Time stamp on webcam is 10-8 1:07
The camera view is distorted by what looks like waves of mostly transparent heated steam erupting in vicinity of unit 4, on right side of screen, blowing to the left side of the screen
It doesn't look good.
My best guess is that all the authorities working on the Fukushima dilemma right now are trying to evaluate the relative risks of:
a) containing explosion but allowing ongoing radiation releases
b) allowing explosion by halting efforts to stop it (e.g., nitrogen injections)
Potrblog discussed this dilemma at the close of his last video on St Louis radiation. He argued that if his readings are correct, an explosion might be preferable because it would halt the fissioning.
[for detailed analysis of data and commentary see link here:]
The problem with an explosion is that high amounts of radiation would be pushed into the atmosphere all at once.
The question: Is slow poisoning worse than a shorter, but high-intensity burst of radiation?
Based on the research I've seen, my feeling is that these ongoing releases of relatively (compared to an explosion) low-levels of ionizing radiation are going to produce chronic illnesses, infection, and birth defects.
Contamination is bio-accumulating through these low level releases.
I sincerely hope that the people who are weighing in on this critical decision whether to allow an explosion to occur are educated in the most valid body of research about the effects of low level ionizing radiation.
We are truly in trouble if the decision makers are relying on the deliberately biased and indeed fraudulent body of research that trivializes the effects of lower-level fallout on populations.
Examples of articles examining fraud and bias in radiation research
BACKGROUND ON EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION
Nuclear Contamination: The effects by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass