Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

DaveFagan · Oct 21, 2013

TBO.com | AP Wires

Japan delaying cleanup of towns near nuclear plant
"Radiation cleanup in some of the most contaminated towns around Fukushima's nuclear power plant is behind schedule, so some residents will have to wait a few more years before returning, Japanese officials said Monday. Environment Ministry officials said they are revising the cleanup schedule for six of 11 municipalities in an exclusion zone from which residents were evacuated after three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant went into meltdown following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The original plan called for completing all decontamination by next March."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=TEPCO

TEPCO doesn't have enough money to fix this.

The Japanese public will be required to pay for this.

Million and millions of gallons of radiated water stored in fragile tanks.

Possible fission reaction ongoing in melted core/s revealed by cesium and other readings in leaking groundwater.

Damaged fuel storage pool with thousands of fuel rods and susceptible to another earthquake or tidal wave.

Should these towns be re-opened with the Fukushima meltdown still out of control?

Should the exclusion zone be enlarged?

Is the fuel rod threat in the storage pool enough threat to stop re-opening the towns?

Are the melted fuel cores, especially the one that has melted through containment enough threat to stop re-opening the towns?

Japan, a super high tech Nation, has asked for International help and who will be able to help?

Radiation contaminated water in huge quantities seeps into the Pacific daily and does this worry you?

All "Nuke" plants are on major waterways and does this worry you?

Should all "Nuke" plants be made illegal?

Fisher · Oct 21, 2013

I went with IDK because I don't know enough. Even areas with low levels could still have high level hotspots. I am inclined to say keep the towns closed for as long as possible.

DaveFagan · Oct 21, 2013

Fisher said:
I went with IDK because I don't know enough. Even areas with low levels could still have high level hotspots. I am inclined to say keep the towns closed for as long as possible.

My own concern is that the threat of more contamination is real and understated. Melted cores, groundwater, earthquakes, Mother Nature, temporary measures of containment, ongoing threats with huge implications (fuel pools, molten cores through containment, human error, etc.), and a look askance at Chernobyl to give reality a jump start. I wouldn't live within 200 miles of Fukushima.

Fisher · Oct 21, 2013

DaveFagan said:
My own concern is that the threat of more contamination is real and understated. Melted cores, groundwater, earthquakes, Mother Nature, temporary measures of containment, ongoing threats with huge implications (fuel pools, molten cores through containment, human error, etc.), and a look askance at Chernobyl to give reality a jump start. I wouldn't live within 200 miles of Fukushima.

Perhaps, but Japan is a relatively small place to have to deal with widespread contamination. I suspect the whole mainland will be contaminated by this before it is over.

DaveFagan · Oct 21, 2013

Fisher said:
Perhaps, but Japan is a relatively small place to have to deal with widespread contamination. I suspect the whole mainland will be contaminated by this before it is over.

I admit to an anti nuclear bias for reasons of common sense. About 1953 in grade school, GE initiated a huge TV campaign to promote Nuclear energy and the question always was, "what about the nuclear waste?" GE always stated that their engineers expected to solve that problem within six months. We, as children, voted in classrooms to wait the six months before initiating Nuke plant construction. Common sense. I also have a pro Japanese bias because I was stationed there in the 1960s and found the people to be honest, industrious, family oriented, and ambitious. I guess the ambition is what bit them. It's all simply about money for those that already have the money, insulated from liability by Corporate law. Screwers and screwees and guess where we are?

Deuce · Oct 21, 2013

DaveFagan said:
I admit to an anti nuclear bias for reasons of common sense. About 1953 in grade school, GE initiated a huge TV campaign to promote Nuclear energy and the question always was, "what about the nuclear waste?" GE always stated that their engineers expected to solve that problem within six months. We, as children, voted in classrooms to wait the six months before initiating Nuke plant construction. Common sense. I also have a pro Japanese bias because I was stationed there in the 1960s and found the people to be honest, industrious, family oriented, and ambitious. I guess the ambition is what bit them. It's all simply about money for those that already have the money, insulated from liability by Corporate law. Screwers and screwees and guess where we are?

I admit to a pro nuclear bias because I have a better understanding of nuclear physics and the effects of these levels of radiation on people.

DaveFagan · Oct 21, 2013

Deuce said:
I admit to a pro nuclear bias because I have a better understanding of nuclear physics and the effects of these levels of radiation on people.

It's OK. No law against being wrong. Any increase in background radioactivity will result in an increase in cancer. Probably way too complex to understand, eh?

Fisher · Oct 21, 2013

DaveFagan said:
I admit to an anti nuclear bias for reasons of common sense. About 1953 in grade school, GE initiated a huge TV campaign to promote Nuclear energy and the question always was, "what about the nuclear waste?" GE always stated that their engineers expected to solve that problem within six months. We, as children, voted in classrooms to wait the six months before initiating Nuke plant construction. Common sense. I also have a pro Japanese bias because I was stationed there in the 1960s and found the people to be honest, industrious, family oriented, and ambitious. I guess the ambition is what bit them. It's all simply about money for those that already have the money, insulated from liability by Corporate law. Screwers and screwees and guess where we are?

I have an anti-sitting in the dark and anti-big utility bills bias. Anything that solves those or balances them out, is fine with me.

roguenuke · Oct 21, 2013

DaveFagan said:
It's OK. No law against being wrong. Any increase in background radioactivity will result in an increase in cancer. Probably way too complex to understand, eh?

Not a significant one, unless there is a significant increase in the background radiation. And we are talking at least hundreds of millirem increase in that background radiation level.

Even those of us working in nuclear power, receiving about twice the normal amount of radiation per year or more, and that being in more acute doses, only increase our chance of cancer by .04%. That increase doesn't even come close to other potential things that people do that can increase their risk of cancer.

A little info for those concerned about cancer risks from Fukishima.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/

"Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health. Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue."

DaveFagan · Oct 21, 2013

roguenuke said:
Not a significant one, unless there is a significant increase in the background radiation. And we are talking at least hundreds of millirem increase in that background radiation level.

Even those of us working in nuclear power, receiving about twice the normal amount of radiation per year or more, and that being in more acute doses, only increase our chance of cancer by .04%. That increase doesn't even come close to other potential things that people do that can increase their risk of cancer.

A little info for those concerned about cancer risks from Fukishima.

Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation Is Not A Big Deal - Forbes

"Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health. Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue."

What'd he say about those radioactive fish in California. No fishing along Northern Japan coast? In recognition of reality, I see more radioactive contamination in our future, not less, and it is all "for profit."

roguenuke · Oct 21, 2013

DaveFagan said:
What'd he say about those radioactive fish in California. No fishing along Northern Japan coast? In recognition of reality, I see more radioactive contamination in our future, not less, and it is all "for profit."

Contamination is different than radiation. The fish are likely contaminated, and that would be very different than an increase in background radiation levels.

Deuce · Oct 22, 2013

DaveFagan said:
It's OK. No law against being wrong. Any increase in background radioactivity will result in an increase in cancer. Probably way too complex to understand, eh?

Not. Actually. True. (at least, not in any statistically meaningful sense) You're right, there isn't a law against being wrong! :lamo

DaveFagan · Oct 22, 2013

roguenuke said:
Contamination is different than radiation. The fish are likely contaminated, and that would be very different than an increase in background radiation levels.

You do know that the final containment, the concrete foundation, is breached at Fukushima. For certain in one reactor and possibly in the other two. This shows up because of strontium in the seawater and likely means a fission reactor is ongoing. If water stops cooling this mass, it does the "China Syndrome" so continually adding seawater to the lowest levels, where the molten core rests, and then trying to cleanse the seawater of accumulated radiation, and then store it on site. The breached foundation leaks to groundwater and then that leaches into the sea. This entire area is too hot to handle with humans. Overhead are over a thousand fuel rods in an Olympic swimming pool size storage pool and the supporting structure is in "iffy" condition due to the earthquake damage. These fuel rods could have been in "dry cask storage" except that it is cheaper to keep them in the pool. This area is also too hot to touch, so equipment is being manufactured to lift the fuel rods out one at a time. This is fraught with peril because debris can be seen atop the pool. Nobody has any plan to mitigate the molten core sitting on the foundations, because that is really hot stuff. I realize your are Navy and in the business, but don't let loyalty to career blind one to realities. You can't just bore under the molten core and catch it in a new containment device, because it must be constantly bathed with cooling water, in this case, seawater, that is salty and corrosive. That's the story on just one of the three reactors with core meltdowns.

roguenuke · Oct 22, 2013

DaveFagan said:
You do know that the final containment, the concrete foundation, is breached at Fukushima. For certain in one reactor and possibly in the other two. This shows up because of strontium in the seawater and likely means a fission reactor is ongoing. If water stops cooling this mass, it does the "China Syndrome" so continually adding seawater to the lowest levels, where the molten core rests, and then trying to cleanse the seawater of accumulated radiation, and then store it on site. The breached foundation leaks to groundwater and then that leaches into the sea. This entire area is too hot to handle with humans. Overhead are over a thousand fuel rods in an Olympic swimming pool size storage pool and the supporting structure is in "iffy" condition due to the earthquake damage. These fuel rods could have been in "dry cask storage" except that it is cheaper to keep them in the pool. This area is also too hot to touch, so equipment is being manufactured to lift the fuel rods out one at a time. This is fraught with peril because debris can be seen atop the pool. Nobody has any plan to mitigate the molten core sitting on the foundations, because that is really hot stuff. I realize your are Navy and in the business, but don't let loyalty to career blind one to realities. You can't just bore under the molten core and catch it in a new containment device, because it must be constantly bathed with cooling water, in this case, seawater, that is salty and corrosive. That's the story on just one of the three reactors with core meltdowns.

And you do realize that absolutely none of this has anything to do with increasing background radiation that would be significant enough to cause an increase in cancer rates?

I'm not the one blinded here. You are fearmongering. Yes this situation is quite serious and needs to be worked on better, but it isn't nearly as "serious" as some are making it out to be because those people simply do not understand how radiation actually works.

Risky Thicket · Oct 22, 2013

Fisher said:
Perhaps, but Japan is a relatively small place to have to deal with widespread contamination. I suspect the whole mainland will be contaminated by this before it is over.

Contamination of the Pacific Ocean is what is likely to occur and eventually much of the West Coast.

Fisher · Oct 22, 2013

Risky Thicket said:
Contamination of the Pacific Ocean is what is likely to occur and eventually much of the West Coast.

I live on the east coast, so no big deal

DaveFagan · Oct 22, 2013

Risky Thicket said:
Contamination of the Pacific Ocean is what is likely to occur and eventually much of the West Coast.

And increasing every day.

28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Fried With Fukushima Radiation - | Intellihub News

"Photo: Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center.
Photo: Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center.

The map on the left comes from the Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center. It shows that radiation levels at radiation monitoring stations all over the country are elevated. As you will notice, this is particularly true along the west coast of the United States.

Every single day, 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima enters the Pacific Ocean. That means that the total amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima is constantly increasing, and it is steadily building up in our food chain."

DaveFagan · Oct 22, 2013

Risky Thicket said:
Contamination of the Pacific Ocean is what is likely to occur and eventually much of the West Coast.

And increasing every day.

28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Fried With Fukushima Radiation - | Intellihub News

"Photo: Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center.
Photo: Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center.

The map on the left comes from the Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center. It shows that radiation levels at radiation monitoring stations all over the country are elevated. As you will notice, this is particularly true along the west coast of the United States.

Every single day, 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima enters the Pacific Ocean. That means that the total amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima is constantly increasing, and it is steadily building up in our food chain."

iguanaman · Oct 22, 2013

When has Japan asked for international help? That would be great news. The world will pay for any mistakes made in the cleanup and the world should be involved. Money should be no object, the radiation must be contained. The more radiation the more cancer deaths worldwide, not to mention the pollution of the Pacific.

iguanaman · Oct 22, 2013

roguenuke said:
And you do realize that absolutely none of this has anything to do with increasing background radiation that would be significant enough to cause an increase in cancer rates?

I'm not the one blinded here. You are fearmongering. Yes this situation is quite serious and needs to be worked on better, but it isn't nearly as "serious" as some are making it out to be because those people simply do not understand how radiation actually works.

LOL So YOU know that there is no cancer risk from radioactive cesium. Were you also involved in this "test" in 1946? Maybe you even took this picture.

http://boingboing.net/2013/03/20/amazing-photos-of-1946-nuclear.html

NeoVsMatrix · Oct 22, 2013

Fisher said:
I have an anti-sitting in the dark and anti-big utility bills bias. Anything that solves those or balances them out, is fine with me.

With that bias you should be well off...worst case scenario you get free light by just glowing in the dark yourself like a twilight vampire.

NeoVsMatrix · Oct 22, 2013

Deuce said:
I admit to a pro nuclear bias because I have a better understanding of nuclear physics and the effects of these levels of radiation on people.

Comfortable enough to go there yourself and "show the people" that there's no harm, before they are sent back to their cities ? Like, leading with example, for 6 months or so ? You could even help out cleaning up the plant during the day. Of course the trip would be all paid for, including a comfy allowance.

roguenuke · Oct 23, 2013

iguanaman said:
LOL So YOU know that there is no cancer risk from radioactive cesium. Were you also involved in this "test" in 1946? Maybe you even took this picture.

I know that the cancer risk is very small from those.

And a nuclear bomb is nothing like a nuclear accident like what is happening in Fukishima. The amounts of energy and radiactive particles released, plus radiation given off, are vastly different between the two events, with the nuclear bomb giving off much higher radiation levels.

roguenuke · Oct 23, 2013

NeoVsMatrix said:
With that bias you should be well off...worst case scenario you get free light by just glowing in the dark yourself like a twilight vampire.

No. People do not glow from radiation. The worst case here would be a possibly slightly higher chance of girls being born, and even that is pushing it.

iguanaman · Oct 23, 2013

roguenuke said:
No. People do not glow from radiation. The worst case here would be a possibly slightly higher chance of girls being born, and even that is pushing it.

Would the girls look like this is the question...

attack-of-the-50ft.-woman_wallpapers_25834_1024x768.jpg

Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

Considering the ongoing threats of more contamination, should they be re-opend?

YES!

NO!

I DON"T KNOW!

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Outer space potato man

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Outer space potato man

Iconoclast

Sewer Rat

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Member

Member