What happened today regarding Fukushima?

[MoonRiver]

I know they were supposed to remove the rods today, but have not found any information about what actually occurred.

[RobertEarl]

1. Postponed the removal

The US has been accepted as helping, finally.

Our experts looked at the situation and asked for more time to study the operation.

This date was the day that all the equipment was in place and ready for operation.

The whole process of rod removal from #4 fuel pool will take some time. Probably a year, if all goes well. Let's hope things go well.

Here is a webcam of the Fukushima site. The big white building on the far right is the #4 reactor. The buildings in the middle are #3, 2 and 1.

http://mfile.akamai.com/127380/live/reflector:52045.asx

You may need windows media player to view.

For more news go to enenews.com

[longship]

3. Energy News seems to be an anti-nuclear news aggregator focussing on Fukushima.

Sorry, my friend. I don't see this as a good place to get unbiased reportage on what's happening. They seem to have a lot of hyperbole and little actual data, but much opinion. Who are they anyway? Nobody seems to know. They are anonymously registered, never a good sign for transparency. It does not take a long visit to the site to see that they likely have an agenda which does not include getting out the actual facts. They seem to be nothing but an aggregator for all negative news, and especially opinion, on Fukushima Daiichi . The fact that the site was first registered shortly after the earthquake, tsunami, and the resulting Fukushima Daiichi problems speaks volumes. This is a site with an agenda.

As I have written in other posts, in the absence of transparency, the facts die. Energy News seems to be an exemplar of this maxim.

So I will henceforth discount any story with a link to that site. After all, they're really nothing but an aggregator for negative news about Fukushima Daiichi. I can get that anywhere.

The measure of important journalism is a dispassionate reporting of the facts, without an agenda. I fear little of that is happening with regards to this subject. Certainly none of it is happening at Energy News.

Sorry.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. They opened the fuel pool to reporters a few days ago

Here is a video of an on-site report, in Japanese, which explains about the work-- and the dangers-- involved. Even if you cannot understand Japanese, you can at least get a visual tour of the Unit 4 fuel pool and vicinity.

http://www.news24.jp/articles/2013/11/07/07239867.html#

[SidDithers]

31. +1...

Sources matter.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

2. Outline of the Fukushima problem

Everyday at least 300 tonnes of radiated water from the destruction flows into the Pacific. That's about 100,000 gallons a day. Times 900+ days.

Reactor #3 is so badly radiated that humans can't get near it and robots die in minutes when set there. It has at times seen to be smoking away, releasing more and more radiation into the air.

Reactor #2 is similar. They keep dumping water into it to keep it cool and that water drains away into the Pacific. Same with #1.

There are fields of tanks holding highly radiated water sitting on the hill above the complex and there have been many reports of those tanks leaking into a ditch that flows into, yep, you guessed it, the Pacific. Every time it rains, that ditch gets more water.

The fuel pools of all 4 reactors are pretty much the same: Sitting at least 50 feet from the ground. #4 tho, has some very hot nuclear waste in it that was, 3 years ago, going critical and boiling water. That waste can still boil water and after 3/11 it has been said that waste caused pool #4 to boil away all its water. Those waste rods are believed to have melted somewhat and that is why removing that mess has become such a problem that the US was called in to help.

Also, #3 and #4 have what they call MOX. Mixed OXide fuel. A Uranium and Plutonium mixture making the waste far more deadly than just Uranium by itself.

Indeed, some experts have said that is why #3 blew up like it did, and why #4 burned like it did: Because of the presence of highly volatile Plutonium. Duke power in the US tried some MOX in its plants and those plants almost blew up. So they stopped doing that. The Japanese thought they were smarter and could handle that MOX fuel. Well, they can't, so they called in the US.

[longship]

4. All reported via Energy News?

See my response #3.

[reddread]

7. please point to ANY responsible, actual corporate journalism in the US

because I find your assumptions fundamentally flawed and woefully outdated.
Not even coming around to the blanket censorship we experience in this country
on many subjects including this one. The word journalism has lost its meaning,
particularly as you intend its use.

[longship]

8. Your point is irrelevant.

If Energy News selectively publishes only stories which show the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in the worst light, they are not to be trusted. That would make them like Fox News.

