2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

[Sanku]

Overall message -- over-reliance on a single source for manufacturing is dangerous, spread around the base to support the global supply-chain. Concentration is not good.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... en_fallout

Fukushima's Hidden Fallout

One factory 40 miles west of the Fukushima plant accounts for 20 percent of the world's silicon wafers -- vital for computer memory. The factory is now shuttered, and high-tech firms like Apple, Hewlett-Packard, and Lenovo are bracing for shortages.

Tokyo's famous Tsukiji fish market, the largest in the world and normally packed with tourists, is still a fraction of what it used to be. Daily sales at the market are down 60 percent.

Last month's earthquake knocked a quarter of Japan's nuclear power generation offline, and the Fukushima reactors alone make up a full half of Tepco's nuclear capacity.

The disaster at Fukushima has put a premature end to the Europe-based "nuclear renaissance," a post-post-Chernobyl movement toward expanding nuclear energy that had the International Energy Agency predicting nuclear would grow from 6 percent of total global energy supply to more than 11 percent by 2035.

[amit]

Overall message -- over-reliance on a single source for manufacturing is dangerous, spread around the base to support the global supply-chain. Concentration is not good.

Down with Japan I say. How dare they become so good that they control 40 per cent of global Electronics manufacturing. This must be a conspiracy hatched by the Great Satan.

[Sanku]

One of many 1000 examples--

The French had already called a Fukushima 6 when Japanese were not willing to consider it anything above 3. We can also pour venom on them now.

[amit]

Here's what has happened to the base load which turns out to vary as well.

UPDATE 1-Japan March nuclear plant utilisation rate dives to 58.3 pct

The nuclear power plant utilisation rate at Japan's 10 nuclear power companies slid to an average 58.3 percent in March from 66.0 percent a year earlier, after last month's massive quake and tsunami last month forced indefinite shutdowns of four nuclear plants.

Theo,

You need a sense of perspective here. Before this disaster TEPCO on its own generated more electricity than the total output of Spain. And mind you Spain is no backwater. There's bound to be disruptions not only due to Fukushima but also due to the general devastation. We shouldn't forget about that.

Lost in the heat and debate was a small nugget of information. A dam in the Fukushima prefecture burst and washed away 1,800 homes minutes after the earthquake. It would be an immense act of providence if nobody were in those 1,800 homes when this happened. On its own this would have been a global headline story but it got lost in the thousands killed in the earthquake and tsunami.

The fact that despite the crisis which happened in early March, Japan still managed 58.3 per cent utilization rate, IMO, speaks volumes about the robustness of the designs and the efficiency with which the Japanese run these plants.

[amit]

Wrote...

Sir I hope you see what I mean. Below is the anti-nuclear stance. It is for you to classify and let us know what exactly is this stance, due to your neutral observer status. I think it's and two of the post above by Sanku is a case of anti-Japan stance, more than anything else. Japan's at fault, according to Sanku, for being the major cog in the global electronics supply chain and wants action against that, now.

One of many 1000 examples--

The French had already called a Fukushima 6 when Japanese were not willing to consider it anything above 3. We can also pour venom on them now.

[Sanku]

I don't think any of the major contributors to this thread can claim to be purely factual based without having indulged in personal attacks/sarcastic remarks/indirectly ridiculing others etc

To put it on record, any and all transgression on my parts were at least 3 weeks ago, none later, but I continue to be personally attacked in the foulest manner. The initial remarks again were result of being attacked, but now I ignore those.

[amit]

To put it on record, any and all transgression on my parts were at least 3 weeks ago, none later, but I continue to be personally attacked in the foulest manner. The initial remarks again were result of being attacked, but now I ignore those.

It's interesting, nobody - at least not me - named you. But I congratulate you for owning up.

[putnanja]

...

amit, since you wrote a long post based on my post, as opposed to some who continued their rant as usual, I am responding to your post in a civil manner, and I hope you maintain the same tone.

When I mean a neutral observer, I meant people who don't want to dismiss nuclear power projects outright, but do have concerns about mega nuclear power parks based on the Japanese accident. There are some valid questions raised by many people ( not just the people on BRF), links of which were posted here. One was how GE pushed its design for approval even though it knew that there were some deficiencies in its designs. These were later ordered to be changed by the US regulators, which the Japanese appear to have not done. Then there are other issues related to nuclear site cleanup, groundwater contamination due to long term storage of nuclear waste etc. If the Japanese nuclear accident was as insignificant as it is made out to be on this thread, I guess the Japanese nuclear commission wouldn't be raising the severity level to seven.

What I am worried about is that the corporates will push their designs even with known design limitations as GE did, for they are motivated by strong profits. TEPCO did not make those design changes presumably because of extra expenses it would cost them. Similarly is their assumption of max tsunami heights given Japan's previous experience. Given the corruption endemic in India, and the political game of rewarding all major NSG countries with nuclear parks inspite of delays in their implementations(whether russian or french, or US) or design, I do have my doubts on the safety of these reactors, especially as there will be multiple high capacity reactors in one area. And the destructive nature of nuclear reactors as seen in the japanese accident does raise red flags for me.

I do understand the limitations of fossil fuel, and the relatively high imports that we face, as also the technological and financial limitations of wind /solar/tidal power projects. It is still a conflict in my mind as to the exact mix of various power projects we need to go for. Maybe an independent nuclear regulator who will go through the design and validate each design before awarding them projects, with the projects themselves being awarded in a transparent manner, say an auction, where in both the design and cost ( and not diplomacy/political expediency) are given priority would infuse more confidence in people??

Even if one sees who threw the first punch, others continued their personal attacks /sarcastic comments page after page, where in almost every other post has sarcastic comments/innuendos about those who question the nuclear accident. It is not a case of one just responding to flame posts, but taking it up a few notches themselves. No one comes across smelling of roses.

[amit]

Putnanja,

In the Indian context there is one major difference from the Fukushima incident. And that is the Indian equivalent of TEPCO (and other operators in Japan) is the GoI entity Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.

So if it’s not a case of you thinking that the govt is corrupt, then commercial and/or cost considerations are unlikely to come into place regarding reactor designs and such. Also, every piece of reactor part will be inspected and passed by agencies under the Atomic Energy Commission and other govt entities.

I don’t think our nuclear experts are so stupid as to not being able to understand whether a particular design is safe or not.

I disagree with you on the point that any one on this thread has said that the nuclear incident at Fukushima was insignificant. If you think so, then I must conclude that you either did not read the posts carefully or assumed something that you shouldn’t have. What’s been constantly hammered is that while the accident is serious and there has been significant radiation leakage, the severity was not a doomsday kind of scenario. And more importantly this does not imply that the basic assumption that nuclear is a good source of pollution free high base load power at economical rates is wrong.

If you read more than that in the posts – many were admittedly biting – then I will have to question your neutral status in this debate.

Similarly is their assumption of max tsunami heights given Japan's previous experience.

It would help if you could elaborate on this with some authoritative studies and not just pop science links which claim in the 1800 hundreds there was a 30-40-50 meter high tsunami - I really wonder who was holding the measuring tape for such precise measures and what point on the coastline this "measurement" took place. (I do hope you realize the height of a tsunami depends on the topography of the coastline and can vary drastically within a few KM depending on the topology, shallowness or otherwise of the sea facing side etc).

Given the corruption endemic in India, and the political game of rewarding all major NSG countries with nuclear parks inspite of delays in their implementations(whether russian or french, or US) or design, I do have my doubts on the safety of these reactors, especially as there will be multiple high capacity reactors in one area. And the destructive nature of nuclear reactors as seen in the japanese accident does raise red flags for me.

I’m sorry the bolded portion above makes no sense. Can you name one country outside the NSG grouping that we are negotiating with for reactors (Russia, France and US) who could have given us the technology (GenIII), 1,000 MW plants and fuel?

And why do you think it’s a sign of corruption and/or a political game if India rewards the US, Russia and France for helping it to open the NSG door. Would you rather that we got our reactors from China like the Pakis?

At the end of the day each and every part of each and every reactor will go through a strict audit by both NPCIL as well as the nuclear authorities before they are selected and installed. I happen to have full confidence in Indian scientists of doing the correct thing. It could be that you don’t have the same confidence. But then that is a state of the mind rather than a factual position unless you can factually prove why you don’t trust them.

Maybe an independent nuclear regulator who will go through the design and validate each design before awarding them projects, with the projects themselves being awarded in a transparent manner, say an auction, where in both the design and cost ( and not diplomacy/political expediency) are given priority would infuse more confidence in people??

Forgive me but phrases like independent nuclear regulator raises too many NPA flags in my mind. Who would form part of this “independent” body could you tell me? And why precisely do they need to be independent and what would be their expertise to validate each design? Why do you think the GoI and Indian janata need to look for independent “body” for this kind of expertise.

And I see that you’ve already convinced yourself that GoI can’t be trusted but presumably “independent” operators are impervious to pressure, inducements and hard sell that folks like GE can and will do.

I do understand the limitations of fossil fuel, and the relatively high imports that we face, as also the technological and financial limitations of wind /solar/tidal power projects. It is still a conflict in my mind as to the exact mix of various power projects we need to go for.

Boss this is no longer an academic exercise, at least for India. I would suggest you actually read the Stewart Brand interview.

Finally Fukushima was victim of a Black Swan even, a biggest ever (since they started measuring in the 1890s) earthquake felt by Japan and globally history’s second largest quake and a killer tsunami.

For a typical Indian nuclear park what kind of Black Swan events are you fearful of, that you have this queasiness in your mind. Mind you all Gen III reactors have far more safety features built in, including passive cooling. It’s good to fear but irrational fear is unfounded. For example I have an irrational fear of big dams, I wouldn’t want to live downstream from the Tehri dam. I may survive a nuclear meltdown by getting out of the area within 24 hours of it occurring but I wouldn’t get time to get out of the way from the wall of water which would flow out if the Tehri dam were to burst for any earthquake greater than 8.5 magnitude ( you can search the Indian nook thread to find out why this figure is important).

Even if one sees who threw the first punch, others continued their personal attacks /sarcastic comments page after page, where in almost every other post has sarcastic comments/innuendos about those who question the nuclear accident.

So you’ve only seen the sarcastic comments of the so-called pro-nuke group and none of the so-called anti-nuclear group? Well that can, in my mind, lead to only to two assumptions. You either haven’t followed this thread and the related Indian nuclear thread carefully as I and many others have; or one needs to reconsider your neutral status.

JMT

[arnab]

You can find a number of statements by TEPCO before overwhelming evidence forced them to retract.

These include
--- No loss of water in pools
--- Reactor under control and no fear of explosion
--- No radiation leak despite the roof getting blown off.

However that is not convincing anyone.

Afraid not. If you look at the IAEA logs. TEPCO declared a nuclear emergency on 11 March (the day of the tsunami). Ordered evacuation of 3 km radius. Advised loss of cooling (LOCA) and damage to generators etc. It also said water levels were enough to cover the fuel rods.

On March 12, it started pouring water into the reactors (Now this is being touted as a proof that TEPCO lied!!). If GP is correct about the antecedants of the author, it cannot be that he does not understand middle school science about the impact of heat on water levels particularly if no cooling can occur. Obviously the writer has an agenda and his target are the lazy readers who cannot think but will easily panic. Classic NPA.

Next reactors 'exploded' is a huge lie. The explosion was a hydrogen oxygen explosion outside the primary containment vessel. I cannot believe you were purporting to have an intelligent discussion on boosted fission, fusion etc in the fizzle thread many moons ago - if you are trying to sell us this snake oil that a nuclear explosion occured in Fukishima

[Sanku]

It also said water levels were enough to cover the fuel rods.

On March 12, it started pouring water into the reactors (Now this is being touted as a proof that TEPCO lied!!).

Is that even serious?

Yes obviously, one of many such incidents.

If GP is correct about the antecedents of the author, it cannot be that he does not understand middle school science about the impact of heat on water levels particularly if no cooling can occur. Obviously the writer has an agenda and his target are the lazy readers who cannot think but will easily panic. Classic NPA.

Personal attacks substituting for facts once more. And bandying "science" like a magic authoritarian figure wont work, since all parties involved are very good at basic high school science that's being talked about.

In any case this is not even a science issue, it is a engineering issue. Science stops at laboratories, any time you step out of a classroom/college and use even tiny amounts of science do to anything real it is engineering.

And not to make it a science vs engineering limitation, any and all folks who have done any real world technology know that Engineering starts where science stops.

If people were using Engineering arguments it would even make sense, repeating "science science" does not in any case.

Fact remains, short of trying to attack people rather than talk substance about the topic, shows that there is no substance that can be added.

Next reactors 'exploded' is a huge lie. The explosion was a hydrogen oxygen explosion outside the primary containment vessel.

There was a explosion within the reactor complex which damaged the reactor as well as the primary and secondary containment and blew the building away.

Its as simple as that. Rest is semantics. (We do not know whether it was inside primary containment or outside, many reports say inside as well)

I cannot believe you were purporting to have an intelligent discussion on boosted fission, fusion etc in the fizzle thread many moons ago - if you are trying to sell us this snake oil that a nuclear explosion occured in Fukishima

You can/can not believe anything. That is however entirely your problem.

[vina]

In any case this is not even a science issue, it is a engineering issue.

Indeed, but we have such elevated such discussions to swarga to keep company with Swargiya Devi Lal Ji .

Case in point as illustration, the following.

1) 1.25 cups = 1 bucket (must be a pretty small bucket or a rather large cup indeed and not the 200ml cups and 20L buckets)

2) Concrete Burqa! CONCRETE BURQA . But why /why not ? Why not? because, that will mean admitting to Russian - American Equal Equal. . Why because I knew it , right from the moment it happened (psstt. I never moved away from my keyboard!)!

3) You can predict with 100% certainty the height of the next Tusnami event! So, that plant should have a Tsunami wall of 1000M , which is what could happen if a giant meteorite hits the seas off location X!

4) And oh, I don't know Jack Schmit about science or engineering or basic probability & stats, but will call others "ignorant", but dont have the cojones to bet Rs 10 on it when someone calls it, but somehow think it is an insurance scam!

5) Well, I know Rankine Cycle BEFORE Carnot cycle (I learnt driving in reverse) and I use Rankine cycle in Turbines!

6)My stump speech before the next Green Congress election, taking inspiration from our source of inspiration. is as below

"When I become president of the Green Congress, I will campaign against Wind Power. The Wind Energy folks are cheating us. They remove all the "Bijli" out of the wind offshore and in the hills and other locations, and what we therefore get is shakti-heen "praan vayu" and hence the rise in respiratory disease of all kinds and general lack of vitality. So we will make sure that you get all the shakti shali "vayu" with the vayu shakti/ bijli intact!"

[amit]

If GP is correct about the antecedents of the author, it cannot be that he does not understand middle school science about the impact of heat on water levels particularly if no cooling can occur. Obviously the writer has an agenda and his target are the lazy readers who cannot think but will easily panic. Classic NPA.

Personal attacks substituting for facts once more.

Note: (one assumes the above sentence applies to author of the article as no personal attacks were made on the poster)

Just to place on record who the author is. Joseph Cirincione

His background:

Joseph Cirincione was the Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats, (Second Edition, 2005) and co-author of Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security (March 2005).

He's also an author of a book with an interesting name: WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications (Carnegie Endowment Report, January 2004).

In a way it's good that some POVs are coming out of the closet and Joe Cirincione is the new herrow for some on BRF. I guess the pattern becomes clearer by the day.

But this Cirincione dude is famous and that possibly explains why some folks admire him. He's even got a website dedicated to his quotes. Here's a sample:

"India got everything and they gave nothing. The president has sold out U.S. national security interests for a handful of mangoes."

Hmm, idle minds can't help put two and two together. Opposition to the nook deal and holding Cirincione as a herrrowic expert...

[Lalmohan]

sanku - let me be clear about one thing

i am perfectly happy for you to have your views on nuclear energy, i may disagree with some of them, i don't disagree with all. in general i find it hard to figure out what you actually stand for.

i do however disagree with your wild extrapolations from limited data, and using (for the most part) substantiation from what seem to me to be less than credible sources. some of these sources take a "could" and make it into a "has" and you take the "has" and turn it into 'x/y/z has been lying and cheating and the end of the world is nigh'

you also complain vociferously about personal attacks, but you make them rather nastily yourself - not just about the world at large but about the posters here, all of whom began their discussions with you in a very civil manner at the outset. you really fail to see that you are behaving badly here.

you must also learn to agree to disagree no? the point of view you seek to portray is valid, but you have done it much damage with your style of debate.

just my thoughts.

[Sanku]

i do however disagree with your wild extrapolations from limited data, and using (for the most part) substantiation from what seem to me to be less than credible sources. some of these sources take a "could" and make it into a "has" and you take the "has" and turn it into 'x/y/z has been lying and cheating and the end of the world is nigh'

Dear Lalbrof, most of the statements that you call "wild extrapolations" are actually "simple predictions" -- most of what I have said so far as indeed turned out correct. So frankly time for you to reconsider your opinions.

I am fairly confident that the other statements I made will come true too.

Meanwhile please note that in the above statement you have made a sweeping generalization. If you can pick up a specific example and discuss it "You said this, now this is a extrapolation" I can discuss this.

Note most of what I have said has been backed up by external reports (of all manner of people including scientists)

So basically, I reject what you have said above is a unsubstantiated sweeping statement unless you discuss specific points.

you also complain vociferously about personal attacks, but you make them rather nastily yourself - not just about the world at large but about the posters here, all of whom began their discussions with you in a very civil manner at the outset. you really fail to see that you are behaving badly here.

Again, I reject the claim. I did not start mocking anyone here, I did tell a few people to get off when they continued their mocking and posting of personal jibes instead of relevant data.

you must also learn to agree to disagree no? the point of view you seek to portray is valid, but you have done it much damage with your style of debate.

just my thoughts.

I completely agree to disagree, just that if some one mocks me, he/she should expect to get it back much more than they can hope to dish out, in fact I have not been myself yet, because of self/moderator imposed moderation. Also I do not like people who put words in my mouth, I abhor dishonesty.

If you look at D Roy's post above, he did not mock but disagreed, and I polite contested. That can fully continue.

[Sanku]

.....

Nice touch of humor, had to read it twice before I could make sure that it was indeed all "vishesh tippani" on other posters rather than any statement on the Japanese situation, so well was it written.

I wonder if the Japanese too consider the situation a laughing matter? In US for sure they have been pulling dark comedy based on the accident (which I think is a little too much)

[Lalmohan]

so sanku - we disagree with each other
lets leave it at that shall we?

[Sanku]

Quite so Lalbrof, I have never mocked you, and don't intend doing so, as long as you do not dispute my right to keep putting forth my opinions and shared observations. Further please feel free to contest what I say in open and transparent manner (without mocking edge) -- coming from you I will appreciate it.

While we can not agree perhaps, we can thrust and parry nevertheless without ill will.

[Lalmohan]

you are free to have opinions, but not to misbehave
but you don't agree that you have
so what can we do?

[Sanku]

you are free to have opinions, but not to misbehave
but you don't agree that you have
so what can we do?

You can let me know specifically when I do next time (of course I will consider that you be fair enough to give me right to respond in equal manner) -- sounds fair?

[amit]

...most of what I have said so far as indeed turned out correct. So frankly time for you to reconsider your opinions.

I am fairly confident that the other statements I made will come true too.

Posting without comment from page 1 of this thread, two random examples, both posted on March 15 (emphasis with bold mine).

if the containment vessel is damaged, that is indeed bad news...

It is.

however most experts so far are saying that we are a long way from catastrophe.

Most experts have been horribly behind the curve here, I fear deliberately. A full understanding of cost/benefit by the laity will end up with many of them without there "rozi-roti". There is a obvious conflict of interest here.

I will wager a bet, a full meltdown is now a matter of WHEN and not if. I expect more bad news within a day.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1046879


A few post below, also on page 1 of this thread.

Thanks for the thread, but IMO Indian nuclear plants have more chances of being terror target then natural calamity like earthquake.

If there is nuke disaster in India due to earthquake or so GoI can atleast blame on nature saying "we did everything to avoid but its nature you no..".

India has already done a better job in a equally serious, if not worse situation at Kalpakkam.

Thank you.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1046894

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^ Now that we have a Neutral Expert-ji and Amit-ji is presenting evidence, what do we expect in this BRF court?

May I present my own prediction made a week or so ago? I had predicted that the day is not far when there will be a call for CRE on BRF. Now, I present as evidence that articles of Joe Cirincione are being posted without the obligatory accompanying "Aaackkk Thhooo".

[Sanku]

^^^ Now that we have a Neutral Expert-ji and Amit-ji is presenting evidence, what do we expect in this BRF court?

May I present my own prediction made a week or so ago? I had predicted that the day is not far when there will be a call for CRE on BRF. Now, I present as evidence that articles of Joe Cirincione are being posted without the obligatory accompanying "Aaackkk Thhooo".

It would be good to read the article before making a statement on , its not about CRE anywhere. And your prediction is still wrong, no has called for a CRE on BRF still, quite to the contrary.

Anyway NPA and Japan are quite chummy, so we can take their words for each other cant we? If some one else spoke bias would be alleged.

[GuruPrabhu]

To each his own, na? I simply predicted "the day is not far". Compared to:

I will wager a bet, a full meltdown is now a matter of WHEN and not if. I expect more bad news within a day.

My objections to such dire predictions were met with "vested interest", "anti-India", "naked something or the other" ityadi. Let the neutral expert decide. No more from me on this.

[Amber G.]

Now close to home ( Mid-west, Ohio, USA) we can see I-131 from Fukushima in our water (after some rain)

The I-131 levels were measured about 15 picocuries/L (0.6 Bq per liter) .. the readings are similar to what EPA reported in, Oak Ridge TN, Atlanta etc.. but much lower than Washington state (8x) or Idaho.(15x) (From various news sources with qualifier IIRC)


(Just to give some perspective on how sensitive radiation meters can be, and why it is all but impossible for Japan/Tepco to cover up radiation)

Just don't spend much time on the thorium laced sandy beaches of TN and Kerala, you may be exposed to 50 mSv/year.

What's nice is that these isotopes can be measured. Just think about the hormones and anti-biotics in our water supply which are not measurable and are an equal if not worse cause of cancer.

Mort, I knew Kerala was one of the high background radiation areas (HBRAs), but did not realize how high.. Ramsar, Iran has 240 mSv /Yr. Will be interesting to check out the health effects, rate of cancers etc of people who live in these areas..
HBRA
or this

[Lalmohan]

^^^ western england has high levels of natural radon gas escaping from rocks, there are supposed to be higher rates of cancer there

[Sanku]

To each his own, na? I simply predicted "the day is not far". Compared to:

I will wager a bet, a full meltdown is now a matter of WHEN and not if. I expect more bad news within a day.

My objections to such dire predictions were met with "vested interest", "anti-India", "naked something or the other" ityadi. Let the neutral expert decide. No more from me on this.

And I have been shown right, so?

[Lalmohan]

full meltdown?
really?

[Amber G.]

Yes, really

[Sanku]

full meltdown?
really?

Yes, as bad as Chernobyl (I am assuming that Chernobyl is full meltdown in common lexicon), now official, just that the physical appearance of failure is different. In Chernobyl it all went up in smoke, at Fukushima it all went down the drain into ground and ocean.

[Lalmohan]

ah... so we can change definitions now can we?

[Sanku]

ah... so we can change definitions now can we?

No not really.

[Amber G.]

Michio Kaku the prof quoted above is from UC Berkeley. He is Japanese only from origins. Very much opposed to fission based nuke power. He has written a lot about future sciecne projects etc. he is very decriptive in teaching physics. I used to listen to his radio show.

Since we're talking about Michio Kaku. Its interesting to note he has objected just about anything nuclear powered. He objected to the Cassini–Huygens spacecraft which uses Pu-238 radioisotope thermo-electric generators of 600-700 Watts-electric to operate the on-board instrumentation. It was launched in 1997 and has provided much scientific data to JPL. MK has done work in string theory and its puzzling what his intentions are. He appears on everything from US public television, Coast-to-Coast radio show (about UFOs, aliens, big foot & monsters), and late night talk shows.

Prof Kaku is a tenured physics prof at CUNY. He has his views. Here is one:

The real threat of nuclear proliferation comes not so much from Iraq and North Korea, which have only a primitive technological base, but from those countries such as Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan

(This is a direct quote from his Nuclear Threats and the New World Order (Our resident neutral observers will be impressed by the == of India and Pakistan, (Yeah.. AQ Khan network is == us)

[Amber G.]

^^^ western england has high levels of natural radon gas escaping from rocks, there are supposed to be higher rates of cancer there

How much? how do the agree with LNT model?

Note that 250 mSV (per year) is about 100 times the normal back ground rate. If a person lived there for 20 years it will get 5 Sv accumulated dose and 20% chance to get a cancer.. something which should be easily verified.
Science mag article gives this:

Exposures as high as 260 mGy/year have been recorded in Ramsar. The unit of ionizing radiation here, grays per year, corresponds to 1 J of energy imparted to 1 kg of tissue (the milligray, mGy, which is one-thousandth of a gray, is more commonly used). Whole-body exposure to a uniform dose of 3 to 5 Gy would kill 50% of those exposed within 1 or 2 months.

The most interesting feature in all these cases is that the people living in these HBRAs do not appear to suffer any adverse health effects as a result of their high exposures to radiation. On the contrary, in some cases the individuals living in these HBRAs appear to be even healthier and to live longer than those living in control areas that are not classified as HBRAs. These phenomena pose many intriguing questions for medical geologists.

Wiki says:

..very high background radiation area (VHBRA) having an effective dose equivalent several times in excess of ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers and up to 200 times greater than normal background levels. ... This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox". It has also been claimed that residents have healthier and longer lives.[3] On the basis of this and other evidences including the fact that life had originated in a much more irradiated environment, some scientists have questioned the validity of linear no-threshold model, on which all radiation regulations currently depend.[4] Others point out that some level of radiation might actually be good for health and have a positive effect on population based on radiation hormesis model, by jump starting DNA repair

Can some one share data for Kerala?

n certain beaches in Brazil, monazite sand deposits are abundant. The external radiation levels on these black beach sands range up to 5 mrad/hour, which is nearly 400 times the normal background level in the United States. The Brazilian coastal sands have several radioactive minerals, among them monazite, zircon, thorianite, and niobate-tantalate, as well as nonradioactive minerals, including ilmenite, rutile, pyrochlore, and cassiterite.

In India, along the 570-km-long coastline of Kerala, there are major deposits of monazite-rich mineral sands with very high natural radiation. The monazite deposits are larger than those in Brazil, and the dose from external radiation is, on average, similar to those reported in Brazil.

Those who take NTLH model as fact should really look at these data points.

[Amber G.]

^^^ Quick searches in Health Physics etc.. for Kerala I see:
"A negative correlation was found for all cancers (SIR and SMR) with background doses in radiation with the studies in Kerala..

... No increase in in mortality and birth defect [with control group]

Shivji what does your sources say?

Here is one abstract:
Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study.
(Nair RR, Rajan B, Akiba S, Jayalekshmi P, Nair MK, Gangadharan P, Koga T, Morishima H, Nakamura S, Sugahara T.)
(Health Phys. 2009 Dec;97(6):637-8.)

