Fukushima leak emergency: LIVE UPDATES

[ivica]

I see Fukushima nuclear disaster mentioned in several ASIF threads, hence this one.

Looks like something bad is going on there, again.

"Fukushima leak emergency: LIVE UPDATES" opened August 10, 2013 at:

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-leak-emergency-updates-171/

[mabs]

The KI tablets I ordered literally just arrived in the mail

[ivica]

Fukushima disaster & the whole situation (handling of ...) have many similarities with AGW situation & potentially AGW induced disasters.

Is it the test for "Let's Do It Together" approach?

Fukushima apocalypse ...

But as far as Fukushima goes, the only thing that matters now is if world leaders and experts join forces to help fix this situation. Regardless of what agendas they are trying to protect or hide, how much it will cost, the effect on Japan or the world’s economy, or what political chains this will yank.

Can We do it?

[johnm33]

These too are well worth a read, the first has links that suggest evacuating the northern hemisphere if this coming fix fails.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/if-a-doctor-killed-patients-doing-routine-surgery-and-then-tried-to-cover-it-up-would-you-let-him-do-brain-surgery-on-a-vip.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/west-coast-of-north-america-to-be-hit-hard-by-fukushima-radiation.html

[ivica]

Posoljeni zrak i razlivena tinta / Salted Air And Spilt Ink

[Anne]

Who is Christina Consolo anyway, and what are her qualifications? I couldn't find much by googling except her self-bestowed credentials and a lot of people quoting her as an expert. She gets prayed in aid variously by right, left, troofers and religious groups. Not to downplay the seriousness of what's happening at Fukushima but to urge caution in taking what she says as gospel when what we need is expert scientific advice on what's happening there and what the effect on humans could be. What does seem reasonably certain is that Tepco are incompetent and have been downplaying the disaster and that for some incomprehensible reason the Japanese government has been reluctant to get a grip or seek international help.

The BBC's recent Q&A on Fukushima seems a bit more measured than Consolo's widely reported  interview with RT.
 

How dangerous are the levels of radioactivity?
Officials have said that the level of radiation close to this latest leak is extremely high. The water is said to be 8 million times above the safe level for drinking water.

According to Prof Paddy Regan, at the University of Surrey, UK, this leak must be kept in some perspective.

"The numbers reported for dose from these concentrated sources are high - standing there for any more than a few minutes would not be encouraged - but the risks are measurable and the potential doses received should be monitored by workers in the immediate area," he said.

The overall level of radiation that has been emitted by the Fukushima disaster also needs to be kept in perspective. According to Dr Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, US, the release of the radioactive element caesium from Fukushima is between a 10th and a third of what was released from the accident in Chernobyl, and perhaps one fortieth of what was released by nuclear bomb testing globally in the 1950s and 1960s.

But there is this, which is what we're all worried about.

But given that the plant is in an active earthquake zone, there is a danger that further tremors could spill much of the stored water.

"It is a potential; it is realistic, " said Prof Neil Hyatt. "I would be saying to the government and to Tepco to make clear that in the event of an emergency, there are plans in place to deal with this."

Underlying all the water problems is the key issue of what to do with the damaged reactor cores. If these can be dealt with, then the water becomes much less of a problem Tepco had planned to remove some of the 400 tonnes of highly irradiated spent fuel in Reactor No 4 later this year. This won't be easy.

"It is on another scale entirely, a nightmare really," said Prof Hyatt.

But talk of evacuating Japan, let alone the northern hemisphere, is way off in the realms of fantasy, IMHO.

[Laurent]

There is reasons to be concerned !
Every emissions of radioactivity that is above the natural level (the one before 1945) is a risk, there is no threshold that is safe.Like the arctic what does happened in Fukushima does not stay in Fukushima.
The first in line are the Californians, who will control the fishes that are sold ? It is impossible to control all of them !!

This is not a Japanese problem but a world wide problem !

[ccgwebmaster]

There is reasons to be concerned !
Every emissions of radioactivity that is above the natural level (the one before 1945) is a risk, there is no threshold that is safe.Like the arctic what does happened in Fukushima does not stay in Fukushima.
The first in line are the Californians, who will control the fishes that are sold ? It is impossible to control all of them !!

This is not a Japanese problem but a world wide problem !

Er, can you demonstrate that the increase in global radioactivity from Fukushima would even be measurable as a global average?

We are continually exposed to radiation from all sorts of sources - including cosmic rays (a much higher dose when flying), radon gas from granite rocks, even burning coal in coal fired power stations and releasing small amounts of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere as a result. X-rays are routinely used for medical procedures.

Low level radioactivity is thought to be a driver of mutations for evolution (and thus potentially even necessary) and organisms have mechanisms that repair the damage it does to their cells - when it occurs at a low level at least.

Did you know oxygen is toxic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Water is pretty dangerous too, not only can you drown in it, but drinking too much at once will kill you.

We are surrounded by dangerous and potentially lethal things. I don't see people getting excited about the large amounts of potentially lethal air and water.

This is my gripe about how people approach nuclear issues, including radioactivity. They approach it from the same viewpoint you would if you started to panic because the air and water surrounding you are potentially lethal. They are only an issue in certain conditions - and there accordingly should be a burden of proof to explain precisely what the conditions around the radioactivity are that mean we should be worried (globally) about it.

How can people (on average) get so worried and panicky over nuclear issues, which historically have only killed a tiny number of people - and less concerned over major global issues such as resource depletion and climate change?

If one lived nearby, yes - I think one has credible cause for concern. But for the rest of us? You need to support such assertions with some actual science showing the risk of lethal or damaging conditions being created.

If you think trace radioactivity is inherently dangerous at any dose, one should live in a lead coffin (taking care not to consume or touch any lead!), never fly anywhere, live well away from granite, live far away from coal burning power stations, etc.

In reality, the dose makes the poison (per whoever originally said it) and life is a process of accepting risks on a priority basis and making judgement calls. For me - I have an increasingly substantial amount of preparation into preparing for the risks I think climate change will pose - and nothing at all in Fukushima (though once I do more important things, I'd consider potassium iodide tablets and a geiger counter as useful with respect to the collapse of civilisation - the other answer is just to stay away from such places).

Maybe if there should prove to be bioaccumulation in fish stocks over a large area, it would gain the fish some much needed respite from human predation.

As for the long term risks - I can only suggest one looks as cities like Nagasaki and Hiroshima (both still present and inhabited today unless I'm mistaken...) and Chernobyl (some local areas not inhabited and still at high levels of radioactivity) to drive expectations. It isn't as though we haven't been here before... (not to mention the significant amount of above ground nuclear testing that has occurred - which really has measurably raised global radioactivity slightly...)

[deep octopus]

The potential for bioaccumulation in the Pacific marine life is the most tangible concern on a global level, but to what degree I have no idea. Unfortunately, bioaccumulation of mercury and PCBs in local waterways here in the industrial mid-Atlantic of the US are an extant threat with present consequences. In other words, radioactive fish sounds its most terrifying only until you've normalized that threat with other actual marine life threats.

I can't rationalize the seemingly common fears that all this radiation is going to suddenly wash up and obliterate Portland, Oregon. Although, any credible studies that would support such a claim would be worth heeding.

[johnm33]

Further reading here http://hatrickpenryunbound.com/?p=3683.

[Laurent]

Ccgwebmaster :
You see the end of the world everywhere !!!?
I did not say this is the end of the world neither that all the Californians are at risk of imminent death !!!
No, I just care for a bunch of people who will eat some fishes in the years to come and they will die from a cancer later on earlier than what they would normally do that's all.
We are talking of a quantity of radioactivity that is astounding nothing too see with natural level. You don't eat or breath cosmic rays...do you ? The radioactivity when absorbed is much more dangerous even at low level.
Unfortunately radioactivity is without odor so not much people will notice !

the dose makes the poison

That's true for radioactivity but as I said when eaten the doses are much lower.
It is not true for some substances like those that you find in the plastics because they mimic our hormonal system (bisphenol A)(certainly radioactivity has got something to play with that ?)

[wili]

What is the likelihood that the water sources for Tokyo become too radioactive for consumption?

[Vergent]

What is the likelihood that the water sources for Tokyo become too radioactive for consumption?

Japan has only one major desalination plant, and that only supplies 50,000 m^3 / day. That is 1/6th the districts needs.

http://www.f-suiki.or.jp/english/water/product.php

Vergent

[ccgwebmaster]

Ccgwebmaster :
You see the end of the world everywhere !!!?

No, but in many instances I've encountered people who think Fukushima might be, or that play it up a lot more than it really merits.

No, I just care for a bunch of people who will eat some fishes in the years to come and they will die from a cancer later on earlier than what they would normally do that's all.

Frankly, given how much damage has been done to the sea by systemic overfishing, I'd be happy for the fish if bioaccumulation stopped people from eating some of them. We've already seriously degraded (and in some respects destroyed) the marine habitat. We routinely expose ourselves to numerous other cancer risks, in some cases by active choice of the individual or society. I can't therefore express much concern for any additional risk from a small increase in radioactivity.

We are talking of a quantity of radioactivity that is astounding nothing too see with natural level. You don't eat or breath cosmic rays...do you ? The radioactivity when absorbed is much more dangerous even at low level.
Unfortunately radioactivity is without odor so not much people will notice !

the dose makes the poison

That's true for radioactivity but as I said when eaten the doses are much lower.
It is not true for some substances like those that you find in the plastics because they mimic our hormonal system (bisphenol A)(certainly radioactivity has got something to play with that ?)

It's more complicated than this. If you ingest (or inhale) a radioactive source the seriousness of that compared to just having it lying around nearby very much depends on how it is decaying. If it is emitting alpha particles (or beta particles) then yes - eating or inhaling it is a rather bad idea and will do a lot more harm. If it's emitting gamma radiation, I don't see that it really makes much practical difference - gamma radiation is capable of going all the way through a human body with relatively limited interaction.

If the radioactive isotope in question is one that can be taken up by the body and incorporated into bones (eg strontium 90 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90) or iodine 131 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131) that can accumulate in the thyroid - then yes, you have increased concerns again (the scope for the lungs or body to remove it is taken away).

Even in those two examples quoted above - the risk of iodine 131 is clearly much easier to manage than strontium 90 (look at the difference in half life - iodine 131 will decay much faster to safe levels even following a relatively large release than strontium 90). That has a big effect on dispersion and how far spread they can be before decaying to safer levels. That said - dispersion will in itself tend to reduce the effective radioactivity by spreading the material out over a larger area.

As for cosmic rays - they are energetic enough to punch through nearly anything - including the whole atmosphere. If you went deep enough underground to escape them, you'd be experiencing increased radioactivity due to the natural radioactivity of the earth itself and no better off.

One last time - my big objection to how people react around Fukushima is that people tend to jump on a bandwagon about how bad it is or will be with limited scientific justification or details.

Here are some examples of the sort of details I think we need - and that would make for a far more informed and accurate discussion in my view:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130611084207.htm

The above link refers to strontium 90 which we have identified is capable of bioaccumulation and has a relatively long half life and therefore is going to hang around for quite a long time. This would seem like a concern to me - certainly it would be important to monitor how much was being released and where it was ending up. The figures mentioned in the link do not seem sufficient to me to merit global concern, but if concentrated in fish in the area might restrict the seafood people could safely eat (assuming the usual conservative levels of safety are applied*)

http://atomicinsights.com/how-much-i-131-and-cs-137-was-released-into-atmosphere-at-fukushima/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223131.2013.772449#tabModule

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011.html

From the last link:

Altogether, we estimate that 6.4 TBq of 137Cs, or 19% of the total fallout until 20 April, were deposited over Japanese land areas, while most of the rest fell over the North Pacific Ocean. Only 0.7 TBq, or 2% of the total fallout were deposited on land areas other than Japan.

If 2% of the total fallout is on land areas other than Japan - and most of Japan is not (yet) an abandoned radioactive wasteland with ten times as much (presumably concentrated onto a smaller land area), how much to worry about so far?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html#.Uhawlz95KeY

I remember Chernobyl - I was a (fairly young) child at the time, living in Scotland. I didn't really register what had happened at the time (my family didn't even have a TV) but I remember being told not to catch rain drops in my mouth because of it. There were concerns about milk (from dairy) for some time and my parents got powdered milk for a little while on account of that. Some sheep in Scotland were declared off limits for human consumption (and indeed some of these weren't declared safe again for a couple decades). I think it's fair to say the only people who really directly suffered were farmers who had their animals declared unsafe for human consumption.

So with all due respect, and I'm sure other people on this forum can say exactly the same thing - but I've already had the experience of living downwind from a major nuclear disaster - and while Fukushima might be releasing more radioactive material than Chernobyl - Chernobyl was arguably worse in that the material went into the atmosphere rather than the ocean and the downwind area included a large swathe of continental Europe.

There are some good fall out maps here, looks like:
http://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/extended-fukushima-fallout-maps-sept-29-mext-release-fukushima-vs-chernobyl-2/

I'd like to refer specifically to:


So in Scotland - I was potentially living in one of those 10-40 KBq/m^2 areas... (light orange). Consider that for a moment - then work out what 2% of Fukushima dispersed across whatever land surfaces outside of Japan it has come down on looks like?

Here is a comparison with Fukushima to scale (with the caveat that it only seems to be covering caesium 137):


The actual land fall out from Fukushima would appear to be greatly restricted geographically. Dispersing radioactive material into the oceans has the advantage that it will dilute it far more as it can mix into the volume, versus dusting the land where it will remain near to the surface of the area it falls onto.

Why, oh why, can't people get as concerned about climate change and carbon dioxide as they do about nuclear technologies? (a general complaint, I appreciate the vast majority here are fairly up to speed on climate change risks)

* I'd like to note that with radioactivity, for some reason, people seem to usually manage to apply very conservative levels of safety, very different from climate change. A worker in a nuclear plant can use up their permitted work dosage for a year by flying with their badge on. If even a tiny increase in cancer is a basis for setting a safe limit - the safe limit is still very conservative, especially compared to that we seem to be playing with for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

[Anne]

ccgw, thank you. You said it much better than me. And this

Why, oh why, can't people get as concerned about climate change and carbon dioxide as they do about nuclear technologies? (a general complaint, I appreciate the vast majority here are fairly up to speed on climate change risks)

And this

I'd like to note that with radioactivity, for some reason, people seem to usually manage to apply very conservative levels of safety, very different from climate change. A worker in a nuclear plant can use up their permitted work dosage for a year by flying with their badge on. If even a tiny increase in cancer is a basis for setting a safe limit - the safe limit is still very conservative, especially compared to that we seem to be playing with for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

[Artful Dodger]

August 21

02:59 GMT: Eighteen children from the Fukushima Prefecture have been found to have thyroid cancer, while 25 others are suspected of having the illness, Japan’s NHK website reported. Medical examinations are being conducted on all 360,000 children from the area who were aged 18 and younger at the time of the 2011 accident. The findings were reported by a prefectural panel, which is looking into the impact of radiation on those living in the affected area.

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-leak-emergency-updates-171/

Note that all of the radioactive Iodine-131 would have vanished by now, due to it's short 8-day half life. These cancers are due to ingestion of iodine (ie: drinking contaminated water) while the reactor was still critical, or shortly after, say 30 days or so.

That's assuming the reactor is not still critical. Gamma burst info is held close to the vest in Japan. And you know what they say about assuming... 

[anonymous]

I thought this radiation dose chart fits quite well here: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ + a blog from the author: http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/04/26/radiation-chart-update/

[Laurent]

Yes I agree, Fukushima is way down the climate problem we have but it is not a reason to downplay it (it is different), at least for the respect of the people who use to live their or are still living in fukushima town with high radioactivity (measured not calculated).
Japanese are eating a lot of sea products !!!

The first Japanese Cosmonaute in Space : Toyohiro Akiyama

[Laurent]

Some info on Tchernobyl (yes I know it is not Fukushima...)
http://kottke.org/13/08/the-trees-of-chernobyl
I have got some infos about Fukushima (not about the recent accident) but nearly all of it is from a French organisation.
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=english&page=index
English version is badly translated !
So If you want me to post french videos or text just ask !

[JimD]

Re the dumping of radioactive waste water in the ocean.

Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts says the Kanda estimate is probably the best he is aware of, and closely matches figures released on 21 August by Tepco, of 0.1 to 0.6 TBq per month for caesium-137 and 0.1 to 0.3 for strontium.

He points out that the north Pacific contains an estimated 100,000 TBq of caesium-137 from H-bomb testing in the 1960s, so the fallout from Fukushima is adding only a fraction of that. Total discharges from the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK released 39,000 TBq over 40 years, he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24100-should-fukushimas-radioactive-water-be-dumped-at-sea.html#.UhkKTUnn9jp

[wili]

L, French is fine with me. Hell, they been posting in German, Dutch, and who knows what else over on the blog.

[Laurent]

Good site about Fukushima :
http://www.yonaoshi311.com/#/EN/home

French readers :
http://groupes.sortirdunucleaire.org/Nucleaire-et-crise-de-la?origine_sujet=LI201305
Some of the links in the previous newsletters are broken !
If you want to have some information the better is to register to get the news :
http://sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=sinformer&page=listes

[johnm33]

Also a good link for updates.  http://fukushima-diary.com/category/dnews/

[JimD]

An assessment from:
 

Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He is the coordinator and lead author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

While the amount of radioactivity released into the environment in March 2011 has been estimated as between 10 percent and 50 percent of the fallout from the Chernobyl accident, the 400,000 tons of contaminated water stored on the Fukushima site contain more than 2.5 times the amount of radioactive cesium dispersed during the 1986 catastrophe in Ukraine......

