date:20110315


See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nuclear-crisis-deepens- 
as-third-reactor-loses-cooling-capacity/2011/03/14/ABk6rQV_story.html


http://tinyurl.com/67tp62y

A commercial satellite photo of the complex showed piles of debris  
on top of units 1 and 3, which raised new fears about the condition  
of the pools where spent fuel is stored, especially at unit 1, where  
a design by General Electric placed the pool on top of the reactor  
but below the outer structure that was destroyed. The ability of  
workers to assess the damage was hindered by fears that another  
explosion might occur.


In March 2010, 1,760 tons of spent fuel was stored in the six pools  
— 84 percent of capacity, according to Tokyo Electric.


That is over 250,000 kg of uranium (plus plutonium in the case of  
MOX) per pool on average.  What is that going to do if it melts into  
a blob and starts boring a hole into the earth?  That's a rhetorical  
question.  Google (China syndrome).


That 250,000 kg is many times the fissionable material in an atom  
bomb.  A big problem even if it is mostly U238.  MOX fuel, used in  
unit 3, is a *huge* problem.  Plutonium is one of the most  
radiologically poisonous materials on earth.  Pu242 has a half-life  
of 376,000 years.  The atomic bomb Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima,  
had 64 kg of uranium.  Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki, contained 6.2 kg  
of plutonium.


Material that melts down inside the reactor steel containment has a  
chance of cooling down, due to the presence of moderator material,  
which should end up in the mess along with the fuel glob. However,  
spent fuel storage does not include moderator rods.


Lesson learned too late: don't store fuel rods near reactors that  
have to be cooled and might explode. Second lesson: MOX fuels are a  
very bad idea in commercial power reactors.


According to information on the website of Tokyo Electric Power Co.,  
which operates the Fukushima facility, more than 200 tons of spent  
fuel is stored [away from the reactors] in casks. See:


http://www.propublica.org/article/status-of-spent-nuclear-fuel-in- 
question-at-crippled-japanese-power-plant


http://tinyurl.com/4taefqa

The above site has a good satellite photo taken before Fukushima No 2  
blew.  There are many amateur model airplane and drone builders that  
could get much closer much higher resolution photos.  What is really  
needed are little robots to explore inside.  The US Navy should be  
able to provide some help along those lines.


The Fukushima  reactors typically are loaded with 56 to 91 tons of  
fuel.  See table on page 1 (called page 70) of:


http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/challenge/energy/pdf-1/nuclear-e.pdf

If the fuel loaded into reactor 3 is 0.5% plutonium, then that is  
about 280 kg of plutonium, about 45 times that in the Fat Man bomb.


If a China SYndrome develops, then huge amounts of soil material can  
become neutron activated, so many more tons of toxic material could  
end up in the environment.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:Re: Where are the drones and robots when you need them?

This is an expanded and corrected version of the prior post in this  
thread.


I think the primary danger from Fukushima 1 lies in the fact it uses  
MOX fuel (mixed oxide fuel, the oxides being of uranium and  
plutonium).  Also, there is a vast amount of stored fuel outside all  
the reactor containment vessels. There is at this point no telling  
what the condition of the stored fuel rods is.  In addition,  
plutonium produces a lot of neutrons, which increases the chances for  
spontaneous chain reactions if the fuel melts into a blob.  These  
would be small explosions or thermal excursions, but still very  
dangerous, and possibly repetitive if the material is located in a  
confined space, like a hole bored into the ground.


See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nuclear-crisis-deepens- 
as-third-reactor-loses-cooling-capacity/2011/03/14/ABk6rQV_story.html


http://tinyurl.com/67tp62y

A commercial satellite photo of the complex showed piles of debris  
on top of units 1 and 3, which raised new fears about the condition  
of the pools where spent fuel is stored, especially at unit 1, where  
a design by General Electric placed the pool on top of the reactor  
but below the outer structure that was destroyed. The ability of  
workers to assess the damage was hindered by fears that another  
explosion might occur.


