This is so confused, I don't know where to start

[c1ue]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

In the meantime, Fukushima work goes on.

The latest:

On 2 April, deposition of iodine-131 was detected in 7 prefectures ranging from 4 to 95 becquerel per square metre. Deposition of cesium-137 in 6 prefectures was reported on 2 April ranging from 15 to 47 becquerel per square metre. Reported gamma dose rates in the 45 prefectures showed no significant changes compared to yesterday.

Most of the previously imposed recommendations for restrictions on drinking water have been lifted. As of 2 April, one recommendation for the restriction based on iodine-131 concentration was in place in one village in the Fukushima prefecture, which applied for infants only. Meanwhile, also in this village, the iodine-131 level in drinking water has dropped below 100 becquerel per litre, which is the recommended restriction level for intake by infants. The restriction is still in place as a precautionary measure of the local authority.

Currently, one IAEA monitoring team is working in the Fukushima region. On 2 April, measurements were made at 7 locations at distances of 32 to 62 km, North and Northwest to the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The dose rates ranged from 0.6 to 4.5 microsievert per hour. At the same locations, results of beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.09 to 0.46 megabecquerel per square metre.

Note the juxtaposition of 0.6 to 4.5 microsieverts/hour vs. the 90k to 460k becquerels per square meter vs. normal background radiation level of 0.27 microsieverts/hour.

Note also that peak releases of radiation on site at Fukushima were 12-18 millisieverts (12000-18000 microsieverts) per hour - peak numbers may have been somewhat higher but I only remember 12 mSv.

This also compares to the report of a 1000 millisievert level in the Reactor 2 trench.

[don]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

In the meantime, Fukushima work goes on.

The latest:

Note the juxtaposition of 0.6 to 4.5 microsieverts/hour vs. the 90k to 460k becquerels per square meter vs. normal background radiation level of 0.27 microsieverts/hour.

Note also that peak releases of radiation on site at Fukushima were 12-18 millisieverts (12000-18000 microsieverts) per hour - peak numbers may have been somewhat higher but I only remember 12 mSv.

This also compares to the report of a 1000 millisievert level in the Reactor 2 trench.

c1ue, you're one of our best in-house sources on this question. It's been reported that a flashing blue light has been seen over one of the reactors. FOX, for the little its worth, is attributing this to a small, uncontrolled chain reaction, a "localized criticality" in the biz. Can you clarify? Much thanks.

[GRG55]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

...This also compares to the report of a 1000 millisievert level in the Reactor 2 trench.

Everything but the golf balls...

This sounds like the nuclear power plant equivalent of a "junk shot" into a leaking BOP. Let's hope it's more successful than that earlier effort.

Radioactive water leaking into ocean

Ken Belson, Hiroko Tabuchi

April 4, 2011

TOKYO: Radioactive water was leaking directly into the sea from a damaged pit near a crippled reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, Japanese safety officials said yesterday...

...Tokyo Electric Power company said radiation in contaminated seawater near the plant was measured at more than 1000 millisieverts an hour. The US Environmental Protection Agency said exposure to that level for an hour would trigger nausea, and four hours might lead to death within two months.

The company said it injected a mix of polymer, sawdust and newsprint into a power-cable storage pit from where polluted water was escaping through a crack, after cement poured on Saturday failed to stop the leak. It would introduce a tracer to the pit to see if the operation had been successful, and also planned to start infusing nitrogen gas into the reactors to reduce the threat of hydrogen explosions...

[c1ue]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

c1ue, you're one of our best in-house sources on this question. It's been reported that a flashing blue light has been seen over one of the reactors. FOX, for the little its worth, is attributing this to a small, uncontrolled chain reaction, a "localized criticality" in the biz. Can you clarify? Much thanks.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but it doesn't require an expert to catch the extremely egregious errors and exaggerations flying around in all directions.

As for the blue light - the IAEA report specifically notes that all of the Fukushima reactors are shut down. There is nothing anywhere near criticality - either increasing in chain reaction or a significant existing chain reaction damping down:

http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/summa...-2011-0600-utc

You'll note that NISA, the IAEA, and TEPco are all acknowledging some damage to the fuel - which is unsurprising given the tsunami impact on cooling systems.

If indeed 'they' are lying, this is something which will be pretty damn hard to cover up: chain reactions vs. no chain reactions.

Note that even if there is a breach, it is small and difficult to detect - and furthermore it should be noted that a breach in this context could be anywhere from a pinhole crack in the cooling torus (i.e. where hot steam is condensed/cooled before release) to an actual breach of 1 or more of the 3 containment chambers in the reactor. The range of impacts from what I understand is serious, but nothing approaching China syndrome (i.e. full on all 3 containment chamber breach with a gigantic mass of molten radioactive metal burning its way into the earth), much less the Chernobyl style (explode nuclear reactor - which only had 1 containment level - with explosion sufficient to scatter fuel and plutonium particles for kilometers).

The IAEA report for April 3, 2011 notes:

In Unit 1 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is relatively stable at 259 °C and at the bottom of RPV at 117 °C. The RPV pressure indications are fluctuating and Drywell pressure is slightly decreasing. In Unit 2 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV has decreased slightly from 161 °C to 153 °C. The temperature at the bottom of RPV was not reported. Indicated Drywell pressure remains at atmospheric pressure. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV in Unit 3 is stable at 118 °C and at the bottom of the RPV is about 92 °C. The validity of the RPV temperature measurement at the feed water nozzle is still under investigation.

None of these temperatures are anywhere even close to where 'criticality' should be of a concern.

Lastly I'd note 2 items:

1) the story first appeared on April 1. Hopefully this isn't an extremely poor taste April Fool's joke

2) the emergency lights used by security and city/state vehicles are blue. It would equally be ironic if said 'blue' lights were because of some potentate visiting Fukushima and having his security contingent's lights reflecting off a building.

EDIT: I just listened to the Fox News blurb - and several items stood out

1) 'Experts' said. No actual expert names or testimony was put forward
2) IAEA said. Again, I can find no mention whatsoever of 'blue flashing lights' or 'local criticality' anywhere in the IAEA reports.
3) Mention of the Mito incident which I talked about before. There is a huge difference between 2 guys shoveling 16 kilograms of enriched uranium in a bucket vs. spent fuel rods or fuel rods in a reactor recombining to start a chain reaction (criticality). Fox News also said both men involved died 7 months later - which is correct - but failed to mention the radiation release involved. This was estimated at 10,000 and 17,000 millisieverts. So, if you decided to swim in the Reactor 2 trench for 10 or 17 hours, you'd also be in big trouble - but more importantly an instantaneous radiation release of 10,000 or 17,000 millisieverts would be more than a tad detectable.

[don]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

Thanks c1ue.

[c1ue]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

From Der Spiegel - a cancer researcher's view on the dangers of Fukushima, plus perspective vs. BAU

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...755267,00.html

Is Germany overly sensitive to nuclear issues? I think so. Let me explain why: About 25 years ago -- when I addressed several ministries in the then West German capital of Bonn after the Chernobyl accident -- I pointed out that, although there might be important health consequence from radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, fewer lives would be lost from it each year than from our reliance on fossil fuels. At the time, very few Germans were sympathetic to my argument. Now the reactor accident in Fukushima has pushed the German public back into turmoil. And, again, the question arises: How should we weigh the risks of nuclear power against its benefits?

How dangerous is Fukushima really? Last week, I was able to get an idea of the situation in the area. I was at the so-called "J-Village," the place where experts gather to deal with the problems of the Fukushima reactors. The J-Village is in the middle of the area that was evacuated. It's strange, actually: In a disaster zone, one would expect destruction -- burned cities, collapsed houses. But, here, everything is very peaceful, just empty, deserted. By going to the catastrophe zone, I wanted to send a signal and show the Japanese that they haven't been completely abandoned. Had I worried about my health, I wouldn't have traveled to Japan. But the radioactivity released is so low that you're safe 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) from Fukushima. The amounts of plutonium that have been detected are low. It's possible that this plutonium was released in the 1950s and 1960s, when nuclear weapons were tested in the Pacific Ocean near the area.

Very Different from Chernobyl

I don't want to play down what's happened here. In principle, any radioactivity is dangerous, and it has been a very serious accident. It will have far-reaching consequences -- but mainly for Japan's economy, its politics and for the psychological well-being of the Japanese people. I do not expect that there will be many deaths.

Chernobyl was different. Thirty-one people were killed by the explosion or from the consequences of acute high-dose radiation exposure. The explosion released huge amounts of radioactive iodine-131 and cesium-134 and -137, which contaminated about 195,000 square kilometers (ca. 75,000 square miles). The radioactive plume was ejected up to the lower troposphere, dispersed by high-altitude winds and brought back down to earth by rains. One of the several reasons why so much radioactivity could escape was that, owing to its size and shape, the core of the Soviet reactor had no containment structure. In Fukushima, the reactor cores are considerably smaller and -- similar to German nuclear power stations -- housed within two containment structures. At the time, I traveled to Kiev as the head of the international medical team (along with my three young children, by the way). Health-related consequences were most easily detected in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. About 6,000 excess cases of thyroid cancer were detected, mostly among the young. These cases of thyroid cancer were caused by 131-iodine in milk and dairy products.

However, it is important to state that the effects of radiation on human health weren't nearly as bad as many people all over the world still think they were. Even a quarter of a century after Chernobyl, there has been no convincingly documented increase in leukemia or other cancers. Although this is an adequate observation period for leukemia, it is too short for other cancers. If we use cancer-risk data derived predominately from the survivors of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would estimate 2,000-15,000 excess cancer deaths over the 50-year period following the Chernobyl explosion.

However, since we can already expect 80 million non-Chernobyl-related deaths from cancer in the EU and the former Soviet Union in this same period of time, it is hard to detect an increase of this magnitude. Other concerns, such as genetic abnormalities and birth defects, have fortunately not materialized. And the observation that cases of leukemia have not been increasing is also reassuring.

Statistically Hard to Detect

Turning to Fukushima, we can use these data to make some estimates of likely health consequences. No one can say for sure how much radioactivity will be released in the coming weeks. But we can estimate the damage based on how much has already been leaked.

The Fukushima Daiichi accident has released about 10 percent as much 131-iodine and 137-cesium as the Chernobyl accident, and the dispersion of the release is much more limited than it was in the case of Chernobyl. Finally, in contrast to the Ukrainian disaster, Japan has succeeded in restricting consumption of contaminated milk and dairy products and in distributing iodine tablets.

Based on these considerations, over the next 50 years, we might expect few, if any, cases of thyroid cancer and about 200-1,500 cases of leukemia and other types of cancer. During this interval, about 18 million Japanese will die from cancers unrelated to Fukushima. Thus, the number of cancer cases that can be attributed to Fukushima should be less than one per 10,000 -- or well below our level of detection in epidemiological studies. Raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by 10-20 percent would result in a much greater reduction in cancer risk.

There is, however, an important caveat to the above discussion: the spent fuel assemblies stored atop each reactor at the Fukushima site. These fuel rods still contain radioactive materials, and there is no containment structure surrounding these pools. Consequently, loss of water or a rupture in one of these pools could release radioactive materials and substantially alter these risk calculations.

The Costly Alternatives

The majority of Germans apparently want to get out of nuclear energy now. But both they and others should keep the alternatives in mind -- which are unfortunately not too inviting.
We all know that global warming is the cost of using fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. What's more, there are also some other frightening costs of oil-dependency, such as the involvement of the United States and Europe in wars in Iraq and Libya. Likewise, as the Deepwater Horizon accident makes clear, oil also carries its own accident risks.

But we also have to consider some less obvious costs. In coal mining, more than 10,000 people die each year, 2,000 of them in China alone. Added to this are lives lost transporting and burning coal. And, under some circumstances, burning coal releases more radiation into the environment than a nuclear power station under normal operating conditions. A country like Japan doesn't have coal or oil in the first place, so what is it supposed to do without nuclear energy?

And don't forget that there are risks with other forms of energy production as well. Even solar power releases radioactivity: Solar power stations need large amounts of copper for pipes, and their production releases uranium. Another unexpected consequence of seemingly "green" energy sources is the explosion of so-called "river blindness" in Egypt that can be attributed to infections spawned by the building of the Aswan Dam. The dammed-up water has caused a massive increase in the number of mosquitoes who transmit the disease, and over a million people have paid for it with their sight.

Harm from Far Away

All this has to be taken into account when discussing such issues. Nuclear power is naturally a very emotional issue. Many people have already formed solid opinions and only take into account what supports their views. But many of these beliefs are irrational and only fed by the many figures, measurements and limits being made public, which hardly anyone can make sense of.

This can be seen very clearly in the current situation in Fukushima. The Americans have recommended that all citizens evacuate the area within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the stricken power plant. The Germans have moved their embassy to Osaka. Even people who are really well informed have left Tokyo in the belief that you can never be careful enough. Though I can understand this reasoning, it's wrong. What's more, it sends a devastating message to the Japanese who have to stay. They have started to distrust their own government, and fear is spreading. This is a terrible side effect of this excessive concern -- and the panicked reaction -- in Germany.

Indeed, it is clear that the major long-term issues with an accident at a nuclear power station are not medical; instead, they are political, psychological and economic. Given these circumstance, the German response to the Fukushima accident needs to be thoughtful and considered, instead of emotional and political. It should be based on a consideration of energy needs for the next several decades and a careful assessment of benefits and risks of alternative energy sources. If such an analysis is done, I suspect nuclear energy will come out in a favorable light.

[c1ue]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

More information via an email correspondence with Dr. Gale: (I had asked him for his view on the Tondel study)

I cannot comment directly on the study but can say that there are fewer than 10 deaths from the about 600 cases of thyroid cancer attributed to radioiodine from chernobyl. Moreover, there is no detectable increase in any other cancer. This does not mean they did not occur (best estimates are 2000-15000) but these cannot be detected.

[lektrode]

Re: This is so confused, I don't know where to start

I am crushed. Crushed, I tell you!
....
Look what we drive. We are Government Motors best customers. Plain vanilla, four door sedan. If they still made the Chevy Biscayne, we'd be buying it. Instead we are the target market for the Malibu. In blue. Dark blue. ....

eye know there was reason i liked your posts GRG...

LETS HEAR IT FOR CHEVY DRIVERS!

signed:
a conservative, engineer-type, chevy owner and PROUD OF IT!
presently hole-up at Steamboat, where its snowin perty good, here on their last day of the season, after blazin outa SLC and snaggin the best of the 27" of Utaaah's Finest at Alta the past few and personally?
there's nuthin quite so satisfying as rompin thru the wild wild west in a rented Impala, radar detector=ON, with stevie ray vaughn, "...toolin along in my chevrolet, blankin on a number and diggin on the radio....." on the way to the next white and fluffy rocky mountain high