Friday, September 28, 2012

Unit 4: Is There Intact Fuel Left Unburned?


Majia here: When I listened to Arnie Gundersen's recent interview and heard him make the following remark I wondered whether there was any truth in Tepco's assertion that there is nothing left to burn in fuel pool #4.  Here is the Enenews headline:

Enenews 9/27/2012: Gundersen v. Tepco: Watch audience uproar after official says “there’s nothing in the fuel pool to burn” (VIDEO) http://enenews.com/gundersen-tepco-watch-audience-uproar-after-official-fuel-pool-burn-video/comment-page-1#comment-291470

I had suspected that this might be the case because we saw so much smoke coming from the general area of units 3 and 4 in the winter of 2011-2012. We saw few recent images of unit 4 until the late spring of 2012.

The images of unit 4 in the late spring of 2012 looked considerably different than earlier images of this building.

Below see an image of unit 4 from the spring of 2012. Below that find an image of unit 4 approximately 1 year earlier:                                                                               


18 comments:

  1. I've just been reading this article By Yoichi Shimatsu, Exclusive To Rense.com 6-30-12
    which is very interesting read:
    http://rense.com/general95/offic.html
    Quote: Starting in the first hours of New Year's Day of this year, 2012, the loose soil under Fukushima underwent liquefaction during a series of earthquakes. The Fukushima 1 plant was completely evacuated in secret, as police barricades were set up on incoming roads and military helicopters sped in to evacuate remaining workers and engineers. Nighttime helicopter flights were heard in the darkness over Minami-Soma town, indicating that fuel rods were being airlifted into nearby river estuaries.
    and
    The New Year's season was not the first occasion for helicopter airlifts. In the days immediately after the March 11 disaster, a long cigar-shaped casket - suspected of containing weapons-grade fissile material smuggled in from the U.S. military stockpile in Armadillo, Texas - was hooked and pulled out of the Reactor 4 fuel pool by a Special Forces helicopter.
    So it looks like some of the rods (evidence ?)had been moved out in secret.
    The whole article is worth reading

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for the link. I do think that something happened during the early part of 2012 to unit 4.

    I wouldn't be surprised if weapons grade plutonium was at the plant.

    The research I've done on Japan's nuclear weapons programs has convinced me that the country has, at least, a just-in-time program.

    Still, plutonium need not be weapons quality to make a bomb and India built a bomb with uranium. Japan has LOTS of stored plutonium.

    http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-does-japans-plutonium-stockpiling.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. In FYE of 2010, Japan reported 41 plutonium breeder type rods as missing. They, 40 of the 41 (Last is in #4's underground lab?) are sitting in the pool of #4 as seen in pool survey. The April survey of 2011 shows them intact with dome-looking square hats on them, and they are the ones that don't have lift handels on top! The survey from 2012 shows them as burned-off down into the depths of the rack! They are what makes the glowing blob! They can not now be removed. There was also such rods (P-239@70% P-240@15% P-241@15%) in the pool of #3 but they were more than 10 years old. This is what caused the criticality-&-Fizzle, limited explosion. The reactor core lay-out, and power output of #3 at time of the quake, and remember... it's with it being short over 140+ rods yet running @ 105% output, says undenied that they were breeding Plutonium in #3 reactor at the time of the quake. If rods have been removed... they had to be the non-expended ones remaining in #3 pool, post criticality event. The entire rack in #4 being removed as a unit, is only way to get them out now... and they are NON-EXPENED! and will catch fire with exposure to air!

    ReplyDelete
  4. As to #4 event... they were in process of loading #4 core during the quake... just how many rods were then inside when it hit?... need to count empty rack-slots in pool of #4 to get idea! THAT is where the fire events in 4 were spawned... when the bottom of the reactor vessle broke and drained! They had problems getting the gate between the pool and the core shut! The pool went low, and started the slow burn-off of the PU breeder rods.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS... the rods they pulled to checkout were the now empty case ones from the reactor of #4, NOT from the pool! You CAN NOT pull new or partial expended rods out of the WATER!... They will ignite and start a zirconium fire!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Majia,

    "Unit 4: Is There Intact Fuel Left Unburned?" is an excellent question. The demolition of R4, as if by a toddler on methamphetamine, is most likely the answer. If there was anything that precarious still present, would the demolition have been carried out so carelessly?

    Since the demolition, the "sky is falling" discourse about reactor 4 quieted down to virtual silence. It is quite possible that the claims about the threat of reactor 4 spent fuel pool have been to convince us of its continued existence, more than protect us from a future danger. After all, if reactor 4 spent fuel pool was such a danger, then what has already happened? Worse, and it isn't treated in the same way by the Chicken Littles about the "future" threat of the sfp 4.

    A lot of SFP4 was burned initially, and we saw events over the summer, October, December, January, March, May. The 2012 R4 SFP TEPCO reality show was tragic, and seemed to announce its extinction. I doubt that it poses the threat that is claimed, only because it is already in our lungs.

    Thanks,
    NoNukes


    ReplyDelete
  8. The first ones I wrote, Pattie Brassard, about the situation. I'm a Former SGT and nuke/bio/chem responder for USArmy. That... the last, is not sent by me, and likely a paid nuke rep attempting to cover-ass!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for your comment Pattie

    Can you please tell me exactly which comment is NOT yours.

    thank you

    ReplyDelete
  10. the 9:28 one isn't mine...

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's Pattie B again...

    here's a link to give you an Idea just how toxic it is there and in the surrounding areas...

    http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atom-moc.pref.fukushima.jp%2Fdynamic%2FC0001-PC.html

    this is the RADS-data-linked BEFORE it goes to where they "ADJUST" the data for general consumption by the public!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi majia, so I have a question here - regarding the NRC docu that supposedly is "proof" that NRC admitted to 100% fuel gone.. if fuel was 100% gone then, what was burning here? I am not questioning what u saw here - I am just trying to figure out this document that's been released recently and trying to figure out what exactly is being stated by the NRC there. I am confused by washingtonsblog's reading of it. I just put out a query to flyingcuttlefish too.

    Thanks for all u do, and I hope you're well.

    yours,
    bo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My question exactly Bo!

      I don't think entirely all the fuel was blown out from 4 in March and that the March 18 transcripts were still best estimates for developing a source term because the NRC Rascal model could only predict out 50 miles.

      I saw those fires on the webcam in June and intermittently through Dec of 2011 and the spiking EPA plotted beta levels.

      So, I think we can safely conclude that much of what didn't go up in March was volatilized over the course of 2011. That is why the before-and-after images looks so different.

      But then again I could be missing vital information in this fun-house of mirrors and the real scenario could be different.

      Regardless, we are seeing environmental effects that are truly alarming. Fukushima is, in my opinion, playing an important "tipping point" role.

      Delete
    2. Thank you so much Majia. I felt like I was the only crazy one... it's comforting to know there are others with similar questions.

      I do not understand that passage on pages 7-8 on the released document. what exactly did they mean by "source term"? & If possible, there are other questions I would like to ask you privately. I believe you have stock's e mail.. he has mine.

      yes, and I agree - regardless, Fukushima is a tipping point, so it's not like I'm downplaying what happened.

      Sincerely
      bo

      Delete
    3. Hi Bo

      I hope this addresses your question about "Source term," which is a measurement of the radioactivity released by an event, usually given in some magnitude of becquerels, such as the petaBecquerel.

      NRC needed a source term to calculate doses for North America because their absurd RASCAL model only predicted dose for a 50 mile radius (at least, that is how I read the document).

      I'm trying to find out from Lucas (Enformable) how recently the march 18 20111 NRC transcript was released.

      How accurate were the NRC's data points about atmospheric vaporization for the spent fuel pools on march 18, 2011?

      As I mentioned above, I am confident there were fires in unit 3 and probably unit 4 as well throughout 2011 based on rad readings and webcam data.

      Even if NRC source conditionalities were representative of the conditions on March 18, they surely are not accurate now after years of ongoing fuel degradation and contamination.

      In a way, the specifics probably are less important than the indisputable reality that much of the fuel at Daiichi is ending up in the atmosphere, Pacific ocean, and groundwater of Japan, etc where it will circulate in tiny particles, bringing atomic decay and chemical toxicity wherever residing.

      Meanwhile, governments and industry deny the scale of the accident, preventing the full scale mitigation and evacuations needed in Japan to save lives.

      Are you as tired of this as I am? I feel the battle is hopeless but still I try (the "hopeless act") because I love kids everywhere and the natural world.

      Delete
    4. Bo please feel free to email me at majiandsn@yahoo.com

      Delete
    5. Thank you so much majia, I will organize my thoughts and write to you. I really appreciate the careful observations, thoughts and responses.

      Delete
    6. "In a way, the specifics probably are less important than the indisputable reality that much of the fuel at Daiichi is ending up in the atmosphere, Pacific ocean, and groundwater of Japan, etc where it will circulate in tiny particles, bringing atomic decay and chemical toxicity wherever residing."

      I can't agree with you more.

      And there was an observation by a friend of mine in Japan - at this point in time what is more important are collecting as much information as possible on health remedies.
      The time to be arguing over unit 4 has long past.

      The NRC doc kind of stoked the final ember of this discussion...

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.