Skip to main content

View Diary: Losing the Pacific Ocean (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •   (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Foreign Devil

    You're the ones making the extraordinary claims, so it's up to you back up your crazy stories. None of you are even trying. Here, let me show you how.

    http://blogs.nature.com/...

    ---
    Nevertheless, the measurements are interesting. The distances at which the team finds the material imply that plutonium was ejected during the hydrogen explosions in the first days of the crisis. And the relatively low levels (around 10,000 times lower than Chernobyl) suggest that the heavily shielded concrete casings around the reactors did offer some protection from the worst of the fallout.
    ---

    So, a bare trace of plutonium, nothing even remotely like you'd see in a core melt-through.

    Your turn. Anyone declaring a core melt-through needs to explain the lack of the massive quantities of plutonium that would have to go along with a core melt-through.

    And if you can't do so, decide which is more important -- the truth, or membership in the hysterical anti-nuclear herd.

    •  You need to demonstrate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dianna, Sandino

      how a melt-through of corium would somehow 'have' more plutonium and uranium than a mere total core meltdown. Do provide links scientifically demonstrating this mysterious increase in fuel isotope mass that comes with the transition from in-vessel to ex-vessel for the very same mass of fuel.

      Which of course you cannot do because the amount of plutonium and uranium in the core's fuel (thus in the corium lava) is the same inside or outside the reactor pressure vessel.

      Once again, DBAD.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site