Published: December 29th, 2011 at 9:50 am ET
|
Summary Report of RSMC Beijing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident Emergency Response, WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (United Nations), Oct. 27, 2011:
3.3.1 Special reports about impacts on China’s atmosphere of the extremely easterly wind in the area between Japan and Northeast China
To estimate the impacts of Fukushima Nuclear Accident under the conditions that continuous easterly winds happened in Japan and China, RSMC Beijing made the simulation and analysis as below. Assumptions are supposed as follows: (1) five days of continuous easterly wind, similar as that from 23-27 Mar. in 2008; (2) Nuclear leaks occurred in Fukushima and lasted for five days. The total release amount was equal to that of Chernobyl nuclear explosion.
“The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations dedicated to meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology (water) and other related geophysical sciences such as oceanography and atmospheric chemistry.”
h/t MaryW
View Microsoft Word .doc here
Published: December 29th, 2011 at 9:50 am ET
|
sending...
Er, isn’t that just their assumption for their calculation? “Assuming its similar to Chernobyl and assuming the leaks only last 5 days and winds blowing this way … this is what may happen.” you could equally highlight the title as “leaked only 5 days” and the same article wouldn’t be very exciting.
Report Comment
Good analysis, godzuki.
The snippet also (appropriately) uses the past tense, but you can bet that any industry shills who take it forward will use the past tense inappropriately, not to describe a five-day model but rather to describe a nine-month-and-counting real-world disaster.
Also, “Five days of continuous easterly wind” is very useful for simplifying models. I would guess they made simplifying assumptions about constant wind speed, precipitation, jet stream behavior, dew point, air density, and many other factors that might over-complicate the model. Great for model-building, not so great for reflecting reality.
Overall, they will deflect debate into a discussion of what should/could/would be done if the model were correct rather than a debate about what should/could/would be done with the real-world situation.
Models are useful for prediction (if one is aware of their limitations). For retrodiction (what actually happened), there are more useful tools, such as widespread accurate measurement and reporting – especially when the circumstances are so dire.
Diverting the public’s attention to the behavior of a model is not a helpful move by the UN or the media, but it might at least help keep Fukushima in the public consciousness.
Report Comment
Accurate Radiation Determination! Right on, but unfortuately..dont think anyone is ayatematically trying to use:
“more useful tools, such as widespread accurate measurement and reporting – especially when the circumstances are so dire.”. Not Japan..not the rest of the worlds nations. Sadly, think it is due to the fact most those countries already have a lot of “dirty nuclear laundry”..and no one wants to open pandoras box. The science of “ignore, delay, deny” is in place..
Report Comment
I agree jec: “The science of “ignore, delay, deny” is in place.”
I would add that can be a very effective model when groups of human beings are wrestling each other for power. It appears to be the default model for contemporary governments. It is a disastrous approach to handling a physical crisis.
Perception management is a very different game from managing physical events. (Heckuva job, Brownie).
Each nuclear installation is a physical crisis waiting to happen. One (that we know of) is ongoing.
Let’s shut them all down.
Report Comment
this is the first ive seen on enenews saying that the amounts released were equal chernobyl. now im waiting for the ACTUAL report saying the amounts released were FAR BEYOND chernobyl.
Report Comment
3, 2, 1…!
COLD SHUTDOWN AT FUKUSHIMA – THE BIG LIE
http://www.ecoshock.net/eshock11/ES_111228_Show_LoFi.mp3
Report Comment
Agreed
Report Comment
Long term, I will bet that they find it is MUCH WORSE than Chernobyl..
Why?
First, Chernobyl was not a MOX fueled reactor. MOX fuel was ‘liberated’ during FUKU, the only question is HOW MUCH.
Since Plutonium is 1 to 2 million times WORSE in terms of health effects and danger compared to uranium, if they are saying that this radiation release was equal to Chernobyl, then it is actually MUCH WORSE, due to the release of MOX fuel in dust form during one or more explosions, fires, gas releases, etc., from MULTIPLE reactors, not just one.
TEPCO admitted that they had ‘leaks’ from multiple reactors, and that multiple reactors have melted through containment.
There are close to 200 TONS of combination of MOX fuel at FUKU, compared to around 200 pounds of uranium fuel at Chernobyl.
If an equal amount is liberated into the air percentage wise from FUKU, as was released into the air from Chernobyl, then we have a disaster that is orders of magnitude WORSE both in scale and intensity due to MOX fuel and total amount of radioactive isotope release.
The problem is, this is all guess work, because FUKU is not releasing any hard data or measurements from radiation meters downwind. Thus, all of these ‘studies’ and reports are pure guess work, based on extrapolations, assumptions, estimates and such.. This is not science. Science is based on facts, evidence and measurements. Since FUKU chooses not to release any evidence of actual releases via downwind meters and ‘vent’ stack meters, all the rest of this is just guesswork.
Potentially, this is a life extinction event. But the folks at FUKU are letting us guess and wonder if it is or not. They are letting the world experience the effects before they release any hard data. We may all be dead before the release any specific meter reading information.
So far, any actual numbers released have been minimized and they keep making excuses; bad math, mistakes, bad meters, etc.
Faux science…
Report Comment
MOX 2 million times enriched uranium
Three articles are Quoted in full as a response comment to:
http://enenews.com/un-agency-reactor-3-exploded-a-second-time-24-hours-later-then-wind-and-rain-brought-high-levels-of-radiation-over-tokyo-sendai-nagano/comment-page-1#comment-176528
1. MOX plutonium fuel used in Fukushima’s Unit 3 reactor two million times more deadly than enriched uranium
http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutonium_enriched_uranium.html
2. Japan Authorities Admit Deadly MOX Plutonium Reactor Is Leaking
http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/japan-authorities-admit-deadly-mox-plutonium-reactor-is-leaking/
3. THE MOX MYTH
The dangers and risks of the use of mixed oxide fuel
published by WISE News Communique on April 11, 1997
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-470/6.html
Table of contents, 6 sections, and summary. Much of section 6, is quoted as a response comment to:
http://enenews.com/un-agency-reactor-3-exploded-a-second-time-24-hours-later-then-wind-and-rain-brought-high-levels-of-radiation-over-tokyo-sendai-nagano/comment-page-1#comment-176528
Report Comment
Section 6 or “The MOX Myth” is:
6. Proliferation and safety problems of MOX use
6.1 Proliferation
6.1.1 No inspection in Nuclear Weapon States
6.1.2 Material unaccounted for
6.1.3 More nuclear material; less safeguards
6.2 Safety
6.2.1 Pu degradation and Americium-241
6.2.2 Gallium
6.2.3 Worker hazards
6.2.4 Accidents at MOX fabrication plants
6.2.5 Behavior of MOX fuel in the reactor
6.2.6 Accident scenario when burning MOX
6.2.7 Plutonium transport problems
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-470/6.html
Report Comment
TYPO; of
Report Comment
7. Summary
“As we have argued, MOX is not and can not be the solution the nuclear industry would have us believe.
“MOX
• “Is seen by the nuclear industry as an interim solution until such time as the hoped-for commercial use of Fast Breeder Reactors has become standard.
• “Provides a justification for continuing reprocessing.
• “Does not reduce plutonium stocks; the increase is merely smaller than that generated by the use of uranium fuel.
• “Does not save large amounts of uranium: by the year 2000 the saving will have been about 5%.
• “Does not save storage costs; on the contrary, due to the large quantity of actinites, it produces more radiation and heat than uranium fuel and is therefore more difficult to handle.
• “Is expensive: when reprocessing costs are added, it is up to eleven times more expensive than uranium fuel.
“In practice the plutonium can only be re-used once because of degradation: it becomes less fissionable and more non-fissionable Pu-istopes appear. Due to the presence of plutonium, MOX production is more dangerous than uranium fuel production. Small accidents, which occur all the time, are likely to have far more serious consequences than than they do at present, because of the wide-spread use of plutonium.
“The use of MOX will not decrease the danger of nuclear proliferation, as is often claimed, but on the contrary, will increase it, due to:
• “Continued reprocessing.
• “The inevitable increase in the transportation of separated plutonium.
• “The use of plutonium will become more wide-spread.
• “Countries building plutonium stocks will provide a bad example.
• “Safeguarding nuclear materials will become more and more difficult due to the quantities of material involved and the inevitable financial limitations.
Report Comment
“Light Water Reactors are designed and constructed for the purpose of burning uranium fuel. They have to be adapted and relicensed for the use of MOX.
“The use of MOX has three specific consequences for the behaviour of the reactor:
• “Leak burn-ups cause the fuel rods to weaken.
• “Far more fission gas is released during the process.
• “The reactor vessel may become brittle as a result of increased radiation damage, due to the higher energy of the neutron spectrum.
“It is clear that the objective underlying the arguments in favour of MOX is the continuation of the production of nuclear power. It should be obvious that this is undesirable.
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/469-470/6.html
Report Comment
Amount of fuel total at FUKU should be 2000 TONS, not 200. Actual number is 1700 tons I believe. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Report Comment
Posted AGreenRoad here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/japan-fukushima-disaster-_0_n_1171119.html
“If Mohammad wont come to the mountain…”
Report Comment
Just correct my mistakes… 200 tons at Chernobyl, and 1700 tons at FUKU.
Report Comment
How Much Fuel Is at Risk at Fukushima?
“…The Daiichi complex had a total of 1760 metric tons of fresh and used nuclear fuel on site last year, according to a presentation by its owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco). The most damaged Daiichi reactor, number 3, contains about 90 tons of fuel, and the storage pool above reactor 4, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Gregory Jaczko reported yesterday had lost its cooling water, contains 135 tons of spent fuel. The amount of fuel lost in the core melt at Three Mile Island in 1979 was about 30 tons; the Chernobyl reactors had about 180 tons when the accident occurred in 1986….
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/how-much-fuel-is-at-risk-at-fukushima.html?rss=1
Report Comment
Thanks for the correction…:)
Report Comment
Good one to add to the post at HP. TY
Report Comment
I don’t know – they wouldn’t let me in to check.
Seriously – that’s the problem – our only sources are known to be unreliable but we have to do what we can with the scraps available.
I would guess that any source that gives a number conveniently ending in “00″ or “000″ has already been spun by somebody for some purpose, even if only a matter of rounding “so the public can understand it”.
For purposes of our armchair discussions, rounding probably does not matter. For life and death purposes on the ground, probably every gram matters to someone or some living thing.
Maybe someone can offer a definitive answer to your question, but I’m willing to bet that any data offered originates with good ol’ Tepco.
Report Comment
You are right about the origin of the data and we need to remember this!
Report Comment
REPOST
Radiation contamination found in dust from vacuum cleaners and children’s urine
December 27, 2011
Association pour le Controle de la Radioactivite dans l’Ouest (ACRO)
Press Release
December 15, 2001
All the dust from vacuum cleaners are contaminated
ACRO has analysed dust of vacuum cleaners from 13 dwellings. Excepted Osaka, chosen as a reference because it is located 600 km from the plant, all dust samples are contaminated with cesium 137 and 134 following the catastrophe of Fukushima.
The evacuation criteria set by the Japanese government are solely based on soil contamination on the outside and implicitly assume that once at home, residents of contaminated areas no longer run any risk. Our study shows that it is not the case. It seems important to make systematic measurements in homes and to consider these risks in managing the disaster.
Urines of the children are still contaminated
ACRO has also continued to analyse the urine of children at the request of Japanese citizens. Even if there is not 100% of the urine contaminated in Fukushima prefecture, which is good news, many children continue to be contaminated at levels that do not decrease from the levels we measured in May.
Some of these children live in homes where we controlled the dust from the vacuum cleaner. But it does not seem to be any clear correlation between the contamination of dust and urine. This leads us to point the finger to the food as the main contributor to the internal contamination.
http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/
link to acro report
http://www.acro.eu.org/OCJ_en.html#23
measurements on a range of goods
Report Comment
Strange, there are so little earthquakes around Japan at the moment / during past days. I’m worried.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/
Report Comment
They sent them next door ….
Korean peninsula sees notable rise in the number of earthquakes
http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20111227000497
Report Comment
This study is based on CTBTO data, and doesn’t included the sea discharges – nobody really knows how bad they are. Also, the atmospheric physics doesn’t work… there should have been only a small amount in the jet stream, but the Japanese weather balloon data at
http://www.sss.fukushima-u.ac.jp/sonde_data/show?id=221
has it off the scale. The satellite analysis is at
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.0930
“Our preliminary results show the presence of hot spots on the top
of the atmosphere over the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) and due to their persistence over the same region they are most likely not of meteorological origin. On March 14 and 21 we detected a significant increase in radiation (14 W/m2) at the top
of the atmosphere which also coincides with a reported radioactivity gas leaks from the FDNPP. After March 21 the intensity of OLR started to decline, which has been confirmed by ground radiometer network. We hypothesize that this increase in OLR was a result of the radioactive leaks released in atmosphere from the FDNPP. This energy triggers ionization of the air near the ground and lead to release of latent heat energy due to change of air humidity and temperature.”
This was not predicted by the physics behind the atmospheric dispersion models. The heat release enabled the radionuclides to rise high in the atmosphere.
Report Comment
Come on. The article clearly states that this is an assumption, not a fact. They needed numbers to feed their simulation and took those of Chernobyl, because they don’t have something else comparable.
I guess Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl, but nobody will ever know. At least it is different.
Report Comment
“but nobody will ever know” You may never know, the rest of us, I’m pretty sure we can hazard a very good guess. This Fukushima disaster will far surpass Chernobyl in both the breadth of it’s contamination and in the amount of radiation released. It already has, buy amounts best described as exponential.
In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
In other words, they may not have empirical data to support their assumption but they think they would if they could gather the info.
Report Comment
We will know something as the world’s population declines at an escalating, exponential rate.
Report Comment
The shills may well leave the assumption out of it in repeating !
Report Comment
The closed Internet there is working well with keeping the real world out !
Report Comment
The number of potential deaths is what they won’t publish:
2,000,000 times 1,000,000 deaths from Chernobyl = the present entire human population on the earth.
Report Comment
I don’t know why they need to keep degrading the environment with killer flu, dioxins, pesticides, GMOs, vaccines, etc. I guess there is competition between the depopulation gurus as to who will take credit for depopulation results.
Report Comment
Because Nature is a mystery, that can overcome ubelievable dangers. It is a system with so many feedbacks, that no one can compute now. And may be it is not meant to be calculated, but sensed.
Report Comment
Here is a fine example of the mindset of the insiders.
In this podcast, three, what appears to be mid-level, nuke plant operators/designers chat about the INPO report someone here has held up as a detailed and exhaustive timeline that was released on November 11th.
The commentators post their podcast as a discussion of the report which interested me given that this was a recent report of, by and for insiders.
I thought it would be enlightening and having been referred to the report here had hoped it would contain some details that would shed light on the situation at Fukishima.
Well, I can only say it must heard to be believed. Simply stunning.
http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2011/11/15/atomic-show-175-inpo-fukushima-timeline-report/comment-page-1/#comment-331838
This is how the played down issues management techniques set the stage for inside the industry and it well exemplifies how useful misinformation is for managing the internal flock.
Have a listen, you wont be dissapppointed, disgusted maybe, but not disappointed.
The podcast link also links to the report which is a 70 page breakdown of the entire Fukushima episode.
Report Comment
Japan starts operating new centrifuges for enriching uranium
AOMORI (Kyodo) — Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. started on Wednesday the operation of new, more efficient centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture.
After a warm-up operation, the centrifuges — each capable of processing enrichment four to five times more efficiently than a previous one — will start producing uranium products around March, the company said.
In one year of operation, the new centrifuges can enrich one-third of uranium required for a 1-gigawatt reactor per year, according to the operator.
Japan Nuclear Fuel plans to replace all old units with new ones over the next decade at the enrichment facility that went on-stream in 1992.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111229p2g00m0dm010000c.html
Report Comment
Not likely. Japan will be in nuclear/financial tatters a year from now. The nuclear industry is dead man walking. Possibly Japan itself as well. The Japanese government just doesn’t realize it yet.
Report Comment
Hmm. So, now they say the amount of nuclides released was equal to Chernobyl. I, as an everyday schmuck, knew there was at least the amount Chernobyl released. Come on. There are 6 reactors at this one site. At least 4 are in SERIOUS trouble. What an understatement. All that fuel in the reactors plus the SF POOLS. Good Lord, somebody needs to get a major grip. MOX fuel to boot! This scenario is totally ridiculous. There were some not-so-ancient markers on the hills of the coastal cities that marked high points in tsunamis. These “older” tsunamis had reached some heights that exceeded the March 2011 tsunami height. Unforeseen is a total lie. How irresponsible to build reactors on the coasts of Japan. Well, at least build them to be 100 times more powerful to stand up to 1000 year tsunami heights. Am I crazy or were people, politicians and engineers, aware that powerful earthquakes and tsunamis could NEVER BE unforeseen in Japon? Now the little men are finding there way back into the crevices of time…
Report Comment
I read it to mean that over that 5 day period, the release from Fukushima was equal to all that was released at Chernobyl. Another rather damning admition. This sounds like a bit more ‘truth’ is being leaked. No one hear on enenews believed for a second Fukushima was and will continue to be anything short of a world-wide calamity. As a side not, I live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Mn. area. a gal I work with has a mother that is 94 years old. She came down with pneumonia and the assisted living place she lives in sent her to a local hospital. She was admitted but the woman behind her was sent to another hospital, that one they were at was full, of elderly, with pnuemonia and other respitory ailments. Is it beginning or is this normal? Respitory problems in people ‘less robust’, as in very young and very old, people with chronic health issues, cardiology, biabetes, etc. is an expected consequence as the radiation will compromise ones immune system. Not to be morbid but watch your local obits and see if there is a spike, a very easy way to keep track of mortality rates.
Report Comment
What was the number of dead from Chernobyl recognized by the U.N. ?
Nough said !
Report Comment
From Dr. Busby:
4 reactors melted down in Japan
Chernobyl was definitely a nuclear explosion
From Chernobyl, a 11% increase in cancer in Northern Sweden per 100 kilobeq of exposure
Report Comment
Well, it occurs if anyone had some access to data it is the UN and Who.. SO..it occurs to me this is the beginning of the slow trickle of truth. I suspect the simulation had much more real data available and is spot on, but framed to lesson the results..please..do they really expect us to swallow a five day leak comparison? ..most of us that have found our way here, already understand the insidious connections of these “agencies” and “industry”..and most of us have already come to the understanding that this is so much worse than Chernobyl or anything else we have ever imagined.. so, the mere fact that they are saying anything that starts to outline the enormity of this situation tells me that things are certainly known aka proven with data.. to be much worse than what they are officially saying, and these “simulations” and the corresponding doubt language associated with them are the smoke for the mirrors… Neighboring nations, other than the USA of course, must be outraged and demanding that the UN say something… there are many members of CTBTO that have no doubts, and plenty of info. ..I predict we will start seeing more of the initial data that has been kept hidden from the public for more than 9 months… I suspect explaining the increase in genetic deformities will necessitate it.. 9 months… those that survived and were carried full term are here now, and we know about accumulation..so..it will become harder to deny. Any agency or Politico is in grave danger of being labeled worthless and incapable of protecting the species.. watch for the politicians to finally start in, elections don’t cha know.. cover your ass games are still in full swing and about to really heat up..
Report Comment
Hey..UN simulators…simulate this..
How much nuclear material at Chernobyl and at Fukushima…send us some shiny graphs….if not otherwise…do us a favor….SHUT UP.
Report Comment