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: 931.htm
513
<< 928  929  930    932  933  934 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Anmarie96
 



Originally posted by imlite
Fukushima MUTANT RAT!!!!






I went to find this picture to compare. It looks as tho they have put something on the side of R1

P.S. That is not a rat, it was a fox.
edit on 10-6-2011 by berkeleygal because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
Ok folds I'm at work so I can't do a detailed post but one of the few people here who thinks on scales similar to mine has been researching and digging on this topic and he came across something that us actually referen Ed in and old ATS thread and I thought it bears discussion.

One o the things we are concerned about is the release of radionuclides of various types. What we need is a barrier of some sort. What about this?


Originally posted by purelogik

This occurred in late summer in South Carolina, in extremely high humidity. Polypropelene (PP) film on 50K ft. rolls 20ft wide was being slit and transferred to multiple smaller spools. The film was taken off the main roll at high speed, flowed upwards 20ft to overhead rollers, passed horizontally 20ft and then downwards to the slitting device, where it was spooled onto shorter rolls. The whole operation formed a cubical shaped tent, with two walls and a ceiling approximately 20ft square. The spools ran at 1000ft/min, or about 10MPH. The PP film had been manufactured with dissimilar surface structure on opposing faces. Contact electrification can occur even in similar materials if the surface textures or micro-structures are significantly different. The generation of a large imbalance of electrical surface-charge during unspooling was therefor not unexpected, and is a common problem in this industry. "Static cling" in the megavolt range!

On entering the factory floor and far from the equipment, Mr. Swenson's 200KV/ft handheld electrometer was found to slam to full scale. When he attempted to walk through the corridor formed by the moving film, he was stopped about half way through by an "invisible wall." He could lean all his weight forward but was unable to pass. He observed a fly get pulled into the charged, moving plastic, and speculates that the e-fields might have been strong enough to suck in birds!
source

would any "experts" like to comment or explain? is it possible to reproduce this effect on a larger or smaller scale?

id like to go there and experience it myself.


Would be quite the feat of engineering, but we need to think beyond current structures.

Silverlok, you still around?

Any other highly educated people have input?


I have never seen a field that strong , but due to an odd clerical error that i failed to correct out of curiosity, I did work in a cutter plant for two weeks ( the company called it a "flexibles" plant ) , and the static was a problem and actually added significant heat to the environment. In fact the fields were so pervasive in the spooling/cutting section of the plant ( the storage area had nil) they would make some ( it was pretty rare according to security ) odd people "invisible " to the radar/infrared detectors that would open and close the bay doors into and out of various sections of the plant . those people had to be given special active radio em badges so that the doors could "see" them I was one of those oddballs...

But more importantly that kind of charge I do not think would work in the water , and in the air it may work but plastic does not last long in outside , and I am sure the moist seaside air would dampen the effect , but inside the buildings one might well be able to rig something though humidity might still scotch the show....

I do know that the Japanese have spent the last two years developing a fabric that removes radioactive heavy metals from the water slightly better ( if the claims are true ) than seaweed , and that surely should be in use around the plant

I wonder though if they could , using fans create a "dry" air space and set up a weird static rig like that to at places around the plant to help alleviate some of the air born particles problem ,



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anmarie96
Did they spray something on unit 1? Or did we have some other event? Web Cam

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)


i asked that couple of pages ago but have had no reply, it looks like tarp or censoring



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
Last of 4 new vids...this one is also less than a minute...At the very end, what are those men doing? TIA



Des

(finally found it des:-)

it looks as if those bags are the extra large commercial grade zeolite ( probably from right there in Fukushima) bags like the one being lowered into the water here

the images is grainy but the bags can't weight more than a few hundred pounds why does it take four guys to lift it ...oh yeah .. radiation zaps the strength, but to answer your question

I have a feeling that they are going to spray the ground with concrete , plaster or the green sealant on either side of the zeolite wall and create a "filter pit"

we use to have something when I was a kid on the chicken farm for separating the sellable solids from the ammonia nasty corrosive liquids. If I remember correctly a very similar scheme was recommended by zorgon a while back or the mod with charlie rambo sheen ( although he was talking about a sea pool ) .

if they dump radioactive water on one side and pump it from the other they can significantly reduce the radioactive content and thus go get more by using the 're-freshed water " to help cool the melt down in progress here there an everywhere



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok

Originally posted by Purplechive
reply to post by Purplechive
 


Now I know I'm posting myself and talking to myself here...

But the Unit 3 bottom of RPV temperature readings have me concerned.

0n 6/3/11 the temperature was 149.7 Celsius (301.46 Fahrenheit)...and three day later on 6/6/11 the temperature was 177.8 Celsius (352.04 Fahrenheit) an increase of 28.1 Celsius or 50.58 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now I'm kinda excited here...because I can't seem to find other folks addressing this rather large spike in temperature. www.tepco.co.jp...

Especially after Arnie stated....
"[...] Now, Unit 3 has another problem and the NRC mentioned it yesterday for the first time and it gets back to that saltwater and the effect on iron. They are afraid that the reactor bottom will break, literally just break right out and dump everything. Because it’s now hot and it’s got salt on it and it’s got the ideal conditions for corrosion. So the big fear on Unit 3 is that it will break at the bottom and whatever else remains in it, which could be the entire core, could fall out suddenly. [...]" enenews.com...

So if anyone out there can possibly calm me down...and "Happy Thoughts"...would really appreciate it!!

- Purple Chive





We have seen this behavior a number of times thus far in some form in 1,2 and 3, it was discussed on this thread several hundred pages ago when we were still recieving the the leaked daily , reactor data.

basically at 100C plutonium starts reacting with water as if it was in air ( due to surface boiling and a number of other factors such as surface area and contact time , etcetc, ) once this happens particulate radioactive plutonium gets liberated into the water from is corium or poolium mass.

This is important because in the "mass" ( a solid lump though hot in the thermal sense from 'decay heat' ) "slow" neutrons are not as numerous though the mass is thermally shielded which means that it does heat up over time , but not as fast as when fission is happening .

fission starts happening when plutonium gets into water ( in a mass only a small portion is exposed to the water and is technically not touching it due to surface boiling , so few slow neutrons are produced , and then are directed in the most part away from the mass (hence one source of neutron 'beams') in a "diffuse" quality small molecules or particles that escape from the surface boiling get into and surrounded by water and start producing slow neutrons which will trigger fission or as it is called in this circumstance criticality( once the neutrons /plutonium reach critical density or saturation )

once neutrons get slow they start getting captured by other fissionable materials , most notably uranium that may either be suspended in the water or located as lumps in near by mass . this starts the uranium to begin heating above it's decay heat level and when it hits 200C

( it experimentally has been 250 but at fukushima we see the expected results at 200 in the #3 reactor I have speculated this is due to a higher concetration on plutonium mixed with the uranium as mox)

it begins reacting with water as though it were in dry air , increasing the heat rapidly and releasing radioactive particles , the air or steel temperatures near these events tends to climb up to about 400-450C and then a change occurs either the masses move the water is boiled away (lots of steam )or criticality creates a radiation burst . After these events the 'pent up radioactive energy seems to drop back down to it's 'decay heat levels and begin charging up for the next event .

we have seen the amount of water the type of additives ( including seawater ) and radiation counts in the water lengthen and shorten these times but the oscillation has been there since the beginning

several things can be gleaned from this :

1) there is no way significant ( by this I mean tons of) mass is left in the #3 RPV tube (core, or any of them for that matter , TMI melted 1/3 of it core in about 2-1/2 hours , all of the fuku reactors went 7+ hours with #3 going even longer ), and the evidence seems to indicate the heat increase is from Tepco having to re-circ highly radioactive water for cooling of a corium mass either inthe sv ( torus ) or (at best ) bottom of the secondary , but more likely the basement /and or a bunch of plumbing lines ( that have corium in them)
so no boom , but certainly another burst or radiation and more 'accidental leakage' into the air /water

2) even the pools that can hold some water have enough broken or damage rod sections that radiactive material accumulation in the cooling water is STILL causing the same problems as it was in the beginning , Tepco just has a bigger "resevior" to stockpile before the next "incident "

3) it is very unlikely the rods found on the ground are from the #2 pool, most likely the majority of that material came from the core and pool at #3 , with some of the finer ( dust) and poolium coming from #4's pool(S) (don't forget the dryer pool at number 4), and #1 pool. ( it's why three is showing such 'rhythmic' behavior most of it's material is powered and diffuse and so is about as 'controllable ' as a 'perfect gas would be in terms of Brownian motion with regard to thermal interaction )


Whew Silverlok, this is a hell of a lot information for my feeble mind to digest/decipher...

You're brilliant and knowledgeable irrefutably on this subject - and thank the Dear Lord for instilling such magnificence into your gray matter...and taking the time to respond to us that are lacking...

I would so appreciate in a layman's terms your response to the following questions:

Should I continue to track the "RPV Bottom Part" and "Safety Relief Valve 2-71D Leakage" temperatures in Unit 3?

What are the implications if they:

1. Continue to increase?

1.a. And at what temperature would this be a concern?

1.b. What would be the implications if this temperature is approached/attained?

2. Level out - no change?

2.a. Happy thoughts? A semblance of control?

3. Decrease?

3.a. Happier thoughts? Situation under control?

3.b. The crap is no longer present in this area...look elsewhere for temperature increase?

Would so very much appreciate if you could respond as simplistically as possible.

- Purple Chive











edit on 10-6-2011 by Purplechive because: typos...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zworld
...

Ive been an environmental investigator for 35+ years. And the only thing Ive learned so far is that there are a million ways to distort truth, but only one way to present it.

---


I understand not wanting to see people flamed, on the other hand I don't want to see all the effort that our brilliant contributors have put into this thread get tromped all over by someone claiming superior knowledge and saying his opinion was the be-all-end all - no debate required - well I think we can demand a higher test of someone like that. I don't feel the least bit sorry for Matador that we 'ganged up' on him since he put himself on the pedestal. If you're gonna do that you should be able to back up your qualifications for being there. At the time Silver and SFA were not around. I wanted to present their arguments to refute what he had said. It was in the interest of getting to the truth that this started.

Matador has yet to answer SFA's questions which I think are entirely reasonable since he is presenting no evidence other than his own word. He presents NO DATA. You allude to only one way to present the truth. Fine then. Facts, data. In my world there are a million ways to present the truth to achieve a desired effect. People make the truth fit their reality. If we are to trust his word as 'evidence' then he must pass this test IMO. SFA has passed the test of his creds, and I think his opinion on the event can be trusted. Not that it's the last word, but definitely carries a lot of weight. I would trust his word on explosive analysis just as I trust Arnies on nuke engineering, TRN's and Silverlok's on nuke chemistry and physics. I'm not about to throw out SFA's and Silver's analysis because some guy with a transport license shows up.

Now if he wasn't claiming to be an expert, just offering his own interpretation it would be a different matter. We're all entitled to an opinion. I'm no Nuke expert myself (but to my horror I am considered one in my field and I have the same reaction as Soundguy to it) and if someone wants to disagree with my opinions I'm fine with that, and sometimes laymen disagree with experts and prove them wrong, and I've learned an enormous amount here from laymen and experts alike. Debate is healthy and desired. Sexperts aren't always right as we have found out over and over again. But he's claiming this status because he wants our trust, that his opinion is the end of the argument, do you really expect us to give that up blindly?
edit on 10-6-2011 by Wertwog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattandkat

Originally posted by Anmarie96
Did they spray something on unit 1? Or did we have some other event? Web Cam

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)


i asked that couple of pages ago but have had no reply, it looks like tarp or censoring


They sprayed dust inhibitor onto unit 1.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by imlite

Originally posted by mattandkat

Originally posted by Anmarie96
Did they spray something on unit 1? Or did we have some other event? Web Cam

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)


i asked that couple of pages ago but have had no reply, it looks like tarp or censoring


They sprayed dust inhibitor onto unit 1.



Ahhhhhh I see thank you very much for clearing that up for me.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by imlite

Originally posted by mattandkat

Originally posted by Anmarie96
Did they spray something on unit 1? Or did we have some other event? Web Cam

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)


i asked that couple of pages ago but have had no reply, it looks like tarp or censoring


They sprayed dust inhibitor onto unit 1.



First - thought the dust inhibitor sprayed so far was green, in an attempt to make it look more pleasant, "Green".

Second...what a piss poor job!!

Now here's a conspiratorial concept...is this some sort of special signal?

Or did they just put the wrong dye in the mixture? Say oh crap, stop, give up...like what good is it gonna really do anyhow?

- Purple Chive






edit on 10-6-2011 by Purplechive because: more thoughts



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Really appreciating your flurry of posts here, thanks for putting the time in.

