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.
  • #2,651
Astronuc said:
Gunderson has little or no credibility. I'm not sure how he gets information or how or what he analyzes.
What are your own credentials?

As for more iodine, that could mean some fuel which hasn't failed (breached) has since failed/ruptured. The exact state of the fuel is simply unknown.
Your hypothetical recent ruptures would also be worrying.

But Gunderson's point is based on the iodine/cesium ratio. The iodine in the fuel rods is supposed to have decayed for almost three halflives now, a factor 8. And new ruptures would also release cesium. The ratio would probably be influenced by temperature, but I have no idea by how much. Do you?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2,652
Street Cred:

"academic background - nuclear/astrophysics, then nuclear engineering, materials science and engineering, some electrical and aerospace engineering.
Country
PF Engineering Dept.
Interests
Science, technology, environmental preservation & sustainable development, gardening, transportation, world and ancient history
Educational Background
Graduate/Masters
Degree in
Nuclear Engineering
Profession
Nuclear Engineer"

For Astronuc from his profile..
 
  • #2,653
PietKuip said:
What are your own credentials?
I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about Astro's credentials. He is a professional in the industry. You might spend a bit more effort researching the fear-mongers, though. Fairewinds is not an unbiased source, comprised of a rabble-rouser and his wife.
 
  • #2,654
Not finding much on IR imaging or at least current IR imaging.

"[URL March 21, 2011
Infrared (IR) Thermal Heat Map Images of Fukushima Daiichi [/URL]

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp2/daiichi-photos2.htm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,655
razzz said:
Just released now, that observation from overflights found hot spots in unit 4. So assemblies in transit in various locations around the interior or let loose somehow from pools and equipment was not a stretch of the imagination. Those grayed looking slag like areas are looking rather ominous now. Wonder what other observation reports are on hold?

Sources, please?
 
  • #2,656
turbo-1 said:
I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about Astro's credentials. He is a professional in the industry. You might spend a bit more effort researching the fear-mongers, though. Fairewinds is not an unbiased source, comprised of a rabble-rouser and his wife.
How do we know that Astronuc is a professional if he does not want to give his (her?) name? It is easy enough to research Gundersen. I want to know who Astronuc thinks he is when he says that Gundersen (a retired professional) lacks credibility.
 
  • #2,657
PietKuip said:
How do we know that Astronuc is a professional if he does not want to give his (her?) name? It is easy enough to research Gundersen. I want to know who Astronuc thinks he is when he says that Gundersen (a retired professional) lacks credibility.
Please drop this or reconsider and do some research on Gundersen. This is a guy who claims that an accident at Vermont Yankee could make almost all of New England uninhabitable.
 
  • #2,658
Gundersen has an axe to grind (although it might be a legitimate one at that).

Astronuc, any significance on higher cadmium 106 levels found in the US? All other isotopes of cadmium unchanged, but 106 was measured higher...
 
  • #2,659
PietKuip said:
How do we know that Astronuc is a professional if he does not want to give his (her?) name? It is easy enough to research Gundersen. I want to know who Astronuc thinks he is when he says that Gundersen (a retired professional) lacks credibility.

From Gundersons CV:
Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in nuclear engineering
licensed reactor operator
Chair of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Oversight Panel
invited author on the DOE Decommissioning Handbook
part-time math professor at Community College of Vermont

His view is biased for sure, but what do we know about Astronuc's agenda?
 
  • #2,660
has anyone tried to derive any information from this data?:

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110404-1-4.pdf

there are many things that does not make sense to me (but i am far from being an expert):
for example: 'Reactor water level' remains unchanged since days. water is being pumped in at a rate of 116 l/min and above. reactor 2 and 3 seem to be 'open', but #1 still has pressure: where is the water (expected to be) going to (at the same rate it is being pumped in)?

'0.290MPa g(A)
0.531MPa g(B)'

is there an explanation why these two values are that much apart?

i have not followed the whole thread. if i missed something, please just point me in the right direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,661
Taxidermista said:
Sources, please?

One of the replies here referred to a report of known hot spots in unit 4 captured via IR but no pics. Classified, need to know basis, top secret, incriminating, akin to yelling fire in a movie theater? I don't know. I would think military sats. are watching these events in real time 3D modeling with readouts. Contaminating drones during fly overs are just an exercise as the radioactivity must be high.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,662
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,663
Can anyone explain what is the object labeled (2) in the following image (from the Air Photo services series)? From theway roof girders are bent, it seems to have fallen onto the roof (rather than lifted from below).
[PLAIN]http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/blast/pics/pict12-e.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,664
tsutsuji said:
In the first minute and 40 second timeframe of his video at http://vimeo.com/21881702 Gundersen cites Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress and Arjun Makhijani, What Caused the High Cl-38 Radioactivity in the Fukushima Daiichi Reactor #1?, The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 14 No 3, April 4, 2011 available at http://www.japanfocus.org/-Arjun-Makhijani/3509

the comments http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3822/localized-criticalities-at-fukushima" convinced me, that the cl-38 value is rather a wrong interpretation of data, than evidence for recriticality. tepco has never revoked the data though...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,665
razzz said:
One of the replies here referred to a report of known hot spots in unit 4 captured via IR but no pics. Classified, need to know basis, top secret, incriminating, akin to yelling fire in a movie theater? I don't know. I would think military sats. are watching these events in real time 3D modeling with readouts. Contaminating drones during fly overs are just an exercise as the radioactivity must be high.

The latest infrared photography of the reactors, taken by Japanese Self Defense Forces' helicopter is available at http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/kanren/230403.pdf
 
  • #2,666
PietKuip said:
What are your own credentials?

Your hypothetical recent ruptures would also be worrying.

But Gunderson's point is based on the iodine/cesium ratio. The iodine in the fuel rods is supposed to have decayed for almost three halflives now, a factor 8. And new ruptures would also release cesium. The ratio would probably be influenced by temperature, but I have no idea by how much. Do you?
Greg and the staff have my CV. I have an MS in nuclear engineering, and I am published. Most of my work is proprietary.

My only agenda is to get to the truth of the matter at hand.

If there were criticality events, the inventory associated with MW-s/MTU are quite small relative to the existing inventory.

There are numerous short-lived isotopes I'd like to see.
 
  • #2,667
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,668
"Tellurium 129 Presence Is Proof Of Inadvertent Recriticality At Fukushima"

That's the latest claim from Gunderson, via http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tellurium-129-presence-proof-inadvertent-recriticality-fukushima"

It has a 70 minute half life. Data collected 30.03.11

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11033110-e.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,669
tsutsuji said:
The latest infrared photography of the reactors, taken by Japanese Self Defense Forces' helicopter is available at http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/kanren/230403.pdf

I'm glad you found some current readings. Unit 3 still acting up.
 
  • #2,672
A Tepco executive said yesterday he isn’t optimistic about the prospect of containing damage at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor.

“I don’t know if we can ever enter the No. 3 reactor building again,” Hikaru Kuroda, the company’s chief of nuclear facility management, said at a press conference.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-03/tokyo-electric-sawdust-solution-fails-to-stop-radiation-leak.html

Where are the shielded robots?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,674
Bodge said:
A Tepco executive said yesterday he isn’t optimistic about the prospect of containing damage at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor.

“I don’t know if we can ever enter the No. 3 reactor building again,” Hikaru Kuroda, the company’s chief of nuclear facility management, said at a press conference.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-03/tokyo-electric-sawdust-solution-fails-to-stop-radiation-leak.html

Where are the shielded robots?
To much structural damage for small shielded robots . They would need heavy lifting equipment just to get in but radiation is so high I don't think they will attempt that anytime soon .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,675
It seems that several people have looked at the damage in #4 and (like me) concluded that it was all due to the blast of #3. BUT then we got that satellite pic showing #3 busted and #4 intact.

I see two tiny straws that we might still cling to. (1) The satellite photo is a mosaic of two photos taken 24 or 48 hours apart, the top half being older. (The shadows match but recon satellite orbits are chosen to pass over each spot at the same time of day.) (2) There were two explosions in #3, the second one highly directed towards #4.

(Sorry if this topic has come up before. I am new to this forum; been reading through its 2500+ messages, but in six straight hours I only got from march 11 to march 26...)
 
  • #2,676
Jorge Stolfi said:
It seems that several people have looked at the damage in #4 and (like me) concluded that it was all due to the blast of #3. BUT then we got that satellite pic showing #3 busted and #4 intact.

I see two tiny straws that we might still cling to. (1) The satellite photo is a mosaic of two photos taken 24 or 48 hours apart, the top half being older. (The shadows match but recon satellite orbits are chosen to pass over each spot at the same time of day.) (2) There were two explosions in #3, the second one highly directed towards #4.

(Sorry if this topic has come up before. I am new to this forum; been reading through its 2500+ messages, but in six straight hours I only got from march 11 to march 26...)

Unit 4 was intact after explosion at Unit 3 . There are other photos that show it . There was a huge explosion at Unit 4 but no video has surfaced showing it .
 
  • #2,677
Thanks for the graphs Jorge,

people in general I don't know as this has been asked before, but should we draw much significance from the fact that the readings for drywell radiation has been creeping upwards for about half a week in reactor one? would it not be reasonable to expect that reading to be gradually decaying as it is in all the othere radiation readings?
 
  • #2,678
Is it even possible to build a robot that can work in the sort of radiation levels inside the buildings?
 
  • #2,679
Jorge Stolfi said:
Can anyone explain what is the object labeled (2) in the following image (from the Air Photo services series)? From theway roof girders are bent, it seems to have fallen onto the roof (rather than lifted from below).
[PLAIN]http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/blast/pics/pict12-e.jpg[/QUOTE]
Its part of the roof of Unit 4 that fell back down after explosion . There is part of a concrete wall in this area that was part of a smaller spent fuel pool that cracked apart also . If I have the layout right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,680
Bodge said:
"Tellurium 129 Presence Is Proof Of Inadvertent Recriticality At Fukushima"

That's the latest claim from Gunderson, via http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tellurium-129-presence-proof-inadvertent-recriticality-fukushima"

It has a 70 minute half life. Data collected 30.03.11

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11033110-e.html

Can anybody clear this up for me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,681
robinson said:
Is it even possible to build a robot that can work in the sort of radiation levels inside the buildings?

When we hear a powerful executive for the utility put all his hope into a giant robot program to fix this disaster, it's like us folks out here in the States resorting to a more spiritual solution. Perhaps a "Hail Mary". If only we had a giant robot that could lift this whole nightmare from the coast of Japan a carry it to the sun.( or at least the moon). hbjon
 
  • #2,682
Long-Time Lurker in this thread, thank you all for the excellent education.

I have a question. According to TEPCO:
CV of units 1&3 are reported "not damaged." CV of unit 2 is reported as "Damage & Leakage Suspected."

RPV damage for units 1,2&3 are listed as "unknown."

If the CV of unit 3 was intact, wouldn't the pressure levels read closer to those of level 1 rather than at or near atmospheric?

Same question for the RPV's. Both 2&3 are near atmospheric pressure while Unit 1 rises and falls slightly with water input.

Thank you.

Information from here & here:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/index.php"
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/v8/Main.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,683
If they TEPCO folks want to determine where the water is coming from (ie. leaking SFP's). They need to inject a dye into the water. I'm sure a dye material can be found that won't cause further issues.

Start by injecting the dye into the fuel pools.. If the water leaking into the ocean changes color you have your fluid path.. This would also show up in the turbine buildings / trench if the leaking pools are the source of that contamination.
 
  • #2,684
Test-spraying of a resin solution over debris and the ground to seal in radioactive substances that might otherwise spread further into the environment has begun at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

In the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors, preparations progressed to use an external power supply to activate electric pumps to inject coolant water into the reactors.

A sprinkler vehicle sprayed about 2,000 liters of the resin solution over an area of about 500 square meters west of the No. 4 reactor.

TEPCO planned to spray a total of 60,000 liters of the solution within two weeks.

Power supply resumed to devices to monitor radiation levels in eight locations on the boundaries of the plant's premises. TEPCO planned to resume operation of the devices Saturday after confirming they still worked properly. Why are so many of the workers dealing with this wearing what looks like paper masks ? There is radioactive dust covering everything but they send these guys out in paper masks . The navy crew of the tug boat that delivered the fresh water for the reactors where in full body suits with full face gas masks . I feel this will be one of the things that everyone looks back on and questions why they allowed them to go into this environment with so little protection .
 
  • #2,685
Cire said:
If they TEPCO folks want to determine where the water is coming from (ie. leaking SFP's). They need to inject a dye into the water. I'm sure a dye material can be found that won't cause further issues.

Start by injecting the dye into the fuel pools.. If the water leaking into the ocean changes color you have your fluid path.. This would also show up in the turbine buildings / trench if the leaking pools are the source of that contamination.
I read a report last night that said water was leaking from Unit 2 containment vessel and they where pumping water into keep replacing it . IT said that this was why the water in the trench was so high in radiation . Spent fuel pools also have cracks that are leaking .
 
  • #2,686
Jorge Stolfi said:
I have plotted the data from the NISA/METI press relases:

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html

Hope it helps. All the best, --stolfi

Looking at your plots and comparing them to the prefecture radiation levels:

http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/JapanRadiationLevels/JapanRadiationLevelsDashboard"

it seems likely that reactor #2 breached on the 16th and #3 on the 20th. I believe its only #1 that maintains above atmospheric pressure now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,687
|Fred said:
where did you get this picture ?

# 4 reactor spent fuel pool Feb 1 2005.jpg

edit: got it
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/03/16/20110316p2g00m0dm034000c.html

edit2: did they repaint the top crane in green ?

Fred:
I believe if you look carefully, the only green crane in the picture is the fuel handling machine. Reference the things that look like the davits for a life boat on the left hand side. That, plus the whole photo has a green cast.

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33968&d=1301856201

Are you seeing a picture of a green overhead crane I have overlooked? If so can you reference the photo? Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,688
Bodge said:
Can anybody clear this up for me?

TEPCO (I believe) stated that the Te-129 reading from 30/3 was erroneous.

(by "I believe" I mean I know they said this but am unable to track down the actual statement ATM; they've admitted to 2 errors in data: 25/3 I-134 and 30/3 Te-129)
 
  • #2,689
Astronuc said:
<I know there is a concern about criticality in the SFP and core. I would expect that TEPCO personnel have added borated water to core and SFP precisely to prevent recriticality.>

Would more boron be better to moderate or slow reactions? Or is there some ideal mix with water such as they are injecting?
 
  • #2,690
For reference, Wikipedia has a decent time lines and overall information combined together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents"

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Bwr-rpv.svg[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,691
So the I-134,Tellurium, lanthanum products and chlorine-38 readings are all wrong?

I don't believe it,but if true its very disturbing in its self.

What exactly is going on?

At least Gundersen is making a statement based on what information he has and standing by it,bias or no bias.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,692
NEW THERMAL IMAGE ANALYSIS, UNIT 4

Thanks for the new images, tsutsuji @ post # 2680

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3227707&postcount=2680

Here are new thermal images (at least to me) of Bldg. 4. I presume the "hot" area to the right of the SFP is the open core of the reactor with residual radioactivity, and I hope this is normal.

Without,

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture41.png

and with my annotations.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture42.png

ADDENDUM:
Correction of initial error of interpretation on my part - the "ground activity is not from heat sources on the ground. There is a perspective error. The heat sources labeled "ground activity are from lower levels of the building. Also, remember, these images are in the IR spectrum, presumably, not the X-ray or gamma ray spectrum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,693
return of the giant cloth

Gov't eyes use of huge sheet to contain radioactive substances
TOKYO, April 4, Kyodo

The government has asked Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, to study the possibility of containing radioactive substances from four damaged reactors by wrapping their entire containment buildings with a huge amount of sheeting, government sources said Sunday.

The proposal calls for building framed structures around the 45-meter-high containment buildings and then wrapping them with the sheeting, the sources said.

