Documentary shows simulation of Fukushima melt-through — Footage of molten nuclear fuel (VIDEO)

Published: March 15th, 2013 at 5:39 pm ET


Title: Fukushima, chronique d’un désastre
Source: Arte
Uploaded by: LemaraudeurDu9Cube
Date Published:Mar 8, 2013

At 18:30 in

Watch the documentary here

Published: March 15th, 2013 at 5:39 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Documentary: After first explosion, only a matter of time before nuclear fuel would melt through into the open — Evacuating out to 300km from Fukushima was worst case scenario -PM Kan (VIDEO) February 24, 2012
  2. Japan Nuclear Experts: Footage shows ‘major problem’ at Fukushima Unit 1; Cesium release to continue for next 5 decades — Tepco: Even if we knew where it’s broken, how can we stop it? — “Still in the dark” about other 2 units (VIDEO) February 9, 2014
  3. Document shows nuclear fuel burned through bottom of containment vessel under Fukushima reactor — Official: Leakage we observed indicates melt-through by ‘shell attack’ — “This is a very big problem… fuel debris in the PCV is doing something bad” (VIDEO) July 13, 2015
  4. NPR: How can Fukushima’s molten fuel be contained so it stops contaminating the planet? Nuclear Expert: There’s no way to get at molten fuel… I’ve not seen a solution to this (AUDIO) September 17, 2013
  5. AP: Melted Fukushima fuel is 12 inches from entering ground after eating through concrete, says simulation — Study: Molten core suspected of eroding through concrete foundation — Gov’t Expert: We just can’t be sure until actually seeing inside November 20, 2013

31 comments to Documentary shows simulation of Fukushima melt-through — Footage of molten nuclear fuel (VIDEO)

  • asuperdry asuperdry

    Do not doubt it for even a second, this is far from over, all four of those reactors are still in full meltdown.

    • TheBowRiver TheBowRiver

      To asuperdry and all my co-bloggers in ENENews land. Please critique this analysis for me. I invite corrections in order to refine it.

      Does anyone know for certain if Iodine 131 (half life of 8 days) is being monitored and measured? The presence of i-131 is the absolute proof that fission is still happening. Iodine 131 as well as Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 are direct fission products (not a decay chain radioisotope) of Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239.

      I tend to agree that at least 3, probably 4 are undergoing melt-through. The stated condition of reactor 4 is that it was in shutdown mode for refueling.

      In this state, the control rods are in place and about 15 metric tons (1000 Kg 2200 pounds) of spent fuel have been transferred to the storage tank. Based on what I could find out, there is normally 100 Tons when operating. So in reactor 4 we have 85% still in the reactor core.

      Reactors 1, 2, and 3 had scrammed and the control rods were in place, just like reactor 4. This control state lasted until the pumps stopped and the water boiled away.

      One would think that automatically opening the condenser path would have been part of the scram process. Oh well!!

      The control system relies completely on the presence of immersion in flowing water. Yikes, thermal runaway!!!

      So now we have 100 thousand kilograms (220 thousand pounds)of U 235 and Pu 239 in the case of MOX, encased in flaming tubes of Zirconium in air.

      • TheBowRiver TheBowRiver

        This inferno consumes the control rods, the fuel pellets are falling to the bottom of the reactor core to form a molten super-critical mass of fission. By definition, super-critical is any volume exceeding critical which seems odd to me.

        The corium is now a self sustaining thermal generator of 2000 plus degrees C. The difference between the corium of Chernobyl and Fukushima is that for Chernobyl, the corium maybe stopped fissioning due to the silica from melted sand as part of the reactor design.

        Is fission still taking place? If Iodine 131 is present, then yes it is.

        Is the corium diluted with enough debris material to be non-critcal and hence non-fissioning?

        Criticality begins with a mass of 52 kilograms and a diameter of 17 centimeters for U 235 and 10 kilograms with a diameter of 9.9 centimeters for Pu 239. The density of U 235 is 4476 grams per cubic centimeter and 4736 grams per cubic centimeter for Pu 239.

        Critical volume for fission is 11.6 cubic centimeters for U 235 and 2.1 cubic centimeters for Pu 239.

        For U 235 think of a very thin cylinder or circular sheet of paper that is 17 cm (6.7 inches) diameter. The thickness is 0.05 mm (0.0013 inches or 1.3 mils)

      • TheBowRiver TheBowRiver

        oops In this state, the control rods are in place and about 15 metric tons (each ton 1000 Kg 2200 pounds)

        • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

          Sorry to be so late in arriving at this party, TBR.
          Picture corium, molten lava fuel, pooling on the concrete base of Containment1,2,&3.
          In liquid form, the lava naturally sorts by atomic weight into layers.
          Critical? Super-critical?
          You betcha!

  • timemachine2020 timemachine2020

    Over 10 million people in Japan living in radioactive contaminated areas that would have been evacuated if not for its sheer size of area that would need to evacuate. They have been left to suffer, die and fend for themselves. Watch the interview below on link. Horrific news. Regarding the video above -> did you notice the handrails they have as standard equipment on the base of the control panels in the control rooms that they use to hold onto when earthquakes hit? How ffing ironic and stupid is that? They know that there will be earthquakes big enough to have to install hand rails at the base of the control panels to hang on to at their nuclear power plants????

  • domjox domjox

    The handles are interesting. I wonder about any thinking that allows nuke plants on such unstable ground. Hey, its "ok" we got handles to hang on to.

  • japan guinea pig

    OK,OK,OK…enough talking / writing !!. For a year or so ive been reading all the comments on "enenews" and its all good stuff,im not knocking it.There have been some really in depth knowledgeable scientific comments,and im amazed at peoples abiliy to express themselves and their knowledge on this matter. HOWEVER are we enewsers gonna just TALK and write comments ??. "Talk is cheap" !! What are WE gonna DO about it ??. Im open to suggetions….Anything….I mean it might sound crazy but a mass hunger strike or occupying Tepco offices in Tokyo etc etc ANYTHING…"Come on lets roll"!!!…..ANY ideas ????. Tired of talking ….Time for doing. "Put up or shut up" !!. Im waiting …..

    • I suggest a global boycott of ALL Japanese corporations regardless of where they are manufactured. If it's from a Japanese corporation, refuse to buy it. Let the companies know you are boycotting because Fukushima needs to be evacuated and the truth needs to be told to the people.

      Boycotts can be effective even when they fail to achieve widespread attention. It's a slow process. It's important to communicate with the Japanese people and leaders the purpose of the boycott and the things they need to do to alleviate it.

      Japan needs to renounce nuclear power completely and lead the world into renewable energy.

    • 16Penny 16Penny

      Japan guinea pig,

      I have been thinking along the same lines but I am still in the gathering my thoughts stage. So far I am thinking of structuring a several week long conversation, hopefully on ENE, and exploring the many possibilities for putting pressure to not only address FUKU but also plan the decommissioning of all nuclear reactors. We can not give them a choice and it is not acceptable to sit by and watch them fumble fuck the situation any longer. It is apparent how safe nuclear reactors actually are in practice. The lies must stop. It is time to put down that toy. I have been a believer in everything ok in moderation, but I have found an exception to that rule.

      We need to send two clear messages. Stop the radioactive releases from FUKU. Decommission all nuclear reactors within _ years. I have considered offering to organize and moderate the discussion but I have quite a bit on my plate right now. I am not sure that if I commit to it I can do the cause justice. I am going to let it cook in my noodle a while longer but I feel that it can be done. All that is left to do is figure out how and do it, no problem.

    • EX-pose-the-fakes

      Use the chemtrails to spray tachyon water, various mono-atomic elements, the necessary mix of mushroom spores that cleanup enviro disasters, boron, zeolites and something that calms methane.

      Use the secret "plasma 'de-matter-afying'" ray that blimps things out of existence(has been used many times on rogue missiles) to actually deal with the melt out in its entirety.

      Wherever the current Montauk time travel shit is held go backwards to either stop the disaster entirely i.e. either topographic(sp?) fusion reactors or just f*ckin' use water power already. Or go forwards to see if we're still alive and if we are get the solutions from those who had enough time to understand what is needed to take care of this mess.

      And if any of you know anyone whos that heavy of a player in the "real world of affairs" not this fake ass drama that has become our existence. Im sure he/she will tell you why theyre smokin' us out. Probably so that when their draco masters get here itll be similar to home. Nice "real estate" in position to blow up the Milky way, quite a bomb(450+ bombs[reactors for the ignorant]) theyve built on this ridiculously beautiful planet.

      Shit someone grow/cultivate/find some medicine that'll actually do the "job"

      Ill stop here I could go on till Fuki got our minds unable to process what happened 1 min ago(we already there yet?)

  • Jebus Jebus

    I have heard the lie too many times.

    I like it posed as a question…

    Fukushima isn’t Chernobyl?

    But as reporting on the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP unfolded, an unsettling story of stonewalling and sloppiness emerged that was eerily reminiscent of the Chernobyl catastrophe. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), which operates the Fukushima Daiichi NPP, and the plant’s head, Masao Yoshida, proved to be masters of understatement. Yoshida characterized radiation levels nearly 100 times higher than normal as “higher than the ordinary level,” and he used the wholly inadequate phrase “acute danger” to describe two explosions and the meltdown of three of the reactor cores1 (how about “catastrophic meltdown necessitating immediate evacuation?”). One is reminded of the first official statement acknowledging the Chernobyl accident, which only appeared in a Kyiv newspaper three days after the disaster, and was hidden on the third page in the Weather section: “From the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR. An accident has occurred at the Chernobyl atomic electrostation; one of the atomic reactors was damaged. Measures are being taken to liquidate the consequences of the accident. The victims are receiving assistance.”2

    • ion jean ion jean

      Great Chernobyl quote, Jebus…classic government posturing

      I am sure that Fukushima is exactly 3.8 Chernobyls at latest calc according to veterans


    awesome graphics…must see video…

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    I just this morning have had time to look at this.
    Extremely well done.


      yes it is Heart. Not that I'd trust their take on it, but I'd be interested in seeing how NOVA (PBS) would explain this series of failures, at Fukushima. Apparently, the people at Arte' nailed it…

  • 21.21(d)(3)(i) – DEFECTS AND NONCOMPLIANCE
    Person (Organization):

    Event Text

    The following is a summary of information received from Flowserve via facsimile:

    "This is to notify the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that, in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR Part 21, we have identified a potential issue and are submitting our evaluation of the event.

    "Flowserve has been working with the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant to investigate the failure of a Size 10, Class 900 Anchor/Darling motor-operated double-disc gate valve. The failure was due to the shearing of the wedge pin which serves a joint locking function at the threaded interface between the valve stem and upper wedge. The pin is designed to ensure that the joint does not loosen due to vibration and other secondary loads. On some valve designs, the pin also is used to attach the disc retainers to the upper wedge. The pin shearing allowed rotation of the stem during the closing stroke when the valve was seating and ultimately resulted in loss of the stem to upper wedge joint integrity.

    "Flowserve has completed an evaluation of the failure and concluded the root cause of the wedge pin failure was excessive load on the pin. The…

    • "Flowserve has completed an evaluation of the failure and concluded the root cause of the wedge pin failure was excessive load on the pin. The stem operating torque exceeded the torque to tighten the stem into the upper wedge before installation of the wedge pin. The additional stem torque produced a load on the wedge pin creating a stress which exceeded the pin shear strength causing the failure. The recommended assembly stem torque did not envelope the operating torque for the TVA application providing the potential for an over load situation and ultimate failure. The operating torque for the TVA valve was unusually high due to the fast closing time of the actuator and very conservative closing thrust margin.

      "This situation can potentially occur on any Anchor/Darling type double-disc gate valve with a threaded stem to upper wedge connection, typically size 2.5" and larger, operated by an actuator that applies torque on the stem to produce the required valve operating thrust. An operating stem torque greater than the assembly stem torque can provide the opportunity for excessive pin load and potentially failure.

      "We have reviewed our records, and the only similar wedge pin failure that we can identify, in addition to the Browns Ferry problems, is a sheared wedge pin at LaSalle Nuclear Station in 1993. Our investigation of the LaSalle failure concluded that the wedge pin failed due to excessive torque in the opening direction due to bonnet over pressurization…

  • "Flowserve recommends that all critical Anchor/Darling Double-Disc Gate valves with threaded stem to upper wedge connections and actuators that produce a torque on the stem be evaluated for potential wedge pin failure. Valves with electric motor actuators which produce high output torques are the most susceptible to failure. Valves which were assembled with stem torques that exceed the operating torque are not candidates for failure.

    "Below is a list, based on our records, of customers, utilities and nuclear plants which were supplied with Anchor/Darling Double-Disc Gate valves with motor actuators on contracts with ASME Section III and/or 10 CFR 21 imposed.

    "Flowserve plans to provide each of the customers identified [below] with a copy of this notification letter."

    The following facilities in the United States may be affected:

    ANO 1, Browns Ferry, Brunswick, Callaway, Catawba, Clinton, Columbia, Cook, Cooper, Crystal River, Dresden, Diablo Canyon, Duane Arnold, Fitzpatrick, Fort Calhoun, Grand Gulf, Hatch, Indian Point, Kewaunee, LaSalle, Limerick, Maine Yankee, Millstone, Monticello, Nine Mile, North Anna, Oconee, Oyster Creek, Peach Bottom, Perry, Pilgrim, Prairie Island, Quad Cities, River Bend, Robinson, San Onofre, St. Lucie, Surry, Three Mile Island 2, Waterford, VC Summer, Vermont Yankee, Wolf Creek.

    See Related Part 21 EN #48650.

    • our have both hand-wheels and electrical motor operation modes just like Fuku… and as can read above… BOTH when under pressure pop the pin inside.


        those are spring-released handles, PattieB. When the valve ports are under extreme pressure, should someone attempt to force the turning of the valve ports, these handles are designed to circumvent the inadvertent fracturing of the assembly…

        • I missed one of the reports.. this valve type has a multitude of issues.. the later one I'll find and post.. but the newer one has shear-pin issues as well on both the handle and the motor.


            exactly PattieB. I was addressing my comments to those who might be interested in such topics. I figured you were already familiar with these mechanisms…

            P.S. I'm always amazed by your technical knowledge…

  • it's should be.. open account access…