West side of the reactor4 building bulged

Following up this article..Possible uneven settlement of reactor 4


On 5/25/2012, Tepco announced that the wall on the west side of reactor 4 building bulged.

Also, the reactor 4 building is leaning to North West. They surveyed from 5/17 to 5/25/2012.

From their survey, the corner of south west come out 33mm at 13m hight from the ground.

However, Tepco states still it’s within the safety limit of Building standard law. (65mm)


The data about the leaning building is like these below.

West side of the reactor4 building bulged


West side of the reactor4 building bulged2

(The safety limit of the slope regulated by Building standard law is 1/200.)


West side of the reactor4 building bulged3


The data of the bulging wall on the west side is below.

West side of the reactor4 building bulged4




  1. More evidence that the building isn’t tilting as a whole.

    I suppose the best question is; what is it that truly holds up the SFP? Can the loading on other portions of the building influence the SFP integrity?

    Something tells me that wrapping the building in successive levels of “shrink-wrap” & using concrete pumping cranes to periodically fill the building wouldn’t begin to address the work ahead (if possible).

    Someone like Dr. Bill Wattenburg would have practical answers. I would consider any interview with him to be worth my time to listen, IMHO. If there existed an interview involving Dr. Bill & Arnie G., i would consider that “Must-Listen”.

  2. I have an idea if you know someone good with electronic gadgetry, set up a visual motion sensor set to only aim at building number 4. so if it comes down the alarm could be made viral on the net I hope you have a friend who is a genius with computers and programs, this would be so great so we don t have to stare at the damn thing 24 hours lol, maybe another sensor for at night that rings alarm in case of supernova argh

  3. The buldge and setteling of the structure of reactor #4 can make the frame work weak and put stress fractures in main beams. When and I hope not….an earth quake hits that area; the reactors and fuel rods are going to have an affect similar to many A-bombs going off at one time. This will affect BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. I wonder why TEPCO stored so many fuel rods at the sight? Normally, nuclear regulations here in the United States, don’t allow the storing of fuel rods at the nuclear site. Only can they bring new fuel rods in and swap out the old ones. Then the old rods are taken away and they are suppose to be properly maintained and disposed of…..

    1. the americans do just the same as they did in fukushima why do you think there is a huge media blackout and false reports if any from mainstream media

    2. You are deluded. ‘Wet’ waste is stored on-site in the US in increasingly congested storage pools. This risk has been highlighted many times. These pools have to be constantly cooled. What do you think would happen if power was interrupted?

      The Wet waste should have been converted to dry waste and stored as was intended. So while the US wages moronic wars and spends billions and trillions on stupidity a small percentage of that expenditure could have been diverted to remove the risk.

    3. Ramona,
      I’d like to address a few points in your post.
      1. “buldge and setteling of the structure …” The cause and affect are reversed. The bulge is likely a result of the weakening and possible stress fractures not a cause of them.
      2. “the reactors and fuel rods are going to have an affect similar to many A-bombs going off at one time” Real risk but often exaggerated. Reactor 4 was not fueled at the time of the incident so the reactor is not an issue. Only the spent fuel pool is an issue. Each building has one reactor and the building in question is surrounding reactor 4. The fuel pool in number 4 has a lot of fuel rods that for a time went without cooling and the Iodine 131 numbers indicate some have melted down. If a quake topples this building we will see a whole lot of radioactive water hit the environment. The affects are difficult to predict but it would be bad. The fuel itself could possibly melt and do anything from pooling in a blob the bottom of the building to entering the environment below it and move out to sea. The main point here is its not good at all but how its not good is the question. Your choice of the wording “have an affect similar to many A-bombs going off at one time” implies not only radiation but an explosion which is highly misleading.
      3. As is covered in numerous responses, fuel rods are stored on-site at US reactors. One might note that there are much safer reactor designs that don’t need all this dangerous fuel but people cannot think rationally enough to allow them to be built. Instead we are stuck with aging reactors with dangerous fuel which the very thing they complain about.
      4. Misc: Framework is one word, there should be a “the” before “main beams”, earthquake is one word, sight should be site, “Only can they bring new…” has multiple issues, supposed is missing a “d”

      This is a very serious matter and needs to be address yesterday however lets be sure to be accurate, clear, rational and skip hyperbole.

  4. Thank you for the update, Ramona! I’m sure this is not going to be covered by the idiot-wonder mainstream media. Has anyone estimated what size quake it would take to blow that side out? Because all of us in America will have approximately ten days before fallout hits here should a quake happens. Have they done anything to shore up that bulging side?

    PLEASE keep us updated, as you are the very first person I have seen that has said anything about this!


  5. .
    FUKUSHIMA DIARY – La face Ouest du bâtiment du réacteur 4 s’est tordue
    Par Mochizuki le 25 mai 2012 · 9 Commentaires

    Le 25 mai 2012, Tepco a annoncé que le mur Ouest du bâtiment du réacteur 4 est tordue.

    De plus, le bâtiment du réacteur 4 se penche vers le Nord Ouest. Ils l’ont examiné du 17 au 25 mai 2012.

    De cet examen il ressort que l’angle Sud Ouest, à 13 m au-dessus du sol, s’est tordu vers l’extérieur de 33 mm.

    Toutefois, Tepco affirme que c’est toujours sous les limites de sécurité selon la loi sur les standards des constructions. (65mm)

    Les données sur l’inflexion du bâtiment son celles-ci :

    >Photo annotéeplan 1plan 2plan 3<

  6. Hi tepco, thanks for giving my suggestion a run using optical equipment to check for tilt. (comments: possible uneven settlement of reactor 4)

    Can I make another further suggestion related to the results of the test which showi both bulging and tilt of reactor 4 building?

    Manufacture a series of double skinned pre-stressed concrete wall panels. Support both skins relative to each other by means of a network of structural steel struts between the sheets. The gap between the panels can be metres wide to help insulate and self suport. Affix suitable pertruding guide struts to the top, bottom and sides to locate and interlock each wall panel relative to its neighbour as it is lifted into place.

    A series of four heavy cranes on rails running parallel to the walls could load the panels at a suitable distance, then move into position and lift panels by remote control.

    Rather than frying camera gear, why not employ visual fibre optic strands feeding to on-board shielded cameras.

    Excavate a wide foundation trench around the building and fill with concrete re enforced with steel shot so it can be pumped. Set the first layer of double walled panels on this foundation and fill the void between the two walls with more concrete. Move around the building repeating the process using the various cranes until a complete interlocking box has been formed at ground level. if further steelwork has been attached to the inward facing wall of this first panel prior to placement, a further re enforcing band of concrete could then be poured inside the framework between the panels and the existing building to help consolidate.
    Now fit another level of panels on top of the first level using the guides and fill. Continue to the top of the building, adding exterior supporting struts/columns as required.

  7. Re above….Sorry, others use this computer…it should have carried my tag.

  8. There are new types of halon alternatives being created this year for firefighting applications…one of them removes heat from the fire tetrahedron. It is a liquid that gives off a vapor that snuffs out flames. Water isnt the best thing to put out many kinds of fires. This substances is amazing, you can drop a computer into a tub of liquid and it will stay on.

    Tests should be done to see if the newest halon alternatives can disarm a radioactive element like it can stop combustion. Water and foam isn’t effective enough.

Comments are closed.

About this site

This website updates the latest news about the Fukushima nuclear plant and also archives the past news from 2011. Because it's always updated and added live, articles, categories and the tags are not necessarily fitted in the latest format.
I am the writer of this website. About page remains in 2014. This is because my memory about 311 was clearer than now, 2023, and I think it can have a historical value. Now I'm living in Romania with 3 cats as an independent data scientist.
Actually, nothing has progressed in the plant since 2011. We still don't even know what is going on inside. They must keep cooling the crippled reactors by water, but additionally groundwater keeps flowing into the reactor buildings from the broken parts. This is why highly contaminated water is always produced more than it can circulate. Tepco is planning to officially discharge this water to the Pacific but Tritium is still remaining in it. They dilute this with seawater so that it is legally safe, but scientifically the same amount of radioactive tritium is contained. They say it is safe to discharge, but none of them have drunk it.


May 2012