Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

[TCups]

I don't doubt that some people have a lot of trouble recognizing things in that wreckage. As I said, please show me where I'm wrong - sorry if I cannot accept a general concept that I might have gotten tricked by my brain as proof that this doesn't exist.

I used to make my living making 2D drawings on a drafting board for many years, and then I designed on a Cad station. I'm pretty good at interpreting things in 3D - if you point out where I'm incorrect, I will have no trouble seeing it.

The screen grabs of the helicopter flyover clearly show the opening I'm talking about. BTW that's been the best piece of visual evidence that has been released so far, because it wasn't cropped and edited as much as most of what we see.

I didn't say that a hole didn't exist or that you were "wrong". I do say that the human visual physiology results in "seeing" things the mid organizes as cognitive visual sets, including portions of girders that form the boundary of a hole. The mind's eye tends to see the hole primarily. That can sometimes be a mistake when the actual visual information is not the hole, but the apparent boundaries of the hole.

The mind's eye sees a hole lighter than the background of the white paper in the visual illusion I attached as an illustration. Is the background actually "whiter" where the "hole" is? No.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cep/39/4/images/thumb_cep_39_4_491_fig4a.jpg

As for the existence of a hole perceptually visible in the wreckage, yes, I see it too. But it does not correspond to the location of the primary containment's top plug or where it might have reasonably been ejected, and it is within a building structure that exploded violently.

I don't know if the apparent hole has any relative significance. My assessment, though, is that the hole did not result from the ejection of the top plug or any of the contents of the RPV. That's all.

 

[maddog1964]

CAUTION: (Not intended to be taken as documented post) To anyone interested... there have been several post regarding "secondary piping" in which I believe will come into play in the end... they are major components to the water purification/balancing and other functions (very complex systems)
I do not have all the research done to post at the time.. but will gladly share my thoughts and direction I have been following if anyone care to look into,,

three earlier posts #5281 #5653 #5682 that give more information on subjects in the recent converstations... (all data should be confirmed if possible, as I do make mistakes, and I am still sorting known and unkowns)

Bluid number four was in "refuling and maintance" this changes all paramiters to "unknown" as items not permitted are "permitted" under "saftey guidelines" during these periods, Tepco has just released information that there may have been other "conbustibles" in building four. I have not seen the Tepco release, just media. (i like to verify them as they can be wrong.

Secondary (may be a trade term, not the official term) piping/equipment does seem to retain by-products from the reactor and SFP's ... it IMOP should very well have an "residuale" Radiation contamination variable here. I do not have all the back-up need to post. still working on it.

Some safety and seondary piping seem to share components, this depends on the definition of what is being called safety and secondary and primary.

The main question is "does it have rad contanition" "what is the life cycle" and most inportantanly is "Were is this equipment, associated piping and the "sludge/resin beds" NOW. What each piece does and how much "gas" (no elect to vent) and time to form gas (if applicable) to accumulate and assist as a contrabution to the events is part of the unknow. The locations of some of the missing panels line up with the equipment locations (not all buildings and not all reactors have the same systems) Important to remember the some systems that were operating in MOX reactors MAY have different "sludge chemistry" than those that are none mox.. I am still looking at the chemistry of the sludge, but since they now have "sludge" from the wastetreatment plants that are not on site , it would seem to confirm that the "sludge" is a collector and holder of the radiation.

The plant also has its own (low level I believe) wastetreatment plant, and a "off-gasing" building. Form the pictures that have come out recently, these buildings seem to be effected, not just the stack. (I am still tracing these, not a fact)

But the gasing and by-products may or may not be part of some of the answers. Was it a fuel rod found XXXX mies from the plant or did it come from a sludge tank projectile of building number 3?

I only put these thoughs out there as "what ifs" please do not attack, just don't consider. I have been looking at these for a while and the nuclear field is not somehting that is in my field. Also I am not interested in just Tepco slamming, as unless you are fimilar with the compexites of these plants and systems, what seem ouvious is not!

sorry so long. thanks

 

[elektrownik]

Interesting question: unit 4 was without fuel, but why they don't use its sensors ? They could check temperature, radiation and water level, if gate from sfp to core is damaged this could be usefule to measure SFP parameters. Also there was heat source in core (water from SFP ?) so it would be interesting to know its temperature (core).

