Japan hit by powerful earthquake

[Ragnus]

Jesus Christ. They just can't catch a break can they?

[Amastacia]

Fuck. My flight is supposed to leave tomorrow for my honeymoon. I was hoping things would've mostly settled down.

[Not Kuno]

Fuck. My flight is supposed to leave tomorrow for my honeymoon. I was hoping things would've mostly settled down.

It's ok, I think most planes are able to do a water landing.

[volcanicweather]

It's ok, I think most planes are able to do a water landing.

^ lol, but in all honesty I think it's time for me donate to their relief fund. Once is bad and shit happens but twice in succession... that's just ridiculous and unlucky.

[Ragnell]

Lavos is coming, it makes sense now

[Kurokikaze]

Oh god another one?! Can these guys catch a break? :/

[ronin sparthos]

Lavos is coming, it makes sense now

Lavos 2012. This is just the beginning.

But seriously, the JP just can't catch a break. Mt. Fuji better stay silent, the Japanese can't afford to tack on a volcanic eruption to list of disasters plaguing them.

[*Shinzon*]

Just as things were starting to stabilize too, that's a damn shame.

[Kryssan]

IAEA is reporting 'no major changes at this time' in regards to the latest quake.

Crossposted:

IAEA Update: New earthquake in Japan (7 April, 17:30 UTC)
The IAEA confirms that an earthquake occurred in Japan at 14:32 UTC 7 April. The IAEA International Seismic Safety Centre has rated it as a 7.1 magnitude, revised from an initial 7.4 magnitude. The epicenter of the earthquake was 20 km from the Onagawa nuclear power plant and approximately 120 km from the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants.

The IAEA has been in contact with NISA and can confirm the status of the following nuclear facilities:

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
NISA confirms that no changes have been observed at the on-site radiation monitoring posts. The injection of water into the reactor pressure vessels of Units 1, 2 and 3 was not interrupted.

Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant
NISA confirms that no changes have been observed of the readings at the on-site radiation monitoring posts.

Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant
All reactors have been in cold shutdown since the 11 March earthquake.

NISA has confirmed that two out of the three lines supplying off-site power to the site were lost following the 7 April earthquake. Off-site power continues to be supplied through the third line.

Cooling of the spent fuel pool was temporarily lost, but has subsequently been restored.

No change has been observed in the readings from the on-site radiation monitoring post. The status of the plant is currently being checked.

Tokai Daini Nuclear Power Plant
Tokai Daini nuclear power plant remains in cold shutdown since the 11 March earthquake. No abnormality has been observed.

Higashidori Nuclear Power Plant
NISA has confirmed that the Higashidori NPP was shutdown and in a maintenance outage at the time of the 7 April earthquake. Off-site power has been lost. Emergency power supply to the site is operating. All the fuel had been removed from the reactor core and stored in the spent fuel pool. Cooling of the spent fuel pool is operational.

Tomari Nuclear Power Plant (in Hokkaido)
At the time of the 7 April earthquake Tomari Unit 1 and Unit 2 were in operation. Following the 7 April earthquake, the Hokkaido Electric Power Company reduced the generating power to 90% of capacity.

Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant
NISA confirms that Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and uranium enrichment facility lost off-site power. Emergency power supply to the site is operating.

The IAEA will issue further information as soon as it becomes available.

Efforts continue to stabilize and contain at Fukushima. Nothing major/new to report.

[Amastacia]

^ lol, but in all honesty I think it's time for me donate to their relief fund. Once is bad and shit happens but twice in succession... that's just ridiculous and unlucky.

I'm going to donate to the relief fund indirectly via my tourism. Fuckers are already soaking me for enough that charity can suck it.

Protip: If you want to honeymoon for cheap, don't go to Japan for 2 weeks.

[Chicomagiko]

I was in Akiba when it hit and I didn't feel a damn thing. I was drunk though so maybe that's why.

[Cletis]

yeah i slept through it . again.

[Olo401]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...est-Coast.html

[Osede]

Kryssan, do you guys received any report regarding the meltdown?

It seems like in japan, they have confirmed no.3 or no.1 reactor's fuel rod has been completely meltdown since the first few days. And most of the people over there pretty sure the TEPCO knew it, and they just try to cover this shit up.

[Yeyoking]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...est-Coast.html

What in the flying fuck! I'll like to know the radioactivity on that debris fill....Seems like the loser in this disaster is the sea.

[Kryssan]

What do you mean by received report? I'm getting all of my information from the PROs of TEPCO, NISA, JAIF, IAEA, et cetera. People keep trying to make this into some sort of conspiracy with TEPCO hiding shit, but I haven't really seen any indication of that. Could they have? I suppose there is always a possibility, but I sincerely doubt it.

I think people are confusing the regulatory agencies unwillingness to openly speculate with 'hiding information' since the news medias are running like a pack of wild dogs in heat with whatever rumor or speculation they hear.

Given the status of the plants and the damage to the instrumentation, it is difficult to get reliable accountability of what is happening to the internals of the plants. However, TEPCO was the one who gave us the initial estimates regarding the fuel damage, IAEA and such have only confirmed and expounded upon them. AFAIK the fuel damage estimates haven't changed, and no agency has claimed a >85% fuel damage to any reactor.

Also, there is a bit of conflict between ideology of the Japanese regulators and the UN regulators as to what and how, but you have to understand this is due to the US stance and the differences we have in mentality. The US DoE requires much larger buffer zones and evacuation distances regardless of the stance of the casualty, and the Japanese are a bit more unwilling to diagnose the extent of the damage from the radionuclide concentrations alone.

That is not to say at this time that one side is right and the other wrong, just that they have different thought processes on how to handle the same type of casualty.

Given the current status and how things have developed the Japanese probably could have evacuated people earlier on to greater distances, but at the same time they didn't really need to - offsite radiation levels have never gotten high enough to be of concern to the populace unless they were in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Contamination levels are more a bigger deal than the radiation levels but they too never got extensively bad.

I imagine that Japanese emergency responders were initially dealing with the idea of not wanting to evacuate/create more displaced people given the damage of the earthquake already having caused that to such a large extent. As the damage to the Fukushima plant became more severe they had no choice but to move the evacuation radius out. That would have been unnecessary had they just gone for the US 50 mile limit to begin with, but the Japanese still haven't actually created an evac radius that large, so did they really need to? This is a question for regulators to ponder over later.

Crossposted from IAEA:

On Friday, 8 April 2011, the IAEA provided the following information on the current status of nuclear safety in Japan:

1. Earthquake of 7 April

The IAEA confirms that an earthquake occurred in Japan at 14:32 UTC, 7 April. The IAEA International Seismic Safety Centre has rated it as a 7.1 magnitude, revised from an initial 7.4 magnitude. The epicenter of the earthquake was 20 km from the Onagawa nuclear power plant and approximately 120 km from the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants.

The IAEA has been in contact with NISA and can confirm the status of the following nuclear facilities:

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

No changes have been observed at the on-site radiation monitoring posts. The injection of water into the reactor pressure vessels of Units 1, 2 and 3 was not interrupted.

Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant

No changes have been observed of the readings at the on-site radiation monitoring posts.

Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant

All reactors have been in cold shutdown since 11 March earthquake.

Two out of the three lines supplying off-site power to the site were lost following the 7 April earthquake. Off-site power continues to be supplied through the third line.

Cooling of the spent fuel pool was temporarily lost, but has subsequently been restored.

No change has been observed in the readings from the on-site radiation monitoring post. The status of the plant is currently being checked.

Tokai Daini Nuclear Power Plant

Tokai Daini nuclear power plant remains in cold shutdown since the 11 March earthquake. No abnormality has been observed.

Higashidori Nuclear Power Plant

The Higashidori nuclear power plant was shut down and in a maintenance outage at the time of the 7 April earthquake. Off-site power was lost temporarily. Emergency power supply to the site operated as expected until off-site power was restored. All the fuel had been removed from the reactor core and stored in the spent fuel pool. Cooling of the spent fuel pool is operational.

Tomari Nuclear Power Plant (in Hokkaido)

At the time of the 7 April earthquake Tomari Unit 1 and Unit 2 were in operation. Following the 7 April earthquake, the Hokkaido Electric Power Company reduced the generating power to 90% of capacity.

Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant

The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and uranium enrichment facility lost off-site power. Emergency power supply to the site is operating.

2. Current Situation

Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains very serious although there are early signs of recovery in some functions such as electrical power and instrumentation.

As of 6 April, TEPCO started injecting nitrogen gas to Unit 1 containment vessel to reduce the possibility of hydrogen combustion within the containment vessel.

The leakage of highly contaminated water from the 20 cm crack in the cable storage pit of Unit 2 directly to the sea reported on 2 April was stopped by injection of coagulation agents (liquid glass) on 5 April. Additional activities to secure the leak were reported finished on 6 April.

To prevent discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima Plant to the open sea, construction work was carried out at the breakwater in the southern part of the Plant on 5 April.

In Unit 1 fresh water has been continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through feed-water line at an indicated flow rate of 6 m3/h using a temporary electric pump with off-site power. In Units 2 and 3 fresh water is being injected into the reactor pressure vessels continuously through the fire extinguisher lines at indicated rates of 8 m3/h and 7 m3/h using temporary electric pumps with off-site power.

The reactor pressure vessels' temperatures remain above cold shutdown conditions (normally less than 95 °C). In Unit 1 indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 224 °C and at the bottom of RPV is 117 °C. The pressure in the RPV is increasing as indicated on both channels of instrumentation. NISA has indicated that some instruments in the reactor vessel may not be working properly. Drywell pressure is increasing slightly due to the addition of nitrogen. In Unit 2 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 144 °C. The temperature at the bottom of RPV was not reported. Indicated Drywell pressure remains at atmospheric pressure. In Unit 3 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 88 °C and at the bottom of RPV is 112 °C. Fresh water was sprayed onto the spent fuel pool by concrete pump vehicle (50t/h) from 21:53 UTC, 6 April.

No change in status in Units 4, 5 and 6 and the Common Spent Fuel Storage Facility.

2. Radiation Monitoring

On 7 April, low levels of deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 were detected in 5 and 4 prefectures respectively. The values reported for iodine-131 ranged from 3.8 to 20 becquerel per square metre, for cesium-137 from 9.7 to 25 becquerel per square metre.

Gamma dose rates continue to decrease. For Fukushima, on 7 April a dose rate of 2.3 µSv/h, for the Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.16 µSv/h was reported. Dose rates reported for the Eastern part of the Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km to Fukushima-Daiichi, range from 0.2 to 28 µSv/h.

As part of a new measurement program carried out by MEXT in cooperation with universities, gamma dose rates have also been measured in 26 cities in 13 prefectures for the period 5 to 7 April. In 19 cities, all measurements are below 0.1µSv/h. In a further five cities, some measurements are up to 0.21µSv/h. In the city of Tsukuba in the prefecture of Ibaraki, dose rates are in the range 0.17 to 0.2 0 µSv/h. In Fukushima City, the range is 0.42 to 0.5 µSv/h. typical normal background levels are in the range 0.05 to 0.1 µSv/h.

As of 6 April, iodine-131 and cesium-137 was detectable in drinking water in a few prefectures at levels far below those that would initiate recommendations for restrictions of drinking water. As of 7 April, one restriction for infants related to I-131 (100 Bq/l) remains in place as a precautionary measure in only one village of the Fukushima prefecture.

Since our written briefing of yesterday, data related to food contamination was reported on 7 April by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. These reported analytical results covered a total of 63 samples taken from 5 - 7 April. Analytical results for 62 of the 63 samples for various vegetables, spinach and other leafy vegetables, various meats, unprocessed raw milk and seafood in nine prefectures (Chiba, Fukushima, Gunma, Hyogo, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Niigata, Tochigi and Yamagata) indicated that I-131, Cs-134 and/or Cs-137 were either not detected or were below the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities. One sample of spinach (grown outdoors) taken on 6 April in Ibaraki prefecture was above the regulation value set by the Japanese authorities for I-131.

TEPCO is conducting a programme for seawater (surface sampling) at a number of near-shore and off-shore monitoring locations. The near-shore sampling point for Daiichi Units 1 - 4 is located 330 m south of their common discharge point. The near-shore sampling point for Daiichi Units 5 and 6 is located 30 m north of their common discharge point.

Until 3 April a general decreasing trend was observed at these sampling points. After the discharge of contaminated water on 4 April, a temporary increase has been reported. On 5 April a decrease was again observed at these points.

At the Daini site, near-shore samples are being collected at two locations: directly north of the common discharge point of Daini, and close to Iwasawa Beach, which is south of Daini nuclear power plant. The latter monitoring point is 16 km south of Daiichi nuclear power plant on the northern boundary of TEPCO's Hirono thermal power plant. Starting from 2 April, TEPCO collected samples at three additional sampling points lying on a north-south transect that runs parallel to the coast but at a distance of 15 km from the shore. On 4 April, a further set of three sampling points, also at 15 km from the shore, was added. All six sampling locations lie along a north-south transect.

Since 5 April TEPCO is sampling daily at 6 points situated 15 km offshore along a north-south transect. Levels of radionuclides reported at these locations for 5 of April are in the range 57 - 200 Bq/l for I-131, 57 - 310 Bq/l for Cs-134 and 18 - 320 Bq/l for Cs-137. Values of Cs-134 and Cs-137 measured at the sampling points situated at the North and South ends of the transect are considerably lower than those measured at the stations directly offshore from the release points.

MEXT initiated the off-shore monitoring program on 23 March. Initially, the monitoring was carried out at 8 points lying on a north-south transect parallel to the coast and 30 km off-shore. Sampling points 1 to 8 are separated by about 10 km. On 28 March, points 9 and 10 were added to the off-shore sampling scheme. Points 8, 9 and 10 lie in one line perpendicular to the coast. Points 8 to 10 are also separated by 10 km. On 4 of April MEXT added two sampling points to the north-west of sampling point 1. These are referred as point A and B. Monitoring at off-shore points consist of:

Measurements of ambient dose rate in air;
Collection and analysis of surface sample of seawater; and
Collection and analysis of samples of sea water collected 10 metres above the sea water bottom.
On 8 April the only data reported concerned the 15 km offshore north-south transect.

4. IAEA Activities

A team of three Agency experts in BWR technology continue to meet with TEPCO and NISA officials in Tokyo and are expected to be back in Vienna on 13 April 2011.

In addition to those reported in previous briefs the following countries have submitted monitoring data and/or links to national websites where data is available: Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico and Portugal.

Pay particular attention to the addition of N2 gas and the reports about contamination and radiation levels from MEXT, IAEA, and the monitoring posts. The N2 gas introduction to Unit 1 is to prevent a hydrogen explosion inside the vessel, showing their concern of localized hydride reactions within it. Yet they're not doing it to the other cores... at this time just more idle speculation to be had.

So in answer to your question, no, I do not agree with TEPCO attempting to 'cover up' anything. Given that I've been reading their press releases along with the other regulatory agencies since the start, I have yet to see glaring discrepancies between their analysis of the casualty when compared on an equivalent release timeline with the other agencies that are now acting in support of TEPCO. The only real discrepancies noted so far are with the action/resolution branches in regards to how they treat the response of said casualties as they developed, which is to be expected.

[Kerberoz]

the addition of N2

[sam]

very bad happen

[sam]

I am very sad

[MaachaQ]

Another 7.1 just hit, according to CNN... When do they stop being aftershocks and start being counted seperately?