Gundersen: Top of containment believed to have opened up after Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 exploded

Published: December 17th, 2012 at 6:12 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
84 comments


Follow-up to: New Fairewinds Video: Tepco reveals "detonation shock wave" during massive explosion at Fukushima Unit 3 (PHOTO & VIDEO)

When asked if he thought the detonation shock wave at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 destroyed the containment vessel, Fairewinds chief engineer Arnie Gundersen replied to ENENews:

A detonation shock wave destroyed the U3 reactor building and critical supports surrounding the reactor’s containment…. after the detonation, steam clouds could be seen emanating from where the top of the containment should have been.

After being asked it that means the top of the containment vessel was missing, he said:

I think the top of containment was ajar, but not missing

Watch the video here

Published: December 17th, 2012 at 6:12 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
84 comments

Related Posts

  1. New Fairewinds Video: Tepco reveals “detonation shock wave” during massive explosion at Fukushima Unit 3 (PHOTO & VIDEO) December 17, 2012
  2. Gundersen’s Kansai Presentation: Pellets of nuclear fuel were scattered around Fukushima site — Pieces, not atoms, but pieces — Hydrogen will not create explosion seen at Unit No. 3 (VIDEO) May 13, 2012
  3. Gundersen: Image shows radioactive “thermal flare” was coming from Fukushima Reactor 3 — “Exactly where the containment should be” (VIDEO) March 25, 2013
  4. Gundersen: White haze in photo of Unit 3 is coming from spent fuel pool — Almost as dangerous as Unit 4 (PHOTOS) July 12, 2012
  5. Gundersen on ‘high level’ radiation around Unit 3: “Can’t just be activation products” — This supports my detonation theory September 12, 2012

84 comments to Gundersen: Top of containment believed to have opened up after Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 exploded

  • byron byron

    The video on 3 – round cover appeared to go up into the air and came back down. There is a hole in the roof of the pump building right next to where number 3 was located. Looks like the right size for the reactor cap. How could a hole get into a roof like that? Is the cap of the reactor inside that pump building (if they didn't move it)? Are there any photos of where reactor 3 used to be indicating whether or not the cap is in place? Or damage to the sides of what used to be the reactor. All I see on photos is the framework of the outside of the building.


    Report comment

    • fredlvie

      in the days after the events at fuku daiichi there were somewhere in the internet fotos of the reactor building nr.3,filmed from a little heli-cam.one of these pics showed the reactor cap nr.3 with a large hole on top…


      Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Regardless of the details, nuclear technology is too dangerous. The concept has completely failed, time, and time again. We have safe and clean electricity producing alternatives, so lets get to work.


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    There are some still photos of the "lid" of a containment vessel..little research to find..but could be useful.


    Report comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      Yes those photos do show the lid I think, with some of the bolts missing and it is a jar but not missing.


      Report comment

      • byron byron

        hi Moonshellblue, Are the photos showing the lid in place far enough out to make sure that it is indeed number 3, like other debris in context, or could it just be photos of another reactor or just photoshopped?


        Report comment

      • HoTaters

        Greetings, Moonshell. Yes, some of the early closeup photos inside what was left of the reactor building showed the lid of the containment was ajar, and many of the huge bolts were sheared off. So if we were seeing photos which were actually of Unit 3, then technically there is no containment because the top of the containment was askew, shifted so it didn't sit squarely on top of the reactor. Will see if I can find the photo(s) I'm thinking of and will post here if I can find them.

        Pretty sure it was in Enenews article or in article linked from here.


        Report comment

        • HoTaters

          It's important to understand how large the bolts are which secure the top of the reactor vessel. They are somewhere on the order of 6" to 9" in diameter. Think of the force needed to shear off bolts of such size. The closeup photos also show the number of bolts securing the lid, and their placement around the top of the reactor vessel.

          Here's a good explanation of why containment is important, from University of Chicago. Mainly discusses PWR's, but good explanation of purpose of containment and shielding.

          BTW, did a browser search under terms, "BWR Mark 1 containment" and got a great .pdf propoganda piece put out by GE defending the safety of BWR's. Fabulous. The #1 browser search result for this search. I should print out a copy and put it on my coffee table. A gem for posterity. NedlifromVermont would appreciate this one.

          Here's a good report from the NRC on Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors, written by their Technical Training Center.

          http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf


          Report comment

  • bwrguy

    A while ago, to follow up on Arnie's contention that the containment head lifted, stretching the bolts, I did a simple hand calculation assuming 180 2 inch diameter bolts, spaced at 2 degree intevals. At 100 psi internal pressure, the preload was exceeded for 180 bolts, i.e. the containment head would lift off its seat, allowing hydrogen gas to escape. Pressures at the unit #1 were recorded as having reached 125 psi, before settling back to 100 psi shortly thereafter, i.e. head reseated. Coincidence? Recall the TVA test in the 1970s showed the containment head lifting at 100 psi internal pressure. I did not have precise bolt preload data, so had to estimate by extrapolation to 2" diameter for Class 8 steel bolts. Yet, the calculation came out right on target! Anyone else try to hand calculate. Reference: http://enenews.com/fairewinds-nuclear-expert-believes-top-lifted-off-reactor-no-1-containment-before-explosion-video/comment-page-1


    Report comment

    • HoTaters

      Hi bwrguy, will try to find the early photos. You are correct, the lid lifted off and settled back down, shifted out of its original position. Someone here posted the size of the bolts. Wish I could remember who it was. It was someone with good knowledge of BWR's or engineering background, if I'm not mistaken.

      If you're out there, 'Newser, please post your data on the size of the bolts which were sheared off.


      Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      bwrguy, some good calculating. I remember the bolt stretching theory, and thanks for repeating the calculations because this is really so important. Such a major weakness – all the walls, and containment and then it's the bolts that are the weak link. Using those bolts was about as smart as using nonsubmersible cooling pumps for reactors along a coast line. One would think that if you are going to deal with something so dangerous as nuclear energy that you'd want to have the most robust systems in place. But, apparently not.


      Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    It really doesn't matter if the reactor lid landed in Taiwan.
    Containment was breached.
    It really doesn't matter if the lid is a jar, a box, or a kite.
    Containment was breached.
    It really doesn't matter if the lid was replaced for a photo opp.
    Containment was breached.
    It really doesn't matter if #3 sfp burned. bombed or sputtered.
    Containment was breached.
    It really doesn't matter who lies about what.
    Containment was breached.
    It really doesn't matter that we were told it can't happen.
    Containment was breached.
    It really doesn't matter that containment was breached.
    No one is listening and very few care.
    It really doesn't matter, anymore.
    Containment was breached…


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    If the Unit 3 containment lid is gone missing or any lids from the containments to hold in (3) reactor core meltdowns for that matter, the radioactively emitted would be much higher and now the only thing keeping workers in a semi-safe working environment is that the melted cores are underwater. The surroundings have been irradiated as the melted cores passed by and/or partially remain behind, like the inside walls of the containment shells. Even leaking containment lids are better than no lids.

    I am not talking about the reactor lids because the bottoms of (3) reactors have melted through.

    There is no way to get metal to metal surfaces mated for a leak proof pressure seal, so a gasket/seal is used in-between the two surfaces, it is one of the first things to blow or burn out during a meltdown with heat and high pressures but the remaining gap is not that large. More like a crack.

    I'm thinking sand or seaweed or little fish play havoc even with submersible pumps and the cost to ensure their functionality adds more to nuclear power costs. Just shut them down, we can live without nuclear plants.

    Trying to make nuclear plants safe is not worth it.


    Report comment

  • bwrguy

    The fact was that one could make a "rough" calculation to predict lift-off pressure to surprising accuracy. The internal diameter of the containment lid was estimated, in order to calculate upward force on such lid, i.e. Pressure x Diameter**2 x 3.14 / 4, then dividing by 180 (actually an initial guess, figuring 2 degree spacing, obviously not 1.75 or 2.15 degrees) to estimate force stretching each bolt, gives credence to Arnie's contention. I worked in nuclear 35 years ago, but not on containments or plant safety. But the 100 psi lift-off pressure was predicted via a simple bolt hand calculation for bolts losing preload, and lid lifting off their seat. I'm sure an engineer with relevant nuclear experience and accurate design data could calculate the same to greater accuracy. Despite the TVA test in mid-1970s, I guess they felt it would NEVER happen. It did. And what will prevent other BWR's from experiencing the same, other than just dumb luck?


    Report comment

  • nedlifromvermont

    +100!
    And that is what I'm waiting for Mr. Gunderson to own up to.

    They were never worth it. This whole sad affair is the result of a faux-scientific hoax; and General Electric is not owning up to this. They act as if Fukushima never really happened. They are total psychopaths, like a certain disturbed individual in Newtown, Connecticut.

    Re: school murders; shooter's Dad is an executive at GE.

    People get the message real quick when thirty round clips of exploding bullets are employed against defenseless six year olds.

    They don't seem able to extrapolate that the same or worse (long-lived genetic mutations and deformities) result from bullets shaped like alpha and beta particles and gamma rays. Results are the same, widespread death and mayhem.

    Jeff Immelt is no better than Adam Lanza.

    I mean it. Or Hillary Clinton, either.

    peace …


    Report comment

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Total Fukushima Radiation Released Into Ocean, Air, Groundwater, Storage Tanks; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/02/total-fukushima-radiation-released-into.html

    Comparing Contaminated Zones Around Chernobyl And Fukushima Ocean Radiation Released; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/05/comparing-contaminated-zones-around.html


    Report comment

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    We discussed all this already in spring / summer 2011….of course the cap is off. There are pictures published by Tepco showing the unit 3 RPV standing in the remains of the structure, and it's steaming.


    Report comment

  • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

    Unit3 explosion originated in SFP3, NOT in Comtainment3. This is all old news, previously discussed here in much detail. For example:
    http://enenews.com/watch-empty-spaces-fukushima-unit-3-spent-fuel-racks-ordinarily-hold-spent-fuel-asahi-video-photos
    If you look at the wreckage of Unit3 from above, you can see clearly that the detonation originated inside SFP3. If you look at the video of the explosion, flame shoots out from SFP3. TerraHertz did a wonderful analysis stepping you through the proof that the explosion at Unit 3 originated in the spent fuel pool.
    http://everist.org/archives/Fukushima/20120430_Message_of_Fuku3.htm
    "There is little damage to the girders above the reactor well, and the crane is also present below them. The frame damage in this area seems to be from the impact of rubble from the concrete roof slab, as it fell back down.
    "Instead we see the girders are entirely destroyed and missing above the #3 Spent Fuel Pool. Mr Gunderson has pointed this out, suggesting there must have been a criticality in the SFP."


    Report comment

    • HoTaters

      Yes, PhilipUpNorth, but Mr. Gunderson also pointed out the middle of the roof (center) was missing, and steam was coming from beneath it, indicating reactor containment (vessel) was breached and emitting large amounts of radiation. That was back in November 2011 or so ….


      Report comment

    • shockwave shockwave

      Philip, the analysis you mentioned is flawed!

      No 3 successive bangs, because there was no 3 successive shockwaves. If there were, the last 2 which would definitly affect the black smoke above.

      3 sonud are similar. It might be caused by echoes.


      Report comment

  • HoTaters

    This video shot in March 2011. Gives a pretty good idea of the scale of the devastation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P61UYEUMPh8

    From the NRC, statement Units 1 and 3 "cores had no containment for at least a period of time":

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100328926/Pages-From-ML12188A108-16-Fukushima-Daiichi-Units-1-and-3-Have-Experienced-Core-Damage-The-Reactor-Cores-Were-Completely-Uncovered-for-a-Period-of

    If you scroll through the NRC press releases above you'll see radioactive releases at Fukushima Daini were also discussed.

    Enformable has more on this.

    This is interesting, from Enformable. Not unit 3, but Unit 4 and shows what the layout inside the reactor buildings looked like:

    http://enformable.com/2012/08/tepco-retrieves-containment-vessel-lid-from-fukushima-reactor-4/


    Report comment

    • HoTaters

      Maybe I'm thinking of pictures of Unit 1 or 2 showing reactor vessel with lid askew. Can anyone address this? I was pretty sure the video I was thinking of showed the inside of #3 with the lid askew, but I could be mistaken. Maybe others have better memory or can find the video or pics I'm thinking of. The video I saw showed an aerial survey of Fukushiima Daichi and Daini, and showed the inside of one of the reactors with the containment vessel lid partly open.

