Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Thrill · 24-08-2011 5:53pm

TEPCO reported possibility of huge tsunami to gov't before March 11

TOKYO, Aug. 24, Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. calculated in 2008 that a tsunami higher than 10 meters could hit its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant but has since taken no countermeasures, officials at the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency said Wednesday.

A manager at the utility, known as TEPCO, reported the calculation to the agency verbally on March 7 this year before the magnitude-9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami hit the plant on March 11, the officials said.

The agency instructed TEPCO to adopt countermeasures.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/08/110690.html

Coles · 29-08-2011 10:02pm

Why Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl, The Independent (UK)

George Monbiot is not happy. @GeorgeMonbiot"Unscientific, hysterical rubbish in Independent abt Fukushima. Should be ashamed of such myth-making. "

It must be painful for Monbiot to remember the nonsense article he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, - The Guardian, March 31st 2011.

andrew · 29-08-2011 11:17pm

Coles wrote: »

Why Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl, The Independent (UK)

George Monbiot is not happy. @GeorgeMonbiot"Unscientific, hysterical rubbish in Independent abt Fukushima. Should be ashamed of such myth-making. "

It must be painful for Monbiot to remember the nonsense article he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, - The Guardian, March 31st 2011.

In fairness, that Independant article is rather hysterical. They quote a single guy saying that up to a million people could die, without any backup, and then say that 'some scientists' say that up to a million could die. Further, they quote another person who they admit is 'alarmist' who says that Fukushima is worse only because it's lasting longer, and Chernoby went up in one go.
Chernobyl burned for like a week, and released far more radiation. Fukushima has been going on for less time, but the radiation released is smaller, and mostly into water, which obviously isn't as harmful to human health. In addition, AFAIK it's not true to say that a short high exposure to radiation is safer than a long term lower level of exposure.

ed2hands · 29-08-2011 11:53pm

Monbiot is flogging his book (pro-nuclear)at the moment so won't hesitate to throw his two-cents in at every oportunity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/world/asia/22japan.html?_r=3

Guy:Incognito · 30-08-2011 12:12am

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

blackdog2 · 30-08-2011 6:07am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

The properly run bit, it is ireland we are talking about

Solair · 30-08-2011 11:17am

blackdog2 wrote: »

The properly run bit, it is ireland we are talking about

I wouldn't want nuclear power here, but i don't the i that's a fair comment on our ability to run things safely. There are loads of examples of exemplary safety records in industrial settings in Ireland from the pharmaceutical, bio tech, and electronics industries, and power generation, aviation etc etc

irishgeo · 30-08-2011 11:41am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

you really do some research. Ireland been hit by tsunami before from the Lisbon earthquake.

also its in danger of been hit by one once half the island falls in to the Atlantic, i think its one of the canaries island. also we could get a huge underwater landslide in the mid atalntic ridge.

Solair · 30-08-2011 3:59pm

The biggest radiological risks to us are probably Sellafield and its French equivalent, Cap de l'Hague.

The closest power station is the soon to close Wyfla Magnox station near Holyhead. It's a huge, two reactor, graphite moderated, gas cooled, natural uranium fueled facility. It was the last of the magnox stations built and is due to go off line soon.

As it was quite late, it is probably a fairly safe, modern installation, but, as far as I am aware none of the British gas (CO2) cooled plants have secondary containment!! It was considered unnecessary as there is no possibility of steam explosions as its gas cooled and contains no pressurised water. They are also apparently capable of passive cooling in the event of power loss (station blackout).

However, the site is earmarked for the development of a next generation European pressurised water nuke plant.

SO, regardless of what are policies are, we have a nuke site within a few minutes of central Dublin and we are probably buying power from it via the interconnections!

shadowninty · 30-08-2011 4:18pm

These plants are surely much safer then Chernobyl given the EU´s stand on such plants.
The EPR looks fairly good and is apparently safer then previous generation designs (I dont know if this is inherent to its mechanics or what).

Solair · 30-08-2011 4:27pm

It's hard to know. The British AGR and Magnox designs are unique to the UK. The EU or standardised design has little relevance to them.

I know concerns about containment were raised by South Korea when North Korea used old, now publicly available, British magnox designs.

The Russians thought Chernobyl type reactors were perfectly safe too. They were excellent engineers and certainly had no desire to have nuclear accidents!

andrew · 30-08-2011 4:49pm

Solair wrote: »

The Russians thought Chernobyl type reactors were perfectly safe too. They were excellent engineers and certainly had no desire to have nuclear accidents!

There's an interesting documentary (can't think of the name), it's a minute by minute reconstruction of the Chernobyl incident, focusing on the guy who ended up getting most of the blame. It was on BBC. Anyway, it explains that the Soviets did indeed know that RBMK design was defective. Being the secrecy loving progress-at-all-costs Soviets that they were however, they just covered up the design flaws and figured it'd be grand, rather than fix them.

Solair · 30-08-2011 5:00pm

It's something that would concern me about a lot of older reactor designs. They were initially dual purpose - civilian power generation and military plutonium production for weapons. Hence their design was shrouded in full cold war military secrecy and paranoia.

The UK magnox design was developed from plutonium production reactors too!

PWR reactors come from a heritage of submarine power system designs scaled up for commercial power generation.

If we are stuck with nuclear power, it has to be fully transparent and modern with safety being the absolute driving force of all decision making.

Military priorities were the risk in the past, corner cutting and profit drives are the risks now!

shadowninty · 30-08-2011 5:50pm

Solair wrote: »

It's hard to know. The British AGR and Magnox designs are unique to the UK. The EU or standardised design has little relevance to them.

The EPR is not an EU Government design, it is just a cross Union project (which we need more of in the engineering field).
What I was referring to was EU regulations - RMBK reactors are not allowed operate in the Union! (Lithuania had to shut theirs down, they got compensation), so I would assume if a nuclear facility in the UK posed such a risk it would be shut down

Cathaoirleach · 03-09-2011 3:50pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIyK0CN785s

Hal Emmerich · 03-10-2011 2:45am

Plutonium and strontium found 50 miles from Reactor, first time discovered outside the immediate area.

TOKYO—Trace amounts of plutonium were found as far as 28 miles from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant, the first time that the dangerous element released from the accident was found outside of the immediate area of the plant.

The science ministry report issued Friday comes just as the government lifted one of its evacuation advisories, underscoring the difficulty of restoring normalcy and assuring the safety of residents around the crippled plant.

The government also reported a rare detection of strontium, another highly dangerous element, far from the crippled reactor, in one spot as far away as 50 miles. Most of the radioactive material discovered to date in the communities surrounding Fukushima Daiichi has been cesium or iodine.

The report said that the radiation from plutonium and strontium was "extremely low" compared to the high concentration of cesium, advising that the government maintain its focus on measuring and clearing the areas of cesium.

Toshiso Kosako, a Tokyo University expert on radiation said in an interview that the level of plutonium found was "miniscule and poses no health risk."

Still, the latest discovery is a potentially disturbing turn, as it shows that people relatively far from the plant could be exposed to more dangerous elements than had been previously disclosed.

While neither plutonium nor strontium emit powerful gamma rays like cesium and iodine, both deposit in the body—strontium in the bones, plutonium in the bones and lungs—and can cause cancer of leukemia once inhaled or ingested.

Both isotopes also have long half lives: it takes about 29 years for some forms of strontium to reduce by half, while plutonium isotopes have half-lives ranging from 88 years to over 24,000 years.

That makes them highly toxic in the body as they continue to emit alpha rays, and immensely difficult to get rid of in the environment.

The half-life of one of the most common iodine formations is eight days, while that for much of the cesium released is 30 years.

Specifically, Plutonium-238 believed to have been emitted from the damaged Fukushima reactors was found in soil samples from six separate locations, ranging from 0.55 to 4.0 becquerels per square meter. Samples from Iitate, a village located 28 miles from the power plant, registered 0.82 becquerels of Plutonium-238 and 2.5 becquerels of Plutonium-239 and -240. Iitate was evacuated earlier this year.

The finding comes from the science ministry's analysis of 100 soil samples taken within a 50-mile zone from the damaged plant between June and July.

Plutonium had previously been detected in Japan after atmospheric nuclear tests, sometimes at higher levels than were found from the June-July samples, a science ministry official said. However, the ministry cites higher-than-usual level of Plutonium-238 found in the soil samples from the six locations as evidence that plutonium release was not limited to the plant's compound.

Strontium-89 and -90 were also found in almost half of the 100 samples, in one case as far as the edge of the 50-mile zone registering measurement of 500 becquerels per square meter of Strontium-89 and 130 becquerels of Strontium-90.

Separately, reflecting the mounting costs of cleaning up from the accident, government agencies have requested about ¥400 billion, or about $5 billion, to cover the cost of cleaning up after the nuclear accident in the budget for the next fiscal year, beginning in April 2012, local media reported.

Saila · 03-10-2011 2:47am

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Plutonium and strontium found 50 miles from Reactor, first time discovered outside the immediate area.

TOKYO—Trace amounts of plutonium were found as far as 28 miles from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant, the first time that the dangerous element released from the accident was found outside of the immediate area of the plant.

The science ministry report issued Friday comes just as the government lifted one of its evacuation advisories, underscoring the difficulty of restoring normalcy and assuring the safety of residents around the crippled plant.

The government also reported a rare detection of strontium, another highly dangerous element, far from the crippled reactor, in one spot as far away as 50 miles. Most of the radioactive material discovered to date in the communities surrounding Fukushima Daiichi has been cesium or iodine.

The report said that the radiation from plutonium and strontium was "extremely low" compared to the high concentration of cesium, advising that the government maintain its focus on measuring and clearing the areas of cesium.

Toshiso Kosako, a Tokyo University expert on radiation said in an interview that the level of plutonium found was "miniscule and poses no health risk."...

another alarmist bump :rolleyes:
did you miss the part where it said extremely low dose, as in 'safe'

Hal Emmerich · 03-10-2011 3:07am

Saila wrote: »

another alarmist bump :rolleyes:
did you miss the part where it said extremely low dose, as in 'safe'

Nope, I was just wondering what's going on since hadn't heard anything in months and this is the latest, 1 hour old news from there.

I'm sure it wouldn't cause leukemia if inhaled though.......:rolleyes::rolleyes: (two, just for you)

Saila · 03-10-2011 3:21am

I'm sure it wouldn't cause leukemia if inhaled though....... (two, just for you)

there is a known cure for it in that situation, a tin foil hat and hemp trousers

Overheal · 03-10-2011 4:11am

surely a contender for the largest disaster thread on boards.

That is, threads about a disaster, not disasters of a thread. Though it might get a special mention in the latter category at some point.

Oranage2 · 03-10-2011 4:42am

Overheal wrote: »

surely a contender for the largest disaster thread on boards.

That is, threads about a disaster, not disasters of a thread. Though it might get a special mention in the latter category at some point.

Now i don't want to come across as one of those 'topper' people that mention Africa to top anything you say but didn't the 04 tsunami kill 200 thousand, the Japan one only something like 15k

Statistician · 03-10-2011 4:05pm

Saila wrote: »

another alarmist bump :rolleyes:
did you miss the part where it said extremely low dose, as in 'safe'

So there is a safe dose of plutonium now, is there?

Any amount of plutonium is cause for alarm. I certainly would not be happy living in an environment that has any levels of plutonium.

Overheal · 03-10-2011 11:58pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Now i don't want to come across as one of those 'topper' people that mention Africa to top anything you say but didn't the 04 tsunami kill 200 thousand, the Japan one only something like 15k

I was referring to postcount, not casualties.

AlmightyCushion · 04-10-2011 7:49pm

Statistician wrote: »

Any amount of plutonium is cause for alarm. I certainly would not be happy living in an environment that has any levels of plutonium.

It's really not, low levels are harmless. Just so you know, coal powered plants produce and release plutonium, uranium and thorium so you might want to stay far away from them. Whether normal coal fires (like the ones people have in their house) do or not I do not know.

Statistician · 04-10-2011 11:10pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's really not, low levels are harmless. Just so you know, coal powered plants produce and release plutonium, uranium and thorium so you might want to stay far away from them. Whether normal coal fires (like the ones people have in their house) do or not I do not know.

Do you have a source for that?
Which isotopes of Plutonium are produced from coal? The above article mentions that Pu-238 was found.

I'm aware that coal contains small amounts of Uranium, but I never heard of it also containing Plutonium.

As for Pu-238 being harmless, how much of it would you like to have in your lungs right now? - a small amount, or none?

ed2hands · 04-10-2011 11:16pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's really not, low levels are harmless.

Eh not last time i looked..

vibe666 · 11-10-2011 2:28pm

anyone for free return flights to Japan?

http://bit.ly/p0HGUy

the Japanese government is giving away 10,000 free flights to tourists worth up to 1.1b yen, you just have to tell them why you'd like to visit and what you intend to do when you're there.

el diablo · 11-10-2011 2:35pm

Been there twice already but I wouldn't another trip there next year.

Ficheall · 28-10-2011 7:43pm

http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/10/breaking-news-110-micro-svh-in-setagaya/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FukushimaDiary+(Fukushima+Diary)

110microSv/ph can't be right, can it?

Hal Emmerich · 28-10-2011 7:46pm

Ficheall wrote: »

http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/10/breaking-news-110-micro-svh-in-setagaya/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FukushimaDiary+(Fukushima+Diary)

110mSv/ph can't be right, can it?

What's a normal reading?

Standman · 28-10-2011 7:54pm

I wish someone would change the thread title. Every time someone bumps this I think a new earthquake has hit.

Ficheall · 28-10-2011 8:01pm

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

What's a normal reading?

About 0.5 to 1.5microSv, I think?

28-10-2011 10:19pm

Standman wrote: »

I wish someone would change the thread title. Every time someone bumps this I think a new earthquake has hit.

Yes: either that or put this thread to sleep and start another one about the Fukushima nuclear incident!

Solnskaya · 28-10-2011 10:28pm

jsd1004 wrote: »

There is very little evidence of a substantial increase in cancer rates as a result of Chernobyl. Thyroid possibly but that can be attributed to increased screening and children fed with contaiminated milk as outlined in the articles below

Regarding the medical data, would you care to comment.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

Regarding cost benefit I think that is incidental. If we do not use nuclear what option do we have? We are quickly killing the planet with Co2 emissions from fossil fuel. It is a tough choice but one that will have to be made.

Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

shadowninty · 28-10-2011 10:30pm

Solnskaya wrote: »

Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

Are you a global warming sceptic or something?

Elohim · 28-10-2011 11:03pm

Solnskaya wrote: »

Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

Eh jsd1004 is right:

UN Report: http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/report.pdf

"No reliable evidence has emerged of an increase in leukemias, which had been
predicted to result from the accident. However, some two thousand cases of
thyroid cancer have so far been diagnosed among young people exposed to
radioactive iodine in April and May 1986."

geetar · 28-10-2011 11:06pm

Solnskaya wrote: »

Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

no. check your facts.

Solnskaya · 28-10-2011 11:08pm

Yup, chernobyl was good, Jet airplanes don't create excess cloud, CO2 is bad, Football is important and Gerry Ryan is a saint. "Whatever" is all that comes to mind.:rolleyes:

Solnskaya · 28-10-2011 11:09pm

shadowninty wrote: »

Are you a global warming sceptic or something?

Heaven forbid. Are you 17?

4leto · 28-10-2011 11:16pm

Solnskaya wrote: »

Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

It happens to be true, there is also other studies about people who live in naturally high radiation environments such as an area rich in granite and there are no increases in cancers or any other diseases and the link provided by the poster is based on a WHO/UN report it was not commissioned by the daily mai,l or Greenpeace who wrote the original projections of the Chernobyl disaster which never came to fruition. We just simply didn't get the increase in cancers they suggested.

So lets see what happens in Japan in the future.

Solnskaya · 28-10-2011 11:23pm

4leto wrote: »

It happens to be true, there is also other studies about people who live in naturally high radiation environments such as an area rich in granite and there are no increases in cancers or any other diseases and the link provided by the poster is based on a WHO/UN report it was not commissioned by the daily mai,l or Greenpeace who wrote the original projections of the Chernobyl disaster which never came to fruition. We just simply didn't get the increase in cancers they suggested.

So lets see what happens in Japan in the future.

Yeah, and the reactors weren't built by GE, who, in the usual course of events would be bust through the lawsuits imposed, but, because it's GE, it's all good- don't mind them durty hippies spouting nonsense. Or the one tailed swallows, which only means somthing to those who have really studied chernobyls insidious effects.

4leto · 28-10-2011 11:28pm

Solnskaya wrote: »

Yeah, and the reactors weren't built by GE, who, in the usual course of events would be bust through the lawsuits imposed, but, because it's GE, it's all good- don't mind them durty hippies spouting nonsense. Or the one tailed swallows, which only means somthing to those who have really studied chernobyls insidious effects.

First of all if you did study the effect you would know about this report which was compiled by a multidisciplinary international team by the WHO from between 2003 to 2005 way before the Japanese disaster.

As for the dirty hippies,,what about them

Solnskaya · 28-10-2011 11:35pm

4leto wrote: »

First of all if you did study the effect you would know about this report which was compiled by a multidisciplinary international team by the WHO from between 2003 to 2005 way before the Japanese disaster.

As for the dirty hippies,,what about them

My hero s. Not sure where the apostrophy goes, if it has one. Anyway, fexk away and sh1te, you're boring me.

ed2hands · 28-10-2011 11:36pm

The WHO? You must be joking! they're in the pockets of the nuclear industry. Always have been old chap.

4leto · 28-10-2011 11:37pm

Solnskaya wrote: »

My hero s. Not sure where the apostrophy goes, if it has one. Anyway, fexk away and sh1te, you're boring me.

Awwwww, so you were wrong. I think its heroes.

Solnskaya · 28-10-2011 11:49pm

4leto wrote: »

Awwwww, so you were wrong. I think its heroes.

spot on. First time in a while.:)

ed2hands · 29-10-2011 12:00am

4leto go educate yourself on some reports that are not WHO or industry bull****.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

4leto · 29-10-2011 12:35am

ed2hands wrote: »

4leto go educate yourself on some reports that are not WHO or industry bull****.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

Article by Oliver Tickle writer of Kyoto 2 and a well known environmental campaigner. Mmmm I think I will pass on that journalist educating me on the nuclear industry.

If you are interested Google Radiation effects exaggerated and take your pick. The studies are not all WHO. I remember Horizon and the OU did something about it as well. But its irrelevant after fukushima there will be virtually no nuclear industry in a few years time.

vibe666 · 29-10-2011 12:17pm

ed2hands wrote: »

4leto go educate yourself on some reports that are not WHO or industry bull****.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

i'm sorry but you can't tell someone to go and educate themselves and then post a link to an article in the guardian.

its like telling someone to learn to drive and then sending them a link to this.

Solnskaya · 29-10-2011 2:53pm

I put more store in Helen Caldicotts version than the mainstream media, she seems to have a fair grasp and is not a rabid axe grinder. Watch her press conference on Youtube and it's fairly sobering stuff.

Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Comments