Conflicting Details Emerge About Status Of Japanese Nuclear Reactor
By Tennille Tracy, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- There is conflicting information over what details U.S. officials know about a damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor in Japan and the threat it poses.
On Wednesday, Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.) raised alarm bells when he claimed that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes the core of Fukushima's Unit Two had "gotten so hot that part of it has probably melted through the reactor pressure vessel."
If the reactor vessel has in fact been breached, it removes a line of defense in a set of barriers aimed at protecting the public. Shortly after Markey made this claim during a House hearing, however, a top U.S. nuclear official disputed the claim.
"That's not in the situation report that we have from the team in Japan," said Martin Virgilio, deputy executive director for reactor and preparedness programs at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while speaking to reporters Wednesday. " And that [report is] as of this morning."
Markey, a vocal critic of nuclear power, says a member of his staff received an e-mail Tuesday from an NRC official stating the core "may be out of the reactor pressure vessel."
"Based on radiation readings in the drywell and the torus ... the NRC staff speculates that part of the Unit 2 core may be out of the reactor pressure vessel and may be in the lower space of the drywell," according to a copy of the e-mail provided to Dow Jones. "Lower radiation readings in the torus suggest that there is not core material in the torus."
The e-mail was sent by Timothy Riley, a congressional affairs officer with the NRC.
It is unclear whether Virgilio or other NRC officials are aware of the e-mail Riley sent Markey's staff. An NRC spokesman didn't respond to immediate requests for comment.
Markey "obviously received the information from somebody or some source and from the NRC," Virgilio told reporters. "So we'll have to sort that out."
The NRC, Virgilio said, believes there was significant fuel damage in three reactors and four spent-fuel pools, "but we don't believe at this point in time that core has left the vessel."
--By Tennille Tracy, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6619; tennille.tracy@ dowjones.com
Chernobyl was in communist Russia. As a communist country the government is not supported by taxes. So you are categorically wrong when you said "Taxpayers paid ... ...almost 100% of Chernobyl". Russia did not have taxpayers. It had communism.
Your 'fact' "Taxpayers... ...will be paying most if not all of Fukushima" is of course just something you made up. It hasn't happened yet.
TMI's Unit 2 clean up cost GPU Nuclear Corporation, which operates the Three Mile Island plant about $1 billion. Unit 1 alone of TMI had a CONSTRUCTION cost of $1.7B in today's dollars. Considering the value of the electricity generated it is not as you say "insane prices". It is instead a bargain.
As an example look at Point Beach - Two Rivers, Wisconsin - Has an annual average annual generation of 7,767 GW·h. That has a sell price of $761M each year. Over it's expected 50 year life span thats $38B.
the Department of Energy's future electric cost estimations
Here's a web site booking tours INTO the exclusion zone. http://www.tourkiev.com/chernobyltour/ You might want to take one - $140. So much for [QUOTE]When the pyramids have been worn down to mere humps and buried in sand the exclusion zone around Chernobyl will still be uninhabitable and unusable for human endeavors.
point
So to conclude, the reason you are unsuccessful to 'make your point' is because your arguments are based on false data and conjecture.
[/QUOTE]
I've already found logic and factual errors in what you wrote, but need to decide if I want to invest the couple hours it will take to refute your post. If it takes me a while to respond don't take it as capulation on my part or any acceptance of your points by me, merely that I'm a very slow writer and researcher with lots of stuff already on my plate.
Edit to add, gotta figure out what you did with the quotes to fix my quote...
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:44 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Is it Time to Appoint a Body of Top Scientists to Succeed the Fukushima Utility and Treat them as Consultants? Michio Kaku on April 7, 2011, 6:42 PM Japan-earthquake-apologyjpg-c389c0a006ad894d
The recent 7.4 magnitude earthquake and tsunami to hit northern Japan on April 7 underscores the delicate situation at the Fukushima reactors. Although workers had to evacuate the site, preliminary reports show that damage was minimal. This time, the damaged reactors dodged the bullet. But time is not on the side of the utility as it scrambles to contain the damage. It is a race against time, with the utility trying to stabilize the situation even as the reactors degrade with time.
The basic problem was revealed by the NRC's (Reactor Safety Team), which drafted a report that combined the collective assessment of nuclear physicists and engineers around the world. Contrary to the rosy press releases by the utility, this report revealed the true depth of the nuclear accident.
* Cooling to the core of Unit 1 might be blocked by melted fuel and also by salt deposits left over from the use of sea water. * Melting in Unit 2 might have been so severe that the core actually melted through the pressure vessel, so that melted fuel dripped down to the bottom of the containment, although there is room for speculation here. This molten fuel might be the source of all the radiation leaking into the environment. * Pieces of highly radioactive fuel rods, perhaps from Unit 4, were blown over a mile from the site by the hydrogen gas explosion. * Ominously, the huge amounts of water being flushed into the containment system in a desperate attempt to cool the cores might be stressing the frame beyond its safety limit. Indeed, in case of an earthquake, it is not clear if the stressed metal of the containment, burdened with all this water, can maintain its integrity. So the very method used to stabilize the reactor (flooding the containment with huge amounts of water) may actually stress the reactor too far, esp. in case of an earthquake.
Given the fact that this international team of scientists and engineers have given us the clearest indication of the true extent of the damage, perhaps it is time for the Japanese government to remove the utility from leadership, treating them as consultants, and appointing a body of top scientists to succeed the utility.
This new international body would then be given access to the military in order to end the agony of this tragedy.
IP: Logged
07:49 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
VIENNA (Kyodo) The crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant ranks between the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, a senior U.N. official said Wednesday.
News photo Step by step: Workers restore power lines in tsunami-wrecked Minamisanriku, Miyagi Prefecture, on Thursday. KYODO PHOTO
Wolfgang Weiss, chairman of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, said the situation that resulted in Fukushima from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami isn't as big in scale as the 1986 Chernobyl incident in the former Soviet Union, but is far more serious than the 1979 Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
Noting the Fukushima plant faces the Pacific, Weiss told a news conference that its impact on human beings has been smaller than the Chernobyl disaster, which spewed radioactive substances across Europe.
"It is not as dramatic as Chernobyl, but it is certainly much much more serious than in Three Mile Island," he said, adding it is very difficult to foresee the consequences since the crisis is still ongoing.
Even a current assessment is difficult, Weiss suggested.
"The information we are getting is far from pointing out a picture which we would need to make an immediate assessment," he said. "We don't always have the information we would like to have. Measurements are patchy and unclear."
On March 18, Japan's nuclear safety agency placed the severity of the crisis at the six-reactor complex at 5 on the international scale of 7, putting it on the same level as Three Mile Island. Foreign experts, however, have been predicting the level will reach 6 or higher.
The highest level on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale is occupied solely by the Chernobyl catastrophe, at 7.
Weiss said Japan's initial response to the crisis differed from that used in Chernobyl. He also said he believes the government's order to evacuate residents in a 20-km radius of the plant remains appropriate.
As for the health effects of the Fukushima incident, Weiss said that within two years, the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation will compile a report on such key issues as environmental impact and health risks of the accident.
Published Date: 08 April 2011 By ALASTAIR DALTON FURTHER minute traces of radiation from the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan have been detected in Scotland. They were in grass and air samples from across the country, a freshwater sample in Caithness and a rainwater sample, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) reported.
However, concentrations of radioactive iodine-131 from the nuclear site nearly 6,000 miles away, which was damaged by a tsunami four weeks ago, were of "no concern" to health.
Sepa said the isotope had also been detected in sewage sludge in Glasgow, but this could have come from a combination of rain and authorised discharges from hospitals. The HPA said the levels of radiation measured by air monitors would give a dose equivalent to about 1/10,000 of that received from natural radiation. http://news.scotsman.com/sc...ion-found.6747970.jp
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 04-07-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:02 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Scores of schools in South Korea closed over fears of radioactive rain from Japan's crippled nuclear plant
By Richard Shears Last updated at 5:48 PM on 7th April 2011
* Comments (1) * Add to My Stories
Scores of schools in South Korea were closed today as teachers and parents panicked over fears that falling rain could be carrying radiation from Japan's crippled nuclear plant.
As rain swept across the Korean capital, Seoul, and the surrounding Gyeonggi province, classes were cancelled or cut back and children were hurried to their homes.
Seoul is around 750 miles from the damaged nuclear plant at Fukushima and since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami radiation has been leaking into the atmosphere and the sea, contaminating vegetables, meat and fish nearby. Deserted: A kindergarten in Goyang, north of Seoul, is empty after it was closed over fears that rain could contain radioactive particles from Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan
Deserted: A kindergarten in Goyang, north of Seoul, is empty after it was closed over fears that rain could contain radioactive particles from Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan
Concerns grew when the capital's weather agency said that radioactive material from the Fukushima plant might be carried to South Korea by south-easterly winds.
When the rain began to fall, the provincial education office in Gyeonggi province ordered the closure of schools as part of 'pre-emptive measures for the safety of students'.
A spokesman said schools had been ordered to cancel or shorten classes because of 'growing anxiety among students and parents over conflicting claims on the safety of radiation exposure'.
Schools particularly affected by the closures were in rural areas where students have to walk long distances to their classes, exposing them to prolonged periods in the rain.
Schools which have remained open have been told to suspend all outdoor activities. Disaster: Japanese soldiers carry the body of a tsunami victim found underneath rubble in Otsuchi
Disaster: Japanese soldiers carry the body of a tsunami victim found underneath rubble in Otsuchi
Precautions: Japanese military personnel stand on a U.S. ship carrying pure water near the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant
Precautions: Japanese military personnel stand on a U.S. ship carrying pure water near the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant
At first, education officials refused to take any action, but as reports continued to flow about the leakage of radiation into the sea at Fukushima the pressure on the authorities mounted.
One parent wrote: 'Please order class cancellation. I'm worried to death about my kid and can't sleep.'
Finally authorities gave in, ordering scores of schools to be closed and telling others to postpone baseball, outdoor basketball, football and other sports.
Government officials have tried to calm the population by insisting that the amount of radioactive material in rainfall is too small to pose any health threat.
Education offices have been urged to do all they can to 'stop making parents nervous'. Salvage: Students carry their desks and chairs from Hirota Elementary School, in the background, which was damaged in the earthquake and tsunami on March 11
Salvage: Students carry their desks and chairs from Hirota Elementary School, in the background, which was damaged in the earthquake and tsunami on March 11
Radioactive Particles Found In Rainwater Across South Korea
SEOUL, April 8 (Bernama) -- Traces of radioactive particles have been detected in rainwater across South Korea following the release of contaminants from a stricken nuclear power plant in Japan, Yonhap News Agency reported the local nuclear regulator as saying Friday.
The Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) said detailed analysis of rain that fell on Thursday showed traces of iodine-131 in 11 of the 12 detection centres.
The maximum iodine concentration level of 2.81 becquerel (Bq) per liter of rainwater was reached in Jeju Island off the country's southern coast.
It also said that cesium-137 was picked up in four locations and cesium-134 in five areas. Cities that reported cesium in rainwater were Busan, the country's second largest city, Jeju, Daejeon, Gwangju and Gunsan.
The highest concentration of cesium-137 reached 0.978 Bq, with numbers for cesium-134 hitting 0.928 Bq. Both readings were from rainwater samples taken on Jeju.
KINS said that all concentration levels picked up were too small to pose any risks to humans or the environment. In Japan, permissible levels of iodine in tap water are set at 100 Bq per liter for babies and 300 Bq for adults.
The institute also said it detected minuscule traces of iodine and cesium radionuclides in the air in all 12 detection centers across the country.
The samples were collected from special air filters from 10 a.m. Wednesday through 10 a.m. Thursday.
It said atmosphere concentration levels reaching a maximum 1.45 millibecquerel (mBq) per square meter were checked in Suwon south of Seoul, with Busan having the highest concentration of cesium-137 and cesium-134.
"There was a slight rise in radioactive cesium in the atmosphere, but the amount is to minuscule to actually be a health threat," KINS said. It added that both iodine and cesium concentration numbers should rise and fall in the coming days.
The latest announcement on radiation levels, meanwhile, came after Seoul first confirmed trace levels of xenon-133 gas in the atmosphere on March 27 and existence of other radioactive particles on the following day. Minute traces have been picked up ever since.
Xenon and other radioactive isotopes found so far are not detected in nature and are only produced by a nuclear fission reaction.
South Korea has stepped up monitoring of radiation levels around the country after a series of explosions took place at the Fukushima nuclear power station 250 kilometers northeast of Japan on March 12.
Radiation in China (updated) English.news.cn 2011-04-08 11:05:25 FeedbackPrintRSS
BEIJING, April 8 (Xinhuanet) -- Public concerns are growing as higher levels of radiation from Japan's quake-damaged nuclear power plant have been detected in more Chinese areas.
Addressing public concerns on the radioactive leakage from the quake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, China's Ministry of Environmental Protection began to issue its statements on China's radioactive level on March 12 and updates its assessment twice a day on its website until now.
Low levels of iodine-131 in the air
On April 7, "Extremely low levels" of radioactive iodine-131 were detected in the air over some areas of all provincial-level regions except Guizhou.
Low levels of iodine-131 on the surface of plants
Extremely small amounts of radioactive isotope iodine-131 had been found on the surface of spinach plants in Beijing, nearby Tianjin and central China's Henan province .
The radioactive isotope iodine-131 has also been found in the lettuce in Jiangsu Province, and in the spinach beet in Guangdong Province.
Trace levels of radioactive isotope cesium-137 and -134
On April 7, trace levels of radioactive isotope cesium-137 and -134 were detected in the air of at least 22 of the Chinese mainland's 31 provincial-level regions.
Influence
The current trace amounts of radioactive materials will not pose any threat to public health or to the environment, and there is no need to take protective measures against the contamination, said the China's National Nuclear Emergency Coordination Committee on Thursday.
Cremation is important to Japanese Buddhists because it is thought to release the karmic energy that continues on and leads to future rebirth. That belief, and Japan’s severe shortage of land for graveyards, means that nearly all Japanese are cremated after death.
Perhaps even more critical is the idea of recovering the bones so that they can be placed in the family tomb, with kin.
'“One of the things that is important to people is that family members are buried together,” said Tokuno, the University of Washington lecturer. “To be scattered all over is not comforting. Being buried together … is very comforting.'”
“,They say the worst case is when you don’t have anything to bury or cremate, that’s why the surviving family members are desperate,” said Kyoko Tokuno, senior lecturer of East Asian religions at University of Washington in Seattle."
"...a 1,000-page protocol issued by the National Council on Radiation Safety in the United States and similar guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control — urge against cremation, calling instead for deep burial in a sealed container marked by radiation warning symbols."
IP: Logged
12:49 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Here is what the story that you linked to actually said
"What to do with as many as 1,000 bodies near the leaking Fukushima nuclear plant that may be contaminated with radiation."
"But the bodies near the plant have been exposed to radiation, making them potentially dangerous to handle or move."
The article says something QUITE different than what you say.
There are 100 more articles on google saying exactly what I said, I linked to the first one along the lines. But, I refuse to argue with you again, you like twisting truth so that you can potentially have a job in the nuclear industry again. Its sad.
How about this is this close enough for you? You love to twist words and you lie thats all it is, to protect your precious industry.. I am pro nuke, but I do believe in a disaster they should be truthful and I hope to God you never get another job in the industry, we need people of a higher caliber in an industry like that.
http://www.voanews.com/engl...Plant-118988374.html "Authorities in Japan say they are unable to collect up to 1,000 dead bodies lying within 20-kilometers of the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant because of fears the corpses are too contaminated with radiation."
OR what about from the article I linked the first time? "Two sets made available to msnbc.com — a 1,000-page protocol issued by the National Council on Radiation Safety in the United States and similar guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control — urge against cremation, calling instead for deep burial in a sealed container marked by radiation warning symbols.'
Yeah, you kinda forgot to mention that didn't you? Now I am done, you can have the last word.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 04-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:06 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Fallout in China, fallout in Scotland, Fallout on the east and west coasts of the USA, fallout in South Korea. Yes, I know this is not high levels, but thats hardly a non event. On one end nothing happened like some members who worked in the industry are screaming, on the other were all gonna die from the radiation. Neither are true. The truth lies in the middle and there will be human loss do to this, hopefully no more than the fukushima 50. However that remains to be seen, its been almost a month that radiation has been leaking from the reactors, to downplay that is idiotic. The full extent of this is not known at this time, like the damage to the gulf is not completely understood at the moment.
Believe whomever you will, I have been arguing the middle ground, others argue an extreme.
IP: Logged
09:34 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Advertise on NYTimes.com Worries Grow as Experts Argue About Nuclear Dangers at Japan Plant By HIROKO TABUCHI and KEITH BRADSHER Published: April 8, 2011
* Recommend * Twitter * Sign In to E-Mail * Print * Single Page * Reprints * ShareClose o Linkedin o Digg o Mixx o MySpace o Permalink o
TOKYO — Nearly one month after Japan’s devastating nuclear accident, atomic energy experts, regulators and politicians around the world are still puzzling over a basic question: How much danger is still posed by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant? Multimedia Interactive Feature Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Multimedia Related
* Many Still Without Power After Japan Aftershock (April 9, 2011) * From Safe Distance, U.S.-Japanese Team Draws Up Plan to Demolish Reactors (April 8, 2011)
That depends to a considerable extent on how hot the uranium fuel rods at the power plant remain, and whether fuel has escaped its containment, or might still do so. Yet remarkably little is known for sure about what is really happening inside the reactors because some areas remain far too radioactive for workers to approach, and some instruments have malfunctioned.
The paucity of data and the conflicting estimates of what the available information really means have prompted a series of confusing analyses and a rift between officials in Japan and those overseas — and even between one member of Congress and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The commission speculated this week that the nuclear fuel in the core of one of the stricken reactors had probably leaked from its thick steel pressure vessel, its most important protective barrier. If that proved to be accurate, it would raise the prospect of continuing fuel leaks and high levels of radioactive releases that would vastly complicate containment and the cleanup.
But Japanese officials said there was no evidence of a compromised pressure vessel, and they wondered why they were reading about it in the newspapers.
“If they have a concern, they should inform us,” said Kentaro Morita of Japan’s nuclear regulatory body, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, after its American counterpart sounded the alarm over a possible nuclear fuel leak at the plant’s Reactor No. 2, clearly contradicting Japanese accounts. “They didn’t say such concerns to us directly,” Mr. Morita said.
A senior Foreign Ministry official, meanwhile, accused the foreign media of exaggerating the threat posed by the power plant and the radiation spreading from it. Radiation fears are hurting sales of Japanese products abroad.
Who is proved right in the scientific debate has great repercussions for how and when the nuclear crisis might be brought under control, and the potential implications if assumptions prove wrong.
From the start there have been differences, with the American authorities expressing a more pessimistic view than the Japanese.
The United States has advised Americans to stay at least 50 miles away from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Japanese officials evacuated residents within a 12-mile radius, and have since said they are considering expanding the evacuation zone.
An assessment in late March by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that hydrogen explosions at the plant might have blown particles of nuclear fuel from the reactors’ spent-fuel pools up to a mile away. The Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, says that while the pools remain exposed at the most-damaged reactors, the fuel remains safely inside.
American officials are also concerned that mounting stresses on the reactors’ containment structures as they fill up with radioactive water used in emergency cooling make them vulnerable to rupture in an aftershock from the March 11 earthquake. Japanese officials have played down that concern, and on Friday they said a sizable aftershock that struck overnight had caused no further damage at the plant.
The rift also highlights the difficulty of a debate in which both sides are forced to extrapolate possible situations with little access to crucial readings from inside the reactors.
Much of the automated measurement equipment in the reactors has been damaged, either by explosions in the early days of the crisis or by intense radiation since then. Damage to the reactors, as well as high radiation, has prevented technicians from making detailed assessments.
The Pentagon has provided airborne surveillance drones that can help monitor ground-level radiation at the plant. It is possible that American officials are basing their analysis on data they have collected independently, though Obama administration officials say they have shared their information with the Japanese.
HEADLINE IS FROM ARTICLE!!! Though a certain someone will probably argue about the source. “Total releases of radioactive iodine-131 and cesium-137 from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactors in Japan now appear to rival Chernobyl,” IEER stated in a press release.
BOSTON— This week, as the United States disclosed that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster had been found in Idaho rainwater, a nuclear watchdog is calling for more stringent monitoring of milk and water.
The group, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), suggested that U.S. government monitoring was critical because, by its calculations, contamination from the accident is reaching a very high level, on par with Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster ever.
“Total releases of radioactive iodine-131 and cesium-137 from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactors in Japan now appear to rival Chernobyl,” IEER stated in a press release.
On March 22, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency detected rainwater in Boise, Idaho with radiation levels at 242 picocuries per liter, the Seattle Times reported.
The newspaper wrote: “The levels of iodine-131 in water samples from Richland and Boise — about 0.2 picocuries per liter — are so small the EPA estimates that even an infant would have to drink nearly 7,000 liters to receive a dose of radiation equivalent to a day's worth of normal background radiation. Iodine-131 can be harmful in higher amounts, particularly to babies and young children, because it concentrates in the thyroid gland and can lead to cancer later in life.”
“There is no safe level of radiation exposure in the sense of zero risk. Period.”
~Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research's president.
IEER indicated that this contamination was “about 80 times the U.S. drinking water standard if the level persisted for a prolonged time.” Much of the iodine-131 would dissipate before it reached drinking water from wells or from municipal supplies.
The institute concurred that the risk from drinking the Boise water contamination “would be low.” Nonetheless, its president suggested that the discovery should be a wakeup call. He said government sampling of milk is limited, uncoordinated and insufficient to determine any risk from consumption.
“We must ensure that fallout is not rising to levels that could repeat even a small part of the tragedy associated with atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, IEER's president.
Milk can become contaminated through cows grazing on pastureland where radiation-laden rain had fallen. Many cattle in the U.S., however, are fed grain, which would pose a lower risk. The health threat comes mainly from Iodine-131, which has a half life of about eight days, meaning that it essentially disappears within a few months. Because grain is stored and shipped after harvest, any radionuclides would have more time to dissipate.
The institute also criticized officials for distorting science to reassure the public about radiation over the exposures coming from Fukushima. For instance, it pointed out that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s website states: “In general, a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm.”
That contradicts the current reigning theory in the scientific community. While the effects of low-dose radiation are not well understood, researchers believe that background contamination claims a significant death toll. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that exposure to radioactive radon — which is emitted by natural uranium commonly found in rock and soil — causes over 21,000 lung cancer deaths each year.
Further, based on formulas from the National Academies of Science, IEER calculates that an annual 620 millirem dose results in 200,000 cancers each year, half of them fatal. In addition to radon, background radiation comes from cosmic rays, food, cigarettes, X-rays, CT scans and many other sources.
"It is lamentable that the U.S. government is not speaking with a coherent, science-based voice on the risks of radiation," said Dr. Makhijani. "There is no safe level of radiation exposure in the sense of zero risk. Period. This has been repeatedly concluded by official studies, most recently a 2006 study done by the National Academies. Yet there is no shortage of unfortunate official statements on radiation that may seek to placate the public about 'safe' levels of radiation, but actually undermine confidence." http://www.globalpost.com/d...tion-tsunami-nuclear
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 04-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:50 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Fallout in China, fallout in Scotland, Fallout on the east and west coasts of the USA, fallout in South Korea. Yes, I know this is not high levels, but thats hardly a non event.
This is what your story said "The current trace amounts of radioactive materials will not pose any threat to public health or to the environment, and there is no need to take protective measures against the contamination, said the China's National Nuclear Emergency Coordination Committee on Thursday."
So YOUR story is saying it's a non-event.
IP: Logged
09:51 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
This is what your story said "The current trace amounts of radioactive materials will not pose any threat to public health or to the environment, and there is no need to take protective measures against the contamination, said the China's National Nuclear Emergency Coordination Committee on Thursday."
So YOUR story is saying it's a non-event.
Its still leaking, and Cesium isn't like Iodine, you know this. If you are exposed your entire lifetime to small amounts of cesium it may or may not help you on your way to cancer. You also know this.
IP: Logged
09:54 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Its still leaking, and Cesium isn't like Iodine, you know this. If you are exposed your entire lifetime to small amounts of cesium it may or may not help you on your way to cancer. You also know this.
Radioactive iodine is dangerous also. It does have a shorter half life but it still is dangerous.
IP: Logged
10:04 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
If you have read the article, you would have understood, some people albeit very few get cancer from background radiation, hence the no level of radiation is safe.
IP: Logged
10:28 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Radioactive iodine is dangerous also. It does have a shorter half life but it still is dangerous.
Radioactive iodine, won't be around long enough to cause cumalative dosage problems. You knew exactly what I was talking about, I may have had to explain it more clearly to someone with no understanding of radiation, but you are a self proclaimed expert, so this just illustrates they way you operate.
IP: Logged
10:31 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
* 15:29 29 March 2011 by Debora MacKenzie * For similar stories, visit the The Nuclear Age Topic Guide
Read more: "Special report: The fallout from Fukushima"
Read more: Click here to read the original version of this story
Radioactive caesium and iodine has been deposited in northern Japan far from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, at levels that were considered highly contaminated after Chernobyl.
The readings were taken by the Japanese science ministry, MEXT, and reveal high levels of caesium-137 and iodine-131 outside the 30-kilometre evacuation zone, mostly to the north-north-west.
Iodine-131, with a half-life of eight days, should disappear in a matter of weeks. The bigger worry concerns caesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years and could pose a health threat for far longer. Just how serious that will be depends on where it lands, and whether remediation measures are possible.
The US Department of Energy has been surveying the area with an airborne gamma radiation detector. It reports that most of the "elevated readings" are within 40 kilometres of the plant, but that "an area of greater radiation extending north-west… may be of interest to public safety officials". Caesium contamination
An analysis of MEXT's data by New Scientist shows just how elevated the levels are. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with over 1490 kilobecquerels (kBq) of caesium per square metre. Produce from soil with 550 kBq/m2 was destroyed.
People living within 30 kilometres of the plant have evacuated or been advised to stay indoors. Since 18 March, MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant. The highest was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata, where iodine-131 levels of up to 12,560 kBq/m2 have also been measured. "Some of the numbers are really high," says Gerhard Proehl, head of assessment and management of environmental releases of radiation at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Health risk
Whether people's health is at risk is not clear, however. Epidemiologists still argue over how many cancers were caused by caesium released by ChernobylMovie Camera. "We would investigate the exposures and effects when the emergency phase is over," says Malcolm Crick, secretary of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
It isn't a straightforward matter of how much caesium has landed. People's exposure depends on the local soil type, says Proehl. Sandy soil readily releases it, but clay binds it tightly, so contaminated clay can simply be buried.
Otherwise, it depends on whether the caesium lands on farms and gardens, or relatively undisturbed forests and mountains. With thousands of people in northern Japan made homeless by the tsunami, further evacuation of areas affected by the uncertain risk of fallout seems unlikely. http://www.newscientist.com...ivals-chernobyl.html
IP: Logged
10:48 PM
Apr 9th, 2011
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
If you have read the article, you would have understood, some people albeit very few get cancer from background radiation, hence the no level of radiation is safe.
The theory that people get cancer from background radiation is unproven and disputed.
There are scientists who theorize that radiation in low doses are actually good for you.
Radioactive iodine, won't be around long enough to cause cumalative dosage problems. You knew exactly what I was talking about, I may have had to explain it more clearly to someone with no understanding of radiation, but you are a self proclaimed expert, so this just illustrates they way you operate.
The way I operate is to try to base my opinions on actual facts not something someone just made up. Radioactive Iodine is dangerous. Ingested it can cause cancer. It needs to also be treated with respect. Don't ignore it just because it has a short half life.
Radioactivity needs to be treated with respect. Just like a car. Just like guns. Just like compressed flammable gasses. Learn about the potential dangers. Respect them. But don't overstate them. Doing so will cause people to do things that are not health for them, their families or the world.
Nuclear power generation in the free world has been safer than the other dangers stated above. One of the reasons is because the people who work with it do respect it properly.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 02-19-2012).]
IP: Logged
07:33 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The way I operate it to try to base my opinions on actual facts not something someone just made up. Radioactive Iodine is dangerous. Ingested it can cause cancer. It needs to also be treated with respect. Don't ignore it just because it has a short half life.
Radioactivity needs to be treated with respect. Just like a car. Just like guns. Just like compressed flammable gasses. Learn about the potential dangers. Respect them. But don't overstate them. Doing so will cause people to do things that are not health for them, their families or the world.
Nuclear power generation in the free world has been more safe than the other three dangers stated. One of the reasons is because the people who work with it do respect it properly.
Radioactive iodine in the levels reported in the US is safe for consumption and because of its half life, it won't be giving that little extra dosage 30+ years from now. Why do you insist on arguing when you know exactly what I was talking about, clarification might have been needed for the general public, but you understood, so why do you insist on dragging this through the mud? If you exceed a safe dosage of radioactive anything, its dangerous or lethal. Never overstated anything, and I agree Nuclear power is safer than any alternatives, there are underground coal fires here in the US that have been burning for about 100 years. Like I said, I am a believer in Nuclear power and a supporter. I however do not support people downplaying a disaster, because it goes against their interest. Japans exports have been hurt, because of fears of radioactivity in their products, they have motivation to down play the whole disaster. US experts disagree on Japans view of the disaster based on our reading from unmanned drones, which we shared with Japan and they have evidently dismissed. I don't want people scared of nuclear power, but I want the downplaying of this event to stop, and them to release factual and up to date radiation levels around the plant, and around the world. I think this is a local disaster, and I do expect more people in Japan especially in a 20-30 mile radius of the plant to be stricken with cancer.
However this disaster, could have been avoided and was caused by human stupidity, not the nature of nuclear power. If your plant needs power to keep from melting down, for the love of God source a backup generator or 6 and get them air lifted to the plant. They had a window to do this and failed. That is what Tepco should be held accountable for.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 04-09-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:58 PM
Apr 10th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
A sample of small fish called konago, or young lance fish, caught Thursday a kilometer offshore of the city of Iwaki, about 30 kilometers south of Fukushima Daiichi, contained 570 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, exceeding the legal limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram, according to the ministry. Separate samples of the same fish caught farther away near northern Ibaraki earlier last week contained 4,080 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive iodine, exceeding the government's limit of 2,000 becquerels per kilogram, and 526 becquerels per kilogram of cesium.
"Milk, spinach, broccoli and other produce tainted by the radioactive materials, which can cause cancer and other diseases in high enough dosages, have also been found in Fukushima and other nearby prefectures. The government decided Sunday, however, to lift a ban on milk from neighboring Ibaraki prefecture, saying recent tests have confirmed the milk is safe for consumption.
But underscoring a new concern, the government on Friday banned the planting of rice, a national staple, in soil found to contain more than 5,000 becquerels per kilogram of cesium.
Officials have said the permissible limits for contamination are strictly set, and consumption of tainted foods would pose no immediate health risks. But concerns persist over the longer-term health risks. Radioactive iodine-131 has a half-life of only eight days, but can accumulate in the thyroid, particularly in children, causing cancer. Cesium has a half-life of about 30 years. " http://online.wsj.com/artic...254583554848562.html
IP: Logged
03:49 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Authorities in Japan have imposed a ban on mushrooms from Fukushima Prefecture, home to the crippled nuclear electricity station.
This follows the discovery of abnormally high radioactivity in these mushrooms. One kilo registers 13 thousand becquerels, which is 26 times higher than the norm. Mushrooms readily accumulate one of nuclear fission products, Cesium-137.
http://www.physorg.com/news...erts-becquerels.html “Everything we know about radiation suggests that if you get a certain dose all at once, that’s much more serious than if you get the same dose over a long time,” Yanch says. The rule of thumb is that a dose spread out over a long period of time is about half as damaging as the same dose delivered all at once, but Yanch says that’s a conservative estimate, and the real equivalence may be closer to one-tenth that of a rapid dose.
Basic conversions:
1 gray (Gy) = 100 rad 1 rad = 10 milligray (mGy) 1 sievert (Sv) = 1,000 millisieverts (mSv) = 1,000,000 microsieverts (μSv) 1 sievert = 100 rem 1 becquerel (Bq) = 1 count per second (cps) 1 curie = 37,000,000,000 becquerel = 37 Gigabecquerels (GBq)
For x-rays and gamma rays, 1 rad = 1 rem = 10 mSv For neutrons, 1 rad = 5 to 20 rem (depending on energy level) = 50-200 mSv For alpha radiation (helium-4 nuclei), 1 rad = 20 rem = 200 mSv
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 04-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:00 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
10,000 mSv (10 sieverts) as a short-term and whole-body dose would cause immediate illness, such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, and subsequent death within a few weeks. Between 2 and 10 sieverts in a short-term dose would cause severe radiation sickness with increasing likelihood that this would be fatal.
1,000 mSv (1 sievert) in a short-term dose is about the threshold for causing immediate radiation sickness in a person of average physical attributes, but would be unlikely to cause death. Above 1000 mSv, severity of illness increases with dose. If doses greater than 1000 mSv occur over a long period they are less likely to have early health effects, but they create a definite risk that cancer will develop many years later.
Above about 100 mSv, the probability of cancer (rather than the severity of illness) increases with dose. The estimated risk of fatal cancer is 5 of every 100 persons exposed to a dose of 1000 mSv (ie. if the normal incidence of fatal cancer were 25%, this dose would increase it to 30%).
50 mSv is, conservatively, the lowest dose at which there is any evidence of cancer being caused in adults. It is also the highest dose which is allowed by regulation in any one year of occupational exposure. Dose rates greater than 50 mSv/yr arise from natural background levels in several parts of the world but do not cause any discernible harm to local populations.
20 mSv/yr averaged over 5 years is the limit for radiological personnel such as employees in the nuclear industry, uranium or mineral sands miners and hospital workers (who are all closely monitored).
10 mSv/yr is the maximum actual dose rate received by any Australian uranium miner.
3-5 mSv/yr is the typical dose rate (above background) received by uranium miners in Australia and Canada.
3 mSv/yr (approx) is the typical background radiation from natural sources in North America, including an average of almost 2 mSv/yr from radon in air.
2 mSv/yr (approx) is the typical background radiation from natural sources, including an average of 0.7 mSv/yr from radon in air. This is close to the minimum dose received by all humans anywhere on Earth.
0.3-0.6 mSv/yr is a typical range of dose rates from artificial sources of radiation, mostly medical.
0.05 mSv/yr, a very small fraction of natural background radiation, is the design target for maximum radiation at the perimeter fence of a nuclear electricity generating station. In practice the actual dose is less. http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm
Just a thought about background radiation in comparison to what's leaking from the Japanese nuclear catastrophe.
Radiation damage is to some extent cumulative over a lifetime. True, background radiation from flying or living in Denver is higher, but it's important to consider that whatever you receive from Japan will be in addition to existing sources. In other words, the other sources aren't going to decrease in response to the increases due to Japan. This won't really affect us here in the states per se, but for those closer to the action it's a real consideration. Now, if you are exposed to radiation from Fukushima you can choose to not move to Denver, reduce trips via airplane, not get X-rays done, etc. That will ensure your lifetime lifetime exposure doesn't change. It also means you'll probably need to move away from the Fukushima exclusion zone and avoid spending time around other reactors in case one of those has a problem as well.
If you're unlucky enough to inadvertently ingest/inhale Cesium, Strontium, Iodine, Plutonium, etc. isotopes, hopefully it won't cause you harm.
Just heard they are raised the severity level of the Nuclear accident level to a 7 (Which is what Chernobyl was). Apparently has to do with what went on in the first week or so not what is going on currrently. Confused yet? I know I am.
Also reports of a fire at reactor 4. Can't confirm that right now though.
IP: Logged
08:19 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Just heard they are raised the severity level of the Nuclear accident level to a 7 (Which is what Chernobyl was). Apparently has to do with what went on in the first week or so not what is going on currrently. Confused yet? I know I am.
Also reports of a fire at reactor 4. Can't confirm that right now though.
The Japanese government's nuclear safety agency has decided to raise the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency made the decision on Monday. It says 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.
The agency used the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, or INES, to gauge the level. The scale was designed by an international group of experts to indicate the significance of nuclear events with ratings of 0 to 7.
On March 18th, one week after the massive quake, the agency declared the Fukushima trouble a level 5 incident, the same as the accident at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979.
Level 7 has formerly only been applied to the Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union in 1986 when hundreds of thousands of terabecquerels of radioactive iodine-131 were released into the air. One terabecquerel is one trillion becquerels.
The agency believes the cumulative amount from the Fukushima plant is less than that from Chernobyl.
Officials from the agency and the Nuclear Safety Commission will hold a news conference on Tuesday morning to explain the change of evaluation.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 05:47 +0900 (JST)
IP: Logged
09:48 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
The Japanese government says the radiation accumulated over a 25-day period at some locations in Fukushima Prefecture has exceeded the permissible level set for a full year.
The government announced the findings on Monday. The calculation is based on data collected from 53 locations, up to 60 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, from the day following the March 11th disasters through April 5th.
34 millisieverts of radiation had accumulated over that period at one location in Namie Town, about 24 kilometers northwest of the plant. This equates to about 314 millisieverts per year, more than 3 times the permissible level of 100 millisieverts.
On Monday, the government expanded its 20-kilometer evacuation zone to include towns where annual exposure is expected to top 20 millisieverts. It asked residents to evacuate within about a month.
The science ministry says the amount of radiation accumulated over about half a month in some areas of Fukushima Prefecture has exceeded the permissible level for a whole year.
Since March 23rd, the ministry has been measuring radiation levels in 15 locations more than 20 kilometers away from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
At one location, in Namie Town about 30 kilometers northwest of the plant, 14,480 microsieverts of radiation had accumulated over the 17-day period to Sunday. 8,440 microsieverts of radiation were observed in Iitate Village.
In another location in Namie, the amount reached 6,430 microsieverts. People would be exposed to this accumulated amount of radiation if they had stayed outdoors throughout the entire period.
The level at one location was more than 14 times the 1,000 microsieverts that the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends as the long-term annual reference level for people. The recommended level of 1,000 microsieverts excludes radiation from the natural environment and medical devices.
Hiroshima University Professor Kiyoshi Shizuma says most of the radiation observed in Fukushima is believed to be radioactive cesium that has fallen to the ground.
Shizuma advises residents to wear masks to avoid inhaling radioactive substances mixed with dust. He points to the need to take samples both from the air and the ground for detailed analyses in order to assess any possible impact on human health.
Hard to say if Fukushima is a bad as Chernobyl. The nuclear accident scale goes to 7, and they're both now rated a 7. Will it end up being worse? The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is a 30km radius around the plant. Fukushima's current evacuation zone is 20km and is being extended to 30km (19 mi). The U.S. and several foreign governments have advised a 37 mile evacuation zone.
It's going to be a long road back for Japan.
IP: Logged
10:29 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Hard to say if Fukushima is a bad as Chernobyl. The nuclear accident scale goes to 7, and they're both now rated a 7. Will it end up being worse? The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is a 30km radius around the plant. Fukushima's current evacuation zone is 20km and is being extended to 30km (19 mi). The U.S. and several foreign governments have advised a 37 mile evacuation zone.
It's going to be a long road back for Japan.
Well hopefully most of it is dispersed harmlessly over the Pacific, but Chernobly only had one reactor in play, there are 3 in play here and thousands of spent fuel rods. I don't think anyone really knows how this gonna play out.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 04-11-2011).]
