It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Japan declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake

page: 1303.htm
<< 1300  1301  1302    1304  1305  1306 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:21 PM

After TMI and Chernobyl Did Anyone Come Forward Like Arnie?

I fear for his life....remember Matt Simmons? BP Oil Spill...

- Purple Chive

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:58 PM
A closer look at Z's great pic. Hopefully a film will show up.

And I couldn't help but notice the yellowish tinge on the turbine roof powder.

And this looks like it might be interesting?

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by Aircooled

i assume the pink Johny-On-The-Spot,,is, filled up,,
what,,and why pink????

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by Aircooled

notice the yellowish tinge on the turbine roof.
would the roof be corregated steel?,,reflection of sunset?
its a stretch.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:01 AM
The Demonstration yesterday was very strange, so many different People, from very large Areas like Saitama, Ibaraki, Miyagi, Yamanashi, Gunma, etc and all of them coming to express their own Will to not accept the Restart of Nuclear Power here in Japan!

The Police done everything to made us fell uncomfortable, like no sitting here, no standing there, closing of whole Areas for the Public and keep us in a tiny Place like Cows in front of the Slaughterhouse, but the Japanese People are reacting very cool, instead of answering with Streetfight they just move and continuing their Singing and shouting of Slogans.

But the Police is seeding Unrest, we Europeans and Americans know this Tactic, they try to Criminalize us.
I hope that this is not working- the Protest must be peaceful, only with Peace we can reach the Masses here in Japan!

Yeah, a hot Summer is awaiting us and for me it is a Paradise because i can study a Society which normally don't Protest and can support the People here!

We should not forget that still more than 100.000 People live as a Refugee, ca. 2.000.000 People live in areas above my max. acceptable
Limit of 0.550 Microsievert!

Food Levels are stable!

Regards and Greetings, come and join!

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by JustMike

It feels odd to reply to my own post but I need to correct something. Near the end of that post (a reply to zworld) I said:

I also read through your posts about the waveform data for the various Dai-ichi explosions. I generally concur but I'd like to study them further before saying much. One of the problems is the various scales used. Some are linear, some logarithmic... Makes it harder to do side-by-side comparisons.

I was wrong on the linear versus logarithmic scales. None are logarithmic. I think what confused me on my first quick look through was the enormous range of numbers used: they go from ranges of +/- 2 all the way to +/ - 3,000! Looking at them quickly it's easy to assume something that's not really there, but after closer study I can say that within the individual waveform charts, they are purely linear.

I'd much rather point out my own erroroneous statement than pretend it doesn't matter. It does matter (very much!) and that's why I'm correcting it here.

Regarding the TEPCO Dai-chi Units 1, 3 and 4 explosion waveform data, I've begun writing up my notes and in a while I'll present a bit of analysis.


posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:48 AM

English: The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission

What does this mean? "1/6 the amount...when converted to iodine"?

The effects of the accident, of course, are still being felt, and will continue to affect the country. As a result of the accident, approximately 900PBq of radioactive substances were emitted, 1/6 the amount of emmissions from the Chernobyl accident when converted to iodine

- Purple Chive

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by Human0815

Human - a quote from Kiyoshi Kurokawa the chairman of the independent investigation:

What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.

The protests going on are significant, fundamental change for the Japanese. Gonna take a lot of endurance. Find that wall of sheetrock...

- Purple Chive

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Purplechive

Originally posted by zworld
reply to post by Purplechive

The water in the SC is up to 10 Sv/h. No wonder the dosimeter then failed.

The radiation dose measured in the Torus Room was 19.5 - 10,300mSv/h. However, the dosimeter seems to have failed.

And the sediment at the bottom looks rather orange...dripping lava/corium?
(page 7)

-------- On Edit 30:10 into the video looks like when they hit bottom...molten metal shards?

- Purple Chive


Tokyo Electric ran a probe into the basement of Unit 1. This is not inside the containment, this is outside the containment. On the top of the water surface they found lethal radiation, 1000 rem an hour. But then they put the probe down into the water and what’s even worse is the bottom, the sediment on the bottom, was thousand of times hotter than that. And what that indicates is that fuel, nuclear fuel, has left the containment, as particles, and settled out on the bottom outside the containment. So, I think that’s a pretty clear indication that the containment was breached. It just makes decommissioning these plants… it was going too be hard already, but this information makes it worse.

