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.
although more than 2,000 of them were made, sources familiar with the matter said Monday.
The estimates were made using the Nuclear Safety Technology Center's networked computer system known as SPEEDI, or system sor prediction of environmental emergency dose information, developed and operated with a budget of about 12.8 billion yen.
A radioactive isotope of strontium has been detected in American milk for the first time since Japan’s nuclear disaster—in a sample from Hilo, Hawaii—the Environmental Protection Agency revealed yesterday.
“We have completed our first strontium milk sample analysis and found trace amounts of strontium-89 in a milk sample from Hilo, Hawaii,” EPA said in a statement emailed to me yesterday afternoon. “The level was approximately 27,000 times below the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
In fact, the FDA has no Derived Intervention Level for Strontium-89. See FDA statement at the bottom of this post.
EPA posted the test result at epa.gov in a pdf.
The two man-made isotopes of strontium—Sr-89 and Sr-90—are among the most dangerous products of nuclear fission to human and animal health. Both are “bone-seekers,” chemically similar to calcium, that collect in bone and marrow, where they are known to cause cancer. They are particularly dangerous to the growing bones of fetuses and children.
EPA found 1.4 picoCuries per liter of strontium-89 in a milk sample collected in Hilo on April 4.
The FDA’s Derived Intervention Level—the standard observed for food—for a related isotope, Strontium-90, is 4,400 pCi/L. The EPA’s Maximum Contamination Level for Sr-89 in drinking water is 20 pCi/L. (For more on the difference between EPA and FDA standards, as well as more on the health implications of ingesting radionuclides, see “Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?“)
Some bloggers and activists have accused EPA of finding and then concealing plutonium and strontium in U.S. test results. The accusations seem to stem from searches of EPA’s more complicated Envirofacts database, which EPA made available to the public only recently in response to the Fukushima disaster. The database had previously been restricted to scientists.
Originally posted by Silverlok
I am reading through that NRC report , and I am just blown away at how clueless some of those guys are : no info , having to use news reports, and google earth , they don't even have the plant lay-out , or design drawings( and don't want to bother the ever so busy Tepco people while they are busily trying to 'solve the problem')
A couple of things caught my attention :
page 21 line 18 :
" Member Corradini: And so the reason -- the public reason given for this injection is?"
wow , the 'public reason' would seem in that circle something that needs to be clarified, and is obviously something they are use to being different from the real reasons
page 22 line 3:
Member Banerjee: "Can you explain that to me ? I was also puzzled by that . How does injecting nitrogen--"
Mister Thorp: "It's not clear to me. I don't wan to dwell on it .It was --"
Mister Ruland: " what was the question ?"
Mister Thorp: " It was a discussion of partial pressures. He doesn't understand why injection of nitrogen would necessarily be a mitigating factor for the potential for explosion."
This Banerjee character is on the NRC and doesn't understand the nitrogen injection, and the Thorp fellow says it's not clear to him?, seriously ? did they all come to the meeting in the same clown car.
but this is the best :
page 19 line 20:
Mister Thorp: "...TEPCO...has announced publicly that they estimated the core damage in Unit 1 as 70%, Unit 2 as 30%,and Unit 3 as 25%. These figure were based in their statements on radiation levels that they measured in the units on March 14th and 15th"
Member Bley: "We don't know what that means right..." (laughter) "...I certainly don't know what that means "
Member Corradini: " just to give you a historical connection, if I remember correctly, the few days following TMI a number of laboratories were asked to do analysis, and all came in with damage based on a zircwater reaction on something on the order of 50 to 70 percent. Is that -- I am trying to understand what that means. Is it a zircwater reaction analysis? Is it a radioisotope analysis? What is it ?
Mister Thorp; " We really don't know. They said it was based on radiation levels that they had --"
Hillarious , Tepco even has The NRC laughing at the utter ridiculousness, but since the TMI incident lasted less than 3 hours of 'dry time' and all three fukushima reactors had more than 7 hours , it's reasonable to assume large if not total core loss , just from that fact
The scary thing comes on l page 36 line 1:
Mister Sullivan states that the Japanese storage pools are stacked in a way different from U.S. pools and that where one would suspect a U.S. pool to boil off in about 6 to eight days , the calculations for the Japanese pools show it would have taken 30 to possibly 100 days.
