Fukushima 6/27/12 Record Radiation levels 10,300 millisieverts/hour at Reactor 1
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/06/27/tepco-detects-record-radiatio...
Anyone have an intelligent idea on how to clean up this mess?
They say they will have to use robots but even robots cannot withstand those levels. So anyone got an idea?
You are wrong here too.
LED lights don't work on the basis of Planckian radiation.
Incandescent bulbs work on the basis of Planckian radiation; you heat a filament up to very high temperatures. That's why incandescent bulbs are so inefficient; because in addition to radiating the white light that we want to see by; the bulb also radiates in all the lower frequencies. That takes energy, but doesn't help us see; so we are really wasting energy with incandescent bulbs.
All your examples are of devices that don't work on the Planckian black body principle. But that doesn't mean that there isn't Planckian black body radiation, or devices that work on that principle. It just means you neglected to list them.
It is your command of science that has been found lacking. Rude Dog may be arrogant, but at least he's got the correct science to back up that arrogance.
You, on the other hand, are arrogant and wrong.
Scientists vs. Stupid Anti-Nukes
The above interchange once again demonstrates this manifest difference between the thinking of scientists and the "thinking" ( term used loosely ) of the stupid anti-nukes.
The scientist begins with the Laws of Physics and working logically forward derives the conclusions for a given situation.
The stupid anti-nukes do just the opposite. The stupid anti-nuke "thinks" with his / her politics instead of his / her brain. They decide on what they want the answer to be politically, and work backwards.
In this case, our stupid anti-nuke decided that he / she wanted the explosion of Fukushima Unit 3 to be a full up nuclear explosion. The anti-nuke wants that because it makes for better propaganda; you can fear-monger the general public much better if you can tell them that they are threatened with a nuclear detonation. The anti-nuke then has to work backwards to justify their predetermined conclusion.
However, just like in a mathematical proof by "Reductio ad Absurdum", logically reducing a false statement ends up by concluding something that is demonstrably untrue. Such it was with our stupid anti-nuke that ended up attempting to disprove the concept of "thermal radiation" by an argument based on blue LEDs on a Christmas tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
Where do we get such manifestly stupid people, and what self-righteous unmitigated gall makes them believe that they can prevail in a scientific forum opposing real scientists?
A quotation that is usually attributed to Albert Einstein goes, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limitations; stupidity is boundless"
FYI Rainbow Bombs
Spectral Analysis
Dude, FYI
Links to many, perhaps all the nuclear weapons, atmospheric and oceanic tests have been posted to the BRAWM Forum. (several times)
You will no doubt recall, as many regular BRAWM readers do, that these awe inspiring energy bursts represented a rainbow of visible light. It is quite a light show, but you are likely familiar with this resource, as are we.
The point is, you have been left dangling, with an informed audience watching your gibbit twist, slowly ... slowly in the wind. No one denies that prompt criticalities emit the entire spectrum and all the particles. However, owing to camera, angle, dust, distance, humidity, natural filtration, and a thousand other variables, the videos show everything from black, blue, yellow, red or white. The presence or absence of the intense white burst defines the photography more than the blast. Oh and the rainbow photos included fission weapons, fusion weapons and a lot of variously colored stars as well as other heavenly bodies.
Virtually everyone here knows you have been 'less than candid'. Your (authoritarian) screams from the gibbit were amusing, but not probative. The crows have picked your bones clean. So the show is over.
But, thanks for playing
Color/Temperature of the nuclear fireball
More evidence that our stupid little anti-nuke didn't know what part of the explosion to look at.
Colors of visible light correspond to temperatures of thousands of degrees; and are characteristic of chemical reactions:
The nuclear fireball; that initial flash; from a nuclear explosion is much more energetic. From the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/thermal.htm
The fireball from a nuclear explosion reaches blackbody temperatures greater than 10^7 K, so that the energy at which most photons are emitted corresponds to the x-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The article goes on to tell you why you see colors corresponding to cooler temperatures in the latter stages of the explosion.
But the information about the temperature of the explosion itself is given in looking at that initial flash which corresponds to 10 Million degrees K; and thus produces a WHITE color in the visible range; while most photons are in the X-ray range as stated above.
Little dummy flunked his high school science again.
MISSED the POINT!!!
When you look at the nuclear tests - you don't look at the mushroom cloud. Yes - the mushroom cloud can have LOTS of colors - because it is cooler than the explosion.
You want something that tells you something about the temperature of the explosion itself - you look at the fireball - that initial flash.
