Times are shown is U.S. - Mountain Standard Time
-
@Salvador: true, there was an explosion, not at the same time the fires occured, though. Hydrogen comes from water. Zirconium is oxidated by oxigen, releasing the hydrogen from water, in fact. So the explosion was because there was exposed rods _and_ zirconium at high temperature under water: the pool was not empty at this time
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 11:03:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:03:27 PM" ) )5:03 PM
-
@Salvador Not sure such an explosion was reported. Fires, yes.
by es at 3/29/2011 11:03:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:03:17 PM" ) )5:03 PM
-
by spanish_reader at 3/29/2011 11:02:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:02:04 PM" ) )5:02 PM
-
The modifications made to Mark I containments include:
“Quenchers” were installed to distribute the steam bubbles in order to produce rapid condensation and to reduce loads on the unit. In a reactor, exhaust steam is piped into a suppression chamber, which is known as the torus and is a large, rounded suppression pool that sits next to the reactor core. It is used to remove heat when large quantities of steam are released from the reactor. In the torus, the steam bubbles go under water. With the modification to the Mark I, the quenchers, which are also underwater, make steam bubbles smaller by breaking up the larger bubbles. This in turn reduces pressure.
www.gereports.com
Another modification is the installation of deflectors inside the torus. When that steam goes in, the water level rises. The deflectors that were added break up the pressure wave that is produced and help relieve pressure on the torus.
A further modification was made to the “saddles” on which the torus sits — basically the series of leg-like structures that support it. The construction was fortified, as was the steel, to accommodate the loads that are generated.
by Tenzing at 3/29/2011 11:01:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:01:40 PM" ) )5:01 PM
-
if a rod is exposed to air how long does it take to overheat ? could they airlift some of the rods to other undamaged pools f.ex or would that cause them to burst into flames ?
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 11:01:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:01:09 PM" ) )5:01 PM
-
by Tenzing at 3/29/2011 11:00:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 11:00:01 PM" ) )5:00 PM
-
@ariadne No, workers are not exposed to the limit radiation on each shift. And there are 400 workers on site only 50 of them working simultaneously.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:58:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:58:35 PM" ) )4:58 PM
-
@Jo There was an EXPLOSION in No.4 That's the only reason why the building looks like that and has lost so much of the outer building structure. A hydrogen explosion caused by the only think in building 4 known to cause it: Zyrconium reacting with oxygen--> No water cover before it blew up.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:57:43 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:57:43 PM" ) )4:57 PM
-
@gordon, yes its likely the concrete around the pools are cracked and/or debris have tipped over assemblies causing them to bump into each other and form hotspots , (they where stacked 3 times to close to start with) but keep in mind the pools are lined with metal as well and thats not likely to crack easy. but with the mayhem its likely piping going to the pools are damaged
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:57:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:57:25 PM" ) )4:57 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus @sims Fuel storage racks hold 96 rods.. 32 in reactor.. so everyone is saying they took the other 64 rods back down to the cooling pool outside is nuts.. 514rods were stored in the cooling pool in no3 as per jaif
www.nirs.org by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:57:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:57:11 PM" ) )4:57 PM
-
sorry pushed the button too soon. Re: the abc story,
www.abc.net.au "But dangerously high radiation levels mean the crews can only work one-hour shifts at a time." Does this mean after one hour they can never work at the plant again? I'm confused by the "at a time" clause. If this is true, they must need hundreds of workers.
by ariadne at 3/29/2011 10:57:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:57:00 PM" ) )4:57 PM
-
@Salvador: sure ! That's why I think it would be a big problem if the pool was constantly leaking all its water all this time; would be really safer to know that there will always be at least a few water over the rods whatever happens.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:54:54 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:54:54 PM" ) )4:54 PM
-
The Guardian is saying "experts", not just Richard Lahey from earlier today
by Bobby1 at 3/29/2011 10:54:53 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:54:53 PM" ) )4:54 PM
-
as for a source for where the MOX is, got this for example (although it's not a primary source)
www.world-nuclear.org "Unit 3's pool contains 566 fuel assemblies. There is no MOX fuel in any of the ponds." "Unit 3 has a partial core of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel (32 MOX assemblies, 516 LEU)."
by sims at 3/29/2011 10:54:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:54:07 PM" ) )4:54 PM
-
If tepco gets a better handle on giving out news, as the govt said it must, I wonder if there will be less news reported. It sure is quiet.
by Scillak at 3/29/2011 10:53:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:53:58 PM" ) )4:53 PM
-
@sims they weren't fuelly depleted
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:53:53 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:53:53 PM" ) )4:53 PM
-
CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES:
netfiles.uiuc.edu The concrete shell is designed to withstand the direct impact of an aircraft (blah blah blah)
An increase of stress by steam release, if unquenched, at its interior will eventually cause it to fail; blah blah the weakest links in that case occur at the coolant inlet and outlet pipes and the instrumentation cabling and electrical power penetrations. there are diagramsby Tenzing at 3/29/2011 10:53:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:53:36 PM" ) )4:53 PM
-
@Kristian I would put money on at least some cracking of the SFP structure in the earthquake leading to at least some leakage, my guess is that this is what led to the SFP fire(s) early on and combined with the damage caused by the explosions raining debris / crane into the pools has probably brought the rods so close together in places that there have been more than transient excursions. This is a very viable explanation of many of the questions poased here and woyld also explain the soil PU readings. Yes again, my opinion only.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 10:53:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:53:35 PM" ) )4:53 PM
-
@sims actually they had taken them out in Dec (?) to retro fit a stainless steel shroud
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:53:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:53:28 PM" ) )4:53 PM
-
@ Jay77 sounds like an interesting theory, I wonder why only one source is reporting on this and if it can be verified. Generally this is the news hub which is why it surprises me that it hasn't come up or gotten posted, sounds like a major development. Hope the guardian has its facts straigt
by Kat at 3/29/2011 10:53:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:53:00 PM" ) )4:53 PM
-
@marie rich: the fires in #4 was oil burning, ..., but was caused by high temperature from the spent fuel pool. There were no power in the building, then no other possible reason for a fire to occur.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:52:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:52:59 PM" ) )4:52 PM
-
@Jo Lindien How do they "remove" the fuel from a damaged SFP with tons of debris laying on top of it and with radiation on the SIEVERT level? I don't see it happening in the next weeks... or months truely.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:52:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:52:57 PM" ) )4:52 PM
-
@sims It may be while they're doing routine maintenance or inspections to the core. I think that is the case in #4 unit.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:52:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:52:38 PM" ) )4:52 PM
-
@jay I find it unlikely that a pressured vessel would seal itself like that without loosing all pressure and if they melted to start with why would they spontanously cool down ?
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:52:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:52:21 PM" ) )4:52 PM
-
@Gordon it was #4 but they said they thought fire was caused by oil, equip, etc
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:51:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:51:16 PM" ) )4:51 PM
-
@NHK Listener I guess so. The #3 reactor only received MOX fuel in September 2010. I don't think they would store fuel around the plant in a long term. Fuel is safer inside the reactor. But this assumption needs clarification from an expert.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:50:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:50:46 PM" ) )4:50 PM
-
in normal operation, i mean, which r3 was in
by sims at 3/29/2011 10:50:29 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:50:29 PM" ) )4:50 PM
-
@Kristian Gordon provided a scenario where the molten fuel could have melted through and leaked out, then cooled and solidified, sealing the opening and not allowing a pressure drop or additional water leakage.
by Jay77 at 3/29/2011 10:49:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:49:57 PM" ) )4:49 PM
-
sadly it is sims, in #4 the whole core sits outside in the spent pool , with near 1500 rods and a full active core and the pool leaking I get worried ;(
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:49:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:49:57 PM" ) )4:49 PM
-
anyhow, will try to find a source for where the MOX is exactly, there seems to be some confusion about it though, some sources were saying it's half in sfp, half in reactor, others all in the reactor
by sims at 3/29/2011 10:49:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:49:45 PM" ) )4:49 PM
-
@NHK listener: new fuel is not stored in *SPENT* fuel ponds afaik
by sims at 3/29/2011 10:48:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:48:45 PM" ) )4:48 PM
-
@Tenzing: thanks for those links !
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:48:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:48:31 PM" ) )4:48 PM
-
@sims So they only have enough mox for 1 load in the reactor?
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:48:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:48:03 PM" ) )4:48 PM
-
@marie rich I understand the spent fuel rods in 3 or 4??? caught fire quite early on, before catching fire they produce copious amounts of hydrogen ....
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 10:47:54 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:47:54 PM" ) )4:47 PM
-
"The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on to a concrete floor, experts say, raising fears of a major release of radiation at the site."
by Kat at 3/29/2011 10:47:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:47:45 PM" ) )4:47 PM
-
@sims where did you get the information that disputes the nytime article? That they are storing mox in the pool?
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:47:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:47:16 PM" ) )4:47 PM
-
@Salvador: yes; so it's very interresting to know what of the SFP remains... 'Cause if it's craked from the bottom, they cannot restore any kind of normal cooling functions in any way. If not, it can be stabilized until the fuel can be removed
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:47:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:47:10 PM" ) )4:47 PM
-
by Kat at 3/29/2011 10:47:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:47:06 PM" ) )4:47 PM
-
if fuel melted trough the bottom then all the water would leak out instantly, also there would be a lot more radiation and no pressure inside
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:46:56 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:46:56 PM" ) )4:46 PM
-
@Kat Well, because there is no indication so far that that might have happened. Personally, I try to avoid speculation.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:46:41 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:46:41 PM" ) )4:46 PM
-
@NHK Listener: that is all the mox.. reactor primarily runs on standard Uranium fuel
by sims at 3/29/2011 10:46:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:46:00 PM" ) )4:46 PM
-
@BHK there isn't any, it was new last summer (rods last 2-3 years)
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 10:45:53 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:45:53 PM" ) )4:45 PM
-
I am surprised no one is interested in discussing the consequences of fuel having melted through the bottom of the containment vessel. Is there a reason for this having little bearing? Does it not pose a threat? I thought it was a worst case scenario?
by Kat at 3/29/2011 10:45:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:45:39 PM" ) )4:45 PM
-
@Sky Roughly 6%... it is not a accurate estimate.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:45:19 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:45:19 PM" ) )4:45 PM
-
@
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:45:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:45:17 PM" ) )4:45 PM
-
@Sky Where would they store the rest of the mox?
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:44:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:44:48 PM" ) )4:44 PM
-
@Jo Lindien It's not that interesting how high the SFP is after the big boom. The more important question is if it has still enough water to cover the spend fuel.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:44:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:44:40 PM" ) )4:44 PM
-
@Jo Lindien [PDF] APPENDIX A SCRAP METAL INVENTORIES AT U.S. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
termination at the reference BWR power station are the reactor building, ... The exterior dimensions of the Reactor Building are approximately 42 m by 53 ...
www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/source.../tsd/scrap_tsd_041802_apa1.pdf
www.epa.govby Tenzing at 3/29/2011 10:44:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:44:04 PM" ) )4:44 PM
-
@NHK, No, we are saying that only 6% of the operating fuel within No. 3 was MOX. The rest was standard Uranium fuel.
by Sky at 3/29/2011 10:44:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:44:01 PM" ) )4:44 PM
-
@marie rich: thanks; if I remember well, the temperature is very high for zirconium to burn (1200 °C ?). If so, it should not be likely to heppen in reactor cores even if partially uncovered for 2 weeks ?
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:43:29 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:43:29 PM" ) )4:43 PM
-
@BHK but the inventory sites do, i don't have the list here.
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 10:43:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:43:12 PM" ) )4:43 PM
-
@FradyKat @Bev So you guys are saying the only got enough mox for half full reactor? lol
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:43:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:43:01 PM" ) )4:43 PM
-
@Salvador: very interresting perspective but it's still not easy to figure the damages to the SFP. We can hope that its height was sufficient so it's still higher that the fuel height: there used to be 10 meters of water _above_ the spent fuel
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:41:56 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:41:56 PM" ) )4:41 PM
-
@FradyKat The article does not mention how many in the reactor?
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:41:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:41:52 PM" ) )4:41 PM
-
@Jo here's the answer about what happens to fuel rods exposedd long-term: Richard T. Lahey Jr., a retired nuclear engineer who oversaw General Electric’s safety research in the early 1970s for the kind of nuclear reactors used in Fukushima, said that the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods could burst into flames if exposed to air for hours when a storage pool lost its water.
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:41:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:41:21 PM" ) )4:41 PM
-
Yes, NYT is wrong. That's journalistic idiocy, somebody doesn't know the difference between the reactor vessel and the spent fuel pool. There are 32 in the RPV.
by Bev at 3/29/2011 10:41:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:41:08 PM" ) )4:41 PM
-
No, MOX is inside the reactor. The residual plutonium you might have in the spent fuel pools is from spent fuel and wouldn't radiate much.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:40:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:40:47 PM" ) )4:40 PM
-
@Jo Lindien
www.ansn-jp.org The Bowling Water Reactor Power Plant hope it helps
by Tenzing at 3/29/2011 10:40:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:40:17 PM" ) )4:40 PM
-
Yea, NYT is wrong - only 32 mox rods (in core) put in last summer.
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 10:40:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:40:02 PM" ) )4:40 PM
-
@Bev According to Tokyo Electric, 32 of the 514 fuel rod assemblies in the storage pond at Reactor No. 3 contain mox.
www.nytimes.comby NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:39:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:39:21 PM" ) )4:39 PM
-
There was no MOX in any spent fuel pools. #4 SPF had active fuel cells, but not MOX. #3 had not been using MOX long enough to have any in the SPF.
by Bev at 3/29/2011 10:38:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:38:52 PM" ) )4:38 PM
-
by Scillak at 3/29/2011 10:38:43 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:38:43 PM" ) )4:38 PM
-
@FradyKat for what
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:38:37 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:38:37 PM" ) )4:38 PM
-
According to Tokyo Electric, 32 of the 514 fuel rod assemblies in the storage pond at Reactor No. 3 contain mox.
www.nytimes.comby NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:38:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:38:05 PM" ) )4:38 PM
-
@Treiagonaut Yes. The concrete pumps have been poring only water.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:37:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:37:51 PM" ) )4:37 PM
-
Here is another picture for those interested in the spend fuel pools. It gives a perspective of the No. 3 SFP and the height of the building. i.imgur.com Source is www.youtube.com
by
Salvador via
I.imgur at 3/29/2011 10:37:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:37:38 PM" ) )4:37 PM
-
@NHK link to source?
by FradyKat at 3/29/2011 10:37:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:37:35 PM" ) )4:37 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus in no3 mox in the pool.
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:37:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:37:26 PM" ) )4:37 PM
-
by Reed at 3/29/2011 10:37:20 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:37:20 PM" ) )4:37 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus mox was also in cooling pool
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:36:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:36:39 PM" ) )4:36 PM
-
@Jo Lindien I agree. Anyway, that's why they have admitted damage to some of the spent fuel rods. If the encasing was intact there shouldn't be much release of radiation if any.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:36:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:36:31 PM" ) )4:36 PM
-
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:36:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:36:04 PM" ) )4:36 PM
-
@Matsuoko Pu, only from the spent fuel rods. The MOX is inside the core of #3, not exposed to the atmosphere. Also note that the Pu has only been detected in the soil which is not a surprise either since it is a very heavy particle not prone to be dancing with the wind.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:35:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:35:24 PM" ) )4:35 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus: the spent fuel might have been exposed even with no explosion: the heat of the spent fuel rods was sufficient for #4 water to evaporate and set the building on fire...
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:34:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:34:58 PM" ) )4:34 PM
-
I posted picture of estimated reactor height earlier
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:34:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:34:24 PM" ) )4:34 PM
-
@elainekirk Mixer lorries dont generally tip, they pour from the rear top using an internal screw thread. Are we definate that it is water that has been poured from the concrete pump ?
by Treiagonaut at 3/29/2011 10:33:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:33:45 PM" ) )4:33 PM
-
must be more than 18 meters, the spent pool is 14 meters high alone
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:33:44 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:33:44 PM" ) )4:33 PM
-
reactor building is substantially taller than 18m.. think it's an odd perspective
by sims at 3/29/2011 10:33:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:33:31 PM" ) )4:33 PM
-
@Matsuoko I think they have been there since the tsunami
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:33:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:33:15 PM" ) )4:33 PM
-
if one consider the small building near #4 reactor to be 3 meters high, then the reactor building is about 18 meters high.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:32:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:32:42 PM" ) )4:32 PM
-
@NHK Listener : maybe fixing the steet.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:32:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:32:33 PM" ) )4:32 PM
-
same with the crane
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:32:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:32:26 PM" ) )4:32 PM
-
@elainekirk That truck has been there for more than a week
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:32:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:32:08 PM" ) )4:32 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus : and plutonium.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:32:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:32:00 PM" ) )4:32 PM
-
@Jo Lindien Well, that's not a surprise. That's how the spent fuel rods got exposed to the atmosphere in the first place and that's where most of the airborne radiation is coming from.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:31:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:31:16 PM" ) )4:31 PM
-
@elainekirk : well, they might be needing concrete for a lot of things, so why not ?
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:30:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:30:59 PM" ) )4:30 PM
-
@matsuoko one of those mixers is tipping a load or so it appears by angles. My head is stuck in trenches ;)
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 10:27:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:27:45 PM" ) )4:27 PM
-
@Matsuoko: the space above the SFP is 2 concrete plates high, we can see that from drawings and from the #4 reactor shots. On the shot from Cul you can see the top level of the #3 reactor seem lower than that (seems like ~3 plates above the top of #4). Then it seems not possible to me that the top of the SFP would not be damaged.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:26:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:26:42 PM" ) )4:26 PM
-
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:26:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:26:12 PM" ) )4:26 PM
-
@Matsuoko Erm... what time does it show on the timestamps right now? Nevermind, this last picture is better.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:23:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:23:36 PM" ) )4:23 PM
-
The SFP of No. 3 reactor is still there, if reduced by a few meters. Take a look again. i.imgur.com
by
Salvador via
I.imgur at 3/29/2011 10:23:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:23:32 PM" ) )4:23 PM
-
@Cul : i mean the other one !!!! elainekirk at 11:49 PM
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:23:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:23:21 PM" ) )4:23 PM
-
@Jo Lindien :if the top is damaged, you surely have cracks in the rest of the pool.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:22:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:22:52 PM" ) )4:22 PM
-
by
Cul via
I.dailymail.co.uk at 3/29/2011 10:22:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:22:39 PM" ) )4:22 PM
-
@Matsuoko: I'm sure the top of the SFP has been damaged. But I do not know, from all the shot I've seen, if there still is a tight pool or if it's damaged to its bottom then cannot keep the fuel covered by water without constant spraying.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:21:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:21:49 PM" ) )4:21 PM
-
@Kristian If the pools were destroyed there would also be fuel rods laying scattered around the place.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:21:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:21:36 PM" ) )4:21 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus : do you mean the same picture ? i mean by elainekirk at 11:49 PM you mean the other one ?
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:21:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:21:33 PM" ) )4:21 PM
-
I am sure the pool exists jo, few things just magically vanish. also if it was totally trashed and out of water there would not be many workers left alive on the plant
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:19:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:19:42 PM" ) )4:19 PM
-
@
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:19:22 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:19:22 PM" ) )4:19 PM
-
@Salvador: you're right! ;)
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:19:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:19:18 PM" ) )4:19 PM
-
@Matsuoko Nope. The whole structure we see is much higher than 3 meters. I can't recall properly but I think the concrete pump is 18 meters long, could you confirm that? So the structure that's still standing should be around that high since we can almost see the pump's tip and it is almost fully extended.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:19:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:19:12 PM" ) )4:19 PM
-
@Jo Lindien :you think it might be gone ?
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:19:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:19:07 PM" ) )4:19 PM
-
we would need shot from the other side of #3 building to figure out if the SPF can only still exist...
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:18:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:18:26 PM" ) )4:18 PM
-
I think it's been trial and error since day one.
by Scillak at 3/29/2011 10:18:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:18:11 PM" ) )4:18 PM
-
why not pump the leaking water back into the reactor cores where it belongs rather than inject new water and have storage problems ? too short hoses ?
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:18:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:18:02 PM" ) )4:18 PM
-
@Salvador - I could never understand how they couldn't suss out where the water was going - suppose they think its better to get rid of one problem.......and
by fiona at 3/29/2011 10:18:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:18:02 PM" ) )4:18 PM
-
@Jo Lindien No, only as long as the complimented women believe it themselves.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:17:53 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:17:53 PM" ) )4:17 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus : you must be right. there would not be a spent fuel pool any more with 3m left.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:16:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:16:59 PM" ) )4:16 PM
-
@Salvador: there'll be pretty women for the time there will be men to tell them they are ! ;)
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:16:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:16:52 PM" ) )4:16 PM
-
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:15:44 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:15:44 PM" ) )4:15 PM
-
"- TEPCO has decreased the amount of fresh water being injected into the core for reactor 2, allowing the temperature to rise to 160.5 C as of 1 p.m. Tuesday. According to Hidehiko Nishiyama reducing the amount of radioactive water leaking was the goal, ”While we don’t know exactly the relationship between the need to inject water to cool (the reactor core) and the outflow of water, we have reduced the amount of injected water to a minimum given the reactor No. 2′s tendency to spew highly radioactive water,”."
