JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Typical Japanese mentality, why worry when you can just pretend nothing ever happened. Other than reminding us about dropping nukes on them, they sure like to forget WW2 ever happened.

Same thing is happening here... the reactors were heading towards melt down, the US offered to give them coolant to keep things under control, they refused saying they had it under control when in reality they did nothing. MELTDOWN. Fast forward to today, they're saying they have everything under control, yet really are still doing nothing about it.
 
I'm sure everyone gets really tired of hateful Uncle Sam saving their asses all the time. Sounds like someone said "let the motherbubblegumer burn."
 
Radiation readings at Fukushima plant hit new high ? RT News

Radiation levels around tanks holding contaminated water at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan have hit a new high, officials with Japan's nuclear regulator said Wednesday.

The readings taken by the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) just above the ground near tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi plant showed as much as 2,200 millisieverts (mSv) present, surpassing the previous high measure of 1,800 mSv found just four days prior. Both levels are potent enough to kill an unprotected human within hours.

NRA officials say the area of strong radiation is highly concentrated and can be easily shielded. The tanks holding the contaminated water sit on a hill above the Pacific Ocean. Last week, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) disclosed that at least one of the 1,060 temporary tanks sprang a leak, discharging as much as 300 tons of radioactive liquid containing large amounts of cesium.

Following the incident, the NRA raised the rating of the water leak to Level 3, a "serious incident" on the international scale of radioactivity. The severity of the leak was previously classified as Level 1, an "anomaly."

TEPCO said on Monday that it might have to dump contaminated cooling water from the plant into the Pacific, local media reported.

On Tuesday, Japan announced that it will pledge 47 billion yen (US$473 million) to help TEPCO contain further leaks of radioactive water.

"Tokyo Electric has been playing a game of whack-a-mole with problems at the site," Trade and Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said in a televised interview where the plan was first mentioned.

The plan to deal with the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima plant, which was besieged by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, includes the construction of an underground wall worth US$320,000 to contain groundwater flows. The building of the wall will entail freezing a perimeter of earth around the damaged reactors to stop the groundwater from mixing with water being used to cool the melted fuel rods.
 
Actually from the output my belief is those fuel rods that fell to the bottom are still giving off a reaction. That would explain why the radioactivity is now many times higher in this area. My guess is eventually it will get hot enough for long enough to heat the floor enough for a volcanic eruption?

Oh and Thank G-d they weren't burning coal :smash:
 
Fukushima Forever | Charles Perrow

Recent disclosures of tons of radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima reactors spilling into the ocean are just the latest evidence of the continuing incompetence of the Japanese utility, TEPCO. The announcement that the Japanese government will step in is also not reassuring since it was the Japanese government that failed to regulate the utility for decades. But, bad as it is, the current contamination of the ocean should be the least of our worries. The radioactive poisons are expected to form a plume that will be carried by currents to coast of North America. But the effects will be small, adding an unfortunate bit to our background radiation. Fish swimming through the plume will be affected, but we can avoid eating them.

Much more serious is the danger that the spent fuel rod pool at the top of the nuclear plant number four will collapse in a storm or an earthquake, or in a failed attempt to carefully remove each of the 1,535 rods and safely transport them to the common storage pool 50 meters away. Conditions in the unit 4 pool, 100 feet from the ground, are perilous, and if any two of the rods touch it could cause a nuclear reaction that would be uncontrollable. The radiation emitted from all these rods, if they are not continually cool and kept separate, would require the evacuation of surrounding areas including Tokyo. Because of the radiation at the site the 6,375 rods in the common storage pool could not be continuously cooled; they would fission and all of humanity will be threatened, for thousands of years.

Fukushima is just the latest episode in a dangerous dance with radiation that has been going on for 68 years. Since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 we have repeatedly let loose plutonium and other radioactive substances on our planet, and authorities have repeatedly denied or trivialized their dangers. The authorities include national governments (the U.S., Japan, the Soviet Union/ Russia, England, France and Germany); the worldwide nuclear power industry; and some scientists both in and outside of these governments and the nuclear power industry. Denials and trivialization have continued with Fukushima. (Documentation of the following observations can be found in my piece in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, upon which this article is based.) (Perrow 2013)

In 1945, shortly after the bombing of two Japanese cities, the New York Times headline read: "Survey Rules Out Nagasaki Dangers"; soon after the 2011 Fukushima disaster it read "Experts Foresee No Detectable Health Impact from Fukushima Radiation." In between these two we had experts reassuring us about the nuclear bomb tests, plutonium plant disasters at Windscale in northern England and Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine, as well as the normal operation of nuclear power plants.

