Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1824

I think some of the paneling looks like that which would be on the roof and, no concrete would be on the inner walls only the stainless steel liner... there is just so much there it's really unbelievable
by dean 7/4/2011 12:37:53 AM

I really can't think of a scenario that would raise just 1 bundle of spent fuel.
by George Gibb 7/4/2011 12:44:25 AM

@George Gibb The one scenario I can think of would be a blast that got under the SFP such that the concussive force of the explosion hammered the bottom of the pool up, though you'd expect to see more than one rammed up that way.
by RadioGuy 7/4/2011 12:48:15 AM

could it be a bundle landing there ?
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 12:49:31 AM

I thought of that -but like you say i would expect more bundles visible
by George Gibb 7/4/2011 12:49:39 AM

@elainekirk scary thought - where did the rest land
by George Gibb 7/4/2011 12:50:17 AM

fuel rods were found up to a mile away werent they ? or have I got it wrong
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 12:55:52 AM

@elainekirk yes, 1.5 kilometers
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 12:56:26 AM

@elainekirk Not fuel rods... they found pieces of spent fuel of unspecified size up to 1 mile away. It is not surprising considering the intensity of the explosions.
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 12:58:19 AM

I still think there is good evidence for a nuclear detonation, maybe not from the fuel pool like Arnie thinks.
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 12:58:22 AM

Elaine, could you de-mod me, please?
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 1:01:49 AM

@Bobby1 What evidence?
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 1:02:24 AM

Take a look at the video. A bit over half way through you see the object Ian identified. Go to about 2:16 and they focus in on what looks like empty fuel rack holes. That is closer and to the right of where Ian's object is. It might give some info as far as relation of objects? www.youtube.com
by lillymunster 7/4/2011 1:04:58 AM

@Pedro Jesus 1. Mushroom cloud consistent with nuclear detonation
2. Visual and auditory evidence of 2 explosions
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:06:53 AM

@Pedro Jesus 3. Ratios of isotopes from CTBTO data indicate nuclear explosion, according to CTBTO criteria 4. Detection of Cobalt-60 near plant 5. Marco on the fairewinds video said he detected europium in his lab in Massachusetts.
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:08:17 AM

can I interupt ? These guys at the Japanese site nuclear leaks have gathered some #4 links translate.google.com
One of the links leads to this political party paper which has clickable images of a story to be published on the 6th translate.googleusercontent.com
livedoor.2.blogimg.jp
I dont know what to think
by elainekirk via Livedoor.2.blogimg.jp 7/4/2011 1:14:44 AM

@Bobby1 Can you explain how you can have a nuclear detonation under those circumstances? There are many physical problems with that theory.
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 1:15:23 AM

@Pedro Jesus I would think that the hydrogen explosion momentarily altered the geometry of corium or elements in the SFP. I haven't heard any of those 5 points refuted anywhere yet.
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:16:59 AM

@elainekirk what does it say ?
by Edano 7/4/2011 1:17:22 AM

crane is back on teppycam.
by Edano 7/4/2011 1:17:40 AM

@Bobby1 Nuclear Power Plant grade nuclear fuel does not explode. That's only the first big problem with the nuclear detonation
theory. But there are others.
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 1:19:22 AM

@Pedro Jesus What do you mean, it cannot explode?
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:19:55 AM

I can't see at this point whether it matters it was nuclear or not, except it's bad PR for the nuclear industry.
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:21:09 AM

@EdanoI dunno what the unpublish pic says but thepublisher of the pic says basically #4 sfp is knacked and has been for a long time, and government will be making a statement just so strange coming when workers are talking about it, temperature rising etc etcn
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 1:21:44 AM

@Bobby1 Ah, OK. I got you point. It would take a little while to explain why it couldn't have been a nuclear explosion. It's wiser to stick with the hydrogen explosion version. The nuclear explosion theory is full of holes.
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 1:22:50 AM

@Pedro Jesus The small amount of isotopes created by neutron bombardment of structural meterials, is insignificant compared to everything else.
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:28:04 AM

@elainekirk Not sure what to make of it. The first one repeats things everyone has known, Gundersen's statements, the braces being put under the pool. I don't quite understand the ones from the JCP page. The translation is so bad it is hard to determine exactly what they are saying.
by lillymunster 7/4/2011 1:32:58 AM

If DH or anyone else with some translation skills stops by could you give a rough idea what this newspaper article says? livedoor.2.blogimg.jp livedoor.2.blogimg.jp
I can't do a computer translate since both are images.
by lillymunster via Livedoor.2.blogimg.jp 7/4/2011 1:35:12 AM

If DH or anyone else with some translation skills stops by could you give a rough idea what this newspaper article says? livedoor.2.blogimg.jp livedoor.2.blogimg.jp
I can't do a computer translate since both are images.
by lillymunster via Livedoor.2.blogimg.jp 7/4/2011 1:35:13 AM

If DH or anyone else with some translation skills stops by could you give a rough idea what this newspaper article says? livedoor.2.blogimg.jp livedoor.2.blogimg.jp
I can't do a computer translate since both are images.
by lillymunster via Livedoor.2.blogimg.jp 7/4/2011 1:35:25 AM

@lillymunster There are so many stories around these guys are quite good at sorting out what is good and it just seems with everything else to be worth a look
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 1:37:33 AM

@Bobby1 Wiki puts it in words better than I would ever be able to. Check the link. ;)

"It is impossible for a nuclear power plant to undergo an explosive nuclear chain reaction."

en.wikipedia.org
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 1:39:36 AM

@Pedro Jesus If it is impossible, then why is there evidence that it happened?
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:41:11 AM

@Bobby1 There is no evidence, only wrong assumptions.
by Pedro Jesus 7/4/2011 1:41:36 AM

@lillymunster just looking iaea reort and noticed the wording here, 3 yeah we know where it came from- #4 we maybe think ...
. An extensive amount of debris generated by the explosion in Unit 3
had fallen into the Unit 3 SFP, so that the structural integrity of the racks could not be
confirmed. There was some debris in the Unit 4 SFP, likely due to the explosion at Unit 4,
www-pub.iaea.org
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 1:44:25 AM

Here is an OCN translation of part of kinpy.livedoor.biz "Our blog may be Japanese Communist Party leaks, they shouldn't be Social Democratic Party leaks, such one is being sent for some reason, should you be glad?

If it's clicked, it expands, and everything can be read, the Shakai Shinpo article to which this should go out next week. A government hides that there is Fukushima nuclear power plant 4 number airplane in a collapse crisis. There was rumor from before with a net, but it's said that to say that Social Democratic Party wrote it grasped certain evidence before the Communist Party. Moreover IAEA is also trust, oh, I have come."
by Bobby1 7/4/2011 1:44:30 AM

@Bobby1 ty for the help :)
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 1:45:38 AM

@Bobby1 airplane ??? ;)
by Edano 7/4/2011 1:47:54 AM

@Edano like hospital. :-) Hospital gets tossed in to describe any place where work would be done on something in a repair or investigation sense.
by lillymunster 7/4/2011 1:48:49 AM

the fuel pool will become
airborne
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 1:48:57 AM

@elainekirk fuel pool and airborne should not be in the same sentence. :-)
by lillymunster 7/4/2011 1:49:43 AM

Like sandbags and nuclear power plant.
by lillymunster 7/4/2011 1:49:56 AM

sandbags to you lilly ;)
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 1:50:10 AM

@lillymunster like duct tape and radioactivity.
by Edano 7/4/2011 1:50:33 AM

actually all those steel support may hasten its journey with the domino effect ...#justthinkingmaybenotrationallythough
by elainekirk 7/4/2011 1:53:21 AM