Giordano
- 32
- 0
Anonymous NRC Exec according to NYT today:Astronuc said:According to whom? Please cite sources when making claims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=1
Anonymous NRC Exec according to NYT today:Astronuc said:According to whom? Please cite sources when making claims.
artax said:I'm interested in the latest thermal imaging of the site, can you get hold of it?
"Still, concerns about the plant remain high. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission speculated Wednesday that some of the core of the No. 2 reactor had flowed from its steel pressure vessel into the bottom of the containment structure. The theory implies more damage at the unit than previously believed.
While a spokeswoman for Tokyo Electric dismissed the analysis, a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of Japan agreed that it was possible that the core had leaked into the larger containment vessel.
The possibility raised new questions. The Nuclear Regulator Commission said that its speculation about the flow of core material out of the reactor vessel would explain high radiation readings in an area underneath, called the drywell.
But some of the radiation readings at Reactors Nos. 1 and 3 over the last week were nearly as high as or higher than the 3,300 rems per hour that the commission said it was trying to explain, so it would appear that the speculation would apply to them as well. At No. 2, extremely radioactive material continues to ooze out of the reactor pressure vessel, and the leak is likely to widen with time, a western nuclear executive asserted.
“It’s a little like pulling a thread out of your tie,” said the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect business connections in Japan. “Any breach gets bigger.”
Flashes of extremely intense radioactivity have become a serious problem, he said. Tokyo Electric’s difficulties in providing accurate information on radiation are not a result of software problems, as some Japanese officials have suggested, but stem from damage to measurement instruments caused by radiation, the executive said.
Broken pieces of fuel rods have been found outside of Reactor No. 2, and are now being covered with bulldozers, he said. The pieces may be from rods in the spent-fuel pools that were flung out by hydrogen explosions. "
shogun338 said:Broken pieces of fuel rods have been found outside of Reactor No. 2, and are now being covered with bulldozers, he said. The pieces may be from rods in the spent-fuel pools that were flung out by hydrogen explosions. Looks like we where right about fuel rods blown out of spent fuel pools .
Astronuc said:According to whom? Please cite sources when making claims.
elektrownik said:http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/kanren/230408.pdf
|Fred said:<click
Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a critic of nuclear power, said in a statement that the NRC believes the core of Unit 2 at the Fukushima plant has "gotten so hot that part of it has probably melted through the reactor pressure vessel." Mr. Markey also said that at least one other reactor core has been severely damaged.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Mr. Virgilio said the NRC didn't have evidence that the core at Fukushima's Unit Two had melted through the reactor vessel.
"That's not in the situation report that we have from the team in Japan, and that's as of this morning," he said.
The NRC, he said, believes there was significant fuel damage in three reactors and four spent-fuel pools, "but we don't believe at this point in time that that core has left the vessel.""
TCups said:PS: for any of those currently experiencing an alternate "dog star" reality, I see nothing hilarious here and see no reason to question |Fred's IQ.
Unless they have fuel failures, or core or containment failures, there is no accident, and therefore no need for a rating at this time. If they lose power or cooling, but regain it within a specified time limit, it's not reportable as an accident.hbjon said:Has the Onagawa plant been given an accident number or rating?
As far as I know, Onagawa still has connection to the grid. There EDGs are apparently operational.Diesel generators have replaced grid power at Higashidori nuclear power plant . . . .
Power from the grid through two of three connections was lost at the Onagawa nuclear power plant, where three reactors have been in cold shutdown since 11 March. Cooling systems are still in operation. . . .
shogun338 said:Now, in the light of recent experience at Fukushima, Tepco is proposing to design and install a system of tide barriers with watertight doors at Kashiwazaki Kariwa units 1 to 4. In addition, the company says it has installed facilities on the upland part of the site to provide backup power and water injection to both reactors and spent fuel pools, and taken measures to ensure cooling functions in the event of tsunamis flooding the reactor buildings. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Tsunami_countermeasures_for_Kashiwazaki_Kariwa-0804118.html
Astronuc said:Unless they have fuel failures, or core or containment failures, there is no accident, and therefore no need for a rating at this time. If they lose power or cooling, but regain it within a specified time limit, it's not reportable as an accident.
vanesch said:They might have to signal it as a level-1 incident, no ? Or even as a level-0 anomaly ?
tsutsuji said:NISA has reported some of the 7 April aftershock consequences : http://www.chunichi.co.jp/s/article/2011040990003059.html
According to that article :
...
Radiation within Fukushima Daiichi plant's unit 1 containement rose to 100 Sv/h up from the earlier 30 Sv/h, but the validity of the measurement is questioned. Temperature at that unit went up from 223°C to 260°C then later decreased to 246°C.
According to the article - The Continuous Air Monitoring (CAM) PIPS Detector--Properties and Applications - this particular type of detector detects/counts alpha and beta particles.jpquantin said:I'm part of the newbies brought to this quality conversation by the focus on a rational analysis of this event. I'm just impressed !
Well, if we make the assumption that CAMS reading are trustable for drywell 1, in reactor 1 radiation spikes; this seems to be correlated to temperature. What is the likely cause of radiation spikes with quick decrease, with temperature being correlated, and SPC radiation not increasing ?
Do CAMS only measures gamma radiation ?
shogun338 said:Now, in the light of recent experience at Fukushima, Tepco is proposing to design and install a system of tide barriers with watertight doors at Kashiwazaki Kariwa units 1 to 4. In addition, the company says it has installed facilities on the upland part of the site to provide backup power and water injection to both reactors and spent fuel pools, and taken measures to ensure cooling functions in the event of tsunamis flooding the reactor buildings. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Tsunami_countermeasures_for_Kashiwazaki_Kariwa-0804118.html
daumphys said:One of the problems at the Fukushima nuclear accident is we did not know reactor conditions well after the earthquake and tsunami attack. We think about reactor measuring system again. We have to make the measuring instruments of the very important parts of nuclear plant as dual system. One is for controlling and the other is for emergency situation. The emergency instruments must have it's own battery, and have a wireless communication system to transfer data to outside. If after tsunami attack we knew the plant condition more well, present big nuclear disaster would not happen. We could do proper treatment against the dangerous situation.
Contaminated Wild Pig
Wild boar are particularly susceptible to radioactive contamination due to their predilection for chomping on mushrooms and truffles, which are particularly efficient at absorbing radioactivity. Indeed, whereas radioactivity in some vegetation is expected to continue declining, the contamination of some types of mushrooms and truffles will likely remain the same, and may even rise slightly -- even a quarter century after the Chernobyl accident.
intric8 said:Latest simulation out of http://db.eurad.uni-koeln.de/prognose/data/alert/ddcs_hem_1h_movtotal_1.gif" presents the high-end possibility of as much as 10Bq (Cs-137) in air within the next few days within my country. Converting this value to absorbed dose, this activity will presumably yield about 2 microsieverts/hr at a distance/depth of 1 cm. If anybody could anyone confirm/clarify this calculation, i would greatly appreciate it as i am a bit perturbed right now. Thank you for this forum. It is such a tremendous resource.