Please share far and wide!

Videos, Fukshima Blew Up in a Prompt Criticality

I finally found an old video that had been "disappeared" and now reappears with the title of Borax - Safety Experiment on a Boiling Water Reactor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WfNzJVxVz4 At 14 minutes in, they run a test on the reactor using K=4 with expected results, of blowing the reactor up, and jettisoning the fuel into the air. Yep, back in the 1950's they did this stuff as sanctioned government research in the open air.

This is exactly what happened at Fukushima Reactor Building 3.

 Here is my article on why Fukushima 3 was a Nuclear Explosion

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-was-nuclear-explosion-here-is.html

We don't know if it was the reactor or the spent fuel pool, but the results are clearcut, 100 tons of uranium and percentage of Plutonium, Strontium, Cesium, and other nastiness was launched into the atmosphere and measured by the EPA.

If the video below won't play in your browser, you can go directly to youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WfNzJVxVz4


If the video below won't play in your browser, you can go directly to youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WfNzJVxVz4



This is also what happened at SL-1 on January 3 1961

At 9:01 p.m., this rod was suddenly withdrawn too far, causing SL-1 to go prompt critical instantly. In four milliseconds, the heat generated by the resulting enormous power surge caused water surrounding the core to begin to explosively vaporize. The water vapor caused a pressure wave to strike the top of the reactor vessel, causing water and steam to spray from the top of the vessel. This extreme form of water hammer propelled control rods, shield plugs, and the entire reactor vessel upwards. A later investigation concluded that the 26,000-pound (12,000 kg) vessel had jumped 9 feet 1 inch (
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

And here is a pretty technical writeup on "Criticality Risks"

http://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/technical-publications/Documents/IRSN_report_nuclear_criticality_risks.pdf
Summaries from the video
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of steam reduces reactivity

Any excess reactivity is self corrective by steam production, which incidentally, for convenience they vent directly to the atmosphere.

Which makes perfect sense, at Fukushima the core or spent fuel was melting or at least steaming mad. The steam being produced was collapsed by the pressure wave of the hydrogen explosion and it went prompt critical, a nuclear explosion

They did 5 safety experiments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WfNzJVxVz4

At  1.9% K-effective Minor water surge
at 2.1% K-effective, quite a bit more water surging

But at 3 to 4% K-effective, they calculated it could blow up real good, but the chances of an operational error were deemed "negligible"

So of course, these good scientists did it.

They melted the fuel plate, and ejected the reactor cores
1.3E8 Joules, with some core material burning while flying through the steam explosion.

Thus "proving" that BWRs are safe in all likely operational scenarios, ya right

If the video below won't play in your browser, you can go directly to youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WfNzJVxVz4




The same thing happened at Fukushima reactor 3. I needed a place to store the Reactor 3 Nuclear Explosion, here it is





The Nuke Cartel keep on disappearing videos that support the anti-nuke case. I had one page in which 5 of 5 videos were disappeared. Amazing.


30 comments:

  1. Got this in my email
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/NuclearHotseat/363463140364198/
    Good job!! TY!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hey you still Whoopin' it up

      Open up a can of Whoop Ass on those nukers!

      Delete
  2. umm, you sound as dumb as George Bush Junior when you say nukulur, instead of pronouncing it as it is spelled, nu-klee-ar, nuclear, not nuculer. sorry, otherwise interesting videos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unit 3 did not go prompt critical. The forensics dont support the assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not a prompt criticality at Fukushima - no neutrons detected

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hilarious! As if TEPCO would report that. It is essential to keep the public from revolting against nuclear, essential to maintain the lie that nuke plants cannot blow up like a nuke bomb. The nuke industry must protect that lie at all costs. If you look at the airborne dispersion of uranium and plutonium, that only means to eject that much material is through an internal explosion within the reactor vessel to create a "canon"

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html

      Delete
    2. Actually, TEPCO itself did report detecting 13 neutron beams at the time of the accident: http://www.infowars.com/neutron-beam-observed-13-times-at-crippled-fukushima-nuke-plant/

      Delete
  5. Just out of curiosity, what would have made those reactors go prompt critical?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deformation of the fuel rods due to over heating/melting, possibly even just the earthquake effect. Degradation of the boron plate absorbers.

      Delete
    2. Additional frisky neutron in the MOX blend fuel (enriched Plutonium)

      melted coriums
      high temperatures
      high pressures

      Delete
  6. The first video, last experiment toward the end recalls, on a small scale, Fukushima #3, except #3 seemed to have 3 separate explosions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first 2 explosion were probably hydrogen explosions, agreed with the similarity though

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Ya Dana rocks, he is definitely rough around the edges, and may have an economic interest that juices his work, but nevertheless he is doing hard and dangerous work and exposing lie of the "normalcy" crowd.

      Delete
  8. A bomb is essentially an unmoderated prompt super-criticality. The geometric and material buckling of any reactor precludes such an unmoderated prompt super-criticality. Any moderated prompt criticality or prompt super-criticality would be almost immediately terminated by the moderator temperature or void reactivity coefficients. Fukushima did not experience either a moderated or unmoderated prompt super-criticality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The collapsing of the steam bubbles surrounding the molten core caused the sharp change in reactivity which then caused the prompt critical....in a few thousands of a second....superheated water flashes to steam and a near instantaneous expansion of thousands of times of volume.

