Published: February 1st, 2012 at 7:39 am ET
|
Title: POINT OF VIEW/ Mariko Takahashi: Hatoyama’s questionable Nature article
Source: AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
Author: Mariko Takahashi (Singer?)
Date: February 01, 2012
Writing in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature magazine, former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Lower House member Tomoyuki Taira, both from the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, called for the disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to be nationalized. [...]
The article said that “re-criticality,” “nuclear explosions” and “meltdowns” may each have taken place. It pointed out that information disclosure by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the plant operator, was woefully insufficient. [...]
I also don’t quite understand why the authors were so eager to argue that nuclear explosions may have taken place.
Although it remains unclear what precisely the authors meant by “nuclear explosions,” the word usually refers to a fast progression of a nuclear fission chain reaction, like when an atomic bomb explodes. If that had taken place, the nuclear reactor vessels would have been blown to pieces, and the way radioactive substances were spewed out would have been quite different from what we have seen.
Read the report here
Yes… those “meltdowns” might have taken place
See also:
- Mag: Curium and plutonium outside Fukushima plant indicate nuclear explosion at Reactor No. 3 -- Broken spent nuclear fuel rods may have been scattered
- Gov't officials investigating Fukushima want to know if "nuclear" explosions destroyed reactors -- Tepco "not in a position to comment"
- Yomiuri: Former Japan PM 'hints' of recriticality at Fukushima -- Found Chlorine-38 in Reactor No. 1 water tested at research institute
Published: February 1st, 2012 at 7:39 am ET
|
Long time fan of Moody Blues. Used to see them when...
sending...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3EiZI6CuHc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Worth 15 minutes of truth.
Report Comment
Sorry, didn’t read the article but the so-called author of this doesn’t understand reactors. They do not blow up like bombs with mushroom clouds. Reactor 1 went off like a firecracker. Reactor 2 was a dud but exploded on the 21st. Reactors 3 and 4 were explosions that went wrong like a firecracker that doesn’t function properly and people must run away. If there was no nuclear explosion then I would like to know why plutonium bounced of Mt Fuji and landed in Shizuoka.
Report Comment
Sorry for the typos, just using my phone. Please do watch the video I posted above.
Report Comment
POSTED HERE ROOKS Looks like Md is “up and Atom” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster_n_1240907.html#comments
Report Comment
ACTOR NOW BLIND When he went to Fukushima, he ate peach on the street without even washing it.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/02/cant-see-anything/
Report Comment
This is an extremely strange turn of events. “Nature” is a top-ranked scientific journal, arguably the most prestigious in the world. It is very unusual that they would print non-scientific content from high-level political figures. To use a clumsy Canadian analogy, it is as though the Hockey News published a story on sheep shearing for dummies. Very, very odd. From the article:
“The commentary in Britain’s prestigious scientific journal represented an extremely rare case of Japanese politicians making an appeal to a global audience.
I hope many scientists read the article. I’m sure many of them must have felt bewildered, because so many of the statements lacked any scientific basis.”
If you’re in the scientific community, please note that last paragraph… it’s talking about an article in Nature! We live in interesting times.
Report Comment
Good point. The imprimatur of Nature is very prestigious, you can’t just go and accuse them of being unscientific. You better demonstrate that the statements have no scientific basis.
Report Comment
Prestigious scientific journal my foot. Nature lost all credibility decades ago with the Benveniste story. Denying the facts of Fukushima is very much in character for them.
Report Comment
“Nature, first published on 4 November 1869,[1] is ranked the world’s most cited interdisciplinary scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29
Report Comment
Nuke News for Wednesday, February 01, 2012 just popped up
http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php
BB in a bit
Report Comment
I’ve searched the web for updates about the Byron plant. I wonder if it’s still venting, has power from the grid been restored? Nothing out there, just reports of testing that of course will never be revealed…that kind of testing takes decades to confirm anything.
Report Comment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-health-impact_n_1244008.html
please post; bigger spread of info the better
Report Comment
Hi ya’ rooks
baby out of the hosp.? or I’m confused, hope nothing serious.
Kids though…..
Report Comment
Hi ya, not yet. I just learned how to comment from phone.
Report Comment
“If a nuclear explosion took place – the nuclear reactor vessel would have been blown to pieces”
Exactly…
Report Comment
Actually the quote itself is wrong – because it assumes the fuel was still in the reactor when the explosion occurred. It’s been pretty well settled – without actual proof- that the fuel had already melted through the reactor vessel into the containment prior to the explosion – or at least was in the process of melting through.
I don’t know if it was a nuclear explosion or not – it doesn’t really matter – something went boom inside the primary containment and lots of stuff ejected vertically out of the containment – including what I think was either part or all of the reactor vessel itself.
Report Comment
Dear James: Excellent point!
Report Comment
It was a nuclear explosion. Even focused highly engineered nuclear explosions in nuclear warheads are very inefficient, hence the main component of fallout. Early bombs only would burn off 3%-5% of the fuel, or less. Imagine how inefficient in a nuclear reactor nuclear explosion where there is no engineering for the purpose of creating a nuclear explosion. Nuclear reactor uncontrolled criticality explosions would definitely, logically, always be less efficient, but, of course still a nuclear explosion. Hydrogen explosions would NOT blow 3-foot thick heavily re-bar reinforced walls apart; but definitely even inefficient nuclear explosions from uncontrolled criticality could.
Report Comment
Pallas:
I think the idea that “Hydrogen explosions would NOT blow 3-foot thick heavily re-bar reinforced walls apart… is going to far in terms of confidence.
The chemistry of ordnance is rather straight forward.
The oxidation of a known volume of hydrogen will easily allow one to calculate the energy available from that reaction. The results of said energy release is subjective, i.e. how small of an area is it impacting and over what time period (microseconds, milliseconds, seconds, minutes?)
One would be stuck having to make some assumptions.
Yet conservative assumptions can still allow one to estimate a probability or likelihood of an end result.
Regardless of whether a result “could” or “could NOT” happen.
We don’t know what sort of volume shape existed in any of the reactors in terms of how the hydrogen was dispersed when it was ignited.
Hence, hard to say what could or could not have happened with respect to blowing stuff apart.
Light up a pop bottle full of hydrogen gas and it will leave one with a very visceral respect for it’s capabilities. And leave you glad you were not holding the bottle. The bottle doesn’t break, but the boom is very loud and the velocity of the exiting CO2 and steam is intimidating.
There is a great WWII story on this concept.
Barnes Wallis was an engineer who figured out how to use very small bombs to blow apart German hydroelectric dams.
Many different attempts had failed prior to Wallis.
The pivotal idea in Wallis’s work was to get the bomb to be water proof enough to be able to roll down the water side of the dam edge and get deep. Then when it exploded (oxidation reaction, again) it could not compress the water around it. The weakest surface was the reinforced concrete of the dam itself. The idea was a huge success.
Much larger bombs in frontal attacks were nearly useless since the air was very compressible compared to the concrete.
Report Comment
“Mariko Takahashi is a senior staff writer of The Asahi Shimbun” according to the article. A Wiki search shows three people by that name, all entertainers. In any case, there seems to be no evidence that she has any expertise in matters nuclear.
Despite that apparent lack of expertise, she attempts to discredit a nuke-critical article in a hugely prestigious scientific journal. Normally, one would think she’s just doing a routine pro-nuke hatchet job. But wait…
The article in the prestigious scientific journal was written by high-ranking politicians, not scientists – politicians who themselves have no apparent technical expertise in matters nuclear. They were at the center of the Fukushima decision-making apparatus last March, and they seem to be using their soapbox moment to blame Tepco for the crisis and to suggest that government should save the day (yeah, right).
This is really convoluted: politicians get access to a top-ranked scientific media platform to hack at Tepco’s reputation, then a non-science senior staff writer uses a mainstream platform to make a very questionable scientific attack against the politicians’ article.
It is really hard to figure out who is doing what to whom, but it does look like some kind of war may be breaking out within the political/media/industry propaganda bloc. As someone suggested here a few days ago – “thieves fall out”.
Report Comment
hopefully, they continue to build up the blame game on each other.
nice deduction.
we all add bits to the puzzle, and it looks as if luck, perseverance, and passion, might be beginning to favour the emergence of truth.
fingers xd
Report Comment
Her point seems to be to set up in Japan a governmental reporting authority similar to the one in the UK called “POST”.
———————————————————
From their site
“Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
POST is Parliament’s in-house source of independent, balanced and accessible analysis of public policy issues related to science and technology.
About POST
POST’s aim is to help parliamentarians examine science and technology issues effectively. By writing briefings, organising events and assisting Select Committees, we have supported parliamentarians in their decision-making since 1989.”
“POST publishes 20 to 30 POSTnotes (short briefing notes) each year, along with occasional longer reports. They focus on current science and technology issues and aim to anticipate policy implications for parliamentarians.”
———————————————————
From Wikipedia
———————————————————
“The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, (POST) is the Parliament of the United Kingdom’s in-house source of independent, balanced and accessible analysis of public policy issues related to science and technology.[1] POST serves both Houses of Parliament (the House of Commons, and the House of Lords), through output that is apolitical and of potential value to Parliamentarians of all parties. Thorough quality-control ensures that MPs and Peers can have confidence in the information should they wish to cite it in debate. These principles are reflected in the structure of POST’s Board with members from the Commons and Lords together with distinguished scientists and engineers from the wider world.”
———————————————————
Ok so this is the kind of agency that the writer is seeking to propose be set up in Japan.
…
Report Comment
…
So, maybe she/her editor think that having the Nature article published has made Japan look silly/unprofessional and are flying this kite to get people thinking about institutionalising a more rigorous alternative than what (if anything) may already exist in Japan.
Or the whole thing, including the Nature article, might be a a get-up with Nature as a kind of “impartial but principled” sponsor. Of course this kind of behaviour is far from transparent.
I don’t like fostering conspiracy theories but this one does have a bit of a whiff.
What think the rest of us?
Report Comment
They do fallout! And,…flashights ‘trained on them’,…makes them fallout faster. And, it’s a very fun sport!
In fact,…it’s my new favorite hobby!
Report Comment
Make that ‘flashlights’
Report Comment
Maybe Asahi editorial policy is to oppose the ruling Party.
Maybe they get a lot of ad money from nuke Utilities and associated businesses.
The appearance in Nature of the political article is important globally for a number of reasons.
I suggest the Asahi article is more domestic.
“The Fuku angle” may well be first on meeting agendas throughout Japan, as in
“How do we position ourselves to look good, and how do we make “them” look bad?”
Report Comment
Since this article is really a political treatise in a scientific journal – I guess we can discuss the politics of it all here:
1. UK leaders are falling all over themselves to put Fukushima out of everyone’s mind. Why? They have been beaten by the French and their company Areva on the MOX processing front. The Brits built a MOX processing facility at Sellafield – with sole intent on supplying MOX to other markets – China and India.
2. Japan – Japan wanted to export nuclear engineering and construction expertise to India and the US. Prior to Fukushima – they were considered model nuclear operators – well aside from a few random nuke accidents.
3. US – US took the MOX bait and, having the largest stockpile of unused warheads – decided to engage AREVA in helping to construct a MOX processing plant at the Savannah River site. This plant is intended to sell MOX fuel to US and Japanese nuke plants. They used the money stockpiled to comply with nuclear arms reduction treaties, intended to dispose of nuke warheads, to build the plant and for other purposes.
US is also hedging the nuclear bet in India by building a trans afghanistan natural gas pipeline – just in case, because the political opposition to nuclear in India has been high.
However the US hedge is at risk, because IRAN is pitching an alternative natural gas pipeline project and it’s further along – that’s why the US has to invade Iran – to make sure the Iranians don’t get access to the lucrative Indian market.
4. France – Is really the impetus of all this MOX stuff – Areva made it work first and France is using the stuff all over. Never mind the Germans are downind from them and have rejected nuclear. (are the germans the only smart ones on the planet these days?) . Germany is still offering its engineering expertise on nuclear projects.
5. Russia – what do they have to do with this?
Report Comment
Russia has a news agency, RT, which has been bashing fukushima actions incessantly. The reason is twofold – first they are redeemed from Chernobyl – which was only a fraction as dangerous as Fukushima. Second, of course is natural gas and oil – a rejection of nuclear means an increased dependence on gas and oil, which of course is good for Russia because they have lots of it.
China – china is laying low, because nuke is a large part of their economic expansion plans. They don’t really want to nuke their own country – but political backlash isn’t really an issue there.
Simplified view – but at a high level that’s it.
Report Comment
The Nature article appeared, what, 6 weeks ago, now, and Taira and Hatoyama were part of the “float” concerning the partial nationalisation of Tepco.
Slow news day for Asahi Shimbun?
Mariko Takahashi hasn’t had a byline in a while?
Or – pre-positioning in advance of some piece the release of which they know is imminent?
I want to know Asahis’ political orientation.
Report Comment
“I want to know Asahis’ political orientation.” I don’t know, or-well. It seems very mainstream (that’s not a compliment), judging by this:
http://www.asahi.com/shimbun/aan/english/
If they are the mainstream party-line view, does that mean Taira and Hatoyama are the rebels?
Goofy stuff – Goliath vs. Goliath!
Report Comment
Hi aig – was looking – left-of-center to liberal…means (?)…
One might say, to capture and hold market share, Asahi presents a broad range…depth and fluff…serious and sensational…hard for foreigners to suss the differentiation from their competitors.
