AliDinkles comments

I wonder if they still feel it is safe to have the fuel storage pool area above the reactor?

I fail to see why robots would have such a tough job in the storage pool area, providing all their microchip gubbings is kept in a nearby lead lined shed. They could use special cameras for keeping track of what they are doing.

People who stir up violence including the Taliban are not truly religous. I think it would be sensible to stop the illegal drugs trade, as I believe that is what largegly funds and motivates them.

Refrigeration, refrigeration, refrigeration, it seems like such a good idea to me I thought I would mention it more than once. Have powerful arctic atmosphere inducing refrigeration units exude their cold air into the reactor pool area and screen off the sides and top with lead shielding.

Then they can plan what to do next while the meltdowns in their reactor vessels cool down. Problem solved and nearly everyone happy. If I happen to be wrong, I am simply expressing my opinion which is not legally binding.

Given that if the fuel rods are left alone in the reactor and start becoming so hot to cause the production of hydrogen, and due to the nature of the process that the rate of increase in temperature would be expected to increase significantly as the temperature rises; how long does a robot compute the time taken to go from hydrogen production at about 1500 degrees celcius in the reactor to a full meltdown?

When they claim they have not had a meltdown because of the level of radiation outside; are they taking into account that the hot hydrogen which exploded was able wind its way up along pipes and around corners whereas radiation gamma rays only travel in a straight line? Are they also taking into account the escaping hydrogen also suggests the reactors have a vent for both steam and pressure? Are they taking into account that like with gunpowder a small loose pile of it does little more than fizz, but in a close knit tube it is as a firework?

I believe the current main threat is the radioactive water and the fuel in storage, as I believe the four active reactors have already had their meltdowns.

Now that they have about two olympic swimming pools of radioactive water, I am not for the reactors immediate cover by cement. It may be a good idea to safely move the stored fuel rods first too, but I am not certain it is possible.

If the main point of the storage pool to have water is for cooling the fuel rods, why don't they have a few powerful refrigeration units exude very cold air in the location and insulate the cold in.

Large refrigeration units are used sometimes in training people for arctic conditions.

At the moment, a heavy downpour of rain might well flood the oceans with highly toxic water and inconvenience work. With refrigeration they can cut back on the water and have a temporary roof on. It would be safer for their workers too. We want refrigeration, yes, and Reactor Cam maybe. More pictures of Daiichi nuclear power site, please, if it is safe to do so.

From the picture top left, it appears the pit is chock full of cement. I can't see that leaking much water.

In connection with the rebuilding of homes or even schools. I like the idea of timber framed homes with each major joint made by using a wooden peg rather than nails as it tends to allow a little movement. There are pros and cons to timber framing.

When Napoleon was involved with the restructuring of Paris he built streets wide and straight so he could quickly apply his troops to squash riots over bad apples or whatever the French are irate about. My point is with similar streets people would stand a better chance. I also like the idea of having a number of tall solid buildings to provide a quick haven.

I think we would like to see, "Reactor Cam".

What would be impressive is a crane placing a frame on top of the reactor, which the robots could work from and perhaps even move the fuel rods to a safe place or mend the roof.

I am glad we have robots on the scene. I think they have great use nowadays.

Hey, to the person who calls me a luddite, very funny, but your suggestion of five spare generators is not enough if your internal pumps simply seize-up, clog-up, wear out, or break down because of one weak part. I would also like to point out that storing your fuel right above the reactor is not the safest place to put it.

I am not too keen on reactors 5 and 6 either. If they are as-good-as new, they would still benefit with some adaptions. Maybe if they had another access point for putting water in and bypassing the usual pump; the fuel storage pool could have been thick heavy fuel storage troughs, which could have been movable by crane so fuel rods could be moved to safety in times of crisis; there would be less to go wrong and much simpler if the electric water pump was replaced by a large special water-tower which would push round water by pressure.

Sorry TEPCO, I would make illegal the current reactors at Daiichi and I am guessing this would not bode too well for your other reactors.

Anyway I have one perhaps helpful suggestion, maybe you could heavy clad a number of tanker lorries and have a team of drivers to drive the water to somewhere safe. Maybe if you managed to get a hull of a ship to the reactor front door you could put some water in there. You are going to have to do something shortly, else it is going to become even more messy. Rather than point the finger, we need some good ideas. Does anyone have any better suggestions - I have already excluded Tupperware and washing up bowls, but perhaps not many baths with lids for instance.

I am very glad to hear the Daiichi reactors are being scrapped. I am not at all happy for the workers who are working long hours there for the sole reason it seems of trying to avert a meltdown. I think it is highly probable to have already happened. I am not a scientist so I may be wrong, but here is my case.

When the three Daiichi reactors exploded due it is to be believed hydrogen, it tells us inside the reactor vessel must have been around 1500 degrees celcius. The reason being certain metals like zirconium take up oxygen from water at that sought of temperature leaving behind hydrogen. Zirconium is in the fuel rod casing of most modern fuel rods. The hydrogen must have escaped to explode like that so why wouldn't what is left of the water vapour escape aswell, leaving the reactors dry. The incident itself suggests a temperature rise and when each of the reactors was abandoned due to high radiation levels immediately afterwards, there would be nothing extra to stop the natural incline of temperature of the fuel rods. My guess is in the hours following the explosions there occured a number of meltdowns which were contained inside the reactor because they are of much more solid construction than Chernobyl. Perhaps the control rods being down caused what would have been an explosion into more of a phut. I am not aware that nuclear science has experienced a dry reactor vessel with all control rods engaged.

Perhaps if there had been a meltdown there would be particular gasses formed which could be detected. I do not know what they are. It makes a big difference because in the meltdown scenario, I would guess they could afford to take their time over trying to cool the reactors and ensure the fuel rods in storage are safe. This could help save worker lives, I think.

On the other hand if there has not been a complete meltdown in the reactors and pretty much ignoring them by ceasing the pumping of water on them could cause a much more widescale problem. What do you think?

For your interest, Chernobyl's disaster was from an experiment which lasted only a few hours. In this experiment they averted what I think is called a cold shutdown by withdrawing all but six control rods. A little later the reactor exploded. A UN body estimates thyroid cancer deaths (I believe) to be around 60,000 people in connection to Chernobyl so remember your iodine tablets.

I think dumping loose material on the reactor of a liquid,sand or cement nature is unlikely to crack the reactors. If it is possible to safely move the fuel from the storage pools first, it would probably be a good idea. I would of thought robots could shovel the fuel rods out, put them in a mobile tank and drive them off to a safe place.

I like the idea of building a frame around each of the Daiichi reactors and filling it with reinforced concrete and having atleast a two metre thick covering over the roof and walls. I am not a scientist, so my impression of it stopping the radiation and any explosions may be wrong. Perhaps they could repeat the process; then join all the reactors with concrete and then put some grass on top, as it would make it look nice.