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.

 

When reactor 3 exploded, it blew the core lid into the building next door.

page: 1
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Here are some high resolution pics of the damaged nuke plant.

cryptome.org...

Here is the pic of where the #3 reactor core lid is now.

i800.photobucket.com...

Why I think this is a big problem is simple. This vid is not of a hydrogen explosion, this is a vid of a nuclear blast that happened when the core exploded, spreading its deadly contents to kingdom come.



As you can see in the video there is an almost straight upward explosion, as if a pressure cookers vent got clogged and blew the lid off, straight up.

As the debris rained down, a big chunk came down through the roof of the power generation building right next to reactor 3. It is the reactor lid.

When you look at building 4, you can see through the damaged building the top of the reactor core, which is yellow. Building 3 is damaged to the point that if the core was still there, it would be towering above what is left of the building. Instead you see a crater, and total destruction of the reactor core.

This means that Reactor 3's core has been literally turned into powder and spread to the four winds.

Also judging by the force of the explosion, the spent fuel rods are probably blown to pieces, and spread everywhere as well.

Good news is we don't have to worry about a meltdown anymore on reactor 3, bad news is that it is the worst case scenario.


For some reason no one is talking about this, and I think that it is really important that people are aware of the amount of radioactive fallout that was released in the reactor 3 explosion. It was not a "hydrogen" explosion like the MSM says, it was a reactor core explosion. This is something that has never happened, and no one really knows the consequences of having a nuclear power plant core explode and spill its entire contents into the environment, not to mention powdered/scattered tons and tons of spent fuel rods all over the place.

For comparison here is the blast at reactor #1 which may or may not have been just a hydrogen explosion, however you will notice the blast going out not up as in the reactor 3 explosion.


edit on 3-4-2011 by downtown436 because: additional info




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I had a feeling this was possible for both buildings before the explosions when the exteriors of the buildings finish were showing signs of severe internal heating...



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Honestly I hope someone can prove me wrong on this. Because if I am right there is much bigger trouble than any of us can even fathom.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 



The thing is, no one's going to be able to prove you wrong on this unless they are in the know at the plant...just like you cannot say with 100% certainty that your assumption is exactly what's happened. You of course can have an opinion and make your assumption but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say this has powdered the reactor and it's end game worst case run for the hills scenario personally.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Your lid picture means nothing to me, i hope you dont have it right my friend, but i think you are onto something....
The whole p-lay they have been enacting over there somehow has seemed from the start to be posturing for form sake.
The four reactors can hardly be in any other condition than self destruct even if the lids are still in place (which i doubt)
This is just one more nail in the coffin for the plant.
They have to shut it down permanently.
Thee ite will be a bio hazard for many decades to come anyway.
NOW We need some kind of inventory of the total fuel rods both hot and cold that they have stored in all the containers andd pools.
There are people wwho could extrapolate much data that we could work from to figure out what kind of polluton levels to expect and plan for.
Both here and in Japan which will require much support and aid to recover from this horror.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by onyx718
 


I don't think it is a stretch because if the core was still intact it would be sticking up out of the wreckage of the building.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


I hope someone comes along and proves you wrong too.
However, I have my doubts about Reactor 3 and the reports in
the news. Whether we are being told the truth...well I doubt it.

As to the core being blown to kingdom come...well there was an
"expert" back early on... John Large addresses the more obvious...




Nuclear expert John Large today questioned Fukushima'­s '4' status, telling The First Post: "We're not getting the informatio­n out of the government but I would say this is a significan­t nuclear event. You don't blow the top off a building and say it's not."

Japanese Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said today that there was the possibilit­y of an explosion at the No 3 reactor but he was confident the steel containing vessel around the core of the reactor would withstand the blast – as it did when No 1 reactor blew up on Saturday.
Large said he found this hard to believe.

The "jellyfish­" shape of Saturday's explosion and the decision to vent the reactor's secondary containmen­t – releasing radioactiv­e vapour and necessitat­ing the evacuation of local people – all suggest fuel rods had melted and leaked from the primary containmen­t.”
Source



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Well, the lid is for sure on reactor 4. It can be clearly seen. Reactor 4 had no fuel in the reactor. However the building is wrecked from the spent fuel rod fire/explosion. (which is another story).



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
So what does a typical nuclear explosion look like?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
So what does a typical nuclear explosion look like?


What?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Yeah, horrible stuff/

I don't think #3 withstood the blast, like reactor 1 did.

Here was what I believe to be an actual hydrogen explosion at the number 1 reactor.




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436

Originally posted by onequestion
So what does a typical nuclear explosion look like?


What?


I think Onequestion is trying to ask.. how do you know this is a nuke explosion instead of a hydrogen explosion - How can you tell from the blast? I bet an expert in demolitions could answer that. There must be some things specific to each that can be seen or not seen in this vid to prove or disprove.. like CSI on ATS.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Suppose that the EQ wasn't a 9.0 until the blast occurred in the reactor? The two reactors that weren't online didn't get compromised like the others did? No reports of any odd flashes of lights?

I'm just thinking of how unstable the reactors were prior to the initial EQ???



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Here is the footage of the building 1 explosion, notice the lack of orange fireball, and giant towering black mushroom cloud. You will see a shock wave, as it was a very energetic event, and I cannot say if the building 1 reactor exploded, but the part of the building that houses the reactor core is still intact on building 1.




Here is reactor #3 exploding, notice the orange fireball, and the extreme amount of destruction that it caused. The only reason I say it is a nuclear explosion is that the reactor core exploded and whether it was hydrogen, or the achievement of critical mass, doesn't matter because there was an insane amount of fissile materiel involved in the explosion.




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
Suppose that the EQ wasn't a 9.0 until the blast occurred in the reactor? The two reactors that weren't online didn't get compromised like the others did? No reports of any odd flashes of lights?

I'm just thinking of how unstable the reactors were prior to the initial EQ???


I have no idea, because I only started paying attention to this situation when the reactors started exploding.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


I have only made one post on this site. There was no response to what I had to say and I was disappointed and wasn't going to post again, but this was the subject. I've wondered why no one has been talking about this. Two weeks ago, I couldn't sleep and got up in the night. They were showing footage of reactor 3 blowing. By morning, they were showing the first explosion from reactor one and saying the second explosion was similarly a hydrogen explosion. But it was completely different and I can't find a complete video of what I saw that night. After the black mushroom cloud, there was a glowing reddish tinge to the steam that came streaming up from the reactor after the black cloud began to dissipate. I knew something very, very bad had just happened. The third explosion had a smaller black mushroom cloud, but not the red afterward. I have been convinced that the containment vessel blew but no one else seems to have seen this that I have talked to.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
It was not a "hydrogen" explosion like the MSM says, it was a reactor core explosion. This is something that has never happened, and no one really knows the consequences of having a nuclear power plant core explode and spill its entire contents into the environment, not to mention powdered/scattered tons and tons of spent fuel rods all over the place.
First of all, thanks for the videos.

But you're post is full of misconceptions. Let's start with the last one first. How can you be so ignorant as to say "no one really knows the consequences of having a nuclear power plant core explode and spill its entire contents into the environment'? There have only been 2 major nuclear accidents before, have you studied them at all? If you had you'd find that what you said never happened is what happened at Chernobyl, pieces of the core were blown all over the place. That's why radiation levels of 200,000 to 300,000 millisieverts per hour were found next to core components at Chernobyl, and so far the highest reading I've heard about at Fukushima is 1000 millisieverts per hour. They should be getting much higher radiation readings if the core was lying around in pieces, like it was at Chernobyl.

Second,I don't see any evidence of anything but a hydrogen explosion in the video. What makes you think it's nuclear? Don't you know the fuel used for nuclear bombs is far more concentrated than the fuel used for nuclear power stations? That's why fuel inside a nuclear reactor can get very hot, but it's not concentrated enough to cause an explosion like a nuclear bomb, though what happened at Chernobyl was probably a criticality accident:

Criticality accident

Critical or supercritical nuclear fission (one that is sustained in power or increasing in power) generally occurs inside reactor cores and occasionally within test environments. A criticality accident occurs when a critical reaction is achieved unintentionally. Although dangerous, typical criticality accidents cannot reproduce the design conditions of a fission bomb, so nuclear explosions do not occur. The heat released by the nuclear reaction will typically cause the fissile material to expand, so that the nuclear reaction becomes subcritical again within a few seconds.

In the history of atomic power development, sixty criticality accidents have occurred in collections of fissile materials outside nuclear reactors and some of these have resulted in death, by radiation exposure, of the nearest person(s) to the event. However, none have resulted in explosions.


reply to post by SammyB
 

They were probably hydrogen explosions of different sizes. Basically, any amount of hydrogen can accumulate, then explode when it's ignited and combines with oxygen. So seeing different sized hydrogen explosions isn't really that odd. Of course every explosion is bad, there shouldn't be ANY hydrogen explosions.
edit on 3-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I dont believe that hole was caused by the core lid, if you look at the birds eye view straight down on the reactor the general framework of the roof is still there. if it was the lid then there would have to be a corresponding hole in the frame which there doesn't appear to be.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SammyB
 


I haven't seen that footage. Very interesting, thanks for your input.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Good post.

Personally I don't think the reactor lid landed in the adjacent reactor. I agree the lid blew off but I think it landed back in the reactor. At Chernobyl, the exposed reactor core produced a "rainbow" of colors that were "terrifyingly beautiful" was the way a surving eye witness stated it. Also, the lid weighs hundreds of tons, Chernobyl's weighed 300 tons, which would take a truly awsome explosion to launch it any distance.

The explosion was not a nuclear one. Even the Chernobyl explosion was not nuclear. It was a pressure explosion from the reactor caused by melted fuel.

I must add I do not trust the reported levels of radiation from the facility. If there was tons of spent fuel stored in open pools above the reactors then there is fuel all over the area just like Chernobyl. Of coarse the spent fuel isn't as lethal as the fuel in the reactor but its bad enough to say the least. Some people noted that in the latest round of satellite pictures you cannot find any stagging area around the plant for supplies, firetrucks, equipment, etc. I think that says more about the radiation levels around the facility than anything.




top topics



 
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join