Skip to main content

View Diary: Fukushima Status Update Summary (289 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well somebody who knows better (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dougymi, zett, kbman, buddabelly, erush1345, yaque


    correct me if i'm wrong: but hot spent uranium fuel rods can't sit in open air without a cooling medium on them or they eventually ignite, so if the pool 'ran dry' - he didn't say 'low' - the cabinet secretary Edamo admits that the pool was low, and it is likely there was fuel uncovered, too!  but Jaczko said that the spent fuel pool was "dry", and then later waffled on it with a number of elliptical statements (see my other links from the follow-up press conference on the 19th), we would have a very different situation if the fuel pool at #4 was dry as Jaczko claimed it was, nor would it make any sense on earth for them to work on pool and reactor #3 in favor of #4 if the fuel pond at #4 was dry , because that would be the most dangerous situation.

    So claiming that the fuel pond was dry on the 17th, and did not get any water added by the water cannons until the 20th, begs the question of how did the fuel not ignite, explode, or in other way begin to throw large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere and the immediate area around reactor #4 during those 3 days that the only person on the planet who believed they were dry, was convincing the American public that there needed to be a 50 mile evacuation zone?

    Where is YOUR evidence that the pool was dry, Jake?  you and Jaczko are the only ones claiming it.

    Oh and no, I'm not a nuclear safety denialist, I'm actually in favor of a complete nuke ban, and have been since the early 1970's when I was a student member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, so you can spare yourself typing up the denialist accusations.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 06:54:41 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Detailed Response (0+ / 0-)
      So claiming that the fuel pond was dry on the 17th, and did not get any water added by the water cannons until the 20th, begs the question of how did the fuel not ignite, explode, or in other way begin to throw large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere and the immediate area around reactor #4 during those 3 days that the only person on the planet who believed they were dry, was convincing the American public that there needed to be a 50 mile evacuation zone?

      There was nothing they could do. #4's roof was largely intact. You might recall that the first thing they did was send helicopters to try and dump water on top. It took time to get those water cannons near. They were discussing that option right away.

      The Japanese knew that #4 was a critical problem. But they faced mechanical barriers. And #3 was also a critical problem. They've been rushing to do what they think might work, where it can work. I'm not optimistic about any of it, but I can't blame them for trying.

      As for the 50-mile zone, I'd point out that the U.S. navy moved its ships upwind. I'd also note that they are now finding contamination in the soil as far as 70 km away. As I predicted yesterday and the day before, the denialists are spreading propaganda like crazy, and one element is to try to label Jaczko a panic-spreader. There is absolutely no lie they won't tell.

      Where is YOUR evidence that the pool was dry, Jake?  you and Jaczko are the only ones claiming it.

      I have offered the links. You've pretty much ignored them, and have badly mischaracterized Jaczko's statements. I can lead the horse to water, hopefully not irradiated, but I can't make you drink.

      Oh and no, I'm not a nuclear safety denialist, I'm actually in favor of a complete nuke ban, and have been since the early 1970's when I was a student member of Physicians for Social Respnsibility, so you can spare yourself typing up the denialist accusations.

      The only person here to suggest that you might be a denialist is you. I haven't done it. But I do think you've been to some degree roped in, as evidenced by your having offered a complete whackjob's writing as "technical evidence" of anything. You've got to be careful about your sources.

      •  not at all true (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, erush1345, yaque


        I quoted Jaczko's public statements to CONGRESS.  If he wants to revise or recant them (he waffled considerably two days later but doubletalk doesn't really qualify as recanting his earlier claim) .  I haven't misrepresented Jaczko's statements at all, I copied and pasted them.

        I haven't been roped in by anyone.  I'm doing the same due diligence you and everyone else here is doing, but there simply is no scientific evidence to back up your story, and you decided to back Jaczko in an error of fact which makes little sense to stick with in this one detail.  There is no denying that this is a level 5 incident, so his 'overall credibility' is not at stake here, if anything it's a sign of poor communication on the ground and obviously, a lack of direct observation due to conditions at the reactor site.  His experts aren't in Fukushima, they are in Tokyo.  So sorry, the egg can't be on Jaczko's face, he's not there, and neither are his people.

        The spooky shit doesn't wash all that much with me, if you want to paint it as a huge coverup, then that's great, but the huge coverup is failing badly since all those niggly reports on radiation are SOMEHOW getting out, and the little stupid detail about the pool running dry or not running dry isn't driving any major policy decisions either here or in Japan, so what would the point be?  No point.  See?

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 07:29:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong Again (0+ / 0-)

          Last weekend, the nrc sent two people to Fukushima. In mid-week, they sent more people to Tokyo.

          You have no evidence of an "error of fact" by Jaczko. When I asked for your "technical evidence," you parsed Jaczko's statements and offered some pseudo-math from a whackjob who wants to sell backyard nuclear reactors. Look, if you can show me that Jaczko made an error of fact, my world ain't going to end. But what you've given so far, plus $2.70, is worth an iced grande Americano at Starbucks.

          The "niggling detail" is part of an effort by the nukesters to paint Jaczko as incompetent and alarmist. It matters quite a bit, and I think you know it.

          •  no (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly, erush1345, yaque


            both I and KBman offered support to the math.  You haven't countered the math.  There has been no proof of a leak, and the math hasn't been disproved by better data.  There is no technical evidence of dry spent fuel pool at unit 4, and you haven't produced any.  

            "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

            by louisev on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 07:49:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  let's look at your 'evidence' and 'links' (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, erush1345, yaque


        Jaczko testified before Congress on March 17.  You linked to "Jaczko had better information" to a story in the L.A. times on March 18, after Jaczko's testimony, which means that Jaczko is more likely to be the source for the unsourced comment in the L.A. times than the other way around, which states "The fuel pool at unit 4 may have run dry."  That's some real scientific sourcing there, in fact, it isn't sourced at all.

        The other link is to a video of an aircraft.  So where are those expert reports about the pool running dry?  There aren't any that I can see from your commentary that you linked to, but there are several links to "whackjobs" claiming otherwise.  Why do this?  Why obfuscate what is essentially a minor detail in the unfolding crisis?  For amusement?  The fact is that the head of the NRC doesn't want to admit he jumped to a conclusion based upon a widespread panic about a fire in building 4 and leaped on it hoping that overstating the case and making an assumption would prove to be the prudent course in the midst of a horrible crisis.  It would be better to admit he was guessing, at least he wouldn't look like he was panicking.  If you have a real source link it.

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 07:45:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If the pool was dry (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        louisev, kbman, yaque

        they got water in it in less than 7 hours--according to the NRC--the time it would take to  heat up the fuel from 30 "C
        to 900 "C (the temperature at which zirconium oxidation is postulated to become runaway
        oxidation and at which fission products are expected to be expefled from the fuel and cladding).  And that's with even a partial uncovering of the rods

        AspiringtobethepersonmydogthinksIam

        by FOYI on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 07:50:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and we KNOW this didn't happen (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, erush1345, yaque

          because there was no report of anyone adding water to SFP 4 before they brought the water cannon over and finished spraying Unit 3 and filling ITS SFP, which I believe was the 19th (Friday, local Japan time.)  Unless elves did it.

          "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

          by louisev on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 07:54:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          Zirc cladding burns at 2000 C

          •  You might (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            want to look up oxidation

            AspiringtobethepersonmydogthinksIam

            by FOYI on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:36:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  my original comment got lost (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              erush1345, kbman, yaque

              at higher temperatures zirconium creates hydrogen as it oxidizes in H20

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              One disadvantage of zirconium alloys is their reactivity toward water at high temperatures leading to the formation of hydrogen gas and to the accelerated degradation of the fuel rod cladding:

                  Zr + 2 H2O → ZrO2 + 2 H2

              This exothermic reaction is very slow below 100 °C but rapid at higher temperatures. Most metals undergo similar reactions. The redox reaction is relevant to the instability of fuel assemblies at high temperatures,[27] This reaction was responsible for a small hydrogen explosion first observed inside the reactor building of Three Mile Island accidented nuclear power plant in 1979, but then, the containment building was not damaged. The same reaction occurred in the reactors 1, 2 and 3 of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Japan) and in the spent fuel pool of reactor 4 after the reactors cooling was interrupted by the earthquake and tsunami disaster of March 11, 2011 leading to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. After venting of hydrogen in the maintenance hall of these three reactors, the explosive mixture of hydrogen with air oxygen detonated, severely damaging the installations and at least one of the containment buildings. To avoid explosion, the direct venting of hydrogen to the open atmosphere would have been a preferred design option. Now, to prevent the risk of explosion in many pressurized water reactor (PWR) containment buildings, a catalyst-based recombinator is installed to rapidly convert hydrogen and oxygen into water at room temperature before explosivity limit is reached.

              "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

              by louisev on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:51:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site