Nuclear meltdown at Fukushima plant

Source: Telegraph

One of the reactors at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi power plant did suffer a nuclear meltdown, Japanese officials admitted for the first time today, describing a pool of molten fuel at the bottom of the reactor's containment vessel.

Engineers from the Tokyo Electric Power company (Tepco) entered the No.1 reactor at the end of last week for the first time and saw the top five feet or so of the core's 13ft-long fuel rods had been exposed to the air and melted down.

Previously, Tepco believed that the core of the reactor was submerged in enough water to keep it stable and that only 55 per cent of the core had been damaged.

Now the company is worried that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment vessel, causing water to leak.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8509502/Nuclear-meltdown-at-Fukushima-plant.html

China syndrome is loosely based on the idea of a US nuke plant melting down, all the way through the world and "coming up" in China - like in cartoons.

Since this meltdown started next door to China, it needs a different name for when it "comes up" in the US.

:D

Apart from that, quelle surprise that it's turning out to be as bad as the doom-n-gloomers were saying it would as opposed to being all easily contained like TEPCO and their gullible believers claimed.

Earth, why in the name of God should we be worried about the name?

I started reading this thread this morning, and the "China syndrome" response caught the weird part of my brain is all.

I'm not worried about the name.

Actually, I'm not particularly worried about the event either. It's one of (many) things that I have no ability to control or affect in any measurable way, so from my own perspective, it will either change (or not) or end life (or not) on Earth, whether I worry or ignore it.

It's a meltdown of the core, and if gravity pulled it inexorably downward it would ultimately reach the earth's Core (ridiculous to think it would then proceed upwards against gravity to come out of the crust on the opposite side of the globe).

(and, wow, I didn't think I'd get so many responses to my post.)


Thanks to everyone who played. :)

... plenty of concepts are named after who, where, or when they were first discovered, defined, or verified. The oceans are exhausted as they are, no need for pointless red herring fishing expeditions.


BTW, the whole China syndrome is nonsense anyway. Not because the naming of it, but because the concept itself is an implausibility: Most of the earth is made of molten rock, the core would dissolve pretty quickly if it were to pass through the crust (and that would be highly unlikely to begin with). The dangers in the containment of a molten nuclear core, however, are nothing but dire.

Nobody is suggesting that the molten core is actually going to bore its way through to China. It's just a colloquial term for when the core melts its way through the floor of the containment building. It doesn't mean it will come out the other side.

Oh, and if we're being pedantic, you forgot to mention that the melted core, if it even got that far, would come to rest at the Earth's center of gravity.

A geyser of radioactive steam.

Then we all die...

Apparently.

The so-called "China Syndrome" is both a misnomer and a implausibility, the core once melted does not really go that far into the ground actually.

into the earth's core, due to how thin the crust is there... and in this case... would be a ... self cleaning outcome, for the reasons you outlined. It would become part of the magma pretty dang quick.

Not saying it will happen, but...

according to Wolfram Alpha, is in the Atlantic Ocean, just off the coast of Uruguay.

"Just-off-the-coast-of-Uruguay Syndrome" is going nowhere, I tell ya.

"Ohfuckohfuckohfuckohfuckohfuck... Syndrome?" Sounds pretty catchy to me.

Although, that might not translate well into Japanese.

If I bore straight down I pop up on the southwest coast of Australia. :-)

very cool!

So let's not go there.

Like, who gives a shit if Spellcheck turns it into Armadillo Syndrome? Pretty much the same thing.

After the Japanese reactor pile pops up in Boehner's back yard.


Doubtless he'll embrace it as a "green energy solution" before vomiting up his shoes.

:nuke:

Actually, the opposing side of the earth is in the ocean off the coast of Brazil, but calling it the "In the Ocean Off the Coast of Brazil Syndrome" would drive headline writers crazy.

of the coast almost right in between Uruguay & Argentina...Not Brazil. In the Atlantic Ocean off the Coast right in between Uruguay & Argentina Syndrome...And Yes, that would drive headline writers crazy!!

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=antipode+of+Fukushima%2C+Japan

As in, life on earth has actually been ended?

:)

We are after all in a closed environment and it's gonna spread...

Funny?

I got shouted down and abused two weeks ago complaining about the radiation detectors being taken off line...people on here called bull*** and demanding proof. Well I gave you the proof and the site to the EPA's sporadic monitoring data.

Hope you liked attacking me...may you glow in the dark....

Now it is a national news story and Fukushima announces they did have a meltdown two weeks ago...and the EPA says they had to take West Coast monitoring offline because of budget cuts...yeah right...

Keep smoking that Nuclear power is safe rhetoric. (that is directed to the few pro nuc freaks on here, and not to the rest of the lovely open to debate humans on DU)

understood that TEPCO was full of lies.

I'm no nuclear physicist, but the lies and the propaganda coming out of TEPCO and also
in our own media--were laughable. All you had to do was read the comments sections from
any Fukushima article, in the New York Times. Experts would chime in, and expose how
ridiculous the disinformation was.

One commenter left their name, job title and credentials. He was a nuclear-energy expert
who had worked in plants--and was now a professor. He pointed out a source quoted was
a well-known lobbyist working for the energy companies. Many experts/commenters had
amazing things to say, and I learned so much from those comment sections.

It wasn't long before the comment sections disappeared from most Fukushima articles--and now,
most of the articles have disappeared.

This has been the most heavily propagandized and corporate run disaster in recent history--much, much
worse than BP.

Again, I'm no scientist, but I have worked in corporate PR for decades--and believe me, I know a
concerted messaging campaign--complete with "planted quotes" from "experts".

Wouldn't Chimpy shit if, when he was out "shootin' at some food; and up thru the ground came bubbling nuke"? :D

Everybody BUT Tepco has pointed out the probability of the meltdown for weeks now.
People on DU were smacked down when they posted information to that effect.
People here on DU were smacked down when they even expressed concern over the possibility of a meltdown.

Sheesh.

Meanwhile, what is our EPA saying? **crickets**

People were going waaay overboard on posting alarmist crap, like saying matter-of-factly that Tokyo was being evacuated, that the whole country was contaminated with high levels of nuclear radiation, and that there was a total meltdown that would result in a huge nuclear explosion and stuff like that. They were also in full panic mode when 25 countries announced that they were closing their embassies temporarily, even though most of them were tiny countries. Speaking as someone who is actually living here in Japan-- between Tokyo and the reactors-- and having access to a wealth of sources of information about this disaster, I could tell that a lot of that was hyperbole. People were telling me to "see the reality" when I was "seeing reality" around me every day.

The company had actually acknowledged a partial meltdown with corium several weeks ago, and just after the initial disaster the Asahi Shimbun newspaper carried a huge headline "MELTDOWN" (in Japanese). It's not like what is being reported in this thread is earth-shattering news here in Japan. And radiation readings taken by a host of different organizations, including the Japanese government, prefectural governments, municipal governments, research institutes, universities, the IAEA, the United States DoE, all indicate that by far the worst of this nuclear mess is concentrated in Fukushima prefecture-- which is bad for people in Fukushima, and I sympathize with them greatly. However, in the rest of the country, radiation readings are still normal, or near normal.

If I remember correctly they did not build that at Fukushima.

Per the abc interview today, an excerpt:

MARK COLVIN: See I asked the nuclear regulator in that first week about what was under that vessel in reactor number one because I had been told that there wasn't necessarily anything; there wasn't a proper containment vessel, a concrete containment vessel under the metal containment vessel.

He didn't know and I've never seen a satisfactory answer to that; do we know what's underneath?

MARK WILLACY: I think you're not the only one who hasn't seen a satisfactory answer; the Japanese people certainly haven't been told. Obviously Tepco has now squashed it's obviously three or four press conferences a day into one. The Japanese media get all the questions and I don't believe that that question, either it hasn't been asked or it hasn't been answered.

So it's a very good question and it's one that Tepco hasn't provided an answer on at least at this stage.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3215380.htm

There's a video and recap of the entire interview at the link. Scary stuff.


So reactor one has fully melted down and not likely protected from ground water
Reactors two and three are partially melted down and are leaking radioactive water
Reactor four is dangerously leaning, fears of tipping over

and there is some serious radioactive pollution around the little mentioned reactors 5 and 6.

But nothing to see here, move along folks.

Everyone involved in this disaster has been about as forthcoming with information as Soviet authorities were regarding Chernobyl. Times of crisis such as these tend to bring out some very troubling similarities between the world's current regime and various systems of days past.

Exxon improved it and BP perfected it.

on just how bad things could get...

Interesting math, tell me more!

But I sure as hell can't tell anymore. This has gone well beyond my benefit of the doubt, that the company would do the right things.

Most of this shit was totally avoidable, while still leveraging nuclear power. I am seriously beginning to question if even the newer reactor designs can be implemented with an acceptable margin of safety.

This has gotten just flat goddamn ridiculous.

