Published: September 6th, 2011 at 5:51 pm ET
|
Arnold Gundersen with a Fukushima update, Helen Caldicott MD podcast, September 2, 2011:
At 31:15 in (Transcript Summary)
My estimate is that the lung cancers in Northern Japan will increase by 20-30% in 3-5 years as a result of Fukushima… that will be the first cancer, then the others
Download the audio program here.
Published: September 6th, 2011 at 5:51 pm ET
|
sending...
Tacomagroove
September 6, 2011 at 6:08 am Log in to Reply
http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html
America wake up and smell the Plutonium…
How much plutonium does it take
to overdose a person?
Foreword
Plutonium is a highly toxic material. Attempts to deny or to obscure this fact are, we feel, irresponsible.
Some spokespersons for AECL and for the Government of Canada have suggested that there is no danger involved in MOX transport worthy of anyone’s serious consideration.
We feel compelled to point out that, although the probability of a severe accident that would release plutonium to the atmosphere is admittedly small, the potential health and environmental consequences of such an accident can be serious due to the extraordinary toxicity of plutonium when inhaled.
It is for this reason alone that the United States of America has made it illegal to transport plutonium by air in US territory. Such a prohibition does not exist for any other radioactive material.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has admitted, in documents submitted to Transport Canada, that in four out of eight categories of serious road transportation accidents, the MOX containers would be completely destroyed and a plume of plutonium dust would be spread downwind to a distance of about 80 kilometers.
Transport Canada has stated — not once, but several times, in its response to public commentaries about AECL’s plans for MOX transport by road — that transporting MOX by air is much more dangerous than doing it by road because of the health dangers of inhaling plutonium dust following an accident.
Industry and government spokespersons have insisted that120 grams of plutonium is too small an amount to raise legitimate health and environmental concerns. They have made the irrelevant observation that 120 grams of plutonium is about the size of two A-A batteries.
Such remarks are manipulative in nature; they do not help people to weigh the risk. The important quantity is not the VOLUME or MASS of plutonium, but its TOXICITY. Based on data supplied by AECB (see letter above) we can address the toxicity question as follows:
In principle, using AECB’s regulatory limits,
how many ”civilians” can be overdosed
by 100 grams of plutonium?
0.1 micrograms can overdose One civilian
0.1 grams can overdose One million civilians
1 gram can overdose ten million civilians
100 grams can overdose one billion civilians
600 grams can overdose six billion civilians
If there is a serious accident involving
120 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result?
if NONE of the plutonium is safely contained there is a potential for one billion two hundred million civilian overdoses.
if 90 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
one hundred and twenty million civilian overdoses.
if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for one hundred and twenty thousand civilian overdoses.
if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
one thousand two hundred civilian overdoses.
In principle, using AECB’s regulatory limits,
how many ”atomic radiation workers” can be
overdosed by 140 grams of plutonium?
1.4 micrograms can overdose one atomic worker
1.4 grams can overdose one million workers
14 grams can overdose ten million workers
140 grams can overdose one hundred million workers
560 grams can overdose four hundred million workers
If there is a serious accident involving
600 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many worker overdoses could, in principle, result?
if NONE of the plute is safely contained there is a potential for
four hundred twenty-five million worker overdoses
if 90 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
forty-two and a half million worker overdoses
if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
forty-two and a half thousand worker overdoses
if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
four hundred and twenty-five worker overdoses
If there is a serious accident involving
600 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result?
if NONE of the plute is safely contained there is a potential for
six billion civilian overdoses
if 90 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
six hundred million civilian overdoses
if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
six hundred thousand civilian overdoses
if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for
six thousand civilian overdoses
Report Comment
ALL ABOUT MOX (80% Uranium & 20% plutonium) – VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik_8OW4sTRk&feature=player_embedded
Report Comment
Evenly dispersed plutonium from the explosion = plenty of overkill potential for everyone….as Tacoma lays-out above. This plutonium is deadly…the deadliest substance on this planet.
Report Comment
+1
Report Comment
You may be interested in this new article on MOX from enformable.com:
“AREVA in secret talks with Japan for spent nuclear fuel from Fukushima Daiichi”
http://enformable.com/2011/09/areva-in-secret-talks-with-japan-for-spent-nuclear-fuel-from-fukushima-daiichi/
This interesting sentence was in the article:
“The CIA has reported that Japan’s nuclear power program was not limited to the peaceful production of electrical power. The program had its roots in a secret weapons program that caused the CIA to conclude as far back as 1964 that Japan could assemble within months a nuclear weapon.”
I did not know that.
Report Comment
Thank you Mack,
Quote from this article:
“The firm said it would slow down spending on African uranium mines and possibly delay start of construction of a uranium enrichment plant in Idaho. According to the wire service report, Areva said a previously robust backlog of projects is now less firm with lower targets for revenue, margins, and cash flow.”
I certainly don’t want Areva enriching uranium in Idaho. Nor do I want Russians mining uranium in Wyoming.
Report Comment
Ok, we get it, you’ve made your circle jerk with Arnie Gundersen very clear since this site started, and especially since you explicitly posted his mentioning your site, but please, 6 articles quoting him in the one day?
Please at least attempt to provide some kind of balanced viewpoint. The comments appearing here are bad enough without the main site content turning into a one trick pony.
Been reading for months, really do appreciate enenews.com as a valuable source of information, however Gundersen has an obvious agenda, and I’d rather enenews didn’t become his personal mouthpiece. Try at least a little to stick to factual reporting, and not flooding us with the same opinions time and time again.
Report Comment
Yes, Gundersen has an agenda, but of this he is on the right side…the side of truth, which is our side also. No one else is saying anything, so following the truth seems like the right way to proceed. It’s not my website, but maybe you need to make your own. I comment on stories I like, an not when I don’t.
Report Comment
I think he is in the employ of Terrapower.
Report Comment
Many of us have an “obvious agenda”. We don’t want nuclear energy destroying our planet. Nuclear power can be very unsafe and vulnerable it is not worth the risks. It is our right to have an opinion, we all live on this planet.
Report Comment
Arnie Gundersen is providing the balanced viewpoint.
Report Comment
Admin briefly explained his methodology a couple months ago: if an article or interview has multiple new facts or facets of a story, Admin treats each new fact as a separate posting. While that can seem sensationalist, it also helps those of us who follow multiple sources, watching closely for the infrequent bits of new info, to quickly see what’s new.
Report Comment
Of three versions of a post, at least one should have the title that will work best for reposting to your social media of choice or emailing to the fence-sitter that you know. It annoys me to wade through these, but I admit I find them useful.
Report Comment
Each fuel rod contains 20% plutonium. There are 360 fuel pellets per rod. Estimated weight of pellets are 5 grams.
There are 264 fuel rods per assembly…
So.
264 x 360 =95,040 (total fuel pellets per fuel assembly)
95,040 x 5 grams = 475,200 grams of nuclear fuel…
Divide 475,000 By 20% to find the quantity of plutonium…
475,000g x 0.20 (20%) = 95,040 grams of plutonium… (per fuel assembly)…
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2011/03/14/nuke-engineer-fuel-rod-fire-at-stricken-reactor-would-be-like-chernobyl-on-steroids/
We’d be lucky if we only had to worry about the spent fuel rods from a single holding pool. We’re not that lucky. The Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven pools for spent fuel rods. Six of these are (or were) located at the top of six reactor buildings. One “common pool” is at ground level in a separate building. Each “reactor top” pool holds 3450 fuel rod assemblies. The common pool holds 6291 fuel rod assemblies. [The common pool has windows on one wall which were almost certainly destroyed by the tsunami.] Each assembly holds two hundred sixty-three fuel rods. This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods.
So top fuel pool holds 3450 assemblies, common fuel pool holds 6291 assemblies…
Total: 9741 assemblies x 95,040g plutonium =
total =925,784,640g plutonium (in reactor 3 alone)…
now it gets fun…
925,784,640g plutonium / 10% = 92,578,464g plutonium
1.0g plutonium is equal to ten million Overdose’s…
92,578,464g plutonium x 10 million Overdoses =’s
Now if only 10% of the fuel in reactor 3 escaped…
927,584,640,000,000 Overdoses Globally
Report Comment
looks like even the cockroaches will not survive
Report Comment
p.s. 1% is simply taking off 1, zero off the end…
So if only 1% of reactor 3 was released…
92,758,464,000,000 overdoses
0.1% of fuel released would be
9,275,846,400,000 overdoses…
Report Comment
Japan needs some of our FEMA coffins. We need more, too. We are short by about 6.5 billion. Oh, that’s right, I forgot that each FEMA coffin holds an average of three bodies.
6.5 / 3 = 2.17 billion FEMA coffins needed.
Grim calculation. If these calculations are correct, we will need to make a wormhole escape route and fast. To supply the necessary power however, we’ll need a fusion reactor. Never mind.
Report Comment
Living with the aftermath of Japan’s tsunami nightmare
Tue September 6, 2011 *VIDEO*
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/06/world/asia/japan-tsunami-suicides/
Report Comment
Suicide is one of the nightmares.
Genocide is another.
Report Comment
Radioactive leaf tobacco found in Japan
“Radioactive Leaf Tobacco, 217 Bq/Kg of Cesium — 30 Bq greater than after Chernobyl”
Source:
http://enformable.com/2011/09/radioactive-leaf-tobacco-217-bqkg-of-cesium/
Report Comment
Why does enenews post multiple threads with different lines from the same podcast? it has me wondering of who ever is behind enenews is just testing our responses to different information? very odd… either that or they are running out of stuff to post.
Report Comment
See my reply to ‘spag’ above. Admin explained why he/she does this.
Report Comment
The research I read said lung cancer rates had stabilized in Japan, so it shouldn’t be difficult to detect when/if there’s a future statistical rise in lung cancer.
Report Comment
Do you really believe in statistics? After the disasters every country tend to hide the real numbers at least for several years.
And how do they stabilize in a nation of smokers? The WHO is stating that tobacco smoke is responsible for the 1/3 of cancers worldwide. I do not believe this either after comparing the maps of longevity, cancer rates, and nuclear plants and tests. Radioactivity seems responsible for the most of cancers, for me, at least. Do native Americans suffer from cancer?
Report Comment