Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Yeah if they havent got their milli and micros confused then that level is ten times higher than the previous highest reported figure from the plant, and is well into the territory where immediate health effects are felt. It would be most helpful to know where on site this reading is from, guess somewhere between units 3 and 4. If its further away, at the site periphery, then the whole site is doomed in my opinion.

Other news from that TEPCO press conference appeared to be good/spin, eg plan to reconnect unit 3 to power, claims that the water operation is successful, still awaiting further details but it could be a long wait.
 
If that's true (i've lost count of the times micro and milli-sieverts have got mixed up by various sources in this incident) they will only be able get near the reactors with robots.

Mortality after 2 hours' exposure: 95-100%

Intuitively, either there's a units mixup, or something very bad has happened in the reactor(s) that we've not heard about.
 
Maybe the workers at the plant are all in a shielded control room? Perhaps they're safer than the people outside trying to operate water cannons etc?
 
or something very bad has happened in the reactor(s) that we've not heard about.

Not necessarily, if the situation at the fuel pools is as bad as some suggest then I believe that could explain such levels quite easily.
 
If some of the spent fuel rods are now fully exposed (and the UK govt chief scientific adviser has just been on Sky saying they might well be) how on earth do you go about covering them up? It sounds as if the tank might be too damaged by explosions to hold enough water (even if you could find a way to get water in, which it seems you can't.) So what on earth can be done?
 
Fuckwitted Guardian:

1.25pm: In our 12.14pm post we reported that a Tepco official said radiation levels at Fukushima Daiichi soon after 9.30 am "were at 3,750 millisieverts per hour".

This was wrong – the radiation level was actually 3,750 microsiverts per hour – equivalent to 3.75 millisieverts per hour. This has now been corrected, apologies.
 
If that's true (i've lost count of the times micro and milli-sieverts have got mixed up by various sources in this incident) they will only be able get near the reactors with robots.

They got it wrong. It was microseiverts.

In our 12.14pm post we reported that a Tepco official said radiation levels at Fukushima Daiichi soon after 9.30 am "were at 3,750 millisieverts per hour".

This was wrong – the radiation level was actually 3,750 microsiverts per hour – equivalent to 3.75 millisieverts per hour. This has now been corrected, apologies.
 
A document I put up earlier today showed that the rods are/were 16ft below the water line in the pool and that

The used fuel pools are designed so that the water in the pool cannot drain down as a result of damage to the piping or cooling systems. The pools do not have drains in the sides or the floor of the pool structure. The only way to rapidly drain down the pool is if there is structural damage to the walls or the floor.

….

The systems that cool and maintain water levels in the pools are designed to withstand severe events. If these systems are unable to function, the heat generated by the used fuel would result in a slow increase in the temperature of the spent fuel pool water. The operating temperature of the pools is typically around 40 degrees C or 100 degrees F (the boiling point for water is 100 C or 212 F). This slow increase in temperature would result in an increased evaporation rate. Rapid evaporation of the water will not occur.

Exact evaporation rates would depend on the amount of used fuel in the pool and how long it has cooled. The rate at which the pool water level would decrease (due to evaporation or mild boiling) in the absence of cooling system function would not be expected to lower water levels by more than a few percent per day. Given that there is approximately 16 feet or more of water above the used fuel assemblies, operators would have ample time (days to weeks) to find another way to add water to the pools before the fuel would become exposed. For example, water could easily be added using a fire hose.

The fact they are exposed suggests they do have a serious leak in the pool and that the rods are exposed to air. The next question seemed to be, will these rods burn and catch fire? I’ve been reading mixed stories about this, but the following article suggests that up until yesterday the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) suggested this was very unlikely

As of 4 p.m. today, when fire had been seen in the pool at reactor #4, a fact sheet dated yesterday from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which represents the nuclear industry, commented that:

“There has been some speculation that, if the used fuel pool were completely drained, the zirconium cladding might ignite and a "zirconium fire" might occur. Studies performed by the Department of Energy indicate that it is virtually impossible to ignite zirconium tubing.”

And then when questioned about the events at Fukushima said,

Just today we were made aware of additional analysis that leads us to amend that view. Without getting into the details of how or when, we acknowledge the potential in certain circumstances and should by now have changed the fact sheet you reference.

Apologies for not properly reflecting the latest scientific research in this area.


Read the article here:
 
Nice concise piece on the situation

the high levels of radiation and presence of hydrogen at unit 4 strongly indicate that fuel is uncovered and suffering damage in the pond, although it is not clear that the pond is actually empty. At present, officials believe the pond contains some water, based on helicopter observations.



Radiation at ground level near units 3 and 4 is high: peaking at 400 millisieverts per hour on the inland side of unit 3, and 100 millisieverts per hour on the inland side of unit 4. At the highest exposure rate, a nuclear worker or soldier could remain in the area for less than 40 minutes before leaving the site, unable to return.

With such serious damage to the reactor buildings it is thought that radiation from further degradation of stored fuel at units 3 and 4 would be released to the environment unchecked.
 
Nice concise piece on the situation

Not a bad report but those numbers near reactors 3 and 4 are getting quite old now.

meanwhile here is a report from Kyodo that appears to contain the earlier info from TEPCO, reported properly unlike the Guardian.


Radiation level rises after water dropped at troubled reactor
TOKYO, March 17, Kyodo

The radiation level rose at the troubled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant Thursday after the Self-Defense Forces' helicopters dropped water at its crisis-hit No. 3 reactor, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said.

The level around the plant's administration building rose to 4,000 microsievert per hour at 1:30 p.m. from 3,700 in the morning.

It was unchanged shortly after the choppers dumped seawater onto the reactor shortly before 10 a.m., the utility said earlier in the day.

The level around the plant's quake-proof building at which workers are standing by had risen to about 3,000 microsievert per hour, it said in the morning. The level compares to 1,000 microsievert, or 1 millisievert, to which people can be safely exposed in one year.

Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said he had given the go-ahead for the helicopters to drop water as the radiation level was 4.13 millisievert per hour at an altitude of 1,000 feet and 87.7 millisievert at 300 feet.

The choppers actually did so at a height of less than 300 feet, but their 10 crew members suffered no health problems with less than 60 millisievert of radiation measured from them after decontamination, against 100 millisievert to which they can be exposed in an emergency mission, SDF generals said.
 
Looped plane flight of view over damaged reactors. Pretty hard to see much....

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iwj7

Is it the spy drone footage ??


If thats the footage from the US drone spy plane Im not sure Im that impressed with all this modern advanced technology we are always told they have spent billions on developing .

If it really is the footage from the drone sent over I cant see how it really helps anyone although you can see some damage if they cant get closer themselves with helicopters and that in someway helps then theres other issues .
 
Not a bad report but those numbers near reactors 3 and 4 are getting quite old now.

meanwhile here is a report from Kyodo that appears to contain the earlier info from TEPCO, reported properly unlike the Guardian.

Micro milli - now im confused....who knows, maybe that's the point!
 
Is it the spy drone footage ??

No its pretty clearly someone with a handheld camera, possibly in a helicopter. The US spy stuff that was mentioned is an unmanned drone, and will be taking infra-red imagery as well as visual.
 
Micro milli - now im confused....who knows, maybe that's the point!

Just ignore the Guardian and you will be ok ;)

Here is the numbers situation as I understand it, and Im only going to use millisieverts.

The other day gave us the highest numbers we have yet seen, in the 100-400 range, detected in immediate vicinity of units 3 & 4.

Figures from the periphery of the plant have varied dramatically, sometimes falling below 1, but sometimes in the 3-10 range.

Todays numbers are in the 3-4 range, but this is not right next to the units, but in the control buildings where people are.

The worryingly high numbers mentioned today are the ones from the air, which are in the range of 4 up to 88 depending on the altitude.
 
OK some more recent data has emerged showing readings at locations around the site boundary (often about 1km away from the reactors themselves). They fit with the couple of numbers mentioned by the press, ie highest levels are around 3-4 millisieverts.

Levels at the plant further south continue to slowly fall, which for now I will assume is due to change in wind direction from the troubled site to the north of this plant. Sticking to my plan to use millisieverts only to avoid further confusion, these are slowly dropping to levels below 0.03.

Did we get any firm answers as to quantities in the various spent fuel pools? There is an official document about this now, which can be translated with google translate etc.

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110317008/20110317008-4.pdf

Unfortunately the translation leaves some doubt as to what the 2 columns refer to, perhaps one is spent fuel and the other is fuel that is not yet spent, I cannot say.
 
True enough, but then if they don't sort the reactors out, there's going to be a much bigger problem.

Is it though? I think for all the bluster from experts, what shines through is that no-one really knows what the hell is happening, and what the upshots of that might be. Chernobyl's thought to have indirectly and directly killed about 4000 people through short and long term effects (although some have upped this number by a factor of 100). We're looking at at least triple that just now for the earthquake and tsunami fatalities alone.

By all means, expend resources trying to contain the damage from the reactors, but don't lose sight of the real disaster that is happening right now.

E2A: there's a nice report on the controversy over the Chernobyl death toll here - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/440982a.html
If most don't have access I'm happy to c+p
 
Is it though? I think for all the bluster from experts, what shines through is that no-one really knows what the hell is happening, and what the upshots of that might be. Chernobyl's thought to have indirectly and directly killed about 4000 people through short and long term effects (although some have upped this number by a factor of 100). We're looking at at least triple that just now for the earthquake and tsunami fatalities alone.

By all means, expend resources trying to contain the damage from the reactors, but don't lose sight of the real disaster that is happening right now.

E2A: there's a nice report on the controversy over the Chernobyl death toll here - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/440982a.html
If most don't have access I'm happy to c+p

Yes, but look at how many people were born with deformities post-Chernobyl as well, and then cancer of course. Unfortunately I don't know the figures and the earthquake and tsunami victim figures may swamp any figures that arise out of radiation contamination. I don't know anything about these things myself.

I think they're both priorities and wouldn't know which one to deal with first over the other
 
From here - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/440982a.html

Twenty years after the worst nuclear accident in history, arguments over the death toll of Chernobyl are as politically charged as ever, reports Mark Peplow.

No more than 4,000 people are likely to die as a result of Chernobyl. That was the conclusion released by the United Nations and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in September last year, in the most comprehensive assessment of the accident so far.

But despite promising "definitive" answers the report, based on two decades of research, has done little to resolve the debate over Chernobyl's impact. The estimate drew howls of protest from environmental groups, which accused the UN's Chernobyl Forum of a whitewash. And scientists whose work is cited in the report are concerned about how their figures were presented, pointing out that the true cost of the disaster will not be known for decades to come, if ever.

Chernobyl's runaway nuclear reaction in 1986 was triggered by a faulty safety test, and exacerbated by a design flaw that caused a catastrophic temperature rise in the reactor core. This caused about 6.7 tonnes of radioactive material to spread for hundreds of kilometres around the site. Two of the most significant elements in the chemical cocktail were iodine and caesium, and the most devastating effects were seen within a few tens of kilometres of the reactor, in the region where Ukraine, Belarus and Russia meet.

In the confusion that followed, local families continued to graze and milk their cattle on contaminated land. Many predicted that the accident would cause hundreds of thousands of cancers.

Cooking the books?
The forum reports that the fallout has since caused about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents. But just 15 of these patients have died. Along with highly exposed rescue workers who brought the reactor inferno under control, 62 deaths have been attributed directly to the accident so far.

The report also says that there has been no significant increase so far in the incidence of other cancers. In total, it said, "up to 4,000 people" may ultimately die as a direct result of the disaster — much lower than previous estimates.

That conclusion upsets many. "The report gave a completely misleading view of the health consequences of the accident," says Ed Lyman, a nuclear-power expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC.

The argument stems from uncertainty about the health effects of low doses of radiation. Evidence from survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima has allowed researchers to predict the effects of high doses. But as the exposure drops, so does the understanding of its impact. Last year, a working group of the US National Research Council concluded that even tiny amounts of radiation cannot be considered safe.

In contrast, the forum based its headline figure on just the 600,000 people exposed to the most radiation, predicting that roughly 4,000 of them will die as a result. The full report acknowledges that, of 6.8 million others living further from the explosion who received a much lower dose, Chernobyl will kill another 5,000 — more than doubling the projected death toll. But this is not mentioned in the report's 50-page summary or the accompanying press release.

The figures come from a study published in 1996 by Elisabeth Cardis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. "I was very shocked that they were quoting figures we had found ten years ago," says Cardis. "I didn't expect the numbers to be picked up and used in a press release without qualification."

Even the forum's chair, Burton Bennett, former head of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, Japan, says caveats about the figures should have been clearer. But he points out that the extra 6.8 million people were, on average, exposed to a radiation dose of just 7 millisieverts — little more than the natural background delivers in a year in most parts of the world.

Melissa Fleming, a press officer working at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who helped coordinate the report's publicity, says the scientists involved checked the press material. But she admits a decision was made to focus on the lower 4,000 figure, partly as a reaction to the inflated estimates of past decades. "I was sick of seeing wild figures being reported by reputable organizations that were attributed to the UN," she says. "It was a bold action to put out a new figure that was much less than conventional wisdom." The figure has been removed from the final summary, however, published this month.
 
(following on from above)

Some of the higher death tolls come from those who believe that estimates of those potentially affected should extend to everyone in Europe (see map). In a report commissioned by Green Party members of the European Parliament, radiation scientist Ian Fairlie calculated that of the hundreds of millions of people who could possibly have received any radiation at all from Chernobyl, 30,000–60,000 could die as a result (see http://tinyurl.com/rpzsq).

