Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 917

@ Ralph Unger now thepool is leaking but this report is dated 2010. Its a translation and reads strangely but I think it says "fuel leak since 2004 in#4 SPF." It is possible I misunderstood translate.googleusercontent.com
by ch 5/1/2011 1:34:25 AM

That is the same data as www.iaea.org
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:36:18 AM

@Ralph Unger For effective evaluation of sample radioactivity vs. dose rate, you need to know the method and depth of sampling and the method, type of radiation and height of radiation reading. Also air sampling (sucking/filtration) must be performed if airborne radioactivity (gas + particulate) if hot air is possible. Otherwise the data is impossible to correlate. "dust" sampling may simply be a wipe of the surface, just sayin
by RBeaner 5/1/2011 1:36:33 AM

You just sayin the truth, Agreed RB.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:37:24 AM

@ch Elaine posted that a few days ago. I deciphered it as saying that two fuel leaks have occurred in Unit 4 SFP, one discovered in 2006 and the other in 2008, to fuel rods which have been sitting in the pool since 2004. I have no idea whether this is normal - it seems a similar event may have occured in SFP 2, according to Elaine's findings.
by es 5/1/2011 1:39:12 AM

Another way that safety systems contribute to dangerous accidents is by making highly interactive systems even more complex, creating more chances for a failure to occur, and more ways for it to spread. Complex systems like airplanes and nuclear power plants are non-linear. They are set up so that thousands of components interact quickly, in various sequences, with many other components, and in many combinations. Failures in these types of systems – even trivial ones – can propagate throughout the systems, triggering problems in seemingly unrelated areas, and making the systems act in incomprehensible and unanticipated ways. Sometimes, these trivial failures begin in systems added for safety or redundancy, and lead to much larger problems elsewhere. In fact, this is what initiated the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979.
www.themarknews.com
by Rob in SF 5/1/2011 1:39:44 AM

@RB Any questions answered by your "New " info? I agree with you about the cascade effect, but in this case the mistakes were seen many years before the accident.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:41:29 AM

@es ty I had read #2 report also. Just wondered if leak has been ongoing, how contaminated is the water before this mess even started
/
by ch 5/1/2011 1:42:35 AM

Mr. Kan’s remarks before Parliament on Saturday were an indication of how much pressure the government is under as it tries to dispute those criticisms and to determine what to do not only about the most contaminated land around the plant, but also about towns outside the evacuation zone that are reporting relatively high levels of radiation.

Any decision about the levels of permissible exposure could force expensive soil cleanups — inflating the already staggering estimates of how much money it will take to rebuild from the natural disasters, a figure already set at $300 billion. But it could also help determine how much land in this densely populated country is ruled uninhabitable.

The calculus is complicated by the fears of farmers and fishermen in the region, who worry that continued talk of high radiation will destroy consumers’ faith in their goods, and their livelihoods.
www.nytimes.com
by Rob in SF 5/1/2011 1:45:10 AM

www.fudousan-kanteishi.or.jp
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:45:20 AM

by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:51:23 AM

@ch Yes, and it'd be good to know whether similar damage to SF rods has been reported in other plants elsewhere, and if so what they're doing about the problem. But it seems there's definitely all sorts that shouldn't be in that #4 SFP, and not just recent building debris.
by es 5/1/2011 1:55:30 AM

Notably not here on the #4 plant status. atmc.jp
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 1:59:07 AM

for all the reactors in japan that were shaken by the earthquakes and still remain up.. their power level should be lowered and the earth quake setpoints should be reduced to 75% or so of what currently set... this downgrade should be initiated immediation and continue until an independent seismic walkdown and inspection is performed.
by dean 5/1/2011 2:00:12 AM

immediately*
by dean 5/1/2011 2:00:45 AM

And that would make us all safe by? Making all plants dependent on outside power?
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:01:31 AM

for all reactors now down.. the same goes for the setpoints until the inspection is done and the seismic should be done before restart
by dean 5/1/2011 2:01:43 AM

Yeah! I think they have done that already though.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:02:25 AM

interim steps Ralph,, with graded approach to regaining power.. .
by dean 5/1/2011 2:02:38 AM

I don't think they have,,, those plants are huge and piping all over.. the pipe hangers and seismic restraints should all be check I think
by dean 5/1/2011 2:03:23 AM

Did I miss the part where they shut down all the plants because of the quake?
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:03:31 AM

I don't think all plants shutdown through the earthquakes or the after shocks... just depended on where they were
by dean 5/1/2011 2:04:11 AM

Yep just most of them.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:04:28 AM

its a profitability thing to me
by dean 5/1/2011 2:04:32 AM

in a commercial power plant it would take a long time to complete the walkdown analysis correctly
by dean 5/1/2011 2:05:02 AM

A tornado shut down one of our plants (thank God) and thet is SOP.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:05:07 AM

And we now know that a shutdown takes 2 years. I am not amusesed.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:07:04 AM

right Ralph
by dean 5/1/2011 2:08:53 AM

@dean, i agrered with you 75% PP drossel....question, the last EQ, can you lay a map over to see if there is another reactor on epicenter ?
by Veen Oui 5/1/2011 2:10:42 AM

Nuke plants cannot get insurance without GOV coverage. en.wikipedia.org
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:13:17 AM

TEPCO says that no one could foresee this disaster, but all the nay-sayers and geologists say it was gonna happen. The Japanese have a good history of their land. LOL TEPCO is gonna be toast!
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:17:33 AM

projects.washingtonpost.com TOP SECRET AMERICA
by dean 5/1/2011 2:18:00 AM

Gunderson said in his video that H2 cannot undergo detonation, but that didn't sit very well with me, so I found this: "In this paper, the dangers of even a small such leak becoming premixed
is illustrated on a medium scale vessel where mixtures well below stoichiometric levels
can produce detonation events in localised areas." www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/icders/cd-rom/.../171_20TH.PDF
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 2:20:28 AM

Jim , His point was about the level of the reaction, not that it happened.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:21:34 AM

H2 could make a big boom. but that big? I think he is wrong, but I have not the data to support my opinions.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:22:41 AM

YEH Jim and remember he was talking about detonations verses defragations. or what every it was
by dean 5/1/2011 2:23:08 AM

@Ralph Unger He said hydrogen doesn't detonate because it creates water. Just about everything that detonates produces water as a by-product.
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 2:23:27 AM

Huh? TNT creates water?
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:23:58 AM

I thoght I understood his opinion that hydrogen explosion would not have created the fire ball .. but a prompt critical accident would
by dean 5/1/2011 2:24:07 AM

@Ralph Unger There are lots of things that will screw TEPCO. Like having 5 & 6 built on much higher land. 5 & 6 have outer concrete bracing on the building. Hamaoka decomissioned their 2 indentical mark one units a few years ago because they required expensive updates to make them earthquake proof. TEPCO did disaster drills based on a 5.0 earthquake.
by Nancy 5/1/2011 2:24:11 AM

It is acceptance of fault by default Nancy.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:24:54 AM

@Ralph Unger @dean That's right. Ralph anything with hydrogen that oxidyzes produces water.
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 2:25:07 AM

The red flash did not involve water though.
by Ralph Unger 5/1/2011 2:25:35 AM

That means anything hydrocarbon based.
by Jim Carver 5/1/2011 2:26:02 AM

nancy.. I say pull back the extensions of all mark 1's and do what I mentioned about lowering the EQ scram point and perform the seismic. check the pipe seismic supports, and spring hangers etc.. before restart
by dean 5/1/2011 2:26:41 AM