Home | About | Donate

Japan's New Enviromental Minister Calls for Closing Down All Nuclear Reactors to Prevent Another Disaster Like Fukushima

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/12/japans-new-enviromental-minister-calls-closing-down-all-nuclear-reactors-prevent

1 Like

Beware of the LDP.

Only happen if Japan has no lobbyists or a corrupt government. Right…

Well, I’ll applaud intelligence.

For the first time.

This isn’t a setup by the Yes Men, is it?

Thyroid cancer statistics were made a state secret just after the meltdowns and blow-ups. A team organized by Mother Jones magazine estimated 50,000 casualties from Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. I’ve seen estimates of Chernobyl casualties near one million people. Japan is crowded, so if I had to guess I’d have to go closer to the Chernobyl estimates.

You just can’t run a sick country that way, not if the government has the slightest bit of honesty toward its voters. I know, sociopath countries exist.

4 Likes

Sorry, but the statement in this piece placing cause of the meltdowns solely on the tsunami is factually incorrect according to eyewitnesses on-scene who claim that “recirculation pipes and cooling pipes, burst, snapped, leaked, and broke completely after the earthquake – long before the tidal wave reached the facilities, long before the electricity went out”

Those accounta make the comment here that "In March of 2011, a powerful earthquake triggered a tsunami that caused the meltdown of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant " inconsistent with those eyewitness accounts

.Being that the cause of the initial damage leading to plant cooling failure and beginning the catastrophic meltdowns before the tsunami struck inflicting more heavy damage, makes the shutting all Japanese plants more understandable and critical - as is said no one knows when or where an earthquake will strike and the consequences for nuke plants.

From August 2011 the Independent article - “How much damage did the 11 March earthquake inflict on the Fukushima Daiichi reactors before the tsunami hit?”
“The stakes are high: if the earthquake structurally compromised the plant and the safety of its nuclear fuel, then every similar reactor in Japan may have to be shut down”

3 Likes

hell, they may still be doomed from this one. It’s not like it’s over or anything.

good decision, nonetheless. I’m still shocked that of all the countries on earth, with all the catastrophe surrounding things nuclear that Japan has endured, that they could’ve made the decision to persist.

4 Likes

Shut all the Nukes down. Thank you. I think I’m turning Japanese. I really think so.

3 Likes

Shinjiro Koizumi, thank you, Sir.

Study and learn to deconstruct Nukes could become a major industry as society itself changes.

The question is;

What kind of society can live within the limits of one Earth with major space left for biodiversity?

We know with our eyes that capitalism is designed to grow faster and faster to infinity. Our eyes can see and we converse with friends and associates about a way of life that already requires more Earths.

What will the glitter of Tokyo be like when the gently declining population also reduces its per person negative impacts on Earth? Biological diversity will be stabilized and then healthy.

We can heal Earth with human rights and still reach for the stars.

Poor villagers in the Amazon are trying to show us something privatized capitalism is burning down. Some indigenous students are voluntarily in colleges near and far. Human eyes can see and explain to each other what they have seen and learned across a wide range of human experience. Indigenous Amazonian parents are proud parents.

What will we be like as an advanced peaceful humanity in balance with Earth and Sun?

1 Like

Why did anybody persist until having nukes?

Brainwash; “A wire to every house. Too cheap to meter. Atoms for Peace.”

Wow, good for him. I hope he means it.

Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins co-founded the Clamshell Alliance in opposition to nuclear plants in 1976.

3 Likes

Next thing you know this brave person ends up dead in a ditch. Or is that only here in the USA.

Does anyone have data on the effect of the Fukushima incident and other spills on the concentration of nuclear radiation in ocean water?
Already, there has been a heck of a lot of water and materials out of Fukushima. There are other nuclear releases such as nuclear submarines, nuclear testing, and other waterside nuke plants. There is Hanford.
What is the radiation level in ocean water now? A doctor told me not to eat anything from the ocean.

I used to look at http://www.enenews.com/, but they don’t seem to be there anymore.

A sensible question which cuts right to the heart of the matter. And yes, the regulatory authority in Japan monitors seawater radiation levels close to Fukushima and provides routine updates, which can be downloaded (pdf format) from here:
https://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/list/245/list-1.html
The most recent results appear at the top of the page. (If you are looking for the highest concentrations of contaminant radiation, you’ll want the Fukushima seawater results, not the Miyagi prefecture seawater results.)

The highest contaminant levels were found at the T3 detector, about 10 km south of the plant, a short distance south of a land drainage feature outlet. Pretty much all the contaminant levels are either below detection lower limit threshold levels, or just barely above detection lower limits. Everywhere you see an ND, that means no detection (followed by the detection lower limit). All seawater around the globe has cesium 137 (from the atomic bomb testing era), so it is cesium 134 which is the marker for Fukushima-sourced contamination. Cs 134 readings at T3 for the year have been averaging around 2 bq (decays per second) per cubic meter of seawater. The natural radiation level of seawater is normally in the range of 12,000 to 14,000 bq per cubic meter (can be as high as 19,000 in places). Seawater is normally around 1/10th as radioactive by mass as the human body. If you were to go swimming in the waters off Fukushima, you would be a larger concentration of radioactivity than all the Fukushima contaminants in the nearest thousand tonnes of water to you.

If you want to see measurements further away, there is an interactive map at:
http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results

But the measurements have been falling off because Cs-134 levels have been below detection threshold for a couple of years now.

“Already, there has been a heck of a lot of water and materials out of Fukushima.”

Mostly water.

“A doctor told me not to eat anything from the ocean.”

That normally has to do with mercury, and sometimes domoic acid poisoning. Nothing to do with radioactivity (unless this was an incompetent doctor, or an alternative medicine “doctor”).

1 Like

Yes, tabloid “journalism” can be quite entertaining. I particulary enjoyed when they got into the UFO sighting stories.

Thank you for your reply. You are clear. The oceans’ plants and animals have contamination from.plastics, fecal matter, industrial waste, and nuclear waste. You are saying that nuclear waste is currently not a problem. I know that animals are dying from warming and plastic waste. Water temperatures are causing proliferation of some toxic algae. To what degree are many seaside nuclear plants that use COOLING water adding to global warming?

What is in the tank that they are talking about releasing? Would releasing it still not be a problem? Can the contaminates not be precipitated out?

The need to close the nuclear plants seems then to be concerned not with ocean contamination but with the poor health and death resulting from people on the land due to earthquakes.

Nuclear both adds to and helps avoid global warming.

The waste heat from all the nuclear power plants in the world averages around 0.7 terawatts of heat. Heat leaking out of the Earth is around 44.2 terawatts. Direct warming of the Earth’s surface by sunlight is about 87000 terawatts. So the nuclear waste heat contribution to the natural sources of heat would be roughly one part in 125,000. So for each degree rise, around 1/125,000 of a degree can be attributed to nuclear power, at present levels.

But nuclear plants also avoid about 2 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year, and we have something like 120 billion tons left on our CO2 budget to hold temperature rise to 1.5 deg. C. So ten years of nuclear power would be around one sixth of the whole budget. So the heat contribution is trivial, but the avoidance contribution is substantial.

“What is in the tank that they are talking about releasing?”

The tanks contain about a million tons of water, about ten grams of tritium, and small trace levels for the isotopes the ALPS system removed.

“Would releasing it still not be a problem?”

It would not be a problem once it is released and dispersed. The problem is in figuring how to get it from its current state of concentration to the dispersed state. The concentration in the tanks exceeds the regulatory limits for direct release, so they would have to pump in many times the amount of water they would be trying to release in order to dilute it down.

“Can the contaminates not be precipitated out?”

All the contaminants but tritium can be removed from the water. Tritium is actually part of the water molecule.

The need to close the nuclear plants seems then to be concerned not with ocean contamination but with the poor health and death resulting from people on the land due to earthquakes.

The earthquake and tsunami killed something like 18,000 people. The evacuation may have killed around 1,600. Deaths due to radioactive contaminants are not expected to be statistically detectable. The plant closures have resulted in an increase in coal use, which will cause more illness and death.

1 Like