Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

[Bioengineer01]

Have a look at the following videos. I'll drop this topic very shortly, but I do want some kind of corroboration, given that this board's topic is: Physics Forums > Engineering > Nuclear Engineering > Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants.

This was not

- a false alarm
- one of the many false alarms
- one of the many frequent steam displays

It was a *massive* and significant steam/vapour display that started with a clearly visible vertical emission of vapour, then blotted out all the other reactors - starting around 2:15 in the first video below. Also look at the 10 second mark in the second video. They look very much like explosions to me:

Here's the video:
2011.06.14 00:00-01:00 / 福島原発ライブカメラ (Live Fukushima Nuclear Plant Cam)
http://www.youtube.com/fuku1live#p/u/9/k-EDceWFovc

2011.06.14 01:00-02:00 / 福島原発ライブカメラ (Live Fukushima Nuclear Plant Cam)
http://www.youtube.com/fuku1live#p/u/8/fg8yGBhoLxU

wow, this look really bad to me an no a 'wolf" cry... I did a qualitative luminescence analysis and the amount of light in the scene increases after the release starts, also there are peaks that look like sudden energy releases...

 

[Bodge]

Why have these CTBTO guys stopped reporting?

There has never been a gap in the data like this:

http://www.bfs.de/de/ion/imis/spurenmessungen.html/#2

Nothing for the past 10 days...

Does anyone have academic contacts with bfs? Can any german speakers here contact them?

Now 15 days without update. I am expecting the pattern of I-131 spikes to continue into June.

 

[Bodge]

wow, this look really bad to me an no a 'wolf" cry... I did a qualitative luminescence analysis and the amount of light in the scene increases after the release starts, also there are peaks that look like sudden energy releases...

It looks exactly like a slow moving, swirling fog bank moving in from the south.

No smoking gun here.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/b3m1vf"

Hiroko Tabuchi

On Tuesday 14th June 2011, @HirokoTabuchi said:

Tepco on smoke (steam) seen rising from Fukushima Daiichi reactors overnight: amount of steam from spent fuel pools can rise bc of atmospheric conditions. No change in radiation, plant parameters detected as of early a.m. Also, the light likely has something to do w/ night camera settings or patrolman/car in the camera's field of vision. Tepco continues to monitor plant conditions 24/7 and will swiftly disclose any significant developments. (Original video: http://t.co/wiXDUp2)

Surely if TEPCO is lying, onsite and offsite measurements would betray them?

 

[JeremieDL]

wow, this look really bad to me an no a 'wolf" cry... I did a qualitative luminescence analysis and the amount of light in the scene increases after the release starts, also there are peaks that look like sudden energy releases...

Following this forum since a while, thanks to all. This is my first post, Hi everyone! :-)

Just to say I doubt of the "qualitative luminescence analysis", since I believe the cam is not in "fix exposition mode", but rather adapts automatically to the lighting conditions, as all webcam do. Except if you have evidence that this is not the case, or if you know very well how this automatic adjustment is done algorithmically, I do not think you can extract meaningful information from such an analysis.
For instance a cloud could now obscure the moon, the webcam would adjust with more gain and maybe show even more luminescence on average, while in reality it would not be true.

Jeremie

 

[Bioengineer01]

I'm well aware of the tower and the optical illusions thereof. Yes, the vertical tower can be mistaken for a vertical plume of smoke, but this isn't what I'm talking about at all.

Take another look at your "fog". This is the third hour of the event:

2011.06.14 03:00-04:00 / 福島原発ライブカメラ (Live Fukushima Nuclear Plant Cam)
http://www.youtube.com/fuku1live#p/u/6/vThV0k3IZEc

I'm also interested in the explosions within that "fog". They occur in several places, e.g. 10 sec in on hour 01:00-02:00.

Otherwise, it seems I'm beating a dead horse here, no takers. Over to video forensics I guess.

Simple, let's check the wind direction and then look for any reports of radiation increases in the region where any fallout should have gone. I may take a few days but will allow us to discard this as a no-event, or maintain it in our list of "inconsistencies" between observations and reported data.

 

[Bodge]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110613/full/news.2011.366.html"

It was just the start of a flood of data collected about the accident by the CTBTO's global network of 63 radiation monitoring stations. In the following weeks, the data were shared with governments around the world, but not with academics or the public. Now scientists working with the CTBTO on behalf of member states are calling for the data to be released,

Time for wikileaks to get some of this "private" data and flood The Net with it.

 

[Bioengineer01]

It looks exactly like a slow moving, swirling fog bank moving in from the south.

No smoking gun here.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/b3m1vf"



Surely if TEPCO is lying, onsite and offsite measurements would betray them?

Thanks for your post... Glad it is nothing on consequence... I am a sailor apart for engineer and certified to sail on fog and at night... it looked scary to me and not something I have ever seen, but it may have been the camera auto-adjusting its diaphragm, in combination with moving lights at the plant...

 

[mscharisma]

It looks exactly like a slow moving, swirling fog bank moving in from the south. ...

Surely if TEPCO is lying, onsite and offsite measurements would betray them?

Not to make a case for or against the TEPCO web cam showing something unusual, which is beyond my capabilities, my thought on your closing question is that, at least for my taste, information made available to the public has been far too selective. As the just linked article above from naturenews confirms - yet again - (bolding mine, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110613/full/news.2011.366.html):

"Shortly after a massive tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on 11 March, an unmanned monitoring station on the outskirts of Takasaki, Japan, logged a rise in radiation levels. Within 72 hours, scientists had analysed samples taken from the air and transmitted their analysis to Vienna, Austria — the headquarters of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) ... The network's sensitive radiation detection sensors were overwhelmed by radioisotopes streaming out of the damaged reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. Monitoring posts picked up isotopes such as iodine-131 and caesium-137 that were of concern to public health officials in other countries. Other radioisotopes such as niobium-95 and rubidium-103 were an early indicator of a meltdown inside one or more of the reactors... In keeping with its remit, the CTBTO shared data with designated scientific institutions in its member states, but not with other scientists or the public."

Just based on the above and disregarding other info that has recently been disclosed with huge delays, with 185 member states, plenty of state governments knew of the early indications of a meltdown fairly quickly, but the public was not informed. And obviously, data for isotopes other than cesium-137 and iodine-131 were available early on, but neither their existence, nor concrete measurements were disclosed to the public. (CTBTO member states: http://www.ctbto.org/member-states/country-profiles/[/URL])

Therefore, my confidence in "onsite and offsite measurements" possibly betraying TEPCO is fairly close to zero, at least as far as it happening in a reasonably timely fashion is concerned.

 

[Bioengineer01]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110613/full/news.2011.366.html"



Time for wikileaks to get some of this "private" data and flood The Net with it.

When all data is released to Universities and Scientists worldwide, we will start to have some transparency and will be able to stop worrying about autogain cameras distorting events at night...

 

[Bioengineer01]

Not to make a case for or against the TEPCO web cam showing something unusual, which is beyond my capabilities, my thought on your closing question is that, at least for my taste, information made available to the public has been far too selective. As the just linked article above from naturenews confirms - yet again - (bolding mine, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110613/full/news.2011.366.html):

"Shortly after a massive tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on 11 March, an unmanned monitoring station on the outskirts of Takasaki, Japan, logged a rise in radiation levels. Within 72 hours, scientists had analysed samples taken from the air and transmitted their analysis to Vienna, Austria — the headquarters of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) ... The network's sensitive radiation detection sensors were overwhelmed by radioisotopes streaming out of the damaged reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. Monitoring posts picked up isotopes such as iodine-131 and caesium-137 that were of concern to public health officials in other countries. Other radioisotopes such as niobium-95 and rubidium-103 were an early indicator of a meltdown inside one or more of the reactors... In keeping with its remit, the CTBTO shared data with designated scientific institutions in its member states, but not with other scientists or the public."

Just based on the above and disregarding other info that has recently been disclosed with huge delays, with 185 member states, plenty of state governments knew of the early indications of a meltdown fairly quickly, but the public was not informed. And obviously, data for isotopes other than cesium-137 and iodine-131 were available early on, but neither their existence, nor concrete measurements were disclosed to the public. (CTBTO member states: http://www.ctbto.org/member-states/country-profiles/[/URL])

Therefore, my confidence in "onsite and offsite measurements" possibly betraying TEPCO is fairly close to zero, at least as far as it happening in a reasonably timely fashion is concerned.[/QUOTE]
You are describing my problem. In my professional life as a scientist, once too often I've seen "doctoring" of data and since my job was to have my team find the truth, I have had to deal with making conclusions with fuzzy data. I recommend the use of fuzzy logic, not strict physical interpretations, since the probability of some data to be wrong is high. This doesn't mean, like suggested before, to disbelieve everything we hear, but to assign a "fuzziness" factor to every data point.

 

[SteveElbows]

Certain SPEEDI predictions, and off-site samples were clearly censored. This was all to do with evacuations and areas that had suffered the worst contamination.

And yes, in some other regards TEPCO were not exactly forthcoming with information.

