Japan Earthquake | Page 833

  • #3 nuclear blast ?

    by Edano 4/24/2011 10:16:49 PM

  • @Jim Carver Speeling / language packs come from office or word
    by VeenOui 4/24/2011 10:18:18 PM

  • @e123....the real question is if this is the same as Chernobyl (its not, though if it was resolved today you could make that argument), or really if its a C this is worse by a bit than Chernobyl (which is 25 years old, almost to the day), what are the odds that we go another 25 years without "D" happenning, or whatever "E" would be for that matter.
    by wrshpr 4/24/2011 10:19:15 PM

  • @VeenOui O they do. In Linux they're compiled into the kernel. Another reason why windoes sucks.
    by Jim Carver 4/24/2011 10:20:20 PM

  • Cold Fusion on the boil again? A timely re-appearence from Jan this year - latest kid on the block is called Energy Catalyzer. Apparently already working. Another 'false dawn', or the much-needed Holy Grail for our energy woes? en.wikipedia.org

    All sounds plausible to me, but then I'm no physicist.
    by Paul 4/24/2011 10:26:33 PM

  • @edano nuclear blast?? Isn't this going a little too far with speculations? If that was a nuclear blast it would have released massive amounts of radiation that if the Japanese authorities concealed, another institute across the world would have measured, plus the fallout from the reactor. The radiation would have been massive to go unnoticed. One can reasonably tell that the shape of the plume is defined by the building external structure (pretty reinforced thus forcing the explosion burst upwards) and as to where the hydrogen was concentrated at the time of the explosion. It looks more like pulverized concrete to me...
    by talisker 4/24/2011 10:29:16 PM

  • @talisker Not necessarily if it was a small event and most of the fuel didn't leave the reactor. What I have seen speculated is a criticality event combined with hydrogen, probably not as "spectacular" as claiming is was a nuclear explosion where everyone thinks nuclear bomb. There are a number of things that are sort of leaning towards some sort of criticality being involved but likely not the sole source of the incident.
    by Nancy 4/24/2011 10:33:09 PM

  • still can't believe that tepco throws bolts into the drywell (maybe even into the core ?). no mechanic or surgeon or anyone can work like that. it is a shame. but it will be the same all around the world. shut down the darn nukes ! obviously they cannot be managed properly.
    by Edano 4/24/2011 10:34:02 PM

  • Measuring Radiation A practicable guide. www.counterpunch.org
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 10:34:33 PM

  • @Edano One would expect a more organized process where you would not have parts falling into a reactor. Mis-steps do happen even in an operating room but there are usually lots of things in place to try to prevent accidents. What I can't decide is if all of these oddities we are finding add up to sloppy work or are just so foreign to the rest of us because we have an assumption in our minds of how things would be done in a plant?
    by Nancy 4/24/2011 10:36:53 PM

  • TEPCO aren't unique in dropping things into reactors: also in Japan at Monju fast breeder reactor on 26 August 2010, a 3.3-tonne "In‐Vessel Transfer Machine" fell into the reactor vessel when being removed after a scheduled fuel replacement operation. from Wikipedia
    by UKVal 4/24/2011 10:38:05 PM

  • sadly: On February 14, the dead body of a 57 year-old man who was in charge of the fuel environment of FBR prototype Monju (280MW) was found in the mountains of Tsuruga City, Fukui Prefecture. He went missing on the 13th and it is presumed that he committed suicide. He was in charge of recovering a relay device that accidentally fell into the core of Monju's nuclear reactor. Also at Monju, after the 1995 sodium leak and fire accident responsibility for falsified reports fell on a public relations executive, who then committed suicide.
    CNIC newswatch 141 March/April 2011 cnic.jp
    by UKVal 4/24/2011 10:39:14 PM

  • @Nancy : in chernobyl they said ah those stupid russians. but this is japan and a US containment. there are standards and safety protocols i would assume. you cannot say "shit happens". the system is wrong when things like this happen.
    by Edano 4/24/2011 10:40:23 PM

  • @UKVal : hhhmmmp.
    by Edano 4/24/2011 10:42:21 PM

  • @Edano The flaws in the Mark 1 have been known for decades. There are people and companies who have dropped the ball along the way that lead up to this mess. People who made bad designs, those that approved them and re-approved them. People who decided money was more important than safety procedures. The Russian reactor didn't have containment and had flaws of its own that contributed to the problems.
    by Nancy 4/24/2011 10:44:03 PM

  • @ Edano - you're right. After Chernobyl the tendency was to see it as solely a USSR probelm -outdated technology, USSR inefficiency etc. The more I research the more I agree that no nuke plant opearator can be relied on. In the UK in Feb this year there was a LOCA at 1 plant & a leak at another - as far as we know both were minor, but nothing I read inspires any confidence in nuclear safety
    by UKVal 4/24/2011 10:45:46 PM

  • I love these two designs and I think they could be safe. HTR-10 nad HTR-PM. "In 2004, the small HTR-10 reactor was subject to an extreme test of its safety when the helium circulator was deliberately shut off without the reactor being shut down. The temperature increased steadily, but the physics of the fuel meant that the reaction progressively diminished and eventually died away over three hours. At this stage a balance between decay heat in the core and heat dissipation through the steel reactor wall was achieved, the temperature never exceeded a safe 1600°C, "
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 10:48:58 PM

  • 1600C is huge, but if it is designed for it it is much better then a BWR at 300C.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 10:50:25 PM

  • @Nancy One can tell that such a blast could not have possibly left the drywell/RPV unaffected as they say. But if the RPV was breached so badly from an internal blast, I think we would be seeing these guys pouring concrete in there rather than try to water it.
    by talisker 4/24/2011 10:52:27 PM

  • docs.google.com foriegn objects retrieved from sfp #6 Nov '10
    by elainekirk 4/24/2011 10:54:16 PM

  • see below

    by elainekirk 4/24/2011 10:55:04 PM

  • @ Ralph - I guess that design could be safer - but I have increasing difficulty in believing reports from those with a substantial investment in proving a design is safe. Witness the controversy over thorium designs
    by UKVal 4/24/2011 10:55:24 PM

  • @Tal Concrete? That would cause everything to heat up hugely! No water circulation would cause heat to blow it up in a few minutes. With a huge heat source, until it is coled down, it cannot be encased in concrete.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 10:56:04 PM

  • IIRC thorium designs are dismissed only because they are not made out of bomb style nuke materials, that is the investment that might be hurting.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 10:58:23 PM

  • There are plenty of fuels out there that cannot go critical, even in a worse case scenario, with no cooling,we just do not use them. They are not a part of the old nuke industry which was made to make bombs.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:04:45 PM

  • @ Ralph www.ieer.org
    by UKVal 4/24/2011 11:04:50 PM

  • @talisker The cap is still on the RPV but leaking out the gasket. Ralph explained why they can't dump in concrete yet
    by Nancy 4/24/2011 11:04:56 PM

  • @Ralph Unger I found some articles on Thorium reactors, will have to go find them again. One gave a good unbiased view of the pros and cons. Much of the articles out there are by people who are extremely pro-thorium and have left out some critical information on thorium reactor flaws and accidents.
    by Nancy 4/24/2011 11:06:26 PM

  • Ty UK lemme check the fuel I was talking about. BRB.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:06:30 PM

  • All I can find is lower levels of enrichment for typical fuels already used. My bad .
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:08:16 PM

  • Still at it though....
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:08:40 PM

  • re article I posted below -sorry pressed enter too quick. I haven't researched thorium extensively, but that article suggests drawbacks
    by UKVal 4/24/2011 11:09:35 PM

  • I read it and it is only useful with normal fuels .
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:10:41 PM

  • I think the articles I read about thorium might have been about a blend.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:11:22 PM

  • Still any fuel that cannot ever go critical is OK by me. Even without external cooling and people working on it. That is not as efficient, but look at the cost of mistakes.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:12:56 PM

  • I hate to say it. but we need Nike power. In the future, that might not be the case. I just want it to be done as safely as possible.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:14:29 PM

  • "Nuke Power" :-)
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:14:57 PM

  • @Ralph sorry I didn't elaborate on my comment, what I meant is that if a core was exposed we would see much more drastic actions taken. They would need to keep the temp cooling going and start reconstructing parts of the building around to prevent massive release of radiation. In the pictures from the time of the incident, workers don't seem to be wearing any heavy armors.
    by talisker 4/24/2011 11:15:00 PM

  • The workers are disposable. Did you not read these articles? "Radioactive Zirconium Found At Fukushima Confirms Exposed Fuel Rods As High Level Radiation Emitted From Broken Core" As to workers..."Should Japan Bank Stem Cells From Fukushima Nuclear Workers?" Kinda says it all..http://www.worldhealthconnection.com/should-japan-bank-stem-cells-from-fukushima-nuclear-workers/993353/
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:18:48 PM

  • "Radioactive Zirconium Found At Fukushima Confirms Exposed Fuel Rods As High Level Radiation Emitted From Broken Core" gramercyimages.com
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:19:50 PM

  • @Ralph Unger : they always say it is safe, no way to go critical. nothing new, until it happens. and it is not done safely, as we can see. we have old reactors and until we are able to build a "safer generation" (wasn't mark1 a safer generation?) we will find new flaws instead of investing all the money in the right thing. stop this nonsense technology immediately ! it is a worldwide criminal supporting cicle, break it !
    by Edano 4/24/2011 11:20:21 PM

  • Maps On Radiation Levels Around Crippled Nuclear Plant To Be Compiled

    TOKYO —
    The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology will compile maps showing the extent of air and soil contamination as part of government efforts to enhance the monitoring of radiation levels and reevaluate evacuation zones around the crippled nuclear plant.

    Three kinds of maps will be released to show on-the-spot radiation levels, estimated levels of accumulated radiation over one year and the levels of radioactive concentration in surface soil, the ministry said.

    Monitoring spots will be added and more equipment installed to measure radiation levels and the concentration of such radioactive materials as iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137, according to the ministry. Monitoring frequency will also be increased.

    The first two maps will be made public by the end of this month with plans to release them twice monthly thereafter, the ministry said, adding that releasing soil contamination maps would take more time because more time is needed to analyze relevant data.

    Monitoring within the evacuation zone covering a 20-kilometer radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been and will be conducted mostly through aerial surveys.
    by Reed 4/24/2011 11:22:43 PM

  • by Reed 4/24/2011 11:23:16 PM

  • But nuke energy is highly dense, a few pounds can make as much energy as many tonnes of coal. I think it can be done in a safe manner, but only by governments, not private industries given a lack of liability by their governments. So if they screw up, like TEPCO, the government and the people have to pay the costs.
    by Ralph Unger 4/24/2011 11:23:53 PM

  • @Edano I have been working on running down some source on criticality and explosions. One thing I found interesting was a mention of ionizing radiation making a blue glow that looks like a Cherenkov glow. It was saying that episodes of criticality would make that glow. So we may have a few things going on. We see the blue glow and sometimes multiples at night and there are a few images that have the sparkly dots marie explained as another form of ionizing radiation meaning there is something still in some manner having fission.
    by Nancy 4/24/2011 11:24:25 PM

Japan Earthquake | Page 833

Who's Blogging
  • hudebnikhudebnik
  • albleealblee
  • UKValUKVal
  • Oliver (ScribbleLive)Oliver (ScribbleLive)
  • Jonathan KeeblerJonathan Keebler
  • kaykodhkaykodh
  • PKelleyPKelley
  • MarkfmMarkfm
  • AngieAngie
  • DebDeb
  • Mid ValleyMid Valley
  • Pedro Jesus
  • Matt (ScribbleLive)Matt (ScribbleLive)
  • George GibbGeorge Gibb
  • elainekirkelainekirk
  • lillymunsterlillymunster
  • deandean
  • bobo
  • EdanoEdano
  • IanGoddardIanGoddard