Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged cell

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
D'coda Dcoda

First Laser Made of Living Cells Has Arrived [16Jun11] - 0 views

news.discovery.com/...-living-cells-has-arrived.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 16 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • In an article published in Nature Photonics, researchers Malte Gather and Seok Hyun Yun describe how a solution made from GFP was used in combination with a mirrored chamber to create a laser. From this preliminary test, Gather and Yun were able to determine how much GFP was required to create the laser light. Using this result, they then moved ahead to genetically engineer mammalian cells that could express the GFP at the required levels.
  • The researchers report that they were able to create bright laser pulses that lasted a few nanoseconds with a single cell. Amazingly the cells were not damaged during the production of the laser light but were able to withstand hundreds of pulses. Furthermore, the spherical shape of the cell itself acted as a lens “refocusing the light and inducing emission of laser light at lower energy levels than required for the solution-based device.”
  • Although there are no immediate plans to use this technology, the erosion of the barrier between optical technologies and biology could open many doors in therapy and research. Gather tells PhysOrg.com that they “hope to be able to implant a structure equivalent to the mirrored chamber right into a cell, which would [sic] the next milestone in this research."
D'coda Dcoda

(Part 2) Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama of Tokyo University Tells the Politicians: "What Ar... - 0 views

ex-skf.blogspot.com/...essor-tatsuhiko-kodama-of.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • Professor Kodama is the head of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo.Professor Kodama's anger is now directed toward the government's non-action to protect people, especially children and young mothers, from internal radiation exposure. His specialty is internal medicine using radioisotope, so he says he has done the intense research on internal radiation:
  • I have been in charge of antibody drugs at the Cabinet Office since Mr. Obuchi was the prime minister [1998-]. We put radioisotopes to antibody drugs to treat cancer. In other words, my job is to inject radioisotopes into human bodies, so my utmost concern is the internal radiation exposure and that is what I have been studying intensely.
  • The biggest problem of internal radiation is cancer. How does cancer happen? Because radiation cuts DNA strands. As you know, DNA is in a double helix. When it is in a double helix it is extremely stable. However, when a cell divides, the double helix becomes single strands, doubles and becomes 4 strands. This stage is the most vulnerable.
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • Therefore, the fetuses and small children, with cells that rapidly divide, are most susceptible to radiation danger. Even for adults, there are cells that rapidly divide such as hair, blood cells and intestinal epitheria, and they can be damaged by radiation.Let me give you an example of what we know about internal radiation.
  • One genetic mutation does not cause cancer. After the initial hit by radiation, it needs a different trigger for a cell to mutate into a cancer cell, which is called "driver mutation" or "passenger mutation". (For details please refer to the attached document about the cases in Chernobyl and cesium.)Alpha radiation is most famous. I was startled when I learned of a professor at Tokyo University who said it was safe to drink plutonium.
  • Alpha radiation is the most dangerous radiation. It causes thorotrast liver damage, as we, liver specialists, know very well.Internal radiation is referred to as such-and-such millisieverts, but it is utterly meaningless. Iodine-131 goes to thyroid gland, and thorotrast goes to liver, and cesium goes to urothelium and urinary bladder. Whole body scan is utterly meaningless unless you look at these parts in the body where radiation accumulates.
  • Thorotrast was a contrast medium used in Germany since 1890. It was used in Japan since 1930, but it was found that 25 to 30% of people developed liver cancer 20 to 30 years later.Why does it take so long before cancer develops? Thorotrast is an alpha-radiation nuclide. Alpha radiation injures nearby cells, and the DNA that is harmed most is P53. We now know, thanks to genome science, the entire sequence of human DNA. However, there are 3 million locations on the DNA that are different from person to person. So today, it doesn't make sense at all to proceed as if all humans are the same. The basic principle should be the "personal life medicine" when we look at internal radiation - which DNA is damaged, and what kind of change is taking place.
  • In case of thorotrast, it is proven that P53 is damaged in the first stage, and it takes 20 to 30 years for the 2nd, 3rd mutations to occur, causing liver cancer and leukemia.About iodine-131. As you know, iodine accumulates in thyroid gland, and that is most noticeable during the formative phase of thyroid gland, i.e. in small children.
  • However, when the first researcher in Ukraine was saying in 1991 "There are an increasing number of thyroid cancer", researchers in Japan and the US were publishing articles in Nature magazine saying "There is no causal relationship between the radiation and thyroid cancer." Why did they say that? Because there was no data prior to 1986, there was no statistical significance.
  • The statistical significance was finally noted 20 years later. Why? Because the peak that started in 1986 disappeared. So even without the data prior to 1986, the occurrence of thyroid cancer and radiation exposure from Chernobyl had the causal relationship. Epidemiological proof is very difficult. It is impossible to prove until all the cases are done.Therefore, from the viewpoint of "protecting our children" a completely different approach is required.
  • Dr. Shoji Fukushima from a national institution called Japan Bioassay Research Center, which researches health effects of chemical compounds, has been studying diseases involving urinary tract since the Chernobyl accident.
  • Dr. Fukushima and doctors in Ukraine studied parts of bladders removed during more than 500 cases of prostatic hypertrophy surgery. They found out that in the highly contaminated area where 6Bq/liter was detected in urine, there was a high frequency of mutation of p53 though 6Bq may sound minuscule.
  • They also noticed many cases of proliferative precancerous conditions, which we assume was due to the activation of p38 MAP kinase and the signal called "NF-kappa B," leading inevitably to proliferative cystitis, with carcinoma in situ occurring with considerable frequency.Knowing this, I was astounded to hear the report that 2 to 13Bq/liter [of radioactive cesium] was detected from the breast milk of seven mothers in Fukushima.(to be continued in Part 3.)
  • When radioactive materials were detected from the breast milk, what did the government and government researchers say? "No need to worry. No immediate effect on health of the babies."Professor Kodama is saying that by the time we have proof that there is a causal relationship between internal radiation exposure (however small) and cancer, it may be too late.Thorotrast is a suspension containing the radioactive particles of thorium dioxide.
  • D'coda Dcoda on 29 Jul 11
     
    Japanese Professor's testimony on July 27, here is an excerpt from pt 1: Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama is the head of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo. On July 27, he appeared as a witness to give testimony to the Committee on Welfare and Labor in Japan's Lower House in the Diet. Remember Professor Kosako, also from the University of Tokyo, who resigned in protest as special advisor to the prime minister over the 20 millisievert/year radiation limit for school children? There are more gutsy researchers at Todai (Tokyo University) - the supreme school for the "establishment" - than I thought. Professor Kodama literally shouted at the politicians in the committee, "What the hell are you doing?" He was of course referring to the pathetic response by the national government in dealing with the nuclear crisis, particularly when it comes to protecting children. Part two:
D'coda Dcoda

Fukushima Update: Why We Should (Still) Be Worried [20Jan12] - 0 views

www.businessinsider.com/should-still-be-worried-2012-1

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 22 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • you would think the Japanese government would be doing everything in its power to contain the disaster. You would be wrong—dead wrong.
  • nstead of collecting, isolating, and guarding the millions of tons of radioactive rubble that resulted from the chain reaction of the 9.0 earthquake, the subsequent 45- to 50-foot wall of water that swamped the plant and disabled the cooling systems for the reactors, and the ensuing meltdowns, Japanese Environment Minister Goshi Hosono says that the entire country must share Fukushima’s plight by accepting debris from the disaster.
  • an estimated 20 million tons of wreckage on the land, much of which—now ten months after the start of the disaster—is festering in stinking piles throughout the stricken region. (Up to 20 million more tons of rubble from the disaster—estimated to cover an area approximately the size of California—is also circulating in the Pacific.)
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • the sheer amount of radioactive rubble is proving difficult to process. The municipal government of Kashiwa, in Chiba Prefecture to the west and south of Tokyo, recently shut down one of its main incinerators, because it can’t store any more than the 200 metric tons of radioactive ash it already has that is too contaminated to bury in a landfill.
  • According to the California-based Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network (FFAN), burning Fukushima’s radioactive rubble is the worst possible way to deal with the problem. That’s because incinerating it releases much more radioactivity into the air, not only magnifying the contamination all over Japan but also sending it up into the jet stream. Once in the jet stream, the radioactive particles travel across the Northern Hemisphere, coming back down to earth with rain, snow, or other precipitation.
  • Radiation used to be a word that evoked serious concern in a lot of people. However, the nuclear industry and its supporters have done a masterful job in allaying public fears about it. They do this in significant part by relying on outdated and highly questionable data collected on Japanese atom bomb survivors, while at the same time ignoring and dismissing inconvenient but much more relevant evidence that shows the actual harmful effects of radiation exposure from nuclear accidents. Author Gayle Greene explains this well in a recent article here. In their attempt to win the public over to their viewpoint, nuclear proponents even trot out the dubious theory of radiation hormesis, which says that low doses of radiation are actually good for you, because they stimulate an immune response. Well, so does something that causes an allergic reaction. But I digress…
  • radioactive elements, also known as radioisotopes or radionuclides, are unstable atoms. They seek stability by giving off particles and energy—ionizing radiation—until the radioisotope becomes stable. This process occurs within the nucleus of the radioisotope, and the shedding of these particles and energy is commonly referred to as ‘‘nuclear disintegration.’’ Nuclear radiation expert Rosalie Bertell describes the release of energy in each disintegration as ‘‘an explosion on the microscopic level.” This process is known as the “decay chain,” and during their decay, most radioactive elements morph into yet other radioactive elements on their journey to becoming lighter, stable atoms at the end of the chain. Some of the morphed-into elements are much more dangerous than the original radioisotope, and the decay chain can take a very long time. This is the reason that radioactive contamination can last so long
  • different radioisotopes give off different kinds of radiation—alpha, beta, gamma, X ray, or neutron emissions—all of which behave differently. Alpha emitters, such as plutonium and radon, are intensely ionizing but don’t penetrate very far and generally can’t get through the dead layers of cells covering skin. But when they are inhaled from the air or ingested from radiation-contaminated food or water, they emit high-energy particles that can do serious damage to the cells of sensitive internal soft tissues and organs. The lighter, faster-moving beta particles can penetrate far more deeply than alpha particles, though sheets of metal and heavy clothing can block them. Beta particles are also very dangerous when inhaled or ingested. Strontium-90 and tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, are both beta emitters. Gamma radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy like X rays, and it passes through clothing and skin straight into the body. A one-inch shield of either lead or iron, or eight inches of concrete are needed to stop gamma rays, examples of which include cobalt-60 and cesium-137—one of the radionuclides of most concern in the Fukushima fallout
  • The behavior of radioisotopes out in the environment also varies depending on what they encounter. They can combine with one another or with stable chemicals to form molecules that may or may not dissolve in water. They can combine with solids, liquids, or gases at ordinary temperature and pressure. They may be able to enter into biochemical reactions, or they may be biologically inert.
  • In her book No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, Bertell notes that if they enter the body either through air, food, water, or an open wound, “They may remain near the place of entry into the body or travel in the bloodstream or lymph fluid. They can be incorporated into the tissue or bone. They may remain in the body for minutes or hours or a lifetime.”
  • “Plutonium is biologically and chemically attracted to bone as is the naturally occurring radioactive chemical radium. However, plutonium clumps on the surface of bone, delivering a concentrated dose of alpha radiation to surrounding cells, whereas radium diffuses homogeneously in bone and thus has a lesser localized cell damage effect. This makes plutonium, because of the concentration, much more biologically toxic than a comparable amount of radium.”
  • the EPA was so confident that Fukushima fallout would not be a problem for U.S. citizens that it stopped its specific monitoring of fallout from Fukushima less than two months after the meltdowns began. But neglecting to monitor the fallout will not make it go away. In fact, another enormous problem with radioactive contamination is that it bioaccumulates in the environment, which means it concentrates as it moves up the food chain.
D'coda Dcoda

89 sieverts per hour measured in soil near Columbia River in Washington - Worst contami... - 0 views

enenews.com/contamination-feet-groundwater

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 07 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • Hanford officials have settled on a plan to clean up what may be the most highly radioactive spill at the nuclear reservation. It depends on calling back into service the 47-year-old, oversized hot cell where the spill occurred to protect workers from the radioactive cesium and strontium that leaked through the hot cell to the soil below. Radioactivity in the contaminated soil, which is about 1,000 feet from the Columbia River, has been measured at 8,900 rad per hour [89 sieverts per hour]. Direct exposure for a few minutes would be fatal, according to Washington Closure. [...]
  • In the 1980s, cesium and strontium spilled inside the hot cell, according to a 1993 report that referenced the spill. Germany needed a heat source to use for tests of a repository for radioactive waste, which emits heat, and the cesium and strontium were being fabricated into the sources. “This was concentrated material,” said Mark French, the Department of Energy’s project director for Hanford cleanup along the Columbia River. [...]
  • It migrated down in a open square shape, with the worst contamination down to five or six feet deep, McBride said. There is not evidence that it has reached the ground water which is about 54 feet below the ground there and about 42 feet below the bottom of the hot cell [...]
D'coda Dcoda

A little radiation can delay cancer until after you are dead anyway [16Jul11] - 0 views

atomicinsights.com/...after-you-are-dead-anyway.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 25 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • Jerry Cuttler, a tireless researcher on the topic of the health effects of low level radiation, sent me an article titled Toward Improved Ionizing Radiation Safety Standards from the July 2011 issue of Health Physics, a peer-reviewed journal about radiation safety. (Unfortunately, like many peer reviewed journals, Health Physics is not available for free online. It is possible to purchase individual articles or to gain access if you have a membership or access to a university or corporate library.)
  • he article explains in clear, but scientific terms, how radiation at low average levels can result in increasing the latency period of cancer development past the end of a natural lifespan. We all have the potential for developing cancer, but we also have finite lives. Dr. Raabe’s research has led him to the conclusion that low average doses of radiation that might add up to a substantial cumulative dose do not kill off cancer cells, but they delay the ability of those cells to do any real damage until after their host organism is dead from other causes anyway.
  • Clearly the development of a radiation-induced malignant tumor from either protracted ionizing radiation exposures or acute exposures is not the result of a single random interaction of the ionizing radiation with an isolated cell. Hence, the term stochastic as used by the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) is not appropriate. The following conclusions indicate that major revisions of the ICRP methodology and standards are needed, and other currently accepted ionizing radiation risk models should be improved to provide more meaningful and realistic estimates of ionizing radiation cancer risk: Cancer induction risk associated with protracted or fractionated ionizing radiation exposure is a non-linear function of lifetime average dose rate to the affected tissues and exhibits a virtual threshold at low lifetime average dose rates;
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Cumulative radiation dose is neither an accurate nor an appropriate measure of cancer induction risk for protracted or fractionated ionizing radiation exposure except for describing the virtual threshold for various exposures; and Cancer promotion risk for ongoing lifetime biological processes is a relative process as seen in the RERF (Radiation Effects Research Foundation) studies of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors for brief high dose-rate exposures to ionizing radiation. It cannot be used to estimate cancer induction risk from protracted or fractionated ionizing exposures over long times and at low dose rates.
  • RecommendationsThe current ICRP radiation protection recommendations certainly provide a high level of safety and protection for radiation workers and the public. Radiation safety has been the most important goal of the ICRP, and their recommendations have met that goal with distinction. However, the ICRP risk estimates and response models for protracted or fractionated ionizing radiation exposures and long-lived internal emitters seriously overestimate the risks of low doses. Reasonably accurate cancer induction risk estimates are needed to avoid expensive over-regulation and to bolster the scientific foundation of radiation safety regulations and analysis. Many of the current environmental radiation safety standards are inappropriately low and prohibitively expensive to enforce.
  • The current ICRP models of radiation carcinogenesis can be misleading. Revision of the radiation safety standards is needed that clearly distinguishes between radiation cancer promotion as observed in the atomic bomb survivor studies and radiation cancer induction as observed for long-lived internal emitters. In particular, the ICRP needs to revisit and revise the standards currently recommended for ionizing radiation-induced cancer. Recommended standards should be considered that are based on lifetime average dose rate to sensitive tissues in the case of internally-deposited, relatively long-lived radionuclides and other protracted or fractionated exposures rather than on cumulative or committed dose.
  • D'coda Dcoda on 25 Jul 11
     
    There's also a video on the site called " Myth: Nuclear Energy is Dangerous
D'coda Dcoda

Fukushima radiation alarms doctors [18Aug11] - 0 views

english.aljazeera.net/...201181665921711896.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 19 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • 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.
  • ...35 more annotations...
  • he Fukushima disaster has been rated as a "level seven" on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). This level, the highest, is the same as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, and is defined by the scale as: "[A] major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures."The Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters are the only nuclear accidents to have been rated level seven on the scale, which is intended to be logarithmic, similar to the scale used to describe the comparative magnitude of earthquakes. Each increasing level represents an accident approximately ten times more severe than the previous level.
  • Doctors in Japan are already treating patients suffering health effects they attribute to radiation from the ongoing nuclear disaster."We have begun to see increased nosebleeds, stubborn cases of diarrhoea, and flu-like symptoms in children," Dr Yuko Yanagisawa, a physician at Funabashi Futawa Hospital in Chiba Prefecture, told Al Jazeera.
  • r Helen Caldicott, the founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, is equally concerned about the health effects from Japan's nuclear disaster."Radioactive elements get into the testicles and ovaries, and these cause genetic disease like diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and mental retardation," she told Al Jazeera. "There are 2,600 of these diseases that get into our genes and are passed from generation to generation, forever."
  • Al Jazeera's Aela Callan, reporting from Japan's Ibaraki prefecture, said of the recently detected high radiation readings: "It is now looking more likely that this area has been this radioactive since the earthquake and tsunami, but no one realised until now."Workers at Fukushima are only allowed to be exposed to 250 mSv of ionising radiation per year.
  • radioactive cesium exceeding the government limit was detected in processed tea made in Tochigi City, about 160km from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, according to the Tochigi Prefectural Government, who said radioactive cesium was detected in tea processed from leaves harvested in the city in early July. The level is more than 3 times the provisional government limit.
  • anagisawa's hospital is located approximately 200km from Fukushima, so the health problems she is seeing that she attributes to radiation exposure causes her to be concerned by what she believes to be a grossly inadequate response from the government.From her perspective, the only thing the government has done is to, on April 25, raise the acceptable radiation exposure limit for children from 1 mSv/year to 20 mSv/year.
  • This has caused controversy, from the medical point of view," Yanagisawa told Al Jazeera. "This is certainly an issue that involves both personal internal exposures as well as low-dose exposures."Junichi Sato, Greenpeace Japan Executive Director, said: "It is utterly outrageous to raise the exposure levels for children to twenty times the maximum limit for adults."
  • The Japanese government cannot simply increase safety limits for the sake of political convenience or to give the impression of normality."Authoritative current estimates of the health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation are published in the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation VII (BEIR VII) report from the US National Academy of Sciences.
  • he report reflects the substantial weight of scientific evidence proving there is no exposure to ionizing radiation that is risk-free. The BEIR VII estimates that each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of all forms of cancer other than leukemia of about 1-in-10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1-in-100,000; and a 1-in-17,500 increased risk of cancer death.
  • She attributes the symptoms to radiation exposure, and added: "We are encountering new situations we cannot explain with the body of knowledge we have relied upon up until now.""The situation at the Daiichi Nuclear facility in Fukushima has not yet been fully stabilised, and we can't yet see an end in sight," Yanagisawa said. "Because the nuclear material has not yet been encapsulated, radiation continues to stream into the environment."
  • So far, the only cases of acute radiation exposure have involved TEPCO workers at the stricken plant. Lower doses of radiation, particularly for children, are what many in the medical community are most concerned about, according to Dr Yanagisawa.
  • Humans are not yet capable of accurately measuring the low dose exposure or internal exposure," she explained, "Arguing 'it is safe because it is not yet scientifically proven [to be unsafe]' would be wrong. That fact is that we are not yet collecting enough information to prove the situations scientifically. If that is the case, we can never say it is safe just by increasing the annual 1mSv level twenty fold."
  • Her concern is that the new exposure standards by the Japanese government do not take into account differences between adults and children, since children's sensitivity to radiation exposure is several times higher than that of adults.
  • Al Jazeera contacted Prime Minister Naoto Kan's office for comment on the situation. Speaking on behalf of the Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Public Relations for the Prime Minister's office, Noriyuki Shikata said that the Japanese government "refers to the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] recommendation in 2007, which says the reference levels of radiological protection in emergency exposure situations is 20-100 mSv per year. The Government of Japan has set planned evacuation zones and specific spots recommended for evacuation where the radiation levels reach 20 mSv/year, in order to avoid excessive radiation exposure."
  • he prime minister's office explained that approximately 23bn yen ($300mn) is planned for decontamination efforts, and the government plans to have a decontamination policy "by around the end of August", with a secondary budget of about 97bn yen ($1.26bn) for health management and monitoring operations in the affected areas. When questioned about the issue of "acute radiation exposure", Shikata pointed to the Japanese government having received a report from TEPCO about six of their workers having been exposed to more than 250 mSv, but did not mention any reports of civilian exposures.
  • Prime Minister Kan's office told Al Jazeera that, for their ongoing response to the Fukushima crisis, "the government of Japan has conducted all the possible countermeasures such as introduction of automatic dose management by ID codes for all workers and 24 hour allocation of doctors. The government of Japan will continue to tackle the issue of further improving the health management including medium and long term measures". Shikata did not comment about Kodama's findings.
  • Nishio Masamichi, director of Japan's Hakkaido Cancer Centre and a radiation treatment specialist, published an article on July 27 titled: "The Problem of Radiation Exposure Countermeasures for the Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Concerns for the Present Situation". In the report, Masamichi said that such a dramatic increase in permitted radiation exposure was akin to "taking the lives of the people lightly". He believes that 20mSv is too high, especially for children who are far more susceptible to radiation.
  • Kodama is an expert in internal exposure to radiation, and is concerned that the government has not implemented a strong response geared towards measuring radioactivity in food. "Although three months have passed since the accident already, why have even such simple things have not been done yet?" he said. "I get very angry and fly into a rage."
  • Radiation has a high risk to embryos in pregnant women, juveniles, and highly proliferative cells of people of growing ages. Even for adults, highly proliferative cells, such as hairs, blood, and intestinal epithelium cells, are sensitive to radiation."
  • Early on in the disaster, Dr Makoto Kondo of the department of radiology of Keio University's School of Medicine warned of "a large difference in radiation effects on adults compared to children".Kondo explained the chances of children developing cancer from radiation exposure was many times higher than adults.
  • Children's bodies are underdeveloped and easily affected by radiation, which could cause cancer or slow body development. It can also affect their brain development," he said.Yanagisawa assumes that the Japanese government's evacuation standards, as well as their raising the permissible exposure limit to 20mSv "can cause hazards to children's health," and therefore "children are at a greater risk".
  • Kodama, who is also a doctor of internal medicine, has been working on decontamination of radioactive materials at radiation facilities in hospitals of the University of Tokyo for the past several decades. "We had rain in Tokyo on March 21 and radiation increased to .2 micosieverts/hour and, since then, the level has been continuously high," said Kodama, who added that his reporting of radiation findings to the government has not been met an adequate reaction. "At that time, the chief cabinet secretary, Mr Edano, told the Japanese people that there would be no immediate harm to their health."
  • n early July, officials with the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission announced that approximately 45 per cent of children in the Fukushima region had experienced thyroid exposure to radiation, according to a survey carried out in late March. The commission has not carried out any surveys since then.
  • Now the Japanese government is underestimating the effects of low dosage and/or internal exposures and not raising the evacuation level even to the same level adopted in Chernobyl," Yanagisawa said. "People's lives are at stake, especially the lives of children, and it is obvious that the government is not placing top priority on the people's lives in their measures."Caldicott feels the lack of a stronger response to safeguard the health of people in areas where radiation is found is "reprehensible".
  • Millions of people need to be evacuated from those high radiation zones, especially the children."
  • Dr Yanagisawa is concerned about what she calls "late onset disorders" from radiation exposure resulting from the Fukushima disaster, as well as increasing cases of infertility and miscarriages."Incidence of cancer will undoubtedly increase," she said. "In the case of children, thyroid cancer and leukemia can start to appear after several years. In the case of adults, the incidence of various types of cancer will increase over the course of several decades."Yanagisawa said it is "without doubt" that cancer rates among the Fukushima nuclear workers will increase, as will cases of lethargy, atherosclerosis, and other chronic diseases among the general population in the effected areas.
  • Radioactive food and water
  • An August 1 press release from Japan's MHLW said no radioactive materials have been detected in the tap water of Fukushima prefecture, according to a survey conducted by the Japanese government's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. The government defines no detection as "no results exceeding the 'Index values for infants (radioactive iodine)'," and says "in case the level of radioactive iodine in tap water exceeds 100 Bq/kg, to refrain from giving infants formula milk dissolved by tap water, having them intake tap water … "
  • Yet, on June 27, results were published from a study that found 15 residents of Fukushima prefecture had tested positive for radiation in their urine. Dr Nanao Kamada, professor emeritus of radiation biology at Hiroshima University, has been to Fukushima prefecture twice in order to take internal radiation exposure readings and facilitated the study.
  • The risk of internal radiation is more dangerous than external radiation," Dr Kamada told Al Jazeera. "And internal radiation exposure does exist for Fukushima residents."According to the MHLW, distribution of several food products in Fukushima Prefecture remain restricted. This includes raw milk, vegetables including spinach, kakina, and all other leafy vegetables, including cabbage, shiitake mushrooms, bamboo shoots, and beef.
  • he distribution of tealeaves remains restricted in several prefectures, including all of Ibaraki, and parts of Tochigi, Gunma, Chiba, Kanagawa Prefectures.Iwate prefecture suspended all beef exports because of caesium contamination on August 1, making it the fourth prefecture to do so.
  • yunichi Tokuyama, an expert with the Iwate Prefecture Agricultural and Fisheries Department, told Al Jazeera he did not know how to deal with the crisis. He was surprised because he did not expect radioactive hot spots in his prefecture, 300km from the Fukushima nuclear plant."The biggest cause of this contamination is the rice straw being fed to the cows, which was highly radioactive," Tokuyama told Al Jazeera.
  • Kamada feels the Japanese government is acting too slowly in response to the Fukushima disaster, and that the government needs to check radiation exposure levels "in each town and village" in Fukushima prefecture."They have to make a general map of radiation doses," he said. "Then they have to be concerned about human health levels, and radiation exposures to humans. They have to make the exposure dose map of Fukushima prefecture. Fukushima is not enough. Probably there are hot spots outside of Fukushima. So they also need to check ground exposure levels."
  • Radiation that continues to be released has global consequences.More than 11,000 tonnes of radioactive water has been released into the ocean from the stricken plant.
  • Those radioactive elements bio-concentrate in the algae, then the crustaceans eat that, which are eaten by small then big fish," Caldicott said. "That's why big fish have high concentrations of radioactivity and humans are at the top of the food chain, so we get the most radiation, ultimately."
D'coda Dcoda