Some sources just have more credibility then others. I put Energy News pretty damned low because of what seems to be bias.

[MH1]

9. Can you point to something you consider a valid, unbiased source for information about Fukushima?

for those of us who haven't been keeping up and would like a refresher course.

[longship]

10. Well, not ONE source.

But maybe any source but Energy News which clearly is not being objective.

[RobertEarl]

13. That is ENEnews.com

Not a source but an aggregation of news sources from around the world.

They also have a forum that people who are pro-nuke don't last long.
Did you get run off from there, longship?

In light of Fukushima, Chernobyl, et al, and the lousy reporting from the mainstream press about nuclear power, ENEnews.com is a most pleasant surprise and very informative. That is unless one is pro-nuke.

[longship]

14. No, I have no ideology pro nuclear.

I am actually anti-nuclear power. What am also anti about is biased reportage.

My questions are simple.

Why would anybody want to make Fukushima seem to be worse than it actually is? Aren't things bad enough?

Wouldn't the public be better served if they had the actual facts rather than opinion from people who either have no expertise or are not at the scene?

My position is clear. What this disaster needs more than anything is complete transparency. Another thing it needs is responsible coverage by the news media. Neither of these are happening. So Energy News stepped into that vacuum and is apparently providing neither.

The rest of the news media need to step up to the plate. And scientists actually on site or studying Fukushima Daiichi effects also need to be able to step up to the plate and openly discuss their findings and publish them in the peer reviewed literature.

That is what I would like to see. Without that, the public is not informed and will inevitably just make stuff up.

[RobertEarl]

15. What is it you need to know?

Just ask.

You have every reason to be scared, and it shows. So if there is something you are unsure about, just ask me and I will try to give you an answer.

[longship]

16. First, let's have rad levels across the Pacific.

The only ones I've seen we're done by University of Hawaii and showed levels consistent with background levels. Sorry, I've tried to find the link to that report, but on 4G it's not easy. It was posted here within the last month and quickly fell off the Latest. I'll see if I can find it.

It would be nice if the people on the scene would publish their measurements and state what such levels actually mean. People are generally afraid of radiation in spite of the fact that it, like many health effects, is dose dependent and there are many rad sources in our everyday lives. Merely publishing levels means nothing without a comparison.

An example was a recent article talking about radioactive iodine and its release into the ocean. Well, that isotope has a half life of about eight days. So health effects outside Fukushima area would be minimum. The article said nothing about its short half life. Also, the simple expedient of taking iodine fixes that particular issue, also not mentioned in this particular article. Bad science reporting there. Why do people need to be scared more? They need accurate information. Those living in areas with elevated radioactive iodine need to be taking iodine. But they first need to know about it.

There's a lot of speculation, as well as outright deception going on. A map of the Pacific presented a few weeks ago supposedly as the migration of radiation was tracked down to be the plot of the projected tsunami after the earthquake. That was deliberate deception. Why would anybody do that?

Again, transparency is the best thing here. The problem is that because of the veil of secrecy and the equivocations by TEPCO and the Japanese government, transparency may not be believed by those who see the whole thing as still being swept under the rug. Like Cassandra, people won't believe them even if they're being open and honest, especially as long as there are people who, for some reason or another, want to portray this as being the end of the world, which it is not.

And, thank you for your responses.

[RobertEarl]

17. We need more science

It is true that we are being kept like mushrooms. In the dark and fed dirt.

Especially when it comes to rads. But let's not forget that medical people who use radiation everyday, put up shields. They know they shouldn't get too much. Again, tho, mushrooms!

Some of the readings at the Fukushima site will scare you even more. There are many places man can only be for a few minutes and other places not even robots can go. The area of deadly rads is quite large and growing. There have been over 20,000 workers already because they've all received max dose levels after a few days work.

There is no good news from the site, except that it hasn't blown up again. The site is not like any other deconstruction site, ever. It is one of the most radiated place on earth.

[longship]

18. First of all, it's not likely to blow up.

The explosions were hydrogen explosions, a well known effect of fission reactors. I think there will be no more of those.

The problem with this whole deal is a drum I have beating here for some time now. In the absence of information people will make stuff up. Fukushima Daiichi is no where close to what happened at Chernobyl, where people died putting out the fire when the graphite moderator caught fire. The USA sent medical specialists, experts in radioactive exposure, to the Ukraine to help save the lives of as many as they could. In the end, all they could do is seal the damned thing in a concrete coffin which today not doing it's job and will likely have to be reinforced.

No such things are happening at Fukushima. The next few weeks they will attempt to remove the stored fuel rods from #4 storage pool. It is a risky, but necessary venture. Yet there are idiots claiming, from the sidelines, that the fuel rods have already melted down!! Does anybody actually think that they would try to extract those rods if that were true? <== I want an answer to this!

There are people who have such an ideological aversion to nuclear power that they will actually exploit a tragedy such as this by making shit up solely to further their ideological goals. That is utterly despicable. People living in Japan, and from the Fukushima Prefecture are scared enough. Their lives have been disrupted like few can imagine. But some idiots would exploit the situation by making shit up for what? Because they don't like nuclear power?

Sorry. People who would do that have no souls.

I am utterly disgusted by how TEPCO and the Japanese government have handled this. But the real villains are those who would stand by the sidelines and make stuff up to exploit people's fear for strictly ideological reasons.

Cough... Arnie Gunderson... Cough!! Hack!!

Excuse me. Got something caught in my throat.

As always, I appreciate your responses.


on edit: as you can probably tell, I am pretty upset about this. I apologize for that. But I just do not like it when people exploit science for their own ideological goals. It really pisses me off.

[RobertEarl]

19. You have Arne down your throat?

The fuel pool #4 was somehow drained of water and overheated. Got so damn hot the building exploded. That's a fact.

We don't know the exact condition of the rods, but it can't be good since they overheated and blew up the building.

The rods could overheat again. There were some fresh rods in the pool and some plutonium.

Tell ya what I am getting sick of, nuclear supporters who are all over the web saying nothing happened and there is nothing to worry about. Those people are fucking idiots!

You demand: "Does anybody actually think that they would try to extract those rods if that were true? <== I want an answer to this! "

Answer: They have to try and remove the rods, no matter what condition the rods are in. Why? Because an earthquake/building collapse will remove the rods and place them in an uncontrollable situation. So does that answer your dumb question?

Frankly, your BS is very tiring. You should listen to Arne.

[longship]

20. There are conflicting reports on that.

The explosion in #4 was a hydrogen explosion. I have not seen anything credible to indicate otherwise.

And you and I both agree that they have to remove the rods. But what we want is for that to be done as safely as possible. That is a common goal that both of us agree on. I take it from our discussions that we also agree that transparency is a good idea. People need to know exactly what's going on. No equivocation or secrecy. I will add to that, no making stuff up.

But Gunderson? Nope. I am not going to listen to a clearly ideological guy, who inflates his resume, and has no practical experience in nuclear power. A 100 watt research reactor is not the same as a multi-megawatt boiling water reactor. The former will not even light up a light bulb; the latter lights up a city (until an earthquake and tsunami takes it out). Yet he claims expertise in nuke power. In spite of his master's degree he was employed as a sales guy, you know. Not a nuclear operator. He might have some academic cred, but no actual experience, other than selling it.

That's not to say that I won't listen to contrary opinions. I am paying attention to your posts, with great interest. But please don't hang your hat on Arnie Gunderson. That dog ain't gonna hunt.

[RobertEarl]

21. Arne is hired as expert witness

And you?

The explosion at #4: Have you any vids of that? No one that I know of has any video of that explosion/fire. All we have is pics of the destroyed concrete structure. And an auxiliary pump being used to put water back in the pool.

But going on what you say: Hydrogen explosion.... the rods overheated so much that h20 is separated into h-h-o and the hydrogen then burns/explodes. That's how it is said to happen, and it is what Arne says happened. So the rods overheated and exploded, right? Right.

[longship]

22. Actually, the report I read said something different.

But that's no matter because this speaks to something that cuts to the core of what both of us can agree upon.

There are not enough facts coming out of this. Yet, many of the reports contradict each other. That does not serve anybody well.