In March 2010, 1,760 tons of spent fuel was stored in the six pools  
— 84 percent of capacity, according to Tokyo Electric.


That is over 250,000 kg of uranium (plus possibly some plutonium in  
the case of MOX) per storage pool on average.  What is that going to  
do if it melts into a blob and starts boring a hole into the earth?   
That's a rhetorical question.  For many answers google(China syndrome).


That 250,000 kg contains many times the fissionable material in an  
atom bomb.  This is a big problem even given it is almost all U238.   
MOX fuel, used in unit 3, is a *huge* problem.  Plutonium is one of  
the most radiologically poisonous materials on earth.  Pu242 has a  
half-life of 376,000 years.  The atomic bomb Little Boy, dropped on  
Hiroshima, had 64 kg of uranium.  Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki,  
contained 6.2 kg of plutonium. For background information on Fat Man  
and Little Boy see wikipedia.


Material that melts down inside the reactor steel containment has a  
chance of cooling down, due to the presence of control rod material,  
which should end up in the mess along with the fuel glob. However,  
spent fuel storage does not include control rods. It amounts to a  
water pool with storage racks.  If the pool leaks the fuel rods can  
be exposed.


Lesson learned too late: don't store fuel rods near reactors that  
have to be cooled and might explode. Second lesson: MOX fuels are a  
very bad idea in commercial power reactors.


Also notable, according to information on the website of Tokyo  
Electric Power Co., which operates the Fukushima facility, more than  
200 tons of spent fuel is stored [away from the reactors] in casks.  
See:


http://www.propublica.org/article/status-of-spent-nuclear-fuel-in- 
question-at-crippled-japanese-power-plant


http://tinyurl.com/4taefqa

The above web site has a good satellite photo taken before Fukushima  
No 2 blew.  There are many amateur model airplane and drone builders  
that could get much closer much higher resolution photos.  What is  
really needed are little robots to explore inside.  The US Navy  
should be able to provide some help along those lines.


The Fukushima  reactors typically are loaded with 56 to 91 tons of  
fuel.  See table on page 1 (called page 70) of:


http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/challenge/energy/pdf-1/nuclear-e.pdf

If the fuel loaded into reactor 3 is 0.5% plutonium, then that is  
about 280 kg of plutonium, about 45 times that in the Fat Man bomb.


If a China SYndrome develops, then huge amounts of soil material can  
become neutron activated, made radioactive, so many additinal tons of  
radiologically toxic material could end up in the environment.


What has happened and is happening in Japan is deeply saddening. The  
photos of the tsunami damage are heart wrenching.  I hope for a quick  
resolution to the nuclear problems and for a minimal release of  
material. More pain in this situation is just unthinkable. However,  
it appears the dangers are great and not fully appreciated by the  
public, and there may be a need to calmly but rapidly prepare for the  
worst.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Re: Where are the drones and robots when you need them?

2011-03-15 Thread Mauro Lacy

Information related to the internal explosion in unit 2 at Fukushima 1,
by Yoichi Shimatsu:
http://newamericamedia.org/2011/03/tohoku-quake-and-tsunami-monitoring-internal-combustion.php

From the article:
That's the bad news. The even worse news is that the explosive force of
the internal blast reflected off the outer surface of the container
chamber, thus focusing a surge of massive pressure against the core
reactor vessel. There is a strong likelihood, yet to be determined by
TEPCO, of damage to the steel alloy of the reactor vessel. So far, any
micro-fissures in the core reaction have apparently not yet leaked heavily.

On 03/15/2011 05:02 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
This is an expanded and corrected version of the prior post in this
thread.