      Just can't spend any more time looking for this today.

      Yes, Jebus, you're right, containment was breached, and that's pretty much the issue.


      Report comment

      • HoTaters

        I meant inside of the reactor building, with lid askew on the pressure vessel, sorry. Tired, long week.


        Report comment

      • Radio VicFromOregon

        HoTaters, i thought that Reactor 1 definitely had the lid askew, which was why the need for the tenting and the vent stack scrubber. Number 3 was too hot to even do an initial fly over after the faster more powerful detonation or slower, less powerful deflagration (choose at your own risk), and the collapsed roof made getting photos difficult. But, the golden lid was eventually spotted essentially where it ought to be. I think some debate surrounding the R3 lid was if it had been blow up then came back down in place or askew long enough to allow mox fuel pellets to be ejected onto the surrounding tarmac from a detonation that could eject the pellets, or the deflagration that could not.


        Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      Thx for all the links, Ho Tater. I left a couple for you, in return ;-)


      Report comment

  • Pierpont

    Arnie's either/or thinking is getting in the way of him seeing what actually happened. He says R3 was destroyed NOT by H2 "deflagration" BUT but detonation, the argument being it had to be one or the other.

    So, what happened to all that H2 floating around in the reactor? What is that bright orange fire-ball in the 3/11 vid? How could you possibly have a detonation that destroyed the reactor and not have a near-simultaneous deflagration of the H2?

    Having taken the position that detonation was the only reason R3 got busted up, he now has to show evidence that H2 deflagration wasn't a co-existing reason. He is mum on that, which weakens his position significantly IMOH.

    Arnie has painted himself into a corner with his "it happened the way I said, not the way you said" sort of polemics. There is no proper place for polemics in science, even if it gets you on CNN.


    Report comment

    • Mack Mack

      Hi Pierpont – Is the orange fireball indicative of a hydrogen explosion?


      Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      Pierpont, if you have a the time, please review Arnie's statements again and you will see that he is not ruling our the role hydrogen played in the explosions. He is simply pointing out a distinction about the difference between deflagration and detonation with Reactor 3 because the nuclear industry maintains that detonations are NOT possible and he thinks reactor 3's explosion is proof that they, indeed, are.

      And, just out of curiosity, what is YOUR opinion?


      Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      Ooops, i forgot the link to the Fairewinds website. I think all Arnie's public statements, videos, conferences, official correspondence, etc. can be found there, but not necessarily all the outside links like CNN interviews. The titles are self explanatory so finding the right video should be easy. He's also pretty good about getting back to emails since it is a public education site and he takes answering public questions about nuclear energy and it's many dangers very seriously. Hope this link can help clarify his stance for you or for anyone for that matter.
      http://www.fairewinds.org/

      Ian Goddard has a differing view of what type of explosion happen at R3 from Arnie's and some good stuff about the cap. He's also a very careful reasoner. http://www.iangoddard.com/journal.htm


      Report comment

    • Pierpont

      @Mack: Is the orange fireball indicative of a hydrogen explosion?

      Well, the fireball is, by definition, a type of explosion, which Arnie is re-naming "deflagration." Arnie's definition of "detonation" is a wave moving faster than the speed of sound. I have never heard this definition before, but such a definition does not require a fireball and has nothing to do with a fireball, per se.

      It is this goofing around with words that is causing problems. Arnie is ripping the word "detonation" off the TEPCO Power Point slide and trying to use it as some sort of an admission by TEPCO, when they are clearly not using "detonation" to mean what Arnie says it means. They are using it to mean explosion of fuel, which is consistent with how most of us use it, as in internal combustion.

      @Vic: [Arnie] is not ruling our the role hydrogen played in the explosions

      Wish I had time to wade through all of Arnie's great stuff. I am only re-stating what he says very clearly in the last vid, which was that there was no "deflagration," meaning no H2 explosion, as I understand it.

      Yes, I see that his point that "detonation" is possible in these situations is an important one, and I'm not moaning about that. I'm moaning about his position that an H2 ignition was not a part of the mix that blew the reactor apart. That position seems ludicrous given TEPCO's assertions that H2 was in the reactor, Arnie's admission there was H2 floating around in the reactor,…


      Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    The top of containment 3 ..opened up after the explosion..
    After?..how so?
    And where are the contents..now?
    The SFP?
    Didn't he just say..it looks like the SPFs at Fuku survived the last large earthquake?


    Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      HOTR, I am assuming we are talking about Gundersen's statements and not Goddards? Fuel pellets from inside the reactor. After the explosion meaning microns of time. Just the sequence. It wouldn't open before, but, once a force lifted it. Regarding the SFP's, he said he suspected that they had sustained further damage, both structurally to the units themselves and to the fuel rods.


      Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      HOTR, the whole point of what happened to the cap from Arnie's perspective is that the industry says the bolts will not allow the cap to be blown off, and he is saying that the bolts stretch, and while the cap may remain on top of the reactor held by the bolts, the cap can be loosened enough to allow fuel in the form of ionized gases and fuel pellets from exploded fuel rods to be momentarily ejected from the top of the reactor. He cannot just say such and such a nuclear energy reactor is unsafe. He needs to verify as best he can where he thinks they are weak and unreliable. So, he tries to bring attention to these certain points in hopes that researchers will take up the task and do he actual science that can be presented to the regulators. That's the way the system works and he's opting to try and change the system from within where he can be most effective and where there are few voices like his own, while others, like enewsers are trying to change the system from without. Both must be done if we are to succeed.


      Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Why does he insist on a hydrogen explosive situation when both hydrogen and nuclear explosives situation are relatively instantanous in this situation?


    Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      Arnie is insisting on a nuclear explosion, specifically a detonation, while TEPCO is insisting on a hydrogen explosion from accumulating gas. It is believed within the industry that nuclear detonations will not occur within the reactors. The fuel is supposedly expected to melt before a detonation could ever occur within the reactor after coolant loss. So no need to worry. Arnie is making his argument public, though, he has tried to make his case within the industry and before the NRC, that reactors, do indeed, explode when the fuel gets too hot. Thus, his point about detonation versus deflagration. He is saying that reactors are potential bombs and that these bombs are located right beside major urban centers in the US. It is an unpopular theory within the nuclear industry to say the least, because, should Arnie be proven correct, there can never be another rationale given for building another reactor and maintaining the existing ones. He has said as much many times and most recently on Do You Love This Planet with Helen Coldicott.


      Report comment

      • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

        All I know..is that in some small corner of the world.. scientific truth has to be told and in realtime.

        His careful 'wordage' is frustrating.
        He could have easily.. as said..since simplicity is the goal.

        Loss of cooling..boom!


        Report comment

        • Radio VicFromOregon

          Many here feel that if things aren't dressed in dramatic language, then that person hasn't been honest. That they have somehow withheld facts to obscure truths. But, to do that would be to confuse characterization with truth. And, that would be a mistake. Enenews is like one long protest rally where there is a certain expectation that people here should agitate and shout and speak in very emotive language. But, emotive language usually only works with the already converted who want to see their opinions and beliefs reflected in the members of the group with the same intensity that they feel themselves. If they don't, then they are often considered suspect here. But, if the language used here is used on the uncoverted, it will usually just have the effect of turning that person off without preparing the ground first. Arnie isn't trying to make us feel better, he's trying to appeal to all the others who doubt the dangers of nuclear energy. To do that, he has to prepare the ground first.


          Report comment

          • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

            I ..for one take exception to your statement .."Enenews is one long protest rally'.
            Some of the best rechical data to come across cyberspace.. comes through here.
            What?? and deny all the hard work on the webcam page and the other threads?

            Emotive language..the cries the the people…need to be represented..to offset politically correct jargon.


            Report comment

            • Radio VicFromOregon

              HOTR, I didn't say technical data wasn't on this site. And, what's wrong with saying it's one long protest rally. That is a good thing. One long sustained group action against nuclear power. My life is one long protest rally. You're projecting all the negatives into these words. You're looking for enemies where there are none. Of course there is technical discussion here. In fact, i took your question about explosions as a chance to discuss technical details, but you complained that you fell into another tech discussion. So, now you're confusing me. But, many people come here to emote. That's wonderful. But, judging those that don't is not about representing, it's about aggression. Arnie, and others like him, are talking to and on behalf of the people that don't come to sites like enenews. He is going to them because they do not come to us, and he is talking with them in language that they can accept so that they can try to save their lives. You condemn his methods. So does TEPCO, the NRC, and the nuclear industry.


              Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    'detonation shock wave'..the term is vague.


    Report comment

  • Radio VicFromOregon

    Perhaps to you it is, but it is quite concrete and descriptive to me. Detonation – outwardly directed explosion that surpasses a certain velocity, and shock wave – the wave of force created by the detonation. Detonation shock wave. He has described it many times. But, more to the point, it is precise to the industry. What do you think it should be called?


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Guhh..I fell into another tech..dicussion.
    Detonation..fine..both hydrogen and nuclear simultaneously..causing destruction of the reactor?..correct?

    Did Gundersen happen to suggest further evacuations?


    Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      HOTR, actually, it was Gundersen who has repeatedly asked for expanding the evacuations and frequently speaks about ways to try and reduce exposure. He was also the first to say that the West Coast would receive ionized radiation and was spot on in the length of days he said it would take to reach the US. He was the first to suggest that Tokyo had been contaminated. Admin puts up a selected cut from what are usually hour long discussions in order to help us address one aspect Arnie is bringing up out of several in a single interview. Admin does the same for many longer views of other speakers as well. Surely you must be aware of this? Sorry you fell in. Next time be more direct with your anger and criticism.


      Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    ..and the 'opening' of the containment..was simultanous to the hydrogen/nuclear explosion?


    Report comment

  • Radio VicFromOregon

    HOTR, why not actually link to the video and get your answers from the man himself. That's why Admin put it there.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    I really want to end this conversation..
    "asked for expanding the evacuations"
    Is he asking now..or just engaged in techno babble?


    Report comment

  • Radio VicFromOregon

    I spent the many long hours watching and educating myself about what Gundersen and others have said because it mattered. Do the same.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    I listened and I watch.


    Report comment

      • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

        According to whom?
        Not all things can be covered by politically correct jargon.
        The people deserve better.


        Report comment

        • Radio VicFromOregon

          Now technical language becomes politically correct jargon? Using precise terms when describing failures in reactors is now suspect? Arnie's trying to tell the world that nuclear reactors are ticking time bombs and you say he's hiding in political jargon? The people deserve better? What people? You want to go into downtown Tokyo and ask the people on the street which of the two of you they'd rather listen to – you or Arnie? Which one of you two represents them better? They might easily think that neither of you does. Of course, they would say so very politely. The NRC? They're people. They don't want to listen to Arnie anymore than you do because he speaks truth to power. Knowing how the reactors failed is no small matter. It has potentially vast repercussions for the industry. Repercussions that you and i hope shut them all down.


          Report comment

      • Radio VicFromOregon

        HOTR and everyone else reading this discussion, i was out of line on saying this one. HOTR learns plenty and teaches plenty. My apologies to all.


        Report comment

  • VanneV anne

    Gunderson – Seattle Residents Breathed Ten 'Hot' Particles A Day
    Excerpts From Arnie Gunderson Interview With Chris Martenson
    6-6-11
    http://rense.com/general94/gund.htm


    Report comment

  • VanneV anne

    Nuclear detonations
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm
    as opposed to a hydrogen explosion. And this was a result of faulty technology of the reactor containment. This faulty technology is repeated in the reactor containment at many nuclear power plants across the US.
    All nuclear reactors must be shut down everywhere or the earth will become completely uninhabitable.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    It seems to me..IMHO..the detonation wave is what took out the SFP..the hydrogen/nuclear the rest.

    IMHO…and all…


    Report comment

  • VanneV anne

    The whole point is that the nuclear detonation took place inside the reactor containment.


    Report comment

  • nedlifromvermont

    thanks to you all for the constructive and dispassionate posts …

    Thank God for Arnie Gunderson … he is speaking out …

    And good point about him trying to change nuke from within, and many others of us trying to kill it off from without …

    we will never be silenced … this whole nuclear power thing is one big paid for HOAX, and it really does threaten all life on earth …

    Death to Nuclear Power: Not Needed, Never Safe; Not Low Carbon; Never Cheap; Ruins whole countries at time when it fails (no longer a hypothetical) etc. etc. …

    and Jeff Immelt is not Santa Claus!

    thank you Vic and everyone out there for keeping it real!

    peace …


    Report comment

  • Radio VicFromOregon

    And my point is that you and i get to have opinions based entirely on conjecture and best guesses and call tepco killers and emote and play fairly loose with the facts sometimes if we so choose to do so here. Arnie, on the other hand, to appeal to a wider group, and oftentimes a governmental body or gathering of doctors and scientists and researchers, has to make very sound and carefully reasoned arguments while addressing people with respect. That is what he is choosing to do. We are doing different work from different points on the continuum towards the same goal. So, what i am asking from you, HOTR, is to give a little respect to people that aren't exactly like you, and manage a little tolerance approaching the nuclear issue in a way that differs from yours word for word, but that also represents, if not the emotive cries of the people, then the plight of the people.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Yes…and I have not invaded Fairwinds..now have I…LOL


    Report comment

  • VanneV anne

    Disinformation under feigned lack of technical knowledge won't help Terrapower or save the earth from nuclear detonation or radiation poisoning.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Thanks for the chat up here.
    This is not about any of the details.
    I do not agree with Mr.Gundersen's assessment of the on-going situation at Fukushima.
    If the people do not understand the severity..there is no impetus toward survival.
    Again, I yield to popular consensus.
    As..a realtime activist..all intellectual work is geared towards trying to save lives.
    Sorry…


    Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      HOTR, groovy. You don't have to either agree with him or like him. But, how about just saying so in the first place and then laying out your reasons why if you happen to want to go further? That would make it possible for me to understand and not have to guess, very possibly incorrectly. I also posted Goddard's link and he doesn't agree with Arnie's assessment either for very different reasons than yours, but, the more the merrier. I agree with parts from all three of you. Hell, from just about everyone here. Your different arguments, opinions and observations teach me.

      I don't expect much of the world to understand the severity. We have to find other ways to solve this without them, but, some still have to try and reach them because reason is always possible. We can all share in that very difficult, and sometimes depressing task. I'm glad you're helping to save lives.


      Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Ok..now..just let me say my bit and be done..ok?


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    PS..I'm also done….lol.


    Report comment

  • rambojim

    I have a bad taste in my mouth for Arnie Gundersen and Fairwinds.I have a feeling that he is not being 100% honest with his assessments.My views only…


    Report comment

    • Pierpont

      You are not the only one feeling uncomfortable, ram.

      The way folks are beating up on Rose feels like someone's ego getting stepped on whenever Arnie's name comes up in a way that is less than complimentary.

      I have previously asked if this is the Gundersons' website and never had a response. Hmmmm. . . makes ya' wonder. It's certainly a Gunderson echo-chamber. Would love to know which of the people posting here is Arnie. I have my best guess, of course, and it ain't Rose.

      Stay on them, Rose. Your questions are closer to the truth than their answers.


      Report comment

  • NoNukes NoNukes

    The question I have for Mr. Gundersen is this:

    Are the pancakes/spagetti cold? Last year, you suggested that the fuel melted and flattened out like a pancake, that it was like a pile of cold cooked spaghetti.

    At the time, many here suggested that the fuel wasn't cold, but rather very HOT, and the detection of I-131 over the past year suggests that there are on-going, uncontrolled re-criticalities, and the babies near and far are having their thyroids destroyed, their DNA eviscerated by radiation, cancer cells multiplying in their little bodies each moment.

    Do you still deny the burning corium? This is the central question for the children of our world. The food metaphors suggest that corium is safe nourishment, yet it is the most dangerous poison we know.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.