Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

[razzz]

That leak, more like a gusher, is doing them a favor. Stop the flow and do what with the pent-up water? Probably dangerous just standing around the mist from the outflow.

 

[Borek]

Is it true that their dosimeters max out at 1,000 mSv?

Source?

Even if, that's expected. Their bodies were there for three weeks, 2 mSv/h would be enough.

 

[mattm2]

AtomicWombat: Concerning your link at post number 2589 "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment": In my non-scientific opinion: If even one percent of this long article is the truth: It is overwhelmingly unbelievable and unbelievably overwhelming.

 

[ivars]

Worst case scenario for this accident spelled out in Real News:

http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2657&p=31564#p31564"

Could nor resist to listen. So, if something of this does not happen, we should be happy.

 

[|Fred]

using the link to the video posted yesterday
I'll toke a few screen grab and amended the layout (still a few things missing though)
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/imMBxC.jpg

 

[AtomicWombat]

A couple of construction videos of Fukushima just popped up:

On the first video 11:45-12:15 some excellent shots of the reactor interior and the operation of the control rods (blades) sliding between the fuel assmblies.

 

[AntonL]

Sorry for the double post - but this time with better pictures of >1Sv leak
Water has found its way by cable ducts from the reactor building to the sea
There seems to quite a head for the water to be ejected that forcefully and also note the steam rising - so it is pretty hot

(In my opinion this looks like a drain hole for cable drawing pit and not a crack)

[URL]http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/fukushimagenpatsu2/images/0402_plant2.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/fukushimagenpatsu2/images/0402_plant1.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/fukushimagenpatsu2/images/0402_cement.jpg[/URL]

But the leak continues and access blocked by a couple of tons of concrete


[URL]http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/infographics3/images/0403_pit2.jpg[/URL]

 

[Gilles]

sorry again if those videos have already been discussed, but have you seen that ?
blue flashing light possibly showing localized criticality :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRoIpMNTbcQ&feature=player_embedded

analysis of the video of unit-4 showing that there is no water left in the pool :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6DZQzY_k2c&feature=player_embedded

 

[Maxion]

Sorry for the double post - but this time with better pictures of >1Sv leak
Water has found its way by cable ducts from the reactor building to the sea
There seems to quite a head for the water to be ejected that forcefully and also note the steam rising - so it is pretty hot

(In my opinion this looks like a drain hole for cable drawing pit and not a crack)

Lol what a cock-up.


I wonder why they didn't first line the inside of the pit with some plastic or other flexible water-proof material and then pour gravel on it which would have slowed the leak down at least. On top of this they could have poured concrete which might have created a better seal.

 

[hoyrylollaaja]

sorry again if those videos have already been discussed, but have you seen that ?
blue flashing light possibly showing localized criticality :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRoIpMNTbcQ&feature=player_embedded

analysis of the video of unit-4 showing that there is no water left in the pool :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6DZQzY_k2c&feature=player_embedded

Both been here, and both are greatly debated by the lack of evidence.

 

[ivars]

Leak continues into the Pacific after polymer-paper-sawdust application:

http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2657&p=31565#p31565"

 

[AntonL]

Leak continues into the Pacific after polymer-paper-sawdust application:

http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2657&p=31565#p31565"

So the mega-tampon out of special water absorbant polymer, 60kg sawdust and shredded newspaper did not work
(sorry for the sarcasm - could not resist)

 

[AtomicWombat]

AtomicWombat: Concerning your link at post number 2589 "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment": In my non-scientific opinion: If even one percent of this long article is the truth: It is overwhelmingly unbelievable and unbelievably overwhelming.

Hi mattm2,
I'm not in a position to to say whether it's accurate or not. But I can comment on whether it is scientifially reasonable and whether it would be immediately obvious without close study.

It is well known in epidemiological circles that the life expectancy in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus declined from the late 1980s before starting to recover around 2000. This may be due to the collapse of the former Soviet Union.

The reports methodology is as follows (p207), "An estimate of the additional mortality from Chernobyl is possible on the basis of a comparison of mortality rates in highly contaminated territories and in less contaminated ones—so called “clean” areas." This is a scientifically sound approach explained in more detail in the report.

