nuclear fuel in three reactors possibly melted through several pressure vessels and into the earth

[meow mix]

According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Japanese authorities are now admitting the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant in March may have been worse than a core meltdown.

In an official report that will go to the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) set up in 1957, Japan now says nuclear fuel in three reactors possibly melted through several pressure vessels and into the earth below. This type of event, called a melt-through, is the worst outcome in a nuclear accident.


GOSHI HOSONO, SPECIAL ADVISOR TO JAPANESE PM (Translation): At present there is damage to the bottom of the reactor container, we call this ‘core melting’ in English. Part of the nuclear fuel has fallen onto the dry earth floor and it’s possible that it’s still lodged there.

TETSURO FUKUYAMA, GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN (Translation): Hot spots were found, meaning there were certain spots with very high readings of radiation.

http://texasvox.org/2011/06/11/fukushima-may-have-been-worse-than-a-core-meltdown/



Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) continues its efforts to make conditions within the reactor building of unit 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi more bearable for staff. Work has been all but prevented at the unit due to the very high humidity, up to 99.9%, originally thought to be due to the warm cooling pond in the top of the sealed building.


An alternative circulation system for the used fuel pool at unit 2 began operation on 31 May and brought temperatures down to 31°C by 10 June - much closer to normal temperatures of around 25ºC. This had been expected to reduce humidity within the building, but this has not been the case. Instead Tepco now thinks the primary source of humidity is the damaged torus suppression chamber in the basement of the building.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Cooling_fuel_pools_at_Fukushima-1306114.html



Curium-244 detected for first time outside Fukushima plant – Requires lead shield 20 times thicker than Plutonium-238
http://enenews.com/curium-244-detected-first-time-fukushima-plant-requires-lead-shield-20-times-thicker-plutonium-238

[FBaggins]

1. Amazing what several round of playing "operator" will get you.

The story grows until it bears to relation whatsoever to where it began (let along reality).

[meow mix]

2. well not all of us have Mirror of Galadriel access..

:rofl:

still wondering how your insider knowledge differs.

[FBaggins]

3. No "insider knowledge" necessary

The article claims something which isn't true.

"Japan now says nuclear fuel in three reactors possibly melted through several pressure vessels and into the earth below."

Since Japan hasn't said that... we don't need inside knowledge re: "where's the corium now!?!?" in order to say that the reporting is bad.

[meow mix]

4. huh, whered the quotes come from then? and tepco says the torus is fried.

where did the fuel go after that?

[FBaggins]

7. It isn't the quote that's a problem

It's the misinterpretation of the quote (along with some poor translation) that's causing them trouble.

The statement that started it all was that in addition to the RPV having holes in it, they now thought that molten fuel probably excaped the RPV as well. That's it. There wasn't an estimate of how MUCH of the core had escaped, but they thought that whatever HAD escaped was sitting on the floor of the dry well (the primary containment structure).

It was preditable that this kind of spin would start once someone successfully tagged "melt-through" onto the story... but that doesn't excuse it.

tepco says the torus is fried - where did the fuel go after that?

What makes you think that the torus was damaged by molten fuel hitting it? It could have been a steam explosion from some corium falling into water at the bottom of the primary containment or it could have been a hydrogen explosion. The torus isn't actually beneath the core catcher, so I'm not sure what you're assuming happened.

Regardless... No... Japan has not said that any of the cores have burned through their primary containment and were somewhere in the ground.

[meow mix]

9. well i like your estimation better of course.. but since youve been wrong every step of the way

im not to hopeful in it.

[FBaggins]

12. Can you find a few examples?

I've seen dozens of those "proven wrong" claims over the last several weeks... but never with actual examples of the event.

Just wondering. :)

[meow mix]

16. sure..

all your posts dating back to march 11th

[FBaggins]

17. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

Thanks.

[SpoonFed]

20. It's pretty easy...

You're simultaneously posting "there is nothing to worry about" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=299325&mesg_id=299334) with regards to radiological releases while also posting "16 prefectures with contamination" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=299412&mesg_id=299412) and "23 workers now with high exposures" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=299411&mesg_id=299411)

This is just from the past day. If there isn't a more obvious example of you being incorrect and inconsistent and downplaying the disaster, I don't know what would be.

For those of us who have been putting up with you since the beginning of this disaster, you've made a laundry list of incorrect statements, poor analogies and a continuous attempt at downplaying the disaster. Other golden oldies of your laugh track include; this isn't as bad as even TMI, there have been no significant releases of radioactive filth, there is no proof of meltdowns, (my least favourite) thyroid cancer is no big whoop, and (my personal favourite), this INES 7 is worse than that other INES 7.

The real question lies to your motive for behaving in this manner.

[FBaggins]

24. And yet you continually fail in the attempt?

What does that say about you if you can't accomplish something that's "pretty easy"?

You're simultaneously posting "there is nothing to worry about"

Only when there is, in fact, nothing to worry about.

This is just from the past day.

Those are straight news items. How exactly do they demonstrate that I was wrong?

inconsistent and downplaying

Sorry. You've confused accurately describing events with "inconsistancy" because YOUR version of events is way off in left field. I call the bad "bad" and the not so dangerous "not so dangerous". Since you're in the camp that thinks that it's ALL something to worry about, you would of course see one as accurate and the other as inaccurate.

IOW, the error is yourse.

[Yo_Mama]

48. I think this is a mistranslation

A "melt-through" is when the fuel rods melt, and the resulting slag penetrates through the reactor vessel. This is obviously much more serious than a melt-down.

Here is a link about what the report actually says:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/fukushima-nuclear-plant-melt-through

Molten nuclear fuel in three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant is likely to have burned through pressure vessels, not just the cores, Japan has said in a report in which it also acknowledges it was unprepared for an accident of the severity of Fukushima.

It is the first time Japanese authorities have admitted the possibility that the fuel suffered "melt-through" – a more serious scenario than a core meltdown.

The report, which is to be submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said fuel rods in reactors No 1, 2 and 3 had probably not only melted, but also breached their inner containment vessels and accumulated in the outer steel containment vessels.

The hotspots the report discusses have been reported and are located within the reactor buildings.

This doesn't mean that fuel might not have escaped the drywells (containment vessel), but the report doesn't say so.

As for the torus, there was never any possibility that the fuel was in the torus. On reactor 2, the torus seems to have ruptured from a steam explosion in the first week. The purpose of the torus (also called the suppression vessel) is to contain stream that must be released from the reactor vessel if internal pressures get too high. The steam relief valves are opened and steam enters the torus, then condensing. It is a way of relieving pressure without venting outside containment.

Even if the fuel burned right through the containment vessel, the dry well is not in line with the torus, which is an outer ring connected by pipes to the reactor vessel. It sits below the floor of the containment building in a circle which is outside the drywell perimeter, so if the fuel burned through the drywell, it should continue to move straight down to the basement, not the torus.

The VERY contaminated water is escaping the containment vessels, and this is a big problem. So that constitutes a breach of the outer containment! But it doesn't mean that the fuel has escaped the containment vessel.

Note - the above has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about the state of the reactors. I am just setting the record straight about that report, and what it says and doesn't say.

[nonperson]

10. LOLOL

First you nuke defenders refused to admit there was a melt down now you refuse to admit there is a melt through.

Just what do you think all that melted down nuclear fuel is doing? IT'S MELTED THROUGH ALL CONTAINMENT AND NOW IT'S MELTING THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE IT COMES IN CONTACT WITH.

The very definition of a melt through. Just accept it.

[meow mix]

11. i know lol, they "successfully tagged "melt-through" onto the story"

:tinfoilhat: its a reverse-conspiracy :rofl:

[FBaggins]

14. That's an interesting memory that you've got there.

Can you present some examples of me refusing to admit that there was a melt down?

If you actually look, you'll find multiple examples of just the opposite right from the beginning.

Just what do you think all that melted down nuclear fuel is doing?

Probably sitting right where it has been for almost three months now. Resolidified partially within the RPV and partially at the base of the primary containment structure.

[nonperson]

18. You must have a guilty conscience

I said nuke defenders. You obviously count yourself as one so case closed. :P

[FBaggins]

23. Then can you find someone ELSE who said it?

Or is that a confession that you need the straw man?

[CJvR]

45. Anyone...

...who have tried to inject some sanity into the positive void feedback loop of hysteria that have been going on since the first reports for Fukushime have been labled with such tags or worse. Fact is that anyone who knows anything about nuclear reactors realized that this was going to end badly once the cooling failed. Needless to say having a realistic grey scale view on the events as opposed to a simple black and white wasn't well recived by the various nuclear Chicken Littles running around the web posting apocalyptic prophesies that the sky was falling and we were all doomed. DOOMED I SAY!!! Particulary not when it became more and more obvious that their hopes and dreams of hundreds of thousands dying from radiation poisoning were less and less likely to be realized.

[FBaggins]

46. Love it.

Been trying to find a shorthand way to describe the pychosis.

"Anyone who has tried to inject some sanity into the positive void feedback loop of hysteria that have been going on since the first reports for Fukushime have been labled with such tags or worse."

Can I suggest changing that to "negative void coefficient"? It draws an appropriate homage to the Chernobyl accident.

Otherwise you've got it just right. It gets crazy out there. Instead of slowy coming back down to earth as reality fails to fit their paranoia, they double down. The problem is that they're already drawing dead.

[CJvR]

47. Isn't it...

... a positive void coefficient when the increased vaporising of coolant increases the power output of the reactor, or have I confused the two? It was intended as a homage to Chernobyl, which was as doomy and gloomy as it gets really.

Just a little observation. Even at Chernobyl, a much larger reactor & damaged by the recoil of the blast that threw the 1200 ton lid off the reactor, where the fuel had undergone a runaway chainreaction moment earlier the superheated corium only breached a few floors before solidifying.

[FBaggins]

49. Yes... But that powered up

Their arguments collapsemunder their own weight. :)

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

32. Surely there are examples where I wouldn't have a choice?

If I've been denying a meltdown since the beginning... then there must be a post somewhere that I actually say that (rather than just the opposite)?

Lying at that point would make me look as silly as... well... as you do now. :rofl:

[TheWraith]

15. Seriously, you shouldn't talk if you don't understand what you're talking ABOUT.

How, pray tell, do you imagine that the core material is generating heat to melt through "ALL CONTAINMENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE IT COMES IN CONTACT WITH" now that it's no longer fissioning? :eyes:

[nonperson]

19. Who said the core is no longer fissioning?

The core fission is self-perpetuating until the fuel is spent in a few thousand years or so, give or take.

[FBaggins]

26. You've confused decay with fission.

They aren't the same thing.

[Eagle Mall]

31. You've said that there hasn't been any fission since the Tsunami.

And yet we get regular reports of high quantities of fission products with short half-lives.

Where is all that new material coming from if not sporadic fission???

[FBaggins]

34. No active self-sustaining fission. That's correct.

And there hasn't been.

And yet we get regular reports of high quantities of fission products with short half-lives.

No. In fact we don't. There were a handful of reports that were quickly corrected from obvious errors. Reports that were entirely inconsistent with all of the other facts that had been reported.

Where is all that new material coming from if not sporadic fission???

Can you define what you mean by "sporadic fission"? Are you talking about something that increases to total heat output of the cores by a percent or a few percent? Or actually something significant?

[Eagle Mall]

36. is there or is there not fission occurring at Fukushima??

If fission is occurring then what's to stop it?

The corium is outside of the pressure vessel.

[FBaggins]

38. Do you include spontaneous fission in that?

How about momentary criticalities that aren't self-sustaining?

If not. If you're talking about ACTUAL ongoing fission. Then no. There is none and has not been any since seconds after the earthquake.

Had there been, it WOULD have been "Chernobyl on steroids".

[nonperson]

43. Whatever. I never said fission wasn't occurring.

It's a melt down that's become a melt through. It is by definition uncontrolled fission and there is no way to stop it because it's outside any containment.

I read that the core in Chernobyl was vaporized by the explosion so fission stopped. That didn't happen at Fukushima. Fission is uncontrolled and ongoing and it's in earth and soon to be in ground water and there is no way to stop it or contain it like Chernobyl.

Hey expert, while you're citing the difference between fission and decay when are you or any of the other nuclear apologists that frequent here going to admit what a huge and un-fixable fuck up Fukushima and nuclear power are? And how Japan and the world have been lied to from day one of this inevitable nuclear disaster?

[FBaggins]

44. You said it WAS occurring.

It's a melt down that's become a melt through. It is by definition uncontrolled fission and there is no way to stop it because it's outside any containment.

It's a meltdown that they THINK may have allowed SOME core material (perhaps all) to exit the RPV and enter the primary containment. That's not really a "melt through" by most definitions, but since there isn't a REAL definition they got away with it.

Neither a meltdown NOR a meltdown that gets out of the RPV requires "uncontrolled fission" so that's wrong too.

And there's no evidence at this point that any corium is "outside all containment".

So there's three errors in two sentences. Not a record perhaps... but impressive for someone going around accusing others of ignorance.

I read that the core in Chernobyl was vaporized by the explosion so fission stopped.

You read wrong. The core was not vaporized (though part of it was ejected). Also... the rate of fission ramped UP at Chernobyl while at Fukushima it shut DOWN. There are only theories as to what happened in that regard AFTER the explosion (though it obviously shut down at some point after)... but by then it hardly mattered. The core was open to the atmosphere and graphite was burning.

[nonperson]

53. Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

As usual these days we have to rely on foreign news sources for anything other than state and lobbyist approved propaganda.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

[SpoonFed]

22. Please prove...

the negative. That there is absolutely no fission (intermittent or otherwise) happening in any of the 3 reactor(s) blob(s). For full marks, please show your work, including the insider data whereever possible. Please also show through instrumentation and measurement data the point exactly where we transitioned to 100% decay heat. Oh wait, decay heat... that might provide some heat.

Most importantly, show us the hidden data. (Hidden data being all the stuff TEPCO hasn't bothered to release).

[Yo_Mama]

54. There are naturally limiting factors, you know.

No one currently knows the state of the fuel nor the reactors nor the containment vessels. Nor will we for some time. First the whole thing has to be cooled down. It will be perhaps years before we find out the state of the fuel.

However -
Spontaneous fission of fuel is not likely to happen at this point, wherever the fuel may have ended up. You might see some decay neutrons produced, but a self-sustaining fission reaction? Not very plausible at all. If it is even possible, the only such reaction that is possible would be a very low-grade reaction, and such a reaction would still be substantially contained by the structures involved.

Some seem to think the purpose of the reactor vessel and containment vessels is to keep fuel from fissioning. The truth is the opposite. The configuration of the fuel rods and the reactor is what allows you to make fission reactions occur at that intensity. The containment vessel is a safety measure to contain radiation.

Even assuming most of the fuel melted down in all three reactors and wound up in the drywells, whether the fuel went through the drywell would depend on how it ended up in the drywell. Did a large blob come out or did it slowly drip out? In any case, the fuel has been cooling down for three months now. Decay rates and heat production rates have declined a lot. Wherever it is and in whatever state it is, the fuel is in a lower energy state - much lower.

Taking the worst-case scenario, let's assume this stuff is still melting down and gets to the waterlogged basement, where it sits in water. It's producing much less heat and has the capacity to produce much less heat. It's in water. The worst that can happen is a very radioactive basement with highly radioactive water, which is about what they have anyway. There's not going to be some massive explosion.

This is a very severe incident, but actual ongoing contamination rates continue to drop, and it seems likely that they will continue to drop. But the contamination of surrounding areas is severe enough that evacuations will have to continue and a very wide area must be mitigated.

We don't know the endpoint of the sea contamination, and that is very worrisome, but worrisome for locals and for Japan, which is very dependent on its shores and fisheries.

It seems to me that this is such a very bad nuclear accident that no hysteria is necessary. The contamination of agricultural land, inhabited land, and at least 100 kilometers of coastline has got to be enough disaster, if properly comprehended, to strike anyone with awe and horror.

[FirstLight]

5. where dooes it go from there?

the water table? near the ocean... oh crap :scared:

[Eagle Mall]

6. 99.9% humidity = Corium at the Water Table

[FBaggins]

8. What a crock

That's the only way you can think of to get 99.9% humidity?

The tons of water that they're pouring through the reactors doesn't impact humidity at all? It's only the magic underground water that can do that?

[Eagle Mall]

25. You haven't been right yet. Why would that change now?

[FBaggins]

28. Says the guy who just claimed that high humidity proves that the core is in the water table?

Forgive me if I don't sweat your opinion of my accuracy. :rofl:

[Eagle Mall]

33. it's not the only evidence for this. what else would be boiling water underneath the reactor?

You do realize the steam is coming from below, don't you?

[FBaggins]

37. Decay heat.

And water doesn't have to even boil for high humidity to exist.

Never been in a hot tub?

The water running through the reactor is at or near the boiling point. The toruse on at least one unit has been broken since very early in the timeline. There doesn't have to be ANY corium outside of the primary containment (or even the RPV) in order for there to be high humidity.

A number of us here speculated on that very subject from the moment the humidity in #2 was reported as being so high.

Yet you think it must be the China Syndrom?


As they say. To the man who has only a hammer... every problem looks like a nail. If you assumed from day one that the cores are melting through to the water table and nothing can stop them... then every news item magically proves that you were right.

Sorry. You were wrong.

Try taking a look at the posts from three months back re: what would happen IF the cores did that. Feel free to ONLY look at posts from nuclear opponents. Then compare that to what has actually happened.

[TheWraith]

13. Yet again why blogs are not the same thing as journalism.

"Melting through the pressure vessel" is NOT the same thing as "melting through the containment vessel."

But I wouldn't expect any better from Enenews and similar sites, for whom science exists only to further their axe grinding.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

40. You're "citing" more Arnie Gundersen professional fearmongering? Really?

You might as well cite Fox News for an unbiased opinion on President Obama.

[Eagle Mall]

27. It has already melted through the Pressure Vessel. It is currently melting through the Containment.

If it hasn't already done so.

Feel better now?

[FBaggins]

29. Yep... I feel better now

A good gut laugh always brightens my day. :rofl:

[Eagle Mall]

35. the sad thing about you is you are too ignorant to admit when you're wrong.

Even when you are disproved daily.

You would rather discount facts than face them.

No wonder the Nuclear Industry is in such a sad state. It has people like you behind the scenes.

[FBaggins]

39. You have more basic errors on this thread alone...

... so feel free to apply the "sad thing" where it really fits. :rofl:

[madokie]

41. Why all this back and forth with Ignored

He hasn't been right about anything about this catastrophe yet, not one thing. All he does is tries to minimize the truth and will not admit mistakes. My advice is quite feeding this one and put him on ignore as I have otherwise there can be no meaningful discussion about this on this board. I'm surprised the mods allow this to continue.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nihil]

51. Whilst having to guess at the identity of who you're calling "Ignored" ...

... if he's the person I think he is, he's been right on more things
than most of those dead set on smearing him - not everything but just
"most" - and at least he is prepared to admit it when he is wrong,
unlike certain other regular posters on this forum.

:shrug:

On the other hand, if it is one of the people who is "debating" him,
you're probably right to put them on "Ignore" ...

:evilgrin:


> I'm surprised the mods allow this to continue.

Edited to remove my reply as it could look like a criticism of the
mods and it wasn't intended that way - it's not a job that I'd want
to do so I'll not criticise them for it - will PM you instead.

:hi:

[Fledermaus]

50. Where's the corium now?

[SpoonFed]

52. +1 n/t