US nuke agency confirms “initial explosions at Fukushima were very likely ejections of core material”: Analyst (VIDEO)

Published: August 26th, 2011 at 7:50 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
78 comments


Interview with nuclear energy expert Paul Gunter, Big Picture, August 25, 2011:

At 8:35 in (Transcript Excerpts)

Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear: [...] What we have now been able to confirm through the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is that the initial explosions at Fukushima were very likely ejections of core material into the atmosphere and a vaporization of some portion of those cores [...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRs5RKXoZ6I

Published: August 26th, 2011 at 7:50 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
78 comments

Related Posts

  1. Analyst on Fukushima Reactors: What’s happening with the corium? Where is this? — Not good that I’ve read very little about it (VIDEO) July 14, 2012
  2. Virginia nuke plant “venting steam” — Spokesman says “no release of radioactive material” (PHOTO & VIDEO) August 23, 2011
  3. Video: Black radioactive material being reported 100 kilometers south of Fukushima Daiichi March 16, 2013
  4. Report: Nuclear fuel fragments found over a mile away were “ejected from the reactor cores in those explosions” not spent fuel pools, according to NRC (VIDEO) August 18, 2011
  5. TV: Workers say ground under Fukushima plant is cracking and radioactive steam is coming up — Melted core may be moving out of building (VIDEO) August 17, 2011

78 comments to US nuke agency confirms “initial explosions at Fukushima were very likely ejections of core material”: Analyst (VIDEO)

  • farawayfan farawayfan

    Core ejection. Thanks MSM. Way to bury the story of the millenium and be accomplice to TEPCO and the government(s) coverup.


    Report comment

    • OP…
      Idaho fire prompts evacuation of nuclear facility
      Friday, 26 August 2011 07:11 | Written by Reuters: Environment | | |

      By Laura Zuckerman

      SALMON, Idaho | Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:57am EDT

      SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – Firefighters struggled on Thursday to control a fast-growing 28,000-acre wildfire raging within several miles of spent nuclear fuel stored at a U.S. Energy Department lab in the high desert of eastern Idaho.
      The growth and intensity of the blaze, the nation’s largest active wildfire, prompted the Idaho National Laboratory to order a key facility on the 890-square-mile site evacuated of all nonessential personnel, lab officials said.

      The Materials and Fuels Complex, about 38 miles from Idaho Falls, consists of facilities for handling, processing and examining spent nuclear fuel, irradiated materials and radioactive wastes, according to the lab’s website.

      Technicians perform this work with remotely operated tools and equipment placed inside shielded chambers to contain contamination and radiation.

      Fire crews were taking preventive measures to safeguard the facility’s buildings, which are also surrounded by buffer zones of gravel or sand, lab spokesman Ethan Huffman said.

      A statement issued late Thursday by the lab, which employs roughly 6,000 people, including contractors, added: “There is no known radiological hazard to the public at this time.”

      Earlier in the day, nearly 50 firefighters from the lab and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management focused their efforts on protecting a separate facility where spent nuclear rods are stored, according to the lab.

      Additional radioactive rods are kept cooled in storage ponds farther to the south at a site called the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center.

      The center’s workers “have taken shelter at the facility as a precaution,” the lab said in a late update without further explanation.

      “They’re fighting (the fire) from all directions at the moment; winds are changing every minute,” lab spokeswoman Sara Prentice said Thursday afternoon.

      The exact distance between the leading edge of the rapidly spreading blaze and various facilities on the laboratory grounds, which also includes three working reactors, was not precisely known Thursday night, lab officials said.

      But flames did reach to within several miles of sites where spent nuclear fuel is kept, including the Materials and Fuels Complex and the so-called Naval Reactors Facility.

      CAUSE UNDER INVESTIGATION

      Thursday’s blaze at the lab came three days after crews extinguished an earlier fire that burned through sagebrush and grasslands on the northwest edge of property.

      Government officials said that blaze was sparked by a vehicle with a blown tire dragging its metal rim along the pavement of a state highway near the laboratory.

      The cause of the new blaze was under investigation. It is one of five wildfires that erupted in eastern Idaho on Thursday amid lightning strikes, high temperatures and strong winds.

      Fires have charred tens of thousands of acres across Idaho and the Northern Rockies in recent days, including parts of Montana, Yellowstone National Park and northwestern Wyoming.

      The National Weather Service on Thursday heightened fire warnings for the region because of soaring temperatures, dwindling humidity and predicted lightning storms with wind gusts of up to 35 miles per hour.

      Hot, dry, windy conditions also posed difficulties on Thursday for the 170 firefighters assigned to a separate fire blazing out of control in forested high country of east-central Idaho and western Montana.

      The Saddle Complex blaze, which has scorched 21,100 acres in Idaho’s Salmon-Challis National Forest and the Bitterroot National Forest of Montana, was burning with such intensity and in such rugged terrain that fire bosses deemed it unsafe to launch an attack except by air.

      “These aren’t the kind of conditions you put people in,” U.S. Forest Service spokesman Bob MacGregor said.

      Ground crews on Thursday worked to protect 30 outlying homes and establish perimeters in advance of oncoming flames.

