This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Declassified U.S. Government Report on Fukushima: “100% of The Total Spent Fuel Was Released to the Atmosphere from Unit 4”

George Washington's picture




 

We reported in 2011 that the International Atomic Energy Commission knew within weeks that Fukushima had melted down … but failed and refused to tell the public.

The same year, we reported in 2011 that the U.S. knew within days of the Fukushima accident that Fukushima had melted down … but failed to tell the public.

We noted in 2012:

The fuel pools and rods at Fukushima appear to have “boiled”, caught fire and/or exploded soon after the earthquake knocked out power systems. See this, this, this, this and this.

Now, a declassified report written by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 18, 2011 – one week after the tidal wave hit Fukushima – states:

The source term provided to NARAC was: (1) 25% of the total fuel in unit 2 released to the atmosphere, (2) 50% of the total spent fuel from unit 3 was released to the atmosphere, and (3) 100% of the total spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from unit 4.

FukushimaNARAC is the the U.S. National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, located at the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. NARAC “provides tools and services that map the probable spread of hazardous material accidentally or intentionally released into the atmosphere“.

The fuel pools at Units 3 and 4 contained enormous amounts of radiation.

For example, there was “more cesium in that [Unit 4] fuel pool than in all 800 nuclear bombs exploded above ground.”

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 12/11/2015 - 13:24 | 6910911 rejected
rejected's picture

Actually since it's American Corporations operating in China so we can enjoy our cheap entertaining iGadgets it is in fact ....  "We".

That said, I personally don't agree with the man made global warming scam not that it matters.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 01:08 | 6908798 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture
Here's another one: Official data shows U.S. hit with huge spike of ‘most dangerous’ radiation from Fukushima — Levels far exceeded federal regulatory limits — Alpha particles nearly 1,000 times normal; Includes plutonium — Gov’t workers in “fear of radiation”

I thought it was too radioactive to get that close to the melted cores to actually measure the radiation without the instrumention breaking down.

So tell me, how do you know what the alpha particle levels did, considering the following which is well known:

Alpha Particles

Alpha particles are a type of radiation that do not travel very far, do not pass through anything very thick, and can generally be absorbed or stopped by an inch or less (1-2 centimeters) of air or a thin piece of tissue.

Standard Disclaimer: Their article titles are priceless. We may as well just bring back witch burning.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 02:01 | 6908894 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Here's a rabbit hole that will blow your mind if you have a 40 min. attention span...half way in he explains the WTC complex power plants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--BpxWdnHi0

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 12:58 | 6910777 Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

..if you find the Finish language to hard on you ears here's the read (the article he's talking about)

Mystery Solved: The WTC Was Nuked on 9/1:

https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nu...

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 16:15 | 6911573 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Arto L. claims to have information that the WTC complex was powered by Nuclear Reactors much like the ones used in nuclear powered Submarines. They were placed under the WTC complex near the end of construction to supply the massive power requirements of the WTC complex. He also says that they generally have a 25 year life cycle and they begin to break down and leak plutonium via plasmon tunneling, enbrittlement, etc.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 13:25 | 6910921 rejected
rejected's picture

Veterans Today has been suggesting that for years....

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 08:00 | 6909343 Kyddyl
Kyddyl's picture

Thank you! That's a terrific link! No wonder most of the EPA radiation monitoring stations are defunct. Those colored graphs were complicated and could be meddled with somewhat but even when the spikes were reduced to small bumps too many people were learning to read those charts.

I have a modest Geiger counter right here beside me and in the last two years our "normal" background radiation has increased to almost double. It's in the 50's and 60's almost every day all day and night. I used to think the 30's were high. Incidentally this is also well correlated with all the "earthquakes" that have been happening in Nevada. My counter, as well as many others are calibrated on Cesium, it's anyones guess what is not being picked up. There is another person near me who has a station that is public and our counts are consistently the same or within 5 CPM's of each other. Station counts in Nevada, Utah and Colorado are all consistently elevated.   

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 03:05 | 6913740 malek
malek's picture

I have a modest Geiger counter since 6 months after Fukushima.

Only since early summer 2015 the "normal" background radiation seems to have risen 5-10% against previous levels. I say "seems" because the increase is so small I'm still wary if I'm imagining things.
However at the same time I also started seeing 2-3 hour periods, in which the radiation increases and afterwards falls again, kind of like wave patterns, happens on about half of the days. Wasn't like that before.

