Group items tagged

The top civilian nuclear disasters, ranked by International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. Worst Civilian Nuclear Disasters 1. Chernobyl, Soviet Union (now Ukraine) April 26, 1986 INES Rating: 7 (major impact on people and environment)

The worst nuclear disaster of all time resulted from a test of the reactor’s systems. A power surge while the safety systems were shut down resulted in the dreaded nuclear meltdown. Fuel elements ruptured and a violent explosion rocked the facility. Fuel rods meted and the graphite covering the reactor burned. Authorities reported that 56 have died as a direct result of the disaster—47 plant workers and nine children who died of thyroid disease. However, given the Soviet Union’s tendency to cover up unfavorable information, that number likely is low.  International Atomic Energy Agency reports estimate that the death toll may ultimately be as high as 4,000. The World Health Organization claims that it’s as high as 9,000. In addition to the deaths, 200,000 people had to be permanently relocated after the disaster. The area remains unsuitable for human habitation. 2. Fukushima, Japan March 11, 2011 INES Rating: 7 (major impact on people and environment) Following a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami, Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power facility suffered a series of ongoing equipment failures accompanied by the release of nuclear material into the air. The death toll for this currently is at two but is expected to rise and as of April 2011, the crisis still ongoing. A 12 mile evacuation area has been established around the plant.

3. Kyshtym, Soviet Union Sept. 29, 1957 INES Rating: 6 (serious impact on people and environment) Poor construction is blamed for the September 1957 failure of this nuclear plant. Although there was no meltdown or nuclear explosion, a radioactive cloud escaped from the plant and spread for hundreds of miles. Soviet reports say that 10,000 people were evacuated, and 200 deaths were cause by cancer.

A Japan Atomic Energy Institute paper from 2002 recently surfaced online. This paper was the technical estimations of what would happen if a nuclear reactor on the Pacific coast of Japan were to have a catastrophic accident. The models included radiation dispersal under a variety of scenarios and also illness and death rates under multiple scenarios. The plant for the experiment is  “1100MWe BWR5 with Mark-II type containment– One of the most common plant type in Japan“. Based on the location on the maps included in the paper the reactor used was either unit 6 at Fukushima Daiichi or one of units 1-4 at Fukushima Daini. The scenario is for one reactor failure, not 3 reactor failures plus spent fuel pools as was experienced at Fukushima Daiichi. Of the included reactor scenarios the one that closest resembles the Fukushima disaster is failure of cooling + overpressure damage. Below are two graphs, one in English, another in Japanese. They show the reactor damage scenarios, distance from the plant and mortality.

Some interpretations of the data in this report using the closest to Fukushima Daiichi model available. These do not mean specifically these things will happen, this is what the model shows under the scenario details they used: The model used does not differentiate between a unit 2 style containment failure and a unit 3 or Chernobyl style containment failure. A containment failure can vary greatly in how much of the nuclear fuel is released into the environment. The containment system in the model reactor is newer, technically improved and larger than the containment used in units 1-4 at Fukushima Daiichi. Unit 1 at Fukushima Daiichi has a slightly smaller containment than units 2-4. There have been concerns expressed that the smaller containment had less volume, making it more prone to failure. These slight differences in the reactors would result in changes to the amount of radiation released and would then change all these other outcomes.

20 km away will cause max. 1 out of 500 deaths, an exclusion zone of 100 km will cause max. 1 out of 5000 deaths. The diagram may explain the 20 km exclusion zone. all curves go down beond 20 km away from the plant. Acute deaths = deaths for direct exposure to NPP wave radiaton + explosion deaths. The two sharply-dropping lines on the Japanese chart show acute death. Please make note that at 100 Km. distance values are not 0. Moreover X axis is logarithmic. Tokio-Fuku distance= 230 Km. Our estimate for 230 Km. death rate ~ 10*-4.Tokio Metropolis population 34,500,000 (2007)34500000/10000.  3450 deaths in Tokio only. Again, this is based on this model scenario, not exact situations currently going on. These mortality models include late onset cancers and also survivable cancers based on the details in the report.

The aftermath of the tsunami that ransacked the Japanese coast led to one of the worst nuclear meltdowns in the history of the world. Now, two researchers believe it may also have played some role in killing tens of thousands of Americans. “[It’s] 155,000 deaths,” Joseph Mangano said, ”so we’re not talking about an increase from three to five deaths. We’re talking about quite a few.”

Mangano works at the Radiation and Public Health Project. The report he co-authored for a medical journal suggesting a link between Fukushima fallout and an increase in deaths in the United States has stirred up some controversy. “The authors appeared to start at a conclusion,” Scientific American’s Michael Moyer wrote, “ – babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation – and work backwards, torturing their data to fit their claims.” But Mangano said his critics miss the point.

“We have not stated conclusively that Fukushima fallout killed 22,000 Americans,” he said. Instead, he and co-author Dr. Jannette Sherman cite numbers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's weekly morbidity report. That data showed a large spike in deaths – particularly infant deaths – in the 14 weeks following the Fukushima meltdown.

Thyroid cancer cases have more than doubled since 1997 in the United States, while deadly industrial practices that contaminate groundwater with radiation and other carcinogens are also rising. New information released by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates that 56,460 people will develop thyroid cancer in 2012 and 1,780 will die from it.

From 1980 to 1996, thyroid cancer increased nearly 300%, while the population increased by (again) 18%. Most thyroid cancers don’t develop for 10-30 years after radiation exposure, but the monstrous spike in thyroid cancer from 1980-2012 is only partly the result of Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 (TMI). Pennsylvania, with its nine nuclear reactors, does have the highest incidence of thyroid cancer across nearly all demographics among 45* states, reports epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, of the Radiation and Public Health Project. In 2009, he analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control’s national survey of thyroid cancer incidence for the years 2001-2005 and compared it with proximity to nuclear power stations, finding:

M]ost U.S. counties with the highest thyroid cancer incidence are in a contiguous area of eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and southern New York. Exposure to radioactive iodine emissions from 16 nuclear power reactors within a 90 mile radius in this area … are likely a cause of rising incidence rates.

The discovery of fire a million years ago must have been terrifying to cave men and women. Since that time, many people have died and much damage to the earth has occurred as a result of chemical energy released through fire. Nevertheless, that chemical energy found its place in the world, providing great benefits, and most people take it for granted.  In stark contrast, humankind began to develop and use nuclear energy less than a hundred years ago. In 2010, nuclear energy provided 13.5 percent of worldwide electricity. 

On March 11, 2011, several of the Fukushima-Daiichi, Japan, nuclear power plants were damaged from a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a 14 meter tsunami. The event dominated headlines and, with help from the mass media, re-sparked the public’s fears of nuclear radiation. Fifteen thousand people died as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami. Nobody died from radiation exposure. Yet no governments have called for a moratorium on coastal development. However, some have on nuclear energy. Some people wrongly believe that radiation has no place in a safe and healthy world. Yet radiation has always been around us. It comes from a variety of natural sources, and it is widely used in medicine.

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident – by far the worst – is most instructive. In 2006, the Chernobyl Forum published an authoritative analysis of the health, environmental and socio-economic impacts of Chernobyl. The report concluded that 31 emergency workers died as a direct consequence of their response to the Chernobyl accident. The Forum was unable to reliably assess the precise number of fatalities by radiation exposure. The best it was able to do was speculate based on the experience of other populations exposed to radiation. By 2002, 15 deaths were reported from among 4,000 people exposed to radiation and diagnosed with thyroid cancer. These data are in stark contrast to a number of other poorly referenced sources which have speculated on large numbers of radiation-related deaths from Chernobyl.

The Telegraph's commentator also thinks, along with many nuke proponents that inhabit the world, that "there has never been a verifiable death" in the West from the nuclear power. (I suppose he doesn't include Russia as part of the West.)Right.In his own words, from The Telegraph 3/20/2011 right before he headed off to the Mayan Highlands:

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thoriumA few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.

Scientists and doctors are calling for a new national policy in Japan that mandates the testing of food, soil, water, and the air for radioactivity still being emitted from Fukushima's heavily damaged Daiichi nuclear power plant."How much radioactive materials have been released from the plant?" asked Dr Tatsuhiko Kodama, a professor at the Research Centre for Advanced Science and Technology and Director of the University of Tokyo's Radioisotope Centre, in a July 27 speech to the Committee of Health, Labour and Welfare at Japan's House of Representatives. "The government and TEPCO have not reported the total amount of the released radioactivity yet," said Kodama, who believes things are far worse than even the recent detection of extremely high radiation levels at the plant. There is widespread concern in Japan about a general lack of government monitoring for radiation, which has caused people to begin their own independent monitoring, which are also finding disturbingly high levels of radiation. Kodama's centre, using 27 facilities to measure radiation across the country, has been closely monitoring the situation at Fukushima - and their findings are alarming.According to Dr Kodama, the total amount of radiation released over a period of more than five months from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster is the equivalent to more than 29 "Hiroshima-type atomic bombs" and the amount of uranium released "is equivalent to 20" Hiroshima bombs.

Kodama, along with other scientists, is concerned about the ongoing crisis resulting from the Fukushima situation, as well as what he believes to be inadequate government reaction, and believes the government needs to begin a large-scale response in order to begin decontaminating affected areas.Distrust of the Japanese government's response to the nuclear disaster is now common among people living in the effected prefectures, and people are concerned about their health.Recent readings taken at the plant are alarming.When on August 2nd readings of 10,000 millisieverts (10 sieverts) of radioactivity per hour were detected at the plant, Japan's science ministry said that level of dose is fatal to humans, and is enough radiation to kill a person within one to two weeks after the exposure. 10,000 millisieverts (mSv) is the equivalent of approximately 100,000 chest x-rays.

t is an amount 250 per cent higher than levels recorded at the plant in March after it was heavily damaged by the earthquake and ensuing tsunami. The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), that took the reading, used equipment to measure radiation from a distance, and was unable to ascertain the exact level because the device's maximum reading is only 10,000 mSv. TEPCO also detected 1,000 millisieverts (mSv) per hour in debris outside the plant, as well as finding 4,000 mSv per hour inside one of the reactor buildings.

Ziggy Switkowski, former chair of ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) and a proponent of nuclear power for Australia, claimed "the best place to be whenever there's an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well", and then quickly added: "On the other hand, you know, if the engineers do lose control of the core, then the answer becomes different."

Strident nuclear advocate Professor Barry Brook gave assurances in his running commentary that seemed ironically prescient of what was about to happen, stating ''I don't see the ramifications of this as damaging at all to nuclear power's prospects'' and that ''it will provide a great conversation starter for talking intelligently to people about nuclear safety''.

Other arguments trotted out by pro-nuclearists about how safe nuclear power is demonstrated their chutzpah more than their good judgment. My favourite: the justification for nuclear power is that it kills fewer people than the coal industry. Ignoring the false choice this proposition entails, what does it say about the safety culture of the nuclear industry when one of its selling points is that it kills fewer people than the competition?

Six months after the Fukushima disaster, the repercussions of history’s second-largest nuclear meltdown are still being felt, not only in Japan but around the world. Predictably, people are rethinking the wisdom of relying on nuclear power. The German and Swiss governments have pledged to phase out the use of nuclear power, and Italy has shelved plans to build new reactors. Public debate on future nuclear energy use continues in the United Kingdom, Japan, Finland, and other countries.So far, it is unclear what the reaction of the Korean government will be. Certainly, the public backlash to nuclear energy that has occurred elsewhere in the world is also evident in Korea; according to one study, opposition to nuclear energy in Korea has tripled since the Fukushima disaster. However, there are countervailing considerations here as well, which have caused policy-makers to move cautiously. Korea’s economy is often seen as particularly reliant on the use of nuclear power due to its lack of fossil fuel resources, while Korean companies are some of the world’s most important builders (and exporters) of nuclear power stations.

There are three primary reasons why nuclear power is safer and greener than power generated using conventional fossil fuels. First ― and most importantly ― nuclear power does not directly result in the emission of greenhouse gases. Even when you take a life-cycle approach and factor in the greenhouse gas emissions from the construction of the plant, there is no contest. Fossil fuels ― whether coal, oil, or natural gas ― create far more global warming.

The negative effects of climate change will vastly outweigh the human and environmental consequences of even a thousand Fukushimas. This is not the place to survey all the dire warnings that have been coming out of the scientific community; suffice it to quote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s concise statement that climate change is the world’s “only one truly existential threat … the great moral imperative of our era.” A warming earth will not only lead to death and displacement in far-off locales, either. Typhoons are already hitting the peninsula with greater intensity due to the warming air, and a recent study warns that global warming will cause Korea to see greatly increased rates of contagious diseases such as cholera and bacillary dysentery.

This nation has recovered from worse natural – and manmade – catastrophes. But it is the triple meltdown and its aftermath at the Fukushima nuclear power plant 40km down the coast from Soma that has elevated Japan into unknown, and unknowable, terrain. Across the northeast, millions of people are living with its consequences and searching for a consensus on a safe radiation level that does not exist. Experts give bewilderingly different assessments of its dangers.

Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters. One of the most prominent of them is Dr Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and long time anti-nuclear activist who warns of "horrors to come" in Fukushima.

Chris Busby, a professor at the University of Ulster known for his alarmist views, generated controversy during a Japan visit last month when he said the disaster would result in more than 1 million deaths. "Fukushima is still boiling its radionuclides all over Japan," he said. "Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse."

In Chernobyl, 0.09 uSv/h → Children started having symptoms. (near radiation level as westen Tokyo) 0.16 uSv/h → Adults got leukemia within 5 years. (near radiation level as Adachiku) 0.232 uSv/h → Mandatory evacuation area in Cheronobyl. (near radiation level as Asakusa or Tokyo Disneyland) I received a lot of queries. I would like to add some more explanation to this. This is a lecture of Ms. Noro Mika, who runs the NPO “Bridge to Chernobyl”

She has been visiting Chernobyl for 25 years and help children to accept in Hokkaido for one month etc.. Currently, the radiation levels in some parts of Kanto area are 3 mSv/year. Annotator’s comment: According to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the numerical values announced by the local government prove only the emission of gamma rays. The iodine and the cesium decay while emitting beta rays. If we have to deal strictly with gamma rays emissions, the degree of contamination can be understood, but we can’t measure the level of individual external exposure. Besides, the numerical values detected at the monitoring posts are measured at 10m above the ground level or even more.

In Chernobyl, an area 30 km from the nuclear plant, where the radiation level was 0.232 μSv/hour, was declared “no-entry zone”. In Chernobyl, in area where radiation levels were daily even 0.16 μSv/hour have been admitted as being dangerous, and in fact, adults got leukemia and died. Annotator: In case, in Kamakura, were I live, the level is 0.16 μSv/hour. Concerning the gamma dose rate in a certain spots one meter above the ground level, the radiation levels declared officially for Kamakura city are generally between 0.11〜0.14 μSv/hour. Radioactivity, in case of of iron, concrete, etc causes the oxidation and corrosion, but in humans accelerates the aging process and cause them sickness.

(San Francisco) Two 10,000 lb (4,545 kg) uranium poison gas “dirty” bombs with small nuclear  dispersion devises set Japan on the road to extinction on August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. A row of six modified and enlarged US Navy submarine reactors pioneered by US Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover and manufactured by the US based General Electric Corp (GE) finished the kill March 11, 2011. Thanks to the US Navy designed and GE built atomic reactors, the Japanese people are dying, the country of Japan is no more and the land is permanently uninhabitable.

Lethal nuclear vapors created by the destroyed Navy/GE reactors and thousands of tons of garbaged and burning old reactor cores are spreading invisible radioactive death and sickness all over the world. What’s more: the atomic reactors spilled their burning guts into the basements and there is evidence the melted reactor cores are still “reacting” 160 days out. Shutting them down is mostly just plain impossible. The burning, radioactive gates of hell are still open wide. Breathe deep everyone. Breathe your own poisoned Fuku tainted air.

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) The best measure of population growth or shrinkage is a country’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR). It is, simply put, the average number of children women have in a society over their child bearing years. Two kids per woman is the “replacement value” for one woman and one male. Two kids per woman means the man and woman replace themselves and the next generation will be the same size as their preceding generation.