Home | About | Donate

Courts Awards Fukushima Residents Measly $3,200 for Nuclear Disaster That Made Area Unlivable


#1

Courts Awards Fukushima Residents Measly $3,200 for Nuclear Disaster That Made Area Unlivable

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Japanese government and TEPCO ordered to pay only fraction of damages sought

plaintiffs

#2

who is going to pay for the destruction of the oceans? radiation kills, period. goto enenews.com and learn in real time what is still going on…


#3

TEPCO, yet another energy company in bed with GE in US gets a pass on payment of damages caused by their lack of equipment oversight/hazardous safely precautions…just like the Exxon-Valdez disaster that left Alaskan waters, bays, beaches, and sounds drenched in crude oil to this very day. At least the fishermen in Alaska that waded through the hundreds of pages of paperwork to apply for compensation for the loss of their livelihood were given $75,000 (less taxes, of course) while Exxon (T-Rex at the helm then and now) spent several million$$$ on legals fees to fight the case, which was settled out of court and Exxon did not have to assume blame for its malfeasance. And the tanker Valdez, a single hull POS flying under the Liberian flag to avoid regulatory oversight, continued to be used until 2008! Read more here: https://www.livescience.com/44314-exxon-valdez-spill-anniversary-facts.html

Nuclear power is NOT CLEAN, never has been and never will be…Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima clarion that fact yet the PTB persist in pushing the poison.


#4

There is not such thing as clean energy. Solar produces hazardous manufacturing waste, wind is made out of petrochemicals and produces manufacturing waste, geothermal emits sulfur dioxide, biomass depletes forest supply and is not carbon neutral. Point is that no type of energy is clean energy, but rather we compare sources of energy on their environment cost and their potential benefits.

Now nuclear obviously has an environmental cost with potential risk from radioactive materials. This is a concern, but nuclear also presents a large benefit to society in that it can produce the most amount of energy with the least amount of material. Nuclear also does not emit GHGs and it generates the most amount of GHG free electricity in the USA.

As for the incidents you discussed these were not caused by the material, but rather the design of the structure or an event that occurred. It wasn’t that uranium spontaneously fissioned and ripped the plant apart. In Chernobyl the reactor was designed with a positive void coefficient which enabled gas to form in the coolant and cause power surging with limited moderation. In Fukushima we saw a tsunami flood the entire island and inundate the facility. When new coolant could not flow into the reactor a meltdown occurred.


#5

The reason I made this distinction is important. If the reactors are the problem as opposed to the material, then we need to design better reactors. When we look at Chernobyl, Fukushima and even 3 mile island (btw didn’t actually cause any medical damage), the major cause of concern is pressure. Even in the event of a meltdown the reactor does not necessarily pose a threat to society. A meltdown describes that the fuel inside a reactor core has melted due to excessive heat. However, a meltdown is contained within a reactor vessel, which is housed within multiple structures and shielding, so a meltdown itself is not a medical concern for society. The issue comes when this heat is added with pressure.

Every commercial reactor in the USA is already under high pressure. We use high pressure, because all reactors use water as a coolant. Coolant is used to decrease temperatures of fission reactions and control the reaction for consistent power production. The way that coolant control the reaction is by facilitating neutrons to move, but neutrons are much easier to control in a liquid than a gas. Water’s boiling point in 100 C, and reactors operate at anywhere between 350-900 C. In order to keep water coolant a liquid we must highly pressurize our reactors. When heat is added to this pressure (usually meltdown and decay heat) the pressure increases in the reactor vessel and if too much pressure is added then the reactor ruptures and releases radioactive material into the air like we see in Chernobyl.

But what happens if we remove pressure? What if our reactors weren’t ever under high pressure? Then we would drastically reduce the potential risk of rupture. In fact we could even drastically reduce the risk of meltdown. Because the issue is with the reactor and not the material we can change our design to increase safety. Instead of using LWRs we should be using MSRs- Molten Salt Reactors. Molten Salt Reactors are not under high pressure, because they do not use water as a coolant. Instead these reactors use molten salt (generally fluoride, sodium or chloride) which have much higher boiling points (1200-1600 C).

  1. Because these coolant have much higher boiling points we don’t need to add pressure to keep the coolant a liquid. This means the reactors run at atmospheric pressure thus reducing risk of containment rupture.

  2. The coolant requires much more heat and therefore energy to change its state of matter into a gas. This means you need much more energy to cause a meltdown. Now in most of these reactors these is increased passive safety, which will not even allow the coolant to get heated to boiling points. One example is on the lower end of the fuel system there is a salt block that is refrigerated. In the case of power failure or increase of temperature the salt block melts and the fuel leaves the core vessel into a separate cooling chamber preventing any possibility of a meltdown. The system has no human error as the salt melts due to thermochemical properties and the fluids fall due to the force of gravity.


#6

Really? Then why aren’t we all dead? You are exposed to radiation every second of your life. The food you eat is radioactive, the water you drink is radioactive, the materials you touch are radioactive, your body itself is radioactive. Radiation doesn’t necessarily kill- it depends on many factors.


#7

are you making a good living sitting in your little cube typing trash? saw a lot of the same trash on enenews, people like that didn’t last long, why not give it shot paulswanee1


#8

Maybe its time for you to re-watching the same news over and over again and awaken yourself to other points of view. What I say is not trash but scientific discovery. Nuclear is the future, not necessarily because we must use fission and fusion for energy, but because it is a relatively new field that provides us with new understanding on life and the universe. Everything we have today exists from nuclear. Every element that has ever existed was created from nucleosynthesis processes. First it was Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, then Stellar Nucleosynthesis, Supernova Nucleosynthesis, and Cosmic Ray Spallation.

By using nuclear energy it helps us discover new scientific discoveries that will enrich the world with knowledge.


#9

Its important to recognize that everything has both positives and negatives. Some of the greatest inventions in human history have brought both sorrow and benefit. Just as fossil fuels contaminate the air we breathe, they have also enabled us to bring about the most intelligent and developed societies on earth. Just agriculture science can contaminate our food we have also invented products that save billions of lives. Just as solar products manufacture hazardous waste, we can also access electromagnetic radiation from the sun that was once not possible.


#10

Maybe it’s time for you to actually give a shit
Instead of the industry talking points

If you worked in the industry like many of us have
You would know that your platitudes are easily refuted

You are not worthy of a lengthy reply
As you are obviously on payroll


#11

Never will you convince me until such time that containment of spent rods and other radioactive waste (contaminated water included) is COMPLETELY safe…which has been shown to be impossible…i.e., Hanford in Washington State. I would rather see “materials” from Solar projects or wind projects RECYCLED and they do not have half-lifes that span eons.


#12

Thank you, Rolson. Well said!


#13

If youre basing your comments on the current industry than your experiences have literally nothing to do with what I am talking about. There are no Molten Salt Reactors in the commercial Nuclear industry currently. Not only does your comment merit zero connection, but in actuality what I have discussed is published fact by National Laboratory discovery in the MSBR project as well as private small scale development by FLiBe, TransAtomic, SINAP DOE partnership, MOLTEX Energy, Terrestial Energy, ThorCon, Elysium Industries, TerraPower, Southern MCFR.

What you have been working is Light Water Reactors, which is Gen 2. I’m talking about the future, which is Gen 4.


#14

I never said that they would be completely safe. I said that we can make the reactors drastically safer and nullify the issues of pressure and meltdown. You are still working with radioactive material, thus automatically making this profession dangerous. However if you think for a second that an energy industry is inherently safe, you would severally mistaken. OSHA data alone indicates that more solar workers have died from injury than at a nuclear facilities in the USA. This does not diminish the problems at nuclear facilities, but rather illustrates some comparison and evidence that all energy industries pose danger.

As far recyclable materials, yes some solar and wind materials can be recycled, however currently only a very small percentage actually is. Furthermore especially in the solar industry many of the materials such as lithium, arsenide, cadmium and telluride cannot be recycled.

I also never said that nuclear was better than solar and wind (even though in my opinion it is), but rather my point was that we shouldn’t give up on nuclear and we can make it safer to avoid catastrophes like were experienced in Fukushima.


#15

While we are on the topic of recycling and radioactive materials there is another solution rather than just waiting. Current planned policy in the USA is to construct the largest geological repository and store all high level radioactive waste there for up to about 10,000 years (yes the waste will still be decaying after that time). However, I propose and support a different solution. Let me first ask the rhetorical question: Would you prefer waiting 240,000 years or 390 days for radioactive waste?

In almost every news story I see about nuclear waste people discuss Plutonium 239’s 24,000 year half life. This is a concern after all Pu-239 presents a complex chemical structure which is harmful to humans despite only being alpha decay, and dealing with this substance for thousands of years is a problem. These news stories unfortunately fail to mention that Pu-239 is a fissile material. In a reactor Pu-239 is actually responsible for a percentage of energy generation as very small amount of it is actually fissioned after transmutation from U-238’s neutron bombardment. So what would happen if instead of storing Pu-239 we chose to fission all of it?

When you fission Pu-239 it usually breaks into Xenon 134 and Zirconium 103 (I say usually because with nuclear there is always a probability and there’s a chance in which different amounts of neutrons attach to atoms creating fission fragments). Xenon 134 is a stable isotope- no longer radioactive. Zirconium 103’s half life is 1.3 seconds. After Zirconium 103 the following decay chain occurs:

Zr 103 -> Nb103 (1.5 s hlf) -> Mo 103* (67.5 s hlf) -> Tc 103* (54.2 s hlf) -> Ru 103 (39.3 d hlf) -> Rh 103(stable)

A general rule of thumb is that after 10 half lives there material is gone, so after 10 half lives of Ruthenium 103 all material that used to be a part of the Plutonium 239 before fission is now stable, hence 393 days. Its also important to note that the amount of radioactivity decreases after each half life.

What once was a sustainable construction headache could potentially be a manageable production of stable material of once radioactive waste. The challenge becomes can we separate isotopes into specific items. We can and have done it before. In order to create nuclear weapons we have to separate isotopes of plutonium and uranium for specific quantities and maximize the fission chain reaction for impact. We use reprocessing methods of PUREX and UREX to do this. in 1976 President Carter banned the use of commercial reprocessing for the concern of proliferation in which at the time we believed India was learning from commercial reprocessing to develop WMDs. This was later disproven and the ban was lifted. However, after the ban commercial reprocessing became too uneconomical. Today there is a new method of reprocessing called metallurgical pyro-processing, which can significantly decrease the costs. One of the ways is because this process is not aqueous and does not require large amounts of water, which costs a considerable amount of money. Another is the ability to separate multiple types of isotopes in the same process thus increasing its effective return. The Argonne National Laboratory developed this technology over the last decade and have already separated over 10 tons of high level radioactive waste.

This is incredibly important for a couple reasons.

  1. High Level Waste accounts for about 97% of all radioactivity from the nuclear industry (only 3% of actual volume though). Of this waste product 98% of it is actually fertile and fissile fuel isotopes of Uranium 238, Uranium 235, Plutonium 239, Plutonium 238, Plutonium 241, and Plutonium 242. This means that 98% of our current HLW can actually be separated and recycled over and over again as fuel for nuclear reactors. By doing this we would save on mining uranium, which causes environmental damage, and we would reduce the radioactivity of nuclear waste.

  2. Of the remaining 2% of HLW, the materials left are spent fuel products and transuranics. Now transuranics like Americium 241 are still going to be a problem as they have long half lives and cannot be fissioned. However, many of these are alpha decay, so they present less radiation danger. Spent fuel products range from very short half lives (less than 1 second) to intermediate range (up to 30 years). These are the waste products we are actually most concerned of from a medical standpoint as they expose you to greater amounts of radiation per unit of time, and many of them are beta decay, which human skin cannot block. The good news is many of these products have real world application.
    Cesium 137 for example is used by the USDA for food irradiation and killing bacteria like E Coli from foreign imports. Iodine 131 is used to treat thyroid cancer.
    Technetium 99 is used in neuroimaging equipment to take scans of tumors and diseases.
    Molybdenum 99 is used as an alloy material for aircraft equipment
    Neodymium 142 is used in the manufacturing of sound equipment
    Xenon 134 is used for lighting, energy efficient windows, and as an inert gas for the space industry
    Strontium 90 is used in gauges for determining cracks in concrete.
    Instead of storing all of this material inside a hole, we can actually reuse a lot of this “waste” for industrial application.


#16

good luck with the 6th extinction…


#17

I’m puking now
Sorry you seem to have chosen the wrong career path


#18

It would appear you have no idea what youre talking about.


#19

And it would appear you have not trained your intellect


#20

Then how about you disprove my comments?