Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 844

Tenzing, theory only, the yellow containment cap is either in the building where the big hole was seen or, is in the SFP or some lower part of the building. what's your thoughts
by dean 4/25/2011 8:38:09 PM

@carabnr 20 days of 154 TBq/day is 3,080TBq since the 5th (if constant). Sounds big. But in the same article it said estimates are up to 630,000 TBq since the beginning of the incident. So, to me, that's the bigger deal.
by jay 4/25/2011 8:40:10 PM

Im gonna call Steve Wing and see if he has any ideas to help us think about protecting ourselves, from an epidemiological perspective it sounds like it will be very difficult to make changes in our lives that will protect us but through civil action we may be able to reduce our risk of exposure, cancer and genetic mutation.
by carabnr 4/25/2011 8:44:06 PM

tenzing.. interesting.. listen to the tape really close of the explosion of #3 reactor and tell me how many explosions you hear
by dean 4/25/2011 8:44:28 PM

Well Dean, when I consider the size of the containment cap I'm not sure it would fit inside the SPF, would it? and due to its size and color its easy to identify IF its in one piece. I'm wondering if it is in one piece or if it was blown apart in the last explosion. IF is was blow apart - that changes everything, from where I sit . . .
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 8:44:55 PM

@dean thats an easy answer I've always heard 3 how about you?
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 8:45:34 PM

@RBean List of Busby peer-reviewed publications. en.wikipedia.org
by Bobby1 4/25/2011 8:47:11 PM

@dean will you take a look at this article and share your thoughts on this opinion, please and thank you :) www.lucaswhitefieldhixson.com
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 8:50:24 PM

@ Tenzing - discussed that article with Nancy earlier today -she dismisses it on the basis of the photos
by UKVal 4/25/2011 8:53:03 PM

Hi UKVal I know she did and I respectfully disagree with Nancy, what are your thoughts?
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 8:54:25 PM

@UKVal Take a quick look at this site... I have found NOTHING that he did that was in any way peer reviewed, so I relegate him to a charlatan. is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.
If you or others can find any claim to scientific reality for Chris Busby, I will accede. But otherwise this guy (and Infowars) has no place in any factual discussion....
by RBean 4/25/2011 8:54:42 PM

@all Busby has an opinion and as is the right of every person he is allowed to voice it . However this is the news/techi board and maybe unless we are debating those theories we should let it go? . Nobody knows what is happening at Daiichi so lets just stick to the facts as we know them
by elainekirk 4/25/2011 8:54:55 PM

@ Tenzing -another issue on which I'm keeping an open mind -along with the object that landed on the roof of 4
by UKVal 4/25/2011 8:55:22 PM

The video below has the best sound quality I can find fro the explosion of Unit 3
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 8:55:56 PM

@UKVal If you find any photos of Unit 4 prior to the last explosion of unit 3 grab them!!!!
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 8:56:39 PM

@ Elaine -whoops sorry- convo arose out of comments Jim made here
by UKVal 4/25/2011 8:56:41 PM

@UKVal an open mind is essential in order to learn. not possible to fill a cup thats already full :)
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 8:57:39 PM

answering question in other board.. be back in a min
by dean 4/25/2011 8:58:11 PM

@ukval I was just worried it could cause friction I was half thinking Ed Bal;ls was gonna join in and we don't want him on here ;)
by elainekirk 4/25/2011 8:58:25 PM

a@ Tenzing -will do I'd love to find 1. as I think there may have been 2 explosions at 3 & we only have data for 1. @ Elaine - point taken - I diidn't want to continue a pointless debate on Busby anyway. No Ed Ball please...
by UKVal 4/25/2011 9:00:36 PM

I hear 3 also Tenzing so, arned with that.. how does the group explain 3 possible explosions
by dean 4/25/2011 9:01:16 PM

When I siad 2 I meant on 2 separate occasions with some time interval between them
by UKVal 4/25/2011 9:03:04 PM

At what distance from the power plant was the camera that took the footage of 3 going pop.
by Treiagonaut 4/25/2011 9:05:22 PM

they have done on the photos and showing 3 D images ect. should weigh in on their thoughts for that link.. nancy, elaine, marie .. to agree that much of the vessel was blown apart
by dean 4/25/2011 9:07:27 PM

@UKVal There is an open mind , no stop, what is an open mind? It is open to all possible bullshit around you.... No I have a closed mind. In order to get in, you have to have scientific basis. If you hear hooves, think horses.
by RBean 4/25/2011 9:08:08 PM

@ RBean -I'm not going to reply Elaine has asked for this debate to cease on this site
by UKVal 4/25/2011 9:11:12 PM

Tenzing I think he is wrong but only because I haven't been able to prove what he says as true. I personally think he is taking the explosion a little too far but, the magnitude of that explosion I believe was triggered by a prompt criticality with the resultant huge energy burst which was amplified by subsequent blasts of which in total may have blown the yellow cap to bits and lifted the top head of the vessel to the point of leaking.
by dean 4/25/2011 9:11:50 PM

@dean something went wrong very wrong and if there wasnt a major rupture or similar then we would surely have had another big bang
by elainekirk 4/25/2011 9:12:07 PM

@ Dean makes sense. Also fits with Jo Lindien's comments about criticality outside the RPV
by UKVal 4/25/2011 9:12:45 PM

has anybody looked at the seismic data tepco published that I posted a few mins ago? there are 2 docs one is 'revised' is there anything in there which would indicate the state of those buildings after a mach 9 (bearing in mind that tepco assured us within mins of the quake that nothing was damaged) I just think if we can judge to a degree whether any were more vulnerable or may have sustained hairlines etc then it may help build the picture
by elainekirk 4/25/2011 9:14:41 PM

yes elaine and UK , look up the affects from a BWR prompt critical accident, it happens in small fractions of seconds, released an uncontrolled fission chain reaction and a huge release of energy (usually measure in MW-SEC) which would be in equivalency to xxxtons of TNT, then probably the building explosion and sub level explosion perhaps in the torus ...
by dean 4/25/2011 9:17:54 PM

Dean I think we agree - I'm trying to keep my mind open to all possibilities - I'm seriously considering the top head of the vessel may indeed be beyond leaking.
by Tenzing 4/25/2011 9:24:03 PM

elaine I think maybe their thoughts were.. we don't see any damage because the explosions blew every thing to smitherines..
by dean 4/25/2011 9:24:35 PM

Are you talking about the March 22 event? www.jaif.or.jp
by Ralph Unger 4/25/2011 9:25:07 PM

I've thought for some time.. gee,, those photo's don't show the cover plate, the concrete cap and I'm not even sure if the top head of the vessel is there.. but.. has ANYONE seen evidence up to now that the top head of the reactor vessel is still in tack.. other than the IR images?
by dean 4/25/2011 9:26:07 PM