TEPCO trying to “prevent re-criticality” at Reactor No. 3 — Temp soaring in pressure vessel

TEPCO trying to “prevent re-criticality” at Reactor No. 3 — Temperature soaring in pressure vessel, up over 100°F in 24 hours even after increasing water injection
May 15th, 2011 at 05:56 PM

TEPCO announced on May 15 that it started to use boric acid in the reactor cooling water for the Reactor 3 at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant to prevent recriticality from happening. <...>

The temperature at the top of the Reactor 3 RPV has risen rapidly. TEPCO increased the amount of cooling water to 12 tons per hour on May 12 using two water feeding systems, then to 15 tons per hour on May 14. However, the temperature at the top of the RPV increased by 46.5 degrees Celsius in 24 hours to 297 degrees Celsius as of 5:00AM on May 15. TEPCO thinks there’s a problem with the pipes that feed water into the RPV.
http://enenews.com/tepco-trying-to-prevent-re-criticality-at-reactor-no-3-temperature-soaring-in-pressure-vessel-up-100-f-in-24-hours-even-after-increasing-water-injection

OTHER RECENT HEADLINES AT THE SAME SITE:

Quake, not tsunami, may have caused damage that led to meltdown — Within 16 hours, No. 1 reactor core melted and made a hole in pressure vessel http://enenews.com/tepco-quake-not-tsunami-may-have-caused-damage-that-led-to-meltdown-within-16-hours-no-1-reactor-core-had-melted-and-created-a-hole-in-pressure-vessel

Two other reactors have serious core damage — Indicates there are holes in bottom of vessels at No. 2 and 3 http://enenews.com/tepco-other-reactors-serious-core-damage-indicates-holes-bottom-vessels-2-3

Highly radioactive substances detected in Tokyo — Higher than what was found near Fukushima plant http://enenews.com/highly-radioactive-substances-detected-in-tokyo-higher-than-what-was-found-near-fukushima-plant

AND:

NILU ends public forecasts as map shows large radiation clouds now over US, Canada (VIDEOS) http://enenews.com/nilu-ends-public-forecasts-map-show-large-radiation-clouds-canada-videos

This last report (with final videos) is described best at a site with The Dept of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley:

RIU and NILU forecast models have been stopped/ data removed

As of May 2, the RIU (www.eurad.uni-koeln.de) is NO LONGER running its radiation forecast model. NILU still was, and I regularly checked it, especially after the disconcerting April 24-25 forecast for North America's west coast (20-400Bq/m2). Today I checked, and it was REMOVED on May 11. This deeply concerns me and I cannot help wonder why these were removed. And if instructions were received to remove these. And from whom. The very disconcerting part is that these are supposedly independent scientific institutions. Why would they stop making these data available? We need to request answers to this and ask for the monitoring and modeling to continue!! Data collection and availability is so crucial, and it is being ignored (at best) or actively interfered with by governments and industry. Without data, there is no proof for critical questions about very real and valid health concerns.

Unfortunately, this is congruent with reports of Japanese governments calling for censorship of news and other observations and comments on this forum by journalists not being able to get stories on radioactive contamination levels published in the US.

I have encountered the same resistance here in Canada when I tried to draw attention to the need to measure rain water, drinking water, soil, milk, seaweed and seafood from Japan. The data made available by federal govt agencies here (when it was finally available) is summarized, very limited and appears haphazard, i.e., no systematic, country-wide testing. Drinking water sampling results for Vancouver have not been posted publicly since April 11. When I phoned and asked on April 27, I was told the labs are backlogged (that was 16 days later!). But no updates since then. I have not received any response to a request for data from Simon Fraser University, either, where a few water samples were taken initially.

In this situation, we need to have universities like UCB step up to request and/ or collect and Publish this data--Please! Thanks so much for all your work and running this forum, now one of the last remaining sources of information--while Fukushima still struggles with an extremely serious and possibly endless situation of radioactive releases. http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3951

Or since you think it is a "stream of bullshit", perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on the entire sections that are bullshit?

The person who runs the site merely posts all LBN on all things Fukushima. In other words, he makes no commentary, he just links to other sites.

BTW, your link does not make sense in the context of your comment title. Not sure why you linked to nhk.

Forecasts have become irrelevant
Submitted by bandstra on Fri, 2011-05-13 06:16.
The discontinuation of the NILU and EURAD simulations has been generating a lot of interest with folks on this forum, and I am trying to keep up with the various threads. But here's the bottom line:

(1) NILU and EURAD were not actually making measurements of the plume, but performing plume forecasts.

