Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

[Barking_Mad]

For example there is no evidence that any of the fuel bundles at reactor 4 are intertwined or twisted.

Is there any evidence they aren't? I mean do we actually know for sure or is either a possibility?

 

[Barking_Mad]

I notice the terminology is describing the issue as "contaminated puddles of water".

Easy, just walk around them and dont jump up and down in them like a small child - you'll be fine. From the BBC:

A puddle of the contaminated water was emitting 100 millisieverts an hour of radiation, Kyodo news agency said earlier this week.

 

[elbows]

Well its hard to imagine them being intertwined when they are still sitting in their racks. We do not have quality analysis of every fuel bundle and some of them could be damaged to an extent, but there are a number of videos taken inside the reactor 4 fuel pool. None of them showed anything which the disaster-rampers could use to further their hype.

Just one example from reactor 4 pool:

 

[Barking_Mad]

Well its hard to imagine them being intertwined when they are still sitting in their racks. We do not have quality analysis of every fuel bundle and some of them could be damaged to an extent, but there are a number of videos taken inside the reactor 4 fuel pool. None of them showed anything which the disaster-rampers could use to further their hype.

Just one example from reactor 4 pool:

Cheers. However the video title says it's pool 2, (although one comment below says pool4). Another video saying Pool #4 shows something slightly different:

 

[elbows]

There is no video of the pool at reactor 2, or reactor 1. The video you link to is also of pool 4. It looks different to the one I posted because they have covered the top of the pool and as a consequence natural light is not illuminating it, and because in your video they go into another area of the pool - the cask area. This is where, under normal conditions, new fuel is placed into the pool via a special cask, and old fuel is removed. As far as I know they will not attempt to use this mechanism to remove the fuel now, and will instead remove the fuel bundles one at a time. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the challenges this operation has, but Busby seriously overdid it.

I don't think people always appreciate quite how long the fuel bundles are. One unused fuel bundle was removed from reactor 4 pool ages ago before the special structure was built, so they could study it, and there is video.

 

[elbows]

And this is why I mentioned the debris in the reactor 3 pool being far more significant than reactor 4 pool:



Most of the very large 'refuelling bridge' ended up falling into the reactor 3 pool (it stayed above the pool at reactor 4) and a lot of roof debris also went into reactor 3 pool.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Thanks.

 

[Barking_Mad]

And this is why I mentioned the debris in the reactor 3 pool being far more significant than reactor 4 pool:



Most of the very large 'refuelling bridge' ended up falling into the reactor 3 pool (it stayed above the pool at reactor 4) and a lot of roof debris also went into reactor 3 pool.

Although to be fair Busby isnt the only person speaking of dangers, perceived or real. From April last year - Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy:

In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/nuclear-expert-fukushima-spent-fuel-has-85-times-more-cesium-released-chernobyl-—-“it-woul

 

[Barking_Mad]

Interesting interview with a Fukushima worker:

http://no-border.asia/archives/9257

 

[elbows]

Although to be fair Busby isnt the only person speaking of dangers, perceived or real.

I do not dispute that there are dangers, I am critical of some of the phoney details people use to make the threats more colourful.

The three specific people Ive had issue with in this regard since the disaster are Busby, Helen Caldicott, and Arnold Gundersen. They all have agendas that predate Fukushima, and they should all know better. They sell themselves as experts and yet with just a few months internet study I was able to pick out various statements of theirs that were dodgy. Thats not to say everything they say is untrue, there is some good detail mixed in with the hysterical poop.

There has also been a lot of pro-nuclear bullshit which I what I was initially focussing on when I started to learn about the details, and a lot of interests and money back those agendas. But I was dismayed that so many of the leading opposers of the nuclear agenda were prepared to sacrifice truth and detail in order to supposedly further their cause and get attention.

As for the interview, yes it is interesting although as a total geek about this disaster I'm already aware of it. It does cast some light on the numerous problems. Capitalism, incompetence, corruption, some cultural issues, organised crime and the sheer difficulty of decommissioning reactors that melted down all combine to make the site a multi-decade nightmare. The PR side of things has been botched in multiple ways, and the government response and sends of duty of care for its citizens has been beyond inadequate.

Regarding some specific details mentioned in the interview, yes the radioactive shroud pieces in the pit will be an issue that eventually has to be dealt with, though the fuel is the much bigger risk for now. So long as they keep the shroud parts shielded by keeping the pit filled with water, there isn't much in the way of risk, its a long term decommissioning issue more than anything.

