Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

[elbows]

The updated results for water at unit 2 came out a while ago, I-134 was no longer in the results and there were a couple of other differences. It looks like they retested the original water sample, and took a new one as well, and published results for both. This story sums up most of the other the recent developments.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_05.html

At the quake-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant, high radioactive density detected in 3 turbine buildings may further delay work to restore the cooling systems for the overheated fuel rods.

Tokyo Electric Power Company says that on Sunday it detected 100,000 times the normal density of radioactive substances in the leaked water in the Number 2 reactor's turbine building at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The water surface had a high radiation level of more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour.

In similar tests conducted earlier, about 10,000 times the normal radioactive density had been detected in the turbine buildings of the Number-1 and -3 rectors as well.

The utility on Sunday revised an announcement made earlier in the same day that 10 million times the normal level had been detected in leaked water in the Number 2 reactor's turbine building. It said it previously made an erroneous calculation, prompting the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency to order it to review its assessment procedures.

In order to resolve the problem of the contaminated water, the utility says it is trying to accelerate work at the Number-one reactor to pump the water from the basement into the turbine condenser for storage by increasing the number of pumps from one to 3.

The company says although it had planned to take similar steps to remove the water from the Number-2 and -3 reactors, their turbine condensers were found to have been almost full and unable to contain any more water.

The company says it is considering pumping that water from the condensers into adjacent pools and then filling them with the contaminated water.

Regarding spent fuel rods in the storage pools, the company told reporters early Monday morning that the pools in the Number-2 and -4 reactors appear to be filled with water, with the rods submerged.

The company said the pool's water temperature at the Number-2 reactor measured 56 degrees Celsius---a level slightly higher than usual--- at 5:50 PM on Sunday.
Monday, March 28, 2011 05:48 +0900 (JST)

 

[elbows]

In regard to the plutonium testing...

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_21.html

So far, the utility firm has not detected plutonium through its own methods.

It took soil samples from the plant's compound on March 21 and 22 and sent them to the Japan Atomic Energy Agency and the Japan Chemical Analysis Center for examination.

 

[xes]

animation of radioactive plume

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-25GMT15:41

 

[elbows]

Looks like it has reached us then, although keep in mind that its only a model.

Meanwhile:

“Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has kept a low profile during the crisis, but may face awkward questions after Kyodo news agency said his visit to the region the day after the disaster delayed TEPCO’S response to the unfolding situation.
“The process to release the steam was delayed due to the premier’s visit,” because the power company feared Kan could be exposed to radiation, it quoted an unnamed government source as saying.”

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/9084271/disaster-hit-japan-faces-protracted-nuclear-crisis/

And...

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81522.html

TOKYO, March 28, Kyodo

High levels of radiation exceeding 1,000 millisieverts per hour were found in water in a trench outside the No. 2 reactor's turbine building at the troubled nuclear power plant in Fukushima on Sunday afternoon, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Monday.

Similarly high levels of radioactivity have been found in a pool of water in the basement of the turbine building at the Fukushima Daiichi complex, raising concerns that radioactive substances may have seeped into the environment, including the sea nearby.

I suppose we should not be surprised by this, seeing as reactor 2 made a funny sound near its suppression chamber during the explosive stage of the crisis.

Looking at raw data, temperature and pressure is on the rise at reactor 1.

 

[elbows]

No surprises here:

The government has been reported that highly radioactive water detected at the No. 2 reactor of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is due to a partial meltdown of fuel rods there, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Monday.

He said the government has been informed by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan that ''water in a containment vessel that came into contact with fuel rods that partially melted at one point is believed to have been leaked,'' referring to the high levels of radioactive water found at the basement of the reactor's turbine building.

Edano told a news conference that the government believes the meltdown is not continuing.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81452.html

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Is it possible that no-one knows genuinely?

All the bamboozle is getting increasingly frustrating. About time they admitted the meltdown and told us how they're going to try and deal with it.

 

[elbows]

Well they've long admitted to a likely partial meltdown in multiple reactors, and probably leaking from reactor 2. There are probably some things they know that we dont, and some things that nobody knows. Conditions at the site are not ideal for gaining info about certain equipment.

Its quite likely that attempts to manage the situation will drag on for a very long time, and information will continue to dribble out at frustrating pace. Or at any moment some new decisive point could be reached, no signs of that recently though.

I was looking at Chernobyl disaster management details last night. Because it was a single event they did not suffer from loss of focus, they mostly just focussed on trying to put the fire out and got it done in just under 2 weeks I believe, by dropping a variety of stuff from helicopters. The building of the sarcophagus took many months though, and obviously during the height of the incident lives were put at extreme risk, a level of risk we have not seen taken in Japan, well apart from workers with inappropriate footwear receiving unhealthy doses to their legs.

 

[laptop]

And how did the hydrogen get into the sheds on top of the reactors? I've found a reference:

The destruction of the Unit 1 and 3 reactor buildings appears to have been caused by hydrogen explosions. As noted above, an unanswered question is how the hydrogen got into the reactor buildings. A little-known test performed decades ago at the Brunswick nuclear plant in North Carolina may hold the key to answering that question.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3940804083/possible-cause-of-reactor-building-explosions

 

[elbows]

The plutonium soil testing results are in, and indeed plutonium has been found on site:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-japan-plutonium-idUSTRE72R3XS20110328

Given what has happened, I would have been more surprised if they had not found any plutonium on site.

 

[audiotech]

From the Reuters article above:

Plutonium has been found in soil at various points within Japan's stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex but does not present a risk to human health, operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) said on Monday.

Plutonium present not a risk to human health? How does that work?

 

[laptop]

Plutonium present not a risk to human health? How does that work?

There's not very much of it.

Honest...

 

[elbows]

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110328e14.pdf

So some of the results may come from past weapons testing, but at 2 of the locations tested the 'activity ratio' was too high so they presume its come from recent events.

Which event would be one question. Spent fuel pools and/or one or more reactors.

 

[xes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12892383

maybe that map up there is right after all. Radioactive shit found in Glasgow. (extremly low, and of no threat to the public)

 

[elbows]

I didnt say the map was wrong, only that it was based on modelling. If the model is sound and the data they are feeding into it is good, then it should get a lot right.

 

[xes]

sorry, didn't mean it to sound like I was questioning what you'd written. Just confirming it really.

 

[elbows]

Dont worry, I didnt take it that way anyway, just wanted to be clear.

 

[Dr Jon]

Radioactive iodine from Japan found in Oxford and Scotland

Will they now start to bury these reactors and at least keep this shit in Japan?? The Chernobyl option is long overdue IMO.

 

[gentlegreen]

what about the fuel/iron magma boring down to the centre of the earth ?



http://jt.france2.fr/20h/

Can they tunnel under it and cast a concrete barrier ?

 

[laptop]

what about the fuel/iron magma boring down to the centre of the earth ?

I haven't listened to it, but bear in mind that in French it's possible to do an entire TV spot in the counter-factual subjunctive mood

 

[Dr Jon]

what about the fuel/iron magma boring down to the centre of the earth ?
...

Better the centre of the earth than the biosphere, ffs.

 

[gentlegreen]

Better the centre of the earth than the biosphere, ffs.

But on the way down, doesn't it contaminate the water table ?

 

[Dr Jon]

But on the way down, doesn't it contaminate the water table ?

I would guess it's on its way down already, or soon will be.

 

[laptop]

I would guess it's on its way down already, or soon will be.

If I had to bet, I'd say it was unlikely that any molten mass would have the energy to burn through the two metres or so of concrete at the bottom of the building: it'll just sit there, polluting the local neighbourhood.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Radioactive shit found in Glasgow.

fucking clatty weegies.

