News Japan Earthquake, Tsunami, & Nuclear Disaster

Eat iodine. Not much else to do. :goodnight:
 
ABC is reporting:
Hourly radiation at Japan nuclear plant matches allowable annual dose, says Kyodo.
EDIT: Also:
Japan's Meteorological Agency says Fukushima prefecture (which is where the nuclear plant explosion happened) is at high risk of another major tsunami.
"Major" is > 3 m.
 
Bad news again. In the news, an expert says it might be a boiling water reactor, not a BW&R. If it is true, the vapor is radioactive (iodine, strontium, cesium).

The evacuation radius is now 20 kilometers.
 
Last edited:
One of the TEPCO workers in Unit 1 had to be removed from work before the explosion already because he received 100 mSv in a short time. Maximum per year is 20 mSv. Radiation poisoning starts at 250 mSv.
 
Well, it _is_ a BWR. Steam is a minor problem now though.

EDIT:
Four thoughts.

1. This thread now deals with the meltdowns and not earthquake per se.
2. Praying for a wind rose into the Pacific without much vertical circulation.
3. Are loss-of-coolant and loss of external power supply _together_ in the list of design basis conditions?
4. Who approved the siting decision?
 
Last edited:
Well, it _is_ a BWR. Steam is a minor problem now though.

of course, this would also be bad on a PWR now. But looks like the 4th or 5th generation BWR design has a lot of impact on the events. TEPCO has confirmed that one control rod failed to insert yesterday, but all others did. Still this means a bit more heating than normal.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031222-e.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031221-e.html

Also I don't know what you mean with BW&R vs BWR... maybe you mean a RBMK?
 
Also I don't know what you mean with BW&R vs BWR... maybe you mean a RBMK?

No, my mistake... I meant a difference between generations of BWR. The reactor is of US origin, that's sure.
 
Breaking news: plume is moving towards Kamchatka peninsula.
 
Sorry for repeat post, but the page moved on and I didn't notice.

Here's the video:



1023 GMT: Evacuation zone extended to 20km radius around both No 1 and No 2 plants.
 
Last edited:
Looks like a hydrogen explosion... without visible steam, which could mean the pressure vessel is still intact... but now there should be nothing in the building left to contain the damage then. And the steam could also still have vented, since steam at high temperatures is invisible.
 
Now state of emergency extended to 5 nuclear plants - the other 3 unnamed.

BBC interviews Prof Robin Grimes of Imperial College London - he says the explosion could be a steam pressure explosion from previous release of steam into the containment structure from the reactor. In which case the release of radioactive material may be low.
He isn't asked about whether it could be a hydrogen explosion, does not comment.
 
Last edited:
Looks like a hydrogen explosion... without visible steam, which could mean the pressure vessel is still intact... but now there should be nothing in the building left to contain the damage then. And the steam could also still have vented, since steam at high temperatures is invisible.

They have said that it is unlikely that major damages has occurred to the pressure vessel. If that helps...
 
AAARGGH. The plume news source (Rospotrebnadzor) doesn't seem credible (its head - Gennady Onischenko is a well known crank case), but I wouldn't be looking at surface winds alone. Not having a transport model, cannot comment on the plume.

EDIT: Has anybody accessed IAEA's Alert Log lately? I cannot seem to connect to http://www.iaea.org/press
 
They have said that it is unlikely that major damages has occurred to the pressure vessel. If that helps...

if it was just a hydrogen explosion above the inner containment, it still means that the zirconium is already reacting with the water (Temperature above 1750K) and producing large amounts of hydrogen, and thus one of the first stages of meltdown already taking place.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

AAARGGH. The plume news source (Rospotrebnadzor) doesn't seem credible (its head - Gennady Onischenko is a well known crank case), but I wouldn't be looking at surface winds alone. Not having a transport model, cannot comment on the plume.

The german weather service already made a preliminary wind analysis, I am looking for it currently in the WWW. They say that the risk is higher for Philippines and Indonesia, than for the USA or Russia.

EDIT: Has anybody accessed IAEA's Alert Log lately? I cannot seem to connect to http://www.iaea.org/press

I was able a few minutes ago, but the site is slashdotted.
 
From BBC log
1009: "This is starting to look a lot like Chernobyl" Walt Patterson, an associate fellow with Chatham House, has told the BBC after seeing pictures of the explosion at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant. "The nuclear agency says that they have detected caesium and iodine outside the unit, which certainly indicates fuel melting at the very least," he says. "Once you have melting fuel coming into contact with water, that would almost certainly be the cause of the explosion."

EDIT: On the plus side, the four workers injured in the explosion are not so bad:

1103: Japan's Kyodo news is also reporting that the four people injured in the nuclear plant explosion are conscious and their injuries are not life-threatening.
 
Last edited:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinne_Lepage"]Corrine Lepage[/ame], former french minister of the environnement and member of the european parliament, said that "the question is now to see if the containement structure will hold (in that case, that would be only a local radioactive pollution), or if it is going to explode under the pressure, in which case that's an international disaster and a Tchernobyl II".
 
Back
Top