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

bananas

(27,509 posts)
7. There was a spent fuel pool fire at Fukushima
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:01 AM
Feb 2014

You wrote, "I have not heard of the scenario where a spent fuel pool catches on fire."

There's already been a spent fuel pool fire at Fukushima:

IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency

INCIDENT AND EMERGENCY CENTRE

Subject: Release of radioactivity from Unit 4 of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

At 04:50 UTC on 15 March 2011 the IAEA was informed by the Japanese authorities that the spent
fuel storage pond at Unit 4 of the Daiichi nuclear power plant is on fire and radioactivity is being
released directly into the atmosphere. Dose rates up to 400 millisievert per hour have been reported
at the site. There is the possibility that the fire has been caused by a hydrogen explosion.

The IAEA has contacted the World Meteorological Organization and has asked that the results of
atmospheric models be circulated to all Member States.

The IAEA will issue further information as soon as it becomes available.

Günther Winkler
Emergency Response Manager
15-March-2011 05:10 UTC
IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre


See http://www.democraticunderground.com/101675165 for sources.



Just stop and give this some thought for a moment madokie Feb 2014 #1
Yes, they love to hide behind the difficulty in tracking nuclear related cancer related fatalities kristopher Feb 2014 #14
Without a doubt madokie Feb 2014 #15
Am not pro-nuke but if we had Yucca Mtn indie9197 Feb 2014 #2
The solution to *this* problem would be to move the SNF to dry storage kristopher Feb 2014 #3
I scanned the article, do not understand legaleze so much indie9197 Feb 2014 #5
That's not a truth; it's a falsehood Altair_IV Feb 2014 #9
No, it is the truth kristopher Feb 2014 #13
Reading Comprehension Problem? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #16
A consortium of nuclear companies that self insure doesn't really qualify as "commercial insurer"... kristopher Feb 2014 #22
ANI is not "nuclear companies that self insure" FBaggins Feb 2014 #23
That is exactly what the major accident coverage is - and they don't pay "premiums" kristopher Feb 2014 #24
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #26
"James Hansen" is not "the scientific community" kristopher Feb 2014 #27
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #29
Being "pronuclear" is not the same as proving nuclear is needed kristopher Feb 2014 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #35
I said show the science if you have it - apparently you don't have it. kristopher Feb 2014 #36
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #37
No, by any standard that is not better. kristopher Feb 2014 #40
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #41
A citation for the claims you've made, please. kristopher Feb 2014 #42
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #43
You said you were going by NAS work from 1992 - start there. kristopher Feb 2014 #44
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #45
So you don't have a 1992 reference as you claimed. kristopher Feb 2014 #46
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #47
You said you have a reference and clearly you don't. kristopher Feb 2014 #48
Did you actually read the POPA report? caraher Feb 2014 #59
"We don't need citations, statistical studies, and what not. " caraher Feb 2014 #57
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #60
Nuclear power plants are not good at load following madokie Feb 2014 #49
That's not quite true. FBaggins Feb 2014 #51
You don't change the rotational speed of an AC generator to regulate the voltage output madokie Feb 2014 #53
So? FBaggins Feb 2014 #58
I didn't say it couldn't be done madokie Feb 2014 #62
You can't dodge the context of your comment FBaggins Feb 2014 #65
I corrected them too so where was I wrong madokie Feb 2014 #67
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #61
You know who is on your side? Roger Ailes et al. kristopher Feb 2014 #34
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #38
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #25
No, that's just your habit of twisting things to suit yourself kristopher Feb 2014 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #30
Not at all. kristopher Feb 2014 #33
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #39
We're not talking about automobile insurance here madokie Feb 2014 #55
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #63
Find someone else to pick nits with madokie Feb 2014 #64
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #66
Remember at first she was saying she was a Physicist madokie Feb 2014 #50
Physicists aren't scientists now? FBaggins Feb 2014 #52
What ever madokie Feb 2014 #54
It isn't? FBaggins Feb 2014 #56
Nothing left over? FBaggins Feb 2014 #18
Confusion Altair_IV Feb 2014 #20
The filing to the NRC (the PDF) asks them to make changes in how they license reactors kristopher Feb 2014 #12
Whose fault is that? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #17
More misinformation from kristopher Altair_IV Feb 2014 #21
The report says just the opposite. FBaggins Feb 2014 #19
Not really madokie Feb 2014 #4
There's so much waste, it will take decades to move it. bananas Feb 2014 #6
The nuclear power companies are the ones that *want* to go to dry casks.. Altair_IV Feb 2014 #10
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #31
There was a spent fuel pool fire at Fukushima bananas Feb 2014 #7
No there wasn't. FBaggins Feb 2014 #8
That's correct. Altair_IV Feb 2014 #11
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire...»Reply #7