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: 628.htm
513
<< 625  626  627    629  630  631 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 


I started reading ATS with this incident and on this thread and my opinion is about 20% of it is good solid fact, 25% good and supportable speculation, 25% unsupportable and/or tinfoil speculation and 30% idle chatter.

The 35% fact and good speculation make it pretty worthwhile.




posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DancedWithWolves

I can't read Japanese (heck, I'm so Southern I can barely speak English
), but here's what I am seeing:

The photos are arranged in order, Unit #1, Unit #2, Unit #3, Unit #4. On Unit #1 and #3, they are giving two measurements, one for the reactor and one for the spent fuel pool. Unit #2 only has a single temperature because the concrete walls of the building remain and tend to insulate thermal sensors, giving an overall temperature of the building rather than a temperature of the internal parts, except for the one area where steam has been rising regularly. Unit #4 is not showing readings for the reactor because there was no fuel in it at the time of the quake/tsunami.
  • Unit #1: The reactor core temperature is given as 33°C. Looking back at previous readings, it actually appears as though they may have done some good with it back around late March. The readings have been relatively stable, and there is now a question in my mind as to whether or not it has undergone a complete meltdown based on this. I am still concerned about the 100 Sv/h reading in the drywell recently reported; this indicates a serious PRV breach in and of itself, but the temperature readings indicate mostly sub-critical temperatures.

    My conclusion is that the primary containment (the concrete wall surrounding the drywell) is still intact, and is masking high temperature readings. The corium could be anywhere within that containment, but the high temperatures are being muddled by the concrete. This reactro, I believe, is still in a state of ongoing meltdown, just not to the same extent as, say, Unit #3.

    There seems to be no issue with the spent fuel pool.

  • Unit #2: Again we see sub-critical indications from the temperatures recorded, but notice that in this case the entire thing is surrounded by concrete. Concrete is a very good thermal isolator, so this muddles what we can even hope to see. I do notice that the highest temperatures are around the opening in the side, which if I am not mistaken is the same area we have seen steam coming out. That, to me, indicates that these readings are not accurate, since that much direct steam would be from gaseous water itself and not condensation from supersaturation of water vapor.

    The fact that we do have this seemingly constant spew of condensation as well as the fact that most of the concrete walls are intact, leads me to believe that we are looking at a mostly intact primary containment which may actually be doing its job and allowing the corium to separate and cool in the bottom.

  • Unit #3: This is the one I have been saying all along has dropped corium into the bedrock below. The reactor core temperature readings seem to support this. The reactor core is showing 35°C at present, but look back at 03-20-2011... 128°C, followed by a sudden drop in readings. This would have been when the corium exited the building and entered the bedrock fully. I imagine the readings would have been much higher prior to that as well, as the corium was exposed for a while before it melted its way into bedrock. The reading on 03-10-2011 was the tail end of a large temperature drop.

    I have to point out as well that this was the reactor I looked down into in a previous visual, since the top of the RPV was missing.

    The spent fuel pool (showing 56°C at present) is showing signs of serious overheating as well, but not out of control overheating. That indicates to me that there is not sufficient material there to reach criticality beyond the ability of the workers to control. The explanation is probably what we have been saying all along: the vast majority of the contents of the spent fuel pool are scattered far and wide across the countryside.

  • Unit #4: The only reading is for the spent fuel pool, as explained above. The variation in temperature readings is indicative of an ongoing struggle to maintain cooling, and likely of such efforts being hampered by sporadic equipment failures and aftershocks.

Those are my observations, anyway.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thank you. God bless.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The 'mystery' rectangular platform is likely a swimming float, probably for the employees to get out and blow off their lunch hour.

I've seen a few in lakes in the US a few times, nothing ominous or nefarious.

