Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

[jensjakob]

But photographs taken by helicopters and a Global Hawk drone operated by the U.S. Air Force indicate the water is not lasting very long in the pool, suggesting that there is a major breach in the walls of the vessel holding the fuel rods, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-reactor-damage-20110318,0,6146639.story

 

[SredniVashtar]

The light's on at reactor 3's control room, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12825342" .

In the article they say that "Meanwhile, the UN's nuclear watchdog says radiation is still leaking from the quake-hit plant, but scientists are unsure exactly where it is coming from."

But they are walking right there, see picture

How could they not be able to ascertain where the radiation is coming from?

 

[Reno Deano]

filling of unit 4 SFP by concrete lifter
[PLAIN]http://bilder.bild.de/BILD/news/fotos/2011/03/22/japan-ticker/SONDERKONDITIONEN__20257190__MBQF-1300804062,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

I am amazed by the protection suits, two piece, open collar, construction helmet ...
Compare to clothing in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprycG9mlZc&feature=relmfu

and workers/inspectors then drive home in their cars, I presume after a hosing down, but is that effective?

Since, the radiological protection staff at the reactors and emergency center are very competent, and you or I do not know the radiological situation being shown...then what you see is appropriate. Quit slamming stuff you probably know nothing about.

 

[jensjakob]

A new video - spraying closeup to #3:
http://video.asahi.com/viewvideo.jspx?Movie=48464141/48464141peevee378318.flv

 

[jlduh]

Hi all, I'm new on this forum and have been following this thread for several days now (I have still some pages to read!), a thread where i found some valuable and interesting info and reflexions on what's going on there...

I'm a mechanical engineer (I'm from France) and as many of you, I'm seeking to understand what happened and is still happening in Fukushima plant. I' have several elements/questions or sources to bring to the discussion hoping to contribute to it as I've been doing intensive search and "digest" of information on this event since the very beginning, as i did 25 years ago when i was a student willing to fully understand what happened in Tchernobyl (and as you know probably, at that time, information was scarce and disinformation here in France has been blatant from autorities and nuclear regulation agencies and lobbies (a trial is still going on on this matter).

At first, i' would like to react to the recent posts concerning the general layout of the plant and more particularly the low altitude of the platform on which it is built regarding to the proximity of the sea level. We all understand how critical this point has been regarding to the tsunami and the cause of loss of power on site due to flooding of the backup generators.

I would like to draw your attention to a TEPCO document that i found today in which this company reassessed in 2010 the "safety" of its plants regarding to tsunamis, especially after the Chile tsunami the 28th of February 2010. I give the direct link to where to find this document (I plan to send this info to several medias here in France):

http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf

It is a presentation of a Tepco study (see logos on the doc) done in 2010, and its conclusions were presented by a certain Andou Hiroshige at a symposium held the 24th to 26th of November 2010 - SO PRETTY RECENTLY- at Niigata Institute of Technology, Kashiwazaki, Niigata, Japan ( see the site here http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/ ).

The document is called Tsunami Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan and include a study for the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

Conclusions of the study are, based on this presentation (see page 15):

"We assessed and confirmed the safety of nuclear power plants based on the JSCE method which was published in 2002".

The simulation done relates to hypothesis ending up with a maximum tsunami wave height at Fukushima plant of... 5,7m, to be compared to the actual height mesured on site by Tepco after the disaster (on the walls of the buildings) of 14 METERS! This is JUST a 145% underestimation...

As you maybe know, the european authorities have decided to conduct "stress tests" (like for the banks!) on all the nuclear plants in europe but i would like to ask this question:

What kind of science is it when you end up with calculations that fall 145% under the reality that happens a few months after? The order of magnitude of error is enormous, and this is even more obvious when you take into account the fact that the highest tsunami waves in history have even been bigger than 35 meters it seems.

5,7m seems very very low, even after "torough computerized" calculations...

Questions:

1) Is it that kind of science that is supposed to justify pre-determined decisions (the plant was built for a long time!) after the fact, where somebody has to "fine tune" the inputs so the output fits the political or economical goals determined by others (which are maybe your boss?)?

2) If yes, can it be called "risks assessement"? Or should it be called "cost optimization by redefinition of what natural catastrophes SHOULD BE" (instead of WILL BE)?