Arnie's recording:


- Purple Chive
edit on 7-7-2012 by Purplechive because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:12 AM
Anonymous has just released as couple gigabytes of IAEA and NRC data. They will release 40 gig over time.


ON EDIT: AC beat me to it.

EDIT2: Doesn't appear to be much in the first batch theyve released.
edit on 7-7-2012 by zworld because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by zworld

I think you're right: it probably does change the equation. Not for the better, either.....

their conclusions as to causation are a worry, because if they're right, then it means that there could well be the potential for another event further south and closer to Fukushima Dai-ichi.

Thanks Mike. Thats what I was fearing. It looks like the plates have separated like fabric being torn and the rip is heading southwest. dont know how accurate Harvard seismo lab is but its certainly a troubling analysis.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by zworld

Hi zworld,

I've finally gotten around to studying your post about the wave form analysis report from the seismos at Fukushima Dai-ichi. I'd like to respond by first giving a short analysis of the P and S wave arrival times at the various observation points (seismos), and for this purpose I've chosen their data for Unit 1 (as that is the first one presented).

The reason for this analysis is that studying arrival times is one way to determine if the wave form data are probably genuine. If the “difference” times are too long (or too short) according to where the seismos were placed, or if the relative time differences are inconsistent with the seismo locations, then it's a red flag and the data are suspect. So, as we're dealing with TEPCO-sourced data I thought it worth checking this first.

[Note for readers: as P waves are faster than S waves and arrive at a seismo first, then the earliest arrival time gives us the closest seismo to the source. Further (by way of confirmation), if we study when the S wave arrives after the P wave, the smallest time interval between the two arrivals also shows us which seismo is closest – and generally speaking, this should be the same one as the P wave data indicates.]

Here's a sample of the waveform data from the TEPCO pdf to show what I studied for this initial analysis:

I noted all the Unit 1 arrival time data relating to the P and S waves, then using the P wave times I ranked the five stations in order, so that the closest one to the source (ie the bang) is listed first, and so on:

Obs points ranked from closest outwards according to start time for P wave recording

..Obs Point......P Time...............S Time.........Diff P to S (Sec)...Diff Pt C to B,D,E & A (Sec)
.........D.........15:36:38.93........15:36:39.51.........0.58........... ....................0.22


Regarding P wave velocities:
“Typical” P wave velocities are around 5 to 8 km/sec, but this can vary depending on the material the waves pass through. (Refer to e.g. this page from the University of Melbourne website.)

P wave velocity at Fukushima Dai-ichi:
In the Unit 1 case, as point B began recording the P wave 0.20 seconds after point C, and B is roughly 350 metres further from the P wave source than C, it means the P waves were travelling at circa 1750 metres per second (ie 350/0.20). This velocity, while quite slow, is quite plausible if the ground material is (for example) clay or sandstone (as the U of Melbourne list shows).

Here's a Google Earth shot where I've marked points B and C. Line measure shows 350 metres:

Also, as points E and A started detecting the P wave at exactly the same time they should be near-equidistant from point C. Just a visual check of the map from the pdf report shows this is the case:

The S waves at Fukushima Dai-ichi:
Being slower than P waves, the S waves should consistently take longer to get to each point that's further away from the source. Within a margin of variation, they do. Some variation is quite normal, as the materials the waves travel through are rarely completely homogeneous. This can be the case even for two points that are near-equidistant from the source. For example, at E and A (where the P waves arrive at exactly the same time), there is a slight difference in S wave arrival times, but it's only 0.02 seconds – well within normal variation.

The velocities and time differences are pretty consistent with where the seismos were stated to be. The slight variations seen in the data are normal and in fact I would be very suspicious if the proportional times were too regular and consistent.

On that basis I am fairly confident that the data are genuine.

What next?
I then moved on to studying the actual wave forms in more detail. They are quite revealing. Once I've got everything written up and also have my graphics ready, I'll make a new post to show what I found.

[Note to readers: I am not a professional seismologist and my analysis is not an “expert” opinion. However, I do feel that a professional would reach similar conclusions in a very basic case.]


posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by JustMike
I was wrong on the linear versus logarithmic scales. None are logarithmic. I think what confused me on my first quick look through was the enormous range of numbers used: they go from ranges of +/- 2 all the way to +/ - 3,000!

Thats the stuff that was throwing me. To find the peak of R1 its way out there.....3000. Then converting that to the other observation points with different scaling gets very confusing.