I live directly on the West coast.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 04:44 | 6909098 XuscitizenSweden
XuscitizenSweden's picture

ATTENTION.....'Rusty Shorts'......ATTENTION.....OBS!....HUMIO!!!!

Rusty Shorts, I'm 1 of the 'rare individuals' that;

1) ...are in the process of viewing your 1st/non-edited comment....

2) ....watching and understandinding EVERYTHING from your 'original post at ca ZH-1:00' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--BpxWdnHi0

3) I understand FINNISH....it's my 5th language....lived in Finland for 3 years/kolme vuotta

4) I've lived in Sweden for over 30 years and understand ABB-ASEA Atom AB Västerås

5) *****I'm borned & raised less than 30km from lower Manhatten. I know 'everything about the WTC'......

PLEASE CONTACT HERE!!! Looks like Arto L gives the 'correct explaination' @  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--BpxWdnHi0

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 00:42 | 6908720 Rhal
Rhal's picture

This is what pisses me off about Global warming fanatics. 

If you want to save the environment, start by dragging a geiger counter under the Pacific. All else is a distraction.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 10:07 | 6909778 Bay Area Guy
Bay Area Guy's picture

About two months ago, I was walking around a shopping area near where I live and some Greenpeace people were out hustling for donations.  They, of course, hit me up and I said no.  They pushed and asked why I didn't want to save the whales.  So, in a loud enough voice to be heard by others in the area, but not loud enough to be obnoxious, I explained that if Greenpeace was really the "steward of the oceans" they claim to be, they would be all over the Fukushima issue trying to uncover what really happened.  I told them I sent a letter to Greenpeace asking them what their position on Fukushima was and, after the standard "thanks for your letter, we'll get back to you soon" reply, there has been nothing.  So I told these fundraisers that until or unless Greenpeace addresses what can arguably be called the greatest threat to the world's oceans, they wouldn't get a dime from me and I would advise anyone who cared to ask me not to donate to them.

They left me alone pretty quick after that.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 00:40 | 6908714 CheapBastard
CheapBastard's picture

I read recently the fuki levles of radiation on the west coast were finally rising...but the article, of course, emphasixed, "no need to worry, it's contained."

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 00:27 | 6908656 Keyser Sose
Keyser Sose's picture

One scientist recently said, "This may prove to be man's extinction event."  For all the latest, I follow: http://enenews.com

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 03:52 | 6909049 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Also a good site, although less frequent updates, but some pretty specific articles. Good resources, too.

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.ca/

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 00:59 | 6908773 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture

I finally decided to wade into that site...

Remember the headline here about the trouble at the plant outside of NY City? In fact, I think it was a George Washington blog article...

Here's how the headline read there:

Gov’t: Shutdown at U.S. nuclear plant after 10 control rods accidentally fall into reactor core — Caused by ‘smoldering’ event, Fire Brigade on scene — Incident of this type could lead to overheating, potentially resulting in ‘supercriticality’ — Official: No ‘immediate’ concern (VIDEO)

Supercriticality? Seriously? Ok, let's see if a layman out there knows the difference between critical, sub-critical, and supercritical. Bonus points if you can explain, again in layman's terms why the above statement is complete and utter bullshit...

Standard Disclaimer: and people actually take the site seriously?

Standard Disclaimer: better yet, let's let the author of this article explain why the above statement is bullshit. White courtesy phone for GW...

 

 

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 01:58 | 6908910 AGuy
AGuy's picture

Supercriticality? Seriously? Ok, let's see if a layman out there knows the difference between critical, sub-critical, and supercritical.

Supercritically does not mean nuclear detenation, it just means a lot of fission is happening.

I think the risk is that if they lose control of all the control rods they can have problems shutting down the reactor. 10 control rods are not the majority of control rods, if the rest get stuck they can't shutdown the reator with emergency measure. That said they can always flood the reactor with boric acid or other neutron poisons as an emergency measure, but once that is done it gets real expensive to get the reactor back on line again.

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

"A supercritical mass is one where there is an increasing rate of fission. The material may settle into equilibrium (i.e. become critical again) at an elevated temperature/power level or destroy itself, by which equilibrium is reached,"

 

Reactors fueled with Plutonium can under go prompt supercritically if the reactor core over heats when too much water is vaporized into steam. Uranium needs water to slow down the neutrons for a continious reactor. Plutonium on the other hand will happy use fast neutrons to go supercritical in microseconds. Prompt supercritically is the process that caused Chernybol to explode and probably the Fukashima reactors too.

 

 

Perhaps George does not get everything right, but he does point out the obvious dangers that are rarely discussed in the media. Better to try to report than ignore.

 

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 13:21 | 6910902 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

enenews.com is a "fear factory", but in the rough lies much great information that is still valuable for reading between the lines of the official story.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 16:23 | 6911641 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture

I didn't have to do that much digging to find out what caused the 10 rods to drop...

"Smouldering" might not have been my choice of words. Sounds like an electrical issue which led to some melting of the insulation covering wires/cables/etc.

http://www.globalspec.com/learnmore/electrical_electronic_components/ele...

Which is as much research as I plan on doing for now. Back to work.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 07:25 | 6909289 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture

Now let me give you the more technically correct answer.

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/18/what-is-criticality/

>I think the risk is that if they lose control of all the control rods they can have problems shutting down the reactor. 10 control rods are not the majority of control rods, if the rest get stuck they can't shutdown the reator with emergency measure.

On electrical loss of power in this case, what did the control rods do? They went into the core.

In modern cmmercial reactors, the control rods operate in banks, lose power to one of the banks, the control rods drop, the reactor goes subcritical, essentially shutting itself down.

I'll drop to wikipedia for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod

In other words, when the control rods dropped into the core, the reactor goes subcritical. Because the control rods consist of things like boron (which absorb neutrons) thus causing the reactor to go subcritical in essence shutting it down. The key here is the removal of the heat. As long as the coolant pumps are still working, the water remains circulating and the heat is removed. THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY THING you need to understand and it explains everything else.

> Prompt supercritically is the process that caused Chernybol to explode and probably the Fukashima reactors too.

This is incorrect. In both cases (Chernobyl and Fukushima) the heat was not removed from the core. Chernobyl, because of a stupid experiment they were running (see how long the electrical turbine generator could run after removing the steam that powered it by shutting off the main steam valve) Hence the reactor had no heat sink...Things got to hot. Water in the reactor turns to steam. Blows the pressure relief valves. Hot radioactive steam enters the containment facility/building. Pressure continues to build. Boom - building explodes. Did I mention the core melts down?

Fukushima. Backup emergency generators (again to be used to remove the heat from the core by keeping water circulating through the core) were in the fucking basement. Basement floods due to the typhoon, no backup generators, no electricity to run the pumps to circulate the water in the reactor core. And again, water in the reactor turns to steam. Blows the pressure relief valves. Hot radioactive steam enters the containment facility/building. Pressure continues to build. Boom - building explodes. And again the core melts down.

Now I may not be the world's expert, but I did operate reactors aboard two US fast attack submarines. So what does it take to operate a reactor for the Navy? 1 year learning electronics, 6 months classroom training on all things nuclear. 6 more months of training on an actual reactor. Then you get assigned to a ship/sub. There you start training all over again. Until your fellow reactor operators feel you are actually trustworthy and competent. Then after you qualify the watchstation, you actually get to stand the watch on your own. 

The thing is, you don't have the luxury of guessing, you have to know how the reactor plant works. So when I read comments that have no basis in reality, science, or physics, I will point it out many times to the chagrin of the original poster.

Do I get stuff wrong, sure I do, who doesn't? But I find it better not to get my information from sites like enenews.com. Because does spreading fear come up with the solution to the actual problem? I'll be happy to let you search through the history books for an answer to that.

Standard Disclaimer: My soapbox time is up. I thank GW for putting these articles out, but my humble critique is he needs to be more technical in his approach. Today's challenge is why did Japan use a plutonium/uranium mix in reactor 3. I'd like an answer to that question because I haven't found one yet.

 

 

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 18:23 | 6915547 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

And this is exactly why an EMP is so very dangerous.  Those circulation pumps go down and we are all fooked, all of us as in humanity all of us..  We should be changing all civilian nukes to natural circulation or shut them down...

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 19:39 | 6912022 MrButtoMcFarty
MrButtoMcFarty's picture

Class 8901

NPTU Idaho

SSN 696

Preach it brother!

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 15:20 | 6911375 jmaloy5365
jmaloy5365's picture

MOX fuel runs longer. All US plants are running it. They would have to be refueled every 12 month now it's 18 to 24 months.

Navy ships run even more enriched fuel that's why they can run for 20-30 years.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 11:45 | 6910330 AGuy
AGuy's picture

"On electrical loss of power in this case, what did the control rods do? They went into the core."

Not all of them. Just 10 of them

 

"The key here is the removal of the heat. As long as the coolant pumps are still working, the water remains circulating and the heat is removed. THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY THING you need to understand and it explains everything else."

We don't know the extent of the electrical problem. Does the electrical problem that cause the problem with the control rods also affect the the controls of the cooling system. The Indian Point reactor has some big problems. It should have been shutdown a decade go. It leaks, its containment vessel has cracks from neutron embrittlment. Its a accident ready to happen. Hopefully this incident will result in closure & decommissioning.

 

"This is incorrect. In both cases (Chernobyl and Fukushima) the heat was not removed from the core. Chernobyl, because of a stupid experiment they were running (see how long the electrical turbine generator could run after removing the steam that powered it by shutting off the main steam valve) Hence the reactor had no heat sink."

Nope your wrong. When they turned off the turbine system, the core of reactor did rise. some of the water started flashing to steam, which cause prompt supercritically which cause a very rapid heat flash, that flashed even more water into steam causing a steam explosion. In a reactor core that has plutonium in it, water acts  to slow down the reaction. When water is removed it plutonium will continue to fission and increase fission. In a Uranium core water is required to slow (moderate) the neutron flux, since U235 has a poor cross-section for fast neutrons.

 

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/chernobyl.html

"At this point Chernobyl experienced the most rapid increase in reactor power level ever recorded, anywhere, at any time. The reactor had effectively become promptly supercritical when the graphite tips on control rods began to enter the core, and the power level was increased exponentially! At seven seconds into the "test", all of the cooling water tubes in the core over-pressurized and burst from the sudden, enormous surge of heat into the mixture of steam and liquid, resulting in a titanic steam explosion."

 

"And again, water in the reactor turns to steam. Blows the pressure relief valves. Hot radioactive steam enters the containment facility/building. Pressure continues to build. Boom - building explodes. And again the core melts down."

 When the Fukashima reactors exploded, the roof of the building blew up over 300 feet high. A slow steam build would not have cause such a large explosion, I doubt even a hydrogen explosion would have release that much energy. I am more inclined to believe it was a prompt critically when when the reactor went prompt supercritical flashing an enourmous amount of water into steam. 

 

"Today's challenge is why did Japan use a plutonium/uranium mix in reactor 3. I'd like an answer to that question because I haven't found one yet."

Because Japan does not want to import uranium. Japan was using breeder reactors to produce plutonium for its reactors.  Japan want to be nuclear fuel independant. This was a project that began in the 1970's or 1980's to switch over to a breeder program.

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 16:18 | 6911614 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture

>We don't know the extent of the electrical problem.

Actually we do... enenews.com actually reported it.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Event Notification Reports, Dec 7, 2015 (emphasis added): MANUAL REACTOR TRIP INITIATED DUE TO MULTIPLE DROPPED CONTROL RODS — At 1731 [EST] on December 5, 2015, Indian Point Unit 2 Control Room operators initiated a Manual Reactor Trip due to indications of multiple dropped Control Rods. The initiating event was a smoldering Motor Control Center (MCC) cubicle in the Turbine Building that supplies power to the Rod Control System… The affected cubicle has ceased smoldering and is being monitored by on-site Fire Brigade trained personnel… The cause of the smoldering MCC is being investigated and a post reactor trip evaluation is being conducted by the licensee… The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector and appropriate State and Local authorities.

As for Chernobyl for fuck's sake, just read the detailed timeline of the Chernobyl accident on wikipedia.

Wait I'll do the cut and paste.

At 1:23:04 a.m., the experiment began. Four of the Main Circulating Pumps (MCP) were active; of the eight total, six are normally active during regular operation. The steam to the turbines was shut off, beginning a run-down of the turbine generator. The diesel generators started and sequentially picked up loads; the generators were to have completely picked up the MCPs' power needs by 01:23:43. In the interim, the power for the MCPs was to be supplied by the turbine generator as it coasted down. As the momentum of the turbine generator decreased, however, so did the power it produced for the pumps. The water flow rate decreased, leading to increased formation of steam voids (bubbles) in the core.

Because of the positive void coefficient of the RBMK reactor at low reactor power levels, it was now primed to embark on a positive feedback loop, in which the formation of steam voids reduced the ability of the liquid water coolant to absorb neutrons, which in turn increased the reactor's power output. This caused yet more water to flash into steam, giving yet a further power increase. During almost the entire period of the experiment the automatic control system successfully counteracted this positive feedback, continuously inserting control rods into the reactor core to limit the power rise. However, this system had control of only 12 rods, and nearly all others had been manually retracted.

