Skip to main content

Today there was another accident at what's left of the Fukushima Daiichi unit 3 reactor building, when workers operating a remote control crane dropped the control console for the refueling machine into the spent fuel pool. The console weighs close to a thousand pounds.

TEPCO told reporters that they haven't noticed any change in the radiation levels around the pool after the accident, which is nice. Those levels are already high enough to require workers to use remote control, debris removal has been a notoriously dirty job. As reported in a previous diary, on August 19th of 2013 TEPCO reported more than 1.1 trillion becquerels of contamination was released in a 4-hour period during debris removal at unit 3, up to 4 TBq over two days.

TEPCO said they will check on the condition of the 566 spent fuel assemblies (and 1/3 of a core's worth of unirradiated MOX fuel assemblies there for the next refueling outage) in the pool, to see if this latest accident will compromise plans to start emptying the pool in 2015. This is not the first time debris has been dropped, pulled or pushed into the unit 3 SFP. Between 2012 and 2013 debris removal from the top of the building dumped debris - including the 1.5 ton fuel handling machine mast - into the pool quite regularly. We can expect to find out TEPCO's lowballed by factors of ten levels of contamination sent airborne by this phase of debris removal around this time next year, if TEPCO stays true to form. We'll of course hear only "everything's fine" until crops start being tested after the next growing season and it is discovered that the region has been seriously dumped on yet again.

Meanwhile, out in the yard...

TEPCO released a handout with lots of pretty graphs, diagrams, charts and pictures illustrating to the press its efforts to diminish waterborne releases to the port. One of the graphs (translated here) admits that 61 billion Bq per day "leaked" to the port last year, while just 22 billion Bq/day are leaking every day this year. Or, they expect will leak once they get the cliff wall finished, hopefully sometime this year.

And down the street...

The Asahi Shimbun reported August 24th that the number of young people (average age 14.8 years in March of 2011) in Fukushima prefecture who have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer now totals 103 (plus 1 benign tumor), for a rate of 34.8 per 100,000. Data from thyroid cancer screenings in contaminated areas after Chernobyl by Nagasaki University shows rates of 31 per 100,000 in Korosten and 22 per 100,000 in Kiev. To contrast, the thyroid cancer rate in Miyagi prefecture according to cancer patients' registration is 1.7 per 100,000 for late teens.

The disaster at Fukushima is both terrible and ongoing. Things keep going wrong, problems keep compounding, and the entire world is pretty well agreed that TEPCO has done a terrible job dealing with the situation. Even with bottomless infusions of money from their government, the situation - and equipment, and components, and facilities, and - keep on deteriorating. Information and data coming from TEPCO and the NRA is slow to nonexistent on many vital aspects. For example, TEPCO admitted just this month, for the first time, that the unit 3 reactor core did suffer 100% meltdown and melt-through in the first days after the earthquake, and various analysts are back now to the original NRC Rx analysis that the unit 3 explosion was steam (from the containment when the core hit the flooded floor) and not hydrogen deflagration from the refueling floor around the SFP. All three corium flows are still (far as we know) MIA.

It ain't over yet by a long shot.

Originally posted to Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 10:35 AM PDT.

Also republished by Nuclear Free DK.

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

  •  typo in your tag... (17+ / 0-)

    So what happens if a fuel rod get crushed or broken in the pool?  Do I even want to know?

    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.

    by Magster on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 10:47:31 AM PDT

    •  fixed the tag (17+ / 0-)

      I'm sure diarist won't mind.

      Wondering why broken rods haven't happened - or maybe they have and Tepco hasn't bothered to mention - with the droppage of such weighty debris.

    •  worst case is criticality (11+ / 0-)

      push the rods together tight enough and they
      give a small prompt criticality.

      Think nuclear hand grenade.

      certainly enough to blow the fuel all over the place
      and crack the pool.

      which then could lead to overheating and a small
      blob of corium headed to Africa.

      but usually the bigger problem would be you crush the racks
      and can't get the fuel bundles out of there.

      which is a problem, because, they need to secure those racks.

      the fuel is decaying, and at some point it will spread all over.

      •  This is false. (4+ / 0-)

        Nuclear power fuel does not reach criticality by compression or by bringing more metal into close contact.

        Nuclear power reactors reach criticality by having enough fuel rods in a precisely spaced geometry with moderator (water) in between and no neutron absorbing material present. The fuel racks include neutron absorbers.

        The fuel does not have enough fissile material to reach a critical mass in the sense of a bomb, and cannot blow up through this mechanism.

        Radioactive decay of the fuel does not alter its mechanical properties.

        This is not a sig-line.

        by Joffan on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 03:28:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Critical mass. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, JesseCW

          None but #3 could do that. And (hopefully) it didn't.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 09:59:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  obviously you are ignorant of prompt criticality (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice, Joieau

          Or you are just lying,  but I prefer to think there are
          lot more stupid people in the world then liars.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Nuclear reactors can be susceptible to prompt-criticality accidents if a large increase in k-effective (or reactivity) occurs, e.g., following failure of their control and safety systems.
          But now that you know this,  I would hate to think you would
          replace ignorance with Mendacity.
          •  How are nuclear reactors like "a series of tubes"? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joffan, cville townie

            You remember Ted Stevens attempting to explain the Internet as "a series of tubes?"  

            Well, Pat, as someone with a graduate education in nuclear engineering and a career of almost a decade in the same, your invocation of prompt criticality and explanation above about pushing the fuel together to create a "small prompt criticality" in the Fukushima fuel pools sound a lot like that "series of tubes" buffoonery of endless ridicule.

            The conditions of materials and geometry required to produce sufficient reactivity for prompt criticality are far more demanding than the conditions required to produce criticality with the aid of the so-called delayed neutrons that are released in the fission process.  In a reactor or a spent fuel pool, the preliminary condition of supercriticality (with delayed neutrons) is necessary but far from sufficient for prompt criticality to plausibly be achieved.  Prompt criticality in power reactor fuel should not be confused with fast-neutron prompt criticality in a nuclear bomb, occasioned as you describe by pushing material (different material than reactor fuel!) together "tight enough". If you push reactor fuel together tightly, you'd be increasing the fraction of neutrons lost to (n,g) capture relative to (n,f).  This fuel is only capable of criticality in specific lattice pitches (separation under water) and quantities.  Criticality safety is taken seriously in the design of fuel pools.  With knowledge of the applicable physics, it strains credulity to imagine a situation where not just accidental supercriticality, but prompt criticality, could be created in that environment.

            •  well obviously you are part of the.... (2+ / 2-)
              Recommended by:
              Joffan, cwillis
              Hidden by:
              patbahn, cville townie

              tumblr_m97z6aLRpZ1r4sd0zo1_1280

              (snicker)  (giggle)

              Thanks for trying to introduce some reality into this discussion.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 01:43:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joffan

                I do think most of the folks here are reality-based in the sense that they are willing to relinquish various tenets of "folk-wisdom" to the scientific process when a factual conflict is apparent.  

                Sometimes people are naturally curious and receptive, sometimes they go kicking and screaming via the waaaahmbulance, but all approaches to a more informed state should be accepted in a conciliatory manner as the human is an emotional animal.

                That said though, I have encountered a few--rare--intractibles here on DKos, folks comparable to the teabagger Barney Frank scolded with the immortal words, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table;" people with apparent curiosity deficit disorder compounded with the social skills of a toddler with a full diaper.  Even in those cases, I suspect the behavior is a mere affectation, their brains' reward pathways inured by custom to the bony delight of eating a billy-goat (or three) under the bridge that is their home.

              •  thanks for the improper HR (0+ / 0-)

                Wanna accuse people who question you again of being shills . . . . . . ?

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 04:25:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  yet there are even natural nuclear reactors (0+ / 0-)

              https://en.wikipedia.org/...

              please explain how this strains credulity.

              •  Shocking, who knew (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joffan

                ...Just kidding.

                ONCE upon a time in the distant Precambrian, when the Earth was a young whippersnapper and the days were only a few hours long, there was a lot more U-235--the fissile isotope--in natural uranium.  This is because uranium is is primordial and U-235 has a shorter half-life than U-238.  So criticality was possible in a few rare places where uranium accumulated in high concentration in the presence of water.  But as the earth got older, the U-235 evaporated like the snows of yesteryear, gone forever (well, technically turned into lead in the paint you ate as a child).

                Natural criticality is effectively impossible today, although by intelligent design, natural uranium can be made into a critical assembly (see CP-1).  

                •  nice slur, but you avoid the discussion (0+ / 0-)

                  What's the ratio of U-235 in a fuel rod compared to
                  that which we know existed in natural nuclear reactors?

                  •  It's awfully hard to have the discussion (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joffan

                    in advance of your posing the question.

                    Fresh LWR fuel is 2-5% U-235.

                    Natural uranium at the time of Oklo criticality was 3.1% U-235 according to your Wikipedia link.

                    •  and yet you declare that it would be impossible (0+ / 0-)

                      for a serious accident in a stored fuel pool to
                      ever generate a critical reaction.

                      seems like the concentrations of U-235 are more then
                      adequate.

                      But don't worry, you will launch a series of personal attacks
                      now.

                      Why don't you get Lenny to do that for you.

                      •  Nice strawman (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joffan

                        I never "declared that it would be impossible for a serious accident in a stored fuel pool to ever generate a critical reaction."  

                        I'd tell you to go read what I did write, but you never read, much less make any effort to understand, what I write.  You react to it in an entirely predictable, rote mechanical manner.  Brrrrring!  It must be strawman-o'clock.  Descartes would be entirely forgiven for kicking you just to hear the gears grind (but I pity his poor dogs).

                        Now get back in the kitchen and make me a donut.

                        •  let's just quote you. (0+ / 0-)
                          With knowledge of the applicable physics, it strains credulity to imagine a situation where not just accidental supercriticality, but prompt criticality, could be created in that environment.
                          So Strains Credulity to you is not impossible...

                          Nice.

                          Well,  Now that you are proven wrong about the initial conditions in the pool as not being "Credible",  
                          would you like to change your claim?

                          BTW, if you are the nuclear engineer you claim to be,
                          can you comment on why 4 reactors suffered critical failures on 3/11/11?

                          •  "Prompt criticality" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joffan

                            I repeat, "PROMPT CRITICALITY" in the fuel pool was a bugaboo of yours (lord knows why), and so I commented about the differences between that and delayed-neutron criticality that is the much more plausible safety scenario affecting design of these things.  

                            You can quote me all day long, but you're not to the point where you are reading what I write.  Fundamentally, what we've got here is a failure to communicate.  And yet, you still want me to comment on things, not out of any respect for what I have to say nor any genuine curiosity in the subject at hand, but out of the evident hope that you can re-spin the commentary into yet another Glennbeckian strawman flimsy enough to match your stunted rhetorical wit.  

                            That this is the debased nature of the engagement is not lost on me.  One might fairly wonder why I bothered to respond to your thing about criticality, given this history and it being a damn sure bet that history would repeat itself.  Here's why: eleven people uprated that factually bankrupt word-salad.  That's my audience.  That's a group of eleven unfortunate folks who are living in a hypoxic bubble of illiteracy on that one particular subject, thanks to you.  When I engage you, Pat, fully knowing that you will throw up strawmen and generally conduct yourself like an incontinent donkey on nitrous, I am doing that for the benefit of eleven people who may have previously found your pseudo-expert pronouncements convincing or convenient.  The day will come on my watch, Patty-ol'-boy, when you are out all by your lonesome, pushing a ragged donut cart down the street (in search of Lenny's house I presume) in woeful ignominy, having nobody there to help cheer you on.

                            (Or you could just bust out of your little troll act and come home to a better life.  Still worth mentioning.)  

                          •  i am sure to the people injured (0+ / 0-)

                            its not a big issue wether it was prompt critical or delayed critical.

                            but don't worry it was guys like you who argued its impossible for a nuke to meltdown,
                            its impossible for a nuke to SBO  and its impossible to ATWS

                            you are arguing trivialities and launching personal attacks which is typical of industry people.

                          •  "guys like you" (0+ / 0-)

                            I guess I'm now the scapegoat for the (presumed) incompetence of various unnamed others, related to me by nebulous, unspecified association.  An entire industry's accidents, errors, and injuries are cast at my feet--despite the fact that I don't even work for that industry.    

                            Prompt critical, delayed critical...tomayto, tomahto.  In patbahnistan, technical details are "trivialities" when people get injured.  The important thing is that we act sufficiently outraged and hold other blog commenters accountable for strawmen.  Fight the good fight, make a difference, troll for great justice.

                          •  stop clutching your pearls (0+ / 0-)

                            It's very unbecoming.

                            I also notice you run away once your strawman dies.

                            So a Delayed nuetron criticality accident happens in a
                            fuel pool.

                            That strikes me as a worst case outcome, along with
                            damage to the fuel pool and subsequent drain down and fire.

                            But you are going to claim that that is also "Defies Credibility".

                          •  well you are trolling for injustice and misery (0+ / 0-)

                            As far as you are concerned if millions of people
                            are exposed to high levels of radiation, it's okay
                            as long as you aren't related to them.

                            You are trolling for the nuclear industry and you
                            are standing up for the catastrophe and misery
                            they have launched on humanity.

                      •  thanks for going personal on me yet again (0+ / 0-)

                        How about you go back to "ignoring me".

                        (eyeroll)

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 07:43:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Hi patbahn (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joffan

                I wrote a paper about that if you are interested.  It can be found here

                Abstract:

                The advent of oxygenic photosynthesis changed Earth’s surface environment in numerous ways, perhaps most notably by making possible the evolution of large and complex life-forms. Current models suggest that organisms that can perform oxygenic photosynthesis first took hold in isolated marine and freshwater basins, producing local oxygen oases. Here we present calculations that suggest that uranium deposits could have formed at the margins of these basins due to the strong local reduction-oxidation gradients. Because of the high abundance of 235U at this time, these uranium deposits could have formed widespread, near-surface, critical natural fission reactors. These natural reactors would have represented point sources of heat, ionizing radiation, and free radicals. Additionally, they would have far-field effects through the production of mobile short- and long-lived radioactive daughter isotopes and toxic byproducts. It is possible that these fission products provided a negative feedback, helping to limit the proliferation of the cyanobacteria in the Archean environment. Secular decreases in the abundance of 235U in turn decreased the probability of such deposits forming critical fission reactors during the early Proterozoic.
            •  well you did eliminate ignorance (0+ / 0-)

              from the list of possible explanations
              of your statements.

          •  Republican-style doubling down on your falsity (0+ / 0-)

            Oh, let's talk about a completely different kind of event in a completely different kind of environment and pretend that's what the subject was.

            Mendacity indeed.

            This is not a sig-line.

            by Joffan on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 01:55:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  No faith in the official line (27+ / 0-)

    I have no faith in the official line coming out of either the company or the country. I think everyone is in CYA mode. I always thought there was a meltdown based on the info I understood. I am to the point that nothing that comes out of the mouths of the executives or mouth pieces for energy/oil companies is believed.

    The legs of the crane have become short in the summer rain. Buson

    by Travelin Man on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 11:17:19 AM PDT

    •  I hear you. (29+ / 0-)

      CYA is actually the second nuke reaction to a serious catastrophe. First reaction is blanket denial. This can't be happening because it's too gnarly, so we'll just ignore it and hope it goes away.

      TEPCO stayed in denial mode far too long. But the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami were horrible disasters all by themselves for northeastern Japan. It's not like there was nothing else to worry about or anything.

      They would like us to believe it's all over, but that simply isn't true. Some of us will continue to pay attention, because it deserves the attention. Even moreso because reliable information is in such short supply.

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 11:31:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You can go back to the first days in March 2011 (27+ / 0-)

      and read the comments

      There's all these anti-science fools saying, based on common sense and what was known at the time, that three reactors had melt-downs. On the other hand you'll see lots of expert scientists and engineers claiming such a thing was impossible; and anyway TEPCO and the Governments (Japan's and ours) would tell us if such a thing had happened. Mixed with tons of ad hominem against people saying 'must have melted down.'

      Of course, we now know who was right; who was lying or just avoiding reality.

      One day we'll all die of modern expertise.


      My country goes dead making money.

      by Jim P on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah. I remember on that first day (17+ / 0-)

        when we heard about the venting problem, I asked one of the "I'll explain it all to you, children!" nukes how much hydrogen was in the gas they needed to vent. You'd have thought I just strangled the guy's mother or something... There Is No Hydrogen In Nuclear Meltdowns!

        Which is bullshit, of course, for anyone who knows anything about reactors, meltdowns and or good old fashioned radiolysis.

        3.5 years later we finally get around to maybe the #3 blow-out was a detonation, not a hydrogen deflagration. Molten corium falls into a puddle of water on the drywell floor, flash-fissions huge steam and gases (that then blow straight up), with a real chance of critical mass for at least some of that flash. Gnarly, just as it appeared to be on TV from ten miles away.

        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

        by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 12:16:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  People are funny (13+ / 0-)

        Only because using the word funny is better than alternatives.  People get their news from media sources that keep getting proven wrong over and over again. How many times does a media source have to make someone more ill informed before they learn and start looking for new sources?

        I started reading The Progressive, The Nation and In These Times when I was in HS. What I found in those sources was information that the main media did not touch for years sometimes. Examples are irradiated food, sewage washing farm land, industrial farms and the impact on local waterways and then the more accurate portrayal of current events like Iran/Contra.

        I also learned that each of those sources had their own blind spots. In These Times is a union periodical and you will not read much negative about unions. The Nation also has their political leaning and their choice of articles and writers pretty much fall within that range. The Progressive had a lot of Jewish influence because of their editor and writers. It was a leftist viewpoint but they were pretty careful in their criticism.

        The legs of the crane have become short in the summer rain. Buson

        by Travelin Man on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 12:37:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, writers of pamphlets through the (6+ / 0-)

          history of the popular press usually have an argument to make; or to avoid.

          I don't mind that, because that's just human nature and what is anyone going to do about that?

          But when it comes to putting forth outright lies, deliberate non sequiturs, and "slight of mind" rhetorical tricks to bamboozle people, and against their interests... that's just plain evil-doing.

          Okay, now and then, human nature, you go for the wrong thing. But repeated year after year after year, for decades?

          And I'm amazed how, even here, you'll find people mouthing the official story without a moment spent in critical examination of what they're told. And then they'll attack you personally if you try to encourage them to look further.


          My country goes dead making money.

          by Jim P on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 07:14:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  People are sheep (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, Creosote, JesseCW

            to them. This scam has been going for so long adult people's grandparents probably went for it. Clean, Safe, Too Cheap To Meter. It was none of those.