PS. FYE Mike. I have a feeling we are not far from a series of events in the southern Cascadia where the Gorda plate interacts with the San Andreas. The line that extends out from Cape Mendocino. Just a hunch but my big toe is acting up.

edit on 7-7-2012 by zworld because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by Purplechive

Hello Purplechive,

I think that basically they're converting apples and oranges to bananas and pumpkins.

It seems that in essence, what they're saying is that if we look at all the radiation released from Dai-ichi and regardless of what types of particles are involved, then convert "all" their radiation "value" to a radioactive iodine equivalent, then the total only amounts to 1/6 of the Chernobyl radioactive iodine equivalent total.

Dang, ain't that great news? Not!

It's not at many levels, chiefly because it's completely misleading. It's not just the amount of radiation, but the type(s) of radiation and the specific, various substances that are radioactive -- along with other matters such as the different substances' actual toxicity, how long they remain potentially harmful, whether or not they are harmful by ingestion or mere surface contact (or even being close to them) and also what parts of the living organism they can affect.

As we all know, not all radioactive substances even emit the same kinds of radioactive particles -- some can be easily shielded while others can't, some can be detected with fairly cheap equipment and others can't; they have half-lives ranging from nanoseconds to millennia; some can produce health problems in the short term and others can take years, and so on and so on.

Trying to lump them all together and give a single "equivalent" is not only misleading but also potentially harmful and definitely irresponsible.

But considering who and what we're dealing with, we've come to expect this sort of doublespeak and obfuscation. Sadly and tragically, very, very few people have even the vaguest notion of what it all means. My own knowledge is sparse, but at least I know it's wrong to try and compare things that are manifestly and lethally different.

Imagine this crazy scenario:
In a certain region there's been an outbreak of some deadly virus. If you catch it then you are very likely a goner as no known treatment will help much. Fortunately, it can't harm you if you only get it on your skin. It has to be inhaled or otherwise ingested. So it you wear a micro-filter mask, you've got a fair chance of being okay.

Then in the same region, a whole lot of tigers escape from somewhere. Wearing a mask won't help you a much with them!
But if you stay out of their range, you'll be fine.

Fortunately, the virus can only survive a very short time in the air. After a few days at most, it's likely to be gone if no-one in the area is carrying it and can pass it on. However, the tigers can live for years and years, and even if it's been ages since we last saw one, they can get you any time if you go near to where they live.

Then some official comes along and says, "Hey, it's not so bad! Over in Bumblybille they had a similar problem a few years back with an outbreak of poisonous spiders... And when we convert the potential danger of our virus and tigers to the known lethality for those spiders, we're actually in a much better position than they were!"

Does that sound stupid? You bet.

And that's what they're doing with this "converting to iodine" thing.


edit on 7/7/12 by JustMike because: cleanup. Sort of.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by zworld

Yes, those various scales are a bit of a headache but at the same time they're also very revealing.
I'm still working on my write-up and frankly it could take another day or so to get it all done, but once it's ready I'll post it.

I can say this much: some of those "explosions" were strange, man. I mean, really weird.

About the CSZ: thanks for the note. I sure hope it stays quiet there for a good while yet. There is no way that the US is truly ready to effectively deal with the effects if it lets go big-time. That's no criticism of the average US citizen, though. I'm talking about preparedness and plans of action at higher levels.

San Onofre worries me. A lot.


posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:44 AM

Originally posted by JustMike
I'm still working on my write-up and frankly it could take another day or so to get it all done, but once it's ready I'll post it.

I can say this much: some of those "explosions" were strange, man. I mean, really weird.

Excellent Mike. thank you. Looking forward to youre continued analysis.

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:19 PM
Did find a little bit of a jewel in the AIA's release of data. In the NRC docket on lessons learned they state;

The SFP level instrumentation at U.S. Nuclear power plants is typically narrow range and, therefore, only capable of monitoring normal and slightly off-normal conditions. Although the likelihood of a catastrophic event affecting nuclear power plants and the associated SFPs in the United States remains very low, beyond-design basis external events could challenge the ability of existing spent fuel pool instrumentation in providing emergency responders with reliable information on the condition of SFPs. Reliable and available indication is essential to ensure plant personnel can effectively prioritize emergency actions.

How reassuring is that. The NRC has to tell nuke operators that it's important to be able to tell how much water is in the SFPs.

Thats like an auto maker reminding the auto dealer that its important to leave the wheels on so the car can move.



