Why isn't this on page one and lead story?

[wakeflood]

Mycle Schneider, a nuclear consultant who has served as lead author of the World Nuclear Industry status reports, said, “The quantities of water [TEPCO is] dealing with are absolutely gigantic. What is worse is that the water leakage is everywhere else—it’s not just [coming] from the tanks. It is leaking out from the basements, it is leaking from the cracks all over the place. Nobody can measure that. It is much worse than we have been led to believe, much worse.”

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRich..

i wouldn’t get my gloat on just yet..

you miss a lot of content when you read only headlines…

the graph is not a current accurate graphic of the danger

but the danger is dismissed by the idea that it’s a big ocean out there and the radiation will be diluted…

does that really make you feel better?

Share This

[JoB]

VBD..

grandma betty made a valid point in her post about the nuclear contamination of the Columbia river due to Hanford.

she asked if health problems had been documented from eating fish from that water.

the short answer is no.. not really.

the contamination in that river sank.. like contamination does… and has built up behind the major dams… to an extent that common wisdom now states that it would stir up more contamination to try to clean it up than to leave it where it is and let sediment bury it.

the local fisherman still fish below the dams… where the water and fish are less affected

but the health risks from Hanford are well known. I lost two parents to the rise in cancer rates that followed that contamination.

yes, it’s a big ocean out there… but i worry about how well the ocean currents will carry contamination that is being constantly suspended in that ocean to targeted areas… and how that contamination will effect the marine life.

past evidence does not bode well for us.

Share This

[JKB]

Of course it does not matter how much water is dumped. The ocean’s already pretty much made out of water.

What matters is the radioisotope quantities, and their half-life.

Share This

[wakeflood]

You took the bait, eh, JoB? ;-)

Share This

[wakeflood]

JoB, question about the fishing below the dams.

Are those fishermen catching and eating resident fish (perch, sturgeon, etc.) or transitory (salmon)? Do the studies of health impacts discuss differences between the two?

Share This

[JoB]

wakeflood..

what studies? i haven’t lived there for 10+ years now, but every once in a while the health department would issue a health advisory on the fish and that would be that.

Hanford contamination that far down river is not something anyone wants to take too close a look at… the stats that are beginning to emerge on cancers and thryoid disorders from what they are calling direct contamination are daunting enough.

i know about the buildup of contaminants behind the dam because i knew engineers who were tasked with finding solutions for removing it and concluded that it was better buried for now.

i think everyone is hoping that by the time those dams are removed or have to have substantial work that the half life stats VBD is relying on will turn out to be an accurate indication of eventual health risks…

but they weren’t so willing to test that theory themselves ;->

JKB

you missed my point.. by a mississippi mile

Share This

[JoB]

what is so frustrating for me is i can remember when our rivers were sewers of contamination and participated in the fight to clean them up …

only to watch generations of people who don’t realize that water won’t wash it all away scoff at evidence that how we dispose of our waste is crucial to our well being.

history really is a good teacher if you are willing to pay attention. we have been in this cycle before…

Share This

[VBD]

Wakeflood, the article on coal may have been written before Fukushima, but it was after Chernobyl. The possible effects of a large scale nuclear disaster were in fact well known in 2007.

But I must reiterate; I DO believe this is a very serious issue. My comments were in regards to the statements about radiation being “forever”, not that radiation spills are acceptable or inconsequential.

I am no more comfortable with Fukushima than I was with Exxon Valdez oil spill. Similarly, at the time of that disaster, people were saying that Prince William Sound was ruined forever. It was TERRIBLE at the time, but it has recovered remarkably. I might even argue that the Exxon Valdez spill was WORSE than Fuklushima – but I’ll hold back from that, since I don’t want to start any more tangents here.

So, yes, it is true that we cannot prevent these man made disasters, but we need accurate perspective on them. A disaster like the Bhopal chemical spill killed about 20,000 people and inured many more. Oil refineries blow up every other year, killing people routinely. Coal mining kills thousands of people around the world annually. And the pollution from combustion of fossil fuels has drifted to every inch of our planet, in all likelihood, changing our climate.

Death toll from Fukushima’s radiation: 0.

Again, there will be long lasting negative effects, but they will largely be in Japan – not here.

Share This

[wakeflood]

And as we have seen locally, in Puget Sound, is that efforts like those you mention, JoB, are very helpful at getting at the low-hanging fruit of obvious, point-source pollutants, usually visible to the naked eye. i.e. – the batteries (still being cleaned up by Salty’s) or the floating cesspool of debris in those pictures of the Duwamish from the 1970s.

But the issues get harder and more expensive to remediate – and radiation is right at the top of that scale.

Dreading the next level of advisory from the FDA suggesting we no longer eat what was the “cleanest” of the available fish – transitory, wild, north Pacific salmon. Some would suggest that’s an overreaction but tell me with a straight face that the first reaction to measurements of significant amounts of pollutants in any food source by government oversight agencies ISN’T to cowtow to industry pressure and raise the “acceptable” limits to some new arbitrary figure. Go ahead, try to tell me that’s not how it works. I’ll cite example after example of that very process.

Share This

[VBD]

JOB, yes, the pollution from Hanford is a real concern. There is definite risk to the wildlife in the Columbia River, and to people who might eat the fish.

But a scenario I would argue is NOT a problem is the case of someone claiming the material is going down the river to the ocean, and people in Japan are going to get poisoned by the Hanford radiation. No way.

The radioactive material leaking into the Columbia from Hanford is a Washington State hazard. Just as the Fukushima radiation leak is a concern for Japan.

People are so self centered when it comes to disasters like this. Japan has the real problem right now, not us. We should offer assistance, not hide in fear.

Share This

[wakeflood]

In other words, the agencies will see increased levels in the fish. Higher than what would sound the alarm and create an advisory. The industry leans hard to change the level, it gets bumped up to something the industry expects will be within the foreseeable range of toxicity and the agency says here’s the new level of “acceptable”! It’s all good. But maybe don’t eat it that often.

Then it turns out that the range was still too low and they bump it up again or just more strongly recommend that you don’t have it, you know…very much. Which is to say, they have no science that actually supports the relative healthiness of these levels, but the don’t have unassailable PROOF that it ISN’T OK. Neglecting the fact that it takes 20yrs. to do realistic long-term studies on the effects of the increased rates. But hey, how bad can “fill in the blank” toxin be??

Share This

[wakeflood]

Who’s hiding in fear?? We’re trying to sort out prudent ways to assess our particular impacts based on a very real assumption that,

A) The situation is very serious and doesn’t appear to have an easy fix.

B) We have seen this scenario play out before and the first few acts of this one are perfectly true to form. Under-estimate the problem because its not happy or easy to fix. Try to cover up as much as you can when it is finally outed. Publicly downplay the risk because it’s what we do. Eventually we find out it was way nastier than what was let on and we shrug and move to the next media event, leaving the long-term issues to fall to the back pages of the newspaper – if reported at all. Meanwhile, just go about your business.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Or as GWB would have said…

“…fool me twice…won’t get fooled again.”

Share This

[wakeflood]

And VBD, just exactly WHAT do you recommend we self-centered folks DO to help Japan fix this? I’m all for it, but short of dropping a few yen in an online bank account somewhere, I have no clue.

Open to suggestions.

Share This

[wakeflood]

And VBD, I’ll play devil’s advocate on your position that like Hanford, this is a local Japanese problem.

Hanford is located hundreds of miles from the open ocean. There are several damns trapping radioactive particles in the sediment behind them, acting as a progressive filtering system to reduce the potential direct impacts.

Fukushima is ON the ocean. There are no progressive filtering systems once contaminants are released. The ocean currents that flow past it are a superhighway through the breadbasket of the north Pacific food chain. Sure, it’s a vast ocean, but it’s not impervious to harm. (We can’t even figure out what to do about a Texas-sized floating junkyard in it that we can see from space.)

Share This

[VBD]

Sheesh wakeflood; WAKE UP!!

How many times do I need to tell you I think this is a SERIOUS PROBLEM. You’re acting like I said everything is fine. It’s not. There is a real disaster in Japan. JAPAN!

As for the radiation being leaked into the ocean, it is very bad, and efforts should be taken to stop it. By “we” helping, I mean Americans who have technology and expertise to asses and assist in the cleanup.

But understand the ocean is a BIG place, and is full of more naturally occurring radiation than Fukushima can produce. There is no model by which a parcel of water can remain concentrated enough to be hazardous after drifting across the pacific. It just can’t happen.

Here’s another good read: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989

Share This

[wakeflood]

I’M AWAKE!! :)

I’m not trying to say you don’t think this is a serious problem. And we likely agree on most of this stuff.

My concern is that this is an ongoing problem that has had a very recent bad turn of events (more leakage, much higher levels of bioaccumulating strontium than previously measured), whose impacts are still TBD. NOBODY knows the impacts yet of this most recent event. But we certainly have seen this story play out before and the news often ends up to be worse than hoped and often buried in the news.

I’m also NOT saying I’m worried about swimming in the water. I’m worried that strontium is going to build up in the algae, and the food fish for the fish many of us want to eat. And I am further upset that top of the chain mammals like orcas and other whales will take yet another major blow to their ecosystems.

And I’m also not saying that burning coal isn’t a huge issue for many of the same reasons.

Share This

[seaopgal]

TEPCO is FINALLY asking for international help … a year too late, but it is what it is. The Japanese government is FINALLY allocating more money and personnel, and we (U.S.) should be pressuring them through diplomatic channels formally to request and accept our assistance, as well as that from France and Russia. (May have already happened, things are changing day to day …)

One easy thing each of us can do: Contact Sen. Murray and Sen. Cantwell and ask for their immediate attention/action on this issue. Even if their eyes are currently looking east to Syria, they have people on their staffs who are looking west. Tell them you want the U.S. to do whatever it can to help solve the immediate water problem … and that you are willing to help pay for it. We can and should be contributing expertise, equipment, money.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I’m not saying this analogy is perfect, cuz it ain’t, but the shell rot infection on lobsters that started in the warmer southern waters off the east coast has been steadily moving north and is now being seen in alarming numbers in the cold waters off New England. Stuff moves through the borders of ecosystems all the time.

I never used to see all the black shell holes and lost limbs on Dungeness crabs when I was a kid here. Now it’s rare to see one WITHOUT it.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Agree on the contacting politicians. Fine idea, that. I will do so today!

Share This

[wakeflood]

And one more quick response to VBD and I’ll roll out of this one.

I think we really only have two areas of potential disagreement. One is the issue of scale, or perspective, as you call it. I’m not convinced yet that the impacts will be as localized as you. That’s an honest place to disagree as nobody knows yet what that will look like tomorrow, much less 3 or 5 or 20 yrs. from now. I truly hope your optimism proves out, for the planet’s sake.

Maybe the bigger area of disagreement might be how we perceive the ability to prevent these types of things altogether. i.e. your statement “So, yes, it is true that we cannot prevent these man made disasters…”

Part of my main point early in this thread was to highlight this very issue. In many/MOST? of these events, the ability to see the potential problem and address it BEFORE the disaster is readily available, and yet often times hubris and greed prevent the more prudent thing from happening. Fukushima was a known flawed design that should have been replaced or significantly improved years before the tsunami. And issues like this can be pointed to in almost every case. THAT’S a big part of what I lament. Preventable disasters as opposed to true accidents.

And I’ll even allow for the fact we’ll always have preventable events occur. But some of them are on scales that are too profound to have let happen simply because of greed and hubris.

And thanks for giving me good things to ponder through this one!

Share This

[JoB]

VBD..

my parents lived and played downwind from Hanford during the “perfectly safe” nuclear testing.

they were camping during one of the more significant tests.

they and many others like them found their statistical rate of death from cancers greatly increased due to that exposure.. they both died from cancers in their 50s…

the second, third and forth generations of those exposed to that fallout have manifested thyroid and other autoimmune disorders at statistically significant higher rates than norms. We don’t know enough about the 5th yet.

a great deal of the buildup behind those dams was due to the original tests.. not the subsequent leaks. It’s a story that only gets worse.

yes, we should be very worried for the japanese people who were initially exposed to some very high levels of radiation… but we should also be very worried about the steady drip drip of contaminants that continues to be leaked into our oceans.

we should be especially worried that those with a financial interest in hiding our exposure are also control it’s documentation.

what you don’t know really can hurt you.

Share This

[VBD]

I agree with everything you’ve said above. Learning from our mistakes and taking steps to prevent similar catastrophes is essential.

My lingering concern is that we don’t seem to weigh disasters based on death and damage as much as we do on fear. If an oil refinery blows up and kills dozens of people, while sending tons of toxic fumes into the air, it barely gets noticed. But anything to do with radiation is front page news, even if no one is hurt.

Again, I have no love for nuclear disasters. But last year at this time there was a massive explosion in Venezuela, anyone remember?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/world/americas/venezuela-refinery-blast

Exactly one year later (a few days ago), this:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/explosion-at-visakhapatnam-hpcl-oil-refinery-1-dead–toll-likely-to-rise/1159193/

Has ANYBODY heard about this latest one???

Why do we pass off these tragedies as just the cost of doing business when it comes to oil?

My assertion is that we should make JUST as big an effort to avoid future oil-related disasters as we do with nuclear.

Share This

[JayDee]

Job and others:

My original post on Fukushima had calculations on the current discharge of 300 tons/per day of radioactive water into Japanese waters. It will dilute, and should pose us little harm. Not to discount it, but dilution helps.

–

TEPCO will be bankrupted by this disaster, and the Japanese Government and others will take over the control of the multitude of problems and help make it less worse. Since Fukushima’s reactors were a General Electric design (This was before the Japanese sold everything to us, or should I say U.S.) the U.S. shares some blame.

–

Wakeflood:

We can minimize the chances for such disasters but we need to use Thorium, not Uranium for fuel. It was unfortunate that we used the U235 for a bomb and then used it to generate power. Thorium is easier to control. The point is we are wise enough now to know better and need to move beyond changing our planet’s climate by burning the last ounce of coal available.

–

We need everything that doesn’t emit CO2, radionuclides, methane (did someone mention fracking?) and reduce our use of oil for driving cars/trucks and planes (especially). Conserve energy as much as we can, design new buildings to work better, and hope.

Share This

[Author]

Posts