As to the magnitude of the deaths. From p211, "[This] study reveals that some 4% of all deaths from 1990 to 2004 in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe."

Smoking kills far more people in Russia alone. "Some 250 000 men are estimated to have died in Russia in 1995 due to tobacco use, three out of four of them (190 000) at ages 35–69 years." See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759630/pdf/v007p00003.pdf") For 150 million people that is about 2,250,000 deaths per year.

Assume (for arguments sake) that 4% of these deaths were due to Chernobyl. 4% of 2,250,000 is 90,000. So if 190,000 young men are dropping dead from smoking causes alone (most from cardio-vascular disease), it would hardly be obvious that 90,000 deaths in all age groups of a total of 2.25 million deaths were ultimately linked to Chernobyl.

I don't think the report can be immediately dismissed, but nor can the much lower IAEA estimate. The issue can't be resolved on this forum, so I'm happy to leave it at that.

 

[AtomicWombat]

First watch this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12931413" released by Tepco, showing close up of the mess in unit 4

Now watch http://vimeo.com/21789121" analysing the Tepco crane head view

Is the spent fuel pool severely damaged and empty or part empty?

I think I have an explanation for the railings and it is not due to the use of a wide angle lens. The fuel handling machine (FHM) is indeed below the railings, but the railings are on the overhead gantry crane. Note that the railings in Gundersen's video grab are fixed. Those on the operating floor between the SFP and the reactor are removable in an example photo shown earlier (attached). I hope the attached pictures are self-explanatory.

 

[TCups]

analysis of the video of unit-4 showing that there is no water left in the pool :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6DZQzY_k2c&feature=player_embedded

THANK GOD, GUNDERSON IS WRONG ABOUT THE FUEL RACK -- IMPORTANT!


Credit to Fred who originally noted this.

This is Gunderson's exposed fuel rack -- a grid-like object at the left center edge of this view from above, fish eye lens on the water boom

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture33.png

this frame from the Gunderson video, my circle added for emphahsis.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture34-1.png

. . . and here is TCup's analysis of the ominous view of the top of a fuel rack. It is part of the fuel handling machine. Note the same piece of debris (arrow) as in the Gunderson video. He should be more careful in his analysis, and maybe I should be on Fox News.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture18.png STILL WAITING FOR POST#2603 TO BE DEBUNKED PLEASE. NEED SOME EXPERT INPUT.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3226422&postcount=2603

 

[AtomicWombat]

I think I have an explanation for the railings and it is not due to the use of a wide angle lens. The fuel handling machine (FHM) is indeed below the railings, but the railings are on the overhead gantry crane. Note that the railings in Gundersen's video grab are fixed. Those on the operating floor between the SFP and the reactor are removable in an example photo shown earlier (attached). I hope the attached pictures are self-explanatory.

View attachment 33953

View attachment 33954

View attachment 33955

Further to my earlier post. I've attached Gundersen's video grab which I have annotated. Both sets of railings - those of the gantry crane and those of the SFP appear to be vsible.

 

[AntonL]

Further to my earlier post. I've attached Gundersen's video grab which I have annotated. Both sets of railings - those of the gantry crane and those of the SFP appear to be vsible.

AtomicWombat I agree with your analysis and withdraw my earlier comment

 

[TCups]

Further to my earlier post. I've attached Gundersen's video grab which I have annotated. Both sets of railings - those of the gantry crane and those of the SFP appear to be vsible.

AtomicWombat:

You are right about the two sets of railings, one on the overhead crane, one on the back side of the SFP4. If you look carefully at the front side of SFP4 and consider how thick the front wall of the SFP4 must be, then you can look for remnants of the railings on the front and east side of the pool and see them.

The fuel handling machine has not dropped into the pool. If it were in close proximity to fuel rods gone dry and melted, it would not still be a nice green color -- it would also be burned and melted. Perspective is fooling you (and Mr. Gunderson).

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture63.png

Actually, I take back the first comment. You are wrong about the lower set of railings -- the upper set is on the overhead crane, the lower set is on the deck of the fuel handling machine.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/FHM.jpg

Also, don't be fooled by perspective here -- the railing to the left of the damaged SFP (see the fuel handling machine sitting well above it?) is on the tower.