However, when it comes to major events on site, and radiation data from site, their track record is not so bad. All I can really say is that there were numerous things they could have kept quiet about, but instead gave us some detail. Sure this does not tell me if they kept anything secret, but it does help me to make preliminary judgements when dealing with non-events that people think they saw on the webcam. TEPCO have had to issue denials based on webcam images at least once in the past, and explain about weather-related phenomenon. In that instance nothing really emerged that suggests they were lying, that anything of note happened. I expect the same this time, although there is always some chance I will be wrong.

 

[Bandit127]

There are a lots of new images and movies on Tepco's website today.

Broadly split into three categories, they cover new First Aid and medical check rooms at Daiichi and Daini, sampling of the 'ambient radioactive substances' at Unit 3 and some detail on the new cover for Unit 1.

The movies are large (>80MB) and zipped.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/index-e.html"

 

[Pu239]

I just saw a white and black spotted DOG walk past the TEPCO webcam , it stopped and even looked into the cam for a sec !

( unfortunately no screenshot)

It is the Japanese raccoon-dog, called a tanuki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanuki

We call him a "radiation detection device", or just Rocky. Despite not wearing a respirator or hazmat suit, he is able to scamper about the Unit 1 area with seeming impunity. (We did have him on the run the other night, after the large vapour release - someone spotted him on camera somehow).

After some research, I've determined that the success of his biological defense mechanisms might be somehow related to the ample size of his "equipment":

The current humorous image of tanuki is thought to have been developed during the Kamakura era. The wild tanuki has unusually large testicles, a feature often comically exaggerated in artistic depictions of tanuki. Tanuki may be shown with their testicles flung over their backs like a traveller's pack, or using them as drums

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Tanuki

The article continues, but may be a faulty cut and paste, because I think here they are now talking about physicists:

The legendary tanuki is reputed to be mischievous and jolly, a master of disguise and shapeshifting, but somewhat gullible and absent-minded.

*activate laugh machine*

 

[mscharisma]

You are describing my problem. In my professional life as a scientist, once too often I've seen "doctoring" of data and since my job was to have my team find the truth, I have had to deal with making conclusions with fuzzy data. I recommend the use of fuzzy logic, not strict physical interpretations, since the probability of some data to be wrong is high. This doesn't mean, like suggested before, to disbelieve everything we hear, but to assign a "fuzziness" factor to every data point.

I would agree with your point about fuzzy logic being necessary at times, at least to consider all alternatives. Strictly and exclusively thinking and analyzing scientifically works only if all data, however uncertain or potentially incorrect, are released completely and in a timely fashion (for all I care, with disclaimers). While I understand that for a scientifically oriented person, only analysis of known facts and data makes sense and any other approach is speculation or conjecture, I would at least caution that it has been clearly proven so far that the absence of data cannot be taken as proof that something did NOT happen. The information politics of TEPCO and governmental bodies involved so far unfortunately, IMHO, makes it necessary to keep an eye on literally everything not completely and conclusively explained or disproven, including the steam/fog events of June 14 (and, among many other things, the Daini radioactive water accumulation in the basement, which I sincerely hope you all here are not forgetting about).

To circle back to Bodge's question re. the web cam, "Surely if TEPCO is lying, onsite and offsite measurements would betray them?", I'd say, yes, one would think so, IF data is collected and released in an unrestricted fashion, for which there is plenty of reason to find that questionable.

 

[fluutekies]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110613/full/news.2011.366.html"



Time for wikileaks to get some of this "private" data and flood The Net with it.

Seriously, i don't think WikiLeaks is the right place at the moment to publish the withheld data.

If i had ounce again a document of public interest, i would sent it (anonymously) to cryptome.org !

"... Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those. Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order served will be published here -- or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published if comical but otherwise ignored.

Email: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Mail: John Young, Cryptome, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024
Checks/Money Orders: Make out to "John Young"
Telephone for messages: 212-873-8700 ..." http://cryptome.org/

In my experience Mr. Young is very discrete and publishes within 24 hours.

 

[Pu239]

Well, I did find this explanation - for the Unit 4 vapour release of June 14 (Japan's June 14 - it was June 13 here in N America):

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/06/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-live-camera.html

The water in the spent fuel pool of the #4 reactor is not getting cooled as much as before because TEPCO is installing supports beneath the pool. If they squirt in more cold water from the top with the pumper, they spill radioactive water on the construction work.

So the pool is heating up, over 80 degrees C already last week and probably close to boiling now. That will sharply increase the volume of steam, especially so at night when the air is cooler.

 

[mscharisma]

Certain SPEEDI predictions, and off-site samples were clearly censored. This was all to do with evacuations and areas that had suffered the worst contamination.