Re: your post:

"Another thought occurred to me as I drifted off to sleep last night: radiation or hydrogen , either , tend to weaken metals " fatiguing" them and making them brittle over time, and given the weather conditions at Fukushima the temperature and pressures can change drastically in very short periods of time at this time of the year, basically meaning that all those storage tanks represent a dual attack and risk that may not have been taken into account :

1) if the water is kept under pressure so that no airspace is allowed the dark color of the tanks(heating them in the sun ) and general heat and pressure will accelerate the decrepitude off the integrity of almost all the systems , including the metal of the tanks themselves,
but more importantly

2) if there is air space in the tanks ( they are not kept under positive pressure and bled of air ) then the differential pressures from air pressure / heating/ cooling changes in the environment could set the stage for radioactive hydroxide precipitants and releases inside the tanks , meaning that critcalities are possible and even likely in the storage tanks from a source that is very difficult to predict or calculated given the ad-hoc design and implimentation of the tanks placement / connection / construction "

>>Coincidentally, this very morning I was doing elementary searches on "radiation effects on concrete" or such like, and there were a variety of useful pdfs but also this article posted (which I don't remember seeing here so here it is) Accelerated Aging Effects of Radiation on Materials At Fukushima Daiichi Posted by Lucas Whitefield Hixson at 12:51 PM Sunday, May 08, 2011

I thought it gave a good overview re: concrete, adhesives, plastics...doesn't mention the rock but I'm guessing as someone mentioned earlier re: Sandstone being known to degrade as it loses hydration it sounds very similar to everything I have read about the concrete. Some of the more technical PDFs indicated their findings weren't too alarming, (in terms of concrete's likelyhood to degreade) but I got the impression that it was because their studies didn't account for prolonged exposures in the order of those you describe and we are seeing here (F Daichii) and by the way potentially similarly albeit hopefully less 'hot' flooded basement areas at F. Daini?

I actually began looking at this whilst thinking about entombment design issues (temporary and permanent), and I wasn't going to post it but it seemed to fit with the context of your thoughts there, and I certainly concur it could be significant in terms of the short term structiral integrity of the complex.

PS - It has crossed my mind that the somewhat unwelcome recent news about 'concerns/issues' with 'hot' 3,000 tons of flood/cooling water needing to be removed in underground structures at F. Daini may not simply be down to straight forward 'corrosion' as I originally assumed when I first read the article, in light of what I read here and your thoughts on Daichii, I notice that the article about Daini says more vaguely that their concern is that the "power supply equipments in the basements may degrade*" - degrade in what way, could it be radiation damage as well as water, could saltwater also be possible, many, many questions, not a journo' to be seen?

And by the way, why are TEPCO still talikng as if Daini could somehow be recommissioned if the sub ground level structures have been fillled with totally un-planned for masses of (how-hot?) water....?????

*link to post by Danced With Wolves including original detail on article/source of this quote
edit on 10-6-2011 by curioustype because: Added PS



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


"power supply equipments in the basements may degrade" link to post with source

Knowing what we do about TEPCOs gift of conveniently vague (and unquestioned) statements, could power supply equipments include uranium...etc? No, no, no, it probably just came off badly in translation/editting....?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Thank You Silver. I couldn't for the life of me figure that one out. Someone else said they were sandbags. I couldn't buy into that, Too much weight vs size, for men to move around. Your explanation makes total sense. But, why use those men to move that around...what about the robo-army supposedly on site. I think we are moving into a whole new arena of noticing the Emperor has no clothes....New data will be coming hard and fast as TEPCO is "exposed" even more.

Des



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertwog

Originally posted by zworld
...

Ive been an environmental investigator for 35+ years. And the only thing Ive learned so far is that there are a million ways to distort truth, but only one way to present it.

---


I understand not wanting to see people flamed, on the other hand I don't want to see all the effort that our brilliant contributors have put into this thread get tromped all over by someone claiming superior knowledge and saying his opinion was the be-all-end all - no debate required - well I think we can demand a higher test of someone like that. I don't feel the least bit sorry for Matador that we 'ganged up' on him since he put himself on the pedestal. If you're gonna do that you should be able to back up your qualifications for being there. At the time Silver and SFA were not around. I wanted to present their arguments to refute what he had said. It was in the interest of getting to the truth that this started.

