GUNDERSEN SPEAKS

Hi, I'm Arnie Gundersen from Fairewinds. I would like to talk to you today about some new photographs that were just recently released by Tokyo Electric.

First is the cover that was surrounding Fukushima Unit 1 is almost installed. Now that does not mean it is airtight, but it is better than what was there before.

What they will do with that cover when it is completely installed is they will take the gasses that are being created inside the nuclear reactor and they will run them through filters and go up the stack. So it does not eliminate all of the radiation, but it does capture it and send it up a stack to a much higher elevation. But the liquid radiation is not being trapped by this barrier. It is a start and it is a good start, but they are not there yet.

More importantly, TEPCO just released some pictures of Unit 3 which are worth taking a look at. Now, to back up a little bit, you will recall that as the accident began back in March and April, we dissected some videos of the explosion in Unit 1 and compared it to the explosion in Unit 2.

I will show you those right now, and they are quick. The first one blows outward and then Unit 3 on the other hand, after an initial spark, an initial flame front on the south side blows upward. Unit 3 is much more dramatic and much more powerful than Unit 1.

Now Tokyo Electric has released a new photograph. The first photograph is taken from behind the building, so you are still looking out toward the ocean at a slightly different camera angle. The fuel pool is on the south side which is the right of this picture. Look in the center of the building. The roof has collapsed and there is a large kind of grey structure in there. That is the trolley for the overhead crane in the middle of the building. That crane is used to lift heavy components like the nuclear reactor head, and it is also used to lift shield plugs that go over top of the nuclear reactor before it starts up after every refueling. So the crane has collapsed but it is in the center of the building.

Now the next picture will pick up right at that crane again. That centers it in the building. The right side is the south side toward the fuel pool. The center still has the roof girders over it. The roofing is gone, but the roof girders are still in place. The roof has collapsed almost straight down on that crane.

But look over toward the fuel pool now. When you look at the fuel pool, there is no roof left. As a matter of fact, one of the major structural beams is cracked in half. I think that shows what I have been saying since April, that the explosion occurred over the fuel pool initially. That is where the dramatic energy was released, over the fuel pool. The industry's position is that this is just another hydrogen detonation. In fact, it is not. If it were hydrogen gas, that entire building would be uniformly distributed with hydrogen. And the explosion would have just started and moved slowly from one end of the building to the other, but it would have been uniform. This picture clearly shows that the reaction was not uniform and that it started over the fuel pool.

Now related to the fuel pool, of course, is the fact that the rubble has now fallen into the pool. You can see it is obviously disrupted. It will be really hard to determine the exact cause of that fuel pool explosion. I still believe that it was a prompt, moderated, nuclear criticality. Only time will tell. But it is a theory that accounts for the explosion on that side of the building. It accounts for the energy release on that side of the building and the fact that there is no roof there any more. It also accounts for the fact that fuel fragments were found near the building and were bulldozed under. And fuel fragments were found as far as a mile and a half away.

The only way that could happen is if the nuclear reactor fuel that is stored in that pool, were pushed upward by an explosion. That cannot happen with a hydrogen explosion, but it is quite possible with an inadvertent criticality like I postulated.

The last thing I wanted to talk to you about today is a re-analysis of an old Tokyo Electric video, in light of this new photograph. Now this video was taken about 15-16 days after the accident and you will see a large amount of steam coming out of the floor. This is in Unit 3 and above it is that girder for the traveling crane. That means that the steam is in the middle of the building, not over the fuel pool. The fuel pool would not steam like that. The fuel pool would be much more gentle, almost like a lake with fog over it. But this steam is being pushed out and it is occurring in the middle of the building. What that tells me, is that the containment underneath that crane has been damaged. The containment is leaking. There is no way that amount of steam could be getting out were it not for the fact that the containment is leaking.

Since then we have continually seen steam coming out of Unit 3 in the center.

So I think we have two things going on here. I think we had an explosion that occurred on the south side over the fuel pool. And I think there is a damaged containment. I do not believe that they are a simultaneous event. But I think it is important to recognize just how seriously damaged Unit 3 is. I will keep you informed as the situation develops.

Thank you.

OOPS!

*

“The long-hairs have let it get away from them!” in the Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3 nuclear explosion.

http://dakotabeacon.com/entry/dennis_stillings_theology_of_the_atom_bomb/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1794/pg1

At the time of the Manhatten Project Trinity atomic bomb explosion, 5:29:45 a.m., July 16, 1945, General Thomas Francis Farrell exclaimed, “The long-hairs have let it get away from them!”

The next day he described the blast a bit more accurately. “For the first time in history there was a nuclear explosion; and what an explosion! The lighting effects beggarded description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun. It was golden, purple, violet, grey and blue. It lighted every peak.....of the nearby mountain range with a clarity and beauty that......the great poets dream about but describe most poorly and inadequately. Thirty seconds after the explosion came, first, the air blast pressing hard against people and things, to be followed almost immediately by the strong, sustained, awesome roar which warned of doomsday and made us feel that we puny things were blasphemous to dare tamper with the forces heretofore reserved to the Almighty.”

Please explain...

The only way that could happen is if the nuclear reactor fuel that is stored in that pool, were pushed upward by an explosion. That cannot happen with a hydrogen explosion, but it is quite possible with an inadvertent criticality like I postulated.
--------------------------------

Could you please explain to my myself and fellow physicists why you think that only a criticality in the fuel could cause such an explosion. If you claim that the fuel went critical, or prompt critical; then you must have done a neutronics analysis of said fuel.