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:15:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:15:14 PM" ) )4:15 PM
-
@ es Nice reading on www.burbuja.info . So, any nuke is protected against a big sunflare. All 400 nukeplants on the world can be crippled like Fukushima in one day, i understand.
by sublimator at 3/29/2011 10:14:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:14:52 PM" ) )4:14 PM
-
Spontaneous radiation in the ocean?
by Markfm at 3/29/2011 10:14:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:14:50 PM" ) )4:14 PM
-
Natalie, it is the last link on the links page at the fukushimafaq wiki site that nancy set up
by Markfm at 3/29/2011 10:14:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:14:48 PM" ) )4:14 PM
-
@Pedro aah ok I get that.. I got a bit excited I know what a concrete block is!
by fiona at 3/29/2011 10:14:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:14:47 PM" ) )4:14 PM
-
@Matsuoko If we're talking about the same photo, assuming the truck would be 2 meters high, there would be at least 7-8 meters from the ground to the bottom end of the hole closest to the ground. I don't understand your calculations.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:14:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:14:40 PM" ) )4:14 PM
-
is there a valve to seal off the leaking pipes ?
by Kristian at 3/29/2011 10:14:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:14:02 PM" ) )4:14 PM
-
@Jo Lindien But a lot of beautiful women instead. The sun will be around for the next 3.5 billion years, the pretty girls wont keep that long.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:13:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:13:42 PM" ) )4:13 PM
-
that's a quote form Kazuma Yokota, an inspection chief at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety agency who stayed five days at the plant last week.
by Pat at 3/29/2011 10:13:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:13:05 PM" ) )4:13 PM
-
Sin still around?
by NHK Listener at 3/29/2011 10:11:56 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:11:56 PM" ) )4:11 PM
-
"Nuclear Samurai" *puke*
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:11:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:11:45 PM" ) )4:11 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus: I guess the building are made of standard concrete plates and it seems to me the height is 6 concrete plates. May this help ?
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:11:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:11:26 PM" ) )4:11 PM
-
@fiona I don't think they mean those kind of concrete blocks you are thinking. I think what they mean by concrete blocks is just blocking the water ways by pumping concrete onto them. Because it is meant to block water it can be called a block. I might be wrong though.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:10:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:10:10 PM" ) )4:10 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus : ah, i am nearly 2 meters, and i know the concrete mixers are lower than 4 meters (to fit under bridges), so i estimated 3 meters.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:09:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:09:59 PM" ) )4:09 PM
-
@marie rich: ;) @openmind: sun rises in Paris too, but there are not a lot of beautiful sunrises here !
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:09:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:09:40 PM" ) )4:09 PM
-
@Kat : in the German Wikipedia they say: > 10,000 TBq rerleased, chernobyl had 70,000.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:08:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:08:46 PM" ) )4:08 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus - I really do not think they will be making concrete blocks on site
by fiona at 3/29/2011 10:08:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:08:24 PM" ) )4:08 PM
-
@Jo Lindien - I will be very worried if the sun doesn't rise in Japan any more!
by openmind at 3/29/2011 10:08:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:08:07 PM" ) )4:08 PM
-
by quantman07 at 3/29/2011 10:08:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:08:05 PM" ) )4:08 PM
-
@Kat not a refrence to ines rating like chernobyl. just there way of saying "Holy Cow"
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:07:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:07:33 PM" ) )4:07 PM
-
www.abc.net.au But we were still exposed. I was exposed to 883 microsieverts during the five days I was there."
by Pat at 3/29/2011 10:07:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:07:10 PM" ) )4:07 PM
-
How do you calculate the height of the building from the height of the pump truck besides it? Do you know the dimensions of the truck?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:06:56 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:06:56 PM" ) )4:06 PM
-
@Jo yeah, if it wasn't for the rads I'd consider moving :)
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:06:20 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:06:20 PM" ) )4:06 PM
-
www.guardian.co.uk Not sure if this has been posted, but interesting. What is the 'highest level' btw, 7, equalling Chernobyl or do the Japanese use a different rating scale?
by Kat at 3/29/2011 10:05:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:05:52 PM" ) )4:05 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus : sorry, what you mean ?
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:05:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:05:36 PM" ) )4:05 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus Might be a translation thing, but "concrete blocks" to me mean prefabricated blocks, not site fabricated... so no mixing trucks needed.
by Jay77 at 3/29/2011 10:05:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:05:34 PM" ) )4:05 PM
-
@all: be optimistic; at least we now all know there are beautiful sun rises at Fukushima !
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:04:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:04:49 PM" ) )4:04 PM
-
It would be criminally stupid not to at least have a staging area nearby for all options. I could understand them not wanting to contaminate alot of equipment unecessarily, but surely they have on standby
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:04:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:04:39 PM" ) )4:04 PM
-
@Matsuoko How do you reckon that?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:04:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:04:34 PM" ) )4:04 PM
-
@Salvador : that makes sense, too
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:04:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:04:33 PM" ) )4:04 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus: that makes sense
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:03:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:03:52 PM" ) )4:03 PM
-
11 mins ago Hot Update Japanese officials claim radioactive water has not flowed in to ocean - JapanNewsToday
Story data:
by quantman07 at 3/29/2011 10:03:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:03:26 PM" ) )4:03 PM
-
Sorry, here it is:
by quantman07 at 3/29/2011 10:03:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:03:15 PM" ) )4:03 PM
-
@matsuoko: on the shot you provide, I guess that huge big black / greenish thing accross the top of this mess is what's remaining of the refuelling crane and I guess it's laying on the vessel head somewhere in the middle.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:02:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:02:58 PM" ) )4:02 PM
-
@Jo Lindien Kyodo News mentioned sand bags and concrete blocks. To make concrete blocks you need to mix cement with an aggregate, therefore you need the mixer trucks. Makes sense to me. Plus, with the mixer truck's pump is easier to lay the concrete exactly where it is needed. But I'm only extrapolating from the information.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 10:02:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:02:51 PM" ) )4:02 PM
-
by
openmind via
Pointscope01.jp at 3/29/2011 10:02:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:02:48 PM" ) )4:02 PM
-
The link is not working but here is the headline:
by quantman07 at 3/29/2011 10:02:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:02:39 PM" ) )4:02 PM
-
@Matsuoko The thought a few days back (when we sa a variant of the photo you posted, in another zoom I guess) was that they may need the cement mixer + the big crane to put huge amounts of cement on one or more reactors as their last option.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 10:02:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:02:18 PM" ) )4:02 PM
-
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 10:02:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:02:07 PM" ) )4:02 PM
-
@Salvador : well okay, i did not want to discuss it, but i mean the pump does not have a mixing device, and i do not think that they need a mixing truck for spray water - but it doesn't really matter.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 10:00:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:00:35 PM" ) )4:00 PM
-
@Salvador: OK, was wrong then... Did not notice the yellow pump...
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 10:00:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 10:00:02 PM" ) )4:00 PM
-
I remember there was a site that told you the current temperatures (Or most recently taken) of the reactors. Does anyone have that link?
by Natalie at 3/29/2011 9:59:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:59:51 PM" ) )3:59 PM
-
I think that they are now when the situation calms all pollution switch to the sea . That is why this blog should not stop working and should continue to warn of contamination.
by oli333 at 3/29/2011 9:59:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:59:38 PM" ) )3:59 PM
-
judging from the height of the trucks, there is merely 3 meters left from that reactor 3 building. faszinating
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:58:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:58:48 PM" ) )3:58 PM
-
by
Salvador via
I.imgur at 3/29/2011 9:58:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:58:45 PM" ) )3:58 PM
-
@Matsuoko: the concrete pump is the one of the concrete mixing trunk, if I understood well. @Pedro Jesus: what was said (or what I understood) is that they did drop cement and sand bags to contain water, not that they did mix them.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:58:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:58:31 PM" ) )3:58 PM
-
@matsuoko Beton pump truck Brilliant!!
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 9:58:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:58:27 PM" ) )3:58 PM
-
@Gordon Thanks. I was trying to reconcile your theory with the leaking water issue. I'm still generally stumped as to how water is leaking while pressure is constant...
by Jay77 at 3/29/2011 9:57:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:57:21 PM" ) )3:57 PM
-
@Matsuoko Indeed. They have been laying cement in and around the trenches where contaminated water was found to prevent it from leaking into the ocean. That was reported yesterday in several news agencies.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:56:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:56:31 PM" ) )3:56 PM
-
@Jo Lindien : ;) ty, i know, but i wanted to say there is a difference between beton pump truck and beton mixing truck.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:56:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:56:16 PM" ) )3:56 PM
-
@jo the pic is the 21st though
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 9:56:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:56:07 PM" ) )3:56 PM
-
Keep yor eyes open for venting to come
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:55:54 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:55:54 PM" ) )3:55 PM
-
unit 1 concerns; in tepco report Tokyo Electric Power Company has begun pouring more fresh water into the
No.1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to cool it down.
TEPCO says the surface temperature of the No.1 reactor rose from 212.8
degrees Celsius as of 6 AM on Monday to 329.3 degrees 20 hours later.
It blames heat generated by the reactor's nuclear fuel. The reactor is designed
to operate up to 302 degrees under normal conditions.
The power company raised the volume of water into the reactor from 113
liters a minute to 141 liters at 8 PM on Monday. As a result, it says, the
reactor's temperature fell to 323.3 degrees as of 6 AM on Tuesday
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:55:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:55:21 PM" ) )3:55 PM
-
@Matsuoko: From NISA report : (#3)"Water spray of approximately 100t using Concrete Pump Truck (50t/h) was carried out. (From 12:34 till 14:36 March 27th)"
(#4) "Spray of around 150t of water using Concrete Pump Truck (50t/h) was
carried out. (from 17:17 till 20:32 March 22nd)
Spray of around 130t of water using Concrete Pump Truck (50t/h) was
carried out. (From 10:00 till 13:02 March 23rd)
・ Spray of around 150t of water using Concrete Pump Truck (50t/h) was
carried out. (From 14:36 till 17:30 March 24th)
・ Spray of around 150t of water using Concrete Pump Truck (50t/h) was
carried out. (From 19:05 till 22:07 March 25th)
"
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:55:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:55:03 PM" ) )3:55 PM
-
from this perspective, one should be able to see the vessel head, but i can't see it.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:54:43 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:54:43 PM" ) )3:54 PM
-
@Matsuoko Or for mixing in boron?
by es at 3/29/2011 9:54:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:54:42 PM" ) )3:54 PM
-
@matsuoko does this help?
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 9:54:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:54:33 PM" ) )3:54 PM
-
well, i don't know. could be - could not be.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:52:30 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:52:30 PM" ) )3:52 PM
-
@Jo Lindien : i don't think these are for spraying. i think they are really mixing beton.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:50:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:50:55 PM" ) )3:50 PM
-
@Matsuoko Indeed, this is an interestin photo- another variant has been public for days though, the cement mixer + crane situation was discussed in the reuters liveblog.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 9:50:37 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:50:37 PM" ) )3:50 PM
-
@elainekirk : thanks. the "*" was the problem, i think.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:50:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:50:08 PM" ) )3:50 PM
-
@Matsuoko: yes, they use beton pumps to spread water on #3 & #4 spent fuel pools (50 tonnes / hour !)
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:49:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:49:46 PM" ) )3:49 PM
-
@Jay77 Hi Jay, that would seem unlikely as it has been reported that the pressure is stable even at times of no water injection, my guess is that investigations will find a ceramic like top layer of corium that is maintaining pressure.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 9:49:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:49:38 PM" ) )3:49 PM
-
@matsuoko
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 9:49:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:49:28 PM" ) )3:49 PM
-
@Matsuoko Great shot! From that I think you can clearly see the straight line with steam rising from it which must be the lip of the SFP.
by RadioGuy at 3/29/2011 9:49:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:49:26 PM" ) )3:49 PM
-
there are beton mixer trucks.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:48:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:48:32 PM" ) )3:48 PM
-
i don't get the picture. sorry. interesting one. quite near to #3.
www.voanews.com
#
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:47:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:47:07 PM" ) )3:47 PM
-
@Lethbridgean Yes the rods were only exposed for an hour but that was immediately after the reactor was brought to criticality after some period of time (12 - 24 hours?) during which it was non critical and thus allowed the build up of 135Xe (a potent neutron absorber). At the start of that "hour of exposure" a considerable amount of 135Xe was still in the fuel rods, it was consumed by the chain reaction causing the reaction to run wild, the rest is history ...
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 9:45:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:45:59 PM" ) )3:45 PM
-
@Jay77: what I think is that some water could leak out in the building basement. The steam pressure would go down until air can flow through the hole then the pressure would come back very quickly to the atmospheric pressure, and so on. Quite like if you take a bottle with some water inside and return it vertically, bottleneck down: try it !
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:45:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:45:46 PM" ) )3:45 PM
-
@Jim Carver Enjoy !
by Treiagonaut at 3/29/2011 9:44:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:44:39 PM" ) )3:44 PM
-
@Treiagonaut I'll try it. I was looking for something to do.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 9:43:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:43:59 PM" ) )3:43 PM
-
I have found this scientific paper as well. Reactions of Plutonium Dioxide with Water and Oxygen-Hydrogen Mixtures: Mechanisms for Corrosion of Uranium and Plutonium
www.osti.gov . Its far beyond my knowledge in chemistry. any takers ?
by Treiagonaut at 3/29/2011 9:42:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:42:51 PM" ) )3:42 PM
-
I have sort of a basic science question... If corium leaked out, then cooled, sealing a crack in the RPV but allowing water to flow through pores in the material (as in @Gordon's theory from about an hour ago), is it possible for water to be leak out toward the bottom while the air pressure is maintained above, as long as the water level stays above the hole? Does a constant supply of water prevent the pressurized air from leaking or losing pressure?
by Jay77 at 3/29/2011 9:42:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:42:39 PM" ) )3:42 PM
-
@Matsuoko: yep; and I did a mistake: it's Cadarache. Was just looking at the wikipedia page: it's just at the place where the biggest earthquake as ever been recorded in France (6.2 Richter in 1909)
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:40:53 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:40:53 PM" ) )3:40 PM
-
@Jim Carver : fusion reactors maybe interesting when colonizing Mars, but here on Earth ... i don't believe it. but we may need the technique some day.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:40:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:40:50 PM" ) )3:40 PM
-
@Matsuoko. I know what you mean! I couldn't believe what I was reading. Unreal.
by Scillak at 3/29/2011 9:40:41 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:40:41 PM" ) )3:40 PM
-
maybe thorium is safer? China and India want to use it.
by sublimator at 3/29/2011 9:40:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:40:40 PM" ) )3:40 PM
-
@Salvador True also, power generation should be more DE-centralized. Home grown power, that's the future. And yes, I do have a wind generator.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 9:39:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:39:24 PM" ) )3:39 PM
-
@Jim Carver Well, they are building two nuclear fusion power plants, aren't they? One in France and one in Japan. I'm not sure when these two prototypes will be ready, though. The investment was insane. I think the way to go is renewable energy sources.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:39:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:39:14 PM" ) )3:39 PM
-
@Matsuoko @Matsuoko - spontanious regeneration, everyone can rest now, move along. LOL.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:39:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:39:02 PM" ) )3:39 PM
-
I just came back, still lurking, but you can add another state on the US map, I heard on our news this morning and it is in Iowa.
by one time at 3/29/2011 9:39:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:39:00 PM" ) )3:39 PM
-
@Scillak : ;) ;) ;) slowly recovering ... i see the rods fixing themselves ....
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:37:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:37:21 PM" ) )3:37 PM
-
@sims @Pedro Maybe, but never will get there doing it like this. This is nowhere. See all the dots on the map where reactors are? Those are high level nuclear waste sites and will be for millenia.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 9:37:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:37:18 PM" ) )3:37 PM
-
@Jim I'm with you, the problem is that Fusion power will be controlled by the same a''hats that have made Fukushima possible. I'm against those corrupt corporations controlling the energy markets. That's the problem I see with fusion power- It can only work as BIG industry. Socialize the fusion reactors and I'm all for it.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 9:36:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:36:25 PM" ) )3:36 PM
-
Clarification: Saw some posts about the Swedish authorities rec to take Iodine - the recommendation was made the 17th (I think) and withdrawn today as they think that the risk of further big emissions are lower
by Jill in Sweden at 3/29/2011 9:35:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:35:49 PM" ) )3:35 PM
-
For any Spanish speakers, this was posted earlier by spanish_reader - a very informative online Q&A from today with Spanish nuclear physicist Julio Gutierrez:
www.burbuja.info Dunno what sense Google translator makes of it but they're working on providing an English translation.
by es at 3/29/2011 9:35:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:35:16 PM" ) )3:35 PM
-
by Scillak at 3/29/2011 9:35:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:35:03 PM" ) )3:35 PM
-
@Jim Carver We're still a long way from nuclear fusion power plants.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:34:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:34:51 PM" ) )3:34 PM
-
@Jim Carver - afaik fusion as it is designed currently does generate nuclear waste, although nowhere near the scale fission generators do.. also it will likely never work on an economic scale
by sims at 3/29/2011 9:34:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:34:11 PM" ) )3:34 PM
-
@Jo - this is whats happening to those poor souls in Japan too. They seem to be discussing widening the exclusion Zone though, but dragging there feet. I am afraid I only comment on the simpler issues - but am getting quite clued up on all the techy stuff too. thanks all
by fiona at 3/29/2011 9:34:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:34:01 PM" ) )3:34 PM
-
@Jo Lindien : i meant caradache, but iter is easier to write.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:34:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:34:00 PM" ) )3:34 PM
-
@Jo Lindien Yes, that was the trend back then. I remember. We had to avoid buying food products originated from France because officially there was no risk of them being contaminated so they were available in the market.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:33:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:33:40 PM" ) )3:33 PM
-
@Salvador Fusion is where we need to go and not waste time, money, the planet on this. The only radiation produced would be relatively small. Only light molecules with short half-lives like tritium.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 9:33:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:33:06 PM" ) )3:33 PM
-
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:32:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:32:52 PM" ) )3:32 PM
-
@Salvador : safer and cleaner ..... heard that before .....
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:32:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:32:51 PM" ) )3:32 PM
-
@Salvador: fusion is safer... but when you use it ! They were numerous incident in the Superphenix experimental fusion reactor; it never ran properly; one of the goal of ITER is to replace Superphenix... Note that ITER is not running but Caradache, where it will be, is a huge and old experimental plant.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:32:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:32:27 PM" ) )3:32 PM
-
The webcam can people see the two horizontal layers of ? to the right of the tower just below horizon
www.tepco.co.jpby elainekirk at 3/29/2011 9:32:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:32:08 PM" ) )3:32 PM
-
@Matsuoko- exactly. Was reported that radio rain fell near Boston on sunday.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:31:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:31:49 PM" ) )3:31 PM
-
@Matsuoko Wrong choice of words. I meant radioactive rain.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:31:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:31:16 PM" ) )3:31 PM
-
coal plants make acid rain - nuke plants make radio rain.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:30:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:30:31 PM" ) )3:30 PM
-
@Matsuoko ITER isn't even running now. And it will be a FUSION reactor, not a FISSION reactor like Fukushima. FUSION is actually much saver and cleaner.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 9:29:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:29:33 PM" ) )3:29 PM
-
@marie thankyou
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 9:29:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:29:27 PM" ) )3:29 PM
-
@Matsuoko- Yes your right, its caused by sulfur dioxide. I think he meant radiation rain.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:28:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:28:59 PM" ) )3:28 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus: I know most of the western europe has been contaminated by Chernobyl explosion. But the official speech in France has always been: "the nuclear cloud stopped at the border" (that's exactly the word they used !). That's why the CRIIRAD association was created, just after, to have an independant source of informations and monitoring about nuclear radiation in France. But the official speech is still that nothing bad related to nuclear has ever happened in France and will never happen. What about the atmospheric nuclear tests that was done ? No thread, no radiation...
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:28:53 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:28:53 PM" ) )3:28 PM
-
@moderator sorry screwed up link for treiagaunt link Jo Lindien @Pedro Jesus You might find this interesting www.thefreelibrary.com
by Treiagonaut at 3/29/2011 9:19:09 PM4:19
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:28:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:28:42 PM" ) )3:28 PM
-
@capt et al about measured levels - todays ZMAG update has a table in the lower section (not the dispersion pics) sacramento and other places - @Jojo and @marie rich perhaps you already commented on these
www.zamg.ac.atby Jill in Sweden at 3/29/2011 9:27:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:27:10 PM" ) )3:27 PM
-
@ Moderator *Report* 29Mar 4:00; analyzing data on plant parameters: #1> temp and pressure in RPV has increased since ystdy. Dyrwell pressure is lower than operating press. by almost half. Suppression pool (or s/chamber) has risen a bit. #2.) RPV pressure is realatively stable at a very low value, temp is increasing. S/P remains down scale/under survey. #3.) RPV pressure is increasing slightly, temp fairly stable. < normal operating pressure of RPV= 0.42747mPa; normal operating pressure of drywell=0.485mPa, drywell max=0.528mPa: all values given at absolute pressure> *opinion* data supports breach of #2 RPV; data indicates leak of containment in #3; Data indicates potentially more trouble in #1*
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 7:02:55 PM2:02 PM
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:26:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:26:08 PM" ) )3:26 PM
-
@MODERATOR this link provided y teiagonaut should maybe be included in data archive?
by marie rich edited by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 9:25:53 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:25:53 PM" ) )3:25 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus : acid rain is a different thing - nothing to do with radiation.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:25:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:25:24 PM" ) )3:25 PM
-
OFF TOPIC:
Qabalist teacher Ann Davies told a story about a U.S. Army general negotiating with a cannibal chief in New Guinea during World War II. The general wanted the chief to rally his tribe to help American troops fight the Japanese. The chief refused, calling the Americans immoral. The general was shocked. "We are not immoral!" he protested. "The Japanese are immoral!" The cannibal chief replied, "The Japanese and Americans are equally immoral. You both kill far more people than you can eat."
by Tenzing at 3/29/2011 9:24:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:24:26 PM" ) )3:24 PM
-
@Matsuoko: yes, you must be true ! ;)
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:24:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:24:05 PM" ) )3:24 PM
-
@Salvador - thought it was Darth Maul.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:24:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:24:02 PM" ) )3:24 PM
-
@Treiagonaut Extremely pertinent, esp. to our discussions on how to entomb if/when necessary.
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:23:54 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:23:54 PM" ) )3:23 PM
-
@Treiagonaut: thanks, then there will be a great problem when they will cover #3 fuel with water, the plutonium oxide will disolve and escape. Not good at all.... What about regular uranium fuel (not MOX) ?
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:23:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:23:33 PM" ) )3:23 PM
-
@Lethbridgean What, you don't like Death Eaters? How come?
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 9:23:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:23:05 PM" ) )3:23 PM
-
@Jo Lindien : because of the high background radiation from ITER or La Hague, peut-etre.
by Matsuoko at 3/29/2011 9:22:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:22:08 PM" ) )3:22 PM
-
@Jo Lindien I was 12 when the Chernobyl accident happened and that was not the case back then. The whole area of France was contaminated. Portugal, where I live, was one of the few that never got any contamination from the acid rains. I remember all the stress very well.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:22:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:22:00 PM" ) )3:22 PM
-
@Salvador - Exactly. Oh and your Avitar really freaks me out.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:21:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:21:35 PM" ) )3:21 PM
-
@Jo - I don't worry Tepco says it will be ok tomorrow!
by fiona at 3/29/2011 9:21:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:21:04 PM" ) )3:21 PM
-
@Jo Lindien You are forgetting about all the damage around there. One crack and the 3X+ Sieverts are actually NEAR the RPVs. What about the spend fuel pools? Remember the data from the helicopter flights? 87.7 milli/Sievert in 300 feet over the #3 building? That was direct radiation, not contaminated air! I wont do the math, but I read that this data amounts to 6 to 10 Sieverts near the reactor. s3.imgimg.de
by
Salvador via
S3.imgimg.de at 3/29/2011 9:19:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:19:32 PM" ) )3:19 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus thanks for that I have just had an epiphany - my brain has just got it
by fiona at 3/29/2011 9:19:30 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:19:30 PM" ) )3:19 PM
-
by Treiagonaut at 3/29/2011 9:19:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:19:09 PM" ) )3:19 PM
-
@all: if you fear radiations, come here, in France. I read today from a newspaper, they said from an official source, "radiations from Fukushima will be some low in France that they will not be detectable". As for Chernobyl, everyone in Europe can mesure radiations, but France seems to have a special protections: radiations don't come here ! Can you believe it ?
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:18:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:18:50 PM" ) )3:18 PM
-
@Jo Lindien If they are left exposed with no cooling source they will continue to heat up until they melt the encasing. That has probably have happened to some rods already. TEPCO admits some spent fuel and fuel rods might be compromised. Eventually the encasing could catch fire. But for the time being, at least half of the rods are submerged inside the spent fuel pools so the overall temperature is not high enough for anything really bad to happen.
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:17:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:17:08 PM" ) )3:17 PM
-
@Jo Lindien - From my research the fuel rods at chernobyl were exposed for 1 hour. How do you think you can get a slow cool down with air?
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:16:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:16:47 PM" ) )3:16 PM
-
@Gordon No, I didn't think you meant that it is easy to manage ;-) I was just curious if you had some other new input!
by Jill in Sweden at 3/29/2011 9:16:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:16:42 PM" ) )3:16 PM
-
@Bobby1 - if you visit here
www.nuc.berkeley.edu and go over to the FAQ, they mention in response to a question that they are now testing organic milk and veggies every two days. they don't say for how long they will test though.
by kaykod at 3/29/2011 9:15:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:15:11 PM" ) )3:15 PM
-
@Alice thanks, I'm a computer Luddite!
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:14:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:14:57 PM" ) )3:14 PM
-
@Alice thanks. very helpful.
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 9:14:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:14:45 PM" ) )3:14 PM
-
Here is the link about I-131 in Italy translated in english with google translator so you can read it:
translate.google.itby Alice at 3/29/2011 9:14:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:14:13 PM" ) )3:14 PM
-
@Jo Lindien sounds like more research, eh?
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:14:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:14:08 PM" ) )3:14 PM
-
@Jill in Sweden Hi Jill, I wasn't trying to say that the over all disaster and managing the 8 - 10 major damaged fuel positions is at all simple (far from it). I was just indicating that in the case of individual events with in the overall disaster the simplest scenario is the one we should look at first rather than the most complex. This goes back many years ago to a semester focusing on investigating engineering failures.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 9:12:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:12:59 PM" ) )3:12 PM
-
@Bobby1 yup. is going to be everywhere very soon. :P
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 9:12:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:12:57 PM" ) )3:12 PM
-
@Sin - its here in Scotland - no worries - it does help galvanize the mind thou!
by fiona at 3/29/2011 9:12:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:12:39 PM" ) )3:12 PM
-
@marie rich: one thing is that the fuel rods have been exposed to air / steam for almost 2 weeks now; I don't know what can happen in the long term in such conditions... May the burn ? May they slowly cool down ?
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:12:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:12:28 PM" ) )3:12 PM
-
I am having a heckuva time here estimating cesium deposition in US. My guess is 30-45 days before Imperial Valley California (lettuce, vegetables, alfalfa for dairy cows) is over EPA limit. VERY approximate. Attempting to base on ZAMG and EURAD.
by Bobby1 at 3/29/2011 9:12:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:12:25 PM" ) )3:12 PM
-
@marie rich - not the rods in the reactor but the ones in the spent fuel pool which is located above the reactor. Could somebody please post a pic of the layout of the building.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:12:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:12:11 PM" ) )3:12 PM
-
by Alice at 3/29/2011 9:12:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:12:01 PM" ) )3:12 PM
-
Geez...must be m hormones...I can just barely imagine what the people who live there are going through...But, I found this map. Its in at least 15 US states.
www.usatoday.comby Sin at 3/29/2011 9:10:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:10:27 PM" ) )3:10 PM
-
@Alice tahnks for update and hello
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:10:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:10:04 PM" ) )3:10 PM
-
@Alice do you have a link on that?
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 9:09:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:09:40 PM" ) )3:09 PM
-
one of the problems I have with the fuel rods being ejected is that the water at head in rvp is still high. something has to be causing that heat, esp. since they've continually doused it with seawater, etc.
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 9:09:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:09:28 PM" ) )3:09 PM
-
by Max at 3/29/2011 9:08:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:08:49 PM" ) )3:08 PM
-
Hi there! This is my first message :). Iodine I-131 0,98 becquerel/mc has been detected in Turin in Italy it seems the plume is travelling all around the north-emisphere now.
by Alice at 3/29/2011 9:08:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:08:40 PM" ) )3:08 PM
-
@Salvador: 36 Sv/h is not _near_, it's inside the reactor containment vessel, 1.4 is in the suppression chamber. I guess no one want (or even need, at this point) to go there now ! The highest level I've seen _near_ the reactor is the indication of having "more than 1000 mSv/h" in the #2 turbine chamber (and it's already really high).
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 9:08:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:08:33 PM" ) )3:08 PM
-
@Sin hugs. you're not an idiot. it is normal reaction under circumstances. we forgive you. LOL
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 9:06:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:06:45 PM" ) )3:06 PM
-
@Sin don't
by Jill in Sweden at 3/29/2011 9:06:43 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:06:43 PM" ) )3:06 PM
-
I feel like an idiot now.
by Sin at 3/29/2011 9:06:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:06:13 PM" ) )3:06 PM
-
ooppsss..I panicked, that was from 2009
by Sin at 3/29/2011 9:04:43 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:04:43 PM" ) )3:04 PM
-
by Sin at 3/29/2011 9:04:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:04:01 PM" ) )3:04 PM
-
@ Gordon difficult to try to catch up with this blog but I believe you said something about "why are there so many complicated theories here" so... what is your simple/more obvious theory for the chain of events? (perhaps it was posted and I missed it)
by Jill in Sweden at 3/29/2011 9:03:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:03:36 PM" ) )3:03 PM
-
@dp Do you see the spent fuel rods on that picture? (I don't know which pictures you are talking about specifically)
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 9:02:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:02:04 PM" ) )3:02 PM
-
Automakers face paint shortage after Japan quake ( paint made in only one plant in the world, in the evacuation zone)
www.edmontonjournal.comby Sin at 3/29/2011 9:01:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:01:27 PM" ) )3:01 PM
-
by
radioguy via
Pointscope01.jp at 3/29/2011 9:00:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:00:57 PM" ) )3:00 PM
-
www.nisa.meti.go .jp/english/files/en20110327-2-2.pdf
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 9:00:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:00:35 PM" ) )3:00 PM
-
@dp - I agree. The SFP was near the top of the building. Top 50 % does look like its gone.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 9:00:29 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:00:29 PM" ) )3:00 PM
-
[REFERENCE} Again, wikipedia article on "corium" contains a ton of fascinating physics/chemistry/nuclear on what is known about the lava-like material that forms during a meltdown. The URL gets broken when I post it here because it contains parentheses, so may have to tinker with it or just look up at wikipedia.org slash wiki slash Corium_(nuclear_reactor) . Here is the URL which will probably be broken:
en.wikipedia.org(nuclear_reactor)
by Sky at 3/29/2011 9:00:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 9:00:08 PM" ) )3:00 PM
-
@dp: that also seem obvious to me that #3 SFP is damaged. But in normal condition there would be ~10 meters of water above the fuel rods. Then it may be that the rods can still be under water... or not....
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:59:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:59:50 PM" ) )2:59 PM
-
*spent fuel pool in R3 i mean
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:59:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:59:34 PM" ) )2:59 PM
-
I don't think they CAN actually go near the RPVs. Remember the IAEA data about 30 to 50 Sieverts near them? It has since then nearly disappeared from the web... But not here: "The dose rate in the reactor containment vessel and suppression chamber continued to decrease to 36.1 sieverts per hour and 1.4 sieverts per hour, respectively, as of 13:00 UTC 26 March."
www.iaea.org by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:59:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:59:32 PM" ) )2:59 PM
-
no one can tell me that the fuel was not effected in R3...... seriously
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:59:19 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:59:19 PM" ) )2:59 PM
-
@Lethbridgean: the building itself is not needed to contain heat. All is needed is to be able to fill the reactor with water (which is still to be done) and make the water circulate to refresh it. Not so easy... sure...
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:58:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:58:24 PM" ) )2:58 PM
-
I mean a huge explosion of 1000 feet high must of cause one hell of amount of damage to R3 core and spent fuel pond......
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:58:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:58:10 PM" ) )2:58 PM
-
take a look at the pics of R3 spent fuel pond..... it's at least 1/4 to 1/2 gone..... height wise
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:57:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:57:14 PM" ) )2:57 PM
-
@es Thank you. Fitter could possibly ask his explosives experts this question later.
by Reed at 3/29/2011 8:56:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:56:46 PM" ) )2:56 PM
-
@dp What do you mean, gone?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 8:56:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:56:28 PM" ) )2:56 PM
-
I really believe that the plutonium released comes from #4 SFP: there were 2 fires here; fire is the worst thing that can happen in terms of radioactivity spread, just after a core explosion. And the reason, I think, the building ran into fire is that the SFP was overheating, outside of water, and that equipment around (crane, ...) were also overheating then their oil did self-inflamate; then I think #4 SFP has directly been on fire for some time. This would have lead to uranium and plutonium spread all around.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:55:54 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:55:54 PM" ) )2:55 PM
-
@Jo Lindien Concur. If primary was open i'd think we'd see higher radiation rates too
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:55:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:55:47 PM" ) )2:55 PM
-
US personnel are staying out of areas within 90 kilometers of the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, but they're providing supplies and equipment to cope with the crisis there.
www3.nhk.or.jpby Sin at 3/29/2011 8:55:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:55:16 PM" ) )2:55 PM
-
@Gordon - I would think the same as you but I still think we are not be told the truth ..... R3's spent fuel pool is nearly gone.... the fuel had to go somewhere....
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:55:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:55:14 PM" ) )2:55 PM
-
@Reed Yes, hadn't thought of that. Good obs.
by es at 3/29/2011 8:54:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:54:25 PM" ) )2:54 PM
-
@es The pressure of the air versus the pressure of the water at that location would surely be enough to split the fuel rod.
by Reed at 3/29/2011 8:53:19 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:53:19 PM" ) )2:53 PM
-
@dp It would seem unlikely that TEPCO can manage all 8 - 10 events and not let at least 1 get away from them BUT all things considered to get to 2 1/2 weeks and only be this bad is very very encouraging ... In short - I am quietly confident that we will not see the over all situation get much worse than now, sure it may take 12 months to some surety but that is my call.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 8:51:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:51:51 PM" ) )2:51 PM
-
@Sin thanks. sorry. so tired. just need check something then off. ttyl
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:51:41 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:51:41 PM" ) )2:51 PM
-
@radioguy - very good!
by openmind at 3/29/2011 8:51:37 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:51:37 PM" ) )2:51 PM
-
@openmind we're waiting for fitter to get back. He had a friend that is and was going to ask.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:50:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:50:39 PM" ) )2:50 PM
-
by Sin at 3/29/2011 8:50:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:50:36 PM" ) )2:50 PM
-
@Reed Wow!
by es at 3/29/2011 8:50:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:50:27 PM" ) )2:50 PM
-
With an explosion like 3's... would the reflected energy not cut an exposed fuel rod in half at the water/air interface location ?
by Reed at 3/29/2011 8:49:56 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:49:56 PM" ) )2:49 PM
-
by dean @ 12:32 PM
"I'm not an explosion expert.. but, that explosion in the photograph could easily be equated to .. how many tons of TNT equivalent is it.. and it's many many many .. the power it had.."
-
Are there any explosion experts in the house??
by openmind at 3/29/2011 8:49:29 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:49:29 PM" ) )2:49 PM
-
by Canadian at 3/29/2011 8:49:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:49:27 PM" ) )2:49 PM
-
@Jo Lindien - there isn't alot of building left to contain heat. Maybe on bldg. 2 that theory would hold water. Pun intended.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 8:48:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:48:34 PM" ) )2:48 PM
-
@dp: my think is: Worse Before Better
by MaryW at 3/29/2011 8:47:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:47:35 PM" ) )2:47 PM
-
@marie rich: from the pressure readings, there seem to be a leak from #2 surpression pool and a huge leak from #3 primary containment vessel. The good thing is that it does not seem to be leakages from the reactor pressure vessel itself, which mean there may be way to isolate the damaged parts to reduce / avoid the leakage while going on injecting water in the reactor code. The big question is time....
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:47:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:47:21 PM" ) )2:47 PM
-
Off the nuclear topic, an interesting theory on the Tsunami:
www.bbc.co.ukby Debra Beckham at 3/29/2011 8:47:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:47:21 PM" ) )2:47 PM
-
@Anyone- is there a good source for the progression of events at fukushima? that lists dates, times, and events in a good order? sorry, I need a nap but want to check something first.
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:46:56 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:46:56 PM" ) )2:46 PM
-
so where do you all think this is going to go?
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:45:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:45:01 PM" ) )2:45 PM
-
@Lethbridgean: yes, there's a lot of steam: early in the morning dew falling on a hot building is likely to produce steam; and there sure is hot water leak. But steam is not coming with huge "strength" as you can when using pressure cooker (which pressure is not so high) then I assume the steam is not directly released from the core.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:44:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:44:18 PM" ) )2:44 PM
-
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 8:43:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:43:58 PM" ) )2:43 PM
-
juat a thought, one of the steam plumes from that image collage looks like its under high pressure, sure that aint originating from the reactor vessel and not the SFP ?
by WolfDK at 3/29/2011 8:43:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:43:46 PM" ) )2:43 PM
-
@Gordon Interesting observations.
by es at 3/29/2011 8:43:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:43:45 PM" ) )2:43 PM
-
@Gordon it may be an opinion, but it sounds plausible.
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:43:26 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:43:26 PM" ) )2:43 PM
-
@Jo Lindien I agree, not fuel itself, but highly contaminated water from 2 and 3
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:42:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:42:57 PM" ) )2:42 PM
-
@Jeff The corem (corium?) at Chernobyl varies hugely, the surface layer of the "elephant's foot" was quite powdery but immediately beneath that insulating layer that cooled fairly quickly the corem was ceramic like and quite impervious and more than capable of solidifying and plugging cracks / burn through holes in the primary containment. It was also in places that were cooled quickly very porous hence it would not surprise me if we were to find a ceramic like layer sealing off most of the PCV from the injected water and allowing it to be very highly irradiated and drain freely through cracks / holes in the bottom PCV. The top skin of ceramic like corem could easily seal most of the vessel thus maintaining pressure. And yes as I have said before this is opinion only.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 8:42:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:42:11 PM" ) )2:42 PM
-
If you want to learn more about uranium and radioactivity I'm half way through this absolutely fascinating documentary about it.. an ex nuclear weapons lab worker whistleblows about it all
video.google.comby Indreba at 3/29/2011 8:41:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:41:57 PM" ) )2:41 PM
-
@Pedro Jesus chk back maybe 6-7 pages to see excellent work that nancy, openmind,sin and others did. good stuff
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:41:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:41:35 PM" ) )2:41 PM
-
@marie rich: yes; but I had the impression some here thought the plutonium was coming from inside the reactor. If what I say is correct, it would came from a spent fuel pool and would mean there's no, until now, direct leakage of the reactor fuel
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:41:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:41:28 PM" ) )2:41 PM
-
thanks indeed
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:41:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:41:03 PM" ) )2:41 PM
-
@marie rich - thanks
by openmind at 3/29/2011 8:40:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:40:31 PM" ) )2:40 PM
-
@openmind wow, i'm impressed!
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:39:41 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:39:41 PM" ) )2:39 PM
-
Hi all, were you just talking about one of the hydrogen explosions back there?
by Pedro Jesus at 3/29/2011 8:39:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:39:38 PM" ) )2:39 PM
-
@Dean- thanks. rest well.
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:38:44 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:38:44 PM" ) )2:38 PM
-
Indeed openmind. Thanks for reposting.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:38:20 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:38:20 PM" ) )2:38 PM
-
@Jo Lindien - I see a substantial amount of steam, Just look at the bottom of the page of the morning webcam shot.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 8:38:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:38:06 PM" ) )2:38 PM
-
@Jo Lindien your talking about 3, right? if so, seems we're coming to same conclusions
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:38:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:38:06 PM" ) )2:38 PM
-
@dean: thanks for sharinng your knowledge
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:38:04 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:38:04 PM" ) )2:38 PM
-
@George_Gibb, I'm going to be swamped today by a household matter, so will probably be offboard as long as 12 or 14 hours. Keep injecting. :o)
> just swamped today getting a report together for work - almost done
.
by alblee at 3/29/2011 8:37:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:37:58 PM" ) )2:37 PM
-
by
openmind via
I.imgur at 3/29/2011 8:37:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:37:50 PM" ) )2:37 PM
-
@Salvador: I think the reactor core vessel is intact, at least for the part above the water level. But the primary containment vessel is cleary broken / leaking water: it's pressure is atmospheric one and does not seem to vary. What we can hope is that it's broken near its bottom: in such a case, what is escaping would be only water and it's much easier to contain than steam.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:36:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:36:52 PM" ) )2:36 PM
-
@dean ...thanks
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 8:36:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:36:48 PM" ) )2:36 PM
-
I need to lay to rest for awhile.. it's been a long early day.. .will be back..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:36:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:36:45 PM" ) )2:36 PM
-
To contact N.E.I., 202.739.8000, or via e-mail at media@nei.org.
by Reed at 3/29/2011 8:34:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:34:58 PM" ) )2:34 PM
-
@Salvador - I agree, but I have to assume it was just the concrete shield plug and not the primary vessel, probably the drywell head IMHO.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 8:34:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:34:42 PM" ) )2:34 PM
-
I'm not an explosion expert.. but, that explosion in the photograph could easily be equated to .. how many tons of TNT equivalent is it.. and it's many many many .. the power it had..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:32:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:32:11 PM" ) )2:32 PM
-
@sims: if there were a vapor leak, it should be easily found: if it was a huge leak, that would mean there's a large breakage then vapor pressure would be near atmospheric pressure. If the breakage was not huge, the reactor would act as a pressure cooker and we would see a strong and fast steam stream coming from the breach.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:31:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:31:57 PM" ) )2:31 PM
-
@Jo Linden Have you seen the pictures from No. 3 I put together into a speculative "info"- graphic? Because they look like at least the steel vessel containment of #3 is gone.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:30:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:30:25 PM" ) )2:30 PM
-
Given the state of the reactor buildings and control rooms, how are they able to get pressure, water level and temperature readings?
by rox at 3/29/2011 8:30:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:30:14 PM" ) )2:30 PM
-
sims.. the steam is at some pressure in the vessel and you look at the photo's and they show some steam ejecting at pressure verses some just like a hot water pan..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:30:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:30:07 PM" ) )2:30 PM
-
re: circulation within rpv; unit 1 has a big temp difference between the top and bottom- 323.3c vs. 139.4c- don't think they have circ. unit 2 `has little diff in temp- think water is just flowing thru, in effect- circulating. unit 3 is difficult because one of the measuring devices is apparently inaccurate (under survey) but is showing a diff in temp. of 61.5c at top and 120.9c at bottom
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:29:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:29:49 PM" ) )2:29 PM
-
@dean - ty
by openmind at 3/29/2011 8:29:44 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:29:44 PM" ) )2:29 PM
-
yw jo
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:29:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:29:13 PM" ) )2:29 PM
-
very good one openmind.. that's what I'm talking about..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:29:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:29:10 PM" ) )2:29 PM
-
@dean: thanks.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:29:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:29:07 PM" ) )2:29 PM
-
@Jim Carver @Meretisa ... Agreed. I perhaps am not making myself clear, apologies. I need to work now but will post again as soon as I work out the correct phrasing to convey the principle of simplicity in terms engineering investigations. Uni was quite some years ago now but the principle involved having the appropriate expert analysis and weighting of disparate evidence then assembling that analysis in the simplest form first.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 8:28:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:28:46 PM" ) )2:28 PM
-
@Debra Beckham - One thing that I noticed was that a lot of the very heavy debris went straight up. I think that says something about how the force of the blast was focused from directly underneath these objects.
farm6.static.flickr.com
by
openmind via
Farm6.static.flickr at 3/29/2011 8:28:37 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:28:37 PM" ) )2:28 PM
-
and even for the water that's boiling off in the reactor - where does the steam go? have they been constantly letting that vent into the suppression pool? or if not, where would it have gone?
by sims at 3/29/2011 8:28:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:28:28 PM" ) )2:28 PM
-
JO is working the math correctly .. nice job
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:28:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:28:15 PM" ) )2:28 PM
-
@dean ...but the bottom line is...the re-circulation system isn't working AFAWK....(?)
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 8:28:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:28:08 PM" ) )2:28 PM
-
@Mary Mary Ok, they are using the "feed-water line". there. The principle is the same, the cooling circuits don't work.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:28:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:28:03 PM" ) )2:28 PM
-
any remark is welcome ! ;)
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:27:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:27:58 PM" ) )2:27 PM
-
@Salvador Yeah, pretty much. I think we prob hoping for better system at this point.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 8:27:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:27:55 PM" ) )2:27 PM
-
My conclusion is that the plutonium is likely to come from spent fuel pool. Maybe it has been ejected when #3 exploded, or it may have been released during the 2 fires in the #4 building.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:27:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:27:34 PM" ) )2:27 PM
-
@Jo Lindien - umm, No. I think your mistaken.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 8:27:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:27:32 PM" ) )2:27 PM
-
a simple way of looking at it is... they put some constant supply of water in and some water is lost through the production of vapor, water lost through leaks from unknown or identifiable sources, water losses in the event of a primary pressure relief valve lifting, and loss from some way of water getting back to circulation sytem... if there are any
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:26:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:26:55 PM" ) )2:26 PM
-
@Salvador ...according to IAEA...only #3 is using the fire line...
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 8:26:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:26:45 PM" ) )2:26 PM
-
@Meretisa I say in this case anything is worth a try. If you want help blasting agencies and the media I will be glad to help.
by Angela5pointo at 3/29/2011 8:26:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:26:18 PM" ) )2:26 PM
-
@Mary Mary How should they be able to re- circulate? All cooling sytems are still offline, they work with electrical pumps from outside the buildings. It's a "feed and bleed" approach, they pump water in via the fire line and it boils of again soo enough- or leaks into the lower parts of the reactor buildings, into the basement of the turbine building or into those obscure "trenches".
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:25:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:25:45 PM" ) )2:25 PM
-
#3 I think it's quite the same for this reactor for quite the same reasons. But we've got two more facts that make me think there's a large water leak from the PCV: PCV pressure is atmospheric one, when reactor and suppression chambers are not. Something else: NISA say they're injecting 200 l/min (twice compared to #2) and the level seems not to stabilize which means, in my opinion, the water leak is huge. The good new is that it's not likely that their's a breach in the reactor itself.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:25:19 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:25:19 PM" ) )2:25 PM
-
@All- the number for the National Nuclear Security Admin: 202-586-5000 and the number for the Department of Energy: 202-586-5200
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:25:18 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:25:18 PM" ) )2:25 PM
-
@Jim Carver ...exactly...
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 8:24:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:24:42 PM" ) )2:24 PM
-
@dean: I don't get it. If you put more water in, then the level should rise. By the values they published, they put it huge amounts of water, why isn't the level rising? I mean it's scary how stable it is, basically the same value every day.
by Jeff at 3/29/2011 8:24:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:24:39 PM" ) )2:24 PM
-
it depends on what system in the plant they use to inject as to what pressure it is at.. they do have high and low pressure injection systems...
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:24:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:24:34 PM" ) )2:24 PM
-
@MaryMary Noticed they always say "injecting", is that translational flaw or no?
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 8:24:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:24:01 PM" ) )2:24 PM
-
Mary Mary... I think.. that it is going in .. but I am not certain of the mechanish they may have to recirculate.. there are probably other pumps that could be used for some sort of auxillary system...
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:23:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:23:58 PM" ) )2:23 PM
-
@Jo Lindien normal operating pressure of rpv is 0.42747 mPa , absolute pressure
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:23:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:23:49 PM" ) )2:23 PM
-
jeff.. water in .. = more than water out... water out .. .as long as that balance remains level.. the vessel level will be ok
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:23:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:23:08 PM" ) )2:23 PM
-
@Jo Linden Regarding reactor #2 the "damage" to the surpression chamber is a officiall "possibility". ;-)
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:22:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:22:49 PM" ) )2:22 PM
-
@Dean....IAEA report today says they are "injecting" water into all 3 reactors...is that water being recirculated, or just running through? Or do we know?
by MaryMary at 3/29/2011 8:22:40 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:22:40 PM" ) )2:22 PM
-
@Jo Lindien But that can't continue for long. If you're right. Right?
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 8:22:23 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:22:23 PM" ) )2:22 PM
-
Can I remind you about the static record of this list that @Brad is creating, if pointing people then the static may be a good place to start them off
www.poudreinternetservice.comby elainekirk at 3/29/2011 8:22:03 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:22:03 PM" ) )2:22 PM
-
@dean: Do you have any idea why the water level in the reactor is so stable? Either it's leaking (then it would go down?) or it's not, but why don't they fill it up then?
by Jeff at 3/29/2011 8:21:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:21:14 PM" ) )2:21 PM
-
#2 reactor upper part (above water level) is likely to be intact: pressure is low. If there were a breach there, it would be near atmospheric pressure. I think now the pressure is low because water is leaking: the mass of water going down is lowering the pressure of the steam. PCV pressure is athmospheric pressure, the explosion is supposed to come from the suppression chamber. This with the low pressure makes me sure the leak comes from the suppression chamber.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:21:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:21:11 PM" ) )2:21 PM
-
@Jo Lindien correct. temp at nozzle is high, s/p press. rising, rpv pressure is above normal operation. venting is probably either happening in small amounts, or going to have to be done on larger scale soon
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:20:45 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:20:45 PM" ) )2:20 PM
-
@Meresita They will just block your IP. Why bother with the people who are responsible for this desaster? If we have SOLID new information or at least very good and plausible speculation we could send it to some media outlet. Huffington post (despite their woo) or LA times. Something like that.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:20:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:20:13 PM" ) )2:20 PM
-
I'm watching - just swamped today getting a report together for work - almost done
by George Gibb at 3/29/2011 8:19:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:19:50 PM" ) )2:19 PM
-
NEI.. national energy institute was at the hearings as well. they would be excellent..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:19:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:19:27 PM" ) )2:19 PM
-
@dp True enough, but given the high levels they've seen in the water, if they have to admit that, imagine the psychological impact.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:19:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:19:07 PM" ) )2:19 PM
-
DOE.. they are studying things and trying to figure things out.. .maybe there too
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:19:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:19:06 PM" ) )2:19 PM
-
meretisa... from the NRC this morning on the senate hearings.. they are doing a 90 day report,, that would be a good place...
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:18:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:18:51 PM" ) )2:18 PM
-
@ALL- could someone look up who we should contact? Make a list of places, numbers and then we'll blast them with info?? Thoughts?
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:18:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:18:02 PM" ) )2:18 PM
-
@radioguy will it matter when all three R's melt? I dont see it as the biggest issue right now...
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:17:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:17:39 PM" ) )2:17 PM
-
George, you sould tell them the news about scribble ceo, etc
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:17:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:17:35 PM" ) )2:17 PM
-
#1 reactor is tight as it's containment vessel and suppression pool: temperature is high, water level is low then the high pressure is likely to be due to a large amount of steam. No pression leak: if there were, there would be a fast steam stream.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:17:13 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:17:13 PM" ) )2:17 PM
-
@Debra That part could be everything. A plate from the roof. A cement plate from atop the containment vessel. The lid of the containment vessel. A big chunk of the crane. We can't know and we will never know.
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:17:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:17:05 PM" ) )2:17 PM
-
@Jim Carver yes.
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:16:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:50 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
@dp The retaining trench for R1 is nearly full. It overflows into the sea.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:16:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:39 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
@dean AGREED!!!
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:16:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:39 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
@Meretisa Makes a difference in understanding when you look from a polar view, huh?
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 8:16:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:33 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
I really think George and others should contact the nuclear agencies and tell them of this most valuable place.. many peoples eyes are watching but only a few of theirs are..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:16:14 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:14 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
@Meretisa ZANG plume - This scenario would reflect the reported situation of a partial meltdown with an intact shell (containment).
by Bobby1 at 3/29/2011 8:16:12 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:12 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
@Debra Beckham yes @nancy and others have been analyzing. look back maybe 4-5 pages for good pics
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:16:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:10 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
i dont understand why the fuss about excess water when they have many more urget issue at this time
by dp at 3/29/2011 8:16:00 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:16:00 PM" ) )2:16 PM
-
and they are trying to contain the excess loss of water.. to recirculate..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:15:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:15:07 PM" ) )2:15 PM
-
yep
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:14:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:14:47 PM" ) )2:14 PM
-
@dean, think of a sieve with small holes you want keep filled at a fixed level with water!
by Peter Melzer at 3/29/2011 8:14:17 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:14:17 PM" ) )2:14 PM
-
@all: the speculation about plutonium coming from #3 reactor seem to contradict the fact we have. Or the mesure Tepco / Nisa give are false. Let me explain what I understand, after looking at the mesure and their evolution.
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:13:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:13:47 PM" ) )2:13 PM
-
@Dean the s/p pressure went up frrom 0.270mPa to 0.285mPa since ystdy
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:13:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:13:38 PM" ) )2:13 PM
-
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:13:16 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:13:16 PM" ) )2:13 PM
-
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:12:31 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:12:31 PM" ) )2:12 PM
-
yw Jo
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:12:30 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:12:30 PM" ) )2:12 PM
-
complicating that all.. damage to systems piping, or structural components from earthquake.. it just is a drain or loss of coolant path that is over come by makeup
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:12:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:12:24 PM" ) )2:12 PM
-
@Gordon My procedure as well. Main trouble here is weeding through the mire. Most of us here have a large amount of skepticism about what we are being told. Too many times we have found that our mis-trust was born out to be right. Of course, the proper corrections were made later.
by Jim Carver at 3/29/2011 8:12:07 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:12:07 PM" ) )2:12 PM
-
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:11:52 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:11:52 PM" ) )2:11 PM
-
@dean: thanks for the answer about #3 reactor
by Jo Lindien at 3/29/2011 8:11:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:11:51 PM" ) )2:11 PM
-
Curiosity is getting the best of me! Anyone else catch the large chunk falling from the Reactor 3 explosion? 12 seconds into the 20 second video. Still shot:
www.flickr.comby Debra Beckham at 3/29/2011 8:11:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:11:42 PM" ) )2:11 PM
-
@dean: Do you have any explanation for why the water level in the reactor is so stable? I mean, if it were leaking, wouldn't it go down, and if it's not leaking, why don't they top it up?
by Jeff at 3/29/2011 8:11:32 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:11:32 PM" ) )2:11 PM
-
vessel pressure up... relief lifts, tarus pressure up.. that sequence.. then if tarus pressure goes up .. relieve to outside..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:11:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:11:25 PM" ) )2:11 PM
-
remember the safety relief valve on the primary system relieves to the tarus.. and those valves, provided they work, operate automatically ..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:10:51 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:10:51 PM" ) )2:10 PM
-
yes meretisa...
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:10:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:10:06 PM" ) )2:10 PM
-
be save nancy
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:09:56 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:09:56 PM" ) )2:09 PM
-
@dean from what I have seen... I am fairly certain that things have already "dispersed" globally. I have a couple sites I've been monitoriing. Will post shortly. Thanks.
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:09:48 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:09:48 PM" ) )2:09 PM
-
@Nancy tip of the hat to your good work
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:09:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:09:38 PM" ) )2:09 PM
-
Gone for about 3-4 hours. If anyone has more ideas/feedback on the explosion video catch me then or put it in the wiki and I will check it tonight
fukushimafaq.wikispaces.comby Nancy at 3/29/2011 8:09:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:09:06 PM" ) )2:09 PM
-
@Dean increase in nozzle indicate overpressurized steam?
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:08:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:08:39 PM" ) )2:08 PM
-
Meretisa.. monitoring and plotting the data from the reactors is very valuable and updating reports for changes... then keep posting updates on the links up above for radioactivity... conversions, units, health risks etc..
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:08:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:08:27 PM" ) )2:08 PM
-
With the increase in temperature at Unit 1, there has been a corresponding increase in Drywell pressure. At Unit 1, there has been an increase in temperature at the feed-water nozzle of the RPV from 273.8 °C to 299 °C. The temperature at the bottom of the RPV remained stable at 135 °C.
www.iaea.orgby Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:07:33 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:07:33 PM" ) )2:07 PM
-
@markfm Thanks to you I got it at all!
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:07:23 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:07:23 PM" ) )2:07 PM
-
@markfm Taht's bitterly true.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:07:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:07:21 PM" ) )2:07 PM
-
@Sin # 2 is the most intact. #1 doesn't have a roof anymore.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 8:07:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:07:02 PM" ) )2:07 PM
-
@Marie -- Probably took until now for IAEA to get the TEPCO data.
by markfm at 3/29/2011 8:06:57 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:06:57 PM" ) )2:06 PM
-
@Dean- so, again, where can we direct our energy/insight to continue to remain ahead of things now that some of our stuff is confirmed?
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:06:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:06:47 PM" ) )2:06 PM
-
no the top floor is off
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:06:24 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:06:24 PM" ) )2:06 PM
-
@All- again. I feel privileged to be part of this group. Thank you all.
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:06:20 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:06:20 PM" ) )2:06 PM
-
that's it radioguy... your right.. it poses least threat going right outside.. just like in @2 building with hold in the side.and some evidence of roof leaks.. ,, that I'm saying is inside the building area itself.. if there is a hyrdrogen producing reaction and some pocket in a room can't vent then maybe maybe
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:06:11 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:06:11 PM" ) )2:06 PM
-
@Joshua Diamond [ofc] That's a perfect example of a "limited hang-out". TEPCO has released information they know to be true (plutonium from uranium nuclear reactions) to throw questioners off the trail of Reactor #3.
by James Ward at 3/29/2011 8:06:05 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:06:05 PM" ) )2:06 PM
-
@you No wait, we re talking about number 1, isn;t it still somewhat intact?
by Sin at 3/29/2011 8:05:58 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:05:58 PM" ) )2:05 PM
-
@marie rich Yes you can!!
by Meretisa at 3/29/2011 8:05:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:05:50 PM" ) )2:05 PM
-
Yes
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:05:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:05:46 PM" ) )2:05 PM
-
@elainekirk Can I pat myself on the back that I beat IAEA on the analysis?
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:05:36 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:05:36 PM" ) )2:05 PM
-
@radioguy true
by Sin at 3/29/2011 8:05:15 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:05:15 PM" ) )2:05 PM
-
If the venting apparatus is not damaged, there's no enclosing building any more, so the risk of a hydrogen explosion would at least be minimal.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:04:44 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:04:44 PM" ) )2:04 PM
-
In the venting process they risk another explosion, as some fission has likely occurred, creating hydrogen, which reacts explosively with oxygen.
by Sin at 3/29/2011 8:04:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:04:25 PM" ) )2:04 PM
-
@Jim Carver Fair comment Jim, and I too am very naive in the ways of politics, heck I'm an engineer! but as an engineer we tend to break problems down to the simplest possible scenario first and then work forward from there to the more complex and less likely. And yes we engineers are acutely aware how that view point can at times work against us but many more times than not it works for us.
by Gordon at 3/29/2011 8:03:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:03:59 PM" ) )2:03 PM
-
I think the venting, when they do it.. will just go out to the outside of the building,,and,,,, I kind of thing the production of hydrogen from zirc-water ignition is lower in probability... and they are keeping the pools fed with water
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:03:50 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:03:50 PM" ) )2:03 PM
-
@Salvador That would be the best guess.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:03:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:03:27 PM" ) )2:03 PM
-
@ Peter, the trajectories are on two fairly even planes so moved or flipped you have the same lines. I need to find an overhead shot, would make it easier to show.
by Nancy at 3/29/2011 8:03:08 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:03:08 PM" ) )2:03 PM
-
That vapor/steam comes from No. 3. Correct?
by Salvador at 3/29/2011 8:02:46 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:02:46 PM" ) )2:02 PM
-
Early morning steam, not a lot of wind.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:02:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:02:10 PM" ) )2:02 PM
-
Vapor plume catching the first light
by Sky at 3/29/2011 8:02:02 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:02:02 PM" ) )2:02 PM
-
Lots of steam in that pic it looks like.
by Sin at 3/29/2011 8:01:49 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:01:49 PM" ) )2:01 PM
-
IAEA have just tweeted this as "NEW" though
www.iaea.org IAEA Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident (29 March 2011, 16:30 UTC)
On Tuesday, 29 March 29
by elainekirk at 3/29/2011 8:01:35 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:01:35 PM" ) )2:01 PM
-
by
VeenOui via
Pointscope01.jp at 3/29/2011 8:01:21 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:01:21 PM" ) )2:01 PM
-
true lethbridgean
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:01:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:01:09 PM" ) )2:01 PM
-
@Sin I hadn't thought of that. We know they declined to harden them. We saw the document.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 8:01:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:01:06 PM" ) )2:01 PM
-
@Nancy That was my point Nancy, thanks.
by Sin at 3/29/2011 8:00:59 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:00:59 PM" ) )2:00 PM
-
@dean - I read the info that Marie rich listed as a positive sign that the primary containment is still intact. If there is wind then there is a low probability of another boom from venting.
by Lethbridgean at 3/29/2011 8:00:42 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:00:42 PM" ) )2:00 PM
-
I believe they still have mechanisms to vent
by dean at 3/29/2011 8:00:39 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:00:39 PM" ) )2:00 PM
-
@Sin, there was a story posted this morning that TEPCO used standard metal vent pipe not the hardened variety required in the US.
by Nancy at 3/29/2011 8:00:34 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:00:34 PM" ) )2:00 PM
-
That was before they blew up.
by Sin at 3/29/2011 8:00:10 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:00:10 PM" ) )2:00 PM
-
@dean I believe they had problems with a stuck venting valve back around the 22nd or 23rd. Don't know if ever resolved. But it could be a reason why #3 pressue is low
by marie rich at 3/29/2011 8:00:06 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 8:00:06 PM" ) )2:00 PM
-
they have vented when the winds are strongly & sustained out to sea.
by elise at 3/29/2011 7:59:47 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:59:47 PM" ) )1:59 PM
-
That is, if the venting mechanisms are not damaged. Seems that they did not upgrade their vents to be hardened. This proves the point that the instability of the situation demands a further evacuation zone.
by Sin at 3/29/2011 7:59:25 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:59:25 PM" ) )1:59 PM
-
They still have the contradictory dilemma of Vent or cool/Cool or keep the trench from overflowing.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 7:58:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:58:55 PM" ) )1:58 PM
-
I would like to see a air sampling crew ready to pick up any release for radioactive materials at each vent...
by dean at 3/29/2011 7:58:01 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:58:01 PM" ) )1:58 PM
-
@markfm earlier.. so if it goes boom... Tepco can say "small explosion no worries... they are designed for this"
by dp at 3/29/2011 7:57:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:57:55 PM" ) )1:57 PM
-
I would expect that if they want to vent they somehow do it at 4:59 am, before the camera goes live again.
by markfm at 3/29/2011 7:57:09 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:57:09 PM" ) )1:57 PM
-
yes dp.. venting is available to ward off over pressurizing..
by dean at 3/29/2011 7:56:55 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:56:55 PM" ) )1:56 PM
-
@es Got me. It does run together a bit. I'm half playing attention anyway, listening to a bunch of J-Pop for my show this afternoon.
by radioguy at 3/29/2011 7:56:38 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:56:38 PM" ) )1:56 PM
-
@Nancy, I am back. So the pic. with the trajectories is #2, If you move that over to three, one of them points directly at the field where they found the sole sample with plutonium. I wonder who drew the lines on top the blueprint for the location of the samples. I also wonder what the dots mean. The locations fit quite well with your reconstruction. Now I cannot find anymore where the location of the two samples were that showed absolutely positive evidence for reactor material according to the operator.
by Peter Melzer at 3/29/2011 7:56:28 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:56:28 PM" ) )1:56 PM
-
@dean - so they hold tight on hopes of cooling OR vent and risk a boom.
by dp at 3/29/2011 7:56:27 PMdocument.write( LiveBlog.ConvertServerTimeToLocalTimeFriendlyString( "3/29/2011 7:56:27 PM" ) )1:56 PM
