Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the oh-this-old-thing? dept.

An anonymous reader writes To nobody's surprise, the Japanese press reports that a new way to look at the inside of one of the Fukushima 1 damaged reactors has shown the fuel is not in place. Engineers have not been able to develop a machine to directly see the exact location of the molten fuel, hampered by extremely high levels of radiation in and around the reactors, but a new scan technique using muons (details on the method in the media are missing) have shown the fuel is not in its place. While Tepco's speculation is that the fuel may be at the bottom of the reactor, it is a safe bet that at least some of it has burned through and has gone on to create an Uruguay syndrom.

49 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. What on earth by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What on earth is "an Uruguay syndrom", and why does google have no idea either.

    1. Re:What on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The highly radioactive material must of melted through the center of the Earth and appeared in Uruguay. What else could it be?

    2. Re:What on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's Japanese for "China Syndrome"

    3. Re:What on earth by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think they are trying to be clever and play on the term China Syndrome, where the fuel melts all the way through the earth to it's Antipodal point.

      But since this is Japan, the author speculates that the antipodal point is somewhere in Uruguay, which it is not (it's kinda close though).
      You can check here: Antipodal Map

    4. Re:What on earth by nobuddy · · Score: 2

      My reaction, at first. Then i thought about the US calling it 'China Syndrome" and why it is called that.
      Uraguay is opposite Japan on the globe.

    5. Re:What on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      fuk u shima

    6. Re:What on earth by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

      What on earth is "an Uruguay syndrom", and why does google have no idea either.

      And I thought that /.ers were supposed to be smart.

      An Uruguay Syndrom[e] is very similar to Collins' Syndrome, except that it is much bigger and involves radiation from uranium fission instead of Cesium/Deuterium. Think of it as an Atlantis Complex times 100.

      There, was that so hard?

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    7. Re:What on earth by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      What on earth is "an Uruguay syndrom", and why does google have no idea either.

      An attempt to be cute with the concept of the "China syndrome," but since the reactor is in Japan you name somewhere in the Western Hemisphere. This is actually a marginally better form of cute since China and the US are both in the Northern Hemisphere, and Japan and Uruguay are actually separated by the equator as well. Your seemingly self-sustaining molten nuclear fuel melts its way through the earth - then up and out the other side (*eye twitch*).

      The problem being it's utter bollocks. Anything that becomes molten will mix into the fuel and dilute it, lowering the reaction rate and moving you further and further away from a self-sustaining reaction.

      The real concern is that you melt through the containment vessel (apparently not likely; but then explosions within the containment vessel and seismic activity aren't helping you any), through the earth, and down to the water table so that there is a steam explosion. That potentially scatters the nuclear fuel and fission products out the containment vessel.

    8. Re:What on earth by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But since this is Japan, the author speculates that the antipodal point is somewhere in Uruguay, which it is not (it's kinda close though).

      Ironically, "Uruguay syndrome" is a more accurate term because Uruguay is a heck of a lot closer to being an antipode of Japan than China is to being an antipode of the US.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:What on earth by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think they are trying to be clever and play on the term China Syndrome, where the fuel melts all the way through the earth to it's Antipodal point.

      Thank you as I had no idea at all what this was. I think somewhere Dennis Miller is reading this and saying "Even by my standards that's obscure."

    10. Re:What on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks for posting the exact same thing as the ten people before you. Had I not had this 11th explanation, I don't think I would have understood it.

    11. Re:What on earth by pitchpipe · · Score: 2

      What on earth is "an Uruguay syndrom", and why does google have no idea either.

      And I thought that /.ers were supposed to be smart.

      No need to be a smug dick about it...

      Oh! There was a need ... there was a terrible need.

      Pay no attention to that massive whooshing sound you hear ...

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    12. Re:What on earth by dejaniv · · Score: 3, Funny

      As Yosemite Sam put it:

      “Great horny toadies! I musta dug clean through to Chiney!”

    13. Re:What on earth by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I was writing actual content rather than obsessively thread monitoring. Too bad only one other post actually mentions the melting/dilution issue, using Wikipedia no less.

    14. Re:What on earth by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Even by my standards that's obscure."

      Nah. He's old enough to remember the movie.

      Fears of a "China Syndrome" were quite high in the 1970s. Of course, if you were born in the 1980s (heck, even in the mid- to late- 1970s) then it probably is obscure!

      No GOML you whippersnapper!

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    15. Re:What on earth by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Anything that becomes molten will mix into the fuel and dilute it, lowering the reaction rate and moving you further and further away from a self-sustaining reaction."

      There's that, yes. And also the antigravity that's required on the second half of the trip.

    16. Re:What on earth by sh00z · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But since this is Japan, the author speculates that the antipodal point is somewhere in Uruguay, which it is not (it's kinda close though).

      Ironically, "Uruguay syndrome" is a more accurate term because Uruguay is a heck of a lot closer to being an antipode of Japan than China is to being an antipode of the US.

      Well, sure, but there's *no* land antipodal to anywhere in the US. Gotta call it something. Indian Ocean syndrome?

    17. Re:What on earth by sh00z · · Score: 4, Informative

      Continental US, that is. Looking at the linked map, looks like Botswana is opposite Hawaii.

    18. Re:What on earth by Nutria · · Score: 2

      Untill 1 minute ago, I had never heard of the 'china syndrome' either.

      Because you're a wet behind the ears punk who can't find his arse with both hands and a flashlight. Now GOML while I go drink some Metamucil!!

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    19. Re:What on earth by internerdj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you. I'm now glad I never finished my hole through to the other side of the earth. My parents would have been loads of pissed when the Indian ocean drained out into our yard.

    20. Re:What on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it's exceedingly well-known, but congratulations; you're one of today's Lucky 10,000!

    21. Re:What on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is there such a thing as "northern Antarctica"? Would that just be the entire coast of Antarctica?

    22. Re:What on earth by xevioso · · Score: 2

      Surprisingly, this is not accurate. If you look closely, part of northern Montana is antipodal to the northwestern tip of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands islands.

      You learn something new every day.

    23. Re:What on earth by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was never a serious name. The famous movie itsself even pointed this out - it said that in practice the fuel will burn down until it hits groundwater, then disperse in a steam explosion.

    24. Re:What on earth by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      I was born in 1976. I vividly recall both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I saw The China Syndrome probably 20 years ago.

      Today, I had no fucking clue what "Uruguay Syndrome" would refer to. For that matter, I wouldn't have remembered what "China Syndrome" refers to other than a movie I once saw.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    25. Re:What on earth by hey! · · Score: 2

      The movie came out in 1979 but the term was coined some twelve years earlier. I remember reading about it in the early 70s so I was quite interested to see the movie when it came out.

      The movie had the incredible good luck of having the nuclear industry launching an ill-advised PR campaign against it (there's no such thing as bad publicity), which further backfired when the Three Mile Island accident occurred less than two weeks later.

      The movie was actually pretty good. It was of course unfair to the nuclear industry in that it depicts it as using Mafia style tactics, but the scenario it paints was technically feasible. It would perhaps have been a better movie if the industry's motivations had been a bit more complex, e.g. they really believed the plant was safe but their judgment was clouded by confirmation bias. That's pretty much what happened at Fukushima; TEPCO did it's best to build a safe plant, but then discounted information that suggested it had been working from overly optimistic assumptions.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:What on earth by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      It actually stops long before that. The molten material will dilute with the stuff it melts with its heat and sooner or later, a few hundret or a thousand meters below the surface it will stop. I doubt it can reach the molten core of the earth in any circumstances.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re: What on earth by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The mafia style tactics were probably a reference to the sad case of Karen Silkwood, a whistleblower in the nuclear industry who had died under mysterious circumstances only a few years earlier.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    28. Re:What on earth by gargleblast · · Score: 3, Funny

      Main difference being that it never actually burns through to Uruguay, because it stops when it hits the last letter of syndrome.

    29. Re:What on earth by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      I realized almost immediately what "Uruguay Syndrome" meant, and promptly had the following thought string:
      "No one's going to understand that, because we stupid americans are used to "china syndrome." Also, if nuclear fuel melted through the crust, it would get stuck somewhere in the core, because its not going to have the velocity to burn upwards once it passes it, so the whole idea is retarded. Also, where the fuck is Uruguay."

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    30. Re:What on earth by Nutria · · Score: 2

      I vividly recall both Three Mile Island

      You were 3...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    31. Re:What on earth by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 2

      Main difference being that it never actually burns through to Uruguay, because it stops when it hits the last letter of syndrome.

      Who knew that the Silent E had such awesome power?? A perusal of available scientific literature does not even hint at this ability. Even graphene has a silent E, which could be the true source of its unique properties. Silent E should be incorporated into the design of all Gen V reactors.

      Silent E decommissioning may also help with radiological cleanup.
      It can turn a plume into a plum.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    32. Re:What on earth by Pinhedd · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is in fact actually what it refers to.

      In North America, we call it the China Syndrome because China is opposite North America on the surface of the planet.

      Uruguay is approximately opposite Japan.

  2. Safe? by chinton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word safe that I wasn't previously aware of.

  3. Let's not get overly dreamatic by waterford0069 · · Score: 2

    The reality is IF the fuel "burned" through the foundation of the reactor, it would quickly disperse and dilute enough that the reaction would slow down to the point that it would cool enough that it would no longer be molten; and then it would no longer be mobile.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

    Then, it's _just_ a pain in the arse to safely clean up.

    1. Re:Let's not get overly dreamatic by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Well, it would no longer be mobile except for the couple million gallons of water they hosed over the whole thing. I imagine that made some of it mobile in ways that people don't appreciate.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  4. Job Security by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the decommissioning expected to take 3 to 4 decades, that's pretty good job security.

    Just too bad that the half-life of the workers will be less than the half-life of the job. But it "is" a lifetime job."

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Muon imaging by hairykrishna · · Score: 2

    They are using muon tomography.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    I would take the other end of the 'safe bet'. Essentially all of the fuel is at the base of the reactor vessel. How much would you like to wager?

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:Muon imaging by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Define reactor vessel. Is it the originally constructed concrete container, or material surrounding the current uranium core?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Muon imaging by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends on what you mean by "Essentially all of the fuel is at the base of the reactor vessel".

      If you mean that no fuel escaped the reactor pressure vessel, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. If you mean that most of fuel is inside the primary containment vessel, I expect you're right but I wouldn't take that bet one way or the other.

      This particular disaster has a track record of confounding optimistic expectations. In fact I think that's the lesson to draw from it. When events move well outside the parameters you expected you can't rely on optimistic expectations, you need data. We have to assume that fuel outside the PCV is at least a possibility until we have evidence which rules that out.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. The genius of holes by RSilverlok · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember, building one at fukushima-Daichi contained a G.E. mark one (BWR) which has holes in the bottom that the control rods would supposedly use. If the fuel is not in the core it would quickly have melted the seals around those holes and oozed into the CV ( 'containment' vessel ). On estimate, it would only take about four hundred pounds of corium ( melted fuel globs) to burn through the CV bottom. This would have taken less than 24 hours from the initial incident. Since the core contained tons of material it is impossibly naive to believe that it is even remotely contained. BUT more importantly, since reactor #1 doesn't have any core material , and it was one of the least spectacular 'explosions' at the plant, How can Tepco get anyone to believe that the really spectacular explosion at three did anything less than blow core materials through the roof like the world's nastiest party popper?

    1. Re:The genius of holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because if there had been any dispersal of reactor core materials, it would sort of have been obvious? Like "In the red forest near Chernobyl, where most of the large particles loaded with reactor fuel fragments rained down, literally everything was dead within days" obvious?

      Radiation spectrometers are really quite good at identifying the radioactive elements present based on the energies of the gamma rays. Virtually all contamination from Fukushima is volatiles: Cesium, strontium, iodine, xenon. Things that would have been coming off corium as vapor then either continuing as vapor or contaminating the water droplets inside before floating out. Nonvolatile elements don't generally become airborne of a whim; unless you have e.g. a burning reactor core at Chernobyl to make small particles, and a ferocious thermal convection updraft to waft them up. And even there, most of the horrible transactinide-laden particles rained down within a few miles.

    2. Re:The genius of holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Since the core contained tons of material it is impossibly naive to believe that it is even remotely contained.

      I agree with you completely, but want to point out that a great number of armchair physicists online have been scoffing and mocking people who indicate that the reactors melted down, that the fuel pools are not fully intact, and that the earthquakes caused real damage. Slowly, the picture of damage is becoming clear and those armchair physicists are being proven wrong. It's almost like global warming deniers. Fukushima deniers?

    3. Re:The genius of holes by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      You're forgetting something:

      The pattern of prevailing winds during the accident meant that most of the radioactive materials released from the plant were blown out to sea.

      "Had the winds been less favourable, the consequences could have been more serious than Chernobyl,"

      http://www.nature.com/news/muc...

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  7. Obligatory by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ford Prefect: How are you feeling?
    Arthur Dent: Like a military academy. Bits of me keep passing out. Ford? If I were to ask you where the hell we were, would I regret it?
    Ford Prefect: We're safe.
    Arthur Dent: Ah. Good.
    Ford Prefect: We're in a cabin of one of the spaceships of the Vogon Constructor Fleet.
    Arthur Dent: Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "safe" that I hadn't previously been aware of.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  8. Re:Let's not get overly dramatic by waterford0069 · · Score: 2

    True... but the water is a different problem - it still has to be managed, but a different problem. The fuel is NOT melting its way into the Earth's core as the poster suggests with their China Syndrome reference. By now, it is quite solid;except perhaps for a some small pockets that must already be accidentally contained, otherwise it could not remain liquid.

  9. Re:safe bet??? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

    So the containment structures were not in fact designed to contain the melted core?

    Sure... Just like the way the nuclear reactors were designed to not melt down in the first place.

  10. Not in place???? by Hiroto.+S · · Score: 2

    a new scan technique using muons have shown the fuel is not in its place.

    Hah??? The whole point of this technology was supposed to be able to locate where the fuels debris are so they can start planning the removal. They said it themselves.

    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/pres...

    But before those reactor cores can be removed, it is essential to locate where the debris has dropped inside the reactor.

    So the technology didn't work. They just confirmed that the it is not in the core, which provide them with zero information to be able to move forward but they didn't say that and pretending it is some kind of achievement and not admitting the fact the they didn't achieve the prime objective of this exercise. Very typical of TEPCO. I hope they don't waste money repeating this to #2 and #3 to confirm that the fuels are not in place there either.

    1. Re:Not in place???? by fizzup · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be a bit more charitable, you can find out where something is through the process of enumerating all the places where it is not. This could take a while.