Group items tagged

Hirose Takashi: The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident and the State of the Media, Asahi NewStar, March 17, 2011:

[Interviewer] Yo: Every day the local government is measuring the radioactivity.  All the television stations are saying that while radiation is rising, it is still not high enough to be a danger to health. They compare it to a stomach x-ray, or if it goes up, to a CT scan.  What is the truth of the matter? Hirose: For example, yesterday.  Around Fukushima Daiichi Station they measured 400 millisieverts – that’s per hour.  With this measurement (Chief Cabinet Secretary) Edano admitted for the first time that there was a danger to health, but he didn’t explain what this means.  All of the information media are at fault here I think.  They are saying stupid things like, why, we are exposed to radiation all the time in our daily life, we get radiation from outer space.  But that’s one millisievert per year.  A year has 365 days, a day has 24 hours; multiply 365 by 24, you get 8760.  Multiply the 400 millisieverts by that, you get 3,500,000 the normal dose.  You call that safe?  And what media have reported this? 

None.  They compare it to a CT scan, which is over in an instant; that has nothing to do with it.  The reason radioactivity can be measured is that radioactive material is escaping.  What is dangerous is when that material enters your body and irradiates it from inside.  These industry-mouthpiece scholars come on TV and what to they say?  They say as you move away the radiation is reduced in inverse ratio to the square of the distance.  I want to say the reverse.  Internal irradiation happens when radioactive material is ingested into the body.  What happens?  Say there is a nuclear particle one meter away from you. You breathe it in, it sticks inside your body; the distance between you and it is now at the micron level. One meter is 1000 millimeters, one micron is one thousandth of a millimeter.  That’s a thousand times a thousand squared.  That’s the real meaning of “inverse ratio of the square of the distance.”  Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a trillion.  Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger.

The impacts on the ocean of releases of radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants remain unclear. However, information has been made public regarding the concentrations of radioactive isotopes of iodine and cesium in ocean water near the discharge point. These data allow us to draw some basic conclusions about the relative levels of radionuclides released which can be compared to prior ocean studies and be used to address dose consequences as discussed by Garnier-Laplace et al. in this journal.(1) The data show peak ocean discharges in early April, one month after the earthquake and a factor of 1000 decrease in the month following. Interestingly, the concentrations through the end of July remain higher than expected implying continued releases from the reactors or other contaminated sources, such as groundwater or coastal sediments. By July, levels of 137Cs are still more than 10 000 times higher than levels measured in 2010 in the coastal waters off Japan. Although some radionuclides are significantly elevated, dose calculations suggest minimal impact on marine biota or humans due to direct exposure in surrounding ocean waters, though considerations for biological uptake and consumption of seafood are discussed and further study is warranted.

there was no large explosive release of core reactor material, so most of the isotopes reported to have spread thus far via atmospheric fallout are primarily the radioactive gases plus fission products such as cesium, which are volatilized at the high temperatures in the reactor core, or during explosions and fires. However, some nonvolatile activation products and fuel rod materials may have been released when the corrosive brines and acidic waters used to cool the reactors interacted with the ruptured fuel rods, carrying radioactive materials into the ground and ocean. The full magnitude of the release has not been well documented, nor is there data on many of the possible isotopes released, but we do have significant information on the concentration of several isotopes of Cs and I in the ocean near the release point which have been publically available since shortly after the accident started.

We present a comparison of selected data made publicly available from a Japanese company and agencies and compare these to prior published radionuclide concentrations in the oceans. The primary sources included TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), which reported data in regular press releases(3) and are compiled here (Supporting Information Table S1). These TEPCO data were obtained by initially sampling 500 mL surface ocean water from shore and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 15 min at laboratories at the Fukushima Dai-ni NPPs. They reported initially results for 131I (t1/2 = 8.02 days), 134Cs (t1/2 = 2.065 years) and 137Cs (t1/2 = 30.07 years). Data from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology—Japan) were also released on a public Web site(4) and are based on similar direct counting methods. In general MEXT data were obtained by sampling 2000 mL seawater and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 1 h in a 2 L Marinelli beaker at laboratories in the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The detection limit of 137Cs measurements are about 20 000 Bq m–3 for TEPCO data and 10 000 Bq m–3 for MEXT data, respectively. These measurements were conducted based on a guideline described by MEXT.(5) Both sources are considered reliable given the common activity ratios and prior studies and expertise evident by several Japanese groups involved in making these measurements. The purpose of these early monitoring activities was out of concern for immediate health effects, and thus were often reported relative to statutory limits adopted by Japanese authorities, and thus not in concentration units (reported as scaling factors above “normal”). Here we convert values from both sources to radionuclide activity units common to prior ocean studies of fallout in the ocean (Bq m–3) for ease of comparison to previously published data.

Radiation from nuclear accidents is frequently expressed by the media as “just like an x-ray” or “equivalent to an x-ray”. This comparison is grossly incorrect. Many times internal exposure will be again, incorrectly compared to an x-ray. These faulty comparisons give the public a false sense of security. The International  Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have an excellent paper that clearly explains the differences between medical diagnostics and a nuclear accident.

Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo U.S. & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities Pacific Radiation Facts Internal Emitters Health Children Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Longterm Strange Coverups? Video Home Terms About Contact     Cooling system for reactors and spent fuel pools stopped working three times over 16-day period at Alabama nuke plant » NHK: TEPCO doesn’t know where melted fuel is at in reactors or actual level of radioactive particles still being released — About to start checking July 29th, 2011 at 06:43 AM POSITION: relative; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 336px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline-table; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 280px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER

The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says it will extract air from troubled reactors at the plant to measure the amount of radioactive substances. [...] The operation is intended to obtain accurate data on what kind of radioactive substances are being released and in what quantity. The air extraction is expected to begin later on Friday for the No.1 reactor and in early August for the No.2 unit. No plans have been decided for the No.3 reactor due to high radiation levels in part of its building.

that TEPCO doesn’t know where the melted fuel is or the actual level of radioactive particles still being released: TEPCO hopes the findings may also help the company grasp the extent of leakage of nuclear fuels into the containment vessels. Up to around one billion becquerels of radioactive substances arebelieved to be released every hour from reactors No.1, 2 and 3. It isnot known how accurate this figure is because it was worked out bytaking readings of the air on the plant’s premises.

Fukushima & Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Longterm Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality US & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities North Anna (VA) Calvert Cliffs (MD) World Europe France UK Germany Chernobyl Rest of Europe South America Russia Asia China South Korea Taiwan Rest of Asia Pacific Rad. Maps & Forecasts Radiation Maps Radiation Forecasts Rad. Facts Internal Emitters Health Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Strange Coverups? Children Video Home Log In Discussion Forum page_item

See all charts here.

Fukushima & Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Longterm Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality US & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities North Anna (VA) Calvert Cliffs (MD) World Europe France UK Germany Chernobyl Rest of Europe South America Russia Asia China South Korea Taiwan Rest of Asia Pacific Maps & Forecasts Radiation Maps Radiation Forecasts Rad. Facts Internal Emitters Health Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Strange Coverups? Children Video Home page_

conversations have been popping up about thorium in recent years and how it can be a game-changer in the energy industry. Thorium has incredible potential as an ultra-safe, clean, and cheap nuclear energy source which can power the world for millennia.

Thorium is found naturally in rocks in the form of thorium-232, and has a half-life of about 14 billion years. Estimates by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show it is about three times more common in the Earth's crust than uranium. It can be obtained through various methods, most commonly through the extraction from monazite sands. Known reserves of thorium are not well-known due to lack of exploratory research. The US Geological Service estimates that the USA, Australia, and India hold the largest reserves. India is believed to have the lion's share of thorium deposits. In the United States, Idaho contains a large vein deposit. The world has an estimated total of 4.4 million tons

A newly created organization known as the Weinberg Foundation has taken up the cause of promoting thorium energy. The foundation was named after Dr. Alvin Weinberg, a nuclear energy researcher in the 1960s who laid out the vision of safe and abundant thorium power. He pioneered the Molten Salt Reactor using thorium in its liquid fuel form at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This reactor had an inherently safer design and dramatically reduced the amount of atomic waste in comparison to typical nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, the thorium reactor program was not fully pursued due to political and military reasons.

The Australian Government is committed to strengthening occupational health and safety requirements for individuals working at uranium mining and milling sites. The Australian Government is committed to strengthening occupational health and safety requirements for individuals working at uranium mining and milling sites.

The Australian National Radiation Dose Register (ANRDR) was established in 2010 to collect, store, manage and disseminate records of radiation doses received by workers in the course of their employment in a centralised database. The ANRDR has been open to receive dose records from operators since 1 July 2010. The ANRDR was officially launched in June 2011 following full development of the Register, including a system for workers to be able to request their individual dose history record.

The ANRDR is maintained and managed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

[T]he federal commitment to [oil & gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidies’ life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.

The political reaction to the Solyndra scandal has been laughably devoid of both short-term and long-term historical perspective. In an attempt to exploit a political opportunity, many House Republicans are railing against government investments in the renewable energy sector. However, those same politicians requested millions of dollars for cleantech projects in their own states just a year or two before.This bad case of amnesia stretches far beyond the last two years. Apparently, many in Congress have forgotten about the last 100 years of government investments in oil, gas and nuclear — all of which have far outpaced investments in renewable energy like solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal and wind.

A new study with terrific charts, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies inShaping America’s ERnergy Future,” released by the venture capital firm DBL Investors, attempts to quantify and contrast those government investments. The researchers looked at the vast array of federal incentives — tax credits, land grants, tariffs, R&D, and direct investments — and found that renewables have received far less support than any other sector:

The amount of radioactive cesium ejected by the Fukushima reactor meltdowns is about 168 times higher than that emitted in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the government's nuclear watchdog said Friday.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency provided the estimate at the request of a Diet panel but noted that making a simple comparison between an instantaneous bomb blast and a long-term accidental leak is problematic and could lead to "irrelevant" results.

The report said the crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant has released 15,000 terabecquerels of cesium-137, which lingers for decades and can cause cancer, compared with the 89 terabecquerels released by the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

9/6 (5:26pm): We tested a topsoil sample and a dried manure sample from the Sacramento area. The manure was produced by a cow long before Fukushima and left outside to dry; it was rained on back in March and April. Both samples showed detectable levels of Cs-134 and Cs-137, with the manure showing higher levels than the soil probably because of its different chemical properties and/or lower density. In addition, a soil sample from Sonoma county was tested. This sample had been collected in late April but we had not had the chance to test it until now.

One interesting feature of the Sacramento and Sonoma soil samples is that the ratio of Cesium-137 to Cesium-134 is very large — approximately 17.6 and 5.5, respectively. All of our other soil samples until now had shown ratios of between 1 and 2. We know from our air and rainwater measurements that material from Fukushima has a cesium ratio in the range of approximately 1.0 to 1.5, meaning that there is extra Cs-137 in these two soil samples. The best explanation is that in addition to Fukushima fallout, we have also detected atmospheric nuclear weapons testing fallout in these soils. Weapons fallout contains only Cs-137 (no Cs-134) and is known to be present in older soils (pre-1963). Both of these samples come from older soils, while our samples until this point had come from newer soils. This direct comparison between Fukushima fallout and atmospheric weapons fallout in these soils shows that the fallout from Fukushima in Northern California is significantly less than the amount of Cs-137 that still remains from weapons testing, which has had nearly 50 years to disperse and decay.

The calls these days for a technological “energy revolution” are widespread. But how do you spark breakthroughs when the natural bias of businesses, investors and governments is toward the here and now? In governance, politics creates a bias toward the short term. This is why bridges sometimes fall down for lack of maintenance. That’s also why it’s so hard to sustain public investment in the research and intellectual infrastructure required to make progress on the frontiers of chemistry, biology and physics, even though it is this kind of work that could produce leaps in how we harvest, harness, store and move energy. (This is why I asked, “Are Chemists and Engineers on the Green Jobs List?” back in 2008.)

To get the idea, you only have to look at the sputtering state of President Obama’s mostly unfunded innovation hubs, or look once again at the energy sliver in the graph showing America’s half-century history of public investment in basic scientific research. (There’s not much difference in research patterns in most other industrialized countries.) You can also look at the first Quadrennial Technology Review produced by the Department of Energy (summarized by Climate Progress earlier this week). The review was conducted after the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology wisely recommended regular reviews of this sort as part of its prescription for accelerating change in energy technologies.

This excerpt from the new review articulates the tension pretty transparently for a government report: There is a tension between supporting work that industry doesn’t— which biases the department’s portfolio toward the long term—and the urgency of the nation’s energy challenges. The appropriate balance requires the department to focus on accelerating innovation relevant to today’s energy technologies, since such evolutionary advances are more likely to have near- to mid-term impact on the nation’s challenges. We found that too much effort in the department is devoted to research on technologies that are multiple generations away from practical use at the expense of analyses, modeling and simulation, or other highly relevant fundamental engineering research activities that could influence the private sector in the nearer term.

Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/b6d3ce/nuclear_regulatory) has announced the addition of the "Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth" report to their offering. Nuclear Regulatory Frameworks - Fuel Processing and Waste Disposal Policies Critical for Industry Growth, that provides an insight into the nuclear regulatory frameworks of the major nuclear power countries of the world. The study, which is an offering from the company's Energy Research Group, provides information about the major nuclear agencies and associations across the world, major nuclear treaties and protocols and comparison between different countries on the basis of selected parameters which define the presence of nuclear power in a country. The research also provides the nuclear policy, regulatory frameworks, key nuclear policies and regulations and also the major nuclear affiliations for major nuclear power generating countries in each of the five geographic regions. The report is built using the data and information sourced from proprietary databases, primary and secondary research and in-house analysis by a team of industry experts.

Carbon Emission Reduction Protocol to Play an Important Role in Nuclear Policies Formulation

Improved Nuclear Waste Disposal Policy Instrumental in Revitalizing the Nuclear Industry

Here's the image of the test report by Isotope Research Institute in Yokohama City:Strontium-90: 195 becquerels/kg

From the same sample, cesium-134 and cesium-137 were also detected earlier.Cesium-134: 29,775 becquerels/kgCesium-137: 33,659 becquerels/kgTotal cesium: 63,434 becquerels/kg

Isotope Research Institute didn't start testing for radioactive strontium until August 20, according to the Institute's website. Thus the time lag.At the Institute, it costs 65,000 yen (US$847) (pre-tax) to test one sample for strontium-90 (no separate testing for strontium-89), and it takes one week. No volume discount, the webpage says.The ratio of strontium-90 to cesium-137 in this case is about 0.58%. In comparison, the same ratio from the samples taken in Fukushima Prefecture was between slightly less than 0.1% to 8.2%. In other words, the ratio varies too much to discern any pattern.Yokohama City has said it is testing for strontium in the sample taken from the same apartment rooftop but with much higher cesium density (105,600Bq/kg total cesium). But remember there was no official announcement about this high cesium detection because "the apartment building is a private property", according to the city. We'll see if Yokohama will announce anything about strontium-90.

Oct. 24 — “Though everyone pays attention to reactor 1 to 4, actually reactor 5 and 6 are in crisis. Engineers from Hitachi are coming to the area to get it settled down but it’s concealed. It’s likely that they are going critical so Iodine 131 are measured in Tokyo or Iwate,” said a Fukushima local who has a friend working inside the reactors, according to a summary of his Oct. 21 interview with journalist Iwakami Yasumi in Fukushima Diary. (see video below) Just a few days after the interview, TEPCO released new data about Reactors No. 5 and 6. Based on that information, Mochizuki is reporting that “Reactor 5 and 6 are in crisis too”. The Oct. 23 document shows a comparison of how much cesium was measured at the water release point of the reactors over the past 25 days. Over the past few days, cesium levels have increased 10 times.

Precise measurements for the morning of Oct. 23 are below. Cs-134 @ 78Bq/liter + Cs-137 @ 110Bq/liter = 188 Bq/liter of total radioactive cesium

External radiation is not counted in this number, as opposed to their draft plan in July which did include external radiation, and it is in addition to the natural radiation exposure (by which is meant pre-Fukushima natural).The experts on the Commission didn't rule on the radiation limit for children, leaving the decision to the Ministry of Health and Labor as if the top-school career bureaucrats in the Ministry would know better.Yomiuri and other MSMs are spinning it as "tightening" the existing provisional safety limits on food.From Yomiuri Shinbun (10/27/2011):

The Food Safety Commission under the Cabinet Office has been deliberating on the health effect of internal radiation exposure from the radioactive materials in food. On October 27, it submitted its recommendation to set the upper limit on lifetime cumulative radiation from food at 100 millisieverts.

On receiving the recommendation, the Ministry of Health and Labor will start setting the detailed guidelines for each food items. They are expected to be stricter than the provisional safety limits set right after the Fukushima I Nuclear Plant accident. The Radiation Commission under the Ministry of Education will review the guidelines to be set by the Ministry of Health and Labor, and the new safety limits will be formally decided.

There is a real possibility of creating a circuitous electrical super-grid, that begins in Spain, heads eastward through northern Africa and back toward Europe through the eastern Mediterranean nations via Turkey, in the foreseeable future, according to experts who discussed the vision at a conference in Tel Aviv on Thursday.The conference, hosted by Israel’s branch of CIGRE: International Council on Large Electric Systems, featured lead researchers and innovators from all over the world to speak about different techniques of transmitting power within, and among, their countries.

Establishing an interconnected grid throughout the Mediterranean basin is the work of a Paris-based organization called Medgrid, which is pushing for the continuation of a project called MEDRING, started quite some time ago, which would successfully link the countries electrically, thereby reducing individual infrastructural demands and boosting all of these nation’s economies.Members of the private joint venture currently include 20 European Union and southeast Mediterranean companies, among which include Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Syria – but not yet Israel due to its electrical isolation.

“The objective of Medgrid is to design the Mediterranean interconnection grid with a time target that is about 2020-2025, which is a bit near, in comparison with DESERTEC, which is 2050,” said Jean Kowal, executive vice president of Medgrid and former secretary general of CIGRE-France, referring to a campaign that aims to harness large amounts of desert light on a high voltage supergrid by 2050. Creating the Medgrid would complement European Union objectives for 2020, which include a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide compared to 1990 levels, a 20% gain in energy efficiency, and ensuring that 20% of energy consumption comes from renewable, according to Kowal.