Just In: Blackout at Fukushima Daiichi — Cooling at fuel pools stopped, all power’s been down 3h

While everyone argues over who is right or wrong about the nuclear plants and whether or not they should be used, or where they should be built.....watch this essay regarding Chernobyl. I find it incomprehensible that someone can claim that children born with birth defects is just something that's going to happen....I guess until it is your own, or one you love, it's easy to shrug it off

inmotion.magnumphotos.com...

Michelle

reply to post by Afterthought


So far all the large wind farms I've driven past are in remote areas, and not even cows go near them. I don't know if they make a noise that they don't like or what, but I haven't seen a single windmill located on a farm field, and the ones that are near them, the animals tend to congregate away from them in the field.

reply to post by MariaLida


15 hrs has already passed ..

Radiation Expert: Even southern Tokyo is contaminated from Fukushima disaster — “We seriously have to think about what we should do”

On March 4th and 5th, 2013, Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil, a physicist and President of the German Society for Radiation Protection, and Prof. Eugen Eichhorn, a mathematician and President of the German-Japanese Peace Forum Berlin, visited Matsumoto

In the evening of March 4th, Dr. Pflugbeil and Prof. Eichhorn had a meeting with the families of about thirty evacuees. Dr. Pflugbeil and Prof. Eichhorn have repeatedly visited Japan after the nuclear disaster, stressing each time the seriousness of the situation. Dr. Pflugbeil said “After the Chernobyl disaster, enormous health hazards were seen even in Bavaria, Germany, which is 1,200 km away from Chernobyl. Such hazards first became apparent five to six years after the disaster. Due to the Fukushima disaster, even southern Tokyo is contaminated as much as Bavaria. Therefore, similar unfortunate health hazards might be anticipated even in this region. We seriously have to think about what we should do.” At the same time, Prof. Eichhorn said that “There is no way to undo what has already happened. What we certainly can do right now is not to resume nuclear power plant operations.”

Radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plants is spreading beyond Fukushima further north as well as to eastern Japan. Therefore, this network aims to accept evacuees with no limitation on disaster-stricken areas and to support the evacuees and people who wish to evacuate without isolating them, so as to seek solutions to reconstruct their lives.

www.save-children-from-radiation.org...

enenews.com...

Citing Tepco as a source for data as to the real extent of ongoing emissions at the complex is laughable. They have never been open, lie if they can get away with it and shift blame for their fiasco to the tax payers and government.

Not Tepco reporting

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by CommanderCraCra

 

Why do we need to wait? It's been a long enough time for the cancers to have developed. Maybe if you care to check it out, look for some pictures around Chernobyl. Incredible growth for such an irradiated area. Don't ya think?

Plants are known to show excessive growth in response to radioactivity.

And, plant and animal life has taken over the exclusion zone because there are no people there. No one is there to trim bushes, or cut the grass, or what not.

Bingo and nobody there to feed the 500 pound catfish but yet indeed they are that big now.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder

First off you cannot predict a tsunami as you stated second you cannot predict the size of the said tsunami.

They barely did anything that could be called 'planning' when it came to tsunamis.

TOKYO - Japanese nuclear regulators trusted that the reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi were safe from the worst waves an earthquake could muster based on a single-page memo from the plant operator nearly a decade ago.

When TEPCO finally did revisit tsunami preparedness last year, it was the most cursory of checks. And the conclusion was the same: The facility would remain dry under every scenario the utility envisioned.

reply to post by MariaLida


NRC finds flood concerns at 2 TVA nuclear plants

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found substantial safety issues at two Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear plants involving flooding risks.

NRC found a total of six apparent violations at the Sequoyah and Watts Bar plants on the Tennessee River.

The federal regulatory agency said earthen dams upstream could be overtopped during a catastrophic flood, or what the report calls a "probable maximum flood." That would cause flooding at the plants that would submerge emergency generators and cut off the power needed to prevent damage to the nuclear cores.

The NRC report said TVA recognized the problem in 2009 when it discovered outdated calculations for flooding and has since protected the dams.

www.knoxnews.com...

reply to post by intrptr


The data on releases also comes from NISA, and NSC, which reports to the IAEA. They increased the levels released, as reported by TEPCO. At the highest amount reported by NSC, of 770 PBq of an "iodine-131 equivalent", it was still 15% of what was released at Chernobyl. Chernobyl topped out at 5200 PBq of Iodine-131 equivalent.

reply to post by Zaphod58



There has never been any sort of real containment put in place at Fukishima as their was at Chernobyl. Radioactive water has been pouring into the Pacific Ocean since the accident with unknown consequences. Do don't have only the radioacitiviy to deal with but and perhaps more deadly, the toxic particles that are being releaseed into the air and water table and ocean. And we have no way of knowing just what radioactivity is being released on a daily basis.

This is hardly fine - it's shameful - at least the Russian's had the sense and dignity to clean up their mess the best they could (and 25 years on - Chernobyl is still a serious danger).

What we are seeing here is what will happen when something like this happens to a US reactor. PR saying everything is fine, nothing being done or measured, and business as usual.

reply to post by daryllyn


The Daichi plant was built based on the specifications of the 1960 Chile tsunami. That was generated by a 9.5 earthquake. The wave that hit Chile was 25 meters, the wave that hit Hilo was 10.7 meters. With the plant being 10 meters above sea level, and the pumps an additional 4 meters up it was thought they would stay dry. The tsunami that hit, was 15 meters, and flooded the plant.

The recorded seismic data for both plants - some 180 km from the epicentre - shows that 550 Gal (0.56 g) was the maximum ground acceleration for Daiichi, and 254 Gal was maximum for Daini. Daiichi units 2, 3 and 5 exceeded their maximum response acceleration design basis in E-W direction by about 20%. The recording was over 130-150 seconds. (All nuclear plants in Japan are built on rock - ground acceleration was around 2000 Gal a few kilometres north, on sediments).
The original design basis tsunami height was 3.1 m for Daiichi based on assessment of the 1960 Chile tsunami and so the plant had been built about 10 metres above sea level with the seawater pumps 4 m above sea level. The Daini plant as built 13 metres above sea level. In 2002 the design basis was revised to 5.7 metres above, and the seawater pumps were sealed. Tsunami heights coming ashore were about 15 metres, and the Daiichi turbine halls were under some 5 metres of seawater until levels subsided. Daini was less affected. The maximum amplitude of this tsunami was 23 metres at point of origin, about 180 km from Fukushima.
In the last century there have been eight tsunamis in the region with maximum amplitudes at origin above 10 metres (some much more), these having arisen from earthquakes of magnitude 7.7 to 8.4, on average one every 12 years. Those in 1983 and in 1993 were the most recent affecting Japan, with maximum heights at origin of 14.5 metres and 31 metres respectively, both induced by magnitude 7.7 earthquakes. The June 1896 earthquake of estimated magnitude 7.6 produced a tsunami with run-up height of 38 metres in Tohoku region, killing 27,000 people.
The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed and sited in the 1960s were considered acceptable in relation to the scientific knowledge then, with low recorded run-up heights for that particular coastline. But through to the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting major tsunami. However, this did not lead to any major action by either the plant operator, Tepco, or government regulators, notably the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). The tsunami countermeasures could also have been reviewed in accordance with IAEA guidelines which required taking into account high tsunami levels, but NISA continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures, despite clear warnings.
A report from the Japanese government's Earthquake Research Committee on earthquakes and tsunamis off the Pacific coastline of northeastern Japan in February 2011 was due for release in April, and might have brought about changes. The document includes analysis of a magnitude 8.3 earthquake that is known to have struck the region more than 1140 years ago, triggering enormous tsunamis that flooded vast areas of Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures. The report concludes that the region should be alerted of the risk of a similar disaster striking again. The 11 March earthquake measured magnitude 9.0 and involved substantial shifting of multiple sections of seabed over a source area of 200 x 400 km. Tsunami waves devastated wide areas of Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefectures.

www.world-nuclear.org...

[Analysis] The sudden blackout revealed the weakness of Fukushima plant, “Reactor4 has 4 days to go”
fukushima-diary.com...

www.timeanddate.com...

reply to post by FyreByrd


There is still seawater being released, but there isn't a release anywhere near the levels of the initial release going on anywhere from the plant. The amounts are still dangerous but nowhere near what they were for the first few weeks after the tsunami.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr

 

The data on releases also comes from NISA, and NSC, which reports to the IAEA. They increased the levels released, as reported by TEPCO. At the highest amount reported by NSC, of 770 PBq of an "iodine-131 equivalent", it was still 15% of what was released at Chernobyl. Chernobyl topped out at 5200 PBq of Iodine-131 equivalent.

If you will do some research you will see that we have better measurements from Chernobyl. We can't believe the IAEA because their funding comes from the nuclear industry. You can't just compair a two measurements when it comes to radioactiviy and/or chemical particlie containation. You have to phrase it over a period of time for radioactivity and any statement of chemical radionuclide releases can only be estimates.

This is a very complex subject, and a very scarey one. Frankly, people who have been studying this their whole lives don't really understand it. And the Nuclear Industry doesn't want the public to understand at all.

I just saw a documentary called "Atomic Wounds" (you can find it numberous places) about the ABCC (Atomic Bomb Casulity Commission) which used Hiroshima and Nagisaki survivers and surrounds as data. It's still classified. Think on that one. As they learned more - they shut down any disclosure. Check out the work of Dr. Helen Caldicott, I believe an earlier poster posted a video of her.

Think about the rise in cancer since the Bomb - yeah the party line is better detection - but it was unusual before the war. Think about all the atmospheric tests and the tons of radioactive particles of all types just floating around waiting for you or me to ingest or inhale them. Only a fraction of the nuclear material in a bomb is converted to energy - the rest is aerosolized and dispersed on the wind.

Lovely isn't it.

But...but...

Nuclear power is perfectly safe!

reply to post by Zaphod58

Chernobyl topped out at 5200 PBq of Iodine-131 equivalent.

No comparison. Fukushima hasn't "topped out" yet...

Besides any data about actual release is a misnomer. It is impossible to measure unless you gather it all up into one pile and them measure it. Which can't be done. A lot of the decay already happened.

This shows that all estimates of actual release of what kind of nuclides and their effects are up until now rough estimates based upon the amount of fuel undergoing runaway chain reactions, the amount volatilized and the amount washed into and still washing into the sea. Since nobody knows the actual state of the melted cores or even where they presently are that is also hard to quantify.

I know this.

Fuel difference by weight in Chernobyl and Fukushima

reply to post by FyreByrd


There are multiple sources for numbers, but just looking at the initial release, and not an over time picture, Chernobyl was still much worse. Over time, it might reverse, due to them not containing the reactors at Fukushima, but just talking about the initial release event, Chernobyl wins hands down.

Yes, there are a lot of things about the atomic bombs that are still classified, that make people wonder, and it's no surprise that cancer levels have increased in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both through increased understanding of cancer as compared to pre-WWII, and due to elevated background levels.

Again, nuclear power is a necessary evil, that until we have something better, we have to live with.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

There is still seawater being released, but there isn't a release anywhere near the levels of the initial release going on anywhere from the plant. The amounts are still dangerous but nowhere near what they were for the first few weeks after the tsunami.

Source please?
I would do it for you.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Really? They said that about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the bombs dropped there were "dirty" bombs. Today background radiation is barely elevated and people live there just fine.

The stuff leaking out of the plant is just as 'dirty' as the bombs.

You have to remember that this is uncharted territory. Chernobyl is the main basis for comparison and that was a completely different situation.

I would say that since little has been accomplished in the way of getting things stabilized after over 2 years from the initial disaster is an indicator that they are not handling things 'just fine'.

There is major damage to building four, from the quake as well as the hydrogen explosion that happened shortly after. The pool is suspended near the top of the building. The building is leaning and barely has a roof meaning that there is no barrier between the pool and the outside environment, and no hope of containing anything should the pool collapse or ignite if cooling measures fail.

A lot of people would like to compare Chernobyl reactor with all others when this was/is not the case. When Chernobyl 'melted-down' I read everything I could on the matter and read how terrible and run-down the reactor was. An American Nuclear official was there 2 weeks before the accident and he said when he went into the reactor room he was shocked to discover their 'secondary' building (that is supposed to be designed to contain radiation if there is a breach was nothing but an outer building, he said the roof of the secondary 'container' was corrugated roofing and he could see the light from the sky shining through! He went on to say our nuclear plants has a secondary component that is as strong and containing (if not more so) than the first containment. In other words the Chernobyl reactor was a disaster waiting to happen.
So, this experts take on the construction of Chernobyl and Russia's typical lack of concern for people or any living thing must be weighed before any comparisons.

reply to post by intrptr


And we're talking about the initial release event. We aren't talking about total numbers, or levels. As I said in a post after yours, Fukushima may end up topping Chernobyl in total numbers, but the initial release event at Chernobyl was much more than the initial release of Fukushima. Chernobyl was contained much faster, so it didn't have as long to release as Fukushima has, so Fukushima will probably top it, if it hasn't already. But the initial event wasn't as bad.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


In a couple of posts in this thread.

The operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, said the meltdowns it believes took place at three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released about 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances into the air during March 2011. The accident, which followed an earthquake and a tsunami, occurred on March 11.

www.nytimes.com...

The plant is no longer venting radioactive steam into the atmosphere, as it was at the height of the disaster. And the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, has set up a system to absorb cesium from reactor coolant water. But not all that water is being recovered, Buesseler said.

www.cnn.com...

Reporters visited a village about 20 kilometers east of the plant at 8 a.m. Friday. Once a training facility for the Japanese national soccer team, the site is now a base camp for recovery work following the nuclear disaster in the area.

The volume of radiation at this site is 2μSv (micro sievert) per hour (hereafter all radiation levels are recorded on a per hour basis), fairly high compared with 0.11μSv in Seoul and 0.047μSv in Tokyo. But this is lower than the volume of radiation a person is exposed to from a one-time CAT scan (8,000μSv).

An “Off Limits” sign stood between Reactors 1 and 2. A source with Tokyo Electric Power said, “At this site, the radiation level measured 10 Sv (or 10 million μSv) in August and September last year,” adding, “Since then, it has never been approached and thus the current radiation level is unknown.” Death occurs if a person is exposed to 10 Sv of radiation for one hour.

When the reporters approached Reactor 4, the radiation level surged to 1,000μSv. The power company source said, “This reading stems from radioactive materials that remain buried in the debris of contaminated buildings,” adding, “Readings of radiation levels soar at certain sites according to wind direction.”

Reporters got off the bus at a site where the radiation level measured 95∼200μSv per hour. They were allowed to gather information there for 10 minutes.

The radiation level around the Fukushima reactor reached 400,000 μSv at one point last year, but was just 1,000μSv even right by the plant Friday. This is the same permissible level that ordinary people can be artificially exposed to for one year. If a person is exposed to a radiation level permissible for one year for an hour, his or her health will take a hit but this will not prove fatal.

www.setyoufreenews.com...

Nowhere near what they were during the initial event.