Nuclear Meltdown Watch

[wintler2]

But if this contamination is to persist for perhaps years as is suspected, which would mean chronic exposure, would that not constitute a means for accumulation?

Forget my guess earlier, somebody smarter has done the legwork, and the news is not good. Am posting full text but follow link for more links:

I was not going to comment on this thread after Euan's statement about irrational fears of radiation, but I feel I must correct some very serious misinformation about "bioaccumulation of radioactive fallout" in general, especially the slower varieties, which is the real danger that we are talking about and dancing around in these discussions. Try Google Scholar.

http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activitie ... wq8_49.htm

The principal diffuse source of radioactivity to the aquatic environment is from atmospheric fall-out and the main point source is from the nuclear reprocessing industry. Estuarine systems, in particular, are sinks for organic matter from both freshwater and marine origins and, as such, accumulate radionuclides that are associated with organic matter. They are also very productive and act as a nursery and feeding area for fish, birds and macro-crustaceans. As such, there is a pathway for accumulated radionuclides to enter the food web where potential impacts may occur and possibly result in the exposure of Mankind to this source of radioactivity. . . .

Radionuclides are found in measurable quantities in the water column, suspended sediments, sea-bed sediments and the biota (Kershaw et al 1992). . . .

Radionuclide accumulation in saltmarshes is controlled principally by the physical processes associated with tidal flow and sediment deposition (Horrill 1983), but the type of vegetation present also has an effect on accumulation rates - vegetated areas accumulate radionuclides, such as americium, caesium and plutonium at faster rates than unvegetated areas. A large number of other factors can also affect accumulation rates, to the extent that variability within and between different saltmarshes can be wide. However, the relative stability and high biological productivity of saltmarsh sediments (away from tidal channels) favours the accumulation of plutonium and caesium isotopes, with highest activities often being associated with fine-grained mud flats, such as those in the Solway Firth (Kennedy et al 1988)

Some radionuclides have been found to accumulate in the biota. In particular, benthic algae, molluscs (mussels, winkles, limpets, whelks, scallops, queens), crustacea (crab, lobster, Nephrops, shrimps) and fish (including plaice, cod, flounder, herring) have been found to accumulate some radionuclides based on monitoring information collected by MAFF in the Irish Sea (Kershaw et al 1992). The principal concern has been to determine the risk to the human population and so the fish and shellfish species selected for monitoring have been commercially important ones. These species have been found to accumulate a number of radionuclides but the most important appear to be 106Ru and 137Cs. Both have been found to accumulate in fish muscle (plaice) and in crab Cancer pagurus hepatopancreas and muscle tissue. Crabs were found to accumulate 144Ce and 95Zr/95Nb in addition to 106Ru and 137 Cs. The most significant uptake route for these species is believed to be via the diet. . . .

The fate and behaviour of radionuclides in the marine environment is determined by the fate and behaviour of the element concerned. For example, if an element is adsorbed to sediment particles, then the radionuclide of that element will behave in the same way.

The radioactive elements will not be destroyed in the environment and radioactivity will be emitted from whatever compounds are formed with the element. The duration that the energy will be emitted is governed by the half-life of the radionuclide which can range from hours to hundreds of years. . . .

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:Q ... e.com/+b...

In studying the effects of radioactive substances on food chains, the concepts of bioaccumulation and biological magnification were established—later to become intimately identified with Carson’s Silent Spring. Bioaccumulation refers to a process whereby a toxic substance is absorbed by the body at a rate faster than it is lost. For instance, strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope that is chemically similar to calcium and can accumulate in the bones, where it can cause genetic mutations and cancer. Biological magnification occurs when a substance increases in concentration along the food chain. An example of this occurred when radionuclides discharged into the Columbia River in trace amounts from the Hanford nuclear facility in Washington State were discovered to increase in order of magnitude as they were pa! ssed along in the food chain. A number of variables influence such biological magnification, such as the length of the food chain, the rate of bioaccumulation within an organism, the half-life of the nuclide (in the case of radioactive substances), and the concentration of the toxic substance in the immediate environment. Ecologist Eugene Odum noted that due to biological magnification it was possible to release an “innocuous amount of radioactivity and have her [nature] give it back to us in a lethal package!” Carson herself pointed to how biological magnification resulted in dangerously high burdens of strontium-90 and cesium-137 in the bodies of Alaskan Eskimos and Scandinavian Lapps at the terminal end of a food chain that included lichens and caribou.

In the 1961 edition of The Sea Around Us, Carson, who was deeply involved in protesting the dumping of radioactive wastes in the oceans, raised the pregnant question, “What happens then to the careful calculation of a ‘maximum permissible level’ [of radioactivity]? For the tiny organisms are eaten by larger ones and so on up the food chain to man. By such a process tuna over an area of a million square miles surrounding the Bikini bomb test developed a degree of radioactivity enormously higher than that of the sea water.”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1dc6bdvbhwqbdcfh/

The paucity of investigations on the presence of artificial radionuclides and their bioaccumulation in Antarctic fauna is due to the erroneous belief that this area is pristine. We report evidence that significant levels of the artificial radionuclides Sr-90, Cs-137, Am-241 and plutonium isotopes can be found in sponges, bivalves, krill and demersal fish fauna of Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea), sometimes with a seasonal pattern. Increasing concentrations of Cs-137 were detected in the bivalve Adamussium colbecki (Antarctic scallop) during austral summer months, as a result of major trophic activity and changes in metabolic rates. Bioconcentration factors for artificial radionuclides in different Antarctic species are presented and discussed in relation to their different trophic strategies. Unexpectedly high radiocesium bioconcentration factors determined in bivalves suggested the particular role played by filter feeding in bioaccumulation, particularly in summer when radionuclide bioavailability is enhanced. The feeding preference of the trematomiid fish Trematomus bernacchii for the scallop A. colbecki is confirmed, not only by fish gut content analyses, but also through radiometric results. Transuranics bioaccumulation by sensitive species allowed some interesting comparisons on the different plutonium contamination of the southern hemisphere with respect to the northern one.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... VCHHBC-5...

Radionuclide tracers of heavy metals (59Fe, 60Co, 65Zn, 75Se 85Sr, 134Cs and 203Hg) representing potential contamination from nuclear power plants, industry and agriculture were added to separate basins of Lake 226, Experimental Lakes Area, northwestern Ontario. The two basins were part of a eutrophication experiment and differed in their trophic status; the north basin (L226N) was eutrophic whereas the south basin (L226S) was mesotrophic. Our objective was to determine the uptake of the radionuclides by biota and the effect of lake trophic status on their bioaccumulation. The trophic status of the lakes did not appear to have a marked effect on the accumulation of radionuclides by the biota. This may have been because of a mid-summer leakage of nutrients between the basins which enhanced primary production in L226S, because there is a time lag between primary production and the availability of the radionuclides to the fishes or because trophic status does not affect the uptake of at least some of these radionuclides. However, there was a tendency for faster uptake of the radionuclides in L226N by fish than L226S, but the differences were not significant. Concentrations in the biota generally decreased in the order: fathead minnow>pearl dace>tadpoles>slimy sculpin>leeches. Concentrations in biota generally decreased in the order: 65Zn>203Hg>75Se>134Cs>60Co>85Sr=59Fe. Cobalt-60 concentrations in tadpoles were greater than in the other biota. Radionuclide concentrations in the tissues of lake whitefish indicated that uptake was predominantly from food. Radionuclide concentrations were usually higher in the posterior gut, liver and kidney than in other tissues, whereas body burdens were generally high in the muscle for 75Se, 134Cs and 203Hg; kidney and gut for 60Co; and bone for 65Zn and 75Se. Mercury-203 burdens were also high in the bone and gut.

As we lower the bar on how much our environment can tolerate, and as isotopes continue to bioaccumulate in our bodies, how much is too much for species as a whole?

[justdrew]

All of humanity could shift to solar, wind energy in less than 25 years, policy study group claims
By Stephen C. Webster | Thursday, March 31st, 2011 -- 10:37 am

Humankind has the technology, resources and capabilities to adapt to and help avert serious climate change and the crunch of a dwindling energy economy, if only the political will can be mustered -- and it's not just idealistic progressives who are saying so anymore.

In a recent report, the British non-profit Institute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD) claimed that, with targeted investments by world governments, solar power could become humanity's main source of portable energy in 25 years or less.

The catch: "Spending priorities" must change -- something that seems remarkably difficult even in the U.S., ostensibly one of the world's most advanced democracies.

Starting with the assumption that hydrocarbon energy markets are dying and renewable energy tech is the inevitable future, the group calculated how much electricity humans consume today and how much growing populations are projected to consume by 2030.

What they found is that in 19 years from now, humanity will be consuming 724 exajoules (EJ) of energy annually. Today, that figure is about 39 percent less.

Figuring in the efficiency of today's solar and wind power tech, they were able to model what it would take to rapidly replace the current petroleum power infrastructure with renewables.

"We find that we can replace the entire existing energy infrastructure with renewables in 25 years or less," they wrote, "so long as [energy return on energy invested] of the mixed renewable power infrastructure is maintained at 20 [percent] or higher, by using merely 1% of the present fossil fuel capacity and a reinvestment of 10% of the renewable capacity per year."

IPRD researchers also claimed that "an annual contribution equal to 2% of the present energy fossil fuel capacity" would allow the mixed-tech energy infrastructure to grow along currently forecasted routes -- quite the opposite of the fearmongering so often broadcast by the more traditional energy industry.

This would ultimately allow a distributed, peer-based clean energy infrastructure to scale outwards, providing enough electricity for every person on the planet to live at "high human development requirements."

But it's not all sunshine and good news from the IPRD.

"As optimistic as our findings seem, it would be misleading if we didn’t mention some of the potential roadblocks," they cautioned. "We observe four potential obstacles to this transition. Firstly, we note that world governments do not seem sufficiently motivated to support a timely overhaul of the global fossilfuel based economy nor the creation of one that will be cleaner and more secure. In particular, the U.S. government projects that renewables will only account for 14% of the world’s total energy mix in 2035, with a minimum of 75% coming from fossil-fuels.

"We submit that sufficient political will and determination can overcome this resistance, just as in earlier eras when the stakes were set high enough—e.g., retooling the American automobile infrastructure for World War II armaments and racing to land a human on the moon."

Whether or not the American people are up to that challenge, however, is another question entirely.

[eyeno]

RIU suddenly changed their sims to show hardly any fallout coming from the reactor now that the cores are melting. Maybe they have been pressured to moderate some? Because up until yesterday the thick orange fallout was billowing from the sims like crazy. Strange

http://www.eurad.uni-koeln.de/index_e.html

I think the answer to that one might be that there has not been any venting taking place according to the comments in an article recently posted in this thread.

[23]

One of the rare applications of military intervention that I don't have a problem with.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/us- ... n-for.html
US Marines being sent to Japan for nuclear response

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military on Wednesday ordered a Marine unit specializing in emergency nuclear response to deploy to Japan to assist local authorities in addressing the massive crisis, officials said.

Some 155 Marines from the service's Chemical Biological Incident Response Force are scheduled to leave the United States on Thursday and arrive in Japan Friday, a US defense official told AFP.

The CBIRF team, trained in identifying chemical agents, monitoring radiation levels and decontaminating personnel, would not participate in the frenzied efforts to stabilized the reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, crippled by a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

It was also hit by several explosions, triggering fears of a catastrophic meltdown as radiation has wafted into the air and seeped into the ocean.

US military personnel are currently barred from penetrating a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius around the stricken plant, far exceeding the 12-mile (20-kilometer) exclusion zone imposed by the Japanese government.

Another military official characterized the deployment as "prudent planning," a precautionary move to have the Marines on hand if needed, not an emergency.

The team is "an initial response force," the official added, because it is only one part of the larger CBIRF unit based at the Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland.

"They would provide radiological expertise to the on-scene commander and, if needed, to the JSDF (Japan Self-Defense Forces) in the areas of medical, logistical, chemical, biological, nuclear and hazardous materials," the official said.

The unit is specially trained to counter the fallout from a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) incident, usually assisting local, state or federal agencies in their response.

On March 17, Admiral Robert Willard, who is overseeing American military assistance after Japan's earthquake and tsunami, said 450 radiological and disaster specialists were awaiting orders to deploy as Japanese teams tried to cool fuel rods in reactors at the damaged Fukushima plant.

Rear Admiral Scott Swift, director of operations at US Pacific Command, said that around 15,000 US personnel were taking part in the round-the-clock relief operations since the disaster began as part of a mission dubbed Operation Tomodachi, or "friend."

The United States stations some 47,000 troops in Japan, a close US ally which lies near the tense Taiwan Strait and Korean peninsula.

The US military says it has taken more than 50,000 tons of fuel and 650 tons of cargo to areas of northern Japan hit by the earthquake, which has killed more than 11,000 people and left over 16,000 others missing.

Around a quarter of a million people are living in evacuation centers.

[The Consul]

The only way we survive is if we learn to live with less and go local and outgrow our brainwashed need to fill leisure time with entertainment

The corrupting effects of the entertainment are at the heart of our discussions here but it is the least of the problem in terms of the energy and resource consumption pie, a very narrow slice. Buildings (heating and climate control), urban design (sprawl, distance between work, shops and residences), transport (cars, trucks and planes), agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, feed for meat, transport) are the big items that together represent most of the energy used and can't just be eliminated. Those are where the giant complex conversions and infrastructural changes are required. The rest of the consumer goods are theoretically easier to cut back, but also represent far less energy consumption. I put everything that goes into the war and national security machinery as the worst item of all, because in addition to being the single largest consumer, it's the most superfluous and destructive. I'd rather everyone looked in the mirror and thought they were Brad Pitt than that anyone participated in that.

.

"You must lose everything in order to gain anything." - Brad Pitt

[seemslikeadream]

The only way we survive is if we learn to live with less and go local and outgrow our brainwashed need to fill leisure time with entertainment

The corrupting effects of the entertainment are at the heart of our discussions here but it is the least of the problem in terms of the energy and resource consumption pie, a very narrow slice. Buildings (heating and climate control), urban design (sprawl, distance between work, shops and residences), transport (cars, trucks and planes), agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, feed for meat, transport) are the big items that together represent most of the energy used and can't just be eliminated. Those are where the giant complex conversions and infrastructural changes are required. The rest of the consumer goods are theoretically easier to cut back, but also represent far less energy consumption. I put everything that goes into the war and national security machinery as the worst item of all, because in addition to being the single largest consumer, it's the most superfluous and destructive. I'd rather everyone looked in the mirror and thought they were Brad Pitt than that anyone participated in that.

.

"You must lose everything in order to gain anything." - Brad Pitt

all that you have

[StarmanSkye]

Just posted:
Disaster in Japan
Panel overview of related incidents at Fukushima, from earthquake dynamics, g-force tectonic accelerations, reactor designs to safety issues and long-term enviro implications. Just started watching -- looks pretty interesting.




Many questions arose about the consequences of a nuclear disaster in Japan that occurred after devastating tsunami. On Tuesday, March 29, 2011, the University of Arizona assembled a panel of experts in an effort to answer some of these questions. The panelists discussed global seismology, reactor engineering, atmospheric dynamics, radiation and health, and global energy policies.

The panelists are Susan Beck, Professor of Geo-Sciences; John Williams, Professor of Reactor and Nuclear Energy Engineering; Erik Betterton, Professor and Department Head of Atmospheric Sciences; B."Dino" Stea, Professor and Department Head of Radiation Oncology and Paul Bonavia, Chairman, President and CEO of Unisource Energy.

[Project Willow]

Passing this along, haven't researched the source to a great depth, but I appreciated the seeming straightforwardness of the video.

http://www.fairewinds.com/multimedia

Gundersen describes the Fukushima plant as stable, but precarious. In this update, he discusses the high levels of radiation (2 Million disintegrations/second being found on the ground as far as 25 miles from the plant site.) He also addresses a New York Times report of hundreds of tons of water being put into the reactors each day. Gundersen points out that all of the water going in to the reactors is being irradiated, leaking out, and polluting the Ocean. He concludes by discussing the differences between the accident scenarios that the nuclear industry previously planned for and what has actually happened.

[23]

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/82200.html
Up to 1,000 bodies left untouched near troubled nuke plant

Radiation fears have prevented authorities from collecting as many as 1,000 bodies of victims of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami from within the 20-kilometer-radius evacuation zone around the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, police sources said Thursday.

One of the sources said bodies had been ''exposed to high levels of radiation after death.'' The view was supported by the detection Sunday of elevated levels of radiation on a body found in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, about 5 km from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

The authorities are now considering how to collect the bodies, given fears that police officers, doctors and bereaved families may be exposed to radiation in retrieving the radiation-exposed bodies or at morgues, according to the sources.

They initially planned to inspect the bodies after transporting them outside the evacuation zone, but the plan is being reconsidered due to the concerns over exposure.

Local residents have been forced to leave the zone since the current nuclear crisis began unfolding at the Tokyo Electric Power Co. plant, which is leaking radioactive materials as its cooling systems for its reactors and nuclear spent-fuel pools have been knocked out by the disaster.

Even after the bodies are handed over to the victims' families, cremating them could spread plumes containing radioactive materials, while burying the victims could contaminate the soil around them, according to the sources.

The authorities are considering decontaminating and inspecting the bodies where they are found. But the sources said that cleansing decomposing bodies could damage them further.

Victims can be identified through DNA analysis of nail samples, but even then considerable time and effort must be taken to decontaminate the samples, according to experts.

Elevated levels of radiation detected on the victim in the town of Okuma last Sunday forced local police to give up on retrieving the body.

''Measures that can be taken vary depending on the level of radiation, so there need to be professionals who can control radiation,'' said an expert on treating people exposed to radiation. ''One option is to take decontamination vehicles there and decontaminate the bodies one by one.''

[Jeff]

URGENT: Radioactivity 10,000 times the limit found from groundwater: TEPCO

TOKYO, April 1, Kyodo

A radioactive substance about 10,000 times the limit was detected from groundwater around the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday.

A Tokyo Electric official said the radiation level is ''extremely high.''

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/82382.html

Radioactive substance exceeding limit found in beef in Fukushima Pref.

TOKYO, April 1, Kyodo

The health ministry said Thursday that beef in Fukushima Prefecture, where the crippled nuclear power plant is located, contained a radioactive material exceeding the legal limit, making it the first such detection in beef.

The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare said 510 becquerels of radioactive cesium was detected in beef from Tenei, Fukushima Prefecture, above the 500-becquerel legal limit set under the food sanitation law.

But an official for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said in Fukushima early Friday that it will conduct a fresh examination on beef, citing a significant gap in radiation levels between the sample taken in Tenei and other meat samples.

Tenei is located nearly 70 kilometers away from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/82389.html

[Peachtree Pam]

This little summary to answer basic questions about Fukushima comes from ClubOrlov, Dimitry Orlov's site. He is a frequent guest on Max Keiser's show.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/
Nuclear Meltdowns 101

[Update: The longer this disaster goes on, the more news articles appear confirming my suspicions from the very beginning. As they do, I add links to them below. So far, cooling has failed, and containment has failed. Next, radioactive lava will leak out of what were once the Fukushima nuclear reactors. The new feel-good mantra is "It's not as bad as Chernobyl." But it is already safe to conclude that the world is no longer safe enough (that is, economically, socially or politically stable enough) for nuclear power to exist. So please do the following exercise: take a map, mark every nuclear installation around where you are, draw a 50km radius circle around each, and then start seeing to it that you, your family and your friends are not in any of these circles. Pay attention to prevailing winds and coastal and ocean currents, which should extend your personal nuclear exclusion zone. Take a look around: there is no longer the money or the political power or even the technical expertise to immediately shut down and properly dismantle all of these installations and to store the nuclear waste in a way that will require zero maintenance for the thousands of years it will stay lethal. The best we can do now is evacuate ourselves ahead of time, and hope for the best.]

I am no nuclear expert, and that is probably a good thing. I did do a lot of reading about Chernobyl back when it happened. And now I am, as I was then, and as I am sure many of you are, getting really fed up with incomplete, inaccurate, misleading and generally unsatisfactory explanations that are being offered for what is going on at Fukushima. Either information is not available, or it is a flood of largely irrelevant technical minutia designed to thrill nuclear nerds but bound to bamboozle rather than inform the general reader. And so, for the sake of all the other people who aren't nuclear experts and have no ambition of ever becoming one, here's what I have been able to piece together.

Just hydrogen? Or a chain reaction?
What do they mean when they say “hydrogen explosions”?

The hydrogen gas is being vented from inside the reactors and from spent fuel pools that are directly above them. Since it is very hot, it explodes as soon as it mixes with the outside air. It is formed from the rapid oxidation of the zirconium pipes that hold in the pellets of nuclear fuel. At Fukushima, some of the fuel pellets are made with uranium, while others are made with plutonium from reprocessed nuclear weapons. Zirconium is a metal which, like aluminum, instantly forms a thin, protective layer of oxide on contact with air, but doesn't oxidize further—unless it is heated up, that is. The zirconium-clad fuel rods must be kept submerged in water at all times, ocr they do heat up, and then the zirconium cladding oxidizes (burns) very rapidly and disintegrates into a powder. This is already enough information to tell us that a lot of the “fuel rods” at Fukushima are no longer rod-shaped, because the zirconium cladding has disintegrated, and that the fuel pellets must have fallen out and accumulated at the bottoms of the reactor vessels, where they are packed close together and heating up further. How much further they heat up will determine whether they will melt through the bottoms of the reactors. If they do, they would probably melt into the ground below and form a large pancake of hot, molten slag, which will slowly crumble into radioactive dust over many years, as has happened at Chernobyl. There is also a small chance that the fuel pellets will “go critical,” if the mass of them becomes sufficiently compact to restart the nuclear chain reaction; if that happens, the telltale tall brown cloud should be easy to spot from as away as Tokyo. This seems unlikely, but then nobody seems to be able to definitively rule it out either.

What do they mean when they say that they are cooling the reactor with seawater?

Seawater is corrosive, and is probably the worst coolant imaginable. Normally, nuclear reactors are cooled with fresh, filtered, deionized water. The crew at Fukushima used seawater because they had no other choice. When the cooling pumps failed because the tsunami caused a blackout, they called in the fire brigade, and the fire engines there apparently use seawater. The reactor cooling systems are plumbed with stainless steel pipes, which degrade rather rapidly on contact with sea water because of the chlorine in it, especially if they are hot (which they are). At Fukushima, “containment” has already become a relative term, since the reactors are vented to the outside air in any case to keep them from bursting, but once these pipes disintegrate (a process that might take a few days to a few weeks) the containment vessels will become riddled with holes, letting in outside air and, if by then there is any zirconium left to burn, possibly causing hydrogen explosions inside the reactors, compromising them further. Their radioactive contents will then be carried to the atmosphere in aerosol form. We will probably know when that happens because the Geiger counters in the area will peg out. Nothing has been said about the destination of the copious amounts of now contaminated seawater that is being pumped through the damaged reactors and spent fuel pools. At Chernobyl, the water that that was used to "cool" the by then nonexistent reactor formed a large radioactive lake which threatened to poison Pripyat river. At Fukushima, we must suspect, all of that contaminated seawater is draining straight back into the Pacific, where tidal currents will carry it up and down the coast, contaminating the entire coastline with long-lived radioactive elements. Which brings us to a very general question:

What is the difference between radiation and radioactivity?

This is a basic enough distinction, but, listening to the news coverage, I have observed a great deal of confusion. (Some of it seems intentional, if not malicious: I heard some nuclear expert/twit (a retired Oxford don, I think) on NPR explain how "wadiation" can be "thewapeutic" and never once did he mention "wadioactivity," and it made me quite mad.) Do not use the two terms interchangeably unless you want to sound like you don't know what you are talking about. Radiation, of a non-lethal kind, is what you get from a light bulb, an X-ray machine, at the beach or in a tanning booth. Radioactivity, or radioactive contamination, is what you get when a nuclear bomb or a nuclear power plant explodes, and it stays around and produces radiation for years. Both radiation and radioactivity are invisible and hard to measure, but that's where the similarity ends. Radiation consists of subatomic particles that generally go in straight lines at close to the speed of light. Given enough radiation, initially non-radioactive materials can in turn become radioactive. Radioactivity, on the other hand, is caused by radioactive materials, which decay into other materials, some also radioactive, some stable, plus some radiation, at some rate, either quickly or not so quickly. Uranium and plutonium hang around for many thousands of years. Radioactive substances can be pulverized and carried up into the atmosphere by explosions (not necessarily nuclear ones) in which case they drift with the wind for thousands of kilometers and pollute huge stretches of land and ocean. Exposure to excessive levels of radiation causes radiation poisoning, from which people can fully recover, while the various radioactive elements pollute the environment and are taken up by living organisms in a wide variety of ways, many of them not yet understood by science, poisoning them and causing a wide assortment of cancers and genetic defects. Some may be flushed out, while others become lodged in the lungs or in the bones for the life of the individual, where they remain radioactive, weakening immune systems, causing cancers and birth defects and shortening lifespans. I once spent a few hours at the airport in Minsk, waiting for a flight to Frankfurt with a group of “Chernobyl children” being flown out for treatment. They were quite a sight!

What about these “spent fuel pools” that keep catching on fire?

Well that's probably the most insane thing about the nuclear power industry. They haven't figured out what to do with the spent fuel rods, so they store them tightly packed in pools of water directly at the site, or, in the case of Fukushima, since land in Japan is at such a premium, stacked directly on top of the reactor itself. The reactors at Fukushima are quite old, and so their spent fuel pools are packed full. The spent fuel rods, which accumulate over the entire lifetime of the power plant, have to be kept submerged to keep them cool, or the zirconium cladding burns away (causing hydrogen explosions) and the fuel pellets accumulate at the bottom of the pool, burning through it if the fuel is fresh enough (which, in some cases, it might be). The result is the same as with the fuel rods disintegrating inside the reactor itself, except that here there is no containment vessel to keep (at least some of) the radioactive material out of the environment.

Why do we have nuclear energy in the first place?

This all sounds completely insane, doesn't it? Well, if it weren't for the nuclear bomb, anyone who proposed building a commercial fission reactor would have been laughed out of the room. But having nuclear bombs (which are by far the scariest things on the planet) makes nuclear fission reactors that much less scary, relatively speaking. And the reason we have nuclear bombs is because the only thing scarier than a nuclear bomb is not having one, since that opens you up the possibility of having one dropped on you by someone who does, such as the USSR (in theory) or the USA (as an historical fact). Compared to nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors seem "peaceful," although this is clearly not the case. Compared to nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs are as safe as houses, because they don't start a chain reaction until somebody pulls the trigger, whereas nuclear reactors maintain a controlled chain reaction during most of their existences. It's like comparing having a gun safely in your possession to heating your house with ammo, in which case, surely enough, accidents will happen.

What do people mean when they say that nuclear power is “safe” when compared to planes, trains and automobiles?

What they mean is that the nuclear power industry has so far killed many fewer people per unit time. They have no data on how many people it will kill eventually, although by now they know that, unlike planes, trains and automobiles, which do crash and burn with some regularity, but cause limited damage, nuclear disasters do not have any definable upper bound on their destructive potential. I am pretty sure that there is enough above-ground radioactive material sitting in spent fuel pools and inside reactors to kill just about everyone. It will stay dangerous for over a million years, which is a lot longer than the expected lifetime of the nuclear power industry, or any industry, or any human civilization, or perhaps even the human race. When nuclear experts say that a nuclear reactor is safe, they can only mean that it is safe for the rest of the afternoon; beyond that they can't possibly have any actual data to support their claim. All they can do is extrapolate, given a rosy “everything will always remain under control” scenario, and that is not a valid approach. When they say that nuclear power is safe, what they are really saying is that it is safe given their perfect ability to accurately predict that the indefinite future will remain economically and socially stable, and we already know this to not be the case.

If we give up on nuclear energy, what will replace it?

Nothing, probably. Let me try an example: if your lucrative murder-for-hire business suddenly runs afoul of a few silly laws (even though it has so far killed many fewer people than planes, trains or automobiles) that doesn't mean that you should keep killing people until you find another source of income. Same thing with electricity: if it turns out that the way you've been generating it happens to be criminally negligent, then you shut it all down. If you have less electricity, you will use less electricity. If this implies that economic growth is over and that all of your financial institutions are insolvent and your country bankrupt, then—I am sorry, but at this point in time that's not even newsworthy. Don't worry about that; just keep the nuclear accidents to a bare minimum, or you won't have anything else left to worry about.

[ninakat]

"Prescription for Survival": A Debate on the Future of Nuclear Energy Between Anti-Coal Advocate George Monbiot and Anti-Nuclear Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott

Includes gross use of the conspiracy theory smear by Monbiot against Caldicot, 'by their works shall ye know them'.

Indeed. And you gotta love his citing of that U.N. study of Chernobyl which stated that only 43 people died as a result of that little incident. That should be enough to completely discredit Monbiot. But then, we don't live in a logical or even sane world.

Transcript:

GEORGE MONBIOT: I mean, this is—the U.N. Scientific Committee is the major repository of the science on this issue. You don’t know about it?

HELEN CALDICOTT: Well, yeah, no, I’ve read about it, but the main thing is that the WHO was prevented or did not examine the results from Chernobyl, and it’s ongoing and will be for generations and generations, George.

GEORGE MONBIOT: But the United Nations did. The United Nations—

HELEN CALDICOTT: And soil, 40 percent of the soil in Europe is contaminated.

GEORGE MONBIOT: The United Nations Committee did examine Chernobyl. And they have said—

HELEN CALDICOTT: Oh, yeah?

GEORGE MONBIOT:—that so far the death toll from Chernobyl amongst both workers and local people is 43. Am I—sorry, are you saying you didn’t know that they had examined this—

HELEN CALDICOTT: That’s a lie, George. That’s a lie.

GEORGE MONBIOT:—and you aren’t aware of their report?

HELEN CALDICOTT: That’s a lie.

GEORGE MONBIOT: What’s a lie?

HELEN CALDICOTT: How dare—

GEORGE MONBIOT: That they examined this—

HELEN CALDICOTT: Yes, I am.

GEORGE MONBIOT:—and they wrote a report?

HELEN CALDICOTT: How dare they say that?

AMY GOODMAN: On that—

HELEN CALDICOTT: How dare they say that?

GEORGE MONBIOT: But are you aware—are you aware of the report?

HELEN CALDICOTT: This is a total cover-up. Yes, I am.

[Nordic]

Monbiot is a fool and a whore. After reading his piece in (I think it was) The Guardian, he has proven himself to be a conscious propagandist for a dangerous and threatening industry, and therefore criminal.

He is a wretched piece of shit, not worthy of any human rights at this point.

Fuck him forever.

[tazmic]

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/
Nuclear Meltdowns 101

I am no nuclear expert [...]

What is the difference between radiation and radioactivity?

This is a basic enough distinction...Do not use the two terms interchangeably unless you want to sound like you don't know what you are talking about....Radioactivity, or radioactive contamination, is what you get when a nuclear bomb or a nuclear power plant explodes....Both radiation and radioactivity are invisible and hard to measure,...initially non-radioactive materials can in turn become radioactive.

Radiation is invisible?! (Is he blind?) Activation can happen...anywhere? No mention of ionizing radiation?

If you're not too afraid to think around the obvious pro-nuclear stance of this, I think you'll learn a lot more about the differences between radiation and radioactivity here, than from some blog clipping or youtube paste.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/14151345/2

"I once spent a few hours at the airport in Minsk, waiting for a flight to Frankfurt with a group of “Chernobyl children” being flown out for treatment. They were quite a sight!"

There was a program set up for “Chernobyl children” where they would be placed with families in the UK, and brought up for several years whilst getting a healthy diet. A friend of mine took in three, even though he had two of his own kids. This was enough for them to regain their health against the damage their systems had already endured, although I don't know how the program effected their longer term prospects. I should look into it, now I've been reminded.

Also, this chap seems to be looking at what is actually happening fairly objectively, even if that is where his objectivity may end:

http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com/

And here are daily updated and detailed reactor status reports, from JIAF, that the above fella tries to interpret:

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/

[GuyWhoInventedFire]

A somewhat strange development.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/82348.html

A vehicle of what appears to be right-wing campaigners tried to enter the radiation-leaking Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, and then broke through the gate of the nearby Fukushima Daini power plant Thursday, the government's nuclear safety agency said.

The driver of the vehicle was later seized by police, and the agency said it ordered Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the two plants in Fukushima Prefecture, to take all measures to ensure security especially from the viewpoint of nuclear material protection.