Reports of nuclear fuel rod pieces being ejected from Fukushima reactors and/or spent fuel pools

Published: February 25th, 2012 at 1:11 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
71 comments


Several news articles and experts have reported that nuclear fuel pieces/fragments/flakes/particles were deposited onto the ground around Fukushima at varying distances from the reactors and spent fuel pools after one or more of the explosions. Here’s a list of the reports that began in early April:

Please add more links to this list in the comments section

Published: February 25th, 2012 at 1:11 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
71 comments

Related Posts

  1. Report: Nuclear fuel fragments found over a mile away were “ejected from the reactor cores in those explosions” not spent fuel pools, according to NRC (VIDEO) August 18, 2011
  2. Fairewinds: Some reports of damage at Fukushima plant after quake, spent fuel pools seem to be intact December 9, 2012
  3. US Nuclear Officials: Fuel fragments were likely ejected from cladding at the 3 Fukushima reactors — Particles of fuel resemble highly radioactive ‘mystery black substance’ often seen in Japan since 3/11 (PHOTOS) December 10, 2013
  4. NRC 100 hours after quake: We hear radiation levels are up, even in Tokyo — Reports that spent fuel pools 1, 2 and 3 started to boil November 18, 2011
  5. Reactors No. 5 and 6 were NOT in cold shutdown after quake, implies report by US nuclear industry — Cooling at Spent Fuel Pool No. 5 stopped until cables installed — Fresh fuel had been loaded into both reactors November 13, 2011

71 comments to Reports of nuclear fuel rod pieces being ejected from Fukushima reactors and/or spent fuel pools

  • Dr. McCoy

    These reports are out there because they're true. Japan is done and the ramifications to its people and the rest of the world cannot be suppressed much longer.

    Better active today than radioactive tomorrow was a popular slogan during the no nukes heyday of the late seventies. Now that the toothpaste is out of the tube, all humanity is basically screwed…


    Report comment

  • Bones Bones

    I remember those pictures that showed the fuel pellets scattered around the plant. Who knows how much fuel is still left in those reactors and fuel pools. Wasn't there information from the NRC where they stated the fuel pools were uncovered and no water was in the pools? Now, I don't remember which reactor buildings there were talking about and it could have been all of them, but they said the pool(s) was/were uncovered BEFORE the explosions. They couldn't get the water in before they blew up.

    I just watched the BBC docu last night and they had good footage of the explosions. In reactor 2 (I think it was), the shockwave of the explosion went straight up in an upside down cone shape above the reactor itself. It looked to me like the reactor "plug" at the top blew off in the explosion. The idea that the reactor was uncovered, despite it being bolted on and the huge concrete plug, is not something I have been able to really find out if true or not. Maybe, one of the geniuses here could inform me! lol

    I would think that the fact there is so much actual fuel pellets (Not even taking into account the flakes.) laying around, means the fuel pools were severely damaged and perhaps the fuel exploded itself. Does the presence of fuel outside the reactor buildings mean there was a nuclear explosion as well? Could the nuclear explosion have ignited the hydrogen? Was the fuel so hot that once the hydrogen levels reached ignitable ratios it exploded and the pressure from the resultant explosion caused a nuclear fission explosion? How much fuel is still in there?

    Just brain storming and maybe someone could help me organize my thoughts? lol Sometimes the information overload and the back in forth nature of the news reports confuses me to the exact nature of the explosions and states of the reactors.


    Report comment

    • Spectrometising

      Read at your own risk….A theory.

      The point is that it was not a hydrogen explosion that blew the materials out of the containment or the pools. It is obfuscating and stupid to exclude other factors/chemicals/reactions.

      For instance……!!

      If it were just Hydrogen, as Arnie pointed out back in the olden days, it would have to have been within the fuel rod assemblies to blow them apart or lift them out of the fuel pools. We know it wasn't, it was floating above or outside. It was released after the O2 in water was taken by the Zirconium in a redox reaction with steam.

      We know Hydrogen rises and surrounds the material, but is not within the spent fuel rod assemblies in a perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen….good grief no !!….

      No NO NO…..the explosion was a result of Zirconium cladding vaporizing and a reaction with cesium and or steam for instance, one nano second prior to a full thermal criticality. During a 'red heat' the zirconium is not undergoing redox reaction as fast as when it melts and vapourizes.

      The zirconium cladding that surrounds the fuel rod pellets melted and vaporized in some places not all, and this was what blew the fuel rod assemblies and pellets out of the water in a complex metal explosion, as well as the water.,..Zirconium is a highly reactive metal and does a great job of performing a flash in disposable flash cubes.

      From the website..(Note, i have not included the entire text and the entire page should be consulted to obtain a better picture.).
      http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/8183
      "General Description
      A gray amorphous powder. May ignite spontaneously and burn with explosive violence. Ignitable by static electricity. Small amounts of moisture may promote the ignition of zirconium."…………

      In "Reactivity Profile"……"and cesium will react violently, even explosively, with an excess of zirconium powder [Ellern 1968. p. 249]."
      http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/8183

      (Note.)…


      Report comment

      • Bones Bones

        Thank you so much! I will read your links. You are so helpful!


        Report comment

      • hbjon hbjon

        Why are you talking about chemical reaction causing explosions when the thing that exploded was a npp? Nuclear reactions are different from chemical reactions and if you want to understand more about what happened in Japan I think you need to explore the nuclear possiblities. I have been studying the P table and find it fascinating that the zircalloy will get plated by the uranium and plutonium with molybdenum which doesn't burn. Zircalloy and molybdenum have a much higher melting point than U or P, so whatever leaves the fuel rods won't be in pellet form. The fuel will separate from the rods when the melting point of molybdenum is reached (2623C). A couple unknowns are weather or not the overheated fuel will cause the rod to burst from an increase in pressure and weakened zircalloy or does the fuel rod fall from the fuel assembly to the bottom. In the case of fuel rods falling down, that would allow for the coolant to evaporate before the breach of the fuel rod. The only thing that can come into contact with the fuel is suppose to be Zircalloy, if it leaves the rod than we are talking about nuclear forces. Like atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, fission, fussion, radiolysis, CM, transmutation, E=MC2 and stuff like that. What isn't clear is if different size cm's will account for the different size explosions. Or a small CM of U vs. a small CM of P. Nobody has been able to debunk this lovely theory yet.


        Report comment

        • Jebus

          My theory…
          Could a waterhammer cause the compression needed to cause a criticality in a MOX FUEL CORIUM?

          Remember they lost #3 after it was in meltdown on Maech 14 and they were injecting cold seawater at that time!

          http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,1115441,1115642

          What Every
          SAGD Engineer
          Should Know
          About
          Condensation
          Induced Water
          Hammer
          Mike Carlson
          Manager, Reservoir Engineering
          May 5th, 2010

          History of CIWH:
          • Boilers original application – foundation for
          most pressure vessel codes
          • Steam traps have been used for a long
          time – practical experience
          • Nuclear reactor failures (U.S.A.) led to …
          • Fundamental research at MIT, Ph.D. Dissertation of
          Robert Bjorge
          • Design procedures and computer programs
          • MEG Energy failure and Joslyn?

          Conclusions
          • Presented fundamental mechanism. It is
          difficult to visualize
          • History of catastrophic failures. Many
          fatalities.
          – Over 20 failures in nuclear industry before understood
          – Numerous incidents in refineries, universities and power plants
          • There are well developed tools from other
          industries
          • Requires specific conditions
          • Horizontal pipes
          • Subcool (temperature difference)
          • Minimum rates
          • Pipe fill

          Conclusions (continued)
          • CIWH can happen very easily in surface
          facilities.
          • Well pressure recorders, observation wells,
          theory and computer programs indicate that this
          is likely occurring in wells
          • Potential wellbore problems that may be a result
          of CIWH:
          • Liner failures
          – in a subcool event, hot steam enters liquid in wellbore – CIWH
          • Sand production
          • Hydraulic fracture complex to surface
          • Shale fluidization in caprock (fracs terminate in caprock)
          • High pressure drops into producing wells

          http://speca.ca/PDF/SPE_WhatSAGDknow.pdf


          Report comment

          • Jebus

            #############################
            Assessment of water hammer effects on boiling water nuclear reactor core dynamics
            ABSTRACT

            Complex phenomena, as water hammer transients, occurring in nuclear power plants are still not very well investigated by the current best estimate computational tools. Within this frame work, a rapid positive reactivity addition into the core generated by a water hammer transient is considered. The numerical simulation of such phenomena was carried out using the coupled RELAP5/PARCS code. An over all data comparison shows good agreement between the calculated and measured core pressure wave trends. However, the predicted power response during the excursion phase did not correctly match the experimental tendency. Because of this, sensitivity studies have been carried out in order to identify the most influential parameters that govern the dynamics of the power excursion. After investigating the pressure wave amplitude and the void feed back responses, it was found that the disagreement between the calculated and measured data occurs mainly due to the RELAP5 low void condensation rate which seems to be questionable during rapid transients. .

            http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1451-3994/2007/1451-39940701018B.pdf

            ###################################

            Full condensation-induced water hammer in vertical vessels

            Objective: Condensation-induced water hammer is a thermal-hydraulic phenomenon that occurs in fluid systems when a steam and subcooled water contact directly. The consequences of such interactions could be potentially severe. They may lead to personnel injury or fatalities, piping system damage, and downtime for investigation and repair following such events. The mechanism of condensation-induced water hammer in horizontal or near horizontal pipe was intensively investigated last 30 years. Systematical studies of this phenomenon in the vertical geometry have not been performed yet. Therefore, the principal objective of…


            Report comment

            • Jebus

              ############################ =========================
              UNITED STATES
              NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
              OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
              WASHINGTON, D.C 20555-0001

              July 17, 1997

              Information Notice No. 91-50 SUPPLEMENT 1: WATER HAMMER EVENTS
              SINCE 1991

              Purpose

              The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this supplement to
              Information Notice (IN) 91-50 to alert addressees to continuing occurrences of
              water hammer events at nuclear facilities. It is expected that recipients
              will review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider
              actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar occurrences. However, suggestions
              contained in this information notice supplement do not constitute NRC require-
              ments: therefore, no specific action or written response is required.

              http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1991/in91050s1.html

              #########################==========================

              C. Samuel Martin, PhD
              Profile:
              Expert in waterhammer in various liquid systems. Former professor of hydraulics at Georgia Tech. Over 35 years experience involving waterhammer in fossil and nuclear power plant piping, water distribution systems and refrigeration piping. Expert witness in hydraulic shock litigation for ammonia refrigeration systems. Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Author of some 50 papers in waterhammer. International consultant to numerous industries concerning waterhammer problems in nuclear piping. Conducted waterhammer experiments in both water and ammonia piping. ASME sanctioned lecturer on waterhammer in piping to numerous industries. Also recognized expert in valve cavitation. Authority on condensation-induced waterhammer leading to steam explosions.

              Education/Licenses:
              BS in Civil…


              Report comment

        • hbjon hbjon

          UO2 has a melting point of 2865 C. Hmmmmmm. That is higher than Molybdenum so that would mean the pellets do stay pellets after the zircalloy cladding melts and we get the granola Arnie was talking about.


          Report comment

        • Spectrometising

          Zirconium vapourizes a tad before 2865C
          Bollocks hbjon.
          Nuclear reactions are not virgin births.
          They involve chemistry also.


          Report comment

          • Spectrometising

            Bollocks Spectro….
            Ok melts. My mistake. But even melting under those conditions, it is capable of undergoing a rapid redox reaction (RRR)
            "Zirconium Symbol: Zr Atomic Number: 40. Atomic Mass: 91.224 amu. Melting Point: 1852.0 °C (2125.15 K, 3365.6 °F) Boiling Point: 4377.0 °C "


            Report comment

            • Spectrometising

              If i had more donuts i would have got it right first shot.


              Report comment

              • Spectrometising

                EneNews should be supplying donuts to the best contributors. Survival of the fittest and all.
                It would attract a higher caliber forum members and raise the profile. Lift the game. Promote excellence.


                Report comment

                • hbjon hbjon

                  What is the first place prize for the post that best describes what caused the extinction of mankind? A dozen donuts? I think I won it. How bout this…..An epitaph that reads.. Here lies one helluva human being. HBJON. He knew what the heck happened over there in Japan. And he was not fooled by all the lies. I think their should be a contest next weekend. You can make one comment on the cause of the explosions, but must keep it under 1000 words. Then we vote Sunday night. You game spectro? Winner gets a round trip paid vacation to either Chernobyl or Fukushima. Maybe they can get Fairwinds to pay for it with all their newly acquired wealth.


                  Report comment

                • Spectrometising

                  You don't fool me hbjon. Your words are merely the methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. There are no donuts around Fukushima and Chernobyl anymore.


                  Report comment

                • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                  Just the holes are left.


                  Report comment

                • hbjon hbjon

                  My words are very simple to understand. I can use your nomanclature but it would be an obsticle for the understanding of the average member. Who are you trying to impress? Look, your chemical hokus pokus has been debunked and discarded, it only serves to distance people from the truth.


                  Report comment

                • aigeezer aigeezer

                  Lard! Batter banter almost torus asunder.


                  Report comment

    • Bones Bones

      I really have to congratulate you on the work you do at the Huffington Post. You have really balanced the arguments in the comments section and I personally think you have shut them down. I have noticed how your knowledge of the situation and the industry has exponentially grown and you can shut down each and every lie and mental tricks coming out of the, practical sellouts of their souls just for a nice paycheck, mouthpieces of the nuke pimps. That goes for everyone else that has been aggressively posting on HuffPost. You guys are beating them at their own game.

      The influence those comment sections have on people's perceptions of nuclear energy is mountainous. I can guarantee that you have changed literally thousands, probably more, of minds to understand just how dangerous and damaging nuclear power is to human life, especially the kids. I don't believe in God, but GOD BLESS YOU! (And all the rest!)

      That was a great article and really simplifies the regulatory system, and the character of those in power that allows these tragedies to happen. It shows the big picture, without debating pointless minute details, in a clear and concise manner which will reach a much wider audience than the typical article concerning the nuclear industries corruption. I can't wait to read part deux.

      You could apply everything that man said to the war machine as well. Hellbent capitalists (Fundamentalists? lol) doing whatever they can to hoard the most wealth and power.


      Report comment

      • StillJill StillJill

        That's nice bones,…I've noticed the same things in our Whoops! ("Her knowledge of the situation and the industry has exponentially grown,…and she is shutting down each and every lie and mental trick!") :-)

        I sure love seeing the positive reinforcements here!


        Report comment

  • bleep_hits_blades

    This little illustration stays in my mind – offered by a guest on Dr. Caldicott's radio show – he said that if a bicyclist rode fast about 6 ft. or less away from a bundle of those spent fuel rods, rode past them fast (a bundle, or a single one – I forget – help, someone) – he'd have gotten a LETHAL DOSE of radionuclides!

    Does anyone else remember that? I think my memory is correct…

    This is a good graphic illustration of just how toxic this material is.

    Other anecdote that lingers is the guy at Los Alamos, in the early "Whee, this is fun!" stages – he'd hold a mass close to another mass that would initiate a chain reaction. When it began, he'd pull back the mass he was holding – stop the reaction.

    BUT… it slipped out of his grasp in one of these fun little games… he recovered it immediately… but in that short time span – he was toast. He died horribly within a couple of weeks. As soon as it happened, he knew that was all she wrote for him personally.

    Others in the room got sick, depending on how close they were and if there were people in front of them or not.

    These anecdotes help us non-teccies to understand just how toxic are these fuel pellets and rods that have been scattered over the Fukushima landscape.

    If that were our only problem it would be bad enough. But I keep thnking about all that incineration of radioactive materials that is on-going…. and all that PLUTONIUM.

    Anyone still think the human race knows what the f. it is DOING?


    Report comment

  • aigeezer aigeezer

    I notice that "pieces", "fragments", "debris" and "scattered spent nuclear fuel rods" in earlier stories have morphed into "flakes" in the recent BBC story.


    Report comment

    • ENENews

      NYT did originally use the term fuel 'particles'… as well as material and fragments.

      'Flakes' brings to mind something more substantial than particles, and not something to have escaped via cracks in containment.


      Report comment

      • Sounds like a flaky story to me… :(

        Flaky stories from flaky people.. it all fits.

        Flaky is as flaky does

        Flake on


        Report comment

      • aigeezer aigeezer

        Fair enough. I guess there have been enough different collective/mass/count nouns in all the stories to obscure any actual issues of granularity.

        Possible future BBC headline: "Bulldozed flakes escaped through flake-sized cracks in containment". ;-)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun


        Report comment

      • Bones Bones

        These are some pictures of the fuel pellets found. They are from Hawaii's excellent blog. The pictures are about a quarter of the way down the page.

        http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/p/japan-nuclear-information.html

        How far have the flakes, or whatever size, traveled from the reactor. Are they mostly on site of the plant, or have they been found in any towns?


        Report comment

        • aigeezer aigeezer

          Thanks Bones. Those look like small cylinders if I understand the photo correctly, perhaps cigarette or cigar-sized? None of the stories seemed to describe that specific shape, although it fits "debris", "inventory", or even the unambiguous "broken spent nuclear fuel rods". Doesn't seem to match "flakes" though, so I wonder if there really are flakes of some kind out there or if the BBC was just spinning because "flake" sounds relatively innocuous.

          Time will tell.


          Report comment

          • Spectrometising

            Bones, algeezer, yes, your analysis seems to support the idea that to use the word "particles" or "shrapnel" is far too suggestive. "Flakes" sounds more wholesome and 'melt in your mouth'.

            It suggests all the goodness of a glass and half of full creme milk and added riboflavin.

            "The yellow cake had flakes of delicious Plutonium and Mox" sounds so good you could eat it.


            Report comment

        • jec jec

          Remember the "Radium" containers found with high radiation? Someone should map the locations. What you want to make a bet…..


          Report comment

  • bleep_hits_blades

    Like sugar-frosted flakes… ummm good.

    One general rule of thumb I have picked up – you can't trust anything these liars say. Not a damn thing. So much spin it's like a carnival ride. They are lying sacks of … well… bleep….


    Report comment

  • Sickputer

    Yes, the spent fuel rods are a hazard that the NRC doesn't want to admit or discuss. Nor does ghe NRC offer any solutions. Backward thinking naked apes, the NRC is one accident away from being as hated as Tepco.

    http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/us-stores-spent-nuclear-fuel-rods-at-4-times-pool-capacity/

    US stores spent nuclear fuel rods at 4 times pool capacity.

    Excerpts:

    "Each Fukushima spent fuel pool holds about 100 metric tons, he says, while each US pool holds from 500-700 metric tons. A single pool fire would release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity, rendering 17-22,000 square miles of area uninhabitable. That’s about the size of New Hampshire and Vermont – from one pool fire."

    "Engineer Keith Harmon Snow couldn’t agree more. He recently lambasted the NRC and mainstream media for downplaying the ongoing catastrophe in Japan. He notes that, “The atomic bomb that exploded at Hiroshima created about 2000 curies of radioactivity. The spent fuel pools at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant (U.S.) are said to hold about 75 million curies.” [emphasis added]"


    Report comment

    • Whoopie Whoopie

      got yours there too sick.


      Report comment

    • gottagetoffthegrid

      this is the fuel load in each of the SPFS and the often forgotten shared SPF from a Scientific American article that quotes Mainichi News:

      quote

      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.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-fuel-fukushima

      unquote.

      1744 tons of spent fuel in pools total.


      Report comment

  • Total Fukushima Radiation Released Into Ocean, Air, Groundwater, Storage Tanks, etc http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/3069802
    A Green Road Blog
    http://www.agreenroadblog.com


    Report comment

  • Carrington Event and Astronomy
    THE LIE: "Nuclear is Safe as Long as You Can Feed Power Into Them"/ Carrington Event

    Link below is to a real bearish website, sheesh, more bearish than my view even.
    http://solarstormwarning.com/

    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.

    On January 22, 2012 we had a "Wake Up Call"

    http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/astronomy-and-carrington.html


    Report comment

  • entropy

    The story was written in the first few hours. But they are making it last 13 episodes.
    It's un believable the luck tepco has had. Seems scripted. Things like, we poured sea water in it in the nick of time. They let it go dry, it went up, it went down. But how do you tell a planet, whoops. We got five years? (David Bowie reference)


    Report comment

  • Whoopie Whoopie

    Or-well, I saw this through a tweet. Maybe you could do something like this: http://poemsfromreality.blogspot.com/


    Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    It seems to me that this one area where a lot of obfuscation has occurred.

    Before Fukushima, my very basic understanding of this process was as follows.

    Rods full of enriched uranium are put in a reactor. Those rods of enriched uranium functioning in the reactor is what creates plutonium. A substance not otherwise found anywhere in the natural world and one which is derived from this process only. The average nuclear reactor produces 250 pounds of plutonium A YEAR.

    That said, a core explosion with fresh rods would have minimal plutonium. In the case of reactor 3 MOX fuel is used, where they mix enriched uranium with plutonium at the onset, therefor plutonim is present from the get go.

    Furthermore, SFP placed directly adjacent to the core, held upwards of 40 years of spent fuel. This spent fuel may not have had the plutonium removed. I presume this to be the case.

    40 years of spent fuel at 250 lbs a year is 10,000 lbs of plutonium alone, not to mention the variety of radionuclides involved.

    Anti nuke advocates consistenty claim that it takes less than 10 lbs of plutonium to infect everyone with fatal disease if properly allocated to each and every human being.

    There have been mutliple claims, as obscure as they have been, that some few hundred pounds of plutonium may have been involved.

    No testing data, or anything of the like has been publicly released discussing the details of how much there was/is in the damaged reactors or released from them.

    However, it is possible that we are dealing with as much as 10,000 lbs of the stuff in one SFP! According to generally accepted facts about how much plutonium is produced in the process.

    The debate about escaped rods and subsequently finding pieces of them has waxed and waned, some saying the core is bad and or worse than the spent fuel pool.

    Based on this I have always held that the sfp presented more of a threat than the core.

    Either way, these issues have never properly addressed.


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      A note.

      Teh 250 pounds per year, maybe 250 kg.

      I have seen both figures so I am not sure.

      If it is the later, or Kilograms, we are dealing with more than double the amount per year in pounds or 500 plus pounds per year.

      I state this because nowhere has this been addressed to my knowledge and it is what first came to my mind when I realized the design of the containments had full spent fuel pools.

      Those pools were originally designed as storage for replacing fuel, maintenance etc. They were designed to be used to store spent fuel. Calling them spent fuel pools is deceptive in that way.

      I find it odd that a lay person like me could be aware of this yet it has never surfaced to the point that it has been officially addressed.

      That said, there has been much conflicting information over what was where. How many rods in each core and pool. But to my mind nothing definitive and certainly nothing remotely close to the actual truth in terms of what was released in that first set of explosion, in particular with reactor 3.

      This is what set me off on this whole journey.

      Any clarity people could provide would be helpful.


      Report comment

    • entropy

      Thanks Kevin. These thoughts have gone through my mind as well. Don't mean to be such a downer in my previous post. No matter what be good to those around you.


      Report comment

  • kein kein

    it's over.get a towelgo to the beach,beer anyone? chill….


    Report comment

  • Laterlukemayb Laterlukemayb

    I've read articles that have claimed the Chernobyl event had a great release of radioactive material than Fukushima. I just don't see how this could be the case in a situation where 2 possibly 3 breaches of the containment vessels have occurred at the Daiichi plant. Is this propaganda meant for U.S. consumption?


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      I think it is more commonly known as a bold face lie.

      In this case undertaken to downplay the severity of which I have outlined above.


      Report comment

      • Laterlukemayb Laterlukemayb

        Yes I see you analogy Kevin, will anyone be able to answer, don't know. I think though at this site in this arena that most observations the average anti-nuker who is mostly ignorant in matters pertaining to things nuclear will be for the most part glanced at and passed on by. How many times has history told us though (in hindsight) that those with more knowledge should have taken notice of a novices seemingly simple observation that could have changed the course of that history?


        Report comment

  • bleep_hits_blades

    Whoopie,I was thinking, Wow, it is good that Whoopie posts this stuff to HP… then thinking, She reminds me of myself, my drive to 'eddicate the world'… then next thought was, Yeah, gotta hurry and bring all these ignorant 'f**kers up to speed quick, before they die of radiation poisoning!

    We're in a race against time!

    What is the 'right' response in a situation such as this… that's a tough question. I just keep hoping it really is not all that bad … then getting some more stats like about all the plutonium an spent fuel rods and pools and pellets – and how they really aren't 'spent' at all… and it just seems an open-and-shut case, we are doomed.

    About the best I can say for it is that is it as interesting as hell. (Apt comparison there…)


    Report comment

  • gottagetoffthegrid

    heres an article from bloomberg from March 16:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/pools-storing-spent-fuel-may-present-biggest-risk-at-fukushima.html
    it has parts of an interview with Robert Kelley, an engineer in Vienna who used to lead the Nuclear Emergency Response at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

    quote
    As water evaporates and exposes the fuel, the uranium in the rods can burn through a protective sheath emitting heat and radioactive cesium. After that, the uranium may mix with any remaining water to start an uncontrolled nuclear reaction that sends radiation into the atmosphere, scientists said.
    “Dissolving uranium in water is the way to make a certain kind of nuclear reactor,” Kelley said in an e-mailed response to questions. “In this uncontrolled situation, the ‘reactor’ will have no human control and begin fissioning.”
    unquote

    my lay interpretation of that is it could be possible that the whole damn pool went boom.


    Report comment

  • Anthony Anthony

    All the King's horses
    And all the King's men
    Couldn't put Humpty
    Together again.


    Report comment

  • lokay5

    All the king's horses
    And all the king's men
    Raped the Queen


    Report comment

  • FaraFola

    Because of MOX in #3, a whole reactor was blown a sky high, you can watch a videos, there's no reactor anymore.

    MOX reactor was heated rapidly and without a coolant reaction was a nuclear explosion, so findings of blown rods it's not very suprising at all.

    SFP no:4 is a still question mark? What's the status now and will it collapse…


    Report comment

  • CaptD CaptD

    Here are two of my favorite "mission impossible" links,
    … to describe what actually happened on 3/11:

    Secret Weapons Program Inside Fukushima Nuclear Plant?
    http://is.gd/6KFhSI

    and

    SECRET US-Israeli Nuke Weapons Transfers Led To Fukushima Blasts
    http://is.gd/TTaK7L

    Either way you look at it Japan has been dealt a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster that could have (and may still) become a much bigger Global polluting problem thanks to the triple meltdowns and or the missing corium(s)!

    Remember Russia, China and India are the farthest "downwind" from Japan, while North America is the closest…
    +
    If Japan did have a secret NUKE lab under the Fukushima complex, then that could explain why TEPCO has been able to have a free hand dealing with this Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster since they are "in" on the secret!


    Report comment