Bloomberg: Fukushima a global disaster with huge environmental consequences… like all nuclear catastrophes — UC Berkeley Nuclear Expert: There’s ‘clear and obvious’ consequences from radiation release… citizens should be prepared… ‘cold truth’ is accidents will always occur

Published: April 9th, 2014 at 12:10 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
85 comments


Bloomberg, Apr. 4, 2014: World Needs to Get Ready for the Next Nuclear Plant Accident– Three major atomic accidents in 35 years are forcing the world’s nuclear industry to stop imagining it can prevent more catastrophes and to focus instead on how to contain them. [...] scientists warn the next nuclear accident is waiting to happen [...] the causes of the three events followed no pattern, and the inability to immediately contain them escalated the episodes into global disasters with huge economic, environmental and political consequences. [...] according to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev it was a factor in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union [...]

Joonhong Ahn, professor at the Department of Nuclear Engineering of University of California, Berkeley: “The cold truth is that, no matter what you do on the technological improvements side, accidents will occur — somewhere, someplace.” [...] The consequences of radiation release, contamination and evacuation of people is “clear and obvious” [...] That means governments and citizens should be prepared, not just nuclear utilities [...] The problem with an engineering solution [is]  those defense systems can also fail [...] “This is an endless cycle. Whatever is your technology, however it is developed, we always have residual risk.” When the next nuclear accident occurs the world needs to have better knowledge of how to limit the spread of radiation and do the clean-up, including removing radiation [...] We also need more understanding of the impact of low-dose radiation on organisms [...] “This is about recovery from an accident, not preventing an accident [...] It’s completely different. And I think this concept is very necessary for the future of nuclear utilization.”

Gregory Jaczko, ex-chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: “We have this accident and people will say, you know, it was caused by this and that [...] But the next accident is going to be something different. Nobody can tell you where or when or what exactly it is going to be [...] Once you have an accident, a low-probability and high consequence event, you can no longer call it a low probability event [...] It is an event that’s happened and you cannot ignore the consequences simply because it was never supposed to happen. The consequences are real. Probabilities are always hypothetical.” [...] The cost of cleaning up Fukushima may be more than the total cost of building all the world’s nuclear plants to date [...] “If we look at this technology and we challenge ourselves to make technology that meets this standard then we’ll see that there are ways to do it [...] But if there aren’t ways to do it — economically viable ways to do it [...] this is perhaps then not a technology that we want to rely on well into the future.”

See also: Former Top U.S. Nuclear Official: U.S. nuclear plants should be phased out -- "Can't guarantee against accident causing widespread land contamination"

Published: April 9th, 2014 at 12:10 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
85 comments

Related Posts

  1. Officials: Nuclear release from container(s) indicated at #WIPP site — “We never, ever thought this kind of an event would occur” — “Absolute seriousness of this can’t be overstated” — Resident: “I feel like they’re not telling us everything” (VIDEO) February 25, 2014
  2. TV: US Senators want federal agents near WIPP to check if safe; “A lot more people could have been hurt a lot worse” — Public “skeptical whole truth about environmental risks shared” — Report: “It will shut WIPP down for a year or more, and now everyone is talking about maybe WIPP is no good” (VIDEO) March 27, 2014
  3. ‘Developing Story’ at Los Alamos: “No timetable for any release of details concerning what the substance actually was” — Even newspaper got automated 911 call — Businesses on DP Road still waiting for all-clear — Advised to shelter in place March 15, 2012
  4. Fox: Fukushima radioactive material still being found in U.S. soil — Japan Gov’t: The disaster “posed radiation threat to human society”… In 4 days “detectable all across northern hemisphere” — Denmark: Fukushima clearly had widespread consequences, not limited to borders (VIDEOS) July 19, 2014
  5. ‘New tests show elevated radiation’ near U.S. nuclear site — ‘More airborne radiation detected’ around WIPP — Gov’t issues press release on ‘radiological event’ (MAP) February 24, 2014

85 comments to Bloomberg: Fukushima a global disaster with huge environmental consequences… like all nuclear catastrophes — UC Berkeley Nuclear Expert: There’s ‘clear and obvious’ consequences from radiation release… citizens should be prepared… ‘cold truth’ is accidents will always occur

  • OldFool

    The more fundamental problem is the hiding of the truth to cover somebody's ass, when the next reactor melt-down occurs. There won't be adequate measures to limit the radiation spread, because that would reveal to the public that a melt-down has occurred OR the necessary measures to limit radiation spread will cost too much. This will always be the same script – too little, too late.


    Report comment

    • bo bo

      If anybody still believes that 'nuclear is necessary evil to cut CO2 emissions'…

      ( sorry for the repost but this fits the thread )

      Nuclear power was never about 'supplying our demand for energy' – that was the big excuse the industry made up to lay the blame on 'our modern greedy lifestyle', and conveniently hide the fact that nuclear power plants are actually a front 'supplying the demand for nuclear weapons' – they are just factories for nuclear warheads.

      Nuclear power has never ever been an efficient way of generating energy ( Anne..I will try too but if you are reading please help out with links if you can…). Generating power using nuclear power plants would never be economically feasible without the huge government subsidies which we end up paying for out our taxes, on top of what we get charged for by the energy companies. And that is calculations before even putting into consideration the massive and bottomless costs needed to for recovery and clean up in case of an accident, or the cost of health to the people surrounding it. And since ALL nuclear power plants leak, the cost to the health of people surrounding it is a given, regardless of whether or not there is a major accident. And as fukushima shows – with a major accident – 'the people surrounding it' – that's pretty much the entire planet.


      Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        It's ALL lies. The whole "Atoms for Peace" was the big lie in the first place. It was atoms for the military.

        But the CO2 argument is easy to counter on many fronts. Like what happens when the plankton dies off from radioactivity? The world has no oxygen is what happens! Because the plankton stops absorbing CO2 and putting out oxygen! Then the rotting plant life in the ocean turns into methane instead of oxygen! Like that? Find that breathable?

        The idiocy to not even see that much.


        Report comment

      • bo bo

        I forgot to include this key thing in the above post – 'nuclear power plants don't emit any CO2' is another big lie.

        CO2 is emitted in all phases of the nuclear cycle, particularly in uranium mining, milling and power plant construction. If the whole fuel cycle is taken into account, nuclear power emits 4-5 times as much CO2 as renewable energy

        http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/KYOTONUC.html

        All other points I made I meant to supply links to but it seems it has already been done below , thanks code, Dr. Goodheart :)


        Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    “We have this accident and people will say, you know, it was caused by this and that [...] But the next accident is going to be something different. Nobody can tell you where or when or what exactly it is going to be [...] "

    Different.. how so?
    Many nuclear reactors..are in a location and condition for this to happen from the variables mentioned..earthquake ..tsunami..flood (it doesn't take a tsunami).
    These reactors are flawed..critically and lethally flawed..so the end game would be the same.
    Different how so?


    Report comment

    • zogerke zogerke

      “This is about recovery from an accident, not preventing an accident [...] It’s completely different. And I think this concept is very necessary for the future of nuclear utilization.”

      Oh. So by assuming accidents will always happen you continue your 'nuclear utilization' and just pretend you have a way to respond to them? Oh, that makes it all better now. It was all in the plan all along. It was supposed to melt down. SEE? I told you it was under control. Let's continue our utilization, shall we? (sarc)


      Report comment

  • bo bo

    'Even if no deaths have yet been officially linked to Fukushima radiation, for example, cleanup costs have soared to an estimated $196 billion and could take more than four decades to complete.'

    Right. Just some unlucky TEPCO worker that got buried in a ditch the other day. First reported death ever. And that was just concrete falling. Not radiation.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    "Once you have an accident, a low-probability and high consequence event, you can no longer call it a low probability event [...] It is an event that’s happened and you cannot ignore the consequences simply because it was never supposed to happen. The consequences are real. Probabilities are always hypothetical.” [...] "

    Really..do tell.
    Let's just stick to consequences.

    "But if there aren’t ways to do it".
    Are there or aren't there ..Mr.Jaczko?


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    "economically viable ways to do it"
    Economically viable?

    It can't even produced ..as scientifically viable..


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Economically viable..
    Yet they spew the term .."sacrifice zone".
    It's everyone's sacrifice but their own.
    My land is not sacrifice land.
    My child is not a sacrifice child!


    Report comment

  • Nick

    (Sometime in the future…….)

    Yesterday a huge CME was unleashed by the sun directly at the earth.
    The astronauts at the Moon Base have sheltered deep in the moon. Those of us on earth need to all hug your loved ones now as this CME is slated to cause massive power outages planetwide, resulting in disruptions at the 100s of operating nuclear electrical plants.

    (Back to present)
    The ONLY way forward is veracity. Nothing is more important.
    We can design and computer model all we want, but when another nuclear mishap occurs, it is the lying that is perhaps the most deadly.

    We have been lied to since day one about the safety of decaying atoms.


    Report comment

  • wildandfree wildandfree

    Humans need to get a grip now and realize that every NPP will eventually fail to some degree. We are seeing the design life extended so they do retro fits and maintenance etc but there will always be some little part, like the pressure release valve in FD unit 2 that would not open because of the extreme pressure on the actuator side. This contributed to the failure because there was no way to open those valves. They tried their best and failed, over come by events so to speak. So they never thought that situation would occur. We need to get a grip and come to terms that NPP's are not needed, Japan has proven that as the lights remain on, so eventually, small and large accidents will occur, we need to limit our risk as a global population by shutting them down, however the risk will remain, as the spent fuel pools and storage facilities of what ever design will continue to place humanity and all our "lesser" global inhabitants at risk, now and for eternity as we know it.


    Report comment

    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

      At the very start of the operation of any NPP, the technology fails 100%, since the radioactive waste created by the operating NPP has a 250,000 year "lethal to all biological life" shelf life, which is in essence a complete failure… :(

      It would not be logical to build and/or operate anymore NPP's and all should be shut down immediately worldwide via International Law! :)

      This appears to be a stupid technology direction..


      Report comment

      • Cisco Cisco

        obe said, "At the very start of the operation of any NPP, the technology fails 100%,"…

        NPP's are toxic polluters from their first week in operation, as they regularly discharge radioactive gas and water, permitted under NRC operating rules. There isn't a nuclear power generating plant that is operating or closed, that doesn't have a disease cluster in line with the prevailing wind direction.

        Who in their right mind, would ever build a fire that couldn't be extinguished and grew larger each day, burning and killing everything that it touched?

        SFB…no greed, the toxic human behavior that decimates and destroys civilizations.


        Report comment

  • Charles Charles

    The words "Containment Vessel" are such a joke.When it goes up, nothing will keep it contained.


    Report comment

  • Gen. Buck Turgidson

    I think that every day, we, the dedicated readership of enenews, should write our members in congress to express outrage that millions of CHILDREN are being left to dangle on the radiated vine that was Japan.

    Nuclear power be damned. The leadership of Japan and the United States be damned.

    The poor children of Japan and their children and their children's children, going on forever will pay the price for Fukushima, the Largest Industrial Accident in the History of Humanity.

    As you were.


    Report comment

    • This is no time to relax General, it is time for in their face activism.


      Report comment

    • Writing our congress critters is one of the most useless and pointless things I could imagine.

      The whole point of Western 'democracy' is to have lying politicians which, with media support, create the 'narrative' that lets TPTB continue to use us as willing soldiers, workers and consumers in their efforts to 'better' dominate and abuse the world.

      They LOVE it when we limit our thinking to trying to use THEIR purposefully 'dysfunctional' system to try to fix the problems they purposefully cause, because that way they can *so easily* turn all our efforts against us.

      If many of us actually were to write to these sellouts, and if they could not also hide the fact that public opinion so desperately wants changes made on these critical issues, then they need but establish a "commission of inquiry" or some such, which will opaquely and dishonestly prevaricate for years, waiting for our attention to move on to other things before finally giving their 'findings', all of which will have been carefully picked to obfuscate and keep screwing us over.

