Self-deleted by member

[Bonobo]

This message was self-deleted and locked by Bonobo.

[Bonobo]

1. I know it is a long read, but this guy is clearly THE expert.

I am not, NOT advocating nuclear energy or defending it.

I am just happy to read this relatively good news. It is the most hopeful and comforting thing I have seen in days and it really sounds like he knows what the deal is.

It is very informative and you will learn alot by reading this.

Recommended reading!

[Poll_Blind]

2. I took the time to read every scrap of that. I hope he's right. There are some dismissive...

...aspects I don't care for like (paraphrasing) "The radioactive cesium and iodine will blow out to sea, never to be seen again" or "If you were sitting on the chimney when it vented you'd have to give up smoking to return to your regular lifespan"...that sort of thing.

I think those are the two main ones that stuck in my mind.

Also, there is one element of this that we and apparently he doesn't know- why these things are apparently being vented into closed spaces. Now, he explains that this steam is very very safe as far as radioactive things go that we're exposed to from natural sources but later when he's describing the venting process he indicates that these gasses were apparently (because he's just as much in the dark as we are) vented into closed spaces- which led to the spectacular explosions we all saw.

Why? What do the Japanese control planet operators know or believe that would cause them to habitually do this- when the method they're using (if one believes the reports) is seemingly so responsible for the explosions in the first place?

PB

[Bonobo]

3. Those are good questions but isn't it just more likely that the valves

for releasing steam open on the reactors themselves and so, by default, they vent into the outer building?

It would seem obvious that they would build up hydrogen, but from what this guy says, that is only because the extreme heat causes the hydrogen to split off from the oxygen.

Maybe they didn't consider the fact that the heat was so out of control because they were cooling at the time?

[Poll_Blind]

13. If, as he said, it's so important a process that there are 11 valves to do it, it...

...strikes me as odd that those things would open into a closed space- especially when (from all the stuff I've seen which touches on the subject) the zircaloy is widely known to suck out the ozygen from the water leaving just the explosive hydrogen gas. I think it was a guy named Tom Large on the BBC who I first heard about it from yesterday or so. Anyway, having so many valves to release pressure...into an area which, itself, can become overpressurized (potentially with explosive gas) seems strange to me given the level of dismissiveness with which he treats the gas/steam.

The sentence in your last question is probably spot on- at least for the explosion in No. 1...but I start getting confused as to why essentially the same mistake is being repeated, which is the reason given for the subsequent explosions in No. 3.

And, for instance, how there could even be a second explosion in No. 3 after the cladding has blown away.

PB

[Bonobo]

25. Another great question. I certainly can't understand it either.

"And, for instance, how there could even be a second explosion in No. 3 after the cladding has blown away."

Ya got me. Were the 2 explosions both in the same building?

[Poll_Blind]

35. Yeah, and here's the kicker- while both explosions at No. 3 dwarfed the explosions at...

...No. 1, the second of the explosions at No. 3, arguably, seemed more energetic. You can actually see a fireball (i.e. ball of fire) during the second explosion. These explosions are very large and the thing that worries me is when that smoke/steam/whatever rises so damned fast like that.

I mean, I have no idea how that works.

PB

[Statistical]

30. Reactor can vent either into containment or into open space.

Containment is generally preferred because is means 0 release into environment and the anti-nukker freak about any release (even if it is less exposure than one gets by taking a long distance flight or living in a brick house).

Reactors have hydrogen igniter. They ignite the hydrogen to create a controller burn inside containment. This prevents the hydrogen from building up into a concentration that leads to an explosion.

So why did the explosion occur. This is something the industry will be looking at closely. One possibility is the igniter failed during the disaster. The operators may have been venting into containment not realizing the H2 was reaching dangerous levels.

Containment building in a BWR is roughly 35x larger than the RPV (reactor pressure vessel). By combined gas law we know rise in volume equals drop in pressure. So using containment as a larger "bucket" also a significant reduction in pressure.

[KoKo]

26. I read the whole thing, too...and had your same questions.

Of course he's speculating the scenario that should be to handle a situation like this..but he's not there to know if every step was followed in the way he thinks should have been. So many unknowns with this.

Still it was an interesting read. Hopefully his "best case scenario" will be what happens.

[MilesColtrane]

6. I'm sure he's a very smart guy, but he is not a nuclear scientist.

He's an expert in risk management with a background in mechanical engineering.

His analysis of what went wrong seems clear cut, but his prediction of the outcome is just that, a prediction and not a certainty.

[Bonobo]

9. You could be right. I don't think any predictions at this point are certain.

Still, it is clearly a more in-depth and well informed analysis than I have seen or heard or read since this crisis began.

And it is hopeful.

[MilesColtrane]

28. Indeed, I hope he's right.

Peace to your family and all the people of Japan.

[rdking647]

53. this is a link to the article

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

[Codeine]

4. Damn. best bit of writing on the subject I've seen since the crisis began.

Kudos for posting this one, Bonobo. Should be required reading for a better understanding of the situation.

[DCKit]

5. Unrec for propaganda.

Two explosions, at least one uncovered core and two potential melt-downs.

While these are not (yet) Chernobyl level incidents (because they're a different type of reactor), this IS a deadly serious shit-storm.

[Bonobo]

8. With respect, it doesn't sound like you read it.

If you read it, what parts do you disagree with and on what basis?

[DCKit]

18. I was trained in Nnewcuelur by the US Navy.

This guy is presenting the best-possible-case scenario, and the facts of what's really going on in Japan are NOT on his side.

I am not, nor have I ever been anti-nuke, but our real-world safety considerations are not, and have never been adequate. That, alone is my sole reason for deriding nuclear energy.

I also grew up about 60 miles north of TMI. The industry has been given too many passes.

[Bonobo]

22. I am hungry for more information. Could you tell me what he doesn't fully disclose if anything?

Thanks!

[DCKit]

41. The many posts here on DU have the facts.

The PhD's defense of the industry flies out the window simply with the reports of the two explosions. The generation of hydrogen of sufficient levels to cause said explosions ONLY occurs when the core is exposed.

Besides, he's not posting from Japan, but safely from home.

[Bonobo]

45. "The generation of hydrogen of sufficient levels to cause said explosions ONLY occurs when the core

is exposed."

THAT seems like a statement you could back up easily with a link or some mathematics if you have the credentials you claim.

Please do so.

Because it sounds liuke you are claiming the core was exposed (to what? The air?)

We know the fuel rods have been exposed (out of the water), but are you saying the CORE was exposed to the outside of the reaction vessel???

[Statistical]

48. Not true.

Hydrogen creation isn't a requirement of an exposed core. Where do you get that nonsense from. At about 800 degrees you get thermal decomposition of water. There are solar plants which break water down into hydrogen and oxygen.

[DCKit]

54. Under what other conditions, aside from an exposed core, would those temps be reached?

A lack of circulation may lead to that condition, but it also follows that splitting that much H2O into hydrogen and oxygen gasses would, by itself, expose the core. They've admitted that reactor #2 lost cooling for 2.5 hours. A stove is hot, but a nuclear pile is unimaginably powerful.

The pumps at two (possibly all three) of the reactors failed. It's an inconvenient truth.

I don't want to argue with y'all. My position is that this is simply far more serious than we've been told and the industry and governments are in damage control mode.

Installation of solar, wind and hydro are going to explode because of this.

[Bonobo]

56. 800 degrees is nothing. A friggin' pizza oven gets to 750! lol nt

Are you really trained in this?

[DCKit]

65. How much water in that pizza oven? Just wondering. nt

[Chan790]

71. If it's any good as a pizza oven...

it's bone-dry. If it's really good as a pizza oven, it's lined in brick, stone or ceramic in order to be completely anhydrous.

(I know pizza ovens, pizza's been the trade of every member of my immediate family at some point in their lives. Oddly, none of us have ever owned a pizzeria, we just gravitate to dough-tossing.)

[Codeine]

59. The tandoori oven at my local Indian restaurant cooks breads

and chicken at 900F.

[EOTE]

34. What on earth is "Nnewcuelur"?

Also, you say you're not anti-nuke, but you deride nuclear energy. That would seem to me to be a contradiction in terms.

[DCKit]

40. "Nnewcuelur" is a homage to Dumbya and some of our fellow DU members.

It's not the concept of nuclear energy I'm concerned with, it's the total lack of safety and enforcement. As I said, I grew up just north of TMI. It never should have been able to happen. Ever.

The true costs of nuclear power will continue to be too high to bear for the foreseeable future.

[EOTE]

62. Ahhh, I thought that was 'nukular'.

Although I guess there are plenty of bastardized spellings of the word. It seems to me that the resulting fallout of TMI was relatively tiny, especially compared to all the benefit we receive from nuclear power.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Yep. This post will help kill people in Japan....

Just as bad as the "Ground Zero is Safe for First Responders" pronouncements by the Bush administration.

Shameful.

[Bonobo]

15. What about this post will kill people in Japan?

I know you didn't read it now.

Your comment has no relationship with reality.

[Junkdrawer]

27. Two reactors with thousands of pounds of spent fuel have exploded...

with massive clouds above the explosions.

There is now almost certainly plutonium in aerosol form in the atmosphere. Less than one microgram will cause lung cancer in 3 to 5 years.

And this guy is say "All is well". I read every word. I guarantee you that the REAL, independent experts would find this post scandalous.

[Bonobo]

31. Do you understand, at least, that the contents of the reactors did not explode?

The outermost shell of the building housing the reactor is what blew from a concentration of hydrogen that came after the hydrogen and oxygen from the steam split into component elements.

Did you even read it or are you following what is actually happen in a non-prejudiced way?

It sounds to me like YOU are the one spreading disinformation.

[Junkdrawer]

37. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe Paradoxical, a big nuclear proponent:

...

HOWEVER, almost 600 tons (1.2 million pounds) worth of spent fuel are stored in pools inside the individual reactor buildings. This is a major cause for concern given the recent explosions that appear to have caused significant damage to at least two reactor buildings.

If the distribution of spent fuel is equal between the 6 reactors, that would lead us to believe that almost 200 tons of spent nuclear fuel is currently at risk of being exposed to the open air.

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=639439&mesg_id=639439

[Bonobo]

42. If I recall,he was saying he was worried that spend fuel MAY be stored on top of the buildings

But YOU said that the reactor exploded. Are you backtracking and looking for something to cover up your error or was that just a mistake you wrote?

Anyway, Paradoxical was expressing a fear that that was the case, but I saw nothing on top of the buildings that would lead me to believe that the spent fuel was up there, nor have I heard anything suggesting that.

So why are you spreading disinfo? Is your agenda worth it so much that you would use this crisis cynically to advance your agenda?

[Statistical]

51. Plus spent fuel is stored underground, not on top of buildings.

A cooling pond is a 50ft deep pool of water with fuel rods at the bottom. Even if the fuel pond was completely emptied of water (no evidence of that) it would take hours before fuel rods caught fire. If the power company has the ability to inject seawater into the core they have the ability to refill the cooling pond.

[Junkdrawer]

61. From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Why are YOU spreading disinfo?

[Bonobo]

63. I only said that I had no information to confirm the truth of that assertion.

I am not spreading disinfo. At least not intentionally.

I never saw the diagram you just posted. It sure is troubling.

[pinto]

67. If I read this training manual right, that spent fuel pool is a temporary holding tank

used during refueling and the transfer of spent fuel to a long term holding tank. If I read this correctly...

Nuclear Power Reactor Technology
Module 2

Fuel Storage
and
Handling System

http://www.kntc.re.kr/openlec/nuc/NPRT/module2/module2_2/module2_2_6/2_2_6.htm

:hi:

[Junkdrawer]

70. Read this post (and referenced article)....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=639439&mesg_id=639439

[MilesColtrane]

33. The reactors exploded?

Where did you get this information?

[Statistical]

36. Meh did you even read the OP.

The fuel is INSIDE the reactor. The reactor is still sealed and will remain so as long as they can control the buildup of heat. There is no aresol plutonium in the atmosphere reported. Given plutonium has a distinct signature it would be easy to detect. Lastly if the reactor was indeed breached the radiation levels would be thousands (not slightly, not 10x, not even 100x) but thousands of times higher. There would be nobody alive at the plant right now because the radiation level would be lethal within hours.

Just more fear mongering by a junk science anti-nukker.

[Junkdrawer]

39. The spent fuel store ABOVE the reactors....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=639439&mesg_id=639439

[SidDithers]

38. Plutonium in aerosol form will be easily detected by neighbouring countries...

Make sure you post that information when you've got confirmation of your alleged theory.

Sid

[Codeine]

50. No reactors have exploded.

Christ, stop lying.

[End Of The Road]

7. K&R - all the DU doomers need to read this.

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

FWIW, I have great faith in the Japanese ability to handle this crisis calmly and responsibly.

All the best to you, your family and friends,
EOTR

[originalpckelly]

11. Um, does the Dr. even know what kind of extremely dangerous fuel they're using?

Mixed Oxide. Go look it up, and you'll know a little bit more about this than does the Dr.

[Bonobo]

17. If I recall...

He said a ceramic, uranium oxide.

Maybe you should read it more carefully?

[Statistical]

21. He was refering to MOX. One of the reactors (not the one the author was talking about)

is loaded w/ MOX fuel (combination of plutonium & uranium).

Still MOX is no more dangerous than Uranium Oxide fuel.

[Statistical]

19. MOX isn't any more dangerous than uranium oxide. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. MOX has significant percentages of Plutonium 240.

It's inherently more dangerous.

[DCKit]

47. Aside from the radiation, both uranium and plutonium are highly toxic.

As with mercury, there is no safe level of exposure.

A single atom of plutonium in the lungs is pretty much guaranteed to cause cancer.

You know I love you all, very much, but this is serious shit and the M$M and corporate govt. is minimizing the danger.

[originalpckelly]

52. No, it has a much lower melting & boiling point, because it's got a lot more plutonium than...

even spent fuel, which usually has about 1% Pu-239, versus most MOX which uses 7% Pu-239 with the other part being depleted uranium.

The data I could get say it's about 1000* C in different for boiling and about 700* C difference for melting.

So, in other words, the reactor has more of the element that boils much easier and melts much easier. So, it could have a melt down much easier.

That particular reactor may not, but the other does, and it's quite scary to see them having so much difficulty.

[Statistical]

55. Fuel melting and meltdown are different.

I didn't say MOX isn't different just that it isn't more dangerous to people.

If you are exposed to either core you die. That simple.

While MOX fuel may melt sooner the melting point of the RPV is the same for each reactor. As long as temp in the core doesn't melt the actual reactor pressure vessel the fuel will be contained.

while MOX has more Plutonium that difference is immaterial. Uranium is bad for you to and the medium lived istopes produced in both reactions like Cesium-137, and Strontium-90 are the ones that do the most damage to people.

[SidDithers]

12. K&R. Thanks for posting...nt

Sid

[warrior1]

14. since this way of

creating electricity is so complicated and dangerous everyone should find a cleaner, safer way of making it. I was watching AC 360 last night, and he had just heard about the 2nd reactor. He was pretty freaked out and wanted to know which way the wind was blowing and how far where they from the reactor.

[Bonobo]

20. I do not disagree.

I posted this as a specific analysis of what is happening, not to advocate for nuclear energy.

[Statistical]

16. Thanks for injecting some facts into the the discussion. K&R.

[meow mix]

23. ill believe it if it happens, untill then he is making dangerous statements

imo people are better off preparing for the worst, and not the rosey colored vision of a nuke worshipper.

[Bonobo]

29. Yes, preparing for the worst is definitely smarter than assuming the best outcome.

However, in the case of someone hoping that it will not be a worst-case scenario, like me (or you?) -and since you can't affect the outcome either way - I can't see how posting this is shameful or could kill people as one over the top poster in this thread said.

[meow mix]

32. yeah i can see generating hope as a good thing, true. just so worried...

and so angry. especially at those that brought us here against our wills. ("those" being the pro-nukers... and "us" being the anti)

[Kuroneko]

24. Interesting reading

But a little bit outdated.
The situation is really worsening with the reactor 2.
It suck...

[pokerfan]

43. We're hearing some conflicting stuff

Why did the US Navy move its carrier further away from the plants if there was no "significant" release of radioactivity? Why were 180,000 people evacuated if there was no "significant" release of radioactivity? Why did a Navy helicopter 60 miles from the incident receive a month's worth of radiation in one hour (their words, not mine) if there's been no "significant" release of radioactivity?

[Bonobo]

46. Good question indeed! Maybe just out of prudence? I don't know...

But it is a great question. I like the way you think.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. He strikes me as a knowledgeable optimist

For example his comments on the amount of radiation released and the health effects of it seem slanted to support his contention that there are no real health risks present. I have seen reported that U. S. Navy sailors on the Ronald Reagan have experienced significantly heightened radiation exposure from these plants while out at sea. That doesn't happen if it only takes the time it takes to spell a multi syllable word for the radiation to in essence go inert. I also heard one expert speculate that the effect of a 9.0 earthquake could possibly have caused cracks to form in the concrete core catcher that would undermine its effectiveness, but we won't know if it did unless it gets tested by events as they unfold. Dr Josef Oehmen seems to work from the assumption that if a problem has not yet been reported it does not exist, which in my mind reflects optimism. He also makes the dismantling of a plant that has experienced partial or complete core meltdown seem like a mundane procedure which carries no health risks to anyone. I for one would question that. I hope his optimism in the end is proven right when all of this plays out to the end. No one wants a further disaster.

[rdking647]

57. this should be required reading

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Perhaps in the context of this whole thread, yes

Left by itself, some of the assertions he makes are subject to reasonable challange. There is useful information here, but there is a dismissive and even arrogantg at times attitude as well. Virtually all writing contains some bias based on internalized values beliefs and often overt agendas (yes mine included, lol). I see that at work in this piece. Often it is a matter of how reality is edited, not just the truthfulness of individual facts.

[NashVegas]

58. One of the Cable TV Channels Showed the China Syndrome Saturday Night

Great scene in it where Jack Lemmon delivers a talk very much like this to Jane Fonda, explaining why she was never really in any danger during an "incident."

The only problem was, his character was not in possession of all the facts.

Your letter is dated for Saturday.

What's in your post most definitely does not reflect all the current facts of the situation.

[robdogbucky]

64. Dr. Oehman is a business expert...on the other hand there's this news

Official: Rods likely melting in Japanese reactors
Associated Press, 03.14.11, 11:25 AM EDT

TOKYO -- Japanese officials say the nuclear fuel rods appear to be melting inside all three of the most troubled nuclear reactors.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Monday: "Although we cannot directly check it, it's highly likely happening."
Article Controls

Some experts would consider that a partial meltdown of the reactor. Others, though, reserve that term for times when nuclear fuel melts through a reactor's innermost chamber but not through the outer containment shell.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/14/general-as-ja...


Dr. Oehman's previous articles:

1.
Oehmen, J.: An Introduction to Lean Product Development. Presentation to the Engineering & Development Department, Advanced Electronics Company (AEC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3.11.2010.

2.
Oehmen, J.: An Introduction to Supply Chain Risk Management. Guest lecture at the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 2.11.2010.

3.
Oehmen, J.: Managing Risks in Global Supply Chains – Introduction to Key Concepts. 1 day Workshop at the 4th Supply Chain Symposium, Saudi Aramco, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. 31.10.2010.

4.
Oehmen, J.: Risks in Global Supply Chains – Examples and Management Approaches. Keynote Speech at the 4th Supply Chain Symposium, Saudi Aramco, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. 1.11.2010. DOWNLOAD

5.
Oehmen, J. & Rebentisch, E.: Compilation of Lean Now! Project Reports. LAI Report, Cambridge, MA, October 2010.

6.
Oehmen, J.: Lean Product Development. Guest lecture ESD61.J, Integrating the Lean Enterprise, MIT, 6.10.2010.

7.
Oehmen, J.: The Supply Chain Risks of Global Sourcing. In: Khan, O. and Zsidisin, G.: Handbook for Supply Chain Risk Management: Case Studies, Effective Practices and Emerging Trends. J. Ross Publishing (forthcoming in 2011).

8.
Oehmen, J., Ben-Daya, M.: A Reference Model for Risk Management in Product Development. Internal Research Report of the Center for Clean Water and Clean Energy at MIT and KFUPM, Cambridge / Dhahran, August 2010.

9.
Oehmen, J., Ben-Daya, M., Khan, O. (2010) "Integrating Supply Chain Risks in Product Development: A Conceptual Framework", Proceedings of the 10th International Research Seminar on Supply Chain Risk Management, ISCRiM, p. 56-61, edited by Samir Dani, Loughborough, UK, ISBN: 978-1-907382-31-4 DOWNLOAD

10.
Oehmen, J.: Risk Management in Product Design. Presentation at the ASME IDETC/CIE 2010, August 15-18, 2010, Montreal, Canada.

11.
Oehmen, J., Rebentisch, E.: Waste in Lean Product Development. LAI Paper Series "Lean Product Development for Practitioners". Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 2010. LINK

12.
Oehmen, J.: Stakeholder Value, Organizational Capabilities and Uncertainty in Aerospace and Defense Projects. Presentation at the LAI Knowledge Exchange Event on Risk Management in Aerospace and Defense, Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA. 1.7.2010

13.
Oehmen, J., M. De Nardo, P. Schönsleben & R. Boutellier, 2010: Supplier Code of Conduct. State-of-the-art and Customization in the Electronics Industry. In: Production Planning & Control, Volume 21, Issue 7, p. 664-679. LINK Recipient of the ETH Zurich Management, Technology and Economics Research Award (Link)

14.
Oehmen, J.: Industry Workshop on Risk Management in Product Design and Development: Best Practices and Current Challenges. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 10.4.2010.

