UN Agency: Reactor 3 exploded a second time 24 hours later — Then wind and rain brought high levels of radiation over Tokyo, Sendai, Nagano

Published: December 28th, 2011 at 11:07 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
185 comments


Summary Report of RSMC Beijing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident Emergency Response, WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (United Nations), Oct. 27, 2011:

[...] On 15 March, an explosion was heard in Unit 2 and damaged the pressure-suppression system, causing the leaks of radioactive cooling water. Shortly afterward, Unit 4 was damaged by an explosion and a large amount of radioactive materials was released into the atmosphere. At 11:00 (Japan Standard Time) JST on 15 March, Unit 3 explored [sic] again. At that time, due to the easterly winds and precipitation in and around Fukushima, the surrounding areas including Tokyo, Nagano, Sendai and other places detected high radiation, which matched well with the simulation results. [...]

View  Microsoft Word .doc here

“The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations dedicated to meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology (water) and other related geophysical sciences such as oceanography and atmospheric chemistry.

Wikipedia Timeline:

First Explosion at Reactor 3

No mention of a second explosion at Reactor 3 on March 15

Published: December 28th, 2011 at 11:07 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
185 comments

Related Posts

  1. UN agency’s report of 2nd explosion at Reactor 3 must have been made after consulting with RSMC Tokyo: EX-SKF December 30, 2011
  2. TEPCO concealed radiation data before explosion at No. 3 reactor — Workers not informed of extremely high levels May 14, 2011
  3. Report: Unburned MOX fuel containing plutonium was in mushroom-like cloud of black smoke when Reactor No. 3 exploded June 19, 2012
  4. WSJ: Tepco managing director says “evacuate the workers from the site” after Reactor No. 3 exploded — “Bulk of footage is available for viewing only by select journalist” August 6, 2012
  5. Tokyo U. nuke expert: Radioactive substances may have “poured” into pipe during explosion — Levels could also be extremely high outside Reactors No. 3 and 4 August 3, 2011

185 comments to UN Agency: Reactor 3 exploded a second time 24 hours later — Then wind and rain brought high levels of radiation over Tokyo, Sendai, Nagano

  • The reason why there is no 2nd explosion is because the first one also did not happen, at least not in a way that released ANY radiation. All that happened is a wee bit of hydrogen leaked, and exploded. That is all. No releases, no nuclear container rupture or leaks, just a wee bit of ‘controlled’ hydrogen venting and then a small explosion.

    Thus the second one never happened, because the theory was that it was just ‘harmless’ hydrogen building up in the building itself. So the second explosion could not be hydrogen, as the building was no longer there, so it must be something else, like way dirty and radioactive, out of control nuclear fission fire that is going critical or worse… right?

    So why not say it? A nuclear explosion may have happened in this unit #3, whether by criticality, or whatever other method. This also means that a LOT of nuclear materials were potentially released, as the core exploded and went up in the air.

    Is this not what happened with Chernobyl? If this is the same type of thing, then why would the radiation be any less? Is not the fuel in this unit 3 MOX fuel, which is 1,000 times more lethal and deadly than just plain uranium?

    So if we keep going with this logic that no one wants to even mention (sacred cow anyone), JUST THIS ONE REACTOR could have released the equivalent of 1,000 Chernobyl’s in terms of the dangerous elements like plutonium, etc.

    Anyone care to comment, add or debate this?


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      MOX is 2,000,000 times worse than enriched uranium.


      Report comment

      • Any studies around that, links to articles that explain this?


        Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        MOX FUEL IS 2 MILLION TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN URANIUM
        http://www.earth-issues.com/2011/03/mox-fuel-is-2-million-times-more-dangerous-than-uranium/

        MOX plutonium fuel used in Fukushima’s Unit 3 reactor two million times more deadly than enriched uranium
        http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutonium_enriched_uranium.html
        Report Comment


        Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          As plutonium and uranium concentrations in the US hit their highest levels in 20 years a top nuclear physicists says most of the plutonium MOX nuclear fallout from Fukushima will drop on the United States.

          “In an interview with the Huffington Post, Nuclear Engineer Akira Tokuhiro, says most of the plutonium mox fuel nuclear fallout from the Fukushima nuclear power plant will likely drop on the United States.,,,”
          http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/19/nuclear-physicist-plutonium-mox-fuel-nuclear-fallout-drop-22822/

          What about MOX Plutonium?
          Submitted by joshbot (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-16 06:45.
          “Did the publication take into account MOX Plutonium. As I’m sure we’ve all learned by now, it was used in reactor 3, MOX rods blew 2 miles up and out into the surrounding area. MOX is so bad that according to CNN the Japanese have even tried to censor searches for it on the internet…”
          http://www.cnngo.com/tokyo/life/tell-me-about-it/david-mcneill-whos-tell

          “…It’s absurd to average the effects of wildly different radioactive elements into one single threat level. Breathe in MOX and your done. Breathe some of the lesser elements and it’s like eating at Mc. Donalds or smoking a cigarette….”
          35% increase in northwest infant mortality since the disaster. http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html
          http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4503


          Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Then they lied!

          “March 14th 2011; Reactor 3 blows up! sending 100,000 thousand of highly radioactive plutonium-rich spent fuel rods up to 2 miles away. Each one emitting plutonium laced radiation particles equivalent to a nuclear bomb!…

          “Fukushima is FOUR melting down nuclear reactors- with huge deadly spent-fuel fuel loads and 1,000,000 times more deadly Plutonium MOX fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is about 95% Uranium, another 1% consists of heavy elements such as curium, americium, and plutonium.

          “Remember, 1lb or plutonium spread evenly would kill everyone on planet earth. Reactor 3 which blew up, had at least 500lb of plutonium in it. If you are in the northern hemispheres, this plutonium is in the food you are eating and the air you are breathing right now! One floating particle will kill people for 24,000 years.

          “MOX fuel consists of about 7-9% plutonium mixed with depleted uranium and is equivalent to uranium oxide fuel enriched to about 4.5% U-235, assuming that the plutonium has about two thirds fissile isotopes.** If weapons-grade plutonium is used (>90% Pu-239), only about 5% Pu would be needed in the mix.

          “Chernobyl had 180 tonnes of nuclear fuel on site. Fukushima has, (or had) 1,700 tonnes of nuclear fuel on site. Much of it is now in the air you are breathing right now.

          “Fukushima is a Global, Universal Equal Opportunity Killer; but innocent unborn children will go first to the nuclear gallows.

          “This is an invisible worldwide killer. We will all be affected.

          “An epidemic of radiation related disease and death is coming. Due to ongoing massive global nuclear industry profit protection actions to suppress the truth, you are very likely one of the intended victims! …

          “Genocidal Maniacs are at the Helm…


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “Gofman and his partner on the project, Art Tamplin, came to the conclusion that safety standards were woefully inadequate. The AEC pulled his funding and tried to get Gofman to stop talking about the dangers of low level radiation but the man refused to shut up. In the 1982 book Nuclear Witnesses, Insiders Speak Out he said;

            ” Licensing a nuclear power plant is in my view, licensing random premeditated murder.”…

            “The nuclear industry is still deluding itself that it can brainwash us into believing that nuclear energy is still the safest energy source ever….
            http://www.radiation-remedies.com/Fukushima-A.htm


            Report comment

      • Kevin Kevin

        2 million times worse.

        So many triliion terra bequerels ….

        All this stuff tends to gloss the eyes over.

        We would be much further ahead if we could explain these things to those under the influence of “dont worry be happy” msm in more affective terms.

        Does someone have plain language we can apply that communicates the extent of these things in such a way it helps to break through the many anecdotes provided by the mind benders?

        I think this is important. 1 million times worse than uranium means little if anything to me. Sounds bad but, ya know. Much like the never ending trillions of this that and the other thing.

        We need language that is fundamentally different. Like “never has the world seen this type of release in these quantitiies. It is impossible to explain how serious it is because we have no historic means of doing so. We can only guess. The potential is so many lives will be lost in the coming years that historic experiences like the plagues come to mind.”

        These are just examples but we need the language first, then the means of distributing it. Tdoay with alternative media there exists a chance to do it, like never before anyway. So its worth a shot.”

        2 explosions. I tell ya…. there was some murmuring about this kinda thing but this one really pushes my buttons. From the UN no less.

        Unreal.


        Report comment

        • dharmasyd dharmasyd

          Try the book Anne mentions with Gofman (and many others), and I recommend in comment above.


          Report comment

        • dharmasyd dharmasyd

          Concentrate on those experts who say “…there is no safe level of radiation…”! Helen Caldicott is the most famous. But googling that phrase brings up 51 million entries. Pick the ones that are clearest, most layman oriented, using simple plain language.


          Report comment

          • Kevin Kevin

            Thanks for your reply.

            I have seen Helens stuff of course. But I will look at the book you suggest.

            The problem with “no safe levels of radiation” is that it is a sweeping general statement and often leaves the impression that little amounts of radiation are what we are dealing with.

            Clearly that is not the case, despite not haveing adequate monitoring and reporting.

            It does not work because the Mainstream message from news and authorities is that ” the levels of potential exposure are miniscule and of no health consequence.” While Helens famous line is somewhat useful it still frames the question in the notion that the risk is to low level radiation.

            Obviously, with plutonium the lowest of levels is all that is required for fatal consequences.

            I agree Helen, Arnie and Busby seem to be the lead communicators and do have a reasonable lexicon it at least anecdotal.

            My pitch is for hard hitting, simple, laymens language that leaves no doubt in the mind that we must end nuclear power. And, of course, the means to get the message out.

            This is where Arnie in particular falls short, however both Busby and Helen are solid.

            Cheers and thanks again.


            Report comment

            • dosdos dosdos

              I don’t think the K40 in bananas will kill you. Not all bequerels are created equally. Look at the energy releases during decay to see how dangerous it is.

              The stuff that comes out of leaking reactors is mostly bad juju.


              Report comment

              • arclight arclight

                the high Mev count from ceasium penetrates flesh seriously at 2mm to 6 mm i believe .. the penetration of a banana is much deeper even though the Mev count is low?? why is that?? :)


                Report comment

        • alexa

          Kevin, soon more people will feel the way I feel because of the increase in radiation discharge from Fukushima. It isn’t something I can ignore – my lungs hurt, thyroid becomes irritated, stomach hurts, ganglions inflate etc. This will be the moment when everyone will understand what is going on.


          Report comment

          • Toadmac

            Hi Alexa I live in Melbourne Australia and am just getting over one of the worst flu’s I can remember having! Its summer here and many people I know are sick from flu? Flu season should be over? We have had a lot of northerly winds,rain and storms this month with high counter readings (1.2 uSv/hr- 2.8 uSv/hr in rain samples taken from car windscreens) these samples could be radon decay as they have a quick half life? One thing that has caught my attention though is my background readings! When I first purchased my counter up until recent it was between 0.12-0.17 uSv/hr. Over the last couple of weeks it has been 0.15-0.19 uSv/hr? All samples are taken in the same place with a minimum of a 10 minute average. What is the extra 0.02-0.03 uSv/hr? Why so many with the flu when the flu season should be finished? My channel
            http://www.youtube.com/user/Toadmacshutitdown?feature=mhee
            No new vids but will post some soon.


            Report comment

      • HoTaters

        Ann, no criticism of you, but is this summary statement correct?

        “2,000,000 times more deadly ….” There seems to be an error in terms in this description.

        “single milligram (mg) of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 mg of normal enriched uranium”

        That is, a single milligram of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 times its equivalent weight in uranium. Is there a way to shorten this and still maintain the meaning? Maybe not w/o giving what the MOX is being compared to — and the amounts.

        Or – MOX is 2,000,000 as deadly as an equivalent amount of uranium.

        The other thing is, what does “2,000,000 times more deadly” mean? In terms of the effects on the body, the genetic material, or what?

        Just a personal thing, but I don’t like seeing these kinds of comparisons thrown about casually …. IMHO, it’s important to define the terms. Just my two cent’s worth.


        Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Yes, it is correct. There are many citations, e.g.:

          Japan Authorities Admit Deadly MOX Plutonium Reactor Is Leaking

          “…The water now leaking from reactor number 3 has radiation levels 10,000 times above the level of normal reactor water. Yesterday, two Fukushima technicians received instant radioactive burns when they stepped in the puddle of water, as it burned right through their boots.

          “The leakage of plutonium and uranium from reactor number 3 is the nightmare scenario that many experts predicted would turn the situation at Fukushima from a crisis to a catastrophe.

          “The dire consequences of any major leak in reactor number 3 are exemplified by the fact that 4,000 tons of water have been dumped on the reactor, five times more than any of the other five units.

          “Reactor number 3 runs on MOX or Mixed Oxide fuel, a mixture of plutonium and uranium. Plutonium is the most deadly radioactive isotope known to man, and MOX is two million times more deadly than normal enriched uranium. The Half-life of Plutonium-239 in MOX is 24,000 years and just a few milligrams of P-239 escaping in a smoke plume will contaminate soil for tens of thousands of years….”
          http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/japan-authorities-admit-deadly-mox-plutonium-reactor-is-leaking/


          Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          • MOX FUEL IS 2 MILLION TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN URANIUM

          Mox Fuel was being used in one of the reactors that blew up

          “KI pills do no good against MOX – it is only good for Uranium radiation. Plutonium is not affected by the pills!

          “Imagine for a second a bondfire, and a spark from the fire blows off and falls on the ground. Now imagine that that spark continues to stay on fire for 100s of years. No matter how much water or solutions you put on it, it continues to burn. Now imagine this in a microscopic form and you breath it in your body..Devastation will take hold
          Plutonium and Uranium work the same way. Imagine these microscopic plutonium and Uranium particles falling out of the sky during the jet stream? We see it does fall from the sky because of the evidence we see in chemtrails and its impact on the environment. They have no idea what it is going to do to the environment.

          “If inhaled into the body, the alpha particle will go in through the respiratory tract, and enter the lung. Due to its long half-life, it will stay in the body permanently, emitting alpha radiation, and killing the surrounding tissues by strong ionization. If plutonium is taken into the body in soluble form (e.g. plutonium nitrate) through food chain, it will enter the blood stream, and into the bones, liver and genital organs where it will be enriched. Alpha radiation leads to reactions in the cells of living things. It can cause damage to the nucleus and DNA of the cell, in effect causing genetic damage in descendants, particularly if germ cells are affected.

          “If there is fire, and plutonium becomes airborne into fine aerosol particles, plutonium contamination of the environment will extend to a far larger scale, landing on ground, contaminating a vast wider area. Plutonium remains effective over very long periods affecting the health of the people and the environment.


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “When MOX fuels are used, the probability of having such serious accidents or trouble would increase due to the high content of plutonium in the fuel. Even if an accident is not a serious one,it could become serious since even a small portion… of the inventory of actinides released to the environment could cause significant radiological consequences.

            “only about 1 mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000mg)of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure.
            http://www.earth-issues.com/2011/03/mox-fuel-is-2-million-times-more-dangerous-than-uranium/


            Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          MOX plutonium fuel used in Fukushima’s Unit 3 reactor two million times more deadly than enriched uranium

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

          “On March 14, Unit 3 of the Fukushima reactor exploded, sending a huge smoke plume into the air. This particular reactor, of course, contains the rods fueled with MOX. You can watch a clip of that explosion here:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-

          “If even a couple milligrams of MOX were released during this explosion — or if other explosions at the plant inflict any damage on the MOX-filled rods — then the consequences could be exponentially more devastating than the mere leakage of enriched uranium. And since nobody knows for sure exactly which rods have been damaged, and whether or not the situation can actually be contained, it is only a matter of time before the world finds out for sure.

          “An exact quote from the report reads:

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


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “A simple calculation reveals that one mg of MOX is basically two million times more powerful than one mg of uranium. This is clearly not a good thing when the plutonium-containing fuel rods in Fukushima may be damaged from the recent explosions and leaking into the environment.

            “A recent National Public Radio (NPR) piece explains that the half-life of plutonium-239, a component of MOX, is an astounding 24,000 years. The same piece explains that if even a small amount of this potent substance escapes from the plant in a smoke plume, the particles will travel with the wind and contaminate soil for tens of thousands of years (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/13460…).

            “Amazingly, most mainstream reports that mention MOX discount it as a non-threat. But the truth of the matter is that the threat posed by MOX is very serious. The NIRS report explains that inhalation of MOX radioactive material is significantly more dangerous than inhalation of normal uranium radioactive particles. You can read the entire MOX report for yourself here:
            http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-47… “

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


            Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          6.1.1 No inspection in Nuclear Weapon States
          “It is not commonly known that the reprocessing plants and MOX fuel plants in France and England are not safeguarded by the IAEA, because they are Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). According to the discriminating Non Proliferation Treaty NWS are exempted from IAEA safeguards….”
          http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-470/6.html


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “6.2 Safety
            “Light Water Reactors are designed to use low-enriched uranium fuel. Reactors need to be adapted to use MOX. There are specific problems concerning the safe operation of MOX facilities and reactors using MOX. Accidents will have more impact due to more actinides.

            “6.2.1 Pu degradation and Americium-241
            “MOX fuel contains, next to depleted uranium, 4-8% of plutonium. This is called first generation plutonium because it has been reprocessed only once. The plutonium inside spent MOX fuel is called second generation.20 The concentration of plutonium in MOX fuel must increase to 8-10% plutonium in the future, to be equivalent to 3.5% enriched uranium. This is because the present high burn-up spent fuel (which reprocessed plutonium will be used for MOX) contains degraded plutonium. This means the plutonium contains less fissile Pu-239 and Pu-241 and more non-fissile isotopes: Pu-240 and Pu-242. The higher the share of non-fissile Pu-isotopes, the less it is suitable for the production of electricity.
            Another problem will be the presence of Americium-241 (Am-241), which is a decay product of plutonium-241. Because of the relatively short half-life of Pu-241 (13.2 years), the amount of Am-241 quickly increases. The presence of Am-241 in plutonium makes it even more dangerous and less efficacious. Am-241 is a hard alpha and gamma emitter. Therefore, in the fabrication of MOX fuel, the amount of Am-241 must be as low as possible.


            Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              [cont.]
              The plutonium which is used for MOX fabrication must not be older than three years, because of this americium increase. Separated plutonium older than three years must first be “recleaned”, that is, reprocessed to separate the Am from the plutonium before it can be used. This is a very expansive operation.21 The Belgian PO MOX fuel plant can work with plutonium containing up to 1.7% of americium-241 on average, the French Cadarache MOX fuel plant is limited to 1%.22 The newer Melox plant is licensed to use up to 3% Am-241.23 MOX fuel must be used quickly. After five months, the fuel has lost 3% of its durability.24

              “6.2.2 Gallium
              “Recently, a new problem was discovered in connection with the presence of gallium in Russian and US weapon-grade plutonium. The gallium has to be removed from the plutonium before MOX fuel is fabricated.25 Gallium causes problems during the production of MOX fuel, the use in reactors and the disposal of spent MOX fuel. The gallium attacks the zirconium, present in the fuel rods, and so deteriorates the fuel rods. This leads to migration of fission products in the spent fuel and to serious waste disposal problems.26

              “6.2.3 Worker hazards
              “Workers in a MOX fuel fabrication plant must be protected against the much higher radiation levels of MOX. A $40-million investment program is planned for the Dessel PO MOX plant. This is necessary to allow the plant to respect the new, more severe, worker- exposure limits of ICRP-60, to be passed into Belgian law by 2000, despite the anticipated degradation in the quality of the separated plutonium. This means among others further automation and the massive introduction of neutron shielding in the workshops.27


              Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which cannot be said to be very critical on nuclear energy, sets a standard for occupational exposure to radiation at 100 mSv over five years, with a maximum of 50 mSv in any one year. If you interpret this by comparing workers in a uranium fuel fabrication plant with workers om a MOX fuel fabrication plant, the standards for protection against inhalation are roughly two million times stricter in plutonium processing than in uranium processing.28

            “6.2.4 Accidents at MOX fabrication plants
            “Accidents at MOX fuel fabrication plants have occurred. In June 1991, the storage bunker of the MOX fuel fabrication plant in Hanau, Germany, was contaminated with MOX. It occurred after the rupture of a foil for container packaging in the course of an in-plant transportation process. Four workers were exposed to plutonium.29 This accident was the main reason the fabrication plant at Hanau was shut down.

            “In November 1992, a fuel rod was broken through a handling error, and MOX dust was released during the mounting of MOX fuel rods to fuel assemblies in the fuel fabrication facility adjoining the MOX facility in Dessel, Belgium. In the event of such accidents, if the ICRP recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about one mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000mg) of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure. A one mg release of plutonium can easily happen during various smaller incidents.30


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “6.2.5 Behavior of MOX fuel in the reactor
            “All Light Water Reactors are designed to use uranium fuel. Therefore MOX fuel assemblies should be comparable to the operation of uranium assemblies with the same kind of performance. In order to use another fuel such as MOX, the reactor must be adapted. This is done by increasing the number and the reactivity of the control rods and of the quantity of boron dissolved in the cooling water.31 These changes lead to smaller safety margins when the reactor is switched off and the fuel rods and damaged sooner.32 The rate of fission of Pu tends to increase with temperature. This can endanger reactor control. The higher the share of Pu-239, the greater this problem. With the general introduction of higher burn-up fuels, the drive is also to use more plutonium in the MOX fuel.
            Utilities want to increase the burn-up of MOX fuel to the same level as the uranium fuel. In a PWR, MOX assemblies with three different concentrations of plutonium are inserted. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) gives as example a core with three sorts of MOX fuel rods: with 8.7%, with 7% and with 4.3% plutonium, all in the center of the core.33 The use of MOX fuel has several problems.

            “A few are:
            • “Different enrichment levels of plutonium and uranium lead to peak burn-ups, which cause weakening of the fuel rods.
            • “A principal limiting factor for the share of MOX in the core and the percentage of plutonium in MOX fuel is the substantially higher release of fission gas within MOX fuel rods than in uranium fuel, which increases sharply with burn-up.
            • “MOX fuel is “hotter” than uranium fuel at equivalent power.
            • “High local burn-up, sometimes more than three times average burn-up, due to the heterogeneous microstructure of MOX fuel, which yields clumps with high plutonium concentration.34


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            • “The higher energy of the neutron spectrum of MOX increases the rate of radiation damage to the core structures. This could cause the reactor vessel to become brittle in the end, which is another factor for safety concerns.35

            “For these reasons French nuclear safety authorities for instance continue to deny EdF a license for higher burn-up of MOX fuel. The burn-up of MOX in France is now limited to 36 MWD/kg. EdF wants a license to increase the MOX fuel burn-up to 52 MWD/kg.36 As we have seen in Chapter 5.2.2. higher burn-up also has negative safety aspects; an important one is fuel rods’ deformation which results in sticking of the control rods. During an experiment with MOX fuel on January 24, 1997, in the Cabri research reactor at Cadarache, an unexpectedly violent rupture of the MOX fuel clad occurred, leading to dispersal of fuel fragments in the test channel. If this rupture were caused by the MOX fuel, it would be bad news for utilities wanting to use MOX fuel and for MOX fuel fabricators. One more MOX fuel test with a two-cycle MOX fuel pin is scheduled this year. However, only when and if the Cabri reactor is refitted with a water loop (it now has a sodium coolant loop) it will be able to represent LWR conditions. A decision is expected in June 1997. Utilities and regulators will be left with at least two years of uncertainty over the significance of the Cabri MOX fuel failure. The deputy director Rousseau of the French regulatory organization DSIN said that the latest test result “isn’t going to encourage us to go faster” in licensing high burn-up MOX fuel. EdF has to wait several years before it is allowed to increase the burn-up of its MOX fuel.37


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            [cont.]
            “6.2.6 Accident scenario when burning MOX
            “Accidents involving overheating and meltdown are possible in any nuclear reactor. In such accidents, not only would readily volatile noble gases like iodine and caesium be released to the environment, but a small portion of the actinides, including plutonium and neptunium, would be released. As the activity of the actinides is substantially higher in the case of MOX, the consequences of such severe accidents become more serious.

            “When MOX fuels are used, the probability of having such serious accidents or trouble would increase due to the high content of plutonium in the fuel. Even if an accident is not a serious one, it could become serious since even a small portion of the inventory of actinides released to the environment could cause significant radiological consequences. According to a comparative analysis of possible consequences of a core meltdown accident in the German Kruemmel nuclear power plant with and without the use of MOX fuel.38

            • “The radiation exposure from inhalation of radioactive materials during the passage of the radioactive cloud is higher by several dozen percentages than if U fuel elements were exclusively used.

            • “Radiation exposure through the route of inhalation of remobilized long-lived actinide isotopes is more than doubled.

            • “The land areas to become out of use by long-term contamination increases as the re-suspension pathway is a limiting factor and the greater part of the dose resulting from the pathway comes from the actinides….”
            http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-470/6.html


            Report comment

    • I have been promoting that theory, kind of same theory as Gunderson at the spent fuel pool (which in reality also holds brand new fuel too, that’s where they store it after purchase and prior to loading into reactor). However, later video REPORTEDLY from the #3 spent fuel pool shows a mess of building structure fallen into the pool, but also show at least 1 fuel bundle. So not sure, seems like all the fuel racks in the pool ought to be blown to smithereens if a nuclear reaction (prompt criticality, whatever you like to call it) happened.

      I still find it hard to believe that the video available from the site is of such poor quality.

      But certainly the main reactor at 4 could have blown up in a nuc reaction.


      Report comment

  • The proof I offer is the following;

    NHK at March 24, 2011 at 11:00 pm EDT:

    Transcript Summary

    High levels of radioactive material were found from the No. 3 reactor…

    “Possible reactor is damaged and that radioactive material has started to leak to the outside… The agency as said it is likely that radioactive material is being leaked for the No. 3 reactor… but radioactive material is being leaked right now.”

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

    This video was removed by the user, so there is no longer any video evidence.. via NHK.

    Source: http://enenews.com/nhk-high-levels-of-radioactive-material-has-started-to-leak-at-no-3-reactor-govt-says-reactor-may-be-damaged-says-video


    Report comment

  • hbjon hbjon

    Honestly, I don’t think the explosion from unit 1 was much less potent than unit 3 if the initial force was directed downward, then reverberrating upward and sideways. Could have been a result of a smaller criticality. Each of which have nuclear origins. When the fuel melts, the safety mechanisms are no longer as effective. Criticalities can and will happen with the quantities of fissile material available, imho.


    Report comment

  • many moons

    And it swept across the states over the Atlantic and covered Europe as well. Wind blows, water moves, and whatever is in it’s path is consumed and transported. Consumed and transpoorted. I imagine the radiation as a sticky yellow paint that can never be removed…we are painting the planet an uninhabitable toxic yellow. A lot here a little there…day by day yellow.


    Report comment

  • arclight arclight

    OH MY LORD!
    CHECK OUT THE AIR READINGS IN CHINA!!
    “(1) five days of continuous easterly wind, similar as that from 23-27 Mar. in 2008; (2) Nuclear leaks occurred in Fukushima and lasted for five days. The total release amount was equal to that of Chernobyl nuclear explosion.

    The RSMC Beijing simulation results show that under the easterly wind condition, the nuclear pollutants from Fukushima could diffuse to Heilongjiang Province, Jilin Province , Liaoning Province , North of Hebei Province , East of Beijing, Shandong, Northeast of Inner Mongolia (shown in Figs 1,2,3). From the analysis of Nuclear Pollutant concentration and deposition, the radiation of Shenyang, Haerbin and Changchun is 0.7 mSv/h (shown in Table 1), which is about ten times of the normal condition (0.07 mSv/h).”


    Report comment

    • Is this happening now, or in the past? Any links to source?


      Report comment

      • arclight arclight

        link disapeared

        here it is

        https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-pEqOy8tNvIJ:www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/DPFSERA/Meetings/CG-NERA_Vienna2011/documents/Doc-5-4-China.doc+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShtw6Ss-Noz42Y1qaOd76u3WSon14owL8guVeaO8ueqbBNiOp58E4YRGUTS1iJCSBSGJgRL3Jjnd2cz4OZsP4z9I2AOuHdC0VEl6BY5NGeX-581eAYyGoWWiO2nFKYteNKO_Zzn&sig=AHIEtbQxUESMX-Uyz0CoL3FdTZ4qOEuS3g&pli=1

        might be a good idea to downlosd word (yuo got good virus software?)
        i downloaded it!
        right rivetting read!
        pretty pictures too! and if you dont believe emmission were as low as that you can get the crayons out and fill in the blanks! :(
        peace


        Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          sorry agr
          its a chinese report

          Summary Report of RSMC Beijing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident Emergency Response

          (Submitted by RSMC Beijing)
          reporting on the emmisions fallout from march

          a report on works carried out, all sorts!!

          have fun!!


          Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          “Long-period simulations have been improved. Since Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant has been leaking continuously, it is important to access the influence of released nuclear radioactive materials in the early times. RSMC Beijing did many long-period simulations with the improved long-time global diffusion model on Fukushima Nuclear Accident (the longest one is 33 days).”


          Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          “In March 2011, RSMC Beijing did a test to check if the contact information of all members in RAII was available. The results showed that many faxes, emails, phones were no longer available. As a result, in the Fukushima emergency response services, South Korea, Macao, and other national meteorological services sent requests to ask for RSMC Beijing product.
          At present, the numerical weather prediction models and diffusion models used in the RSMCs are different. As a result, the study on the comparison among the products of all RSMCs will be of great benefit on the emergency response services of all RSMCs. If RSMCs could share the comparison data, the model might be improved more efficiently. In addition, If RSMCs could share observation data, the research and the services might be improved greatly.”
          :)


          Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          an old but interesting statement passing the radiological buck to the IAEA

          “…The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) maintains a system of Regional Specialised Meteorological Centres (RSMCs) which, when requested, run their dispersion models in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and WMO Procedures. Under this system the IAEA http://www.iaea.org/ is the lead authority in declaring the current activity as a radioactive release incident. Tokyo RSMC (Japan Meteorological Agency http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html), Beijing RSMC (China) and Obninsk RSMC (Russia) are the joint leads and authoritative sources for this event.

          The Met Office both as an RSMC (Exeter RSMC) and as a World Area Forecast Centre has not issued any warnings regarding the incident in Japan although it does have ICAO responsibilities to keep the aviation industry informed that an incident is occurring.”

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/japan-earthquake-and-the-uk-met-office-role/

          THOUGHT IT INTERESTING TO COMPARE UK SCIENTIFIC REACTION TO THE DISASTER AND CHINESE REACTION AND INFORMATION FLOW FROM THE CHINESE…

          so its official “red” china is a more open and progressive society than the uk! :(


          Report comment

        • The assumption that they START with in this report is that the radiation released from FUKU, was equal to Chernobyl.

          As we have seen above, FUKU is MUCH WORSE, due to MOX fuel being released from TWO reactors and potentially from spent fuel pools as well.

          They also do not include water releases, ocean contamination, etc.

          Any way you look at it, FUKU IS MUCH WORSE than Chernobyl, by orders of magnitude. It is just a question of; how many orders of magnitude worse is it?… 1,000, ………..1,000,000 or more?


          Report comment

          • farawayfan farawayfan

            Possibly on the order of 7 billion times worse? That being the population of our blue speck….Guess we’ll see soon enough.


            Report comment

          • arclight arclight

            agree the emmisions have been smoothed down.. this report shows they know about continuibg releses and reported that in october..! they show issues of communication etc but they fairly accurately plotted the plume aginst the prevailing winds into china and beyond! they know it hit korea but couldnt contact them.. the IAEA?? on a recruitment drive!! sales drive! not safety drive!

            maybe the density of the fallout cloud is lower on their models, at least in some places! plume maps dont take into account hotspots in plumes as spectrographs hooked up to an IAEA connected monitor dont show the smaller peaks!

            BIG effect on statistical averages.. always will read less!! not the real world…


            Report comment

            • I agree that high altitude radiation releases dwarf those at lower altitudes where the radiation meters are. So how do we estimate how much radiation went up high in the air, as opposed to what showed up on the few meters that had working down low to the ground, UPWIND and far away from the plant?


              Report comment

              • arclight arclight

                i think that the idea of downwind here is wrong! the met stepped back from the japanese measurements for a reason… they had access to real time data too!!

                if you look at the plume evidence in the report china got hit! and it extended towards and probaly beyonf korea, that southern hemisphere! guess russia got a good dose to?

                so, officially the plume goes out to sea, nicey nicey!. in reality the plume spreads using locl low wind currents and travels under the prevailing winds, indeed against the prevailing winds!

                explains the hotspots in tokyo! 0.70 microsieverts in china! so what were the real readings of gamma in tokyo?


                Report comment

        • HoTaters

          It can be saved as a .pdf file. Probably a good idea to scan it before opening it. I’m confident my virus program would take care of anything there.


          Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    Second explosion. Gee that #3 she blew up good. Thank god that fuel pool is in tact. I mean you could you imagine the core and the fuel pool……


    Report comment

    • fredlvie

      nothing intact.all gone.there are pics in youtube from no.3 before and after 2.explosion.after first explosion there was to be seen a huge leak in the orange top of the vessel.after 2nd explosion NOTHING more could be seen inside from the drone-cam.wether there is a fuelpool left
      nor a piece from the orange painted vessel.


      Report comment

      • farawayfan farawayfan

        I think Kevin is deploying sarcasm….


        Report comment

        • Kevin Kevin

          Yes indeed saracasm was launched, a little punchy today after the last few go rounds on this topic over the last few days. SO when I saw this this morning, with only half a cup of coffee in me, well I just could not help myself.

          The official narrative, (even after apparently the understanding of 2 explosions) has been the pool remains intact.

          This link shows to what extent they went to push this theory. Big pictures, superimposed identification safe and securce fuel pond. The whole nine yards. And this stuff was all over the place.

          See here: http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/r3.html

          However, if as the UN apparently knew, two explosions occurred and the first one was the one we all saw. Then there is little if any doubt the SFP is done and likely along with the core and the results are astronomical, and so lost lasing it is near inconceivable what we have done. And these loonies push on…. what on earth is gonna take.

          I spent an ordinate amount of time on this and I did come across mumblings of a second explosion but even closed my eyes on that one. The sources seemed questionable and the whole notion absurd, I mean who can cover up an explosion after all teh attention was put on these things after the first explosions.

          But nonetheless it seems this was the case, of course the typo is a little suspect…..

          I think I am losing it…


          Report comment

          • Hogweed

            Something else happened at Unit 3 beginning about 20th March and lasting several days. TEPCO continually reported white smoke snd the Webcam images showed several days of heavy smoke and not just white.

            Here’s 23rd March 17:00 JST



            Report comment

            • Hogweed

              TEPCO pressure readings show a sudden pressure ruse at Unit 3 on the night of 20th/21st March Core Press A goes off-scale high and then containment pressure collapses and all pressure readings pretty much flatline from then on.

              If Unit 3 really did blow containment completely on 14th March as some believe then TEPCO faked readings for the next week and then faked what looks like a second explosion late on the night of the 20th/21st March.

              An earlier Japanese report said http://japanfocus.org/-Fujioka-Atsushi/3599

              The Tōhoku earthquake made a direct hit on the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. At 3:00 p.m. on the following day, March 12, a hydrogen explosion took place in the No. 1 reactor, followed by similar explosions in the No. 3 reactor on March 14 and in the No. 2 and No. 4 reactors on March 15. On March 21, there was another mysterious explosion in the No. 3 reactor.

              …March 21: A Second Massive Release of Radiation

              On the morning of March 21 the wind was blowing from the north. In areas downwind from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant (including the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Plant and the cities of Kita Ibaraki, Takahagi and Mito), levels of airborne radiation suddenly spiked. What caused this abnormal jump? According to Tanabe Fumiya, an expert in nuclear power, at this same time the air pressure inside the pressure container of the No. 3 reactor, the one that used MOX (a mixed oxide fuel containing both plutonium and uranium), suddenly soared to 110 times the normal level. Because of this extremely high pressure, it was no longer possible to add cooling water from outside; as a result, the damaged fuel rods in the reactor once again went into meltdown, and the resulting build up of steam led to an explosion. The molten remnants of the fuel rods then breached the pressure container and leaked to the floor of the containment vessel.


              Report comment

              • Hogweed

                [CONT]

                The author also suggests that the explosion on the 14th was nuclear.

                From Meltdown to Melt-Through

                The Tōhoku earthquake made a direct hit on the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. At 3:00 p.m. on the following day, March 12, a hydrogen explosion took place in the No. 1 reactor, followed by similar explosions in the No. 3 reactor on March 14 and in the No. 2 and No. 4 reactors on March 15. On March 21, there was another mysterious explosion in the No. 3 reactor.

                The explosion that took place in the No. 3 reactor on March 14 was accompanied by a violent thundering sound and emitted a mushroom cloud several hundred meters high. This horrifying spectacle was widely reported abroad, including video footage. It was thus foreigners who were first made aware and fully informed that in “the country of Hiroshima” a catastrophe on a par with Chernobyl was taking place. Norimatsu Satoko brought this video to my attention, and when I watched it, I was stunned. Takahashi Tetsuya, who was born and raised in Fukushima, wrote that with the plutonium and uranium mixed fuel used in the No. 3 reactor, “Some people wondered if the uncontrolled reactions had reached a state of criticality and set off a miniature nuclear blast. When you watch the video, you clearly see black smoke pouring out and forming into the shape of a mushroom cloud. Viewing this repeatedly on YouTube, I couldn’t help but recall Hiroshima.”2


                Report comment

              • Bobby1

                Click on the graphs to see the radiation jumps on March 21st in the Kashiwa area:

                http://kenken4433.blog51.fc2.com/blog-entry-1.html


                Report comment

          • HoTaters

            That link should say http://www.houseofDUST.com !!!!

            That would be a more accurate description. Look though I did, pouring over numerous YouTube videos and still shots taken from all angles of No. 3 after the explosion(s), I couldn’t locate the spent fuel pools for the life of me.

            My personal opinion at the time (FWIW) was that the SPF was gone, vaporized, dust, kaput (like many of us will be if/when we breathe the #$^%, MOX or non.


            Report comment

  • More proof?

    “Jiji: High radiation levels near Tokyo linked to Fukushima — Rain caused 29,250,000 Bq/m² in soil says gov’t — Almost DOUBLE last gov’t test. At Chernobyl, cesium contamination above 1,480,000 Bq/m² required FORCED evacuation, 555,000-1.48 million Bq/m² was for temporary migration.”

    http://enenews.com/jiji-high-radiation-levels-tokyo-linked-fukushima-rain-caused-29250000-bqm-soil-govt-almost-double-last-govt-test

    Kashiwa is a bedroom community of Tokyo, with over 400,000 residents. “The Tokyo urban area (35.2 million people) had a total GDP of US $1.479 trillion in 2008″. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo

    Is it any wonder that there is a huge denial around all of this? It is easier to deny than to try and figure out a way to evacuate 32 million people and abandon most of the country due to radiation/MOX fuel contamination.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwa,_Chiba


    Report comment

    • HoTaters

      Well, let’s see — if the U.S. and Canadian West coast got somewhat over 50% of that 29,250,000 Bq/m squared, and the Chernobyl evacuation threshold was 1,480,000 Bq/M squared, then Helen Caldicott was correct in saying the entire West Coast of North America should have been evacuated …. And there I sat along with the rest of us poor sods, twiddling me thumbs while wondering how bad it really was.

      Sure wish I’d known about ENENEWS back in March or April ….


      Report comment

  • “The on-going nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant site in Japan is the worst industrial accident the world has ever faced and the Japanese people are facing an ever unfolding and expanding tragedy of a magnitude the world has never experienced. [...]
    Fairewinds and its team of volunteers will continue to raise its voice to tell the truth about the Fukushima accidents, which dwarf the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, in the ongoing tragic exposure to children in Japan and around the world.”

    http://enenews.com/fairewinds-fukushima-dwarfs-chernobyl-japanese-face-tragedy-of-a-magnitude-world-has-never-experienced/comment-page-1#comment-176228

    It seems Arnie Gunderson has reached more or less the same conclusion.. without numbers of course. How can one put numbers on a disaster this still going on, without any end in sight, releasing radiation every day, even today?

    According to Arnie Gunderson, the DAILY radiation release from Fukushima is estimated at 13 TRILLION Bequerels per day. With plastic cover over unit #1 it is now down to 10 Trillion Bq per day, as long as filter is working well and taking out up to 90% of the total airborne radiation. This release is ONGOING, CONSTANT and NEVER ENDING.

    This amounts to 100 Trillion Bq every ten days, 1,000 Trillion Bq every 100 days, and 3000 Trillion Bq every 300 days. This has been going on since the effort started to get this all to ‘cold shutdown’. Is this their definition of ‘cold shutdown’? When does this radiation and the radiation coming out in the form of radioactive water get added to the total above?

    So where is the filter material? Who is in charge of disposing of it or changing it? Where is the report saying how often they change it out? Who is measuring the total amount collected and verifying this, plus the types of radiation found? Where is this filter material anyway?http://fairewinds.com/content/update-gundersen-if-you-love-planet-dr-hellen-caldicott


    Report comment

    • fredlvie

      my question wasn’t answered up today.i mentioned it months before…

      WHY DOES NOBODY TELL US ABOUT NEUTRON-RADIATION VALUES AT THE SITE???????????


      Report comment

      • Good point.. From what I see, NO ONE has released ANY ACTUAL DATA from the beginning to present day. NO ONE is demanding to see any records or monitor readings, to this day. WHY NOT?

        So far, it seems to be all about estimates, guesstimates, extrapolations, guesses, models, etc. Each of these only looks at a tiny slice of what is coming out of FUKU, based on ASSUMPTIONS, which are often completely at odds with reality and reports of what happened.

        NO radiation meters recorded ANYTHING downwind of the FUKU plant, nor did any vent stacks record anything coming out of them. There are NO radiation meters downwind of the plant, where 99 percent of all radiation ends up going.

        They are using upwind radiation meters. They are releasing data from these upwind meters, but NONE from downwind. Why not? Why no data from the vent tubes going up 700 feet into the air?

        I can see what looks like instruments sticking out into the center of these tubes at the top. I find it very difficult to believe that NO nuclear reactor at this site ever measured anything coming out of FUKU, either via the vent stacks or via downwind or airborne radiation monitors.

        What is happening is the same thing that happened at Chernobyl.. No actual instrument readings were released, but lots of guesses about what went downstream.. and these guesses ranged wildly from one extreme to another. This is NOT science. Science is based on actual measurements.

        I would think that scientists have access to radiation meters that run on solar or battery power that would measure and record very high radiation readings, all around the plant. Putting in meters that ONLY run when power is on, defeats the whole purpose of putting meters around a plant.

        Again, this is NOT science, but a protection racket, designed to defeat scientific inquiry, honest information seeking and truthful disclosure, as well as transparency. Saying they have no information and hiding that they do have, is criminal.


        Report comment

        • Kevin Kevin

          Its bizarre isnt it? Criminal as you say.

          A truly ominous indication of the level decpetion and manipulation we are going to have to endure. Its akin to a war time like environment. Hey wait a minute….


          Report comment

        • Toadmac

          There can only be three answers IMO. #1:The industry and its owners control our world a lot more than anyone has ever dared to think possible? #2: The situation is so dire that all parties
          do not want to cause chaos for the last few years we have on earth? #3: Its not really that bad,so why even mention it?

          Any other answer possible?


          Report comment

  • Anyone know if it is worth messing with Wikipedia, to change what is there and more accurately reflect the truth of what is happening?

    What is the process for inputting different information, or changing what is there, or adding new information?

    Is it going to be deleted, or will it stay?


    Report comment

    • Tumrgrwer Tumrgrwer

      How you can contribute

      Don’t be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits. If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article’s discussion page. Changes to controversial topics and Wikipedia’s main pages should usually be discussed first.
      Remember – you can’t break Wikipedia; all edits can be reversed, fixed or improved later. Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!
      Donate – Wikipedia is free to use, but relies on donations and grants to do so. Please consider donating using the Donate to Wikipedia link on the left to help with the projects running costs and expansion.


      Report comment

    • farawayfan farawayfan

      Give it a try. Log everything and blog it back here. The resulting reversals, censorship and banning should prove very amusing.


      Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      I think it would be prudent to add many various article links to here too.


      Report comment

    • HoTaters

      The person who wrote an article can go back and edit your edit.

      Example: Pro-IDSA factions (Infectious Disease Society of America) believes chronic Lyme disease does not exist. Lyme literate M.D.’s believe it does. The two factions are very politicized, and have totally different approaches to testing, diagnosis, and treatment.

      I went into Wikipedia and edited what I thought were blatant mis-statements of fact in a pro-IDSA article on Lyme. (I believe the IDSA has suppressed medical evidence for profit.) A few days later, my edits had been edited out, and the original material was back in the article.

      You can contest the edits (one way or the other, whether you are the original author, or an editing contributor).


      Report comment

  • Hogweed

    I wonder if it is a typo and should read “At 11:00 (Japan Standard Time) JST on 15 March, Unit 4 explored [sic] again.”

    According to TEPCO Unit 4 exploded about 7am and they reported a second event about 9:30 JST which they called a fire at Unit 4. They they said the fire was out then said it was on fire again later. The webcam showed Unit 4 smoking the entire day.


    Report comment

    • James2

      The initial explosion was at 11:01 am JST on March 14th. The event was widely televised, and details were recorded in the reactor log. Per law, the government was formally notified of the event, as well as the release of nuclear core material, which “fell all over the plant site”.

      After that explosion, the decision was made to abandon the plant and the effort to save Fukushima – shortly after abandonment, a crew returned to try to save whatever else they could.

      The reactor control room was heavily damaged, and full of radiation after this event. There had not been any power on site for a few days and it would be another week or two before any power was restored.

      The blast of #3 was large enough to destroy any instrumentation, so even if they could have gotten into the control room (they couldn’t) and even if they could see what they were doing without power (they couldn’t) then the gauges still wouldn’t have worked.

      There is no possibility any data on #3 after March 14th is correct at all. If there was a second explosion it was much smaller and it was not officially recorded.

      This is the crux of the entire issue at Fukushima – bottom line – they loaded MOX into an old reactor and 9 months later it melted down and exploded in a giant plutonium laced mushroom cloud.


      Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        Neutron Beam Observed at Fukushima Nuke Plant – Alex Jones Tv 1/3
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1rNQH2q8sY


        Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Neutron Beams Detected at Japan Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant – 23 March
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTpr6Id_Wbw
          “The 13 measured neutron beams may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant’s nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.

          http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

          “Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Wednesday, March 23, it has observed a neutron beam, a kind of radioactive ray, 13 times on the premises of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was crippled by the massive March 11 quake-tsunami disaster.

          “TEPCO, the operator of the nuclear plant, said the neutron beam measured about 1.5 kilometers southwest of the plant’s No. 1 and 2 reactors over three days from March 13 and is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 microsieverts per hour and that this is not a dangerous level.

          “The utility firm said it will measure uranium and plutonium, which could emit a neutron beam, as well.

          “In the 1999 criticality accident at a nuclear fuel processing plant run by JCO Co. in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, uranium broke apart continually in nuclear fission, causing a massive amount of neutron beams.

          “* Observation from Scientist Susan Rennison:

          “’Have the Japanese been caught out by spy satellites? A meltdown occurs when the control rods fail to contain nuclear reactions in the form of neutron emission and so heat levels inside the reactor rises to a point where the fuel itself melts. This is the level, where neutron beams can be observed. When a nuclear chain reaction occurs, neutrons bombard atoms of the nuclear fuel, splitting them (fission), which creates a lot of energy, and more neutrons and then the process just self perpetuates. Hence, the production of neutron beams are a clear sign of fission within the plutonium/uranium. This announcement most certainly means that the Japanese have been forced to admit the truth that meltdown is well…


          Report comment

  • James2

    There was one single large explosion at Reactor 3 on March 14th, which came from the reactor core and, surprisingly saved the spent fuel pool.

    If there was a second one on a later day it did not disturb either the reactor area or the spent fuel pool. It may have come from another area. There seemed like some damage to #4 that came from the direction of #3, and that damage appeared a few days after the initial explosion.

    There are dozens of photographs of the aftermath of the #3 explosion. There are flyover videos which show the pool intact.

    There is documentation of MOX fuel on the ground and there is documentation that says the fuel pool contained no MOX – only the core.

    There is a photograph, I thought I saved it from PF back in the spring – which shows a perfectly round hole exactly the diameter of the containment cap was blown through the roof structure in the initial explosion.

    On or around December 5th, the spent fuel pool collapsed, and it is on fire right now as I post this. Prior to that it had been contaminated with concrete and rebar debris from the roof collapse, and it likely had some water leaks, but it did hold water, and it did contain the spent fuel.


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      Its amazing the confidence you command when you make such statements. The tissue of lies and misinformation is so formidable I find it remarkable you are able to cut through it all and so decisively lay out your opinion.

      Really quite remarkable. Too bad such confidence and absolute accuracy exists virtually nowhere else.

      And you do so from 5000 miles away.

      Amazing really.


      Report comment

      • James2

        Yup I’m 100% confident.

        Amazing to someone who doesn’t read the details maybe – or maybe would like to change history up a bit.

        But to someone who has studied every detail – and was paying attention virtually from the moment it happened, not so amazing.

        Like I said, if you


        Report comment

        • James2

          If you have some new information about what happened – or you have one of the operators that worked crazily for 36 hours to keep the reactor from exploding, only to fail and have a catastrophic explosion, let me know.


          Report comment

        • Kevin Kevin

          Well, there are a number of people here who have been on top of this since the beginning myself included. However no one exerts such command of the issues.

          You seem to feel you are the only one he reads details. Yet you frequently do not provide said details. I am sure you hav read them. In my case I have been inundated with details and as I said I found a tissue of lies and fabrications, peppered with misinformation and issues management strategies to such an extent the “truth” is virtually indistinguishable.

          Its a special talent to see through it all and wind up, 100%, accurate. A unique and amazing talent.


          Report comment

          • James2

            No it’s not my job to educate you with the details, but I do quote them accurately and if I don’t I’m sure you would remind me.

            In our exchange yesterday it was obvious you have not studied the details to the extent I have, so don’t try to say you know as much about this as me. You do not, and I know it.

            I will not argue with nuckelchen about what appears in the webcams – he knows more than I ever will.

            I will not argue with Tacoma about the fallout predictions. He/she knows much more than me.

            I will not argue with Whoopie about what the latest news is or buzz is on Fukushima she knows much more about this than me.

            I will not argue with Busby or Caldecott about the effects of radiation on humans – because they both know more than me.

            I will debate with anyone about the sequence of events on unit 3. I know what happened when and I suspect there are very few if any folks who know more.

            I am human and I make errors. My typing skills aren’t great, and I sometimes do miss things. If I do, and something proves me wrong, I’d be ecstatic to report a different sequence than the one I’m currently reporting.

            But you had better bring your A game if you want to argue Fuku #3 with me…


            Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              Reminds me of Obama. All talk, but no facts or documentation to back up the talk.


              Report comment

              • Dr. McCoy

                Anne, it’s President Obama and, imho, this is not the place for such commentary. Just sayin’…


                Report comment

                • VanneV anne

                  President Obama is in favor of more subsidies and more building of nuclear power plants. He is responsible for the use of uranium in weapons in the Middle East. Use of nuclear is genocide. President Obama is in favor of genetically modified farming and he is responsible for spraying my family with pesticides.

                  I’m sorry if you want such an unscientific president who is supporting the media blackout on the radiation coming from Fukushima. He is responsible for all the radioactive food and merchandise coming out of Japan. It is harming my children.


                  Report comment

                • VanneV anne

                  Dr. Mc Coy, What kink of doctor are you masquerading as?


                  Report comment

    • Hogweed

      Why would TEPCO fake pressure readings for a whole week and then fake what appears to be an explosion followed by total loss of containment pressure on the night of the 20th/21st March? We have seen no video of that event but the webcam stills show something happened that produced heavy smoke for days after. What do you suggest that was?

      TEPCO’s readings show that the explosion on the 14th did cause a slight pressure drop but not a complete breech. They then show pressure increasing on the 20th above design limits followed by all sensors dropping towards atmospheric or off-scale low.

      Seems a strange set of things to fake. I’m just curious why you think they would do that.


      Report comment

      • James2

        The whole thing was smoking for weeks afterward.

        They lost containment pressure the moment the top blew off the containment and sent debris a mile into the air. They didn’t lose it 6 days later, because they had no containment data after the explosion.

        Ask them why they faked the data. The building was completely destroyed – you’ve seen it.

        The control room was abandoned, and was not inhabitable for a few weeks. There was no power on site. And yet they continued to provide data…

        When they were confronted with these facts, they initially said the data was “estimated” then later retracted that statement.


        Report comment

        • Hogweed

          According to TEPCO they used car batteries to provide minimal power for some sensors and never entirely abandoned the control room for long periods of time. Where the control room was abandoned there is no data so there are gaps.

          Why would the control room be uninhabitable for weeks?

          I don’t know what happened but your constant insistence that you have the only possible interpretation is “curious”.


          Report comment

          • James2

            That’s what they did prior to the explosion. They did not return to the #3/4 control room for several weeks after the explosion. The radiation was too high.

            Remember they had a large press conference and called it a big win when they were able to return to the control room.

            Regardless no instrumentation that could measure the core would have survived that explosion.

            My insistence and confidence is based on the fact that I have studied this very issue night and day for 9 months. I’ve looked at every photo I could get. I’ve studied the blueprints.

            I would venture to say I know more about it than anyone else on the planet – with the exception of those who were there – and I strongly suspect none of them are alive anymore.

            I will not allow anyone to revise history on this topic – and there are constant attempts to do that.

            Show me data that I haven’t seen I’m happy to look at it. Try to convince me of something that is physically impossible – I will reject you out of hand. Show me an article written by somebody who read a report that was issued months after the fact (like the one above) and I have to laugh.


            Report comment

            • Hogweed

              According to TEPCO the control room was only briefly evacuated a couple of times. They claim that grid electrical supply was restored to the control room at 22:43 JST March 22nd. Somewhere I recall seeing a claimed control room radiation level reading at the time. Will try to find it.

              All this data is in documents I downloaded at the time and are still available on TEPCO’s website unchanged as I’ve gone and compared a few with the current online versions.

              Of course it could all be a work of fiction.


              Report comment

              • James2

                Make sure you confirm which control room. I believe there is one control room for units 1 and 2 and a separate one for units 3 and 4 and yet another for 5 and 6

                I think what you are describing may be possible for the 1/2 control room and the 5/6 room.

                Here is the photos of them returning to the 1/2 control room, which had been abandoned for at least 8 days.

                http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/23/6327867-first-look-inside-crippled-fukushima-dai-ichi-nuclear-power-plant-control-room

                3/4 took much longer. There was a large press conference when they finally got back in.


                Report comment

                • Hogweed

                  They reported Unit 2 power at the distribution panel as at 16:46 March 20th although they reported that the lights weren’t switched on for a few more days.

                  What makes you think the control room for units 1/2 was abandoned for 8 days? TEPCO claims these photos are from when minimal lighting was restored – not when they returned for the first time.

                  Perhaps the control rooms were really evacuated completely for as long as you say but do you have any other evidence for this?


                  Report comment

          • Hogweed

            Here’s 14th March at 15:00 JST

            This was the last day Unit 4 nearest camera was shown intact. Some steam is seen in the webcam stills from the 14th but nothing compared to what is seen the following day from Unit 4 and nothing like what is seen a week later apparently from Unit 3.

            The webcam images could have been faked in real time as well I suppose but if so why not fake no major smoke on the 15th and 21st onwards?


            Report comment

            • James2

              I can’t see #3 in that photo, but there’s no reason to believe it’s not accurate.

              That is 4 hours after the #3 explosion and the day before the #2 explosion and also prior to what they initially called a “fire” that destroyed #4.

              There was almost no damage to #4 after the #3 explosion – the blast went almost completely vertical.


              Report comment

      • Toadmac

        This is only my theory and I would have to agree about the faked readings. All containment data was faked IMO. I put many hours of study into all sources of information I could find. I am no expert but could see the lies from news sources after the first explosions. From this moment on it was self education time. My reasoning is this:
        Melt-through of a reactor vessel once systems have failed may take from a few tens of minutes to several hours(wikipedia and many other sources). During the interaction between corium and concrete, very high temperatures can be achieved. The decomposition temperature of concrete is about 1100 °C. The corium can reach temps of 2800 °C (some scientists and researchers suggest the possibility of much higher temps 4000°C+). At this temp decomposition of concrete can reach 1m an hour. The possibility of total melt through in hours and days, not weeks or months seems very likely to me!
        My theory is that the first explosions and fires were caused from the coriums eating concrete and possibly ground water in the following hours and days after the quake. IMO this is possible as they have never tested there theory in the field for obvious reasons.


        Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      Why don’t you check out this website.
      http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=1734

      You keep repeating the TEPCO party line so often I assume when you said you aren’t of their payroll yet, that you are hoping to be on their payroll or have now succeeded with your goal.


      Report comment

  • James 2.

    How would the sfp collapse?

    There would have to be fission. / and heat decay at over 2500-5000F. . (concrete melting point).

    That would mean there would be a visual convection / plume on that date. (large)

    Dec is a cold month. We would all have seen this release. (27 tons water) turned instantly into steam. On a day that is 10-34c.

    This means that there should in your theory. Be a huge plume of steam rising over the reactor on that date.

    Produce the video; You win.

    There is no arguing the role of physics in this matter. If a substance (water) is 40ft over the height of a 2500-5000f heat source. in a 75ft by 75 ft area (40ft deep)… (estimated area of pool): The water would convect at a rate of 3.51624 tons per hr.

    That is a lot of steam…


    Report comment

    • James2

      In the document titled “Progress Status Classified by Issues (Photos and Figures)”, they have photos and this description of work they did to the SFP3 since the explosion in March:

      [Unit 3]
      Continuation of water injection by “Giraffe” etc – Standby as backup after restoration of normal cooling system – Reliability improvement: enhanced durability of hoses – Measures to reduce radiation dose: switch to remote-controlled operation
      Restoration of normal cooling system
      - Confirmation of system integrity through water level measurement by “Giraffe,” etc. (from May 8 to May 15) – Water injection through normal cooling system (from May 16 to Jun. 29)
      Installation of heat exchanger
      - Installation work of heat exchanger completed. Circulating cooling system is under operation (from Jun. 30).
      Desalting water in Spent Fuel Pool
      - Desalting water is in preparation (sequential implementing)

      I don’t think they would desalinate the water and install a very large new heat exchanger if there was no fuel in the pool. Other documents confirm the fuel did remain in the pool.

