Comments on: Japan Nuclear Disaster Update # 40: Fukushima Plant Still Producing Energy! (In a bad way)

By: Ana

Ana — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:09:18 +0000

@Joffan: Indeed!

By: Joffan

Joffan — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:39:41 +0000

Ana, np, I’ll just note that the DOUBT is from the director of the institute concerned…

By: Ana

Ana — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:46:53 +0000

@Joffan: Thanks for the update on the I-131 in Europe. I’ll just note that the report you link to includes “DOUBT”.

By: Joffan

Joffan — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:33:44 +0000

Actually I’m going to backtrack on my preivous post. Curium probably is correct and it was my misinterpretation.

By: Joffan

Joffan — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:17:29 +0000

Greg, right, I see that you have some mention of the spontaneous fission explanation. Californium is correct, curium (NHK) was a mistranslation or misinterpretation somewhere along the line.

By: Joffan

Joffan — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:14:51 +0000

Update on the I-131 in Europe.

Hungary isotope lab likely radioactive source: IAEA
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-europe-radiation-iaea-idUSTRE7AG1F820111117

The Hungarian institute, which produces radioisotopes for healthcare, research and industry, said earlier on Thursday that it had suspended production.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:08:16 +0000

Joffan, yes, that is more or less what we report in the feed.

I don’t fully buy it, as had it been expected it would not have been surprising, and frankly, I don’t trust those on the scene any more. No reason I should.

By: Joffan

Joffan — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:04:57 +0000

The xenon in reactor #2 was detected because the Fukushima workers managed to connect up a line to sample and analyze that reactor’s atmosphere. The levels were extremely low, and eventually attributed to spontaneous fission of californium – one of the heavy-element actinides generated by neutron absobtion during reactor operation.

This concept was proved out by adding boron to the injected water, to soak up neutrons. The xenon rate stayed unchanged.

“Critical” means that the neutrons from each neutron-caused fission cause an average of one more fission. Spontaneous fission is (of course) not neutron-caused.

“Critical mass” doesn’t really apply to power stations. It’s more like “critical configuration”, with fuel rods and moderator (water) both needing to be present in a suitable layout. Then you can get neutrons of the right speed without having too many absorbed elsewhere.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:01:54 +0000

I would trust private corporation as long as the executives and board members lived within 300 meters of the plant and at least half of them had to be there at all times for the plant to be operating.

No, wait, that probably wouldn’t work…

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:20:45 +0000

It is interesting to observe over these months since the meltdowns how many procedures and technologies are being invented and deployed for the very first time, as though the nuclear power industry actually, really, truly believed that nothing could ever go wrong.

Same was true of the Three Mile Island aftermath. That was another seat-of-the-pants operation.