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: 434.htm
513
<< 431  432  433    435  436  437 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 

I realize that this is a humongus thread and the wealth of info here is also confusing; but I believe if you will go back you will discover that reactors 5 and 6 were already in cold shutdown and un-fueled; the seawater used in those two were in the spent fuel pools, not the RPV's;

part of the problem with spent fuel pool 5 is the fact that the freshly unloaded rods from the RPV were in the pool when the tsunami hit and the problem keeps compounding itself...


seeker




posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mendel101
 

Thanks..mendel. Images make things so much clearer for us text challenged posters..



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Black Sheep
 


I agree and have been saying the same for weeks, but there are anumber of things that I think may be holding them back:

1. USA/French/UK* (*I think) complicity in supply of the reactor design (GE) under licence and the MOX/plutonium fuel (to a reactor/design that had a history of allegations and now proven concerns about safety). Very bad press, very unhelpful in both international diplomatic relations and at home with a truly desperate crisis for all of the major western economies over future energy policy/security, via fresh public concerns over existing nuclear plans.

2. The very fragile world economic situation, and intelligence/analysis that teh gov. has access to about just how badly this incident could tip the global markets into a very bad situation: massive global humanitarian ramifications - if panic were in any way excited in the press.

3. China was already applying significant strategic and political pressure in the region, and Japan were very much in the firing line, threatening USA/Japanese interests/dominance, trade and therefore recovery prospects - unleash points 1 or 2 and this may escalate or become unhelpful (to what extent perhaps only our leaders know) at the UN and in attempting to manage that situation?


edit on 30-3-2011 by curioustype because: typo corrected



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by the seeker_713g
 


Thanks for the clarification, that wasn't clear in that article from the Daily Mail which Zorgon posted and to which I was reacting.

Even so, frankly, given the list of other issues inflicted on that plant site from this quake (including suspected ground level /water table changes, radioactive contamination from the other adjacent incidents, etc...) I really am amazed that they are seriously implying they could carry on working those.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


Great points:

The global markets do not like uncertainty. If we knew how good or bad things were, the world markets would make a very quick adjustment - like 9/11. This is death by a thousand cuts.

This is the one time I would like to see world leadership. Much like the ending of the movie Independence Day.

This crisis is like global warming happening in the next 12 months. We, the United States, have to act in the absence of leadership.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Anybody Care to try to

interpret the information here?


Environmental radiation monitoring information (near the Tokai-mura, Ibaraki)
Real-time monitoring data is available on site and out of Research and Development Center, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Engineering Laboratories, Tokai.




Or here?


Environmental radiation monitoring information (town Ibaraki)
You can see real-time monitoring data Oarai Research and Development Center, the site boundary.


From here in sction titled: Japan Atomic Energy Agency Organization


Or, how about this?


Calculation results for the diffusion of radioactive material near a nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture (Press Release)
Radiation effects predicted rapid Emergency Network Systems (SPEEDI) for estimates of here Has been published.





edit on 3/30/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Thanks for all of the expert information you have been posting.

I have a question about a couple of posts of yours several days old now. You made a claim I found very interesting. You said "a leak in the condenser created a vacuum in the main lines" and this allowed the receding tide to pull out the radioactivity from the turbine rooms. I think I have that right?

You also said TEPCO was taking measures of radiation to match the Fukushima tides.

This is the last 24 hours in the Fukushima perfecture. If memory serves, the 10,000,000 times normal report came out about 12-14 hours ago, and the 100,000 times normal 'correction' came out a few hours ago.

During that time, the tide was going out. A leak in the condenser would have created a vacuum in the main lines, pulling any contamination away from the turbine building and out to sea.

I see this as damning evidence that TEPCO is not ignorant of what is going on, but that they are well aware of the problems being experienced, to the point of being able to predict when radiation levels in particular areas will increase or decrease. Now I'm just angry…  TheRedneck


First question. How does a vacuum be created by a leak in the condenser. And I really mean what is the mechanism allowing the tide to pull out the contaminants?

