2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 12:05

arnab wrote:
chaanakya wrote: What propaganda , leave alone crude one, is there???

As for nuke liability bill, there is separate thread, so ask there.
Busby, 900000 chernobyl death - what you forget the context of discussion just a couple of posts up?
I was asking about nuke liability - since you made the comment on this thread. why shoot and scoot?

I see , Sanku has already answered it. Any way, Bushby and chenobyl and deaths are not propaganda but discussions. You may hold stake with Nuclear Industry etc I don't have any. Energy Policy, yes, energy mix, yes but not with any specific source.

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 May 2011 12:06

arnab wrote:Yes but as also posted many times to explain - the cost in this case is for the operator TEPCO to bear (and is being protected by Japan). In India for NPCIL the Rs 4 lakh per death is already the norm. Indian nuke liability was for the supplier to bear, GE has not been impacted. If anything, as Somnath has showed, The GOI will use the bill to limit even such compensations to protect its own coffers.

Aha, but Arnab, such logic is wasted on people who think you are being anti-Indian when you say the Bhopal gas tragedy was caused by operator neglect and not by equipment supplier neglect. Of course small details like Union Carbide India was a direct subsidiary of Union Carbide global and the management of the company was controlled out of the US are not important.

I wonder if the difference between operator liability and equipment supplier liability is even understood. In fact the TEPCO issue is indeed a benchmark which would be welcome by the likes of GE and Aveya. This sets a precedent in which equipment suppliers get off the hook and the operator is left to pick up the pieces.

But who cares?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 12:06

arnab wrote:
chaanakya wrote:That is wrong. As per current scheme TEPCO would bear only partially. Rest others have to foot the bill. See previous post or this link
yes - I did say TEPCO was being protected by the govt of Japan. The pooled insurance scheme is similar to the US; which also has pvt nuke operators, not India - where NPCIL is the sole operator *hence TEPCO compensation scheme offers no insights for India.

Why wriggle, say in plain terms, unaffected consumers are also going to foot the bill.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 13 May 2011 12:10

chaanakya wrote: I see , Sanku has already answered it. Any way, Bushby and chenobyl and deaths are not propaganda but discussions. You may hold stake with Nuclear Industry etc I don't have any. Energy Policy, yes, energy mix, yes but not with any specific source.

Sir do read Monibot's analysis on how the 900,000 deaths were arrived at. Nope I have no stake in any energy industry or energy policy anywhere in the world

I look at these things from a purely development perspectives and I like to think I have India's interest at heart (as I'm sure you do too) - so happy to learn / exchange ideas but do get rid of the fluff. There is a reason mods do not allow links to deaf&dumb out here

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 13 May 2011 12:13

chaanakya wrote: Why wriggle, say in plain terms, unaffected consumers are also going to foot the bill.

Sigh - sure. The operator cannot be held liable for the tsunami

they may link it to climate change..aka coal.
I don't care either ways. I only want to debate its relevance to the Indian liability since you claimed it had lessons for India

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 May 2011 12:29

arnab wrote:
chaanakya wrote: Why wriggle, say in plain terms, unaffected consumers are also going to foot the bill.
Sigh - sure. The operator cannot be held liable for the tsunami they may link it to climate change..aka coal.

The issue was not Tusnami. The issue was unpreparedness for Tsunami.

The issue is private profit and public loss.

But you still wont see the relevance. That is also obvious. Because to see some preconditions are needed.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 15:31

Melted nuclear fuel shows TEPCO's data lacks credibility

Melted nuclear fuel inside the No. 1 reactor of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant has been found at the bottom of the reactor's pressure vessel, indicating there is a likelihood of a hole up to several centimeters in it, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) announced.

Many fuel rods at the reactor are under water and in a stable condition. But TEPCO's failure to detect a massive leak of water and to accurately measure water levels is likely to force the utility to review a road map that calls for bringing the plant's damaged reactors to a stable condition, known as a "cold shutdown," in about six to nine months.

TEPCO concluded that a large portion of fuel had melted inside the pressure vessel after workers double-checked the amount of water and found the water level inside the No. 1 reactor to be very low. TEPCO measures the water level by checking the differential between about 5 meters above the top of the 4-meter-long fuel rods and about 1.5 meters from the bottom of the fuel rods.

TEPCO had initially announced that the water level was about 1.6 to 1.7 meters from the top of the fuel rods. But new data revealed that the water level was at a point more than 5 meters below the top of the fuel rods.

The temperature at the lower section of the pressure vessel stood at a reasonable 100 to 120 degrees, leading the utility to speculate that a large portion of the fuel rods had previously melted, sank to the bottom of the vessel and were cooled.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), said the latest data has more credibility than previous data.

But Tadashi Narabayashi, a professor of reactor engineering at Hokkaido University, said, "It is problematic that TEPCO kept releasing data as if the water gauges were functioning properly. I wonder what a road map based on such data really means."

He said that most fuel was probably at the bottom of the pressure vessel and is being cooled. He cited a possibility that equipment which drives the control rods and other devices is penetrating and probably damaging the bottom of the vessel.

TEPCO officials said at a news conference on the night of May 12 that the pressure vessel's bottom appeared to have a hole measuring a total of several centimeters from which water and the fuel were likely leaking.

The question remains when the fuel melted and sank to the bottom. Nuclear fuel starts melting at an extremely high 2,800 degrees Celsius.

Hisashi Ninokata, a professor of nuclear engineering at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, speculated that the nuclear fuel probably melted when the fuel rods emerged from water immediately after an explosion of high calorific value. He said the current volume of calorific value is low and the fuel above water can be cooled with steam.

In the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in which a core meltdown occurred in its Unit 2 reactor, it took the plant operator and U.S. authorities 14 years to clean up radiation due to the difficulty in removing the melted fuel rods.

Ninokata said, "This time, workers cooled the reactors with sea water and there is a fear that salt has accelerated the pressure vessel's corrosion and damaged the unit. There is also a possibility of the melted fuel and metal from the cover pipes being mixed and solidified, making efforts to remove them (to shut down the reactor) a challenging task."

NISA defines a fall of melted fuel rods to the bottom of a pressure vessel as a meltdown. TEPCO acknowledged that it is a meltdown if the fuel rods are not in their original form.

Haruki Madarame, chairman of the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan, said at a news conference on May 12, "It was not surprising because we predicted a melting of the fuel rods at an early stage. We don't think all of the fuel rods are under water judging from temperatures inside the pressure vessel. We want to do more analysis."

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 May 2011 17:53

Chaanakya ji,
my standard disclaimer was meant to address the three main approaches I have found on "nuke" threads about material published in peer-reviewed papers from journals - if the content or focus or conclusion of such papers go against whatever be the collection of agenda of certain "posting" positions.

The disclaimer need not reflect my own assessments about peer-reviewed papers from journals published more or less well-established publishing houses like Elsevier, Kluwer, Wiley, etc. I am regularly involved in reviewing for several journals from the first two, and I know that it is not so easy to pass off dubious material. Moreover the procedure to contradict published material that you think is dubious - is pretty well-established. I am sure those who "trash" such papers, or find the authors "perfidious", are also aware of the regular channels and procedures to get their grievances addressed. Either they know that they themselves have not really thought it through, or are not confident enough about their own counter claims, or it is perhaps a simple case of the much lighter effort needed to paint the authors black for their supposed "ideological proclivities/perfidies/" rather than going through the pain of writing up a counter-paper and see it through the review process.

If it was "history/political science/philosophy" type of subject I would have conceded about personal ideological proclivities possibly affecting the group paradigm about topics - and hence opposed to say alternative opinions hwich they would suppress from getting aired if they have had a stranglehold on "publishing" filters. But in "exact" or rather "numerate" sciences, such manipulation would be very very difficult.

The transgenerational passing on of genomic instabilities is a relatively new find, and seems so far to be specifically more associated with persistent low level irradiation at a level higher than "background" which started off from accidental or unforeseen release of nuclear material into the environment due to human activity. Obviously it is not attributable to things like tsunami/earthquake. I will report also similar peer-reviewed papers about similar finds that see possible correlation with burning coal - as and when I find them.

The environs of Fukushima should be subjected to similar investigations and follow up on this potential mutational hazard that appear to be transmitted through gametes and therefore whose effects may persist over many generations.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 13 May 2011 17:56

Or it may be that BARC cannot refute them on security grounds.

You may think it is a cop out but please read up on the OSA. A more draconian act has never been written.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 May 2011 18:08

I was on skype with a Japanese colleague just now : here is a summary of points she made:
(1) the Kan gov's proposals are based on issuing a special bond issues to "power companies" which can be cashed whenever they need [ostensibly to pay for compensation] and is paid from public funds.
(2) TEPCO is expected to pay back a "small proportion" of encashed bonds every year to the gov.
(3) However the exact amount of compensations required is still not known
(4) the proposals have to be passed through the Diet - and she says that domestic "news" is that there will be strong opposition the form of thsi proposal
(5) The main concern from opponents is that the power companies will use this proposal to pass on the costs of compensation on to the consumer by raising their rates. So ultimately the proposal really is supporting all of the compensation by public money.

Tana ji saar,
no issues with the security requirements. But then a simple "wrong/not based on data that we know but these authors don't have access to" should be the limit, and not trying to go for personal tarring and feathering.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 May 2011 18:23

>>> .. With HUGE boo boos. Including a total absence of knowledge... captured on BRF for posterity
Fortunately the real world has people who are honest with science >>>
(Thanks Sankuji.. for the above.. couldn't agree with more)

Folks - Please archive this thread, lot of knowledge, but starting from pp 54, specially Chaanakyaji endorsed (almost worshiping of the author) Busby Ph D and the following comments by various posters.

Bushby's paper is at http://www.llrc.org/agency/subtopic/kin ... nbusby.pdf (Just, in case, if Chaanakya again dishonestly tries to quote me - I have also archived the copy of the paper). Please do watch the video where Busby talks about 1,400,000 deaths, and nuclear explosions in Fukushima.

(for context see the video )
(Url again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI)

GP, has described Busby as an "idiot" and a "nut-job". My take, after reading his paper, is the same - as pointed out in my posts, every page of that paper, Busby had multiple gross errors. Let me be clear, my amazement was, how anyone , with even an iota of "swayam-pragya" (common sense) can not notice those errors. but as they say:

यस्य नास्ति स्वयं प्रज्ञा शास्त्रं तस्य करोति किम्।
लोचनाभ्यां विहीनस्य दर्पणः किं करिष्यति॥

Mort has compared that video to Zaid Hamid. My take, this is worse than Jinn Thermodynamics..and that is saying a lot.

So folks, please archive the thread. specially a few pages (pp 54, 55) reveals a lot about its posters too. Please keep it for reference, when you have to show how even the silliest theory has its defenders.

This single example shows truth in Guptji bharat bharati.. (One of the reason, our nation do not advance)
"रे मूर्खते जीवित रहे, रक्षक तुम्हारे है धनि "
(When rich and powerful protects it, ignorance lives..)

Thanks again to Chaanakya for introducing Busby to us all.
(Folks, if you have your own blog, or write in other blogs, this is a very good example to be quoted)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 May 2011 18:37

chaanakya wrote:
Amber G. wrote:Just because, the above (http://www.llrc.org/agency/subtopic/kin ... nbusby.pdf posted second time, errors inside (gross errors, just see the notes and few posts coming) still remain errors.

There is a saying, but it is self-evident..
If you repeat 2+2 = 959599595 , even a million times, it is still false.
And if you start (or put them in middle) with such an erroneous step , final results need not be credible.

I am amazed, that some one will take this seriously (specially considering the scientific background of most of the people here who can easily judge the validity by looking at the contents..)

Okay. Sorry for all the editorial comments, Let me just point out one or two items, which I noticed.

Take 4.1 line 1
It gives the definition of Roentgen as:
>>>Exposure: The quantity of radiation which causes a defined number of ions in dry air<<<
First, it is not an unit of Radiation in general (as other units given in the table, like Rad, Gray etc), just ionizing-radiation (Eg x-rays, or gamma-rays ...NOT, for example, from neutrons.)
I can see, people defending this sloppiness, but any introductory text book (even my message here in brf (see here) or even wiki is not that sloppy.

(For those who want to get technical details, "R" which measures charge (and not energy) is not really a good measure for radiation absorbed - In fact, "R" has become obsolete among the current generation of scientists)

But next part, takes the cake, it says "# of ionizing pairs" .. Arre baba, R is defined as radiation required to liberate "electric charge"/(unit volume) . and not # or ion-pairs. Even wiki gets it right. (I just checked) (BTW the electric charge in the above definition is 1 esu which approximately may give about 2.1 x 10^9 pairs in ordinary air) (Which is why no one measures other than gamma/X-ray rays radiation in R)

(Sure, normally there are certain number of ion pairs per unit charge.. but if I have to specify price of U, I will say Rs x/Kg ... not Rs x/(per cake) )

Of course, as pointed out before,

Table 4.2 still shows, value in mSV (1000 - Based on erythemal (skin reddening) X-ray dos ).. Sv unit wasn't even there (it was introduce much later - decades later) Paper does not give, any link, or even say how Roentgen's was converted in Sv or even the basis where one gets that number.

And BTW, Roentgen unit was not there either in 1927! (It got adopted in 1928)

Neither, it gives a link, or basis, where it gets, (For "Statutory annual radiation dose limits to members of the public over the radiation") 1 mSv with " huge evidence of harm from internal exposures at lower doses ) { Where this "huge" evidence comes, or what exactly is this limit, author does not say )

Folks, Just wanted you to know. You can make up your own mind about credibility of this report, which gets.. even the basics wrong.
Of course , number of smiley increase the credibility of your reply.I just counted /sigh/ in other posts, we got 259 posts and majority of them from you. oxygen deficit??

Pointing out the obvious, the number of smiley were there to laugh at the idiotic tripe in the paper by Busby you endorsed. Only you would know , if there in an "oxygen deficit" (may have happened due to all that counting I presume). May be, it's not just "counting smiles " but actually reading what was posted be helpful. Thanks again for quoting my message in full.

It is certainly worth reading again, if you missed it. .. Here is one more

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 May 2011 18:47

Mort Walker wrote:^^^Just watched the Busby YouTube video and he claimed the spent fuel rods exploded in air and spewed radioactive debris everywhere. Wow! The dude gives Zaid Hamid great credibility.

WoW, isn't it? Yes the dude gives Zaid Hamid a great capability. What's amazing that we have his fans and worshipers here in this forum...not only that his great defenders who would pass fatawas and insults on SDRE scientists to defend him.

Pity and just disgustingly shameful.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 May 2011 18:51

chaanakya wrote:
Amber G. wrote:Any one who wants to hear all about "nuclear explosions", 1,400,000 deaths, and all such information which
"pro-nuclear-lobby" kept hidden, ... may like to watch this 6-7 minutes video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI

By none other than Dr Busby, Chaanakya's hero, (whose papers he has posted multiple times and recommended everyone to read it etc..)

Warning: Keep coffee away from key board, this can give any Zaid Hamid Video, a run for its money, in sheer idiocy.. (Sorry no other word can describe this adjective)

I think, now we know the source of all the gyaan from some of the posters here.

Jai Ho!
Can you point to any post of any brf members who claimed that there was "nuclear explosion"??

Hydrogen explosion it self was bad enough as we are seeing now.

Not a brf members but Busby Ph D, the one you so adore. BTW, this was very clear (with the link given).

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 18:53

brihaspati wrote:Chaanakya ji,
my standard disclaimer was meant to address the three main approaches I have found on "nuke" threads about material published in peer-reviewed papers from journals - if the content or focus or conclusion of such papers go against whatever be the collection of agenda of certain "posting" positions.

The disclaimer need not reflect my own assessments about peer-reviewed papers from journals published more or less well-established publishing houses like Elsevier, Kluwer, Wiley, etc. I am regularly involved in reviewing for several journals from the first two, and I know that it is not so easy to pass off dubious material. Moreover the procedure to contradict published material that you think is dubious - is pretty well-established. I am sure those who "trash" such papers, or find the authors "perfidious", are also aware of the regular channels and procedures to get their grievances addressed. Either they know that they themselves have not really thought it through, or are not confident enough about their own counter claims, or it is perhaps a simple case of the much lighter effort needed to paint the authors black for their supposed "ideological proclivities/perfidies/" rather than going through the pain of writing up a counter-paper and see it through the review process.

If it was "history/political science/philosophy" type of subject I would have conceded about personal ideological proclivities possibly affecting the group paradigm about topics - and hence opposed to say alternative opinions hwich they would suppress from getting aired if they have had a stranglehold on "publishing" filters. But in "exact" or rather "numerate" sciences, such manipulation would be very very difficult.

The transgenerational passing on of genomic instabilities is a relatively new find, and seems so far to be specifically more associated with persistent low level irradiation at a level higher than "background" which started off from accidental or unforeseen release of nuclear material into the environment due to human activity. Obviously it is not attributable to things like tsunami/earthquake. I will report also similar peer-reviewed papers about similar finds that see possible correlation with burning coal - as and when I find them.

The environs of Fukushima should be subjected to similar investigations and follow up on this potential mutational hazard that appear to be transmitted through gametes and therefore whose effects may persist over many generations.

