1. says

    not exactly

    the evidence points more to improperly stored spent fuel rods

    the storage for the spent fuel had no backups and tokyo energy cut corners to save $

  2. Ben says


    Again you’re going off with no real evidence. The issues here had to do with the reactor core, and not the spent fuel pool.

    The reactor core contains about 7% of it’s rated 100% energy in heat due to decay of fission products when shutdown, that’s the heat they were trying to remove. The questions regarding the spent fuel had to do with Unit 4, which was currently shutdown in a refueling outage and defueled, with all of the rods being in the spent fuel pool.

    There’s multiple units at play here, what the video stated was accurate.

    I realize that you think you’re an expert because you can google search things and find one or two blog posts/editorials that have been cross linked into 5 or six more sites (thus appearing a much bigger story then it really is), but why don’t you hunt for the actual facts?

  3. Fenrox says

    Oh yes, By all means, Let us get SIMPLE Nuclear Reactor information from CNN.

    Can anyone give me a reason why you would trust that they have any of their facts right?

    Also, BURN.

    Also, clearly you don’t have to go to college to understand a reactor, but it wouldn’t hurt if people learned how to read and process information so they could research these things themselves.

  4. says

    Ben again i must ask, can u read?

    “not exactly” “…points more…” = partial (by whatever %) not totality

    There are no silver bullets, no 100% this or that as a cause for anything, no smoking guns

    everything is a synergy (the whole greater than the sum of the parts) compilation of many different factors

    In no way did i say the reactor itself was not or is not a part of the whole problem. in no way did i say the spent fuel storage was the sole cause of anything

    please learn to read

    In the end , if the evidence is not covered up by biz interests ….we will find that many different problems occured to contribute to the whole

  5. ratbastard says

    Not exactly

    the evidence points more to improperly stored spent fuel rods

    the storage for the spent fuel had no backups and tokyo energy cut corners to save $

    Posted by: | Mar 16, 2011 1:31:37 PM



  6. ratbastard says

    The Japanese are apparently notorious for cutting corners at their nukes, so this was an accident waiting to happen.

  7. says


    actually human nature in general and specifically all private biz is notorious with cutting corners thus why germany has just shut down 7 reactors for full inspections

  8. Chris says

    I have to agree that there was either a leak or a steam build up within the reactor that caused an overpressure situation.

    If there is no circulation, or inadequate cooling of the coolant even with no circulation a steam bubble could have formed within the reactor vessel itself. If that steam bubble exposed the fuel rods, even with the control rods inserted, the exposed fuel cladding (which is only a couple inches) could start to break down. You have nothing but the control rods, assuming they were ALL inserted correctly) slowing down the fast neutrons, rather than the moderator (Hydrogen atoms of water) to slow or absorb the energy of those fast neutrons, therefore accelerating the degregation of materials inside the reactor and also outside.

    Then you have differences in temperature within the system itself. Too great of a difference of temperature and things break like a hot coffee pot to ice water.

    There is still not enough information, maybe even to the actual plant operators, as to what specific component failed. What was the straw on the camel’s back? Yes there is the generator and cooling issue, but in reality it is a combination of multiple failures comprising design safety. You can only have so many levels of redundancy.

    Above all everyone needs to remember that it took a 9.0 earthquake and a 30 foot tsunami to do this. Even the designers could not have built or seen this coming on such a scale. It is in the end a physical plant, and physical things have limits to how much stress they can stand.

  9. says

    something more to think about

    “……….TEPCO has a history of cutting corners, violating safety standards, lying to authorities and dragging its feet when reporting radiation leaks. And the Japanese government? It has a cozy relationship with TEPCO, with whom it partnered last August in cutting a deal to build nuclear power plants in Vietnam.”

    and the 7 reactors shut down in germany for inspections were all made by GE just as the fukushima reactor was thus the inspections

  10. david says

    some reports reveal that in japan, they have built 55 nuclear plants in the past 3 decades and today’s generation of nuclear plants still use the technology from 3 decades ago.

    For a country that size, 55 nuclear plants mean that every county would have its own nuclear plant and yet these plants only generate barely 30% of the total energy consumed by the nation. This is highly inefficient especially for a tech superpower country.

    People are speculating if these plants are actually nuclear weapon production in sleeping mode because the technology matches those used in the nuclear missile head.

    This outdated nuclear plant technology was partially responsible for the failure of 3 safety backup plans.

  11. says

    well david since the only benefit to uranium reactors vs thorium reactors is weapons grade material……………

    it is much easier (easier to keep on the down low) to construct nukes in japan to launch at china and russia as vs building them here in the states and then shipping them to US bases in Japan

    but that is just tin foil hat thinking ;-P

  12. Bryan says

    The “Little Golden Book of Nuclear Disaster” was conceived after “Nuclear Disaster for Dummies” proved too challenging for 83% of surveyed Americans.

    Given that it’s not only possible but typical for students to come out of our K-12 system unable to tell the difference between uranium and uranus, this really is a good thing.

    But I worry about the length… Three minutes without violent blood sex or a piano falling on anyone’s head is an eternity. A few minutes after this was posted I walked the halls, listening to the boys in the building cry, “Ohmigod! Are we, like, _there_ yet?”

  13. Ben says

    mstrozfckslv: Uranium-235 reactors daughter products are not used for weapons grade material. They’re not breeder reactors. Get your facts straight, and perhaps if you didn’t type like you were high people could understand you better.


    Your theory/hypothesis were based on pressurized water reactors, not boiling water reactors. Boiling water reactors do indeed boil and produce steam above the core. They’re not solid primary systems like a PWR, in fact, they lack a secondary, it’s the actual steam from the reactor that passes through the turbines, and back into the reactor. The problem with boilers is if you depressurize via letting steam off (through filters, demins, and from the primary containment through the secondary containment), is that the water you’re losing is actual reactor coolant inventory, and not just secondary water (like you’d have at a PWR where you’re steaming off secondary water and cooling the reactor via natural circulation through the steam generators).

    The problem they encountered here was there appears to already have been fuel damage to some extent when they were venting through the secondary containment, and hydrogen was released, and the hydrogen ignited, that’s what caused the explosion, it wasn’t a steam explosion.

  14. says


    U-235 reactors byproducts are weaponized with isotopic enrichment.

    Which one of us is high?