We will deliver as soon as new archives uploaded, updates will follow. Stuff provided RAW from Innodata incom servers. So far will be 8 consequitive releases from every single Innodata brach we PAWNED. Including personal communication of Top Management of Thomson-Reuters who we want to talk to first before releasing some of the nasty #. Vocord telecom software source codes will also be released as collateral damage so sorry fellaz but you have to keep ya # with ya and not being an outsource junkie waiting for a fix =) haha

hahahahaha......I cant wait.
edit on 7-7-2012 by zworld because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:25 PM

Intake Canal...Unit 2 Silt Fence...5.2 EQ Hit 6/28/12

Huge jump, page 9:

Thanks Mike the Iodine conversion explanation - while reading doc jumped out at me and seemed hokey (contrived).

- Purple Chive

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:34 PM

Hacker group Anonymous cleans up Tokyo

- Purple Chive

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by zworld

Thank you.
Okay, time to start posting my analysis of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS Reactor Building Explosion data as supplied by TEPCO. As it takes a fair amount of time to write up each analysis I'll post these one at a time as I get them done.

Let's start with Unit 1.

For Unit 1, I will only give an analysis of traces from point (seismo) C. Seismograph C was located closest to the source as it has the first P wave arrival and also the shortest interval to the S wave arrival (at 0.09 seconds). It has very clear data and is sufficient to get the general picture of what movement occurred.

Unit 1 Seismo C – Annotated

(a) The waveform chart shows (from top to bottom) LQ, CU and SB. These correspond to N (North-South movement), E (East-West movement) and Z (vertical – up and down – movement).

(b) Numbers in bold (in parentheses) in the analysis refer to items marked in the above image.

The N trace shows an initial jolt (1) down to -1,000 (N to S) followed roughly 0.2 seconds later by another shock with a peak at about +1,500, followed by further peaks down to about -1,300 and as high as +2,300 (ie accelerating back and forth from S to N) (2). Overall, this equates to a violent jolt of the ground towards the south, then an even more violent one to the north, then more NS movement, as if the second explosion rapidly “built” in stages

The E trace shows a very powerful jolt W to E, with a range of approx -1,000 to +2,400 (3), followed by a roughly 0.2 second period of relative quiet then another violent jolt to the E of about 1,200 (4) at about the same time as the mid-point of the second jolt series on trace N. The shaking then dies away, even more quickly than for N.

The Z trace: at almost precisely the same time as the first violent jolts on N and E, it shows a very rapid shock of -2,000 (indicating the ground accelerating downwards) (5), followed by a second series that peaks at ~ the same time as N and E, which shows maximum ranges from approx -1,600 to +1,600 (6), which then trail off in a SHM fashion and then after a smaller (estimated -200 to +200) wave (7), reduce to near-background levels. This last “wave” is not really noticeable in the N or E traces (though there's a slight hint in E), leading me to think that it might either be due to an “echo” or bounce-back of energy from deeper underground (?), or another but much smaller explosion (below ground?).

It appears there were two distinct shocks, with the first causing the most violent downward movement of the ground. This indicates an initial, strong blast within Unit 1's structure that exerted force on the foundations and accelerated the structure downwards. The blast also had NS and EW horizontal components, and these caused lateral acceleration of the building (and hence the ground) to a similar degree to the vertical component.

The second shock would also seem consistent with an explosion within the confines of the building, possibly above ground floor level and higher than the first shock (which does not have to be above the ground floor). If the second blast occurred in the upper regions of the building, then the force exerted on the upper walls would act to effectively give leverage through the vertical structure to transmit exaggerated NS and EW components of acceleration to the building's foundation – when/if compared to an explosion at (or below) ground floor level. Also, the lower rates for the Z component in the second shock suggest it occurred higher than the first. The characteristics of the traces further indicate the second blast was more “progressive” in nature than the first, suggesting one main blast comprised of two or three that occurred in rapid succession so they seemed to meld into one.

The first blast, then, was possibly very concentrated or confined. It then triggered the second, more “progressive” explosion (or created the conditions that allowed it to occur). Reports of a hydrogen explosion for the second event are therefore not unreasonable, but it does not have to mean the first explosion had the same causation.

A possible scenario is that the first explosion occurred in the lower NW(?) quadrant of the building (even possibly below floor level but still within the structure), then the second one was about 0.2 seconds later, higher in the building and possibly towards the SW (?) quadrant.


edit on 7/7/12 by JustMike because: typo

new topics

top topics

<< 1300  1301  1302    1304  1305  1306 >>

log in