Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1854

@LM I agree that everything unseen involves speculation. I am saying that barring any evidence contrary, I see no reason for fuel leaving the pool. If the fuel was ejected from the pool, why is there debris in the pool from above. Wouldn't the ejecta prevent debris from falling in?
by RBeaner 7/7/2011 3:47:07 PM

@Ian I don't think we have enough conclusive anything on 3 SFP so everything should still be on the table including the things you have been working through.
The rod objects Dean found could be fuel rods. The rough measurements I did tell me they are not 1.5 inches or other large diameter. I think the metal "ladder" throws people off because they assume the ladder and rebar to be thicker than they may actually be.
by lillymunster 7/7/2011 3:47:18 PM

@RBeaner it could be pulled rather than pushed from the pool.
by lillymunster 7/7/2011 3:47:46 PM

one thing.. i will bet my used bicycle wheels and tires that there are fuel rod assemblies that have been torn apart, burnt apart and scattered in unit 3..
by dean 7/7/2011 3:49:03 PM

@RBeaner if the japanese reactors worked without any fuel defects in the last ten years, it gets even more mysterious why they found rod parts around the plants.
by Edano 7/7/2011 3:49:42 PM

@RBeaner @all I'd say Japan is exceptional in many ways regarding nuclear safety standards, however this accident happened in Japan which proves that even their standards are not good enough to avoid such tragic events. We must not forget, though, that their safety standards regarding radioactive exposure for workers under emergency contingencies are still two times below international (including US) regulations and before the accident they were 5 times below international limits. The consequences of such an accident anywhere else around the world might have been dramatically worse if it had happened in other nuclear power plants out there.
by Pedro Jesus 7/7/2011 3:49:57 PM

it's all good research.. and dang it.. told BO we wanted a copyright on those rods and the theory so we can get money for lilly and elaine.. shoot...
by dean 7/7/2011 3:50:14 PM

so true pedro
by dean 7/7/2011 3:51:11 PM

will be out of the office for about an hour or two. Will check in when I get back.
by lillymunster 7/7/2011 3:52:14 PM

imagine.. being told by GOJ ,, you have to try to make it so the story does not seem so bad,, then come up with ... raising the annual dose level and then resetting things and say.. we are all ok now..
by dean 7/7/2011 3:52:31 PM

will be out of the office also for 2-3 hours.. will be back.. ty all for the dialogue.. more to come..
by dean 7/7/2011 3:52:52 PM

@dean Regarding the ASK.com article (I have only been through bits and pieces of it) there is at least one inconsistency when they explain what "The Fukushima 50" stands for. If they got such a simple thing wrong they could have gotten a lot more technical explanations wrong as well. I needs a lot of proofing.
by Pedro Jesus 7/7/2011 3:54:08 PM

"It needs"
by Pedro Jesus 7/7/2011 3:54:45 PM

agree @ pedro... they made some pretty bold statements ther e
by dean 7/7/2011 3:54:51 PM

President of Japan Nuclear Operator May Resign Over E-Mails www.nytimes.com
by Panserbjorne9 7/7/2011 3:54:56 PM

be back..
by dean 7/7/2011 3:55:38 PM

Nuke crisis refugees form association to preserve village-in-exile's community ties
mdn.mainichi.jp
by Panserbjorne9 7/7/2011 3:56:02 PM

Good night all. Tatami calls.
by bo 7/7/2011 3:58:05 PM

Man survived tsunami by climbing utility pole mdn.mainichi.jp
by Panserbjorne9 7/7/2011 3:58:09 PM

the ask report is only a copy from wikipedia .... !!! :(
by Edano 7/7/2011 3:58:13 PM

Judges Admit Numerous Site Safety and Environmental Impact Contentions Raised by TSEP About Exelon's Victoria Site www.prnewswire.com
by Panserbjorne9 7/7/2011 4:00:33 PM

@Pedro Jesus @Edano My use of the word "exceptional" was entirely tongue in cheeck. I would imagine their reporting and classification standards differ from several other Nuclear powered countries.
by RBeaner 7/7/2011 4:03:25 PM

and i don't trust in anything that stems from iaea. they have a different statistic for every case.
by Edano 7/7/2011 4:06:04 PM

@RBeaner They [Japan] can be exceptionally good at some things and exceptionally bad at others, isn't that what you were implying? I only wanted to point out that there are both good and bad implications, they're not all bad.
by Pedro Jesus 7/7/2011 4:06:56 PM

You guys are commenting rapid fire today! I am bit in arrears. @Pedro Jesus, I recall clearly that tepco had a military tank plow over a hot spot in March. There were photographs of the action, which I found rather odd, because it was like destroying evidence.
by Peter Melzer 7/7/2011 4:08:31 PM

it is impossible to prove anything if tepco is the only party with evidence in their hands.
by Edano 7/7/2011 4:12:09 PM

The other point, while I agree with Edano that we have not seen any evidence of a comprehensive survey of the pools, The pics I have seen to date do not support assemblies thrown from the pools. Hence, if Deans find is a burnt fuel rod, it is indeed an important identification. As to the dimensions, the rod looks a little too fat to me as well. Perhaps they swell a bit, when they get really hot. How about that idea? :)
by Peter Melzer 7/7/2011 4:13:59 PM

@Peter Melzer : i think dean is the only one here who has really seen a fuel element in his life .... ;)
by Edano 7/7/2011 4:16:57 PM

@Edano Every org. or agency that has a positive use of the word 'nuclear' has an implicit agenda. If nuke power goes, so do their jobs. ;)
by M.I.A. 7/7/2011 4:17:39 PM

@RBeaner I've seen dynomite exploded in the ground, fwiw. The debris goes up and then some debris falls back into the crater...
by M.I.A. 7/7/2011 4:17:47 PM

@Edano , that is why I trust his judgement. Particularly that burn mark must be a tell-tale sign, something you pick out, once you have seen it before.
by Peter Melzer 7/7/2011 4:19:42 PM

@Peter Melzer and he bets his bicicle, that's strong evidence ;)
by Edano 7/7/2011 4:20:23 PM

off to the beach, beloved.
by Edano 7/7/2011 4:20:45 PM

@Peter Melzer It's a double edged knife isn't it? They [TEPCO] have to bury radioactive debris and spray it with chemicals to decrease the chances of it releasing radioactive particles and or radiation to the environment and by doing that they alter the chemical composition of the radioactive materials rendering them quite irrelevant for future analysis [re: evidence of malpractice].
by Pedro Jesus 7/7/2011 4:21:24 PM

@Pedro Jesus, ploughing the contaminated soil under was probably a rash act without much thought. Had they scooped it up with a front loader and put it in a dumpster, there would be a chance of further analysis. Now whatever it was seeped into the soil.
As to the report on Ask.com, I found plenty detail that matches the NISA report to the IAEA and some more: fukushima.grs.de Read from IV-37. NISA even provides nice tables on the time line of events for each reactor.
by Peter Melzer 7/7/2011 4:31:44 PM

@Peter Melzer Good then [re: Ask.com article]. But there are some bold assumptions (as Dean put it) with little evidence support and inaccuracies that are hard to digest.
by Pedro Jesus 7/7/2011 4:37:01 PM

@lillymunster, the rods dean found look to me like solid galvanized steel rods. Their ends are not like the tubes in the assemblies, imo.
by Ian 7/7/2011 5:06:35 PM

@lillymunster, you mention that reactors 3 and 4 were the same. Was 3 more powerful than 1?
by Ian 7/7/2011 5:07:38 PM

@Pedro Jesus , then we need to point out what the inaccuracies are. I am still digging through the NISA report, which by the way provides plenty beautiful figures with scant legends to say the least.
by Peter Melzer 7/7/2011 5:16:07 PM

gyldengrisgaard.dk
This data indicates that Reactor 3 had a massive release at the moment of explosion. In which case I'm seeing the U3 blast as more of a sudden event than the result of a slow build up of hydrogen eventually triggered by a spark into an explosion. In short, it suggests that the U3 blast was in a sense a moderated reactor explosion.
by Ian via Gyldengrisgaard.dk 7/7/2011 5:21:53 PM

TEPCO: Press Release (Jul 07,2011)
Detection of Radioactive Materials from Seawater near Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (106th release)
www.tepco.co.jp
They have published numbers:
attachment1: Results of Nuclide Analysis of Seawater(PDF 16.9KB)
attachment2: Pu analysis of seawater at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station(PDF 10.5KB)
attachment3: Radioactivity Density of Seawater(PDF 69.3KB)
by Mid Valley 7/7/2011 5:29:01 PM

This is maybe of interest to @Ian & @dh it is a site that rather miraculously is gathering all tweets and showing them by npp so you dont have to filter or search it is all there for you genpatsu.net if you open the page in chrome and you have it set to translate Japanese it will translate the tweets but it doesnt work in google translate iykwim
by elainekirk 7/7/2011 6:32:39 PM

@Peter Melzer two hours after your post but in reading on MOX fuel pellets do swell in certain conditions. There was concerns with the pellets swelling and doing away with the clearance between pellet and cladding. I didn't determine why that matters exactly but that it was a concern. I don't know if it could happen to a point where it would distort the outer rod.
by lillymunster 7/7/2011 6:40:13 PM

@elainekirk, they're rolling by so fast who can follow them?
by Ian 7/7/2011 6:41:08 PM

Is there an English version of the problems with #3 from what I can tell this one is saying that at 50msv they cannot send men in and the pipe to inject the nitrogen is 5mtrs off the ground leaving it outside the scope of the remotes and the stair climbing robot needs a powerline which cannot be manouvered as men cannot go in to guide it www3.nhk.or.jp
by elainekirk 7/7/2011 6:41:31 PM