 

[SteveElbows]

Guys.. are we rediscovering the wheel? rediscovering all the evidences we discovered one month ago ?

Probably. Yesterday when I brought up the images of steam escaping from side of storage pool concrete gate, I assumed it may well have been discussed a while ago, and I was just bringing it up again in light of the recent IAEA comment about photo of containment crack at reactor 3. But I was not expecting was to see the conversation go round in a loop several times within the 24 hours since I made my post.

Oh well, never mind eh, even though there is plenty of repetition in this thread it hopefully still helps some people to learn something new.

Tune in tomorrow when someone goes 'oh my god, reactor 4 is leaning', or 'if I stand on my head and squint, I can see the reactor pressure vessel being rude to a nun' ;)

 

[maddog1964]

I wish we knew. Unless and until TEPCO reveals that information I'm afraid we'll have to keep making educated guesses (or wait for more document leaks). I'm going to have another look at the Oyster Creek blueprints this week; it's been a while since I looked at them closely. Maybe something will stand out now that some time has passed.

Oyster Creek (BWR-2) has 2 large "emergency condensers" located one level down below the refueling floor. I'm pretty sure I read that Dai-ichi Unit 1 (BWR-3) has similar condensers, but Units 2-5 (BWR-4) do not. That's something I want to clarify.

I have been working on the equipment locations from the few documents that I have some information you may want to look at

1) the bp of building #1 shows two isolations condensers Equip# 1302 A & B, but have at the same time seen P&ID's, that I can not verify source on that do not show. Considering they are on the drawing would think that may take preference, Please note that there are five revisoins listed on the drawing, but no cloulds showing the revisions.

2) If you look at the pictures of Bld two (needs check) it apperars that there are two exhaust shown on the correct location (this also needs verified, I was working on, but have not confirmed)

3) Why would these exhaust directly to the outside and not a scrubber system? that is were I was when I seen your post and have not gotten back to items one and two. Conclusion what I have seen so far is that because "some NPP have what would be built or called a heat exchanger" and it works on a primary/secondary separation therory, in that no radiation would vent to the outside. But in looking at the "could this be true, as it surpirses me that it would vent directly from the reacter building to outside) I came across an incident report here in the US that such a failure happened and did infact cause low level contanination..

With that said I make no claim, this is what applies to Japan , its my interpitation of what I have found so far, and have not completed the research i am working on. but wanted to offer this if it helps you in your search. Gladly comment as more head are better than one.

 

[Jeff_H]

Page 6 of this:

http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/technical-briefing-11-0505

In the containment integrity row and the observation column, the last point thing it says is:

'Images of Unit 3 show crack in the primary containment and steam released from the reactor building.'

The lack of detail is what has caused me to have room to wonder whether the images I just mentioned could be what they refer to, or whether I am looking at the right part of the building at all. For now I'd say the footage I refer to is a potential candidate, but I would welcome lots more opinion on this matter.

Have you noticed that there are 6 seconds cut from the video at 3:20, just when it appears to be focused on the stacks of concrete from the bio sheild, and the source of the steam?

 

[zapperzero]

Regarding the panning of JNN feed, I do not know how to download and save video streaming. Any advice?

Try this:
http://www.dreamingsoft.com/flashcapture/index.htm
flash cap, don't know if it works on "endless" streams, added benefit of sound ofc
Or this:
http://camstudio.org/
screen video cap, all-purpose, free, can't do audio

Later edit: oh yes, you were lucky.

 

[ihatelies]

I may not have expressed myself clearly. I infer that you are envisioning the holes being there in the metal structure would be because a large object had passed through it. Such an object should have left a hole or a path, such that itself, or a similar object, would be able to pass through a second time along the same route, now without meeting any significant hindrance. That does not appear to me to be the case, some metal elements seem to be still in the suggested path through the putative 'hole'

But we cannot say there is a hole because an object passed through it, and if there is no hole fitting the size of the object it is because the object must have gotten sliced up. That would seem to be getting a bit ridiculous.