      A far better approach, IMO, is to stop delegating and to instead look for things that can't be blocked or stopped by them.

      I am looking forward to a future where no one watches TV anymore, no one reads mainstream rags, no one listens to the politicians as they try to distract us, and instead we focus on unstoppable solutions and workarounds.


      Report comment

      • P.S.: for example, I don't just boycott products from Israel's occupied territories – I boycott as much as I can from the corporate West, because I know it all works together, nuclear crimes included.

        I feed myself really well for just 5-10$ a day, spent mainly at farmers' markets rather than in super markets (part of why it costs so little). I never watch Hollywood movies (I pity the MK-ULTRA victims used to make them), and generally do everything I can to minimize my economic activity in the West, which means far less tax $ for the bankers and warmongers.

        And if you think that changes nothing, don't forget G. Bush's pleas after 9/11: spend money, America, or else the system will collapse on itself.
        => They couldn't care less about our votes (vote fraud is rampant), but they CERTAINLY care about our MONEY!

        And the great thing about this approach is that my quality of life is awesome: I barely need to work to break even, I have tons of free time to think about more solutions, I avoid most of the poisons present in the food supply, I avoid the abusive corporate medical malpractices, etc.
        => LIFE IS GREAT THIS WAY! (*and* I bet I do more good than most this way, even if this is just a start) :)

        And the message is clear: change your ways, corporate America, or you will FOREVER lose me as a customer. I'm not waiting around for them though: there are in fact PLENTY of alternatives to the corporate world, so screw 'em!


        Report comment

        • We Not They Finally

          The future of survival may actually turn out to be small, organic greenhouse farms. Keep educating people how this is possible.

          You point out how inane the system is too. (Well, it's also insane! But I did mean to say "inane.") Spend, spend, spend, as the middle class is destroyed and people have less and less money to spend anyway.


          Report comment

  • Nick

    Here are some pro-nuke links.

    http://mitei.mit.edu/news/mitei-news/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power
    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136544/ernest-moniz/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power
    http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1361

    Nuclear energy is the most reasonable alternative fuel source and should be considered as a renewable energy source, according to a Tuesday-night lecture on campus. “
    http://www.technicianonline.com/news/article_4deb4564-bf9b-11e3-b7dd-001a4bcf6878.html

    We can rant and rave all we want about ending this horrid industry, but it does have a bit of momentum behind it.
    Better we realize that plenty of nasty decaying atoms have already set the clock ticking towards a global disaster.
    I am certain that we are in for a lousy future.


    Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    Jaczko…so many words, so little content. Multiple nuke explosions/meltdowns and uninhabitable zones around the earth prove that your scientific reasoning and calculations were dead wrong. So much for nuclear credibility! None! How can you guys even show your faces or open your mouths? A million dead from Chernobyl, 60 million from bomb testing and now Fukushima will probably tip the whole apple cart.


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      “This is about recovery from an accident, not preventing an accident It’s completely different. And I think this concept is very necessary for the future of nuclear utilization.”

      hahaha, the future of nuclear utilization?! So its no longer about finding a way to safely store your precious poison, now its down to trying to clean up as the disasters happen one by one. Oh we hear you; nuclear plants explode but cause no deaths! How pathetic! Your industry and your personnel have NO credibility, not a nuclear free rock to stand on. Your poison that we didnt want and didnt need is spread around the earth.

      Each and every pro nuclear person should be working at Fukushima now. We dont want your empty words


      Report comment

    • Any links to 60 million dead from nuclear testing?


      Report comment

      • Testing had ended, but the thorny question of health hazards to Americans — especially children — remained. U.S. childhood cancer rates had climbed in the 1950s and early 1960s, but scientists were stumped as to why. Studies of the fallout-cancer link were only conducted after the Cold War had ended. A 2002 U.S. Centers for Disease Control report calculated that fallout caused 15,000 U.S. cancer deaths, a figure some believed was a gross underestimate. The following year, a blue ribbon European panel reported 61,600,000 cancer deaths worldwide from fallout.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/atomic-bomb-did-the-atom_b_797822.html


        Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        Dr Goodheart, I think you already have the links in one of your articles. But I think the work is from Busby and group

        "2003 Recommendations of the European Commission on Radiation Risk (ECRR) on The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Edited by Chris Busby with Rosalie Bertell, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake,ISBN: 1 897761 244"

        Busby mentions 60 million cancers here
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y03PnzlT2ZA
        Busby 60 million cancers

        This figure is much higher than other estimates

        "The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War has estimated that roughly 2.4 million people will eventually die as a result of the atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980, which were equal in force to 29,000 Hiroshima bombs."

        Somehow Alexander Higgins (did he recover from the hurricane?) came up with this

        US government data shows a slightly lower number of cancers – about 40 million cancers – due to background radiation (mainly bomb testing) in the United States. At the same time that same government data shows 132.76 million will get cancer in the United States and nearly 70 million of those people will die.

        http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/05/worst-scandal-in-history-60-million-cancers-from-nuclear-weapons-radiation-2136575.html


        Report comment

        • bo bo

          That guy Alexander Higgins hasn't posted anything on his blog twitter facebook or youtube for 10 months now


          Report comment

        • Tim42

          <p>hmmm, 29,000 Hiroshima bombs.. (x15 kt/ea == 435MT) == 62 million cancer deaths. But a significant fraction that total weapon yield (>50%) of that was from relatively clean fusion reaction. Thus, 50 to 210MT of fission byproducts from atmospheric testing killed at least 62 million people.</p>

          <p>I went thru the records of total electricity production by commercial nuclear power plants. I estimate a megaton(MT) of fission products is created for each 0.4TWh of electricity produced.</P>

          <p>In other words, current world wide nuclear power plant electricity production == 2200TWh per year, or 5,500 Megatons of fission byproducts added to existing inventory that must be kept separated from the environment. That's 2 to 3x more than the world's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, being added to humanities death march each year. </p>

          <p>Now factor in the per-existing inventory of ~150,000 megatons of fission products should terrify even the most die hard survivalist. Much of it will be released when mankind's society falls and no one is around to maintain these deadly facilities. </P>

          <p>Humanity really is at a precipice, all it takes is one big screw up that takes out the electricity grid, Super volcano eruption, EMP, CME, small scale nuclear war, or a medium size asteroid and we'll be goners a la "On the beach style".</p>


          Report comment

          • Tim42

            Hmmm, 29,000 Hiroshima bombs.. (x15 kt/ea == 435MT) == 62 million cancer deaths. But a significant fraction that total weapon yield (>50%) of that was from relatively clean fusion reaction. Thus, 50 to 210MT of fission byproducts from atmospheric testing killed at least 62 million people.

            I went thru the records of total electricity production by commercial nuclear power plants. I estimate a megaton(MT) of fission products is created for each 0.4TWh of electricity produced.

            In other words, current world wide nuclear power plant electricity production == 2200TWh per year, or 5,500 Megatons of fission byproducts added to existing inventory that must be kept separated from the environment. That's 2 to 3x more than the world's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, being added to humanities death march each year.

            Now factor in the per-existing inventory of ~150,000 megatons of fission products should terrify even the most die hard survivalist. Much of it will be released when mankind's society falls and no one is around to maintain these deadly facilities.

            Humanity really is at a precipice, all it takes is one big screw up that takes out the electricity grid, Super volcano eruption, EMP, CME, small scale nuclear war, or a medium size asteroid and we'll be goners a la "On the beach style".


            Report comment

          • Tim42

            50 to 210MT of fission byproduct releases have killed 62 million people so far..

            How bad was Chernobyl? From the WIki page 400 Hiroshima's or 6 Megatons of fission products.

            Note: Chernobyl unit 4 was a nearly brand new reactor with less than 2 years of run time, peak radioactive loading isn't achieved for several more years and no spent fuel was involved. The explosion&fire release only a fraction of the core.

            Note: TMI unit 2 had less than 4 months of operational time on its core, when it melted down.

            How bad is Fukishima, >30 years of core-time per reactor.
            Refueling cycle limits total core time to 5 to 6 years maximum.

            Cores for 1,2,3 == 15x to 29x over Chernobyl, potentially 174MT worth of fission products to be released. (This falls well into the range of All atmospheric N-weapons testing which has killed >60M+ to date.)

            If Tepco looses control of the site and the spent fuel pools evaporate and catch fire, multiply that number by another 8 to 13x.

            I.E Upwards of 2300MT of fission byproduct release(from all 6 reactors+7 spent fuel pools)), more than enough to doom billions of people to early deaths. Note: This assumes all spent fuel has remained on site for all 6 reactors, similar to USA.

            Sorry about the bad news.. Just doing the math..


            Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    "Fukushima will probably tip the whole apple cart." :)

    This Nuclear apple cart needs to be tipped over, dropped off a cliff, burned at the stake and then be buried for all time!

    They buried it before and it has to be buried once again and soon…


    Report comment

  • HoTaters

    "World needs to get ready for the next nuclear plant accident."

    What a statement.


    Report comment

  • flintheart

    Why is it that even here at ENEnews no one seems to bring up energy conservation? Why does the world have to be lit up like Times Square? Conservation would not only negate the need for nuke power but also lessen the need for fossil fuel plants. All those flashy advertising signs could be done away with along with a significant amount of air conditioning. Learn to sweat, people-it's healthy!


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Nuclear plants will be outlawed, and hopefully before the world is completely destroyed. As it is now, much of the world is contaminated from this dastardly man-made crap technology.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Joonhong Ahn

    " “The cold truth is that, no matter what you do on the technological improvements side, accidents will occur — somewhere, someplace.”

    What's this..The Normal Accident-Charles Perrow trip..?

    There wouldn't be these accidents of the nuclear industry did not exist.
    SHUT THEM ALL DOWN.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    PS..But it's all about weapons ..isn't it?
    A person would have to get through to a species …that is involved with killing each other to the point of killing themselves.
    Fight the madness.


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    Gregory Jaczko growing a conscience? Seems a bit more worried about costs at the present time. Better late than never for him. To late to halt radioactive fallout.


    Report comment

  • dosdos dosdos

    http://blogs.capecodonline.com/brentharoldjournal/2014/04/08/oil-spills-and-nuclear-meltdowns-are-not-accidents/

    This blog entry dispels the idea that Fukushima was an accident, but rather just the cost of doing business (CODB).


    Report comment

  • Crickets Crickets

    The world is being controlled by money-grubbing people that apparently don't even care about the well-being of their own offspring. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide from this invisible menace. The news media enables them by almost completely ignoring this problem, or inaccurately reporting the severity. Instead of a discussion about how and when ALL NPP's will be shut down for good, it's about how we might make it safer in the future. We're screwed.


    Report comment

  • In 1997, NCI conducted a detailed evaluation of dose to the thyroid glands of U.S. residents from I-131 in fallout from tests in Nevada. In a related activity, we evaluated the risks of thyroid cancer from that exposure and estimated that about 49,000 fallout-related cases might occur in the United States, almost all of them among persons who were under age 20 at some time during the period 1951-57, with 95-percent uncertainty limits of 11,300 and 212,000. The estimated risk may be compared with some 400,000 lifetime thyroid cancers expected in the same population in the absence of any fallout exposure. Accounting for thyroid exposure from global fallout, which was distributed fairly uniformly over the entire United States, might increase the estimated excess by 10 percent, from 49,000 to 54,000. Fallout-related risks for thyroid cancer are likely to exceed those for any other cancer simply because those risks are predominantly ascribable to the thyroid dose from internal radiation, which is unmatched in other organs.
    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?y=0&content=true&id=982&css=print&page=6

    Any thoughts on accuracy, numbers, etc?


    Report comment

  • Nick

    Dr. G

    We are deep in uncharted waters at present. It is hard to fathom how much of Fukushima's Fallout dispersed itself into the atmosphere.

    The exploded reactors and fizzling fuel pools delivered atoms never really encountered on such a large scale by biological organisms.

    I don't think anyone can "project" with any semblance of accuracy, how many cancers will be caused by FF. Every study I have seen seems intentionally to low-ball the numbers.

    I think it would help if we had a good handle on how much went kaboom. The stuff contaminating the Pacific is a whole nother matter, but will add to our future woes.

    Cesium 134/137 also injure the thyroid gland.

    The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding heads unleashed a monster!


    Report comment

  • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today formally denied a petition originally submitted by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and 37 co-petitioners to make modest improvements in emergency planning for nuclear reactor accidents.

    The petition for rulemaking, submitted February 15, 2012, called for increasing the size of the existing Emergency Planning Zone around commercial nuclear reactors from 10 to 25 miles, establishing a new zone but with less stringent requirements from 25-50 miles around reactors, expanding the existing Ingestion Pathway zone from 50 to 100 miles, and requiring existing biannual emergency training exercises to include scenarios involving initiating or concurrent regionally appropriate natural disasters. 3,281 people asked the NRC to consider them co-petitioners, and there were a total of 5,993 comments on the proposal. 5,953 of those comments supported the petition. The NRC denied the petition in its entirety.

    “The NRC has failed the American people,” said Michael Mariotte, President of NIRS. “Rather than learn from Fukushima and act appropriately to protect the public, the agency has chosen to protect the nuclear power industry yet again. The agency claims the evacuation at Fukushima was a success—yet it took more than three weeks for Japan to fully evacuate the most contaminated areas. MoreoverF, as we pointed out in our petition, Japan was spared a far worseF disaster only because 80% of the airborne radiation released a


    Report comment

    • We Not They Finally

      The NRC needs to PUT ON TRIAL for this. I don't know the legalities. But what is our legal system worth if it has no capacity to prosecute world class criminals?

      It has long since been American policy that the richer you are, the more justice you can buy. Like Prescott Bush — CONVICTED under the Trading with the Enemies Act in 1942 for building up Hitler's war machine. Prison for life as a traitor? Revocation of citizenship? No. Of course not. Just a fine. Then he went on to become a U.S. Senator.

      But even corporate criminals of the past did not just willfully, recklessly, put rubber stamps on the death of millions of their own people, which is what this will come down to.

      I don't know the legalities — and maybe there ARE no supporting legalities because the system is so stacked. But I would SO like to see the likes of the NRC prosecuted for willfully condoning murder.


      Report comment

  • Pete

    lol @ "scientists warn the next nuclear accident is waiting to happen and could be in a country with little experience to deal with it."

    Like Japan?


    Report comment

  • Shaker1

    Posted before, but…

    But, Oh!…I Do Cry!

    The technical aspects fascinate
    my other 'self',
    while I…Do I cry!
    What comfort in lonely days
    do worldly contrivances give?

    Myself and my companion
    lead a life steeped in possibility,
    pushing its road deep into the wilderness.
    But we are one and alone,
    and I temper his spirit,
    dreadfully aware that probability as failure,
    like a pet tiger cub,
    accompanies.
    Seemingly innocent and 'cute'
    that we might smile at its leaps
    into spaces vacated by our footsteps following,
    that tiger will become eventually
    full-grown and strong,
    hardly a partner requiring
    a turn of the head to entice along.
    Its elegant, self-assured stride beside us
    will give little evidence of its tolerance and whim.
    We attempt to keep exposure to ourselves.

    The tigers are native to possibility,
    proliferate in the wilderness.
    Many with little respect violate their space,
    lead great expeditions that require multiple others,
    the willed and unwilling,
    the informed and ignorant.
    We come upon the bones and bodies
    lonely and unattended.
    Their countless secrets whisper at approach
    a lesson we already know
    from our poetic and less terminal encounters.

    Hardly shamed of the technical fascination,
    my inner companion questioned, answers:
    "But, oh! I do cry!"
    Sharing one heart, I knew, but had to ask.

    Our tiger admonishes:
    "Create no more secrets.
    My power now has true testament."


    Report comment

  • Nick

    I remember as a kid watching 16mm newsreels that my parents had in which several atomic bomb blasts were recorded. We used to play the movies backwards to see how the detonation originated from a tiny point.

    Other parts were of soldiers donning dark glasses and crawling into trenches before the wooomphf!

    I was always leery of this technology and very aware of the fallout problems.

    But it has taken a lifetime to truly comprehend the horror of it all.


    Report comment

  • Well said … Gregory Jaczko, Well said…

    " The cost of cleaning up Fukushima may be more than the total cost of building all the world’s nuclear plants to date…"

    The only solution is "phase-out"…
    But as Mikhail Gorbachev said, Chernobyl was a factor in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Who is ready to deal with the geopolitical consequences of Fukushima which could mess-up the VETO rights?

    http://kanaky.freeiz.com P.24


    Report comment

    • We Not They Finally

      But the Russians could still opt for placing geopolitical consequences above the pile of dead bodies. (Ethics even aside.) Belarus and Ukraine were still "small" enough geopolitically, and adjoining a major ocean poisoning the whole food chain from the ground up.

      With Japan, there is NOTHING that will let them put geopolitical consequences over the mounting death count. That whole country is dead man walking, as well as poisoning the whole world, which will be more and more in plain sight. There is also WAY more radioactivity being released, ongoing, from a much huger complex than Chernobyl was. They will not have the OPTION of limiting "the geopolitical consequences."

      The Japanese government can go F themselves over this; and then, if they still want high profile recognition, why don't we just take it to The Haag? They want to retain status as a big important country? Let them face the world as the biggest war criminals ever.


      Report comment

  • Sol Man

    Nuclear energy is great for those that contemplate no future.


    Report comment

  • ftlt

    Interviews with nuclear engineers?


    Report comment

  • Homolumina Homolumina

    Anybody any comments about this way to be supplied with energy ?

    Geothermal heating is the direct use of geothermal energy for heating applications. Humans have taken advantage of geothermal heat this way since the Paleolithic era. Approximately seventy countries made direct use of a total of 270 PJ of geothermal heating in 2004. As of 2007, 28 GWof geothermal heating capacity is installed around the world, satisfying 0.07% of global primary energy consumption.[1] Thermal efficiency is high since no energy conversion is needed, but capacity factors tend to be low (around 20%) since the heat is mostly needed in the winter.

    Geothermal energy originates from the heat retained within the Earth since the original formation of the planet, from radioactive decay of minerals, and from solar energy absorbed at the surface.[2] Most high temperature geothermal heat is harvested in regions close to tectonic plate boundaries where volcanic activity rises close to the surface of the Earth. In these areas, ground and groundwater can be found with temperatures higher than the target temperature of the application. However, even cold ground contains heat, below 6 metres (20 ft) the undisturbed ground temperature is consistently at the Mean Annual Air Temperature[3] and it may be extracted with a heat pump.


    Report comment

  • ftlt

    There are real toxicity issues here. And "fracking" is being used too.

    Much costly corrosion induced retro-fitting is required on a regular basis as well. Work safety/protection from heavy metal toxins make it extra expensive for labor costing as well.


    Report comment

  • 4Warnd 4Warnd

    From the truthdig article: "Burning coal and fracking gas release significant quantities of deadly radiation, as well as other pollutants and the matter at the root of climate change. Nuclear power heats our oceans and atmosphere, while spewing out still more eco-lethal doses of atomic emitters.

    This is where tragedy and farce merge and mutate."


    Report comment

  • RichardPerry

    You need to add Chernobyle, Three Mile Island and the next 20 meltdowns or fuel storage pools catching fire.
    Good evaluation you show,
    Thanks


    Report comment

  • orange

    Even when a country TRIES to go with renewable energy look what happens;

    U.S. TRIES TO STOP INDIA'S SOLAR POLICY
    http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/us-tries-to-stop-indias-solar-policy/5335ce8578c90a05e400000a


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.