Skip to main content

[Rod Adams at atomicinsights.com recently published this piece that challenges the commonly held preception(s) about Fukushima. There are now 85 comments on his blog debating this all out. Go to atomicisights.com to participate. Published here with permission of Rod Adams--David Walters]

Tepco has recently released measurements that provide convincing evidence that virtually all of the corium in Fukushima Daiichi unit #1 remains safely stored inside an intact reactor pressure vessel. Despite all claims to the contrary, no substantial quantities of that material have melted through the pressure vessel to fall onto the concrete floor of the surrounding containment structure.

It has always seemed far fetched to me to think that material from a nuclear reactor that melted several hours after fission has stopped contains the power density necessary to melt through carbon steel pressure vessels that are 6-12 inches thick. My basis for making that statement comes from having spent several sleepless nights in a drydock watching people with specially designed torches cutting into submarine hulls to provide maintenance access. I also had the opportunity during at least one repair period to be the guy responsible for signing the requisition chits for the pallets full of gases used to power those torches.

Melting thick steel is not a job for a mass of metal that is only being heated by radioactive decay whose heat production is falling rapidly.

A couple of days ago, Tepco drilled a hole into the thick concrete foundation that supports the reactor pressure vessel. The hole was approximately 8.7 meters above the containment floor. The workers then inserted a radiation probe. Based on the readings from the probe, it is not possible to truthfully assert that the corium left the reactor pressure vessel and made it to the floor of the containment under the vessel.

The probe registered its highest reading (11 Sv/hr) at the level where it was inserted – 8.7 meters above the containment floor. I do not know the details of the apparatus, but it is reasonable to assume that the workers were using gravity to lower the probe and had no mechanism that would enable the probe to be raised above the entry point.

The measured radiation dose rate was lower at all points below the entry point until it reached a minimum at the surface of a pool of water at the bottom of the space. The other sensors inserted with the radiation measuring probe determined that the water was fresh – with a chloride concentration of about 19 parts per million – and that it was about 2.8 meters deep. The radiation reading at the surface of the pool of water was only 0.5 Sv/hr.

Those radiation readings indicate that the radiation source is at the top of the space, not the bottom. It is a little difficult to paint a complete picture with words, so I captured an image from a document posted on the US NRC web site titled Reactor Concepts Manual, Boiling Water Reactors.

The image is a BWR/6, which is not the same model as the Fukushima units, but it has roughly the same configuration of a reactor pressure vessel with control rods that are inserted from the bottom and is mounted in a concrete foundation with several meters of empty space between the bottom of the vessel and the floor of the containment.

The space under the reactor pressure vessel that I am describing is near the number 24 in the image below. As other points of reference, the normal location of the fuel in a BWR is at number 15, and the control rod drive mechanisms are at number 22.

Radiation probes indicate NO melt through at Fukushima Unit 1
Rod Adams · October 13, 2012 · 85 Comments

Tepco has recently released measurements that provide convincing evidence that virtually all of the corium in Fukushima Daiichi unit #1 remains safely stored inside an intact reactor pressure vessel. Despite all claims to the contrary, no substantial quantities of that material have melted through the pressure vessel to fall onto the concrete floor of the surrounding containment structure.

It has always seemed far fetched to me to think that material from a nuclear reactor that melted several hours after fission has stopped contains the power density necessary to melt through carbon steel pressure vessels that are 6-12 inches thick. My basis for making that statement comes from having spent several sleepless nights in a drydock watching people with specially designed torches cutting into submarine hulls to provide maintenance access. I also had the opportunity during at least one repair period to be the guy responsible for signing the requisition chits for the pallets full of gases used to power those torches.

Melting thick steel is not a job for a mass of metal that is only being heated by radioactive decay whose heat production is falling rapidly.

A couple of days ago, Tepco drilled a hole into the thick concrete foundation that supports the reactor pressure vessel. The hole was approximately 8.7 meters above the containment floor. The workers then inserted a radiation probe. Based on the readings from the probe, it is not possible to truthfully assert that the corium left the reactor pressure vessel and made it to the floor of the containment under the vessel.

The probe registered its highest reading (11 Sv/hr) at the level where it was inserted – 8.7 meters above the containment floor. I do not know the details of the apparatus, but it is reasonable to assume that the workers were using gravity to lower the probe and had no mechanism that would enable the probe to be raised above the entry point.

The measured radiation dose rate was lower at all points below the entry point until it reached a minimum at the surface of a pool of water at the bottom of the space. The other sensors inserted with the radiation measuring probe determined that the water was fresh – with a chloride concentration of about 19 parts per million – and that it was about 2.8 meters deep. The radiation reading at the surface of the pool of water was only 0.5 Sv/hr.

Those radiation readings indicate that the radiation source is at the top of the space, not the bottom. It is a little difficult to paint a complete picture with words, so I captured an image from a document posted on the US NRC web site titled Reactor Concepts Manual, Boiling Water Reactors.

The image is a BWR/6, which is not the same model as the Fukushima units, but it has roughly the same configuration of a reactor pressure vessel with control rods that are inserted from the bottom and is mounted in a concrete foundation with several meters of empty space between the bottom of the vessel and the floor of the containment.

The space under the reactor pressure vessel that I am describing is near the number 24 in the image below. As other points of reference, the normal location of the fuel in a BWR is at number 15, and the control rod drive mechanisms are at number 22.

Tepco’s recently measured information needs to be widely disseminated and discussed by nuclear professionals. Some of those professionals have spent decades attempting to model and predict the interaction of corium and concrete under the “worst case” assumption that reactors that melt due to insufficient cooling will also melt through their pressure vessels to fall onto the concrete.

Perhaps we can use real world experience from the unintended “theory to practice” events at Fukushima to show the modelers and the regulators that “worst case” analysis does not provide any realistic prediction of what will actually happen in the real world of carbon steel pressure vessels, latent heat of fusion, water, and measurably limited heat from radioactive decay.

Hat tip to Leslie Corricewho has been providing Fukushima Updates about three times per week for more than 18 months. The specific issue that provided this information is October 12, 2012.

If you want facts and data about Fukushima events and post accident efforts, Les’s Hiroshima Syndrome is a terrific place to start.

Categories: Accidents, Boiling Water, International nuclear

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 08:56:29 AM PDT

  •  You have posted the same paragraphs twice . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, happymisanthropy, kbman

    twice .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:01:44 AM PDT

    •  Indy...can't see it. (0+ / 0-)

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:28:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Duplication begins here (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kalmoth, kbman
        The space under the reactor pressure vessel that I am describing is near the number 24 in the image below. As other points of reference, the normal location of the fuel in a BWR is at number 15, and the control rod drive mechanisms are at number 22.

        Radiation probes indicate NO melt through at Fukushima Unit 1
        Rod Adams · October 13, 2012 · 85 Comments

        Tepco has recently released measurements that provide convincing evidence that virtually all of the corium in Fukushima Daiichi unit #1 remains safely stored inside an intact reactor pressure vessel. Despite all claims to the contrary, no substantial quantities of that material have melted through the pressure vessel to fall onto the concrete floor of the surrounding containment structure.

  •  Recommended for discussion... (9+ / 0-)

    Even if things are not as bad as it was anticipated, that power plant is still a mess. To some degree, because of the quake and the tsunami, to perhaps a greater degree because TEPCO seriously screwed up the response to the accident - and I trusted them to act more professionally than they did.

  •  Thanks for keeping watch, David. (5+ / 0-)

    It's very valuable to see what has been going on with this now that it has dropped off the awareness of media outlets.

    I hope a reasonably complete picture of what happened can be put together while I'm still around.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:16:16 AM PDT

  •  This is all kinda moot now in any event (6+ / 0-)

    considering that Japan has decided to phase out nuclear power, thereby adding an ongoing, completely-developed  Alberta Tar Sands dose of carbon dioxide emissions into the global atmosphere.  

    Ugh / d'ohh!!!

  •  Good news is good news (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, Chrisfs, Wee Mama, kbman

    Better the slag is inside the jug than outside it.

    Of course, I have no sense of what the 11 Sv/hr measurement means in terms of health risk, or in comparison to normal background radiation away from reactor sites.

  •  i wouldnt trust tepco one bit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, jbob, Russgirl

    and at this point i wouldnt trust the japanese government about this eeither.

    regardless. that plant has done enough damage and trying to pretend it not melting through is good news is rather silly.

    "With malice toward none, with charity for all..." -Abraham Lincoln not a modern republican

    by live1 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:26:06 AM PDT

    •  what a strange evaluation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, kbman
      trying to pretend it not melting through is good news is rather silly.
      •  Well it makes some sense , (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, Quicklund

        in the long run does it make any real difference if its all in the vessel or mostly in the vessel or 50/50 in and out ?
        Cleaning it up is going to be a royal pain in the butt no matter what .

         

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:02:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Better in the vessel than in the ocean, surely? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gzodik, kbman, Quicklund



          Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

          by Wee Mama on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:37:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it had dropped from the vessel (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau

            its a bit of a distance to the sea ,
            so if the news was that it didn't get to the sea ...

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:43:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The water is getting to the sea (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Russgirl, ornerydad, ovals49

              after it mixes beneath the plant with groundwater. And the water contains a whole heckuva lot of nasty isotopes released from what used to be the fuel. Notice that this sunshine and rainbows "analysis" doesn't mention the fact that the vessel isn't holding water (and hasn't held any water since March of 2011), or that the containment isn't holding water either. How an empty steel vessel can hold ~140 tons' worth of molten corium for more than 18 months without "melt-through" deftly remains unexplained.

              But confusing the issues - such as the difference between a reactor vessel and a containment "vessel" - is SOP. Some things never change.

              •  This diary isn't about the cooling water (0+ / 0-)

                its about the molten pool of crap that once was the core .

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:32:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And which, for the most part, (0+ / 0-)

                  is outside of the reactor pressure vessel, and has been since 15 hours after the total loss of coolant and control. Adams here insinuates that the melted control rods prevented the 100% melted and coolant-less corium from melting through the full-of-holes on the gravity end vessel, which suffered catastrophic pressure failure 15 hours in.

                  3 hours later the containment itself suffered catastrophic pressure failure at precisely the same time the entire building blew sky high. We were told that last part happened because the zirconium cladding in the SFP was oxidizing (burning) to release hydrogen, though there was zero evidence of zirconium fire prior to the explosion, and the SFP was never drained - even after the explosion.

                  But hey... who's keeping track of such technicalities?

      •  well, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        pretending that 0.5 SV/hr outside the containment structure is good news is extremely silly.

        It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

        by happymisanthropy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:31:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, it's only 100 Rem. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Russgirl

          Which is only twenty times the annual allowed dose for nukes (and twice previously allowed LIFETIME dose). Why, a Fuku worker could the annual dose in a mere 20 seconds in some spots! Hell, they upped the limit on Japanese CHILDREN to 10 times what used to be their allowed dose from nuclear operations! What's not "good" about that? [/snark]

          •  That it is not 1,000x higher (0+ / 0-)

            The obvious is thus explained.

            •  Excuse me? (0+ / 0-)

              A Sievert is 100 rem. Who said anything about 1,000 times higher? 3.5 Sv is LD-50/60 (half die within 60 days regardless of medical intervention). But that's just external dose, if you're doing the calculations...

              Confusing people about the difference between Sieverts and rem is SOP as well. You already knew that, though. Didn't you?

              •  I am just saying (0+ / 0-)

                From my reading of the diary, most of the radioactive material remains contained. Had the core melted past all containment, the news would be much worse. Now I am reading that it is "silly" to be glad most of the material has remained contained. This does not make sense.

              •  Oh and bBTW? You are not the one to throw FUs (0+ / 0-)

                In fact, accept your own FU over this:

                Confusing people about the difference between Sieverts and rem is SOP as well. You already knew that, though. Didn't you?
                I am just trying to make sense of this diary. I do not enter this diary w/an agenda. I have no fucking idea what the fuck it is you say "I know".  Let me see your evidence for your mini-conspiracy. Because on this site making this sort of claim requires you to back up you shit. So back it up or back down.

                But thanks to this comment, I realize now I have stumbled into yet another ongoing online feud. And I know you do enter this diary with an agenda.

                From the link above I stumbled upon this post you made which you said proved the explostion at the reactor. Trouble is, it is a picture taken 100km away and a few days before the reactor blew.

                So if anyone has a credibility problem here, it is you.

        •  This is supposed to be inside the containment (0+ / 0-)

          Mt readin is these measurements were all taken outside the reactor vessel but within the cement containment structure built around the reactor vessel.

          But I do agree the description here is not even enough to know for sure.

  •  2 points (7+ / 0-)

    TEPCO has virtually no credibility. Zero. When the IAEA comes to the same conclusion, perhaps there will be something to discuss but until then, bloggers drawing conclusions from second or third hand information are blowing smoke.

    You said:

    It has always seemed far fetched to me to think that material from a nuclear reactor that melted several hours after fission has stopped contains the power density necessary to melt through carbon steel pressure vessels that are 6-12 inches thick. My basis for making that statement comes from having spent several sleepless nights in a drydock watching people with specially designed torches cutting into submarine hulls to provide maintenance access. I also had the opportunity during at least one repair period to be the guy responsible for signing the requisition chits for the pallets full of gases used to power those torches.
    This suggests you don't have a very clear concept of the energy contained in that vessel. It's a bit more than a pallet of gas cylinders. Or several.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:30:00 AM PDT

    •  He's talking about HIS nuclear sub (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, alain2112

      koNko, not a random tanker or some other vessel. He's talking about the sub's pressure vessel.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:33:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  koNko is talking about the vessel in Japan ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:55:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the context: (0+ / 0-)
        It has always seemed far fetched to me to think that material from a nuclear reactor that melted several hours after fission has stopped contains the power density necessary to melt through carbon steel pressure vessels that are 6-12 inches thick. My basis for making that statement comes from having spent several sleepless nights in a drydock watching people with specially designed torches cutting into submarine hulls to provide maintenance access. I also had the opportunity during at least one repair period to be the guy responsible for signing the requisition chits for the pallets full of gases used to power those torches.
        Torching through a submarine hull to provide maintenance access to the reactor compartment is entirely irrelevant to anything having to do with the reactor vessel itself, so this is an apples/oranges analogy that makes no sense whatsoever. A sub hull is NOT a reactor vessel, period.

        Then Adams adds:

        Melting thick steel is not a job for a mass of metal that is only being heated by radioactive decay whose heat production is falling rapidly.
        I'd like to see Adams' explanation for how 'impossible' it is for 140 tons' worth of irradiated nuclear fuel to melt entirely from decay heat when there is no coolant and no heat exchange. That would shake 6 decades of nuclear physics/ engineering knowledge and experience to the core (pun intended).

        But of course, he's selling a line of total claptrap. Given that he's writing primarily for nukes, I can't imagine why he thought no one would call him on it.

    •  potential energy yes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow, Wee Mama, kbman

      The diarist's point was based on most of that energy remaining in the potential state because the fission reaction was shut down. The diarist's opinion was stated according to that assumption. Or that is how I read it at least.

  •  so what are the real professionals saying? (5+ / 0-)

    Why do weasel words like virtually all bother me in this discussion.  How unintact is that steel container to have varying measurements at different areas.  Yes, it seems to the uneducated (me) that if the radiation readings are low at the bottom of the tank,  then there wouldn't be a mass of material there.  But why much higher readings up high, is something else broken or failed in the containment vessel?

    http://ajw.asahi.com/...

    This article seems to indicate that there was still a possibility that some melt may have escaped to the water, but that this reactor was less 'hot' than the number 2 reactor in March.

    And if I remember, and based on the second article,  this problem, though less terrible, ie, kill people in an hour not minutes scenario, is still serious.  The still don't know the extent of the damage, and that the water is still creating steam, and the environment is corrosive, so things will get worse in some ways. The tank walls are thick, but not everything else is a tank wall.

    I don't think this has reached 'not a problem' move along nothing to see here yet.  But mine is admittedly not an educated opinion.

    If all this guy was trying to say," this is probably not a worst case scenario",  then, that would seem to be a fair assessment.

  •  Nuclear industry destroying the nuclear industry (5+ / 0-)

    We can make safe reactors. We can make the reactors we have safer. By being... less than professional, the nuclear industry has shot itself in the foot. And the ass. And then the head. And all they can do is whine that people are judging them unfairly.

    Right.

    Because we should trust them, given their track record of honesty, transparency, and responsibility.

    Would nuclear power, as practiced today, even be economically viable if companies were required to cover the true costs and risks of their endeavors? I think not.

    Simply put, I do not trust anything anyone even remotely connected to the industry has to say about Fukushima. I do not trust this report at all. If engineers say that containment vessel breach is possible, I believe them and not the assholes who have a vested interest in covering up any financial liabilities.

    I do not trust a person who has only a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering and has worked as a plant operator. I do not trust Leslie Corrice to have an unbiased view and present accurate information.

    Not at all.

    He claims that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only reason people dislike nuclear. Idiot.

    •  NO form of energy would be viable if held to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow

      this standard:

      Would nuclear power, as practiced today, even be economically viable if companies were required to cover the true costs and risks of their endeavors?
      •  That is just ridiculous (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeminNewJ, Sandino, Joieau, Russgirl

        Please stop making ridiculous statements like this one, implying that the potential costs and risks are the same for all forms of power.

        We could do nuclear safely. The people with the power to do so chose not to. As a reward, we absolved them of all risks while letting them keep the profits.

        So, yeah, it is a BIT like other power industries, that way. But no other industry has the capacity for harm that the nuclear industry has. None.

      •  in other words the plutocrats win (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino

        Without massive taxpayer subsidies and little or no meaningful regulation - especially where "externalities" like waste are concerned - we'd all be shivering in the dark because no-one would want to generate electricity commercially.  That's basically the energy industry's entire hypocritical "Hands off but keep the subsidies coming!" argument.

        If however that's indeed the case, then the first thing that comes to my mind is questioning the idea of commercial power generation as opposed to subsistence generation.  A lot of the problems get smaller and simpler or simply go away as the power plants themselves get smaller and simpler since they only need to service a single town (publicly owned?), a single factory, or even a single house. A subsistence approach in general allows you to remove the profit motive from the calculation, and tolerances of costs (both initial and operating) and efficiency are dramatically altered and IMO favorably.

        To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

        by Visceral on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:09:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Massive taxpayer subsidies for "cheap" electricity (0+ / 0-)

          make a lot of sense insofar was they make modern life available and accessible for virtually everybody in countries such as the USA (and Canada, most of Europe, etc).

          Not sure why there's so much effort put forward to pretend that these subsidies (many of them quite indirect) do not exist, however.

          •  plutocrats need to hide them to play the victim (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, Russgirl, Joieau
            Not sure why there's so much effort put forward to pretend that these subsidies (many of them quite indirect) do not exist, however.
            One of the central myths of American plutocracy is that the plutocracy does not in fact exist.  Letting slip that big business (not just the energy industry) gets handed hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year would contradict both A) the rhetorical ideal of the free market where "subsidy" is always a bad thing that kills innovation and productivity, and B) the claim that big business is a helpless victim of "librul" government always trying to tie their hands with "red tape" out of spite.

            Also, a lot of people might vote against those subsidies if they really knew about them.  Ironically many of those people would be the same "free market" zombies that the plutocrats have invested so much in producing.

            Alternately, a vigorous defense of those subsidies on the grounds that they are essential to make our life possible and the benefits massively outweigh the costs could - in theory, depending on how well the Left argues - lead instead towards support for outright nationalization of the energy industry.  A very large-scale venture doomed to lose money but which is absolutely necessary for society to function properly is pretty much government's niche.

            To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

            by Visceral on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:22:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Like OIL subsidys = $ they do not need or deserve (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, Visceral

              while they fight off legal court cases which show their environmental damage... no more.

              We can do better with alternate energy.
              This CRAP is not working for people - just richest feeding at government teat.

    •  "The" industry? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gzodik, kalmoth

      Do you think the Japanese, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Indian, US, etc, nuclear facilities are all the same management entity?

      •  don't stand in the way... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gzodik, Quicklund

        of a sweeping over-generalization, please.

        •  Please enlighten me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          As to how I made a sweeping generalization.

          I'll even help you. All ytou need to do is to show that the world wide nuclear industry is not like I say it is. Prove that it is a very large and diverse industry, with many manufacturers and other players. Show how the nuclear industry polices itself.

          Yeah, good luck with that.

          I will repeat myself again, because some people seem incapable of reading nuance: I believe we could do nuclear power right. The fact that we are not is not an innate fault of nuclear power, it is the fault of greedy criminals.

          Do you understand what I am saying?

      •  Look it up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Joieau

        How many companies do you think there are in the industry? How many companies manufacture reactors?

        It is not a large industry.

        Now, let me leave you with a quote from Wealth of Nations, by a guy named Adam Smith:

        "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
        Do you understand why I am skeptical? I have no issues with nuclear power done right. I have issues with the monstrous criminals who do nuclear power wrong to reap the most profit from it that they can.
    •  Rod Adams on nuclear issues is about as reliable (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SethRightmer, Joieau, Sandino, Russgirl

      as Mitt Romney on creating jobs and caring about the middle class. Oh, and he's very good at making up baseless conspiracy theories. Here's one of his CTs, completely trumped up nonsense with not a shred of evidence to back it up. http://www.dailykos.com/...

      For some odd reason, he hasn't been posting at DK lately, I wonder why? I also found it strange that David always seemed to post his stuff for him, even though he is a DK member himself. But I also thought he was wildly out of place on this blog, stuck out like a sore thumb:
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

      by translatorpro on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:11:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who here trusts TEPCO? Raise your hand. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SethRightmer, jbob, Joieau, Russgirl

    Frankly I'm not inclined to believe anything TEPCO says about anything, nor the Japanese government so happily in bed with them.

    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

    by Visceral on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:52:44 AM PDT

  •  Ten bucks says that a certain somebody (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Joieau

    will not come into your diary and moan and groan about how you are not talking about houses/buildings and cars and coal , will not claim your focus on the nukes in Japan is ridiculous , etc etc etc .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:11:14 AM PDT

  •  Um... Nope. (6+ / 0-)

    Honestly, someone might be tempted to suspect that Adams is once again lobbing deceptions instead of actual data analysis. He should consider running for POTUS!

    The probe registered its highest reading (11 Sv/hr) at the level where it was inserted - 8.7 meters above the containment floor. I do not know the details of the apparatus, but it is reasonable to assume that the workers were using gravity to lower the probe and had no mechanism that would enable the probe to be raised above the entry point.
    My emphasis. Sorry, David. I do not consider Adams' assumptions to be particularly impressive on a technical level. Of course the radiation level is higher in the steamy air above the water at the bottom of the containment. That's why they put all those used and EXTREMELY deadly (radioactive) fuel assemblies in glorified swimming pools - water keeps the radiation levels down so that workers don't drop dead just walking by the damned thing.

    That said, TEPCO also found "only" 9 feet of water on the floor of the containment vessel. All of that, of course, leaked from the pressure vessel Adams claims is holding all the corium - but is not holding water. Gravity indeed...

    The events of March 12, 2011 (as detailed in the link above) clearly indicate that the pressure vessel failed and released its contents to the containment floor 15 hours after the start of the disaster. On the 13th workers were forced to increase the injection flow because leakage had increased. The corium was busy eating its way into the concrete floor of the pedestal, and just 3 hours later (T-minus 18 hours) the containment vessel itself began leaking and the reactor building exploded. TEPCO's own analysis is that nearly 3 feet of melted nuclear fuel (corium) was collected in a sump cavity as of November 2011, where it was "relentlessly assaulting the 40 inches of concrete between it and the outer shell of the PCV."

    19 months' worth of constant injection of thousands of gallons per hour has not served to stop the water from getting out of the building entirely. So while the pressure vessel may yet hold some fuel trash and maybe a bit of once-molten slag, the bulk of it is long gone (but may still be in its melt-cavity beneath the containment floor level). Just like the water. Just another gravity-related incident, and yes. It DOES count as "melt-through"...

    TEPCO's lack of findings during Reactor 1 endoscope mission may cast doubt on cold shutdown status

    •  David, play your denial propaganda again and again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      We will not take your "truthiness" any longer... go to Japan - help them out on the front lines - or feel free to EAT FUKUSHIMA BEEF!
      ----
      Watch: Fukushima beef being shipped to US restaurants (VIDEO)
      http://enenews.com/...
          ---
      Radioactive, Contaminated Beef Sold To Schools, US Restaurants, And Children; via A Green Road
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/...
      ---
      How Cesium And Strontium 90 Kills Children
      (German w English CC) via A Green Road
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/...
      ---
      Radioactive Xenon Gas; Dangerous And Lung Cancer Causing Isotope; via A Green Road
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/...
      --
      Explosion may have occurred inside vessel of Fukushima Unit 1 — Can generate missiles that endanger containment integrity

      The SimplyInfo research team discusses a possible explosion inside Unit 1′s vessel:

          [...]  From this NRC document, the existence of damaged concrete debris is explained:  enenews.com/report-explosion-occurred-inside-vessel-fukushima-unit-1-generate-missiles-endanger-containment-integrity
      --
      Watch: Empty spaces seen in Fukushima Unit 3 spent fuel racks — “Would ordinarily hold spent fuel” -Asahi (VIDEO & PHOTOS)
      http://enenews.com/...
      ---
      Up to 1,000,000 sieverts per hour outside Fukushima Unit 1 containment vessel — Still too hot to attempt measuring other areas (PHOTO & VIDEO)
      http://enenews.com/...
      ---

      •  Not even to mention (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bincbom

        THIS bit of deceptive claptrap...

        Melting thick steel is not a job for a mass of metal that is only being heated by radioactive decay whose heat production is falling rapidly.
        and...
        It has always seemed far fetched to me to think that material from a nuclear reactor that melted several hours after fission has stopped contains the power density necessary to melt through carbon steal pressure vessels that are 6-12 inches thick.
        LOL!!! So, David. Ask your friend how hot a melting core has to get in order to melt control rods. And how said melted cores manage to melt "several hours" after fission has stopped. Oh, and how thick the steel is on the bottom of this magical melt-proof vessel, given that 6 inches is not the same as 12 inches (one of these things is not like the other...), and exactly how many holes are there in the bottom of a Mark-1 GE BWR vessel, anyway?

        Gravity and all, since David/Adams mentioned it...

        •  Joieau, you have to reply to the evidence (0+ / 0-)

          presented in the blog entry. You haven't. Why are the radiations levels LOWER rather than higher if all this corium is sitting at hte bottom of the secondary containment?

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  BIG DEAL. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ornerydad, Joieau

    Okay. So let's say that it DOES turn out that there is "no melt-thru at Unit 1".

    So what?  Let's talk about Unit 3.

    Remember, the Unit 3 explosion was different from the others.  Experts have confirmed that while the explosions at the other Fukushima units were deflagrations, the Unit 3 explosion was a much larger DETONATION, and many experts believe Unit 3 was a nuclear explosion.

    Even Commisioner Jaczko notes that the nuclear material from Unit 3 was ejected and dispersed over a large area, contaminating both the Fukushima site, the atmosphere, and a large swath of the surrounding area.

    Why not talk about THAT, David??

    •  Nonsense. There is zero evidence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      billmosby

      of a fission explosion. There are not "experts" who say this was a nuclear explosion anymore than the accident was the result of Romulan space bats. "Talk" about that? Get serious.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:46:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the Romulans, not TEPCO are to blame (0+ / 0-)

        I suspected it. Thanks for the deep insights that confirmed the rumors that TEPCO's incompetence, cronyism and failure to follow reasonable safety guidelines were false.

        ( I await objective information and reports. )

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:27:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  TEPCO is OF COURSE to blame. This doesn't (0+ / 0-)

          point to a 'fission explosion' and other nonsense.

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 10:43:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "The Industry". (0+ / 0-)

    it  tends to be diffuse. If you look at all the companies in the so-called nuclear "industry" they tend to be the same companies in the wind, solar, coal, hydro and another other form of generation "industry". this includes utilities and component manufacturers.

    Companies like Westinghouse that make nuclear reactors also build gas turbines (the spouse of wind and solar) and wind turbines. Westinghouse and heavily nuclear Areva make controls tailored for load switching and regulation for solar and wind.

    There are utilities that are heavy into coal, or nuclear or wind but all of them generally are into anything that turns a buck for their investors or lowers the cost for public power entities (16% of US generation and grid is publicly owned).

    What you see, for example, are few blog entries on the "Industry" lobby like the NEI that goes after wind and solar...or coal or gas because the same "Big Wind" and "Big Solar" and "Big Coal" also contribute or affiliate to the NEI lobby group.

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:17:56 AM PDT

  •  No melt throughs at Fukusima (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billmosby
    Today's Fukushima Updates begins with a detailed explanation of Friday's "no-melt-through" claim with respect to F. Daiichi unit #1, followed by other important updates.

    Commentary - No “Melt-throughs” at Fukushima Daiichi? – a Detailed Explanation - Objections to Friday's claim of no "melt-through" of the unit #1 RPV at F. Daichi are addressed. If the melted fuel material (corium) did burn through the RPV bottom head, the data from inside the primary containment would be very, very different. This detailed explication demonstrates why there has probably been no melt-through with Fukushima Daiichi unit #1 RPV.
    Updates - A team of American experts have concluded that F. Daiichi unit #4 spent fuel pool was never really a danger... High-resolution pictures from inside F. Daiichi SFP #3 show no damage to the stored fuel bundles... Tepco reports that a water leak was discovered on the first floor of the F. Daiichi unit #2 turbine building on Monday... Seismic investigation of the geologic anomaly under the currently-operating Oi NPS will begin on November 2nd... The Seismological Society of Japan has announced they will avoid use of the term “prediction” when making future earthquake projections... New Science and Education Minister, Ms. Makiko Tanaka, has questioned Tokyo’s recent no-nukes policy.


    http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/...

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

  •  Analysis is Partial and Incomplete (0+ / 0-)

    There are a number of problems with this analysis.

    Firstly, TEPCO (who conducted the investigation) explicitly disagrees with it: "TEPCO’s Ono said it is difficult to identify where the source of radiation is from the available data.”  

    The analysis also fails to look at similar plant parameters in the other reactors, and see if there is anything that can be gleaned from the comparative data.  What does one find when one looks at this comparative data (for Units 1 and 2).  

    - Unit 2 is much hotter (with respect to airborne radiation dose measurements) at similar points in the PCV (by some 800%).  

    - Unit 1 is much hotter in basement level of the plant, i.e., the Torus Room (by some 9360%).  

    And what are we to make from the very low radiation reading at the water level of Unit 1 (of 0.5 Sv/hr).  Well, to state the obvious, shielding from 2.8 meters of water.  Simply stated, we don't yet know where the corium is located in Unit 1. And let us not forget, we also have some pretty clear pressure reading to contend with (that nobody here is disputing, or attempting to explain in an alternative "no melt-through" scenario).  It's simply another data point that was ignored in the analysis.

    Docs are here if anybody wants to sort through the comparative data:

    - Unit 1 PCV radiation dose (0.5 - 9.8 Sv/h), Unit 2 PCV radiation dose (39 - 72.9 Sv/h).

    - Unit 1 Torus Room radiation dose (10.3 Sv/h), Unit 2 Torus Room radiation dose (110 mSv/h).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site