      A hydrogen explosion was probably the trigger for the steam bubble collapse. See my newest article coming out soon.

      Delete
    2. In order for a criticality to occur there need to be a geometry and a material composition that is conducive to criticality. In nuclear engineering we use the terms geometric and material bucking to describe these conditions. The probability that a molten core could achieve these very specific conditions are atomically small. Again, there was no prompt criticality at Fukushima.

      Delete
    3. Mark, they did it with a uranium reactor in the Borax experiments. Clearly unit 3 explosion was not just hydrogen.

      Delete
  9. I say the Borax videos 40 years ago when I was in college. I did not say that you could not take a reactor prompt critical (I have my doubts about whether a large power reactor could go prompt critical but we will assume that it can). What I said was that a molten core will not be critical because neither the geometry nor material conditions that support criticality will exist any more. In the Borax experiments and even at Chernobyl, after the prompt super-criticality destroyed the core, what was left was no longer critical. At Fukushima, the reactor was not critical because all the control rods were inserted. Since a moderator is necessary for a criticality, no criticality occurred after the loss of coolant. After the core melt (as I said), neither the geometry nor the material conditions supported criticality. As for the spent fuel pool, again neither the geometry nor material conditions supported criticality either before or after fuel melt. I do not know how to say this more clearly: there was no prompt criticality at Fukushima. It was not physically possible. Furthermore, nuclear forensics performed after the accident show no evidence of a prompt criticality. Do not listen to this Gunderson person, he's a loon and knows nothing about nuclear or reactor engineering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Show me the evidence of these nuclear forensics that you speak of?

      Delete
    2. Mark Laris, I am hoping to see the "nuclear forensics" that prove no prompt critical.

      Every fact I see, in 4 different ways, all show prompt critical happened.

      You can't pretend to know the geometry, with melted corium dripping out of the bottom, and geometry was possible.

      Delete
    3. I saw the report several year ago but can't find it now but if you knew anything at all about nuclear engineering or reactor physics, you would know that a prompt criticality was not physically possible. Let me ask you this, by what credentials do you claim to know that a prompt criticality occurred when every expert report I've read has concluded d that there was no prompt criticality.

      Delete
    4. Please try to find it. Nuclear experts have been throwing that line at me for years, yet not one report, not one single link to data or testing performed.

      Delete
    5. Proof of prompt critical.

      Amount of uranium at the other usual suspects measured by the EPA indicate hundreds of tons aerosolized.

      The only way this could happen is if the explosion came from within and near bottom of pressure vessels or pools.

      The explosion pattern across the roofs of the nearby buildings to reactor 3 clearly show 2 point sources of the main explosion, NOT a hydro volume explosion.

      The size of the explosion at 3 and it's dirty black nature, quite different than Reactor 1.

      The amount of fight back against the prompt critical, as it will be the death knell of the nuclear industry.

      All the evidence is clearly presented within this blog.

      Delete
    6. Oh also the over 10Sv "point source" of radiation from one of the towers by 3. Years later, after any material would have been washed off by weather. The metal is activated, that was caused by the neutron that accompanied / caused the prompt critical.

      Delete
  10. I am continuing top look for the nuclear forensics data and will try to post it if I can find it. However, you appear to think that the experts in the nuclear industry are the enemy. Believe me, we work at nuclear power plants and no one wants them to be safe more that the people who work there. None of us have a death wish.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No good hearted people, with skills, are necessary. However, the problem is not the working people, nor even most managers, it is the system and the industry that I see as the problem, not to mention REALLY OLD plants.

    One of the other pHD guys who frequent here likes to put it as "I put it on the line everyday", maybe that is a fair statement of risk, like a race car driver, you better do almost everything perfect almost every time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I cannot understand why Gunderson and his followers are so convinced that some sort of prompt criticality occurred at Fukushima. I'm not even certain you know what exactly a prompt criticality is or how difficult it is to achieve. I know that Gunderson claims to have some sort nuclear engineering degree but I find this very difficult to believe as whenever I've heard him talk, he appears to know nothing about reactor physics except the names of some of the terms. Also, I don't know what your PhD friend does for a living but I spent over 35 years working at nuclear power plants as a reactor engineer and while it was very challenging, no one put it "on the line everyday". Nuclear power is safer that any other large industrial facility you want to mention and safety is the first and primary focus of everyone working there, even the managers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pHD guy is some gov type jet setting "nukist", I coined that term. He comments as Loose Nuke, you probably even know him in real life.

      Agreed, working at the nuke plants is very safe for the employees, but as these plants age, more industrial type accidents will occur.

      Did you have the time to find that forensic evidence yet? Mahalo!

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, I cannot find the report on my personal computer. I must have read it at work, but as I am now retired, I no longer have access to those files. I am, however, continuing to look for it online and have contacted a couple of former colleagues to see if I can obtain a copy of the report.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments