Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 4 / 5   >   >>
Ed96
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
Ed96   3/16/2011 4:22:55 AM
NO RATINGS
Plutonium is NOT the most lethal substance known. Far from it. Killing everyone on the face of the earth with one poune of Plutonium is a crock. It is theoretically possible to kill everyone one the face of the earth with 20 gallons of water, a statement that makes as much as the one about Plutonium. In nuclear bomb testing, the USA and the old Soviet Union dispersed 12,000 pounds of Plutonium into the earth, the water, the air, everywhere. Botulin is the most toxic lethal substance known, and it is common in nature produced by a bacterium. Dimethylmercury, which is man made, is readily absorbed through the skin even if you're wearing latex gloves. Then there is Amanitin, Castor beans, English Nightshade, Hydrogen Sulphide, etc, etc, etc. Plutonium is nowhere near the top of the list. Plutonium is an alpha emitter and a particular hazard to people only if a sufficient quantity is inhaled. Even then, it takes a long time to kill you by inducing cancer, such as decades, and chances are something else will get you first. Concerning jobs, think of the jobs that nuclear construction or any construction would create. And, guess what, nuclear jobs are higher paying and require higher skill. Plutonium, and for that matter Uranium and Thorium are very valuable and useful materials. Prior to making statements about things, some research would be a good idea.

Etmax
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
Etmax   3/16/2011 1:45:21 AM
NO RATINGS
They are all reasonable, but only for your life time. What you are essentially saying is that people that live a few hundred years from now don't really matter. I'm sure that isn't the case, but it is the result of burial. There have been interesting studies done on the storage in salt mines and they are seeing only a few hundred years of safety in that. The only long term safe method (over the life of plutonium) is disposal into space or something like that. The down side is that a rocket failure would undo the benefit very quickly. Make note of JKaplan's (above) reasons which hold true.

askubel
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
askubel   3/15/2011 11:56:21 PM
NO RATINGS
This is a classic example of poor engineering. In the service provider industry, we account for every possible situation when deploying a new product, because if you disrupt the service to the customers, you lose millions of dollars. But that's all that's at stake. Here, not only is a billion dollar power plant, along with the power it produces at stake, but so are the lives of everyone around. And to hear they didn't even plan for a tsunami? It's unbelievable! All reactors need to be designed so that they can safely be shut down after loss of external power, taking into account the vulnerabilities of the secondary power supplies. Fortunately, many nuclear plants meet these requirements - just not these ones. Like the disaster with BP, one company's poor decisions will negatively impact the entire industry.

old account Frank Eory
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
old account Frank Eory   3/15/2011 10:23:12 PM
NO RATINGS
I wondered the same thing, especially after reading this in the article: "For every single nuclear reactor in the world, 50 percent of the risk comes from loss of power to the site. Reactors do not power themselves, but depend on external sources of electricity for their control rooms, pumps and other auxiliary equipment," said Olson. Ok, a damaged plant needs to go offline and would then need to rely on external sources of electricity. But in normal operation, why doesn't the plant provide its own power? Why don't they have a step-down transformer that can produce standard AC mains voltage from that turbine generator? Then in the event of a widespread power outage, at least the plant could provide power to its own critical safety & control systems. Self-powering capability might not have helped at Fukushima, since it sounds like they had to shut down all operating reactors. But what if one of them could've be kept online? It's ridiculous that coolant pumps would have no ability to tap into the output of an operating power station generator in the event that all other backups failed.

dennisec
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
dennisec   3/15/2011 10:15:58 PM
NO RATINGS
If it were only U235 that were fissioning, the reactor would cool down relative quickly. The insertion of control rods mostly stops the U235 fissioning. However, other radioactive elements are formed during reactor operation. Some of these have a half-live of a few days. The cooling is required while these decay. Once decayed, the reactor goes static after a few days.

Juzujka
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
Juzujka   3/15/2011 9:58:36 PM
NO RATINGS
Probably, facilities for getting energy from reactor unit are broken by earthquake and tsunami. It is not very simple to get usable energy from nuclear reactor.

R0ckstar
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
R0ckstar   3/15/2011 9:17:12 PM
NO RATINGS
I simply don't understand why such critical pumps are not designed to at least be powered alternately by one of the multiple reactor units. It's a freakin' power plant!

przemek
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
przemek   3/15/2011 9:14:54 PM
NO RATINGS
There are several reasonable ways of dealing with spent fuel. Long term storage is one: Yucca mountain storage was stable enough in my opinion, and was only killed by politics. We should try to be rational about radiation, which is after all a natural phenomenon and manageable using well-known engineering techniques.

ANON1235460098216
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
ANON1235460098216   3/15/2011 8:44:33 PM
NO RATINGS
40 years doesn't seem like much of a track record, considering the enormous risks. Plutonium is the most lethal substance known -- just one pound is sufficient to kill every person on earth. Studies have shown that abundant power is available, with current technology, from Solar and Wind. The only real barrier is that it would take about 20 years, even if we started today, to replace our fossil fuel infrastructure. But think of jobs 20 years of Solar and Wind construction could create!!

ANON1235460098216
User Rank
Rookie
re: Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
ANON1235460098216   3/15/2011 8:34:48 PM
NO RATINGS
Unfortunately, there is no "safe" storage for spent nuclear fuels, which remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. The earth is still mostly a ball of molten rock and metal, despite the cooled crust on which we live. On a geological time frame, there simply is no part of the earth's crust stable enough to store the spent fuel.

<<   <   Page 4 / 5   >   >>


EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Creating a Vetinari Clock Using Antique Analog Meters
Max Maxfield
51 comments
As you may recall, the Mighty Hamster (a.k.a. Mike Field) graced my humble office with a visit a couple of weeks ago. (See All Hail the Mighty Hamster.) While he was here, Hamster noticed ...

EDN Staff

11 Summer Vacation Spots for Engineers
EDN Staff
11 comments
This collection of places from technology history, museums, and modern marvels is a roadmap for an engineering adventure that will take you around the world. Here are just a few spots ...

Glen Chenier

Engineers Solve Analog/Digital Problem, Invent Creative Expletives
Glen Chenier
11 comments
- An analog engineer and a digital engineer join forces, use their respective skills, and pull a few bunnies out of a hat to troubleshoot a system with which they are completely ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
45 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)