2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Apr 2011 20:12

self deleted.

point made

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Apr 2011 20:36

Lalmohan wrote:you mean Ureobovinic Acid?

Time was when it was possible to get this without DHMO contamination (I am told). It is now over 90% DHMO.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Apr 2011 20:44

Wasnt the forum supposed to have a soft corner for Japanese other than me? It seems now that I am one of the few who doesnt find it a reason for amusement.

Ironic.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Apr 2011 20:53

i think we remain very serious about the situation in japan

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 01 Apr 2011 21:04

Sanku wrote:Wasnt the forum supposed to have a soft corner for Japanese other than me? It seems now that I am one of the few who doesnt find it a reason for amusement.

Ironic.

But when it becomes too much about fear of unknown, it is an issue.

Japanese are capable and will handle it well enough.
The joke is on the MSM.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Apr 2011 21:09

http://www.viscosimedia.com/20110401771 ... -fukushima

The Fukushima nuclear power plant that began a meltdown after last month’s earthquake has not been stabilized and officials have ordered the world’s largest concrete pump be brought as a type of "Chernobyl solution" to the problem in Japan. The concrete pump is currently located in the United States in Georgia but is being moved to Japan because of the emergency situation there. The pump is enormous at 190,000 pounds and is made in Germany by Putzmeister. The concrete pump has a 70 meter boom that can be remote controlled which is a major plus when dealing with failed nuclear reactors and the radioactive environment.

There are only three such pumps in the world and only two of those are ideally suited for the type of work that is necessary in Japan. After modifications are made in South Carolina the pump will be shipped to Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport and put aboard a Russian made Antonov 225 for the flight to Fukushima. The Antonov 225 is the largest cargo plane in the world.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Apr 2011 21:14

Seabed surge caused tsunamis

Japanese researchers say they have discovered that the seabed rose as much as 5 meters near the focus of the massive earthquake that struck off northeastern Japan on March 11th.

The research team was led by Ryota Hino, an Associate Professor at Tohoku University's Research Center for the Prediction of Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions.

The team analyzed data collected from a water-pressure gauge installed on the seabed 5,800 meters down and at a point 200 kilometers off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture, near the focus of the quake. The focus zone stretches about 450 kilometers north to south.

The data showed that the seabed rose by about 5 meters in the quake.

The researchers said the massive tsunamis were caused by the sudden rise in the seabed over wide areas.

They also believe the tsunami waves grew larger as they approached the coasts and encountered shallower water. They say this caused tsunami higher than 10 meters over wide areas.

Hino said the data on previous major quakes showed that the related seabed elevations were at the most 2 meters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Apr 2011 21:30

I will ask a rhetorical and unfair question.

If such an accident had occurred in India and we had a shut down of diesel generators, explosions and a suspicion of fuel rods melting in part, what kind of support and understanding would we get from the "international community" and their media. Would they express concern? Or would they list a series of disasters that have overtaken India - from Bhopal to famines, Gujarat etc and sneerily ask if SDREs are capable of looking after such things.

As I see it - it is a waste of time arguing whether radioactive contamination is unsafe or not and exactly how unsafe a given level of contamination might be which is about as far as the discussion seems to have gone.

But unless I am grossly mistaken the reactor safety mechanisms have failed and the much dreaded "meltdown" has occurred patchily leading to some contamination. It may have been controlled now, but those reactors are history as far as initial assessments go.

Does Japan need support? Yes insofar as we can offer support?

Does Japan need sympathy? Yes for the human suffering

But do hard questions need to be asked whether everything was done properly or not in much praised and admired Japan? Yes to that as well.

Japan is a country that is very earthquake prone and has active volcanoes. the word "Tsunami" is a Japanese word. Tsunamis are known to be caused by offshore earthquakes. Is someone trying to say that the Japanese did not anticipate an earthquake and tsunami at a coastal nuclear plant?

Below is a random image of the Fukushima plant.

Is someone telling me that this plant is protected against Tsunamis? Frankly a glass of water splashed with force on the floor towards a wall has enough energy to wet the wall at least 15 cm up. This image does not seem to show my untrained eye anything that can withstand even a 5 meter tsunami.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Apr 2011 21:54

JwalaMukhi wrote:http://www.viscosimedia.com/20110401771 ... -fukushima
The Fukushima nuclear power plant that began a meltdown after last month’s earthquake has not been stabilized and officials have ordered the world’s largest concrete pump be brought as a type of "Chernobyl solution" to the problem in Japan. The concrete pump is currently located in the United States in Georgia but is being moved to Japan because of the emergency situation there. The pump is enormous at 190,000 pounds and is made in Germany by Putzmeister. The concrete pump has a 70 meter boom that can be remote controlled which is a major plus when dealing with failed nuclear reactors and the radioactive environment.

There are only three such pumps in the world and only two of those are ideally suited for the type of work that is necessary in Japan. After modifications are made in South Carolina the pump will be shipped to Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport and put aboard a Russian made Antonov 225 for the flight to Fukushima. The Antonov 225 is the largest cargo plane in the world.

this article implies that the plant is going to be concreted, other reports i have posted earlier today show that the pump is to be used for pumping water...

