Just In: Blackout at Fukushima Daiichi — Cooling at fuel pools stopped, all power’s been down 3h

page: 11
128
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



The Daichi plant was built based on the specifications of the 1960 Chile tsunami. That was generated by a 9.5 earthquake. The wave that hit Chile was 25 meters, the wave that hit Hilo was 10.7 meters. With the plant being 10 meters above sea level, and the pumps an additional 4 meters up it was thought they would stay dry. The tsunami that hit, was 15 meters, and flooded the plant.


And that still does not change the fact that TEPCO's tsunami plan was one page long and based on a memo from ten years ago.

The reactors were designed by GE, and three nuclear scientists resigned upon reviewing the design fearing that the flaws could lead to catastrophe.


Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

"The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview.


Source

The reactors were flawed from the beginning.
edit on 18-3-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Right. There is no comparison between the two... this is a Fuku thread, not a Chernobyl thread. I will stop saying that when you stop bringing Chernobyl here. Okay?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jiffy

Originally posted by BlackPhoenix



has a margin of about four days before the temperatures would be expected to reach levels of concern.


enformable.com...

really, 4 days?


4 days from now will be March 22nd. Or 3.22.2013. Since this is a conspiracy website, Skull and Bones 322 'order of death' anyone?


Oh Jiffy...... my life was "just fine" until you made that comment

You'd think by now that they would have some sort of back up system in place........ lessons still not learned?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


And when I stop getting called out to prove that Chernobyl had a worse initial release, I'll stop bringing Chernobyl here.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 


"NO POWER at Fukushima Spent Fuel Pools!!! 4 days to Figure out & Fix it! update 3/18/13"

Or let's say 3 days 16 hrs already passed, I must go now see ya working in 4 hrs also good luck to all of us ..

edit on 18-3-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Zaphod58, I know you're quite big on trying to 'kill threads' but could you maybe give up on trying to kill this one (along with the others persisting in the silly back and forth) and just leave this thread for the purpose of keeping us updated on the facts regarding the current events (blackout at Fukushima Daiichi).

My thanks to MariaLida for the valuable contributions!



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
 


And when I stop getting called out to prove that Chernobyl had a worse initial release, I'll stop bringing Chernobyl here.

Whoops. You indeed brought final numbers, not initial release data. Thats what I called you on... comparing the two:


At the highest amount reported by NSC, of 770 PBq of an "iodine-131 equivalent", it was still 15% of what was released at Chernobyl. Chernobyl topped out at 5200 PBq of Iodine-131 equivalent.

That was a sidewinder... your threat board just lit up like a christmas tree!



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


Wow, people seriously need to learn to take sarcasm, and figure out what jokes are.


I have no intention of trying to kill threads, and I hardly enjoy it, so yeah, try again. And so sorry for posting a differing opinion than most people have when talking about Fukushima.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Please excuse my ignorance and feel free to deny it politely... but I was wondering;
If that area is part of the ring of fire, what are the chances of those rods going through the bottom of those holding tanks and finding their way into a lava flow?

I don't know if that is a real possibility, but a few pages back someone mentioned those rods could melt through the bottom... that would be a serious boom and nuclear fall out would be the last of my worries I think...

Can someone give me the straight goods on the ramifications of this please?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
What baffles my mind, is why there is not a backup pump on the existing pump. Create some kind of a backup plan they can engage/disengage a gear that is connected to a new motor and one that can run off electric or diesel. You gotta have some kind of a redundancy plan besides pumping in seawater with fire engines and other Mickey Mouse crap idea's.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


You weren't the initial call out on it though, someone else was.

Regardless, even if I used the wrong sets of numbers, I stand by the fact that Chernobyl had a higher initial release. I have been doing other things while posting, so I probably read wrong, and posted the final numbers for Chernobyl, but in an earlier post, it showed the initial release numbers, which were much higher than Fukushima. Between 26 April, and 5 May, a total of 1760 PBq was released from Chernobyl. The NSC and NISA reported a high of 770 PBq, which they later dropped down to somewhere in the 560 range I believe.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Invariance
 


I don't believe it's possible, but you can't say because it's never even come close to happening. Even on the "ring of fire" though, the lava flows you are talking about are very deep, and it would have to go a long way down to get to them. In Hawaii, the flows start 40-60 miles down, and the reservoir is 1-4 miles below the summit. So it would have a long way to go to get there, which means the odds of it reaching in our lifetime would be pretty slim.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well, that's some comfort at least. Thanks for the reply... I wasn't sure if it was possible, I have no idea how fast those things may be able to worm their way through the soil... The whole situation is worrisome nonetheless.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


In a couple of posts in this thread.


The operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, said the meltdowns it believes took place at three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released about 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances into the air during March 2011. The accident, which followed an earthquake and a tsunami, occurred on March 11.

www.nytimes.com...


The plant is no longer venting radioactive steam into the atmosphere, as it was at the height of the disaster. And the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, has set up a system to absorb cesium from reactor coolant water. But not all that water is being recovered, Buesseler said.

www.cnn.com...


Reporters visited a village about 20 kilometers east of the plant at 8 a.m. Friday. Once a training facility for the Japanese national soccer team, the site is now a base camp for recovery work following the nuclear disaster in the area.

The volume of radiation at this site is 2μSv (micro sievert) per hour (hereafter all radiation levels are recorded on a per hour basis), fairly high compared with 0.11μSv in Seoul and 0.047μSv in Tokyo. But this is lower than the volume of radiation a person is exposed to from a one-time CAT scan (8,000μSv).



