Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged Chernobyl

Rss Feed Group items tagged

D'coda Dcoda

Devastating review of Yablokov's Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People ... - 0 views

  • Devastating review of Yablokov’s Cherno by l: Consequences of the Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe for Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple and the Environment by Rod Adams on October 20, 2011 in Accidents , Contamination , Health Effects , Politics of Nuclear Energy htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p://www.facebook.com/sharer.https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p?u=htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe-for-https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple-and-the-environment.html&amhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p;t=Devastating%20review%20of%20Yablokov%E2%80%99s%20Chernobyl%3A%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe%20for%20Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastr
  • Devastating review of Yablokov’s Cherno by l: Consequences of the Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe for Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple and the Environment by Rod Adams on October 20, 2011 in Accidents , Contamination , Health Effects , Politics of Nuclear Energy htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p://www.facebook.com/sharer.https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p?u=htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe-for-https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple-and-the-environment.html&amhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p;t=Devastating%20review%20of%20Yablokov%E2%80%99s%20Chernobyl%3A%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe%20for%20Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium
  • Devastating review of Yablokov’s Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe for Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple and the Environment by Rod Adams on October 20, 2011 in Accidents, Contamination, Health Effects, Politics of Nuclear Energy htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p://www.facebook.com/sharer.https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p?u=htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe-for-https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple-and-the-environment.html&amhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p;t=Devastating%20review%20of%20Yablokov%E2%80%99s%20Chernobyl%3A%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe%20for%20Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • book titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment in a publication called the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The roots of the decision remain murky. Within a few months after the first printing of the book, Ted Rockwell, a long time member of the Academy, started working to convince NYAS leaders that the decision to print was a grave error that was bad for science and posed a significant risk to the reputation of the Academy as a source of sound, peer-reviewed information. As part of his effort, he encouraged the current editor of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences to appoint reviewers and to post the results of those reviews.
D'coda Dcoda

"Ecological Half Life" of Cesium-137 May Be 180 to 320 Years? [23Aug11] - 0 views

  • A Wired Magazine article dated December 15, 2009 cites a poster session presentation of the research of the Chernobyl exclusion zone at the American Geophysical Union conference in 2009, and says radioactive cesium may be remaining in the soil far longer than what the half life (30 years) suggests. To note: it was a poster session presentation, and I'm looking to see if it has been formally published in a scientific paper since then.
  • From Wired Magazine (12/15/2009): SAN FRANCISCO — Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in history, created an inadvertent laboratory to study the impacts of radiation — and more than twenty years later, the site still holds surprises.
  • Reinhabiting the large exclusion zone around the accident site may have to wait longer than expected. Radioactive cesium isn’t disappearing from the environment as quickly as predicted, according to new research presented here Monday at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Cesium 137’s half-life — the time it takes for half of a given amount of material to decay — is 30 years. In addition to that, cesium-137’s total ecological half-life — the time for half the cesium to disappear from the local environment through processes such as migration, weathering, and removal by organisms is also typically 30 years or less, but the amount of cesium in soil near Chernobyl isn’t decreasing nearly that fast. And scientists don’t know why.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • It stands to reason that at some point the Ukrainian government would like to be able to use that land again, but the scientists have calculated that what they call cesium’s “ecological half-life” — the time for half the cesium to disappear from the local environment — is between 180 and 320 years.
  • “Normally you’d say that every 30 years, it’s half as bad as it was. But it’s not,” said Tim Jannik, nuclear scientist at Savannah River National Laboratory and a collaborator on the work. “It’s going to be longer before they repopulate the area.”
  • In 1986, after the Chernobyl accident, a series of test sites was established along paths that scientists expected the fallout to take. Soil samples were taken at different depths to gauge how the radioactive isotopes of strontium, cesium and plutonium migrated in the ground. They’ve been taking these measurements for more than 20 years, providing a unique experiment in the long-term environmental repercussions of a near worst-case nuclear accident.
  • In some ways, Chernobyl is easier to understand than DOE sites like Hanford, which have been contaminated by long-term processes. With Chernobyl, said Boris Faybishenko, a nuclear remediation expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, we have a definite date at which the contamination began and a series of measurements carried out from that time to today. “I have been involved in Chernobyl studies for many years and this particular study could be of great importance to many [Department of Energy] researchers,” said Faybishenko.
  • The results of this study came as a surprise. Scientists expected the ecological half-lives of radioactive isotopes to be shorter than their physical half-life as natural dispersion helped reduce the amount of material in any given soil sample. For strontium, that idea has held up. But for cesium the the opposite appears to be true. The physical properties of cesium haven’t changed, so scientists think there must be an environmental explanation. It could be that new cesium is blowing over the soil sites from closer to the Chernobyl site. Or perhaps cesium is migrating up through the soil from deeper in the ground. Jannik hopes more research will uncover the truth.
  • “There are a lot of unknowns that are probably causing this phenomenon,” he said. Beyond the societal impacts of the study, the work also emphasizes the uncertainties associated with radioactive contamination. Thankfully, Chernobyl-scale accidents have been rare, but that also means there is a paucity of places to study how radioactive contamination really behaves in the wild.
  • “The data from Chernobyl can be used for validating models,” said Faybishenko. “This is the most value that we can gain from it.” Update 12/28: The second paragraph of this story was updated after discussion with Tim Jannik to more accurately reflect the idea of ecological half-life.
  • Citation: “Long-Term Dynamics of Radionuclides Vertical Migration in Soils of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone” by Yu.A. Ivanov, V.A. Kashparov, S.E. Levchuk, Yu.V. Khomutinin, M.D. Bondarkov, A.M. Maximenko, E.B. Farfan, G.T. Jannik, and J.C. Marra. AGU 2009 poster session.
D'coda Dcoda

Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl [29Aug11][ - 0 views

  • 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."
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • On the other side of the nuclear fence are the industry friendly scientists who insist that the crisis is under control and radiation levels are mostly safe. "I believe the government and Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco, the plant's operator] are doing their best," said Naoto Sekimura, vice-dean of the Graduate School of Engineering at the University of Tokyo. Mr Sekimura initially advised residents near the plant that a radioactive disaster was "unlikely" and that they should stay "calm", an assessment he has since had to reverse.
  • Slowly, steadily, and often well behind the curve, the government has worsened its prognosis of the disaster. Last Friday, scientists affiliated with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the plant had released 15,000 terabecquerels of cancer-causing Cesium, equivalent to about 168 times the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the event that ushered in the nuclear age. (Professor Busby says the release is at least 72,000 times worse than Hiroshima).
  • Caught in a blizzard of often conflicting information, many Japanese instinctively grope for the beacons they know. Mr Ichida and his colleagues say they no longer trust the nuclear industry or the officials who assured them the Fukushima plant was safe. But they have faith in government radiation testing and believe they will soon be allowed back to sea.
  • That's a mistake, say sceptics, who note a consistent pattern of official lying, foot-dragging and concealment. Last week, officials finally admitted something long argued by its critics: that thousands of people with homes near the crippled nuclear plant may not be able to return for a generation or more. "We can't rule out the possibility that there will be some areas where it will be hard for residents to return to their homes for a long time," said Yukio Edano, the government's top government spokesman.
  • hundreds of former residents from Futaba and Okuma, the towns nearest the plant, were allowed to visit their homes – perhaps for the last time – to pick up belongings. Wearing masks and radiation suits, they drove through the 20km contaminated zone around the plant, where hundreds of animals have died and rotted in the sun, to find kitchens and living rooms partly reclaimed by nature.
  • It is the fate of people outside the evacuation zones, however, that causes the most bitter controversy. Parents in Fukushima City, 63km from the plant, have banded together to demand that the government do more to protect about 100,000 children. Schools have banned soccer and other outdoor sports. Windows are kept closed. "We've just been left to fend for ourselves," says Machiko Sato, a grandmother who lives in the city. "It makes me so angry."
  • Many parents have already sent their children to live with relatives or friends hundreds of kilometres away. Some want the government to evacuate the entire two million population of Fukushima Prefecture. "They're demanding the right to be able to evacuate," says anti-nuclear activist Aileen Mioko Smith, who works with the parents. "In other words, if they evacuate they want the government to support them."
  • Aid Fukushima: The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported bilateral aid worth $95m Chernobyl: 12 years after the disaster, the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, complained that his country was still waiting for international help.
  • But many experts warn that the crisis is just beginning. Professor Tim Mousseau, a biological scientist who has spent more than a decade researching the genetic impact of radiation around Chernobyl, says he worries that many people in Fukushima are "burying their heads in the sand." His Chernobyl research concluded that biodiversity and the numbers of insects and spiders had shrunk inside the irradiated zone, and the bird population showed evidence of genetic defects, including smaller brain sizes.
  • "The truth is that we don't have sufficient data to provide accurate information on the long-term impact," he says. "What we can say, though, is that there are very likely to be very significant long-term health impact from prolonged exposure."
  • Economic cost Fukushima: Japan has estimated it will cost as much as £188bn to rebuild following the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis. Chernobyl There are a number of estimates of the economic impact, but thetotal cost is thought to be about £144bn.
  • Safety Fukushima: workers are allowed to operate in the crippled plant up to a dose of 250mSv (millisieverts). Chernobyl: People exposed to 350mSv were relocated. In most countries the maximum annual dosage for a worker is 20mSv. The allowed dose for someone living close to a nuclear plant is 1mSv a year.
  • Death toll Fukushima: Two workers died inside the plant. Some scientists predict that one million lives will be lost to cancer. Chernobyl: It is difficult to say how many people died on the day of the disaster because of state security, but Greenpeace estimates that 200,000 have died from radiation-linked cancers in the 25 years since the accident.
  • Exclusion zone Fukushima: Tokyo initially ordered a 20km radius exclusion zone around the plant Chernobyl: The initial radius of the Chernobyl zone was set at 30km – 25 years later it is still largely in place.
  • Compensation Fukushima: Tepco's share price has collapsed since the disaster largely because of the amount it will need to pay out, about £10,000 a person Chernobyl: Not a lot. It has been reported that Armenian victims of the disaster were offered about £6 each in 1986
  • So far, at least, the authorities say that is not necessary. The official line is that the accident at the plant is winding down and radiation levels outside of the exclusion zone and designated "hot spots" are safe.
  • Japan has been slow to admit the scale of the meltdown. But now the truth is coming out. David McNeill reports from Soma City
D'coda Dcoda

We may be too late to evacuate [15Oct11] - 0 views

  • 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.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • And the effects start appearing in 2~3 years. We didn’t understand from the beginning where the hot spots were. But after checking later the areas where a lot of children got sick, in Belarus probably the radioactive substances were easily carried by the wind because the flat level ground, but it became clear that in areas 20~30 km from the plant there were places contaminated about just as much as Chernobyl. Kamakura is about 300 kilos away from Fukushima in a straight line. Based on the results of the investigations made after the nuclear accident in Chernobyl, in Europe the fact of assuming that 800km from the nuclear plant might be contaminated has been made taken into consideration as a basic rule for safety.
  • In Chernobyl, because contaminated farm products were made served in school lunches, about 70% of the children suffered from various kinds of health damages. Those (health problems) were not limited to their generation, and when those children became parents their problems passed to their children too. Because radioactive substances have similarities with nutrients like calcium, the mammals will feed a lot of them to their babies. Radioactive substances get easily out of their bodies by milk – hence, there were many cases when after giving birth to their first baby, a large quantity of radioactive substances were passed to the (first born) child and the mother’s health improved, but those children had serious congenital disorders (became people with serious disabilities).
  • Annotator’s comment: Because I believe that breast-feeding has a tremendous influence not only on nutrition, but also on the mental aspect; that’s why I hope that the mothers who are breast-feeding their children pay strict attention also to the their level of internal exposure and evacuate as soon as possible. Because the danger of the radioactive substances is known well enough, the world is watching the way Japan is dealing with the situation. A country which abandons its children and doesn’t value their lives is not a country worthy of trust.
  • Besides, there is no country who would buy things from a country that loosens it’s standards. The gov and Tepco spread misinformation (misinform the population). They should think about requesting the farmers give up growing farming products which are contaminated, give them compensation, and provide them new and safe farmlands.
  • n case of Chernobyl, party members, doctors and a nurses, teachers could afford to evacuate, because they could keep sustaining themselves even if they moved, but the poor people could not afford to evacuate. The symptoms which appeared at children who remained were the following: Headache nosebleed diarrhea thyroid problems not growing taller hard to recover after catching a cold swelling of the lymphatic glands, easily get sick with pneumonia kidney pain renal cancer
  • [that I have a] (because while radioactivity leaves the body, the urinary tract is affected) pain in the back side of the knee arthralgia wounds that take a long time to cure asthma hair loss problems with their hair growing alteration in visual acuity poor appetite poor concentration fatigability/easily getting tired cardiac pain (cardialgia) low resistance to diseases. The school lessons were shortened to 25 minutes, and because their kidneys became week, there are primary school children who wet their beds.
  • Even after becoming adults, the following cases were recorded: increase of myocardial infarcts an increase in the nr of sudden deaths death of young people in their 30th Accumulation of cesium in heart – even if eliminate from their bodies it (cesium) enters the body again after eating being exempted from the military service for having small holes in their hearts Regarding their children, the following medical cases were recorded - Brain damage, proved by the fact that they were slow in eating their meals.
  • Mothers of many children who were different from the other normal children give them to adoption, even if they didn’t have renal surgery or health problems, or a handicap. This kind of things are happening. (Source) German Translation
D'coda Dcoda

Citizens' forum queries nuclear 'experts' [23Oct11] - 0 views

  • To whom does scientific debate belong? That was a central question raised by many of the 200-plus people who attended a citizens' forum in Tokyo on Oct. 12, as they criticized the ways in which the Japanese government and radiation specialists working for it are assessing and monitoring the health effects of the ongoing nuclear disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The daylong conference, organized by the Japanese citizens' groups SAY-Peace Project and Citizens' Radioactivity Measuring Station (CRMS), featured experts who dispute much of the evidence on which the government has based its health and welfare decisions affecting residents of Fukushima Prefecture and beyond. Organizers of the event were also demanding that the government take into consideration the views of non-experts — and also experts with differing views from those of official bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Japanese government has constantly referred to the ICRP's recommendations in setting radiation exposure limits for Fukushima residents.
  • One of the driving forces for the citizens' forum was a desire to challenge the conduct and much of the content of a conference held Sept. 11-12 in Fukushima, titled the "International Expert Symposium in Fukushima — Radiation and Health Risk." That conference, sponsored by the Nippon Foundation, involved some 30 scientists from major institutions, including the ICRP, the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Although the proceedings were broadcast live on U-stream, the event itself was — unlike the Tokyo forum — closed to the public. Some citizens and citizens' groups claimed that this exclusion of many interested and involved parties — and the event's avowed aim of disseminating to the public "authoritative" information on the health effects of radiation exposure — ran counter to the pursuit of facilitating open and free exchanges among and between experts and citizens on the many contentious issues facing the nation and its people at this critical time.
  • In particular, there was widespread criticism after the Fukushima conference — which was organized by Shunichi Yamashita, the vice president of Fukushima Medical University and a "radiological health safety risk management advisor" for Fukushima prefectural government — that its participants assumed from the outset that radioactive contamination from the plant's wrecked nuclear reactors is minimal. Critics also claimed that the experts invited to the conference had turned a collective blind eye to research findings compiled by independent scientists in Europe in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in present-day Ukraine — specifically to findings that point to various damaging health consequences of long-term exposure to low-level radiation. So it was that those two citizens' groups, angered by these and other official responses to the calamity, organized the Oct. 12 conference held at the National Olympics Memorial Youth Center in Shibuya Ward. Among the non-experts and experts invited to attend and exchange their views were people from a wide range of disciplines, including sociology, constitutional law and pediatrics. On the day, some of the speakers took issue with the stance of the majority of official bodies that the health damage from Chernobyl was observed only in a rise in the number of cases of thyroid cancers.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Eisuke Matsui, a lung cancer specialist who is a former associate professor at Gifu University's School of Medicine, argued in his papers submitted to the conference that the victims of Chernobyl in the neighboring present-day country of Belarus have suffered from a raft of other problems, including congenital malformations, type-1 diabetes and cataracts. Matsui cited a lengthy and detailed report of research by the Russian scientists Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko that was published in 2007, and republished in English in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences under the title "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment." Matsui stressed that, based on such evidence, the Japanese government should approve group evacuations of children — at the expense of the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. — from certain parts of Fukushima Prefecture. He cited some areas of the city of Koriyama, 50 to 60 km from the stricken nuclear plant, where soil contamination by radioactive cesium-137 has reached 5.13 Curies per sq. km. That is the same as in areas of Ukraine where residents were given rights to evacuate, Matsui said. In fact in June, the parents of 14 schoolchildren in Koriyama filed a request for a temporary injunction with the Fukushima District Court, asking it to order the city to send their children to schools in safer areas.
  • In the ongoing civil suit, those parents claim that the children's external radiation exposure has already exceeded 1 millisievert according to official data — the upper yearly limit from all sources recommended by the ICRP for members of the public under normal conditions. Following a nuclear incident, however, the ICRP recommends local authorities to set the yearly radiation exposure limit for residents in contaminated areas at between 1 and 20 millisieverts, with the long-term goal of reducing the limit to 1 millisievert per year. Meanwhile, Hisako Sakiyama, former head researcher at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, delved into the non-cancer risks of exposure to radiation. In her presentation, she referred to a report compiled in April by the German Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). Titled "Health Effects of Chernobyl: 25 years after the reactor catastrophe," this documents an alarmingly high incidence of genetic and teratogenic (fetal malformation) damage observed in many European countries since Chernobyl.
  • Sakiyama also pointed out that the German report showed that the incidence of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure was not limited to children. For instance, she cited IPPNW survey findings from the Gomel district in Belarus, a highly-contaminated area, when researchers compared the incidence of thyroid cancer in the 13 years before the Chernobyl explosion and the 13 years after. These findings show that the figures for the latter period were 58 times higher for residents aged 0-18, 5.3 times higher for those aged 19-34, 6 times higher for those aged 35-49, and 5 times higher for those aged 50-64. "In Japan, the government has a policy of not giving out emergency iodine pills to those aged 45 and older (because it considers that the risk of them getting cancer is very low),"' Sakiyama said. "But the (IPPNW) data show that, while less sensitive compared to children, adults' risks go up in correspondence with their exposure to radioactivity."
  • Further post-Chernobyl data was presented to the conference by Sebastian Pflugbeil, a physicist who is president of the German Society for Radiation Protection. Reporting the results of his independent research into child cancers following the Chernobyl disaster, he said that "in West Germany ... with an exposure of 1 millisievert per year, hundreds of thousands of children were affected." He noted, though, that any official admissions regarding health damage caused by the 1986 disaster in the then Soviet Union came very slowly and insufficiently in Europe. Indeed, he said the authorities denied there were health risks for years afterward. In response, an audience member who said he was a science teacher at a junior high school in Kawaguchi, Saitama Prefecture, asked Pflugbeil to exactly identify the level of exposure beyond which residents should be evacuated. While acknowledging that was a very difficult question, the German specialist noted later, however, that he would think pregnant women should probably leave Fukushima — adding, "I have seen many cases over the years, but I come from Germany and it's not easy to judge (about the situation in Japan)."
  • At a round table discussion later in the day, as well as discussing specific issues many participants made the point that science belongs to the people, not just experts — the very point that underpinned the entire event. As Wataru Iwata, director of the Fukushima-based citizens' group CRMS, one of the forum's organizers (which also conducts independent testing of food from in and around Fukushima Prefecture) put it: "Science is a methodology and not an end itself." In the end, though the citizens' forum — which ran from 9:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. — arrived at no clear-cut conclusions, organizers said that that in itself was a good outcome. And another conference involving citizens and scientists is now being planned for March 2012.
D'coda Dcoda

We Were Once Terrified of Fire, Too [05Oct11] - 0 views

  • 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 difference between radiation levels that pose a significant health risk and radiation levels that pose negligible or no risks has everything to do with emission rate, concentration, dispersion, distance from, and duration of exposure. Other key factors include the unique properties of each isotope, such as how it affects the body and how long it remains radioactive. In light of the public’s fear, examining how nuclear energy has fared in terms of safety and environment is useful. Chemical energy and hydroelectric energy have caused their share of environmental damage and deaths.   The undercurrent of fear affects all matters related to this industry. It must be addressed. Doing so requires examining the risks and consequences of nuclear energy and comparing it to other energy technologies, for none is perfect.  
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • 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.
  • Clearly, the fears about nuclear energy are based on perceptions, imagined or engineered, and not on the consequences of actual events. For example, in August 1975, the Banqiao hydroelectric dam in western Henan province, China, failed as a result of Typhoon Nina, 180,000 people died. Another example is that 1 billion gallons of oil from 21 disasters have been spilled in the oceans since 1967. A third example is that, in Nigeria, on Oct. 18, 1998, a natural gas pipeline explosion took the lives of 1,082 people. Members of the public would benefit from scrutinizing the comparative safety and track record of clean, emission-free nuclear energy. The nuclear industry would benefit by helping the public learn the basic concepts and principles of nuclear technology. Nuclear energy can help achieve quality of life for those who don’t have it and help sustain it for those who do.
  • Steven B. Krivit is the senior editor of New Energy Times, an online magazine specializing in low-energy nuclear reaction research.  He also is the editor-in-chief of the 2011 Wiley and Sons Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.
D'coda Dcoda

Watch PBS Frontline: Fukushima radiation 10% of Chernobyl - Risk of getting cancer very... - 0 views

  • http://www.pbs.org/about/contact/ Here’s some to start: "Obviously Worrying": New estimate says Fukushima released "far more" radiation than Japan claims -- Gov't didn't count what went over Pacific Japan gov't now admits 40% of total Chernobyl radiation was released in just one week at Fukushima -- Still a "wide margin of error" Cesium-137 released at Fukushima in first four days could be 50 percent of Chernobyl total: Austria's ZAMG
  •  
    article includes the PBS video along with other articles that contradict its statements
D'coda Dcoda

nuclear energy America: Five realities of nuclear energy that should reassure Americans... - 0 views

  • As we continue to learn about and understand the implications of the Fukushima event, here are five realities that are sometimes lost in the debate:Eliminating nuclear energy is not realistic if we want to maintain our quality of life.
  • omes from nuclear energy, while about 68 percent comes from greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels like coal. Nuclear plants continuously produce large amounts of electricity and make up about 70 percent of America's emissions-free generation. Wind and solar make up 8 percent and .01 percent, respectively. Solar, wind and nuclear energy all play a valuable role in our energy mix, but currently, nuclear plants are the only large sources of emissions-free generation that can provide the amount of power we need to keep our homes and businesses running 24 hours per day.Nuclear energy also helps keep electricity costs low. Including the costs of operations, maintenance and fuel, nuclear energy has the lowest production cost of any major energy source. For the past 15 years, the cost of nuclear fuel has remained steadily lower than oil, natural gas and even coal. Of course, these savings, and the benefits of being non-emitting, are realized by utility customers.
  • Day-to-day activities present a greater health threat than a local nuclear plant.The anti-nuclear activists often invoke perceived "dangers" associated with nuclear plants. A review of the facts, however, tells a vastly different story regarding actual risk.In 2010, almost 34,000 people in the United States died in auto accidents. That's about one death every 15 minutes. In the past 60 years, while nuclear energy supplied American electricity, annual fatalities from aircraft crashes ranged from a high of 3,214 deaths in 1972 to a low of 771 deaths in 2004.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Yet in the entire history of the nuclear industry, there have been three major reactor accidents: Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Russia and Fukushima. And apart from Chernobyl — which was caused by a flawed reactor design that is not employed anywhere in the United States — no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation from a commercial nuclear plant. This fact is attributable to sound designs, strong construction, a culture in which safety always comes first, a highly trained, conscientious workforce, and rigorous government oversight.
  • Nuclear power plants are constantly upgraded.Unlike cars or appliances that are typically run until they break down, U.S. nuclear plants have a proactive aging-management program that replaces equipment well before it has the opportunity to malfunction. Using the car analogy, think of it this way: While the body of the car may have been manufactured years ago, its engine and safety systems are upgraded and rebuilt continuously with state-of-the-art components over time.In 2009 alone, the U.S. nuclear industry invested approximately $6.5 billion to upgrade plant systems with the latest technology. Continuous upgrades have always been the standard for U.S. nuclear plants for many reasons — most importantly protecting the health and safely of the public and workers. This industry considers continuous improvement to be a necessary investment rather than "optional" expense.
  • The amount of spent fuel is small and can be managed safely.In many cases, the issue of storing used fuel is discussed without proper context.Used nuclear fuel is in the form of solid pellets about the size of a pencil eraser. The fact is, the total amount of waste generated by the entire U.S. nuclear industry over more than 60 years of operation would fit in the area of one football field. For this entire time, we have safely and securely stored this fuel on-site in specially-designed pools and in strongly-engineered dry storage containers.
  • Nobody would argue that the on-site storage of used fuel is ideal. But it is a responsible option for now, since the relative amount of used fuel is so small; because multiple levels of safety and security protection have proven to be effective; more than 50 years of scientific research, engineering and experience proves that it can be stored with little environmental impact; and on-site storage is the only option utilities have until the federal government fulfills its responsibility to identify a long-term disposal solution.Moreover, only a small percentage of the available energy has been harvested from this fuel at the point when regulations require it to be stored on-site. This fuel should be recycled and re-used, as other countries have successfully concluded. But until political barriers in this country allow for this logical path, it must be stored on-site.
  • Nuclear plants have more government oversight than any other industry.The rigor and comprehensiveness of nuclear safety oversight in the United States is extraordinary. Our licensing and regulatory process is studied and emulated worldwide.Every nuclear power plant in the United States has multiple government inspectors on-site, year-round. They are top experts in the field and have unrestricted access to all vital areas of the plant, including plant records. In addition to these daily oversight activities, each plant frequently undergoes multiple evaluations and inspections that include detailed reviews of security, emergency planning, environmental protection, industrial safety, critical plant systems, plant culture and safety processes — all of which are aimed at ensuring the continued safe operation of these facilities.
  • Honest questioning from concerned citizens regarding nuclear energy is understandable. A thinking society should continuously strive for accurate, credible validation of its technologies. As to the safety and security of U.S. nuclear plants, the facts are reassuring. I firmly believe that these — and other facts — should be the basis for any discussion on the future of nuclear energy here in America.
D'coda Dcoda

Soil Contamination in 34 Locations in Fukushima Exceeds Chernobyl Confiscation/Closed Z... - 0 views

  • In one location, the contamination level is more than 10 times the Chernobyl level. What a surprise. Now that PM Kan is out, the government dribbles out the information that it withheld as it de-emphasized and even attacked the reports of high soil contamination as measured by private entities including citizens' groups.
  • The most contaminated location found so far is Okuma-machi, where Fukushima I Nuke Plant is located: 29,460,000 becquerels per square meter with cesium-134 and cesium-137 combined, 15,450,000 becquerels per square meter if only cesium-137 is counted.
  • The confiscated/closed zone after the Chernobyl accident is set in locations whose cesium-137 level in soil exceeds 1,480,000 becquerels per square meter. The level of cesium-137 in the location in Okuma-machi is 10 times that of the Chernobyl confiscated/closed zone. From Yomiuri Shinbun (3:05AM JST 8/30/2011):
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The soil contamination as the result of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident was reported on the August 29 meeting at the Ministry of Education and Science.
  • The survey found 34 locations in 6 municipalities exceeding the level of the confiscation/closed zone of the Chernobyl accident (1,480,000 becquerels/square meter of cesium-137 in soil). The purpose of the survey was to understand the radiation exposure of the residents. Prime Minister Kan said on August 27 that there might be locations where the residents wouldn't be able to return for a long time. The survey data validates the prime minister's comment.
  • According to the survey, the highest cesium-137 concentration in soil as of June 14 was in Okuma-machi in Fukushima Prefecture, within the no-entry evacuation zone, at 15,450,000 becquerels/square meter. If combined with cesium-134, the radioactive cesium concentration was 29,460,000 becquerels/square meter.
  • Total 16 location in 4 municipalities (Okuma-machi, Futaba-machi, Namie-machi, Tomioka-machi) exceeded 3,000,000 becquerels/square meter in cesium-137 concentration. The area with the high cesium-137 concentration extends northwest from the nuclear power plant. In total, 6 municipalities including Iitate-mura and Minami Soma City had the locations that exceeded the Chernobyl confiscation/closed zone level of cesium-137. The Ministry measured the soil samples from about 2,200 locations.Here's the map by Asahi Shinbun, including the locations with cesium-137 concentration of less than 1 million becquerels/square meter.
D'coda Dcoda

Chernobyl Expert says of Japan: "Everywhere I go, I hear stories similar to the Chernob... - 0 views

  • pload Date: Oct 20, 2011 Description: “Please click on “cc” button to show English subtitles. This video is from a webcast program called “ContAct,” webcasted on July 14, 2011 by OurPlanet-TV. OurPlanet-TV is an alternative media/non profit webcast station with no religious or political affiliations. It was founded by a small group of producers, video journalists and other media professionals who questioned the way mainstream media covered 9.11 and the events that followed. OurPlanet-TV English website: http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/?q=node/287 Translation by tokyobrowntabby, with a help from EX-SKF blog (http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/).”
  • Symptoms similar to the Chernobyl children are being reported… So I came to suspect there might be more health damages than had been reported on TV… I started investigating the situation and felt it was really dangerous… around the end of March… Everywhere I go I hear stories similar to the Chernobyl cases… I strongly feel similar symptoms are occurring in our Children… HOST: The health damages we are seeing haven’t been reported in the mainstream media yet… …More to come about this informative program…
D'coda Dcoda

Strange: Animals went mad and began attacking humans after exposure to high radiation l... - 0 views

  • CHERNOBYL to FUKUSHIMA – Part 3 – A Radiation Biologist’s Story Uploaded by: eon3 Date: Jun 30, 2011 Description: In the third of five parts of a seminar held at San Francisco State University – April 8, 2011, radiation biologist Natalia Manzurova tells of her experience as a Chernobyl ‘clean up liquidator’ – translated by psychologist Tatiana Mukhamedyarova.
  • Transcript Summary At 5:40 in The dose of radiation exposure was so high that a lot of animals who were exposed to it just went mad… that is they were just… crazy[?] The dogs that were left in the zone went to the forest… foxes, wolves… started attacking people who were working in the zone In fact even the hogs in the wild, they also became mad and also started attacking We were going from Chernobyl where we stayed overnight to Pripyat… one hog attacked our car with such force that we almost went into the ditch in the car
D'coda Dcoda

(Video) What Happened to Chernobyl Children 7 Years after the Accident (from a Japanese... - 0 views

  • When it was someone else's problem (Chernobyl), Japan was telling the truth about the effect of radiation, particularly on children.Tokyo Brown Tabby's translation and captioning of a TV program from 1993:
  • Ironically, the female newscaster has morphed into one of the strongest proponents (even today) of nuclear power generation. The journalist on the right has remained a journalist; he was seen investigating and reporting from the high-radiation areas in Fukushima, right after Reactor 1 blew up at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant.Tabby's description of the Youtube video:This video is from a Japanese evening news program broadcasted on Nihon TV, seven years after the Chernobyl accident (around 1993).I hope the families in Fukushima who still hesitate to voluntarily evacuate their children will watch this and change their minds.The original video is at: http://youtu.be/tWWICnIQE9k
D'coda Dcoda

Namie machi, Fukushima is 33 times worse than Chernobyl [24Nov11] - 0 views

  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology published the soil contamination data of 60 km area from Fukushima plants. The data was taken from 6/1/2011 ~ 11/22/2011. Though it’s only about I-131, Cs-134, Cs-137 mainly,the result shows the worst contaminated area in Fukushima is 33 times worse than Chernobyl. It proves Fukushima is something nobody has ever gone through. In Chernobyl, area contaminated worse than 1,480,000 bq/m2 was defined as the worst red zone, “immediate mandatory evacuating area.” In Fukushima, Namiemachi, 22km north west to Fukushima plants is contaminated, which they measured 760,000 bq/kg (Cs-134 + Cs-137). It equals to 49,400,000 bq/m2. Fukushima is “the next level” of Chernobyl apparently.
D'coda Dcoda

When Does a Nuclear Disaster End? Never. Fukushima [29Mar11] - 0 views

  • Those who think Japan's Fukushima disaster is today's headlines and tomorrow's history need to take a good look at the Chernobyl disaster, which to this day is a continuing threat to the people of Ukraine. It will be hundreds of years before the area around the destroyed reactor is inhabitable again and there are disputes over whether or not Chernobyl's nuclear fuel still poses a threat of causing another explosion. There is also a teetering reactor core cover and the deteriorating sarcophagus itself that may collapse and send plumes of radioactive dust in all directions.
  • The New York Times article "Lessons from Chernobyl for Japan," reflects on the Chernobyl disaster and how its legacy still looms over us today as a very real threat. Those who believe in a quick fix for the Fukushima disaster would be wise to remember Chernobyl's legacy
  • More importantly, with tens of millions of lives at stake, nation actors that have the ability to assist in mitigating this disaster now, but choose instead to squander their manpower and resources elsewhere (like in Libya), must remember that their actions today will be remembered and judged for centuries to come.
  •  
    Has a series of short videos about Chernobyl
D'coda Dcoda

Ten Most Radioactive Places on Earth [26Sep11] - 0 views

  • While the 2011 earthquake and worries surrounding Fukushima have brought the threat of radioactivity back into the public consciousness, many people still don't realize that radioactive contamination is a worldwide danger. Radionuclides are in the top six toxic threats as listed in the 2010 report by The Blacksmith Institute, an NGO dedicated to tackling pollution. You might be surprised by the locations of some of the world’s most radioactive places — and thus the number of people living in fear of the effects radiation could have on them and their children.
  • 10. Hanford, USA
  • The Hanford Site, in Washington, was an integral part of the US atomic bomb project, manufacturing plutonium for the first nuclear bomb and "Fat Man," used at Nagasaki. As the Cold War waged on, it ramped up production, supplying plutonium for most of America's 60,000 nuclear weapons. Although decommissioned, it still holds two thirds of the volume of the country’s high-level radioactive waste — about 53 million gallons of liquid waste, 25 million cubic feet of solid waste and 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater underneath the area, making it the most contaminated site in the US. The environmental devastation of this area makes it clear that the threat of radioactivity is not simply something that will arrive in a missile attack, but could be lurking in the heart of your own country.
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • 9. The Mediterranean
  • For years, there have been allegations that the ‘Ndrangheta syndicate of the Italian mafia has been using the seas as a convenient location in which to dump hazardous waste — including radioactive waste — charging for the service and pocketing the profits. An Italian NGO, Legambiente, suspects that about 40 ships loaded with toxic and radioactive waste have disappeared in Mediterranean waters since 1994. If true, these allegations paint a worrying picture of an unknown amount of nuclear waste in the Mediterranean whose true danger will only become clear when the hundreds of barrels degrade or somehow otherwise break open. The beauty of the Mediterranean Sea may well be concealing an environmental catastrophe in the making.
  • 8. The Somalian Coast
  • The Italian mafia organization just mentioned has not just stayed in its own region when it comes to this sinister business. There are also allegations that Somalian waters and soil, unprotected by government, have been used for the sinking or burial of nuclear waste and toxic metals — including 600 barrels of toxic and nuclear waste, as well as radioactive hospital waste. Indeed, the United Nations’ Environment Program believes that the rusting barrels of waste washed up on the Somalian coastline during the 2004 Tsunami were dumped as far back as the 1990s. The country is already an anarchic wasteland, and the effects of this waste on the impoverished population could be as bad if not worse than what they have already experienced.
  • 7. Mayak, Russia
  • 3. Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan
  • 6. Sellafield, UK
  • The industrial complex of Mayak, in Russia's north-east, has had a nuclear plant for decades, and in 1957 was the site of one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. Up to 100 tons of radioactive waste were released by an explosion, contaminating a massive area. The explosion was kept under wraps until the 1980s. Starting in the 1950s, waste from the plant was dumped in the surrounding area and into Lake Karachay. This has led to contamination of the water supply that thousands rely on daily. Experts believe that Karachay may be the most radioactive place in the world, and over 400,000 people have been exposed to radiation from the plant as a result of the various serious incidents that have occurred — including fires and deadly dust storms. The natural beauty of Lake Karachay belies its deadly pollutants, with the radiation levels where radioactive waste flows into its waters enough to give a man a fatal dose within an hour.
  • 5. Siberian Chemical Combine, Russia
  • Mayak is not the only contaminated site in Russia; Siberia is home to a chemical facility that contains over four decades' worth of nuclear waste. Liquid waste is stored in uncovered pools and poorly maintained containers hold over 125,000 tons of solid waste, while underground storage has the potential to leak to groundwater. Wind and rain have spread the contamination to wildlife and the surrounding area. And various minor accidents have led to plutonium going missing and explosions spreading radiation. While the snowy landscape may look pristine and immaculate, the facts make clear the true level of pollution to be found here
  • 4. The Polygon, Kazakhstan
  • Once the location for the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons testing, this area is now part of modern-day Kazakhstan. The site was earmarked for the Soviet atomic bomb project due to its “uninhabited” status — despite the fact that 700,000 people lived in the area. The facility was where the USSR detonated its first nuclear bomb and is the record-holder for the place with the largest concentration of nuclear explosions in the world: 456 tests over 40 years from 1949 to 1989. While the testing carried out at the facility — and its impact in terms of radiation exposure — were kept under wraps by the Soviets until the facility closed in 1991, scientists estimate that 200,000 people have had their health directly affected by the radiation. The desire to destroy foreign nations has led to the specter of nuclear contamination hanging over the heads of those who were once citizens of the USSR.
  • Located on the west coast of England, Sellafield was originally a plutonium production facility for nuclear bombs, but then moved into commercial territory. Since the start of its operation, hundreds of accidents have occurred at the plant, and around two thirds of the buildings themselves are now classified as nuclear waste. The plant releases some 8 million liters of contaminated waste into the sea on a daily basis, making the Irish Sea the most radioactive sea in the world. England is known for its green fields and rolling landscapes, but nestled in the heart of this industrialized nation is a toxic, accident-prone facility, spewing dangerous waste into the oceans of the world.
  • Considered one of the top ten most polluted sites on Earth by the 2006 Blacksmith Institute report, the radiation at Mailuu-Suu comes not from nuclear bombs or power plants, but from mining for the materials needed in the processes they entail. The area was home to a uranium mining and processing facility and is now left with 36 dumps of uranium waste — over 1.96 million cubic meters. The region is also prone to seismic activity, and any disruption of the containment could expose the material or cause some of the waste to fall into rivers, contaminating water used by hundreds of thousands of people. These people may not ever suffer the perils of nuclear attack, but nonetheless they have good reason to live in fear of radioactive fallout every time the earth shakes.
  • 2. Chernobyl, Ukraine
  • Home to one of the world’s worst and most infamous nuclear accidents, Chernobyl is still heavily contaminated, despite the fact that a small number of people are now allowed into the area for a limited amount of time. The notorious accident caused over 6 million people to be exposed to radiation, and estimates as to the number of deaths that will eventually occur due to the Chernobyl accident range from 4,000 to as high as 93,000. The accident released 100 times more radiation than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs. Belarus absorbed 70 percent of the radiation, and its citizens have been dealing with increased cancer incidence ever since. Even today, the word Chernobyl conjures up horrifying images of human suffering.
  • 1. Fukushima, Japan
  • The 2011 earthquake and tsunami was a tragedy that destroyed homes and lives, but the effects of the Fukushima nuclear power plant may be the most long-lasting danger. The worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the incident caused meltdown of three of the six reactors, leaking radiation into the surrounding area and the sea, such that radiative material has been detected as far as 200 miles from the plant. As the incident and its ramifications are still unfolding, the true scale of the environmental impact is still unknown. The world may still be feeling the effects of this disaster for generations to come.
D'coda Dcoda

Effect of contaminated soil on food chain sparks fears [10Sep11] - 0 views

  • Six months after the nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima Prefecture, the public's awareness of the threat posed by radiation is entering a new phase: the realization that the biggest danger now and in the future is from contaminated soil.
  • The iodine-131 ejected into the sky by the Fukushima No. 1 power station disaster was quickly detected in vegetables and tap water — even as far away as Tokyo, 220 km south of the plant. But contamination levels are now so low they are virtually undetectable, thanks to the short half-life of iodine-131 — eight days — and stepped up filtering by water companies.
  • But cesium is proving to be a tougher foe. The element's various isotopes have half-lives ranging from two to 30 years, generating concern about the food chain in Fukushima Prefecture, a predominantly agricultural region, as the elements wash fallout into the ground. The root of the problem is, well — roots. Cesium-134 and cesium-137 are viewed as potential health threats because vegetables can absorb the isotopes from the soil they're planted in.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • "Until early spring, produce was contaminated (on the surface with radioactive materials) that the No. 1 plant discharged into the atmosphere. But now, the major route of contamination is through plant roots," said Kunikazu Noguchi, a radiation protection expert at Nihon University. Whether absorption by plant roots can affect human health remains to be seen. Experts are warning that the region's soil and agricultural products will require close monitoring for many years.
  • At the moment, sampling data collected by the various prefectural governments indicate that no vegetables, except for those grown in Fukushima Prefecture, have been found to contain more than the government's provisional limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram since June. Likewise, as of Sept. 7, samples of pork, chicken, milk and fruit had also tested within the provisional radiation limit, apart from Fukushima products and tea from Chiba, Kanagawa, Gunma, Tochigi, Saitama and Ibaraki prefectures.
  • In fact, the amount of radioactive materials in most of the food sampled has been steadily declining over the past few months, except for produce from Fukushima. "The results of Fukushima's sampling tests show the amountof radioactive material contained in vegetables has dropped sharply in recent months, including those grown in areas with high radiation levels," Noguchi said. "People shouldn't worry about it much (for the time being)," he said. "But mushrooms and other vegetables grown in contaminated forests are likely tocontain high levels of radioactive materials."
  • his year, it's very important to conduct thorough surveys. The contamination will continue for a long time, so data collection is essential," Muramatsu said. "We need to be prepared for the following years by recording data this year and studying the rate at which cesium in the soil is absorbed by each kind of produce," Muramatsu said. In the meantime, the radioactivity itself will continue to weaken over the years. Cesium-134 has a half-life of 2 years and cesium-137 a half-life of 30 years, meaning the radiation they emit will drop by half in 2 years and 30 years.
  • "Data from the Chernobyl disaster show that radioactive cesium in soil tends to become fixed more strongly to clay minerals as time passes. So agricultural contamination will lessen next year," he said. Muramatsu urged that special caution should be taken over products grown in soil rich in organic matter, such as in forested areas. "If the soil is rich in organic matter, it makes (cesium) more easily transferable to plants. . . . Forest soil is rich in organic matter, so people should be careful," he said.
  • Now that soil in a wide area of eastern Japan has been contaminated with cesium, experts are calling for close monitoring of soil and produce. The education ministry conducted soil surveys in June and July at 2,200 locations within 100 km of the crippled plant. At 34 locations in six municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture, including Minamisoma, Namie and Iitate, the data said cesium levels had exceeded 1.48 million becquerels per sq. meter — the same level that was used to define the exclusion zone around Chernobyl in 1986. Yasuyuki Muramatsu, a radiochemistry professor at Gakushuin University, said that agricultural contamination will likely peak this year because cesium binds more strongly with minerals in soil as time passes, making it more difficult to be absorbed by plant roots.
  • The ratio of cesium-134 to cesium-137 in the Fukushima accident is estimated as 1-to-1, while the ratio during the 1986 Chernobyl disaster was 1-to-2. This indicates the radiation in Fukushima will weaken at a faster rate than at Chernobyl. Between April and early August, the farm ministry tested soil at some 580 locations in six prefectures, including Fukushima, Tochigi and Gunma, to get a better picture of the full extent of contamination.
  • According to the results, 40 locations in Fukushima Prefecture had an intensity exceeding 5,000 becquerels per kilogram — the government's maximum limit for growing rice. Many municipalities within 30 km of the Fukushima No. 1 plant were banned from planting rice based on similar tests conducted in April. In addition, the ministry has asked 17 prefectures in eastern Japan to conduct two-phase radiation tests on harvested rice.
  • So far, none of the tests performed on unmilled rice — including from Fukushima — exceeded the government's limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram. Masanori Nonaka, an agriculture professor at Niigata University who specializes in soil science, said rice grown in contaminated areas is likely to be tainted, but to what extent is anyone's guess. White rice, however, may prove to be safe, Nonaka said. Because most of the radioactive material will adhere to the bran — the part of the husk left behind after hulling — about 60 percent of the cesium can be removed just by polishing it, he explained. Other foods, such as marine produce, won't be as easy to handle, experts say. After the Chernobyl accident, for example, the radioactive contamination of fish peaked between 6 to 12 months after the disaster. The Fisheries Agency, meanwhile, has asked nine prefectures on the Pacific coast to increase their sampling rates to prevent contaminated fish from landing in supermarkets.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear whistleblowers: Stop lying about Fukushima [14Jul11[ - 0 views

  • Urging the public to recognize the massive government cover-up of Japan's Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, including the seriously damaged Reactor #3 with deadly plutonium mix fuel, two nuclear whistleblower organizations, Beyond Nuclear and Friends of the Earth, warned this week that the human toll from Japan's Fukushima nuclear event could be comparable to or potentially greater than that of Chernobyl. Independent nuclear specialists are warning that long-term risk of radiation due to internal exposure will be worse due to lies and cover-up of the catastrophe presently used to protect the nuclear energy industry.
  • Urging the public to recognize the massive government cover-up of Japan's Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, including the seriously damaged Reactor #3 with deadly   plutonium mix fuel , two nuclear whistleblower organizations,   Beyond Nuclear and Friends of the Earth , warned this week that the human toll from Japan's Fukushima nuclear event could be comparable to or potentially greater than that of Chernobyl. Independent nuclear specialists are warning that long-term risk of radiation due to internal exposure   will be worse due to lies and cover-up of the catastrophe presently used to protect the nuclear energy industry. Among nuclear truth advocates presenting information Friday about the health impact of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe was  Cindy Folkers, a radiation and health specialist at Beyond Nuclear, Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, and Dr. Alexey Yablokov, co-author of "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
  • At the same press conference was Dr. Yablokov, who has been holding a daily vigil in front of the World Health Organization headquarters due to its alleged false reporting of Chernobyl.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • "The World Health Organization cannot make any comment or decision regarding nuclear energy without deferring to the International Atomic Energy Agency which actively promotes nuclear power," according to Beyond Blue.
  • Dr. Yablokov said Friday
  • "We are seeing something that has never happened... a multiple reactor catastrophe including one using plutonium fuel as well as spent fuel pool accidents, all happening within 200 kilometers of a metropolis of 30 million people. Because the area is far more densely populated than around Chernobyl, the human toll could eventually be far worse in Japan." 
D'coda Dcoda

With clean-up around Chernobyl abandoned, what can Japan learn from 1986 disaster[25Apr12] - 0 views

  • April 26 will mark the 26th anniversary of the worst case of nuclear contamination in history: the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Since the meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in March last year, the Japanese government has shown interest in decontamination and other projects around Chernobyl as a reference point for efforts to deal with its own nuclear disaster. However in northern Ukraine, where the radioactive husk of the former Soviet power station lies, large-scale decontamination work has been abandoned as largely ineffective, and disaster refugees are no closer to going home.
D'coda Dcoda

Physician: We don't know what's happening - Cesium levels in soil not going down after ... - 0 views

  • Jeffrey Patterson, MD, Physicians for Social Responsibility board member: Chernobyl today is still a mess [...] The levels of cesium in the soil have stayed the same, and in some areas gotten higher. We don’t know why — what’s happening.
D'coda Dcoda

LA Times: People just learning that gov't may be telling fairy tale, says Japan broadca... - 0 views

  • Japan less likely to trust officials, main media, since disaster, Los Angeles Times by John M. Glionna, December 18, 2011: Day One
  • Hajime Shiraishi’s moment of truth came when her online video news show, at the time relatively unknown, decided to buck the government line and call a story as it saw it. On March 11 [... Tepco] announced on national TV that all was well [...] Mainstream media dutifully reported that story. But not Shiraishi’s “Our Planet TV,” which soon broadcast a live interview with five Japanese reporters in Futaba City [...] The reporters, who had covered the Chernobyl disaster, told a very different tale.
  • Chernobyl Reporters: We’ve Never Seen Anything Like It “They held up Geiger counters showing the level of radiation was almost beyond calculation,” said Shiraishi, a former network TV journalist who co-founded the Internet venture in 2001, hosts the show and reports many of its stories. “They’d never seen anything like it.” For Shiraishi and others, that broadcast was a turning point, a moment many see as marking a profound shift in the trust younger Japanese place in government and media. Since that show, “Our Planet TV” viewership has shot up from about 1,000 to more than 100,000 as people have begun to seek alternative sources of information
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Just Learning About Fairy Tales “As soon as we broadcast anything about radiation, viewership just goes through the roof,” Shiraishi said. “People tell us that they’re now just learning that what the government has been telling them all along might just be a fairy tale.”
  • Watch a segment of Our Planet TV here: Physicians diagnose Japan children: "He's affected by radiation... That's why he has dark circles under his eyes, pale face, and fatigue" -- "It would be better for him to move" (VIDEO)
1 - 20 of 169 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page