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33954

 

[|Fred]

*cough*
I've king of have said so since friday (including a nice picture showing the overhead crane), I even sent Gunderson a letter Friday after noon asking him to reconsider the mistake he made.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3223712&postcount=2408

now the isse we have is that i suspect that the 2 crane caved in and we may face a new disaster if the fuel handling crane is further push down into the pool

 

[Borek]

also note the steam rising - so it is pretty hot

Not necessarily. Amount of steam appearing is a function of water temperature, air temperature and humidity. I have seen steaming water that was lukewarm at best.

 

[AntonL]

*cough*
I've king of have said so since friday (including a nice picture showing the overhead crane), I even sent Gunderson a letter Friday after noon asking him to reconsider the mistake he made.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3223712&postcount=2408

now the isse we have is that i suspect that the 2 crane caved in and we may face a new disaster if the fuel handling crane is further push down into the pool

letter? try e-mail contact@fairewinds.com from http://www.fairewinds.com/content/contact-us

I have found a higher resolution picture of the one you used in your post

 

[TCups]

*cough*
I've king of have said so since friday (including a nice picture showing the overhead crane), I even sent Gunderson a letter Friday after noon asking him to reconsider the mistake he made.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3223712&postcount=2408

now the isse we have is that i suspect that the 2 crane caved in and we may face a new disaster if the fuel handling crane is further push down into the pool

Yes. I remember you saying you had emailed Gunderson, and I remember your saying there was a better view from a horizontal perspective that showed the FHM above the pool.

What drew my response today was the Mar 31 video where Gunderson describes the empty fuel rack being exposed -- I don't remember that being discussed before. If it was, I missed that part, so apologies. Anyway, the photo I posted clearly refutes G's assertion that the object in his video described is the top of an empty fuel rack. Had you made that point also?

I don't think the position of the FHM has changed between the two photos you now repost -- one fisheye lens view, one helicopter view. I will look some more, but I can't see it.

 

[|Fred]

Yeah by letter I meant email ;)

anyhow.. we have a FHM ant its crane that felt is partially into the pool, the top of the rods should be one floor below. What M Gunderson thought were top of rods were wreckage fallen on the FH crane.
The "rails" belong the the Top crane and are safety rail
I've corrected somehow the perspective and of the fish eye footage on the picture bellow

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

 

[TCups]

REGARDING THE PICTURES WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND LOCATION OF RISING STEAM AND POSITION OF THE FHM & OVERHEAD CRANE

Not necessarily. Amount of steam appearing is a function of water temperature, air temperature and humidity. I have seen steaming water that was lukewarm at best.

I put the front edge and east end of the SFP about where I have drawn the red line. I see steam rising from between the front edge of the SFP and the FHM, which has been advanced to the front of the SFP. I wonder if this was to allow the overhead crane to lift the fuel rod assemblies that were to be transferred laterally to the smaller "cask" pool to the west. In the photos and diagrams I have seen, it doesn't look like the FHM goes over the cask pool, only the overhead crane appears to go there.

Look at the far right end of the FHM -- there is a "hockey stick" green structure you can clearly see in both the photo of the undamaged FHM and the FHM over the pool in Bldg 4. You can use it as a point of reference. It is above the pool in both photos of Bldg 4.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/FHM.jpg

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture36.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture18.png

and again, in the diagram I altered (moving the cask from the shaft to the cask pool), it looks like the FHM is at the front edge of the SFP, and that the overhead crane would be used to transfer fuel from the SFP to the cask, and the cask to the shaft.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture30-4.png

If that operation were interrupted, and fuel had been loaded into the cask, I again propose that it was the cask loading pool where the explosion and most of the damage centered, and that that explains

1) the damage along the shaft, its north and west sides on the external portion of the building,

2) a vertical component straight upward and to the east through the connecting shoot (but much smaller than at Bldg 3), and

3) access of the explosion's energy to the lower floors and to the structurally weakened northeast corner of Bldg 4.

4) the thick walls of the SFP4 (except at the narrow transfer chute) would have protected the SFP, although water would not now hold in the SFP4 above the level of the transfer chute to the cask loading pool

This is the only thing I can come up with that fit everything I see, from the position of the FHM, to the position of the overhead crane, to the internal and external damage to Bldg 4, and to the apparent need to clear high level waste on the ground before bringing in the long-armed crane to spray water and get a look down into the SFP4.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture31.png

Debunk that, please.

 

[|Fred]

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture18.png

What is the arrow pointing at ?

 

[Maxion]

REGARDING THE PICTURES WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND LOCATION OF RISING STEAM AND POSITION OF THE FHM & OVERHEAD CRANE

If that operation were interrupted, and fuel had been loaded into the cask, I again propose that it was the cask loading pool where the explosion and most of the damage centered, and that that explains


Debunk that, please.

There are so many IFs to this that I'd rather you try to prove some of the ifs than anyone try to "debunk" this.

1) IF they were even using casks

2) IF that diagram is representable of fukushima

3) IF there is a pool at that location

4) IF that pool is used to loading spent fuel

5) IF they were loading hot fuel into casks at the time of the earthquake

etc. etc.

You do post some interesting speculation but you are building assumptions on assumptions which is not really credible. You could build any number of different scenarios like this that could produce the results we've seen.

 

[TCups]

What is the arrow pointing at ?

The same piece of debris that shows up over Gunderson's empty fuel rack in his video. I confess that I hadn't seen G's video until this morning because I dismissed the issue of the FHM falling into the pool after seeing your earlier photos posted. Only after I saw a repost of it this morning and compared to the fisheye video did I realize I could identify the structure in question and prove it to be something other than an empty fuel rack. Had you realized that before?

Also, to my "debunk this" scenario, I forgot to add -- two cask trucks were parked out back and at least one of them was empty.

 

[TCups]

There are so many IFs to this that I'd rather you try to prove some of the ifs than anyone try to "debunk" this.

1) IF they were even using casks

Two cask trucks are parked out back in many of the initial satellite photos. At least one of them is empty.

2) IF that diagram is representable of fukushima

I can find no credible evidence that the basics are not the same, right down to the tunnel access on the west side of the bldg and the position of the cranes and SFP. Fred, I believe, has superimposed a schematic drawn from the diagram on the side of Bldg 3 and matched it up pretty nicely. I have superimposed a schematic from the diagram on the overhead shots of Bldg 3 and 4 and it matches pretty closely. As best I can tell from the photos of the undamaged insides of the buildings, from the structures I can see, they seem to match.

3) IF there is a pool at that location

It seems credible there would be a pool for the purpose of the overhead crane to transfer and load casks if I understand the basics of that operation as has been explained to me earlier on this site. It is true we don't have a picture of that small pool to go by.

4) IF that pool is used to loading spent fuel

IF the diagram is correct, what other possible function might it have, please? How else do they get the spent fuel to the 7th large storage pool out back? FedEx?

5) IF they were loading hot fuel into casks at the time of the earthquake

etc. etc.

Truck, cranes, etc. etc.

You do post some interesting speculation but you are building assumptions on assumptions which is not really credible. You could build any number of different scenarios like this that could produce the results we've seen.

My assumptions and assertions ARE CREDIBLE. It is the nature of this kind of photographic forensics that assumptions have to be made and then proven wrong to eventually arrive at a scenario that explains all the visible evidence and known facts:

The visible damage to the buildings, the two trucks out back, the existence of a separate, 7th storage facility where a lot of the sites fuel rods have been transferred to in the past, the location of the overhead crane and the location of the FHM, and the apparent dozer work done before that water hose boom were placed are FACTS, not assumptions.

Try not to attack my credibility, please. Try to attack the evidence I propose and tell me WHY those assumptions and conclusions have to be wrong. Thanks.

(I do love a good puzzle to solve, it's true. )

 

[ZZR Puig]

I've inadvertently openned a can of worms. It appears there is huge disagreement on the population health impacts of Chernobyl in the scientific literature.

A large Russian study from 2007 was translated and published in 2009 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, a prestigious journal. It is available here:
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf"

This Russian study reviews over 1,000 published research papers - most by Eastern European researchers written in Slavic languages - as well as a large number of internet and otherwise published documents on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The authors claim that a large body of research literature from Eastern Europe has been downplayed or ignored by the IAEA.

Among other health and environmental consequences, the Russian study concludes, "...the overall mortality for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004 from the Chernobyl catastrophe was estimated at 985,000 additional deaths."

In contrast, in 2005 the IAEA estimated about 4,000 Chernobyl-realted deaths.

The IAEA has been criticised (by Christopher Busby among others) as being biased by its pro-nuclear industry stance; whilst those supporting a higher estimate (eg. Busby) have been criticised as being biased by an ideology that opposes nuclear power.

See also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amory-lovins/nuclear-power-fukushima-_b_837643.html"

I am a statistician with research skills, so I could review the literature myself, but it's an enormous task. So I'll simply point out there are two strongly opposed views with substantial backing.

By the way, those are not IAEA estimates, but UNSCEAR's and WHO's, who studied the effects directly on the field. Additionally, if I recall it correctly, the figure was about 2,000 including past and possible future premature deaths, and that is based on the greatly polemical LNT hypothesis. Many find that figure greatly exaggerated too and lacking any real evidence. So the ones you mentioned are not, by no means, the most pessimistic and optimistic estimates.

FWIW.
This chart might be useful to those worrying about radiation exposure:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/

It puts radiation dose levels in perspective and in context. With out political bias from either side of the nuclear energy debate.

What Chernobyl grounds are the ones mentioned in that diagram? Those within the sarcophagus? It should be noted that Chernobyl nuclear power plant remained in operation until the year 2000. That dose rate would exceed maximum allowed yearly dose for workers in just a few hours, not to mention working there daily for 14 years.

This one is also an interesting and didactic http://xkcd.com/radiation/" about radiation doses.

Cause of death was probably tsunami - victims showed lots of blood loss. Although, I don't recall hearing of two missing workers throughout this time, so I'm kinda surprised.

Those two workers were missing from the very beginning after the tsunami struck.
TEPCO: "Presence of 2 TEPCO employees at the site is not confirmed on March 11th."
WNN: "The whereabout of two Tepco workers remains unknown." (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/rs_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html" )

 

[hbjon]

I just saw a video that shows they have started concreting some lower cavities in the bowels of one of the plants. Seems like a good idea to stop the leaks. Another way of doing it would be to build a ramp and run old radial tires filled with boron and concrete down a ramp into the pile of junk. Minimize worker exposure and get rid of used tires at the same time.

 

[I_P]

My recollection of the information about unit 4 is that there were probably two (or more) explosions in the building. The first reports mentioned a side panel blown out and a hole in the roof. There was concern about the water level in the spent fuel storage pool and discussion about how to add water as the holes were not large enough or in the right position to direct water to the pool. Then pictures were posted showing the current state with side panels blown out and the entire roof missing. Reports of the fires were confused with some saying the first fire had been extinguished by workers and others saying it had subsided on its own. Speculation that lubricating oil had been burning - but never confirmed. Second fire was noted by workers outside but then subsided on its own. Explosions were inferred, but not documented by witnesses or photos - I assume because there was no one in the area when they occurred. The overall number of explosions at the plant remains a bit murky. One video of the unit 3 explosion has audio of three 'reports' or blasts, but other sites complained that the time delay (given camera location and speed of sound) was impossibly short and suggested the audio track had been edited. I believe the original video source was rTi - Russian news channel.

Interesting that the two dead workers were found in a lower control room servicing unit four. Not sure what they might have been doing there given the reports they were killed at the time of the tsunami.

 

[|Fred]

I realize I could identify the structure in question and prove it to be something other than an empty fuel rack. Had you realized that before?

I'm not following, what is it for you?

 

[AntonL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1P6Q1e6gCg&feature=related

Gives you an idea of the dimensions

 

[TCups]

I'm not following, what is it for you?[/]
@Fred:

The grid like structure is part of the deck of the FHM machine, ergo, it cannot be part of the empty spent fuel rack.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

From: NYTimes.com

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/science/03meltdown.html

A very revealing Picture of Japan Crisis...

"A European atomic official monitoring the Fukushima crisis expressed sympathy for Japan’s need to rely on forensics to grasp the full dimensions of the unfolding disaster."

“Clearly, there’s no access to the core,” the official said. “The Japanese are honestly blind.”