News service now breaking genuine meltdown fears

#101
#101
BBC News - LIVE: Japan earthquake
0052: Details are now emberging about radiation levels after the blast at Fukushima's reactor 2 at 0610 local time (2110 GMT Monday). Tokyo Electric officials say that one hour of exposure at the nuclear plant would be equivalent to eight times at what a person might experience naturally during the year.
Click to expand...
 
#104
#104
There can be mistakes when stating units, so this could be revised, but...

...the official number at the moment is 400 mS/hr or 40,000 mrem/hr radiation total effective dose levels are being reported outside reactor number 2 building. That is very dangerous. The problem is that the radioactivity levels closer to the reactor are even higher.

Let's just say that the men who remain there to save the reactor are exhibiting a tremendous sense of duty and courage.
 
#105
#105
TennTradition said:
There can be mistakes when stating units, so this could be revised, but...

...the official number at the moment is 400 mS/hr or 40,000 mrem/hr radiation total effective dose levels are being reported outside reactor number 2 building. That is very dangerous. The problem is that the radioactivity levels closer to the reactor are even higher.

Let's just say that the men who remain there to save the reactor are exhibiting a tremendous sense of duty and courage.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that this situation is salvageable at this point? It doesn't sound like it.
 
#106
#106
Gibbs and NEOCON - in relation to the discussion we were having earlier about the spent fuel pools....

It is suspected that the spent fuel pool released enough hydrogen that it ignited a fire in the fourth floor of the reaction number 4 building. They are reporting radioactivity levels of 100 mS/hr (10,000 mrem/hr) near reactor 4.

The difference between this accident (fire in the roof) vs. the others (explosion of the secondary containment structures) suggests that the others were related to large amounts of hydrogen vented from the reactors to me....
 
#107
#107
Vol423 said:
Do you believe that this situation is salvageable at this point? It doesn't sound like it.
Click to expand...

As I see it now, it all depends on how bad number 2 gets at this point. If the high radioactivity is just a burp of highly radioactive gas, then this will settle out. If it is the result of a primary containment breach, then all bets are off. I don't know how far the reactors are from each other, but at this point I don't know how you save reactors 1 and 3 if 2 has broken containment. We should know more in a few hours, depending on what happens to the radioactivity levels. Luckily the secondary containment of reactor 2 is still in place, even if the primary containment has failed. This may be enough to allow work at 1 and 3 to continue, but I'm not sure of that.
 
#108
#108
BoilingWaterReactorDesign_3.jpg
 
#109
#109
i should add recent events seem to show either primary containment is no longer intact OR the spent fuel pit is uncovered
 
#110
#110
That's a good figure. You can see the torus wet well containment at the bottom with the dry well above it...and then inside that the reactor vessel. The spent fuel pool being uncovered could lead to increased radioactivity levels, as was seen at reactor 4. But, the situation at reactor 2 seems to be different. Hopefully primary containment in still intact.....
 
#111
#111
i just got back from the Y and saw your post.

My friend went to bed an hour ago as he is eastern time and wakes up at like 6 or something.

I'll show him your post tomorrow and try to get him to set up an account so you two can chat directly.

I'm very good at what I do but I'm not an engineer and he's throwing out terms I don't know.

Based on what you posted above it does look like both of your guess are correct. The back up systems stop operating properly as they were venting and the fuel rods heated up enough to produce enough hydrogen to cause an explosion. That is what he believed and I believe from what you posted you believed also.
 
#112
#112
He did speculate before going to bed that primary containment may have been broken.
 
#114
#114
TennTradition said:
There can be mistakes when stating units, so this could be revised, but...

...the official number at the moment is 400 mS/hr or 40,000 mrem/hr radiation total effective dose levels are being reported outside reactor number 2 building. That is very dangerous. The problem is that the radioactivity levels closer to the reactor are even higher.

Let's just say that the men who remain there to save the reactor are exhibiting a tremendous sense of duty and courage.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Real heroes.
 
#116
#116
I haven't had time to look deeply into the reports on the new fire. Were these in the containment pools? Cs-137? I'm really concerned nobody is talking about zirconium cladding fires. In the other explosions, everyone seemed quick to assure everyone "All Clear".
 
#117
#117
utgibbs said:
I haven't had time to look deeply into the reports on the new fire. Were these in the containment pools? Cs-137? I'm really concerned nobody is talking about zirconium cladding fires. In the other explosions, everyone seemed quick to assure everyone "All Clear".
Click to expand...

The spent fuel pool in reactor 4's secondary containment is boiling and releasing radioactivity, apparently. The IAEA have been reporting this, but I'm not sure just how hot it is.

I really haven't seen any additional credible information concerning the status of reactor 2. There have been done reports that radistion levels have fallen off some, but it is not clear if that is near reactor 2 or 4 (where the fire near the spent fuel storage pool was extinguished), or both. Falling levels are obviously better than rising levels, but some sort of clearer understanding about 2's primary containment would shed a lot of light on the situation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#119
#119
I am bothered by the absence of numbers. Surely, there are sensors all over the area that ought to be able to give accurate readings as to what the levels are, and its not being reported. Clearly, some of you are very knowledgeable about this industry -- wouldn't you like to know the readings?
 
#121
#121
Daddy Gee said:
good point.

Here's a guide to radiation levels..
Radiation exposure: a quick guide to what each level means | World news | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

That is a good summary, but it seems incomplete to me. What do they mean by single dose? The RATE recorded last night was 400 mS. Are they saying that 2.5 hours of exposure at this rate would lead to radiation sickness? Or, is a certain length of exposure to a rate of 1000 mS/hr a cause of radiation sickness?

Radiation exposure has two factors that influence its effects on human health. Those are both the TOTAL dose received as well as the highest RATE at which you encounter radiation. It's not clear to me how this figure plays into that.

I do wonder what the rated are down to now.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#122
#122
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I wish we could get some pics of this... I am sure a boiling reactor looks pretty wild
Click to expand...

These reactors always boil, but that isn't visible. In this case, it is the spent fuel storage pool that is located near the roof of reactor 4 building that appears to be boiling. It probably looks about like you would imagine it. Metal bundles submerged vertically into a pool of boiling water.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#123
#123
In addition to TennTrad's observation about the limitations of that chart, I am wondering how far that level extends away from the plant. Was it 400 standing right next to the plant and 2 standing a mile away? The linked article says that yesterday's peak was 400 mSv, whereas the Chernobyl residents got 350 upon relocation "after the blast" there (that's even more confusing, for obvious reasons).

Seems like length of time and intensity should both matter, though I'm a complete neophyte on the subject. So while they give us a snapshot of the highest level, they aren't saying who might have been exposed to that, whether that was released and travelled, and for how long.

Just not very satisfying and, as I say, i think that they have to have a better handle on it than just "400 was the peak."
 
#124
#124
yep .. you would expect a chart of some description that would show levels of radiation as you get farther away from the reactors ..
 
#125
#125
I don't know what the specific numbers are away from the plant, but the 400 mSv was recorded on the site. I expect readings elsewhere are SIGNIFICANTLY lower at this point.

Even at the 400 level, comparisons you are making shows that while this is a serious number, it is manageable and these nuclear events, if worse, can produce MUCH higher numbers. The fact that 400 is still the highest is a good sign.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top