Where is the "hot particles" smoking gun?
Posted by BC 9/28
Okay folks, this has been eating at me, so here goes.
I think the biggest factor for concern for many of us here in the US has been not the tiny amounts of cesium that Fukushima has introduced into our environment but the idea of the fuel fleas/hot particles that one of the early Fairewinds videos made mention of. Very scary stuff. Americium, etc. Breathe a little in, buy the farm.
Now BRAWM has at least set limits for americium, and has been unable to detect it with their methodology. Also, they have been publishing data and analysis thereof since nearly day one of this incident (and thank goodness for that). Meanwhile, I have seen zero data supporting those early claims from Fairewinds.
Now I know science takes time, but if I had the data to prove conclusively that huge populations both in Japan and points east had been exposed to nasty junk such as mentioned, I would get the raw data out and write the paper later. Where is the data? Is there any? I read up on Gunderson and especially Marco Kaltofen, who looks to be a certifiable genius, and have to wonder out loud - if they have the data, where is it, and why not make it available as soon as testing is complete?
Thoughts anyone?
Fukushima air filter data
Fukushima air filter data presentation - Halloween (All Hallows Eve)
Posting available ~ All Saints Day November 1, 2011
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5681#comment-19333
Submitted by Marco Kaltofen (not verified) on Thu, 2011-09-29 18:33.
The data for the air filters tested at WPI will be presented at the 139th meeting of the American Public Health Association, next month, (Monday Oct. 31, 8:30 AM), in Washington, DC. The presentations will be available online after the close of the meeting.
http://apha.confex.com/apha/139am/webprogram/Paper254015.html
This is no doubt some of the
This is no doubt some of the most important data we will see.
Pay attention everyone.
Conversation Pieces
*
Those lung cancer biopsy slides with the hot particles and radiating tissue damage make effective displays.
The autopsy photos are also excellent scientific evidence.
These are all great 'conversation starters'.
It is difficult to argue with forensic evidence, but industry attorneys are always up for the challenge.
Fukushima air filter data
The data for the air filters tested at WPI will be presented at the 139th meeting of the American Public Health Association, next month, (Monday Oct. 31, 8:30 AM), in Washington, DC. The presentations will be available online after the close of the meeting.
http://apha.confex.com/apha/139am/webprogram/Paper254015.html
Mr. Kaltofen- Can you speak
Mr. Kaltofen-
Can you speak as to any precautions those us in the western United States might take? Previously (in the Fairewinds video) you mentioned avoiding disturbing/inhaling dusts, does this still apply at this time? Any foods to avoid? Preventative measures?
Thanks in advance.
Thank you sir. Looking
Thank you sir. Looking forward to the information.
CRED
Three nuclear reactors suffered total meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, with one appparent atomic explosion, in Unit-3. Fukushima is still spewing nuclear waste, including radioactive iodine, into the land, air, sea and groundwater.
Chernobyl consisted of only one reactpr meltdown, with atomic explosion. Chernobyl was entombed within weeks.
So, in a first order analysis, it appears likely that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident is several times the severity to human health and the environment, relative to Chernobyl.
Gunderson, Busby and others measured automobile filters. They are remarkably candid and accurate in their methods and assessments. BRAWM has been very helpful. The rest of the lot have been useless or dangerous.
But what is different is
But what is different is that the Chernobyl reactor had no containment at all, meaning that nearly the whole wad was blown sky high. As crappy as the BWR design is, it did contain a whole lot more of the radioactive materials than the Chernobyl style reactor.
Also, #3 did not necessarily suffer a nuclear explosion. I personally disagree with Gunderson on that point - he bases his "prompt criticality" theory on the speed of the blast wave being greater than 1000 miles per hour - from 9/20 Fairewinds -
"The third area is an area we’ve discussed in depth in a previous video. That area is that the explosion at Unit 3 was a detonation, not a deflagration. It has to do with the speed of the shockwave. The shockwave at Unit 3 traveled faster than the speed of sound, and that’s an important distinction that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the entire nuclear industry is not looking at. A containment can’t withstand a shockwave that travels faster than the speed of sound, yet all containments are designed assuming that doesn’t happen. At Fukushima 3, it happened. We need to understand how it happened and mitigate against it in the future on all reactors. Now, I measured that. A scale the size of the building against the speed at which the explosion occurred, and determined that that shockwave traveled at around a thousand miles per hour. The speed of sound is around six hundred feet per second (600 ft/sec) so, if this is what I think it is, it could cause enormous damage to a containment. They are not designed to handle it. Yet, the NRC is not looking at that."
Just where he is coming from is beyond me, because you damned sure don't need a prompt criticality or anything like that to get a shock wave that moves greater than 1000 mph.
Also, as to Busby and Gunderson testing air filters, it's great that they have, but where in the hell is the data??? I mean, all I have seen is the kindegarten version, I would like to see some numbers. Also, another beef I have with the air filters from Japan is that they are using these air filters to make some pretty broad statements - for example, let's say one of these cars drove through a "cloud" of the highly contaminated air, it could have had a huge portion of the overall amount of cesium deposited in a very short time. Is it accurate to use that type of date to make broad statements about the quality of air over a 30-60 day time period for a large area over which the car travelled? I say no, the material deposited in that filter could have been from one day in one place, and gives us a somewhat useless piece of information.
I applaud anyone who is working to bring light to this, but c'mon, if there's some raw data, some good numbers and info, let's see them.
Of coiurse....
The shockwave at Unit 3 traveled faster than the speed of sound, and that’s an important distinction that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the entire nuclear industry is not looking at.
=============================================
What's so special about a shockwave traveling faster than sound? Hell - if it didn't travel faster than the speed of sound, it wouldn't be a shockwave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave
A shock wave travels through most media at a higher speed than an ordinary wave.
In this case, an "ordinary wave" would be a pressure wave. Sound is a pressure wave, so these "ordinary waves" travel at the speed of sound.
Since a shockwave travels through most media, including air; at speeds higher than an ordinary pressure wave, and the ordinary pressure wave moves at the speed of sound; the shockwave travels faster than sound.
That's true for a nuclear explosion, and it is also true for a chemical explosion. Hence, the fact that the shockwave is super-sonic doesn't differentiate between nuclear explosions and conventional explosions, and there is nothing "special" happening that the NRC is ignoring.
Hm, it is even obvious to my
Hm, it is even obvious to my uneducated eye that the reactor 3 explosion was different than the other explosions.
It was
- taller, I think about 3 times as tall
- darker, it was a dark gray
- started with a fireball, fire was visible at the beginning
- a large, round item, just the right size and shape to be the containment lid, was seen to come back down again beside the building.
So, I'm sure it was a different explosion, bigger and badder, and one which ejected the core directly into the sky, and, unfortunately, the jetstream. I don't know what the lingo for that type of explosion is, but that's clearly what happened, in my books.
My question is, if one were to assume all this to be true (And even if you don't believe this to be true, you can still answer this as a hypothetical), IF this were all true, do we then KNOW hot particles, the likes of which have a 1/1000 mortality risk or higher associated with the inhalation of each, can we be reasonably CERTAIN that hot particles were emitted, along with iodine, cesium, and the rest?
Want to explain your "reasoning"?
So, I'm sure it was a different explosion, bigger and badder, and one which ejected the core directly into the sky, and, unfortunately, the jetstream
----------------------------------
I don't see why you would necessarily conclude that the explosion ejected the core. Hydrogen gas was generated inside the core, and vented to the reactor building by the operators. There's nothing in the core to serve as a source of ignition, and there's no oxygen for the hydrogen to combine with.
(The oxygen that had been bound to the hydrogen to make water, is now bound to the zirconium) Without oxygen and a source of ignition, there's no way to get an explosion in the core. ( Remember, how the concern for the hydrogen bubble at Three Mile Island went away like magic when this was realized ).
The hydrogen was vented by the operators and built up in the reactor building, because unlike Mark I containments in the USA; the Japanese version doesn't have a vent to the outside.
In the reactor building, the story is different. Here we have ambient oxygen in the air for the hydrogen to mix with and form an explosive mixture. We also have sources of ignition - switches and motors that can produce little sparks.
So we have a detonation of hydrogen oxygen gas in the reactor building. However, between that explosion and the core we have the thick concrete walls of the primary containment. A steel liner for the primary containment, and then a very thick metal reactor pressure vessel.
Now tell me how the explosion out in the reactor building lofts the core housed inside both the containment and the reactor vessel.
I know you sincerely WANT and DESIRE that the core was lofted into the atmosphere, because you are anti-nuclear.
However, the wants and desires of an anti-nuke doesn't impress Mother Nature and she requires that events happen according to the laws of Physics.
Care to explain?
Name Only
*
The GE Mark-1 is, in name only, 'containment'.
The Fukushima Daiichi power plant campus has 3, total breaches.
Temps and combustions are similar enough, only the kindling was distinct.
Obfuscations, design flaws, MOX and long term character assassinations; have wrecked the nuclear industry.
This represents another, of many, mortally damaged systems. There is no capacity to change, reform or establish candor. A few tepid supporters is not sufficient to overcome the self-wrought systemic suicide. Too bad ...
Another difference with
Another difference with Chernobyl are the temperatures reached. There were more reactors involved and the spent fuel pools, but nothing like the graphite fire in Chernobyl.
But anyway, I don't know how accurate Fairewinds are and they don't usually correct previous statements that have been proved wrong, but from what I've read about Kaltofen, if he had something that could save lives, who would have made it public already.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/pre
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110515e...
This Tepco May 15th press release for Unit 1 shows a
core temperature approaching 3000 C (page 2)
and Tepco confirm that the Unit 1 core melted:
"The core temperature started increasing
when the reactor water level became lower than top of active fuel,
then reached the core melting temperature."
What temperature did the Chernobyl core reach?
4000 C for around 10 days in
4000 C for around 10 days in the open? Just an assumption, there was nothing left of the reactor to now.
I am in the same boat. I
I am in the same boat.
I have been waiting with baited breath, about the hot particles.
Everything else Gunderson has said has been sound. But this is the Biggie. I don't understand the delay -- even an interim update would be very helpful.
If anyone can show definitively that there were none, please do so! BRAWM's data were helpful but to be honest, with their use of airplane analogy and all that, I sense at least an unconscious ingroup bias(they're only human) and I'm not confident that the most rigorous methodology possible was used. How did Arnie's people find what BRAWM did not? Who else is looking? How are they looking? Inform me about anything you know about hot particles, please.
Simple
How did Arnie's people find what BRAWM did not?
===========================
Simple - they make it up!!! Damn FRAUDS; every one of them.
oi
Hello ==========
There is is an even simpler explanation where you need not cast aspersions:
The data was derived from disparate samples and tested differently. Factual. Not complicated. Even likely I'd say.
.
So calm your self. Drop the name calling... take a deep breath and exercise some tact. It might make you more effective here in any regard.
I Still think your possibly a brighter blub so exercise a broader perspective in your posts lest we disregard you and your seeming mission NOT involved with seeking the details of fact and truth.
If you are a scientist in this field lets see some elbow grease. I can think of lots of ways you can improve the situation... if that is what you want.
Thank you for participating.
Regards ~~~~~~~~~~
Hot aerosols from reactor accident report good data
National resource council Book Chemical Processes and Products in Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents: report
I recal EPA detected trace amounts of plutonium in march. hard to find yes see below link pay special attention to san francisco march 18 result that result was above combined standard of uncertainty .yes we certainly have seen these particles on west coast! I would add, this to me indicate plutonium was positive in the other test results but shown just below the csu.
This only confirms the national resources report above.
Link to EPA results
Not sure if u have read this bc interesting doc
http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/Paper_6-02.doc
Carcinogenic risk of hot particle exposures
http://www.nks.org/download/seminar/2009_radworkshop/NKS-B_RadWorkshop_1...
Simply put finding hot particles is like" finding a needle in a haystack" see above Link also note 1.3 % of Hot particles carry 80% of activity...
"Mostly a close-in fallout problem".
"Mostly a close-in fallout
"Mostly a close-in fallout problem". Translation please?
Ugh, Tdm, none of us wanted
Ugh, Tdm, none of us wanted to hear that. I kinda like that state (of denial) of "no news is good news" in regard to this hot particles data thing!
BC, you always ask great questions, and others here present further good q's and links.
Thanks to all.
Regardless of whether one is pro or anti, we have to remain objective to best analyze and learn.