Records shattered’ at Fukushima — Radiation levels surge after typhoon — Tepco “doesn’t know why” th

[FBaggins]

27. No... it doesn't. In fact it isn't even close.

Once again - the title is "US gov’t analysis says Fukushima is more serious than ‘China Syndrome’ "

The document you linked to is a decades-old reactor safety course discussing multiple modes of failure. Nowhere in there do they talk about Fukushima (which suffered neither type of meltthrough).

That portion of the document is discussing something that we talked about at length back in 2011. One of the main reasons that the Mk1 containments were replaced was that it was thought that a quick meltdown and failure of the reactor vessel would drop too much of the core into the primary containment and the pool of molten corium would flow to the sides of the basemat and burn through the side wall of the containment.

The problem here is that that failure mode was for station blackouts that occurred while the reactor was running... so the decay heat would be much MUCH higher than at Fukushima and meltdown and meltthrough would occur far more rapidly. In the case of Fukushima, the backup generators operated for almost an hour before the tsunami knocked them out... so the meltdowns occurred with far less heat and over a much longer time.

Note that they've released photos from those toroid rooms. Had a side wall meltthrough occurred, there would be mounds of corium in there and radiation levels hundreds of times higher. That isn't the case.

So again... no... the headline is in no way correct. Rather, it is intentionally deceptive (enenews' M.O.)

They then go on to cite "Generally, the most severe [containment] failure modes are ones that occur early in time "

Which is absolutely true... but notice how they intentionally leave the reader with the impression that that's what happened at Fukushima. Again... it wasn't.

The other document isn't an analysis of what happened at Fukushima, it's an alignment of the SPAR model with some postulated events there. They're checking their model... not using their model to evaluate Fukushima.