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
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)NOT
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
harun
(11,348 posts)because:
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)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)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)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)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.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Shocked!!!
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)Rule number one. Cover Your Ass.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)as long as we are using Nuclear Plants.[/font]
Man has NEVER built a Fail Safe machine.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)And we have Russellville to fear.