Contents
2// 7 tons of water per hour lost in one reactor means earthquake pipe damage
1//
Panel doubts TEPCO claim tsunami caused nuke accident
see http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112060052
1// Japanese panels thinks the TEPCO simulation based only on Tsunami blackout is bogus, that pipes were damagd by the quake, and TEPCO simulation are not consistent with actual disaster data which indicate broken pipes. This draws into question all existing safety and inspection standards
see http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112060052
Panel doubts TEPCO claim tsunami caused nuke accident
2// 7 tons of water per hour lost in one reactor means earthquake pipe damage
1//
Panel doubts TEPCO claim tsunami caused nuke accident
see http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112060052
1// Japanese panels thinks the TEPCO simulation based only on Tsunami blackout is bogus, that pipes were damagd by the quake, and TEPCO simulation are not consistent with actual disaster data which indicate broken pipes. This draws into question all existing safety and inspection standards
see http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112060052
Panel doubts TEPCO claim tsunami caused nuke accident
Panel members apparently feel there is a need to also consider the possibility
that major piping at the Fukushima nuclear plant was damaged by the quake even
before any tsunami hit the plant.
Not a few members of the government panel looking into the accident at the
Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant are skeptical about Tokyo Electric Power Co.
pointing the finger of blame at an unprecedented tsunami.
"The claim that tsunami alone caused the accident is nothing but a hypothesis," said panel member Hitoshi Yoshioka, vice president at Kyushu University, who has written a book about the social history of nuclear energy.
...
the only shaking on March 11 that exceeded government anti-quake standards was the east-west shaking at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors. All the shaking at the No. 1 reactor was within anti-quake standards. Still, the No. 1 reactor was the first where a hydrogen explosion occurred, spewing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
For that reason, if the Hatamura panel were to take into consideration the possibility that the quake was the main cause of the Fukushima nuclear accident, that would call into question the inspection guidelines for anti-quake design that were revised in 2006 for all nuclear plants in Japan. Such doubts would make even more difficult resumption of operations at those plants.
an article by Mitsuhiko Tanaka in the September edition of Kagaku (Science) magazine, published by Iwanami Shoten. Tanaka is a former nuclear plant design engineer who was involved in the design of the pressure vessel of the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima plant.
Tanaka's article criticized the computer simulation analysis conducted by TEPCO,[as not matching the data, which shows other kinds of failure] which was attached to the Japanese government's report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He also surmises that piping at the Fukushima plant was damaged by the quake before the tsunami struck, which led to a loss of cooling water to the reactors.
2// 7 tons of water per hour lost
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-nisa-admits-to-7.html
"The claim that tsunami alone caused the accident is nothing but a hypothesis," said panel member Hitoshi Yoshioka, vice president at Kyushu University, who has written a book about the social history of nuclear energy.
...
the only shaking on March 11 that exceeded government anti-quake standards was the east-west shaking at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors. All the shaking at the No. 1 reactor was within anti-quake standards. Still, the No. 1 reactor was the first where a hydrogen explosion occurred, spewing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
For that reason, if the Hatamura panel were to take into consideration the possibility that the quake was the main cause of the Fukushima nuclear accident, that would call into question the inspection guidelines for anti-quake design that were revised in 2006 for all nuclear plants in Japan. Such doubts would make even more difficult resumption of operations at those plants.
an article by Mitsuhiko Tanaka in the September edition of Kagaku (Science) magazine, published by Iwanami Shoten. Tanaka is a former nuclear plant design engineer who was involved in the design of the pressure vessel of the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima plant.
Tanaka's article criticized the computer simulation analysis conducted by TEPCO,[as not matching the data, which shows other kinds of failure] which was attached to the Japanese government's report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He also surmises that piping at the Fukushima plant was damaged by the quake before the tsunami struck, which led to a loss of cooling water to the reactors.
2// 7 tons of water per hour lost
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-nisa-admits-to-7.html
Friday, December 9, 2011
#Fukushima I Nuke Plant: NISA Admits to 7 Tonnes/Hr Water Leaked from RPV?
A tweet by a Lower House Councilman Hiroshi Kawauchi (DPJ) says the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency now admits in its report that the Reactor Pressure Vessel may have been broken by the EARTHQUAKE, not tsunami. No info about which reactor.
Document from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It reads "a minute damage inside the reactor from the earthquake cannot be denied". It is just surprising to me that they can call a damage that caused the loss of coolant [water] at 7 tonnes per hour "minute", but anyway they have admitted to the possibility of a damage inside the reactor.
...A curious article comes to mind. France's Le Monde reported on December 7 that the government's committee investigating the accident is about to release its interim report, and the report is going to say it is the earthquake, not tsunami as TEPCO and the government has so far insisted, that caused the damage that led to the accident
Document from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It reads "a minute damage inside the reactor from the earthquake cannot be denied". It is just surprising to me that they can call a damage that caused the loss of coolant [water] at 7 tonnes per hour "minute", but anyway they have admitted to the possibility of a damage inside the reactor.
...A curious article comes to mind. France's Le Monde reported on December 7 that the government's committee investigating the accident is about to release its interim report, and the report is going to say it is the earthquake, not tsunami as TEPCO and the government has so far insisted, that caused the damage that led to the accident
No comments:
Post a Comment