Thursday, December 17, 2015

Webcam Update


Emissions have remained relatively thick as viewed from the unit 1 cam, as illustrated in these screenshots taken over the last few days:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jrk2xjm8v6mvb20/December%2013%20%20through%20December%2017%202015.pdf?dl=0

I cannot get the TEPCO cam 4 to load and operate so I have no recent views from that cam.

Today, the TBS cam is down as well.

The flashing light is back on today at the Futaba cam but its hard to see much else because the Daiichi plant is very dark.

Here are some representative screenshots from Dec 17:

December 17, 2015 23:45 (PM)


December 17 10:56 AM


December 17 14:35 (PM)

3 comments:

  1. 12-18 19:35 noticed cam4 back online. TBS-JNN still down.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The NRC source term offered was for conservative plume modeling early on in the incident. It was meant to upperbound the most consevative yet unrealistic events to account for an order of magnitude uncertainty. In reality all the Unit 4 fuel stayed and 99% of melted fuel stayed in the rpv. Antinukes are inconsistent saying all inventory in atmosphere yet site radiation readings contradict.

    Antinukes are more likely to not have a high level nuclear science and engineering experience. Yet even Gundersen and Fairewinds stepped in it with their Unit 3 prompt criticality theory that was proven not to occur. People will believe what they want, making nuclear out to be some evil monster which it isnt. Behind the curtain there are over a million dedicated people working to move humanity forward. Nuclear will always have modern day Luddite detractors. Yet it will continue on. Antinukes have unknowingly advanced fossil fuel use and also bear the brunt of the fissile disposition logjam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The NRC source term offered was for conservative plume modeling early on in the incident. It was meant to upperbound the most consevative yet unrealistic events to account for an order of magnitude uncertainty. In reality all the Unit 4 fuel stayed and 99% of melted fuel stayed in the rpv. Antinukes are inconsistent saying all inventory in atmosphere yet site radiation readings contradict.

    Antinukes are more likely to not have a high level nuclear science and engineering experience. Yet even Gundersen and Fairewinds stepped in it with their Unit 3 prompt criticality theory that was proven not to occur. People will believe what they want, making nuclear out to be some evil monster which it isnt. Behind the curtain there are over a million dedicated people working to move humanity forward. Nuclear will always have modern day Luddite detractors. Yet it will continue on. Antinukes have unknowingly advanced fossil fuel use and also bear the brunt of the fissile disposition logjam.

    ReplyDelete

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