Hi-res photographic proof reactor core exploded at unit 3

I'm still not sure what to make of this and wondering what any of you who might be more experienced with photo analysis might have to contribute.

Americans also have good cause to mistrust these same sort of assurances issued to American residents. The following is a letter I just sent to the Union of Concerned Scientists detailing evidence that the Fukushima unit 3 Reactor was the source of the massive hydrogen explosion a few weeks ago.... and the further implications of this easily verifiable fact. Follow the links and examine the aerial photos and the diagram of the reactor building. If you agree with my conclusions after looking at the evidence with your own eyes (and I'm sure that most anyone will), please contact the UCS and any media sources of your choice to encourage them to look into this.

Even to a layperson, it is obvious that this means that the huge hydrogen explosion at unit 3 must have occurred in the reactor itself, and that the entire top of the reactor containment vessel was obliterated, ejecting the contents of the core - as well as the spent fuel pool- into the atmosphere. This means, obviously, that significant quantities of plutonium were released, and that the release of radiation from unit 3 alone must be many times higher than has been admitted for the entire complex - Chernobyl pales in comparison.

Source Link

The below photo is not full res.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us




[img]

[/U RL] Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/img]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Well I have looked at all of the linked photos up down and sideways and I still cant reach any conclusion on whether he is accurate or not. He is quite specific in his explanation at the above link but I still don't know if there is enough conclusive information in the photo to be sure one way or the other.

I'll defer to some of the the experts here at ATS who are much better with overhead photos and such than I. I really would like to think that he is simply misjudging the scale between the schematic and the actual photo...

Those are definitely good clear detailed pics. Sadly, I am no help. The only help I can give is to bump this up in the recent posts list.

I have worked at Power Plants, but not nuclear. I don't know enough about nuclear anything to reach a conclusion, but as far as I can tell, he is not wrong.

explosions push outwards? this looks like it came down
idk thats just my opinion

More info at : www.bestmetalresearch.com...
The article there talks through what is in the photos and links back to the photos.

reply to post by ashtonkusher


hi, watch the video, it actually goes straight up...just like it was shot out of a canon, which if you think about it, it actually was.

reply to post by redgreen


Sorry, but which video are you talking about? Is it just me, cuz I can't see any videos being linked.

reply to post by ashtonkusher


AK, it's not really a question of whether there was an explosion or not, there definitely was. The question lies in his supposition (based on comparing the schematic with the pic of what is left of the building) that the top portion of the reactor may be missing.

Again, I'm just not sure if there is enough information in the photos to support his assertion. You really need to read his description at the source link in the OP in order to follow his logic.

Still waiting for any photo experts to jump in here and offer their opinions...

i dont see a video :/

Looking at the picture Id say there's no doubt.
I mean, the crane didnt explode, something exploded underneath the crane with enough force to destroy the top section...

Looking at the picture Id say there's no doubt.
I mean, the crane didnt explode, something exploded underneath the crane with enough force to destroy the top section...

omg... I clicked on that photo and had a barrage of sites opening up and trying to download stuff. That's the second time tonight on ats. The first time I clicked on a thread and it went to a reported attack site.

I actually did a thread about this a couple weeks ago. The core lid from reactor 3 got blown through the roof of the building next door.

Here is my thread. I has some good vids including the one where the explosion happened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted a link to Reactor 3 exploding - you clearly see a substantial piece of structure, that at the time I thought looked like the reactor "lid". It would appear I was right.

If you are struggling with scale, then to be clear: the entire reactor is above ground. The torus is below ground, and ground level is between the two. Thus, with most of the top of the building missing in the photos, so too is the top of the reactor.

I hold a type 33, user of high explosives permit with BATF, and yeah I'm pretty familiar with blowing up stuff.

Look closely at those photos. Had the reactor blown, which is in the center of the building, all of the roof girders and supports would have been blown out, and I mean as in GONE. They are still there.

Now, notice the roof girders above the spent fuel pool. GONE. The spent fuel pool exploded. MASSIVELY.

There isn't a thing left of the spent fuel pool, all of those rods are in pieces, scattered to the winds.

Sorry, additional note.

Had the reactor "lid" blown off as some have said, the very center of the roof girders would be blow out. They are intact.

Also, watch the video of Building 3 exploding. Notice the bright flash on the right? That's where the spent fuel storage was.

Absolutely no doubt, the spent fuel pool went critical, and exploded, either assisted with Hydrogen gas, or on it's own.

Look at the damage to that side of the building.

When you are investigating explosions (something I'm very familiar with) you look at the blast patterns, and if it was a building, where the damage(s) are worst, and go from there.

In every photo, the building damage is very evident, and clearly shows where the explosions originated.

I Agree, it's more likely that Critcallity occured in the fuel, which is far worse as well all know.
I mean if ctriticallity occured in the reacter how come the explosion wasn't centred, and most of what was chucked up by the pressure, landed in close proximity?

Is it possible for Hydrogen gas, to react with the spent MOX rods, and Urainium(i'm gussing)

reply to post by RunLikeTheWind2011


No idea about that, BUT I know we are both correct. Had the reactor itself blown, the center of the building would be scattered all over the place, including the roof supports.

The explosion happened in the fuel pool, and any explosives person would agree.

A much better and clearer image of the ruins of reactor building #3.



A clear picture of the RPV, or rather what is left of it.




This was a thermal image taken of Reactor #3, NOTE: There is no significant heat source left in the position of where the reactor should be.

ALSO NOTE: the heat image shadow of the spent fuel pool, which IS intact, and holding both water and hot rods.

[QUOTE]

1- If the reactor core was intact, present and contained, there would be a complete thermal glow similar to the structure of the reactor. Not just odd hot spots. The reactor would be identifiable. It's not there as a definable heat source or even close. I can tell you right now, that any significant heat source will make a 'ghost' image of its containing structure.

1b- If you doubt that, get on the web and search for ' Thermal images,' and use additional key words, houses, tanks, MILITARY, winter, summer, planes, and any other heat source you can think of.

--------------------------


2- The RPV's lid is -gone-, both the concrete outer access shell and the reactor cap itself. That much us mad bombers firmly agree on.

2a- If the cement lids / and or caps are gone and the core was largely intact the heat source would be centered in the circle. NOT melted blobs or bits off to the edge of it.

2b- The heat source while it would be smaller than the pool would be -much- hotter than the pool, if the core was present and not blown sky high / melted into the bedrock. Simply due to a -lack of cooling-.

2b.1 - Google Thermite, Lava, and super hot materials burning through metals and industrial structures. You could also look up shaped charge munitions for additional information. A core melt is proven to be hotter than thermite.

2c- Since there is no large heat source greater than the pool, as shown in the thermal image, and centered in close proximity to where the core should reside, the core is 1- not intact, 2- likely in chunks all over the place and what remained followed the path of least resistance. Though what was left in containment structure and RCV, melted down into the bedrock. Since TEPCO is not trying to cool the reactor with water, but are trying to keep what is left in the pool cool; the reactor remnants itself does contain any fuel rods, thus no heat source.

2c.1 ITS ALL GONE BYE-BYE. (It's late and I think it makes the point really clear.)

2c.1a- QED: If TEPCO isn't trying to cool the reactor remains, it is an admission that the reactor remnants are scrap metal; and there is nothing they can do to cool what remains of the fuel there. Also it shows that the melted fuel isn't where they could cool it with water. (Even if they wanted to.)

-------------

2d- Since we don't have complete and solid data from what the conditions were 'exactly' at the time of the violent catastrophic failure(s). Us mad-bombers, as we were colloquially tagged, make the best analysis we can of the materials we can obtain.

2d.1- Visual and auditory evidence in the vids, mark several violent moments in the 'blast.'

2d.2- Stage 1 was similar to reactor #1's catastrophic event. (Likely identical to #1's hydrogen explosion.)

2d.3- Stage 2 was likely the concrete external shell of the containment structure popping, 1'st high pressure event.

2d.4- Stage 3 was likely where the flame come from, an incomplete violent burn of a second hydrogen release. Either from the torus being damaged and out-gassing hydrogen or from a rupture in the reactor itself out-gassing 'moments' prior to the next event. The time frame is so narrow as to when it likely happened, it could have been both sources.

2d.5- Stage 4 was the reactor containment vessels guts violently converting from a solid to a gaseous form. (Likeliest fuel for this was a superheated yet violently mixed steam/hydrogen vapor.... Of which I may concede some criticality events may have added to the mixture, but even then, it was not a nuclear explosion. But it was a very 'dirty' event.)