Cheap Solar Paint Takes a Giant Step Closer to Reality [10Apr10] - 0 views

cleantechnica.com/...a-giant-step-closer-to-reality

solar

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • For all the excitement over low cost solar power, much of it is still in the development stage backed by government resources and has yet to prove that it can compete on the market with cheap fossil fuels.   However some private investors are starting to bet on low cost solar in a big way.  Among them is tech specialist Len Batterson, whose startup  NextGen Solar is kicking into gear.NextGen Solar will use nanoscale solar “paint” technology developed by Argonne National Laboratory, with the goal of lowering production costs while increasing efficiency compared to thin-film photovoltaic materials.
  • Many Roads to Cost-Competitive SolarFrom turnkey solar kits to the use of low-cost solar materials, there are many different angles from which to push solar into the competitive energy market.  A solar paint that can be economically applied to different surfaces is one solution.  The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is already working on a silicon based solar ink, and The University of Texas is developing spray-on solar cells.  According to chicagobusiness.com writer Paul Merrion, Argonne’s solar technology can be applied to many types of building surfaces, including windows.  It goes on like paint, then dries to form microscopic interconnected solar cells.
D'coda Dcoda

Radioactive WATER dispersion from Fukushima Japan = plotted on Google earth [20Aug11] - 0 views

www.dutchsinse.com/blog

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 20 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • download or watch the video below: Fukushima radioactive seawater plume = spreading across entire pacific
  • here is the link to see the plume dispersion: http://www.xydo.com/toolbar/27327691-asr_ltd_-_fukushima_radioactive_seawater_plume_dispersal_simulation
  • from their website:   “We use a Lagrangian particles dispersal method to track where free floating material (fish larvae, algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton…) present in the sea water near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station plant could have gone since the earthquake on March 11th. THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME CONCENTRATION. Since we do not know how much contaminated water and at what concentration was released into the ocean, it is impossible to estimate the extent and dilution of the plume. However, field monitoring by TEPCO and modelling by the Sirrocco group in University of Toulouse, France both show high concentration in the surrounding water (highest rate at 80 Bq/L and 24 Bq/L for respectively I-131 and C-137) . Assuming that a part of the passive biomass could have been contaminated in the area, we are trying to track where the radionuclides are spreading as it will eventually climb up the food chain.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • The dispersal model is ASR’s Pol3DD. The model is forced by hydrodynamic data from the HYCOM/NCODA system which provides on a weekly basis, daily oceanic current in the world ocean. The resolution in this part of the Pacific Ocean is around 8km x 8km cells. We are treating only the sea surface currents. Particles in the model are continuously released near the Fukushima Daiichi power plant since March 11th. The dispersal model keeps a trace of their visits in the model cells. The results here are expressed in number of visit per surface area of material which has been in contact at least once with the highly concentrated radioactive water.”
  • D'coda Dcoda on 20 Aug 11
     
    There's a map on the site
Dan R.D.

TOWARD REAL ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY BY MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY - 0 views

www.tainano.com/...LITY%20BY%20NANOTECHNOLOGY.htm

nanotechnology disposal storage nuclear

shared by Dan R.D. on 28 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Dan R.D. on 28 Oct 11
     
    2.2.5. Nuclear Wastes MNT cannot treat nuclear wastes and render them harmless directly, for MNT only work with atoms and molecules, not nuclei.  Yet indirectly, by lowering the cost of energy and equipment, MNT can offer us the means for a clean, permanent solution to the untreatable nuclear wastes left over from the nuclear era. Nuclear wastes can be collected, concentrated by specific nanobots. Products of MNT could help with conventional approaches to dealing with nuclear waste, helping to store it in the most stable, reliable forms possible.  Using nanomachines, we could seal them in self-sealing containers and powered by cheap nano-solar energy (10).  These would be more secure than any passive rock or cask.  When MNT has developed cheap, reliable spacecraft, the concentrated nuclear wastes can be transported to the moon and bury them in moon's dead, dry rock by nanobots, or to other planets that still radioactive, or even shoot them directly into the sun. Underground nano-atom smasher powered by cheap solar cells can also be devised to treat nuclear wastes. This is a reverse process of nuclear engineering.  Instead of smashing nonradioactive target and harvesting for radioactive substance, the nanomachine will smash radioactive target and harvest for nonradioactive substance.  The smashing and harvesting process will continue stability is achieved.  Fig. 9 illustrates a few routes for resolving nuclear waste piles that accumulated in the environment and TDBT is at loss on dealing with them.
D'coda Dcoda

The Death Of The Pacific Ocean [06Dec11] - 3 views

www.rense.com/death.htm

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 06 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • An unstoppable tide of radioactive trash and chemical waste from Fukushima is pushing ever closer to North America. An estimated 20 million tons of smashed timber, capsized boats and industrial wreckage is more than halfway across the ocean, based on sightings off Midway by a Russian ship's crew. Safe disposal of the solid waste will be monumental task, but the greater threat lies in the invisible chemical stew mixed with sea water.
  • This new triple disaster floating from northeast Japan is an unprecedented nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) contamination event. Radioactive isotopes cesium and strontium are by now in the marine food chain, moving up the bio-ladder from plankton to invertebrates like squid and then into fish like salmon and halibut. Sea animals are also exposed to the millions of tons of biological waste from pig farms and untreated sludge from tsunami-engulfed coast of Japan, transporting pathogens including the avian influenza virus, which is known to infect fish and turtles. The chemical contamination, either liquid or leached out of plastic and painted metal, will likely have the most immediate effects of harming human health and exterminating marine animals.
  • Many chemical compounds are volatile and can evaporate with water to form clouds, which will eventually precipitate as rainfall across Canada and the northern United States. The long-term threat extends far inland to the Rockies and beyond, affecting agriculture, rivers, reservoirs and, eventually, aquifers and well water.   Falsifying Oceanography
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Soon after the Fukushima disaster, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at its annual meeting in Vienna said that most of the radioactive water released from the devastated Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant was expected to disperse harmlessly in the Pacific Ocean. Another expert in a BBC interview also suggested that nuclear sea-dumping is nothing to worry about because the "Pacific extension" of the Kuroshio Current would deposit the radiation into the middle of the ocean, where the heavy isotopes would sink into Davy Jones's Locker.
  • The current is a relatively narrow band that acts like a conveyer belt, meaning radioactive materials will not disperse and settle but should remain concentrated   Soon thereafter, the IAEA backtracked, revising its earlier implausible scenario. In a newsletter, the atomic agency projected that cesium-137 might reach the shores of other countries in "several years or months." To be accurate, the text should have been written "in several months rather than years."
  • chemicals dissolved in the water have already started to reach the Pacific seaboard of North America, a reality being ignored by the U.S. and Canadian governments.   It is all-too easy for governments to downplay the threat. Radiation levels are difficult to detect in water, with readings often measuring 1/20th of the actual content. Dilution is a major challenge, given the vast volume of sea water. Yet the fact remains that radioactive isotopes, including cesium, strontium, cobalt and plutonium, are present in sea water on a scale at least five times greater than the fallout over land in Japan.
  • Japan along with many other industrial powers is addicted not just to nuclear power but also to the products from the chemical industry and petroleum producers. Based on the work of the toxicologist in our consulting group who worked on nano-treatment system to destroy organic compounds in sewage (for the Hong Kong government), it is possible to outline the major types of hazardous chemicals released into sea water by the tsunami.   - Polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), from destroyed electric-power transformers. PCBs are hormone disrupters that wreck reproductive organs, nerves and endocrine and immune system.   - Ethylene glycol, used as a coolant for freezer units in coastal seafood packing plans and as antifreeze in cars, causes damage to kidneys and other internal organs.
  • - The 9-11 carbon compounds in the water soluble fraction of gasoline and diesel cause cancers.   - Surfactants, including detergents, soap and laundry powder, are basic (versus to acidic) compounds that cause lesions on eyes, skin and intestines of fish and marine mammals.   - Pesticides from coastal farms, organophosphates that damage nerve cells and brain tissue.   - Drugs, from pharmacies and clinics swept out to sea, which in tiny amounts can trigger major side-effects.
  • Start of a Kill-Off   Radiation and chemical-affected sea creatures are showing up along the West Coast of North America, judging from reports of unusual injuries and mortality.   - Hundreds of large squid washed up dead on the Southern California coast in August (squid move much faster than the current).   - Pelicans are being punctured by attacking sea lions, apparently in competition for scarce fish.   - Orcas, killer whales, have been dying upstream in Alaskan rivers, where they normally would never seek shelter.
  • Ringed seals, the main food source for polar bears in northern Alaska, are suffering lesions on their flippers and in their mouths. Since the Arctic seas are outside the flow from the North Pacific Current, these small mammals could be suffering from airborne nuclear fallout carried by the jet stream.   These initial reports indicate a decline in invertebrates, which are the feed stock of higher bony species. Squid, and perhaps eels, that form much of the ocean's biomass are dying off. The decline in squid population is causing malnutrition and infighting among higher species. Sea mammals, birds and larger fish are not directly dying from radiation poisoning ­ it is too early for fatal cancers to development. They are dying from malnutrition and starvation because their more vulnerable prey are succumbing to the toxic mix of radiation and chemicals.
  • The vulnerability of invertebrates to radiation is being confirmed in waters immediately south of Fukushima. Japanese diving teams have reported a 90 percent decline in local abalone colonies and sea urchins or uni. The Mainichi newspaper speculated the losses were due to the tsunami. Based on my youthful experience at body surfing and foraging in the region, I dispute that conjecture. These invertebrates can withstand the coast's powerful rip-tide. The only thing that dislodges them besides a crowbar is a small crab-like crustacean that catches them off-guard and quickly pries them off the rocks. Suction can't pull these hardy gastropods off the rocks.
  • hundreds of leather-backed sea slugs washed ashore near Choshi. These unsightly bottom dwellers were not dragged out to sea but drifted down with the Liman current from Fukushima. Most were still barely alive and could eject water although with weak force, unlike a healthy sea squirt. In contrast to most other invertebrates, the Tunicate group possesses enclosed circulatory systems, which gives them stronger resistance to radiation poisoning. Unlike the more vulnerable abalone, the sea slugs were going through slow death.
  • Instead of containment, the Japanese government promoted sea-dumping of nuclear and chemical waste from the TEPCO Fukushima No.1 plant. The subsequent "decontamination" campaign using soapy water jets is transporting even more land-based toxins to the sea.   What can Americans and Canadians do to minimize the waste coming ashore? Since the federal governments in the U.S. (home of GE) and Canada (site of the Japanese-owned Cigar Lake uranium mine) have decided to do absolutely nothing, it is up to local communities to protect the coast.  
D'coda Dcoda

Solar Cheaper Than Diesel Making India's Mittal Believer: Energy - Bloomberg [24Jan12] - 0 views

www.bloomberg.com/...-s-mittal-believer-energy.html

solar

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 26 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • India is producing power from solar cells more cheaply than by burning diesel for the first time, spurring billionaire Sunil Mittal and Coca-Cola Co. (KO)’s mango supplier to jettison the fuel in favor of photovoltaic panels. The cost of solar energy in India declined by 28 percent since December 2010, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The cause was a 51 percent drop in panel prices last year as the world’s 10 largest manufacturers, led by China’s Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP), doubled output capacity.
  • “Solar is going mainstream in India, helped by Chinese pricing,” said Ardeshir Contractor, founder of developer Kiran Energy Solar Power Pvt. Kiran, whose investors include Bessemer Venture Partners, an early financier of Skype Technologies SA, won one of the largest projects auctioned by India last month.
D'coda Dcoda

Japan radiation specialists accuses TEPCO of total cover-up regarding radiation exposur... - 0 views

www.NaturalNews.com/_TEPCO_radiation_exposure.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 19 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • One specialist, Nishio Masamichi, director of the Hakkaido Cancer Center, who initially called for "calm" in the early days following the disaster, wrote recently in a top Japanese business journal that the crisis has caused Japan's "myth of nuclear safety" to fall apart.
  • Nishio, according to this independent report, says it's time to confront the very real prospect of long-term radiation exposure, and has accused TEPCO executives of hiding the truth about the real damage caused by the disaster at the expense of saving the company. He also laid some blame for the way the aftermath of the disaster was handled on the country's leadership, saying Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his Cabinet lacked urgency and direction.
  • Regarding TEPCO, Nishio said the company gave broken dosimeters to temporary workers and only giving monitors when they are working, despite high levels of radiation throughout the entire site. He also accused the company of putting its workers in a gymnasium-type structure to sleep in order to keep them from running away.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Nishio also believes that company executives, lawmakers and other officials simply do not grasp the severity of the accident. For instance, he says one treatment - Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Harvest - has been recommended by doctors as a way to reduce the chances of bone marrow deterioration caused by excessive doses of radiation. But, he said, that treatment was disregarded by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan.
  • In addition, he says workers are only being given iodine - used to block the absorption of radiation into the thyroid especially, because it's one of the most radiation-sensitive parts of the body - instead of other treatments as well like Radiogardase (Prussian blue insoluble capsules). He asserts that the best preventative medical expertise is not being brought in to help treat those who are being exposed, an injustice he has deemed "graveyard governance."
  • He also believes the Japanese people - not just those living near Fukushima - are not being told the truth about the level of radiation to which they are being exposed."Giving us the truth once is much more important than saying 'hang in there Japan' a million times," he wrote, in response to reports that former Minister for Internal Affairs Haraguchi Kazuhiro has alleged that radiation monitoring station data were three decimal places higher than the figures released to the public. If true, Nishio writes, that constitutes a "national crime" against the Japanese people.
D'coda Dcoda

Senator Lamar Alexander: "Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable and Useful Source of Green... - 0 views

nuclearstreet.com/...n-electricity-today-06162.aspx

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, delivered a speech this week at the International V.M. Goldschmidt Conference in Knoxville.  Alexander serves on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and is the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority Congressional Caucus.  His remarks as prepared follow:
  • When
  • in a speech in Oak Ridge in May of 2009, I called for America to build 100 new nuclear plants during the next twenty years.  Nuclear power produces 70 percent of our pollution-free, carbon-free electricity today.  It is the most useful and reliable source of green electricity today because of its tremendous energy density and the small amount of waste that it produces.  And because we are harnessing the heat and energy of the earth itself through the power of the atom, nuclear power is also natural.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Forty years ago, nuclear energy was actually regarded as something of a savior for our environmental dilemmas because it didn’t pollute.  And this was well before we were even thinking about global warming or climate change.  It also didn’t take up a great deal of space.  You didn’t have to drown all of Glen Canyon to produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity.  Four reactors would equal a row of wind turbines, each one three times as tall as Neyland Stadium skyboxes, strung along the entire length of the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail.   One reactor would produce the same amount of electricity that can be produced by continuously foresting an area one-and-a-half times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in order to create biomass.  Producing electricity with a relatively small number of new reactors, many at the same sites where reactors are already located, would avoid the need to build thousands and thousands of miles of new transmission lines through scenic areas and suburban backyards. 
  • While nuclear lost its green credentials with environmentalists somewhere along the way, some are re-thinking nuclear energy because of our new environmental paradigm – global climate change.  Nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity today.  President Obama has endorsed it, proposing an expansion of the loan guarantee program from $18 billion to $54 billion and making the first award to the Vogtle Plant in Georgia.  Nobel Prize-winning Secretary of Energy Steven Chu wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal about developing a generation of mini-reactors that I believe we can use to repower coal boilers, or more locally, to power the Department of Energy’s site over in Oak Ridge.  The president, his secretary of energy, and many environmentalists may be embracing nuclear because of the potential climate change benefits, but they are now also remembering the other positive benefits of nuclear power that made it an environmental savior some 40 years ago
  • The Nature Conservancy took note of nuclear power’s tremendous energy density last August when it put out a paper on “Energy Sprawl.”  The authors compared the amount of space you need to produce energy from different technologies – something no one had ever done before – and what they came up with was remarkable.  Nuclear turns out to be the gold standard.  You can produce a million megawatts of electricity a year from a nuclear reactor sitting on one square mile.  That’s enough electricity to power 90,000 homes.  They even included uranium mining and the 230 square miles surrounding Yucca Mountain in this calculation and it still comes to only one square mile per million megawatt hours
  • Coal-fired electricity needs four square miles, because you have to consider all the land required for mining and extraction.  Solar thermal, where they use the big mirrors to heat a fluid, takes six square miles.  Natural gas takes eight square miles and petroleum takes 18 square miles – once again, including all the land needed for drilling and refining and storing and sending it through pipelines.  Solar photovoltaic cells that turn sunlight directly into electricity take 15 square miles and wind is even more dilute, taking 30 square miles to produce that same amount of electricity.
  • When people say “we want to get our energy from wind,” they tend to think of a nice windmill or two on the horizon, waving gently – maybe I’ll put one in my back yard.   They don’t realize those nice, friendly windmills are now 50 stories high and have blades the length of football fields.  We see awful pictures today of birds killed by the Gulf oil spill.  But one wind farm in California killed 79 golden eagles in one year. The American Bird Conservancy says existing turbines can kill up to 275,000 birds a year.
  • And for all that, each turbine has the capacity to produce about one-and-a-half megawatts.  You need three thousand of these 50-story structures to equal the output of one nuclear reactor
  • , wind power can be counted on to be there 10 to 15 percent of the time when you need it.  TVA can count on nuclear power 91 percent of the time, coal, 60 percent of the time and natural gas about 50 percent of the time.  This is why I believe it is a taxpayer rip-off for wind power to be subsidized per unit of electricity at a rate of 25 times the subsidy for all other forms of electricity combined. 
  • the “problem of nuclear waste” has been overstated because people just don’t understand the scale or the risk.  All the high-level nuclear waste that has ever been produced in this country would fit on a football field to a height of ten feet.  That’s everything.  Compare that to the billion gallons of coal ash that slid out of the coal ash impoundment at the Kingston plant and into the Emory River a year and a half ago, just west of here.  Or try the industrial wastes that would be produced if we try to build thousands of square miles of solar collectors or 50-story windmills.  All technologies produce some kind of waste.  What’s unique about nuclear power is that there’s so little of it.
  • Now this waste is highly radioactive, there’s no doubt about that.  But once again, we have to keep things in perspective.  It’s perfectly acceptable to isolate radioactive waste through storage.  Three feet of water blocks all radiation.  So does a couple of inches of lead and stainless steel or a foot of concrete.  That’s why we use dry cask storage, where you can load five years’ worth of fuel rods into a single container and store them right on site.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Energy Secretary Steven Chu both say we can store spent fuel on site for 60 or 80 years before we have to worry about a permanent repository like Yucca Mountain
  • then there’s reprocessing.  Remember, we’re now the only major nuclear power nation in the world that is not reprocessing its fuel.  While we gave up reprocessing in the 1970s, the French have all their high-level waste from 30 years of producing 80 percent of their electricity stored beneath the floor of one room at their recycling center in La Hague.  That’s right; it all fits into one room.  And we don’t have to copy the French.  Just a few miles away at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory they’re working to develop advanced reprocessing technologies that go well beyond what the French are doing, to produce a waste that’s both smaller in volume and with a shorter radioactive life.  Regardless of what technology we ultimately choose, the amount of material will be astonishingly small.  And it’s because of the amazing density of nuclear technology – something we can’t even approach with any other form of energy
D'coda Dcoda

Strontium-90 in Miami-area teeth samples up to 34 times above normal - Nearby reactors ... - 0 views

enenews.com/us-amount-radioactivity-videos

United States consequences health

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 06 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • SOURCE: Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass is Emeritus Professor of Radiological Physics in the Department of Radiology, at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Part 3 (Part 2 at end of post): 8:15 in Turkey Point reactors in Miami, FL released an enormous amount of radioactivity In some parts of Dade County we have seen teeth that are 10-20 times than minimum level we can detect Strontium-90 should be less than 0.5 picocuries per gram of calcium — it should be less than 0.5 — and we find levels as high as 15, 16, or 17 “Strontium-90 is considered a cancer-causing substance because it damages the genetic material (DNA) in cells.” -Delaware Health and Social Services
D'coda Dcoda

Leak found at former nuclear plant in Scotland [09Oct11] - 0 views

australiancannonball.com/...-found-at-former-nuclear-plant

incidents

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 09 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Scotland’s environment secretary has called for a full investigation after a radioactive leak was found at the former Dounreay power station. The leak was discovered during a routine operation of the plant which is destroying the liquid metal used as the coolant in the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR). Monitoring systems detected drips of caustic liquor from pipework in a shielded cell. Dounreay Site Restoration Limited (DSRL) said the plant was immediately shut down and the leak isolated and stopped. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) said no material had been released into the environment and that the leak was “minor”. End Extract http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/leak_found_at_former_nuclear_plant_1_1899667
D'coda Dcoda

Tritium measured in sea [16Oct11] - 0 views

fukushima-diary.com/...g-news-tritium-measured-in-sea

contamination

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 16 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • No more gas masks, because it does not work anymore. Tepco secretly measured tritium from sea water on 9/12 and announced it on 10/15. 2,400 Bq/L at sub-drain of reactor 2. (Plus, all kinds of beta nuclides were measured.) 470 Bq/L at intake of reactor 1~4.(Plus, all kinds of beta nuclides were measured.) (Source)(Source) They have not announced why they took one month to publish the data. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen.
  • It is in the form of H20. Once it comes out of the reactor, it comes up and fall down in the air as rain, and it goes back to the sea again. It repeats the cycle. Half life time is 12 years. It is the main material of hydrogen bomb. In normal times, it’s less than 1 Bq/L in the sea. It easily comes into tap water, and your own cells as water and cause severe internal exposure. It’s impossible to filter it out. Dr.C Busby explains: If you put sea water into the reactor, the reactor becomes a tritium producing machine.
  • Note,the PDF file of the data was locked to upload by Tepco,so I had to upload the screen shot instead.I have no idea why.
D'coda Dcoda

Will Mt. Everest be covered with solar panels? [14Oct11] - 0 views

www.world-science.net/...111014_solar.htm

solar

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 24 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • High moun­tains such as Mt. Ev­er­est may be the best places for gen­er­at­ing so­lar en­er­gy, if fac­tors in­clud­ing snow­fall can be suc­cess­fully ad­dressed, a new study pro­poses. The re­search adds a sur­pris­ing twist to long­stand­ing as­sump­tions that hot des­erts are ide­al places for set­ting up so­lar ar­rays. While many hot re­gions such as the U.S. des­ert South­west are in­deed ex­cel­lent loca­t­ions for gath­er­ing the sun’s en­er­gy, some of the high­est and cold­est land­scapes may have even great­er po­ten­tial, the study con­clud­ed. Ar­eas such as the Him­a­la­ya moun­tains, which in­clude Mt. Ev­er­est, could be es­pe­cially well-suit­ed to sup­ply­ing Chi­na’s bur­geon­ing econ­o­my with so­lar pow­er, ac­cord­ing to the re­search, which ap­pears in the jour­nal En­vi­ron­men­tal Sci­ence & Tech­nol­o­gy.
  • The study al­so cit­ed the An­des mountains and Ant­arc­ti­ca as po­ten­tially prime loca­t­ions for set­ting up so­lar ar­rays. The au­thors, Ko­taro Kawa­jiri of Japan’s Na­tional In­sti­tute of Ad­vanced In­dus­t­ri­al Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy and col­leagues, note that ar­id and semi-ar­id ar­eas with plen­ty of sun­shine long have been rec­og­nized as good so­lar sites. But gaps still ex­ist in knowl­edge about the best places for pro­duc­ing so­lar en­er­gy, thanks to the lim­it­ed da­ta avail­a­ble on crit­i­cal weather-related con­di­tions on a glob­al scale, they added.
  • They used an es­tab­lished tech­nique that takes in­to ac­count the ef­fects of tem­per­a­ture on so­lar cell out­put to es­ti­mate glob­al so­lar en­er­gy po­ten­tial us­ing avail­a­ble da­ta. Fu­ture work will con­sid­er oth­er vari­ables, such as snow­fall and trans­mis­sion losses, they said. As ex­pected, they found that many hot re­gions are ide­al loca­t­ions for so­lar ar­rays. But they al­so found that many cold re­gions at high eleva­t­ions re­ceive a lot of sun­light — so much so that their po­ten­tial for pro­duc­ing pow­er from the sun is even high­er than in some des­ert ar­eas.
1 - 18 of 18
Showing 20▼ items per page