Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 06:43 PM Nov 2013

For those very concerned about Fukushima, or entirely not

There is an excellent interview up at The Real news Network about the removal of spent fuel rods starting at Fukushima.

Key points I took away from it:

- the removal of the spent fuel rods is necessary because they are in a (series of) pool several floors up in a highly damaged building in an earthquake-prone area.
- that removal is very risky, because the machines normally used for that are destroyed, and the operators don't have the normal experience since they have to be rotated all the time. The rods can ignite if they go uncooled, or break during transport.
- however, new machines have been built to do it now, and given remote operation I would guess that means at least those operators can stay on the job & be highly qualified

So it's a very risky operation, keep our fingers crossed.

We also learn that:
- radiation from Fukushima is being detected at the US west coast at levels higher than what can be explained by the initial accident - meaning it's coming from the continuing leak of some three hundred tonnes of radioactive water per day at the site.
- however, that radiation level is comparable to the dose that we (still!) get from nuclear tests, so it's not a cause for immediate & high alarm
- that being said, all radiation damage accumulates, and each dose increase increases cancer risks
- therefore, and given the large number of people affected, the US (and other) govts should monitor radiation very closely, especially in seafood, and report it more and publicly.

So those on DU pooh-pooing the risks have their head in the sand. But some of the reports posted here are overly alarmist, too.
Stay vigilant, push for transparency, and take no unncessary food risks, especially with (unborn or other) babies, I would say.

Hope this helps, it did for me.

Note: I went to check the organisation the consulted nuclear engineer is president of, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Reasearch. They seem to be a watchdog group, from their mission:

IEER’s aim is to provide people with literature which has a quality equal to that in scientific journals, but which doesn’t require you to go back to college to get a degree in science to understand it.

Our audience is that of the determined activist concerned about the world, the concerned policy-maker, and the knowledgeable journalist. We choose our subjects so that they are relevant to environmental protection and other aspects of human well-being.

We rely mainly on primary scientific literature and official documents, and our work has held up well to intense scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, as well as others who have reason to dislike our conclusions.


From their background:

In 2006 we launched the Healthy from the Start campaign to include women, children, and future generations in environmental health standards.
Since 2008 IEER has worked with state and local-level efforts to implement Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free through technical reports, testimonies and technical comments.
Finally IEER continues to work to prevent the development of proliferation-prone technologies such as reprocessing and breeder reactors.
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For those very concerned about Fukushima, or entirely not (Original Post) BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 OP
I am curious to know what this means: dixiegrrrrl Nov 2013 #1
Good questions BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #3
Thee and me are on the same page. dixiegrrrrl Nov 2013 #8
Yup! I am skeptical of that claim myself. longship Nov 2013 #5
Here is the relevant part of the transcript BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #9
Much obliged. longship Nov 2013 #10
I know that I'm savoring everytime this year that I have salmon, tavalon Nov 2013 #11
Sanity at last. longship Nov 2013 #2
Given that it's a clusterfuck of signifcant size with no easy outs BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #7
I can't believe anyone here would take this lightly. Whisp Nov 2013 #4
I have a friend in Tokyo - just had a 5.5 earthquake 10 min. ago Holly_Hobby Nov 2013 #6
Fear mongering - bad. Radiation = good. MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #12
What I get from the facts RobertEarl Nov 2013 #14
4, 3, 2, 1, que the FUCK ashima defenders here on DU.... Rebellious Republican Nov 2013 #13
Did not materialise, I'm happy to see BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #17
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #15
Tops of pools are 100 feet RobertEarl Nov 2013 #16

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
1. I am curious to know what this means:
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 06:51 PM
Nov 2013
radiation from Fukushima is being detected at the US west coast at levels higher than what can be explained by the initial accident -

Exactly where on the Weat Coast is this radiation being detected? The beaches? land crops? Rain water overland?
Any one state getting more/less than other 2 states?

Until we know that, is is difficult to give credence to:

meaning it's coming from the continuing leak of some three hundred tonnes of radioactive water per day at the site.

Hard sometimes to sift facts from dross about this global disaster........

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
3. Good questions
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:03 PM
Nov 2013

As to where is being detected what exactly, the expert didn't elaborate. Will see if I can find anything better, don't have it handy.

But with regards to the origin of increased levels: that I find logical. There was modeling done on the sea currents, based on the initial discharge. I think you probably saw the graphic of the contamination swirling across the ocean. If levels detected now are significantly higher than that model, they can (barring other accidents etc) be traced back to the EXTRA discharge of 300 tons per day which TEPCO admitted to after 2 years. Also, don't forget that the different radioactive isotopes are clearly identifiable and constitute a form of "signature" of contamination once you find it.

That would then also mean the higher levels he spoke of at the US west coast would also be measured in seawater, but that's my reasoning and not a fact.

But your questions are valid, one can always dig deeper. I just happen to trust TRNN very much, and checked the expert none the less. But that can be called an argument from authority, so keep asking questions

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
8. Thee and me are on the same page.
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:21 PM
Nov 2013

I find our gov. silence on the problem very concerning.
I understand why they are silent, in a way.
What is the point of instant panicking a nation when there is no effective option to the problems?

OTOH....how concerned do I need to be where my vegies in the market were grown?
No idea, cause of no info.

And really, what can the average person here do about all the possible radiation inputs? Never venture outdoors?
Never drink water? Food?

Having just clicked over another year on my lifeline, I can only be somewhat fatalistic.
Hate it for my offspring, tho..they live on the West Coast.

longship

(40,416 posts)
5. Yup! I am skeptical of that claim myself.
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:08 PM
Nov 2013

Measurements by Univ of Hawaii recently found no rad levels outside normal background levels.

The Pacific is 4,900 miles wide. That's a lot of water between Fukushima and the USA. What I've heard is that we'll see some radiation from Fukushima some time next year. How can one reconcile the diverse reports? Well, somebody is making shit up.

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
9. Here is the relevant part of the transcript
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:22 PM
Nov 2013
NOOR: And finally, there's been a lot of buzz on the internet about radioactive fish or radioactive matter hitting the west coast of Canada and the U.S. Is this blown out of proportion? Or is this something that people should be concerned about, if not now, then in the near future?

MAKHIJANI: Well, I think there's no call--you know, it's not a panic type of situation. So if there are people who are panicking and talking about evacuations and so on on the west coast, I think that that is out of proportion.

But at the same time, there is a real cause for concern because, as we know, there are hundred of tons of radioactive water that are flowing into the ocean every day. While fishing in, you know, Fukushima is bad, you know, some fish do cross the ocean that initially would get their food near the Fukushima site or off the east coast of Japan. And radioactivity of Fukushima origin has been detected at elevated levels. The levels are not much different than the fallout created by nuclear weapons testing. And remember, everybody especially in the Northern Hemisphere has been living in a radioactively contaminated environment due to nuclear weapons testing. And we ingest the same materials in our food that have been put into the water and air by Fukushima, namely, cesium-137, strontium-90, and others, actually, that were would put into the environment by testing that are not in large amounts due to Fukushima, like plutonium and so on [incompr.]

I think that, yeah, it's important to remember that every little bit of radiation creates an increment of cancer risk. A small dose will create a small increment. A large dose will create a larger increment. Now, if there are small doses in large populations, then you could get significant numbers of cancers, even if you the individual risk is low.

I think the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should be monitoring the food, fish especially, much more intensively and making those weapons results public, both because there is some physical concern, and there is some stress among the population from not knowing. Remember, when you wait for the bus, the worst part is not knowing when it's going to come. So in a situation like this, which is more serious than waiting for the bus, the worst part is not snowing when you're eating fish what kind of risk you are taking. I would be careful, especially if I were a pregnant women, about the provenance of my fish. You know.

But the ocean is a vast dilution, and I think the measurements that have been made, for instance, by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution indicate two things: that the levels of radioactivity are larger than what can be explained by the initial accident, which means the accident is continuing to aggravate the environmental problem, and secondly, that the levels are not at alarming levels where panic is indicated--though panic is never indicated, it's never a good thing--but where serious levels of alarm are indicated about health in terms of very large numbers of cancers. That's not how I read the numbers.


Can you maybe look for a source on the Hawai Univ, I'll do Woods?

On edit: been perusing the Woods Hole site, and the related CMER one. Best thing I found was an article from them explaining how they though the measurements they were getting off Japan were higher than what was to be expected, and they therefore thought their must have been extra leakage. That was before the admission by TEPCO of the leaking.

Another open question is why radiation levels in the waters around Fukushima have not decreased since the Japanese stopped emergency cooling operations. According to Buesseler, it may be an indication that the ground surrounding the reactors has become saturated with contaminated water that is slowly seeping out in to the ocean. It may also be a sign that radionuclides in ocean sediments have become remobilized.
from here, dated 25th of oct 2012.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
11. I know that I'm savoring everytime this year that I have salmon,
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 09:20 PM
Nov 2013

because the runs next year will be from fry who grew up in the Fukishima waters. So, I guess by this time next year, I'll be a plain vegetarian instead of a pesco vegetarian.

longship

(40,416 posts)
2. Sanity at last.
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:01 PM
Nov 2013

Yup! Fukushima is a clusterfuck. But there's a lot of scare mongering going down.

Some questions which I've asked here multiple times recently are relevant here.

Isn't Fukushima bad enough?
Why would anybody want to make it sound worse than it actually is?
Wouldn't knowing the actual facts be better than speculation or making shit up?

Transparency is the only solution. And thanks to TEPCO and the Japanese government's previous secrecy and outright equivocations, who's going to believe them? Independent oversight and reportage is the solution.

BelgianMadCow

(5,379 posts)
7. Given that it's a clusterfuck of signifcant size with no easy outs
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:16 PM
Nov 2013

maybe a low level of coverage in some media leads people that are aware of the reality (on edit: and risks) to "overdo" it to draw attention?

Of course, there's also the people that like to predict gloom because they also happen to sell iodine tablets and survival kits.

I don't personally think we can be "too" concerned about nuclear energy overall, but I confess I'm reading Chomsky on the matter.
And for people that are (logically) concerned, speculating is only normal behaviour in the absence of transparency, which is the case, as you pointed out.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
4. I can't believe anyone here would take this lightly.
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:04 PM
Nov 2013

but there have been a few unpleasant surprises lately.

Holly_Hobby

(3,033 posts)
6. I have a friend in Tokyo - just had a 5.5 earthquake 10 min. ago
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 07:10 PM
Nov 2013

He said it lasted a long time and it woke him up.

 

MyNameGoesHere

(7,638 posts)
12. Fear mongering - bad. Radiation = good.
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 09:25 PM
Nov 2013

I love the facts and all that stuff. The facts seem to be saying, hey don't worry be happy. Radiation is your friend. However.
Having lived 50 some years, I have something facts don't have. Experience. Sooner or later, the real truth will come out. Then we will either get a "see we told you everything would be fine" Or "oops, sorry you're going to glow now." .

So I suppose it is a waiting game.
Or we could just relax and trust this poster. I mean I feel better seeing it.



 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
14. What I get from the facts
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 09:50 PM
Nov 2013

Be worried. Become prepared. Live a life as free as you can from radiation. Find chemicals that will thwart radiation's effects. If you are old and going to die soon, then whatever. But if you are young and have family, begin deciding what you can do to protect yourself and your kin.

We know too much radiation hurts. That is why medical professionals who work with radiation put up their shields. They know they have to limit dosage, now we all do.

 

Rebellious Republican

(5,029 posts)
13. 4, 3, 2, 1, que the FUCK ashima defenders here on DU....
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 09:42 PM
Nov 2013

I am sure they will tell you all seafood is good, have you not heard of diffusion? Damn, I love seafood and more importantly, SUSHI. Guess I will dye happy, I will be cremated so it does not bother me that my body will be irradiated beyond be belief.

Jigou Jitoku

I no naka no kawazu taikai wo shirazu

Shiranu ga hotoke

There may be one or two around here that can translate these sentiments.

Response to BelgianMadCow (Original post)

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
16. Tops of pools are 100 feet
Sat Nov 9, 2013, 11:42 PM
Nov 2013

Bottoms are about 50 feet. An earthquake could topple the pool and cast the rods into an overheated impossible to cool mass of 100 plus tons of uranium and plutonium. The whole site for miles and miles would become no-mans-land.

If they are successful, they can pull out enough rods to maybe save the world from an uncontrollable mess. Which it is close to anyway. Which comes first? Enough rods out, or an earthquake that seals the deal?

Let us hope they beat the quake/collapse.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For those very concerned ...