....By 2015, over 600,000 tons of highly radioactive liquid are expected to have accumulated in temporary tanks, some underground, many bolted rather than welded together, and none ever conceived to hold this kind of liquid over the long term. The dangerous fluid is pumped around in four kilometer long makeshift tubes, many of them made of vinyl rather than steel, and plagued with numerous leaks in the winter when the above ground lines get hit by frost...

.....so far, the main stumbling block appears to be the “pattern of denial” in Japan.....

What could go wrong?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/30/why-fukushima-is-worse-than-you-think/?hpt=hp_c5

[JimD]

New tank leaks found over the last 2 days separate from earlier 300 ton leak.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/01/world/asia/japan-fukushima-radiation-spike/index.html

[JimD]

Interesting read on the status at reactor #4

"The Crisis at Fukushima's Unit 4 Demands a Global Take-Over"

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/20-1

[wili]

Anyone hear if there was any damage or new leakage from the 5.3 (5.8 ac. to The Weather Station) quake that just hit the region?

[JimD]

Since there is no independent reporting from the site, or from the Japanese government, we would not be likely to find out for some time even if it did cause additional leakage.

[SteveMDFP]

Anyone hear if there was any damage or new leakage from the 5.3 (5.8 ac. to The Weather Station) quake that just hit the region?

According to USGS, no substantial earthquakes in that area of Japan since the 19th
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22feed%22%3A%227day_m45%22%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Atrue%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22local%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B3.7765593098768635%2C-243.54492187500003%5D%2C%5B50.680797145321655%2C-192.83203125%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%7B%22plates%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%7B%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22list%22%3Atrue%2C%22settings%22%3Atrue%2C%22help%22%3Afalse%7D%7D

[wili]

I guess "just" was a bit off. Yes, it was the Ishikawa quake of the 19th officially at 5.3 at that site that I was referring to. I thought releases could sometimes be detected from afar, and that perhaps someone here knew of some site that kept track of such things. But, yeah, news from the immediate region is pretty well controlled, it seems.

[Laurent]

Guess what ? Yes an other leak !

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201310030067

[johnm33]

http://fukushima-diary.com/category/dnews/ and from the 'you couldn't make this up' department:-(  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-15/step-aside-obamacare-helpline-here-fukushimas-latest-mascot-fukuppy plus current storm http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-15/radioactivetyphoonado-watch-once-decade-storm-batters-fukushima  with the site waterlogged this could be the straw.

[Laurent]

Japan: Typhoon Wipha causes more nuclear contamination at Fukushima
http://www.euronews.com/2013/10/17/japan-typhoon-wipha-causes-more-nuclear-contamination-at-fukishima/

[wili]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/18/national/water-radiation-soars-at-fukushima-no-1/#.UmVGHySkCxk

Water radiation soars at Fukushima nuclear plant – Strontium readings spike 6,500-fold in one day

   

Radiation levels in groundwater under Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant are soaring, Tepco said Friday after taking samples from an observation well.

    Tepco said 400,000 becquerels per liter of beta ray-emitting substances such as strontium were detected in water sampled Thursday from the well located some 15 meters from a storage tank that leaked about 300 tons of highly radioactive water in August.

    The level of becquerels, a record high for water in that well, was up 6,500-fold from the 61 becquerels found Wednesday.

    Tepco was planning to pump groundwater up from different wells about 100 meters from the leaky tank for release into the Pacific before the water flows into the damaged reactor buildings and becomes heavily contaminated with radioactive materials.

    But that plan appears in jeopardy because the sharp increase in the levels of radioactive materials in the observation well suggest the radioactive groundwater is spreading.

[JimD]

One definitely gets the impression that there is some further disaster coming our way from this place.  Things seem to be slowly getting away from them.

[ritter]

One definitely gets the impression that there is some further disaster coming our way from this place.  Things seem to be slowly getting away from them.

I don't think we have the technology to contain this. It's only a matter of time before it contaminates whatever aquifer it sits on. What a mess.

[wili]

The one thing that should not surprise anyone is that there will be a series of increasingly bad 'surprises' coming up from this ongoing disaster.

[johnm33]

ritter, i'm pretty sure three cores melted out and 'escaped' china syndrome style within the first few weeks, and caused underground explosions like no earthquakes the locals had ever felt before, http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/fukushima-citizen-recent-earthquake-different/  so aquifer contamination is the least of my concerns, losing the pacific as a safe place to fish seems increasingly plausible. Not quite off topic,  http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is- broken/

[ritter]

John, agreed. As no one really knows, I was trying not to speculate (and I really know nothing about nuclear power), although the meltdown/out seems probable.

[mati]

ritter, i'm pretty sure three cores melted out and 'escaped' china syndrome style within the first few weeks, and caused underground explosions like no earthquakes the locals had ever felt before, http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/fukushima-citizen-recent-earthquake-different/  so aquifer contamination is the least of my concerns, losing the pacific as a safe place to fish seems increasingly plausible. Not quite off topic,  http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is- broken/

Yes reactors 1-3 had a core meltdown, but no loss of containment.  The explosions were NOT underground but in the buildings covering the reactors (not containment buildings) where a build up of hydrogen caused a hydrogen explosion.  The amount of radioactivity let go by Fukushima and even Cherynoble have NO comparison to the vast amounts of radiation inflicted upon the Pacific and even ME by the atomospheric tests by various countries in the Pacific, and by the U.S. in Nevada (of all places) I'm sure i have many radiation nucliotides in my teeth due to all these tests.  The hysteria over Fukushima and Cherynobl is i think fueld by the press and fiction writers.  NO deaths by radiation at Fukushima, and only 100 or so in Cherynoble and they were the sacrifical lambs who went into the reactor to help seal it off.
look up Deaths per year in coal mining, or oil exploration etc... No i am not saying that radiation is not nasty, just that the safety features have worked welll in protecting people.

now you may say well what about the land?  true, but why are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? what gives? 

I just think that people need to read more about radiation and what problems arise from it.  The horror stories about the results or radiation just do not follow...

[mati]

Some links to justify my assertions:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/media-gallery/image/testing/index.htm
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ramsar-natural-radioactivity/ramsar.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10621
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

[mati]

also people should refer to this web site:

http://www.unscear.org/

[wili]

mati, I would ask you not to use this site for pro-nuke dis-information.

For one thing, the detonation of nuclear weapons is very different from a major nuclear incident at a plant. In the case of the former, most of the material is blown away from this site, and most of the deaths are instantaneous or in the immediate days. The opposite is true in a major incident in a nuclear facility. The deaths accumulate over a long period and can only be traced by careful studies (which pro-nukers would never fund and are quick to poopoo).

Here are some stories to contemplate:

http://enenews.com/fukushima-doctor-thyroid-cancer-found-in-over-40-children-this-is-related-to-the-nuclear-disaster-physician-leukemia-cases-to-increase-in-next-few-months-audio

Cancer found in over 40 children… We believe it’s related to the nuclear disaster — Physician: Leukemia cases to increase in next few months

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/15/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-cleanup


Plummeting morale at Fukushima Daiichi as nuclear cleanup takes its toll:

Staff on the frontline of operation plagued by health problems and fearful about the future, insiders say


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/us-japan-fukushima-strontium-idUSBRE99K01B20131021

Radioactive water leaks at Fukushima as operator underestimates rainfall

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-japan-nuclear-20131020,0,1961323.story#axzz2iPXA20f0

Fukushima fishermen watch recovery slip away:
Their lives are back in limbo because of the massive radioactive water leakage discovered at the tsunami-damaged nuclear plant.

[ggelsrinc]

ritter, i'm pretty sure three cores melted out and 'escaped' china syndrome style within the first few weeks, and caused underground explosions like no earthquakes the locals had ever felt before, http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/fukushima-citizen-recent-earthquake-different/  so aquifer contamination is the least of my concerns, losing the pacific as a safe place to fish seems increasingly plausible. Not quite off topic,  http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is- broken/

Yes reactors 1-3 had a core meltdown, but no loss of containment.  The explosions were NOT underground but in the buildings covering the reactors (not containment buildings) where a build up of hydrogen caused a hydrogen explosion.  The amount of radioactivity let go by Fukushima and even Cherynoble have NO comparison to the vast amounts of radiation inflicted upon the Pacific and even ME by the atomospheric tests by various countries in the Pacific, and by the U.S. in Nevada (of all places) I'm sure i have many radiation nucliotides in my teeth due to all these tests.  The hysteria over Fukushima and Cherynobl is i think fueld by the press and fiction writers.  NO deaths by radiation at Fukushima, and only 100 or so in Cherynoble and they were the sacrifical lambs who went into the reactor to help seal it off.
look up Deaths per year in coal mining, or oil exploration etc... No i am not saying that radiation is not nasty, just that the safety features have worked welll in protecting people.

now you may say well what about the land?  true, but why are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? what gives? 

I just think that people need to read more about radiation and what problems arise from it.  The horror stories about the results or radiation just do not follow...

I have read about radiation, nuclear weapons, nuclear reactor designs and the isotopes involved.

Can you provide the mass of the isotopes those Fukushima reactors contain? Radiation doesn't equal radiation, each radioactive isotope is unique. Since we all should know nuclear reactors also store spent fuel, is comparing them to the earliest nuclear bombs a fair comparison? Nuclear bombs of the atomic variety only need critical mass and nuclear reactors contain much more radioactive materials than isotope selected critical mass U or Pu needed to make an atomic weapon. It's those short lived compared to the rest byproducts of nuclear fission that are the real killers, because of their unique chemistry and the biology of organisms that absorb them.

I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm pro-Thorium MSRs. They can't meltdown and it's very difficult to use them to make nuclear weapons. They don't require expensive confinement and don't have the engineering and hydrogen problems our present dinosaur nuclear industry has. Our present nuclear industry rivals fossil fuels in it's stupidity and is the product of making weapons during the Cold War. They are designed to make fissionable material and not safe electricity. Thorium MSRs also clean up their own nuclear wastes and make fluoride salts that are easy to store. You could shoot a hole in an operating Thorium MSR reactor with very small amounts of radiation leaking to the environment. They are designed using diluted fuel with freeze plugs that melt when power is lost, removing the materials to safe confinement. They are gravity dependent, so I don't see them used in space as safely as on Earth. Their neutron efficiency is remarkable and by the way, there is 4 times as much Thorium on Earth than Uranium and it's isotopes are pure. Certain designs can also get rid of our present nuclear wastes.

Try visiting and reading this report dated JANUARY 1, 1968 and read the full text!

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4093364

You can also get the basics from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

That wiki article mentions a few problems I've investigated the possible reactor design and I don't see the problems as bad as they list, this isn't 50 or so years ago. Alvin Weinberg was the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory when the first two commercial nuclear reactor designs were completed and spent a good portion of his later life trying to get the government to finance Thorium MSR development during the days when hydrogen bomb triggers were needed. He wanted to make safe electricity and not nuclear weapons.

...And, by the way, these are just off the top of my head comments about Thorium MSRs and aren't a complete list I have prepared. It isn't that hard to find with a minimum of research. I had the Oak Ridge study in my favorites and knew there was a wiki kickoff to give basic information, which I investigated long ago, so you can start the basic research there. I thought about creating a thread on this subject, but figured there wouldn't be enough interest. Too many believe it's so easy to change a vast system providing our energy needs and pretend doing so is so simple. It just proves they haven't examined the facts. I support all efforts to be environmentally friendly and try to be realistic, which includes economics. I haven't found any one size fits all solution, but some think they have. I don't picture nuclear physics being their subject.

Is it that hard to understand why nuclear scares the hell out of people? 

[mati]

mati, I would ask you not to use this site for pro-nuke dis-information.

Oh So Sorry.
I thought we were all here to discuss and learn.
I thought I would add some facts to the discussion.
As far as i know, none of the information i provided is false.

[ggelsrinc]

mati, I would ask you not to use this site for pro-nuke dis-information.

Oh So Sorry.
I thought we were all here to discuss and learn.
I thought I would add some facts to the discussion.
As far as i know, none of the information i provided is false.

We are here to discuss and learn. It's my nature to focus on something I don't agree with, when I think it doesn't match the facts and I'm not cut out to be a diplomat. I've learned in life to keep my points simple and not try to be verbose. I value the understanding of others more than my vanity.

Let's discuss and learn from this simple analogy! Let's say I design and make the greatest nuclear reactor the world has ever seen, which totally solves our pollution problems. Is it a good idea for me to go up to that nuclear reactor and give it a hug?

I didn't find your comments about radiation factual, because radiation is a very old concept. Even the similar types of radiation behave differently as they interact with the biochemistry of life. If I'm going to be exposed to Uranium or Plutonium, I'll take the Uranium and live a little longer. Comparing a nuclear reactor to the our first firecracker nuclear weapons on a basis of they have radiation is nonsense and not facts.

I welcome your discussion, so let's discuss the facts. I can fully understand how something people can't see, but know will kill them scares the hell out of people. I don't expect the average person to understand nuclear physics and I expect them to react with doubt in my words, if I tell them things are so safe and history proves they aren't safe. Just because people have trust doesn't make them fools. It's my obligation using my mouth to maintain trust and not the ear of the listener.

Let's discuss and learn!   

[JimD]

Magnitude 7.3 earthquake just hit off the coast.  Tsunami warning in effect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/japan-earthquake-fukushima-prefecture_n_4164181.html

[wili]

What gge said.

Also, over a thousand people died that were evacuated from Fukushima area. Given the general chaos of the situation and the extremes under which the country was struggling, probably some such number was inevitable given such a massive evacuation.

Those people died because Fukushima was judged to be too dangerous to be near. Would no one have died if they just stayed in place? Is that really what anyone here wants to claim? If not, then the evacuation was necessary to avoid further loss of life. The Fukushima melt down killed those people. Many more would have died from exposure to radiation and to the radioactive elements in the vicinity; because they were evacuated to avoid massive loss of life from that direct exposure, some died in the process of relocation and living in the horrid conditions that followed.

So crowing that no one died directly of exposure to radiation rings a bit...hollow. To the extent that that is true, it is because nearly a half million people were forcibly removed from their homes, belongings, neighborhoods, pets...most probably forever. Not a wonderful endorsement for the safety of nuclear power plants, imvho.

Meanwhile, the fiasco continues:

Dismantling the Fukushima Daiichi plant will require maintaining a job pool of at least 12,000 workers just through 2015, according to Tepco's blueprint. That compares to just over 8,000 registered workers now. In recent months, some 6,000 have been working inside the plant.

Raising wages could draw more workers but that has not happened, the data shows. Tepco is under pressure to post a profit in the year to March 2014 under a turnaround plan Japan's top banks recently financed with $5.9 billion in new loans and refinancing. In 2011.

With wages flat and workers scarce, labor brokers have stepped into the gap, recruiting people whose lives have reached a dead end or who have trouble finding a job outside the disaster zone.

For years, the industry has rounded up itinerant workers known as "nuclear gypsies" from the Sanya neighborhood of Tokyo and Kamagasaki in Osaka, areas known for large numbers of homeless men.

In extreme cases, brokers have been known to "buy" workers by paying off their debts. The workers are then forced to work until they pay off their new bosses for sharply reduced wages and under conditions that make it hard for them to speak out against abuses, labor activists and workers in Fukushima said.

The Fukushima project has magnified those problems. When Japan's parliament approved a bill to fund decontamination work in August 2011, the law did not apply existing rules regulating the construction industry. As a result, contractors working on decontamination have not been required to disclose information on management or undergo any screening.

That meant anyone could become a nuclear contractor overnight. Many small companies without experience rushed to bid for contracts and then often turned to brokers to round up the manpower, according to employers and workers.

Tepco does not publish average hourly wages in the plant. Workers interviewed by Reuters said wages could be as low as around $6 an hour, but usually average around $12 an hour - about a third lower than the average in Japan's construction industry.

Workers for subcontractors in the most-contaminated area outside the plant are supposed to be paid an additional government-funded hazard allowance of about $100 per day, although many report it has not been paid.

Yousuke Minaguchi, a lawyer who has represented Fukushima workers, says Japan's government has turned a blind eye to the problem of worker exploitation. "On the surface, they say it is illegal. But in reality they don't want to do anything. By not punishing anyone, they can keep using a lot of workers cheaply."

http://news.yahoo.com/special-report-help-wanted-fukushima-low-pay-high-050626106--sector.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CWM8WpSzGkAJRDQtDMD

Thanks to Cid at Malthusia Forums for this link, who adds:

No need to worry. They have the lowest paid unskilled homeless indentured slaves working to fix the problem.

It's as if they are just putting on a show but aren't really doing anything. They have subcontracted it out several times over, thereby avoiding direct blame, and have moved on.

[bligh8]

Agreed Fukushima was horrible and still is. However it seems the Japanese have short memories so much so that this disaster was largely foreseeable. In 1923, not even a hundred years ago the event of the day was the Great Kanto Earthquake, at the time considered the worst natural disaster ever to strike quake-prone Japan. The initial jolt was followed a few minutes later by a 40-foot-high tsunami. A series of towering waves swept away thousands of people. Then came fires, roaring through the wooden houses of Yokohama and Tokyo, the capital, burning everything—and everyone—in their path. The death toll would be about 140,000, including 44,000 who had sought refuge near Tokyo’s Sumida River in the first few hours, only to be immolated by a freak pillar of fire known as a “dragon twist.” The temblor destroyed two of Japan’s largest cities and traumatized the nation.

Today Japans society has reconciled with it's history and society is paying in ways previously thought impossible. 

My nephew has just returned from Tokyo his second trip in the last several months. A brilliant young man who just quit working for Google (who was paying him a ton of money) for reasons I suspect were philosophical. He stayed in Japan for several months and I think he's returning there. As Japan is the new "cool"....no pun intended.

I've heard science guy's say "the North Pacific is ok as of now"....but future leanings suggest one might stay out of the water East of Hawaii past 2015.

[JimD]

What incompetence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/japan-fukushima-removal-idUSL4N0IZ0TR20131114