Slashdot Mirror


Crack In Fukushima Structure May Be Leaking Radiation

SillySnake writes with this excerpt from Reuters: "Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) said it had found a crack in the pit at its No.2 reactor in Fukushima, generating readings 1,000 millisieverts of radiation per hour in the air inside the pit. 'With radiation levels rising in the seawater near the plant, we have been trying to confirm the reason why, and in that context, this could be one source,' said Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), said on Saturday." Also of interest: Cryptome is featuring high-res photos of the reactor site, taken by UAV.

21 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Original report from TEPCO by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 4, Informative

    here:
    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040307-e.html

    -Today at around 9:30 am, we detected water containing radiation dose overc
      1,000 mSv/h in the pit* where supply cables are stored near the intake
      channel of Unit 2. Furthermore, there was a crack about 20 cm on the
      concrete lateral of the pit, from where the water in the pit was out
      flowing.(We already informed.) During the same day, we injected fresh
      concrete to the pit, but we could not observe a reduction in the amount
      of water spilling from the pit to the sea.
      Therefore, we considered that a new method of stopping the water and
      determined to use the polymer. Necessary equipment and experts of water
      shutoff will be dispatched to the site and after checking the condition,
      we're doing continuous work to stop water by injecting polymer(April 3rd).
    -Monitoring posts of No. 1 ?No.8 set up near the boundary of power station
      area have been restored. We will periodically monitor the data and
      announce the results of monitoring.

    This crack maybe explains why the levels of I-131 had not dropped at the same rate than in the previous days in the readings of I-131 and Cs-137 published by MEXT in their readings of radiation and contamination of water by prefecture page. In most prefectures they have dropped to levels that are not detectable but in a few the levels of Cs-137 have increased.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  2. Re:"May be" "Possibly" "Calm down" "Sleep" by emj · · Score: 4, Informative

    1000 milisieverts that's twenty times as much as the one-year limit for Radiation workers, meaning spending some time there would make it impossible to survive (8 Sv).

  3. Re:"May be" "Possibly" "Calm down" "Sleep" by ludwigf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Crack In Fukushima Structure May Be Leaking Radiation

    I skimmed TFA and it seems the "may" was introduced by /. editors and not the evil "mainstream media". There is a leak and it is radioactive water that it is leaking. No maybe. Actually they already planned how to fix it , tried to do so and failed at it.

  4. Re:Incompetence by EdZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think it's been handled pretty well. Nobody has been killed by DEADLY ATOMS, and the only radiological injuries have been skin burns to two workers who ignored their dosimeter alarms. The release of radionuclides into the air has been minimal, and the amounts found in food and water have dropped back below minimum levels in all but the immediate locality to the reactor complex (and the levels there are only above the 'constant yearly exposure' maximums). Reactor core and storage pool temperatures are again under control, and coolant water containment in all but two reactors is unbreached. In one of those, the leak of irradiated coolant is within the reactor complex.
    The 'crack' mentioned in this case is not in the reactor containment itself as the summary and article imply, but in a water storage pool next to the sea, with the crack being between the pool and the sea.

    Not that lessons can't be learnt from this: gravity-feed coolant reservoirs would be a good idea, as well as separate backups for the storage pools and cores, but it's far from "getting steadily worse".

    IAEA Incident page
    MIT NSE hub
    WNN

  5. Re:Incompetence by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your statement shows not only your ignorance on this disaster and Chernobyl, but on nuclear safety itself. 30 people died in the immediate aftermath of what happened at Chernobyl. No one in japan has died from this reactor yet (although there may be some in the future.)

    This reactor was hit by one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, followed up by a 30 foot tidal wave. Had this happened to any other major source of power (coal, natural gas, hydroelectric) the death toll would have been in the hundreds... maybe in even the tens of thousands if it had been a hydroelectric damn.

    Please, do some reading so you have some idea of what you're comparing this to:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects

    Chernobyl was a horrific even, orders of magnitude more devastating that what's happening in Japan right now. Just the initial released was equal to a 50 kiloton atomic bomb going off.

  6. Re:The cost of nuclear by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative

    The $300 billion is for the damage the tsunami caused, and the thousands of people killed. Not just for the damage to the generators.

  7. Re:The cost of nuclear by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my opinion this is the end of nuclear power plants.

    Yeah. We'll just replace them all with coal plants which kill a couple hundred thousand people a year rather than a few every few decades, as nuclear power does.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. Re:Millie bloody who? by jheiss · · Score: 3, Informative

    1,000 millisieverts of radiation per hour

    I don't understand. Can someone translate that into old-fashioned units like luminous watches per hockey game?

    Various sources[1,2] indicate a range of 1-100 mrem/hr for a radium watch face, with about 20 mrem/hr looking like a plausible average. 1 mrem == .01 mSv[3], so 1000 mSv is about 5000 watch faces/hr. Apparently a standard ice hockey game is 60 minutes[4], so:

    1000 mSv/hr == 5000 radium watch faces/hockey game

    :)

    [1] http://trusted-forwarder.org/elgin/help/luminous_dials.html
    [2] http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/radium2.htm
    [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
    [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hockey_League#Game

  9. Re:"May be" "Possibly" "Calm down" "Sleep" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're mixing up irradiation and contamination. Contamination means that you carry a radiation source in or on your body (ingested particles, dust on the skin, etc.). Irradiation means radiation is affecting your body, no matter where the source is. Contamination causes irradiation even when you leave the site (until you're decontaminated, if possible). Internal contamination is particularly bad because you can usually not get away from the radiation source anymore. That doesn't mean that "just" being irradiated isn't dangerous.

    If you're close to a radiation source, whether you're contaminated or just physically close to a source that is not on or in your body, the radiation penetrates your body and damages the cells. Alpha radiation (helium nuclei) only interacts with the surface and is easily shielded. Beta radiation (electrons and positrons) penetrates a little deeper but can still be shielded. Gamma radiation (electromagnetic waves, beyond x-rays) can not be shielded sufficiently by a radiation suit and penetrates the whole body.

  10. Re:This discussion maybe ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    2. Chernobyl. Despite being the worst nuclear plant disaster, finding cancer after the original accident has been difficult. It's been mostly estimation using statistical analysis.

    maybe it has been difficult for private think-thanks in usa, but it hasnt been difficult here around the black sea. the cancer rate around black sea among youth has skyrocketed and still much higher than normal.

    i dont know why you people pull that 'chernobyl didnt cause much problem' bullshit from. people are dying here for decades.

  11. Re:Incompetence by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Informative

    A dam used for irrigation and drinking water (much like any hydroelectric dam anywhere in the world) in the hills above Fukushima town failed during the earthquake. The resulting flood killed at least four people and a bunch of others in houses downstream are missing, presumed drowned.

    Several dams in the area are known to have sustained damage but many others have not yet been properly inspected.

  12. Re:The cost of nuclear by Synn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think it was a "perfect storm" of events that took out the plant, rather an inept/corrupt system of implementing nuclear power. I think we have the technical prowess to do nuke power safety, the problem is getting the current corporations and governments to do it properly.

    Our social and political structure lags behind our technical one.

  13. Re:Incompetence by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I find most disturbing is the lack of information they are telling us.

    Have you seen anything in the news about the reactor in #3 blowing the lid off the primary containment vessel?

    The Hydrogen explosions at 1 and 4 were the same shape cloud. It was a gas explosion. Number 3 on the other hand was a tall cylinder explosion with a cap of debris that fell out of the top of the cloud. I have not said anything about it yet as I could not confirm my finding, but today they released the high resolution drone photos. Another item is buildings 1 & 4 blew because of a hydrogen explosion. The hydrogen exploded and the resulting pressure blew the buildings apart. Number 3 on the other hand had a hydrogen explosion after the building ruptured. The big flash of the hydrogen fire lit when the building blew. Listen to the explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-wNFSGyQ It is different.

    http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm#20%20March

    Reactor 1 and 4 have a more traditional shape for a confined gas explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK0-scxGEak&NR=1

    Take a very good look at the photos. Locate the primary containment dome in #4. It is bright yellow just like in the drawings. Note it is NOT in the center of the building. Note the roof truss of #4. The roof blew off, but most of the truss is intact. Now look at the elevation in #4 of the yellow containment dome.

    Using that as a reference, now look at #3. Look for anything as high as the dome in #4. In the middle is a rubble pile. Note in the corner of the building in a mirror location to #4 look at the circular hole in the truss. It's where a plume of steam is rising. The fire and charred truss is at the other end of the rubble pile, or over the cooling pond. Where there is supposed to be a yellow dome is a steaming hole. Now look at the roof of the turbine hall next to it. Notice a hole in the roof about the right shape and size for that dome lid to have fallen in?

    I'm not sure yet if the core blew off it's lid, but the primary containment did blow the top.

    The above is my opinion based on my personal examination of the photos in the link above and the noted difference of the explosion of #3.

    Due to the radiation levels, the torris may have ruptured resulting in the top blowing out of the primary containment building. This would explain the relatively low amount of radio active parts blown about the area.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  14. Re:The cost of nuclear by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because coal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania ) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal ) and natural gas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking ) and dams ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure ) are all 100% safe and contain zero ill effects to anyone, anywhere living within any distance to the source.

    I just went with wikipedia because I felt really really lazy. A monkey randomly typing characters into Google search could find something like this without remotely trying. Yes, nuclear power has downsides. EVERY option of generating power has a downside.

    Ok, fine, I'll play your little game. Let's shut down and replace every nuke plant with...well...what?

  15. Re:"May be" "Possibly" "Calm down" "Sleep" by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think YOU need to calm down. Nobody is saying that there MIGHT be a radiation leak. There is a leak, and that's confirmed. There's no denying the radiation in the water. The question is, where is it coming from. This cray MAY BE the source of that leak (or it may turn out to be something else, or a combination of several things...they aren't sure yet). If you RTFA:

    Nishiyama told reporters on Saturday that the crack "could be one source" of the radiation leaks that have hobbled efforts to quell the damaged reactor.
    On Sunday he added: "This(crack in the pit) for the first time clarified the relationship (of the contaminated water) with the sea."

    As far as your other comment:

    European energy commissioner said 'biggest disaster of the century' over chernobyl, yet, talking heads in mainstream media almost trying to convince people that radiation is good for their health. Despite EPA found 1000 times allowable radiation in groundwater in massachusetts.

    LOL...are you expecting me to believe that fukushima is causing massachusetts ground water to be 1000 times allowable levels? Sorry, but that seems INCREDIBLY far fetched...so far fetched, I'm not even sure how to explain it to you. I'll just stick to what the EPA has said: “these detections were expected and the levels detected are far below levels of public-health concern.”

    And you think the media is trying to keep people calm? Doesn't seem that way to me. For instance, a few days ago I'm watching the news and they give a teaser for an upcoming story saying that "radiation from fukushima has reached detroit". Then they go to commercial, come back, do another story, then do the fukushima story, which is about 4 minutes long, and then at the very end of the story, they throw in a quick note about "oh yeah, it's about 1/15 of the radiation you get from eating a banana". Seems to me they're more interested in freaking people out for ratings and then just throwing in a calming footnote at the end.

  16. Fixing this leak solves nothing! by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    NOTE: This post is mostly recycled from a previous post at the bottom of a thread under the previous Fukushima story. The thread started with a post I made warning that most of the radioactivity leaking from Fukushima was moving downward into the ground and ocean, not upward into the air.

    Filling the crack and fixing this leak won't reduce the amount of radioactive material spewing from reactor #2 into the environment. This pit and the concrete with the crack in it were never intended to be part of the containment system. If they succeed, then the HRW (highly radioactive water) will either (a) find another way into the sea, or (b) further contaminant the groundwater, or (c) flood the ground and then do (a) or (b). Depending on the total amount of radioactivity released, it *might* actually be better to pour this HRW into the ocean where it will be diluted down to safe levels.

    The term "containment" has a fairly precise technical meaning (BTW: I've got a Ph.D. in nuclear physics but not nuclear engineering). These reactors are basically a bottle in a bottle. The inner bottle is the pressure vessel and it is used to maintain pressure for the creation of steam and electricity. The outer bottle is 10cm or 20cm thick stainless steel. It is called the containment vessel. Its sole purpose in life is to contain all the radioactivity in the event the fuel rods melt down. Normally almost all the radioactivity is contained in the zirconium clad fuel rods. That is why there can be HRW 100,000x higher than the water found in a functioning reactor. Almost all of the radioactivity in a functioning reactor of this type is contained in the fuel rods. When the fuel rods melt down, high levels of radioactive materials contaminate the water making it highly radioactive.

    Up until last week, the word "containment" had the simple and obvious meaning of radioactive materials staying inside the massive stainless steel containment vessel. I believe TEPCO forged a new meaning in order to downplay the significance of the HRW that was found in the turbine buildings. I will use the traditional technical definition, not the new one invented by TEPCO.

    You see, the idea was that as long as the radioactivity was kept inside the containment vessel then you could safely operate the plant and move around in it. The environment was safe. The control room was safe. The turbine building was safe. Even the reactor building was safe (as long as you stayed out of the containment vessel and storage pool). Everything was safe. One of the difficulties caused by a loss of containment accident is that it becomes difficult and dangerous to work on the plant. That is why they need to pump out the turbine buildings before they work on restoring the cooling. If they hadn't lost containment (in the traditional sense) this would not have been a problem.

    The pit, the tunnels, and even the turbine buildings were not designed to contain radioactivity. The buildings were designed, like most buildings, to keep the rain out, etc. For example, right after they had those scary hydrogen explosions that blew apart the reactor buildings, I was assuring people it was not a big deal because those buildings were never designed to contain radioactivity. TEPCO and the government were offering the same assurances.

    When I heard about the HRW in the turbine buildings I stopped issuing reassurances and I started to be greatly concerned because it meant they had lost containment. I was hoping against hope that the HRW in the turbine buildings was a fluke and that it hadn't spread elsewhere. When I then then heard the tunnels outside the turbine buildings were flooded with HRW I knew this was a serious accident, much worse than Three-Mile Island. When I heard there were 18,000 tons of HRW outside of containment (that number has now been reduced to 13,000 tons) I knew this was a big fucking deal and I was surprised that the Western press were ignoring these developments even though they had been h

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Fixing this leak solves nothing! by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Informative
      Excellent point about the fortified basement designed to prevent melted fuel rods (corium) ending up under the basement. I hope we agree that HRW (highly radioactive water) in the turbine building constitutes a containment breach.

      I disagree that a constant level of HRW in the basements indicates that the basements are water-tight. Remember that they are pouring literally thousands of tons of water on the reactors in order to cool them. If the water level is steady then all it means is that the inflow is equal to the outflow. It is possible that both are zero but none of the information I've seen indicates this is so. In fact, it would seem rather remarkable to me that the leak (or leaks) leading from the reactors to the turbine buildings fixed themselves although it is possible that the spraying patterns changed enough to direct the HRW elsewhere. I think they should put dye in the HRW they've found because that would help them determine the flow rate and also find out if this water is leaking into the ocean. They use dyes to measure ocean currents so they can be measured even after being highly diluted.

      It is certainly not true that the HRW is being contained in the buildings. Shortly after HRW was discovered in the turbine buildings, it was also discovered in three tunnels outside the turbine buildings. For some reason, this fact wasn't widely reported in the Western media. The tunnels are U-shaped. They go down from the surface about 15 meters, run horizontally about 80 meters and then come up 15 meters to the surface again. For some strange reason they call these tunnels "trenches". The HRW level in tunnel #1 was reported to be 10 cm from the surface. It was 1 meter and 1.5 meters from the surface in tunnels #2 and #3. The radioactivity of the water in the tunnels matched that in their associated turbine buildings.

      The threat of the HRW in the tunnels overflowing onto the ground was so severe that they *reduced* the amount of water they were spraying on the reactors. This caused the outside temperature of the containment vessel of at least one of the reactors to rise by 20C.

      I reiterate, fixing the leak in the concrete in the pit to stop HRW from pouring directly into the ocean will do nothing to fix the leak in the containment system. The flooded tunnels prove there are tons of HRW that have already escaped containment even by TEPCO's ridiculous definition.

      Western media were pretty much ignoring Fukushima when news of the flooded tunnels broke. Their attention had shifted to Libya. A day or two after the flooded tunnels were reported, the focus in Japan shifted to the minuscule amounts of plutonium found outside the buildings. Now the news in Japan is about the direct leak into the ocean and the efforts to pump the HRW out of the turbine buildings so they can get back to work on restoring the cooling systems. It's been days since I last heard anything about the tunnels. You know, maybe they are not planning to drain the flooded tunnels right away and are instead concentrating on the buildings. This might account for the drop in the estimated total weight of the HRW from 18,000 tons down to 13,000 tons.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    2. Re:Fixing this leak solves nothing! by Xylantiel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just to say up front, I think this is the most significant nuclear incident ever, and I expect it to have a huge effect on nuclear safety design and regulation. Chernobyl was being intentionally operated outside of spec and was a stupid design to begin with and TMI didn't actually release any harmful materials.

      But to put it simply... you do not know very well what you are talking about.

      Up until last week, the word "containment" had the simple and obvious meaning of radioactive materials staying inside the massive stainless steel containment vessel.

      No, in reality, there are many layers to the containment, each of which contains different things to varying degrees. The outermost containment is the building itself, and in the case of a boiling water reactor this includes the turbine building because H20 that comes in contact with the core is circulated through the turbines. For example, steam containing radioactive contaminants can be vented into the building (outside the steel vessel) and still maintain zero external contamination. The big problem at Fukushima is that the top half of the reactor buildings are GONE. "containment" by your definition was lost with the first hydrogen explosion because the vented gas could then escape into the environment.

      This is so far beyond a simple loss of containment accident that it is not funny. But the containment of raw core material itself is not really in terrible shape. The big problem is that the buildings are half-demolished from the hydrogen explosions. So all the plumbing and wiring and such are completely trashed. Things don't just need to be "fixed" they have to be rebuilt almost completely. Working on site is difficult, but not impossible. Every time they localize some contamination is a huge step forward because it means they know what they are dealing with and can make progress.

      But back to the core breach, or to be more precise the core coolant leak. They have been saying all along that there were good chances of a leak from the reactor core, and what is happening seems like one of the less bad types of that. The cores have partially melted, so that radiative materials can mix into the water. That water has been able to leak. So far there is evidence of mostly "volatiles", mostly iodine and cesium, not much heavier stuff. But they seem to have isolated it to reactor 2. This breach was caused by, wait for it... a hydrogen explosion (you seeing a theme here?).

      If they can get the contaminated water under control then a big piece of the wider impact will be more or less under control. This is why they are trying to pump this stuff out of the basements, because nobody thinks they will be strictly water tight. But that has proven challenging (where do they put it?). In the mean time if they can plug a few leaks they can reduce (not yet stop) the external impact, so that's what they are trying to do.

  17. 2nd set of photos on Cryptome.org by rickzor · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp2/daiichi-photos2.htm
    includes lots of ground and non-aerial photos.

  18. Re:"May be" "Possibly" "Calm down" "Sleep" by tsm_sf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's clearly a problem, but it's not like the radiation travels through the water and up into the air.

    Look, I'm pro-nuke too but you're just making us all look bad at this point.

    1) This is a catastrophic failure of the first order, and claiming that it's not that bad because the reactor didn't go "BLOOEY!" makes people think that could be a possibility. It's not reassuring.

    2) Attempting to put a best-case spin on every aspect of the situation is entirely unhelpful. Nobody prepares for the best, they prepare (or should) for the worst. This isn't something people should be calm about, this is something people should be rational about. There's a difference.

    3) Your grade school science teacher is shedding a single tear.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  19. Re:The cost of nuclear by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 3, Informative

    The sad thing is that they have done it properly, you can only see Fukushima Daini and Onagawa NPS that survived without mayor problems the earthquake and tsunami. Hell, you can even point to Fukushima Daiichi units 5 and 6 as a proof that those installations were secure. The big question will be why units1 to 4 weren't upgraded to the safety levels of the other reactors.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!