Nuclear Expert: Fukushima reactor cores melted right down into the ground — That radioactive material is getting washed out into Pacific Ocean (AUDIO)

Published: January 2nd, 2014 at 10:12 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
244 comments


Green Majority, 89.5 FM Toronto, December 6, 2013:

At 9:00 in

Gordon Edwards, nuclear expert and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility: What happened in Fukushima [...] was a series of explosions, four reactors exploded, and three of those reactors melted down — the molten fuel has gone right down into the ground […] There are about 300 tons of contaminated water every day going into the Pacific Ocean underground. That‘s because the cores of the reactors have melted into the ground, and now the groundwater is flowing underneath the reactors and it’s washing that radioactive material out into the Pacific Ocean at the rate of 300 tons per day. […] They have been pumping 400 tons of water from the surface down into the reactor cores and then pumping the contaminated water back up again […]

At 11:30 in

Edwards: All that contaminated water is just sitting there [in tanks] […] They found a pool of water beside the tank that was leaking, that pool of water — they measured the radiation levels — if a person stood beside that pool of water for 1 hour, they would die of radiation poisoning. So that’s how contaminated this water is. What’s causing the contamination is the fact that you have to cool the melted fuel and the melted fuel contains so much radioactive poison that that’s what gets into the water. This is the kind of thing that environmentalists are not realizing.

Full broadcast here

Published: January 2nd, 2014 at 10:12 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
244 comments

Related Posts

  1. Japan Times: Discharges of Fukushima nuclear material into Pacific “have effectively contaminated the sea” — Melted reactor cores will burn again if water not perpetually poured in — “Tepco proposing some of it be dumped into ocean” May 20, 2013
  2. BBC: Work at Fukushima Unit 4 a “distraction”; The “real nightmare” is coming from 3 molten cores — NYTimes: Melted fuel is “all over the place… First goal is simply to stop uncontrolled releases of radioactive material” (AUDIO) December 7, 2013
  3. AP: Radioactive material spews into air & sea at Fukushima — Asahi: Exposure levels spike — Nuclear Expert: We don’t even know where 3 melted reactor cores are… it’s not under control at all; Still getting worse 3 years later (AUDIO) March 11, 2014
  4. Nuclear Engineer: “Very huge catastrophe” for melted fuel to burn into ground — Radioactive material “will go all around the world” once in underground water — Chernobyl made cement barrier below reactor, #Fukushima did not (VIDEO) February 1, 2014
  5. AFP: Fears that molten fuel went into ground after melting through containment vessels at Fukushima — They still can’t find three reactor cores (AUDIO) January 23, 2014

244 comments to Nuclear Expert: Fukushima reactor cores melted right down into the ground — That radioactive material is getting washed out into Pacific Ocean (AUDIO)

  • tsfw tsfw

    I don't know if you've seen this google map of mass animal die offs, but thought I'd share :

    https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=216535991484693862008.0004d3a768f910cc54f80


    Report comment

  • socref

    The interesting thing about this map is that it gets more concentrated the further one gets from Fukushima, where the dispersion of aerosol would be much less. I dont know if this map could or could not be correlated. One should draw their own conclusion.


    Report comment

    • Socrates

      Fallout follows ocean currents and the prevailing winds. It's called the Corioles effect. Like flushing the toilet; it goes down the sewer.


      Report comment

      • socref

        I understand Coriolis effect. Its a Gaussian plume migration and not a concentration.


        Report comment

        • Jebus

          Um, sorry socref, the Coriolis effect is in reality, a perception.

          It is actually a deflection derived from centrifugal force. ie: the earths rotation. It is called Coriolis force. It can be air or water in this earth example. You have to be rotating with it to get it.

          A Gaussian plume, is a mathematical model applied to a point source emmitter.

          You must like fruit punch, cause you sure do mix the fruit…


          Report comment

          • socref

            Fukushima is a point source emitter, how the plume migrates from there follows Pasquill categories. The Coriolis effect is why water flows counter clockwise in the southern hemisphere. I got A's in physics from top universities. Sorry.


            Report comment

            • Jebus

              Don't be sorry, you can still earn it.
              It's really too bad that those nuclear industry/MIC funded universities do not have classes in common sense and critical thinking skills.
              That would eliminate the 10% that filthy nuclear power contributes right there…


              Report comment

              • socref

                I pride myself on my knowledge of physics and the subjects needed to study and analyze airborne transport. I see a lot of good work and a lot of not so good work in this field. University study does have coursework in critical thinking, mostly from philosophy departments, which I also took and received As. I dont understand how ocean currents relate to particulate that primarily gets into the jet stream and transports through the air. I saw a picture of a claim of radiation in the ocean but it was really a NOAA picture of tsunami wave heights. Everyone claims to be an expert but even the experts are not really experts at the end of the day. So where doe that leave us? To trust "experts"? No. Even experts have to eat and make a living.


                Report comment

              • Jebus

                "I dont understand how ocean currents relate to particulate that primarily gets into the jet stream and transports through the air."

                Really?

                A quick glance above, back at the topic, reveals some clues.

                The bulk of the major airborne particulates were released early on with intermittant releases periodically. The transport path of this contaminate is west to east given the lattitude. Go figure.

                The oceanic particulate releases are continious, ongoing and will never truely be mitigated. It's released. In the Ocean. Only time will mitigate. Currents are in control now as I have read recently that these currents tend to concentrate rather than disburse along their path.

                And a I hope you know, various physics models can describe the results with varying degrees of accuracy.

                The Coriolis force applies to both scenarios.

                I don't claim to be an expert. That is someone who has quit learning.
                I will never forget my father calling experts, "educated idiots".
                My father was just a smart man…


                Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              socref..what difference does it make which dispersion model is used? Pasquill turbulence models are superseded by Monin-Obukhov length and boundary layer, historical data and whatever they can put into super computers these days.

              But the question here is why are there unusual mortality catastrophes near California and Alaska and none seen near japan? Its inconceivable that the largest nuclear release would not harm life close to Japan, so we can assume that either Japanese scientists are not reporting, or that there is bio-accumulation as the plume makes its way across the ocean, or that the animals that beach escaped to other waters, or something in the etiology of it all didnt allow them to beach but instead the died out at sea, or whatever.

              Its the job of marine biologists to figure this out, and so far they have done a poor job! We know that vast quantities of radiation were released, and concentrations far out to sea were at a level to cause illness in mammals…known dosimetry and multi organ effects. So the question is not IF it is harming animals but rather actual numbers, and interactions with pathogens, immune effects etc.

              Its very disappointing that the public pays for but gets no information from these government funded institutions, ….dont you think?


              Report comment

              • socref

                "During the course of this research, it was found that Golder's relation between stability categories and Monin-Obukhov length can not be used at sea, since this relationship must depend on the Bowen ratio and albedo."

                http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00121176

                We are talking about atmospheric transport, which Pasquill stability factors still apply.


                Report comment

              • socref

                Radiation releases do not discriminate between mammals. This doesnt answer the fact that some mammals have not been adversely affected. We know that radiation was released from Fukushima, but we cant explain why mammal A is doing fine when mammal B is not.


                Report comment

                • zogerke zogerke

                  that's nonsense. even humans react differently to radiation, with women and children affected more then men. and drug testing focusses on specific animals – not all animals have the same reactions. and if the hazard is ingested radiation, then animals with different food supplies will bioaccumulate in different ways.


                  Report comment

              • Angela_R

                There is the surface current and then there is the deep sea current. It appears that not much is known about the deep sea current. At present it seems that everybody is concentrating on the surface current.

                Yet a current thread on ENE News reports on the extent of Plutonium on the ocean floor, not near Fukushima, but close to the West Coast of America.


                Report comment

  • dka

    Good effort.
    Would better if it would not forget about R5 and R6 and other things, but still, from a Canadian, in the scared and silent country of Harper, I admire his courage to be honest in public.


    Report comment

  • Ontological Ontological

    Corium rabbit holes. I did some digging into images of the Cesium inclusion color scattering in the atmosphere. Many new photos of the sunset/sunrise in the NW are showing the classic "Morganite" (pink beryllium) color scattering 45 degrees above the solar disk. The bright (hot) pinks are cesium 137 from all the Noble gas Xenon 133 that massively formed from many hundreds of small localized and many still ongoing criticalities where fuel pieces from R3 detonation, that flew for miles, have landed. The Xe133 halving after a month or so into Cesium 137 in the air. Were breathing this stuff folks. Unfortunately the link is a NW TV station's FB page. Ick I know, sorry, but this image file has some good examples.
    http://www.kptv.com/slideshow?widgetid=100233&slideshowimageid=1#.UsY7rICpgR4.facebook

    Also many out here have reported rad detectors in their homes acting strange, peaking high then dropping low. Radio waves "skip", another example aurora ionized plasma from the Sun dances in curtain like waves. Well that plasma is radiation effectively and it can act like that in any magnetic field. So same as radio wave propagation skip, the signal comes and goes. Rads inside currently peaking to 34 cpm (dosimeter) and holds for 30 seconds and drops to 14. Regular waves several times/hour now, since they are playing with added cooling water amounts. Basically the same as a child observing the increased infra redness of an electric stove burner, while toying with the knob.


    Report comment

  • satan loves nukes satan loves nukes

    The DOE would love to put a reactor in every town in the US…

    The Tri-City Herald reported the state Legislature last year set aside $500,000 to study the manufacturing and advancement of small modular reactors in the Tri-Cities to meet future demand for low-carbon power.

    The money will be used to pay for Tri-City Development Council’s study and then a proposal to the Department of Energy, if the study shows benefits of building at Hanford.

    Small modular reactors are about one-third the size of current nuclear power plants and could produce 45 to 300 megawatts of power. These reactors could be built in factories, transported to sites where they would be installed, and be grouped together as power demands.

    A new, small modular reactor, costing between $500 million and $1 billion, could create construction and permanent jobs, potentially replacing some jobs that likely would be lost at Hanford, according to TRIDEC.
    http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jan/02/tri-cities-group-studies-small-reactor-at-hanford/


    Report comment

  • proffesornothing

    HI all,
    Just so you're all aware: There has been no activity at Fuku for 8 or 9 days. The Cranes are down and no work is being done. They may have abandoned the site.


    Report comment

  • waterborn

    Greetings enenewsers. I have been coming here almost daily for over a year now and have learnt a massive amount of important information from you all. Thanks – Sort of 'science meets heart'!
    Here is my first offering – http://youtu.be/Q5p283KZGa8
    I hope it come up as a live link as I'm fairly new to computers.
    I found it very inspiring – a new music genre – Fukushima Rap!


    Report comment

  • Lady M

    RE Satan Loves Nukes' post above — Is "low carbon power" becoming commonly used instead of "nuclear power"? Or is it just as frequently used for things like wind power? In other words, is it a sneaky term or just a descriptive one?


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.