ScribbleLive

Review of global-Chernobyl effects by Ernest Sternglass : www.mitchelcohen.com

Morning @all

A little reality check on Tepco's 'realisations' about #2 & 3. I've just been looking at the Tepco data we've got at www.houseoffoust.com and it is completely clear that the RPVs failed (loss of all coolant within an hour or so) as follows, times in JST:
#1 0700 12 March
#2 1530 14 March
#3 ???? 12 March (no exact time recorded, only when no water at all)

@angie to make you feel at home a posting from an outspoken (and accurate) Australian blog: Some plain talking about nuclear lies
blogs.crikey.com.au

China syndrome for Japan : www.atimes.com

"Chris Allison, who had actually developed the analysis and simulation software, reported the result to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late March. It was only May 15 when Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) admitted for the first time that a meltdown had occurred at the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima nuclear plant. [...]" So TEPCO was admitting that #1 had melted down as early as the 15th!

@hudebnik I haven't learned a word here!

@Angie this conference I have been at is just crawling with Skippys, it is making me nervous!

One thing that has infuriated me is how the IAEA has for the most part underplayed the events at Fukushima, almost acting as an apologist for the nuclear industry. Their last update was on May 18th. Aren't they supposed to be an independent UN agency?

@hudebnik very true. I imagine that the 80 km zone mentioned by the US embassy came as a result that they knew that 3 plants had melted. How have all these governments sat and watched as more and more people were exposed to high levels of radiation?

@bo Sobering stuff...
"The most significant and least controversial bottom line is that escaped fuel would complicate enormously clean-up efforts, expose workers to unpredictable flashes of intense radioactivity, and threaten to contaminate the air, water and soil around the plant further with massive amounts of dangerous isotopes.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the latter - the danger is so real that newer-generation nuclear plants are designed with expensive special radiation traps to capture molten nuclear fuel. In an unfavorable sequence of events (for example, a powerful aftershock followed by a new tsunami), an area of tens of thousands of square kilometers could turn into a nuclear wasteland.

The damage to the ocean ecosystem, which has already absorbed large radioactive emissions, would be enormous."
www.atimes.com

Hey, I gotta get ready to check out and catch a plane to Germany. I'll be on and off for an hour.

Also of note from that article:
A newly-released set of documents and logs from the early hours and days of the crisis took the government "off-guard" [8] by suggesting that a "worker error may have led to meltdown".

The documents, some analysts point out, could serve to exonerate the American company General Electric, which manufactured the reactors, from its share of the blame. It looks, therefore, as if the blame-game is intensifying. If the reports of human error are confirmed, this would bring to the fore discussions about the state of preparedness of the plant operators for a crisis.
www.atimes.com

[Hmmm... first time I saw that, part of skeptic old me was trying to whisper to myself "plant" "plant" ... - Alblee]

That 200Sv figure if true (and it looks as if it may be) is horrifying. The posting erroneously says it is from the suppression chamber (torus) tho the graph says drywell. 200Sv is instant death, right?

The graph shows 200 Sieverts! enenews.com

Well it presumably (so not my field)
could be 200Sv if some sort of continuing criticality has occurred.

@all - how many Sv inside an operating reactor?