★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素15 > 778.html
 ★阿修羅♪  
▲コメTop ▼コメBtm 次へ 前へ
フェアウィンド・アソシエイツ アーニー・ガンダーセン氏 アップデート 2011年8月21日
http://www.asyura2.com/11/genpatu15/msg/778.html
投稿者 魑魅魍魎男 日時 2011 年 8 月 24 日 05:05:51: FpBksTgsjX9Gw
 


http://www.fairewinds.com/

最新ビデオがアップされたので、ざっと訳してみました。

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

「新データによりフェアウィンドの分析が裏付けられる。汚染は日本そして世界中に広がる」


地表の割れ目から蒸気が噴出している件だが、溶融燃料が格納容器を突き抜けて降下し、
地下水に接触したという説は、確たるデータがないので私は否定的だ。

この件を大騒ぎすることでいくつかのもっと重要なことがかすんでしまう。

まずはカリフォルニアの科学者グループの報告。
3月の事故の2週間後にカリフォルニアの大気中で硫黄35を検出。どうしてできたかが問題だ。
塩水のナトリウム原子に中性子に当たり硫黄になるが、検出された量からすると
1平米当たり4000億もの中性子が必要となる。これはどこから来たのか?
完全に臨界が停止したとは言えない、という4月に私が言ったことが実証された。
一度止まった後に再臨界が起きたことを裏付けるデータである。

次は、2週間前のNRCによる福島に関する会見。
このページにリンクを張っておいた。
http://www.fairewinds.com/content/briefing-task-force-review-nrc-processes-and-regulations-following-events-japan

NRCは燃料プールは大した問題を起こしてないと言っている。

ニューイングランド・コーリッションのシャド氏の質問。
「あなたがた皆さんが、使用済み燃料プールは壊れていないと言うのを聞いて驚いた。
 プレス報告は、燃料プールから飛び出した1センチかそれ以上の燃料片が
 1マイル以上先で見つかっていると言っているが、この食い違いをどう説明するのか。
 これが私の第一の質問である」

NRC・グローブ氏曰く、
「報告されたで堆積物の大半は、原子炉内から出たものと思われる」

ホラハン氏曰く、
「敷地内でいろいろな形で見つかっているこれら飛散した放射性物質は、
 使用済み燃料プールではなく、むしろ炉心から出たものと思われる」

これは、使用済み燃料プールからプルトニウムが飛散したという仮説より、さらに深刻である。

4月に私は3号機燃料プールで即発臨界が起きたという説を話したが、
NRCはそれよりはるかに悪いと述べている。
炉心も格納容器も壊れ、プルトニウムが敷地外へ放出されたと言っている。

私自身これには同意しがたく、未だに燃料プールから出たものだと思っている。
NRCの説はそれよりはるかに深刻なもので、米国の原子炉の設計を見直す必要がある。

次に、1号機のテント(遮蔽シート)の件。
この目的は敷地内の線量を下げるためだ。
テント内に溜まった放射能は、排気塔から空高く放出される。
作業員や周辺地域にとってはよいが、放射能放出がなくなるわけではない。
セシウムを遠くへ追いやることはできるが、問題解決にはならない。

最後になるが、東日本のセシウム汚染は広がっている。
日本政府は8000ベクレル/kg(毎秒8000回の崩壊数)未満なら焼却可能としている。
さらに混ぜるのも認めている。24000ベクレルのものを2倍量の無汚染のものと
混ぜ合わせれば8000ベクレルになり、焼却可能となる。

これはさまざまな問題を生む。
福島から出て地上に集まったものが、焼却により故意にまた大気に放出される。
せっかく校庭を除染してもまたセシウムが堆積してしまう。
再汚染の危険性があるのだ。
もちろん日本だけでなく太平洋を越えて米西海岸にも到達するだろう。
汚染物の焼却は汚染をさらにまき散らす結果となる。

また地上に堆積した放射性物質が河川に流れ込み、福島からかなり離れた海をも
汚染しているというデータもある。

日本は大変な問題に直面している。
これを解決するには、まず問題が深刻であることを理解しなければならない。
日本政府は無視を決め込んでいるが、問題を長引かせ、早期に対策するよりも
さらに費用を強いることになる。

深刻な問題を抱えていること、解決に大変な費用がかかることを理解しなければならない。
しかし、解決すべき深刻な問題があるという認識があれば、解決は可能である。

 

  拍手はせず、拍手一覧を見る

コメント
 
01. 2011年8月24日 09:01:51: DK2AuYcxXw
フェアウィンズのサイトに動画はありません。こちらにあります。
http://vimeo.com/28014740
NRCのブリーフィングを文字に起こした文書も同様です。
http://www.nrc.gov/japan/20110728.pdf

こう言うものもありました。現在は削除されています。
>福島第一原子力発電所におけるロボットオペレータの手記
- Warrior編 - 2011.6.11〜7.3
(「言いたい放題*やりたい放題/ウェブリブログ」より転載)
http://staff.aist.go.jp/h.arai/fukushima/warrior.htm
英訳されている部分には、上に含まれていないものもあるようです。
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/fukushima-robot-operator-diaries


02. 2011年8月24日 09:15:48: x4HVypFlWa
まったく!どいうNOミソだ!日本の原子力利権屋連中は!

イケイケどんどんで、放射能を、煙として、灰として、食いもんとして、
ばら撒いてる!一秒でも早くやめさせないと!

投稿者さんありがとう!!!


03. 2011年8月24日 09:31:37: DK2AuYcxXw
硫黄35はアルゴン40に宇宙線が当ることでも生成される。
塩素35は人工的な放射性物質である。
http://www.asyura2.com/11/genpatu15/msg/577.html#c6
上述の他にシリコン35乃至36からリン35を経て硫黄35が生成される過程もある。
すなわち、塩素35は、核実験などによって海水に含まれていたか、核燃料の分裂生成物が溶け出したか、両方の可能性がある。
カルフォルニアの科学者グループの結論に異論があるならば、政府東電は是非反論して欲しい。知らないふりをすることは、ますます自分の立場を悪くするばかりだ。

04. 2011年8月24日 15:57:18: 6YaHKmG30A
和訳ありがとうございます。

NRCすら、核臨界を認められないと言うことは、どれだけの圧力がかかっているのか、本当に恐ろしい話です。

素人が見ても明らかなのに・・・

Fairewinds Associates は、日本語表示だとほとんど情報が出なくなっています。ブラウザの言語を英語に設定するとすべてみられます。日本語訳を作ろうとしているための一時不調と言うことではありますが・・


05. 2011年8月25日 11:44:39: GamCifMOxk
>>04
英語本来のサイトを見ることが出来ますか?
http://fairewinds.com/content/new-data-supports-previous-fairewinds-analysis-contamination-spreads-japan-and-worldwide
日本からは、全く、英語のサイトにもアクセスできません。
迂回する方法でアクセスできました。
情報統制が行われています。統制が必要であるのは状況がそれ程悪いからです。
拡散をお願いします。情報統制です。近い将来に何か起きるかも知れません。
> Home Fukushima Updates Who We Are  Reports Multimedia
In the News Donate Contact

New Data Supports Previous Fairewinds Analysis, as Contamination Spreads in Japan and Worldwide

Newly released neutron data from three University of California San Diego scientists confirms Fairewinds' April analysis that the nuclear core at Fukushima Daiichi turned on and off after TEPCO claimed its reactors had been shutdown. This periodic nuclear chain reaction (inadvertent criticality) continued to contaminate the surrounding environment and upper atmosphere with large doses of radioactivity.

In a second area of concern, Fairewinds disagrees the NRC's latest report claiming that all Fukushima spent fuel pools had no problems following the earthquake. In a new revelation, the NRC claims that the plutonium found more than 1 mile offsite actually came from inside the nuclear reactors. If such a statement were true, it indicates that the nuclear power plant containments failed and were breached with debris landing far from the power plants themselves. Such a failure of the containment system certainly necessitates a complete review of all US reactor containment design and industry assurances that containments will hold in radioactivity in the event of a nuclear accident. The evidence Fairewinds reviewed to date continues to support its April analysis that the detonation in the Unit 3 Spent Fuel pool was the cause of plutonium found off site.
Third, the burning of radioactive materials (building materials, trees, lawn grass, rice straw) by the Japanese government will cause radioactive Cesium to spread even further into areas within Japan that have been previously clean, and across the Pacific Ocean to North America.

And finally, the Japanese government has yet to grasp the severity of the contamination within Japan, and therefore has not developed a coherent plan mitigate the accident and remediate the environment. Without a cohesive plan to deal with this ongoing problem of large scale radioactive contamination, the radioactivity will continue to spread throughout Japan and around the globe further exacerbating the problem and raising costs astronomically.

Hi, I'm Arnie Gundersen from Fairewinds.

There are a couple of things today that I would like to share with you since we last posted. The first is a comment that was out on Russia Today and several other internet blogs, discussing the possibility of cracks and smoke and steam coming out of the ground at Fukushima. What they are claiming to have had occurred is that the nuclear core has melted through the containment and is now in the groundwater. I was asked by Russia Today to comment on that and I declined. I just do not think there is enough good solid engineering data to either support or refute it. It may be happening, but I did not think there was enough engineering data yet to make any conclusive remarks about it.

But it is interesting, the sensational issue of steam coming out of the ground has actually clouded much more important issues which can be substantiated.

The first of those was another report that came out last week from California. A group of scientists detected radioactive Sulfur 35 in the atmosphere. It occurred back in March, about two weeks after the Fukushima accident began. The press focussed on the fact that radioactive sulfur was detected in California, but the report held something that was much more important than that, that did not make the news. And that is, how did that sulfur get created? Let's go back across the Pacific to Fukushima. When salt water is hit by neutrons, it creates sulfur. On the nucleus of a sodium atom in salt water hits a neutron, and it becomes a different atom called sulfur. That is the mechanics of it. But what the report showed is that 400 billion neutrons in a square meter were required in order to make the amount of sulfur that was detected in California. That is an enormous number of neutrons. No one asked, where did they come from?

I think the report from last week substantiates what I told you back on April 3rd. Way back then, there was enough evidence to indicate that the reactors had not really completely shut down at Fukushima.

Remember, when the tsunami hit, the reactors had been shut down for about an hour. The control rods had fallen into them and shut down all of the chain reactions. But it seemed as if there were recurring chain reactions after that. I think this new data from California substantiates what I had been telling you back in April: There were ongoing criticalities after the unit shut down.

The next thing that is important also occurred about two weeks ago. There was a meeting at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where the NRC staff briefed the commissioners about what had gone on at Fukushima. We have posted the link to that on the side of the video here. What the NRC staff told them in about the first 60 pages of transcript, is that the nuclear fuel pools at Fukushima had not experienced much of a problem. Someone called in, there was a call-in line, and asked a very important question and I would like to read that to you now. The person was Mr. Ray Shadis from the New England Coalition. And he said this: “I was surprised to hear you say that the fuel in the spent fuel pool was not damaged. Press reports indicate that fuel particles up to a centimeter or more in size, have been found a mile or more from the spent fuel pools. And that is my question. Can you address the disparity?” So what Mr. Shadis was suggesting is, if the fuel pools were in good shape and plutonium is discovered a mile or two away, how could that happen?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's response was troubling, to say the least. They said, Mr. Grove, again, on p. 61 of the transcript says, “Most of the deposition that has reported to date, appears to have come from inside the reactors.” And then two pages later on p. 63, a Mr. Hallahan says, “ascribing these dispersed radioactive materials in various forms on site, you know, it is most likely they were from the reactor cores rather from the spent fuel pool.” To my mind, that is more troubling than the hypothesis that the nuclear fuel pools released as plutonium.

You will recall back on April 26th, I postulated that there was a prompt criticality in the Unit 3 fuel pool and there is a lot of data to support that: the flame was on that side of the building, the height of the explosion. I postulated that that is what deposited the plutonium a mile or two off site. What the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is saying is much worse than that. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is saying that the reactors have breeched, and the containments have breeched, and liberated this plutonium, which has gone off site. I do not understand their position. Frankly, I do not think it is right. I still believe that it is the fuel pools that caused the plutonium to be deposited. But if I am wrong and it is not the fuel pools, in fact, the position of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is much worse. If the reactors have failed and the containments have failed causing this, we really need to seriously look at American reactor design.

The next thing I would like to talk about just briefly is that a tent is almost ready to be built over Unit 1 at Fukushima. That is not going to solve a lot of problems, but it is going to solve two problems. The purpose of the tent is to reduce the amount of radiation on site. The radiation inside that tent is still going to have to go somewhere, or else it is going to build up and become lethal. So what is going to have to happen to that radiation, is it is going to be exhausted up the stack. That is good for the workers, because it gets that radiation airborne at a much higher elevation and it is good for the surrounding communities. But it does not solve the problem of radiation releases from Fukushima. I wanted you to know that, when you see this tent that is being built over Fukushima 1, it does not solve the problem. It pushes the Cesium deposition further away from the site. It is important for the workers that they get less Cesium, but it is not, on a global basis, reducing the amount of Cesium that we are all receiving.

And that brings me to my final point. The deposition of Cesium throughout northern Japan is extensive. The Japanese are allowing that material to be burned if the concentration of radioactivity on anything that is radioactive is less than 8,000 becquerels per kilogram. What that means is that two pounds, about a kilogram, can be disintegrating at 8,000 disintegrations every second and the Japanese are allowing that to be burned. Here in the United States, that would be considered radioactive waste, and would have to be disposed of underground for thousands of years. But as long as it is less than 8,000 disintegrations per second, the Japanese are allowing that to be burned. Not only that, and this is actually more disconcerting, they are allowing blending. So if one sample had 24,000 disintegrations per second, and another two had none, they combine those, so that the three on average have 8,000 disintegrations per second and they are allowed to be burned. That has lots of serious ramifications. First, it is basically the material that has already come out of Fukushima and is on the ground, is now going airborne again. Deliberately.

So the towns around, and the areas around schools, school playgrounds that have been cleaned up from Fukushima, are now getting Cesium redeposited on them by the burning of the material. So the clouds of radiation from the different areas that are having fires in Japan right now, are re-contaminating areas that have been sampled as clean or low. And in fact now will see higher radiation. It does not stop just at the Japanese border, but of course continues across the Pacific into the Pacific Northwest as well. So by allowing the burning of material, we are basically recreating Fukushima all over again. We are sending into the air that which has been deposited on the ground. There is also some data that the ground deposition is running out into rivers and now into the ocean, relatively far from Fukushima. So while the focus has been on just the Fukushima site, in fact now, we are seeing radioactive rivers further away which are also contaminating the ocean.

apan has a problem, a tough problem. But in order to solve the tough problem, first you have to recognize there is a tough problem. And this constant ignoring of the significance of the problem by the Japanese government is, in fact, making the problem longer, and eventually more costly, than doing it right the first time.

I think the Japanese need to recognize that they have a problem. And it is serious and they have to recognize that it is going to cost a lot of money to fix. But it is fixable if it begins with the concept that there is a serious problem that needs to be solved.

Thank you.



06. 2011年8月25日 14:06:38: lcWrRn6cCc
ガンダーセン氏が引用した論文
>PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

Evidence of neutron leakage at the Fukushima nuclear plant from measurements of radioactive 35S in California

Antra Priyadarshi, Gerardo Dominguez, and Mark H. Thiemens
Abstract

A recent earthquake and the subsequent tsunami have extensively damaged the Fukushima nuclear power plant, releasing harmful radiation into the environment. Despite the obvious implication for human health and the surrounding ecology, there are no quantitative estimates of the neutron flux leakage during the weeks following the earthquake. Here, using measurements of radioactive 35S contained in sulfate aerosols and SO2 gas at a coastal site in La Jolla, California, we show that nearly 4 × 1011 neutrons per m2 leaked at the Fukushima nuclear power plant before March 20, 2011. A significantly higher Graphic activity as measured on March 28 is in accord with neutrons escaping the reactor core and being absorbed by the coolant seawater 35Cl to produce 35S by a (n, p) reaction. Once produced, 35S oxidizes to Graphic and Graphic and was then transported to Southern California due to the presence of strong prevailing westerly winds at this time. Based on a moving box model, we show that the observed activity enhancement in Graphic is compatible with long-range transport of the radiation plume from Fukushima. Our model predicts that Graphic, the concentration in the marine boundary layer at Fukushima, was approximately 2 × 105 atoms per m3, which is approximately 365 times above expected natural concentrations. These measurements and model calculations imply that approximately 0.7% of the total radioactive sulfate present at the marine boundary layer at Fukushima reached Southern California as a result of the trans-Pacific transport.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/11/1109449108.abstract

論文
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/08/15/1109449108.DCSupplemental/pnas.1109449108_SI.pdf


  拍手はせず、拍手一覧を見る

この記事を読んだ人はこんな記事も読んでいます(表示まで20秒程度時間がかかります。)
★登録無しでコメント可能。今すぐ反映 通常 |動画・ツイッター等 |htmltag可(熟練者向)|(各説明

←ペンネーム新規登録ならチェック)
↓ペンネーム(なしでも可能。あったほうが良い)

↓パスワード(ペンネームに必須)

(ペンネームとパスワードは初回使用で記録、次回以降にチェック。パスワードはメモすべし。)
↓画像認証
( 上画像文字を入力)
ルール確認&失敗対策
画像の URL (任意):
 重複コメントは全部削除と投稿禁止設定  ずるいアクセスアップ手法は全削除と投稿禁止設定 削除対象コメントを見つけたら「管理人に報告」をお願いします。 最新投稿・コメント全文リスト
フォローアップ:

 

 次へ  前へ

▲このページのTOPへ      ★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素15掲示板

★阿修羅♪ http://www.asyura2.com/ since 1995
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。

     ▲このページのTOPへ      ★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素15掲示板

 
▲上へ       
★阿修羅♪  
この板投稿一覧