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
 

Altair_IV

(52 posts)
11. That's correct.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:16 PM
Feb 2014

In fact, we now have *pictures* of the spent fuel pool and they show intact fuel assemblies that are underwater.

The "fire" was a hypothesis that has now been disproven; somewhat akin to the "hydrogen bubble" scare during the Three Mile Island accident which was later shown to be due to someone at the NRC using the wrong formula:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/three/peopleevents/pandeAMEX88.html

On Sunday afternoon, while Carter was still there, Victor Stello found the proof he needed. They discovered that Mattson and his team of consultants had been using the wrong formula to determine the risk posed by the hydrogen bubble. Stello concluded that "hydrogen under pressure will prevent water from breaking apart into hydrogen and oxygen because it will tend to suppress the creation of more hydrogen. Without free oxygen, there can be no explosion." Plant operators began hooking devices to the containment building in order to slowly burn away the hydrogen, thereby bleeding away the bubble.

Altair_IV

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 #11