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: 1306.htm
513
<< 1303  1304  1305    1307  1308  1309 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Unit 1, 2 & 3: Rad Levels In the Air Upper Part



Each unit has their own "detection limit"....

Unit 1:


The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 4E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.9E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.1E-5Bq/cm3

www.tepco.co.jp...

Unit 2:


The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 3E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.5E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.6E-6Bq/cm3


www.tepco.co.jp...

Unit 3:


The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 9E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.2E-5Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.2E-5Bq/cm3


www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

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


environmentalresearchweb.org...


A few thoughts on the researchers conclusions:

1. They don't know how much radioactivity went in, therefore how can they determine it will be "small", even when compared to areas around Japan it may be quite "large" in real terms. This sounds like disinfo designed to minimize the impact.
2. Why does it take so long? If Tuna can swim over here in a few months and yes debris boggie on over in a few months, um, why 5 years?
3. Why do they show the radioactivity stopping?

On another note, AC & Z, some molten corium hitting water in the UC or basement, vertical upward boom up through the recently vacated reactor vessel blow the cap off, blow the roof off, bye bye #3. Chances are good ignites some hydrogen laterally along the way which may even appear to blow first as the main thrust is exiting via the reactor chamber. Just thoughts.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Unit 1, 2 & 3: Rad Levels PCV Gas Control System



Unit 1:
www.tepco.co.jp...

Unit 2:
www.tepco.co.jp...

Unit 3:
www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

William and His Wife Gonna Leave Japan





- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by KaiserSoze
 

The physical objects that have already floated across the Pacific from Japan to/toward Nth America -- like that fishing boat and thousands of tons of flotsam (including a Harley Davidson motorcycle inside a plastic crate!) -- managed to arrive relatively fast because they were driven along by air currents. Objects with more surface area above the water tend to get across faster. That Japanese boy's soccer ball is a good example. Low friction, plenty of surface area, it scudded across pretty fast. Low-profile objects (eg a wooden door) present very little surface to the wind and move quite slowly. In theory, some of them might not arrive for another year or even longer.

Rather than the flotsam, though, the report considers something quite different: the radioactive water itself off Japan's coast and how it moves along under the influence of oceanic current. The major current in the region is the Nth Pacific current, part of the Nth Pacific gyre**. Oceanic gyres are largely created by the actions of the prevailing winds, but while these are the same winds (in this case) that pushed the flotsam across the ocean, they cannot push the upper levels of the water along at the same rate.

(**gyre is pronounced with a g that sounds like a j, the same as in gyroscope.)

This image from NOAA (available here illustrates it quite well:

The topmost horizontal arrow shows the Nth Pacific current and also indicates the prevailing winds that help to create it. (The upper four group of arrows shows the Nth Pacific gyre.) After the surface water has travelled across the ocean to western Nth America's coast, it then heads southwards via the California current.

In fact it's the California current that helps to moderate Hawaii's climate so it's not quite so hot and tropical there, for the current is cooler than the other waters in the sub-tropics around Hawaii. In other words, eventually some of the flotsam will get to Hawaii (if it hasn't already) and so will that radioactive water -- but in very low levels of concentration. And after more years, that water and even some of the flotsam will get back to Japan.

But as the report says, because of the amount of dilution in the huge expanse of the Nth Pacific, the radiation levels will be already be quite low by the time they reach the US. The greater concern is the biological vectoring: sea plants and creatures taking up the radiation and then concentrating it through the food chain.

Mike


edit on 10/7/12 by JustMike because: ytpo



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Hello Wertwog,

you raised some good points so I'd like to reply:


Originally posted by Wertwog
[image snipped]
A few thoughts on the researchers conclusions:

1. They don't know how much radioactivity went in, therefore how can they determine it will be "small", even when compared to areas around Japan it may be quite "large" in real terms. This sounds like disinfo designed to minimize the impact.

Yes, that's an issue. Cannot argue with that.


2. Why does it take so long? If Tuna can swim over here in a few months and yes debris boggie on over in a few months, um, why 5 years?


I discuss this factor in my own reply to Aircooled. It's all to do with oceanic currents and on that score they are probably not far off in their simulation. Not that it's worth a great deal, because:


3. Why do they show the radioactivity stopping?

Assuming you mean stopping from the source, yes. I asked myself the same question. They also don't seem to take into account the reality that the waters off Fukushima Dai-ichi are still being polluted by waste water/cooling water, leakage from a polluted water table, runoff into the sea from polluted streams and fields, ongoing fallout from steam and smoke emissions, radioactive debris (including fuel) lying in the water offshore, etc etc...

My own reply to Aircooled was mainly to address his query regarding rate of spread through the ocean. I didn't go into a critique of the study in detail as I was still writing it up. But you presented the points so succinctly that I scrapped my reply and just answered yours instead.



On another note, AC & Z, some molten corium hitting water in the UC or basement, vertical upward boom up through the recently vacated reactor vessel blow the cap off, blow the roof off, bye bye #3. Chances are good ignites some hydrogen laterally along the way which may even appear to blow first as the main thrust is exiting via the reactor chamber. Just thoughts.


I know you addressed this to AC & Z but as it's something I've been considering as well I hope you don't mind if I respond. I'd also considered the steam explosion idea (hydrothermal event). The problem I have with it is the same one I have with the Official Story hydrogen explosion: the seismographs show such a low vertical component of acceleration for the Unit 3 blast (compared to Unit 1's explosion) that I just can't see any way that such a massive explosion can be reconciled. It's the problem of action and reaction. The explosion at Unit 3 sent huge chunks of concrete etc up into the air at such high velocities that it should have placed a massive downward acceleration on the building -- far greater than what we saw with Unit 1, which was more of a horizontally-vectored blast by comparison.

But Unit 1's downward acceleration was at least eight times greater than Unit 3's. If we didn't have the videos of both explosions and only went by the seismos, it looks like the explosion in Unit 3 was about a magnitude less than in Unit 1. But the opposite is closer to the truth -- and the expected amount of negative vertical acceleration component (ie downwards) just isn't there. This suggests that much of the force of the Unit 3 blast occurred below the building -- and deep enough that it didn't even cause a huge positive (upward) acceleration of the building.

Even if the explosion was inside the main containment so it acted like a huge cannon, the containment is attached to the building at foundation level and hence to the ground, and so it should still have produced the same downward acceleration of the building, just like recoil of a huge gun. But the seismos show nothing close to that.

If you have any ideas that could help explain the anomaly I'd be glad to hear them. And as this is the internet and statements can be interpreted in different ways, I want to assure you: I mean this most sincerely. This conundrum keeps me awake at night and any ideas to explain it are very welcome.


Best regards,

Mike

edit on 10/7/12 by JustMike because: minor cleanup of typos, coding glitches etc



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Purplechive

Unit 1, 2 & 3: Rad Levels In the Air Upper Part



Each unit has their own "detection limit"....

Unit 1:


The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 4E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.9E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.1E-5Bq/cm3

www.tepco.co.jp...

June 11, 2012 Detection Limit:

The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 5E-6Bq/cm 3 , Cs-134: Approx.1E-5Bq/cm 3 , Cs-137: Approx.1E-5Bq/cm 3

www.tepco.co.jp...

Unit 2:


The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 3E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.5E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.6E-6Bq/cm3


www.tepco.co.jp...

June 11, 2012 Detection Limit:

The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 2E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.6E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.7E-6Bq/cm3


www.tepco.co.jp...

Unit 3:


The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 9E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.2E-5Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.2E-5Bq/cm3


www.tepco.co.jp...

June 11, 2012:


The detection limits are as follows. Volatile: I-131: Approx. 8E-6Bq/cm3, Cs-134: Approx.2E-5Bq/cm3, Cs-137: Approx.2E-5Bq/cm3


www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Onagawa N-plant Fuel Rod Containers Damaged




Fuel rod container at Onagawa plant found damaged The operator of the Onagawa nuclear plant in Miyagi Prefecture has discovered damage to fuel rod containers at the facility's No. 3 reactor. Japan's nuclear safety agency has ordered Tohoku Electric Power Company to check and report on whether the damage was caused by the massive earthquake on March 11th last year. The utility recently used an underwater camera to inspect the 4.5-meter-high metal containers in a fuel rod storage pool. It found a 2-centimeter-long, several-millimeter-wide chip on one of the containers. It also found more than 12 places on other containers where pieces were missing. Such damage has never been reported at a nuclear plant in Japan. Tohoku Electric says the fuel rods are intact, and that there are no safety concerns because the reactor is out of operation. But it says will investigate the damage in detail, and inspect the plant's No. 1 and 2 units. Jul. 10, 2012 - Updated 10:57 UTC (19:57 JST)


www3.nhk.or.jp...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Purplechive
 

They said -- what??

Such damage has never been reported at a nuclear plant in Japan. Tohoku Electric says the fuel rods are intact, and that there are no safety concerns because the reactor is out of operation. But it says will investigate the damage in detail, and inspect the plant's No. 1 and 2 units. Jul. 10, 2012 - Updated 10:57 UTC (19:57 JST)


It just never ends, does it? They're saying, "Oh, there's nothing to be concerned about because the reactor's not operating." But these rods are not in the freakin' reactor, they're in a spent fuel pool!!

AAARRRRRGGGGHHH!!


Sometimes -- like you also, PC -- I despair. I really do. It's like they just:


Yeah. I really think they just don't give a damn!

Mike



edit on 10/7/12 by JustMike because: typo



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


Thank you WW for your keen observations, on that map. Your very right.
The more eyes that look... the more we all see....



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Purplechive
 


What I find even funnier (or sad) is that:


Japan's nuclear safety agency has ordered Tohoku Electric Power Company to check and report on whether the damage was caused by the massive earthquake on March 11th last year.


So this damage may have been present even before the earthquake. The damage may only have been detected now as these plants try to restart and are inspected more closely.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
Unit 1's downward acceleration was at least eight times greater than Unit 3's.


Perhaps it wasn't in fact 8 times greater. If (as seems indicated in the traces) the acoustic signal is captured by these seismographs it becomes difficult to disentangle the seismic part of the UD signal, from the acoustically transmitted. Also to make a direct comparison one would need to do it on a pair of seismic traces at comparable distances from the units. The only really good pair in the data would be the traces from seismograph B and seismograph D, for the Unit 1 and Unit 3 explosions respectively. Unfortunately these stations are only about 350 m from the respective buildings, so still only the earliest part of the S wave has become separated from the acoustic signal. However, comparing the UD accelerations using the visible part of the S waves do yield very similar values for the two units, not at all the disproportionately higher accelerations for unit 1 you refer to,

However, there is another complicating factor in the case of Unit 3 I should mention with relevance to the suggested comparison. If the vertical eruption from unit 3 lags the initial explosion by perhaps 0.5 second, the UD seismic impulse from _the vertical eruption_ will have become completely swamped by the acoustic signal from the initial explosion, so we simply can't measure it using this data.



edit on 10-7-2012 by MadderDoc because: typo



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Thanks JM, that's a pretty nifty explanation
Do we know if most of the discharge is going to get into the deep currents or surface current? I would imagine it depends upon the level it was released at plus any mixing along the way.

Dilution is a term that should not really be applied to radioactive releases. The release can be dispersed, however, the radioactivity can't be diluted as in a chemical spill. Most folks have a hard time grasping this, especially the Japanese who seem to think if you burn 4 tonnes of "diluted" radioactive waste it's less radioactive than burning one tonne regular strength *facepalm. Anyhow, dilution doesn't really apply as you rightly point out due also to the bioaccumulation factor.

As for #3, I meant to address my post to you also! so I'm glad you replied. Perhaps the torus would have taken and dispersed some of the downward "rebounding" force? One thing that has never sat well with me and the hydrogen explanation is, the concrete walls on these buildings are massively thick... from 4-6 ft and much of these were powdered, I don't know how much rebounding force there really was... remember the massive amounts of concrete dust from the images in the early days... many of the walls just disintegrated. I'm still not convinced a hydrogen explosion would have what it takes to do that, it just doesn't have the explosive force. Blow a roof off yes, blow 4' reinforced concrete walls to powder? Doubtful. Especially when you consider, you have a weak roof!

Personally, just my opinion, you had either a steam explosion or a nuke go off under #3 I think it's only due to the reinforced 4' thick walls there is anything standing. I'm starting to think the Tepco blew it up themselves to hide their weapon program in the UC when they knew they were having an uncontrolled meltdown and needed to seriously cover their tracks. Either that or the Israli's did it afterall just like Jim Stone says. Either way there is lots that doesn't add up on #3 without some kind of X-factor.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MadderDoc
 

That old saying that two heads are better than one... Well, your head is sure working better than mine! (JustMike does a facepalm!)

Crumbs... I must be getting old. You're right: I should have compared seismo B from Unit 1 with seismo D from Unit 3 -- as you've said. They are the best two to get anything close to a like-with-like comparison and yes -- their two z scales are much more similar, at least in the the inital stages.

I'd like to offer you my humble thanks for your insight and also offer my apologies to readers in general for the way that I drew incorrect assumptions based on my errors in assessing the data.

Sorry, everyone. I messed up and missed something that was staring me in the face all the time.

Oh well, live and learn I guess...

Main thing is, based on another look at the data and a mojor rethink, it seems that a hydrothermal event in Unit 3 is possible. (MadderDoc has already suggested this as well and so has Wertwog.) I'll put it this way: it seems that a hydrogen explosion on its own is less likely.

Mike



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 

Hello Wertwog,

yes, "dilution" can be a rather misleading term, really. "Dispersal" is probably better.

On the Unit 3 issue, I've just written a post in reply to MadderDoc who pointed out something I'd totally overlooked. I won't go through it all again, but I'm coming to suspect that a steam explosion is looking reasonable as an explanation. (Not sure if we can entirely rule out something nuclear, though.) I wish we had member SFA347 posting still. He was very knowledgeable on explosions in general and his input at this stage would be helpful.

But moving along, we still have the Unit 4 issue. If Unit 3 blew some of its fuel sky high, that could possibly be better than having it all sitting in one place. But apparently, Unit 4's SFP still contains most of its lethal load. And what happened to that Unit is still very much open to conjecture.

Mike



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
For those who haven't found these yet, by no means an exhaustive list:

A good general social site with resources: Rad Chick and radio show, Nuked Radio : Rad Chick and Fukushima Facts

Chernobyl report, NY Academy of Sciences online version: Chernobyl report

A good general survey of earth changes: The Watchers

Real-time disaster global tracking: RSOE EDIS

This guy has a pretty good take on things: Potrblog





posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by Wertwog
 

Hello Wertwog,

yes, "dilution" can be a rather misleading term, really. "Dispersal" is probably better.

On the Unit 3 issue, I've just written a post in reply to MadderDoc who pointed out something I'd totally overlooked. I won't go through it all again, but I'm coming to suspect that a steam explosion is looking reasonable as an explanation. (Not sure if we can entirely rule out something nuclear, though.) I wish we had member SFA347 posting still. He was very knowledgeable on explosions in general and his input at this stage would be helpful.

But moving along, we still have the Unit 4 issue. If Unit 3 blew some of its fuel sky high, that could possibly be better than having it all sitting in one place. But apparently, Unit 4's SFP still contains most of its lethal load. And what happened to that Unit is still very much open to conjecture.

Mike


I agree JM, I wish SFA347 was still posting. I do recall however he agreed with the theory of the explosion in or below the reactor and not a hydrogen explosion over the pool exclusively. He did a blast analysis and him and Matador had a heated exchange for quite a while. SL was involved in this exchange also. I don't see much, except adding confirmation of the UC that Z has brought to light and the wave-form analysis, that seems to have changed the theory substantially, but yes, as always it would be perfect to have his expertise on the case.

Everyone here is as usual doing great forensics with practically non-existent or doctored data.

Part of my disappointment in the human race seems we can't seem to pull out from TPTB to protect ourselves, or do the right thing when it matters --- such as evac people from a toxic area allow the world in to assist with the effort and open the data. How many people will die needlessly from this keeps me up at night, SO unnecessary. Sacrifices for powerful to feel more powerful. The way my thyroid's been acting up for all I know I will end up on the same altar. Anyway, sorry for the downer!



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Unit 4: Pics



photo.tepco.co.jp...

www.tepco.co.jp...

Unit 3: Robot Investigation Plan



www.tepco.co.jp...

ex-skf.blogspot.com...

Unit 3: Some Up Close Pics



www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Unit 1 & 2: Sub-Drains



Don't look good...

www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Radioactivity Density of the Seawater at Unit 4 Screen at 1F (Inside the Silt Fence) (Bq/L)



All the work must have stirred things up...
www.tepco.co.jp...

- Purple Chive




top topics



 
513
<< 1303  1304  1305    1307  1308  1309 >>

log in

join