# Fukishima disaster getting worse.



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nuclear energy is safe....they said. 

Yea right.......idiots.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5315777703001/?#sp=show-clips


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Here are images of the spill into the pacific ocean.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=fuku...-8kILSAhVKi1QKHcpcCTMQsAQIGw&biw=1558&bih=986

The con job is that nuclear is clean and all that crap. Problem is once it leaks out it is the biggest environmental disaster you can get. Europe is the worst at pushing this con job.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The radioactivity readings are so high they are described as "unimaginable".

Great..........and they still have no idea how to stop it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Nuclear energy is safe....they said.
> 
> Yea right.......idiots.
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/5315777703001/?#sp=show-clips


You are misinterpreting the information. The higher radiation levels were measured closer to the damaged fuel rods. General radiation levels are falling.

Nuclear is clean and all that crap. It kills fewer people than just about any other source of energy. Not to be too strong in defense of Fukushima Daiichi, which was old technology with astonishingly incompetent safety measures.

To illustrate this point, no one (read: zero) has died as a result of the radiation leakage from Fukushima.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

new dog said:


> Here are images of the spill into the pacific ocean.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=fuku...-8kILSAhVKi1QKHcpcCTMQsAQIGw&biw=1558&bih=986
> 
> The con job is that nuclear is clean and all that crap. Problem is once it leaks out it is the biggest environmental disaster you can get. Europe is the worst at pushing this con job.


Pretty pictures, but so what? With radiation, dose matters. I don't know if you live in fear of bananas--they are also radioactive!


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

We have been told the half life and all that stuff and how it takes forever to go away so I am not convinced it is safe at all. I sure wouldn't want a nuclear plant in BC.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I think this would be a good link and it does sound better.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> To illustrate this point, *no one *(read: zero) *has died as a result of the radiation leakage from Fukushima*.


..yet. 

However, it may trigger more resurgence of Japanese Godzilla movies. :cower:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX-C_dOkMRI


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Pretty pictures, but so what? With radiation, dose matters. I don't know if you live in fear of bananas--*they are also radioactive*!


OMG..I guess we will all die from eating bannas.....NOT!.
Lots of tropical fruiit is irradiated to kill any bugs, spiders, and other nasty things that can be found hiding in bunches of bannas. I don't believe its a long lasting radioactivity.



> What is food irradiation?
> 
> Food irradiation is the treatment of food with a t*ype of radiation energy known as ionizing radiation*. Three different types of radiation are allowed: Gamma rays, X-rays and electron beam radiation.
> 
> ...


But then can we always trust the gov't Health Canada?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You can look at Chernobyl to see long-term effects. Very few have died after the initial accident, and most of that was easily preventable but for Soviet incompetence.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> ..*yet. *
> 
> However, it may trigger more resurgence of Japanese Godzilla movies. :cower:


...+1 ... while Godzilla movies may be funny, however, slow painful deaths from radiation exposure ain't. I wonder what does this do for longevity stats that are being alluded to these days?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> You can look at Chernobyl to see long-term effects. Very few have died after the initial accident, and most of that was easily preventable but for Soviet incompetence.


The Chernobyl nuclear disaster is far worse by a order of magnitude than the leaking reactor(s) at Fukishima.
The intial explosion caused a radiation contaminated cloud to drift over some parts of Ukraine and other close by neigbours. Soviet incompetence and the attempted coverup resulted in a much worse disaster than when it first happened.

Much of the land around the town and reactors will never be suitable for inhabiting for perhaps hundreds of years.
The soild is contaminated and sets up geiger counters. Many of the initial firefighters died of radiation poisioning, and later on many more. 
Lots of children and animals born since then with defects.but that is all covered up now.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A press statement from Tepco.

_We estimated radiation levels at certain points inside the Unit 2 Primary Containment Vessel (one of it was as high as *530 Sv/h*), based on the digital images obtained from the previous investigations (held on January 26 and 30) with a guiding pipe and camera. The level of radiation discovered was higher than expected (the previous highest measurement was* 73 Sv/h)*, but we need further investigations to find out why the radiation got this high at this specific location.

There has been no change to radiation levels outside the PCV. Extra precautions have been taken to prevent leaks of radiation during the investigation. The penetration pipe through the PCV wall is tightly shielded, and the work area is pressurized so that air only moves from the outside into the PCV and not the reverse. We routinely disclose on our website sampling results of radiation inside the reactor buildings and of the surrounding areas._

It sounds pretty bad to me, considering they have no idea what is going on or how to deal with it.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

new dog said:


> We have been told the half life and all that stuff and how it takes forever to go away so I am not convinced it is safe at all. I sure wouldn't want a nuclear plant in BC.


Earth was created radioactive. The sea is radioactive. Human muscles contain radioactive isotopes. 

There are places in BC which have radioactivity levels quite a bit higher than anything that can be measured in any town in the Fukushima Prefecture. The town of Summerland comes to mind. There will be population groups in BC which get the highest radiation doses anywhere in Canada.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_The sea is radioactive_

In a few years it will glow in the dark.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^
the human body is radioactive. You got more radiation from sleeping with your spouse than from anyother source. 

There is an alternative cooling method for nuke plants devised over 30 years ago that does not require water cooling nor back up power to pump coolant. You will see plants of the future adopt this alternate cooling method, and they won't have the risks associated with the Fukushima plant. Such plants will not have to be built near a source of water. Also ther eis the possibilty that such nerwer technology can be cheaper than coal. 

Besides, sags, what's the alternative? Co2 emissions from fossel fuels, then apocalyptic global warming? Why would you choose destruction of the world via global warming, over the occasional nuke leakage?


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

new dog said:


> Here are images of the spill into the pacific ocean.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=fuku...-8kILSAhVKi1QKHcpcCTMQsAQIGw&biw=1558&bih=986
> 
> The con job is that nuclear is clean and all that crap. Problem is once it leaks out it is the biggest environmental disaster you can get. Europe is the worst at pushing this con job.


Looks like Fake News.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ...+1 ... while Godzilla movies may be funny, however, slow painful deaths from radiation exposure ain't. I wonder what does this do for longevity stats that are being alluded to these days?


Who knows, low level radiation may be good for you.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/04/06/small-radiation/#.WJymoW8rKUk


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Perhaps but then there already the claim that sunlight UVB (radiation) is good for you too http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/29/sun-exposure-vitamin-d-production-benefits.aspx. But in this thread, we're talking about massive amounts of radioactive materials that's still spilling from a damaged nuclear reactor into the ocean and air, never mind about land. Canada (as with any nuclear producting country) can learn a thing or two from the unseen damages coming from this disaster.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

There are also claims that radiation from nuclear reactors is good for you (not that its true). And Ultra Violet is not at all comparable to ionizing radiation. 



> massive amounts of radioactive materials that's still spilling from a damaged nuclear reactor into the ocean and air, never mind about land.


"Massive amounts" compared to what? How does it compare to radioactive material which is in the oceans and land naturally? How does it compare to radioactive material which is spilled into the oceans every time we extract oil and gas or produce fertilizers? How does it compare to radioactive material you release into the air every time you use your gas cooker?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Solution to Chernobyl..........cover it and pretend it isn't a problem anymore.

Solution to Fukushima.........hope it doesn't get worse.

Neither is much of a plan........but don't worry the nuclear plants today are "safe".

Heck, we can't even build balconies that stay on apartment condos..........


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These leaking reactors are a "gift" from our generation to hundreds/thousands of future generations.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

mordko said:


> There are also claims that radiation from nuclear reactors is good for you (not that its true). And Ultra Violet is not at all comparable to ionizing radiation.
> 
> 
> *"Massive amounts" compared to what? How does it compare to radioactive material which is in the oceans and land naturally?* How does it compare to radioactive material which is spilled into the oceans every time we extract oil and gas or produce fertilizers? How does it compare to radioactive material you release into the air every time you use your gas cooker?


 .. it doesn't compare then based on what you know as to how much occurring naturally in the oceans and land, and subsequent statements. And so we learn nothing from this disaster ... okay let future generations deal with it.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Eh... What? 

My point was that the word "massive" is meaningless unless you say "compared to XYZ". An ant is massive compared to a microbe. You have to put it into some kind of context. All the numbers I have seen show that concentrations in marine waters off the coast of Fukushima are pretty much indistinguishable from radionuclide concentrations anywhere else. 

Put it this way... They are measuring contaminant concentrations in a discharge pipe and are mostly getting ND (non detect): https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/17/02/mfa-information-170201.pdf They are detecting gross beta but at extremely low levels, less than what you would see in the Great Lakes. And they are measuring 1.6 Bq/l of Tritium. That would be an order of magnitude less than if you were to take a sample in the Great Lakes in Canada.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

sags said:


> These leaking reactors are a "gift" from our generation to hundreds/thousands of future generations.


I wouldn't worry too much. Extrapolating from the current state of affairs does not take into account human ingenuity. Besides, if the long term trend continues future generations will inherit a very peaceful society.
http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature

And if not, then they will have abundance of animals to trap and hunt.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...byl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

No hunger, no zombies, living close to nature. Win,win.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

*Radiation dose chart*









To add some numbers to the discussion. Got it from somewhere, hope it is relatively accurate.

On the other hand  

An uneducated father with his educated son went on a camping trip. They set-up their tent and fell asleep.
Some hours later, the father woke up his son.
Father- Look up to the sky and tell me what you see.
Son- I see millions of stars.
Father- And what does that tell you?
Son- Astronomically, it tells that there are millions of galaxies and planets.
Father slaps the son hard and says- "Idiot, someone has stolen our tent"

MORAL:
Too much education can spoil our common sense.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> The Chernobyl nuclear disaster is far worse by a order of magnitude than the leaking reactor(s) at Fukishima.
> The intial explosion caused a radiation contaminated cloud to drift over some parts of Ukraine and other close by neigbours. Soviet incompetence and the attempted coverup resulted in a much worse disaster than when it first happened.
> 
> Much of the land around the town and reactors will never be suitable for inhabiting for perhaps hundreds of years.
> ...


No evidence for large number of deaths. We're talking less than the number of people who die in car crashes every day in the US, including the first responders.

The issue with birth deformities was very preventable, had the government taken appropriate public safety measures to protect vulnerable members of the population, especially pregnant women.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the story here is TEPCO just discovered it is much worse than they thought and that they have no solution.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

But what is "it"? Radiation levels within the containment structure? And so what? Nothing that has been reported suggests this is a cause for additional concern for the general public.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

mordko said:


> Earth was created radioactive. The sea is radioactive. Human muscles contain radioactive isotopes.
> 
> There are places in BC which have radioactivity levels quite a bit higher than anything that can be measured in any town in the Fukushima Prefecture. The town of Summerland comes to mind. There will be population groups in BC which get the highest radiation doses anywhere in Canada.


I didn't know about this. Good place to visit though if you haven't been there.

I do recall places in the eastern US where radiation is high naturally and even dangerous to the people living there.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There are even natural nuclear fission reactors that have occurred in the earth's crust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

carverman said:


> The Chernobyl nuclear disaster is far worse by a order of magnitude than the leaking reactor(s) at Fukishima.
> The intial explosion caused a radiation contaminated cloud to drift over some parts of Ukraine and other close by neigbours. Soviet incompetence and the attempted coverup resulted in a much worse disaster than when it first happened.
> 
> Much of the land around the town and reactors will never be suitable for inhabiting for perhaps hundreds of years.
> ...


People live in Chernobal now. After the disaster, many people moved back where they still live today.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ that's a couple of hundred people; all in their 60s and 70s. They live by subsistence farming, hunting, picking mushrooms and berries. The numbers are dwindling as no new people are moving in. Their food intakes get monitored.

Large chunks of the "Exclusion Zone" are perfectly suitable for habitation right now. There are also areas which are not.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Did this guy have bad luck and good luck ?

_Tsutomu Yamaguchi (March 16, 1916 – January 4, 2010) was a survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings during World War II. Although at least 160 people are known to have been affected by both bombings, he is the only person to have been officially recognized by the government of Japan as surviving both explosions.

Yamaguchi, a resident of Nagasaki, was in Hiroshima on business for his employer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries when the city was bombed at 8:15 am, on August 6, 1945. He returned to Nagasaki the following day, and despite his wounds, he returned to work on August 9, the day of the second atomic bombing. That morning he was telling his supervisor how one bomb had destroyed the city, to which his supervisor told him that he was crazy, and at that moment the Nagasaki bomb detonated. 

In 1957, he was recognized as a hibakusha (explosion-affected person) of the Nagasaki bombing, but it was not until March 24, 2009, that the government of Japan officially recognized his presence in Hiroshima three days earlier. He died of stomach cancer on January 4, 2010, at the age of 93._


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

There is a difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear generators. The Green Movement in Europe grew out of the anti-war,
"ban the bomb" movement. The anti-bomb sentiment was transferred to the anti-nuclear power plant movement. 

Ironically, those who would save the planet have done great harm to the environment by campaigning against nuclear power generation.
If countries had followed the example of France and turned to nuclear power, there would be a lot less carbon dioxide in the air today. 

Closely associated with the Green Movement is anti-capitalism , anti-imperialism and the turning away from science.


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

I'm still thinking insane 50+ nuclear reactors were built on top of the fault zone or near by the active volcano.
The events are non-predictable. 
Whoever built it there was carelessly underestimating the risks of the impacts on us / future generation. 

I found interested articles from this site.

-----

- A Few Excellent Reasons To Oppose Nuclear Power Plants :
Saturday, September 3, 2016
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.ca/2016/09/a-few-excellent-reasons-to-oppose.html

I pulled together almost everything I know about nuclear plants and commercial power generation and began writing my 30 articles for The Truth About Nuclear Power on my blog. That series now has more than 22,000 views and has received very positive comments. see links just above.
^ sentences are from the site (sowellslawblog.blogspot.ca )

about Mr. Sowell 
is a California attorney in Marina del Rey, and holds a B.S. in chemical engineering from The University of Texas at Austin. He advises and represents companies and individuals in civil matters related to climate change, process safety, environmental regulations, engineering malpractice and other matters. As an attorney who understands engineers, he also works with other attorneys in dealing with expert witnesses and lay witnesses. Before opening his law office, he worked for 20 years in more than 75 refineries and petrochemical plants in a dozen countries on four continents.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

To me the arguments in favor of building more nuclear plants are like........

We have had a few accidents and haven't killed ourselves yet..........so let's keeping building them.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

We built lots of cars, we killed lots of people, let's stop.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> To me the arguments in favor of building more nuclear plants are like........
> 
> We have had a few accidents and haven't killed ourselves yet..........so let's keeping building them.


Also, they provide cheap reliable power and kill less people than hydrocarbons.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

s1231 said:


> I'm still thinking insane 50+ nuclear reactors were built on top of the fault zone or near by the active volcano.
> The events are non-predictable.
> Whoever built it there was carelessly underestimating the risks of the impacts on us / future generation.
> 
> ...





hey S1231, are you really a california attorney originally from texas, with a longtime practice specializing in energy issues?

welcome to cmf forum. You do realize we are 99.9% canadian & nearly all of us are canada-based, right. Although there are a lot of canadians in california.

perhaps you could let us know how you found this forum? in the meantime i've bookmarked your blogspot & will follow your articles with interest. Although it occurs to me - sceptical scribe that i am - that you might be a spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry .each:

.


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

humble_pie said:


> hey S1231, are you really a california attorney originally from texas, with a longtime practice specializing in energy issues?
> 
> welcome to cmf forum. You do realize we are 99.9% canadian & nearly all of us are canada-based, right. Although there are a lot of canadians in california.
> 
> ...


I'm a just a reader of sowellslawblog.blogspot.ca. (I don't have any connection with this site.)
I can't fix in your quote but I've edited on #36. Sorry for made you some confusion.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

s1231 said:


> - A Few Excellent Reasons To Oppose Nuclear Power Plants :
> Saturday, September 3, 2016
> http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.ca/20...to-oppose.html


 ... wow, a lawyer and a chemical engineer. Very very informative ... thanks for sharing.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Parkuser said:


> View attachment 13890
> 
> 
> To add some numbers to the discussion. Got it from somewhere, hope it is relatively accurate.
> ...


 ... LOL but true too.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Passionate Eye ran a documentary on Fukushima on Sunday night.

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/episodes/fukushima-a-nuclear-story

It was very informative and most troubling. The problems are far from over and the outcome is uncertain. They still don't know how bad it is.

One of the revelations from Tepco raises questions about the ability of nuclear engineers and the concept of "safe nuclear plants".

The only thing that prevented a full scale "China Syndrome" event at the plant was a "failed valve".

A valve that was engineered to keep the doors closed in an accompanying water tank failed, and the door was left slightly open.

It was through the opening that water entered the spent rod pool and kept them from burning through the concrete floor.

Ironically, it was an engineering failure that saved the world from a catastrophe.

Executives from Tepco are scheduled to stand trial in Japan this month. 

The manager of the facility has since passed away, but it was his disobedience to his superiors that saved a worse scenario initially. 

Tepco senior management didn't approve of the manager's plan to inject seawater into the plant to cool the spent fuel rods. 

The manager disobeyed the orders and did it anyways.


----------

