Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 44
Send Topic Print
Fukushima - Consequences? (Read 102560 times)
Foolosophy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #180 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:30pm
 
muso wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:16pm:
Foolosophy wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:08pm:
You can be guaranteed that many 100's of thousands perhaps millions will die as a direct result of teh fukushima radiological release (which has only just commenced)



Ahem. I see that you've conveniently skipped over my previous post and questions on the death rate at Chernobyl.

- and I was just about to recommend a good product for removing egg from your face too.  Wink


Why becasue you believe the propaganda that only 47 people died in the CHernobyl disaster and that an estimate of only 4000 people have died of radiation related diseases etc?

I prefer to go on the Russian publications and medical journals that has produced a vast literature data base on the health fallout of Chernobyl. (over 5000 papers were translated and collated int hat recent study suggesting that so far about 985,000 deaths can be directly attiributed to the Chernobyl incident)

The IAEA is a promoter of nuclear  power (intitally for countrie who needed a source of Plutonium for their weapons programs)

and to suggest that Iodine has a half life of days so its not dangerous is just spin.

Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days and as a ball park estimate you need at leat 10 half lifes for the radiation level to fall back to something close to natural levels. So you have issue for 80 days at least.

Again this does not tackle the problem of internal emitters and the biological accumulation of these radionucleotides.

You claim that ALL the radiation and particles detected so far form Fukushima has been beta and gama emiters. And yet you knew that Plutonium has already been found in soil samples surrounding the plant. TO dismiss the Plutonium detection out of hand as very low or in trace amounts shows a serious lack of understanding of the dangers of alpha based internal emiters and the extreme toxicity of Plutonium itself (one of the world's most toxic substances)

It shoudlnt surprise anyone that Plutonium release has already been detected

and it wasnt even a Greenpeace measurement so you havent even got a BIAS out for dismissing the readings

(Noce backhand to the forecourt by the supremely gifted Foolosophy -  Wink)


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #181 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:37pm
 


Foolosophy wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:17pm:
muso wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:12pm:
By the way, here is a schematic. Maybe you can work out for yourself why you can't get a molten mass at 2500-3000 degrees C escaping the base of the RPV and still have the vessels half full of water.


I realise this - but we dont know the water level history of the reactors prior and post the sea water injection.

How long do you think it will take before the fuel can be safely removed?

50 years?

100 years?




As far as I can tell, the best estimate is at least 50 years (but that the 100 year timeframe is more realistic)...

In the interim, a large team of nuclear and environmental engineers will have to intensively monitor (baby-sit) and keep water up to ongoing (and conflicting) physical and chemical reactions (and decay) in and around a large badly-damaged multi-reactor and multi-spent-fuel-pool site...

Bearing in mind that the plant is situated in a geologically-volatile, climatically-harsh and environmentally-sensitive position - and located in a land-scarce and highly-populated island nation...

All of this points to exorbitantly-costly and long-term worst-case monitoring, management and clean-up operations - and an indefinite period of exclusion of human life and socio-economic activities in an area of at least 20km radius around the plant (and far-reaching national and international multiplier-consequences)...

So much for nukes being clean, green, efficient and cheap, eh!?


Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:44pm by Equitist »  

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #182 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:41pm
 
Quote:
I prefer to go on the Russian publications and medical journals that has produced a vast literature data base on the health fallout of Chernobyl. (over 5000 papers were translated and collated int hat recent study suggesting that so far about 985,000 deaths can be directly attiributed to the Chernobyl incident)


Then would you at least tell us the NAME of the study, or link the url it can be found on???
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Foolosophy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #183 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:46pm
 
Equitist wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:37pm:
Foolosophy wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:17pm:
muso wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:12pm:
By the way, here is a schematic. Maybe you can work out for yourself why you can't get a molten mass at 2500-3000 degrees C escaping the base of the RPV and still have the vessels half full of water.


I realise this - but we dont know the water level history of the reactors prior and post the sea water injection.

How long do you think it will take before the fuel can be safely removed?

50 years?

100 years?




As far as I can tell, the best estimate is at least 50 years (but that the 100 years is more realistic)...

In the interim, a large team of nuclear and environmental engineers will have to intensively monitor (baby-sit) and keep water up to ongoing (and conflicting) physical and chemical reactions (and decay) in and around a large badly-damaged multi-reactor and multi-spent-fuel-pool site...

Bearing in mind that the plant is situated in a geologically-volatile, climatically-harsh and environmentally-sensitive position - and located in a land-scarce and highly-populated island nation...

All of this points to exorbitantly-costly and long-term worst-case monitoring, management and clean-up operations - and an indefinite period of exclusion of human life and socio-economic activities in an area of at least 20km radius around the plant...

So much for nukes being clean, green, efficient and cheap, eh!?



Perhaps they can use the Russian method of bringing in Army liquidators like they did after Chernobyl, in order to pick up fule rods and radioactive material with their bare hands - almost all died within a matter of weeks and not many are around today.

Lets hope that a hydrogen bubble isnt developing around or within the reactors at Fukushima that may explode
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Foolosophy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #184 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:50pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:41pm:
Quote:
I prefer to go on the Russian publications and medical journals that has produced a vast literature data base on the health fallout of Chernobyl. (over 5000 papers were translated and collated int hat recent study suggesting that so far about 985,000 deaths can be directly attiributed to the Chernobyl incident)


Then would you at least tell us the NAME of the study, or link the url it can be found on???


best comprehensive study that I know of is the recent study published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2010. It translated and analysed  5000 plus reports and publications (mainly in Russia( that related to the after effects of the Chernobyl disaster)

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages



http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-...

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #185 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:29pm
 
That's strange......I went through all 349 pages of that report, and didn't find any reference to 985,000 deaths up to 2006....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #186 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:38pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:29pm:
That's strange......I went through all 349 pages of that report, and didn't find any reference to 985,000 deaths up to 2006....

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300795269/161

Reply 161

Read my comments and add up the columns on the table.  Hopefully the penny will drop.

I find it quite bizarre that Foolosophy hasn't realised it yet.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #187 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:43pm
 
muso wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:38pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:29pm:
That's strange......I went through all 349 pages of that report, and didn't find any reference to 985,000 deaths up to 2006....

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300795269/161

Reply 161

Read my comments and add up the columns on the table.  Hopefully the penny will drop.

I find it quite bizarre that Foolosophy hasn't realised it yet.



Yes, I already did that....and got it Wink

Incidently, if you don't want to join the site (at Foolosophy's link) to read the report, it's also available here:

http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #188 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 3:20pm
 


Thanks for the links, guys - I've been pouring through the one provided by Gizmo...

Here's an interesting extract that relates back to an earlier tangent: -

Quote:
Problem of Americium-241. The powerful alpha
radiation emitter Am-241, formed as a result
of the natural disintegration of Pu-241, is
a very important factor in the increasing levels
of contamination in many areas located
up to 1,000 km from the Chernobyl NPP.
The territory contaminated by Pu today, where
the level of alpha radiation is usually low, will
again become dangerous as a result of the future
disintegration of Pu-241 to Am-241 in
the ensuing tens and even hundreds of years
(see also Chapter III.9). An additional danger
of Am-241 is its higher solubility and consequent
mobility into ecosystems compared with
Pu.


Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #189 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 3:32pm
 


Then there's this: -

Quote:
1.8. How Many People Were and
Will Be Exposed to Chernobyl’s
Contamination?

The first official forecasts regarding the
health impact of the Chernobyl catastrophe
included only several additional cases of cancer
over a period of some 10 years. In 20 years it has
become clear that no fewer than 8 million inhabitants
of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia have
been adversely affected
(Table 1.7).

One must understand that in areas contaminated
above 1Ci/km2 (a level that undoubtedly
has statistical impact on public health) there are
no fewer than 1 million children, and evacuees
and liquidators have had no fewer than 450,000
children. It is possible to estimate the number
of people living in areas subject to Chernobyl
fallout all over the world. Some 40% of Europe
has been exposed to Chernobyl’s Cs-137
at a level 4–40 kBq/m2 (0.11–1.08 Ci/km2;
see Table 1.2). Assuming that about 35% of
the European population lives in this territory
(where radionuclides fell on sparsely populated
mountain areas) and counting the total European
population at the end of the 1980s, we
can calculate that nearly 550 million people
are contaminated. It is possible to consider that
about 190 million Europeans live in noticeably
contaminated areas, and nearly 15 million in
the areas where the Cs-137 contamination is
higher than 40 kBq/m2 (1.08 Ci/km2).

Chernobyl fallout contaminated about 8%
of Asia, 6% of Africa, and 0.6% of North
America, so by similar reasoning it appears that
outside of Europe the total number of individuals
living in areas contaminated by Chernobyl
Cs-137 at a level up to 40 kBq/m2 could reach
nearly 200 million (Table 1.8).

Certainly, the calculated figures in Table 1.8
are of limited accuracy. The true number of
people living in 1986 in areas outside of Europe
with noticeable Chernobyl contamination can
be no fewer than 150 million and nomore than
230 million. This uncertainty is caused, on the
one hand, by calculations that do not include
several short-lived radionuclides, such as I-131,
I-133, Te-132, and some others, which result in
much higher levels of radiation than that due
to Cs-137. These include Cl-36 and Te-99 with
half-lives of nearly 30,000 years and more than
21,000 years, respectively (Fairlie and Sumner,
2006). The latter isotopes cause very low levels
of radiation, but it will persist for many millennia.

On the other hand, these calculations
are based on a uniform distribution of population,
which is not a legitimate assumption.

In total, in 1986 nearly 400 million individuals
(nearly 205 million in Europe and 200
million outside Europe) were exposed to radioactive
contamination at a level of 4 kBq/m2
(0.1 Ci/km2).

Other calculations of populations exposed
to Chernobyl radiation have been based on the
total collective dose. According to one such calculation
(Table 1.9) the number of people who
were exposed to additional radiation at a level
higher than 2.5 × 10−2 mSv might be more
than 4.7 billion and at a level of higher than
0.4 mSv more than 605 million.

1.9. Conclusion

Most of the Chernobyl radionuclides (up to
57%) fell outside of the former USSR and
caused noticeable radioactive contamination
over a large area of the world—practically the
entire Northern Hemisphere.

Declarations that Chernobyl radioactivity
adds only 2% to the natural radioactive background
on the surface of the globe obscures the
facts because this contamination exceeded the
natural background in vast areas, and in 1986
up to 600 million men, women, and children
lived in territories contaminated by Chernobyl
radionuclides at dangerous levels of more than
0.1 Ci/km2.

Chernobyl radioactive contamination is
both dynamic and long term.
The dynamic
is delineated as follows: First is the natural
disintegration of radionuclides so that levels
of radioactive contamination in the first days
and weeks after the catastrophe were thousands
of times higher than those recorded 2
to 3 years later. Second is the active redistribution
of radionuclides in ecosystems (for details
see Chapter III). Third is the contamination
that will exist beyond the foreseeable future—
not less than 300 years for Cs-137 and Sr-90,
more than 200,000 years for Pu, and several
thousands of years for Am-241.

From the perspective of the 23 years that
have passed since the Chernobyl catastrophe,
it is clear that tens of millions of people, not only
in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, but worldwide,
will live under measurable chronic radioactive
contamination for many decades. Even if the
level of external irradiation decreases in some
areas, very serious contamination in the first
days and weeks after the explosion together
with decades of additional and changing conditions
of radioactivity will have an inevitable
negative impact on public health and nature.



Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #190 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 3:39pm
 


And this...

Quote:
2. Chernobyl’s Public Health Consequences
Some Methodological Problems

Alexey V. Yablokov

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official
secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years
after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus,
and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators)
who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct.
Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World
Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects
of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of
fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive
fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while
mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective
information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity
and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and
economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—
revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or
sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic
pathologies.


The first official forecasts of the catastrophic
health consequences of the Chernobyl meltdown
noted only a limited number of additional
cases of cancer over the first decades.

Four years later, the same officials increased
the number of foreseeable cancer cases to several
hundred (Il’in et al., 1990), at a time when
there were already 1,000 people suffering from
Chernobyl-engendered thyroid cancer. Twenty
years after the catastrophe, the official position
of the Chernobyl Forum (2006) is that about
9,000 related deaths have occurred and some
200,000 people have illnesses caused by the
catastrophe.


A more accurate number estimates nearly
400 million human beings have been exposed
to Chernobyl’s radioactive fallout and, for
many generations, they and their descendants
will suffer the devastating consequences.
Globally,
adverse effects on public health will require
special studies continuing far into the
future. This review concerns the health of
the populations in the European part of the
former USSR (primarily, Ukraine, Belarus,
and European Russia), for which a very large
body of scientific literature has been published
of which but little is known in the Western
world.

The aim of the present volume is not to
present an exhaustive analysis of all available
facts concerning Chernobyl’s disastrous
effects—analyzing all of the known effects of
the Chernobyl catastrophe would fill many
full-size monographs—but rather to elucidate
the known scale and spectrum of its
consequences.

[...]




Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #191 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 3:57pm
 


gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:43pm:
muso wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:38pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:29pm:
That's strange......I went through all 349 pages of that report, and didn't find any reference to 985,000 deaths up to 2006....

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300795269/161

Reply 161

Read my comments and add up the columns on the table.  Hopefully the penny will drop.

I find it quite bizarre that Foolosophy hasn't realised it yet.



Yes, I already did that....and got it Wink

Incidently, if you don't want to join the site (at Foolosophy's link) to read the report, it's also available here:

http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf




Perhaps the most striking aspect of the data tables shown in this report, is that the data patterns have become more clear and therefore more incontrovertible over time - along with the rapidly-accelerating morbidity effects as the surviving albeit sickly victims (and the survivors amongst their unfortunate offspring) age (and die prematurely)...

All the evidence presented in this report, points to an ongoing medical emergency in the most-contaminated regions and countries around Chernobyl - and yet the official propaganda suggests that the opposite is the case...

Presumably, this is because of the powerful pro-nuke lobby - which was gaining traction in the years leading-up to the Fuku incidents...

The trend towards national and global acceptance of nuclear risks was palpable - and it was borne of blissful ignorance of the true nature and extent of the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster (and 3 Mile Island, no doubt)...

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #192 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 4:28pm
 


Meantime, it comes as no surprise that there's a crack in a drainage pit leading to the ocean...

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7F117D20110402

Quote:
Japan's TEPCO says radioactive water leaking into the sea at nuclear plant

Sat Apr 2, 2011 6:16am GMT

April 2 (Reuters) - The operator of Japan's stricken nuclear plant said on Saturday it had found radioactive water leaking into the sea from a cracked concrete pit at its No.2 reactor in Fukushima.

Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) said the radiation in the pit measured 1,000 millisieverts per hour.

Japan's nuclear watchdog said TEPCO is preparing to pour concrete into the pit to stop the leak.



Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #193 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:15pm
 
I think you were right Muso....I do owe you an apology....

I now understand what you were going through with the Anthropogenic Climate Change stuff....

Head, meet brick wall.....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #194 - Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:31pm
 


So much conflicting information...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/asia/03japan.html

Quote:
Regulator Says Radioactive Water Leaking Into Ocean From Japanese Nuclear Plant

By HIROKO TABUCHI and KEN BELSON

Published: April 2, 2011

TOKYO — Highly radioactive water is leaking directly into the sea from a damaged pit near a crippled reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, safety officials said Saturday.

Japan’s nuclear regulator said that workers discovered a crack about eight inches wide in the pit, which lies between the No. 2 Reactor and the sea and holds cables used to power seawater pumps.

The operator of the plant said that air directly above the water leaking into the sea had a radiation reading of more than 1,000 millisieverts an hour, said Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director-general of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. Although higher levels of radiation have been detected in the ocean waters near the plant, the leak discovered Saturday is the first identified direct leak of such high levels of radiation into the sea.

Earlier Saturday, Mr. Nishiyama had said that above-normal levels of radioactive materials were detected about 25 miles south of the Fukushima plant, much further than had previously been reported.

The pit was filled with four to eight inches of contaminated water, said the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company. It was unclear where that water was coming from. Highly radioactive water has also been discovered in the reactor’s turbine building in the past week.

Workers will try to patch up the crack with concrete, the company said.

Saturday’s announcement of a leak came a day after the U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Reactor No. 2 at the Fukushima plant had suffered a 33 percent meltdown. He cautioned that the figures were “more of a calculation.” Speaking from Washington, Mr. Chu also said that roughly 70 percent of the core of Reactor No. 1 had suffered severe damage.

The crisis at the nuclear plant has overshadowed the recovery effort under way in Japan since the 9.0 magnitude quake and tsunami hit the northeastern coast on March 11. Earlier Saturday, Prime Minister Naoto Kan made his first visit to the region since last month’s disaster, where he promised to do everything possible to help. His tour came a day after asking Japan to start focusing on the long hard task of rebuilding the tsunami-shattered prefectures.

“We’ll be together with you to the very end,” Mr. Kan said during a stop in Rikuzentakata, a town of about 20,000 people that was destroyed on March 11. “Everybody, try your best.”

Dressed in a blue work jacket, Kan also visited with refugees stranded in an elementary school and then visited a J-Village about 20 miles south of the disabled nuclear plant. The training facility has been turned into a staging area for firefighters, Self-Defense Forces and workers from Tokyo Electric, which owns the nuclear reactors.

Despite the massive destruction in Iwate, Miyagi and other parts of northeastern Honshu, the largest and most populous of Japan’s islands, the government has also been battling to gain control of the damaged nuclear station. Tokyo Electric has struggled to find a place to dump water that has been contaminated during efforts to cool the reactors and spent fuel pools.

On Saturday, contaminated water was transferred into a barge to free up space in other tanks on land. A second barge also arrived.

Ken Ijiche, Moshe Komata and Chika Ohshima contributed reporting.



Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 44
Send Topic Print