Temperature of Spent Fuel Pools at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

[Skip_In_Boulder]

This might actually be some good news here:

The IAEA can confirm the following information regarding the temperatures of the spent nuclear fuel pools at Units 4, 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:

Unit 4
14 March, 10:08 UTC: 84 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 84 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data
Unit 5
14 March, 10:08 UTC: 59.7 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 60.4 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: 62.7 ˚C
Unit 6
14 March, 10:08 UTC: 58.0 ˚C
15 March, 10:00 UTC: 58.5 ˚C
16 March, 05:00 UTC: 60.0 ˚C

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

This also just appeared on Twitter

Reuters Reuters Top News
FLASH: Japan nuclear agency says radiation level steadily decreasing over last 12 hours at Fukushima Daiichi plant

[Poll_Blind]

1. I'm hoping those are good temperatures for fuel rods- my CPU/GPU can run around 60C...

...so I'm hoping fuel rods work...well...about the same.

:rofl:

I am willing to call "Good News!" unless otherwise informed, damnit!

PB

[Skip_In_Boulder]

5. Well I would think anything below

100 C(boiling), would be on the positive side as water would not be evaporating rapidly. Of course there is still the reactor that is showing "no data" but yesterday there seemed to be concern about several of these reactors.

[itsrobert]

2. 16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data

"16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data"

[Arrowhead2k1]

4. No data? No water!

* runs away *

[daleo]

12. Maybe means "monitor melted".

Or rendered useless by radiation.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

3. It's great news in regards to 5 & 6. However, 4 is the one which is said to be dry and an issue.

They can't get near it due to high radiation levels to add water and the temperature equipment failed there on Monday (Japan time) after the first explosion.

[Rex]

6. I wonder if they can treat it like a forest fire and drop liquid from

helicopters high in the sky?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. They thought that may work

#4 did suffer a crack in the roof area in the first explosion. However, yesterday they said the hole was "several meters away" from the pool and it was a bust. Today they're supposed to be trying water cannons to angle the water the right direction. I haven't heard more anything on that yet.

[Lucky Luciano]

14. Can't they send some pedophiles in to do the dirty work? nt

[Poll_Blind]

8. They were thinking about that, even loaded up a helicopter with water offshore but....

...when they came close the radiation was too much. By that, I think they mean that they detected enough radiation that if they just flew one sortee over (whatever) and dropped their load, they would probably receive a fatal dose. At even higher doses, delirium can occur very shortly after such an exposure. So, bad news, obviously. I'm not sure what the actual radiation levels were but I'm sure it was something pretty bad.

I think they're going to try again with the helicopter drop again today, along with a riot sprayer owned by the police.

PB

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. They said the helicopter is out.

The angles were all wrong for it to work. They're down to the water cannon method.

[Poll_Blind]

10. Thanks for the update!

PB

[snappyturtle]

11. Wish I could believe this. On Cenk I heard a U.S. official say that

we believe there is no water (due to hydorgen explosion) in the spent fuel pool in #4 and that secondary containment has been lost and that radiation levels is high: Gregory Jacko (NRC).

[Peace Patriot]

13. No, this is NOT "good news." Did you read the IAEA intro? 25 C is the normal temp for

"spent fuel pools." These temps are TWICE that or more. And a "twitter" from Rotters, regarding unspecified nuclear plants is no help at all.

It's Reactor units 1, 2, 3 and 4 that have the major "spent" fuel and other problems, #4 developing on 3/16 for which (in the IAEA announcement) there is 'no data.'

Info about #5 and #6, and incomplete info on #4--esp. for the 16th--is no comfort at all. In this nuke plant design, the "spent fuel" rods (big fire danger) are located in the same buildings as the reactor cores, sitting above the cores, near the roofs, in big tubs of water with no containment around them. #1 and 3# had hydrogen explosions (from cooling hot spent fuel rods and cooling on-going partial core meltdowns) that blew off their roofs, with #3's roof looking melted and utterly destroyed down a third to a half of the building. #2's side wall blew out yesterday. The "spent fuel" rods in these plants are exposed to the air--the sky, the atmosphere. And they've been catching fire due to failed cooling systems, which spews their nuclear material into the air (in addition to nuke leakage in the hydrogen clouds). That radiation, and the danger of a conflagration at this site, with its six nuclear reactors packed close together, are the things that place this disaster, currently, between a Level 5 nuclear disaster (Three Mile Island) and a Level 7 (Chernoybl). It is a Level 6 in motion to Level 7.

#5 and #6 were shut down at the time of the earthquake/tsunami and haven't been a big concern except for slightly elevated "spent fuel pool" temps (which apparently were being dealt with--mentioned in the prior IAEA press releases, below this one at their site). #4 wasn't a problem until yesterday (the 16th). It's #1, 2 and 3, and the events yesterday/today at #4 that are of great concern. So why are you posting this data as if it were "good news"? It is actually bad news (twice+ normal temps) and says nothing about the most critical plants.

We have good reason to suspect that Japanese officials have been lying about radiation levels at #1, 2 and 3, and recently about 4--possibly claiming sensor malfunctions when there were none, or claiming inadequate data when in fact they knew what was going on. And there is plenty of reason for anyone invested in the nuclear industry, including the IAEA and the U.S. government, to lie--or minimize, as in this case, the IAEA putting out incomplete figures which do not show radiation at the critical sites. Maybe they can't get that info from Japanese officials. In that case, they shouldn't put out incomplete info or they should characterize it as not pertinent to the units of greatest concern, and/or they should discuss the status of information.