Is it the beginning of the end for Japan?

[Dr. Snubnose]

Over the last 10 days the Japanese government and TEPCO have changed their information policies. They inundate the media with information for the purpose of cloaking the important info.


Their admittance that pastures 60 kilometers north of Fukushima far outside the exclusion zone are contaminated with 1530 Bequerel while the legal limit for cows is 300 cloaks the fact that cows are not the only inhabitants of Japan. The way the news are presented gives the impression that only milk production is affected.



I've put together a few selected news releases from NHK out of hundreds:

Radioactive substances detected in tea leaves

Radioactive contamination has been found in tea leaves in Chiba and Gunma prefectures, about 200 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Similar contamination has been found over a wide area around Tokyo including Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Saitama and Shizuoka prefectures.

Chiba authorities say up to 763 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium were detected in tea leaves picked on Tuesday in Narita and 3 other cities.

The provisional state limit is 500 becquerels per kilogram.

The Chiba government on Wednesday requested tea growers in the 4 cities to voluntarily halt shipments, and asked dealers not to sell the tea produced in the areas.

But 2 tea growers in Narita City reportedly shipped their tea leaves, and dealers sold some processed tea to local consumers.

Radioactive materials in tea leaves exceeding the legal limit was earlier detected in other areas in the prefecture.

In Gunma Prefecture, 780 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium were detected in tea leaves picked on Tuesday in Shibukawa City.

The Gunma government on Wednesday asked farm cooperatives to halt shipment of tea leaves.

This is the first tea contamination case reported in Gunma Prefecture.

Thursday, May 26, 2011 07:45 +0900 (JST)

Note: while cows still have a limit of 300 Bequerel for grass, humans now have a "provisional limit of 500". The distance is 200 kilometers. In directions from Fukushima where no outfall at all is claimed so far. Readings of 783 mean that the entire area is unfit for human inhabitation - unless cesium decides to settle on tea leaves only.

Radiation limits activities in school fields

More than 90 percent of elementary and junior high schools in Fukushima City disallow or limit outdoor activities for students in their athletic fields due to radiation-contaminated topsoil.

In Fukushima Prefecture at the grounds of some elementary and junior high schools in April radiation levels exceeded the government limit of 3.8 microsieverts per hour.

The level dropped to below the limit at all of the schools last week.

But NHK research has found that 69 out of 72 public elementary and junior high schools in the area were disallowing or limiting outdoor activities in the athletic fields as of Thursday.

The schools say that they cannot judge whether radiation levels are safe enough even though they have dropped. They also refer to the request by parents that students not be allowed to play outside.

These schools let students use gyms or play cards during the breaks.

Fukushima City is planning to start removing the contaminated topsoil at some schools as early as this month. But schools are still worried about radiation as the troubled nuclear plant remains unstable.

Friday, May 20, 2011 02:27 +0900 (JST)

Note: is radioactivity selective - schoolgrounds only? People seem to think that their gardens and entire environment are safe.

Trace of radioactive materials detected in Osaka

Traces of radioactive material blown far from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have been detected in the western Japanese city of Osaka.

Osaka's Institute of Public Health announced on Thursday that tiny amounts of cesium-134 and cesium-137 were found in samples collected from its rooftop between April 1st and May 2nd.

The institute has collected rain and dust samples for its monthly analysis for radiation.

It says it was the first-ever detection of cesium-134, and that levels of cesium-137 were 100 times higher than usual, concluding that the materials probably come from the Fukushima plant.

The institute says that a year's exposure to those levels of radiation would be less than one 10-thousandth the amount found occurring naturally, and has no impact on human health.

Thursday, May 19, 2011 19:13 +0900 (JST)

Note: a new form of mathematics - 100 times higher = one 10-thousandth of natural background radiation. Take a look on the map, beyond Osaka is what?

What part of Japan is left for human habitation, for the raising of livestock and growing of crops?

And we are at the beginning only, radiation accumulates and reactor 1 to 3 have melted down. Outfall continues to rise and the entire northern globe gets its share.

Doc

[Stuart Ackerman]

Doc...sad news...

Looks like folk travelling to other countries from Japan need to be Gieger checked before entering the country that they have travelled to...

What a mess...no wonder why I hate nuclear power...

[yablanowitz]

Doc, it is entirely possible for cesium levels to be 100 times their normal level and still be one ten thousandth of the total normal background radiation level. Between naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs), solar and cosmic radiation there is quite a lot of background radiation on the surface of the earth. Normal cesium levels are below detectable, so 100 times that may range from barely detectable to detectable but insignificant. Twenty years ago, I helped a friend conduct a radiation survey at the natural gas plant he worked for and found areas that needed to be roped off and marked as radiation areas by Navy Nuclear Powerplant standards just due to the buildup of NORMs.

I'm not familiar with the units used in those press releases, but I suspect a single chest x-ray would give you more radiation exposure than rolling around in those schoolyards for a month. I'm not trying to dismiss the problem as imaginary or minimize the scope of the tragedy there, but I have a little experience with the Japanese paranoia about radiation and radioactive contamination. After WW II, I can't really fault them for that.

[SQSAR]

Doc: Thanks for keeping this in the minds of people. I was surprised at how quickly the matter faded from the conventional U.S. media outlets. I guess the collectively short, or perhaps isolationistic, attention spans of main-stream Americans was the cause. Either way, the extent of the damage incurred to Japan's critical infrastructure in the area, and the continuingly far reaching consequences we're seeing can hardly be understated.

[Pinetreebbs]

Unfortunately, most people reading this information will hit the panic button at the word "radiation" and never get to:

"The institute says that a year's exposure to those levels of radiation would be less than one 10-thousandth the amount found occurring naturally, and has no impact on human health."

We are all exposed to radiation on a daily basis. Radioactive materials are EVERYWHERE, from granite rock to radon gas to coal, there are radio active elements in nature. Exposure to the sun and cosmic radiation add to your daily dose. After atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, non naturally occurring radioactive isotopes can be found all over the planet. Virtually all steel has some level of contamination, but it takes laboratory grade instruments to detect.

Cleaning up this mess is going to take some time and a lot of money.

[SQSAR]

Unfortunately, most people reading this information will hit the panic button at the word "radiation" and never get to:

"The institute says that a year's exposure to those levels of radiation would be less than one 10-thousandth the amount found occurring naturally, and has no impact on human health."

We are all exposed to radiation on a daily basis. Radioactive materials are EVERYWHERE, from granite rock to radon gas to coal, there are radio active elements in nature. Exposure to the sun and cosmic radiation add to your daily dose. After atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, non naturally occurring radioactive isotopes can be found all over the planet. Virtually all steel has some level of contamination, but it takes laboratory grade instruments to detect.

Cleaning up this mess is going to take some time and a lot of money.

You are a bit presumptuous to say that "most people" will hit the "panic button." Or is it being condescending, , maybe both, or maybe a bad choice of words.

[rosconey]

wonder what the levels were post war-
had to be quite a bit on the ground after 2 bombs-yet they did just fine ,dont remember anything about mass deformations of kids and such-

when i saw the video of the wave taking the reactors out-all i could think was,why didnt they build them farther inland-another 1/4 mile or so inland and we arent having this discussion

[yablanowitz]

"Most people" would be in literal terms one more than half of the total. I'll grant you that I've only talked to a few hundred, which is statistically meaningless, but of those I have talked to, less than one in ten has any understanding of radioactivity, radiation, or the effects they have on the environment or the human body.

[yablanowitz]

wonder what the levels were post war-
had to be quite a bit on the ground after 2 bombs-yet they did just fine ,dont remember anything about mass deformations of kids and such-

There were a lot of birth defects and high cancer rates in those areas for many years. The last I heard, the cancer rates are still the highest in Japan.

when i saw the video of the wave taking the reactors out-all i could think was,why didnt they build them farther inland-another 1/4 mile or so inland and we arent having this discussion

Why would they build something as potentially hazardous as a nuclear reactor in a seismically active area? Because that's what they have available. As for why so close to the ocean, they use seawater for secondary coolant and emergency cooling. The farther from the ocean you are, the farther you have to pump the coolant which means more power consumed in the generation process and less available for consumption. It also means more potential for leaks and breakdowns.

[Pinetreebbs]

You are a bit presumptuous to say that "most people" will hit the "panic button." Or is it being condescending, , maybe both, or maybe a bad choice of words.

None of the above, but kudos for your examples.

[SQSAR]

Cool

[Pinetreebbs]

Cool

Same here, I am sorry if my reply was a little flippant, but I am embarrassed by our (US) collective lack of knowledge for all thing nuclear.

[SQSAR]

This whole thing was a tragedy of unprecedented proportions. Unfortunately, the nuclear issue has eclipsed the other facets of the tragedy that are bearing more immediate consequences. I suspect we are in agreement that this has likely become the case because a great number of people have become overly sensitive with all things 'nuclear.'

For me, some there are tremendous lessons to be learned from the tragedy. We have a somewhat unique instance here where towns and cities were impacted from complete devastation, to slightly raised radiation levels, , , ,and everything in between. As someone in the critical infrastructure protection business, I would pray that we, as a species, can use this to look at and improve our preparedness posture to these types of tragedies (both the result of man and nature). Not to do so would mean that those thousands of people died for nothing.

How can we make critical infrastructure systems, in both the macro and micro more resistant, redundant and resilient to disasters? How can we prevent the disasters we can, and make preparations to recover from those we can't? How have critical systems been impacted, , are there systems and processes that have been impacted in ways we hadn't expected? Have we thoroughly and effectively noted the dependencies, interdependencies, and both the upstream and downstream consequences associated with these systems as they interrelate? These are the things I want to know. And, unfortunately, these are the things all too many people seem to pay so little attention to; because, frankly, when they flip a light switch, the lights come on. If they don't, they make a phone call to complain, and more than likely, they do come on in a matter of minutes, or perhaps hours. Some of us live as unwitting recipients of the gift of blissful ignorance. Some of us (like Pinetreebbs and others who've posted here), , ,do not enjoy that luxury.

[tonydahose]

just when you thought it couldn't get any worse

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110528...20110528173443

[Pinetreebbs]

This whole thing was a tragedy of unprecedented proportions. Unfortunately, the nuclear issue has eclipsed the other facets of the tragedy that are bearing more immediate consequences. I suspect we are in agreement that this has likely become the case because a great number of people have become overly sensitive with all things 'nuclear.'

For me, some there are tremendous lessons to be learned from the tragedy. We have a somewhat unique instance here where towns and cities were impacted from complete devastation, to slightly raised radiation levels, , , ,and everything in between. As someone in the critical infrastructure protection business, I would pray that we, as a species, can use this to look at and improve our preparedness posture to these types of tragedies (both the result of man and nature). Not to do so would mean that those thousands of people died for nothing.

How can we make critical infrastructure systems, in both the macro and micro more resistant, redundant and resilient to disasters? How can we prevent the disasters we can, and make preparations to recover from those we can't? How have critical systems been impacted, , are there systems and processes that have been impacted in ways we hadn't expected? Have we thoroughly and effectively noted the dependencies, interdependencies, and both the upstream and downstream consequences associated with these systems as they interrelate? These are the things I want to know. And, unfortunately, these are the things all too many people seem to pay so little attention to; because, frankly, when they flip a light switch, the lights come on. If they don't, they make a phone call to complain, and more than likely, they do come on in a matter of minutes, or perhaps hours. Some of us live as unwitting recipients of the gift of blissful ignorance. Some of us (like Pinetreebbs and others who've posted here), , ,do not enjoy that luxury.

Actually, within hours of the first problem at Fukashima the US nuclear industry, both the government and commercial side, have been helping Japan resolve their problems, studying the accident and taking actions to preclude similar problems in here.

I am no Nuclear expert, but I have worked on several nuclear power plants, both under construction and in operation. Unfortunately because the US did not do a good job of educating our citizens and Hollywood's nonsense, we tend to be scared of all things nuclear. The dangers of nuclear are not trivial, but they are not unknown either.

All US nuclear power plants are tightly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, in spite of what might be said by those that are dead set against anything nuclear.

I have personally met with and reported facts to many NRC inspectors. Each and every one was a professional, dedicated, intelligent and inquisitive individual. They pushed us very hard, but it is their job. The NRC is constantly reading reports of problems with nuclear installations all over the world. If they find a potential problem in one plant, I promise you they are going to make all license holders explain how they are addressing the problem and or requesting them to show why it does not apply to their plant. From experience, the questions and the answers are not taken lightly by either side.

In self defense, and to get ahead of the power curve, license holders/power plant operators, also share information informally and though Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and various other nuclear information clearinghouses. From the INPO website:

INPO employees work to help the nuclear power industry achieve the highest levels of safety and reliability – excellence – through:

Plant evaluations
Training and accreditation
Events analysis and information exchange
Assistance

What I am trying to say is there is no status quo in the nuclear power industry of the US. They are always looking to improvements and ways to prevent problems.

The accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) was studied in minute detail and resulted in several TMI based mandated modifications to both operating plants as well as those under construction. The same was done for Chernobyl, though that plant has no analog in US reactors or containment vessels.

To complicate this issue, there are people diametrically opposed to anything nuclear. They are happy to use any issue to delay/stop/question any nuclear related operation, construction, fuel reprocessing or waste handling project. No facts, no study will ever be adequate unless it agrees with their narrow and frankly, illogical perspective. I sometimes wonder if they believe it will all just go away as long as they scream loud enough.

[ChrisR]

I spent a fascinating evening chatting to a friend of mine who has spent his life working in the nuclear industry. He made a few very salient points:

1. Nuclear is probably the only system that generates a stable source of electricity to which you know the cost ... unlike gas or coal power stations where you can be held to ransom by price changes in the market

2. All of the waste from all of the UK power stations over 40 years is safe and inert, encased in special glass in steel barrels, and takes up the same space as 6 small houses ... compared to the millions of tons of CO2 and particulates that gas & coal have thrown into the atmosphere in the same time.

3. Anti-nuclear campaigners point out the accidents at nuclear plants (very few even when you take into account the big ones like Chernobyl) ... but far more people die in the extraction of fossil fuels and we can only begin to estimate the tens of thousands that die as a result of the junk thrown into the atmosphere by ordinary power stations. Pollution is one thing but I am sure that global warming has been fueling the recent increase in tornadoes, floods and other meteorological disasters.

The problems in Japan are certainly of concern but the longterm health effects are largely going to be down to the specific isotopes that have been scattered across the landscape. Most of Western Europe detected fall-out from Chernobyl (where the top of the reactor blew into the atmosphere) but I've seen very little to say that there were any real measurable health effects. The same may well be true in Japan (a far less serious leak than Chernobyl) - we can but hope.

[JT]

Doc: Thanks for keeping this in the minds of people. I was surprised at how quickly the matter faded from the conventional U.S. media outlets.

I think it's this way all around the world. European media has dropped it too.

We live in a fast world. Everything is yesterdays news pretty fast, and when it stops sellling, they drop it. News are like fast food nowadays...

[defenestrate]

the prospects are scary, though the jury is still out on a lot of this.

Heard that milk in Hawaii is well above normal safe limits for radiation.

Have also heard that long-term low exposure is far more deadly than one-time or few-time exposures to high levels of radiation. Depending on the levels this may not be an issue, but it is worth considering.

Thanks for the info, guys. Pray for Japan, they have a long road ahead of them!

[LDB]

There is a larger agenda to demonize nuclear than to support it. it goes along with the "global warming" agenda that became such a joke it had to be renamed "global climate change" to continue any support, just like discrimination to affirmative action and illegal alien to undocumented worker. If it's bad but you want it you just rename it.

[ChrisR]

I find the news that Germany will ban nuclear fuel to be very worrying actually ... they don't have a huge amount of it already but I am wondering what they are going to replace it with? The gas/coal fired stations are massively more polluting and dangerous than nuclear while the renewable sources fluctuate in output depending on sun/tide/wind. It seems a mad decision to me, all based on reactionary 'green' politics and a natural disaster in Japan.

My nuclear-scientist pal made the point that Japan didn't have to site the reactor near the sea. Russia has mainly inland stations and they cool theirs with lakes ... or they could use cooling towers, like other types of power station. All power stations make heat and need cooling - there isn't anything special about nuclear except that politicians site them away from cities and put them by the sea where it is more convenient

Not wishing to digress too much but global climate change is a fact ... the debate is just about what caused it. I'm not 100% convinced that CO2 is the cause (there are plenty of others that are implicated) but it seems logical to me to make electricity in a way that pollutes the world less ... and that seems to require modern nuclear power stations.