Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

[ihatelies]

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.

So you don't have any analysis, or can't find any in the past?

Then this is a very significant piece of information then. Steel does not deform into perfect arcs without significant heat and pressure. It doesn't deform into perfect arcs in a random explosion where "lots of stuff is messed up".

If you've studied explosive reconstruction, you would know that details such as this tell the story.

Yeah we'd all love to have the complete pictures of the place so we can find the interesting equipment - and prove theories like this right or wrong immediately - but all we are given is grainy video from several kilometers away, and we all can speculate as to why.

And, visual evidence is one of the best kinds of actual scientific data.

 

[SteveElbows]

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.

I fear the only earlier footage we may see from a similar vantage point is the explosion videos, and the resolution just isn't there, not zoomed in enough. Besides, when the building are all nice and undamaged our brains just see them as a very simple shape, quite different to the info our mind receives when it looks at the messy walls of unit 4 today.

I've spent ages looking at the west wall over several days, and I was watching live during some of the zooming that happened earlier. The notable thing to me was the crane doing something to the north and/or west of reactor 4 building. I don't get what you mean about the wall looking twisted. If I look at a range of good quality photos of unit 4, and then look at the live feed, I just don't see the pillars doing anything unexpected. If I take the frayed edges of the remaining panel debris into account, along with the fact that as we look further left, the west wall is getting further away from the camera, I see nothing special. The one exception, which I suppose may be the entire cause of these unit 4 leaning theories, is that the west-north corner looks a tad wonky. But if I take account the various image issues, the fact that the roof of unit 4 has a sag or two, and that there is a bulge in upper part of north wall not too far from north-west corner, I am just left thinking that this corner of the building is not in amazing shape, which is quite different from thinking that the whole of unit 4 has started leaning or sinking.

So unless I'm completely missing a certain visual phenomenon on these images, I don't think the live feed is ever going to be enough to convince me that the building is leaning. It just looks like a badly damaged building that still maintains its overall shape in all but a few places. I doubt its got amazing earthquake resistance these days, and I was always interested whether the earthquake that happened on April 11th had done much to anything on site, but everything that's been shown to me in recent days here on this subject just doesn't do it for me.

 

[ernal_student]

A comment from a layman who has nothing to offer but a decent general education:

I've posted on a few other forums, been kicked off one, and been universally shouted down at Blue Marble on their similar thread, and on a couple other forums.

I wonder whether the reason could be this?

I've got a ton of supporting evidence, but I'll leave it at that now...

Sure - Picture number 1 shows it very clearly - I've desaturated everything but the hole. Look at how the crosstie beams are bent in a perfect arc

English is not my native language, so I may perhaps have misunderstood you, but there is no round hole by my definition of "hole": a hole would be empty inside its defining rim, but what you define as "hole" is criss-crossed by steel girders, and I don't know by what rule of physics a round object the size of that "hole" could have passed through it.

if you can prove to me my "hole" is not a hole, then I'm happy to admit I'm wrong there too.

One thing I remember from high school physics is that you cannot prove or disprove a definition. Your "hole" is not a hole because it does not match the definition of "hole".

However, I have much more photographic evidence that the #3 may have blown completely open, and at worst doesn't exist anymore.

I may have misunderstood you again, but are you suggesting we should believe you because you have evidence we have not seen?

 

[|Fred]

Where is the FHM & suporting crance of unit 3 ?

It was suggested that it rests down the Spent Fuel Pull, but I can not see supporting evidences neither in the alleged supporting picture or the short video recently released.

Thank you

 

[mrcurious]

NOTE - This response is directed to ihatelies.

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.

I'm sure your explosion analysis has merit. I think what people are rejecting is your unsupportable conclusion that the reactor top is the culprit. If so, what happened to the enormous concrete 2 half moon service floor lids that separated that floor from the top of the PCV? Where is the huge yellow PCV lid that separated it from the RPV? Both would have to be blown away before the reactor top could exit and both are much larger than the "hole" you point to in your photos. That hole, if there is an actual hole, could have been made by any number of objects or even the explosion itself.

