"Hydrogen blast occurs at Fukushima nuke plant's No 3 reactor" - Kyodo.

[hedgetrimmer]

Source: BBC

There were two explosions at Reactor 3, the operator Tepco says - AFP.
0225: Just to remind you: there were fears of a meltdown at Reactor 3 on Sunday. Also: an explosion occurred at Reactor 1 on Saturday but the core was reportedly not exposed.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

[godai]

1. CNN covering this live. n/t

[liberalmuse]

2. Cooper just asked how far away his news crew was from Fukishima...

and which direction the wind was blowing. Of course the news guy safely in the states told him, 'You should be okay'. :eyes: I don't think anyone in Japan is truly safe right now.

[hedgetrimmer]

3. Update

Update on the explosion(s) at Reactor 3: "We believe it was a hydrogen explosion. It is not immediately known if it affected the reactor" - nuclear safety agency spokesman Ryo Miyake. -BBC

[Canuckistanian]

4. I thought that was hydrogen

Hydrogen burns without a visible flame sometimes. The video showed an explosion without a flame - just shockwaves that disappeared like a bubble popping.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. A release of pressurized steam can do that as well.

But I agree, it looks like hydrogen.

[hedgetrimmer]

5. updates

The governor of Tokyo orders radioactivity levels in the city to be measured - Kyodo.
0239: The 600 people still living within 20km of the plant where the explosion(s) occurred are ordered to get inside buildings - Kyodo.
0236: The wall of a building collapsed as a result of the blast(s) at Reactor 3 - Japanese TV

-BBC

[Kip Humphrey]

6. Anderson Cooper betrays irrational fear of radiation. He needs to read reassuring posts on DU.

[mysterysoup]

31. Aw, c'mon, a little cesium never hurt anyone.

You have to take 4 thousandths of a gram for it to kill you.

[Poll_Blind]

7. It seems that building did not fare as well as when No.1 blew up.

PB

[northernlights]

8. the reactor held up, but a wall is gone.

0242: Reactor 3 withstood the explosion(s), its operator says - Japanese news agency Jiji.0240: The governor of Tokyo orders radioactivity levels in the city to be measured - Kyodo.0239: The 600 people still living within 20km of the plant where the explosion(s) occurred are ordered to get inside buildings - Kyodo. 0236: The wall of a building collapsed as a result of the blast(s) at Reactor 3 - Japanese TV.

[hedgetrimmer]

9. updates

Japanese government spokesman Yukio Edano has just spoken on TV. Says that water injection at Reactor 3 seems to be continuing, and the containment vessel is still safe.
0242: Reactor 3 withstood the explosion(s), its operator says - Japanese news agency Jiji.
-BBC

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. first video is out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bPi6aHmd88&feature=youtu.be

[hedgetrimmer]

11. WOW, Thats surreal...

[Arrowhead2k1]

15. Fucking massive.

It looks like it blew the roof off nearly 1000ft. Much worse than the last explosion. How can anything survive that?!

[WheelWalker]

16. I'm just an itinerant monk,

but IMO that didn't look very good at all.

[leveymg]

57. G-d damn. This deserves its own post.

[cbdo2007]

12. "Low possibility that a mass amount of radiation has leaked"

[hedgetrimmer]

13. -BBCMr Edano said major radiation leaks were unlikely from Reactor 3.

[hedgetrimmer]

14. UPDATE: with link.

For more details of the explosions at Reactor 3, link text hereread our breaking news story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 story:0250

[WheelWalker]

17. IIRC, hydrogen explodes in a flash, like we saw with Reactor #1;

what this showed was a column. Now I had a fire crew with the USFS for many years, and you only see a column like what we saw with Reactor #3 when there is beaucoup heat. This was no flash.

[Kalun D]

53. Watch this Vid

there is a flash on #3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-wNFSGyQ&feature=player_embedded

[sofa king]

58. It can easily be both heat and hydrogen.

The uranium rods are coated with a zirconium alloy that can release some hydrogen if the rods are exposed, but if the temperature continues to rise to 1300 degrees, water (steam) itself is ripped apart into its component elements, releasing far more hydrogen--and free oxygen, with which it can recombine if the pressure and temperature is reduced (through venting, for example).

Some of the reports I read suggested that the Japanese were aware of the risk of hydrogen build up, but vented anyway because they felt they had no choice. That would make sense if they spotted a meltdown in progress.

That roof must have blown hundreds of feet into the air. I find it hard to believe the containment barrier survived intact. Even if it did, the rods themselves have in all likelihood fallen to the bottom of the container and are melting through it. Terrible.

[jimlup]

19. 2nd Explosion at crippled Japan Nuclear Plant

Source: BBC

A second explosion has hit the nuclear plant in Japan which was damaged in Friday's earthquake, but officials said it had resisted the blast.

TV footage showed smoke rising from Fukushima plant's reactor 3, a day after an explosion hit reactor 1.

Japan's nuclear safety agency said the blast was believed to have been caused by the build-up of hydrogen.

However, the agency said it could not confirm whether there had been an uncontrolled leak of radioactivity.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12729138

[DURHAM D]

20. old news

[Zoeisright]

22. Uh, no it's not.

READ something before you reply. It just happened AGAIN.

[DURHAM D]

24. It had already been posted here at least twice. You read. nt

[CreekDog]

28. so you post the wrong thing, TWICE, then you don't come back after being corrected?

gracious. :eyes:

[DURHAM D]

29. You are wrong - why don't you do a little research before popping off.

The situation is confusing enough already and for someone to put something up as Latest Breaking when it has already posted adds to the confusion.

[CreekDog]

30. you said it's OLD news...it's not

when did it happen?

[CreekDog]

32. you're callnig something 1 1/2 hours ago OLD news?

what the hell?

whatever.

[DURHAM D]

33. You totally missed the point.

:hi:

[CreekDog]

35. no, i didn't miss it, you just don't want to talk about that part of your embarassing post

about it being "old news".

and i expect a higher standard of accuracy from a post like yours that was correcting someone else. sadly, didn't get one.

[jpak]

26. No - the 1st hydrogen explosion was at reactor #1 - this one is at reactor #3

breaking

yup

[BanTheGOP]

21. We need an IMMEDIATE SHUTDOWN of ALL Nuclear facilities

This is what happens when people follow the republican party mantra and demand energy from dangerous sources. We need to destroy all our nuclear capabilities and replace it with wind. I demand Obama give a speech to shut down, decomission, and ultimately destroy all nuclear power plants in the united states.

[truedelphi]

25. You aren't going to see Obama disobey

His Masters.

We citizens need to re-energize the Democratic party and divorce its top people and its top slots away from the DLC and back into FDR territory of ideals.

Obama has never been about new alternate technologies. He is for "clean coal" and for nuclear power. Period.

[boppers]

27. Wind powered submarines? Aircraft carriers?

This I gotta see.

[happyslug]

59. The US used wind to propel a Carrier after the Battle of the Carol Sea

Both of the US Carriers involved in the Battle of the Coral Sea, where damaged, one had some propulsion but its rudders were jammed so that the Carrier could move, but could NOT change course, worse it was headed to Japan. To get it turned around a large sail was rigged so that the wind would turn the Carrier around till it was headed in a safe direction (i.e. a Friendly port, where tugs could be used to push it into any repair dock).

The First Submarine were man-powered and till Nuclear Submarines were built in the 1950s, electric driven if below the Surface. Generally such conventional Subs had diesel engines to charge the batteries, but other means of recharging are also possible. For example, there were reports that the Soviet Union, just before it collapsed in the 1990s, had developed a battery operated underwater "tank" that was designed to operate on the ocean floor of the Baltic Sea. It was to be charged in the Soviet Union (Or a mother submarine), then use its tracks to go into the submarine pens of the Swedish Navy. Never proved to exist or not exist but is technically possible and would be able to avoid most sonar for it would be on the Ocean Floor and able to use anything to cover its passage (i.e. rocks, sunken ships, shoals etc).

My point is simple, they are alternatives to Nuclear power, non are as "Good" as Nuclear powered Carriers or Subs, but such Nuclear Power Subs and Carriers are marginal in most coastal situations, if the other sides has any form or coastal defense (including WWII era PT Boats). In the deep ocean such PT type boats drop in effectiveness (i.e. blown to bits while before they get close to a Carrier or sub) but in coastal areas quite effective (i.e. along the coast such boats can hide and only come out when the Carrier or sub is within the range of its weapons).

One of the complaints about the US Navy since the fall of the Soviet Union is who is the US Navy going to fight? The Present Russian Navy is a shadow of the former Soviet Navy, China is looking at control of the areas off its coasts (i.e. Japan, Philippines, and Taiwan, is within that region). While most opinion as to China interests in Carriers has been for China to build one, the alternative theory is more the situation i.e. looking at Carriers as to how to sink them, as the Soviet Union did when it captured the unfinished German Carriers in 1945 and then hauled it out to the middle of the Baltic to be used as a test bed on how to sink a Carrier.

Wind has been used on Battle ships prior to WWII as an way to move the ship while saving fuel for actual Combat use (Popular in the late 1800s, by WWI most ships were still designed to operate on sail to supplement their engines, by WWII such rigging had been removed but sail as an alternative still was taught).

Thus the question is NOT Sail run Carriers and Subs, but do we really need Carriers and Subs given out potential enemies over the next 20-40 years? Worse, would it better in 20 years to go Carrier-less? i.e. the ability of Missiles to do the job presently done by Aircraft is expected in about 20 years (if not less). Such Missiles will only need to be able to go one way (Thus cut down 2/3 of the fuel, remember you will use over 1/2 of the fuel of a plane to carry the fuel needed on its return, with missiles no need to such extra fuel, it is on a one way mission). With electronics will be better able to avoid Radar by staying close to the ground (Which makes then more vulnerable to ground fire, but that is true of planes today in areas where an Active Air Defense Radar exists). Such missiles ships will be able to operate against hostile Aircraft (something Subs have a problem with). Such ships, being smaller then Carriers, could operate off the coasts and fire their missiles. Subs can also perform this duty, but at the risk of being fired upon by coast defense weapons. It may very well be more cost effective to have such missile surface ships in such situations then to risk an attack Submarine.

We are in an era where control of the open ocean is NOT in question. All our potential enemies are conceding control of the open ocean to the US. Thus building nuclear carriers and subs worth the costs? i.e. we could build conventional subs and Surface ships and use sail to get them across the open ocean and save the fuel on such ships till they operate in the area being contested. The potential savings in fuel is huge (Labor costs will go up, but fuel costs will drop). I am looking at ships being at sail 90% of the time, and using their conventional engines when needed for combat. This was the Naval policy of the late 1800s, the purpose was to cut fuel costs (In the late 1800s the US Navy even developed a low drag propeller, so the propeller would cause almost no drag when the ship it was to be used on was using Sail).

Another issue is do we want Nuclear powered ships subject to attack in shadow waters? If such a ship in hit in deep waters, the pressure of the water will add to containment of the nuclear material by crushing the haul around the Nuclear engine. In Shadow water that is NOT possible, thus greater chance of radioactive or worse, recovery by the other side of the Nuclear material.

Sorry, Nuclear ships made sense when we were facing the full weight of the Soviet Navy, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union such a fleet of ships makes no sense. A "Gator" Navy using conventional diesel engines supplemental by sail actually starts to make sense if the price of oil gets to high. Fuel saving will be become more and more important as peak oil hits and world wide oil production drops (I would not be surprise that in 20 years out Nuclear Subs and Carriers may be reduced to be used as tugs to haul conventional ships loaded with troops to be area of conflict).

Yes, the expected drop (if it did not occur in 2005 as many geologists believe) in oil production will have an effect. less air power, more foot and sail power will be one side affect. Nuclear power is part of the answer to the upcoming energy criss, but it may be better kept reserved to domestic use NOT ships. Thus you may live long enough to see Carriers and subs using sail or as substitute for sail.

[boppers]

61. Thanks for the thoughtful response!

:)

[cal04]

23. Inner reactor container intact after blast at Fukushima Daiichi plant, official says

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42056237/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Japan's chief cabinet secretary says a hydrogen explosion has occurred at Unit 3 of Japan's stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The blast was similar to an earlier one at a different unit of the facility.

Yukio Edano says people within a 12-mile (20-kilometer) radius were ordered inside following Monday's. AP journalists felt the explosion 30 miles (50 kilometers) away.

Edano says the reactor's inner containment vessel holding nuclear rods is intact, allaying some fears of the risk to the environment and public.

[hedgetrimmer]

34. UPDATES

0351: Full quotes from Yukio Edano on the explosion: "We believe that there is a low possibility that a massive amount of radiation has been leaked. But it is similar to the time when the hydrogen explosion took place in number 1 reactor (which exploded on Saturday). In the case of number 3 reactor, we can see higher level of radiation. We are now collecting information for the concentration of the radiation and the dose."

[hedgetrimmer]

36. UPDATES

The central control room of Reactor 3 remains intact after the blast, the Japanese government says.

-BBC

[HCE SuiGeneris]

37. One question. Why is it that reactor 3's building looks much more decimated than reactor 1's

building?

[hedgetrimmer]

38. HMMMM.... something to ponder with this UPDATE

0409: The Japanese government has just said there was no marked change in the radiation level after the blast at Reactor 3. According to an article in the New York Times, the US aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, which is sailing in the Pacific, passed through a radioactive cloud from Japan's stricken reactors on Sunday. Crew members received a month's worth of radiation in about an hour, government officials were quoted as saying.

[boppers]

39. Different failures at different levels.

Reactor 1's failures seem to be internal, but 3's are external.

An attempt at a diagram:

* = Damage

Reactor 1*->Containment*->Coolant & Generators->Containment
Reactor 3*->Containment->Coolant & Generators*->Containment*

When both layers of containment fail (or there's only one layer), that's what causes things like Chernobyl.

[BradBlog]

40. NEW EXPLOSION AT JAPAN'S FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI UNIT NO. 3 NUKE REACTOR

Source: BRAD BLOG



BREAKING:NEW EXPLOSION AT JAPAN'S FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI UNIT NO. 3 NUKE REACTOR
LATEST: 6 injured, people ordered to stay inside; Officials say reactor vessel NOT breached in hydrogen explosion...

An explosion has occurred within the past hour at the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 nuclear reactor in Japan. It appears to by a hydrogen explosion similar to the one which occurred at Unit 1 on Saturday. There had been reports earlier in the day that radiation had been rising at the reactor, similar to what had been reported before the earlier explosion at Unit 1…

BREAKING LIVE BLOG, NOW WITH VIDEO, MORE: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8393


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8393

[truthisfreedom]

41. New, as in another explosion at reactor 3? There were already two explosions at reactor 3 reported

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4769418&mesg_id=4769418

[BradBlog]

44. No...

The previous explosion was at the Fukushima Daiichi plant's No. 1 reactor. This one is at the No. 3 reactor.

(Some confusion may come in that the Daiichi plant is sometimes referred to as Fukushima No 1. plant, with Daini plant referred to as No. 2 plant. But each one has a number of reactor units within it, each numbered. Hope that clears it up.)

[greyl]

46. No, this one at No. 3 was posted earlier.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4769418
BBC source: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

[whirlygigspin]

42. surrender Dorothy

funny thing is, it does not look the same as the other explosion, and if there is no radiation, why are they using geiger counters on people...really too much bullshit being peddled around this problem

[realisticphish]

43. nt wrong post

[WheelWalker]

45. Why indeed?

Surrender Dorothy!!!

[Skip_In_Boulder]

47. Looks like these things are starting to blow up left and right

But I assume it's just another "Hydrogen" explosion so therefore it is nothing to worry about. Or at least I think that is what I am suppose to think.

[Zorra]

48. This is all so awful. And they will learn nothing from this, they will not stop.

They don't care about anything but money.

In their greed they will continue to make their poisons until they wipe out all life on the planet.

Unless we can figure out a way to stop them.

[Kalun D]

49. BEST Video

I count three explosions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-wNFSGyQ&feature=player_embedded

[Arrowhead2k1]

51. How the heck can the reactor survive that? It just boggles my mind.

The thing must be indestructible if it's still contained...

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Science!

Still, as pro-nuke as I might be, this is a pretty shit situation, I will admit.

Way worse than I expected.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I see one, hear one, and possibly two echoes.

Quite a bit of distance betwen the recording source, and the blast.

[Kalun D]

50. GOODBYE Nuclear Power Industry

In Japan and the USA, it WASN'T nice to know you

don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

60. Does Japan have a realistic option, other than nukes?

I suppose they could invade China, and start mining all that coal.

er, wait, they tried that.

:hi:

[Kalun D]

62. Of Course

Nuclear is only 20 percent of their existing grid

[truthisfreedom]

52. A very reassuring article. I hope this guy knows what he's talking about.

http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nuclear-accident-simple-and-accurate-explanation

[Arrowhead2k1]

56. His first point has been proven wrong already.

"There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on – say – a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation."

====

Crew members aboard the Ronald Reagan are reported to have to be decontaminated because they received a months worth of radiation in an hour. This was 60 miles away from the reactors. That's more significant than a long distance flight, or drinking a beer that comes from "certain" places...