Reports: ‘Deformed’ containment vessel cover at Fukushima Reactor 3 — Center panel of concrete cover ‘broken and sunken’ (PHOTOS & VIDEO)

Published: February 15th, 2014 at 11:11 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
687 comments


Enformable, Feb. 14, 2014: This week TEPCO released new photos [...] The investigation conducted by the utility [...] found that the shield plug which covers the primary containment vessel was deformed. [...] The shield plug is around 600 mm thick, and the edges have been found to be displaced by 300 mm.

Tepco’s Japanese-only press handout here

SimplyInfo, Feb. 14, 2014: [Tepco] floated two possible causes. One being the explosion itself, the other being the overhead crane falling on the covers as part of the blast. The crane portion that holds the hook is what is assumed to have done the damage. The center panel of the concrete cover is broken and sunken. [...]

Watch footage of the investigation attempt here

Published: February 15th, 2014 at 11:11 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
687 comments

Related Posts

  1. New pics of Reactor No. 3 show crane has collapsed onto leaking containment vessel (VIDEO) October 20, 2011
  2. IAEA ***NOT for distribution***: Molten core is suspected to have penetrated Fukushima containment vessel — Prime Minister on 3/11: We couldn’t be in Tokyo if melted fuel went through containment vessel (VIDEO) December 18, 2013
  3. Nuclear Engineer: Footage shows me “it’s broken… there’s really no containment” at Fukushima Reactor 3 — I expect many different kinds of leaks will be found — Radioactive contaminants “basically floating freely” (AUDIO) January 24, 2014
  4. Japan Official: Bottom of reactor vessel suspected to have “broken off” at Fukushima Unit 2 after the explosion, called “catastrophic development… very grave” — Top US Expert: It’s inconceivable how melted fuel could be extracted (VIDEO) June 13, 2014
  5. NHK: More damage being discovered in Fukushima Reactor No. 1 — “Destruction” at containment vessel — Concerned about tons of water draining from unknown cracks and holes (VIDEO) January 31, 2014

687 comments to Reports: ‘Deformed’ containment vessel cover at Fukushima Reactor 3 — Center panel of concrete cover ‘broken and sunken’ (PHOTOS & VIDEO)

  • retali8 retali8

    unrepairable damage folks..

    still to this day no technology exists to get anywhere near those hot reactors, let alone elvis (molten coriums) that left the buildings completely, hang in there folks, it will definetly be a bumpy ELE ride.


    Report comment

    • OneWhoRelates

      I'm starting to think this might not be an ELE but rather and FEE (Forced Evolutionary Event).

      If we look at Chernobyl we can see that several species have undergone mutation and in some rare cases positively so, please do not take this as I condone in any form what has happened. There is a saying amongst chaostitions, followers of chaos theory school of mathematics, "Life will find a way."; popularized in Jurassic Park.

      Burying it for the next 3 million years might be a good idea, but to properly bury it would require at a minimum of 50 cubic miles of uncontaminated earth and we would have to dump a large part of this the ocean to help create a plug of the ground water.


      Report comment

      • john dpugh

        onewhorelates It doesnt work like that . Isotopes keep bombarding and animals and plants keep mutating . Eventually they all die. Its not a one time event to create SOME advantages so it would reshape evolution . Eventually everything alive dies.


        Report comment

        • Jebus

          Yep, mankind is compressing Mother Nature's millions of years of decaying, stardust radiation induced, natural selection, into a manmade, unnaturally selected, decaying, handbasket of time…


          Report comment

        • FallOut FallOut

          Institute Of Marine Science UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
          THE UPTAKE, ACCUMDLATION AND EXCHANGE OF RADIOISOTOPES BY OPEN SEA PHYTOPLANKTON

          Sponsored by the : International Atomic Energy Agency

          The ability to accumulate and concentrate the cesium and strontium from
          the sea water medium was primarily through absorption with adsorption playing
          only a very minor role. Hence, when radioactive cells were placed in fresh
          media the loss of radioactivity to the medium was small and a steady state
          was established very quickly, usually with 24 hours. Since absorption seems
          to be primarily responsible for the accumulation strontium and cesium by the
          phytoplankton it is of the utmost importance that more is learned, of the
          basic mechanisms involved.

          And now that it is known that phytoplankton are not confined to the euphotic zone (Kimball, Corcoran, Wood, 1963) and that the radioisotopes of cesium and strontium do penetrate to great oceanic depths (Bowen and Sugihara, 1960, Miyake , e_t aj^ 1962), this study becomes still more important. The use of cultures for this type of study of fundamentals is ideal but extra- polation of these results to the open sea environment should not be done without first making a thorough _in situ investigation.

          http://archive.org/stream/uptakeaccumulati00corc/uptakeaccumulati00corc_djvu.txt


          Report comment

          • FallOut FallOut

            Phytoplankton are photosynthesizing microscopic organisms that inhabit the upper sunlit layer of almost all oceans and bodies of fresh water. They are agents for "primary production," the creation of organic compounds from carbon dioxide dissolved in the water, a process that sustains the aquatic food web.[2] Phytoplankton obtain energy through the process of photosynthesis and must therefore live in the well-lit surface layer (termed the euphotic zone) of an ocean, sea, lake, or other body of water. Phytoplankton account for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth.[3] Thus phytoplankton are responsible for much of the oxygen present in the Earth's atmosphere – half of the total amount produced by all plant life.


            Report comment

            • We Not They Finally

              YES on phytoplankton! That alone makes this a long-range disaster. That's actually the greatest absorber of CO2 AND the greatest emitter of oxygen. It's brain-dead for people to rant on about CO2 emissions and then ignore this. The environmental movement has been shanghaied by lies. Anyone who wants to protect life on Earth has to go with NO NUCLEAR PERIOD.


              Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              FallOut, can you please explain (w/o my reading the entire study you cited) why the steady state was achieved by adsorption? Was the water chemistry or biochemical principle or effect working in the study explained?

              I'm really curious to know, because I've wondered how the phytoplankton is being affected by the radiation. The Pacific Ocean has been experiencing massive photoplankton die-offs since at least the 1980's. At that time, it was thought the CFC's (chlorinated fluorocarbons) burning holes in the ozone layer were chiefly to blame. Or at least that was hypothesized at that time. The author whose work I studied also stated water-borne pollution surely played some role, as well.


              Report comment

              • FallOut FallOut

                Not sure about that I just started studying the food chain. Came across this study.

                …. " While our knowledge of the mechanisms for the uptake andaccumulation of radioisotopes by phytoplankton is still vague and incomplete, studies of
                organisms found in the effluent from nuclear reactors and in the radioactive
                sea water following a nuclear explosion have shown plankton capable of concentrating certain radioisotopes from water.

                Lackey (1957) found that Oedognonium in a settling basin at Oak Ridge National Laboratory had a count 10,000 times that of the water in which it was growing. The blue- green, algae growing in the thermal waters of the nuclear reactor effluents of the Savannah River Plant were able to concentrate the mixed fission and corrosion products by factors as great as 10,000 (Watts & Harvey, 1963)


                Report comment

                • unincredulous unincredulous

                  That is just crazy. I wonder if the phytoplankton was still alive with 10,000 times as much radiation as the surrounding water. Or does phytoplankton absorb radiation after it is dead? If so, they could be used to absorb radiation at Fukushima and elsewhere.

                  Maybe that is the elite's survival secret, they have stockpiles of dead phytoplankton to absorb all this radiation after the big die off of mankind…to take the "conspiracy theory" to it's conclusion. I still can't believe that the Pacific Ocean is being poisoned to the point of mass die offs and food supply ruination and no one is making a big fuss about it in the media.


                  Report comment

                  • FallOut FallOut

                    I think in the study they test for that, absorption how and why.

                    In the link below on the food chain it talks about phytoplankton density in the eddies that develop in the cross currents, then the food chain life begins. The phytoplankton produce 50% of the world oxygen / introduces carbon compounds the water, main basis for large portion of ocean based food.

                    This is how the bio accumulation starts up-chain killing everything down the road as the accumulation grows.


                    Report comment

                  • It doesn't seem out of cast to speak about conspiracy theories considering the real silence and silenced of japan subsequent to the passing of the "shut'em all up" law and laws yet to follow….
                    Yoichi Shimatsu has discussed th truth of this silenced public and it seems so odd that anything has been said and yet the unprecedented ENENews response of over 600+ comments in just few days and rolling….
                    here is Yoichi's Jan 14 comments on the death of the press in japan and the truth that there's been a massive exodus of japanese outta there…
                    http://wyynd.tripod.com/ys2.txt

                    hope to transcript his more recent interviews..


                    Report comment

          • FallOut FallOut

            ( E.L.E ) • " Extinction Level Event "


            Report comment

          • ioff101der

            I moved this comment of two minutes ago from the back of the pack:

            "Fall Out and intuitive others may be lighting the way to the attenuation of this catastrophe: Is it possible to purposefully 'grow' phytoplankton, kelp and any other sea flora/fauna in such density near the discharge points that harvesting and proper rendering of the radioactive bio-mass would be an appropriate method of preventing greater-ocean contamination?"


            Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        2 ToOneWhoRelates, in the "old days" up through at least the 1970's, mutations were considered to be a form of genetic damage, when radiation was involved. It was (and is in some medical, scientific, and other circles) considered to be a result of damage to DNA, and not beneficial. Rather, it introduced disease, deformities, and unsoundness in the life form affected.

        The effect upon very small organisms which can mutate and adapt quite quickly to adverse conditions may not be so clear.

        Am curious to know, how has the theory of evolution and in terms of micro- or macro- evolution, how does chaos theory tie in? I'm not familiar with the argument larger organisms (larger than viruses and some bacteria, possibly smaller microscopic parasites and such) can adapt and survive extremely adverse toxic exposure or radiation without deformity or net loss of DNA integrity resulting.

        Let me re-phrase that. I read your first statement above as implying or asserting that chaotic "outlier" events (think statistics) causing adverse effects on living organisms may have positive adaptive outcomes. Those outcomes can be framed as positive micro- or macro- evolution, if I'm interpreting your statement correctly.

        How do you know life can adapt under the extremely adverse conditions of exposure to intensely radioactive elements?


        Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          2 ToOneWhoRelates, I, too, am hopeful "life will find a way." What are you are saying, though, runs counter (at least in my mind) to accepted theory of linear no dose threshold. That is, even low dose radiation exposure may be very harmful to living organisms.

          When did thinking in genetics shift to incorporating chaos theory, and how does this apply to the theory (and I'll say it's still an hypothesis on the macro-evolutionary level) of evolution?

          Can you please cite any papers from the fields of genetics, biology, medicine, or statistics where chaos theory has been accepted as a constructive macro- or micro- evolutionary mechanism?

          I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you said. Please explain.


          Report comment

      • rogerthat

        From one who relates: ''If we look at Chernobyl we can see that several species have undergone mutation and in some rare cases positively so.''
        …????


        Report comment

    • Yoichi Shimatsu's latest discussion in brief transcript…

      for fast absorbing…please take time to listen to the entire interview…things are seriously bleak…

      we need citizens to shake off the "paralysis" and measure the radiation at all levels and with all methods available…

      http://wyynd.tripod.com/ys3.txt

      this is the text only you don't need to spend time weeding thru the website…youtube url of course is also there…


      Report comment

  • SykeWar(DELETED) SykeWar

    So then the #3 explosion was only gas? Huh.


    Report comment

    • infounderload infounderload

      I just watched the youtube of #3 exploding again. There were three distinct booms, or explosions. I doubt it was just gas. I am flummoxed and befuddled.

      It seems suspicious that tepco has a change of heart to sudden truthiness by releasing real information and videos lately.


      Report comment

      • dosdos dosdos

        It was two explosions, one hydrogen deflagration and one nuclear detonation. The hydrogen deflagration began at the north end of the building and traveled to the south end, making it appear to be two hydrogen explosions. The warping of the plug cap was done by the nuclear detonation from below, which created the vertical column of dark smoke. The mast (crane) head fell directly into the spent fuel pool after the support structure was torn asunder by the detonation.


        Report comment

        • Arizonan Arizonan

          I've watched that #3 explosion several times, and have listened to every single one of Gunderson's analyses of the event, along with several others. Dosdos has it down quite accurately. It was both hydrogen, and then a small nuclear detonation, which occurred. What doesn't make sense to me is why the containment cap is still there at all, warped or not. The explosion looks like it went straight up. I would have thought the cap would have been dislodged entirely. Why wasn't it? Any thoughts on this?


          Report comment

          • Arizonan Arizonan

            OK, perhaps the explosion was NOT inside reactor. From other things I have read, it appears that the hydrogen builds up as and after the reactor core has melted down. Thus, it seems, the reactor melted DOWN, the hydrogen went UP and sideways, and the nuclear detonation occurred in the spent field pool. There is isotopic evidence 30-60% of cesium came from spent fuel pools. Reactor cap is clearly still there, so the reactor itself did not explode upwards. Is this everyone else's understanding?


            Report comment

            • The reactor cap is still there because it doesn't have to physically exit the building in order to let out a pressure impulse or two. There are many factors. Remember, the 100 ton lid on Chernobyl's containment was only tipped, but not removed. Depending on the force vector of the Fukushima Unit 3 explosions, the shield plug could have temporarily lifted, and then returned to a position close to original.

              Maybe a bigger explosion would have fully liberated the shield plug, but the explosions we had were only forceful enough to perhaps lift it temporarily, or to warp it, permitting the pressure impulses to be resolved, and then also permitting the shield plug to settle back in place immediately thereafter.

              So we have a warped shield plug with cracks in the center of the bottom side, according to the image.

              TEPCO always has trouble deploying facts along with conjecture. The conjecture is always wishful and in denial. I reject their conjecture that the cap is warped due to the crane falling on it. They don't want to face the unpleasant reality that the cap is warped because a huge pressure impulse (or two) in the containment vessel warped it.

              To admit that, would be to admit the possibility that a hundred or so tons of MOX fuel suddenly broke through the bottom of the RPV in two catastrophic events, one second apart, leading to two massive steam explosions, with massive liberation of the MOX reactor core into our environment.

              They'll come around…


              Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters

                Thanks PostNuclear. Your explanation and dosdos' much appreciated.


                Report comment

              • Radio Radio

                PostNuclear, i remember that being suggested by a few such as Arnie, too, way, way back. In fact, the golden lid which must sit on top of the plug was jarred and did not seat back down. So, if what you're saying is what happened, then the curvature on the sides could very easily be the escaping detonation coming round the sides – warping. Well said about TEPCO's conjecture being "wishful and in denial."


                Report comment

              • ExpertNuc

                An RBMK reactor (Chernobyl) is much much different in design than a BWR (Fukushima). If the BWR reactor head was not obliterated there would be no means for the reactor internals (fuel assemblies) to eject their contents. Frankly, the fuel melted in a clump. Either way, the material that was ejected into the atmosphere with the explosion was not from the reactor. There would be zirconium along with the fuel pieces and I dont believe they found fuel cladding in the yard.


                Report comment

                • I reference Chernobyl only to dispel the dogma that since the shield plug is still in place, move along, there's nothing to see here.

                  IIRC the RBMK design uses about 100 tons of fuel, so the scale of the reactors are of the same magnitude. The power excursion at Chernobyl caused a steam explosion, resulting in the containment lid left teetering at the top of the containment. The steam explosion blew reactor material sky high, but the containment lid ended up pretty much where it was before the explosion, albeit now at an angle relative to the design orientation.

                  So when we look at FD and we see the shield plug in its normal position, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it wasn't temporarily displaced by a steam explosion inside of what up till then was an in-tact containment.


                  Report comment

            • Nigwil

              The explosions were in the room space (the first hydrogen explosion) then the prompt criticality occurred in the SFP due to the rods being shoved together by the H explosion; there were two distinct explosions there which ejected spent fuel rods all over the place, along with the roof. So the damage to the cap of the reactor containment is from down-falling debris and possibly from one of the detonations.

              The containment was already ruptured below by then so I doubt there was an actual explosion within the primary containment of any size to damage the cap – it would have had to blow the steel cap off the primary containment before it took off the lid slabs, and there is no sign of that.


              Report comment

              • Nigwil

                From the vids it looks like large debris rose about 500 metres above the building. From 500 metres up it would have hit the slab travelling at about 100 metres per second (360 km/h or 220 mph), so there is plenty of kinetic energy there for say the crane motor to whack and crack the slab.

                The planes that hit the World Trade were doing 400 to 500 mph (650 to 800 km/h, 180 to 220 m/s) and were a bit more massive than the largest debris that would have hit the deck here.


                Report comment

          • AirSepTech AirSepTech

            http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/pictures-high-quality.html

            What made the cookie cutter hole in #3 turbine house roof?
            What is the spaghetti stix laying all around?

            In the video of #3 detonation, what are the very heavy items
            blown straight up? And fall almost straight down.
            Hydrogen has no visable flame/soot, other units show this.

            Arizonan you have a point that is valid. There is not much in common with the other unit explosions. There was nothing above #3 SFP to launch but the crane, laying in the SFP.

            It was a directed energy blast. No way the lid is on #3

            What containment exists in that building to direct the amount of energy required for the explosion on the video?


            Report comment

      • Starbird Starbird

        The above video
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms3H50LfEqQ shows clearly that the explosion at R3 DID NOT emanate from the reactor as so many have assumed…

        The major damage to the R3 bld is the NW corner. There is very little video of the North end of R3. This video is one of the few that shows it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-e1HRHcbgc Pause at about :32 This video shows 6' thick concrete posts blown outward on the floor below the reactor floor in the NW corner.

        Look at the photo taken on Oct 10, 2011. http://ex-skf.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/ot-is-this-level-of-understanding-on.html In this photo, the NW corner is at bottom left. This ovhd shot shows the concrete floor of the reactor bld completely missing in this NW corner. Clearly, there was a massive explosion on the floor below that blew outward the 6' thick vertical columns and blew upward the reactor floor in the explosion shown in videos.
        This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGhOW3DLlow shows at least two, or if the sound can be believed, three explosions in quick succession. In the slow motion sequence starting at about 1:25, the first explosion is the fireball in the south end of the bld over the sfp. Next is the major explosion – both visually and sonically – towards the North of the bld, followed by the sound of a smaller third explosion.


        Report comment

  • Shaker1

    If this were the only damage to containment and the only leak source I'd be happy, as I'm sure we all would be. Personally, I'd bet that the only value of this access at this point would be in some obscure future for some useless forensic study undertaken by a team of three-eyed chimps pounding upon it with a rock. That's even if in some impossibility it remained in the current physical configuration as it is.

    We who are old enough to remember Brylcream (They still make that stuff?) might find some answer in the language of their old ads:
    "A little dab'll do ya."

    Plop some concrete over the mess. Maybe they're worried that covering it will somehow hamper their 'efforts', or doing that will compromised pressure relief from all the water they're pouring on the hot material that likely isn't in there anyway? Can't make it any worse, can it?


    Report comment

    • fireguyjeff fireguyjeff

      OT for Shaker:
      Believe it nor not, Brylcreem is still available here in the US.
      Walgreens carries it!!
      That there is still any market for it is a complete mystery to me.

      But hey, since so many people have so many Rube Goldberg ideas of
      how to address the Fuku situation, how about a perpetual Burma Shave
      dispensing machine to catch all the nasty stuff in foam??!!
      A giant glob of foam parked on Fuku and we can forget about it and
      get on with our lives.


      Report comment

      • unincredulous unincredulous

        That idea does seem to have high potential. At least for the airborne radiation. Some kind of foam, or a big bubble draining off the radiation. Maybe some kind of charged particle thingie. A zeolite bubble bath? A gel? A gel cap on Fuku instead of concrete that might make future work more difficult…


        Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          How about a basin like a giant birdbath all around the perimeter of each reactor building, or the entire site? Spray some kind of goo mist or spray (which would precipitate and not cause radioactive steam to develop) onto the reactor buildings and whatever's exposed, 24/7, 365.25 days per year. Whatever's in the goop can bind neutrons or adsorb/absorb the nasties.

          Keep adding water if the goo can shed it off or be washed into the basin after coating the reactors/pools/buildings. Catch the runoff in the giant birdbath structure. Filter the runoff, recycle the goo if possible, or dessicate the goo with the nasties entrapped in it. Then dispose of it in the safest area possible, using the safest possible procedures.

          Or build netting using high tensile strength radiation resistant materials (do they exist?) in them. Drop them over the top of the reactor buildings. Borosilicate strands? Something incorporating graphene? Goo with the things above? Boron goo? Graphene goo? Clay mixed with the stuff above, or peat moss netting with some clay?

          Hard to say how long they would last, but something is better than nothing. We need to keep thinking outside the box, "Rube Goldberg" or not. Sooner or later someone may may have a viable concept.

          How's that for new Rube Goldberg ideas?


          Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            If any water used in the above, should not be a part of the goo being used. The idea is, don't produce steam unless you can capture and filter it.


            Report comment

          • Radio Radio

            Mushrooms and phytoplankton save the planet! I can see them growing in a medium of salty ponds for the plankton and a fertilizer medium smeared over the buildings sprayed with 'shroom spores. The other thing i wonder about is if anyone is using electromagnetic attractors to start drawing the heavier radioactive elements together. They could be deployed and floated in the ocean to try and grab particles as they flow by, keep them in an area until scooped up, treated, water removed, then given the mushroom treatment for later dry storage. But, maybe the devices would become too hot or the accumulation risks becoming fissile.


            Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              Hi Radio, I gather you've seen Dr. Paul Stammet's work, then. He's from Washington State University and I think he proposes mycellium to clean up toxic waste, even nuclear waste. Yes, something that should be researched, IMO. I'm not sure I understand the phytoplankton part of this yet, but it apparently acts like a "sponge" for radiation.

              I'm big on peat moss, as that has been used to clean up toxic oil spills.

              Maybe some combo of all three could be used? Or at least by consumers, farmers? And what about incorporating some of these things into air filters? Moist or dry air filtration?

              Post-reactor, that is, for the second part, for protection, detoxification, remediation of soil, water, air.


              Report comment

    • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

      Shaker1 said, brilliantly: "some useless forensic study undertaken by a team of three-eyed chimps pounding upon it with a rock"
      :)
      Seriously, a forensic study should be ongoing throughout the decommissioning. Photograph and study the rubble as it is removed from the building ruins. Otherwise, we may neverknow what happened at Fukushima, nor actions we could take to keep this disaster from happening another 100 times, as the world's nucler plants destroy themselves.

      Oh, i get it. Quietly destroying the evidence is kind of what the decommissioning process at Fukushima is all about. ;)


      Report comment

      • Shaker1

        PUN, I totally agree with you about comprehensive recording of all that goes on at that site. While I can understand that assumptions are necessary when approaching this from a spontaneous and expedient view, such recording will make taking up useless assumptions in a similar situation unnecessary. Continuing the sarcasm in my original comment, I might think that such recording will keep all those too educated and somehow well thought of doing something other than pick up a shovel or a hammer in the thought that 'they're getting things done'. On a more serious level, though, I'm not trying to belittle those who might use such research to avoid the mistakes that have happened and with the hope the research is correctly interpreted.

        Oh, and by the way, I hope that by stating 'plop some concrete over the mess' that wasn't interpreted as an advocation of burying the site now and hoping for the best. I was just referring to covering over that particular shield plug. I've paid attention to your posts regarding actions that should be taken, and have found great suggestions with which I'm in agreement almost totally. It's unfortunate that what comes out of those suggestions isn't action but only a contradiction and example of what's not being done.


        Report comment

  • newsblackoutUSA newsblackoutUSA

    Nearly three years into this and they decided to look at the containment cover? What am I missing here? I don't believe this is a "new" photo, maybe recently released, but new…?

    I am sure there were many satellite photos taken of the reactors and they all need to be released now.


    Report comment

    • Ontological Ontological

      They shut off ALL ways to monitor this from space about a week or so into the accident. They realized what the thermal data was telling them, freaked and shut em all down to public use. I would be very interested to see the collection of images they have to data also.


      Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      NewsBlackout, it's likely all debris over reactor had to be removed before containment cover could be examined. Examine photos & video taken shortly after #3 blew. You'll see an enormous amount of debris all over the top of the equipment inside the building & crane fallen on pool/reactor vessel.

      Cranes & robotic equipment helping to remove debris for a long time. It's likely Tepco wasn't able to examine containment cover in detail 'til now. There is only so much that can be done with remote control and robotic cameras.

      It WAS apparent (if memory serves), top of Reactor 3 was displaced & shifted to one side. Many bolts around top of containment vessel were sheared off. I think I recall some pics of top of Reactor 3, It was clear it had lost containment after explosions/detonation(s) there on March 14, 2011. Top of reactor vessel shifted to one side.

      Many good closeup pics and video here showing damage to top of Reactor vessel head.

      Worth reviewing:

      http://enenews.com/nuclear-engineer-radioactive-steam-continuously-leaking-out-of-reactor-no-3-its-important-to-recognize-how-serious-damage-is-at-this-reactor-video

      Worthwhile also to recall Gunderson said the initial explosion occurred over the spent fuel pool. Also stated: steam in center proved containment breached. And much more dangerous to approach in this damaged condition.


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        OK, it's #4 that had top of containment vessel showing loosened bolts. Tepco was getting ready to refuel or was refueling Reactor 4.

        See video from about 2:20 on.

        http://www.popscreen.com/v/6j1V0/Containment-vessel-dome-reactor-4-Fukushima-Daiichi-nuclear-power-plant

        IMO they couldn't examine #3 containment cover before removing debris. Am assuming this also means fallen crane was removed.

        Damage to plant:

        http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp15/daiichi-photos15.htm

        And:

        http://www.zerohedge.com/article/chris-martenson-exclusive-new-photos-fukushima-reactors

        Units 1 & 3 reactor cores completely uncovered for a period of time, from NRC (?) document (FOIA):

        http://enformable.com/2012/07/march-13th-2011-fukushima-daiichi-units-1-and-3-have-experienced-core-damage-the-reactor-cores-were-completely-uncovered-for-a-period-of-time/

        From me:

        HoTaters
        March 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm

        Jackassrig, am pretty sure there were photos of #3 early on showing close-ups of sheared-off bolts and the reactor head either off the reactor. Or it had shifted off to one side (maybe not completely fallen off). Came out right around the time the #3 SPF went Kaboom!

        Think maybe it was a video if not still photos. Video most likely.

        We must stay on this like detectives to understand what happened.

        http://enenews.com/analysis-reactor-3-cap-appears-be-fractured-explosion-falling-crane-examined-possible-video

        Can anyone further address?


        Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          From Cryptome, high resolution photos:

          http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm

          Worth re-posting:
          HoTaters
          March 6, 2012 at 1:01 pm

          From NRC discussion on March 16, 2011, NRC discussing walls and structure of Unit 4 completely gone, spent fuel pool dry. Discussion says because NRC had reported SPF only dry (and not lacking walls, etc) they might go with what had already been reported (just dry), to be consistent.

          http://enformable.com/2012/03/nrc-transcript-tepco-relayed-information-unit-4-sfp-dry-walls-collapsed-and-incapable-of-holding-inventory-unit-3-everything-else-gone/
          The headline:

          NRC Transcript – TEPCO relayed information Unit 4 SFP Dry – Walls collapsed and incapable of holding inventory – Unit 3 “everything else gone” –
          Posted by Enformable on March 5, 2012 in BWR, FOIA, Fukushima Disaster, March 2011, NRC, Top Docs – FOIA · 1 Comments

          The more I read from the NRC transcripts, the more upsetting it gets … CYA, we can't change our story even if it's bad and it's the truth, because we've got to be consistent!

          Arrrgh!


          Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            HoTaters
            March 6, 2012 at 1:13 pm

            From article linked above:

            CHUCK CASTO: And we certainly know, I think we absolutely know that pool No. 4, though, the walls have collapsed ….
            BRUCE: — you indicated that the walls of the pool were damaged or down?
            CHUCK CASTO: Yes.
            NRC CHAIRMAN JACZKO: I’m not going to get into that level of detail. I mean the relevant factor is it’s dry.
            CHUCK CASTO: Yes, and they can’t maintain inventory at all.
            MALE PARTICIPANT: Chuck, we got a briefing before from Tony and John, and they indicated that there was structural integrity to the core pool.
            CHUCK CASTO: When was that?
            MALE PARTICIPANT: That was about four hours ago.
            CHUCK CASTO: Well, then, I need to tell the Chairman that because that’s not what we understood just a few hours ago.
            MALE PARTICIPANT: But it’s okay because he’s not going to get into that level of detail. But we just need to be careful about consistency in the assessment of the information. I know it’s going to change, too.
            CHUCK CASTO: Yes, well, we were consistent. That’s what we heard; that’s the last we were told, that the walls were not there.
            MALE PARTICIPANT: Right. Because our discussion with part of your team was we thought you had abandoned the notion of putting coolant back in that pool and that you were looking more at dropping sand or something else like that?
            CHUCK CASTO: No, we didn’t suggest that at all yesterday. The Reactor Safety Team suggested the sand. We were still working with water on…


            Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              Who's on first? This sounds like an Abbott and Costello skit (above).

              CHUCK CASTO: No, we didn’t suggest that at all yesterday. The Reactor Safety Team suggested the sand. We were still working with water on all four pools.
              And, then, I said let’s go both ways.
              BILL RUAN: Yes, because there’s no fuel pool left.
              CHUCK CASTO: Right.
              BILL RUAN: Unit 3, he believes
              [redacted]
              And basically, everything else is gone, and at least in his opinion, and, of course,
              Chuck knows this, Jim’s opinion is there’s no water in the pool.
              FEMALE PARTICIPANT: Unit 3?
              BILL RUAN: Unit 3.
              Unit 2, he believes it’s drying out….
              BILL RUAN: They’re drying it out.
              And, then, the only pool that might be okay is Unit 1.

              Also discussed problems with…
              Did you get this?

              CHUCK CASTO: No, we didn’t suggest that at all yesterday. The Reactor Safety Team suggested the sand. We were still working with water on all four pools.
              And, then, I said let’s go both ways.
              BILL RUAN: Yes, because there’s no fuel pool left.
              CHUCK CASTO: Right.
              BILL RUAN: Unit 3, he believes
              [redacted]

              YES, BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUEL POOL LEFT.
              RIGHT.
              UNIT 3, HE BELIEVES.
              (REDACTED)


              Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters

                Above comments, Chuck Casto, Chairman Jackzo, etc., from NRC documents released under FOIA. Enformable has an extensive collection of the FOIA documents.


                Report comment

                • HoTaters HoTaters

                  "MALE PARTICIPANT: But it’s okay because he’s not going to get into that level of detail. But we just need to be careful about consistency in the assessment of the information. I know it’s going to change, too.
                  CHUCK CASTO: Yes, well, we were consistent. That’s what we heard; that’s the last we were told, that the walls were not there."

                  Isn't like saying, "it's OK if the inventory in SFP #4 is not capable of being maintained (i.e. burning up or something) because "he" (Jackzo?) isn't getting into that level of detail? Therefore it's not going to be disclosed, or we won't need to redact information?

                  What the _ _ _ _ is THAT supposed to mean? (This is why I have to post under an anonymous user name here, because I get so ticked off when I read or re-read this stuff.)

                  Possible translation: how can we tell barefaced lies and not get caught or be held accountable?


                  Report comment

                • FallOut FallOut

                  This fire supposedly released all the radiation from these pools at the time, and we are now already in the dire scenario that the other side was claiming might happen.

                  There is a way to settle this controversy. It is by looking at the isotopic ratios of cesium isotopes that were measured in the soil and air at the time, that is, the ratio or cesium-136 to cesium-137 in these samples.

                  A simple binomial test indicated a two-tailed P<.002, rejecting the hypothesis that all the cesium came from the reactors.

                  All Cs-136 measurements besides Tepco’s indicate a significant cesium release from the spent fuel pools. Since the assumptions were conservative, a range of 33%-60% of the cesium was observed to come from the pools.

                  http://optimalprediction.com/wp/cesium-136-137-ratio-demonstrates-radiation-releases-from-spent-fuel-pools/


                  Report comment

              • GQR2

                Soo HoTaters, thus,we know fill in the blanks now exactly what was redacted.
                the obvious but here it is in the Casto comments.
                Unit #3 was in a nutshell completely destroyed for all intents and purposes obliterated. And it remains an open air reactor without any kind of shield. (Not counting dry wall) and even that in many places is not there its elsewhere in a colossally hot ongoing radio active state. Does that pretty much sum it up? i think so.


                Report comment

      • unincredulous unincredulous

        Don't worry, these were natural background explosions.


        Report comment

    • We Not They Finally

      It's almost like a psychopath who committed mass murder in a daze and then stumbled back into the mass of dead bodies and says, look at this shocking carnage, who could have possibly done THIS?


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        WNTF, please see my comments above. I so agree with you, and when I consider the SFP's in #3 and #4 might be gone, I truly think it's possible some of the "officials" from Tepco, JapGov, the NRC and DOE et. al might have done just what you said above, duh! doh! in a complete daze of discombobulation, futz-ups, obfuscation, and befuddlement. How much was due to pure incompetence, how much due to terrible communication skills, how much due to stress (the NRC guys who went in the initial response team were obviously freaked out)? How much was due to just plain not caring, denial, or "whatever, we can't fix it so let's just figure out what our official story is going to be" ????


        Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          WNTF, if I've never said it straight out, I do want to say now your concerns are totally valid! I "get it", I really do. And there is a part of me that's 100% with you, from the beginning. I just am not sure how really bad this really is. Sure looks bad to me! Re-reading the FOIA docs doesn't offer ANY reassurance.

          What I meant was the "officials" were so worried about presenting a united front for the world they might have failed to respond in such a manner that some kind of solution might have been implemented right away. IMO they wasted precious time trying to figure out how NOT to tell the world the truth about what was happening.

          End result, nothing got done right away, there was no appropriate response, and now maybe millions or billions will die. If the SFP's #3 and #4 really did burn up, we're likely ALL toast, sooner or later. And if so, there may be very few people or other living creatures on earth who/which die a natural death.

          This stuff is so insidious. The invisible killer, radiation.

          The problem is, we just won't KNOW for many years. If things don't go beserko in the near future.

          Sometimes I have difficulty living with the uncertainty. Then I have to go and refocus on having a life outside worrying or thinking about this mess (like right now).


          Report comment

  • Sickputer

    The majority of the fissile fuel was leaking out the boron holes in bottom of the steel reactor vessel long before the blast (melt-down and melt-through was well in progress).

    The first Unit 3 explosion occurred possibly from hydrogen gas. Then in a millisecond the spent fuel pond was fully enveloped in orange flame at 26 seconds in the video:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=9k3Ofs6R9cg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9k3Ofs6R9cg

    That was the atomic explosion that sent debris 15 km and vapors around the globe. Also big chunks fell down on the fuel pond remains and the reactor vessel cover. They can spin the meltdown and explosion anyway they wish. But the truth is nuclear radiation from a MOX-fueled reactor was released in huge quantities into the environment. A great deal is still steaming in the ruins and the subsoil.

    Cutting away the twisted steel beams in 2013 (which by degree of twisting was definitive proof in itself the explosion was atomic) does reveal the lower layers. Grim clues of the disaster that happened. They can lie all they desire, but people and other creatures have died and many more will fall victim to the world's worst ecological disaster since the last Ice Age. And man did it… not Mother Nature.


    Report comment

    • SykeWar(DELETED) SykeWar

      "The majority of the fissile fuel was leaking out the boron holes in bottom of the steel reactor vessel long before the blast (melt-down and melt-through was well in progress)." This melt through of pressure vessel and containment to the outside, in sufficient quantity to produce, in my mind, a significant nuclear explosion, would have had to happen in 3 days. Could a hydrogen explosion through gas escaping through the vessel top seam not blow off this plug? This is confusing to me. Any clarification would be appreciated.


      Report comment

      • SykeWar(DELETED) SykeWar

        I'm seeing conflicting information on the 'net concerning #3.

        From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster (on tuesday march 15) "11:00: A second explosion of reactor 3 (according to The World Meteorological Organization)"

        Was there one or two explosions there?


        Report comment

      • ExpertNuc

        What is a "boron hole" exactly? I have never heard of the term explicitly in any technical data I have read. My opinion was that the gas explosion went through a "nozzle effect" from the constrained geometry after the quake that accelerated the plume past sonic velocities.


        Report comment

        • Sickputer

          The boron holes are the control rod holes in BWR vessels and unlike more modern vessels like PWRs, the old Fukushima-style vessels have their holes in the bottom instead of the top. Really poor design during a meltdown scenario. Hot melted fuel can flow through those holes and bypass burning through six inches of steel.


          Report comment

          • FallOut FallOut

            Are/were you in the industry ?


            Report comment

          • Arizonan Arizonan

            Really really stupid design, to have holes in the bottom of the reactor.


            Report comment

            • unincredulous unincredulous

              The designers have holes in the bottom of their coffee cups. They are eccentric.


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                nuke designers DO use coffee cups with holes in the bottom, but they are smart; They are normally sealed shut and only if the coffee is scalding hot do they melt open, dropping the contents into your lap by the force of gravity(!), completely eliminating any danger

                these would be the GE mark 5 code-shutdown cups which use thermolytically generated high-nuclearity clusters with a tetrahedral cubic-close-packed metal core in the fail safe release valves.


                Report comment

            • ExpertNuc

              The reason the control rods come up from the bottom and not the top is that the control rods on the top would interfere with the two phase flow development typical of the boiling water reactor. With guide tubes in the bottom, the control rods, which have fuel in them, drop out of the core by gravity and shut the "self sustaining" chain reaction down.


              Report comment

                • TorMentor

                  The reactor scrammed as designed. What didnt work was the diesel generators which were supposed to be the backup electrical supply since everything was washed away, including the grid.


                  Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    "The reactor scrammed as designed. What didnt work was the diesel generators which were supposed to be the backup electrical supply since everything was washed away, including the grid"

                    Thus needlessly destroying the pacific ocean ecosystem, contaminating vast tracts of Japan and the U.S. forever

                    You see, being smart also entails being able to see the big picture


                    Report comment

                  • flatsville

                    TorMentor, re: this: >>>The reactor scrammed as designed. What didnt work was the diesel generators…<<<

                    What didn't work was the basiv common sense in siting the reactors for starters…in an active EQ and Tsunami Zone.

                    Also note the plant was in setious trouble before the tsunami hit. Two credible news outlets reported radiation alarms outside the perimiter of the plant going-off before the wave arrived.


                    Report comment

                    • TorMentor

                      The "credible news outlets" were not present at the site the time the wave hit. In fact, anyone near the wave outside the plant was probably running for their lives. What I said in my earlier post was a response to how the control rods behaved. Please stay on topic.


                      Report comment

                    • zogerke zogerke

                      Tormentor, none of the people who have responded to you have been off topic. You do not control the topic.


                      Report comment

                  • VanneV VanneV

                    “…Another worker told them: ‘the first impact (of the earthquake) was so intense you could see the building shaking, the pipes buckling, and within minutes I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall. Others snapped.’ The workers were ordered to evacuate the plant, but, says this second worker, ‘I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving…I could see that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believed were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that the coolant couldn’t get to the reactor core. If you can’t sufficiently get the coolant to the core, it melts down.” He told them that as he was headed to his car he could see the walls of the unit 1 building had already started to collapse. He said, “There were holes in them. In the first few minutes.’…”
                    http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=7624


                    Report comment

                  • VanneV VanneV

                    Japan Orders Evacuation Near 2nd Nuclear Plant
                    By MATTHEW L. WALD
                    Published: March 11, 2011
                    WASHINGTON — Japanese officials issued broad evacuation orders on Saturday for people living near two nuclear power plants whose cooling systems broke down as a result of the earthquake. The officials warned that small amounts of radioactive material were likely to leak from the plants.
                    The Fukushima No. 1 plant, operated by Tokyo Electric Power and located in Fukushima Prefecture, northern Japan, in October 2008. More Photos »
                    The power plants, known as Daiichi and Daini and operated by Tokyo Electric Power, experienced critical failures of the cooling systems after the plants were shut down, as they were during the quake.
                    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/asia/12nuclear.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


                    Report comment

                  • VanneV VanneV

                    [Jebus] the US NRC and everyone, knew that an earthquake will have a high probability to break critical cooling infrastructure at a BWR reactor back in 1988.
                    NUREG/CR-4792
                    UCID-20914
                    Vol.1
                    PROBABILITY OF FAILURE IN BWR REACTOR COOLANT PIPING
                    Vol. 1:
                    Summary Report
                    http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0334/ML033450494.pdf


                    Report comment

                  • VanneV VanneV

                    The GE employees at Fukushima Daiichi took off as fast they could go after the earthquake:
                    Fukushima 2, Nuclear Whistleblowers, Health and Safety
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVDXfXFP4-U
                    Eyewitness Accounts; Fukushima Pipes Burst, Reactors Damaged By Quake
                    July 3rd, 2011
                    "Jake Adelstein and David McNeill authored a ground breaking piece that debunks TEPCO’s claim that the damage at Fukushima was all due to the tsunami or that it could not have been expected. What is most shocking about the article is the first hand accounts of staff working at the plant when the quake hit."
                    http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=1692


                    Report comment

                  • VanneV VanneV

                    The Geology of Fukushima. Porous ground, lowered 10 metres, built over an aquifer with a fault line present, with basements below sea level
                    August 18, 2013, Paul Langley
                    “…I finally have a coherent picture. 2.5 years of obstruction by nuclear industry aimed at preventing people from having any coherent picture of the sequence of decisions which resulted in this nuclear disaster. 1. They lowered the Fukushima coast by 10 metres to make it cheaper to pump cooling water to the proposed power plant. 2. They built the power plant over an aquifer and on ground with a fault line present 3. They built the basements below sea level. 4. The quake diverted the underground river of the aquifer through the basements 5. Being below sea level the emergency generators and switchgear were doomed to be flooded. 6. cooling failed, the reactors melted down, the 70 holes in each reactor bottom (design of control rod entry) meant fuel and water leaked from bottom of reactors. 7. TEPCO decision to put emergency generators and switchgear in basements. to save money in 1966. 8. 400 tons of water must be poured into reactors per day to keep them cool. 9. this water enters the underground river and flows to the sea. 10. fuel is too radioactive to approach and remove and will remain so for years. 11. the flow of radioactive water to the sea will continue.


                    Report comment

              • Sickputer

                EN sez: "The reason the control rods come up from the bottom and not the top is that the control rods on the top would interfere with the two phase flow development…"

                SP: As we know the NRC religiously believed it was impossible for melted fissile fuel to burn through a BWR steel reactor vessel. Look at this picture of the bottom of a reactor (actually named the "bottom head")

                Slide 17 http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-06-engineering-of-nuclear-systems-fall-2010/lectures-and-readings/MIT22_06F10_lec06b.pdf

                SP: Does that pin cushion look impervious to a 5000 degree Celsius fireball weighing 100 tons?

                We have about 20 more of those dinosaurs still on the job in America.


                Report comment

              • Cooter cooterboy

                ExpertNuc,
                You state that;

                "With guide tubes in the bottom, the control rods, which have fuel in them, drop out of the core by gravity and shut the "self sustaining" chain reaction down."

                How would this be possible if the lower nozzle is in place? Assuming that nozzle's are the industry standard. The new BWR/6 fuel assemblies, by GE, are not configured in a relative manner to allow this. Nor are any other prior fuel assemblies configured in this manner.

                Do you have a patent number for this type of configuration? Would like to look at it. Please don't say it has military applications.

                Thanks,
                Cooterboy


                Report comment

            • SykeWar(DELETED) SykeWar

              One of many. Not all reactors use this design for obvious reasons.


              Report comment

              • TorMentor

                Actually the only reactors that use top-down control rods are research reactors (to demonstrate "SCRAM"), and "Pressurized Water Reactors" (PWR). CANDU (the Canadian reactors) is odd, the control rods actually enter the reactor from the side. Most if not all control rods that enter through the bottom contain fissile fuel followers. This is so that upon a gravity drop, the fuel will leave the reactor and the chain reaction shuts down.


                Report comment

                • Sickputer

                  TM typed these pixels of light: " Actually the only reactors that use top-down control rods are research reactors (to demonstrate "SCRAM"), and "Pressurized Water Reactors" (PWR). "

                  SP: Yes, and the PWRs are also the majority design in the western world, Europe, and the similar designed Russian reactors. They changed over from BWRs for lots of reasons and the reactor control rod location was a big consideration.

                  Now with an ecological nightmare in Japan it should be obvious BWRs with multiple bottom reactor vessel holes are extinction level event machines.

                  Japan is finding that out the hard way. A few of the bad boys have been retired in Germany and several in America. But there's enough still running to kill a few more countries, maybe even 99% of the human race in both hemispheres. A couple more Fukushima-type accidents and mankind will possibly revert to Neanderthal days. Third world countries may fare the best when modern civilization bites the radioactive dust. They won't have to relearn primitive skills…they are already good at living off the land without HBO, Winter Olympics, and bureaucratic chiselers.


                  Report comment

      • Sickputer

        SW sez… "Could a hydrogen explosion through gas escaping through the vessel top seam not blow off this plug? "

        SP: The Unit 4 explosion was never really explained fully to outsiders (the world) not privy to onsite first hand knowledge of what really happened (and maybe even eyewitnesses are unsure since it was a sudden wall collapse.

        But we did see video and pictures of the Unit 4 vessel cover removed from Unit 4 (sorry no links, but they are out there). It looked fairly pristine considering the condition of the building and does lend credence to the official pronouncement that Unit 4 was fully unloaded before 311.


        Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    Good day, all, here's a link to an IAEA.org document (.pdf) describing the decomissioning of the Dairyland LaCrosse plant. It was a BWR, but the specific type isn't mentioned in the first couple pages of the document.

    There are really GREAT diagrams of the BWR reactor and the decomissioning process. See page 8 for a diagram and cross section of the containment plug.

    http://www.iaea.org/…rk/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/IDN/ANL%20...

    This is a really good document for illustrating the step by step decomissioning process which might need to be considered. It will of course be far more difficult to decommission Fukushima Daichi Reactor #3 due to the heavy contamination outside the reactor vessel, the spent fuel pool, and indeed the entire building and plant site.


    Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    Good day, all, here's a link to an IAEA.org document (.pdf) describing the decomissioning of the Dairyland LaCrosse plant. It was a BWR, but the specific type isn't mentioned in the first couple pages of the document.

    There are really GREAT diagrams of the BWR reactor and the decomissioning process. See page 8 for a diagram and cross section of the containment plug.

    http://www.iaea.org/…rk/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/IDN/ANL%20...


    Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Sorry, the message got truncated, and I need to re-post the link.

      You might try this search term (with quotation marks around it) in a browser search:

      EPRI_Decommissioning_Dairyland-1.pdf

      I'll re-post from the IAEA website if the browser search doesn't pull this up.


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Try this one. It should launch the same .pdf document. The reactor plug and BWR reactor (Boiling Water Reactor) type might be slightly different, but this report gives some idea of what is entailed in decommissioning a BWR.

        http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/IDN/ANL%20Course/Day_9/EPRI_Decommissioning_Dairyland.pdf


        Report comment

      • ExpertNuc

        Why are you posting from an IAEA website when you say the IAEA is a shill organization? Do you really have credence in the IAEA enough to link to their technical data? Doesnt independent organizations have better technical data than the IAEA? Or does everyone link to the IAEA as a default?


        Report comment

        • flatsville

          Officially recognized sources be they small governmental bodies or large international agencies have technical data that is dead on…even if the rat bastards are attempting to cover up after the fact. That's what I've learned from years of reasearch and investigation. And you want to pull official docs and info into the mix so you can beat them ober the head with it Mr. ExpertNuc(?).


          Report comment

          • ExpertNuc

            No one here should use anything from the IAEA. Surely there is some other organization out there with better technical information. They aren't experts. What do they have that others dont have? I was under the impression that independent people believe Greenpeace is the expert organization in all things nuclear. They have to be one of the sources independents go to. Dont they have the resources? I dont want to pull any official documents from anyone with any nuclear education into the mix. Nuclear education is tainted. They are tainted with so called "experts". People here are the real experts. They can do their jobs much better. Why aren't people here doing that? Going toe to toe with these "experts".


            Report comment

            • We Not They Finally

              Wouldn't assume that Greenpeace is on the case. Haven't heard a word. Maybe it's what they USED to do.


              Report comment

            • flatsville

              ExpertNuc, You are welcome to ignore whatever sources you choose for your own reading or purposes. If I were prepping for a legal battle or to simply make a broad case for institutional negligence, I would need to review institutional source docs and docs of record.

              No one is forcing you to click the IAEA links.


              Report comment

            • combomelt combomelt

              expert – over and above and beyond their lies and obfuscation – use their data, it is more difficult to refute and far more pleasing if/when their own message hits home.


              Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              Who is the other organization with better data, ExpertNuc? Maybe since you're so skeptical of the technical data, you can provide all of us with a better source? If you can, please, by all means, do so.


              Report comment

            • unincredulous unincredulous

              I am the real expert here. I'm right, and you nuclear experts are wrong. Toe to toe, tit for tat, you blow, and I'm all that. Now STFU


              Report comment

            • VanneV VanneV

              Greenpeace is not the expert organization. Actually medical journals with peer reviewed research are experts. The alternate WHO is expert. Physicians for Social Responsibility are experts. Beyond Nuclear are experts. Dr. Helen Caldicott is an expert. The journal of 5000 articles of studies of consequences of Chernobyl was written by peer reviewed experts.

              Here is what has happened to Greenpeace, some of whom are anti-nuclear. But Greenpeace exists in different countries as different entities.

              Your supposed naivete is carefully crafted propaganda. The IAEA is not making an anti=nuclear statement. They are the pro-nuclear sellers. There is nothing wrong with quoting from the IAEA.

              Your propaganda seems today to be directed to discounting all information and all authority. I certainly can't agree with this Greenpeace founder.

              Greenpeace founder: I was wrong about nuclear power
              http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-i-was-wrong-about-nuclear-power.

              Rather than make such sweeping generalizations, it would be better to debate single issues. Instead you quote or cite noone. Talk about a single article nor just generalities.

              Laughable lies from film “Pandora’s Promise”
              http://nuclear-news.net/2013/11/11/laughable-lies-from-film-pandoras-promise/


              Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              Furthermore, Nuke "expert" Greenpeace has shifted to a decidedly more pro-nuclear or neutral stance recently.

              They are NOT the "go to" entity, FYI.

              You need to see the forest and here and not be so focused on the trees (minutiae), or you'll fail to see the points people are trying to make and you'll waste all your time attacking people's comments and positions. Needlessly.

              We don't need that here, so if your intent is to nitpick everyone, please, Troll-Be-Gone.


              Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters

                For nuclear engineering and technical data, yes, the IAEA, DOE, NRC, and other "official" entities ARE the "go to" entities. They have the technical data. They have oversight, technical specifications, etc.

                Are you alleging they fake the specifications and technical diagrams?


                Report comment

                • HoTaters HoTaters

                  ExpertNuc, are you Socref, reincarnated?


                  Report comment

                    • HoTaters HoTaters

                      Troll-Be-Gone
                      Written to the tune of
                      “Supermassive Black Hole” (by Muse, Matt Bellamy)
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LgcDpTH47g

                      Oh, baby I suffer when you say you hate nukes
                      You say you hate the bomb, oh, it makes me moan
                      But you accuse me under false pretenses
                      Are you sure you want to make me go?
                      Ooh, nukes set my soul alight
                      Ooh, nukes set my soul alight

                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive
                      (Ooh, nukes set my soul alight)
                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive
                      (Ooh, nukes set my soul alight)

                      I thought I could fool anyone
                      Oh, baby, I just can't fool you
                      You found out I'm the queen of superficial
                      And that I'd never tell the truth
                      Ooh, nukes set my soul alight
                      Ooh, nukes set my soul alight

                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive
                      (Ooh, nukes set my soul alight)
                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive
                      (Ooh, nukes set my soul alight)


                      Report comment

                    • HoTaters HoTaters

                      Supermassive nuke swill
                      Penned by supermassive nuke shills
                      Supermassive nuke swill
                      Penned by supermassive nuke shills

                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive
                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive

                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive
                      (Ooh, nukes set my soul) ….

                      (Ooh, nukes set my soul alight)

                      Reactors melting in the dead of night
                      And the gullible sucked into the supermassive
                      (Ooh, you set my soul)
                      Supermassive nuke swill
                      Penned by supermassive nuke shills
                      Supermassive nuke swill
                      Penned by supermassive nuke shills


                      Report comment

                  • ExpertNuc

                    I am someone that educated myself in nuclear and do not need anyone to tell me I cant be or who to take information as truth.


                    Report comment

                    • Jebus

                      Bummer, no credentials, I know how you feel…


                      Report comment

                    • Shaker1

                      ExpertNuc, while I might understand that sources need to be questioned, I do have to wonder at your statement:

                      "I am someone that educated myself in nuclear…"

                      Might one ask just where the education that you speak of originates? I'm not trying to be rude, but you're not one of the new 'Wikipedia' experts, are you?

                      True education might rely more upon being critical enough to ask the right questions. Your above statement, and then the dismissal of sources that rightfully may have useful information and enable one to ask the right questions despite the sources's motives doesn't impress me as conforming to what I might feel is the ability to ask the right questions. You may come upon your bigotry honestly, but bigotry in such sweeping dismissal carries its own problems which you don't seem to have to power to question within yourself. One might think there's a contradiction there, huh?


                      Report comment

                  • We Not They Finally

                    HoTaters, probably better not to fling around "socref" too casually. Not everyone who may be missing the mark (and no one's perfect) is a socref. ExpertNuc probably does not even know who you are talking about. Everyone on their own terms.


                    Report comment

                • ExpertNuc

                  I am saying that the same people that claim these entities lie, and are greedy, devil worshipping mass murderers should not rely on that information. Makes no sense. How come independent organizations dont have better information and are the "go to" entities?

                  I am alleging that people are duplicitous if they say these organizations are fallacious then use their information.

                  Cmon there is enough information out there to not use these sources. They are not the "experts" or are they?

                  Im just calling out the duplicity.


                  Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          What is that supposed to mean, ExpertNuc? Are you our new token shill/troll?

          I'm just providing a diagram so people here can see how a BWR is constructed, and what decomissioning a normal BWR w/o damage from an accident might entail.

          It's a DOH! education post. You obviously don't "get it."


          Report comment

          • ExpertNuc

            No, I am your token expertnuc. Judging from your reply and others, there is a lack thereof in this forum. I dont care how you feel about me. I couldnt care less about what you know either, which really isnt much. Go ahead get me banned. ENE is a free forum, no membership in any particular club required. I dont care if I am the only one here with my particular views. Im not here to entertain you.


            Report comment

            • It is obvious that the nuke cartel has decided that it is necessary to "take it to the wall" to pretend that nuke reactors, esp MOX cannot blow up in a nuclear reaction.

              This is a full court press from nuke and media. GE owns 600 media outlets.

              Just watch the video….massive concrete structures launched 1000 feet in the air in seconds. Obviously, Fuku 3 and maybe 4 were nuclear explosions. They covered up the video on 4.

              http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-was-nuclear-explosion-here-is.html


              Report comment

              • TorMentor

                From early physics courses, we are taught that the reason nuclear reactors do not blow up like weapons is that the enrichment is too low. If this were NOT the case, then why would the government spend billions to get countries to convert their reactors from HEU to 20% enriched and lower?

                The low enriched uranium contains more U238 than U235. The U238 is a fast fission energy cross section, versus the U235 thermal fission cross section. Because U238 is fast fission, the neutron leaks out of the core much more readily than that neutron born from U235 fission.

                In the "4 factor formula", criticality is defined by the product of 4 factors – eta, reproduction factor, epsilon – fast fission factor, p – resonance escape, and f – thermal utilization. Two factors are missing – fast neutron leakage, and thermal neutron leakage (six factor formula).

                The 4 factor formula is related to the 6 factor formula in that the former relates "no leakage" or an "infinite sized reactor".

                As enrichment goes below the "magic value" of 20% U235, the reactor size for criticality increases to the point that the fast leakage and fast fission factor do not dominate.

                Thus an LEU can not exhibit a "nuclear explosion" as you would define it.

                Thanks!

                I hope this helps.


                Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  In early physics classes, we were taught that the reason certain engineers fail their risk analysis, arriving at erroneous conclusions in spite of direct evidence is that they know just enough to think they know it all. This is the classic "seven factor fuku formula" Oddly, they remain smug, even as millions of animals lose their lives. A frontolimbic defect does not permit feelings of remorse, and hence they are never TorMented, have a drive to control others, taking positions as junior soccer referees, and having juvenile ego structures, call themselves Pros, never answering difficult questions, but instead harping on useless tech drivel


                  Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    actually, this technique might help; while tapping your face and chest, more specifically the acupuncture meridians, repeat this several times; even though Im a smug techie that promotes nuclear which has created vast areas of uninhabitable land, and released enough poison to kill just about everything, and whilst I feel no remorse whatsoever, nevertheless, I still love and accept myself completely.


                    Report comment

                    • TorMentor

                      I do love myself completely and unconditionally. If I were a gun designer I would love myself. If I designed automobiles I would love myself. If I was an electrical engineer that designed high voltage power lines, I would love myself. If I were working at Verizon, and sold cell phones to middle school kids, I would love myself.


                      Report comment

                    • TorMentor

                      If you can phrase your statement in the form of mathematical and probabilistic relationships, as Rassmussen had, then maybe I can address them sensibly. Its pretty nebulous as specified but I would like to address risk as the product of likelihoods and consequences, without emotionalism. Thats the starting point. Thanks.


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      TorMentor, can you design a gas chamber ? I've been looking for one and can never find a good one.


                      Report comment

                  • TorMentor

                    PRA class is more advanced, and comes much later than basic physics. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to listen to Norm Rasmussen.

                    He said "how many would be willing to risk getting shot dead crossing that door threshold for a million dollars on the other side, if there was a one in a million chance of being shot dead."

                    Everyone raised their hand. Then he systematically reduced the odds, down to 1 in 100,000, 1/10,000 and 1/1000. Fewer hands.

                    There was one hand up when he said "even money".

                    It was mine.


                    Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      proving, TorMentor, that you failed the risk analysis question on at least two counts; First, gold is already shining on THIS side of the door with solar, and second, the real risk of nuclear is not just to the person taking the chance, but other children, women, countries, and lets not forget animals. You and others of your ilk failed so utterly miserably that no words can come close to expressing it


                      Report comment

                    • zogerke zogerke

                      TorMentor, I think you just effectively and accurately defined yourself as a psycopath……..you describe a very high risk threshold for personal monetary gain…..and say you love yourself dearly…..and claim to have no remorse for ever engaging in activities that can hurt others, regardless of risk. If you were shot going through that door to get that money, you would sear the hearts of all who love you, if such folks exist. I also understand you have a grandious view of your chances of succeeding, but you totally lack compassion. And somehow how is it all our TorMentors on here, like grateful fruit flies, end their posts with the term: Thanks. Thanks!


                      Report comment

        • Jebus

          In a real court of law, evidence is submitted from both sides, by both sides, from all sides…


          Report comment

          • weeman

            Two sides to every story, it's up to you to come to a logical conclusion and nuclear and fracking are easy targets, because of the obvious pitfalls on so many levels.
            Wake up and smell the plutonium, before it is to late, please.


            Report comment

    • ExpertNuc

      The ANS Nuclear Cafe is a shill site. Why are you linking to it when you claim any shill site is biased? Cmon doesnt independent sites have much better technical data and pedigreed information than the American Nuclear Society? Who is its constituency and why are they the experts in all things nuclear? I can get a much better technical education just by reading some independent sites on my own, than go to a shill technical site that claims to have all things nuclear as their expertise. We can make our own expertise and technical site but the problem is that no one except us independents will follow it. Do we have to knock on the door of the enemy? Does ENE come across as technical or radical technical to the point of nonbelief?


      Report comment

    • GQR2

      i wish this could be labeled for even clearer understanding for us slow kids. :)


      Report comment

  • Sounds like the cover up propaganda PR machine is in full gear..

    All of the fuel is still in spent fuel pool #3, can just be lifted out.

    The cover is still on at #3 reactor, though bent a wee bit.

    Nothing serious, just a wee hydrogen explosion.

    No plutonium released.

    Just 10% of Chernobyl.

    No one died, no one will die.

    (sarc)


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    Neatly put. For my money, the perfect summary of the sad fate of nasty number three. Please post it again sometime. Maybe one of these days Tepco, MSM and all those bloody scientists and experts will stop picking on poor old hydrogen and blaming it for everything. Maybe one day the dread words NUCLEAR DETONATION will be uttered. Hooray at last.


    Report comment

    • ExpertNuc

      One of the reasons a nuclear plant that is shut down can not go "nuclear" we are told, is because the enrichment is not high enough. I am wondering why billions are being spent securing highly enriched uranium when there is plenty of low enriched uranium out there that can make a detonation according to your premise. Its simple physics, are we being told it can, or is this just another "imagination run wild" and unchecked. Someone find the calculation that low enriched uranium can detonate. It has to be out there.


      Report comment

      • razzz razzz

        Melted fuel can go critical when the Uranium and Plutonium distill themselves out and collect together (since they are heavy metals).

        Typical pellets inside fuel rods with cooling water circulating inside undamaged containment were left on the drawing room table soon as the Great Quake stuck Japan and caused a station blackout at Daiichi…Heretofore entering the great unknown with added tons of saltwater.


        Report comment

        • TorMentor

          Melted fuel can go critical when the neutron production equals the neutron losses. Critical is a manifestation of a neutron chain reaction exclusively. It really has nothing to do with uranium and plutonium "distilling themselves out".

          Here is it in a nutshell: There are some fundamental features of criticality that must be met.

          1. The combination of four factors must equal unity.
          2. These four factors are categorized by decreasing neutron energy
          3. The fastest neutron energies are those born from fission (> 2 Mev). This is embedded in the "fast fission factor" or the number of fast fission neutrons to total neutrons produced
          4. As a neutron interacts with target material it encounters "resonances" that capture the neutron, losing it to contribute to a chain reaction. Thus the "resonance escape probability" is a mid energy range (down to 100 keV) effect. It is the ratio of those neutrons that enter the resonance region to those that downscatter to thermal energy
          5. Next comes "thermal utilization", which is the ratio of the neutrons that downscatter to thermal energies to those that survive resonance escape.
          6. Finally comes the reproduction factor eta – or the ratio of neutrons born in thermal fission to those that down scatter

          If you take all these ratios together, numerators and denominators cancel out, and what you are left with is the "criticality eigenvalue" or k-eff (k-infinity for 4 factors without leakage).

          Keff < 1 is subcritical,…


          Report comment

      • VanneV VanneV

        The MOX fuel, weapons grade plutonium, in units #3 and #4 detonated.


        Report comment

      • VanneV VanneV

        Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons
        books.google.com/books?isbn=1612342272
        Paul L. Leventhal autofilled – 2002 – ‎POLITICAL SCIENCE
        “…For a long time there was a myth that nuclear weapons could not be made with reactor-grade plutonium, but the 1994 report of the Committee on International …
        ”In short, reactor-grade plutonium is weapons-usable, whether by unsophisticated proliferation or by advanced nuclear weapon states. Theft of separated plutonium, whether weapons-grade or reactor-grade, would pose a grave security risk.’…”
        pp. 125-26.
        http://books.google.com/books?id=2OyzXLjhQcEC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=myth+that+there+is+weapons+grade+plutonium+and+non+weapons+grade+plutonium&source=bl&ots=88NW4ANhLI&sig=Mqsv1g0LIDUsQL9keAPaPpAcYEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=40kAU6bMKrC4yAG3roHgAg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=myth%20that%20there%20is%20weapons%20grade%20plutonium%20and%20non%20weapons%20grade%20plutonium&f=false


        Report comment

  • How can you have a criticality explosion and not empty the spent fuel pool, and/or remove all of the covers over a reactor by force of explosion?


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    That was a reply to Sickputer's summary, a big thumbs-up


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    "Watch footage of the investigation attempt here"

    Say's it all…

    Makes me want to go sit at the table with the big sign that says in bold letters, "Nuke the lying bastards!"…

    But they are already doing that to themselves, politely…


    Report comment

  • Oh yeah number three with that mushroom cloud over it. Mushroom cloud over a nuclear reactor??? The experts say not to worry it's only hydrogen. No immediate danger. Only an uneducated fool would worry about multiple explosions and mushroom clouds over a nuclear reactor, so they say. If there really was a problem that Obama chap would fix it, right? Fox news would have a whole army of investigative reporters reporting everything. Right? I said, right? Don't worry folks the "experts" have this whole situation under control. Right? Our governments have our best interests at heart and propping up banks and GM helps every $6 /hr Wal-Mart worker greatful for the world economy that has made his/her life better. That Obummer guy is a straight shooter working hard for you. Don't look at the ruined plutonium spitting mess in Japan. Have some sushi and watch your team win a medal in Sochi.


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    A good forensics murder investigation dictates that you find the bullet and place it back with the weapon that fired it…

    Good job Tepco, you found the murder weapon.

    The best criminals alway convict themselves…


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    Let's see the dirt covered corner where it landed from a thousand feet…


    Report comment

  • Cooter cooterboy

    This "shield plug" is a three piece plug. The two outside half moon sections have contact with the rim along the entire outside edge and weigh twice as much as the center section. The center plug only has contact with it's two ends making contact with the outside lip making this section very vulnerable to any impact or degradation.

    They show three plugs, stacked atop one another. It would be assumed that there is no gaps between the plugs on any plane, by using non-hydraulic, polymer cement/grout. If this is indeed the fact then one can but assume by the picture that the lower two plugs no longer exist. The plug did it's job. End of story and lesson learned.

    In the video there are huge gaps in the concrete floor where an explosion took place. What I find interesting is that the rebar is not seriously deformed which one would expect with a convention explosion, thereby leaving chunks of concrete attached to the rebar. There is none, which leads me to believe that a shock wave, traveling beyond the speed of sound, stripped this concrete from the rebar without deforming it.

    Further evidence is the top layer of the concrete slab, is blown off exposing the rebar lattice underneath, yet not penetrating the entire slab, which is visible in the video.

    Theory.
    1. An initial subsonic explosion, degrading the integrity of the concrete.
    2. A second explosion, milliseconds apart which went super sonic.
    3. A third explosion wherein all hell broke loose.

    Peace


    Report comment

    • Shaker1

      Cooterboy, just comments about the some of the design features of this 'plug' that I find interesting. I know you may not have direct knowledge regarding my comments…

      I wonder, as in this drawing, if the center sections with the least support have their edges aligned at assembly as shown. Why wouldn't they purposely place those edges at angles to one another when assembled? Doesn't seem like an intelligent thing to do if one is actually relying upon it for strength in assembly, or as a guard against possible leaks of pressure. Maybe with the slight difference in diameters between the three plugs the component edges don't align, that proportional difference staggers them? And also, I wonder if the edges of the sections and their mating surfaces are perpendicular to their faces as shown. It would seem to me that a taper that would naturally seat them would accomodate their reassembly and help to minimize damage when re-seating in the opening without having to have an excess of diametric difference between the opening and the plug. Also, seems to me this design shown permits the lifting of the sections of each plug individually and that permission is intentional, not all three whole plugs at once, as would be implied in your statement "It would be assumed that there is no gaps between the plugs on any plane, by using non-hydraulic, polymer cement/grout."


      Report comment

      • razzz razzz

        The shield plug is just a filler. Not water or airtight to begin with. Genius to think the beam and trolley would damage it by falling on it.

        The explosion video does have three distinct blasts and the last (4th) sound you hear is the trolley beam hitting the deck and shield plug.


        Report comment

        • Shaker1

          razzz, I understand why it isn't water or air tight, and I assume it's called a 'shield plug' to guard against the fact that the steel head in the space beneath it is somewhat radioactive from exposure. It just seems to me that in the event of head failure (not likely, but I believe there have been instances of heads corroding and leaking) that a bit more care would be taken with its design as those others that I mentioned, slightly tapered edges and not having one seam directly above another is cheap and simple sense to me. Again, they were just comments, not particularly saying they were necessary or implying that was consequential.


          Report comment

          • razzz razzz

            If the plug is not air or water tight, I have no idea how it shields anything. Just makes the floor level.

            The first thing to give up the ghost are the seals (O-rings) used on the reactor lid and primary shell lid. Even with moderate over pressure they leak and is/was a well known fact.

            Under constant overpressure with heat, the lid bolts stretch and lose their memory of tensile strength and shape. The seal(s) blow out, overpressuring the undersized dry-well nitrogen filled area and then causing the primary shell lid seal to fail and begin leaking up and through the shield plug. Unit 3 seems to never have stopped leaking from that area (shield plug) once the seal failed as seen in many pics on cold days and continued high amounts of radioactivity being monitored in Unit 3.

            Don't try to understand the design. It was a failure to begin with, starting with putting holes in the bottom of that reactor vessel to pass control rods thru then expecting heat and gasses to float into downcomber pipe openings for scrubbing while the seals are failing, forcing the work floor to be evacuated.

            They did design blowout panels in the building's perimeter walls as an ironic secondary containment, to pop open during pressure differentials ex. tornadoes but TEPCO rendered those inoperable and later resorted to chopping holes in the roofs to release pressure from offgassing, mainly hydrogen, after three or four explosions already took place.


            Report comment

      • Cooter cooterboy

        The drawing they show is not correct at all. The lower plug is shown to rest on what? Nothing. The correct configuration for the bottom plug would be a "keystone" configuration with sloped sides and a single piece. It would be placed into position using a polymer grout. This is the strength/compression plug for the surrounding concrete.
        When cured the next ring would sit on the lip as shown with grout between all surfaces with the sides, these sides are not perpendicular but sloped in a keystone configuration but with a less angle, further pushing against the outside ring concrete and relieving stress around the hole.

        As pictured the top plug is a 3 piece affair and is obviously precast as the picking plates are visible for each panel. I believe these outside and inside edges are perpendicular because;

        1. There are expansion joints around and between the panels and of equal spacing.
        2. The center panel fell in and appears to be cracked mid span without any deformation (broken edges) along the adjoining panels which would have occurred if they were in a keystone configuration.
        3. The center panel is a breakaway panel, meaning if they ever needed to remove this top plug they would try to pick the center panel first, but if they couldn't then they would jack hammer it out and pick the remaining top two panels without damage.

        "It would be assumed that there is no gaps between the plugs on any plane," This statement implies that grout is placed wherever a…


        Report comment

        • Shaker1

          Cooterboy, thanks for replying. It's really too bad that such simplifications are used to portray what might be the same thing. On another subject, but pertinent regarding the oversimplification, when I saw the cross-sections of the water tank bolted seam, I wondered if they were that stupid to design those seams as shown. In their drawing, the seams relied upon bolt pressure upon the gaskets for a seal, when what I thought was a proper design would have been to lap. If they used an unequal leg angle on two sides of each sheet and inset the angle on the other two sides allowing a portion of the plate to protrude, it would have created an L-shaped seam in which the seal is accomplished through the weight of the water on the gasket and the bolts simply hold it all together. At that point, an idiot can put them together as it doesn't rely upon skill. If they are what is portrayed in drawings, those engineers need to be fired and if they didn't leak they were simply lucky.

          We might have a difference in semantics. A 'keystone' with sloped sides to me as a machinist is a 'taper'. Same idea. I didn't think of the center panel as a breakaway. It makes more sense in that light.

          Anyways, again, thanks. It's appreciated.


          Report comment

          • Cooter cooterboy

            Shake1,

            Thanks for your insight and thoughtfulness. I was pouring over patents for SFP containment racks and got side tracked.

            Why are these plugs there in the first place? Was it to lower the reactor vessel into place? Are these panels removable to install fuel assemblies? I don't know but here is my take of this plug.

            1. It is made of precast concrete in three sections as the picking plates are visible. They are probably prestressed panels which would limit expansion and contraction and provide extra strength and be interconnected to the picking plates .

            2. Top plug is 600mm or 24". Then they state that the deformation was rotated 300mm or 12" downward. I don't think this 12" measurement is correct. It looks more like 4".

            3. The picture shows this top plug contacting the plug below, which indicates the distance between these two plates is 12" or the middle plug does not exist anymore.

            4. The black lines between and around these panels could be any type of sealant. Or are they part of the precast form work, integrated into the panel?

            5. The only reason to build a three piece plug would be weight considerations of the crane, accuracy, ease of placement, pretensioning array, design of a breakaway panel, the addition of sealants in the gaps of the panels, precast because of shrinkage as a poured in place concrete panel would shrink. So many variables to consider.

            The only other known is that this panel is deformed downward.

            Peace,


            Report comment

  • Jebus

    All the world's a stage.

    In a fantasy murder mystery called "Mr. Tepco's Killers"

    Today we have act 1072

    It's about his lying spider named Fukushima, and the tangled web it weaves…


    Report comment

  • Homolumina Homolumina

    The Monarchs are dying along the West Coast and Monsanto is blamed… Could it be the radiation ? Here the email I got from sum

    Our monarch butterflies are vanishing — and all signs point to Monsanto as the main culprit.

    Major press outlets worldwide reported earlier this month that the butterflies are in "grave danger". Their population has reached the lowest numbers ever recorded. Now, an independent study has linked the monarch's decline with Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide.

    This corporate giant knows what it's doing. But Monsanto says we should balance the butterfly's survival with what it calls "productive agriculture" (read: Monsanto's bottom line). We need to fight this now, before it’s too late for the butterflies.

    Tell Monsanto to pull its butterfly-killing herbicide before it’s too late.

    The annual mass migration of 60 million monarchs from Canada to Mexico is one of the most beautiful phenomena in the natural world. But it's now on the verge of being a relic of history, and a key link in our food chain is under threat.

    The monarch butterfly is in a serious, decades-long decline. The WWF has reported that this winter, the monarchs are only occupying an area of 1.7 acres in Mexico, down from 45 acres in 1996. An evolutionary strategy based on eating a common weed seemed smart — until Monsanto came along. Just one state along the monarchs' migration route, Iowa, is reported to have lost 98 percent of its milkweed…..


    Report comment

  • Homolumina Homolumina

    ….Monsanto products like Roundup dominate the agricultural market worldwide. This corporate giant sells matching genetically-engineered plants resistant to its pesticides — and encourages factory farms to douse fields with gallons of Monsanto's herbicides.

    But sprayed over vast areas, these poisons effect the entire ecosystem. Monsanto's Roundup is also wiping out the monarchs' primary food source — a plant called milkweed. Scientists have linked the monarch's rapid population decline to the spread of Monsanto's pesticides. Losing these butterflies means wiping out insects, birds and small mammals that rely on the monarch and its place in the food chain.

    Tell Monsanto to save the monarchs by pulling its ecosystem-threatening herbicide.

    Every second we wait is another second closer to the monarch’s extinction. We helped wake up the world to the danger of Bayer's pesticides on the bees. Now let’s harness that awareness to save the monarchs from Monsanto!

    Thank you for being one of us,
    Taren, Angus, Hanna, Melanie and the team at SumOfUs.org


    Report comment

    • Paulie777

      Yes, Monsato is a result of the failure to learn lessons from the past because the lure of profit is greater. Such with nuclear, and coal and Pharma and the list goes on. Coal: Not one case of black lung disease was allowed by the adjudicators at John Hopkins Medical Center. Not one, at least that scam was caught and attended to. Not to mention horrible working conditions, company owned housing and company stores. Pharma: Despite record profits, one Pharma facility was so dirty it gave users of their expensive drug meningitis and killed their "customers". Nuclear: Despite great profits facilities are vulnerable and are giving innocent children thyroid cancer not to mention poisoning the planet. GMO's: Destroying the ecosystem while simultaneously giving people genetically modified product they call "food". Nuclear power is not the killer here, its the humans lust for profit.


      Report comment

  • Nick

    Today TEPCO discovered that Fukushima had gone from SNAFU to FUBAR.

    Wow!!


    Report comment

    • GQR2

      Hi Nick ,aka merry sunshine ;) up above there is a conversation snippet about neutron beams.
      and Fall Out found some really good pictures of that hunk of murderous junk known as the Mark One reactor.
      its all kinds of critical. full on critical. critical beyond critical.
      FUBAR is heading into…


      Report comment

  • Paulie777

    A person with cystic fibrosis will die early because their genetic makeup that once long ago was helpful to humans is no longer needed. Addiction was also a very helpful thing long ago as it was needed to keep getting that scarce food to survive. We need neither the genes for cystic fibrosis or an addictive nature now that we have evolved. You can no more blame people for the lust for profits just as you can blame a cystic fibrosis patient for having a flawed salt-chloride channel. They both are deadly, but are also part of our genetic heritage. The only thing is cystic fibrosis will kill one person but an addictive social lust for profits will kill us all. This genetic legacy and our recently acquired "intelligence" is simply a death sentence for the majority of us. We should celebrate it and be thankful for what we have.


    Report comment

  • bozzy54

    Anyone worried about the Russian satellite cosmic-1220 crashing to earth tomorrow. More radiation to worrie about?


    Report comment

  • muffin

    Ah shut up a your face, it's a nice a place. We are so fucked! Thank you trusted officials! Thank you very much!


    Report comment