Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
Fri May 25, 2012, 11:22 AM May 2012

Utility Says It Underestimated Radiation Released in Japan By REUTERS

Source: NY Times

Utility Says It Underestimated Radiation Released in Japan

TOKYO (Reuters) — The amount of radioactive materials released in the first days of the Fukushima nuclear disaster was almost two and a half times the initial estimate by Japanese safety regulators, the operator of the crippled plant said in a report released on Thursday.

The operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, said the meltdowns it believes took place at three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released about 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances into the air during March 2011. The accident, which followed an earthquake and a tsunami, occurred on March 11.

The latest estimate was based on measurements suggesting the amount of iodine-131 released by the nuclear accident was much larger than previous estimates, the utility said in the report. Iodine-131 is a fast-decaying radioactive substance produced by fission that takes place inside a nuclear reactor. It has a half-life of eight days and can cause thyroid cancer.

It is difficult to judge the health effects of the larger-than-reported release, since even the latest number is an estimate, and it does not clarify how much exposure people received or continue to receive from contaminated soil and food. Experts have been divided on the health impacts since the disaster because the studies of assessing radiation risks are based mainly on a different type of exposure — the large doses delivered quickly by the atomic bombs in Japan in 1945.

<snap>



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/world/asia/radioactive-release-at-fukushima-plant-was-underestimated.html?_r=3

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Utility Says It Underestimated Radiation Released in Japan By REUTERS (Original Post) villager May 2012 OP
Shocked, I tell ya', shocked. Mnemosyne May 2012 #1
K&R (NT) Eric J in MN May 2012 #2
And that is a pefect example of why I am now against Nuclear Power, that is harun May 2012 #3
Yeah, I changed my opinion as a result of Fukushima as well. GliderGuider May 2012 #4
glad to see a convert PatrynXX May 2012 #5
Well, yes. GliderGuider May 2012 #6
Populations rise, but they also can decline willfully. closeupready May 2012 #10
Shocked to hear that gambling is going on here in the casino! closeupready May 2012 #7
Underestimated = lied about all along. Hubert Flottz May 2012 #8
The Fukushima Lesson: bvar22 May 2012 #9
My sentiments exactly. BlueToTheBone May 2012 #11
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
4. Yeah, I changed my opinion as a result of Fukushima as well.
Fri May 25, 2012, 12:42 PM
May 2012

I think the largest existential threat that life on our planet faces is human-induced climate change, so for a while I was pro-nuke because of its potential to supply GHG-free electricity.

Fukushima taught me a lot about the downsides of nuclear power: the corporate/governmental axis that supports it, the technological complexity, the probability of accidents, the lies and deceptions. and that's even before we get into the radiological risks posed by accidents and stored fuel.

I still hate coal/gas/oil more than nuclear power, but nuclear is a much easier target for elimination - especially now that we've seen inside the beast.

PatrynXX

(5,668 posts)
5. glad to see a convert
Fri May 25, 2012, 02:09 PM
May 2012

I used to be very pro Natural Gas. I'm not anymore. not the way they are trying to release it. Farmers in NY want it, but then they need to look for the farmers in TX that have to have their water trucked in because the water on their land catches fire. Texas farmers that look like they are quite the cowboy and probably Republican are having their water trucked in. o_O too late now..

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
6. Well, yes.
Fri May 25, 2012, 02:28 PM
May 2012

Fracking has gotten everyone's attention, largely because the effects are immediate, concrete and perceptible. Climate change is having a harder time gaining acceptance because the treat is long-term, abstract and imperceptible.

People who "get" the threat that climate change and ecological overshoot represent - those who get it on an emotional as well as an intellectual level - recognize that it's not just our energy extraction technologies that are the problem. The real problem is in the overall level of human activity, which is based on our use of incomprehensibly enormous quantities of energy, most of it (over 85%) from fossil fuels.

The answer to the problem doesn't lie in better energy technologies, but in less human activity. Less travelling, building, digging, chopping, spraying, burning, eating... Fewer people doing fewer things with less stuff and less energy is the ultimate long-term answer. Unfortunately, as a voluntary solution that is not in the realm of the possible.

So we wait... Sooner or later, Mother Nature will bring Change to our doorstep, and ring the bell.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
10. Populations rise, but they also can decline willfully.
Fri May 25, 2012, 03:21 PM
May 2012

Look at Europe. Lots of apparent handwringing about the population decline going on there, but it's happening not through the effects of war or famine or pestilence, but basically, people aren't having as many kids now.

I argue that population control has to be a part of any attempt to reduce our carbon emissions.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
9. The Fukushima Lesson:
Fri May 25, 2012, 03:20 PM
May 2012
[font size=5]It CAN and WILL happen again, and AGAIN,
as long as we are using Nuclear Plants.
[/font]


Man has NEVER built a Fail Safe machine.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Utility Says It Underesti...