Nuclear Meltdown 101: What Is a Full Meltdown?

Now that there's more room on the front page--

Never go full meltdown...

Worthwhile for those amongst us who are panicking now to avoid the rush.

Bump. Pin suggested, 5-stars.

Molten fuel burns at 3000 degrees.

Container fails (burns thru) at 6000 degrees.

So.... the metal rods surrounding the fuel pellets melt and the fuel pellets collect at the bottom of the vessel. They will continue to gradually cool down .... over the course of a week or two .... and then they can be safely removed in a few months, and no radiation will be released.


The China Syndome is a myth, and an unproven hypothesis not supported by tests, nor did it happen in the only meltdown known to have occurred (at 3MI).

This is called "fear-mongering" and news hype to generate interest, viewers and sell advertising by news whores, and those with ulterior political motives.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Given I think this article is rather nebulous on the "fear-mongering" front would you quote from the text your particular problem with this being used as a basic (101) learning tool.

Seriously, I didn't get a fear mongering feel from this at all. I wouldn't have posted it if I'd thought so.

I mean to express the simple truth of the matter that the use of the term "meltdown" is somewhat inaccurate when describing nuclear fuel damage, and is unnecessary fear-mongering by word association with popular culture icons (ie: China Syndrome).

Science does not validate this theory, and the only way known to cause containment vessel failure is by generating heat in excess of 6000 degrees.

My only concern in the current situation is the use of Plutonium derived fuel, which is flammable and hard to extinguish if it catches fire. (unit #3 and #4 are suspect)

If that's the case... well... then Michio Kaku is right. They need to bury the reactors under a few tons of magnesium oxide.

Okay. Thank you for your explanation and input.

I still don't think the article itself is fear mongering, though.

Tell me, what concept title would you apply, rather than "meltdown"? Nuclear "catastrophe"? Nuclear "disaster"?

Can we merely call this a Nuclear "event" and have that cover the true nature of what's happening in Japan?

You see, I don't think it's so much what we call it, but rather what we don't know about it that's more capable of instilling fear. Given that, again thank you for your input.

Lack of knowledge can easily make for dark quarters in one's psyche.

I'm just attempting to shed a little light, eh?

Last Edited by Psemeni on 03/15/2011 10:24 PM

Lighten up Francis.

I would simply use the truth to describe it. "fuel damage"

Meltdown does not mean "molten nuclear pile burning through the containment barrier and exiting in an uncontrolled manner"

Meltdown or "fuel damage" simply means that the metal casing around the aggregate fuel pellets has melted. It's damaged.

My two cents.

Logan's Run. Good movie.

Well, actually, the classic definition of nuclear meltdown includes the escape of radiation, also.

Just a little more 101 information.