Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 7256097" data-attributes="member: 549629">As of yesterday, 3 reactor cores had a &#039;partial meltdown&#039;. By this, it means the rods had started to melt. Most people call a &#039;partial meltdown&#039; when the rods melt completely, but do not melt through the protective core walls. I assume the situation is worse today, but I havent had a chance to check up on it yet this morning.Nuclear power plants are usually quite safe. American designed plants that use water cooling, like the ones in Japan, require a severe situation to create this sort of problem. An 8.9 earthquake followed 15 mins later by a devastating tsunami, that&#039;s a pretty extreme situation that cant happen many places in the world. There is no higher priority for a govt than to keep electricity to its nuclear reactors. It basically takes an amazingly devastating disaster, that disrupts the entire grid and shuts off power to virtually the entire country, before that occurs. Such a situation would be amazingly unlikely in the United States. It would basically take a WWIII type situation to disrupt our power grid so severely.And before anyone mentions Chernobyl, it was a dry pile, which the US has not built since the very first one The Manhattan Project was the US&#039;s only dry pile, we moved away from them immediately because we understood the problems they can cause (like a Chernobyl).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 7256097, member: 549629"] As of yesterday, 3 reactor cores had a 'partial meltdown'. By this, it means the rods had started to melt. Most people call a 'partial meltdown' when the rods melt completely, but do not melt through the protective core walls. I assume the situation is worse today, but I havent had a chance to check up on it yet this morning. Nuclear power plants are usually quite safe. American designed plants that use water cooling, like the ones in Japan, require a severe situation to create this sort of problem. An 8.9 earthquake followed 15 mins later by a devastating tsunami, that's a pretty extreme situation that cant happen many places in the world. There is no higher priority for a govt than to keep electricity to its nuclear reactors. It basically takes an amazingly devastating disaster, that disrupts the entire grid and shuts off power to virtually the entire country, before that occurs. Such a situation would be amazingly unlikely in the United States. It would basically take a WWIII type situation to disrupt our power grid so severely. And before anyone mentions Chernobyl, it was a dry pile, which the US has not built since the very first one The Manhattan Project was the US's only dry pile, we moved away from them immediately because we understood the problems they can cause (like a Chernobyl). [/QUOTE]

Verification