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Apr 2011 22:01

^ agree. probably, the press is eager to get some answers, so they imply something hoping the authorities would get to disseminate as closer to truth as possible, either through correction, denial or acceptance.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Apr 2011 22:24

shivji

the plant has clearly not been designed to withstand a tsunami of any significant size - and more importantly the critical cooling systems and their backups were not made to be signficantly tsunami proof or rather resistant - simply because the height of a tsunami is highly variable depending on several factors - and multiple redundant systems succumbed to the same problem, i.e flooding

the plant however has demonstrated that it is highly earthquake resistant - it withstood a shock loading 7 times larger than its nominal design load and all reactors went into immediate shutdown

plants used to be designed with one worst case disaster scenario in mind, this is a clear case of two happening simultaneously. the second should have been predictable - but wasnt. we can only guess (until the inquest begins) on the design decisions made by TEPCO and GE back in the 70's - but whatever they were, they were the best that they understood at the time. 40 years on we understand a hell of a lot more - including plate tectonics, earthquakes and tsunamis, etc., etc. odd as it may sound, no one really understood plate tectonics or subduction zones properly till the 80's or 90's (i.e. the full mathematical models for how they work, etc.)

every effort has been made by the 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' media to call the japanese idiots/incompetent/liars/disorganised, etc., etc. - we saw similar things during the BP deepwater well blow out crisis directed against evil empire brits. the media excel at this sort of finger pointing, some would say its their job to do so...

if this had happened in india, you can guarantee that the sniggering condemnation would be 6 x 10^23 times worse, SDRE's are not fit to be using gora takniki, etc., etc.

the best way forward is to learn from what went wrong and design it out of the next iteration

an analogy

aircraft used to be made with circular windows. they aren't any more. why? they were easy to design and manufacture, easy enough to cut out...
the deHavilland comet was a contemporary of the B707 jetliner and was very popular with british and commonwealth airlines. over a relatively short period, several of them fell out of the sky killing many people
after extensive inquests and studies it was found that circular windows are very prone to fatigue stress cracks - and the high altitude, high speed, pressurised cabins of the comet induced fatigue cracking far more readily in these windows than anyone had ever suspected
bingo
now aircraft have ovoid or curved rectangular windows and fatigue stress cracking is much alleviated (but not gone entirely)
meanwhile, the comet dissappeared from service

the same will happen with BWR plants and tsunami (non) defences

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Apr 2011 22:29

GuruPrabhu wrote:The irony is that they are trying to solve the crisis caused by DHMO by applying more DHMO to the problem.

Real irony is people are still falling for "scientific" sounding non-sense. ( For example see some of the studies/articles quoted here again and again claiming millions of deaths with no sensible data)

Anyway, wrt to DHMO (from wiki) is most relevant to this thread:
Public efforts involving DHMO

In 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old junior high student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered 43 votes to ban the chemical, out of 50 people surveyed among his classmates. Zohner received the first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for analysis of the results of his survey.[6] In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion."[13]

My own son, about 10 years again in high school, got similar reaction from public.
Of course, many people took it seriously:

..A member of the Australian Parliament announced a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide internationally.[14]

In 2001 a staffer in New Zealand Green Party MP Sue Kedgley's office responded to a request for support for a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide by saying she was "absolutely supportive of the campaign to ban this toxic substance". ...., one of whose MP's fell for the very same hoax six years later

In March 2004, Aliso Viejo, California almost considered banning the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events because dihydrogen monoxide is part of their production. A paralegal had asked the city council to put it on the agenda; he later attributed it to poor research.[17] The law was pulled from the agenda before it could come to a vote, but not before the city received a raft of bad publicity.[6]

In 2007 Jacqui Dean, New Zealand National Party MP, fell for the hoax, writing a letter to Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton asking "Does the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have a view on the banning of this drug?"

In 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky, David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park, wished to deter bathers from using a large public fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup," he arranged for signs reading: "DANGER WATER – CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN – KEEP OUT" to be posted on the fountain at public expense

In 2007 Jacqui Dean, New Zealand National Party MP, fell for the hoax, writing a letter to Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton asking "Does the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have a view on the banning of this drug?"

I could go on..certain posts remind me why California was ready to
" Repeal Ohm's Law"
I hope brf readers and lurkers are better than that.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Apr 2011 23:11

tremors exceeded design limits for 3 reactors

The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station says 3 of the plant's 6 reactors were shaken on March 11th by tremors exceeding forces they were designed to withstand.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, known as TEPCO, says reactor No.2 suffered the largest horizontal ground acceleration of 550 gals, which is 26 percent stronger than the reactor's design limit.

TEPCO says the readings were 548 gals at the No.5 reactor, about 21 percent higher than its design limit; and 507 gals at the No.3 reactor, topping the capacity by about 15 percent.

The power company says the strength of ground motions were close to or within the design parameters at the remaining 3 reactors, and at all 4 reactors of the nearby Fukushima Daini nuclear plant.

The utility says it was planning to reinforce the reactors so they could withstand horizontal shaking of 600 gals, after the government reviewed their quake-resistance standards 5 years ago. But the work was not finished.

TEPCO says it will continue analyzing the seismic activity in detail.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Apr 2011 23:12

Shouldn't the DHMO posts as above be considered fairly obvious and ham-handed attempts to troll to disturb the the thread from asking pointed questions?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Apr 2011 23:15

GE: Fukushima reactors have no structural defects

The chief executive of General Electric has stressed that the GE reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have no structural problems.

Jeff Immelt spoke to NHK and other media outlets on Thursday. Some observers say the No. 1 and 2 reactors, the oldest types at the plant, have a flaw in their designs.

He said the GE reactor has been in service for more than 40 years and is well-tested and well-designed and has been upgraded over time.

Immelt said in Washington on Thursday that he was aware of the doubts expressed about nuclear power plants. But he said it is necessary to diversify energy sources at a time of rising oil prices.

In the United States, more than 20 reactors are in use that have similar structure to the Fukushima No. 1 and 2 reactors. Questions were raised about their safety after the Fukushima reactors were damaged last month.
Friday, April 01, 2011 12:24 +0900 (JST)

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Apr 2011 00:52

A lot of the "pointed questions" on this thread is hardly science or even engineering point of view on the issue at hand, but it feels like a lawyer's point of view.

The science responses by Amber_G has been quite clear and concise with ample references available that can be cross-checked easily. There is no a priori reason to believe the arguments made here, questioning the credibility of some of the media reports is a motivated response.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Apr 2011 00:57

...this article implies that the plant is going to be concreted, other reports i have posted earlier today show that the pump is to be used for pumping water...

Thanks for pointing it out and correction (That's the trouble with neem-hakims who do not put the whole story)

BTW, IIRC this information was posted here in brf by me also(because one can easily modify and it, and use it to pump water, so it was suggested long ago). Actually using fire-trucks early (which happened to be there at the plant site) to pump water when the pumps failed was not a routine process, but quick and brilliant thinking by one of the workers at the plant.

In any case I don't know why it was not mentioned in the above item, because in other stories it is clear that:

The operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan has purchased two truck-mounted concrete pumps from U.S. construction firms and is modifying them to pump water to cool the facility's damaged reactors.

People at Fukushima were already familiar with this company and their smaller pumps of this kind. These are much larger.
(See Link

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Apr 2011 03:06

chaankya-ji
what on earth is a gal? w.r.t ground acceleration measurement (and not lalchix)

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Apr 2011 04:16

aircraft used to be made with circular windows. they aren't any more. why?

LalBrof. The Comet's windows were square (later versions came with modified windows). Yes. Now undergrad kids are taught about stress concentration and to avoid sharp corners and use stress relievers/doublers/ and all that kind of stuff, but spare a thought for the folks who died in the comet crashes for that kind of knowledge to come through.

BTW, now that there is lot of "progress", I believe the B787 dreamliner will have larger windows and more pressurization than ever thanks to composite fuselage and lack of corrosion thereof.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 02 Apr 2011 04:19

The financial burden is now getting much more scrutiny.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclea ... _news_stmp

“Nuclear plants are too large to be financed in the capital markets,” NRG Energy CEO David Crane said in a prepared statement to MarketWatch. “Without the federal loan guaranty, our project is dead on arrival.”

Loan guarantees amount to a contractual pledge between the government, private creditors and a borrower that Uncle Sam will cover the borrower’s debt obligation in the event of a default. This gives borrowers access to capital markets at the same low interest rates available to the government.

Despite the hurdles, nuclear remains an economically viable source of electricity, once the plants manage to get built, he said.

”The variable costs of nuclear are low but fixed costs are very high,” Dobson said. “Certainly, financing risks borne by equity and debt holders ... those same debt holders will be staring at safety standards.”

Meanwhile, other types of power such as wind, natural gas and solar, cost less and take less time to build, offering investors quicker returns, he said.

The key lies in what is going to convince the public, that funds the nuclear plants.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... rgy-policy

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 02 Apr 2011 04:24

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55101

In addition to the moratorium, the German government immediately ordered the definitive shutdown of the two oldest nuclear power reactors, in operation since the mid 1970s. Five other nuclear power reactors, in operation since the late 1970s, were also closed down, albeit only temporarily -- one plant has been out of service for several months, due to technical problems.

According to official figures, the 17 nuclear power reactors generated 23 percent of all energy consumed in Germany. However, the recent shutdown of about half of the installed nuclear capacity has not led to any shortages.

How come they do not feel shortages?

"We can shutdown all nuclear power plants within few years, without major costs, and without suffering shortages," Olav Hohmeyer, professor of energy policy at the University of Flensburg, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told IPS

How?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 02 Apr 2011 05:44

For all who would like to know more about Boiling water Reactors. Great pictures with indepth information.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/N ... actors.pdf

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Apr 2011 06:15

In Japan, Seawall Offered a False Sense of Security

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world ... 2wall.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Apr 2011 06:40

I like the aircraft window analogy because it is a good example of what happens when science meets human. Fears, emotions and preferences come into play that have effects on other human parameters like popularity, profits and reputation. I am guessing that is why you have managers.

I recall reading that having no aircraft windows and seats facing backwards would be the safest in an aircraft. No windows would mean safer and cheaper construction. Seats facing backwards would certainly have saved lives. But rather than educating the public the thrust is on glossing over these things and asking engineers to compensate and take a less safe route for piskological reasons.

And yes, there is a surgical analogy as well for when science meets human. The surgeon removes his sutures on the patient's belly 7 days after surgery and the patient asks him "Doc has the wound healed?". The doctor beams at the patient and says "it's perfect! It's all healed up!" Balls. What the doctor does not tell the patient is that the total healing and remodelling time will be 6 months. The patient still has a chance of infection manifesting for a few days. The would could still split open. The patient could still suffer from vein thrombosis, throw a clot and die suddenly. And he will likely have continuing pain for several weeks. Telling the patient that could leave him a quivering mass of anxieties and fears, unable to return to work and dependent on the doctor for reassurance for months. That happens too.

I studied science too and using science forms part of my day to day life. For various reasons (including an interest in aircraft, children's exams and BRF) I have kept in touch with non medical science to some extent. After Chernobyl, when I worried about contaminated milk, living in the UK (and took some measures to avoid that) I have stayed in touch with layman level science of nuclear reactors.

For example I knew that a reactor will not explode like a nuclear bomb. I am not sure that this fact is known to most people who use the power of a nuclear bomb to inflate their sex toys or make their cuppa the morning after. That is because the fact that reactors use the power of the atom as in atom bomb has been irresponsibly hyped far more than reality.

On the other hand, a person like me, reasonably informed knew about control rods that could be inserted to stop neutrons from flying around and cutting short the chain reaction. What I did not know was that after the insertion of control rods the reactor will still need several weeks of cooling before it actually becomes safe and the safety mechanisms for that cooling have to be as robust and dependable as the control rods and have to last for weeks. This was precisely what failed at Fukushima.

I am certain the GE (or was it Westinghouse?) engineers in the 1960s planned for earthquakes. But they certainly did not plan for Tsunamis. This is bit like saying that someone was born because his father did not know about condoms. What has happened has happened. But knowing that accountants, managers and shareholders have as big a stake in a company as the engineers who make the stuff that the company profits from, I would be curious to know whether this could have been anticipated 40 years ago but was glossed over because someone somewhere decided that it was too inconvenient and too unlikely to consider.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Apr 2011 06:59

Fukushima update: did nuclear chain reactions continue after shut-down? - April 01, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... ear_c.html

There is growing evidence that uranium and plutonium fuel at the Fukushima nuclear plant may have continued nuclear fission chain reactions long after the reactors were shut down almost three weeks ago. This worrying development may explain the continued release of some shorter-lived radioisotopes from the stricken site.