If there is no catchment, and the corium bores through the full containment, i'm done. I'll never support nuclear power again.

No company will. Governments, even purportedly socialist ones, don't have a much better track record either, as Chernobyl's RBMK design demonstrated.

The sad thing is that nuclear power could be leveraged fairly safely, provided there exists the will to do so. Cost cutting has no place in mission critical designs, especially in domains where the consequences of failure have dramatic global implications.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing for the better when "austerity" is the order of the day and corruption and private/public collusion inevitably lead to shitty outcomes regardless of the money spent.

Depressing stuff.

The question is not, "Can we build safe reactors?", but, "Will we build safe reactor?".

I am sure we can, I am not so sure we will.

Thanks for the thread, bananas.

no nukes

yup

They cleaned up Three Mile Island fine.

This is much much worse.

Chernobyl was also a meltdown...

Because of how different the severity a "meltdown" actually is. Technically any fuel melting is a meltdown, yet in the media and in most people's minds a meltdown is green glowing goo pouring down the street.

Now the issue is wether it is the spare fuel rods that melted, or the core itself.

If the rods are melted, that is still a big issue because it would make the containment efforts to deal with the core really really difficult, due to the situation they create in the vicinity of the reactor. And an unattended reactor will eventually lead to a core meltdown. And a core meltdown is as catastrophic of a failure as can happen for a nuclear reactor. Yes there are several levels of "severity": it ranges from "we're pretty fucked" to "kiss your ass goodbye."

So this event is far from Three Mile Island...

The term "meltdown" as it was used in the Japanese news report refers to a breach in the containment vessel but not a meltdown of the entire core.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz5UNgrWzhk

given the precariousness of the cooling systems in Fukushima.

But hey, if discussing semantics makes it easier to cope with the situation...

usually precedes a full meltdown"? Can you cite past examples of where this has happened?

And yes, semantics are important. Do you not know the difference between "confirmed" and "believed to be"? That is, do you not understand the difference between fact and opinion?

But there was no breach of the reactor vessel or the containment floor.

This accident makes TMI look like a non-event by comparison.

This is different, as they are indicating the core material has escaped the steel RPV.

catagory of danger.

This one got hit by a Tsunami and an Earthquake, that's the main difference.

But I'd be tempted to say that the main difference is the breach of containment at Fukushima and the operator's inability to do much about it. How they got there is a bit incidental at this point.

Frankly, comparing this to TMI is like comparing Bhopal to an overturned hazmat truck on the Interstate.

It just takes awhile because, you know, the entire countryside was wiped out by a 9.0 Earthquake and Tsunami.

n releases into the environment.

I would think people would cheer somewhat. How dare they try and limit the fallout from the site, amirite?

Just as I have no doubt there are many stories of individual heroism among the workers trying to stabilize and cleanup this mess. That's not the point.

What I'm saying is that there's little they can actually do at this point, short of building a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus around the affected buildings.

I don't know if it's a question of cost, arrogance, incompetence, or the combination of all of these factors, but a number of scientists mentioned the futility of dumping water into the containment buildings very, very early on. It seems they've been ignored.

I'm also not at all convinced by the argument that since the plant and the surrounding area have been severely affected by an earthquake and a tsunami, TEPCO, GE, the Japanese and U.S. governments somehow have any kind of leeway in passing the buck for both the plant's shitty design and the fact that we are now looking at an apparently unforeseen failure mode to mother nature.

The long and the short of it is that this POS should not have been built where it was and how it was. I'm as much a supporter of nuclear energy as you'll find here on DU, but this is the kind of crass incompetence and deceit that will doom nuclear energy in the eyes of many. If we are serious about this type of energy, we need to make sure it's done right with the highest levels of transparency.

If the core material has burned through the base of the reactor pressure vessel, we are well beyond a TMI event in terms of cleanup/halting the issue.

To say nothing of the massive amount of radiation released, and lack of control and access to the site (Compared to TMI).

Comparing in the other direction, toward Chernobyl, we're still doing pretty good, but it could get a whole lot worse at Fukushima, yet.

How long did that take? And, where are the tons and tons of radioactive waste they removed from the site? And, how did they transport said waste? And, over which route did said waste travel?

To date, the nuclear energy industry has not developed a protocol for long term storage of nuclear waste, salt domes notwithstanding (talk to ANY geologist worth his/her salt about this idea).

We concerned members of the hoi polloi are still treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed lots of bovine feces. However, increasing numbers of us are advocating for safe, renewable energy and sustainability, with the fervent hope that we're not too late.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/05/12/germany-japan-charting-non-nuclear-low-carbon-renewable-futures/

With yesterday’s announcement by Japan that 14 new nuclear power plants have been shelved in favor of greater emphasis on renewable energy and efficiency, two of the world’s top economies have now explicitly declared themselves as front runners for leadership in the multi-trillion dollar race to become sustainably-powered societies.

Germany’s Angela Merkel made an announcement last month that Germany would “..exit from nuclear power generation as soon as possible and make the transition to renewable energy sources..”

Germany is already among the world leaders in deployment of renewable technologies, with widely copied Feed in Tariff policies that have made the the northern European country an unlikely leader in solar energy, and in some parts of the country, so much wind power is being produced that consumers are being “paid to keep the lights on.”

Its too little to late. The history of humanity could have predicted this. Two headed babies anyone?:nuke:

they have two heads and two esophagus but share just about everything else.

A mother in China has given birth to conjoined twins who share a single body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/weirdnewsvideo/8504107/Two-headed-baby-born-in-China.html

P4E, this is only to respond to the matter, it is not directed towards you in any way.

I love life, I love new life, but why in the name of gods green & blue earth is that baby
allowed to live?

I know this is cold and I expect to be flamed, but really? Really?

What kind of life can "they" expect? Grief just fills my heart.

Just because we can, does not mean we should.

more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel

Anyone want to double? :loveya:

and they have great personalities, too!

Abigail & Brittany Hensel (Age 19)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZUzi0RhBpM

:hi:

I generally agree with you, however, there are outlier cases of people living, what they feel are fulfilling lives in this condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel

and evidently deciding it should not be aborted --

and that extraordinary steps would be taken to bring about a live birth.

fyi

but no one noticed until almost the due date that there were two heads -- ???

Or that anything was wrong -- ?

I'm not familiar with the details, but if the woman was too poor to have early

pre-natal care, then she would have normally been too poor to afford extraordinary

means to deliver such a pregnancy.

They are in college. Yes, you are cold. What would you do, kill them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel

Two ultra sound scans in September and February failed to reveal the two heads because the technicians were viewing the single embryo in profile.

from the article I posted above.

Technology is good, but so are the five senses.

at various times -- from elbows to knees -- and heads!!

Seems like she would have been curious about the two round melons in her tummy.

Right?

Not every pregnancy is the same.

are co-joined twins? Yes, there have been co-joined twins forever.

Since it was in China and they were almost ready to be born when Fukushima nuke plant went kaplooeee.

Typically this happens early on, not during the last month of pregnancy.

leukemia, cancers --

Radiation = DNA damage -- See Iraq -- Depleted Uranium --- and PLUTONIUM at Fuku-!!

Reference was IRAQ to be noted -- damage to newborns there over decades as US refused to

clean up the depleted uranium as requested by Iraq and UN --

and damage to children born to our own soldiers, subsequently.


Again -- this isn't only about uranium -- the Fukushima plants also have PLUTONIUM --

you might read something about that!!

By the way, your usage of bold doesn't do much for making what you are writing any more clear.

"See Iraq -- Depleted Uranium --- and PLUTONIUM at Fuku-!!" means what?

Neither does excessive usage of exclamation marks!!!!!

I bolded the one section to make clear that it was a repeat from my prior

post --


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i.e., we all understand that nuclear represents a fear of DNA damage --

especially to a fetus --

peace4ever didn't answer "because it was a silly question" yet you did. Hmmmm.

I recognize a silly question when I see one --

I prefer to take the 'Green Road', bye.

I'm wondering whether building new, safer nuclear plants might be a better idea than relying on 30-40 year old plants such as the one at Fukushima while waiting for renewable energy to provide the output currently produced by nuclear energy.

1. what do we do with all the waste? (which by curent EPA standards must be contained for 1 million years before it is considered 'safe')
2. disasters happen (no matter how good the tech. especially with 'new' tech)
3. there are safe, clean, renewable alternatives.

:hi:

and greed among those who control our nations?

Also there are reactors that run off waste.

Disasters do happen, which is why you must weigh Nuclear against other forms of energy.

And the renewable alternatives are not able to produce the electricity that Nuclear can, are not suited to all regions, and are not anywhere near cost effective. Greens are great, they should be built, but you're still going to need nuclear energy.

And why not heavily subsidize renewable energy like we do nuclear and oil?

If we can't control it when it goes BOOM, we have no business building it and I feel exactly the same way about deep sea drilling. No way to control a runaway oil gushing volcano a mile or 2 under the water surface? We have no business doing it in the first place.

And what about promoting energy conservation? We really don't do much of that either.

The U.S. had one in the sixties but shut it down because it didn't make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs.

And I'd love to not subsidize Coal or Oil, Nuclear gets "loan guarantees" but it's not really even in the same category as those two regarding subsidies.

Nuclear has a pretty good track record of being controlled, it doesn't go BOOM.

You can conserve energy all you want, eventually you'll need more of it.

And btw, I wish I would have saved a DU link showing the incident reports and violations from your precious nuclear power plants, not especially comforting in the light of the human and environmental damage potential. I guess those are included in their good track record too, right?

I hope I never see the day where we have a catastrophe as serious as Chernobyl or Fukushima. Hope it never happens but suspect we wouldn't have a clue on how to deal with it either.

One positive fact regarding thorium reactors and that's there's tons and tons of "waste" available. Burn Baby Burn, right?

Wouldn't you consider renewable energy technology to be in it's infancy compared to nuclear and oil? How do any of us know what this technology is capable of?

I wish you had saved them. If you're looking for an energy source that has no violations or incidents then you should return to the stone age, it just isn't feasible.

You do consider in your alternative energies the huge repercussions of them failing, right? If it's cloudy for 2 days you have nationwide rolling blackouts because solar doesn't work. Or a volcano in northern europe causes overcast conditions, or the wind doesn't blow...you do know that has serious side effects for the rest of the population when their is no energy, right? Food spoils, air conditioners don't work, elevators turn off, hospitals run on backup generators, traffic lights go out.

And Chernobyl and Fukushima are complete non-events compared to what the Oil and Natural Gas industry do on a daily basis, at power plants that run "correctly." You do realize how many people die each year not just from mining coal, but from living near the power plants that release more toxic and radioactive materials than nuclear plants ever have, right?

I don't consider Nuclear energy to be past infancy, scientists still haven't cracked fusion and most new technologies/reactors cannot be built because of costs/political concerns.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:)

You can be killed installing it. You can be killed by DC or AC electricity.

All forms of stored energy and energy production are inherently dangerous to some degree.


Granted, it's not a very meaningful statement to point that out, since there is a vast disparity in risk, but there is also vast disparity in generating capacity.

guarantees --

NO PRIVATE COMPANY WILL ENSURE THEM -- which should make quite clear the

damage that can and has occurred -- so far in Japan $300 billion

in damage -- and I doubt any of that amount has anything to do with the

Pacific Ocean and animal life!

National Academy of Sciences recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years, which is the current epriod that EPA must regulate any nuclear waste.

more info...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act

Disasters do happen.

Nuclear energy is not cost effective when you take into account all the cost associated with the construction of the plant, and storage of the waste, let alone when disasters happen. they are astronomically expensive. and deadly.

There are alternatives to nuclear power.

Consume nuclear waste.

Disasters do happen, of course. I'd like to see a coal power plant withstand an 9.0 Earthquake and a Tsunami and not kill someone or release thousands of gallons of toxic and radioactive sludge.

Please tell me what power source can replace nuclear? Because right now it's Coal, that's it. You're not going to power the nation of Japan with rooftop solar and wind farms, sorry :(

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

doesn't require deadly and costly nuclear anything.

Disasters Happen. which is why we must move from these dirty, toxic, non renewable sources of energy ASAP.

Just as the internet has shown the power of distributed, and diverse computing power, especially in terms of scalability, so will green energy as there are more options than just solar.

We need a new Apollo program for green tech. and begin investing our dollars wisely for the future.

Thorium reactors are the latest in a series of 'free lunch' programs cooked up by the nuclear industry. Wake me when there is one up and running.

Also here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#List_of_thorium-fueled_reactors

And unlike Solar Thermal, Thorium works when it's overcast for more than a couple of days.

It is very disingenuous for you to claim that solar and wind, both being deployed and with a proven track record, are "not practical" or "unfeasible." While at the same time you provide very experimental and non-deployed technology, like Thorium, as a practical counter-example. It makes me think you have an agenda.

Of course not, there is also geothermal, tidal, etc.

There are plenty of clean alternatives, that could come on line and would cost similarly as a brand new nuclear plant with similar outputs. They are actually cheaper if we compare them against the overall cost of nuclear if we take into account the externalities (like the actual cost of this disaster) and the dollar amount involved in dealing with the nuclear waste. Aspects which are usually left out of the cost equation for dirty energy production systems, and it is not hard to see why.

This would all be moot.

Not to mention BP and its destruction of the Gulf -- !!!

Lucky us -- corporations helping us with energy!!


:)

all of it. stored fuel. Reactors. The entire buildings. The total damage to the ocean would be negligible. We've thrown WAY more radioactive material and entire running reactors into the oceans before. Negligble damage. Very localized.

on average, it takes six months to shut down our nuclear reactors here in states --

evidently something about the design of these in Japan indicates it may take as much

as a year --

on an earthquake-prone island!!


As the woman from the Bikini Islands said after we nuked her homeland in testing

atomic weapons --

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things" -- !!

And Obama wants 36 billion in subsidies for the nuke industry!!!:nuke:

k/r :nuke:

Looks like the truth leaked out much slower than the radioactive fuel did.

Give us the 6 billion for windmills, instead.

... the cash from the nuke lobby makes too much noise. You may have to speak up.

so much destruction. they should consider using the place as the backdrop for an apocalyptic movie. if it isn't "hot" that is.

Oh wait it did.

they didn't just find this out did they.

now to learn what does this mean, for the people there, in Tokyo, throughout the rest of the world. damn.

but this is the first time they publicly acknowledged the complete meltdown.

So yes it is news to the general public

What it means for the Japanese people is that they once again find their 'powers that be' have been blowing smoke up their butts.

take a little lookie-loo?

At the moment, what this means is probably permanent entombment of the reactor core in this reactor. No cleanup, decommission process like Three Mile Island.

because they care more about money than people, and they know this disaster could break them. they've been letting out the bad news in doses it seems to me but i don't buy that they have not known what a total catastrophe it is from the get. so it's greed, can only be greed.

i feel so badly for the people stuck there. heaven only knows (well maybe TEPCO has a pretty good idea) what the future holds for them.

BTW totally agree about Tepco. I have said from the beginning that they always use "could be" or similar language, and then they would give us more damaging information later.

They've always given us our info in Tepco doses.

By serious radiation I mean cesium, the stuff that doesn't degrade easily, usually taking decades.

Greenpeace has been 12 miles out off the coast of Japan and has found highly excessive levels of this type of radiation in the seaweed.

I expect that drinking water of all of Japan has been contaminated.

Japan will have a high rate of cancers and birth defects for decades. Since of course it will take a while (a few years) for the effects to start to show, the government can right now get away with saying everything is fine don't worry.

For us, we will also consume some of this radiation. How much is anyone's guess. And it will have to be a guess because our governmental agencies are turning a blind eye.

?

Radiation has spread across to the US which will also contaminate our water

and soil --

And every time it rains, it will all be re-delivered to us all again and again and

again -- !!

Haven't heard a word from them since the tsumani. Where did they go?

There were plenty of peeps in DU during and after the tsunami parroting all sorts of pro-nuke talking points.

I am sure there will be a few here who will make it sure we understand that there is little difference, danger-wise, between a reactor melting down and a banana truck tipping over on the highway.

"Don't worry, be happy, go nukes!" --

The pro-nukes have been here and will be back, but they aren't in control of our country --

people like Obama are --

Remember Obama's words just before the BP disaster in the Gulf --

"Rigs these days don't leak" -- ???? Yikes!!

And Obama has arranged for huge loan guarantees/subsidies for the nuclear industry

and a new generation of nuclear plants here in US --

The insanity that provides for things like BP and drilling in our oceans -- and

nuclear power plants is what must be addressed by us overall -- !!

From the highest perspectives --



:nuke:

I don't blame them. America really needs better science education in public schools, some of the crap people say about Nuclear Energy is embarrassing.

and doesn't create waste that makes everyone ill --

:eyes:

I am sure there are many Japanese who agree with you

keep reading.

I've had the same experience, Avant Guardian. For a few weeks after the tsunami, the pro-nuke activists were vehemently defending nuclear power, especially the NEW, and IMPROVED, and SEXY thorium reactors--but, where are they now?

**crickets...**

Hope they remembered to have bone marrow taken first. That way they could survive the inevitable leukemia they would contract.

With current rules, regulations and the business model for Nuke plants my stance has changed. Not unless they reformed all of it would I support them the same way. I still feel other energy models are more dangerous, oil and coal. We aren't in Iraq and Lybia to get more uranium. Far more people experience a negative health impact from coal than from Nuclear.

Problem I see with nuclear power is we simply have no control over what the nuclear operators do. One can envision a massive disaster coupled with say an outbreak of disease. What do we do if the operators simply decide to go home or leave. We are totally screwed. At this point in time governments simply are not able to take on what would be required to make them safe, secure and accountable.

So we are not quiet, just trying to think of a better way to do things.

Put solar panels on every roof in the country. No more need for coal OR nukes.

Nukes threaten life on earth.

get the latest developments on applying the newest damage control policies?

Or possibly, they are studying Nuclear Physics at the Internet School of Nuclear Scientology and Research so they can get the latest expert opinions on how and why nuclear power is completely safe.

And... :D btw, anonymous sources have confirmed that a new product, called "NukeAway" has been developed that makes nuclear waste instantly disappear without a trace, and will be available in the near future.

...preach it around Japan. I am sure they would get a welcoming reception.

...Oops. Well I guess some people may not have figured that out yet, so maybe this is news for some people.

Tokyo Electric says temperatures at the bottom of the reactor are between 100 and 120 degrees Celsius, suggesting that the fuel has fallen and is being cooled in the water below.

The utility says it does not believe the fuel has completely melted and spilled through the bottom of the reactor. It adds that instead, the fuel appears to be being cooled inside the reactor.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_23.html


the telegraph article doesn't even make sense:

Engineers from the Tokyo Electric Power company (Tepco) entered the No.1 reactor at the end of last week for the first time and saw the top five feet or so of the core's 13ft-long fuel rods had been exposed to the air and melted down.

Previously, Tepco believed that the core of the reactor was submerged in enough water to keep it stable and that only 55 per cent of the core had been damaged.


5 feet out of 13 feet = 39%.

so previously, they believed that only 55% of the core had been damaged, but now they think 39% has been?

wtf?

also, if they previously believed 55% of the core had been damaged, that = a "meltdown." because any melting of the fuel rods/core damage = a meltdown.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:nuclear+meltdown&defl=en&sa=X&ei=YiXMTdGkJoP2tgOJ8MXJBg&ved=0CAUQowMoAQ

and both tepco & the japanese government have discussed melt of the fuel rods & damage to the core before.

this article is just misleading crap. it does not inform people, it just adds to their confusion.

but it makes it to the front page.

anything this dangerous and controversial -- !!

They're going to try to save their asses -- protect profits -- and run PR!!

Not that our government is much different these days being so heavily corporatized!!

:rofl:

'tis just a flesh wound.

:wtf:

The OP mentions "the end of last week" and "Previously" and "Now" as context:

Your link says "Thursday morning":

This is so screwed up, in so many ways. And it is a fucking big deal.

MIT's Lab for Nuclear Science reported this weeks ago.

All the more justification for this thread, then, since the M$M has seen fit--as has TEPCO--to avoid thorough and HONEST coverage of this disaster.

(BTW, immediately after the tsunami, most of us anti-nuke activists were asserting that meltdown(s) were inevitable. In short, it didn't take a rocket scientist to understand what was coming down the pike...)

we are our own worst enemy.

Those poor people.

the math doesn't add up. 5 feet of 13 is not 55%. At all.

Regardless, everyone knew this was bad. This story doesn't really help sort things out, however.

it DOES point to the fact that TEPCO and the M$M have obfuscated and lied by omission for much of the time since the reactors' coolant systems AND back-up systems went inoperable.

From MIT's Technology Review, published online May 9, 2011:

...other industry shills--is confusing and obtuse. When you lie about something so complex
and important--you get tripped up and your words contradict basic science (and even common sense).

When you tell the truth and you want to inform people--the articles are concise, helpful and
full of useful information that doesn't contradict what you said yesterday or last week.

They're not trying to inform us or be helpful. They're covering their asses and lying like dogs.

The fallout from that is that people half way around the world at MIT see through your bullshit
and can refute the propaganda.

It sells it VERY well. Doesn't even have to be accurate. Just plaster, Radiation found in drinking water on the front page, it will get hits, and then those companies make money. So if we're talking profit motive, then we can't really trust anyone.

Of course the public is interested in what's happen in Japan --

Why wouldn't we all be -- we're all "Down Wind'ers" --

It's the Pacific Ocean -- !!

Should we have not all been interested in the BP disaster and destruction of Gulf?

Concentrating on a few bucks made in "news" while so much else is lost is inane.

What's the Pacific worth? What's the Gulf worth? What's the planet worth?

I'm not worried about fallout from fukushima because I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than I do to get cancer from it (and I live on the west coast). There isn't any need to start taking KI, stockpile dehydrated milk, or any other nonsense. When it's reported as 'over the legal limit', without any explanation of why that limit exists and what it does, then it's nothing more than scare mongering. one day at 25% over limit is effectively nothing since the legal limit for drinking water is if you drank at the limit for a year, and then you'd only pull 4mrem, which statistically also won't do anything, even if you drank it for your entire lifetime.

Hanah Bell already smashed this story apart with basic logic. As Bell has done in the past when the other news agencies have mis-quoted, mis-interpreted, or otherwise screwed up the original source that they quoted from. Of course you know this since you replied to their direct refute of the post.

has dropped off rapidly lately, I am not sure I agree. Furthermore, given that they are holding back information, I would advise people to read, and listen to the news on a daily basis, as the events are unfolding dynamically.

Your post reminds me of my students who argued that global warming is just a fiction created for green capital. As if the forces of brown capital/big oil aren't exponentially more powerful than green capital. Who stands to gain the most? TEPCO. Beyond that, it doesn't make much sense that this situation would stabilize since it is unprecedented.

Facing what I can only presume was a similar scenario with my students, I encouraged them to watch a TeacherTube video called "Did you Know" by Karl Fisch. After we acknowledged that the video was out of date already (less than a year after it was put online), we discussed at length the concept 'exponential times.' My students concluded that it's difficult to assess current events, because change is so incredibly rapid. We did touch on how differently 'tv' generations process information, compared to our forebears who grew up without television. This was obviously something few of my students had considered.

Our species now processes information in "7 second sound bites" and our attention moves exponentially from one topic to the next ("Oh, look, it's a sparkly!"). At this point, most US citizens seem unaware of the dangers posed by Fukushima. I wonder if they'd care, given that the disaster is 'NIMBY' and Japan is 'oh-so-far-away.'

No more need for nukes or coal power. No pollution either.

Source: Reuters

Fukushima reactor has a hole, leading to leakage
By Yoko Kubota and Scott DiSavino
TOKYO/NEW YORK | Thu May 12, 2011 5:47pm EDT

By Yoko Kubota and Scott DiSavino

TOKYO/NEW YORK (Reuters) - One of the reactors at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant has a hole in its main vessel following a meltdown of fuel rods, leading to a leakage of radioactive water, its operator said on Thursday.

The disclosure by Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) is the latest indication that the disaster was worse than previously disclosed, making it more difficult to stabilize the plant.

- snip -

Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have been pumping water into at least three of the six reactors on the site to bring their nuclear fuel rods to a "cold shutdown" state by January.

But after repairing a gauge in the No. 1 reactor earlier this week, TEPCO discovered that the water level in the pressure vessel that contains its uranium fuel rods had dropped about 5 meters (16 ft) below the targeted level to cover the fuel under normal operating conditions. "There must be a large leak," Junichi Matsumoto, a general manager at the utility told a news conference.

Read more: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE74B1H520110512?irpc=932

the end

yup

a known fault line?

Some decisions seem to ensure the destruction of the human race. If we don't have smart people around willing to offset those stupid decisions, we are doomed.

and another on a fault in New York. That's 3 that I know of in this country. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

on the bright side, soon we can use a glass of milk as a night light. Look at all the money we'll save.

"The World" is never allowed much say in these
sorts of things. We're just placed in harm's
so "they" can make their profits.

Tesha

This is the best way to put it. These kinds of ventures profit a very few but the costs are spread amongst us all.

Besides, the plants came out of the quake in relatively good shape. It was the tsunami that did them in. They shouldn't have been built next to the ocean in a known tsunami zone, with all their backup generators in the basement.

There is another nuclear plant southwest of Tokyo that IS built on a fault line, and the government has decided to shut that one down.

"It is totally out of control. And there's simply nothing we can do about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1090499

you think that guy from Tepco was crying at the news conference for no reason. You think the state took over all release of news from the plant for no reason. Japan is done. The third largest economy in the world, the reverberations will be felt around the world. It is a disaster of biblical proportions yet no one talks about it.

God, I hate the patronization of that meme.

people are talking about it, and have been since the beginning! We've endured scatalogical insults about our intellects and our politics, particularly from pro-nuke activists opposed to our anti-nuke sensibilities.

This IS a disaster, with outcomes we've yet to imagine. Perhaps our species has fouled our 'nest' beyond the point of no return, and Gaia will now roll over and scrape us off Her backside.

but it's been a really bad spring for me....

Except every scientist from Einstein on, and all the speculative fiction writers... and anyone with even a smattering of science education...

a boatload of anti-nuke activists who've been ON THE BALL, and done their research over the past few decades (for me, since the early 70s).

this almost from the beginning?

Yes, this is a rhetorical question.