• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What would happen if you poured liquid helium over the fukushima reactor?

L

LordKiran

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
3,225
Location
PA
Basic Beliefs
In a single statement? Pff
No real explanation for this one, I'm just legitimately curious what the result would be. How cold would a liquid have to be to completely stop all reactions in the rods?
 
Fuel rods will still be radioactive, even at absolute zero. so no substance can stop that.
 
LordKiran said:
No real explanation for this one, I'm just legitimately curious what the result would be. How cold would a liquid have to be to completely stop all reactions in the rods?
Click to expand...
It has to be too complicated to assess any realistic situation. But.

First, it's not just the temperature but the quantity of helium. And then it's not just that it's also the rate of the exchange of heat between the flow of helium and the nuclear core supposedly busy fissioning. It's also whether the helium could even stay long enough in contact with the hot core without vapourising, which would make the operation hazardous, so I guess you would need not only to have massive quantities of helium available but also to be able to make it flow very, very fast to maximise the exchange of heat fast enough to cool the core, i.e. faster than it would heat up of its own accord. Breaking down the core into smaller portions would help but that would be in itself a challenge.

I guess pouring water is the best we know how to even if it's not ideal since we can't both cool it and keep it liquid.

Maybe some refrigerant would work better but then we probably would have the required quantity.
Wikipedia said:
The ideal refrigerant would have favorable thermodynamic properties, be noncorrosive to mechanical components, and be safe, including free from toxicity and flammability. It would not cause ozone depletion or climate change. Since different fluids have the desired traits in different degree, choice is a matter of trade-off.
Click to expand...
Yep, water.
EB
 
LordKiran said:
No real explanation for this one, I'm just legitimately curious what the result would be. How cold would a liquid have to be to completely stop all reactions in the rods?
Click to expand...

No effect.

Temperature is a matter of movement. Radioactivity is a matter of decay and is unaffected by temperature.
 
LordKiran said:
No real explanation for this one, I'm just legitimately curious what the result would be. How cold would a liquid have to be to completely stop all reactions in the rods?
Click to expand...
The reactions would be unaffected, since they are nuclear reactions rather than chemical reactions. When people try to cool a reactor core, it is not to slow down the reactions. Rather it is too prevent the core from melting.

Peez
 
I don't believe it. Absolute zero is freezing, even for atoms. No way they wouldn't slow down their radioactive decay for at least a few minutes to get a sweater made of Wooliam.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
I don't believe it. Absolute zero is freezing, even for atoms. No way they wouldn't slow down their radioactive decay for at least a few minutes to get a sweater made of Wooliam.
Click to expand...

Why would they slow down the decay? That's a nuclear process, not a chemical one.
 
Fukushima is radiative because certain isotopes are unstable. Making everything colder will not affect anything.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
I don't believe it. Absolute zero is freezing, even for atoms. No way they wouldn't slow down their radioactive decay for at least a few minutes to get a sweater made of Wooliam.
Click to expand...

Why would they slow down the decay? That's a nuclear process, not a chemical one.
Click to expand...
When you're freezing to death you're sure gonna take time off whatever you're doing to go on the Internet and buy the goddamn sweater. It's only NATURAL!!!
EB
 
Underseer said:
Fukushima is radiative because certain isotopes are unstable
Click to expand...
No. Fukushima 'is radiative' because some people seriously messed up.

Underseer said:
Making everything colder will not affect anything.
Click to expand...
What?! Of course it does. It's called containment.

The idea is to try to cool down the nuclear core to prevent it from reaching temperatures so high it would just go straight through the floor of the power plant and start contaminating the underlying geological layers and from there the environment in the whole area of Fukushima and possibly beyond.
EB
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
I don't believe it. Absolute zero is freezing, even for atoms. No way they wouldn't slow down their radioactive decay for at least a few minutes to get a sweater made of Wooliam.
Click to expand...

Why would they slow down the decay? That's a nuclear process, not a chemical one.
Click to expand...
Because the atom are extremely cold and need to get a sweater!
 
Malintent said:
I feel like I'm being mocked. >.>
Click to expand...

It kind of reminds one of...
Bill O'Reilly said:
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Liberals playing gotcha, obviously tidal gravity from the sun and moon cause the tides. But we can't explain why that is the case.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Malintent said:
It kind of reminds one of...
Bill O'Reilly said:
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Liberals playing gotcha, obviously tidal gravity from the sun and moon cause the tides. But we can't explain why that is the case.
Click to expand...

What does the word "explain" mean in your sentence? .. and for that matter, the word "why". I ask because in your first sentence you state the CAUSE, but in your second sentence you state that is not an EXPLANATION. so what is an explanation, if not identification of the CAUSE?
 
Malintent said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Malintent said:
It kind of reminds one of...
Bill O'Reilly said:
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Liberals playing gotcha, obviously tidal gravity from the sun and moon cause the tides. But we can't explain why that is the case.
Click to expand...

What does the word "explain" mean in your sentence? .. and for that matter, the word "why". I ask because in your first sentence you state the CAUSE, but in your second sentence you state that is not an EXPLANATION. so what is an explanation, if not identification of the CAUSE?
Click to expand...
That was a paraphrase of O'Reilly's response to the criticism of his original statement (that you were referring to).
 
darn it... I was hoping to have a discussion about how some people say that science doesn't "explain" things but religion does... and get into what an explanation is or should be and the differences (in value) of "how" versus "why"..

But you are too sophisticated for that position and was just paraphrasing an idiot... oh well :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom