No, they didn’t re-build Unit 4 at the ruined nuke plant at Fukushima in Japan.
The tv news fake story (filmed where???) is shown to be a pageant to prop up G.E./Toshiba.
RT News – Fukushima report declassified: Worse than we were told
We now know that “100% of the total spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from unit 4.”
Unit 4 blowing up on 3-11:
LINK- http://youtu.be/2sE6050Vhh0
Dana Durnord showing the tv news big lie – Fukushima Unit 4 Pictures & Breakdown Media Deception Dec 8th 2015
LINK – http://youtu.be/2LiehWNy_K0
Kevin Blanch – Fukushima NEWS; U.S. D.O.E.“100% of Total Spent Fuel Was Released to the Atmosphere from Unit 4”
LINK – http://youtu.be/50cK2Fl44Us
Dana Durnford – Fukushima Unit 4 Fuel Pool Media Fable Falling Apart
LINK – http://youtu.be/e7wMtkFvubc
[ CLICK ON IMAGE FOR FULL SIZE ]
- GEH = General Electric Hitachi
- INPO = Institute of Nuclear Power
- JAIF = Japan Atomic Industrial Forum
Instead of giving donations to do-nothing play-at-action “enviro” groups switch your gift to Dana Durnford or Kevin Blanch.
MORE INFO in comments here – F.C.
Fukushima Building #4 Timeline Of Events; Equipment Pool Melted Out, Multiple SFP Fires, Multiple Explosions, TEPCO Lies Exposed
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/agreenroad-tepcofukushima-lies-exposed.html
Great! Plus – what is the excuse to keep this info HIDDEN for 4 years???
They need to be put on a scaffold!
Fukushima Spent Fuel Equipment Pool #4 Contained A Full Load of MOX Plutonium Fuel; It Melted Down, Exploded, Burned and Melted Out; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/10/fukushima-spent-fuel-pool-4-contained.html
[ press the “CC” button for English subtitles ]
RENSE.com is also posting headlines about this –
http://rense.com/
Hi cuttlefish, it’s me, bo.
I have a question – washingtonsblog article seems to be the source of all of this ( then Reuters, RT, ZeroHedge, Investment Watch Journal etc etc repeated it..)
– but did u look at the original released docu? I can’t tell for sure but I feel like washingtonsblog omits the prior paragraph where allegedly NRC admits to 100% fuel loss, but it seems to be just a quote referring to “projections”
in the same document that was released, NRC has a chart stating status of SFP pool, it says “water – low” “pool MAY be dry” and “damage to fuel SUSPECTED”
so there seems to me to be nothing here that one can base a headline saying ” NRC KNEW FOR SURE 100% fuel GONE!!!”
But would u be interested in fact checking this? I’m really stumped by how to read this. How can I share pics with you? I have captured the part that includes the paragraph that washingtonsblog omits.
Thank you
I saw that and saw that source connected to E.V.I.L. Inc., Livermore Labs.
I will ask my expert source on them.
test
OK — WordPress was just hiding yer post while I was offline.
I am not denying 100% fuel loss, it’s just I’m confused why washingtonsblog omitted the paragraph to make it look like NRC FULLY admitted, and made a headline out of it… or is my reading of the document wrong?
wait a bit … I am checking around and will post here.
Yes, best to fact check every little thing. Any wrong info will get a correction on this blog (not get deleted or erased).
I love that about cuttlefish 🙂
Woohoo thanx
?? My original comment didn’t post.. sorry I’m not making any sense here… hold on…
here is the document in full https://t.co/8CGsA6z0IZ
pages 3, 4, 7 & 8 is all u need for checking if washingtonsblog’s reading of it is correct or not ( or so I think )
3 & 4 show NRC’s status report on unit 4 ( at that moment in time )
7 & 8 show that passage washingtonsblog cut out as “proof NRC KNEW!” and made into a headline.
My question, esp on page 7 & 8, is what exactly do they mean when they use the word “SOURCE TERM”?
Thank u
sorry my comments were out of order
Thanks for that link – I will add it to the post.
Here is what Dr. Leuren Moret says (I just sent her the doc)
“…So this is the Livermore Lab assessment of the state of the fuel pools at Fukushima after the earthquake and tsunami. This indicates the fuel pools were dry – and I know they were from other research I have done, but to get official confirmation from Livermore is really great detective work.”
from the first few pages of the doc – here’s what those initials stand for (Source)
GEH = General Electric Hitachi
INPO = Institute of Nuclear Power
JAIF = Japan Atomic Industrial Forum
…. is that what you were asking?
the question I had about the word “source term” is on page 7 of and 8 of the docu. “The source term provided to NARAC was…” “100% of the spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from unit 4”
what does that mean?
In the prior paragraph, it seems to say they are setting projections?
thanks again,
bo
OK – I got your answer.
Dr. Leuren Moret says:
Here is a power point from DOE I think with the definition of “source term” and “source term model”: [NWTRB is the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that reports to US govt. and President]
http://www.nwtrb.gov/meetings/1992/oct/stahl.pdf
This is also DOE, and its about the factors that involved in modeling the source terms in order to start modeling:
https://orise.orau.gov/emi/scapa/files/source_term/SourceTermFactorsSTWG.pdf
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster: Increased Radiation Spreads to North America as Full Meltdown in Reactor 2 Feared
http://www.healthnutnews.com/serious-meltdown-is-underway-the-fukushima-daiichi-plant-no-2-nuclear-reactor-fuel-is-missing/
The Hillary Clinton cover-up of Fukushima
https://flyingcuttlefish.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/unit-4/
and
http://fukushimahounds.freeforums.net/post/3893
and speaking of cover ups — the jerks running kelp watch should read this –
Bioaccumulation of Gamma Emitting Radionuclides in Red Algae
http://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/bioaccumulation-of-gamma-emitting-radionuclides-in-red-algae/
Unit 3 – after 4 years TEPCO decides to try and check Unit 3 (???)
http://enformable.com/2015/10/tepco-investigates-fukushima-daiichi-unit-3-containment-vessel/
Here is original which I had found about 2 1/2 months ago. It’s been available for a long time online. I thought I had sniffed out something big but then they say later in the document that the fuel pool was ok. I had wanted to post it still with the complete details, etc. but due to the 100 mSv proposal and other things never had time. I am sure you can find original link with this info. A lot is still blacked out of original. Thus, names with nothing next to it:
“Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title: Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi ET Audio File
Docket Number:
Location:
Date:
Work Order No.:
(n/a)
(telephone conversations)
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
NRC-944 Pages 1-457
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433”
On p. 162 it says:
“u repeat the question,
please?
C _What do you assess was the cause of the fire in Unit 4 last night?
MIKE WEBER:
MALE PARTICIPANT:
MIKE WEBER:
Yes. Okay. So, it is
in spent fuel rather than —
MIKE WEBER: That’s right. The pool
structure is no longer in existence. The walls have
collapsed. So, you have spent fuel sitting there in a
pile.” (See p. 162 in original which was released a long time ago under FOIA)
Like I say, they come back and claim toward the end of the document that it was really ok and that this earlier info was false. If RT news was real news instead of simply an anti-American Voice of Russia they would have noted both sides. With the pictures I have seen it’s really hard to see 100% which is true. RT would, of course, criticize Rosatom too. Real journalism (and even citizenship) includes criticizing your own gov as well as other govs. RT is well-done propaganda. Not saying always false, but rather they only pick bad things re USA and not Russia. I tend to think the truth comes first and the later was cover-up. The technical advisor for MA thinks the opposite.
For TV crews I figure that if they put them on the bus they could take them to a nearby reactor that wasn’t destroyed or even a TV studio. I doubt they would go in just because of high rad levels. IAEA initially was looking only at pics. On the other hand, they did drop a pre-fab concrete thing there by boat.
This doesn’t prove one or the other.
OT/ a comment on ENE News:
A case-control study of congenital malformations and occupational exposure to low-level ionizing radiation.
HANFORD…the denial. Congenital defects are up 400%.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3276166/?i=2&from=/3337080/related
Thanks. Reminds me of the movie-book about Gemma and the lawsuit. You need to watch it if you haven’t since you are more patient for movies. I’ve watched parts. The onus needs to be on them that it’s safe and not to prove it’s dangerous. I think that’s the EU standard for chemicals – prove it’s safe. Where is the up 400% from?
how close is this fire to the big gas blow out?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-brush-fire-pacific-coast-highway-20151226-story.html
ka-boom time for L.A.!
another Source Term doc –
NRC 1995 – Accident Source Terms forLight-Water Nuclear Power Plants
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0410/ML041040063.pdf
NEW!
Reblogged this on flying cuttlefish picayune and commented:
Dana’s offer: Find Fukushima Unit 4 Fool’s Pool Win A Case of Pop!
LINK – http://youtu.be/tLA2QaHEMBQ
[…] Fukushima Unit 4 Lies Exposed to Daylight – 100% of Fuel Blew into the Sky on 3-11 […]