• A student is looking for help on tropical cyclone prediction. Please fill out the survey linked to this thread: https://stormtrack.org/threads/storm-and-hurricane-intensity-prediction-survey.32957

  • After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

8.9 Earthquake has struck Japan

So, takeaway from this press conference so far is that reactor #4 has a fire inside the building (did they say it was caused by the spent fuel pool? That seems unlikely), and reactor #2 is compromised and likely leaking radiation. Apparently they think a lot of the radiation is from the fire in #4.

*edit* apparently the fire in #4 is a big deal; even the the reactor wasn't running during the quake, there was spent fuel inside it. Apparently that reactor had an internal hydrogen explosion which damaged the internal containment on #4; the reactor and apparently the nuclear fuel is on fire and is venting into the atmosphere and has been for a little while now (they're just now getting around to mentioning it). The radiation being released into the environment is now very high, according to the government.
 
I missed this speaker's name and position.


#4 reactor: 'Fire going on.' Was out of operation at time of quake. No fuel in reactor, but spent fuel in reactor. (?) #4 reactor suffered H explosion and is burning. #4 damaged by falling debris. #4 outer building (containment?) breached (Awkward translation.)

#2 reactor. "Hole observed." So... little likelyhood of H explosion. Suppression chamber made sound of blast. Some radioactive material released.

"Water injection continuing smoothly" for all 3 afflicted reactors. Problem: how to maintain cooling.

As for radioactive levels: As of 10:22 AM, tens to hundreds of milisieverts released between the reactors.

Rad levels high enough to prompt worker evac from site.

Situation of high concern.... expanding area of concern to 30KM - please stay indoors w. window shut. Hang laundry indoors...
Beyond 30KM, 'minimal harm to human health.'


Press
Q: Has pressure vessel been damaged?
A: Water injection continues. Pressure stabilized. Must maintain pressure. (Didn't directly address Q, IMO.)

Q: Damage to containement of #2
A: High probability of containment damage.

Q: Rad levels - possibility of human harm?
A: #4 fire may release rad. Working to extinguish fire.

Q: Why no evac for 30KM?
A: P.M. made decision (no evac). Will continue to evaluate. Considering current R levels, 30KM evac not required.

Q: If #4 fire continues - what may happen?
A: Spent fuel will not burn, fire is in building area.

Q: Possibility of release at #4.
A: Possible certain amounts released. Tokyo Electric will give specific values.
#2 has 'not contributed greatly to rad levels/'fluctuations.''

<Stream crashed>
 
Chief Cabinet Secretary. (cont.)

Neutron radiation at #3. "Because of the nature of the reactor." Small amount detected.

Q: Fire at #4. How long to extinguish.
A: People trying to take corrective actions.

End of conference.
 
Q: If #4 fire continues - what may happen?
A: Spent fuel will not burn, fire is in building area.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that'd be good news if that's what he said. Thought he said that the reactor itself was burning. That's how the Al Jazeera analyst understood it. Why would there be a large radiation leak from #4 if no fuel was being affected by the fire?
 
I have to say, I'm a bit astonished by the lack on news coverage on what this all means. It is like they have all gone silent since the explosion at No. 2. Not even much mention of No. 4 on fire yet.

The Chernobyl reactor that exploded was No. 4.</aside>
 
Ryan McGinnis said:
Hmm, that'd be good news if that's what he said. Thought he said that the reactor itself was burning. That's how the Al Jazeera analyst understood it. Why would there be a large radiation leak from #4 if no fuel was being affected by the fire?
Click to expand...

That's where it gets even more vague...:confused:
Listening to the various people speak, I can't make much sense of it.

More from the press conference and talking head analysis:

#4
Spent fuel (storage area?) heat exchanger down due to loss of power - boiled off water and created H + O that then exploded.

"High rad levels, fire fighters need protective clothing."

(Unclear if spent fuel rods are burning, or if fire is limited to surrounding building.)

"400 millisievert (per hour, I assume) levels at #4."
 
Heh, yeah. So essentially the spent fuel pool for #4 somehow lost water and started melting down, causing a fire. There is a LOT of spent fuel in those pools. More info on the all powerful wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool

Risks of spent fuel (actually, more of a terrorism risk assessment):

http://www.inesap.org/sites/default/files/inesap_old/bulletin22/bul22art30.htm

A 400 t PWR pool holds about 10 times more long-lived radioactivity than a reactor core. A radioactive release from such a pool would cause catastrophic consequence
Click to expand...
 
.4 Sievert per hour is enough where you can't really work there for long without risking radiation sickness. After a few hours you have a dose large enough for sickness; after around 12 hours at that level you have an LD50 dose even with medical care.
 
Darren Addy said:
400 millisieverts sounds soooooo much better than 400,000 microsieverts, doesn't it???

You know you've had a bad day managing the reactors when a reactor breach isn't your lead news story for the day.
Click to expand...

Aaron, Darren, stop it you two! I feel guilty for laughing.

Unless I've dropped a decimal somewhere, 400 mS is 40 Rem per hour. That's freaking huge; 3~4 hours of exposure will induce radiation sickness. Hang around for 10~12 hours and you've accumulated a potentially fatal dose. I'm thinking this can only represent large scale "*bleep* happening'' to the spent fuel. Was it fractured/aerosolized by the explosion or, far worse, ignited and still burning? :(
 
Having listened to the politicians speak, I now understand why the news coverage of this disaster seems so much worse than the usual news glop.
There is essentially no real information out there to report!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top