As for why reactor 2 is said to have been responsible for far more of the contamination of land than the other reactors, this has been my area of special focus in recent years and there are a number of factors. The dramatic explosions at reactor buildings 1 and 3 caused an inappropriate layman's sense of where the biggest horrors were to be found. I cannot go as far as to cal them red herrings but certainly the vast quantities of steam etc that poured out of reactor 2 building via the small hole in the wall should have received far more attention. It is also quite possible that emissions from reactors 1 & 3 have been understated because at the times when these reactors leaked the wind direction meant that land wasn't contaminated that badly. Whereas at reactor 2 the timing of the large leak coincided with wind that initially blew in the direction of Tokyo, and then later when it was blowing north west there was a band of rain or snow which brought many of the radioactive substances to the ground. In terms of why more substances may have actually come out of reactor 2 than the others, much is still unknown about the conditions of the three reactors. However one very likely factor is that the greater magnitude of release from reactor 2 was because venting failed at that reactor. At reactors 1 & 3 they managed to wet-vent, which meant that some of the radioactive substances in the atmosphere inside containment were scrubbed through water in the suppression chamber before entering the environment via the chimneys. Much of the radioactive substances therefore remained in the water of the suppression chamber. But at reactor 2 attempts to vent failed, and this stuff came straight out into the environment once the containment started leaking. Containment did go on to leak at the other reactors as well, and its quite possible these releases were not accounted for properly, but its still important that the first releases after initial melt were scrubbed at these other reactors.

 

[elbows]

For example, people were understandably focussed on video & photos of explosions and terrible damage. But this picture from March 16th 2011, which received little attention, shows stuff coming out of reactor 2 building which is likely responsible for much of the land contamination.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Thanks Elbows - this doesnt do Busby any favours eh?!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima

 

[laptop]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Busby is quite mad. At least as bad as a conspiraloon.

Not pleasant to discover this after you've sat down to appear on a public platform alongside him

 

[elbows]

My only problem with that Guardian piece is that it makes the food testing in Japan sound really good, when in fact there were numerous stories in the months after the disaster that demonstrated food testing was often detecting contamination in food after quantities of the food had already been consumed. Including in kids school meals. I would therefore tend to assume that the various realities of Fukushima lie somewhere between the two extremes presented that those with vested interests one way or another routinely present for public consumption.

 

[elbows]

I see there is now a piece on the BBC about Fukushima being much worse than we were led to believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

I have an issue with this bit:

There are also worries about the spent nuclear fuel rods that are being cooled and stored in water pools on site. Mycle Schneider says these contain far more radioactive caesium than was emitted during the explosion at Chernobyl.
"There is absolutely no guarantee that there isn't a crack in the walls of the spent fuel pools. If salt water gets in, the steel bars would be corroded. It would basically explode the walls, and you cannot see that; you can't get close enough to the pools," he said.

Eh? How is salt water supposed to get in? The spent fuel pools are high up in the reactor buildings so sea water isn't going to magically flow there. I believe they used sea water to cool the pools very early on, but quickly switched to other water and then desalinated the existing water. There is a common fuel pool which I believe is more like at ground level, but there is certainly no problem getting close to that one.

 

[laptop]

Eh? How is salt water supposed to get in? The spent fuel pools are high up in the reactor buildings so sea water isn't going to magically flow there. I believe they used sea water to cool the pools very early on, but quickly switched to other water and then desalinated the existing water. There is a common fuel pool which I believe is more like at ground level, but there is certainly no problem getting close to that one.

Probably not the best idea to ask a biochemist / marine chemist about engineering.

Unless he muddled his tenses and it's the salt water introduced earlier that he's worrying about. Which could in theory lurk in cracks and - in years to come - do to the concrete what he's used to seeing the sea do to concrete.

 

[Tankus]

Aberystwyth in a storm

I've heard of windows broken on the fourth floor from pebbles fired up from the beach in streets behind the seafront.

Out there Fukushima is in annual typhoon track ,a different scale altogether.

I would imagine the spray gets blown a considerable distance into the plant , and allowed to drain back, including fallout. , been happening through two typhoon seasons.

 

[teqniq]

 

[elbows]

Do you have some information about what you or others think that picture shows? Because without further information I will tend to assume it is a good example of the coastal mist/fog that is a frequent feature of the weather around the site. i.e. not salty sea spray.

 

[teqniq]

The person who posted it on FB seems to think it's caused by radiation. Their words, not mine:

Well, The ocean is Boiling now on the coast of Japan from the runaway cores at Fukushima Daiichi. I wonder how bad it has to get before the public wakes up?

I posted it without any caption initially to see if you or anyone else had seen it. I would further add that someone at work was talking to me yesterday evening about 'that thing in Japan with the seawater boiling'. They must have picked up the info someplace, maybe the same source. Very concerned they were too; this was before I saw this pic.

 

[elbows]

Ta for the info. The chances that they are deeply mistaken are very, very high indeed. Natural weather phenomenon around the coast has routinely caused much wibbling on the internet in years past, primarily from people looking at the webcam and mistaking mist/fog for reactor emissions.

 

[elbows]

Not sure if this image will embed, but here is another example of the completely normal weather phenomenon making the site look more interesting.

 

[elbows]

Not to mention the idea that the significant bulk of melted reactor cores ending up in the ocean would be quite a magic trick. The location of the cores is unknown, but thats a question of how far down they have sunk below the reactors, with nobody suggesting that they can magically migrate east into the ocean. This refers to the large bulk of melted fuel, i.e. big clumps that give off significant heat. Elements that have leached from the fuel can and have entered the ocean, but these are not capable of causing the sea to boil. Heck I'm not even sure the sea would boil if we teleported the full cores into the sea, though I've done no calculations.

 

[story]

That sea mist and sea spray, elbows: will it be picking up any radiation as it passes through Fukushima? Will it be carrying any further afield? Is it another vector for contamination?

 

[elbows]

Unless something new happens inside the reactors (or fuel pools or other radioactive concentrations on site), the emissions that get into the air these days and could then be deposited elsewhere in Japan are pretty much insignificant compared to the contamination that got into the environment in the first days and weeks of the disaster. The exception to this is the contamination of the ocean. But for most of the affected areas of Japan, I'd suggest that the risk of stirring up or otherwise failing to deal properly with the radioactive elements that fell to the ground in the first days after the meltdowns is the main hazard.

 

[elbows]

And just to clarify why I tend to dismiss new air & land contamination as irrelevant. The scale of the initial disaster and contamination was immense. There are all sorts of long-term problems in dealing with the site. There remains potential for bad shit to happen, and the continued contamination of the ocean is not good. But none of this justifies the attempts by certain internet sources to hype up the present situation and make it appear to be as hazardous to humans as the initial meltdowns were. So in a nutshell my stance is that the original disaster was so bad that there is no need to stretch the present picture in order to get a sense of fresh and immediate doom. If this changes I will be the first to shout about it.

 

[Tankus]

A small heat differential would cause a mist if the naturally occurring weather conditions were right. Local inversion layer partially enclosed inland. Seen it happen lots of times in the valleys with the warmth coming off the river.

The wreck of the core doesn't need to move to the sea , the hydrological cycle is going to do it with dissolved contaminates.

One way to reduce or even reverse the flow is drilling a string of wells inland of the plant and pump the water out, depressing the local water table, It would work until the contamination reaches it.

The ones after the plant are producing yet even more contaminated water adding to the coolant water volume issues.
The volume of water they are now dealing with is enormous, the site is becoming a tank farm.

There is bound to be a steady increase in the amount of lower level contaminated water that TEPCO will be allowed to dump into the sea , and the threshold will increase as does the volume, just from a capacity issue.

Heh ,I can see 3 nuclear reactors from the bottom of my road , sitting on the coast. Does make you wonder doesn't it..?

 

[elbows]

The wreck of the core doesn't need to move to the sea , the hydrological cycle is going to do it with dissolved contaminates.

Yes but I was responding to the idea that the sea was boiling. I do not dispute that many contaminants have an easy path to the sea. Any large lumps of corium aren't going to though. Not that we actually know the location of the cores, e.g. how much if any remains in the reactor vessels, how far any has sunk into the concrete or beyond, whether there are large masses or a finer spread. Attempts to explore the lower areas of reactor containment have been rubbish so far, even at reactor 2 where the most work has been done on this they have not got beyond low-quality images just outside the reactor pedestal.

 

[elbows]

By the way for anyone with a grasp or interest in geology (not one of my strong subjects), here is an interesting look at the geology of the site:

http://fukushima.over-blog.fr/article-the-geology-of-fukushima-88575278.html

That also helps get a sense of what I've been on about in the past when I facepalmed about how they lowered the ground area by the coast when constructing the reactors.

There is also a TEPCO report on this but I don't think its been translated yet. I'll post it anyway since some of the diagrams are still interesting despite the language issues.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/c130823_05-j.pdf

 

[elbows]

And just to further illustrate the botchy nature of TEPCOs work on site, when one of those tanks leaked it emerged that they haven't even fitted individual water level gauges to each tank. And the tank that leaked this time had previously been installed at another location on site but was then taken apart and moved when the ground underneath it subsided.