Published: March 10th, 2015 at 4:15 am ET
|
Jiji Press, Mar 5, 2015 (emphasis added): Where is the melted fuel in the stricken reactors at Fukushima No. 1? This remains a question… cosmic rays [are being used] to “see through” the reactors… [Prof. Fumihiko Takasaki of the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization calls the] nuclear disaster a “national crisis”… muon detectors were… placed last July at reactor No. 1… As detector units can’t be placed underground at reactor 1, any melted fuel in the underground part of the reactor will go undetected.
Science (AAAS), Mar 5, 2015: Fukushima Daiichi… won’t be truly safe until engineers can remove nuclear fuel… But first, they have to find that fuel… [TEPCO] thinks… fuel in the Unit 1… dropped to the bottom of the containment… engineers need much more detail about its location and condition… By the end of this month, Takasaki says, the detectors may have absorbed enough muons to confirm there is no fuel left in the reactor core… [Detectors] won’t be able to map fuel that may have flowed to the bottom of the containment vessel.
Wall St Journal: Fuel rods… melted fully out of their pressure vessel [says Tepco]… but it likely stopped as Tepco began [injecting] seawater [See: Tepco: We should have told public this sooner… water injections failed to cool melted fuel]… Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, says it remains unclear why the fuel rods didn’t also breach the containment wall. “Why this didn’t happen is still unknown”…
U.S. NRC — State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report (pdf), Oct 2012: Fukushima Daiichi… presented… many insights with potential parallels to SOARCA’s analysis of… Peach Bottom, a similarly designed plant… in the SOARCA scenarios, significant hydrogen release [begins with] failure of the containment pressure boundary, which… results from molten debris failing the drywell liner… (i.e., drywell liner melt-through)… TEPCO has announced… the fuel did not move laterally across the drywell floor [and melt through the liner]… In the analyses presented in
this report, hydrogen [was] released via the failure of the drywell liner by melt-attack.
Argonne National Lab (USA), MCM (Switzerland), Sep 2014: location of 1F corium — Critical questions relate to the extent of core melt and the extent to which it has melted through RPV and penetrated into the primary containment… “hot particles”… may be throughout the reactor building [and] water collection system and even released to surroundings… Identification of hot particles… is going to be critical for safe decommissioning… [the equipment] must withstand extremely high radiation – perhaps up to greater than 200 Sv/hr.
More from MCM: Most molten core appears to be contained within the primary containment, although a very small extent of melt-through to… cannot be precluded.
Symposium sponsored by Consortium for Japan Relief — Chim Pom, published Feb 2015: “Media never reported that the whole process — meltdown, melt-through, and so-called melt-out — happened, was done within a few days after the earthquake.”
Published: March 10th, 2015 at 4:15 am ET
|
sending...
PS. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/155500.html
Report comment
Muon imagery will be useless at Fukushima, because there is so little melted fuel above ground level.
"As [muon] detector units can’t be placed underground at reactor 1, any melted fuel in the underground part of the reactor will go undetected."
Muon imagery is less than useless, because months have been lost relying on the muon imagery effort to map the missing cores.
Mapping the missing corium is Fukushima Job One.
Isolating the corium from the environment by diverting groundwater away from the corium is Job Two.
Where is the missing corium, eh, TEPCO?
Report comment
Fourth Anniversary of the 3/11/2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku, Japan earthquake and nuclear disaster.
Happy 4th birthday, Fukushima!
Report comment
At this time, I can find no mention of Fukushima Anniversary on http://www.cnn.com.
I also am tuned into CNN on TV.
No mention of Fukushima in the past one hour.
But I know all about the stupid Republicans and their stupid open letter to the leaders of Iran.
And Hiliary's email.
Way to go, MSM. Completely missing the boat once again.
Report comment
Today many folks will realize that TF2 is worse than they were led to believe, but most will shrug it off and resume posting inane tidbits about their recent weekend exploits to their FaceBook page.
I mean, like, this Fukushima Fiasco happened what 4 years ago? Why dwell on the past. Sure the tsunami was horrific and the evacuees can't ever go home, but Japan is still kicking so move on ya Fukushima Fearmongers.
The Pacific? Oh, that's just a warm water thing, the sardines are missing so the sea lions have less food.
Besides, my aching bones can't be from strontium-90 could it? And my palpitating heart from cesium 134/137? My recent depression from melatonin/serotonin disrupted shared electrons in the indoleamine ring? Surely my leukemia and thyroid cancer happened because I ate at McDonald's too much?
Report comment
"SPENT FOOLS POOLS" (Guess I wasn't the only one calling them that
)
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/japans-catastrophic-nuclear-power-cover-up/
http://www.fukushimaupdatereport.com/
""We had an explosion," MIT's Dr. Jim Walsh reports, the Boston, Massachusetts skyline and the Prudential Center skyscrapers glimmering brightly behind him. "It turned out that explosion did not compromise the [nuclear] core facility," he guesses (minute 29). Walsh immediately betrays his speculation a few minutes later (minute 59). "Hopefully [emphasis added], it's just the outer structure, and has left unaffected the reactor, and unaffected the containment vessel. Because if it were to affect those things…uh… that would be bad news…"
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/japans-catastrophic-nuclear-power-cover-up/
Bad News. Yup. (note link above is from 18 March 2011
keith harmon snow)
Report comment
http://fukushimafourthanniversaryevents.blogspot.com/
https://nonukesaction.wordpress.com/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/136/663/239/dont-dump-radioactive-water-into-the-pacific-from-fukushima-tanks/
Report comment
march
emerging
from the snowmelt
a row of graves
(3.11.15 – bo)
Report comment
https://db.tt/H1wkegyD
Report comment
Great surrealistic photo bo!
As the Black Knight would say: "Just a scratch!"
And that was the reactor building that supposedly wasn't even online 4 years ago on The Day Japan As We Knew It Died.
https://photos-1.dropbox.com/t/2/AADBQo2OIL51-Blne34UNFeX24RmRnQiNbG6_cQpzuZkgQ/12/159763693/jpeg/1024×768/3/1426089600/0/2/unit4%20north%20wall.jpg/CO2Zl0wgASACIAMoAQ/AuMqgoLTRwq6lkz8ZVjfD1dwlFMOCG0UfTCBQHHd0aY
Report comment
Good morning SP ! Thank u.. I hope you have a good day today. Thank you for all the pixels.
Report comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BylDzpCMqCA
WIPP Town Hall Meeting~ Squirt Guns & HEPA Vacuum Filter Update 3/5/15
MsMilkytheclown1
Published on Mar 8, 2015
The WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) Town Hall Meeting held March 5, 2015 in Carlsbad New Mexico. Squirt guns and hepa vacuum cleaner air filters in the underground salt cavern that partially collapsed and bolts broken housing the United States nuclear waste. A "truck fire" and "exploded barrels" and how Department of Energy and WIPP is "cleaning up the mess" The actual town hall meeting begins at 6:57 into the video. Feel free to skip forward to 6:57 for only the town hall meeting portion.
BONUS LINKS: WIPP Electrical Flaw Nearly Left The Midwest Uninhabitable, And May Yet Still http://youtu.be/xxMn2oZGsaE
http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/…
AND Lots More links if you search Potrblog https://www.youtube.com/user/potrblog…
WIPP Exploded Barrel Video 5 -19-14 Evidence of Damaged Drum in Panel 7, Room 7
This low resolution video clip was produced by use of a rope camera that was lowered between columns of waste for a closer look at the bottom and middle row of some waste containers in the affected area.http://www.wipp.energy.gov/wipprecove… That link has a Lot of other Town Hall Meetings archived, too. …
Report comment
http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/
Tom Udall’s Unlikely Alliance With the Chemical Industry
By ERIC LIPTON MARCH 6, 2015
… So environmental activists were stunned to learn that Mr. Udall’s political supporters now include the chemical industry, which has donated tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns and sponsored a television ad that praised his leadership.
This unlikely alliance has been forged as Mr. Udall emerged as the chief Senate negotiator for Democrats on legislation that would fundamentally change the way the federal government evaluates the safety of more than 80,000 chemicals.
Some of Mr. Udall’s Democratic Senate colleagues and prominent environmentalists say he has helped the industry write new regulations in a way that protects profits more than public health.
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who until last year served as chairwoman of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency, has been the harshest critic of the negotiations between Mr. Udall and Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, notably over the language that would prevent states from setting their own, tougher standards.
“I’ve been around the Senate for a long time, but I have never before seen so much heavy-handed, big-spending lobbying on any issue,” Ms. Boxer said. “To me it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.” …
Report comment
http://www.abqjournal.com/552099/news/levels-of-contamination-in-wipp-underground-show-exposure-risk-is-unlikely.html
Levels of contamination in WIPP underground show exposure risk is unlikely
By Sarah Matott / Carlsbad Current-Argus
Monday, March 9, 2015
… “Everybody in real life through smoking, eating a banana or just sitting in the sun is exposed to natural or background radiation,” Blankenhorn said. He added that if people stood next to the exposed waste for an hour, they would be exposed to 1 percent of natural radiation. …
- ha ha ha
Report comment
Why are we discussing microsieverts instead of sieverts?
Report comment
http://www.lawweekonline.com/2015/03/arnold-porter-sees-another-smud-victory/
Arnold & Porter Sees Another SMUD Victory
March 10, 2015.
By Tony Flesor, LAW WEEK COLORADO
The ongoing march of time brings another verdict for Arnold & Porter in a continuing case against the U.S. government.
Eight months after the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, known as SMUD, received a $53 million judgment, a trial court awarded the district with another $22.5 million verdict.
SMUD is just one of 71 utilities in the country that is locked in an ongoing legal battle with the government for a breach of contract that would have centralized nuclear waste storage for shut-down power plants across the country. With the contract still not fulfilled, the most recent verdict is not likely to be the last. …
Report comment
Hi rogerthat, I've been keeping tabs on these suits. I live not too far from the "Rancho Stinko" (Rancho Seco) plant south of Sacramento, CA. The plant operator (manager) told me last year nuclear plant managers and utility companies all over the country are suing the DOE to try to force a long-term storage solution.
Thanks for providing these links.
Report comment
hi, sure, glad to be of some use
Report comment
http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/eldorado-hills/2015/03/10/local-vet-with-terminal-cancer-denied-va-compensation/24733421/
An El Dorado Co. veteran who is battling cancer says he is being ignored by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs News10/KXTV
Bianca Graulau March 10, 2015
When Curtis Mattison left to serve in Iraq there was no guarantee he would make it back to his wife and six children but he did. And it was back home where he would encounter his most fierce enemy, stage 4 kidney cancer that has spread to his liver, lungs and ribs.
"I have a fair amount of abdominal pain I have to deal with and I kind of walk like an old man; stand up slow, sit down slow. A big change from having a very active life," Mattison said.
Mattison is the father of a 14 year old and 12-year-old triplets. He wants nothing more than to see them grow up.
Life as a soldier kept him apart from his children when they were babies, and he believes what he did at war is now threatening his future with them at home.
In Iraq, Mattison says he was exposed to depleted uranium, a radioactive chemical used in weapons by the US Army.
But the U.S. Department of Defense claims "no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium." …
Report comment
"I think it's going to be like the Agent Orange thing. Twenty years down the road they will turn around and say, 'OK, yeah, this causes terminal illnesses,'" Mattison said.
In the meantime, the clock is ticking for Mattison. He says doctors told him he has at least 30 tumors in his lungs.
When interviewed this past January, Mattison felt the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was in no hurry to resolve his case. It had been 17 months and he received answers to just two of his 11 claims, giving him $130 a month for a hearing impairment.
"Are they doing any type of prioritization? They don't seem to be," Mattison said.
One week after News10 contacted the VA regarding Mattison's case, he received a response denying all of his other claims, including the one about his cancer.
"He served our country for 37 years. And they totally don't have his back. I'm very bitter," Mattison's wife, AnneLena Mattison, said. …
Report comment
http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion/columns/reader-comment-idaho-should-just-say-no-to-more-nuclear/article_ed2a4e2b-16e6-559f-8ed2-1f18ce2087c7.html
March 10, 2015 7:40 pm • Philip E. Batt and Cecil D. Andrus
Idaho faces a clear choice: Accept more high level nuclear waste into our state or just say no more waste – period. To us Idaho’s choice is clear and straight-forward. No more waste – period.
Idaho also has a remarkable advantage in saying “no” and thereby determining its own destiny with regard to decades-long waste issues. Idaho enjoys the advantages of a unique, court enforced legal agreement negotiated in 1995 that allows us to say “no” to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that has failed time and again to solve the nation’s nuclear waste disposal dilemma.
To that end, and in light of the recent decision by Idaho’s governor and attorney general to “waive” provisions of Idaho’s historic 1995 agreement, we have served notice on the Secretary of Energy that we believe the department is in violation of federal law with regard to its plans to bring commercial spent nuclear fuel – the kind of highly radioactive material that is utilized at nuclear plants around the country – into Idaho.
Here is the heart of the issue as we see it:
• Idaho’s agreement with DOE specifically prohibits the movement of commercial spent nuclear material to Idaho
• DOE has no currently viable plan to permanently dispose of this material (a good deal of which is already…
Report comment
in Idaho)
• Even if the material state leaders want to allow into Idaho is intended for research purposes, the sad and all-too-obvious fact remains that the new waste – along with the old already here – will stay in Idaho above the Snake River Aquifer for a long, long time to come
Both of us have been long-time advocates of the development of an appropriate national repository for all types of nuclear waste. We pushed hard to open and utilize the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico to dispose of a particularly type of waste. As governors from the 1970’s to the 1990’s, we supported plans for a high level commercial repository in Nevada.
Despite the pressing need to create permanent solutions for the country’s nuclear waste, the New Mexico site is closed indefinitely because of an accident and the Nevada site has been all but abandoned by the current administration in Washington. At the current time and for the foreseeable future the United States has no permanent nuclear waste disposal options.
Idahoans are an independent bunch. We don’t always agree on politics or policy, but we think most Idahoans would agree with us that having substantial amounts of nuclear waste “temporarily” stored in eastern Idaho above the vast Snake River Aquifer is a particularly bad idea. There are few more unsuitable places in the world.
We take no pleasure in diverging on these issues from Governor Otter and Attorney General Wasden, but we …
Report comment
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/eon-posts-record-loss-of-3-16-billion-euros-following-writedowns
Report comment
The Nevada site, Yucca Mt., was only at one time approved because the geologists falsified the reports. It is earthquake territory, has the wrong kind of rocks, and the radioactive nuclides would leach into the ground water and aquifers. It was a big scandal and the geologists just barely escaped being jailed.
Even if it were approved by the crooks, there is already too much nuclear waste in the US to fit in there.
Report comment
YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP
THE ROAD TO DISASTER
“This is a 13 million year-old volcanic ridge called Yucca Mountain. A 5.0 earthquake had rocked the area and did some damage to the media reception area, display center, cafeteria and office complex. Repairs and seismic improvements were estimated to cost approximately $2 million. A second 4.4 quake struck this volcanic area on June 4, 2002, centered 12 ½ miles away. It caused no damage. There are 39 earthquake falts and 7 young volcanoes in the area around the mountain. DOE had originally said that the area might expect an earthquake about every 10,000 years.
“This geologic zone has been studied and monitored by Department of Energy project scientists for over 24 years. Representatives of the project have been assuring the public that Yucca Mountain is stable and that burying 77,000 tons of spent radioactive fuel rods and high level waste would be safe 600 to 950 feet under the mountain. There is a main tunnel sloping downward, and around the 600 ft. level, a grid of smaller tunnels start and travel down to about 950 feet, with storage rooms branching off of those smaller tunnels.
“As little as one millionth of a gram will cause cancer if breathed in or entering your body or blood stream by way of a cut or other openings in the skin.
“Plutonium 239 isotopes have a ½ life of 22,000 years, it needs to be kept isolated out of the air and water for a very long time. The most often used figure by project DOE…
Report comment
cont.
spokesmen is 10,000 years, a figure that may be grossly underestimated.
“Strontium 90, for instance, has a half life of 30 years which means half of its radioactivity will decay in 30 years. It will then take another 30 years for half of the remaining radioactivity to decay and then an additional 30 years for half of that to decay and on and on. So when it's said that Strontium 90 has a half life of 30 years, it means it will remain dangerous for hundreds of years, even at low levels.
“Government scientists initially believed that water would take 9,000 to 80,000 years to flow from the repository to the water table far below. In 1997 researchers discovered fractures in the rock where water flows much faster. Scientists found traces of chlorine-36 which does not exist in nature, in the five mile tunnel drilled to explore the mountain's rock. That material is produced by nuclear explosions, most of which took place at the nearby test facility. In less than 60 years it had already traveled through 800 feet of rock. In 1996 the Energy Department said that some water could go from the waste repository level to the water table 1,300 feet down, in 50 years.
“The most critical challenge that faces the Energy Department is designing a container capable of keeping the waste not only isolated from the corrosive effects of water and the environment, but also from the damage caused to the containers by the radioactive material held inside them for 10,000 years. It is…
Report comment
cont.
possible that rain water could seep down through cracks and fissures in the volcanic mountain, percolating on by the stored material on its way to the water table far below. That water eventually flows off site where it feeds wells and surfaces as springs.
“But in the end, it may be the wind that poses the most danger with the possibility of spreading radioactive particles over large areas of land….”
http://www.earthmountainview.com/yucca/yucca.htm
Report comment
No Criminal Charges in Yucca Mountain Email Science Scandal
“…�The science that DOE claims is supporting Yucca Mountain is sloppy, and in some cases it�s actually false,� said Reid. �That�s a much bigger concern than whether a couple of employees will go to jail. The Yucca Mountain project is a complete failure. It has failed every legitimate health, safety, and scientific test. I�m going to continue working to stop Yucca Mountain altogether.�…”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-28-03.html
Report comment
I see you are referring to hydrological reports, not seismologist reports.
You are actually referring to the work of U.S.G.S. personnel, who appear to have been hyrdrologists contracted to do work for the D.O.E.
My apologies, sloppy reading I guess. I thought one of your comments said, "seismologists." I'm tired.
Report comment
A friend of mine in Nevada wrote a master's thesis as a hydrologist. Her work showed the ground around the Nevada Test Site (granted, some distance from the Yucca Mountain site) was so fractured nuclear materials will, over time, leach all the way into the Los Angeles, California, basin.
She told me she was blacklisted after publishing that report, and could not get work in her field.
PT, it's possible the same kind of scenario could happen at the Yucca Mtn. site. When I worked on the project, there was not yet enough data to determine whether or not the site was stable enough, geologically and seismically speaking, to make it safe as a long-term repository.
Report comment
Stealing from and killing the Native Americans again:
“…Tribes in Nevada also oppose the facility. Yucca Mountain is located near several reservations and the site itself sits on land that was promised to the Western Shoshone under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley….”
http://www.indianz.com/News/2015/016293.asp
Report comment
Do you have proof the seismologists falsified those reports? I used to work on that project, and I think you shouldn't make those claims unless you have some pretty strong proof of your assertions, PT.
Report comment
I'm addressing PT, in discussing what supposedly "killed" the Yucca Mtn. Project. I worked for Yucca Mtn. Seismic Studies and was employed by the UNR Seismology Dept. for several years.
Where's the proof the Seismologists faked the reports, PT?
You're now making accusations against some of my former employers and personal friends. So if you can't prove that, I suggest you stop making those assertions. Otherwise, since you're fond of making legal claims, what you're doing is libelous.
I was responsible for the governmental reporting for the project, among other things, and I was never aware of any wrongdoings. I feel like you just poked your finger in my eye.
Ouch! Where's the beef, PT?
Report comment
After all the nuclear accidents, especially all the disasters after the 9.0 earthquake off the coast of Japan, WIPP, Hanford, failures in Russia and Europe, etc., etc., the world should immediately stop creating any more nuclear waste. The entire concept of creating and long and short term storing of nuclear waste is deeply flawed and there is no possibility of any solution.
Into Eternity English Subtitle | Film about Nuclear Waste
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sqFyCHcbg
Quarrels Continue Over Repository for Nuclear Waste
“..Some of the younger fuel shows signs of degrading with age. The reason is that in the 1990s, many of the reactors made a transition to fuel assemblies with a rich enough mix of uranium to run for up to six years, instead of the three years that had been standard. The new fuel, called 'high burn-up fuel,' spent longer in the harsh environment of a reactor, and now shows signs of corrosion and cracking.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/business/energy-environment/quarrels-continue-over-repository-for-nuclear-waste.html
Risks of long‐term irradiated MOX fuel storage in pools MOX fuel storage in pools on‐site at nuclear power plants
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/Risks%20of%20long-term%20irradiated%20MOX%20fuel%20storage%20in%20pools%20Compatibility%20Mode.pdf
Report comment
No country has the economic resources, geological resources, or technological resources to safely store nuclear waste or produce nuclear weapons or use any nuclear technology whatsoever. Even the most expensive casks can't last 100 years.
Mystery blue snow fallout in Chelyabinsk alarms residents
February 13, 2015
http://rt.com/news/231871-chelyabinsk-blue-snow-fallout/
Report comment
The Atomic Cafe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssKiI1P3lT4
Report comment
Wish I could redact that, sorry, PT. I've had a rough couple of days, not enough sleep, and I mis-read your post.
Report comment
Falsification of Quality-Assurance Data
“An enterprise as politically fraught as Yucca Mountain demands rigorous science. To this end, the DOE maintained a quality-assurance (QA) program to ensure that scientists adhered to appropriate procedures. In 2005, DOE lawyers discovered that several scientists studying water infiltration had falsified QA data. The news set off a firestorm, as Nevadan politicians and citizens’ groups attacked DOE over the allegations. The politics-over-science framework outlined above provided a template for the opposition’s response. Opponents among Nevada’s political establishment used the politics-over-science argument tactically, ensuring the scandal stayed in the news with attention-grabbing speeches and demands for investigations. Activists, on the other hand, used the framework in a different way, attacking the quality of the science at Yucca directly by noting exactly how politics had inserted itself into the scientific method. Their accusations to this effect undermined DOE’s credibility, and marked the beginning of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository’s final decline and eventual termination….”
http://www.macalester.edu/academics/environmentalstudies/students/projects/citizenscience2010/yuccamountain/quality-assurance.html
Report comment
This was written in 2010. Since then there is the WIPP catastrophe, Fukushima, and much more knowledge about the dangers and wide-spread failures of nuclear technology.
Report comment
YUCCA MOUNTAIN—NEVADA’S PERSPECTIVE
“…CONCLUSION
“In light of the serious flaws and uncertainties inherent in the Yucca Mountain program and in NRC‘s ability to legally and procedurally assure fairness in its licensing proceeding, the State of Nevada is preparing to fully participate in the NRC proceeding and for the inevitable litigation to follow. After over two decades of opposition, Nevada continues to believe that the Yucca Mountain project will eventually be abandoned and that the NRC licensing proceeding will be appropriately halted by a termination of the program with prejudice. Protection of public health and safety and the environment demand no other result. In the meantime, it is imperative that the State maintain its efforts despite the tremendous costs.
“Within Nevada, in spite of pervasive public opinion against the project, there are calls from certain quarters that the State should abandon its opposition and begin to ―negotiate‖ for monetary benefits. This is not a new idea. For years, nuclear industry lobbyists and Yucca Mountain supporters have characterized the project as inevitable and have urged Nevada‘s leadership to accept it and begin negotiations with the federal government for benefits in exchange for accepting the project. Not only is it a fiction that large monetary ‘benefits’ are even available, but it is questionable whether Nevada‘s leadership can negotiate away the public health and safety of its citizens. Indeed, no amount of money can…
Report comment
cont.
change the fact that Yucca Mountain is an unsafe repository site or compensate for people's lives,a safe environment, clean water, and the health and safety of future generations. Yucca Mountain is such a poor repository site, geologically speaking, that it would be irresponsible, even unconscionable, for any state leader to entertain the notion of accepting the facility in exchange for monetary or other benefits….
” whatever site is ultimately chosen—be it in Nevada or anywhere else—as long as the material remains harmful, the site should be capable of isolating deadly radioactive material from people and the environment. The Yucca Mountain site fails this test abysmally…”
http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf/nvag100412perspective.pdf
Report comment
Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain
“Nevada ranks third in the nation for current seismic activity. Earthquake data bases are available that provide current and historical earthquake information, and these can be accessed to gain information on seismic activity in the vicinity of the proposed High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository site at Yucca Mountain, in southern Nevada. The data bases reviewed for the southern Nevada area were the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network.
“Analysis of the available data indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain. Reported underground nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site have been excluded from this count.
“The most notable event during this period was a magnitude 5.6 earthquake near Little Skull Mountain, about 8 miles southeast of the Yucca Mountain site, that occurred on June 29, 1992. This earthquake caused damage to a nearby Department of Energy field office building. This earthquake, and many after-shocks, occurred on a fault that had not previously been identified. The Little Skull Mountain earthquake and numerous others at about the same time in the western U.S. are considered to have been triggered by the magnitude 7.4 Landers earthquake, in California.
“The only significant cluster of earthquake activity in the 50-mile radius area is in Rock Valley, about…
Report comment
cont.
12 miles southeast of Yucca Mountain. The data base also reveals that, in 1948, there was a magnitude 3.6 event on the southeast boundary of the Yucca Mountain site, in an area known to have a number of faults. Recently, there have been other events recorded beneath Yucca Mountain with magnitudes less than 2.5.
“Earthquake activity is a safety concern both during operation, above and below ground, and after closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain.
“The mountain ranges and valleys of the Basin and Range, including the Yucca Mountain area, are a result of millions of years of intense faulting and volcanism. Records of recent events indicate that faulting is an ongoing process in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain that is expected to continue long into the future. Thirty-three faults are known to exist within and adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site.
“The 20-year record reported here is approximately the same period of time that the Department of Energy has been evaluating the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain as a potential high-level nuclear waste disposal site….”
[Map of earthquakes:]
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/graphics/seismo01.jpg
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm
Report comment
Having the nuke waste stored in Idaho is a bad idea, but so is fracing (fracking) in the Snake River basin. Coming soon to a western Idaho city near you ….
Report comment
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49684
Project Information
Printer Friendly Version
Project Title:
Multiple Sclerosis and Other Neurologic Disorders in Veterans of the Persian Gulf and Post 9/11 Wars
PIN: IOM-BSP-14-08
RSO: Fulco, Carolyn
Project Scope
An ad hoc committee under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine will design and manage an epidemiologic study to determine the incidence and prevalence, as well as the risk (to the extent possible) of developing multiple sclerosis and other neurologic diseases as a result of service in the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf and post 9/11 Global Operations theaters.
Other neurologic diseases to be considered include: Parkinson's disease, and brain cancers, as well as central nervous system abnormalities that are difficult to precisely diagnose.
The committee will identify its data needs, request those data from the VA, and will analyze the data.
The resulting report will describe the study design, methods, and results on the neurologic outcomes of interest.
The report will also include recommendations for legislative or administrative actions as deemed appropriate by the committee regarding data collection and/or follow-up related to the neurologic diseases under consideration.
Project Duration: 36 months
Report comment
expect a report saying there is no problem in about 20 years.
