New radioactive leak reported at Fukushima on Sunday — Previous leak admitted to be “far more toxic” than public told — Over 80 trillion becquerels flowed into Pacific, unspecified amount of “nuclear fuel material” — Already rated an INES ‘Level 3′ incident using the much lower incorrect figures

Published: April 13th, 2014 at 10:06 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
61 comments


Jiji Press, Apr. 13, 2014: Up to one ton of radioactive water has leaked out of a plastic storage tank at [...] Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, TEPCO said Sunday [...] some 700 meters away from the shore [...] While the tank’s lower part is damaged to allow tainted water to flow into the ground [...] The water contained 440 becquerels [per liter] of cesium-134 and 1,200 becquerels [per liter] of cesium-137 as well as 1,400 becquerels [per liter] of beta ray-emitting radioactive substances such as strontium-90, according to TEPCO.

Kyodo, Apr. 12, 2014: August water leak at No. 1 far more toxic than announced: Tepco [...] After recalculating the radiation level, Tepco said the water contained 280 million becquerels per liter of beta ray-emitting radioactive materials such as strontium-90, instead of 80 million becquerels¹. A total of 300 tons of toxic water was found to have leaked at that time, part of which is believed to have flowed into the adjacent Pacific Ocean. The Nuclear Regulation Authority assessed the severity of the incident to be level 3 on an eight-point international scale. [...]

¹ 280,000,000 Bq/liter of beta ray-emitting radioactive materials such as strontium-90 * 1,000 liters/metric ton * 300 tons = 84,000,000,000,000 Bq of beta ray-emitting radioactive materials such as strontium-90

Soon after the INES level 3 incident, a Tepco release stated: “We determined that this incident corresponds to “a case when nuclear fuel material (not in the form of gas) or the like has leaked within an area controlled by the company due to an unpredictable event such as a failure of a nuclear reactor facility for power generation” as per Article 18, item 12 of the regulations concerning the operational safety and the protection of specified nuclear fuel material at the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi NPS nuclear reactor facilities.”

See also: 'Growing Alarm': 25 trillion becquerels of Fukushima radioactive material leaks into ground -- Kyodo News Advisory: Exact source of extreme contamination unknown; Tank missing 300,000 liters (VIDEO)

Published: April 13th, 2014 at 10:06 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
61 comments

Related Posts

  1. Fukushima leak is much more radioactive than Tepco claimed — Almost 20,000 times the legal limit flowed into ocean — Nuclear Official: “They seem to lack even the most basic knowledge about radiation” October 3, 2013
  2. Kyodo: ‘Massive’ amount of Fukushima data wrong? “Figures can’t be trusted” — NHK: Strontium-90 by ocean at 160,000 times limit — Tepco: Actual levels “exceeded the upper limit of measurement… We are very sorry” February 7, 2014
  3. Bloomberg: ‘Highly radioactive’ leak at Fukushima Unit 3 — NHK: Melted fuel coolant thought to be flowing from containment vessel for ‘unknown reason’ — 24 Million Bq/liter of strontium, other beta emitters (VIDEO) January 20, 2014
  4. TV: “Extremely high levels of radioactive substances” leaked Wednesday night at Fukushima plant — 25 trillion becquerels of Strontium-90 and other beta emitters estimated to have flowed out — “Investigation is still underway” (VIDEO) February 19, 2014
  5. TV: All-time high radiation level in well at Fukushima plant 40 meters from Pacific — 1.1 billion Bq/m³ of strontium-90, other beta emitters — “Feared highly contaminated water leaking into ground” and being allowed to flow into sea (VIDEO) December 3, 2013

61 comments to New radioactive leak reported at Fukushima on Sunday — Previous leak admitted to be “far more toxic” than public told — Over 80 trillion becquerels flowed into Pacific, unspecified amount of “nuclear fuel material” — Already rated an INES ‘Level 3′ incident using the much lower incorrect figures

  • Quisp Quisp

    Whether it's 80 or 280 million becquerels, what does it matter? We are all dead men walking.


    Report comment

    • Anyone see this Wikipedia article? Anyone up for editing it?
      it says nothing about meltdowns.
      Thanks.


      Report comment

      • I need to say that so far nobody has welcomed me. In fact anything I post here is ignored. Why? ??

        I'm new here but have been anti-nuke since 1967 when I learned there was one to be built near where I was teaching: VT Yankee.
        Like others I consider this to be the best place for good info about nuke dangers, especially stuff that is suppressed by media, govt, etc.


        Report comment

      • Sparky Sparky

        Hi Hogy and Welcome! I like your avatar. ;-) I've apparently missed your earlier posts, otherwise I would have welcomed you sooner. Also, could you pls. repost the Wiki hotlink? I didn't find it above.

