ScribbleLive

@Edano was wondering if the cooling at one matches what would be expected as decay heat dropping off for the same time period. But there may be too many variables to use that.

Heh, 1's is opposite. :-)

what i mean is, #1 seems to be much easier to cool than 2 and 3. this could be caused by the absence of fuel. and the temperatures of the vessel are very homogenous, there is no difference between upper and lower parts, and that since april. so i vote for no fuel anymore at home.

if there is still fuel in the reactors, fission products must be detected. if there are no such products anymore ("n.d."), there likely is no fuel anymore.

@Edano you explain it well

"Heating of the core(s) would be the result of fast fission. Because cores emitting fission products cannot be sub-critical, the low detection levels of these gases is instead likely because the cores are underground."

this passage of the article is wrong for the term "(sub-)critical", but the overall idea is correct, as i pointed out.

interesting question: was the #3 explosion ex vessel caused by the first concrete-corium reaction ? the lightbulb pressure before the explosion was definitely above design and dropped afterwards.

the article has some crucial conclusions:
- as soon as the corium reaches neutron reflecting layers (granite), there is a possibility of a fast chain reaction, which would destroy all 6 daiichi reactors, and the fallout would spread around the entire land of japan (depending on the prevailing winds).
- it is much too early to think about returning of the evacuees.
- there have been no efforts made to localize the corium, and therefore there are no plans for containing it.
- the term "cold shutdown" is not used in a scientific way, but in a PR way, and therefore BS. no matter in what conditions are the reactors, as long as we don't know anything about the corium, there can be no useful roadmap to contain the disaster.
- the feared "second explosion" was anticipated in chernobyl by constructing an underground concrete shell. for some reasons, this is not possible at fukushima. it has to be added, that the concrete shell in chernobyl was not needed because not reached by the corium.

@elainekirk without knowing what is exactly meant, this paper shows that fuku is worse than chernobyl in some respect.

@Edano have you read the comments under the twitpic

@elainekirk i suppose it is a radiation measuring in japan, so for the japanese of course fuku is worse than chernobyl.

@elainekirk i think the 70's were the bomb tests in the pacific. :) rather than tepco :)

I wish I knew where those readings we taken I will ask rockhopper

‘Fourier2020 says:
November 9, 2011 at 12:31 am

Per Tepco’s website:
“The site of the station covers about 3.5 million square meters (865 acres) and the plants are built on solid bedrock.”’

The plants are built on light fill over a thick formation of intercalated lenses of sandy material within mudstones, which are lightly consolidated clays.

Tepco’s use of the term “solid bedrock” is disingenuous in my personal opinion but I have checked out some maps and other documentation.

??? what is correct ?

The mudstone IIRC is the correct definition. TEPCO started telling the public how it was on bedrock as part of their "everything is fine" campaign.

"Misitu says:
November 9, 2011 at 5:57 pm

I am not sure about the plant having been built on “bedrock”, that is, relatively solid dense foundation material, metamorphic or igneous rock or metamorphosed shales and sandstones such as schists and gneisses. Rather it seems that the foundation material is a very thick layer of intercalated mudstones and sandy mudstones (compacted clays and silts) and above is what the Japanese Geol Survey map shows as “Holocene Reclaimed Land” (Holocene = post Ice Age), in this case some sort of screed of light landfill covering the cut made when the hill was excavated to give a nice level platform just some 10m above sea level (reason: cost savings on cooling water pumping)."

Collie in the coal mine, Fukushima dogs www.pbs.org