Radiation at No.2 at highest level so far 3/23, Neutron Beam seen: fission evidence?

[flamingdem]

Per the Japan Nuclear Agency: the Radiation level at Fukushima reactor No. 2 at its highest level recorded so far. Only headlines for now. And just as the market was starting to buy the endless lies that things are getting better.

Kyodo News:

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

Electric Power Co. said Wednesday it has observed a neutron beam, a kind of radioactive ray, 13 times on the premises of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after it was crippled by the massive March 11 quake-tsunami disaster.

TEPCO, the operator of the nuclear plant, said the neutron beam measured about 1.5 kilometers southwest of the plant's No. 1 and 2 reactors over three days from March 13 and is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 microsieverts per hour and that this is not a dangerous level.

The utility firm said it will measure uranium and plutonium, which could emit a neutron beam, as well.

In the 1999 criticality accident at a nuclear fuel processing plant run by JCO Co. in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, uranium broke apart continually in nuclear fission, causing a massive amount of neutron beams.

In the latest case at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, such a criticality accident has yet to happen.

But the measured neutron beam may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Lucinda]

2. :(

knr

[flamingdem]

3. Black smoke from No. 3 caused evacuations

First white smoke which is steam / vapor, then grey is zironium coating and now black is the control rods.

Ominous.

We know what is in the black smoke from No. 3

They don't even know the status of the spent fuel pools with no containment at all.

Plus, the neutron flux / beam observed that points to possible plutonium.

[Statistical]

9. Nuetron flux doesn't point anymore to Pu than any other fissile material.

Why always the plutonium with you. Everything is the Plutonium.

Reactor hot must be the plutonium.
Black smoke must be the plutonium.
Radiation spike must be the plutonium.
Neutron flux must be the plutonium.

Is there any possible event at the site that your fist conclusion wouldn't be plutonium?

[flamingdem]

11. That is what Kyodo News said

so get with the program!

[Statistical]

12. No it didn't.

It is right there in the quote in the OP. Nothing about neutrons indicates plutonium over uranium or any other fissile material.

[flamingdem]

14. They state that it could be from plutonium nt

[Statistical]

15. which doesn't point TO plutonium.

It could be from plutonium or it could be from uranium, it also could be from any of the other fission products in spent fuel.

[flamingdem]

16. That's why I said possible

You need to parse things more slowly to avoid silly arguments.

[wtmusic]

19. Spontaneous fission?

"Yeah that is called active fission and THAT is NOT HAPPENING IN THE REACTOR."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=279829#280168

[Statistical]

20. Spontaneous fission wouldn't produce enough neutrons to be detected.

Man you love SF don't you. One out of 15 billion decays will result in a single SF in Uranium.

SF is a non issue. A neutron spike large enough to be detected would be trillions of fissions ... induced fission which is far worse.


SF is occurring in this pellet. SF is occurring in all the uranium in the world right now. SF is occurring in ever new fuel assembly all over the world. SF is occurring in the damaged reactor and all the cold shutdown ones. They all are occurring at the same exact rate and there is no force in the universe that can speed up or slow down that rate.

flamingdem word of the week is Plutonium. Every single event is the result of plutonium.
Your word of the week is Spontaneous fission. Every single event is the result of Spontaneous Fission.

[flamingdem]

23. If you continue to attack in a personal manner I will alert on you nt

[Statistical]

25. Then do it. Don't talk about it.

I didn't post anything that is untrue. If the mods believe I crossed the line they will delete it.

You don't need to "warn me".

[flamingdem]

29. OK. Do not respond to my posts. Make your own thread if you want to bully nt

[wtmusic]

24. Well that would start with spontaneous fission, wouldn't it.

:eyes:

What happened to your claim:

"Yet neither reactor core nor the spent fuel has exploded wouldn't that indicate to you that no chain reaction is occurring?"

There are indeed chain reactions occurring, sans explosion. Which most likely is the source of the "neutron beam".

[Statistical]

26. Of course it would start with an SF but

The energy would come from induced fission. Which was the whole point of the very long SF thread that I have no interest in repeating. SF is a non issue. You can't stop SF, you can't delay it. You can't speed it up. It always occurs everywhere and according to its own schedule. SF is producing a rounding error of heat produced in the reactor.

I always indicated induced fission is a concern and it still is. Nothing until this news indicated induced fission was occurring.

"Yet neither reactor core nor the spent fuel has exploded wouldn't that indicate to you that no chain reaction is occurring?"
I guess I should have been more precise and added "sustained". Any fission chain broke within a fraction of s second. Even in this thread I indicated neutron flux is a bad sign. It means we are much closer to sustaining criticality and if that happens (sustained criticality) it will be instantly and immediately obvious. If criticality was sustained for a few seconds the reactor would be ripped apart.

[wtmusic]

30. As there would be no fission whatsoever without SF

SF is very much NOT a "non-issue". And as induced fission is capable of causing a great deal of heat, even subcritically, it seems we're back to where we started.

[Statistical]

31. That wasn't your claim though. Your claim was that SF was contributing to the heat output.

A claim proven false.

Even your claim that SF must have started any induced fission is false. Induced fission simply needs a neutron. That neutron can come from SF but it can come from other sources too.

[wtmusic]

32. Yeah, kinda like your "active fission requires an explosion".

We're all learning a little bit, aren't we?

[Statistical]

If there is sustained induced fission there will be an explosion.

It will be instantly obvious. It won't be the splitting of hairs that you did on the other thread to justify your false and repeatedly disproven claim that SF is contributing to the heat output of the reactor.

[wtmusic]

35. It's sustained, active, subcritical fission that results in a neutron beam.

I admit I was wrong on the other thread. It's clear you can't admit you're wrong on this, however.

[Statistical]

39. No it isn't.

Also what you typed was an oxymoron.

Saying sustained and subcritical doesn't make any sense.

It would be like saying human non-human origin. Or inorganic organic material.

[FBaggins]

42. What on earth is a "sustained active subcritical fission" ???

There is no such animal.

The only way to sustain a subcritical fission is with an outside source of neutrons.

Did somebody mount a particle accelerator onto the side of one of these reactors when we weren't watching? :)

[girl gone mad]

46. The rate of spontaneous fission is enough..

to take the reactor supercritical if it isn't designed properly, or if it's melting down.

[flamingdem]

4. Does anyone have readings in Tokyo?

zamg is not functioning now.

[flamingdem]

5. Tepco: re-criticality possible if enough fissile uranium (plutonium?) is present

More remarkably­, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), which owns the power station, has warned: "The possibilit­y of re-critica­lity is not zero".

If you are in any doubt as to what this means, it is that in the company's view, it is possible that enough fissile uranium is present in the cooling pond in enough density to form a critical mass - meaning that a nuclear fission chain reaction could start.

http://www­.bbc.co.uk­/news/mobi­le/science­-environme­nt-1276260­8

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Neutron radiation is a kind of ionizing radiation which consists of free neutrons. A result of nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, it consists of the release of free neutrons from both stable molecules and isotopes, and these free neutrons react with nuclei of other stable molecules to form new isotopes of previously non-isotopic molecules, which in turn produce radiation. This will result in a chain reaction of nuclear radiation, which makes radiation dangerous and harmful over great areas of space.

[FBaggins]

6. A "Neutron Beam"? What is this, Star Trek?

I suspect there's a translation problem there. they probable mean neutron flux.

My guess is the plutonium 240 component of the spent fuel pools is the culprit.

[flamingdem]

7. When do you think we'll have an explosion and Plutonium spread further? nt

[FBaggins]

8. An explosion?

From what? The magical hopes and wishes of anti-nuke fans everywhere?

[flamingdem]

10. They've had several not so large explosions so far

all are adding to worldwide contamination.

But there is a possibility of a larger explosion when the cores melt to the water table or any number of others errors in judgement occur on the part of Tepco.

[FBaggins]

18. Cores melt to the water table?

You're kidding, right?

[flamingdem]

21. If the containment doesn't hold

I'm not claiming expertise this is what I've read as a slim possibility.

[FBaggins]

34. We're pretty far past the point of "if" containment will hold.

The chance of "burning through to the water table" is so close to zero that you can't really see it from here.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

38. The chance of you being honest is so close to zero that you can't really see it from here.

[FBaggins]

41. The chance of you being able to tell the difference is what's in question.

n/t

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

27. you thought reactor temps over 1000 degrees was a joke, too

how can you still be so sure of yourself, when you have proven to be consistently wrong for days now?

[Statistical]

28. who has indicated a core is over 1000 deg Celsius?

