Melted Fuel Near Point of Reaching Bottom Container, Barrier Needed

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


The reason it has lost popularity is because it's business as usual here in the good ole USA and other countries. Until we are personally affected by the horrible tragedy which occurred in Japan, it's no big deal, life goes on, yada, yada, yada. It may take years before we see the total effects of the disaster and then people will again become concerned. Many of us though, are still following the stories.

reply to post by Gridrebel


I'm not looking forward to it, but part of me expects the day babies start being born with deformities as they did in the Ukraine and surrounding countries after the Chernobyl disaster.

Even then we probably wouldn't learn from our mistakes.

All old reactors should be retrofitted with a steel tank full of lead blocks under the reactor vessel.

Then if you had a melt through uranium having a higher melting point would melt and mix with the melting lead.

This would stop most of the neutrons stopping the reaction plus absorb a lot of heat.

It would also trap a lot if the radioactivity in the lead-uranium melt block

New reactor should have a built in lead quenching tank under the reactor vessel.

reply to post by ANNED


That seems like a sound idea for a temporary leak preventative/containment. A LOT better than what is in place now...which is NOTHING.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
They didn't give a name, but it was TEPCO. You must have not read the article.

My secretary is on the phone right now getting a hold of TEPCO's CEO. I should have word by Monday

Of course I believe the situation is worse than we are being told.

But I read your story linked in the OP and it's apparently citing unnamed sources, NOT TEPCO. So no, its not correct to conclude that TEPCO said something which was attributed by an unnamed source. I ran a search to see if it could be found anywhere else but just found duplicate versions of the story referring to "unnamed sources".

Instead of contacting TEPCO, your secretary should have been contacting the author of the story and asked him who the unnamed sourced he quoted are. That's exceptionally bad journalism to show a quote and then not attribute it to anybody.

While I don't think TEPCO has much credibility, unfortunately unnamed sources have even less credibility because anybody can make up anything they want with no accountability if the source is unnamed.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But I read your story linked in the OP and it's apparently citing unnamed sources, NOT TEPCO.

You're correct about the article not saying exactly who from TEPCO released this information, but it says TEPCO numerous times.

I admit that the writer of the article was vague in the details provided, and it was sloppy journalism.

I had my secretary contact the Journalist but he is on vacation, I will update when he returns my inquiry.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
I had my secretary contact the Journalist but he is on vacation, I will update when he returns my inquiry.

That's good.

I'd say Mr. Kim is much more likely to respond to you than the CEO of TEPCO.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

While I don't think TEPCO has much credibility, unfortunately unnamed sources have even less credibility because anybody can make up anything they want with no accountability if the source is unnamed.

nail on the head.

Unfortunately, this kind of reporting has been the norm since the tsunami. Little to no fact checking, sources missing, commentary from "experts" who aren't really, and above all else: horrible, horrible translations.

And NEVER a single retraction or correction.

The side effect is that people in the West who have been reading all this tripe have formed the opinion that TEPCO and the Japanese government are liars, because the stories never seem to match up.

Anyway. The news here has been reporting the following:
1) All of this is based on simulations. There is no absolute certainty here, but at this moment, the simulation represents a very plausible scenario for what happened. As with 3 mile island and any other similar accident, we won't know for certain until we can get a camera in.
2) The ~30cm of concrete is what's left before there is contact with the steel barrier of the containment vessel. Can't remember offhand how thick that is though.
3) All of this is past tense. As in: this simulation represents what happened before cooling could be resumed. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the melt is still occurring.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
it is irresponsible journalistic practice to include unattributed quotes in a news story...

That's hysterical, Ever hear the words 'Sources close to'...'Scientists'... 'researchers at'...?
Sure it's irresponsible, but it's modus operandi when the news isn't so good.

Originally posted by vox2442
2) The ~30cm of concrete is what's left before there is contact with the steel barrier of the containment vessel. Can't remember offhand how thick that is though.

That's pretty much what this diagram someone posted on page 1 of this thread shows:


That actually shows 37 cm from the bottom of that pink structure containing the melted fuel rods, to the steel containment wall, which is the black curved thing.

Then there is another 7.6 meters of concrete below that according to that diagram.

The latest IAEA report shows the temperatures are pretty good where they are being measured. However I don't think they have measured or can measure the temp of the "fallen fuel rods" in that diagram so maybe we don't really know how hot that corium is.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by jeichelberg
it is irresponsible journalistic practice to include unattributed quotes in a news story...

That's hysterical, Ever hear the words 'Sources close to'...'Scientists'... 'researchers at'...?
Sure it's irresponsible, but it's modus operandi when the news isn't so good.

Your classification of my post as being hysterical is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to keep it; however, I would point out the article quoted by the OP does not even offer the reader the opportunity to read the words, "Sources close to...," or "Scientists," or "researchers at..."; as you can see, those would serve as ATTRIBUTABLE quotes... While I would not like to see these types of sources remaining unnamed or unidentified in a news story (especially one of this magnitude), using these words, IMO, would make the story LESS irresponsible, rather than just plain irresponsible...Thank you.

Can't they drill through the concrete, and install a Cooling, Capture and Containment Unit before a breach and total contamination would happen? I'm not a nuclear reactor tech, but I have drilled through concrete before, so wouldn't that be possible in this case? If they're worried about a breach in the concrete, they could reinforce the tunnel... If there is 7.6 meters of concrete before it hits rock, that means they have around 24.9 feet to work with right? Seems like a tunnel would work...

IMHO I don't see why access wouldn't be built into the bottom anyway given the possibility of something like this occurring. But they say they have it handled right, so why worry.