M.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Also Saturday, Tohoku Electric Power Co. said a human mistake apparently caused the only functioning diesel generator at the Higashidori nuclear power plant in Aomori Prefecture to leak fuel, forcing the utility to stop it at one point following the 7.1-magnitude aftershock late Thursday of the March 11 deadly earthquake.The operational failure prompted the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency earlier in the day to call on the nation's power suppliers to have at least two backup diesel generators on standby even when a reactor is in a stable condition called ''cold shutdown'' or undergoing fuel replacement. The agency's previous rule that required the suppliers to have just one diesel generator on standby in situations like the cold shutdown was ''not enough, I must say,'' agency spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama said at a news conference.

Source

This is the first I've heard of this. Even after Fukushima, they never thought maybe 1 generator WAS NOT ENOUGH?!



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thanks for the analysis


Just to quantify what has been admitted to being in #4 spent fuel pool:


No. 4 reactor, which was out of service at the time of the quake and had some 548, still-hot fuel assemblies cooling in a pool of water on its upper floor.


I say admitted because:


TEPCO had the capacity to more than double the number of fuel assemblies stored in the reactors from 3,998 at the time of the quake to 8,310 assemblies. "They were headed for dense pack and that would have made the situation even worse," said Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University physicist and former U.S. adviser on nuclear security risks in the Clinton administration.


That there were "only" 548 assemblies in #4 stikes others as suprising too given TEPCO's past and recent history of pushing the envelope to cut costs. Members of ATS might call is suspect, but bad enough with those numbers..


Richard Meserve, who was chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1999 to 2003 and oversaw its response to the September 11 attacks, said it is too soon to judge what has happened at Fukushima until more reviews take place. If anything, he said, he was surprised the reactors' spent fuel pools were not fuller, given the ages of the plants.


Source

The thought that there are spent fuel rods littering the ground ejected from the pools is disturbing to say the least. I know we all feel so much better they moved them around covered some of them up with a bulldozer.


Thanks again!



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rbrtj

God bless Japan... they need it right now.

We still have one China Syndrome experiment in full operation (#3), one spent fuel pool scattered across the countryside (#3), two meltdowns in progress (#1, #2), and 5 spent fuel pools threatening (#1, #2, #4, #5, #6)... all amongst the probability of more 'aftershocks', and all at the mercy of radiation levels from any of the others not making workable conditions impossible.

This is still a level 8 disaster...


TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by Destinyone


SOURCE: NHK World


The buildings all appear to be melting .. disintegrating.

To get a better look at the buildings I applied:

Exposure +.90
Offset -0.1898
Gamma correction .70




posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I just wanted to take a minute to say something about the Iodine and Cesium being found in milk. This is going to apply more to the northerly states (Vermont) Very few dairy cows are going to be on pasture at this time of year they will be being feed crops harvested during the last growing season. The vast majority of this feed will have been kept covered since harvest with the express purpose of preventing precipitation from coming into contact with the feed.
The dairy cattle's water supply will have been a well plumbed to a water tank most likely also covered. Dairy cattle are not normally allowed to drink from rivers or other sources of ground water as their many hooves quickly churn the ground to mud and their udders are prone to infection.
For the most part dairy cattle currently producing milk will always have their feed brought to them and those you may see on pasture are either younger stock or in the later stage of pregnancy during which they are not milked.
Dairy Cattle eat Corn, Alfalfa (Hay) and a little soybeans as a supplement. The first feed the would be eating grown this year would be right after 1st cutting of Alfalfa in your area (often right after corn is planted).
I'm not sure exactly what this means but I am sure that a dairy cow in Vermont is not going to be out on pasture eating great quantities of grass that has been dusted with fallout because the grass isn't there right now and the Dairy Cows mostly never are.



edit on 4/9/2011 by iforget because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet
The 'mystery' rectangular platform is likely a swimming float, probably for the employees to get out and blow off their lunch hour.

I've seen a few in lakes in the US a few times, nothing ominous or nefarious.

And how many of those swimming floats were situated right in front of huge sluice-gates connecting with nuclear power plants?


I guess it's alright if you like your water "hot".



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Photo of tsunami wave hitting Fukushima



pi c


TEPCO confirmed that the 6 reactors at Fukushima Daiichi power plant had been under as much as 5 meters of water.

TEPCO also revealed video footage taken by a plant worker during the tsunami. The man captured the images with his mobile phone while fleeing for higher ground.

The footage shows the waves pounding against cliffs to a height of more than 20 meters.

NHK

below (right click then view image)





fixed link...maybe
edit on 9-4-2011 by DancedWithWolves because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aponi

Also Saturday, Tohoku Electric Power Co. said a human mistake apparently caused the only functioning diesel generator at the Higashidori nuclear power plant in Aomori Prefecture to leak fuel, forcing the utility to stop it at one point following the 7.1-magnitude aftershock late Thursday of the March 11 deadly earthquake.

Source



What the stuck?

I don't know how bad it was leaking, but diesel doesn't ignite that easy like gasoline does. You can pour it accidentally over the hot exhaust-pipe and it doesn't ignite. Don't try this at home, you get lots of smoke. (I even know people that have a diesel fuel-line straight into their exhaust-system with a small pump connected to it to irritate persistent tailgaters at the push of a button
)

But why didn't they take precautions in stead of shutting it off, like keeping an eye on it, do a little improvising by for example diverting the leaking fuel and make preparations for a "pit stop"? You can work on it while it's running when it concerns external systems like the fuel supply especially when it is a lager diesel-engine. (I once worked with a bulldozer and you could replace the head-gasket for every single cylinder which had also it's own fuel-line)
One problem could be the fuel-pressure, but if you are an experienced mechanic you can prepare everything in advance and you can shut it down very shortly and replace parts within minutes.

If the main diesel-pump broke down, it was leaking massively and it would cause too much power-loss, there would be indeed no other option than to shut it down.

But shutting the thing just off?



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Thanks for the analysis


Just to quantify what has been admitted to being in #4 spent fuel pool:


No. 4 reactor, which was out of service at the time of the quake and had some 548, still-hot fuel assemblies cooling in a pool of water on its upper floor.

These 548 newly added fuel assemblies in the cooling pool were in addition to the 783 assemblies already there, giving a total of 1331 assemblies in the pool. (If TEPCO are being honest.)

TEPCO fuel chart for Fukushima Dai-ichi


I say admitted because:


TEPCO had the capacity to more than double the number of fuel assemblies stored in the reactors from 3,998 at the time of the quake to 8,310 assemblies. "They were headed for dense pack and that would have made the situation even worse," said Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University physicist and former U.S. adviser on nuclear security risks in the Clinton administration.


That there were "only" 548 assemblies in #4 stikes others as suprising too given TEPCO's past and recent history of pushing the envelope to cut costs. Members of ATS might call is suspect, but bad enough with those numbers..


Richard Meserve, who was chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1999 to 2003 and oversaw its response to the September 11 attacks, said it is too soon to judge what has happened at Fukushima until more reviews take place. If anything, he said, he was surprised the reactors' spent fuel pools were not fuller, given the ages of the plants.


Source

The thought that there are spent fuel rods littering the ground ejected from the pools is disturbing to say the least. I know we all feel so much better they moved them around covered some of them up with a bulldozer.


Good points.

I guess Richard Meserve found TEPCO's numbers "surprising", because he could calculate how much fuel the reactors had used since their inception, and knew no spent fuel had yet been moved off the site.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbillshow
reply to post by windwaker
 


I started reading ATS with this incident and on this thread and my opinion is about 20% of it is good solid fact, 25% good and supportable speculation, 25% unsupportable and/or tinfoil speculation and 30% idle chatter.

The 35% fact and good speculation make it pretty worthwhile.



45%?



