What Are the Implications of 13 Neutron Beams Detected at Fukushima?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Escapekey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beams Neutron
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of 13 neutron beams detected at Fukushima, exploring their creation, potential causes for their generation, and the significance of these observations in the context of nuclear safety and radiation. The scope includes theoretical considerations, speculative reasoning, and references to external sources for further information.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the implications of the detected neutron beams and seek clarification on their origins and potential for further generation.
  • Others express skepticism about the clarity of information available, suggesting that the term "neutron beam" may be a mistranslation of "neutron radiation" or "neutron burst."
  • A participant references a video by Arnie Gundersen, proposing a theory regarding the neutron detection, while another participant challenges Gundersen's credibility, labeling him as a "crackpot anti-nuclear activist."
  • In response, some participants defend Gundersen's scientific approach, noting that while some of his claims have been disputed, he is still considered a relevant source in the discussion.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of information from official sources like Tepco and the IAEA, with a participant suggesting that misinformation may be more prevalent from these entities compared to Gundersen.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the implications of the neutron beams or the credibility of sources discussing them. Disagreement exists regarding the interpretation of terminology and the reliability of information from various stakeholders.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the scarcity of information and the potential for translation errors, indicating that assumptions about the nature of the neutron detection may be influenced by incomplete or unclear data.

Escapekey
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Am I just paranoid or is this question being ignored?
 
Escapekey said:
Am I just paranoid or is this question being ignored?

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.
 
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?
 
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).
 
Arnie Gundersen gives his theory on why neutrons are being detected at Fukushima in his new video.

http://www.fairewinds.com/multimedia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
orndorf said:
Arnie Gundersen gives his theory on why neutrons are being detected at Fukushima in his new video.

http://www.fairewinds.com/multimedia

But surely we don't consider crackpot anti-nuclear activists like Gundersen as credible sources around here, do we?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
minerva said:
But surely we don't consider crackpot anti-nuclear activists like Gundersen as credible sources around here, do we?

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.
 
  • #11
clancy688 said:
, but many of his claims were proven false in following discussions.

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)
 

Similar threads

FLUKA: Why Does Neutron Flux Increase When Passing Through a Moderator?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Thermal neutron detection using MCNP
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Can Magnetic Fields Control Neutron Emission in Compact Neutron Generators?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
How does D-T fusion reaction utilize its waste to create more fuel?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Fukushima Fukushima -- possible alternate scenario?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MCNP keff > 1.0 depletion question
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
I want to write my own Monte Carlo code for Neutron transport
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Prompt neutrons, delayed neutrons, chain reaction control
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
Can New Isotope Methods Improve Neutron Confinement in Nuclear Reactors?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Neutron moderation in a Hydrogen medium and scattering
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K