Published: October 20th, 2011 at 3:05 am ET
|
Oct. 19 — Watch the latest video by Fairewinds’ Chief Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen, New TEPCO Photographs Substantiate Significant Damage to Fukushima Unit 3.
In light of a newly released photo, Gundersen re-analyzes a video showing large amounts of steam coming out of the floor in the middle of Reactor No. 3.
He says this shows the containment has been damaged and is leaking. There is no way that amount of steam would be coming out if the containment were not damaged.
Since this video was filmed steam has been continually leaking out of the middle of Reactor No. 3.
Gundersen says it’s important to recognize just how serious the damage is at this reactor.
At 5:00 in
New TEPCO Photographs Substantiate Significant Damage to Fukushima Unit 3 from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.
Published: October 20th, 2011 at 3:05 am ET
|
sending...
#3 was the reactor with the MOX fuel. It is considered the worst type to have exploded. I’m thinking that the fuel pool exploded as Mr. Gunderson stated, with his explanations and the video of the damage …
So the question is , How much nuclear fuel was stored in that pool, in tonnes ? how many rod bundles… this would explain how serious the contamination is , it’s much worse then Chernoble because the fuel was dirty…
We have to figure out if ALL the fuel got pulverised and pushed out or just some of it …
Report Comment
“How Much Spent Nuclear Fuel Does the Fukushima Daiichi Facility Hold?”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-fuel-fukushima
“The spent fuel pools are of significant concern, Marvin Resnikoff, a radioactive waste management consultant, said in a Wednesday press briefing organized by the nonprofit organization Physicians for Social Responsibility. Resnikoff noted that the pools at each reactor are thought to have contained the following amounts of spent fuel, according to The Mainichi Daily News:
• Reactor No. 1: 50 tons of nuclear fuel
• Reactor No. 2: 81 tons
• Reactor No. 3: 88 tons
• Reactor No. 4: 135 tons
• Reactor No. 5: 142 tons
• Reactor No. 6: 151 tons
• Also, a separate ground-level fuel pool contains 1,097 tons of fuel; and some 70 tons of nuclear materials are kept on the grounds in dry storage.
The reactor cores themselves contain less than 100 tons of fuel, Resnikoff noted.”
Report Comment
nice post…. So many people I know (just like the rest of them) have no real clue about what is happening. I knew it was tons of the stuff, just no idea of the actual numbers: Since it is almost halloween I think I will use said numbers to scare people.
Report Comment
There was enough fuel inside the core (alone) to overdose and eventually kill every living creature on earth. (well except the cockroaches). So in light of the fuel pool, probably a ratio of between 6000:1 to 8500:1 ‘
Meaning roughly 7000 overdoses / Per person (on the entire planet).
Report Comment
Yeah, it’s bad. But, people have to get exposed to it. Before it “eventually kills every living creature on earth”, it has to get to every living thing. It’s not going to ‘inevitably’ creep into every nook and cranny of the earth, or the lungs of every living thing on the earth. A lot of it is going to disperse in the oceans, fall to the bottom of the sea, get locked up as sediments and shells of diatoms, plankton, etc.. Yeah some will get into the food chains. However, the end of the world, when it comes, will be short in duration and sudden. This supercatastrophe, as bad as it is, is not the end of the world. It’s particularly bad for Japan, but not even the end of the world for the Japanese. It’s going to change their lives, alot of people are going to get cancer and suffer the other effects of radiation. Probably alot of Japanese are going to immigrate. They will make wherever they move, a better place.
Report Comment
Each one of the reactors at Fukushima have 20+ tons of nuclear material. That’s 40,000 lbs per reactor.That is a huge scale up.
In addition, there is the spent fuel which is highly radio active.
• Reactor No. 1: 50 tons of spent nuclear fuel
• Reactor No. 2: 81 tons
• Reactor No. 3: 88 tons
• Reactor No. 4: 135 tons
• Reactor No. 5: 142 tons
• Reactor No. 6: 151 tons
• Also, a separate ground-level fuel pool contains 1,097 tons of fuel; and some 70 tons of nuclear materials are kept on the grounds in dry storage.
Report Comment
Dear Mr Gundersen, endless thanks for your videos and explanations you probably hoped the world would never need.
Report Comment
Yes, Thank you !!
We appreciate your expertise on this issue , Please do continue to keep everyone informed. The World is watching !!
Report Comment
Mr. Gundersen,
Like probably many here do, I also send out your’s and other people’s video’s. I tell them, “Don’t take my word for this, listen to the professionals.”
Thank you for your continual information and explaining this to us.
Even though it wasn’t easy, you had to learn all this, and see it first hand, so you would be able to inform and explain it to us. I bet you never thought you would be doing video’s for the public to see.
Thank You)))))
Report Comment
Hey, Guys check out this short video on the wreakage from Japan’s Tsunami… It will reach Hawaii sooner than expected …
Does this also mean that the contaminated water will get here too, faster than expected ?
http://www.kitv.com/news/29530797/detail.html#ixzz1bGwCGXf4
Report Comment
Good morning Cindy, I guess the water is flowing even faster than the debris. I would think the sea currents have reached the shores shortly after 3/11 – three weeks maybe? (just an uneducated guess)
Anyone here with expertise on the subject?
Report Comment
You guys have got to see this German video making fun of Tepco, posted at EX-SKF
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/
Report Comment
Heute-Show is THE BEST. I just sent the link to their offices, to let them know they’re “big in Japan”…
Report Comment
Most of the US is also overly complaisant and non questioning of the environment.
Report Comment
http://www.kirotv.com/news/27364705/detail.html
Here is the real truth as to who what where when why:
Radioactive Seaweed Likely In Washington, But Not Harmful
KIRO 7 Eyewitness News South Sound Bureau Chief Twitter | E-mail
Posted: 6:17 pm PDT March 29, 2011
Updated: 7:58 am PDT March 30, 2011
OLYMPIA, Washington — Radioactive seaweed detected near Vancouver, B.C.
, is likely to be found on Washington state beaches, too, but doesn’t pose any threat to humans, researchers in Vancouver said.
“The levels we are detecting are very, very low,” said Prof. Kris Starosta with Simon Fraser University. “These are tiny levels of radiation.”
Starosta said the radioactive iodine 131 was released by damaged nuclear reactors in Japan, transmitted by rainwater and absorbed into the seaweed, which is known to readily absorb iodine. He said knowing that the radiation took about a week to reach the west coast of North America was the biggest benefit to his research.
“This tells you what your window of opportunity to prepare and react if something catastrophic happens is,” Starosta said.
Some people, like the operators of the Boston Harbor Marina in Olympia, wonder if radiation in seaweed could affect fish or other marine life.
“If they tell us that it’s bad or dangerous, the last thing we are going to do is start eating the seaweed or the fish that’s contaminated,” Marcus Smythe said.
But state health officials told KIRO 7 there is absolutely no reason to believe that the small amounts of radiation reaching Washington will have any negative consequences.
The radiation is here now in Masses you couldn’t imagine; It had already been detected as of March 29th.
They have lied to you all… Add every reactor release to the level from then until now…
Report Comment
NOTICE THAT THAT WAS ON THE 29th. (of march).
Report Comment
If nothing else, look @ 1:46 to see Unit 3.
Arnie: “The explosion occurred over the fuel pool initially.”
@ 4:11 – “I still believe that it was a prompt moderated nuclear recriticality.”
Doesn’t think it was a hydrogen explosion (unit 3).
Report Comment
We all saw the tonnes of debris get blown upward then fall to the grounds back when it happened, this damaged the frame structure of the building ! Hydrogen explosion would not have destroyed metal frames as this, it would have only blew off the metal roof and sidings, projectiles launching at great speeds of an explosion causing great damage to the framing and girders of the building !
Report Comment
—>From March 15, 2011, “DC Bureau” was already on top of this issue:
“The mixed oxide fuel rods used in the compromised number three reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi complex contain enough plutonium to threaten public health with the possibility of inhalation of airborne plutonium particles. The compromised fuel rods supplied to the Tokyo Electric Company by the French firm AREVA.
Plutonium is at its most dangerous when it is inhaled and gets into the lungs. The effect on the human body is to vastly increase the chance of developing fatal cancers.
Masashi Goto, a reactor researcher and designer for Toshiba, told the Foreign Correspondents Club in Toyko the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel used in unit 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility uses plutonium, which is “much more toxic than the fuel used in the other reactors.””
http://www.dcbureau.org/20110315782/natural-resources-news-service/mox-fuel-rods-used-in-japanese-nuclear-reactor-present-multiple-dangers.html
—>”DC Bureau” video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv0z_bOHxSE
Report Comment
I think this is what Arnie Gunderson was trying to imply, ‘look at the damage at #3′ and so forth …… Trying to let the cat out of the bag, Gently
Report Comment
I think all spent fuel rods contain more plutonium than the fuel rods that are in use inside the reactor, since plutonium is formed as a by product of the nuclear fission process. I think the implication of that would be that the spent fuel rods stored in the #3 pool would also contained more plutonium than the MOX fuel rods that were actually inside the #3 reactor at the time of the explosion.
So I think that would mean that, in terms of how much Plutonium might have been spewed out, there was probably a lot more in the vicinity of the explosion if it occurred where AG says it did than there would have been if it occurred inside the reactor itself (as the NRC claims).
Report Comment
It does not matter
whether uranium or Pu or other nukes the results the same
dead is dead
perhaps one way short or the other way is longer
Report Comment
@ Bleifrei,
the half life is a big difference,
because we cant store genetic Material for that long time, ergo Plutonium would be better
Report Comment
http://www.youtube.com/user/GoddardsJournal#p/u/6/2onC01URt9c
Report Comment
Nice web site, thanks. Also, his voice is like a warm embrace or a mild sedative, very calming.
Report Comment
Yes, calming indeed…
Much like president Obamas promises of change were the antidotes of the crisis in economy; Arnold Gundersons sedated views should without question, be questioned. As we are clearly treading into dangerous waters.
So I ask why not a sense of urgency in light of the elements that he discloses? Over the past several months I’ve grown to question his engagements…
Without a doubt he is a qualified nuclear physicist. I simply question his lack of disclosure in light of the very real dangers we are facing in this calamity.
I have realized in my lifetime: That most friendships are offered at cost. What is the cost of trusting a friend like Arnold Gunderson?
That is for you to question.
I admire his work. However I question his role as a public figure in this crisis. His lack of urgency and past impositions should without a doubt be noted.
-Arnold Gunderson if your reading this: I respect you, But we are also counting on you!
Please strive to disclose more information in urgent fashion… I personally expect more out of you than what I have witnessed thus far.
Report Comment
Well said ..Tacoma…Our government is complicit.
Our prez.goes to Virginia… in the brand new “national security” bus..
He is off to push his jobs package ..but MAN doesn’t have time to go to Mineral,Virginia..to check on the earthquake victims.
But why am I suprised?… He is the same MAN that after checking on Port Fouchon and standing for couple of photo ops (including a faux swim in the Gulf with the kids)..after promising never to leave the people…hightailed it for Washington and has not returned.
After all this time…..
Perhaps it has something to do with the selling of his shares of BP …immediately before the disaster.
I ask… what kind of MAN is our president?
THIS is why I am fairly sure that petition to the W.H. is useless.
Mr.Gundersen is very brave…but he should not make the same mistake as Mr. Matt Simmons..who lost his life for..almost..telling it.
At some point ..it’s best to go ahead and shoot for it…methinks.
Report Comment
PS.Poor old Matt…after he died and his opinion was overrun by BP…even his followers trashed him. (OilDrum..comes to mind).
Ya..kicked dirt on his grave.
Report Comment
Sorry I was referring to Goddard’s voice. Arnie doesn’t have that warm sedating tone but I do look forward to his reports and always listen to him. He was so helpful during our battle with TMI.
I was reading about Arnie on a pro-nuke site. They don’t care for him and one person referred to all anti-nuke proponents, stating he would like to kill all of us. Wow, not only are they misinformed but violent. I will try to find the web site but I always like to read the views of both sides but don’t post on pro-nuke sites as some obviously have strong negative feelings for anyone who is anti-nuke
Report Comment
Having recognized that 3/11 was,and will continue to be perhaps the worst day ever for humanity & every living thing on the planet-I “try” to educate,or change peoples minds about the event(s) and the true nature & cost of embracing the lies that represent the technology itself & the lousy people behind their industy’s ambitions to continue & even expand this nasty endeavour!That someone within their ranks would threaten murder before their corporate & govt.policies can succeed in it’s genocidal mission doesn’t surprise me a bit! Whether due to human flaws,incompetence,irresponsibility,or a intentional action or series of purported “accidents”that conspiracy theorists can assume & point out as being “pre-planned”~the results are the same and we will all be impacted-including the pro-nuke advocates! The d-bag making his cowardly threats while hiding safely behind his monitor and whatever level of anonymity his computer “seems” to afford him would probably be encouraged by anyone suggesting they felt fearul of going on that site or from anti-nuke activities as a result of the threatening nature of the little coward!I’ve got some trouble of my own regarding the level of response when dealing with threats to my loved ones & those less equipped to protect themselves & wouldn’t hesitate to give the POS the opportunity to step out from behind his pc & see what he’s got!-But my intuition on the subject of that particular sh#t-talking & typing hemarroid suggests that squeezing a tube of Preparation-H into each of his shoes would suffice & he would disappear without having to beat him down!,lol!-Sorry for rambling on~but the post describing anyone possibly being intimidated into non-action or being fearful about their caring,logical & truthful stance making them feel “targeted” has me PO’d beyond my norm!!I’m taking a break from the pc for a bit ‘cuz this has my blood boiling!TAKE CARE & THANX FOR NOT GIVING UP despite ridicule,threats & efforts made to…
Report Comment
@ human
dead is dead
slowly or fast
Report Comment
I was talking about Re-Birth
or Re-Seeding this Planet!
Report Comment
@ human
ok if it start to painfull slowly , i will take some Potassium fluoride are or nerly Thinks out my labotory
and fLUPPSS it is done
Report Comment
Gundersen makes a persuasive case that the explosion began at/over the spent fuel pool. Back on April 26, he suggested that “a hydrogen reaction started, which then caused a shockwave to move and distort the nuclear fuel in the pool. The distortion of the nuclear fuel in the pool creates a prompt nuclear reaction which then blows the rubble out of the pool up in the plume and creates the energy needed to create the dramatic event that we’ve seen at Fukushima unit 3.”
So, the venting of hydrogen from the reactor triggered a hydrogen explosion, and the force from that explosion caused the nuclear fuel to bend in such a way that it triggered a criticality explosion. Clearly, a design that placed a spent fuel pool in such close proximity to the reactor was a fundamentally flawed design. The engineers who designed this plant knew that this pool would be filled with dangerous, highly fissile, plutonium-laced material, yet they nevertheless placed it right next to the reactor. In the event that anything went wrong at the reactor, the spent fuel pool is dangerously close to the reactor, and, in addition, the spent fuel pool lacks any kind of specially reinforced containment around it. (I’m not sure who engineered the vents that were added later, but clearly adding these so close to the SFP was also a very problematic design decision.)
My question is, what is GE’s liability here? Gundersen and others have already discussed the flaws of the Mark I containment , but the proximity of the SFP to the reactor also seems to be a major design flaw since, in the event of a problem in the reactor, the spent fuel pool is also likely to be affected–with potentially catastrophic consequences. I want to know if GE can be sued on the basis of this fundamentally unsafe design. It seems that anybody who has inhaled some of the plutonium, etc., that was likely releases/aerosolized in this explosion has a claim against GE (as well as TEPCO) here…
Report Comment
… This faulty design was a major contributing factor in what is one of–if not the–most catastrophic occurrences in the entire Fukushima Daiichi disaster–the explosion of a spent fuel pool filled with plutonium and other extremely dangerous and very long-lived isotopes. Surely the people of Japan (if not beyond) have grounds to sue General Electric for this fundamentally flawed and extremely dangerous design that placed the SPF so close to the reactor that an accident in the one could trigger an accident in the other?
Report Comment
From HuffPost — March 14th and updated March 23rd:
“General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt Accepts First Bonus Since 2007″
[...]“The payout, which boosted Immelt’s total compensation to $21.42 million…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/ge-ceo-accepts-bonus_n_835639.html
Report Comment
@iam335
Flaw or insurance policy…
They have known for centuries how dangerous these substances are once introduced into the atmosphere.
The real question is why they would have accumulated such quantities together? As they surely knew the repercussions of the substances inside. As well as having been warned countless times to the danger of an incident occurring.
They had completely ignored the reality of an incident occurring at their facilities.
Was this planned calamity?
Was this an insurance policy in the event there were an accident?
I don’t like to think about such evils. However we are dealing with the most dangerous substances on the planet. Thus we are also dealing with the most dangerous people…
The reactors themselves could have been anti attack mechanisms in light of national security. (I.E. Dr. Strangelove).
I know that is a difficult and outside the box presumption. However the Japanese Ignored Safety standards; Falsified maintenance reports, and Brushed aside chaos theory its self.
That behavior alone was questionable.
So were the Japanese using the reactors as a defense system? As outside of the box as it may be… The facts certainly support the accusations. What better way to avoid conflict than to present consequence to your opponents jests.
This is not my opinion, as it is simply something I consider from time to time. As I have no real explanation as to why the Japanese would have allowed such quantities of these substances to accumulate; In light of the sheer Consequences that they could create…
Either way, we can not easily mitigate such calamities as nuclear contamination. So I advise you to consider how to protect yourself from it, in the mean time.
As the clocks minute hand moves closer to midnight. Our very destinies are approaching our doors. We should take the time we have to be prepared; As we can assume in only a short amount of time we will be meeting them eye to eye.
Report Comment
@Tacomagroove,
i posted this yesterday, maybe you do not read it;
Amakudari:
Japan’s system of amakudari (descent from heaven), in which bureaucrats retire from their ministries to take up lucrative positions in the companies they formerly “regulated,” means that there is no real distinction between regulator and regulated in Japan. Indeed, it’s fair to say that certain powerful industries actually regulate the ministries that are tasked with regulating them. Remember: The retired bureaucrats who have become industry executives remain senpai to the younger bureaucrats who remain in the ministries (their former kōhai). It is unthinkable that these kōhai could effectively regulate their former senpai — for it would involve an inversion of one of the most fundamental relationships in Japanese life. Perhaps no industry is as rife with amakudari as the nuclear business. Tepco is typical, with four company vice-presidents between 1959 and 2010 coming from Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), the main ministry tasked with overseeing the nuclear industry.
Report Comment
“It seems that anybody who has inhaled some of the plutonium, etc., that was likely releases/aerosolized in this explosion has a claim against GE (as well as TEPCO) here…”
Everybody on the planet has a claim against GE and Tepco.
The nuclear detonation theory should be considered as fact, because it is the only way to explain the isotope ratios detected in Japan.
YES, a nuclear power plant CAN have a nuclear explosion, because it DID happen at unit 3.
Report Comment
i dont think GE should have too muc liability here, let me explain why
the Mark I reactors were designed in the 50′s, and have been in constant use since then. saying Ge is responsible is kind of along the lines of driving a 1957 chevy bel air, getting into a major accident and then suing general motors because they didnt have air bags, anti lock brakes or crumple zones built into the cars.
the blame for this rests solely on the owner/operator of the outdated Mark I design. they are the ones who ran the reactor well past its expected lifespan, and ignored safety flaws inherrant in the design.
im not defending anyone here but placing blame on GE for a 1st gen design that was used well past its expected lifespan and known flaws were ignored solely rests on the shoulders of the owner of the reactors. they knew what was up and decided to ignore the facts in order to squeeze more profit out of something that should have been decomissioned decades ago.
Report Comment
But I am not blaming them for lacking a technology that was not yet invented (i.e., airbags in an old car). I am blaming them for a design that intentionally stored highly dangerous spent fuel in an extremely vulnerable position (right next to the reactor). This was not a matter of not having invented some technology yet. They knew what spent fuel was. They knew there was a possibility that the reactor could have an accident. It’s common sense that if you put a highly dangerous substance in close proximity to a machine that could potential have a serious accident (explosion/fire) you are drastically increasing the odds that something catastrophic will happen.
They are engineers; it was their job to consider these kinds of possibilities. I think it is a big mistake to give GE a pass on this simply because the design was old. This was an inherently dangerous design feature even when it was brand new. A dangerous design is a dangerous design. GE shares the responsibility for this accident; they ought to share in the liability for it.
Report Comment
They ought to be sueable for their part in contaminating people’s land. Their beloved industry takes lands of milk and honey and makes them lands of radioactive milk and radioactive honey. When a nuclear bomb detonates, we can tell whose it was based on isotopes. It ought to be the same for reactors. Regardless of whether there was health damage, the soil and water of lands has been damaged, its quality impaired. People get sued for merely trespassing. GE ought to be sueable for contamination. That’s the way it ought to be. Juries everywhere ought to take the greatest liberties in verdicts until GE is broke. It ought to be fast, too, not take 20 years and then settle. Attorneys should demand Quo Warranto for corrupt or lawbreaking judges, regulatory agency officials, elected and appointed officials. They should be ripped out of office when one simple act of breaking the law or rule is found. They played a big part in causing contamination to farmlands in Japan, the US, and lots of other places. The corporation ought to pay with its assets and its life. I have no qualms at all about capital punishment for a corporation.
Report Comment
re: “The corporation ought to pay with its assets and its life. I have no qualms at all about capital punishment for a corporation.”
Did you see the picture of the Wall St. protester holding a sign that said “I’ll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one”?
Anyway, AG has discussed how nuclear plant operators in the U.S. are insulated from liability by the Price-Anderson act and their limited liability status. But I think that only applies to plant operators, and I think it would only apply to accidents in the U.S. I’m not sure what law would apply to an American-based company that sold a faulty design that catastrophically failed (in multiple ways) in another country.
Report Comment
@human
lol
it is no metter 10000³j or 10000000³j
the live will come back
Report Comment
Fishing boat maker in Miyagi receives big orders
“(…)Yamaha says the number of orders started to rise sharply after the government introduced subsidies for fishing cooperatives ordering ships for their members.”
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/society.html
DON’T GO FISHING OFF MIYAGI COAST.
Report Comment
What is AG up to?
it is not too difficult to build that theory based on pictures released months ago.
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm
Also he does not mention MOX or Plutonium, just fuel.
Now is the time to step up and make the connection to all kinds of findings and measurements.
Instead he seems to like things to stay theory.
Report Comment
Does anyone know the temp of the corium?
Report Comment
Range of “typical*” corium 2500-2900 deg Celsius**
* can’t say anything is typical of such a rogue material but thereabouts, for the purpose of starting a discussion.
** IIRC from my previous post on this site a day or two back.
Report Comment
It is nice to Mr Gunderson addressing this issue.
However my inclination is that there is much more to the story of Reactor three. An issue I tied to gain further insight into a number of months ago when I wrote this letter to Arnie which never received a response.
Hello Arnie and Maggie,
I first want to say how refreshing and beneficial it has been to experience your work. The two of and your associates deserve commendation of the highest order with respect to this issue.
You clearly stand head and shoulders over what is obviously a sea of misinformation and for that I thank you both.
I am researching a piece I am writing on the Fukushima incident and I have lots of questions that I am unable to gain any significant clarity with.
However in this case, as I know you are busy and likely inundated with mail. I will only seek clarity on a couple specific issues.
I have reviewed you sight and taken in most of it, in addition to many radio and tv interviews and, of course, the videos you have posted and one thing stands out for me.
It is with respect to reactor number three.
In much of your material, including your latest video, you touch on the fact that the SPF in reactor three was the likely location of the “detonation” you clearly describe. My question however is a result of the confusion I keep coming across when the SFP at reactor 3 is overlooked and the focus is instead shifted to the SFP in reactor 4.
From your perspective and research, do you believe the detonation in the SFP at reactor 3 resulted in the release of the majority of the spent fuel stored there? If so, given that the reactor was using MOX fuel, can you confirm that spent MOX fuel was indeed stored in that SFP? Would this not be the single largest source of released radiation able to spread considerable distance, especially when contrasted to the largely intact SFP in reactor 4? I understand that when looking to the future the SFP in reactor 4 is of grave concern,…
Report Comment
continued here:
…..however when contrasted to the already blown SFP in reactor three it seems confusion arises.
Throughout my research this has come up again and again. A focus on reactor 4′s SFP and a complete abandonment of coverage on the result of the blown SFP in reactor three.
If indeed the SFP in reactor three was blown with the detonation as you define it, 3-4000 feet into the air, am I wrong to say that this was indeed the single largest catastrophe of the entire incident to date? (Disregarding the human decision to release into the Pacific Ocean inconceivable amounts of irradiated water). Would this not be the most likely source of “hot particles” reaching as far the west coast of North America? I understand this is pure speculation, but when reviewing the incident in its’ entirety it seems the most likely explanation, but of course impossible to prove and the single most outstanding aspect of the incident with respect to released radiation and its capacity to impact human health.
Also could you please comment on whether or not the reactors were damaged enough from the quake alone to result in the eventual meltdown had there been no subsequent tsunami? I understand that this is hypothetical but from what I gather, I am curious if it is safe to say that the quake damage alone would have resulted in relying solely upon back up generators and then upon battery power which, given the time it took to restore external power, likely would have resulted in meltdowns irregardless of the tsunami . (Of course this may not have resulted in explosions and concerns about the SFP pools however the clarity I seek is based solely on quake damage and its ability to trigger catastrophic core on the floor, full meltdown/through.)
Thanks again for your wonderful work, time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Warmest regards
Report Comment