Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1095

@hudebnik I wonder if it can explain the fact that reactor #2 and building #4 exploded at almost the same time. This mystery has eluded me.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 7:39:40 AM

@bo - the lag between info in Japanese and English is very noticeable
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:39:53 AM

@Bobby 1 - could just be chance, the circumstances in the various building were very different
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:41:12 AM

@hudebnik I know, and it might be meaningless, still strange though. Tepco says #4 exploded at 6:00 AM Mar 14, but the Teppycam shows it intact at the time. #2 exploded at 6:10. So that is less than 10 minutes difference.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 7:43:06 AM

@hudebnik that is very true on all accounts. I'm actually impressed that the RT folks have stayed on the story, and it doesn't appear to just be the possible contamination of the Russian east that is driving them, the producers I talk to seem to feel that the story is far from over and may deteriorate.
by bo 5/11/2011 7:43:13 AM

@Bobby1 very interesting. Do you know of any way that the explosions could be materially related?
by bo 5/11/2011 7:43:45 AM

@bo Can't think of any. The neutrons emitted in a criticality explosion in #4 would have been absorbed by the structural materials in the buildings.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 7:45:02 AM

@bo - well bravo for RT! It is hard to stay on a longterm story because the resource implications are substantial - for example for Reuters to maintain a fully moderated blog (and theirs would have had to have been fully modded as they are a primary news source) would have needed 5 fulltime staff to cover it.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:46:14 AM

@hudebnik, well what Reuters couldn't do, we can. Fortunately.
by bo 5/11/2011 7:46:55 AM

@Bobby1 well could the force from one explosion jolt a "fragile" situation of some sort in the other? Triggering an explosion that may have been somewhat imminent anyways?
by bo 5/11/2011 7:47:51 AM

@bo RT seems to have quality journalism, which is missing from US media.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 7:48:05 AM

@ bo - absolutely! A good example of what the web has enabled - imagine trying to do it even 10 years ago.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:48:12 AM

@bo Yes, that could be, a big boom jolted something.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 7:48:49 AM

Now I Googled Fukushima and leaning on the web, not just in the news, and I can see that the interview is reposted on lots of blogs. Whether that filters through to the mainstream press remains to be seen.
by bo 5/11/2011 7:53:05 AM

@Bobby1 - you hit on one of the biggest gaps in our knowledge, the exact timeline of what happened where and when. @dean is working to build this up. At present there seems to be virtually no reactor data covering the crucial minutes and hours during and after the various power losses. I suspect some of it may emerge eventually, if it was recorded locally on PCs in the control rooms, if they are intact, and if they were battery powered.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:53:21 AM

It is a bit like Air Crash Investigation - we've got the wreckage but not the flight recorders and we have no info as to what the 'pilots' did at the time
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:55:05 AM

@bo - maybe you'll be the one to get this back into the headlines (with consultancy from Nancy et al!)
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:56:15 AM

we know meti received reports from them at 15.17
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 7:56:58 AM

@hudebnik ganbarimasu (I will do my best)
by bo 5/11/2011 7:57:33 AM

Hi Elaine
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:57:41 AM

@bo - thanks, you a
re a star.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 7:58:09 AM

@hudebnik There is a series of 4 stories in the Daily Yomiuri that covered the topic of what went on in the early stages. Seems like the Tepco execs were not around, and valves were not turned, and seawater not injected, till it was too late.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 7:58:29 AM

hi just up and getting coffee 2mins I be back
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 7:58:30 AM

Oy, that's not good. @elainekirk good morning!
by bo 5/11/2011 7:58:46 AM

@elaine - I think what we don't know yet are the minute-by-minute details of what was done operationally to try to contain the situation (bearing in mind that the poor operators on the spot were literally in the dark, I don't think they had any lighting after the generators failed). They were faced with a literally unimaginable situation, so vast that no training could have prepared them for what they faced inthe early hours.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:01:52 AM

@hudebnik Nobody tried cooling with seawater (thus destroying the reactors for future use) until a Tepco exec showed up at his Tokyo office. This was after the government, and finally Kan personally ordered them to do so.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 8:05:21 AM

Although from memory (sorry can't link these) I nelieve that the operators were required to get authorisation from higher up before taking major steps that could have affected the reactors' commercial futures, even though they only had minutes to do things and comms were almost totally down. And the TEPCO operational chief was ordered off the plane taking him back to HQ by the govt because he wasn't 'part of the relief effort'.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:07:37 AM