Initially the U.S. Government denied that low-level radiation experienced by thousands of Japanese people in and near the two cities was dangerous. In 1953, the newly formed Atomic Energy Commission insisted that low-level exposure to radiation "can be continued indefinitely without any detectable bodily change." Biologists and other scientists took exception to this, and a 1956 report by the National Academy of Scientists, examining data from Japan and from residents of the Marshall Islands exposed to nuclear test fallout, successfully established that all radiation was harmful. The Atomic Energy Commission then promoted a statistical or population approach that minimized the danger: the damage would be so small that it would hardly be detectable in a large population and could be due to any number of other causes. Nevertheless, the Radiation Research Foundation detected it in 1,900 excess deaths among the Japanese exposed to the two bombs. (The Department of Homeland Security estimated only 430 cancer deaths).

Besides the uproar about the worldwide fallout from testing nuclear weapons, another problem with nuclear fission soon emerged: a fire in a British plant making plutonium for nuclear weapons sent radioactive material over a large area of Cumbria, resulting in an estimated 240 premature cancer deaths, though the link is still disputed. The event was not made public and no evacuations were ordered. Also kept secret, for over 25 years, was a much larger explosion and fire, also in 1957, at the Chelyabinsk nuclear weapons processing plant in the eastern Ural Mountains of the Soviet Union. One estimate is that 272,000 people were irradiated; lakes and streams were contaminated; 7,500 people were evacuated; and some areas still are uninhabitable. The CIA knew of it immediately, but they too kept it secret. If a plutonium plant could do that much damage it would be a powerful argument for not building nuclear weapons.

Powerful arguments were needed, due to the fallout from the fallout from bombs and tests. Peaceful use became the mantra. Project Plowshares, initiated in 1958, conducted 27 "peaceful nuclear explosions" from 1961 until the costs as well as public pressure from unforeseen consequences ended the program in 1975. The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission indicated Plowshares' close relationship to the increasing opposition to nuclear weapons, saying that peaceful applications of nuclear explosives would "create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests" (emphasis supplied). A Pentagon official was equally blunt, saying in 1953, "The atomic bomb will be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends." The minutes of a National Security Council in 1953 spoke of destroying the taboo associated with nuclear weapons and "dissipating" the feeling that we could not use an A-bomb.

More useful than peaceful nuclear explosions were nuclear power plants, which would produce the plutonium necessary for atomic weapons as well as legitimating them. Nuclear power plants, the daughter of the weapons program -- actually its "bad seed" --f was born and soon saw first fruit with the1979 Three Mile Island accident. Increases in cancer were found but the Columbia University study declared that the level of radiation from TMI was too low to have caused them, and the "stress" hypothesis made its first appearance as the explanation for rises in cancer. Another university study disputed this, arguing that radiation caused the increase, and since a victim suit was involved, it went to a Federal judge who ruled in favor of stress. A third, larger study found "slight" increases in cancer mortality and increased risk breast and other cancers, but found "no consistent evidence" of a "significant impact." Indeed, it would be hard to find such an impact when so many other things can cause cancer, and it is so widespread. Indeed, since stress can cause it, there is ample ambiguity that can be mobilized to defend nuclear power plants.

Ambiguity was mobilized by the Soviet Union after the 1987 Chernobyl disaster. Medical studies by Russian scientists were suppressed, and doctors were told not to use the designation of leukemia in health reports. Only after a few years had elapsed did any serious studies acknowledge that the radiation was serious. The Soviet Union forcefully argued that the large drops in life expectancy in the affected areas were due to not just stress, but lifestyle changes. The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), charged with both promoting nuclear power and helping make it safe, agreed, and mentioned such things as obesity, smoking, and even unprotected sex, arguing that the affected population should not be treated as "victims" but as "survivors." The count of premature deaths has varied widely, ranging from 4,000 in the contaminated areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia from UN agencies, while Greenpeace puts it at 200,000. We also have the controversial worldwide estimate of 985,000 from Russian scientists with access to thousands of publications from the affected regions.

Even when nuclear power plants are running normally they are expected to release some radiation, but so little as to be harmless. Numerous studies have now challenged that. When eight U.S. nuclear plants in the U.S. were closed in 1987 they provided the opportunity for a field test. Two years later strontium-90 levels in local milk declined sharply, as did birth defects and death rates of infants within 40 miles of the plants. A 2007 study of all German nuclear power plants saw childhood leukemia for children living less than 3 miles from the plants more than double, but the researchers held that the plants could not cause it because their radiation levels were so low. Similar results were found for a French study, with a similar conclusion; it could not be low-level radiation, though they had no other explanation. A meta-study published in 2007 of 136 reactor sites in seven countries, extended to include children up to age 9, found childhood leukemia increases of 14 percent to 21 percent.

