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: 471.htm
513
<< 468  469  470    472  473  474 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


the ozone layer is so high up that it's higher than any jetstream here on earth, the dispersal patterns are totally different that far up in the atmosphere.




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
The Unseen Victims of Japan's Crisis: The Unborn


Cesium-137, for example, a long-lived radionuclide with a half-life of 30 years, is absorbed in muscle, including muscle in the uterus, where it can remain, exposing the unborn baby to radiation, says Patterson.

Studies conducted after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 found that unborn children between the eighth and 15th weeks of pregnancy that were exposed to the bombs’ radiation had a high rate of brain damage, resulting in lower IQs and severe mental retardation, according the CDCP.

The primary risk of Iodine-131, the radionuclide reported to have been released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, is thyroid cancer.

Arjun Makhijani, president of the U.S. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said while the decision by Japanese authorities to evacuate everyone within a 30-kilometre radius of the reactors is wise, pregnant women should remain indoors and continue to take potassium iodide tablets.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Moonbeams771
 


So they aren't evacuating people from the 30km range - they are starving them out.

Lovely tactics.

Many "safety" measures today aren't - they are liability measures. Either to protect for liability, or to remove it. I believe that is what you are seeing here. Don't acknowledge liability, no need to set yourself up to be pursued about it later.

link to the city's radiation monitoring.
www.city.minamisoma.lg.jp...

translate it at the top.
edit on 2011/4/1 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
* MARCH 30, 2011, 3:11 P.M. ET
U.S. Military Deploys Drones Above Fukushima
online.wsj.com...

Pentagon preparing for a nuclear worst-case scenario at Fukushima, Stars and Stripes
www.stripes.com...

ETA:

Japan trade min says govt yet to debate TEPCO nationalisation-Kyodo
www.trust.org...

01 Apr 2011 02:06

Source: reuters // Reuters

TOKYO, April 1 (Reuters) - Japanese trade minister Banri Kaieda said on Friday the government has yet to debate the possibility of nationalising or taking control of Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), the operator of the crippled Fukushima nuclear complex, Kyodo news agency reported.

The government may set up a team to discuss TEPCO-related compensation issues, Kyodo quoted Kaieda, whose ministry oversees nuclear safety, as saying, as the firm faces a huge potential compensation bill.

TEPCO has come under fire for its handling of the emergency at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, triggered by a March 11 earthquake and tsunami that left nearly 28,000 people dead or missing. The Mainichi newspaper reported on Friday that Japan will take control of the firm. (Reporting by Yoko Kubota; /ex]


Des







edit on 03/28/2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

edit on 03/28/2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by zenzen
 

Thank you very much for the detailed list!
I appreciate the effort you put into searching this and then adding the English information.

However, as I mentioned, the "quake" would probably not be on a quake list as seismologists can recognize the seismograph signature is not exactly like the ones that earthquakes produce. (They are similar for the untrained eye but seismologists can usually spot them quite quickly.) So, although it would automatically be posted as a quake to begin with (because the auto-posting software does not tell the difference between explosions and real earthquakes), seismologists would probably delete it from the list after they have checked the waveforms. (Waveforms are the traces that the seismos make.)

However, that's just "probably". It could be that in Japan they leave it in the data. The fact is, quake you posted that was recorded at 11:00 is very close to the right location and magnitude.

2011 3 14 11:00 50.6 37゜19.3'N 141゜15.5'E 27 3.0
(Fukushima Pref. Open sea)

It doesn't matter that its location is shown slightly out to sea and a little south of Daiichi Fukushima; especially with smaller events where therefore less seismic stations can detect them, it's very difficult to get the location very precise. Minor errors in reading the P-wave and S-wave arrival times can make a major difference, in fact, because these waves travel so fast. The same applies to establishing quake depth. In fact, that is even more difficult in many cases.

Anyway I don't want to write a treatise about how quakes are located. I think that quake would be the best candidate!

By the way, I am assuming the "3.0" is shindo. I see the next quake on your list is a "6-", which must be shindo as we do not use this form to record quake magnitudes in the West.

If it is a shindo 3.0 at the nearest "felt" locations, then the strength will be higher where the energy was released. Considering other cases in Japan I would therefore rate it as somewhere about the equivalent of a mag 3.5 (Mw) quake's energy release, which corresponds closely to the report I read or heard that stated it was registed as a 3.7.

reply to post by zenzen
 

Thought I'd reply to this one as well...

That quake at 11:11 is a bit too far away to the south, I think, and also I expect that the other one fits better for the timing. As fpr having two at the same time, if they are very close together in location, this can be reposting of data but with the updated location as more details come in to refine the position. It's also possible that there could simply be two quakes at the same time but in different places. I wouldn't be surprised by this either.

Anyway, now I just need to check the figures for the TNT equivalent of a mag 3.5 event and see what it works out to.

As I said before, I can tell you all this: it will be quite a scary number.

Best regards,

Mike



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Mike did you see this post from jadedANDcynical?

The info is posted there & when the link is followed, the EQ data has been removed. It could be the info you are looking for.

From jadedANDcynical's post...

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by Wookiep
 


This one (5.8 which Japan is calling a 6.2


Ahh, well that would make more sense.

MAP 5.8 2011/03/14 01:02:40 36.455 140.965 18.8 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

Even a 6.2 EQ doesn't cause tsunamis on that level..There have been at least over 50+ 6.0+ aftershocks since the big 8.9 quake. I'm still confused, but thanks for the prompt response!


Edit to add further response: Yeah, I posted that while you were posting your response I think. When threads move this fast it's to hard keep up!

edit on 13-3-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


Mike, I think this is what you are looking for.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
www.mext.go.jp...

Hourly monitoring of the Fukushima area by car, done by the Ministry of Education.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
To save thread space and members' time I'm going to reply to a whole bunch of posts at once, specifically to members who've replied and offered info relating to my earlier posted request for help.

reply to post by OneisOne
 

Hi OneisOne. Thank you for offering that link and the data it contains. Besides what I mentioned above to zenzen, that magnitude 5.2 is simply much too far away. (It's also a lot more powerful than what I'm looking at but that doesn't really matter all that much right now.) However I'm very grateful to you for helping out.


reply to post by mrrad
 

Hey, that's an excellent resource! Never seen that one before. Thanks for the info!


reply to post by mendel101
 

Hi mendel,

yes it's weird how nothing much seems evident on those webcam shots, especially as we know for sure the explosion occurred on that day according to NHK, it happened at 11:01 a.m.

But then, there have been various oddities with those webcam images, like the building that seems to lose half its upper structure (except for its framework) then magically is back to normal an hour later (on March 26 at 1600 hours and again on March 28 at the same time), and then on March 29 at 1600 hours the same building's upper half is missing completely! But don't worry, folks... It's back again an hour later...


I'm not sure if I really trust those images...


reply to post by Destinyone
 

Hi Des,

we're far from crazy, I assure you!
It's actually so well known that larger explosions can cause seismo traces and trigger false auto-produced "quake reports" that it's one reason why some sites like USGS even maintain a special page just for such things to help explain some of the issues involved:
USGS: Routine United States Mining Seismicity : Goal and Scope of the Catalog

The key thing is that if there is a "quake" in an area that ties in closely or precisely to the time of a known, larger explosion, then it can often be used to determine the explosion's power in terms of an equivalent amount of TNT. Hence my request...

reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

Hi J&C, thanks for posting those details.

MAP 5.8 2011/03/14 01:02:40 36.455 140.965 18.8 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN


Sorry, but that's not the one. It's at the wrong time of day and would have occurred at around 4 pm on March 13, Japan time. (The time in the data readout is UTC, not Japan local time.)

Still, bettter to post than not.


Best regards to all,

Mike



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 

It's normal that the data will drop of the main lists after about a week. Don't worry, nothing sinister there.
Truly! That quake data is still available from several sources, including the NEIC database.

Just a minute and I'll post the details for what I think the power of the Fukushima #3 blast was.

Mike



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I did not see this posted yet...

Has this been addressed?


URGENT: Gov't eyes injecting nitrogen into reactor vessels to prevent blasts
TOKYO, April 1, Kyodo

The government and Tokyo Electric Power Co. are considering injecting nitrogen into containment vessels of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's reactors to prevent hydrogen explosions, government sources said Friday.english.kyodonews.jp...



edit on 1-4-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Ha! I didn't think anything sinister was afoot. I have learned by following different quake threads on ATS that occasionally when something goes boom; gas storage tank, nuclear reactors, etc., that they might be registered as an EQ by an automated system, but when they are reviewed they get pulled because they weren't really an EQ. So I thought that one might fit the bill.


I'm glad you don't think that's the one. 'Cause a 6something is a whole lot bigger than a 3something!

And thanks for keeping me straight!


OiO



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
uh huh....nothing to see...move along... www.yomiuri.co.jp...

April 1/2011

N-plant has long road ahead / Experts: Decommissioning Fukushima reactors to take decades

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Nuclear experts predict it will take decades to complete the decommissioning of the Nos. 1 to 4 reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata said Wednesday the company will decommission the four reactors, but the most pressing task at the moment is how to dispose of the huge quantity of water that has become contaminated with radioactive materials after being used to cool the reactors. Just disposing of this water will take a long time.

An estimated 13,000 tons of contaminated water has accumulated in trenches--tunnels used for maintenance of the reactors. A large quantity of contaminated water also has to be extracted from the basements of the reactors' turbine buildings, although the exact amount is unknown.

If the contaminated water can be removed, it will pave the way to reactivating the reactors' original cooling systems, which can lower the temperature of the reactor cores more efficiently than the methods now being employed.

Currently, however, workers at the plant are stymied by the contaminated water. They cannot even connect power cables outside the plant to the reactors' control systems.

It may be impossible to restore power to the reactor control systems if internal radiation levels are so high workers cannot repair the machinery, or if the contaminated water cannot be removed.

If water continues to leak, external tanks for temporarily storing it may become full. Workers and experts have said new facilities to store the contaminated water must be secured as soon as possible.

If all the contaminated water can be removed, the reactors then must be put in what is called cold shutdown to prevent the further discharge of large quantities of radioactive substances and bring the reactors into a stable state.

Cold shutdown means all control rods have been inserted into the reactors to stop nuclear fission chain reactions, and the coolant water inside the reactors is below 100 C.

Usually the temperature needs to be lowered further to remove fuel rods for regular checks or decommissioning.

"If the original cooling systems can be activated through a power supply from outside the plant and coolant water circulated, cold shutdown can be achieved in a day or two," Prof. Kenichiro Sugiyama of Hokkaido University said.

But it will likely take a few more years for the nuclear fuel rods to be cool enough to be removed from the reactors to decommission them.

On the other hand, if the current method--putting coolant water into the reactors with makeshift pumps--continues to be used, the situation may become more serious.

"Although the nuclear fuel would cool gradually, it would take at least several months to achieve cold shutdown," said Toru Ebisawa, a former associate professor of Kyoto University's Research Reactor Institute.

This would mean using more water, which would increase the amount of contaminated water.

Overall, it will take decades to complete the process of decommissioning the reactors.

The Japan Atomic Power Co.'s Tokai plant in Ibaraki Prefecture was the first commercial nuclear power plant in Japan to begin being decommissioned. The plant ended commercial operations in 1998, and the decommissioning process is scheduled to end in 2021.


Des



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Latest super close-up footage of Fukushima wrecked nuclear reactor



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by zenzen
 

Thank you, zenzen-san! Yes, I was having a lot of trouble trying to access data from normal sources post-March 11.

The date and time of the huge explosion at reactor building #3 is given variously at 11:01 a.m. (Japan time) on March 14, or 11:08. I also saw a report that puts it slightly later but most reports have the first figure of 11:01 a.m.




In this TV grab video a clock is running and gives the explosion at 11:01:35. Don't know how this clock gets there and why it absent in other versions of the same video.



the video

Mendel



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Okay, for what it's worth here's my assessment of what the power of the Fukushima #3 reactor building explosion may have been.

I've taken several matters into account.

First: it was obviously much more powerful than the prior explosions. Secondly, as several members have noted with succinct detail, the main explosion was of a totally different character and much more of its force was directed straight upwards.

Second: it also meant that a large and virtually equal force was directed straight downwards, and this would have created seismic waves of a size that would have been detectable at some distance by seismographs. The reports I heard (or read) on the day of the explosion stated that seismographs had recorded the blast as a "quake" and I recall a figure in the range of around 3.7 Mw. (Those of who you've known me for any time will be aware that at least half of my posts on ATS relate directly to either quakes and seismic activity or to related volcanic activity. When I hear a quake's magnitude mentioned I tend to remember it.)

Third: from studying video of the blast, it was clear that large masses of structural material were thrown many hundreds of yards (metres) into the air -- again, almost straight up -- and from what we have deduced, it is possible that even large sections of the reactor's outer casing were similarly launched skywards with tremendous accelerative force.

Fourth: our member SFA437, who states his knowledge includes things to do with explosives, commented in a post a few days ago along the lines that this explosion was MOAB-like. From my knowledge of quakes and their TNT energy-release equivalents I felt he was pretty darned close with this assessment but being a cautious type I needed to check the "explosion registered as quake" reports.

Fifth (and last!): the explosion was reported by NHK to have occurred at 11:01 a.m. on March 14. Japanese data found by our member zenzen show a quake at shindo 3.0 very close to this nuclear facility at 11:00 a.m. I see no problem with this minor discrepancy. If this explosion actually occurred at or after 11:00 am but before 11:01 a.m., it was so huge and spectacular that anyone observing from a distance would doubtless not have checked the time at least until the main plume had finished billowing skywards. I mean, if you witnessed this from miles away, would you check your watch the moment the thing went off?
No, you'd watch first and check the time after.

Hence the minor time discrepancy.

As said in my post to zenzen a few minutes ago, a shindo 3.0 would probably equate to somewhere around a mag 3.5 Mw event at its source -- the epicentre of a quake or the middle of the blast if it's an explosion. The reports I recall said it was recorded as a magnitude 3.7, and that is close enough to the shindo and distance figures that I'll go with it.

SFA347, you were right, man. This thing was practically like a MOAB going off. Here's an extract from a wiki page that equates earthquake magnitude to explosions:


(Image source: Wikipedia article)

Note: even though this chart refers to Richter scale values, the difference between the values here and those for the more modern "moment magnitude" (Mw) scale that we use now are small enough not to matter for a case like this.

People, look where Chernobyl is on that list and consider what I said about this quake being reported as a 3.7 Mw! And notice also that the difference between Chernobyl blast and a MOAB is only 0.05 of a magnitude. In practice, quake data is not even posted to that degree of accuracy as there are always variations in the many seismo readings taken and it's actually an averaging process that's largely used to determine the published magnitude. That blast at the Fukishima Daiichi #3 Reactor building could just as well have been assigned as a mag 3.6 or a mag 3.8, depending on the amount of data and how reliable the seismologists think it is.

In other words, the explosion as Daiichi #3 could well have been as powerful as the one at Chernobyl, and could even have been the same as a MOAB.

That's just my assessment but I will say this: it would not surprise me in the least if somewhere further down the road, it's determined that is was indeed equivalent to somewhere around 8 to 12 metric tons of TNT.

That's pretty scary to me.

