Japan Earthquake | Page 2613

  • 120,000 Bq/Kg from elementary school in Ibaraki. November 05.2011 fukushima-diary.com Original Article/Source *in Japanese* www.tokyo-np.co.jp
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 4:15:51 PM

  • Is this in stuck mode or is it my server?
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 4:15:52 PM

  • sorry Mary - I was away from the computer for a bit
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 4:16:14 PM

  • Please share with all communities, from FEMA. 'Nationwide Test Of The Emergency Alert System' (on November 9th) firechannel.org
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 4:20:24 PM

  • I suppose the Administration figured out that this would have looked real bad. WP: Federal government approves disaster aid for Virginia’s earthquake. www.washingtonpost.com
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 4:47:40 PM

  • @lillymunster , I sent mail re the tank story.
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 4:48:16 PM

  • @Peter Melzer thanks see it in my inbox
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 4:50:44 PM

  • @Peter Melzer the Virginia earthquake is responsible for the damage in the Washington area and there was no second thought on whether the National Cathedral should be repaired.
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 4:53:04 PM

  • I find it interesting that Cantor finally did the right thing when it involved his district. He had been saying disaster aid should be cut or not given out.
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 5:07:04 PM

  • @MaryW , that is what I meant. As a private enterprise, Fema would have filed for bankruptcy protection already, whereas we seem to find money in no time to inspect and fix the National Monument because if we did not, it would look real bad to the nation and the world. Who cares about giant cracks in walls in a little place in the middle of nowhere named Culpeper? We live in a time in which perceptions are everything.
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 5:16:28 PM

  • ....only as we see now in Japan, corium does care about perceptions, like perceived cold shutdowns.
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 5:17:21 PM

  • @you , does NOT care, I am typing too fast, ;)
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 5:18:04 PM

  • @Peter, I mentioned this earlier today, as I am going through the EPA monitoring stations the ones that are not working are the ones where there are not major US govt installations. All the ones around DC worked perfectly. Ones on the west coast and south east largely didn't work at all. Same with many in the midwest. The one near the Idaho labs worked.

    In a way making sure govt operations continue to work is good. Deciding where the people are doesnt matter, not so much
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 5:21:54 PM

  • Since we are already talking about the Virginia quake, I found an informative comment to my take:
    "Two major misconceptions in your post:
    1. Rapid Water Loss from the Lake - power stations on lakes use large pumps circulating water that send millions of gallons per minute of lake water through the steam condensers under the main steam turbines. These pumps create a pressure differential that pushes water through the condenser and around the lake in a 14-day round trip. This pressure differential causes water to pile up ahead of it, similar to the way a hurricane causes water levels ahead of it to rise, and then fall again after the hurricane passes. There is no water gained or lost from the lake in this process, the piled up water falls back down to original levels after the large circulating pumps trip. In the news report, the company basically told the reporter that the water level drop after a loss of electrical power is expected. If you understand fluid dynamics, this is not a difficult concept. It is just a rare occurance that both units' circulating water pumps trip at the same time.

    2. Ultimate Heat Sink - the lake is NOT the plant's ultimate heat sink. There is a separate service water reservior with millions of gallons of water behind a seismically qualified dam. Lake Anna could go away, and the NPS could keep its reactor cool with the service water reservior, as it is designed to do. "
    I hope someone knowing Lake Anna more intimately than I understands the comment better than I do.
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 5:23:51 PM

  • @Peter Melzer Doing a quick read, sounds to me that the nuke reactors do not need water from Lake Anna. So why are all nuclear power plants located by a body of water?
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 5:27:23 PM

  • back for a bit
    by dean 11/5/2011 5:27:37 PM

  • @lillymunster , in a time with limited resources (I can't believe that these networks are run by volunteers and 200,000-dollar grants), in its own callous logic this strategy may still make homeland security sense. However, weighing the looks of the National Monuments vs. the needs of people whose lives took a major hit is outright delusional.
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 5:29:48 PM

  • National monument, parks, etc are preservations for history and gives us hope that there truly is a future in mankind.
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 5:36:27 PM

  • All governmental decisions seem to look at the big picture first.
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 5:38:08 PM

  • I think the commenter's second point is off base. The reservoir at Lake Anna is there to keep hot water out of the lake & river. It does not have the ability to act as the sole ultimate heat sink for the plant without assistance from the river/lake. Also if the lake dam fails the side lake the plant uses could easily go with.
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 5:40:34 PM

  • Hi Dean!
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 5:40:50 PM

  • @Peter Melzer The epa stations need to cease being a no bid contract. That contractor massively failed to do the job paid for. It should be put open to bidding so a more capable contractor can be found. Or my preference that is to have EPA hire a staff team to do the work.
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 5:42:05 PM

  • @MaryW , the way I understand the situation at North Anna NPS is that the ultimate heat sink is not the lake directly, but sort of a smaller lake separated from the big lake by a dam. This dam is VEPCO's responsibility. They inspected it and it seems intact. However, when one NRC commissioner asked whether they had checked their dam for cracks, the VEPCO representative said that was impossible because the dam is earthen. The responsibility for the large Lake Anna dam is in someone else's jurisdiction. I could not understand who it was, and whether that dam had sustained damage could not be immediately answered in the meeting. The questions that remain are, where does VEPCO's ultimate heat sink get its water from and does it hold enough water to feed the residual heat removal system, if Lake Anna is unavailable to replenish the reservoir. The commenter's explanation of the decrease in Lake Anna's water level right after the quake is elusive to me. However, if such fluctuations occur regularly for a known reason, it must be ensured that the quake and the drop in water level were sheer coincidence.
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 5:43:33 PM

  • hi, dean, MIA posted yesterday that the probabilities for spontaneous fission of the uranium and plutonium nuclides involved is very low. Could it be that there is a subcritical chain reaction going on somewhere in the belly of the beast?
    by Peter Melzer 11/5/2011 5:53:47 PM

  • @Peter.. it's possible for some spontaneous fissions to be occuring but apparently on a smaller scale and nothing that seems to be going on to a sustained chain reaction
    by dean 11/5/2011 5:56:28 PM

  • @ Peter.. the lake that VEPCO is responsible for must have test/monitoring holes drilled in it to ensure the structural robustness of the dam and the key ways if it has them
    by dean 11/5/2011 5:58:56 PM

  • <A Saturday afternoon video break.> 'Major TV host: Someday this nuclear stuff is going to drive me nuts enough that I'm going to send cocaine laden divorce papers to nuke plants in hopes of provoking outrage.' November 05.2011 enenews.com
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 6:03:12 PM

  • @dean what happens when the isrealis bomb bushehr ? the same as fuku ? loss of cooling, loss of power etc ?
    by Edano 11/5/2011 6:05:56 PM

  • need to know the layout of the plant and what kind... and then compare to the last time reactors were bombed to look at the targeted parts of the plant @ Edano
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:07:52 PM

  • @dean "vver" reactor .....
    by Edano 11/5/2011 6:10:07 PM

  • russian type: en.wikipedia.org
    by Edano 11/5/2011 6:10:35 PM

  • The Bushehr nuclear facility is often associated with the city, as illustrated by the Argonne National Laboratory's International Nuclear Safety Center Database "Unclassified" map, but is actually located near Halileh (also spelled Haleyleh), which is about a dozen kilometers to the south of Bushehr proper, along the Persian Gulf coast. The reactor site is also the location of Iran's Nuclear Energy College
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:11:57 PM

  • I would think if they decide to commit bombs to prevent advancement of the program they would hit multiple sites..
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:12:41 PM

  • @dean true, probably there are more other vulnerable targets on the site.
    by Edano 11/5/2011 6:16:21 PM

  • The reactor units at Bushehr were initially built by a German company, Siemens, and were built to a plan closely resembling that of the Biblis A unit in Germany. The Bushehr I reactor was 85 percent complete and the Bushehr II reactor was partially complete prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, after which construction of both reactors halted. Ayatollah Khomeini declared the project "anti-Islamic," and the government of Mehdi Bazargan soon abandoned it.

    The dome of the reactor building consisted of a cylindrical shell and hemispherical shell placed on top, each measuring a 60 meter diameter. The steel containment shell was a spherical and measured 56 meters in diameter.

    Much of the exterior remained unchanged including a gantry that was mounted to the outside of the dome and was designed to allow easy access for materials and parts to the reactor dome.

    Inside, the reactor building was divided into two containment areas, one formed by the steel containment and the other an outer containment shield. Both were high-pressure parts of the nuclear steam supply system and the spent fuel storage pool and the new fuel store. The German design called for the steel containment shell to be 56 meters in diameter and designed for a pressure of 5.7 bar, it was capable of absorbing the full equilibrium pressure in the case of a design basis accident. The outer shell would act as a barrier against direct radiation from the reactor building and as a protective shield for the reactor plant from ecternal impacts.
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:16:34 PM

  • by dean 11/5/2011 6:20:22 PM


  • Crack at Davis-Besse nuclear plant spurs nuclear opponents. Ohio blog.cleveland.com
    by MaryW 11/5/2011 6:20:42 PM

  • whats up with this.. ? A 10 May 2002 Washington Times article by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough reported that several batteries of US made Improved HAWK (I-HAWK) Surface-to-Air Missiles had been placed around Bushehr. The report cited leaked information from intelligence sources who claimed that recent satellite imagery showed the HAWKs.
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:21:49 PM

  • a fortress
    by Edano 11/5/2011 6:23:29 PM

  • i guess they won't be able to damage it.
    by Edano 11/5/2011 6:30:31 PM

  • @Edano.. back when Iraq reactor was bombed they didn't have the state of the art precision as they do now, I'm pretty certain today's technology and weaponry would cripple the plant
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:35:20 PM

  • Operation Babylon[1] (Codeword: Opera, Hebrew: אופרה‎)[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on June 7, 1981, that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.[3][4][5]

    In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.[6][7] Iraq and France maintained that the reactor, named Osirak by the French, was intended for allegedly peaceful scientific research.[8] The Israelis viewed the reactor with suspicion, saying that it was designed to make nuclear weapons.[3] On June 7, 1981, a flight of Israeli Air Force F-16A fighter aircraft, with an escort of F-15As, bombed and heavily damaged the Osirak reactor.[9] Israel claimed it acted in self-defense, and that the reactor had "less than a month to go" before "it might have become critical."[10] Ten Iraqi soldiers and one French civilian were killed.[11] The attack took place about three weeks before the elections for the Knesset.[12]

    The attack was strongly criticized around the world and Israel was rebuked by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly in two separate resolutions.[13][14] The destruction of Osirak has become cited as an example of a preventive strike in contemporary scholarship on international law.[1
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:36:33 PM

  • @Edano They would drop a bunker buster on it. The plant itself would get wrecked.
    by lillymunster 11/5/2011 6:36:51 PM

  • @lillymunster they can't invade, they only have rockets.
    by Edano 11/5/2011 6:37:43 PM

  • Yehuda Blum, in a speech to the United Nations Security Council following the attack, claimed that the operation was launched on a Sunday afternoon under the assumption that workers present on the site, including foreign experts employed at the reactor, would have left.[10] Notwithstanding this precaution, there were hundreds of French workers and other nationals at the plant at the time of the raid.[35]

    The attack squadron consisted of eight F-16As, each with two unguided Mark-84 2,000-pound delay-action bombs.[49] A flight of six F-15As was assigned to the operation to provide fighter support.[36] The F-16 pilots were Ze'ev Raz (who was later decorated by the Chief of Staff for his leadership), Amos Yadlin, Dobbi Yaffe, Hagai Katz, Amir Nachumi, Iftach Spector, Relik Shafir, and Ilan Ramon.[56]

    On June 7, 1981, at 15:55 local time (12:55 GMT), the operation was initiated. The Israeli planes left Etzion Airbase, flying unchallenged in Jordanian and Saudi airspace.[51] To avoid detection, the Israeli pilots conversed in Saudi-accented Arabic while in Jordanian airspace and told Jordanian air controllers that they were a Saudi patrol that had gone off course.[35] While flying over Saudi Arabia, they pretended to be Jordanians, using Jordanian radio signals and formations.[35][57] The Israeli planes were so heavily loaded that the external fuel tanks that had been mounted on the planes were exhausted in-flight. The tanks were jettisoned over the Saudi desert.[51]
    by dean 11/5/2011 6:37:55 PM

Japan Earthquake | Page 2613

Who's Blogging
  • hudebnikhudebnik
  • albleealblee
  • UKValUKVal
  • Oliver (ScribbleLive)Oliver (ScribbleLive)
  • Jonathan KeeblerJonathan Keebler
  • Matt (ScribbleLive)Matt (ScribbleLive)
  • kaykodhkaykodh
  • PKelleyPKelley
  • MarkfmMarkfm
  • deandean
  • AngieAngie
  • EdanoEdano
  • DebDeb
  • Mid ValleyMid Valley
  • Pedro Jesus
  • George GibbGeorge Gibb
  • elainekirkelainekirk
  • lillymunsterlillymunster
  • bobo
  • IanGoddardIanGoddard