High Resolution Photos of Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Damage

Discussion in 'Asia' started by Mad Scientist, Apr 5, 2011.

  1. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    Remote Controlled drone aircraft photos of the reactor plant damage. I'm posting this because it seems most News outlets are looping video of an undamaged nuclear reactor and far away shots of the damaged reactors.

    Links to more pics are on the site as well as a YouTube video of it. There is also a link to a zip file of even higher resolution pics.

    There are even pics showing the inside of the buildings to include what looks like control centers.

    Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Hi-Res Photos
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2011
  2. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    those are the scariest photos yet
     
  3. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,439
    Thanks Received:
    4,009
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,002
    One thing you get from the photgraphs is that the containments used in Japan do not appear to be anywhere near as robust as the ones used in the US. I know it is a function of a BWR vs. a PWR, but at least those big ass domes over US reactors look more substantial. From the photographs you cant really even see the containment due to all the debris from the weather buildings.
     
  4. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    are you saying american nuclear reactors are safer?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,439
    Thanks Received:
    4,009
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,002
    I think the secondary containment structures are more robust by code. Also PWR's use a second coolant loop, with heat exchangers, as opposed to a single coolant flow that boils to provide steam power.

    I need to review the plans for the BWR's used in Japan vs the PWR's in the US to be sure.
     
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    From what I understand, the Fukushima reactor design is about 40 years old?
    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...+BWR&qpvt=Japan+Nuclear+Reactor+BWR&FORM=IGRE

    And just to show how stupid and out of touch TEPCO (The People who run the site) really are, they apparently submitted plans to build two more reactors at the Fukushima site, AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI! :eek:
     
  7. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,439
    Thanks Received:
    4,009
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,002
    Those reactors were in planning well before the quake. In fact, the oldest two reactors were due for decomissioning at the end of March 2011.
     
  8. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    Ouch! I didn't know that.

    BTW, I'm concerned about the radiation levels and just read an article about it:

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/162190-fukushima-radiation-is-perfectly-safe-for-ya-nothing-to-see-here.html

    Not sure how valid it is, though.
     

Share This Page