NYT: Crack in reactor No. 3 vessel - "cracks do not get smaller"

[flamingdem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/world/asia/26japan.html?_r=3&hp

snip...

Concerns about Reactor No. 3 have surfaced before. Japanese officials said nine days ago that the reactor vessel may have been damaged.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director-general of the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, mentioned damage to the reactor vessel on Friday as a possible explanation of how water in the adjacent containment building had become so alarmingly radioactive. A senior nuclear executive who insisted on anonymity but has broad contacts in Japan said that there was a long vertical crack running down the side of the reactor vessel itself. The crack runs down below the water level in the reactor and has been leaking fluids and gases, he said.

The severity of the radiation burns to the injured workers are consistent with contamination by water that had been in contact with damaged fuel rods, the executive said.

“There is a definite, definite crack in the vessel — it’s up and down and it’s large,” he said. “The problem with cracks is they do not get smaller.”

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. So the worse case scenario is........?

[FBaggins]

2. Tougher cleanup.

And more radiation flowing into the sea than expected.

[flamingdem]

3. What happens with the lava lump of fuel rods and mox ?

Are they likely intact or partially / fully melted?

[FBaggins]

5. Likely partially melted and re-solidified

What happens?

I don't know. I guess it depends on how much water is leaking out. You can't leave it there are long as they would probably like (a couple years at least).

[intaglio]

4. My, how - reassuring

[FBaggins]

6. Sorry. I only reassure when the reporting is irrationally pessimistic.

Not much good news here.

It isn't the end of he world and it doesn't mean substantially more risk for the public... but it sure complicates the situation at the plant and means that additional safety measures will need to be taken.

[jpak]

13. A cracked MOX reactor vessel is not "irrationally pessimistic" - The Precious is Melting

yup

[FBaggins]

14. Did you read the post you replied to?

That's essentially what I said.

Though MOX really doesn't add much to the issue (as has been pointed out to you a number of times).

But it isn't like the core if going to leap out and attack people. The damage so far is to three guys who ignored their dosimeter alarms for hours standing in that pool.

The next guy will be a little more careful.

[BeFree]

17. "..leap out and attack..."

That is exactly what the radiation IS doing.

Thank you for putting it in those words.

The radiation is "leaping out and attacking people and everything else within many miles."

And had they just listened to some of us years ago, this wouldn't be happening.
Instead they listened to the sound of the cash registers.

Well, kiss the nukes goodbye. Nuke cash registers, despite your best efforts, will dwindle.
The sooner the better.

[FBaggins]

23. Is it?

I thought it was in the form of a puddle that three guys worked in for a couple hours.

The radiation is "leaping out and attacking people and everything else within many miles."

Not the stuff that's the topic of the conversation.

And had they just listened to some of us years ago, this wouldn't be happening.
Instead they listened to the sound of the cash registers.


Lol. You mean when they built the plant possibly before you were born?

If they had instead gone all wind and a dozen people were putting up 1MW towers when the quake stuck and all fell to their deaths... would that mean that people should have listened to those who didn't like wind power? Why? That's more people than have died from this incident.

Hundreds of people die every year in coal mine disasters (without even talking about the impact of burning the stuff)... why didn't they listen?

Well, kiss the nukes goodbye.

I rather doubt it. It will no doubt slow down for a few years, but the alternatives just don't get us where we need to be in 20-30 years. They'll just get comfortable that the new designs aren't prone to what happened to these models and that even the older models did a good job of protecting human life.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

26. The time of Happy Talk has passed

yup

[FBaggins]

27. A simple "no" would have sufficed. n/t

[kristopher]

28. I will give you credit - you seem to be trying to achieve more objectivity.

But if you are sincere you must recognize that you are now facing the act of re-establishing credibility in an environment where many have dealt with you for years.

IMO though, you are making a real attempt, starting with your posts this evening.

Thank you.

[FBaggins]

29. Not really.

It's a difference in reality.

I call 'em like I see 'em. Someone detects elevated levels of radioiodine in Tokyo's water in levels that I not only know will fall pretty quickly, but which I also know are too low to hurt anyone... and I'll say it. Because it's true. It's worth paying attention to, but not fearing.

I'll get into arguments all day long is people try to tell me that less radiation than you get from eating a banana is something to be worried about.

Tell me there's a crack leaking lots of highly radioactive water from a reactor core and I'll pay attention. I won't buy into the "NOW people will die for tens of miles around!" BS, but I'll make an honest appraisal of the danger.

The differece isn't a change in objectivity... it's the difference between 150 Bq/L and 4Million Bq/cm³.

26 million times as much radiation is going to get my attention. Is that all that hard to understand?

[kristopher]

30. I tried.

Again.