Cardis is also about to publish a study of the pan-European impact. She concludes that, of 570 million people in Europe at the time, 16,000 will ultimately die as a result of the accident — 0.01% of all cancer deaths. But she says it will be virtually impossible to assess the ultimate death toll. Cancer causes about a quarter of all deaths in Europe, so weeding out those cases triggered by Chernobyl cannot be done with statistical confidence. "We'll never be able to say whether we were right or not," she says.

Some researchers also take issue with the report's conclusion that there are no hereditary effects in children born after the disaster. "The fact that we haven't seen anything doesn't mean there isn't an effect," says Cardis. "It's just too early to see an increase."

The fact that we haven't seen anything doesn't mean that there isn't an effect. It's just too early.
Until Chernobyl survivors' children and grandchildren grow up, the only way to assess such effects is to look for DNA mutations. Yuri Dubrova, a geneticist at the University of Leicester, UK, has found increased genetic changes in the children of irradiated parents — but the fingerprinting technique he used only allowed him to look at non-coding regions, known as junk DNA (Y. E. Dubrova et al. Nature 380, 683–686; 1996).

He argues that coding regions are also likely to be affected. DNA chips currently being developed will allow mass screening of samples from thousands of people, he says, and could pick up effects too small to have been spotted so far. "The real necessity now is to organize proper blood-sample banks," he says.

Many are calling for research to track effects such as cancer or infertility in subsequent generations (see page 993). But although such monitoring is seen as essential, some worry that wrangling over death tolls and radiation risk is hampering survivors' recovery.

Against apathy
"What we'd like people to take away is not the numbers game," says Louisa Vinton, who manages Chernobyl projects at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Rough estimates of death tolls allow governments to set up policies to manage the future health effects. But she says the focus on the figure of 4,000 obscured a more important message of the report: that myths about the threat of radiation have created a "paralysing fatalism" among residents of affected areas.

Instead Vinton hopes that Chernobyl's legacy can be seen as a social problem. The UNDP says that Chernobyl's most serious impact was on the mental health of about 7 million people labelled as victims of the accident. Aid from the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine has created a culture of dependency, it argues, which may have encouraged exaggerated fears of ill-health.

"We go to communities where people have just given up," says Vinton. Poor diet, lack of exercise and smoking are all linked to such apathy. She admits it is hard to separate the stress of Chernobyl from the effects of collapse of the Soviet Union. But Chernobyl aid has drained resources. In 1991, Belarus spent 22.3% of its budget on aid; today that figure is still 6%.

The forum's report recommends that governments reassign the cash towards regenerating the region and developing infrastructure.

The hottest spots will be radioactive for centuries. But the most prevalent isotope, caesium-137, has a half-life of about 30 years and scientists estimate that much of the abandoned area will become habitable over coming decades. The 30-kilometre exclusion zone around Chernobyl is likely to remain off limits. But the report suggests that in other evacuated areas roads should be rebuilt, and people encouraged to start farms and businesses.

Projects to build hospitals and schools are already helping people to help themselves, says Vinton: "I've seen the before and after. People stand up straight and bubble over with excitement about the next plan."
 
Did we get any firm answers as to quantities in the various spent fuel pools? There is an official document about this now, which can be translated with google translate etc.

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110317008/20110317008-4.pdf

Unfortunately the translation leaves some doubt as to what the 2 columns refer to, perhaps one is spent fuel and the other is fuel that is not yet spent, I cannot say.

babelfish gives:

  1. 新燃料以 - Pool installed capacity
  2. 新燃料以外 - Other than new fuel (which I reckon is "spent fuel")
  3. 新燃料 - New fuel
 
babelfish gives:

  1. 新燃料以 - Pool installed capacity
  2. 新燃料以外 - Other than new fuel (which I reckon is "spent fuel")
  3. 新燃料 - New fuel

Thanks for the info. First column was easy to work out from google translation, other two seem to match my earlier guess. Deary me, unit 4's pool really was crammed.
 
Three disasters at once even.

I have just been speaking to friends in Tokyo (and my in laws this morning) nobody is remotely worried (well one wife of a friend is a little bit and is off to visit family in Hiroshima). They are all saying I (we) worry too much and to get over and bring digestives and Jaffa Cakes fast. I felt my mind was at ease and went to pick my daughter up from the nursery to be confronted by all the mums saying "arrh, you can't go" "fallout" "I guess you won't be going now then" "have you not seen the latest news?"
I don't know if my daughter has picked up on all this but she keeps saying she wants to see her cousins.

I went to dinner with a friend last night who inspect power plants. He figured that they'd get the coolant back on-line within the next 24 hrs.
 
Back
Top Bottom