Matador has yet to answer SFA's questions which I think are entirely reasonable since he is presenting no evidence other than his own word. He presents NO DATA. You allude to only one way to present the truth. Fine then. Facts, data. In my world there are a million ways to present the truth to achieve a desired effect. People make the truth fit their reality. If we are to trust his word as 'evidence' then he must pass this test IMO. SFA has passed the test of his creds, and I think his opinion on the event can be trusted. Not that it's the last word, but definitely carries a lot of weight. I would trust his word on explosive analysis just as I trust Arnies on nuke engineering, TRN's and Silverlok's on nuke chemistry and physics. I'm not about to throw out SFA's and Silver's analysis because some guy with a transport license shows up.

Now if he wasn't claiming to be an expert, just offering his own interpretation it would be a different matter. We're all entitled to an opinion. I'm no Nuke expert myself (but to my horror I am considered one in my field and I have the same reaction as Soundguy to it) and if someone wants to disagree with my opinions I'm fine with that, and sometimes laymen disagree with experts and prove them wrong, and I've learned an enormous amount here from laymen and experts alike. Debate is healthy and desired. Sexperts aren't always right as we have found out over and over again. But he's claiming this status because he wants our trust, that his opinion is the end of the argument, do you really expect us to give that up blindly?
edit on 10-6-2011 by Wertwog because: (no reason given)


No, but I think you dealt with it better in the above.

My main concern in all of this, and this has been a problem since first starting as an EI, is that I have often heard theory moved into the factual column by both scientists and layfolk, and I think now more than ever its important to, as has been stated, keep an open mind. Until it becomes fact there has to be wiggle room.

Which leads me to a very important discovery, and thank you. Going through the data you presented caused me to go back through other websites data from before and I have to admit making the same mistake as I dislike others making. The only thing really considered fact is that the audio was added later, and though I think people have shown that the whole cap couldn't have gone through the roof, Im now beginning to think that a piece of it may have gone laterally. But then I come back to where is it? turbine building? ocean? where else where the heat signature doesnt show up.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Purplechive

Originally posted by imlite

Originally posted by mattandkat

Originally posted by Anmarie96
Did they spray something on unit 1? Or did we have some other event? Web Cam

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)


i asked that couple of pages ago but have had no reply, it looks like tarp or censoring


They sprayed dust inhibitor onto unit 1.



First - thought the dust inhibitor sprayed so far was green, in an attempt to make it look more pleasant, "Green".

Second...what a piss poor job!!

Now here's a conspiratorial concept...is this some sort of special signal?

Or did they just put the wrong dye in the mixture? Say oh crap, stop, give up...like what good is it gonna really do anyhow?

- Purple Chive






edit on 10-6-2011 by Purplechive because: more thoughts


Thats what I thought to, that its usually greener than that, unless different colours mean different things, absorbancy (sp?) different use?? maybe its not dust inhibitor, I dunno.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Thank You Silver. I couldn't for the life of me figure that one out. Someone else said they were sandbags. I couldn't buy into that, Too much weight vs size, for men to move around. Your explanation makes total sense. But, why use those men to move that around...what about the robo-army supposedly on site. I think we are moving into a whole new arena of noticing the Emperor has no clothes....New data will be coming hard and fast as TEPCO is "exposed" even more.

Des



A sincere thank you also from me Silverlok...NHK reported "Workers piled sandbags to counter another possible tsunami" 2:08 into this video.

www.youtube.com...

- Purple Chive



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Saw this the other day and wanted to get your input on this when you returned. Another piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit the TEPCO story? Tellurium on March 12 - 7 kilometers from the plant?



Tokyo Shinbun (6/5/2011; emphasis added) reports the puzzling detection of tellurium-132 on March 12:

It has been revealed that radioactive tellurium, a metal that is hard to disperse in the atmosphere, ...snip..., it is hard to believe that tellurium would spread far."


translated by EX-SKF



Well two, no make that three theories :

1) the combined earthquake /tnsumani caused fuel rods in the common waste pools located inland from #4 to be damaged and have a rapid criticality followed by water loss ( exposing the newly minted Te-132 to air so it could waft, and they were showing oddly hot in those early thermal picture before they got conveniently not photographed any more same as the fubarium falls area) , and the common waste pool room allowed the materials to leak ,

or

2) as I have proposed before the reactors NEVER scrammed at the earthquake. Were damaged and leaking before the water ever hit ( we know that one was known as the 'leaking' and 'most radioactive in Japan' reactor even before teh earthquake right , or was that three?) and the tellurium went dioxide (a vapor)(as some part of the rods became exposed and actually escaped thru the huge vent stack the way the hydrogen was SUPPOSE TO BUT DIDN'T (for some reason, never well explained)

or

3) one of the spent fuel pools was seriously damaged in the quake , breaking a bunch of rods somewhere below the tops , causing a criticality ( not to be confused with an explosion ) and then leaking the water away to expose the newly minted tellurium to air , dioxide vapor phase and freedom blessed freedom ,

as a pin the tail on the ascpo I lean towards 3:

pool Four would have been a good candidate for this as it had core rods (more like to criticality quickly) , with at least some rods of whatever state in the shallow drying pool which fits all of our requirements nicely and has the ever so romantic poolium falls and high speed ejecta markers under it .

