Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TEPCO revises nuclear fuel damage ratios

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-11 09:09 AM
Original message
TEPCO revises nuclear fuel damage ratios

Tokyo Electric Power Company on Wednesday announced new estimates of damage after the country's nuclear safety agency questioned the accuracy of the initial assessments. The utility has revised the estimated fuel damage in the No.1 reactor from 70 percent to 55 percent, saying radiation levels were not correct.

TEPCO also says that it acted inappropriately in excluding fuel damage of less than 5 percent in calculating total damage ratios for the No.2 and No.3 reactors. As a result, the utility revised upward its estimates of damaged fuel in the No.2 and No.3 reactors by 5 percentage points each to 35 percent and 30 percent respectively.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_28.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-11 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yep...

TEPCO says the corrected estimates will not affect the agency's crisis rating.


Still INES 7, baby.

TEPCO can continue to revise and correct it's data but it's not like it's credibility is going to resurrect itself from the dead. Who's to say these latest revisions are even correct?

The wording is a bit ambiguous. Is this the damaged fuel in the reactor itself or inside the fuel pools "inside" the reactor buildings? Oops... TEPCO issues another correction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-11 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. They're referring to the cores
Who's to say these latest revisions are even correct?

Nobody. It wouldn't be possible to come up with more than an educated guess (probably for years). They just have more data to go on now.

Still INES 7, baby.

So? If all three blow up tomorrow and spread ten times as much material as Chernobyl... it will still be a seven. How would you respond to someone who then claimed that nothing had gotten worse because it was "still INES 7, baby." ???

Of course not. You would laugh at their childish misunderstanding. Which is just what I'm doing right now. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC