It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by zorgon
JNA spokesman said also that 6 more workers exposed to radiation exceeding limits.
Originally posted by mrbillshow
Originally posted by mendel101
Originally posted by mrbillshow
Originally posted by mendel101
As I remember, after reactor building 4 exploded they first cooled down the reactor 4 spend fuel pool with sea water. Now they are topping it up with sweet water. Sea water and fresh water don't mix very well and the fresh water, being lighter, floats on top. My guess is that the highly contaminated salt water was not sampled, only the relatively uncontaminated sweet water upper layer.
In other words, the 400 cc sample may not be a representative water sample. Therefore statements about the intactness of the rods are shakey.
Assuming much of the radiation is coming from the fission of fuel rods that melted when the water level dropped I would guess the water at the top of the reactor to be more radiated then that at the bottom.
More radiated perhaps, but not more concentrated in radioisotopes (which is what they measured).
Do radioisotopes fall to the bottom of the reactor?
U.S. sends water storage tanks, trailer to Fukushima nuclear plant
TOKYO, April 14, Kyodo
The U.S. Department of Energy is shipping five large stainless steel tanks for storing water contaminated with radioactive materials and a tractor trailer with a shielded tank to the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as part of its assistance, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo said Thursday.
Details regarding the size of the tanks and expected arrival date were not immediately known.
LINK to full article
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Radiation surges above 4's fuel pool search.japantimes.co.jp...
By KANAKO TAKAHARA
Radiation has risen to high levels above the spent-fuel pool at reactor No. 4 and its temperature is rising, the nuclear safety agency said Wednesday, indicating the fuel rods have been further damaged and are emitting radioactive substances.
The radiation level 6 meters above the spent-fuel storage pool at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was measured at 84 millisieverts per hour Tuesday. Normally, it's 0.1 microsievert.
The temperature of the pool was 90 degrees, compared with 84 before it caught fire on March 15 in a suspected hydrogen explosion, the agency said.
"It's quite an amount," figured Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. was unsure whether the surge in radiation was being caused by the spent fuel rods or radioactive material leaking from the reactor's pressure vessel.
"The temperature was rising and we don't know the water level of the pool, so we thought it would be safer to pour water," said NISA's Nishiyama said.
Tepco said it is planning to move the spent fuel rods out of the storage pools at reactors 1 through 4 so they can be moved to a safer location, although details on when and how haven't been decided yet.
Some of the options Tepco is considering include pulling the rods out with a crane or building a special structure nearby to pull them out.
But these tasks will be tough because the site is so radioactive and cluttered with debris from last month's hydrogen explosions. Meanwhile, the water level of radiation-contaminated water in the tunnel-like trench at Unit 2 dropped by 4.3 cm Wednesday morning after Tepco started pumping lethally radioactive water from its flooded turbine room into a nearby storage facility the day before.
Peter Cervelli from the YVO has requested that you email him. He wants to ask you some questions.
And to the rest of us, the YVO is interested in what we say. Peter Cervelli has been reading ATS to gauge the public's perception and opinion.
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
Page Contact Information: firstname.lastname@example.org
The World Health Organization says no new public health measures are needed to counter the higher levels of radiation being emitted from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. On Tuesday, Japanese authorities raised their rating of the severity of the accident at the nuclear plant to seven. WHO says the severity of the releases of radioactive material at the Fukushima plant is a cause for concern. But, in terms of public health, it says the countermeasures taken soon after the accident in mid-March, are still good.
"Those that are in place, things related to the evacuation zone, the relocation of certain populations, the measures associated with the early intake of potassium iodine pills for the population that has been identified by the Japanese government as appropriate, the issues related to food safety and controls -- things like that…Those public health recommendations are still valid," she said.
On a related issue, Neira, says WHO does not see any need to impose a ban on the export and consumption of food from Japan. She says no food is being grown in the contaminated areas. And, she notes, Japanese authorities test food before it is exported to make sure it is safe.
Originally posted by JustMike
Message: supporting these evacuees and interacting with them is not only correct, it is also safe. Now, I don't claim to know if this is literally true in every case, but certainly the Royal Couple seem to be making a deliberate effort to defray such concerns and de-stigmatize these evacuees.