This is where a typing on a forum limits the communication. I'm sorry if I'm not very clear.

I didn't say that a hole exists that could be used again, and I didn't intend to say those cross beams perfectly sliced whatever passed through, I said they were broken off on the other end, and I meant to imply that there existence would likely cause damage to whatever passed through - We all know that when large forces occur - even very strong materials like steel can deform significantly and then spring back somewhat.

You have seen evidence, from a couple different views that a hole exists, and that beams are deformed in a manner which suggests a large round object passing through.

Does that prove that the reactor core ejected? - no it clearly does not - it is strong circumstantial evidence that must be proven with additional facts.

However by the same logic, it's existence also proves that something did occur, and there has to be some explanation for that occurence.

I put the following major facts together:
1. the strong verticality of the #3 explosion
2. the existence of a round hole in the roof structure just about lined up with the reactor core and
3. the existence of some very hot debris on the Northwest corner of the wreckage - right where you see some of the debris from the explosion fall.
4. the soundtrack of the explosion, which has a strange "whooshing" sound at the end of the booms, which I think is the steel roof structure and possibly the cranes collapsing back down on the structure after they were lifted. and
5. The large cloud of radioactive material that existed after the #3 explosion that panicked the crew of the USS Ronald Reagan and caused them to redeploy elsewhere (first time I ever remember a US aircraft carrier battle group turning and steaming away from an important mission)
and 6. The PR wall of secrecy over #3 - the constant diversions to other issues - the cropping of pictures and the editing of videos, so that we can't see what's really happening.

Am I right? - let me tell you I hope I'm not - but I have to see another explanation for those facts that seems physically plausible.

 

[mrcurious]

Did you read the second part of my post? The second picture I posted proves it didn't have to come off "spinning like a frisbee". The entire roof structure is moved exactly one section to the south. Which puts that hole directly over the reactor core.

And I don't necessarily believe the thermal imagery, since it showed the whole shebang as at very low temps.

So first off, do you believe something went vertical through that hole?

I don't see it that way. To me it looks as if the eastern roof structure is pretty much in the place it should be although it may have dropped horizontally, while the western end appears to have shifted only one half panel to the south (indicating an explosion in the northwest section of the service floor?). The roof girders over the PCV are still over the PCV. As we see in the northwest and southeast corners the roof girders would have blown away if there was an RPV explosion.

You're trying to make the evidence fit your theory. Theories should follow the evidence, not the other way around.

 

[elektrownik]

Much steam/smoke from unit 3 core location. And about core: it couldn't be ejected, radiation is the answer, if core, fuel from core or fuel from sfp would be ejected radiation would be giant X-XXSv/h not mSv as it is, the hot spots could be parts of reactor cap, or concrede shield, they were exposed to big amount of radioactive steam.

 

[mrcurious]

Did you read the second part of my post? The second picture I posted proves it didn't have to come off "spinning like a frisbee". The entire roof structure is moved exactly one section to the south. Which puts that hole directly over the reactor core.

And I don't necessarily believe the thermal imagery, since it showed the whole shebang as at very low temps.

So first off, do you believe something went vertical through that hole?

Related question. Isn't one continuous steam cloud coming from reactor 3? And the other one from the fuel pond?

Reactor/PCV steam may be coming from vent tubes or blown welds on structure penetrations. I think this is backed up by the thermal images which show a very hot SFP and a semi cold PCV with three hot spots around it's perimeter.

 

[pdObq]

To be more precise there is no double layered steel structure on the north and south end as there is no transversal beam adjacent to the wall. But there still is a single layered steel structure.

I' don't feel like going over every argument again but I've reup a better view of the roof been deformation, that also show you the secondary pool wall, the one adjacent to the reactor concrete slab with a crane on top , toping the reactor biological shield, the one toping the reactor core vessel lid..
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/ikOZG2.jpg[/QUOTE]

Ah thanks for that. I was thinking the other picture was looking from E or W, but wasn't sure.

If that is looking north at the DS pit then, the back wall is the structure between the DS pit and reactor cavity. They would not transfer fuel through there, but they would transfer the steam separator and possible steam dryer. The steam leakage then would seem to be coming from containment - possibly the reactor cavity.