3) Is it normal that this assessment is only done by the company (which tends to naturally apply "point 2 science") and not the autorities or any "regulation" or "safety" agency? (As you see, we are not far from the banks situation... with other consequences of course).

Further trial will (hopefully) give some comprehensive answers. As you probably know, we learned today or yesterday that TEPCO didn't insure its Fukushima plant for its own degradation after August 2010 because TEPCO found the insurance cost too high (and by law there are not obliged to get an insurance for themselves). They are still responsible for degradations to "others" but there is an exclusion case when related to "natural disasters" ( see this article in French for further info: http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/20...09-fukushima-site-plus-assure-depuis-2010.php ).

If you link this info to the point above, one question arises: does a "natural disaster" starts with a wave (under) estimated at 5,7m or should it be at more than 14m? Because in the first case, why not assess the worst case scenario at 2 meters and then regular high tides will probably become a natural disaster?

This point of discussion is critical in all industries, but obviously even more in the nuclear one as we see it now...

 

[TCups]

5.7m vs 14m is a factor of about 2.5, not "an order of magnitude" or 10X, right?

Would everyone feel better if they had accurately calculated the possibility of 14m wave a few months earlier, as the outcome would very likely be no different?

It was a big mistake, yes, first made 40 years ago, and it was another big mistake not to have corrected it. But even if they had, the death toll of the natural disaster that struck Japan would be very little affected.

Thank goodness all the reactor sites in France are probably better engineered and better risk assessed against any such disaster, we shall hope.

I predict Japan and Japan's nuclear energy industry will recover and that they will build a higher sea wall next time, and have better designed reactor facilities. Then, a volcano will probably erupt and back-fill the sea wall with hot lava, most likely.

The history of mankind tells me that as a species, we have never been very good at any point in history at predicting the worst case scenario of any potential natural disaster, be it plague, volcano, ice age or meteor impact (except maybe for Noah, and he had God to tell him how big an ark he should build for the coming flood).

PS: Mankind's history of major success from the "well-intended" interventions of authorities, regulatory bodies, and safety organizations has not always been that great either, IMO.

PPS: Is 9.0 on the Richter Scale 10X larger than an 8.0 earthquake? If so, then, logarithmically speaking, maybe they only missed it by a couple of decimal points.

But your point is well made and acknowledged. Something to think about.

 

[jlduh]

Sorry, i misused the terms "order of magnitude" (from a scientific stand point) but it's more a french to english translation mistake from me i think (because "ordre de grandeur" in french doesn't necessarily mean factor x10 in common language). Sorry again for the bad expression.

Would everyone feel better if they had accurately calculated the possibility of 14m wave a few months earlier, as the outcome would very likely be no different?

My answer to this question relates to how this happened to be so severely underestimated...

If it's a mistake, i think it's a "big" mistake if i only judge the "calculation to experience inaccuracy". If it ends up not to be a mistake but "something else" (inquiry will tell, hopefully), then this is even more problematic because anyone can then doubt of safety policy in general... (case one ends up with the same questions and doubts, but mistakes are socially more understandable -and maybe correctable- than lies or fraud for example, IMO).

Concerning earthquakes magnitudes (correct me if I'm wrong) a 9 magnitude earthquake involves 30 times more energy and 10 times more displacement than an 8.

So of course one can always say that the mistake is maybe only 1 out of 8 of course, but...

 

[TCups]

Sorry, i misused the terms "order of magnitude" (from a scientific stand point) but it's more a french to english translation mistake from me i think (because "ordre de grandeur" in french doesn't necessarily mean factor x10 in common language). Sorry again for the bad expression.

jlduh - No worries, friend. Everyone understands your feelings and thoughts you expressed here. And I understand the concerns you correctly express. Know that it is just my - there must be a French word for it - "wry" sense of humor coming through in the post. Heaven knows I myself have made a lot of big mistakes and massive misjudgments these last 40 years. Attempting to translate my thought in French would surely be one of them. You know what they say -- a person who speaks more than one language = multilingual. A person who speaks only one language = American.

PS: welcome to the forum, and I did remember the French word -- something like merde, I believe.

 

[TCups]

So of course one can always say that the mistake is maybe only 1 out of 8 of course, but...

jlduh: many years ago, when I first studied engineering before I switched to medicine, the terms we used to apply to such calculations and errors were "WAG" and "SWAG", if you know those.

 

[AntonL]

We all understand how critical this point has been regarding to the tsunami and the cause of loss of power on site due to flooding of the backup generators.

I would like to draw your attention to a TEPCO document that i found today in which this company reassessed in 2010 the "safety" of its plants regarding to tsunamis, especially after the Chile tsunami the 28th of February 2010. I give the direct link to where to find this document (I plan to send this info to several medias here in France):

http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf

It is a presentation of a Tepco study (see logos on the doc) done in 2010, and its conclusions were presented by a certain Andou Hiroshige at a symposium held the 24th to 26th of November 2010 - SO PRETTY RECENTLY- at Niigata Institute of Technology, Kashiwazaki, Niigata, Japan ( see the site here http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/ ).

The document is called Tsunami Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan and include a study for the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

Conclusions of the study are, based on this presentation (see page 15):

"We assessed and confirmed the safety of nuclear power plants based on the JSCE method which was published in 2002".

The simulation done relates to hypothesis ending up with a maximum tsunami wave height at Fukushima plant of... 5,7m, to be compared to the actual height mesured on site by Tepco after the disaster (on the walls of the buildings) of 14 METERS! This is JUST a 145% underestimation...

As a skeptic - In 2010 TEPCO financed study estimated tsunami heights to values that will prove that the nuclear power plants are safe. If TEPCO simply listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis" wave heights they would have been forced to close down. Further, the standard Tsunami was estimated in a 2002 why was this not updated with the 2004 indian ocean tsunami experience which had a wave height of 33 meters.

Interesting would be to know if the design level of the NPP was dictated by operational needs such as basements, natural fall of outlet water, etc or a Tsunami study.

Economics dictates reason.

 

[Bez999]

"Economics dictates reason"

No, economics IS reason, it's just that its basic assumptions and hypotheses are rather iffy.
I'd agree that an empirical approach to recorded tsunami heights would appear to have been a sounder route, although I haven't read that report. Nevertheless, the way I understand it, the current problems would have been mitigated if only the emergency power supplies would have been constructed to withstand the extra tsunami height over the design assumptions.
A nuclear power plant designed to withstand an earthquake would no doubt structurally resist the additional loading caused by a 14 meter instead of a 6 meter tsunami. It appears that it is the relatively "soft" infrastructure that was the culprit here.

 

[AntonL]

filling of unit 4 SFP by concrete lifter
[PLAIN]http://bilder.bild.de/BILD/news/fotos/2011/03/22/japan-ticker/SONDERKONDITIONEN__20257190__MBQF-1300804062,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

I am amazed by the protection suits, two piece, open collar, construction helmet ...
Compare to clothing in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprycG9mlZc&feature=relmfu

and workers/inspectors then drive home in their cars, I presume after a hosing down, but is that effective?

Since, the radiological protection staff at the reactors and emergency center are very competent, and you or I do not know the radiological situation being shown...then what you see is appropriate. Quit slamming stuff you probably know nothing about.

A site cleared a day earlier by military armoured vehicle, heavy steel protecting the operator

and compared to this
[URL]http://www.datapple.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/05990_radiation-check-japan.jpg[/URL]


amazed skeptic using common sense

 

[Reno Deano]

T-Cups and Antoni must be auditioning for Fox or one of the other news groups. Using limited knowledge, convoluted science, and conjucture. BTW, radiologically clearing a place and entering a cleared place are to diametrically opposites. Evidently you have not worked in contaminated areas or had to cleared them. Pictures do not always tell the whole story...that is how Fox news and others get attention. Have you got enough yet?

 

[mattm2]

Off topic: fuzefiz you wrote: "I was once a research physicist (not nuclear). Now I am particularly interested this problem because I am an investor in would-be uranium miners (at least, since last week when their stock prices fell, I am an investor)."

IMO, you need to be careful because (especially in small cap stocks): massive illegal naked bear co-ordinated short attacks can and do occur and the SEC does not have (or refuses to deploy) the resources to combat them. I don't think they will attack uranium miner stocks because the bear raiders are more likely to attack green energy stocks (due to the nature of their political beliefs--although nuclear power is in a sense green energy if contained properly and the waste issue is resolved). I have been in contact with the SEC and with one Senator's office regarding one of the illegal attacks (although many are on going at any moment in time).

 

[jlduh]

I wanted to post a second contribution consisting of a link towards a video (quite long because of translation, but detailed) that i don't think has been posted here and that may be very valuable from several points of view to understand what's going on in the reactors.

It's on the CNIC site (which is a Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) and is a press conference (Archive link to March 18, 2011) and explanation (Japanese and English) by nuclear engineer Mitsuhiko Tanaka who worked on design of pressure vessel of Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 4, and then (after 1h35) by Dr Masashi Goto who worked on design of containment vessels of Mark 1 BWR reactors like the ones used at the Fukushima Daiichi.

It seems these are guys who know about what they are talking about.

You will also have the occasion to review various schematics and pictures of the actual installations, especially a picture of the internal top floor of reactor n°6 (if my understanding is right) which is shown from the very beginning of the conference. The picture was taken 25 years ago during a periodic inspection (below is an image copied from the video with the printscreen key of my laptop):

http://www.netimago.com/image_181276.html

Link to video: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13410573

You have other links to videos of conferences (not always translated/interpreted from japanese) on the main page:

http://www.cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/fukushima.html

 

[TCups]

T-Cups and Antoni must be auditioning for Fox or one of the other news groups. Using limited knowledge, convoluted science, and conjucture.

LOL -- you mean "WAG's & SWAG's", right? OK, I get your drift, sir.

Later all, and thanks to everyone for the info, insight and critique. I learned a lot, even if I failed the audition, Reno. Sorry if I became tiresome.

Respectfully, etc.

 

[Arcer]

I guess that the dirty dark brown wavy line on those cream coloured buildings in the background might be a tsunami tidemark (or it could be explosion dust or debris or something else but the wavy dark brown stuff doesn't seem to be that deep elsewhere - for example on the roofs behind) maybe giving an indication of the eventual water level within the site although the water could have gone even higher and left that debris on what, at distance, appears to be a ledge or a roof? as the water receded.

If that's what it is it's a bit puzzling why there doesn't seem to be any visible water marking on the nearby taller buildings as the tsunami water was supposed to be metres deep. Is there any other evidence elsewhere of how high the tsunami was within the site.

I imagine at that sort of height the water as well as getting into the reactor buildings it could have backed up into all sort of site pipes and site tunnels etc causing all sorts of blockages to whatever was supposed to be flowing along them.

 

[Astronuc]

As a skeptic - In 2010 TEPCO financed study estimated tsunami heights to values that will prove that the nuclear power plants are safe. If TEPCO simply listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis" wave heights they would have been forced to close down. Further, the standard Tsunami was estimated in a 2002 why was this not updated with the 2004 indian ocean tsunami experience which had a wave height of 33 meters.

Interesting would be to know if the design level of the NPP was dictated by operational needs such as basements, natural fall of outlet water, etc or a Tsunami study.

Economics dictates reason.

Well, perhaps there will be some kind of investigation as to why better tsunami defense was not provided, or at least, why the EGDs and supporting systems were placed in such a vulnerable location. Those decisions were made about 45 years ago. It's quite common for an institution and affiliates to continue an operation without re-visiting the original bases of the operation. If something has worked for 40+ years, why change?

One would have to review the FSAR or equivalent document, and the supporting documentation, e.g., a licensing topical report or equivalent, in order to determine the rationale behind the design basis. Then one can look at relevant events occurring in and around the time of the established design, and events since.

In 1964, there was a substantial earthquake and corresponding 8+ m tsunami event. Was that addressed in the Fukushima Daiichi design basis? If so, how?

How should a utility use relevant events after the design basis is accepted, the plant constructed and placed in operation?

 

[|Fred]

Thank goodness all the reactor sites in France are probably better engineered and better risk assessed against any such disaster, we shall hope.

We are getting off topic pointing finger...

But as far as goodness is concerned.

According to French Nuclear Authority Fukushima situation could not happen in France because of better risk assessment: Break down of French risk assessment = [ Estimated Highest intensity recorded in the area (base an historical speculation)] x5 (factor five) (applied to an epicenter below the station..)
In other word if they assume that on a Richter scale they do not expect more than 7 , the power plant should be able to sustain a earthquake 7.2 in order to pass French safety guideline.
Reassured now, are we ?

Perspective:
I've read (but I have no evidence) that Fukushima NPP was build to sustain a 7.8 seismic event.. something as little about 40 time stronger hit it and it is still standing.. The reactor did shutdown, emergency cooling powered by batteries worked while they had juice..

@jlduh
Further more, tsunami's risk under assessment in Japan, really ? Are you having a laugh ? More that 100 000 Japanese experienced it first hand, I can not see Tepco as the odd one out on this one.
Mind your "Is it normal that this assessment is only done by the company (which tends to naturally apply "point 2 science") and not the autorities or any "regulation" or "safety" agency?" ... They all got it wrong.

 

[jensjakob]

Black smoke from #3.
http://translate.google.dk/translat...2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www3.nhk.or.jp/

Can it be related to electricity being re-connected - and maybe fried wires?

 

[DrDu]

Some question about the design limit for earthquakes: When they say that the reactors had been designed to resist an earthquake of magnitude 8, but the current earthquake had magnitude 9 there seems some information missing to me. Namely the earthquake did not occur directly under the reactor. IMO the design limits should refer to the amplitude of the seismic waves measured locally, not to the total energy released in a quake at some arbitrary location. What were the concrete limits? How strong were the seismic waves at the reactor site?

 

[artax]

A new video - spraying closeup to #3:
http://video.asahi.com/viewvideo.jspx?Movie=48464141/48464141peevee378318.flv

Nice to see more vid jens. I hear this morning there's a new plume of black smoke... which sounds very ominous. The working teams were then evacuated but I haven't heard if they've gone back in yet.
By the looks of their protection they can't be THAT concerned about radiation levels, which is a good sign.
I sincerely hope they get good cooling soon.

 

[|Fred]

They are currently holding a press conference , where they express concern about the temperature in the core vessel

Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced in its news briefing held around 10:00 AM on March 23 that the core temperature exceed design value of 302℃ and reached almost 400℃ at Unit-1. Core cooling function was enhanced through increasing number of injection lines, given this s

 

[dave2004]

And here they say it's the SFP that has reached 400C:
http://wallstreetpit.com/68105-fukushimas-reactor-1-core-reaches-400-degrees-celsius

"Another negative development in the world’s worst nuclear crisis in a quarter of a century is that the temperature at the spent fuel pools at Reactor No. 1 has reached 400 degrees celsius. This was at 380-390 degrees a few hours back."
(bold by me)

400C in an open water pool means no water

 

[|Fred]

Wallstreetpit got it Wrong (would not be the first time)

400° degree is the temp of the core temperature design was made to sustain 302°
Curent temp is 330°

 

[artax]

Still not looking good then, the news I've seen over the past two days has been reporting ludicrously optimistic statements like 'workers are reconnecting power to the stricken fukushima plant, in the hope of restoring cooling to the four reactors'
They need lots of help I feel from some disaster experienced engineers.
Reactor 1, blimey! they've been more concerned about 3 and 4, 1 is the least damage isn't it? maybe they'd better focus on two now!
Looks like we'll have black smoke from all 4 reactors by tomorrow.

 

[|Fred]

latest (exept t° went down to 330° in unit 1)
[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/ika7oo.jpg
[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/ijW5Ti.jpg

 

[jlduh]

@ FRED: ca you give the direct link to these two very informative pages?

Can somebody confirm the pressure readings: we talk about relative pressure to atmospheric pressure and not absolute pressure, of course (just want to make it clear to anybody)?

By the looks of their protection they can't be THAT concerned about radiation levels, which is a good sign.

I'm not sure you saw in the US the documentary (in french language) La bataille de Tchernobyl (The Battle of Tchernobyl), done in 2005, right?

In case you would like to see it (the images and archives from Soviet autorities are worth to see even if you don't understand everything), you can view it in 5 parts here:

http://www.chernobyl-day.org/article/la-bataille-de-tchernobyl

or here

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xbsg_la-bataille-de-tchernobyl-15_news
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xbys_la-bataille-de-tchernobyl-2-5_news
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xc90_la-bataille-de-tchernobil-3-5_news
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xci0_la-bataille-de-tchernobyl-4-5_news
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xcqa_la-bataille-de-tchernobyl-55_news

You will see how to deal with high levels of radioactivity in case of high emergency... One million people have worked on the "liquidation" of the crippled soviet reactor. Most of them have been killed or got sicked. Most of them didn't even know what they were risking. The ones who intervened on the reactor itself ("cleaning" the roof for example: All of them died) have been called the "bio robots", because they were replacing the failed robots whose electronics couldn't bear the radiations levels...

I don't know how this accident has been covered and disclosed in the US from the citizen standpoint and knowledge. Here in Europe but especially in France, we had to wait until 2005 and this documentary to have a easy to understand tool to really be able to imagine what really happened there during the days, weeks and months after the accident.

Of course the subject here in Europe and France was very "touchy" (french are one of the "leaders" in nuclear energy) but on the other hand we were much closer from the catastroph and (some) citizens stayed very concerned and "vaccinated" by the combination of relative proximity and unacceptable silence and disinformation by the autorities (french and soviet).

Did US people know this documentary by the way? I don't know if an english version exists (it should be the case...)

 

[|Fred]

My sources for the Japanese figure are those http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/index.php
My source for the French way of safety assessing risk is the parliamentary hearing that was held on the 16.03.2011 the " Assemblée nationale"

According to NHK word http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_28.html

163,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium-137 per kilogram of soil has been detected in Iitate Village, about 40 kilometers northwest of the plant.

I'm failing at maths here..

 

[Borek]

One million people have worked on the "liquidation" of the crippled soviet reactor. Most of them have been killed or got sicked.

That's simply not true (to not say it is a lie). There was no "million" people working there, and total number of deaths that can be attributed to the accident is below 100. Estimates of the number of deaths that occurred later are also much lower (several thousands), unless one takes into account Yablokov book - but IMHO his estimates are in one (cracked) pot with the Moon hoax.

And it makes no sense to compare authorities in soviet Russia with Japan government - completely different culture and completely different approach; democracy vs highly censored police state. Russians worked as if nobody was looking at their hands, that's not the case in Japan. I am not telling Japanese are not trying to hide some information, quite possible they do, but the scale is incomparable and they have no tools for a fast and effective implementation of censorship.

 

[jlduh]

Thanks Fred. Are you french by the way?

The level in Iitate village soil is horrendously high taking into account the distance from the plant.

Based on what i see from last 10 days at the plant and now around the plant (combined to the info about tap water for example in this area which is the most contaminated it seems because of the winds http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_29.html , but even tap water of Tokyo is now of concern for children), i think the autorities are losing day after day control of the situation... Leaving people in the 30 (but also probably the 60 or 80 kms zone) is now really problematic. But how move so many people in a so dense country? The Tchernobyl area was, from this stand point, a little bit easier to handle i think.

 

[jlduh]

I found links for english version of The Battle of Tchernobyl (it seems the english version is from 2007 so 2 years after the french one).

It is in many parts on Youtube (10 parts) listed on this page from 1 to 10:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jimdangello+the+battle+of+tchernobyl&aq=f

 

[M. Bachmeier]

T-Cups and Antoni must be auditioning for Fox or one of the other news groups. Using limited knowledge, convoluted science, and conjucture. BTW, radiologically clearing a place and entering a cleared place are to diametrically opposites. Evidently you have not worked in contaminated areas or had to cleared them. Pictures do not always tell the whole story...that is how Fox news and others get attention. Have you got enough yet?

I wonder if you would mind qualifying your expertise sir. You apparently have very strong opinions about other contributors to this thread. At least one of the people you have slammed has credentials in two fields of study.

And, comparing anyone to FOX is an insult of an order of magnitude greater than 9.0.

Please tell us all why you know so much...

 

[jlduh]

@FRED: I already saw the regular tables and pdf on the JAIF site but I don't find from their main page the schematics your present above (which are a neat and clear presentation). Could you precise where to find them on their site? Thanks!

 

[|Fred]

My bad it was on NISA's and to be specific there http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110323-2-2.pdf
And as far as your question is concerned, the answer is: I'm

ps: the above file is now obsolete.. the new one is http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110323-3-2.pdf