13 replies to this topic

[Dingo]

It appears the Fukushima nuclear power complex has just taken a turn for the worse. Is there some light at the end of this tunnel? Not presently that I can see.

On a scale of 1 to 7 low to high risk the rating has now moved from a 1 to 3.

Quote

Scientists have pointed to high radiation levels in the waters off the plant for more than a year as evidence of problems with the company's efforts to contain the water.

In July, TEPCO admitted that radioactive groundwater was leaking into the Pacific Ocean from the plant, even though an underground barrier was built to seal in the water, underscoring a growing sense of crisis at the site.

These earlier links provide a more general background on the problem.

http://scienceblogs....kushima-update/

http://news.national...ive-water-leak/

[still learning]

Dingo, on 22 August 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

I finally found some serious analysis on the damages occurring and projected from Fukushima
http://en.wikipedia....uclear_disaster

Quoting from that linked article "It is believed that the health effects of the radiation release are primarily psychological rather than physical effects. Even in the most severely affected areas, radiation doses never reached more than a quarter of the radiation dose linked to an increase in cancer risk. (25 mSv whereas 100 mSv has been linked to an increase in cancer rates among victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) However, people who have been evacuated have suffered from depression and other mental health effects"   Unfortunately those mental health effects are very real.   The reactor site itself will be genuinely dangerous for decades and it looks like leakage beyond the reactor site will be an extended problem too.  The evacuated area will be an extended  problem also, with controversy attached to whatever decisions are made regarding reducing he size of the evacuated area.   Wonder what the eventual climate effects of Fukushima will be?  The effects of the additional fossil fuels burned because of the shutdown of nuclear reactors and the shutdown of plans to build more.....

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Update piece here.

[Besoeker]

An article that gives some context.
I know some here will not agree with it but I've made similar comments here and elsewhere.
However, agree or otherwise it is an interesting read.

http://www.theengine...pid=tenews_5989

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"Alarmist"?? stuart fails to realize that nuclear issues will last for decades. Yes, the tsunami was horrible
but the two cannot and should not be compared.

A few "alarmist" stories stuart will never read; but everyone else should-
http://www.theguardi...deadly-new-high

He probably won't agree with this assessment either-that radiation levels are 18 times higher than normal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-23918882

Reuters has the word "record" in it's headline; another "alarmist" headline-right stuart?
http://www.reuters.c...E98301020130904

Imo-stuart=

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 04 September 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

"Alarmist"?? stuart fails to realize that nuclear issues will last for decades.

I don't think he does fail to.

From his article:

Quote

As Neil Hyatt, professor of nuclear waste management at Sheffield University points out, the major challenge at Fukushima is to decontaminate the water by removing the radioactive isotopes and stabilising them into a form suitable for long-term storage and disposal

Why would he mention long-term if he didn't realise is was a long-term requirement?

Nobody is denying that there is a problem but any nuclear problem it always seems to engender very emotive reactions regardless of the severity of the problem

That said, Stuart Nathan does not play down the severity.of the problem. He reports that and the proposals to contain it in a bit of detail in pragmatics terms that contrast with newspapers:

Quote

Fukushima radiation leaks reach a deadly new high

Exposure to emissions would be fatal within hours
An unprotected person standing close to the contaminated areas would, within hours, receive a deadly radiation dose.

But hang on a bit...

An unprotected person isn't going to be allowed to get close to the site so that's journalism at its worst.
It puts into the mind of the reader a deadly scenario that just isn't going to happen. It's bordering on scaremongering. But it spices the story up and that's what sells media.......

I think Stuart got his article just about right.

For the avoidance of doubt:

• I do accept that it was and continues a very serious problem.
  
• I have no commercial interest in nuclear power.

[eds]

$470 million Ice Wall To Stop Radioactive Leaks At Fukushima.

The ice wall would freeze the ground to a depth of up to 30 meters (100 feet)
. . . through a system of pipes carrying a coolant as cold as
. . . minus 40 degrees Celsius (minus 40 Fahrenheit).
That would block contaminated water from escaping from the facility's immediate surroundings,
. . . as well as keep underground water from entering the reactor and turbine buildings,
. . . where much of the radioactive water has collected.
The project, which TEPCO and the government proposed in May,
. . . is being tested for feasibility by Japanese construction giant Kajima Corp. and
. . . is set for completion by March 2015.

In 1996, Tennessee’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory used an ice wall
. . . to keep radioactive waste from leaking into a creek.

2013-09-03 Source:  Ice Wall

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Bad news continues. A barrier that was supposed to hold back tainted water has a hole in it. Oy.
http://www.huffingto...=green&ir=Green

[Shortpoet-GTD]

No surprise here; another leak.


http://www.huffingto...=green&ir=Green

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Japan rocked by another powerful earthquake; 7.3 but they're saying no damage to the plant. (yeah right)
http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 25 October 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Japan rocked by another powerful earthquake; 7.3 but they're saying no damage to the plant. (yeah right)
http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular

Hopefully the real disaster of the previous tsunami, the 20,000 fatalities unrelated to the nuclear plant, won't be repeated.

[eds]

Fukushima, is getting a lot of attention,
. . . to damage done, by a horrific act of nature,
. . . because the clean up, has been going on for so long,
. . . without any resolution.
But lets look for a moment a what is required,
. . . to shut down an "undamaged" nuclear power plant.

Britain's (and the world's) oldest nuclear power closes,
. . . Oldbury Nuclear Power Station near Thornbury, South Gloucester,
. . . after 44 years of operation (no longer financially viable)
But it will take
. . . 90 more years and
. . . £954m ($1,528,065,000 USD)
. . . to clear the 175 acre site completely.

How many more plants will be shut down and
. . . who pays for it?

2012-03-01 Source: Cost of shutting down a Nuclear Plant

Attached Files

•  NuclearEnergy.jpg   166.22K   0 downloads

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Update-
Tepco is using homeless and unskilled labor to clean up the site; and they're being paid less than minimum wage.

Salon article.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

It's still leaking.

 fukushima.jpg   74.89K   2 downloads