Maybe someone can help here - were the reactors fitted with an 'inject boron' final solution? This would have killed the fisile reactions but killed the reactors for ever too. Some/most UK plants have or at least had this.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:09:24 AM

@hudebnik Don't know if they even had boron on hand, or if it was available after the tsunami. But the crisis was caused by Tepco operatives at the plant failing to act for 15 hours.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 8:12:15 AM

there are bits of information around like this . How did they know at 15.17 that #1 & #3 were in trouble?

report
earthquake damage information (Part 3) (currently March 11, 15:17 minutes)
Toukyoudenryoku ○ (Ltd) Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Futaba town, city and county Ookuma Hutaba Fukushima) (1) driving conditions No. 1 (million 46 kW) (auto-stop) No. 2 (14,000 78 kW) (auto-stop) No. 3 (14,000 78 kW) (auto-stop) No. 4 (14,000 78 kW) (stopped due to the constant search) No. 5 (14,000 78 kW) (stopped due to the constant search) No. 6 (million 110 kW) (constant stopping the search) (2) reading and monitoring post - Monitoring changes in the post reading: None • Changes in the main exhaust stack monitoring instructions: None (3) report on the extraordinary Article 10 of the report Nuclear Disaster Special Measures Law (Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 3) Article 15 of the report (Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1)
www.meti.go.jp
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 8:13:07 AM

A UK nuclear plant manager once explained it to me - if there was a total loss of cooling accident and no other way of stopping the reactor (for instance control rod problems too) then boron balls would be injected by gravity directly into the heart of the reactor core.
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:13:39 AM

that report I mailed @dean was an international report that mentions the problem with no responsibility in the company , no leadership I will try to googledoc it
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 8:15:18 AM

@elaine - what do you think that refers to? The powers quoted look too low for the reactors, cold they be generators or feed lines?
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:15:53 AM

@hudebnik it is the end of it interests me I am not techi enough for powers but
(3) report on the extraordinary Article 10 of the report Nuclear Disaster Special Measures Law (Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 3) Article 15 of the report (Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1)
now that interests me
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 8:20:18 AM

@bo - could you comment on how the Japanese tradition of respect for seniors etc and tradition of referring up compromised the emergency reactions to Fukushima?
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:20:28 AM

@hubenik not a great conversion but Q&A international iaea ask q's Japan answers good section leadership
docs.google.com
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 8:22:40 AM

@elaine - as its a PDF I can't tx it but the strong impression I get is that the emergency instructions were along the lines of 'in case of disaster send a memo to HQ and await further instructions'
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:23:34 AM

@hebebnik it is a google doc it opens in browser
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 8:24:30 AM

@hudebnik well it sure affects how the public and the press accept what is given by the GOJ and TEPCO. There is a general belief that they know best and they know best what to do, so the best thing for ordinary people to do is get out of the way and to support them. That is why you don't see the outrage here you would see in a Western country given similar circumstances. It also makes it harder for subordinates who may have a better grasp of the situation to speak up to superiors. I have heard that there was a situation among air traffic controllers in South Korea in which it was impolite for a controller to quickly order an older pilot to take a specific action and it resulted in a crash. Apparently after that a policy was instituted mandating that all air traffic communications be conducted in English since it was easier for people to act outside of these traditional boundaries.
by bo 5/11/2011 8:29:10 AM

@elaine - sorry was referring to the meti document. The googledoc crashed IE instead! Can't wait for msoft to add their quality control to skype now!
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:30:00 AM

@bo - in a western country there would be riots in the streets by now!
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:32:57 AM

@elainekirk I see how they mention the Tepco data falsification case. Doesn't this call into question the veracity of current Tepco data?
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 8:33:52 AM

@bobby1 yes I should think after the falsifications at the turn of the century resulting in their loss of licence to be followed by further instances in the yrs since they were forgiven means it is tepco culture to 'make do and lie'
by elainekirk 5/11/2011 8:35:56 AM

@Bobby1 - yes in common with all big corporations eg BP which seem to operate the rule 'release nothing, admit nothing'. (Except radiation, oil etc obviously).
by hudebnik 5/11/2011 8:36:38 AM

@hudebnik @elainekirk That's why I don't pay much attention to their data. How many times have they "adjusted" their results? And they always adjust it down, not up.
by Bobby1 5/11/2011 8:37:31 AM