NHK: Cesium levels triple outside Reactor No. 3

Published: January 6th, 2012 at 12:12 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
54 comments


Cesium increased by 3 times as much as usual at intake of reactor 3 | Fukushima Diary

1/5/2012, Tepco measured 3 times more Cesium as usual at the intake of reactor 3.

Cs-134: 0.76 Bq/cc (ml) or 760 Bq/liter or 2,880 Bq/gal (13 times higher than the legal limit)

Cs-137: 0.96 Bq/cc (ml) or 960 Bq/liter or 3,638 Bq/gal (11 times higher than the legal limit)

[...]

(SOURCE: NHK)

Google Translate

Headline: No. 3 machine more than three times the concentration of the water intake NHK
Date: Jan. 6, 2011

Tokyo Electric Power Fukushima first atomic force Departure of electricity の Unit 2 と 3 machine の water intake to pay nearly で, 5, take さ れ ta water ni-containing ma れ ru radioactive の concentration は, No. 2 machine で は large ki na Election of of ga na ka っ ta も の の, 3 machine で は agoの 日 の more than three times increased shi ma shi ni ta.

Around the nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi, the collected water TEPCO such as near the intake of Unit 3 and Unit 2 was detected radioactive material in a high concentration of water in May and April last year, the measurement of radioactive material We do. 5 days, from seawater collected near the Unit 2 intake, 0.12 becquerels of cesium twice the national standard of 134 per 1cc, was found 1.7 times the 0.15 becquerels of cesium 137. In addition, Unit 3 intake around 0.76 becquerels of cesium-134 13 times the reference was found 11 times 0.96 becquerels of cesium-137. Unit 2 near the intake, but there was no significant change in concentration in the vicinity of the No. 3 intake is more than three times the concentration of the previous day. Meanwhile, five days and four days, a survey conducted in 10 locations coast and offshore combined, including approximately 330 m south near the outlet of Unit 4 from Unit 1 of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, two locations in coastal Radioactive cesium has been detected in significantly lower than any standard.

Published: January 6th, 2012 at 12:12 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
54 comments

Related Posts

  1. “Reactor 3 at the damaged Fukushima nuclear power station is leaking” — TEPCO says Cesium at 620,000 times above limit May 11, 2011
  2. Sharp rise in radioactive material near Reactor No. 3 – Seawater concentration triples in a day (VIDEO) May 18, 2011
  3. Method for cooling Reactor No. 3 “isn’t cutting it” — Using triple the water as No. 1 and 2; A ‘considerable’ amount of water is missing target August 5, 2011
  4. Cesium-134 in water near Reactor No. 3 climbs to 30 times maximum limit — May have been caused by typhoon July 25, 2011
  5. ANOTHER REACTOR: Power company says “All the functions to keep cooling water levels in No. 3 reactor have failed” March 12, 2011

54 comments to NHK: Cesium levels triple outside Reactor No. 3

  • bullcat

    Is this from damage inflicted by the recent earthquakes? Or a continuation of the processes stemming from damage that was already there?


    Report comment

  • VanneV anne

    Is this report from April and May of last year?

    Quotation from above:
    “Around the nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi, the collected water TEPCO such as near the intake of Unit 3 and Unit 2 was detected radioactive material in a high concentration of water in May and April last year, the measurement of radioactive material We do….”


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      Google translation of Fukushima Diary Source:

      The Unit 3 intake levels more than three times
      Twitter tweet on January 06, 14:19 minutes (leave the site by clicking NHK)

      Near the intake of Unit 3 and Unit 2 nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi Tokyo Electric Power Co., 5 days, the concentration of radioactive materials contained in sea water was collected in Unit 2, but there was no significant change in the Unit 3 before rose to more than three times the day.

      Around the nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi, the collected water TEPCO such as near the intake of Unit 3 and Unit 2 was detected radioactive material in a high concentration of water in May and April last year, the measurement of radioactive material We do. 5 days, from seawater collected near the Unit 2 intake, 0.12 becquerels of cesium twice the national standard of 134 per 1cc, was found 1.7 times the 0.15 becquerels of cesium 137. In addition, Unit 3 intake around 0.76 becquerels of cesium-134 13 times the reference was found 11 times 0.96 becquerels of cesium-137. Unit 2 near the intake, but there was no significant change in concentration in the vicinity of the No. 3 intake is more than three times the concentration of the previous day. Meanwhile, five days and four days, a survey conducted in 10 locations coast and offshore combined, including approximately 330 m south near the outlet of Unit 4 from Unit 1 of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, two locations in coastal Radioactive cesium has been detected in significantly lower than any standard.
      [News]
      Automatic search

      • No change in concentration near 2.3 Unit
      No change in water concentration of radioactive materials •
      • No change 2.3 Intake Unit
      • No change in concentration Intake No. 2.3
      • No change 2.3 Intake Unit
      http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20120106/k10015107561000.html


      Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        2・3号機付近 濃度変化なし
        1月5日 20時4分
        東京電力福島第一原子力発電所の2号機と3号機の取水口付近で、4日に採取された海水に含まれる放 射性物質の濃度は、前の日と比べて大きな変化はありません。福島第一原発の周辺では、4月と5月に海水から高い濃度で放射性物質が検出された2号機と3号 機の取水口付近などで、東京電力が海水を採取し、放射性物質の測定を行っています。4日、2号機の取水口付近で採取した海水からは、1cc当たりセシウム 134が国の基準の2.2倍の0.13ベクレル、セシウム137が1.8倍の0.16ベクレル検出されました。また、3号機の取水口付近では、セシウム 134が基準の3.3倍の0.2ベクレル、セシウム137が3倍の0.27ベクレル検出されました。共に前の日と比べて大きな変化はなく、周辺全体でも横 ばいの傾向が続いています。一方、4日と3日、沿岸と沖合の合わせて8か所で行った調査では、福島第一原発の5号機と6号機の放水口から北におよそ30 メートル付近など沿岸の3か所で、放射性セシウムが検出されましたが、いずれも基準を大幅に下回りまし
        [Google translation]
        “No change in concentration near the No. 2.3
        Twitter tweet on January 05, 4:20 min (Click to leave the site NHK)

        “Intakes near the Unit 2 and Unit 3 of Tokyo Electric Power Co. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the concentration of radioactive materials contained in sea water were collected in four days, major changes have been compared with the previous day. Around the nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi, such as with near intake of Unit 3 and Unit 2 was detected radioactive material in a high concentration of water in May and April, collected water TEPCO, the measurement of radioactive material we do. 4 days, from seawater collected near the Unit 2 intake, 0.13 becquerels of cesium is 2.2 times the national standard 134 per 1cc, was detected 1.8 times more cesium-137 becquerels 0.16 other. In addition, Unit 3 intake around 0.2 to 3.3 times the standard becquerels of cesium 134 were detected three times the 0.27 becquerels of cesium 137. No significant change compared with the previous day together, followed by the whole of the flat trend around. On the other hand, 3 and 4 days, the study conducted at eight or combined offshore and coastal, in three places of the coast, such as around 30 meters approximately north outlet of Unit 6 and Unit No. 5 of the primary Fukushima Daiichi but radioactive cesium has been detected, significantly lower than both standards.”
        http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20120105/k10015079481000.html


        Report comment

  • jahdesm jahdesm

    i need todays reports not last years


    Report comment

  • CaptD CaptD

    Is this is why TEPCO has been pulling workers from the Complex?
    I really hope that the Corium(s) are N☢T playing hokey pokey,
    … With the water below the complex
    +
    Is January 7th a day that will live in Infamy?
    The day TEPCO gave up?


    Report comment

  • the yeoman the yeoman

    I’m trying to visualize the intake of the #3 death machine and I can’t and that’s pissing me off. I know more about Kim K. and her sisters and I would prefer not too, indeed, I go out of my way not to, and yet I know her marriage is over. Getting a handle on Fuku is like pulling teeth…and then I found enenews.

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


    Report comment

  • Anthony Anthony

    Today’s report for me was a video sent by a friend who’s been on vacation in Hawaii for a month. He’s there despite my warnings of radiation. The video showed the beauty of Hawaii


    Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      What stood out in the video was the many men,women and especially many kids frolicking freely without a care in the surf.


      Report comment

    • Anthony,

      What’s the latest on Hawaii? I picture it as highly radioactive, (especially Kauai?) but haven’t followed it recently.


      Report comment

      • Anthony Anthony

        Honestly PU ive really toned down my digging…its just too much in its entirety for my nerves. Intuitively based on the facts… of course HI must have borne the brunt of contamination besides Japan. Either Im a fool for believing there’s a danger or my friend is for going. Funny thing is I wish I was in Hawaii myself.


        Report comment

  • jdotg

    Yawn…..stopped reading after.

    “near the intake of Unit 3 and Unit 2 was detected radioactive material in a high concentration of water in May and April last year”

    Sensationalism running rampant. And the bold part suggests it has happened yesterday. Clearly not the case. Although im sure EQ’s don’t help the matter.


    Report comment

  • Bobby1

    1. There was a quake on New Year’s Day just off Japan. Then there was an issue with a tank in building #4.

    2. Radiation levels surged. Cesium levels jumped in Fuku prefecture.

    3. White powder was observed on cars.

    4. Prof. Takeda says that cesium fallout is the same as it was after the accident in March.

    5. The wind is blowing it to the US.


    Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      I wish Id taken a pic of this odd powdery dusty *film* I noticed in the alley yesterday as I looked onto the road. I dismissed it as a side effect of my recent eye surg because when I walked directly above the same spot there was nothing to be seen. We have just endured an extended heavy rainy week. I know what I saw though. Something’s up.


      Report comment

  • Human0815

    You need to look for Reactor Nr. 2
    and the Kr(ypton)-85,
    270 Bq/cm,
    this is a much bigger Increase
    in the last days and more important!

    PS: Kudos to PC :)

    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_120105_02-e.pdf


    Report comment

    • Whoa! Whoopie, A4P is blowing smoke big time. Topic is cracks in the containment concrete (reported to go through the entire thickness) at DB/Ohio not being “safety related.” He mentioned outside threats (jetliners, tornado-whipped debris), but not the actual safety related purpose of the containment building at a PWR. Ask him if the building can hold a negative or positive psi air pressure differential – long term – when the concrete’s cracked.

      He’ll likely say the steel liner can, but all that nice, thick concrete is there to reinforce it (these are HUGE spaces) against the strong tendency for that steel ‘hull’ to crumple like a sub at “crush depth” due to normal pressure differential. Unlike the reactor buildings of BWRs that are quite flimsy, PWR containments are designed to maintain pressure differential so as to contain steam explosions and (since TMI demonstrated the hydrogen issue during meltdowns) hydrogen blow-outs. The concrete thus must reinforce for sudden pressure spikes as well. The biggest at TMI-2 was 32+ psig – pegged the gage, nobody knows how big it really was. ‘Normal’ -3 psig is like pressure differential inside-outside for a jetliner at 35,000 feet (8.7 psi absolute). On early entry following a scram once at a PWR I heard about the 12″ diameter equipment hatch in the air lock blew for no apparent reason. Sucked a good-sized worker right on through, breaking bones and flying him all the way from containment wall to the reactor pad (containment central).

      A cracked PWR containment is a no-go, it won’t hold the pressure differential if the liner (less than a handful of inches thick) gives way. For good reason. Either the shill is deliberately confusing issues by obfuscating about engineering/operating specs, or he doesn’t know shit about nukes.


      Report comment

      • Whoopie Whoopie

        JoyB…HE’S GONE LOONY TOONS!!
        FLAGGING AND HAVING A HISSY FIT!
        PROBLEM IS, I’M NOT ONLINE TOO MUCH TODAY.
        HUBS B-DAY.


        Report comment

      • Mack Mack

        @JoyB – really glad you’re posting here! I’ve learned a lot from you.


        Report comment

        • Thanks, Mack. What I can’t believe is that NRC signed off on this. Well, I CAN believe it because I’m just that cynical, but damn. This is insane.

          Now I have to wonder if NRC gave ‘em a waiver to operate at atmospheric pressure – way stupid and absolutely NOT in keeping with design/operating specs – or is just ‘assuming’ that it can operate another 20 years or so without having to contain any accident-related pressure spikes. That’s a fool’s bet, and not something a thinking human would condone. These people have to be stopped.


          Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            Someone here (Admin.?) posted a link several months ago to an NRC discussion on the pressure vessel (?) cracks at numerous BWR’s. I’m working from memory and it has been awhile. It was the minutes from an NRC meeting.

            Amazing to read a first hand written account (transcript) of the things the NRC will sign off on.

            Pressure head vessel (?) cracks at numerous reactors, and the NRC has allowed them to continue operation, and has just weakened safety standards so they can be “in compliance.”

            Yes, it’s sheer insanity of the highest order. As Helen Caldicott, M.D. says, “they have a defect in their reptilian brain.”


            Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              I can’t find the link to this particular NRC meeting. Wish I could; it was VERY revealing of standard “nuke think.” “Situation normal, all _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.”


              Report comment

            • BWR’s have just the single pressure vessel (actual reactor), their containments aren’t designed to take very much, hence those non-functional vents to torus. That were recent refits, and obviously didn’t work at Fukushima. The containment at PWRs is designed to hold that negative pressure differential during operation, and that’s why PWRs have to be “depressurized” during outages. Entry in non-outage (but after scram, so radiation is within reason) situations is via the airlock. Just like on a sub or space station, hatches on both sides and a little while to equalize. So you don’t get “explosive decompression” or the bends…

              Fukushima’s reactors were all BWRs. Not high pressure units. Davis-Besse is a PWR – like TMI, like North Anna. A whole other kind of beastie with a monstrous containment structure (holds reactor, both steam generators and most of the pressurized piping) designed to hold a pressure differential that boggles the imagination in the ‘best’ of circumstances. Those steam generators, for instance, are nearly 4 stories tall. The reactor’s no slouch either. Spooky other-worldly, and hatches have been known to blow for no apparent reason. Tight specs, that sheet metal liner (sections welded together, God only knows how well) and at least 3 feet of reinforced concrete. If the concrete’s compromised they can’t be allowed to run. [sez me, appalled that they'd even try]. Because the welds are shit and always have been.

              Next thing you know they’ll be signing off on restart for Crystal River (now that Duke bought it), with the breach on the inside looking out! My God.


              Report comment

          • Relatively ‘good’ point about PWRs versus BWRs is that pressurized reactors have spent fuel pools in-ground outside the containment building. Unhardened and unshielded, but at least not on the fifth floor up in the damned air.

            No nukes operating today should be allowed to do anything but shut the f*ck down. Then we can all start talking seriously about the long-term issues with the filth that’s left of it.


            Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    Am going to post this here as well as the Radiation Monitoring area, as I’d appreciate some feedback. High CPM levels in Utah and CA (San Francisco) since about 4PM yesteday, maybe longer. I’ve been checking periodically for the past 24 hours or so.

    My other post:

    “Am still checking the Radiation Network site periodically. 57 just posted in Utah, 47 in S.F. San Francisco has just gone up to 63. Something is definitely going on. There appear to be waves of radiation washing over us, here on the West Coast. Noted another reading in the high 40′s or 50′s somewhere in the U.S. Midwest, within the last hour.

    Again, this is by far the highest reading I’ve ever seen for San Francisco. Have never seen anything over 43 in the past, even during the March-May period.

    What the heck is going on? Where are these heavy releases coming from?”

    What do y’all think is happening? Something seems to be aimed smack dab at the central part of the West Coast. Radiation coming at us in waves. Now the S.F. level is back down to 47 (from 63). It hasn’t gone below 37 for over 24 hours, that I have seen ….


    Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    The other thing I want to mention, and this may be significant is — the high levels show up in Utah about five minutes after they appear in S.F. it looks like this would indicate a very fast-moving air mass. What else might it be? Any ideas?


    Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    Indiana is the other location that is showing high levels today — maybe 1/2 hour after they show up in CA or Utah.


    Report comment

  • unspokenhermit

    Since it is in the USA, the radiation must be somewhere else. We need to know what is going on in other countries.

    I recently discovered the following dispersion model, which someone had linked to Berkeley’s discussion page. It uses TEPCO emission data to model possible dispersion patterns for Neptunium and Plutonium

    http://www.datapoke.org/blog/89/study-modeling-fukushima-npp-p-239-and-np-239-atmospheric-dispersion/

    http://datapoke.org/partmom/a=114

    If this model is accurate, it is very disturbing. Where are all of the so-called experts who claimed these elements were too heavy to travel far from the plant site?


    Report comment