After confidently saying it may have been criticality in the press conference on November 2, TEPCO's Matsumoto now says it is spontaneous fission of curium in the reactor.
On the other hand, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, who was skeptical of criticality yesterday, now says, "We cannot rule out the possibility of localized criticality."
OK it's a "good cop, bad cop" routine, or a "covering all the bases" approach. If both "spontaneous fission" and "criticality" are mentioned in the same news, the Japanese government/TEPCO can say "See, we told you, either way."
From NHK News (11/3/2011):
東京電力福島第一原子力発電所の2号機内の気体から放射性物質のキセノンが検出された問題で、東京電力は、検出したキセノンの量などの解析結果から、核分裂が連続する臨界が起きたのではなく、別の放射性物質が自然に核分裂したことが原因と判断したことを明らかにしました。
Regarding the radioactive xenon detected from the gas inside Reactor 2 of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, TEPCO revealed that the analysis of the amount of xenon detected led the company to conclude that it was a natural fission of a radioactive material, not criticality where nuclear fission takes place continuously.
福島第一原発2号機では、1日と2日、格納容器の中の気体を採取し、分析した結果、核分裂した時にできる放射性物質のキセノン135がごく微量、検出され、東京電力は、最近核分裂反応が起き、核分裂が連続する臨界が一時的に一部の場所で起きた可能性もあるという見方を示していました。
The gas from inside the Containment Vessel of Reactor 2 was sampled and analyzed on November 1 and 2. A minute amount of xenon-135 was detected, and TEPCO said it was possible that there had been a recent nuclear fission, and that the localized criticality took place temporarily.
これについて東京電力は、もともと核燃料の中にあるキュリウム242とキュリウム244という放射性物質が、自然に核分裂をしてキセノンを発生することから、その量をもとにキセノンの濃度を計算したところ、今回、検出された濃度とおおむね一致したということです。
Since curium-242 and curium-244, the radioactive materials which exist in nuclear fuel, undergo natural fission and generate xenon, TEPCO calculated the density of xenon based on the amount of these nuclides. The calculation mostly matched the density detected from the samples.
また、仮に臨界が起きていたとすると、キセノンの濃度は今回よりも大幅に高くなるということで、これらの分析から、今回のキセノンは臨界に伴って発生したものではなく、「自発核分裂」によるものだと判断したということです。「自発核分裂」は、ウランではない別の放射性物質が自然に核分裂する現象で、臨界は伴わないということです。東京電力は、これらの調査結果を経済産業省の原子力安全・保安院に報告し、妥当かどうか評価してもらうとしています。
According to TEPCO, the density of xenon would be much greater if there was a criticality. Xenon this time therefore is from spontaneous fission, not from criticality, says TEPCO. "Spontaneous fission" is a phenomenon in which radioactive materials other than uranium fissions naturally, and it does not cause criticality. TEPCO says it will submit the report of the findings to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, who will evaluate whether the conclusion is appropriate.
福島第一原発2号機内の気体から放射性物質のキセノンが検出された問題で、東京電力が核分裂が連続する臨界が起きたのではなく、別の放射性物質が自然に核分裂したことが原因と判断したことについて、原子力安全・保安院の森山善範原子力災害対策監は「自発核分裂の可能性は高いと思うが、科学的に見て、局所的な臨界の可能性をすべて否定できるわけではないので、東京電力の調査内容を含めて専門機関の分析結果を見て評価したい。さまざまなリスクを分析したうえで、ホウ酸水の注入など、万一の事態に備えた設備面での対応ができているかどうか、東京電力に確かめていきたい」と話しています。
The NISA spokesman Yoshinori Moriyama says about TEPCO's analysis, "We think it is highly possible that it is a spontaneous fission, but we cannot rule out completely the possibility of localized criticality. We would like to evaluate TEPCO's analysis as well as analysis by experts. We will assess various risks and make sure TEPCO has emergency measures ready, including injecting water with boric acid."
Uh... what about krypton-85? Is this produced in spontaneous fission of curium? If it is spontaneous fission, why was not happening on October 28?
12 comments:
Spontaneous fission. Of course. And that worker months ago died of acute leukemia.
Yup. They have a big credibility problem here, but at this point, they don't even pretend that they care about that problem.
Krypton-85 is produced by fission. Could be spontaneous, could be a chain reaction.
Could be a publicity stunt - crying wolf and acting concerned for the sake of media attention. And behold, a quick sigh of relief the next day. Catch and release. Also, when a real criticality happens it won't be such breaking news any more. Win-win for Tepco.
"If it is spontaneous fission, why was not happening on October 28?" - The first analysis was on November 1.
Ah, about my previous comment - "The first analysis was on November 1", I apologize. I misread the article. Tepco handout shows a reading from Oct 28 with xenon "below detection limits".
"why was not happening on October 28?" Tepco did not say that it was not happening. Tepco used a measurement method with a very high detection limit on October 28, so that the amounts of Xe, if there were any, could not be detected. On November 1 and November 2, the detection limit was lowered and only then could the small quantity of Xenon be detected. See "Detection limits" in http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_111102_04-e.pdf
@anon at 5:31PM, excellent. Looking at the tables, I just noticed TEPCO used the higher detection limit for Xe-133 on November 2, so Xe-133 was below that higher detection limit.
"I just noticed TEPCO used the higher detection limit for Xe-133 on November 2, so Xe-133 was below that higher detection limit."
You don't "use" detection limits. Detection limits vary from test to test, depending on the device used, the volume of the sample, the time employed and noise present on the gamma spectrum obtained.
sorry wrong word. TEPCO tested at a different location on Nov. 1 and 2, and the testing was longer (30 minutes). I'm looking for the diagram of the gas detection system.
You mean this one? http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_111027_01-j.pdf
Also, their report of the Xenon-135 affair: http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/111104a.pdf
@anon at 8:52PM, yes, that was it. Thank you!
Post a Comment