In Unprecedented Move, Spent Fuel Rods To Be Removed from Fukushima Reactors - Extended

[BelgianMadCow]

Interview about the removal of spent fuel rods starting at Fukushima on TRNN.

A very good discussion, and very useful to the people that are concerned on DU.

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.

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.

[longship]

1. There are safe levels of exposure.

We know this a priori since all life on Earth is exposed to radiation pretty much continually and has been since time immemorial. Life developed on Earth under those same conditions. Likely worse.

Radiation, like many things in health, has a dose response. The official environmental limits are deliberately set much too low. As an undergraduate in physics I learned that my limit was higher than the public's simply because I was majoring in physics. When I worked at a national DOE lab, my limits were higher still.

There might be little rhyme or reason to this, but I have little concern about Fukushima Daiichi having any substantive negative health effects in the Western Hemisphere. Still, we need to keep making measurements and reporting them openly. Sea food has to be monitored, as well.

The way to counter the fears is openness and responsible reportage.

[drynberg]

3. Couple Points

There are NO SAFE levels of radiation.

When four hundred tons of highly radioactive water is added to the Pacific, it is not prudent to say it is safe because it is "diluted"...first, the currents of the sea make some areas much more radioactive than others. Second, fish and other organisms that migrate across the Pacific may well be feeding in very highly radioactive areas...these fish, if they are still alive may get caught and sold without any testing...Thirdly, the concept of "dilution" does not occur with radioactive matter being added to a sea or atmosphere. Instead, whatever the released radioactive material would cause in death/injury will happen, no matter if the "bowl" is smaller or very large, like the Pacific. So, if the 400 tons of highly radioactive water will kill say 20 humans per day, this will happen if it is released in a large sea, like the Pacific. Frankly, I wish these facts weren't true, but wishing doesn't change one thing. This is a perilous situation and acting like it is not doesn't serve anyone well, really.

[longship]

4. How many tons of water are in the Pacific Ocean?

Dilution doesn't happen with radioactive material????? There are many people making shit up.

What is it? Homeopathy?

I learned this stuff in high school chemistry.

Maybe you ought to Google "dose response"

It's what I learned in my undergrad nuclear physics lab, and what was amplified when I worked at a DOE national laboratory where there was so much fissionable stuff around that they had weekly "criticality alarm" tests. Of course, part of working there meant that one had to understand how radioactive stuff actually works. I assure you that it wasn't some of the made up stuff on the Internet.

BTW. I am anti-nuclear power. I just think that one should actually know about it. There are too many people making shit up. People are already scared about this. It is a huge catastrophe. Why would anybody want to make it seem worse than it already is by making stuff up?

Unfortunately the media is publishing a lot of crapola. The science in the reportage sucks.

I am not pro nuclear. I am pro science.

[wtmusic]

5. +1

Why are you anti-nuclear power?

You're the first anti-nuke I have ever encountered who actually knows WTF they're talking about.

[longship]

7. A degree in physics helps.

No. I did not get beyond a BS degree. But I did work at a national laboratory, and yes, they had a fucking lot of radioactive stuff there, including lots of Pu. This was decades ago, but nobody worked there without attending the educational seminars explaining what to do if a criticality alarm went off. To make it simple, you were to drop everything, move outside and run as fast as you can upwind. As the lab site was rather large, that's the only way they could insure that the maximum number of people would get to safety.

When it comes to radiation, distance is your best friend. A matter of a few feet more can make a big difference for lower levels. It works exactly the same for higher levels, only then the distances are larger.

Again, the biological effects are what any doctor would know. Dose response! And with radioactivity the dose is inversely proportion to distance. The further you are from the source, the lower the dose. And that drops off quite quickly with distance.

(A simple amplification for lurkers.)

Thanks for your response, wtmusic.

I am anti nuclear power because I understand it. I know what it can do, for both good and bad. Note that I am not against nuclear science, or the use of reactors to provide some benefits. RTGs come to mind. But I am very much against nuclear for civilian power generation.

[wtmusic]

8. You would discount the potential of 4th-gen designs

like LFTR to address global warming?

http://www.thorium-now.org

1) Core can't melt down (already melted)
2) Proliferation-resistant (U233 gamma makes salt too hot to handle)
3) Passive safety
4) Burns current stock of spent nuclear fuel
5) Creates 1/100 as much waste; radioactive for 100s of years instead of 1000s

[longship]

9. Open minded to new technologies.

Although, for instance, it looks like thorium is dead, for now. The basic physics is not very far along, let alone any engineering.

I am open to all solutions, but the current nuclear fission reactors have problems which I consider to be unacceptable, least of all is their inherent instability and above all, what the fuck do you do with the fucking waste products?

But, yeah. As I said, I am not against nuclear research. People need to evaluate each solution on its own merits and liabilities.

[Sirveri]

6. If there is no safe level, then how did life evolve on earth?

We receive 300 mRem per year (from natural sources like the sun and soil). So apparently there IS a safe dose.

[wtmusic]

2. Whoever promotes "Carbon-Free, Nuclear Free" is smoking crack.

Not only that, but they're completely ignorant of:

1) The amount of energy consumed by the world every day.
2) The current contribution of solar and wind to that total.
3) The extent of the conundrum presented by the intermittency and variability of both solar and wind.

The effect of this nonsense is "Nuclear Free, Carbon Off the Charts" - and all it takes is a real-world example for proof.