• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Fukushima Unit 4
#1
Was all of the spent fuel from Unit 4 safely unloaded?  Evidence strongly indicates the story weve been told is wrong.  TEPCO assertions, and coverage by the media and sites like SimplyInfo claiming a total and safe inventory removal and storage are very likely untrue.  

Unit four didnt blow up because of migrating hydrogen from unit 3 (mainstream theory) or carbon monoxide (second mainstream theory).  Proof, besides the implausibility of gas remaining after the unit3 explosion is that unit four blast dynamics show a sealed containment building.   Gas does not freely waft into a sealed container. Carbon monoxide is even less likely due to its higher density. 

Photos show the pipes leading from unit3 where hydrogen was said to have come from are destroyed.  The explosive gas most likely originated within unit four.

This means that enough fuel assemblies burned or melted to cause the hydrogen required for the blast and tremendous destruction of unit 4. This scenario has been calculated for us. Sandia Labs calculated the required spent fuel pool water level that would allow a boil down of water and subsequent melt of fuel and release of hydrogen which would fit into the observed time line. That paper is online [see edit below]. The fact that Sandia made this calculation indicates to me that at least they were considering the plausibility of it, or even suggesting the probability. 

There is strong evidence that unit four was  not successfully unloaded as claimed by TEPCO, SimplyInfo and the mainstream science and media.  

=============

Stohl;

"analysis shows that the spent fuel being stored in the unit 4 pool emitted copious quantities of caesium-137
137Cs emissions peaked on 14–15 March but were generally high from 12 until 19 March, when they suddenly dropped by orders of magnitude exactly when spraying of water on the spent-fuel pool of unit 4 started. This indicates that emissions were not only coming from the damaged reactor cores, but also from the spent-fuel pool of unit 4"

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2...3-2012.pdf


A highly significant piece of evidence is that fallout with isotope ratios of fuel from unit four were found in Europe.  More evidence comes from release estimates by Stohl and others who believe significant fallout came from unit 4.  Moreover, damage reports and repairs indicate a damaged fuel pool with a torn metal liner. Yet more evidence is the steam and the emergency water replacement, including hydrazine. 

The significance is fairly large.  Four meltdowns, not three.   One might think...."three nuclear meltdowns, four nuclear meltdowns, whats the difference? Science says its all safe anyway",  yet a nuclear meltdown/explosion in a shutdown reactor is big news any way you look at it. 

The potential catastrophe was huge. An accurate release estimate from U4 doesn't exist. According to Reuters, the combined amount of cesium-137 contained in those nuclear fuel rods is 14,000 times greater than what was released when the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima

[edit;  as Im reviewing my links for the Sandia Study, they dont direct me to the paper I had read. A new search doesnt readily find it.  A paper of several pages which studied the gas migration from U3 theory, both hydrogen and carbon monoxide, as well as U4 burn scenarios. As I recall, the gas migration theories were considered implausible.  These are the closest I find at the moment

https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content//ga...2-6173.pdf

https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx...N:43118512

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1480194-melc...l-modeling 

This paper for example states that isotope studies of SFP4 water indicate fuel was not uncovered, but in theory enough hydrogen could have been produced

 "In theory, it is possible to generate up to 3.4 kg of hydrogen per assembly (from oxidation of Zr in the fuel cladding and box), or a total of 4,525 kg from the hot 1331 assemblies stored in the SFP4. The hydrogen generated from oxidation of steel and B4C will be additional. So the answers to the questions are YES according to these MELCOR calculations, enough hydrogen (150 kg) could be generated in the SFP4 3.64 days after the earthquake to produce..."
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1045845-melc...-ichi-unit

an alternative theory of hydrogen production is found here;

placement of the new fuel with old fuel in unit four in conjunction with pool liner contact created a radiation-induced electrolysis 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...931600087X
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#2
Evidence of a nuclear chain reaction in Unit 4 SFP

Deciphering the Measured Ratios of Iodine-131 to
Cesium-137 at the Fukushima Reactors
T. Matsui
Institute of Physics, University of Tokyo, Komaba, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan

"Although the difference of the ratios in Unit-3 and Unit-4 cooling pools may be caused by
fluctuations of the distribution of the fallout, we may take this difference more seriously and
seek other explanation for the origin of high iodine-cesium ratio found in the Unit-4 cooling
pool. Another possible explanation could be that a nuclear chain reaction was reignited in
the melted used fuel in the Unit-4 cooling pool for a certain period.

 The data of the water samples from the Unit-4 cooling pool and from
areas near the Unit-2 reactor, however, show an anomaly which may indicate, if the data
are correct, that some of these fission products were produced by chain nuclear reactions
reignited after the earthquake."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0242.pdf
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#3
https://hatrickpenry.files.wordpress.com...onager.png

Uh oh...did I do that, mmmmmm yep.

https://hatrickpenry.files.wordpress.com...h-2011.png
 
Reply
#4
The FOIA docs revealed Japan's sudden change of course concerning the r4 spent fuel pool.  From the dire crisis of a spent fuel pool drying out and fissioning the world is told no fire, no problem.  Cam watchers saw r4 smoking for months, radioactive emissions were detected, the best case scenario didn't happen as Japan and the nuke industry would like everyone to believe.  

Meltdown: What Really Happened at Fukushima?
Before the tsunami arrived, workers say the quake left its aging Unit 1 reactor crippled
Jake Adelstein and David McNeill
Jul 2, 2011
https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...ma/352434/

The earthquake destroyed the infrastructure at the plant before the tsunami made any response impossible.  

Inside the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant - LONG DOCUMENTARY in Tokyo Japan#1011  
1 hr 15 min
https://www.namasha.com/v/ltc6Kd5u

Had to search for a new link for the long documentary.  Not quite as good as the recent Chernobyl mini-series but it shows how difficult it was to manage the disaster and the propaganda that followed.  Every lowball estimate that Tepco offered, they had to later revise upwards.  

Fukushima Unit 4 Fuel Inspection Shows Some More Damaged
May 8, 2014 Nancy Foust
http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=12950

New Fukushima Radiation Release Estimates Compiled
November 4, 2013 Nancy Foust
http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=11668

Quote:TEPCO gave some estimates what they think is the percentage of each melted down unit to be released to the atmosphere during the initial disaster.

Unit 1 = 20% released (130 Pbq)
Unit 2 = 40% released (360 Pbq)
Unit 3 = 35.5% released (230 Pbq)

*TEPCO considers 110 Pbq of releases to have an unknown source and a total initial release at the plant of 900 Pbq

I'm grateful that SimplyInfo has been translating the Japanese Tepco reports for us since 3-11.  The English reports Tepco provides contain far less information.  Look at the difference between the low and high estimates in their graph.  The lowball numbers that Tepco gave out at the start were headlined and the later revisions upward were just buried side notes.  Tepco may consider 110 Pbq of emissions to be an unknown source but I can only conclude that the 110 Pbq came from the hot load of fuel stored in Unit 4's spent fuel pool.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#5
Unit 4  meltout north wall is unlikely

Bloggers put forth a theory that fuel sitting in the  equipment pool melted down and melted a hole on the north side of the building.  They cite a gold colored discharge that apparently turned black as being corium.

https://governmentslaves.news/2013/12/16...kushima-4/
http://www.nukepro.net/2015/01/fukushima...pment.html
https://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2016/0...nting.html

speculation arose from this photo of a blasted out section of containment wall and unknown material hanging out of it

   

In my opinion, this is a very unlikely theory.  It is not supported by infra red photos which show no heat from this 'blob' of unknown material issuing from  the blasted out panel on the north wall.  

The equipment pool continued to hold water, meaning there was no melt through. 

The gold material is open to speculation. It has a large amount of what appear to be curved, perhaps tubular white things in it.   It could be a delusion that it turned from gold to black.  My theory is that first there was an explosion that blew the panel out with considerable force, and then the gold and white material issued out rather than being the cause of the blasted out hole.  Then as water was being sprayed, it washed black material...sooty blast and fire debris (radioactive!) ...out the same hole, covering the gold and white stuff.   This theory is supported by the extra volume of material and the fact that gold and white material which was blasted further from the opening maintained the original color

==================

The fact that there is a conspicuous hole opposite to the north wall hole on the south side suggests an interesting theory; Perhaps a special blast dynamic was responsible for these two odd, symmetrically located panel blowouts.   Is it possible that there was a heat exchanger which suffered a steam explosion?  

===============

Another observation about unit 4  is the massive structure they built for fuel removal.  It seems, on the face of it, far stronger and extensive than would be required for removal of the spent fuel.  The size of beams and columns is tremendous, compared to any normal crane or gantry structure.  Perhaps this was meant to stabilize the pool, even support it if need be in the event the containment building suffered structurally. The structure extends over the reactor, perhaps a structural or  decommissioning consideration there too.


expanded view of the blasted out north wall

   
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#6
Japan: Third blast at Fukushima nuclear plant, fire at reactor 4, workers leave plant, crisis worsens (UPDATED)

3/14/11

"Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano followed the Prime Minister, and said a fourth reactor at the damaged nuclear plant is now on fire, with even more radiation released. Reactor No. 4 was not in operation at the time of the earthquake. The reactor contains spent fuel, not fuel rods. As was the case with the explosions at the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors, a Hydrogen explosion seems to have taken place with No. 4. Some foreign objects fell into reactor No. 4, which caused problems."

"We're seeing radioactive substances being released, says Edano, and reactor No. 4 is now exposed. The blast at No. 2 reactor came 30 minutes after the incident at No. 4. A hole has been observed in the No. 2 reactor; there is a high possibility of container vessel damage for this reactor."

"From the updated story at New York Times:"

"It was not immediately clear if the blast was caused by the buildup of hydrogen, as occurred at the two other reactors at Daiichi -- one on Saturday and the most recent one on Monday, when there was also a large explosion at the No. 3 reactor. Some early reports in the Japanese press suggested the latest explosion amounted to a different and more critical problem than the previous two."

https://boingboing.net/2011/03/14/japan-...st-at.html

Reactor 4

Historical information and statistics about Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 4.


[Image: 7095034421_8b3d4f48eb_n.jpg]

"At 4:08am JST on March 14th, the spent fuel pool at unit 4 was 84 degrees celsius.
At 6:20am JST on March 15th a part of a wall in the operation area of Unit 4 of Fukushima Daiichi was damaged. TEPCO provided no further details on this damage.
At 9:38am JST on March 15th a fire broke out in the reactor building of unit 4, the fire was reported extinguished by 12:29pm JST. TEPCO has changed their story on unit 4 multiple times but eventually admitted to a very obvious explosion occurring at unit 4. No video of unit 4 exploding exists to date and it is assumed the explosion took place before dawn."

http://www.simplyinfo.org/?page_id=28
Humans did not create background radiation...

 
Reply
#7
Unit 4 had catastrophic failure and radioactive emissions.  The public has been lied to.   From a paper by Stohl et al;


" Our results indicate that 137Cs emissions peaked on 14–15 March but were generally high from
12 until 19 March, when they suddenly dropped by orders of
magnitude at the time when spraying of water on the spent fuel pool of unit 4 started. This indicates that emissions may not have originated only from the damaged reactor cores, but also from the spent-fuel pool of unit 4."

"The highest emission rates of about 400 GBq s-1 occurred
on 14 March after 12:00 UTC until 15 March at 03:00 UTC
and are related to a hydrogen explosion in unit 4 and a suspected hydrogen explosion in unit 2"

"Such emissions from spent fuel have also been suggested on the basis of radionuclide concentration ratios (Kirchner et al., 2012)"

" While all 133Xe had leaked out from FD-NPP reactor units earlier, emissions of 137Cs showed a major peak on 19 March, probably from the spent-fuel pool in unit 4. As winds veered from westerly to easterly direction late on 19 March, emissions from that day were brought back to Japan, in addition to ongoing emissions from FD-NPP. Consequently, the plume penetrated inland and, at 16:00 UTC on 20 March it covered large areas of eastern Honshu Island between 35 and 40° N (Fig. 16, left panel). On 21 March at 06:00 UTC, northeasterly winds prevailed at the edge of the extended Siberian High and the FD-NPP plume was transported directly across Tokyo and even further south to Shizuoka prefecture"

'Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the
source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition'
A. Stohl

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bb92/96...599dac.pdf
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#8
Fire in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 at Fukushima-I

March 15, 2011

In the early morning of Tuesday 15 March 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a statement saying that the Japanese authorities had informed the Agency that "the spent fuel storage pond at the Unit 4 of the Fukushima Daiichi plant is on fire and radioactivity is being released directly into the atmosphere. Dose rates of up to 400 millisievert per hour have been reported at the site. Japanese authorities are saying that there is a possibility that the fire was caused by a hydrogen explosion." A spent fuel fire is of great concern because radioactive emissions are directly released into the environment.

http://fissilematerials.org/blog/2011/03...nit_4.html

"UPDATE 03/15/2011: An article published in 2002 in Science and Global Security analysed the dangers associated with spent fuel pools at reactor sites:"

Alvarez, R., Beyea, J., Janberg, K., Kang, J., Lyman, E., Macfarlane, A., Thompson, G., and von Hippel, F.N.,

Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States. Vol 11, 1:1-51 (PDF)

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publication...lvarez.pdf
Humans did not create background radiation...

 
Reply
#9
Revisal

Snap, crackle, pop, fissile
Pools and cracks, doing the shinzo sizzle
Artificial official, superficial drivel, sacrificial fiddle
Smearing the facts, they told us it's permissible
On the attack, atomic strife missles
Bristle with dismissal, judicial fiscal pistol, check the hypophyseal
Sold SFP's intact, the future is looking dismal
Rolling off the backs, humanity is choking on the whistle
Snap, crackle, pop, goes the dismissal
 
Reply
#10
interesting theory here; placement of the new fuel with old fuel in unit four in conjunction with pool liner contact created a radiation-induced electrolysis, generating the hydrogen required for the explosion

'Root cause study on hydrogen generation and explosion through radiation-induced electrolysis in the Fukushima Daiichi accident Article reference: NED8687'

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ce_NED8687

 "Since the scientific cause for a series of hydrogen explosions during the Fukushima accident has not been established, the author investigated his basic theory named “radiation-induced electrolysis "

"For the investigation of the 1F4 SFP, the pool water temperature and flow velocity due to natural circulation were changed widely to identify conditions of large hydrogen generation. During the trial calculations it was discovered that SBO induced a rapid initiation of electrolysis when the pool water temperature surpassed 40 °C with a range of low water flow velocity through the spent fuels."

"With a mix of different levels of radioactivity of spent fuel, a difference in the absorbed dose rate of water through ?-decay heat should have existed. This configuration induced an electrochemical potential difference between the highly radioactive region where there was spent fuel stored by evacuating the core and less radioactive fuels stored for several years. The spent fuel was stored in racks placed at the bottom of the pool where the wall was covered with a stainless steel lining. The metallic contacts enabled electric conduction between the highly radioactive fuel assemblies and the cooled spent fuel."
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#11
Emissions from Fukushima unit 4 core found in Europe. Obviously Unit 4 was a major nuclear disaster.  The claim of 100% safe removal and storage of fuel can't be the truth.

Radioactivity from Fukushima Dai-ichi in air over Europe; part 2: what can it tell us about the accident?
Kirchner G 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22236558

"The caesium activity ratios indicate emissions from the core of unit 4 which had been unloaded into the fuel storage pool prior to the accident."

"It is shown which information can be extracted from the monitoring of radionuclides emitted from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant and transported to Europe. In this part the focus will be on the analysis of the concentration ratios. While (131)I, (134)Cs and (137)Cs were reported by most stations, other detected radionuclides, reported by some, are (95)Nb, (129m)Te, (132)Te, (132)I, (136)Cs and (140)La. From their activity ratios a mean burn-up of 26.7 GWd/t of the fuel from which they originated is estimated. Based on these data, inventories of radionuclides present at the time of the accident are calculated. The caesium activity ratios indicate emissions from the core of unit 4 which had been unloaded into the fuel storage pool prior to the accident."
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)