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.
  • #7,051
whoswho69 said:
http://www.fairewinds.com/updates - Arnold Gundersen

I'm glad that he corrected a couple inaccuracy he made in the past (2km not 2 miles, etc).
I think he is mistaken on the U4 leaning theory because he did not saw the latest picture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #7,052
TCups said:
And say, don't I remember a passive emergency cooling system that operates without electric power driven by a steam turbine that circulates through a cooling pool? Was such a mechanism in operation at Unit 3? Would that have been in any way related to heating SFP3 (ie, was initial emergency cooling of the Unit 3 core at the expense of additional heating of SFP3 or is another water reservoir used for this emergency system, if it was used)?

Ah, yes, here: https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35514&d=1305281756PS: Thank you for the previous edit, Borek. Sorry that my lack of facility with multi-quotes required the extra effort for you.

PPS: Thank you clancy for the reference added as an attachment to post 7035, here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3299553&postcount=7035
 
Last edited:
  • #7,053
Does anyone have a link to a slo mo video or the still frames of the unit 3 explosion, I've just been watching it and there's a lot of info in there.
T cups has analysed it in detail... I just haven't had a good video till the one I posted last page. And I've just realized you can almost go frame by frame by double clicking on youtube.

Anyway there is definitely a release of flammable gas out of the east (or SE) of the building which then ignites... and this happens BEFOERE the south facing wall disintegrates! There's also a frame in there that seems to show the south wall bulging out,... while the orange flame is diminishing befoer the second (big) explosion.
I wish I had gone with you a few hundred pages back... Tcups!

watch from 14secs: here:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RxAHoxEvv7Y#t=16s

Fascinating stuff
 
Last edited:
  • #7,054
|Fred said:
I think he is mistaken on the U4 leaning theory because he did not saw the latest picture.

It's funny that he is picking that up at all...
 
  • #7,055
artax said:
Does anyone have a link to a slo mo video or the still frames of the unit 3 explosion, I've just been watching it and there's a lot of info in there.
T cups has analysed it in detail... I just haven't had a good video till the one I posted last page. And I've just realized you can almost go frame by frame by double clicking on youtube.

Anyway there is definitely a release of flammable gas out of the east (or SE) of the building which then ignites... and this happens BEFOERE the south facing wall disintegrates! There's also a frame in there that seems to show the south wall bulging out,... while the orange flame is diminishing befoer the second (big) explosion.
I wish I had gone with you a few hundred pages back... Tcups!

Fascinating stuff
I confirm what you say, i analysed this stuff very accurately and the flash out of the building implies that some gas (already inflammed or not) have to escape the building BEFORE the walls are destructed.

The flash is then going "off" and then the explosion comes with destructions.

EDIT: here are the links to frame by frame explosions at N°1 and N°3 (i think this is what you were looking for Artax):

http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl1/
http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl3/index.html

talking about "bulging, look closely at the frames -4 to +2 on the N°3 reactor page. To me you can actually see the south wall of the building "bulging" under internal pressure like a Coke can just before ignition and explosion (look at faint shadows, the sun position seems to help to see this)...

This is even more fascinating. These stronger walls (than N°1) have had maybe an important role in what happened, enabling higher pressure inside building before cracking...
 
Last edited:
  • #7,056
Something to mull over.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Water_poses_questions_for_Tepco_1205111.html

In the last two weeks the temperature of unit 3 has gradually risen from around 90ºC to around 210ºC. It is not known if this is related to the water leak.

Meanwhile at unit 1 the return of workers to the reactor building interior seems likely to lead to revelations about the true state of the core. Tepco has installed and calibrated one of two new water level gauges, finding the level to be below what was previously thought. This led to speculation that the entire reactor core may have been exposed for long periods of time, with the increased chance of serious damage.
. . .
Eslewhere I read that material from the core of unit 1 has dropped into the bottom plenum of the RPV.
 
  • #7,057
PietKuip said:
The newspaper article says about this bunker:
"The three-story, white bunker had extra-thick walls and two filtration systems designed to keep out radiation."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-25/japan-s-terrifying-day-saw-unprecedented-exposed-fuel-rods.html

An earthquake-proof radiation shelter. Yet the radiation spike was measurable inside.
To me this is rather strong support for Gundersen's theory.

My personal opinion is that there has been no criticality in any of the SFP pools. At least I haven't seen enough evidence to believe in that.

However, what if there was recriticality in unit 3 reactor core? Would it be conceivable that after the fuel rods have been without sufficient cooling (above water level), they start heating up, melting away the control rods (borated steel, would it melt prior to the fuel pellets?), then they start injecting cooling water from outside, which cools the remains, but also acts as moderator. With control rods partly gone, the core suddenly goes critical, followed by essentially steam explosion within containment, which however, is not strong enough to destroy the drywell, but causes the spectacular explosion of unit 3 reactor building including gamma spike?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,058
artax said:
Does anyone have a link to a slo mo video or the still frames of the unit 3 explosion, I've just been watching it and there's a lot of info in there.
T cups has analysed it in detail... I just haven't had a good video till the one I posted last page. And I've just realized you can almost go frame by frame by double clicking on youtube.

Anyway there is definitely a release of flammable gas out of the east (or SE) of the building which then ignites... and this happens BEFOERE the south facing wall disintegrates! There's also a frame in there that seems to show the south wall bulging out,... while the orange flame is diminishing befoer the second (big) explosion.
I wish I had gone with you a few hundred pages back... Tcups!

watch from 14secs: here:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RxAHoxEvv7Y#t=16s

Fascinating stuff

To complete my post above, i extracted the frame you are talking about showing the bulging of south wall just before disintegration. On the link i gave this is frame n°1, but you can see the process starting in the frames just before. The bulging seems to be 3 floors high, which is consistent with the destructions on the building N°3. You see also that the flash is already ignited outside, and expanding. I don't have an explanation why the destructions seem to start at the periphery of the the south wall (the black lines of concrete/dust ejected (i think ?) along the roof and on the right side of the wall). To me it just indicates that these walls were strong and that the first cracking path (path of least resistance) would be there, at the periphery, which is consistent with some gases released at the top south east corner of the structure and creating the flash.

http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl3/index.html

http://www.netimago.com/image_199656.html:

http://www.netimago.com/images/qDOtRM98dbnL1E0.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,059
jlduh said:
EDIT: here are the links to frame by frame explosions at N°1 and N°3 (i think this is what you were looking for Artax):

http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl1/
http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl3/index.html

[...]
This is even more fascinating. These stronger walls (than N°1) have had maybe an important role in what happened, enabling higher pressure inside building before cracking...

Ah, so let's get back to discuss this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3285013&postcount=5896 :smile:, see also https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3287586&postcount=6055 and my personal conclusion https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3287854&postcount=6069 .

Unrelated from that, those snapshots are nice. Assuming it's the same camera from the same spot as the TBS/JNN live feed, then unit 4 pre-fire/explosion did not appear to be crooked. So, even if it is an optical illusion it is probably not from the camera or optics, but from the building.

[EDIT2: Careful with these frames, they only show an integral over what happened within 1/25 s, faster dynamics will appear washed out.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,060
jlduh said:
I confirm what you say, i analysed this stuff very accurately and the flash out of the building implies that some gas (already inflammed or not) have to escape the building BEFORE the walls are destructed.

The flash is then going "off" and then the explosion comes with destructions.

EDIT: here are the links to frame by frame explosions at N°1 and N°3 (i think this is what you were looking for Artax):

http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl1/
http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl3/index.html

At the risk of again being redundant again, yes. The VISIAL evidence is what led to all of my initial speculation about the vector of the blast and its origins from the region of the fuel transfer chute. The additional clues -- information about the drywell cap seal, and the fuel transfer chute seal followed.

Initial general speculation regarding the explosion at Unit 3 was that such an energetic blast could only arise from the RPV, yet the RPV pressure was initially preserved. How could that be?

A lot of visible thermal energy is released BEFORE the entire building explodes and the steam explosion occurs. It appears at a very specific location and in a very specific vector, through the southeast end of the building, from, or over the SFP3.

The ignition and conflagration of the initial ejected gas cloud appears to me to occur after it has, like Elvis, left the building. The explosion of the entire building appears to follow the external ignition, and the rising steam column is the last event.

And if you choose not to dismiss the audio evidence, there are also clearly two and possibly three distinct explosions, depending on how one interprets the data (M. Bachmier has done extensive analysis on this).

MaderDoc's analysis of the roof damage supports this scenario, IMO.

In retrospect, is there anything like the bright blue flash that might be expected with a sudden criticality on that video? To my eyes, no. The "sudden" event is the initial outward blast of a cloud of white gas then a fireball at the SE corner.

@MadderDoc:
Sir - might I respectfully ask if you might consider turning your talented eyes toward the south end of Building 3 and perhaps adding your assessment of the mechanical and thermal damage to the south end of the building as well as the roof? I believe you may find similar evidence that the initial blast and thermal damage had a substantial horizontal vector as well. Thanks.
 
  • #7,061
PietKuip said:
The newspaper article says about this bunker:
"The three-story, white bunker had extra-thick walls and two filtration systems designed to keep out radiation."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-25/japan-s-terrifying-day-saw-unprecedented-exposed-fuel-rods.html

An earthquake-proof radiation shelter. Yet the radiation spike was measurable inside.
To me this is rather strong support for Gundersen's theory.

Ok, here is some information you may be interested in. Apparently TEPCO has released some previously-unreleased internal notes on what was happening in the early days. Fascinating reading, published in today's Asahi Shimbun (paper edition). A couple highlights (bolding mine):

"3/12 10:17 Unit 1 venting starts." Has to be done manually, because can't get electricity working in time. One worker takes over 100 mSv in the operation.

"3/12 11:31 Unit 1 water level drops to 1 m below top of fuel."

Followed by some confusion about whether the venting actually worked or not, then...

"3/12 15:36 Sound of explosion at Unit 1"

"3/12 15:45 1 mSv/h measured at 1st floor of seismic bunker, 180 micro-Sv/h inside, several people injured."

"3/12 18:30 0.07 micro-Sv/h neutrons confirmed between North Gate and West Gate (possibility of criticality accident)"

Also, they were planning to open the blow-out panel on Unit 2, but then discovered that it had already happened by itself.

Would be interesting to find the whole thing. Not posted on Asahi website that I see.

Add: Someone has posted a photo of the story printed in the paper:
http://www.geocities.jp/swingi70/_gl_images_/P1020249toudenn.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,062
pdObq said:
It's funny that he is picking that up at all...

And how come he says that TEPCO has confirmed the leaning at 4? I don't recall them doing any such thing, is this simply more Gundersen sloppiness with facts, or have I missed something?

In any case it seems reasonable to claim that some specific parts of certain walls at reactor 4 may be leaning slightly, but the claim that the whole building is leaning still lacks credible evidence.
 
  • #7,063
Astronuc said:
Something to mull over.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Water_poses_questions_for_Tepco_1205111.html

Eslewhere I read that material from the core of unit 1 has dropped into the bottom plenum of the RPV.

Very interesting... I also read earlier today that "there is likely a few cm hole in the RPV [unit 1] from where the water is leaking" or words to that effect... I'll have a look for it, I was reading the latest Guardian report... then followed a few links I think.!

there's a different report here:-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/japan-nuclear-reactor-idUSL3E7GC2JQ20110512

it still amazes me that they aren't in the relatively desirable situation of having just one Nuclear Reactor Meltdown to work on but THREE!

Hey Tcups/Jlduh... is it possible that the hydrogen was building up UNDER PRESSURE inside a contained vessel... that vessel failed to air, then ignited due to a source outside... and then flashed back to ignite the hydrogen in the building/vessel? The flame does seem to suck back towards the building itself. I'm not suggesting the pressure vessel here.
 
Last edited:
  • #7,064
TCups said:
REGARDING THE HIGH SPIKE OF MEASURED RADIATION ASSOCIATED WITH UNIT 3'S EXPLOSION


Could there be another plausible explanation? For example:

Could the spike in measured radiation levels be explained by the explosive release of volatile iodine and cesium (or other highly radioactive isotopes) from the explosion and venting of the contents of the drywell of Unit 3, lofted by the associated steam flash? I believe there were smaller spikes in measured radiation during controlled venting. It would seem to make sense that explosive venting would be a much larger spike.

Could some of the contents of SFP3 also have been damaged by an explosion and steam flash and also lofted and scattered, perhaps also contributing to the spike?

TCups - I'm with you on this one. As I indicated before - it looks like simple gamma shine from the cloud of radioactive material as you suggest.
 
  • #7,065
pdObq said:
But you don't want to imply that those large concrete chunks thrown upwards in the explosion are floating on some kind of hot gas?

Believe it or not, such a chunk in free fall in air would have a terminal velocity of about 90 m/s, and during the first few seconds of the evolution of the mushroom cloud, it expanded upwards at higher than that speed. So, certainly during this phase a large concrete chunk placed in the rising column would seem to be floating on some kind of hot air. It would be unable to fall down, and would rather be propelled upwards.

But that said, at take off, initially, these chunks could of course not have been propelled upwards by the rising airmass, and later, when the upwards speed fell below the terminal velocity, the updraft could at most aid to prolong their upwards journey.

However, what I am talking about starts out with a breach in a primary containment full of hydrogen and hot water and steam under pressure. When a breach happens under such conditions, you will likely first see the hydrogen igniting at expulsion, but then things will quickly develop into what is technically called a "boiling liquid vapor expansion explosion", when large quantities of the superheated liquid, in this case water, at the initial pressure drop due to the breach almost instantaneously flashes into vapor within the confined space of the containment vessel. This will produce an extremely high pressure within the vessel, and an ensuing violent explosion. When this happens objects large and small will naturally be hurled out and away at high speed.
 
  • #7,066
SteveElbows said:
And how come he says that TEPCO has confirmed the leaning at 4?
Nah this is a twist .. Tepco says something like we need to watch the wall because they may be unstable and they were likely reffering to the north wall and part of the souther eat wall etc because of the way the "blast" destroyed some of the structure.

And just like Nancy, Mr fair wind take this statement and put it in the context of the leaning theory. Its close to a syllogism: Tepco fear some walls may be unstable, + I see a wall leaning south = Tepco confirm the my wall is leaning South
 
  • #7,067
SteveElbows said:
And how come he says that TEPCO has confirmed the leaning at 4? I don't recall them doing any such thing, is this simply more Gundersen sloppiness with facts, or have I missed something?
Tepco (in their "plan" or "roadmap") revealed that the stability of the #4 SFP was precarious, and that it was one of their top priority problems. Since then, they have talked about steel pillars filled with concrete to support it.
 
  • #7,068
rowmag said:
Apparently TEPCO has released some previously-unreleased internal notes on what was happening in the early days. Fascinating reading, published in today's Asahi Shimbun (paper edition). A couple highlights:
"3/12 15:36 Sound of explosion at Unit 1"

"3/12 15:45 1 mSv/h measured at 1st floor of seismic bunker, 180 micro-Sv/h inside, several people injured."

"3/12 18:30 0.07 micro-Sv/h neutrons confirmed between North Gate and West Gate (possibility of criticality accident)"
Wow.

But I have never understood their units for neutrons. I cannot interpret it. Thermal neutrons carry very little energy. I would prefer to know a flux, number of neutrons per square meter.

But this seems to indicate that there was a chain reaction outside the biological shield, at the bottom of the RPV.
 
Last edited:
  • #7,069
MadderDoc said:
Believe it or not, such a chunk in free fall in air would have a terminal velocity of about 90 m/s, and during the first few seconds of the evolution of the mushroom cloud, it expanded upwards at higher than that speed. So, certainly during this phase a large concrete chunk placed in the rising column would seem to be floating on some kind of hot air. It would be unable to fall down, and would rather be propelled upwards.

That terminal velocity comes from equilibrium between the force of Earth pulling on it and air resistance pushing agaist it. After those projectiles are launched there is no force onto them any more, only air resistance. The projectiles can sure be faster than that terminal velocity if the force that launched them is large enough. When you place an initially at rest heavy object into that upwards column, that's just like wind flowing around some heavy object. So, I guess from cv value and air speed in the column one can get the force onto that object. (But that is not buoancy (sorry if that's mispelled) or floating as that would imply lower effective density of the floating object.)

EDIT: Ooops, before borek points it out to me, of course, gravity is still pulling on it after the launch... forgot to mention the obvious again...
And I guess, I first misinterpreted your statement. Basically you are saying the column is moving upward at a speed sufficient such that an object at rest would experience a force due to air resistance greater than its weight? But since the big chunks almost move together with the column at first, there should be no air resistance related forces on them then (apart from the big chunks appearing to be mostly outside the dust/smoke column).
 
Last edited:
  • #7,070
The upper containment building of of unit two was made of light gauge steel panels attached to a steel inner structure.

The upper containment building of unit 3 was constructed of heavy, steel reinforced, concrete.

The No. 3 rebar alone weighed more, and was stronger, than the light steel paneling that was keeping the rain off of unit 1. When considering the fact that the upper containment walls surrounding unit 3 were much heavier, and much stronger than the walls surrounding unit 1, it seem likely that more force, and more material would have been directed vertically rather than horizontally.

And about that dust cloud; when you bust up a bunch of concrete, you usually end up with a bunch of concrete dust and big rocks. It looks like the unit one explosion was mostly expanding gas and light metal panels. Unit three's explosion looks more like a mess at least partially because of the entrained dust and big rocks.

Yeah other factors exist, but please don't discount these differences in construction, along with the larger volume of the upper containment area inside of reactor No 3 and the differences in emergency cooling systems that would have likely resulted in higher temperatures in the suppression pool of unit No 3 at the time of it's explosion.

What do you all think about the differences in the speed that the explosions left the buildings? It only took about 16 frames for the cloud to reach the top of the stack during the No 1 explosion, but on the No 3 explosion it took about 25 frames. Could it be that I simply can't see the shock wave from unit 3 because the outside humidity was lower, or was it a slower moving bang?

One other thing, Gunderson was right; That unit No 3 was promptly turned into a critically big mess by that explosion.
 
  • #7,071
TCups said:
@MadderDoc:
Sir - might I respectfully ask if you might consider turning your talented eyes toward the south end of Building 3 and perhaps adding your assessment of the mechanical and thermal damage to the south end of the building as well as the roof? I believe you may find similar evidence that the initial blast and thermal damage had a substantial horizontal vector as well. Thanks.

Certainly. It seems quite obvious to me that the initial blast had a substantial horizontal vector. We can see that in the video already in the very first frame that shows something abnormal is going on in the building.

In this first frame, the flash of fire has not yet risen over the building, of that we see only the top part of some smoke it has produced, at the top east side of the building where the flash of fire presumably first made exit. But concurrently, in the very same frame we see the west face of the building abruptly changing its reflective properties, consistent with its shattering. And, in the next few frames all the walls that are visible in the video appear to collapse, horizontally outwards, quite consistent with how we find wreckage and tracks of grey dust and debris after the event, cast horizontally out to the east, west and south (Indications of a similar horizontal spew at the north end are weaker, due to later events with ballistic objects messing up 'the scene of the crime'.) However, we know that in the NW corner a big machine was situated (I believe for air filtering) before the explosion. After the explosion we find this machine hanging from the wall under the panel where it was situated, apparently defying gravity, but more realistically just hanging on with its ducts and wires. This machine very unlikely could have been moved to this miraculous position by a vertical force, for that feat a horizontal force would need to be present, also at the north end of the building.
 
Last edited:
  • #7,072
jlduh said:
More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html



NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...

Some more contamination of tea leaves:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_39.html

Radioactive material above designated safety limits has been detected in tea leaves harvested in 5 municipalities in Kanagawa Prefecture, neighboring Tokyo.

The prefectural government checked samples of leaves harvested in 15 municipalities in the region. Officials say that samples from 5 of those were found to contain unsafe levels of radioactive cesium.

They say 780 becquerels of cesium were detected in tea leaves in Odawara City, 740 becquerels in Kiyokawa Village, 680 becquerels in Yugawara Town, 670 becquerels in Aikawa Town and 530 becquerels in Manazuru Town.

Damn, this info is really a breaking news to me, not because of the levels (even it there are sufficiently high to make them unsafe!) but BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED:

KANAGAWA prefecture is south of Tokyo!

I located Odawara on this map for example:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...008,140.855713&spn=4.754161,13.392334&t=h&z=7

So this is around 330 kms south west of Daichi plant!

Minami Ashigara, also listed in the article, is even further

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...0598,139.251709&spn=4.74326,13.392334&t=h&z=7

The scale at which unsafe deposits are falling is enlarging day after day...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,073
"""However, what if there was recriticality in unit 3 reactor core? Would it be conceivable that after the fuel rods have been without sufficient cooling (above water level), they start heating up, melting away the control rods (borated steel, would it melt prior to the fuel pellets?), then they start injecting cooling water from outside, which cools the remains, but also acts as moderator. With control rods partly gone, the core suddenly goes critical, followed by essentially steam explosion within containment, which however, is not strong enough to destroy the drywell, but causes the spectacular explosion of unit 3 reactor building including gamma spike? ""

similar train of thought explored on this thread, on May 7 i think, its page 314 viewed in Firefox don't know about explorer. Look for two long posts by Analog, and don't miss the videos on Borax.

http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=182121&page=314#new

jorge stolfi - in his second long post the guy bragged on your plots bigtime !
 
  • #7,074
Yes, very shocking, and I read a while back that the summer winds are usually from the East, but haven't changed yet!
 
  • #7,075
pdObq said:
<..> Basically you are saying the column is moving upward at a speed sufficient such that an object at rest would experience a force due to air resistance greater than its weight?

Yes, or at least that was what I was trying to express :-) I do not think we can find anything substantial to disagree over in regards to this aspect.
 
  • #7,076
PietKuip said:
Tepco (in their "plan" or "roadmap") revealed that the stability of the #4 SFP was precarious, and that it was one of their top priority problems. Since then, they have talked about steel pillars filled with concrete to support it.

Yes, I noticed that when they first published their roadmap, it seemed to take a while before this detail started getting picked up and discussed in the news. But its not the same as TEPCO saying that unit 4 is leaning. We can tell just by looking at images of the building that's its not in great shape, but that's about it, and all the talk of leaning, sinking etc has driven me somewhat bonkers over the last week. I suppose I should not be surprised at Gundersen joining in, despite the immense horror of what has unfolded at Fukushima it is apparently not enough for some people, especially those with an agenda, who feel the need to hype things up.

Having said that if there was another big quake and building 4 partially collapsed, I would not be shocked, but I am not going to spend much time thinking about it unless it actually happens.
 
  • #7,077
artax said:
Yes, very shocking, and I read a while back that the summer winds are usually from the East, but haven't changed yet!

What is really shocking is how little useful information about this disaster is available.
For instance, there is still no measurement available, afaik, of the overall daily airborne emissions from the site, even though that should be of central concern. These emissions will likely continue for at least the rest of the year, so their level of radioactivity will determine how large the Fukushima damage zone will be.
There is plenty of detail information, even if it is sometimes wrong, but no context.
The absence of overall perspective, either situationally or visually makes it very hard to get a coherent picture of the effort. This is probably deliberate, but the benefit of this security through obscurity approach is dearly bought. It hobbles any outside contribution and leaves the population in a state of anxious uncertainty.
 
  • #7,078
Doh, it seems the pit water at reactor 3 that got in the news recently because it caused sea contamination, was caused by their earlier water transfer operation:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_02.html

The company transferred radioactive water from the turbine building of the No.3 reactor earlier this month. It says during that process radioactive water leaked out from an underground pipe connected to the pit.

The company admitted in a news conference on Thursday that prior inspections to prevent leaks were inadequate.

Just how large will the catalogue of errors become by the time this situation is brought somewhat under control?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,079
AntonL said:
concrete chunks - I would say roof sheets judging by there size

Absolutely roof chunks. Where would there have been concrete slabs over the vertical component of the explosion to be carried upward (unless you believe it to be part of the concrete plug over the reactor)? The concrete was in the walls and blew outward. It was the roof slab (and, IMO still possible, the FHM or parts of it) that went ballistic vertically. I still don't know the exact composition or density of the roof slab of Bldg 3. It was some type of flat slab industrial roofing over corrugated sheet metal over metal roof girders, though.

Either way, I believe something pretty heavy went up and then came down on the northwest corner of Bldg 3, this supported by video evidence, cross checked with the camera angle, and with the resulting damage. The denser, heavier ballistic objects would tend to be deflected less than the lighter stuff, though, and would be what fell on the building.

@MadderDoc
As for the reflectivity and crumbling of the walls, I suspect it was something like that, yes. But it would seem to me that a generalize hydrogen explosion strong enough to do that to reinforced concrete wall slabs would more likely have first blown the roof upward, not the walls outward, as appears to be the case. But that is only a guess. Also to be considered is the shadow that might arise from the initial blast at the southeast corner.

