RE: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[bobcook39923]

As more and more fuel elements fail with sea water cooling, an increase in 
monitored radiations levels could be expected.  It would be helpful to know 
which isotopes make up the monitored levels.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 11:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined


Fear-mongering? LOL. Apparently Alain does not look at the dates of these 
attempts at what are essentially PR, many of which were sanitized and put into 
circulation by TEPCO or their insurance carrier. The company has been caught in 
many outright lies since the accident and this is more of the same. 
The best response to the "no surprise" article can be paraphrased from the 
comments from others and from common sense. In fact, it is preposterous to 
imagine that the radiation level of more than 530 Sv/hr now measured ... "could 
be expected" given the intervening years and prior levels which were low. Do  
you understand what this level means so long after the accident? Apparently 
not. 
TEPCO reported a previous high reading of 73 Sv/hr soon after the accident. 
That would have been in the "no surprise" category, and relatively less than 
expected (Chernobyl high reading was 200) but the new reading is completely off 
the charts, coming this late. It should have dropped every year. That is the 
biggest problem, it is going the wrong way.
It is a paradigm shift which at worst means that substantial amounts, possibly 
many tons or formerly fertile material (U238) is becoming fissile (Pu239) or at 
least activated in an unknown way. A secondary explosion cannot be ruled out 
since the cores can merge. Thankfully the cores are melting their way deeper 
and deeper into earth, but if the 3 should merge... kaboom ... but let's not go 
there. Google OKLO  a site in Africa where natural uranium went critical.
"If the material causing the initial reading (73 Sv/Hr) would have been normal 
nuclear fuel at relatively low enrichment, then that level should have gone 
down by an order of magnitude in the ensuing time. We should be seeing no more 
than 7 Sv/Hr now, BUT instead, it is 500 or 70 times higher in one location 
after almost 6 years.
Thus this high reading was actually totally unexpected by many experts not 
associated with the company. It is essentially 70 times higher than expected if 
representative, and could be worse the deeper one goes (or less). As for proof 
of that dishonesty, consider that the Robots being used were designed to 
withstand 1000 Sv (LIFETIME irradiation until failure) which is only two hours 
at this rate. You would never use them if you were "expecting" anything near 
these levels. Of course they quickly failed and this means the rate was a huge 
surprise.
Had TEPCO expected the 500 Sv level of radiation, as competent engineers they 
would have increased the radiation hardness of the robot by a factor of ten in 
order to get anywhere near the endurance time they needed for a meaningful 
probe. That they did not, completely eliminates their "no surprise" BS. They 
are lying, plain and simple and the robot proves they are lying.
Plus, if the high radiation was localized in a small zone, then try to explain 
why the robot remained over that spot so long... and failed "prematurely"? 
Obviously the danger zone could be much larger and possibly the radiation level 
is even more severe than admitted - since the robot failed so quickly. That 
failure is another smoking gun, so to speak.
Again, it is ludicrous to say this high reading was expected ... unless you are 
a company that was essentially negligent beyond all reason, both in the design 
and more so in the response.
Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, since it 
appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile uranium into 
fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a secondary explosion 
(hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, should not TEPCO be 
evacuating a wider zone? 
At Chernobyl, the situation has improved year to year, every year, as expected. 
Wildlife is taking over the formerly devastated area. 
Fukushima, appears to be going in the opposite direction.
On 2/18/2017 8:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
to relativize the fearmongering 
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/thyroid-ca

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

The boars seem pretty healthy despite their contaminated tissue. I am not
> sure if that is good news or bad news.
>

Exposure to (natural) radiation used to be thought to be beneficial to
people's health.  I wonder whether the safety limits for radioactivity were
set far lower than they needed to be out of an abundance of caution.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds
> of U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238.
>

U-235 is 4% of the fuel in a reactor. It is 0.7 of natural uranium.



> Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 . . .
>

I meant it is mixed in with U isotopes and other radioactive glop.



> melting its way down relentlessly . . .
>>
>
> It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the
> accident.
>

You can be sure of that. There would be vast clouds of steam emerging from
the plant if it were still that hot. I think the remains of the reactor
core are mostly under liquid water and mud. Which is a problem, because the
water is flowing through. There are hundreds of tanks of contaminated
water, and a gigantic machine filtering and cleaning up the water,
concentrating the radioactive glop, and releasing the water.

As of last July TEPCO admitted the ice wall was not working well. I find it
too depressing to read about. It is on Japanese TV news often, which I
watch.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/20/national/first-tepco-admits-ice-wall-cant-stop-fukushima-no-1-groundwater/#.WKjvtlUrLs0

During the accident the material was hot enough melt through the
containment vessel and to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, which
built up in the domes and exploded.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Russ George]

This link might help with the flurry of nonsense in the Vortex 
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dementia/agitation-elderly 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

 

Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 

The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive, melted 
uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.

Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 pounds.

 

That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds of 
U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238. You 
can't just walk in and take the U-235. For one thing, you would be dead in a 
few minutes. For another, you need massive separation plants which have not be 
built in decades, because nuclear bombs use Pu, not U.

 

 

For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed until 1975 by 
the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - depending on how 
much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium...

 

Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 and many other 
radioactive elements, and you would need a giant factory to separate out the Pu.

 

This accident caused many problems, but weapons proliferation is not among 
them. The stuff is 100% theft-proof. It would be far harder to steal than the 
Pu deployed in U.S. and Russian warheads.

 

 

and this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ...

 

No, it is right there. Except for the material blown into the air and the 
surroundings by the hydrogen explosions, and the material being washed into the 
ocean by groundwater.

 

 

melting its way down relentlessly . . .

 

It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the 
accident. It is being washed out by groundwater, which the ice wall was 
supposed to stop. Japanese press reports are unclear about how well the wall is 
working.

 

 

The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl.

 

Actually, it was worse. More than 90 of the radioactive materials were blown 
into the sky, and the fine powder circled the globe several times before 
settling out with rain and weather. The sarcophagus closed the barn door long 
after the horse left.

 

 

Nor did radioactivity ever increase drastically over time.

 

Radioactivity did not increase from Chernobyl because the radioactive material 
was dispersed world-wide, mainly to northern Europe. It has increased at 
Fukushima only because the walls crumbled and groundwater washed the material 
out into areas where it can be detected.

 

 

Even if the total damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted 
"fear-mongering" by the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima 
which could be much worse.

 

Not if the groundwater problem can be fixed. That remains to be seen.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive,
> melted uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.
>
> Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 pounds.
>

That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds of
U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238. You
can't just walk in and take the U-235. For one thing, you would be dead in
a few minutes. For another, you need massive separation plants which have
not be built in decades, because nuclear bombs use Pu, not U.


For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed until 1975
> by the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - depending on
> how much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium...
>

Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 and many
other radioactive elements, and you would need a giant factory to separate
out the Pu.

This accident caused many problems, but weapons proliferation is not among
them. The stuff is 100% theft-proof. It would be far harder to steal than
the Pu deployed in U.S. and Russian warheads.



> and this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ...
>

No, it is right there. Except for the material blown into the air and the
surroundings by the hydrogen explosions, and the material being washed into
the ocean by groundwater.



> melting its way down relentlessly . . .
>

It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the
accident. It is being washed out by groundwater, which the ice wall was
supposed to stop. Japanese press reports are unclear about how well the
wall is working.



> The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl.
>

Actually, it was worse. More than 90 of the radioactive materials were
blown into the sky, and the fine powder circled the globe several times
before settling out with rain and weather. The sarcophagus closed the barn
door long after the horse left.



> Nor did radioactivity ever increase drastically over time.
>

Radioactivity did not increase from Chernobyl because the radioactive
material was dispersed world-wide, mainly to northern Europe. It has
increased at Fukushima only because the walls crumbled and groundwater
washed the material out into areas where it can be detected.



> Even if the total damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted
> "fear-mongering" by the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima
> which could be much worse.
>

Not if the groundwater problem can be fixed. That remains to be seen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Jones Beene]

Here is the bottom-line fact that should scare everyone, even those 
fearless fission advocates who can accept an occasional Chernobyl and 
TMI is the regrettable part of the package-deal for cheap power.


The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive, 
melted uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.


Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 
pounds. For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed 
until 1975 by the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - 
depending on how much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium... and 
this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ... melting 
its way down relentlessly Many things could happen.


The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl. Nor did 
radioactivity ever increase drastically over time. Even if the total 
damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted "fear-mongering" by 
the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima which could be 
much worse. There could be a natural mechanism in place which is 
converting fertile to fissile. Perhaps the site was located over a good 
neutron moderator - such as hydrated shale or coal and that is where the 
three cores are now festering.  If the shale deposit is cup shaped, the 
three cores could merge. Yikes.


Terry Blanton wrote:

Another one bites the dust

It’s now at least the seventh robot to have broken down while
investigating Fukushima’s nuclear reactors, which remain highly
radioactive. //

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Terry Blanton]

Another one bites the dust

It’s now at least the seventh robot to have broken down while investigating
> Fukushima’s nuclear reactors, which remain highly radioactive. *Reuters* had
> counted up to five by March 2016
> .
> Last week, a scouting robot was sent in
> 
>  ahead
> to clear the way for the scorpion robot, but it was pulled back out after
> about two hours: the camera had been fried
>  by
> record high levels of radiation estimated to be about 650 sieverts per
> hour
> .
> (For scale, a CT scan exposes you
> 
>  to
> 0.006 sieverts, and just half a sievert
>  is enough to
> cause symptoms of radiation sickness.)



http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/17/14652274/fukushima-nuclear-robot-power-plant-radiation-decomission-tepco

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here are two other frightening data points.
>
> 1. Some years ago, NHK (national TV) had a special on the effect on
> wildlife in Fukushima Pref. There has been a tremendous increase in the
> animal population because humans evacuated farmland. It is all growing back
> into forest. That part is okay. But some animal species that eat a lot of
> plants are highly contaminated. Wild boars are common in Japan. They are
> omnivores, eating lots of plants. Biologists have been trapping and
> shooting them. Animals taken up to 50 km from the reactors are too
> contaminated for human consumption by factor up to ~6,000. (I don't recall
> the units, but anyway, they exceed the limits by that much.)
>
> The boars seem pretty healthy despite their contaminated tissue. I am not
> sure if that is good news or bad news.
>
> 2. Tadahiko Mizuo has a degree in nuclear engineering. During the cold
> war, he monitored North Korea with 1960s instruments on the roof of the
> Engineering Dept. building. That building was torn down some years ago, so
> those instruments are gone, but anyway, after the accident the government
> dragged him and other superannuated experts out of retirement and asked
> them to analyze soil samples for radioactivity. Some of the samples they
> sent him were so hot he was afraid to work with them, and he wasn't sure
> where to store them at night. He risked harming someone, or contaminating
> the locked cabinets.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Jed Rothwell]

Here are two other frightening data points.

1. Some years ago, NHK (national TV) had a special on the effect on
wildlife in Fukushima Pref. There has been a tremendous increase in the
animal population because humans evacuated farmland. It is all growing back
into forest. That part is okay. But some animal species that eat a lot of
plants are highly contaminated. Wild boars are common in Japan. They are
omnivores, eating lots of plants. Biologists have been trapping and
shooting them. Animals taken up to 50 km from the reactors are too
contaminated for human consumption by factor up to ~6,000. (I don't recall
the units, but anyway, they exceed the limits by that much.)

The boars seem pretty healthy despite their contaminated tissue. I am not
sure if that is good news or bad news.

2. Tadahiko Mizuo has a degree in nuclear engineering. During the cold war,
he monitored North Korea with 1960s instruments on the roof of the
Engineering Dept. building. That building was torn down some years ago, so
those instruments are gone, but anyway, after the accident the government
dragged him and other superannuated experts out of retirement and asked
them to analyze soil samples for radioactivity. Some of the samples they
sent him were so hot he was afraid to work with them, and he wasn't sure
where to store them at night. He risked harming someone, or contaminating
the locked cabinets.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Alain Sepeda]

question is the distance,
it is well explained, especially in extremetech article.

there changed the distance, and the measure changed.

anyway, on this subject too, there is bubbles.
I'm tired.


2017-02-18 20:00 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :

>
> Fear-mongering? LOL. Apparently Alain does not look at the dates of these
> attempts at what are essentially PR, many of which were sanitized and put
> into circulation by TEPCO or their insurance carrier. The company has been
> caught in many outright lies since the accident and this is more of the
> same.
>
> The best response to the "no surprise" article can be paraphrased from the
> comments from others and from common sense. In fact, it is preposterous to
> imagine that the radiation level of more than 530 Sv/hr now measured ...
> "could be expected" given the intervening years and prior levels which were
> low. Do  you understand what this level means so long after the accident?
> Apparently not.
>
> TEPCO reported a previous high reading of 73 Sv/hr soon after the
> accident. That would have been in the "no surprise" category, and
> relatively less than expected (Chernobyl high reading was 200) but the new
> reading is completely off the charts, coming this late. It should have
> dropped every year. That is the biggest problem, it is going the wrong way.
>
> It is a paradigm shift which at worst means that substantial amounts,
> possibly many tons or formerly fertile material (U238) is becoming fissile
> (Pu239) or at least activated in an unknown way. A secondary explosion
> cannot be ruled out since the cores can merge. Thankfully the cores are
> melting their way deeper and deeper into earth, but if the 3 should
> merge... kaboom ... but let's not go there. Google OKLO  a site in Africa
> where natural uranium went critical.
>
> "If the material causing the initial reading (73 Sv/Hr) would have been
> normal nuclear fuel at relatively low enrichment, then that level should
> have gone down by an order of magnitude in the ensuing time. We should be
> seeing no more than 7 Sv/Hr now, BUT instead, it is 500 or 70 times higher
> in one location after almost 6 years.
>
> Thus this high reading was actually totally unexpected by many experts not
> associated with the company. It is essentially 70 times higher than
> expected if representative, and could be worse the deeper one goes (or
> less). As for proof of that dishonesty, consider that the Robots being used
> were designed to withstand 1000 Sv (LIFETIME irradiation until failure)
> which is only two hours at this rate. You would never use them if you were
> "expecting" anything near these levels. Of course they quickly failed and
> this means the rate was a huge surprise.
>
> Had TEPCO expected the 500 Sv level of radiation, as competent engineers
> they would have increased the radiation hardness of the robot by a factor
> of ten in order to get anywhere near the endurance time they needed for a
> meaningful probe. That they did not, completely eliminates their "no
> surprise" BS. They are lying, plain and simple and the robot proves they
> are lying.
>
> Plus, if the high radiation was localized in a small zone, then try to
> explain why the robot remained over that spot so long... and failed
> "prematurely"? Obviously the danger zone could be much larger and possibly
> the radiation level is even more severe than admitted - since the robot
> failed so quickly. That failure is another smoking gun, so to speak.
>
> Again, it is ludicrous to say this high reading was expected ... unless
> you are a company that was essentially negligent beyond all reason, both in
> the design and more so in the response.
>
> Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, since
> it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile uranium
> into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a secondary
> explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, should not
> TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?
>
> At Chernobyl, the situation has improved year to year, every year, as
> expected. Wildlife is taking over the formerly devastated area.
>
> Fukushima, appears to be going in the opposite direction.
> On 2/18/2017 8:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> to relativize the fearmongering
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/
> high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
> https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-
> reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/
> science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-
> internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
> http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-
> residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
> https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/
> thyroid-cancer-south-korea-cautionary-tale-about-dangers-overdiagnosis
> 

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, since
> it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile uranium
> into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a secondary
> explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, should not
> TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?
>

Into a nice pool of lithium surrounded by beryllium.  A man-made
supervolcano.

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Axil Axil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUYFzBq3VU

PBS Nova Nuclear Meltdown Disaster

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.1200.pdf
Detecting Special Nuclear Material Using Muon-Induced Neutron Emission

Muon imaging could help image the meltdown cores at meltdown sites.


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Fear-mongering? LOL. Apparently Alain does not look at the dates of these
> attempts at what are essentially PR, many of which were sanitized and put
> into circulation by TEPCO or their insurance carrier. The company has been
> caught in many outright lies since the accident and this is more of the
> same.
>
> The best response to the "no surprise" article can be paraphrased from the
> comments from others and from common sense. In fact, it is preposterous to
> imagine that the radiation level of more than 530 Sv/hr now measured ...
> "could be expected" given the intervening years and prior levels which were
> low. Do  you understand what this level means so long after the accident?
> Apparently not.
>
> TEPCO reported a previous high reading of 73 Sv/hr soon after the
> accident. That would have been in the "no surprise" category, and
> relatively less than expected (Chernobyl high reading was 200) but the new
> reading is completely off the charts, coming this late. It should have
> dropped every year. That is the biggest problem, it is going the wrong way.
>
> It is a paradigm shift which at worst means that substantial amounts,
> possibly many tons or formerly fertile material (U238) is becoming fissile
> (Pu239) or at least activated in an unknown way. A secondary explosion
> cannot be ruled out since the cores can merge. Thankfully the cores are
> melting their way deeper and deeper into earth, but if the 3 should
> merge... kaboom ... but let's not go there. Google OKLO  a site in Africa
> where natural uranium went critical.
>
> "If the material causing the initial reading (73 Sv/Hr) would have been
> normal nuclear fuel at relatively low enrichment, then that level should
> have gone down by an order of magnitude in the ensuing time. We should be
> seeing no more than 7 Sv/Hr now, BUT instead, it is 500 or 70 times higher
> in one location after almost 6 years.
>
> Thus this high reading was actually totally unexpected by many experts not
> associated with the company. It is essentially 70 times higher than
> expected if representative, and could be worse the deeper one goes (or
> less). As for proof of that dishonesty, consider that the Robots being used
> were designed to withstand 1000 Sv (LIFETIME irradiation until failure)
> which is only two hours at this rate. You would never use them if you were
> "expecting" anything near these levels. Of course they quickly failed and
> this means the rate was a huge surprise.
>
> Had TEPCO expected the 500 Sv level of radiation, as competent engineers
> they would have increased the radiation hardness of the robot by a factor
> of ten in order to get anywhere near the endurance time they needed for a
> meaningful probe. That they did not, completely eliminates their "no
> surprise" BS. They are lying, plain and simple and the robot proves they
> are lying.
>
> Plus, if the high radiation was localized in a small zone, then try to
> explain why the robot remained over that spot so long... and failed
> "prematurely"? Obviously the danger zone could be much larger and possibly
> the radiation level is even more severe than admitted - since the robot
> failed so quickly. That failure is another smoking gun, so to speak.
>
> Again, it is ludicrous to say this high reading was expected ... unless
> you are a company that was essentially negligent beyond all reason, both in
> the design and more so in the response.
>
> Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, since
> it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile uranium
> into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a secondary
> explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, should not
> TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?
>
> At Chernobyl, the situation has improved year to year, every year, as
> expected. Wildlife is taking over the formerly devastated area.
>
> Fukushima, appears to be going in the opposite direction.
> On 2/18/2017 8:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> to relativize the fearmongering
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/
> high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
> https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-
> reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/
> science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-
> internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
> http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-
> residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
> 

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Jones Beene]

Fear-mongering? LOL. Apparently Alain does not look at the dates of 
these attempts at what are essentially PR, many of which were sanitized 
and put into circulation by TEPCO or their insurance carrier. The 
company has been caught in many outright lies since the accident and 
this is more of the same.


The best response to the "no surprise" article can be paraphrased from 
the comments from others and from common sense. In fact, it is 
preposterous to imagine that the radiation level of more than 530 Sv/hr 
now measured ... "could be expected" given the intervening years and 
prior levels which were low. Do  you understand what this level means so 
long after the accident? Apparently not.


TEPCO reported a previous high reading of 73 Sv/hr soon after the 
accident. That would have been in the "no surprise" category, and 
relatively less than expected (Chernobyl high reading was 200) but the 
new reading is completely off the charts, coming this late. It should 
have dropped every year. That is the biggest problem, it is going the 
wrong way.


It is a paradigm shift which at worst means that substantial amounts, 
possibly many tons or formerly fertile material (U238) is becoming 
fissile (Pu239) or at least activated in an unknown way. A secondary 
explosion cannot be ruled out since the cores can merge. Thankfully the 
cores are melting their way deeper and deeper into earth, but if the 3 
should merge... kaboom ... but let's not go there. Google OKLO  a site 
in Africa where natural uranium went critical.


"If the material causing the initial reading (73 Sv/Hr) would have been 
normal nuclear fuel at relatively low enrichment, then that level should 
have gone down by an order of magnitude in the ensuing time. We should 
be seeing no more than 7 Sv/Hr now, BUT instead, it is 500 or 70 times 
higher in one location after almost 6 years.


Thus this high reading was actually totally unexpected by many experts 
not associated with the company. It is essentially 70 times higher than 
expected if representative, and could be worse the deeper one goes (or 
less). As for proof of that dishonesty, consider that the Robots being 
used were designed to withstand 1000 Sv (LIFETIME irradiation until 
failure) which is only two hours at this rate. You would never use them 
if you were "expecting" anything near these levels. Of course they 
quickly failed and this means the rate was a huge surprise.


Had TEPCO expected the 500 Sv level of radiation, as competent engineers 
they would have increased the radiation hardness of the robot by a 
factor of ten in order to get anywhere near the endurance time they 
needed for a meaningful probe. That they did not, completely eliminates 
their "no surprise" BS. They are lying, plain and simple and the robot 
proves they are lying.


Plus, if the high radiation was localized in a small zone, then try to 
explain why the robot remained over that spot so long... and failed 
"prematurely"? Obviously the danger zone could be much larger and 
possibly the radiation level is even more severe than admitted - since 
the robot failed so quickly. That failure is another smoking gun, so to 
speak.


Again, it is ludicrous to say this high reading was expected ... unless 
you are a company that was essentially negligent beyond all reason, both 
in the design and more so in the response.


Worst of all - 5 years from now, the situation could be more toxic, 
since it appears 3 completely unconstrained cores are converting fertile 
uranium into fissile plutonium at an unexpected rate. Again, if a 
secondary explosion (hydrogen, steam or nuclear) cannot be ruled out, 
should not TEPCO be evacuating a wider zone?


At Chernobyl, the situation has improved year to year, every year, as 
expected. Wildlife is taking over the formerly devastated area.


Fukushima, appears to be going in the opposite direction.

On 2/18/2017 8:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

to relativize the fearmongering
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/thyroid-cancer-south-korea-cautionary-tale-about-dangers-overdiagnosis
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/02/07/radiation-levels-not-soaring-at-fukushima-daiichi/
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

diversify your sources, or at least avoid the fearmongers and the 
salesmen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Alain Sepeda]

to relativize the fearmongering
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/high-fukushima-radiation-estimates-no-surprise-to-experts
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/#.WJoJrzvhDzT
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003511587
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/thyroid-cancer-south-korea-cautionary-tale-about-dangers-overdiagnosis
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/02/07/radiation-levels-not-soaring-at-fukushima-daiichi/
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

diversify your sources, or at least avoid the fearmongers and the salesmen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html
http://www.gepr.org/en/contents/20120507-03/

anyway there have been an heavy death toll, beside the huge 20k of living
near water
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/fear-of-radiation-has-killed-761-and.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/02/evacuation-deaths-in-japan-in-2011-were.html

water kills, we should forbid it

2017-02-18 16:19 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :

> Fukushima much worse than imagined - 3 cores in runaway meltdown with no
> chance to stop them. China syndrome in reverse...
>
> Makes Chernobyl look like spilled milk
>
> http://www.environews.tv/world-news/alert-new-radiation-
> readings-fukushima-reactor-2-unimaginable-lethal-1-min/
>
> How long before the entire Pacific fishing industry is shut down?
>
> http://dailyoccupation.com/2016/12/28/fukushima-radiation-
> contaminated-entire-pacific-ocean-going-get-worse/
>
> Be sure to take your rad monitor to the fish market... and avoid the
> specials.
>
>
>