That is rather frightening as it implies that U.S. pools would dry-out and have a problems 5 to 10 times faster than the fukushima pools ( except four )
Originally posted by SFA437
Originally posted by mrbillshow
reply to post by Moshpet
"The reactor is cold, compared to the fuel pool."
Wrong. The top of the fuel pool is open that's why it shows hot, what you call the reactor core is the lid to the primary containment vessel.
It's basic mistakes like this that renders much of the analysis on this thread unusable.
A couple pages ago you agreed with Arnie that the fuel pool underwent a fission explosion which blew the fuel rods all over the place and now you're saying they're all still there which is why it is hot.
Please clarify which side of the discussion you are on.
Originally posted by mrbillshow
I agreed with Gundersen that it was possible it was parts of the fuel pool that were ejected during the R3 explosion, as opposed to the reactor core. It made a sense and explained other issues such as Tepco continuing to inject water into the R3 core and the apparent ability of the core to hold some pressure.
Originally posted by mrbillshow
The reports we saw was that the water level in the R3 fuel pool had dropped considerably at that time. I'm not an expert on these issues, just as you aren't an expert on nuclear/fission explosions,
Originally posted by mrbillshowand it seems reasonable to me that if the hydrogen in the building ignited it would have driven down into the fuel pool, reached the reduced water level which would have been like hitting 10 feet of concrete, bounced back up taking with it all the exposed materials including the partially or fully melted fuel rods and their assemblies
Originally posted by mrbillshowI don't know if the combustion or heat would have been enought to start a fission reaction
Originally posted by mrbillshowbut it seems it would have been high enough to obliterate and maybe partially vaporize the fuel sending it up into the atmosphere to be deposited up to a couple miles away.
Originally posted by mrbillshowIt also seems reasonable that the rods below the water line while maybe crushed due to the concussion could otherwise still be there at the bottom of the fuel pool, radiating the heat that we see in the heat images.
Originally posted by mrbillshowThat technology, if I follow it correctly, only registers the heat signature on the surfaces it is measuring.
Originally posted by mrbillshowThat is why I said those images aren't measuring the temp of the reactor cores as you claimed, but the lid of the primary containment vessel or the dry well which might not be hot enough to register high on the thermal imagery.
Originally posted by mrbillshowUnfortunately I do not have the time to review and correct all the unsupported assumptions and consequent illogical conclusions that are rampant on this thread, so for the most part I'll leave you to revel in your mutual admiration society.
Originally posted by mrbillshowIMO if people understood that they could quit preening and get down to the business of making something happen with the info collected here.
Originally posted by mrbillshow
IMO if people understood that they could quit preening and get down to the business of making something happen with the info collected here.
The Japanese government has moved to crack down on independent reportage and criticism of the government’s policies in the wake of the disaster by deciding what citizens may or may not talk about in public.
Certain words disrupt the blogosphere in the same way that earthquakes shake the planet. And that makes them ripe for an earthquake-like magnitude rating.
Blast may have helped cool rods
A hydrogen gas explosion at the No. 4 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on March 15 may have helped prevent spent fuel rods from melting down by causing a flow of water into the pool the rods are stored in, according to research by Tokyo Electric Power Co. It seems that shocks from the explosion damaged a water gate and caused water to flow into the pool from a neighboring part of the facility, TEPCO said.
The explosion, which the company assumes was caused by hydrogen gas, was so strong that the outer walls of the reactor building collapsed. At the time of the explosion, the spent fuel rods had been overheating. If that had continued, the company said, the rods might have melted, spewing a far larger quantity of radioactive materials into the air than actually happened.
Currently, TEPCO is injecting water into the pool with a pump originally meant to pour fresh concrete. Although about 70 tons of water is assumed to be evaporating every day from the pool, company officials said even considering evaporation, the water level is not rising as much as expected.
The utility believes one possible answer is that water pumped into the spent rod pool is flowing back across the damaged gate into the No. 4 reactor well located next to the pool.
When the earthquake occurred, the No. 4 reactor was under repair. Covers of the pressure vessel and containment vessel were open at the time and the whole of the well, including the pressure vessel, was filled with water.
The water was injected to allow the removal and transfer of nuclear fuel rods from the pressure vessel to the pool without exposing them to air.
TEPCO assumes that a series of incidents occurred in the following way:
-- The water level inside the pool decreased and parts of the spent fuel rods became exposed.
-- Metal covering the overheated fuel rods reacted chemically with water and discharged a large quantity of hydrogen gas.
-- The gas was ignited and exploded, damaging the gate.
-- As a result, hundreds of tons of water entered the pool and the overheating of fuel rods ended.
(Apr. 29, 2011)
The plant shut down on 27 April at 4.36 pm and units 2 and 3 achieved cold shutdown at 2.43 am and 5.45 am on 28 April respectively. TVA said that unit 1 was was being cooled and the priority now was to get that reactor into cold shutdown as well.
McCollum said the reactors, now being cooled by backup diesel power, are safe. He said the spent fuel pools also are being cooled by backup diesel power and are safe.
The loss of those transmission lines also caused Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant to lose power. When the plant generates power, it uses some of that power and the excess is sent out on the transmission lines. When those transmission lines can’t take power, it causes the reactors to trip, according to TVA officials.
Unit One is a 1,065 MWe BWR built by General Electric. Construction started on Unit One September 12, 1966 and originally came online on December 20, 1973. It is licensed to operate through December 20, 2033. However, Unit One was shut down for a year after a fire in 1975 damaged the unit. The unit was subsequently repaired and operated from 1976 through 1985, when all three Browns Ferry units were shut down for operational and management issues.
Units Two and Three were restarted in 1991 and 1995, respectively. Starting in 2002, TVA undertook an effort to restore Unit One to operational status, spending $1.8 billion to do so.
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved the restart of Unit 1 on May 15, 2007 and the reactor was brought up to criticality on May 22 for the first time since March 3, 1985. During initial testing after restart, on May 24, 2007, a leaky hydraulic control pipe in the turbine hall burst, spilling about 600 gallons of non-radioactive fluid, and the newly restarted reactor was temporarily powered down.
Reactor power-up and tests resumed on May 27 and the unit started supplying power to the electricity supply grid on June 2, 2007, reaching full power on June 8. The Browns Ferry restart is expected to pay for itself in five years.
The March 22, 1975 fire started when a worker using a candle to search for air leaks accidentally set a temporary cable seal on fire.
At Browns Ferry, foamed plastic covered on both sides with two coats of a flame retardant paint was used as a firestop. The fire spread from the temporary seal into the foamed plastic, causing significant damage to the reactor control cabling in the station.
Originally posted by AlaskanDad
Japan prime minister's nuclear adviser resigns
TOKYO: A senior nuclear adviser to Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan submitted his resignation Friday, saying the government had ignored his advice and failed to follow the law.
Toshiso Kosako, a Tokyo University professor who was named last month as an advisor to Kan, said the government had only taken ad hoc measures to contain the crisis at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant.
After reading this one can see why Japan needs to stifle the press.
As far as the assignment of a level seven rating, which placed Fukushima on the same level as Chernobyl, this may not be in line with reality. While I don’t want to minimize the seriousness of the recent event, there are some clear distinctions from Chernobyl that need to be mentioned.
First, evidence suggests the level of radioactivity released from Chernobyl was 10 times greater.
Second, because debris from the graphite/uranium fuel fire at Chernobyl entered the jet stream, a significant amount of radioactive material was deposited over a much greater geographical area than the more localized radiation releases at Fukushima.
Third, during Chernobyl, individuals living near the site were not evacuated for days after the accident and continued to eat contaminated foods. Following the Fukushima event, Japanese authorities promptly evacuated local populations and took active measures to prevent contaminated food and water from being consumed by local populations.
While there have been significant releases of radioactive material at Fukushima through airborne and contaminated water dispersion, the overall impact on human and environmental exposure pathways appears to be meaningfully less than Chernobyl due to the comparatively lower levels of radioactive release, prompt evacuation orders, and the dilutive effects of the Pacific Ocean.
Units 3 and 2 at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant achieved "cold shutdown" Thursday at 2:43 a.m. CDT and 5:45 a.m. CDT, respectively. "Cold shutdown" is achieved when the reactor coolant system temperature is cooled to 212 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Unit 1 is being cooled.
The three Browns Ferry units automatically shut down on Wednesday, April 27, at 4:36 p.m. CDT when severe weather damaged TVA's transmission system near the plant. Systems operated as designed to safely shutdown the units.
All three units at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant have been shut down safely.