jwhit at melbpc.org.au
Thu Mar 17 11:16:08 AEDT 2011
At 09:56 AM 17/03/2011, Michael Skeggs mike at bystander.net wrote:
>In this thread the example of "not to worry, the fuel rods are under 16 feet
>of water" was trotted out, while I hear this morning on the ABC that these
>are, in fact, exposed.
Does anyone know why they haven't covered them with dirt at least, if
not good ol' concrete? At Chernobyl, the mitigation was to encase the
thing in concrete. If the exposure of these rods is so bad and the
water evaporates when put on because of increased heat, why not cover
with something that absorbs heat better and stops the atmospheric
release of radiation?
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer
_ __________________ _
More information about the Link