Sunday, January 26, 2014

Significant Atmospheric Emissions Fukushima Daiichi Site?


Periodically I issue alerts when I see significant atmospheric emissions on the TBS and/or TEPCO cams. Today I am issuing a 'watch' because I cannot determine whether webcam imagery is being distorted by atmospheric conditions.

This morning there appeared to be significant emissions at Daiich as viewed from the TBS cam, but these emissions were not highly visible on the TEPCO cam.

My first look at the TBS cam today:

The TEPCO cam was relatively sharp focused and did appear in any way clouded by emissions or precipitation:


On the TBS cam, plant became visible over next hour but emissions appeared thick and energetic for approximately 2 more hours. The never ceasing, upward stream of pixilated light that flows from the buildings was particularly energetic. This flow cannot be well represented with static screenshots..



Still no heavy emissions visible on TEPCO cam - although it is possible to see emissions coming from the common spent fuel pool:
 
Emissions subsequently worsened on the TBS cam, although still not visible on TEPCO cam
 



There are different interpretations for the disconnect in imagery. The most obvious explanation for the divergence is atmospheric conditions, which could be clouding the TBS view since the cam is miles away from the site.

Humidity is high today in Fukushima so that could be the explanation.https://www.google.com/#q=fukushima+weather

However, I'm a bit skeptical of this explanation because the TEPCO cam appears very clear and doesn't have the haziness (and spiderwebs) that accompanying rain and mist at the site.

Downwinders should take heed and monitor radiation readings carefully in their areas.


6 comments:

  1. Hi Majia - usually I lurk, but I came out of my reclusive artist mode to let you guys know that I have accumulated a set of photos(60) taken from webcams in the countryside around the plant over the past 3 months that may be of interest - and some observations about the spiderwebs

    http://cybertrips.blogspot.com/2014/01/rainbows-and-spiderwebs.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascinating article. I recommend others read it as well.

      Delete
  2. Nuclear Controversies by Wladimir Tchertkoff (full length)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVvFmlk8bN0#t=1404
    This is a very valuable video and introduces one to Professor Yury Bandazhevsky of Belarus who was eventually jailed for his post-Chernobyl discoveries. Among other things was his discovery of the concentration of Cesium 137 in the thyroid, heart, intestinal lining . . heart attacks were occurring at any age even in children as the Cesium caused irremediable damage. One also sees the fraudulent actions of IAEA. How hard it seems to believe that persons in positions of authority could be so dishonest in the face of suffering children. Truly heartless persons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just had a crazy beautiful idea. The best possible place to manage a nuclear core in long term melt down is from 2000m below the surface of the ocean off Japan in a deep low current trench. High pressure and low temperatures would assist containment and when eruptive, volatiles and steam could be scrubbed by a series of floating deep water capture filters.

    Encase the reactor in ice, , float it on the ocean in a cradle, transport it into deep water at the selected and prepared location, fill the containment vessel with zeolites and sink it into a deep water hole, and then bury it in more zeolites. Return it to the crust.

    Maintain the filters and watch how nature adapts and evolves in fantastic new ways, colonises filters, biocapturing radionuclides to form sediment and mineralise out. In short, what nature does about a million times better than we can ever hope to.

    Picking a stable, low current location that is as close as possible would be adventageous. It would be an extraordinary engineering endeavour, making a huge ice cube to launch on a voyage, like a giant toxic Dahlian peach...

    The solution is feasible from an engineering point of view. It is the only possible way of removing the harm for all time. All other alternatives are horrific, both to health, as well as the ongoing cost of attempting to manage the meltdown on land, with no feasible way of filtering emissions, and no possible end at site.

    Does anyone else think that this idea has merit?

    I'm just throwing it out there. I have no agenda, except to see an end to ongoing radioactive emissions into the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Today I posted this over at ENEnews Forum. A professional version is desirable. There is value in placing a range of items in such a scale as it indicates the political/social aspects of contamination:

    This morning I have the idea of a scale of tolerance of toxicity-lethality. I believe this could be useful.
    E.g. let's imagine this scale going from 1 to 10 where 10 represents extremely meticulous consideration such as in a special hospital. We would like to see hospitals functioning at an 8 or 9 level. Food preparation at a 7 or 8. And the general public at a 6.
    In the USA the combined interaction of gov and business usually results in a 4. In some EU nations it is more like a 5. 4 is pretty low. In West Virginia we saw a 3 with respect to the water, which is really criminal negligence. The state itself okay-ed the water when it got to level 4, but the CDC said women who were pregnant should not drink it. Probably wanted a 5. I would recommend for everyone 7 level water which means a good water filter.
    Now this should illuminate matters regarding radiation. With a 4 standard current conditions on the West Coast do not merit alarm or concern. People posting here want a 6 which is unrealistic in the USA. Grocery stores carry a lot 4 level food all the time. Organic food has been about a 7, but the GMO contamination will cause that to drop.
    Japan has dropped down to 2's and 3's to deal with Fukushima. The same to some extent happened after Chernobyl. Although I believe they were striving for a 4 level. But C was simpler than F.
    Most vaccinations are level 3. When the USA used DU in the Middle East that was level 2–deliberate criminal action.

    Some one with experience in ecology, in dealing with contamination, etc. could put this together with colors and all and make the points very dramatically. Big nations tend to hit the lowest common denominator due to the types of people, etc. The Russian Federation is also probably a 4--but China has a lot of 3 in the works with their horrible air pollution and generally low standards.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.