BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:34 AM

TEPCO admits fuel rods have probably melted completely and in the case of reactor 1 dropped through the inner pressure containment vessel to within 37cm of the steel outer casing.

Article

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:39 AM

Peter-

It does take time to verify what actually happened. Very bad bews.

I still wonder about the spent fuel pools, especially the one at Unit 4, whether they were breached. As you may recall, there was no fuel in the Unit 4 reactor but there was still a hydrogen explosion there. There was much more high level nuclear waste in the spent fuel pool then there ever was in a single reactor unit.

Charley Nolbe, away in the West Indies

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:54 AM

It was actually a computer simulation that made them come to the conclusion all fuel in reactor 1, other sources speak of 68 tons of it, went through the floor. Who knows what they're yet to to find.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:34 PM

Aljazeera news reports that caesium levels in fish to the east of Fukushima are very high, and there is worry that tuna stocks in that region of the Pacific may be affected. Fishermen working up to several hundred miles offshore are losing their livelihood.

The government had previously downgraded the possibility.
I haven't checked the Japanese newspapers, but more information should be available online.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:08 PM

"to within 37cm of the steel outer casing" Yeah... sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jim Martin
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 07:17 AM

Nuclear cloud over Europe!

This was published on 11/11/11 but I've only just discovered it:

http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Radiation-in-Europe-no-risk-20111111

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 09:22 AM

Radioactive iodide in low concentrations is a normal part of the refueling process in a nuclear power plant, as pipes are purged and radioactive steam released. As long as the levels are very low there there is little threat to the general public.

Tuna contaminated with radiation could be a public heqlth threat, and an economic disaster for fishermen.

Charley Noble in rainy St. Martin

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 03:19 PM

More on the caesium in fish- rather old news but not widely reported.
Rockfish and rocktrout caught 55 km from Fukushima contained radioactive caesium levels exceeding an allowable limit, according to Greenpeace. See Mainichi Daily News, August 9, 2011.
Greenpeace data here: http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/Global/japan/pdf/110809GP_MarineResearch_Data.pdf
On August 19, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency started to test fish from offshore British Columbia for radiation. Salmon are sensitive because of their wide-ranging movements.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/08/19/bc-salmon-radiation-testing.html

In a related story, the Yukon began testing for radiation in the caribou herd. Test results on the Porcupine Caribou herd will be available next year.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Dec 11 - 01:53 PM

Who is investigating the investigators? If this then that. But the "ifs" are not being addressed as reality. Nuclear power is poisonous to the atmosphere when leaked because it contains so many toxic materials in concert. We will feel the impact of Fukushima many years from now as we have the effects of Chernobyl. Only defenders of nukes are those who stand to profit from the industry and those who obfuscate by denial of their responsibility such as Tokyo Electric or G.E. ("We bring good things to death.")

Fukushima or Chernobyl could happen in the US or anywhere else in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Dec 11 - 02:47 PM

Well, not in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Dec 11 - 04:33 PM

Australia has decided to sell uranium to India (Australia has tremendous reserves, and money is to be made). Export had been banned because India had not signed the non-proliferation treaty.

India intends to be about 50 percent nuclear powered in 20 years.

No solution has been found for nuclear waste, which must be stored. There should be a reprocessing and recycling method, but so far, none that is practical.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 05 Dec 11 - 05:00 AM

It never stops does it?

As much as 45 tonnes of highly contaminated water may have leaked into the Pacific through a crack in a wall of the building used to purify water at Fukushima. The water 'could contain up to 130,000 becquerels per cubic centimetre of strontium'.

Article

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Dec 11 - 07:12 AM

Sandbags?!?!

They've got enough radioactive crap in there to obliterate the entire North Pacific fishery for centuries and they're reduced to sandbagging to stop it getting out.

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 04:54 AM

And it's only getting better Jack:

They're running out of storage for the, treated but still lightly contaminated, water used to cool the reactors. And are seeking approval to dump around 155.000 tonnes of it into the sea.

Article

Subject: RE: BS: Japan Nuclear plant disaster, 2011
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 07:55 AM

Meanwhile the Japanese Government is considering a financial bail out de facto nationalisation of TEPCO

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

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: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 12:40 PM

Soory for the misspelling: Charley

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 04:30 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: 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: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 11:24 PM

Welcome back, Donuel!

Charley Noble

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:58 PM

The Guardian report above is certainly sobering.

Charley Noble

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: gnu
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 03:53 PM

Video won't feed.