Asahi: New 3/11 footage shows “disaster loomed” at Fukushima Reactor No. 5

Published: January 24th, 2013 at 4:23 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
50 comments


(Subscription Only) Title: Videos show crisis at Fukushima nuclear plant 2 weeks after tsunami
Source: AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
Author: compiled from reports by Takashi Sugimoto and Toshihiro Okuyama.
Date: January 24, 2013

Confusion spread, tempers flared and disaster loomed at two reactors of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, nearly two weeks after the crisis started in March 2011, footage of the plant operator’s teleconferences showed. [...]

At 8:58 p.m. on March 23, another serious problem was revealed when a report said temperature could rise again in the No. 5 reactor. The temperature had fallen below 100 degrees three days earlier. [...]

A cooling system stopped working [...]

[Masao Yoshida, then chief of the Fukushima No. 1 plant] was furious because he had not received the report immediately.

“This is a very, very important issue,” Yoshida said. “If there is something abnormal, tell us without delay. [...]

“The pump rotated at 4:14 p.m. [on March 24],” an official said. “Water temperature remains low at 99 degrees.” [...]

See also: Major Study: Reactor No. 5 releases may explain why so much radioactive xenon detected... or "recriticality has occurred in one of the reactor units"

Published: January 24th, 2013 at 4:23 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
50 comments

Related Posts

  1. Asahi: Japan officially in “state of nuclear emergency” still — Clearly shows Fukushima disaster on going — Crisis far from over… gov’t far too late, commitment far too weak August 17, 2013
  2. Asahi Shimbun demands Tepco release ALL footage related to Fukushima disaster (VIDEO) October 6, 2012
  3. Nuclear Engineer: New footage shows Reactor 1 has “ruptured” containment structure, most likely from the explosion — Water to cool “what’s left of core” flowing into environment (VIDEO) November 15, 2013
  4. Asahi: Chilling warning seen in newly released Fukushima images — Shows ‘highly radioactive debris’ near Reactor 1 marked “Danger!” (PHOTOS) February 2, 2013
  5. NHK: First aerial footage of Fukushima plant since 3/11 — Shows explosion ‘distorted’ No. 3 reactor building February 26, 2012

50 comments to Asahi: New 3/11 footage shows “disaster loomed” at Fukushima Reactor No. 5

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    And then what happened?


    Report comment

    • Now… WAIT! just a MIN! Give them a break! It's hard to keep water in a reactor that starts due to a quake… when the lid is off of it!

      It's also DUMB AS HELL for that guy who when and took a cam shot of that shit! I'm not sure if he's still alive….

      And with out more water to fill it….

      You can guess the rest.

      They did call the manufacture… and they arrived to consult on how to get the lid on again when the heat made the danged thing expand.. and it wouldn't FIT!

      " ROLLS EYES! "


      Report comment

  • hbjon hbjon

    Well, it's a long story. One must assume, with the benefits of hindsight that is, that since survival action failed at units 1 through 4 but succeeded at units 5 and 6. They went double down and put all the chips at remedial efforts there.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    I don't believe 5 and 6..were in much different condition than 1-4 after the earthquake/tsunami.
    I think perhaps..they did intentional venting like ..reactor 2.
    I think they lost control of 5 an6 ..long ago.


    Report comment

    • gottagetoffthegrid

      the big, and only real difference between 5&6 and 1 — 4is that 5&6 were already in cold shut-down for several months before the quake hit– that meant that the most of the decay heat had been dissipated.

      the quake knocked out the pumps and cooling systems at 5&6 too but they had enough time to jury-rig pumps to pump sea water into them and keep the cores from going dry and burning.

      that is it.


      Report comment

      • patb2009

        1Fukushima4 had been shutdown for months too and it exploded.

        the sole difference was that 1Fuku6 had a sole surviving generator, which they cross tied to 1Fuku5
        and kept the monitors up, the pumps running and the lights on and valves could be controlled.

        had they been able to cross strap to the others, they might have made it.

        station blackout is the ultimate death, everything else you have options, but in SBO, they lose all options


        Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    I think that's what this story is all about…cover.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    That's the thinng about.."disaster loomed" stories.
    Hindsight in this situation..tends to show..the disaster already has occurred.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    As summarized yesterday by EneNews:( Nov.14 2011)

    ■“Four of the five emergency diesel generators on units 5 and 6 were inoperable after the tsunami”
    ■“One air-cooled emergency diesel generator on Unit 6 continued to function and supplied electrical power to Unit 6, and later to Unit 5, to maintain cooling to the reactor and spent fuel pool.”
    ■“Unit 5 had been shut down and in an outage since January 3, 2011. Fuel had been loaded into the reactor and the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) reassembled.”
    ■“Unit 6 had been shut down and in an outage since August 14, 2010. Fuel had been loaded into the reactor and the RPV reassembled.”
    ■“The Unit 6 air-cooled EDG and portions of the electrical distribution system survived the tsunami and were used to reestablish cold shutdown on units 5 and 6.”
    ■“After the tsunami impacted the site, operators were able to use the 6B emergency diesel generator (EDG) to provide power to cooling systems for the Unit 6 spent fuel pool. After installing temporary cables, the 6B EDG [generator] provided power to Unit 5 spent fuel pool cooling.”

    Are Fukushima Reactors 5 and 6 In Trouble Also?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/radioactive-iodine-fukushima-seawater-highest-ever-reactors-5-and-6-now-leaking-too


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    To this I add this story..

    Oil spill at Fukushima — Near Reactors No. 5 and 6
    May 31 2011

    http://enenews.com/oil-spill-at-fukushima-near-reactors-no-5-and-6

    "Oil was leaking into the sea from heavy oil tanks for reactors 5 and 6 at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Tuesday, adding the spill may have been ongoing since the March 11 quake and tsunami.

    Tepco said workers at the site saw an oil slick floating on the sea at 8 a.m. Tuesday near the intakes of units 5 and 6. [...]"

    Oil leak may have been ongoing since the quake/tsunami?
    I wouldn't say they had control..


    Report comment

  • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

    "Plant officials reported to the Tokyo head office on March 25 that water was apparently flowing out of the No. 2 reactor building via a hatch for large equipment." (From the above article.)

    Reactor Buildings1,3,&4 up were blowing.
    Fuel in Unit4 was burning.
    Units5&6 were venting.
    Highly radioactive water was flowing.
    Helicopters were dropping.
    Coriums were melting through.
    Seawater was pumping.
    In the "Control" Room heads were scratching.
    (The situation had gotten way out of control.)


    Report comment

  • weeman

    What about the other 37 reactors in Japan, all are closed indefenetly, how mush damage did they recieve, nuclears reactors are not meeting their design perimeters and are unsafe, any other building that failed their design perimeters would be evacuated and closed immediately. I do not understand, can not comprehend.


    Report comment

  • many moons

    Just a crazy thought…perhaps the USS Ronald Regan set off an underwater bomb to cause a tsunami to cover up and already melted down Fukushima, then they showed the reators blowing up post tsunami when infact when infact the reactors had already blown up and gone in to melt down. Thus covering the fact the reactors and any reactors including those in the USA could spin out of control…(and lets not forget the nuclear virus that was also circulating at the time.)


    Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      I know and Im glad you wrote this. I have wondered the very same scenario but never factored in the Reagan…. now with them in the picture, it actually seems more plausible to me. Now you have to think if its a reasonable conclusion. You have to think would they *sacrifice* the resulting 20000 people who died in the tsunami….. for me, that's where it starts to fray…


      Report comment

      • many moons

        Thanks Anthony for your comment, it's reassuring to know someone else thought the same…in regard to your statement about the death of 20,000 people..there have been so many instances in history that report huge numbers killed…Stalin, Hitler and many more killed millions of people.


        Report comment

    • NoNukes NoNukes

      many moons,

      I remember looking on Radnet early after 3/11 and seeing spikes in November and end of December of 2010, which made me ask a similar question, which came first?


      Report comment

    • richard richard

      Thanks moons, maybe there was a fuku accident earlier then claimed, but to think someone deliberately created a tsunami is a bit of a stretch.

      No one has the ability to generate or abuse planetary sized forces. I'm constantly amazed by people's thinking that monkeys can affect a planet like this. I think star wars death star has a lot to answer for. It's made people think that planets are just blobs that can be tossed around like skipping stones on a pond.

      There are so many reasons to discount such an idea, least of all, the raygun would have sunk itself setting of a nuke the size required for a tsunami.

      A little lesson for the non-scientific. You do not get energy from nothing. It also doesn't spontaneously create or expand itself (hey, if it did, we wouldn't have energy wars).

      Or simply, you only get out, what you put in. So if a tsunami requires xxx gazillion kilojoules to get started, then you'll need an explosion of xxx gazillion kilojoules, nothing less. The rest of the world would have notice a nuke if it was used. But it just can't, it doesn't addmup in the least.


      Report comment

      • Anthony Anthony

        Ironically US and NZ were in the news recently covering their collaborative Nuclear Tsunami Bomb testing. You must have missed that?


        Report comment

      • many moons

        You are right Richard I am not a scientist. But my job does require a great deal of attention to a lot of details. One detail I've noticed about March 11th is that most of the distruction that we hear about from this tremendous energy force…the earthquake, is not mentioned. Almost all pictures, videos and distruction in general came from the tsunami. I would think that an earthquake of that size would have caused much more distruction than what appears to have taken place.


        Report comment

        • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

          appreciate your desire for accuracy, many moons. You should be aware that distance, topology and energy would be but a few of the determining factors in the resulting damage. If a quake is offshore, the distance from the land mass and its depth could result in minimal energy transfer to the land mass itself. Yet, the water mass itself could be seriously influenced by the spontaneous energy release. And what resulting damage may have been observed in land mass upheavals, could easily be masked by the after effects of the tsunami, itself…


          Report comment

      • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

        what I don't like about these theories, richard, is they open the door for accepting the 'safe' operation of nuclear power technologies. Assuming (and you know where that gets us) these conspiracies are true, does that mean the other plants should remain in operation? Regardless of the cause, what we've learned from Fukushima is the outcome of such technical failure far outweighs any purported benefits. So whether it's Satanists chanting for the end of the world or aliens preemptively eliminating any potential competition for galactic resources, I don't want such deadly technology being used within the planet's biosphere, which puts our entire species in such a vulnerable position…period!


        Report comment

      • 16Penny 16Penny

        Richard, yes conservation of energy is well known. That being said, your presentation of it does not acknowledge that there is energy in different forms all around us. Some forces are held in check waiting only for a small event to upset that balance.

        "So if a tsunami requires xxx gazillion kilojoules to get started, then you'll need an explosion of xxx gazillion kilojoules, nothing less."

        Avalanches and mudslides are well known examples. Recently, geologists have admitted a link between fracking and EQ's. Here is an article speculating on other methods of inducing EQ's:

        http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/

        I am not an expert on the geology of Japan but I have come to understand the sub terrain is riddled with volcanic tubes. I can see how that can be easily upset. I am not professing that this is what happened, not even claiming this is my idea of how. Just saying it is possible to cause an action on a greater scale than the scale of forces under our control. There are many creative people out there and if tasked I think they could figure out a way.


        Report comment

    • Only comment I have…? Is I have picture of black smoke comming out of reactor #1… A goodly time before the wave hit it.


      Report comment

  • Jay

    Just for fun let's remember that our best speculations are put to shame by Remote Sensing that sees the Truth about the radioactive Japan 24/7 .
    The Question ? USA agencies knows about what's going on and the resulting toxicity projections … do you hear them talking , warning or taking Japan by the throat ?
    What does the MASINT silence mean ??

    …. Nuclear MASINT is one of the six major subdisciplines generally accepted to make up Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT), which covers measurement and characterization of information derived from nuclear radiation and other physical phenomena associated with nuclear weapons, reactors, processes, materials, devices, and facilities.
    Nuclear monitoring can be done remotely or during onsite inspections …

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_MASINT


    Report comment

  • Ganxet Ganxet

    I had the same thought. and suspect the npp leaking was first than tsunami hits.
    NPP owner's ,nothing can be done if a npp is flooded by a 30mtrs tsunami.
    it's quite diferent from…
    we are sorry for using MOX fuel in a 40 y.o GE MARK I containment NPP.
    who knows underwater bomb, HAARP, EMPB…


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Here is the new Google earth..simulated weirdness..of Fukushima.
    At 4:00 the lay-out of 5 and 6 can be seen and the area in between 3 and 4.

    Fukushima on Google Earth 2013

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xfXy4kBSHw

    Here are some stills..of the tsunami hitting Fuku 1..posted today by gottagetoffthegrid..

    In pictures, 3:42 pm, Fukushima nuclear power station on 11 March
    http://makanaka.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/in-pictures-342-pm-fukushima-nuclear-power-station-on-11-march/

    I fail to see how 5 and 6..could not have taken on the same amount of water..with similar results as 1-4… being just a short ways up the beach.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Darn..I'm tired and making mistakes today.
    At 4:00…and for a bit… 5 and 6 can be observed…and the area between 5 and 6 ..and 1-4.

    Night all..


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    This is a repost from the general discussion thread.
    An Early Nuclear Warning: Was It for Naught?

    Jan.22 2013

    "The accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011 alerted the American nuclear industry and its regulators to the possibility that operators at plants with more than one reactor might have to deal with more than one meltdown at a time in a flood, earthquake or other catastrophe. Officials are now working to assure that they could master that situation.

    But documents uncovered by a group that is critical of nuclear safety show that a high-level safety analyst at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission posed the possibility to his superiors in July 2007, about four years before the earthquake and tsunami that led to three simultaneous meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi. The documents also show that in August 2008, the commission staff formally acknowledged the issue."

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/an-early-nuclear-warning-was-it-for-naught/


    Report comment

  • Can't happen…never will…

    Just like unsinkable ships…


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.