Please tell us which Boltzmann transport equation solver computer program was used to do said analysis. Or are you just "guessing".

If you claim that a hydrogen explosion could not account for the movement of the fuel, please also tell us which hydrodynamics computer code was used to do the hydrodynamics analysis. Or are you just "guessing".

If you don't know, this event has been extensively by scientists from the US national laboratories. Please explain why their analyses should be discounted in favor of yours.

Still waiting...

Still waiting on Arnie Gunderson for a response.

Unsinkable - Impossible - Never

*

Unsinkable - Impossible - Never

File this Eigenvalue theory and the Boltzmann transport equation solver computer programs along with the Titanic and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

"God himself could not sink this ship!"

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Titanic/unsinkable.htm
http://www.snopes.com/history/titanic/unsinkable.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs

Passenger Margaret Devaney said "I took passage on the Titanic for I thought it would be a safe steamship and I had heard it could not sink." Another passenger, Thomson Beattie, wrote home "We are changing ships and coming home in a new unsinkable boat." Whatever the origin of the belief, there is no doubt that people did believe Titanic to be unsinkable.

In 1911, Shipbuilder magazine published an article on the White Star Line's sister ships Titanic and Olympic. The article described the construction of the ship and concluded that Titanic was practically unsinkable. It was the beginning of the twentieth century and people had absolute faith in new science and technology. They believed that science in the twentieth century could and would provide answers to solve all problems. The sinking of the 'unsinkable' Titanic shattered much confidence in science and made people more sceptical about such fantastic claims.

DEBUNKED by snopes

Snopes debunks the myth of the "unsinkable" Titanic:

http://www.snopes.com/history/titanic/unsinkable.asp

Oh BROTHER...

Has the discourse here really sunk so low that we quote movies instead of truly authoritative sources?? Even so, the line about the Titanic being unsinkable only serves to demonstrate the stupidity of the character that said it, one Caledon Hockley.

The Titanic was never certified by its designers to be "unsinkable". In fact, even the movie is correct on this when Titanic's designer Mr. Andrews tells the captain the ship will founder, Bruce Ismay exclaims, "But this ship can't sink", to which designer Andrews retorts, "She's made of iron, sir. I assure you she can."

The maritime designers at Harlan & Wolff, Titanic's builders, divided the ship into a number of water-tight compartments. The ship was designed so that as many as 4 of those compartments could flood and Titanic could still float. However, the long glancing collision of Titanic with the ice berg tore a gash along Titanic's starboard side that spanned more than 4 compartments, and the ship's fate was sealed.

It's a MYTH that Harlan & Wolff ever warranteed the Titanic as "unsinkable"

Computer programs.

We now use computer programs to assess the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons in lieu of nuclear testing.

I guess you would be in favor of going back to underground nuclear testing in Nevada because we can't trust the computers.

What is the US National

What is the US National Lab's analysis? Where is it published?

He's just about got me sold

He's just about got me sold on the "prompt criticality" explanation / justification for the Unit 3 casualty. I do wonder why we never hear anything about the comparison of radionuclides being measured among / between the four buildings. Presumably, the different natures of the three explosions would necessarily result in vastly divergent spectra of radioactive materials being generated / released... I just can't believe that, almost eight months on, they're not performing these sorts of comparisons...

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
(972) 746-8575

CTBTO

The Comprehensive Test Ban Organization has the capability to test the effluent. They need to have that capability so that they can enforce the CTBT Treaty. They need a way to discern the difference between a nuclear explosion and a reactor accident.

If a nation wishes to develop nuclear weapons and test them in violation of the CTBT; one scenario is that they conduct a nuclear weapons test, and then claim it was a reactor accident. The CTBTO has to be able to discern this difference.

There is a way to do that. The neutron spectrum of a bomb and a reactor are different. A bomb uses a "fast" or high energy spectrum. A power reactor uses a "thermal" or low-energy spectrum. The fission product yield is different depending on the spectrum. If you take a ratio between two fission product concentrations in the same effluent, you will get different values depending on whether the radionuclides were made in a fast bomb spectrum or a thermal reactor spectrum.

The CTBTO has published their results and claim those results are consistent with a reactor accident.

That does make sense. Here's

That does make sense.

Here's a question: Are the byproducts of a nuclear criticality / reaction any less MOBILE, for example heavier or "stickier", than the "effluent" of a mere, as you term it, "accident"? ...What I'm getting at is this: Might the radioactive materials emanating from an actual fissile process, be LESS likely to spread beyond the immediate area, than the highly transportable matter boiling out of an uncovered pile? Could one unit's prompt criticality be masked by the overwhelming dispersal pattern of a less exotic event?

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas

Gundersen is a legend.

Gundersen is a legend.

Certainly, Gunderson and his

Certainly, Gunderson and his wife have endured many physical threats, privations and defamations at the hands of pond scum.

They are quite an extraordinary and heroic couple.

They should be decorated in the USA and knighted in England, but that is not the way things work.

WHAT??

Gunderson is nothing more than a "liar for hire"

Why would one decorate such a shill?

The only reason is because the anti-nukes LIKE the lies he tells.

Of course, they bought and paid for them.