And I forget who asked, if the ignition of hydrogen gas exterior to the primary containment could have ignited not only the hydrogen accumulated in the upper building, but also the hydrogen in the primary containment (and maybe the torus) in retrograde fashion. I don't know but I can't exclude the possibility. My guess would be that as long as the contents of the primary containment were venting under pressure, the ignition would turn it into more of an outward blow-torch effect than a retrograde ignition and explosion going back into the primary containment. I am pretty sure whatever shot out of the primary containment was intensely hot and powerful, though, whether it was "burning" or not.
 
  • #7,080
pdObq said:
I think someone had the very reasonable explanation that since it is colder at night, the steam condenses more readily, so that it appears as white clouds/fog. Someone else compared it to the cooling tower next to where they live, it strongly depends on the weather whether there is visible condensation of the steam.

Yes. Personally I've seen nothing on the live images this week that could not be explained by weather-related phenomenon.

I mention the information about fuel pool pumping & spraying times only to clarify these details, not because I am searching for an explanation for the varying visible steam on live feed myself. But it seems we are doomed to repeat this discussion nearly every day since the live feed causes new people to get overexcited by what they are seeing all the time.
 
  • #7,081
@TCups

This is a fortunate frame from one of the early helicopter overflies (March 16th), I thought you might be interested. It shows in close-up a quite peculiar damage to one of the upper wall pillars to the SE of unit 3, and it is almost like an abstract painting...

unit3_concrete_pillar_heatdamage.jpg


It has probably been the most intriguing image I've encountered in relation to unit 3. I couldn't get it off my mind, and it took a long time before I got a handle on what could have produced this damage. It's much better now, but I think, without you, Sir, I might never have figured out what it could possibly be.
 
  • #7,082
Can anybody remind me where to look on the net for info about the global spread of contamination?
 
  • #7,083
TCups said:
it would seem to me that a generalize hydrogen explosion strong enough to do that to reinforced concrete wall slabs would more likely have first blown the roof upward, not the walls outward, as appears to be the case. But that is only a guess.

I think the roof may well have been shattered by a hydrogen explosion, but not lifted away against gravity, the roof slab must be a very heavy structure. With the walls things seem to be different. Apparently the way they are made, a quick sharp blow from the inside will rattle them loose, and gravity will take over peeling it all off the building.
 
  • #7,084
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,085
@MadderDoc: Pls. help me, I have difficulties interpreting the pic.

What kind of damage do you see in the left picture?
 
  • #7,086
SteveElbows said:
Can anybody remind me where to look on the net for info about the global spread of contamination?

One good site (in German only, sorry) is here: http://www.zamg.ac.at/wetter/fukushima/

The data is built using the Test Ban Treaty network and global atmospheric circulation, plus estimated decay rates for cesium and iodine, with a guess for initial emission levels. Xenon is not covered.
There are other sites with nice global maps, whether the data is carefully adjusted for decay and dilution is murky.
I believe Berkeley has a decent global map as well, somewhere in their nuclear forum here: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

Maps are increasingly iffy, partly because the cesium is gradually drifting all over and has a long enough half life that all 2011 deposits are effectively simultaneous, but also because we do not have solid data on the amount of airborne emissions. Clearly if all three reactors have had comprehensive fuel failure, there will have been massive emissions, much more than initially thought. So there may be a permanent increase in global background radiation as a result of this disaster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,087
jlduh said:
http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl1/
http://gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_expl3/index.html

talking about "bulging, look closely at the frames -4 to +2 on the N°3 reactor page. To me you can actually see the south wall of the building "bulging" under internal pressure like a Coke can just before ignition and explosion (look at faint shadows, the sun position seems to help to see this)...

When I assembled those pages, I decided to put in 10 frames before something actually 'started happening', to serve as some sort of baseline. (I should perhaps have put in more baseline frames, and made a note of it.)

If you examine the video for a longer baseline you will see that there are in fact a regular pattern of 'bulging' and 'shrinking' of the images of the building between frames over several seconds before the event. So this appearance of bulging would be in the video whether the reactor had blown up or not, it's just noise, possibly from heat shimmer, possibly from the video compression.
 
  • #7,088
ottomane said:
@MadderDoc: Pls. help me, I have difficulties interpreting the pic.

What kind of damage do you see in the left picture?

Another and better explanation might turn up, until then I see heat damage.
 
  • #7,089
etudiant said:
For instance, there is still no measurement available, afaik, of the overall daily airborne emissions from the site, even though that should be of central concern.

That seems to be the reason that NILU (Norwegian Institute for Air Research) suspended their atmospheric transport modelling. They say "We have discontinued our Flexpart forecast of the atmospheric dispersal of radionucleides from Fukushima. This due to the fact that we do not have access to reliable release rates reflecting the current situation at the plant to be used as input to our simulations. It is likely that the release of radioactive material is significantly reduced compared to the initial period, and that levels no longer pose a health risk at distance from the plant."

http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima/index/?searchterm=fukushima

A case of GIGO. Garbage in garbage out.
 
  • #7,090
Forgive me if this was done before, after having found the location of the camera by aligning the HV line tower with the left most stack and reactor unit 1 (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3296107&postcount=6694") and the heading of the sight line being 36.04 degrees to the centre of unit 4 south wall, and taken that wall as 34 metres. We then can scale the photo of the explosion quite accurately (34 Cos 36.04 = 27.5)

As the building top is OP+55 metres making the stacks about 90 metres high from ground level.

The speed of the column rising is about 50 m/s or 180km/hour

I also added some further dimensions, showing that the roof sheets got carried up to around 150 metres above the roof top of the reactor buildings and tried to size the black object, the two white objects are about half the size.
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/inBoDM.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,091
AntonL said:
I also added some further dimensions, showing that the roof sheets got carried up to around 150 metres above the roof top of the reactor buildings and tried to size the black object, the to white objects are about half the size.
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/inBoDM.jpg[/QUOTE]

Such neat work. Thanks a bunch.

I think it's safe to say that the big black thing is roof. Nothing else that I can think of is that big and flat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,092
MadderDoc said:
@TCups

This is a fortunate frame from one of the early helicopter overflies (March 16th), I thought you might be interested. It shows in close-up a quite peculiar damage to one of the upper wall pillars to the SE of unit 3, and it is almost like an abstract painting...

http://www.gyldengrisgaard.dk/fuku_docs/unit3_concrete_pillar_heatdamage.jpg

It has probably been the most intriguing image I've encountered in relation to unit 3. I couldn't get it off my mind, and it took a long time before I got a handle on what could have produced this damage. It's much better now, but I think, without you, Sir, I might never have figured out what it could possibly be.

I can't quite match the two images and I don't recall the video, but . . . do you mean that the close up of the pillar looks like Salvador Dali took a giant blow torch to it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,093
mikefj40 said:
That seems to be the reason that NILU (Norwegian Institute for Air Research) suspended their atmospheric transport modelling. They say "We have discontinued our Flexpart forecast of the atmospheric dispersal of radionucleides from Fukushima. This due to the fact that we do not have access to reliable release rates reflecting the current situation at the plant to be used as input to our simulations. It is likely that the release of radioactive material is significantly reduced compared to the initial period, and that levels no longer pose a health risk at distance from the plant."

http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima/index/?searchterm=fukushima

A case of GIGO. Garbage in garbage out.

Thanks to you and the others who have helped me out with this subject.

Yes, I noted that the suspension of modelling caused some internet babbling via youtube video this week that was paying more attention to a Sean Connery film than the scale used on the graphics, so I thought I would have a proper look at the subject.

Given that even if proper release rate data was available they may show levels so low that such modelling lacks purpose now, I am moving on to actual data from monitoring sites around the world. That German site is certainly good for that, are there any other sources or is that the only one? I seem to recall some internet concern about various levels in the USA, is there a good site for that?
 
  • #7,094
Hi,
This is my first post, having been a long time lurker here as I tried to catch up with the thousands of posts and absorb the information and knowledge posted here.
Having just seen that people are asking for slow motion video of the Unit 3 explosion, I should first explain that in Arnie's recent video about the Unit 3 prompt criticality event, he used some stills of that flame sent in by a viewer. I am that "viewer" and since I sent those to Arnie, I have developed a way which we can all use to do slow-motion analysis of the Unit 1 and Unit 3 explosions.
The procedure is in the linked document but to get everything to work you will need AVI format videos, converted from YouTube videos of the explosions. I have prepared the AVI videos but am struggling to upload them to a site from where you can then download them. If you have any suggestions as to where I can best post them for Physics Forum users to download, then please let me know. Alternatively you can use the method I used to prepare the AVI videos as outlined in section 9 of the document.
I will be putting more posts up shortly detailing some of the observations that I have made but first please follow this link to the document explaining how to use VLC Media player.

http://tinyurl.com/6fxdr63

More soon

Geoff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,095
TCups said:
Heat energy continues to be stored in water undergoing heating at 100ºC even though the temperature does not appear to change. There can be a huge difference in the total energy stored in two pools of water, each at 100ºC and each under the same pressure, unless I misunderstand the concept of the heat of transition and phase change.

I think you do misunderstand it. I can well dream up a special scenario in which your statement is strictly speaking true (say one pool elevated in relation to the other giving it a higher potential energy) but I don't think that is what you mean at all.

Ideally, if you heat water at 100C and atmospheric pressure, the heat will not be storable in the water as molecular kinetic energy, the heat will be used to completely overcome the forces between molecules, i.e. water vapor will be produced carrying away with it the heat you have supplied, as latent heat of condensation, until all water has evaporated. So, in the sense I think you mean it, two equal pools of water, each at 100ºC and each under the same pressure cannot store different amounts of energy. In effect the temperature of water _is_ a measure of its (heat) energy content.
<..>but tiny droplets of water require less total thermal energy (although not per unit volume) than a massive pool of water requires in order to undergo the phase change. Is it not possible that atomized water droplets intermixed with burning hydrogen + oxygen might be efficiently heated and turned into additional steam during the hydrogen explosion itself?
Certainly, but no matter the size of droplets, to make the transition it still takes 2257 kJ/kg, which in this case could be well served by the heat from the exothermic combustion.

