Experts: Fukushima ‘ice wall’ could destroy reactor units, turn site into swamp — Risk of fractures, ground movement, building subsidence — Must be frozen for 200 years — Officials: High cliffs just behind plant may become unstable — Gov’t: “Observable heaving” and deformations possible (VIDEO)

Published: May 2nd, 2016 at 9:18 pm ET
By

424 comments


AP, Apr 29, 2016 (emphasis added): Fukushima No. 1 plant’s ice wall won’t be watertight, says chief architect… Even if the frozen barrier… works as envisioned, it will not completely block all water… because of gaps in the wall… said Yuichi Okamura, a chief architect… Tepco resorted to [this] after it became clear it had to do something drastic… [Okamura said,] “We have come up against many unexpected problems.” The water woes are just part of the many obstacles… No one has even seen the nuclear debris

Huffington Post, Apr 1, 2016: ‘Ice Wall’ Is Japan’s Last-Ditch Effort To Contain Fukushima Radiation… [It's] a desperate attempt to stop radiation that’s been leaking from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant for five years…

Kyodo, Mar 30, 2016: The NRA warned earlier that if the groundwater levels within the [ice] walls is reduced excessively by blocking the flow from outside, highly contaminated water within the buildings could seep out as a result.

Proposal for controlling ground water and radioactive leakage in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (by World Water and Climate Foundation): [TEPCO] has a plan to freeze soil around the plant… this idea may not be sustainable… over the 200-year period that will be required for the reactors to be decommissioned.… The problem with freezing… is that solutes may be expelled from the ice… This can result in extremely concentrated saline solutions that do not freeze even at low temperatures. It is likely that under these conditions radioactive materials could become highly concentrated in dense brines that could then flow as density currents… Also, heating and cooling during the four annual seasons in Japan may make the ground of the station site softer and wetter like a swamp, and it could create another risk to the reactors, such as building destruction… The authors would like to express sincere thanks to Dr. W.F. Vincent, Dr. I. Ostrovsky, Dr. S. Kudoh and Dr. L. Legendre for their valuable comments and suggestions for strengthening this proposal.

Los Alamos National Laboratory: Integrated model of groundwater flow and radionuclide migration at Fukushima Daiichi… we will be able to answers critical questions such as… Will the cryogenic barrier lead to salt water intrusion at the site thereby mobilizing contaminants such as Cs and Sr that are mobile under high salinity conditions?

U.S. Department of Energy, 2015: Independent Technical Support for the Frozen Soil Barrier… several references discuss soil heave in the context of artificial ground freezing… It is possible that some observable heaving will occur directly above and directly adjacent to the frozen soil barrier… Monitoring of temperatures, heave pressures, and deformations… would provide information to assist in managing impacts from soil heave…

Geological Survey of Japan, 2015: [T]he sustainability of the ice wall remains doubtful… Furthermore, the ice lenses will grow irregularly as per the distribution of chiller pipes, and the sediment desaturation might lead to the aquitards’ compaction and subsidence around the buildings. In effect, a decrease in pore water pressure could increase the effective stress of the ground and result in movements and the formation of fractures in the superficial units.

IAEA, 2016: The IAEA group of experts reviewed the status of groundwater inflow, countermeasures and modelling… During the visit to Daiichi NPS on 18 February 2016, groundwater seepage on the slopes [i.e. cliffs over 100 feet high directly behind plant] that have been covered with facing was observed by the IAEA experts… seepage through the facing could create geotechnical instability on the slope if horizontal drains are not installed…

Watch TEPCO’s video on the ‘ice wall’ here

Published: May 2nd, 2016 at 9:18 pm ET
By

424 comments

Related Posts

  1. Officials: Buildings sinking next to Fukushima reactors — Experts: We know structures decaying, getting more unstable — ‘Plant deterioration investigation’ underway — Molten fuel thought to be eating away structural materials (VIDEO) July 29, 2015
  2. Nuclear Expert in Fukushima: People’s feet turned black for years because radiation so high — Every time I turned around I saw someone who had radiation damage — Hair falling out, caughing up blood, bodies covered with boils… Officials keeping doctors from telling truth… Public being brainwashed (VIDEO) April 11, 2016
  3. TV: “Barrier is not holding” at Fukushima plant — All efforts have failed to stop very high levels of radioactive materials flowing into ocean — Officials: More water’s coming in than we were pumping out — Workers now trying to prevent overflow (VIDEO) November 19, 2014
  4. Nuclear Expert: This is just 1st radioactive wave hitting U.S. and Canada; Fukushima pouring into ocean, unstoppable for years and years — Marine Expert: No sign it will stop anytime soon; Plant unstable, potentially worse than Chernobyl (AUDIO) January 21, 2014
  5. Japan Nuclear Professor: It’s feared Fukushima fuel pool to “collapse in” at any time; “Any scale of accident is possible” — Expert warns ice wall increases risk that reactor units will move or shift; Buildings ‘very precarious’ even without frozen barrier being constructed (AUDIO) June 10, 2014

424 comments to Experts: Fukushima ‘ice wall’ could destroy reactor units, turn site into swamp — Risk of fractures, ground movement, building subsidence — Must be frozen for 200 years — Officials: High cliffs just behind plant may become unstable — Gov’t: “Observable heaving” and deformations possible (VIDEO)

  • When in doubt, freeze it.

    What are the three responses to stress?

    Fight, flight, or freeze.

    TEPCO is responding to stress in a very old fashioned way.

    Sarc


    Report comment

  • Ice Wall Not Working; Fukushima Getting Worse And Worse, Multiple Molten Cores Still Fissioning, Iodine 131, Cesium, Strontium Levels Spiking Up, Being Hidden And Covered Up
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/radioactive-rain-falling-downwind-of.html


    Report comment

  • Sickputer

    There's a fire in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, There's a fire in the bucket, dear Liza, a fire

    Then mend it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, Oh mend it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, mend it.

    With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, with what?

    Try straw, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, With straw, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, with straw.

    But the straw is too long, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The straw is too long, dear Liza, too long.

    Cut it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, Then cut it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, cut it.

    With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, with what will I cut it?

    With an axe, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, With an axe, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, an axe.
    The axe is too dull, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The axe is too dull, dear Liza, too dull.

    Sharpen it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, Oh sharpen it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, hone it.

    With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, dear Liza? With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, with what?

    With a stone, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Henry, With a stone, dear Tepco, dear Tepco,, a stone.
    The stone is too dry, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The stone is too dry, dear Liza, too dry.

    Then wet it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, Then wet it, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, wet it.

    With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
 With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, with what shall I wet?


    Report comment

    • Sickputer

      With water, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, With water, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, use water.

      In what shall I carry it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
In what shall I carry it, dear Liza, in what?

      In a bucket, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, dear Henry, In a bucket, dear Tepco, dear Tepco, in a bucket.

      But there's a fire in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, There's a fire in my bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

      SP: And there's the puzzle…


      Report comment

      • Sickputer

        Oops… Forgot one replacement at the end.. Hole>>>>fire

        Old classic German song.

        Years ago a British comedy duo wrote a version about the British budget

        http://youtu.be/3ecEMxrdULQ


        Report comment

        • Sickputer

          Actually I think the word HOLE (which was used exclusively in all the classic verses for "a bucket" would be good in the last verse after all:

          But there's a fire in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,

          There's a fire in my bucket, dear Liza, AND A HOLE

          SP: Yes, there is a big hole in the bottom of the three units and the massive fire debris in the three nuclear reactor core meltdowns are unquenchable so far (over 5 years)

          An ice wall will never stop ground water from washing out nuclear isotopes from the sunken cores (whether pancake or irregular fireballs) into the ocean. It is a ludicrous idea and and will join all their previous dumb failed ideas. Tepco is incapable of the task to stop the atomic fires at Fukushima. Hopefully before every whale, salmon, sea birds, and polar bears are stone cold extinct from Fukushima nuclear washout waste, there will be an international mission at Fukushima. But with the Japanese rulers 6,000 year tradition of stubborn pride, it is unlikely they will ask for help. The other nuclear nations don't seem willing to intervene. And why should they? They have their own nuclear problems to deal with.


          Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            "There's a hole in my budget, Dear Henry, Dear Henry,
            There's a hole in my budget, Dear Henry, my Dear."

            Nice, Sickputer. Fits Tepco's inability to do anything meaningful because apparently bean counting is a higher priority task. (I like your version, the British one, of "There's A Hole in the Bucket."


            Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Harry Belafonte and Odetta, "There's a Hole in the Bucket."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElLpKewnxp4


      Report comment

  • my first thought was "unfucking believable!" (pardon my language) but you know this is Totally believable! so typical for TEPCO. anyone could have told them years ago this was a lame brain idea. you don't have to be einstein to figure that one out. really Japan and Tepco. this is your best that you can do. we need some serious minds on this problem before the whole planet sinks. this is one time where i actually advocate rounding up our troops and sending them in to take over this process. we cannot dick around another 5 years!!! this is just unacceptable. and japan needs to CANCEL the Olympics NOW.


    Report comment

    • 4Yahshua

      5~5~5998 (out of 6000) in this secret "Doomsday Apocalypse".
      Yahshua the Son of Yahweh Returns VERY SOON! Pray NOW to be SAVED and SEALED in THEM .Revelation 14:1 HalleluYah!
      Hebrew: "Praise ye Yah!"

      YES kitty! STOP the Tokyo Olympics NOW! Arial views of Southern Japan show that the surface is covered with numerous cracks!(???)

      ETERNAL SURVIVAL BLESSINGS FOR YAHWEH'S SAINTS!


      Report comment

  • Yes, LIZZAA, there are some pretty big HOLES in those REACTOR BUCKETS.

    Fukushima Daichi Still Pouring Highly Radioactive Heavy Metal Poisons Into Pacific Ocean, Mega Nuclear Disaster Just Beginning
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/2014-fukushima-daichi-still-pouring.html


    Report comment

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    If they have refrigeration contractors they are set for 200 years of profits.


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    What is the electric bill for running the frozen wall for 200 years?

    The Fukushima Daichi reactors ran for around 40 years and will require an ice wall for 200 years.

    Talk about a bad investment…


    Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      PhilipUpNorth may have had one of the only viable, or seemingly viable solutions to the dilemma of water running under the plant.

      He advocated for building diversion dams UPSTREAM from the plant, to divert water away from the plant.

      Unlike this silly and unworkable ice wall plan. Haven't read one comment here by anyone posting who finds this ice wall concept to be a realistic solution.

      More like, "DOH! Who do they think they're kidding?"

      Ineptco couldn't run the plant w/o mishap for a decade or two at a time. What would make us believe they could keep the ice wall working for cough, cough, hack, hack, 200 years?


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Perhaps I'm misquoting PUN, he may have mentioned building some sort of wiers. I can't do his concept justice here. PUN, are you out there, and would you please comment on this? What was your concept on this? It sounded good to me. A big engineering feat it would be, but much more likely to succeed (IMO) than this silly ice wall idea.


        Report comment

        • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

          Many thanks for the invitation, HoTaters. There are several kFrozen Wall concepts that should be a part of this discussion.

          Remember what I call the faulty "Pump And Dump" Plan? Tepco planned to build a U-shaped underground "Impermeable Wall" barrier around the harborside, extending inland beside Units 1&4, of interlocking sheet steel pilings, which are filled with concrete. Inland from Units 1-4 were 12 shallow pumps, which would pump groundwater up, where it would be tested for contamination, then dumped into the sea. When pumping began, the water tested high for radiation, and could not be dumped. With pumping on hold, groundwater threatened to flood onto the surface of the site. The Impermeable Wall and Pump & Dump Plan were abandoned.

          Now, Japan has built a Frozen Wall around Units 1-4 to divert groundwater around the reactor ruins, and into the sea. Will that groundwater still be highly contaminated, as it was with the Pump & Dump Project? Certainly!

          What then? Will the frozen wall have to be abandoned, too?


          Report comment

          • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

            My second point has to do with the proposal that up to 3 molten nuclear fuel cores melted entirely out of their reactor buildings, a theory much discussed on ENEnews. The missing cores may now lie in the earth somewhere below the reactor ruins of Units 1-3. As proven by the presence of high levels of Iodine-131 in the sewage sludge of cities as far away from Fukushima as Tokyo, the missing cores experience ongoing criticalities, maintaining their core heat.

            It could be that the super hot cores have reached a depth of hundreds or even thousands of meters deep, leaving behind glass-lined corium lava tubes. Flowing groundwater would leach residual nuclear debris, accounting for the high levels of radiation found throughout the northern Pacific Ocean.

            But if one or more of those molten cores lies within the aquifer, which extends down to a layer of impermeable mudrock at the 100' depth, then the heat from the nuclear core is being transferred to the groundwater, which is flowing over, under, and around the remains of about 100 tonnes of molten nuclear fuel assemblies per reactor. Will the heat from a molten nuclear core produce so much heat in the passing groundwater that the Frozen Wall cannot be frozen while the underground river is flowing? Certainly!

            What then? Will the Frozen Wall be abandoned?


            Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            PUN, thank you for bringing discussion of different types of possible interventions to the table.


            Report comment

      • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

        Yes Ho Taters some kind of solid dam but with a way of diverting the water back in to cool the molten blobs if needed. Which would mean that stopping the flow of water is not an option. they may already know this and are "building" this so-called "ice wall" as a delaying tactic. Delaying telling the truth that is.


        Report comment

        • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

          Avoiding design flaws is something that the nuclear industry doesn't do well. An example is the Frozen Wall, which seems to be doomed to failure, one way or another. A second example is the Impermeable Wall. Without a leg inland from the reactor ruins, the cup simply holds water. The Impermeable Wall should have been an enclosure surrounding Units 1-4. In the Frozen Wall video, Tepco draws a yellow line around Units 1-4, extending well inland from the Frozen Wall.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jyg5PYOcEA

          This would have been a path for a reinforced concrete wall to divert groundwater away from the reactor ruins. If you back off, well away from the reactor ruins, workers could have safely constructed such a wall to divert the underground river around Units 1-4. The level of groundwater within the enclosure could have been handled by pumping out excess water for tank storage in wet months, and by reversing the pumps to inject tank water into the ground as needed in dry months.

          We would now have up to 3 coria in the ground surrounded by unmoving groundwater. What if this water steams, releasing corium nuclides into the air? Construct a closed loop heat sink, probably using seawater or cooling towers to cool the groundwater inside the diversion enclosure.

          Lately, my idea is to design the concrete wall as the a buttressed foundation for a sarcophagus. The foundation wall would extend below the aquifer to divert the underground river around the Reactor…


          Report comment

        • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

          "The foundation wall would extend below the aquifer to divert the underground river around the Reactor Ruins of Units 1-4."

          A more extensive groundwater diversion structure, located well inland from the sarcophagus, would follow Tepco's yellow line (see video linked above.) But, this structure would terminate at the ocean. The sarcophagus foundation would follow the path of the Frozen Wall to surround Units 1-4.

          Finally, the Russians dug a tunnel under Chernobyl, that could have been filled with concrete, to serve as a floor to block the downward migration of the corium. At Fukushima, depending on exactly where the missing nuclear cores are located, the same thing can be done. At the 100' level, at the bottom of the foundation excavation, horizontal tunnels would be dug under and between Units 1-4. A reinforced concrete floor would be constructed in stages until the entire floor was laid, to block any downward migration of contaminated water and nuckear debris.

          As always, comments are most appreciated, as the "Fukushima Plan" evolves.


          Report comment

          • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

            "nuckear debris" should, of course, have been "nuclear debris".
            (Note that close contact with nuclear debris may cause one to develop a nuck-ear.) ;)

            And Tepco, once again we must ask the question:

            Where is the damn corium??


            Report comment

            • ISeePinkClouds

              Yes. PhilipUpNorth. Ty. Where are the corium? That is the crucial question. The "Ice Wall" is to extend downward 100 feet, to bedrock. If the corium, and really we are only talking about R1 & R2, are below the bedrock, then the icewall would be a complete folly.

              http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/giant-protective-ice-wall-unveiled-japans-fukushima-plant-n151431

              Just to say, over the years, we have tried to determine the depth of the corium. Well, that is very hard to do.
              Studies indicate that the corium will disintegrate cement at a rate from one millimeter per second, to one-half inch in 12 hours.

              http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2005/T2311.pdf

              The later number is from research conducted at the University of South Carolina on the effects of core heat on cement. I can't find the paper at the moment, but I remember the numbers.

              So, just for a general understanding of where the corium might be, would be to multiply the rate of cement ablation by the number of days since the meltdown. In 24 hours the concrete ablation would be one inch. In 1874 days, that would be 1874 inches, or 156 feet.

              I know this isn't science. It's total guesswork. However, if TEPCO missed the depth of the corium, and the corium penetrated the bedrock, the contaminated water will still reach the ocean because the bedrock will be fractured by ground movement, therefore, there will be fracture porosity that the water can move through.

              Peace


              Report comment

    • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

      Mack:
      Since the bizarre concept of a "Frozen Wall" first came up, I have thought that the plan, all along, involved Unit 6, the least damaged of the 6 reactors at FDNPP, which would eventually be restarted to run the frozen wall.


      Report comment

      • Mack Mack

        Sheesh, chalk that up to another short-sighted decision by Tepco.

        There's a long list of what could go wrong in 200 years using a nuclear reactor to provide electricity for a frozen wall.

        Thank you for that info, PUN.


        Report comment

    • not only the electricity, but what happens when the radiation breaks down the tubing that holds the refrigerant??


      Report comment

  • FUKUSHIMA NEWS; MAY 2 2016 PACIFIC SALMON Fishing UNPRECEDENTED CLOSURE, the GREAT PACIFIC GENOCIDE,
    https://youtu.be/VU7ARuIFtPU?t=4m12s


    Report comment

  • The Japan News reports this comment from Masashi Kamon, a professor emeritus at Kyoto University who is familiar with the soil-freezing construction method:

    “There is a mountain of challenges, such as possible corrosion of frozen pipes and costs of electricity. They should discuss measures that would combine other methods, such as one using clay.”The Japan News reports this comment from Masashi Kamon, a professor emeritus at Kyoto University who is familiar with the soil-freezing construction method:

    “There is a mountain of challenges, such as possible corrosion of frozen pipes and costs of electricity. They should discuss measures that would combine other methods, such as one using clay.”
    http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/06/tepco-starts-fukushima-ice-wall-construction/


    Report comment

  • DeadAhead

    Water always finds the way of gravity and there's a hell of a lot of water. This doesn't make any sense but it never does in a nuclear world. Here's more https://www.rt.com/usa/341636-us-nuclear-workers-compensation/ In my backyard when I was growing up just more govt BS with the danger of nuke whores!


    Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    I see the decommission jumped from 50 years to "200-year period that will be required for the reactors to be decommissioned"

    average life span of a corporation is less than 30 years. But Japan boasts the most long lived businesses! One of the four common characteristics of the long lived company is

    1. Long-lived companies were sensitive to their environment [and] remained in harmony with the world around them.

    http://priceonomics.com/why-are-so-many-of-the-worlds-oldest-businesses-in/


    Report comment

  • danger kitty danger kitty

    Probably a silly question, How do gigantic, skyscraper sized ice cubes react to earthquakes? Any horizontal steel or mesh in that thing, or are we just gonna get a heavy metal/brine iced slushy coming at us?
    That 'highly concentrated' 'density currents' thingy could work out ,tho. Sounds like the marine Death Zones would be smaller, always a good thing. Then the whales and fishies could just hop outta the way.


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Fukushima – the story continues…

    Mycle Schneider is a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant, and advisor to the European parliament on nuclear matters. He is also lead author of The World Nuclear Industry Status Reports and does not mince his words.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23779561

    He says Japan’s escalating situation is: "Far worse than we truly know. There are hundreds of issues at stake here," he told the Huffington Post UK.

    "Whether it is meltdown temperature, radiation exposure, or the number of people exposed – all of these statistics are flawed. We don't know anything yet."

    "This is far worse than what the general public are perceiving. At the moment we are facing the challenge to conquer denial. This is simply organised denial,” he said.

    Let us not forget that the global economy is ruled by those who control the money system. Multinational corporations, including multi-trillion dollar nuclear industries, seek to monopolise control of the markets, such the energy sector. The way profits are extracted have nothing to do with a healthy environment and humanity.

    This is the dark side of capitalism, working systematically to undermine democracy and common sense, as well as the environment and the health of humanity.

    http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/705/143975.html


    Report comment

    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

      And/but the money made is so, so, goood!


      Report comment

    • Sickputer

      "Organized denial"

      Put that quote up in lights! +311 ;-)

      That was exactly what Agnotologist was scorching Jimmie Conca with the other day.

      Fokking liars that will tell you there is a splinter in your back when you actually have a machete shoved into your lungs.


      Report comment

    • Sickputer

      Jebus typed these pixels of light:

      "Mycle Schneider is a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant, and advisor to the European parliament on nuclear matters.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23779561

      SP: +311 Jebus!

      From that article we read a quote from our wandering Woods Hole idiot savant:

      "Ken Buesseler is a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has examined the waters around Fukushima"

      "It is not over yet by a long shot, Chernobyl was in many ways a one week fire-explosive event, nothing with the potential of this right on the ocean."

      "We've been saying since 2011 that the reactor site is still leaking whether that's the buildings and the ground water or these new tank releases. There's no way to really contain all of this radioactive water on site."

      SP: Re: Kenny reference to Chernobyl as a one week pony.

      I have a better visual for Fukushima:

      It is a ghoulish invisible wraith that has raged for 1,880 days or 268 weeks and 4 days. Approaching 3 million minutes of leakage.

      TEN times the amount of tonnage in nuclear fuel compared to Chernobyl, some of it much more hazardous MOX plutonium fuel.

      Located 200 yards from the Pacific Ocean and the 100-mile wide Kuroshio Extension that travels eastward to North America.

      The bulk of the Fukushima radioactive isotopes stay remarkably intact during their long voyage to the America and continues around in a massive 4-year circular journey back to Japan…


      Report comment

  • It is VERY safe to say that this problem is WELL in excess of 1000 times that we have been told. Plumbing the depths of reality is going to seriously bum a lot of folks out.


    Report comment

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Statistically, the Fukushima nuclear disaster should never have occurred. So statistically, this is not real. So statistically, an ice wall should not be needed.

    Perhaps, vertical ice skating will be an event at the 2020 Olympics in Japan.

    Japana Banana


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Very Clever! :)

    Japana Banana


    Report comment

  • Well if nothing else… I know this trifecta of meltdowns will eventually end forever the beast nuclear. The survivors WILL see to it i can assure you all.


    Report comment

    • unincredulous unincredulous

      Probably the same people who got fat off the FDNPP will have already shorted many seafood company stocks. The same people who have been denying there is any problem to the general public. It would be interesting to see how many pro-nuke players have been betting against seafood. Follow the money, it could be embarrassing for them. I'd hate to see them be the survivors. If they are I hope they end up with the nuclear beast humping their legs to the bloody bone.


      Report comment

  • laconic93 laconic93

    I seriously doubt there is any ice wall at all. I think that Fukushima has all ready been abandoned due to high radiation levels.
    Clues? There are suppose to be 7000 workers on the site. How come they never release footage or pictures of them?
    The last two new reports that were suppose to be done on the site they make the news crews turn off there cameras right before they enter. Why would they do that? I believe the reports are being done a Fukushima Dainni. I also believe that the unit 4 fuel Rod removal was done at Dainii.

    I think Arnie Gunserson said the electrical bill would be 10 million a month to keep the ice wall going. Cheap ass Tepco would not spend that money knowing it wouldn't work on the first place.


    Report comment

    • clamshellernh clamshellernh

      I wholeheartedly agree with you inwish we had a like button here !!

      I worry about climate warming and the massive storms on the horizon and how everything seems to be connected ie earthquakes ,volcanoes ect .

      I havent posted here in a long time dueto the changing nature of this forum ithas become clicky and theres alot of back biting and the dreadful accusations of being labeled by newcomers no less of being trolls .

      I have noticed alot of the old posters coming back , I long for those days again but this everything does change I have posed a question here a few times in the past few years but never got a response .I shall pose it again .

      If the radionuclides are in the top 200 feet of the oceans do they emit heat ? If so is it a major contributor to the warming of them , so are they contributing to record setting storms with low pressure hurricanes?

      Thank you in advance and please give links if possible

      I could use this for my arguments combining global warming .

      Thanks again


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        clamshellernh, you can rule out direct heating of the oceans from Fukushima. See stocks analysis at nukepro. Actually you can find the answer by reason; A running functional reactor is the only way to create enough heat to run the turbines. Thus there is considerably less heat being generated now that most of the nuclear power plants are shut down or destroyed.

        You could possibly build a case for ocean heating based on secondary effects, like the decrease of plankton aerosols for cloud seeding but it would be pure speculation.


        Report comment

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

        All the Krypton-85 is a major factor in the huge, major storms. All nuclear reactors release Krypton-85 into the atmosphere, but, of course, orders of magnitude more were released from Fukushima.


        Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        YES, apparently radiation does generate heat. Yoichi Shimasu was commenting on that with one of the major typhoons to hit Japan within the last few years. That the ocean water heated by radiation made it much worse. CARBON is our big problem? Methinks not…


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          WNTF, what generates more heat?

          A) a functioning nuclear power plant

          ~or~

          B) a non functioning (destroyed) nuclear power plant?


          Report comment

          • Sickputer

            It's an apples and oranges type of comparison. Yes a working plant emits slightly radioactive and very hot water.

            A nonfunctioning plant does not emit any water. ;-)

            A crippled Fukushima megaplex 200 yards from the ocean emits HUGE underwater heat from sub-surface coria. For thousands of years.

            Or another analogy: Which would you prefer to be lodged in your lung membranes?

            A: A triated speck from a functioning nuclear plant?

            B: A tiny speck of plutonium from a runaway nuclear megaplex (albeit non-operational)?


            Report comment

          • from a distance from a distance

            The scenario is not comparing a working reactor to a nonworking reactor.

            The scenario is comparing a working reactor to 78% of the radiation from 3 reactors falling into the sea.

            As that radiation decays in the sea it's generating heat called decay heat.

            Lots and lots of heat which makes a warm blob scenario absolutely possible

            To make it simple, imagine 3 meltdowns blowing out radiation that falls into the sea.

            It lands in a spot in the ocean.

            The spot (a blob) now has hundreds of nukitopes (haha my made up word) decaying and as they decay they're generating heat.

            IN an experiment they showed how nukitopes from spent fuel heated rocks for 50,000 years.

            Since they can heat rocks they can certainly heat water.

            Anyhoo that's how I see it.


            Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              a working reactor has fission energy where fallout does not. See this graph

              https://whatisnuclear.com/physics/decay_heat_power.png

              The corium seems to be fissioning to some extent but not at the level of a working reactor.

              its good to theorize with an open mind. One could try to build a case of warming based on secondary effects of fallout toxicity to the ecosphere, or possibly the ionized airborne fallout. But at least we should be aware of fission energy and the power production of working reactors vs non fissioning fuel and fallout, right? I mean, where to draw the line on speculation? What if someone said the corium is going to boil the entire ocean? You would reject him as crazy. But a physicist is going to think that of someone suggesting non fissioning fuel is warming the ocean more than a bunch of running reactors


              Report comment

              • from a distance from a distance

                Hey Code- I enjoy this dialogue with you – I enjoy learning and do want to suss this out.

                To make sure we're talking about the same parameters,
                i'm talking about the nukitopes that fell into the sea from fukushima, which I believe form "the warm blob" in the sea.

                i'm not talking about the controlled fission process and products inside a nuclear reactor.

                Fukushima released fission products in the fallout and these fission products release heat/radiation as they decay (alpha, beta or gamma)

                Another theory: consider the answer may lie in how nukitopes react TO WATER (i'm not yelling, i'm emphasizing)

                For example cesium reacts quickly to water, explosively, releasing heat.

                Lithium releases a lot of heat when exposed to water.

                Potassium reacts quickly in water and gives off heat to ignite hydrogen.

                It may be these reactions (which must be occurring over and over as the nukitopes decay and interact with water) are heating the sea.

                Plus the nukitopes that fell into the ocean from Fukushima can be reacting in ways not even understood by modern science — reacting with microorganisms and more in the sea.

                I found this link which talks about Neutron-Activity-it's referring to bomb fallout but still applies—-

                "Neutrons emitted as part of the initial nuclear radiation will cause activation of the weapon residues.

                In addition, atoms of environmental material, such as soil, air, and water, may be activated"


                Report comment

                  • from a distance from a distance

                    The distinction is that I'm talking about "fission products" that comprise the fallout and are still very much "alive" and active and giving off radiation/heat as they decay.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product

                    The link you provided shows lower decay heat because control rods were inserted to halt the fissioning, and so the fissioning was halted.

                    In the open sea there aren't any control rods being inserted and halting fission, and so those nukitopes can go on decaying and giving off radiation/heat until they decay to something stable.

                    https://whatisnuclear.com/physics/decay_heat_power.png


                    Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      from a distance, some knowledgeable person here could answer you better than I can…but I believe there is a minimum amount of fuel required for fission. It may be around 10 kg or something. Conditions have to be right. There is no runaway chain reaction like you are describing after the fuel is dispersed.

                      I dont care much for the 'warming-as-cause-for-every-problem-known-to-mankind' theme that is going on in the science world. Life on earth was going well, over-all and this includes many natural cycles of temperature.

                      If you look at the energy in nuclear poisons, it is very small! I havent made a numerical comparison but would venture to say the amount of energy you get from a good suntan would kill you if delivered by fallout. The energy deposition theme is barking up the wrong tree. Toxic effects should be the focus


                      Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  from a distance, there is a time factor you arent considering. The heat generated by a fissioning reactor could be thought of as the kinetic energy of the fast fission products bumping into water molecules. One you stop the fission process there is an exponential decay of energy as the fast fission products lose their kinetic energy.

                  '…the decay heat power level is usually about 6-7% of the full power of the reactor immediately after a shutdown. Then it decays exponentially such that it’s below 1% within a day and continues to drop.'

                  So the idea that fission products go on heating up the ocean isnt valid. There is SOME heat but you have to quantify it. It is a very very small fraction of a running reactor, or natural radioactivity, what to say of all the running coal and gas plants and the hot air coming out of nuclear proponents mouths.

                  The same for neutron activation. How long is that going on after an atomic bomb? I dont know but Im guessing milliseconds.

                  As for the chemical reactions, it could be calculated (not by me!) but there is only so many tons of chemicals. See the chemical heat production from a million pounds of TNT here

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEmrH42FKM

                  Wild open minded speculation is a wonderful first step, but should be tempered by common sense and a few numbers if possible.

                  learn more about the cause of the warm blob here
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_%28Pacific_Ocean%29


                  Report comment

                  • from a distance from a distance

                    Again you're talking fission, I'm talking >>fission products<< and as I said, many fission products react to water by emitting heat, and that's just one theory on the warm water blob.

                    Fission is the act of releasing energy through a nuclear reaction; fission products are the result, and the fission products go on decaying, releasing radiation, releasing heat, reacting with the environment in an infinite amount of ways until they decay into a stable element; sometimes taking thousands of years to do this.

                    It defies scientific logic that thousands of Pbq worth of radioactive isotopes were in the air and fell into the sea and nothing happened.

                    Did the isotopes just die when they fell into the ocean? Did they suddenly become inert?

                    No. That's impossible because we know that many of these isotopes react TO WATER, for one.

                    Plus they react to the other elements and microorganisms.

                    You also mention the heated water coming out of nuclear reactors. The water legally allowed to be released from reactors is 90 degrees. That's enough to heat local areas around the plant, but not much further.

                    But dump thousands of Pbq into the sea of active, radioactively decaying isotopes and there will be a reaction.

                    That's just my opinion and it's reasonable and based on scientific possibilities.


                    Report comment

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      Look at how these metals react with water!

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvVUtpdK7xw


                      Report comment

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      Please mute the sound on that video. the music has a bad word in it and I'm not a fan of foul language.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      from a distance, did you see m a x l i's posts? If you dont mind me saying, you havent gathered enough info to make an informed opinion, and your ballpark skills need improvement. You seem to have not read or understood what we have said already. m a x l i explained, in common sense terms, why the heat from non working reactors is insignificant by comparison. I take it you didnt understand the logic, probably because you think fission products are ongoing mini reactors. They arent, thats the first hurdle you should jump.

                      The chemical reaction…didnt you see the blast from a million pounds of TNT? How many pounds of chemicals are from Fukushima? IF they were all as reactive as TNT would this raise the ocean temperature 2.5 deg? The answer is no, you dont even need to calculate it. You can use your common sense.

                      You can test your sense by doing a calculation! the blob was 1000 miles x 1000 miles by 300 ft deep. The temperature of the Blob was around 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) warmer than what was usual. (its not there anymore). So you can check to see if the amount of energy required is more than the entire energy use on the planet, or whatever. Now if you think 4 blown up reactors worth of fission products can make more energy than the global energy use, probably no help will be valuable to you.

                      http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/thermo/faq/energy-required-for-temperature-rise.shtml


                      Report comment

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      Hey Code, yeah I read maxli's post and I appreciate everyone's views but disagree based on my own thorough research.

                      I forgot that when trying to debate you that you tend to begin insulting the other poster.

                      I don't do that. I am grateful for everyone who stays and posts at Enenews all these years and offers information.

                      One last time, we aren't talking about heat from a nonworking reactor.

                      At least I'm not.

                      I'm not talking about what goes on inside a working reactor that is being controlled with coolant and cold water and nuclear processes.

                      I'm not talking about fuel rods that are enclosed pellets that sit in water to cool down.

                      I am talking about the radio-isotopes ejected from Japan's reactors, which measure in the thousands of PBq's and which are known scientifically to react to the environment, including water, and which must be having an effect on the water.

                      The video I posted was just to show how reactive those elements can be when exposed to water. I hoped the viewer would take the next logical step and think of radio-isotopes falling into the water and how they reactive they could be in heating the area.

                      This is not about energy. This is about radio-isotopes releasing radiation/heat and interacting with the OUTSIDE world.

                      Not working reactors and fuel rods controlled in a nuclear reactor scenario.

                      Enough of this dead-horse.

                      Can bring a horse to water but can't make him drink?

                      I don't tell jokes well like you…


                      Report comment

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      got cut off…

                      I don't tell jokes well like you do :)

                      Thanks for all the chuckles.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      from a distance, I suggest you focus on radiation health effects rather than physics theories. Thats because you will not convince any moderately intelligent citizen, much less scientist with your theories. Thats not an insult, it is fact. Im saying that your forte in life is probably involved with arts or something, obviously not the sciences, and you could focus on say the emotional side of the issue with some success rather than falling flat on the sneezer trying to comprehend the physics. Make songs about the deformed and the silent spring. Do you write poetry?

                      This sentence reveals its author will never understand the technical aspect, no matter how well or succinctly it is explained; "This is not about energy. This is about radio-isotopes releasing radiation/heat and interacting with the OUTSIDE world."

                      Finally, this is my question; why do you appreciate everyones views if you simply dismiss them? I can say one thing; your research was not thorough and you have no ability to reconnoiter. You can use this friendly but truthful appraisal to your advantage

                      https://www.google.com/search?q=appreciate+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


                      Report comment

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      Hey Code, I hope someday you'll be able to stop taking disagreements in scientific analysis so personally and then feeling the need to attack.

                      When you have to resort to insults, you have lost the debate, and your dignity

                      I still appreciate your posts and take nothing you said personally because really you're consistently wrong on all of that, too!

                      Take care.


                      Report comment

                    • HoTaters HoTaters

                      Oops! Made the mistake in high school Chemistry lab of dropping a bit of Potassium powder into water. (Unsupervised self experimentation, DOH!)

                      KA-BOOM!

                      FromADistance, good illustration. We have such a poor grasp of the destructive power of three rogue reactor cores, and multiple spent fuel pools run amock.


                      Report comment

                    • HoTaters HoTaters

                      That being said, I'm not going to touch the argument re: radioisotopes from Fukushima raising ocean surface temperatures. I have to wonder if it occurred in areas such as where Ken Buessler saw Plutonium floating on the surface of water (near the Fukushima Daichi plant). But have to think it can't possibly explain the warm water "blob" in the Pacific. Just my personal opinion, FWIW. Not a chemist, and not pretending to understand this ….

                      Meanwhile, we've had massive thunderstorms all over the Central Valley in No. California for the past two weeks. Since around the time MVB began to notice an uptick in some radioisotopes being detected.

                      This is Thursday morning, May 5, at 10:53AM Pacific Daylight Savings Time. For the record.

                      It's beginning to hail and I'm seeing some hail the size of gold of tennis bells coming. down. Hitting my office windows. Am going to close the shutters and move away.

                      Is there also a lot of extra Kyrpton 85 out there now? I've never seen hail like this before, in my entire life. My garden is covered in one area, but am expecting my newly uncovered garden will be destroyed when I got to check on it this afternoon.


                      Report comment

                    • HoTaters HoTaters

                      Hail the size of golf up to tennis ball size. Thankfully the larger ones seem to vbe soft material (so far) and not like big rocks raining from the sky.


                      Report comment

                    • m a x l i

                      @Ho Taters, bringing up the pottassium-into-water example to illustrate our "poor grasp" is a bit odd. Because this is a chemical reaction; and we know a lot about it. The amount of energy released per gram/gramme/ounce of pottassium (or any element that is a reactor-related fission or decay product and will react with water) is known. Common sense tells me it is very unlikely worth it looking at such chemical reactions to connect a huge warm ocean blob with Fukushima. (The big chunk of metal thrown in a little pond in the video linked above should at least have evaporated the pond in an instant for it to be able to significantly warm up a larger stretch of ocean.) If someone thinks otherwise, they have to come up with a calculation and some numbers to prove their point. 'from a distance' certainly will not be able to do that, because he/she thinks: "This is not about energy". He/she does not even know the word "chemical", instead likes to talk a lot in uncertain terms.


                      Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    from a distance…sorry I dont understand…you mean Im consistently wrong on all of what too? You have to be specific or Im lost.

                    There is no disagreement on scientific analysis because you dont have one. But please, if your ARE into science, please share! What is your passion, your study?

                    Thats ok…Im waiting for the Fukushima fallout to boil the oceans to steam because its not about energy, its about radiation. This will be a sign of the second coming. The steam will freeze in a shell, forming a protective shield from cosmic radiation and sequestering the K40. We will then live to well over 10,000 years without background radiation. CERN will have guided our planet away from the Great attractor (Thank you scientists and Enenewsers!) and those of us who survive…the chosen special ones, will be headed for the Shapely Supercluster for everlasting bliss. The men will be strong…old but strong, the women super shapely, and the children above average.


                    Report comment

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      I have very good scientific analysis, but I've noticed your thinking is one-dimensional and myopic and you're unable to take the next logical step in thinking something through.

                      That's why when challenged you get flustered and start hurling hostile insults.

                      There's a saying about people not smart enough to know what they don't know and that applies to you.

                      From what I see all you do is regurgitate what you read in a science daily article or on a physics blog and repeat that over and over.

                      That's not scientific analysis.

                      It's science fiction. Maybe you should continue writing science fiction.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      OK from a distance, I may be one dimensional myopic and unable to take a logical step but Im open minded. Tell us your scientific analysis of how Fukushima caused the warm blob. Make a calculation…its easy…how much energy is required to heat up 1000 x 1000 miles 300 feet deep by 4.5 deg? So far youve cited pyrophoric effects and ongoing fission-like effects of fallout, both of which seem unfounded, scientifically. But since you have done a very good scientific analysis, you can clarify for all the science people reading ENEnews what you mean. Prove to them your thoughts arent just BS please, and raise the credibility of the forum. Make no mistake; a "very good scientific analysis" isnt random wild speculation, you know that right? Thanks


                      Report comment

                    • m a x l i

                      @Code Shutdown, that "This is not about energy." sentence (in the middle of a discussion about possible causes for a warm ocean blob) made my hair stand up, and I can see your lion's mane is still in disarray.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      m a x l i, as a semi addled, poorly educated buffoon, Code Shutdown should represent the lowest social echalon on a forum about energy and nuclear. Its a civil failure that Im not the nadir pole of comprehension and common sense.

                      I see it this way; the same psychological failing of nuclear mainstream science is shown in the anti nuclearists as well; unabashed confidence; lack of intellectual humility, emotionally based belief in the face of contrary evidence, inability to allow for the unknown unknowns

                      for every genius there are thousands of second rate three pound ape brains like Code that are just barely hanging on. Unfortunately this is true of our professionals as well


                      Report comment

                    • m a x l i

                      @ Code, to make it short: It made me a big deal happy, to see that you and I independently quickly picked out that "not about energy" mistake. This way it feels a bit less solitary in this strange place which has "energy" in its name and where people who understand the concept of energy and could make more valuable contributions to the discussions than myself are too often magically driven away; and on the other side everyone in the universe whose education seems to have culminated in reading Donald Duck comics or who at best has a yodel diploma seems to feel an urge to congregate here.


                      Report comment

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      You're misinterpreting my comment.

                      I was making the distinction between fission going inside a nuclear reactor, and fission products in the outside environment.

                      Referring to radioactive fallout, radioisotopes, in the ocean, which react to water, such as this study rogerthat posted:

                      http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4839314-enhancement-over-all-lethal-effect-ionizing-radiations-microorganisms-sodium-chloride

                      Enhancement of the Over-all Lethal Effect of Ionizing Radiations on Microorganisms by Sodium Chloride

                      The over-all lethal effect of irradiation on microorganisms was enhanced by NaCl. The fact that this phenomenon of radiation enhancement was observed in the case of cells which gave the one-hit type survival curve suggested that radiation damage responsible for this phenomenon was not restricted to biological targets. (Abstr. Japan Med., 1: No. 10, 1961).

                      I maintain that my theory is very logical and strong.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      from a distance, there is no indication that decay heat from fission products outside a reactor is greater than inside one. The study on salt increasing lethality to microbes didnt imply that decay heat had increased. But you were going to give us your worthy scientific analysis of how Fukushima fallout is warming the ocean…was that it?


                      Report comment

      • ISeePinkClouds

        Yes. clamshellernh. Ty. I am happy that you are still with the upright. I have missed your input here. Welcome home. Peace


        Report comment

        • clamshellernh clamshellernh

          Wow thank you all for providing me with thoughtful analysis of my questions regarding the heating of the oceans and the possibilities of nuclear isotopes having affects . now that's the enewsers I remember
          REFRESHING !!!


          Report comment

          • m a x l i

            I have seen the same discussion here at least 3 or 4 times over time, and I am by far not reading everything. CodeShutdown is the only one here, in my opinion, who gets it right: No direct big-scale heating of the oceans from Fukushima!

            To understand this, you have to look up and understand the difference between "fission" and "decay". In a working reactor a large amount of energy (or heat) is produced by fission. When used fuel rods are removed from the reactor, fission stops, but the fuel rod still gives off heat – produced by decay. This decay heat is initially about one tenth (if I remember correctly) of the heat the same rod produced in the running reactor. And this decay heat is even falling exponentially (simply ignore this word if it bothers you) over the coming days, months, years. No matter if the removed fuel rod is intact or blown to pieces or dust or any shape, the given-off amount of decay energy/heat is the same, because every atom acts on its own – it doesn't know if it is part of a devise called fuel rod or if it is alone in the world. Decay happens at a random point in time.

            If you assume the decay heat could be very big, big enough to cause a warm blob in the ocean, you have to ask yourself: Why is the used fuel rod considered waste, hoarded in water basins to further cool down over decades (and left there for lack of any plans for different storage). Why don't they use the decay heat to drive turbines, produce electricity and make money?


            Report comment

            • m a x l i

              About the same applies, if the molten reactor is somewhere underground and circumstances are such, that fission is still ongoing. If you assume now the given-off heat would be vastly bigger than before, in the reactor, you have to ask yourself: Why did they not intentionally build such a mega gigantic super heat reactor in the first place and make much more money?


              Report comment

    • theworldisalie theworldisalie

      These are all very good points.


      Report comment

    • unincredulous unincredulous

      You may be right. Estimate 200 years to invent a moral compass that does not break down in the presence of high radiation money.


      Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    If everyone would just stop what they are doing, stand up and say enough…

    One can only be a victim of oppression by allowing it.

    Thank you ENENews again on this day, May 3…

    World Press Freedom Day: Japan latest to crack down on reporters

    Japan’s Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications, Sanae Takaichia, a political conservative, warned in February that news networks that fail to remain “politically neutral” in news coverage could have their broadcast licenses revoked.

    “I don’t think I would resort to such measures myself. But there is no guarantee that future internal affairs ministers won’t,” Takaichi said during a budget debate in Japan’s parliament.

    Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga defended Takaichi, saying she "only answered what is obviously true."

    A group of prominent journalists, speakingat the Foreign Correspondence Club of Japan, said such comments have a chilling effect on news coverage.

    "In Japan today, rather than the media watching the authorities, the government watches the media," said Shuntaro Torigoe, a former newspaper reporter and television news anchor.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/02/world-press-freedom-day-japan-latest-crack-down-reporters/83826924/


    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    Earth moves, pipes fail, like any other pipe that has been reported in fail mode. So, it has been 5+ years since the event and we finally get this reported. It must be obvious now that the technology in fail mode presents problems too great to handle. The brightest minds and machines can't fix this. Hug your loved ones and live your life the best way you can. Harm nothing. (That means no poisons, anywhere.)

    Peace.


    Report comment

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    Wouldn't it seem logical that stopping the flow of the river flowing through the blown up reactors might reduce the cooling effect on the molten cores? I guess that's the idea of using an ice wall you can turn off, but it doesn't sound like a brilliant idea. A metal diverting the river around the plant with diverting valves that can return the flow if needed. Provided people and machines can get close enough.


    Report comment

    • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

      Right tinfoilhatbrian. Stop the flow of the underground river in the presence of underground corium, and the temperature of the still groundwater will rise.

      Use shallow two-way shallow extraction-injection wells. Like fracking does. Only using shallow wells dug into the aquifer.

      (More than half of the revenue of a fracking well comes, not from the oil and natural gas they pump OUT, but from the aweful liquid wastes they pump IN after getting all the gas and oil out. Picture unmarked tanker trucks making secret night time deliveries from chemical plants. Oklahoma earthquakes are from injected wastes, rather than from oil and gas extraction. But this is a discussion for another day.)

      Pump warm water out of the ground on the Ocean Side of Units 1-4, then through a closed loop heat sink (cooling towers or ocean water loop), then return cooled water into the aquifer through injection wells located uphill from the reactor ruins.


      Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    As usual, this abstract future hypothetical in the article above, is likely already-happened and ongoing. But the part about 200 years of freeze is malignant sci-fi at best. There is no 200 years, and where would the ELECTRICITY come to maintain this when Japan has died off, etc., etc. Grimm's fairy tales is just light reading — this is a real live ongoing horror story.


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    Oh, now it's "the 200-year period that will be required for the reactors to be decommissioned.…"

    First it was 40 years, now 200, next it's oh, you see, it doesn't matter,
    "whatever." What does it matter anyway? There will be no one left to "enjoy" it… So why do they keep spinning malignant fairy tales? There is no swamp out there that will wash away their guilt.


    Report comment

    • :|

      I always knew the 40 year decommission estimate was ridiculous.

      IMO – 200 YEARS is a low ball guess at best.

      Chernobyl, Fukushima and highly probable MELTDOWNS yet to come, followed by out of control Nuclear WASTE, will prove that.

      How many water holding tanks will be enough?
      How many bags of contaminated soil will be enough?
      How many more earthquakes and tsunamis will there be in that amount time?

      Rolling the dice in a bet against Mother Nature is inevitably a high risk gamble we should never have taken. :(

      btw – Hey Nuclear Industry… how are those waste repositories working out for you? Like WIPP, Yucca Mountain and now the entire island of Japana Banana.


      Report comment

  • TimV

    Ice wall remains one of the stupidest ideas ,if they think, yet.
    No one will be here to continue there creation in 200 years. Oh there will be people stil , I hope , but due to the degradation of OUR planet on so many levels IMO we will be scratching to survive.

    There ice wall is not ,
    ACTION -INTENT.

    It is give me money ,
    TEPCO remains greedy , self indulgent, child.


    Report comment

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    Somebody built all those tanks maybe there's something more productive or effective that can be done. No expenses spared! The budget should be the Manhattan project budget times the number of bombs it created o9n this planet…in other world everything we got! The secrecy needs to stop and the whole planet needs to step up now! Damned be those who push for the continuation of nuclear anything on this planet!


    Report comment

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Aquitard: thick as a brick, so full of shit that useful information can not be transmitted

    synonym: nuketard.


    Report comment

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    When there are so many of the ever-aging life-extended pieces of junk in the first place in meltdown for many possible reasons this death dealing technology will have fulfilled it's mission! To kill!


    Report comment

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    Such irony! The cost of having the ability to destroy the planet costs: the destruction of the planet! I think it's time for the world to man-up and admit the whole thing was a mistake and make the effort to shut it all down pile it all up in Fukushima and Chernobyl and hope for the best.


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    must be frozen for 200 years – or 2000, or 20,000. aint gonna happen. two years without mishap is a goal, 20 years a dream …


    Report comment

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    I would be impressed with 20 minutes!


    Report comment

  • yellowrain

    ok tepco engineers,

    lets see… restricted water flow = increase water pressure behind wall no? that water looks for path of least resistance no? The paths of least resistance are going to be at all the critical locations of roads pipes etc. where the frozen wall must Gap. no? Can you say wash out? just a thought from a non expert. God bless us all


    Report comment

  • dbrownalive

    Unincredulous. Maybe I'm stating the obvious but Gamera mutant monsters …..Chimera mutant monsters. Am I on the right track?


    Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28mythology%29

      "The term chimera has come to describe any mythical or fictional animal with parts taken from various animals, or to describe anything composed of very disparate parts, or perceived as wildly imaginative, implausible, or dazzling."

      Yes, you are on the right track. Know your Q was for unincredulous, but yes.


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Chimera also refers to mutations in plants. Having "disparate parts" is key to the definition. I have a hydrangea bush on my porch which is growing chimera parts this year. On its four petal leaf tips, two are green, and two are now a light yellow. Alternating green and yellow leaves. Also sometimes referred to as "sports" in plants. Mutations.

        Chimera, genetics, plants:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29#Plants

        "Chromosomal chimeras

        These are chimeras in which the layers differ in their chromosome constitution. Occasionally chimeras arise from loss or gain of individual chromosomes or chromosome fragments owing to misdivision.[38] More commonly cytochimeras have simple multiple of the normal chromosome complement in the changed layer. There are various effects on cell size and growth characteristics.
        Nuclear gene-differential chimeras

        These chimeras arise by spontaneous or induced mutation of a nuclear gene to a dominant or recessive allele. As a rule one character is affected at a time in the leaf, flower, fruit, or other parts…."


        Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          "Plastid gene-differential chimeras

          These chimeras arise by spontaneous or induced mutation of a plastid gene, followed by the sorting-out of two kinds of plastid during vegetative growth. Alternatively, after selfing or nucleic acid thermodynamics, plastids may sort-out from a mixed egg or mixed zygote respectively. This type of chimera is recognized at the time of origin by the sorting-out pattern in the leaves. After sorting-out is complete, periclinal chimeras are distinguished from similar looking nuclear gene-differential chimeras by their non-mendelian inheritance. The majority of variegated-leaf chimeras are of this kind.

          All plastid gene- and some nuclear gene-differential chimeras affect the color of the plasmids within the leaves, and these are grouped together as chlorophyll chimeras, or preferably as variegated leaf chimeras. For most variegation, the mutation involved is the loss of the chloroplasts in the mutated tissue, so that part of the plant tissue has no green pigment and no photosynthetic ability. This mutated tissue is unable to survive on its own but is kept alive by its partnership with normal photosynthetic tissue. Sometimes chimeras are also found with layers differing in respect of both their nuclear and their plastid genes.
          Origins

          There are multiple reasons to explain the occurrence of plant chimera during plant recovery stage: …."


          Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            "Origins

            There are multiple reasons to explain the occurrence of plant chimera during plant recovery stage:

            (1) The process of shoot organogenesis starts form the multicellular origin.[39]

            (2) The endogenous tolerance leads to the ineffectiveness of the weak selective agents.

            (3) A self-protection mechanism (cross protection). Transformed cells serve as guards to protect the untransformed ones.[40]

            (4) The observable characteristic of transgenic cells may be a transient expression of the marker gene. Or it may due to the presence of agrobacterium cells."

            Agrobacterium are used as gene transport material in creating GM plants. Just FYI, Vitaly Citovsky published a scientific paper in 2001 stating Agrobacter tumifascens has the ability to jump cross-kingdom from the plant to the animal kingdom, potentially infecting humans. (It causes crown gall in plants. There are whole scientific societies dedicated to the study of Agrobacter tumifascens. Monsteranto types have a love affair with Agrobacter.)

            Sports in plants:

            https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=259

            Human-animal chimeras:

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-animal-chimeras/

            Animal chimeras:

            http://www.ahc.umn.edu/img/assets/25857/chimeras.pdf


            Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            Note some chimera material in plants lacking chlorophyll is unable to survive on its own. It is a maladaptive mutation for this reason.

            The old school thinking was always radiation induced mutations were maladaptive in animals, leading to genetic expression of diseases expressed through recessive genes, or development of other birth defects. "Monstrosities" may be the end result.


            Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    In the 'Age of Great Placation' few noticed the failing wall.
    But I DID.
    No f#$king links.
    No, I said it!
    It's a fail for all the reasons my colleagues here and officials there are trying to talk about now …I talked about months ago.
    All to so much nay-saying.
    It's just another experiment.
    They know it's catastrophic failure .. the wall is a
    joke.


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    this is top rate:

    http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/05/02/inenglish/1462201618_695572.html

    EL PAÍS SEMANAL
    Fukushima: Contaminated lives

    The first major virtual reality feature in Spanish media investigates how the 2011 Japanese tsunami changed the course of the country’s history


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=15455

    SimplyInfo

    Fukushima Frozen Wall Not Solid, What You Need To Know
    May 2nd, 2016 |


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    This is the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum:

    http://www.jaif.or.jp/en/moe-revises-ordinance-changing-waste-designation-to-ordinary-when-radioactive-concentration-falls/

    ATOMS in JAPAN

    2 May, 2016
    Noriyuki Ishii

    MOE Revises Ordinance Changing Waste Designation to “Ordinary” When Radioactive Concentration Falls

    On April 28, Japan's Ministry of the Environment (MOE) officially decided on a new rule regarding so-called “specified waste” from the March 2011 accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants, to the effect that when the concentration of radioactive cesium in such waste falls below 8,000Bq/kg, the waste will no longer be deemed specified and may be disposed of in the same manner as ordinary waste.

    The actual lifting of a specified waste designation, however, will be determined in talks between the national government and the local municipality concerned. Costs for disposal of the waste after the lifting will be borne by the national government, as is the case with specified waste.

    MOE revised its ministerial ordinance under the Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Pollution by Radioactive Materials, and those revisions took effect the same day. At a press conference, MOE Minister Tamayo Marukawa said, “The national government will deal with the matter, after lifting …


    Report comment

    • rogerthat

      the designation, together with local municipalities.”

      Specified waste is generated primarily in five prefectures—Miyagi, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma and Chiba—and has been temporarily stored at such places as waste treatment facilities, sewage plants and on farmers’ private property. Radioactive concentrations have fallen naturally in the five years since the nuclear accident, and there are increasing volumes of waste with concentrations lower than the criteria. There had, however, been no clear rule on lifting the designation, and municipalities had asked the government to issue such a rule as swiftly as possible.

      Under the new rule, either the MOE or the municipality will check the level of radioactive cesium concentration, and lifting the specified waste designation will be determined in talks between the two parties. After the lifting, municipalities will be able to dispose of the waste as ordinary waste.

      In the case of specified waste stored in Miyagi Prefecture, re-measuring by the MOE showed that the radioactive concentrations in 2,300 tons of it—two-thirds of the total—were lower than the criteria.


      Report comment

  • ISHI ISHI

    A Mr Whippy (ice cream) wall and containment storage made on the cheap with PVC piping and duct tape, an assurance of safety before construction.

    Yep; trust us! We're working for OUR best interest.

    Fukushima the world.

    Atomic power production is the wet dream of the death cult. Probably get off on watching little dead children wash up on beaches. IMHO.


    Report comment

  • Nick

    Notice how they talk about needing a new computer model to figure out what is going on.?

    "Model calibration should be transient, with temporally and spatially variable
    infiltration. The provided porosities should be carefully evaluated, as the values are
    higher than expected. Geophysical surveys would help in the characterization of the
    aquifer heterogeneity.
    v. Calibration should performed during one period, and the model should be tested on
    another period.
    vi. Sensitivity analyses should be performed, to estimate the model reliability (especially
    connections between aquifers, infiltration, and anisotropy)."

    http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/other/2016-Meeting_Summary_Groundwater%20Modelling.pdf

    Last time I checked, you need viable data to construct a useful model.

    Since Japan inacted the State Secret's Law I have serious doubts that meaningful data is actually making it into ANY of their idiotic attempts to computer model the fiasco.

    Simple dye tracers can reveal a tremendous amount of info about hydrologic flow/penetration/seepage, etc.

    I suggest we all Cesium the Day!


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170398?journalCode=rbul20#.VyioCyN94zY

    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

    Volume 72, Issue 3, 2016

    The Rokkasho test: Has Japan learned the lessons of Fukushima?

    ABSTRACT

    After the Fukushima disaster of March 2011, the government of Japan created new regulations for nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing (i.e. the recycling of spent fuel).

    The new compliance review process deserves credit for closing some safety gaps, and if the owners of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, a major facility under construction for more than two decades now, implement adequate measures and operate the facility as expected based on the new requirements, the plant’s safety could certainly improve.

    However, potential risks have thus far gone unaddressed by the new review process, and unless the government deals with these problems, it will not be able to ensure maximum safety.
    Full text HTML
    PDF


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://majiasblog.blogspot.com.au/

    MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016

    Fukushima Daiichi Looking Rather Steamy

    Fukushima is looking steamy this morning:

    I don't know if the ice wall has anything to do with the level of steam visible but I did observe a DECREASE of the steam that coincided with the activation of the ice wall, as illustrated by my post from April 7, 2016: http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/visible-fukushima-emissions-down.html

    The visible level of steam has been building back up recently. Is it because of leaks in the ice wall? I don't know….


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/world/ap-exclusive-test-finds-chernobyl-residue-in-belarus-milk/article_f12bc61d-e77e-54b0-8e15-dafb7ec88526.html

    AP Exclusive: Test finds Chernobyl residue in Belarus milk
    YURAS KARMANAU Associated Press May 1, 2016

    GUBAREVICHI, Belarus | On the edge of Belarus' Chernobyl exclusion zone, down the road from the signs warning "Stop! Radiation," a dairy farmer offers his visitors a glass of freshly drawn milk.

    Associated Press reporters politely decline the drink but pass on a bottled sample to a laboratory, which confirms it contains levels of a radioactive isotope at levels 10 times higher than the nation's food safety limits.

    That finding on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident indicates how fallout from the April 26, 1986, explosion at the plant in neighboring Ukraine continues to taint life in Belarus. The authoritarian government of this agriculture-dependent nation appears determined to restore long-idle land to farm use — and in a country where dissent is quashed, any objection to the policy is thin.

    The farmer, Nikolai Chubenok, proudly says his herd of 50 dairy cows produces up to two tons of milk a day for the local factory of Milkavita, whose brand of Parmesan cheese is sold chiefly in Russia. Milkavita officials called the AP-commissioned lab finding "impossible," insisting their own tests show their milk supply contains traces of radioactive isotopes well below safety limits…


    Report comment

    • rogerthat

      Yet a tour along the edge of the Polesie Radioecological Reserve, a 2,200-square-kilometer (850-square-mile) ghost landscape of 470 evacuated villages and towns, reveals a nation showing little regard for the potentially cancer-causing isotopes still to be found in the soil. Farmers suggest the lack of mutations and other glaring health problems mean Chernobyl's troubles can be consigned to history.

      "There is no danger. How can you be afraid of radiation?" said Chubenok, who since 2014 has produced milk from his farm just 45 kilometers (28 miles) north of the shuttered Chernobyl site, and two kilometers (a mile) from the boundary of a zone that remains officially off-limits to full-time human habitation. Chubenok says he hopes to double his herd size and start producing farmhouse cheese on site.

      NO PROTECTION

      His milk is part of the Milkavita supply chain for making Polesskiye brand cheese, about 90 percent of which is sold in Russia, the rest domestically. The World Bank identifies Russia as the major market for Belarusian food exports, which represent 15 percent of the country's export economy.

      Since rising to power in 1994, President Alexander Lukashenko — the former director of a state-owned farm — has stopped resettlement programs for people living near the mandatory exclusion zone and developed a long-term plan to raze empty villages and reclaim the land for crops and livestock. The Chernobyl explosion meant 138,000 Belarusians closest to the plant …


      Report comment

      • rogerthat

        had to be resettled, while 200,000 others living nearby left voluntarily.

        One of the most prominent medical critics of the government's approach to safeguarding the public from Chernobyl fallout, Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky, was removed as director of a Belarusian research institute and imprisoned in 2001 on corruption charges that international rights groups branded politically motivated. Since his 2005 parole he has resumed his research into Chernobyl-related cancers with European Union sponsorship.

        Bandazhevsky, now based in Ukraine, says he has no doubt that Belarus is failing to protect citizens from carcinogens in the food supply.

        "We have a disaster," he told the AP in the Ukraine capital, Kiev. "In Belarus, there is no protection of the population from radiation exposure. On the contrary, the government is trying to persuade people not to pay attention to radiation, and food is grown in contaminated areas and sent to all points in the country."

        The milk sample subjected to an AP-commissioned analysis backs this picture.

        The state-run Minsk Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology said it found strontium-90, a radioactive isotope linked to cancers and cardiovascular disease, in quantities 10 times higher than Belarusian food safety regulations allow. The test, like others in resource-strapped Belarus, was insufficiently sophisticated to test for heavier radioactive isotopes associated with nuclear fallout, including americium and variants of plutonium. …


        Report comment

        • rogerthat

          The Belarusian Agriculture Ministry says levels of strontium-90 should not exceed 3.7 becquerels per kilogram in food and drink. Becquerels are a globally recognized unit of measurement for radioactivity.

          The Minsk lab informed the AP that the milk sample contained 37.5 becquerels. That radioactive isotope is, along with cesium-137, commonly produced during nuclear fission and generates most of the heat and penetrating radiation from nuclear waste. When consumed, scientists say strontium-90 mimics the behavior of calcium in the human body, settling in bones.

          'WE DO OUR OWN TESTING'

          Milkavita chief engineer Maia Fedonchuk rejected the findings.

          "It's impossible. We do our own testing. There must have been a mix-up," she said, adding they test samples from every batch of milk they receive from Chubenok and do an "in-depth" analysis every six months. She said the plant's own lab analysis indicates its overall milk supply contains an average of 2.85 becquerels per kilogram.

          A person who answered the telephone at the press office of the Belarusian Emergency Situations Ministry, which is tasked with dealing with the fallout of the nuclear disaster, said they would not comment on the AP's findings.

          Health officials say the danger level posed by low levels of radioactive isotopes depends greatly on length of exposure and individual physiology. Notably, the regional free-trade bloc that includes Belarus and Russia permits higher levels …


          Report comment

          • rogerthat

            of strontium-90 in goods of up to 25 becquerels per kilogram, still lower than that detected in the AP-commissioned test.

            The question is whether anyone in authority is positioned to identify the true level of risks in produce from farms on the frontier of Belarus' prohibited zone.

            The deputy director of Belarus' Institute of Radiobiology, Natalya Timokhina, said Belarus permits food producers to conduct their own food safety monitoring and lacks the lab equipment necessary to identify the presence of americium, which is estimated to be present in about 2 percent of Belarus' top soil and is expected to remain a health risk for another 270 years.

            "One-time ingestion of contaminated food is not very dangerous," Timokhina said. "What's dangerous is the accumulation of radionuclides in the body."

            Ausrele Kesminiene, a doctor in the cancer research unit of the World Health Organization, said the consumption of radioactive food is linked chiefly to the development of cancer in the thyroid, a gland in the neck that produces body-regulating hormones. Thyroid cancer is typically not fatal if diagnosed early.

            WHO officials say they are dependent on reports from sister agencies in Belarus to alert them to cancer clusters or other signs of unresolved Chernobyl-related dangers. Gregory Hartl, a WHO spokesman in Geneva, said the agency had no authority to regulate or oversee food safety — even products exported to other countries — because that is a domestic…


            Report comment

            • rogerthat

              "Radiation effects and the development of cancers and the effects on the region are something which go on over a long, long period. So we haven't seen the end of it," Hartl said. "Undoubtedly there is going to be some increase in cancers."

              NO SIGNS OF DANGER

              Hartl said WHO officials have not received "any red flags" from Belarus.

              Environmentalists critical of Belarus' Chernobyl cleanup record say that's hardly surprising, since the government has funded no machinery to scrutinize corrupt practices in the food industry. As a result, they say, no Belarusian food maker has ever been prosecuted for using ingredients or producing goods containing excessive levels of radioactive materials.

              Irina Sukhiy, founder of the Belarus ecological group Green Network, said workers in food-industry factories have confidentially told her that ingredients and products are blended to dilute the impact of potentially radioactive ingredients from Belarusian suppliers bordering Ukraine. Such alleged mixing, she said, reduces the level of potentially carcinogenic isotopes in dairy products and processed meat below "the allowable dose, but it is still hazardous to health."

              The division of the Belarusian Emergencies Ministry responsible for cleaning up the consequences of Chernobyl says that the rate of thyroid cancer in children runs 33 times higher than before the nuclear blast. It says thyroid cancer rates run several times higher in adults.

              Farmers working both on the…


              Report comment

              • rogerthat

                edge of, and inside, the prohibited zone say they see no obvious signs of nuclear dangers, have been given no guidelines on reducing the risk of permitting radioactive isotopes into the food chain, and aren't worried about this.

                Chubenok, the dairy farmer, said he had never heard of the sorbent substance Ferocin, known as Prussian Blue, which farmers in Ukraine feed their cattle to accelerate the removal of the cesium-137 isotope from their digestive tracts.

                A tractor driver on one of his neighboring farms, where an abandoned village has been demolished to make way for fields of grain, says he's never seen an official testing for radiation levels in the soil. But Leonid Kravchenko said there was no reason for alarm.

                "Nobody's in danger," he said.

                Driving toward Chernobyl and into the nearby Radioecological Reserve required AP journalists to negotiate painstaking government permission. Inside the zone, Belarus has authorized an experimental farm to operate for the past decade. Today it contains 265 horses, 56 cows and apiaries buzzing with honey bees.

                The farm director, Mikhail Kirpichenko, said he's permitted to pursue commercial ventures, including the sale last year of 100 horses to a Belarusian manufacturer of kumys, a popular beverage in swathes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Kumys is produced from fermented mares' milk.

                "We're not afraid of radiation. We've already gotten used to it," said Kirpichenko, who suggested that his horses had…


                Report comment

                • rogerthat

                  to pass a basic eyesight test to confirm their good health.

                  "Horses aren't being born with two heads or without legs. There are no such mutations," he said. "This Chernobyl syndrome passed long ago.

                  Associated Press exclusive


                  Report comment

  • Sol Man

    Re: the ice wall. And, there is this: what is the freezing point of massively heavy-metal polluted water? What do the textbooks say?


    Report comment

  • Dr. Conrad Miller MD – After Fukushima: US Dairy Milk Tests Up To 800% Higher Than EPA Limits, Belarus Milk Still Contains Radiation Above Limits In 2016, No One Warned, No One Notified
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/fukushima-hawaii-arizona-dairy-milk.html


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.fukushima-is-still-news.com/2016/05/remaining-indoors-after-nuclear-disaster-not-realistic.html

    REMAINING INDOORS AFTER NUCLEAR DISASTER NOT REALISTIC
    2 MAI 2016

    Questions raised over nuclear evacuation plans urging residents to remain indoors

    http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160502/p2a/00m/0na/021000c


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/atomicage/2016/05/03/6-reasons-to-know-about-hanfords-nuclear-waste-via-koin6/

    6 reasons to know about Hanford’s nuclear waste via KOIN6
    RICHLAND, Wash. (KOIN) — It’s something to think about the next time you visit the Columbia Gorge.

    The timeline for officials to clean up the biggest, most toxic nuclear waste site in the Western hemisphere is shrinking.

    The race to clean up 56 million gallons of radioactive liquid waste sitting at the Hanford site, 230 miles east of Portland, becomes more urgent each year.

    With an estimated price tag of $120 billion, and a theoretical deadline of 2047, cleanup efforts are continually stalled by obstacles including time, money, the danger of the task at hand, and the sheer vastness of the site.

    Attempts to store liquid and solid radioactive waste from the 586 square-mile site – which supplied the plutonium for the bomb that ended WWII — have been failing for decades.

    […]

    1. Your Health and the River

    One researcher employed by the state calls it the poster child for how difficult it is to deal with nuclear waste.

    What we’re wondering, even 230 miles downstream in the Portland Metro Area, is what kind of effect radiation in the groundwater leading into the Columbia River could potentially have on our health. …


    Report comment

    • rogerthat

      […]

      2. The tanks

      […]

      In October 2012, the U.S. DOE released images confirming a double-shell tank, known as AY-102, was leaking through its inner shell.

      “I think most of us felt that those double tanks were probably good for a long, long time. The fact that one of them failed really caught our attention,” said Howieson.

      “If a catastrophic failure of [AY-102] occurred it would relay so much radioactivity into the soil it would eventually have a deleterious effect on the Columbia river,” said Howieson.

      […]

      3. What’s really in the river water

      […]

      That water would either be pumped back into the river, simply dumped into the ground, stored in poorly lined storage tanks, or put into open trenches.

      By the late 1940s and early 1950s, radioactivity was detected as far as the mouth of the Columbia River, near Astoria, Ore., said Howieson.

      Matt McCormick, Department of Energy Manager for Richland Operations Center at Hanford, said some uranium and a hydrogen isotope have made it to the river through contaminated groundwater.

      […]

      6. Safety concerns and ‘whistleblower’ dismissals

      When two former employees of DOE vitrification plant project subcontractor URS raised concerns over the likelihood of a major explosion on site, they claim they were unduly fired.

      Nuclear engineer Walt Tamosaitis and former safety manager Donna Busche said they warned a catastrophic explosion – not unlike past disasters– was imminent if construction continued. …


      Report comment

  • rogerthat

    https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/atomicage/2016/05/03/six-more-hanford-workers-evaluated-for-chemical-vapor-exposure-via-tri-city-herald/

    Six more Hanford workers evaluated for chemical vapor exposure via Tri-City Herald

    Six more Hanford workers were evaluated for possible exposure to chemical vapors Monday, bringing the total since Thursday to 26. …


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/energy/?doc=120216

    Nobel Prize winner Alexievich sees Astravyets NPP close to Vilnius as crime
    BC, Vilnius, 02.05.2016

    Belarusian writer Svetlana Alexievich, a winner of the Nobel Prize, has said during a visit in Lithuania that the Belarusian administration's decision to build the Astravyets Nuclear Power Plant was a crime, informs LETA/BNS.

    "I believe it is a crime. A crime, which means we did not realize the Chernobyl disaster and did not draw any conclusions," Alexievich said in Panevezys, northern Lithuania, on Saturday in comment of the Astravyets project.

    She said that people did not realize the scope of the Chernobyl disaster, as the collapse of the Soviet Union drew people's attention to other problems – lost jobs and the tumbling system.
    The writer also said that the decision to build the nuclear facility had been made by a single person, Belarus' authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko.

    "In an authoritarian country, all decisions are taken by a single person. It was him who decided to build a nuclear power plant. And the society is too paralyzed to say something," said Alexievich.

    Lithuania is the most ardent opponent of the construction of the Astravyets nuclear plant in Belarus, merely 50 km from the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. In Lithuania's opinion, Belarus fails to ensure safety of the project, while Minsk says that highest safety standards would be ensured …


    Report comment

    • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

      "… "In an authoritarian country, all decisions are taken by a single person. It was him who decided to build a nuclear power plant. And the society is too paralyzed to say something," said Alexievich. …"

      An intentionally uninformed society…and those who become informed are sought for treason…NUCLEAR will stop at nothing. Thus…

      If that's too much of a reality for some, tell me one good thing about nuclear. Just one. I dare ya.


      Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.