Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

"In Japan, over 600 square kilometres (230 sq mi) of Japanese coastal waters are given to producing 350,000 tonnes (340,000 long tons) of nori, worth over a billion dollars. China produces about a third of this amount.^[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nori

So, to suggest that this is not an issue and that dumping radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean is a non event is, well, how does one put it? Stupid comes to mind.

I'm still unclear what your point is.

As I've noted before, there have been literally hundreds of atomic tests in the Pacific Ocean.

There are all sorts of plutonium, strontium 90, uranium 235, cesium 137, etc etc radioactive bits floating around from these bomb tests in the '50s and '60s.

This existed long before Fukushima - in fact the background plutonium levels in Japan are elevated due to these tests.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

I think Chris Coles's article was very clear. Not one of the 25 workers exposed to a considerable amount of plutonium at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has died from plutonium, and they had at least 66 years to die. But the rub ( the point ) is that the mistaken calculations of the mortality risk from plutonium is that 99.5% of those 25 workers would have died by now. The old and mistaken theory about radiation is that radiation causes a tumour, and then you die of cancer. It is the threshold theory where a point is reached, and then it is game-over: you die.

Again, here we have another observation that would suggest that the human body (and all living things) might repair damage due to radiation. The threshold theory about mortality risk from radiation is wrong, totally: The threshold theory predicted that at least 24 out of 25 of the workers exposed would have died from their plutonium exposure, but after 66 years of time (2011-1945), no-one has died. Let's re-state this: the reality is that 0/25 have died, versus a prediction in the threshold theory that 24/25 or 25/25 would have died from their plutonium exposure. Therefore, the observation from Los Alamos Laboratory that 0/25 workers have died refutes the calculation of mortality, and totally so. And that means the threshold theory of mortality caused by radiation expsure is wrong..... In real science, the threshold theory must be discarded.

As for tasting plutonium, how gritty is the taste? If I don't die from an exposure of one micro-gramme or pin-point on a baked pepper, would that suggest that a small amount of plutonium is not a major health risk? I picked a baked pepper with cheese and tomatoes in it along with salsa so that the metallic taste would blend into the pepper taste. But the problem of grit remains: Is the plutonium gritty? Also, is plutonium chemically a toxin, like arsenic or lead are?

Could I have a small sample of plutonium metal to keep on top of my desk? Plutonium is quite rare too, so I wonder what a sample of plutonium (maybe one gram) might be worth? I think the metal has a silvery colour, or is that neptunium that has a silvery colour? Both metals are interesting and very rare, to be sure. I think smoke-detectors have one of these exotic metals in them, if I remember correctly, or do smoke-detectors use thorium?

Chris's article stated that plutonium has a metallic taste. I wonder if plutonium is a metal, and might plutonium be used to make coins? But then, kids put coins in their mouths, so coining plutonium would make for a needless public-health risk, especially to small kids who might swallow a plutonium coin.

[mooncliff]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

Hmm, Gundersen is the only one saying things like this.
First he said that if the cores were exposed they would melt and everyone gonna die. The cores were exposed and melted in the first day and melted through. That he said the cores would do that is totally correct. However, everything was then supposed to explode and kill everyone, but the effect was small and was mostly over in a week.

Duesberg still insists that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis
That is useful that someone thinks that and probes the possibility, but the rest of the scientific community has moved on.

You can find one person, a scientist, who will say anything you want. Expert witnesses are hired all the time to say what you want them to say. Why are not more scientists saying what Gundersen is saying?

I just stepped several hysterical people through the calculations and showed them that average exposure to radiation in the US is 10 times current readings in Tokyo. I have done this over and over again, to no effect in the hysterical, completely immune to evidence they are. The more I check the data, the less anxiety I feel. If there is something to worry about, believe me, I am the first one to do so. Where is the data that other than the 20 miles or so around the plant the contamination is everyone in Japan gonna die? Many people also seem to think that Japan is the size of Gilligan's Island and therefore everyone gonna die, but actually, if you superimposed it on the US, the north part of Japan is in New England and the south part is in Texas. What is contaminated is terrible, but it is a tiny fraction of a percent of Japan. From what has happened so far, this is a money problem, not an everybody gonna die problem. Since this just goes on and on, I am going again to see if I can buy a geiger counter (they have of course been backordered for months) so I can just take readings myself and show people that their own bones and all the metal desks etc in their houses are much more radioactive than the environment. But since people start out with the conclusion that they want and then confabulate the reasoning to reach the conclusion, I guess this will also have no effect, so then the only rational thing to do is to just give up.

Here is another example

Babies are dying because of Fukushima!
http://peakoil.com/enviroment/35-spi...ince-meltdown/

But are they?
How come the mortality is higher BEFORE the accident and GOES DOWN AFTER THE ACCIDENT?
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blo...oseph-mangano/

The first thing that comes to mind is "seasonal effects".

If anything is wrong with this, please let me know. I will change my mind if the data is wrong or there is some other problem.

So, you can get a doctor saying things like this! What, if a person is a doctor, the person is not human? They are Vulcan rational? I have many friends who are doctors, and believe me, they are not.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

I have a scientific background but I am not sure that is of any relevance here. Either way I have been walking the face of the Earth for 48 years and have made my living watching governments and people around technology and systems. The one observation I would make is that you can't witness someone spend billions of dollars building safety systems around a very unnatural source of radiation and then watch those systems completely fail and watch these people constantly lie and mislead and run around like chickens with their heads cut off (very brave chickens I would add) and think that things are okay.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

I have a scientific background but I am not sure that is of any relevance here. Either way I have been walking the face of the Earth for 48 years and have made my living watching governments and people around technology and systems. The one observation I would make is that you can't witness someone spend billions of dollars building safety systems around a very unnatural source of radiation and then watch those systems completely fail and watch these people constantly lie and mislead and run around like chickens with their heads cut off (very brave chickens I would add) and think that things are okay.

For someone with a supposed science background, you don't seem to understand the difference between design margins and reality.

Similarly for someone with a science background, you don't seem to understand that radioactive decay is 100% natural - or at the least as natural as any other common man-utilized energy source.

Or did you think solar cells occur in nature?

[sunskyfan]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

I don't understand the difference between design margins and reality? Failure means that reality has overcome design margins. I think Fukishima qualifies.

As for unnatural radiation. I doubt seriously that human beings have evolved conditioned by the type or levels of radiation contained in or around (and the radius is getting bigger and bigger as the days go by) the reactor cores as at Fukishima. Perhaps a read of this will give some perspective: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nic-elements-s


The difference between being skeptical and argumentative is an honest desire to discover the truth. The difference between arrogant and stupid is the tentative presumption that the bravadoish person asserting something knows what they are talking about. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I am thinking you are being argumentative and arrogant. Perhaps that is too generous.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

I don't understand the difference between design margins and reality? Failure means that reality has overcome design margins. I think Fukishima qualifies.

As for unnatural radiation. I doubt seriously that human beings have evolved conditioned by the type or levels of radiation contained in or around (and the radius is getting bigger and bigger as the days go by) the reactor cores as at Fukishima. Perhaps a read of this will give some perspective: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nic-elements-s


The difference between being skeptical and argumentative is an honest desire to discover the truth. The difference between arrogant and stupid is the tentative presumption that the bravadoish person asserting something knows what they are talking about. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I am thinking you are being argumentative and arrogant. Perhaps that is too generous.

Would you advocate moving the city of St. Louis, Missouri and the city of Memphis, Tenn. because these cities are locate close to the New Madrid earthquake fault? Remember, once or more times in five hundred years, there is a gigantic earthquake on the New Madrid fault.

Similarly, would you advocate moving Vancouver, BC and Victoria, BC, also Seattle, Washington because they are at risk of a catastrophic earthquake on the Cascadia Fault?

Similarly, would you move San Francisco and Oakland and San Jose because they get frequent earthquakes? How about moving Mexico City, D.F. because that city is short on water, not to mention that city's earthquake risk?

The point is: there is risk everywhere and in every human endeavour. So does progress stop because of catastrophic risk over the long-term?

Would you advocate moving Santiago, Chile because of its catastrophic earthquake risk? Would you advocate draining Hoover Dam? Would you advocate draining the Bonneville Dam? How about draining the Aswan Dam in Egypt? Would you move Tokyo, Japan? How about moving Charleston, South Carolina because of earthquake risk? How about moving Joplin, Missouri because of its tornado risk? How about moving New Orleans, Louisiana because of hurricane risk and flooding risk, not to mention the risk from a change in sea-level? Closing the oil refineries at Houston. Texas because of the risk of fire, not to mention hurricane risk? Moving Los Angeles because of dust storms, fire risk, and earthquake risk? How about moving habitation out of Canada because of glaciation risk over the long-term? How about moving habitation out of Iceland because of its geo-thermal risks, not to mention Iceland's glaciation risk. How about moving people off of atolls in the South Pacific, just in case of a rise in sea-level or in case of a passing typhoon? How about moving people out of Indonesia because of earthquake and volcanic risks? How about abandoning Singapore because of flooding risk and the risk of sea-level rise? How about moving Miami, Florida because of hurricane risk? Abandoning Florida because of hurricane risk? Would you advocate abandoning Scandinavia because of glaciation risk? How about closing geo-thermal power plants in southern Germany because these plants cause small earthquakes? Windmills kill birds, so would you stop them? How about closing the atomic power plants around New York City because of flooding, glaciation, and hurricane risk over the long-term? How about abandoning Lima, Peru because of its earthquake risk, not to mention drought risk in the Andes Mountains? Tehran, Iran has earthquakes, so would you abandon that city? Israel has a drought risk, so would you advocate abandoning Israel? How about abandoning Saudi-Arabia because of its droughts? Stop the fracking of rocks because of risk to ground water? Kill the tar sands development in Alberta because of carbon-dioxide? Stop drilling oil at sea because of the risk of an oil spill? Stop transporting oil by oil-tanker ship?
Stop laying natural-gas pipelines because of fire risk, like the catastrophic fire at San Bruno, California? Kill all liquified natural-gas projects because of explosion risk over the long-term? Kill pipeline projects because of fire and spillage risk?
What happens if the Three RIvers Gorge Dam breaks in China? How about another Pompei happening in Italy? What happens if a major earthquake hits Cuba and a tsunami from that quake washes into Florida?

[sunskyfan]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

You can't use the argument "we all die" to justify something. If that were the case what would be our limits? The question is our death due to other human beings not within our influence or knowledge and agreement. That is the basic premise of freedom. History is full of example of human being asserting for themselves the right to decide who dies and who doesn't based on the greater good. Usually these have been specious arguments failing the passage of time. The people of San Francisco may regret living there eventually but they do so out of their own free will knowing what could happen to them. The social contract between those advocating nuclear power from that plant in Fukisima based on a design that did not meet the challenges of the nature of the sight and the rest of humanity has been broken. Face it. They screwed up and the consequences might be enormous why is this so hard to acknowledge?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

You can't use the argument "we all die" to justify something. If that were the case what would be our limits? The question is our death due to other human beings not within our influence or knowledge and agreement. That is the basic premise of freedom. History is full of example of human being asserting for themselves the right to decide who dies and who doesn't based on the greater good. Usually these have been specious arguments failing the passage of time. The people of San Francisco may regret living there eventually but they do so out of their own free will knowing what could happen to them. The social contract between those advocating nuclear power from that plant in Fukisima based on a design that did not meet the challenges of the nature of the sight and the rest of humanity has been broken. Face it. They screwed up and the consequences might be enormous why is this so hard to acknowledge?

Total death-toll from three melt-downs at Fukishima: Z E R O.
The cause of Fukishima: The world's only recorded 9.0 earthquake, and since seismic record-keeping began. Also a 35 foot-tall tsunami washed into Fukishima, a tsunami so powerful that it crossed the entire North Pacific Ocean and did damage along the coast of California at Crescent City and also at Santa Cruz. The tsunami was so powerful that it could be seen from the air coming under the Golden Gate Bridge at San Francisco.

Maybe it would have been better to locate atomic power plants in Western Japan, also in Southern Japan. But the real story from Fukishima is that NOTHING MUCH HAPPENED. Greenpeace had its photo-ops, and that eco-pornographer (name?) got his absurd message out into the media that if one more minute of delay had happened in cooling-down the reactors at Fukishima, all of northern Japan would have been destroyed.............And the gullible believe this crap!

The facts of Fukishima are in: Z E R O deaths from the Fukishima power plant. ZERO! Three melt-downs and nothing much happened except that the power is off for a few months. The Japanese people will have to wait until TEPCO puts Fukishima back in order and on the grid generating power again.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

I don't understand the difference between design margins and reality? Failure means that reality has overcome design margins. I think Fukishima qualifies.

Actually, you don't.

Fukushima is literally one of the first nuclear plants built in Japan and is the oldest still in operation. It was built to a standard which was - in retrospect - too lenient.

It should be noted that despite this - none of the other nuclear power plants had the same problems as Fukushima.

To extrapolate the problems at Fukushima to nuclear power overall is ridiculous.

The difference between being skeptical and argumentative is an honest desire to discover the truth. The difference between arrogant and stupid is the tentative presumption that the bravadoish person asserting something knows what they are talking about. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I am thinking you are being argumentative and arrogant. Perhaps that is too generous.

I am thinking you hate nuclear power and just seek a rationale against it.

I don't actually care either way about nuclear power - but I do care about facts.

The facts are: nuclear power is far more economical even given waste costs than any of the big 3 renewable power sources being touted today: wind, solar, biomass.

If you don't like it, that's fine. The only effect of killing nuclear power will be to replace the potential and actual radioactivity of nuclear power with the actual radioactivity release from other fossil fuels.

So you can think what you like - personally I could care less.

EJ - for example - notes that there is no reason to have gigantic nuclear plants when it is possible to achieve the same power production with far smaller ones. These smaller ones also remove the risk of events like Fukushima.

This is a perfectly valid argument and one which can be implemented over time - though of course this requires long range planning which few Western governments have exhibited, especially not the U.S.

In contrast your anti-this/anti-that is magical thinking which is useful for no one except demagogues.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

Your fundamental assumptions that are wrong about my position on Nuclear power is breath taking. I have no issue with well executed technology and hold open my mind to any idea but I also hold accountable failed technology and call it like I see it since those in an industry rarely of the balls or objective insight to do so. I am no eco-neophite but I have also seen the engineering community convince themselves of some pretty stupid things. It just takes a read of "The Shuttle Launch Decision" to recognize why watch-dogs and skeptics are needed and shouldn't be bullied.

Yes, there are small reactor ideas afloat that may work very well. De-gridding what powers our economy via whatever means does seam to make the most sense (whether it is via nuclear, solar, biomass or a mix of all ) since catastrophic failure represents a smaller footprint of effects but we won't get there until we start the transition from large scale plants to the small ones. I am not reacting emotionally (as a Demagogue) but rationalizing failure (as you are doing with Fukishima) is the opiate of the times.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

I have no issue with well executed technology and hold open my mind to any idea but I also hold accountable failed technology and call it like I see it since those in an industry rarely of the balls or objective insight to do so

Given that you made no mention of the 'failed technology' until Fukushima, nor have you actually put forward any plans or ideas other than "nukes are bad" - your statement above is thoroughly inconsistent.

Japan in the 1970s was in the same position as China today: trying very hard to grow into a 1st world economy. And much like China today, Japan then had to make many hard decisions concerning how to generate the electrical power which is concomitant with a 1st world economy.

And much like the economic situation today - Japan in the 1970s could no longer rely on dirt cheap oil in order to generate power (especially with a yen pegged at 300 to the dollar), nor does Japan have coal or natural gas reserves.

Japan 40 years ago was a poor Asian nation - not as poor as China in 1994, but still quite far down the economic scale.

Fukushima as is quite obvious from its design specifications was a calculated risk. Japan had not seen an earthquake of a 9.0 magnitude in generations; furthermore any such earthquake would have had to be very close in order to threaten the plant.

Had this earthquake occurred in 5 years, more than likely the incident which occurred would not have - or at the very least would have been far smaller. Had said earthquake occurred further north as historically been the case, equally likely the damage would have been significant but much less.

There are some 55 to 63 nuclear reactors in Japan in 17 different locations; at Fukushima there are 10 reactors alone.

The 3 which experienced the largest issues in fact were the oldest operational; the 6 other operational reactors in fact did not have issues.

So again - despite being designed towards earthquakes/tsunami events which were literally orders of magnitude smaller, only the oldest and most primitive ones failed due to a nearly perfectly (badly) placed earthquake/tsunami. Closer, and there would not have been a tsunami. Farther away, weaker earthquake.

As for transitioning - while EJ's argument is perfectly sensible, simultaneously it is impossible to expect an instantaneous or even decadal switchover.

Falling for the demagoguery of Greenpeace and what not isn't going to help the problem either.

You can complain all you want about reactors which were designed and built 40 years ago, but without a credible alternative you're just Monday Morning quarterbacking.

[GRG55]

Re: Fukushima: It's much worse than you think

Threat to Japan’s Food Chain Multiplies as Radiation Spreads

Jul 24, 2011 9:01 AM MT

Radiation threats to Japan’s food chain are multiplying as cesium emissions from the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant spread more widely, moving from hay to cattle to beef...

...Beef with unsafe levels of the radioactive element was detected in four prefectures, the health ministry said July 23.

Agriculture Minister Michihiko Kano has said officials were unaware of the risk that rice farmers might ship tainted hay to cattle growers. That highlights the government’s inability to think ahead and to act, said Mariko Sano, secretary general for Shufuren, a housewives organization in Tokyo.

“The government is so slow to move,” Sano said. “They’ve done little to ensure food safety.”

Prolonged exposure to radiation in the air, ground and food can cause leukemia and other cancers, according to the London- based World Nuclear Association...