Report comment
http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site05/story.php?articleno=11811&page=1#.VQETNUJB-S1
The Commons Online
Nine county legislators: We oppose SAFSTOR for Vermont Yankee
If Entergy can sue the federal government for millions of dollars for not removing the waste in 1998 as scheduled, why can't we access the federal nuclear waste fund to pay for infrastructure, keep us safe, and support our emergency personnel?
WE WRITE in response to Entergy’s Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR). We want the following points to be part of the public record.
We do not support SAFSTOR. Costs will only go up and contamination will spread by waiting up to 60 years as is currently allowed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Our community is a special case that will not benefit from a cookie-cutter approach. Vermont Yankee is only the second merchant reactor to decommission.
Moreover, the plant is located on the second-smallest land area of any U.S. nuclear plant. It also is located in the middle of a town and has an elementary school located across from the gate to the plant.
All of these factors contribute to making Vermont Yankee an unsuitable site for SAFSTOR. We also feel we have a moral obligation to deal effectively with this problem and not to leave it for future generations.
* * *
WE REQUEST maintenance of the emergency planning zone and federal funding …
Report comment
and federal funding for emergency personnel until all fuel is removed from the spent-fuel pool into dry-cask storage.
As a community that hosts high-level nuclear waste — a role we never signed on for — we request federal help to cover the cost of expenses we are unprepared to shoulder.
If Entergy can sue the federal government for millions of dollars for not removing the waste in 1998 as scheduled, why can’t we access the federal nuclear waste fund to pay for infrastructure, keep us safe, and support our emergency personnel?
Major incentives are made available to communities willing to take nuclear waste. So why shouldn’t towns like ours — towns that have that job thrust upon us — receive such incentives?
In the absence of any federal or interim repository, we request higher quality casks like those used in Europe and Japan.
We believe removing the waste from the spent-fuel pools should start before 2019. Such pools pose a catastrophic risk should a loss of power occur. There is currently fuel in the pool that meets the standard of having cooled for five years; that fuel can and should be removed now.
We hope and expect you will give our concerns special consideration in view of the fact that we represent many of the communities that will be most affected by Entergy’s closure of Vermont Yankee.
…
Report comment
This letter, dated Feb. 27, was written to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by State Representatives VALERIE A. STUART, TRISTAN TOLENO, MOLLIE BURKE, DAVID DEEN, MIKE MROWICKI, EMILY LONG, and ANN MANWARING and State Senators JEANETTE WHITE and BECCA BALINT.
Entergy’s draft Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report can be accessed at pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1435/ML14357A110.pdf.
Public comment ends March 23; information at bit.ly/vy_psdar_publiccomment.
Report comment
rogerthat, what do you think this article is saying, when it says Vermont Yankee is "only the second merchant reactor to decommission" ? I don't understand that statement.
Both the Eureka PG&E nuclear plant, and the Rancho Seco nuclear plant near Galt, CA, have both been decomissioned, dismantled, and put into SAFESTOR.
If I'm not mistaken (and I could be), the Trojan nuclear plant in Oregon was also dismantled and put into SAFESTOR.
Maybe there is something about the term, "merchant" reactor I'm missing in my understanding.
Report comment
Both, both, and Dept. of Redundancy Dept. I'm tired, and I should stop posting. Stop making sense! (Ha.)
Report comment
''merchant reactor''
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/08/utilities-entergy-nuclear-idUSL1N0B869R20130208
Feb 8 (Reuters) – U.S. power company Entergy Corp's new CEO said Friday that some of its merchant nuclear power plants are in "challenging economic situations," but the company has not made any decisions to shut any of its nuclear plants. …
Those weak gas prices, caused by record shale production, have pushed power prices to near decade lows, hurting profit margins for generators – especially merchant generators in competitive, deregulated states like in the Northeast and New York where prices are set by the market.
"Near-term power prices are challenging for some merchant nuclear generating units in certain competitive markets," Denault said, noting the company was "bullish longer-term relative to the current forward curve." …
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/state-regional-action-could-benefit-us-merchant-21544943
… Entergy, which owns one of the country's largest merchant nuclear fleet, …
- so a commercial reactor, not a research reactor?
Report comment
MOX Plutonium Fuel Burning Insanity, Reprocessing Nuclear Waste Fantasies, Fast Breeder Dangers
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/02/mox-plutonium-fuel-fantasies-reality.html
Report comment
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/california-largemega-quake-risk-nuclear-power-plants/
Wednesday
Mar 2015
Posted by miningawareness
USGS: Increased Likelihood of Megaquake in California
“… in the new study, the estimate for the likelihood that California will experience a magnitude 8 or larger earthquake in the next 30 years has increased from about 4.7% for UCERF2 to about 7.0% for UCERF3.
The new likelihoods are due to the inclusion of possible multi-fault ruptures, where earthquakes are no longer confined to separate, individual faults, but can occasionally rupture multiple faults simultaneously,” said lead author and USGS scientist Ned Field. “This is a significant advancement in terms of representing a broader range of earthquakes throughout California’s complex fault system.” http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4146#.VP_kx3-9KSM
Greater or equal to Magnitude 6.7 Probability
Diablo Canyon-San Onofre Nuclear Reactors
They both sit out on the waterfront, making the risk of near-shore tsunami with no warning a special issue. …
Report comment
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/government-sneak-diabolic-legal-order-to-enforce-nuke-dump/
Tuesday
10 Mar 2015
Posted by mining awareness
Originally posted on Radiation Free Lakeland:
Today in Committee Room 12 of the Palace of Westminster a handful of MPs voted on a legal order.
This sneaky manoeuvre is geared to enforcing a nuclear dump or two or three by making nuclear dumping a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. It stinks.
Meanwhile NGOs like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace attend ever so polite meetings with DECC, the esteemed Baroness Verma and Ed Davey on nuclear matters…for what purpose? Come on FoE and Greenpeace.
News just in from Duncan Hames MP is that the legal order to make nuclear dumping a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project has been voted on. RE; todays Room 12 ……Tweet from Duncan Hames @duncanhames 36m36 minutes agoI opposed this order, but was out-voted.
Note: where were Cumbrian MPs? Where they not allowed in perhaps? If not why was there a vote to continue along this route to smooth the way…
View original 6 more words
Report comment
Tuesday
10 Mar 2015
Posted by miningawareness
Originally posted on Radiation Free Lakeland:
Please ask your MP to protect our right to say NO
This Tuesday 10th March at 2.30pm in a seemingly banal Committee Room 12 meeting a few Members of Parliament plan to rubber stamp a proposal that aims to enforce nuclear dumping. Remember that we said a big fat NO not one, not two but THREE TIMES already to a geological dump under Cumbria? Well that ability, that slim sliver of democracy that we have used to enable us to say no is about to disappear unless…
MPs have possibly their only chance to represent your views this coming TUESDAY 10TH MARCH at 2.30pm, Committee Room 12.
PLEASE EMAIL YOUR MP or telephone and ask them to attend the meeting on Tues to ensure that democracy is not dumped. We need Members of Parliament to NOT CONSENT to new proposals that will remove the existing right of local planning…
View original 633 more words
Report comment
Why bother with local permission and democracy, when you ram things down the throats of people by FORCE?
NONE of 12 US Government 'Fukushima Task Force' Recommendations Have Been Implemented By NRC, 3 Years After 3/11; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/06/none-of-12-fukushima-task-force.html
Why bother replying to silly requests for safety and health concerns, by the 'little people'?
Report comment
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14570
Fukushima Melted Fuel Removal Process Being Reconsidered
March 12th, 2015
The Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation is reconsidering the approach to be used for removing melted fuel at Fukushima Daiichi. The early established plan was to try to fill the containment structures with water and retrieve the melted fuel with robotic equipment through the top of the reactor via the reactor well.
Last year IRID (International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning) questioned this approach and urged that an alternative option be established in case the flooding plan would not work. IRID’s ongoing work has included multiple plan options. The description from the Decommissioning Corporation indicates they are considering “Plan D”. This is the one IRID describes as the side entry, non flooding approach. …
Report comment
This popped up, as Forrest Gump would say, for no particular reason. It is source material for those interested in WIPP, Hanford, plutonium and transuranic waste. Please have a look
http://www.scribd.com/doc/257803391/2010-07-12-Alvarez-Plutonium-Wastes-Report#scribd
2010 07.12 Alvarez Plutonium Wastes Report
Published by CHARLENE ZECHENDER
Plutonium Wastes from the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex
by Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C. July 7, 2010
Report comment
http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/content/statement-nuclear-energy-uk-conference-march-2015
Statement to the Nuclear Energy in the UK conference – March 2015.
Posted Sun, 08/03/2015 by Martyn Lowe
Kick Nuclear Statement to the Nuclear energy in the UK: priorities for new build, funding and developing the supply chain conference, which was held on tuesday 3rd March 2015 at the Royal Society.
'Nuclear Energy in the UK' conference, March 2015.
We are here today at your nuclear industry conference to again try to bring a little realism to your deliberations. Wind, wave and solar are cheaper, cleaner, lower carbon and therefore loved more by everyone outside the nuclear power industry, and we are here to urge you to stop flogging your nuke horse, because it is dead.
Solar power costs have dropped 99% since 1977, 60% since 2011. And that decrease is not slowing down. On-shore wind has now dropped well below the strike price offered to the doomed Hinkley Point power station, and off-shore wind is getting close.
In last week's UK renewable energy auction, both on-shore wind and solar came in at around £80 MWh, cheaper than the £92.50 MWh offered to Hinkley Point nuclear power station. And Hinkley's subsidy is linked to inflation for 35 years, by which time it will be worth around £320 MWh, according to calculations by the very-unimpressed Austrian government, who have taken the whole subsidy to court.
The truth is that nowhere, ever, has your industry …
Report comment
built a nuclear reactor without a huge slab of government money.
And if the true costs of both insuring against meltdown and disposing of the waste and the plant when eventually retired were included, your industry would be shown to be several times more expensive that the alternatives.
If the cost of insurance, currently paid by government as another hidden subsidy, were included, the strike price of nuclear would rise to over £200 MWh.
And the unreliability of nuclear power carries its own costs, as the National Grid has to have 1,800 MW of backup power on standby for when one of the 1,600 MW Hinkley reactors suddenly goes down, due to a swarm of jellyfish, (as in Torness recently), or other engineering problem.
And these costs are spread across all sources, which means that wind and solar have to pay these costs so as to keep down the apparent cost of nuclear.
And why cling to an industry that has no plan for dealing with its own waste?
The WIPP plant in New Mexico is a dedicated geological disposal facility built to hold waste for 10,000 years. It lasted 15 years before suffering a series of fires and explosions in barrels holding waste, caused by mixing of nitrate salts, lead gloves, cellulose based kitty litter, and improper (ie. fraudulent) labelling of contents.
The explosions led to plutonium and other radioactive substances being 'puffed' up out of the ground, and drifting off to the nearest centre of human population, Carlsbad. …
Report comment
Of course, nuclear industry supporters immediately chorused that the quantities were safe, were insignificant.
But they always do, in spite of numerous scientific studies showing that there is no safe, lower limit of radiation exposure.
We don't understand how the nuclear industry can keep doing this to it's own children; have they convinced themselves that 'a little radiation is good for you'? Swallowed their own propaganda on 'hormesis'?
Of course, the real killer for your industry is the fact, the fact, that you have a meltdown every seven years.
Windscale, Three Mile Island, Tschernobyl, now triple Fukushimas; yet your industry continues to demand that we trust you to do better in the future, and that you're really sorry and will try and avoid the corner-cutting, risk-taking, regulatory capture and bad practices that led to the last meltdown.
Health and Safety by trial and error, where you get to keep the profits and we get to keep the cancer.
If you had manfully fronted your disaster at Fukushima and actually admitted it was a catastrophe and that it would take serious money to deal with, ($500 billion), then you might have retained some respect for your scientific honesty and technological competence.
But the main focus after Fukushima has only been restarting Japan's other 48 nuclear plants, and so the population have been told to absorb in place, eat Fukushima food to help the zone recover, smile a lot and have a positive attitude,…
Report comment
while half the medical community have accepted instructions to calm patient worries by denying any link to radiation for their complaints. While 400 tons of radioactive water a day continue to gush into the Pacific. 'It's OK, the Pacific is quite large', your industry argues, having sworn blind since the 50's that you would never unleash any radionuclides into the environment.
So use your technical knowledge of atoms and electrons to join us in solving the world's energy needs in a safe, sustainable way, as urged by the Prime Minister of Japan during the Fukushima meltdowns, Mr Kan. He called nuclear 'an unsafe and expensive technology that is not compatible with life on this planet.'
Report comment
Mr. Kan was/is correct!
Shut all these Nuclear Vibrating Rattle Traps down now..worldwide!
rogerthat.. Great job of posting links/information!
Report comment
thank you, a hit and miss affair i fear ha ha
Report comment
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Arguments_against_nuclear_power
… the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in USA is already operating and began accepting military transuranic waste in 1998. So far no issues have been identified.[1] …
- hey rationalwiki, you are in need of an update
Report comment
Enformable is a cut above, imho, and this piece appears to add to the fund of human knowledge:
http://enformable.com/2015/03/taiwan-looks-globally-for-help-managing-spent-nuclear-fuel/
… According to the latest estimates released by the Atomic Energy Council in Taiwan, the spent fuel pools of both reactors at the Chinshan nuclear power plant and the Kousheng nuclear power plant will reach full capacity by 2016, but this time on-site storage will also be unable to alleviate the problem.
…
In light of the issues, Taipower announced that it is prepared to spend at least $356 million USD to have 1,200 spent fuel assemblies shipped overseas in the next four years in groups of 300 assemblies, reprocessed, and sold by the reprocessing facility operators. The remaining wastes not sold would be stored at the reprocessing plant for 20 years and then shipped back to Taiwan.
The problem is that the uranium fuel market has been very volatile after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan and there is no significant demand for the reprocessed materials.
The unpredicted closure of plants after the 2011 nuclear disaster disrupted fuel orders and caused a considerable stockpile of nuclear fuel to begin accumulating due to the lack of demand.
After the uranium price fell more than 50%, production companies around the world began reducing capacity and delaying new production. According to industry experts, “Current uranium projections indicate adequate fuel…
Report comment
supplies for the remainder of the 21st century.”[ii]
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel was not the first option explored by the Taiwanese government.
They previously explored methods of shipping the nuclear waste internationally for permanent storage, however a plan to store waste in a North Korean coal mine were dropped after protests from South Korea and Japan – and there would be obvious political ramifications to storing nuclear waste in China or Russia. …
- it's a thorough piece, and worth reading in full because others are grappling with the same reality.
Report comment
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14562
Fukushima Disaster Testimony Of PM Kan, Now In English
March 11th, 2015 | Add a Comment
Carole Hisasue generously donated her time to translate the Fukushima Daiichi Diet Investigation testimony of former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan. Kan’s role during the disaster was pivitol and he is one of a few people with first hand knowledge of how events transpired.
The Diet testimony currently exists only in Japanese and includes statements from the key people involved in the disaster response and from many workers at the plant. If you would like to join the effort to translate the Diet testimony documents please contact us.
The translated testimony of Naoto Kan is available in this PDF document:
* this translation has not been reviewed by Naoto Kan.
Naoto Kan Fukushima Testimony
This article would not be possible without the extensive efforts of the SimplyInfo research team
Join the conversation at chat.simplyinfo.org
Report comment
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14558
SimplyInfo.org Fukushima Facts Brochure
March 10th, 2015 | Add a Comment
We have published a new printable brochure with key current information about the disaster. The brochure is available in PDF format. If you are interested in using the brochure as a printed handout for your group or event contact us for more information.
The brochure and related information, including the source citations for the brochure can be found here
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?page_id=14544
Report comment
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14564
Managing Public Perceptions Of Fukushima
March 10th, 2015 | Add a Comment
Dr. Robert Jacobs has penned a timely article over at DiaNuke.org about the history of controlling public perception of nuclear disasters. This process in not new but it still in play today around the Fukushima disaster.
You can read his entire essay here:
http://www.dianuke.org/managing-public-perceptions-of-fukushima-first-emergency-response-of-the-nuclear-complex/
Report comment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150311124202.htm
News coverage of Fukushima disaster minimized health risks to general population
March 11, 2015
Source:
American University
Summary:
A new analysis finds that U.S. news media coverage of the Fukushima disaster largely minimized health risks to the general population. Researchers analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets.
Four years after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the disaster no longer dominates U.S. news headlines, though the disabled plant continues to pour three tons of radioactive water into the ocean each day.
Homes, schools and businesses in the Japanese prefecture are uninhabitable, and will likely be so forever. Yet the U.S. media has dropped the story while public risks remain.
A new analysis by American University sociology professor Celine Marie Pascale finds that U.S. news media coverage of the disaster largely minimized health risks to the general population.
Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster's occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013.
Only 6 percent of the coverage — 129 articles — focused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere.
Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant. …
Report comment
Disproportionate access
"It's shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low," said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the 21st century.
"We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant."
Pascale studied news articles, editorials, and letters from two newspapers, The Washington Post and The New York Times, and two nationally prominent online news sites, Politico and The Huffington Post.
These four media outlets are not only among the most prominent in the United States, they are also among the most cited by television news and talk shows, by other newspapers and blogs and are often taken up in social media, Pascale said.
In this sense, she added, understanding how risk is constructed in media gives insight into how national concerns and conversations get framed.
Pascale's analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population.
Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation;defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative. …
Report comment
The research shows that corporations and government agencies had disproportionate access to framing the event in the media, Pascale says.
Even years after the disaster, government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published.
News accounts about local impact — for example, parents organizing to protect their children from radiation in school lunches — were also scarce.
Globalization of risk
Pascale says her findings show the need for the public to be critical consumers of news; expert knowledge can be used to create misinformation and uncertainty — especially in the information vacuums that arise during disasters.
"The mainstream media — in print and online — did little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts," Pascale said.
"Discourses of the risks surrounding disasters are political struggles to control the presence and meaning of events and their consequences.
''How knowledge about disasters is reported can have more to do with relations of power than it does with the material consequences to people's lives."
While it is clear that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown was a consequence of an earthquake and tsunami, like all disasters, it was also the result of political, economic and social choices that created or exacerbated broad-scale risks. In the 21st century, there's an increasing "globalization of risk," Pascale…
Report comment
argues. Major disasters have potentially large-scale and long-term consequences for people, environments, and economies.
"People's understanding of disasters will continue to be constructed by media. How media members frame the presence of risk and the nature of disaster matters," she said.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by American University. The original article was written by Rebecca Basu. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Report comment
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/29575-four-years-on-after-fukushima-the-same-paradigm-prevails-in-nuclear-energy
By Arnie Gundersen
… As I look back at the last four years, I think that TEPCO, Japanese regulators and worldwide regulatory agencies wanted nuclear power to succeed so badly that they focused on saving Tokyo Electric and forgot about the people they were created to serve. (2)
At each nuclear catastrophe – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and again at Fukushima Daiichi – the companies, governments and agencies responding to these disasters were not working to protect people, but worked instead to protect the ongoing operation and potential future of nuclear power.
The mishandling of this disaster has shown us that emergency response must be directed by organizations that put people first – not agencies that have a vested interest in perpetuating nuclear power, banking and industrial interests. …
Report comment
http://allthingsnuclear.org/four-years-after-fukushima-the-nrc-at-a-tipping-point/
Union of Concerned Scientists
Four Years after Fukushima: The NRC at a Tipping Point
Ed Lyman, senior scientist
March 11, 2015
Today, on the fourth anniversary of the Fukushima accident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is on the verge of a major decision that could determine whether or not the types of regulatory errors that set the stage for the accident in Japan will be effectively fixed in the United States.
The four sitting commissioners (one seat is empty) are currently voting on a controversial proposal by the agency’s senior management that, if accepted as written, could undermine nuclear safety for years to come.
The commissioners should reject the proposal.
The Vulnerability of U.S. Reactors to Earthquakes and Floods
The proposal before the NRC is an attempt to address a major vulnerability: Most U.S. nuclear plants are not adequately protected against the kinds of natural disasters that led to Fukushima, such as earthquakes and floods.
Given that the NRC says it requires nuclear plants to be protected against the worst-case earthquakes or floods that may affect them (and then some), one may wonder why these vulnerabilities even exist.
The explanation is simple. At the time when the NRC (or its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission) originally licensed the nuclear plants operating today, in many cases the information at hand …
Report comment
about seismic and flooding hazards at each site was just plain wrong, or the methodologies being used were inadequate. Compounding that problem is the very real possibility that extreme weather events are becoming more common as a result of climate change, further calling into question those deficient early assessments.
There is a straightforward solution to this problem: The NRC should require nuclear plants to upgrade their basic levels of protection (called the “design basis”) so that the plants could withstand the greater hazards they are now known to face.
The problem is that this solution would likely require significant additional expenditures by the nuclear industry, which is already in economic distress because of competition from cheap natural gas. And at some plants, the threat from flooding may be so severe that the most prudent action might be to shut them down rather than to encase them in watertight boxes.
As a result, the nuclear industry has been actively pushing for a cheaper alternative. Rather than requiring upgrades to the design basis of nuclear plants to prevent earthquakes and floods from damaging nuclear plant systems that could lead to a meltdown, it instead wants to mitigate the effects of the damage after it has occurred.
In particular, the industry has proposed that the NRC instead require upgrades to the portable equipment, known as FLEX, that is currently being installed at plants around the country to mitigate …
Report comment
an extended loss of alternating current power—one of the precipitating factors that led to the core meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi. (Fukushima Daiichi also lost most direct current power and most of its electrical distribution system.)
This would be cheaper because, for one thing, the NRC has already decided that the FLEX equipment does not have to meet the tough standards (called “safety-related”) that is required for the structures, systems and components that protect the plant against design-basis accidents.
But ultimately, you get what you pay for—less robust equipment will be less dependable in an accident.
Also, by putting less emphasis on preventing equipment from being damaged in an earthquake or flood, the proposed shift would put more emphasis on trying to deal with the consequences of damaged equipment at the reactor.
This requires the kind of heroic actions that the personnel at Fukushima were forced to carry out, ultimately with little success in preventing three meltdowns.
Dissent at the NRC
It is this cheaper “super-FLEX” alternative that has gained the support of most of the NRC’s bureaucrats and is at the heart of the pending proposal.
But there is a revolt in the ranks. Two groups of NRC staff filed administrative objections, known as “non-concurrences,” to the proposal.
One of the non-concurrences was signed by senior NRC managers: a very rare occurrence that illustrates the seriousness of the problem. …
Report comment
Nevertheless, these concerns were ultimately dismissed by NRC upper management, who sent the proposal to the commissioners with few changes.
Fundamentally, if the commissioners vote for the proposal, they would establish a precedent that the design basis of the operating nuclear fleet does not have to be updated to address new or more accurate hazard information.
This would enshrine in policy the notion that even if a plant were licensed to the wrong design basis, the NRC is not obligated to make it right.
Yesterday, Commissioner Kristine Svinicki revealed in a speech at the NRC Regulatory Information Conference that she had voted for the proposal, which is hardly a surprise for anyone familiar with her voting record on Fukushima-related matters.
But the votes of the other commissioners are not yet public. The NRC still has a chance to prove that it takes the lessons of Fukushima seriously by rejecting the proposal.
Otherwise, dozens of U.S. plants will remain at an unacceptable level of risk from Fukushima-type disasters.
And if such an event happens here, unlike the Japanese we will not have the liberty to claim that it was “unexpected.”
Report comment
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201503120038
Koizumi blasts Abe's nuclear policy, remark about Fukushima crisis
March 12, 2015
By SHINICHI SEKINE/ Staff Writer
KITAKATA, Fukushima Prefecture–Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said he was “dumbfounded” by his protege’s push to restart nuclear reactors and his claim that the situation at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was “under control.”
In his strongest tone so far, Koizumi repeated his anti-nuclear arguments at a lecture here on March 11, the fourth anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami that led to the meltdowns at the Fukushima power plant.
Persistent leaks and the accumulation of radioactive water at the nuclear plant have long hampered efforts to decommission the reactors there.
But in front of an international audience in September 2013, during the final presentation in Tokyo’s bid to host the 2020 Olympics, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the water problem was “under control.”
“It is not under control at all,” Koizumi said of Abe’s comment. “I cannot believe he could ever say something like that.”
Koizumi also questioned the rationale behind the Abe government’s plans to restart reactors whose operations were suspended after the 2011 disaster.
“The chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority has said that even if nuclear power plants meet the NRA’s new regulation standards, that itself does not guarantee their safety,” …
Report comment
the former prime minister said.
He added that nuclear power is the “least cost-effective method of power generation.”
Koizumi also criticized the government’s plan to unilaterally select the location for the final repository of spent nuclear fuel, which has been piling up at nuclear plants around the nation.
“It is irresponsible for the government to make the decision and force other parties to obey it when the resumption of idled nuclear power plants is set to produce even more spent fuel,” he said.
Koizumi said a political decision is needed to end the nation’s dependence on nuclear energy.
“If the government shifts to a policy of having no nuclear power plants, then the nation can see economic growth through natural sources of energy,” he said.
By SHINICHI SEKINE/ Staff Writer
Report comment
The truth is not popular. Truth telling whistle blowers are most commonly fired, assassinated, disappeared or punished with jail terms, blacklisting, etc.
Report comment
Take a look:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html
TEPCO : TEPCO
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html
Tokyo Electric Power Company
6 hours ago – Contact Info for Nuclear Accident Damage Claims 0120-993-724 (Office Hours 9; For those afflicted by the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power …
Report comment
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20150313_01.html
Transfer of tainted Fukushima soil to start
Mar. 13, 2015
As cleanup work continues, workers in Fukushima Prefecture will start transferring contaminated materials to an intermediate storage facility.
Soil and debris tainted by nuclear fallout from the 2011 accident have been piling up across the prefecture.
Construction of a storage facility began only last month due to difficulties in finding a suitable site. It is located in an area between 2 towns near the stricken nuclear plant. The transfer will start on Friday, without waiting for completion of the facility.
The Environment Ministry is aiming to transport 1,000 cubic meters of contaminated materials each from 43 municipalities in the prefecture, during the first year.
So far the government has only secured enough land to accommodate 20,000 cubic meters, roughly 0.1 percent of the planned size.
The completed 16-square-kilometers intermediate storage facility will hold up to 22 million cubic meters of contaminated soil and debris.
It is unclear when construction of the facility will be completed due to difficult negotiations with landowners.
At the same time the government must start looking for a final disposal site for the contaminated materials. Officials promised the citizens of Fukushima that if they host the intermediate facility for 30 years, the final storage site would be outside their prefecture. …
Report comment
People from Okuma, one of the 2 towns hosting the intermediate facility, have expressed mixed feelings.
A man in his 30s who used to live within the planned site said he has given up returning to the town. He believes the intermediate facility will end up becoming the final one, as other prefectures will not want to accept the contaminated debris.
A woman whose home stands near the planned site said she will not be able to return to her hometown when the facility is completed.
Report comment
Kind of like WIPP, at first it was a 'pilot' project for small amounts of non hazardous low level waste only.
Now it has Tons of high level waste, that spontaneously combusts and explodes, and none of it can be pulled out as the salt mine collapses in one the waste.
Report comment