eom

So my sentiments exactly

Didn't just about everyone assume it was worse than they claimed?

We have known all along, really. TEPCO may have claimed that contaminated water from the site wasn't reaching the ocean, but no one ever BELIEVED that.

Same thing with the reactor status shortly after 3/11, etc. Everyone has already been assuming that the obvious existed. What physically has to happen did happen, and everyone, including the IAEA, figured that it was happening.

However, this NEW incident is qualitatively different from admitting what we all already knew long before. This is a game-changer, for the following reasons:
1) The tank must have been leaking for a while without being detected, and it may well be the source of the growing contamination in groundwater that TEPCO's testing has been finding this summer.
2) There are tons of others just like it out there.
3) It is not even that the monitors on this tank failed. There ARE NO MONITORS. In any of the tanks.
4) There was a concrete barrier built around these tanks to contain leaks if they happened, but the drainage system for the barriers has to be left open so the rains don't build up a pool, so it is for show only,
5) Others of these tanks could also be leaking.

In other words, what we have now is a clear picture of "out of control", and the out-of-controlness is occurring not due to consequences of the earlier accident, but due to improper/incomplete mitigation strategies. Further, the implications of a leak of water this contaminated is that if more leakage starts, the exposures to workers are potentially so serious as to threaten other work ongoing at the site, or perhaps even present an immediate threat to the lives of the workers.

This is one hell of a red flag.

TEPCO really does not have the funds to deal with the next phase of the cleanup. There is no alternative but to spend large sums of money to deal with this pretty highly contaminated water. It will require a whole huge treatment plant of its own, with safe storage and this plant will present risks of its own. It's going to be very expensive and basically something of a new thing, because no one's ever had to deal with this type of problem before.

There is nothing that can be done about the contamination that is in the ground at this highly contaminated site. The reactor cores themselves are not contained, and the necessary water flow through the reactors for cooling purposes can only be partly contained. There is no real way to eventually prevent a lot of that from drifting into the ocean. The water flowing out of the reactors is highly contaminated, and it is going into basements that are not sealed. And the radioactivity levels are so high that the only proposals to try to establish a new closed loop system for cooling the reactors require the use of a robot that does not yet exist, and which is supposedly in the process of design. Right now it's the TEPCO sci-fi robot.

But this particular incident points out contamination that can be avoided, but that isn't being avoided. That's what makes it different, and mandates some pretty massive changes ASAP.

that the story was being overblown. That it was perfectly safe, and there was nothing to worry about....

they were wrong.

...and accused of saying that Fukushima is a model of rectitude, but that article is filled with generalities and vague accusations by people, some of whom do not even claim to have visited the site.

Before you bring out the filthy names, I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT FUKUSHIMA IS NOT A DISASTER.

Storing radiocative water in hastily manufactured tanks for two years is just plain stupid, and is an invitation for the spread of contamination. These particular reactors are designed to cut costs and the design should never have been licensed to begin with. It certainly appears that the response since the disaster have been poorly handled.

The Japanese are not saying much, not saying enough, about progress in dealing with this mess, and so various and sundry so-called "journalists" are writing pieces which are totally devoid of any actual facts so that scare mongers can beat the drums of doom. Yes, this mess may cause the death of millions or even billions, but I'm not going to start digging graves for my family until I see some actual facts; something more specific than "water is pouring out all over the place" from someone who the article does not even claim as having been to the site. Of the "experts" it quotes, it says only that one of them "visited the ocean around the site."

Journalists used to tell us what was actually happening, now they write vague speculation and quote people who "have served as consultants" to unrelated entities, and we foam at the mouth based on the bubbles in the bathwater.

The article is fine - it is the fact that it casts nuclear in a bad light that is bothering you.

Yeah, we know, you are against nuclear. And yet, you routinely spend your time trying to undermine articles that are critical of nuclear with transparent tactics that are, themselves, void of content.

...because this "discussion" does not welcome independent thinking./ It welcomes nothing other than "oh you are so right." That is not a discussion, it is nothing more than an echo chamber. The label says "Enter the discussion Forums," but they are not discussions if everyone is required to agree exactly with the original post.

Of course, you couldn't possibly be a troll, so it is obviously just a co-incidence that your actions over a number of posts are strikingly similar to what a troll would do. Perhaps if your criticisms were had some substantial base the impression you leave would change.

For example, Mycle Schneider isn't a lightweight. His annual publication on the status of the nuclear industry and his research with the International Panel on Fissile Materials commands respect from every reputable scientist and researcher in the world.

And cite the actual facts and specific instances of faults which he states about Fukushima in the article.

THE ARTICLE CONTAINS NO SPECIFICS.

It contains vague generalizations and nonspecific accusations, just as you defend the expert by giving no specific cititions but by saying that he "commands respect" from unnamed "reputable scientists and researchers." I can make the claim that he is a total snake oil salesman with as much credibility as your assertion because I have as much proof of that as you offer of his expertise -- an unsupported statement.

I made no assertions about Fukushime being better or worse than what anyone else has asserted, I don't know. I have no facts and the article offers no actual facts. I'm saying that before I go screaming about how terrible something is I needs actual facts upon which to base that accusation. Not vague accusations from someone whose curriculum vitae is not stated and who does not even say in the article, "I have been there and looked at it," but rather makes staements that start with "I am concerned that..." Well, big deal. I am concerned that the Sun might not rise tomorrow morning, but that doesn't mean that my concern is in any way reasonable.

You make this same type of absurd demand repeatedly on negative news stories related to nuclear.
The BBC is a respected news outlet and they are reporting news for the general public. If you have information to show they are inaccurate then post it instead of your vacuous mewling. Otherwise, we're done.

This is a news piece. Right here. Click on the article and read what a real journalist does. That is news, not the puffery in what you call a news piece.

And notice my reaction to it.

Here's another piece written by a real journalist, rather than by a hack. It gives facts and real information. That is journalism.

According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, manufactured homes built before 1980 consume an average of 84,316 BTUs per square foot, 53 percent more than other types of homes. A study by the energy consultant group Frontier Associates found that in extreme climates, residents in older manufactured homes pay up to $500 a month for electricity.

But although this is a piece of strikingly poor journalism, the risks being referenced are real.

The water problem at Fukushima Daiichi stems from three sources. Runoff of groundwater into and through the site, the massive quantities of water that must be poured through the three stricken reactors every hour of every day for years to come, and rainwater falling on the site.

TEPCO has a plan to deal with the groundwater runoff from the higher ground surrounding the site - divert it. They are going to have to do that, and it will introduce some additional contamination into the Pacific, but not much, and way less than any other alternative.

TEPCO cannot stop the other two sources. Those they have to deal with, and there has been not even a suggestion of a plan to deal with them.

As for the threat to human life, it is mostly to the lives of the workers at the plant. This water in those tanks comes from the runoff out of the reactors, so it is highly contaminated. But even if all the water were sloshed into the Pacific at one time, the Pacific is huge and the radioactivity concentrations would be almost immediately diluted to the point that they posed little threat to anyone.

However, work must continue at that plant, and hundreds of tons of highly contaminated water flooding the plant is a very serious threat to ongoing operations.