Skip to main content

Recritical Thinking

You may have noticed some talk flowing around the great chatter box that is the Internet about recriticality at the reactors at Fukushima.
…Now there is definitive proof, courtesy of Tellurium 129 and a order of magnitude higher concentration of Iodine 131 in Reactor 1, that the reactor is now undergoing sporadic events of recriticality…
Simply put, recriticality means that a reactor has become critical again and reentered the fission process. But finding tellurium-129 in water in the turbine building of the reactor is hardly the smoking gun of recriticality that “Tyler Durden” would have you believe.
It is evidence of criticality, to be sure, but not re-criticality. In fact, it is evidence of past criticality at the reactor. In this case—if the reading turns out to be accurate—it could be evidence of criticality before the earthquake on March 11 when the reactor was operating normally and was, well, critical.
Here is NEI’s own Rodney McCullum with a technical explanation:
The detection of tellurium-129 is not proof of recriticality.
Even though it has a half-life of just 69 minutes it is still one of the most prevalent fission products in used nuclear fuel several months after fuel is removed from the reactor core or last criticality.
This is due to the fact that tellurium-129 also exists in a higher energy state (Te-129m, where “m” stands for metastable) with a half-life of 34.1 days prior to transforming into lower energy tellurium-129. Given the high initial abundance of both forms of tellurium-129 among fission products, it is reasonable that some would still be present months after the reactor was last critical.
The author also cites iodine-131, with a half-life of eight days, as evidence of recriticality. However, since we are about 20 days post-accident, you can still expect about 10 percent of the original iodine-131 to be present.
According to Rodney not realizing that tellurium-129 has a higher and lower energy state is “a common mistake a new nuclear engineering student would make.” Thanks, Rodney, that makes us non-technical types feel much better. 
What’s more, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has said that its reading of tellurium-129 is “doubtful.”
It is ascertained that the result of nuclide analysis of tellurium-129 (half life: about 70 minutes) conducted on March 30th, for water puddle collected near the trench and ground water collected near the turbine building are [is] doubtful.
To sum up, at this point, TEPCO is not sure if tellurium-129 has been found in water in the turbine building. And even if the results do show tellurium-129 in the water, it is not evidence of recriticality, but past criticality from the Fukushima reactors operating regularly before the earthquake struck on March 11.

Comments

Cyril R said…
For those interested, also see this:

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/04/idea-about-faulty-i-134-reading.html
M. Simon said…
The ratio of I-131 between reactors #1 vs #2 and #3 is more compelling.

BTW I'm trying to figure out how Te 129 gets produced. I can't find any ready references (Google).
Anonymous said…
M. Simon,

See here for Te-129 production:

http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/nuclide?nuc=Te-129&n=1
Uli said…
Re-criticality is also highly doubtful from a physics point of view. In order to be critical, a reactor needs sufficient water to moderate the neutrons and cause fission. It is unlikely that a hot rubble pile of fuel/cladding would have enough water mixed within the pile sustain a chain reaction.
M. Simon said…
Uli,

Sure it is doubtful. But the indications are there. Plus it could be critical from fast neutrons. Or the water above the slag could be acting as a moderator and reflector.

If the wells below the slag are filled with water even better.

Anon,

Thanks for the link. Much appreciated.
M. Simon said…
Re: the higher/lower energy state.

Easy enough to determine by running the sample twice (or some multiple of that depending on how close you want the results - i.e. reduction of statistical errors).

Once as soon as the sample is available and a second time about 1 to 5 (short) half lives later.

You have to assume that if the operators were sharp they did this. So either the operators were not sharp or they did the determination in such a way that it could be plausibly denied.
Anonymous said…
The above is why I despise Arnie Gunderson. Through omission, deception, turning a blind eye, etc, he takes a few facts and spins a hell of a yarn. He's a scientist by profession, but a propaganda specialists by trade. He does a disservice every time he opens his mouth about Fukushima. He shamelessly manipulates this crisis at every opportunity.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…