Please provide a cite.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

36. oh sorry, maybe its 999F.

you admitted yesterday that based on the 750F external temp that internal temps were likely above 1000F.

do I have to get you to admit that all over again?

[FBaggins]

33. Playing fast and loose with the facts again, eh?

What I said was that his statement that the temperature was in the multiple thousands of degrees exhibited ignorance of what was going on.

You elected to play games and try and spin for him that "thousands" really means anything over ONE thousand... and then you further spun a temperature report ~700 degrees just HAD to mean that the core was over 1,000.

The problem is that you're just making it up as you go along. If you get to change what he said to what you think he MEANT and change what I said to what you need me to be saying (to prove me wrong) and then you also play fast and loose with the hard data...

...then what is left? Why not just make up the entire scenario?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

37. You're partly confusing me with another poster. But I did say external temps of 750F does point to

higher core temps.

If you deny that, then you're full of shit.

Face it. You'll underestimate this until your last breath.

Thank God we aren't depending on you to take care of this problem.
But my fear is that there are alot of folks just like you at TEPCO.

After all, they knew about neutron flux for days before they told us.
All we got was "things are getting better, the electricity is connected".

[FBaggins]

40. Am I?

If so I apologize.

But I did say external temps of 750F does point to higher core temps. If you deny that, then you're full of shit.

Nope... you said that alrighty. But these weren't "external temps".


After all, they knew about neutron flux for days before they told us.

So? Did you see the levels that are being detected or didn't you?

[kristopher]

43. You are choosing to misinterpret Gundersen's statement.

Q: In reactor one, the government says the Ministry of Defense says the highest temperature 58 degrees centigrade so about 136.4 Fahrenheit the government say, what does that image tell you?

A: I don’t believe the highest temperature is anywhere near that. It’s probably much nearer to thousands of degrees...


There is room for your interpretation, but is isn't how I read it. He clearly wanted to focus on two points: deformation of the core in unit one, and the fact that the greater risk was elsewhere. As is normal in utterances that are pushing by a minor point en route to a more important one, he truncated the presentation - we always think faster than we talk. Consider this exchange, which is how I read it:

Q: In reactor one, the government says the Ministry of Defense says the highest temperature 58 degrees centigrade so about 136.4 Fahrenheit the government say, what does that image tell you?

A: I don’t believe the highest temperature is anywhere near that. It’s probably much nearer to thousands of degrees than to hundreds.

Meaning there assertion was possibly off by an order of magnitude to me.

No matter how you read it, Gunderson has been shown to be far more correct than you in that the situation was far worse than you and other nukapologists were trying to portray it.

[FBaggins]

44. Not at all. You're the one playing games with his statement.

You're ready to cut him some slack (for obvious reasons) and assume that he meant something other than what he actually said.

I'm assuming that he meant what he said.

You can say that he "misspoke", you can't say that I "misinterpreted" him since I have no obligation (or ability) to read his mind.

I also point out that he announced that he was going to be taking potassium iodide pills once the "cloud" got to him. This is a similar ignorance of scale (much more so in fact - several orders of magnitude) that highlights his errors. He claims (possibly even knowing that he's lying) that things are far worse than they are.

Meaning there assertion was possibly off by an order of magnitude to me.

It's not unreasonable to read it that way... but it isn't a "misinterpretation" to read it as he said it.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flamingdem]

13. The danger of using MOX Fuel with dubious data

The danger of using MOX Fuel with dubious data

When MOX fuel is burned in nuclear plants designed for burning uranium fuel, many safety problems arise. For example, the control rods worth are reduced, the emission of radioactive gasses increase, and difficulties arise due to the lower delayed neutron ratio. (See International MOX Assessment report published by CNIC.) Using MOX fuel which is of a low quality, or which exceeds the reactor's design criteria, further increases the likelihood of accidents. Damage to fuel rods and malfunctions in the cooling system are particularly likely in such circumstances. Large amounts of radioactivity may be released and diffused due to the functional failure of reactor vessels and filters.

If there is an accident at Fukushima I-3

Exposure doses for residents resulting from a diffusion of radioactivity caused by a severe accident at Fukushima I-3 were calculated by applying the same method used in the disaster assessment in 'WASH-1400', an accident analysis report produced by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

The plan to burn MOX fuel in light water reactors is called the pluthermal program in Japan. In the core of a pluthermal reactor, there are ten times more actinides such as plutonium, americium, and curium than the core of a uranium reactor. Actinides cause serious internal exposure in human bodies and thus pose a very serious threat to human health.

In short, exposure doses resulting from an accident at a pluthermal reactor would be twice those produced by an accident at a uranium reactor. A given exposure dose would be received by residents over twice the distance. The overall affected area would be four times larger. When fatalities by cancer from an accident at a pluthermal reactor is calculated with an assumption that Tokyo was downwind, the number of cancer fatalities would increase from 0.4 million in the case of an accident at a uranium reactor to 10.6 million. In view of such risks, MOX utilization is simply too dangerous.

By Chihiro Kamisawa
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread676110/pg1

[flamingdem]

17. Analysis of Tepco's beam statement culled from the interwebs

This speaks of cover up to me:

"The utility firm said it will measure uranium and plutonium, which could emit a neutron beam, as well."

WHY have they not been measuring for uranium and plutonium. WHY did they only just admit to the neutron beam / flux that was seen more than a week ago?

If nothing else it would have pointed to the fact of the danger to the workers, but there are 35 million people to consider as well...

From the interwebs, comments on beams and such:

This cinches it. What was originally meant was that they had an instrument sensitive to fast neutrons, and it registered counts. In a normal environment this is extremely unusual, unless... there are particles of isotopes around that decay by emission of fast neutrons. Such as some of the isotopes of uranium and plutonium. And so now they are going to look for those.

It's scary really. They are next to four broken reactors, ALL of which are emitting radioactive clouds from various pools of burning fuel and at least one breached reactor core, and they are saying that now it occurs to them to try measuring the amount of uranium and plutonium in the air. Not because they are looking at four smoking blown up reactors, but because they found 13 counts of fast neutrons 1.5 Km away from the reactor ruins. So someone writes this bit of genius deduction down, and then it gets passed through a monkey-chain, who garble it into senselessness. Then that is passed out as an official release of the Tokyo Electric Power Company.

=========

"kind of radioactive ray"

"Ray" is a bit of a misnomer. A neutron is a particle - an item with mass and energy, whereas "ray" is a term more suited for gamma radiation (photon), a bundle of energy with no mass. The term "beam" is appropriate as it describes a stream of particles, as in an electron beam (used in CRT's).

"But the measured neutron beam may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission."

This is a plausible explanation, as is the fact that many radioactive isotopes also undergo neutron emission decay. Such materials are used for source neutrons to start a totally new fuel load and to provide baseline indication on reactor power instrumentation. It all depends on the duration, strength and energy levels of the neutron beams they detected. Another misstatement is that the fuel had to be leaked in order for the neutrons to be detected. That is not the case. Fissions occurring within intact fuel cladding will emit detectable neutrons. What this could be indicative is that they are penetrating the bio-shield portion of the primary containment. That is a not-so-good scenario.

[eNrG]

45. From what I have learned

So, we argue about what is going on and not what to do.

I have been doing quite a bit of research on this technology and its relatively short history.

It appears to me that nuclear energy has a misleading history. It was created by scientists that were not asking the question of how can we best turn a turbine. They were searching for the a way to make an atomic bomb. This is why we created "nuclear reactors" it was not to make electricity and make human lives better. These systems were created to create weapons grade nuclear material.

The side effect of this system was heat, which they used water to cool the reactors. This creates seam which can be used to turn a turbine and produce electricity. This is a side effect of this technology and not its goal. In the past a lot of the reactors in the world often used more electricity than they created.

It is our fault for believing these lies and allowing this poison to cover our planet. The fact is when something does go wrong, it effects people slowly and invisibly. They can deny the effects because most people would never be able to prove any different. An we see a direct correlation between the use of nuclear anything and cancer rates.

The solution is for us to rid the world of nuclear energy and weapons and everything in between. This technology is a net loss for humanity and never once was a benefit.

This disaster will prove to be the worst and will cause millions of cases of cancer and death. Is that worth the kilowatts we produced to be delivered to an entirely energy inefficient society??

We need to address our core issues which seem to be the centralization of power and wealth. It is because we fail to learn from history that we are still fighting this plague on humanity. We must all realize we are fighting the same evils; central banks, governments, and global corporations.

We re-localize and rebuild sustainably and there is no need for these tape worm systems.

[kristopher]

47. You bet.

See the link at my sig and "Share the Cure"