Abstract
The coastal belt of Karunagappally, Kerala, India, is known for high background radiation (HBR) from thorium-containing monazite sand. In coastal panchayats, median outdoor radiation levels are more than 4 mGy y-1 and, in certain locations on the coast, it is as high as 70 mGy y-1. Although HBR has been repeatedly shown to increase the frequency of chromosome aberrations in the circulating lymphocytes of exposed persons, its carcinogenic effect is still unproven. A cohort of all 385,103 residents in Karunagappally was established in the 1990's to evaluate health effects of HBR. Based on radiation level measurements, a radiation subcohort consisting of 173,067 residents was chosen. Cancer incidence in this subcohort aged 30-84 y (N = 69,958) was analyzed. Cumulative radiation dose for each individual was estimated based on outdoor and indoor dosimetry of each household, taking into account sex- and age-specific house occupancy factors. Following 69,958 residents for 10.5 years on average, 736,586 person-years of observation were accumulated and 1,379 cancer cases including 30 cases of leukemia were identified by the end of 2005. Poisson regression analysis of cohort data, stratified by sex, attained age, follow-up interval, socio-demographic factors and bidi smoking, showed no excess cancer risk from exposure to terrestrial gamma radiation. The excess relative risk of cancer excluding leukemia was estimated to be -0.13 Gy-1 (95% CI: -0.58, 0.46). In site-specific analysis, no cancer site was significantly related to cumulative radiation dose. Leukemia was not significantly related to HBR, either. Although the statistical power of the study might not be adequate due to the low dose, our cancer incidence study, together with previously reported cancer mortality studies in the HBR area of Yangjiang, China, suggests it is unlikely that estimates of risk at low doses are substantially greater than currently believed.

PMID: 19066487 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Link:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19066487

[Amber G.]

^^^ Add to above:
Link

Several studies have attempted to assess the health effects of the extra terrestrial radiation present in Kerala, India. The people who live in this region are exposed to much higher levels or terrestrial radiation than people living just about anywhere else in the world.

One particular research study involved over 100,000 inhabitants living in or near Kerala. These people were interviewed about their lifestyle, occupation, housing, tobacco and alcohol use. Statistics were also performed on the incidences of cancer. A comparison between people in the highest radiation zones and those in lower, normal areas indicated there was no increase in the incidence of cancer in the people who lived in areas with more radiation.

A similar study monitored the health of newborns in Kerala. Again the scientists found no correlation between a higher incidence of cancer and the higher doses of radiation.

Since radiation causes cancer shouldn't people living in regions where they are exposed to higher levels of radiation have a higher incidence of cancer? The correlation seems to fit, { At comparatively higher background rates the correlation seems to fit better as I have posted multiple times citing studies} but the results of the Kerala studies prove otherwise. Is it possible that the people of Kerala have some sort of cancer protective gene or genes? Future studies are aimed at determining whether this may be a possibility.

[Johann]

If you have a chance, go through my (and others) posts. I will highly recommend it. I have tried (and I believe I was successful) to put lot of complex technical information and basic fundamentals in a clear, technically accurate, yet simple to understand way so that people not familiar with technical terms do not get confused by inaccurate reporting.
From doses of radiation units and what's their health impact, to radioactivity measurements, to decay heat, etc .. I tried to put all those terms in something people are familiar with, yet without loosing the accuracy.

Thanks for your consistent hard work Amber.

I am reading through it rather slowly - I'm trying to understand just how conservative the Japanese government is being in terms of the size and duration of the exclusion zone, the agricultural and dairy restrictons, etc.

Ultimately I'd like to understand the economic impact of the accident, and the extent that can be mitigated without putting lives and health at heightened risk

[Prem]

same should hold true for nuclear energy. To date nuclear energy is still one of the most viable and clean method of generating electricity. That is why the Obama administration is steadfast in maintaining its commitment to nuclear energy as an integral part of its broader energy policy. More importantly, America isn’t alone in its position. Accelerated growth in Asia, has dramatically driven up energy consumption in this region. Asian tigers have no choice but to pursue an energy policy which incorporates nuclear energy. With all this in mind I would have to argue for a long term bullish stance on uranium. I still think Uranium has room to drop in the short term and at worst will bottom out at $33lb, from there I see a bounce back.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/259120- ... ces-bounce

( Drop in Uranium prices is good news for importing country like India)

[Amber G.]

Fuel Rods in Dry casket storage:

Danger from spent fuel rods was highlighted by this accident.

One less known aspect about Fukushima NPP is that it also had spent fuel rods outside the pool in dry storage. They all survived the quake and subsequent power failure and had no (or little) problems.

(I have come to know about this from MIT technical bulletin - There is lot of discussion about this as it has lot of learnings for US).. Few points:

- Unlike the reactors, the spent fuel pools are not cooled by a multitude of redundant systems that can be kept running with multiple power backup systems, such as long-lasting batteries, in case the main power goes out -- which is what happened in Japan.

-Unlike reactors, which are encased in steel armor and thick concrete, the pools are often housed in buildings with sheet metal siding

-. Packing for typical US NPP is more dense than Fukushima which makes it a concern.

- Ironically anti-nuke-lobby efforts forces longer term storage for fuel rods on site.

- There have been suggested "backup" system for spent fuel rods cooling (like emergency spraying if there are leaks in the pool etc)..Not clear what plants has what.

Gerard, GP - What is the situation with spent fuel rods in India..? How good are dry storage facilities?

[abhishek_sharma]

Water goes out but comes in faster at Fukushima - April 14, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... in_fa.html

Here's a quick roundup of what's happening at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant:

Radioactive water was pumped out of a trench near the Unit 2 reactor, but unfortunately, it appears to be flowing into the trench more quickly than the workers have pumped it out. According to Kyodo News, workers successfully pumped some 660 tons of water from a trench near the reactor's turbine building to the condenser, part of the internal cooling circuit. The pumping took place on 12 April, and appeared successful, but the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says that by Thursday evening Japan time, the water level in the trench had increased by about 4.5 centimeters. This is a problem as workers hope to reduce the amount of radioactive water at the plant to a level that will allow them to begin repairs.

Elevated levels of radiation in seawater near the plant continue to be reported by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Workers at the plant have installed several barriers of silt and steel in an effort to stem the flow of radiation into the Pacific, but a quick glance at the latest data indicates radiation levels remain well above the legal limit.

TEPCO is gaining no friends among the Japanese press. A story from the Financial Times describes how the company's most recent press conference "angered even jaded Japanese reporters with years of experience of watching dishonoured executives bow deeply and say little".

Meanwhile companies continue to jostle for what will inevitably be a multi-billion-dollar cleanup contract. The Daily Yomiuri reports that Toshiba may ask rival company Hitachi to join its recent bid to clean up the plant in just ten years. (Other experts have their doubts.) A few more details of the Toshiba plan are being reported by the broadcaster NHK.

Should Japan Bank Stem Cells From Fukushima Nuclear Workers?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... cells.html

Several Japanese medical experts want to bank blood stem cells from workers at the ailing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The cells would be used as a treatment in case a high radiation exposure makes a worker sick. But the proposal is raising eyebrows among U.S. experts, who say it probably wouldn't save many lives.

In a letter today in The Lancet, Tetsuya Tanimoto of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research and four others note that bringing the radiation-leaking nuclear plant under control could take months or years, and some workers could accidentally be exposed to high levels of radiation. While high radiation doses can eventually cause cancer, the immediate health effect is to destroy dividing cells—including blood cells—which wipes out the immune system. The authors point out that some workers after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster received donated bone marrow transplants, and two Japanese nuclear workers got donated stem cell transplants after a 1999 accident.

Stem cell transplant experts in Japan and Europe have endorsed banking the Fukushima workers' stem cells, and medical workers in Japan and in Europe are standing by to help. (The cells would be obtained by giving the workers a drug that nudges blood stem cells from the bone marrow into the bloodstream, then hooking them to a machine that filters out the stem cells.)

Others question the rationale. It's not clear whether donated stem cell transplants helped some Chernobyl workers survive; they received several different types of cells, and there was no control group, says bone marrow transplant expert David Weinstock of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. As for the two Japanese nuclear workers, they eventually died of organ failure caused by radiation anyway, notes radiologist Fred Mettler of the University of New Mexico.

On the other hand, giving the Fukushima workers their own stem cells should work better than donor cells because the patients' own cells won't be rejected by the immune system. Experience with lymphoma patients, who receive a transplant of their own blood or bone cells after radiation to wipe out their cancer, has shown "there's no doubt it helps," says bone marrow transplant expert Nelson Chao of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

But a stem cell transplant would help only a worker who received a certain dose—between roughly 5 grays and 10 grays of radiation, Chao says. (Below that, patients survive with other treatments; above it, they would die anyway from damage to the gut and lungs.) The workers would also have had their entire body exposed to radiation. If the workers are partially shielded, like the three who stepped into radioactive water last month, their unaffected bone marrow will replenish the destroyed cells.

The number of the 800 or so workers at the Fukushima plant likely to receive radiation in that narrow dose range "would be pretty limited," Chao says. One scenario that might make more sense, Chao says, is if stem cells were banked only for a subset of 100 or so workers who were the only ones sent into high radiation areas.

Chao says there a "lot of e-mails going around" in response to The Lancet letter, and he expects that a U.S. group that he and Weinstock are part of, the Radiation Injury Treatment Network (RITN), may submit a response. Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission has also opposed the plan because of expert and public disagreements, including a concern that it could give workers false reassurance and make them less careful about taking risks.