Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina

26/03/2011

Tedd Weyman on Hiroshima bomb equivalent of water from Daiichi reactor

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 20:50

From: Tedd Weyman
Date: March 26, 2011 9:11:18 AM PDT (CA)
To: Piotr Bein
Subject: Re: This is huge … I just realized what I was reporting

Raising the bar on nuclear incidents:

(I realize that these numbers and conversion factors are designed by the nuclear community to confuse everyone.)

If 1000 tons of water are being poured on reactor #3 every 24 hours (news reported 1700t/24 hrs), and …
if that water was washing through the spent fuel pools and/or the breached core, picking up radioactivity of 3.9 GBq/l (3.9 billion or gigabequerels per litre), …

It would take about 14 days to wash out an equivalent yield of radioactivity of 1 Hiroshima bomb – which has a total yield of 7.3 MCi (Mega Curies)

If this broad generalization is to be considered at all credible, then reactor #3 in some time just over 14 days of washing with water, will subject the environment to 100,000 times more Curies of radiation than the Three Mile Island event yield

Chernobyl was  5 X’s greater than Hiroshima (in radiation yield) … so its yield will soon be reached and may have been reached already if we take all Daiichi emissions, washouts and kinetic releases from all reactors and spent fuel pool into account since the earthquake.

For scale purposes, think about this: The radioactive source material used to fuel the Hiroshima bomb was 64 Kg (140 lbs) of enriched uranium. If I remember, that is about the weight of 2 fuel rods. Generally a BWR (boiling water reactor) has several thousand fuel rods in its core and the compromised spend fuel pools at Daiichi contain an 100,000 per reactor.  There is a stready flow of water washing over all the reactor spent fuel pools and on one or more breached reactors cores.

This quick analysis is based on the single and limited factor of the Bq/l of water attributed to #3 reactor outflow, and may be accumulations at that point as opposed to a steady stream of irradiated water at these levels. This analysis does not account for the additional and substantial radiation values of airborne emissions in steam, smoke and decay kinetics and has no factoring for the steady fission sub-critical activity and natural decay emissions of the nuclear fuel and neutron irradiated mass of the reactor itself.

About these ads
TrackBack URI

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 689 other followers

%d bloggers like this: