New posts

Reply to thread

Message

Everyone is certainly getting up to speed with the ins and outs of nuclear reactors...

The good news. It seems as if everyone agrees that the difference in design and material use between the Chernobyl reactor and the Japanese ones means there can't be an explosion of the intensity and radioactive carry of Chernobyl.

The bad news Apparently the use of plutonium enriched fuel rods in the No 3 reactor opens the possibility of very dangerous local contamination if there is any large scale radiation discharge. The emitted plutonium particles are highly likely to cause cancers.

So why did they have these plutonium enriched (MOX) fuel rods? It seems like this was a good way of getting rid of a dangerous nuclear byproduct. This artcile is well worth a read.

[

http://dcbureau.org/201103151304/Natural-Resources-News-Service/is-airborne-plutonium-a-threat-from-reactor-number-three.html

<blockquote data-quote="basilio" data-source="post: 619634" data-attributes="member: 18692">Everyone is certainly getting up to speed with the ins and outs of nuclear reactors...The good news. It seems as if everyone agrees that the difference in design and material use between the Chernobyl reactor and the Japanese ones means there can&#039;t be an explosion of the intensity and radioactive carry of Chernobyl. The bad news Apparently the use of plutonium enriched fuel rods in the No 3 reactor opens the possibility of very dangerous local contamination if there is any large scale radiation discharge. The emitted plutonium particles are highly likely to cause cancers.So why did they have these plutonium enriched (MOX) fuel rods?&nbsp; It seems like this was a good way of getting rid of a dangerous nuclear byproduct.&nbsp; This artcile is well worth a read.&nbsp; &nbsp; [<a href="http://dcbureau.org/201103151304/Natural-Resources-News-Service/is-airborne-plutonium-a-threat-from-reactor-number-three.html" target="_blank">http://dcbureau.org/201103151304/Natural-Resources-News-Service/is-airborne-plutonium-a-threat-from-reactor-number-three.html</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="basilio, post: 619634, member: 18692"] Everyone is certainly getting up to speed with the ins and outs of nuclear reactors... [B]The good news.[/B] It seems as if everyone agrees that the difference in design and material use between the Chernobyl reactor and the Japanese ones means there can't be an explosion of the intensity and radioactive carry of Chernobyl. [B]The bad news[/B] Apparently the use of plutonium enriched fuel rods in the No 3 reactor opens the possibility of very dangerous local contamination if there is any large scale radiation discharge. The emitted plutonium particles are highly likely to cause cancers. So why did they have these plutonium enriched (MOX) fuel rods? It seems like this was a good way of getting rid of a dangerous nuclear byproduct. This artcile is well worth a read. [ [url]http://dcbureau.org/201103151304/Natural-Resources-News-Service/is-airborne-plutonium-a-threat-from-reactor-number-three.html[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification