reconnaitre que la conception même des piscines est remise en cause niveau sécurité est impossible ou c'est des dizaines de centrales américaines qui seront donc remises en cause également.kercoz a écrit :J' ai pas tout lu (dur l' anglais , le matin !) , mais ça semble interessant :
http://www.alternet.org/health/155283/t ... age=entire
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Worst Yet to Come? Why Nuclear Experts Are Calling Fukushima a Ticking Time-Bomb
Experts say acknowledging the threat would call into question the safety of dozens of identically designed nuclear power plants in the U.S.
May 4, 2012 |
More than a year after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, the Japanese government, Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) present similar assurances of the site's current state: challenges remain but everything is under control. The worst is over.
But nuclear waste experts say the Japanese are literally playing with fire in the way nuclear spent fuel continues to be stored onsite, especially in reactor 4, which contains the most irradiated fuel -- 10 times the deadly cesium-137 released during the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. These experts also charge that the NRC is letting this threat fester because acknowledging it would call into question safety at dozens of identically designed nuclear power plants around the U.S., which contain exceedingly higher volumes of spent fuel in similar elevated pools outside of reinforced containment.
//////////////////////////////////
puis ils parlent du mikado du'est devenu le bâtiment 4.......et le manque de sécurité même en cas de vaguelette un chti mur de fortune érigé sur des sacs de pierre.......
Alvarez warns that if there is another large earthquake or event that causes this pool to drain of water, which keeps the fuel rods from overheating and igniting, it could cause a catastrophic fire releasing 10 times more cesium-137 than was released at Chernobyl
si le mikado se casse la gueule, c'est 10 fois les rejets de césium 137 de tchernobyl . d'autres éléments également, mais celui-ci imite le potassium présent partout dans le corps y compris le coeur.
An even more catastrophic worst-case scenario follows that a fire in the pool at unit 4 could then spread, igniting the irradiated fuel throughout the nuclear site and releasing an amount of cesium-137 equaling a doomsday-like load, roughly 85 times more than the release at Chernobyl
ils en reviennent à un total de 85 fois tchernobyl
avec un anéantissement du japon, et une contamination mondiale
en fait ça reprend les éléments donnés plus haut, jugés alarmistes par certains.
A recent study published in the journal Solid Earth , which used data from over 6,000 earthquakes, confirms the expectation of larger quakes in closer proximity to the Fukushima Daiichi site.
c'est donc une course contre la montre : la piscine en lévitation avec son matos d'un côté, et il faut du temps pour construire la grue de secours. de l'autre une certitude qu'un nouveau séisme va arriver sur fukushima
In part, this conclusion is predicated on the discovery that the earthquake that initiated last year's disaster caused a seismic fault close to the nuclear plant to reactivate.
puis ils passent aux problèmes nuk us : les déchets.....le CNRC décidant arbitrairement de garder les déchets en toute sécurité en piscine 120 ans
More recently, the NRC arbitrarily concluded these pools could store this spent fuel safely for 120 years
Experts say the only near-term answer to better protect our nation's existing spent nuclear fuel is dry cask storage
pour certains experts, la solution c'est le stockage à sec en fûts
Mais il ya un hic: l'industrie nucléaire ne veut pas assumer les frais, ce qui représente environ 1 million $ par tonneau
But there's one catch: the nuclear industry doesn't want to incur the expense, which is about $1 million per cask
Il y a également des fûts à sec à fukushima. eux ne bronchent pas.....;
So now they're stuck," said Alvarez, "The NRC has made this policy decision, which the industry is very violently opposed to changing because it saves them a ton of money. And if they have to go to dry hardened storage onsite, they're going to have to fork over several hundred million dollars per reactor to do this."
pour sécuriser aux usa (stockage à sec), c'est plusieurs centaines de millions de dollars par réacteur
très intéressant effectivement.........alarmiste pour d'autres
et au fait, combien de piscines chez nous ?
Quand on a un javelin dans la main, tous les problèmes ressemblent à un T-72.
