BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 28 May 12 - 07:32 PM

Oops! Make that the third. And the biggest, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 28 May 12 - 07:25 PM

Charley... LePreau just had it's second spill of heavy shit in 6 months during tests. Goes back online in September. I am 90 miles away... you?

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 May 12 - 04:02 PM

Kan is a brave man to come to this conclusion and make an effort to bring about a radical shift in Japan's nuclear power policy. He speaks from experience and with the support of the public, he just might achieve that goal. I'm surprised but delighted.

Nuclear power plants always have some risk of disaster but being sited in an active earthquake/tsunami zone is clearly unacceptable.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 28 May 12 - 03:00 PM

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20120528_27.html

Former PM calls for Japan to end nuclear power

Former Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan says the nuclear accident at Fukushima convinced him that, for safety's sake, Japan must end its dependence on nuclear energy.

Kan on Monday attended a hearing of a panel appointed by the Diet to investigate the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant that began on March 11th of last year.
He blamed the government for promoting nuclear power as a national policy. He apologized for failing to prevent the accident as the head of government at the time.

Kan said a nuclear safety agency said nothing about what would happen in such an accident, nor did the government receive information from other sources. He added that he feared the situation could get out of control.
Kan acknowledged that the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, consulted the government about evacuating plant workers.

He said that when the industry minister informed him of the workers' possible withdrawal, he thought it was out of the question.

Kan said that he told Tokyo Electric President Masataka Shimizu that the government would not allow the workers to leave, and Shimizu complied.

The former prime minister criticized what he calls an inner circle of nuclear policymakers, experts and businesses for trying to hold on to their power without doing any soul-searching after the accident.

He said disbanding the circle is the first step in a comprehensive reform of nuclear policy.

He also said the accident could have jeopardized state functions, and that he is convinced that the safest way forward for Japan is to end its nuclear power generation.

The panel plans to compile a report on its investigation by next month at the earliest, and submit it to the heads of both chambers of the Diet.

May 28, 2012 - Updated 10:23 UTC (19:23 JST)

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 May 12 - 08:49 AM

gnu-

There aren't a lot of other choices to make in terms of managing this disaster. Someone has to clean it up and TEPCO as a privately run industry certainly can't attract new investment capital at this point to do the job.

Unfortunately for the company, their assumptions about what they needed to do to safeguard their investment at this nuclear complex proved woefully unrealistic. The same is true for many other nuclear power plants around the world.

I doubt if the private investors will ever get back their money in this case. That doesn't necessarily follow from what I read in the report.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 16 May 12 - 06:20 PM

We all knew that was coming eventually. All them there rich folk can't lose THEIR money eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 09:19 PM

gnu-

At least Japan is taking the threat of continued reliance on nuclear power seriously. Wish I could say the same about recent decisions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as they extend the operating licenses of aging nuclear plants in the States; Vermont Yankee is the one I follow most closely and the State Governor and the Legislature are opposed to an extension but the NRC is steaming ahead.

Charley Noblew

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 18 Apr 12 - 03:36 PM

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:42am EDT

By Yoko Kubota

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan will within weeks have no nuclear power for the first time in more than 40 years, after the trade minister said two reactors idled after the Fukushima disaster would not be back online before the last one currently operating is shut down.

Trade Minister Yukio Edano signaled it would take at least several weeks before the government, keen to avoid a power crunch, can give a final go-ahead to restarts, meaning Japan is set on May 6 to mark its first nuclear power-free day since 1970.

"If we thoroughly go through the procedure, it would be (on or) after May 6 even if we could restart them," Edano told a news conference, adding that whether they can actually be brought back online is still up to ongoing discussions.

The crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, where a huge earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 triggered radiation leaks, has hammered public faith in nuclear power and prevented the restart of reactors shut down for regular maintenance checks, with all but one of 54 reactors now offline.

Nuclear power accounted for about 30 percent of Japan's electricity demand before the Fukushima crisis.

In discussing restarts of the No.3 and No.4 reactors at Kansai Electric's Ohi nuclear power plant, in western Japan, the first to clear the government's technical review on resilience against a severe event, Tokyo has said it wants local backing even though it is not legally required.

The hosts of the Ohi plant - the governor of Fukui prefecture and mayor of Ohi town, some 360 km (225 miles) southwest of Tokyo - told Edano on Saturday that some conditions should be met before they can make a decision.

These included a safety review by an expert panel formed by the prefecture and backing from areas neighboring Fukui that are becoming increasingly vocal about possible radiation damage in the event of an accident at any of the 13 reactors in Fukui.

Exactly when Fukui Governor Issei Nishikawa and Ohi Mayor Shinobu Tokioka will make decisions is unclear.

Members of the expert panel will be visiting the Ohi plant on Wednesday and are likely to meet several more times before they reach a conclusion, while the Fukui assembly may meet as early as next week to discuss whether they can back the restarts, Masao Sato, a member of the assembly, told Reuters.

Ohi town told Reuters in March that it conditionally backed the restart. Fukui governor Nishikawa told Edano on Saturday that, while the government has addressed some of Fukui's concerns, more discussions were needed on safety.

While a looming summertime power crunch is a headache throughout Japan, Kansai Electric's service region, including Japan's second biggest metropolitan area of Osaka, is particularly vulnerable as nuclear power met more than 40 percent of power needs prior to the Fukushima crisis.

Electricity generated by the Ohi No.3 and 4 reactors accounted for around 1.8 percent of the total amount of electricity generated in Japan in the business year 2009/10, data from the trade ministry and the Federation of Electric Power Companies in Japan showed.

Edano said that the government may have to protectively come up with plans for rolling blackouts.

"We absolutely cannot let power go out suddenly," he said.

The governors of Shiga and Kyoto prefectures, bordering Fukui, on Tuesday outlined recommendations for the central government on restarting reactors, including publicizing views from independent organizations on reactor safety.

The last time Japan saw a nuclear power-free period was the five days ended on May 4, 1970, when the two reactors then existing were both shut for maintenance, according to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan.

(Additional reporting by Yoshiyuki Osada in Kyoto; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Apr 12 - 08:05 AM

gnu-

I seem to remember that a young Jimmy Carter was involved in heroic efforts to deal with one of the evolving Chalk River nuclear accidents.

It is sad when authorities conspire to deny the tie between low-level radiation exposure and cancer. It's always hard to prove. But family and friends have to live with the bitter result.

One of our best friends who worked for years as an auxiliary operator at the Maine Yankee nuclear plant, died years later of lung cancer. He was a non-smoker and later quit his job at the plant because of what he perceived as lax operating procedures. We still miss him.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 04:20 PM

I have posted about my father working in Ground Nuclear defense in the RCAF. Also posted about him working in the Ontario cobalt fields and being at nuclear tests in the US. There are others.

Visited my uncle on the weekend. Did not know... he was one of 50 RCAF sent in to clean up the Chalk River "incident" in 1952.

Wiki...

"the 1952 NRX-incident

Chalk River was also the site of two nuclear accidents in the 1950s. The first incident occurred in 1952, when there was a power surge and partial loss of coolant in the NRX reactor which resulted in significant damage to the core. The control-rods could not be lowered into the core, because of mechanical problems and human errors. Three rods did not reach their destination, and were taken out again by accident. The fuel-rods were overheated, resulting in a meltdown. The reactor and the reactor-building were seriously damaged by hydrogen-explosions. The seal of the reactor-vessel was blown up four feet. In the cellar of the building some 4.500 tons of radioactive water was found. This water was dumped in ditches around 1600 meters from the border of the Ottawa River. During this accident some 10.000 curie or 370 TBq was released.[3"

After years of a group of vets fighting the Canuck government, three months after he died, a pension for his premature death was issued, along with a letter saying there was no connection and the pension was a "compassionate" pension.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 03:30 PM

Troubling news.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 08:26 AM

Certainly very grim news.

This nuclear disaster is clearly worse than Chernobyl in terms of the amount of nuclear fuel melted down. And it seems as if the decommissioning of these three reactors, plus Unit 4 (which no one seems willing to address), will take decades to accomplish.

And some folks called us "alarmists" at the beginning of this thread.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 08:01 AM

The Guardian had this article yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM

Damage to reactor 2 much worse than previously thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17533398

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 05:24 PM

Peter Ladkin's paper is well worth reading.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 03:53 PM

Video won't feed.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 08:56 PM

Hazard analysis of Fukushima from a symposium on system safety:

Peter Ladkin paper in pdf

Ladkin's video presentation

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 08 Mar 12 - 09:57 AM

More anniversary prompted stuff:

An interactive photoseries, devastation after the tsunami, and same scene after a year's worth of clean up : Here


Article : Dramatic fall in new nuclear powerstations after Fukushima

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 10:47 PM

Gnu-

So in ten thousand years they will be in deep do-do.

Good thing that the half-life of high level nuclear waste is only 25,000 years...

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 03:27 PM

At the last rate of rise I could find, ~ 3mm per year, thats a foot in 100 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 08:07 AM

On that note the following article is of interest:

UK Nuclear sites at risk of flooding, report shows

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 05:01 PM

I don't usually post long reports but this one is important and a link does not have a long half-life.

Here's a long update from the Union of Concerned Scientists, where things are at after our experience with the Fukushima nuclear disaster:

The devastating disaster in Fukushima, Japan nearly one year ago showed us that, while the likelihood of a nuclear power plant accident is low, its consequences can be grave. The truth is, an accident like the one at the Fukushima Daiiachi nuclear plant could happen here. An equipment malfunction, a fire, a natural disaster or terrorist attack, or even human error could, separately or in combination, lead to a nuclear crisis.

Some proponents of new, smaller reactor designs claim that these plants will be "inherently" safer. But we have learned the hard way that real safety comes only from careful planning, regulation, and enforcement. That's why we at the Union of Concerned Scientists have offered a series of recommendations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for changes we need to make nuclear reactors in the United States safer.

First of all, the NRC does not currently require U.S. reactor owners to plan for or to be able to cope with a severe accident such as the one that occurred in Japan. For instance, we believe these reactor owners need to develop and thoroughly test emergency procedures for situations when no electrical power is available for an extended period. Fukushima demonstrated clearly the disaster than can ensue when a nuclear plant is deprived of power for an extended period of time, as happened after the tsunami there. We are urging significantly more stringent requirements that all U.S. reactors be designed to safely cope with prolonged loss of electrical power.

Similarly, the NRC should require reactor owners to develop emergency plans for a larger area than the current 10-mile radius around each U.S. reactor now required. The areas we propose would be based on a scientific assessment of the site, including issues like population density, prevailing weather patterns, and other site-specific factors.

Finally, the Fukushima crisis illustrated the dangers of keeping spent fuel in storage pools when the plant loses the power needed to cool these pools. The safety and security risks associated with spent fuel can be significant reduced by transferring the fuel from pools to dry casks once it is cool enough (i.e. five years after removal from the reactor). This change will entail a significant capital investment, but the Fukushima disaster showed that the costs of inaction can be far greater.

As we document in our new report U.S. Nuclear Power Safety One Year After Fukushima, none of these recommendations—or the recommendations from the six-member task force the NRC appointed to examine the Fukushima accident—have yet been implemented at U.S. reactors as the first anniversary of the tragedy nears. While we understand that it will take some time to develop the right approach, we don't want to see a repeat of what happened after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. In that instance, it took nearly 10 years for the NRC to fully implement new regulations for reactor owners to cope with the aftermath of a terrorist aircraft attack—and even then, the final measures were insufficient.

It is the NRC's job to make sure all Americans are adequately protected and we will continue to work to hold them to that standard. These common-sense changes, among others, would go far to making U.S. nuclear reactors safer. You can help by staying informed about this important issue and vocally supporting efforts to put safety first when it comes to nuclear power in the United States .

Dr. Edwin Lyman is an internationally recognized expert on nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism as well as nuclear power safety and security. Before joining UCS, Lyman was president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based organization focused on nuclear proliferation. He earned a doctorate degree in physics from Cornell University in 1992.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 08:43 AM

Jim-

Thanks for posting the reporter's "tour" experience.

There is still no update of what happened in demolished Reactor Unit 4. Curious.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 09:33 PM

Yesterday's Guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/28/fukushima-visit-full-face-mask?INTCMP=SRCH

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 01:40 PM

My impression of the PBS Frontline report was that it provided a good update and overview of this nuclear disaster, and pointed out how close it came to becoming much worse. At one point TEPCO evidently was ready to evacuate all its staff from the site and simply let whatever was going to happen, happen. They were over-ruled by the Prime Minister.

The accident itself was way beyond the script of what was thought to be a possible accident, which is still true of several nuclear plants here in the States if a similar accident happened here.

Fukushima Staff had no options other than to manually vent steam from the reactor units, and valuable time was lost as they desperately tried to do that. It is a miracle that no staff members have yet died from radiation exposure, but I would expect that to change over time. You can also bet that the "temporary help" that was mobilized will not be followed up on.

Several former staff workers were willing to put a human face on who was trying to deal with this unfolding disaster. There were some very brave people.

It will be at least ten years before they will be able to remove damaged nuclear fuel from the reactors.

And hundreds of square miles to the northeast of the nuclear complex will be uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.

At one point, authorities were seriously considering the evacuation of Tokyo.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 04:58 PM

The Guardian report above is certainly sobering.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 03:58 PM

With the upcoming anniversary of the disaster newspapers are sending their reporters to Fukushima to report on the state of things:

The Irish Times : The Fallout from Fukushima

The Guardian enters Fukushima Daichi : Workers take on the twisted steel and radiation

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 07:31 AM

Evidently public television is doing an update this evening on the Fukushima Nuclear Complex disaster.

Frontline Report: Inside Japan's Nuclear Meltdown

Tuesday, February 28 — 10:00pm

"The crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami is recalled. Included: remarks by government officials and executives at Tepco, the power company that owns the plant."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 07:26 AM

So we can now all sit back and relax?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 05:32 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2012/feb/20/fukushima-chief-dismisses-rumours-video?INTCMP=SRCH

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:03 PM

Q... cool. We don't have any oil sands. We have gas frackups starting again next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:00 PM

Gnu, Candu or whatever. I'll take the oil sands.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 11:24 PM

Welcome back, Donuel!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 05:55 PM

The air filters in the cars in my area have dectectable levels of distinctive fukushima radioactive particles. We probably should not look into things that can not be controled at this point. Just like the cancer epidemic after 320 atmospheric nuclear weapon tests poisoned America and the world.

Over time I believe the 4 exploded nuke plants will out poison the CHERNOBYL incident, especially for the oceans. Then there are the 55 gallon drums of radioactive waste dumped into the ocean since WW2 that numbers in the thousands of tons and are past their corrosion lifetimes.

It is said that every person on the planet has some chernobyl radiation particles in their body without exception.

It seems that pesky tipping point is behind us.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM

The French wanna build LePreau 2 here and there have been talks but I certainly hope it's a CANDU. I really don't think the cheaper MOX is the way to go over the much safer CANDU. Yeah, I know... "safer".

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 04:18 PM

British and French firms EDF, Areva and Rolls-Royce will build four new reactors in UK.
The French EDF company operates eight of the UK's nuclear power stations.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 04:06 PM

LePreau (NB, Canada) has been given the "go" to restart. The one year shutdown has been 4 and much more costly than estimated... which ain't necessarily bad. >;-) I am not terribly concerned. BUT... they have been given until 2014 to bring firefighting capabilties up to standard??!!

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 04:06 PM

Q-

So one is left to wonder why Reactor Building 4 had an explosion and fire.

It just doesn't add up, does it?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 02:54 PM

This report in the Mainichi Daily News details the temperature changes and irregularities at the No. 2 reactor.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120212p2g00m0dm20000c.html

The last I have seen (Feb. 2) on the No. 4 reactor is that 8.5 tons of radioactive water leaked from it, but was confined to the reactor building.
"The No. 4 unit also* lost the function to cool its spent fuel pool, but no serious damage is believed to have occurred in the fuel stored there."
* No. 1-4 lost cooling functions early in the crisis.
Mainichi Daily News, Feb. 2, 2012.

On Feb. 9, the same newspaper reported that "the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has declared that the primary evaluation of the results of the stress tests on the plant's No. 3 and 4 reactors, stopped for refular inspections, are appripriate [for restart]. The Nuclear Safety Commission is set to decide whether to issue permission for the reactors to restart."

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 10:06 AM

Peter-

Thanks for the update:

"Tepco said it did not know the cause of the apparent temperature rise, but speculated that it might be due to problems with the supply of coolant or a faulty thermometer."

I still wonder what happened in the spent fuel pool of Reactor 4. I don't think there has ever been a public update. It was also the site of an explosion and fire, and in this case the reactor itself had no nuclear fuel inside.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 09:46 AM

After a period of relative quiet, this is back again.

Temperatures inside reactor nr 2 may have risen to 82 C.

For now TEPCO has increased the amount of cooling water and maintains the reactor is still in cold shutdown.

Article

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 09:12 PM

Similar claims were made after the Three Mile Island partial meltdown, and argued pro and con for decades. There definitely was a statistical jump in early childhood mortalities but tying the increase to TMI's radiation releases (which sent the radiation monitors off-scale) could not be substantiated.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 09:04 PM

That sentence was obviously typed wrong. The article makes it clear what was meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 09:00 PM

Jack... "the Fukushima nuclear meltdown is being linked to 14,000 U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks preceding the explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant."

That's as far as I got. Am I missin sumpin here?

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 08:01 PM

Maybe 14,000 deaths in the US following the disaster:

The Province, 9 Jan 2012

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:51 AM

Fortunately there seems to be no additional threat from this earthquake to land-based facilities:

"officials said there was no danger of a tsunami."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:47 AM

New quake (Mag. 7):

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2012/01/03/229255.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 12:40 PM

Soory for the misspelling: Charley

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 12:27 PM

Well Charlie, you never know.

Tepco withdraws dump-plan after fierce opposition from fishermen.

Article

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 08:43 AM

No doubt TEPCO will get the go ahead to dump the huge volumes of low level radioactive waste water into the sea. More damage to the environment. All of this is the consequence of over estimating nuclear plant safety and underestimating the power of nature.

Charley Noble, preparing to fly back to snow-covered New England from the sunny West Indies