            It's over now (thank Gop or whoever). Now all we have to do is shut the rest of 'em down.

            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

            by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 10:03:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the nuke power industry is dying. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino, Creosote, JesseCW, Joieau, Jim P

              they won't get more then a handful of new racs on line

              before the big wave of retirements happen.

              The only question is will there be another big accident

              •  Oh, I don't think (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                there's any question there, more of these suckers will melt down and blow up. That's what they do. The question is where and when, who gets added to their kill list.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 07:38:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  well actually what these things do is leak rads (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau

                  They all do that.

                  Of the global fleet, of some 400,  there is about a 1:10,000
                  chance of one of them blowing up.

                  Now that's not good odds to take on
                  places like NYC,  but,  I'd say that most of the
                  Racs in Europe are headed towards retirement

                  and most of the Racs in the US are headed to retirement.

                  and ALL of the racs in Japan are headed to retirement.

                  It's only the few in China that will continue forward.

              •  Oh, I don't think (0+ / 0-)

                there's any question there, more of these suckers will melt down and blow up. That's what they do. The question is where and when, who gets added to their kill list.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry for double post. (0+ / 0-)

                  They must be working on the system again.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 08:28:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  it was easy to tell these racs were in meltdown (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, wilderness voice, JesseCW, Joieau

        you just had to look at the buildings.

        Then you had the industry shills come out saying
        "These reactors were designed to do this" like it was a good thing.

      •  I don't always agree with Joieau (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Joieau, Jim P

        but reviewing those old diaries, I am fucking amazed at how much ass s/he was kicking.

        With style and panache, I must add.

        "Former" Republicans never are. People prone to supporting profound injustice don't morph into people capable of telling right from wrong.

        by JesseCW on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 06:32:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Joieau. Has TEPCO announced a long-term (24+ / 0-)

    containment plan and schedule yet?

    My guess is they may need 30 to 50 years just to get to the point they can put some containment system on a 1,000 to 25,000 year maintain plan for keeping the radiation isolated from the environment.

    I seem to remember from a radiation class about 35 years ago that the rule of thumb is 10 times as long as the half-life of the longest dangerous radioactive isotope.

    Which in nuclear weapons waste is one of the isotopes of plutonium which is around 23,500 years. So the waste containment plans reach out to 250,000 years.

    The longest continuous civilization we know of on planet earth so far is the Chinese at around 5,000 years, just as a point of reference.

    Has anyone estimated the cost and the tried to recalculate the real external costs of nuclear power based electricity production?  

    Some, like the risk of terrorists attacking the site to create in in situ dirty bomb out of the site, or stealing radioactive wastes are difficult to estimate cumulative probabilities for.

    But what would be more useful and scientific? Leaving these costs out of the equation because we do not  have sufficient methodology, or putting in some best conservative estimate with a big glaring footnote to remind people that of all possible values the one we can reject with the most scientific certainty is zero, which is what is assumed when we leave these factors out.

    Even if the government caps the maximum insurance claims reactor owners will have to pay in the event of an accident near a city or one that leaves large regions unihabital government or society is having to absorb these costs.

    Yes, utilities in the U.S. have create enhanced security and now have highly militarized security units doing live-fire security exercises at nuclear plants. This adds costs and these costs are going to escalate over time.

    How do we estimate the cost to society of having locked ourselves into highly centralized, heavily militarized government power necessary to guard these power plants and eventual waste dumps?

    The situation is worse in many political unstable countries like Pakistan, where up to 50% of the domestic intelligence and military forces are estimated to be sympathetic to the goals and forces committed to violent jihad.

    If we use nuclear power, how can we credible suggest that others do not?

    During the first phase of the accident I read that about 30 US reactors have essentially open or very vulnerable radioactive waste pools similar in design to the ones at Fukushima.

    Sorry, Joieau, I do not intend to grill you like you are proposing all of these things but rather just raising some issues I know you've talked about before in the even you want to comment on any?

    Thanks for doing this.

    How sad.

    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

    by HoundDog on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 11:24:29 AM PDT

    •  We have 23 BWR plants (16+ / 0-)

      just like those at Daiichi. They are all still steaming, most got their licenses renewed for 40 more years than they were designed to operate.

      I doubt any self-respecting terrorist would bother with what's at Daiichi. Not only are the dose levels in proximity absolutely deadly, 4 of the biggest, baddest, dirtiest dirty bombs imaginable have already gone off there. Everything else is just overkill...

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 11:36:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Terrorism (0+ / 0-)

        Most terrorists who actually go on site to attack places are ready to, and often enthusiastic about, getting killed in the act. Indeed suicide attacks have extra terror value by demonstrating the commitment of the terrorist and so by implication the power of their cause as well as the difficulty of protecting from them. There are plenty of destructive acts a terrorist could perform that would exploit Fukushima's smoldering ruins to terrorize even more than they already have, starting with flying a plane into them to spread the radioactivity and disrupt the cleanup.

        The fact that Fukushima is already equated with the fear that a dirty bomb causes makes it useful for pushing that fear again, this time by design from attackers rather than by accident by incompetent corporates and governements.

        And indeed those 23 other plants like Fukushima's are now more likely terrorist attacks. The public has already been prepared to react with terror if another explodes, when the news inevitably mentions this new one is like the one in Fukushima except caused by terrorists hellbent on repeating their success rather than the "fluke" earthquake that caused the catastrophe in Fukushima.

        I'm not alarmist about terrorist targets. There are a lot of them in our mostly open global society. But we should not be complacent about the viability of Daiichi or other nuke plants as terror targets. They are in fact very high terror value targets, and very risky as such. Their already high cost of operation must include the cost of defending them from terrorists, and incorporate the risk that no practical expense will fully defend them - and the catastrophic cost if terrorists do materialize that risk.

        I say this with NYC's Indian Point nuke plant practically in my backyard. Tens of millions of us exposed to its risks daily walk around complacent that it's perfectly safe. That attitude makes it even more likely it will blow up in our faces.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 11:55:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Terrorists couldn't get hold of much (0+ / 0-)

          at Daiichi they could use for a terrorist dirty bomb. Those dirty bombs have already gone off, and are spewing more dirt into the air and water 24-7 right now. What could they do to Daiichi that hasn't already happened, even supposing they'd live long enough to steal a spent fuel assembly and blow it up on the pier. Who'd even notice?

          Now, what terrorists might do to other nukes - or any other target they choose - is a whole different discussion, and not the subject of this diary.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 07:32:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Spewing Daiichi Into the Air (0+ / 0-)

            If a terrorist crashed a decent sized plane into the radioactive water tanks, or into the spent fuel pools, that explosion would kick up a decent sized radioactive dust cloud. The news stories would be scary. People would be terrorized.

            You can't seriously think that nobody would notice a terrorist plane suicide bombing Daiichi?

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 09:28:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh... and this nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

              We are told repeatedly - by nukes and their pet governments - that we've absolutely nothing to worry about from three total meltdowns/melt-throughs and zirc fires in open spent fuel pools and spectacularly exploding multi-megawatt reactor plants boasting thousands of tons' worth of radioactive garbage that includes a full list of actinides plus every other nasty radionuclide known to humankind.

              Why the hell should we be terrified of some piddly-assed backpack sized "dirty bomb" with a mere purloined cobalt x-ray source inside? They can't have it both ways, you know. Thus I do believe they've screwed themselves on this one.

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 10:05:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Spewing Daiichi Into the Air (0+ / 0-)
            If a terrorist crashed a decent sized plane into the radioactive water tanks, or into the spent fuel pools, that explosion would kick up a decent sized radioactive dust cloud. The news stories would be scary. People would be terrorized.

            You can't seriously think that nobody would notice a terrorist plane suicide bombing Daiichi?

            As for what terrorists might do to other nukes, that is exactly what you dismissed in the post to which I replied. The security question is important. 23 other nukes that are bigger targets now that "like Fukushima" is the guaranteed terrorist payoff in the inevitable media stories if terrorists seriously damaged one. Which is how terrorism works.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 09:31:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Daiichi has already spewed. (0+ / 0-)

              All the nuclear garbage there is uncontained - pretty much all that's left will get out eventually. Slower, faster, air or water, does it really matter? And last I checked, Japan wasn't big on the Big Bad Terrierist List anyway. You can't terrify the United States by blowing up something in Japan that blew up years ago.

              Nor am I terrified of what Big Bad Terrierists (small, annoying punting dogs with delusions of grandeur) might or might not do to other nukes in this country and/or elsewhere. There shouldn't even BE any nukes for anybody to blow up if they don't blow themselves up first. The entire 'Nuclear Age' in all its guises is one gigantic suicidal scam on the species - a pointless exercise in self-terrorization. If we can't manage to grow out of it and clean up our act, the universe isn't going to miss us when we're gone.

              Or, put in the terms I used during the Cuban Missile Crisis all those many years ago when the adults were just sure we were going to wipe out humanity over a stupid political argument - "Drop it and I'll kiss it on the way down, or shut the hell up." All the rest is macho posturing... terrorism writ large.

              Living in fear is a waste of life. So are nukes.

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:57:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

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

                The point is that a terrorist attack could use Daiichi as a weapon by any additional harm it does caused by the terrorists. It doesn't matter that it's already caused harm before the terrorists got there.

                The official story the corporate mass media has accepted and distributed is that the harm was either contained or diluted, and most importantly that the system has it under control despite some problems with the system. If terrorists hit it and kick up any more radiation, the corporate mass media will go with the story that the terrorists turned it into a dirty bomb. And there will be terror.

                Therefore it's a valuable terrorist target. The actual increased harm is irrelevant - the terror spread from the reporting is all that's relevant. Just as the actual harm is irrelevant to the establishment, in favor of the whitewash that's reported, so the establishment allows the harm if it can get the whitewash.

                FWIW, during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviets gave their sub the go-ahead to launch its nukes. Only the refusal of one of the three necessary officers on the sub prevented the launch and extinction.

                I don't live in fear of all this. I was born during Vietnam, so I always accepted the constant yet unactualized threat of nuke extinction as the baseline. Indeed I've derived much joy from the unexpected (and perhaps undeserved) freedom I've felt since the end of the Cold War, and the destruction of so many nukes along with it.

                But I do want to be realistic about the risks, and their costs. Nuke plants like at Fukushima are real terrorist targets, because of the low cost of causing high cost terror there. Protecting them is necessary until we're rid of them. And that cost and risk should accelerate getting rid of them.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 01:25:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I hear you, honestly. (0+ / 0-)

                  I simply disagree that Daiichi is in any way a tempting terrorist target. There is basically nothing under control at Daiichi, on any level. It's getting steadily worse over time, apart from the initial plumes. Which are estimated by some pretty good estimators to have quadrupled the environmental burden of (just) cesium throughout the northern hemisphere. Daiichi will still be spewing for the entirety of the rest of my life and yours, and our children's too. And probably our grandchildren's. They will abandon the pretense at some point, put a fence around it and go on home. The most dangerous crap will be in our air, food and water for 300 years.

                  Terrorists may be a suicidal bunch, but they're suicidal for a cause. Whatever that is. They don't do dastardly deeds with the goal of making humanity - including everybody involved in their cause - extinct. Only nukes (and their pet governments) are THAT evil. They've done are are still doing a good job of terrorizing the citizens of Earth all by themselves.

                  The danger that terrorists might seize or blow a nuke elsewhere in the world is real only so long as there are nukes they can seize or blow. My position is that there shouldn't be any. Toward that eventuality, you can certainly argue the "terrorist threat" to your heart's content wherever it might do some good as a way to motivate people to get the job done. More power to you on that.

                  I'm just not very concerned about it because I think such a thing is highly unlikely to ever be attempted or successfully accomplished. And, if attempted/accomplished at Daiichi, would hardly be noticed. Might make News Of The Weird, though, maybe sweep the Darwin Awards that year...

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 07:19:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hi Joieau (0+ / 0-)
                    It's getting steadily worse over time, apart from the initial plumes. Which are estimated by some pretty good estimators to have quadrupled the environmental burden of (just) cesium throughout the northern hemisphere.
                    The global fallout of 137-Cs to just the ocean in the northern hemisphere was a total of  407.8 PBq.  You can find the numbers in Table 1.3 of Povinec, Hirose and Aoyama (2013) or in Table I of the IAEA WOMARS (2005) study. Decay corrected to 2010 that is roughly 115 PBq from just weapons testing (i.e. not including reprocessing or Chernobyl) in just the northern hemisphere oceans.  The inventory of weapons testing 137-Cs that was distributed to land is not included here.

                    To quadruple that released to just the northern hemisphere ocean Fukushima would need to have released 460 PBq 137-Cs.  I am not aware of release estimates anywhere near that. Can you provide links to your pretty good estimators estimates?  

    •  Their long-term containment plan (6+ / 0-)

      is probably to wait until the radioactive material all melts into the earth, slap some dirt on top, and call it good.

    •  their long term plan is 6 months (5+ / 0-)

      they have no clue on what they are doing.

  •  thyroid cancer should be 3 per million (19+ / 0-)

    it's a very rare condition,

    now they are seeing 348 per million in 3 years.

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/...

    note figure 4  it's very rare in young people.

    •  Well, they're all still trying (20+ / 0-)

      to pretend that the rate's so ridiculous because they've bothered to look. 48% of Fukushima children tested with ultrasound since the disaster began are positive for thyroid abnormalities (nodules and cysts). The then head of the Fukushima Health Project (government takeover of public health response) proudly proclaimed that people who smile cannot be harmed by radiation. And they all blew cancers off as they began being diagnosed because it was deemed "too soon." Because those weren't diagnosed at Chernobyl for four years. Because nobody was looking before four years had passed. Oy.

      By rights, Japan should have even lower rates of thyroid cancer than most other countries because the population eats so much seafood, and the islands boast soil rich in iodine (from the sea). Denial here is definitely a river - and it runs directly underneath the 4 destroyed reactor plants at Daiichi.

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 12:04:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As your source says (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thanatokephaloides, Joffan

        the rate could indeed appear higher because they (health authorities) "bothered to look":

        But experts say the figures [between the Miyagi cancer rate and the results of the survey in Fukushima] cannot be compared because the test in Fukushima Prefecture covers a large number of people who have no symptoms.
        If cancer is being detected early in asymptomatic people by a new screening method, it stands to reason that more diagnoses will come to light at the time of the screening.  That's a pretty simple concept.

        It doesn't mean that the excess diagnoses are known to be explained by early detection; there could be excess cancer from the nuclear accident, a mixture of influences from the accident and the testing method, etc.; it's too early for the research to have resolved the matter (although in your view, the experts are "pretending" at this point).

        •  What in the world (12+ / 0-)

          would make you think the kids who have been so far diagnosed with thyroid cancer (thyroidectomies for all) were "asymptomatic?" Screening identified a bunch of kids with precancerous cysts approaching centimeter size. THAT isn't asymptomatic - there's a rather large lump in their throats. The health project doesn't operate until the tumors are bigger, with cancer that happens pretty quickly. Those wouldn't be asymptomatic either.

          Identifying a 48% rate of unusual nodules and cysts probably includes a lot of kids who are, apart from those nodules and cysts, asymptomatic. Or maybe not, if they were 'selected' for screening because their thyroid hormones are out of whack.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 01:21:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gotta read your own source (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thanatokephaloides, Joffan

            Seriously now...I quoted directly from it above:

            [...] covers a large number of people who have no symptoms
            This is not the sort of thing that literate adults should be arguing about, but admittedly it's been par for the course.  Notice that your source doesn't say ALL of the diagnosed or diagnosed suspected have "no symptoms", it just says that some who are without symptoms will have early-stage cancer detected by the screening.
            •  Great! That's what I said. (7+ / 0-)

              What's the rate of thyroid cancer diagnosis in your region/state? I'd guess it's not 34.8 per 100,000.

              Catching a cancer early is good. Less opportunity for it to metastasize into lung cancer or pancreatic cancer or bone cancer or... well, you know. It's still cancer whether diagnosed early or late. It gets caught at some point, doesn't just go away if you ignore it.

              What is the rate of thyroid cancer per lifetime of the population in your region/state? I'd guess it's not 34.8/100,000.

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 01:31:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is very simple (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joffan, CatM

                and don't let my apparent failure to communicate the idea to you get in the way of reading something that explains it credibly:

                http://jama.jamanetwork.com/...

                "Increased diagnostic scrutiny" and its influence on measured incidence of a cancer (coincidentally, thyroid cancer) is discussed at length in the linked AMA paper.  According to you, the guys in Japan are "pretending" when they invoke this same principle.  Maybe the authors of the linked paper are also pretending.  Anyway, I'm just the messenger...take your beef up with the pretenders.

                •  And what type of cancer do the kids at (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino, Joieau, thanatokephaloides, Jim P

                  Fukushima have, and what is the staging of it?

                  These are indicators of radioactive exposure as well.

                  "That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?" - Elon James White on Ferguson, MO

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:01:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  This is very simple, (10+ / 0-)

                  do try not to be confused. If the 'normal' rate of thyroid cancer is, say, 1-3 per million lifetime out of all the people who live in your region (for statistical purposes), it is impossible for there to be 34.8 actual cases of thyroid cancer in 3 years' time in a subset of that population (under the age of 20 at exposure) as part of that 'norm'. It would skew your lifetime figures all to hell, and no doubt alert EPA to some kind of industrial cause they need to investigate immediately. It's a genuine, full-fledged "cluster."

                  Unless you want to claim that cancers that are not diagnosed "early" (or at all until death) don't count as cancers, if the rate among young people in your region is this high, you'd be alarmed. Any rational person would.

                  Once more - "Catching" cancers early doesn't say anything whatsoever about the rate of cancer development in the population(s). Cancer is cancer, it will kill you if you ignore it. That has always been true, Fukushima didn't change it.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You gotta read, gotta comprehend. (2+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joffan, thanatokephaloides
                    Hidden by:
                    patbahn

                    History suggests I'm not someone who can help you do this, but your readers might have more patience for something rather elementary.  

                    Again: Saying that the observed incidence rate of thyroid cancer is high because of Fukushima is premature due to the confounding influence of increased diagnostic scrutiny.  

                    Another reliable source (The Guardian, from March):

                    http://www.theguardian.com/...

                    •  Are you really pretending (8+ / 0-)

                      that if I develop thyroid cancer at 15 but nobody notices, then I don't have thyroid cancer and won't die of it if nobody admits I have it and I am never treated? Really?

                      That's the flip side of "well, there's only that many because they're looking." Really.

                      What is the rate of spontaneous total remission of thyroid cancer in your average population of people under 20? Or maybe you couldn't say, because nobody's bothered to look for thyroid abnormalities in children. "Everybody knows" that if you don't diagnose it, it's not real. Right?

                      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                      by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:33:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wrong again (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joffan, thanatokephaloides

                        But you get credit for engaging.

                        Let's say thyroid cancer is induced by a radiation exposure at age 15.  You have neck pain at age 20, and the doctor finds the cancer.  Consider this a customary diagnosis.

                        Under different circumstances, imagine you are selected for a highly-sensitive, brand-new ultrasound scan at age 17.  You don't have any symptoms of disease at this point, yet the scan detects a nodule in your thyroid that is diagnosed as cancer.  Your cancer was caught early in relation to customary diagnosis, along with a number of other people who also received the new scan.  The year the scan was administered, a lot more people will have been diagnosed with respect to customary diagnosis in years past.  But by the same logic, those who have been diagnosed earlier will NOT be diagnosed later.  So there is a TEMPORARY rise in apparent incidence over some period, followed logically by a lull if all else remains equal, and then a return to equilibrium--the same equilibrium as before, under customary diagnosis--using the new tool.

                        Make sense?    

                        •  Thanks for the credit. (4+ / 0-)

                          If thyroid cancer in children is being diagnosed at a 34.8/100,000 rate after only 3.5 years, Fukushima's a bigger mess than anybody wants to admit openly and honestly. Don't worry, those numbers will get steadily worse over the next dozen years.

                          What you cannot do is claim that the high abnormality/cancer rate (just because we started looking early on) can't be caused by radiation exposure from Daiichi because it's "too soon" to detect such cancers. That's not an established fact. It's just that they didn't start looking early on before.

                          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                          by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 03:06:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I've never claimed that (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau, thanatokephaloides
                            What you cannot do is claim
                            I think you were talking to that man made out of straw somewhere behind me.  For some reason he never offers a rebuttal, I suspect because he's just made out of cellulose.

                            Fukushima radiation could in principle cause a higher incidence of cancer.  I have concurred with that myself, in this thread!  Again, though, just because a higher incidence rate is measured (e.g. 35 /100000) doesn't compel that particular conclusion, because the increased diagnostic scrutiny could also reasonably cause it to be higher in the short term.  Assuming that the rate jump is due to Fukushima radiation is against the advice of experts, who have no consensus on the matter yet and acknowledge the important confounding influence of the increased diagnostic scrutiny.

                            I have the humility to refrain from speculating about what will happen to thyroid rates in Japan in the future.  It is an open research subject.  Whatever happens, research will have conclusions about the influence, or at least the bounding limits of influence, of the Fukushima accident on cancer in the exposed population.

                            -Carl

                          •  Then I apologize for assumption. (5+ / 0-)

                            You know what they say about those...

                            I don't think there's any legitimate argument that Fukushima isn't going to result in higher cancer rates (and other things) in northeastern Japan. That's sad, but true. Seems to me that however reluctant the principals are, the Fuku project is at least on top of their own selected population group per thyroid cancer. That's a good thing.

                            Deal is, it's science (as Lenny is so wont to say wherever he can). That means certain aspects are predictable, and predicted they are. Not only by the Fuku project to monitor the most exposed population, but in future monitoring of the entirety of age groups in that population. I'm old. I don't get cancer from radiation exposure as easily as a child does. And I care a whole lot less too. §;o)

                            We as a technological species know that our technologies can be dangerous. Deadly, even. We should always try to keep that at a minimum. There's nothing anybody can really do about Fukushima at this late date. It is what it is, and will always be thus. I just believe we shouldn't ignore, because there's more than 400 other nuclear death-traps out there right now fixing to do a Twisted Sister act. That's a problem for everybody.

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 03:34:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so if it's an open research subject (0+ / 0-)

                            why don't you be humble, move to Fukushima and eat the food there.  Take all your descendants with you.

                            Enjoy participating in the research, up close.

                        •  all your arguments lack one key element: Reality (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JesseCW

                          see, there are these people called doctors who do
                          screening palpations of the thyroid feeling for nodules.

                          They rarely find them.  

                          When they do, they start surveillance, do ultrasound
                          and evaluate for surgery.

                          So,  why don't you go read up on these miraculous
                          people called M.D.s and try to see how they do this.

                          •  Pat, all your arguments lack arguments (0+ / 0-)

                            It's sound and fury, signifying nothing.

                            Apparently you haven't bothered to read the sources that are being discussed.  Sources that I found and mentioned.  Who writes or contributes opinions to these? Doctors...epidemiologists...other people generally recognized as subject-matter experts.  So when I have cited "miraculous people called M.D.s," you have not been paying attention.

                            Also, try harder to act like an adult...dropping donuts on my comments, under the circumstances, is infantile.

                    •  a bump in incidence due to a few years' (6+ / 0-)

                      early diagnosis cannot be sufficient to account for an increased incidence of 20-100x normal rates.

                      •  You are going to have to cite a credible source (0+ / 0-)

                        for this position if you want me to take it seriously.  In cases where a person has a postulate that contradicts the cited expertise, he or she has to back that up with other credible expertise; it isn't acceptable on face value.

                        Your postulate certainly does not follow from anything self-evident.

                        -Carl

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

                          Apparently you have a different standard for your own "reasoning":

                          it stands to reason that more diagnoses will come to light ...
                          •  Sorry if it's not clear (0+ / 0-)

                            In addition to Joieau's own source I have cited three more that describe this simple phenomenon.  These are all duly mentioned in the thread.  If you have a specific problem with accessibility of my cited sources to your own background or reading level, I may be able to use Google to help you find others that will confer understanding.  I'm willing to help you out at your own pace on this road of discovery...let's not make things personal.

                             

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

                            1. make an absurd claim
                            2. absurd claim is refuted
                            3. Demand a link to published refutation of said absurd claim, knowing full well none exists because no one could ever be bothered to refute commenter's idiosyncratic absurd claim.
                            4. get called on that
                            5. wrap yourself in the flag of other irrelevant citations.

                          •  Sorry, I lost you at #1 (0+ / 0-)

                            The "absurd claim" I am making comes directly from links I have provided.  

                            I haven't gone beyond restating what is already offered in a straightforward manner in the links I have provided.  

                            If you have a problem or notice any "absurdity" with the claims in those links I provided, maybe you can coherently describe that problem sometime, it might make this conversation easier.

                            Because right now, it's just a bunch of barnyard noise.

                          •  oh really? (0+ / 0-)

                            You have a link that specifically says early diagnosis can account for a >20x increase in measured incidence of thyroid cancer?  Must have missed that one.

                          •  The links specifically address the Fukushima data (0+ / 0-)

                            So feel free to read them.

                            Pretty please, with a cherry on top?

                          •  since you were so anxious to help (0+ / 0-)

                            maybe you could post that specific link below

                          •  Self-help 101 (0+ / 0-)

                            Go to my (cwillis) page.

                            Look at my comments.

                            Read the ones that were posted before you showed up in this thread.

                            You'll find my links to two sources (The Guardian and Thyroid Journal) that address heightened diagnostic scrutiny as a confounding factor in Fukushima data.  A third source, a JAMA paper, discusses diagnostic scrutiny as a confounding factor more generally.  Finally, the Asahi Shimbun article in Joieau's diary touches on this issue in the comments of the interviewed experts.

                            You're right in assuming that I have the technical prowess to go back, cut and paste all these links, and serve them to you in bed on a silver platter.  So why don't I do that?  Well, as a matter of principle there are certain things I think a person ought to get accustomed to doing on their own--life skills like dressing, feeding, shitting into the toilet bowl rather than down the leg of one's pajamas, etc.  And actually reading the thread you're dead-set on trolling is in that category.  You can do it.  (I think....I'm a man of great patience and faith.)

                •  so enhanced screening doubles the detection rate (0+ / 0-)

                  nice.

                  Now can you explain the other 10X increase?

            •  And do try to contextualize (6+ / 0-)

              the 34.8/100,000 figure on the merits. The pool consists of children 'selected' for monitoring, it is not the entirety of the exposed population.

              Thyroid cancer caused to radioactive iodine-131 appears in children first, years before those who were already adult on 3/11/11 would start to be diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Those are still being diagnosed with regularity in the Chernobyl region.

              The effects of radioactive iodine-131 on developing fetuses are much, much more horrifying than some 'curable' throat tumors.

              Cancer is cancer, whether it's diagnosed early or late. It doesn't just go away if it's ignored long enough. Thus monitoring in the wake of the worst nuclear disaster the world has ever seen does not cause the amount of thyroid abnormalities and/or cancers in children everywhere if anybody bothered to look everywhere. Exposure to radioactive iodine-131 causes it.

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 01:53:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exposure to I-131 (0+ / 0-)

                But the major exposure route for I-131, ingestion, was closed off at Fukushima. No kids drinking contaminated milk there.

                Papillary Thyroid Cancer is very slow-growing, so one detected by an examination with a high-resolution ultrasound scanner would, most likely, have evidenced itself much later in life using the old methods. In fact, it might never have been found, or caused a problem. It is worth noting that Thyroid Cancer Rates increase with age, and massively in females, so these higher rates have to be kept in mind when analyzing Fukushima thyroid cancer results. This paper is a good reference on the Japanese rates: http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/...

                Additionally, your Asahi Shimbun link failed to mention that that average detection rates are the same for children who were located close to the plant, and those located further away - which would indicate that exposure to I-131 from Daiichi is not a factor. See pages 8 and 9 in this PDF from the Fukushima Government: http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/...

                When you drill down to the municipality level you find higher rates in some municipalities near Fukushima Daiichi, and also in some far from Daiichi.

        •  Asymptomatic? Even a small thyroid nodule (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, Joieau, thanatokephaloides, Jim P

          that is non-cancerous can cause thyroid hormone imbalances that can have severe symptoms. We do not know if these kids were asymptomatic, and the likelihood is that many of them could have been symptomatic.

          I also am wondering what stage cancer most are being diagnosed with as well as what type since both are indicative of radioactive exposure vs. non-radioactive exposure. Also, the age of the kids, since if 14 or over, it would be unlikely that these rates were normal for any thyroid cancer in adults.

          "That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?" - Elon James White on Ferguson, MO

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:00:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Apparently (4+ / 0-)

            the Fukushima Health Survey (the ones who did the testing but who have tried like hell to keep doctors from treating people presenting with possible radiation-related issues) is diagnosing/operating on all thyroid tumors over 1 cm in size, in those kids previously identified with cysts (per re-testing). Thyroidectomy is the treatment.

            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

            by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:19:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Full or partial? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, thanatokephaloides

              I'm confused about the cysts vs. tumors issue here. Very different. Also, are they doing bloodwork to see if kids are symptomatic? Are they checking their kids not just for cancer but sensitively for thyroid hormone problems which do not have to be cancer related? That should be more than a stock TSH screening. There, T3, T4, and anti-thyroglobulin are standard, plus one other that I used to get that I don't recall. Some recommend thyroglobulin but for some reason my oncologist always ordered anti-thyroglobulin. He was world-renowned.

              "That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?" - Elon James White on Ferguson, MO

              by mahakali overdrive on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:30:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  T7 -- I just remembered it (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                thanatokephaloides, Joieau

                It was on the tip of my tongue, sorry.

                "That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?" - Elon James White on Ferguson, MO

                by mahakali overdrive on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:31:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                thanatokephaloides, Sandino

                But you could probably get those kind of details from the Fukushima Health Project. Much of their data is translated.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:43:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ARGH! Or whatever it's called. (4+ / 0-)

                The ultrasound tested population were under 20 and in the most contaminated regions, between 285,000 and 300,000 of them. More over time, they say. If they get around to it. Lots of kids' families relocated early on if they could afford it, they are scattered throughout Japan. And not being tested, that I've heard about. At least, not by these guys.

                As time marches on, there will be much more. And the ages will start going up for 5-15 years. Then it'll level out in the older crowd, many of whom have already died of something else, so not much attention will be paid. We are already informed that the cancer rates are going north of 70% in the next couple of decades. Maybe we won't even notice rates in northeastern Japan by then.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:53:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Prevented Treatments? (0+ / 0-)

              Do you have any references as to how the FHS is preventing doctors from treating people presenting with possible radiation-related issues?

  •  so where are the shills (9+ / 0-)

    denouncing this for being Unscientific,
    unproven and histrionic?

    •  adding their thoughts and pie to the commonmass (7+ / 0-)

      banning story?   :o)  

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

      by JVolvo on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 12:03:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I expect Lenny will be around (15+ / 0-)

      shortly to demand I be banned for CT. Fukushima being, per his labeling system, an official Conspiracy Theory right up there with Bigfoot and 9-11 Truthers.

      Hmmm... does that make me a 3-11 Truther? §;o)

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 12:19:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was wondering (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, ozsea1, thanatokephaloides

      that myself ;)

      "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

      by lunachickie on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 12:35:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Shills don't get paid (4+ / 0-)

      if there's no way to put a positive spin on it.

      Which in this case there absolutely is not.

      /off to shilling for GMOs and vaccines again!   ^_~

      (for which I've yet to receive a single penny but I keep hoping)

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 01:41:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You may have missed (7+ / 0-)

        the assertions right here in the comments to this diary that testing children exposed to cancer-causing I131 for thyroid abnormalities is why there's a 34.8/100,000 rate of thyroid cancer in young people in Fukushima prefecture. As if, had those kids NOT BEEN TESTED, the rate wouldn't be that high. In fact, per the poster, it would be 'normal'.

        Anyhoo, have fun!

        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

        by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 02:09:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, you may have missed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joffan, thanatokephaloides

          that discussion in your very own source article.

          (I'm being generous: you did miss it.)

          If one suddenly implements better tests,  a bunch of asymptomatic cases will be detected early.  The apparent incidence of cancer will be temporarily higher than expected.  "Increased diagnostic scrutiny." Not a challenging concept for people with a brain.

          -Carl
           

          •  The ONLY pertinent fact (6+ / 0-)

            to this argument is that the "control group" - the population slice this rate is factored on - are kids who are identified in the high risk group of "most exposed."

            There are hundreds of kids in that group whose families relocated early on, all over Japan. Who have not been tested that we know of, are not part of this pool. And there's hundreds of thousands of kids in the actual highest dose areas in and outside of Fuku prefecture who aren't part of this survey. Study. Whatever it is. The tested population.

            IOW, they haven't tested "all" the kids under 20 in the region. They've only tested around 285-300,000 kids. The 34.8 rate is to that number, not the general population in toto.

            If we were to extrapolate the rate in this high risk group to the total of under-20s in the contaminated regions, the figure would be somewhere around 10/100,000. Still far above the Miyagi rate of 1.7/100,000. Note that it's predicated on how the Chernobyl rates were factored. This has a legitimate history.

            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

            by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 03:20:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

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

              This is from the Lancet and published in the May 31- June 6, 2014 issue.  It looks like the thyroid cancer screening program's design is insufficient if the one of its goals is to determine if radiation has had an effect on thyroid cancer incidence.  They should really address this as that information seems both useful and necessary.  The article is by Shibuya et al. and follows here:

              Time to reconsider thyroid cancer screening in Fukushima

                  Kenji Shibuyaa, ,
                  Stuart Gilmoura,
                  Akira Oshimab

              DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60909-0

              In October, 2011, as part of the Fukushima Health Management Survey, Fukushima prefecture implemented a thyroid ultrasound examination programme for all children younger than 18 years to “ensure early identification and treatment of thyroid cancer in children.” The Fukushima prefecture collected baseline thyroid cancer prevalence data until March, 2014, assuming “no excess occurrence [of thyroid cancer] in the first three years [after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident in March 2011]”. Regular thyroid examinations began in April, 2014, and will be compared with these baseline data.

              We have some concerns about this approach. First, without a large control group, the present design (a before–after comparison) might not be able to accurately assess the health impact of radiation exposure. The Ministry of Environment conducted a similar ultrasonography examination of children in three prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident and identified only a single thyroid cancer. However, the sample size (4365) was too small to conclude that the prevalence of thyroid cancer in these three prefectures was different from that in Fukushima.

              Second, over-diagnosis and over-treatment of thyroid cancer that might never progress are possible. The Fukushima baseline survey showed an unexpectedly high prevalence of thyroid cancer: 33 confirmed cases and 42 suspected cases among 269 354 children. The possibility of over-diagnosis in the study protocol was not mentioned. Of these 75 children with thyroid cancer, 34 were operated on. According to Fukushima prefecture screening is their responsibility, but treatment plans are entirely the responsibility of hospitals, where the risk of overdiagnosis might not have been properly taken into account.

              The apparent increase in thyroid cancer prevalence has caused public concern and fear about the effect of radiation, but Fukushima Prefecture and Fukushima Medical College, who manage this programme, are not yet willing to confirm an association between increased risk of thyroid cancer and radiation exposure based on the available data. It will be difficult to confirm any association without comparing thyroid cancer prevalence in Fukushima with that of other prefectures not affected by the accident. A comparison of trends in prevalence between areas with high and low radiation exposure within Fukushima using a matched design should be considered, although the risk of over-diagnosis remains.

              Without revisiting the protocol and informing doctors and populations about the risk of over-diagnosis, the present thyroid examination programme is not suitable to assess the effect of radiation and reduce the fear and anxiety of residents of Fukushima.

              KS is a member of the Supervisory Panel for Thyroid Ultrasound Examination. SG and AO declare no competing interests.

              I can supply the references in the article if necessary but they were left out here for clarity in the blockquote.
              •  All the money and all the power (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie

                in the world. It'll buy you anything you want.

                That's nothing new.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 10:08:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Big IF there Jay (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau

                you say 'if one of its goals is to determine if radiation has had an effect on thyroid cancer incidence'. But of course that is very unlikely to be a goal.  Your blockquote concedes a huge number of extra cancers, but no one has even bothered to posit some other explanation for the increase. As for overdiagnosis, that ship has sailed now that we know the operations were performed on 1" tumors.. those were not cancers that were going to go away, so they were not overdiagnosed.

                Neither the Lancet nor the original report mention the existence of pre-3/11 thyroid cancer rates, which also put the number around 1.7/100k.  In short, the Lancet opinion piece you quote criticizes the report for not adequately proving something they never set out to prove, without significantly questioning the diarist's conclusion that the massive increase in thyroid cancer among children in Fukushima prefecture was due to exposure to contamination from the Fukushima Daichi releases.

                •  It's appalling to me (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino

                  that the world scientific community would attempt to re-set the thyroid cancer rate 'norm' in Fukushima with these 104 diagnosed cancers. They have no explanation for a 20-fold increase in the 'norm' as it has been recorded historically in Fukushima.

                  Before Daiichi rate: ~1.7 per annum.
                  After Daiichi rate (first three years): 104, 34.66+ per annum.

                  If they are allowed to up the 'normal' rate to ~35 per year by this sleight of mind with no rational explanation (other than "they didn't start looking in Chernobyl until 4 years later!"), a great amount of the serious damage to public health caused by Daiichi will be hidden in the most dangerous, outrageous and dishonest of ways.

                  Blows my mind how evil this is, and I already knew nukes were evil incarnate. Wow.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 10:36:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  that would be unethical jay. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau

                I realize you don't actually do tests on humans

                but you appear to be suggesting a control group
                be left to sicken and die so that you have can
                have a baseline.

                Replace this with HIV diagnostic, and tell me if you
                think you are proposing something ethical.

              •  I have a problem with the assumption (0+ / 0-)

                being made that any thyroid cancer in children detected between October 2011 and March 2014 cannot be attributed to iodine-131/129 releases from the Daiichi disaster. The 'normal' (as set by how long it took officials in the Chernobyl region to start looking for thyroid cancers) time lag between causal exposure and diagnosis simply does not mean that an exposed person's thyroid cancer could not have been caused by exposure to radioiodine. Especially in a population enjoying the benefit of ultrasound screening soon after exposure. This is what one would EXPECT in these circumstances. There is no "overdiagnosis," there is an alarming amount of thyroid cancer.

                I do not see how catching thyroid cancers early in development has any effect on the actual rate of thyroid cancers in the population. Whether it's caught early, not caught until it's already adversely affecting health, or never caught until the person shows up dead, it's all still thyroid cancer. All that early diagnosis means is that successful treatment is available earlier. Early diagnosis would have zero effect on the actual number of cancers that would 'normally' present in the population per annum or per decade or per lifetime.

                If you've got 104 cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed over a 2-year period in a region that historically recorded 2 to 4 cases of thyroid cancer over a 2-year period, there's a thyroid cancer epidemic that cannot be dismissed just because the cancers have been diagnosed at an earlier stage than 'normal'. Cancer is still cancer no matter what stage it's in when a doctor finally notices.

                For early detection to be the culprit here, the 104 cases thus far diagnosed in Fukushima children would comprise the totality of all thyroid cancers 'expected' in the region for the next quarter to half a century! Do you honestly expect that no more thyroid cancers in Fukushima children/citizens will be diagnosed in the next 25-50 years (so these 104 early detections can be considered 'normal')?

                But don't worry, there's more thyroid cancer coming down the pike. This is just the first wave. Something is clearly causing a dramatic rise in thyroid cancer in Fukushima prefecture, and there's only one notable cause on the loose there. We all know what it is.

                I cannot understand why that's being denied. That's stupid.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 10:21:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  That much better, eh? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau, JesseCW, lunachickie

            Taking 1.7/100,000 up to over 34/100,000 is a twenty-fold increase. Wow! What are they doing exactly?

            (Actually the few figures I could find on incidence of thyroid cancer in Japanese children had it under 1 per 100K pre-2011. Except following the Atomic Bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Gosh! Did they do any tight screenings after the Atomic Bombings? Probably not.)

            Given that the thyroid glands of children have been known for over two generations to be especially prone to negative effects from exposure to radiation, can you offer the scientific explanation for why anyone would expect no meaningful increase in such cases?

            Was it, what, The Nuclear Safety Fairy? Certain prayers typically chanted by the kids? High iodine in their diet? Benevolent ancestors banishing the bad vites? What would account for this scientific miracle you hold is likely?


            My country goes dead making money.

            by Jim P on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 08:04:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Jim P, you're gonna have to read (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, mamooth

              any of the sources that have already been discussed in order to have the confounding phenomenon of increased diagnostic scrutiny explained to you.  Those articles would be Joieau's own source in the Asahi Shimbun, the Guardian article, the letter in Thyroid Journal, or the JAMA paper.  All mention the issue.  All links are upthread.

              I will admit that fairies are not involved.  There are no colorful illustrations...this is boring adult-oriented prose in each case.  Condolences.  Personally, I have some fond memories of the Nuclear Safety Fairy...we'd put our dosimeters under our pillows at night, and if there was less than 200 rem the fairy would leave us a dollar.  If it was more than 200 rem, we only got fifty cents.  Shame when we found out it was Mom the whole time, just trying to get us to be careful near the reactor downstairs...

               

              •  Why didn't those confounding influences (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW

                also confound the results of the control group, in your opinion?

                •  They didn't? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mamooth

                  It sounds like you have arrived at a conclusion already yourself, and want me to explain your own conclusion to you.  That I can't help you with.  But I will try to help with what I think may be your true information needs.

                  The thyroid cancer study being discussed previously is a component of the Fukushima Health Management Survey, whose protocols are given here:

                  https://www.fmu.ac.jp/...

                  You will note that the thyroid data released to date, those data that we are now discussing, are, in a sense, the "control": ("assessment of current thyroid status will be completed within 3 years [from 2011]").  The protocol will use later data to look for an increase attributable to Fukushima; the study being designed this way because there is an induction period for the relevant cancer.  So when you talk about confounding influences in the "control group" due to the diagnostic method, that is what we have been talking about.

                  Carl

                  •  What I meant was (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW, Jim P

                    if the large number of tumors that were found in subjects from Fukushima prefecture were due to increased scrutiny with very sensitive scans, why were the subjects from outside Fukushima screened with the same procedure not also subject to this increased observed incidence. I referred to these subjects as a control group, perhaps erroneously.

                    •  It still depends what you mean by control group. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sandino

                      Earlier upthread, the Asahi Shimbun article was quoted:

                      The figure [Fukushima study] is much higher than, for example, the development rate of thyroid cancer of 1.7 people per 100,000 among late teens based on the cancer patients’ registration in Miyagi Prefecture. But experts say the figures cannot be compared because the test in Fukushima Prefecture covers a large number of people who have no symptoms.
                      In this case, the Miyagi Prefecture cancer rate was not obtained using the same new methodology as the Fukushima Health Management Survey.  The FHMS method would be expected to initially diagnose cancer at a higher rate relative to Miyagi for the reasons that have been discussed ("increased diagnostic scrutiny").

                      MarineChemist mentioned a paper upthread discussing data from the use of the same FHMS ultrasound method in several prefectures not impacted by the Fukushima accident.  However, as that paper explains, the small sample size of those data means they have no statistical significance.  If the sample size were much larger, it would in principle be a good comparison.

                      •  if you believe it's so safe (0+ / 0-)

                        move there, eat the food, drink the water in fukushima.

                        •  That's quite a non-sequitur, Pat (0+ / 0-)

                          There was a science discussion going on here...

                          Indeed I am not personally all that worried about radioactivity at Fukushima, though I respect others who feel differently.  So why don't I move there?  Well, a couple little things:

                          (1) My family lives in the United States and I like to be close to my family.

                          (2) My job is in the United States and I like to have a job.

                          If you, Patbahn, were to fund an account for my travel and living expenses to go to Fukushima and live there long-term, by all means let's continue this discussion.  I've been to Japan several times and that place is not cheap, quite unlike Ukraine, where my several extended trips to Chernobyl have been luxury on a dime.  I'd like to go back to Japan to really explore Fukushima, but the missing ingredient is money.  Perhaps yours?

                          •  well let's start at the simple simulation first (0+ / 0-)

                            Let's simulate fukushima in your house, nice low level
                            dusting on your food and what your family lives in.

                            That's a pretty low cost starter.

                          •  Your personalized truculence is misplaced. (0+ / 0-)

                            ...after all, I don't think we know each other.

                            This particular thread was about the Fukushima Health Management Survey's thyroid program.  For some reason, you think it ought to change direction toward the personal and somehow involve my family too, all of which reflect your character in the worst possible light.   In the interest of providing a fair warning, what I think this obstrepery merits is a good "time out".  So carry on at your peril...

                          •  It's easy for you to hold forth abstractly. (0+ / 0-)

                            Ah, but place something in your own little world
                            and now it's a "Worst Possible Light".

                            I'm glad you feel so concerned about your family,
                            but it speaks poorly of your character that
                            you have no such feelings for the people of japan.

              •  Hmmm. So I see logic, reason, and common sense (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau

                are not the hallmarks of nuclear apologists. In fact, the opposite.

                Let's go step by step. You can call a friend, or consult your ouija board when you get to the tricky bits.

                • Radiation exposure increases rates of thyroid troubles in children. established for 2+ generations
                • Many many many children exposed to radiation at Fukushima.
                • Testing of those children shows incidence of thyroid cancer at over 2000% against previous testings

                Okay, better testing accounts for some. But... 2000%! better?!?!! Really?

                Nonetheless, you would, ahem, 'reason,' we can expect that as time goes by, there will be many fewer new discoveries of such cancer, bringing the average down to before...

                the massive exposure of children to radiation (see the first bullet point)

                So, what?, before Fukushima there were no competent Pediatricians, nor equipment in all of Japan?

                Nope. Maybe by magic, the direct intervention of divinities, the children escaped the KNOWN consequences of exposure. But not by experience, science, logic, reason, nor common sense.

                Nice try though.
                 


