Magnified Picture Of Reactors 3 And 4 Post Explosion

Tyler Durden's picture

Tis but a scratch. We have just one question: why isnt Fukushima crawling with iRobots armed with cameras and geiger counters?


And a close up of the Reactor 4 blow out per an ongoing NISA conference:

and a last one, slightly better contrast

h/t asdasmos

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SparkyvonBellagio's picture

WATCH this video from today on the Spent Fuel Rod Pools that are hardly contained yet they're more dangerous as a whole. Nice Design of the Plant and Reactor. Pathetic but 15 minutes worth watching. Princeton Professor confirms what Maddow is reporting. (yeah I know some don't really like her but she appears to have gotten it Spot On.) WATCH IT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXIODVlfXk

TwoShortPlanks's picture

That's a show for children, right???

I mean, its gotta be!

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Hm....Figure if I wake up tomorrow glowing then the left coast may have a problem.

Iodide anyone?

Mazarin's picture

This was excellent, especially the section toward end with Princeton Physicist Frank Von Hippel starting at 10:09.

RmcAZ's picture

Did you really just link us to a video of Rachael Maddow?

xPat's picture

What I can't find anywhere is a credible, level-headed worst-case analysis. Forget what MIGHT happen. Assume that the three previously-active reactors all go to full meltdown, and that a massive fire on #4 causes the entire spent fuel pool to burn up.

I believe that is the worst case. But what would it mean? What would the effects of that much radiation release be? How long are the half-lives of the most dangerous particles? What would rain-out effect mean on fisheries? Could a fishery wipe-out trigger a global food crisis (we were close to one already).

If anyone has a link to a credible worst case EFFECT analysis, I'd much appreciate it. I already understand "what could happen". What I can't find any credible analysis of is what it would mean and how long the effects would last.

xPat

Bicycle Repairman's picture

A very good question, but there may be several good answers.

shushup's picture

Thanks so much - That was an excellent piece.

herewego...'s picture

Guys, I know we are officially bearish but can we pack in the group-think? That’s what the ‘others’ do.

I offer, for your entertainment and consternation:

“Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now! Quake + tsunami = 1 minor radiation dose so far”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

JW n FL's picture

when oil hits $300bbl on a normal day, on average.. fucking everyone will be singing build more nukes!

Bearster's picture

People like to think as if we had the following choice:

 - modern civilization with high quality of life powered by unicorn sparkles

 - make evil oil corporations filthy rich while they destroy Gaia

 

The actual choice is:

 - modern civilization powered as it currently is, with a move towards plentiful sources of energy that really work like nuclear and coal and more oil drilling in N America

 - collapse into a new Dark Age

VyseLegendaire's picture

How about this choice:

 - modern civilization powered as it currently is, with a move towards plentiful sources of energy that really work like nuclear and coal and more oil drilling in N America WITHOUT evil oil corporations filthy rich while they destroy Gaia

 - modern civilization powered as it currently is, with a move towards plentiful sources of energy that really work like nuclear and coal and more oil drilling in N America WITH evil oil corporations filthy rich while they destroy Gaia

 

fredquimby's picture

Last time I looked out a plane window half of America was a desert.

PUT SOME FRIKKIN SOLAR PANELS UP!!

Or some of these badboys:

http://www.solarpowerninja.com/solar-power-government-industry-news/worl...

It is a shit load of (practically) normal mirrors pointing the sun at a tube of water at the top of the tower that boils, produces steam and then turns turbines. It's a closed system that only requires one ingredient.....THE SUN

Seriously, it's not frikkn difficult is it ?? This one, finished in 2009 produces around 20mw which is easily enough for over a ten thousand homes. (10,000!!!)

What on earth are we mucking around with nuclear and coal for when there is plenty of this free sun around ??!! pure MADNESS !!

 

falak pema's picture

Build a mega solar farm in the Sahara and you can feed the whole of Europe and Africa.

But we lost thirty years of R&D to do this since 1979 when we knew for sure we were in Peak Oil at the global level. You know why? Because this american genius Ronald Reagan wanted cheap oil and the "post industrial" revoution to start in America. He wanted also to kill USSR through cheap oil. So he told his surrogate regime in Saud, "Open that f***king tap and keep it open". Period. They did like the good little boys they were; that stopped all R&D in alternative fuels in the West! Then we were back in Peak Oil scenario as of 2003 with a vengeance as China and India were hungry like new tigers! We had wasted twenty five years...In the meantime the sons of Reagan had landed us slap bang into the hyperinflated FIRE economy. Same mind set.

That's where we are today : clusterflock of black swans hanging around our heads. 

CH1's picture

This is simply false, for many reasons:

First: What happens when the sun goes down? The problem with solar (aside from cost) is electricity storage. Old tech batteries are really expensive and dangerous. New batteries are really, really expensive. Other tech such as flywheels can work, but are not terribly practical.

And, transmitting electricity from the Sahara to Europe ain't exactly easy or cheap.

Back of the napkin calcs of solar cells are cool, but that's just one component of the whole system.

Widowmaker's picture

No one is suggesting a 100% solar solution for obvious reasons.  When is peak energy use?  In the day of course.

Get a clue.

theprofromdover's picture

Setting sun.......... if you don't want to go to sleep

 

That was what the lost 25 years of research was supposed to be for.

Developing energy storage solutions.

Batteries are a dead duck (or rabbit)

The cheapest is hydro, but you could pump anything up a hill and store it as potential energy.

The work they are doing converting jels into partially thermosetting solids is encouraging, if a generation late.

You could also read Boyle's Law, and come up with your own ideas.

firstdivision's picture

Harry, you're back.  Nice of you to post this crap again.  Great OpEd if you don't want to know what is really going on.  I'll stick to reputable news outlets thanks.

herewego...'s picture

If you are going to stick to reputable news outlets, then why are you here?

Greater Fool's picture

Actually, in some ways I'm inclined to agree. So far, the lesson of this whole terrible episode seems to be that living on the shore near a big fault is infinitely more dangerous than living near a nuclear plant.

On the other hand, I don't hear any fat lady singing in Fukushima yet.

herewego...'s picture

Very true, I would hate to be within 200 klicks of that plant. I'm quite safe at 2,000 klicks away though.

Denninger's also got it spot on:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=182324

IQ 145's picture

 So far, you're certainly right. But the other far is worrisome.

falak pema's picture

So genius? Where are your certitudes today???

Falkor's picture

The truth is that we will many more reactors. Just that the reactors V2.0 are going to be safer and with more safeguards.

 

We have too many electronics to run and no renewable energy in present form can meet the demand.

Lord Koos's picture

Are you fucking kidding?  That is pure propaganda.

Yen Cross's picture

Here is, a goofy one. I'm starting to symbolize the right and left corners. The Symbols are starting to make sense.

bob_dabolina's picture

There are robots/geiger counters however they are monitored by the government which will not release the information due to obvious reasons.

AldoHux_IV's picture

If this is true, that's plain sad-- the people have the right to know so that they can do whatever they can do survive.  This is the problem when you have a society plagued by imbalances-- the shit really rolls down hill when it is deemed ok to.

bob_dabolina's picture

1. They are trying to evacuate people w/o panic.

2. They don't want to look incompetant as that would reduce the legitamacy of their authority. No man wants to lose power.

So they lie. This is standard with every government on this planet, it should not shock you.

Spastica Rex's picture

No man who is not an anarchist. FTFY.

FilthyLucre's picture

Anarchism is about self empowerment. Every man has to take full responsibility for his actions and temper/act accordingly. An anarchist neither protects nor abrogates his power, he simply recognises it.

RhineStones's picture

"If you are not an Anarchist, you are just not Conservative enough to trust."

Fish Gone Bad's picture

OK that is so fucking funny and I really have no idea why.  I will have to remember that quote.

Creed's picture

So far all the anarchists I've seen or read about seem to have no problem whatsoever attempting to impose their will on others by killing them or smashing their shit.

Lofty ideals of human behavior & benevolent conduct never pass the smell test in the real world.

Throw those books away, buy a farm, marry a fat German wife & live out your life in peace.

VyseLegendaire's picture

The initiation of force and anarchism are incompatible. 

nedwardkelly's picture

Anarchy/anarchist is just another word...

A group of self described anarchists that I know spend their time working with food not bombs, organizing public education meetings regarding proposed rent increases in government housing (this is in a EU country), write articles for the local paper anti the local government etc etc.

For them it's about standing up to 'the powers that be'. There's no killing or smashing shit.

 

Bearster's picture

Actually, anarchism is about not having one group with final control over the use of force in a country.  This means that multiple groups are competing for such control.  The colloquial word for when multiple groups compete for control is: civil war.

When the civil war ends, there is no longer anarchy.  And most likely not anything even close to liberty either.

If any idea is believed, without regard to the real world, anarchism is that idea.

Voluntary Exchange's picture

@ Bearster:

 

You are getting confused by the two very different meanings of "anarchy" and it is very much in the interests of statist for you to stay  in your confusion.   When multiple groups are willing to initiate force against others they are just operating like smaller states.   That is the meaning the state wants you to think about, something akin to disorder and chaos.   Those who are committed to the non-initiation of violence only need to protect themselves from the (usually) smaller fraction of the population that is willing to initiate the force (the lie of the "state" being the tool of criminals from the beginning of known history).  So the  primary meaning of "anarchy" is in play when speaking about a group population that can abide by the basic rules:  don't steal, don't hit, don't cheat.  And such a population will be COOPERATING (not fighting a civil war) in a much more efficient manner and creating a much higher level of well-being than in a statist system, and that especially includes the key services of security/enforcement and adjudication/arbitration that the statist tries to convince the population (through lies) can only be possible to provide in a statist system. They don't want you to understand the nature of free market defense and free market justice because once you understand that and see what such a system creates you will not want to have anything to do with a "state" (monopoly provider of security and adjudication services with power to force payment, (tax), to support its system in a certain geographical area.)

 

To avoid the confusion it would be better  to use the word: voluntarism, and that is why statist don't use that word.  The meaning of the word "anarchy" that statists want to use to scare people  is used to deceive those who have no need to resort to a "state".  The statists can only  properly apply the pejorative meaning of "anarchy"  to themselves, and not upon those who would be far better off under voluntarism! "Government" when imposed through force (which is its very definition), always ends up as a tool of the predators and it is their victims who have no need of such a "government".

Papasmurf's picture

Fuck authority;  run like hell.

Golden monkey's picture

Evacuation?

They are not welcome in China. North Korea is not a friend. Will they all move to California?

scythian empire's picture

Videos and photos would probably show the robots unless they're, like, small or whatever. 

I'm waiting for Honda to swoop in with the the Asimo Humanoid (with salad tongs attached to hands).

ChanceIs's picture

Maybe they could borrow the BP oil spill cameras and robots.  They have been proven to work under high pressure and freely dispense info to the internet.

dwdollar's picture

I doubt it.  Why build a useful robot when you can build an 11th generation predator drone to chase phantom terrorists who are supposedly building dirty bombs.

JW n FL's picture

all the better to hunt people in our own country with when "We the People" try to take back the power we should already have..