|
Post by sod on Jul 25, 2013 5:26:22 GMT 9.5
Quite a lot of bad news. Tepco had to confirm, that the plant is still leaking nuclear water. There is steam rising from a building. and over 1800 workers were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23429421Basically everything that we were told so far, was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 25, 2013 9:10:36 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jul 25, 2013 14:53:28 GMT 9.5
I'd like to know then seeing as what TEPCO has been saying is wrong, that the steam that is intermittently venting from the Concrete plug seal at around 40C and with a rad reading of 0.5 Sv/h is incorrect?
sod can you qualify with direct quotations from TEPCO, not some journalist interpretation or opinion thereof, where the contradictions are. Seeing as you seemed versed in them.
I thought they were rather open with the Unit 3 steam leak. It happened, they investigated, took thermal imaging, and radiation readings. All published online on their website.
If they were covering something up I'd thought they wouldn't have put up the diagram that showed Unit 3 had a radiation reading of 2 Sv/h above the plug.
Maybe they are now truly apologetic and trying hard to solve and fix the situation.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 25, 2013 15:49:56 GMT 9.5
Probably 100 mSv dose is not dangerous; Whether you or anybody else believes that 100mSv is not dangerous does not matter. The facts are easy: we were told a false number. there were rules for a dose of 100 mSv, which were not followed. And up till today, we do not know, how many of those who got such a dose did the screening. ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201307190080These events do also expose the false claim about the limited health effects of the nuclear accident: We do not know, how many people got what dose. we do not know, whether they are screened or not. we do not know, how much radioactivity is still leaking into the ocean or into the air. But people claim, that they can tell us the health effect. ---------------------------- PS: the clean up will cost much more than planned: rt.com/news/fukushima-decontamination-tepco-cost-535/$58 billion. 6 times, what was being told... (looks like a scheme to me...)
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 25, 2013 16:15:16 GMT 9.5
sod can you qualify with direct quotations from TEPCO, not some journalist interpretation or opinion thereof, where the contradictions are. Seeing as you seemed versed in them. I do not speak Japanese, so basically all information i have, has been filtered by a journalist. But the contradiction is easy to show on the leaking water: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/fukushima-radioactive-water-leaks-into-sea_n_3634352.html"TEPCO had persistently denied contaminated water reached the sea, despite spikes in radiation levels in underground and sea water samples taken at the plant. The utility first acknowledged an abnormal increase in radioactive cesium levels in an observation well near the coast in May and has since monitored water sample"They are not. This is demonstrated by the sheer number of false claims.
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jul 25, 2013 16:48:08 GMT 9.5
sod can you qualify with direct quotations from TEPCO, not some journalist interpretation or opinion thereof, where the contradictions are. Seeing as you seemed versed in them. I do not speak Japanese, so basically all information i have, has been filtered by a journalist. But the contradiction is easy to show on the leaking water: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/fukushima-radioactive-water-leaks-into-sea_n_3634352.html"TEPCO had persistently denied contaminated water reached the sea, despite spikes in radiation levels in underground and sea water samples taken at the plant. The utility first acknowledged an abnormal increase in radioactive cesium levels in an observation well near the coast in May and has since monitored water sample"It's unsubstantiated and TEPCO do release both English and Japanese press releases on the same releases. They are not. This is demonstrated by the sheer number of false claims. List them or that is unsubstantiated too.
|
|
|
Post by joffan on Jul 29, 2013 21:40:18 GMT 9.5
This is all pretty much non-events being presented as dramatic new revelations by the media - which thrives on drama. The obvious example of this, in the BBC clip in the opening post, is discussing "steam", really water vapour, where the images of the plant use footage from 2011, except for the rather dull reality of faint wisps which is shown almost incidentally at 1:13. The vapour from the top of unit 3 has been investigated thoroughly with no indication of any raised radioactivity. www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/airupper03_130726-e.pdfThe "additional" at-risk personnel identified are not due to extra unknown exposure but due to a change in the conservatism of the rules for calculating affected people, under health ministry direction.
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jul 30, 2013 1:10:21 GMT 9.5
The facts are easy: we were told a false number. there were rules for a dose of 100 mSv, which were not followed. And up till today, we do not know, how many of those who got such a dose did the screening. The article is about dose to thyroid, not whole body dose. You are comparing apples and oranges. No they don't.
|
|
|
Post by zinfan94 on Jul 30, 2013 1:30:54 GMT 9.5
NY Times quoted several experts working with TEPCO that were highly critical of TEPCO's delay in reporting significant radioactive leaks: Despite Mr. Klein’s criticism, he said Tepco was working hard to clean up the plant. He also said he did not believe it had deliberately covered up problems with the groundwater, though reporters have been regularly asking the utility for more information. “From what we’ve seen, it’s more of what I’d call incompetence rather than a cover-up,” Mr. Klein said at a news conference in Tokyo after meetings with Tepco executives. He is a former chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Lady Barbara Judge, the former chairwoman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority who also sits on Tepco’s committee, was more blunt. “I have personally been discussing with people in Japan and outside the fact that Tepco is on a journey of being reborn as a nuclear operator,” she said. “And to find that the communication with respect to the water problem had been so difficult and so late was devastating.” For weeks, Tepco officials had emphasized that groundwater containing high concentrations of radioactive tritium, strontium and cesium discovered in observation wells at the plant last month did not pose a threat to the nearby Pacific. The utility held its ground even after Japan’s nuclear safety chief said last week that the plant had most likely been leaking contaminated water, probably since the disaster more than two years ago. On Monday, Tepco finally disclosed that there was a leak. It also released evidence showing that the water in the wells along the shoreline was rising and falling with the tide, indicating that there was no barrier between the wells and the ocean. The company said that different sections had been in charge of varying aspects of the data and that officials had not made the connection earlier. www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/world/asia/operator-of-fukushima-plant-criticized-for-delaying-disclosures-on-leaks.html?src=recg
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 7, 2013 17:37:27 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 7, 2013 23:44:18 GMT 9.5
The media are having a field day with this.
Rather than admitting that the media have done great harm with their hyperbole, and have undercovered the actual disaster which was more than 10000 dead from drowning in the tsunami or being crushed by the earthquake, the media are now once again involved in a new hyperbole. This time we're all going to die because water leaks into the ocean. Wow.
They don't mention the fact that even if all the water would be dumped into the ocean, the ecological impact would be less than the fishing ship fleet of a small village. But we don't hear about fishing ships as being looming disasters.
Needless to say I've lost all faith in the major media. They have proven time and again to be incapable of balanced view and reporting.
There was a time when being a journalist was an esteemed profession. Today any moron who can type on a keyboard can be a journalist. Very sad.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 21, 2013 15:43:46 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 21, 2013 15:56:48 GMT 9.5
The media are having a field day with this. Rather than admitting that the media have done great harm with their hyperbole, and have undercovered the actual disaster which was more than 10000 dead from drowning in the tsunami or being crushed by the earthquake, the media are now once again involved in a new hyperbole. This time we're all going to die because water leaks into the ocean. Wow. They don't mention the fact that even if all the water would be dumped into the ocean, the ecological impact would be less than the fishing ship fleet of a small village. But we don't hear about fishing ships as being looming disasters. Needless to say I've lost all faith in the major media. They have proven time and again to be incapable of balanced view and reporting. There was a time when being a journalist was an esteemed profession. Today any moron who can type on a keyboard can be a journalist. Very sad. I share your critical view of journalism, though i believe in a completely different error by them. Basically journalists lost interest in the Fukushima accident, the very moment the dust from the explosions settled. They failed to critically accompany the "safety meassures" taken and they did not uncover the lies by TEPCO. So up until today we still have only the information about the biggest accidents since then, as TEPCO simply only admits what it can t deny or cover up. Your claims about the ocean is simply false. Several of the radioactive elements do bioaccumulate and the effect of the leak into the oceans is simply not known. It is also the other way round: the fishers have been severely damaged by the accident. you are also forgetting the most simple fact: It is forbiddeen to deposit nuclear waste in the oceans.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 21, 2013 20:12:47 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 23, 2013 4:43:53 GMT 9.5
This INES incident killed 0 people and injured 0 people and killed 0 fish. Funny you say my claims are false as you haven't the slightest evidence to the contrary. Many things bio-accumulate. This does not make them dangerous. It depends on the dose rate. The dose rates are trivial. The media are spreading FUD about microsieverts of dose to fish and no dose to humans. It is silly. A single fishing trawler causes more damage to marine life than the entire Fukushima accident radionuclide releases combined. The effect of trivial doses to fish is well known. It is so low as to be not measurable.
I challenged you, Sod, for once to come up with a damage assessment. You've come up with nothing but FUD. You utterly failed my test once again. Just a few media releases who don't do research, except if you perhaps think that recycling other media outlet garbage without doing critical research of the severity of claims is "research".
|
|
|
Post by model500 on Aug 24, 2013 17:26:30 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Aug 25, 2013 9:24:18 GMT 9.5
RT is not a credible source on many subjects. And who is "fallout researcher" Christina Consolo? And what qualifications does she have? The claims about damage to fuel and fuel assemblies in SFP4 appear to be false. This video shows them to be essentially undamaged with just some debris sitting on top SFP4 videoOnce the fuel is out of the water, there is no moderator and no chance of criticality. The whole thing sounds like just more fear mongering.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 25, 2013 13:22:40 GMT 9.5
model500 --- As the comment Michael Mann 25.08.2013 03:19 on the RT site points out, this is sheer, uninformed bunkum.
|
|
|
Post by model500 on Aug 25, 2013 20:55:01 GMT 9.5
model500 --- As the comment Michael Mann 25.08.2013 03:19 on the RT site points out, this is sheer, uninformed bunkum. Sadly his comment was of little help with no sources or any other more detailed information. I would at least want to have the opportunity to see if I can understand the basic problems with claims presented. Thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by model500 on Aug 25, 2013 21:07:57 GMT 9.5
RT is not a credible source on many subjects. And who is "fallout researcher" Christina Consolo? And what qualifications does she have? The claims about damage to fuel and fuel assemblies in SFP4 appear to be false. This video shows them to be essentially undamaged with just some debris sitting on top SFP4 videoOnce the fuel is out of the water, there is no moderator and no chance of criticality. The whole thing sounds like just more fear mongering. I agree about RT, and the article sounds very fishy. Still, that video doesn't really help me, would love to read an experts opinion on the damage levels.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 26, 2013 9:20:17 GMT 9.5
model500 --- There is some stuff lying on the top of the actinide pins. It descended rather slowly through many meters of water to arrive there. So the pins are almost entirely undamaged. If there is damage to a few, that will be obvious once the junk is removed. However, such minor damage will not prevent the actinide pins from being safely removed.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 26, 2013 19:42:39 GMT 9.5
This criticality thing is simply wrong. A single fuel assembly cannot go critical on its own when eg dropped accidentally on the bottom of a pool of water. It just leaks too many neutrons to go critical... and since the fuel assemblies are handled one at a time, you cannot get a pile of fuel assemblies topped up onto each other. And even if the assemblies could somehow be made to go critical (which would be well planned malignant worker conspiracy sabotage) they would simply start a sustained chain reaction with the water in the pool slowly heating up. You'd get a pool type research reactor, if you do nothing the water will boil away and then the chain reaction stops and passive air cooling will prevent fuel overheating from the decay afterheat (which is by now very small), hardly an apocalyptic event.
This Christina Consolo is completely clueless.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 28, 2013 12:04:32 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 29, 2013 17:54:34 GMT 9.5
Sorry, but that article is garbage from a 100% pro-nuclear source. So TEPCO will now start looking for "'suspicious' puddles of water"? Wow, is that really the level of security at nuclear power plants? losing 300 tons of contaminated water is the sort of incident that should see people removed from their jobs, and not just one or two. Most people take greater care of the rain water they use for their garden than Tepco does for nuclear waste. All the measures taken should have been there in the beginning. such water must not leak, ever. If TEPCO cannot ensure this, they are not the right people for the job. TEPCO will face serious problems, when they want to restart their other reactors, and rightly so. They are obviously unable to learn from the past. www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-japan-nuclear-tepco-idUSBRE97R0L820130828
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Aug 29, 2013 21:28:56 GMT 9.5
A puddle next to a waste tank is "suspicious", a puddle in the middle of a concrete apron miles from anything is not.
Is it garbage simply because it doesn't decry the loss of some contaminated water as the end of humanity with thousands of deaths to be caused by it?
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 30, 2013 3:38:34 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 30, 2013 8:16:03 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 30, 2013 11:26:21 GMT 9.5
World Nuclear News (WNN) is a highly reliable source, writing articles based on press releases. Unlike most reporters the WNN writers actually know what they are writing about.
Do remember not to shoot the messenger, please.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Aug 30, 2013 11:42:23 GMT 9.5
Thanks, DBB, for the link. Unlike more sensational reports, it actually quotes measurements of the radioactive releases. We read that the material reaching the sea has 18 Bq/L. This compares with the background level in seawater of 12 Bq/L. In other words, negligible. As DBB implies, so much for the hysteria! I did like the line in the article saying: "This is less radioactivity per litre than naturally present in one banana." In the event of a fearful person being attacked by a banana, advice is available : Self_Defence_Against_Fresh_Fruit and video
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 30, 2013 17:48:32 GMT 9.5
World Nuclear News (WNN) is a highly reliable source, writing articles based on press releases. Unlike most reporters the WNN writers actually know what they are writing about. Do remember not to shoot the messenger, please. The source is pro-nuclear and the article is rubbish. Take this as an example: www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Fukushima_leak_cleaned_up_2708131.htmlso the "banana" comparison is for rainwater, mixing into the sea. While the water that leaked had an extremely high contamination ( 200,000 Bq/L ) And of that, they lost 300 tons, without even noticing. Please look at the article and tell me, which of the measures described there sahould not have been done from the beginning. PS: People would even complain, if you lost 300 tons of bananas, without noticing!
|
|