You point to the explosion video apparently showing objects being ejected from the building and conclude it had to be the RPV lid when it is more likely they were parts of the service floor crane assembly. All that video proves is some unknown objects went up and then came down.

Nothing you've presented proves or even indicates to a reasonable extent the RPV lost it's top. It seems to be wishful thinking on your part and how you're so wedded to this theory is a little strange.

 

[SteveElbows]

So you don't have any analysis, or can't find any in the past?

Then this is a very significant piece of information then. Steel does not deform into perfect arcs without significant heat and pressure. It doesn't deform into perfect arcs in a random explosion where "lots of stuff is messed up".

If you've studied explosive reconstruction, you would know that details such as this tell the story.

Yeah we'd all love to have the complete pictures of the place so we can find the interesting equipment - and prove theories like this right or wrong immediately - but all we are given is grainy video from several kilometers away, and we all can speculate as to why.

And, visual evidence is one of the best kinds of actual scientific data.

Im not dismissing all visual evidence out of hand, after all I've spent hours recently both trying to find things on images, and trying to add an additional opinion to what other people think they are seeing in images.

I've barely spent any time on the stuff you have posted because you haven't drawn my eye to any particular detail that seemed worth spending time on. Actually show me a perfect arc, or something close, and I'll take a proper look.

In any case one reason I haven't felt the need to do a proper explosion analysis is that its well beyond my area of decent knowledge level and plenty of other people are far better at that stuff than I. And they have already been talking to you here, I don't consider that I am the one who has debunked you, they have. Even if you don't think a watertight case against your theory has been made, you'd be better off acknowledging that the evidence for your case is fairly weak, its certainly not enough to expect that people will go 'my gosh, he is right!'

 

[unlurk]

Have we learned anything?

I believe if we pause to look at what has been learned here in the last two months we will see that we have uncovered a major flaw in the way nuclear power plants are run in Japan and the US.

We have badly underestimated the potential hazards emanating from spent fuel ponds.

Were it not for Spent Fuel Pond accidents, the loss of coolant event at Fukushima would not be anywhere near the serious situation that currently exists.

If we set aside the nature of the energy boost to #3's explosion and just look at the effects of the (boosted) blast we will see that a significant part of the damage to the environment and a major cause of the seriousness of the accident stems from whatever sent that mushroom cloud skyward.

The force of the original hydrogen explosion in #3 almost certainly wasn't much different from that of what happened at #1 or #2.

But the boosted blast at #3 sent radioactive debris skyward and is responsible for the radiation "hot spots" found as far as 30km northwest of the site. That radiation had to come from somewhere and it certainly wasn't from #2 and it is most unlikely that it came from #1. So three has to be the source.

I have so far left out discussion of the blast at unit #4, which was clearly a result of fuel pond system failure. Unit four suffered a hydrogen blast and the only possible source of hydrogen in the building was the SFP.

Without fuel pond problems the current situation at Daacchi would be much less serious.

Reactors 4,5 & 6 would be awaiting orders to restart - and the minor radiation leaks from 1,2 and three would not have caused the environmental and political political disaster we now see.

This is a so far unheard wake up call for the US (and everyone else.)

We need to empty our SFPs now, not at some time in the future.

SFPs are our nation's Achilles tendon. They are a major source of danger by themselves - not to mention combined with reactor event(s).

If I were to look at the world from the eyes of someone like real_wing (when he was practicing his trade) I can see why some people here are uncomfortable with some of my previous posts. I might have been seen as propagating information which would be better not mentioned.

But in my view, the cat is already out of the bag, we need to see our SFP crisis for what it is _ and deal with it. There should be no more sweeping it under the rug.

 

[ihatelies]

I'm sure your explosion analysis has merit. I think what people are rejecting is your unsupportable conclusion that the reactor top is the culprit. If so, what happened to the enormous concrete 2 half moon service floor lids that separated that floor from the top of the PCV? Where is the huge yellow PCV lid that separated it from the RPV? Both would have to be blown away before the reactor top could exit and both are much larger than the "hole" you point to in your photos. That hole, if there is an actual hole, could have been made by any number of objects or even the explosion itself.

You point to the explosion video apparently showing objects being ejected from the building and conclude it had to be the RPV lid when it is more likely they were parts of the service floor crane assembly. All that video proves is some unknown objects went up and then came down.

Nothing you've presented proves or even indicates to a reasonable extent the RPV lost it's top. It seems to be wishful thinking on your part and how you're so wedded to this theory is a little strange.

I did not say this proves the RPV is lost. To the contrary I said the only thing it proves is something big and round ejected through the roof.

I've speculated it was the RPV, but I have no proof, other than the fact that nuclear material is found on site and the SPF is intact, so that did not explode and do the damage to building #3.

The crane is big, but not round, so that did not cause the rounding of the steel beams.

The concrete plug could've easily disintigrated completely in the explosion. Plenty of other concrete did. I've seen a couple of photos that seem to show the half moons near the mouth of the reactor, but they were not conclusive either.

The yellow cap - not so easy. If it came through the hole, then it's somewhere and hasn't been positively ID'd yet. I've seen all the speculation about on the ground between 3 and 4 and it landing inside the #4 building and such and don't really buy any of those. It is possible it went into the turbine building or the water, or somewhere else.

Of course if we knew, there would be no more speculating. And if someone can show it intact there would be no more speculating.

BTW - something very large - not the cap - landed out beyond the SW corner of the Shared Spent fuel building, which is south of #4. I couldn't make out what it is, I'm sure it's been identified here.

 

[TCups]

Where is the FHM & suporting crane of unit 3 ?

It was suggested that it rests down the Spent Fuel Pool, but I can not see supporting evidences neither in the alleged supporting picture or the short video recently released.

Thank you

Is that pesky FHM3 is on the move again?!

Fred:

I did look back at the prior images and videos of the FHM3 in the SFP3 just recently. The initial images that showed the apparent submerged piece of "green" machinery had an overall green tint from the water, such that it was hard to say for sure that it was "the" green fuel handling machine, but the assumption seemed reasonable that at least a large part of the FHM was in the pool, absent evidence to the contrary.

The more recent video images, as you observe, do not clearly show a fuel handling machine or any other machine in SFP3 -- just a lot of rubble. And the color of the recent images is "muddy" so that it is not possible to say a piece of anything green is in the pool.

It is possible additional debris have completely covered up what was seen on the initial video, but somehow, I doubt it. Also, given the relative size of the FHM and the apparent forces involved in the explosion(s), it has always seemed a bit improbable that the "entire" FHM fell neatly into the pool.

IMO, the final resting place of the FHM or its major parts has yet to be determined with certainty. I do not think that the possibility of damage to the northwest end of Bldg 3 from a ballistic FHM can yet be dismissed with any reasonable degree of certainty.

 

[SteveElbows]

Did any of the old flying FHM theories get ruled out in the past? eg that it made the hole in the turbine building roof. There seem to be so many possibilities for where it could of ended up, and I am far from certain TEPCO would tell us if they found it elsewhere on site at any point, it could just be called debris? And it could be in such bad shape, or buried under other rubble on site, that we may be able to see it on existing images but with no way to know it.

 

[unlurk]

And it could be in such bad shape, or buried under other rubble on site, that we may be able to see it on existing images but with no way to know it.

And does it really matter?

This reminds me of the "mickey mouse ears" discussion in March.

Off track.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[SteveElbows]

BTW - something very large - not the cap - landed out beyond the SW corner of the Shared Spent fuel building, which is south of #4. I couldn't make out what it is, I'm sure it's been identified here.

Which photos or video shows this area of the site and show this large thing?

Still waiting to see where this great hole that could only have been caused by a round object is. If I stare at numerous pictures for long enough I can see a number of features which my mind would like to turn into a very round hole but none of them actually are. So I want to know if you are referring to some other area of roof that I have managed to overlook.

 

[triumph61]

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.

There are TWO holes. The other one is in Turbine Building 3.

 

[roliqq]

Big clouds of steam (?) all over the place...
http://news.tbs.co.jp./newsi_sp/youtube_live/"

 

[unlurk]

something big and round ejected through the roof

Why does it have to be "big and round"?

Why not as a shotgun blast emanating from the SFP with much of the contents of the SFP being the pellets. Maybe even the refuelling bridge too.

 

[MadderDoc]

<..>
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.

You have shown me your perception of the evidence. That's about all. However, what you perceive as a hole, I perceive differently. Specifically I do not see an overriding pattern of beams deformed in a manner which suggests that a large round object has been passing through. I can see what you mean, it can be perceived that way, but I do not share your perception.

I challenge you to take in turn the damages to those individual beams which collectively forms your perception of a hole, and reject the possibility that they might have become in shape, position and state, as they have become, not due to passage of a large object, but due to other shearing forces, or to strong heat.

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.

Plonk.

 

[mrcurious]

There are TWO holes. The other one is in Turbine Building 3.

Both of these holes look pretty clean. Is it possible tepco put holes in all the turbine buildings to guard against the potential build up of hydrogen as they did on the roof of #2?

 

[SteveElbows]

And does it really matter?

This reminds me of the "mickey mouse ears" discussion in March.

Off track.

Much ado about nothing.

Well there is no shortage of that. There are so many aspects to this tale, its not too surprising that people differ in what interests them. And as the knowledge barriers against doing your own analysis seem to many people lower for photo analysis than for many of the mechanical, chemical etc sciences involved, it can dominate the talk too much. Anyone can join in, even if the actual reality seems to be that photo analysis is quite the skill in itself. And I am as guilty of this as anyone.

Mind you, I have to say I can't agree with your recent post where you talked down the consequences and severity of the reactor problems in order to talk up the spent fuel pool nightmares. The pools are scary enough without needing to go so far as to claim that 'minor radiation leaks from 1,2 and three would not have caused the environmental and political political disaster we now see'. Come on, the contaminated water problems caused by the reactors are bad enough, let alone the other things they may or may not have caused. The story is still evolving, for some time the finger of blame did point more strongly at fuel pools but as we have seen more recently with unit 4 and doubts about cause of explosion there, the fuel pools may yet be relegated to a slightly more minor role.

Either way you are certainly right that spent fuel issues are one of the major things to be highlighted by Fukushima. I don't think they will feel the need to act literally NOW, in a mad dash, but we should hope that the riskiest aspects of these pools are dealt with at a reasonable pace rather than the issue being stalled or really badly fudged.

 

[triumph61]

There are TWO holes. The other one is in Turbine Building 3.

Sorry, there are THREE holes.

 

[mrcurious]

Big clouds of steam (?) all over the place...
http://news.tbs.co.jp./newsi_sp/youtube_live/"

Looks like it's coming in from south or southeast of #4. Could be a nightime marine layer. Having lived on the coast all my life I have seen these come in at dusk and they can lay pretty low to the ground and blow for hours. Prevailing winds at night reverse from inland to offshore due to the temperature drop on land vis a vis the ocean.

 

[pdObq]

I believe if we pause to look at what has been learned here in the last two months we will see that we have uncovered a major flaw in the way nuclear power plants are run in Japan and the US.

We have badly underestimated the potential hazards emanating from spent fuel ponds.
[...]
This is a so far unheard wake up call for the US (and everyone else.)

We need to empty our SFPs now, not at some time in the future.

SFPs are our nation's Achilles tendon. They are a major source of danger by themselves - not to mention combined with reactor event(s).
[...]
But in my view, the cat is already out of the bag, we need to see our SFP crisis for what it is _ and deal with it. There should be no more sweeping it under the rug.

