Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (11940)	3/16/2011 1:37:27 AM
From: neolib	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119360

IIRC, Chernobyl was fueled with uranium, while one of these reactors uses uranium/plutonium. Chernobyl did kick out plutonium because some is produced in the reactor, but I think the overall level is lower. If the Japanese have the plutonium reactor melt, or the pond with used fuel rods burns, I think it might be a good deal worse than chernobyl (partly because Japan has a rather higher population density in a very small country). They better hope the wind blows it towards us! One element is it is unlikely to be a chernobyl, that put a huge plume of radiation into the air and covered europe. Reason given. They no longer use graphite, and in Chernobyl the graphite erupted into a massive fire, and there was a significant radiation cloud sent up into the stratospere