2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

[Mort Walker]

^^^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.

[chaanakya]

Talking about "plutonium binding to DNA" will no doubt raise some laughter. Here is a possible more "technical" exposition, but standard disclaimers apply :
(1) it has been published in a non-Indian "base' journal, and therefore anti-India and anti-nuclear bias cannot be entirely ruled out
(2) even if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal, it need not be free of perfidy
(3) I know nothing about the ideological proclivities of the authors, hence whatever they say might still be needing qualification and interpretation according to their attitudes towards NP:

There could be nuclear medicine experts on the forum, who will then surely have access to the full paper, and analyze the papers conclusions.

Transgenerational genomic instability in children of irradiated parents as a result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident

Anna Aghajanyana,∗, Igor Suskovb

a Cytogenetics Laboratory, FSI Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenology and Radiology, Profsoyuznaya 86, GSP-7, Moscow, 117997 Russia b Laboratory of Ecological Genetics, N.I. Vavilov Institute of General Genetics Russian Academy of Sciences, Gybkin st. 3, Moscow 119991, Russia

Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis; Mutation Research 671 (2009) 52–57

The monitoring carried out after the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) showed increased frequencies of chromosome aberrations in somatic cells of permanent residents of territories with radionuclide contaminations, “liquidators” of the accident and their children [1–9]. This is accompanied by increased morbidity, frequent cases of congenital malformations in newborns and oncopathologies [10,11].

Investigations carried out in the last decades have led to the discovery of the phenomenon of radiation-induced genomic insta- bility, first experimentally and later confirmed in people living on radionuclide-contaminated territories [12–23]. Genomic instabil- ity is destabilization of the genome, both spontaneous and induced by external factors. It can manifest itself as chromosome aber- rations and gene mutations. Genomic instability occurs in the progeny of mitotically dividing cells and results in the disturbances of the functions of cells, tissues, organs and systems of the human organism. The basis of this phenomenon can be potential DNA changes realized/expressed in subsequent cell divisions [24].
Radiation-induced genomic instability can be transmitted trans- generationally from one or both irradiated parents and is expressed in somatic cells of their children [25–31]. The phenomenon of trans- generational genomic instability was also revealed experimentally in the different animal model [32–36]. It is known that the mutagenic effect of low doses of ionizing radiation differs from the effects of medium and high doses [37–40]. Exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation is more frequent than exposure to high and medium doses, and its consequences are less studied. Hence it is particularly important to study the genomic instability and its transgenerational effects in children of irradiated parents after low-dose radiation exposure.

Earlier, we have demonstrated the phenomenon of transgenerational radiation-induced genomic instability in children born to irradiated fathers (“liquidators”) and non-irradiated mothers [30]. In addition studies were done in children born and living on terri- tories contaminated with radionuclides whose parents were both irradiated as a result of the Chernobyl accident in different periods of their ontogenetic development [30].

To further elucidate the phenomenon of transgenerational genomic instability in somatic cells of those children, experiments were undertaken to model induced genomic instability by using the in vitro low-dose [gamma]-irradiation of peripheral blood samples from both children and their parents.
[...]
It is known that the action of low-dose ionizing radiation is characterized by the absence of a dose threshold, by biological amplification of induced genomic changes, by a non- linear dose–effect relationship, and by an increased sensitivity to endo/exogenous factors [37–40]. Therefore, the results of experimental investigation of genomic instability and its trans-generational phenomenon after exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation are somewhat different as compared to the results for medium- and high-dose exposure.

In children born to irradiated fathers and in children living on territories contaminated with radionuclides whose parents were both irradiated the AGFs were similar, but significantly higher than in the control (Table 1). Therefore, radiation-induced genomic instability was observed not only in the organism of children from radiocontaminated territories but also in the organism of non-irradiated children born to irradiated parents. The following consideration should be taken into account in order to understand the causes of this phenomenon.

In the children from contaminated areas the intrauterine and postnatal development proceeded under conditions of chronic low- dose ionizing radiation. They were exposed to radiation even at the prezygote stage of development as their fathers and moth- ers were irradiated in the pubertal period during the accident at the ChNPP and before conception of the children they lived on the contaminated territories under conditions of chronic exposure to long-lived isotopes 137 Cs, 90 Sr and others. In this period of onto-genetic development the formation of the reproductive systems occurs in the organism. The children of irradiated fathers (liquidators) were exposed at the stage of paternal gametes. Although the fact of transgenerational genomic instability in the offspring of irradiated fathers has been documented, the mechanism of this phenomenon is poorly understood.

The phenomenon of transgenerational genomic instability is confirmed by a statistically significant increase in the somatic cells AGF observed after fractional and single irradiation of lymphocytes at low doses in the children of irradiated parents as compared to the children of non-irradiated parents (control). An increased radiosensitivity of aberrant cells is observed after 60 Co [gamma]-irradiation of lymphocytes in vitro at a medium dose of 1.5Gy in children of patients subjected to roentgenochemotherapy, in children of liquidators and in children evacuated from radioactively contam- inated regions as compared to children of non-irradiated parents [28].


[...]
Modeling of genomic instability after irradiation in vitro at low doses showed:
(1) that children of irradiated parents had significantly higher AGF than children of non-irradiated parents, which confirms the transgenarational genomic instability in their organism;
(2) that single-break aberrations of the chromosomal type pre- dominated in mitosis 2 as compared to mitosis 1 (elimination of double-break aberrations), pointing to the reality of genomic instability in succeeding cell generations;
(3) that prolonged exposure of the human organism to low-dose radiation affects radiosensitivity of cell genomes.
Taken together, this may be a prerequisite for increased morbidity in children and for transgenerational transmission of genomic instability to succeeding generations. Further investigations are required to elucidate the molecular mechanism of transgenera- tional genomic instability.

B'ji I posted Bushby's paper as it presented a counterpoint.Of course , it invited all sorts of attack, least of them merited scientific scrutiny. Low doses of radiation may be a concern and needs to be researched further. You are right in saying your disclaimer and I do subscribe to that as well. The problem is even peer reviewed paper is trashed without reading as one swedish study posted by me earlier. And when posted they ask whether it is peer reviewed and in which journal.

Your quoted paper , with the disclaimer, makes at least one point. That low doses of radiation due to irradiated parents ( remember irradiated breast milk) lead to some consequences not wholly desirable.I am , also , not sure about plutonium binding, but substanced have tendencies to accumulate in certain areas of the bodies, such as Sr which gets into bones and Cs in Muscles, (subject to any corrections)

[chaanakya]

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.

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^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?

[GuruPrabhu]

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

Busby is saying that. Watch the video. Do you disagree?

If you disagree, then please say so and delete all Busby crap stinking up this forum.

[Theo_Fidel]

If I understand correctly the fuel rods have melted and now lie under water at bottom of the pressure vessel. And the bottom has leaks. If so have to give Sanku some credit for having said this from day one no matter how he got there. In science it is best to be right.

How in heavens name are they going to stabilize this. Somebody/something has to go down there and plug the holes right. My prayers are with them.

[Sanku]

no matter how he got there. In science it is best to be right.

Thanks Theo Saar, if I may say so, most people who understand nuclear could read the tell tale symptoms that were reported in the press, soon after water was lost.

Those who understand the business, know that LWR with LOCA in the conditions mentioned was headed down a one way street, full speed, and this was confirmed after the hydrogen explosion in containment chamber/reactor happened.

Let us (and I speak for myself most of all) give science some credit (although the waving of bananas and back of envelop type of statements seem to make science seem like voodoo business) -- open minded, without conflict of interest it can provide a way.

[GuruPrabhu]

Wah! Busby has competition right here on BRF.

[Sanku]

Wah! Busby has competition right here on BRF.

Your understand of yourself is second to none sir.

[Mort Walker]

^^^Oh definitely. Sankuji was/is absolutely right no matter how he got there. Since Sankuji is the expert, I suggest he develop a plan to "plug the holes" in the pressure vessel.

[chaanakya]

<see original message, if context is needed>

Yeah, first of all the post was about Yablokov ...

Brief reply ..

.

That wiki article mentions caldicot, doesn't mean I introduced . Any way sophistry is only amazing...

Huh? Boss, that is what I meant by introducing..as in having his name appeared for the first time. What is this accusation of "sophistry"? Keep in mind that, it was your assertion that I (or "like minded people") brought this name, so I was just commenting on that. If you are interested as how this person was lionized, and physicists were dissed just look at the posts which followed, as I said those should be followed.

If you doubt the person.... I don't think they have any less valuable work then you....Of course I have no clue as to your profession...I may be wrong. ..

Whatever boss, what I think of you, or you think of me can be discussed in pvt email but its OT here.. can we at least have an agreement that we don't beat this dead horse? If you want to comment, comment and then let it go.. If I reply ok..someone has to stop.

Of course unless you show that you have done original study ...

Boss, again if you think my comments are useless..just say so, and move on... for no one, posting on this thread, is their day-job.

This is what you had written so how you will be taken seriously if keep advising others to read reports that you link to.

People who want to take me seriously will take me seriously. If you don't want why worry about me?

As for study I would ask you to look through Busby as you have said , repeatedly that you don't have time to go through the papers, In such a situation your assertion means zilch to me.

That's true, that I repeatedly said that I did not have interest or time to read that Bushby paper. But trust me, I have not read Jinn Thermodynamics (or all of Einstein papers, for that matter) - As said before, one does not have expertise, or interest or time to read everything even if you want me to read it.

However, you may be happy to know, that I did read that Busby paper . I have given the comments so I hope you would like it.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for a few simple questions I asked before. If you choose, answer them.

Finally.. I am amused that you are calling DHMO a "trickery" ..., no doubt to defame, nice people, or lay out IED, as you said. I did notice that the story has appeared more than once (about 3 times .. by different authors...different threads... some threads started on April 1 BTW, some before, some later..).. Of course, the site has been around before Fukushima.

Over and out for this.

So spare me your judgement.

okay spared! (Actually this is something you can do yourself)

Good that you have clarified . OT here. But then DHMO is , if not a trickery, then what?. I have no intention to draw nice people and brf members out and try to defame them as you have done. I respect nice civilized people , talking in civil manner and not calling others as "Chaps" though they may be better equipped , not having exposed themselves to radiation induced cognitive disability.

And of course if you don't read, don't comment. I would not worry about your comments as long as they are impersonal and without reference to me in any way, even though in response to my posts.

No one would be less wiser without reading your comments.

[GuruPrabhu]

Wah! Busby has competition right here on BRF.

Your understand of yourself is second to none sir.

So, are you saying that Busby is crap? Or, are you saying I am worthy of the high pedestal only Busby occupies in your mind?

Make up your mind.

[Sanku]

^^^Oh definitely. Sankuji was/is absolutely right no matter how he got there. Since Sankuji is the expert, I suggest he develop a plan to "plug the holes" in the pressure vessel.

I intended using the Shiv method. That is using Paki's as organic shields against radiation. I will plug the holes with Paki's.

Of course lying "experts" in Nuclear field who are more motivated by money they make than anything else also qualify as Pakis.

[GuruPrabhu]

No one would be less wiser without reading your comments.

Amber is respected by the thinking people on BRF.

[GuruPrabhu]

Of course lying "experts" in Nuclear field who are more motivated by money they make than anything else also qualify as Pakis.

all you know is personal attacks. You are truly a blot on humanity.

[chaanakya]

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

Busby is saying that. Watch the video. Do you disagree?

If you disagree, then please say so and delete all Busby crap stinking up this forum.

You or someone else has posted that video, not me, so you have to do that honor.. And, if Bushby claimed nuclear explosion , how does it make his other points invalid without you even countering them. He may be wrong utterly, but you have not shown any argument except ad hominem and calling everything except your statements as crap.

[chaanakya]

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??

[GuruPrabhu]

You or someone else has posted that video, not me, so you have to do that honor.. And, if Bushby claimed nuclear explosion , how does it make his other points invalid without you even countering them. He may be wrong utterly, but you have not shown any argument except ad hominem and calling everything except your statements as crap.

If Busby can be utterly foolish in one analysis, his credibility is lost in all analyses. That is how it works. Serious people watch what they say on Television.

The moment he said "nuclear explosion" he bought a one-way ticket to la-la-land.

[Sanku]

Of course lying "experts" in Nuclear field who are more motivated by money they make than anything else also qualify as Pakis.

all you know is personal attacks. You are truly a blot on humanity.

Personal attack? On whom? BTW the entire Japanese media is also of the same opinion these days.

Sorry if truth is bitter.

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^ hehe. go to Hajj. Hope the 1000 mice are digesting well. Over and out.

[Sanku]

If Busby can be utterly foolish in one analysis, his credibility is lost in all analyses. That is how it works.

Well if the same standards here, some posters should just take a vanwas forever.. With HUGE boo boos. Including a total absence of knowledge of wave propagation.

All captured on BRF for posterity.

Fortunately the real world has people who are honest with science, know that humans are falliable, hence can be right and wrong at different points of time and hence content is seen and not the person. Content can be analyzed without foul personal attacks.

Of course some people find meaningful content distasteful and limit themselves to bickering.

[Theo_Fidel]

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...

[chaanakya]

If I understand correctly the fuel rods have melted and now lie under water at bottom of the pressure vessel. And the bottom has leaks. If so have to give Sanku some credit for having said this from day one no matter how he got there. In science it is best to be right.

How in heavens name are they going to stabilize this. Somebody/something has to go down there and plug the holes right. My prayers are with them.

Yes, that is some credit due to him. Despite personal attack against him and if I remember correctly, someone brought comments from other blog to vilify him using terms like "sankufied" etc. I found that beneath the dignity of that member. Sanku was also advised to not to reply to others comments and there were warnings to cease and desist.

Now that melt is being accepted by TEPCO it is time that the others should at least extend civil apology to him. I am not sure why brf allowed that to happen.

And, of course sanku san is not obliged to develop a plan for saving nulcear plant at fukushima. They aredigging a hole for themselves to bury the radiation. Cheap and best as Bade remarked.

ps:-url inserted.

[Sanku]

Thank you Guru-jans.

[Theo_Fidel]

someone brought comments from other blog to vilify him using terms like "sankufied" etc. I found that beneath the dignity of that member. Sanku was also advised to not to reply to others comments and there were warnings to cease and desist.

Hard though it may be to believe this exactly how many scientists I know behave. I've been to many a scientific conference where the personal attacks on some esoteric irrelevant point became almost unbearable. It is often the aim of scientists to discredit the other side. Often they have spent a lifetime, 40+ years sometimes, trying to do this to each other. Happens all the time. Its a rough sport, we are big boys and you just develop a thick skin. Dignity has nothing to do with it.

The battles are ultimately won or lost when someone is proven right. Those who got it wrong know who they are, no need to rub it in.

[arnab]

I thought partial meltdown was confirmed pretty early - which was basically some fuel pallets melting and settling at the bottom of the containment vessel. The issue was this was being touted/ fearmongered as - a really bad core meltdown akin to chernobyl and possibly a 'china syndrome'. Now we are splitting hairs on a 'technically correct' definition of a melt down. If anything this proves the safety of the nuke option - core meltdown and 0 deaths. No wonder the Russians are increasing their nuke energy mix to 25%

And what's with chaanakya bringing up discredited studies (900,000 deaths in chernobyl) and studies by morons like Busby and claiming that this contributes to informed discussion? Is he running a propaganda shop or is he trying to teach/learn?

[chaanakya]

^^ theo , no issues there. Thanks
Gov't finally decides to help TEPCO with compensation burden
Friday 13th May, 09:20 AM JST

TOKYO —
The government agreed Friday on a scheme to help Tokyo Electric Power Co bear its massive compensation burden resulting from the ongoing nuclear crisis at its Fukushima plant, by approving the creation of a new body to facilitate payments and monitor the company’s streamlining efforts.

The decision, delayed for a day due to disagreement inside the ruling party, is expected to ensure swift payment of the estimated trillions of yen in damages over the country’s worst nuclear accident, in which the release of huge amounts of radioactive substances has affected local residents and industries.

The government is expected to introduce necessary bills to the Diet during the ongoing parliamentary session to create the envisioned institution, which would play a role in injecting public money into TEPCO to save it from being crushed by debt.

The latest development came as TEPCO decided to accept all the conditions the government presented to the company after it asked for state support due to fears of a capital shortage.

Under the conditions, TEPCO will not set an upper limit on compensation payments in advance, will make maximum cost-cutting efforts and will accept an investigation into its management by a third-party panel set up by the government in a bid to ensure thorough cost-cutting and strict asset evaluation.

As for the envisioned institution, the government will issue and allocate to it a type of bond that gains no interest and can be cashed when necessary so it can secure funding to support TEPCO, according to a draft government plan.

The new body would seek contributions from electricity firms that own nuclear power plants other than TEPCO and is also expected to function as an insurance entity to prepare for possible future nuclear accidents.

But concerns linger that the scheme may lead utilities to pass on the costs to consumers through electricity bills.

The nuclear disaster triggered in the wake of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan has forced many residents around the Fukushima Daiichi plant to evacuate from their homes, and damaged the agriculture, livestock and fishery industries in the region.

With TEPCO still struggling to bring troubled reactors under control, the total cost of compensation and expenses for decommissioning the six-reactor complex is not yet clear.

Some precedence for Nuclear Liability bill for India.

And some factoring of cost for NPPs

[chaanakya]

I thought partial meltdown was confirmed pretty early - which was basically some fuel pallets melting and settling at the bottom of the containment vessel. The issue was this was being touted/ fearmongered as - a really bad core meltdown akin to chernobyl and possibly a 'china syndrome'. Now we are splitting hairs on a 'technically correct' definition of a melt down. If anything this proves the safety of the nuke option - core meltdown and 0 deaths. No wonder the Russians are increasing their nuke energy mix to 25%

And what's with chaanakya bringing up discredited studies (900,000 deaths in chernobyl) and studies by morons like Busby and claiming that this contributes to informed discussion? Is he running a propaganda shop or is he trying to teach/learn?

Its passe` now. You are too late in the discussions.

[arnab]

Its passe` now. You are too late in the discussions.

How can it be passe sir? you are asking for apologies on behalf of others without acknowledging your crude attempts at propaganda

Also if you could point out the relevance of the Jap / TEPCO compensation scheme with the Indian nuke liability bill - would really appreciate. Ta

[amit]

Hard though it may be to believe this exactly how many scientists I know behave. I've been to many a scientific conference where the personal attacks on some esoteric irrelevant point became almost unbearable. It is often the aim of scientists to discredit the other side. Often they have spent a lifetime, 40+ years sometimes, trying to do this to each other. Happens all the time. Its a rough sport, we are big boys and you just develop a thick skin. Dignity has nothing to do with it.

I wonder Theo, whether your realise that you're doing exactly what you're accusing "scientists" - a thin purdah for a poster here whom everyone knows - of doing.

And incidentally I really wonder what you think about Sanku, as random example, calling me a "habitual liar"? See Here. And this is not the first time he's done that and I'm not the only person whom he's called a liar or used other such wonderful adjectives. A lot of folks here are certainly horri-fied by his behaviour.

Also if you are really honest on this please also go through this thread to find out some of the names used against the poster whom you are referring to under the thin veneer of "scientist". Folks who are shouting about this now (please note this does not include you as your online decorum is excellent) have been calling her names too. You need to realise that a lot of folks follow this thread as minutely as you do.

If you sit on judgment of others you should at the very least appear to be unbiased. If your not just don't do it.

[Lalmohan]

admins - time to close this thread
ratio of heat to light has long passed the useable limit

[chaanakya]

Consumers, not TEPCO shareholders, to cover huge compensation bill

Consumers will cover a large portion of the compensation bill for victims of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant crisis, but the plant operator's shareholders and supporting financial institutions will not be hit hard.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his Cabinet were expected to officially approve the damages framework totaling at least 5 trillion yen ($62 billion) on May 12. Approval will enable Tokyo Electric Power Co. to announce its consolidated financial results for fiscal 2010 on May 20.

TEPCO is expected to post a net loss of 700 billion yen to 800 billion yen for fiscal 2010.

The company's results will also include an extraordinary loss of about 1 trillion yen for waste disposal related to the ongoing nuclear crisis.

The utility is expected to pay about 200 billion yen in compensation annually, plus about 1 trillion yen per year to operate thermal power plants after suspending operations at nuclear power plants.

It will also need about 1.5 trillion yen to decommission the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and about 250 billion yen to restore equipment in disaster-stricken plants to normal operations.

To fund these heavy financial obligations, the utility is expected to jack up electricity rates 16 percent, while Japan's eight other power companies will chip in an amount equivalent to a 2-percent hike in their respective service areas.

[amit]

admins - time to close this thread
ratio of heat to light has long passed the useable limit

I second that. Time to close this thread and open a new one on Post-Fukushima disaster. As it is there's absolutely minuscule interest here on the small matter of 20,000 plus Japanese perishing in the earthquake and tsunami and the devastation wrought there despite the thread's name being:
2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis.

[Sanku]

Also if you could point out the relevance of the Jap / TEPCO compensation scheme with the Indian nuke liability bill - would really appreciate. Ta

Just to say it has been posted many times before in detail. In short, it gives a real world example of what a nuclear disaster cleanup cost entails.

It also highlights example of various roles and responsibilities of various stake holders and limits of operators ability in handling the fallout.

[Sanku]

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.

[arnab]

Just to say it has been posted many times before in detail. In short, it gives a real world example of what a nuclear disaster cleanup cost entails.

It also highlights example of various roles and responsibilities of various stake holders and limits of operators ability in handling the fallout.

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.

[chaanakya]

Its passe` now. You are too late in the discussions.

How can it be passe sir? you are asking for apologies on behalf of others without acknowledging your crude attempts at propaganda

Also if you could point out the relevance of the Jap / TEPCO compensation scheme with the Indian nuke liability bill - would really appreciate. Ta

What propaganda , leave alone crude one, is there???

As for nuke liability bill, there is separate thread, so ask there.

[arnab]

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?

[chaanakya]

Just to say it has been posted many times before in detail. In short, it gives a real world example of what a nuclear disaster cleanup cost entails.

It also highlights example of various roles and responsibilities of various stake holders and limits of operators ability in handling the fallout.

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.

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

[arnab]

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.