Upload

Subscription preferences

Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Working...

GoddardsJournal

福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Plume プルーム (HD)

57,715 views 2 years ago
プルームのデータは、文部科学省からのものです。
Plume data from the Ministry of Education, Japan:
Lower-Elevation Plume - 低標高のプルーム
https://web.archive.org/web...
Higher-Elevation Plume - 高標高のプルーム
https://web.archive.org/web...

Unlike depicted herein, I now believe the fuel pool was not involved in the unique Unit 3 explosion (see my video outlining my reasoning http://youtu.be/Hc-p-gtpKLM published before it was proven the pool was not involved). But at the time of this video, it was a popular theory not without indications.

From the leaked U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission preliminary assessment of Fukushima : "Fuel pool is heating up but is adequately cooled, and fuel may have been ejected from the pool (based on information from TEPCO of neutron sources found up to 1 mile from the units, and very high dose rate material that had to be bulldozed over between Units 3 and 4)." Page 10: http://www.wdr.de/tv/monito...

"A Neutron source is a device that emits neutrons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... It was plausibly interpreted that neutron sources ejected from the pool would be part of a fuel rod. An explanation for the NRC report's description of ejected neutron sources remains unknown.

However, now I believe the best explanation for why the explosion of Unit 3 differed dramatically from that of Unit 1 is that it uniquely experienced ex-vessel steam explosion: http://lewrockwell.com/orig...

A steam explosion does not exclude a nuclear criticality (in fact the explosion of the Borax test reactor was both a criticality and a steam explosion http://youtu.be/8WfNzJVxVz4... ), but at the same time a steam explosion does not require a criticality because interactions of molten fuel and water are sufficient to generate a steam explosion.
Read more
プルームのデータは、文部科学省からのものです。
Plume data from the Ministry of Education, Japan:
Lower-Elevation Plume - 低標高のプルーム
https://web.archive.org/web...
Higher-Elevation Plume - 高標高のプルーム
https://web.archive.org/web...

Unlike depicted herein, I now believe the fuel pool was not involved in the unique Unit 3 explosion (see my video outlining my reasoning http://youtu.be/Hc-p-gtpKLM published before it was proven the pool was not involved). But at the time of this video, it was a popular theory not without indications.

From the leaked U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission preliminary assessment of Fukushima : "Fuel pool is heating up but is adequately cooled, and fuel may have been ejected from the pool (based on information from TEPCO of neutron sources found up to 1 mile from the units, and very high dose rate material that had to be bulldozed over between Units 3 and 4)." Page 10: http://www.wdr.de/tv/monito...

"A Neutron source is a device that emits neutrons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... It was plausibly interpreted that neutron sources ejected from the pool would be part of a fuel rod. An explanation for the NRC report's description of ejected neutron sources remains unknown.

However, now I believe the best explanation for why the explosion of Unit 3 differed dramatically from that of Unit 1 is that it uniquely experienced ex-vessel steam explosion: http://lewrockwell.com/orig...

A steam explosion does not exclude a nuclear criticality (in fact the explosion of the Borax test reactor was both a criticality and a steam explosion http://youtu.be/8WfNzJVxVz4... ), but at the same time a steam explosion does not require a criticality because interactions of molten fuel and water are sufficient to generate a steam explosion. Show less

Radiation Risk Research Play

My Fukushima Unit 3 explanatory model Play

The explosion of Unit 3 was significantly different than that of Unit 1. Only the explosion of Unit 3 had vertical magnitude and a mushroom cloud. Here I outline the steam-explosion model, which is isomorphic to the explosion of Unit 3, mapping directly onto its physical phenomena.

Thorium, Safer Nuclear Energy Play

I've not studied thorium enough to be able to claim an informed opinion, but a number of credible experts believe it's a safer nuclear fuel than uranium, and I understand the potential for catastrophic meltdowns is not present as it is with urianium-based nuclear energy. However, thorium does not produce plutonium as a byproduct, and plutonium is needed by the military to produce nuclear weapons. Thorium advocates contend that is a big reason nuclear energy was steered by governments to uranium as the energy substrate.

U.S. Radioactive Rain is Natural Radon Washout Play

Youtube is flooded with videos that falsely attribute radioactive rains in North America to Fukushima fallout. But in every case where the user tests their rain sample over time, a rapid decay to normal within a day or a few days at most is reported. That is the 'acid-test' for radon, which is normally washed out with rains. In contrast, nuclear fallout in rain would remain hot for years.
Loading...
Working...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to