Did not Tepco themselves mention a while ago something about that the bellows seal between the RPV and the drywell walls at the top of the reactor is damaged in unit3. So, steam can escape from the RPV into the space under the concrete shields (= reactor cavity?).

EDIT: See this post for the bellows seal: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3281660&postcount=5687 . But I am wondering now, if the RPV-to-drywell bellows seal leaks, it should leak into the drywell head, no? (in that sketch the reactor head and the drywell head are not drawn). And, there shouldn't be steam coming out from the drywell-to-reactor-building seal (unless coming from in between drywell steel vessel and concrete around it). How were those speculations about stretched drywell and or/RPV head bolts?

 

[AntonL]

I'd much rather discuss the new tanks being set up.

I take you up on this.

Normally when a nuclear plant is build very stringent material approval procedures, erection procedures, testing procedures etc need to be followed, both client and consultant oversee these steps and on occasion even reject materials, designs etc when they are not convinced of the suitability and quality.

Now, Tepco has this super emergency and observing the little bit that is being released, I often ask myself is this really nuclear appropriated or akin to a "farmer makes a plan", the first time this question i asked in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3263462&postcount=4715"

The same question I ask with the installation of what is obvious second hand tanks (rust marks on the flanges). I stated earlier I can see no evidence of deep foundations (no excavation marks) just a leveling slab of concrete on the tarmac. Supposedly they will use similar temporary flexible pipes to pump contaminated water to these tanks. Furthermore these tanks are bottom filled (as per the drawing snippet), catastrophic result if failure in filling system.

I know it is easy to criticize sitting in an armchair and not being involved in the emergency team, but who is there to check hasty decisions in a situation that changes daily. Are apparently sub-standard solutions acceptable in a emergency situation? One can be lucky and it works however one can be equally unlucky and have great mess somewhere else.

I have worked for and with Japanese for more than 16 years and I have experienced a very narrow mindset when things do not run correctly in a project. Just solve this problem to the satisfaction of the client/consultant even if other things go wrong in the meantime, the other things the client has not realized and these can be fixed later quietly. This same mind set I experienced in a small scale I believe I am experiencing in a Mega-scale.

I would really like to see a new satellite view of Fukushima as a whole, only that way we can judge if things are happening on a grander scale or not.

Water tanks being erected at Fukushima or is it the Areva processing plant?
all in Japanese.
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/inguKS.JPG
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/jkT9d2.JPG
These seem to be dismantled tanks from somewhere else (rust marks on flanges), I hope they do not leak and are earthquake resistant.

[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/ikP9QM.JPG

 

[pdObq]

I did find another document re. the Oyster Creek plant that lists the weights of certain equipment that's moved around the RB by crane. Some of that was interesting, for instance it gives the weight of the 8 semi-circular cavity shield plugs as 85 tons (77,000 kg) each, which is heavier than the drywell head (56,245 kg) and the RPV head (68,311 kg). It gives the weight of the Stud Tensioner Assembly as 24 tons (21,770 kg). All numbers are probably unique to Oyster Creek, but similar plants are likely to be within a similar range.

One thing mentioned that I wasn't aware of is the existence of 4 "Equipment Storage Pool Shield Plugs", each of which weighs more than 37 tons (30,000 kg). No way to know if such things are used at the Dai-ichi reactor buildings, or their size/weight. The equipment pools at Dai-ichi seem to be different in size and shape compared to the one at Oyster Creek, so I won't draw too many conclusions.

The document is accession number ML011270047 if anyone wants the whole thing from the NRC website. I've attached the 2-page excerpt of the Heavy Loads weight table.

Oh, interesting, they actually do have shield plugs for the SFP...
Are those actually used?

 

[ihatelies]

As for the existence of a hole perceptually visible in the wreckage, yes, I see it too. But it does not correspond to the location of the primary containment's top plug or where it might have reasonably been ejected, and it is within a building structure that exploded violently.

OK good, you can see it, so it's not just in my imagination. Now show me how it does not correspond to the location of the top plug. I think it very nearly lines up on the North/South axis - particularly if the plug exists between column 3 and column 4, instead of directly under number 4 (refer back to my numbering scheme saying #4 is the center of the building and #1 is the south end - I don't know if there is a more proper column numbering scheme). And on the East/West axis, it alignes perfectly.

I don't know if the apparent hole has any relative significance. My assessment, though, is that the hole did not result from the ejection of the top plug or any of the contents of the RPV. That's all.

I've apparently shown you some information you didn't have before (please refer back if you've discussed this hole before and I will stay quiet about it). I'm very interested in anyone's logical assessment.

 

[pdObq]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtcbz/sets/72157626687253144/

These photos were taken by a person concerned in late April.

THANK YOU

I hope this will be enough for the disbeliever get over the tilting UNIT 4 theory

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3056/5705932388_dca31f4961_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2369/5705368411_4a2ee8f0a6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/5705937752_99f42dca4b_o.jpg

I'll get back to this in a jiffy
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/inkwkk.jpg[/QUOTE]

Alright now, so it really looks like it is leaning towards the east. The new images are great, but as the poster stated they are from late April. Unit 4 probably was not leaning back then. I guess it hard to come up with an optical illusion or camera related issue explanation with those new images from the live feed.

 

[mrcurious]

While I certainly can see what you are talking about, I am hesitant to consider it a round hole in the sense that a huge round object could've passed unhindered through it. There appears to be several remains of the higher lying roof structure elements in the way, which appear relatively unscathed by the general utter destruction in this area, as well as more specifically an assumed collision with a passing through large object.
[URL]http://www.gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_docs/20110324_down_3_epicenter.jpg[/URL]

That said, this 'hole' you are highlighting does seem to be closely the epicenter of the events that shook unit 3 so badly.

Yes. All that proves is something might have been driven through the roof. To claim it was the reactor top is a conclusion not supported by any other evidence.

 

[etudiant]

I take you up on this.

Normally when a nuclear plant is build very stringent material approval procedures, erection procedures, testing procedures etc need to be followed, both client and consultant oversee these steps and on occasion even reject materials, designs etc when they are not convinced of the suitability and quality.

Now, Tepco has this super emergency and observing the little bit that is being released, I often ask myself is this really nuclear appropriated or akin to a "farmer makes a plan", the first time this question i asked in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3263462&postcount=4715"

The same question I ask with the installation of what is obvious second hand tanks (rust marks on the flanges). I stated earlier I can see no evidence of deep foundations (no excavation marks) just a leveling slab of concrete on the tarmac. Supposedly they will use similar temporary flexible pipes to pump contaminated water to these tanks. Furthermore these tanks are bottom filled (as per the drawing snippet), catastrophic result if failure in filling system.

I know it is easy to criticize sitting in an armchair and not being involved in the emergency team, but who is there to check hasty decisions in a situation that changes daily. Are apparently sub-standard solutions acceptable in a emergency situation - one can be lucky and it works however one can be equally unlucky and have great mess somewhere else.

I have worked for and with Japanese for more than 16 years and I have experienced a very narrow mindset when things do not run correctly in a project. Just solve this problem to the satisfaction of the client/consultant even if other things go wrong in the meantime, the other things the client has not realized and these can be fixed later quietly. This same mind set I experienced in a small scale I believe I am experiencing in a Mega-scale.

I would really like to see a new satellite view of Fukushima as a whole, only that way we can judge if things are happening on a grander scale or not.

Thank you for this interesting picture. It is the first I've seen of the storage tanks that will need to hold the roughly 100,000 cubic meters of water accumulating in the plant by the time the water decontamination plant starts operations.
The site however seems planned for 20 tanks, each about 6 meters high and about 10 meters in diameter, for a volume of only some 10,000 cubic meters. Where is the rest of the installation?

 

[SteveElbows]

I guess it hard to come up with an optical illusion or camera related issue explanation with those new images from the live feed.

Not at all, in fact I find it increasingly difficult to take the 'unit 4 is leaning' seriously.

Its simply an issue of perspective, location of camera, and the general poor state of unit 4.

if you try to look only at the concrete frame of the building, rather than other debris and remains of various panels, the leaning appearance diminishes greatly. Especially if you look at the very corner of the building where south wall meets west wall (to the right of the painted number 4), its pretty straight.

