SAQ wrote:
PymbleSoftware wrote:
Geoman wrote:
f***!! it is exploded
Apparently they don't use
heavy water reactors
, so it is not as bad as a Chernobyl type event... Still pretty worrying. But then just going on what I am reading about it...
R.
??? Chernobyl was RBMK gas-cooled graphite moderated reactors, probably leveraged from Pu-production reactors. Heavy water/light water doesn't make a difference, really.
I'm glad they weren't gas or sodium-cooled (sodium cooled for obvious reasons: leak+flooding=very bad problem, considering that the sodium is usually radioactive, and gas because the fuel cladding is usually not as good as is in place at a water-cooled reactor).
I was just parroting something I read in a newspaper along the lines of "fortunately they don't use heavy water so a Chernobyl like event is unlikely".. Seems I was misinformed.
Edit:
I can't find the news article that referenced the light water/heavy water "expert" comment, however..
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/threemetre-tsunami-heading-for-disaster-zone-new-quake-shakes-japan-as-battle-waged-against-nuclear-meltdown-20110313-1bt30.html wrote:
Experts noted, however, that even a complete meltdown would probably be far less severe than the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, where a reactor exploded and sent a cloud of radiation over much of Europe. That reactor, unlike the ones in Fukushima, was not housed in a sealed container.
I think that the newspaper is pro-nuclear even though Australia only has one reactor (for nuclear medicine and university research)..
Short interview with a Russian scientist on Chernobyl vs Japan..
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3164026.htm
R.