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Question for you Redneck. I noticed the temps you quoted in your analysis. They are all well below boiling. If a core is in melt down, shouldnt those readings be much higher?



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by rbrtj

God bless Japan... they need it right now.

We still have one China Syndrome experiment in full operation (#3), one spent fuel pool scattered across the countryside (#3), two meltdowns in progress (#1, #2), and 5 spent fuel pools threatening (#1, #2, #4, #5, #6)... all amongst the probability of more 'aftershocks', and all at the mercy of radiation levels from any of the others not making workable conditions impossible.

This is still a level 8 disaster...


TheRedneck


Everything is fine Redneck, don't worry your scruffy head! I'm sure the nuke industry will cover this up nicely so we can go on about being happy units of consumption.

I firmly believe that they have now accepted the risk assessment (200,000+ cancers) and are willing to live with the predicted casualties. This is only superficially about "saving face". The real determinate in this decision, I believe, is financial. The impact on the global economy + nuclear industry will be too great if they have to admit (via expanded evacuations) that the situation is worse than status quo. Industry is too wedded to nuclear power to have major disruption in the production system, and financial markets are too volatile to accept major weakness from Japan.

Plan A: To this end they are doing everything possible to 1) avoid another "visible" explosion, even if it means higher casualties via slow radiation release, 2) control the real data on radiation exposure, 3) appear to return to normalcy as fast as possible.

I believe they have written off as "acceptable losses" several hundred thousand people here and are willing to keep them "in situ" rather than expose the industry and markets. They will let the lens of history share the story via leaks over time, deal with cancers via their healh care system, and that they will obfuscate the truth and manage this over time. The markets can absorb a slow leak but they are unwilling to accept a fast one.

If they aren't able to maintain a slow leak and if we do get a BOOM then they will have to change their strategy, ie: Plan B = all bets are off.

__________________

The following casualty assessment, prepared by Chris Busby and linked from Fairewinds is excellent and I strongly recommend folks take a few minutes and read it. A couple of notes:

1) He admits the exposures are conservative and based on the data to date.
2) More ground level contaminate measurements are required, especially of Alpha particles.
3) The estimates should scale up if the radiation moves over more populated areas ie:Toyko. If this is the case, the assessment could move into the millions (this is toward the end of the report).
4) The estimates will scale upward if evacuations are NOT conducted.

* Radiation Experts Determine 200,000 Cancers Likely from Fukushima

External dose rates in Fukushima prefecture March 16/17th, 2011 µSv/h


From the report:


Other areas and some caveats.
First, it should be clear that the surface contamination calculated from the gamma dose rates is twice to three times the highest level referred to by the IAEA in their bulletins. It is clear that the authorities do not reveal the full picture: something which also occurred following Chernobyl. I note that the IAEA stated that the maximum level was 0.9MBqm -2 . Was this because above 1MBq there would have had to have been some consequent action? The lower IAEA level has been used for the cancer risk calculation where the Tondel method was employed and the conservative low dose of 2 µ Sv/h for the absolute risk methods. But it is clear that the doses are much higher than this in the 100km zone, mostly between 6 and 14 µ Sv/h. They are particularly high to the North West out to 60km. Again, this is about twice to three times the dose rate we have used. Therefore the overall cancer yield is likely to also be twice to three times as high. But there is a problem. The ECRR risk model assumed a biphasic dose response relationship, and so there is linearity of risk only over the low dose region.

For the high exposures modelled here there will be significant saturation, that is the proportionate cancer risk will fall as the dose increases. This is for a number of reasons but partly because there will be competing causes of early death.

Second, it must be understood that unlike ICRP, the ECRR model does not only model cancer. Studies of populations exposed internally show that a wide spectrum of diseases and conditions follow; these include heart disease, diabetes, and all the normal conditions and illnesses that contribute to mortality and morbidity. In addition,studies of nuclear Test veterans, Chernobyl-affected populations and those exposed to Uranium show us that alarming increases in congenital disease in children and grandchildren are to be expected. The ECRR2010 report should be studied for details.