We also have the images taken from the ground, which are apparently from later in April, and the building really hasnt changed much at all compared to the early shots we got. Let's suggest that if the leaning theory had any credibility, then the large April 11th earthquake which was bi enough to warrant being noted in the official updates for each reactor, is a contender for 'event which caused the leaning'. Well we've seen photos likely taken after that date and the only notable change is the small bit of concrete at corner of reactor 3 building has fallen to the ground, unit 4 hasnt changed.

In a few places the wall bulges out, but in no way can the whole building be said to be leaning in the way that people have tried to suggest in recent days using live feed images.

 

[mrcurious]

this is a picture of the north end
http://i.min.us/inkjAa.jpg
Could you please point out what you believe are pile of ..well rod like = small tubes.
I don"t recall any mention of reddish Smoke, but could you refresh my memories.

For the rest of the statement I believe you are referring to the pictures and the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeY7URe9q8
I would agree that one could wonder why in order to fill the Fuel Pool the truck is positioned there.

Someone mentioned a "Radioactive Waste Room" in the northwest corner of the building. Could this be a temporary storage facility for rods that are taken out of the SFP and awaiting transfer to the common SFP? If so could these be the answer to a possible explosion in that part of the building?

 

[pdObq]

one month? this story is now two month old.

Yah - new members regurgitate the old stuff and sometimes also bring crackpot ideas, upon which we then joyfully defend our more realistic ideas in reply, instead of just ignoring.

Has this forum got a function to hide post from certain members?

I fully agree with you the new stuff is interesting the old stuff adds noise to the forum. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is decreasing.

I think in the spirit of Sir Isaac Newton, the manager of this thread must keep the discussion on topic and make sure the birthers and flat earthers never gain the inside lane on information. I hope I am getting all your post AntonL, you put up some good stuff.

My take on it is that this forum interface was just not made to comforably handle threads with 6000+ posts... It would already help a lot if the search function was somewhat better.
I personnaly joined this not too long ago, and keeping up with all the new posts already takes quite some time, so I don't see how one can check through everything that already has been discussed in this thread in a reasonable time. I tried at some point, but only made it through the first 250 posts...

So, if new posters ask questions that have already been answered, then the veterans should ideally give a link to the relevant post (which is not so easy due to the search thing), or at least let them know that the answer already exists and give some hint on keywords to search for.

Also, there are so many parallel discussions going on at the same time, this thread could easily fill a whole sub-forum. Some time ago there were posts about changing to a wiki format, so all the information about all the different topics could be structured more easily.

Quoting seems very useful, so that people can at least follow back a chain of related discussions.

 

[zapperzero]

Thank you for this interesting picture. It is the first I've seen of the storage tanks that will need to hold the roughly 100,000 cubic meters of water accumulating in the plant by the time the water decontamination plant starts operations.
The site however seems planned for 20 tanks, each about 6 meters high and about 10 meters in diameter, for a volume of only some 10,000 cubic meters. Where is the rest of the installation?

Apparently they are setting this up for some less ambitious goal (such as draining the basement of unit 1 or some part of its primary coolant loop). What's next on their gantt chart?

As for the tanks being rusty: it is possible that they are on loan, having been used in the same capacity somewhere else - nuclear equipment is not easy to come by. Of course, this is pure speculation so I better shut up now.

 

[SteveElbows]

Have you noticed that there are 6 seconds cut from the video at 3:20, just when it appears to be focused on the stacks of concrete from the bio sheild, and the source of the steam?

There have been numerous occasions where we seem to be 'so near and yet so far' when it comes to learning something real important from official information. I think that a few examples of this do enable us to draw certain conclusions, but they arent technical ones. It would be a miracle if we could deduce anything of real value from this general sense that some things are being obscured somewhat deliberately. I would rather keep irritating question marks in my mind than replace them with false certainties.