      Authorities in Montana told residents of 50 houses west of Darby to prepare for evacuation, and smoke in the Bitterroot Valley prompted health officials to advise small children and people with respiratory or heart problems to stay indoors.

      (Editing by Steve Gorman, Jerry Norton and Cynthia Johnston)

      Read more http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/environment/~3/BIhdtGnxsO4/us-wildfires-idaho-idUSTRE77O8ES20110826


      Report comment

      • Darth

        Hey Taco,

        How about a brief quote that strikes you as important – then the link – instead of these long pastes for everyone to stumble through as you clog up the thread with this attention getting blast from out of the blue.


        Report comment

      • Evacuation of areas downwind of fires should now be standard procedure in this country. Especially Idaho, if you get my drift.

        The underbrush ‘most likely’ has some ‘untested’ amount of fresh cesium which when burned will become airborne again and be passed downwind.

        Q: How far, wide and with what speed will these radioactive materials spread?
        A: You don’t want to know. But, it will continue to be hazardous for about 300 years.


        Report comment

        • Misitu

          I kind of like the idea, posited in the Los Alamos discussions, that a radioistope of magnesium may be present as a decay product, giving all sorts of interesting properties to fires.

          We might be able to build a few more scary transmutation scenarios if anyone had the interest to do so (not me right now – some deadlines on top of).

          Transmutation also helps with giving a seasoning of unpredictability to corium development.


          Report comment

      • StPaulScout StPaulScout

        Tacamagrove – Just keep posting what you find here. It is easy to skip over if some don’t want to read them. Keep up the excelent work.


        Report comment

      • WorseThanChernobyl

        I wonder if this is why my entire family has had strange symptoms since around Monday or Tuesday. We are in eastern WA and this area burning is not really very far from us. I don’t know about Jet stream, etc. and which way it would go, but I think it is possible we have received some of the drift from whatever is being made airborne by this fire.


        Report comment

    • Core ejection, Thom Hartmann with Paul Gunter talked about this a week ago also. Someone did a great “China Syndrome” video.

      ☢ Fukushimas China Syndrome With Radioactive Steam and Media Blackout ☢
      http://radioactivechat.blogspot.com/2011/08/fukushimas-china-syndrome-with.html


      Report comment

    • Arizonan Arizonan

      I am so shocked by this headline! When TEPCO and the Japanese government told us the March 12-13-14 explosions were merely hydrogen explosions, only damaging the exterior, and that the nuclear cores were still safely in their containers, I believed them!! I always believe the authorities, because they are there to protect us, right??!! Didn’t you believe them? Or did some part of you already know they were lying?

      No wonder they haven’t been able to respond to vast levels and spread of contamination. The truth is that ejection of CORE material happened because CORES created too much pressure due to loss of coolant and blew through part of their containments. I liked Arnie’s spent fuel pool theory, but if the NRC has actually confirmed core explosions, then soil samples with almost a million Bq/sq meter in Tokyo make more sense.

      The truth really IS useful sometimes, Mr TEPCO, Mr Kan, Mr Every Man Leader/Authority in World in Pocket of Nuke & Oil Companies: sometimes the truth can save human lives. Human lives are more important than profit: Let us NEVER forget that. Anyone upholding any other standard should be prosecuted as a criminal. Can we please agree on this point, across the political spectrum, across the world? Human lives are more important than profit. BASIC standard we MUST demand. For they will not.

      (sorry about lame sarcasm attempt)


      Report comment

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    That’s impossible! Core explosions are NOT part of the regular operation according to the NRC manual

    *frantic flipping through the pages


    Report comment

    • Steven Steven

      YOU have the manual! They’ve been searching high and low for it. Someone left it under a Time magazine in a doctor’s waiting room and it hasn’t been seen since. (the guy who lost it stopped coming to work for some reason, so they never found out where he took it).


      Report comment

      • Sickputer

        >Core explosions are NOT part of the regular operation according to the NRC manual

        You are both liars…they only had 10 copies of the last NRC manual and one of them hadn’t even been colored in!

        No I have the last collector’s edition… ten copies of the official NRC manual they printed on a Kodak printer in Rochester. They had special access in gratitude from the Kodak execs whose pregnant wives were able to live in the HEPA-filtered film plant because the NRC warned them about impending atomic blasts in Nevada and Utah.

        I am saving those sacred tomes to wipe my sorry radioactive poo on when we’re all dying On the Beach (or the Road).


        Report comment

  • cossack55

    All right, NRC. Way to go. They figured that out in less than 6 months. Impressive. How long before the SEC figures out the TBTF banks have screwed the US for the last 30 years? Thats gubmint I can believe in. NOT!!!!


    Report comment

  • radegan

    A few months back, the Japanese government admitted that ‘at least’ 200 lbs of plutonium had been ejected from the MOX reactor. They failed to mention mox fuel is 13 parts uranium for every part of plutonium and milled to nano size which helps it attain trade winds altitude and higher. So, if you ejected 200 lbs of plutonium, then you also ejected 2600 lbs of uranium from #3 alone. How many pounds of uranium were in the Hiroshima bomb? Around 30 lbs. 2600 divided by 30 = 86.6 Hiroshima bombs from this ejection alone, PLUS the 200 lbs of plutonium, and that’s IF you think they told you the truth and the core ejection in #3 only amounted to 1.5% of the fuel.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    …Wow..can I just express how hard it’s been since I was 12 years old..knowing dumb arses run this world…true intellectual inferiors…yeck…
    ..the cores were ejected..ya think?


    Report comment

  • sueec

    More uranium going up up and away
    Nigerian authorities and France’s Areva group have sent experts to investigate eruptions, smoke and fumes spouting from a mountain in the West African nation’s northern uranium mining district of Arlit, state media said. Earlier this week, residents reported two days of activity. Experts dispatched to take samples found cracks in the mountainside and rocks 400 metres away. There were no reports of injuries or damage to mines. “According to the witnesses who alerted the authorities, when they heard explosions, they initially thought it was an earthquake or a volcanic eruption,” state radio said in a report. “The mountain rumbled, giving the impression that it was collapsing. Black smoke rose and there was a smell of gas, as it was coming from fuel,” the report added. State radio said local government authorities and geologists and chemists from Areva, which has several uranium mining interests in the region, visited the mountain on Tuesday to take samples. The northeast of Arlit is home to the Air mountains, but volcanic activity in the area is long thought to have ended. There were no further details immediately available.
    RSOE


    Report comment

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      Hi sueec,
      the situation in Nigeria is really close to hopeless…they have Shell polluting their river delta, and two big uranium mines – Areva and EDF.
      Each of those cities where the mining is done has a hospital – one owned by Areva, one by EDF.
      Many people are dying there. But of course there is “no proof these deaths are related to the mining”.
      See Greenpeace taking readings in their dusty streets (short clip):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn2JjavSuPc&feature=relmfu


      Report comment

      • Whoopie Whoopie

        These Hospital’s are owned by AREVA!??!?! Wowzer.


        Report comment

      • jdotg

        Im rather skeptical of this video, just for the fact at :34 into the video the lady states this..

        “this is even higher then in the underground uranium mine”

        MY first thought, how in the hell can dirt be more radioactive then uranium in a uranium mine?

        Then it hit me like a ton of bricks, Oh thats right, natual uranium isnt radioactive in its own right. Its the enrichment process that makes it radioactive.

        remember this video is from greenpeace, they are meant to convince you, not inform you.


        Report comment

        • dharmasyd dharmasyd

          remember this video is from greenpeace, they are meant to convince you, not inform you.

          Some folks would say the same of the NRC:

          “…they are meant to convince you, not inform you.”

          I had direct experience of this back during the Pacific tests in the 1950s when the NRC went under it original name, AEC. I posted this story of my encounter with Glenn Seaborg and Edward Teller a few months back. Don’t have time to find it or repeat it now. I’m off to an appointment, but I’ll post it next time I see your name.

          BTW: I’m glad you didn’t leave.


          Report comment

          • jdotg

            First let me say thanks. That sounds like an amazing story to be honest. Seeing teller is a founding father of our atomic age. Ill be looking forward and shucks i missed it. And some folks undoubtedly will say that. Cant blame them either, after all, it is in there interest to convince, but i believe to inform also.

            But i doubt anybody will explain why natural uranium is causing radiation? Because it cant.


            Report comment

          • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

            How to get irradiated from uranium mining sludge.
            A picture. Maybe that’s easier to understand.
            http://septilessansuranium.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/2010-06-18_1111581.png


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            Go see comment at 3:35pm to understand how u-238 the most commonly found isotope of uranium is only mildly radioactive compared to most other elements. Then read the following.

            Also its an alpha emitter, your little illustration, has it emitting a gamma ray . Sorry but thats entirely wrong and shows that your picture is now no longer creditable. Dang it.

            The radon gas contained in the uranium ore, is your biggest threat, in all of uranium mining, period. Which your picture depicts. And that should dissipate to acceptable(non harmful) levels upon reaching our atmosphere. If the mine is underground, with only tunnel access and not a strip mine, this could serve as a serious risk.

            it would also be beneficial if it was in English as im sure i could prove it has additional errors. Like the uranium draining to the water, if the uranium it self is only very mildly radioactive, then the same can be said for the water, should pose no risk. It would have to be in contact with the water for millions of years, seeing it has a billions of years half life.

            Nice try though, Maybe this just isnt easy for you to understand.


            Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          @jdotg
          “Uranium ( /jʊˈreɪniəm/ yew-RAY-nee-əm) is a silvery-white metallic chemical element in the actinide series of the periodic table, with atomic number 92. It is assigned the chemical symbol U. A uranium atom has 92 protons and 92 electrons, of which 6 are valence electrons. The uranium nucleus binds between 141 and 146 neutrons, establishing six isotopes (U-233 through U-238), the most common of which are uranium-238 (146 neutrons) and uranium-235 (143 neutrons). All isotopes are unstable and uranium is weakly radioactive. Uranium has the second highest atomic weight of the naturally occurring elements, lighter only than plutonium-244.[3] Its density is about 70% higher than that of lead, but not as dense as gold or tungsten. It occurs naturally in low concentrations of a few parts per million in soil, rock and water, and is commercially extracted from uranium-bearing minerals such as uraninite.
          “In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%). Uranium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years,[4] making them useful in dating the age of the Earth.
          “Many contemporary uses of uranium exploit its unique nuclear properties. Uranium-235 has the distinction of being the only naturally occurring fissile isotope. Uranium-238 is fissionable by fast neutrons, and is fertile, meaning it can be transmuted to fissile plutonium-239 in a nuclear reactor. Another fissile isotope, uranium-233, can be produced from natural thorium and is also important in nuclear technology. While uranium-238 has a small probability for spontaneous fission or even induced fission with fast neutrons, uranium-235 and to a lesser degree uranium-233 have a much higher fission cross-section for slow neutrons”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
          Is uranium radioactive?
          “All isotopes of uranium are radioactive, with most having extremely long half-lives. Half-life is a measure of the time it takes for one half of the atoms of a particular radionuclide to disintegrate (or decay) into another nuclear form. Each radionuclide has a characteristic half-life. Half-lives vary from millionths of a second to billions of years. Because radioactivity is a measure of the rate at which a radionuclide decays (for example, decays per second), the longer the half-life of a radionuclide, the less radioactive it is for a given mass. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25 thousand years.
          “Uranium atoms decay into other atoms, or radionuclides, that are also radioactive and commonly called “decay products.” Uranium and its decay products primarily emit alpha radiation, however, lower levels of both beta and gamma radiation are also emitted. The total activity level of uranium depends on the isotopic composition and processing history. A sample of natural uranium (as mined) is composed of 99.3% uranium-238, 0.7% uranium-235, and a negligible amount of uranium-234 (by weight), as well as a number of radioactive decay products.
          “In general, uranium-235 and uranium-234 pose a greater radiological health risk than uranium-238 because they have much shorter half-lives, decay more quickly, and are thus “more radioactive.” Because all uranium isotopes are primarily alpha emitters, they are only hazardous if ingested or inhaled. However, because several of the radioactive uranium decay products are gamma emitters, workers in the vicinity of large quantities of uranium in storage or in a processing facility can also be exposed to low levels of external radiation.”
          http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/uproperties/faq5.cfm


          Report comment

          • jdotg

            Again anne, i feel you are mis-informed. So its time for a science lesson,

            Every chemical on the periodic table has an isotope that will decay, hence meaning its radioactive. Some just m

            http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/g5zch/is_everything_technically_radioactive/

            Your very information.

            “Half-lives vary from millionths of a second to billions of years.”

            Here anne, the most important part you must of missed.

            “Because radioactivity is a measure of the rate at which a radionuclide decays (for example, decays per second), the longer the half-life of a radionuclide, the less radioactive it is for a given mass.”

            Simple terms, more of a half life, less radiation it emits.

            The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25 thousand years.”

            Uranium-238 (If you didnt read your own post and just copy and pasted it from wiki, as im guessing you did.) accounts for 99 percent of the uranium found in the world.

            “In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%). ”

            Im beginning to think you just dont like what i have to say. regardless of what it is.

            So yes, uranium is radioactive, but with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, you could use it as your pillow. But over a large period of time, longer then your life, it will slower decay into other elements, first thorium and then protactinium, and then finally into a pretty radioactive element, uranium-234.

            http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2010/10/26/long-half-life-dangerous/

            “Imagine the radio­active atoms are ammuni­tion cart­ridges”
            “The bullets in the short half-life pile will go off over a short period of time, and the bullets in the long half-life pile will go off over a longer period of time. Which pile would be safer to stand next to?”

            “Cs-135 has a half-life of 2.3 million years and emits beta particles with an energy of 267 keV. Cs-137 has a half-life of 30 years and emits beta particles with an energy of 605000 keV. On a graph of 100 years the change in caesium-135 is invis­ible; only at a scale of a million years does the change become visible:”

            “If you stood next to a million atoms of Cs-137 for a year 22840 atoms would decay, for a total energy release of 2.2 nan­o­joules. Standing next to a million atoms of Cs-135 for a year less than one atom (0.301) would decay and the total energy released would be 13 femtojoules, less than 150 thou­sandth of the energy released by the caesium-137.”

            Do you understand half lifes?


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            “It’s worth bearing in mind that nuclear waste even­tu­ally becomes safe. Chemical waste from the pro­duc­tion of solar cells like silicon tet­ra­flu­oride and cadmium tel­luride remain toxic forever.”

            Another section you most of missed in your so called agruement that actually supported what i said…
            ““In general, uranium-235 and uranium-234 pose a greater radiological health risk than uranium-238(99% of all natural uranium) because they have much shorter half-lives, decay more quickly, and are thus “more radioactive.” Because all uranium isotopes are primarily alpha emitters, they are only hazardous if ingested or inhaled”


            Report comment

          • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

            Of course nuclear waste becomes safe. If you just wait 100.000 years.
            And if it doesn’t leak to cause mutations in wildlife’s and human’s genes in the meantime.


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            BB, thats why you bury it deep in a mountain. I think we should launch it into space personally, so then when the rocket blows up, it will shower it upon all of us.


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            And anne ignores this comment, im not sure she likes being wrong, after she posts her supporting information, that supportismy claim.

            hey bb what you think about the by products of solar cells and hundreds of other chemicals in our world, causing those mutations before, the nuke waste does? This is not unfeasible


            Report comment

          • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

            Dear Jdotg: Proportionately, even if solar were a permanent sole strategy magic bullet sort of replacement for nuke power and other fossil fuels, even with the present silicon based inefficiences in production chain ecological footprint issues, it’s drawbacks would still be nominal or infinitessimal compared to nuclear energy. Your criticisms of solar illustrate your ignorance about how the future will work when it comes to energy policies and necessary lifestyle adjustments to bring all humans in line with the realities of living within an ALWAYS and FOREVER…………….FINITE…ecosystem. Such solutions and alternatives will be diverse, distributed and constantly evolving. Fossil fuel and status quo top-down controlled hierarchical exploitation of the many by the few has no place whatsoever in the future. We’re on the verge of big change that the complicit, brainwashed and unimaginative have no use for. The future and our finite ecosystem has no use for humans who refuse to live within their place in our finite ecosystem.


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            Im not saying that solar is the saving grace, just that it has hazardous waste as well. That is all. I did not criticize it as you assume. I think all of this assumption will not be good for the future. Then you go on some speel about lifestyle adjustments for our ecosystem, what are you blabbing about. Clearly i do understand the future policies, by stating those chemicals from solar panel production are toxic forever, and need to be disposed of accordingly. And these solutions you are talking about for this sustainable future, include nuclear energy, hope you didnt vote for obama, he supports this very idea. And with a 104 reactors adding up to trillions of dollars of assets, no we are not on a verge of change anytime soon, you may have be brainwashed yourself, if you believe people posting on here are going to revolutionize the nuclear industry, that or i want what your smoking. But true indeed the future has no need for people refusing to live inside their own place, which happens to currently be a nuclear world, as i see it, and it not changing.


            Report comment

          • Arizonan Arizonan

            I disagree that nuclear waste eventually becomes safe. That “eventually” is so far outside of human time scales as to be meaningless. Plutonium239 has a “half life” of 24,100 years…that is not meaningful in terms of human occupation of our countries, our farms. This nuclear industry term “half life” is very confusing for most laypeople, so no need to get patronizing with anyone here! If Pu239 has half life of 24,100 years, only half of it is “gone” or “safe” in nuclear parlance. We are actually talking about hundreds of thousands of years before it “goes away” and “becomes safe.” We are talking about the destruction of the human genome.


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            Very true about the waste, its just the point that both processes have hazardous waste, and i feel its the nuclear industry’s largest issue to tackle.

            But Half life is not a confusing statement if you had any kind of high school education, which i assume we all did. Im not sure you understand it either. It isnt necessarily safe after how ever many half lifes, radioactive elements, decay into more radioactive elements, eventually reaching a stable isotope when it loses most of its molecular weight or mass.

            The longer the half life the slower the element decays, the less radiation it emits. This is because the particle is not decaying in a very fast manor, so nothing is coming from the element to pose a risk, as opposed to a short half life and the opposite, so the energy released is a very small amount with a very large half life. Its merely that simple. Again did you read my post at 3:35? It appears you have not. So ill show you again. Theres even a link to a page, i posted, that explains it very thoroughly and in simplistic terms for you lay-folk.

            “Cs-135 has a half-life of 2.3 million years and emits beta particles with an energy of 267 keV. Cs-137 has a half-life of 30 years and emits beta particles with an energy of 605000 keV. On a graph of 100 years the change in caesium-135 is invis­ible; only at a scale of a million years does the change become visible:”

            “If you stood next to a million atoms of Cs-137 for a year 22840 atoms would decay, for a total energy release of 2.2 nan­o­joules. Standing next to a million atoms of Cs-135 for a year less than one atom (0.301) would decay and the total energy released would be 13 femtojoules, less than 150 thou­sandth of the energy released by the caesium-137.”

            “Because all uranium isotopes are primarily alpha emitters, they are only hazardous if ingested or inhaled”


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            @jdotg- uranium
            I do have a Ph.D. and two master degrees and two bachelor degrees. One of my degrees is from a private very prestigious university. I was born into the elite, but with a moral conscience. I doubt you will ever have that many degrees. I started college when I was 16 and graduated with my first B.A. when I was 20 years old. You can continue to call me ignorant if that’s the only way you can operate.
            What you said was incorrect: ‘natual uranium isnt radioactive in its own right’ I presume you meant ‘natural’ and ‘isn’t’. But that isn’t the point.
            A more accurate statement would have been, “In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%)..”
            “All isotopes of uranium are radioactive, with most having extremely long half-lives.”
            Uranium is toxic and does have health risks:
            “The Church Rock Uranium Mill Spill occurred in New Mexico, USA, in 1979 when United Nuclear Corporation’s Church Rock uranium mill tailings disposal pond breached its dam. Over 1,000 tons of radioactive mill waste and millions of gallons of mine effluent flowed into the Puerco River. Local residents used river water for irrigation and livestock and were not immediately aware of the toxic danger. In terms of the amount of radiation released the accident was comparable in magnitude to the Three Mile Island accident of the same year and has been reported as the largest radioactive accident in U.S. History.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spill
            Someone in my town told me not to pick housing in a certain area because the housing was built on uranium tailings. That person worked at Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant and tested the air for radiation. All the people who have died from living near uranium mines and from uranium mining accidents would argue against you. Just because you think your argument would win a risk management case in a court of law doesn’t means that you are totally accurate or that you have lived up to your moral responsibilities as a human being. We aren’t arguing court cases here. I won’t be testifying in court for anyone.


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            I am and I will and heres why, I dont believe you. So because of these degrees, you opinion is right and mine is wrong? So You bash me on every post ive made, hence my replies. This elite upbringing should of taught you some respect, but with silver spoon in hand, it appears it has not. So you’ve lost mine. Surely if you have these degrees, from your “prestigious university” that has no name. If your so proud of all these scholarly achievements why not tell us the name? Youd have some job and not post here throughout the day. You must of been advanced for your age at 16, seeing as most people graduate high school at 18. Congratulations if these stories are true and i apologize if thats the case, but ill never know for sure, or care too.

            I call you ignorant because you post facts from Wikipedia, i then reply to you with things that you said, proving how, you are wrong. Its okay people make mistakes, as do I, then I retracted my statement of natural uranium not being radioactive, but if youd read what i posted, and as you did not post a rebuttal to any of that, Instead you move the debate to some thing about mill waste and water, not the ore as i was describing. I explained how the natural ore, is virtually safe with its 4.6 billion year half life.(from your comment posted, thanks for the info) You could hold it in your hand for the rest of your life and not have any problems. If you ate it or vaporized it and inhaled it youd have problems. So thus i maintain that you didn’t get those degrees because of your reading skills. And what exactly do you know about my moral responsibilities? This isnt a court case and nobody needs you to testify for anything, because they will most likely doubt you, and label you as some kind of nut, as i do. This is just a debate with me telling you how and why your wrong, with what you said to me, that made you mad.


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            @jdotg
            Since low levels of radiation are harmful, when uranium is mined, the relatively smaller percentage of isotopes which are more radioactive are readily ingested or breathed in as dust in the air or ground water, and only a small amount is very harmful. How else were so many of the Native Americans rendered sterile by uranium mining? Is there no responsibility for the air or ground water?
            Low-Level Doses of Radiation Can Cause Big Problems
            This article has links to many studies. It specially mentions Dr. Karl Morgan:
            “Karl Morgan, who worked on the Manhattan project, later came out against the nuclear industry when he understood the danger of low levels of ionizing radiation-and he said there is no safe dose of radiation exposure,” Cabasso continued, “That means all this talk about what a worker or the public can withstand on a yearly basis is bogus. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. These so-called safe levels are coming from within the nuclear establishment.”
            Also: Dr. Brian Moench, MD, Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin,
            “ Ernest Sternglass (Emeritus Professor of Radiological Physics in the Department of Radiology, at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine), Dr. Alice Stewart (head of the Department of Preventive Medicine of Oxford University) and many other top scientists have also shown that low level radiation can cause cancer.”
            This article also includes a list of military studies and reports.
            “Many epidemiologic studies show that extremely low doses of radiation increase the incidence of childhood cancers, low birth-weight babies, premature births, infant mortality, birth defects and even diminished intelligence….
            “Beginning with Madam Curie, the story of nuclear power is one where key players have consistently miscalculated or misrepresented the risks of radiation. The victims include many of those who worked on the original Manhattan Project, the 200,000 soldiers who were assigned to eye witness our nuclear tests, the residents of the Western US who absorbed the lion’s share of fallout from our nuclear testing in Nevada, the thousands of forgotten victims of Three Mile Island or the likely hundreds of thousands of casualties of Chernobyl. This could be the latest chapter in that long and tragic story when, once again, we were told not to worry.”
            http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/04/cumulative-low-level-doses-of-radiation.html
            Here is one of the comments to this article:
            “As Dr. John Gofman wrote in the 1970s and 1980s, low level radiation has always been hazardous, and the commercial nuclear power industry has been covering it up before there was even a commercial nuclear power industry. This cover-up is the definitive example of “industry capture.””
            Another comment:
            “For over 50 years it has been known that there is no safe threshold for ionizing radiation. Just look up the pioneering work of Dr Sternglass; John Gofman, and Arthur Tamplin. They wrote the book on low level exposure to radiation.”


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            Belief has nothing to do it. I’m just quoting sources. Whether you believe scientists or not is up to you. You aren’t really arguing with me, you are arguing with science.

            My answers are for others reading this website, not for you. If someone steps in with more authority, then great. This isn’t a college debate. The lives of billions of people and the life on the entire planet is hanging in the balance.

            I’m trying to move people to get rid of all things nuclear. As a Christian I only have to do my best. I don’t have to succeed all by myself.

            And if it’s Tavistock I’m going up against, the exercise is pointless. But whatever information I come across and share, if it helps someone to make their point against nuclear a better argument, so be it.

            It is so much bigger than who is right and who is wrong. As Michio Kaku said, we all have a part of Chernobyl is us, we all will have a part of Fukushima in us. Whether we are incinerated or buried, that radiation doesn’t go away. It keeps accumulating with all the rest of radiation. Unfortunately, the background radiation is increasing in leaps and bounds.

            I hope that people find their spiritual center, which I personally believe is Jesus Christ. I care about that the most.


            Report comment

          • jdotg

            I personally don’t believe in any rebirth and dont need to hear your spiritual beliefs either. You mam are arguing against science, if you believe in intelligent design, im an evolution kind of guy. Not that this is wrong, you are entitled to do as you wish, and i support your choice.

            There are as many scientists that state the opposite of what you and your scientists claim, proved that yesterday, its a person duty to educate themselves and decide who and what to believe.

            Heres a article for you to think about just to prove what im saying..

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

            Taiwense steel incident, 1700 aparments, built with contaminated steel re-bar. Studies show decrease in cancer rates and no cognitive abnormalities, not to mention my link isnt from some blog.

            I now know you are full of shit, and dont read what i say,
            If your answers arent for me, quit replying to me, as for me, im done talking to you


            Report comment

        • Arizonan Arizonan

          This is not accurate. Natural uranium IS radioactive, but it is present in diffuse amounts throughout the raw unheated uranium ore. Once the ore is processed, turning it into the ‘yellow cake,’ the uranium is much more concentrated, and in a more breathable dust form, but still soluble. Thus, if you breathe it in, the body usually eliminates the radioactivity within, I think it is 24-48 hrs if I remember correctly. Uranium miners get lung cancer not because of high radiation in raw uranium ore, but because they are exposed to chronic levels of low level radiation over years of work. Their bodies eliminate it but they breathe more in the next day, and so on, so it doesn’t matter that the body eliminates it.

          The yellow cake is shipped to re-processing plants, that then isolate and separate uranium’s various isotopes. Using a series of filters that can distinguish atomic weights, they can at great expense increase the ratio of U235 in concentrated uranium metal so that it is fissionable; clearly this is also the more highly radioactive isotope, and it is through the fissioning of U235 that humans created Plutonium, an element which had not previously existed before on earth. The left over “waste” from this “reprocessing” is highly concentrated U238, what we call “depleted uranium,” which is given away to arms manufacturers and other companies (dense metal cuts thru steel like butter, highly flammable). Sometimes reprocessed fuel containing plutonium is mixed in with the raw U238, thus leading to the fine aerosol dispersion of U238 plus some Pu across Iraq, parts of Yugoslavia, and everywhere “depleted uranium” weapons have been tested or used. Once they burn at a high temp, uranium aerosols become highly insoluble. Thus, breathing in even a few particles of depleted uranium aerosol in the sandstorms of the Iraqi desert would lead to a semi-permanent lodging of these insoluble forms in various parts of the body. It takes a long time for it to pass through the air/blood barrier in the lungs, but once it does U238 can circulate throughout the body; there is some indication I believe that neurological difficulties amongst veterans may be related to this exposure. It is an alpha, beta and gamma emitter, with a half life of about 4 billion years. It radiates, or rather its atoms disintegrate very very slowly, so it is a low-level radiation hazard, but large segments of earth’s populations will be enduring chronic ongoing exposures in dust and soils for a great many centuries to come. The insolubility of these aerosols causes them to be extremely dangerous once lodged inside the human body through inhalation or ingestion.


          Report comment

          • jdotg

            Your arguing about something completely different, I dont believe i mentioned yellow cake uranium, i believe i was talking about natural uranium ore and its mining. U238, the most stable of all uranium isotopes. Yellow cake is a processed material produced after the fact. No question that is radioactive as for it is concentrated. Did you read my comment at 3:35?

            You tell me im wrong and that go ahead and reply to me saying the very same thing that i am,what i was saying about the mined uranium, possibly without even knowing you did so.
            “Uranium miners get lung cancer not because of high radiation in raw uranium ore, but because they are exposed to chronic levels of low level radiation over years of work. “


            Report comment

  • Hot Tuna Hot Tuna

    Core ejections bad PR for the nuke industry

    Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others

    Right now there’s an energy pushing you in a new direction

    ~ random fortune cookies


    Report comment

  • SteveMT

    What does the U.S. Nuclear Agency know that the Japanese don’t know or didn’t know? The original Japanese explanation of hydrogen gas versus the U.S. now saying that these explosions were core ejections are significant differences.

    Who is lying, and why the delay in this most recent disclosure?


    Report comment

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      Hi Steve MT, could it be that they hope that people have already forgotten the Japanese govmt.’s statements?
      Which I’m sure most have / don’t care anymore / never cared.


      Report comment

      • SteveMT

        You are the grim reaper of reality, and you are right. These people must have all started as used car salesmen. All of their well known deceptive techniques have been used here and elsewhere in history. Why should they change this old scam if all of it still works on dumbed-down humanity? Bait and switch, outright deception, half-truths, delayed disclosure, etc., etc., etc.

        Would you buy a used car from these people? Ha!


        Report comment

    • jdotg

      Hey steve, the hydrogen explosion lead to the core ejection.

      Nuclear reactor cores don’t just explode like a bomb. They just melt into a blob.


      Report comment

      • Arizonan Arizonan

        jdotg,
        re: above exchange. I wasn’t arguing with you. I was sharing separate information about yellow cake, as well as important information about the difference between soluble and insoluble uranium aerosols. You are parroting pro-nuke arguments, it is obvious from a mile away. Really. I’ve heard them for years. Try to see if you can be open-minded enough to improve your understanding of low-level radiation health issues. Read some of the reports at http://llrc.org and let us know what you think.


        Report comment

    • Arizonan Arizonan

      Great questions! I hope we hear the answers some day! It is an extremely significant difference. Has anyone independently verified that this info came from NRC? Just askin’….


      Report comment

  • Hot Tuna Hot Tuna

    Had it actually been 99% Plutonium they still would’ve added the standard “but there is no immediate health concern’ (don’t worry, be happy)!


    Report comment

  • Black Fan

    I’ve lost my cellphone… but it doesn’t matter because… they DON’t work after earthquakes anyway….
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62015.html


    Report comment

  • Whoopie Whoopie

    wikileaks cable: Canada studied going nuclear (powered) on its tar sands:: http://bit.ly/qJ6jCw #wlfind #tarsands #keystoneXL
    7 minutes ago


    Report comment

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    From the tweet Whoopie posted:
    “SUMMARY: THE CANADIAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CERI)
    SAYS THAT, AT NATURAL GAS PRICES OF USD 3.50 / MCF OR MORE,
    NUCLEAR REACTORS WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR TO NATURAL
    GAS IN SUPPLYING THE LARGE AMOUNTS OF STEAM REQUIRED TO
    EXTRACT CRUDE OIL FROM CANADA’S VAST OILSAND RESOURCES. IF
    THIS ANALYSIS IS CORRECT, AND IF POLITICAL CONDITIONS ALLOW
    THE NUCLEAR OPTION, THIS PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FREE UP
    SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF CANADA’S NATURAL GAS FOR U.S.
    MARKETS, WHILE FURTHER STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMICS OF
    CANADA’S SYNTHETIC CRUDE OIL. END SUMMARY”

    Where are Mark and PU239???
    Excellent find Whoopie. Now I’m depressed as well.


    Report comment

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    I am disgusted (almost) beyond words.


    Report comment

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    From: Icbuw Coordinator (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/)
    Italian civil court rules that depleted uranium caused peacekeeper’s death, announces 290k Euros compensation, lambasts Italian MoD for not issuing warnings and protective gear:
    Uranio impoverito, morte Melis lo Stato dovrà risarcire i familiari – Repubblica.it
    http://www.repubblica.it
    La sentenza del Tribunale civile dopo che l’inchiesta penale era stata archiviata: l’Esercito è responsabile in quanto conosceva i rischi delle missioni nei Balcani negli anni Novanta. Il ministero della Difesa dovrà pagare 584 mila euro


    Report comment

  • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

    Dear Anne: Thank you, as well. You made very many excellent points in your level-headed, reasoned logos against the odd POV of one of the others above, who I won’t inspire to flop about strenuously to our responses, any longer. lol


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      Thank you Pallas, I actually hate arguing with anyone. It just bothers me even more when some people are so arrogantly happy about spouting untruths. Those untruths will cause people to die. I don’t actually get mad at them. I just think how can they be so immoral? How can they live with themselves? And I guess the answer is they try to believe the untruths because the truth isn’t very pretty any more. One person was so angry, or maybe two. But that person was actually angry at himself. Because that’s the first step to coming to terms with reality. It’s hard to give up denial That person is angry at the truth, and maybe at someone who passed on the untruth.
      I’m old and I never expected to live so long. I used to think I just had to last long enough until my children reached adulthood. But when I got cancer I could have easily let go and died. I didn’t really feel very good. But my children needed me to stay alive, so I fought to stay alive.
      I can understand the young people being angry because they haven’t been given the chance at life that they should have been given. Look at how expensive education is, how expensive houses are, how few jobs there are, how many have been sent overseas, and how many of the jobs are unfriendly to environment. I wish we had changed the world 40 or 50 years ago so they would have their chance. And now the food supply has become less and less safe every year. I grieve for them everywhere.


      Report comment

  • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

    @jdotg at 3:57 p.m.

    Oh it’s surely safe. That’s why they used to dump it all in the ocean and GOM. Wonder why they don’t do that anymore? If it’s all that safe though, maybe they can dig that hole in your backyard and put it there.


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      ++++++++++ Maybe he can make his cooking utensils and knives, forks, and spoons out of uranium, and his cuff links and watch band, and maybe his house, and his car. It’s so safe.

      It’s hard to leave home and find out that the world has so many different points of view.


      Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        Of course, if he were to do that,no one would want to be any where near him. It wouldn’t be real sociable.


        Report comment

      • jdotg

        “It’s hard to leave home and find out that the world has so many different points of view.” And also to be unable to respect and not just dismiss these views.


        Report comment

        • Steven Steven

          “And also to be unable to respect and not just dismiss these views”

          … and yet this is exactly the method you employ as evidenced by your comments here. Perhaps from your own youthful perspective you are unaware of how brutish and arrogant you appear? I choose to give you the benefit of doubt, others may not.


          Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            I respect all life. If I hear an opinion which will bring about the death of a billion people and untold pain suffering to others, then I cannot respect that opinion.

            In my church we say, “Love the sinner, but not the sin.” Everyone has spent so much time answering your posts in hopes that your heart can expand.


            Report comment