I think the primary danger from Fukushima 1 lies in the fact it uses
MOX fuel (mixed oxide fuel, the oxides being of uranium and
plutonium). Also, there is a vast amount of stored fuel outside all
the reactor containment vessels. There is at this point no telling
what the condition of the stored fuel rods is. In addition,
plutonium produces a lot of neutrons, which increases the chances for
spontaneous chain reactions if the fuel melts into a blob. These
would be small explosions or thermal excursions, but still very
dangerous, and possibly repetitive if the material is located in a
confined space, like a hole bored into the ground.

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nuclear-crisis-deepens-
as-third-reactor-loses-cooling-capacity/2011/03/14/ABk6rQV_story.html

http://tinyurl.com/67tp62y

A commercial satellite photo of the complex showed piles of debris
on top of units 1 and 3, which raised new fears about the condition
of the pools where spent fuel is stored, especially at unit 1, where
a design by General Electric placed the pool on top of the reactor
but below the outer structure that was destroyed. The ability of
workers to assess the damage was hindered by fears that another
explosion might occur.

In March 2010, 1,760 tons of spent fuel was stored in the six pools
— 84 percent of capacity, according to Tokyo Electric.

That is over 250,000 kg of uranium (plus possibly some plutonium in
the case of MOX) per storage pool on average. What is that going to
do if it melts into a blob and starts boring a hole into the earth?
That's a rhetorical question. For many answers google(China syndrome).

That 250,000 kg contains many times the fissionable material in an
atom bomb. This is a big problem even given it is almost all U238.
MOX fuel, used in unit 3, is a *huge* problem. Plutonium is one of
the most radiologically poisonous materials on earth. Pu242 has a
half-life of 376,000 years. The atomic bomb Little Boy, dropped on
Hiroshima, had 64 kg of uranium. Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki,
contained 6.2 kg of plutonium. For background information on Fat Man
and Little Boy see wikipedia.

Material that melts down inside the reactor steel containment has a
chance of cooling down, due to the presence of control rod material,
which should end up in the mess along with the fuel glob. However,
spent fuel storage does not include control rods. It amounts to a
water pool with storage racks. If the pool leaks the fuel rods can
be exposed.

Lesson learned too late: don't store fuel rods near reactors that
have to be cooled and might explode. Second lesson: MOX fuels are a
very bad idea in commercial power reactors.

Also notable, according to information on the website of Tokyo
Electric Power Co., which operates the Fukushima facility, more than
200 tons of spent fuel is stored [away from the reactors] in casks.
See:

http://www.propublica.org/article/status-of-spent-nuclear-fuel-in-
question-at-crippled-japanese-power-plant

http://tinyurl.com/4taefqa

The above web site has a good satellite photo taken before Fukushima
No 2 blew. There are many amateur model airplane and drone builders
that could get much closer much higher resolution photos. What is
really needed are little robots to explore inside. The US Navy
should be able to provide some help along those lines.

The Fukushima reactors typically are loaded with 56 to 91 tons of
fuel. See table on page 1 (called page 70) of:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/challenge/energy/pdf-1/nuclear-e.pdf

If the fuel loaded into reactor 3 is 0.5% plutonium, then that is
about 280 kg of plutonium, about 45 times that in the Fat Man bomb.

If a China SYndrome develops, then huge amounts of soil material can
become neutron activated, made radioactive, so many additinal tons of
radiologically toxic material could end up in the environment.

What has happened and is happening in Japan is deeply saddening. The
photos of the tsunami damage are heart wrenching. I hope for a quick
resolution to the nuclear problems and for a minimal release of

[Vo]:Rossi's E-Cat: modulable output or not?

2011-03-15 Thread SHIRAKAWA Akira


Hello group,

Have a look here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=11#comment-27734



[...] Is it easy to adjust the output power of that unit or is it just “on” or 
“off” 10 kW?

#
Andrea Rossi
March 14th, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Dear Mr Mats Heijkenskjold:
Yes, you can adjust it, by means of a potentiometer .


Compare with this:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=5#comment-20066


#
Andrea Rossi
January 21st, 2011 at 3:44 AM

Dear Mr Di Stefano:
1-The output of a single module is not modulable. The output of combined 
modules is modulable turning on/off one or more modules [...]


This seems to be contradicting information.
I wonder if there have been actual changes or if Rossi is deliberately 
spreading misleading information.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Where are the drones and robots when you need them?

2011-03-15 Thread Mauro Lacy

Another link, explaining the function of the (now missing due to the
explosion) suppression pool at Unit 2:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/concerns-about-relying-on.html

It seems the only way to avoid a definitive rupture of the containment
vessel is by venting more and more of the radioactive steam.
This is quickly going from worse to worst.

On 03/15/2011 06:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Information related to the internal explosion in unit 2 at Fukushima
1, by Yoichi Shimatsu:
http://newamericamedia.org/2011/03/tohoku-quake-and-tsunami-monitoring-internal-combustion.php

From the article:
That's the bad news. The even worse news is that the explosive force
of the internal blast reflected off the outer surface of the container
chamber, thus focusing a surge of massive pressure against the core
reactor vessel. There is a strong likelihood, yet to be determined by
TEPCO, of damage to the steel alloy of the reactor vessel. So far, any
micro-fissures in the core reaction have apparently not yet leaked
heavily.

On 03/15/2011 05:02 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
This is an expanded and corrected version of the prior post in this
thread.

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nuclear-crisis-deepens-
as-third-reactor-loses-cooling-capacity/2011/03/14/ABk6rQV_story.html

http://tinyurl.com/67tp62y

In March 2010, 1,760 tons of spent fuel was stored in the six pools
— 84 percent of capacity, according to Tokyo Electric.

Lesson learned too late: don't store fuel rods near reactors that
have to be cooled and might explode. Second lesson: MOX fuels are a
very bad idea in commercial power reactors.

http://www.propublica.org/article/status-of-spent-nuclear-fuel-in-
question-at-crippled-japanese-power-plant

http://tinyurl.com/4taefqa

The Fukushima reactors typically are loaded with 56 to 91 tons of
fuel. See table on page 1 (called page 70) of:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/challenge/energy/pdf-1/nuclear-e.pdf

If the fuel loaded into reactor 3 is 0.5% plutonium, then that is
about 280 kg of plutonium, about 45 times that in the Fat Man

[Vo]:National Sound Archive Recording

2011-03-15 Thread Enola Gay


The National Sound Archive released the cockpit voice recording of the first 
bombing run over Hiroshima in 1945:

...
Co-pilot: What if the bomb doesn't work?
Pilot: Son, in about 10 years we'll sell them our incredibly safe nuclear power 
technology.
Co-pilot: Suckers!
...

[Vo]:IAEA reports on Japanese reactors


See:

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's E-Cat: modulable output or not?


SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote:


This seems to be contradicting information.


Darn right it is. I have been dealing with Rossi for a year and I have 
encountered this problem often. Ask him the same question 3 times and 
you get 4 different answers!



I wonder if there have been actual changes or if Rossi is deliberately 
spreading misleading information.


I cannot tell. It could be deliberately misleading, or confusion, or he 
changes his mind, or he simply does not know the answer. One person who 
knows him better than I do said the problem is that Rossi's imagination 
is so vivid, he sees what he wants to see, instead of reality.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi's E-Cat: modulable output or not?

2011-03-15 Thread Jones Beene

... or else Rossi (more likely a subcontractor) really did add a common
control element to the circuit between the two answers, which would not be
surprising at all.

It would be more worrisome if Rossi 'made up' the identity of a Board
Member. That would be in reference to George Kelly of the University of
New Hampshire, who still has not surfaced, AFAIK.

There was a famous professor with that name there (now deceased) in social
sciences, and the present one could be a former professor by that same name.
The problem then is not that there is no one presently at UNH so named, but
could there have been two? Every bit of verification helps, so why hide
this?

Jones



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 


SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote:

 This seems to be contradicting information.

Darn right it is. I have been dealing with Rossi for a year and I have 
encountered this problem often. Ask him the same question 3 times and 
you get 4 different answers!

 I wonder if there have been actual changes or if Rossi is deliberately 
 spreading misleading information.

I cannot tell. It could be deliberately misleading, or confusion, or he 
changes his mind, or he simply does not know the answer. One person who 
knows him better than I do said the problem is that Rossi's imagination 
is so vivid, he sees what he wants to see, instead of reality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's E-Cat: modulable output or not?

2011-03-15 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence



On 03/15/2011 10:34 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 One person who knows him [Rossi] better than I do said the problem is
 that Rossi's imagination is so vivid, he sees what he wants to see,
 instead of reality.

That is not a great trait in a researcher.  (Obviously.)

(And now I'll crawl back under my rock, where I've been hiding out for
the last week or two...)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's E-Cat: modulable output or not?

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

 (And now I'll crawl back under my rock, where I've been hiding out for
 the last week or two...)

I would safely stay there until the Fukushima problems are resolved.

T

RE: [Vo]:Rossi's E-Cat: modulable output or not?

2011-03-15 Thread Roarty, Francis X

The PWM scheme is basically throttling back a runaway reaction that doesn't 
really have any stable state between starvation and runaway but creates 
stability using duty factor. The PWM has to be balanced against the slower heat 
extraction loop so the controlled increase or reduction of any individual 
module (while maintaining over unity) is going to be relatively slow - I don't 
think any significant fast change in output power other than totally quenching 
the reaction is possible BUT he may be able to side step that issue by small 
PWM manipulations
To 100 reactors at a time such that the device can respond to load variations.
Fran

-Original Message-
From: SHIRAKAWA Akira [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:28 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Rossi's E-Cat: modulable output or not?

Hello group,

Have a look here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=11#comment-27734


 [...] Is it easy to adjust the output power of that unit or is it just on 
 or off 10 kW?

 #
 Andrea Rossi
 March 14th, 2011 at 2:16 PM

 Dear Mr Mats Heijkenskjold:
 Yes, you can adjust it, by means of a potentiometer .

Compare with this:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=5#comment-20066

 #
 Andrea Rossi
 January 21st, 2011 at 3:44 AM

 Dear Mr Di Stefano:
 1-The output of a single module is not modulable. The output of combined 
 modules is modulable turning on/off one or more modules [...]

This seems to be contradicting information.
I wonder if there have been actual changes or if Rossi is deliberately 
spreading misleading information.

Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:No recent photos or videos of Fukushima



http://en.rian.ru/world/20110315/163023358.html

The Japanese authorities on Tuesday ordered the injection of water  
into the spent nuclear fuel pool at the No. 4 reactor at Japan's  
quake-stricken Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, Kyodo news reported.
The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., said it has not yet  
confirmed the water levels in the pool storing the spent fuel rods  
but hinted that they may have fallen, leading to an exposure of the  
rods.
Radiation levels spiked around the plant on Tuesday morning after a  
fire broke out at reactor No. 4, preceded by a powerful blast at  
reactor No. 2. The government announced a no-fly zone over the plant  
to avoid the spread of radiation.


Reactor 4 is now out of control, and numbers 1, 2, an 3 have blown up.

There have been no recent photos or videos.  Anderson Cooper and crew  
forced by hazard to evacuate yesterday:


http://perezhilton.com/2011-03-15-anderson-cooper-and-crew-evacuate- 
fukushima-nuclear-plant


http://tinyurl.com/497h6s5

Cooper tweets: we think iodine is only if you've been exposed to  
radiation, not something you take protectively. We hope we haven't  
been exposed


Too bad he is wrong about that.  Potassium iodide is taken in advance  
to load up the thyroid with iodine, so it does not take up the  
radioactive kind from the environment.


It appears future news forthcoming from the Fukushima site will be  
highly controlled.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:No recent photos or videos of Fukushima

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

 http://en.rian.ru/world/20110315/163023358.html

 The government announced a no-fly zone over the plant to avoid the spread of
 radiation.


Substitute 'the truth' in place of 'radiation' for a more accurate statement.

T

[Vo]:Energy Catalyzer on Wikipedia

2011-03-15 Thread Esa Ruoho

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

[Vo]:GE Scientists Quit Over Mark I Design

Bitter vindication.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287

Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest
Damaged Japanese Nuclear Plant Has Five Mark 1 Reactors

POST A COMMENT BY MATTHEW MOSK
March 15, 2011

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues
at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming
increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were
reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a
devastating accident.

Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to
handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost
cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test
in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant,
which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and
radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of
the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that
could be experienced with a loss of coolant, Bridenbaugh told ABC
News in an interview. The impact loads the containment would receive
by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart
and create an uncontrolled release.

more

T

[Vo]:Rossi's Inspiration ??

2011-03-15 Thread Jones Beene

The information below was sent to me by an anonymous person who could be a
conspiracy theorist, due to a number of other rants and mysterious ravings.
or not. 

But heck, I will read and try to apply a fair appraisal to almost anything
related to the Rossi invention - given the chance that it could be real, and
given the high probability that if it is not a scam, Rossi himself does not
have a clue. And someone else might have some insight.

Having looked at this site (which contains other extraneous information),
and thought about it in depth, I am now pretty sure there could be something
valid to it ..

http://www.rexresearch.com/johnsonjtec/johnson-th.htm

Look at Fig 1 and 2 about a third of the page down, which is the original
invention. 

The TEG design by Johnson is derivative, but can be (or has been) modified
to use hydrogen as a medium, plus the thermoelectric materials, which could
include at least one spillover catalyst (which shows up in the Rossi/LTI
patent for another kind of TEG). 

The idea is that in the process of working on advanced TEGs which was
Rossi's forte, and which could contain hydrogen gas to give thermionic
properties, it could have been accidental (for someone, even if not Rossi)
to find that the thermoelectric materials actually interacted with the
hydrogen for heat generation - instead of merely the conversion of heat. 

The important patent is rather old:

US Patent # 4,368,4161983
Thermionic-Thermoelectric Generator System and Apparatus
Jasper L. JAMES ( deceased  January 11, 1983 )

This kind of design - could tie into what Andrea Rossi might have been
doing 3-4 years ago with remnants of the earlier TEG work for DoE and LTI,
but with the idea of hydrogen carrying away heat as ions. and then he got
very lucky. 

I should mention that Ed Storms thinks Rossi was working on a completely
different kind of project at the time, but it could have been that he was
working on both at the same time. When you hit the jackpot, you might just
have been the luckiest guy on the planet the particular day of your
'Goodyear Moment'. Who knows?

There is also some kind of vague conspiracy around the original device,
which I do not understand.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Energy Catalyzer on Wikipedia

2011-03-15 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Esa:

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

Succinct, and to the point.

I wonder how long it will take before the anti-CF police take notice
and proceed to correct it.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Reactors under control?

The latest news reports and the IAEA reports make me think the reactors 
are now under control and cooled down. The danger of a melt-down 
melt-through or recombination explosion rupturing the reactor vessel 
seems to be receding.


This morning, NHK broadcast a 15-minute look back at developments 
since the crisis began, with various clips. It was an outrageous 
whitewash. They did not mention the fact that the pump ran out of fuel. 
They kept referring to the sound of an explosion that was heard 
instead of saying an explosion took place. They kept saying the reactor 
cores may have melted or there is evidence of melting instead of 
coming right out and saying what I think even the P.M. has admitted: 
that the cores were exposed and did melt. They did not even show the 
videos of the reactors exploding! That was broadcast worldwide but 
instead, they showed the reactors later on smoking slightly, or with 
shredded upper stories, shown from a long distance camera.


This does give a sense that the Great Cover Up has begun, and people are 
rushing to escape responsibility or claim the whole thing was a natural 
event and no one is at fault. That often happens in Japan. It happens 
everywhere of course, but I do get a sense it is more of an ingrained 
habit there. They also have an annoying habit of drastically 
understating bad news and disagreeable facts. Perhaps the most famous 
example was the Imperial Rescript announcing the surrender of WWII, 
which says: the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's 
advantage. (That is an accurate translation.)


On the other hand, just after the whitewash segment, an independent 
expert came on and sharply criticized both the government and TEPCO, 
saying they have been withholding vital information and they have been 
playing a catch-up game. (I guess you might translate it they have been 
a day late and a dollar short.)


Also on the other hand, I thought that P.M. Kan's address to the nation 
yesterday was honest, realistic, understated and good leadership. He 
spent too long introducing the subject and trying to reassure people, 
but once he began reporting the situation I thought he made things 
clear. I am glad that feather-head Hatoyama is no longer in office.


Kan is reportedly short tempered. He reportedly lambasted TEPCO. They 
sure had it coming to them! Here is a report of that incident in English:


http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110315004235.htm

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reactors under control?

Except that a second fire has broken out in F4 and they fear spent
fuel fires in F5 and F6.

See Horace's post on the lack of moderators in spent fuel cooling ponds.

T

Re: [Vo]:Reactors under control?

So 750 workers have left and only 50 remain.  How do they choose the
divine wind?

T

Re: [Vo]:Reactors under control?

2011-03-15 Thread Dennis

I think that they rotate the workers so than anyone does not get a really 
big dose.

Dennis

--
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reactors under control?

So 750 workers have left and only 50 remain.  How do they choose the
divine wind?

T

Re: [Vo]:Reactors under control?

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote:
 I think that they rotate the workers so than anyone does not get a really
 big dose.

I hope you are right.

T

[Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

I was puzzled what was going on with F4.  Now I understand.  The spent
fuel ponds not only protect spent fuel; but, they temporarily store
active fuel rods while they are doing reactor maintenance inspections.
 The cores of 4, 5 and 6 have their fuel stored in the SPENT FUEL
PONDS!

Quadruple plus not good.  This could really be far worse than
Chernobyl.  There are likely now 3 reactors with active fuel rods
stored in the spent fuel ponds along with the actual spent fuel.

This is far worse than what is happening in reactors 1, 2 and 3.
Except for three which has MOX fuel.

Those 50 workers are likely DMW.

Check the price of potassium iodine on EBay right now.

T

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

2011-03-15 Thread Charles Hope

So why is it bad to have spent fuel around active fuel rods?

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Mar 15, 2011, at 20:32, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was puzzled what was going on with F4.  Now I understand.  The spent
 fuel ponds not only protect spent fuel; but, they temporarily store
 active fuel rods while they are doing reactor maintenance inspections.
 The cores of 4, 5 and 6 have their fuel stored in the SPENT FUEL
 PONDS!
 
 Quadruple plus not good.  This could really be far worse than
 Chernobyl.  There are likely now 3 reactors with active fuel rods
 stored in the spent fuel ponds along with the actual spent fuel.
 
 This is far worse than what is happening in reactors 1, 2 and 3.
 Except for three which has MOX fuel.
 
 Those 50 workers are likely DMW.
 
 Check the price of potassium iodine on EBay right now.
 
 T

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
 So why is it bad to have spent fuel around active fuel rods?

Sorta has something to do with neutron density.  The water not only
acts as a coolant but also as a neutron moderator.

Place the active rods in proximity with the spent rods and take away
the water moderator.  Well, it's not good.

T

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

Well, it's not good.

I forgot to mention that the spent fuel pond is OUTSIDE THE SECONDARY
CONTAINMENT VESSEL.

As Jed says, nothing to see here, move along.

sigh

T

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

2011-03-15 Thread Alan J Fletcher


At 06:11 PM 3/15/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
I forgot to mention that the spent fuel pond is OUTSIDE THE 
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT VESSEL.


That's probably good news ... they could possibly pluck them out by helicopter.

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 As Jed says, nothing to see here, move along.

F5 and F6 will have fires tomorrow.

I hope I am wrong.

T

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
 That's probably good news ... they could possibly pluck them out by
 helicopter.

The helico's have been recalled.  It's not a viable solution.  The
volume requirement of too great.

T

RE: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

2011-03-15 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.

...And if the top is open, use aerial fire fighting tankers to drop boraxo
solutions all over the place.

Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US


-Original Message-
From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought


At 06:11 PM 3/15/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
I forgot to mention that the spent fuel pond is OUTSIDE THE
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT VESSEL.

That's probably good news ... they could possibly pluck them out by
helicopter.

[Vo]:More on the Tau vs. Pi controversy

2011-03-15 Thread Harry Veeder

Pi day threatened by Tau protestors
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/interviews/index.html?story=%2Fent%2Ftv%2Ffeature%2F2011%2F03%2F14%2Fnational_pi_day_viral_videos


http://tinyurl.com/4pecdjl


Includes a fast talking defence of tau while a cherry pie is made.
harry

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is far worse than what is happening in reactors 1, 2 and 3.
 Except for three which has MOX fuel.

Oh, and F2 which likely has a core breach.  Still not as bad as F4.

T

[Vo]:Sec. Edano announces probable unit 3 core breach

Just now on NHK, Cabinet Sec. Edano held a press conference. Large clouds of
white smoke or steam have been rising from unit 3. Edano said that some of
this is steam vented from reactor while adding cooling water but some of it
very likely from a breach in the reactor. He did not specify whether it
was the inner or outer vessel. (By outer I include the torus that is
breached in unit 2 and the other concrete structures.)

Radiation around the plant has spiked again to very high levels, in the
milli-sievert levels again. The exact numbers were unclear.

He did not mention that unit 3 has MOX which makes this much worse.

Unit 4 has been burning again. Photos show extensive damage to the wall.

Edano said that dropping water from a helicopter has been considered but it
might cause more harm than good. Radiation levels are extremely high in unit
4 and it appears they cannot think of a way to extend a hose with sea water
to the pool. A reporter asked if the U.S. military might help. That was my
first thought: perhaps a bomb disposal robot can be employed. Edano said
they are consulting with the U.S. military and other experts worldwide.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reactors under control?

Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote:

I think that they rotate the workers so than anyone does not get a really
 big dose.



There are probably not enough to rotate.

The Japanese press reported that the control room has been abandoned as too
radioactive, and that people opening the valves and doing other work needed
to vent the steam before adding fresh seawater can only be in the room 10
minutes, with protective clothing. Given the number of cycles they have
probably done, and the number of people, 50, I think it is likely they have
been severely irradiated.

QUOTE CNN:

Their situation is not great, said David Brenner, director of the Center
for Radiological Research at Columbia University. It's pretty clear that
they will be getting very high doses of radiation. There's certainly the
potential for lethal doses of radiation. They know it, and I think you have
to call these people heroes.

- Jed

[Vo]:TEPCO says no unit 3 breach

After Edano talked, some engineers held a press conference. They said that
the very latest data indicates that the cloud of steam or smoke was not the
source of the radiation spike. That was probably from the breach in the unit
2 torus reported yesterday.

The two events happened to occur at the same time, they say.

Radiation levels reached 4 to 8 microsieverts but are now subsiding.

Pressure and temperatures are stable in unit 3.

They did not discuss the source of the white cloud. I gather they do not
know.

They have been venting steam periodically from units 1, 2 and 3. They cannot
add new cooling water otherwise. The steam has quite a lot of contamination.
It is regrettable that they have to do this.

- Jed

[Vo]:Workers removed from Fukushima Dai-ichi complex