Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 20

jeff.. at this point pool leakage could... seems like they suspect some leakage... those fuel spent pools are robustly designs.. heavy rebar'd concrete and it has a stainless steel liner
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:28:28 PM

Dean can you confirm my understanding of the news report I mentioned below?
by Canadian 3/26/2011 1:29:16 PM

@Dean: It just seems more likely for the water to come from the pool or from some leaking cooling pipe than from a broken reactor...?
by Jeff 3/26/2011 1:29:25 PM

which one is that canadian.. my eyes must be buggy.. I can't see it
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:31:00 PM

@Dean I asked a few days ago about the meaning of those values, as at first look it would appear that the pressure is ata vacuum state (with negative readings, I mean). After further thought I speculated that the number indicated the CHANGE in the reading from previous... but I have absolutely no way to find out without calling someone in Japan. They have better questions to answer right now though :/
by Dennis Tucker Jr 3/26/2011 1:31:05 PM

Morning, all
by marie rich 3/26/2011 1:31:19 PM

Here is a site that has several different links that may be of interest. www.mofa.go.jp
by Stormy 3/26/2011 1:31:27 PM

gm marie
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:31:43 PM

@Dean @Nancy according to en.wikipedia.org , there is , among others a "liquid colling metal" with tin , a solution by Ukranian scientist. Dean, what do you think of that kind of idé, at the first sight (it need to be scroll down a little in the wikipedia page)
by futureisnow 3/26/2011 1:31:48 PM

Although you all may have that one already...lol Hard to know just how many have been thrown out to date. :)
by Stormy 3/26/2011 1:31:58 PM

yes Dennis... I'll try to research more
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:32:03 PM

@Dean repost: I saw a news report yesterday about the water in the turbine rooms and the seawater contamination levels, to confirm I have this right since I'm maintaining a thread on a forum for some friends... the highly radiated water from the turbine rooms has been draining through the north channel into the sea and they are now containing that water and figuring out how to deal with it?
by you
by Canadian 3/26/2011 1:32:17 PM

There are lots of diagrams out there which show the basics of the piping at a BWR. Is there any site that anyone knows of which actually shows ALL of the detail -- including things like fire supression lines, steam bleed from turbines, etc.?
by Joshua Diamond 3/26/2011 1:32:29 PM

nice find canadian... from a gross observation,, they are going to have tons of water to deal with and I'll bet they don't have a plan.. just mainly responding to crisis... this is one area of attention that needs to be done... they even had to have a cooling system at chernbyl.. so we just don't bury things and slap our hands together and go have pizza..
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:34:07 PM

JOSHUA try to search for a P&ID.. of a BWR system.
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:34:43 PM

after 24 hours of sleep. im back
by highnoon 3/26/2011 1:34:56 PM

@futureisnow - just so you know your auto-approve setting is on but a Scribble quirk is causing me to manually approve =/
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 1:35:20 PM

Q:If the water in the cooling pools cooked off and then was sprayed...Rinse repeat rinse repeat. The fuel being exposed to air would be like a sparkler of sorts. Wouldn't that make the water contamination/radiation level skyrocket due to the added particulate from burning and rinsing? A: According to the book someone posted here yesterday, the answer is a qualified yes. Fuel pellets form a roughly stable 0 mass transfer boundary across the cladding even during operation. There can be pinholes in the cladding which normally are of no concern. But, if the temperature of the pellet is changed rapidly, core water temp changes rapidly, and/or the pressure profile changes across the cladding then, core water flows into the pellet, then comes back out of the pellet carrying the dissolved fission products like cesium, iodine and strontium. Because of this, there is normally a spike in core water radioactivity when the reactor is shut down.
by NHK Listener 3/26/2011 1:36:59 PM

oh, Thanks. should I do something ? may be I need to relog ?
by futureisnow 3/26/2011 1:37:31 PM

@futureisnow Not sure - I'll investigate it more and put a ticket in if I can't resolve it.
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 1:39:31 PM

a thought that just occured to me, in the last couple of days... they began running the backup cooling system with replaced pumps on restored electricity could this not show up in the plumbing in the loop at the turbine?
by elise 3/26/2011 1:40:34 PM

had to reboot
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:41:55 PM

They say that the water in the pools have much higher radioactivity than what would normally be found in a operating reactor. Do thay mean as in normal coolant system (virtually nil), or as in reactor core? I don't know how to read that
by marie rich 3/26/2011 1:44:50 PM

ZAMG for the 26th is out www.zamg.ac.at
by kgriff 3/26/2011 1:47:26 PM

marie... the main thing is that there is more tonnage of fuel in the canal.. and in accidents we talk about "source term" ie: the total curie content.. .that correlates to the maximum amount of gamma, and air activity from an accident..
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:47:45 PM

as a hypothetical ... a reactor core can have 1000curie source term but the canal would have 4000 curies... and.. that fuel in the canal is at a much more mixed condition.. some elements have cooled to ony be generating 30 watts of power where they can handle them safetly.. and others that are just discharged from the reactor in an outage
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:49:36 PM

ok ... i just now get it, i think thanks
by marie rich 3/26/2011 1:50:52 PM

the source term for a reactor also depends on how long it has operated since the last startup from refueling... they measure operation in so many MEGAWATTS per day or MWD and then couple that with the burnup rate of the fuel to precisely know at any point what the source term is.. then in accidents those who track plumes etc will know a starting point for worst case...
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:53:04 PM

Seems apparent that they're playing catch-up. I wish I was more sure that they were now operating in a 'worst case' mindset.
by marie rich 3/26/2011 1:53:09 PM

I must go train for awhile and will be back
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:53:12 PM

bye, Dean
by marie rich 3/26/2011 1:53:41 PM

at those plants they must plan for the worst and then adjust for the present
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:53:51 PM

cya all
by Dean 3/26/2011 1:53:56 PM

Hello, Dean! I am happy to see you here. I guess I missed what you had to say though. Hope to catch you on here soon!
by borrrden 3/26/2011 1:53:57 PM

hi, borrden
by marie rich 3/26/2011 1:54:38 PM

Hello! Here is the latest WHO situation report. A lot more information has been added on food contamination and seawater contamination. www.wpro.who.int
by borrrden 3/26/2011 2:02:35 PM

QUESTION: I'm sure this has been asked ad-nauseam, but for a refresher: Worst case, if multiple reactors truly are leaking, and they melt through and completely fail, what is the worst scenario? It sounds as if Chernobyl numbers don't apply, so is the diameter of an 'exclusion zone' potentially larger or smaller than Chernobyl? I ask because there are a lot of people in the Tokyo area (including some family), and I'm sure they'd sleep easier if they knew the answer to that question. Is there any potential for Tokyo to be exposed to hourly radiation levels that are dangerous, or is the worst case more of a long-term food & water contamination problem?
by jay77 3/26/2011 2:05:32 PM

hi George been on for a while but i tend you watch and read and learn. Needless to say thank you for this as I am another person who is xtremely worried about this situation.
by fiona 3/26/2011 2:05:35 PM

@fiona I hear ya
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 2:06:46 PM

welcome back Borrrden (test to see if my auto approve work ;-) )
by futureisnow 3/26/2011 2:07:19 PM

@futureisnow yay its working
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 2:09:36 PM

@jay77 While there is probably no way to be certain, to me it seems very unlikely that those kinds of rates would be seen in Tokyo without a long period of buildup. I'm not sure on the exact statistics, but most of the deaths and sicknesses from Chernobyl were not from breathing radioactive air, but from eating contaminated food. Of course, the on site workers were sickened by the air, but they were on site. This article is by a hematologist who was one of the few doctors from the west to treat the victims on location. He said that many people tried to flee as far as 100km, but that turned out to be unnecessary. Tokyo is 240km away, so maybe you can take comfort in the fact that IF things are going to get bad, it will probably be from lack of fresh food or water and Tokyo should have fair warning. search.japantimes.co.jp
by borrrden 3/26/2011 2:11:11 PM

@George Just a big thank you for this. If you need any support please don't hesitate to ask.
by Dennis Tucker Jr 3/26/2011 2:11:26 PM

@Dennis Tucker Jr Thanks
by George Gibb 3/26/2011 2:12:15 PM

If you can read french, here's an interesting article about nuclear lobbying. it also states that the plant has had the highest rate of 'incidents'. (with 15 between 2005-2009).
by nestor 3/26/2011 2:14:33 PM