Mike
edit on 1/4/11 by JustMike because: typos



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Source timshorrock.com...


Among the places Horie worked was Tokyo Electric Co.’s now-infamous Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. According to his book, as recounted by AMPO:

Workers are recruited from all over the country attracted by a daily wage of 5,000 to 10,000 yen and sent into the plants with hardly any knowledge of radiation. (Until a few years ago the workers were recruited from slums such as Sanya in Tokyo, Kamagasaki in Osaka and buraku – where Japanese outcasts live – in the Kansai area.





According to Morie, many of the Americans subcontracted by General Electric at the Fukushima plant were African-American (this photograph depicts a black GE subcontractor at the Fukushima plant in 1980). AMPO wrote:

Morie shows in detail how the conditions in nuclear power plants make irradiation control difficult. Tokyo Electric’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is said to be the most contaminated nuclear power plant in the world, and Japan Atomic’s Tsuruga plant (scene of a major accident in 1981) is also notorious for its loose radiation control…It is naturally subcontracted workers (and a “foreigners squad” of black workers sent from the U.S. by General Electric and Westinghouse) who are to work under such a high radioactive dose.


Now what I'm asking you all is if Americans (GE/Westinghouse employees) saw TEPCO recruiting poor so called nuclear gypsies from Japanese poor districts.

Do you think it was morally correct to fly all the way back to the US and set up recruitment from poor black areas to just to make as much profit as TEPCO were from the exploited workers.

Anyway it's good to know that the praise for the Fukishima 50 or Nuclear Samurai includes "Black Americans" as well as poor Japanese.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


Thank you for your reflections on the news/imagery coming out.

You describe an event that would indeed be highly reminiscent of Saigon, but this time perhaps any surplus/contaminated helicopters may be ditched off decks by guys in NBC suits, so as to help keep the ships clean?

I can't see contaminated helicopters being stripped and cleaned?? Maybe they will? They didn't at Chernobyl but then they were right over the reactor...where they dumped them outside after their job ended?

I suppose initially the guys you decribe would have to secure the embassy area...lots of Tokyo residents (34 million isn't it?) will be a little unhappy at the turn of events to say the least I should think.

I think I'm right in saying that foreign commercial shipping and in some cases airlines scratched certain destinations South of the exclusion zone already, so I would guess that those options would only greatly diminish should the fallout zone move, or spread, or be 're-calibrated'.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mendel101
 

Hi Mendel,
I had seen that one and also wondered. As the original footage shows no clock then it would seem that station added theirs in, which makes me wonder if they got the feed direct and aired it almost straight away. In that case there might only be a very small delay between the blast time and the airing time. However I'm not an expert in how the media do things in such cases.

Also, with those TEPCO webcam images of Daiichi, can you think of any simple reason for that half-disappearing building? (Three occasions that I've noticed.) I am a pretty much a moron when it comes to what sort of things can happen to webcams and possible image glitches, so I'm willing to listen to any reasonable explanation.

Mike

edit on 1/4/11 by JustMike because: I missed out a word.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


Quite right. Extension of the dead zone, from 50 miles to 100 miles, would effectively, cut Japan in half. From the coast of Mito East side of Honshu, extending to Niigata West side of Honshu...uh oh...no where to go.

Des



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Mike that's really good information. I too came to that conclusion quite a few pages ago. whilst not being a ballistics expert I can appreciate scale.

Based on the size of the buildings and and height/rate of rise of the plume I concluded pretty much the same.

I also posted videos of various explosions for analysis. A nuclear rifle/gun, the MOAB, the FOAB, and an atomic cannon. I then stated that it was most likely bigger than an MOAB but smaller than an atomic cannon.

Granted, I was too lazy to list the equivalent TNT levels but as long as we can appreciate scale. The same conclusion can be quickly drawn in.

I'll try to find the original post with the youtube links..




top topics



 
513
<< 468  469  470    472  473  474 >>

log in

join