Evidently you never took high school chemistry and did a "flame test". You hold a piece of some material in a flame and watch what color emits. When you do that, you look at the color right at the material you are holding in the flame. You don't look at the color of the smoke a foot away.
I was clear when I said "FIREBALL" Do you know what the fireball is, dummy???
Evidently not; because you wouldn't say that they were a rainbow of colors. You were looking at the mushroom cloud, which is of cooler.
The FIREBALL of every nuclear explosion seen in the videos is WHITE!!
You just don't know what to look at or for.
Thank you again for being so stupid and making my point for me.
WRONG
Wrong!
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) declined to release the data they collected in real time, as did the member states.
Japan did NOT allow NGO (Non Government Organizations) access to the Fukushima nuclear power facility, surrounding area or national waters.
The Japanese evacuation warning system was not activated. No antiradiation drugs were provided. No widescale decontamination facilities were available. No widescale dosiometer testing was made available. Transportation and shelter were not available. The official Japanese response was 'You're On Your Own' (YOYO) and YOYO-MOFO.
Ann Coulter and her ilk, were unleashed on the world. TEPCO hired guns from physics and public health ... lied through their teeth about the dangers.
Japanese citizens, collected and mapped their own data, which revealed significantly higher radiation levels and doses than official maps.
ANYONE expecting a realistic appraisal from CTBO; was living in a dream world.
The global nuclear community was ... less than candid.
WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
Although the CTBTO declined to release their data in "real time" ( they probably wanted to study it themselves first ), they HAVE made public their conclusions:
http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2011/fukushima-related-meas...
The CTBTO’s monitoring system, custom-tailored to detecting nuclear explosions, can detect a range of radioactive isotopes, among them Iodine-131 and Caesium-137. Looking at the ratios between the various radioactive isotopes – in particular Caesium-137 – enables the source of the emission to be identified. In the case of the current readings, findings clearly indicate radionuclide releases from a damaged nuclear power plant, which is consistent with the recent accident at Fukushima in Japan.
The whole idea of the CTBTO system is to be able to discriminate between a nuclear explosion and a reactor accident, so that a nascent proliferating nation can't hide a nuclear test under the guise that it was a reactor accident. So CTBTO can certainly tell the difference.
CTBTO states above that their analysis clearly indicate that the releases from Fukushima show the characteristics of a leaking reactor following an accident rather than a nuclear explosion.
I know that you are not a seeker of truth; so are you going to say that CTBTO is "in on the cover-up". That is your default "explanation" when you are shown to be FLAT OUT WRONG!!.
CTBO foregone conclusions
The CTBO has been committed to MOX (plutonium enriched) fuel for some time. CTBO has mucho 'egg-on-face' for the MOX fueled atomic blast in Fukushima-3.
I personally accept the notion that the global physics community (GPC) subscribed to the 'minimum concentration fallacy' prior to the Fukushima-3 atomic explosion. Not every member of course, but a consensus opinion. Probably, prior to the TMI meltdown, the GPC consensus would have accepted something along the lines of 'The China Syndrome'. At TMI, the core melt-down was self-limiting.
With each reactor incident, a substantial increase in the GPC fund of knowlege has been achieved.
The Fukushima-3 atomic explosion is 'a lesson learned'.
CTBO is as committed to covering up the Fukushima-3 atomic explosion as they should be to bringing it to light.
The CTBO involvement in the MOX fuel implementation project was, IMHO, an honest mistake, based on the consensus opinion of the GPC. The CTBO participation in the cover-up, represents a much deeper, scientific, character and moral flaw.
Moral bankruptcy
The CTBTO is not "invested" in MOX!!!
The CTBTO is not "invested" in MOX!!!
Again, where did you get THAT "idea"????
The CTBTO is an organization under the auspices of the United Nations and the IAEA that is devoted to "policing" the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
They have no reason to promote MOX!!!
This is getting to be a real "formula" for the anti-nukes.
When things aren't going your way, when every thing you say is PROVED to be an OUTRIGHT LIE; then you completely fabricate some nonsense out of whole cloth that someone has a financial interest in the view opposed to yours, and thus can be discredited.
We see this childish ploy over and over and over again from the anti-nukes.
Everyone is financially corrupt; except them.
SELF-RIGHTEOUS MORONS; every last one of them.
This current one is no exception.
Candor
Refusal
The CTBO and member states, REFUSED to publish their DATA and post-Fukushima methodology. Thus violating every conceivable tenant of scientific endeavor and global 'sunshine' organizations.
It would be imprudent AND unscientific to even consider their unsubstantiated 'conclusions'.
CTBO (foregone) 'conclusions' are rejected out-of-hand.
GIGO (Garbage In - Garbage Out)
Oh PULEEEZZ...
The CTBTO published their data and conclusions. They just didn't publish it in "real time" as you desire.
It's quite normal for a scientific team not to publish raw data that has not been analyzed. When CERN had indications that neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, did they rush that data out to the public? No, they held it back and analyzed it before they published.
If they had done a more careful analysis before releasing the data, they may have discovered the timing delay that led to the erroneous result. In that case, we wouldn't have a bad conclusion, albeit preliminary; published by a world-class physics laboratory.
This desire for "real time" release of data is really rooted in a severe distrust of science and scientists. The desire is to get the data out before the scientists can distort it for their own gains, or those of their political or financial masters.
I believe scientists are more honest than that. I believe we owe them the right to analyze their data for errors before releasing it. I don't believe that "sunshine" rules require scientists to release raw data that has not been analyzed for errors. Scientists should be in the business of releasing good, hard supportable data, and not raw data for the benefit of those who are anti-science.
Miscalculations
Deal with it!
You must not have gotten the memo.
The history of SCIENCE is replete with disguarded dogma, theories, mathematical 'proofs'.
The atomic explosion at Fukushima-3, merely added to a long, long list of discredited pseudo-scientific theories. We live, we learn. Your tantrums will not make it go away.
Fukushima-3 was an atomic explosion
Deal with it!
REALLY????
The history of SCIENCE is replete with disguarded dogma, theories, mathematical 'proofs'.
I don't recall any history of science that shows violation of the Laws of Physics.
This is just the usual unintelligent hand-waving argument by the anti-nukes - that science is just all up for grabs and anything can happen and has.
That's not what happens at all. For example, one of the biggest "upsets" in Physics was due to Einstein's Relativity. However, Einstein's Relativity didn't invalidate all of Newtonian physics. It just told us that we can't use Newton's Laws at speeds close to the speed of light. However, at low speeds that we are accustomed to; Einstein's Relativity looks EXACTLY like Newtons.
Fukushima Unit 3 was NOT a nuclear explosion.
The anti-nukes have given ZERO scientific justification for their claim that it was a nuclear explosion.
Deal with that; PINHEAD.
Subsume
I reckon that relativistic physics subsuming Newtonian physics, is and has long been a lesson in high school physics classes. Perhaps even the slower kids in physical science hear that lecture.
Maybe it is in the back of their book.
Perhaps, in your neighborhood, they still teach light propagation through a luminiferous aether. Most of the rest of us consider that the Michelson–Morley Experiment disproved the luminiferous aether theory (LAT).
LAT is in the ashcan of science history
Mr. Anti-Nuke, Demented Reality Forum Bully
No reason to even read this guys comments. I just page down until his garbage is flushed. Then go on to more useful posts
Thank You for such a logical and reasoned argument.
Thank you for such a logical and reasoned argument.
Scholarly set out and backed up with authoritative citations, too.
Mr. Anti-Nuke, Demented Reality Forum Bully
Here he is again thanking himself. Typical industry sock puppet. Yes, we know you. Down arrow key, flusshhh...
That's not true.
I thanked him, and I'm not him.
Rag On
Again
We have heard this long-winded, unsupported harangue B4.
The Nuclear Power Industry is Heavily Invested in MOX fuel production and distribution. It is quite obvious which side their bread is buttered on. So they RAG ON, and on, ad naseum and ad infinitum, about this (apparently incorrect) minimum concentration level.
The INTERNAL conditions of Reactor-3 were unknown, as the meters melted and control power was gone. There are a thousand scenarios, whereby the (assumed) concentration level is wrong; and/or the localized conditions INSIDE reactor-3 met the assumption.
Still, we watched the atomic bomb go off.
And we are laughing at your (over) protestations to the contrary.
Shall we REALLY use our eyes..
Some here have suggested that all we need to do is use our eyes. OK - let's use our eyes and reason from what we saw. We saw an explosion in the Unit 3 reactor building, and as a result, the sides of the building were blown out, but the building itself was not leveled. There remains a skeleton of the building.
Has the public ever seen such an occurrence before? Actually yes; on the day after the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991. On the day after the first night of bombing of Iraq, Gen. Horner, USAF, the commanding general of all air forces arrayed against Iraq, showed a "gun camera" footage of the bombing of the headquarters of his Iraqi counterpart. The Iraqi Air Force headquarters was a boxy building about the size of the Unit 3 reactor building. We saw the building bombed, and the sides of the building were blown out, but the building was not leveled. The damage to the Iraqi HQ was similar to the Unit 3 reactor building.
However, we know the yield of the bomb that destroyed the Iraqi HQ, since Gen. Horner told us - it was a 2,000 lb. bomb dropped from a US F-117A stealth fighter. So the explosion that destroyed this building and did damage comparable to the Unit 3 explosion was a 1 ton bomb. Therefore, it is quite logical to conclude that the Unit 3 explosion was closer to 1 ton in yield as opposed to a kiloton in yield. Nuclear explosions have yields typically in the multi-kiloton to megaton range.
The core of the Unit 3 reactor contained a 100 ton core of nuclear material and zirconium tubes.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf32.html
Using the specifications contained above, we can calculate that the core contains a few tons of zirconium. It is quite reasonable then that when an appreciable fraction of that zirconium is oxidized, we will have a ton or more of hydrogen gas released. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that the 1 ton explosion seen at Unit 3 was due to a chemical explosion of hydrogen.
Unless there is some other evidence; such as a fission product production characteristic of a nuclear explosion, or the measurement of neutrons, or some other evidence of a nuclear explosion; our eyes tell us this was a 1 ton explosion which is consistent with the amount of hydrogen released.
Troll Alert
Rude Dude
A screamer ... Loud, obnoxious & thin-skinned ... Quite a combination
So is this guy a volunteer, or a professional, agitator and agent provacateur?
I'm guessing he is 'on the clock'. However, I have run into a few, scattered, butthairs in physics departments from time to time. They are not the norm, for the profession, but the tone of this one brings a few of those guys names to mind.
Mostly these rude-dudes
Mostly
Mostly these rude-dudes browbeat freshmen in major university entry level physics classes. They cannot and will not teach. No way are they ever allowed near the well-funded, cool research projects, nifty hardware, or talented grad students. Publication and tenure are entirely out of the question.
They start off arrogant and quickly spin into bitter.
Mostly
I'm retired!!!
However, I was tenured on the faculty of the University of Michigan.
I then moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and spent the bulk of my career there, also in a tenured position.
Fancy That
MIT
Fancy that. We have a confession, without the bother of an accusation.
MPT
What is your EVIDENCE
Explain why you think it is a nuclear explosion.
You claim you "saw" it go off. OK - tell us what you saw that made you conclude the explosion was nuclear.
Sure - you saw a mushroom cloud over an explosion that destroyed a building, and didn't destroy the building right next to it ( Unit 2 ).
Now REAL nuclear explosions blow up whole cities, and this explosion didn't even take out the nearby building.
So why do you think it was a nuclear explosion?
Again, it shows the idiot anti-nukes can't think with their brains; they can only believe what they want to believe despite all good scientific evidence to the contrary.
Anything they can't explain; then it's a cover-up.
Doesn't sound too intelligent to me.
Nuclear Explosions
Nuclear fission explosions come in a continuum of sizes.
The 2nd Godiva accident produced a VERY small mechanical explosion, about the size of an M80 (Cherry Bomb) or a typical blasting cap. The radiation, thermal and phonon emissions were a bit more substantial. It was a teensie nuclear bomb. Had the Godiva structural members been mechanically stronger, the blast would have been MUCH bigger. If a Hefty bag or 55 gallon barrel been dropped over the core, that would have increased the blast substantially. A better reflector would do even more. Many other, equally simple enhancements could take a Godiva-type excursion into a crater-making bomb.
Not much to it
The Godiva excursion: radiation, light emissions, mechanical force, sound and heat generation stayed entirely within the building. So, using your simpleton AND wrongheaded 'logic', "how do we know it happened?"
Denial is a brain-dead activity
The Godiva, SL-!, Chernobyl AND Fukushima were Atomic Blasts. Active fission got out of the can and made a mess.
No sense lying about it!
Our lying eyes
Caught In flagrante delicto, the philanderer proclaims ...
Are you going to believe me; or your lying frigging eyes?
The 'EYES' have it.
Do you know what to look for?
Do you know what to look for??
Look at this explosion, even more impressive than Unit 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K0cEX9ex3U
However, it's not a nuclear explosion. That's a rocket fuel factory.
Now tell me what you see with your eyes that tells you what the energy source is?
Can you explain that?
Your eyes are NOT the instruments you need to make that determination.
Roger That
.
Affirmative
Q1) Yep
Q2) Sequence: Hydrogen Explosion -> Implosion -> Atomic Explosion -> Cover-Up
Q3) Yep, the industry dominant paradigm, regarding Pu required concentations, is incorrect.
...
EYES are more reliable than LIES
...
A Billion Ayes
A Billion Eyes witnessed the Fukushima-3 Atomic Explosion
Kah - ahhh - BOOOM
Nuclear Power Industry hack protestations notwithstanding,
A Billion Ayes
The Ayes Have It, the motion passes, adjournment sine die
A Billion Eyes ---- A Billion Ayes
DEVOID of logic and content
I notice that the above is totally devoid of logic and content.
The "argument" is "It looks like a nuclear explosion".
Have you no life experiences where things are not what they appear to be????
Now tell us some science and not what you "think" things "look" like.
IMHO, you are 1 of many lying arses
Admiral Hyman Rickover
"Sit down before fact with an open mind. Be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you learn nothing. Don’t push out figures when facts are going in the opposite direction."
"It is incumbent on those in high places to make wise decisions and it is reasonable and important that the public be correctly informed."
"Father - USA Nuclear Navy"
About open minds...
"Keep an open mind –
but not so open that your brain falls out"
--Prof. Richard Feynmann, Nobel-Prize winning physicist.
Seeing what is there to be seen
Chapter 2 -
Perception: Why Can't We See What Is There To Be Seen?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-pub...
There is a tendency to think of a mind-set as something bad, to be avoided. According to this line of argument, one should have an open mind and be influenced only by the facts rather than by preconceived notions! That is an unreachable ideal. There is no such thing as "the facts of the case." There is only a very selective subset of the overall mass of data to which one has been subjected that one takes as facts and judges to be relevant to the question at issue.
Actually, mind-sets are neither good nor bad; they are unavoidable. People have no conceivable way of coping with the volume of stimuli that impinge upon their senses, or with the volume and complexity of the data they have to analyze, without some kind of simplifying preconceptions about what to expect, what is important, and what is related to what. "There is a grain of truth in the otherwise pernicious maxim that an open mind is an empty mind."22 Analysts do not achieve objective analysis by avoiding preconceptions; that would be ignorance or self-delusion. Objectivity is achieved by making basic assumptions and reasoning as explicit as possible so that they can be challenged by others and analysts can, themselves, examine their validity.
Clarification
Correction
Both problem statements and both underlying problems are intransigent.
Oooh Oooh
Why ask the obscure?
The celebrities Al Gore and Barack Obama EARNED Nobel Prizes, for their contributions.
Ask them.
THAT will 'fix it'.
Tepco will never do what's right they will do what costs less...
The reactors are in a state of "cold shutdown " i have read that statement many times.I have also read experts talk of "core on floor" .
BWR REACTOR VESSEL BOTTOM HEAD FAILURE MODES
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6124656-R8y05j/6124656.pdf
It should be recalled that one of the dominant BWR severe accident sequences is Long-Term Station Blackout, for which the reactor vessel could not be depressurized [2]. For this accident sequence, the tensile stress in the bottom head wall would be approximately 26 x 106 N/m2 so that creep-rupture failure would be. expected to occur about four hours after the wall temperature reached 1225 K. Nevertheless, BWRSAR code calculations again predict that penetration failure would occur within a few minutes after bottom head dryout when the maximum wall temperature is about 800 K. Therefore, it is expected that most of the metallic debris would have left the reactor vessel by means of the instrument tube penetration failures for this case as well.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6124656-R8y05j/6124656.pdf
Yeah, Right
Lessee here,
1st I need to run down & file a patent application, Yeah, that's the ticket for great new ideas.
Nah, that would never work, Congress effectively repealed the tattered remains of the USA Patent Law and killed the former $6T sector of the American economy. New, problem solving ideas are presently worthless, and unprotected.
The best suggestion that comes to mind for Japan residents is ... "think fast". Oh and perhaps TEPCO executive staff and board of directors, and their counterparts at the E&C firms, should be 'On Hand' at Fukushima.
They broke it. Now let them fix it, at gunpoint.
In My Humble Opinion
Patience
Good will
Well, I certainly made a bundle off my last cooperative venture with the Japanese. They brought their considerable manufacturing skills to bear, in the exacting fashion that they are famous for. Made a lot of great friends and had some great times in Japan. Then we kicked some serious butt in the global marketplace. The depth of my personal gratitude and regard for the Japanese is boundless. NOT!
Let’s learn patience … together! Meanwhile that sock drawer needs rearranging.