YouTube home #YouTubeRewind


福島第一 Fukushima ☢ Nuclear Blast?





Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Uploaded on Apr 21, 2011

UPDATE: I now believe the best explanation for Unit 3 is an ex-vessel steam explosion:

A steam explosion does not exclude a nuclear criticality as considered in this video (in fact the explosion of the Borax test reactor was both a criticality and a steam explosion ), 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.

In my opinion, an ex-vessel steam explosion from the primary containment that triggered secondary hydrogen explosions (and not TEPCO's theory of just a hydrogen explosion in the upper deck above the containment) is sufficient to account for all the observations of Unit 3.

Fukushima Central Television flagged down this video on copyright grounds, for the Unit 3 clip: So I appealed on Fair Use and won. Then this video was restored by youtube.

Original Description *****************

Professor Christopher Busby: "I believe that the explosion of the No 3 reactor may have also involved criticality but this must await the release of data on measurements of the Xenon isotope ratios." [*]

As evidence that a nuclear explosion could happen at a nuclear-power plant, Busby cited recent findings that the Chernobyl explosion may have been driven by a release of nuclear energy, not chemical (hydrogen) energy as has been assumed. These important findings were reported in a paper in Pure and Applied Geophysics

that reads:

"The alternative version [ of how Chernobyl exploded ] is based on the assumption of a large instant energy release of nuclear energy. Convincing evidence in favor of this version was for the first time obtained by Radium Institute employees on the basis of an analysis of atmospheric xenon radionuclide samples collected in the area of Cherepovetz and of the analysis of the value of 133Xe/133mXe isomers activity ratios. [...] it should be acknowledged that the hypothesis of a nuclear mechanism of enormous instant energy yield in the Chernobyl accident seems quite convincing, as is supported by experimental data; these data are in good agreement with the calculated results."


教授クリストファーBusbyさん:"私は3号炉の爆発は、臨界関与している可能性がありますが、これはキセノン同位体比の測定上のデータのリリースを待たなければならないと考えています。" [*]


"[はチェルノブイリが爆発した方法]を別のバージョンの原子力エネルギーの大規模なインスタントエネルギー放出の前提に基づいています。このバージョンの有利な証拠を説得Cherepovetzの領域で133Xe/133mXe異性体の活性比の値の分析の収集大気キセノン放射性核種の試料の分析に基づいて、ラジウム研究所の従業員によって得られた初めてのこと。 [...]それは実験データでサポートされている、チェルノブイリ事故で膨大なインスタントエネルギー収率の核メカニズムの仮説はかなり説得力のあるようだ承認されるべきです。これらのデータは、計算結果とよく一致している。"


Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen observes that the explosion of Fukushima Unit 3 was a *detonation* which therefore can't be explained by a hydrogen-gas explosion alone. Joining Professor Busby, Gundersen posits a nuclear (not hydrogen gas) explosion to explain the massive blast of Unit 3...

原子力技術ア Arnie Gundersen さんは、福島3号機の爆発したがって、単独で水素ガスの爆発では説明できない*デトネーション*されたことを観察する。教授バズビーへの参加、Gundersenさんは、3号機の大規模な爆発を説明するために核(ない水素ガス)爆発の仮説...



Dr Busby on Chernobyl and Fukushima Unit 3:

Dr Busby's site:

Tepco's Unit-3 blast press release


When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...