(2) The assumptions that went into the forecasts reflected a worst-case scenario. They assumed huge, constant releases from the reactors.

(3) BRAWM is measuring the plume. If any large releases had occurred after late March, we would have been seeing them in our air measurements. We are hardly able to detect anything anymore in the air.

For example, the 4/24-25 plume that you mentioned never actually happened -- please look at our air measurements for proof.

Therefore, the forecasts have become irrelevant to the actual facts. I think both of those groups probably saw little reason to devote their resources to the forecasts any longer. It is not a cover-up; they have just become irrelevant.

For more info about NILU and EURAD, I've made numerous comments throughout the forum, such as "A note on interpreting EURAD and NILU plume forecasts". Bottom line is that neither website ever meant to be taken as seriously as people took them...

Mark

NILU forecasts didn't reflect reality
Submitted by bandstra on Fri, 2011-05-13 07:04.
All I can do is point you to our air measurements, which include dose measurements for the air -- on the highest spikes in activity, it would still have taken 170 years of breathing that air to receive an equivalent dose 5 millirem.

Also I think you've taken NILU much more seriously than they intended. I'll repeat the NILU disclaimer that was up on their website, from early April through when it was taken offline:

These products are highly uncertain based on limited information for the source terms. Please use with caution and understand that the values are likely to change once we obtain more information on the overall nature of the accident. The products should be considered informational and only indicate 'worst case scenario' releases. From what we've learned recently, it seems releases of this magnitude have not yet occurred. Furthermore, these modeling products are based on global meteorological data, which are too coarse to provide reliable details of the transport of the plume across Japan.

Mark

»

If you need your fix of
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-13 05:56.
If you need your fix of radiation plumes you still have the ones prepared by ZAMG. Read the disclaimer before having a heart attack:

"The colour scale shows a total of five colours. ,,Area A" (violet) is meant to mark an area with maximum dose rate of 0,3 µSv/h, which corresponds to the amount of the natural background radiation dose. "Area B" (blue) marks a region with 3 Micro-Sievert per hour. Finally, one arrives in "Area E" with a maximum dose rate of 3 Milli-Sievert per hour. This dose rate is currently certainly not exceeded in the regional area (25x25 km2 box) around the NPP. Irrespective of the assumed emissions, the maximum value of the model is always used to determine "Area E".

Please keep in mind that, due to the decreasing level of radioactivity in the crisis region, the actual area of influence is likely much smaller than the one displayed here."

http://www.zamg.ac.at/wetter/fukushima/

»
reply
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3951


DUers have been posting this stuff as though it represented a reality which was happening. It never did.

Posting a forum participant saying that the models are gone due to the "Japanese governments calling for censorship of news and other observations and comments on this forum by journalists not being able to get stories on radioactive contamination levels published in the US" without posting the explanation on the same page by another forum participant who is actually a member of the Berkeley monitoring team is severe cherry-picking imo.

I tremendously appreciate your efforts to keep this complex story as straight as possible by debunking the exaggerations.

It is scary enough here in Japan without this kind of thing which is essentially bulked up to provide a stronger platform by which they can continue their anti-nuclear arguments --and while that may be a good position, it is an awfully crappy way to go about it.

Thank you, honma ni arigatou.

The situation in Japan is very dangerous.

The fact that the US refuses to measure the radiation coming from Japan should be disconcerting to all. Of course the NILU forecasts were, well, FORECASTS, no one ever claimed they were anything but that.

In any case, you can show your quotes, I can show mine. All I know is that there has not been a single instance since the Fukushima disaster began, that the pro-nuke crowd were correct. NOT ONCE!

but there have certainly been numerous instances when the disaster porn crowd posted misleading a/o false information.

such as you just did when you posted someone implying that web information had been taken down due to the japanese conspiring to censor information.

The bad news keeps getting worse. We have critical meltdown at several reactors. Fallout is continuing to be produced. Wider areas continue to face danger.

Enenews has provided links to MSM reports. Government reports. Japanese reports. Don't let others tell you what is and isn't credible in a story where the half life of lies and inaccurate information grows exponentially.

I guess we readers can judge for ourselves which stories and news oraganizations lack credibility.

Thanks for posting this information.

By not using the word "re-criticality"?

Here are this morning's headlines on NHK English, about 2 hours ago:


-TEPCO to change reactor cool down method

-Muslims sue police, gov't over personal data leaks

-TEPCO to move radioactive water from No.3 reactor

-Fukushima companies want nuke plant scrapped

-Governors' nuclear demands

-Fukushima prosecutor chief transferred

-TEPCO: Fuel rods partially exposed above water

-More prefectures want radiation forecast system

-About 24,000 dead or missing in March disaster

-TEPCO: No.4 blast due to hydrogen from No.3

-Rapid meltdown occurs in No.1 reactor

-Seawater found in coolant at Hamaoka plant

-Radioactivity at intake of No.3 reactor rises

-TEPCO makes effort to grasp precise water levels

-Aoi Festival in Kyoto

-TEPCO rethinking roadmap


Does that seem like it is all hysterical bullshit to the Japanese people?

Gee, it sounds like they are just a country of Extreme Enviroweenie Biased Claptrap spewing idiots, eh?


How about these concerns, all bullshit too?

Sunday, May 23, 2004
Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040523x2.html


And this is bullshit, eh, this former governor is crazy too?



Japan nuclear crisis was 'avoidable'

Ex-Fukushima governor says crisis could have been averted had power company taken steps.
Last Modified: 04 May 2011 10:24

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/asia/2011/05/2011541...



And the people of Japan, they are just crazy too:


Crowdsourcing Japan's radiation levels

A group of motivated individuals have come together to create a community approach to gathering radiation data in Japan.
D. Parvaz Last Modified: 26 Apr 2011 13:44

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/04/20114231...


Side Note; Dorothy Parvaz is currently a hostage in Iran it is believed, sent there by Syria's government, for reporting on the uprisings there.



I know, Hanna, we are all crazy except you.


Carry on, regardless

rdb

in japan, but rather with how it is spun.

nor did i use the word 'crazy' or any synonym for it.

simple, really. Here I'll help you:

Here are this morning's headlines on NHK English: I listed 16, of which 13 addressed Fukushima and citizens' concerns about it.

Was that bullshit?


How about these concerns, all bullshit too?

Sunday, May 23, 2004
Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040523x2.htm...


And this is bullshit too?

Japan nuclear crisis was 'avoidable'

Ex-Fukushima governor says crisis could have been averted had power company taken steps.
Last Modified: 04 May 2011 10:24

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/asia/2011/05/2011541 ...



And the people of Japan, they are just bullshit?

Crowdsourcing Japan's radiation levels

A group of motivated individuals have come together to create a community approach to gathering radiation data in Japan.
D. Parvaz Last Modified: 26 Apr 2011 13:44

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/04/20114231 ...

Side Note; Dorothy Parvaz is currently a hostage in Iran it is believed, sent there by Syria's government, for reporting on the uprisings there.


Here is another one, Hannah. Is this list bullshit too?



Ten Lessons From Chernobyl And Fukushima








By David Krieger, May 13, 2011


Here are ten lessons from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 25 years ago and the Fukushima disaster this year.

1. Nuclear power is a highly complex, expensive and dangerous way to boil water to create steam to turn turbines.

2. Accidents happen, and the worst-case scenario often turns out to be worse than imagined or planned for.

3. The nuclear industry and its experts cannot plan for every contingency or prevent every disaster.

4. Governments do not effectively regulate the nuclear industry to assure the safety of the public. Regulators of the nuclear industry often come from the nuclear industry itself and tend to be too close to it to regulate it effectively.

5. Hubris, complacency and high-level radiation are a deadly mix. Hubris on the part of the nuclear industry and its government regulators — along with complacency on the part of the public — has led to the creation of vast amounts of high-level radiation that must be guarded from release to the environment for tens of thousands of years.

6. The corporations that run the nuclear power plants are protected from catastrophic economic failure by government limits on liability. If the corporations that own nuclear power plants had to bear the burden of potential financial losses in the event of a catastrophic accident, they would not build the plants because they know the risks are unacceptable. It is only when government limits the liability, as the Price-Anderson Act does in the United States, that companies go ahead and build nuclear power plants. No other private industry is given such liability protection, which leaves the taxpayers on the hook.

7. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in space and will not stop at national borders.

8. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in time and will adversely affect countless future generations.

9. Nuclear energy — as well as nuclear weapons — and human beings cannot coexist without the risk of future catastrophes. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long known that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist. Fukushima, like Chernobyl before it, makes clear that human beings and nuclear power plants also cannot coexist.

10. The accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl are a bracing reminder to phase out nuclear energy. We need to move as rapidly as possible to a global energy plan based upon conservation and various forms of renewable energy: solar cells, wind, geothermal, and energy that is extracted from the oceans and the tides and the currents.

Poet Maya Angelou once said, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage doesn’t need to be lived again.” We need the courage to abandon nuclear power. No one should have to experience the wrenching pain of another Chernobyl or another Fukushima.


David Krieger is a councilor on the World Future Council and the chair of the executive committee of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

http://www.progressive.org/mpkrieger051311.html


I'll take my answers off the air.

rdb

the point was not that there is no crisis at fukushima.

and as all your "questions" seem to be in service of "proving" that there is a crisis at fukushima, something i readily concede & have conceded from day 1, i see no reasons to "answer" stupid, irrelevant questions.

Enenews is not a constant stream of BS. Click the links provided to go back to the original articles. The BS flows both ways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1109840&mesg_id=1110197

in reaction to this bit of "information" in the op:

This last report (with final videos) is described best at a site with The Dept of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley:


RIU and NILU forecast models have been stopped/ data removed

As of May 2, the RIU (www.eurad.uni-koeln.de ) is NO LONGER running its radiation forecast model. NILU still was, and I regularly checked it, especially after the disconcerting April 24-25 forecast for North America's west coast (20-400Bq/m2). Today I checked, and it was REMOVED on May 11. This deeply concerns me and I cannot help wonder why these were removed. And if instructions were received to remove these. And from whom. The very disconcerting part is that these are supposedly independent scientific institutions. Why would they stop making these data available? We need to request answers to this and ask for the monitoring and modeling to continue!! Data collection and availability is so crucial, and it is being ignored (at best) or actively interfered with by governments and industry. Without data, there is no proof for critical questions about very real and valid health concerns.

Unfortunately, this is congruent with reports of Japanese governments calling for censorship of news and other observations and comments on this forum by journalists not being able to get stories on radioactive contamination levels published in the US.

I have encountered the same resistance here in Canada when I tried to draw attention to the need to measure rain water, drinking water, soil, milk, seaweed and seafood from Japan. The data made available by federal govt agencies here (when it was finally available) is summarized, very limited and appears haphazard, i.e., no systematic, country-wide testing. Drinking water sampling results for Vancouver have not been posted publicly since April 11. When I phoned and asked on April 27, I was told the labs are backlogged (that was 16 days later!). But no updates since then. I have not received any response to a request for data from Simon Fraser University, either, where a few water samples were taken initially.

In this situation, we need to have universities like UCB step up to request and/ or collect and Publish this data--Please! Thanks so much for all your work and running this forum, now one of the last remaining sources of information--while Fukushima still struggles with an extremely serious and possibly endless situation of radioactive releases. http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3951

Of course, that doesn't keep you from now saying that a post at UC Berkeley's Dept of Nuclear Engineering is the actual pile of manure you were referring to...Uh-huh.

is a right that comes with the responsibility to ferret out the truth and publish it.

(physics) A return to a point at which a nuclear reaction becomes self-sustaining.

:scared:

You should read the entire link that you provided.

Criticality is what is needed in a properly functioning nuclear power plant. It is NOT, however, supposed to happen when a plant is in shut-down mode. My definition is correct.

physics websites show that as the definition of criticality. Then try it with your definition. Interesting results, eh?

Critical or supercritical nuclear fission (one that is sustained in power or increasing in power) generally occurs inside reactor cores and occasionally within test environments. A criticality accident occurs when a critical reaction is achieved unintentionally. Although dangerous, typical criticality accidents cannot reproduce the design conditions of a fission bomb, so nuclear explosions do not occur. The heat released by the nuclear reaction will typically cause the fissile material to expand, so that the nuclear reaction becomes subcritical again within a few seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident


"self-sustaining" = the critical state endures, fission continues.

and the confusion about the term, & the association with nuclear explosions as well as nuclear reactors, is the reason that headline is misleading.

when i google "define: recriticality" i get no "physics websites" whatsoever. since you claim there are so many with your definition, post some links -- which i notice you haven't so far.

your definition came from wiktionary, not a physics website.

here's another (physics blog):

"Simply put, recriticality means that a reactor has become critical again and reentered the fission process."

it doesn't mean the fission process is "self-sustaining". or to be more clear, the reaction is "self-sustaining" only within the environment of the reactor created to keep the neutron population sufficient to sustain the reaction.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/recritical-thinking.html

the definition i posted came from a physics website.

googling 'recriticality' with 'self-sustaining' produces #1 your wiktionary def, #2 something from infowars, 3# something from "gold-silver us" ....it goes on that way. The only vaguely legit hit is from reuters. There are no physics websites on the first page.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=self-sustaining+recriticality&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9651d7334bd74320

That is why it is better to not even bother.

that the poster's definition is erroneous.

if the poster's definition is in fact correct, and found on many physics websites as he claims, it should be no trouble to link one.

but that's too much trouble, apparently.

or the poster's definition is in fact incorrect.

the poster's "point" is evidentally that "recriticality" isn't supposed to happen in a "shut-down" nuke plant. that point has *nothing to do with* the definition of "recriticality".

Self-sustaining simply means that enough neutrons are being absorbed and emitted to keep the reaction going without an outside neutron source. Time is not defined, except > 0. In a functioning nuclear reactor, the critical reaction is 1 to 1, meaning 1 neutron is emitted for every neutron that's absorbed by the fuel nuclei.

A shut down reactor should be sub-critical, meaning more neutrons are being emitted than absorbed within the fuel so the reaction slows until there is little to no fission outside of the naturally occurring spontaneous fission. Super-critical would be an accident state, where the rate of reactions is increasing over time. If enough mass is present, this will cause an explosion, but reactors use low grade fuel so this is extremely unlikely.

The real danger from any new criticalities at Fukushima is the increased heat and the fission products the chain reactions would create. Outside of the zirconium casing, these radioactive decay products will go straight into the cooling water, which is known to be leaking. The radiation will further weaken the core structures. The heat could cause additional chemical reactions (possibly explosive) and mechanical failures. Additional radiation will also make it more difficult for the workers to remain on site and could cause more equipment malfunctions.

neutrons = a "self-sustaining" reaction *so long as the conditions are such that the critical balance of neutrons is maintained*.

"Time is not defined, except > 0."

i.e. that "self-sustaining" condition/reaction might last for 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 month -- depending on conditions.

i.e. not "self-sustaining" in the common interpretation.

"A shut down reactor should be sub-critical"

my memory is that only 5&6 achieved cold shutdown. so not sure what the point of the statement is.

:eyes:

You have a great deal more patience than I, FourScore. I have to wonder what motivates DUers like Hannah to argue about criticality, then post a link that clearly supports the very aspect of criticality she refutes, and then continue to stamp her widdle feets when this fact is pointed out to her. Why do this?

Bear in mind that other DUers (self included) appreciate any and all efforts to provide current info on the ongoing disaster at Fukushima Daiichi.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

...that doesn't sound too good...and the censorship issues are beyond the pale...:grr:

are true! Seems the M$M wants to make sure we don't know about the worst ecological disaster (unfolding right now) in human history. They got away with marginalizing the wars, Wall Streets criminal activities and now seem confident they can ignore a nuclear meltdown...time for new 'news' organizations that are not controlled by money.

Plutonium detected in rice paddy by a food manufacturer more than 50 kms away from Fukushima power plant:

http://jbpress.ismedia.jp/articles/-/7890?page=2

また、ある食品メーカーが独自に調査した結果では、福島第一原発から50キロ以上離れた水田の土から、政府 が発表している数値よりケタ違いに高い放射線が検出されたという。

Additionally, a certain food manufacturing company conducted a survey by themselves. In a rice field is more than 50kms away from the Fukushima power plant, it was found that there was very high radiation that is very different to what the government released.

(heading)
原発から50キロ以上離れた田んぼの土から高濃度のプルトニウム

High density plutonium is in the rice field that was mentioned previously.

この食品メーカーによると、現時点でその結果を公表するのは影響が大きすぎるため発表は控えているとのこと だが、その田んぼの土からは高い濃度のプルトニウムも検出されたそうだ。

According to this food manufacturing company, they currently don't announce these results due to the large influence* that this rice field has high concentration of plutonium.

* Note: It is not mentioned what the influence is but it implies they do not currently release the information as it may have an impact on the media/public.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3302504&postcount=126



Just a question from one of the Extreme Enviroweenies full of Biased Claptrap

rdb

We should be glad to get these translations where we can.

Putting aside for now the puerile whinging on this OP about the purported accuracy or inaccuracy of the reports we've seen thus far, your description of Fukushima as 'the worst ecological disaster...in human history'--that the M$M wants to 'make sure we don't know about'--is spot on. That we even have to question the accuracy of the reports we are getting is indefensible.

You might want to add the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to your list of events the M$M has been marginalizing almost from the beginning.