And yes, in some other regards TEPCO were not exactly forthcoming with information.

However, when it comes to major events on site, and radiation data from site, their track record is not so bad. All I can really say is that there were numerous things they could have kept quiet about, but instead gave us some detail. Sure this does not tell me if they kept anything secret, but it does help me to make preliminary judgements when dealing with non-events that people think they saw on the webcam. TEPCO have had to issue denials based on webcam images at least once in the past, and explain about weather-related phenomenon. In that instance nothing really emerged that suggests they were lying, that anything of note happened. I expect the same this time, although there is always some chance I will be wrong.

"not exactly forthcoming" is somewhat of an oxymoron: either one tells it all or one doesn't. Maybe I'm too hard-nosed on this, but not telling it all makes just about anything questionable. Because there were things they could have kept quiet but didn't doesn't make anything they do release more reliable or conclusive. If I gambled away $1000 of your money, I can deny it completely, increasing the chance I get caught, or I can admit to $700 of it, giving the impression I'm forthcoming and honest, which I still am clearly not. Because of that, I am suggesting that what you called preliminary judgements are and remain indeed just that: preliminary judgements until all data is known and verified - by whoever one can trust these days.

 

[SteveElbows]

I am not sure which official information you are referring to. As you describe it, this information seems to say unambiguously that the panel was in place in the south wall of unit 2 until the explosion of unit 3 on March 14th -- leaving it only ambiguous whether the panel fell off due to that explosion, or whether it was actively removed, prompted by its occurrence. However, photographic evidence shows conclusively that the panel was not in place already by the morning of March 13th.

Thanks to people for pointing this out, I had forgotten about this photographic evidence. I cannot presently work out which official info I was referring to now, just spent ages fruitlessly searching, will try again later and post when I find it.

Indeed, quoting the report to the IAEA (my boldfacing):
"At around 6:00 on March 15, the sound of an impact was heard which was considered to have resulted from a hydrogen explosion. No visible damage was observed at the reactor building, but it was confirmed that the roof of the waste processing building which is neighboring to the reactor building was damaged. During these processes, radioactive material to be released into the environment, and as a result, the radiation dosage around the premises increased."

However, the photographic evidence supports _no progression_ of damage to the unit 2 neighbouring radiation waste building in connection with the explosion on March 15th in the unit 2 reactor building:
the roof of the unit 2 radiation waste building appears to have been damaged already in connection with the unit 1 explosion on March the 12th, and it does not appear to have suffered any further significant damage by later events.

I've not got photos with high enough resolution to see the roof properly from that time period, any chance you can point me to the image you mean?

In any case I've just been looking at their analysis again. TEPCO-2 is the analysis they picked to use for total radiation release estimates, so this is the scenario which generates the rather high estimates for reactor 2, the other reactor 2 analysis scenario tends to have the magnitude of release at around the same level as for reactors 1 & 3.

This version of events has core exposure at 18:00 March 14th and core damage at 19:50. TEPCO don't have RPV failure happening till 03:50 on March 16th, NISA have it at 22:50 on March 14th.

Damage to containment is clearly a part of this analysis case, as we would expect given its assumed environmental impact. In fact this TEPCO-2 analysis, along with one for reactor 1, is what generated a couple of headlines about possible size of containment holes. 50cm squared PCV leakage and 300 cm squared S/C leakage is assumed, and when using these numbers they are able to get the theoretical analysis data for things such as pressure to fit fairly well with actual pressure readings.

Anyway, good old attachment IV-2 ( http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/pdf/attach_04_2.pdf ) provides the detail that I have discussed here, and when considering the nature of the release to the environment there are some especially handy graphs. On pages 35, 36 & 37, we can see how a variety of substances are expected to have been generated/released and changed location under this scenario. I note with special interest that the bulk of this seems to have happened prior to the explosion. See for example attached graphs that shows proportion of key substances and their locations, including wet well, reactor building, and crucially 'environment'. Any takers for what location FHB stands for in this context?

 

[SteveElbows]

Well, I did find this explanation - for the Unit 4 vapour release of June 14 (Japan's June 14 - it was June 13 here in N America):

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/06/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-live-camera.html

The water in the spent fuel pool of the #4 reactor is not getting cooled as much as before because TEPCO is installing supports beneath the pool. If they squirt in more cold water from the top with the pumper, they spill radioactive water on the construction work.

So the pool is heating up, over 80 degrees C already last week and probably close to boiling now. That will sharply increase the volume of steam, especially so at night when the air is cooler.

Its a misleading explanation. Temperature data that is now taken on a regular basis at 4 pool shows temperatures over 80 degrees C. But on the occasions in past months where they took temperature, and the reported temperature before the sensor went wrong in March, were also more than 80 degrees C. So there is no reason to think the pool is very much hotter now than it has been at any previous point since problems there began. Its much hotter than they are happy with, but its been that way for a long time.

As for the spraying, they sometimes go for days without spraying, and operations have continued in June much as before. They sprayed on the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and were due to spray on the 13th for many hours. That spraying event was due to finish at 21:00 on 13th but may have concluded a little earlier.

 

[~kujala~]

I did, and his reply was:

"I had a quick look at the report, and the geology (bed rock) is the grit (coarse sandstone) and siltstone, which is identical to the one I reported to you in my previous e-mail."

Thank you, sir(s)!

Somebody posted earlier some documents containing geological information of Fukushima. Also translations were provided. In that translation terms 'mudstone' and 'sandstone' were used. Also in an earthquake study of unit #6 the term 'mudstone' was used.

The problem with the word 'mustone' is that it is both a main category and a sub-category. When used as a main category it is also called 'mudrock' and it consists of several sub-categories which are: claystone, mudstone, siltstone, shale, slate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudrock

So when it is said that bedrock consists of 'mudstone' I think it means that 'mudstone' is used as a main category. Actually the above would suggest that this 'mudstone' is 'siltstone' when going from the main category into the sub-category:

http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/lietekivi_5.png

So from OP +0 m to OP -25 m it seems that 'siltstone' is the main rock category and there is a thinner layer of 'sandstone'. From OP +10 m to OP +0 m it's sand.

I have here a chart that contains the general strengths of different rock types. It's in Finnish but I can give some translations. 'Siltstone' is 'lietekivi' and it belongs to a category 25 - 50 Mpa. 'Sandstone' is 'hiekkakivi' and it belongs to a category 50 - 100 Mpa. Of course these are only general guidelines. 'Granite' is 'graniitti' and it's > 250 Mpa.

http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/lietekivi_1.png

 

[Pu239]

Simple, let's check the wind direction and then look for any reports of radiation increases in the region where any fallout should have gone. I may take a few days but will allow us to discard this as a no-event, or maintain it in our list of "inconsistencies" between observations and reported data.

Good idea. I'm assuming a vapour release [almost always?] carries radiation with it in this situation?

Now, how to get a reliable set of data - obviously not from TEPCO (not picking on them, but I'm afraid credibility there really does approach zero - they're trying to manage things on several fronts).

The crowd-sourced radiation monitoring network(s?) might be more useful, even with cheaper equipment, if you do some kind of ad hoc averaging or trend analysis [I'm guessing]:

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

 

[SteveElbows]

TEPCO on-site measurements provided useful information during the early chapters of the crisis, I see no reason at all to disregard such data now. I would be silly to use it as my only source, but right now it helps me lean strongly towards the recent web-cam events being of no significance.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/f1-mp-2011061421-e.pdf

The later pages are more interesting. I don't think their weather observations in terms of 'fine', 'cloudy' etc are completely perfect, but bear in mind main gate is some way away from camera position. The wind data matches reasonably well with certain parts of what I recall seeing the sky doing on the camera in the early hours of 14th.

Fans of infuriating webcam weather confusion may also like to check out footage from around 6.30PM onwards where a cloud seems to be impersonating an interesting release from reactor 2, helped on by lighting conditions, the sped up nature of the footage, and the nature of clouds, the way they can 'bubble up'. http://www.youtube.com/user/fuku1live#p/u/8/kXIThbCBj-g

I never say never, but certainly the onus remains on people to demonstrate that anything interesting happened at all, so far we only have visual evidence for which alternative explanations are possible and seem likely, especially given what we have seen in the past on the camera.

 

[NUCENG]

In discussing releases from unit 2, if you accept that 90% of the offsite release is frim the unit which has a hole in its hat (reactor building) but the hat is still on its head. So you would expect that unit to be holding up some of the release in the building. There are reports that the internal radiation levels are too high for access, so they are working on filtering and venting the building which is consistent with it holding up releases. The reported failure was a hydrogen explosion thud in the torus area which depressurized the containment limiting the pressure to force further releases to the environment. (limiting not eliminating).

So here is the question. Does this mean that the unit 3 (which had the same power output as unit2) containment is still holding up most of its source term? With the tremendous damage to the unit 3 building any release from containment is directly to the environment.

 

[MadderDoc]

the roof of the unit 2 radiation waste building appears to have been damaged already in connection with the unit 1 explosion on March the 12th, and it does not appear to have suffered any further significant damage by later events.

