Fukushima: Two Years & Counting

[don]

itulip bucket brigade anyone?

It is unclear just why Tepco released the following clip of what it alleges is a leak at Fukushima two and a half years after the infamous March 2011 catastrophe. If it is to restore confidence that it is finally trying to regain control over the Fukushima situation, that is simply laughable: for an organization that had to be nationalized and then lied for years, making up "safe" numbers out of thin air to avoid panic, this is not an option. If it is to indicate that the hype about the danger surrounding Fukushima is overblown, perhaps it should not have lied for years, and if really desperate to show just how safe the Fuku detritus is, maybe the great Japanese propaganda machine could have had some unlucky soul injest the water, as happened back in 2011. For whatever reason, the only thoughts that cross our minds as we watch this video is "what else is leaking over there?"

[Polish_Silver]

Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Over the last 35 years, I have had countless discussions with people about nuclear power, 99% of them coming down to the problems of waste disposal and the public safety risk of reactor cores overheating.

In the three well known cases (3 mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima), very few people have been killed. (Even counting Chernobyl, the casualties are acceptable if compared to other forms of power generation).

However, what no one discussed was the radioactive waste clean up after a reactor problem.

Three mile island: negligible clean up costs.

chernobyl: Clean up not undertaken--region declared a wilderness preserve.

Fukushima: Cleanup looks expensive, hard to say how expensive.

The clean up cost is a valid reason to object to nuclear power, or at least traditional designs with the flaws of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

New reactor designs are quite different, for example, using stainless steel cladding instead of zirconium, and using liquid metal or molten salt coolants instead of pressurized water.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Recently I was very impressed by these statistics set out by a commentor lennier on Slashdot:

"So when we're talking about "comparing" Fukushima with Hiroshima, we're talking purely about the isotopes, not the explosive power. Which is not really a straight comparison. But given that, Fukushima (or any other nuclear power station) is and/or has the potential to be much dirtier than a bomb (at least an airburst), because there's more nuclear material stored onsite. You'd want a nuclear engineer to give the precise bequerel ratings of all the isotope mixes in the fuel composition, but for a back-of-the-envelope estimate: Little Boy had 64kg of uranium fuel [wikipedia.org] - Fukushima had 1,760,000 kg of fuel [slashdot.org] on the entire site.So all else being equal, which of course it's not because we're not talking weapons-grade uranium and I'm sure power rods have lots of other alloys in them, Daichi has 27,500 times as much raw radioactive fuel as the Hiroshima bomb. Impressive, no?" http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/22/1...ed-say-experts

1,760,000 kg of active nuclear fuel; NOT under complete control; housed within an unstable explosion damaged structure; still vulnerable to the possibility of ANOTHER sunami event; let alone simply a severe earthquake; remembering that when the first (severe eathquake), occured everyone was talking about the fact that they expected it to have occured at an adjacent location on the same set of faultlines to the South of Tokyo .......... leaves me with the distinct thought that we have still in place the potential for a form of event that just might threaten our entire existance here on this planet.

[don]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Recently I was very impressed by these statistics set out by a commentor lennier on Slashdot:

"So when we're talking about "comparing" Fukushima with Hiroshima, we're talking purely about the isotopes, not the explosive power. Which is not really a straight comparison. But given that, Fukushima (or any other nuclear power station) is and/or has the potential to be much dirtier than a bomb (at least an airburst), because there's more nuclear material stored onsite. You'd want a nuclear engineer to give the precise bequerel ratings of all the isotope mixes in the fuel composition, but for a back-of-the-envelope estimate: Little Boy had 64kg of uranium fuel [wikipedia.org] - Fukushima had 1,760,000 kg of fuel [slashdot.org] on the entire site.So all else being equal, which of course it's not because we're not talking weapons-grade uranium and I'm sure power rods have lots of other alloys in them, Daichi has 27,500 times as much raw radioactive fuel as the Hiroshima bomb. Impressive, no?" http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/22/1...ed-say-experts

1,760,000 kg of active nuclear fuel; NOT under complete control; housed within an unstable explosion damaged structure; still vulnerable to the possibility of ANOTHER sunami event; let alone simply a severe earthquake; remembering that when the first (severe eathquake), occured everyone was talking about the fact that they expected it to have occured at an adjacent location on the same set of faultlines to the South of Tokyo .......... leaves me with the distinct thought that we have still in place the potential for a form of event that just might threaten our entire existance here on this planet.

I assume, Chris, you won't be volunteering for the Fukushima 'tulip bucket brigade?

Side note - Japan wins the Olympics!

[Chris Coles]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

I assume, Chris, you won't be volunteering for the Fukushima 'tulip bucket brigade?

Side note - Japan wins the Olympics!

In truth Don, as some here on iTulip may already know, I did at one point contemplate volunteering and even tried to make contact with the Japan prime ministers office. However, they did not respond and after some thought, associated with the progress I seem to be making here regarding my thoughts on job creation under the banner of The Capital Spillway Trust, I did not continue the idea.

Now, recent illustrations of tower cranes there give me the impression they have taken the line I would have, so pretending that I could make a difference is not the way forward for me right now.

If, IF, the situation there is as bad as it looks from recent reports; of one thing I am certain; all of us should be enlightened as to the the entire story and brought on board so that a world wide debate can proceed as to a solution. That it is in all our interests that they quickly gain complete control over the fuel stored there.

On my part, a lot of individual things occurred this summer that have dropped me into deep thought mode over the holiday and I am expecting to do some more writing soon; both on gravity and economics.

Your side note is apt as it shows just how out of kilter the Olympic committee has been with the true situation there, especially economically, to make that decision. Heads in the sand seems to be popular this autumn.

[don]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Your side note is apt as it shows just how out of kilter the Olympic committee has been with the true situation there, especially economically, to make that decision. Heads in the sand seems to be popular this autumn.

Scanning the news on 'winning' the Olympics, it appears Japan had the largest cost overrun war chest.

Go figure . . .

[cobben]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Scanning the news on 'winning' the Olympics, it appears Japan had the largest cost overrun war chest.

Go figure . . .

Qatar


Qatar: World Cup 2022


There was already great controversy over the granting of the World Cup to Qatar since it was amidst accusations of corruption, underhand tactics and bribery as well as pressure on certain people. A secret meeting between the Emir of Qatar and the French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2010 ensured that the French would vote for Qatar. One French footballer got $15 million for his support (Zinedine Zidane) and Michel Platini was told to vote for Qatar by the French President. Qatar bought the French football team Paris Saint Germain in return.

[don]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Cheating in the Olympics? I'm shocked . . . shocked.

Next you'll be saying they're political!

[c1ue]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Recently I was very impressed by these statistics set out by a commentor lennier on Slashdot:

"So when we're talking about "comparing" Fukushima with Hiroshima, we're talking purely about the isotopes, not the explosive power. Which is not really a straight comparison. But given that, Fukushima (or any other nuclear power station) is and/or has the potential to be much dirtier than a bomb (at least an airburst), because there's more nuclear material stored onsite. You'd want a nuclear engineer to give the precise bequerel ratings of all the isotope mixes in the fuel composition, but for a back-of-the-envelope estimate: Little Boy had 64kg of uranium fuel [wikipedia.org] - Fukushima had 1,760,000 kg of fuel [slashdot.org] on the entire site.So all else being equal, which of course it's not because we're not talking weapons-grade uranium and I'm sure power rods have lots of other alloys in them, Daichi has 27,500 times as much raw radioactive fuel as the Hiroshima bomb. Impressive, no?" http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/22/1...ed-say-experts

1,760,000 kg of active nuclear fuel; NOT under complete control; housed within an unstable explosion damaged structure; still vulnerable to the possibility of ANOTHER sunami event; let alone simply a severe earthquake; remembering that when the first (severe eathquake), occured everyone was talking about the fact that they expected it to have occured at an adjacent location on the same set of faultlines to the South of Tokyo .......... leaves me with the distinct thought that we have still in place the potential for a form of event that just might threaten our entire existance here on this planet.

Really? You buy into this ridiculous posturing of numbers?

Let's compare other ridiculous scenarios so we can all be frightened and outraged.

A rifle bullet contains something like 20 grains of gunpowder. This gunpowder produces 4826.6 joules of energy. A gallon of gasoline produces 341 million joules of energy.

That means a car with a 10 gallon gas tank is sitting on the equivalent of over 700,000 rifle bullets! Think of the toxic consequences!

[Chris Coles]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Not so rediculous to the individuals right there on site that are daily faced with the situation.

I have sat here for some time trying to think of a suitable comment that does not break with iTulip policy; instead I have decided never again to respond to you.

[c1ue]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Yes, feel free to ignore me.

The article you quote is clearly employing this technique as even enriched nuclear fuel used in a reactor has at least an order of magnitude less 'active' uranium than an atomic bomb.

Said fuel is also not compressed via explosives into a hypermass to achieve greater levels of criticality, and furthermore it is equally obvious that the entire mass of said fuel at the Fukushima #1 plant is not at risk. 2 of the 4 reactors were not damaged in any way - thus it cannot be said that the fuel associated with these is at issue.

But of course this level of accuracy is an impediment to the desired goal.

[don]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Japan’s Nuclear Refugees, Still Stuck in Limbo



Near Fukushima, a Human Crisis Quietly Unfolds: The 83,000 refugees evacuated from the worst-hit areas around the nuclear power plant are still unable to go home, two and a half years after the disaster.





By MARTIN FACKLER

NAMIE, Japan — Every month, Hiroko Watabe, 74, returns for a few hours to her abandoned house near the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant to engage in her own small act of defiance against fate. She dons a surgical mask, hangs two radiation-measuring devices around her neck and crouches down to pull weeds.

She is desperate to keep her small yard clean to prove she has not given up on her home, which she and her family evacuated two years ago after a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami devastated the plant five miles away. Not all her neighbors are willing to take the risk; chest-high weeds now block the doorways of their once-tidy homes.

“In my heart, I know we can never live here again,” said Ms. Watabe, who drove here with her husband from Koriyama, the city an hour away where they have lived since the disaster. “But doing this gives us a purpose. We are saying that this is still our home.”

While the continuing environmental disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant has grabbed world headlines — with hundreds of tons of contaminated water flowing into the Pacific Ocean daily — a human crisis has been quietly unfolding. Two and a half years after the plant belched plumes of radioactive materials over northeast Japan, the almost 83,000 nuclear refugees evacuated from the worst-hit areas are still unable to go home. Some have moved on, reluctantly, but tens of thousands remain in a legal and emotional limbo while the government holds out hope that they can one day return.

As they wait, many are growing bitter. Most have supported the official goal of decontaminating the towns so that people can return to homes that some families inhabited for generations. Now they suspect the government knows that the unprecedented cleanup will take years, if not decades longer than promised, as a growing chorus of independent experts have warned, but will not admit it for fear of dooming plans to restart Japan’s other nuclear plants.

That has left the people of Namie and many of the 10 other evacuated towns with few good choices. They can continue to live in cramped temporary housing and collect relatively meager monthly compensation from the government. Or they can try to build a new life elsewhere, a near impossibility for many unless the government admits defeat and fully compensates them for their lost homes and livelihoods.

“The national government orders us to go back, but then orders us to just wait and wait,” said Tamotsu Baba, the mayor of this town of 20,000 people that was hastily evacuated when explosions began to rock the plant. “The bureaucrats want to avoid taking responsibility for everything that has happened, and we commoners pay the price.”

For Namie’s residents, government obfuscation is nothing new. On the day they fled, bureaucrats in Tokyo knew the direction they were taking could be dangerous, based on computer modeling, but did not say so for fear of causing panic. The townspeople headed north, straight into an invisible, radioactive plume.

Before the disaster, Namie was a sleepy farming and fishing community, stretching between mountains and the Pacific. These days, it is divided into color-coded sections that denote how contaminated various areas are, and how long former residents can stay during limited daytime-only visits. They are issued dosimeters on their way in, and are screened on their way out. Next to one checkpoint, a sign warns of feral cows that have roamed free since fleeing farmers released them.

Inside the checkpoints, Namie is a ghost town of empty streets cluttered with garbage and weeds, unheard-of in famously neat Japan. Some traditional wooden farmhouses survived the earthquake, though they have not survived the neglect. They collapsed after rain seeped in, rotting their ancient wooden beams. Their tiled roofs spill into the roads.

Through gritty shop windows, merchandise that fell off shelves in the quake can still be seen scattered on the floor. In the town hall, calendars remain open to March 2011, when the disaster struck.

Officials have reoccupied a corner of the building for their Office for Preparation to Return to the Town, though their only steps so far have been to install portable toilets and post guards to prevent looting. The national government hopes to eventually deploy an army of workers here to scrape up tons of contaminated soil. But officials have run into a roadblock: they have found only two sites in the town where they can store toxic dirt; 49 would be needed.

Just last month, the government admitted that such travails had left the cleanup hopelessly behind schedule in 8 of the 11 towns, which they originally promised would be cleaned by next March. Even in the places where cleanup has begun, other troubles have surfaced. Scouring the soil had only limited success in bringing down radiation levels, partly because rain carries more contaminants down from nearby mountains.

The Environmental Ministry now says the completion of the cleanup in the eight towns, including Namie, has been postponed and no new date has been set.

In Namie, a town hall survey showed that 30 percent of residents have given up on reclaiming their lives in their town, 30 percent have not, and 40 percent remained unsure.

Ms. Watabe’s visits have been emotionally painful, and scary. She says her husband’s car dealership was robbed. Her yard was invaded by a dangerous wild boar, which she managed to chase off. She considers weeding her driveway so risky that she waved away a visitor who offered to help, pointing to her dosimeter showing readings two and a half times the level that would normally force an evacuation.

She reminisced about her once close-knit community, where neighbors stopped by for leisurely chats over tea. She raised her four children here, and her 10 grandchildren were regular visitors; their stuffed animals and baby toys lie amid the debris on the dealership floor.

Her youngest son, whose own family had shared the house and who was supposed to take over the family business, has vowed never to return. He moved, instead, to a Tokyo suburb, worried that even the taint of an association with Namie could cause his two young daughters to face the same sort of discrimination as the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

“The young people have already given up on Namie,” Ms. Watabe said. “It is only the old people who want to come back.”
“And even we will have to give up soon,” her husband, Masazumi, added.

While their chances of making it back seem low, their former neighbors in the town’s mountainous western half are even less likely to return anytime soon. The Watabes’ house sits in the orange zone, indicating mid-level radiation. Most of the west is a red zone, the worst hit.

The road that winds up a narrow gorge of roaring rapids from the main town seemed idyllic on a recent visit, except for the bleating of a radiation-measuring device. Cleanup here was always expected to be harder, given the difficulties of trying to scrape whole mountainsides clean.

Near the entryway of her three-century-old farmhouse, 84-year-old Jun Owada swept her tatami floor clean of the droppings from the mice that moved in when she moved out. She had returned this day to perform a traditional mourning rite, washing the grave of her husband, who died before the earthquake.

Unlike the Watabes, she has decided to move on, and is living with a son in suburban Tokyo even as she comes back to honor a past she is putting behind her. Every time she visits, she said, she receives a dose equivalent to one or two chest X-rays even if she remains indoors. As she pushed her broom, she pointed out things she could not fix.

The terraced rice paddies are overgrown, and although her home’s thick wooden beams have held out longer than her neighbors’, they, too, are starting to rot.

“One look around here,” she said, “and you know right away that there is no way to return.”

Makiko Inoue contributed reporting.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

a ghost town

Click on the link and drive around. When did Google film this and are they going back in for updates?

[c1ue]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

Once again - how is Namie different than the dozens of coastal towns up and down the Japanese coastline which are also 'ghost towns'?

Only those are ghost towns because of the tsunami, not because of Fukushima Dai-Ichi.

Is nuclear power perfectly safe? No, it isn't.

But nothing is perfectly safe.

Are we willing to unilaterally upgrade all these old nuclear power plants to modern ones?

I'd say the answer there is also no - which is much of the reason why these old plants are still running long past their original designed lifetimes.

[don]

Re: Nuclear Dangers Misconcieved

What I've learned about nuclear power, having experienced, from afar, 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and recognizing that NP may be an essential means of power in our future, are:

-The costs of building, operating and shutting down nuclear power plants is a game of hide the salami. Public expense is often deleted, hidden or minimized. The cost per KW/HR is a sales pitch.

(note - are there any defunct nuclear plants completely disassembled, with something else operating at their former location? Or are they eternal monuments to nuclear power?)

-The issue of nuclear waste is a verboten subject in cost calculations. Sure, it's belittled - typical of the industry that runs parallel in its propaganda to Big Tobacco's decades long campaign against the hazards of smoking.

-Nuclear disasters - rare, infrequent, and of enormous expense. Belittled? see above. No other power creation plant has the costs involved of a nuclear catastrophe.

Since nuclear power may very well prove to be essential, transparency begs the question - what are the true costs of nuclear power? Don't expect an answer from the industry and its minions.