It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 1305.htm
513
<< 1302  1303  1304    1306  1307  1308 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

More Niblets?



Mike and Z, page 22 and then pages 68 and on...

www-pub.iaea.org...

- Purple Chive




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
How is that possible?

That's what I meant when I said that Unit 3 is weird. It's like that huge explosion didn't really happen in the building at all. We saw it blow, but it's more like something blew up way below it and kind of neatly went up through the middle without causing a huge amount of acceleration to the building in any direction, and simply blew the top of the building off.

That's why I haven't post the Unit 3 analysis yet. Because I'm still trying to figure it out.

@ zworld -- does this fit in with something you wrote about Unit 3 a while back? Help me out here, could you?

Mike


Mike, every analysis you have offered fits exactly the scenario my book puts forth of an underground (nuclear?) explosion on the 14th in an illegal weapons factory underneath Dai-ichi, and a subsequent bursting forth eruption on the 15th of superheated gasses under intense pressure pushing magma left from the (nuclear) explosion up through barriers and emitting out R4.

The only reason I adopted this theory is because it answered every mystery about Dai-ichi, and at some point it became Occams razor, and this latest development re-enforces that belief.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Purplechive

More Niblets?



Mike and Z, page 22 and then pages 68 and on...

www-pub.iaea.org...

- Purple Chive


Thanks PC. Something else of interest on page 70. They show each reactor building as having their own seismograph stations. If each unit has their own recording, they should be able to pinpoint everything......if they wanted to, that is.

Also I need to get appendix XX. It might provide more clues.

ON EDIT: hahahahahahaha....silly me. Its only been a year so they still havent given an english version of apx XX done yet or the main report. It still just says coming soon at their website....hahahahaha. They are such kidders.

I did find this shocking bit of info at naiic.go.jp...

Look at who Tepco notified of the dangers at the plant. less than half of their own workers who remained at the site (the SDF members probably) and nothing to anyone else. Whoa. Scary company.

edit on 9-7-2012 by zworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
From Dissensus Japan

The Japanese government is doing a public opinion survey on nuke power.



I learned about public opinion survey by discussion. I also came to know that 26 researchers published a position document titled "The issue to promote public discussion". 
….......

The government started asking for opinions. The deadline is July 31. 

www.npu.go.jp...

There are three things we should do at the moment. 

1. We need to inform as many people as possible of the potential risks behind the questionnaire about dependence, their plot to keep nuclear energy, and their aim to craft an energy strategy during summer. 

2. We need to fight to mount a movement against the new plot of the Noda cabinet and new energy policy indifferent to our opinions and wishes. Associations should issue a statement and present it to the national strategy office. 

3, Though we pointed out the government's aim behind the public opinion research, we regret to say that boycotting it is stupid. We have to provide anti-nuke comments to the national strategy office. Please read greenpeace site before sending your opinion. 

www.greenpeace.org...




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Fukushima radiation could reach US coast in five years.


environmentalresearchweb.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by KaiserSoze
 

I think we're in complete agreement. When I asked "Before and after what?" in my own post I was being a touch sarcastic. Frustrated. Tearing my hair out. All that.


In reference to your comment:

I can see "we are checking the data to determine if there was an explosion". But what is, "we are checking the data before and after the explosion to determine if there was an explosion"? That would not make sense in any of the languages I know.


I agree again, and that's because it doesn't make sense in any language -- except one. They use a special language. It's call Tepcoese...

They have their own special form of math, too... There are some examples way back in the thread where they can basically put 2 and 2 together and get 3.81... Stuff like that. They have some kind of Tepcocalculator or something which uses an algorithm that I doubt even the geeks at (cough cough) snoɯʎuouɐ (cough cough) could crack.


Oh, and in that pdf I've been working from for the analyses lately... Though the seismo charts are all correctly dated for March, 2011, see what's in the page heading?


May!
And it's not just that page: all three pages of waveform charts -- for Units 1, 3 and 4 -- have the same error.

Okay, the correct month of "March" is mentioned in the preamble text, but as these charts are on their own pages they ought to have the page headings right. You'd think that for a document that's potentially so important, they'd get that little detail right, but no... This just seems to be the way they operate. It's symptomatic of the whole problem, really.

Mike



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Purplechive
 


Thanks very much. I didn't have that one yet. There's quite a lot in it and much of what's said is pretty damning, but this stood out for me:

It should be recognized worldwide the need to consider potential maximum seismic events
greater than those observed or recorded in historical time. Although the need to consider
prehistorical and historical data is well established in the international safety requirements
for assessing the natural hazards at nuclear installations, this has not been followed
especially in older nuclear power plants.
The current IAEA safety standards establish a
clear time scale (going back to historical and prehistorical eras) as well as tectonic
capacity considerations in the estimation of maximum magnitudes associated with
seismogenic structures. There is a need for Member States regulations to reflect these
considerations both for the new build as well as for re-evaluation of existing NPPs.

Japan has undergone a seismic hazard re-evaluation (back check) recently on the basis of
recent investigations and data. However, it was confirmed that these assessments were
exceeded by the March 2011 event. This experience shows the importance of a permanent
oversight of the potential hazards and of performing all required actions for taking
necessary measures for maintaining and increasing the safety level.


From the IAEA Japan Mission Report, page 72. (Document link originally posted by Purplechive.)

This is pretty scary, because the report says that seismic hazards have not and are not being adequately considered, and even the recent (at that time) reassessment in Japan – prior to the March 11, 2011 quake – was inadequate.

And it's necessary to “consider potential maximum seismic events greater than those observed or recorded in historical time.”

Japan is one of the more seismically active nations that has a nuclear power industry, and further, it has a long and well-recorded history. But they still came up short in their assessment of what could happen, compared to what did happen not long afterwards.

Note however that it says potential maximum seismic events. In France, for example, the potential for a megathrust-style quake doesn't really exist. Ditto the UK, Germany, and even the lil' ol' Czech Republic where I live – less than 2 hours' drive from two of our multi-unit power plants. But in the US, for example, the potential does exist – definitely along the west coast. (I won't even go into the seismically very different issue of the NMSZ.)

It seems the IAEA is implying... No, let's not beat about the bush – they are plain out stating as fact that current assessments of seismic risk are simply not adequate and do not take maximum potential events into account.

So, what's being done about it?

...................................................

All I hear is crickets...

Mike


edit on 9/7/12 by JustMike because: coding



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

PRAIRIE ISLAND, MN N- Plant Having Trouble Keeping Track of Their Balls



05/31/12 Event Number: 47977:


OFFSITE NOTIFICATION CONCERNING LOSS OF AMERTAP BALLS "At 0304 CDT, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant notified the Minnesota State Duty Officer that 1000 Amertap balls were lost from the Unit 1 condenser tube cleaning system. Since the Minnesota State Duty Officer was contacted, this constitutes an 4 hour non-emergency notification per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi).


www.nrc.gov...


05/27/12 Event Number: 47969

OFFSITE NOTIFICATION CONCERNING LOSS OF AMERTAP BALLS "At 1122 CDT, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant notified the Minnesota State Duty Officer that up to 1,500 Amertap balls were lost from the Unit 1 condenser tube cleaning system. Since the Minnesota State Duty Officer was contacted, this constitutes an 4 hour non-emergency notification per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi)."


www.nrc.gov...

07/07/12 Event Number: 48076


OFFSITE NOTIFICATION DUE TO LOST AMERTAP BALLS "At 0009 CDT, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant notified the Minnesota State Duty Officer that up to 1482 Amertap Balls had been lost from the Unit 2 Condenser Tube Cleaning System. Since the Minnesota State Duty Officer was contacted, this constitutes a 4 hour non-emergency notification per 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(xi). The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified."


www.nrc.gov...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

This Whole Area Looking Way Too Active...



earthquake.usgs.gov...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Purplechive
 

Oh, Purplechive, ma'am... Forgive me, but your headline... I know it's a serious matter, not being able to find their balls and all, but all the same...


You do have a way with words...




Mike



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
(Ahem) Okay, on to something less mirthful...


Originally posted by zworld
Mike, every analysis you have offered fits exactly the scenario my book puts forth of an underground (nuclear?) explosion on the 14th in an illegal weapons factory underneath Dai-ichi, and a subsequent bursting forth eruption on the 15th of superheated gasses under intense pressure pushing magma left from the (nuclear) explosion up through barriers and emitting out R4.

The only reason I adopted this theory is because it answered every mystery about Dai-ichi, and at some point it became Occams razor, and this latest development re-enforces that belief.


Thanks for the response. I still have not got back to reading past chap. 23 (?) of your book and I read the early ones quite a while ago and didn't retain all the information (fancy way of saying I kind of forgot some
), but I recall you theorized in detail about an underground facility.

And agreed, while it sounds far out to some maybe, it's not inconceivable. And that anomaly with Unit 3: a huge explosion compared to Unit 1 but with a much, much smaller local seismo trace, and with the explosion itself of very different character? Well, that's hard to resolve if we go with the OS that it was purely an H2 explosion inside the building. The absolutely fundamental Newtonian action-reaction principle simply cannot be ignored, and from what those seismos show, it just don't add up to a hydrogen explosion in Unit 3. Yes, some hydrogen may have exploded, but that cannot be it all it was.

About Unit 4: as I mentioned in my analysis, the P wave is very dominant at least in the initial stages and is virtually definitive of a non-quake and probable explosion/detonation event. (To explain: if P waves dominate, it's not a quake. If S waves dominate, it's most likely a quake.) I said in my analysis that there was nothing to suggest a major explosion or even several large ones and I stand by that. The traces show such small movement and velocity for the building that whatever happened there was quite minor compared to Unit 1.

But just to be clear, an "explosion or detonation event" doesn't have to mean a very violent, classic style "bang". Seismos can even register failures in high-pressure gas and water mains and have been useful for studying exactly what happened and when in such cases.

The seismo traces for Unit 4 show a P wave that built in energy (increasing compression) before any vertical movement occurred, then a sudden release and immediate vertical movement.

Could this be a flash explosion/detonation of hydrogen inside (or from) a pipe, as the OS claims? Yes, that is possible. It could be a deflagration event as well, as the pressures are relatively low. But even if that was the cause, it seems way too small to do the amount of damage to Unit 4 that was plainly visible in later images. We know there was a fire in Unit 4 that morning of March 15, sometime between 6 and 7 am. The images from the webcam were posted back in the thread here by mendel101 -- who actually used them to pinpoint the hour the fire must have started.

What we don't know is if the detonation (?) led to the fire, or vice versa.

And we also don't know what else exploded in or into that Unit 4 building to make such a mess of it. And that's something that I guess we'd all like to know.

Best regards,

Mike

edit on 9/7/12 by JustMike because: ?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aircooled
Fukushima radiation could reach US coast in five years.


environmentalresearchweb.org...


Wait, I thought the radiation was already here?!

Fear Mongering at its finest.

You don't know what to believe.....



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


I'm wondering who has the balls to lose all these balls and get away with it without losing their balls!!??

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Before looking closer at the interesting alleged seismic traces from the unit 4 explosion, just like JustMike I'd wanted to do a reality check using the unit 1 seismic traces.

Rather than going into detail of the single traces, I overlayed for each station the NS/EW/UD traces from each seismograph, and ordered them neatly in a graph, after their distance from Unit 1. Rather than using roughly the distances indicated by Tepco, I took the effort to overlay the seismograph positions on the Japan terrain model, and measured the distance from the indicated positions of the seismographs to the reactor units. I found generally good agreement with the distances indicated by Tepco , but also a few odd differences.

As regards analysing the traces, I think the so-called P-wave front can be determined from the traces with sufficient certainty. but I have sincere doubts about the so-called S-wave. I have retained Tepco's markings of both those fronts, but I have only used the P-front lines for the analysis (the blue lines). With the red line my analysis adds the further suggestion that the seismic traces (not surprisingly) do include the signature of the acoustic signal (the boom from the explosion), propagating with the speed of sound in air. Based on the analysis, I concur, that there are reason to have confidence that the seismic data from the unit 1 explosion is genuine, and ought to be worth a proper forensics explosion analysis for the tale the data has to tell.




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike

We know there was a fire in Unit 4 that morning of March 15, sometime between 6 and 7 am. The images from the webcam were posted back in the thread here by mendel101 -- who actually used them to pinpoint the hour the fire must have started.


The main fire occurred between 9 and 11 roughly on the 15th. That was the fire in the NW corner. There were later fires in the NW corner and SE corner.

The initial perturbation at 6:12 is only described as an explosion sound by workers, but obviously involved something different and hot. The reason I suspect superheated gases erupting under intense pressure, (other than the fact that those kinds of things happen with underground nuclear explosions), and frying things is because of the rebar that is bent and partially melted looking in areas with no other significant fire signature. It got hot fast and then faded, is my guess, but only a guess. R4 is such a mystery that it would take a team onsite to crack the nut and that will never happen as long as the Japanese government kowtows to the nuke industry. Or anonymous might get the first two weeks of data from all the data stations and we'd be really rocking.
____________

Tepco's smugness, like apologizing for only inconveniencing people and nothing more, is very reminiscent of BP's smugness during the oil spill. And I can only assume they are like that because they both know the governments involved are in their back pocket.
edit on 9-7-2012 by zworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MadderDoc
 

Nice work. Many thanks for that graphic, MadderDoc.

I tend to agree that the S wave determinations are problematic, if they were assigning them based upon the actual traces. I suspect that what their analysts did was work backwards: by knowing the distances for each seismo from the source, they could compute the P wave velocity then apply a fairly simple rule-of-thumb formula based on the relative lesser speed of the S waves' propogation through the same media and then mark their S wave blue lines accordingly.


With obvious explosion events (like Unit 1), they would have to know (as well as you and I do), that the P wave traces would predominate and in a case like this, with the seismos relatively close to source, the S waves would be pretty much swamped. True, they doubtless had better quality trace images (or more likely, digital data) to work with than we get in the pdf; they could possibly have zoomed in on trace sections covering 1/100 of a second or even less if they wanted to. (I do the same with software I have sometimes.) So, the "likely" S wave arrivals could be discerned, and if they matched with the theoretical close enough, they marked them in. If they couldn't discern them then they guessed.

I'd have to agree that the air blast would be recorded. Going on other samples I've seen I would have thought its arrival would be a bit later than you have it marked, but it's getting on for midnight here and I'm frazzled and tired and also bothered by iffy internet tonight, so I'm hapy to go along with your extrapolation.

I'd be interested what you make of Unit 3, bearing in mind what we know of the huge blast it had and how that compares to what Unit 1 had.

And apologies if I repeated myself. When tired I tend to do that.

Best regards,

MIke



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
And speaking of waves generated, this looks interesting as well.
March 11, 2012 earthquake that hit Japan and generated massive tsunami, disturbed upper atmosphere in a way that was detectable by GPS receivers.
thewatchers.adorraeli.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aircooled
Fukushima radiation could reach US coast in five years.


environmentalresearchweb.org...


Seems odd that debris travels 5 times faster than radiation. How does that work, and why the difference? Do we have to wait 3 years for the combination of radioactive debris because the radiation somehow slowed it down?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Yes we are playing on Tepco's homefield, Tepco would be able to zoom in and out in these data, apply filters and so on. We are not really meant to reproduce Tepco's results from the meager data we have got, however the curious mind wants to get as good impression as possible of the weight of the evidence presented :-).

Using much the same method as the one I applied for unit 1 on the traces of the unit 3 explosion I get something like this:



Again, the data suggests an accoustic signal propagating at the speed of sound in air. Two booms, roughly 0.5 seconds apart seem indicated, consistent with the video evidence (which appears to show initially some form of explosive combustion inside and outside he building, shortly followed by a vertically directed blow up of dirty steam out of the primary containment. It would be interesting to see the expectedly long coda in these traces, upwards of 10 seconds after the blast from fragments landing. Also from a forensics angle, it would seem highly relevant, seeing some of those fragments may have hit the building wreck adding to the damages.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Gonna Put Camera Down Into Unit 3 Tomorrow



www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive



new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 1302  1303  1304    1306  1307  1308 >>

log in

join