Status of Nuclear Power Plants in Fukushima Mar 22

Source: Japan Atomic Industrial Forum

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300758392P.pdf

This is a PDF chart showing status of six reactors at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant March 22



Read more: http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/

---

FYI -- This should be the latest update of the status of each of the reactors as of March 22, 2011 (10 am Japan)

from earlier days since the Earthquake.

Which plant has the MOX (plutonium mix) fuel? Isn't this worse as far as contamination, toxicity, and and something like 250,000 year half life?


I worry for Japan and Tokyo as there apparently the "event" will continue.

I have changed my mind about nuclear energy given Chernobyl and what is unfolding.

This is the Mixed-Oxide fuel.

Here's some info from npr.org:

"Some outside experts are particularly concerned about high levels of plutonium in one of the damaged Japanese reactors. About 6 percent of the fuel rods in reactor No. 3 at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant are made from so-called "mixed-oxide" (MOX) fuel, which contains plutonium as well as uranium.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, MOX fuel presents particular risks in an accident.

For one thing, it melts at a slightly lower temperature. In addition, plutonium is a particularly long-lived and toxic material. The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,000 years, so if it escaped in smoke from a burning reactor and contaminated soil downwind, it would remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years.

But officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency say the presence of MOX fuel does not add significantly to the dangers.

Denis Flory, a top safety official at the agency, pointed out that all used nuclear fuel contains plutonium. It forms naturally within conventional uranium fuel as the uranium is bombarded by neutrons.

And although plutonium is a long-lived emitter of radiation, it is also quite heavy, so it is not likely to move very far downwind from its source."

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134600825/plutonium-in-fuel-rods-cause-for-concern?ps=cprs

I knew the plutonium would not travel far (but Tokyo is near).

The idea that destroying weapon grade plutonium (as weapon non-proliferation) as reactor fuel had totally skipped as regards to risk.

The U.S. military is considering the mandatory evacuation of thousands of American troops and their families in Japan out of concern over rising radiation levels,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4782141

"How accurate are the risks from radiation?
Current cancer risk rates are likely to underestimate the risk by a factor of ten or more. These risk estimates are heavily based on studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb survivors, which are flawed due to uncertain dose estimates and confounding exposures, and because when long-term studies finally did begin, people most susceptible to radiation had already died, leading to underestimation of the risks." - Physicians for Social Responsibility.

http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/hanford/hanford-and-human-health.html

Just like some people are more prone to cancer from cigarette smoke or pollution, some are more susceptible to the effects of radiation.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, any exposure to radiation increases a person’s risk of developing cancer. In the case of the Japanese Fukushima reactors, the primary radionuclides of concern are:

* Iodine-131, which causes thyroid cancer when absorbed thru inhalation and ingestion.
* Cesium-137, which when ingested spreads throughout the body. Cesium-137 has the potential to get into the food supply. As a result of Chernobyl, Cesium-137 was taken up by lichen and plants, and animals which consumed those plants became radioactive.
* Strontium-90, which is deposited in bone and teeth where it remains for decades; it causes bone cancer, and leukemia.
* Plutonium-239, which causes lung cancer and remains a severe threat for thousands of years.

Medical treatment for radiation exposure is limited, at best. Iodine pills provide only limited protection against the absorption of Iodine-131, and this is only one of several of the radioactive isotopes that are released during an accident. It must be taken consistently and prior to exposure. In addition, iodine can cause serious health problems if not taken properly and therefore it is not recommended unless there is imminent threat of acute exposure.

(from psr.org)

Thank you very much for this post.

Adding this site to my bookmarks!

'Cause this thing is going to go on for many months, likely years.

Hope none of the reactors have a larger explosion than they already have while they are figuring it out. Might want to
get some people with a little more sense of urgency.

I think it is from the nuclear industry itself

and is their official statement. If they are minimizing the situation in this summary, then uh oh...:scared::banghead: :scared:

I think reading the chart you can see that it's still a very unstable situation. They don't have much incentive to lie and then be caught in (any more) lies with the whole world watching. The emitted radiation tells on them, for one thing. Also they need help from others in the industry and people around the world have a vested interest (like for example, America has a lot of waste :eyes: stored in cooling ponds). The Japanese nuclear industry peeps are now as exposed as their fuel rods.

Do I believe they are totally transparent? No, but it is important to monitor what they're saying. Other news agencies are taking this official report into account. Anything coming from them can & should be corroborated by independent experts. I think it would be close to the truth. The current challenges for containment appear to be bad enough so I guess I don't want to think it could be any worse. Gives nuclear "damage control" a new benchmark--putting out multiple reactor fires (!?) Probably wasn't in the manual.

Fires in the spent fuel ponds are emphasized in this report, and we know that to be what is of greatest concern at the moment.

Thanks for the question, ElsewheresDaughter.

Any other perspectives on this Q from those more familiar with the nuclear industry than I?