TEPCO: 950 million becquerels of radioactive cesium per liter of water detected near No. 2 reactor

[The Straight Story]

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2013, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

TEPCO: 950 million becquerels of radioactive cesium per liter of water detected near No. 2 reactor building at Fukushima nuclear plant - @The_Japan_News

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGIeYvxIM/2013/08/01/tepco-950-million-becquerels-of-radioactive-cesiu?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Will update when I find a better link

More info:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/31/reference/tepco-trying-to-keep-radioactive-water-from-reaching-sea-but-can-it/#.UfnZXRhEr2Q

Tepco also suspects that residual water from a leak of highly radioactive water that reached the Pacific through a section of the trenches in April 2011 may be a source of the groundwater contamination.

A sample taken last Friday from the trench contained 750 million becquerels of cesium-134, 1.6 billion becquerels of cesium-137 and 750 million becquerels of other radioactive substances, according to Tepco.

A sample from April 2011 contained 1.8 billion becquerels of both cesium-134 and cesium-137 per liter.

Meanwhile, the basement of the turbine building is flooded with the tainted water from a leaking containment vessel. Radioactive water there is possibly leaking into the trenches connected to the basement.

How much radioactive water has flowed into the sea?

Tepco said it is unclear how long tainted water has been leaking into the sea — or how much. It continues to claim that the contamination of the sea is limited to the plant’s port.

[mindwalker_i]

1. Grab the marshmallows, dude

And let's party!

[rug]

2. This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a becquer

el.

[wildbilln864]

3. We are so fucked!

Well, maybe not us but our grand children are screwed.

[Mnemosyne]

4. I wish you were wrong, Bill. nt

[wildbilln864]

7. me also....

I have three beautiful grandchildren and I fear for their futures. Pollution, disease, global warming, etc. makes their odds of leading a happy and full life slimmer every day.

[Mnemosyne]

11. I have two grandsons, and possibly three more, and a teenaged granddaughter, soon. I try to teach

things that will be useful for survival. We have much fun doing it, but it's always in the back of my mind.

All we can do is the best that we can. Kids can be amazingly resourceful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. When I was younger I was a tad angry we never had kids

These days not so much.

I worry about nephews and nieces. But...something wicked is coming am afraid

[Mnemosyne]

13. "Not with a bang, but with a whimper." Or as another DUer wrote here, "with a becquerel.".

I am glad I only had one child. I also have many nieces and nephews. Heart-wrenching to think about too long at once.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I agree with that DU'er

Our kids have feathers though...spoiled little brats. Makes me angry, since we are stealing the planet from other sentient beings too.

[Mnemosyne]

26. The planet will thrive again once it chews us up and spits us out. The creatures suffer because of

us and they have no recourse.

I am not sure we can do anything to save ourselves anymore, just prepare for what will come in the future.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Fortunately, it takes many billions of becquerels to be dangerous.

Unfortunately, this leak contains many times more than what is needed to be dangerous.

[Mnemosyne]

21. I wish I didn't understand that at times. Life would be so much less worry if I had been ignorant.

[Mnemosyne]

25. It is still so much worse than they have admitted, more comes out all the time and

there are still those here denying that it's a worldwide catastrophe, not just for Japan.

The radioactive flow into the ocean is the most frightening, to me. It's not as if the oceans are stagnant.

The day it happened I had the same song running through my head as I did after the 2000 sElection - 'it's the end of the world as we know it.'

[obliviously]

39. Ha! that ship sailed

back when ships had sails.

[closeupready]

5. Sadly, I think this kind of environmental destruction will become

commonplace eventually, since when you consider how much nuclear poison is spread all over the world, from power plants to weapons to whatever, and how history unfolds in a generally messy manner, it's inevitable that while we may not have a giant nuclear war, we will eventually poison ourselves with our nuclear love affair. "Accidents" will happen, tsunamis, earthquakes, sabotage, even asteroids - if you can think it, it will happen.

[kestrel91316]

6. Impossible for that to harm even a fly according to a few DUers.

[The Straight Story]

10. updated with more info and a link (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Eat your bananas, you will be fine

But, but, but one of this can ever happen!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. WTF!

I think there is a lot they are not telling us. I will buy myself a Geiger Counter or some other radioactive detecting equipment.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. Not sure if I did my math correctly here...

1 curie is roughly equal to 34 billion becquerels of activity. Radiotherapy machines contain about 1000 curies and can kill you in just a few minutes of exposure.

At 750 million becquerels, that would suggest that every 50000 liters of water contains enough radioactivity (roughly 1000 curies) to produce severe, potentially fatal, health effects in an average person in only a few minutes of exposure. That means that an olympic swimming pool of this stuff could potentially kill 50 people within just a few minutes.


HOWEVER: As water is a good moderator, it would likely take substantially more to produce severe health effects. I don't know enough about radiobiology to make a good judgement call here.

[The Straight Story]

18. Either way, I don't think I would drink it

[Gravitycollapse]

19. I redid my math. A swimming pool's worth has enough activity to severely injure 50+ people...

in just a few minutes. How many minutes, I'm not sure. But certainly less than an hour.

But, again, water is a good moderator. It might take many times more contaminated water to cause severe health effects.

[longship]

17. This is not going to be an easy task.

Those reactors are in bad shape and they are not going to be getting any better. Unfortunately to put Fukushima in safe shape people will likely have to put their lives in grave danger.

It's sad. Very sad.

[Silent3]

20. Just so you know, a becquerel is a very small unit of measure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel

This is not to say that you'd want to be near such high concentrations for a long time, but if you're worried that this much is enough to contaminate, say, the entire Pacific ocean, it's way, way, WAY far from that.

There are 70 million cubic miles of water in the Pacific Ocean.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gallons_are_there_in_the_Pacific_Ocean.

If the sum total of concentrated radioactive material (to WAY overestimate it) from Fukushima were as big one millionth of a square mile (a cube about 53 feet on each side), then completely dispersed through the ocean the material would only be at a concentration of a seventieth of a trillionth part.

The real problem is bad localized hot spots, which is worrisome enough, without the "OMG!!! TEH HOLE PLANIT W1LL BEE DEESTRYOD!!1111!!1' hyperbole some people want to engage in.

[FBaggins]

23. Even the millions/billions listed here isn't really all that much.

Many people don't realize it... but they may very well work in office buildings with scores of objects that each can contain in excess of a trillion becquerels.



Or that those glow-in-the-dark wrist watches can contain almost a million becquerels

The real problem is bad localized hot spots, which is worrisome enough, without the "OMG!!! TEH HOLE PLANIT W1LL BEE DEESTRYOD!!1111!!1' hyperbole some people want to engage in.

Exactly. Chernobyl was far worse...and since we're talking about the impact on the pacific ocean, there were loads of nuclear tests that each put far more contamination into the Pacific. That doesn't make it a good thing... but it argues against the nonsensical paranoia.

[Octafish]

29. If there ''isn't really all that much,'' why is it still a radioactive catastrophe 2.5 years on?

And how can you write that Chernobyl was far worse? Besides what you typed, do you have a link for that?

Here's what a person who would know wrote:

The analysis of the health impact of radioactive land contamination by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, made by Professor Chris Busby (the European Committee of Radiation Risk) based on official Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology data, has shown that over the next 50 years it would be possible to have around 400,000 additional cancer patients within a 200-kilometer radius of the plant. -- Alexey V. Yablokov

SOURCE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-severity-of-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster-comparing-chernobyl-and-fukushima/24949

[FBaggins]

32. Maybe because there's much more to it than the contamination in this water?

I mean... "duh!" - the initial releases were millions/billions of times larger than the figures we're talking about here. The confusion you must be facing is that when you see... say... contamination in tuna of 5 bq/kg, you have an urge to pump that as something worth caring about (it isn't)... so if 5 Bq are a big deal... surely millions must be horrendous!

It wouldn't be a good idea to sink a well there and make it your source of drinking water, but it isn't a big deal otherwise.

And how can you write that Chernobyl was far worse?

Because it is...and it isn't even close. Raw estimates of radiation released were roughly ten times higher for Chernobyl and a far higher proportion of that release was of longer-lived radionuclides. A much higher proportion of Fukushima's release was noble gases and radioiodine (all of which is now long gone)... while Chernobyl released much larger amounts of materials that are still very much with us.

Added to all of that - the bulk of the Chernobyl release was over land while the bulk of the Fukushima release ended up in the ocean.

We could go on to talk about the differences in government response (not great in Japan... but MUCH better than Russia's response)... the differences in more tangible health impacts (radiation sickness and death)... but this isn't close enough to bother with more. Even though Chernobyl has had a quarter century of decay cutting into the contamination... the shorter half-lives of the Fukushima fallout probably put Chernobyl's current contamination at 50-100 times worse than Fukushima. Possibly more.

Which doesn't reduce the significance of Fukushima... it just highlights how truly bad Chernobyl was/is.


Here's what a person who would know wrote:

Sorry. I think you posed the wrong quote. All I see is Chris Busby... not "a person who would know". Even the lunatic fringe has ceased associating with this charlatan. And no... that's not an unfounded ad-hominem. It's literally what he is. A quack peddling a confidence scheme to the people of Japan for his own profit. He should be in jail... not in quotations labeled "person who would know".

[Octafish]

33. Bullshit.

Chernobyl was one reactor, still spewing radiation, but now entombed in leaky concrete.

Fukushima involves three reactors, not entombed by anything, still going gangbusters, including one that uses uranium-plutonium oxide fuel.

Oh, as for any quantitative analysis, TEPCO has done little in the way of telling the truth since March 11, 2011.

So, going by your lack of links for DU readers to learn more from your posts on the subject, I will observe that you are still defending the indefensible. I mean, duh.

[intaglio]

28. 950,000,000 Bq per litre is 9.5 billion Bq per tonne

and that is for radioactive caesium only. In one of the underground passages that is leaking into the ground water the detection gives is 2.35 billion Bq per litre. For your information this is 2.35 trillion Bq per tonne
http://www.tokyotimes.com/2013/tepco-ordered-to-drain-radioactive-water-from-underground-tunnels/

Now, as you appear to be an apologist for the nuclear industry, please explain how this radiation load will instantly be dispersed on reaching the ocean, especially as every indication is that the contamination is constantly being renewed. Please explain how this caesium will avoid being concentrated in the skeletons and shells of marine life thus causing greater damage the further "up" the food chain it travels.

Whilst you're at it could note that the bright sparkling future promised by the nuclear industry may well be because we will be watching glow of Cherenkov radiation.

/snark

[Silent3]

31. "Now, as you appear to be an apologist for the nuclear industry..."

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

A: The whole city is on fire!
B: It's bad, but it's only an area of about four square blocks.
A: You must love seeing people burned out of their homes!
B:

A: That guy embezzled billions of dollars!
B: The report I read said it was more like 30 million.
A: Pffttt! Just what we need! Someone else defending white collar crime!
B:

You: Now, as you appear to be an apologist for the nuclear industry...
Me:

[intaglio]

35. Nice trivialisation

Shame that the belittlement of the consequences of nuclear accidents has been a constant theme of a small number of posters. Let's look at other real world examples.

Your response to Minamata
A: The whole city is poisoned!
B: But it's only the bay
A: But it's in the fish, they eat the fish!
B:
A: Are you an apologist for the chemical industry?

Your response to the Pinto design flaw
A: Pintos explode when rear ended!
B: Not always, it's only a few
A: But the design is killing people!
B:
A: Are you being an apologist for the motor industry?

[Silent3]

36. Because your kneejerk reaction deserved to be trivialized

Show me where the "belittlement of the consequences" took place in post. Explain why me clear admissions that there are real, serious problems as the result of Fukushima just had to be discounted by you.

Is it impossible for you to imagine someone wanting to put something in perspective without bad motivations, because for you all the good people are properly setting their hair on fire and wouldn't dare waste time worrying about exaggerations and misdirected fears?

There are probably only "a small number of posters" who make comments like mine because not many people want to deal with the oh-so predictable stupidity that any attempt at introducing reasonable perspective will unleash.

[intaglio]

37. To quote

Post title

Just so you know, a becquerel is a very small unit of measure

Body text first paragraph:

This is not to say that you'd want to be near such high concentrations for a long time, but if you're worried that this much is enough to contaminate, say, the entire Pacific ocean, it's way, way, WAY far from that.

Body text third paragraph

If the sum total of concentrated radioactive material (to WAY overestimate it) from Fukushima were as big one millionth of a square mile (a cube about 53 feet on each side), then completely dispersed through the ocean the material would only be at a concentration of a seventieth of a trillionth part.

I'm certain this can be described belittlement as in "the problem is too small, in the wider sense, to worry about". The only thing you admit to is "local hotspots" which is hardly a ringing condemnation of this ongoing disaster or even an expression of slight concern about how TEPCO can possibly deal with the escape of contaminated liquid.

I'll admit you are not as bad as the Baggins above who seems to draw comfort from the fact that one litre of water is emitting less radiation than a building weighing hundreds of tonnes.

[Silent3]

38. I also said "The real problem is bad localized hot spots, which is worrisome enough".

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Pointing out that a "becquerel is a very small unit of measure" is simply the truth, it's not belittlement or trivialization.

The other two comments you quoted also merely add perspective and scale, they do not belittle or trivialize anything. Is there a certain amount of requisite screaming of "But think of the children!!!!" missing?

Your replies to my posts haven't exactly overflowing with concern for humanity either, just a need to pose and strut as a noble fighter against the evil proponents of nuclear, real or merely perceived. Don't judge others by artificial standards you don't live up to yourself.

[DeSwiss]

22. When it gets to 975 sell!!!

- K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112750507

[malaise]

27. But but but

They said it was safe

[Safetykitten]

30. Our Friend The Radioactive Pacific.

Think of it. Can't swim in it. Can't eat anything that comes from it!

[Silent3]

34. Because of Fukushima there are *parts of the Pacific* that are currently very bad...

...and no, I'm NOT FUCKING SAYING THAT EVERYTHING IS A-OK, THE FUCKING STUPID WAY HALF THE PEOPLE AROUND HERE RESPOND TO ANYONE TRYING TO PUT HISTRIONICS INTO PERSPECTIVE...

...but the contamination from Fukishima falls way, WAY short of anything that could possibly make any significant change in the overall character or safety of the entire Pacific ocean. WAY short of that.

You don't need to be a nuclear scientist to understand some basic notion of scale. If the radioactive contaminants from Fukushima are represented by this dot:

.

...then the whole of the Pacific is like that dot compared to computer screen you're looking at a few million times over. Radioactive contaminants are scary, but they aren't so awesomely, incomprehensibly toxic and lethal that no amount of dilution and dispersal will ever temper the danger, so hideous that anyone trying to calm fears about them must be a shill for nuclear power, or a fool taken in by the shills.

Yes, there is an increased chance of pulling significantly contaminated seafood out of the Pacific, but that risk drops subtantially the further you get from Fukishima, and the further away you get from currents from the waters near Fukushima. As time goes on, contamination will spread further, but it will also become more dilute.

Note that I'm NOT SAYING some stupid strawman argument like "radiation is good for you!" It would be better, of course, if the Fukushima accident never happened. But if a "detectable" level of increased radiation 2000 miles away means that something a normal sample of ocean water goes from x to 1.00001x, the mere fact that such a change is detectable does not mean the water has gone from pristine to deadly poison.