[ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews on Russia Today and Floods the Net

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Thu Apr 28 19:42:59 CDT 2011

April 28

         I scrolled through the Fukushima Updates at the Fairewinds 
website (link below).  I can't comment on the technical claims of 
Fairewinds or of Gunderson.  I did notice four revealing things.

         First Gunderson discussed "the consequences of the Fukushima 
radioactive fallout on Japan, the USA, and the world." with Steve 
Wing.  Enough said on that point.

         Second, when talking about levels of exposure, he used 
disintegrations per second, thus making it possible to use very large 
numbers --- once 900,000 dps, and once 2,000,000 dps.

         Third, he repeated the standard cliches about a coverup by 
the Japanese government,

         Fourth, he discusses "how Governments are once again 
limiting public access to accurate radiation dose information."

         Does any of this sound like the standard no-nuke hokum?

         According to the e-mail below, Gunderson claimed that the 
hydrogen explosion forced enough fuel rods together to cause a prompt 
criticality and another explosion.  Based on what I have read about 
atomic bomb design I find this hard to believe.  Isn't one of the 
biggest problems in bomb design a problem of getting the two 
sub-critical masses to stay together long enough to cause an 
explosion?  Even if a hydrogen explosion could force some fuel rods 
close together what is going to keep them together long enough to 
allow an explosion to occur?  Wouldn't they merely bounce apart as 
soon as they made contact?  Or even if an explosion could began, 
wouldn't it blow the rods apart and make the make the criticality 
event into a fizzle?

         I'm not a bomb designer or a nuclear engineer, nevertheless 
to me this prompt criticality" claim sounds rather unlikely.  I could 
stand to be corrected on any or all of my speculations.

Steven Dapra

At 06:42 AM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Arnie Gundersen has been all over the web and the news sharing his 
>opinions on just what is going on.
>I am not a nuclear engineer, but most of what he says seems 
>plausible enough to me.  The actual claim was that a hydrogen gas 
>explosion in Unit 3's fuel storage pond banged enough fuel rods into 
>each other to initiate a prompt criticality, which resulted in 
>another near-simultaneous blast, which made for a much larger event 
>than it otherwise would have been.
>The question I have of Mr. Gundersens and his assertion is, assuming 
>we did have a prompt criticality in part of the fuel stored there, 
>how does that result in such a violent explosion? That would get us 
>a lot of heat and radiation, for sure, but how does that translate 
>into an explosion unless there is some other vector present like 
>water to flash into steam (and it does not look much like a steam 
>explosion to me)?
>On 04/28/2011 03:41 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
>>Does anyone know anything about this claimed nuclear engineer who postulates
>>a criticality incident as causing Reactor #3 explosion at this video link -
>>several other videos from Faire Wind Associates - another new voice in the
>>game - http://vimeo.com/22865967

More information about the RadSafe mailing list