B'ji I couldn't agree with you more on that.

I am sure Fukushima would be researched and general public would also be made aware of findings and steps required to be taken. Thanks for a sane,matured and even handed response I have seen in a long time in this thread.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:00

Why I am not surprised at high intellectual responses of "experts"??

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 May 2011 19:10

GuruPrabhu wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:^^^Just watched the Busby YouTube video and he claimed the spent fuel rods exploded in air and spewed radioactive debris everywhere. Wow! The dude gives Zaid Hamid great credibility.
At 2:02, the dude says, "There is 10^14 Bq, that is 1 followed by 14 zeros, of radiation coming out every day"

every day? Bq is already per second. So, what is the idiot saying?

GP: This idiot - Busby Ph D - (yeah, I know Chaanakyaji adores him, but I think idiot is accurate term to describe him)- has no clue at to what "activity" means .. just look at the table in the quote of Chaanakya..
It says (under Ci - "quantity of radioactive material in terms of radium"

.."..ability to cause harm.."
(Does this Einstein really does not know, 1 decay (depending on its energy) can result into order of magnitude different harm))

Such gross errors will not stay, even in wiki, for more than a few seconds before getting corrected.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:18

NISA: no need to flood No.1 reactor

An official of Japan's nuclear safety agency has suggested that a nuclear fuel meltdown at one of the damaged Fukushima reactors means that filling the reactor's container with water may be meaningless.

Hidehiko Nishiyama told reporters on Friday that melted rods at the bottom of the No. 1 reactor are being cooled by a small amount of water.

He said he doubts that it's necessary to flood the containment vessel entirely, as the plant operator has been trying to do.

The operator, TEPCO, said on Thursday that most of the fuel rods in the reactor are believed to have melted and sunk to the bottom of the reactor's pressure vessel.

TEPCO says the melted fuel has apparently cooled, even though much of the injected water is leaking through holes at the bottom of the vessel.

Under a plan decided last month, the utility was to fill up the containment vessel with water and set up a system to circulate the water through a heat exchanger.

Nishiyama said TEPCO need only inject water to a height that would allow the system to work.

He said the utility will likely change its strategy and inject water to the minimum necessary level.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:23

Reactor 1 in worse shape than thought , Cracks suspected in containment after fuel rods found fully exposed

On March 12, reactor No. 1 suffered a hydrogen explosion after the fuel rods were fully exposed for hours and generated hydrogen, which reacted violently with oxygen.

But Matsumoto said Tepco believes such an explosion at this time is unlikely because nitrogen has already been poured inside the containment vessel to purge explosive gases.

Matsumoto also said that, considering the situation with the No. 1 reactor, the water level data from reactors 2 and 3 may not be credible.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:27

Radioactive cesium detected in tea leaves

Radioactive material above designated safety limits has been detected in tea leaves harvested in 5 municipalities in Kanagawa Prefecture, neighboring Tokyo.

The prefectural government checked samples of leaves harvested in 15 municipalities in the region.

Officials say that samples from 5 of those were found to contain unsafe levels of radioactive cesium.

They say 780 becquerels of cesium were detected in tea leaves in Odawara City, 740 becquerels in Kiyokawa Village, 680 becquerels in Yugawara Town, 670 becquerels in Aikawa Town and 530 becquerels in Manazuru Town.

The Kanagawa prefectural government has asked the affected municipalities and the local farmers' cooperative to voluntarily halt shipments for the time being.

It says it will repeat the tests in these towns and villages when tea leaves are harvested next month.

The survey comes after 570 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram -- exceeding the provisional state limit of 500 -- were detected in products from Minami Ashigara City on May 9th.
Friday, May 13, 2011 21:27 +0900 (JST)

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:29

Radioactive water leaked while being transferred

Tokyo Electric Power Company says an operation to transfer highly radioactive water pooled in the turbine building of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's No.3 reactor caused contamination of the sea nearby.

Highly radioactive water was found leaking into the sea from a pit near the reactor's water intake on Wednesday.

The utility company says 1,200 becquerels of radioactive cesium 134 were detected in one cubic centimeter of sea water near the water intake on Thursday. The figure is 20,000 times the state limit. 1,200 becquerels of radioactive cesium 137, which is 13,000 times the state limit, were also detected.

The company transferred radioactive water from the turbine building of the No.3 reactor earlier this month. It says during that process radioactive water leaked out from an underground pipe connected to the pit.

The company admitted in a news conference on Thursday that prior inspections to prevent leaks were inadequate.

Last month, highly radioactive water leaked into the ocean from a pit near the No.2 reactor.
Friday, May 13, 2011 05:21 +0900 (JST)

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:31

TEPCO searching for 'missing' radioactive water

The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is trying to locate thousands of tons of radioactive water that has leaked from one of the damaged reactors.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, says contaminated water is apparently leaking from the No.1 reactor, which is in a state of meltdown.

TEPCO has injected more than 10,000 tons of water into the reactor since the March 11th disaster damaged the plant. But, less than half that amount is believed to remain in the reactor or its container vessel.

The utility says the leaked water is likely in the basement of the reactor building -- still a no-go zone due to concerns over high radiation levels.

TEPCO is considering using remote-controlled robots to check the situation, but says the wireless links needed to control them may not reach the basement and that it has to explore other options as well.

Injected water is continuing to stabilize the reactor, but any radioactive water that has leaked could hamper the effort.

TEPCO says it hopes to come up with ways to retrieve and purify contaminated water to use it to cool the reactor again.
Friday, May 13, 2011 21:27 +0900 (JST)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 May 2011 19:40

chaanakya wrote:TEPCO searching for 'missing' radioactive water

Wow, unbeatable.

Why I am not surprised at high intellectual responses of "experts"??

As I said, given enough time, people show their true colors.

B'ji I couldn't agree with you more on that.

I am sure Fukushima would be researched and general public would also be made aware of findings and steps required to be taken. Thanks for a sane,matured and even handed response I have seen in a long time in this thread.

I echo the sentiment. Very refreshing.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:50

Bank chiefs unsettled by Edano's remarks over TEPCO
TOKYO, May 13, Kyodo

The heads of major banking groups did not hide their discomfort on Friday at remarks by the government's top spokesman suggesting banks lending to the embattled Tokyo Electric Power Co. should forgive their debt and help the utility pay compensation over the crisis at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

.
Good idea. they should share the responsibility as they lent in the first place.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 19:55

^^True colors indeed, Sanku San

Fukushima gov't may have failed to notify 4 towns of nuclear accident
TOKYO, May 13, Kyodo

The Fukushima prefectural government may have failed to issue warnings to four of the six towns surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants following accidents triggered there by the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami in March, sources familiar with the matter said Friday.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 May 2011 20:02

Sewage plants in Fukushima perplexed over how to dispose of highly radioactive sludge

Highly radioactive sludge found at sewage plants in Fukushima Prefecture will be temporarily kept at those plants, the central government has announced.

The move came after high levels of radioactive cesium were detected in sludge and other waste material at sewage plants in Fukushima Prefecture -- home to the disaster-crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant.

On May 12, the government announced that highly radioactive sludge will be tentatively kept at sewage plants in the prefecture, while sludge with relatively low-level radiation could be recycled into cement and other material.

While highly-radioactive sludge will be treated in the same way as radioactive waste for the time being, no plans for the final disposal of such sludge were presented. It will also be difficult to promote the recycling of sludge with high-level radiation contamination. Since relevant laws and regulations do not cover highly-radioactive sludge at sewage plants, the government faces serious challenges in handling the issue.

According to the announcement, sludge with radioactivity levels of over 100,000 becquerels per kilogram should preferably be incinerated and melted in Fukushima Prefecture before being kept at sewage plants. Ash generated through sludge incineration should be contained in metal barrels to prevent it from scattering. Sludge with radioactivity levels of under 100,000 becquerels per kilogram can be temporarily kept at sewage plants and controlled disposal sites, with radioactivity monitoring required.

"Radioactive sludge should be treated in the same way as radioactive waste," said an official with the Cabinet Office's Nuclear Disaster Countermeasures Headquarters, adding, "We will look into how to ultimately dispose of it later."

Sludge with radioactivity levels of under 1,000 becquerels per kilogram can be recycled into cement and other material if the levels can be reduced to under 100 becquerels through mixture with other materials and dilution.

"The volume of radioactive sludge should be reduced as much as possible through recycling," said an official with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, adding that the recycling of such sludge into fertilizer should be withheld for the time being.

The government also announced that safety standards for workers at sewage plants should be applied in accordance with the Ordinance on the Prevention of Ionizing Radiation Hazards, which is administered by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

The ordinance mandates operators to set up controlled areas and control radiation doses if radiation levels in the air at workplaces are expected to exceed 1.3 millisieverts in three months. However, since the ordinance does not presume cases in which private operators transport radioactive sludge, the government cannot obligate forwarding agents to take the abovementioned measures.

On May 1, the Fukushima Prefectural Government announced that 334,000 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium was detected in molten slag after sludge was processed with high heat at a purification center in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture. The finding was followed by the detection of radioactive cesium in sludge at 15 other sewage plants in the prefecture, as well as at one sewage treatment facility in Tochigi Prefecture, one in Ibaraki Prefecture, three in Gunma Prefecture and one in Niigata Prefecture. The Kanagawa Prefectural Government announced on May 12 that cesium was detected in sludge at four sewage plants in the prefecture, while the Tokyo Metropolitan Government disclosed the same day that up to 24,000 becquerels of radioactivity was detected in sludge incineration ash at three sewage plants in the capital.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 May 2011 20:40

Theo_Fidel wrote:WRT to Becquerels the way Fukushima made it to Level 7 was when the total release over weeks/months was calculated to be 1.5 E17 Becquerels. That was the quote. So it can obviously be in longer than s-1 units. Maybe the IAEA needs to be notified of their error as well. On that note, I will hold my tongue on the 'discredit' comment, though Busby does come across as a foppish twat...

Theo - What GP said (you only have to read his post) is [Busby said] ""There is 10^14 Bq, that is 1 followed by 14 zeros, of radiation coming out every day"

BIG difference between this and [IAEA's statement] "[Activity of ] Total material released over ... is xxx"

BIG difference.

Latter makes perfect sense (NO need to notify IAEA), the former makes Busby look like an ignorant person as he firmly shows in other parts of his paper too. (Even if he misspoke on this particular time, there are tons of other example)

(In layman language, assuming I met in a day, 100 people with average heart rate 60/minute. It makes sense, if one says, .. if all the people are taken together .. I hear . 6000 heart beats/minute.. this is quite different than saying that heart rate was. 6000/minute per day. )

I just saw the video again, GP is right. The statement by Busby indeed is idiotic. (It wasn't radioactive material coming out.. it was radiation coming out..).. If there was any doubt he talks about "Nuclear EXPLOSION" (even the moderator was using the term "reaction"), "fissioning taking place" etc.

Wow!

Thanks Chaanakaya.. for introducing this person.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 May 2011 01:49

Sanku wrote:Some people have been dying to see this thread closed from a very early time. Extremely inconvenient for them. Better to not talk about such things.

Its not about inconvenience, but rather using this thread to promote a personal agenda. That agenda of tilting at windmills, or more correctly NPP, based on the Fukushima disaster. You have coupled your shaky knowledge of basic energy, power and engineering design principles with sources of wrong or worse, deliberately false, information to promote an anti-nuclear agenda. No one is going to take you seriously. After Fukishima, safety standards for NPP will be revised and NPPs will be built world wide to become a component of the power mix. Whenever someone has tried to point this out to you, chaannakya, and Theo, you won't try to go back and look at the facts to understand the problem. Rather, we get comments like "showing your true colors", or and I paraphrase, "being able to see the facts as they are." Or worse yet, you accuse people of having interests with the nuclear industry. I don't know everyone in this thread, but I can assure most all of do not have any stake in the nuclear industry. What we do have a stake in is trying to get basic physics right and understanding what the levels of exposure are.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 14 May 2011 07:22

^^^ excellent post, Mort-ji.

Sometimes it helps to step back and take the big picture view.

By the way, I have an excellent pdf on Fukushima from a German colleague (yes, the country that is going to zero nukes tomorrow). It is 5 MB but I don't know how to post it.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 May 2011 07:37

Excellent post by Mort. GP, do post the pdf.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 May 2011 07:47

Understanding the complete meltdown at Fukushima unit 1 - May 13, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/05/un ... e_mel.html

Last week, workers entered the stricken unit 1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and began work to further stabilize it. One of their first tasks was to recalibrate some of the sensors on the reactor, so that engineers had a better sense of how it was doing. That recalibration has led to a startling revelation: virtually all of the fuel inside the unit 1 reactor appears to have "melted down".

Press reports on the meltdown have variously described it as a setback and or admission by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that things are worse than they thought. There's more about what it all means below the fold (for a broader overview, check out our video on Fukushima).

Meltdowns defined

During normal operation, the core of a nuclear power reactor like unit 1 consists of long narrow tubes of a zirconium alloy filled with uranium fuel pellets. Tubes are bundled together into "assemblies" which in turn make up the core of the reactor. When it's humming along at full tilt, the core boils water that is used to turn turbines in the adjacent building. After the earthquake and tsunami on 11 March, the water stopped circulating and the core heated up.

At some point, it got hot enough that the zirconium tubes began to split and warp, the beginning of the "meltdown" at unit 1. Nobody can know for sure what happened inside the core, but it appears that the uranium pellets fell out of their assemblies and began gathering at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel (see diagram).

Reactor restart?

This much was already known, and TEPCO had suggested that only about 70% of the core had melted down. But after recalibrating its instruments for measuring water levels inside the reactor, the company now believes that the core has entirely melted down.

Some have theorized that with all the fuel at the bottom of the vessel, unit 1 may have actually restarted its nuclear reactions. If that had happened, the fuel would be pumping out some portion of its normal 1380 megawatts of thermal power—probably enough to melt through the thick steal reactor pressure vessel. It would have dropped onto a concrete slab below (the basemat), where it would have hopefully been spread out, effectively diffusing the chain reaction.

There's some reason to think that this "China syndrome", as it is informally known, didn't happen. Nuclear engineers I've spoken to say that reactors like unit 1 are finicky beasts. Their fuel needs to be carefully configured to work, and they won't restart if the stuff is just a gloop on the bottom of the vessel. In addition, workers injected boric acid into the reactor just before the restart. Boron is a neutron absorber and would spoil any nuclear reactions. Moreover, temperature sensors at the bottom of the reactor vessel are continuing to function, suggesting it wasn't completely destroyed.

That doesn't mean that portions of the fuel weren't briefly producing power during the accident. Nor does it mean that the reactor's fuel has remained wholly inside the pressure vessel. In fact, a note from the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) quotes Banri Kaieda, the nation's Economy, Trade and Industry Minister, as saying that it is "a fact" that there were holes created by the meltdown. That would likely mean at least some of the uranium fuel is now lying on the basemat below, or perhaps even outside the concrete containment.

Clean up and beyond

Whatever happened inside unit 1, it happened weeks ago. The temperature inside the core is currently around 100C, according to the latest data from the nation's nuclear regulator—far less than it would be if nuclear reactions were continuing inside the core. But there are still some serious implications for cleanup.

The most immediate problem is for a planned recirculation system to cool the core. The plan was to feed water through two emergency systems, the core spray system and the primary containment's cooling spray system. Both are normally designed to funnel water into the core in the case of an emergency. Water exits the core through the AC piping system, normally used to inject nitrogen gas, according to Margaret Harding, an independent nuclear consultant who has been going over the plans in detail. From there, the water would flow to an improvised heat exchanger that would cool it before returning it to the core.

The recirculation system would have two big advantages. First, it would create less radioactive wastewater than is currently generated by just dumping water onto the reactor. Second, it would be more efficient, allowing the reactor to reach cold shutdown—a state where it is more-or-less safe in a matter of months.

Unfortunately, despite TEPCO continuously pumping fresh water into the containment vessel, water levels are too low for the system to work - presumably because the water's surface is below the AC outlet. Nobody really know where all the water is going - but it can't be anywhere good. If workers can't find a way to patch up unit 1, then they'll probably have give up on the plan.

In the longer term, the meltdown makes removing the fuel much more complicated. Normally, the fuel can only be accessed using a massive overhead crane. The crane has already likely been damaged by an earlier explosion, and now, if the fuel is damaged too, it's unclear whether a replacement crane can easily remove it.

Despite all these setbacks, clean up plans continue. Today, TEPCO announced that it had started initial construction of a cover for the unit 1 reactor. The temporary cover will prevent the spread of radiation, and protect the damaged reactor. Proper construction will begin on 6 June.

By the way, does this mean our article titled "The meltdown that wasn't" was mistitled? Pretty much, yes. But the point of the article stands: it could have been a lot worse.

Nuclear reactors under stress - May 13, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/05/nu ... tress.html

The European Commission and the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) yesterday failed to reach agreement on the criteria for safety tests – or 'stress tests' – of Europe's nuclear power reactors. The tests, ordered by the European Union in March following the Fukushima disaster, are designed to check that plants can withstand natural disasters and other unexpected events. Yesterday's talks became deadlocked because of resistance by France and the UK to including the risk of terrorist and cyber attacks in the tests. The groups will meet again in Prague 19-20 May to try to reach agreement.

The European Commission has a FAQ on the stress tests here. It promises to get tough:

"What happens, if a country does not shut down a plant which fails the tests?
The Commission will publish the report of the national authority and also the peer review. This means that the results are known to the public and a government has explain to its public why it has taken a decision or failed to act. "

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports than an initial check-up on US nuclear reactors, by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found serious problems with emergency management equipment:

Marty Virgilio, the deputy executive director of the agency, told the five commissioners that inspectors checked a sample of equipment at all 104 reactors and found problems at less than a third of them. The problems included pumps that would not start or, if they did, did not put out the required amount of water; equipment that was supposed to be set aside for emergencies but was being used in other parts of the plants; emergency equipment that would be needed in case of flood stored in places that could be flooded; and insufficient diesel on hand to run backup systems.

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 May 2011 09:14

^^^^
Lots of info. Thanks for sharing boss.

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 May 2011 09:21

GuruPrabhu wrote:^^^ excellent post, Mort-ji.

Sometimes it helps to step back and take the big picture view.

By the way, I have an excellent pdf on Fukushima from a German colleague (yes, the country that is going to zero nukes tomorrow). It is 5 MB but I don't know how to post it.

+1

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I must re state that if folks here can't extrapolate all their newly acquired gyaan from the likes of Dr Chris Busby to the Indian context then what's the point?

Should we or shouldn't we close down BARC? What would Busby saab do?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 May 2011 10:24

Worker dies after collapsing at Fukushima nuclear plant
Saturday 14th May, 01:30 PM JST

FUKUSHIMA —
A worker at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant died Saturday after collapsing while carrying materials as part of crisis-fighting operations, the operator said.

It is the first time a worker has died at the plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co since the March 11 mega earthquake and tsunami triggered a series of radiation leakage accidents there.

No radioactive substances have been detected on the man, who was in his 60s, and he apparently sustained no injuries, the utility said. The man had started working at the plant on Friday and was wearing protective gear at the time of the accident. He was exposed to radiation totaling 0.17 millisievert.

The man, an employee of a subcontractor, collapsed about one hour after he began working at 6 a.m. Saturday with another worker at a waste disposal processing facility. He became unconscious when he was taken to a medical room inside the plant past 7 a.m., the utility said.

The other worker has complained of no health problem, the company added.

The accident occurred as the company continued Saturday work to install a new cooling system at the No. 1 plant, where much of the fuel in the core has melted after being fully exposed.

Must have died of over stress.

However , it must be pointed out that TEPCO followed dubious practice of using workers at high price without informing them where they are going to work. This has been recorded in this thread previously. Of course , they would not have given dosimeters as they were in short supply.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 May 2011 10:29

Robot finds high radiation at No. 3 reactor bldg
The Yomiuri Shimbun

A robot has detected highly dangerous levels of radiation in the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant's No. 3 reactor building, it has been learned, indicating further safety measures will be needed before workers can enter the structure.

According to plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., the remote-controlled PackBot robot on Tuesday found radiation levels in the northwestern section of the building of 49 to 120 millisieverts per hour, which would pose a threat to human workers.

Time must be spent, therefore, removing or sealing up the radiation-contaminated debris in the building, before TEPCO starts work to stabilize the damaged reactors.

When similar measurements were conducted around doors in the southern section of the building on April 17, the radiation levels were 28 to 57 millisieverts per hour.

Tuesday's measurements were conducted because most of the northwestern section had not yet been examined.

Images taken by the robot showed that debris was scattered on the floor and that the door leading to the outside was standing open.

"Until around June, we'll make it our priority to remove debris with robots. We'll then check how radiation levels change," a TEPCO employee said. The company currently has no plans to send workers into the No. 3 reactor building, the employee said.

When the PackBot examined the power plant's No. 1 reactor building in April, it found radiation levels had reached 1,000 millisieverts per hour at some pumps. Levels at the other pumps were 10 to 49 millisieverts per hour.

TEPCO therefore determined it was safe for workers to enter the building and has already finished removing radioactive substances from the building's air.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 14 May 2011 10:31

amit wrote:Should we or shouldn't we close down BARC? What would Busby saab do?

Busby-ji should be consulted about nuclear explosions ready to go off at BARC. India should then immediately implement the "Busby Agenda" and decommission all nuke activity in the country. All nuke weapons should then be sent to the moon on Chandrayan-III.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 May 2011 10:37

Fukushima kids 'get 10 mSv of radiation a yr'
The Yomiuri Shimbun

The education ministry has estimated children who attend schools in Fukushima Prefecture where radiation exceeds government limits but restrict their outdoor activities will be exposed to about 10 millisieverts of radiation a year, less than the annual limit set by the government due to the nuclear crisis.

In the prefecture most affected by the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, radiation levels temporarily exceeded the limit of 3.8 microsieverts per hour at 13 schools and kindergartens. But the ministry did not say how many of these schools would see radiation levels above 10 millisieverts in the estimates released Thursday.

On April 19, the government announced steps to prevent radiation exposure from harming children's health. Under the steps, a limit on annual radiation exposure for children was set at 20 millisieverts and the government said outdoor activity should be less than one hour per day if radiation at a school is higher than 3.8 microsieverts per hour.

The government has made areas where annual radiation levels are expected to exceed 20 millisieverts subject to its planned evacuation instruction, which asks residents to leave around late May.

The Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry said the annual radiation limit set in April is reasonable and the estimates were only half that amount. But the ministry acknowledged it needed to make further efforts to reduce radiation levels not only on school grounds but also outside school.

According to the ministry's estimates, children who attend schools where radiation levels exceed the hourly limit would receive 9.99 millisieverts of radiation yearly in their daily lives, with 17 percent of the exposure occurring at school.

Senior Vice Minister Kan Suzuki said at a press conference Thursday: "The radiation levels students receive at school have been found to be very low. This could be because of restricted outdoor activities, but it's hard to imagine they're not going outside at all."

Suzuki said the ministry intends to set up an expert panel in regards to the issue. "To address physical and emotional health concerns about children, we'd like to hear opinions from experts," he said.

However, some lawmakers and members of the public have demanded the government revise the 20-millisievert safety limit.

Masamichi Nishio, director of the Hokkaido Cancer Center, sounded a warning over the ministry estimates.

"During nonemergency times, the annual amount of radiation permitted for ordinary people should be 1 millisievert except for natural radiation," Nishio said. "Taking risks of cancer and other health hazards into consideration, even 10 millisieverts [per year] isn't absolutely safe for children, since they're particularly vulnerable to radiation exposure. It's not good to have schools in locations where accumulated doses reach such levels."

Gen Suzuki, a professor at the International University of Health and Welfare, however, had a different view. "I don't think 10 millisieverts of radiation a year would pose an immediate health risk to children. But efforts to reduce radiation levels in the whole region are needed," he said.

"For example, the surface soil of yards, parks and other areas should be replaced with underlying soil. Cleaning asphalt roads, walls and roofs with pressure washers is also effective. It's important to take care of the environment while letting people go on with their daily lives," Suzuki said.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 May 2011 10:50

Radioactive substance detected in incinerator ashes in Tokyo
Saturday 14th May, 07:42 AM JST

TOKYO —
A highly radioactive substance was detected in incinerator ashes at a sewage plant in eastern Tokyo in late March, shortly after the start of the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, metropolitan government sources said Friday.

The radioactive density of the substance reached 170,000 becquerels per kilogram, the sources said.

The ashes, which have already been recycled as construction materials, including cement, were collected from a sludge plant in Koto Ward.

Almost at the same time in late March, a radioactive substance of 100,000-140,000 becquerels per kg was also detected in ashes at two other sewage plants in Ota and Itabashi wards, the sources said.

The radiation levels went down to 15,000-24,000 becquerels per kg at the three sewage plants a month later, they added.

The substance has yet to be identified and researchers are currently looking into whether it is radioactive cesium, the sources said.

Meanwhile, the municipal government of Maebashi, Gunma Prefecture, said Friday it has detected radioactive cesium of 41,000 becquerels per kg from incinerator ashes collected Monday at a water sanitation facility.

It also said it has detected cesium with a density of 1,844 becquerels per kg from sludge and 17,090 becquerels per kg from molten slag that was processed at a high temperature.

It is keeping the radioactivity-contaminated materials at the water sanitation facility and plans to dispose of them under instruction from the central government, city officials said.

Some interesting comments of the readers

So somebody knew about this but kept burning it, spraying Tokyo with radioactive smoke that is, and putting it into building materials?

Must have been coming into the sewage plants in those 'Vacuum car' sewage tankers.
From there the article is confusing. Ashes and sludge are quite different materials. What exactly was mixed with the concrete and quickly used, I wonder?
A few years ago I remember how in one prefecture bricks were deliberately manufactured mixed with uranium waste as a way of disposal. Causing geiger counters to click idly, they were sold throughout the country.
Perhaps this kind of thinking was applied here. Or perhaps it is just coincidence.
Or perhaps a serious crime has been committed here.

Seems like nobody was on this one, it's all haphazard, after-the-fact realization and back-checking. It seems obvious now, but there may be a dozen more "Um oops" things like this that nobody thought of yet which will come up as time goes by. Next question: where are they going to dispose of the radioactive sludge? This is nuclear waste.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 May 2011 10:55

TEPCO to cover No.1 reactor building with polyester sheet

Another of the high tech solution on display here.

Tokyo Electric Power Company has started preparations to cover the damaged Number 1 reactor building at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The company aims to decrease the amount of nuclear materials leaking into the air.

TEPCO has been working to reduce the leakage of those substances while cooling down the reactors.

It has been clearing contaminated rubble and spraying a chemical hardening agent to prevent the spread of radioactive dust.

TEPCO is going to cover the Number 1 reactor building, which lost its roof in a hydrogen explosion in March. On Friday, workers cleared rubble so that a big crane can be set up near the building.

TEPCO says a polyester sheet will be attached to steel frames, enclosing the 50-meter-tall building. The company says the cover can withstand strong winds. TEPCO also says it will install a ventilator with a filter to capture radioactive materials that would otherwise be concentrated inside.

To minimize radiation exposure among its workers, the company says the steel frames will be pre-assembled as much as possible, shortening the set up time at the plant.
Saturday, May 14, 2011 06:01 +0900 (JST)

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 May 2011 11:06

chaanakya wrote:Must have died of over stress.

Pure speculation on your part

However , it must be pointed out that TEPCO followed dubious practice of using workers at high price without informing them where they are going to work. This has been recorded in this thread previously. Of course , they would not have given dosimeters as they were in short supply.

Dosimeters were in short supply initially but are they now? Do you know for sure?

It's interesting the way you construct your post but I understand the reason for it.

After almost three months at last news of a death due to Fukushima where by now there should have been thousands dead (according to herrows like Busby). But the news categorically states that the death was in no way due to radiation. So you speculate its due to over stress without even knowing anything about the man save his age? Why over stress? Was it because you think he was forced to enter the plant against his will? Maybe he's a patriotic Japanese who volunteered to be there as a part of his national duty?

And then you very interestingly put in an anecdote of what had supposed to have happened according to some media report in the early stages of this tragedy.

So you link up a death which occurred now to what was supposed to have happened before

Do you have any evidence that this unfortunate man who died went there without sufficient information about the risk and did not have a dosimeter?

I must say this is almost Busby-esque analysis.

Why not just post the news and let the readers decide for themselves of what to make of it?