I fully agree that the spent fuel pools in that kind of reactor design are a major concern. (Don't necessarily agree on the conclusion that there would have been only minor problems in this particular case if not for the SFPs.) I was and still am amazed at how nuclear industry people and their followers always talk about containment and that nothing can happen, and that the reactors will even survive airplane crashes - and at the same time they literally keep the stuff that is so heavily "contained" in the reactor in a pool on the attic. I have been wondering all the time why they don't put concrete shield plugs also onto the top of the SFP? Apparently such shield plugs do exist (see post not too far above), but they are much lighter even than the dryer-separator shield plugs, i.e. probably not very effective at protecting the SFP, e.g. in the case of an airplane crash.

According to these guys - http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/aircraftcrashbreach/ - the whole reactor buildings even including BWR SFPs are more or less safe in case of a plane crash. IMHO that just cannot be true. Interestingly enough for the BWR SFP they just considered an impact from the side. Of course, on the side of the SFP concrete wall is rather thick and they also mention the steel liner. So, I may trust them that in that particular impact scenario, it might go well. But come on, they don't even mention vertical impact onto the SFP, which IMHO would be catastrophic judging from the building structures we see in Fukushima. Seriously, they must know about that, so they just say ok we just consider impact from the side, then there is no problem, let's not even think about other scenarios. This is almost like the story with the unround RPV in Japan. If they would have scrapped that RPV which took 2 years or so to build, the company would have gone bankrupt. Here, if they admitted that SFPs in those BWR designs are flawed from a safety point of view, they would have to shut down all those plants, in the worst case (which would not even solve the problem...). Anyway, it's a money thing, as always.
Oh, and please no one say the above scenario is impossible or unimaginable or unforeseen.

Sorry, for the ranting, but it had to get out.

As an aside: What is actually with the common fuel pool in Fukushima, in principle they should have had the same issues with cooling and hydrogen buildup there. It might be interesting to compare to the reactor SFPs. Probably this was discussed already?

 

[elektrownik]

Something is bad, reactor 3 appear to by on fire

 

[ihatelies]

And does it really matter?

This reminds me of the "mickey mouse ears" discussion in March.

Off track.

Much ado about nothing.

FHM discussion is a red herring.

It's gone. It's a pile of steel somewhere - it doesn't matter.

 

[unlurk]

The pools are scary enough without needing to go so far as to claim that 'minor radiation leaks from 1,2 and three would not have caused the environmental and political political disaster we now see'.

If you were to divide the consequences of this event in two, with the LOCA/meltdowns of 1,2 and 3 being one set, and the consequences of the SFP accidents in units 3 and four being a completely separate set of problems it will help you to understand my POV.

contaminated water problems caused by the reactors are bad enough, let alone the other things they may or may not have caused.

You have a point here, it is true that I've discounted the water discharge problems in my analysis.

But I believe that if someone had a magic wand and was able to wipe out the effects of most of the airborne contamination in inland Japan, a lot of people could go home and a lot of other people (NYrs?) would rest a lot easier with the knowledge that there is a nuke plant upwind of them.

 

[roliqq]

Something is bad, reactor 3 appear to by on fire

really hard to tell from those foggy pictures in the night - but now it rather looks like no. 3 in trouble

 

[TCups]

And does it really matter?

This reminds me of the "mickey mouse ears" discussion in March.

Off track.

Much ado about nothing.

That seems a bit dismissive, but OK. It isn't really important, I suppose. I will go back to my midsummer's night dream and let you lead |Fred and me on a more productive track.

 

[elektrownik]

[PLAIN]http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/1728/42495638.jpg

 

[mrcurious]

Something is bad, reactor 3 appear to by on fire

The huge vapor layer has cleared up some and #3/4 are still smoking quite a bit. Another unschedule release?

 

[pdObq]

There are TWO holes. The other one is in Turbine Building 3.

Sorry, there are THREE holes.

Oh, there might be even more blowout panel holes that we don't see. My original statement was just that the hole shown in the picture the poster was referring to is definitely a hole in the unit 1 turbine building, because the same hole can be seen in another image of that set of photos from which it becomes obvious.

Both of these holes look pretty clean. Is it possible tepco put holes in all the turbine buildings to guard against the potential build up of hydrogen as they did on the roof of #2?

Umm, is it general, confirmed knowledge that they intentionally manually removed the blowout panels? With all those explosions going on, the shockwaves could have easily popped them out unintentionally, I suppose.

 

[unlurk]

Something is bad, reactor 3 appear to by on fire

This could be coming from either the Reactor or the fuel pond in my view.

But I lean towards the reactor.


I believe the reactor "belched" on Mar 14th, and lifted its shield plugs enough to vent flame, hydrogen and radioactive steam into the fueling trough initating the series of events we now see.

The reactor at #3 has been in a deteriorating state ever since. There were events a few mornings ago just before dawn.

Maybe the naysayers will claim that nothing is happening now if dawn breaks and the discharge is blown away and no longer visible.

 

[MadderDoc]

Did any of the old flying FHM theories get ruled out in the past? eg that it made the hole in the turbine building roof. There seem to be so many possibilities for where it could of ended up, and I am far from certain TEPCO would tell us if they found it elsewhere on site at any point, it could just be called debris? And it could be in such bad shape, or buried under other rubble on site, that we may be able to see it on existing images but with no way to know it.

Indeed, there seems few avenues to restrict the search, little chance it will come in our view and be perceived for what it is. But let's say it happened to be found serendipitously in a fortunate shot by a visiting photographer, at the foot of the SE exhaust tower. Would it matter one iota?

 

[SteveElbows]

FHM discussion is a red herring.

It's gone. It's a pile of steel somewhere - it doesn't matter.

Except if its exit from the building caused the roof damage that you are obsessed with, in which case the FHM really should be of relevance to you.

 

[Rive]

It's gone. It's a pile of steel somewhere - it doesn't matter.

Actually it does matter. If it was on the top of the reactor concrete plug, then the falling overhead crane could push it through the plug (-> possible containment fail). If it's a pile of steel somewhere else then the crane had most likely just fallen down -> big >>DONK<< but nothing really serious.

 

[ihatelies]

Which photos or video shows this area of the site and show this large thing?

Still waiting to see where this great hole that could only have been caused by a round object is. If I stare at numerous pictures for long enough I can see a number of features which my mind would like to turn into a very round hole but none of them actually are. So I want to know if you are referring to some other area of roof that I have managed to overlook.

If you can't see it from the photo I posted earlier, you're not going to.

The item that landed beyond the shared pool is clearly visible in the 2 flights over Fukushima video. I can't find the original anymore - here is one version on youtube - pause it between 2:17 and 2:32 and the thing is plainly visibile in the parking lot. Doesn't look like a crane to me, or a cap, I don't know what it is. Most of the pictures are deliberately cropped to avoid showing it, though so it must tell some kind of story.

It looks like a big piece of insulation, but it went 1500 feet up and back down and landed somewhat intact, so it's got to have some strength.

I assumed somebody here has already analyzed it.

If you follow the trajectory of the debris down from the explosion of 3 There were a few big chunks that came down. One landed in the NW corner of the 3 building. One landed in this location shown on this video and something landed out beyond Reactor #1. I couldn't identify anything landing in the turbine building, because the smoke was too dense.

Edit, sorry forgot the link:

 

[unlurk]

I will let you lead |Fred and I on a more productive track.

LoL, I think you are great, I don't want to be dismissive of you (or Fred), just a few facets of your fetishes.


Does this mean that you will re-consider the possibility of a criticality in the #3 SFP?

Or at least put to bed forever the superheated water theory?
(That one is a bit over the top for me)