Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

[Jorge Stolfi]

However, from looking at {video} those beams and with them the crane do indeed seem to have fallen flat on the floor -- smack on top of the lid, and with steam gushing out from under it.

Agreed for the crane; but one of the roof beams is still attached to its East column in the Aero Service images:

 

[Bob S]

Jorge Stolfi-

Thank you for reporting the CAM radiation measurements in centi-Sieverts.

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/cams-un1.txt

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/cams-un2.txt

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/cams-un3.txt

You are about the only person I know who realizes that 1 centi-Sievert = 1 rem. Makes conversion from rems to Sieverts simple.

Bob S

 

[Jorge Stolfi]

Thank you for reporting the CAM radiation measurements in centi-Sieverts. You are about the only person I know who realizes that 1 centi-Sievert = 1 rem.

I wish I deserved the compliment... but the truth is that I chose cSv/h because I wished the numbers to fit in a five digit field. And I can't recall now why that seemed a good idea at the time.

 

[TCups]

BLAST DAMAGE AT UNIT 3

However, from looking at

(at time stamps about 10:13:27, and about 10:20:28)
those beams and with them the crane do indeed seem to have fallen flat on the floor -- smack on top of the lid, and with steam gushing out from under it.

@ MadderDoc, Fred, et. al.:

Re: New video. Attached is a screenshot from the viedo with and without annotations of what I think I see. As ever, I say the blast came out of the primary containment, through failed seals on the transfer ("cattle") chute gate. But then, it is all too easy to see what you expect to see and want to see. Comments?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04annotated.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04at50940PM.png

 

[Maxion]

@ MadderDoc, Fred, et. al.:

Re: New video. Attached is a screenshot from the viedo with and without annotations of what I think I see. As ever, I say the blast came out of the primary containment, through failed seals on the transfer ("cattle") chute gate. But then, it is all to easy to see what you expect to see and want to see. Comments?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04annotated.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04at50940PM.png

You did call this quite a while ago. Nice job there!

 

[shogun338]

Look at the huge steel doors that are where they move the spent fuel rods out in dry casks I believe in lower right of post #2836 . They look like they where almost blown off there hinges in outward direction . The explosion must have traveled into the lower sections of Unit #3 also .

 

[TCups]

Look at the huge steel doors that are where they move the spent fuel rods out in dry casks I believe in lower right of post #2836 . They look like they where almost blown off there hinges in outward direction . The explosion must have traveled into the lower sections of Unit #3 also .

Hmmm . . . yes maybe so. You are referring to the steel doors at ground level on the tunnel-like structure, correct? If so, though, the one on Bldg 4 looks even worse. The whole tunnel is exploded outward.

 

[Jorge Stolfi]

I have updated again my plots of the reactor variables:
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html"

Up to METI/NISA release 73 (apr/04 15:00).
Also included some data for unit #1 from a plot shown in earlier post on this thread.

Also fixed the "cur" link, sorry --- it was indeed out of date.

 

[jensjakob]

BLAST DAMAGE AT UNIT 3



@ MadderDoc, Fred, et. al.:

Re: New video. Attached is a screenshot from the viedo with and without annotations of what I think I see. As ever, I say the blast came out of the primary containment, through failed seals on the transfer ("cattle") chute gate. But then, it is all to easy to see what you expect to see and want to see. Comments?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04annotated.png


http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04at50940PM.png

BINGO! You are quite good.

Respect and kudos for your stamina

 

[shogun338]

Hmmm . . . yes maybe so. You are referring to the steel doors at ground level on the tunnel-like structure, correct? If so, though, the one on Bldg 4 looks even worse. The whole tunnel is exploded outward.

Yes .

 

[M. Bachmeier]

I have updated again my plots of the reactor variables:
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html"

Up to METI/NISA release 73 (apr/04 15:00).
Also included some data for unit #1 from a plot shown in earlier post on this thread.

Also fixed the "cur" link, sorry --- it was indeed out of date.

'Jorge' (sorry-you are not Joe) what is going on with core pressure in number 1? It doesn't deem to correlate with temperature readings?

 

[elektrownik]

and this: http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/heat.html ?

 

[Borek]

I wonder how much sense makes comparison of the IR images if we don't know what was the air temperature and wind. Quite likely differences are in some part effect of the external conditions (that is, IR pictures should be different when wind changes, even if the localization of heat sources and amount of heat produced is constant).

 

[Cire]

'Jorge' (sorry-you are not Joe) what is going on with core pressure in number 1? It doesn't deem to correlate with temperature readings?

The temperature sensors are cooked. I don't believe they're returning real values any longer. There likely is an offset in the output now.

I suspect the temperature is being reported higher then it really is.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

The temperature sensors are cooked. I don't believe they're returning real values any longer. There likely is an offset in the output now.

I suspect the temperature is being reported higher then it really is.

Do you mean temperature is higher than is being reported? Do you have some supporting reference, link etc.?

 

[TCups]

and this: http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/heat.html ?

Are you familiar with the digital imaging terms "window width" and "window level"? If so, go back on every image and look carefully at the color bar on the left to determine where the "center" temperature is, the total spread of high and low temperatures displayed, and the absolute values assigned to each color. Some things that look "hotter" just because they are more toward the red end of the spectrum in one image are not necessarily hotter than something green in the next image, when you check the scale.

I confess I haven't gone frame by frame through your analysis and questions, but at a glance, I can tell you that you have to be very careful comparing one image to the other. The time lapsed during the acquisition of the image and the color scale ascribed to the image vary significantly, I believe.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Are you familiar with the digital imaging terms "window width" and "window level"? If so, go back on every image and look carefully at the color bar on the left to determine where the "center" temperature is, the total spread of high and low temperatures displayed, and the absolute values assigned to each color. Some things that look "hotter" just because they are more toward the red end of the spectrum in one image are not necessarily hotter than something green in the next image, when you check the scale.

I confess I haven't gone frame by frame through your analysis and questions, but at a glance, I can tell you that you have to be very careful comparing one image to the other. The time lapsed during the acquisition of the image and the color scale ascribed to the image vary significantly, I believe.

Even when looking at small variations, a color contrast illusion can make simple observation inconclusive and misleading. How much detail is being offered in the IR?

P. S. Does anybody have specs? Most modern IR is digitally enhanced to account for wave distortion like observatory (digital) astronomical observation.

 

[TCups]

Even when looking at small variations, a color contrast illusion can make simple observation inconclusive and misleading. How much detail is being offered in the IR?

Yes. The bright colors look impressive on the web and on TV sound bytes, but at least in medical imaging, color scales are seldom used. Monochrome or grayscale are preferred. Either a very big difference with a wide window can look like a very small difference with a narrow window.

In imaging, "detail" is usually reserved for spatial resolution. Some of the IR images seemed to have wide windows, little overall difference in the color scale, and a lot of detail. Some of the color images appear to "bloom" with the colors used and all detail is lost.

I will try to go through the IR mages later (tonight is the NCAA basketball finals, after all).

You can see, though, that all of these images have been windowed and leveled so as to identify the single hottest point on the image, which is the annotated temperature on the labels.

 

[razzz]

After dousing with water, I think the point is that there are hot spots where there should be no hot spots. Everything around the pool should be ambient temp. Even inside the pool it's inconsistent.

 

[M. Bachmeier]

Yes. The bright colors look impressive on the web and on TV sound bytes, but at least in medical imaging, color scales are seldom used. Monochrome or grayscale are preferred. Either a very big difference with a wide window can look like a very small difference with a narrow window.

In imaging, "detail" is usually reserved for spatial resolution. Some of the IR images seemed to have wide windows, little overall difference in the color scale, and a lot of detail. Some of the color images appear to "bloom" with the colors used and all detail is lost.

I will try to go through the IR mages later (tonight is the NCAA basketball finals, after all).

You can see, though, that all of these images have been windowed and leveled so as to identify the single hottest point on the image, which is the annotated temperature on the labels.

Yes thank you I forgot (NCAA), see you later:), but thank you+.

 

[denislaurent]

Same question about Pressure & Temperature in Unit#1 vessel.

In fact, Tepco release 2 vessel pressure data (A & B).
They are consistent until March 26 (end of massive cooling)
But they are now diverging, with PA showing the same trend than in D/W and S/C
but PB continuously climbing for now one week+.

It would be good to know the exact location of the sensors.

Please note too that radiation level in drywell is not continuously decreasing
as for units #2 and #3.

Has somebody more information / Hypothesis ?

 

[Jorge Stolfi]

what is going on with core pressure in number 1? It doesn't deem to correlate with temperature readings?

I have no idea; I just write down the TEPCO numbers.

Actually I still do not know how and where those temperatures are measured. I GUESS that they are readings of thermocouples attached to the ouside of (or embedded into) the wall of the reactor's pressure vessel. I have read claims that the "dry"well too is being sprayed with water, is that right? If so the numbers may be meaningless...

 

[M. Bachmeier]

I have no idea; I just write down the TEPCO numbers.

Actually I still do not know how and where those temperatures are measured. I GUESS that they are readings of thermocouples attached to the ouside of (or embedded into) the wall of the reactor's pressure vessel. I have read claims that the "dry"well too is being sprayed with water, is that right? If so the numbers may be meaningless...

P. S. Temperature could be reasonably calculated at a given distance re analogue.

With plants in excess of 40 years old there would be analogue gauges, much of which could survive strong pressure variances, being that high pressure gauges are liquid filled and stainless steel. The real question is if those gauges are ported by pressure lines to be (parallel) accessible (outside of intolerable hazard) for interpretation.

 

[MadderDoc]

It is reported that the cause of the unit 4 building damage was a H2 explosion caused by overheating of the discharged fuel in the U4 spent fuel pool. To the best of my knowledge, there is no photgraphic evidence of the explosion. Something that has troubled me since the first pictures of the Unit 4 damage on 16March, was whether there actually was a loss of inventory in the U4 spent fuel pool. Attached is a markup of the first photograph that was released on 16 March showing the U4 buiding damage. One can find the photo on Reuters site. This photo was taken before any water injection/spray in Unit 4. Perhaps, I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like there was still significant water in the fuel pool on March 16. Anyone have an alternative speculation?

Some specks of lights, reminicent of reflections in a water surface, can be seen at about 1:33 in this video from March 16th, supporting your contention;

(The attachment below is just to show where to look. For the proper experience, one must watch the video.)

If not by force of hot fuel in a dried up SFP, the damage to unit 4 would seem to me to have been caused by hot fuel being stashed somewhere _else_ up there.

For what it is worth, webcam photos the day unit 4 was destroyed:
http://www.gyldengrisgaard.dk/tepcowebcam/tepweb20110315.html
We are looking in from the south. It is readily apparent that all damage done to the south face of unit 4 occurred in the morning between 6 and 7 am -- at 6 am the buiding looks quite fine, while at 7 am it is a total wreck, and the sky above it is swarming with choppers.

 

[Jorge Stolfi]

Now it is my turn at hallucinating: In this image (previously posted by AntonL) I see a couple of smashed fuel assemblies. Rods, the square envelope, even the handle at the top. (Disclaimer: I just had wine for dinner...)

 

[AtomicWombat]

MECHANISM FOR CASK TRANSFER OF NEW AND SPENT FUEL RODS?
It would make more sense to put the dry cask in a small pool, pumped dry, then flood the small pool, then open the cask underwater, then transfer the new rods directly to the reactor core underwater. It would also seem logical to transfer the spent rods under water to a flooded small pool, containing an open cask, then to close and decontaminate the exterior of the cask before the crane takes it back for loading on the truck. Just guessing.

These videos help illustrate the transfer of spent fuel rods to a dry cask - the first one seems to relate to Mark I BWRs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6FeQWuhCs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkz-3e-BYSk"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cisdwv5lPwk&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjGD2oL9fJ8&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gzyvh0cPN4&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS9sJHp0q2c&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj4gZogu_BI&NR=1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNmtV-ljFWg&feature=related"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJmXfWA3m_U&NR=1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQIo1-8H3Ww&NR=1"

 

[TCups]

Now it is my turn at hallucinating: In this image (previously posted by AntonL) I see a couple of smashed fuel assemblies. Rods, the square envelope, even the handle at the top. (Disclaimer: I just had wine for dinner...)

Conservatively, even the much older spent fuel rods would very soon reach a temperature of several hundred ºC once removed from the pool and exposed to air. Somehow, I recall the figure of a heat up rate of 1ºC per second if the rod is removed from the water. If those were fuel rods and if they were exposed to air since the explosion, then the IR thermal imagery would almost certainly show them as the hottest thing in the image, I suspect. I could be wrong, though . . .

 

[MadderDoc]

BLAST DAMAGE AT UNIT 3



@ MadderDoc, Fred, et. al.:

Re: New video. Attached is a screenshot from the viedo with and without annotations of what I think I see. As ever, I say the blast came out of the primary containment, through failed seals on the transfer ("cattle") chute gate. But then, it is all too easy to see what you expect to see and want to see. Comments?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04annotated.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-04at50940PM.png

Agreed except looking at other pictures rather than having been blasted from below, the bent girders seem to me to have been hit heavily by something coming from above. Looking for a blast from below I think the area of the SPF is the only candidate. Perhaps during the assumed hydrogen explosion, the SPF pit came to act like a barrel for the blast, shooting the parked FHM high in the air, only to come down on the north end of the building, just about where those girders were.

 

[TCups]

It could well be so.

 

[AntonL]

Spread of radioactivity 4 to 7 April - these are relative values as actual is not known

[PLAIN]http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/generator/DWDWWW/Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KUPK/Homepage/Aktuelles/Sonderbericht__Bild5,templateId=poster,property=poster.gif