Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1247

Nite Angie!
by Nancy 5/18/2011 12:38:58 PM

@angie sleep well
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 12:39:18 PM

@nancy the wssj report has more info than the UK gov experts
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 12:40:03 PM

@elainekirk They seem to be the only US media source who is really covering it.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 12:46:28 PM

Salu put this on the other board. Seems to be a TBS review of the events at Fuku
by Nancy 5/18/2011 12:48:47 PM

Tepco's theory about why Unit 4 exploded. www.world-nuclear-news.org "A theory has emerged to explain the explosion at Fukushima Daiichi 4, despite no nuclear fuel being damaged there, based on an influx of hydrogen via pipework shared with unit 3."
by Ian 5/18/2011 12:52:10 PM

@Ian It explains the massive amount of damage. I would venture to guess the SFP there also contributed to the hydrogen since the bulk of the really bad damage is by the SFP.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 12:55:20 PM

I keep finding things in that WSJ article that are just unbelievable. They had to get permission from TEPCO's president to vent with no back up plan for approval. He was stuck at an airport somewhere. I found this gem "In a sign of how far-fetched a crisis of this magnitude was considered, Tepco didn't take the extra step of installing a filter on its emergency vent pipe to scrub out radioactive particles. " So the vents had no filtering at all. Ugh.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 12:56:30 PM

More from the WSJ article: "Radiation levels at Reactor 1 were so high by the time workers went in to open vent valves manually that they had to go in short shifts to prevent high exposure. The Reactor 1 shift manager's stint exposed him to 100 times the radiation an average person gets in a year. Then, several workers followed him one by one, relay style, to turn the crank little by little. At 9:15 a.m. Saturday , the valve was open a quarter of the way, Tepco documents released Monday say."
by Nancy 5/18/2011 12:59:43 PM

@Nancy, you'd think the SFP played a role. They seem to imply that damaged fuel is a prerequisite of having contributed.
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:00:43 PM

@nancy I dont believe they could have filtered because I believe they still had the original design venting so any attempt to filter would have slowed venting and defeated the object. #]2 they have removed panels and are venting straight out that must be an indication that their system couldnt cope.
p.s. the HSE need putting right by you who have found the facts because their present expert has relied on what was published will you all be accepting the invitation to submit information?
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:01:08 PM

Nancy, do you have an idea what's the big bean that runs over the reactor well, this is a still from the video with the beam red-outlined in the lower image. iangoddard.com We don't see that beam before the explosion images.scribblelive.com
by Ian via Iangoddard 5/18/2011 1:03:45 PM

Nancy, do you have an idea what's the big bean that runs over the reactor well, this is a still from the video with the beam red-outlined in the lower image. iangoddard.com We don't see that beam before the explosion images.scribblelive.com
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:03:46 PM

"big bean" Lol! :) I mean : big beam
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:04:36 PM

@Ian That is the overhead crane system. IIRC they have a pair of big beams that make it up. It sits pretty high above the work floor. You can see it in some of the pre-disaster images I have. It is usually parked on one end or the other. If you look at #4 it is parked right above the refueling crane.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:13:14 PM

So it must have slammed down.
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:16:06 PM

Maybe that's the lid we're seeing in the well just below the beam. ?
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:16:56 PM

It's OK...we'll just start calling that yellow thing The Big Bean so you weren't wrong. :)
by radioguy 5/18/2011 1:17:34 PM

@radioguy Whatever is left of it is probably shaped like a big bean. :-)
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:19:45 PM

@Nancy I pulled menus together. I just used Pages or Posts as I found you had set them up, but we can change them if changing Page to Post helps for a particular menu.
by radioguy 5/18/2011 1:19:49 PM

Big yellow bean! :) I think it's not the lid just below the beam but I do believe we're seeing the yellow lid (just about where it should be) just below a metal panel just below the beam : www.youtube.com
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:20:59 PM

@Ian: That beam could have been the only thing that kept the reactor vessel from ejecting. Does look like the dome is up against it and if it is the reactor did displace.
by DonnerT 5/18/2011 1:23:46 PM

this HSE doc suggests the melted fuel used the control rod channels to start its exodus from the reactor
www.hse.gov.uk
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:25:21 PM

@DonnerT the few views we have of the reactor well don't show anything sticking up out of it, you can see slightly down into it.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:27:24 PM

do we have this?
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:27:27 PM

@DonnerT, yeah, maybe. And I think the beam is covering the top so that it blocks the heat so the IR image only captures the hot venting points on the edge outside the width of the overhead crane system that the 'beam' is.
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:28:14 PM

@elainekirk It was posted late last night (CST) i think most people missed it.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:28:16 PM

@Nancy: Looking at it again, the angle of the first shot might make it look like the 'bean' is higher than really is.
by DonnerT 5/18/2011 1:30:00 PM

@Ian Hmm. We know the beam is over that edge of the well but we still get a heat image that showed the RPV clearly. I don't know if that means anything related to the yellow cap.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:30:06 PM

@elainekirk They're a little late to the party on that revelation right? I remember that whole discussion we have back in the middle of March with diagrams of the graphite seals around the control rods.
by radioguy 5/18/2011 1:30:09 PM

the lack of watermarks at the height we are told the water reached is quite amazing
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:30:14 PM

@radioguy I cannot find anything in that doc so considering this 'expert' is now traipsing areound with a pocketful of taxpayers cash is sickening I hope you put them straight www.hse.gov.uk
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:32:38 PM

Look at the massive different measures from the 3 and 4 SFPs

Fuel Pool 4 (4/12/11)
Cesium 134 - 88
Cesium 137 - 93
Iodine 131 - 220

Fuel Pool 3 (5/8/11)
Cesium 134 - 140,000
Cesium 136 - 1,600
Cesium 137 - 150,000
Iodine 131 - 11,000

Here's a possible explanation. Notice that steam from the reactor well is coming up over and falling onto the SPF. So the SFP was/is being contaminated directly by the reactor. In fact, I think Tepco said the levels in the SFP were due to the reactor. The steam from the reactor well moves faster : www.youtube.com
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:33:05 PM

@Ian #4 has a great deal more fuel including 204 new rods
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:36:31 PM

@Ian Those are some massive differences. Wow.
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:36:46 PM

Hmm. So 4 has more fuel assemblies and a fresh load of fuel. 4 has little or no damage inside. 3 has sky high levels, fewer rods and it a total wreck inside. Yea, something major went on at 3 in the SFP
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:38:01 PM

@Ian Interesting stats. Do you have any more recent data re #4 SFP for that comparison with #3?
by es 5/18/2011 1:41:22 PM

@Ian Steam could carry iodine, but I can't see how it could carry cesium. Cesium would either have to be carried dissolved in water, very easy with salt water, or be carried as a gas at a temperature over 641. Steam is not hot enough to carry it.
by Martin 5/18/2011 1:43:34 PM

Here's the Unit-3 SFP data www.tepco.co.jp and here's the most recent from U4 SFP that is lower than what I cite below www.tepco.co.jp
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:45:31 PM

@Martin Could it be created IN the sfp if there was a reaction or a melt down at some point?
by Nancy 5/18/2011 1:45:59 PM

Gundersen posits that the high levels on #3 SFP is because there was
a criticality in it.
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:47:17 PM

@Martin, cesium can't be airborne, or perhaps bound to water molecules in the steam?
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:48:46 PM

could be that after mox in the late 90's mox in '01 and mox in 09 being delivered to japan with fuku as a destination that fuku actually does havemore mox which will melt at a lower temp? Iam no expert and there doesnt seem to be any acknowledgement of mox stores beyond that in reactor but..
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:50:28 PM

@elainekirk, Unit 4's SFP having more fuel in it might led one to presume it would have higher levels, but not.
by Ian 5/18/2011 1:51:32 PM

@Ian I am afraid that I am somebody who believes tepco just sit and play -think of a number that is plausible and bung it in the relevant column- I havent seen any evidence that they do otherwise
by elainekirk 5/18/2011 1:55:38 PM