back to article Fukushima fearmongers are stealing our Jetsons future

As the situation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant slowly winds down, the salient facts remain the same as they have been throughout: nobody has suffered or will suffer any radiological health consequences. Economic damage and inconvenience resulting from the quake's effects on nuclear power have been significant, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Apart from that...

      Nationalization means there's some guys from State who run those machines. Yep, that's gonna work for sure....

      But then again, expectations would be lower, so, overall, things would be subjectively better.

    2. Highlander

      The trouble is that the 'market' is inherently

      short sighted and stupid. The 'market' has become self destructive because of ever shortening horizons making it difficult, if not impossible, for any long term investments to pay off because the 'market' doesn't like the lack of short term returns.

      The effect of this is that the 'market' group mind acts with great stupidity because it is inherently biased against long term anything.

      Nationalization means that the company is effectively bought by the government because it represents a strategic need (energy) for the country, and the company simply cannot be allowed to fail because of one incident. Personally, I'm not a fan of nationalization, but on the other hand, strategic resources, infrastructure and services that are nationally important are not always best served by the commercial world. the city I live in demonstrates that perfectly. the city's infrastructure is falling to bits, but the lowest bidder method of selecting vendors to repair/replace that crumbling infrastructure simply results in even more shoddy work that falls to bits less than a decade later. This is true of roads, sewers, water supply, gas and power. power is supplied via overhead cables strung on wooden poles. every time there is a strong wind, thousands lose power, and a big storm costs 10's of thousands their power, sometimes for days. I've had more power outages in a single year here than I ever experienced in my decades of living in the UK. This area is susceptible to bad storms, and underground cabling would help tremendously with the problem, but that costs more, so it's not done. That is the 'market' at work.

      1. Andydaws

        Highlander

        Now here, we part company.

        My career's spanned pre- and post-privatisation days in the energy and utilities sector. And TBH, the quality of investment (for want of a better term) bears no resemblance over that change.

        I first worked with the old CEGB back in the late 1970s. At that time, the main investment programmes were the building of the AGRs - and what a staggeringly good technology choice that turned out to be - and oil-fired plants like Ince B and (in Scotland) Inverkip. Neither was a good use of limited investment funds, and worse, it meant the industry was bedevilled by a "famine and feast" cycle, depending just how deep the Treasury was in the s**t for money in any given year. Decisions were far more driven by political expediency than commercial or technical factors.

        We had idiocies like propping up both NEI Parsons and GEC's turbogenerator business, basically (in one case) to protect a safe seat, and in the other to curry favour in a marginal. The end result was that we ended up with two turbogenerator businesses to small, and undercapitalised to compete worldwide.

        The "short termism" argument is misplaced. What tends to happen when an infrastructure business is in state hands isn't greater focus on the long term (of course, not, the electoral cycle is 5 years), rather waste in delivery just goes up.

        There's a lovely example in the water sector. You'd assume, having no shortage of (state) funds, and low local costs that Northern Ireland Water would be more efficient at delivering high quality capital programmes than any of the English firms - but the opposite is the case. In fact, comparing "like for like" schemes NIW has to spend nearly twice as much, even according to the regulator appointed by the NI government.

        What you've missed is who tends to buy infrastrucutre firms. It's mostly bodies like pension funds - who treat them as a financial asset. And, of course, their value as a financial asset is based on their ability to generate .long term, but reliable cashflows.

        1. Highlander

          Andy, you're right - in the UK, at least...

          ...at least in my experience. However having lived on the other side of the pond for a decade now, I have seen the other extreme which is where the lowest bidder is selected to minimize costs, and short-termism is literally the prevalent thought process regarding any investment. the example I used is a personal one, but it's very unfortunately true.

          I don't blame the market for the original, now crumbling infrastructure, but when my local utility pays more attention to the short term profit cycle for Wall Street than it does replacing the dilapidated overhead wires and poles, it starts to have a negative impact on me as a customer. I don't have any choice of electrical supply, I dare say that's true for 95+% of the Us residential population. In that situation, the market (supply/demand) fails to operate because there is a captive customer base with no way to influence the supplier since they are sole supplier. They are solely responsible for the upkeep of the infrastructure as well, and there is precious little regulation and so I and all my fellow consumers simply have to wait and hope that the utility does it's work.

          It's in that scenario where the market simply doesn't operate that - to me - some level f government intervention is warranted to ensure minimum levels of service. After all, electricity is a vital strategic need, and if the utility has no competition what is their incentive to do better if the government does not take some kind of action to regulate them?

          I understand your point and suspect that we are actually closer in view than you may suspect, it's just that right now my personal experience is somewhat differenet because of the somewhat different market and regulatory environment.

  1. Andydaws

    Interesting where this discussion leads..

    I posted earlier, noting that the legal lmit for Fukushima discharges was apparently 40Bq/litre of water. Now, a litre of water weighs 1KG, so that's 40Bq/KG.

    Then, I was doing a little reading on the radiation releases inherent in the use of coal - and found this.

    "UNSCEAR (1993) gives 3645 Bq/kg average in flyash. The above US data at 15% ash give 1200 Bq/kg in flyash. Dale (1996) quotes CSIRO figures of 2630 and 3200 Bq/kg from a high-ash NSW coal. Cooper (2003) gives up to 1500 Bq/kg for flyash and up to 570 Bq/kg for bottom ash in NSW. "

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Naturally-occurring_radioactive_materials_(NORM)#gen1

    An interesting comparison. Fukushima is allowed to put 40Bq/Kg material into the environment in limited quantities (and very little per GWh generated).

    Coal plants routinely dump 2600BQ/Kg material in very large quantities - flyash production is in the order of 50 tonnes GWh. So a station like Eggborough, in the UK produces about 100 tonnes/hour.

  2. Andydaws

    One thought that occurs is....

    is there a better alternative to the use of zirconium in fuel cladding?

    Zirconium was originally picked because it had a number of desireable characterisitcs - it's absorbs ver few neutrons, it's not reasonable mechanical strength, and it's thermal conductivity is good. It's also got a reasonable melting poit.

    But it's got the nasty issue of generating hydrogen when it's hot in the presence of steam/water.

    However, it's not the only option. The British AGRs used stainless steel fuel cans. It's as good or better than zirconium from the thermal perspective, it's quite a lot stronger, and holds it's strength to higher temperatures. The downside is, it absrobs more neutrons - as a result, the AGRs ended up running about the same level of enrichment as a PWR or BWR (2-3%), rather than the unenriched uranium that was used in their Magnox predecessors.

    The good news is it behaves very well in water - it doesn't produce hydrogen in reaction.

    I haven't got time to do the number-crunching to work out how enriched LWR fuel would have to be is stainless clad, but I'd be surprised if it ran over 4-5%. It'd maybe worth a thought....or perhaps there are better ways to passivate zirconium - perhaps an electroplated layer?

  3. tom 24

    Followup?

    I noticed that Mr. Page's series of articles defending nuclear power stopped. When is there going to be another followup?

    I actually was influenced positively by the previous articles, but I'm curious what takeaways *he* will have in light of new developments. Most of his points are still valid, but the current situation highlights how his analysis sidesteps the negative consequences of failure. Risk management involves both 1) risk, and 2) consequences. Considering that we are a long way from the worst place scenario, the consequences still look, how can I say this, yucky?

    We need another update on the situation from a Page perspective. Don't wuss out; follow through!

    1. Gerardo Korndorffer
      Pint

      RE: Followup

      I'd rather have an article facing facts like:

      - We need nuclear power.

      - How mistakes are going to be corrected.

  4. Highlander

    And the moronic fear mongering continues - NYT...

    The New York Times put up an article based on their interpretation of an 11 day old report, but posted it as news today as if the content of the (unpublished and therefore unverifiable report) were current.

    It's truly sickening to watch the scale of xenophobia in action and the tone of the comments on the article should be enough to give any thinking person cause to pause.

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html

    The gist here is that a very pessimistic assessment was performed and a written report was given 11 days ago, and the NYT decided to print a story based on a pessimistic reading of an already pessimistic report to make some baseless and scary claims about the actual events at Fukushima Daiichi. It's utterly reprehensible that they'd run this story in this way, it's so far removed from the actual situation, but it creates an impression among NYT readers and those reading it second had elsewhere or hearing about it on the news that things are going from bad to worse. Talk of re-criticality and molten fuel melting through the containment. Yet in reality the temperature in each of the three scram'd reactors is stable or decreasing. pressure inside the drywells is stable and sensors in the reactors themselves are functioning and registering temperatures a far cry fro those necessary for anything inside to be molten.

    The NYT ought to be thoroughly ashamed of itself for pandering to superstitious, xenophobic fear-mongers.

    Also I constantly see people bitching that TEPCO and the Japanese government are silent. They are not. Go look at TEPCOs website, you can radiation data from the monitoring sites in and around the powerplant. Much data is available via the IAEA as well, and you can find statements and reports all over the website for TEPCO. The silence I see is the silence of any competent analysis of what is happening at Fukushima. That's one of the best things about these articles of Lewis' they bring in a lot of knowledgeable commenters who do their research and don't simply speak from a position of ignorance and fear. Once again my thanks to AndyDaws for his continued highly competent information and analysis, it's not just andy of course, there are others, but Andy has perhaps been most vociferous. Either way, I hope that people continue to look at the real information rather than the scare stories elsewhere.

    1. Andydaws

      For what it's worth

      I've managed to lay my hands on a copy of the NRC report that the NYT seems to think it's got exclusive access to.

      I'll have a read and summarise this evening.

      Also, highlander, there's a good bit to say about the impact of regulatory models, and why the US and UK end up in different places re investment, but this isn't the right place.

      1. Highlander

        I'll look forward to that summary

        Regarding regulatory models, you're right. My only excuse is that just this week a line of fast moving thunderstorms knocked out power to major parts of my city for the 4th of 5th time this year alone. It is extremely frustrating. My apologies.

        1. Andydaws

          The irony is

          contrary to what you might expect, the US regulatory model has far more direct intervention tah the UK one, even for the T&D area.

          Under the model run by most states (excepting TExas and one or two others), individual investment cases have to be approaved by the regulator (rather than just setting a target and an overall 5-year plan) - and most regulators seem to work on the assumption that any investment is just a way to rip-off the consumer.

          I've done work with National Grid in the UK and for their US subsidiaries. In the UK, Grid agrees an overall investment programme every 5 years, as part of it'ss pricing cycle. In the US, it has to go to the (individual) state regulators with details of each individual investment programme, and ask for prices to be asdjusted - and politicians love to intervene. There's no better campaiging platform for (say) a State Senator than blocking a rate rise.

          Where it gets especially silly is where schemes affect more than one state - then, agreement's needed from all the regulators, who have no cooperative framework. I've seen cases where NG (US) put forward proposal to reinforce distribution in the parts of New York State which it serves, only to see the feeder lines blocked by New Jersey, on the grounds they don't benefit NJ customers.

          It's a barking system.

          1. Highlander

            Very barking indeed

            I live in TN and as I said, I live in a city, and we have had more power outages - on average - per year during each and every year, than I can remember in my entire lifetime in the UK. I lived in the UK 3 times longer than the US. Whatever the reason, local infrastructure here is decidedly sub-par.

            You summarized the issue nicely, that local politician intervention sounds like it's the source of the problem, much like many of the slightly crackpot things that go on here - thanks local politics and a system that has us electing everyone bar the local school janitors...

  5. Andydaws

    Right...

    As expected, the NYT spin isn't even mildly representative.

    Basically, the report concludes that although there's fuel "slumping" - i.e the situation I talked about a few days ago, where cladding has failed, but the fuell pellets remain unmelted and whole, in all three reactors. That's not news.

    They conclude that in all cases temperatures and the cooling regimes are stable, and will improve as decay heat drops, and as fresh-water cooling is used (recall this is from the 26th of last month).

    They note that fuel temperatures are hard to assess - again, not news - and are likely to be hotter than the readings at the vessel wall. But, the vessel wall temperatures are a function of the fuel temp, and follow (lag) it.

    Now, one bit to explain. A BWR is built with an internal wall within the RPV - water flows in from between this "shroud" and the RPV wall, flowing downward, then up the inside of the shroud, over the fuel. They suspect this flow is limited due to the build-up of salt inside the shroud. They also note that any fuel pellets that have fallen to the bottom of the vessel will be trapped inside this salt layer.

    As I'd though, they're gradually flooding the inside of the primary containment, venting flow from the RPV into the wetwell which connects to the drywell. They note that this is likely to contain hydrogen, and may have oxygen present which has come out of solution in the seawater coolant.

    So, they suggest purging the primary containment with nitrogen, to ensure there's no explosive potential. Which is what TEPCO have been doing for the last couple of days.

    The comment about seismic risk is that they need to check the safety case assessment done for having a flooded primary containment (which is a good heat remover from the RPV walls). Since it's routine for the Primary Containment to be flooded in refuelling and shutdowns, it's likely to have been qualified for this, but it needs to be confirmed.

    The only part that I'm even mildly edgy about is they suggest some further containment venting may be needed as the nitrogen purge goes in, but suggest that it's vented through a water spray to remove any iodine o9r other fission products.

    If anyone wants a copy, give me a mail address.

  6. Andydaws

    Oh, and one thing about the NRC report.

    They seem to think that it'll be necessary to flood the containment to fully submerge the fuel - they think (what I presume to be) the shaft seals on the recirculation pumps will have failed - they don't say why - and that's the path of leakage from the RPV

    1. Highlander

      Great summary, thanks

      Is there any indication of the basis for their believe that the shaft seals have failed? I mean is this a judgement based on expected damage in the event of a major earthquake or some other predicted loss of integrity? Or do they use onsite information as the basis for that belief?

      From what you're saying, flooding the containment appears to be a stop-gap for the ability to run recirculation pumps. I wonder then, if the containment is fully flooded, will that prevent the local engineers from accessing equipment needed to re-establish recirculation for the residual heat removal system?

      The NYT does indeed seem to have done quite a number with this report,

      Regarding the fuel slumping, is that - again - based on actual observation, or an assumption based on the design and expected failure modes? Would that - for example, actually involve the cladding melting, or is it a case of the cladding losing integrity due to warping in the heat, and corrosion due to the heat and use of salt-water? Obviously you're not in any better position to know the actual situation either, but I'm interested in whether the report is making an assumption or if there is actual information? The reason I ask is that it kind of sounds like it's an assessment made by experts in BWR design based on the same facts that you and I, and the world + dog, have access to, but an assessment that assumes certain events inside the reactor that have yet to be confirmed by observation.

      I'm not trying to deny the possibility of any such damage, but I am trying to understand whether the assessment of such damage is based on more than the kind of guess work we can indulge in ourselves.

      1. Andydaws

        the NRC analysis

        "Is there any indication of the basis for their believe that the shaft seals have failed? I mean is this a judgement based on expected damage in the event of a major earthquake or some other predicted loss of integrity? Or do they use onsite information as the basis for that belief?"

        certainly no onsite data - or any obvious argument as to why the seals would have failed. There's no obvious overpressure that could have damaged them (these are plants that run normally at 80 bar so you'd expect design capacity of 160 or so). I think they're making an inference from the level of water in the reactor annuli (annuluses?), which is at about the same height.

        "From what you're saying, flooding the containment appears to be a stop-gap for the ability to run recirculation pumps. I wonder then, if the containment is fully flooded, will that prevent the local engineers from accessing equipment needed to re-establish recirculation for the residual heat removal system?"

        no, it's a long term, and quite attractive alternative. Oddly, it's the same basic solution that lets an ESBWR run on passive cooling, post scram.

        "Regarding the fuel slumping, is that - again - based on actual observation, or an assumption based on the design and expected failure modes?"

        i think it's inference. Largely from TMI experience, and some modelling about heat transfer.

        "Would that - for example, actually involve the cladding melting, or is it a case of the cladding losing integrity due to warping in the heat, and corrosion due to the heat and use of salt-water?"

        tbh, a moot point. Once the fuel pellets are out, they're out. The lighter fission products will be in the water, the heavy stuff still in the fuel. The interesting point is that the salt. may well be helping isolate them from cooling water!

        "Obviously you're not in any better position to know the actual situation either, but I'm interested in whether the report is making an assumption or if there is actual information? The reason I ask is that it kind of sounds like it's an assessment made by experts in BWR design based on the same facts that you and I, and the world + dog, have access to, but an assessment that assumes certain events inside the reactor that have yet to be confirmed by observation."

        no-ones got observations - one design flaw seems to have been that all the instrumentation was reliant on battery power, or was routed through basement distribution boards, and is therefore out of action. They've got people who know BWRs infintitely better than I do, though, so take their estimates seriously.

        I'm not trying to deny the possibility of any such damage, but I am trying to understand whether the assessment of such damage is based on more than the kind of guess work we can indulge in ourselves.

        1. Highlander

          Great information and perspective.

          Thanks Andy, I really appreciate the time you're taking to follow up on this. It's extremely gratifying to see that the Register still attracts a number of high quality posters.

  7. Andydaws

    I'd be doing it anyway....

    so no problem.

  8. Andydaws

    I've been reading Wase Allison's "Radiation and Reason"

    and have come across something really surprising.

    You recall the controversy at various points upthread about the "Linear No Threshold" model, and whether there was a lower dose limit below which radiation exposure does or doesn't increase mortality from cancer or other causes?

    It rhearses the arguments from Chernobyl, hiroshima, etc, as you'd expect. They suggest no statistically reliable relationship at low dose, as we all by now know. But, it also introduces something of which I wasn't aware.

    It transpires large scale lab tests on the impact of low doses on animals HAVE in fact been done. And they don't show a linear response. They show a classic sigmoid - nil effect below a threshold dose, then a broadly linear response, then a flattening out as mortality approaches 100%.

    Allison references a standard text in the area by Henrikson and Maillie. Unfortunately, it's £40 a copy, so I'll be taking his word, not checking it directly.

    What's surprising is just how high the threshold is - adjusting for body mass, etc, it's in the hundreds of sieverts/year.

  9. Andydaws
    Unhappy

    ooops

    that should be "hundreds of millisieverts", of course

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Hundreds of sieverts/year?

    But what about the gonads?

    Sure death is something but sometimes non-death can be pretty nasty (A-bomb survivors with (I seem to recall) 100% of children developing cancer?)

    1. Andydaws
      Thumb Down

      You're either imagining that.

      or have read something remarkably ill-informed.

      The heritable effects, including second generation cancers, appear to carry risk at a couple of orders of magnitude lower than direct exposure. Cancer rates amongst Hiroshima survivors children are statistically indistinguishable from the general population

  11. Highlander

    Although it's not all over yet (nor will it be for a long while)....

    ...I'm wondering whether it's time for a factual review of the disaster from start to finish, along with the context of the contemporaneous media reporting. I wonder if Lewis would care to put his head above the parapet again?

  12. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Highlander

      Even more data - WOW!

      http://fleep.com/earthquake/

  13. paradoxewan
    WTF?

    Soooooo where is lewis now?

    Seeing as Japan officially raises Fukushima to Level 7, same as Chernobyl??

    No, really it is that bad..........

    Has he headed off to the bunker? or is he having problems getting to the office due to his high-horse being shot at the Grand National?

    1. Highlander

      Don't be a fool - research INES level classifications

      INES level 7 is no worse than INES level 6, all it means - as a distinction - is that the authorities are actually implementing planed counter measures to clean up materia.

      INES level 6 is the same except it says that the release of material *may* require planned counter measures.

      Neither classification quantifies how dangerous the stuff beng cleaned up is, nor does either classification give an indication of the severity of the release or if there have been any fatalities.

      Since we know that one of the isotopes released in the steam venting was a relatively long lived Cesium with a half life of 31 years (or so) It's clear that there is a chance that counter measures will be required.

      Based on the data from all the locations in Japan near, and within Fukushima prefecture The majority of contamination was with material that had half lives measured in hours or days. You can see the decrease in levels begin to taper off, and so what remains is more than likely the Cesium with a longer life than the iodine.

      The actual radiation levels in most areas outside of Fukushima prefecture are approaching normal background radiation, and are not a threat. Within Fukushima, there are some locally elevated levels, especially in Iidate. It's therefore extremely likely that some cleanup will be required to remove whatever material is causing the elevated readings, however we're talking about readings in the region of 2 microsieverts/hour in Fukushima itself and about 6 microsieverts/hour in Iidate. If you were exposed to that radiation for an entire year, your exposure would be just over 17 milli-sieverts (2 microsieverts per hour) and 52.5 milli-sieverts (6 microsieverts per hour), to put that into perspective, a worker at a nuclear facility can be exposed to a cumulative dose in a given year of 100 milli-sieverts, before having to cease working at nuclear facilities for the remainder of the year. I'm not saying that anyone should move back in and live with that kind of radiation permanently. However, that level of radiation is not high enough to require extensive protective equipment, and can be cleaned up relatively quickly. In fact, it's easier to clean up that many chemical contaminants.

      The point of all of this being that Although the INES level may be raised to 7, that does not mean that this accident is in any meaningful way on par with what happened at Chernobyl. The INES level is truly a terribly ineffective way to compare nuclear incidents.

      Based on the data available, I would happily travel to Fukushima prefecture - were I able to - to aid in the recovery there. There are still parts of the nuclear facility that are hot enough to be a problem, and they will be cleaned up as soon as they can be got to. But the rest of the prefecture is relatively (note relatively) safe.

      1. paradoxewan

        Far from over.

        The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency made the change saying "the damaged facilities have been releasing a massive amount of radioactive substances, which are posing a threat to human health and the environment over a wide area."

        If there was no difference between level 6 & 7, why would they have a level 7?

        They did also say that the cumulative amount from the Fukushima plant is less than that from Chernobyl.

        Whilst i agree the INES level is not the best way to benchmark these things.. my main point is that several outlets, the register included, have frequently been telling us how this is not as bad as three mile island.

        It clearly is. The articles on this site in particular were written through rose tinted glasses.

        The fact the plant has just been hit by another 7.1 quake is cause enough for concern.

        Based on the independent data available, i would happily stay the hell away from Fukushima. Even the official data is being pulled to bits by the Japan's media, as being dis-jointed, inaccurate and misleading. Even the TEPCO employees have a tendency to break down in tears when they try to read official "its not that bad" statements.

        Couple that with the EPA's new "safe" standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63″ in drinking water.

        Unfortunately - Far from over, and usually the quieter it gets, the worse the news is.

        1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

          Level 7 etc

          I believe the announcement is purely a political step with the Japanese govt officials not wanting to risk being accused of playing down the accident and desiring to be seen as "proactive". It can also be a part of positioning in anticipation that the current cabinet will be forced out when the crisis is over - so that further campaigning can be tweaked to capitalise on anti-nuclear sentiment. Last but not least - assigning the most serious level to the situation makes it easier to justify retaining the current cabinet for longer...

      2. eRacer

        Here are some specifics

        "Neither classification quantifies how dangerous the stuff beng cleaned up is, nor does either classification give an indication of the severity of the release or if there have been any fatalities."

        Looks pretty clear that "Level 7" was in part based on the amount of radiation released and is not just some random number chosen to scare people or generate page hits:

        http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9MHJQTO0&show_article=1

        "Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission, which is a government panel, said it has estimated that the release of 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour continued for several hours."

        and

        http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/11/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

        "Regulators have determined the amount of radioactive iodine released by the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was at least 15 times the volume needed to reach the top of the International Nuclear Event Scale, the agency said. That figure is still about 10 percent of the amount released at Chernobyl, they said.

        The amount of radioactive Cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years, is about one-seventh the amount released at Chernobyl, according to the agency."

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Level 7 ? No sweat !

    I can't believe how stubborn some people are.

    Even if level 7 meant nothing worse than level 6, it's still news because the Japanese govt. didn't issue a level 6 before (interesting the timing, right after the elections..).

    A few Reg readers with nothing to lose may even enjoy playing the devil's advocate.. but I can assure you that Japanese people are very worried and angry about all this.

    The evaquation zone is being extended, people from Iitate are leaving even if they are boyond that area, the incident level is finally being officialized as 7.. and the apologists like Mr. Highlander above, are pretty much alone now, almost hinting that even the Japanese govt. is simply paranoid.

    At least Lewis had the decency to shut up (a mea culpa would certainly honor him sometime in the future).

    Paris because, she can count.

    1. arkhangelsk

      It actually shows

      ... they have some intellectual integrity - at least more than my local media.

      This morning, when I heard the headline on local morning TV news that Fukushima got raised to a 7, I nearly spit out my breakfast.

      The report then started off saying (in Chinese) "The situation at Fukushima continues to worsen" and goes on to repeat the raise to the 7. I was waiting to see photos of Fukushima somehow turning itself into a nuclear bomb (impossible as that is), or at least SOMETHING dramatic.

      Around there, the reporter goes on to say that the Japanese nuclear agency had (basically) counted up the amount of radiation leaked and it exceeded the normative amount required to declare a level 7, so they raised the level to 7. The report also admits that levels have substantially backed down by now...

      PHEW!

      That's NOT called "continuing to worsen", you stupid, sensationalist media. That's called having the mental freedom (in Japanese: yuuyou) to re-assess the situation.

      So, no need for new panic. Shame on the media.

    2. Highlander

      Stubborn?

      How stubborn is a person who does the bloody research? How stubborn is someone who searches out the data, the real hard core information about what is actually going on there instead of swallowing the media reports that are many days out of date, superficial and lacking in the analysis and objectivity departments?

      Apologists? Who? Me? You must have me confused with someone else. Tell you what, why don't you research what actually happened at Chernobyl, and then research what actually happened at Fukushima, and then come back and talk.

      Where did I say that the Japanese were not worried? Stop putting words into my mouth. Part of the reason the Japanese people are so angry is that they do not have consistent information. Their own local media reports one thing, the politicians say another, and the western media tells them they're all gonna die. What the hell do you think they are going to do? They're going to worry and get pissed off, I would too. When all is said and done, I might be even more pissed off when it turns out that I was kept away from my home for weeks on end because the media overstated and over reported the actual dangers.

      Go back and read what I posted and look at the data itself, then perhaps you will see why I wrote what I wrote.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Reg Research Centre

        Dear Highlander,

        I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I mentioned you, but my complaint was more generic.

        It's certainly commendable to carry out own research. However as you probably already know, research is subjective by definition, and it can equally prove something and then its opposite, depending on many factors (personal bias, source of data, quality of data, timing, etc.).

        Quite honestly, I don't think that back-of-the-envelope calculations based on an individual's Internet research and summary judgement of the apparent quality of the INES levels, gives enough ground to minimize the situation.

        Incidentally, TEPCO officials are now saying that there is a high probability that the scale of the incident will indeed be beyond that of Chernobyl (meaning: it is, but we'll tell you in a couple of weeks).

        I don't think that the message can get any clearer than this... but then again, there are people that will only define the gravity of an incident by the number of charred bodies that they can count on the spot.

  15. Andydaws

    email sent -

    will delete exchange - suggest you do the same

    1. Highlander

      Done and done

      Funny how standing up for fact and reason has become so negative isn't it Andy, I feel almost as if we are somehow at fault for having the gall to look at such things instead of accepting the common panic stricken view.

  16. JoeF

    So, the Japanese government is fearmongering now?

    Level 7.

    All just more fear-mongering, apparently. At least for some people who prefer to keep their heads in the sand. Or "duck and cover."

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mr. Page Please help

    Mr. Page, now that fear-mongers have upgraded Fukushima to a level of Chernobyl, we need some more of your enlightened discourse about how these guys are fooling the world. Please help and protect us with your impregnable shield of ignorance. I love your baseless, shameless but highly forceful articles - one more please.

  18. Andydaws

    Archangelsk

    "Around there, the reporter goes on to say that the Japanese nuclear agency had (basically) counted up the amount of radiation leaked and it exceeded the normative amount required to declare a level 7, so they raised the level to 7. The report also admits that levels have substantially backed down by now..."

    Pretty much so - although there's no formal threshold in terms of release. I suspect the "tipping point" issue that causes it to be classed as a 7 (rather than a 6) is the "r­equiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasures" element.

    Alhtough the overwhelming proportion of the release is Iodine 131, there seem to be "hotspots" where longer lived Caesium products have been deposited - Iitate seems ot be the worst, although there are several in a line running north west from the plant.

    The Chernobyl evacuation level was 1.5MBq/M2. The Japanese government has stated it will ban rice farming (which is rpesumably at a lower level of contamination that would be cleared for residence) at 5KBq/Kg in soil of caesium. Caesium is what matters, as the releases appear to have been almost entirely of Iodine and Casesium (see link below), and Iodine is short-lived:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-nuclear-20110408,0,2828502.story?track=rss

    "....The most telling evidence about the condition of the reactors is the absence of heavy radionuclide contamination around the plant, which would indicate that uranium fuel became so overheated that it vaporized heavy fission products such as strontium and technetium, experts said.

    Instead, the main contaminants have been isotopes of iodine and cesium, which are water soluble and are not held in the uranium fuel itself...."

    So far, only two "hot spots" above that have been identified - both in Iitate, which seems the worst exposed point.

    http://www.evri.com/media/article;jsessionid=1vlf245whqvvx?title=Japan+aftershock+brings+new+nuclear-plant+worries&page=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014733003_japanban10.html?syndication%3Drss&referring_uri=/location/iitate-0x1161c1%3Bjsessionid%3D1vlf245whqvvx&referring_title=Evri

    So, let's try a conversion. I'm seeing numbers of 1.3g/cm3 for most soils. That's 1300Kg per M3.

    If we assume that the concentration is representative down to about 5cm (which seems a reasonable guess assuming it's come down in rainfall, and tends to get attached to particles near the surface), that's 0.05M3 per M2. 0.05*1300 is about 65Kg.

    At 5KBq/kg, that's 325KBq/M2 - about 1/5th the lower limit for Chernobyl evacuation.

    Iitate (and any other hotspots that emerge) are a different problem - they're about 4-fold over the Chernobyl limit, but the sampling and aerial survey suggests that the problems limited to a few spots. Most probably, they'll require removeal of the contaminated topsoil (there'll be a lot of that going on in the aftermath of the Tsunami, for lots of reasons).

    That qualifies as "extended countermeasures".

  19. Andydaws

    Another thought, prompted by the LA times article quoted above.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-nuclear-20110408,0,2828502.story?track=rss

    "....The most telling evidence about the condition of the reactors is the absence of heavy radionuclide contamination around the plant, which would indicate that uranium fuel became so overheated that it vaporized heavy fission products such as strontium and technetium, experts said.

    Instead, the main contaminants have been isotopes of iodine and cesium, which are water soluble and are not held in the uranium fuel itself...."

    We're now a month beyond the original accident, and have been in a broadly stable cooling regime for most of that time. Broadly, temperatures have been falling, not rising.

    Which suggests that any fuel rod that was going to fail pretty much has - and hence any further release of the volatiles into the cooling water will be from releases from already failed fuel rods.

    But, as they're volatiles, you'd expect most to be released relatively early post-fuel rod failure. I rather suspect that certainly most iodine that's likely to be coming out is already out, and very probably the same for caesium too. There's still be a level of activation from contact with the fuel itself, but that'll be small in comparison.

    It looks as though most of the instrumentation that could tell anyone what the contaminants in the cooling water are is out of action - if it weren't it'd be interesting to see if the water that's going through now is coming out less dosed with the volatiles than earlier.

  20. cnapan
    Pint

    What level incident before people are dying?

    So we have a few excited people posting with "LEVEL 7!!! SEE???? "

    Yet still this nuclear armageddon continues to be stubbornly undeadly....

    Wake me up when you have some real glowing corpses to point at...

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like