I feel this subtle shift in language to speaking of "refugees" is quite telling. I'd have to read back and see if reports of the Emperor's visits tended to use the word "evacuees" or "refugees" but I recall the former rather than the latter. Even so, as "refugees" has been used in a report concerning a very important member of the Imperial House, it can be taken as reflecting something of the Imperial perspective on this continuing disaster -- especially in relation to nuclear refugees and all that implies.
Apologies for the long post. Thanks to anyone who has had the patience to read through it!
edit on 14/4/11 by JustMike because: of some minor clarifications.
Originally posted by Tworide
Originally posted by Tworide
Originally posted by Destinyone
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by Destinyone
10 Bar = 145.038 PSI.
Given the massive size of these vessels, that is a hell of a lot of pressure. Especially if it is water pressure.
Found this graph on the same site, and another one listed below first one. Maybe you can make heads or tails of them.
And numbers chart.
Well, this spreadsheet is for internal consumption of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency & Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry, it's on a secure server that they didn't password protect the files. I don't know how long this link will be available!
A rough transliteration of the spread sheet column headings: a=date, b=atomic furnace level A (mm), c=nuclear reactor water level B (mm), d=atomic furnace pressure force A(Mpa g), e=atomic furnace pressure force B (Mpa g), f=pressure vessel water temp (ºC), g=lower pressure vessel temp (ºC), h=DW (Mpa abs), i=SC (Mpa abs), j=DW CAMS (Sv/h), k=SC CAMS (Sv/h)
On the bottom of the spreadsheet are selection boxes, starting from the left, clicking the first box gives you the spreadsheet for the reactor selected from 3/15, the second box gives you a chart of pressure force A&B, the third box is a chart of pressure vessel water temp upper & lower, the forth box will give you a spreadsheet of readings from ~3/15. The left right arrows on the bottom will scroll the bottom boxes to the next reactor, using the same sequence for the display. Reactors 1,2,3,5,6 are on this spread sheet. 4 is not there!
Oh, and thank Masato-san for posting all this info, his twitter address is on the spreadsheet!edit on 14-4-2011 by Tworide because: (no reason given)edit on 14-4-2011 by Tworide because: (no reason given)edit on 14-4-2011 by Tworide because: spelling
An addendum: There is a pressure correction factor to be applied to pressure readings as follows:
"Reactor pressure until midnight on April 6, the correct list of each number based on TEPCO announced April 06, 1.111 after correction with the value multiplied by the number."
That's a transliteration of the notice in red on the spreadsheet.
This Powerpoint slideshow Anatomy of a Tragedy: Fukushima Dai-Ichi shows in detail how the Fukushima reactors worked under normal conditions, and then describes how the events of March 11 led to the currently unfolding crisis.
If you have trouble viewing the slideshow with Internet Explorer, try another browser.
"To prevent further contamination of the sea from radiation leaks, TEPCO will install iron sheets as well as ''silt fence'' barriers close to the No. 2 reactor water intake and other areas near the plant. The utility will also place 100 tons of sandbags at a breakwater, according to the agency."
Press Release (Apr 14,2011)
The result of the analysis of the water in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
On April 12th 2011, in order to examine the condition of the spent fuel
pool of Unit 4 of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, we collected
200ml of the water in the pool with the concrete pumping vehicle.
On April 13th 2011, we conducted a nuclide analysis of radioactive
materials with the water and as a result have detected some radioactive
materials as shown in the exhibit.
We are planning to evaluate the result in further detail.
there is a barge with a crane between the inner and outer breakwaters, what is outrageous assuming that this is what it is doing there?
Russia nuclear chief says Japan exaggerates crisis
Sanya, China (AFP) April 13, 2011 - The disaster at the Fukushima atomic power plant cannot be compared to Chernobyl, Russia's nuclear chief said on Wednesday, suggesting Tokyo was exaggerating the emergency, possibly for financial reasons.
"It is hard for me to assess why the Japanese colleagues have taken this decision," Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's state nuclear agency Rosatom, told reporters in the southern Chinese city of Sanya on the eve of the BRICS summit.
"I suspect this is more of a financial issue than a nuclear one."
Earlier this week Japan upgraded its month-old nuclear emergency to a maximum seven on an international scale of atomic crises, placing it on a par with the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
Kiriyenko appeared to suggest that the Japanese authorities were seeking to reduce the burden on insurance companies.