It depends to a large extent how hot bars fuel the uranium plant able to stay, and if fuel had escaped its containment, or may still do so. Remarkably little is known of that with certainty what really happens in the reactors because some areas are still far too radioactive for workers to approach, and some instruments have malfunctioned.
The lack of data and conflicting estimates of what it really means the available information sparked a series of confusing and a gap between officials in the Japan and these overseas — and even between a member of the Congress and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The commission has been speculated this week that nuclear fuel in the core of one of the stricken reactor was likely leak of its thickness steel pressure vessel, its most important protective barrier. If that is proven to be accurate, it would give the possibility of continuing leaks fuel and high levels of radioactive discharges that would greatly complicate containment and cleaning.
But Japanese officials said no there was no evidence of a compromised pressure vessel, and they are asking why they were reading about it in newspapers.
"If they have a concern, they should inform us," said Kentaro Morita of the nuclear regulatory body of the Japan, the nuclear and industrial safety agency, after that its American counterpart from the alarm on a fuel leak as possible nuclear reactor No. 2 plantclearly contradicting the Japanese accounts. "They did not these concerns tell us directly," said Mr. Morita.
A Department of senior Foreign Affairs official, accused during this time, the foreign media of exaggerating the threat posed by the plant and the dissemination of the radiation. The fears of radiation are poorly sales of Japanese products abroad.
Which is proved right in the scientific debate has implications very for how and when the nuclear crisis could be brought under control and the potential consequences if the assumptions prove the contrary.
From the beginning, there are differences, with the US authorities expressing a more pessimistic than the Japanese point of view.
To the United States advised Americans to remain at least 50 kilometres of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Japanese officials have been evacuated of residents within a radius of 12 miles and have said since that they plan to expand the evacuation area.
An assessment at the end of March by the nuclear regulatory Commission, has stated that explosions of hydrogen at the plant could have blown particles of nuclear fuel from pools of irradiated fuel from reactors up to a mile. The Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, says that pools remain exposed in the reactors damaged by most, fuel remains safely inside.
US officials are also concerned that the constraints of mounting the reactor containment structures they meet radioactive water used in make cooling of emergency vulnerable to rupture in a replica of the earthquake on March 11. Japanese officials have downplayed this concern, and Friday, they said a sizable aftershock that struck during the night had caused no additional damage to the plant.
The rift also highlights the difficulty of a debate in which both sides are forced to extrapolate possible situations with little access to the critical readings of the Interior the reactors.
A large part of the equipment for measuring automated reactors was damaged by explosions in the early days of the crisis or intense radiation since then. Injury for the reactors, as well as high radiation, prevented technicians to make detailed assessments.
The Pentagon has provided aerial surveillance drones to help radiation at the ground level of the monitor at the plant. It is possible that American officials are the basis of their analysis on the data they have collected independently, although representatives of the Obama administration say that they have shared their information with the Japanese.
Hiroko Tabuchi reported from Tokyo and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong. Ken Belson and Andrew Pollack contributed Declaration of Tokyo and Matthew l. Wald of Washington.
没有评论:
发表评论