Gundersen: Image shows radioactive “thermal flare” was coming from Fukushima Reactor 3 — “Exactly where the containment should be” (VIDEO)

Published: March 25th, 2013 at 11:27 pm ET


Source: The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, Day 1
Author: The Helen Caldicott Foundation
Date Presented: March 11, 2013

At 66:30 in

Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Energy Education: Tepco’s known about this for 2 years, but has not talked about it.

That flare right here is exactly where the containment should be, and that flare is at 128°C which means it’s not steam. Steam can’t exist over 100°C. […] At atmospheric pressure when you boil steam you’re only going to get to 100°C. That flare is at 128°C which means that it’s not steam.

It means it’s hot radioactive gases being released directly from the containment. It also means that inside the containment, it was not below the boiling of water, it was above the boiling point of water. There was no liquid water inside that containment.

This is on March 20, nine days after the accident. The containment is venting hot radioactive gases directly to the environment.

This is proof positive […] they’ve known for a long time that huge amounts of cesium were being released directly to the air because they weren’t being trapped in the water in the suppression pool.

See also: [intlink id=”alert-nrc-reactor-2-burned-continuously-several-days-after-meltdown-hydrogen-ignited-video” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]

Gundersen’s full presentation here

Published: March 25th, 2013 at 11:27 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Nuclear Engineer: Footage shows me “it’s broken… there’s really no containment” at Fukushima Reactor 3 — I expect many different kinds of leaks will be found — Radioactive contaminants “basically floating freely” (AUDIO) January 24, 2014
  2. Enormous amount of high-level radioactive waste coming from Unit No. 2 — Reactor and containment are breached (VIDEO) April 19, 2011
  3. Nuclear Engineer: New footage shows Reactor 1 has “ruptured” containment structure, most likely from the explosion — Water to cool “what’s left of core” flowing into environment (VIDEO) November 15, 2013
  4. TV: High-level radiation leak at Fukushima reactor thought to be from “cracks in containment vessel” — “Even more radioactive than expected” — Salt corrosion may have led to breach (VIDEO) January 21, 2014
  5. 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

31 comments to Gundersen: Image shows radioactive “thermal flare” was coming from Fukushima Reactor 3 — “Exactly where the containment should be” (VIDEO)

  • Jebus Jebus

    Anybody need to question as to whether or not it was REACTOR 3 that starred in this very informative infomercial for the nuclear industry?

    • We Not They Finally

      Well, the key thing about reactor 3 was that it was filled with MOX fuel, a uranium-PLUTONIUM mix. But we are all long since clear that it was blown sky high into the atmosphere to circulate around the globe. Exactly HOW that happened is interesting for techies, but the long-term effects are devastating for the whole globe.

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Huge amounts of cesium went directly to California, as shown in CRWS Jet Stream Archives Maps.

  • Tell us about the actinides

    • Hi Tacoma

      good to hear from you…


      Actinide emissions have been flatly denied by all involved, including Gundersen.

      The official story is that no levels beyond those prior to Fuku have been found in Japan and elsewhere with the exception of a few isolated spots where extraordinarily low levels were detected.

      That is the official story repeated over and over again despite the fact that it is patently impossible given the extent of the explosion of unit 3

      Lies so tightly woven point to unbearable truths….

      • Mad Scientists Mad Scientists


        There is a one-page article on the emissions of Plutonium and Neptunium from Fukushima, based on data from TEPCO. [97] It includes a table with, for four unequal time slots, the Total Emissions of Pu-239 and Np-
        239 as percentages and values in Bequerels. For the first 100 h, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-241 together was 1.2 trillion Bq, and Np-239 was 76 trillion Bq. The two maps of Japan show the total
        concentrations of Pu-239 and Np-239 respectively. These show that all the Pu-239 and almost all the Np-239 were carried over the ocean. [98]"


  • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

    Unit 3:
    It's not about this little bitty old jet of plutonium in the picture.
    It's about the gigantic explosion that blew plutonium all over the world.

  • dosdos dosdos

    "Steam can’t exist over 100°C. […]" Steam can exist over 100°C under pressurized containment. It's not commonly seen at atmospheric pressure without containment, because the liquid water which is at or below 100°C tends to absorb the heat first, since it's cooler and denser, but it's certainly possible for steam to exceed 100°C.

    So the question is whether it came from an atmospheric pressure environment with water present, or whether it came from a heated environment that contained only steam under pressure. Arnie is making an assumption here that possibly might not be the case. Simply because it's post-explosion is no reason to assume it couldn't have been the latter on a scale that small.

    • farawayfan farawayfan

      Yes, that's correct, boiling water at STP can never exceed 100C, but steam certainly can. I think Arnie has an excellent analysis, but anytime there's the slightest error in any comment Nuke apologists leap on it as a reason to discount the entire argument, and, often, person. No matter what massive radioactive release is the primary point and remains, to me, valid.


        good points farawayfan. From the presence of this thermal flare's location, there's an on-going (active) reaction within the wreckage of unit 3. If so, the resulting radiation would make it virtually impossible to send remediation crews into the area, for what's likely to be decades, at a minimum…

      • dosdos dosdos

        Please don't call me a nuke apologist. I hate nukes and TEPCO as much as anyone here. I just don't accept any argument with a blind eye, as many here do. I'm just pointing out a weakness in Arnie's presentation, not calling it invalid.

        There are many here who approach presentations with an inductive logic. That is when you have something that you want to prove, and you go looking for evidence to support it, ignoring all else. Inductive logic is used by those with an agenda to support.

        I use a deductive logic, which is looking at all the facts, then finding what fits all the evidence best. Deductive logic will stand up to any argument, whereas inductive logic falls apart quickly. In getting rid of nukes, you don't want an argument that falls apart easily, because it paints your stance as biased and unsupported. You want something the nuke supporters can't deny. And that is what I'm seeking, that which hurts the nuke industry, nothing something they can dismiss easily.

      • ftlt

        How much higher can the temp. of superheated steam go in a open system (assuming this is open following the failure)????

        Are the temps we are seeing within reason or not???

    • Wreedles Wreedles

      DosDos, I'm with you on this one. Arnie's science isn't rigorous here, and citing the existence of a plume at 128C as proof of radioactive gasses rather than steam is unfortunate, because it can be used to call all of his other statements into question.

      From a scientifically objective point-of-view, the plume could be proof of the discharge of radioactive gasses. It could also be superheated steam that has been heated 28 degrees C over the saturation point. 28C superheated steam is not at all unreasonable in a partially closed/damaged system which contains a vast heat source, and where the water is nearly/completely gone.

    • Jebus Jebus

      Steam is a state of H2O.
      One of three for H20.
      Each one happens at a specific temperature given equal pressure.
      When water turns to steam, (boils), there is an energy release.

      A nuclear reactor's pressure vessel, with it's top blown off, is at atmospheric pressure. I saw the video.

      128°C or 262°F is not very hot for a reactor that was running on 3/11, then lost coolant, overheated and blew it's load sky high on 3/17 and then measured 128°C on 3/20. Without water AND pressure, that heat loss didn't happen gracefully, in that time frame.

      All this tells me is that #3 ejected the majority of it's running nuclear core, all over the planet and left a smoldering ember in it's wake…

      • dosdos dosdos

        Water has three states at standard atmospheric pressure. However, water has eleven states in all.

        It is possible that a sealed container of water that had superheated and ruptured because of the increase in pressure and weakening from the massive explosion at #3.

        It might have also been a cesium plume, as Arnie said.

        [(C2H5)2N]4Zr (Tetrakis(diethylamino)zirconium) also has a boiling point of 128°C.

        I'm just saying that it could have been many things, some very radioactive, some not.

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Looking at photos..two years ..later…umm..ok..

    Thermal Images From Fukushima Indicate Blistering 128 Degrees Celsius Zone In Reactor #3

    From above:
    It means it’s hot radioactive gases being released directly from the containment. It also means that inside the containment, it was not below the boiling of water, it was above the boiling point of water. There was no liquid water inside that containment."

    What containment?
    I agree

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    PS..Sorry..I forgot Arnie doesn't say…CORIUM.
    How politically incorrect and insensitive.

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    3 days before the photo..
    March 17 2011

    March 17th, 2011 – JSDF helicopter crews report dose rates of 375 R/hr 300 ft above Reactor 3


  • Sickputer

    Nuclear scientists have all kinds of secret research models about convection and air inversions of nuclear fire plumes. Probably started with atomic bomb testing and then they hit the big time with Chernobyl in 1986 and again in 2011 Fukushima. They know tremendous heat rises vertically and travels aloft the globe by upper wind currents.

    Some similar modeling can be seen in forest fire studies:

    Look at the graphics on page 18. The plume keeps rising and then is transported over mountains by upper wind currents. Certainly the Pacific Ocean was not much of an impediment.

    Page 5: "In an atmosphere with a dry-adiabatic lapse rate, hot gases rising from a fire will encounter little resistance, will travel upward with ease, and can develop a tall convection column."

    SP: Nuclear fires that are uncontrolled for over two years like Fukushima represents a new paradigm in environmental laws. Similar to a volcano that never ends, but the particulate ejections from a rogue nuclear complex are far more hazardous to carbon lifeforms. The human race is at risk of extinction or vast population reductions from continued nuclear fires at Fukushima or any more new nuclear complex fires.

  • Sol Man

    The dispersion models are all ancient, March and April in 2011, and, therefore must be updated so that we all know what we are facing. Updates must be made available!

  • Mack Mack

    Remember the World Health Organization's report on Fukushima?

    From my understanding the WHO's report doesn't take into account exposure to radioactive gases.

    Which means the number of people with health effects caused by exposure to radioactive gases are not included in the report.

    Just one more reason why many people don't believe the WHO's report.

    • ftlt

      Mack: WHO is not allowed to make its own reports… All statement and reports regarding nuclear issues by WHO are required by its charter to be approved by the IAEA..

      When you see WHO reporting on Fukushima or any other nuclear issue you are reading an IAEA approved or issued statement..

      Know that it is double speak…

      WHO should never be quoted for nuclear issues

  • byron byron

    I see levels going up faster in last 2 or 3 months. In 2012 there was a slow rise in readings. What happens when there are fewer tech people able or willing to work at NPPs? More prone to errors from humans or climate related. Or weather events like storms. Many of these are built close to sea level which will be rising. What happens then? I can't imagine how all the nuclear material will be removed from sea level plants (and stored where?) before plants have problems like going under sea level.

  • Unfortunate nuclear fires are put on the back burner by media.

  • pure water

    In fact we were just proven right not to believe the numbers we are given. Even in the early days! And I can not imagine more ellegant, logical and documented way for this to be said! Anyway, the winds have certain patterns which tend to repeat themselves at the same time of the year, and that is why I posted the models. Evidently no one intends officially to tell people they participate in a giant russian roulette and even more evidently the number of the bullets will be kept secret.