Fukushima: Continuing Global Catastrophe and Coverup 3

188 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

Fukushima: 5th Year of Full-Blown Crisis

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/fukushimas-5th-year-of-full-blown...

"March 11th is the 5th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Today the disaster site remains in crisis mode...Even more troublesome, the plant has yet to stop producing dangerous nuclear waste..."

Beware Nuclear Power!

NDPP

'No Plan A': US [and Canada] Unprepared for Nuclear Crisis as More Fukushima Radiation Found off West Coast

https://www.rt.com/usa/335306-fukushima-radiation-usa-nuclear-industry/

"Not only is there no Plan B for what to do if and when a Fukushima-style disaster happens in the US, there is no Plan A to prevent one either, said Cindy Folkers, radiation and health speaker at Beyond Nuclear..."

 

Toxic Concerns Put Brakes on Nearby Nuclear Waste Burial Site

https://nowtoronto.com/news/nuclear-waste-burial-site/

"It's strange that out of a possible million sq km of available land, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) pinpointed a tiny patch virtually on the shore of one of our Great Lakes - the source of drinking water for millions - for an underground nuclear waste dump.

Many opponents don't buy the permanence argument, especially since every DGR built to date has failed..."

quizzical

the now toronto article is relevant and bang on tks.

we need nuclear power like we need donald trump governing the USA. it's not clean energy or environmentally friendly. i don't give a shit if it employs several 100 in Ontario they need to be shut down asap.

Quote:
... even if all reactors shut down tomorrow, there’s no turning away from the toxic mess already on the ground. If a DGR is the best idea society can come up with for handling the worst of the waste, we’d better hope the technology can stand up for eternity.

“If not,” says Kamps of Beyond Nuclear, “our waste will be the toxic burden of near endless generations to come.”  

  

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Separating and isolating that toxic waste is one of the main industrial challenges of the human race in this century. Nonetheless the best we can do is mitigate it by shortening half-lives.

quizzical

how about if we just outlaw toxic waste period? it would mitigate it completely.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
even if all reactors shut down tomorrow, there’s no turning away from the toxic mess already on the ground.

So basically if we shut down every reactor tomorrow, we'd still have exactly the same challenges, but no electricity.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I am all for a ban on the production of any new toxic waste, but we have to figure out how to dig up the stuff we have buried for around 200 years. If we just leave it there it leeches further into our water. We just can't afford this any more. I am all for cleaning this crap up.

Back in the day, no one cared what they were burying. It explains all kinds of environmental health problems we experience especially in cities which had an industrial heritage going back to the early 1900s. Dig up all the landfills and dispose of it properly, with zero pollution. 

This uranium toxic waste is bad waste, but at least it is known. We can isolate it and seal it in something else. Some say we could fire rockets at the Sun, however the tonnage will eventually have to be replaced with fresh asteroids for the planet to conserve its mass. I'd say it might be a hare-brained solution. Perhaps there might be a way of using energy to break the uranium down into its protons and electrons which could be harmlessly discharged. With enough force, anything is possible?

You have to house the workers in a sealed, pollution-free unit and have them control robotic equipment so they don't get sick as well. It is expected that technology for this purpose will be seen in Japan first. They are in a hurry from what I have heard. Modern clean tech and green tech technologies can actually be applied to these situations, if people would have the imagination and foresight to consider it.

quizzical

no magoo we would have more challenges and more waste everyday they're not shut down.

get your electricity somewhere else or lessen your consumption en masse. and seeings as how your exports are losing billions every year time to shut them down.

can't believe people think nuclear is better

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
no magoo we would have more challenges and more waste everyday they're not shut down.

No, actually it would be the same challenge, times 101%.

If we shut them all down tomorrow then we'd need to find a way to deal with (let's say) 1000 tonnes of waste, and no electricity unless you live beside a hydroelectric dam.

And if we don't shut them down tomorrow then we'd need to find a way to deal with 1001 tonnes of waste.

I'm feeling like whatever solution we might find for dealing with 1000 tonnes could be expanded to deal with 1001.  And meanwhile, the people of Peterborough aren't sitting in the dark until the launch of their new GeoThermal plant.

quizzical

coal is fkn better than nuclear.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

*

NDPP

Fukushima Five Years On: Not a Comedy of Errors, A Calamity of Terrors  -  by John LaForge

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/11/fukushima-five-years-on-not-a-com...

"Shaun Burnie, Senior Nuclear Specialist with Greenpeace Germany said , 'There is an urgent need to understand the impact this contamination is having on the ocean - how radioactivity is both dispersing and concentrating - and its implications.'

'Tepco failed to prevent a multiple reactor meltdown and five years later it's still an ongoing disaster. It has no credible solution to the water crisis they created and is failing to prevent further contamination of the Pacific Ocean,' Burnie said.

Now the company is pumping and dumping the fast rising groundwater into severely radioactive buildings - where the water will become even more contaminated by passing over the mass of hot melted fuel inside.

It's not really a comedy of errors, but a calamity of terrors."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Five Years After Fukushima, 'No End in Sight' to Ecological Fallout

The environmental impacts of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are already becoming apparent, according to a new analysis from Greenpeace Japan, and for humans and other living things in the region, there is "no end in sight" to the ecological fallout.

The report warns that these impacts—which include mutations in trees, DNA-damaged worms, and radiation-contaminated mountain watersheds—will last "decades to centuries." The conclusion is culled from a large body of independent scientific research on impacted areas in the Fukushima region, as well as investigations by Greenpeace radiation specialists over the past five years.

"The government's massive decontamination program will have almost no impact on reducing the ecological threat from the enormous amount of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster," said Kendra Ulrich, senior nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace Japan. "Already, over 9 million cubic meters of nuclear waste are scattered over at least 113,000 locations across Fukushima prefecture."

quizzical

this is why coal fired is better than nuclear.........

NDPP

Fukushima: Worse Than A Disaster

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/07/fukushima-worse-than-a-disaster/

"Disasters can be cleaned up. Now what? What's next is like a trip into The Twilight Zone..."

LB Cultured Thought

quizzical wrote:

this is why coal fired is better than nuclear.........

For some perspective, you're looking at 0 immediate deaths and perhaps 1000 additional cancer cases from the Fukashima incident. Compare that to the 24,000 premature deaths per year caused in the U.S. due to burning coal. Taken from Mike Shellenberger:

NDPP

7.4 Quake Off Fukushima Triggers Tsunami Warning

https://youtu.be/Jw7cFku_U3Q

 

Fukushima Reactor Cooling System Stops Following Quake & Tsunami

http://on.rt.com/7vqa

Live UPDATES

 

iyraste1313

A tsunami warning has been issued and 10 foot tall waves are predicted to make landfall soon.

The earthquake raises serious questions about the stability of the already-ravaged Fukushima plant that hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

“All nuclear plants on the coast threatened by the tsunami are shutdown in the wake of the Fukushima disaster,” Yahoo News reports. “Only two reactors are operating in Japan, both in the southwest of the country. Even when in shutdown nuclear plants need cooling systems operating to keep spent fuel cool.”

........................For some perspective, you're looking at 0 immediate deaths and perhaps 1000 additional cancer cases from the Fukashima incident. Compare that to the 24,000 premature deaths per year caused in the U.S. due to burning coal. Taken from Mike Shellenberger:....

...I suggest you look into who this guy is, what with the entire Pacific coast ecosystem in danger......

NO! The solutions lies in transformation in the system we live under, extracting the power and wealth from the parasites that run the system...but of course such discussions won t be appearing here! we re justy into techno fixes!

bekayne

iyraste1313 wrote:

A tsunami warning has been issued

Which was then lifted

https://www.google.ca/search?q=tsunami&rlz=1C1CHWA_enCA626CA626&oq=tsuna...

 

NDPP

Seaborne Fukushima 134 Makes North American Landfall

http://environews.tv/121216-seaborne-cesium-134-fukushima-makes-landfall...

"Seaborne Cesium 134, the so-called 'fingerprint of Fukushima' has been detected on US shores for the first time, researchers said this month."

Lots more where that came from and maybe soon a hot particle or two for thee...

Edzell Edzell's picture

Looking at  the bar charts posted by LB Cultured Thought:

These were sourced in 2007; about 4 years before The Fukushima meltdown.

The deaths are per Twh - what is that? Are they annual, are they projected estimates - what? How many nuclear meltdowns do they assume, say, per decade?

Can somebody clarify the meaning of these figures, and whether a more up to date assessment, including the anticipated effects of Fukushima, has been published?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I can't answer all of those questions, but I would assume that a TWh would be a Terawatt hour -- if you're used to being billed for hydro by the Kilowatt hour (1000 watt heater used for one hour, or a 100 watt lightbulb used for ten hours, etc.) then a TWh is just a billion of those.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I don't have any special knowledge of those charts, but I assume that Twh means Terawatt hour, and the figures are based on historical data.

Edzell Edzell's picture

I have pulled up the referenced pages from The Lancet. I have not read them in "fine detail" but I can state that they do not contain the bar-chart posted above. In fact they seem to avoid nuclear fission almost entirely, saying only that fusion offers promise but is likely at least 50 years away.

The article is principally about the analysis and effect of emissions from coal.

Perhaps someone can correct me by posting the true source of the chart.

LB Cultured Thought

Edzell wrote:

Looking at  the bar charts posted by LB Cultured Thought:

These were sourced in 2007; about 4 years before The Fukushima meltdown.

The deaths are per Twh - what is that? Are they annual, are they projected estimates - what? How many nuclear meltdowns do they assume, say, per decade?

Can somebody clarify the meaning of these figures, and whether a more up to date assessment, including the anticipated effects of Fukushima, has been published?

As others noted above, TWh just means terawatt hour, which is just a standard unit to measure large scale power generation. It was used here to normalize fatal health effects to the amount of power being generated by each generation source.

There isn’t really anything to update to include effects from Fukushima, since there haven’t been any radiation deaths to date and the anticipated deaths from elevated cancer rates now seems to be in the 0-50 range – and I’m being very conservative there in the high end of the range (i.e. IF any deaths occur due to radiation from Fukushima, we won’t really be able to tell because there will be too few to cause any significant shift in normal cancer rates). Most of the deaths from nuclear would be from the initial uranium mining.

Edzell wrote:

I have pulled up the referenced pages from The Lancet. I have not read them in "fine detail" but I can state that they do not contain the bar-chart posted above. In fact they seem to avoid nuclear fission almost entirely, saying only that fusion offers promise but is likely at least 50 years away.

 

The article is principally about the analysis and effect of emissions from coal.

Perhaps someone can correct me by posting the true source of the chart.

The paper the chart was based on is here is anyone wants it: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/abstract

It is a review of the health burden of several typical energy generation sources in Europe, and the data for the chart is found in Table 2, and shown visually in Figure 3.

 

Edzell Edzell's picture

LB Cultured Thought wrote:
The paper the chart was based on is here is anyone wants it: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/abstract It is a review of the health burden of several typical energy generation sources in Europe, and the data for the chart is found in Table 2, and shown visually in Figure 3.

There is no such chart in either of the links. There is no table 2. Perhaps the reference is to figure 2, which is not about deaths per Twh. It's about equivalent carbon dioxide emitted in g/kwh.

The data from which it was constructed dates from 2001, a decade before the Fukushima meltdown. No deaths resulted ??? Not even worth a comment.

Trevormkidd

Edzell wrote:

LB Cultured Thought wrote:
The paper the chart was based on is here is anyone wants it: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/abstract It is a review of the health burden of several typical energy generation sources in Europe, and the data for the chart is found in Table 2, and shown visually in Figure 3.

There is no such chart in either of the links. There is no table 2. Perhaps the reference is to figure 2, which is not about deaths per Twh. It's about equivalent carbon dioxide emitted in g/kwh.

The data from which it was constructed dates from 2001, a decade before the Fukushima meltdown. No deaths resulted ??? Not even worth a comment.

As was stated by LB, the data used to construct the chart can be found in table 2 of the paper, and yes there is a table 2. There are 5 tables and 4 figures in the paper.  I am not sure why it is a big deal that data comes from 2001 - it would be essentially unchanged with updated data.  While you seem to think that Fukushima was associated with a large number of deaths it was not.  If you rely on media sources that tell you such things you should switch to science-based sources instead of conspiracy-based sources.

The 2011 tsunami caused around 16,000 deaths. The nuclear meltdown caused 0.  The fear-based evacuation is associated with about 1600 deaths from the largely unnecessary upheaval (and no, these deaths can not be blamed on the meltdown - they can be blamed on the conspiracy sites that spread non-stop lies during and ever since the tsunami). Even using the LNT model the number of increased cancer deaths over many decades from Fukushima will be very small and will not be detectable. Using other models it will be about 0. The shutting down of nuclear plants across Japan for several years and replacing that electricity output with fossil fuels also undoubtedly caused a significant number of deaths.

Edzell Edzell's picture

Apologies to LBCT and Trevor McK; it seems much of what I said was incorrect. Doesn't mean I'm really enamoured of nuclear power of course - or some of the statements about media vs "science-based" reports vs conspiracy theories. Just about ALL of our "knowledge" comes as second or third-hand "hearsay." (Cut me a bit of slack here; having trouble chewing some of this crow.)

Happy new year anyway!

NDPP

Fukushia Daiichi Is Still the Wordl'd Largest Bleeding Sore

https://t.co/rlHxSQ3mWg

"...Meanwhile, as evidence emerges that TEPCO has lied about how serious the crisis is, radiation leaks into the Pacific Ocean and the world's airshed, and one melted down plant at Fukushima Daiichi threatens to burst into a catastrophic nuclear fire.

'For the global nuclear industry, the Fukushima disaster is a historic - if not fatal - setbacck,' said WorldWatch.."

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Here's an interesting article by a guy who worked on the analysis of the 3 mile island failure. He thinks Fukushima is much worse than the authorities and msm make it out to be.

NDPP

The Heartbreaking Legacy of Fukushima Daiichi  -  by Arnie Gundersen

http://www.fairewinds.org/japan-travel-journal/?rq=my%20time%20in%20japan

"...Now another year has passed. Radiation continues to bleed into the Pacific Ocean. No one has discovered where the nuclear cores have disappeared to. The $400,000,000 'ice wall' continues to leak. Radiation invades almost everything in Fukushima prefecture as well as communities in other prefectures that are considered 'clean', and residents are rightfully afraid to return home.

Moreover, the coverup continues..."

NDPP

Fukushima's Radioactive Water To Be Released Into Ocean Under New Plan

https://on.rt.com/8hty

"The 'decision has already been made' to release radioactive material from the Fukushima plant into the ocean according to its owners..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Japan’s Tepco Gets Slapped With New U.S. Lawsuit Over Fukushima

Tokyo Electric Power Co Holdings said on Thursday it has been hit with another lawsuit filed in a U.S. court seeking $5 billion for compensation over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the second filed against the utility in a U.S. court.

quote:

Shareholders of Tepco are suing the utility’s executives for a record 5.5 trillion yen ($67.4 billion) in compensation, in a long standing case.

The company’s former chairman and other executives of the company appeared in court in June to answer charges of professional negligence, in the first criminal case after the meltdowns at the plant. They all pleaded not guilty.

The criminal and civil legal cases do not threaten financial ruin for Tepco, which is backstopped by Japanese taxpayers. The company faces nearly $150 billion of costs to decommission the Fukushima plant and clean up the surrounding area, according to the latest government estimate.

voice of the damned

 

Quote:
In June, a federal appeals court cleared the way for a group of U.S. military personnel to file a suit against Tepco over radiation exposure that they say occurred during recovery efforts on board the USS Ronald Reagan.  
 

Aren't progressives normally AGAINST the US claiming extra-territorial jurisdiction over legal cases? Especially when the rationale for doing so is to protect American soliders, who(the thinking goes) shouldn't be in those foreign countries to begin with.  

SeekingAPolitic...

Critics of neclear power will cripple the industry on evironmental grounds.

Economics will stop the nuclear industry.

https://thinkprogress.org/u-s-nuclear-plants-bleeding-cash-c794e4142597/

http://www.cleanairalliance.org/opg-price/

And insurance changes can bury the industry over night.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/uranium-nuclear/19224

Without this limited liabilty scheme, the potential interest in nuclear would non starter.  Nuclear power is the grand daddy of corporate welfare schemes with potential liabiatly with 100's billions for the general public.  

NDPP

Ocean Currents Transported Radioactive Cesium From Fukushima Disaster

https://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/ocean-currents-transpor...

Yes. It continues...

NDPP

Fukushima Darkness    -    by Robert Hunziker

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/22/fukushima-darkness/

"It's been six years since the triple 100% nuke meltdowns occurred at Fukushima Daiichi, March 11th, 2011, nowadays referred to as '3/11. Over time, it's easy for the world at large to lose track of the serious implications of the world's largest-ever nuclear disaster; out of sight out of mind works that way.

The radiation effects are felt worldwide, whether lodged in sea life or in humans, it cumulates over time. The impact is now slowly grinding away only to show its true colors at some unpredictable date in the future.

Powerful vested interests want it concealed..."

Part Two:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/24/fukushima-darkness-part-two/

"Surreptitiousness surrounds untold death and illness, yet it remains one of the least understood and deceitfully reported episodes of journalism in modern history..."

Pages