
Sinthia.. the fuel elements where I worked are much smaller in size but, if an operator pulled one out of the core at outage conditions it would read somewhere in the neighbor hood of 1,000,000 REM... so they haven't probed deep enough into the facility to find the extreme rad levels
by dean 4/23/2011 7:20:06 PM

@Nancy so the centre of gravity is wrong ? so that shows that the work wasnt done , another one that may not be as easy to solve is roof brackets many moons ago it was found that roof brackets needed installing if I can find a diagram would you be able to say if there was evidence of them?
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 7:21:45 PM

I think if another big EQ were to occur those huge masses that are damaged in the buildings and surrounded by air would have a much greater likelyhood of swaying and moving which could fail the structure and change the configuration, lets assume.. if.. they had water around them that would dampen the affects from the ground motion affect of the EQ ..
by dean 4/23/2011 7:29:22 PM

just thinking is all
by dean 4/23/2011 7:30:16 PM

I was looking around and found these abstracts posting them because Daiichi #3 was used
sciencelinks.jp and in accident conditions
sciencelinks.jpby elainekirk 4/23/2011 7:31:44 PM

@Nancy what interests me is that #1 + #2 at Hamaoko are comparable to Daichi but they are decommissioning them as the cost of meeting quake safety measures as a result of the findings from the seismology , geological research that gop ordered each plant to do in '06 and strengthened in '07 after the quake was not cost viable and yet daiichi dont meet chubu standards but claim they met the criteria
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 7:36:42 PM

@Nancy @dean may be able to help
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 7:38:03 PM

@Nancy chubu have an article I will find it
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 7:39:52 PM

elaine that's like saying they don't meet the requirements but the meet the intent of the requirements and that flies in some things..
by dean 4/23/2011 7:39:55 PM

good link Sinthia
by dean 4/23/2011 7:41:24 PM

@Nancy Chubu's press release
www.chuden.co.jpby elainekirk 4/23/2011 7:43:09 PM

From post-test examinations of the failed fuel, it was found that the crack in the BWR cladding progressed in a manner different from the one in PWR cladding failed in earlier tests, owing to its more randomly oriented hydride distribution. Because of theses differences, the BWR fuel was judged to have failed at hydrogen contents lower than those of the PWR fuel. Comparison of the test results with code calculations revealed that the PCMI failure was caused by thermal expansion of pellets, rather than by the fission gas expansion in the pellets. The gas expansion, however, was found to cause large cladding hoop deformation later after the cladding temperature escalated.
by dean 4/23/2011 7:47:23 PM

Nancy.. first off.. pwr versus bwr with different operating parameters and fabrication of fuel pellets... in a cold startup reactivity accident the fission process has not progressed long enough to have built up internal pressures acting on the cladding to have caused failure,,, however, the temperature affects have from the reactivity accident pulse which fails the cladding .
by dean 4/23/2011 7:49:50 PM

as time goes on in operation the fission gasses build with-in the pellet cladding and act on the walls to cause failure/cracking to relieve pressure
by dean 4/23/2011 7:51:19 PM

james... would you say that is true for completely filling every room , every space including the main building, in the containmet, torus.. I mean every space so that there is no pressure difference from space to space other that that created by the heat from the core which would be covered.. then.. as shock waves traveled and acted upon the walls of the building.. which are partly underground , wouldn't that enegy be dampened by the volume of water acting against the walls
by dean 4/23/2011 7:54:59 PM

This may be me showing my ignorance but near the bottom of column 1 'a high active waste silo' the description of the concrete block flying.......
books.google.co.uk not only is it similar to #3 but there will be seawater in the underground storage at daichi?
by elainekirk 4/23/2011 7:55:23 PM

I understand what your talking about on the naval vessels
by dean 4/23/2011 7:55:50 PM

it's like having a huge body of water housed with concrete.... with the enclosure empty an EQ occurs and there would be nothing to counter the ground motion affects acting on the concrete wallls.. now.. fill it with water seems to me the damage would be less ... if there were structure above grade like the buildings we all see topple.. then they may fall ... but in fukushima .. didn't the walls in all but 2 crash down from the explosions.. .
by dean 4/23/2011 7:58:53 PM