ScribbleLive

From Elaine's link, yep that does not give me any peace of mind. Add to the statement that the few reports that were required were frequently falsified.


Japan

In Japan the regulatory authority is the Ministry of International Trade and Industries
(MITI). The operational licence for a NPP is granted for an indefinite period. There is no
specific regulatory point of view, therefore no specific regulatory process is in place for
plant life extension. A periodical inspection system is defined, and a nuclear power plant
is shut down yearly to undergo annual inspections before approval to operate for another
year. MITI endorses the safety of a plant as long as it meets the safety standards at the
time. Nuclear power plants can continue to operate as long as the operator can prove
annually that the plant can operate safely for one more year. In addition, periodical
safety review shall be conducted at each plant at approximately 10-year intervals.

In 1996, MITI has launched a program to provide a conceptual framework by which the
integrity of ageing nuclear power plants are examined and addressed, using three plants
that have been in operation since 1970/71 (Mihama 1, Tsuruga 1 and Fukushima Daiichi-
1) as pilot projects. This programme assumes that the plants will operate for 60 years.
(IAEA 2002)

Have the earthquake page of TEPCO known testing and retrofits online. Will likely continue to add to it as we find more related information. www.houseoffoust.com

@elainekirk I plan on keeping that page going (adding to it) as we find more info related to the actual things at Fuku and also the larger related repairs at other plants. Right now it is just so glaring that TEPCO just didn't care at all about upgrading Fukushima. The things that really mattered were not even being talked about. They did easy cheap things, just enough to look like they did something. As far as the tsunami protection they ignored the obvious that their protection was too low and there was a higher tsunami 9 years before they built the plant. Something else that has me wondering. How far down is bedrock? There was a specific statement about Hamaoka being down to bedrock and that it added to stability. I guess I assumed a NPP would be anchored down to bedrock because it is so big and heavy. Are the units at FUKU not anchored down into the bedrock?

I start seeing a bit on the live stream. On my screen it looks like 2 is steaming again, but I don't know if I see it correctly.

@ll Just doing some reading on Dr. Jacobs book this afternoon. Very interesting for what might seem a dry subject. Should be an enlightening evening tomorrow and I hope everyone can join us.

@radioguy I have not received any reply. If anyone hears from George please let us know.

Fourteen and a half Elaine.

Wow...LOT of steam from R3... it almost looks like there's flickering light in the clouds, but with a long shot like this, there are so many places that could creep in. Of course, between the Chinese dust and the dew point being at close to fog already, as we see from the other cam still, it's hard to make much of it, except that's a lot of steam coming from R3.

@elainekirk timeanddate.com Great for time zone conversion.

@elainekirk common pool would be to the right of 4

@radioguy I can't tell with all the fog. If that is steam coming out of 3 there is a ton of it. Should be able to see something on teppycam at the top of the hour if it is 3.

@Edano last inside photos were that last mini drone and that was weeks ago

Here one:
www.youtube.com

and though we are so arrogant to believe we can control nuclear reactions. in fact, we don't know anything. it's just trial and error. fuku is error.

@Edano I'm not against it for research purposes though.

@Edano Yes, and I'm not against Pu for power in space. Just better make damn sure it achieves escape velocity though.