At 1:23:40, as recorded by the SKALA centralized control system, an emergency shutdown of the reactor, which inadvertently triggered the explosion, was initiated. The SCRAM was started when the EPS-5 button (also known as the AZ-5 button) of the reactor emergency protection system was pressed: this engaged the drive mechanism on all control rods to fully insert them, including the manual control rods that had been incautiously withdrawn earlier. The reason why the EPS-5 button was pressed is not known, whether it was done as an emergency measure in response to rising temperatures, or simply as a routine method of shutting down the reactor upon completion of the experiment.

There is a view that the SCRAM may have been ordered as a response to the unexpected rapid power increase, although there is no recorded data conclusively proving this. Some have suggested that the button was not pressed, and instead the signal was automatically produced by the emergency protection system; however, the SKALA clearly registered a manual SCRAM signal. In spite of this, the question as to when or even whether the EPS-5 button was pressed has been the subject of debate. There are assertions that the pressure was caused by the rapid power acceleration at the start, and allegations that the button was not pressed until the reactor began to self-destruct but others assert that it happened earlier and in calm conditions.[40]:578[41]

After the EPS-5 button was pressed, the insertion of control rods into the reactor core began. The control rod insertion mechanism moved the rods at 0.4 m/s, so that the rods took 18 to 20 seconds to travel the full height of the core, about 7 meters. A bigger problem was a flawed graphite-tip control rod design, which initially displaced neutron-absorbing coolant with moderating graphite before introducing replacement neutron-absorbing boron material to slow the reaction. As a result, the SCRAM actually increased the reaction rate in the upper half of the core as the tips displaced water. This behavior was known after a shutdown of another RBMK reactor induced an initial power spike, but as the SCRAM of that reactor was successful, the information was not widely disseminated.

A few seconds after the start of the SCRAM, the graphite rod tips entered the fuel pile. A massive power spike occurred, and the core overheated, causing some of the fuel rods to fracture, blocking the control rod columns and jamming the control rods at one-third insertion, with the graphite tips in the middle of the core. Within three seconds the reactor output rose above 530 MW.[25]:31

The subsequent course of events was not registered by instruments; it is known only as a result of mathematical simulation. Apparently, the power spike caused an increase in fuel temperature and massive steam buildup, leading to a rapid increase in steam pressure. This caused the fuel cladding to fail, releasing the fuel elements into the coolant, and rupturing the channels in which these elements were located.[42]

Then, according to some estimations, the reactor jumped to around 30,000 MW thermal, ten times the normal operational output. The last reading on the control panel was 33,000 MW. It was not possible to reconstruct the precise sequence of the processes that led to the destruction of the reactor and the power unit building, but a steam explosion, like the explosion of a steam boiler from excess vapor pressure, appears to have been the next event. There is a general understanding that it was steam from the damaged fuel channels escaping into the reactor's exterior cooling structure that caused the destruction of the reactor casing, tearing off and lifting the 2000-ton upper plate, to which the entire reactor assembly is fastened, sending it through the roof of the reactor building. This is believed to be the first explosion that many heard.[43]:366 This explosion ruptured further fuel channels, as well as severing most of the coolant lines feeding the reactor chamber, and as a result the remaining coolant flashed to steam and escaped the reactor core. The total water loss in combination with a high positive void coefficient further increased the reactor's thermal power.

 

Are we done playing the cut and paste games? I did most of what I wrote of the top of my head.

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 17:22 | 6911940 AGuy
AGuy's picture

Whatever dude, You still don't understand it.

You wrote:

"Actually we do... enenews.com actually reported it."

and quoted:

"The cause of the smoldering MCC is being investigated"

Which means they don't know the full extent of the problem or the cause, nor if other systems have been affected. ie "its under investigation".

I stated the Chernybol explosion was caused by Prompt Supercitically.which you said was wrong. Prompt Supercritically is stated inthe text I included, as well as the text you quoted (just not spelled by its name).  You simply think you know more than you really know.

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 10:59 | 6910026 Paveway IV
Paveway IV's picture

"...On electrical loss of power in this case, what did the control rods do? They went into the core..."