the Tellurium without the other longer lived volitiles means that the criticality must have happened VERY SOON after the earth quake . the chain:

Te/132I is: Tin-132 (half life 40 s) decaying to antimony-132 (half life 2.8 minutes) decaying to tellurium-132 (half life 3.2 days) decaying to iodine-132 (half life 2.3 hours) which decays to stable xenon-132.
So not matter where the criticality happened if it had happened four or five hours after the the quake after only a day the results would still be mostly tellurium because it takes it for or five days to decay into a sizeable ( large than ) fraction of iodine .

no matter how tepco slices it either one of the reactors was leaking immediately after the twins beat the places up or one of the pools almost immediately had serious problems....because Tepco's explaination CANNOT BE TRUE IF ALL THE REACTORS SCRAMMED properly when they were suppose to as the decay heat time would not have allowed the tellurium to escape at over pressures so quickly

I suppose 7 clicks is not that far as the wind blows and if the reactor didn't scram on the 11th and teh measurement was taken late enough on the 12th the wind had more than enough time to carry stuff from the emergency vent stack (way up in the air) since they had no sensors at the time how would they have even know if the auto /mechanical system was doing this ....

it would help to know at what time the measurements were taken at the various spots



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by zworld
 


The reactor cap (or a significant portion of it) exited at high velocity and can be seen coming down out of the sky in the video of #3 going high order. Silverlok matched an entrance hole in the turbine building to the cap itself and I had pointed out in an overhead the exit point where the girders were bent upwards and outwards in a circular pattern whose diameter matched the RPV cap.

The secondary explosive event at #3 most likely severely weakened the #3 RPV, causing it to drop the corium onto the floor of secondary containment causing a massive steam explosion that shot up in a linear, directed fashion through the bottom of the RPV and took the cap clean off the flange. That flange fails at 70 psi by the way. Look up Brunswick GE BWR testing... and I lived right next door to that SOB.

A SFR pool event or other uncontained blast, even a small nuclear detonation, would have been a LOT more omnidirecitonal with a blast wave emanating from the point of the criticality outwards radially which was not present in the #3 event- either primary, seconday or tertiary explosions. You can see this above the #1 reactor when it went boom.

Any uncontained blast will exhibit these characteristics. You also have the blast wave doing VERY odd things depending on atmospheric conditions, surrounding buildings & terrain... things that would have you scratching your head. It's why I referenced the Ishtar Sheraton blast. The front of the hotel was essentially fine- just 30m from a cement truck filled with commercial grade explosives that detonated. The rear of the hotel was utterly and completely destroyed due to wrap around. The 17th floor KBR chow hall literally got lifted off the roof and set back down as the wave traveled vertically without affecting the frontal facade of the building.

It's actually gone down in the textbooks as an exceptionally unusual blast and has been nitpicked to death with no real resolution for the effects and damage the explosion caused.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone

Originally posted by Silverlok


The last part first: if you can't gulp sip..snip...sandstone...day one.

Any idea of why they would chose to build it on this type of geology in the first place?

I am assuming profit is the fundamental constraint upon any innovation TEPCO might consider. I also am assuming a rational behind their reasoning, which may be only profit/ cut costs. But would there be an advantage from an engineering standpoint in building the Fukushima power plant were it is?


Well if it is sandstone, it is a 'seemingly' rock hard stone ( though low on the hardness index ) a boulder of it seems much like a boulder or granite at a casual glance ( both hard and heavy)



The hardness of sandstone may be difficult to test.
[color=limegreen] If the sand grains have not been cemented well or have been cemented by calcite, the sandstone will seem softer.

The individual quartz sand grains will still have a hardnessof 7, but the rock may crumble or disaggregate in your hand
,
.... Most igneous and metamorphic rocks contain much feldspar, quartz, pyroxenes and amphiboles. Their hardness is thus going to be between 6 and 7.

This means hardness is not a good way to distinguish one of these rocks from another
. Volcanic glass will typically have a hardness of 5.5 - 6.0, depending on its particular chemical composition. The hardness or rocks and minerals is also dependent on the degree of weathering. Weathering may convert feldspars (H=6) to clay minerals (H = 2 -3) Even corundum (H=9) can alter and have rims of softer minerals such as margarite (H= 3.5-4.5 ) around it. This is why it is important to test as fresh or un-weathered a surface as you can while doing hardness tests.


Metamorphic rocks get 'cemented' together pretty well , but the 'wetness' of the calcium is going to determine how well the components of the sandstone stand strong , so they start off similar but:

2007, fukushima 1 one is been ticking away for (almost) four decades:


Wetting and drying is an acknowledged yet still poorly understood rock weathering process. Previous experiments documented in the literature measure physical changes or mass loss in relation to moisture oscillations but only one study directly compares different moisture amplitudes by using different modes of moisture application. In this experimental study, four sets of sandstone tablets are subjected to 48 h wetting and drying cycles at set moisture content fluctuations of 29, 42, 56 and 63% respectively. A common moisture application, full immersion, is used for all four sets. Mass loss after 52 cycles averaged 0·27%, some three times more than that of the control samples. Average porosity of the samples increased, while water absorption capacities and the saturation coefficients of the samples decreased. No discernable difference in mass loss or change in physical properties was found between the different sample sets. When compared with previous studies, results suggest that the effect of moisture application type may be more of a controlling factor on the weathering effect than actual moisture content achieved. A need to move towards a more standardized approach in wetting and drying experimental studies is emphasized. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


So if the sandstone was a hardness 7, when fully saturated by ocean water ( allowing it to stick together ) it seemed "as hard as granite which might be from 6-7

Unfortunately no one took into account decades of a hot dry reactor building and it's moisture leeching concrete building slowly weakening the stone by water sapping ( and if they did they were probably throw out of the meeting their sandals and trail mix were thrown after them).

certainly no one took into account weakening sandstone being shaken violently then flooded and then exposed to molten heat from corium /poolium ( eXtremE weathering , no?)

Interestingly sandstone seems to have some flipping point at or near ....200C . I personally have cooked a 100 pound sandstone boulder that easily could have crushed a man's skull on top of a camp fire for only four hours, tow hour later i tried to nudge it with a stick and it simply powdered and fell into the fire ( extinguishing it ) as far as the mundane goes it was pretty astonishing to see a 'boulder' simple vanish ....

so I guess we can give them the benefit of the doubt on this one as simply trusting the "unchanging " aspects of the Earth way too much



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


So once the core goes through the floor , the sandstone will just disentigrate and the core will drop like a hot knife through butter down to the water table? Or will there be an explosion? This is the most critical next question ..Will the core will melt all the way through the concrete floor ? Chernoyble did not make it all the way through the concrete floor it just oozed thru a small hole and made a big pile is what I remebered seeing from a documentary. BFT is all I know


To everyone else ..Here is what Tim Rifat thinks about fukishima this week...

edit on 11-6-2011 by dntwastetime because: spelling



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Page 452


Originally posted by SFA437
Sirs-

I've had some more time to look at the hi-res photo and want to make an addendum.

The red arrows are indeed indicating force applied but it is reflected force, a kind of wraparound. The same kind of damage wrecked the rear of the Ishtar Sheraton Hotel in Baghdad. A massive truck bomb went off in front and the rear of the building sustained the most damage.

An overpressure front acts in air just like a tsunami does in water. When it hits something it does not necessarily refract and the wavefront but can combine and cause damage on the opposite side.

I think that #3 went high order and the wave was reflected off the turbine building, retained 10psi+ and struck the side of #3 after it was structurally weakened and shoved the whole side inwards.

The holes in the turbine building are definitively pre-explosion in regards to #3.

Sorry I wasn't on top of this last night but it was a kind of "off the cuff" 5 minute analysis. I'll stand behind this one 110% as being accurate.



I'm still trying to wrap my head around this though....





I have no explanation for it whatsoever. None.
edit on 31-3-2011 by SFA437 because: Coffee does not ensure lack of typographical errors




new topics

top topics



 
513
<< 928  929  930    932  933  934 >>

log in

join