Another look at Fukushima's legacy

Discuss

17 Responses to “Another look at Fukushima's legacy”

  1. bill_mcgonigle says:

    more than 40 years?  We should have strong AI within 20 – I think they’re assuming 40 years of 2013 technology.

    • eldritch says:

      Not sure if sarcastic… or just blindly optimistic about Artificial Intelligence…

      • bill_mcgonigle says:

        Nothing blind about it – it’s an open question whether microtubules are involved in cognition, but if not, Moore’s law carries microprocessor complexity beyond the human brain in the late 2020′s.   Watson is proving that the semantic knowledge map is becoming sufficient for AI already.
        In 20 years’ time there’s no doubt that we’ll have sufficient AI to move dirt and rubble around.

  2. raytube says:

    Cold Shutdown?  I don’t believe that spin for a second.
    What I do believe is that there are three missing reactor cores, and a whole mess of hot fuel not in cold storage.  Tepco cannot say where the cores are (because the truth is so horrible).  It makes sense to me that the cores are somewhere under the plant, happily spewing everything into the Pacific.
    We can speculate about what’s left of SFP3 and SFP4, but those cores are gone.  

    • eldritch says:

      http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

      Based on Mr. Munroe’s fabulous work explaining this sort of thing, even if your twelfth-hand speculation was somehow accurate and we had cores under the plant exposed to sea water, they’d be pretty much harmless.

      There would be some degree of fission products in the water, but according to the above link, you could swim around in the that very sea water with no concern whatsoever, just so long as you didn’t get too close to the actual fuel itself.

      Remember, the fuel isn’t reacting at this point, and hasn’t been this whole time. It’s still radioactive, but it’s not undergoing fission.

      • badmigraine says:

         Apples to oranges. The sea at Fuku is not shielding nuclear fuel rods. Rather you have constant streams of runoff and releases of contaminated water going into the ocean.The fish in the area are getting more and more contaminated, and they recently found the highest-level one yet. If you swam there, you’d suffer both external and internal exposure to radioactive particles of all types seen in cartoons and science fiction stories…alpha, beta, gamma. And you’d be taking the internal exposure home with you. Now you’re into the “what’s a safe level” story. Good luck with that. I used to smoke cigarettes while drinking, but I think I’ll be OK.

  3. Lilly Munster says:

    The WHO report should be taken with a grain of salt. It used environmental radiation readings to create very uniform generic exposure estimates. The reality is that exposures were very different among the population. Some more exposed than others. What exactly one was exposed to and how matters too. WHO’s report is a very generic on paper exercise that won’t match reality now or in the future. What is really needed is a very comprehensive health screening capability so doctors in Japan can catch health problems as early as possible and where patients health decisions are not the domain of the government. 

    Decommissioning the plants, the people who actually work there think 40 years is way too optimistic. There is a rough idea where the fuel is at #1. They still don’t know where 2 and 3′s fuel is for sure. The technical problems will be solved by creative thinking and better robotics. The human health problems need the ability for people to be in charge of their monitoring and care without the current government interference. Doctor training is more useful than more PR to “calm people”. 

  4. badmigraine says:

     “Cold shutdown” is a misnomer. It refers to taking an operating plant offline and implies being in control. That’s not really the case when you have meltdowns/melt-throughs. As for whether fission continues, periodically iodine shows up in sewer sludge and incinerator ash as if fission is occasionally happening here and there.

    To say that the Japanese government did a good job of moving people out beggers belief. They did nothing and let a huge radioactive cloud float through towns and cities. It is that huge initial release that caused elevated readings in neighboring prefectures, in Tokyo and Chiba, Nagano and other places. While we watched black-smoke explosions at the plants on internet news, for 12 hours or more the Japanese government caused NHK to broadcast only distant shots of no activity announcing “while some people have reported seeing a puff of white smoke, this has not been confirmed…there is no danger of immediate harm…” They gave themselves iodine pills but not the general population. They disregarded and even actively concealed SPEEDI data on radiation spread and withheld other data to avoid “public confusion”…seems radiation exposure is preferable to confusion. Note that they immediately released SPEEDI data after the recent N. Korean nuclear test. Within weeks of the accident they passed a law allowing the government to censor media of “harmful rumors” and hired Dentsu to scour the web for that. There is no comprehensive testing regime for foods, only spot-checks, and implementation was unreliable, with farmers and country people basically self-reporting. They ceased monitoring and data collection for a time, then installed official monitors some of which were designed with the battery pack blocking the sensor which gave lower readings, and decontaminated only around official monitors which gave deceptively low reading levels. They and TEPCO have turned a blind eye to the use of corrupt and shady contractors who dump radioactive waste into rivers, don’t follow protocols, employ homeless or criminal elements, use name fraud so workers can go around again on the lifetime limits. They actively and openly promote nationwide distribution and incineration of radioactive waste from Fukushima in major metropolitan areas including Tokyo and Osaka. And as for decontamination itself, it doesn’t seem to work or last, and the job looks practically impossible. In addition to cleaning all the dirt (how?) in a thousand square miles of fields, mountains, rivers, bark, leaves, rooftops and pavement, what about all the plants and animals that have already taken up radioactive particles? And as for de-comissioning and cleanup of the plants, nobody has any plan or idea for how to do it. Maybe the Makers can come to the rescue. All of this is in the official record, not from crackpot or paranoia sites.

    As for the WHO report, it’s a nice read and we all hope they are right. But remember that by law any WHO statement about nuclear requires full approval of the IAEA, which in cases like this functions as a kind of PR arm of the nuclear village.

    The actual state and location of the fuel is unknown and may never be established. The amount of radiation leaking into the air and water will not be clearly established, and certainly not transparently reported.

    The best thing we can hope for is that radiation really isn’t as bad for you as some suspect. Although if you dig around, the jury is still out. Data is irregular, people move around, and the ill effects only come years or decades after some level of exposure which itself cannot be determined accurately.

  5. Arunigrace says:

    The WHO is lying. Go immediately to these sites are learn from the people who actually live there. Talk to the people suffering yourselves. Reach out to them:
    http://fukushima-diary.com/
    http://www.enenews.com

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      The WHO is lying.

      Linking to a couple of blogs doesn’t lend much credence to that assertion.

      • badmigraine says:

        Yes, extreme or strident statements like that don’t help anybody much. In fact you don’t need to go that far.

        It’s enough to point out that the IAEA has veto power over any WHO statement about nuclear:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

        Since the express charter of the IAEA is to “promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy”, there is a conflict of interest there.

        For example, how about a WHO study on health effects of cigarette smoke where an “International Association for the Promotion of Tobacco Smoking” had veto rights over it.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          It’s enough to point out that the IAEA has veto power over any WHO statement about nuclear

          Possibly true, but certainly not the language of the original agreements.  And the article that you linked is an opinion piece.

  6. nowipes says:

    For a REAL and HONEST look at Fukushima and its health and environmental effects, you’ll have to listen to the LIVE broadcast of the Fukushima Symposium, March 11 and 12.

    The LIVE link, list of speakers, etc. can be found here:

    http://www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/symposium.html

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      REAL and HONEST

      You do realize that there’s some irony in using those words when referring to an event sponsored by an anti-nuclear organization? The caps really make the real seem realer and the honest seem honester, too.

  7. badmigraine says:

     Well, I do think he’s on target and appreciated the comments! Let’s hope the WHO is right. But it’s good to question it and look at the other side. How much radiation?, and is it safe? are not yet really settled with certainty. That’s about as much as an expert armchair internet Googler can ascertain. Our takeaway was, we left Tokyo for a faraway part of Japan. And we watch what we feed our baby and toddlers.

  8. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Personally, I think that nuclear power is a disaster, mostly because it requires people to keep it safe.  And people are remarkably unreliable.  But we should appreciate that there’s a difference between scientific arguments and public policy arguments and between news articles and opinion pieces.

  9. badmigraine says:

    Quite right, well said!

Leave a Reply