That's for a PWR reactor with the control rods above the core. In a BWR, the rods are inserted up from below the core hydraulically. There's 75 BWRs in operation today, less the dozen or so Japan hasn't restarted. That's not counting the Fukushima Daiichi reactors - the control rods are in a molten heap of hellish slag along with the rest of the core. They're slowly dissolving in the water table under the plant and being carried out into the Pacific Ocean, so the problem is self-correcting... except for any carbon-based life form that depends on unscrambled DNA and RNA. The up-side is that Hillary isn't one of those life forms, so she isn't affected.

"...In modern cmmercial reactors, the control rods operate in banks, lose power to one of the banks, the control rods drop, the reactor goes subcritical, essentially shutting itself down..."

I'm sure any power reactor operator would get a chuckle out of that. There is a whole fuckload of problems with dropping a bank of rods 1) faster than you're suppose to, and 2) when the rest of the reactor is at full power. The biggest problem is the mess in the control room when the all the reactor operators simultaneously lose bladder and bowel control. Large reactor cores at power are not meant to be shut down by selectively dropping rods, and the core power controlling programs don't like things unbalanced. It doesn't mean a guaranteed meltdown, but it's far from 'no big deal'. Bad things start happening and you better have a competent, sober SRO in the room who knows what the hell they're suppose to do to make the bad things stop happening. 

"...> Prompt supercritically is the process that caused Chernybol to explode and probably the Fukashima reactors too.

This is incorrect. In both cases (Chernobyl and Fukushima) the heat was not removed from the core..."

Fuku, yes. Chernobyl was a chain of events that started with shutting down four of the eight cooling pumps as part of the experiment. Voids were caused by the control rods being inserted too quickly into the core. The power simultaneously dropped too fast (iodine/xenon ratio), causing the operator to react by withdrawing the rods too quickly. The subsequent power surge + degraded cooling + positive void coefficient resulted in overheating and the fuel rods disintegrating. The engineers did not understand all the interactions well enough at the time, and the reactor operator followed the known (but inadequate) methods.

"...Chernobyl, because of a stupid experiment they were running (see how long the electrical turbine generator could run after removing the steam that powered it by shutting off the main steam valve)..."

It wasn't planned very well, but it wasn't a stupid experiment. The turbines weigh hundreds of tons and spin for hours after you stop feeding them steam. In an emergency, you can use that energy to generate some electricity for a fairly long time before the turbines slow down too much. In the event of the loss of both outside power and turbine driving steam (like a leak or stuck valve), the reactor operators wanted to determine how long they could use the energy of a spinning turbine to continue to generate electricity in an emergency just for the reactor cooling pumps. It was a legitimate emergency strategy for maintaining cooling in an accident. They already performed this experiment at least once before and figured they could buy themselves even more time by changing some electrical components (voltage regulators). The experiment was to understand the limits of generating emergency power and reactor cooling in that situation. At the time and for that type of rector, it made perfect sense to establish those limits. The engineers didn't account for a combination of events and the reactor operator trusted his instruments (which didn't account for the partially-understood combination of events). For what they knew at the time, the same thing would have happened in an actual emergency if they lost half the cooling pumps and manually shut down.

"...Hence the reactor had no heat sink...Things got to hot..."

As long as the reactor had cooling water being pumped into it, then it had a heat sink. Water was being pumped into the reactor by four of the eight cooling pumps - well within the contingency design of Chernobyl 4. An automatic scram would have worked without a problem. The manual procedure didn't account for all the as yet unknown factors. The operator followed the proper manual procedures as known and understood at the time. 

"...Water in the reactor turns to steam. Blows the pressure relief valves..."

In Chernobyl, I'm pretty sure the steam came out the giant hole in the bottom of the reactor, not the pressure relief valves. 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 16:11 | 6911574 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture

>There is a whole fuckload of problems with dropping a bank of rods 1) faster than you're suppose to, and 2) when the rest of the reactor is at full power.

Really? Because we used to do that drill along with complete reactor scrams all the time when I was a reactor operator.

"...In modern cmmercial reactors, the control rods operate in banks, lose power to one of the banks, the control rods drop, the reactor goes subcritical, essentially shutting itself down..."

>I'm sure any power reactor operator would get a chuckle out of that.

Why don't you ask one then? https://www.nukeworker.com/

There's a forum there. Ask for yourself... As for me, I'm chuckling about your lack of knowledge at the moment.

Since you are running all over the map, I am being patient and trying to take each one in turn...

In Chernobyl, I'm pretty sure the steam came out the giant hole in the bottom of the reactor, not the pressure relief valves. 