An “Off Limits” sign stood between Reactors 1 and 2. A source with Tokyo Electric Power said, “At this site, the radiation level measured 10 Sv (or 10 million μSv) in August and September last year,” adding, “Since then, it has never been approached and thus the current radiation level is unknown.” Death occurs if a person is exposed to 10 Sv of radiation for one hour.

When the reporters approached Reactor 4, the radiation level surged to 1,000μSv. The power company source said, “This reading stems from radioactive materials that remain buried in the debris of contaminated buildings,” adding, “Readings of radiation levels soar at certain sites according to wind direction.”

Reporters got off the bus at a site where the radiation level measured 95∼200μSv per hour. They were allowed to gather information there for 10 minutes.



The radiation level around the Fukushima reactor reached 400,000 μSv at one point last year, but was just 1,000μSv even right by the plant Friday. This is the same permissible level that ordinary people can be artificially exposed to for one year. If a person is exposed to a radiation level permissible for one year for an hour, his or her health will take a hit but this will not prove fatal.

www.setyoufreenews.com...

Nowhere near what they were during the initial event.


Well, bust my buttons! I thought you were sharing current news when I asked you to link this:



There is still seawater being released, but there isn't a release anywhere near the levels of the initial release going on anywhere from the plant. The amounts are still dangerous but nowhere near what they were for the first few weeks after the tsunami.


Can we stop the PR and deal with the crisis, please?
Thank you kindly.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Invariance
Please excuse my ignorance and feel free to deny it politely... but I was wondering;
If that area is part of the ring of fire, what are the chances of those rods going through the bottom of those holding tanks and finding their way into a lava flow?

I don't know if that is a real possibility, but a few pages back someone mentioned those rods could melt through the bottom... that would be a serious boom and nuclear fall out would be the last of my worries I think...

Can someone give me the straight goods on the ramifications of this please?


Interesting question, I would think that if there was a complete meltdown, one where the core material is one big blob melting through the reactor and containment vessel, into the earth, and if it made it deep enough to encounter the underground water table, it would heat that water and then EXPLODE, imagine a geyser of steam, shooting hundreds or thousands of feet into the sky, extremely radioactive steam...

But could it continue melting deeper?

I don't know, in theory it could. Lets hope we never have to find out.




posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Gee, again, I'm so sorry to have a differing view than all the doom and gloom people. I wasn't aware that believing experts, and people that have monitored the situation was PR.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Invariance
 

Please excuse my ignorance and feel free to deny it politely... but I was wondering;
If that area is part of the ring of fire, what are the chances of those rods going through the bottom of those holding tanks and finding their way into a lava flow?

I don't know if that is a real possibility, but a few pages back someone mentioned those rods could melt through the bottom... that would be a serious boom and nuclear fall out would be the last of my worries I think...

Can someone give me the straight goods on the ramifications of this please?

Ha ha, imagine that. Right after telling Zaphod to quit comparing the two reactor accidents I get to answer your question about "Corium" with a video about .... Chernobyl !


Sorry Zaphod, my bad. This is a good question though, about what happens to material that melts down below the reactor core vessel. In this one we see the mass of congealed fuel after it came to a stop. It is no longer molten, but still very radioactive. It will remain that way for a 100,000 years. To approach it would be lethal.

More pics of chernobyl melted fuel mass

Now for the comparison. Somewhere below Fukushima reactors 1, 2, and 3 lies a similar mass of fuel that nobody has gotten close enough to take pictures of yet. It is very unlikely that they have melted far enough into the earths crust to encounter any volcanic activity. It has however encountered water and produced steam on a number of occasions. That is worse. Groundwater runs to the ocean...

Going vertical Zaphod, punching flares and chaff !



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Invariance
 

I'm not that knowledgeable but I think what melts through the container vessel in these cases constitutes its own "lava flow".

The danger is when it comes in contact with ground water. An explosion could occur or a prolonged release of steam laden with radioactive material that would be all but impossible to contain. Radioactive material might also begin to leach into the water table.

If the lava that flows from a meltdown of a nuclear reactor got into a surface lava flow of the sort that one sees in Hawaii or Italy or anywhere volcanoes are, it, depending on how much it dispersed in the lava would simply remain in a liquid state when the lava cooled. It is self heating. If it were dispersed enough, diluted enough in the lava it would probably be held in pockets of the hardened lava which would act as a crucible, holding it in place.

Large concentrations of the material would melt through the lava and small concentrations would probably be held in place, locatable by Geiger counters. Possibly they could be removed later or remain in place, depending on circumstances.

If the fuel is generating enough heat it will melt through the lava, or anything, until it reaches some material it cannot generate enough heat to melt. This process disperses the fuel in the layers it melts through to some extent.

I think it is somewhat like spilling hot wax on jello. How much damage is done depends on how much heat/wax is concentrated in any one spot.

A high concentration of the fuel would, I believe eventually boil off into the atmosphere. Lesser concentrations of the fuel would be hot and radioactive but would have less chance of boiling off or reaching criticality (a nuclear explosion and massive release of radiation).

This is all from reading about the Fukushima situation since it happened. I'm not a professional in this area. Other members might be able to clear up my mistakes if there are any.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


so lava might be a good thing.. what I don't get is that it could BOOM with water contact, yet water cools the rods? Must be some sort of moderation I guess... and they built this thing by the sea! ~sigh~





new topics
top topics
 
128
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum