11 m3 of nitrogen gas discharged from reactor1 and 2 every hour

“Steam” is repeatedly observed coming up from the top of reactor3.

This July Tepco suggested it may be the Nitrogen gas injected to reactor3. (cf, [Steaming reactor3] Tepco “The steam may be from the inside of the reactor, a certain volume of N2 gas is missing” [URL])

About reactor1 and 2, Tepco stated 11 m3/h of Nitrogen gas is also discharged from the reactors in the press conference of 9/18 and 9/20/2013.

It’s 9 m3/h from reactor1 and 2 m3/h from reactor2 at the moment of this September. It means Tepco injects Nitrogen gas into reactor1 and 2 but the output of Nitrogen gas is less than input by 11 m3/h in total.

It’s assumed to be extremely radioactive but it’s leaking to the atmosphere unfiltered.





You can ignore the truth but the truth won’t ignore you.


Français :

Toutes les heures, 11 m³ d’azote radioactif sortent des réacteurs 1 & 2


De la “vapeur” est régulièrement observée en haut du réacteur 3.

En juillet dernier Tepco avait suggéré que ce pourrait être l’azote injecté dans le réacteur 3. (cf. [Réacteur 3 “à vapeur”] Tepco : “La vapeur peut provenir de l’intérieur du réacteur, il manque un certain volume d’azote gazeux”)

Au cours des conférences de presse des 18 et 20 septembre 2013 et concernant les réacteurs 1 et 2, Tepco avait annoncé que 11 m³/h d’azote sortait des réacteurs.
En ce mois de septembre, on a 9 m³/h sortant du réacteur 1 et 2 m³/h du réacteur 2. Ça signifie que Tepco injecte de l’azote dans les  réacteurs 1 et 2 mais que le retour d’azote est inférieur de 11 m³/h à ce qui est injecté au total.

Il est considéré comme extrêmement radioactif mais il fuit dans l’atmosphère sans aucune filtration.


Vous pouvez ignorer la vérité mais la vérité ne vous ignorera pas.

  1. The Travelling Reactor,

    Recent TEPCO Salvage Photographs of the Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3 did not appear to include a Nuclear Reactor, Reactor Shell or Concrete Containment Walls. When the Rubble was removed, there was only a ‘hole in the ground’.

    Perhaps TEPCO has broadened the definition of the term ‘EXCURSION’ to include nuclear reactors which are no longer ‘present’.


    Bill Duff

  2. @Bill Duff: You have a link to the pictures you are referring to or do you just have a vivid imagination?

    The only picture I saw of possible blast hole on the side of 3’s reactor was on the SFP side just outside of the gate. That damage was covered with plates at the same time the pool was covered. If you look at the plates covering 3’s pool, they do not form a perfect rectangle and juts out toward the reactor in that one spot.

    The reactor concrete cap pieces are still in place with the trolley beam for the winch laying on top the concrete caps pieces with steam wafting out occasionally leaving corrosion marks on part of the trolley beam where the steam hits it. The concrete cap pieces are still in place.

    1. The mystery of the missing reactor …

      The TEPCO URL LINK is still active at this time. The punctuation is removed or it would take several days for the Active Link to be posted here.

      http www tepco co jp en nu (fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130422_08-e) pdf

      Blogging and discussion lots of places.


      Bill Duff

      1. B. Duff, that link only shows 3’s SFP area along side the reactor. It does show that ‘blast hole’ I mentioned (straight down from the skimmer cover notation) but that has since been covered over with plates.

        You need to look for TEPCO’s report on 3’s recent steam leaks where the trolley beam(s) is pictured laying across and on the concrete sectional cap (not shown in your .pdf link) and the tool pit pool area. I doubt they will be removing the trolley beams anytime soon because who knows what lurks below when the pressure is off the concrete sectional cap. It is still steams on the tool pit pool side whether or not TEPCO claims it is rainwater evaporating or nitrogen venting out along with other nasties.

        1. How much Corium?

          How many Corium Slugs?

          What are the Corium Slug Locations XYZ, Rϴϕ or RϴZ?

          How much fissioning is occuring in and under FDU-3?

          The recently released TEPCO films clearly show a corium (lava) flow (trail) that cascaded into a earthen (not cement lined) hole in the ground. It is not clear from the video, how much corium flowed into the earth. The composition (alloying %) of the Corium has not been disclosed.

          What percentages(tons) of the nuclear fuel and fission products were vented to the atmosphere from each reactor and each Spent Fuel Pool? What percentages(tons) have burned into the earth? What percentages(tons) are still within the walls, reactor shells/torus, containment and foundation?


          Bill Duff

        2. In the ‘before’ salvage photo, we see a pile of rubble and water. Not clear what is what in the wreckage.

          However in the ‘After’ debris removal photo … We can see the bridge crane, SFP and what appear, to MANY as a GAPING HOLE-in-the-ground. The gaping hole-in-the-ground appears to many; to coincide with the expected coordinates of the FDU-3 Nuclear Reactor.

          The FDU-3 Nuclear Reactor was reportedly operating at 100% power. It is not entirely clear though; given the disputed MOX makeup percentages of Pu/U, what the ACTUAL thermal output rate of FDU-3 was. FDU-2 and FDU-3 are sufficently similar enough to be ‘identical twins’. Their piping was reportedly intact, unlike FDU-1. Thus the vast difference in failure times is reasonably attributable primarily to the MOX v UOX fuels. The AREVA consultant indicated the FDU-3 MOX load was unusually high in plutonium. The timing for that (presumed) fuel enrichment experiment was somewhat unfortunate.


          Bill Duff

    2. About that cap …

      The FDU-3 reactor concrete cap was reportedly identified tumbling back to earth following the detonation of ~ 03/14/2013 (+/- Int Date Line). The cap appeared to have been blasted to on the order of 3,000 meters above the earth. That was quite an energetic detonation at the FDU-3. The FDU-3 blast parameters DWARFED every other (unclassified) nuclear reactor explosion.

      By contrast, the Chernobyl cap barely moved at all. It was found, relatively intact just a few feet from the reactor. The Borax demonstration reactor did not have a top. The SL-1 components did not ‘leave the building’, though some items speared the attendant to the ceiling. The TMI explosions vented some considerable fission products to the atmosphere and perhaps on the order of a TON of fuel may have been unaccounted for in the final inventories.

      Not too many people, livestock and pets, sickened and/or died in Pennsylvania subequent to the TMI FUBAR. Nothing, relative to the order of magnitude that have been afflicted in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant multiple meltdowns.


      Bill Duff

  3. Iori, it’s quite easy to understand. They actually do have to leak gas from the building and/or reactors to avoid buildup of explosive gasses. To create an pure, or change the percentage of atmospheric components in a container, one pushes the gas in, but there has to be an outlet for the displaced gas to escape. Eventually one reaches the point at which the outflow gas is in a concentration that is desired. The problem here is that at that point, with the desired atmosphere, they can’t seal the container to sustain it without constant inflow and outflow. With the injection of water, and I assume the development of steam even if not as apparent as that from Unit 3 (and they’re assuming the likihood of hydrogen; what they definitely don’t want, seems the purpose of the nitrogen anyway, and nitrogen probably acts somewhat as a drying agent for the steam), there is a overpressure in the container which will leak off, carrying with it not only the unwanted gasses, but nitrogen as well. I can’t even imagine how Tepco measures the outflow, and the difference is obviously stating leaks they can’t control. The point that I’m making is that 11m3/hr is escaping that building at all times, even if they only publish what they capture. I would, myself, challenge them to state the parameters of their capture and of the gas that is captured. Honestly, 2m3/hr is only 16% of the total, and we might be lucky that it’s that low, but, then again, the effectiveness of it all depends upon the efficency of whatever filtering they use, what concentrations after filtering they wish to attain, and whether they’re even stating truth about anything but the amount of injection. As stated, it’s 264m3/day. My experience is that to create a pure atmosphere in a container of which one can actually seal upon purging for retention of that atmosphere is on the order of 12 volume changes, though in this case they can obviously shoot for less as they’re not looking for a pure atmosphere, just one that is nitrogen-enriched. Personally, I’d assume what I’ve assumed from day one, and that’s there is continual contamination escaping from the containments, and there isn’t any liklihood of that stopping soon. The real question is not only the contamination of 2m3/hr, but of 11m3/hr.

    1. Usual intent,

      The General Electric Mark-1 design, for one can scarcely refer to it as architecture or engineering, uses a negative pressure gradient.

      Thus the sea level environment is at about 1 Atmosphere, 14.7 PSI (1013.25 mb), 29.92 inches (760mm) of mercury, and the inner portions of the Mark-1 Design are progressively lower. Thus any air leaks will be directed from the outside, to the inside, near the reactor for filtation, compression and recirculation.

      Getting back LESS nitrogen than you are PUMPING in, is contrary to the Mark-1 design scheme. It is however consistent with the observed GAPING HOLES and presumed MISSING Equipment.


      Bill Duff

      1. lol

        You sir have away with words

        ” GAPING HOLES and presumed MISSING Equipment ”

        so so true.

        Everyone involved knows the leakage has been massive
        why don’t people accept the obvioues

        Its pretty clear, look at #4, that damage is from the fuel pool
        Look at #3, I agree, the cap blew off and rods and fuel ejected

        Don’t fear #4, its a distraction
        or even #3 fuel pool
        the damage in them, for the most part, has been done

        1. TEPCO GAS

          Let us continue a qualitative review of today’s TEPCO GAS. The GE Mark-1 design has a vacuum pump, to maintain NEGATIVE PRESSURE, return the injected nitrogen to filters and then compression/reuse. I assume that the injected nitrogen is 99.99% pure and the RETURN air is 78.08% nitrogen, due to Fukushima Daiichi leakages.

          Oh … by the way … Dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.095% oxygen, and 0.93% argon. Thus I assume that ALL of the injected nitrogen is lost and the vacuum system is sucking wind. This would likely be a wager-winner at the FDU-3, where the Nuclear Reactor appears to be MIA. It may be overly pessimistic, to a slight degree, for FDU-1 and FDU-2. But, I will ‘go with it’ as a working hypothesis; based upon the outrageous and continuing TEPCO audacity.


          Bill Duff

  4. Bill, I would question whether the original vacuum pumps are working, and also the containment you refer to is the building itself and the PCV, not the RPV, as that is impossible functioning normally creating steam. I would assume that they are also ‘injecting’ (not ‘pulling it in’ as a vacuum would imply) nitrogen now into the RPVs along with water, as it doesn’t possibly seem the RPVs have any integrity of their own and are somewhat open inside the PCV. Again here, it seems that retaining a grossly nitrogen-enriched atmosphere is the goal while also limiting the amount of oxygen. Otherwise, they could simply move ambient air through these things and filter that. Anyway, at any point, moving gas into these areas continually means that gas is moving out. It would be interesting to see an analysis of what they are recovering, yet realize that they cannot possibly be recovering what they put in, so it’s leaking out somewhere that they don’t recover. That analysis might lead to some suggestions of what they don’t recover, and what harm those leaks present.

  5. No word on Hydrogen (and isotopes) concentrations?

    How about neutron counts and/or rays?

    TEPCO still seems to lack candor and honesty. Am i wrong, Mochizuki-san?

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.


September 2013