        I was an "observer" for several months before getting-up enough nerve to post–something I very rarely do on other sites. This is a great site and a great group of caring, concerned and intelligent people. I don't think anyone is purposefully being ignored (even that "S" creature, who was beyond intolerable).

        While some folks are regulars and are posting throughout the day/night, many more (like me) are checking-in and out sporadically, often at odd hours and different times/days–other obligations permitting.

        Given the set-up of the site, the amount and timing of information, and the flow of the multiple conversations taking place at the same time and over time, it's often hard follow-along, respond to a particular post or continue a conversation. 'Harder still to go back through the various threads to find a specific post or resource. (Going through the "Comment Archive" on the right is often helpful to find one's way when lost.)I often don't get responses (nothing personal) but am pleased when I do. I know that there are literally thousands of people following along, regardless of whether they post.

        Anyway, I'm glad you've continued to post and add your perspective to this lively and informative site. Welcome!!


        Report comment

        • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

          spot-on Sparky. It's extremely difficult keeping up with responses from others. Having the ability to do logical keyword searches within the server's active database would be heaven. That way, you'd be able to combine those keywords to quickly access past comments. I'd also pay big bucks if ENENews came up with quarterly archives on CDROM. I can dream…


          Report comment

  • Quisp Quisp

    –of course I realize it's all about the lie…

    I am newly registered here but have been reading for months. The best source for info on this and other nuclear issues.


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    It's unclear why a new admission of ONE ton of radioactive water let loose is supposed to be setting off alarm bells, with about a THOUSAND tons of the stuff pouring into the Pacific every day!

    Though one cannot fail to notice that it was out of "a plastic storage tank." So is this just a prelude to announce that all the flimsily-built tanks are going bad and let's just dump it all into the ocean?

    Still waiting for their so-called time-honored rituals to kick in. Shy of that, the word "sorry" has been turned into dog turd.


    Report comment

    • This is either the really high level stuff or it is from the bladder tanks..

      No word at all yet on the REALLY high level waste that is made up of all the stuff filtered out of the water via ALPS..

      How and where are they storing that stuff, if the CLEAN stuff that has gone through ALPS has 80 million Bq/liter of just ONE element.. (they are ignoring all of the others, like tritium, etc.)


      Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      WNTF, maybe the difference is concentration, the water having run through some kind of filtration system (when ALPS was working?) so that the stored water has more highly concentrated isotopes in it?

      Was thinking the same thing though, when you're into the tens or hundreds millions of Bqs per liter of water, what's the diff? Lethal is lethal.


      Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      WNTF, this made me laugh. Thanks, I needed a laugh, and I agree re: the "sorry's" and "most regrettable's."

      "Still waiting for their so-called time-honored rituals to kick in. Shy of that, the word 'sorry' has been turned into dog turd."


      Report comment

  • The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale

    Easy to read chart: (Levels 0 – 7)
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/INES_en.svg/1662px-INES_en.svg.png

    What is the purpose of the INES Scale?

    "The primary purpose of the INES Scale is to facilitate communication and understanding between the technical community, the media and the public on the safety significance of events. The aim is to keep the public, as well as nuclear authorities, accurately informed on the occurrence and potential consequences of reported events."
    - INES: http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp


    Report comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    How long would plastic stand up to all the numerous isotopes which makes me wonder how long the plethora of bags full of radioactive debris will withstand the test of time. I wonder why they don't use ceramic tiles like the ones used on the shuttle with boron to block the flow of contaminated water vs the infamous ice wall but once again money is the culprit as the expense would be massive. I do hope they are developing robots to address the mountain of clean up required in areas inaccessible to humans. What a never ending nuclear nightmare.


    Report comment

    • earthsmith

      …..They have developed robots to address the masses…..killing is profitable, remediation is not.


      Report comment

    • NondiPloom

      Contrary to popular belief, plastic does not 'last forever'.


      Report comment

      • Shaker1

        NondiPloom, you are certainly correct. Sunlight, heat cycling, physical stress and physical cycling…I do think that, in general, plastics aren't as susceptable to induced radiation, as discussed here in relation to the array of metal tanks they have there, and because of that it can be a shield for particles with limited penetration capability. For instance, it was suggested that a plastic coating on the inside of those metal tanks may drastically alter the induced manifestations. One thing that one becomes aware of when working with materials is that stability is relative even in what might be considered benign conditions. Glass flows, many metal alloys 'age' just sitting idle non-stressed at room temperature. While our lifetimes may not see changes we recognize, nothing at all is really static; the system in which we live is intrinsicly dynamic.

        Concerning plastics (I've worked with it quite a bit for use in chemical environments, but am no expert) it's absolutely staggering to consider what might be available, their properties and chemistry, and then I've seen different lots of what has the same 'name' material react differently in a shared environment. Who knows what they've got there unless they say something other than 'plastic' and then also leave the parameters of its use to imagination?

        As for the water, isn't is pretty much a given that problems are a daily occurance and will persist?


        Report comment

    • 富岡_Blue_Heron 富岡_Blue_Heron

      The linear accelerators I maintained used PVC tubing to deliver distilled cooling water to the tube's water jacket. The PVC would deteriorate, become brittle and develop little pinhole leaks. We had to replace the tubing fairly often. I was told the tubing was susceptible to the hard X-ray radiation from the linear accelerator.


      Report comment

  • vicky13 vicky13

    SimplyInfo has this post,,

    http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=12797

    Ex SKF found the reason why TEPCO workers had been ignoring the new tank alarms for hours at a time. All of the tank alarms feed into a monitoring room where a PC is used to keep track of the tank data. Someone turned off the volume on the PC so the workers never heard the audio alarm. This apparently was like this for months.

    Read the whole thing here:
    http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2014/04/fukushima-i-npp-tank-alarm-didnt-sound.html


    Report comment

  • NitWit

    Tepco1 "Is that PC making any noise?"

    Tepco2 "No!".

    Tepco1 "Good, would you like some rice wine?"

    Tepco2 "No, too contaminated for me. Hows about some nice Kentucky bourbon?"

    Tepco1 "Sure!".


    Report comment

  • Think that you are protected by regulatory agencies? Think again..

    IAEA, ICRP And UNSCEAR Are All Staffed By The Same Pro Nuclear Industry Apologists; via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/iaea-icrp-and-unscear-are-all-staffed.html


    Report comment

  • NISA, IAEA, WHO, Plus Pro Nuclear Government Politicians Covering Up And Minimizing Negative Effects From Nuclear Accidents; via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/governments-covering-up-and-minimizing.html


    Report comment

    • Sparky Sparky

      OMG, ChargedB, you're right! The RSOE map HAS lost its nuke icons, which were there earlier this morning when I checked–the nuke icon was showing at the 4.9 EQ very close to both Tepco NPPs. Very strange and untimely!

      Using your RSOE link above, if you scroll down to the EQ table you'll see there's about 6 EQs that have occured w/in a 50 mi. radius of at least one NPP from 4/12/14 to 4/13/14.

      Key question: Why do emergency alert systems such as RSOE and EPA's RadNet go down and/or omit critical information during increasingly high-risk/emergency events??? I thought the point was to ALERT people to help them help themselves and others to remain healthy and safe. Wow–what a concept! 'Guess I was wrong. :-/


      Report comment

  • tsfw tsfw

    South America is starting to look more appealing by the day.


    Report comment

  • Ontological Ontological

    There is nowhere on this dung ball of a planet left that is habitable in any clean ways. They trashed South America LONG ago Where the HELL are the people that dared 20 years ago to exposé all this BULLSHIT!? They were bought off/murdered I would have to presume. The "experts" of today are all liar shills. These amounts were realized that VERY DAY of the R3 detonation. PURE bull these reports are!


    Report comment

  • Tim42

    Just to give everybody a little scale to this release..

    Assuming all the radioactive material was Sr90, with a half life of 28.8 years.

    Using a the following formula to calculate exact how much Sr-90 was dissolved in the released water..

    28.8y(Sr-90 decay half life) *2(half life)/2(beta decays in quick succession) *(365.24 *24 *3600)(seconds in year) * 8.4E+13(Bq released decays per second) / 6.022E+23(Atoms per mole) * 89.90(Sr-90 grams/mole) == a total of 11.3 grams of Sr-90. deadly for sure.

    But there is lot more to come. Since fission yield of Sr-90 is something like 4.5% of the 12 thousand of Kg of fission-ed Uranium, Pu and other actinides.

    I.E. 100 to 210 Kg of Sr-90 in original melted reactor cores(1, 2 & 3), and this particular leak accounts for less than 0.0011 percent of the Sr-90 produced in those cores.

    Note: Since its been been over three years now since 3//11/2011, ~5% of that original Sr-90 would have Beta decayed to Yttrium 90 which quickly decays(64hr HL) to Zirconium-90(stable), releasing high energy electrons(Beta) capable of disrupting/killing the cells of some poor creature along the way.

    Just doing the math.


    Report comment

    • MagentaTrifoil MagentaTrifoil

      More scale stuff to think about. One grain of sand has approximately 1^20 atoms, that's 100000000000000000000 in long hand. This number is so large it's hard to comprehend, but one comparison is to all the sand in the Sahara Desert at about 10 ft. deep. Relatively short half-lives will result in quite high radioactivity (disintegrations of atoms per second). Atomizing any of this crap is therefore extremely dangerous.


      Report comment

    • bo bo

      I'm still trying to digest Tim42's numbers… but I want to add to this about atomic half life which I learned the other day that was interesting.

      The math for getting the approximate number of years it takes for ALL of a given amount of radionucludes to become stable, you multiply the number of half life years by 10. So with Strontium it takes 288 years.

      Also, it's really misleading and confusing they use the word 'decay' because you imagine it like food in an open container rotting, and it rots from the top part that's touching the air first – and even when the top half has rotted, and the bottom half hasn't yet – the bottom half is already half compromised, aged, so it 'decays' faster than the top half.

      Apparently radionuclides don't 'decay' in this organic fashion. They're more like newborn babies that never age a single day, playing a game of russian roulette. They spontaneously choose to 'turn off' in random order, unlike organic decay – Strontium doesn't choose to decay faster because it's on the top half of the contain


      Report comment

      • bo bo

        …oops pressed submit by mistake.

        …Strontium doesn't choose to decay faster because it's on the top half of the container.

        Perhaps this is common knowledge and I'm the only person here that slept through high school – but when I learned about this ( thanks maxli ) I felt it was important to have it spelled out because I think nuclear industry wants you to be confused about 'half life' and 'decay' – they want you to think that it's an organic process, JUST like a rotting banana.


        Report comment

        • bo bo

          I think they want you to think the 'undecayed other half' at the end of that half life is 'kind of old, and not as radioactive anymore' – but the truth is, with radionuclides, they're newborns until that moment they 'turn off'


          Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Unfair treatment of a perceived image.

    I guess it depends on what side of the facade your on…

    Cleaning Up Fukushima

    Our workers are justifiably proud of what they have done to stabilize the site and, despite setbacks, they have made it a much safer place today than it was three years ago.

    YOSHIMI HITOSUGI
    Manager
    Corporate Communications
    Tokyo Electric Power Company
    Tokyo, March 21, 2014

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/opinion/cleaning-up-fukushima.html?_r=0


    Report comment

  • When Tepco announces a number of Bq spilled in a leak, after some time has passed they re-release a number which is many times higher and then say "Sorry". This happens every time. In the meantime when alarms go off, they manually turn them off. If it was not so tragic, this operation would make a great TV series comedy. You can judge how severe a blunder is by what they don't say. Everything is reactive and nothing is proactive. So now I can get my sign out of the garage that says, "REPENT! WE ARE DOOMED" and stand on the corner. I realize those people we said were nuts were right all along.


    Report comment

  • Geezer1984

    @Bo 4:43 am “The math for getting the approximate number of years it takes for ALL of a given amount of radionucludes to become stable, you multiply the number of half life years by 10. So with Strontium it takes 288 years.

    Unfortunately, Bo, that “10 half-life” rule of thumb is not strictly accurate. After 10 half-lives, you still have 1/1024th of the original radionuclide left, which doesn’t seem like much (hence, the “rule of thumb”), but consider what this means in Fukushima’s case. Using Tim42’s numbers (which I haven’t checked, but have no reason to dispute), and taking his low estimate of the 90Sr initial inventory of 100 Kg, after 288 years, you still have 97.7 grams of 90Sr somewhere in the environment. That’s at least 8.6 times the amount already released. Where will it be? We’d like to think that most (i.e. 99.9+%) of it would still be trapped in the “corium” masses and thus relatively harmless. But nobody can guarantee that, and its obviously far, far from the “worst case.”

    One minor point: the word “decay” as used in physics generally, and in nuclear physics specifically, is not intended to confuse anyone. It is a “term of art” used to indicate movement to a lower energy state, hence “orbital decay” means to lose orbital altitude, while “nuclear decay” means to move to a lower energy state (through release of an alpha or beta particle, or a gamma photon). Nothing “organic” – in the biological sense – about it.

    Hope this helps.


    Report comment

    • bo bo

      Geezer! That helps! Thank you.
      You just answered exactly two areas in that post that felt fuzzy to me and later I was searching the clear answers for.

      I was trying to find out who came up with the term 'decay' – was it translation from a French term Mme Curie came up with ?


      Report comment

  • It takes a LONNNNNNGGGGG time for some of these puppies to disappear

    93 Long life Radiation Contaminants, A Problem For Billions Of Years; Via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/93-long-lived-nuclear-elements.html


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.