2d.5.a- Due to design of the containment shell and its hardened structure, compared to the 'cap', the path of least resistance was focused entirely upwards. It was also more confined than the hydrogen explosion in #1.

2d5.b- This confinement accelerated the release and is where the blast pulls the debris from the first few stages up an into the vacuum it left behind in its violent upward escape. Giving it its more distinctive 'shaping.'

2d.6- Stage 5 of the violent pressure events was the remains of the core likely going into the area under the vessel that had been flooded due to the tsunami. Fuel source was the super heated remains of the reactor that were not converted to gas, and or shrapnel and launched upwards, and sea water / other chemicals that might have been released in the flooding, in the basement.

2d.6.a- This would account for the building around the reactor being largely demolished as there would be multiple points where the 'fuel' would escape from. Stairwells, broken plumbing, cooling lines etc, resulting in the outer structure of the building suffering over-pressure damage effects. (I consider it unlikely anyone can get through the rubble in the 'basement areas' safely and survive atm.)


------------------


3- Other events as the melted core material down into bedrock and cooled somewhat for a time afterwards would be hard to define or document.

-----------------


4- It is unknown to me if there is steam venting from the points were the core melted down into the bedrock. If enough of the core mass survived the last stage intact enough to melt down to the water table, I'd expect steam from the location were the core melted into the water table. (A violent steam plume has not been reported, that I am aware of.)

4a.1- If we are very lucky, that the mass of the surviving core material is small enough that the melt through is very slow, very slow and may become so diluted with other substances, that the heat from it will not cause a violent steam eruption.

4a.2- If we are not so lucky, the melted core material will get ejected back up the path it burned down though to the water table. Where it would land would be anyone's guess.

4a.3- 2nd worst case event in my book, is that we'll see a radioactive fueled steam geyser that makes Old Faithful seem tame.

4a.4- A volcano could occur, IF and ONLY IF it makes a significant pathway for magma to eventually vent through, and IF and ONLY IF the melt down reaches a magma chamber. Though this would bury the site under a newly formed volcano. I'd call this both a blessing and a curse sort of event. But the chances of it are far less than 4a.3-.

-----------

5. Several important questions remain:

5a.1- Did a significant portion of the core remain intact to land in the ocean? Or did it land in other locations?

5a.1.a- Did enough of the core survive to land in the ocean as a separate super 'hot' melted blob?

5a.1.b- If a significant part of the core survived to land in the ocean, could it be spotted via thermal imaging? Or searching for a continuous radioactive current?

5a.1.b2- Is the draining from the damaged reactors the only source of additional contamination of the ocean? Or can a possible core structure adding to that problem?

5a.1.c- If part of the core made it into the ocean, is the drainage an attempt to cover up its continued existence? (I had to add this for all you conspiracy people... but even then I'm considering it as a possibility.)

5a.2- How much of the core was volatilized?

5a.3- How much of the core remained to melt into the bedrock and later to eventually reach the water table?

I understand the mechanics all too well, the questions I bring up need answers.

If you are not worried yet, you should be.

You may of course feel free to disagree with me. But I feel this is as close as to the events, that people could create an accurate computer model and test it. I'm not talented in that area.

Those of you who are talented in that area, I'd like to see this in simulation.

Frankly, I am concerned.
M.

[/QUOTE]

Mods please forgive the reposting of my work in another thread, evidently folks are still confused. The Motto of ATS is to deny Ignorance, and I'm just trying to do my part.

Originally posted by matadoor
I hold a type 33, user of high explosives permit with BATF, and yeah I'm pretty familiar with blowing up stuff.

Look closely at those photos. Had the reactor blown, which is in the center of the building, all of the roof girders and supports would have been blown out, and I mean as in GONE. They are still there.

Now, notice the roof girders above the spent fuel pool. GONE. The spent fuel pool exploded. MASSIVELY.

There isn't a thing left of the spent fuel pool, all of those rods are in pieces, scattered to the winds.

The pool is present, the reactor is not.

At this point I would be wondering if we needed to see about getting your permit revoked.

I am joking to some extent, but no offense dude/dudette, but you missed this discussion a while back.

M.