Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants

The 6th mid long term meeting was held yesterday: http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuc...120528_02.html

28 May 2012 government-Tokyo Electric mid and long term response committee, steering committee (6th meeting)
...

3-5 Countermeasures for spent fuels pools
http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuc...120528_02z.pdf Check of soundness of new fuel (unirradiated fuel) in unit 4 spent fuel pool

They are from the west wall of the pool, 4th floor, the same wall section which the recent announcement is showing a lower portion of in a sharp angle, the photo bottom right in
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-e4hpgfA9WP...SFPMay25-7.JPG

(The photos are from the original survey of Unit 4 damages done in Nov. 2011, source:
http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/201...11110_01e.html)

Thanks for the link. Does anyone know what the vertical orange "thing" in the unprocessed image is? The processed image doesn't have such an artifact. What kind of processing is done anyway? Adjustment for the distance of the radiation source from the camera?

I of course agree on all points above. So there's a document which includes photos for apparent documentation which are totally unsuitable as evidence for or against cracks in the context of the inquiry, but it is perfectly alright with Tepco if the reader will conclude from looking at the photos that there are no cracks there at all. In fact that appears to be the intention of the document. I am not worried about that crack, but I don't like to be bs'ed.

Perhaps I'm being too finiky but the images from 2011 don't quite show the "west wall" of the SFP as such.

The 2011 images cover the areas marked in green here.
http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...u4sfpwalls.png

Something is necessary to explain the particular damages of the SE corner of the roof.

Did anyone suggest that the extensive damage might be due to the debris falling from the explosion, a lot of which seemed to fall on the SE corner of the RB?
Or is this a different aspect of the damage we are talking about?

Marked video clip

Most video footage of the explosion which have been or remain still available have been quite unfortunately re-sampled and re-compressed from an original 50Hz interlaced TV recording, to e.g. the commonly found 29.968fps on youtube. Unavoidably such a conversion produces horrible artefacts, and comes with loss and blending of the original information.

From a short lineage recording of an original TV broadcast, it has been possible to produce this animation of the first second after the blast in the original high temporal resolution. Since the original is 50 Hz interlaced, utilising both fields yields a temporal resolution of 50 fps, or 20 milliseconds per frame. You won't find this better anywhere else on internet :-)

Those of you who have taken special interest in the explosion will note particularly the extra temporal resolution at around the time of the first signs of something happening with the building.

I wonder what kind of sick paranoia has led to the blocking out of the rack number in the photo on page 5 of that document.
(It is rack number 26, if someone should want to know.)

On the other hand, the possible crack we have observed in the 2011 images could be easily misconstrued so tepco kept it out of frame as it's not relevent to the SFP wall as such.

That the possible crack we have seen is closer to the PCV than the SFP is another thing.

Did anyone suggest that the extensive damage might be due to the debris falling from the explosion, a lot of which seemed to fall on the SE corner of the RB?
Or is this a different aspect of the damage we are talking about?

Marked video clip

The real paranoids are going to have a field day if they get a hold of this one. "The fuel rack that shouldn't have been there!"

I wonder what kind of sick paranoia has led to the blocking out of the rack number in the photo on page 5 of that document.
(It is rack number 26, if someone should want to know.)

Perhaps they're trying to avoid suggesting that that is the particular rack in question. In other words, the picture is an example, but they may pick a different rack - it seems they don't know for sure how many they are going to sample, even.

Speaking of details, what would be the nature of the white stains running down that part of the wall below the crack above them in the photo from the 2012 announcement? There are no stains visible in the 2011 photo of the same spot: