BBC: It’s boiling somewhere inside Fukushima Unit No. 3 - Reactor supposed to be in cold shutdown

[bananas]

http://enenews.com/bbc-boiling-inside-fukushima-unit-3-reactors-supposed-be-cold-shutdown-situation-worrying

BBC: It’s boiling somewhere inside Fukushima Unit No. 3 — Reactor supposed to be in cold shutdown — Situation ‘worrying’

Published: July 23rd, 2013

Title: Fukushima nuclear plant: Japan takes steps over sea leak
Source: BBC News
Date: July 23, 2013

... (Tepco) said steam was seen around the fifth floor of the building housing Reactor No 3 ...

It is not clear what is causing the steam ...

The sight of steam rising is worrying because it means somewhere inside the reactor building water is boiling, says the BBC’s Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Tokyo.

The badly damaged reactors are supposed to be in what is called “cold shutdown”; the temperature of the cooling water inside the reactor should be well below boiling point.

It is another sign that Tepco still does not fully know what is going on inside the damaged reactors ...

See also: AFP: 'Fukushima reactor site engulfed by steam' -- Kyodo: 'Something like steam' coming from unknown source at Unit No. 3 -- Tepco: 'Continuously wafting through the air' -- Work to remove rubble suspended

[intaglio]

1. DU rec because Fukishima is not over n/t

[Mnemosyne]

3. Not by a long shot. nt

[mahina]

2. Wish I could understand what all this means to the ocean around Hawaii.

Of course, the Japanese people first of all. But our marine life too. And us.

[Hydra]

4. Ironic

Because there was a thread about Fuku being a continuing problem and there were some people in there insisting everything was fine and what were we complaining about?



I swear, if Yellowstone erupts someone will talk about how it won't negatively affect us.

[Myrina]

8. Like W said ... forest fires are good for trees.

[The Stranger]

5. The good news just keeps on coming.

[Quantess]

6. Well, that sounds scary. (no text)

[FBaggins]

7. It shouldn't... it's nonsense

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The BBC reporter should know better. This is almost certainly a combination of scientific ignorance with poor translation.

A few easy points:
1 - Steam is invisible. Nobody saw any "steam" - regardless of how it was reported.
2 - What you can see is condensed water vapor. That's often caused by steam, but certainly doesn't have to be.
3 - you can see this same effect on asphalt when the sun comes out after a quick cloud burst. When temperature and humidity are right, you'll get "steam" rising from the pavement.

So all we know is that something hot got wet when the temperature/humidity supported the effect. We already know that the primary containment is hot enough... it doesn't have to be anywhere near the boiling point for this to happen.

The stunning thing about the whole conversation is that most kids learned this is 6th grade.

[Quantess]

9. Okay, it's all cool then.

What basis do you have to say everything is all great at Fukushima?

[FBaggins]

10. Strawman

Where did I say that?

All I did was tutor 6th grade science.

[Quantess]

11. You are abusing the Strawman.

Do not abuse the Strawman.

Edit to add: You need to address your comments to the original author of this post, if you have anything more to say about it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

12. please share the pictures you took during your inspection

you don't have a clue

[FBaggins]

13. Was that intended to make sense?

It didn't.

These are simple scientific facts. (VERY simple). Seeing whisps of water vapor and leaping to the conclusion that "it's boiling somewhere in Fukushima" is ridiculous.

You don't need to inspect and take pictures to point that out.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

14. It was intended to highlight your angry speculation

It kills me how certain some are about things they know knotting about.

[FBaggins]

15. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

No "anger" here. Just correcting silly mistakes.

This isn't high-level physics. You should have learned this stuff in elementary school (middle school at the latest).

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

16. You don't have a clue

But don't let that stop you from flaunting your ignorance.

[FBaggins]

17. Lol! Ok... go ahead an dazzle us with your brilliance.

Don't fall back on the childish "you're an idiot"... try to back up your BS with facts.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

22. Pointing out ignorance doesn't take much

You were strutting around acting like you know and berating others when in actuality you don't have a clue of WTF is going on there.

You're just mad that you got called on it.

[kristopher]

18. What a maroon

All you ever have to offer is these half-assed diversions based on idiotic, nearly always fallacious hyper-parsing arising from instances of commonly used language. Get a clue.

Definition of STEAM

1: a vapor arising from a heated substance

2
a : the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point
b : the mist formed by the condensation on cooling of water vapor

3
a : water vapor kept under pressure so as to supply energy for heating, cooking, or mechanical work; also : the power so generated
b : active force : power, momentum <got there under his own steam> <sales began to pick up steam>; also : normal force <at full steam>
c : pent-up emotional tension <needed to let off a little steam>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steam

[FBaggins]

19. Having trouble with that context thingy, eh?

"the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point"

Thank you.

[kristopher]

20. Well you are clearly having trouble with something...

You are the one that ruled everyone else to be less educated than 6th graders.

1: a vapor arising from a heated substance

They aren't. You'll notice there is no requirement for "invisible" vapor in the primary definition.

You were not only extremely rude and condescending, you were completely wrong while behaving that way.

[FBaggins]

21. A simple "yep" would have sufficed.

The context of the OP is the claim that something must be boiling (challenging the "cold shutdown" designation) since someone saw "steam".

Regardless of the games you're trying to play, that simply isn't true... and yes, a 6th grader should know that. What they saw (regardless of how you choose to label it) did not have to come from boiling water (in fact almost certainly couldn't have)... and the assumption that they've been making (that it's rain water coming into contact with the hot containment) is the most plausible explanation.

[kristopher]

23. How about the context of what *you* wrote

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 05:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

The BBC reporter should know better. This is almost certainly a combination of scientific ignorance with poor translation.

A few easy points:
1 - Steam is invisible. Nobody saw any "steam" - regardless of how it was reported.
2 - What you can see is condensed water vapor. That's often caused by steam, but certainly doesn't have to be.
3 - you can see this same effect on asphalt when the sun comes out after a quick cloud burst. When temperature and humidity are right, you'll get "steam" rising from the pavement.

So all we know is that something hot got wet when the temperature/humidity supported the effect. We already know that the primary containment is hot enough... it doesn't have to be anywhere near the boiling point for this to happen.

Steam was observed.
2 out of 3 of your statements were simply false.
You wrote them, you own them.

Now, you can make the legitimate point that this doesn't require "boiling" temperatures. If that was your message, you completely bolloxed it trying to show off and talk down to everyone else with what turned out to be false assertions.

What is a far more significant point than the fact that the temperature is unknown, is that fact that the steam seems to be escaping from the containment vessel. It is now apparent that TEPCO mislead the public about the integrity of the vessel and is now being forced to acknowledge the fact that they've known it all along.

[FBaggins]

24. How about it?

All three points were entirely accurate - so I'm happy to "own" them.

You need to review that "primary definition" again. You're going to feel silly accusing anyone else of getting it wrong while "talking down".


What is a far more significant point than the fact that the temperature is unknown

Because multiple temperature gauges and thermography are suddenly unavailable? They may not know a specific temperature... but they know it isn't anywhere close to the boiling point.

[kristopher]

25. You are very boring with this "I can spin anything away" schtick

The idea that every utterance must conform to your standards no matter how words are commonly used is unbridled arrogance based on unmitigated ignorance.

You wrote:
"1 - Steam is invisible. Nobody saw any "steam" - regardless of how it was reported."
No, it isn't. The fundamental common use definition of steam is water vapor coming off of a hot surface.

2 - What you can see is condensed water vapor. That's often caused by steam, but certainly doesn't have to be.
No, it isn't "caused" by steam, per definition 1 it IS steam.

Definition of STEAM

1: a vapor arising from a heated substance

2
a : the invisible vapor into which water is converted when heated to the boiling point
b : the mist formed by the condensation on cooling of water vapor

3
a : water vapor kept under pressure so as to supply energy for heating, cooking, or mechanical work; also : the power so generated
b : active force : power, momentum <got there under his own steam> <sales began to pick up steam>; also : normal force <at full steam>
c : pent-up emotional tension <needed to let off a little steam>


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steam

[FBaggins]

26. I gave you a chance

The fundamental common use definition of steam is water vapor coming off of a hot surface

And now you need to look up water vapor

THey don't need to say "invisible vapor" when water vapor is, by definition, invisible.

[Soundman]

27. Well I guess you will sleep well

knowing the TEPO engineers know less about science than a 6th grader eh? Since the author was quoting what TEPCO said.

Anyone who has followed this from the beginning already knows what the story means. This is very bad news for the environment.

http://enenews.com/fukushima-unit-3-steaming-yet-again-asahi-high-radiation-levels-detected-by-where-steam-observed-third-time-in-a-week-tepco-does-not-know-where-its-coming-from-photos

[FBaggins]

28. Two levels of translation

It isn't at all uncommon for the translation from science to the vernacular... and then from one language to another... gives you inconsistent results.

We've seen it literally thousands of times in the reporting of radiation levels. Most people don't understand the units invovled or any of the science... so they get a shorthand mSv figure when that isn't what's being measured. They even produce detectors for the masses that display that way. But reality hasnt changed just because laymen don't speak the language.

Unlike the author... the engineers aren't worried that something is boiling.

[Soundman]

29. After re-reading the article I see the point and

The leap of logic that is distressing you. However there was a radio active fog/mist that engulfed the area. What we do know is it is serious enough to suspend work and TEPCO have no idea what the source is.

Kind of jumping to the other thread you posted in http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023383316#post23 I think the most troubling aspect is not the concentration of the pollutant but the type of pollutant. The part that caught my attention was the concentration of cesium 134. I noticed they conveniently left out the "other" contaminates that would allow us to discern if there is fission occurring somewhere.

Anyway, the experts I have been following since the beginning speculate the curium has left containment. Over time a shell would form around the corium as the surface cooled enough to solidify. As the material continues to decay it will break through the shell leaving obvious tell tale signs in the form of of periodic energy releases followed by periods of perceived inactivity. I believe this is what we are seeing here.

If you have followed the TEPCO reported temperature readings they indicated there have been unknown conditions causing temperature rises that were followed by temperature reductions. As the curium left containment the temperature readings stabilized since the reaction is now taking place far away from the sensors. TEPCO claims cold shut down and the sheeple sleep better at night.

Since it is too radioactive for any type of camera to capture we may never know what has happened, at least not in my lifetime.