Analysis: Fukushima And The Plutonium Mystery

[flamingdem]

http://www.countercurrents.org/hamer130411.htm

--- snip

QUESTION: Was the Unit #3 explosion the source of Plutonium in soil samples around the Fukushima nuclear power plant?

*”On March 14, (2011) Unit 3 of the Fukushima exploded”, sending a huge smoke plume into the air. This … reactor … contains rods fueled with MOX”. (13)

*INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION of RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION: “If the International commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about 1 mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment” – during a nuclear accident. (15)

*WORSE THAN CHERNOBYL: The Rad Rider, a Scientist states regarding the Reactor #3 explosion of 3/14/11:

*“ Study the close up views of the #3 reactor explosion and you will see that the blast was not the type of explosion one would expect from the ignition of hydrogen. The fireball seen in the corner of the plant may have been due to hydrogen but it was much too small to cause the main blast. Not only that, inspection reveals that this was a directional blast. Much as if a cannon had been fired straight up from inside the reactor building.

[virginia mountainman]

1. One important fact that must be remembered..

Is that we dropped a BOMB, that was fueled by Plutonium at the end of WWII...

Thusly,you can find plutonium in small amounts all over Japan. It would be odd, to analysis Japanese soil, and NOT find small amounts of the element.

I wonder if this fact is taken into account??

[flamingdem]

3. Please read the OP where they note Plutonium has been detected away from the plant

I think that is an old story being used as cover so they can protect the MOX business.

Note that Areeva ran over to Tokyo, imo wanting to protect French nuclear interests regarding MOX fuel, their baby.

[flamingdem]

2. More plutonium sound in soil samples taken at Fukushima plant

http://www.japantoday.com/mobile/view/melted-nuclear-fuel-likely-settled-at-bottom-of-crippled-reactors

*** IMO, this is leaving out the information in the OP that says plutonium has been found in areas far from the plant. The article points to reasons for this possible cover-up. It will taint the MOX business since more than the international limit has been released

--- snip

Meanwhile, small amounts of plutonium believed to have been released as a result of the ongoing disaster have been detected in soil samples taken at the nuclear complex in Fukushima Prefecture, TEPCO said.

It is the third time that traces of plutonium have been found in soil samples taken at the plant. The latest samples were taken on March 31 and April 4. The levels of plutonium in them were about the same levels observed in Japan following previous nuclear tests elsewhere, according to the utility.

[FBaggins]

27. What's the half-life of plutonium again?

If a particular level was in the soil from Hiroshima and global nulcear testing in the last few decades... what percentage of that would still be there today?

What level of variation would you expect to find?

So how much of the detected level of plutonium can be attributed to the current reactors?

[flamingdem]

30. I think Tepco is looking to hire in their customer relations department nt

[FBaggins]

31. Did you think I was expecting a straight answer?

I know you too well for that. Facts sometimes seem awfully inconvenient to you, don't they FD?

The facts here are simple. There has NOT been an amount of plutonium detected that can clearly be assosciated with the fukushima incident. Part of that is because Japan has a more personal connection with the substance than other countries do.

I'm sure that SOME of the plutonium must have come from one of these reactors, but the levels detected so far are too low to demonstrate that conclusively... and they're certainly too low to be a health hazard greater than what the Japanese already deal with.

[flamingdem]

32. You like to state the most protective of nuclear interests facts my friend nt

[FBaggins]

33. Nope.

I've made a number of posts regarding levels of danger that others (at the time) hadn't paid much attention to.

But I do correct obviously errant BS that has nothing to do with reality.

As in this case... and the ridiculous notion that the explosion at #3 was actually the reactor core. As if that's something that could be hidden with cleaver press releases and internet blogging.

[flamingdem]

36. As I said before they are not being transparent, so who knows

just like TMI, the facts were determined years after.

Tepco says it doesn't know exactly where the plutonium is from. Jury is out.

[rbixby]

37. The half life is 24,000 years

[nilram]

45. Pu-239 has a half life of 24,100 years

[FBaggins]

46. Sorry... I thought it was clear that the question was rhetorical.

But two helpful replies make clear that it wasn't.

The point is that most of the plutonium released by nuclear weapons and Chernobyl is still there... so if you detect levels of plutonium (even in the soil right next to a Fukushima reactor) and those levels are roughly what you expect in Japan from the prior incidents... you don't even know if ANY of it came from the reactor. And if it did... it isn't your main concern... because they level is what everyone in Japan has been dealing with their entire life.

[godai]

4. Wouldn't there be huge amounts of radioactivity if #3 core had exploded?

Seems not possible to cover that up.

[flamingdem]

6. NRC leaked document notes needing to bulldoze high dose rate material btw No.3 + 4

fukushima.wikispaces.com/

Fuel pool is heating up but is adequately cooled, and fuel may have been ejected from the pool
(based on information from TEPCO o f neutron sources found up to 1 mile from the units, and
very high dose rate material that had to be bulldozed over between Units 3 and 4. I t is also
possible the material coul d have come from Unit 4). Unit 3 turbine building basement has
flooded. Samples o f wat er indicate some RCS fluid is present (TEPCO sample table - 3/25/11).
Several possible sources (MSIV leakage, FW check valves, Rx building sump drains) were
identified, however the likely source is the fire wat er spray ont o the reactor building. Additional
evaluation is needed.

[flamingdem]

7. NYT redacted comment from worker that there were rods strewn around the area

and they were finding an bulldozing them because to come close to one accidentally = death

This appeared online and was later erased

[godai]

8. Nothing to indicate a core explosion. Situation is bad but not that bad.

All indications are that #1,2,3 are stable. But, until they get water circulating reliably, cooling will be touch and go. This situation will go on a long time.

[flamingdem]

10. You cannot consider it stable, radiation is so high they can barely work there

The claims being made are all without verification.

Do you work in the nuclear business? Just curious because I've noticed a lot of blythe and overconfident attitudes in spite of a Level 7 situation.

Who in their right mind would label things as positive in this disasterous mess

[godai]

12. There are hundreds of workers there every day.

I've noticed a lot of 'sky is falling' attitudes which, day after day, week after week, lose their impact. Again, the situation is bad but there is no evidence of a #3 core explosion as mentioned in the OP. Was this perhaps a 'statement not intended to be factual' (a al Kyl)?

[flamingdem]

13. The workers can only work for 10-15 minutes at a time, that is not "stable" nt

[godai]

14. Others disagree with you. Google 'Fukushima stable". There are 6.7 million hits. n/t

[DCKit]

15. OK, but within three days (maybe fewer) you will be proved wrong.... AGAIN.

Doesn't it get old?

[godai]

17. So, the sky will be falling, again, in the next few days?

What do you expect to happen? I'm not hoping for anything but a gradual resolution to this terrible situation. How about you?

[DCKit]

18. Gradual worsening of the situation.

Or maybe the fuel rods will catch fire (again) and we'll have a plume of radio-nucleotides to really rival the contamination from Chernobyl... if we haven't already.

[godai]

19. I hope not. What makes you think that way?

After a month of struggles with the reactors, I've seen no indication that things are getting worse. Toshiba has a ten year plan to decommission the reactors, as was done at TMI.
Although the radiation spread is more than TMI, the overall situation seems a lot less than Chernobyl. For example, there are containment vessels!

[flamingdem]

22. I am sure to some people Cancer is no big deal, like those in the nuke biz nt

[DCKit]

26. "I've seen no indication that things are getting worse." Seriously?

How many explosions and fires have there been since March 12th? How many fires are there today? Is there a single containment building on the site that hasn't been compromised, if not completely destroyed?

I'll admit to being pessimistic if you'll admit to being Pollyanna on steroids.

[godai]

29. As far as I know, no fires today. #5 and #6 have not been compromised.

#4 is basically under control. They just need to keep the rods under water while they cool and that's exactly what's happening. They showed a video of a guy sampling the water in the pool in #4 today on NHK. Water temp was high, about 90 degrees C, as I recall. It will take time for this temp to go down. There WAS a full intact pool of water.

Given that things have gotten a lot worse since March 11 or 12 but, in the past week? I watch NHK every day and there has been some stability and a plan to walk back from the brink. Next week they bring in a huge floating tank to transfer radioactive water to. I'm not jumping for joy about that but it does potentially move them a step closer to finding and fixing the water leaks. Their goal is to re-establish a functioning cooling system for #1,2,3. I hope they can.

It's a bad situation, which will take years to resolve. But, I don't take the 'sky is falling' attitude that appears here just about every day. People lose credibility with alarmist posts which just don't pan out.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. That's impressive.

Hell yeah.

I was fairly certain that #4's pool was cracked/damaged from the earthquake and leaking.
That's a major step in the right direction.

[flamingdem]

16. C'mon. Google search? "Fukushima stable" after earthquake might make sense

but not Fukushima is stable in terms of the meltdown radioactive unihabitable for decades situation

[FBaggins]

28. They work for hours and hours.

Where did you get the notion that they're in 10-minute shifts?

That would only apply to the parts of the plant where water has leaked from one of the cores.

The radiation levels around the majority of the plant are WAY down from the early days.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. About 1 terabecquerel/hour or less.

A popcorn fart compared to Chernobyl, at this point.

Let's hope it stays this way/improves.

[FBaggins]

38. Yes, that's "low" compared to Chernobyl... but it's LOTS of radiation.

The mitigating factor is that almost all of it is leaking out in water.

Not great news if you're a fish that lives near the plant... but not a great danger to humans.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Yeah.

I should probably be careful with my terminology, this IS a serious situation. But the breathless comparisons to Chernobyl simply don't work, based on what has happened so far, and are unlikely to become possible either.

3 cores, 3 fuel pools to secure, but progress is being made.

[flamingdem]

40. Do you think you are more knowledgeable than those who raised it to Level 7? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

41. No.

It should be level 7 based on the amount of radiation released. I don't disagree.

What I disagree with is the idiot 24h news cycle morons that then say it is as bad or worse than Chernobyl. It isn't. It's a small FRACTION of the total radiation release from Chernobyl.

The amount of fuel in play, and it's proximity to Tokyo are the only differentiating/dangerous factors on top of the situation at Chernobyl. Literally everything else is in favor of the Japanese in this situation. The containment systems. The fact they got the reactors scrammed before the wave hit, etc.

The situation looks pretty shitty, and it IS still volatile, but so far, nowhere near Chernobyl, EVEN THOUGH it is properly rated a '7'.

Speaks more to the emergency levels being insufficiently granular, or lacking in detail for joe-on-the-street to make any sense out of.

[flamingdem]

42. ok, I understand what you mean

and truly hope it doesn't deteriorate from here in which case they really do need to update their ratings

[AtheistCrusader]

44. I hope so as well.

There is an opportunity here to end this well-short of the disaster that Chernobyl became.

I will admit there is a risk this CAN become as bad as Chernobyl. Something I didn't think possible even on day 5 of the disaster. In fact, I adamantly refused the possibility, and have eaten quite a bit of crow over it. So I will be careful in the future to say 'CAN NOT HAPPEN' sort of pronouncements, because I made an ass out of myself.

I remain hopeful that this can be cleaned up, and human (and even environmental) impacts such as cancer can be minimized.

[FBaggins]

43. Just saying "level 7" is a bit overly simplistic

There are multiple criteria for judging on that scale. So if, for instance, you had several people die in an accident that never left the vicinity of the reactor and released almost nothing into the environment... it would still be a pretty high number because of the people who died. If you release large amounts of radiation (as this has), but almost all of it is in a form that doesn't impact the general population, you could have (fingers crossed) an accident that doesn't kill anyone... but is still ranked way up there on the scale. I think that another part of the measure includes the damage done to the reactor itself (regardless of injuries/deaths or radiation released). By that standard this was a seven weeks ago.

The problem is that the darn thing isn't very nuanced. Take this earthquake and compare it to the Kobe earthquake. On one scale, they are both 7s... but this quake was close to 100 times more powerful, did much more damage and killed many more people. You can't say that they're the same just because the numbers are the same.

Fukushima "earned" it's seven because of the total release of radioactive material, but very little of it (comparatively speaking) had gone into the non-ocean environment. A big part of it is in leaked water that (at least in theory) they should be able to manage... and another big part of it bled into the ocean. Chernobyl didn't just release many times as much material (and more material that was itself more dangerous), but it spread it all across the countryside.

So by one overly simplistic measure, they're the same... but by no measure that really matters should they be mentioned in the same sentence.

On top of all of that is the incredibly superior job that the Japanese have done compared to how the Russians did.

[Turbineguy]

5. They have been handling

nuclear fuel at that site for 40 years too.

[DCKit]

9. If they're scattering plutonium, they haven't been handling it correctly. nt

[Marblehead]

11. #3 was a huge explosion...

:nuke:

[AndyTiedye]

24. It Looked Totally Different From the Other Explosions Too

Black Smoke, MUCH bigger explosion, huge chunks of steel and concrete visible high in the air
big jump in radiation levels afterwards.

:nuke:

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I would expect a LOT more radiation

if the reactor cap blew off. A WHOLE lot more. That would be nearly-or-on-par with Chernobyl right there, and we aren't seeing those levels. We've found a small fraction of those levels, so far.

Both government agencies, AND private entities would have to be lying their asses off to us for that to be the case. The guys that drove up to the power plant gates to the west, and south, didn't measure radiation levels commensurate with that sort of core failure.


All that said, I have no idea why that reactor blew up different from the others. It was clearly a different type of explosion.


Perhaps 1&3 were steam explosions, and this was a hydrogen explosion? Both mechanisms have enough power to wipe out the building shell.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. ANY FUEL ROD IN THESE REACTORS CONTAINS PLUTONIUM

Good freakin' grief. How often does this have to be repeated.

Uranium breaks down as Plutonium as one of the byproducts. That is why these reactors are used: they produce plutonium we can use in BOMBS. THAT is why. We burn the rods for a while, pull them out, and refine out the Plutonium.

ALL of these fuel rods, every single one, contain some amount of plutonium. The longer in use, the more plutonium in the rod. Eventually, the normal 'production' uranium rods will contain the same levels of Plutonium as the MOX fuel. They all reach the same levels of equilibrium.


(that said, reactor 3's explosion was very gnarly, and different than the others.

[flamingdem]

21. The article states clearly that there are 2 possible sources for the plutonium nt

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Oh shit, I stopped reading it too soon. You're right, it did cover it.