The Potential Catastrophe of Reactor 2 at Fukushima Daiichi: What Effect for the Pacific and the US?

français | 日本語訳 

Source: Asahi Shimbun
Source: Asahi Shimbun
The radiation level in the containment vessel of reactor 2 at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power plant has reached a maximum of 530 sieverts per hour, the highest since the triple core meltdown in March 2011, Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. said.

At 530 sieverts, a person could die from even brief exposure, highlighting the difficulties ahead as the government and Tepco grope their way toward dismantling all three reactors crippled by the March 2011 disaster.

An official of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences said medical professionals have never considered dealing with this level of radiation in their work.

Tepco also announced that, based on its analysis of images taken by a remote-controlled camera, that there is a 2-meter hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor’s primary containment vessel. It also thinks part of the grating is warped.

-  "Highest radiation reaching since 3/11 detected at Fukushima", Japan Times, February 3, 2017 .

 

Based on image analysis, a two-meter hole has been found in the metal grate under a pressure vessel in reactor No. 2's containment vessels at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Image: Tokyo Electric Power Company
Based on image analysis, a two-meter hole has been found in the metal grate under a pressure vessel in reactor No. 2’s containment vessels at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Image: Tokyo Electric Power Company
Fumiya Tanabe, an expert on nuclear safety who analyzed the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States, said the findings show that both the preparation for and the actual decommissioning process at the plant will likely prove much more difficult than expected.

- "Radiation Level in Fukushima Reactor could kill within a minute", Asahi Shimbun, February 3, 2017.

 

It is clear to us now that the radiation level in the containment vessel of the crippled Reactor 2 is much higher than experts had believed.

The danger of Reactor 2 reminds me of the story of the potential collapse of Reactor 4 after the March 11, 2011, earthquake. That reactor contained 14,000 times the radiation of the Hiroshima bomb.

The danger of Reactor 2 begs us to ask many new questions:

  • What is the probability of next strong earthquake?
  • What is the earthquake resistance of the building that houses the reactor?
  • How do we find the location of the irradiated cores in the pressure vessels?
  • If it collapsed, what is appropriate evacuation distance?
  • What is the the damage to ocean marine life?
  • What are the potential risks to children and people on the West Coast of North America, who may be affected by the flow of much stronger contaminated water into ocean from Fukushima?

I am very pleased that Dr. Shuzo Takemoto — professor of the Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University — responded to my concerns. I share his perspective below.

– Akio Matsumura

Potential Global Catastrophe of the Reactor No.2 at Fukushima Daiichi
by Professor Shuzo Takemoto

On July 28, 2016, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco, the utility that operates the reactors) published the images of the F1 Unit 2 reactor screened by muon particles coming from the universe — similar to an X-Ray. They showed the shadow of materials equivalent to 180 – 210 tons at the lower part of the pressure vessel. Consequently, Tepco concluded “Most of the nuclear fuels are estimated to remain in the vessel.”

Muon imaging setup for Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2. FMT-2 is installed inside a concrete radiation shield in front of the reactor building. Typical muon scattering angles are a few degrees.
Muon imaging setup for Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2. FMT-2 is installed inside a concrete radiation shield in front of the reactor building. Typical muon scattering angles are a few degrees.

It can hardly be said that the Fukushima accident is heading toward a solution. The problem of Unit 2, where a large volume of nuclear fuels remain, is particularly crucial. Reactor Unit 2 started its commercial operation in July 1974. It held out severe circumstances of high temperature and high pressure emanating from the March 11, 2011, accident without being destroyed. However, years long use of the pressure vessel must have brought about its weakening due to irradiation. If it should encounter a big earth tremor, it will be destroyed and scatter the remaining nuclear fuel and its debris, making the Tokyo metropolitan area uninhabitable. The Tokyo Olympics in 2020 will then be utterly out of the question.

The number of nuclear fuel rods in the cooling pool are as follows; Unit 1: 392, Unit 2: 615, Unit 3: 566. In ordinary times, these fuel rods can continue to be cooled if electricity is secured to pump water. We are filled with anxiety when we think of a power failure and of a strong earthquake befalling them, and of their consequences.

The earthquake of November 22, 2016, off the coast of the Fukushima Prefecture (magnitude 7.4) and the earthquake of December 28, 2016, in the Northern part of the Ibaragi Prefecture (magnitude 6.3) are situated in the aftershock area of the 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku. In this area, we must foresee a number of magnitude 7 class earthquakes. Consequently, we cannot exclude the possibility of intensity 6 and intensity 7 earthquakes befalling the Fukushima Daiichi. What is most dreaded is what could happen to the Unit 2 whose pressure vessel contain a large volume of nuclear fuel debris.

This pressure vessel has endured the sudden change of temperature and pressure in the accident of March 2011, but in light of its possible weakening due to irradiation, it could be seriously damaged if a new big earth tremor occurs nearby.

 

 

5 Replies to “The Potential Catastrophe of Reactor 2 at Fukushima Daiichi: What Effect for the Pacific and the US?”

  1. WATER MONITOR PLAN
    HEALTHY WATER ACTION BUSINESS PLAN
    What’s in your water?
    What’s in the water you are drinking?
    The “water crisis” is right here – right now.
    You need to understand your water now before you are hurt by it.
    What is in Flint is right here too.
    WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND OUR WATER?
    1) We need hand held monitors to test the water wherever we are. In the water tap outlet, in the glass served in a restaurant, in the “bottled” water, in the swimming pool, local streams, rivers, bays, oceans – wherever.
    2) We need to know the difference between “healthy, natural” water and “filtered” water, “distilled” water, “desalinated” water, “clean” water, “processed” water, “treated” water “pure” water etc.. This requires education materials.
    3) We need to know what toxins are in the water, what they can do to our health, how they got in the water and how to get them out of the water.
    4) We need a website, which can be accessed by anyone and is operated by non-governmental private educational organizations.
    This website would identify what is in the water and answer the questions in #3 above.
    5) We need an instruction sheet on how and to whom to report toxic materials in our water. This would include government agencies, private

    Page 2
    organizations and citizen action groups in order to raise awareness and develop action plans to rectify the challenges.
    6) We need an instruction sheet explaining how to file a lawsuit against guilty parties if and when required to initiate remediation.
    ISSUES TO KEEP IN MIND THROUGHOUT ENTIRE PROCESS OF REMEDIATION.
    1) Government agencies and businesses for profit can not be trusted to supply complete and accurate information. Always remember what is still happening in Flint. This is the same everywhere in this country at this time. Philadelphia and Chicago are the worst cities for lead in the water at this time.
    2) People do not understand the difference between “healthy natural” water and all of the non specific words used to describe it listed in #2. Everything listed in #2 are dead and without the elements and minerals necessary for healthy human bodies. The model used by water treatment facilities is “distilled” water – this is dead and empty water with incomplete content for healthy bodies.
    3) We need to know the chemical definition of “healthy natural” water to know and understand what nature put in the water, what is required for human health, what are the body responses for what is missing and what is really critical. To understand this and operate with reliable information, we need what could be called “HEALTHY WATER CITIZEN MONITORS” and have these available to every American, provided by government funding in order to protect our constitutional rights to healthy water as American citizens.
    TIDEWATERS GATEWAY PARTNERSHIP INC.,
    RICHARD HUNT MCNUTT, PRESIDENT
    PAGE 3
    THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN NOW BE APPLIED TO CONSTANT MONITORING OF ANY OPEN WATERS INCLUDING THE DELAWARE ESTUARY AND BAY
    Consistent with our original goals of cleaning the Delaware River estuary and bay waters, the hand held technology can go anywhere and anytime in boats, on foot, in automobiles etc. to run real time specific on site testing of open waters, discharges, stream entries or any potential sources of pollution. If found, instant reporting and call for remediation of any pollution sources can be accomplished immediately and on site.
    The final step for constant monitoring of any open water will be to apply this technology to satellite transmission technology to enable constant monitoring of any open water at any time on the planet located by GPS locations. When this technology is implemented, the polluters will have no recourse than stop polluting to avoid prosecution. There will be no place or manipulation procedure to hide anymore.

    THIS ACTUALLY IS ONE WAY TO KEEP AMERICA “HEALTHY AND STRONG”!
    Tidewaters Gateway Partnership Inc.
    Richard Hunt McNutt, President

  2. Given that we do not know by what means can be achieved a significant mitigation of the situation at reactor 2 FD, the most likely means of arriving at a best case scenario is by way of a fully inclusive ongoing brainstorming effort, in conjunction with free, full, honest, uncensored information and analysis, in conjunction with adequate practical material resources.

    But such an approach would require a cultural transformation, from endemic lies and censorship, and foggy, manipulative language, to clarity, accuracy, integrity, honesty, transparency. Nuclear energy is a bad idea in any case, but within a culture of deception, it leads to inevitable catastrophe.

Comments are closed.