Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #435 - Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:50pm Interesting how the IAEA has determined a soil contamination 40 kms away from the Fukushima plant of 0.9 MBq/m2 The IAEA classified hot spots from the Chernobyl disaster as having soil contamination >0.5 MBq/m2
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #436 - Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:53pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 8:49pm:

"....clearly we are witnessing one of the greatest disasters of modern time"

AREVA executive VP
March 21, 2011

I would urge everyone to obtain a copy or summary fo this important report in relation to the Fukushima disaster

Areva Report slide show -
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dg4hcz37_289dr9g62f6

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #437 - Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:53pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:50pm:

Interesting how the IAEA has determined a soil contamination 40 kms away from the Fukushima plant of 0.9 MBq/m2

The IAEA classified hot spots from the Chernobyl disaster as having soil contamination >0.5 MBq/m2

Yikes!

Is there any significant difference in the half-lives of the materials/isotopes contributing to the respective radioactive contamination levels?

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 #438 - Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:04pm

muso wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 4:20pm:

Quote:

The re-evaluation of the Fukushima INES rating resulted from an estimate of the amount of radioactivity released to the environment from the nuclear plant. NISA estimates that the amount of radioactive material released to the

atmosphere

is approximately 10 percent of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event.

That's more that I thought. I would say that most of that release has been into the sea.

Technically speaking, does not the term 'atmosphere' mean something very different to 'biosphere' - only one of which definitions incorporates the sea...

The reason I raise this, is that the release of radioactive materials into the sea may need to be counted in addition to that released into the atmosphere...

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

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #439 - Apr 12^th, 2011 at 11:01pm

Equitist wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:50pm:

Interesting how the IAEA has determined a soil contamination 40 kms away from the Fukushima plant of 0.9 MBq/m2

The IAEA classified hot spots from the Chernobyl disaster as having soil contamination >0.5 MBq/m2

Yikes!

Is there any significant difference in the half-lives of the materials/isotopes contributing to the respective radioactive contamination levels?

these readings are bulk desintegration measurements. In the case of Fukushima a reading of 900,000 particle disintegrations per sq. m.

You need to do a detailed isotopic analysis in order to give you a picture of what sort of isotopes are present and their half lifes.

Sadly in 1951 the international jurisdiction concerning the health issues, limits and standards relating to radiation exposure was trasfered from the medical experts to the nuclear physicisys.

One of the most disgraceful politicised scientific outcomes that I can recall or have read about.

So now we have a situation whereby the premier international health body, the WHO, cannot carry out a comprehensive health impact study on radiological incidents without the explicit permission of the IAEA.

So the WHO has not been able to conduct anything of substance in relation to Chernobyl for this very reason - even today.

I suspect that the WHO will be politically barred from Fukushima as well.

And this is precisely why thngs like the health effects of internal emitters and alpha emitters are avoided by the nuclear physicists and their prefessional bodies. One, they dont understand the health effects fully (looking at things from a purely particle physics point of view) and TWO, this ignorance benefits the industry that they support and flourish in.

Follow the Fukushima incident for as long as you can and see how the WHO will do nothing - may pay some lip service but cannot get involved.

disgrace - (actually concocted by the USA and every nuclear power followed suite)

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #440 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 6:16am perceptions_now wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 9:53pm: Areva Report slide show - https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dg4hcz37_289dr9g62f6 That is quite a balanced factual report without the hype.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #441 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:57am Pacific Ocean Currents Global Thermohaline Circulation
Back to top	IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #442 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:50am

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was designed to last 40 years which ends in 2012

The current owners are proposing to extend the license by 20 years and run the plant at 120% of its operating design capacity,

There have been numerous safety violations, cracks found in hardware, fires on site, coolant leaks and other problems.

The Vermont Yankee Nuclear power plant is one of the oldest plants in the USA.

This is what the industry is pushing for. And when I say industry I mean its purely dirven by the CORPORATE monster. How could an engineer with an ounce of integrity stand up and say the failure risks are acceptable if we extend the life of this nuclear power plant by 20 years and operate it at 120% design capacity????

The other issue is the storage of spent fuel rods. Decommissioning a nuclear power plant is not only time intensive but a very expensive operation. Its common practise to store spent fuel rods ONSITE in pools above the reactor for as long as possible. This is basically an added fearure of the modern nuclear power plant that assists with corporate profits whilst increasing the danger. These pools are not as secure and pose very serious security and safety risks (as seen by the Fukushima Diachi disaster in Japan)

So AGEING Nuclear power plants in the USA and elsewhere are corporately PUSHED to chig along to delay the decommissioning phase and to continue making huge profits at great risk with out dated and ageing infrastructure.

Welds fatigue, corrosion persists, things become brittle etc.

A catastrophe waiting to happen

(BTW the Vermont Yankee Nuclear power facility was given approval to extend its operating life by 20 years about 1 year ago)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:57am by Foolosophy »

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #443 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 12:55pm

Why is there a liability CAP of 45 Billion dollars being proposed for TEPCO????

And guess what? TEPCO shares jucmped 14% after the announcement.

TEPCO shoudl be repsonsible for ALL liability claims in relation to the Fukushima level 7 radiological disaster

Now, if that means they go into receivership then so be it.

A CAP is introduced to save the asses of the CEOS's and the TEPCO corporate shell so that it can continue into the future

DISGRACE

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #444 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 1:40pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:50am:

Its common practise to store spent fuel rods ONSITE in pools above the reactor for as long as possible. This is basically an added fearure of the modern nuclear power plant that assists with corporate profits whilst increasing the danger. These pools are not as secure and pose very serious security and safety risks (as seen by the Fukushima Diachi disaster in Japan)

That part I agree with. There should be some regulation that prevents that practice. Most of the spent fuel pools (at least in the US) are crowded.

As far as Nuclear plants being extended past their lifetime, it's a question of maintenance. It's standard practice in industry to conduct corrosion and integrity testing. In the nuclear industry, this is no different.

The US is a strange case. In some respects they are over-regulated. Their national EPA had some totally impossible guidelines and a lot is left to individual State EPA's.

Since the GFC, industry in general has become more run-down that ever. In a recent visit, I thought I was in a third world country somewhere. I have seen higher safety standards in Africa.

The pressure comes from within. If a plant is spending too much, the fear is that the corporation will shut it down, so the local management will take whatever shortcuts they think they can get off with.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #445 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:54pm

Last year The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant was given the go ahead to continue its license for a further 20 years running at 120% of its deisgn capacity.

It's original 40 year plant life expires in 2012.

It has a history of onsite fires, safety breaches, and other problems.

But the Corporate moto of PROFIT over EVERYTHING ELSE is paramount. Ignore corrosion limits, equipment fatigue, wled defects UNTIL it is too late. Then when an accident occurs its a matter of tax payer pays and run away.

In 2007 the cooling tower at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant collapsed. And we all know how critical the cooling water circuit is for Nuclear reactors dont we! Why not continue this plant for another 20 years at 120% of its design capacity?

http://rutlandherald.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452358f69e2013484cde219970c-800wi

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #446 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 5:05pm

Equitist wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:04pm:

muso wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 4:20pm:

Quote:

The re-evaluation of the Fukushima INES rating resulted from an estimate of the amount of radioactivity released to the environment from the nuclear plant. NISA estimates that the amount of radioactive material released to the

atmosphere

is approximately 10 percent of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event.

That's more that I thought. I would say that most of that release has been into the sea.

Technically speaking, does not the term 'atmosphere' mean something very different to 'biosphere' - only one of which definitions incorporates the sea...

The reason I raise this, is that the release of radioactive materials into the sea may need to be counted in addition to that released into the atmosphere...

Well, the prevailing wind has carried most of the atmospheric emissions over the sea.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #447 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 5:12pm

Japan earthquake | Fukushima not as bad as Chernobyl: expert
Quote:

The Japanese nuclear accident that has sparked worldwide radiation fears ranks "in between" those that occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, a UN expert says.

Wolfgang Weiss, chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, said it's far too early to even begin an assessment of the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant because the crisis there is ongoing.

But, he noted, while radioactivity from the 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the United States was largely contained, traces of fallout from Fukushima detected around the world are "much, much, much lower" than traces seen at similar distances after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The six-reactor Japanese complex was crippled by an earthquake-triggered tsunami on March 11 and has been seeping radiation into the environment.

Authorities are struggling to get the situation under control and have indicated that could take months.

When reporters asked Weiss how he compared the Japanese crisis to its two predecessors, he said: "It's in between. It's not as dramatic as Chernobyl, but it's certainly much more serious than [Three Mile Island]."

Weiss, who also heads the radiation protection and health department at Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection, noted that Fukushima's proximity to the Pacific Ocean was beneficial in containing the contamination and exposure to people.

"The Pacific takes it all and there we have huge dilution," Weiss said.

Fred Mettler, a member of the UN committee, agreed, noting that, in contrast to Fukushima, Chernobyl was surrounded by land.

During that disaster, hundreds of people were exposed to very high doses of radiation and 135 got acute radiation sickness, he added.

"We haven't seen any of that at Fukushima, so the early management by the Japanese here is very different from what happened at Chernobyl," Mettler said.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/fukushima-not-as-bad-as-chernobyl-expert-20110...

At last. We need some kind of balanced report with all the arm flapping and headless chook behaviour going on.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #448 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 5:47pm

The Nuclear Power and Nuclear weapons Apologists have been defending the criminal actions of TEPCO and trivialising this radiological incident right from the start.

Why has the threat level suddently risen to LEVEL 7 overnight when supposedly there hasnt been a change in the situation since the last explosion?

Each level represents a 10 fold increase in threat.

Overnight we moved from level 5 to a level 7 radiological incident and yet TEPCO and the Japanese authorities claim that there hasn't been any change in radiation release.

We even had the commical situation of a level 4 rating during and after the explosoins - LOL

France was rating it a level 6 after the first explosion and radiation release.

Now we have a level 7 - after a month of trying to get these reactors under control

ANd TEPCO proposes a liability CAP of 45 billion dollars for compensation cases over this incident - laughable. TEPCO shares rose by 14% after the announcement.

Lies lies and more lies

Wait for the pathology reports, massive cancer rate increases and mutated babies over the next several centuries.

I suppose the spin doctors will find something else to blame on these deaths and human suffering. Just like the Ukranians claimed in a recent medical conference that the increase in cancer rate in around the Chernobyl nuclear waste dump was due to vodka drinking.

Corporate deception in its finest moment - witness it and learn about the tyrannical fascist slave based system that we hide underneath

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #449 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:29pm

Japan nuclear crisis upgrade 'woefully late': Greenpeace
(AFP) 1 day ago

TOKYO — Environmental campaign group Greenpeace on Tuesday said Japan's upgrading of its Fukushima nuclear disaster to the top level of seven on an international scale was "woefully late".

Japan upped its nuclear emergency to a "major accident" and a maximum level on a UN global scale of atomic crises, the first time the highest ranking has been invoked since the Ukraine's 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

"Greenpeace has been calling for a level seven rating for three weeks," said Thomas Breuer, head of the Climate and Energy Unit at Greenpeace Germany.

"However, as we have seen with the evacuation zone around the nuclear plant, the government?s response is consistently lacking," he said, referring to news this week of planned evacuations beyond a 20 kilometre (12 mile) radius.

Greenpeace labelled the upgrade "woefully late" and again called on Japan to immediately step up protective measures for affected populations, including pregnant women and children living in towns beyond the 20 kilometre zone.

"The history of the nuclear industry is littered (with) cover-ups and underplaying of the consequences of nuclear accidents," said Breuer.

"The industry both inside and outside Japan have again been underplaying the human consequences of this terrible tragedy, and only now after a month has this disaster been accepted for what it is -- the worst on its scale."

Back to top

IP Logged