Published: January 24th, 2013 at 4:23 am ET
|
(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
|
sending...
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
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/uk-japan-nuclear-shutdowns-idUKBRE90N07020130124
Report Comment
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
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
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
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
#5 had the cover off… and semi-self started during the quake… may have been a control-rod malf.? I have pic of worker attempting to get vid inside #5 is such a state! The call-out for manufacturer was due the fact that the resultant heat, made it so the lid wouldn't go back on!
Report Comment
5 & 6 were in cold shut down each with a full core load in their reactor pressure vessels. 5&6 had been down a lot longer than 4.
4 was not in cold shut down and the core had been recently pulled from the RPV and put in the SFP.
heres the TEPCO status report from March 25, 2011 that shows the status of each component of each unit.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/tepco_status_35.jpg
Report Comment
yes, well.. the core was pulled so that they could use it for enrichment of Plutonium. so, over 1564 rods in the pool, 204 plutonium rods in the cask pool, and a core full of plutonium… with the entire top/plug off/out… is what we had in #4 when the quake hit.
Understand.?
And yes I have pictures to prove it all.
Report Comment
I was replying to patb2009.
And, yes, the plug, the primary containment cap and the RPV cap are all off of unit 4.
Everything is in the pool(s). This has been well established here at ENENews since march 2011.
What's your point?
Report Comment
I think that's what this story is all about…cover.
Report Comment
That's the thinng about.."disaster loomed" stories.
Hindsight in this situation..tends to show..the disaster already has occurred.
Report Comment
I admit my hindsight is not much better than blindsight on that particular issue, but that doesn't stop me from commenting on it.
Report Comment
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
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
"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
These three videos are of simulated reactor scrams, the first is a large break loss of coolant. Fukushima had multiple reactors controlled in one control room.
Looks like a superhuman workload, not much time to think before immediate action is required, not many chances to make the wrong decisions and still arrive at a safe conclusion.
/notice how fast dry well pressure shoots through the roof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318ZakBaGek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvk8Tv38y28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtiHJKClEw
Report Comment
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
I have found 3 other sites with robot cranes working on reactors.
Report Comment
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
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
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
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
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
Ironically US and NZ were in the news recently covering their collaborative Nuclear Tsunami Bomb testing. You must have missed that?
Report Comment
thank anthony.. i had heard of it..
'No. They never actually produced a tidal wave'
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3663487.htm
Report Comment
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
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
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
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
Point taken penny, leverage certainly works when applied correctly, accidentally or otherwise.
I'm still thinking that tsunami crafting is not a well cultivated skill, as in, zero.
This all feels like ground hog day, we've been over these debates before.
Aftershock has a good comment above that applies here. I'm not saying anymore, else I'll start being called something or someone
Report Comment
"The tests…showed that the weapon was feasible and…could potentially create a 33-foot tsunami capable of inundating a small city." (This was a conventional, not a nuclear weapon, incidentally.)
"New Zealand seems to have successfully developed it to the degree that it might have worked"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html
It may be a stretch to say the 3/11 tsunami was manmade, but to say humankind has "zero" skill in that area is incorrect.
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
Maybe they were floor polishing?
Report Comment
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
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
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
5 & 6 sit about 20 ft higher… now, 1 – 4-.. they excavated to build them.. why? I don't know… but if they had just build the stupid things on original ground… they wouldn't have got flooded!
So… tepco….? WTF!?
Report Comment
10 ft. higher…with intake at the same..level.
"The tsunami inundated the area surrounding units 1
Report Comment
OOps..
"The tsunami inundated the area surrounding units 1
Report Comment
This is so odd..I cant copy anything from here..
http://www.power-eng.com/content/dam/pe/online-articles/documents/2011/november/fukushima%20report.pdf
Report Comment
Please see pages 11..also 10..for earthquake info.
One more try..
The tsunami inundated the area surrounding units 1
Report Comment
I give..
Report Comment
PS.Somewhere it was on pg 10. the design basis maximum accceleration..was exceeded..unit 5..along with others…etc.
Report Comment
I read..I learn..
I just don't behave…..LOLOL.
Report Comment
One further note…pg 11..the second wave of the tsunami was unrecorded as the gage had broken.
Report Comment
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
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