[FBaggins]

31. Also "not really"

But at least you think you tried... which is a step in the right direction. :)

[intaglio]

34. Self Delete

[FBaggins]

35. I didn't think it was inappropriate.

I got a kick out of it. :)

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

8. and Plutonium, don't forget that.

[FBaggins]

11. Possibly, but not according to the report.

They reported nine isotopes/nuclides were reported from testing of that water and Plutonium wasn't among them.

It was gamma-ray testing, which should have been able to detect plutonium.

[flamingdem]

18. I wondered about that, but it's very tough to get readings on plutonium

outside of laboratory conditions.

[FBaggins]

21. True...

... but I'm pretty sure that the japanese have one or two of those labrathingybobs. :)

They could certainly compare the total activity level of the sample to the sum of the activity of the isotopes that they detected and see if there's a great big hole that needs filing, no?

[flamingdem]

22. Of course if they put the P word on that list all hell would break lose

and they know that... Half of Tokyo would evacuate.

[Fledermaus]

32. Wheres the corium now?

Hydrogen gas or steam explosion?

[FBaggins]

33. Leaking out a crack?

That's some pretty thin corium, wouldn't you say?

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Well… let’s see… “worst case?”

“The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Syndrome">China Syndrome.”

More likely? A hellish pool of radioactive lava in the bottom of the containment building. (But I don’t think that’s likely either.)

[Tesha]

15. Bad and getting worse. Especially if you're an apologist for the nuclear industry. (NT)

[Marblehead]

9. it could explode

that is worst case scenario. The biggest dirty bomb ever. It happened in russia

[bananas]

10. "A senior nuclear executive who insisted on anonymity but has broad contacts in Japan said..."

"A senior nuclear executive who insisted on anonymity but has broad contacts in Japan said that there was a long vertical crack running down the side of the reactor vessel itself. The crack runs down below the water level in the reactor and has been leaking fluids and gases, he said."

The severity of the radiation burns to the injured workers are consistent with contamination by water that had been in contact with damaged fuel rods, the executive said.

“There is a definite, definite crack in the vessel — it’s up and down and it’s large,” he said. “The problem with cracks is they do not get smaller.”

Q. So why hasn't TEPCO or Japan Inc. made an official announcement about this?
A. Because they are hiding the truth.

You just can't trust the nuclear industry.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. I think they kinda told us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=283448&mesg_id=283448

…
March 14 (Mon) |
…              |
     6:10      | Pressure in the containment vessel at Unit 3 of Fukushima Daiichi rose to
               | approx. 460 kPa beyond the design value.
    11:01      | An hydrogen explosion occurred at Unit 3 of Fukushima Daiichi.
…              |
March 15 (Tue) |
…              |
    10:22      | A radiation level of 400 mSv/h was measured around Unit 3 of Fukushima Daiichi.
…              |
March 16 (Wed) |
     8:37      | An enormous amount of white smoke belched out of Unit 3 of Fukushima Daiichi.
    16:00      | Self-Defense Force helicopters were to drop water on Unit 3 of Fukushima Daiichi,
               | but the attempt was abandoned due to the high level of radiation.
…

So, what’s 460 kPa? 460 kilohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_%28unit%29">pascals or (about) 66 pounds per square inch.

[bananas]

16. They didn't tell us about the "long vertical crack running down the side of the reactor vessel"

They are withholding information, no ifs ands buts or kindas about it.

[flamingdem]

20. This source surely knows more, they threw a bone as a warning imo nt

[Turbineguy]

36. Has someone seen this crack?

Has someone ventured into the containment to survey this? OK, maybe they have cameras that survived and are working.

The rule of thumb for the safety factor of pressure vessels is 3.5-4 times. So you take your Maximum Allowable Working Pressure, multiply it by 1.5. That gives you, say, the requirement of a 2 inch thick shell. Then you multiply that by 3.5 to 4 and you build a pressure vessel with a shell thickness of 7 to 8 inches. This maximum pressure is never reached (except during hydro tests) because the safety relief valves pop well before you get to it as they are set at about 17% above operating pressure (at full power the pressure can rise somewhat still because safety blow-off capacity is limited but that never happened). In addition there are two pressure control loops.

Is it therefore impossible to have a crack? No. The earthquake no doubt set up tremendous stresses and pipe connections and shell mountings create stress points. Once a crack starts it takes relatively little stress (like smaller after shocks) for it to propagate further. A crack does not show itself by leakage at first.

[flamingdem]

19. wow they used the word ENORMOUS, they are usually into understatement! nt

[flamingdem]

24. Now we have MoxNewsDotCom on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqUhtyri6wc

I predict mox t-shirts 4 sale anytime now