Gundersen: Extremely radioactive rubble on Fukushima Reactor No. 3 has to be nuclear fuel… from either spent fuel pool or reactor! — Can’t be from simple hydrogen explosion

Published: May 5th, 2013 at 3:52 pm ET


Fairewinds chief engineer Arnie Gundersen on how the extremely radioactive debris reported yesterday got on top of Reactor 3:

It has to be from fuel…. either the SFP or the reactor!

A simple hydrogen explosion would not dislodge this much radiation.

See also: [intlink id=”extremely-radioactive-rubble-found-on-top-of-fukushima-reactor-no-3-photo” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]

Published: May 5th, 2013 at 3:52 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Extremely radioactive rubble found on top of Fukushima Reactor No. 3 (PHOTO) May 4, 2013
  2. Japan Expert: It was a nuclear explosion at Reactor No. 3 — I believe fuel rods were blown out of spent fuel pool December 13, 2011
  3. “Mysterious circumstances” of explosion at reactor No. 3 — Cannot be explained by a simple hydrogen build-up April 26, 2011
  4. Gundersen: New data shows Fukushima exceeds Chernobyl… Plumes seen emanating from both the Unit 3 fuel pool & reactor — Nuke Engineer: Broken fuel rods are above all 3 melted down reactors — Gov’t Experts: Unit 3 explosion may have damaged spent fuel & released even more radioactive material (VIDEO) February 9, 2015
  5. Kyodo: Secret worst scenario was ‘reactor explosion’ at No. 1 and Spent Fuel Pool 4 drying up -Hosono January 6, 2012

28 comments to Gundersen: Extremely radioactive rubble on Fukushima Reactor No. 3 has to be nuclear fuel… from either spent fuel pool or reactor! — Can’t be from simple hydrogen explosion

  • Proton

    Unit 3 blew it's components all over the place, starting in the fuel core…


    • DannieJ DannieJ

      THAT is definitely not a mushroom cloud.

      Nothing to see here, move on, keep smiling.

      • Proton

        It's a pretty good mushroom cloud…

        Really the blast is characterized, by smart people, as a plutonium "fizzle". Unit #3's MOX fuel contents is the key indicator here…

        It's plain as day, every MOX fueled reactor will produce a similar "fizzle" when they meltdown. That is unless they have engineered some, taking explosive yield, on meltdown, into account when designing the containment vessel. I wouldn't put it past any of these maniacs… the red button marked "DO NOT PUSH"

  • norbu norbu

    Thank you Arnie.

  • Fukushima remains the most urgent threat to all our lives.


    Cheap green replacements for fossil and radioactive fuels are being born.

    A surprising reflection of new science is an engine that needs no fuel. See NO FUEL ENGINE on that website.

    Future cars may be power plants. Selling substantial electricity to utilities and paying for themselves. No wires required.


      these reposts are bordering on spam, Mark Goldes…

    • harengus_acidophilus

      Greed remains the most urgent threat to all our lives.

      The core feature of your "free energy fairy tales" is,
      you don't want to reduce your energy "needs".

      Let's assume -just for thinking- you have found a "perpetuum mobile", but the engergy it produces ends up -sooner or later- in heat. How many additional heat will our world need to transform it into a global desert?

      And this argument is also valid to all other kinds of additional energy production besides solar (yes, also fusion). Think about it: since billons of years earth gets energy from the sun at the day side and loose energy by heat radiation on the night side. It' an equilibrium, what happens if you skip the balance by producing additional heat?


  • DUDe DisasterInterpretationDissorder

    Exactly harengus !

  • harengus_acidophilus
    Since this engine uses atmospheric heat as fuel, it will be removing heat, rather than adding to the problem.

  • Arnie says enough to confirm the big picture. This is the point of discussion. Bending the conversation is OK if new information is gleaned but can take the focus away from the original talking point. Trolls do this. You may be well meaning but if the outcome diverts attention from the main talking point, the outcome is the same. Our mission here should be to portray ourselves as the voice of reason. Alternate energy sources is a discussion for the non nuclear or notfukushima thread. Nuclear energy is a bad idea and should be stopped regardless of what alternatives are available.

  • hbjon hbjon

    There are many questions about the fuel that continue to go unanswered. The stuff came raining down on the whole complex and as far as several miles away from it.

  • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

    "A simple hydrogen explosion would not dislodge this much radiation."
    Arnie Gundersen.
    If hydrogen didn't destroy Unit3, the detonation was probably caused by zirconium/cesium vapors.

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Is Fukushima really in cold shutdown? via @AGreenRoad

    Ex Fukushima Engineer Confesses; No Cold Shutdown, Warned of Tsunami 20 Yrs Ago; via @AGreenRoad

    • jec jec

      NOPE -coldshut down STATE. New words for meaning nothing. TEPCO and Japanese government wordsmithing. Guess the idea is to keep the public happy and smiling..?? In USA as well as the rest of the world..

  • weeman

    I am sorry but I do not see the radiation level were is it reported, what was the level they observed.
    When it comes to alternate energy sources, it will not matter what one you choose, there is going to be benifits and disadvantages, even solar will add heat to our environment, black absorbs heat, hydrogen will add more water vapour to our atmosphere, etc, energy is basically heat.
    It will be a balancing act and which one is more profitable, as big business will dictate.

  • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

    "Has TEPCO been mapping the debris as they remove from the Reactor 3 operating floor, and recording the radioactivity of each pieces? Probably not. I wish they did. It might have given some clues on the explosion – how it happened, or what kind of explosion it was."
    The removal of debris from Fukushima, without an investigation of what happened there, will destroy the evidence for all time. Once the entire site is removed, it will be easy to say, "It is unclear what happened." A nuclear forensics investigation is a must if we are to avoid a repeat. After 2 years, we are still debating whether the explosions were hydrogen or steam, when the truth could be known with just a little bit of evidence collection.

    • norbu norbu

      Good morning PhilipUpNorth, With no outside help and monitoring they [Tepco] are creating that. You are write. They want to sweep it under the, normally we would say rug, the Ocean.

  • If Arnie says that a hydrogen explosion couldn't move that much fuel is he implying a small nuclear detonation? I can't help thinking that after 60 years of studying nuclear, they know much more then they let on. If a nuclear explosion is possible during an uncontrolled melt down they wouldn't tell us. Arnie whom I greatly respect, does this dance on the media due to the circumstances that are out of his hands. He wants to maintain credibility through a spectrum of people which include industry insiders.
    What is he really saying. We all saw the mushroom cloud.

    • Arnie has explained clearly that he believes a prompt criticality occurred. Think of this as uncontrolled nuclear fission. This is the same type of event that happened at Chernobyl. The reactor core becomes superheated, resulting in a massive steam explosion. Not the same as a nuclear bomb.

      • Here is a link to Arnie's more complete explanation, from two years ago:
        So far, all the evidence indicates he was right. Not that we have been allowed to see all the evidence.

        • Hi Chargedbarticle

          I think the prompt criticality was in the reactor itself, although the spent fuel pool may have had one also

          JAMES wrote at my blog:

          [BEGIN] Just a heads up that I thought you might pass along.

          Take a look at the photos from Tepco where they show how they are going to remove the debris from the top of unit 3.

          Go to this photo linked today on Enenews:

          Take a look at the large photo on the right hand side of the second powerpoint slide. The one titled Photo taken on April 22, 2013.

          Look to the lower left corner of the picture – notice that there is the edge of a large round black hole clearly visible underneath the bridge crane – surprise; surprise;

          it's not a shadow; it's not the top of a concrete containment plug; it's not the top of a reactor; – it's a very deep, empty hole. Nice of them to finally show us. It's visible in the other photos where I've tried to point it out before, but was not very discernible until they removed the debris.

          Not at all of a surprise to me, but this is the first clear photographic proof I've seen.

          Now I'm 100% certain that there was a MOX plutonium shower after the #3 reactor blew 2 years ago. Who got lucky? Time will tell. [end James]