                My country goes dead making money.

                by Jim P on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 09:29:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's Jim P versus experts (0+ / 0-)

                  Remember, Jim P., your argument is not with me (whom I think you refer to as a "nuclear apologist"), it is with the credentialed professional people whose opinions are to be found in the cited materials.

                  Once again, these experts are not concluding that said 2000% observed increase is NOT influenced by radiation from Fukushima; rather they are saying that it is presently not possible to separate such hypothetical Fukushima influence from that owing to the new diagnostic methodology.  If they were confident that the increase, however large it is, were due to Fukushima, they would have said so.  But the experts are challenged by the confounding factor.

                  If I may briefly summarize our interactions on this forum, they look like this:

                  CW: "Experts don't conclude that the excess cancer diagnoses are caused by Fukushima.  Here are references."

                  JimP: "Twentyfold increase, therefore strawman."

                  CW: "Strawman noted, read the references"

                  JimP: "You're a nuclear apologist and cannot reason!  I concede the point for numbers smaller than 2000% but your explanation for 2000% involves strawman."

                  CW: "Strawman noted, read the references."

                  What a humiliating experience it is to prostrate yourself to such a childish comportment in a public discussion.  Pull yourself together!  And once more for effect--all together now--READ THE REFERENCES!
          •  So why isn't Thyroid cancer shooting up in the US? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            if the tests are better, we should see an increase here too.

            •  Did you see the JAMA paper I already linked above? (0+ / 0-)

              Rhetorical question, because if you had, your query would have been answered already.  The paper treats that EXACT MATTER.

              The link is up in the thread in which you HR'd my comments, so I know you're at least peripherally aware that it exists.

              If you want to ask me questions, Pat, can you at least have the rudimentary courtesy to read what I've already written about, so that your questions are not repetitive or redundant?  All I'm asking for here is basic social skills, man.

              Good grief...  

    •  forwarded to Elfling for silly accusation of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamooth

      shilling.

      Do we really have to start this stupid shit all over again?  haven't enough people already been bojo'd for it?

      (sigh)

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 09:13:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Aw, Lenny. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        patbahn, TakeSake, cville townie

        Did your itty feewings get hurt?

        Meh. Go for it. I'm sure somebody will appreciate your willingness to rat on your colleagues. Someday. Maybe. Meanwhile, you've zip to complain about here. It's all public. Nobody minds.

        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

        by Joieau on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 10:13:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You won, be glad (0+ / 0-)

      Nuclear power is dead. Long live coal and 400ppm CO2 on its way to 500ppm.

      •  Since wind is now cheaper than coal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Joieau

        why would the end of Nuclear Power mean more coal?

        "Former" Republicans never are. People prone to supporting profound injustice don't morph into people capable of telling right from wrong.

        by JesseCW on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 06:43:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wind has to replace nuclear first (0+ / 0-)

          The coal keeps burning while the nuke plants are shut down. Coal should have been shut down first.
          We keep being told that we don't have seconds to waste in reducing CO2. That methane run-away is coming. Yet shutting down coal last is exactly what will happen.

          •  What nuke plants (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino

            (excluding Japan's and the Mark BWRs in Germany) are shutting down? San Onofre, that's two. Vermont Yankee. Possibly Crystal River got put on the decom list when Duke canceled the new builds it inherited from Progress. Others are in extended outage due to problems they can't seem to fix, they might end up decommissioned at some point.

            The fleet is certainly aged enough to deserve mass shut down, but instead the NRC has been re-licensing for another 40 years to everyone who asks. But it's a false dilemma to claim it's either coal or nukes. Nukes are not and never were a factor in the whole global climate change equation. They will not be a factor in the future.

            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

            by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Duke and Crystal River (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau
              Possibly Crystal River got put on the decom list when Duke canceled the new builds it inherited from Progress.
              Crystal River is dead. It won't be fixed. The two planned nukes Duke inherited from Progress are also dead--Duke cancelled them both. Duke is planning on building natural-gas plants instead.

              The reason the nukes were cancelled was crushingly simple----their cost had already tripled, and they hadn't even stuck a shovel into the ground yet.

              Nukes were killed by simple economics back in the 70's.  And simple economics still kills them today.

              PS--Nukes have no smaller carbon footprint than renewables do. They are not a magic-bullet CO2 killer.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 09:50:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good to hear about Crystal. (0+ / 0-)

                The now known risks of re-licensing 40-year old reactor plants for double the lifetime they were designed for are outrageous. Reactor operators want that because by now the plants are mostly paid for, so every extra day of operation puts millions of dollars in the corporate pocketbook. Cash Cows.

                The only reason the plants being shut down are being shut down is that they've major components and/or structures that would cost too much to fix or replace. Even though the Siemens Nuclear Flea Market is doing great business on secondhand pieces-parts.

                This means they are now entirely likely to run those cash cows right on into the ground, skimping and ignoring necessary maintenance and component replacement. Oopses and big accidents will inevitably happen, more people will have their lives shortened by radioactive contamination, and the operators know that they will not be held financially liable for any of it.

                This has to be stopped.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 11:06:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Glad you've got global warming under control (0+ / 0-)

              So I don't need to worry about it anymore. Great!

        •  Also, electricity use is growing. (0+ / 0-)

          So while cheaper wind power is what is being newly installed, because overall demand is growing, coal plants can't be shut down just because a new wind farm came online.  

          And natural gas with all its fracking is also cheaper.

          •  Who's using all that electricity? (0+ / 0-)

            The computers on Wall Street? Where I live there is still a serious economic depression going on, people are conserving like crazy because Duke keeps raising the price and people are having a hard time keeping the lights on. Many are installing solar to lower their bills. I'm hoping to install some this year or next. Site generation is growing by leaps and bounds almost everywhere, will keep on growing.

            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

            by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 08:48:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Have they specified which type of thyroid (7+ / 0-)

    cancer? The numbers are shocking, first of all. Second of all, I have republished to Nuclear Free DK (you can also self-publish there, I believe, Joieau!). Third, I am fairly sure that certain types of thyroid cancer more strongly correspond with radioactive exposure; while all radioactive exposure can cause thyroid cancer, my understanding is that radioactive exposure is particularly evident when not only thyroid cancer is present in unusual populations like children but also in less prevalent forms, presumably follicular, medullary, anaplastic, or worse, any mix of these. Papillary is the one that most people get, or mixed papillary and follicular. The others are weird. Two or more mixed weird ones are really rare and would show unusual exposures, I would think. I don't believe we have any thyroid specialists on this site, but I have some education on this, and I think we have had an oncologist or two here over the years.

    So I'm wondering what types they are finding over there.

    "That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?" - Elon James White on Ferguson, MO

    by mahakali overdrive on Sat Aug 30, 2014 at 01:55:53 PM PDT

  •  Wow! That's a big number (0+ / 0-)

    But if you do the conversion, more than 1.1 trillion becquerels of contamination equates to about 30 Curies.  Not that much contamination at all.   Try not to make the issue more than it already is.

  •  A bit OT but interesting interactive google earth (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, TakeSake, Joieau, Sandino

    ..mapping of radiation leaking from Fukushima

    Approximately 72,000 gallons of radioactive water continues to leak from the plant into the ocean every day
    Ten Years of Fukushima Radiation Crossing the Pacific Ocean

    I don't know much about this but this topic but..

    It ain't over yet by a long shot.
    ..nails it - imo

    Thx Joleau

  •  Thank you so much 4 diligent citizen journalism! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Joieau

    Not for the first time, I find diarists here who focus on a topic to be more informative and reliable than what you get on the topic anywhere else in the English language media.

  •  Why does the image (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Joieau

    of the vending machines that have the crudely operated claw that drops in the pile of prizes and then grabs (or fails to grab) some object and then drops it before reaching the targeted drop zone delivering the prize to the rube who puts $ into the machine, come to mind? I can't even believe the level of ineptitude TEPCO exhibits.

  •  Becquerels per Time? (0+ / 0-)
    on August 19th of 2013 TEPCO reported more than 1.1 trillion becquerels of contamination was released in a 4-hour period during debris removal at unit 3, up to 4 TBq over two days.
    [...]
    One of the graphs (translated here) admits that 61 billion Bq per day "leaked" to the port last year, while just 22 billion Bq/day are leaking every day this year

    I thought a Becquerel is "the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second". So a Bq is a rate> of activity. I don't understand the meaning of "Becquerels per hour/day". It's like "watts per hour": what does a "rate per time" mean?

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 11:30:50 AM PDT

    •  Throughout the 3.5 years (0+ / 0-)

      since the Daiichi disaster began, TEPCO, Japanese officials and the press that reports their figures have used becquerels to describe what's coming out. Becquerels are the SI unit for describing activity, the US industry uses curies. A curie is 37 billion becquerels.

      1.1 trillion becquerels is (TEPCO says) the activity of the radionuclides that were sent airborne last August during a 4-hour period of debris removal at unit 3. They only admitted it - earlier this month - because increased cesium contamination of crops in Fukushima and neighboring prefectures was found recently, from fields that last year were not so contaminated.

      You are correct that this way of reporting releases can be confusing. I am guessing TEPCO means 1.1 TBq total instead of 15.8 PBq (1.1 TBq for 14,400 seconds), but with them you never know unless they later own up to 15.8 PBq. How much physical mass and danger to life forms that represents on the loose depends on what the isotopes are. A becquerel is just a becquerel, whether it's plutonium or tritium.

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 07:18:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site