Third, these predictions are based on the assumption that the population will remain in the 100km zone for one year. If they are evacuated inside one month, the yield will be much less, though not in proportion to the period of exposure since it is clear that the initial exposures were high and with weathering and decays the exposures will become less as time goes on.

The predictions for other areas can be scaled according to the exposures given in Table 4. It must be understood that although the doses and assumed contamination is lower in these prefectures, the populations are enormous, and therefore the cancer and health detriment yield will also be very great.

Finally, all these predictions are based on the assumption that the spectrum of internal exposures is the same as weapons test fallout (ECRR Absolute) or Chernobyl Sweden(Tondel). There may be more uranium and/or plutonium in the Fukushima spectrum and this may affect the risk by increasing it. They are also based on the contamination reports to date and will have to be altered when the more accurate reports become available or if there is more contamination.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. The ECRR risk model has been applied to the 3 million people living in the100km radius of the Fukushima catastrophe. Assuming these people remain living there for one year the number of excess cancers predicted by the method is approximately 200,000 in the next 50 years with 100,000 being diagnosed in the next 10 years. If they are evacuated immediately, the number will fall by a significant amount. For those 7 million living between 100km and 200km from the site, the predicted number of cancers is slightly greater with 220,000 extra cancers in the next 50 years and about 100,000 being expressed in the next ten years. These predictions are based on the ECRR risk model and also the findings of cancer risk on Sweden after the Chernobyl accident.

2. The ICRP model predicts 2838 extra cancers in the 100km population. The eventual yield will therefore be another test of the two risk models.

3. Calculations based on official gamma dose rates published by the Japanese Ministry MEXT can be used to back calculate surface contamination at the positions of the measurements using accepted scientific methods. The results show that the IAEA reports have significantly under reported the contamination levels

4. It is recommended that urgent attention is given to making isotope specific ground contamination measurements.

5. It is recommended that populations living within the 100km zone to the NorthWest of the site are immediately evacuated and the zone is made an exclusion zone.

6. The ICRP risk model should be abandoned and all political decisions shouldbe made on the basis of the recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk www.euradcom.org. This is the conclusion of the eminent radiation risk experts who signed the 2009 Lesvos Declaration

7. Investigation and legal sanctions should be brought against those who knowingly held back data from the public

8. Investigation and legal sanctions should be brought against those minimizing the health effects of this event in the media.


I especially like recommendations 7 and 8.
edit on 9-4-2011 by Wertwog because: cleaned up some layout stuff -- sorry for the long post!



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Okay back from work... is the planet still here or did we lose a chunk?



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well, Antarctica totally melted last night and no-one can seem to find Japan. Tepco, says all is well tho, so it's just another day I guess!



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens

That's how I am judging the condition of the containments... yes, if you were take a direct temperature reading of a meltdown it would be in the thousands of degrees. If we were to take direct readings even of normal operation it would be in the hundreds of degrees. So we are obviously not getting accurate readings. Instead of reading the corium itself, we are seeing the effect of corium temperatures on the exterior of the concrete structure surrounding it.

In the case of #3, there is no intact concrete structure... as I mentioned, you can see right down the metal tube that was once the heart of the RPV. That is another indication that we are not getting readings of the reactions, but of the area above the reaction. The reaction in the case of #3 is therefore underneath the building, inside the bedrock. This also explains the connection between tidal conditions and oceanic measurements I noted many many pages back.

Also, you can see from the earliest temperature readings on #3 that there was a sudden drop at the moment these readings were begun. That could indicate that temperatures prior to that were reading the temperature of the corium itself, or at least of the column of air rising off it.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Found a link to data that might be helpful


Fukushima monitor files (pressure, waterlevel, temperature and major events) translated from METI

link



new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 625  626  627    629  630  631 >>

log in

join