Submitted by R. Cromack (not verified) on Fri, 2011-06-03 07:44.
...As I've unfortunately come to expect from the IAEA this last month or so their latest assessment is long on platitudes and short on specifics (what, EXACTLY, I wonder, is to be deemed "stable" about three nuclear reactors in as-yet undetermined condition... as well as indeterminate levels of ACTUAL EXISTENCE... whose conditions cannot at this time be ascertained due to the positively LETHAL levels of radiation saturating the former containment buildings of same, that are more or less fully melting down into the sea?), and is probably more notable and useful for what it DOESN'T say, than what it actually, at length and apparently rather unwillingly, manages to convey.
Which is all by way of saying: For better or worse, this is, was and will emphatically remain, TEPCO's show. The OAEA, for all its presumed expertise, influence and investment in a survivable outcome, is for all intents and purposes, worthless. A paper tiger at best; a vacuous, obsequious, retarded cheerleader at worst. And I know which side I'm increasingly leaning toward, there.
Submitted by VB (not verified) on Fri, 2011-06-03 10:22.
To be fair, they only said:
"In Units 1, 2 and 3 fresh water is being continuously injected both via the feed water system lines and the fire extinguishers lines into the reactor pressure vessel; temperatures and pressures remain stable"
I can't find any other place they say anything is stable.
They provide a status of each reactor (1-4) in the following link:
The only "safe state" for "Necessary safety function and conditions" they consider "Achieved" is the "Reactor is subcritical and sub-criticality is demonstrated and maintained". The rest are either "Not Achieved" or "Partially Achieved".
As for them being useless, well...I agree. They are basically just repeating what TEPCO and the Japanese government is telling them. The following article makes that pretty clear:
Hmmm...
...As I've unfortunately come to expect from the IAEA this last month or so their latest assessment is long on platitudes and short on specifics (what, EXACTLY, I wonder, is to be deemed "stable" about three nuclear reactors in as-yet undetermined condition... as well as indeterminate levels of ACTUAL EXISTENCE... whose conditions cannot at this time be ascertained due to the positively LETHAL levels of radiation saturating the former containment buildings of same, that are more or less fully melting down into the sea?), and is probably more notable and useful for what it DOESN'T say, than what it actually, at length and apparently rather unwillingly, manages to convey.
Which is all by way of saying: For better or worse, this is, was and will emphatically remain, TEPCO's show. The OAEA, for all its presumed expertise, influence and investment in a survivable outcome, is for all intents and purposes, worthless. A paper tiger at best; a vacuous, obsequious, retarded cheerleader at worst. And I know which side I'm increasingly leaning toward, there.
Rick CROMACK.
Allen, Texas
They didn't say the reactors are stable
To be fair, they only said:
"In Units 1, 2 and 3 fresh water is being continuously injected both via the feed water system lines and the fire extinguishers lines into the reactor pressure vessel; temperatures and pressures remain stable"
I can't find any other place they say anything is stable.
They provide a status of each reactor (1-4) in the following link:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/summary-of-reactor-unit-status-2-june-2011
The only "safe state" for "Necessary safety function and conditions" they consider "Achieved" is the "Reactor is subcritical and sub-criticality is demonstrated and maintained". The rest are either "Not Achieved" or "Partially Achieved".
As for them being useless, well...I agree. They are basically just repeating what TEPCO and the Japanese government is telling them. The following article makes that pretty clear:
"IAEA wants latest information on nuclear accident"
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/03_01.html