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: 275.htm
513
<< 272  273  274    276  277  278 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I still am apprehensive about what may happen if a pool of molten core melts through the bottom of the RPV. I understand that the RPV may be cracked, but I have seen the results, first hand, when something very hot meets water. The situation is explosive. Here is a video of a boiler explosion at a Dana Corp plant in Paris, Tennessee.
Link to Youtube video

The boiler was an 800 bhp firetube boiler that was in a low water condition. The boiler pressure vessel was red hot when the maintenance man restored the feedwater pump to a working capacity. The water flashed to steam and blew the boiler through a steel roll-up door and halfway through the plant. The refractory-filled rear boiler door blew though the outer wall of the plant and ended up 100 yards away near the employees parking lot... the door weighs about 7,000 lbs.

The boiler steam piping had zero pressure when water was added and the safety pressure relief valves were fully functional.

Link to newsphotos

If there is a super-hot glob of molten fuel, and it meets water, I think we could see something like this, but a whole lot bigger.
edit on 21-3-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Acccording to Mike Rivero ( what really happened.com) on the radio,
the stuxnet virus
which was found in Japan 18 months ago
is in part or in whole responsible for some critical failures in the saftey systems of these reactors.
Guess who admittedly made that virus?
GE may be off the hook because of this

great going guys



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


This was exactly what the Russians were worried about during the Chernobyl disaster. In the documentary "The battle of Chernobyl" it was stated somewhere in that documentary, that if the reactor core reached the water the firefighters used to try and put the fire out initially, the explosion would have been so great that it would have rendered Europe un-inhabitable. They drilled a tunnel under the reactor to suck the water out and install some type of refrigerant. (still not clear what it was, exactly)
edit on 21-3-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I'd be a bit wary of believing stuff off of whatreallyhappened.com unless it's confirmed by a number of reliable sources. It's all Israel on that site, they even shot Bambi's mum according to them
(joke)
edit on 21-3-2011 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by Hopeforeveryone because: fixed a rush job



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by monica86
reply to post by iWokeUp
 


I am not actually that pessimistic

However, if they really needed to evacuate tokyo they would want at least a few weeks to plan the thing
, during which time it would be far better if people were oblivious of what was going to happen, otherwise they would also have to deal with mega-city panic , something probably worse than radioactivity


I was being realistic....this is from the IAEA talking about when they could contain reactor #4 at Chernobyl in 1986.




Under extremely hazardous conditions, thousands of "Liquidators" worked to contain the remains of the fourth reactor. The shelter surrounding the reactor was completed less than six months after the explosion during peak radioactivity levels.


IAEA

So it takes 6 months to contain the reactors? There are possibly 4 in Japan that will need containing......so all this time they will be pumping radiation into the air......Ummmm breath in that wondeful fresh air



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I appreciate your detailed explanations and I'm sure many of us do. Normally I wait till I've caught up on the thread before asking a question but I hope it's okay to jump in a little early to ask this one:
has the problem of aqueous NaCl electrolysis already been discussed? I mean, it seems incredible to me that considering the physical damage to these reactor buildings they'd have to be crazy to try powering up any equipment inside them anyway, but to my way of thinking, it's beyond crazy when we also bear in mind that they've been flooding much of the exposed equipment with sea water.

Surely they have to know that running electric current through salt-water-saturated equipment is not only bound to lead to some instant failures (through "shorting" etc) in some places, but in others there will likely be electrolysis that could produce both hydrogen gas and chlorine gas? If that happens, there is the multiple-risk scenario of possible hydrogen gas detonation (meaning yet again), combined with chlorine gas being released in an uncontainable way.

Would you agree with what I've outlined, or have I missed something and they could possibly power up this equipment wihout this risk, and without first making sure that all salt water is out of the way?

Best regards,

Mike

edit on 21/3/11 by JustMike because: typos



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moonbeams771
Hi, any opinions on this?


Kitazawa: Surface temperatures below 100C

Japan's defense minister says the surface temperatures of all 6 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are lower than 100 degrees Celsius. In a news conference on Sunday, Toshimi Kitazawa quoted an expert from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency as saying the data are very valuable because temperatures below 100 degrees confirm the existence of water in spent fuel rod storage pools.

Kitazawa said Self-Defense Forces officials measured the temperatures from a helicopter using an infrared device on Sunday for a second consecutive day. He said the surface temperature of the Number One reactor was 58 degrees Celsius, that of Number 2 stood at 35 degrees, Number 3 at 62 degrees, Number 4 at 42 degrees, Number 5 at 24 degrees, and Number 6 at 25 degrees.

He said the temperatures of Number 1, Number 3 and Number 4 reactors are believed to be the surface temperatures of the spent fuel rod storage pools. The buildings housing the containers of these three reactors were damaged. Kitazawa said he was relieved to see the temperatures stay below 100 degrees for 2 days in a row. He said the public will also feel relieved.

He added that a reading of 128 degrees Celsius was recorded above the containment vessel of Number 3 reactor, but experts say the figure is within expectations given that it was measured right above the reactor. Monday, March 21, 2011 05:41 +0900 (JST)


Source


FYI
here is the termal imagining of the 128 degrees reading





investmentwatchblog.com... rom-nhk/

I can't tell how the pictures are rotated

What is that big yellow rectangle at the bottom of the second picture?

edit on 21-3-2011 by monica86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by monica86
 


WOW, wow, wow! AWESOME pictures! Than you!

Personally, I see nothing resembling a reactor there, but then again, I wouldn't know a "properly working" reactor from above in thermal images anyways. It just looks like blobs to me, none of which have any geometry or symmetry. Unless Jackson Pollack or Picasso designed these reactors.....is this evidence that it's kaput?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



exactly why they are affraid of it melting down to groundwater.

I hope they think about what they do, and plan better than they did when inspecting these plants.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


If there is a meltdown pool, the reactor containment vessel is above it so it would not be as simple as "dropping" sand on it. They'd have to come in through the side of the reactor building and go over the coolant torus then drop it into the hole.

It'd be a suicide mission.
edit on 21/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

you can't just raise voltage beyond a certain point anyways, because that voltage will create spark gaps in systems designed for a lower voltage. There is no fixing this with raising the voltage, lol, especially with the stresses that those systems have already been put through (including potential stress from more radiation than what the electrical is designed to handle in the first place).



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Monday 03/21/2011

High radiation outside Japan's evacuation zone, says IAEA



Vienna - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Monday that high radiation levels were measured recently not only inside, but also outside the 20-kilometre evacuation zone around Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear plant.

Asked whether Japan's authorities should consider widening the exclusion zone, a senior IAEA official said: 'There should be a consideration about this.' The official requested anonymity. www.monstersandcritics.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 21-3-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by monica86
 


see that white spot in reactor 3? Just for reference, a typical flir camera will operate at -40 to 80 C. Those white spots are hotter than 80 C, and there would have to be a spot hotter than 100 C in reactor 3 for there to be smoke like that. I wonder what components those white spots correlate to?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLastStand
 


Die Welt's picture puts it at 128C or more (considering the white spots in NHK's are even bigger, it looks like the temps might just go off the charts for their camera and white is the hottest it can show you).



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
reply to post by butcherguy
 

exactly why they are affraid of it melting down to groundwater.

Yeah, as I believe TheRedneck posted earlier, that's in theory what the "outer" containment structure is for (which by the way is further inside the buildings seen in the photos) .

The problem is that nobody really know's if it will work - there's no way to test it. At Chernobyl, there was no structure like that in place. At TMI, it never melted outside the "primary" containment (i.e. the reactor pressure vessel). This may be the first time it's ever been "tested". Cross your fingers!

If it works, than that may help limit the scope of the disaster (meaning size of the essentially permanently uninhabitable zone). If it doesn't, well then ... the scope could be, shall we say "bigger"? How big, nobody knows for sure.

edit on 2011-3-21 by EnhancedInterrogator because: Spelling, formatting, grammar, etc.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
reply to post by butcherguy
 

exactly why they are affraid of it melting down to groundwater.

I hope they think about what they do, and plan better than they did when inspecting these plants.

Very right...and on your second point, that's one of the problems of siting such a plant in a place where there is almost certainly water not far below the ground's surface. The plant in question is right by the ocean and if I'm not mistaken, a fair proportion of it looks to be built on reclaimed land.

If it is on reclaimed land, any meltdown won't have to go very deep into the ground before it hits water. Okay, it might not be our "typical" ground water but the result would still be the same. If a molten mess of radioactive material comes into contact with sea water (just below ground) then it's going to make for one heck of an explosion.

Mike



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by monica86
FYI
here is the termal imagining of the 128 degrees reading





investmentwatchblog.com... rom-nhk/

I can't tell how the pictures are rotated

What is that big yellow rectangle at the bottom of the second picture?

edit on 21-3-2011 by monica86 because: (no reason given)


I like how, in the second picture, they label the tiny little white blob as 128 oC instead of the big one. Makes it seem like less of a problem to the casual observer; this definitely has a PR spin to it.

In case we have some thermal imagine newbies among us: The quick run down is that similar colors represent similar temperatures. Usually there is a temperature legend on the picture; I don't see one on these. Have a look here for more info on thermal imaging: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I'm mentioning a typical flir setup, I have no idea from what specific type of camera this image came from, but I would expect theirs to be better than consumer level stuff (so with a max of 128 C rather than 80 C). If that's the case then there's no way to tell just how hot things are using this equipment, and that pile is at minimum 128C). I was just pointing out that even for the crappiest level consumer flir camera that white would mean at minimum it is hotter than 80C. More solid evidence that the japanese government are lying to everyone.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Although I am certainly no qualified expert, I can't say I fully agree with this guy but I found it interesting and thought I would share.


Evgeny Akimov, a nuclear engineer from the Chernobyl rescue operation, says the effect of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster far outweighs the projected outcome of the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan and the two should not be compared.


My favorite part:


RT: The radiation was so high that people couldn’t spend more than a minute near the Chernobyl reactor and had to wait for hours afterwards to continue their work. What are the first symptoms of radiation exposure in people?

EA: Some people have far more physical resilience than others. It is highly individual. Let me give you an example. There was a post-war accident at a nuclear facility in Yugoslavia. Three scientists were exposed to radiation. Two died. But one of them survived. An investigation established that he had drunk some alcohol before it all happened.


Man, if alcohol has a significant positive influence on radiation exposure I've got nothing to worry about. Bring on the spinach & milk souffle!


Here's the link....

rt.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLastStand
 


Totally, I was agreeing, just pointing out that the pictures take similar readings of the same blobs in #3, and Die Welt's puts it at 128C instead of the silly "62C" NHK was trying to pass it off as (or, rather, the Japanese Gov/TEPCO is reporting to them).
edit on 21-3-2011 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
513
<< 272  273  274    276  277  278 >>

log in

join