Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

AI Thread Summary
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is facing significant challenges following the earthquake, with reports indicating that reactor pressure has reached dangerous levels, potentially 2.1 times capacity. TEPCO has lost control of pressure at a second unit, raising concerns about safety and management accountability. The reactor is currently off but continues to produce decay heat, necessitating cooling to prevent a meltdown. There are conflicting reports about an explosion, with indications that it may have originated from a buildup of hydrogen around the containment vessel. The situation remains serious, and TEPCO plans to flood the containment vessel with seawater as a cooling measure.
  • #1,301
|Fred said:
Thank you Phil
could you please confirm my translation of this:
try http://translate.google.com

and status report http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110325-5-3.pdf confirms fresh water to all reactors
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #1,302
Fresno Phil said:
Speaking of lack of data, if you haven't seen the official reports from NISA, they are here:

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/

Specifically, the "Plant Parameter" reports have a wealth of data:

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110326002/20110326002-3.pdf

If you understand plant construction and physics, these tell quite a story.


I would love to see a graph plotted from the data in the last 2 weeks of these releases.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,303
Bodge said:
I would love to see a graph plotted from the data in the last 2 weeks of these releases.
.

Get to work! we are waiting for your graphs

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110318...10318008-4.pdf
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110320...10320002-3.pdf
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110321...10321004-4.pdf
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110321...10321005-4.pdf
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110322...10322003-3.pdf
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110322...10322010-3.pdf (first temperature readings)
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110323...10323004-3.pdf
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110323...10323012-4.pdf
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/f...110324-2-4.pdf (reactor 4 temperature gauge not working after black smoke)
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/f...110325-1-4.pdf
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/f...110325-3-3.pdf
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/f...110325-5-3.pdf (first fresh water injection)
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110326002/20110326002-3.pdf

Please add other links for other days if you can find them - I am especially interested in 19 March
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,304
Well you stated that from your translation Japanese thought radiation came from the SFRP, I just stated that your translation was incorrect.
That aside I do share Tepco & Nisa opinion that it comes more likely from the reactor via leakage in the pipes.
 
  • #1,305
I would love to see a graph plotted from the data in the last 2 weeks of these releases

Yes that would be very interesting.

It woud be also interesting to include reactors 5 and 6 to use as reference because those are not damaged. Just note that reactor 6 is from an other generation of BWR (which explains its square building instead of the rectangular one). I believe it's a Mark II or Mark III containment (to be confirmed), it doesn't have a torus (to be confirmed also) so the parameters may be slightly different.
 
  • #1,307
  • #1,308
Thank you,
To summarize here is an hypothesis on the current situation made by Areva,
Does this scenario fit the available evidences?
[PLAIN]http://min.us/jjPB0E.jpg
[PLAIN]http://min.us/jjTYfc.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,309
assuming the Unit 1 containment and vessel are flooded, how do we explain the reported stable and low water level in the vessel ? how do we explain recent pressure and temperature increase ? in both vessel and containment of unit 1 ?
 
  • #1,310
Gilles said:
Gentlemen, I read that on a French forum
and now the translation (sorry for the possible broken English)
and the screen shot

[PLAIN]http://www-laog.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/~henri/Fukushima.gif

what's your opinion?

It appears the orange object is before the helicopter reaches the roof on reactor building 2 on its way to reactor building 3. So my opinion is that it is most unlikely to be the core of reactor 3 as it is in the wrong location.

The video you have linked is the clearest version I have seen of this video. From it I could tell that this mystery object:

attachment.php?attachmentid=33384&stc=1&d=1300800912.jpg


Is the boom of a wheeled crane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,311
"...the three injured workers had stepped into was 10,000 times the level normally seen in coolant water at the plant. It said that the amount of radiation the workers were thought to have been exposed to in the water was two to six sieverts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/world/asia/26japan.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all"

This is beginning to look more and more like Chernobyl, but perhaps in slow motion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,313
I don't think these have been posted before - but apologies if I'm repeating stuff.

The detail on the seawater tests (I assume):

http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110325ocean_1300_en.pdf

Radiation monitoring results (land, outside the perimeter of the exclusion zone):

http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110326fukushima3_1000_en.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,314
|Fred said:
Thank you,
To summarize here is an hypothesis on the current situation made by Areva,
Does this scenario fit the available evidences?

I am surprised that Areva, Europe's biggest builder of NPP would go public.
I checked the slide show - basically is the same as the picture I have made
 
Last edited:
  • #1,315
'Two of the three have been hospitalised due to possible burns caused by beta rays, which can cause major skin damage.

They were not wearing boots at the time so their feet were soaked in the water.

TEPCO said almost no water was present during an on-site inspection the previous day and also that the level of radiation was low during the inspection.

"Because of this, the workers were believed to have continued their work even after their dosimeter alarm went off, assuming a problem with the machine," a TEPCO official said.

TEPCO plans to strictly reinforce the rule of evacuating the site whenever the dosimeter's alarm goes off.'

See:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173500.htm"

This is farcical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,316
To all:

Please stop speculating about these red spots. There is a lot of debris of all colors in the area, just because something is red or orange doesn't mean it is hot and glowing. IR pictures don't confirm anything near red hot, that would mean 500-800 deg C or above, IR pictures show hot spots several hundred degrees lower. Let's stick to facts, there is already enough misinformation circulating around.
 
  • #1,317
AtomicWombat said:
attachment.php?attachmentid=33383&stc=1&d=1300800912.jpg


If it is indeed the the top of the reactor it is in the wrong place, suggesting the reactor was destroyed by the explosion in building 3, which has been my "best guess" for some time.


Sorry if this has already been commented on; I've been away for a few days.

jensjakob said:
I think that the round feature is the top of the tank just above it

No jensjacob, the tank above and behind the mystery object originally had a flat top, as you will see if you look at older footage. There were no domed vessels near the base of building 3 - or on it.
 
  • #1,318
AtomicWombat said:
If it is indeed the the top of the reactor it is in the wrong place, suggesting the reactor was destroyed by the explosion in building 3, which has been my "best guess" for some time.

Maybe Occam should take his Razor to that?
 
  • #1,319
jlduh said:
Now we can try to speculate if the smoke plume from this building is coming from this place or not, but if think it is (satellite picture just after the explosion, 14th or march):

http://www.netimago.com/image_182152.html

http://www.netimago.com/image_182153.html

Yes jlduh,
I think the smoke plume comes from multiple sources that are essentially the hole where number 3 reactor used to be.

Tcups has produced an impressive series of hypotheses. However, any failure mechanism must account for the extremely energetic explosion of the reactor 3 building. The vast majority of the energy of this explosion was directed upwards, so it is likely sourced inside the primary containment (reactor, dry-well, wet well). Since this was necessarily purged of oxygen prior to the explosion it must be either 1) a steam explosion, or 2) a chemical explosion not involving free oxygen (initially at least), or 3) a combination. (We can almost certainly rule out a nuclear explosion).

A final possibility is a rupture of the base of the reactor, producing a rocket effect due to its pressurisation (~2000psi) - blasting the reactor through the top of its containment. This would almost certainly have been prevented by safety pressure relief values, and is unlikely to have been this energetic in any case. Almost certainly the RV pressure would have been reduced markedy after the reactor was SCRAMed.

The best explanation consistent with the visual evidence is that the reactor core melted through the bottom of the reactor and fell into a flooded dry well. As I've discussed before, this would produce an explosive steam reaction, combined with a highly energetic reaction between superhot zirconium and water, producing hydrogen, that itself exploded once the top of the containment was breached.

After an energetic explosion in the RV it would be no surprise to find the circulation pipes have failed in the turbine building. After flooding the now open reactor with sea water (esp from the fire trucks - there is no evidence anything effective flooding was done before this) it is not surprising the turbine hall is full of contaminated water.

Nothing consistent or coherent has come out of TEPCO to enable a better understanding of what has happened. And I suspect even the water analyses have been selectively leaked (excluding important components) to control their story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,320
AntonL said:
In the last days we discussed bullets (debris at high velocity) smashing through
neighbouring roofs let's call these falling debris, being material blasted high into the sky and
falling at high equally high velocity. Penetration holes can be seen on turbine building no
3 and in the latest SDF video from two days back, showed steam escaping through holes
of unit 2 roof - possibly also a bombs from rector 3 explosion.

What we have not discussed are these large chunks of debris falling into the SPF and destroying the
spent fuel rods and unit 3 also had 200 brand new rods. In this case the Zirconium
jackets could be destroyed and fission products exposed to the water in the pools

Anton:

It is possible but not very likely that high-lofted falling debris could have damaged SFP3 or other buildings and structures. My initial assessment was that the greatest force of the blast went upward, from the explosion video. But the subsequent photos of the damage on the ground told a different story, with the greatest visible damage appearing to have come from a sideways blast.

I eventually resolved this in my mind by the observation that it was the concrete slabs blasting outward from the building that became bullet or missile like projectiles that did the damage, east and west, and the falling crane, damage to the north. But why, then, if most of the damage appeared to be on the southeast end was there little or no visible damage to Bldg 4? I will come back to that

The vertical component went through much lighter roof panels and may have been less constrained going upward, plus channeled upward by the stronger structure of the weight bearing beams and concrete slab sidewall construction and perhaps the 3SFP, particularly if any large volume of water in the 3SFP was explosively vaporized.

When you consider the absence of north side projectile damage, I believe it is because neither the north or south sides of the upper floor had concrete slabs. The weight bearing function of the east and west walls was to support the weight of the two side rails and the large overhead crane. The reinforced wall structure and the large side rails of the crane helped to hold things together somewhat, with the side panels popping out. Absent concrete panels and weight-bearing columns north and south, there was little projectile blast damage southward other than lighter debris, and nothing to constrain the overhead crane from being blasted out the north wall, or simply rolling down the rails and out the side of the building if the north wall and a couple of the north columns collapsed. The north side damage was to the adjacent lower building, not the side of Bldg2.

On the recent discussion of the flooding of the basement of Turbine Bldg 3, there was a side elevation diagram that showed the relationship of the height of the top of Reactor Bldg 3 vs the top of Turbine Bbldg 3. That will give a bit more insight into the trajectory of the side wall panels that blew out, east and west.

So, in retrospect, I can see how a hydrogen explosion first exited Bldg 3 upward and southward.

As for vertical upward, then downward "bomb-like" (falling debris), there are not that many candidates for heavy debris that could have been blown straight upward. These, in my mind, were
1) section(s) of the roof panels (sheet metal) and girders (not that heavy)
2) the fuel handling machine (visible in RB4 but not in RB3 after the blast,
3) the reinforced concrete plug or sections of the plug atop the drywall containment of reactor 3
4) the contents of SFP3 itself

If the plug blew from the drywall containment, then I cannot see with certainty where it punched through the roof girders, or where it fell to earth, or why a jet of steam, apparently from the drywall containment of RV3 might be seen afterward. It would leave a huge gaping hole and voluminous billowing smoke for days (maybe). This scenario seems very unlikely to me

If the fuel rods were blown straight up and out of SFP3 by the explosion, how did a blast above the level of the SFP3 cause it? Perhaps residual water in the SFP vaporized explosively. Very speculative at best and also seems very unlikely.

That only leaves one "heavy" candidate, the fuel handling machine, and I doubt that did enough damage falling to displace any fuel rods.

Addendum: Per Anton's request, please note that any reference to "bombs" or "missiles" refer to falling or flying debris, and should not be interpreted otherwise. Apologies to any conspiracy theorists who may have misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,321
AtomicWombat said:
It appears the orange object is before the helicopter reaches the roof on reactor building 2 on its way to reactor building 3. So my opinion is that it is most unlikely to be the core of reactor 3 as it is in the wrong location.

The video you have linked is the clearest version I have seen of this video. ...

I fully agree and if it is red hot where is the smoke? There would be enough debris around to ignite

The most watchable videos are here, that guy has nice software.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=KurtsFilmeVideo&aq=f
 
  • #1,322
AntonL said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-japan-quake-secrecy-20110325%2C0%2C3610246.story"

So its official now what we have been saying this all along

and in #1176 I wrote:
I personally feel that Tepco engineers are overextended, paralyzed and firefighting,
instead of having a set clear path of action with small deviations to solve the problem.
The question now arises if nuclear reactor accidents should be co-managed internationally,
an new task for the United Nations as they are the only body to enforce this.

and in #1195 I wrote:
All I want to say is that nuclear accident management need to be rethought and taken out
of the control of the operator. It would be of interest if the big nuclear nation to have a
national emergency manual that structures the accident management that takes immediate
effect with military like precision.

I think the LA Times article is suggesting more than just this. To be blunt, TEPCO are either knaves or fools, or some combination thereof. They are certainly playing the Japanese public and international community for fools. The whole thing is a ridiculous attempt at a cover-up that has gone on even longer than Chernobyl.

Not only that, many nuclear industry experts are too sensitive to criticism of their industry, especially at a time when things were starting to look up, until...Fukushima. If an insider comes out and says what they think is really happening that may be the end of their career.

Unfortunately that leaves Joe-public - especially the Japanese public - in the vulneravble position where almost no one with authority or expertise is acting in their interests.

We are left with informed and uninformed speculation. Is is quite likely that the work done on this site - despite the lack of consensus - is getting closer to the truth than anything coming from TEPCO, the IAEA, or other authorities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,324
REGARDING THE EXPLOSION AT BLDG 3

The slide show of the proposed mechanism seems highly credible.
reference: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51564602?secret_password=th7hw1mmpjwnfmd0mbj

I see one obvious flaw, at least in the diagrammatic representation (diagram attached, again from above referenced slide show)

The explosion is shown occurring with a full SFP. There is a first hand account of large volumes of water sloshing out of one of the SFP's and onto a worker in the buliding (not sure which) at the time of the 9.0 quake. There is speculation that "damage" from the quake may have resulted in leaks and there are lots of calculations of the boil off time of water from the SFPs. But . . .

1) A hydrogen gas explosion occurred in Bldg 4 with an empty reactor core, and
2) as I pointed out earlier, the odds of the SFP's remaining full after the quake seem about the same as an open coffee cup in the cup holder of your car remaining full after driving over a dozen speed bumps without slowing down.
3) the explosion at Unit 3 was nothing like that at Unit 1, which occurred minutes after controlled venting at Unit 1.

Conclusion: there is no way to know the starting volume of water in any of the SFP's after the quake. Hydrogen gas from SFP's in 4 and quite possibly 3 may contributed to the explosions. Secondary damage to the SFP or reactor containment from the blast at Unit 3 cannot be dismissed as a possibility, as this slide would seem to indicate.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    45.1 KB · Views: 453
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,325
About the orange object and stuff, it is getting old , especially considering the data that were provided.. We really want to guess what it is from pixel-peeping ? Then we at the very least should try to get the perspective right and try to get a 3D view of what and where it is..Outside the secondary containment , top of a vertical structure (look at black lines)..
there you are, I got some of it right I think


[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/imlv0i.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,326
(edit I do not know my left from the right sorry for confusing)

check the bottom right hand corner and you will see the breeze over the warm pool just below the smoke/steam line

You will also see some junk sticking out of the water so my theory of bombs (falling debris) damagaing the fuel rods is feasible

attachment.php?attachmentid=33550&stc=1&d=1301142414.jpg
 

Attachments

  • pool.jpg
    pool.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 975
Last edited:
  • #1,327
TCups said:
REGARDING THE EXPLOSION AT BLDG 3

The slide show of the proposed mechanism seems highly credible.
reference: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51564602?secret_password=th7hw1mmpjwnfmd0mbj

I see one obvious flaw, at least in the diagrammatic representation (diagram attached, again from above referenced slide show)

The explosion is shown occurring with a full SFP. There is a first hand account of large volumes of water sloshing out of one of the SFP's and onto a worker in the buliding (not sure which) at the time of the 9.0 quake. There is speculation that "damage" from the quake may have resulted in leaks and there are lots of calculations of the boil off time of water from the SFPs. But . . .

