Former JNES inspector: Nuclear explosion at Fukushima No. 3 had “black smoke” and “mushroom cloud” — “Hydrogen explosion does not produce such a black smoke” (PHOTOS & VIDEOS)

Published: December 14th, 2011 at 6:00 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
100 comments


Japan nuclear expert Setsuo Fujiwara’s interview with SPA magazine, published Dec. 13, 2011, translation via EX-SKF (best-effort translation without detailed technical knowledge of nuclear physics, subject to revision):

Setsuo Fujiwara, Nuclear plant inspector who worked at Japan’s Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES)

  • “The explosion in Reactor 3 at Fukushima I Nuke Plant on March 14 was nuclear!”
  • “There was a flicker of fire”
  • “Then a vertical, black smoke up the reactor building”
  • “A hydrogen explosion does not produce such a black smoke”
  • “The mushroom cloud — It resembles a nuclear explosion”

See also: Japan Expert: It was a nuclear explosion at Reactor No. 3 -- I believe fuel rods were blown out of spent fuel pool


August NRC meeting

Mr. Grove on p. 61 of the transcript, “Most of the deposition that has reported to date, appears to have come from inside the reactors.”

Mr. Hallahan on p. 63, “Ascribing these dispersed radioactive materials in various forms on site, you know, it is most likely they were from the reactor cores rather from the spent fuel pool.”

New Data Supports Previous Fairewinds Analysis, as Contamination Spreads in Japan and Worldwide, Fairewinds, August 21, 2011:

[...] In a new revelation, the NRC claims that the plutonium found more than 1 mile offsite actually came from inside the nuclear reactors. If such a statement were true, it indicates that the nuclear power plant containments failed and were breached with debris landing far from the power plants themselves. [...]

At 3:30 in

New Data Supports Previous Fairewinds Analysis, as Contamination Spreads in Japan and Worldwide from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.


SOURCE: Goddard’s Journal

Read Goddard Journal’s analysis of the Reactor No. 3 explosion here


SOURCE: NHK


Interview with nuclear energy expert Paul Gunter, Big Picture, August 25, 2011:

At 8:35 in (Transcript Excerpts)

Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear: [...] What we have now been able to confirm through the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is that the initial explosions at Fukushima were very likely ejections of core material into the atmosphere and a vaporization of some portion of those cores [...]


Busby: ‘Can’t seal Fukushima like Chernobyl – it all goes into sea’, RT, April 25, 2011:

Host:

There have been reports… that one of the explosions at Fukushima was not actually a gas blast… but a nuclear reaction in one of the reactor vessels.

Published: December 14th, 2011 at 6:00 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
100 comments

Related Posts

  1. Report: Unburned MOX fuel containing plutonium was in mushroom-like cloud of black smoke when Reactor No. 3 exploded June 19, 2012
  2. Tepco Official on Unit 3: “We don’t know if it was really a hydrogen explosion” August 8, 2012
  3. Reactor Specialist on Unit 3: “I can’t tell you if it’s a hydrogen explosion or a nuclear explosion” (VIDEO) August 24, 2012
  4. Goddard’s Journal analysis indicates steam explosion at Reactor No. 3 — NRC discussed steam explosion ejecting entire core (VIDEOS) April 10, 2012
  5. 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

100 comments to Former JNES inspector: Nuclear explosion at Fukushima No. 3 had “black smoke” and “mushroom cloud” — “Hydrogen explosion does not produce such a black smoke” (PHOTOS & VIDEOS)

  • manontherun111

    sad that we all knew it from day 7 and now we hear about it…


    Report comment

  • How many people here were called “racist” or “anti Japan” or just plain old “liar” for saying this happened back then?
    Nothing like working against nuclear energy for years, warning people that this would happen again, and when it DOES happen in Fuku-1 they listen to the people who claimed this accident couldn’t happen at all.


    Report comment

    • James2

      Yup, “they” are contolling who hears about it.

      There’s photographic proof that the core ejected. It’s been obvious from the start to anybody who has any physics or engineering training at all. They’ve measured that the material ejected came from the core, not the SPF, and yet no one believes you when you say it.


      Report comment

      • Hogweed

        Both the “whistle-blower” in this article and Gundersen say that the major explosion was in the spent fuel. They are both qualified nuclear reactor engineers.

        Reactor 3′s core may have blown containment completely in a second explosion during a second meltdown between 21st and 23rd March when black smoke and steam was again seen billowing from the ruined reactor in huge quantities.

        Here’s the old still image webcam for 23rd March 1700 Japan time.



        Report comment

        • James2

          And both the whistleblower and Gundersen are incorrect.

          I’ve explained this dozens of times on this board. And only now the truth is coming out.

          My only speculation as to why these insiders got it wrong is that they are so indoctrinated into the “containment can’t blow” myth that they looked right past the truth.


          Report comment

          • Hogweed

            It is your opinion that they are incorrect. I tend to think they are right but that’s just my opinion as well. Reactor Pressure and temp readings show that the core did not breech in the initial explosion. You are free to distrust these readings of course, What do you think happened between the 21st and 23rd March then?

            An SPF explosion on the 14th and a core explosion a week later when emergency cooling measures failed completely, seems to me to be consistent with the available evidence. Again just my opinion.


            Report comment

            • Hogweed

              Oops SFP explosion not SPF


              Report comment

            • James2

              It was my opinion for a long time, and at times I wondered whether I was correct.

              There is enough data now to prove that I’m correct.

              It was never physically possible for that explosion to come from the pool.


              Report comment

              • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                If that’s all that was in the pool? James2 and Hogweed, what do you guys think about what Mr. Gundersen is asking to look at?


                Report comment

                • batista

                  May be there were really 3 explosions at number 3 as the mad guy from Finland claimed. Plus the Meltdown was like an gazification of the fuel and it went for the most of it downwards…But some of it made an effort upwards.
                  May be pressure cooker’s top really flew up just a bit and fell back…
                  The fire on the side of it might have come from a broken valve at the primary containment reactor vessel. Arnie spoke of such a valve. And I wouldn’t exclude an explosion also in the fuel pool.
                  The carousel or the lid of reactor 3 have left a hole in the Turbine building…
                  At least the fears of Richard Webb didn’t fully materialize…


                  Report comment

                  • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                    Thanks, I saw that too…in the video above suggestion of maybe 3..at the very least on the cam you can hear several booms and I think he circled them. I wondered about the switch too as Arnie pointed out, but he specifically pointed to all reactors needing thought against a potential detonation so that’s why I wasn’t focusing on that but possible explanations for cause of detonation. Who is the mad Finland guy and Richard Webb? I do remember clicking on a link once that sounded extremely accusatory in skimming it but it was way over my head and I didn’t pay attention, is that one of the guys? (and I just looked up Mr. Webb, he’s the explosion hitting groundwater theory guy?) Thanks!


                    Report comment

                  • byron byron

                    Thks Batista, round hole turbine building– I’ve been thinking since first saw it. Something large popped up and fell down in that video of number 3. And the hole is round. The pressure cooker analogy seems right.


                    Report comment

          • Ken31ONCA

            James2 you [REMOVED BY MODERATOR]


            Report comment

            • James2

              Oh admin, you spoil the enjoyment I have in receiving such direct and possibly obscene insults from Kenny boy – even before I get a chance to read them.

              Of course Kenny Boy and his crew are back in Action on Enenews this week.

              I fear a rash of rabbit hole discussions about the source of explosions, and radioactive water will be thrust upon us again, and in the end we will have a giant mushroom cloud MOX explosion spreading plutonium and multiple melting nuke plants and cancer to talk about…


              Report comment

    • Whoopie Whoopie

      Good morning EVERYONE. Yes, we ALL KNEW THEN what their saying NOW.
      This is horrible. :(


      Report comment

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      You are not the first or only person to be in that painful position, but it’s still painful.

      From Gandhi: “Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time. I must continue to bear testimony to truth even if I am forsaken by all. Mine may today be a voice in the wilderness, but it will be heard when all other voices are silenced, if it is the voice of Truth.”


      Report comment

  • alexa

    Something worse will come soon – that’s why they are telling us more information. It will likely be so much radioactivity that some people in North America will get sick immediately, so catastrophe cannot be hidden anymore. Government and infrastructure meltdown will occur if a lot of people get sick. Deaths will not be able to be disguised as normal deaths.
    The major problem is that, at a certain level of radiation, it will be as if all North America is reliving Hurricane Katrina and aftermath in New Orleans. We will be living a postapocalyptic movie scenario.


    Report comment

    • James2

      Is this speculation, based on reading posts from others, or do you have some facts to support it?

      I could be mistaken, but I’m not sure it would be possible for anything to be strong enough to give someone 8,000 miles away “immediate” effects. Generally radiation effects diminish with distance from the source.

      Unless you get a really strong dose – like those working at the plant have, or those very near the plants – cancer takes 18-36 months to develop. Now -it’s very possible that we’ve already gotten enough bad stuff for all of us to get sick in that period.

      If it gets strong enough to cause immediate and recognizable effects in the US, then the entire world is in trouble – because it will be killing by the millions in Japan. At that point the danger of other nuke plants melting down in Japan gets very large – one more like Fukushima and I’m pretty sure we are wiped out..


      Report comment

  • So, this is the name of the game. You don’t tell about the problems – so, problems don’t exist. Later on you can tell that we had some minor problems, but it can’t be related to any health issues etc. The memory of the “common opinion” is pretty short, and they know it. It’s good to have plenty of reminders down there to keep theese things in collective memor;)


    Report comment

  • HI, ENENEWS ADMIN!
    THANK YOU FOR RUNNING THESE SITES!
    DO YOU MIND, IF I ADD LINKS OF YOUR SUPERIOR ENENEWS -SITES AT MY ENERGYBLOGS http://solarwindpronet-suomi.blogspot.com AND http://solarwindpronet.blogspot.com/ AS WELL TO MY HOMESITE http://www.creatorsfingerprints.com.kummi.net/ AS PERMANENT LINKS?
    SO MORE PEOPLE COULD FIND YOUR SITES.


    Report comment

  • VanneV anne

    This is the explanation of
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nEncjYf2jJQ

    MOX fuel Fukushima Reactor number 3 spewing BLACK SMOKE

    Uploaded by AFAskygoddess on Mar 23, 2011

    “Fukushima’s Unit 3 reactor two million times more deadly than uranium.

