Published: May 8th, 2012 at 9:55 pm ET
|
Title: Who cares? Helen Caldicott and Kate Orff in conversation
Author: Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation
Date Filmed: April 2, 2012
Date Uploaded: Apr 13, 2012
Description: Columbia University’s Wood Auditorium — Helen Caldicott, Physicians for Social Responsibility; Kate Orff, Columbia University GSAPP
At 49:55 in
“When the earthquake occurred actually the reactors sunk about a meter in the earth.”
See also:
- AP: New gov't study rasies possibility of "structural damage to reactor's foundation" -- Erosion of concrete could be deeper than Tepco claims
- NISA: "Earthquake may have caused ground subsidence in the area of Fukushima plants" -- Safety of Reactor No. 4 building 'visually' confirmed (VIDEO)
- Report: Concern that a subsidence in the earth under unit 4 could cause its collapse
Published: May 8th, 2012 at 9:55 pm ET
|
sending...
did they sink in the earth or did the whole area sink, there is a big difference. Was there liquifaction and they sank or are we talking about the whole island sunk because of the under water subduction?
Report Comment
@ADMIN
ALASKAN SHORES UPDATE
GETTING SLAMMED
http://sgtreport.com/2012/05/think-fukushima-radiation-wont-reach-us-think-again-the-physical-debris-even-has/
http://thesunbreak.com/2012/04/30/a-staggering-mess-as-tsunami-debris-hits-alaska-coast-early/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/05/01/bc-tsunami-motorcycle-owner.html
Report Comment
Liquefaction !
Apr 12, 2011 … Most EQ's don't keep the ground pulsing up and down long after the EQ has
passed… even aftershocks don't cause this type of ground …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdyjv89vooU
Wonder why the population dropped bt over a quarter million people ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPi0totWVPI&feature=related
Japan Soil Liquefaction Videos
Report Comment
I have seen videos taken during the earthquake where water is squirting out of the ground. but was it like that at the reactors? An earthquake that large changes the shape of the entire world. The large earthquake in Sumatra was guessed at speeding the spin of the earth by milliseconds, due to it being more compact, IE major subduction actually shrinked the world by a tiny amount. Caldicott needs to verify weather the sinking was because the subduction reduced the diameter of the earth or did the reactors actually sink by liquifaction. If it was due to liquifaction then there may be a reason for the tilting other than getting slammed by a tsunami.
Report Comment
NASA: Japan quake shortened Earth’s day, shifted axis
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/03/japan-earthquake-shifted-earth-axis-shorter-day-nasa/1
Report Comment
Sharp2197.
There was sone videos posted here of the tepco cams showing the movement at FUKUSHIMA, on day of quake, O M G ! UN FUKU BELIEVABLE !!!
Report Comment
f311wds SPREAD THIS!
Urgent Message from Koodankulam: Police Seige Around Idinthakarai Again
http://www.dianuke.org/urgent-message-from-koodankulam-police-seige-around-idinthakarai-again/
Report Comment
off to bed. Thanks for those links TG. Posted
Report Comment
These people are leading the world on how to protest and kick up the dirt.. fantastic, they deserve full support, no one else on earth is fighting for no-nukes like these guys.
I'll try to do my bit when Australia tries to sell/ship uranium to India (which has been promoised by the current government).
I might add that India has not signed the non-proliferation agreement. Australia is performing a questionable action by supplying uranium to a non-signing party.
[“The reason why India considers the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty discriminatory lies on the surface. If India signs it, it will lose its nuclear potential, and the nation does not want to do it. This may lead to considerable losses in political, military and ideological aspects,” Vladimir Khrustalev, an expert on nuclear technologies told Pravda.Ru.]
Report Comment
Christchurch, New Zealand suffered Liquefaction as well, in it's quake, just prior to the 3/11 quake.
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=christchurch+liquefaction&oq=christchurch+liquefaction&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3…2340.2340.0.3455.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0…0.0.zhkm9O69eXY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1dce7cc5f68d83de&biw=1386&bih=775
Report Comment
TEPCO and others keep telling us the nuke site is built into bedrock.
Earthquakes can cause a phenomenon known as liquefaction. Up and down motion is mainly to blame. So, how did they sink if it is all on bedrock?
Report Comment
FD sez: "Earthquakes can cause a phenomenon known as liquefaction. Up and down motion is mainly to blame. So, how did they sink if it is all on bedrock?"
SP: Maybe you can tell me from this 1988 document:
Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/9_vol3_733.pdf
Report Comment
Interesting, SP, the ground response analysis.
It is for Unit 6.
One might suspect that the earlier units were not constructed to the same standard.
2p.
M.
Report Comment
Here's an interesting groundwater analysis from 10 months ago by Nigwil:
The useful thing about water is that it has problems flowing up hill by itself. So:
Google Earth ‘Fukishima’. Go east from the town. The current imagery of the site shows the wrecked reactor buildings. Looks like about 10:00 am. A lot of folk still drive to work there if the car parks are anything to go by!
Using the GE Flight Sim fly around the site for a while getting a sense of the landforms. (Its a good way to do it as you tend to bump into rising ground if you’re not careful.)
A couple of things become apparent. South of the forest south of the site are some paddys and a river. A low point. Then the land along the coast rises before falling to the plant site. The plant site for reactors 1-4 has actually been hacked out of the ridge running to the sea.
Behind the plant site the land rises away from the coast, but not very far before it falls again into the river system, so the length of the catchment behind the plant is not that great.
Running through the site between Reactor 1 and Reactors 5-6 to the north is a stream bed that provides another low point that stream is probably what gave rise to the original harbour there.
Reactors 1 to 4 are thus on one higher ridge and 5 and 6 on another ridge about 500 metres north.
Groundwater tends to run towards the coast and towards any local low points/streams. So it seems very unlikely that any groundwater connection will exist between reactors…
Report Comment
Cont.
Groundwater tends to run towards the coast and towards any local low points/streams. So it seems very unlikely that any groundwater connection will exist between reactors 1-4 and 5-6. And likewise unlikely that any ducting or pipes will run between these reactor blocks either. So any radioactive water found in 5-6 must have come from 5-6. So there is something sad going on there they are not telling us about.
In relation to the corium getting into the ground water, I think that the interface between the surface soils and the mudstone will act as a surface along which the groundwater that has fallen as rain on the slope above the plant will flow. Typical groundwater flow rates are in ranges between metres and kilometres per year – not fast.
The landform suggests this will not be a huge volume, but thats where it will be.
The soils in the vicinity of the reactors are pretty well messed up by the construction efforts and the surfaces are sealed and the roads uphill form cutoffs for surface water flows. So not that likely that a conventional aquifer structure exists around the reactor buildings.
The construction of the building will have interrupted this aquifer surface in unknowable ways, except that if they have dug into the mudstone for foundations etc, then groundwater will be pooling in those excavations and so there could be quite a water volume for the corium to mess with, even though the rate that groundwater gets replaced by the natural flow from upslope…
Report Comment
Cont.
The construction of the building will have interrupted this aquifer surface in unknowable ways, except that if they have dug into the mudstone for foundations etc, then groundwater will be pooling in those excavations and so there could be quite a water volume for the corium to mess with, even though the rate that groundwater gets replaced by the natural flow from upslope may be slow – depending on rainfall and the very specific features of the local catchment.
The sea water they are pumping into the reactors is leaking through the failed containment and probably failed construction joints in mass concrete foundations disturbed by the earthquake and explosions. This will be adding to the in-ground pool, and will add to the natural flow away from the plant – mostly towards the sea.
Rather than flowing through the ground the water will prefer to take any faster path, such as through broken ducts and pipes heading downhill. The reactors are less than 200 metres from the coastline in the harbour. However the constant pumping of sea water into the units will have led to the ground between the units and the coast being soaked with radioactive water.
Report Comment
Cont… Conclusion
So in summary:
a) It seems unlikely that there could be any groundwater connection between units 1-4 and 5-6.
b) It is likely that there is a groundwater flow along the interface between the natural topsoil and the mudstone layer.
c) It is very possible that there is a reservoir of groundwater sitting in the foundations of units 1-4 and all other structures in the locality which could become involved with the corium.
d) The natural rate of replenishment of this groundwater reservoir will be quite slow.
e) Cooling water added to the reactors will be adding to the local pool of water around the plant’s foundations, and will hasten the downslope flow towards the sea.
f) Any water heading east will prefer to use manmade ducts and pipes in favour of taking the relatively slow path through the soil. By now any soil between the reactors and the sea will be saturated with very radioactive water – mostly x sea water.
Thats the way I see it.
Report Comment
Sickputer: Many thanks for this contribution!
I have some questions concerning the movement of coriums 1-3 under Buildings 1-3 that you might be able to shed some light on. My questions:
Does the mudstone layer at Fuku slope downwards from west to east under the Fuku buildings?
If so, will coriums 1-3 tend to follow the mudstone layers towards the Ocean as the coriums move and flow?
Is the pressure caused by groundwater flowing towards the Ocean a driving force pushing the coriums 1-3 towards the Ocean?
Report Comment
PUN writes: Does the mudstone layer at Fuku slope downwards from west to east under the Fuku buildings?
SP: They blasted away fifteen feet of top soil during construction, but I have no knowlege of a slope factor for the mudstone layer (also sometimes called sandstone).
If so, will coriums 1-3 tend to follow the mudstone layers towards the Ocean as the coriums move and flow?
SP: I think the unknown nature of natural fissures, earthquake and corium-induced fissures is determing path. Sonic equipment should have told some clues to Tepco on these cracks and fissures as to their dimensions and direction.
Is the pressure caused by groundwater flowing towards the Ocean a driving force pushing the coriums 1-3 towards the Ocean?
SP: possibly… Depends on weight and incline as well as direction and size of suitable fissures. We have seen hydrovolcanic steam on the ocean side, but not good closeups for decent analysis.
Report Comment
Great breakdown Sickputer! I just wonder if the groundwater aquifer located where rogue coriums have traveled to are of such size that their mass and therefore influencing temperature would overpower the heat/steam effects of the multiple hot coriums? Reading it as you broke it down made me adjust my thinking to the coriums landing in huge water bodies. Like if the corium was dropped into the ocean, it would not have the degree of heating/steam producing effects as it would being dropped into a small lake. The sheer water volume plays the influence on the overall temp of the water affected. I guess what I am saying is your theory gives me some slight ease on my worries associated with the corium – groundwater interaction that's going on underfoot. I had more thought there was NOT a significant aquifer system under the Fukushima plant site. I have been fearing some type of nuclear steam volcanic type episode – especially with three of them loose.
Report Comment
I don't think I had a great breakdown as my facts available are so limited. I think the huge input of Tepco cooling water that is leaking everywhere is probably the volume of a small lake so if there wasn't a sizable groundwater supply before…there is now. And that water is already radioactive from contact with broken fuel areas inside the wrecked buildings. So it's hot and radioactive when it gets to the corium and then it really gets going.
Report Comment
Fukushima Daiichi is built on sedimentary porous rock and landfill.
Report Comment
Between Nuclear Power Plants and their Waste Areas we have made this world a very dangerous place.
Earth changes, the ground moves, there are earth quakes, and so on.
This world is not stable, so why build something so dangerous?
Report Comment
If / as this has taken place, as the building sinks, it severs all water mains, general plumbing and electric feeds to the entire building. It is as bad and even worse than we already believe that it is, but honestly I am not surprised, more reassured that my restlessness is warranted.
We can see the devastation of the entire complex from every stinking image, this up close detail is important to satisfying our worst fears of how deep of sh!t we are in with the compounding situation across the planet. Where does this matter end? How much worse can it possible get?
Report Comment
You know what has really affected me lately is reading the Wyden report where he talks about how the plant looked physically – like the trucks toppled and strewn about like toys about the place. That for me was a really different picture of the chaos that really is present. Compared with the pictures we HAVE been able to see… his description was a slap in the face for me, making me realize things are MUCH worse then I believed. If they have trucks lying about still a year later, then they are eyes-deep in a crisis survival mode.
Report Comment
"How much worse can it possibly get?" That is a very worrying question….
Report Comment
For what we already know…continuous prep seems best. More on Caldicott in the Experts Speak section. Jet streams & debris are worth looking at
http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/forum/index.php/board,24.0.html
Report Comment
if the reactors sank one meter then that means they are one meter from where they were. then why cant they tell us where the reactors are? how about tell us where one of the reactor cores are and we can play "guess where the other two reactors are." perhaps a game show where contestants win free fuku food.
Report Comment