I've not got photos with high enough resolution to see the roof properly from that time period, any chance you can point me to the image you mean?<..>

I am talking out of Digitalglobe's photo from March 14th 11:00. This is after the explosion of unit 1, but before the explosions in unit 2, 3, and 4. Although the quality is not A1, the photo appears to show the same damages to the roof of the RW building, as those we see in later and better imagery, e.g. the Air Service photo from March 20. Here's a side by side mount:

 

[SteveElbows]

So here is the question. Does this mean that the unit 3 (which had the same power output as unit2) containment is still holding up most of its source term? With the tremendous damage to the unit 3 building any release from containment is directly to the environment.

Well that's certainly one of the reasons I brought up the reactor 2 & INES release stuff.

In the analysis that this stuff was based on, they have supposed damage to containment on a scale necessary to make their analysis figures roughly match actual recorded data and other presumptions such as the explosion in s/c area at reactor 2. For reactors 1 & 2 they came up with containment damage of a certain size, but for reactor 3 their case seems to involve the possibility that HPCI had a steam leak. So I don't think they did an analysis where other sorts of containment damage featured for reactor 3, and I also don't think their analysis time period went long enough to cover later events at reactor 3.

Currently the matter of reactor 3 release is very inconclusive for me for those reasons and more, not least because the wind direction appears to have hugely reduced the impact certain key reactor 3 events may have had on the land, and presenting a theoretical opportunity to overlook a large release.

And if we are looking at the possibility that reactor 3 events with environmental impact occurred on the week of 20th march, data from this period is also hard to analyse with accuracy due in large part to further weather events that may have had an impact.

The very large order of magnitude of possible release from reactor 2 has tended to dwarf the numbers that follow, with implications even to this day since the large number of TBq released in March have made me a bit too desensitised to the 1TBq or so that is thought to perhaps be escaping on a daily basis to this day.

The attached chart from page 2 of the report to IAEA attachment VI-1 shows estimated magnitude of releases over time. It certainly tells the story of how events at reactor 2 contributed to matters according to the analysis. And also a few interesting tales of slightly lower magnitude later on, what happened on March 30th for example?

 

[Bandit127]

So here is the question. Does this mean that the unit 3 (which had the same power output as unit2) containment is still holding up most of its source term? With the tremendous damage to the unit 3 building any release from containment is directly to the environment.

Given the temperature of the RPV (>100°C) and pressure (~1 bar) readings from Unit 3 over the last month or so, I have to assume that this is a gas cooled reactor that is venting to open air.

No, I don't think it is holding up most of its source term. Gasses and gas borne particles have (mostly) already gone and the corium is still not in a configuartion that can be cooled.

So what source term is left is still mostly liquid and mobile.

I stand (and hope) to be corrected...

EDIT - we could have some data in the near future as TEPCO were sampling 'ambient radioactive substances' yesterday.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/images/110614_23.jpg"

 

[MadderDoc]

<..>
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/f1-mp-2011061421-e.pdf

The later pages are more interesting. I don't think their weather observations in terms of 'fine', 'cloudy' etc are completely perfect, but bear in mind main gate is some way away from camera position. The wind data matches reasonably well with certain parts of what I recall seeing the sky doing on the camera in the early hours of 14th.

It may seem a silly question, but having looked at these data before, I never made it to decide whether "Wind direction" means the direction the wind is coming from, or the direction it is going?

Fans of infuriating webcam weather confusion may also like to check out footage from around 6.30PM onwards where a cloud seems to be impersonating an interesting release from reactor 2, helped on by lighting conditions, the sped up nature of the footage, and the nature of clouds

And by cropping the image carefully it can be made crystal clear that we really see fire gushing out of unit 2 ..
See attachment. Grin

 

[Bandit127]

And by cropping the image carefully it can be made crystal clear that we really see fire gushing out of unit 2 ..
See attachment. Grin

7:46 pm... It's crystal clear that it is a cloud lit by the sunset.

(Or did I miss subtle Physics humour there?)

EDIT - D'oh!

 

[MadderDoc]

<..> See for example attached graphs that shows proportion of key substances and their locations, including wet well, reactor building, and crucially 'environment'. Any takers for what location FHB stands for in this context?

I think it stands for Fuel Handling Building

 

[zapperzero]

There are a lots of new images and movies on Tepco's website today.

Broadly split into three categories, they cover new First Aid and medical check rooms at Daiichi and Daini, sampling of the 'ambient radioactive substances' at Unit 3 and some detail on the new cover for Unit 1.

The movies are large (>80MB) and zipped.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/index-e.html"

High-res laser scan of the reactor 1 and environs. My, they have been busy.

EDIT: Can't open those .zip files. Can anyone who has luck with opening post them on rapidshare or something?

 

[~kujala~]

*Also,*my colleagues warn that the type of bed rock, which geologists identify,*and the strength/suitability of the*bed rock, which soil/geo-engineers determine, is different, ...

This is also something to note.
I am not sure if I understood it correctly but it might refer to a same thing as presented here:

http://iisee.kenken.go.jp/net/yokoi/bedrock/index.htm

In the viewpoint of Earthquake Engineering, it has been proposed, based on the followings, to use the shallower interface of which underlying stratum has from 300 to 700 m/sec of the shear wave velocity. This interface is called "Engineering Bedrock". ...
As the shear wave velocity of upper Earth crust is as homogeneous as from 3000 to 3500 m/sec, the upper interface of the upper Earth crust having 3000 m/sec of the shear wave velocity is called "Seismic Bedrock".

 

[Quim]

It may seem a silly question, but having looked at these data before, I never made it to decide whether "Wind direction" means the direction the wind is coming from, or the direction it is going?

Wind direction is stated as the direction the wind is coming from.

 

[triumph61]

High-res laser scan of the reactor 1 and environs. My, they have been busy.

EDIT: Can't open those .zip files. Can anyone who has luck with opening post them on rapidshare or something?

I have the same problem. CRC Mistake...

 

[Bandit127]

I have the same problem. CRC Mistake...

Let me know if this page works.
http://www.bandit127.com/Nuclear%20Stuff.htm"

If it does I will add the other videos to the page.

It takes a long time though - I have to download, link and then upload.

 

[SteveElbows]

The attached chart from page 2 of the report to IAEA attachment VI-1 shows estimated magnitude of releases over time. It certainly tells the story of how events at reactor 2 contributed to matters according to the analysis. And also a few interesting tales of slightly lower magnitude later on, what happened on March 30th for example?

I found the original source document from the NSC that this data came from, I don't think its available in english though. Much of the data is quite readable in english though. Using dodgy computer translation I can tell that it holds some useful information about the assumptions and data used to reach these conclusions, and some of the uncertainties, but I cannot trust this computer translation enough to talk in detail about this yet.

http://www.nsc.go.jp/anzen/shidai/genan2011/genan031/siryo4-2.pdf

 

[MiceAndMen]

Just to say I doubt of the "qualitative luminescence analysis", since I believe the cam is not in "fix exposition mode", but rather adapts automatically to the lighting conditions, as all webcam do. Except if you have evidence that this is not the case, or if you know very well how this automatic adjustment is done algorithmically, I do not think you can extract meaningful information from such an analysis.

The number of posts here regarding the non-events observed while glued to the Fukushima Webcam Entertainment Network is getting annoying.

 

[clif]

Let me know if this page works.
http://www.bandit127.com/Nuclear%20Stuff.htm

It worked for me on a computer running Ubuntu (linux).

 

[biffvernon]

I have here a chart that contains the general strengths of different rock types. It's in Finnish but I can give some translations. 'Siltstone' is 'lietekivi' and it belongs to a category 25 - 50 Mpa. 'Sandstone' is 'hiekkakivi' and it belongs to a category 50 - 100 Mpa. Of course these are only general guidelines. 'Granite' is 'graniitti' and it's > 250 Mpa.

The trouble with general terms like 'sandstone' and 'mudstone' is that they tell you approximately nothing about the strength and probably nothing about the permeability of the rock.

Sandstone is any sedimentary rock composed of sand grains; mudstone is a sedimentary rock made of much finer particles; siltstone is a sedimentary rock made of particles finer than sand but coarser than mud.

Sandstone may be very weak, crumbling in your hand, if the matrix that holds the sand grains together is weak. At the other extreme a metaquartzite is a rock made of grains of quartz sand cemented together by quartz that has crystallised in conditions of relatively high temperatures and pressures. It's harder and stronger than granite.

In the Fukushima case we seem to be dealing with something not so extreme. It is probably safe to assume that the sandstones and siltstones at the site are quite adequate to build power plants upon (the area of alluvium to the north and to the south has been avoided) and that for most practical purposes the siltstones can be regarded as impermeable to the flow of water while the sandstones will allow the passage of water albeit it at very slow rates. There is likely to be a net flow of water through the rock towards the sea, pressured by rainwater descending from the higher ground inland. Over a period of years one might expect contaminated water to move down and out and released to the Pacific Ocean.

There may be other pathways, joints and bedding planes, even cracks caused by earthquakes, that allow faster flow in complex directions but one needs more site-specific data to judge that.

 

[MiceAndMen]

High-res laser scan of the reactor 1 and environs. My, they have been busy.

EDIT: Can't open those .zip files. Can anyone who has luck with opening post them on rapidshare or something?

The zip files are corrupt according to winrar.

 

[LabratSR]

In WINRAR use the console and check the "Keep Broken Files" box.

 

[MadderDoc]

The zip files are corrupt according to winrar.

My Linux Archive mounter also gives errors during unpacking, although it does produce a reasonably playable wmv. However the resulting 'high resolution laser and whatnot' movie appears to me to be some not overly interesting computer generated graphics of some technical details of the unit 1 cover manipulation.

 

[Bandit127]

The zip files are corrupt according to winrar.

All 4 videos are now hosted on my site at:
http://www.bandit127.com/Nuclear%20Stuff.htm"

They are unzipped, original WMVs from TEPCO, so they will only work on some media players.

I consider this to be 'fair use' of TEPCO's copyright, since the files were hosted on a press release section of their website, but I will be happy remove them on request from TEPCO. http://www.jim-curtis.co.uk/Contact.htm"


EDIT - http://www.izarc.org/" unzipped them for me.

 

[MadderDoc]

Following this forum since a while, thanks to all. This is my first post, Hi everyone! :-)

Just to say I doubt of the "qualitative luminescence analysis", since I believe the cam is not in "fix exposition mode", but rather adapts automatically to the lighting conditions, as all webcam do. Except if you have evidence that this is not the case, or if you know very well how this automatic adjustment is done algorithmically, I do not think you can extract meaningful information from such an analysis.
For instance a cloud could now obscure the moon, the webcam would adjust with more gain and maybe show even more luminescence on average, while in reality it would not be true.

Jeremie

Hi Jeremy, and welcome. I think you are quite right in these observations.

 

[SteveElbows]

My Linux Archive mounter also gives errors during unpacking, although it does produce a reasonably playable wmv. However the resulting 'high resolution laser and whatnot' movie appears to me to be some not overly interesting computer generated graphics of some technical details of the unit 1 cover manipulation.

They got two descriptions the wrong way round. The laser video is really the last one, but its the most broken zip so we don't get to see many seconds of this video at the moment.

 

[MJRacer]

RE: Large emissions from Unit 2

Could it simply be that the emissions from Reactors 1 and 3 are being scrubbed by the torus in each unit and those of Unit 2 are no longer being scrubbed by its damaged torus?

 

[zapperzero]

All 4 videos are now hosted on my site at:
http://www.bandit127.com/Nuclear%20Stuff.htm"

They are unzipped, original WMVs from TEPCO, so they will only work on some media players.

I consider this to be 'fair use' of TEPCO's copyright, since the files were hosted on a press release section of their website, but I will be happy remove them on request from TEPCO. http://www.jim-curtis.co.uk/Contact.htm"


EDIT - http://www.izarc.org/" unzipped them for me.

Thanks a lot. Works a treat.

EDIT: Oh hell and tarnation. No it doesn't. The movies are broken. I'm beginning to suspect I need a system that uses two-byte characters, which I don't have available right now :P. I'll try to get one tomorrow, if no-one cracks it by then.

Anyway, again this stuff is ad usum Delphinii. God forbid they release the actual data. They made a scan and they're keeping it for themselves. We get happy-coloured animations and feelgood pictures of how hard they are working.

 

[clancy688]

EDIT - http://www.izarc.org/" unzipped them for me.

Thanks. So TEPCO does know that HD exists. Interesting. So we probably know now why all people had problems with the zip file. There's probably the last part of the zip missing.

The video number 4 (110614_16) is ~7 MB big, but has a length of 1:38. It stops at ~16 seconds, so there's a large chunk missing.

 

[Pu239]

People in Seattle got on average 5 hot particles per day for the month of April, 2011.
(acc. to Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates)
Question: What's the known effect of around 5 hot particles a day? The most I can find is the following, indicating a "big" risk of leukemias and cancer - from a study done in the 70s:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4459

Or, anyone with nuclear plant experience know anything about hot particles and what their effects might be?

Many thanks.

 

[Pu239]

People got around 10 particles each in Tokyo. The data is from air filters in Japan and the West Coast.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

People in Seattle got on average 5 hot particles per day for the month of April, 2011.
(acc. to Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Associates)
Question: What's the known effect of around 5 hot particles a day? The most I can find is the following, indicating a "big" risk of leukemias and cancer - from a study done in the 70s:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4459

Or, anyone with nuclear plant experience know anything about hot particles and what their effects might be?

Many thanks.

Any ionizing radiation exposure above normal is net additive to the potential for Cancer.