Epidemiological studies of children and adults living near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will face the same obstacles as earlier studies. About 40 percent of the aging population of Japan will die of some form of cancer; how can one be sure it was not caused by one of the multiple other causes? It took decades for the effects of the atomic bombs and Chernobyl to clearly emblazon the word "CANCER" on these events. Almost all scientists finally agree that the dose effects are linear, that is, any radiation added to natural background radiation, even low-levels of radiation, is harmful. But how harmful?

University professors have declared that the health effects of Fukushima are "negligible," will cause "close to no deaths," and that much of the damage was "really psychological." Extensive and expensive follow-up on citizens from the Fukushima area, the experts say, is not worth it. There is doubt a direct link will ever be definitively made, one expert said. The head of the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said: "There's no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance of success....The doses are just too low." We have heard this in 1945, at TMi, at Chernobyl, and for normally running power plants. It is surprising that respected scientists refuse to make another test of such an important null hypothesis: that there are no discernible effects of low-level radiation.

Not surprisingly, a nuclear power trade group announced shortly after the March, 2011 meltdown at Fukushima (the meltdown started with the earthquake, well before the tsunami hit), that "no health effects are expected" as a result of the events. UN agencies agree with them and the U.S. Council. The leading UN organization on the effects of radiation concluded "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers." The World Health Organization stated that while people in the United States receive about 6.5 millisieverts per year from sources including background radiation and medical procedures, only two Japanese communities had effective dose rates of 10 to 50 millisieverts, a bit more than normal.

However, other data contradict the WHO and other UN agencies. The Japanese science and technology ministry (MEXT) indicated that a child in one community would have an exposure 100 times the natural background radiation in Japan, rather than a bit more than normal. A hospital reported that more than half of the 527 children examined six months after the disaster had internal exposure to cesium-137, an isotope that poses great risk to human health. A French radiological institute found ambient dose rates 20 to 40 times that of background radiation and in the most contaminated areas the rates were even 10 times those elevated dose rates. The Institute predicts and excess cancer rate of 2 percent in the first year alone. Experts not associated with the nuclear industry or the UN agencies currently have estimated from 1,000 to 3,000 cancer deaths. Nearly two years after the disaster the WHO was still declaring that any increase in human disease "is likely to remain below detectable levels." (It is worth noting that the WHO still only releases reports on radiation impacts in consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.)

In March 2013, the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey reported examining 133,000 children using new, highly sensitive ultrasound equipment. The survey found that 41 percent of the children examined had cysts of up to 2 centimeters in size and lumps measuring up to 5 millimeters on their thyroid glands, presumably from inhaled and ingested radioactive iodine. However, as we might expect from our chronicle, the survey found no cause for alarm because the cysts and lumps were too small to warrant further examination. The defense ministry also conducted an ultrasound examination of children from three other prefectures distant from Fukushima and found somewhat higher percentages of small cysts and lumps, adding to the argument that radiation was not the cause. But others point out that radiation effects would not be expected to be limited to what is designated as the contaminated area; that these cysts and lumps, signs of possible thyroid cancer, have appeared alarmingly soon after exposure; that they should be followed up since it takes a few years for cancer to show up and thyroid cancer is rare in children; and that a control group far from Japan should be tested with the same ultrasound technics.

The denial that Fukushima has any significant health impacts echoes the denials of the atomic bomb effects in 1945; the secrecy surrounding Windscale and Chelyabinsk; the studies suggesting that the fallout from Three Mile Island was, in fact, serious; and the multiple denials regarding Chernobyl (that it happened, that it was serious, and that it is still serious).

As of June, 2013, according to a report in The Japan Times, 12 of 175,499 children tested had tested positive for possible thyroid cancer, and 15 more were deemed at high risk of developing the disease. For a disease that is rare, this is high number. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is still trying to get us to ignore the bad seed. June 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy granted $1.7 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to address the "difficulties in gaining the broad social acceptance" of nuclear power.

Perrow, Charles. 2013. "Nuclear denial: From Hiroshima to Fukushima." Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 69(5):56-67.
 
Whee...

Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant operator says another tank leaked toxic water | Reuters

(Reuters) - The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant said on Thursday another tank holding highly contaminated water overflowed, probably sending the liquid into the Pacific Ocean, in the second such breach in less than two months.

Recent site mishaps have returned Tokyo Electric Power Co, or Tepco, to the spotlight, calling into question its ability to execute a complex cleanup that could last decades. The company has vowed to monitor the tanks more closely and improve its water management.

Amid mounting international alarm, Japan's government stepped in last month and said it would fund efforts to improvement water management at the plant.

The latest leaks show Tepco's efforts to improve its handling of the contaminated water are not sufficient, Japan's top government spokesman, Yoshihide Suga, told reporters on Thursday. The government will take steps to deal with the water, he said, adding that he thought the situation was under control.

Tepco has been relying on hastily built tanks to hold excess cooling water flushed over damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site, where three units suffered nuclear meltdowns and hydrogen explosions after a March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

Tepco said the water that leaked contained 200,000 becquerels per liter of beta-emitting radioactive isotopes, including strontium 90. The legal limit for strontium 90 is 30 becquerels per liter.

The breach was discovered in a tank holding area away from where 300 metric tons (1 metric ton = 1.1023 tons) of toxic water escaped in August.

About 430 liters (113 gallons) of water spilled over a period of as much as 12 hours after a worker misjudged how much could be held by the tank, which is tilting because of an uneven location, Tepco spokesman Masayuki Ono told reporters.

The company is filling tanks to the brim as it does not have the capacity to accommodate the buildup of contaminated water, Ono said, adding that the water is likely to have flowed into a trench leading to the Pacific Ocean, about 300 m (330 yards) from the tank.

It is also pumping out accumulated rainwater in tank holding areas.

After repeated denials, Tepco admitted in July that contaminated water was flowing into the Pacific Ocean from the wrecked reactor buildings at Fukushima.

Measurable radiation from water leaking from the facility is mostly confined to the harbor around the plant, officials have said, and is not an environmental threat to other countries as the radiation will be diluted by the sea.

Tepco has been pumping hundreds of metric tons of water a day over the Fukushima reactors to keep them cool and storing the radioactive wastewater in tanks above ground.

It has also found high levels of radiation just above the ground near other tanks, suggesting widespread structural problems with the tanks.
 
Thing is with the bozo squad in japan polluting the world why do I hafta drive my vehicles down to get emission tested every year? Why does this country constantly need to keep losing revenue because the epa makes it hard for shops to colorize metal parts, when in china there is no epa & anyone can just go ahead & dump poison in the river? If the race is on to destroy whatever is left of this planet I want my fair share as well.

Screw the UN for not stepping in & forcing these people to take actual responsibility for this problem they made for everyone. In fact what exactly is the know-it-all UN doing to fix this, or isn't this one of their worries?
 
Screw the UN for not stepping in & forcing these people to take actual responsibility for this problem they made for everyone. In fact what exactly is the know-it-all UN doing to fix this, or isn't this one of their worries?

Stepping in? What authority does the UN have to "step in" on the trials of a sovereign nation? Who would do it? The IAEA would probably love to offer "support" if asked, and I don't know if they have been or not, but they don't have any authority to do anything they're not asked to do, and likely wouldn't have the facility to do much of anything even if they were asked to take over.
 
The UN seems to have the authority to waste more of the worlds money than likely any other entity does. I thought they existed to save the world?
Actually I could care less about the un part of my rant, the important part was the beginning
 
Something like this isn't going to be a big deal unless it's made a big deal. People aren't getting much exposure to it. They're more concentrated on the DC shooter and now gate-smasher, the "shutdown," and whether it's Obama or the Tea Party that's going to bring us to the brink of Bert's long-awaited social collapse (the answer is neither).

Unless your representative gets the impression it's going to affect their next campaign, they're not going anywhere near Fukushima.
 
This release of lethal levels of ionizing radiation is not a one time finite occurrence as I understand it, but an ongoing happening. The ionizing radiation will be active for hundreds of years. So in a hundred years how many tones of contaminated water with have been released into the ecosystem and just where will it be stored even if it can all be collected ? This appears to be a growing hazard without an end in sight. Eventually, it seems to me, not just the fish, but we will all glow in the dark ... if you live long enough that is.
 
Brits Lose Control of Nuke Reactors: "Unbelievable... Seriousness of a Major Radioactive Release"

The threat of a nuclear meltdown if you live within several hundred miles of a nuclear facility is one worthy of consideration, planning and preparation. You'll need to have a bug out plan in place and be ready to put it into action in seconds – not minutes.

You'll have to move fast – very fast – at the first sign that a nuclear event is imminent. Tens of thousands of scared and panicked people will be trying to figure out what to do, how to get out of town, and where they will go. If you have a plan in place ahead of time you'll at least be able to move a few minutes sooner than the rest of the golden horde. And when we're talking 90 minutes until meltdown, even 5 minutes could be a life saver.

Nuclear disasters can happen. We've seen it with our own eyes. It will happen again. That is just about guaranteed.

Be prepared to act when it does.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top