    “Concerns Escalate Over Possible Plutonium Release at Fukushima, unit 3 Reactor
    “Fukushima unit 3 reactor is currently loaded with up to 500 pounds of plutonium.
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/503/372/JAPAN:_Concerns_Escalate_Over_Possible

    “Largely absent from most mainstream media reports on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is the fact that a highly-dangerous “mixed-oxide” (MOX) fuel in present in six percent of the fuel rods at the plant’s Unit 3 reactor. Why is MOX a big deal? According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS), this plutonium-uranium fuel mixture is far more dangerous than typical enriched uranium — a single milligram (mg) of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 mg of normal enriched uranium.

    “In the event of such accidents (involving the accidental release of MOX), if the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about one mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in [sic] uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000 mg) of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure.”, states Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS).

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutonium_enriched_uranium.html

    “TEPCO: Black smoke rises from No.3 reactor

    “The Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, says black smoke was seen rising from the No.3 reactor building at the quake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant at around 4:20 PM on Wednesday.

    “TEPCO told reporters that it received a report 1 hour later that the smoke had gradually cleared.


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      [cont.]
      “The company said that the level of radiation near the main gate of the plant, 1 kilometer west of the No.3 reactor, was 265.1-microsieverts-per-hour at 5 PM. They added there had been no major change in the levels after the smoke was observed.

      “On Monday afternoon, gray smoke was seen rising from the same reactor building. TEPCO said that the plumes turned white before disappearing.

      http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_33.html


      Report comment

  • WindorSolarPlease

    I believe that normally high dosages of radiation is a slow death.
    This disaster was horrendous, who knows what all was flown into the air and sea.

    Since this was a disaster that no one has ever experienced, I think there is a possibility that we could be seeing signs and deaths sooner than expected in many countries.

    I do believe this was a dirty nuclear explosion and this will effect many, and our world.

    I even believe in the US some are already feeling the effects. Why wouldn’t we?


    Report comment

  • stock stock@hawaii.rr.com

    Exposing one of the “Big Lies”

    The Big Lies are Chronicled Here
    http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/p/best-lies-of-nuclear.html

    And a bunch of useful, forgive me -disorganized, information are stored here–
    http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/p/japan-nuclear-information.html

    THE LIE: “Nuclear is Safe as Long as You Can Feed Power Into Them”/ Carrington Event

    The current lie is a form of misdirection….a shell game of sorts. By pretending that by increasing the current hours of backup power available at Nuke Plants from 4 hours to 8 hours, that in that case “Nuclear is Safe”. The answer is Heck No! There are still many compelling reasons to eliminate nuclear power from our planet even if they made their backup power better than 4 hours. And one of these MOST COMPELLING is the Carrington Event.

    Mr. Carrington was a researcher who observed the sun with a …..


    Report comment

  • Toadmac

    Sorry to be so negative about this new (old) piece of news, but I really cannot believe that no one is able to paint us a better and more complete picture of this disaster! We all know the Governments,TEPCO/Nuclear agencies etc, have a much better understanding of what actually happened than they are telling the public? Even the so called experts seem to be reporting the facts only after the average joe public has figured it out months before? I am really surprised that most of us, even the enenews’ers (not having a dig at this site or its fans, I love you guys) seem to accept the news going around in circles? The yes,no, maybe, possibly, yes it did, no it didn’t, round and round’s are making me feel like I’m losing my mind sometimes!
    My questions are
    1: Where are the public documents and statements with a full analysis of data sheets, known damage and facts about the condition of all reactors in Japan written and signed by government leaders?
    2: Why the need for this endless cover up? Why so quiet and secretive from all sides? I don’t believe its just covering someone’s ass for money and power, so why?


    Report comment

    • or-well

      Money and Power are BIG motivators.
      So is not wanting to be caught doing criminal, anti-human things.

      It’s hard not to think “they” are insane.


      Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        They are also trying to avoid lawsuits. And also public consensus that they are to blame. And they don’t want to lose their corporate welfare for the nuclear industry or profits from building new nuclear plants around the world. Their heads are buried in the sand. Maybe what they need to locked up in a concrete containment vessel.


        Report comment

    • James2

      I couldn’t understand it for a long time.

      Here’s my take.

      When the accident happened, the entire industry, which includes the regulatory agencies, goes into lockdown mode – thinking they have to hide all the information until things can be brought under control. so right from the start, the information flow was restricted.

      When #3 blew its MOX core all over the place, they knew it was a death knell for the industry if the public ever found out.

      Unlike most disasters – where reporters flock in to do stories – in nuke disasters, everyone flees – Not many folks at all ever actually went onsite to fukushima

      All the insiders honestly thought the containment would work – it’s been a shock to them to see none of the containment work.

      Japan duped the United States and other governments into helping suppress the information while it took the amazing strategy of disbursing the radiation as widely as possible and keeping all the citizens in-place, as opposed to containing the radiation and evacuating.

      The US has just now figured out this strategy and that they’ve been duped, and there is internal outrage as to what should be done to stop Japan in releasing the radiation. Essentially Japan threw the rest of the world, including the nuke industry under the bus. The US nuke industry is panicking.

      I could go deeper, but that’s my take.


      Report comment

      • Toadmac

        Hi James, do you have anything to back the theory about Japan dupping the US with its radiation dispersion tactic? The dispersion tactic is beyond doubt. I am still convinced the worst happened in the first few days after the quake and contamination only gets worse from that point on. Anyway as the old saying goes “no news is good news” maybe?


        Report comment

        • James2

          Nope, it’s only my theory that this is Japan’s strategy – I’m sure they would never, ever admit it.

          However as soon as it hit me, then all of Japan’s actions started making sense – while prior, none of their actions made any sense at all.

          As far as duping the US – well, that’s speculation as well, but it follows immediately on the tails of the strategy, and explains all the actions by the US government also.

          The US government has taken an active role in covering this thing up, however they would never have taken that role if they thought the truth would eventually come out. That’s the kind of thing that really pisses the public off and causes sweeping government changes – which of course the US polticians want to avoid at all costs.

          It also makes everyone very vulnerable to a “dirty bomb”. If dirty material is readily available in Fukushima – all somebody has to do is go get some Fukushima dirt and spread it around – you don’t have to build or buy a nuclear device – the US has been trying to contain every speck of nuclear material around the globe for the past 50 years – now the cat, dog, and all the horses are out of the bag. No one living in a political hot spot is safe from here forward.


          Report comment

  • stock stock@hawaii.rr.com

    Although misinformation continues to perpetuate, and TEPCO keeps coming up with idiocy like “we are out of storage containers” we are going to dump the radiation in the sea on purpose. And although this PDF is from TEPCO, and of course the pictures are handpicked to promote the best, this 52 page report from November does give you a better idea that they are actually doing something, although no where near the more effective response of Chernobyl.

    There is some good and hard work being accomplished.

    Check it out, leave a comment.

    http://www.box.com/s/ho16qk2vfva4ctq32ruo


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    Information out of Japan..drip drip..slow water torture..with a death sentence in the future.


    Report comment

  • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

    hmm…in these times when no one appears to be lying:

    Setsuo Fujiwara’s interview with SPA magazine: nuclear explosion, fire, cloud, black smoke, hydrogen doesn’t do that – gotcha NRC through Mr. Grobe and Mr. : appears to have come from inside reactors, likely from core not sfp – yes, it does appear that whatever nuclear material came out, came out from #3. gotcha.

    Mr. Gundersen: if what NRC (Grobe) says were true, would indicate containments failed and breached, that donut would cause a hydrogen bombardment. but saltwater hit by neutrons creates sulphur. when a neutron hits sodium, sulphur produced… 400,000,000,000 neutrons required. enormous number. “reactors hadn’t completely shut down.” yet “there were ongoing criticalities after it shut down” caller question said NRC said “fuel in spf was not damaged” (was not refuted) and NRC answered again, “most appeared to come from inside reactors” – gotcha so the other guy, Mr. Holahan says because of content of
    debris found offsite, most likely from reactor cores” Mr. Gundersen still thinks contents originated from sfp.

    Goddard: crap, can’t bring that up

    NHK news: video confirms at least smoke rising from #3 on other side than location of reactor/containment. southeastern corner.

    Paul Gunter: gleaned from NRC that contents were core material and some vaporized – gotcha

    Thom Hartmann video: “to receive core damage in event of earthquake” containments designed to withstand 6.1 ..margin of ‘safety’ greater when shut down. “ejections of core material”

    Busby: “nuclear reaction in one of the reactor vessels” (define vessel please)

    Ok…plus: Gundersen video: http://www.fairewinds.com/content/fairewinds-introduces-japanese-language-edition-and-identifies-safety-problems-all-reactors- :not in NRC report that should be
    containment – mark 1s bad because of holes in bottom – 2 parts to containment, upside down bulb. reactor in drywell, water in torus…


    Report comment

    • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

      water in torus doughnut below, in failure steam will shoot out which will reduce pressure. Pressure supression containment. (Reactor Pressure and temp readings show that the core did not breech in the initial explosion as Hogweed just said.) 1972 – Hendrie says containment flawed, forces would go up, in 80s, realized can explode from hydrogen build up, vents installed letting pressure out would have to open hole if problem. (This wasn’t a hydrogen explosion though..and I agree, not a good idea for Mark 1 under any circumstance).

      “We need to understand how it happened and mitigate against it in the future on ALL reactors.” (I fear I’m beginning to…) ”

      “So, we’ve got three key areas where the NRC and the nuclear industry don’t want people to look, and [those are, one]: should this Mark 1 containment even be allowed to operate? Two: are boiling water reactors more prone to a melt-through than a pressurized water reactor? And the third is: can containments withstand a detonation shockwave?”

      Ok this is what I’m hearing if no one is lying: whatever ejected came from 3. Contents consisted of core material. Fuel was not damaged (NRC). If reactor/containment failed, water from donut would make steam explosion (G). It didn’t make steam explosion (everyone). Failed whatever reason, it was a nuclear explosion (yep). Core material doesn’t have to come from reactor/containment to have ejected material match the composition thereof. Further, heat signature appears on southeast side where spf is, not the light bulb/reactor/containment area. If neutron
      bombardment required to make this sulphur originated from area of sfp and FUEL WAS NOT DAMAGED (NRC), then no fuel was there.

      If something blew the (empty) pool up, of course the inside contamination would match what had been kept in it and additionally, if the material containing the billions of
      neutrons required to cause the nuclear explosion were put in it to come out of it..
      b


      Report comment

      • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

        it would be similar in composition to the sfp and core material would it not? Isn’t it true that that’s the way the explosion works? neutron/proton ratio imbalanced then loses a neutron correct? (I’m seriously asking) neutron bombs do that don’t they? bombard things with neutrons? I wonder if someone is not saying that this explosion had help as the dictionary implies a detonation needs. Is that why despite the obvious Mark 1 problems that need to be fixed, that this scenario is much worse and why what NRC says concerns Mr. Gundersen if what they say is true and why ALLLLLLL reactors need to be protected from detonations? PLEASE tell me another explanation because I can’t find where anyone doesn’t say it wasn’t full, just that fuel wasn’t damaged, it was core material, appearing to come from an sfp appearing that somebody was pissed off more so than having failures from the real threat of earthquakes and particular vulnerabilities from these Mark 1s.


        Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Are you a shill or a troll?


          Report comment

          • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

            Show me how a detonation can come from an sfp without damaging the fuel. and anne..I am not a shill or a troll. I believe this is a legitimate question in asking what are the multiple, if any, causes of a detonation as the ramificaitons of several I can think of aren’t nice. Mr. Gundersen himself is asking to mitigate against this. Tell me where you disagree please.


            Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              I thought Arnie’s position was that almost all the fuel was vaporized during the first detonation at reactor #3. All it would take to detonate the plutonium in the SFP would be a rise in temperature when the water drained off. Plutonium can detonate at room temperature which is well below 100 degrees Celsius.


              Report comment

              • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                I understand that too but doesn’t there need an ignition point to get it to that temperature? and I still can’t reconcile the NRC saying the fuel wasn’t damaged. In my mind, (and knowing they don’t like to lie), if that’s true, then the fuel couldn’t have been there. Whatever was vaporized could still come from whatever exploded though…and same “contents” just not the same fuel.


                Report comment

                • VanneV anne

                  The NRC doesn’t like to lie? Like the NRC won’t admit that the studies on Yucca Mountain were fraudulent and no one knows about all the fault lines at Yucca Mountain?

                  And if you think that all fuel in a SFP isn’t hot and in need of cooling, then why were they spraying sea water all over everything? Why do you need back up batteries in the case of a power outage to pump the coolant?

                  I don’t understand what you are talking about as an ignition point. Detonations have to do with pressure and temperature. When the coolant water drains out that in itself is all that is needed as an ignition point.


                  Report comment

                  • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                    Not in my experience they don’t usually lie. Deceive, yes all of the time and pros at it…not the same thing as lying though.

                    If a fuel pool were present, then yes, I’d agree it would need cooling. For subsequent sea water injections, wouldn’t that be necessary for a subsequent containment failure?

                    I was talking about ignition in sense that something would have to cause it lose cooling if it were there, and yes, if it were there, I’d agree, but again, no one said it was, just that the NRC said it wasn’t damaged after such a detonation. I don’t see how that can be unless the NRC IS lying.

                    So, all I was saying is that IF they aren’t, and like Arnie says, that presents a problem. Cuz if that were plausible alternative explanation, that would be extra bad because not only contents from explosion but also the reactor/containment ended up failing so contents of that too. Is this what Arnie means can be determined from evaluating the xenon ratios? Determine if actual sfp fuel and not from another source IN the sfp area? Anyhow, I was seriously asking because it doesn’t make sense to me. I am not a troll. I was a sneaky child who was told it was better not to lie so now when I hear my children say no one didn’t not not vacuum, I have to look for holes in their “truths” to find out who didn’t do their job. Not to mention, I have 2 degrees in finding holes in what people say and was trained by the best not-liars. I honestly was hoping someone would answer this question though because some alternatives are worse than others in my mind. Either NRC is lying and that’s bad, or they aren’t lying and it’s worse.


                    Report comment

                • VanneV anne

                  What caused it to lose cooling was that the earthquake broke the pipes needed to circulate the coolant liquid. Hence the water drained out. When the water drained out this changed both the temperature which rose because of the heat of the nuclear fuel and also the pressure. That is all that is needed to ignite a nuclear explosion or detonation.

                  I quoted a lot of information about Plutonium and nuclear detonations already .

                  Plutonium
                  “Criticality potential
                  “Toxicity issues aside, care must be taken to avoid the accumulation of amounts of plutonium which approach critical mass, particularly because plutonium’s critical mass is only a third of that of uranium-235.[8] A critical mass of plutonium emits lethal amounts of neutrons and gamma rays.[99] Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation by the hydrogen in water.[14]

                  “Criticality accidents have occurred in the past, some of them with lethal consequences. Careless handling of tungsten carbide bricks around a 6.2 kg plutonium sphere resulted in a fatal dose of radiation at Los Alamos on August 21, 1945, when scientist Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. received a dose estimated to be 5.1 Sievert (510 rems) and died 25 days later.[100][101] Nine months later, another Los Alamos scientist, Louis Slotin, died from a similar accident involving a beryllium reflector and the same plutonium core (the so-called “demon core”) that had previously claimed the life of Daghlian.[102] These incidents were fictionalized in the 1989 film Fat Man and Little Boy.

                  “In December 1958, during a process of purifying plutonium at Los Alamos, a critical mass was formed in a mixing vessel, which resulted in the death of a chemical operator named Cecil Kelley.[103] Other nuclear accidents have occurred in the Soviet Union, Japan, the United States and many other countries.[103]


                  Report comment

                  • VanneV anne

                    [cont.]
                    “ Flammability
                    “Metallic plutonium is a fire hazard, especially if the material is finely divided. In a moist environment, plutonium forms hydrides on its surface, which are pyrophoric and may ignite in air at room temperature. Plutonium expands up to 70% in volume as it oxidizes and thus may break its container.[104] The radioactivity of the burning material is an additional hazard. Magnesium oxide sand is probably the most effective material for extinguishing a plutonium fire. It cools the burning material, acting as a heat sink, and also blocks off oxygen. Special precautions are necessary to store or handle plutonium in any form; generally a dry inert gas atmosphere is required.[104][105][note 11]“
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium


                    Report comment

                  • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                    I know you did and thank you. So, what you are saying then is that by the NRC saying the fuel was not damaged that they are lying correct?

                    What if they aren’t lying? then what. That’s what Arnie Gundersen is concerned about isn’t it?


                    Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          What dictionary are you talking about? How about a link and a quotation?


          Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      Where did you get this quote:

      “Goddard: crap, can’t bring that up “


      Report comment

      • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

        I was taking notes on everything that was posted by enenews above and I couldn’t bring that up on my computer to listen to. sorry, just my notes to reveal what was gleaned from everyone above. Not sure what Goddard said.


        Report comment

          • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

            thank you but it will not come up on my computer or any other internet access I have, it just hangs with a white background. yah! Would you mind summarizing please?


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            I’ll quote the conclusion:

            “Conclusion

            “The multimodal empirical evidence reviewed above demonstrates that (a) plumes of steam, (b) thermal hotspots, (c) explosive forces and (d) a steam-like mushroom cloud all correspond with vectors whose origins converge around the lid of a large container of boiling water known as the containment vessel. Additionally, instrumental measurements show that pressure within the containment vessel dropped suddenly with the explosion (consistent with an explosion from the containment) and that the day before the explosion, water levels failed to rise in the reactor for a long time despite in-flowing water (consistent with water flowing out of the reactor and pooling in the containment vessel). Finally, given the presence of fire in two of the explosive plumes (Figures 4 and 6), the explosion in the containment probably initiated secondary explosions of hydrogen gas accumulated in both containment-vessel space and the upper-deck space above the containment vessel.”


            Report comment

            • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

              Thank you very much. So he concludes there were 2 explosions right? a nuclear one first, causing failure in containment for the 2nd one to occur from the donut water ring Mr Gundersen described in hydrogen pressure containment during failure scenario. Is that accurate to glean such from that?

              Cuz if so, his testimony still wouldn’t answer what the NRC says – I can’t see how an explosion would not damage an sfp if it were present.


              Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            Fukushima Unit 3 – steam-explosion theory

            Figure 1: Unit 1 lacked the vertical magnitude and mushroom cloud of Unit 3.
            So it seems something extra happened at Unit 3. The mushroom cloud
            is composed of tons of mass consistent with tons of vaporized water.
            Figure 2 (a through d): distinct steam plumes billow from Unit 3 seen throughout
            the early Spring after it exploded. (e) The persistent steam-plume pattern
            maps onto steam coming from the containment vessel.
            Figure 3: Animation: hotspots correspond with well cap, steam and blasts in Figure 4.
            Note that the fuel pool on left is off-center; it is also hot from stored spent fuel.
            Figure 4 Animation: model of the initial phase of explosion based on data in Figures 2 and 3. The water in our model is darkened by contamination from molten off-gassing fuel.
            Figure 5 Animation: ex-vessel steam explosion triggered by molten fuel falling in water.
            Figure 6 Animation: ex-vessel steam-explosion model mapped onto the explosion of Unit 3.
            Figure 7: the explosion coincided with a sudden containment-pressure drop.
            The graph shows the rate of change of pressure and the direction of change;
            pressure did not return to normal after the explosion (see [4] for details).


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            Footnotes
            [1] Moriyama, K., et al. (2006). Evaluation of Containment Failure Probability by Ex-Vessel Steam Explosion in Japanese LWR Plants. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 43(7), p.774-784.
            [2] We need not hypothesize that the container of water was boiling because its boiling is a fact accepted by any knowledgable observer because (1) water around melting and molten nuclear fuel is necessarily boiling and has to be replaced constantly to quench the rapid rate of boil off, and (2) the steam plumes seen in Figure 2 clearly demonstrate that water within Unit 3′s leaking containment vessel was boiling. Recognizing that the containment vessel was a large container of boiling water, like a large pressure cooker before its seals failed, the theory that it suffered a steam explosion is recognizable as the default theory.
            [3] JAEA. (2006). Nuclear Safety Research, Evaluating the Risk of Steam Explosions, JAEA R&D Review, p. 83.
            [4] Unit3 D/W pressure rate of change (MPa/h) in the period 0 – 96 hours after quake.
            See also: Reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and primary containment vessel (PCV, and aka just containment vessel or drywell D/W) pressure at the time of the explosion.
            TEPCO raw data for Unit 3, some of it formatted here.
            [5] TEPCO Press Release (March 13, 2011). Impact to TEPCO’s Facilities due to Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake (as of 3:00PM).
            [6] Large, J.H. (2011). Brief opinion on the TEPCO plan to flood the primary containment of Unit 1 Fukushima Dai-ichi. Greenpeace Germany.
            [7] Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. (2011). Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety – The Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations, Chapter 4.
            [8] TEPCO Press Release (Mar 12, 2011). Plant Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (as of 11PM March 12th).
            http://iangoddard.com/fukushima01.html


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            “Figure 5 demonstrates the explosion-triggering mechanism, an ex-vessel steam explosion as described in Moriyama et al. wherein water has pooled at the bottom of the containment vessel below the reactor. Then molten fuel falling through a melt-through hole in the reactor’s bottom triggers a steam explosion as it strikes the water below the reactor. [1] So in our model for Fukushima, seawater injected into the Unit-3 reactor flowed out of the reactor and pooled in the containment vessel. Molten fuel dropping from the reactor then triggers a steam explosion that then triggers secondary hydrogen explosions. [1,3]
            “In Figure 6 all our observations come together to form a consistent and coherent ex-vessel steam-explosion model that maps perfectly onto the explosion of Unit 3. We run this model here further than the clip in Figure 4 to the point of ‘mushroom blossoming’, which thereafter follows as expected, a large ball of fuel-dirtied steam rolling upwards into the sky. We presume that the force of the explosion in the containment momentarily lifted the reactor-well cap, allowing a significant portion of the seawater to escape before falling shut again. But blast damage to the cap’s seal allowed steam to billow out for weeks as seen in Figure 2.

            “Instrumental signs
            “Data from instrumentation shows that the Unit-3 explosion was associated with a significant rate of pressure change (a pressure drop) in the containment vessel (aka the drywell, or D/W) just as would expected with a sudden explosive ejection therefrom. [4]


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “TEPCO’s theory that the Unit-3 explosion only involved an explosion of hydrogen gas in the upper-deck space above the containment is challenged by the simultaneous and sudden loss of pressure from the containment vessel, clearly indicating its involvement with the explosion.
            “There is also an indication that seawater injected into the reactor was leaking out, which would thereby flood the containment vessel as depicted in Figure 5. Twenty hours before Unit 3 exploded, TEPCO also reported in a press release (underscore added):
            “Taking account of the situation that the water level within the pressure vessel did not rise for a long time and the radiation dose is increasing, we cannot exclude the possibility that the same situation occurred at Unit 1 on Mar 12 will occur. [5]
            “That the water did not rise for a long time is consistent with the water flowing out of the reactor. And that it eventually did rise is consistent with the level in the containment eventually rising high enough to allow the level in the reactor to finally rise. However, bear in mind that these are inferences from one statement about a complex situation and that even those on site at the time could not be certain about the meanings of water-level data.
            “Discussion
            “Given that an ex-vessel steam explosion during a meltdown is recognized by the nuclear industry and scientists as a serious risk, it is surprising that the only mention of it with respect to the Fukushima meltdowns found via Google (as of 9/3/11) is in a report by Greenpeace Germany. [6] Also surprising is that there has to date been no explanation or even acknowledgement of the dramatic differences between the Fukushima explosions from industry, government or academic sources. And yet understanding exactly how nuclear plants have exploded would obviously help safeguard the public from future nuclear catastrophes.


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “In the Japanese Government’s report, the Unit-3 explosion is explained as: “An explosion, which was likely a hydrogen explosion, occurred at the upper part of the reactor building at 11:01 on March 14.” [7] That’s it! For an explanation universally accepted without question to be asserted in passing as merely likely is surprising. Moreover, it is likely relative safeguard the public from future nuclear catastrophes.to what? If I say “Rain is likely,” we know that means it is likely relative to not raining, and we know what not-raining is. Yet there is no mention of any other possible cause relative to which this likelihood is favored. The term steam explosion does not even appear in the report. So it seems either only Greenpeace is familiar with the nuclear literature, or the government and TEPCO have opted to keep quiet about other possible causes.
            “Considering that leakage of coolant in the containment is a precondition for a much-feared ex-vessel steam explosion, it is curious that TEPCO stated in almost every press release before Unit 3 exploded: “Currently, we do not believe there is any reactor coolant leakage inside the reactor containment vessel.” [8] Prefaced on what is believed, that is primarily a statement about belief that serves as a way of saying: We know nothing about any leakage. Such a denial of knowing that a critical ex-vessel steam-explosion precondition may exist smacks of pre-litigation maneuvering intended to reduce TEPCO’s potential liability.
            “In closing, the evidence in this report points consistently to an explosion within the containment vessel and thus most likely to an ex-vessel steam explosion within that large container of boiling water.


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            [2] This type of steam explosion is the most likely type because research indicates that an in-vessel steam explosion (aka an alpha-mode containment failure) occurring inside the rector itself is considered very unlikely to breach the containment vessel, and thus would be unlikely to produce the dramatic explosion of Unit 3. [1]


            Report comment

            • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

              ooohhh Figure 5 helps a lot. I still wonder what came prior to that and if Figure 4 indicates that could be a possibility…and all say it wasn’t a steam explosion but nuclear one? thanks again for posting! soo confusing!

              Ok, let me ask you this.. and minus anything I’ve wondered, what do you believe Mr. Gundersen is concerned about when he poses, “no one is looking at that” ?

              and I gotta run for now but I really would like others’ opinions on this too. The man asked and when asked a question, I like to understand the question. Based on the evidence available, I thought it had to do with the discrepancy in the sfp. So then I thought it was related to how the NRC can claim fuel not damaged. Looking for holes in taking into consideration who could be lying or who couldn’t and having things match up still in each switch scenario.

              Anyway, what do you all think he’s asking?


              Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            Here’s the beginning of this article:

            “The signature event of the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns was the large mushroom-cloud explosion of Unit 3 on March 14th. In contrast, the explosion of Unit 1 lacked any notable vertical projection. Yet Tokyo Electric Power Company assumes each was a hydrogen explosion in the upper-deck above the reactor. However, because dramatically different effects suggest different causes, let us consider an evidence-based model wherein the Unit-3 explosion was a steam explosion that vaporized tons of injected seawater into a mushroom cloud and that triggered secondary hydrogen explosions.

            “’The risk of a steam explosion during a meltdown in the containment vessel housing a reactor has been a matter of considerable concern and research, as noted in Moriyama et al.:

            “’The steam explosion caused by the contact of molten core and coolant [water] is recognized as one of the potential threats to the integrity of the containment vessel during a severe accident of light water reactors and one of the important sources of uncertainty in the evaluation of frequencies of large early fission product releases. [1]‘

            “Because seawater was injected into Unit-3 reactor in an effort to cool it during its meltdown, the necessary ingredients for a steam explosion were in the containment before the explosion. So given that a steam explosion is a recognized risk under such circumstances, the possibility of a steam explosion requires investigation, which we shall embark upon forthwith.

            “Distinct steam plumes from the containment

            “As soon as the clouds of the explosion cleared, two distinct steam plumes were seen rising from the demolished upper deck of Unit 3. Figure 2(a) shows Unit 3 three minutes after it exploded, and there we see two distinct steam plumes. Those two plumes were seen throughout the early Spring when Unit 3 steamed, as in Figure 2(b,c,d).


            Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              [cont.]
              “ Figure 2(e) maps the steam plumes to the Unit-3 blueprint. Not surprisingly the large volume of billowing steam correlates with a large container of boiling water. [2] The only other body of water on site is the spent-fuel pool on the south side of Unit 3 (see the spent-fuel pool in Figures 2(e) and 3). However, the steam plumes emanate from points around the center of Unit 3, and billow out with some gusto just like steam from holes in a container of boiling water. Clearly, these distinct steam plumes are not coming from the fuel pool.

              “Well-cap hotspots match steam plumes
              Figure 3 maps hots spots on infra-red heat-detecting photographs to the floor plan of Unit 3, finding that key hot spots line up with the rim of the reactor-well cap. These hots spots in turn line up with the steam plumes in Figure 2 and with explosives forces to be seen in Figure 4.
              “Explosion plumes match steam plumes


              Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            In his conclusion Goddard uses the word “probably”:

            “…the explosion in the containment probably initiated secondary explosions of hydrogen gas accumulated in both containment-vessel space and the upper-deck space above the containment vessel”


            Report comment

  • pg

    Fukushima plants exploded because of meltdown/failure, not hydrogen. Hydrogen is powerful but invisible.

    -Every nuclear reactor can do this.
    -Every nuclear reactor can come unglued because of an earthquake.
    -No reactor is exempt.
    -They all need to be shut down.

    They are scam to distract people away from solar, wind, hydrogen fuel. Look and you will see oil companies involved….


    Report comment

  • oscar419

    the pooch….it hath been screwed


    Report comment

  • James2

    Bottom line – FUKU mushroom cloud came from the reactor core – which sent a bunch of radioactive particles aloft, including plutonium – which contaminated the entire Fukushima area with hot particles – which contaminated the USS Ronald Reagan a few minutes later – which four days later started raining down on North America – and since has probably contaminated all corners of the globe.

    It would be nice to know whether the plutonium existed as breathable dust particles – deathly bad – or ended up in the water supply – bad, but not deathly bad.


    Report comment

    • Hogweed

      James,

      Here’s a link to reactor 3 data. http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/out/plot-un3-t-I-full.png

      Note that after the explosion on the 14th March all pressure readings from all sensors are still pretty much in synch and indicating containment holding. On March 19th pressure starts rising on all sensors and Drywell Temp RPV(C) starts climbing. Then early on the 21st Core Pressure A goes above design limit and Core Pressure B goes effectively off scale low. From this point on all pressure sensors pretty much flatline except for Core Press B which says impossibly low values well below atmospheric.

      I still think a second explosion at 3 occurred very late 20th March or first thing 21st March. We have not been shown any video of this – only some images of the later “black smoke” which followed on and off for the next several days. This was the plume that went South towards Tokyo when the wind took it in that direction about the 23/24th March.


      Report comment

      • Hogweed

        Here’s a couple of typical images from the TEPCO webcam from the 21st.


        1pm Japan


        4pm Japan

        Most of the day “black rain” fell on the camera depositing something on the lens obscuring the view.


        Report comment

      • James2

        Hogweed,
        I can only ask you the following. Are you familiar with pressure and temperature sensing equipment?

        If so, do you think there is any possibility that any kind of pressure sensing and monitoring equipment survived a blast that flattened a reinforced concrete building?

        If you think the instrumentation did survive, there was no power in the entire nuke facility until March 25th (remember the photos of them restoring power). There was no access to the #3 control room for another few weeks.

        How do you think they possibly could take pressure and temperature readings from a blown up building, when there is no power on site and no access to the room where you read the instruments?

        I will tell you how you do it – you estimate

        I can’t dispute that a second explosion might have occurred – I will tell you that there is no legitimate pressure and temp data from that time either.


        Report comment