<..>

Potential sources of thermal energy I can see are these:
1) thermal energy stored in the water of SFP3 transferred from decay heat of spent fuel rods in the pool,
2) thermal energy transferred from burning hydrogen in the building above SFP3,
3) thermal energy from the RPV transferred by explosive venting of steam and hot (radioactive) gasses from the drywell or upper "wet well" or both,
4) thermonuclear energy from sudden criticality occurring in the unspent fuel in SFP.

<..>
Are there any other substantial sources of thermal energy that I have not considered?

I think you have been well around it. For major sources that could be available to produce steam fast it boils down to (no pun intended) energy
in 'excessively hot' water (either unstably superheated water at atmospheric pressure in the pool, or superheated water under pressure within the containment), heat from the hydrogen combustion, and thermonuclear energy from the fuel in the pool (I understand it would be somewhat taboo to suggest that it could theoretically involve the fuel in the RPV, so I'll leave it there)

Perhaps useful, the heat of combustion of hydrogen is 120.1 MJ/kg, so the heat produced by the burning of appr. 20 kg hydrogen in air is equivalent to the amount of heat needed to evaporate 1 ton of water that has been preheated to 100C.
 
  • #7,096
SteveElbows said:
I seem to recall some internet concern about various levels in the USA, is there a good site for that?

The EPA's RADNET site recently spiffed up their user interface, but they provide no guidance on interpreting the gamma graph's energy ranges. If anyone on the forum can associate isotopes with energy ranges that would shed some light. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/radnet-data-map.html

For those of us in the SF Bay Area, a tip of the hat to UC Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Dept. They've been monitoring air, rainwater, tap water, grass, soil, milk and food since mid March. They're running on student labor so the reports are updated only a few times a week http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling
 
Last edited:
  • #7,097
TCups said:
I can't quite match the two images and I don't recall the video, but . . . do you mean that the close up of the pillar looks like Salvador Dali took a giant blow torch to it?

Yeah :-) I thought of Salvador Dali too, when I first saw it. The frame is from the Tepco helicopter video no 2, shot on March 16th. It is in a short sequence where the camera sees nothing but steam, passing along the east wall of unit 3. Suddenly this motive appears on a couple of frames, blurred, shaken, not clear what it is, if anything at all. Then this single frame stands out sharply and intriguingly before the helicopter rushes on to unit 4.
 
  • #7,098
To the left of the explosion column we observed 3 pieces of debris crahing down. If you observe the video carefully you will note that they crash behind the middle stack, that is right back onto Unit 3, actually they just missed I marked them and you will also note that they are lying on top the large one on the part roof and the two smaller ones, on what seems to be blown out wall panels. Considering the column spacing (N-S) is about 7.5 metres then the larger piece is about 20 metres long as I measured earlier
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/inAAjE.jpg

Also to the right of the explosion column we also note a huge piece come crashing down, but this time behind the right most part of Unit 4. [STRIKE]Drawing a sight line from the observation point in google Earth I think I can also identify this to be a roof panel.[/STRIKE] No I could not MadderDoc pointed that out
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,099
AntonL said:
To the left of the explosion column we observed 3 pieces of debris crahing down. If you observe the video carefully you will note that they crash behind the middle stack, that is right back onto Unit 3, actually they just missed I marked them and you will also note that they are lying on top the large one on the part roof and the two smaller ones, on what seems to be blown out wall panels. Considering the column spacing (N-S) is about 7.5 metres then the larger piece is about 20 metres long as I measured earlier
http://k.min.us/inAAjE.jpg

The big part you identify as a ballistic object, I'd say with no hesitation is just the somewhat hammered original roof of that part of the annexed building, the two smaller pieces you identify I've previously had trouble understanding until I looked at a pre-explosion photo and saw there used to be a raised part of the annexed building in this position before things came crashing down from the sky. I believe they are both remains of the original wall or roof construction of this raised part.

Also to the right of the explosion column we also note a huge piece come crashing down, but this time behind the right most part of Unit 4. Drawing a sight line from the observation point in google Earth I think I can also identify this to be a roof panel.
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/jn6tTE.jpg[/QUOTE]

It is true that several pieces fell down very close to a sight line towards the SE corner of unit 4, but this piece is not one of them, it was there before the explosion.

Here are a few items which i have tentatively identified as ballistic objects at this end of unit 3.
attachment.php?attachmentid=35349&d=1304983116.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7,100
MadderDoc said:
The big part you identify as a ballistic object, I'd say with no hesitation is just the somewhat hammered original roof of that part of the annexed building, the two smaller pieces you identify I've previously had trouble understanding until I looked at a pre-explosion photo and saw there used to be a raised part of the annexed building in this position before things came crashing down from the sky. I believe they are both remains of the original wall or roof construction of this raised part.

but it is lying on top
It is true that several pieces fell down very close to a sight line towards the SE corner of unit 4, but this piece is not one of them, it was there before the explosion.

I should have first looked at the post tsunami satellite photes - I withdray that claim and edit the post accordingly
 

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