Troubling news about the under-reported pools housing spent fuel rods.

[snagglepuss]

Guardian's US environmental correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg reports:

Anti-nuclear campaigners are drawing attention to some important technical aspects about the explosions at the Japanese nuclear reactor. It's an especially welcome intervention given the lack of information coming from the Japanese nuclear authorities

First, they are warning about a secondary risk of explosion and radiation link from the spent fuel pools which are located just above the reactors. That means they are outside the steel casing encirclinng the reactors, but inside the containment structures that were damaged in the explosions

Robert Alvarez, a senior policy expert at the institute of Policy Studies, said satellite pictures of the Fukushima plant showed evidence of damage to the spent fuel pool. "There is clear evidence that the fuel cask cranes that haul spent fuels to and from the reactor to the pool both fell. They are gone," he said. "There appears to be copious amounts of steam pouring of the area where the pools is located."

He said there was no evidence of fire but described the situation as "worrisome".

"What we don't know is whether or not explosions or the quake or the tsuanmi or a combination of things might have damaged support structures or compromised the pool," Alvarez said.


Read more at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/14/japan-tsunami-nuclear-alert-live

[SpoonFed]

1. +1

It is terribly worrying that there are nothing but assurances regarding the integrity of the facility given that two reactor buildings so far have sustained terrible explosions. Clearly from numerous sources (including the NYT for example), the design of these reactors include spent fuel storage in these areas at the top part of the buildings.

If they are having problems cooling the main reactor, can it be assumed that cooling of the spent fuel is under control? Can it be assumed that it is still successfully contained within the facility?

Would it be cynical to assume that the enormous explosion of No. 3 at the very least spread spent fuel in
and around the facility?

I sure would like to see some very high resolution images of the damage or lack there of that has been done to these structures. That would be more reassuring that some blanket statements at press conferences.

[SpoonFed]

2. Thermal imaging?

It has donned on me that we have yet to see some thermal imagery of the facility and units. Seems to me that it might be quite revealing with regards to the integrity of the storage pools and primary containment itself.

[snagglepuss]

5. They would definitely have them. Should we worry they haven't reeased them?

Welcome to DU :hi:

[FBaggins]

3. The explosions were reportedly hydrogen above those pools.

That type of an explosion over a pool of water in a reinforced concrete enclosure isn't going to "spread spent fuel around". They essentially had a very substantial building with a common industrial building sitting on top of it. The explosion was impressive visually, but not powerful enough to do what you feared.

Imagine a metal pipe at the bottom of an outdoor swimming pool. An gas explosion over that pool won't do much of anything to the pool itself.

If they are having problems cooling the main reactor, can it be assumed that cooling of the spent fuel is under control?

It's really quite different. Most of the fuel would be comparatively "cool" with more recent assemblies spread around the pool. IOW, they don't use up water for cooling at nearly the rate as the core. More importantly, it's far easier to fill them (assuming they aren't leaking of course), because it's just an open pool You don't need to hook into the cooling system and get past the containment structures... you just pour it in. A task you could do with a P250 pump.

The core is the whole enchilada here. Fuel in the pool could be endagered if that explodes violently, but should be ok otherwise.

[kristopher]

9. How in the fuck do you know what you assert to be true?

Because unless you are gifted with the psychic power of remote-viewing you have absolutely no basis in reality for your claim that "the explosion was impressive visually, but not powerful enough to do what you feared".

In fact the photographic evidence available argues strongly against your conclusion.

[FBaggins]

10. This isn't exactly rocket science.

At least... this part isn't.

The shell can only hold so much hydrogen so the explosion can only be so powerfull. Gas explosions with a route of escape (i.e., not in a sealed container with roughly equivelent strength in all directions) aren't going to do much damage to the much-stronger surface when the force of the explosion can be directed outward and upward.

Which, btw, is exactly what you saw on the videos.

In fact the photographic evidence available argues strongly against your conclusion.

No it doesn't. The photographic evidence added to your strong imagination might.

[kristopher]

11. More magic knowledge, eh?

You have no idea what the distribution of hydrogen was within the structure.

You have no idea of the concentration of the hydrogen that fueled the explosions.

You have no idea what the point of egress was from the reactor chamber to the rest of the structure.

You have no idea what internal damage the structure has succumbed to after a 9.0 quake, a tsunami and two explosions.

In other words you have no basis for your claims. They are nothing more than false assertions made to protect the large group of corporate interests behind nuclear power.




The science says WE DO NOT *NEED* NUCLEAR ENERGY.

These are the facts of the matter:

Renewable energy resources extracted with *existing technologies* are more than sufficient to meet all of modern societies energy needs on a more reliable grid than now exists.

The renewable path is less expensive.

The renewable energy path is completely sustainable.

The renewable path is safer in all ways.

The renewable path is faster to achieve.

And last but not least in the long run widescale reliance on nuclear power and its controlling infrastructure "would", to quote an associate, "provide an irrevocable justification and impetus for the burgeoning surveillance/police state".

Those are ALL irrefutably true statements.

In light of that why do YOU support nuclear power?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=644471&mesg_id=644471

[FBaggins]

12. Nope. Just reasonable estimates.

You have no idea what the distribution of hydrogen was within the structure.

You're kidding, right? It's a gas. Duh. If it was in just part of the upper structure... it wouldn't have been much of a bang.

You have no idea of the concentration of hydrogen that fuel the explosions.

Of course not. But you can make an educated guess on the highest amount that the structure could hold.

You have no idea what the point of egress was from the reactor chamber.

Because it matters (see #1 above)?

You have no idea of the internal damage the structure has succumbed to after a 9.0 guake, a tsunami and two explosions.

Because you think it would damage the reinforced concrete more than the thin shell of the upper building?

Care to try again?

These are the facts of the matter:

Followed by a list of BS that does NOT include any facts (except "sustainable")?

Thanks but no thanks.

[Ghost Dog]

4. .

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitalglobe-imagery

[SpoonFed]

6. +1 Thanks

Nice shot. Clearly that is No.3 on the top right.
Does not look good. Is that (what I assume to be) steam released,
controlled or not?

[SpoonFed]

7. Shortly after explosion

Correction. The image is from shortly after the explosion, at approximately 10PM EST last night.
Is that radioactive steam or smoke? Is the steam released, controlled or not?
It's 15+ hours later now, is it still going on?

[kristopher]

8. Thank you. Crossposted

to this thread in GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=643966&mesg_id=643966