tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post6490194433814095216..comments2024-03-27T00:22:35.272-07:00Comments on EXSKF: Japanese Engineer: "There Was a Nuclear Explosion in Reactor 3 in Addition to a Hydrogen Explosion"arevamirpal::laprimaverahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637620330944911600noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-84271837172319169662011-12-20T19:38:45.441-08:002011-12-20T19:38:45.441-08:00Zirconium acts in two ways. From the article....
&...Zirconium acts in two ways. From the article....<br />"Zirconium, with the explosive power, pound for pound, of nitroglycerine, will catch fire and explode at a temperature of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the 5,000 degree temperature of a meltdown.<br /><br />Before then, however, zirconium reacts to the heat by drawing oxygen from water and steam and letting off hydrogen, which itself can explode—and is said to have done so at Fukushima.<br /><br />As a result of such a hydrogen explosion, there is additional heat—bringing the zirconium itself closer and closer to its explosive level.<br /><br />Whether in addition to being a hydrogen explosion, zirconium also exploded at Fukushima remains to be known.<br /><br />But what has happened regarding hydrogen at Fukushima, like the “hydrogen bubble” when the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania underwent its near partial meltdown, is no mystery—but precisely what is expected in a loss-of-coolant accident.<br /><br />It is described in U.S. government and nuclear industry accident studies as a “metal-water” reaction. It’s a reaction, the research has long stated, that can easily trigger a meltdown.<br /><br />Using tons of a material otherwise used as the speck that explodes in a flashbulb in nuclear power plants —yes, absolutely crazy."<br /><br />http://karlgrossman.blogspot.com/2011/03/hydrogen-zirconium-flashbulbs-and.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-54996500746977925042011-12-16T10:55:41.872-08:002011-12-16T10:55:41.872-08:00"Oppenheimer is rolling over in his grave. &q..."Oppenheimer is rolling over in his grave. "<br /><br />He has our permission to do that.<br /><br />Note our magnanimity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-6183847223623390342011-12-14T16:10:12.212-08:002011-12-14T16:10:12.212-08:00A nuclear blast that didn't even break the poo...A nuclear blast that didn't even break the pool from which it originated? <br /><br />Oppenheimer is rolling over in his grave.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-6744127955495392862011-12-14T14:34:01.228-08:002011-12-14T14:34:01.228-08:00Uranium powder burning. Priceless knowledge, Frit...Uranium powder burning. Priceless knowledge, Fritz.<br /><br />Thank you for your contributions.<br /><br /><br />Was it Teller who pointed out once in testimony that life on this planet did not arise until the long life radioactives had decayed significantly ?<br /><br />Our duty is to life, ladies and gentlemen, it is not duty to destabilised nucleii.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-5798452567472124512011-12-14T14:12:49.929-08:002011-12-14T14:12:49.929-08:00"Do those automatic shutdowns utilize the Eme..."Do those automatic shutdowns utilize the Emergency Core Cooling System ?"<br /><br />No, just the normal cooling, no thermal shock.<br /><br /><br />"The book I'd quoted a week or two ago on the role of failure in human engineering made the point that every utilization of the Emergency Core Cooling is quite likely to lead to cracking of the vessel heads due to neutron bombardment raising the vessel metal's effective temperature."<br /><br />This is true for many aging reactors.<br />Their steel got so embrittled that it would crack/shatter like a drinking glass that you pour boiling water in.<br /><br />To avoid a catastrophe caused by the emergency cooling system many older nuke plants (at least in Germany) have been retrofitted with emergency cooling water tank heaters, so that the extent of the temperature shock and the chance of the core vessel cracking open is reduced.<br /><br />In some reactors this critical temperature is already near 100 degrees C, so the "cooling" water is in fact hot like boiling water.<br /><br /><br />"Natural unclad uranium burning ?"<br /><br />Even worse, uranium powder.<br />I found some reports of state TV of Saxonia (in german, use translator):<br /><br />The Leipzig reactor accident 1942: http://www.mdr.de/echt/artikel11396.html<br />The secret Leipzig nuclear research project (with picture of reactor construction):<br />http://www.mdr.de/echt/artikel11396_dosArt-artikel11402_zc-850e97c6.html<br /><br />More background on the german nuclear program you can find in this Spiegel article from 1949, which also states that on June 6, 1942 it was decided to not use nuclear energy for military purposes, but instead to develop it for energy production: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-44438130.htmlAtomfritznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-82037357864070917122011-12-14T13:09:50.621-08:002011-12-14T13:09:50.621-08:00"The control systems shut down reactors immed..."The control systems shut down reactors immediately if the power varies/increases too fast.<br /><br />This happens quite regularly. Of course the official reasons for the automatic shutdowns are never worded "power excursion".<br />When you read this or that reactor was shut down automatically because of power or water flow variations, irregularities, oscillations and the such, it could be possible that the incident was in fact a power excursion. "<br /><br />Do those automatic shutdowns utilize the Emergency Core Cooling System ?<br />The book I'd quoted a week or two ago on the role of failure in human engineering made the point that every utilization of the Emergency Core Cooling is quite likely to lead to cracking of the vessel heads due to neutron bombardment raising the vessel metal's effective temperature.<br /><br /><br />"May I add that the first nuclear accident in Germany was 1942 at the Leipzig University, when the first German test reactor ("Uranbrenner"), using 800kgs of natural uranium and 200kgs of heavy water, got ablaze. "<br /><br />Natural unclad uranium burning ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-51534627693540447342011-12-14T12:58:17.378-08:002011-12-14T12:58:17.378-08:00The story of the Reagan is not new. It has been re...The story of the Reagan is not new. It has been reported (and distorted) in depth. The water supply on the Reagan was not contaminated. <br /><br />The comment about the pilots getting a good dose of plutonium and "very likely to die of cancer within 3 years" is utter nonsense.<br /><br />http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2011/03/japan-uss-ronald-reagan-update.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-88224085986349704142011-12-14T10:40:56.683-08:002011-12-14T10:40:56.683-08:00The things that happened on the Reagan are very in...The things that happened on the Reagan are very interesting indeed. The helicopter was in air just the time the nasty stuff in the cloud had not dispersed much yet, be it blown out from the reactor or a spent fuel pool fizzle. Two hours of full throttle means more than 100 kilometers, maybe even 120kms, enough to escape the plume.<br /><br /><br />"Isn't "power excursion" synonymous for criticality accident? Cause a criticality accident doesn't necessarily involve an explosion."<br /><br />No, it is not the same. <br />Power excursions do not always lead to explosions, only the really big ones, and they occur in working reactors also, not only in criticality assemblies.<br />Minor power excursions do no damage at all, but bear the potential of becoming bigger ones.<br /><br />Power excursions regularly happen in nuclear plants due, for example, to the famous negative void coefficient that can be caused by several things, like water flow irregularities, unbalanced burning in the reactor etc.<br />The control systems shut down reactors immediately if the power varies/increases too fast.<br /><br />This happens quite regularly. Of course the official reasons for the automatic shutdowns are never worded "power excursion".<br />When you read this or that reactor was shut down automatically because of power or water flow variations, irregularities, oscillations and the such, it could be possible that the incident was in fact a power excursion.<br /><br /><br />"The Obfuscator has forgotten that the earliest atomic "piles" in Chicago were at some risk of getting out of control ?"<br /><br />Yes! This has been mentioned by Fermi etc. in their books.<br /><br />May I add that the first nuclear accident in Germany was 1942 at the Leipzig University, when the first German test reactor ("Uranbrenner"), using 800kgs of natural uranium and 200kgs of heavy water, got ablaze. <br /><br />(As the documents have been taken away by the allies and are still classified, I sadly cannot tell what exactly happened. However, the firefighter's archives haven't been confiscated and so it's at least proven that the accident has really happened.)Atomfritznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-80147717997307046352011-12-14T09:44:28.235-08:002011-12-14T09:44:28.235-08:00My, the U.S.S. Reagan appears to have experienced ...My, the U.S.S. Reagan appears to have experienced some sort of Urgency event,<br /><br />from James2 in the comments,<br /><br /> "The timing of this report is interesting. On the dispatch from Reagan it says the plume was observed the morning of March 13th – which is between the time of the #1 explosion and the #3 explosion, .. <br /><br />The report is issued at 2200 EDT on March 13th – which is just after the #3 explosion, and just as Reagan was experiencing a new plume which caused it to hightail it out of there. ..<br /><br />– I was watching the dispatches live as this was happening. Reagan turned and ran almost immediately after the explosion of #3. <br /><br />Within about two hours, the Navy had issued a press release saying that they Reagan was being redeployed northward for a humanitarian mission – that they had experienced a small radiation event and they were washing down a helicopter. <br /><br />Later accounts from onboard the ship tell a very different story. <br /><br />Apparently one of their helicopters came back to the ship and set off all the radiation alarms, causing a radiation emergency onboard ship – which means everyone dons their gas masks and goes into a well-rehearsed emergency mode. <br /><br />They immediately began to decontaminate the helicopter and crew – but before they could the air supply and eventually the water supply onboard got contaminated. The captain was told by the nuclear engineers that it was a major event – apparently there was near panic aboard the ship, so they decided to turn away from their mission to assist. They spent the next two hours outrunning the nuclear cloud – Remember an aircraft carrier is a very fast ship – and the following 3 days scrubbing the ship down ..<br /><br />My bet is those onboard the helicopter got a good dose of plutonium – and are very likely to die of cancer within 3 years or so. I think a portion, if not all, of the sailors on the Reagan and the other ships in the battle group did as well. I hope that’s not true, .."<br /><br />".. they’ve done all kinds of things to try and cover it up – including changing the dates of when Reagan redeployed. " <br /><br />Thank you, James2.<br /><br />http://enenews.com/newly-released-nrc-email-reveals-radioactive-technetium-detected-fukushima-plant-one-three-principle-radionuclides-identified-240-km-meltdowns<br /><br />If they turned and ran like that they probably detected some very troublesome nuclides.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-33218153440036249252011-12-14T08:29:16.340-08:002011-12-14T08:29:16.340-08:00"Unit 4 was about to fall over. Luckily the h..."Unit 4 was about to fall over. Luckily the hand of God apparently came in and straightened up the building "<br /><br />That's an unusual way of saying one of TEPCO's contractors performed the function they were paid to do, reinforce the SFP.<br />There were even pictures posted on this site courtesy of TEPCO showing the reinforcing and it was considerable.<br /><br /><br />" .. the enrichment level was too low, and second because there was no shaped charge. The military never discovered any low enriched uranium that would explode. "<br /><br />The Obfuscator has forgotten that the earliest atomic "piles" in Chicago were at some risk of getting out of control ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-64856817290137233772011-12-14T05:40:38.071-08:002011-12-14T05:40:38.071-08:00Thank you for the translation arevamirpal. Thanks ...Thank you for the translation arevamirpal. Thanks to atomfritz also for the link to C. Mueller's document. It was clear and concise, although a question about his explanation of Block 2- wasn't there an early report of the removal of the seaside panel in the efforts to prevent a hydrogen explosion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-61724035011500277722011-12-14T05:32:14.595-08:002011-12-14T05:32:14.595-08:00@Atomfritz:
Isn't "power excursion"...@Atomfritz:<br /><br />Isn't "power excursion" synonymous for criticality accident? Cause a criticality accident doesn't necessarily involve an explosion. Who told you that?<br /><br />Just look at the accident in Tokai-mura, where no explosion ever happened, or the first ones while trying to build the first nukes during WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_coreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-44328204105758159452011-12-14T03:06:38.052-08:002011-12-14T03:06:38.052-08:00I think it's very important to point out that ...I think it's very important to point out that the nuclear industry hates the word "explosion", as this reminds too much of atomic bombs and causes undesirable fear.<br /><br />So the "scientifically correct" euphemistic naming is "power excursion".<br />By no means use the word "explosion"!<br /><br /><br />If you use the word "explosion" you will be called an "nonsense-telling unintelligent unscientific spreader of baseless rumors" and such.<br /><br />Power "excursions" are very common, way more than the nuclear industry likes to admit.<br /><br />The nuclear industry tried for long time to tell us that the Chernobyl explosion, oops, excursion was a hydrogen explosion.<br />Because, you know that reactor fuel cannot explode, you know? ;-)<br /><br />This covering-up quietly ended when evidence emerged that even the nuclear industry couldn't deny.<br /><br />If you like to know more about how the explosion, aww, power excursion in the Chernobyl NPP happened, read this very insightful document "The Chernobyl Reactor: Design Features and Reasons for Accident" which you can download here: www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf<br /><br />This list of "power excursions" in the USA from 1943 to 1970 shows that such happen not exactly rare: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/critical.html<br /><br />If this all is too long to read, here is a short article with illustrative graphics that show that a nuclear "power excursion" has much in common with a conventional deflagration: http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-13/neutron-kinetics.htm<br /><br />When Tepco finally gets access to the SFP and they find the swelling and blistering on the fuel which is an effect of "power excursions" they'll probably try to not talk much about it.<br /><br />So let's talk about "power excursions" now, avoiding the no-word "explosion"! :-)Atomfritznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-16500444585806840652011-12-14T03:04:26.893-08:002011-12-14T03:04:26.893-08:00This may have been a nuclear explosion if the ener...This may have been a nuclear explosion if the energy of the explosion occurred as the result of atoms fissioning. What percentage of atoms in an assortment of crap fuel have to chain react before its called a nuclear explosion? The yield could even be lower than a chemical bomb, and it still would be nuclear. This was a very dirty nuclear fissile. I hope terrorists don't learn from this.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17830807426808154148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-65949256608086118162011-12-14T00:06:49.605-08:002011-12-14T00:06:49.605-08:00It is amazing how unintelligent some of the commen...It is amazing how unintelligent some of the comments are. For years, the military studied how to make and detonate nuclear explosives. It is very unlikely that the plant at Daiichi could assemble an explodable bomb of nuclear material, first because the enrichment level was too low, and second because there was no shaped charge. The military never discovered any low enriched uranium that would explode. And the smallest bomb they ever produced would have leveled Daiichi and had a fatal blast radius of one third mile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-15906022156475679782011-12-13T23:56:37.662-08:002011-12-13T23:56:37.662-08:00@helios
They are starting to demolish the upper p...@helios<br /><br />They are starting to demolish the upper parts of the buildings. See page 26/27:<br />http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/111117e5.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-87119012853583572092011-12-13T23:15:49.226-08:002011-12-13T23:15:49.226-08:00I have posted similar stuff before, here.
We can...I have posted similar stuff before, here. <br /><br />We cannot be talking about "fizzles" and hundreds of TONS of TNT equivalent, because the explosion was just too damn small, in the hundreds of KILOGRAMS TNT equivalent.<br /><br />Here's a 2000 pound (900 kg) bomb. Lots of visual reference in this vid<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1aW67AUsNU<br /><br />Another one, with a building right next to it<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Lcjfdra2cAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-7352919815931357472011-12-13T21:24:47.711-08:002011-12-13T21:24:47.711-08:00@helios, no, there is no such info in Japan, not e...@helios, no, there is no such info in Japan, not even in alternative sites. But what is likely to happen, again, is that someone in Japan will quote enenews who linked the article and it will be presented as "See, foreign media is reporting it, so it must be true!". Just like it happened several times with that particular combo.arevamirpal::laprimaverahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10637620330944911600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-438390191339061372011-12-13T20:55:07.239-08:002011-12-13T20:55:07.239-08:00@anon at 8:20pm, Japanese have been listening to p...@anon at 8:20pm, Japanese have been listening to people like Gundersen and Busby since April. <br /><br />And please stop using the word "Jap". It's too derogatory for my liking unless used in a historical context (like world war II propaganda).arevamirpal::laprimaverahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10637620330944911600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-67294124041454469752011-12-13T20:20:44.425-08:002011-12-13T20:20:44.425-08:00Gundersen was saying this shit way back in April a...Gundersen was saying this shit way back in April and talking about a prompt criticality... i guess the Japs wont listen to the outside world on these matters unless its a Jap scientist talking about it ..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-65918066021616361862011-12-13T20:12:32.811-08:002011-12-13T20:12:32.811-08:00Is the Japanese govt involved in a cover-up of the...Is the Japanese govt involved in a cover-up of the nuke meltdown? See youtube video: <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHKQfeMiRUc&feature=player_embedded<br /><br />And please read this article from Yoichi Shimatsu, Former editor of the Japan Times Weekly<br /><br />http://www.rense.com/general93/hid.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-24194204997167320872011-12-13T17:21:33.848-08:002011-12-13T17:21:33.848-08:00It was a happy explosion! No danger, just a small ...It was a happy explosion! No danger, just a small amount of fuel was spread all over Japan and the Pacific Ocean.<br /><br />Not to worry, TEPCO is going to cold shutdown very soon. Question: How is there such a thing as "cold" shutdown, ....if the water around the reactor is almost turning to steam? Sounds like moron-logic at work here...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-90741144070015008622011-12-13T17:03:36.914-08:002011-12-13T17:03:36.914-08:00If you could stay at home and work from your compu...If you could stay at home and work from your computer and make $200 to $2,000 per day, would that interest you? And what if this was much easier then you think it is, because there is a secret for you to learn and follow that would be like your own "cheat sheet" for trading Gold? To learn more g**gle “Gold Trading Academy.”bestraderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02535491050618224518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-17730753415944100812011-12-13T16:54:43.403-08:002011-12-13T16:54:43.403-08:00"More and more spent fuel pools nowadays are ..."More and more spent fuel pools nowadays are being dense-packed with double the originally planned capacities..."<br /><br />Exactly. This crowding makes minor disasters into major disasters. I think a 'spent' fuel fizzle is likely what caused the big boom in #3. If the hydrogen blast knocked the fuel rods around, the blast would happen very quickly. Since there was no way to contain the radioactive materials, the blast was a minor one. A nuke has chemical explosives that compress and contain the uranium or plutonium until a percent or two of the matter gets turned into energy. This uncontained blast just spread the nasties around, including into the air.no6odyhttp://no6ody.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-46010078095846229432011-12-13T15:41:06.480-08:002011-12-13T15:41:06.480-08:00"Talk of a "nuclear explosion" is f..."Talk of a "nuclear explosion" is fantasy. The lowest yield actual nuclear explosion would have at least leveled the building if not most of the plant site. [...]. There is no need to exaggerate."<br /><br />I fear you could be wrong.<br />Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_%28nuclear_test%29<br /><br />See also the instructive photo of the failed nuclear test. The bomb fizzled out with about 200 tons of TNT equivalent, leaving part of the mast it was mounted on standing intact.<br /><br />The "problem" in the spent fuel pools was that the fissile material was not contained like in a "proper" bomb, so you can get only "fizzling".<br />Additionally, due to the low enrichment a fuel fizzle would be way less explosive than a bomb fizzle.<br /><br />No need to exaggerate, yes.<br />It was no nuclear bomb for sure.<br /><br />But we shouldn't prematurely rule out the possibility of a fizzle until the spent fuel pool contents have been examined forensically.<br /><br />More and more spent fuel pools nowadays are being dense-packed with double the originally planned capacities so that there become extra measures necessary to prevent criticalities, like absorber plates and boron while normally loaded pools should be safe without boron.<br /><br />I guess Tepco would not have borated the SFP water if they didn't fear a criticality there.<br /><br />Even a spent fuel fizzle is too serious to be overlooked, <br />Can we really be sure such didn't happen?Atomfritznoreply@blogger.com