 

[Dr Jon]

If I had to bet, I'd say it was unlikely that any molten mass would have the energy to burn through the two metres or so of concrete at the bottom of the building: it'll just sit there, polluting the local neighbourhood.

All the more reason to bury this shit asap. There's going to be a big dead zone around this plant whatever happens, so I would say the priority should be to stop any more shite escaping into the wider environment.

 

[Fruitloop]

Have we seen any eating of words from Monbiot et al, now that the inevitable seems to be happening?

 

[elbows]

As far as we know there are no core catchers at these reactors.

I think people are right to highlight the idea that corium could fall down and out of the reactor, however I dont think there have been any clear indicators that this has happened yet. We dont know what state the various reactor cores are in, other than that the fuel has suffered some damage.

I cant judge whether there is any merit to the idea of just covering the lot in concrete at this stage. For sure Im not happy to see stuff still coming out of the reactors. But covering the lot in concrete is not without issues, especially considering the number of different locations with reactors & fuel pools that have to be dealt with. Plus at this stage I think the state of the fuel & reactors could still get worse if not managed properly, and dumping concrete all over the place rather reduces their options.

Time will tell. They may be making a complete arse of the crisis management for all I know, but its too early to judge - we can criticise some obvious failings but we only with hindsight will we see whether they avoided the worst case situations or made things worse.

As for 'at least keep this shit in Japan', bollocks. The stuff thats reaching us now is from ages ago, once the initial disasters happened there was no way they were going to prevent trace amounts from being detected around the northern hemisphere. What matters is how much radioactive shit gets out in total, and where the dangerous quantities of it accumulate. As per what I've just been saying about concrete containment, its impossible for us to judge what the best option is right now, because it eliminates some problems and creates new ones, and we dont know exactly which of these theoretical problems poses the greatest risk of causing much greater contamination going forwards. Dont get me wrong, I would be a lot happier not to see stuff going into the air anymore, but I also worry about how close to the sea it is, and dont want them to do something now that may make the problem at the site harder to deal with many years in the future.

 

[elbows]

Have we seen any eating of words from Monbiot et al, now that the inevitable seems to be happening?

The last article he wrote, saying how he was now pro-nuclear, was not written very long ago really, nothing hugely significant has happened since, so I highly doubt that any new facts have emerged that would change his mind.

By this I mean that his argument seem to be hinged on looking at the impact that forms of power like coal really have on people & the environment, and it is certainly true that in many ways nuclear disasters dont scale up to the same level of horror that coal is presumed to bring, both in terms of pollution and the worst effects of climate change that are anticipated.

I can agree with him to a limited extent, in that people dont get freaked out enough by the other forms of pollution that we cause, it gets nowhere near enough fearful attention, and at least he isnt trying to pretend that renewables can easily or certainly scale to meet all our needs (unless our needs radically change). However I do think he was stupid to form conclusions about the true impact of this nuclear woe, way premature to say the least. And even if we determine that not that many actual deaths result, there is something about the loss of use of wide areas of land that understandably resonates, people get that, it counts for something, people can easily imagine what it would be like if their own location, the place that they called home, became uninhabitable for an insanely long period of time. So I've got angry on numerous occasions at a variety of attempts to downplay things, and Monbiots article saddened me, but didnt surprise me all that much really. I dont know what would need to happen for him to change his mind and write some awful u-turn piece, but I dont think any of the contamination data so far will be out of line with what he's expecting Fukushima to mean in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ska invita]

can someone tell me if drinking water is too radioactive to drink, i presume it is it too radioactive to wash in?

 

[elbows]

can someone tell me if drinking water is too radioactive to drink, i presume it is it too radioactive to wash in?

In Tokyo, when the levels in the tap water on a few days was above legal limit for infants, they said it was still fine to bathe in.

There is some sense to this, as the legal limits are set pretty low, and stuff is worse if it gets inside your body and is taken up by certain organs etc, than if you just come into external contact with it.

However going for a bath in the water in the turbine building of reactor 2 would lead to death pretty quickly.