Second question. Is there a break somewhere in the cooling loop beneath the sea allowing the tide to come up inside the main pipe? Or in other words just how is the sea water coming into the turbine room? This is also related to your following post because there you state the water around the reactor is being pumped in and out by the tides.

Third question. How does water move uphill like that? The plant is sea level but still above the tide level.

Forgive my ignorance of the physics involved here. I find your idea really interesting but also note neither you and nor anyone else on the thread seemed to pursue it any further. Yet it seems so fundamental to how TEPCO 'cooked' the readings earlier.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Thank you Curio & Silverlock for clarifying things.

My husband is the science guy in our house & what I posted was all I recall from conversations with him where he tried to "dumb it down" for my non-scientific mind. I admit I had no clue what he was saying a couple of times... haha


Back on topic, what the heck are these people thinking to even say that they want to salvage these 2 reactors when even someone like me can figure out that it would be dangerous?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Chapter six of the linked manual is important reading for everyone and an important reference for even old nuclear physics hacks.

Ludlum Survey Manual

For example, the reading in and around plant #2 where the reactor has blown out the bottom of the containment are above 1000 mSv/h.

That is 100 R/h, which to quote from page 6-7;

100 rem in a short term dose is about the threshold for causing immediate radiation sickness in a person of average physical attributes.

Reactor #2 and the buildings attached to it are uninhabitable.

.Eric J Hall's, Radiation and Life
edit on 30-3-2011 by SDoradus because: I found a better reference and deleted my 'opion' about your fate should you dwell in dark wet radioactive spaces.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SDoradus
 


Well I guess that means those robots better work.
I just read on another thread that "they" the people in the know who ever that be, says it will take 3 to 5 years for the thing to cool.
I think we are all in the states waiting to see what the sea weed tells us, similar to using a damn wee gee board.
A good meter costs $550 bucks.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Tallone

Yes, that is what I said... of course I preceded that with "I believe", since I am obviously not sitting in the Fukushima plants.


Anyway, this is my theory:

The main lines (the equivalent of the main steam lines in the PWR, the reactors I am most familiar with), the pipes that transfer all of the heat and thus energy from the reactor to the turbines, run from the reactor to the turbines, through a pump, and through the condenser back to the reactor. That forms a closed loop that is only opened to add water to it (which is a nuclear incident). If not operating, the pump will act like a valve, blocking water flow back through it.

Now, assume there is a leak in the condenser, which is underwater. The tide comes in and puts higher pressure into the condenser. Due to the leak, this also puts higher pressure into the main lines in the condenser. This creates an increase in pressure at one end of what is now a long pipe since the pumps are off and thus blocking the loop. The other end of this pipe is the turbine building. In the center of the pipe is the reactor. So water will flow from the condenser, through the reactor, and into the turbine room to equalize pressure.

When the tide goes out, it begins exerting a vacuum (reduced pressure) on the condenser lines through the condenser leak, which causes water from the turbine room to be pulled back through the reactor and into the condenser... and of course back out to sea.

These pressures induced do not have to be much at all for the effect to be major. While even the turbine room water, which can and has burned skin, can still be comfortably measured in mSv, as can the ocean water, the reactor core is probably a thousand times as 'hot'. It takes very little actual water flow to allow 0.1% of the radiation to move. I would be amazed it the pressure differential between low and high tide could even be measured in psi. But, based on the oceanic and turbine room readings, along with the tide charts, it apparently is enough.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SDoradus
 





100 rem in a short term dose is about the threshold for causing immediate radiation sickness in a person of average physical attributes.


Hi, sorry, I read it and now I'm confused. You left out the end of that sentance which in full states:

"100 rem in a short term dose is about the threshold for causing immediate radiation sickness in a person of average physical attributes, but would be unlikely to cause death. Above 100 rem, severity of illnes increases with dose.

If doses greater than 100 rem occur over a long period they are less likely to have early health effects but they create a definate risk that cancer may develop many years later."

So if that place is rated at 100 rem, then by my understanding of this advice you certainly wouldn't wish to be there unless you were either a). very well protected, or b). didn't mind the prospect of both initial nasty side effects and the prospect of cancer in afew years...but I think by Chernobyl standards you may still get people near there - or am I misunderstanding the specific type of radiation risk (alpha/beta/gamma?)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


hey redneck have you had a chance to watch this yet:

It's a former tech that worked at fukushima and was somehow involved in some of the inspections , he believes coolant loss from broken pipes in 1 and 3 and hydrogen explosion AT THE TORUS in 2

I guess I can see why he thinks anyone of those ten gazillion pipes could have broken ( built for 4 ATM's pushed beyond 8):





and good old RT they do like sharpening their teeth:


This guy is saying radiation within the last few hours has been increasing in California ( unsubstantiated ) and it's one mega - becquerel per meter out to 100Km around fukushima

edit on 30-3-2011 by Silverlok because: y oh y
extra DIV



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Tallone

... effect to be major. While even the turbine room water, which can and has burned skin, can still be comfortably measured in mSv, ...



According to the 'puddle' press release data the mSv/hr value was 1,000 where they took the sample. That is the maximum their survey meters can show apparently.

The analysis of the water showed that it contains 2 Ci per gallon of radioactive isotopes. The gamma and neutron radiation from the melted core a few hundred feet away (through the concrete and dirt) is deadly.

Puddle press release
edit on 30-3-2011 by SDoradus because: Corrected Ci/gallon value



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by SDoradus
 



100 rem in a short term dose is about the threshold for causing immediate radiation sickness in a person of average physical attributes.

Hi, sorry, I read it and now I'm confused. You left out the end of that sentence which in full states:
...
If doses greater than 100 rem occur over a long period they are less likely to have early health effects but they create a definite risk that cancer may develop many years later."

So if that place is rated at 100 rem, then by my understanding of this advice you certainly wouldn't wish to be there unless you were either a). very well protected, or b). didn't mind the prospect of both initial nasty side effects and the prospect of cancer in a few years...but I think by Chernobyl standards you may still get people near there - or am I misunderstanding the specific type of radiation risk (alpha/beta/gamma?)


The short of it is radiation kills life. period.

Lots of radiation quickly is less likely to cause cancer than the same amount over longer time. Because a sudden burst just kills cells, long term high exposure wrecks dna/rna causing transcription errors that can cause cancer.

If the meter goes tick, tick, tickety, get out of there!



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SDoradus
Chapter six of the linked manual is important reading for everyone and an important reference for even old nuclear physics hacks.

Ludlum Survey Manual .



Thanks for posting this link. It covers all of the basics and is an excellent tool for learning what radiation is, how it is measured and how to limit one's exposure.

I would recommend it to anyone not trained or knowledgeable about working around this stuff.

Good stuff

ETA- the only thing it could have done a better job of is teaching the difference between radiation and contamination. It did not cover this topic.
edit on 30-3-2011 by Hugues de Payens because: Add info



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thank you for that clarification. One more detail bugging me.

Is the entry point for sea water through some break in the cooling coils under the sea?

Edit
I am amazed I have not seen this theory discussed anywhere! I would have thought a media outfit like RT would have picked up on it by now.
edit on 30-3-2011 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Guess I'm confused now. Are you saying that water in the condenser is radioactively contaminated? I thought the condenser was on the secondary side of the system.....meaning it's not part of the contaminated primary loop. My understanding is that water in the condenser could only be contaminated if there was a breach in the tube sheet inside the steam generator. Then....for sea water to become contaminated, there would then have to be a breach in the tube sheet inside the condenser as well.

Not saying that it could not have happened mind you. Maybe my understanding is not right?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Tallone
 


Rt has a really interesting agenda , they want America to look really bad and get scared about the disaster but they don't want to poop on the nuclear bandwagon as their leaders are pushing it pretty hard.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Thanks, great find. I can't guess why Prof Busby hasn't been given airtime on the BBC yet! Perhaps he's on here somewhere?

I think he's right about robots being another red herring - in addition to his observations about the radiation affecting their electronics as per Chernobyl, look at the terrain and obstacles they'll be needing to move through, and the heights of those structures...what exactly can puny robots really do? I think they'll need men, or to build new robots.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
513
<< 431  432  433    435  436  437 >>

log in

join