If all of the four buildings were wrapped in this manner, it would cost about 80 billion yen and take up to two months, the sources said.

But atomic energy experts are skeptical about the feasibility of the plan, proposed by a general construction firm, saying the step would have only limited effects in blocking the release of radioactive substances into the environment.

Osaka University professor emeritus Keiji Miyazaki said that there is the risk that such sheeting would be torn apart by heat emanating from nuclear reactors. ''What must be done speedily is rather the restoration of the reactors' cooling functions,'' said the professor of atomic energy engineering.

Ritsumeikan University professor emeritus Ikuro Anzai said if sheeting-based containment were technically possible, it would help block the release of radioactive substances into the atmosphere and the ground.

But the professor, who specializes in ways to protect humans from radiation exposure, added that there is the risk that radiation levels would go up inside the sheeting, thus hampering various restoration work, including the work to spray water onto the reactors.

A source close to the government criticized its latest move, saying, ''Politicians and the TEPCO management adopted the proposal from the major construction company which does not have deep knowledge about nuclear power plants.''

''This step is essentially lip service to give the public a sense of ease by hiding the image of the decrepit nuclear plant,'' the source said.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/82921.html
 
  • #2,694
NEW ANALYSIS OF THERMAL (IR) IMAGES, BLDG 3

Again, before annotation:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture44.png

and after annotation:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture45.png

Seems to confirm that the FHM is not over the SFP3; however, the rod-like structures seen at the alleged crash site of the ballistic FHM are not "hot" on this image.

Thanks again to tsustuji @Post # 2680 for the IR images provided
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3227707&postcount=2680
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,695
Re the damage of #4 and the piece of debris stuck into the roof:

Its part of the roof of Unit 4 that fell back down after explosion .​

Thanks, it makes sense. Presumably the roof was a concrete or tarmac sheet laid on top of the metal framework, that was lifted off by the explosion without damaging the latter.

But now that the "shot by reactor #3" theory is busted, I am left wondering at puzzling features of the damage on #4:

  1. The concrete walls of the upper floor, on the West and East sides, seem to have been pushed INWARDS against the concrete columns.
  2. The same concrete shell on the North side (facing #3) was peeled off the concrete columns but kept hanging from the top.
  3. The top edge of the North wall was bent INWARDS, whike the first horizontal concrete beam just below it was bent outwards.
  4. While that beam was damaged, the much weaker outre shell remained mostly in place.

Could go on, buy you get the idea.

Perhaps there was an explosion BELOW the topmost floor, and that created overpressure on the OUTSIDE of the walls of the top floor, pushing them in?
 
  • #2,696
My only agenda is to get to the truth of the matter at hand.

If there were criticality events, the inventory associated with MW-s/MTU are quite small relative to the existing inventory.

I have stared at levels of 100 msv/hr many times and am no stranger to the events that are happening. As I have been following the events for the last couple of weeks on this site and elsewhere, I have concluded that the radiation levels are so intense that no one is able to gather the facts, evidence or pictures to conclude just exactly what has occurred, what the current conditions are and how they are going to get this under control. I suspect that the debris is such that no robots will be able to penetrate the debris field to obtain required information to access the situation. This may go on until decay heat and radiation levels subside or they just decide to pour concrete over the whole thing and dedicate it as a shrine to nuclear power. If they do that it will be interesting is to see how the ground water issue is resolved.

If you are looking for MW-s/MTU as an indication of a criticality in the reactors or fuel pools you never did the sub critical experiments in your MS engineering curriculum. It just takes a pulsed fission event to deplete the moderator or geometry to shut the event down only to reoccur when the geometry is again favorable. I would not find comfort in the fact that the power level is small relative to the reactor operating levels.
 
  • #2,697
razzz said:
For reference, Wikipedia has a decent time lines and overall information combined together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents"

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Bwr-rpv.svg[/QUOTE]

Wiki summarizes the public statements and conjectures from official sources, however the timeline is incomplete and all statements about the condition of units 1-4 are inferential. Measurements of radiation levels are spotty and incomplete as TEPCO's monitoring system went offline after the earthquake. Some data was intermittently collected by workers driving around in a car, however the data collected is insufficient to characterize the releases and changes in background levels.

