ScribbleLive

@kb sure could.

BBC TV News frequently features Malcolm Grimston of Chatham House (you can Google his credentials) as a guest "nuclear expert" in their coverage of the situation. He mentioned tonight that every day that goes by sees a reduced risk of the situation worsening due to the fact that the nuclear fuel is decaying. Being that this is therefore what the UK public at large is being led to believe, can anyone here comment on his assertion?

@kb It would not explain the 1st test results (10hr delay, huge amounts of I-134, not possible. Has to be a measurement or approximation error). As for chugging, I'm not so up-to-speed on the specifics so I can't comment.

@futureisnow without a pretty good understand of material chemistry all of this information is useless to the general population. The constant switch of radiation units (why are we measuring Sieverts?!?!) and the lack of explaining methods behind results, coupled with bad reporting, this is becoming quite a mess for the general public to follow anything.

question.. 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?

Answer
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.

@Patrick Kelley I agree. And many of these processes are under conditions not fully known (pressure, temps, exact chemical mix inside the reactors and/or PCV), because of instrumentation malfunctions. It's a guessing game and I guess it's the same for Tepco people.

@highlander this was true during the first few days of decay, the decay rates are very, very slow now (almost identical) you won't see huge decay rates on the isotopes that have long half-lifes. Everyone is focusing on I-131 (half life ~8 days) and the really bad stuff is the stuff that won't decay for centuries.

Musing: I wonder if TEPCO is up-to-date enough to have given detailed plans of the plant to some of those genius 3D modelers so they can make models to move a robot blind.

@Jill: The second sentence means 'but they imply a significant amount of emissions in the order of magnitude we reported'.. i.e. they're saying based on the low but measurable amount measured in Hawaii/California Fukushima must have emitted a lot of fallout.

If we are just discussing half baked conspiracy theories, how about this one: No. 3 reactor is in fact not only "damaged", but it's totally wasted. The explosion we saw was an indication of very swift pressure relief, not an hydrogen detonation like No. 1 reactor. The containment and the Reactor Pressure Vessel have both exploded. For optical confirmation, look at www.youtube.com (4:50 minutes) and www.youtube.com (00:09 minutes), both times at the left side of the picture, than compare the round structure from the videos with this 9VUIo.jpg (delete the space before the "9"!). So, now my theory is out there. It`s likely to be hogwash, becasue the reactor vessel must be located in the midst of the building and the height isn't on one level with the SFP. But hey, the building exploded, after all. *Flame away*

Thanks. What about the " not of IMMEDIATE concern for health" - they don

@Patrick Kelley if you say plutonium or iodin, it's better than pu294 or others thing. I would like also that everyone use uSV for microsiverts, and not mSv which is the same than mSv, but for micro or milli. In fact, these have gave us 2 big mistakes, publicly, live, in NHK. And may be in Tepco. The best we can do for people to understand, the better they will trust the nuclear industry. For now, that industry, and all the "Agencies for safety", blablabla use terms and scales and symbols which CAN't be understood by people. for their safety ? or for their "ignorance"?

@George Gibb - Thanks, I have been following the news stories closely, that's why his statement didn't compute imho. I wondered if I was missing something. His message was very much one of reassurance, broadcast on the BBC News channel. Even the newsreader seemed relieved.

@Patrick Kelley - thank you.

Question : As a follower of this site & previous Reuters - mentioned saltwater evaporation rate as leaving 30 grams per liter , how deep aprox. might the salt residue be on the interior components ??

@radioguy thank you, I know, but not for the 26th

quick fact-
Sievert is "absorbed dose" and is based on the particles being close to you (not on or in)

@timme Thanks for the link to that. So, the camera is able to "withstand irradiation dose up to 2 x 108 RAD without sacrificing video quality." Good enough for this work?

@timme 10 to the 8th

Iodine will give you thyroid cancer and plutonium decays to uranium which is alpha again and is dangerous when inhaled.

@future I've taken that suggestion to heart myself. I wish the written press would.

Morning / Noon everyone,......seems like there is no news since i passed out ?..
Just checked online and they revised the 10 Mil to 100.000 over limit ?