Skip to main content

View Diary: Recent measurements of Fukushima derived radionuclides in the Pacific Ocean (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Given that melt-through (0+ / 0-)

    didn't take much time (from vessels to drywell/torus), I am just trying to figure out when the direct waterborne releases commenced and became worse than the atmospheric releases. Knowing as we do that TEPCO/Japanese gov't have lied steadily and repeatedly until very recently about the very existence of waterborne releases.

    I am figuring that there couldn't have been direct waterborne releases until the containment 'bulbs' were melted through or seriously cracked on the bottom enough to allow all incoming water to go into the second level basements. Which were built below sea level originally so TEPCO wouldn't have to pump water uphill very far. The sumps that normally kept them from flooding were knocked out and the structures likely cracked in the earthquake, so they quickly filled and contamination flowed through.

    Water in the tunnels was so 'hot' it pegged the meters, nobody knows how radioactive it really was. But we were told they had worked to cut off their leakage early on. Suddenly this summer the waterborne situation became dramatically worse, or the new regulators at NSA just then decided to be a bit more honest. Hard to tell which. But either way, the waterborne releases were characterized by all involved and keeping track (including NRC and IAEA and Areva) as minimal until this summer when the groundwater flow was seismically diverted to its original path.

    The research you've cited here in several diaries belies that rather dramatically. The levels claimed from early in the disaster could not have come solely from fallout, or the 'Dead Zone' on land would be much bigger and Japan would be guilty of crimes against its own citizenry for not evacuating. That may be true, someone should investigate that seriously at some point. Nor have said levels "steadily diminished" if they have been constant or dramatically increased. As we are now told they have.

    At any rate, thanks for your calm responses. Please try to integrate into your understanding the fact that the waterborne situation is now dramatically worse than it was at the beginning, according to all nuclear 'authorities'. 2011 figures on contamination no longer apply.

    •  Hi Joieau, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No problem.  Please note that the Kanda (2013) study and the Kamenik et al. (2013) study both have measurements from 2012 which suggest that rather than increasing the activity of Cs-137 and the Fukushima source term was decreasing relative to 2011.

      •  Thanks. And please note (0+ / 0-)

        that reported levels over these last few months have been increasing dramatically. And don't look to be controlled any time soon. Seems like this is a bad time to try and sell the whole "everything's cool now" scenario. Just so you know.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site