1) A hydrogen gas explosion occurred in Bldg 4 with an empty reactor core, and
2) as I pointed out earlier, the odds of the SFP's remaining full after the quake seem about the same as an open coffee cup in the cup holder of your car remaining full after driving over a dozen speed bumps without slowing down.
3) the explosion at Unit 3 was nothing like that at Unit 1, which occurred minutes after controlled venting at Unit 1.

Conclusion: there is no way to know the starting volume of water in any of the SFP's after the quake. Hydrogen gas from SFP's in 4 and quite possibly 3 may contributed to the explosions.

Thanks TCups,

Excellent link.

To me the obvious flaw is the clear difference in explosion mechanisms of reactor 1 and reactor 3, as you point out. We agree on this and we are trying to work out why. Dr Matthias Bruan's explanation (your link) makes complete sense for reactor 1. It is not consistent with the reactor 3 explosion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,328
Concerning the availability/non availability of data, there is an effort to collect unofficial (and most likely non calibrated) radiation data in Japan using private Geiger counters, don't know if it helps figuring out what is going, but haven't seen it mentioned here:

http://community.pachube.com/node/611#3d

David
 
  • #1,329
AtomicWombat said:
Thanks TCups,

Excellent link.

To me the obvious flaw is the clear difference in explosion mechanisms of reactor 1 and reactor 3, as you point out. We agree on this and we are trying to work out why. Dr Matthias Bruan's explanation (your link) makes complete sense for reactor 1. It is not consistent with the reactor 3 explosion.

Below my theory posted earlier

AntonL said:
Here is a time line of the explosions and reported CV venting
Unit 1 - 12.03.2011 at 15:36 : CVv 15:00 on 12.03.11
Unit 3 - 14.03.2011 at 11:01 : CVv 09:20 on 13.03.11
Unit 4 - 15.03.2011 at 06:14
Unit 2 - 15.03.2011 at 06:20 : CVv 11:55 on 13.03.11

There is a correlation between Unit 1 CV venting and Hydrogen blast.

Below SFP data FU = fuel units followed by pool volume and heat load of the FU
Unit 1 - 292 FU 1200m3 60kW
Unit 2 - 587 FU 1425m3 400kW
Unit 3 - 514 FU 1425m3 200kW
Unit 4 - 1331 FU 1425m3 2000kW + 200 brand new FU (yes 2MW not a typo)

This sets a new light on my earlier proposal
Unit 1 exploded due to H2 leak of venting system - possibly Earth quake damage
Unit 2 to 4 exploded due to hydrogen generation from equipment pools.
 
  • #1,330
Picture of the operating floor of UNIT 6 (similar to the operating floor of the other unit)
According to an Japanese engineer who work on the design of the containment vessel of unit 4
[PLAIN]http://min.us/jjP5c0.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,331
AntonL said:
I fully agree and if it is red hot where is the smoke? There would be enough debris around to ignite

The most watchable videos are here, that guy has nice software.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=KurtsFilmeVideo&aq=f

. . . and the most watchable image stabilized videos have been edited from the original 9+ minutes to 6 min 18 seconds, with all the close up shots of the white rods and the questionable glowing red spot removed. Hmmm.

Addendum:
Here is the original 9 minute video of the 'copter fly over:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,332
AntonL said:
(edit I do not know my left from the right sorry for confusing)

check the bottom right hand corner and you will see the breeze over the warm pool just below the smoke/steam line

You will also see some junk sticking out of the water so my theory of bombs damagaing the fuel rods is feasible

attachment.php?attachmentid=33550&stc=1&d=1301142414.jpg

Dude - that is a picture of the south wall elevation of Building 4. Check it out in this wide angle view. . .

and compare to the best post-explosion shot of the south elevation of Bldg 3 from the 'copter video (Picture 22)
 

Attachments

  • Picture 35.jpg
    Picture 35.jpg
    44.9 KB · Views: 440
  • Bldg4South-Elev.jpg
    Bldg4South-Elev.jpg
    49 KB · Views: 440
  • Picture 22.jpg
    Picture 22.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 449
Last edited:
  • #1,333
I found these infographics of the basement flooding

Can someone translate?
attachment.php?attachmentid=33554&stc=1&d=1301145974.jpg


translation provided
使用済み核燃料 SFP
海側 towards the ocean
タービン turbine

地下一階のイメージ図 underground (B1) map
浸水している場所 submerged area
タービンの復水器 machine to restore turbine water (literal translation - I don't know the technical name) - condensers
タービンは階上 turbine is upstairs
被曝した作業員がいた場所 place where workers were exposed to radiation
高圧復水ポンプ high pressure pump to return water
一階への階段 stairs to the first floor
ケーブルをつなぐ作業 work to connect the cable (electrical?)
 

Attachments

  • flood.jpg
    flood.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 605
Last edited:
  • #1,334
TCups said:
Dude - that is a picture of the south wall elevation of Building 4. Check it out in this wide angle view. . .
TCups correct and right would be east and SE corner is the SFP!

Grabbed from this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95a8obR2GaE&feature=BF&list=ULr5HsMVY6W0k&index=3
presumably originally grabbed from a news broadcast, the low res video at 2:20 halts,
a high def view is shown for 12 seconds, and I presume the shimmer of water is discussed -
it was an issue as at the time as water was being sprayed into 3 and USA said that 4 is most
important and Tepco countered by saying water was spotted in 3

Just my thoughts and I did not say that the debris in the pool is from 3
 
Last edited:
  • #1,335
|Fred said:
Picture of the operating floor of UNIT 6 (similar to the operating floor of the other unit)
According to an Japanese engineer who work on the design of the containment vessel of unit 4
[PLAIN]http://min.us/jjP5c0.jpg[/QUOTE]

Fred:

This would have to be a "Fish Eye" lens photo taken from atop the large crane. If I am seeing this correctly, then the large orange structure is the drywell cap (DWC) and it is not in the equipment pool. Also, Reactor Unit 6, I believe, was a later design. In this photo, the top of the reactor containment appears to be centered north-south and east-west, if oriented as were Bldg 3. Note the relationship of the (two?) pools to the right of the larger SFP and that there are apparently channels, smaller, but not unlike the channel to the primary containment, connecting all 3 pools.

I have to believe this layout is a bit different from what may be in Units 3 and 4.

Also, IF the plug were blown in Unit 3, then the DWC would have blown skyward too. That would be a pretty large chunk of painted metal debris which might be visible on the satellite photos. I haven't seen anything like it on the ground.
 

Attachments

  • FishEyeReactor-Floor.jpg
    FishEyeReactor-Floor.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 456
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,336
AntonL said:
TCups correct and right would be east and SE corner is the SFP!

Grabbed from this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95a8obR2GaE&feature=BF&list=ULr5HsMVY6W0k&index=3
presumably originally grabbed from a news broadcast, the low res video at 2:20 halts,
a high def view is shown for 12 seconds, and I presume the shimmer of water is discussed -
it was an issue as at the time as water was being sprayed into 3 and USA said that 4 is most
important and Tepco countered by saying water was spotted in 3

Just my thoughts and I did not say that the debris in the pool is from 3

I see no shimmer at unit 4, 2:20 on the video -- I see part of the green fuel handling equipment through some smoke.

And before the 9 minute version of the video was edited, there was a pretty good shot of the SFP of 3 (just before the 'copter passed through the steam/smoke) that showed what looked like a deep black hole at SFP3. One of my earlier posts has a screenshot. Maybe I can find it.

. . . yes. Here is the original 9 minute video link


and post #784, page 49 shows the best look into SFP3 from the original 'copter fly over video.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 42.jpg
    Picture 42.jpg
    37.7 KB · Views: 445
  • Picture 41.jpg
    Picture 41.jpg
    15.1 KB · Views: 470
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,337
AtomicWombat said:
'Two of the three have been hospitalised due to possible burns caused by beta rays, which can cause major skin damage.

They were not wearing boots at the time so their feet were soaked in the water.

TEPCO said almost no water was present during an on-site inspection the previous day and also that the level of radiation was low during the inspection.

"Because of this, the workers were believed to have continued their work even after their dosimeter alarm went off, assuming a problem with the machine," a TEPCO official said.

TEPCO plans to strictly reinforce the rule of evacuating the site whenever the dosimeter's alarm goes off.'

See:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173500.htm"

This is farcical.
-------------------------
So is the term "Beta Rays". Since they are particles, Electrons or Positrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,338
only translating the non-obvious ones (but even some of these are obvious):

使用済み核燃料 SFP
海側 towards the ocean
タービン turbine

地下一階のイメージ図 underground (B1) map
浸水している場所 submerged area
タービンの復水器 machine to restore turbine water (literal translation - I don't know the technical name)
タービンは階上 turbine is upstairs
被曝した作業員がいた場所 place where workers were exposed to radiation
高圧復水ポンプ high pressure pump to return water
一階への階段 stairs to the first floor
ケーブルをつなぐ作業 work to connect the cable (electrical?)

The interesting stuff looks like it's on the bottom half - if you need any other translations of the diagram on top, just post/ask...
 
  • #1,339
Borek said:
To all:

Please stop speculating about these red spots. There is a lot of debris of all colors in the area, just because something is red or orange doesn't mean it is hot and glowing.

Besides, even if it was orange glowing, I very much doubt it that it could have been recorded by camera and seen in fully daylight (think about volcanic lava: you need twilight to appreciate its brilliant orange glow).
Somebody said it could be a fire extinguisher.
It could also be an orange painted metal structure.
 
  • #1,340
I have personally observed such events in the nuclear industry, which is primarily due to intelligence level and a work effect beyond normal. When in an emergency these people will generally suffer the most. I have seen workers continue to work on equipment when they were doused with contaminated water, dosimetry alarmed, respiratory equipment failed (cocked masked to breath better), gloves were schredded and they continued to perform their assigned work.

Tokyo Electric Power Company has been criticised over yesterday's exposure to workers operating in ankle-deep water,

But it is thought that contractors ignored alarms from their dosimeters, while ankle-deep in contaminated water for about three hours.

Also, it is incomprehensible that station Health Physicist would not know the basement of Turbine Building always has low levels of radioactive contamination present in wet areas. Which would increase during a reactor accident and by the use of the feed system to inject water into the reactor. At some point to keep the RPV from going solid, they had to let some water out to somewhere.
 
  • #1,341
@TCups
it is the bolted DWC (but obviously no in place)
you are welcome to watch the full video here http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13414000
2 hours in Japanese translated but kind of a pain to follow
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,342
AntonL said:
(edit I do not know my left from the right sorry for confusing)

check the bottom right hand corner and you will see the breeze over the warm pool just below the smoke/steam line

You will also see some junk sticking out of the water so my theory of bombs (falling debris) damagaing the fuel rods is feasible

attachment.php?attachmentid=33550&stc=1&d=1301142414.jpg

Anton:

I think that is questionable. And besides, if the damage to building 4 were caused by falling debris, the debris would have had to be aloft a loooooooonnnng time as satellite photos show Bldg 4 intact sometime after Bldg 3 has exploded. I remember this from the original posts where I suggested blast damage from Bldg 3 had blown a square hole in the north side of Bldg 4 (remember the infamous tongue of insulation, etc.?). That would have been somewhere around posts 300-400, I think. If I can find it, I will edit this and add the image.

Addendum: Actually, no -- it was later in the thread where the holes in the roof of Turbine Bldg 3 and the contaminated water in the basement were being discussed. Still looking. . .

Second Addendum: I cannot find the post, but I am sure someone posted a satellite picture showing an intact Bldg 4 after the blast at Bldg 3, refuting my conjecture that the blast at Bldg 3 might have blown the square hole in the north side of Bldg 4 and damaged the roof of Bldg 4. That, of course, would also constitute photographic proof that heavy falling debris from the blast at Bldg 3 had not damaged Bldg 4.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,343
M. Bachmeier said:
I read a report somewhere that indicated that pressure sensing equipment for units 2 and 3 might not be operable or reliable.

I believe that there was conjecture on this site about that. I do not remember reading it outside of this forum. Anybody have a link?
 
  • #1,344
Couple of questions:

What is the purpose of the dry-well cap, outside of the obvious?
More specific, is it also designed to help prevent or deflect energies from the ejection of core material in case of a catastrophic event?
How heavy would the steel gauge be for the cap?
Are all these dry-well caps orange?
If they are orange would in not be possible to observe the cap from number 3 reactor from aerial observation?
 
