Skip to main content

[Guest Diary by Will Davis, produced here with permission of the ANS Nuclear Cafe]

By Will Davis

In recent days, a number of articles have been printed that assert that a grave danger exists at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear generating station. These articles claim that this danger exists due to the condition of the spent nuclear fuel at the site and the supposedly shaky condition of its storage and care. Two examples:

The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Is Far From Over” by Robert Alvarez

Fukushima Daiichi Site: Cesium-137 is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl Accident” by Akio Matsumura

These articles are highly deceptive. The occurrence of a cataclysmic release of radioactive material as surmised is hinged upon the occurrence of so many statistically impossible events that it is certain to be a practical impossibility. Since the assertions continue to gain a wider audience, however, it is necessary to examine them and make a realistic assessment of their likelihood.

These articles are highly deceptive. The occurrence of a cataclysmic release of radioactive material as surmised is hinged upon the occurrence of so many statistically impossible events that it is certain to be a practical impossibility. Since the assertions continue to gain a wider audience, however, it is necessary to examine them and make a realistic assessment of their likelihood.

Assertion 1: The spent fuel pools, particularly at Fukushima Daiichi No. 4 plant (1F-4), are liable to collapse

Since shortly after the Tohoku quake and tsunami, TEPCO has continually inspected the buildings at the site for physical integrity. More importantly, TEPCO has conducted seismic safety studies of all the reactor buildings; the results of these studies are linked below, which show that the reactor buildings are safe in the event of further (even severe) earthquakes.

“Submission of Reports about the study regarding current seismic safety and reinforcement of reactor buildings at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station”

Important Report from TEPCO” (particularly items dated April 5)

   

“At 11:04 pm on April 1, a 5.9-magnitude earthquake centered in the coast of Fukushima Prefecture occurred. Hama-dori of Fukusihma Prefecture registered intensity 5 lower on the Japanese seismic (intensity) scale of 7. No abnormalities were detected at facilities for water injection into the reactors, nitrogen gas injection, cooling of spent fuel pool, and the treatment of highly contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. They all operate normally after the quake. As for the degree of the shake of the reactor buildings, Unit 6′s reactor building’s foundation registered 40.7 gal in horizontal direction and 19.4 gal in vertical direction.

    We, TEPCO, evaluate earthquake-proof safety by developing Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion Ss as large-scale quake which would possibly occur in future. For example, the degree of shake of Unit 6′s reactor building’s foundation against the Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion is 448 gal in horizontal direction and 415 gal in vertical direction (which is around 10 times large in horizontal way and around 20 times large in vertical way compared with the quake occurred on April 1, 2012). We assess that the level of this Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion is almost same as the one recorded for the Tohoku–Pacific Ocean Earthquake. Based on the Motion, we simulated the damaged situation of the current reactor buildings of Unit 1 to 4, having implemented quake response analysis for the reactor buildings as well as equipments and pipes which are important in terms of safety. As a result, we confirmed that there are no negative signal, such as shear/twist of quake-proof walls of buildings, the fact that the stress of facilities/piping lowers the standard value, and the fact that buildings collapse and facilities/ piping lose their functions.”

NUREG /CR-4982, “Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in support of Generic Safety Issue 82,” Brookhaven National Laboratory, indicates that the likelihood of seismically induced spent fuel pool failure may be as low as 1 X 10-10 occurrences per reactor year, which is a statistically insignificant rate of occurrence.

From the above, it can easily be ascertained that further seismic damage to the buildings is not likely. It should be added that TEPCO is continuing to remove material (both debris and structural material) from the upper levels of the damaged reactor buildings—further reducing their mass, and the amount of mass at higher levels that could induce larger swaying moment. Thus, seismically induced collapse of the reactor buildings (as asserted in various articles penned by activists) is very unlikely.
Assertion 1: False

Assertion 2: The spent fuel pool at 1F-4 is in particularly dire structural condition

TEPCO has continuously monitored the 1F-4 building for damage (having no damaged reactor in the building, it is the most widely accessible among 1F-1 through 1F-4, and thus most easily examined). TEPCO has also constructed, as a result of structural studies performed on the building, a steel-reinforced concrete support beneath the spent fuel pool at this plant. Photos are available at TEPCO “Completion of Installation of Supporting Structure…”

TEPCO estimates, in fact, that the seismic safety margin of the 1F-4 building’s spent fuel pool is now improved 20 percent over the original condition. Thus, there is no basis to assertions that 1F-4′s spent fuel pool is in a dire condition.
Assertion 2: False

Assertion 3: The spent fuel in these plants’ spent fuel pools could ignite, leading to a massive radiological release

This assertion is patently false. First, it is important to understand that in order for the fuel to ignite, it has to get hot—and in its present condition, submerged in spent fuel pools with redundant cooling systems and filtration systems, constant remote temperature monitoring, backup generating and pumping systems in mobile units in place (on standby), and high reach concrete pump trucks on site (if necessary), there is no chance of the fuel heating up in any significant way while it is in the pools in the buildings.

We’ve seen already that it’s unlikely that the buildings would be damaged in a quake—and we can surmise, given the manpower and equipment on site, that even if any sort of equipment leak or malfunction temporarily suspended cooling for the spent fuel, that malfunction would be quickly detected and fixed. So, it’s just not likely at all that the fuel would even begin to get noticeably hot in the spent fuel pools as-is now. Temperatures of the water in the spent fuel pools is currently in the ~30 °C and under range.

In order for apocalyptic assertions of a “fuel clad ignition and fire” to occur, moreover, the clad itself would need to be heated to incredible temperatures, which just isn’t possible. Ignition of the cladding (Zircalloy-2) on those fuel elements can occur roughly at 900 ºC in the proper conditions, but it’s important to note that, depending on the surrounding conditions (presence or absence of water vapor and oxygen content of the surroundings), the material may not ignite at that temperature anyway. From NUREG /CR-4982:

   “The cladding on such fuel will not ignite until 900 ºC (1652 ºF), while the fuel melting point for UO2 fuel is 2880 ºC (5216 ºF).”
Anonline video shows Zirc-2 tube being heated with a blow torch (probably over 2000 ºC) and not catching fire. In point of fact, while the chemistry of rapid oxidation /combustion of Zirc cladding is complex, it just would not be possible under the conditions at the site. Further, even under the wild assumption that the buildings somehow collapsed, all of the other resources on site, and remotely off site, are still available to move in and provide cooling for the fuel.

In addition, the rate of heatup of the fuel depends on how long it’s been out of a reactor. According to NUREG /CR-4982, unless the spent fuel is recently discharged from an operating reactor (within 180 days), ignition of the clad is completely impossible in any situation, regardless. Experts have calculated that the heat output presently from the hottest of the spent fuel is only on the order of several hundred watts per element—a very insignificant amount in comparison to heating the material to between 900 ºC–2000 ºC in order to ignite it.

In addition, in order for a “cataclysmic” spread of the radionuclides contained in this spent fuel to occur, we can see that a massive fire is needed to both release the material and provide a driving head (or “loft”) to spread it to the winds. It’s clear that no such fire is possible, given the above information. The assertions simply fall apart.  Assertion 3: False  

Conclusion

In fact, all three assertions, as we’ve seen, fall apart at every turn—there’s no basis to assertions of shaky buildings, or a structurally failed 1F-4 plant, or the chance of zircalloy cladding fire, or billowing of the released material to the entire earth. Realistic, practical analysis, performed by personnel on site (TEPCO/NISA), nuclear professionals here in the United States with decades of experience in both theory and practice, and official peer-reviewed studies and documents (e.g., NUREG /CR-4982) show that the predictions of apocalypse being spread now are just as unlikely to occur as those predictions of apocalypse that were made then at the time of the accident.

_________

The author expresses his gratitude for assistance in this analysis provided by John H. Bickel, Meredith Angwin, Margaret Harding, Leslie Corrice, Rod Adams, Cheryl Rofer, Bill Rodgers, Paul Bowersox, Rick Michal, Steve Skutnik, and Dan Yurman.

Will Davis is the author of the nuclear energy blog “Atomic Power Review,” and is a member of the American Nuclear Society.  A former US Navy reactor operator, Davis finds his calling to be presenting the public with information about nuclear energy technology and its history
.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (16+ / 0-)

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:21:20 AM PDT

  •  peddle your bullshit elsewhere (5+ / 7-)

    you've ben shown for what you are.  Not sure how you live with yourself, but thats your problem now isnt it.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:25:25 AM PDT

    •  When facts bring out emotion like this it seems (7+ / 0-)

      the discussion, a discussion, can't go very far.

      You obviously believe what you want to believe and not the facts, or, are incapable of participation in a debate about those facts. You can excuse yourself and leave. This is for people who want a serious discussion about what is going on at Fukushima, what happened, and the future of nuclear energy.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:27:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there are no facts (6+ / 0-)

        LOL, you posted NO FACTS, you posted some opinions form SHILLS.

        as for the future of nuclear energy, thankfully there is NONE.

        my god how do you live with yourself. Selling your soul for some industry that poisons humans and this planet.

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:29:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not really sure if this diarist is a shill (3+ / 0-)

          (I suspect not) but if shills on the other side of the issue are allowed to post here, this seems to be totally kosher.

        •  Has it occurred to you (3+ / 0-)

          that your grandchildren will spit on your grave for opposing the only feasible alternative to the burning of coal and oil?

          Give it some thought.

          GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

          by gzodik on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:45:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Russgirl, Roger Fox, PreciousLittle

            only feasible alternative, what a load of shit.

            why dont you give some thought to all the cancer stricken children.  

            Bad is never good until worse happens

            by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:55:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The number of cancer stricken children (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gzodik, terrypinder, Mcrab, erush1345

              from Fukushima (thankfully!) will likely be exactly zero - as compared to Chernobyl where there were several thousand preventable cases of thyroid cancer largely because of the secrecy involved . . ..

              wrt to Fukushima, secrecy definitely hasn't been an issue!!

              •  WRONG again and again RBGuy. Facts are out there. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PreciousLittle

                Your killing industry can no longer HIDE the fatalities as they did with Chernobyl... this ongoing DISASTER is too BIG and too far GONE to hide this time!

                •  Were children employed as workers (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  terrypinder, Mcrab, erush1345

                  in the post-earthquake chaos at Fukushima?  I hadn't heard that they were, but who knows, I suppose child labor may still be endemic in parts of Asia but I really thought Japan had moved beyond that . . .

                  'cuz, if they weren't, then no children were exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation from Fukushima.

                  •  lie lie lie (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Russgirl

                    Bad is never good until worse happens

                    by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:27:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Well... depends on your (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Russgirl, PreciousLittle
                    •  See? Now that's f*cked up. Of course (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mcrab

                      completely irrelevant to anything since obviously the kid was 17, a year younger than he's supposed to be.

                      The real issue of course is the effect of all this on all children around Japan, especially as they are now exposed to toxic poison from fossil fuel that they *never*had to experience in their life times before.

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:40:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Japan has been (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Russgirl, PreciousLittle

                        making up for the loss of nukes primarily with gas, not coal. All of which is mere stopgap until they can deploy adequate alternative/renewables. Not to worry. The gross contamination of the environment, food and water supplies by Daiichi will kill the children much quicker.

                        You do know that there are areas of Tokyo and points south that are more contaminated than the exclusion zone at Chernobyl, right? Heck, the sewage sludge ash in Tokyo is stacking up in large amounts because even though Japan has raised limits significantly, it's still too hot to bury. Though they have started dumping it into Tokyo Bay. That's internal contamination, btw.

                        Would you like to subject your children to 100 mSv per year in perpetuity? I wouldn't. The Japanese have no choice.

                        •  That's apparently a temporary phenomenon (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345
                          Japan's imports of thermal coal used in power generation, meanwhile, edged down 0.4 percent to 101.2 million tonnes in 2011 as the magnitude 9.0 earthquake in March damaged coal-fired power plants along the country's northeast coast.

                          The March quake is expected to lower Japanese utilities' consumption of thermal coal by 0.2 percent in the year ending March 31, the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) projected last month.

                          If nuclear reactors did not resume operations amid public anxieties following the Fukushima plant disaster, thermal coal demand could jump by 8.3 percent in 2012/13, IEEJ said.

                          link
                        •  They import coal as well, Joy. they also import a (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345

                          LOT of oil, forgot about that one? (Both distillate like diesel and crude is burned).

                          No, there are no areas like you say in "Toyko" that are more or as contaminated as Chernobyl except if you talk about hte non-contaminated parts of the area. You drinking Arnie Gundersen Kool-Aid again, a person who refuses to name the lab where his 'tests' were performed.

                          That's the unfortunate bet, isn't it? Likely few are going to die from the few cancers that develop from this accident. That's a GOOD thing, right?

                          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                          by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:20:54 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, it is f*cked up. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Russgirl, PreciousLittle

                        But since TEPCO has long been relying on the Yakuza to supply the grunts for this mass-meltdown disaster, they can't be too picky about falsified documentation.

                    •  Is a 17 year old really a child? (0+ / 0-)

                      Meh - in my country we try them as adults and fry them.

                      •  RBG, take a look at the statutory rape laws... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau

                        It may help you answer your own recently posed question:

                        Is a 17 year old really a child?
                        You don't help your case by being flippant about matters of life and death with regard to 17 year old kids who are victimized, either here in the US or elsewhere in the world.
                  •  Pro-nukers never answer studies re: children. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau, PreciousLittle

                    Dr. Ernest Sternglass; Childhood Cancers/Deaths Caused By Nuclear Power Plants

                    Dr. John Goffman MD PhD was a highly respected medical doctor and taught nuclear physics.

                    Dr. Goffman said that at the time 20 nuclear power plants were operating normally in the USA, (1958) that these plants would directly CAUSE 32,000 cancer cases EVERY YEAR.
                     

                    The radiation experts measured the radiation around the first Dresden Illinois nuclear plant. They found out that that the radiation was much higher, and they found that this would result in much higher numbers of cancer cases for anyone around the nuclear plant.

                    He said that the counties around Dresden, Illinois showed an elevated infant mortality.

                    This elevated death and cancer rate dropped back down to normal .....if they shut down the facility for any length of time.

                    The numbers of infact mortalities went from
                    -- 1 in 1000 during the times BEFORE nuclear plants,
                    -- to 10 or even 40 per 1,000 when these nuclear plants are operating.

                    ...The future of energy is NOT nuclear. The only energy future we have is in renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, wind, hydrogen and water.

                    Nuclear energy is a dead end in all ways. Our future  energy needs can be achieved without the danger of nuclear radiation to our children.

                    Regarding nuclear war, even if every one of the anti -ballistic missiles worked perfectly and exploded in the air and did not kill anyone, there would be so much radioactive fallout in the air, that there would be no children left to reproduce as adults anywhere in the world. The world would die with a whimper. We cannot afford to have any world war, ever again.

                    http://agreenroad.blogspot.ca/...

                    STOP NUKES - CLEAN THEM UP - STOP WARS.

                •  Is hysteria HR-able? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy, bryfry

                  Guess not. If so,there would be no antinukes here.

                  GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

                  by gzodik on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:27:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am begining to worry about that myself. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gzodik

                    I'm continuing to be 'nice' to Dark Daze. That's me. But if YOU want to HR him...

                    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                    by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:46:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  deliberate goading ramps up the hysteria (0+ / 0-)

                    ...but I 'spect you know that

                    "Kenyan-Muslim-Communistic-Expialidocious!"

                    by chmood on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:05:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Look in the mirror. Provide facts and data NOT (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PreciousLittle

                    paid for by the industry that supports it.

                    Nuke rustbuckets still need to be cleaned up at taxpayer expense.

                    HOW and WHY will the pro-nukers achieve that?
                    Still "waiting"...

                    •  No, they don't. Russgirl, you are the type (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gzodik, Mcrab, erush1345

                      that Roger would like to see go here. Nukes are not rust buckets. They are far safer than fossil fuel, a term that seems to be on vacation from your vocabulary. US nuclear decomissioning costs are paid for already out of a fund already set up. Trojan and Shreevsport were already returned to green field status with these funds. The latter outside of Pittsburgh is a nice childrens park.

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:25:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Study noted... pull nukes and cancers decrease. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PreciousLittle

                    FACTS based on DATA not SPIN.
                    Get used to it.

                    People refuse to be "collateral damage" AND pay for nukes anymore.

                    The positive wakeup call of average people about this on-going disaster will only increase over time.

                    You can't hide this like Chernobyl.  Time for change guys.
                    Give it up.
                    Put your energies toward a better long term solution with no poison waste.

                    Clean up your poison... "crickets" from the pro-nukers on cleanup, again and again.

                    •  Pull ANY industry and cancer decreases. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mcrab

                      No causes, AT ALL, are ever stated by the authors because they can or won't find the pathways. In some places, like our first nuclear power plant, cancer went up after the closing of the plant. Using YOUR logic , we should keep nukes online. Which, like you, are is not a logical suggestion (though some support this concept).

                      Studies show a very small increase in cancer. Some of the same studies in fact shows that later the cancer rate returns to 'normal' or when the plant was online. This is because the statistically irrelevant increase in cancers can be found for a host of reasons.

                      The authors of the German study, the most peer reviewed study that showed an increase in childhood leukemia around nuclear plants all admit to this, and, especially in Germany, where plants are built close to other , actually polluting industries. They often fail (the Germans talked about this on the news once) to take into account the influx of immigrants from one region to another or that people leave. They are 'static' studies, almost all of them.

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:17:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  what an ugly fucking lie (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dotdot, Russgirl

                chernobyl may have caused up to a million cases of cancer, and Fukushima may actually be worse in the long run as low amounts of radiated over long periods of time is actually worse for people.

                 God, stop lying.

                Bad is never good until worse happens

                by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:21:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's from the New Yorker - not (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  terrypinder, bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345

                  exactly a media outlet known for disseminating ugly fucking lies - they estimate that the number of cancers will be between zero and 1,000:

                  The Fukushima meltdowns scattered nuclear fallout over an area the size of Chicago. Government scientists estimate that the total radiation released on land was about a sixth of the level at Chernobyl. The government discovered stores selling beef, spinach, and other foodstuffs that contained small amounts of radiation, and it was racing to pull the products from shelves. Because of such measures, the health consequences of the meltdowns will likely be far smaller than the public imagines.

                  Unlike the Russians, Japanese authorities warned parents not to give local milk to their children. (Because their cells grow at a faster rate, children are especially vulnerable to thyroid damage.) So far, none of the workers at Fukushima have been exposed to doses high enough to cause acute radiation sickness, and scientists do not expect a large increase in cancer cases. An analysis published last month by the Princeton University physicist Frank von Hippel estimated that roughly a thousand deadly cancers may result from the Fukushima meltdowns; he cautioned that the data are preliminary and that psychological effects should be considered as well.

                  Dr. Fred A. Mettler, Jr., the American representative to a United Nations committee on radiation assessment, said, “Forty per cent of people in developed countries get cancer anyway, so, compared to that normal rate, I think the risk is going to be low—and may not be detectable.”

                  Read more http://www.newyorker.com/...
                  •  I have to take back, then, what I wrote about (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Roadbed Guy, Mcrab, erush1345

                    there likely being "no" deaths from the accident as it is likely that some will die from some of 1000 estimated cancers. It seems there will be, 1,000. A tragedy if there is even one from a situation that could of been prevented. My view is that we have the engineering ability to prevent these disasters and should. We can, and should, as it's been proven (see Fukushima DAINAI) that we can.

                    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                    by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:48:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It remains to be determined . . . (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mcrab, erush1345

                      but IMHO the New Yorker is one of the few MSM outlets that still takes accuracy seriously - and in this article they made a good faith attempt to put the brackets on the upper and lower numbers predicted by the legitimate scientific community.

                      But yeah, a blanket claim that NO ONE will get cancer is probably not rigorously supportable.  It is much less bizarre, however, than the claims that millions of people will!!

                      •  why? (0+ / 0-)
                        but IMHO the New Yorker is one of the few MSM outlets that still takes accuracy seriously
                        oh so that makes it gospel then. The article does not make a good fauth attempt at anything other than lowballing an estimate.

                        Bad is never good until worse happens

                        by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:16:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  ...and on the other hand: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    he cautioned that the data are preliminary and that psychological effects should be considered as well

                    So far, none of the workers at Fukushima have been exposed to doses high enough to cause acute radiation sickness
                    that we know of.

                    As has been said, all info (of certain sorts) comes from TEPCO;  anyone who's been keeping up with the story would be naive (or ruthlessly disingenuous) to think we're getting full disclosure about casualties and fatalities, or any aspect of personnel health & well-being.

                    Don't wave these things around like clubs, they're DATA.  THINK about it!

                    "Kenyan-Muslim-Communistic-Expialidocious!"

                    by chmood on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:11:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course 'casulties' are not the realm of (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      chmood

                      TEPCO, they are public. Same with personal well being, etc.

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:26:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They are public, but what does the public know? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau

                        Meaning, who has gone looking to see who's been physically at the plant for the last 15 months and are in fine health?  Who's gone looking to see if TEPCO has been moving people around to keep health problems and treatments from being noticed by an otherwise-supine media?

                        Who's asked how many Fukushima grunts are still alive, and still healthy?

                        If those data are actually public information, then as a member of the public, I want to know the happy facts that everyone is doing just fine...or I want to hear no more about how fine everything is.

                        BTW:  that somewhat combative tone wasn't directed at you;  just a little leakage generally.

                        "Kenyan-Muslim-Communistic-Expialidocious!"

                        by chmood on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:37:52 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  The New Yorker helped sell WMD... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    and the rest of Bush's case in support of the Iraq War, in 2003.

                    Then and current Editor, David Remnick, would later profess that he was angry about being "misled". But then, like so many others, at the New Yorker and elsewhere, he was all to willing to be blindly led by the powers that be.

                    Now Remnick's tony little magazine is low-balling projected cancer rates from Fukushima radiation. Not much has changed since nine years ago when the issue was over-hyping fictitious WMD. A decade from now, maybe said Editor will be similarly miffed about being "misled", yet again.

                    •  Can you kindly provide links to those (0+ / 0-)

                      "selling WMD" articles in the New Yorker from that era?

                      Because my memory is quite different - they seemed to be just about the ONLY MSM outlet to be calling bullshit on the WMD claims from the getgo (e.g., by publishing detailed accounts of Scott Ritter's efforts that had years earlier effectively debunked the idea that Iraq had WsMD).

                •  "May Have"? talking points from Helen Calidicott? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy, erush1345

                  No, it did not.

                  Let's re-write the above dark haze hyperbole from a point of view that is more "likely":

                  "Chernobyl likely didn't cause a million cases of cancer and Fukushima is likely a lot less catastrophic than Chernobyl and is likely to to radiated over a shorter time and is actually not as worse for people."

                  Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                  by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:30:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And about Chernobyl (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345

                  From the peer reviewed literature, not anti-nuke activists, this is what happened:

                  Twenty years after the Chernobyl accident, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of cancers in the most affected populations that can be attributed to radiation from the accident, except for the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed in childhood and adolescence.
                  link

                  About that dramatic increase in thyroid cancers:

                  Over the last 20 years, nearly 5000 cases of differentiated thyroid cancer have been diagnosed and treated in the regions of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in young people previously exposed to the Chernobyl radioactive fallout during childhood.
                  If you read the rest of the link you'll see that between 1 and 30% of these kids will ultimately die.

                  those 50 to 1,500 unnecessary deaths are definitely an outrage - but still far from the million deaths you alledge.

                  •  yeah (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Russgirl, PreciousLittle

                    from another bias source.  ANd I know magic plankton cleaned up the gulf too.  I know I know.

                    Bad is never good until worse happens

                    by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:18:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  RBG thinks wild pigs ate up Cernobyl radiation. nt (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Joieau
                    •  Yes, of course (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mcrab, erush1345

                      Science is biased towards objective truth.

                      Publications in respected scientific journals represent the latest in scientific discovery.

                      Quid novi ex Africa

                      by bryfry on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:22:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Bry that is a faith-based statement about science (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau

                        if I've ever heard one. (There's an oxymoron in there too, but that's the least of it.) Man, you describe science with the breathless reverence of a religious novitiate. You said:

                        Science is biased towards objective truth. Publications in respected scientific journals represent the latest in scientific discovery.
                        Are you not at all aware of any of the innumerable instances whereby science has been egregiously biased toward subjective fallacy, prevailing prejudices, and the socio-economic and political interests of the status quo?

                        Are you at all acquainted with the history of science? You do know that science is conducted by humans don't you? (The inhumanly, infallibly "objective" Mr. Spock is purely a character of science fiction.) And you do know that today's peer-review committees are also comprised of humans, right? (I know that because I've actually served on academic peer-review committees.) You do know that science exists within a larger culture don't you and, in fact, science is a product of culture?

                        Are you not aware of the countless examples of all the "latest scientific discoveries" that have been subsequently debunked after having appeared in what was the equivalent of the most "respected scientific journals" of their time?

                        Do you know any practicing research scientists first-hand? Perhaps not, since it is exceedingly rare to hear real people within peer-reviewed academia who still speak of science in such absurdly outdated, overly-idealistic terms.

                        •  Yes, I realize (4+ / 0-)

                          that humans are imperfect. I never claimed that anybody was perfect. Nor did I claim that the current state of scientific knowledge represents an absolute truth. My point is that the scientific method is much more likely to lead to true statements than the incoherent ramblings and musings of an anonymous person on the Internet.

                          Do you know any practicing research scientists first-hand?
                          Of course I do! I call them colleagues and friends.

                          I also know about people who are constantly talking about "prevailing prejudices" and "political interests" and various problems with the "culture" within the scientific community. I generally call them crackpots or sometimes conspiracy theorists. Postmodernism is filled with folks like that.

                          Finally, I am very aware that nothing that either you or dark daze has written qualifies as an intelligent refutation of either of the articles published in Health Phys. and Clin. Oncol.

                          I call your comments irrelevant.

                          Quid novi ex Africa

                          by bryfry on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:09:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Hmmm, I sometimes hint that hard core (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          arroganceisstrength, bryfry

                          anti-nukers tend to be hard core anti-science types.

                          But I don't have to do that here, yay! Since you've made the point in spades on your own . . . .

            •  There are none, and likely wont' be any... (4+ / 0-)

              at least from this accident. But there will be, 10s of thousands, who die from the HUGE increase in fossil fuel production due to shutting down their nuclear plants. Not to mention an increase permanently in their CO2 out put.

              Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

              by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think there will be some (0+ / 0-)

                but very hard to actually prove and people will be arguing about it for decades. I mean "normal" cancer clusters are difficult to assign to a cause as it is.

                They do about Three Mile Island, despite the fact this region (I live not far from it) is radon central and there's traces of radium in the drinking water (and there always has been.)

                I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

                by terrypinder on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:26:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There are no "normal" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PreciousLittle

                  cancer clusters. Cancer is, apart from the less-than 2% which can be identified as familial, an environmental disease. There are industrial/ag chemicals dumped 24-7 all over the place that are known carcinogens, plus the many labeled as additives in our food supply. Cancer clusters are caused by carcinogenic contaminates in the air and/or water supplies to the areas in which they occur.

                  You can ask Erin Brockovich how difficult it is to demonstrate contamination of water supplies by industrial chemicals known to cause cancer, as she has some experience with that very thing. It's more difficult to establish a causal relationship with radionuclides released from nuclear facilities (because there are so many other cancer causers in our environment), but if they're clustered within 5 miles of a nuclear plant and/or there's tritium/other isotopes in the water supply to a given population, a jury wouldn't have too much trouble with it despite the paid-to-lie 'experts' they could expect to be subjected to at trial. Usually from the NEI and/or ICRP. They've lots of such 'experts' on tap to provide for a hefty fee.

                  Cancer does not "normally" occur in geologically circumscribed 'clusters' of families not directly related to each other. It is caused by one carcinogenic pollutant or another (or several), 100% of the time.

                  And the 1 in 3 cancer rate (now scheduled to rise to nearly 1 in 2 over the next decade according to ACS and others) across the board in industrialized countries is also a result of environmental carcinogens, more spread out among the general population. Of which industrialized countries have much, much more of than non-industrialized countries.

              •  my god (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Russgirl, PreciousLittle

                no cancer cases from fukushima, my god, really?  simply pathetic the levels some people stoop to.

                Bad is never good until worse happens

                by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:28:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I corrected this above. (0+ / 0-)

                  Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                  by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:49:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No cancer is one of the positions (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mcrab, erush1345

                  advocated by serious scientists - it is not an unreasonable viewpoint to advocate.

                  OTOH, neither would up to 1,000 cancer deaths, that's the upper end of the number predicted by legitimate epidemiologists.

                  BUT, saying thousands (when one thousand is the upper limit) or especially millions like you do goes into absolutely crazy, crazy land.

                  •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mcrab, erush1345

                    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                    by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:42:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  yeah sure (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Russgirl, PreciousLittle
                    Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far.

                    Bad is never good until worse happens

                    by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:06:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, those countries were on a big kick (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345

                      in the 1990s and early 2000s to generate sympathy over their plight and garner billions of $$s in international aid.

                      When that strategy didn't work out (due to a lack or corroborating scientific evidence from reputable sources) they shifted gears and are now working on plans to resettle the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

                    •  Both are statements of policy to garner (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345

                      public (Russian) funds to pay for health care in two countries where privatization has decimated the health services. Neither the BNAS or their Ukrainian counterparts have produced a single peer-reviewed study backing up this policy statement. I think the latest Ukrainian one was withdrawn.

                      At any rate, isn't it a "good thing" that we don't allow the building the Chernobyl type reactor (RMBK, look it up on Google) anywhere outside of Russia? And, ironically, wonder why there have not been any other "Chernobyls" since the first one? Wanna guess?

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  "HUGE" increase? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PreciousLittle

                Why would anybody do that? Nukes are touted - by nukes - to represent 20% of our baseload capacity. Which is generous to the actually 17% they represent. But since nukes are always up and down, the on-line inconsistency in that touted amount is off by 25-50% in any given year.

                Renewables could make up 100% that 10-15% of capacity in less than two years. Pure conservation could make up for the full amount we get from nukes and more, right now. I know y'all like to pretend your industry is much bigger and more important than it actually is, but if we shut every single nuke in this country down this afternoon we'd still have enough AC to get through the summer. Really.

                •  Dream on (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  arroganceisstrength
                  Why would anybody do that? Nukes are touted - by nukes - to represent 20% of our baseload capacity. Which is generous to the actually 17% they represent.
                  Not really.

                  Sources of Electricity Generation, 2011

                  This information is from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, not "nukes."

                  But since nukes are always up and down, the on-line inconsistency in that touted amount is off by 25-50% in any given year.
                  I don't know where you're getting that nonsense from. It looks pretty consistent to me (PDF). The amount for Japan also looks pretty consistent (PDF). The main trend that I notice, especially for Japan, is the steady increase in generation from coal.
                  Renewables could make up 100% that 10-15% of capacity in less than two years.
                  Doubt it, unless you consider natural gas to be a "renewable," but capacity does not equal generation. Believe it or not, still wind turbines don't make your AC run.
                  Pure conservation could make up for the full amount we get from nukes and more, right now.
                  Right now? Great! Start conserving electricity right now by turning off your computer and quit posting bullshit on the Internet.

                  The Earth (and yours truly) will appreciate your contributions to conservation.

                  Quid novi ex Africa

                  by bryfry on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:08:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

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

            Its cost and schedule actually make it the worst alternative.

            •  As compared to (0+ / 0-)

              what?

              GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

              by gzodik on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:14:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Anything (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Russgirl

                Try $1200/kw investment for wind, $2500/kw for PV, vs $5000/kw for nuke.

                •  Excelpt with a 33% availability factor (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gzodik, bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345

                  (capacity factor in this this case) you'd have to build 3 times more and it wouldn't be enough to power Japan, EVER. For solar PV which only approaches its 'rated capacity' for about 5  hours a day, then you'd have to build 4 or 5 times that amount PLUS add storage, which doesn't exist. You'd also have to add storage for the wind, albeit not quite as much.

                  Unlike Germany, there is not "Scandinavian Hydro" to use as pump storage on Japan's border: there is none.

                  If I were Korea, I'd double my plans to go to 59% nuclear over the next 15 years (yes, folks, the nuclear expansion is going nicely in Korea) and then run HVDC lines to Japan and make a billions. The Japanese are already in a trade deficit, for the first time in 3 decades, because they have to import coal and oil to make up for the lack of nuclear. (get it? nuclear cancels fossil. No, I suppose you don't).

                  Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                  by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  please (0+ / 0-)

                    you know what cancels both, conservation.

                    The US WASTE more energy than it uses.

                    Bad is never good until worse happens

                    by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:07:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, that IS true, or close to truth. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gzodik, erush1345

                      I think it's proper to say the US has the most inefficent (not quite true, but close) energy usage per persson in the advanced industrial world. Measured in absolute use (units of energy per individual), or relative. (Like units of energy per commute to work).

                      But conservation and efficiency have never really accounted for growth. Also, many numbers, like California's much vaunted "no per capita growth in energy usage" is true if you don't consider absolute growth and, the off-shoring of primary raw materials and heavy industry processing to China. If you look at it from a consumer-lifecycle factor, Californians are right up there.

                      David

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:32:05 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Annual standard deviation rates (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PreciousLittle

                    for nuclear versus solar work out to...

                    25-50% for nuclear
                    10% for solar

                    Plus I also really like Lucas' observation that nukes keep trying to convince us they've got a foolproof plan (or will someday think of one) to safely store their megatons of high level, deadly for hundreds of millennia waste, while telling us solar is unworkable because we haven't come up with a foolproof plan yet to store the generated energy over night.

                    That certainly puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

                    •  But its not 'megatons' of high level waste, is it (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gzodik, Mcrab, erush1345

                      Joy? Let's count actual HIGH LEVEL WASTE in the U.S.: 70,000 tons. Thats after more than half a century of production. The French store ALL their HLW in ONE room. We can do the same.

                      Never included in Romm's calcs are the GTs they have to build or the cost of running them at, assuming, 'some price'.

                      Not included is the fact that no society can run on solar, ever, without massive amounts of yet-uninvented-utility-scale storage.

                      They are simply not comparable 'products' in terms of energy.

                      i think solar, since it's name-plate capacity ("200 kw" of PV, for example) is only good at that generation for about 4 hours of the day, if you were going to use renewables, I'd use wind as there simply more of it and it's cheaper than PV. Of course that is for national consumption for residential, try to get a 5kw for anything less than $20k in California. Which is about $4000/kw installed, but you won't get 5kw HOURS out of it for but part of the day.

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:06:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  70,000 tons here, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PreciousLittle

                        ~40,000 tons there (and there, and there, and there...) all of which must be stored in careful configuration so it doesn't burn/melt/spew, in a repository you still don't have after half a century of not doing anything about it... wow. Pretty soon you'd be talking megatonnage!

                        I'd love to see your "single room" for concentrating this mess, David. It must be epic.

                        •  No, it's 70,000 tons PERIOD. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gzodik, Mcrab, erush1345

                          Joieau, this is the problem. You throw around numbers and people believe you because they trust you. This a fraudulent and should stop. It's 70,000 tons. Not "here" "there". Actually the highest, I understand it, is 55,000 tons but they add the rest so of "near" high level spent fuel.

                          As it happens pro-nuclear activists actually have a solution to this issue. Several in fact. Do you or is, is it 'all doom and gloom'?

                          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                          by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:28:43 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You yourself said that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PreciousLittle

                            70K tons is just here in the lower-48, David. We only have 1/4 of the world's nuclear capacity. Not counting research, DOE weapons and medical reactors, of course. Which also produce tonnage of high level waste.

                          •  Right...so it's basically NOTHING. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bryfry

                            70,000 tons for 50 years which could ALL fit in one warehouse. Compare this to coal where one plant dumps this amount of ash in ONE day, multiply that by 365, by 50 then by the number of coal plants. I wonder what your priorities are?

                            I'm in this because nuclear is superior to fossil fuels like coal in every way.

                            Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                            by davidwalters on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:43:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  DW, why do you call Joieau "Joy"? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau

                        I know that she was formerly known by that name, which is her given first name. However, she no longer goes by the name of "Joy" -- at least not here at DK, and perhaps not in real life at this point.

                        I've noticed that a mocking little clique of other pro-nukers, like NNadir and bryfry, also appear to get a kick out of continuing to bandy about the name "Joy" when addressing, or referring to, Joieau.

                        So, yeah, why do you grown-ass men do that silly schoolyard shit to a Kossack sister?

                        •  Its not despectful, I'm so ingrained in using (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gzodik

                          her original name here and I never remember how to spell her handle she uses now. I do not mean anything disrespectful. If she really wants me to stop using it I think she'll say something. "Joy" is just easier to write.

                          david

                          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                          by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:26:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  DW, it may be true that you mean no harm... (0+ / 0-)

                            by using Joieau's real-world, former user-name (Joy) to refer to her here on these threads.

                            However, others from Nuclear DK have made a point of continually calling her out: by her given first name, maiden-name, and married name; in a way that is clearly intended to 'out' her, 'expose' her, and violate any semblance of privacy. She has expressly discussed the matter in this way a number of times.

                            How Joieau names herself, on her own terms, in other contexts, is entirely her business and none of ours. Joieau is the user-name she chooses to go by at DK and that wish ought to be respected.

                          •  Ha ha (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy, Mcrab
                            However, others from Nuclear DK have made a point of continually calling her out: by her given first name, maiden-name, and married name; in a way that is clearly intended to 'out' her, 'expose' her, and violate any semblance of privacy
                            If someone is guilty of "outing" her, it certainly isn't anybody from Nuclear DK.

                            Personally, I'd blame Sue Sturgis, who published a rather long diary here (reposted from another site) on her and her husband.

                            I don't see how anyone can expect to have "any semblance of privacy" when they've already had an entire diary published on this site about them, and just in case somebody missed who the diary is about, they showed up to chat about it in the comments.

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:07:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bry, you have optical rectosis... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            If Joieau wants fame, as you claim she does, NOBODY is helping that along more than you. Last month, you openly boasted about how you've been hounding Joieau:

                            I've have [sic] been correcting the errors in Joy's comments and diaries (under two user handles, by now) for about half a decade now.
                            You must know that, when it comes to PUBLIC figures who want to stay public (such as you say about Joieau in identifying her as fair-game) -- then, negative publicity is better than no publicity at all, right? So, despite the negativity, you're still helping to keep Joieau in the public eye. Which is way, way ironic, considering that you want her to disappear so badly.

                            It looks like you are turning into the freaking Perez Hilton of Daily Kos: a complete unknown, clawing his way into the public eye by tearing down a woman who's already arrived. Now, that's  the "aspiring asshole" you've always set out to be. Carry on without me.

                          •  You give me way too much credit (0+ / 0-)
                            So, despite the negativity, you're still helping to keep Joieau in the public eye.
                            I guess that would be a "public" of one. You're the only one who seems to even care.

                            But hey ... whatever floats your boat.

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:49:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Evidently, an audience of one is enuf for you. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                        •  It's the same reason (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gzodik

                          that I address "davidwalters" as David.

                          I think that it is more polite to use a person's name if he or she has chosen to share it here.

                          Quid novi ex Africa

                          by bryfry on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:28:26 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  By the way (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gzodik
                          However, she no longer goes by the name of "Joy" -- at least not here at DK, and perhaps not in real life at this point.
                          She certainly uses it when she self-publishes a book.

                          Haven't you ever read her sig?

                          Quid novi ex Africa

                          by bryfry on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:34:58 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Bry, have you published any books lately? (0+ / 0-)

                            I'll take "self-published" over nada any day.

                            If you could tear yourself away from nipping at Joieau's flanks you could, hopefully, manage to get another diary done this year.

                            That would be a far more pragmatic use of time, especially for somebody who advocates "pragmatism to the extreme". I'm done with your silliness.

                        •  Well, there's precious little "real life"... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bryfry, malenfant

                          ...or better put, concern for "real life" in Joy's "real life" which includes in case you missed it:   3.3 million people per year killed by air pollution.

                          You may be confusing "mocking" with contempt, but that's unsurprising, since anti-nukes are very, very, very, very, bad at making fine distinctions, just as they are bad at making distinctions between 3.3 million deaths per year and a fantasy claim on their part that Fukushima - for example - wiped out Japan, TMI wiped out Harrisburg, PA and Chernobyl wiped out Ukraine.

                          The citizens of Harrisburg, Japan, and Ukraine might all be surprised to learn that they have all died.

                          However the citizens of Ukraine - where many thousands of people have been killed in coal mining accidents of the type that anti-nukes couldn't care less about - are in fact not dead.   They are in fact, planning to build new nuclear power plants, about 20 of them when I last heard.

                          Unlike the chorus of anti-nukes, they seem to have a problem with using dangerous fossil fuels, something that troubles not one anti-nuke.

                          Unless "Joy" and the rest of the dogmatic, rote anti-nukes can show that nuclear energy has killed as many people as World War II killed in the last 15 years, I would say that a little bit more than "mocking" is called for.

                          That said, if I were defending the indefensible, the bizarre notion that every other form of energy can kill indefinitely and at any scale unless nuclear energy is absolutely perfect, I would change my name, frequently in fact.

                          In fact, nuclear energy need not be perfect to be infinitely superior to all the stuff that rote, dogmatic anti-nukes don't care about.    It need not be risk free to be infinitely superior to all the stuff anti-nukes don't care about.

                          It only needs to be infinitely superior to everything else.

                          Maybe you think there's some "Joy" in fighting ignorance, fear and superstition.    I can assure you that there's precious little joy in any of it.   It's depressing as hell; it's morally appalling to find it necessary to point out things that should require precious little to be obvious.

                          Ignorance, fear and superstition are not jokes;  ignorance, fear and superstition are not a comedies.   My sig line, referring to the 33 million people who died from air pollution in the last decade, says it all.

                          Have a nice evening.

                  •  Depends where, when and how it's built. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gzodik, Mcrab, erush1345

                    In the "world" today, outside the US, new nuclear is HALF that you quote. In China and other countries is half THAT. Less than $2000kw installed. And, the longer it runs that high price becomes more and more a very good investment.

                    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                    by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:43:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  LOL!!! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Russgirl, PreciousLittle

                      Oh, my. David, not even the nuclear industry thinks it's a "good investment" anymore. As iterated very well by both the recently retired CEO of Exelon (the biggest nuc-corp in the U.S.) as well as its still-employed CFO.

                      •  Joieau, you are taking the 'wall street' approach (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gzodik, Mcrab, erush1345, ebohlman

                        that your colleague, Harvy Wasserman uses all the time: "wall street" as an arbiter of what a "good investment" is! Speaking of LOL!!!

                        Yet Excelon, Duke, Entergy (fusing with Duke, maybe) all continue to invest private money in nuclear. The two approved AP1000s in Georgia are privately financed.

                        without huge subsidies, no one would be investing in wind or solar either. If it wasn't for mandated rate-payer refunds, PG&E, Southern, FPL wouldn't build a single wind turbine. It would take too long to get their money back.
                        The 'State' always builds the big projects, or finances them, or owns them. Take hydro for example. Name ONE big, say, 100MW or bigger "private capital" investment in it anyplace in the world? None that I know of, anyway. So what? Big deal?

                        The world was not built according the whims of Adam Smith or the Chicago Boys. Thank the gods for that.

                        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                        by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:36:33 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Is that John Palms? (0+ / 0-)

                        I used to drive a limo, about 18 months ago I picked him up at Newark Airport drove him into NYC, actually a cool guy, I told him about Polywell fusion research  and he got all excited, Polywell is funded by the Navy, there 2 Navy admirals on the board of Exelon....

                        A college physics professor by trade, he seemed somewhat open minded.

                        I suggested that if Polywell works, Exelon should take that sideways step and start operating Polywell fusion plants and ditch the fission nukes, and he took me seriously.

                        Bio:
                        http://investing.businessweek.com/...

                        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                        by Roger Fox on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:00:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Facts from TEPCO? the electric power company (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Russgirl, TJ, dotdot, Joieau, jbob, PreciousLittle

        I think there might be just a little conflict of interest there.

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:07:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your comment is nothing but an attack . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      If you dislike someone , stay away or talk only about the subject .

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:05:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This a Nuclearkos group diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, PreciousLittle

      The group diary rule likely applies, regardless of the fact the group only has 9 members, and in IMHO I can't support this group. Breaking this rule can lead to bojo.

      I'm on your side, I respect your passion, but you need a time out.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:39:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a tough time with (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jgnyc, Roger Fox, Joieau, Wee Mama

    the idea that the spent fuel tanks are still safe from further quakes. I do agree that an apocolyptic explosion is unlikely, simply based on physics alone. But the first assertation I have a bit of trouble with. Can you say more?

    I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

    by terrypinder on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:31:30 AM PDT

    •  It's based on TEPCO's shoring up the pools. (6+ / 0-)

      Don't forget, the urban legend propagated by people like Arnie Gundersen and Michio Kako and widely quoted during the event was that the spent fuel pond above the plant in Unit 4 was empty or cracked or burning out of control etc etc.

      That was the general anti-nuclear 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' being spread.

      The shoring up of the pool in Unit 4 was the most serious as the structure underneath it was where the explosion took place, there were cracks in the super-structure and was in the worse shape. The shoring now, apparently, has made it stronger than it was before the quake. The point is that the assertions listed above are flat out wrong and fanciful.

      The Unit 4 spent fuel pond has already survived several intermediate quakes.

      Lastly, this is what TEPCO should be doing. I'm not a defender of TEPCO. They have of course lied in the past and ingored recommendations, including shoring up their intake structure and building a bigger, wider sea wall in the past. Right now outside engineers looking at the work TEPCO has done seems satisfied.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:43:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  right there (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau
        Right now outside engineers looking at the work TEPCO has done seems satisfied.
        bs

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:05:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ok, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

        I too don't trust TEPCO worth a lick.

        (I also am not a fan of Michio Kaku who is often wrong on so many things, so personally, I'd take anything he says outside of theoretical physics with a hefty grain of salt.)

        I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

        by terrypinder on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:14:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Your case is based on TEPCO and they have no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau

    credibility in Japan.  At Chernobyl 1 reactor melted down
    at Fukushima 3 reactors melted down.

    http://articles.cnn.com/...

    I agree nuclear power has a good safety record but the potential for massive contamination is too high and there is the waste problem.

    •  good safety record? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Russgirl

      not really, they are just good at "hiding the bodies".

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:48:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course you are right. TEPCO is slowly, it (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jgnyc, terrypinder, Wee Mama, erush1345

      appears, being nationalized. A good thing IMO. Nuclear energy should be nationalized everywhere (and, as it happens, it nearly is). But we also can determine the truth by other sources that have no ties to TEPCO, such as IAEA and DofE investigators who go the to sight on a regular basis and report back. I know a few myself from the ANS list.

      Fukushima was a 'disaster'. I think, however, it is made worse by the groundless assertions made by the anti-nuke, partisan, media, both in the US and, in Japan.

      While I know it's not true I get the feeling some in the anti-nuke community WANT it to be worse.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:58:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Russgirl, Joieau, PreciousLittle

        we want it to be stopped being downplayed, it isnt over.  And just raising radiation limits in order to poison a populace is unacceptable.

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:03:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Raising limits? Another disucssion. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mcrab, erush1345

          We'll do a diary on this later. Right now background radiation over 99.9% of Fukushima Prefecture is normal/average. Hot spots isolated and in the process of being cleaned up.

          The 'exclusion zone' now is 100% politically motivated. Fortunately, many are forcing he gov't to let them back in.

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:22:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Gut" feelings need not apply here David. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PreciousLittle, Joieau

        I have family in Tokyo, live on the W. Coast...

        I choose FACTS.
        Clean up the waste.
        Build and de-commission with your own $ and Insurance - NOT PAID BY TAXPAYERS in $ and lives.
        Joieau stated a known FACT - current and past Nuke CEO's admit NO NUKES will be built without taxpayer handouts.

        “Until we know how to safely dispose of the radioactive materials generated by nuclear plants, we should postpone these activities so as not to cause further harm to future generations.

        To do otherwise is simply an immoral act, and that is my belief, both as a scientist and as a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing.”
        – Dr Shoji Sawada

        •  But you ALWAYS use gut feelings Russ, never (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Frank Knarf, Mcrab, erush1345

          or hardly ever 'facts'.

          Waste is cleaned up.Where have you been?
          Decomissioning costs ARE paid for by the utility via the decommissioning fund set up by Congress.
          ONE CEO 'admits' that any US, repeat, US nuke, can't be built with out some "subidey".

          So What. PV and Wind are not built without subsidiies either. The USWind Association pays MORE lobbyists than the NEI does. What does this say to you and why do you NEVER talke about the more massive subsidies to wind and solar? Why?

          I think the tax pyer, the state, ought to pay for ALL energy sources by taking them over. Like most other countries. Like China or India or France. G-O-O-D. I think you ought to stop thinking that "profit" should be the motive force behind energy investment.

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:10:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, dotdot

    1. TEPCO has zero  credibility at this point.  They better show their work.

    2. Any computer studies on buildings that have already suffered earthquake and explosion damage to an unknown degree are near worthless.

  •  I looked... (5+ / 0-)

    ...but I could not find the snark tags. Is this a belated April 1?

    Seriously, the current condition at Fukushima, not just limited to spent fuel, is not so great. We have created a machine that is no longer under human control.

  •  NAS reference contradicting assurances (11+ / 0-)

    The assurances offered are welcome, but ...

    It took me 30 sec elapsed time to find an assessment from the National Academy of Sciences exactly contradicting your assurances. Note, I welcome your links and will peruse later. Thanks. However, to label items as "false" is pretty bogus.

    Here is a scenario: Earthquake induced collapse of pool structure dumping the fuel rods in a heap below. The fuel rods, and some break open in the fall, heat up quickly and so you have steam plus zirconium. In the core of such a heap of fuel rods it might well be possible to reach ignition temperatures.

    http://www.nap.edu/...

    "These oxidation reactions can become locally self-sustaining (i.e., autocatalytic3) at high temperatures (i.e., about a factor of 10 higher than the boiling point of water) if a supply of oxygen and/or steam is available to sustain the reactions. (These reactions will not occur when the spent fuel is under water because heat removal prevents such high temperatures from being reached). The result could be a runaway oxidation reaction—referred to in this report as a zirconium cladding fire—that proceeds as a burn front (e.g., as seen in a forest fire or a fireworks sparkler) along the axis of the fuel rod toward the source of oxidant (i.e., air or steam). The heat released from such fires can be even greater than the decay heat produced in newly discharged spent fuel.

    "As fuel rod temperatures increase, the gas pressure inside the fuel rod increases and eventually can cause the cladding to balloon out and rupture. At higher temperatures (around 1800°C [approximately 3300°F]), zirconium cladding reacts with the uranium oxide fuel to form a complex molten phase containing zirconium-uranium oxide. Beginning with the cladding rupture, these events would result in the release of radioactive fission gases and some of the fuel’s radioactive material in the form of aerosols into the building that houses the spent fuel pool and possibly into the environment. If the heat from one burning assembly is not dissipated, the fire could spread to other spent fuel assemblies in the pool, producing a propagating zirconium cladding fire."

    The shared subtle essence of human consciousness and the unity of natural law: two sides, one coin.

    by greenkrete on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:00:53 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for this and saving me the trouble. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Russgirl, Joieau
    •  Good points. Here, from above: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, Wee Mama, Mcrab, erush1345
      In order for apocalyptic assertions of a “fuel clad ignition and fire” to occur, moreover, the clad itself would need to be heated to incredible temperatures, which just isn’t possible. Ignition of the cladding (Zircalloy-2) on those fuel elements can occur roughly at 900 ºC in the proper conditions, but it’s important to note that, depending on the surrounding conditions (presence or absence of water vapor and oxygen content of the surroundings), the material may not ignite at that temperature anyway. From NUREG /CR-4982:

             “The cladding on such fuel will not ignite until 900 ºC (1652 ºF), while the fuel melting point for UO2 fuel is 2880 ºC (5216 ºF).”

      Anonline video shows Zirc-2 tube being heated with a blow torch (probably over 2000 ºC) and not catching fire. In point of fact, while the chemistry of rapid oxidation /combustion of Zirc cladding is complex, it just would not be possible under the conditions at the site. Further, even under the wild assumption that the buildings somehow collapsed, all of the other resources on site, and remotely off site, are still available to move in and provide cooling for the fuel.

      In addition, the rate of heatup of the fuel depends on how long it’s been out of a reactor. According to NUREG /CR-4982, unless the spent fuel is recently discharged from an operating reactor (within 180 days), ignition of the clad is completely impossible in any situation, regardless.

      This is confirmed by everyone IN or around the industry. Thus the NAS statement was good for March, April and May of last year. Now, the average temperature given off by one 12ft full rod is about 7watts. Not enough, under any circumstances to burn.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:17:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good point. A lot of reactions become (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      autocatalytic at high temperature. However, there doesn't seem to be a reasonable scenario how the stuff will get to that temperature first (and that would be 1000 C or more).

      •  My scenerio, totally unlikely, is (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, Roger Fox, Mcrab, erush1345

        some sort of steam explosion generated by the building actually falling if a quake is big enough, causing a fire, boiling latent water from the pool. Not actually an 'explosion" but low pressure steam carrying radionuclides from the smashed fuel rods should they get crushed if the building collapses. Or  a raging fire on or around or under the said smashed fuel rods.

        [Everything else is simply unscientific nonsense designed to spread fear. They (anti-nuke industry) wants to keep this going. It has to remain in the news cycles or they know they will start seeing a reversal of anti-nuclear sentiment.]

        Second scenario, far more likely than the first but still unlikely in any event, is that the pool collapses, the 2700 rods in fact collapse to the ground , get 'smashed' 'atomized' and created a very heavy, albeit localized contamination in the plant fence line. That is about the only really scenario I can see actually occurring.

        Again, either TEPCO is LYING outright and they've done NO shoring up of the 4 Unit SFP or they have. There is nothing inbetween.

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:53:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  you believe TEPCO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Russgirl

    I do not.
    I believe you are either an industry plant or a fool.

    •  Well, one has to assertain where TEPCO could be (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, Frank Knarf, erush1345

      lying and where they are likely not, especially as there is steady onsite, independent verification of TEPCO's claims by all sorts of NGOs and international agencies (most of whom are pissed at TEPCO for not following the advice given to them for the last 20 years, which includes the NRC condemnation of TEPCO for not making Fukushima safer, with specific recommendations).

      I think this guess Diary at least adds doubt...to the doubters themselves who predict doom-and-glowing-gloom because its "all bad".

      As the doomsayers themselves have proven to be liars, er, in error in the past, then this diary's ONLY purpose is to balance it out a bit. Could be all B.S., but I suspect the truth is closer to this than the theirs. Let's hope..right? Let's hope I'm right and the doomers are wrong.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:39:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lol. I can't believe you are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, Russgirl, PreciousLittle

    citing Tepco. What a joke.

  •  The age since removal distribution of the spent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryfry, erush1345

    fuel assemblies is a matter of fact rather than opinion.  While there may be rational grounds to argue about the structural integrity of the storage pool and support building during some worst-case seismic event, we should focus on the declining risk of fuel rod failure, fire and radiation release.  If some of the experts on this thread have technical information that contradicts the diarists assertions, please provide it.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:52:13 AM PDT

  •  Wow. (4+ / 0-)

    TEPCO's credibility in regards to conditions at Daiichi (or Daini, or any other of their reactor reservations) has been terminally compromised by the long list of LIES they've been telling on an almost daily basis for 14 months now. Surely you don't expect to influence the opinions of anyone outside the 'club' of pro-nukes wearing blindfolds by citing this thoroughly discredited source, do you?

    Some questions:

    1. What would prevent any of the structurally destroyed buildings and/or spent fuel pools at Daiichi from collapsing in a 7+ earthquake?

    2. What specific data demonstrates that the glorified house-jacks anchored in rubble and supposedly holding up the #4 SFP are more seismically stable than the building itself?

    3. Why would you assert that zircalloy cladding cannot burn? TEPCO itself reported zirconium fire (twice) in the #4 SFP. Were they lying then, or are they lying now?

    4. What were the industry-calculated odds (pre-3/11/11) of:
    • a 9.0 earthquake off the coast of Daiichi
    • a 15-meter tsunami generated by said earthquake
    • total extended grid loss to the plants
    • 100% core meltdown and melt-through in 1 plant
    • 100% core meltdown and melt-through in 3 plants
    • vent failure causing hydrogen/steam explosion large enough to destroy reactor building in 1 unit
    • vent failure causing hydrogen/steam explosions destroying 4 units

    I suspect you would find that the TEPCO/GE/NISA calculated odds on ANY ONE [1] of these occurrences painted them to be considerably less likely than any of the odds you've presented here against what Japanese officials, Oregon Senator Wyden and many others, many others are currently sounding the warning about. Before ALL THESE occurrences actually happened, that is. Thereby demonstrating  most graphically that the odds at Daiichi became 1:1 for 4 plants, no matter how unlikely they were assumed to be previously.

    •  from Will Davis, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Frank Knarf, bryfry, Mcrab, erush1345

      1.  The same thing that prevented them from collapsing in the previous one.

      2.  The supports aren't glorified house jacks.  They're not anchored in the ground below the plant.  Look at the pictures.

      3.  There has been no zirc fire at any time in any spent fuel pool during this accident.

      4.  If you have experience in the field, you probably have read the ORNL reports on likelihood of core melt following an SBO event.  The probability of core damage has always been higher in an extended SBO event, but the inundation by water at the plant seriously compromised all recovery efforts, as did the continued aftershocks.  Whatever that case, the surety of low (or nil) probability of clad fire for fuel that has been out of the reactor for this time period is backed up by many experts and many studies not performed in Japan.

      --Will Davis

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:32:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The entire operational core (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Russgirl, PreciousLittle

        of unit 4 is in the SFP. And yes, TEPCO did inform regulators in Japan and the U.S. of fire in the SFP. Twice. Plus our guys (at least) had plenty of imaging support from our many "eyes in the sky" which enjoy excellent resolution down to a mere meter. TEPCO's later change of story to pretend it was just "oily rags" drew quite a bit of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm among the core NRC officials operating the joint Op-Center (NRC/Dept. of State).

        Who do you think you're kidding?

      •  Thanks for transmitting that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PreciousLittle, Wheever, Roger Fox

        1. This is unit 4, shortly after the disaster (and before they removed the entire roof, all the beams and joists as well as blown-out 3' thick reinforced concrete panels...

        Fuku4

        2. Here is a picture of what TEPCO claims is holding up the unit 4 spent fuel pool...

        SFP4jacks

        It's on the 2nd floor of the facility, not on the sub-basement ground.

        3. I'll get back to you on TEPCO/NISA reports, must search and cull.

        4. Wow! Am I to be impressed that the DOE/NRC released their data on zirc fires to you, when they wouldn't release it to TEPCO/NISA or any other branch of the Japanese government at the time because it was still classified? That was one of Jaczko's more controversial decisions at the time, according to interoffice communications at NRC.

    •  The perforated reactor vessels is a big deal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      to me.

      Chernobyl spewed high into the atmosphere, Fukushima didnt, doesnt mean a lot of "stuff' didnt enter the environment and will eventually circulate.

      Great summary too, mojo for you.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:43:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks. But did you happen to (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox, Russgirl, PreciousLittle, Jim P

        miss the rather spectacular Big Blow-Outs of reactor buildings 1 and 3? Which lofted huge amounts of radioactive garbage high into the atmosphere, where it was circulated globally by the jet stream to fall out and rain out all over the place? They measured plutonium and uranium isotopes from Daiichi on the ground in Lithuania, for goodness' sake! Hawaii, Alaska and the west coasts of Canada and the U.S. received the greatest contamination, and California's Central Valley received the most. So far. And California's kelp beds were highly contaminated with iodine and cesium.

        Would you like links to the JNN/TEPCO web cam recordings of those explosions? To testing results of the kelp, the air and soil, and the rain as the plume hit? How about readings of the plume headed this way from the U.S. Navy 100 nautical miles offshore (~150 mile-miles), just prior to being ordered to relocate the group to the other side of Honshu?

        They aren't hard to find.

        •  I think I remember that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:33:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, links would be good, especially to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry

          measured radiation levels in North America.  I suspect many on this thread would like to understand the provenance and health implications of these measurements.

          Where are we, now that we need us most?

          by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:10:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Links are readily upcoming (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PreciousLittle

            on Google if you try. I'm not going to start linking to the millions of hits out there. Or you could do a term search at Enformable, SimplyInfo, or ENEnews. They all have internal search features. Enformable also has a well-organized archive of FOIA documents from the NRC (and through them several other agencies) specific to Fukushima. Including lengthy discussions of the plumes and who (if anyone) would be monitoring the fallout from early in the disaster.

            It was decided as part of the executive decision that EPA shut down the RadNet real-time feeds, NRC-licensed facilities, DOE operations and any FEMA/HSD data on rad levels were to be turned over to NEI for management. NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] is an industry lobby, not any agency or subdivision of the U.S. government.

            •  Links to sources other than advocacy groups (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bryfry, erush1345

              would be preferable.

              Where are we, now that we need us most?

              by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:53:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Anything returned by (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PreciousLittle

                those sources will link to articles in the mainstream press and/or to primary documentation from NRC, TEPCO and/or NISA, et al, and/or JNN, NHK, Mainichi and/or US, British and/or German press. I merely offered you ways to find those that would be more specific than Google.

              •  Here is a link to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PreciousLittle

                a collection of 27 collections of official SPEEDI and MEXT data documents plus internal NRC/DOE discussions of said data, about the actual radiation measurements in Japan and elsewhere from Daiichi's little oops -

                FOIA Archive Release - RASCAL Estimations - SPEEDI Data - Communications.

                Do try to keep in mind that these are official documents released in response to FOIA requests, thus primary source material. That should help to alleviate the desire to dismiss said official data just because it comes from a source you'd like to dismiss out of hand. Thanks.

                •  Thanks for the links. It's not that I dismiss (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bryfry, erush1345

                  such sources out of hand.  I regularly visit advocacy group sites on a variety of issues.  But I am always wary of the tendency to cherry-pick and the difficulty we all have in recognizing propaganda which reinforces our own preconceptions.

                  Where are we, now that we need us most?

                  by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:06:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  J, as usual your highly informed comments... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau

                  on a thread add up to a diary onto itself.

                  I think it would make a highly instructive document if you were to revisit your comments and do a diary that presents a compilation of the various subject headings along with the reference material you've linked in so many of these threads. We could really benefit from have more of this thoroughly well-researched, widely-dispersed info aggregated into one place. Probably a lot of work though.

                  •  Not worth the effort, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Roger Fox, PreciousLittle

                    PreciousLittle. DKos is a politically-oriented website, and all you'll get here from the nuclear PR crew is propaganda and fluff - as well as a whole lot of nasty ad homs and gang-bully behaviors. The pro-nuke PR live-ins here at DKos have been single-minded when it comes to anything I have to say since years before Daiichi did its Twisted Sister act last March.

                    They are here to sell YOU on nukes, not me. They already know I'm a lost cause. I have other outlets available these days where data, reports and analyses are made available to interested parties without "the usual" DKos pie fights and inanities. I sometimes link them here, or republish. Another somewhat lengthy followup pending publication now (remediation) and one nearly finished (decontamination), to go with the HHP condensation. Also still working on the FOIA compilations and analyses (now that there's more).

                    It ain't over yet. So there's plenty to try and keep up with. §;o)

                •  After a quick survey of this information, I don't (0+ / 0-)

                  see anything that contradicts numerous other summaries of the potential health impacts of the incident, unless something happens that results in additional large radiation releases.  Secondary problems such as depression, heart disease and other stress related illness will likely be a much bigger issue than direct effects of radiation exposure.  

                  There may be some increase in thyroid cancers, especially among exposed children, at some future date.  Overall increases in cancer will be small enough that detecting cause will be challenging.

                  Since you seem to be quite knowledgeable in this field, if I am misinterpreting the data or am missing other credible health impact analyses, please advise.

                  By the way, do you happen to know how our North American exposure so far compares in scale to the atmospheric weapons testing era or to Chernobyl?

                  Where are we, now that we need us most?

                  by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:44:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  To each his/her own. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PreciousLittle, Roger Fox, ozsea1

                    I would postulate the finding earlier this year that a full 1/3 of children tested had developed thyroid nodules within a year of the dumping might tend to indicate an entirely traceable causal issue with iodine-131, but your mileage obviously differs. We could expect to see leukemias as well, within 5-10 years.

                    In other news, the cancer rate overall (in Japan) is expected to rise to over 40% over the course of the next decade from the pre-Fukushima rate of ~34%, but that couldn't possibly be because of Daiichi if you ignore Daiichi as a causal factor. And as long as we're figuring up the likely public health effects of nuclear oopses (and catastrophes), I'd go ahead and put ALL associated stress related issues - including increasing evacuee suicides - in the basket while we're at it. Heart issues can also be related to internal cesium contamination, as that element is uptaken into biological tissues as if it were potassium, particularly muscle tissue. Hearts are muscle.

                    The food supply is terribly contaminated with cesium, but the Japanese government insists that all good, patriotic citizens - even grade school children - must swallow their cesium contaminated rice, veggies and meat happily and without complaint. And a rather amazing number of Japanese citizens are doing just that. Here is a report from a Minamisoma City Councilman that a soil sample from the town - which is outside the exclusion zone - read 10,000,000 Bq/kg cesium. There are freshwater fish in reservoirs well inland too contaminated to consume even under the 'new and improved' increased dose limits.

                    It's the biggest f*cking mess nobody ever thought was possible, including the idiots who developed, designed and deployed these megadeath machines smack dab on the ocean shore in the most seismically active region on the planet. Now they want We the People who get dumped on and have to foot the bills - at $10,800 per kW - to build 'em a whole new bunch of fission-toys. They're hoping to increase their nuclear footprints by a factor of 10 at our expense. In a global depression.

                    Not bloody likely.

                    •  Sources for these assertions, please. You may (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bryfry

                      have valuable information about a huge expected increase in cancer cases but without sourcing we have no way to evaluate the validity of your claims.

                      Where are we, now that we need us most?

                      by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:09:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh... and no, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PreciousLittle, ozsea1

                    I have no broken-down compilations of actual doses received in North America (air, food, water) from Daiichi. No one does, alas. The EPA put its RadNet stationary air monitors available to the public on line for about a month following the launching of the plumes, but so many of those pegged out that EPA decided it was best to just turn them all off. The ones in my state - Charlotte and Raleigh - were quickly disabled due to high readings. The closest one upwind of me at Oak Ridge was never publicly available.

                    According to the NRC, all licensees at all nuclear facilities in this country were to do daily sampling and calculate the amount coming from the plume (as opposed to coming from their own vent stacks). DOE facilities and associated university departments also were to keep track. All readings then submitted to the nuclear lobby group NEI. As opposed to NRC or DOE or EPA keeping track, which they didn't want to do. So NEI probably knows a good back of the envelope figure on dose ranges in U.S. territory. But they are not required - or expected, by anybody - to release that information to anybody outside their exclusively pro-nuke club.

                    Nifty way for officials to abandon their responsibilities, n'est ce pas?

                    •  Just so I understand, a vast conspiracy run by the (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bryfry, Mcrab

                      nuclear power industry has suppressed the fact that we all received huge doses of radiation from the Fukushima disaster.  Everyone from the EPA to the general US scientific community is intimidated into silence.  Sinister NEI has the goods but no one will ever find out.

                      Where are we, now that we need us most?

                      by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:13:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You keep trying (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PreciousLittle, ozsea1

                        to stuff extra straw into your scarecrow, Frank. I never said one word about "huge doses of radiation" in North America from Fukushima's little 4-unit (+ at least 1 at Daiini) oops. I don't know - and neither do you - what the doses to American citizens have been, then or accumulating through this very minute due to ongoing 24-7 releases. I am in a sheltered cove on the lee side of the continental divide, and dose range outside here for weeks hovered at between 5 and 15 µrem/hr (higher in the rain) over normal background. Yes, I have a nice Geiger-Muller as well as an RM-14 low level plug-in, they work fine.

                        A dose level which, over a 10-week period (decay out for I131, the predominant early isotope) adds up to ~20 mr. Which is more radiation exposure than I received in nearly 5 weeks of working initial recovery at Three Mile Island. Regions on the west coast and midwest were much higher, though places in Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and even eastern NC were about equivalent as judged by pegged RADNet monitors and citizen monitoring. As the iodine decayed the cesium it was masking showed up. Cesium is cumulative, and remains dangerous as internal contamination in food and water for more years than you and I will live.

                        Tracing the Rad Monitoring Evolution

                        On this page at Enformable you will start at the top with news reports from CBC and KEPRTV about Canada and the U.S. EPA shutting down their radiation monitoring systems, ostensibly (according to cited bureaucrats) because there was nothing to monitor. Separate FOIA releases from NRC's Op-Center and RST working groups belie that conclusion quite soundly, of course, having followed the plume - and dangerous levels of radioiodine at that time, especially to infants and children - through Midway and the Aleutians down the west coast of North America from Alaska to southern California.

                        Following the media summaries is the collection of inter-office NRC communiques from the morning of March 24 to the morning of March 25. These were between the OPA [Office of Public Affairs] and the Division of Reactor Licensing about the drafting of a press release reassuring the public that the NRC was still keeping track of radiation levels, and an official Information Notice to licensees (U.S. nuclear power plants) 'requesting' them to 'voluntarily' do the monitoring job the EPA had decided not to continue doing when it shut down the RADNet system.

                        As the drafting and editing worked its way through the hierarchy of the NRR Liicensing and Policy and Rulemaking divisions at NRC, you will see how the impetus got summarily sidetracked from licensees reporting to the NRC, to them instead reporting to the non-governmental lobbying group NEI. Which was then 'asked' to report anything they thought needed reporting to the NRC. Heh.

                        How this nuclear promotion and lobbying group managed to get itself elevated to an important operational arm of the U.S. government nuclear regulation and oversight apparatus, supersede the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's expensive RADNet air quality duties, and trump both DHS and FEMA responsibilities to monitor and respond to dangers to U.S. citizens originating from another nation I sure as hell can't figure out. Looks like a total governmental cop-out of chartered responsibilities to me. But then, I would never have entertained the bizarre thought that NEI should be in charge of keeping the radiation monitoring records nationwide following the worst nuclear disaster in history in the first place.

                        One of these days when (or if) the ridiculously inadequate responses of the many U.S. governmental divisions tasked with protecting the public from dangerous radiation exposures get publicly addressed, I hope someone asks that question and insists on a firm answer.

                        Meanwhile, go ahead and scroll down the back-and-forths to the re-write from Harold Chernoff, Chief of Plant Licensing Branch 1-2, date/timed March 24, 2011 @9:40 AM direct to Peter Bamford, Chernoff's underling in the Licensing Branch. Communications between Chernoff and the NEI were not included in the FOIA data dump, but it is clear the 'agreement' was pre-arranged...

                        Subject: Communication of Environmental Data Attributable to Events in Japan

                        The purpose of this e-mail is to ensure your awareness of an agreement between the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the NRC staff. In summary, NEI has agreed to facilitate the collection and transmission of environmental data from operating reactor sites that is reasonably attributable to events in Japan subsequent to March 11, 2011. Once this information has been collected and organized NEI will forward this information to the NRC staff. NRC staff will ensure that this information is forwarded to the lead government agency, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for monitoring this type of information. In the past the EPA has stated that, "environmental radiation data supplied by NRC licensees were instrumental in understanding particular aspects of the US radiological situation and in answering concerns of US citizens relative to gaseous radioiodine in the air."

                        NRC staff appreciates your efforts in providing this important data to NEI.

                        And that's just what they did. Or didn't do, if you (like me) were laboring under the misapprehension that duly tasked federal government agencies and departments should properly have been doing their damned jobs instead of conveniently foisting those jobs off to an industry lobby during the most serious radiological emergency the world has seen in a quarter of a century.

                        Oh, and no. I have scanned almost all of the documents in the data dump (almost - some are still coming in after classification review, that's a caveat), have seen NO indication anywhere that NEI ever forwarded a damned thing to anybody at the NRC about radiation levels and doses anywhere in the United States or anywhere else.

                        •  J, after reading your above comment in full... (0+ / 0-)

                          I've decided to go SHOPPING. Can you give me any fast and dirty pointers about the tech specs and vendors for these two items:

                          I have a nice Geiger-Muller as well as an RM-14 low level plug-in...
                          Btw, I'm also pretty keen on your potato cannon!
                          •  They don't make those (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PreciousLittle

                            models anymore I don't think. Things have gone digital (and significantly less expensive). There are several cell phone sized units out there now that are adequate for beta-gamma, and an iPhone ap is said to be in development.

                            I dug my machines out of their box in the shed last year when the plume from Fukushima hit. Cleaned 'em up a bit and tested the ion chambers. Surprisingly (to me) they were still operational. Though a mid-range detector had crapped out, so I gave it to a friend to display as a conversation piece over his new bar in A-ville.

                            I'd check out the new ones if I had to buy one now. The spudzuka is of no use against radiation, but it does make for fun ways to smash 'taters against trees or boxcars at 100 yards...

                          •  when the plume from Fukushima hit your house on (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bryfry

                            the Eastern Seaboard, half a world away.

                            Unlike ICBMs, plumes are supposed to spread out.

                          •  Not true (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ebohlman, arroganceisstrength

                            Radioactive plumes do not spread. Rather, they remain narrowly concentrated until they reach a plaintiff involved in the class action lawsuit that is paying for your research.

                            Just ask Joy's hero: Dr. Wing of the University of North Carolina. ;-)

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:17:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bry-guy, there is a (0+ / 0-)

                            rather large distance factor at work between a plume in the lower atmosphere 10-30 miles from the spew and a plume carried by high level winds/jet stream ~2500 miles away. But you know that, it just doesn't fit your throw-away barb.

                            For everyone else, do check out the contamination map of northeastern Japan. You will see a narrow plume path following a river between hills that runs north-northwest of the Daiichi facility and extends well beyond the boundary of the 20km exclusion zone. That's contamination (still accumulating 24-7) that remains at relatively low altitude - i.e., not spewed miles into the air to join the jet stream - and is subject to the air flow and predominant low-level wind direction of the region.

                            Easy to picture. If you could see the radioactive contamination as black soot/ash mixed with steam like it was smoke from a forest fire, you could easily see the dynamics as it streams away from the source. The same type of smoke blasted high into the atmosphere by a volcano would end up in the higher atmosphere and be circulated around the world like a blanket, maybe make for pretty sunsets for a few years ala Pinatubo.

                          •  I'm sorry that you didn't get my joke (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength

                            Then again, you have never had much of a sense of humor.

                            I know how plumes work, and I guarantee you that I have more experience in and knowledge of atmospheric modeling or atmospheric science than you do.

                            The claim of Dr. Wing, and your subsequent parroting of his lawyer-funded nonsense, was that these "plumes" just happened to meander their way to their so-called "victims" — or legal terms, "plaintiffs," or in Dr. Wing's thinking, "meal ticket" — without being detected. It's like magic!

                            Now, you are putting forth the ridiculous idea that these "plumes" remain concentrated and coherent even if they transported half a world away! Or will you admit that you agree with arroganceisstrength that your earlier comment was nonsense?

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:42:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

                            I never once claimed the plume that crossed the North American continent was "concentrated and coherent." In fact, I said precisely the opposite.

                            If you could let go of your overwhelming desire to lie on a constant basis, you might even have something pertinent to say. Too bad we'll never know.

                          •  Ah ... I'm sorry I misunderstood (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength

                            So you've been saying that the exposures half a world a way are insubstantial and of no consequence whatsoever. Thank you for clearing that up. :-)

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:04:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stop it. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you can do nothing but make shit up and attribute it to me, we're done here. Your stalking has always been aggravating and more than a little bit creepy. But this garbage is a whole new level of shit. Leave me the fuck alone.

                          •  While we're talking about "making shit up" (0+ / 0-)

                            Accusations of "stalking" are taken quite serious here. Please let me remind you that we're in the comments of a diary written by davidwalters, one of the very few members here that I follow (something that anyone can verify by looking at my profile).

                            I suppose you think that I'm somehow making you reply to my comments too. Pathetic.

                            Now, I kindly ask you to withdraw this unfair accusation, but I somehow know that you won't.

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:36:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Choose exactly one: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bryfry

                            * the plume stayed coherent halfway across the world, then dropped into your area
                            * enough radioactive shit was released to be dangerous half a world away
                            * you just like repeating sciency buzzwords

                          •  Don't expect a reply (0+ / 0-)

                            She's out of her league. You're not one of the peanut gallery.

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:05:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Enough radioactive shit (0+ / 0-)

                            was indeed released to be dangerous half a world away. In fact, it was dangerous all the way around the world. Plutonium from Daiichi was detected in Lithuania, for goodness' sake! Very high levels of iodine were detected in Maine, Pennsylvania and NC on the first pass. Of course, the Philly area often exceeds EPA limits for iodine, so that could well have been local plants dumping waste gas just because they could blame it on Fukushima.

                            I know, I know. We aren't supposed to remember what happened last year, or know anything about what's happening now. Y'all have always counted on short term memory loss in the general public just so the people don't start gathering pitchforks and torches. Unfortunately (for you), some of us have better memories than that.

                          •  right then. what happened to that word "plume"? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bryfry

                            you said that there was a plume, implying that radioactives released are more concentrated in some parts of the world than other.  So if it's dangerous at your house on the Eastern Seaboard, it has to be more dangerous further west, in, say, Japan.  Can I get you on record with a paranoid conspiracy theory about why people being treated for radiation poisoning in Japan or Hawaii aren't talking about it on the Internet?

                          •  I stand corrected (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength

                            I was wrong in my comment earlier. I clearly underestimated Joy's ability to just make shit up.

                            Listen to her brag about her memory, and on this point, I cannot disagree with her. Just look at how much mileage she gets out of her memories of the whole five weeks she spent working in the nuclear industry 33 years ago.

                            Although, you do have a point. Apparently, her memory is weak when it comes to the word "plume."

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sun May 20, 2012 at 10:58:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why don't you model the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cville townie

                            plumes from bomb testing. Pick any test you want, look it up. You will find coherence close in, wider distribution once it reaches the jet stream. These are not weather fronts, they're contamination in the weather pattern overall. This isn't difficult to understand, to model, or to find actual plume maps generated decades ago to demonstrate it in real life.

                            That you either don't know that or choose to lie about it is telling. But then, everything an "aspiring assholyte" does is designed thusly, isn't it?

                            Fukushima released way more iodine and cesium (as well as relatively longer lived nobles) than any single bomb test anywhere on the planet at any time in history. Why, even Chernobyl managed that much. There's more cesium 137 in just the #4 spent fuel pool than in all the bomb tests ever conducted, legally or illegally. That's just a fact. These babies are - each and every one of them - The Mother Of All Dirty Bombs. They need not go critical in a bomb sort of way to make your life a living hell (for as long as it lasts). Luckily, killing slow and ugly works better than killing fast and furious per blaming it on some other industry's deadly pollutants.

                          •  If you claim something is "dangerous" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength, malenfant

                            the burden of proof is on you, and you have failed at every turn. Example:

                            There's more cesium 137 in just the #4 spent fuel pool than in all the bomb tests ever conducted ...
                            And there's enough Draino under my sink to kill a couple dozen people. The Cs-137 is contained in a ceramic pellet sitting in a metal tube sitting in a pool of water situated in a concrete building. The Draino is sitting in a plastic container under a granite slab in a kitchen. If you were to tell me that you would break open the metallic fuel rod and start snorting the contents inside, I'd advise you against it, just as I would advise you against quaffing my Draino.

                            I fail to see why I should be any more concerned about the Cs-137 in the pool of unit 4 than the Draino under my sink. Certainly, the Draino is not being monitored with nearly the amount of care that the fuel rods in the pool are.

                            By the way, why are you replying to my comment instead of the comment that replied to yours? Perhaps it is because you do not want to answer the following question, "Can I get you on record with a paranoid conspiracy theory about why people being treated for radiation poisoning in Japan or Hawaii aren't talking about it on the Internet?"

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sun May 20, 2012 at 02:35:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OMG! Are you saying (0+ / 0-)

                            you're the type of person who would put Draino in your meat loaf?! Say not so, Bry-Guy!!!

                            Meh. All internal contamination with radioactive isotopes is "dangerous." All of it. And each person may or may not be able to defeat the damage done (and it is always done) before suffering enough to develop cancer. It has been thus for as long as I've been alive on this planet after humans started releasing this shit wholesale into the air and water to concentrate up the food chain. So it's been thus all your life too. You're perfectly okay with that? They can melt, melt-through, blow up, and/or burn as much as they like and you're fine with it?

                            Good luck with that. I mean it.

                          •  You still didn't answer the question n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sun May 20, 2012 at 02:54:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh... and I spent many years (0+ / 0-)

                            in the nuclear realm, bryfry. That you are unable to discern that from the fact that I tutored three people through Rickover's nuke school, did my time right alongside, and more years in the nuclear industry - a time when everyone we knew were nukes - just informs me that you're still ignorant enough to blow bullshit out your ass.

                            There is a REASON I got the job at TMI, along with the rest of the team. It wasn't because I was totally clueless about operational health physics or All Things Nuclear.

                            If you'd like to go ahead and take that tack, you'll have to explain to everyone paying attention why, exactly, I was there. ON the Island, not across the street. And was charged with keeping the dose records for everyone there - including Jimmy and Roz - 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Go for it, a-hole. I can't wait to see your fantasy writ out large.

                          •  Amusing (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arroganceisstrength

                            Ah ... Rickover's navy ... you keep coming back to that, and it explains a lot.

                            For example, it explains why you don't know how a commercial nuclear reactor works. I guess that in your "nearly 5 weeks of working ... at Three Mile Island" nobody ever told you what an Axial Power Shaping Rod is. Well, why should they? You were just a simple rad tech working as a glorified book-keeper, or "keeping the dose records," as you put it. It's not like anybody expected you to know anything more than how to add some numbers together, and that's a good thing, considering the "knowledge" of "all things nuclear" that you have exhibited here.

                            Quid novi ex Africa

                            by bryfry on Sun May 20, 2012 at 02:37:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, it ain't gonna work, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cville townie

                            a-hole. APSRs are the bullshit of the century - the one past, Fuku's gonna be the bullshit of this one. APSRs exist as part of the retinue of shaping absorber rods, mostly in the periphery, and always have. They are not among the bundled control rods that MUST fall in order to stop fission in a reactor.

                            You are saying that all the 'expert' engineers and physicists on the Kemeny Commission AND the Rogovin Commission (which was an NRC snow job) perpetrated a grotesque LIE about the accident at TMI2 swearing - some of them under oath - that 69 rods fell. A LIE that apparently had no reason for existing until 3 years later when we pointed out that 8 of the 69 control rods they universally deemed "necessary" to successful scram never managed to fall. What's 8 rods between friends in a reactor deprived completely of heat removal, eh?

                            Nothing you can say at ten bucks a pop changes reality one bit. At TMI2, or at Fukushima Daiichi/Daiini.

                            Now I've some ducks and chickens to tend to, a beautiful evening to enjoy, and lots of loved ones to enjoy it with. Bye.

                          •  J, are you up to another one.. (0+ / 0-)

                            New revised diary...Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:11 AM EDT
                            Fukushima Reactor #4 In Danger Of Making Northern Hemisphere Uninhabitable. See HERE.

                          •  Thanks, PLL. (0+ / 0-)

                            And I've sent a link to bry-stalker's above post to TPTB. Expect nothing, of course. But that's a bit far over the line.

                          •  And no, I'm not up to it. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think that so long as a "Trusted User" can call me a "S-nile F_cking C_nt" I have no business here.

                            I do have other outlets, and of course will continue to make use of them. But if bryfry can post that with no ramifications, I am outta here.

                            Hope to see you elsewhere.

                          •  It will catch up with him, Joieau. (3+ / 0-)

                            This was later in the evening and I didn't see it until this morning.  I suspect that will be true of others.

                            Love the up-raters of, course.  Unbelievable. Sorry you had to endure that.

                          •  Banned for personal insult (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            earicicle, kalmoth, fcvaguy, Tonedevil

                            and uprater has lost ratings ability.

                          •  Not a smart move there. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PreciousLittle, Tonedevil, pot, PhilJD

                            I thought I'd lost ratings for another comment, but this is beyond ridiculous. The user in question self-identified as an "aspiring assholyte". His avatar bragged in an openly mocking, sexist way that "being an asshole is all part of my manly essence". So to say calling him an a-hole is an insult is a bit unsupportable. Somehow I don't think he considers it an insult.

                            Joieau overreacted, but bryfry has been after her on this site for years answering just about every assertion she's made with ad-hominem attacks and character assassination. I can't really blame her, but I guess you can. So I guess we'll do without one of the few anti-nukers here with any career experience to back up their posts. So much for this site's credibility on the issue.

                            By the way, so you don't think this is rox/sux, there are exactly two people I personally could do without regarding nuclear power on this site, one on each side. Joieau isn't one of them, but ngk01001 is still around, posting extremely questionable, nearly-CT diaries claiming that Fukushima will destroy half the planet. And there are several far more reasonable people (like the diarist) than bryfry on the pro-nuke side as well.

                            Joieau deserved no more than a warning in this case.

                          •  Joieau can NOT claim "victimhood" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            Joieau has a documented history, reported to Kos by many people, of running with CT on a variety of topics. Joieau thought it okay to call someone who has documented many of Joieau's errors an "asshole" simply because that person has called out many of Joieau's errors!

                            That poster was right on the facts. Joieau was not.

                          •  Somehow you can't tell the difference (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil, pot

                            between facts, and an ad-hominem attack:

                            You were just a simple rad tech working as a glorified book-keeper, or "keeping the dose records," as you put it. It's not like anybody expected you to know anything more than how to add some numbers together, and that's a good thing, considering the "knowledge" of "all things nuclear" that you have exhibited here.
                            Also, you somehow still have ratings despite uprating bryfry's vile insult. Takes one to know one I guess.
                          •  J, have you been following... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            the news reports of radioactive "black dust" in Tokyo, and elsewhere, in Japan?

                            I've been reading about it a bit, in translation, and some sources say that it is "cyanobacteria" or "algae". Others say it "looks like dried mold or moss".

                            Laprimavera, at Ex-Skf, has got a story about it today: Minami Soma's "Black Dust" with Over 10 Million Bq/kg of Radioactive Cesium, Says Assemblyman Ooyama (Just Don't Multiply by 65!). He's done a couple of prior posts, wherein he opined:

                            Even though I have reported on the "black dust" in Minami Soma City (most recently, here), I am not completely convinced that this "black" substance is any different from a drift of dirt that one often saw on the road surface or near the drains even before the Fukushima nuclear accident. Cyanobacteria that supposedly make up the "black dust" are ubiquitous.
                            Wonder whether this "black dust" has any relation to the well-studied radiotrophic fungus (crytococcus neoformans) that was found to be growing in abundance at the Chernobyl reactor site, in 2007.
                          •  Yes, I've been following. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PreciousLittle

                            At first thought it was gummy soot from burning contaminated debris, but the alpha signature is too high (there's plutonium in there!). And it's showing up all the way on the west coast, in the south of Tokyo, etc.

                            Don't think it's coming straight from the SFPs (where a radiation-loving cyanobacteria might proliferate), because they'd have to be burning and somebody would probably notice that. Don't think it's coming from the blow-holes either, they're emitting water geysers and steam from the fissures rather than thick black smoke.

                            Wondered if any other of the ~10 or so OTHER plants (besides Daiichi/Daiini) in the north of the country admitted to be in "critical condition," but somebody surely would notice thick black smoke plumes, wouldn't they?

                            So who knows? We aren't getting honest reports, but enough people still live in Fuku province to notice black-smoke burning. Maybe it's going up in the steam and uniting with its brother-cyanos in the air. That would be some darned greasy steam, though. Maybe it accumulates in colonies when it's on the ground instead. Weird stuff, and it seems to be just about everywhere.

        •  I'll help. Link to the kelp study (paywalled): (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, PreciousLittle

          http://pubs.acs.org/...

          An SFGate article about the study:

          http://www.sfgate.com/...

          Where are we, now that we need us most?

          by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:27:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Oh... and (4+ / 0-)

    what were the given odds that the highly unlikely 15-meter tsunami would wipe out all emergency power at the reservation?

  •  Gunderson has a recent video ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PreciousLittle

    ... stating that spent fuel pools remain the biggest threat, but that the fuel is much cooler now than a year ago, and that if Fukushima isn't hit with a 7.0 quake within the next two years, then it should be alright.

    (This is my memory from having watched it a couple of days ago, so my memory may be faulty. Don't have time to watch it again.)

    http://fairewinds.com/...

    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.

    by Magster on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:59:33 AM PDT

  •  It would help his cause (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox

    if the post weren't spectacularly poorly written. Seriously, has he ever taken a statistics class?

    Impossible does not equal improbable.
    Improbable does not equal patently false.

    grrr....

    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

    by jam on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:20:54 PM PDT

    •  Yeah well an asteroid could hit us and we'd die (0+ / 0-)

      It could happen right? SO there... ha ha ha.

      /snark

      There are better odds the NY Mets will win the World Series.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:05:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, I came into this diary looking for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1

    some sort of independent analysis and information and most of it appears to be parroting of what TEPCO is saying. And a bunch of useless comments.

    Is there any independent monitoring going on?  How does anyone trust TEPCO at this point?

    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:34:56 PM PDT

  •  Hmm, thirteen recs in the TJ (0+ / 0-)

    and a handful of diary recommends in 260 some-odd comments.

    Smells like a fail diary to me, and the stats back it up.

    Please peddle your TEPCO company line and faux-liberal cred elsewhere.

    "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

    by ozsea1 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 03:55:03 PM PDT

    •  I didn't write it, I reposted it. There are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryfry

      no facts that contradict the data from TEPCO. And you obviously didn't read what I wrote about TEPCO. Doesn't matter, I supose.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:48:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  your agenda is well known (0+ / 0-)

        and your diary is still a fail.

        "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

        by ozsea1 on Sun May 20, 2012 at 10:12:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NOT a fail as everything noted in it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kalmoth

          hasn't been contradicted...which is why it's a great diary and should be read by everyone. the antis are desperate to keep Fukushima alive. They have to be.

          Take for instance the 'fact' that the quantiy of dangerous isotopes in the SFPs are "more than Chernobyl". This gets repeated, starting with Arnie Gundersen as if it's some sort of new data that we all have to be afraid of. Of course it's a nuke, so the 'dangerous' radiation is inside the fuel...and hasn't gone anywhere. It's a weasal arguement since ALL nuclear power plants use nuclear fuel and these products are safe within the fuel pellets and are not going anywhere. So why raise this?

          Arnie is quite clear: he argues that ALL this could some how "contaminate" the world and we're "all gonna die". He's the doomer and he's repeated here ad nausium. He of course fails or lies about how this would, or could, EVER happen, but it doesn't matter, he wants to scare people. In this he's exercising his free speech right to be criminal in scaring people.

          This diary breaks through the doomer mentality.

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:40:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I bet that the antis' obsession with SFP #4 (0+ / 0-)

    stems from the meltdowns at #1-3 failing to live up to their morbid dreams of widespread death and destruction, so the the large inventory of new and spent fuel at #4 became a convenient target of their misinformation.

  •  David, I still admire your efforts here. (0+ / 0-)

    An island of rationality in a sea of ____ (imagine an applicable epithet).

    There are fewer and fewer diaries of any subject matter that I care to spend any time on on this site these days. I do read yours however.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Fri May 25, 2012 at 06:31:02 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site