Crisis in Japan - Page 123

On March 15 2011 08:47 Nienordir wrote:
The depressing look on the 4 guys at the press conference and their dodgy answers are not very calming..saying they're 'sorry' at the same time doesn't help either. Quite worrying they should finally get some balls and put the facts on the table, even if they might turn out wrong later. :/

Honestly saying that it probably is a malfunctioning pressure gauge and not serious damage to the pressure vessel/supression pool seems very odd.

On March 15 2011 08:45 NIJ wrote:

Well can't blame the conference people either. People want to know what's going on and they neither have the technical knowledge nor rational calm state of mind to process the information correctly.

On March 15 2011 08:50 Razith wrote:
Link to the news conference?

On March 12 2011 14:53 stroggos wrote:


the japanese government has a choice to redeem themselves of what happened decades ago but chooses not to. I think that's a pretty legit reason.

User was temp banned for this post.

On March 15 2011 08:51 hugman wrote:
Did the pressure vessel break? Or the larger steel containment vessel?

On March 15 2011 08:49 TimeOut wrote:


This image might be more helpful for the current situation and the explosions:


This is an illustration showing a type I containment structure, the same general type that is used in the Fukushima I plants. There might be slight differences to the actual reactor in Japan, but it is good enough for an explanation.

a) Steam was vented from the inner containment into the secondary containment to reduce the pressure in the reactor. This is done because the steam is slightly radioactive, so it is a good idea to keep it inside the containment. They could have vented the steam directly to the outside without any serious repercussions, but as long as they have the option to contain it until it has sufficiently decayed, they should do so. It was vented into the upper part of the building, which is sealed to allow such a thing. This part of the building exploded, which is why you can see that the upper part is missing in the photos (where the crane should have been).

b) Yes, they could have vented the steam directly to the outside, which could have prevented the explosion. As I said above, this was not done, because it is better to let the small radioactivity decay inside a controlled and contained area instead of outside (although it shouldn't be hazardous).

c) Pipes can be closed. It would be bad if the whole building would be destroyed, but as long as the inner containment is intact, no harmful material would escape. It would make accessing and cooling the reactor much harder though.

---

About the current situation: The explosion was 2 hours ago. Non-mandatory staff has been evacuated as a safety precaution. They are continuing with the sea-water injections, pressure inside the primary containment remains stable.

Source of the explosion is currently unclear, but another Hydrogen explosion is suspected.

(Source: NHK live press conference, before it got cut off.)

On March 15 2011 08:52 dkim wrote:


hey I got into the hugest argument with a facebook friend about this. so she goes off saying how she doesn't feel sorry for japan after things that japanese people did to chinese and how they have not made any official apologies for it.
I was outraged, I am not even japanese, I am a korean. and for one, koreans have more reasons to hate japanese to begin with, but at the end of the day, Japan 80 years ago is nothing like japan today. Different rule, different attitude, different nation. How can some people be that dumb to hold grudges against an evolved entity and be able to say such things at the worst timing possible?

On March 15 2011 08:57 Dimagus wrote:
Fukushima I – 1 / BWR-3 / 460 MW
Fukushima I – 2 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 3 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 4 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 5 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 6 / BWR-5 / 1,100 MW
Fukushima I – 7 (planned)[12] ABWR October 2016 1,380 MW
Fukushima I – 8 (planned)[12] ABWR October 2017 1,380 MW

Have they confirmed that Reactors 1-3 will likely be permanently decommissioned yet? 4-6 were down for maintenance so the plant was obviously able to handle the power load at <50% max capacity, but Reactors 1-3 are already their oldest and generate the least power.

On March 15 2011 08:57 Dimagus wrote:
Fukushima I – 1 / BWR-3 / 460 MW
Fukushima I – 2 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 3 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 4 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 5 / BWR-4 / 784 MW
Fukushima I – 6 / BWR-5 / 1,100 MW
Fukushima I – 7 (planned)[12] ABWR October 2016 1,380 MW
Fukushima I – 8 (planned)[12] ABWR October 2017 1,380 MW

Have they confirmed that Reactors 1-3 will likely be permanently decommissioned yet? 4-6 were down for maintenance so the plant was obviously able to handle the power load at <50% max capacity, but Reactors 1-3 are already their oldest and generate the least power.