Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:

Watching the cracks yawn open and close was very eerie.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

---

Quote:

---

Fukushima Groundwater Radiation Level Jumps Several Dozen Times In One Week, More Measurement Devices


TEPCO continues to be stuck between a rock and a liquid place. Following recent efforts to stop the spillage of radioactive water into the ocean, the pseudo-nationalized utility is now experiencing the aftermath of radioactive water retention. From Kyodo: "The concentration levels of radioactive iodine and cesium in groundwater near the troubled Nos. 1 and 2 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have increased up to several dozen times in one week, suggesting that toxic water has seeped from nearby reactor turbine buildings or elsewhere, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday. According to the latest findings, a groundwater sample taken April 6 near the No. 1 reactor turbine building showed radioactive iodine-131 of 72 becquerels per cubic meter, with the concentration level growing to 400 becquerels as of Wednesday. The concentration level of cesium-134 increased from 1.4 becquerels to 53 becquerels." Conventional thought is that this is due to contaminated water used to cool down overheating reactors: "A total of around 60,000 tons of contaminated water is believed to be flooding the basements of the Nos. 1 to 3 reactor turbine buildings as well as trenches connected to them, and the water is hampering work to restore the cooling functions of the reactors lost since the March 11 earthquake and ensuing tsunami." Yet the most troubling news once again comes from the plutonium containing Reactor 3 where the temperature rose suddenly. Not to worry though: "TEPCO officials said the data were likely due to a glitch in a measuring instrument." And with that we have another data reader which indicates unpleasant information being thrown away (this follows the halt of readings from the Drywell radiation counter in Reactor 1 following a reported surge).

---

Quote:

---

The head of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, Takashi Sawada, said yesterday (APRIL 14... No shit, Sherlock) that fuel rods in reactors 1 and 3 have melted and settled at the bottom of their containment vessels, confirming fears that the plant suffered a partial meltdown after last month’s huge earthquake and tsunami... Mr Sawada warned the condition of the plant could worsen if another strong quake knocks out power to its cooling systems.
“That would destabilise pressure and temperatures inside the reactors and the situation would become extremely unpredictable again,” he said..

---

Quote:

---

completely incapable of grasping the importance of swiftly and expertly bringing the catastrophe to a close.

---

Quote:

---

This is the kind of situation where I would have expected Japan to throw its doors wide open to all the manpower, expertise and equipment the world has to offer. Instead they created a barrier of official silence, shut out the world (except late, and in very limited ways), and reacted in a myopic, underpowered, and self-serving way. The ONLY information that is released is information that other people have come to - or will come to - independently. The information that does come out is late, incomplete at best and misleading at worst, and independent observers and scientists are being kept away.
THESE are the people the Japanese are trusting to do the right thing? The safe thing? Are trusting with their lives?
THIS is how the nuclear industry is allowed to operate? Presiding in secret over a catastrophe with global impact?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

(And parenthetically, isn't nuclear power overkill for the purpose of simply boiling water? I mean really, can't we find a better way to boil water?)

---

Quote:

---

But then I looked at the IAEA's charter, which is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the NRC's reliance on the nuclear industry at home, and the mutual embrace of TEPCO and the Japanese government and I realized that there really IS a conspiracy to withhold information. Not a conscious one, just one of mutual outlook and purpose. Nearly all nuclear engineers everywhere feel the same way.

It is a conspiracy which crosses class, politics and nations, it is a conspiracy of hubris. There is still no humility in the face of power which ... five large accidents later... we still have not yet realized we can't control.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I do not consider nuclear power the most ideal form of power, but I do consider it the *easiest solution for energy production in the short term, and the **least polluting of the solutions available to us in the short term.

*It may take us several decades to get solar, wind, wave, etc. power available to every citizen. What do we do for power in the meanwhile?

**Nuclear pollution is very dramatic, but the constant stream of tons of crap into our atmosphere and environment from conventional power stations should not be ignored. Nor the veritable rape of the environment to feed these conventional power schemes. I am in the camp that believes that these horrid nuclear disasters are less bad for everyone than natural gas/oil/coal plants in the long run. Compare, if you will, the environmental impact from 50 years of traditional power vs. 50 years of nuclear power.

That having been said, I am looking forward to the sunset of nuclear power, at least using radioactive materials. What do we do until that era comes? I have no better solution for the masses than nuclear. Oil, Gas, and Coal are not better, just different. Wind, Solar, and Wave power aren't ready yet.

I am gradually coming to the conclusion that nuclear power stations need to be designed by an international commission of safety experts with no eye towards profitability. The main three questions in the design process should be 1) How do we avoid a failure? 2) How do we cope with a failure when it happens despite our best efforts? 3) What do we do with the waste product?

Once the design satisfies these questions, then power companies can decide whether or not it is profitable for them to build a nuclear plant according to internationally accepted standards.

Why international standards? Because a nuclear accident does not confine its problems to the source nation. Everyone deserves input if a failure becomes a global concern.

--Anthony


Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Mike the worst-case scenario is that ALL of your safety measures will fail. Because, at some point, some place, they all will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Mike, in every major accident at least two safety systems fail, quite often three. Could be plane crashes, train crashes, nuclear meltdowns etc... SHIT HAPPENS. There is NO safety system adequate to ensure that shit WON'T happen. Assume the worst WILL happen.

---

Quote:

---

Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
HW, I saw what Kiki saw: It was a video originally in Japanese w/ english translation in which a TEPCO official... struggling not to cry while on-air... describes how the radioactive water collecting in Unit No 5 is threatening the entire site's emergency power.

Like all things TEPCO, the announcement was incomplete and unclear. I don't think Nos 5-6 nuclear reactors have been started back up to supply site power, but it's possible they have emergency diesel generators in the basements which are threatened by the water.

I can't find the link again... part of the problem with the news being fragmentary, parsed out in small bits to various newsgroups- when at all. (This particular link was to a Chinese website, I believe). If I find it again, I will post it, and maybe you can read the tea leaves better.

---

Quote:

---

Changes to Fukushima Daiichi Plant Status

The IAEA receives information updates from a variety of official Japanese sources, through the national competent authorities: the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).

Based on the information received by 18th April 2011 02:00 UTC the following update related to the reactor units at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), and related environmental conditions, is provided.

As a countermeasure against a possible tsunami, the distribution boards for the pumps injecting water to the reactor pressure vessels of Units 1, 2 and 3 were transferred to higher ground on 15th April. In order to minimize the liberation of radioactive material into the ocean, two sandbags filled with Zeolite were placed between the Inlet Screen Pump Room of Unit 1 and Unit 2. Further, five sandbags filled with Zeolite were placed between the Inlet Screen Pump Room of Unit 2 and Unit 3 on 17th April. The Zeolite material is designed to capture specific radioactive elements. It is intended to sample and analyze the Zeolite material periodically to determine the effectiveness of this procedure.

The removal of debris (amount equivalent to 8 containers) using remote-control heavy machinery continued on 16th April.

Nitrogen gas is being injected into the Unit 1 containment vessel to reduce the possibility of hydrogen combustion within the containment vessel. The pressure in this containment vessel has stabilised. The pressure in the RPV is stable.

In Unit 1, fresh water is being continuously injected into the RPV through the feed-water line at an indicated flow rate of 6 m3/h using a temporary electric pump with off-site power. In Units 2 and 3, fresh water is being continuously injected through the fire extinguisher lines at an indicated rate of 7 m3/h using temporary electric pumps with off-site power.

RPV temperatures remain above cold shutdown conditions in all Units, (typically less than 95°C). In Unit 1 the temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 180°C and at the bottom of the RPV is 117°C. In Unit 2, the temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 141°C. In Unit 3 the temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 91°C and at the bottom of the RPV is 122°C.

In accordance with the report of the Nuclear Emergency Response HQs (Prime Minister's Office) from 15th April, thermography temperatures of the Containment Vessel and Spent Fuel Pool in Unit 1 were 33 °C and 36°C respectively. In Unit 3 the temperatures were 68°C and 59°C at the same positions. Also on the 15th April, thermography temperature of the Unit 2 reactor building roof was 31°C

As of 16th April, no white smoke was seen to be coming from Unit 1 although white smoke was still observed coming from Units 2 and 3. As of 16th April white smoke was also visible in Unit 4.

Fresh water injection (around 45 tonnes) to the spent fuel pool was carried out via the spent fuel pool cooling line of Unit 2 and completed by 16th April. Due to the occurrence of an earthquake on 16th April, the motor-driven pump was stopped. The spent fuel pool was confirmed to be filled with water.

In accordance with NISA Release 94, TEPCO took water samples from the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 on 12th April, in order to examine the conditions. The sample was taken by using the arm of the concrete pump vehicle. At the same time, the temperature of water in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 was measured with a thermistor attached to the arm of the concrete pump vehicle. The activities for I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 were 220 Bq/cm3, 88 Bq/cm3 and 93 Bq/cm3 respectively.

There has been no change in the status in Units 5 and 6.

The power supply to the Common Spent Fuel Pool was temporarily interrupted due to a short-circuit on 17th April.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
HW, I saw what Kiki saw: It was a video originally in Japanese w/ english translation in which a TEPCO official... struggling not to cry while on-air...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Depends on what you mean. If you mean an increased incidence of leukemia then yes, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki as cities are doing okay and their areas are fairly liveable radiation wise. Atomic bomb radiation is a generally short lived species compared to other types.

I can't say I'm a fan of nuclear power, but the issue here was mostly the earthquake and the tsunami. ...Some issue as well on the part of the Japanese government and TEPCO. The reactors in question were old, and from reports appear to have had safety cuts and poor maintenance.

I guess I just find it a little unfair to ask "why haven't the Japanese learned better" when it was really only maybe 100 or so people in any position of say over the matter. I mostly feel sorry for the Japanese, they're good people. No one would've deserved something like this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jameron4eva:

I agree on that, im just saying the people in CHARGE of ensuring protocals are met, workers and civilians are safe, and that the most destructive, powerful, and while still very, VERY deadly, beautiful, thing that we've ever discovered, and still know very little about, is keept protected, didn't do there job. Because THEY chose to put a nuclear facility, on an ACTIVE fault line. That to me, is the biggest mistake.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jameron4eva:

I agree on that, im just saying the people in CHARGE of ensuring protocals are met, workers and civilians are safe, and that the most destructive, powerful, and while still very, VERY deadly, beautiful, thing that we've ever discovered, and still know very little about, is keept protected, didn't do there job. Because THEY chose to put a nuclear facility, on an ACTIVE fault line. That to me, is the biggest mistake.

---

Which would pretty much preclude putting a nuclear reactor anywhere in Japan. The reactors survived the earthquake with minimal damage. They scrammed as designed and it wasn't until the tsunami took out their generators (Why they were in the basement is another story. Next time, generators and diesel fuel on the roof, spent fuel pool in the basement. Not the other way around)

---

Quote:

---

"Conservative estimates indicated that 35,000 pounds of uranium were released into the air from all sources. 4,300 pounds of uranium a month was unaccounted for or released to the environment. ETTP operates an incinerator which handles radioactive, hazardous and uranium-contaminated PCB wastes. ETTP generated transuranic elements (isotopes with atomic numbers greater than uranium) such as neptunium-237 and plutonium-239; fission products such as techneitum-99; PCBs; toxic metals; and volatile organic compunds such as trichloroethene (TCE) and present risk to the public. Some contaminants migrated outside the Plant boundary. Waste disposal practices included direct discharge of radioactive materials, toxics and caustics to holding ponds and storm drains, and incineration and burial. Reports reflected a number of spills of nitric and hydrochloric acids, in one case 200 gallons. Numerous large fires and explosions were reported. It is impossible to characterize exposure because of inadequate surveys and incomplete records. Records indicate that as contamination levels increased, exposure controls were reduced. Contamination above limits was commonly detected. Operations have released a variety of contaminants into the environment, such as burial of low-level and hazardous waste in landfills and dumping directly into the Clinch River. Large amounts of contaminated equipment and scrap material were sold at public auction. Tens of thousands of pounds of flourine and hydrogen flouride were emitted annually. The investigation team identified over 600 releases of uranium hexaflouride, and a large, visible cloud was released outside a building. Exposure to 'intense clouds' of uranium powder dusts was prevalent and resulted in intense beta radiation fields. Each month dozens or workers were identified as having exposures exceeding plant control guides. Extensive contamination was prevalent. Recordsindicate many air samples in excess of Plant Allowable Limits. Both chemical and radiological materials have routinely been discharged from the Plant, from both sanitary sewage and storm water systems and materials were directly discharged in Mitchell Branch and Poplar Creek. One million pounds of blowdown water was discharged a day. The hexavalent chromium concentration in Poplar Creek is equal to the level regulated by the site's permit. Contents of 500 uranium hexafloride and other gas cylinders were emptied into the unlined holding pond by shooting the cylinders with high-powered rifles, and this pond discharged into Poplar Creek. Records confirm that radiation exceeded drinking water standards. Over 80,000 drums of pond sludge with low concentrations of uranium were generated in 1988. Ventilation was modified to discharge mercury fumes above the roof. Elevated levels of mercury were found in urinalyses. Records refer to the recovery of tons of mercury. Traps would blow out spilling mercury on the floor. Air sampling in the 1990s identified mercury levels several times the Threshold Limit Value. Continual and volumnous process leaks (blowoffs) were vented to the atmosphere. 4,300 pounds of uranium hexaflouride were released per month. Losses were excessive. 10,000 union grievances were filed and management disputed grievances concerning safety in favor of economic considerations. Many storm drains were not moitored before 1992, and routine and accidental wastes have adversely impacted the environment and the aquatic habitat. Weaknesses in the sampling and monitoring of air pollutant emissions raise concerns regarding the accuracy of public dose and exposure calculations. Environmental radiological protection and surveillance are not compliant with DOE Order. Few records reflect involvement by the Atomic Energy Commission in investigations of serious events. Levels of airborne radioactivity were as high as 35,800 dpm/ft3, and far exceeded the PAL of 2 dpm/ft3. [That's radiation levels over 17,000 times the maximum limit.] Airborne radioactivity far in excess of normal background levels was measured off-site as far as five miles away. A number of criticality and sub-criticality accident experiments were performed and posed a severe radiation hazard. Bladder cancer rates were seven times higher than for the general population, and stomach ulcers were 6.5 times greater. Inhalation of airborn radiation can increase the risk of future cancer." [verbatum from the Report]

NOTE: This report only covered the K-25 plant, not the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration's Y-12 nuclear bombs factory, not the thousands of contaminated lab rats from ORNL's Y-12 nuclear bombs factory Mouse House that are incinerated at the University of Tennessee Medical Center in downtown Knoxville, and did not cover Top Secret "criticality" pollution, "referred to as 'special hazards'" (ie, "small" explosions due to accidental nuclear reactions), and "are discussed in a separate classifed document." The GOPS government of Tennessee previously gave ETTP/ORNL a clean bill of health in 1999.

www.archive.org/details/IndependentInvestigationOfTheEastTennesseeTech
nologyPark
www.piratenews.org/knoxville-tn-epa-ornl-air-pollution.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:

Well PN we've found something that we agree on, we are both anti-nuclear power. I hope you're mannaging okay down there, you talk a lot about things that are unpleasant and scary, I want you to be okay and safe.

---

Quote:

---

Iodine 129 (I-129)- 15.7 million years

Plutonium (Pu) - has at least 15 different isotopes, all of which are radioactive.
Plutonium 238 - 87.7 years.
Plutonium 239 - 24,100 years
plutonium 240 - 6,560 years.

External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk. Internal exposure to plutonium is an extremely serious health hazard. It generally stays in the body for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation and increasing the risk of cancer and kidney damage.

Uranium (U)
Uranium 238- 4.47 billion years
uranium 235 - 700 million years
Uranium 234 - 246,000 years.

... toxic damage to the kidneys and risk of cancer due to its radioactivity. Since uranium tends to concentrate in specific locations in the body, risk of cancer of the bone, liver cancer and blood diseases (such as leukemia) are increased.

---

Quote:

---

In addition to spacecraft, the Soviet Union constructed many unmanned lighthouses and navigation beacons powered by RTGs.[1] Powered by Strontium 90 (90Sr), they are very reliable and provide a steady source of power. Critics argue that they could cause environmental and security problems, as leakage or theft of the radioactive material could pass unnoticed for years (or possibly forever: some of these lighthouses cannot be found because of poor record keeping). In one instance, the radioactive compartments were opened by a thief.[2] In another case, three woodcutters in Georgia came across one of the units and slept close to it as a heat source during a cold night. Two of the three were later hospitalized with severe radiation burns. The unit was eventually recovered and isolated.

---