NRC Publicly Told Americans No Danger After Fukushima...

ardo

Member
Mar 2, 2010
212
5
In the confusion following the earthquake and tsunami that damaged Japan’s Fukushima nuclear complex last March, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was standing by to help.

But a trove of e-mails posted on the NRC’s Web site shows an agency struggling to figure out how to respond and how to deal with the American public while cutting through what one official called “the fog of information” coming out of Japan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-and-tsunami/2012/01/09/gIQA2ll6uQ_print.html

nrc-logo.jpg


While assuring Americans publicly that there was no danger, the NRC did not disclose [the] worst-case scenario, which did not rule out the possibility of radiation exceeding safe levels for thyroid doses in Alaska, the e-mails show.

“There is a whole base of information about spent fuel fires and pools that the NRC is not sharing with the public,” said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist and nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

fukushima_radiation_nuclear_fallout_map.jpg
 

dantes_gambit

New Member
Apr 2, 2011
4
0
Oh good grief... This is a bad joke by paranoid americans right?!
Why do these organisations always ignore hard facts? I am assuming of course they were aware the plant only ever pumped out 14 RADS at its worst moment?
Hell I was in the country when this all happened and the Japanese didn't freak out half as bad as most of the foreigners...
There really is something to be said about the State of Fear.
Next up Celebrities fight to keep the lie of global warming alive!! Wooo!:harp:
 

ardo

Member
Mar 2, 2010
212
5
the Japanese didn't freak out half as bad as most of the foreigners...

Harrowing visions of Fukushima's plight...

February 09, 2012

"Nuclear Nation," a documentary directed by Atsushi Funahashi and produced by Documentary Japan, follows residents of the town of Futaba, 3 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, over a 9-month period.

One of the key characters in the film is Futaba Mayor Katsutaka Idogawa...
Throughout the film, the Futaba mayor often displays anger and frustration toward the central government. In one scene, he says: "It's not like there's been any real effort, you know, to do any decontamination work or anything. We haven’t even got to the stage where the government has done everything that is possible and has run out of options."

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201202090039

He added: "Our town's image is down the toilet and then there's discrimination, too. Children and their young parents are saying they won't live there anymore."

In late summer, a selected group of evacuated residents was allowed to return for a few hours to their homes, or what used to be their homes. It was the first time since Futaba was designated a no-entry zone at the start of the nuclear crisis they had been allowed back.

The film shows one of the men repeatedly cursing “chikusho!” (damn it) as he walks quickly around the remains of his house, reduced to nothing more than a bare foundation.

“I can't stop the tears," he says.

AJ201202090040M.jpg
 

tommy18

New Member
Feb 5, 2011
13
1
Do They realize we get radiation from PC,TV and cell phones right ?

but to much of it can be harmful
 

EzikialRage

Active Member
Nov 20, 2008
672
100
This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of nuclear energy.Power plant explodes or has a melt down and you can kiss that area goodbye for a long time and there is the threat of that radiation spreading to other places. Even if a power plant doesn't explode you have to store the spent fuel rods and hope that nothing happens to that location. Is this really better than a coal or trash to energy plant long term wise?
 

tommy18

New Member
Feb 5, 2011
13
1
This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of nuclear energy.Power plant explodes or has a melt down and you can kiss that area goodbye for a long time and there is the threat of that radiation spreading to other places. Even if a power plant doesn't explode you have to store the spent fuel rods and hope that nothing happens to that location. Is this really better than a coal or trash to energy plant long term wise?

If you think about it, people die more from oil then Nuclear energy in terms of going to wars with country that have it, sound familiar? what happen in Fukushima plant wasn't the because of the quake, those plants can would stand powerfully quake, the problem was the backup power was damaged from the floods of the tsunami, It all about regulating were to put the backup power in case of emergency.

All energy sources will come with a bad price, but Nuclear energy is less of a risk then oil.


I guys don't even think about wind power cause I know what your going to say about that lol.
 

