There is a reason why the government capped the liability of the nuclear plants. The reason is because no insurance company would cover them without the premiums making the projects unfeasable.
It's always a gamble. If we're lucky we win. If we're not, th taxpayers will have to step in because the insurance policys are inadequate.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: ... OTOH, radiation can't be ruled out either.

Unless you are willing to use science and see what has happened in areas of high natural radioactivity and areas where people were exposed to the same elevated but still low levels of radioactivity from the same and/or similar radioactive isotopes.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: The government is paying for it from the nuclear industry insurance fund that TEPCO has to repay. It is estimated that TEPCO will have re-payed the amount in 10-13 years. Looks like you are wrong Jazzman http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html

Given that they haven't even begun paying compensation to home/land/farm/business owners nor started compensating the government for lost tax revenue nor compensating the government for direct costs so far (those police at the blockades around the hundred square miles of evacuation zone aren't working for free, ya know), nor has anyone started paying for direct radiological cleanup (heck, they are hardly doing surveys to see how bad it is now anyway), it's hard to see how you can already have a handle on what it will cost to remediate this disaster completely. Fact of the matter is, it will be years for sure, and probably decades, to fully clean up and compensate every victim of the nuclear disaster. How you can claim that TEPCO will have fully paid this off in 12-13 years when nobody even knows what it will cost is beyond me.

So your claim that I'm wrong fails.

Maybe when you can come back with hard numbers from authoritative sources you'll have some credibility. Meanwhile, you're just some Packer's fan in WI sitting behind a keyboard pretending to be an all knowing person on the subject.

http://www.world-nuclear-ne...approved-711118.html

Cleaning up Japan’s nuclear mess
The twilight zone
Its owner fears not just radiation leaking out of the Fukushima plant, but also bad news

Nov 5th 2011 | IWAKI | from the print edition

*
*

IT IS another world beyond the roadblocks stopping unauthorised traffic from entering the 20km (12.5-mile) exclusion zone around the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. The few people inside are dressed in ghostly white protective suits. Town after town was abandoned after March 11th, and spiders have strung webs across the doorways. An old lady’s russet wig lies in the road, lost perhaps as she took flight after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. Outside the “Night Friend” nightclub in Tomioka, 9km from the nuclear plant, this correspondent was confronted by an ostrich with a feral glint.

Journalists are supposedly barred from the exclusion zone, though sympathetic evacuees, many furious with the authorities about their state of limbo, help provide access. Some of the 89,000 displaced residents have been given one-day permits to go home and each collect a box of valuables. To an outsider, the size and recent prosperity of the abandoned communities is striking. As well as the rice paddies, now overrun with goldenrod, are large businesses and well-built schools for hundreds of children.
In this section

Patrol cars stop passing vehicles. The police are particularly vigilant in preventing unauthorised people getting near the stricken plant, owned by Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), Japan’s biggest utility. The air of secrecy is compounded when you try to approach workers involved in the nightmarish task of stabilising the nuclear plant. Many are not salaried Tepco staff but low-paid contract workers lodging in Iwaki, just south of the exclusion zone.

It is easy to spot them, in their nylon tracksuits. They seem to have been recruited from the poorest corners of society. One man calls home from a telephone box because he cannot afford a mobile phone. Another has a single front tooth. Both are reluctant to talk to journalists, because a condition of their employment is silence. But they do share their concerns about safety. One, who earns ¥15,000 ($190) a day clearing radioactive rubble at the plant, says he was given just half-an-hour of safety training. Almost everything he has learned about radiation risks, he says, came from the television.

A strict hierarchy exists among the workers at Fukushima. Tepco’s own salaried staff are in a minority. The firm employs a top tier of subcontractors, from the builders of reactors such as Toshiba and Hitachi. They, in turn, subcontract work to builders and engineers, who subcontract further, down to small gangs of labourers recruited by a single boss. Some lower-ranking companies may have ties to the yakuza, Japan’s mafia, and among the lowest-paid recruits are members of the burakumin minority, who have long been discriminated against.

Those on the lower rungs, say labour advocates, are particularly vulnerable. They often have no corporate health, pension or redundancy benefits. Hiroyuki Watanabe, an Iwaki councillor from the Japan Communist Party who is campaigning to protect Dai-ichi workers, has a document showing one worker’s accumulated radiation exposure. In two months it had reached almost 33 millisieverts, or a third the level normally permissible for those working on a nuclear accident in a year. Mr Watanabe reports many safety breaches. Workers wading through contaminated water complain that their boots have holes in them. Some are not instructed in when to change the filters on their safety masks.

Mr Watanabe believes Tepco is cutting corners because cash is tight. Even such basic tools as wrenches are in short supply, he claims. Tepco is shielded by a lack of media scrutiny. The councillor shows a Tepco gagging order that one local boss had to sign. Article four bans all discussion of the work with outsiders. All requests for media interviews must be rejected.

Those higher up the rungs appear to be treated better—though they, too, are sworn to secrecy. One engineer who has played a front-line role in helping cool the meltdown of Fukushima’s three reactors spoke unwittingly to The Economist. A swarthy man in his 50s, he had worked in nuclear-power stations for 25 years. Once he heard about the accident, he knew it was his duty to help, since so few people understood how to run reactor systems. He came to the Dai-ichi plant in May, despite family protests. Then, he said, the hardest work was done by the low-level labourers. They had so much rubble to clear, he says, that they often keeled over in the heat under the weight of their protective gear. Taken out in ambulances, they would usually be back the following day.

The engineer’s most stressful months, he said, were in June and July, once enough rubble was cleared to let him work on the systems. Seven-hour shifts usually involve an hour on and an hour off. Before he starts he must put on two sets of protective clothing, four pairs of gloves and a helmet with breathing apparatus, all of which is taped up so that not a particle of skin is exposed. At the end of every hour, he has to take off the protective layers and replace them with new ones before starting again. (Tepco says, with attention to finickety detail, that it has accumulated a mountain of 480,000 such suits in need of disposal.) During the busiest months, the hour-on, hour-off rule was foregone, the engineer said. “Though everyone is really trying their best, most of the Tepco guys in head office are clueless about what’s going on. No one has any idea of the conditions we’ve had to work under.” But then he added: “I’m not leaving this until I’m done. Never.”

The brink of bankruptcy

Government officials say some of the low-level safety breaches may be justified, given that Tepco is on a war footing and that its top priority is to stabilise the reactors. This week Yasuhiro Sonoda of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan drank a glass of water from the Dai-ichi plant in an attempt to play down safety concerns. On November 1st the government also said that it intended to invite journalists to Dai-ichi for the first time—though it muddied the message by discouraging women (for health reasons, it said, and because there are no women’s loos at the plant). The following day Tepco reported unexpected signs of nuclear fission in one of the stricken reactors, forcing it to inject boric acid against renewed radiation leaks. Tepco’s share price fell sharply.

The physical mess at Dai-ichi is mirrored in Tepco’s finances. A leaked plan drawn up with the government proposes to cut costs by ¥2.5 trillion over ten years. Government officials insist they will not let the utility cut corners on safety. But Tepco is already expected to lose ¥570 billion this financial year, rendering it barely solvent. The government was expected to confirm massive support of Tepco on November 4th, with a ¥1 trillion injection, mainly to help the 89,000 evacuees.

For those forced from their homes as a result of the disaster, compensation cannot come soon enough. But increasingly they are fed up with the shroud of secrecy thrown over the Fukushima plant and the abandoned towns and villages where families had lived for centuries. The less media coverage there is, the more they worry that their plight will be forgotten—and the less pressure there will be on Tepco to cough up proper compensation. That appears to be one reason some are starting to take the law into their own hands and smuggling journalists into the forbidden zone.


http://www.economist.com/node/21536625

Regardless whether bipartisan politics pulled it off or how much the industry pays into it there IS a liability cap. The nuclear industries chickens haven't come home to roost yet and we won't know the final cost til it's over. It costs more to decommission a facility than it costs to build one, there is no proven safe way to deal with nuclear waste and just because we haven't had a catastrophic accident yet doesn't mean that we won't. I'm just saying that we don't have all the answers yet. I don't know if the industry does, but from past experience they are fully capable of distorting facts to advance their position. IN THE BEGINNING. Does anyone remember their assurances that it would produce energy so cheap that we wouldn't need a meter? I admit that I don't have the answers. I'm not a scientist, but I do not for a second trust the industry to tell the truth if it's against their self interests.

Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011

EDITORIAL
Fukushima health concerns

As efforts to end the nuclear disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant drag on, it is important for the central and local governments to step up their efforts to closely examine the health conditions of people concerned and to decontaminate areas contaminated by radiation.

The people who have been most affected by radiation from the Fukushima plant are workers, both from Tepco and from subcontractors, who have been trying to bring the radiation-leaking plant under control. In the nation's history, these workers rank second only to the victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in terms of their exposure to radiation, therefore the possibility cannot be ruled out that they will develop cancer. Tepco and the central government must do their best to prevent workers' overexposure to radiation and take necessary measures should workers become overexposed to radiation.

It is of great concern that little has been disclosed regarding the conditions of the workers at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Tepco and the central government should disseminate information on the actual working conditions of these people, even if such information seems repetitious and includes what they regard as minor incidents. People are forgetful. They need to be informed. Such information will help raise people's awareness about the issue of radiation and its impact on health.

It must not be forgotten that exposure to radiation has long-term effects on human health. In the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the number of leukemia cases started to increase among bombing survivors two years after the bombs were dropped. In the case of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, thyroid cancer began to appear among children several years after the disaster happened. Particular attention should be paid to the health of children.

In view of these facts, it is logical that the Fukushima prefectural government has developed a program to monitor the health of all residents in the prefecture, who number about 2 million, throughout their lifetime. It has also started examining the thyroids of some 360,000 children who are age 18 or younger. Detailed and long-term area-by-area studies should be carried out to record cancer incidences.

In August, the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan estimated that the Fukushima accidents released a total of 570,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances, including some 11,000 terabecquerels of radioactive cesium 137.

But a preliminary report issued in late October, whose chief writer is Mr. Andreas Stohl of the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, estimates that the accidents released about 36,000 terabecquerels of radioactive cesium 137 from their start through April 20. It is more than three times the estimate by Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission and 42 percent of the estimated release from Chernobyl.

On the basis of measurements by a worldwide network of sensors, the report says that 19 percent of the released cesium 137 fell on land in Japan while most of the rest fell into the Pacific Ocean. It holds the view that a large amount of radioactive substances was released from the spent nuclear fuel pool of the No. 4 reactor, pointing out that the amount of radioactive emissions dropped suddenly when workers started spraying water on the pool.

The report reinforces the advice that local residents in Fukushima Prefecture should try to remember and document in detail their actions for the first two weeks of the nuclear disaster. This will be helpful in estimating the level of their exposure to radiation. But it must be remembered that sensitivity to radiation differs from person to person. It may be helpful for individuals to carry radiation dosimeters to measure their exposure to radioactive substances.

As for internal radiation exposure from food and drink, the Food Safety Commission on Oct. 27 said that a cumulative dose of 100 millisieverts or more in one's lifetime can cause health risks. But when it had mentioned the limit of 100 millisieverts in July, it explained that the limit covered both external and internal radiation exposure. Its new announcement means that the government has not set the limit for external radiation exposure. It also failed to clarify whether the new dose limit is safe enough for children and pregnant women.

The day after the commission's announcement, health minister Yoko Komiyama said the government will lower the allowable amount of radiation in food from the current 5 millisieverts per year to 1 millisieverts per year. The new standard will be applied to food products shipped in and after April 2012. The government will set the amount of allowable radioactive substances for each food item. The health ministry estimates that at present, internal radiation exposure among various age groups from food in the wake of the Fukushima No. 1 accidents is about 0.1 millisieverts per year on the average and that if the new standard is enforced, the lifetime radiation dose will not exceed 100 millisieverts.

It is important for the central and local governments to establish a system to closely measure both outdoor radiation levels and radiation levels in food products and to take necessary measures. In areas near Fukushima No. 1 power plant, many hospitals' functions have weakened because doctors and nurses have left. Urgent efforts must be made to beef up medical staffing at these hospitals.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20111108a1.html

quote Originally posted by dratts: Regardless whether bipartisan politics pulled it off or how much the industry pays into it there IS a liability cap. The nuclear industries chickens haven't come home to roost yet and we won't know the final cost til it's over. It costs more to decommission a facility than it costs to build one, there is no proven safe way to deal with nuclear waste and just because we haven't had a catastrophic accident yet doesn't mean that we won't. I'm just saying that we don't have all the answers yet. I don't know if the industry does, but from past experience they are fully capable of distorting facts to advance their position. IN THE BEGINNING. Does anyone remember their assurances that it would produce energy so cheap that we wouldn't need a meter? I admit that I don't have the answers. I'm not a scientist, but I do not for a second trust the industry to tell the truth if it's against their self interests.

Well actually IN THE BEGINNING it was not stated that it would produce energy so cheap that we wouldn't need a meter. But the wacko left tries to tell everyone that line. In the beginning it was stated to congress "costs can be brought down... [to]... about the same as the cost of electricity from conventional sources...". But yes someone did later on make the 'too cheap to meter' statement

quote On June 27, 1954, the USSR's Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant became the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid, and produced around 5 megawatts of electric power.[35][36] Later in 1954, Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy) spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter".[37] Strauss was very likely referring to hydrogen fusion[38][39]—which was secretly being developed as part of Project Sherwood at the time—but Strauss's statement was interpreted as a promise of very cheap energy from nuclear fission. The U.S. AEC itself had issued far more conservative testimony regarding nuclear fission to the U.S. Congress only months before, projecting that "costs can be brought down... [to]... about the same as the cost of electricity from conventional sources..." Significant disappointment would develop later on, when the new nuclear plants did not provide energy "too cheap to meter."

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

We have decommissioned power plants. We do know the costs. No they are not more than the cost to build the power plant. Yes money is set aside to decommission power plants. Yes including decommissioning costs nuclear power is still a cost effective way to produce power.

No the utilities are not somehow in a conspiracy with whomever to produce power with the highest costs just so we can have nuclear wastes to make atomic bombs. Nope - no matter how much the wacko left tries to tell you that.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 11-08-2011).]

It's NOT the highest cost to the utilitys due to the liability cap and subsidys. I still don't trust them or believe everything they say. Do you EVER question anything the industry says?

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-08-2011).]

"Another and perhaps the major reason why thorium use for energy production has not made more progress over the past decades is that thorium is not nearly as easy to weaponize. A 1997 international scientific symposium on nuclear fuel cycles concluded that the principal reason thorium had not been used more widely to date is that the ore contains no fissile isotope."
http://www.dauvergne.com/te.../thorium-vs-uranium/

Nevertheless, the thorium fuel cycle, with its potential for breeding fuel without fast neutron reactors, holds considerable potential long-term benefits. Thorium is significantly more abundant than uranium, and is a key factor in sustainable nuclear energy.

One of the earliest efforts to use a thorium fuel cycle took place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. An experimental reactor was built based on Molten Salt Reactor technology to study the feasibility of such an approach, using thorium-fluoride salt kept hot enough to be liquid, thus eliminating the need for fabricating fuel elements. This effort culminated in the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment that used 232Th as the fertile material and 233U as the fissile fuel. Due to a lack of funding, the MSR program was discontinued in 1976.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/W...ration#ixzz1dA5pRWTA

The U.S. chose uranium for nuclear fuel in part because the material that can be used to produce nuclear weapons is difficult to extract from thorium. That looked like a downside for the U.S. military when it wanted to stockpile nuclear weapons during the Cold War, but it sounds appealing these days.
http://www.innovationnewsda...thorium-future-1834/

Thorium reactors can breed uranium-233, which can theoretically be used for nuclear weapons. However, denaturing thorium with its isotope, ionium, eliminates the proliferation threat.
http://www.thorium.tv/en/th...horium_reactor_1.php

While it is possible to use uranium-233 as the fission fuel of a nuclear weapon, this has been done only occasionally. The United States first tested U-233 as part of a bomb core (with plutonium) in Operation Teapot in 1955.[6] Uranium-233 compares roughly to plutonium-239: its radioactivity is only one seventh (159,200 years half-life versus 24,100 years), but its bare critical mass is 60% higher (16 kg versus 10 kg), and its spontaneous fission rate is twenty times higher (6×10E−9 versus 3×10E−10) — but since the radioactivity is lower, the neutron density is only three times higher. A nuclear explosive device based on uranium-233 is therefore more of a technical challenge than with plutonium, but the technological level involved is roughly the same. The main difference is the co-presence of uranium-232 which makes uranium-233 very dangerous to work on, and quite easy to detect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

The buildup of U-232 as a contaminant is unavoidable during the production of U-233. This is similar to the plutonium isotope contamination problem discussed below in plutonium production, but occurs to a much smaller extent rate. The first (n,2n) reaction only occurs when neutrons with energies in excess of 6 MeV are encountered. Only a small percentage of fission neutrons are this energetic, and if the thorium breeding blanket is kept in a reactor region where it is only exposed to a well moderated neutron flux (i.e essentially no neutrons above the Th-232 fission threshold of 500 KeV) this reaction can be nearly eliminated. The second reaction proceeds very efficiently with thermalized neutrons however, and minimizing U-232 from this source requires choosing thorium that naturally has a low Th-230 concentration.

If the above precautions are followed weapons-grade U-233 can be produced with U-232 levels of around 5 parts per million (0.0005%). Above 50 ppm (0.005%) of U-232 is considered low grade.

In a commercial fuel cycle the build-up of U-232 is not really a disadvantage, and may even be desirable since it reduces the proliferation potential of the uranium. In a fuel economy where the fuel is reprocessed and recycled the U-232 level could build up to 1000 - 2000 ppm (0.1 - 0.2%). In a system that is specifically engineered to accumulate U-232 levels of 0.5-1.0% can be reached.

Over the first couple years after U-233 containing U-232 is processed, Th-228 builds up to a nearly constant level, balanced by its own decay. During this time the gamma emissions build up and then stabilize. Thus over a few years a fabricated mass of U-233 can build up significant gamma emissions. A 10 kg sphere of weapons grade U-233 (5 ppm U-232) could be expected to reach 11 millirem/hr at 1 meter after 1 month, 0.11 rem/hr after 1 year, and 0.20 rem/hr after 2 years. Glove-box handling of such components, as is typical of weapons assembly and disassembly work, would quickly create worker safety problems. An annual 5 rem exposure limit would be exceeded with less than 25 hours of assembly work if 2-year old U-233 were used. Even 1 month old material would require limiting assembly duties to less than 10 hours per week.

In a fully assembled weapon exposures would be reduced by absorption by the tamper, case, and other materials. In a modern light weight design this absorption would be unlikely to achieve more than a factor of 10 attenuation, making exposure to weapons assembled two years previously an occupational safety problem. The beryllium reflectors used in light weight weapons would also add to the background neutron level due to the Be-9 + gamma -> Be-8 + neutron reaction. The U-232 gammas also provide a distinctive signature that can be used to detect and track the weapons from a distance. The heavy tampers used in less sophisticated weapon designs can provide much high levels of attenuation - a factor of 100 or even 1000.
With deliberately denatured grades of U-233 produced by a thorium fuel cycle (0.5 - 1.0% U-232), very high gamma exposures would result. A 10 kg sphere of this material could be expected to reach 11 rem/hr at 1 meter after 1 month, 110 rem/hr after 1 year, and 200 rem/hr after 2 years. Handling and fabrication of such material would have to done remotely (this also true of fuel element fabrication) In an assembled weapon, even if a factor of 1000 attenuation is assumed, close contact of no more than 25 hours/year with such a weapon would be possible and remain within safety standards. This makes the diversion of such material for weapons use extremely undesirable.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html


Using thorium as the fertile material and U-233 as the fissile material has a secret advantage in the “proliferation” department–the inevitable formation of uranium-232. U-232 follows the same decay sequence as thorium-232, the only difference being that Th-232 takes 15 billion years for that first decay, whereas U-232 only takes about 78. The “4n” decay chain, of which U-232 and Th-232 both follow has a decay product (thallium-208) that emits a strong and penetrating gamma ray during its decay that makes it very unattractive in weapons use.

Weapons, especially those that want to be launched on ICBMs, can’t afford thick heavy gamma shielding around their fissile cores to protect the sensitive electronics that trigger detonation. So fissile material for weapons needs to emit easily-shielded radiation. Plutonium-239 and uranium-235 both fit the bill. Uranium-233 contaminated with uranium-232 does not.
http://energyfromthorium.co...thorium-with-ionium/

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 11-08-2011).]

I look for the truth. I feel no need to rush and make assumptions about facts.

I highly question the left when they try to prove how horrible nuclear power is. They have their agenda and their agenda many times conflicts with the real facts.

re: believe everything the industry says - no I look for facts to support each other.

I don't like the design of BWRs. Clearly the design of PWRs is far superior.

For example - and sorry dennis_6 - but when I look at what the thorium people are saying, it just sounds way too good to be true. If all the claims made were true, one would really have to wonder why there aren't 100s of thorium reactors on every street corner.

Maybe, hopefully the technology will be developed enough soon for it to be practical, but there is NO WAY we can bet the energy future of the United States on an unproven source.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 11-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: You tried to float this idea before and the answer is still the same. Since CARTER was president, the spent fuel from the nuclear power plants have been stored ONSITE. None of the spent fuel is re-processed into weapons. It is a commonly known fact that the US has been reducing the number of nuclear weapons. New nuclear fuel for weapons is not needed. Instead nuclear weapons have been reprocessed into nuclear fuel. This argument is just idiotic.

At the time Thorium was dismissed, we were in a arms race, and too much had already been poured into uranium and plutonium reactors. Remember mutually assured destruction? We had to have the extra fuel on hand, if needed, in addition of being able to reprocess existing fuel. Now things have changed, and they no longer need the extra uranium or plutonium for nuclear weapons. That is why thorium is being looked at again. I hope one day we see the "thorium reactor on every corner".

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 11-08-2011).]

In a uranium reactor, you put metal clad enriched fuel in rods in water and pull up the control rods to control the reactor.

They figured out that over 50 years ago.

We over 50 years later we still don't know what we are all going to have to do to make a thorium reactor to function for power.

Here is a video to explain it



That is the real reason why we have uranium reactors and not thorium reactors.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: In a uranium reactor, you put metal clad enriched fuel in rods in water and pull up the control rods to control the reactor. They figured out that over 50 years ago. We over 50 years later we still don't know what we are all going to have to do to make a thorium reactor to function for power. Here is a video to explain it That is the real reason why we have uranium reactors and not thorium reactors.

Exactly where in that video does he state thorium is not ready? I am working full time and I have kids, I do not have time to watch the full video.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: quote - In April, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) began provisional compensation payments on a household basis to residents forced to evacuate according to instructions based on the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, and approximately JPY 52.3 billion have been paid out to 56,000 households (as of October 3). On July 5, TEPCO announced additional provisional compensation payout. (The payout was on individual basis, ranging from JPY100,000 to 300,000 per person depending on the circumstances and duration of their evacuation and other damage) Payments began on July 25, and to date, approximately JPY4.34 billion have been paid out to approximately 160,000 people (as of October 3). - With regard to agricultural, forestry and fishery business operators, TEPCO and the trade associations involved met to work towards a prompt payout in the light of the May 12 establishment of “Emergency Support Measures for Residents Affected by the Nuclear Accident”. Actual payout began on May 31, and to date, approximately JPY19.4 billion (plus approximately JPY400 million in individually-sought claims, for a total of JPY19.8 billion as of October 3) have been paid out to agricultural associations in 7 prefectures (Fukushima, Ibaraki, Gunma, Tochigi, Chiba, Kanagawa, and Saitama) as well as fishery associations in 3 prefectures (Fukushima, Ibaraki and Chiba). - With regard to small and medium enterprises, on May 31, TEPCO announced the concrete framework for provisional compensation payment including the scope and method of the payment, and began actual payout on June 10. Approximately 7,200 companies have received payment totaling approximately JPY8.3 billion (as of October 3). - On August 30, TEPCO announced the policies and standards for full-scale compensation. Applications for compensation have been accepted from September 12 for individuals, and from September 27 for corporations and operators. TEPCO has also taken organizational steps to prepare for implementation of full compensation, including personnel increase. It aims 19 to expand the staff from 1,200 (before September 30) to 6,500 (after October 1). - Full-scale payouts have been started on October 5.

I hunted everywhere for information on compensation before I posted. Why didn't you post this information earlier? It would have been nice if I'd known before I opened my mouth and inserted my foot. How long have you been sitting on this knowledge?

Nice trap, phonedawgz, I walked right into it. You do your party proud.

Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011

RADIATION DECONTAMINATION
Radiation cleanup plan falls short
Experts liken current strategy to letting nature run its course

By KAZUAKI NAGATA
Staff writer

Radioactive fallout from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant has caused widespread fear, prompting the government in August to adopt basic targets for decontamination efforts in and around Fukushima Prefecture.

News photo
Into the drain: A worker in protective gear uses a high-power hose to remove radioactive materials from the roof of a community hall in Minamisoma, Fukushima Prefecture, on Oct. 17. KAZUAKI NAGATA

But the government's plan falls short and efforts should focus in particular on residential areas with more aggressive decontamination measures and goals, including reducing current radiation levels by 90 percent, two radiation experts said when interviewed by The Japan Times.

"I really doubt their seriousness (about decontamination)," said radiation expert Tomoya Yamauchi, a professor at the Graduate School of Maritime Sciences at Kobe University.

Areas with radiation exposure readings representing more than 20 millisieverts per year have been declared no-go zones, and the government has shifted the focus of its decontamination plan to areas with radiation readings, based on an annual accumulative amount, of between 20 millisieverts and more than 1 millisievert, with the goal of reducing the contamination by 50 to 60 percent over two years.

Decontamination efforts by humans, however, are expected to only yield a reduction of 10 to 20 percent.

Nature, including the impact of rain, wind and the normal degradation of the radioactivity of cesium-134, whose half-life is roughly two years, is assumed to do the rest, thus reaching the best-case scenario of cutting the contamination by 60 percent.

The experts said the government's goal of human effort achieving a 10 to 20 percent reduction is not ambitious enough.

"A 10 percent reduction doesn't really mean anything. I mean, 40 percent of the radiation would be reduced just by natural causes, so I think the government is almost saying it is just going to wait for the radioactive materials to decrease naturally," said Shunichi Tanaka, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan.

The main radioactive materials that spewed from the Fukushima No. 1 plant are cesium-134 and -137, the second of which has a half-life of 30 years. Given the relatively short half-life of cesium-134, the total radiation will naturally be halved in four years and fall to one-third in six years, although the threat from the latter will remain for a longer time.

The government is now trying to reduce contamination mainly by using high-power water hoses, known as pressure washers, on structures and removing surface soil and vegetation in limited areas.

But radioactive cesium can find its way into minute cracks and crevices. It is hard to remove, for example, from roofs made of certain materials, or surfaces that are rusted or whose paint is peeling, Yamauchi said.

He has monitored radiation in areas in the city of Fukushima and found that the levels were still quite high after the city performed cleanup operations.

To lower the contamination to pre-March 11 levels, Yamauchi said drastic, and highly costly, efforts by the government are needed, including replacing roofs and removing the surface asphalt of roads.

Tanaka meanwhile pointed out that the government has not even floated a plan for decontaminating the no-go zones where the radiation exceeds 20 millisieverts per year — areas where there isn't even a timetable for when evacuees will be able to return.

If the government doesn't speed up the decontamination work, it will be years before the evacuees may be able to return home, he said, adding that the government can't set a target date because it isn't sure how the cleanup effort will fare.

The government's stance regarding the no-go zone is largely based on recommendations by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and other scientists that call for the maximum radiation exposure of between 20 and 100 millisieverts per year under an emergency situation.

The ICRP theorizes that cumulative exposure of 100 millisieverts could increase the cancer mortality risk by about 0.5 percent, meaning about 50 out of 10,000 people exposed to that level could die of cancer caused by radiation.

Scientists are split over whether exposure to less than 100 millisieverts is harmful. Yamauchi maintains that low-level exposure could pose risks to residents in Fukushima, and he heard from many that they don't want to continue living there due to the fear. The government should thus widen the evacuation zone, he said.

Because the decontamination process is closely connected with the people living in the affected areas, Tanaka said their participation in the process is crucial.

He has been conducting cleanup work in Fukushima while serving as a decontamination adviser for the municipal government of Date, Fukushima Prefecture. He noted decontamination also entails cleaning up private spaces.

Another issue is the need for communities to reach consensus on where to temporarily store contaminated waste.

"Municipalities need to communicate closely with residents (to solicit their involvement) . . . without the participation of the residents, they can't find space for the storage," Tanaka said.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111109f1.html

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Unless you are willing to use science and see what has happened in areas of high natural radioactivity and areas where people were exposed to the same elevated but still low levels of radioactivity from the same and/or similar radioactive isotopes.

Where do you have in mind?

Nuclear power plants put out INCREDIBLE amounts of power. Remember that in Newtonian physics both mass AND energy are conserved.

So a simple analogy is you have a car driving down the highway at 120 MPH with the throttle at 100% and all a sudden you break a drive shaft. Your throttle is still open and your engine is putting out the same amount of energy, but now it has now where to go. First thing the engine does is red line. And what are you going to do to deal with the situation? Turn it off.

So you have a super hot core, and that core is putting out a huge amount of heat. If the turbine load isn't there, you have to do something with all of that heat, or your core is going to melt, but your core is going to melt with 1500 mega watts of heat power applied to it. 1500 mega watts is huge. So how do you deal with it? Boil water and release it as steam. That is the SOP. But you are going to burn through all your water quickly. So just like the car analogy, first thing you are going to do is turn it off (trip the reactor). The operating computers are programmed to automatically trip if the turbine loses it's load.

Could it have been throttled down instead? No. Nuclear reactors don't throttle down fast.

If we were to armchair quarterback and think, would maybe it just have made sense to try to keep one reactor going at a very reduced power level? Clearly the answer is no. Having even just one reactor running at say 1% and having the cooling systems fail is much much more dangerous than what happened at Fukushima. The cooling systems failed after the power had been reduced to many magnitudes below that.

Again what would make sense is to have an appropriately sized back up generator located somewhere onsite, but somewhere that would survive the flood. For example they could have easily had a gas turbine generator on the top of one of the buildings and you would have never heard the name of the power station.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 11-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Ramsar, a northern coastal city in Iran, has areas with some of the highest levels of natural radiation measured to date. The effective dose equivalents in very high background radiation areas (VHBRAs) of Ramsar in particular in Talesh Mahalleh, are a few times higher than the ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers.

Thats 260 mSv a year. Also seems to be mostly Radium 226, and we all know different isotopes have different levels of lethality.

"Some areas around Ramsar have the highest level of natural radioactivity in the world, due to the presence of radioactive hot springs. The dose of radiation received by a person living in Ramsar for one year can be in excess of 260 mGy.[3]

The highest levels of background radiation recorded in the world to date is from areas around Ramsar, particularly at Talesh-Mahalleh which is a very high background radiation area (VHBRA) having an effective dose equivalent several times in excess of ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers and up to 200 times greater than normal background levels. Most of the radiation in the area is due to dissolved radium-226 in water of hot springs along with smaller amounts of uranium and thorium due to travertine deposits. There are more than nine hot springs in the area with different concentrations of radioisotopes, and these are used as spas by locals and tourists.[4] This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox". It has also been claimed that residents have healthier and longer lives.[5] On the basis of this and other evidences including the fact that life had originated in a much more irradiated environment, some scientists have questioned the validity of linear no-threshold model, on which all radiation regulations currently depend.[4] Others point out that some level of radiation might actually be good for health and have a positive effect on population based on radiation hormesis model, by jump starting DNA repair mechanisms inside the cell.[6][7] Due to consumption of radioactive water around Ramsar, the agricultural products as well as other living matter and humans are also slightly radioactive.[4]

An Iranian study has shown that people in the area have a significantly higher expression of CD69 gene and also a higher incidence of stable and unstable chromosomal aberrations.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran

And according to this website

http://www.weatheronline.co...ionsum&WMO=pach22269

At this time the accumulated additional exposure at Koriyama would be about 5000 μG (I am assuming they messed up by leaving the per hour on the unit) or about 5 mSv.

It doesn't seem too realistic to attribute a sudden weight gain decline to the accumulation of 5 mSv.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 11-10-2011).]

What has happened was horrible. When I follow the recent news I'm not sure what I should think about it. Especially since I plan to visit Japan in the next years and I'm afraid that it might be dangerous, although there are no warnings from the health organizations (at least as far as I know) and the Japanese government tries to boost the tourism (which is obvious, but it doesn't mean that it's not dangerous eventually!)

I would minimize my time near the coast. Stay in hotels that are high enough to not be affected by a tsunami. They say the fault line near Tokyo is now prime to fail.

You don't want to be one of the next 20,000 people to die.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 11-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by revme: What has happened was horrible. When I follow the recent news I'm not sure what I should think about it. Especially since I plan to visit Japan in the next years and I'm afraid that it might be dangerous, although there are no warnings from the health organizations (at least as far as I know) and the Japanese government tries to boost the tourism (which is obvious, but it doesn't mean that it's not dangerous eventually!)

Short term exposure isn't likely to be dangerous. The biggest risk might be accidental ingestion of Cesium or Strontium isotopes as both tend to accumulate in the body in such a way as to be dangerous for decades. I haven't heard that they're testing 100% of fish caught offshore nor 100% of all other foods, and given the contamination spread probably the thing I'd be most hesitant to do there is eat local foods. The biggest problem so far is that tens of thousands of locals are refugees in emergency shelters and other locations and can't go home. A visitor obviously isn't in that position since they have a home to go to after the visit.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a...0.html#ixzz1dLqYAduU

November 9, 2011 10:33 pm
Nuclear energy: A hotter topic than ever

By Mure Dickie and Clive Cookson
Divisions over radiation risk have been exposed after Fukushima

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Nuclear power plants put out INCREDIBLE amounts of power. Remember that in Newtonian physics both mass AND energy are conserved. So a simple analogy is you have a car driving down the highway at 120 MPH with the throttle at 100% and all a sudden you break a drive shaft. Your throttle is still open and your engine is putting out the same amount of energy, but now it has now where to go. First thing the engine does is red line. And what are you going to do to deal with the situation? Turn it off. So you have a super hot core, and that core is putting out a huge amount of heat. If the turbine load isn't there, you have to do something with all of that heat, or your core is going to melt, but your core is going to melt with 1500 mega watts of heat power applied to it. 1500 mega watts is huge. So how do you deal with it? Boil water and release it as steam. That is the SOP. But you are going to burn through all your water quickly. So just like the car analogy, first thing you are going to do is turn it off (trip the reactor). The operating computers are programmed to automatically trip if the turbine loses it's load. Could it have been throttled down instead? No. Nuclear reactors don't throttle down fast. If we were to armchair quarterback and think, would maybe it just have made sense to try to keep one reactor going at a very reduced power level? Clearly the answer is no. Having even just one reactor running at say 1% and having the cooling systems fail is much much more dangerous than what happened at Fukushima. The cooling systems failed after the power had been reduced to many magnitudes below that. Again what would make sense is to have an appropriately sized back up generator located somewhere onsite, but somewhere that would survive the flood. For example they could have easily had a gas turbine generator on the top of one of the buildings and you would have never heard the name of the power station.

OK-thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.

A scientific study would compare people who eat the same diet in other parts of Iran with low radiation to those who live in the high radiation areas

It's pretty meaningless to compare fat Americans to people from Iran, independent of radiation levels.

Japan, France consider nuclear power costs

08 November 2011

The cost of generating electricity with nuclear power plants could rise by as much as ¥1.60 ($0.02) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) if the risk of a serious accident is factored in, according to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC). Meanwhile, a French utility group has warned that cutting France's dependency on nuclear energy would be an expensive option.

According to a panel set up by JAEC in the wake of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, a severe accident at a nuclear plant would add between ¥0.006 (0.001 US cent) and ¥1.60 ($0.02) per kWh to the cost of nuclear power generation in the country. These costs - based on a 1200 MWe reactor - include evacuation, compensation and decommissioning of reactors. However, they do not include the costs of decontaminating land and the long term storage of radioactive debris.

The panel said that, should a serious nuclear accident occur at a Japanese nuclear power plant at its current frequency, once in every 500 reactor-years, the "accident risk cost" would be between ¥1.20 ($0.01 US cent) and ¥1.60 ($0.02) per kWh. However, if that frequency is taken as once in every 100,000 reactors-years - corresponding to International Atomic Energy Agency safety guidelines - the cost would be ¥0.006 to ¥0.008 per kWh.

In light of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the panel revised its estimates for the amount of damage from a nuclear accident - including costs for decommissioning reactors - to some ¥5 trillion ($64 billion) from an earlier projection of ¥3.9 trillion ($50 billion). Above this level of damage, JAEC said that for every subsequent ¥1 trillion increase in damage, the cost of nuclear generation would rise by an additional ¥0.001 to ¥0.32 per kWh.

Cost estimates made in 2004 by a Japanese government sub-committee put the cost of nuclear generation at ¥5.30 ($0.07) per kWh, by far the cheapest means of generating electricity, with oil at ¥10.70 ($0.14), coal at ¥5.70 ($0.07), gas at ¥6.20 ($0.08) and hydro at ¥11.90 ($0.16). That estimate did not factor in the risk of a serious accident or the costs of recycling used nuclear fuel.

However, the JAEC panel’s report concludes that, even incorporating the costs associated with an accident, nuclear power generation costs between ¥6 and ¥7 (8 to 9 cents) per kWh. This would still make nuclear cheaper than other sources of energy, especially if the external costs (those related to health and environmental impacts) of other sources are taken into consideration.

The panel noted, "If the risk cost of a nuclear accident is included in calculations of atomic power generation costs, it is necessary to make a comparison in the same manner after estimating the accident costs of other power sources."

The panel's cost estimates are likely to be considered by the Japanese government in drafting a new energy policy.

French phase-out costs

Meanwhile, reducing France's dependency on nuclear energy would be costly, raise energy prices and increase carbon emissions, according to Union Francaise de l’Electricite (UFE), the French professional association for the electricity industry.

The Socialist Party's presidential candidate, Francois Hollande, has proposed reducing nuclear's share of the country's energy mix to about 50% by 2025, down from the current level of almost 75%.

UFE has released a study in which it considers three scenarios on France's nuclear energy use to 2030: where dependence on nuclear energy is maintained at 70%; where it is reduced to 50%; and where nuclear energy dependency is cut to just 20%.

According to the study, the cost of electricity to consumers would increase 30% by 2030 under the 70% scenario, under which all of France's 58 reactors remain in operation and two new EPR units are commissioned. Some €322 billion ($444 billion) in investments would be needed under this scenario, the report said.

Under the scenario to cut nuclear's share of France's energy mix to 50%, as proposed by Hollande, 26 of the country's reactors would shut by 2030. This would require investments of some €382 billion ($527 billion) in order to meet projected electricity demand.

In order to reduce France's dependency on nuclear to 20% by 2030, all of its reactors would be shut down after 40 years of operation. This would leave just 12 units in operation in 2030. However, this option would require some 40 thermal power plants to be built, bringing the cost of this scenario to €434 billion ($600 billion).

The study suggests, "The fundamental political question is whether it is more urgent to move away from nuclear or reduce carbon emissions." However, it adds, "It's not possible to maintain economic competitiveness and lower emissions without a high level of nuclear in the energy mix."

"We must not entertain the illusion that we can get out of nuclear by relying on energy savings and renewables," UFE president Robert Durdilly was quoted as saying by Bloomberg.

http://www.world-nuclear-ne...r_costs-0811114.html

--------
Before others jump on the "they do not include the costs of decontaminating land", it wouldn't make sense to include both the cost of decontaminating the land, and the cost to evacuate and compensate. Once you evacuate the land is yours. If economically feasible, you could decontaminate and later re-sell the land (thus reducing costs), or if it is not, you could keep it as a no-man's land and let it naturally decontaminate itself.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 11-11-2011).]

Evacuate to where? Japan doesn't exactly have empty lands not owned by anybody just waiting for whole cities and farms to move to. Plus. In a culture as old as Japan's most all of the prime farmland is already in use; when you take square miles of it out of use there isn't going to be more square miles of new land just popping up somewhere else ready to use. Japan isn't chernobyl where there are plenty of square miles of state-owned empty lands to relocate a hundred thousand evacuees to. A significant percentage of Japan's land area is unusable now, but the population didn't decrease by a like amount. Maybe the government can kick families out of their homes to make room for the evacuees. Yeah, right.

Edit to add, not so happy 8 month anniversary. Everywhere else in Japan the tsunami and earthquake damage is being cleaned up and homes are being rebuilt, lives rebuilt, the survivors of the natural disaster learning to live again with new friends, new lives, new homes and businesses, building new communities to replace those shattered by nature's fury. However, those 60,000 or more refugees of the man-made nuclear disaster are still in limbo, living in shelters, isolated from their original communities, with no idea if or when they'll be allowed to return to their homes and farms to start rebuilding. Nothing's really changed in the last eight months, the last ~240 days, and nothing looks like it will change in the next 8 months. The reactors, though likely not fissioning uncontrollably now, are still not fully under control, though TEPCO says they think they can get this done by the end of the year or maybe early next year. Let's hope for the sake of the Fukushima refugees that large-scale decontamination can be begun so that those tens of square miles of land can be returned to habitability, so that those families can return to their homes to begin their new lives like everyone else in Japan has been doing during the last eight months.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 11-11-2011).]