There has been no entry into the damaged units, no photos released of building interiors (except a few inadequate shots of unit 4), it is uncertain what monitoring systems are delivering reliable data - most systems are offline due to damage. Radiation measurements taken by workers have been subject to revision after the fact...

Regarding unit 4 the Wiki timeline speaks of an explosion on March 15th that left 2 8m square holes in the walls (I recall the statements as 1 in a wall and one in the roof), however the current state of the structure shows massive damage - when and how did this occur?

Radiation levels spiked at the prefecture monitoring stations early on March 21st and are only now returning to where they were on the 19th. TEPCO said pressure was rising in unit 3 on the 20th and suggested they might need to vent it - but then the levels declined without intervention and now the containment is at atmospheric pressure... what happened? No statements have been forthcoming other than some waffling about the state of containment.

What is the state of the fuel storage pools in units 1,3,and 4 given the explosive destruction we can see in the aerial photos?

Workers cannot access many areas of the site because of high radiation levels - what are the sources?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,698
orndorf said:
So the I-134,Tellurium, lanthanum products and chlorine-38 readings are all wrong?

I don't believe it,but if true its very disturbing in its self.

What exactly is going on?

At least Gundersen is making a statement based on what information he has and standing by it,bias or no bias.

I know nothing about nukes. I read this complex lost power hence the ability to move water and these things happened after a 9.0+ quake and 45'+ ocean surge which ruined and/or disabled any functional mechanical equipment on site.

At this point in time, not counting the venting of radioactive materials, explosions, leakage, damaged and exposed nuclear material to the fresh air and corresponding fallout which is so bad that in some areas of ground zero you can't even stand there more than 10 minutes to work let alone people kicked out of their housing miles from the site... most of us are waiting for what is left of the 3 nuclear cores and 4 spent fuel ponds to cool enough to start serious mitigation of the aforementioned conditions. Seems only unit 3 is not cooperating properly with cooling down completely at this time.

Some professionals can't agree on readings so there is some unknowns in play, at least in the publicly released information. Which is understandable because some conditions being encountered were never envisioned, times 4.

BTW, there is on going contamination and pollution as you read this due to the large amounts of water needed to cool the hot spots that shouldn't be reused and is lost as steam and in runoff to the sea anyway.
 
  • #2,699
My questions about robotics is speaking to the point of radiation damage to electronics. If it was just alpha and beta robots could easily be sent in and around with cameras, to at least get a look at what is or isn't there.

Both gamma radiation and neutron radiation disrupt circuits, but as somebody noted, just seeing where the radiation knocks a small robot out would still be a source of information.
 
  • #2,700
I_P says: Wiki summarizes the public statements and conjectures from official sources...

I said reference. It's certainly not a case study. Since anyone and their mother can submit to Wiki or bias can change the informational writeup at Wiki, yes, you do have to take the site with a grain of salt (it has always been a drawback with Wiki due to potential scrubbing of facts by entities with agendas)

Cites abound in the footnotes.

Wiki is fluid, I was checking the chart concerning fuel 'assemblies' on-site, left and came back to find 'new fuel assemblies' column added to the chart. As I read it, doesn't add to the totals just tells you how many of the newer (potent/longer life) fuel assemblies are present.
 

Similar threads

Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster discussions
Replies
12
Views
49K
Ukraine nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia on fire
Replies
41
Views
5K
Fukushima Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Fukushima part 2
36
Replies
2K
Views
447K
Fukushima Are US Nuclear Power Plants Prepared for Earthquakes?
Replies
5
Views
6K
Fukushima Critiques of Fukushima Thyroid-Cancer Study
Replies
2
Views
2K
What if a nuclear power plant loses outside electricity?
Replies
6
Views
19K
Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects
16
Replies
763
Views
272K
Fukushima How will they end the Fukushima disaster?
Replies
38
Views
16K
Thoughts on nuclear power and disasters [long, rant/tangenty]
Replies
6
Views
4K
Fukushima The geological issues of the Fukushima Daiichi
Replies
4
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top