On a related note I went and did further analysis of that portion of reactor 3 helicopter video which you had posted about, the images that suggested there was something dark and curved with protruding studs. Its right at the start of the video, and to my eyes its poor and unconvincing, and so after careful consideration I reject it. At this point despite only limited visual evidence that reactor cavity top concrete plugs are still in place, at least on one side, this evidence is still stronger than any of the stuff which claim to show containment vessel or reactor pressure vessel of any kind in any position. Combine this with the sensor data, and it really is hard for me to indulge in any more speculation about this stuff unless someone comes up with new evidence that is far more compelling than that presented here in recent days. I previously said that I keep an open mind because I have not seen for sure, but that does not mean I am finding it at all easy to buy into a lot of the stuff presented here in the last few days.

 

[ihatelies]

Yes. All that proves is something might have been driven through the roof. To claim it was the reactor top is a conclusion not supported by any other evidence.

Well, we can clearly see from the explosion video that something was driven through the roof.

However this adds that this something was round, and was very wide - otherwise it wouldn't bulge a pretty much round bend in the steel. Which is evidence in and of itself of the reactor top or even the entire reactor.

And why do you say it is "not supported by any other evidence". There's plenty of evidence nuclear material has been distributed outside the confines of the building - it either came from the core or the fuel pool. There's video evidence of the explosion.

The fact that they continue to pour water into the pool, and that the pool apparently still holds water, is clear evidence to me that there wasn't an explosion inside the pool that destroyed the entire rest of the building, but didn't cause a leak in the pool.

 

[SteveElbows]

Someone mentioned a "Radioactive Waste Room" in the northwest corner of the building. Could this be a temporary storage facility for rods that are taken out of the SFP and awaiting transfer to the common SFP? If so could these be the answer to a possible explosion in that part of the building?

I doubt it. It would be somewhat weird to introduce an extra, unnecessary stage in the journey of such rods, and I don't think you'd want them out of water. And Id expect the building to have a different name if it was used for that, and to be in a location that made more sense, ie not the north side of the building away from the spent fuel pool and transport shaft.

There are lots of other things that end up being classed as radioactive waste during the day to day running of a plant. I've no idea if this room is just used for low level waste or something with more potential to cause woe.

 

[AntonL]

It leaks, we fill with concrete, last time this did not work, apparently it worked this time

We inserted fabrics to the conduit line leading to the pit and filled
concrete inside the pit. After that, we confirmed that outflow was stopped
at 6:45pm today.
We will monitor the condition of water stop and, will also investigate sea
water sampled at the water intake canal of Unit3 as well as the route of
inflow and outflow and their condition.

[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/ing5HY.jpg

 

[pdObq]

Not at all, in fact I find it increasingly difficult to take the 'unit 4 is leaning' seriously.

Its simply an issue of perspective, location of camera, and the general poor state of unit 4.

if you try to look only at the concrete frame of the building, rather than other debris and remains of various panels, the leaning appearance diminishes greatly. Especially if you look at the very corner of the building where south wall meets west wall (to the right of the painted number 4), its pretty straight.

We also have the images taken from the ground, which are apparently from later in April, and the building really hasnt changed much at all compared to the early shots we got. Let's suggest that if the leaning theory had any credibility, then the large April 11th earthquake which was bi enough to warrant being noted in the official updates for each reactor, is a contender for 'event which caused the leaning'. Well we've seen photos likely taken after that date and the only notable change is the small bit of concrete at corner of reactor 3 building has fallen to the ground, unit 4 hasnt changed.

In a few places the wall bulges out, but in no way can the whole building be said to be leaning in the way that people have tried to suggest in recent days using live feed images.

I also have been and still am skeptical about it, but the new close-up zooms from the live feed suggest it is not just an illusion. Don't look only at the south edges of the building, look at the pillars on the west side. It looks as if the wall is twisted. In any case, I guess we will see if it gets worse, or if it doesn't. Maybe more recent images pop up. As suggested a dew days ago, if someone had earlier footage from the TBS/JNN camera, one could compare if unit 4 always looked crooked from that viewpoint.

 

[SteveElbows]

And why do you say it is "not supported by any other evidence". There's plenty of evidence nuclear material has been distributed outside the confines of the building - it either came from the core or the fuel pool.

At the end of the day you have not presented any evidence here that seriously supported your argument. If the reactor vessel has left the building, there should be more evidence of extremely high levels of contamination than we have seen.

Its certainly true that there are some very interesting questions about causes of explosions, more so at reactor 4 than 3 though, and I am afraid nothing you've been able to shed any useful light on.

You have sometimes spoken here as if you have some real juicy photo evidence, but everything so far has been debunked. Do you have anything else left, or can we begin to draw this strand of conversation to a close, at least until something new that either further supports or refutes your theories emerges?

 

[pdObq]

Someone mentioned a "Radioactive Waste Room" in the northwest corner of the building. Could this be a temporary storage facility for rods that are taken out of the SFP and awaiting transfer to the common SFP? If so could these be the answer to a possible explosion in that part of the building?

Almost definitely no fuel rods in that corner. I also read something about radioactive sludge in that corner of the building. I believe it is more like sludge from water filters and stuff like that.

 

[ihatelies]

I don't see it that way. To me it looks as if the eastern roof structure is pretty much in the place it should be although it may have dropped horizontally, while the western end appears to have shifted only one half panel to the south (indicating an explosion in the northwest section of the service floor?). The roof girders over the PCV are still over the PCV. As we see in the northwest and southeast corners the roof girders would have blown away if there was an RPV explosion.

You're trying to make the evidence fit your theory. Theories should follow the evidence, not the other way around.

I'm having difficulty communicating that I was wrong about that.

But the folks here have very quickly and efficiently pointed out that I was wrong about the shifting of the roof beams, and I've admitted to being wrong. No need to further discuss.

No one as yet has so efficiently dispelled my thoughts on the "hole in the roof structure".

 

[ihatelies]

At the end of the day you have not presented any evidence here that seriously supported your argument. If the reactor vessel has left the building, there should be more evidence of extremely high levels of contamination than we have seen.

Its certainly true that there are some very interesting questions about causes of explosions, more so at reactor 4 than 3 though, and I am afraid nothing you've been able to shed any useful light on.

You have sometimes spoken here as if you have some real juicy photo evidence, but everything so far has been debunked. Do you have anything else left, or can we begin to draw this strand of conversation to a close, at least until something new that either further supports or refutes your theories emerges?

Let the debunking begin. Please show me your analysis of the hole in the roof structure.

Other than admitting what I show does exist, but "I don't think it's relevant", I haven't seen any yet. And if you can point me to anybody who has analyzed it before, I'm happy to look.

 

[pdObq]

Many thanks.

This one: "[URL
[/URL] is a turbine building with a blowout panel removed?

Yes, definitely. It can be seen in the second picture of the series to be unit1 turbine building. blowout panel probably got blown out (or rather in) by unit 1 explosion.

 

[SteveElbows]

Oh, interesting, they actually do have shield plugs for the SFP...
Are those actually used?

Are you getting that info from the docs or from what was said in the post you quoted? Because what was mentioned here was "Equipment Storage Pool Shield Plugs", which is for a different pool, not spent fuel pool.

 

[pdObq]

Are you getting that info from the docs or from what was said in the post you quoted? Because what was mentioned here was "Equipment Storage Pool Shield Plugs", which is for a different pool, not spent fuel pool.

SFP plugs are on page two of the document. I am not talking about the dryer separator pool.

EDIT: Let me be more exact, it's on page two of the pdf attached to the quoted post. It reads: "Fuel Storage Pool Shield Plugs (four provided)", 4.5 tons each.

 

[SteveElbows]

Let the debunking begin. Please show me your analysis of the hole in the roof structure.

Other than admitting what I show does exist, but "I don't think it's relevant", I haven't seen any yet. And if you can point me to anybody who has analyzed it before, I'm happy to look.

The debunking is reaching an end, not a new beginning I hope. Seriously, if you care that much about your analysis then at least provide some annotated photos so I can clearly see exactly how perfectly shaped this hole is supposed to be and how well your theories can explode through it.

My analysis of the hole is very simplistic. There was an explosion. Lots of stuff got messed up, and its not surprising to see the roof in very bad shape. The only evidence that will seriously evolve my stance involves extremely clear new visual evidence, or the discovery of interesting equipment that's fallen somewhere it shouldn't be, or some actual scientific type data about any aspect of the sequence of events before, during or after the explosion.