*** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links

@ Southern OR,
i used exactly the same Article but Cploerb
do not believe it but he failed to show us
any proof instead he repeaded Gossip!

@ Southern OR,
i used exactly the same Article but Cploerb
do not believe it but he failed to show us
any proof instead he repeaded Gossip!

Fukushima Accident 2011
In unit 1 most of the core - as corium comprised of melted fuel and control rods - was assumed to be in the bottom of the RPV, but later it appeared that it had mostly gone through the bottom of the RPV and eroded about 65 cm into the drywell concrete below (which is 2.6 m thick). This reduced the intensity of the heat and enabled the mass to solidify.

Much of the fuel in units 2 & 3 also apparently melted to some degree, but to a lesser extent than in unit 1, and a day or two later. In mid May the unit 1 core would still be producing 1.8 MW of heat, and units 2 & 3 would be producing about 3.0 MW each.

In unit 2, water injection using the steam-driven back-up water injection system failed on Monday 14th, and it was about six hours before a fire pump started injecting seawater into the RPV. Before the fire pump could be used RPV pressure had to be relieved via the wetwell, which required power and nitrogen, hence the delay. Meanwhile the reactor water level dropped rapidly after back-up cooling was lost, so that core damage started about 8 pm, and it is now provisionally understood that much of the fuel then melted and probably fell into the water at the bottom of the RPV about 100 hours after the scram. Pressure was vented on 13th and again on 15th, and meanwhile the blowout panel near the top of the building was opened to avoid a repetition of unit 1 hydrogen explosion. Early on Tuesday 15th, the pressure suppression chamber under the actual reactor seemed to rupture, possibly due to a hydrogen explosion there, and the drywell containment pressure inside dropped. However, subsequent inspection of the suppression chamber did not support the rupture interpretation. Later analysis suggested that a leak of the PCV developed on Tuesday 15th.

In Unit 3, the main back-up water injection system failed at 11 am on Saturday 12th and early on Sunday 13th, water injection using the high pressure system failed also and water levels dropped dramatically. RPV pressure was reduced by venting steam into the wetwell, allowing injection of seawater using a fire pump from just before noon. Early on Sunday venting the suppression chamber and containment was successfully undertaken. It is now understood that core damage started about 9 am and much or all of the fuel melted on the morning of Sunday 13th and possibly fell into the water at the bottom of the RPV, or was retained on the core support plate within the shroud.
[link to www.world-nuclear.org]
(updated 10 January 2013)

I see there was discussion again on needing verification of melt through. I found this to be a nice summary.

who's cplearb? or your mother taught you no manners, or etiquete?

MiMiMi Miep?

You started this Bs-Behaviour

Cploerb!

Read all about it: How Kan-do attitude averted the meltdown of Japan
The first word of the title — Tōden, the Japanese abbreviation of Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepco, the company that owns and operates the ill-fated plant — makes it clear that ex-Prime Minister Kan believes Tepco to be at the root of the accident and the concomitant damage it continues to cause as well.

As the true nature of the disaster unfolded in the weeks and months following the earthquake and tsunami, Kan came to see that no one would be safe in Japan until all of the country’s nuclear plants were shut down and decommissioned. How and why he came to this conclusion is the paramount theme of this book.
[link to www.japantimes.co.jp]

Should be interesting to read!

[link to www.youtube.com]

smoking gun

"“I was at Tepco headquarters at 6 a.m. on the 15th when it was reported that a loud boom had been heard coming from Reactor No. 2; and at roughly the same time, Reactor No. 4 experienced a meltdown. … I began to think that we might be facing the worst-case scenario.”"

yer right though, a book worthy of the read ;)


there was no fuel in #4.. right.. wrong.. the prime minister at the time just confirmed it.... how does something melt down when there is nothing to melt.. wrong.....

Well, the reactor might have been empty, but how else could they explain to the world damage that looked as if it were caused by a miniature-yield nuclear bomb.

well.. there's our missing tritium....


Tepco to discharge 2,000 ~ 3,000 Bq/ml of tritium to the sea, “50 times much as legal limit”
Posted by Mochizuki on January 28th, 2013 · No Comments
Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services



Tepco is going to discharge contaminated water to the sea. (cf, Tepco officially announced to discharge contaminated water into Pacific ocean [URL])

Tepco states the discharged water will be purified by the purifying facility “Alps”, but it can’t filter out the nuclide called “tritium”. Tritium is radioactive water.
It is estimated that the water contains 2,000 ~ 3,000 Bq/ml of tritium even after purification, which is 33 ~ 50 times much as the legal limit to discharge.

[link to fukushima-diary.com]

unrepenting.... and illegal on a global scale....

mind you... how much has already gone overboard????

melt down = still in vessel
melt-through = outside containment vessel

you cannot have radioactive tritium without the cores being exposed to the environment.....

Google: 2,1 Seconds
Cploerb need to learn a loto!

Radioactive tritium leaks found at 48 US nuke sites
Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard — sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]

who's cpleorb? AB?... hmmmm?

not the same as what happened at fuku you downplayer...... never said any of them didn't leak.. in fact i always point out that they all do... and releases are the norm.... you can't argue there is any comparison... you're non-apologetic is as always noted.

@Cploerb
I made it for you in Bold,
you have absolute no Idea about nuclear Reactors
and your Interpretation is soooooo damned Pseudo-Scientific!

You should read some Books about this Topic,