EzikialRage

Active Member
Nov 20, 2008
672
100
If you think about it, people die more from oil then Nuclear energy in terms of going to wars with country that have it, sound familiar?

You're one of those people.
tinfoil.gif
-This war is for oil,George W. Bush master minded 9-11, Obama was born Kenya,The AmerKKKa is a fascist nation,Big Foot exists and he abducts people and shoves probes up their asses.

what happen in Fukushima plant wasn't the because of the quake, those plants can would stand powerfully quake, the problem was the backup power was damaged from the floods of the tsunami, It all about regulating were to put the backup power in case of emergency.

All energy sources will come with a bad price, but Nuclear energy is less of a risk then oil.


If a oil refinery explodes I am pretty sure the area won't become uninhabitable for hundreds of years and can be quickly cleaned up.Can the same thing be said if a worst case scenario with a nuclear power plant.And spent fuel rods have to be stored somewhere,so there is still a risk even after the fuel rods are spent.Yeah nuclear meltdowns have few human fatalities but what about the long term risk to the environment.Is temporary energy worth giving up a piece of land for hundreds or thousands of years?
 

tommy18

New Member
Feb 5, 2011
13
1
You're one of those people.
tinfoil.gif
-This war is for oil,George W. Bush master minded 9-11, Obama was born Kenya,The AmerKKKa is a fascist nation,Big Foot exists and he abducts people and shoves probes up their asses.

And Obama is secret Muslim, Heard that before, So no am not one of them lol, it all comes to down which energy source kills the most. Wait on till you see when all the worlds oil runs out.
If a oil refinery explodes I am pretty sure the area won't become uninhabitable for hundreds of years and can be quickly cleaned up.Can the same thing be said if a worst case scenario with a nuclear power plant.And spent fuel rods have to be stored somewhere,so there is still a risk even after the fuel rods are spent.Yeah nuclear meltdowns have few human fatalities but what about the long term risk to the environment.Is temporary energy worth giving up a piece of land for hundreds or thousands of years?

And you think the Gulf cost were the oil spill happen isn't any better?, It going to take years to clean up to, till this day they still have to clean up after Exxon Valdez oil spill.

''By the way, don't eat the fish''
 

EzikialRage

Active Member
Nov 20, 2008
672
100
And Obama is secret Muslim, Heard that before,

Believing that the war if for oil most certianly puts you on the same boat as those people who believe Obama is a secret muslim,big foot and other conspiracy loon stuff.

So no am not one of them lol, it all comes to down which energy source kills the most. Wait on till you see when all the worlds oil runs out.

When oil runs out big oil will simply be replaced big ethanol and other alternative fuel sources.And instead of those damn big greedy oil companies everyone needs and despises it will be big ethanol and other big alternative fuel sources that people need and despise.

And you think the Gulf cost were the oil spill happen isn't any better?, It going to take years to clean up to, till this day they still have to clean up after Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Will it take years and decades to clean or will it take hundreds or thousands of years like a nuclear meltdown?
''By the way, don't eat the fish''
 

tommy18

New Member
Feb 5, 2011
13
1
When oil runs out big oil will simply be replaced big ethanol and other alternative fuel sources.And instead of those damn big greedy oil companies everyone needs and despises it will be big ethanol and other big alternative fuel sources that people need and despise.

'

Ethanol is is not a good idea since it take are food supply to are cars, it term the food price will go up. hydrogen and CNG probably is the best way to go.
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
Will it take years and decades to clean or will it take hundreds or thousands of years like a nuclear meltdown?
Well, when an entire ecosystem is damaged by oil spills, it still suffers long term disruption. If an entire segment of the foodchain is knocked out, species can die out very quickly, and restructuring the prior balance of the ecosystem may take longer than "just" decades, if even possible at all.

On the flip side, the effects of nuclear radiation depend very much on the characteristics of the leak. Although we might consider an area to be "uninhabitable for a thousand years" by human safety standards, that doesn't mean life in that area is utterly impossible, period. Not to discount the dangers of fallout, but between it and oil spills, neither are very good for the ecosystem, no matter how you cut it.



In terms of per-megawatt-hour produced, nuclear energy has far lower casualty rates (eg: from accidents) compared to oil, and especially coal. Nuclear (based on uranium) is not an ideal fuel source; there are lots of problems with it and the arguments against it are perfectly valid (safety systems, contamination, fuel waste, etc). But you simply can't say that oil, coal, and natural gas are therefore better: they too have their own problems, including health hazards (from pollution), working hazards (from mining), pollution hazards (spills and carbon dioxide), and so on. Not to mention the politics that are tied up in oil production, and depletion of coal and natural gas reserves.

What the world really needs is more funding to take what we've learned from nuclear power, and develop new era energy sources, like cold fusion or thorium reactors. Thorium especially is a promising technology, because it can provide the same magnitude of energy output as uranium reactors, does not depend on a pressure vessel (which is why uranium nuclear plants are prone to explosion), it self-moderating and does not require external cooling or safety mechanisms, and is far more abundant in nature than the isotope of uranium needed for current reactors. And thorium reactors can be much smaller (researchers have suggested about the size of an average gas station, to power a local community).



What happened in Fukushima really should never have happened, in the sense that it was an unlucky combination of 1) unforseeable tsunami damage, and 2) years of government and financial mismanagement, prior to the March 11 earthquake (no doubt thanks in part to Japan's stagnating economy and general government incompetence since the bubble burst in the 90's). You simply do not run a nuclear reactor if you are willing to cut corners and skip inspections to save money, and you do not continue to run a 30-year-old+ Mark I reactor past its useful lifespan, when nuclear technology has advanced (to Mark II and III, and soon IV), without rethinking contingency scenarios. The extent of Fukushima is due to human error; it does not mean there is a fundamental flaw with nuclear technology that cannot be controlled (although compared to aforementioned thorium, we can do a lot better).

In reality, though, Fukushima is an example of Japanese tendency of over-engineering. Despite a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, devastating tsunami, multiple power failures, steam explosions and high-temperature fires that could compromise structural integrity, multiple reactors already at the end of their useful lifespan, and government and TEPCO incompetence, it is nothing short of amazing that the Fukushima reactor vessels did not catastrophically rupture as many feared it might. And the little ionizing radiation that escaped was quickly dispersed into the upper atmosphere (distributed in steam, rather than encapsulated in debris), or heavy water in the sea.

Combined with regular testing for contaminated food sources, and health screening for potentially affected populations, I think in the years to come Fukushima may prove to be a lot less damaging than most oil spills. More importantly, it will serve as an important reminder of what we can do to keep nuclear power safe: utilize newer reactor designs, retire old reactors that have completed their useful lifespan, reconsider contingency plans, and standardize personnel, government, and international response procedures for dealing with scenarios.



You may not like nuclear power, but the fact is that the modern world relies on it for a significant part of its energy supply. We cannot simply shut off all nuclear plants and replace them with pre-existing oil/coal/natural gas technology; trying to do so would seriously disrupt everything from our daily lives, to foreign policy. Nuclear (uranium) is not the answer, but you shouldn't fall into anti-nuclear fear-mongering and dismiss it altogether. Say no instead, to outdated nuclear reactor designs, to sub-standard regulations and oversight, and to poor education. The danger of playing into the fear-mongering is that the general public may become so entrenched in anti-nuclear views as to stagnate or even block developmeng of newer technologies like thorium reactors!



[Postscript: to readers familiar with nuclear reactor technologies, you may realize that I have generalized a lot in the descriptions of nuclear power, to the point that they may not be the most technically accurate way of explaining nuclear technology; but it's only a generalization within an opinion, not a scientific lecture; anyone inclined to educate themselves on the issue has far better resources online and elsewhere than a forum devoted to Japanese culture!]
 

ardo

Member
Mar 2, 2010
212
5
it is nothing short of amazing that the Fukushima reactor vessels did not catastrophically rupture as many feared it might. And the little ionizing radiation that escaped was quickly dispersed into the upper atmosphere...

Study Shows Worse Picture of Meltdown in Japan

TOKYO — Molten nuclear fuel may have bored into the floor of at least one of the reactors at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the complex’s operator said... citing a new simulation of the accident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/w...an-may-have-been-worse-than-thought.html?_r=1

The findings are the latest in a series of increasingly grave scenarios presented by TEPCO about the state of the reactors.

The nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the worst since Chernobyl, triggered fuel meltdowns at three of its six reactors and a huge radiation leak that has displaced as many as 100,000 people. The Japanese government has said some areas around the plant will be uninhabitable for decades.

“This is still an overly optimistic simulation,” said Hiroaki Koide, an assistant professor of physics at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute, who has been a vocal critic of Tepco’s lack of disclosure of details of the disaster.

“I have always argued that the containment is broken, and that there is the danger of a wider radiation leak,” Mr. Koide said. “In reality, it’s impossible to look inside the reactor, and most measurement instruments have been knocked out. So nobody really knows how bad it is.”

Fukushima-meltdown-prevailing-winds1.jpg
 

guy

(;Θ_Θ)ゝ”
Feb 11, 2007
2,079
43
Rule number 1 abut media sources: never implicitly trust media sources. I don't care if it's Washington Post or NY Times, or any number of so-called credible cable networks. You can never be 100% sure that the corporations owning the news media don't have some interest in promoting anti-nuclear propoganda, whether out of malicious intent or simply to garner ratings.

Instead, educate yourself on nuclear radiation (understand the math, the physics, and the case studies and evidence we have behind it), and use the countless independently collected, peer-reviewed, confirmed published data from scientific bodies (local universities, international researchers and scientists, etc) in order to gauge the severity of the situation.



As far as the reactor leak is concerned, yes there is a lot of speculation that the containment vessel was breached (although if you understand the design of Mark I BWR reactors, there are additional containment layers that will help in containing heavier particles). And yes, Mr. Koide is right insofar that it's impossible for us to understand completely the status within the reactor buildings. But if there were a full breach and significant amount of radioactive leak, it would have spread significatly, and all the detection equipment set up in the outlying areas would be reporting abnormally high amount of radiation, instead of "normal" readings. Basically, there's a possibility of a severe breach, but there's no actual evidence that would suggest that this has actually happened.

Consider this Op-Ed piece critisizing a report about a spike in death rates in major US cities following Fukushima:
Code:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/01/11/garbage-in-anti-nuclear-propaganda-out-the-14000-death-fukushima-lie/
The short end of it is, if we are to believe that your "Australian Radiation Services" fallout pattern map is true, we would expect a geographical pattern of increase in death rates similar to the fallout pattern. The anti-nuclear propoganda "research" attempts to establish a link between Fukushima and a rise in death rates in US cities, but completely ignores that their data shows an increase of deaths in New York, but a decrease of deaths in San Diego, which does not fit the expected geographic pattern! Nevermind that US cities are thousands of miles away from Japan, and yet no one in Japan has died from radiation poisoning. [The few Fukushima-area deaths were among elderly, and due to the mismanagement of medical relocation procedures; while the sweeping majority of deaths were due to the tsunami.]

It is often prudent to err on the side of caution. But there is a difference between rationed skepticism, and irrational fear. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the Tohoku area that are trying to rebuild their devastated lives, who are not experiencing radiation poisoning (confirmed through regular screenings), but still have a difficult time getting water, food, and material supplies, as well as deep psychological support necessary to rebuild their communites. If we allow ourselves to be consumed by irrational fear of widespread radiation (despite no hard evidence of such, only rhetoric), we convince ourselves that it is more important to protect ourselves than to help those in need, even despite overwhelming evidence that there is no danger to anyone. The spread of this irrational fear, whether through newspaper publications or forum posts, does not educate anyone, and only serves to further destroy the lives of those who have already been hardest hit.