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: 261.htm
513
<< 258  259  260    262  263  264 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Wertwog

The heat and radiation go hand-in-hand. We're a long long way from this thing even starting to cool down on its own. That's the mechanism behind a meltdown; the constant extreme heat production keeps things around it melting instead of allowing large masses to cool the puddle down. The entire amount of energy that would be produced during the lifetime of the fuel, from enrichment to lead, is being released with no controls. That's 500+ megawatts of usable output power, plus losses from steam generation and associated heat loss that dwarf output, plus decay heat produced while the spent rods would be cooling down.

I believe someone earlier mentioned that the puddle in Chernobyl is actually still molten after 25 years.

TheRedneck


M'kay. Thanks for bearing with me. I'm asking... do we have a puddle yet? Does this mean it will breach the containment vessel?




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Sorry if this has already been addressed, or just a dumb question...I could swear I saw & read a news report
~ 12 March in regards to the fuel rod storage containers. I have looked everywhere & cannot find that report.
They were showing a photo of rectangular boxes supposedly containing fuel rods & being swept away by the Tsunami...is that possible?

Sorry if this was previously answered...I have been trying hard to keep up with this VERY informative
& educational thread!! You guys are amazing!

Ektar



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Neither was Unit 4 active.
Unlike 4, 5 and 6 are still fueled. They were showing rising temperatures which was a cause for concern. According to the report they are now stabilized and being properly cooled.


Ah ha! There's the answer I was looking for. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Ektar
 





I could swear I saw & read a news report ~ 12 March in regards to the fuel rod storage containers. I have looked everywhere & cannot find that report. They were showing a photo of rectangular boxes supposedly containing fuel rods & being swept away by the Tsunami...is that possible?


same here..I do recall the same type of story in the very early hours of the event unfolding..but have seen nothing since...
I do know they have several buildings for dry cask storage...I have seen reports that they detect no radiation in 2 buildings...but I am pretty sure they had more than 2..(going to start looking for info on that)

From what I remember from the story...was some casks were sitting near the ocean side when the waves came in...

But Again I have seen nothing else mentioned...so may have been just bad info..or who knows



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yes ive been watching it, its incredible.

And the depth of some of them to !!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by okiecowboy
 


Thank you for replying so at least I know someone else saw it too. From what I remember they were long metal rectangular boxes sitting out in the open appearing to be going with the water inland, but not totally sure.
But I do remember them saying something in regards to the fuel rod containers possibly being washed away & showed a photo of the boxes. I should mentioned it earlier & didn't cause I thought someone else would.
Bad on me...

Ektar



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
From NHK, regarding reactors #5 and #6 at Daiichi ...

[From NHK:]Water temp at 2 reactors below boiling point


Tokyo Electric Power Company says cooling functions were restored by Sunday evening for the No.5 and No.6 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Coolant water temperatures have now fallen below 100 degrees Celsius.

The tsunami triggered by the massive earthquake that hit northeastern Japan on March 11th damaged the emergency diesel generator at the No. 5 reactor, causing the coolant water levels to drop.

The No.5 reactor had been halted for regular inspections when the earthquake and tsunami struck, but nuclear fuel rods had already been placed inside the reactor.

TEPCO restored the cooling functions of the No.5 reactor on Sunday afternoon using the emergency diesel engine generator of the No.6 reactor, which escaped damage from the quake and tsunami.

The cooling function of the No.6 reactor was restored by 7:30 PM.
Sunday, March 20, 2011 23:46 +0900 (JST)


Note: Emphasis added to quote by poster (i.e. me)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


I once went for a job at the HIFAR reactor, at Lucas Heights in Sydney, Australia for the Institute of Neutron Studies & Engineering. I made it onto a shortlist of two but the other guy was more senior, so he got the job.


So, no, I don't actually work in the industry but have worked in related fields.


Any critical event is most likely to produce a "squib" explosion in a melted fuel pool rather than a mushroom cloud. It will, however, be likely to have the energy to both vaporise and disperse the radionucleotides.

The thing is that the reactor shutdown should have been just that. If not, why?
edit on 20/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ektar
 


After another search...I can find nothing about this now...
so may have been a reporter confused of something...I would like to think they would mention it if they had some missing...

Again my bet is it didn't happen



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


It's true that a reactor doesn't shut down immediately when the control rods are inserted (scramming) but the process of shutdown is initiated and the decay heat should not be able to rise to the point of loss of reactor integrity, even with loss of cooling.

What we are seeing indicates a loss of integrity of the fuel rod outer shell and therefore a temperature rise to over 1,200 degrees. This should not be able to happen.


edit on 20/3/2011 by chr0naut because: 'cause you can't shut down a rector, by gum!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog

That's the million-yen question. At this point, its not like anyone can walk up to the reactor and see... it is pretty much obvious from the attempts to make adjustments while not doing so that such would be suicide.

If we don't have a puddle yet, I predict we will before this is all over.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Ektar

Spent rods which have decayed to a sufficient degree are moved into casks for dry storage. If these were casks, simple airflow is sufficient to keep them from melting. The only worry would be if those casks were to break open and release medium-level radiation.

It would still be minor compared to the reactors and pools, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator
 

According to the information previously being released, the water in reactors 5 and 6 was never near boiling. The following data is taken from the preliminary English translation of a 3/20/11 report by GRS, a German non-profit that advises the German government on nuclear energy matters:

Data by IAEA on water temperature in the fuel pool of Unit 5 (normal levels below 25 °C):

14-03-2011, 19:08 h: 59.7 °C
15-03-2011, 19:00 h: 60.4 °C
16-03-2011, 14:00 h: 62.7 °C
17-03-2011, 3:00 h: 64.2°C
17-03-2011, 18:00 h: 65.5°C
19-03-2011, 6:00 h: 68.8 °C

Data by IAEA on water temperature in the fuel pool of Unit 6 (normal levels below 25 °C):

14-03-2011, 19:08 h: 58.0 °C
15-03-2011, 19:00 h: 58.5 °C
16-03-2011, 14:00 h: 60.0 °C
17-03-2011, 3:00 h: 62.5°C
17-03-2011, 18:00 h:62.0°C
19-03-2011, 6:00 h: 66.5 °C

If NHK is correctly reporting what TEPCO said, TEPCO will have some explaining to do. I'm assuming that the source of the IAEA data was TEPCO. There is a more technical data in the day-to-day GRS reports than in the TEPCO press releases, apparently taken from some of TEPCO's more technical filings with other agencies as well as unofficial sources such as news reports of events.

It appears that reactors 5 and 6 were left without much attention for days as a matter of triage, since it would have taken days to weeks for the water to reach boiling and then boil off enough to expose the spent fuel. Then when there was time, TEPCO made an announcement exaggerating the importance stopping the slowly rising temperatures. Or perhaps the exaggerations came from others afterwards.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Fukushima #3



Chernobyl



Fukushima #3



Chernobyl



The Big Bang...






























edit on 20-3-2011 by zorgon because: Chadwickus talked to ArMaP to convince Phage to do it, even though Aliens abducted him



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


It's true that a reactor doesn't shut down immediately when the control rods are inserted (scramming) but the process of shutdown is initiated and the decay heat should not be able to rise to the point of loss of reactor integrity, even with loss of cooling.

What we are seeing indicates a loss of integrity of the fuel rod outer shell and therefore a temperature rise to over 1,200 degrees. This should not be able to happen.


edit on 20/3/2011 by chr0naut because: 'cause you can't shut down a rector, by gum!


So you're saying that without coolant the decay heat should not have been able to do this? I thought the problem was the initial loss of coolant, but you are saying even with the loss of coolant the cores should not have been able to heat up. How could the fuel rods in the reactor have had integrity loss if the coolant wasn't a factor? Yet, this has happened on more than one reactor there. How is this possible?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Thank you so much for your reply...good to know as I kept wondering about caskets floating around. I am thankful for your knowledge as well as many others on this thread. I have learned so much but there is an incredible amount passing quickly & without previous knowledge makes it hard to retain it all, but am enjoying the education.
I am most appreciative of your explanations of the some what news feeds, other wise I would have no clue of what they are or what they aren't telling us.
Thank You!
Ektar



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by Ektar
 


After another search...I can find nothing about this now...
so may have been a reporter confused of something...I would like to think they would mention it if they had some missing...

Again my bet is it didn't happen
I don't know if it related, but I remember a post in this thread regarding missing containers. I remember them being referred to as 'drums' of 'waste' and thought to be radioactive. They were supposed to have been washed into the sea. There was a link as I recall.
I am not set up to go looking for it, but my guess that was in the first 75 pages.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by Wertwog
 


I once went for a job at the HIFAR reactor, at Lucas Heights in Sydney, Australia for the Institute of Neutron Studies & Engineering. I made it onto a shortlist of two but the other guy was more senior, so he got the job.


So, no, I don't actually work in the industry but have worked in related fields.


Any critical event is most likely to produce a "squib" explosion in a melted fuel pool rather than a mushroom cloud. It will, however, be likely to have the energy to both vaporise and disperse the radionucleotides.

The thing is that the reactor shutdown should have been just that. If not, why?
edit on 20/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Thanks for joining us and sharing your expertise! This is very interesting. What would a "squib" explosion look like? Have we seen it yet? Does that happen within the vessel or after the puddle gets out?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
That explosion is what has baffled me from day one. Hydrogen explosions are just that, an explosion of gaseous hydrogen. The first one i clearly believe was hydrogen related, because the explosion was broad, wide and was more "uncontained". When a house full of natural gas explodes, the explosion is not selective in where it goes, it blows the material in every direction possible. The second explosion as shown in the screenshots, is highly concentrated in one column directly upwards. I cannot understand how a building full of hydrogen would explode and be so neat, and straight.

edit on 3/20/2011 by JackBauer because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
513
<< 258  259  260    262  263  264 >>

log in

join