  • #1,345
M. Bachmeier said:
Couple of questions:

What is the purpose of the dry-well cap, outside of the obvious?
More specific, is it also designed to help prevent or deflect energies from the ejection of core material in case of a catastrophic event?
How heavy would the steel gauge be for the cap?
Are all these dry-well caps orange?
If they are orange would in not be possible to observe the cap from number 3 reactor from aerial observation?

------------------

The dry well/Primary Reactor Vessel Containment cap is a pressure boundary/seal for the primary containment. Stacked concrete and inflatable seals would not hold sufficient pressure. It is thick steel, probably over 3/4". Do not know if the color is pertinent, and probably is a corrosion inhibitor paint.
 
  • #1,346
kfmfe04 said:
only translating the non-obvious ones (but even some of these are obvious):


The interesting stuff looks like it's on the bottom half - if you need any other translations of the diagram on top, just post/ask...
thanks
 
  • #1,347
Reno Deano said:
------------------

The dry well/Primary Reactor Vessel Containment cap is a pressure boundary/seal for the primary containment. Stacked concrete and inflatable seals would not hold sufficient pressure. It is thick steel, probably over 3/4". Do not know if the color is pertinent, and probably is a corrosion inhibitor paint.
So I guess containment, even in the case of a powerful explosion is factored into the design. The design seems to be such that energy from an explosion would be partially channeled either sideways or down or both. In the absence of more information I think I'll avoid speculation.
 
  • #1,348
Pressure sensors:

"Earlier hopes that restoring offsite power to the control rooms at Units 1-2 and 3-4 would allow quick reactivation of normal cooling systems were dashed with discovery, anticipated in our coverage, that critical pumps, valves and pressure sensors might be damaged and need repair or replacement. With radioactive smoke still coming from Unit 3, three more workers (laying electrical cables) at the site were exposed to dangerous levels in excess water outside, two of them hospitalized. "

Can't vouch for validity:

http://my.firedoglake.com/scarecrow/tag/fukushima-fifty/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,349
We discussed this earlier, now Japanese researcher confirms our view

Researcher warned 2 yrs ago of massive tsunami striking nuke plant
TOKYO, March 27, Kyodo

A researcher said Saturday he had warned two years ago about the possible risk of a
massive tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant in Japan, but Tokyo Electric Power Co., the
operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant crippled by the March 11 earthquake and
ensuing tsunami, had brushed off the warning.

According to the researcher, Yukinobu Okamura, and the records of a government council
where he made the warning, TEPCO asserted that there was flexibility in the quake
resistance design of its plants and expressed reluctance to raise the assumption of possible
quake damage citing a lack of sufficient information.

''There should be ample flexibility in the safety of a nuclear power plant,'' said Okamura, head
of the Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center at the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology. ''It is odd to have an attitude of not taking into
consideration indeterminate aspects.''

Okamura had warned in 2009 of massive tsunami based on his study since around 2004 of
the traces of a major tsunami believed to have swept away about a thousand people in the
year 869 after a magnitude 8.3 quake off northeastern Japan.

He had found in his research that tsunami from the ancient quake had hit a wide range of the
coastal regions of northeastern Japan, at least as far north as Ishinomaki in Miyagi
Prefecture and as far south as the town of Namie in Fukushima Prefecture -- close to the
Fukushima Daiichi plant -- penetrating as much as 3 to 4 kilometers inland.

As a result of the quake and tsunami earlier this month, Japan has been facing its worst
nuclear crisis as electricity and cooling functions failed at the power plant in Fukushima
Prefecture, releasing radioactive materials.

==Kyodo
 
  • #1,350
AntonL said:
We discussed this earlier, now Japanese researcher confirms our view
Re: possible tsunami, I saw an interview the scientist following the quake, but any warnings to TEPCO were either not addressed or not included.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
49K
Replies
2K
Views
447K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
763
Views
272K
Replies
38
Views
16K
Replies
4
Views
11K
Back
Top