The Nature article is “old news”(still relevant) and certainly an issue all by itself.
Marikos’ Asahi piece – slow on the uptake? I don’t think so…why opine now, in a lightweight opinion column?
Slam the ruling party, contrary to her papers’ political position?
Slam them in line with her papers’ political position?
Weird. I’m waiting, I do think this particular piece might be preparatory, but then it might be no more than “Here – do a piece that looks like it balances “X”.”
Or, just another newsday in a competitive market.
In-depth journalism on the J-Govs Tepco nationalisation it’s not, nor on the true sit rep at Fuku.
Report Comment
Let’s take a look at the original explosion..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMqxwG1Som0
Report Comment
PS..seems prety much blown to hell to me….
Report Comment
“UK leaders are falling all over themselves to put Fukushima out of everyone’s mind.”
Yes, James2, leaders everywhere have been doing that for almost a year. However, Nature is a British publication, and “UK leaders” did not suppress the piece by Hatoyama and Taira that puts Fukushima at center stage. I’m left wondering how their piece overcame the huge odds against appearing in that journal.
It’s a political piece in a scientific journal.
It aggressively draws attention to the Fukushima debacle.
It is published in a climate in which such things are usually suppressed (as you imply).
It got relatively weak pushback from an uncredentialed staff writer at The Asahi Shimbun.
Something new is emerging from the spin culture, I think, although perhaps it is just a fluke. We watch and wait.
Report Comment
I should think that the British building the olympic’s site on top of a nuke waste dump site… MAY have given them cause to wish this whole matter would vanish!
Then there’s the whole issue of ‘exploding a bomb’ on the site just like that one pictured in Hearts’s vid on Aug of 2012 during the games… and their prep-work for dealing with the fallout from it.
It upsets them when shown that the whole sham-false-flage type of event is so graphicaly shown to the sheeple in advance like this.
At this point, it will only be the sheeple that show for the spectator death-thrust they have planed.
Report Comment
Pattie
building the olympics on a nuke waste site is interesting,
…but you lose me when you talk about “exploding a bomb” during the games. Are you saying they are planning to do that, or planning for the possibility some terrorist is going to?
I don’t think a terrorist needs a dirty bomb anymore. I would think some fuku soil is just as effective.
If you are suggesting a government plot – then that goes over the irrelevant conspiracy edge for me
Report Comment
As probably already mentioned, Asahi Shinbun article title: “Nuclear Explosion at Reactor 3 Would Have Blown Reactor…to Pieces”. LIES LIES LIES…The nuclear explosion emanated from the spent fuel pool at R3. Layer upon layer of sticky embroidery until we definitely unseat those murdering everything, the status quo in charge.
Report Comment
THE EXPLOSION DID NOT COME FROM THE SPENT FUEL POOL.
The vertical part of the blast came from the primary containment
See the video that heart links above Look at the verticality at :59 into the video. That part could not have come from the pool. Furthermore, the pool still held water after the blast – not possible that the explosion came out of there..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMqxwG1Som0
Report Comment
I agree ..James2
Report Comment
If you view this film-clip of contents of #4 pool… I direct your attention to the rack of 40 PU-239 ‘enrichment’ type rods sitting segregated in it. They have a pyramid-looking top to them, and are sitting in a special-made rack, and require a different bit to grab them, as they don’t have a handle like U-238 or MOX rods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=b-ZeWYFrBaI&feature=endscreen
40 sec. in shows close-view.
Report Comment
using the reactor to do ‘enrichment’ is why #3 had the criticality ‘EVENT’ that it had, different from #’s 1 & 2.
#1 had just U-238 ‘standard’ rods bundles.
#2 Had U-238 & MOX rod bundles inside it.
#3 Had inner core of PU-239, ringed by moderation rods. (The long-ish rod segments that were to big/long to be urainium or even MOX rod segments… found all around plant & in remains of fuelpool of #3) around that ring was MOX rods, then more moderation, then lastly… the U-238 rod bundles. It is clear that it was doing erichment of P-239 back up to weapons grade specifications.
#4 was being retro-fitted to do the same as #3… if reactor core was loaded in prep to start? Does that mean there are even MORE P-239 ‘enrichment’ type rods present than cam-views have shown!?
Report Comment
Hey Pattie, did you find unit 6 yet? The “exploded-but-photoshopped-back-in” one?
*just kidding, my nerves are wrecked, too
Report Comment
Go look at the webcam discussion thread –
I’m not 100% yet, but I think #5 at least might be missing…
Report Comment
Report Comment
Thanks PattieB that sounds interesting and maybe balances out the fact that the nuclear community are so anxious to keep the issue cordoned off.
Any enrichments that were being done will of course vastly have increased the operational risks of this life expired generating plant, not to mention maintenance neglected to the extent of leaks being unrepaired for years.
I’m interested in your evidence of the contents of Nos 2 and 3. Sorry if you have already mentioned it. It’s not easy to keep up with everything.
Report Comment
Sorry, didn’t read rest of thread below. Thanks for the insights.
As above, no bloody wonder the protection gang are out in force.
Report Comment
Wow PattieB!!!
All of that so concisely and clearly presented just puts a whole new twist in this plot.
I have read in a few scattered places the idea that TEPCO/Japan were doing enrichment at Fuku, yet it seemed too “out there”. (No idea why). And the stories I found were more opinion than factual.
Yet you have connected the dots in such an elegant way that it leaves me with no doubt that they were enriching!
Your presentation is one of the most valuable gems in this nuclear version of a “who dunnit” murder mystery.
Report Comment
yeah, the rumor is that they were enriching but not for weapons, they were looking for some new isotopes in an effort to compete with CERN or something… who cares. prolly all the reactors have tons of college kids crankin’ up tons of crap.
Report Comment
what i mean to say is that the damage is obviously from the earthquake, no matter what they were up to.
Report Comment
Bread: I know, I know… but perhaps you didn’t see the pan-back vid on JNN cam that showed SOMETHING on that side of the site burning like mad!, and a pool-4 type of ‘glowing BLOB’ ) present on the cam! I can’t say just WHAT over there burned up… just that SOMETHING sure as hell did! Also in that cam-shot, was a fire in the waste treatment building to the right of #4 in the JNN cam… nothing was said, yet…? It now has 4 cranes about it doing who-knows-WHAT!
There is now a cask transport ship in tepco fuku-1 port. Yet the only rods they could now ‘cask-up?’ are (Some of)the ones sitting in the shared pool building… all the ones in reactor Spent pools are now far too hot to transport. Dry casking them is out of the question, and can’t be done until cooled for years!
Also: If the reactor vessle of #4 WAS filled? That means the 40 bundles of P-239 rods in the pool may only be a half-load? And they have 40 more in the vessel!
Report Comment
It is obvious that reactor 3 (the rector itself) blew itself to kingdom come. It is not there anymore. The amount of uranium in air, as released by EPA reports would requires tens of tons of uranium to be launched.
Clearly, that is what happened, that fits the data.
Read here, it is scientific proof.
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html
Here is how a Nuclear “type” explosion is possible, they proved it and filmed it in early USA open air testing.
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/gundersen-email-and-theories.html
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/videos-moderated-prompt-criticality.html
Report Comment
Your speaking as if your views on this, and data presented in some way / form invalidates what I have been saying? They were working with the data / info given them at that point in time.
The added issue of the P-239 rods (In clear view in pool #4, and moderation rod sections needed for such, and found in pool of 3, and all over ground ) only changes slightly the root-cause of the blast, and doesn’t change / or in any way invalidate any recorded data you have layed-out. Readings like that would be much of a like-nature for both.
But please, I am a USArmy trained N.B.C. rapid reponce team member, and former D-2/55 11th ADA missle crew member! Also, on civilian-side after D-storm ‘Freedom-team stint’ abroad… gained ATF lic. for explosives-handeling in order to build anti-missle & anti-torpedo defensive ‘stuffs’ for military @ Lockheed Martin.
Need i mention the military, and just how possitively PENDANTIC they are about hazard recognition? I had training to recognize what I may be required to handle. Nucular, Chemical, Bio-hazards. N.B.C.
I know ON SIGHT what the rods sitting in pool #4 are, and to be sure… I back-checked my facts on them, (P-239 erichment fuel bundels)as well as them bits that were ‘so-called’ unidentified rod-like bits found on the ground, and in the remains of #3′s pool… they FILMED them! (Enrichment moderation rods segments!) Such bits are longer than both U-238 & MOX ‘pellets’ and are hollow… just like what was found. In past weeks, I even set in this chat the links to back up my statments.
They have yet to admit to what this stuff IS, or that what they showed in survey of pool #4. They assumed that nobody would recognize them for what they ARE!
Happens…. I DO! Now!… with what I have said? You can well understand why they are currently FREAKED about the pool of #4. It’s fairly PACKED with a mixed-bag of fissionables! It doesn’t have control rods OR moderation rods in it!
Report Comment