.JPG)
On 23 March, it was reported that the cooling pump at reactor No 5 stopped working when it was transferred from backup power to the grid supply.[269][270]
This contains 6375 fuel assemblies and was reported 'secured' with a temperature of 55 °C. After further cooling, fuel can be transferred to dry cask storage, which has shown no signs of abnormalities.[271] On 21 March temperatures in the fuel pond had risen a little to 61 °C and water was sprayed over the pool.[2]
Asahi Shimbunreported that by 24 March the accident might have emitted 30,000 to 110,000 TBqof radioiodine.[272] On the INES scale, the accident would rate 6 rather than the official level 5, according to the newspaper.
On March 23, Tokyo drinking water exceeded the safe level for infants, prompting the government to distribute bottled water to families with infants.[277] World wide measurements of wind-born radioactive iodine and caesium vented from reactors suggest that levels have reached around 2/3 those during the Chernobyl disaster, though in that case other radioactive material was also released.[10]
The Wall Street Journal reported on 25 March that authorities were considering raising the event to level 6, a "serious accident," one level above the Three Mile Island accident, and second only to Chernobyl.[279] On the same day, Asahi Shimbun supported this upgrading, based on the amount of radioactive contamination.[272][280]
the Finnish nuclear safety authority—estimated the accidents at Fukushima to be at Level 6 on the INES.[283][284] On 24 March, a scientific consultant for Greenpeace, working with data from the Austrian ZAMG[285] and French IRSN, prepared an analysis in which he rated the total Fukushima I accident at INES level 7.[286]"
.JPG)
.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment