Group items tagged

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_

The triple whammy against nuclear power beginning with the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, followed by 1986′s Chernobyl  disaster and now Fukushima, effectively present a “three strikes and you’re out” call against civilian nuclear energy power generation for the foreseeable future.That said, with the trillions of dollars already invested in 436 nuclear power plants (NNP) worldwide, according to the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA),  the industry has begun to push back, and “ground zero” is emerging as Europe, not Japan, with the lawyers circling.

In the wake of Fukushima, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced on 30 May that Germany, the world’s fourth-largest economy and Europe’s biggest, would shut down all of its 17 would abandon nuclear energy completely between 2015 and 2022, an extraordinary commitment, given that Germany’s 17 NPPS Germany produce about 28 percent of the country’s electricity.If Berlin’s announcement sent nuclear power proponents seating, worse was to follow, as Switzerland is examining a proposal to phase out the country’s five nuclear plants by 2034.Finally, if any doubts existed about Europe’s commitment of nuclear energy, on 12-13 June in a referendum in which 56 percent of Italian voters participated, an eye-watering 94 percent voted against nuclear power.  Following the 1987 Chernobyl disaster, Italy decided to shut down its four NPPs and the last operating plant closed in 1990. Three years ago Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi reversed this decision but after Fukushima Berlusconi announced a one-year moratorium on his plans for new nuclear power plants, intending to restart Italy’s nuclear energy program in 2014. Berlusconi spent the days leading up to the polls challenging the nuclear power measure in court, declaring he wouldn’t vote and suggesting his fellow Italians stay at home too. They didn’t, and Berlusconi’s electoral defeat has ended nuclear possibilities for Italy for the foreseeable future. In 2010, 22.2 percent of Italy’s power came from renewable energy sources. 64.8 percent were from fossil fuels, and 13 percent were imported sources, including French nuclear power. The stinging defeat at the polls is a boon for Italy’s nascent renewable energy industry.

The German nuclear industry has begun to fight back, insisting that its shutdown would cause major damage to the country’s industrial base. Utilities E.ON AG and Vattenfall Europe AG have already announced that they will seek billions of euros in compensation, and RWE AG and EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG are expected to follow soon. Germany’s four nuclear operators have already announced they will stop paying into a government renewables fund, which was set up in September 2010 as compensation for longer nuclear life-spans.In such an environment, the only nuclear energy growth field currently is lawyers’ fees.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced that it has signed a new agreement with the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) to promote greater cooperation in nuclear security and nonproliferation. NNSA Assistant Deputy Administrator for Nonproliferation and International Security, Mark Whitney, and Dr. Roland Schenkel, Director General of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), signed the agreement at a nuclear safeguards symposium at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Austria

The agreement provides a framework for greater technical cooperation between the United States and Europe in areas such as nuclear safeguards, border monitoring, nuclear forensics, export controls, and physical protection of nuclear materials facilities. It also calls for closer collaboration on research and development of nuclear security and nonproliferation technologies, and for enhanced coordination of outreach to third countries

“This agreement is an important step in achieving President Obama’s goal of securing vulnerable nuclear material, preventing nuclear smuggling, and strengthening the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.”

A new study from consulting company Capgemini said that Europe may have trouble “keeping the lights on” this winter thanks to the nuclear phase-out in Germany.

Following its reactor shutdowns, Germany began to import electricity from its neighbors, including more than 2,000 MW per day from France. During the winter electricity peak, France mainly imports electricity from Germany and this will no longer be possible in coming years. This represents a real threat to some countries “keeping the lights on” for winter 2011/2012 and future winters.

The report sums it up well: without German nuclear generation, energy security is down, emissions are up. First, security. The Europeans better cozy up to the Russians because they will be more dependent on them than ever.

Abstract Source: J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. Epub 2011 Dec 27. PMID: 22206700

Article Affiliation: Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.

Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 μBq/m(3) and 1.4 μBq/m(3) to 3700 μBq/m(3) and 1040 μBq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.

VIENNA (AP) — Very low levels of radiation, which are higher than normal but don't seem to pose a health hazard, are being registered in the Czech Republic and elsewhere in Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday.The agency said the cause was not known but was not the result of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which spread radiation across the globe in March.The "very low levels of iodine-131 have been measured in the atmosphere," the agency said in a statement. It said such radioisotope will lose much of its radiation in about eight days.However, an official familiar with the matter, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said the release appeared to be continuing.The agency said that it was investigating.

In Prague, an official at the Czech State Office for Nuclear Safety said he was "100 percent sure" that the radiation had not come from any Czech nuclear power plant — or from any other source on Czech territory.Speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to talk to the media, the official said tests are under way around the country to try and identify the source.The Czechs are betting heavily on nuclear power and have plans to dramatically increase production — a move that would give the country a place among Europe's most nuclear-dependent nations. They currently rely on six nuclear reactors for 33 percent of their total electricity. The government hopes to at least double that output.

, Dan Hansen from Repower Australia, concluded that Australia will only be able to support a maximum of three or four turbine manufacturers in the years to come. Hansen spoke to Climate Spectator about the aggressive and cut throat competition in Australian market. A challenge which has evolved due to competitors bidding for contracts, which are to be awarded within the coming few months after being set back for a good two years. Hansen’s statements follow Suzlon’s announcement of operating in Australia under its newly acquired German subsidiary’s name, Repower.

In spite of reports of more than 15 wind turbine makers and more than 30 developers of wind farms actively functioning in Australia, Hansen believes that only the toughest ones would survive and do well. It will be hard for smaller wind turbine makers to survive in such a tough competition.

Even when considering a scenario where the existing trend of market of renewable-energy certificates continues up to 2014/15, if the certificates are to be delivered by, then, it would be necessary for the projects to be commissioned within the coming six to twelve months. This leads Hansen to hope that regulation of the projects would begin. He says that currently power deals cost around 90 USD per MWh. If they are to give rise to comfortable ROIs, most of the projects need to be sold for more than 100 USD per MWh.

The Zaporizhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is coming under scrutiny after some conflicting stories have come out about the plants condition. One report says all reactors in Ukraine are on alert conditions, another claims Zaporizhia shut down after a problem but that no radiation was leaking out. The two reports on Twitter: russian_market russian_market ☰ ВСЕГДА ГОТОВ ☰ BREAKING NEWS: Incident at the Nuclear Power Plant in #Zaporizhia /Ukraine/, the Fifth block turned off automatically bit.ly/vIn8mT

12 Nov @russian_market ☰ ВСЕГДА ГОТОВ ☰ BREAKING NEWS: ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS in Ukraine put on Alert after today’s incident at the Nuclear Power Plant in #Zaporizhia /Ukraine/ Lenta.ru is reporting a fault in the power systems but no emergency. Russian Market via Joop;nl is stating all nuclear plants in Ukraine are on alert. EURDEP is showing gradually lowering radiation levels over Europe over all and gradually lowering Iodine 131. Zaphorizhia is a possibility and the shutdown coincides with the levels dropping off in eastern Europe. But the radiation stations near the Krsko nuclear plant in Slovenia are still elevated compared to other areas. There is still the possibility of an outlier such as one of the medical reactors in Poland or Russia or yet another unknown source.

The French nuclear safety body says an explosion rocked a nuclear plant in southern France, the Associated Press reports. French media report at least one death, but no radioactive leak.Update at 10:23 a.m. ET: The BBC quotes the plant's owner, national electricity provider EDF, as saying there was "an industrial accident, not a nuclear accident." Officials say there are no nuclear reactors at the site and there was no risk of a radioactive leak inside or outside the plant, the BBC reports.Update at 10:09 a.m. ET: The AP quotes officials from France's EDF power company, whose subsidiary operates the facility, as saying there was no nuclear reactor on the site and that no waste treated at the site of the explosion came from a reactor. Spokeswoman Carole Trivi says the cause of the blast was not immediately known and an investigation has opened.

Update at 8:28 a.m. ET: The Associated Press quotes the French nuclear safety body as saying one person was killed in the explosion of an oven at the Marcoule nuclear plant, but there have been no radioactive leaks.Update at 8:22 a.m. ET:Le Figaro says the site, which specializes in the treatment of radiological material, is operated by SOCODEI.Update at 8:10 a.m. ET: The Associated Press quotes Evangelia Petit of the Agency for Nuclear Safety as confirming the explosion but declining to provide further details. Officials in the Gard region also confirmed Monday's explosion but said they could not give any more information.

Update at 8:03 a.m. ET: Le Figaro quotes a spokesman for the Atomic Energy Commission as saying that "right now" there has been no radioactive leak to the outside.

Dr. Yvres Guenon from AREVA gave a good pitch at the recent SANEA talk on “The nuclear program is a true opportunity for South Africa. He started off stating that we weren’t alone in the energy epidemic; “don’t think you are the only country with bad decision makers” he said. Europe is in the same boat. In the past countries went coal as it was the only option, but in the future it will be about finding the ‘right mix’ of energy producers. Guenon’s solution is to include nuclear power in that mix.

The argument was a fair one – nuclear does have financial benefits to it. The cost might be a bit hefty in the beginning; but most (if not all) energy providers are. The one thing about nuclear is that the price of energy thereafter doesn’t change. What you pay today for your electricity will stay that way for the next 50 – 60 years. In his presentation he included a diagram that showed nuclear was the least in greenhouse gases. Europe doesn’t have many options for energy development but here in South Africa, where we are blessed with sun and the south-easter wind, we have a variety. Even though we can include renewable in our mix, Guenon showed that solar costs 10 times more than coal and wind was four times more.

Guenon’s main purpose of his presentation was also the job development and therefore economy improvement, that comes from nuclear power. As nuclear involvers building an entire plant consisting of a variety of technologies and includes a variety of industries there is huge potential in employment and expansion in industries. Other energy producers, such as solar or wind, involve a slice of professions and specific exclusive industries. Nuclear touches on engineers, technicians, welders, management and a wide variety of workers. When asked about the chances of an accident, Guenon simple answer was “about the same chance of a meteorite landing in your lounge.” It creates abundant energy at a fraction of the price, while creating job opportunities and improving the economy; all of this and to top it off – no coal. On the outside it seems to provide the answer to all our problems. So what’s the catch? “Dr Guenon!” A hand shot up in the audience. “What about waste?”

To whom does scientific debate belong? That was a central question raised by many of the 200-plus people who attended a citizens' forum in Tokyo on Oct. 12, as they criticized the ways in which the Japanese government and radiation specialists working for it are assessing and monitoring the health effects of the ongoing nuclear disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The daylong conference, organized by the Japanese citizens' groups SAY-Peace Project and Citizens' Radioactivity Measuring Station (CRMS), featured experts who dispute much of the evidence on which the government has based its health and welfare decisions affecting residents of Fukushima Prefecture and beyond. Organizers of the event were also demanding that the government take into consideration the views of non-experts — and also experts with differing views from those of official bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Japanese government has constantly referred to the ICRP's recommendations in setting radiation exposure limits for Fukushima residents.

One of the driving forces for the citizens' forum was a desire to challenge the conduct and much of the content of a conference held Sept. 11-12 in Fukushima, titled the "International Expert Symposium in Fukushima — Radiation and Health Risk." That conference, sponsored by the Nippon Foundation, involved some 30 scientists from major institutions, including the ICRP, the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Although the proceedings were broadcast live on U-stream, the event itself was — unlike the Tokyo forum — closed to the public. Some citizens and citizens' groups claimed that this exclusion of many interested and involved parties — and the event's avowed aim of disseminating to the public "authoritative" information on the health effects of radiation exposure — ran counter to the pursuit of facilitating open and free exchanges among and between experts and citizens on the many contentious issues facing the nation and its people at this critical time.

In particular, there was widespread criticism after the Fukushima conference — which was organized by Shunichi Yamashita, the vice president of Fukushima Medical University and a "radiological health safety risk management advisor" for Fukushima prefectural government — that its participants assumed from the outset that radioactive contamination from the plant's wrecked nuclear reactors is minimal. Critics also claimed that the experts invited to the conference had turned a collective blind eye to research findings compiled by independent scientists in Europe in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in present-day Ukraine — specifically to findings that point to various damaging health consequences of long-term exposure to low-level radiation. So it was that those two citizens' groups, angered by these and other official responses to the calamity, organized the Oct. 12 conference held at the National Olympics Memorial Youth Center in Shibuya Ward. Among the non-experts and experts invited to attend and exchange their views were people from a wide range of disciplines, including sociology, constitutional law and pediatrics. On the day, some of the speakers took issue with the stance of the majority of official bodies that the health damage from Chernobyl was observed only in a rise in the number of cases of thyroid cancers.

The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March released far more radiation than the Japanese government has claimed. So concludes a study1 that combines radioactivity data from across the globe to estimate the scale and fate of emissions from the shattered plant. The study also suggests that, contrary to government claims, pools used to store spent nuclear fuel played a significant part in the release of the long-lived environmental contaminant caesium-137, which could have been prevented by prompt action. The analysis has been posted online for open peer review by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Andreas Stohl, an atmospheric scientist with the Norwegian Institute for Air Research in Kjeller, who led the research, believes that the analysis is the most comprehensive effort yet to understand how much radiation was released from Fukushima Daiichi. "It's a very valuable contribution," says Lars-Erik De Geer, an atmospheric modeller with the Swedish Defense Research Agency in Stockholm, who was not involved with the study. The reconstruction relies on data from dozens of radiation monitoring stations in Japan and around the world. Many are part of a global network to watch for tests of nuclear weapons that is run by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna. The scientists added data from independent stations in Canada, Japan and Europe, and then combined those with large European and American caches of global meteorological data.

Stohl cautions that the resulting model is far from perfect. Measurements were scarce in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima accident, and some monitoring posts were too contaminated by radioactivity to provide reliable data. More importantly, exactly what happened inside the reactors — a crucial part of understanding what they emitted — remains a mystery that may never be solved. "If you look at the estimates for Chernobyl, you still have a large uncertainty 25 years later," says Stohl. Nevertheless, the study provides a sweeping view of the accident. "They really took a global view and used all the data available," says De Geer.

: Dr. Helen Caldicott

All areas of Japan should be tested to assess how radioactive the soil and water are because the winds can blow the radioactive pollution hundreds of miles from the point source at Fukushima. Under no circumstances should radioactive rubbish and debris be incinerated as this simply spreads the isotopes far and wide to re-concentrate in food and fish. All batches of food must be adequately tested for specific radioactive elements using spectrometers. No radioactive food must be sold or consumed, nor must radioactive food be diluted for sale with non-radioactive food as radioactive elements re-concentrate in various bodily organs. All water used for human consumption should be tested weekly. All fish caught off the east coast must be tested for years to come. All people, particularly children, pregnant women and women of childbearing age still living in high radiation zones should be immediately evacuated to non-radioactive areas of Japan. All people who have been exposed to radiation from Fukushima – particularly babies, children, immunosuppressed, old people and others — must be medically thoroughly and routinely examined for malignancy, bone marrow suppression, diabetes, thyroid abnormalities, heart disease, premature aging, and cataracts for the rest of their lives and appropriate treatment instituted. Leukemia will start to manifest within the next couple of years, peak at five years and solid cancers will start appearing 10 to 15 years post-accident and will continue to increase in frequency in this generation over the next 70 to 90 years. All physicians and medical care providers in Japan must read and examine Chernobyl–Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment by the New York Academy of Sciences to understand the true medical gravity of the situation they face. I also suggest with humility that doctors in particular but also politicians and the general public refer to my web page, nuclearfreeplanet.org for more information, that they listen to the interviews related to Fukushima and Chernobyl on my radio program at ifyoulovethisplanet.org and they read my book NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER. The international medical community and in particular the WHO must be mobilized immediately to assist the Japanese medical profession and politicians to implement this massive task outlined above. The Japanese government must be willing to accept international advice and help. As a matter of extreme urgency Japan must request and receive international advice and help from the IAEA and the NRC in the U.S., and nuclear specialists from Canada, Europe, etc., to prevent the collapse of Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 4 and the spent fuel pool if there was an earthquake greater than 7 on the Richter scale.As the fuel pool crashed to earth it would heat and burn causing a massive radioactive release 10 times larger than the release from Chernobyl. There is no time to spare and at the moment the world community sits passively by waiting for catastrophe to happen. The international and Japanese media must immediately start reporting the facts from Japan as outlined above. Not to do so is courting global disaster.