Monday, August 22, 2011

New Fairewinds Video

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/new-data-supports-previous-fairewinds-analysis-contamination-spreads-japan-and-worldwide

Arnie Gunderson discusses several issues.

1. Ongoing criticalities: Arnie states that the study out of UC San Diego on radioactive sulfur proves ongoing criticalities occurred and that the neutrons released would have been at 400 billion neutrons per square meter to produce the levels of radioactive sulfur detected in San Diego.

2. Source of Plutonium found 1 mile from plant: Arnie has maintained that the plutonium found offsite came from a nuclear explosion ("prompt criticality") in spent fuel pool #3.

Arnie states in this video that the NRC is now maintaining that the plutonium found offsite was from the reactors, not a spent fuel pool.

Arnie claims the NRC is stating that the reactors and their containments were breached, causing plutonium to be [violently] expelled from the plant.

Arnie feels that a breach of reactor containment is a far worse scenario in terms of grappling with the situation than the prompt criticality in the fuel pools.

Majia's Aside: It is interesting that Arnie has been uncomfortable with the idea that the reactor cores have left the building. However, I believe that is what has happened based on numerous accounts to that effect. Arnie is still unwilling to formally accept that premise as evident by his uncertainty over whether the radioactive steam found cracking the earth at the plant by workers is being caused by fissioning core encountering water.

Arnie's position is that at this time there is not enough evidence to prove that the cores have left the building. However, he actually provides support for that hypothesis when he cites the NRC minutes stating that the reactor containments were breached.

3. Tent to be erected at unit 1: Arnie says this tent will not reduce the amount of radiation being released by unit 1 but will simply re-direct the radiation further up into the air. The benefit of the tent is for the plant workers because without the tent the radiation levels will make it impossible to work there. However, to repeat, Arnie says the tent will do nothing to decrease the actual volume of radiation being released.

4. Burning of radioactive materials: This is Arnie's great concern because he states the Japanese are allowing radioactive materials less than 800 becquerels per kilogram (disintegrations per second) to be burned and they are allowing blending of samples so that the sum is less than 800 even if parts are higher (e.g., a sample of 1000 becquerels plus a sample of 200 becquerels to lead to less than 800 becquerels per kilogram overall)

Arnie is very concerned that burning radioactive contamination puts it into the air again, thereby increasing air contamination and re-contaminating areas that had been cleaned and also continuing to contaminate all of Japan and the northern hemisphere, the Pacific northwest in particular.

Arnie states verbatim that this practice is "re-creating Fukushima all over again"

MAJIA's links for the China Syndrome Argument

Link to video interview hosted by Big Picture of RT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baya8-agPs4
The video interview by Thom Hartmann with Paul Gunter from Beyond Nuclear explains that steam coming from cracks in the ground at Fukushima measures in excess of 10 sieverts an hour, or 1 million millirem an hour (100 millirem per year is US permissable dose). Gunter states that the steam is coming from the melted corium meeting water under the building after melting out through the building's concrete basement floor.

additional support

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8565020/Nuclear-fuel-has-melted-through-base-of-Fukushima-plant.html

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFLipZWlpOs

1 comment:

  1. Hi,

    I check Radiation Network occasionally and they have very low levels of radiation almost all of the time. I have asked about the difference between EPA Denver and their data and I have asked them about EPA Omaha and their data and they have not answered me back. I would think if both agencies were reporting on the same thing that the information would match up. Do you know why this is like this?

    ReplyDelete