      The entire surface of everything was covered with debris from the explosion, so camera views looked like a mess, but the pool, remarkably was intact. I suppose it probably leaked, but they were able to keep it cooled down – initially with the snorkel or “giraffe” trucks and later with installed plumbing and a new heat exchanger

      Why did it collapse 9 months later? I don’t think it collapsed from heat. residual damage from the explosion and aftershocks are more likely. Heat from whatever fuel was left in the core maybe – but it was more likely mechanical.


      Report comment

      • I will bite.

        However I feel that
        A. Fuel cells became brittle when exposed to oxygen releasing their fuel pellets.
        B. that regardless of fuel bundles being present in a visual setting. A large proportion were also expelled. Both from the initial explosion as well as the melting of.
        C. It was stated that fuel rods from reactor 3 were found lying between reactor 1 and 2. which concludes that some of reactor 3′s payload was blown sky high.

        So either way you look at it its the same. Fuel was damaged regardless of our interpretations.


        Report comment

        • James2

          Tacoma I’ve written it a thousand times it seems.

          It is physically impossible that the fuel was expelled from the SFP3 in the explosion on March 14th.

          I don’t know if you are an engineer or a physics major or an explosives expert. Trust me on this. The walls of the SFP were intact after the explosion – intact enough for video a few days later to confirm it held water, and for it to hold water afterwards.

          The blast pattern of that explosion and the damage afterward is such that it is virtually impossible for any of the spent fuel assemblies to have blown out of the pool.

          If that were the case, the blast pattern would look totally different. It’s physically not possible. As I said a few weeks ago – if you want to argue that point then you need to look up Isaac Newton and get him to revise the physical laws of nature.

          As to whether they got hot enough to melt the cladding and create hydrogen before the explosion – I doubt that too.

          Here’s why – they were madly scrambling and losing the battle to keep the reactor from exploding for a full 36 hours before it did. If you read the logs, the fuel in the core was almost totally exposed for many hours and the RPV pressure reached as high as 1000+ PSI. That’s a big tank to have 1000 PSI of hydrogen gas in. They couldn’t inject water in, because the pressure was too high. They couldn’t get electrical power to get the vents opened. When they started pumping water into the containment they ran out of water several times, and the water they just put in boiled away.

          It was a terrifying situation. I suppose the SFP could have been hot also, but they make no mention of that – and they did have instrumentation at that time. I don’t think the SFP was a concern.


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            No one should trust you because you never include documentation of the claims you make, except sometimes the “official” claims of TEPCO.


            Report comment

          • @ James 2
            http://andrewspagnoli.newsvine.com/_news/2011/04/07/6426599-pieces-of-fuel-rods-blown-out-onto-the-ground-buried-with-bulldozer-as-powerful-aftershock-complicates-japans-nuclear-efforts

            ‘Pieces of Fuel Rods Blown Out Onto The Ground Buried With Bulldozer as Powerful Aftershock Complicates Japan’s Nuclear Efforts’

            (ps I am not saying you are wrong or right james). I am merely pointing out that nuclear fuel rod fragments found on site were confirmed to have come from reactor 3. Which leads me to believe a proportion of the sfp went kaboom. As in my opinion the core lid maintained the pressure of the explosion (which it was confirmed to be inside the reactor after the initial explosion.) Not to say it did or did not blow off. I just feel that these fragments are more likely to have come from the sfp than the primary containment.


            Report comment

            • In my opinion: if the primary containment was the main culprit of the explosion. Than the fuel would have been quite literally vaporized in the atomic reaction. No fragments would have existed. This is due to the pressure and the size of the explosion. There would be nothing left to cool. There would be no primary containment dome. There would be no fuel left to cool. And sfp would be fully intact.

              The fact the reactor 3 continued to release thousands of tons of convection for months following the crisis show that fission was taking place at a constant. If this was only from the sfp then the fuel cells were highly damaged. If this was from the core. then the sfp is gone.

              Either way in my opinion the sfp 3 is highly damaged. As well as released a very large amount of decay.


              Report comment

              • James2

                Let’s take those one at a time – fuel vaporized – I can’t comment – I don’t know if it was an atomic explosion or not – didn’t appear to be one to me, but I don’t know – I do know they had a gigantic pressure buildup in the RPV and the primary containment prior to the blast.

                Nothing left to cool. Early IR images showed some hot fuel left in the containment – not a lot, but some.

                There would be no primary containment dome – you mean the cap? It blew.

                SFP would be fully intact – exactly – until it fell down recently.

                The fact that reactor 3 continued to release convection for months – yes it did – weeks anyway. As I said above, I think some fuel was left in the core. Also, unless it all vaporized in a nuke explosion – which it didn’t, because that would have been a much bigger boom – then some of it either stayed in the core or fell back down on top of the wreckage. Do you remember the pictures of piles of what appeared to be nuke rods all over the north end of the building? I do.

                I agree with you that the SFP is now pretty damaged. Last I looked it was still a raging inferno.


                Report comment

            • James2

              Why do you insist the rod fragments were from the spent fuel pool, which is impossible, and not from the core?

              The core lid did not maintain pressure it blew through the roof. Who confirmed it to be inside the reactor after the explosion. I’ve seen many try to claim that, but no proof whatsoever – other than the fake pressure data.

              Please review my post – it is physically impossible – not my opinion – physically impossible! – that fragments came from the SFP in that explosion.

              If there was another explosion a few days later that I’m not aware of, then possibly fuel blew out of the pool, but I highly doubt it – there was no containment over the pool at all for hydrogen to collect in.


              Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        Have you posted a link yet that states that the SFP of #3 recently collapsed? Saying something over and over again without documentation doesn’t make it true.


        Report comment

        • James2

          Show me a clear photograph that shows it hasn’t collapsed yet, and I’ll shut up.

          Otherwise flames spewing from a spot right next to where the pool existed intact a few weeks before, and clear degradation of the outside wall to a level lower than the pool is evidence enough for me.


          Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        Have you looked at the photos from March in this video?


        Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      There is so much prompts doubt about the SFP its mind boggling.

      The simplist for me was that by the design specs the pool sits high. The bottom of which is well elevated in the containment. If you look at the highest standing wall in the pics of the remnants of reactor 3, it is not much higher than 40 feet and the supposedly untouched and secure fuel pool is placed even lower than that by those who identify in link such as this.

      See here: http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/r3.html

      This is at odds with the specs. Going by what they provide the bottom of the 40 foot SFP would be near ground level. An impossibility, at least as the specs are concerned.

      This is but one anonomoly of counteless ones I came across.


      Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    This overhead provides more context from the high side left on reactor three if keep all three of these links up and switch between for context it give you a pretty good idea of things, and while it is remotely possible the pool is/was (if James is correct about it recently collapsing) still intact it is just as possible it is not when just observing the pictures I provided here in the last three posts of this thread.

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


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    Hey everyone, how goes the battle for information? I edon’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet but Chris Busby was on infowars today with alex jones. Once it gets posted on youtube I will post the link or else you can go to http://www.infowars.com and listen to it there. I’m sure it will be a good interview cause alex jones is a good host and will do a good job in the interview. He did a good job reporting on fukushima back in march and make a lot of statements that ended up being right, everyone should check it out, will post it here when I find a link take it easy everyone.


    Report comment

    • James2

      It’s clear to me Kenny Boy that your mind control team is hard at work trying to rewrite the history of what happened at Unit 3.

      In case it wasn’t clear up to this point in the thread. There are a few million babies and children and families who are counting on me not letting them be killed by the mind control team’s superb effort to lie to them.

      But I won’t let them down – at least on this point about what happened to reactor 3…


      Report comment

      • or-well

        You sound delusional James2 -

        “There are a few million babies and children and families who are counting on me not letting them be killed…”

        If anything kills them it won’t be the sequence of events espoused by you, your supporters OR detractors.

        Whether the core, the SFP, or both, or neither blew the radiation is out there and what will help save lives is honest data about radiation levels there and here and everywhere.


        Report comment

        • James2

          possible or-well. I might be delusional.

          But I’m pretty sure lying about the facts does indeed cause real people to die. I’d suggest anyone trying to cover this thing up should think long and hard about there motives here.


          Report comment

          • or-well

            James2, I agree, coverup of potentially lifesaving data is beyond criminal.

            And don’t misunderstand – I admire your tenacity and committment, as I admire those who have attempted to factually disagree with your position.

            I’m simply saying the actual
            sequence of events may remain forever
            unknown to us AND determining whether or not SFP#3 has collapsed is not going to help anyone in the absence of hard monitoring data.

            Put bluntly, I don’t care which posters’ version of what happened is correct. Most here know it’s BAD. Without radiation monitoring data we are forced to speculate as to event particulars and the steps we should take to protect ourselves.

            I don’t think we as forum commenters collectively have much impact outside of this site.

            I think Enenews the site is having a growing, if limited impact.

            My hope is that no one here becomes overwhelmed by the impact of so much bad news rolling by everyday and such deep involvement with it that sight of what we need most becomes lost in unresolveable dispute.


            Report comment

            • James2

              Here’s why this particular issue is so important to me.

              And probably why it is so important to them.

              As soon as I realized what exactly happened at #3, it changed my entire prospective on the nuke industry.

              i realized what was said at the end of one of the threads yesterday – that it’s time to end this – now…

              If the public comes to realize that a nuclear reactor – with all its billion dollar, vaunted safety systems and inpenetrable containment – can and did blow it’s top like that one did, then all they have to do is look to the one near where they live and say – “it’s time to shut that thing down.

              And the mind controllers know the exact same thing. Which is precisely why they must change history and tell everyone that it didn’t really blow up after all.

              Well it did, and it will again if we don’t act. It’s time to end this, now..


              Report comment

              • or-well

                James2, your nuclear epiphany is to be welcomed. Perceptual 180′s can be uncomfortable. You seem to have embraced yours zealously.

                The events at Fukushima – in their totality – may indeed mark a turning point in public attitude toward NPPs, as well they should and as other events should have done.

                But didn’t.

                Personally, I think if #3 blew its’ guts that will never be admitted and no amount of internet chat sound and fury will make it so.

                By all means it should be discussed.

                As should every other revelation of nuclear powers’ stupidity.

                There is ample evidence of nuclears’ inappropriateness, quite apart from exactly what happened at #3.

                By all means carry on, make this your life work if you choose, but realise this – what happened there is not needed to discredit nuclear – that is done in fact if not in popular perception, broad awareness or official recognition.

                Even if it is never known to any but a few what exactly happened -as is most likely to be the case – all the attendant realities of nuclear power damn it irrevocably anyway.

                To achieve broad comprehension of the consequences, spread over time, lives, countries, oceans and continents we need hard monitoring data taken from land, water, food, air etc. as well as honest medical data.

                I’m not saying stop what you’re doing. I am suggesting it is unnecesaary to wage war against all who disagree with you on points of detail, on the assumption all who do so are pro-nuclear, when those same points of detail may have less relevance to the battle than you may believe.

                There are battles, and then there is the war, and it will require many fighting together with the larger victory over nuclear in mind.

                I doubt anything I’ve said will have any affect on any involved but I needed to say it.

                Good luck. I mean it.


                Report comment

              • I had this email exchange with the “Big Arnie”, he supports the Fuel Pool being blown up in a “moderated Prompt Criticality”

                Seeing a later video “supposedly from fuel pool 3″ I have second thoughts, BUT that video show one small part of a big pool covered in shrapnel, and I have no idea where is was actually taken.

                Regardless, the video Arnie links to (in my next post due to word limit) shows early US experiments with intentionally producing a prompt criticality, go to 3:15 in. They adjust factors and get a reactor to blowup a little (spouting water) until the finally get to a massive explosion. This is using just U235, not highly enriched U238 or MOX. This proves that this type of explosion CAN HAPPEN, and for sure did at #3 building.

                It is far too strong to be just hydrogen.
                FROM ARNIE EMAIL

                Hi Steve,
                First, I need to explain what a moderated prompt criticality is and is not.
                Uranium 235 atoms split (fission) when they are hit by a neutron and when a uranium 235 atom does fission, it gives off two or three neutrons. In order for a chain reaction to occur, a single Uranium 235 fission must liberate enough neutrons to cause another uranium 235 atom to fission which in turn must liberate enough neutrons to cause another uranium235 atom to fission, and so on. Not all the neutrons create a second or third fission, because some neutrons are captured by other isotopes instead of U235. For instance, if uranium 238 absorbs a neutron, it does not cause a fission. Since only 4% of the fuel is U235 and 96% is 238, not all neutrons create fissions of U235…..


                Report comment

                • steveo—-MY BAD IN ABOVE, I reversed the U235 and U238 with U238 being more common and less dangerous to chain reaction of nuetrons.

                  continued from ARNIE

                  There are two types of neutrons released after Uranium splits. Prompt neutrons are released immediately (one millionth of a second) after a U235 atom fissions and account for about 99% of the neutrons released. Delayed neutrons leave later and account for about 1% of the neutrons.
                  If a chain reaction is stable, 1 neutron collides with a U235 atom which causes another individual U235 atom to split in the second generation and yet another in the third generation. This is a “neutron multiplication factor” of 1. Since over two neutrons are created with every fission, more than half of the neutrons produced in the fission get absorbed and do not create additional fissions. If a chain reaction speeds up, the neutron multiplication factor is slightly higher than 1, like 1.0001. Over a period of many seconds, the power level gradually increases.
                  In order to control a chain reaction, the neutron multiplication from prompt neutrons must always be less than 1. The 1% delayed neutrons push the neutron multiplication factor over 1.0. Since the prompt neutrons fly out of the uranium so quickly, it would be impossi


                  Report comment

                  • it would be impossible to control a chain reaction if there were only prompt neutrons released. So controlling the chain reaction is done very slowly by making sure that there never is a time when prompt neutrons alone can cause the neutron multiplication to exceed 1.0.
                    So a self-sustaining chain reaction is like a hair trigger on a gun. There is only a 1% difference between it being under control and out of control. When it goes out of control it is called a PROMPT CRITICALITY, because the prompt neutrons alone cause a rapid growth in power. And the prompt neutrons are created VERY quickly.
                    To complicate matters further, there are two types of prompt criticalities because of what happens after the prompt neutrons leave the U235. In a bomb, these prompt neutrons do not slow down before they hit the next uranium atom and cause the next chain reaction. Bombs need highly enriched U235 so the atoms are very close to each other and there is no chance for the neutrons to slow down. This Prompt criticality doubles in power every millionth of a second and causes incredibly rapid power increase that is the destructive nature of a bomb.
                    The second type of prompt criticality is called a prompt MODERATED criticality, which is what I believed happened at Fukushima. Fukushima had low enriched uranium and could not make a bomb. The prompt neutrons in the fuel pool had to travel over a longer distance to find another U235 atom. This longer journey causes them to slow down and become moderated. Slowing down takes one thousandth of a second. So a moderated prompt criticality doubles in power in a thousandth of a second, while a bomb grows at a millionth of a second.
                    There clearly was a significant explosion at Fukushima but it could not have been a bomb because the enrichment of the fuel was too low to make a bomb.
                    A prompt moderated criticality does not melt or destroy the fuel the and but it does create a large amount of heat in a very short time, as little…


                    Report comment

    • Alaskan Alaskan

      Thanks Ken and i did listen


      Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    Well gee I had no idea it would hurt babies… I will call off “my team”……there done I called them off. You just saved the world! Good job jamieboy!


    Report comment

  • James2

    Hey Kenny – did you see nuckelchen’s latest video showing the wall of the #2 reactor burning through?

    http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/23/6327867-first-look-inside-crippled-fukushima-dai-ichi-nuclear-power-plant-control-room

    That pesky nuke fuel just doesn’t want to cool down, does it?


    Report comment

  • nuckelchen nuckelchen

    the digital globe free-pictures-taking-satellite got only pictures shortly before and shortly after the explosion.
    that the satellite had recorded the time between too and all pictures were taken out of public is a large problem for us to understand whats happended there.


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    I will tell that darn feul pool to cool off too. That’s my bad. I can’t argue with a nuclear engineer espically one who has spent so many hours on the site and has seen the wall burning through with his own eyes…


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    @Its cool to speak boldly around here….someone has too.
    Patronizing remarks….mean nothing…
    As time passes…..we will find out who is correct..
    ….reputations are on the line all the way around…
    ….let’s get to it…..


    Report comment

  • James2

    Heart. Honestly it’s time for us to be bolder.

    The information fog is intentional to keep us from being bold – and to keep us from acting.

    And yet the child-murderers uh mind-controllers, want to take you on even though they are operating in the same fog.

    These threads always surprise me in that it becomes 100% apparent what everyone’s intentions are.


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    Wow… I’d say your funny but there is nothing funny about the situation… I’m not gonna have the same argument again it is a waste of time but I will say this… The first time I ran into you here you read my comment and said I was just a conspiracy theorist and I was wrong and you probably don’t even remember that. But now your speading all this mis information and are acting like a loon and being a hipocrate at the same time. Calling people mind controllers, shills and saying arnie gunderson was paid off cause he has a different opinion then you. You are judging everyone when you are nobody, you don’t have the right to judge anyone, you do have the right to an opinion. But if anyones trying to play mind control games here it is you, and you are distracting from the real issues. So what are your intentions? Who are you trying to. Impress? Would save you time to go to E harmony or somewhere if ur just trying to pick someone up. So drop the BS already unless its gonna be productive.


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    US bought a bunch of Uranium from Canada and it was supposed to be top secret and was leaked by CBS. So basically we are all screwed cause it looks like Obama is gonna start a war with Iran and will probably be WW3 with nuclear weapons so I think we have bigger problems then who james2 thinks is a shill or a mind control agent. You need a hobby buddy


    Report comment

  • nohobear nohobear

    This argumentative thread is turning into two passengers on the Titanic arguing about whether the iceberg was a big iceberg, or merely a large iceberg.


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    Yeah the cups only half full of uranium


    Report comment

  • James2

    I sincerely believe it’s life or death for many.

    I certainly have better things to do with my time but to fend off a bunch of folks who couldn’t care less about the truth – but I have nothing more important to do with my life.


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      I think you imply alot of things that dont really exist.

      Most of the folks here are interested in gaining a proper understanding of the circumstances and while you are clear in your beliefs, clearly others are not and for some you may not have made your case in an unconvincing manner.

      Certainly running to the front of the parade and claiming some fictional role of the only truth bearer forging a path for the rest of humanity is a little over the top. Clearly your dedication and tenacity is admirable but a more colegial approach may help your forward your conclusions.

      That said. Here is Busby. He opens well and the rest of the interview has not yet been posted. Unfortunately it is with Alex Jones, but admittedly he did come out early on this issue and in a bold and fearless manner, and on that front I appreciate Alex, its just all his bombast and outrageous “truth” telling all twisted with his own ideological bend and over bearing that works to undermine his effort.

      That being said this a good interview so far, he does not even interrupt all that often and try to open his superior grasp of the issues.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s0qJ3D359Y&feature=colike


      Report comment

      • James2

        Oh:

        That people are controlling the information flow?

        That people here are paid shills operating on behalf of the industry and/or complicit governments. and are active in manipulating the conversation?

        That the webcams are photoshopped and blurred intentionally?

        That they covered up the fact that the #3 MOX core blew?

        That the paid shills may have turned one or more of the most well known industry critics?

        That the MSM hasn’t unduly ignored the fukushima danger?

        That the Japanese people are being given confusing and conflicting information – purposely designed to lead them to not take action?

        Which of those things am I implying and do not exist?


        Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    I was simply referring to people here. Not the more general assertions you make, many of which I agree are taking place.

    You will note in the Busby interview that he seems to refer to both a fuel pool explosion AND a reactor one. So again not definitive with his opinion on reactor three.

    We should pen a letter on behalf of the ENENEWS commmunity and request clarity.

    In this interview he both refers to a British phycisist who compared the fukushima situation to a SFP explosion that occurred in 1959. Then he explains the mechanics behind a reactor type explosion. I will conntinue to listen and see if has anything more to share in this respect.


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    I don’t mean to get upset and get off topic, I just figure maybe if the bully gets bullied he may think twice before he calls people names and makes snap judgements on people and tries to force them on everyone. I come here to get informed and try to share ideas and it reminds me that if we don’t get rid of these nuke plants soon then not much else will matter cause we will all be screwed and we all have to figure out a way to do that


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      Yes clearly there is little if any point attacking each other in this little cyber corner of the internet.

      That said the point you make about what needs to be done and how we, as in collective we reaching beyond the realm of this website, get it done is a worthy discussion as that is clearly the crux of the issue.


      Report comment

      • Ken31ONCA

        We all need to occupy the nearest power plants and tell all friends family post online inform the media, and any other way to get the word out about it and flood your local congressman with phone calls and letters demanding more to be done about testing air and food and other supplies. And it needs to be done as soon as possible cause time is not on our side anymore.


        Report comment

        • Ken31ONCA

          Plus it seems like a lot more people want to help out that aren’t doing much but they should organize better for the japenese people who have nowhere to go and the people with a room or two in a house who has room to take a pregant lady, or single mom or even a whole family there are people who wanna help that way but there is nowhere to call and voulenteer.


          Report comment

  • Tumrgrwer Tumrgrwer

    Ken31ONCA Have not learned much from your posts, I’m new here but it seem to me your not looking at the complete picture and by now if you don’t see it, then perhaps you never will. On the other hand, been here a few weeks and J2 has been a fountain of useful information. Maybe he’s a little direct for some, too bad, some of us here like it that way…leave it alone.

    Let us be kind, one to another, for we are each of us together in our pain!


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    All he is doing is saying information that we all know over again and whining about it. He has no solutions at all other then talking out of his ass sometimes and calling people names. Some people still have to work and I don’t always post but I’ve been here longer then you, so why don’t you practice what you preach and leave it alone or do we have ANOTHER hipocrate


    Report comment

  • Ken31ONCA

    I’m not here to say I know more then arnie gunderson, or alex jones or to teach anything. I will share sites I’ve come across, or stories or videos but I’m not trying to report on something thousands of miles away. I don’t know what he told you but he is not really in the fukushima 50. I take info from reliable sources not james2 but your free to do what you like Tumre


    Report comment

  • dharmasyd dharmasyd

    Reagan’s Baseball Strike! Not OT…

    On the 40th anniversary, August 6 1985, of the A-Bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the Moblization for Survival (MOBE) planned a major protest of all things nuclear. Along with other organizing activities, I did the press work for the tour of the Hibakusha (survivors of the bombs) for 8 South-Western US states.

    One of the best demons we planned was “The Shadow Project;” activists went out all night of Aug 5-6 painting human figures on the streets and sidewalks as a graphic display of the vaporization caused by nuclear weapons. It was the first time such a shadow depiction occured.

    But Reagan was in the middle of promoting his vast nuclear weapons buildup with multiple-headed MX missiles, Star Wars, SDI — all things nuclear. Reagan was worried that the strong anti-nuclear demonstrations might cast a negative shadow on his pro-nuke policies. So he called his good friend Peter Uberoth to help out. Uberoth, who headed the 1984 LA Olympics, had moved on to be Baseball Commissioner.

    Reagan and Uberoth came up with a grand scheme to make sure any anti-nuke information would be scuttled off to page 34-b or some such. They called a baseball strike late in the evening of August 5th. This assured there would be no front page or significant coverage of nuclear issues. Obviously I don’t have proof this is what happened; but it was too synchronistic and bizarre. There was no talk of an imminent strike beforehand, and the strike only lasted one day! — Just enough to subvert our message.

    So James, I just need to say that I have been at this a long, long time. Ant the 1985 commemoration was not my first involvement. I became an anti-nuclear activist 30 years earlier, during the above ground tests of the 1950s.

    With my physics major friends at UCB, we used geiger counters to measure the radiation on cars in university parking lots when the bomb tests happened in the Pacific….


    Report comment

    • Good job, and funny! In a sick way.

      Let’s end this now, I mean in 2012.

      Lets not let 2012 be the “end prophecy”, lets get this deal done.

      Overly simplistic, however, 5 point action plan. I think anyone can wrap their head around this one. We need 1 million people wrapping their head and voice around these core precepts, the 5 Point Action Plan

      Five Point Action Plan

      1) Shut down all 1960′s and 1970′s Nukes, all within 2 years.

      2) Disallow any new permits, make a law against it, and by this, I mean the whole world.

      3) Phase out all Nuke plants within 5 years.

      4) Replace with renewables and base-load geothermal within 5 years.

      5) Increase energy efficiency, give governmental tax rebates on LED lighting. Provide 75% Gov funded energy conservation surveys by Certified Energy Managers

      Got it? It is not that hard, make the decision and then implement it like a project.

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


      Report comment

  • dharmasyd dharmasyd

    …continued…

    I think there are many of us here at ENENews who have worked on this from many different angles, and for a very long time.

    I have taken geiger measurements, caried signs, gone on marches, written letters, signed petitions, written letters to editors, done everything I could think of to do. So I only ask you @James2 to recognize that many of us have done all we possible could. I have followed many of your references to “see” the fires, the #3 collapsed SFP. To no qvail. Perhaps it is the fault of my 79 year old eyes. I don’t know.

    But I do know that I do not need to see actual flames to know that this is a devastating, life-threatening, life-ending event. And I will say that the Hibakusha who came here for the 1985 tour knew this also. They were devoting all their energy back then to working against the NPPs that Japan was putting on their coasts.

    And I have no idea if it is already too late. Even if it is too late, which we cannot know, that would be no excuse for stopping the work of eliminating nuclear everything. When will we cross the line where the gene pool becomes so damaged we may not again recover.

    And I do know, this situation is dire, desperate, and critical. Nuclearism is killing life on this planet, even if we can’t see it, even if we can’t see the fire.

    So, I guess I just want to ask you, James, to ease off a little. I have gotten to where I just skip your arguements. At 79, knowing that the planet is dying, I don’t have time for snark.

    I don’t want to hurt your feelings. as others have pointed out, you have been diligent, passionate, and tireless in your efforts to pursue the truth. I thank you for that. I only ask you be a little more gentle on this old lady’s soul.


    Report comment

  • James2

    Seems like I turn some off, turn some on.

    I’m not here to win a popularity contest. I’m here to maintain the truth. Sometimes it stings a little especially when it’s about a subject so difficult as a giant nuclear disaster.

    If something different than what I’m saying is the truth – hit me with it. I want the truth.

    And the truth, I believe will save lives, valuable lives, precious lives. If I save one, it is worth it, but I’m not after one. I’m after as many as I can save.

    I have no patience for liars. I have no patience for spinners. I have no patience for those who don’t respect the truth, who don’t care about it. And I especially despise politicians who use the people for their means vs. the other way around.

    If I wanted to massage my ego, I’d have a blog, I’d have a web page; I’d go on TV and stand up and ask for/demand respect or money for my knowledge and observations. But I remain anonymous. I don’t have multiple login id’s. I’ve not been in email contact with a single other person here – everything I do or say about Fukushima is right here in the open for all to see. Rant off – I believe you all can see what I’m made of .


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      This discourse has been reduced to meaningless tripe. I think many here, the 79 year old woman above Or well and others have clearly and eloquently, even delicately told you in various ways to bottle the ego and work with the many folks here that are like minded in moving forward while focussing your obvious abundance of energy on something more productive than “proving what your made of.”

      Clearly splitting hairs about how the worlds deadliest substance has been proliferated through our environment is saving no one, irritating most and now becoming counter productive.

      Please consider letting go of beating us all over the head and steering that energy to motivating people to begin an effort toward making gains in slowing or in fact stopping the nuclear resurgence, what you yourself have recently recognized as the priority resulting from Joys subtle push.

      Dharmasyd has a solid grip on where it needs to go and that is in fleshing out a plan that is doable and effective in pushing back and Or well clearly pointed out how futile your ceaseless, ego driven desire is to dominate the discourse deciding exactly where the deck chairs should be placed on this titanic.

      Please consider the wisdom offered by these generous and patient posters.


      Report comment

  • James2

    So Kevin are you ready to stop sidestepping the truth or is this another run at “get James2 to back off and make Kevin seem like a voice of reason”?

    For everyone else’s benefit, I’ll translate Kevin’s message: “James2, please, please back off, you are keeping the entire disinformation team busy posting multiple messages trying to confuse the point and we can’t spend time on creating any new lies – because nuckelchen just posted a video of the #2 wall burning through and we though we had that lie solidly placed a few weeks ago.

    Furthermore, we’re running out of logon id’s we can post under to support our point. So let’s just bury the hatchet so we can get back to our job of killing children and baby seals. Thanks.”


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      Its unclear to me how you draw such conclusions.

      At no time have I worked to confuse anything or steer people away from the truth. I post here under my own name with one account.

      Trust me, your account of things is not of such importance that anyone need employ such tactics. You have an audience you could count on your fingers and toes.

      My issue has been the same throughout the entire dialogue with you and I must admit I find iy extraordinarily odd that you insist on provoking such wild eyed conflict when in fact we are of the same intention and interest. I follow this site and have interest in this issue becuase of its magnitude but also because I live in the path of its destuction and have a young daughter. I want to know what risk she is being to exposed to in real terms. I simply seek the truth and as Dharma posts below, I too believe that has not yet been revealed if it ever will.

      My only contention with you is on details. The only issue I disagree with you on is the status of SFP 3. I cannot for the life of me understand why you are so adamant that it is in fact intact. There is reems of information to suggest otherwise in addition to anecdotal information that puts your reasoning in doubt. IE – There is no MOX in the SFP and since you believe MOX has been detected outside the plant it must be the core that has exploded. I do not concur, Anne has posted clear and valid information suggesting there was MOX in the SFP. So while I have no vested interest in disproving a core explosion, I cannot say decisively that one has indeed occurred.

      Which is why I have consistently made the effort to work along side you and others here in clarifying this information and to encourag high profile, respected communicators such as Busby to clarify these details.

      I am not involved in some sinister plot to undermine your conclusions. I have said all along I do not share your conclusions simply because I have not seen definitive proof that supports them.


      Report comment

      • James2

        So Kevin, as I said, I make mistakes. Until this thread I thought your logic processes were very strange, but I didn’t think you were necessarily a shill. But today you seemed to argue the same arguments you lost yesterday.

        And constantly asking for links to information that is common knowledge and should be known to anybody studying the topic is a common shill tactic.

        So just humor me for a second and answer this question. Just for a minute, go along with my hypothesis – you don’t have to commit – just put yourself in my shoes. Let’s say you know for a fact that Fukushima #3′s MOX core blew out of the reactor on March 24th and bathed Japan and subsequently North America with Plutonium dust, and many people are going to eventually contract cancer and die from it. If you know this to be a fact,

        Then do you thing people who are actively trying to cover up this fact are complicit in murdering Japanese and North Americans, because they delayed evacuation and cleanup activities and contract radiation poisoning when they might not have otherwise?

        That’s all I want to know. Do you personally agree that covering up facts resulting in deaths is murdering people? Would you recommend these folks go to prison if the truth about their actions comes out?

        Answer that honestly and I’ll back off the shill talk.


        Report comment

        • Kevin Kevin

          James first off I did not lose anything in my discussion with you accept my patience.

          Second I asked you right away in our very first encounter for something to back your conclusions becuase all you provided in our discussion was over confident, over blown rhetoric. Which amazed me. As I repeatedly said. I cannot fathom how you come to know this stuff “100 percent” “without a doubt” while providing nothing that corroborates what you say. Its an arrogance I have never come across before. I have repeatedly told you, over and over and over, that I simply do not draw the same conlusions as you because from what I have gathered the information is inconclusive and riddled with misinformation, lies and other obscuring components that I am not comfortable with. Therefor my conclusion with reactor 3 is, and I will be very clear for you once again, the SFP was affected and very likely part of the original explosion, however I cannot say so forsure because there is nothing that I can point to that says so beyond a shadow of a doubt. Finally the only other conclusion I draw is that the explosion was not as reported, which is to say I dont believe it was a hydrogen explosion. This has been my position for about 9 months now, has not changed and will not until evidence to the contrary comes to my attention which is why I hoped you would provide some.

          Finally, with respect to your continued inferrence that some how I am here as shill working to kill children and baby seals. I take great offence to such ludicrous accusations. That being said, one of the reasons I am interested in finding out what is really going on at Fukushima is so I can determine to what degree the misinformation has been deployed in order to fight back against nuclear power. And to answer your question, anyone who works to cover up this atrocity is a criminal complicit in unspeakable horrors and deserves to be punished.

          Lastly to prove I am not a shill I will no longer respond to your drivel.


          Report comment

          • James2

            So, kevin as promised, if you’ve answered my question honestly, I no longer have you marked on my “possible shill” chart.

            You see – no actual shill would answer my question the way you did – ever. In a situation like this, a future trial can never be ruled out, and no-one would ever publicly document their feelings in such a manner -because that documentation can never be removed and it would be certain to bring on much harsher punishment should something progress to that stage – and my feeling is it will.. We have to all assume that our real identities are forever tied to what we type here.

            So Kevin I trust you. However you do need to do a bit more research on what happened in #3 and the dynamics of blast patterns.


            Report comment

            • Kevin Kevin

              Well no one can say you dont your take yourself seriously.

              With respect to your advice that I bone up on things.

              I did visit the one referene to material you made.

              In fact I even listened to a podcast on the report.

              I have never been so disgusted in my life. You wanna hear shills? Go here and listen to these three talk about the report you hold up as being evidence of your claims

              http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2011/11/15/atomic-show-175-inpo-fukushima-timeline-report/

              And note that all they admit to is hydrogen explosions, without a doubt. Nothing about your references from the report. Which given that the report is 70 pages long I have also not yet come across anything supporting your assertions.


              Report comment

  • dharmasyd dharmasyd

    The Truth!!!

    If something different than what I’m saying is the truth – hit me with it. I want the truth.

    We all want the truth. But the truth has not come to light yet, IMO.


    Report comment

  • godzuki

    its really important to keep the facts and the opinions and the educated guesses separate. A lot of people are making smart assumptions, and educated guesses – which are great to hear, but they are not fact. And the facts we are given from those controlling the site are proven time and time again to be un-true. If they still cannot measure these things at all then no one, pro nuke or anti nuke can claim very much as fact apart from the situation is unknown and out of control. The only thing we can say for sure is something happened at the Fukushima plant that in almost everyones opinion is a bad thing. And some points about practical (not theoretical) physics.

    Obviously I care to know the most likely truths and likeliest scenarios so I can understand whats probably happening. Thanks for everyone.


    Report comment

  • godzuki

    (when i say controlling the site i mean the power plant site, not this website!)


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      [Google translation]
      Uploaded by dieterdieter on Mar 18, 2011

      TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, “Aichi Clothes Cam” is connected to video images.
      Own day (March 11) for 8 days and the morning, before and after the earthquake, and how, you can also see that the photo such as discharge from the helicopter scene.

      5:00 to 18 19:00 11 → the first run of the day the earthquake (this video)

      5:00 ~ 19:00 → 19 second the 21st
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T312PLGOrA
      2011/03/19-21 animate live camera image, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant continues

      The 24th 5:00 ~ 19:00 → 22 third
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhBRznzIqf0
      Live camera images of animated 2011/03/22-24 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power one after another ·

      5:00 ~ 19:00 → 25 fourth the 31st
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFwSlD2r_ZY
      Sun March 25 -31, 2011 animated live camera images · people one after another, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power

      Clothes Cam Aichi
      http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/f1-np/camera/index-j.html

      Capture the images that are updated every hour for about 19 ​​minutes during 24 ~ 3:05 am on March 22, a total of three days 繋Gemashita images.


      Report comment