rw at firstpr.com.au
Wed Mar 16 04:28:17 AEDT 2011
I have pertinent photos and links to videos at:
Some discussions are taking place at:
> Dr. John Price has a much more rational way of explaining the
> situation (he was on tonight's 7:30 report) without the FUD:
> At Fukushima 1 a building next to the reactor exploded. I can see no
> flash or flame on the video I have seen, so I think the theories
> attributing this explosion to a fuel-air or hydrogen-air explosion may
> not be correct. If I am correct about the intention to avoid releases
> of steam, then the pressure may build up in the buildings from the
> released steam.
> Even this possibility would have been part of the design. However,
> whatever system was intended to protect the turbine building at
> Fukushima 1, the system has obviously failed. In my guess, the steam
> pressure has exceeded the turbine building’s design limits by a large
> margin and the building has exploded.
The turbine building is seaward and is fine. The top of the reactor 1
building exploded. See the first picture at my site. The refuelling
floor appears to be intact, while in unit 3 (the second to explode) that
is all broken up - so in unit 3 it was probably hydrogen and air inside
the secondary containment structure.
> Even with all these failures there are still some safety systems left.
This must be an old comment. All three reactor buildings have been
extensively damaged by explosions. Their basements are flooded and none
of the equipment or sensors are working. This was just stated by a
Japanese expert A. Takeda on NHK TV a few minutes ago:
> The systems which may still be intact are the reactor containment
None of them are intact.
> the reactor pressure vessel and the cladding on the nuclear
> fuel rods.
The pressure vessels might be intact.
The fuel rods in all three reactors are at least partially degraded
through oxidation and/or melting, so the fuel is in direct contact with
> It is not until all of these are breached that large
> releases are possible.
This is what is happening now.
> As the time from shutdown increases, after a
> few days or weeks, the likelihood of success of avoiding damage to
> these systems increases.
The are already completely damaged.
> If some of the fuel rods have been damaged, then releases can occur in
> the steam.
This is what is happening now - using petrol or diesel fire pumps to
push in seawater for purely evaporative cooling. !!!!!!!
> This is still not defined as a meltdown. A meltdown is an
> extremely high temperature in the core which could cause the fuel
> cladding to melt.
The zirconium alloy cladding has either melted or been oxidised already,
at least at the top of the rods in all three reactors.
> I believe that meltdown has been averted in all the
> plants. Overnight 12-13 March, I believe the reports indicated that
> the operators felt that the situation was almost under control.
This is totally wrong.
The situation is totally out of control.
What is the opposite of Chicken Little? What is the name for someone
who insists the sky is not falling and will not fall, when pieces of it
are falling all about?
The only thing which stops this from being a full-scale disaster is that
the wind has been, and will again be, blowing the fallout offshore. For
the last day or so, the wind slowed, but I understand it will start up
again soon in the west-to-east pattern which we really need.
The cores may yet meltdown. If they don't, and the wind is offshore for
the next few weeks, I guess we may be able to get through this without
major health effects.
More information about the Link