgood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. That would make sense. I would have thought it would have melted otherwise. |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. I don't know whether or not it would "melt", but it would reportedly burn like crazy. n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:47 PM
Response to Original message |