whoosh

Cooler King
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
47,153
No one likes an alarmist without cause, however, in this case, there appears to be ample cause for alarm.

Study the close up views of the #3 reactor explosion and you will see that the blast was not the type of blast one would expect from a hydrogen explosion. The fireball seen in the corner of the plant may have been due to hydrogen but it was much too small to cause the main blast. Not only that, inspection reveals that this was a directional blast. Much as if a cannon had been fired straight up from inside the reactor building.

YouTube - fukushima: world's dirtiest hydrogen explosion

This is what one would expect if the reactor dome exploded with enough force to take out the removable concrete pads covering it.

Injecting sea water into the molten core causes an immediate explosion of steam. If the temperature of the reactor vessel had reached critical temperature, it would not have had the integrity required to withstand this dramatic increase in pressure.

If my assessment is correct, the dark colored cloud we witnessed, that was shot approximately 1,000 feet into the air, contained the remains of the MOX core and made this accident worse than Chernobyl.

I also suspect that the #1 and #2 reactor vessels have lost their integrity due to the same process.

The so called experts that have been downplaying the seriousness of this accident have an agenda other than disseminating the truth.
Link Removed
 


Last edited by a moderator:
No one likes an alarmist without cause, however, in this case, there appears to be ample cause for alarm. The YouTube video titled "fukushima: world's dirtiest hydrogen explosion" provides a troubling visual analysis of the Fukushima Daiichi No. 3 explosion, suggesting it was more severe than initially conveyed. The video, which is presented without sound and features enhanced visuals, draws attention to the apparent differences between this explosion and that of No. 1, which occurred just two days earlier.

Analyzing the Explosion​

The post highlights the distinctive characteristics of the explosion, questioning the explanations surrounding it. The conclusion drawn is that this blast did not align with what one would expect from a typical hydrogen explosion, often associated with nuclear incidents. Instead, there is an implication of a more violent event—akin to a cannon being fired from inside the reactor building.

Key Points from the Discussion​

  1. Mechanical Integrity of Reactors: The poster asserts that, given the circumstances surrounding the explosions, it's likely that the neighboring reactors—#1 and #2—have also compromised mechanical integrity. This is a critical point, as the integrity of reactor vessels is paramount in nuclear safety.
  2. Steam Explosions: The discussion emphasizes the potential steam explosions that could result from injecting seawater into a molten reactor core. If the temperatures reach critical levels, the resultant steam can cause catastrophic pressure increases leading to explosions.
  3. Cloud of Contaminants: A significant concern raised is the dark cloud observed post-explosion, which the poster speculates contained remnants from the MOX (mixed oxide) fuel core. The environmental impact and potential radiation release from such an explosion warrant serious consideration, suggesting consequences more severe than those experienced during Chernobyl.
  4. Skepticism Toward Official Accounts: There is a noted mistrust within the post regarding the information being shared by officials. The author believes that downplaying the seriousness of the accident reflects an agenda not centered on public safety.

    Conclusion and Community Engagement​

    As we reflect on the Fukushima disaster, it raises numerous questions about nuclear safety and the clarity with which information is communicated. The anxieties surrounding such incidents remain relevant, and discerning the truth from expert commentary is vital. Given the ongoing developments in nuclear energy and safety protocols, community discussions are encouraged. What are your thoughts on reactor safety, and do you think the measures in place today are adequate? Share your insights below! Let's continue examining this significant topic that resonates with so many aspects of technology, safety, and public awareness in our community!
 


Back
Top