View Full Version : Fukushima - water spread of material
Running out of water tank space for contaminated material
and must be released soon .
12-16-2011, 08:21 PM
I am aghast at what is happening in Japan and how the US MSM is (not) reporting it.
Fukushima has to be the biggest elephant in the room that I have ever experienced.
And I have to agree with ex-skf (see below) that Japan has lost its mind.
Cold shutdown?? Of what? They don't even know where the radioactive core materials are! What exactly do they think has cooled off?
And now, all that radioactive water waste that leaked into the ocean? There was zero release of radioactive water---then, now, and indefinitely into the future, because NISA has defined it so.
Baghdad Bob has been replaced by several Tokyo Bobs!
:bob: :bob: :bob:
:poo: :poo: :poo:
The following information is excerpted from an excellent blog: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/
Japan Gone Nuts: NISA Declares No Contaminated Water Leak From Fuku-I, in the Past, Now, and the Future
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency is busy rewriting the definition of "leak".
Tokyo Shinbun reports that NISA has decided to basically "nullify" the leaks of contaminated water from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in the past, and declare that there will be no leak in the future either, even if there is actually a leak or deliberate discharge. Why? Because NISA says so.
From Tokyo Shinbun (via Asyura, so that the link doesn't disappear; 12/16/2011):
NISA considers the amount of contaminated water into the ocean to be zero.
There have been several leaks of water contaminated with radioactive materials from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. Tokyo Shinbun has found out through own investigation that the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has treated the amount of the leaks as "zero" from a legal [or regulatory] point of view, because it was a "state of emergency".
The Agency has said it will treat the future leaks and deliberate discharges into the ocean the same way. The national government is scheduled to declare a "cold shutdown state" on December 16, but we are suspicious of the government's position that seems to ignore the suppression of the radioactive materials released from the plant, which is one of the important conditions [of the cold shutdown "state"].
The Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law specifies that the operator needs to set the maximum amount of radioactive materials released into the ocean for each nuclear power plant (total emission control). In the case of Fukushima I Nuke Plant, the maximum amount allowed is 220 billion becquerels per year for radioactive cesium. The amount is set to zero again at the beginning of a new fiscal year.
However, a leak of highly contaminated water was found on April 2 near the Reactor 2 water intake, and TEPCO conducted a discharge of low contamination water that was stored in a tank inside the plant buildings to make space to store the highly contaminated water.
This leak and the discharge alone released radioactive materials outside the plant to the tune of 4,700 terabecquerels (according to TEPCO's estimate), already more than 20,000 times as much as the maximum amount allowed.
Both domestic and foreign research institutions have disputed TEPCO's estimate as "too low".
On December 4, the water that contained 26 billion becquerels of radioactive strontium was found leaking into the ocean from the apparatus that evaporates and condenses the treated water.
Furthermore, the storage tanks that are set up inside the compound are expected to become full in the first half of the next year. The water in these storage tanks also contains radioactive strontium. TEPCO is contemplating the discharge of the water into the ocean after further decontaminating it, but facing the protest from the fisheries associations the company has said it will postpone the discharge for now.
Responding to the questions from Tokyo Shinbun, NISA emphasized that responding to the accident came first, and Fukushima I Nuke Plant was in a "state of emergency" where it was not possible to stop the leak, due to the damage the plant had sustained, and that was the reason for not applying the rule of "total emission control" and treating the 4,700-terabequerel leak as zero leak.
The special treatment under the "state of emergency" will last until the accident winds down, according to the Agency; but it was vague as to how long the special treatment will last, saying "it will be decided in the future discussions".
The Agency said even if the treated water that contains radioactive materials is released into the ocean, the Agency will continue to treat it as zero release.
Well, why should NISA stop at the water leak? They should simply declare that there was no emission of radioactive materials in the air, because the plant was in a state of emergency and in no shape to prevent the emission.
The national government declaring a cold shutdown "state" on broken reactors without even knowing where the corium has gone; government experts declaring 20 millisievert radiation is totally OK after one-month deliberation; the government agency declaring there was, is, will be no contaminated water leak or discharge from Fuku-I even if there was, is, will be a leak or discharge.
Japan is nuts.
More from Japan, where the government will soon declare that the sun rises in the West.
State of Cold Shutdown: Hosono Says "No One Knows Where the Fuel Is, But I'm Confident It is Cooled"
In a typical display of utter disregard for the general public, the Noda administration announced last night that there would be no more joint press conferences where reporters could meet with TEPCO people and the government officials from the Cabinet Office and other relevant ministries and agencies, receive updates and ask questions.
Why? Because the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant is officially in a "state of a cold shutdown" and the accident has been decreed by the government to be "over".
Minister of the Environment Hosono expressed some concern that "No one knows where the fuel is until we open the reactors", but he reaffirmed the cold shutdown, following the lead of his prime minister. He said, "No matter where the fuel is, it is being cooled".
12-16-2011, 09:16 PM
Sounds like some brain matter has been cooked as well.
12-16-2011, 10:29 PM
Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerels
A guide to terminology about radiation exposure
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
Sometimes it must seem as though reports on releases of radioactive materials from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant in the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami are going out of their way to confuse people. Some reports talk about millisieverts while others talk about rem or becquerels, when what most people really want to know is much simpler: Can I drink the milk? Is it safe to go home? Should people in California be worried?
There are a number of reasons for the confusion. In part, it’s the usual disparity between standard metric units and the less-standard units favored in the United States, added to the general confusion of reporters dealing with a fast-changing situation (for example, some early reports mixed up microsieverts with millisieverts — a thousandfold difference in dose). Others are more subtle: The difference between the raw physical units describing radiation emitted by a radioactive material (measured in units like curies and becquerels), versus measurements designed to reflect the different amounts of radiation energy absorbed by a mass of material (measured in rad or gray), and those that measure the relative biological damage in the human body (using rem and sieverts), which depends on the type of radiation. (Rem, rad and gray are all used as the plural as well as the singular form for those units).
“Just knowing how much energy is absorbed by your body is not enough” to make meaningful estimates of the effects, explains Jacquelyn Yanch, a senior lecturer in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering who specializes in the biological effects of radiation. “That’s because energy that comes in very close together,” such as from alpha particles, is more difficult for the body to deal with than forms that come in relatively far apart, such as from gamma rays or x-rays, she says.
Because x-rays and gamma rays are less damaging to tissue than neutrons or alpha particles, a conversion factor is used to translate the rad or gray into other units such as rem (from Radiation Equivalent Man) or sieverts, which are used to express the biological impact.
So, regardless of what units we use, how high does the exposure have to be before it produces significant effects? “If only we knew the answer,” Yanch says. We do know, at the high end, what levels produce immediate radiation sickness or death, but the lower the doses go, the less certain the data are on the effects. “There’s a very large variation in background levels” of radiation around the world, Yanch says, but so far no study has been done that correlates those differences with effects on health, such as cancer incidence. “It’s very hard to get a good answer to how significant low levels of radiation are,” she says. But if those effects were large, she says, it would be obvious, and “we don’t see obvious differences” in health, for example, in regions (such as parts of China) where the natural background radiation is ten times higher than in typical U.S. cities.
Some things are clear: A radiation dose of 500 millisieverts (mSv) or more can begin to cause some symptoms of radiation poisoning. Studies of those exposed to radiation from the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima showed that for those who received a whole-body dose of 4,500 mSv, about 50 percent died from acute radiation poisoning. By way of comparison, the average natural background radiation in the United States is 2.6 mSv. The legal limit for annual exposure by nuclear workers is 50 mSv, and in Japan that limit was just raised for emergency workers to 250 mSv.
The highest specific exposures reported so far were of two workers at the Fukushima plant who received doses of 170 to 180 mSv on March 24 — lower than the new Japanese standard, but still enough to cause some symptoms (reports say the men had rashes on the areas exposed to radioactive water).
“Everything we know about radiation suggests that if you get a certain dose all at once, that’s much more serious than if you get the same dose over a long time,” Yanch says. The rule of thumb is that a dose spread out over a long period of time is about half as damaging as the same dose delivered all at once, but Yanch says that’s a conservative estimate, and the real equivalence may be closer to one-tenth that of a rapid dose.
1 gray (Gy) = 100 rad
1 rad = 10 milligray (mGy)
1 sievert (Sv) = 1,000 millisieverts (mSv) = 1,000,000 microsieverts (μSv)
1 sievert = 100 rem
1 becquerel (Bq) = 1 count per second (cps)
1 curie = 37,000,000,000 becquerel = 37 Gigabecquerels (GBq)
For x-rays and gamma rays, 1 rad = 1 rem = 10 mSv
For neutrons, 1 rad = 5 to 20 rem (depending on energy level) = 50-200 mSv
For alpha radiation (helium-4 nuclei), 1 rad = 20 rem = 200 mSv
12-17-2011, 03:36 PM
Truth from the former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and legislator Tomoyuki Taira? This conclusion by them was published in Nature Magazine this week. I'm sure someone :bob: will jump in and retract this very soon. :rolleyes:
Was there a nuclear explosion at Reactor 3?
According to Japan's Ministry of Education and Science:
First, several transuranic elements have been detected several tens of kilometers away from the plant.
According to the reports by the Ministry of Education and Science, curium-242 (242Cm) has been detected at a location 3 kilometers from the plant, and plutonium-238 (238Pu) has been detected at a location 45 kilometers from the plant. If that’s the case, pieces of broken spent nuclear fuel rods may have been scattered around the plant, and it is extremely dangerous.
These transuranic elements are not carried by the radioactive plume like much lighter cesium or iodine.Therefore, they must have been blown out by an extremely large force.
Second, the steel trusses in the upper part of the reactor building of Reactor 3 are twisted as if they had been melted.
It is unlikely that a hydrogen explosion generated a high enough temperature that would melt steel.
TEPCO initially announced that there was a white smoke from Reactor 3 explosion. However, the later investigation has revealed that the smoke was black, and a hydrogen explosion is not considered to generate such a black smoke.
Our conclusion therefore is that the explosion of Reactor 3 may have been a nuclear explosion.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.