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: 515.htm
513
<< 512  513  514    516  517  518 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rbrtj
 



Hmmmmmmm......looks like business as usual??
hosting.portseattle.org...


edit on 3-4-2011 by rbrtj because: oops




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   


Dr John Price, a former member of the Safety Policy Unit at the UK's National Nuclear Corporation, said radiation leaks will continue and it could take 50 to 100 years before the nuclear fuel rods have cooled enough to be removed.

ccording to ABC News, Dr Price said: 'As the water leaks out, you keep on pouring water in, so this leak will go on forever. 'There has to be some way of dealing with it. The water is connecting in tunnels and concrete-lined pits at the moment and the question is whether they can pump it back. 'The final thing is that the reactors will have to be closed and the fuel removed, and that is 50 to 100 years away. 'It means that the workers and the site will have to be intensely controlled for a very long period of time.'

RSOE



This is going to be a very, long thread.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SDoradus
Fairewinds update

Latest update summary, Reactor one is periodically going critical and burning uranium.

edit on 3-4-2011 by SDoradus because: reactor one


bad...bad....BAD....ripples become waves now....next...entropy...

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



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rbrtj
reply to post by rbrtj
 


cancer.about.com...
Note the first thing that comes up is Egypt and a pyrimid...
This spooky ..acouple days ago I was sitting her postulating the thread and it's and mine comments and i thought what / why did they really build those pyrimids?
this popped in my head while we were talking esphogizing the nuke plant.
Parden my spelling.
I'm a thinker not a writer, but learning fast

what do you guys think, also remebr way back when they found the entrance to one of the pyrimids and every one on the team who went in came down with this strange illness?
Illness...Cancer again a huge cover up because it would ruin the tourist trade.
The biggest complaint Egypt has had is the war and there internal feud is messing up the flow of tourist dollars.


Threr could be a hint of something in your theory. When the wastern civilization found traces of previous civilizations the scisnce of the day (Eugencis) was tainted with enough arrogance to completely dispel the notion that anything discovered in the 1800's onwards could ever have been realised by "primitive" people.

But from a logical view point if we (homo sapien) have been here for 140,000 years or more and can only find evidence civilizations going back to maybe 6000 B. The question has to be asked could this all have happened before.

Well, we know they didn't dramatically increase the background radiation with Pu-239 or it would still be here.

The real question is will we still be here in 140,000 years, especially when we have 40,000 reactors world wide, a billion tons of plutonium to burn, bury or blow people up and an accident a week!!!!



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Procharmo
 


See I'm not the dullest knive in the drawer after all world!!! I'm not the sharpest, but hey, I'll take the center of the drawer anytime
Love ya.. thanks for the back up.. bike rides are wonderful when it is not raining nuclear isotopes.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The Crack.

I'm
...
Please take a look at the pictures in these articles:
www.thehindu.com...
apnews.excite.com...
english.kyodonews.jp...

So much concrete for such a small crack?
Man, TEPCO solutions are straight of "There, I fixed it!".



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by SDoradus
Fairewinds update

Latest update summary, Reactor one is periodically going critical and burning uranium.

edit on 3-4-2011 by SDoradus because: reactor one


bad...bad....BAD....ripples become waves now....

Des


If I understood him correctly he is saying that the seawater was actually restarting the criticality in this reactor. Also he mentioned the presence of Chlorine-38 which can only be present if there is a chain-reaction. TEPCO in their desperation to cool the reactor has restarted criticality, sorry, the incompetence is overwhelming. I know Redneck was talking about this several pages back but looks like other folks are starting to see this now... yay ATS!



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rbrtj
 


So, the question is do we have another big bang or slow death.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I have been thinking about that crack from yesterday... about 8 inches long, right? Am I the only one who is confused how an 8-inch long crack could release enough water into the Pacific to create the high levels we have been seeing?

That's a seep, not a gush.

I'm getting a really bad feeling over this. I posted yesterday that it is possible that the bedrock has cracked underneath Unit #4, with cracks spreading to Unit #3 and creating the oceanic radiation levels. But this 8" long crack is at Unit #2. Am I the only one seeing this pattern?

I also saw the report above about underground tunnels being sealed with concrete... is there a blueprint of this place on file anywhere? Oh, I don't know, like the nuclear regulatory agency in charge? Or maybe the main office at TEPCO?

Knowing TEPCO as we now do, it's just as likely this whole crack saga is a cover to disguise the fact they're simply pumping the radioactive waste water into the ocean.

Did you notice the latest story about the barge, that it was there to pick up the radioactive water?
According to the news story there was no plan as to what to do with the radioactive water after the barge was full of it.

Well the reporter was stupid and the source was full of it. No-one is going to fill a huge barge with radioactive water without some plan for emptying it. So obviously the plan is one they dare not make public, such as taking it out a few miles and emptying it into the ocean.

However, until the water is actually being pumped into the barge, it's being pumped into the ocean. So for the moment the scapegoat, this newly-created little round hole they call a crack and supposedly cannot mend, must be seen to be still leaking.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by DancedWithWolves
 

How right you are. No apology needed. We are on the same page.

Tepco is in the Nuclear Reactor Business. How could they not be prepared with the basics for workers. It's not like the crisis is all over Japan, yet.

It's located at a single prefecture, we hope. It's not like they need to come up with safety gear/equipment for a whole nation...it's less than 1,000 people! With 55 nuclear power plants in all of Japan...and, Japan is only about the size of the state of California, they should have more than adequate resources, to call on for protective worker measures. They don't...or...they do, and won't waste it on walking dead workers.

Des

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

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


yes!...

why is TEPCO permitting it's workers to DIE for the company?
isn't this immoral, illegal, inhumane?

hasn't it occurred to TEPCO that instead of sacrificing a few hundred workers to
certain death, they could be hiring a few thousand people to work temporarily.. until they accrue
(say) a years worth of radiation, then remove them from the site?

wouldn't that be a more ethical solution??
or is it too much bother for TEPCO?
it's just so much easier to take advantage of their employee's willingness
to martyr themselves for the nuclear power industry, than it is to act responsably.

TEPCO is without doubt one of the most inhumane and unscrupulous companies on the planet.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 

Take a look at my post on page 513 regarding one of those pics
Its bad



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeyingaround
Hello everyone, I am new to ATS. I've been reading this thread since it started and I have gotten quite a lot of information from everyone. Thank you for that!

These days, I've been so confused that I tried to think out the box. And I think I've got something:
1) Like sunrisetomorrow2011 said earlier, there may be nuclear weapons related to the recent incident. This got me thinking: what if the Japanese government really had something to hide at the nuclear reactor?
2) Based on this, I began thinking about all the secrecy about the incident, the rejection for help, etc. What if the actual readings by TEPCO are higher than they actually are? I know this sounds a bit crazy, but could TEPCO be coming up with fake higher readings to scare away pesky journalists? That would also explain why there is not much news about Japan at the moment. The Israeli government, through their surveillance cameras, probably know what's going on and look how they are reacting. All silence and no alarms.

We live in a democratic government and it is truly hard to hide things unless they never existed in the first place. Opinions anyone?

Welcome, I'm new here too.

We don't know about a specific secret at this plant but there is misinformation. We think it's partly due to the Japanese culture, the fact that GE and the mainstream media are financially in bed and the Pro Nuclear economic interests.

Here's and example of the ANS (American Nuclear Soceity) explaining how MOX in reactor 3 has no more significance than Uranium in reactors 1,2,4,5 and 6. However you will see that they made the mistake of saying if it did have 40% MOX then there would have been increased danger.

www.ans.org...


Turning to the Fukushima Daiichi reactors in Japan, Unit 3 was using some reactor grade MOX fuel at the time of the March 2011 earthquake. Had it been using a 40% MOX fuel core, one could expect an increase in severe accident consequences on the order of 10% for weapons grade MOX. With a 40% reactor grade MOX core, and applying a bounding factor of four increase relative to weapons grade MOX, the overall increase in severe accident consequences would have been on the order of 40% relative to the all LEU fuel case. However, Unit 3 was loaded with only 32 MOX fuel assemblies during refueling operations in the fall of 2010.


But they admitted it had 6% MOX. which represents an increased danger anyway.......



There are a total of 548 fuel assemblies in the Unit 3 reactor core, so this represents less than 6% of the total fuel in the core. The MOX fuel had been operating in Unit 3 for less than five months; fuel assemblies are typically used for a total of 3-4 years in reactor cores before being replaced by new fuel and discharged to used fuel pools. Therefore, the MOX fuel would have built up relatively few radioactive fission products and actinides at the time of the earthquake and subsequent damage to the reactor core. With these facts in mind – the low percentage of MOX fuel in the core and the short operation time for the MOX fuel – it is evident that the presence of MOX fuel at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 has had no significant impact on the offsite releases of radioactivity following the earthquake and tsunami.
Other than the 32 MOX fuel assemblies in the Unit 3 reactor core, at the time of the earthquake there were no other MOX fuel assemblies (new or used) at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The problems encountered at Fukushima Daiichi reactors stem from plant damage due to the tsunami that followed the earthquake, not the use of MOX fuel in Unit 3.
It is also important to put the public health consequences from the event in perspective. There have been no prompt fatalities as a result of radiation exposure. Moreover, prompt evacuation has minimized the exposure of the population to radiation. At this point, the consequences of the event are expected to be small. MOX fuel effects, if any, would be a small change to an already small number.
In conclusion, MOX fuel has been used safely in nuclear power reactors for decades. The presence of a limited number of MOX fuel assemblies at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 has not had a significant impact on the ability to cool the reactor or on any radioactive releases from the site due to damage from the earthquake and tsunami.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 



apnews.excite.com...

I see two different pits

apnews.excite.com...
I see one pit from each news service, not together like a before after shot either.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Blue Flashing Light Seen Over Fukushima Plant Fox news, includes video report.

Dominic Di-Natale has the latest from Japan where international nuclear experts believe melted fuel is causing a chain reaction at the Fukushima plant.

www.foxnewsinsider.com...

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



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Originally posted by Silverlok

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Tallone
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Learn from fukushima. There is no safe nuclear alternative.


Exactly.


Yes there is HE3 Fusion


Aneutronic fusion is maybe safe. Like dynamite power plants.


bah, it's just a scaled up gasoline engine, right ?
Note the 'maybe'. 'Maybe safe' just ain't good enough.

Nuclear energy per se is not the problem. The mistake made is not having any solutions that are tested and work to solve the problems created when things go wrong. . What kind of accident will it take to realise that?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaHere
reply to post by edball40
 


Originally posted by edball40
reply to post by OuttaHere
 


Having reviewed the aerial pictures from March 24th, this is Reactor #4, the closeup is of the backside at the top of the building 3rd panel from the right. Out of view in the 4th panel is a portion of the yellow dome, just to the left, while the 5th panel is intact and blocks further view of the dome.
Aerial Photos of Fukushima Daiichi NPS.

If this is the case, it again raises the question, what are we looking at in the picture I posted? The rounded steel structure immediately beneath and to the left of the circled area is not the yellow lid. What is it?




I have to go; I will not be back for several hours. This thread is going to grow by ten pages by then. I will see you all then!

edit on 3-4-2011 by OuttaHere because: just... because.


Does this explain any further......




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by arufon


yes!...

why is TEPCO permitting it's workers to DIE for the company?
isn't this immoral, illegal, inhumane?

hasn't it occurred to TEPCO that instead of sacrificing a few hundred workers to
certain death, they could be hiring a few thousand people to work temporarily.. until they accrue
(say) a years worth of radiation, then remove them from the site?

wouldn't that be a more ethical solution??
or is it too much bother for TEPCO?
it's just so much easier to take advantage of their employee's willingness
to martyr themselves for the nuclear power industry, than it is to act responsably.

TEPCO is without doubt one of the most inhumane and unscrupulous companies on the planet.


More workers, means more liability, and, more prying eyes. I don't think Tepco plans on the current workers, to be in any condition to talk to anyone. The workers are NOT allowed to leave the Fukushima facilities. And, not one single visitor/expert, to my knowledge, has been allowed on the site either. All incoming traffic, is stopped at the established borders of the "exclusion" zone. And, the 20,000 plus, people still inside the "exclusion" zone, are not receiving aid from the outside.

ETA: kroccda.org...

Some areas hit harder by the disaster are still not accessible. Our workers in Japan believe other NGO's are also not being allowed into these parts. The exclusion zone around the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant is still in place and local reports say the situation is improving.


Des

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

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, 3 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Originally posted by Silverlok

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Tallone
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Learn from fukushima. There is no safe nuclear alternative.


Exactly.


Yes there is HE3 Fusion


Aneutronic fusion is maybe safe. Like dynamite power plants.


bah, it's just a scaled up gasoline engine, right ?
Note the 'maybe'. 'Maybe safe' just ain't good enough.

Nuclear energy per se is not the problem. The mistake made is not having any solutions that are tested and work to solve the problems created when things go wrong. . What kind of accident will it take to realise that?
I must respectfully disagree with you. Nuclear energy is certainly the problem. If it were not for nuclear energy then we would not need solutions that are tested and work to solve the problems that go wrong. It seems far to often they are located on fault lines, must be constructed near water sources and whether privatized, or public, will ALWAYS pose risks far greater than we will likely be able to handle, even with little safety guidelines and pre-catastrophe testing. It simply is not worth the risks. Of course this is merely my not so humble opinion.
edit on 4/3/1111 by NoAngel2u because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Hi all,

Please forgive me if the info below has been posted before. I have been working on digging this up and preparing the post for some time and have therefore missed about 8 pages of the thread.

I've been digging around on the web today and found that back in 2000/2001, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) did a detailed report on the risks and possible consequences of various accident scenarios involving spent fuel pools.

It's a veritable mine of good, solid information about heating times, factors with zirconium fires, differences in boil-off rates for BWR and PWR fuels and so on. Also lots of info on expected casualties, needs to evacuate and for how long, processes for dealing with events etc etc..

Although the report was specifically considering spent fuel pools at decommissioned sites, as their operators were seeking lower levels of regulation and the NRC wanted to see what the risks were if less regulation was allowed, much of the information is still perfectly relevant to cases at working nuclear power stations in the event of a serious incident (like has happened at Daiichi), because as we all know, they have spent fuel pools too...

For example, from the report's Appendices document on page 4 we have this graphic and info:


(Source document: NRC. Yellow highlights in the text are mine. They are not in the original.)

Notice that it doesn't take 2,000 degrees C or more to get the fire going... 900 deg C will do it and in fact the problems begin way below that temperature!


So, thinking that some of you might want to get your own copies and AFAIK it's not possible to directly link them for download
, here's how...

Go to the NRC search page here

Click on the "Simple Search" tab then copy and paste the following report title into the search box and click the blue "search" tag:

Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

You'll see a warning come up that your search will return three thousand-something documents so it will only show the first 1,000. Not a problem as you're only after the first one or two on the list anyway.
So, just click "ok".

The first one in the list is actually called the "Final" one but it was released before the one below it. I got both sets just in case there are any major differences.

Just click on one of those little yelow boxes to the left of the report title and it will open a smaller window that includes links to read (and hence download) the .pdf files. The "appendices" file is pretty big (275 pages) but contains some very, very sobering info plus some better versions of some graphics that are in the main report, so I'd recommend getting it.

I'd especially recommend that you take a look at the section that starts around page 189 in the appendices file as it deals with the scenarios for evacuating people in the event of an accidental radioactive release into the environment from a spent fuel pool overheat/fire.

Here's another sample of what's in it, from page 192. It's the "Base Case" scenario of fatalities for a given radius of 100 miles and 500 miles from the accident site:


(Source document: NRC. Yellow highlights mine.)

By the way, the above figures for cancer rates are from a scenario where:
-- the "off-site release" from a spent fuel pool fire lasts only 30 minutes before it's brought under control;
-- no more off-site release occurs after that time;
-- the emergency services are notified as soon as the problem begins (in fact before the release even gets off-site);
-- evacuation of all people (well, 99.5%) within 10 miles begins after no more than two hours (regardless of radiation levels recorded); and
-- other people are evacuated according to levels monitored in their regions.

So -- how does this scenario make things look in Japan? TheRedneck said days and days ago that people needed to evacuate right away. The NRC's report basically agrees. Their report works on the basis that people in the closest areas get evacuated to a safe location within two hours of the emergency services being notified, and that evacuation is carried out with no consideration for what the radiation level readings may be where these people are -- because to wait for those readings could mean that more people would be affected!

I'll leave it with you.

Mike
edit on 3/4/11 by JustMike because: Corrected a dummmb typo



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


We need more information from a military source.
Des, I don't know what to say other than pray and keep the faith.




top topics



 
513
<< 512  513  514    516  517  518 >>

log in

join