15.
Oehmen, J.: Risk Management in Product Development - An Introduction. Presentation at the "Workshop on Risk Management in Product Design and Development" at the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 10.4.2010.

16.
Oehmen, J., Rebentisch, E.: Risk Management in Lean Product Development. LAI Paper Series "Lean Product Development for Practitioners". Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 2010. LINK

17.
Oehmen, J., Ben-Daya, M., Seering, W., Al-Salamah, M.: Risk Management in Product Design: Current State, Conceptual Model and Future Research. DETC2010-28539. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2010. August 15-18, 2010, Montreal, Canada. ISBN 978-0-7918-3881-5

18.
Bremen, P., Oehmen, J., Alard, R., Schönsleben, P.: Transaction Costs in Global Supply Chains of Manufacturing Companies. In: Journal on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Vol 8, No 1, 2010, pp. 19-24. DOWNLOAD

19.
Mayr, R., Sierpinski, C., Oehmen, J.: Frühwarnung als Produkt-Lebensretter. In: Sicherheit & Industrie, 01/2009, p. 12-15

20.
Oehmen, J.: Lean Product Development - 15 Years of Innovation at LAI. Research Seminar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. 2.12.2009. DOWNLOAD

21.
Oehmen, J.: Lean Product Development - Insights from MIT's Lean Advancement Initiative. Seminar at the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 15.12.2009.

22.
Oehmen, J.: Managing Supply Chain Risks - The Example of Successful Sourcing from China. Dissertation at the ETH Zurich, Diss. ETH No. 18536. ETH, Zürich, 2009. DOWNLOAD

23.
Oehmen, J.: Risikomanagement in Supply Chains. Vortrag an der Fachveranstaltung "Risiko und Chance" des münchener kolloquiums, München, 24.9.2009

24.
Oehmen, J., Gruber, P., von Bredow, M., Alard, R.: Risk Minimization in Global Sourcing by Managing the Bargaining Power in Buyer-Supplier Relationships. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production (CARV 2009), Munich (2009). DOWNLOAD

http://web.mit.edu/oehmen/www/


This list goes on and on, but I think you can see why I'm concerned about his having an opinion. It's a business opinion, not a scientific opinion. On the other hand, this latest news release is really troubling. Kind of like the current press conference that Hannah Bell is trying to keep on top of......


Doesn't look good, Dr. Oehman notwithstanding.


rdb

[rdking647]

66. if you read the article

you would have seen where the melting of the fuel rods is not surprising and not as bad as the doom and gloomers keep saying.
basically its a TMI type of meltdown which in retrospect was not all that terrible as far as long term damage as the anti nuke forces would have you believe

[robdogbucky]

68. The engineer who helped design the containment vessel for reactor core says...

Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this. More on Mr Goto's remarks to follow.

Mr Goto says his greatest fear is that blasts at number 3 and number 1 reactors may have damaged the steel casing of the containment vessel designed to stop radioactive material escaping into the atmosphere. More to follow.

More from Japanese nuclear engineer Masashi Goto: He say that as the reactor uses mox (mixed oxide) fuel, the melting point is lower than that of conventional fuel. Should a meltdown and an explosion occur, he says, plutonium could be spread over an area up to twice as far as estimated for a conventional nuclear fuel explosion. The next 24 hours are critical, he says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698



And now Japan has urgently requested that IAEA come in and help.

Highest radiation levels yet just recorded.

This story is too fast-paced to sit and contemplate the opinion of a business expert.

At press conference the government and the TEPCO engineers had no answers to most of the questions and reporters apparently got pissed and the presser ended rather hastily and in some confusion.

Tell me again what a business expert has to offer on this crisis? Did you read his list of publications? You gonna rely on him?


Thanks, but no thanks.


rdb

[robdogbucky]

69. Some of the Q&A from the just concluded press conference in Japan

valve got shut down/stuck

we don’t know why


was it power or what

we don't know


so right now is it exposed fully

we don't know fully but we are kind of sure the water has risen


what's the status now

we don't know…..




Great