Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

13 Neutron Beams?

  1. Mar 23, 2011 #1
    Can someone explain what are the implications for the 13 neutron beams that have been observed at Fukushima? How are they created? What will cause more to be created?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 23, 2011 #2
  4. Mar 24, 2011 #3
    Am I just paranoid or is this question being ignored?
  5. Mar 24, 2011 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You are just paranoid :wink:

    Seriously - information is so scarce that it is difficult to make any reasonable guess about what the information means, it can be everything from the translation error (not Japanese to English, more like technicalese to journalese) to some serious problems. Selecting anything in between is just an idle speculation. Try to follow other threads, this problem is discussed there between others. But don't expect any answers for the reasons explained above.
  6. Mar 24, 2011 #5
    Not sure i have time to dig into other threads... can you be more specific as to which one?

    Ok, let us say that there is NO translation error. WHAT would a neutron beam mean in this situation? HOW would it be possible?
  7. Mar 24, 2011 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  8. Apr 3, 2011 #7
    My guess is that "neutron beam" is a mistranslation of "neutron radiation"; or, perhaps. "neutron burst". (I don't think they could have determined that the neutrons were in beams).
  9. Apr 3, 2011 #8
    Arnie Gundersen gives his theory on why neutrons are being detected at Fukushima in his new video.

    http://www.fairewinds.com/multimedia [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  10. Jun 27, 2011 #9
    But surely we don't consider crackpot anti-nuclear activists like Gundersen as credible sources around here, do we?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  11. Jun 27, 2011 #10
    Gundersen isn't treated as a "crackpot anti-nuclear activist" in this forum. He's an often cited source for a new point of view on the situation, but many of his claims were proven false in following discussions.
    Still it's not justified to call him a crackpot anti-nuclear activist. At least he's trying a scientific approach, even if he often fails in doing so.
  12. Jun 30, 2011 #11
    But in all honesty ,truth be told ,thus guy has got miles to go to catch up with the number falsehoods published by Tepco and the IAEA. (no meltdown; 75% fuel integrity;no containment breach;etc.etc)
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: 13 Neutron Beams?
  1. Beryllium beam (Replies: 6)

  2. Neutron scattering (Replies: 1)

  3. Neutron source (Replies: 3)

  4. Neutron beams (Replies: 4)

  5. Neutron Flux (Replies: 3)