AS for Chernobyl... Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences. The death toll has since increased to about 56.

Your overall lack of knowledge is frightening. Considering it is written down in great detail here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

 

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 00:31 | 6913467 Paveway IV
Paveway IV's picture

"...In modern cmmercial reactors, the control rods operate in banks, lose power to one of the banks, the control rods drop, the reactor goes subcritical, essentially shutting itself down..."

Bullshit. Ten rods dropping did not make Indian Point 2 'go subcritical'. The operators chose to trip it in response to the dropped rods. Westinghouse themselves say that dropped rods could cause the reactor to increase power in other parts of the core to maintain overall output. 

"...However, the rods are incrementally stepped into and out of the core by electromechanical jacks which can, on occasion, malfunction resulting in the dropping of a rod into the core and thereby reducing the power output in the vicinity of the dropped rod. The nature of the operation of a PWR is such that the reactor attempts to make up for the local loss of reactivity caused by the dropped rod by increasing the power elsewhere in the core so that the demand placed upon the reactor is still met. This, in turn, can lead to local limits being exceeded in these other parts of the core..."

I didn't make the comment about super-criticality, but this is not a trivial event. I'll stand by my comment that the operators lost bladder/bowel control when ten rods dropped for no apparent reason. I don't care if the response was to scram the reactor manually and I assume they're perfectly comfortable doing that. The whole point is they would have been wondering why the fuck the rods dropped AT ALL and what else might be happening - unexpectedly

"...Why don't you ask one then? https://www.nukeworker.com/... There's a forum there. Ask for yourself... As for me, I'm chuckling about your lack of knowledge at the moment."

"Uh.. hey, do any of you ROs ever worry if control rods start dropping into a reactor at 100% power for no apparent reason? All you have to do is scram the reactor manually. No big deal, right? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Unless the MCC fire you didn't know about took out other control circuitry and you couldn't get the other hundred or so rods to drop. Then you would be kind of fucked, right?"

"...AS for Chernobyl... Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire..."

Whoa... first you said the overheating was caused by closing the main turbine steam valve and loss of the heat sink (wrong). It doesn't matter where the steam was going, the core was still getting cooling water. The power excursion was the result of localized heating/voids caused by inserting the control rods, which in turn caused a power excursion to some incredible level, which resulted in the graphite and fuel rods fracturing and disintegrating. That happened in seconds - no steam relief valve nor any amount of cooling would have mattered at that point.

"...Your overall lack of knowledge is frightening. Considering it is written down in great detail here:..."

Wikipedia? It looks like they sourced the IAEA's INSAG-7 report. Try reading it - it's pretty interesting. What's frightening is that you were a nuke, yet attribute Chernobyl to the loss of its heat sink and a steam explosion. That's like attributing the deaths of victims of a drunken-driving accident to 'sudden deceleration'. 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 19:49 | 6912589 neptunium
neptunium's picture

Paveway is the sort of insufferable know-it-all neckbeard bore that is "in residence" here, he is an self-declared expert on literally everything known to mankind. 

No surprise to me that he would chastise a reactor-operator for not knowing about reactor operation, of course he would.

And as a result he is a real smash-hit on a site like this literally full of comparably tedious frantic dimwits. 

For the record, thank you for your contributions here Cheech, it's nice to see that this site's contributions aren't solely taking place from mom's basement... 

Sat, 12/12/2015 - 01:03 | 6913544 Paveway IV
Paveway IV's picture

I read stuff and post it here relative to the issues discussed. What makes you think that a tedious frantic dimwit like me is an expert at anything? In fact, why even slum here in this intellectual cesspool of a fight club at all? Wouldn't your time better be spent gee-gawing at the 'experts' on CNN and Fox? They probalby Google the same crap as I do, asshole. 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 17:32 | 6911982 AGuy
AGuy's picture

"AS for Chernobyl... Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences. The death toll has since increased to about 56."

Thousand of people died in that accident, Just not immediately after the blast. The Soviet Union sent hundred of soldiers to work on contaiment and most died a few years after.

Would I be wrong to say,  that when a US plant goes bang, you be one of the first volunteers to help clean up the mess right? Afterall, you know there are no health risks to being exposed. Cheers to you for volunteering!

 

 

 

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 09:47 | 6909690 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

OK maybe you will know this answer. They said 100% of the "TOTAL SPENT FUEL" was released from unit 4. Is that the rods in the cooling pool or in the core. I am wondering if we are talking about the cooling pools spent rods from units 3  and unit 4. SPENT fuel is what the artice says for reactors 3 and 4. Reactor 2 says TOTAL fuel not spent fuel.

 

What does that mean to you. You have worked with this crap. Opinion? 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 15:55 | 6911491 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture

That is a bit bizarre, but they may have had a small containment pool inside unit 4 to store spent fuel rods. I'd have to get ahold of their refueling schedule to see when it was last refueled and what they did with the spent fuel rods/cells.

Spent fuel rods/cells usually means they are no longer useable because the Uranium/MOX/fuel has essentially depleted itself to the point the fuel cell no longer produces neutrons from the fission of uranium.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 09:38 | 6909649 bbq on whitehou...
bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

The government now has a normal level of plutonium in the atmostphere.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 00:19 | 6908637 joego1
joego1's picture

The goverment thought it was best for the sheeple if they didn't know. I remember them deploying American war ships right off shore from that nightmare. What a bunch of morons.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 00:07 | 6908572 g'kar
g'kar's picture

what .gov stops reporting on is interesting...cdc's last cancer data was 2012 (fukushima was 2011)

 

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/state.htm

nahh..they aren't covering anything up

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 04:30 | 6909080 Nassim
Nassim's picture

The cancer rate ties in nicely with the obesity rate.

http://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

Radiation takes a long time to rear its ugly snout. Loads of people still dying in parts of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus because of Chernobyl.

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 09:18 | 6909595 1033eruth
1033eruth's picture

Radiation is one thing that can cause cells to mutate and yes and depending on exposure, the lag time can take forever.  Same for smoking cigarettes.  It took medical community DECADES to finally condemn smoking as a serious health risk and addicts always claim there is no risk at all because they had a relative that lived to be 85 and smoked like a chimney.

It really wasn't that long ago that the cigarette industry had ads with doctors pushing cigarettes.

Nowadays you have millions of armchair generals that want to nuke the middle east, North Korea and whoever else the media deems to be a pest.  

This whole article should be directed at the armchair generals that can't wait to use nuclear bombs.  Apparently they can not connect the dots between Fukushima/Chernobyl and lofting bombs to "glassify" large swaths of the planet.   

Thu, 12/10/2015 - 23:49 | 6908480 Ms No
Ms No's picture

I wonder if there aren't companies dumping like holy hell in the Pacific being that there has already been an incident to blame.    

Thu, 12/10/2015 - 23:47 | 6908471 ---------
---------'s picture

i wont eat fish from pacific ever again

dang it i liked tuna

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 03:21 | 6909016 jaxville
jaxville's picture

   I really like sushi.  I am thinking of holding off my next visit to my favorite restaraunt until I get a geiger counter.

Bummer

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 11:59 | 6910413 GRDguy
GRDguy's picture

It'd be cool to have a smartphone app that acts like a geiger counter. Kinda like that car diagnostic thing. Software + hardware.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 12:07 | 6910444 GRDguy
GRDguy's picture

Duh, I really am old.  It's already been done. Search "smart  geiger" on your favorite search engine. 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 12:16 | 6910524 GRDguy
GRDguy's picture

Geez, there's even a youtube video.  NO, I'm not promoting anyone, just amazed that just about anything I think about creating has already been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fixcZx_Lpz8

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 00:27 | 6908668 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Plenty o' tuna on the east coast.

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 06:08 | 6909201 SunRise
SunRise's picture

Does Tuna come with an East Cost / West Coast tag?

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 06:56 | 6909260 Tinky
Tinky's picture

Actually, if you make a little effort you can find out which brands are sourced from the Atlantic and/or Mediterranean.

 

 

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 06:03 | 6909196 dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

Tuna is soaked through with Mercury

Fri, 12/11/2015 - 07:00 | 6909262 Tinky
Tinky's picture

Not true. Amounts vary widely depending on size (the bigger the higher amounts), and concentrations are lower in light than white.

Also, people excrete heavy metals with varying efficiency. Learn about your body and maximize your health.

Tuna has a been a primary protein source for me throughout my adult life, and I do not show high levels of mercury.

Thu, 12/10/2015 - 23:42 | 6908443 Baby Bladeface
Baby Bladeface's picture

On this matter exists somewhere a source of confusion. This report of 18-3-2011 and contradicts story since one year ago removal to storage pool ground level reactor 4 spent fuel.

https://www.rt.com/news/202367-fukushima-spent-fuel-removed/

If a clarification between versions somehow and appreciated.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!