Home | About | Donate

New Leak Spurs Radiation Spike at Fukushima


#1

New Leak Spurs Radiation Spike at Fukushima

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

A fresh leak of radioactive water was detected at the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant on Sunday, raising new concerns about ongoing efforts to clean up the site.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which operates the Fukushima Daiichi plant, said sensors attached to a drainage channel that diverts rain and groundwater from the plant into the Pacific Ocean detected contamination levels up to 70 times greater than the already-high radiation levels previously documented at the facility.


#2

This obviously did not happen as it does not appear on the news web sites of cnn, abc, cbs, or nbc. /snark


#5

It’s a triple China Syndrome that plopped into the water table. It will never be “decommissioned” or “cleaned up” any more than a Supernova could be “contained.” According to Fukushima Diary, radiation was so high over the summer that the entire plant was abandoned. All efforts to treat the water flowing off that melted corium down under the reactor buildings was terminated. (Treating the water only reduced a few nuclides anyway, e.g., Cs-137.) At least 400 tons of highly radioactive water is siding into the Sea each day. Dozens of species in the Pacific Ocean are croaking in never before seen numbers.

Enough nuclear material in the form of spent fuel rods exists at this plant to kill every human on the planet.

Yes, it’s that serious.


#6

we can’t even make green energy fly without nuclear power to clean up the uranium waste. There are 6 reasons for mass extinction, climate is only 1 of those 6 reasons. Green energy will not stop mass extinction and we can’t have green energy without nuclear power. Life is not fair, we have to face it.

Bolderdash. This is all untrue. The more you disturb or process spent fuel, the more accidents you are going to have including proliferation and rail crashes. The reactors melting down below the bottom containment on units 1-3 at Fukushima was bad, but the 12,000 zapped fuel rod assemblies sitting all over the place are much more dangerous. Nuclear fires already happened at Unit 4 and possibly Unit 3. Had they stored them properly in dry cask storage instead of letting them sit in pools outside of containment, this accident would have been much less tragic.

Your extremely bad idea of “cleaning up uranium waste”, I presume, means using it for fuel in existing reactors in either dangerous MOX fuel (plutonium oxide) or in the theoretical Thorium reactor which is still a smoking crater sitting in the ground at Oakridge on the catastrophic Molten Salt Reactor.

No, we don’t have to have nuclear to use solar and wind. Not a single solar panel or wind turbine has ever melted down. It’s asinine to doom future generations with this attitude that we have to run nuclear.


#7

Hahahah…Yeah, ya know that would be a good thing for me to do… I can call the white house comment line… repeatedly… i have called before, but not repeatedly… don’ t know what good it will do… but… it will be fun…


#8

Yes, it will never be cleaned up… Every time I hear them say they are “cleaning up” nuclear crap…I am left with a complete disconnect in my mind… like, I had learned in my psychology classes about how parents will tell their children one thing… about a situation, but the child is seeing/feeling/experiencing something completely opposite or different… so, the child becomes disassociated about the issue… a split occurs… like split personality… the reality he/she experiences is not being recognized by the authority figure… and even being dismissed as not true… so… here we are … 7 billion split personalities… or well, maybe a few less who are really facing reality…


#9

just looked up that tidbit about 70 nuclear reactors being built around the world… just checking… yeah, found a “World Nuclear Association” page … they said 60 … but after 1 whose counting…
I guess I am at a stage in which I say to myself… "Why am I functioning in this civilization, which is structured for death… not life… really. I am really not able to bring the reality of our situation up to what I grew up believing… it’s very difficult… I went to the 1982 protest in NYC… against Nuclear anything… I have been trying in what little way I can for the last maybe 7 years or so, to be involved some ways to change the world… but… at this point… yeah, I know… I have to change me… and I have done some of that… but yeah, very little… If Kevin Andersen is saying we need to reduce emissions by 40 % in three years… I guess we may has well kiss our *sses good bye… I’m not saying this to be cute… It’s just that well, what I really want is to bow out of this rat race that is perpetuating the problem… how?.. .I’d really love to get completely off grid… but… with a 15 year old it’s not really possible… and a husband who doesn’t have a clue… still have to go to a job 36 miles away to keep paying my mortgage… nothing closer really… that would match my skill set… I’m not really saying what I want to say… some how… I am going to figure this out for myself… I guess that’s it… part of what I want is to take all the info to as many people as I can… and just let it all hang out… at work, there are a few who get it… but only a very few, like 3… or so… that’s what I am feeling right now… that all I can do, is to keep informing people…constantly… no holds barred… usually, I am quite diplomatic in my presentations… but…
anyway… why can’t we do like we used to do long ago… and get a soap box… You see, not many people are on these sites and not many people, can stand to sit and read stuff like this… I’d love to stand in the middle of town and let out all of this… pass out most of these articles… I have done that in the past… some of the ones I printed off ( of many) I gave to the Occupy Binghamton …we passed them out there… and I have walked the streets of the towns here and handed them out, too… so, I guess I’ll go back to that… I feel like if I give out a crumb to some, they will want the meal… and go start leaning themselves…


#10

I think that those of us who know and care have to keep trying our best and keeping our eyes open for those opportunities, when they come round, to do something more. If we do, then we, our species, have a chance to turn this mess around. Do talk to as many people as you can.
I don’t yet see ‘the answer’ but I believe there are many out there that exist alreadyor will be seen in the future. We need to be ready for those that come near enough for us to climb up and grab, like that brass ring I used to hear about, only not something you get but something you do.


#11

This was a transient peak of 7,230 becquerels per liter of water in a drainage ditch where the downstream gates closed and there was no detection of increased radioactivity at the port outlet. To put this (non) event into context, the daily groundwater outflow from under Fukushima is averaging around 37,000 becquerels per liter. At roughly 300 cubic meters per day outflow rate, that is enough contamination to raise the radioactive intensity of one cubic kilometer of seawater by 11 becquerels per cubic meter, where natural seawater radioactivity averages 12,000 becquerels per cubic meter.


#12

Then why dors the article state that safe levels are 5 becs… you numbers are very different from the artcle…


#14

In an effort to reduce the amount of groundwater flowing under the plant, Tepco is intercepting and pumping out groundwater on the uphill side, before it even reaches the facility. It is this groundwater which Tepco is releasing directly into the ocean, usually without filtering it, but in keeping with the terms of an agreement Tepco reached with local fisherman, that water is supposed to have a radioactivity level at or below 5 becquerels per liter.

Tepco has no release agreement pertaining to the groundwater which is flowing under the site and out to the sea, but they also don’t have any control over that flow at this point. They are hoping they will eventually be able to divert that flow around the plant with a perimeter underground ice wall. It is that groundwater which is carrying a contaminant load of approximately 11 billion becquerels per day.


#15

The FDA does indeed allow a certain number of “defects” in final food products including larvae, maggot and insect parts, rodent hairs, rodent poop, mammal poop and mold. Whether you knew it or not, you have undoubtedly been ingesting small quantities of feces. Or maybe not so small if you get your food directly from an organic farm.


#16

I think that did not include Lungmen 1 & 2, and recent additions are Tianwan 4, Yangjiang 5, Yangjiang 6, Shin-Hanul 2, Barakah 2, Ostrovets 1, V.C. Summer 2 & 3 and Vogtle 3 so the WNA is now reporting: “There are currently 435 operable civil nuclear power nuclear reactors around the world, with a further 71 under construction.” There are an additional 184 on order, and Westinghouse and China are finalizing contracts on another 12.


#17

So, tell me more about why you think that nuclear power is okay to use…


#18

Really, we are not going to save ourselves with the kind of thinking that says it’s okay to use so much electricity/power… that we have wasteful, frivolous products and activities that are sucking up massive amounts of fossil fuels/ nuclear power…and spewing out massive amounts of co2 and radioactivity…we are in the 6th mass extinction and probably already set off the tipping points for catastrophic climate change… yet. some people still have no idea that anything serious is going on… including people who believe nuclear power will save us… .
People who want to come up with these destructive energy producing methods… just want to keep their lattes and fancy cars along with air travel trips, big mansions and steak dinners… they are afraid to get off their duffs and plant some food, by getting their hands dirty, afraid of cleaning their own toilets… making their own food from scratch…People are afraid of having to go back …thinking that life will be so horrible… welll, we do not have to go all the way back, I don’t think… but, we have to go back quite a ways… as for medical progress… that should be one area we try to really deal with because no parent wants to see their child sick and dying when they could be saved… but, as there is plenty there we can do away with… boob jobs, face lifts… but lifts… oh, and don’t get me started on the make up industry…
all one has to do is think of all the stupid stuff that we humans choose, over life of the planet… and our own… and other species… some how, we’ll have to change our conciousness…


#19

Fire, water, and electricity have, and always have had, the potential for much destruction and death, but we learned how to manage them in ways that have been of great value to us. Indeed, we found uses for them that we could not have even dreamed of when we first harnessed them. With nuclear energy, the potential for destruction and death is evident, but we are in the early phases of figuring out how to use it, and it looks like its useful potential may be on an unprecedented scale.

Energy is neither good nor evil. It is what we choose to make of it. And in the process of arriving at our choices, I think it is okay to do research and development work to expand our range of options. Some of our options we will choose not to use, but even in such cases, development makes it possible for such choices to be well-informed.


#20

So, you think this is an answer…so, the energy source we use… is okay if we get what we want…a crushing civilization that is destroying the very ground under our feet and the air we breathe… the constant barrage of chemicals, particulates and radiation that our bodies endure day in and day out… is not of any consideration to you… every nuclear power plant, has to regularly release gases, every day and that includes small amounts of radiation… I forget how much of plutonium, or cesium is in those puffs coming out but that is just the beginning… I think in your first post you said this is a “non event”… unbelievable… anything to get a little electricity to do what?.. Go to a casino?.. or even a movie… we are lost…

"ROUTINE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS - IT DOESN’T TAKE AN ACCIDENT
To download .pdf version click here.

What you are not supposed to know:

It doesn’t take an accident for a nuclear power plant to release radioactivity into our air, water and soil. All it takes is the plant’s everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit these radioactive releases.
Radioactivity is measured in "curies." A large medical center, with as many as 1000 laboratories in which radioactive materials are used, may have a combined inventory of only about two curies. In contrast, an average operating nuclear power reactor will have approximately 16 billion curies in its reactor core. This is the equivalent long-lived radioactivity of at least 1,000 Hiroshima bombs.

A reactor’s fuel rods, pipes, tanks and valves can leak. Mechanical failure and human error can also cause leaks. As a nuclear plant ages, so does its equipment - and leaks generally increase.
Some contaminated water is intentionally removed from the reactor vessel to reduce the amount of the radioactive and corrosive chemicals that damage valves and pipes. The water is filtered and then either recycled back into the cooling system or released into the environment
A typical 1000-megawatt pressurized-water reactor (with a cooling tower) takes in 20,000 gallons of river, lake or ocean water per minute for cooling, circulates it through a 50-mile maze of pipes, returns 5,000 gallons per minute to the same body of water, and releases the remainder to the atmosphere as vapor. A 1000-megawatt reactor without a cooling tower takes in even more water–as much as one-half million gallons per minute. The discharge water is contaminated with radioactive elements in amounts that are not precisely known or knowable, but are biologically active"
…and this is only part of the pdf…


#21

thank you. i do not know much, but what alarms me most is the lack of info in the media, and governments in the world not relating to the potential damage to the people. yeah! silly me thinking govt would respond to its obligations. once again we are the mushrooms. (living in the dark and fed dung, or for that matter nothing!!!)


#22

Do you think it would be a bad thing if you got what you wanted? Getting what we want is not intrinsically good or bad. It all depends on what we want and how we pursue it. Even if we want good things, we have to be realistic and rational in how to attain them.

You and I would both like to see humanity drastically scale back its use of fossil fuels, and there seems to be broad consensus that this would be a good thing. The question is how best to attain this goal. Your preferred solution is for everyone to experience raised consciousness, and for them to scale back, eliminate everything frivolous, and make a retrograde transition in lifestyle. And presumably you would want for them to do this voluntarily rather than have this be forced upon them. That much of your goal seems benign to me, and it accords with my notions of free agency. But you have also described how very few people get it when you try to present your case. Global consciousness raising may be a lofty goal, but your own experience says nothing encouraging about the likelihood this is going to happen–especially in the short timeframe we are facing.

The particular news item here was indeed a complete non-event. If it had reached the ocean, it would have increased that day’s radioactive outflow by less than a thousandth, but as it was, it was contained by the gates and went nowhere.

Whatever problems you have with nuclear power of the past, you can’t use that as an argument against developing forms of nuclear power which don’t have those problems. That would be like invoking the poor safety record of cars without seatbelts and airbags as an argument against developing cars with seatbelts and airbags.

But even if we develop forms of nuclear which effectively solve all the waste and safety and environmental problems, that will still leave your biggest objection–that it could provide people with the energy to do things you deem frivolous. And while I can understand your disapproval of casinos and boob jobs and other shallow pursuits, opposing the development of benign nuclear power is likely to be both ineffective and ultimately dangerous–in a world where fossil fuel providers will be only too happy to have the opportunity to supply that energy instead.

And it is true that a modern large reactor contains many times the potential radioactivity of Little Boy. That’s because they also contain many times the potential energy. An atomic bomb is destructive because its energy is all released over a very short interval of time. If you tried to spread that energy out, it would not go very far. Little boy released about the same energy as you’d get from burning 300,000 gallons of heating and transport fuel. A city of 70,000 people can easily consume that amount of energy in a day. Another way of saying that is that a modern city consumes enough energy each day to destroy that city, if that energy were to be concentrated into bomb form. Or you could just take the gasoline a city consumes in a day and burn down the whole city with it. The fact that there are destructive ways to use energy does not argue against the useful ways to use it.


#23

You lost me with “Benign nuclear power”… it will never be safe or benign… it is just another extracted energy source… we will never agree… it’s the mind set here that is the problem…