Mummy, mummy, there's a nuclear monster! The total non-story of the Fukushima nuclear powerplant "disaster" – which has seen and will see no deaths or measurable health consequences for anyone anywhere – has received a shot in the arm today with the news that Japanese authorities have upgraded the incident to a Level 7 on the nuclear accident scale. This was reported …
Of course it has something to do with radiation leaks, moving 70,000 people and numerous businesses is bloody expensive.
You didn't even read the article did you?
All well and good attacking the fearmongers and defending the safetey aspects, but if you blindly defend the huge costs this has imposed on the Japanese you look very silly indeed. Best to just ignore it like Mr Page hey.
Page Not FoundOur apologies, the content you requested cannot be located.
Please double-check the URL for proper spelling, browse our site index, or search Reuters.com below…
Now, I can find references to the BoA report through other routes, but, frankly they seem pretty unlikely - $130 billion is about half the currently estimated cost of the tsunami and earthquake. No word on how they've arrived at the number.
And no, there's no power firm on the world that has contracts that mean it can be sued for failure to supply.
As to the 70,000 people moved, you could pay them nearly $40,000 apiece for the next 50 years, and just about get through $130Bn.
This post has been deleted by its author
Tokaimura compensation
"Ibaraki Prefecture announced that direct damages from this accident have reached a total of 15.3 billion yen (U.S. $125 million) for 7000 cases (Table 2). Direct damages, for example, include compensation for the forced closure of businesses, and suspension of agricultural activities and fisheries. Perceived damage is not included in what is called "direct damages." In addition, real estate prices have not been evaluated and are still falling as are the prices of agricultural products.
Category
The amount of damages（million yen）
Commercial Industry
9,596
Agricultural, Livestock ,Fishing Industry
2,504
Tourist Industry
1,472
Transportation Industry
211
Other Industries
750
Reduction of Tax Revenue (expected)
769
Total
15,302"
Tokaimura resulted in 161 people evacuated for 2 days with a 350 meter exclusion zone. Yet it still cost over $125 million and resulted in over 7000 claims
Fukushima with over 70,000 people evacuated for over a month and counting with a 20km exclusion zone.
It also highlights the costs that Andydaws seems to be deliberatly overlooking.
http://blogs.forbes.com/oshadavidson/2011/04/12/tepco-radiation-from-fukushima-may-be-worse-than-chernobyl/
Quote from the article - "An official of Fukushima nuclear power plant operator TEPCO concedes that “the amount of (radioactive) leakage could eventually reach that of Chernobyl or exceed it.”
But of course these are the usual scaremongers in the happy happy joy joy world of Lewis Paige
I gather that comment was a response to a sort of "what's the worse case" question - as the press is so fond of asking at press conferences, then reporting them without the qualification.
What's notable, in that context is this
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_03.html
Which makes the point that, of the total site inventory, about 1% of the iodine 131 existing at the moment of the scram was vented.
Now, it's true that that remaining will have decayed anyhow now by 94% - but, even so it leaves a signficant further inventory. Which, could, in theory be released, but it's growing increasingly unlikely.
Once again Lewis observes that the earthquake/tsunami were catastrophies; yes they were, but potentially Daiichi (or more likely Hamaoka, cf. Katsuhiko Ishibashi) could make large parts of Japan uninhabitable. It isn't helpful to compare Daiichi to Chernobyl or an earthquake, it just muddies the issues- can we just concentrate on the Daiichi disaster and its consequences for health?
As for Lewis's analysis of the situation- I don't know where he gets the idea that only "miniscule amounts" of radioactive material have been deposited around the area, and that danger beyond the plant fence is effectively nil. Radiation has been detected in milk and vegetables in the prefecture- this is a Level 7 event meaning "a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended counter measures." Like the BBC, you could play that down by saying its only 10% of the Chernobyl release. 10% of the Chernobyl release is still a massive amount! And then we come to the clincher... "Chernobyl actually killed fewer than 60 people". What will I read next in The Register, an assertion that the Jews didn't do too badly under the Nazis? Estimates range from 4,000 to 500,000 deaths attributable to Chernobyl. The Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths in Russia so far and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. Perhaps I could point Lewis and the rest of you in the direction of this work if you'd like to know more about the health effects of Chernobyl?
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-Ikqg4T4F30OWJmYjgwYWQtZmFiOC00NmM5LWI3NzYtMzVkODA2MmRmMmI1&hl=en&authkey=CLXh9bkN
Ignoring the content, the overall tone and language used by Lewis shouts that this isn't serious, impartial journalism. If he wants to be taken seriously, perhaps he could look at the wider issues- especially as they relate to Britain. How about the fact that Japan has now cancelled all MOX orders with Thorpe/Sellafield, a plant built specifically to supply Japan at the cost of billions to the taxpayer, and almost £100 million a year to keep going? Perhaps nuclear industry PR mouthpieces would like us to ignore such a massive recent failure, both technically and financially, in the UK nuclear industry. Perhaps Lewis could analyse the data coming from Daichii a little more comprehensively and truthfully in order to salvage his professional standing as a journalist. He could learn a lot from Arnie Gunderson, who has been deeply involved in the nuclear power industry since the early 70s, and has held licenses to operate nucler reactors. I'm not aware of Lewis's credentials, but I think Arnie might have a little bit more of a realistic perspective. He's the only commentator I've come across who has pointed out that the neutron beams detected around the plant indicate that chain reactions are still occurring in the fuel. You can watch him and decide here:
http://vimeo.com/user6415562/videos
I'm starting to suspect these Lewis articles are just stuck in here to create controversy, that sort of thing seems to work wonders for the Daily Mail's circulation figures. Perhaps Lewis could follow up Arnie's mention of the recent US study that found that a spent fuel pond boiling dry would lead to 100,000 deaths from lung cancer? I mean, that would actually be what a real journalist does, right?
"When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater
March 27, 2011
By Dr. Tom Burnett "
Note the date - the plan't on the coast, which rather implies groundwater's within a few feet of ground level, of course....
So, written about a fortnight after the earthquake, and another fortnight ago since. Which would make it the slowest meltdown concieveable.
I'd take a look at the output of the loon you're quoting as some sort of informed source...
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/author/dr-tom/
Apparently, he's a regular poster on Rense.
I wonder what his doctorate is in?
"At Fukushima, the reactor cores are still melting down. The ONLY way to stop that is to detonate a ~10 kiloton fission device inside each reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores."
"A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on now."
He likes his fireworks, doesn't he?
Presumably, he means that the process of melting makes the bolus of fuel critical.
Which is interesting, as it's still only 3% enriched - less than 1/10th of even the theoretical minimum to be critical on fast neutrons.
Which means it's got to be critical on thermal neutrons. Which means moderator. Which, in an LWR is water.
So, this 1800C plus bolus of melted fuel is apparently meant to have liquid water mixed in with it!
It's good to see the quality of analysts that some of our fellow posters like to quote.
I have to admit, the crazies really went to town with the re-criticality, self sustaining criticality and continuing meltdown theories didn't they. Why, it's almost as if they didn't bother to look at the data coming out of Fukushima before writing their works of fiction.
Still, detonating a bomb inside or right next to a scram'd reactor seems like an incredibly stupid idea, on par with shooting oneself in the head I'd think. It's hard to believe that anyone would seriously suggest such a course of action.
This post has been deleted by its author
"He's the only commentator I've come across who has pointed out that the neutron beams detected around the plant indicate that chain reactions are still occurring in the fuel."
That's because it proved to be an utter red herring - a mistranslation of the Japanese for "ray" as "beam", and ommitted the fact that the actual frequency and energy of emissions was in line with natural background - your esteemed Mr Gunderson apparently having forgotten that there are a few neutron emitters in the environment. And quite a few fission products can be neutron emitters.
To quote the BBC's Richard Black
"The neutron flux outlined by Kyodo - 0.02 microsieverts per hour - is within levels that are observed naturally in some locations - which raises the question of why it became an issue in conversations between reporters and Tepco representatives in Tokyo"
You'll notice the claims of ongoing criticality events seem to have gone rather quiet - that being because the other stuff that would go with it, like intense neutron fluxes closer to the plant, temperature and pressure spikes, and detection in volume of short-lived isotopes and so on have been notable by their absence (other, it seems, than in various more "entertaining" blogs").
the bit I liked most was the gross error where it was decided that (a subsequently found to be wrong) detection of Tellurium was held to be proof positive of ongoing fission - apparently, without realising that it's nothing of the sort (from the Nuclear Eningeering isntitute)
"The detection of tellurium-129 is not proof of recriticality. Even though it has a half-life of just 69 minutes it is still one of the most prevalent fission products in used nuclear fuel several months after fuel is removed from the reactor core or last criticality. This is due to the fact that tellurium-129 also exists in a higher energy state (Te-129m, where “m” stands for metastable) with a half-life of 34.1 days prior to transforming into lower energy tellurium-129. Given the high initial abundance of both forms of tellurium-129 among fission products, it is reasonable that some would still be present months after the reactor was last critical."
The one I particularly liked was the claim that trace presense of Chlorine-38 in cooling water was also proof. Mr G seems to have forgotten there's (a) rather a lot of salt in the reactors, and (b) still plenty a lot of neutron-emitting products in the reactor, even if fluxes are much lower than in operation.
"can we just concentrate on the Daiichi disaster and its consequences for health?"
I mean...
"Radiation has been detected in milk and vegetables in the prefecture"
It has indeed - at levels well below that likely to cause a health problem to even the most exposed individual. To quote from yesterday's IAEA update (samples on the 8th and 11th, link below)
"Various vegetables, spinach and other leafy vegetables, fruit (strawberry), various meats, seafood and unprocessed raw milk
I-131, Cs-134, Cs-137 either not detected or below the regulation values set by Japanese Authorities"
"What will I read next in The Register, an assertion that the Jews didn't do too badly under the Nazis? "
FFS.......
Nuclear can be dangerous, like flight, but it's heavily regulated so that for the vast majority of the time it is very safe. A bit like the millennium bug. The world didn't end with DARPA's computers turning on the ICBMs on 1st January 2000, not because there was no risk of problems (to banks, if not the ICBMs), but because a lot of people did a lot of work to minimise the problems.
A road traffic incident might not be anywhere near the disruption of Fukushima, but after the suicide of a man jumping off a flyover in Belfast, much of the city ground to a halt for most of the day when the police closed the vitally important stretch of road where the man had jumped. Or someone leaves a 'device' somewhere, viable or not, and vast areas are cordoned off and evacuated, just because the risk is small, but the public services have to cover their backs.
The reason that people are "panicking" has little to do with the technical aspects of the problem and a lot to do with cynicism about the truthfulness of the various authorities pontificating on the subject.
TEPCO and the Japanese government have a long and honorable history of lying to the public on nuclear matters. Both the EU and US governments have quietly increased the acceptable limits of cesium 134 and cesium 137 in food some 20-fold "to prevent food shortages" in recent weeks, and recent publicity about DU, which is held to be causing all sorts of cancers in squaddies, birth defects in Iraqi women and squaddies wives, and reduction of sperm counts in Israeli soldiers to the point that they are projected to not be viable parents within about 20 years, if you believe the doubters, whilst the US, UK, and Israeli governments continue to insist that DU is harmless except when fired from the barrel of a gun, and then only because of its kinetic energy.
It's just a case of fool me once...
It's also interesting to note how many people here appear to have paid even less attention during their nuclear chemistry lectures than I did, which I had previously thought impossible.
"Both the EU and US governments have quietly increased the acceptable limits of cesium 134 and cesium 137 in food some 20-fold "to prevent food shortages" in recent weeks"
I mean.
Here's the EU regulation in force:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:080:0005:0008:EN:PDF
Here's the relevant clause re radiation limits:
"in case the product is originating from the prefectures Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Nagano, Yamanashi, Saitama, Tokyo and Chiba, the product does not contain levels of the radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 above the maximum levels provided for in Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 of 22 December 1987, Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 944/89 of 12 April 1989 and Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 770/90 of 29 March 1990."
Note the dates of those. They're the post Chernobyl limits applied across Europe.
I'm at a slight loss to see where this supposed increase has come from -
here's the three instruments
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/90770_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/89944_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/90770_en.pdf
It's the first two that matter, since they're for direct consumption.
The claim is that
"Until now, a maximum of 600 becquerels of radioactivity (cesium 134 and cesium 137) per kilogram allowed, but since last weekend for example oil or herbal suddenly 12,500 becquerels per kilogram,
Read more: http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/eu-secretly-increases-food-safety-levels-of-radioactivity/#ixzz1JQA3TR9b"
but note: From the first the table on the back page gives "other foodstuffs" for Caesium at 1250Bq/Kg; and the second for minor foodstuffs (and check out the list, it includes herbs, spices and essential oils, the claimed area of change) and says:
"For the minor foodstuffs given in the Annex, the
maximum permitted levels to be applied are 10 times
those applicable to ‘other foodstuffs except minor"
I make 1250*10 as 12,500.
So, where does this come from?
There's a separate limit for "milk and foodstuffs for infants" of 600Bq - that still applies.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/215
So, in other words, it's yet more internet mentery, prompted by some lazy bastard who can't be bothered to research something - despite having the most powerful research tool in hsitory accessible from their desktop.
Western media, western governments.
The western media has claimed superior knowledge and analysis over the Japanese media since this started. they've rolled out doubtful 'expert' after doubtful 'expert' to make claims ranging from total meltdown (of scram'd reactors), to Chernobyl style explosions and all sorts of wild claims about the extent, severity and duration of the contamination of the surrounding area. Western governments have reacted to such media reports and the ill-educated panic of their own populations by acting with an overabundance of caution, urging their nationals to leave Japan, and reacting to trace amounts of contaminants - possibly from Fukushima - that are well below background radiation, as if they were signs of the apocalypse. Even the US navy, which bloody well knows better, has been seen responding to extremely low levels of radiation as if it were a mushroom cloud event.
Given that background, it's no wonder that the air of suspicion and cynicism that surrounds government and nuclear power has simply intensified continually in Japan to the point where irrational doubts and fears trump actuality. I'm not being critical of the people in Japan, this is normal human nature, and the product of a month of total non-sense from the news media.
The fact is that the situation at Fukushima is/was a) unprecedented, b) chaotic during the first week or so and c) extremely difficult to quantify because of the huge damage to local infrastructure in Fukushima prefecture and the damage at the plant itself caused by the earthquake and Tsunami. No one could have got great information out of Fukushima during that first week, the people were too damn busy trying to assess what was going on and how to deal with it with out any backup. Since that time, the amount of information flowing out of Fukushima has increased continually. But to hear the media talk of it (and many commenters here) the japanese authorities, government and TEPCO are somehow silent and withholding the truth. Truthfully, they are *not* doing this. the information is *all* there for you - and journalists - to read. Expert analysis is available, but it's being plowed under by a juggernaut of self confirming fear and panic.
You raise depleted uranium, but in the discussion of Fukushima and what is happening in Japan, that is a total red herring.
The report stems from unofficial comments made to an author who then related them onwards and they amount to little more than an opinion on the wisdom of putting new homes in the area immediately around the nuclear powerplant.
Considering that the primary long term contaminant of concern is the cesium with a half life of 37 years, 10-20 years would not even cover a single half life period, so whatever the two gentlemen were discussing, it was not an informed discussion.
If you've bothered to follow this story, and read the reports and look at the data concerning radiation levels and deposition of radioactive materials, you'd know that the higher levels of contamination are patchy, and not so severe that people have to avoid the area even now. Precautions have to be taken, of course, but they are not the kind of precautions one would take to handle nuclear fuel - for example. There will be some topsoil removal and processing to remove contamination. There will be some removal of buildings that have contamination, and possibly simply field decontamination practices about as sophisticated as washing the surface and collecting the water used. The area immediately around Fukushima Daiichi itself is clearly much more severely contaminated, but even so, the technology exists to remove the contamination and restore the area to 'normal' without having to declare a decades long exclusion zone.
More speculation, more mis-reporting, more people confirming their beliefs and fears based on the speculation and mis-reporting. The self confirmed beliefs then carry the weight of fact in the minds of those people - regardless of the actual facts.
I am honestly beginning to think that human kind needs a major kick in the pants to restore it's brain to activity.
Lower allowable levels of radioactive materials, along with plenty of fear lead to huge cleanup contracts for the Haliburtons of this world. They also lead to more expensive electricity, which makes the usually monopolistic electrical generators happy.
Wind, Solar, Biomass, nat gas, coal scrubbing, nuclear over safety. With all these bases covered, electrical rates can soar. Essentially the WORSE an idea is for making electricity the MORE the big industrial giants like it. For example shutting down Germany's nukes, which will cost $$$ is great for the pocketbook of your average industrialist.
"It is impossible to assess reliably, with any precision, numbers of fatal cancers caused by radiation exposure due to the Chernobyl accident — or indeed the impact of the stress and anxiety induced by the accident and the response to it.
Small differences in the assumptions concerning radiation risks can lead to large differences in the predicted health consequences, which are therefore highly uncertain.
An international expert group has made projections to provide a rough estimate of the possible health impacts of the accident and to help plan the future allocation of public health resources. The projections indicate that, among the most exposed populations (liquidators, evacuees and residents of the so-called ‘strict control zones’), total cancer mortality might increase by up to a few per cent owing to Chernobyl related radiation exposure.
Such an increase could mean eventually up to several thousand fatal cancers in addition to perhaps one hundred thousand cancer deaths expected in these populations from all other causes. An increase of this magnitude would be very difficult to detect, even with long term epidemiological studies."
- quoted from the 2005 WHO document, 'Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts')
"Actually as we have seen the consequences of a "catastrophic" nuclear accident are either zero (Fukushima, Three Mile Island) or minuscule (Chernobyl actually killed fewer than 60 people)."
- quoted from some noises heard emanating from Lewis Page. Further analysis will be needed to discover the orifice that discharged them.
---
Yes, the other effects of the earthquake are a much larger scale disaster than Fukushima.
Yes, the press are being crap and scaremongering.
Yes, the overall health risks will probably be relatively low when compared to other risks.
But this is still a major, albeit localised, nuclear disaster that will, in all probability, have profound effects on local marine life and it still has the potential for serious health concerns due to the concentrating effects of the food chain. If Lewis wants to preach to the converted and play at tabloid journalism, then that is fair enough, it is his column. However he is in no way some shining beacon of truth on this subject.
“Given that the Fukushima nuclear power plant is on the ocean, and with leaks and runoff directly to the ocean, the impacts on the ocean will exceed those of Chernobyl, which was hundreds of miles from any sea," - Ken Buesseler, senior scientist in marine chemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
“Cesium behaves like potassium, so would end up in all marine life, it certainly will have an effect.” - Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland.
"Depending on its chemical form and by what organisms it is taken up, radiation can also concentrate when it moves through the food chain. A 1999 study found that seals and porpoises in the Irish Sea concentrated radioactive cesium by a factor of 300 relative to its concentration in seawater, and a factor of 3 to 4 compared to the fish they ate." - Elizabeth Grossman, science author and journalist.
The quote actually comes from the summary to the report on their webpage.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
Latest update here, "2008" annex published in 2011.
http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf
The main observerd affect is some 6000 extra cases of Thyroid cancer, which would have been avoided if iodine tablets were available and precautions had been taken. I believe there were 15 deaths from this, again sadly, avoidable.
At every stage it states that the predicted increases of a few percent extra cancer deaths would be unlikely to be detected using the available data and statistical methods.
It then goes on to say that, as it had originally thought, it was unable to detect solid evidence in the data.
This is not UNSCEAR saying that it thinks there were no more than 60 or so deaths due to radiation, but rather that if the overall increase in cancer deaths is only a few thousand, then it won't show up as a statistically significant result in the data of a few hundred thousand cancer deaths.
>>then it won't show up as a statistically
Which begs the question why anyone could come up with a figure of 4000. The answer is; it is just a guess, based on extrapolation of figures from much higher doses. If you can't detect an increase against the background noise then you cannot claim there is an increase. If you can’t detect it, then there is also little point worrying about it.
Remember they are closely monitoring the people who went in there and cleaned the mess up, those who got much larger doses than the public, and still nothing but noise.
Life is full of risks. Making an absurd effort to reduce just one of those risks even went you can’t detect it anymore will just deflect your energy from reducing other risks which are more important.
The problem of cataracts will need dealing with, but perhaps just better eye protection will help.
So I will quote UNSCEAR again.
"there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident."
No, if you can't reliably detect it in ANY data set, and your model tells you it is likely to be way smaller than the background noise, then you might as well ignore it.
CERN are looking for particles with very low probabilities, but when the do find one, they will know 100% what it is and it will stand out against the noise.
I cannot comment on your lifestyle, but I am pretty sure there is something that you do which has a known but insignificant cancer risk. Eating bacon or ham, going out in the sun (even with sunscreen), drinking, barbeque or any number of other things. You do these things anyway because the risk is very, very small.
Of course, some people see these small risks and try and avoid all of them, but that does not guarantee they won’t get cancer. It definitely will not stop them dying.
Only by panicking foreign governments like the US (and even their website says don't take them unless things change). People have been demanding them and so pharmaceutical companies and doctors have been supplying them, if only to stop people buying and swallowing the (slightly poisonous if swallowed in sufficient quantities) idoine mouthwash.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