Tepco, the plant operator, said earlier this week that it had – on 13 occasions – detected beams of neutrons near the reactors. Neutrons are produced during fission of nuclear fuel, and are the key driver of the chain reaction that sustains continuous fission reactions in a reactor.

Japan Today reports that "the neutron beam was measured about 1.5 kilometers southwest of the plant’s No. 1 and 2 reactors over three days from March 13."

The neutron beam didn't pack much of a punch – if anyone got in its way, it would likely deliver a dose of just 0.01 to 0.02 microsieverts per hour. But the finding tallies with a recent analysis of other isotopes found at the plant, published in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, at the James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies of the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, hones in on the significance of a very short-lived radioisotope, chlorine-38, in the water in the turbine building of reactor 1.

In an introduction to the analysis, Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, an energy and environment information-provider based in Takoma Park, Maryland, explains:

Chlorine-38, which has a half-life of only 37 minutes, is created when stable chlorine-37, which is about one-fourth of the chlorine in salt, absorbs a neutron. Since seawater has been used to cool [the reactors], there is now a large amount of salt – thousands of kilograms – in all three reactors. Now, if a reactor is truly shut down, there is only one source of neutrons – spontaneous fission of some heavy metals that are created when the reactor is working that are present in the reactor fuel. The most important ones are two isotopes of plutonium and two of curium.
But if accidental chain reactions are occurring, it means that the efforts to completely shut down the reactor by mixing boron with the seawater have not completely succeeded. Periodic criticalities, or even a single accidental one, would mean that highly radioactive fission and activation products are being (or have been) created at least in Unit 1 since it was shut down. It would also mean that one or more intense bursts of neutrons, which cause heavy radiation damage to people, have occurred and possibly could occur again, unless the mechanism is understood and measures taken to prevent it. Measures would also need to be taken to protect workers and to measure potential neutron and gamma radiation exposure.
There's a great debate about the implications of all this going on over at Arms Control Wonk.

And also see below in our comments thread - some very good counterarguments.

Fukushima update: more radiation data errors - April 01, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... iatio.html

Fukushima update: more radiation data errors - April 01, 2011

As the battle continues at the Fukushima reactors, the 'fog of war' has once again descended, throwing doubt on vital groundwater contamination data.

Yesterday, Kyodo News reported that the first groundwater contamination at the Fukushima power plant had been detected, and cited levels 10,000 times the legal limits. The number came from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), the plant operator.

Today, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that Tepco's data was wrong, although there is little doubt that groundwater has been contaminated. According to Kyodo News:

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the governmental nuclear regulatory body, said it was ''extremely regrettable'' that TEPCO had given incorrect radiation data at the plant for the second time. The agency has strongly warned the operator over the matter and urged it to take steps not to do so again, he added.
Problems with Tepco's analysis software are being blamed for the error. Tepco has already had to retract data showing incredibly high radiation levels in water flooding the basement beneath reactor 2.

Meanwhile, Tepco is also under fire for not protecting its workers adequately. The LA Times notes that "many workers at the facility do not have radiation monitoring badges. Tepco, which owns the facility, confirmed the report, noting that much of its supplies had been destroyed in the magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake and the tsunami that followed it. But company officials said that the leaders of each team of workers have a badge and that workers without badges are assigned to areas with low radiation risk."

In other news, Tepco workers will spray a water-soluble resin over debris scattered around the plant to damp down radioactive dust that could be blown into the air. The company expects to use 60,000 litres of the resin over the next two weeks.(Kyodo News)

It will come as no surprise that Tepco has said the four damaged nuclear reactors will have to be scrapped, at a cost of billions of dollars (Daily Yomiuri, and many others).

For full coverage of the Fukushima disaster, go to Nature's news special.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Apr 2011 07:06

Fukushima update: local contamination of power plant area under scrutiny - March 31, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... ami_1.html

Here's a very brief update on events as of tonight at the Fukushima Daichii power plant in Japan. Overall, "the situation remains very serious," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reiterated at a briefing today.

To recap briefly on past events; concerns focus on reactors 1 to 3, all of whose cores seem to clearly have undergone meltdowns to greater-or-lesser extents, and which have already released radioactive material during venting to the atmosphere -- carried out to release pressure in the containment vessels. Electricity supplies have not yet been established to their permanent coolant systems, so emergency injection of water using temporary pumps is still being relied upon. At reactor 4, concerns are different -- the reactor's core had been transferred to a cooling pond during reactor maintenance at the time the quake and tsunami hit, leaving the core's fuel rods -- lacking a containment vessel -- exposed directly to the air when water levels in the pool fell and fuel rods overheated; water injection has since stabilized the pool.

There have been few new developments today in the status of these 4 reactors, but here are quick summaries of some other related developments. Many of these are related to local pollution around the site, resulting both from the accidents themselves and from collateral damage resulting from the desperate efforts to cool the reactors, and prevent full-scale meltdowns.

First reported groundwater contamination:
Kyodo News are tonight reporting
that the first groundwater contamination at the Fukushima power plant has been detected. It cites levels 10,000 times the legal limits. This is just a heads up; more later when I get some data. The risk of groundwater contamination has been high on people's minds since the discovery last weekend of large volumes of highly radioactive water -- some of it extremely radioactive -- in the basements of the plant's reactors, and in large trenches outside of the reactors -- see my article in Nature this week, for more on this, and more quantitative data -- Radioactivity spreads in Japan.

Seawater contamination: The key point here seems to be that whereas much of the initial offshore radioactive pollution was caused by deposition from the large atmospheric plumes of radioactivity released, local marine pollution now seems to be being continually fed from near shore local release emanating from the plant's discharge channels. The IAEA reported tonight that:

"The latest analyses in seawater 330 m south of the discharge point of NPP Units 1-4, and 30 m north of the discharge point of Units 5-6 were made available for 29 March. In particular readings of 130 000 Bq/l of I-131, 32 000 Bq/l of Cs-137 and 31 000 Bq/l of Cs-134 were reported near Units 1 - 4."

These are almost double figures reported by IAEA earlier this week: that radioactivity levels near the plant's discharge pipes were increasing, with 74,000 Bq l−1 of iodine-131 and 12,000 Bq l−1 of caesium-134 and caesium-137 combined. Recommended maximum coastal discharges from nuclear power plants are typically lower than 4,000 Bq l−1.

As I've pointed out before, marine readings can vary widely depending on currents and discharge rates; what's worrying though most of all is not the variation in the readings but that high levels of radioactive discharges from the plant to the sea are continuing unabated. The IAEA has a French group from Toulouse, Sirocco, doing modelling of where that marine radioactivity might go, but it's results so far seem fairly preliminary.

Japan is already busy dealing with the after-effects of a huge quake and tsunami, and now a nuclear disaster, and although IAEA and other international agencies are on the job, I'm still a bit surprised at how little we are hearing of any organized international academic efforts to urgently bring top academic scientific expertise to bear on helping plan and execute such essential monitoring work at sea and on land, as well as the many other epidemiological and other studies that could inform efforts -- if you are a scientist involved in such, do get in touch with me at [email protected].

And the data coming out, while fairly transparent on the whole -- by past nuclear industry standards -- are often disparate, poorly organized, incomplete, in multiple units lacking context or explanation, and in clumsy formats such as pdfs that make independent machine-readable data analysis difficult -- in Web terms, the ways in which data are generally being made available publicly in response to this crisis look much like the 1990's Web, rather than the 21st century Web of web services and real-time mapping. Data may not seem an immediate priority, given the scale and urgency of the crisis, but clearer information and data would without any doubt help alleviate the obvious confusion that is currently being experienced by many, not surprisingly concerned, Japanese, and others, as to the ongoing consequences of this nuclear accident, and also spur scientific analyses by the broader research community worldwide. Public and scientific data dissemination is an essential part of emergency planning, but so far the authorities involved, including IAEA, are falling short of what's needed.

ISIS report slams data collection at Fukushima-Daichii plant: The Institute for Science and International Security, a fairly well-respected body in nuclear nonproliferation work has tonight released a Preliminary Assessment of Accident Sequences and Potential Atmospheric Radiation Releases. I found its painstaking analysis of radiation readings from the plant itself, and their shortcomings, a useful new analysis.

Other snippets from today's IAEA briefing:

Radiation measurements in Tokyo: "Two IAEA teams are currently monitoring radiation levels and radioactivity in the environment in Japan. On 30 March, one team made gamma dose-rate measurements in the Tokyo region at 7 locations. Gamma-dose rates measured ranged from 0.03 to 0.28 microsievert per hour, which is within or slightly above the background."

Food: "Since our briefing of yesterday, significant data related to food contamination has been submitted by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Seventy-six samples were taken from 28-30 March, and reported on 30 March. Analytical results for 51 of the 76 samples for various vegetables, fruit (strawberry), seafood (sardines), and unprocessed raw milk in eight prefectures (Chiba, Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Niigata, Saitama, and Yamagata), indicated that iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 were either not detected or were below the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities. However, it was reported that analytical results in Fukushima prefecture for the remaining 25 of the 76 samples for broccoli, cabbage, rapeseed, spinach and other leafy vegetables, indicated that iodine-131 and/or caesium-134 and caesium-137 exceeded the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities."

Drinking water: "Most of the previously imposed recommendations for restrictions on drinking have been lifted. As of 28 March, recommendations for restrictions based on I-131 concentration remain in place in four villages of in the Fukushima prefecture, in three of these villages, restrictions continue to apply for infants only."

For full coverage of the Fukushima disaster, go to Nature's news special.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Apr 2011 07:07

On the other hand, a person like me, reasonably informed knew about control rods that could be inserted to stop neutrons from flying around and cutting short the chain reaction. What I did not know was that after the insertion of control rods the reactor will still need several weeks of cooling before it actually becomes safe and the safety mechanisms for that cooling have to be as robust and dependable as the control rods and have to last for weeks. This was precisely what failed at Fukushima.

Shivji, the fact that fuel rods will need months/years (not weeks) was known log ago, even to layman like me. (after all that's - radioactivity - what keep interior of earth hot) and they never become safe /smile/. The cooling part is crucial in *all* kind of reactors - even after years heat sink is very very important.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Apr 2011 07:12

Nuclear leak reinforces need for drugs to combat radiation

http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/201 ... eed_f.html

In the aftermath of Japan’s 9.0-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami, evacuation centers surrounding the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station stockpiled nearly a quarter-million doses of potassium iodide as a preventative measure against radiation poisoning. These pills protect people from the long-term risks of thyroid cancer associated with chronic radiation exposure, but they do little to guard against the ill effects of high-dose radiation toxicity.

Unfortunately, no drugs are currently approved to treat the extreme radiation sickness that plant workers or emergency personnel may experience. Yet, thanks to investment from the US government, several candidate compounds might soon be available in the event of another nuclear catastrophe.

The Project BioShield Act, passed by Congress in 2004, and the Pandemic and All-Hazard Preparedness Act, signed into law two years later, allotted billions of dollars in funding for research into medical countermeasures to be used in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. These government awards include more than $500 million for the treatment and prevention of so-called acute radiation syndrome (ARS), the extreme radiation sickness associated with exposure to high doses of ionizing radiation over a short period of time.

In addition to terrorism, nuclear plant disasters are a leading cause of ARS. The 1986 explosion at Ukraine’s Chernobyl plant, for example, caused 134 confirmed cases of ARS, accounting for almost one third of the reported incidences of the disease worldwide (Health Phys. 93, 462–469, 2007). Over the past week, engineers in Japan have made headway in containing leaks at the Fukushima site and seemed to have averted a meltdown. But radiation at the plant had already spiked to dangerous levels, forcing hundreds of exposed emergency workers to temporarily evacuate.

If any of these workers are diagnosed with ARS, their treatment options currently are limited to antibiotics, blood transfusions and fluid supplements that deal with the symptoms of the disease. Physicians also sometimes administer cancer drugs that help the immune system rebound, but these drugs must be given in medical facilities. Now, however, researchers are developing biologics and small molecule drugs that be used in the field to stem radiation’s ill effects.

One of the lead candidates — a drug called CBLB502 being developed by Cleveland BioLabs of Buffalo, New York — binds an immune protein called Toll-like receptor 5 to activate a cell survival pathway. In unpublished data from rodent and monkey models, the drug, which is derived from a protein found in the flagella of Salmonella bacteria, remained “very efficacious” up to 48 hours after exposure, according to Cleveland BioLabs’ chief scientific officer Andrei Gudkov.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted the compound fast-track status in July 2010, and, backed by a $15.6 million award from the US government, the company has already tested CBLB502 in 150 healthy volunteers in two phase 1 safety studies. According to spokesperson Rachel Levine, the company plans to submit an approval application by the end of next year.

Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania-based biotech Onconova is advancing its own compound, Ex-RAD, which works by inhibiting proapoptosis proteins such as p53 as well as downstream regulators of cell death. According to Ramesh Kumar, Onconova’s president and CEO, the small molecule has been tested for safety in more than 50 people, with few adverse effects reported.

Fresh blood
Instead of trying to block cell death, some companies are developing treatments that simply replace the cells lost to radiation. For example, the California-based biotech Cellerant Therapeutics has a system based on blood progenitor cells that can form mature infection-fighting and clotting blood cells upon infusion by intravenous drip. Importantly, these cells — dubbed CLT-008 — do not produce the mature T cells that cause immune reactions, so just one product can be stored to serve as a temporary therapy for all ARS-affected individuals. What’s more, unlike many other ARS drug candidates, CLT-008 seems to work up to a week after exposure. “By that time, you’d actually have a chance to evacuate people out of the city,” notes Mark Whitnall, head of the radiation countermeasures program at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

Other products in development include Osiris Therapeutics’ Prochymal, a stem cell therapy derived from adult bone marrow for the treatment of organ damage resulting from radiation exposure, and Aeolus Pharmaceuticals’ AEOL-10150, a small molecule that reduces oxidative stress and inflammation associated with radiation exposure. Both companies have government contracts that exceed $100 million.

Notably, all of these experimental ARS treatments are being developed under the FDA’s ‘animal rule’, which provides a path to drug approval for life-threatening agents where human efficacy trials aren’t ethical or feasible. This regulatory route still requires safety testing in humans, large-scale efficacy studies in animal models and a good understanding of the drug’s mechanism of action. But the exact requirements of the rule — which was introduced in 2002 — remain unclear to many drug developers. “The mechanism is very vague,” says Kumar.

What’s more, even after these drugs gain approval, another hurdle remains for companies to make money. “Who are the eventual buyers and consumers of this drug?” Kumar asks. “That is a bigger question.”

saip · Post by **saip** » 02 Apr 2011 07:13

Quote:
"We can shutdown all nuclear power plants within few years, without major costs, and without suffering shortages," Olav Hohmeyer, professor of energy policy at the University of Flensburg, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told IPS

In USA I think the present installed capacity is over 1000 gigawatts. Out of this Nuclear Power is around 100 GW. So even if you shut down all the Nuke plants tomorrow I am sure we can manage. But I am not sure of countries like France.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Apr 2011 07:20

Quote:
"We can shutdown all nuclear power plants within few years, without major costs, and without suffering shortages," Olav Hohmeyer, professor of energy policy at the University of Flensburg, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told IPS

To me this is a white lie for the same reasons that I have posted earlier. All those reactors have nuclear material that will require safekeeping and cooling for decades if not centuries. Is the learned Prof saying this will come free and last only for a few years? The man, who gets additional respect by being called Professor, is clearly bullshitting. It's not as simple as that is it?

The nuclear genie is out of the bag. This accident is not a time for downhill skiiing. It is a time for review and continuing safe usage of nuclear power. The world cannot back out now and say "No more nuclear power" for pure piskological reasons.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 02 Apr 2011 07:25

saip wrote:
Quote:
"We can shutdown all nuclear power plants within few years, without major costs, and without suffering shortages," Olav Hohmeyer, professor of energy policy at the University of Flensburg, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told IPS
In USA I think the present installed capacity is over 1000 gigawatts. Out of this Nuclear Power is around 100 GW. So even if you shut down all the Nuke plants tomorrow I am sure we can manage. But I am not sure of countries like France.

So, a developed economy can afford to shut down its nuclear plants and not suffer shortages. However, on the other hand proponents of nuclear route for India claim that based on energy needs in couple of more decades have to go the nuclear route. Else, it is going to be a remiss, potentially causing to fall into stone age, future of children being compromised yada, yada.

This is saying that nuclear power as a source of energy fulfillment is overrated.
Maybe that kind of overdrive for nuclear route is its own worst enemy. If it is pitched as one more arrow in the quiver, it will probably be more acceptable.

saip · Post by **saip** » 02 Apr 2011 07:26

Shiv:

Safekeeping, yes not cooling. In USA if and when the Yucca thingy comes on line, the nuke material may be stored. I dont think you need decades before you can send these to storage, it is more like years.

saip · Post by **saip** » 02 Apr 2011 07:35

Jwalamuhki: Even a developed economy like France will be hard put to do without Nuke power as it depends on it for almost 80% of its needs. So the lesson from this for India is not to overly depend on Nuke power for more than 10% of its needs and explore/develop alternate/renewable energy.

In the USA most of the power is produced by Natural gas (40%) and coal (30%). Oil accounts for only 5%!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Apr 2011 08:46

saip wrote:Jwalamuhki: So the lesson from this for India is not to overly depend on Nuke power for more than 10% of its needs and explore/develop alternate/renewable energy.

Why? Why 10%? Why not 20%?

I personally think nuclear power should provide at least 30%.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 02 Apr 2011 09:57

shiv wrote:I personally think nuclear power should provide at least 30%.

The power industry in India has not prepared to build and operate on such a scale safely. Or even unsafely. That would be a 50 year type plan.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Apr 2011 11:19

Lalmohan wrote:chaankya-ji
what on earth is a gal? w.r.t ground acceleration measurement (and not lalchix)

http://www.equipment-reliability.com/glossary.html#g

g The acceleration produced by Earth's gravity. By international agreement, the value for 1 gravitational unit is 9.80665 m/s² = 386.087 in/sec² = 32.1739 ft/sec².

gal. 1 gal (seems to mainly be used in Japan) is an acceleration of 1 cm/sec². A more or less typical earthquake measures around 250 gal near the epicenter, so 400 gal is sometimes specified for earthquake testing. 980.6 gal = 1g.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 102550.htm

A new study identifies earthquakes through July 2007 that have produced 100 of the strongest peak accelerations (PGA) and 100 of the strongest peak velocities (PGV) ever recorded. The threshold for the first list is acceleration of the ground exceeding 7.31 m/s2 (74% of gravity), while the threshold for the second is velocity exceeding 0.65 m/s. Crustal earthquakes dominate the lists. Exceptionally strong ground motions exceeding these levels have been observed on sites with the softest soils and sites with the hardest rock.

"The size of these ground motions matter to the engineers as they design structures to resist earthquakes," said John Anderson of the Nevada Seismological Laboratory and Department of Geological and Engineering Sciences at the University of Nevada. "But ground motions that have not yet been recorded also matter. There may be a limit that earthquake motions will never exceeded. Although we expect to eventually record earthquake shaking stronger than what I report in this paper, those higher motions appear to be quite rare, and a motivation for this study was to help to constrain upper limits.
Small earthquakes can generate exceptional peak accelerations (over 5 m/s2). This compilation includes earthquakes with magnitudes as small as 4.1. The smallest earthquake causing one of the 100 largest PGA on the list had a magnitude 4.8, and the smallest earthquake causing one of the 100 largest PGV was a magnitude 5.7.
Of the 255 time histories identified in this study, 40 records have PGV exceeding 1.0 m/s. The largest PGV is 3.18 m/s, recorded on the hanging wall of the thrust fault during the Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake on September 20, 1999 (Magnitude 7.6). Also, 35 records have PGA greater than gravity (9.8 m/s2, or 1 g). The largest acceleration in this data set is about 23.8 m/s2 (about 2.4 times gravity), recorded on the hanging wall of the thrust fault during the Nahanni earthquake in northern Canada on December 23, 1985 (Magnitude 6.9). It has already been exceeded by a 2008 record from Japan with PGA that was greater than 4.1 g,, but that later record was not available when this data was compiled.
While motions that large appear to be quite rare, with recent expansions of instruments, more records as large as those in the current top 100 are being obtained every year

http://www.uwiseismic.com/Downloads/Eq_ ... _scale.pdf

PGA is the effective Peak Ground Acceleration during the earthquake. That is the maximum horizontal ground acceleration excluding high frequency spikes. 1 gal = 1 cm/sec/sec. Since the intensity of gravity (g) is about 10 meters/sec/sec 10 gals is about 1% of gravity

** At the highest intensity levels damage potential is determined increasingly by the effects of ground failure. Most types of ground are unable to sustain prolonged accelerations much greater than 500 gals.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Apr 2011 12:40

Japan must distribute iodine tablets urgently
REUTERS

PARIS -- Japanese authorities grappling with a nuclear disaster must hand out iodine tablets now and as widely as possible to avoid a potential leap in thyroid cancers, the head of a group of independent radiation experts said.

France's CRIIRAD group says Japan has underestimated the sensitivity of the thyroid gland to radioactivity and must lower its 100 millisieverts (mSv) threshold for administering iodine.

Failure to do so quickly could lead to an even higher jump in thyroid cancer cases in coming years than is anticipated, Corinne Castanier told Reuters in an interview on Thursday.

"They should still do it (distribute iodine) now because the contamination continues but it will be less efficient. They have to limit the damage. It's not too late to act but they have to distribute them as widely and as fast as possible," she said.

In 2009 France lowered the threshold at which it administers iodine pills in case of nuclear disaster to 50 mSv, a measure of the amount of radiation received by people, from 100 mSv, following guidelines established by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the wake of the Chernobyl accident.

The WHO also set its threshold for children, pregnant women and women breastfeeding at 10 mSv.

In a nuclear accident, it is the discharge of iodine 131 into the atmosphere that constitutes the greatest health risk. The nuclide's radioactivity halves after 8 days.

If radioactive iodine is breathed in or swallowed, it will concentrate in the thyroid gland and increase the risk of thyroid cancer, the WHO said.

This risk can be lowered by taking potassium iodide pills to saturate the gland and help prevent the uptake of radioactive material when given before or shortly after exposure.

On March 16 Japanese authorities advised people living in a 20-km radius of the crippled plant to take iodine tablets five days after the catastrophic 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.

"Japanese authorities should have given out iodine tablets in a radius of 100-150 kilometers around the Fukushima-Daiichi plant and done so right after the accident," Castanier said.

"There is no major negative impact in iodine tablets so they should distribute them as widely as possible," she said.

The level of radioactive iodine found in seawater near the stricken nuclear power plant was 4,385 times the legal limit on Thursday, the Japanese nuclear safety agency said. That was the highest level registered since the crisis began.

Radioactive discharge levels from the Fukushima plant were very high in the first days after the accident, Castanier said.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Apr 2011 12:44

Kan names quake at pep talk

Kan Friday night marked three weeks since the deadly tsunami ripped up the northeast coast by naming the temblor that spawned it the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake (Higashi Nihon Dai-Shinsai).

"I am confident that we will overcome the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake . . . and re-create a wonderful Japan," he said.

"And I promise that I myself and my Cabinet will stand at the forefront and devote all of our energy" to rebuilding it.

To prepare for the restoration, Kan said he will freeze part of the fiscal 2011 budget, which cleared the Diet Tuesday, and transfer the money to a supplementary budget.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Apr 2011 12:49

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 331n1.html

At the same time, western Japan has unused capacity that cannot be transferred, because the two regions are incompatible due to a historical quirk. Eastern Japan runs on a 50-hertz current and the rest on 60 hertz. The government is in talks with utilities to channel more from the west to the east.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Apr 2011 13:09

TEPCO failures multiply / Compounding of missteps exacerbated nuclear crisis
The Yomiuri Shimbun

Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s failure in its initial response to the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture invited more trouble in a chain reaction, according to an analysis of events over the past three weeks since the March 11 great earthquake and tsunami.

At the crippled nuclear power plant, three reactors have been cooled by injecting water using temporarily set up pumps. However, there are fears the spent nuclear fuel rods stored in the reactors' temporary storage pools will overheat again.

TEPCO's sloppy way of publicly releasing information related to the accident also has drawn much criticism.

===

Vent operation in trouble

The power plant lost all power on the afternoon of March 11 due to the gigantic tsunami that followed the great earthquake, causing an emergency halt to the operations of the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors. The Nos. 4 to 6 reactors already were not operating due to periodic inspections.

Temperatures and pressures inside the pressure vessels of the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors began rising sharply, complicating the injection of cooling water into the reactors. When the level of water in the reactors drops, nuclear fuel rods become exposed, overheat and may start melting, risking damage to the reactor as well as the emission of radioactive substances.

On the night of March 11, TEPCO planned a controlled release of vapor mixed with radioactive substances from the No. 1 reactor, in an operation to decrease pressure in the pressure vessel.

However, the operation was not carried out until 10:17 a.m. the following day, four hours after Prime Minister Naoto Kan left the Prime Minister's Office to travel to the Fukushima Prefecture plant for an inspection. Also, evacuation of residents in areas within 10 kilometers of the power plant had not been completed at that time.

Then, on the afternoon of March 12, a hydrogen explosion occurred at the No. 1 reactor, destroying the reactor building roof.

Kenzo Miya, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, an expert on nuclear engineering, said the prime minister's inspection delayed TEPCO's original plans to vent the pressure vessel.

"Because of the prime minister's [impending] inspection, the start of the 'vent' was delayed. The possibility that the subsequent actions all fell behind can't be denied," Miya said.

Haruki Madarame, chairman of the Cabinet Office's Nuclear Safety Commission, also noted the time-loss disadvantage.

"Work [to conduct the 'vent'] took time to get under way. As a result, several hours were lost before starting to inject seawater [to cool the reactor]. It was a painful incident," Madarame said, when recalling the situation on the night of March 23.

Meanwhile, TEPCO President Masataka Shimizu and Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata were on separate business trips on March 11 when the tsunami hit the plant. They could not return to Tokyo until the following day. "As we communicated with cell phones and other measures, there were no chain of command problems," an official of TEPCO's public relations department said.

However, the absence of top management officials might have resulted in the delay in the initial response, some people involved in the handling of the accident said.

===

Use of seawater

To cool the reactor core, TEPCO started injecting seawater in the No. 1 reactor shortly after 8 p.m. on March 12--a full 19 hours since the containment vessel's pressure began rising abnormally.

Since TEPCO began injecting seawater to cool the Nos. 2 and 3 reactors on March 13, the operation was believed to have only a limited effect.

On March 14 at the No. 2 reactor, cooling water ran out of supply due to loss of fuel for temporary pumps. On the morning of March 15, an explosion at the reactor was believed to have damaged its pressure suppression chamber, part of the containment vessel.

It is suspected that water contaminated with high concentration of radioactive substances leaked from the chamber to the reactor's turbine building. The water continues to hamper restoration work at the plant.

Since seawater contains impurities, and its use as a coolant damages the reactors, TEPCO had to consider possibly decomissioning the reactors.

"Crucial efforts to tame Japan's crippled nuclear plant were delayed by concerns over damaging valuable power assets," The Wall Street Journal reported in its electronic edition on March 19.

TEPCO was "reluctant to use seawater because it worried about hurting its long-term investment in the complex," the report added, quoting people familiar with the situation.

TEPCO Vice President Sakae Muto tried hard to refute the criticism in a press conference on the night of March 21.

"We've been exercising maximum effort to cool down the reactors," he said.

===

Storage pool for spent fuel rods

Another factor complicating the handling of the nuclear crisis was the delay in TEPCO's response to cool the temporary storage pools for spent nuclear fuel rods.

Although the amount of heat generated by the fuel rods in the storage pools is less than the nuclear fuel within a reactor core, the central problem remains: If the fuel rods are exposed when water levels decrease, they will become damaged by overheating.

The storage pools are even more dangerous as they could easily discharge radioactivity as they are not stored in a tightly enclosed structure as a reactor.

The attention of the government and TEPCO initially only focused on the reactors themselves. However, both parties also began to consider the threat posed by the temporary storage pools on about March 13, around the time the temperatures of the pools were believed to have begun to rise due to the halt in the circulation of cooling water.

At the No. 4 reactor, the pool temperature rose to 84 C on the morning of March 14. In the early hours of the morning of March 15, an explosion and a fire took place at the reactor building, which also houses a temporary storage pool for spent nuclear fuel rods.

===

TEPCO updates late, unreliable

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has been criticized for its delays in disclosing information and repeatedly making inconsistent announcements about the problems at Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

For example, when explosions at buildings housing reactors at the plant were aired live on TV, TEPCO made no prompt statement about the facts behind the incidents.

TEPCO's failure to obtain and distribute information about important developments at the plant in a proper manner has been partly due to the fragile state of its internal telecommunications network, which has hampered the transfer of information within the company.

(Apr. 2, 2011)