BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Oct 13 - 01:48 PM

Jack-

I was reading about that near disaster aboard the British sub. Thinking "Nothing can go wrong" is not the right attitude when dealing with nuclear power plants. Most of the time things are boring but in those rare instances when things go wrong vigilance and skill is needed.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 Oct 13 - 07:09 PM

Near miss at a naval base in England:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-24421402

The same events must be possible anywhere that nuclear submarines are repaired.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 09:33 PM

Latest from the 'Beeb':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24332346

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 02:53 AM

There is a new plan to stop the flow of contaminated water.
They are going to freeze the ground all around the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 12:34 AM

I think I will patent and distribute * FUCKASHIMA WATER * as bottled water product.
A glow in the dark translucent bottle and cap feature a greenish brownish colored water while not dangerous, appears ghastly. Perhaps a open proof bottle could contain what appears to be a fish skeleton.

With some classic graphics of a Japanese tsunami on the label the product placement is for those who wish to give an ill will gift for their boss teacher or rival. Or it could just remind people of the catastrophe that will not stop for countless generations.

With a name like FUCKASHIMA its got to be good.


I'll get me coat.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:38 PM

Pictures of contaminated soil taken off site:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=pictures+of+contaminated+soil+fukushima+taken+off+site&client=firefox-a&hs=DeX&rls=org.mozilla:en

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:33 PM

Reactors 5 & 6 to be scrapped!

http://fukushimaupdate.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 06:55 PM

The storage of contaminated water at Fukushima is not the only storage problem.

Contaminated soil from roads, farms, homes and woods in less contaminated areas- areas with annual doses of 50 millisieverts per year or less was promised by the end of fiscal 2013. The work is badly behind schedule. In the village of Iitate, only 3 percent of land scheduled for cleanup has been cleared.
There are no "mid-term" storage sites for the waste.

In an editorial in the Japanese daily, Mainichi, Sept. 12, 2913, it is recommended that methods other than decontamination be considered for the worst areas.

Current plans would permit people to return home if the dosage is 20 millisieverts or less per year, and to get the annual dose down to one millisievert per year level.

I have no idea as to whether these levels are safe.

http://mainichi.jp/english/english

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 11:42 AM

Another leak.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:10 AM

Radiation leaks now emit enough radiation to be fatal within hours.

Guardian report

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:42 PM

I am cautiously pessimistic about the success of this proposed plan...

I'm happy to hear that Japan is now appealing for international help.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 11:50 AM

The Guardian and other reports say the method is untested.
How can it be kept frozen over time? Moreover the core will continue to be "hot."

Completion of the frozen "wall" is expected by March, 2015, according to the Japan Times.
Money is also allocated to develop more powerful filtering equipment.

300 tons of groundwater are contaminated every day, according to the article by a staff writer of the newspaper.

A senior official, Shinkawa, said "We are deeply sorry for causing an international stir over this contaminated water problem." [!!!!!]

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 08:21 AM

This sounds crazy! - surrounding the area with permafrost may work but how is it going to stop the contaminated water sinking BELOW the site & getting into aquifers etc?:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/03/japan-ice-wall-fukushima-water

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 05:07 PM

"The owners of Vermont Yankee have voted to close down their old nuclear plant in 2014."

GREAT NEWS!

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:39 PM

"Charley, I said two years back I thought you were over-reacting. I also said I'd apologize if you proved to be right. You were righter than I knew and much more informed than I was on this, that's for sure.

999"

I only wish I had been over-reacting...

Good news! The owners of Vermont Yankee have voted to close down their old nuclear plant in 2014. The plant was one of the first "boiling water reactors" ever made operational and was the model for the Fukushima nuclear reactors. A few days before the Fukushima disaster began the NRC had voted to extend Vermont Yankee's license for another 20 years. The Vermont Legislature and the Government waged a fierce legal battle to overturn the NRC decision but lost at every level int he courts. The NRC still has the final word on health and safety issues relating to nuclear power, and they were not about to reconsider their decision.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:01 PM

My old man got a "compassionate pension" from the CAF (read... yeah, we know what happened but we won't admit it in writing) for his exposure over the years and especially at Chalk River which was never named a disaster at the time.

He was at Upshot Knothole and others and he worked in the Ontario cobalt fields. They used to take their film tags off when they reached their weekly limit on Tuesday so they could continue to work. Then... the Chalk River cleanup. Call it ironic, maybe, but the English doc at the Saint John hospital finally said to me, "At this point, it's medical research." when I asked why they were giving him more radiation treatments. I told him I had promised Dad, at his request, that I wouldn't let him die in Saint John. He said he would arrange for an ambulace to take Dad to Moncton the next day. I asked why he couldn't do it that day. He said, "I think he deserves the final dose." I understood. Dad died at 6PM the next day... in Moncton. Irony? The radiation made him sick and the radiation euthanized him. It was rough but it was right. I think he knew and I think he agreed to go to Saint John for two reasons but I can type the words.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:12 PM

The BBC News last night reported that levels were high enough to be lethal to the workmen who were trying to stem the leak.

How many will die as a result of this disaster will not be known for some time, but I expect many workmen were fatally exposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:43 AM

Thanks yet again, Peter.

As such articles are of great importance, I believe copying certain ones herein for future reference is wise. If any mod feels otherwise for any reson, delete away...

Fukushima radiation levels 18 times higher than previously thought

Operator of Japanese nuclear power plant claims there has been no leak but has yet to discover cause of radiation spike

Justin McCurry in Tokyo

theguardian.com, Sunday 1 September 2013 10.22 BST


A Tepco employee in protective clothing works around water tanks at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in June. Photograph: Noboru Hashimoto/EPA


Radiation levels 18 times higher than previously reported have been found near a water storage tank at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant , prompting fresh concern over safety at the wrecked facility.


The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), said radiation near the bottom of the tank measured 1,800 millisieverts an hour – high enough to kill an exposed person in four hours.


Tepco said water levels inside the tank had not changed, indicating there had not been a leak. But the firm said it had yet to discover the cause of the radiation spike.


Last month, Tepco said another storage tank of the same design as the container causing concern this weekend had leaked 300 tonnes of radioactive water, possibly into the sea.


Japan's nuclear watchdog confirmed last week it had raised the severity of that leak from level 1 – an "anomaly" – to level 3 – a "serious incident" on an eight-point scale used by the International Atomic Energy Agency for radiological releases.


Earlier, the utility belatedly confirmed reports that a toxic mixture of groundwater and water being used to cool melted fuel lying deep inside the damaged reactors was seeping into the sea at a rate of about 300 tonnes a day.


Experts said those leaks, which are separate from the most recent incidents, may have started soon after the plant was struck by a powerful tsunami on 11 March 2011.


The tsunami smashed into the plant after Japan's north-east coast was rocked by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake. The waves killed almost 19,000 people, while the resulting triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi forced 160,000 people to abandon their homes.


The high radiation levels announced on Sunday highlighted the dangers facing thousands of workers as they attempt to contain, treat and store water safely, while preventing fuel assemblies damaged in the accident from going back into meltdown.


Japan's nuclear workers are allowed an annual accumulative radiation exposure of 50 millisieverts.


Tepco said radiation of 230 millisieverts an hour had been measured at another tank – up from 70 millisieverts last month. A third storage tank was emitting 70 millisieverts an hour, Tepco said. Radiation near a pipe connecting two other tanks had been measured at 230 millisieverts.


Tepco admitted recently that only two workers had initially been assigned to check more than 1,000 storage tanks on the site. Neither of the workers carried dosimeters to measure their exposure to radiation, and some inspections had not been properly recorded.


The firm responded to growing criticism of its handling of the water problem by increasing the number of workers patrolling the tanks from the current total of eight to 50.


The firm's inability to safely store contaminated water and prevent more damage to the environment has prompted doubts about its ability to lead the Fukushima Daiichi cleanup. Decommissioning the plant is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars and last around 40 years.


Tepco recently set up a committee to focus on the water leaks and said it would seek advice from foreign decommissioning experts. The prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has said the government will play a bigger role in preventing water contamination.


The chairman of the country's Nuclear Regulation Authority, Shunichi Tanaka, said: "We cannot fully stop contaminated water leaks right away. That's the reality. The water is still leaking in to the sea, and we should better assess its environmental impact."


Tepco's handling of the leaks has drawn an angry response from local fishermen, who had to abandon plans to conduct a trial catch at the end of August. Fishermen south of Fukushima Daiichi have not been able to fish commercially since the disaster, while those north of the plant can catch only octopus and whelks.


"We think that contaminated water management by your company has completely fallen apart," Hiroshi Kishi, chairman of the Japan Fisheries Co-operative, told Tepco's president, Naomi Hirose, during a meeting in Tokyo last week.


"This has dealt an immeasurable blow to the future of Japan's fishing industry, and we are extremely concerned."

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:01 AM

Radiation around one of the water tanks has now been found eighteen times higher than previously thought. The reason for this spike 'is as yet unknown'.

Article : Fukushima radiation levels eighteen times higher

And so it continues..

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 10:39 PM

Charley, I said two years back I thought you were over-reacting. I also said I'd apologize if you proved to be right. You were righter than I knew and much more informed than I was on this, that's for sure.

999

PS When fish glow in the dark, is that a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 11:39 AM

"The tanks are only expected to last for 5 years, which is ridiculously short term when dealing with radiation."

The first tanks were sealed with rubber gaskets, as that was the fastest way to build a lot of them quickly. Later tanks have welded seams, but there seems no way to retrofit the older ones or build welded ones fast enough to deal with these new issues.

Fishing in the area is....ummmm... 'suspended'.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 11:29 AM

As for nuclear power, in spite of incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima it's still probably the 'least worst' option for powering our civilisation.

No. It's the worst. And future generations - if there are any - are going to hate us for it. The technology exists to create effective renewable energy if we but liberated ourselves from idiot notions of centralised power production and the national grid.

There'd be more electricity than we could use - and as we all know fresh surplus 'leccy makes a delicious ice cream.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 04:41 AM

The reality has eclipsed the ideal! We're all do(o)omed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWsQgmq-fNs

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 03:22 AM

No, Ebbie, I don't have any children. For years I considered this to be something of a personal tragedy - now I'm not so sure.

As for nuclear power, in spite of incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima it's still probably the 'least worst' option for powering our civilisation. What amazes me about Fukushima is that the Japanese sited a nuclear power plant in an area prone to earthquakes and (subsequent) tsunamis ... and then an earthquake and a tsunami happened ... well, who would have thought it!

For more information on the stark choices that our species faces, I recommend that you read James Lovelock's book, 'The Revenge of Gaia' -I think that it may surprise you.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:26 PM

@ Guest/Shimrod 3:50 AM: Do you have children? Anyone who has more than one child is contributing to the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:03 PM

The hundreds of tanks that were deployed at Fukushima for holding radioactive contaminated cooling water were a stop-gap measure to begin with. The fact that one has completely ruptured is not especially surprising given the haste with which they were cobbled together. The tanks are only expected to last for 5 years, which is ridiculously short term when dealing with radiation.

My respect for the Japanese nuclear engineers who are trying to manage this continuing disaster has diminished considerably. I'm afraid we'll be hearing more depressing news from this nuclear complex in the years to come.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM

Shimmy, me son. Not much at this point. As for the thread drift, *I* have a sense of humour. You should check that out as it's a good thing to have.

Thus ends any further conversation between you and I on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 01:43 PM

Ebbie speaking of global warming I am bemused that Washington DC itself is now flooding BENEATH Constitution Avenue.

You see the area west of the grassy mall used to be a creek that was diverted. The rise in water levels have repeatedly flooded the basements of the IRS, Treasury, Commerce and other important buildings to the point That a enormous cistern is now being dug under the Mall to hold the sewer and storm water from flooding Constitution Ave buildings and slow the flow to the water treatment plants that are routinely overwhelmed by the filth. When they say something is in the water in DC, they are not just kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM

When this class 7 Maximum disaster went directly from a class 1 incident the only people fooled were FOX viewers. The misinformation is beyond criminal, particularly for those in proximity to the site and within reach of the now radioactive ocean currents.

The seriousness of this slow motion disaster that will stretch on for millions of years has never ceased to be an ongoing cumulative event of staggering exponential sadness for Earth's creatures on land and at sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:03 AM

Have you nothing sensible to contribute, gnu?

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

BIG thread drift warning...

Halfway thru the last post, I burst out laughing when a thought struck me. Shim rod versus shimrod. Childish? Yeah, but I am still smiling about several "after thoughts".

Sorry. Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

"Nuclear accidents, on the other hand, have the potential of harming everyone on the planet in a year. Or less."

Almost certainly not - nuclear accidents, although dangerous, are unlikely to be planet threatening.

To be honest, I'm far more terrified by a sight that I have to endure every day i.e. places, which just a few years ago, were green fields, covered in endless, and never-ending housing and industrial developments. My alarm clock radio woke me this morning with some git droning on about how we need MORE housing. This view that the environment is a bottle of infinite volume into which we can pour an infinite amount of stuff is far more dangerous and toxic than any nuclear power plant. Our species is under the impression that we own the planet and that it is here solely for our benefit and that we can do anything we like to it; this attitude will lead to our extinction long before any leaks of radioactivity!

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 03:01 AM

"Whenever I see people talking about 'safe' nuclear energy and the need to build more nuclear plants I am disgusted."

"Hell of a lot safer than the burning of fossil fuels - which will lead to catastrophic climate change!" Guest/Shimrod

I beg to disagree with you. "Catastrophic climate change" will indeed present a perhaps unresolvable emergency to our species. But that is a slow enough process that mankind has the possibility of dealing with it.

Nuclear accidents, on the other hand, have the potential of harming everyone on the planet in a year. Or less.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 06:30 PM

Indeed, Q. Seems obvious even to a dumb gnu. The other thing that seems obvious to me is the "distracting" way the linked article reads, to wit...

"The leak is the single most dangerous failure at the plant since the 2011 meltdown, which warranted the maximum level of seven on the severity scale, putting it on a par with the Chernobyl disaster 25 years earlier.

"Judging from the amount and the density of the radiation in the contaminated water that leaked ... a level three assessment is appropriate", the NRA said in a document posted on its website on Wednesday."

Am I misreading what I read? Is it a 3 or a 7 or an HF! (HOLY FUCK! This is FAR worse than Chernobyl!)

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 06:09 PM

"Whenever I see people talking about 'safe' nuclear energy and the need to build more nuclear plants I am disgusted."

Hell of a lot safer than the burning of fossil fuels - which will lead to catastrophic climate change!

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 01:14 PM

The problem can only get worse. The core is still active. Containing and storing water could go on for ages.

"Steps" to contain will cost billions.

A new fusion plant is being constructed in southern France. Is this any safer?

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM

The Japanese nuclear watchdog ha now raised threat levels with regards to the leaking of contaminated water. The leak has been called the single most dangerous failure at the plant since the meltdown in 2011.

Fukushima warning : article

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:15 PM

Yes, this is seriously troubling news. And it's a continuing disaster unlike other kinds of power plant disasters.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 02:00 PM

Ebbie. That is the REAL crux of the biscuit. Even if he PLANTS are safe, the waste NEVER will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 11:03 AM

I watched a report on it last night. It hadn't occurred to me that the ocean bottom will gather and retain high radioactive levels for, what? generations? Scouring the bottom of an ocean is just not going to happen.

Whenever I see people talking about 'safe' nuclear energy and the need to build more nuclear plants I am disgusted.

#1: We don't know how to safely store the rods, even in the absence of an emergency.
#2: When - not if - an emergency occurs, we have no way of coping.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:36 AM

Article : Fukushima Leaks : Japan government wades in

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

Thanks, Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 07:01 AM

It is reported now the Japanese government will take 'immediate steps' now Tepco is unable to contain the contaminated groundwater arounf the plant. 300 tons of water are leaking into the ocean daily and have been doing so for two years.

Also reports (here) that the contamination levels of the water have increased 47 fold in just five days.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:05 PM

I generally agree with Q for the present, with regard to the level of radiation spread to the far corners of the earth.

The radiation which has been accumulating in the bay adjacent to the Fukushima nuclear complex is much more concentrated, and should be of public concern. And the fact that the power company staff still cannot stop additional radioactively contaminated water from seeping into the bay is highly disturbing.

There is little reassurance from official sources that this nuclear disaster is fully under control.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:14 AM

My apologies for forgetting something. Here is the edited version of the last paragraph:

Should one buy a Geiger counter? >;-)




The future, of course, is yet to be. We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:52 PM

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/ftr-ati/_2011/2011_111-eng.php

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:17 PM

Gnu, that blog or whatever you want to call it is one of those scare the hell out of them exaggerations from anti-GMO anti-everything
nutcakes.

Go to the U.S. FDA, or the Canadian equivalent.
http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-publin/@fdagov-foods-gen/docurr
(or just google "acceptable radiation levels, Pacific fish" and look for a government release.

The radiation is slowly spreading from the Fukushima site, but is nowhere near unacceptable limits in fish sold in North America. It has not reached major N. Am. fisheries. The data at the site linked is 2 years old, but more up-to-date articles can be found, and show little difference.
See 2013 article in sciencedaily.com on Fukushima radiation "poses minimal threat"; google "Fukushima-derived radiation in seafood poses minimal health risk, experts say."

That there is a possible threat in the future is real; but FDA, etc., will keep track of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:36 PM

The Japanese public are not impressed with efforts to contain the disaster:

http://japandailypress.com/over-90-of-japanese-think-fukushima-disaster-not-under-control-survey-1932603/

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:23 PM

I have always preferred Atlantic Salmon. Tastes better.

Here is the latest scare I have seen. Dunno the quality of the source but it's obvious we all knew it... http://www.antigmofoods.com/2013/07/radiation-from-japan-is-already-killing.html

Should one buy a Geiger counter?

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:29 PM

Pacific salmon- I love it, but do we get any from the Asian coastal waters?
See distribution map of the genus.
http://www.stateofthesalmon.org/about/

Googling Pacific salmon, range, provides a map of the ranges of Alaskan salmon species, suggesting separation, but I know too little about the ranges to comment.