Two explosions may have occurred early on at Reactor No. 3, very similar to Chernobyl — Likely at least several hundred pounds of plutonium ejected (VIDEO)

Published: June 3rd, 2011 at 6:26 am ET


Linda Moulton Howe interviews Scott Portzline, security consultant to Three Mile Island Alert, Coast to Coast AM, May 26, 2011:

Transcript Summary

28:00: At least several hundred pounds of plutonium ejected from No. 3

3020: May have been 2 explosions at No. 3, very similar to Chernobyl, one a prompt criticality, the other a steam explosion

Published: June 3rd, 2011 at 6:26 am ET


Related Posts

  1. Plutonium likely ejected from fuel pools during explosions… up to “several miles” from reactor (VIDEO) April 7, 2011
  2. *UPDATE* Mainichi: Reactors No. 1 and 2 have holes up to 50 square CENTImeters, analysis says — Biggest hurdle now is filling with water — “Caused by hydrogen explosions” — Half million pounds of highly radioactive fuel inside reactors 1-3 December 9, 2011
  3. Japan Times: It is now a “grave situation” at Fukushima — “Plutonium fission” mentioned for first time — “Criticality is very likely to have occurred” November 3, 2011
  4. Gundersen: Unit 3 explosion “very similar” to what happened at Chernobyl — Pieces of nuclear fuel found offsite indicate fuel racks were lifted up (VIDEO) August 4, 2012
  5. Japan Professor: ‘Fractionation’ probably caused much higher plutonium ratio in Iwaki — Expert: “Nuclear criticality explosions in Fukushima due to plutonium fractionation” March 23, 2012

93 comments to Two explosions may have occurred early on at Reactor No. 3, very similar to Chernobyl — Likely at least several hundred pounds of plutonium ejected (VIDEO)

  • radegan

    “Breathe deep, while you sleep, breathe deep
    Cataclysmic ectoplasm, fallout, atomic orgasm
    Vapor and fume at the stone of my tomb,
    Eating at the stone of my tomb…”

    Hair 1967

  • Maa

    Could the recent outbreak of the deadly virus in europe be attributed to the mutation of the intestinal virus due to radiation?

  • Westboundnup

    If plutonium has been ejected and is presumably lying on the ground around the site, why aren’t people dying en masse? Is the plutonium fused in some way so that it’s not in the form of air particulates?

    • Heart of the Rose

      People are not dying in mass at present…because the local population was wiped up by the tsunami/earthquake.
      The true fate of the workers and remaining population will not be known for years ..if ever.

    • willow

      Plutonium particles won’t kill you immediately, but will later if inhaled, by giving you lung cancer. It’s considered deadly because even the slightest amount can cause lung cancer.

      • mono

        I’m sorry the information you’re giving here is wrong and misleading.

        First, a “particle” is not a defined amount. Unless you say how big a particle you mean, it could be any size at all. Avoid using the word “particle” by itself because it is misleading. Say what size of particle you are actually talking about.

        Second, every human body already contains plutonium in their body. The plutonium content of the human body is 0.07±0.12 Bq (Bondarenko OA, Aryasov BB, Ya-Tsygankov N (2000). Evaluation of the plutonium content in the human body due to global and Chernobyl fallout, J. Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 243(2):473-478, DOI:10.1023/A:1016046719243.)

        Third, everybody already has a risk of getting cancer. The important question is how much does exposure to plutonium increase one’s lifetime risk of getting cancer. Research has shown that inhaling 5000 plutonium particles,
        each 3 microns in diameter, adds 1% to your lifetime risk of getting cancer, according to the U.S. Argonne National Laboratory. Source:

        The U.S. military even injected animals and members of its own military staff with plutonium in the 1940s. The lethal dose of plutonium was found to be about several milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of body weight. That certainly makes plutonium very harmful, but there are also many much more harmful substances than plutonium, which have lethal doses of only micrograms per kilogram of body weight, i.e. thousands of times more harmful than plutonium.

        More information:

        • There are 3000 + known radioactive nuclides. That ionize in nuclear fallout (spent fuel alone)…
          The type and length of exposure is what will primarily be the end results in healths effected…

          What I mean is, in short…
          Some radiation is like rat poison… If you ingest it It will kill you… But if hold it in your hand your fine…

          Some forms of radiation are like lead… You touch it… Its poison.
          but you can sit next to it and its fine…

          This is what the difference of emitters is when dealing with radiation…

          Basically… The isotopes are each different in respect to type of exposure and amount of exposure…

          Remember that radiation also bio accumulates. Meaning it does not leave your system.

          When dealing with particle weight Like referenced by moco above… KNOW that any exposure is in fact bad / dangerous… The longer you are being exposed. The more likely you are to fall to the elements…

          What moco failed to mention is though 3 microns ingested is A ok. There are different types of plutonium. Like 239, 244 polonium (a sister element / bi particle.)
          Some of these elements create a gamma emmitter… So sitting in the same room as them could easily kill you… Let alone everyone for thousands of years (hence why tepco can’t fix reactors 1-4).

          SO If you want to learn more…

          Goto And view the search results for :
          radioactive nuclides.
          Nuclear fallout
          Nuclear exposure
          Effects of radiation exposure.
          Radioactive decay & Bi particle elements for:

        • mono

          So, we have debunked the myth of plutonium as the most lethal substance of all. As referenced above (ANL human-health fact sheet – plutonium, U.S. Argonne National Laboratory), you need a dose of at least several milligrams of any plutonium isotope (239, 240, 242, etc) to be lethal.

          There are far more harmful substances than plutonium.

          For example, caesium-137 is much more radioactive than plutonium, and much more dangerous.

          • tony wilson

            some questions for you and your iaea friends.
            how bad is this?
            worse than chernobyl or not as bad.
            if worse by how much.
            in the history of the nuclear sciences has this much plutonium ever been blown up and released in one event.
            what isotopes do you believe are traveling around the world.
            how do you resolve a problem of 3 meltdowns for starters with no containment.
            many thanks

          • mono

            @tony wilson, sorry the IAEA are not my friends. Read my comment posted at 11:49AM, just a little further down, for a full explanation of why I think what I think about plutonium risks.

            I think FD is likely worse than Chernobyl. It’s difficult to know how much worse. I don’t know how much radioactivity has been released because I don’t know any reliable sources of information. I don’t trust TEPCO’s figures; they even release figures and then claim arithmetic errors.

            I think the total radioactivity release at Fukushima Daichi is likely to exceed Chernobyl’s total.

            I think the amount of radioactivity going into the ocean is likely much greater than the amount going into the atmosphere.

            First, the radioactivity is leaking into the ocean at Fukushima. It is then being moved southwards along the south-bound Oyashio Current. It keeps moving south until it approaches an area just to the west of Tokyo Bay where it mixes with the north-bound Kuroshio Current. The Kuroshio Current is much stronger than the Oyashio Current, so the Kuroshio Current will take most of the contamination with it out into the wider Pacific. The current mixing is more complicated after that, but it will spread all over the Pacific.



            There are no easy clean-up options. There are three meltdowns. There is extremely hot corium releasing lots of fresh radioactivity daily.

            I think there are some people who believe erecting “tents” around the reactors will help much. I don’t. It ignores the much greater leak into the ocean.

          • radegan

            I think are misstating the reference. Plutonium was only hailed as the single ‘most carcinogenic’ agent known. Never the most lethal. And for ‘most carcinogenic’, it’s likely in a close race with nicotine nitrosamine anyway.

          • I’m curious Mono whether this figure you provide refers to the internal or external dose?

            I’m looking at Welsome’s The Plutonium Files text and she argues that researchers initially only studied external exposure, despite knowing that internal exposure posed significantly more risks (p. 258).

            Additionally, the book observes that researchers from Argonne National Lab conducted an experiment between 1961 and 1963 wherein cows were intentionally led to contaminated pastures. Their milk was fed to humans.

            This would have been a serious breech of human subjects protocol by this time period…

          • mono

            @radegan, I’m not sure about that. I’ve heard plutonium called all sorts of things: “most lethal”, “worst of the worst”, “most carcinogenic”, “most poisonous”, “most mutagenic”, etc. For each type of emission (alpha,beta,gamma,or mixed), the more radioactive a substance is, the more carcinogenic it is. In terms of radioactivity, plutonium such as pu-239 is much less radioactive than many other radioisotopes such as caesium-137, which is intensely radioactive and correspondingly highly carcinogenic.

            @majia, you are absolutely right that internal dose is very different from (worse than) external dose. An external dose is usually of fixed duration. An internal dose is not a single event, the radioactive substance inside the body continues indefinitely irradiating the body, albeit gradually reducing in its radioactive intensity by half every half-life. My earlier comment posted above at 10:18am (to which you might be replying?) referred specifically to U.S. military research on injection of pu into test animals and people, i.e. internal dose. Unfortunately, nobody involved in that era bothered much if at all about ethics.

          • anne

            “Please quit making disgusting ad hominem attacks.” Are you talking to your opponent or yourself?

        • @ mono: You appear to be a paid shill of some kind, with your quoting of government information relative to plutonium. Any intelligent person following this crisis does not trust one iota of information relative to the real dangers of ionising radiation from ANY of the incredibly corrupt “official” entities (whether government or corporate – not that there is really any significant difference these days) that are profiting obscenely from nuclear power.

          The obvious “conflict of interest” (massive power and profits versus protecting the health and lives of billions on Earth) makes any supposed “evidence” from ANY and ALL bodies directly involved in the nuclear industry INHERENTLY suspicious. However, it appears you have not figured out such elementary facts as yet – hence me pointing out a couple of the most relevant to you here.

          Many people have a VERY distinct view of plutonium than the (almost certain to be bullshit) government data you reference. For instance, a widely recognised view is that INHALING even one millionth of a gram of plutonium is sufficient to cause cancer:

          Given the globally recognised medical FACT that ALL ionising radiation is extremely carcinogenic, and given the incredible power of a single particle of plutonium weighing only one millionth of a gram, and given that strong alpha-radiation energy locally emitted by plutonium, it actually all makes perfect sense (to someone who is not a paid shill for the nuclear industry) that the tiniest particle (even one millionth of a gram or less) of plutonium will cause cancer in almost 100% of cases.

          PS. Perhaps your nickname “mono” is expressive of your disposition – a “mono” focus on being some kind of apologist for the nuclear industry?

          • mono

            Please quit making disgusting ad hominem attacks. You act like a scaremongering alarmist. Are you on the payroll of a very rich Millenialist church spewing out crazy 2012 doomsday prophecies and the like?

            I think Fukushima Daichi is a nuclear disaster, with a total radioactivity release that is likely already greater than Chernobyl’s. Nuclear apologists and shills certainly disagree with that.

            The fact is I am an honest scientist totally uninvolved with the nuclear industry. Having said that, and being well aware of the pro-nuclear propaganda, the Argonne National Laboratory research on plutonium is actually correct, valid science. I have seen at first hand animal experiments with Pu and other isotopes that directly and independently verify the ANL results. It is correct to say that a lethal dose is several milligrams of Pu per kg of body weight.

          • mono

            Listen up genius, you said “For instance, a widely recognised view is that INHALING even one millionth of a gram of plutonium is sufficient to cause cancer” and I said “the lethal dose is several milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of body weight”. Nothing you said contradicts me, or vice versa. A dose that causes cancer is not necessarily lethal because some cancers are treatable. The minimum dose that causes cancer is thus less than the guaranteed lethal dose. To give something cancer, you need a certain amount – to kill something, you need more.

            I agree a dose of a millionth of a gram (a milligram) of plutonium will probably give you cancer.

            So, calm down please because we are both actually in agreement about the dose of plutonium that causes cancer.

          • Mono I’m not picking a fight with you but just want to ask you this….would you deliberately ingest or inhale some Plutonium confidently to support your viewpoint? I wouldn’t and I am sure you appreciate most of us wouldn’t, thus revealing our strong reaction to protect ourselves.

            You know, if scientists would step up and educate about the situation, unfounded fears may be alleviated with the public. I credit you for being one of the few using your voice & knowledge to add to the mix.

            Proof that Plutonium is okay for us would be convincing if there was open information to debunk the myth of it’s toxicity.

            I think it is odd that Plutonium became safe this week as the announcements of contamination was also released. I cant recall any other news story debunking the dangers of Plutonium before this time in the MSM.

            If you are a casual poster without an agenda, I think you can speak to the confusion that surrounds the issue as we do.

            I am not interested in fighting amongst ourselves (specifically you!) as I am committed to fighting to bring the whole truth to the light of day.

          • mono

            Hi Anthony, thanks for your reply. I am, as you said, just a casual poster here. I believe it is correct that there is a linear radiation-dose response relationship, with no threshold. That’s not what the nuclear industry like to hear. I believe exposing yourself to any additional amount of radioactivity over the amount you already receive from background radiation is unwise.

            For example, I think there is no truly safe (absolutely zero risk of cancer) amount of plutonium that can be consumed. Amounts below the lethal dose of several milligrams per kg of body weight always increase the risk of cancer, and the increase is proportional to the amount consumed.

            You and I are both willingly ingesting plutonium. We both need to eat and we are eating food that is certainly at this moment contaminated with “relatively” low levels of thousands of different radioisotopes including plutonium from Fukushima Daiichi. Even before this disaster, everybody in the world already had small amounts of many different radioisotopes including plutonium (about 0.07±0.12 Bq) in their bodies.

            Anthony, I think you know a lot about this subject. You even posted the following earlier comment at 10:32am, which seems to answer one of your own concerns, so I’m quoting a bit of it here:

            “Health effects of plutonium

            Plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as the most toxic substance known to man, although there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like Botulism toxin are billions of times more toxic than plutonium.”

          • Thanks Mono, Im not a scientist so I have to take the info at face value like the rest of us. But being a human like you I appreciate your points to consider. What I am getting from the *human* in you is that our worries MAY be unfounded, but you are also NOT promoting Plutonium s a non-hazard. You are trying to communicate responsibly without inciting fears while sharing what you know and believe as simply as you can. I can respect that and do.

            We need the scientific perspective to make sense of this all and I do appreciate your inputs and thoughts.

          • mono

            And thanks to you, Anthony. I think it’s right to be concerned. Fukushima Daiichi is still a mess, still spewing dangerous amounts of radioactivity, still in the hands of the same company that is known to be dishonest and to cut corners on safety measures. Having said that, I think some worries, such as those expressed earlier in this thread about plutonium being the most lethal or most carcinogenic substance of all, are overblown; it’s horrible stuff, absolutely to be avoided, but it’s a long way from being the most lethal or most carcinogenic substance.

            A big problem for ordinary folk is understanding how to adjust their lives to cut risk from Fukushima disaster. The only people making radioactivity measurements on-site at Fukushima are TEPCO, and I certainly wouldn’t trust them to use a pocket calculator correctly. The Japanese national government is not much better. For anybody without on-the-job free access to expensive radioisotope measuring equipment, it is almost impossible to obtain your own reliable measurements of radioactivity in foodstuffs, drinks, etc. Getting things tested in an independent testing laboratory costs at least USD 100 per sample, which is beyond many people’s budgets.

    • Anthony

      Here’s some Plutonium info:

      Plutonium was discovered in 1941 by Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg and Edwin McMillan, Kennedy, and Wahl by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch cyclotron of the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, but the discovery was kept secret. It was named after the planet Pluto, having been discovered directly after Neptunium. (Pluto is the next planet out after Neptune).

      The metal has a silvery appearance and takes on a yellow tarnish when slightly oxidized. It is chemically reactive. A relatively large piece of plutonium is warm to the touch because of the energy given off in alpha decay. Larger pieces will produce enough heat to boil water. The metal readily dissolves in concentrated hydrochloric acid, hydroiodic acid, or perchloric acid. The metal exhibits six allotropic modifications having various crystalline structures. The densities of these vary from 16.00 to 19.86 g/cm3.

      The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,200 years. Because of its short half-life, there are only extremely tiny trace amounts of plutonium naturally in uranium ores.
      It is produced in extensive quantities in nuclear reactors from natural uranium: 238U(n, gamma) –> 239U–(beta) –> 239Np–(beta) –> 239Pu. Fifteen isotopes of plutonium are known.


      Plutonium is a key fissile component in modern nuclear weapons; care must be taken to avoid accumulation of amounts of plutonium which approach critical mass, the amount of plutonium which will self-generate a nuclear reaction. Despite not being confined by external pressure as is required for a nuclear weapon, it will nevertheless heat itself and break whatever confining environment it is in. Shape is relevant; compact shapes such as spheres are to be avoided.

      Plutonium could also be used to manufacture radiological weapons. The plutonium isotope 238Pu is an alpha emitter with a half life of 87 years. These…

      • Anthony

        … characteristics make it well suited for electrical power generation for devices which must function without direct maintenance for timescales approximating a human life time. It is therefore used in RTGs such as those powering the Galileo and Cassini space probes. Plutonium-238 was used on the Apollo-14 lunar flight in 1971 to power seismic devices and other equipment left on the Moon, and it was also the power supply of the two Voyager supercraft launched in 1977.

        Plutonium-239 can also be used as a fuel in a new generation of fast-breeder nuclear weapons, which burn a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel consisting of uranium and plutonium.

        Read more:

        • Anthony

          Plutonium in the environment

          Trace amounts of plutonium are found naturally in uranium-rich ores. Humans produce most of the existing plutonium, in special nuclear reactors. Besides being naturally present in very small amounts, plutonium may also enter the environment from releases of nuclear reactors, weapons production plants, and research facilities. A major source of plutonium release is nuclear weapons testing.
          Annual world production of plutonium is probably in excess of 50 tonnes and there may be more than 1.000 tonnes of metal in storage, either as bombs or as metal rods.

          Read more:

          • Anthony

            Health effects of plutonium

            Plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as the most toxic substance known to man, although there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like Botulism toxin are billions of times more toxic than plutonium.

            The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested. Extremely small particles of plutonium on the order of micrograms can cause lung cancer if inhaled into the lungs. Considerably larger amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death if ingested or inhaled; however, so far, no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies. Plutonium is a dangerous substance that has been used in explosives for a long time. It is released into the atmosphere primarily by atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and by accidents at weapon production sites. When plutonium is released into the atmosphere it will fall back onto earth eventually and end up in soils.

            Exposure of humans to plutonium is not likely, but sometimes it takes place as a result of accidental releases during use, transport or disposal. ….

            Read more:

          • Anthony

            Because plutonium has no gamma radiation, health effects are not likely to occur while working with plutonium, unless it is breathed in or swallowed somehow.

            When people breathe it in, plutonium may remain in the lungs or move to the bones or organs. Generally it stays in the body for a long time and continually exposes body tissues to radiation. After a few years this could result in the development of cancer.

            Furthermore, plutonium may affect the ability to resist disease and the radioactivity from plutonium may cause reproductive failure.

            Environmental effects of plutonium

            Plutonium may enter surface water from accidental releases and disposal of radioactive wastes. Soil can become contaminated with plutonium through fallout during nuclear weapons testing. Plutonium moves slowly downwards in the soil, into the groundwater.

            Plants absorb low levels of plutonium, but these levels are not high enough to cause bio magnification of plutonium up the food chain, or accumulation in the bodies of animals.

            Read more:

          • mono

            Anthony, the information you are posting is very helpful, but I think there is a better way of bringing it to people’s attention. Just post the links to the information, with a brief summary written in your own words. You don’t need to infringe copyright by cut-and-pasting whole chunks of other people’s text here. That’s a good way of getting taken offline by some enterprising copyright lawyer. Admin, please take note too!

          • Anakin

            There’s no copyright violation if you credit and cite the source, as the links provide. It’s fair use–offered for educational purposes. Moreover, information published for the public on a foreign web site ordinarily is not subject to US copyright law….

          • kx

            another thing to end copyright and money lololol

          • icone

            I think we can all agree that plutonium is nasty stuff that probably shouldn’t be sitting around exposed to the elements. I wouldn’t get near it.

            Since most of the plutonium is man-made, I tend to think there is no “natural level” of the stuff in people or food/etc. … all I know is that nobody needs MORE of it.

        • bfly

          I do believe Karen Silkwood, ate a plutonium laced sandwich …We cannot forget her.She died trying to inform us!

    • Arizonan

      Once plutonium and other long-lived heavy radionuclides are aerosolized, as they apparently were in the #3 spent fuel explosion, people nearby will breathe them in the air. Or, if these high-temp-fired fine particulates land on food, people eat them; if some in water or milk, then local people drink them. All of this will cause death eventually, but this is a slower, lower level release than, say, the high burst high-level small quantity short-term energy of an atomic/nuclear weapon. People near Fukushima Daiichi are not dead yet because plutonium’s deadliness, while certain, usually takes years to manifest itself.

    • mothra

      The latency period is 2-60 years.


    • mono

      Quit the capital letters, and cut the baseless scaremongering, please. It’s just the floodlights at ground level. There are at least three high-intensity floodlights on the ground shining bright white light upwards towards the buildings. The floodlights are casting clearly visible shadows from the towers onto the outside of the reactor buildings.

      • mono

        That’s the floodlights shining through the side of reactor building No.4 and reflecting off the side of the refuelling bay on the top floor of the building. The metal side panel is square, and was painted with green paint, so it’s hardly surprising the reflected light is square shaped and green.

        • Leatherman

          I won’t rule out that it is caused by some sort of flood light, but your explanation of a metal panel painted green is tough to swallow. This morning at around 8:24 EST I saw the green glow move to the bottom of the reactor, then for a while I could see a greenish hue on the bottom right hand corner of the live feed up until 9:46 EST. I can’t see it as clearly as I did before now.

          • I agree…

            The coloring was way off for any typical worklight…

          • This was after all the reactor that speewed radiation all night… is it not…

          • mono

            Thanks for the reply. I don’t doubt what you say. However, I was watching the TBS/JNN live feed at exactly the same times as you, 08:00-10:00 EST, and what I saw looked like one of the floodlights outside was being moved around, probably because they were doing more construction work outside the building No.4 (they are trying to build a reinforcing structure to stop it falling over). As the floodlight was being moved around, the reflection pattern shifted correspondingly and at the same time as one might expect.

          • mono

            Look, tacomagroove, you are talking complete nonsense. Even if the spent fuel pool at No.4 was totally melted down into corium and was continuing despite the implied extreme temperatures sitting around on the 5th floor of the building miraculously overnight without melting through the 15cm thin concrete floor, it would be emitting something like a 2000-3000K color-temperature spectrum which is white-yellow light. It cannot and would not emit green light.

    • willow

      the light’s gone now. probably some kind of light they use to see things at night.

  • radegan

    Several hundred pound of plutonium ejected. About enough for 50 H-bombs. Was it ejected in chunks? Or vaporized? What was the speed of ejection? A fair portion of that went straight up – so how far up?

    • both… knowing tepco thats a very low ball estimate… But the over all scenario is fuel thats being released…

      • The key words in this entire article…

        “At least” 700 several hundred pounds of plutonium ejected from No. 3

        May have been 2 explosions at No. 3, very similar to Chernobyl, one a prompt criticality, the other a steam explosion

    • Arizonan

      My guess is vaporized. I have looked at the explosion film from March several times, and there must have been an insanely high temperature at the center of that ball of fire. In another video, the steel girders of the former #3 spent fuel pool are all twisted and mangled…it must take extremely hot temperatures to do that to steel. If these other heavy metals behave anything like U-238 does in DU weapons, the high temps and rapid upward movement of the fire column would aerosolize a fine particulate dust over a vast area. This is why we should be especially concerned that public data coming out of Japan have not included Pu-239 results, but rather vague numbers, usually related to external gamma readings. Pu-239 is an alpha emitter, and who knows how much alpha they are measuring anywhere…?????

      • Jack

        In Photogrammetry, one may take Known measured Items
        in a picture, or, even better, the VIDEO, and of course the
        distance from the camera, if known, and piece together
        a good idea of Just What one is Seeing.
        The mostly-vertical mushroom at No. 3 gave us nice,
        calculable parabolic trajectories of real Heavy rods falling
        more quickly than those less-heavy items which rose quicker
        and fell Slower.
        There’s MOX rods all over the site, in the seawater, under
        the mud, and our irrepressible Doc Fox contributor said
        he saw lots of Glowing Blue stuff out in the fields, as seen
        on the cams.

  • sschu

    Arnie postulated this weeks ago.

    • Poor Daddy

      Yes he did, and I’m grateful that he did, but he seems to have backed off on Fuku for the last couple weeks. Can’t understand why. Cmon, Arnie, stir some more truth my brother!

      • jamie

        Arnie backed off from what he really knew early on in the crisis.

        He kept at it in a vague way, and my bet is somebody either threatened him or wrote him a big check to stop.

        • Four Eyes

          Many of us viewed Arnie’s testimony and observed the abuse that he (and we) suffered.

          Arnie is a target and a victim.

    • sschu

      I think Arnie is not prone to conjecture, he needs facts before he makes statements or predictions. He is trying to work the system obviously, but they are just laughing at him. I was surprised at the rudeness with which he was treated on his last video.

      Plus the facts are not clear, inaccurate or even manipulated. He needs to be sure before he takes a position, good for him.

      Look how Matt Simmons (may he RIP) ruined his credibility last summer on the Deepwater Horizon deal.


  • radegan

    Wow, I read ‘several hundred’ – so make that 150 H-bombs. Gunderson referenced a core ejection found several klicks out and estimated a speed of ejection which I forget, perhaps 4000 mps?

    Certainly an ejection velocity near that magnitude would send vaporized plutonium and smaller particles far enough into the atmosphere to have some of it loft into the jetstream and the rest to fall back onto Japan and East Asia.

    • Arizonan

      Yes, that would make a lot of sense. That’s why uranium was found in Hawaii I think.

  • Agapit

    Excerpts from three of my earlier posts bear repeating here, as they all relate to plutonium:

    Post 1:

    Also, as far as I know, we haven’t seen any data coming out of Japan regarding strontium and plutonium levels in populated areas, and levels of these isotopes were also used to determine the Chernobyl evacuation zone (strontium-90 >3 Ci/km2; plutonium-239, 240 >0.1 Ci/km2) (Chernobyl Law, Chapter 9). Could this be because the levels are even more shocking than those for cesium? If the explosion at Unit 3 sent the contents of its spent fuel tank high into the atmosphere, as many experts believe, this is more than likely the case.

    Post 2:

    European volunteers in Fukushima Prefecture measuring radiation:

    Interesting reports and videos. In this one, the volunteers find high levels of alpha radiation, which is very dangerous when ingested. These results would suggest the presence of plutonium or uranium, both alpha emitters.

    Post 3:

    More indirect evidence of serious levels of plutonium contamination:
    Japan to Approve Two Drugs to Help Expel Plutonium

  • Ger

    Will all the radiation pollution prevent aliens invading our planet?

  • BetaFlare

    Reactor 3. – FOUR (4) detonations. At least… Listen

  • madima

    how can there be birds still alive near the plant? should they be dead? something is not write. a hoax?

    • mothra

      The radiation is internal, chronic low dose in nature – so, it manifests with a longer latency period than a high dose external exposure.

      To illustrate:
      After Chernobyl, there was a 62.3% reproductive failure in birds of N. California after the breeding season, but measurable within the year. I’d expect this percentage to be higher in Japan due to the ton load, proximity, weather patterns and geography:

      In humans, we’d expect from Chernobyl history a reduction in live births across the US as well:
      “Dr Ernest Sternglass of University of Pittsburg presented the following infant mortality rate for the Pacific states, following chernobyl fallout in May 1986, just one month after Chernobyl: 

      * May 1986 54% increase infant mortality in Washington state 

      * May 1986 48% increase infant mortality in California compared to previous June 

      * June 1986 245% increase deaths per thousand live births in Washington state 

      * June 1986 900% increse infant mortality rate per live births in Massachusetts”

  • radegan

    We were joking about chicken cams a few days back, madima, because chickens can take twice the radiation humans can. Among the natural world, man, pigs and dogs are radiation whimps. Just google “lethal dose radiation animals”

  • Uh

    Please don’t use “Coast-to-Coast” AM as a source unless you want your credibility to fall like a rock.

    • icone

      I kinda agree with that.

      I’m a fan of Coast-to-Coast, and listened to this broadcast live. They cover some great topics and have some credible experts and interviews… but they also talk about all sorts of stuff like “shadow rats”, crazy alien stories, ultra-secret Mars bases, bigfoot…

      It does seem a bit out of place here as a news source. Just my opinion.

  • nomade

    First post, I only looked up very recently. Sorry if these questions have been asked before!

    Anyway, the conversation is about explosions and something has been bugging me a lot for the last few days.

    Is this is really reactor #4 exploding?

    Because back in March experts were saying that #4 was the most serious problem on the site. It had the greatest quantity of spent fuel and the core of the reactor was in the cooling pool too.
    And there was no containment at all.

    If it’s potentially the most dangerous reactor then why haven’t they been monitoring it?

    Maybe it’s no longer a concern because the fuel has gone already…vaporized in that big fireball?

    I’ve seen the video of the fuel pool and it looks remarkably intact after an explosion like that, so I’m a bit confused.

    PS I see there have been no radiation reading updates since June 1st but do those sudden drops in radiation correspond to water getting dumped somewhere (like the Pacific)?

  • nomade

    Thanks for the clarification anne. I was a bit far from “civilization” when the tsunami hit so I didn’t even see the news coverage on TV back in March and am trying to fill in all the gaps now.

    It’s rather a steep learning curve.

  • Dr. Strangleglove

    Plutonium is Pu because Seaborg Said Pee you to himself. It stinks.