I have no idea how to resolve this conundrum. It is part of the dynamic of a somewhat chaotic situation which provides an opening for those who would exploit it for ideological ends. This is as much a psychological issue as it is a scientific one. I am hopeless on psychology, but I understand physics, kind of. BS -- I try to keep up, but it's been decades. But radioactivity and its effects are fairly simple. It's undergraduate, sophomore, stuff. One does not get through such an academic program such as that without having an inkling that the universe is somehow ordered, predictable.

That is the premise on which my posts originate. It also trains a person to have a finely tuned bullshit detector. (Thank you, Carl Sagan.)

I am willing to admit when I am wrong. But there are many on Fukushima Daiichi who will not. In the end it isn't about who is right and who is wrong. It's about what is really happening. Then one will be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

It's a clusterfuck. But I have faith that we'll get 'er done.

[RobertEarl]

23. Oh, it's being done

The physics is simple. The science is clear.

The more radiation emitted the more apt we are to get damaged by radiation.

Fukushima is a veritable everlasting candle of radiation. Burning our lives away.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Not necessarily.

There are other possibilities, such as the linkages between buildings spreading hydrogen from reactor 3, to reactor 4's housing.

(Which is what TEPCO claimed. I see nothing in video evidence of pool 4 that supports the idea that the hydrogen was generated there, in that pool. It may have been, but this is not certain.)

[Bonobo]

26. Great post.

And I like it for two reasons mainly.

1. I too despise non-scientific fear-mongering done to further ulterior motives, and

2. I live in Japan and you are quite right in saying that we are scared enough as it is and we truly are irritated by what we perceive as the entertainment factor that seems to be feeding 1) above. It is everything to us here and much more than a way to make a quick jab about "bananas" or some othe glib internetty thing.

[RobertEarl]

36. Hmmm

For 31 months now the info coming out of Japan has been closely controlled lies. And you complain about people being concerned about the environment and their health?

Wouldn't your time be better spent on gathering and disbursing real information from Japan?

I see no one here who takes Fukushima as 'entertainment'. I do see people concerned about a serious matter that can have severe consequences for the whole planet.

[snooper2]

39. When everything they do is a success are you going to start a conspiracy site

saying things like, they never removed the rods they just buried them!

[AtheistCrusader]

33. And they spin that data.

Here's how they report:

"BBC, Nov. 18, 2013: [It's a critical issue] whether the casks remain watertight so the rods have no contact with air."

This in a list of articles concerned that contact with air can cause a "sustained nuclear reaction" which is not true.
Here's how the BBC actually reported it:
"Experts say it is vital that the casks are watertight so the rods have no contact with air - which risks overheating and possible contamination."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24958048

Why is the distinction important? Zircalloy can burn when hot. Uranium can burn at regular atmospheric temp/pressure. It's a fire. The soot is contaminated with radioactive particles. This is a fire, not a criticality event. (Sustained nuclear reaction)


ENENews will lie and spin to make everything sound worse than, the already admittedly bad conditions it is in. That was a deceptive edit, pretending, in double quotes that this was the entire quote, and burying it in some FUD about criticalities.

[RobertEarl]

37. Well

There are some nuclear scientists who are afraid that criticalities can occur.

One criticallity does not make for an Hiroshima type event. It can be very limited in scope and effect. Or it could cascade. Which would then be quite an event.

Due to the lack of truth coming from Japan over the last 31 months, and the realization that even our government is in coverup mode, ENEnews.com is quite an alternative.

Is it perfect? More so than Tepco, and the Japan government. Therein lies the real problem. One website on the www is not the problem here.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. There are 'some people' who are claiming a criticality can occur.

But none of any credibility that do so for a single rod, exposed to atmosphere, and overheating. It's not a physical possibility. A uranium fire, while VERY BAD, is not a criticality. (I realize a prompt critical excursion does not necessarily equal an explosion.)

ENEnews deceptively edited a quote. If that's not evidence enough for you, I don't know what else to say.

[RobertEarl]

40. And you?

Heh. You do know that in the cask will be many rods? So your 'single rod' explanation is just bunk. And you accuse others of deception?

And there is plutonium in the mix. Why do you only write about uranium and discount the more reactive plutonium in the rods?

Sorry, but what you are dishing out is just more of the same half-truth, deny the rest, type of propaganda that got us into this mess to start with. Just stop. Stop being such a nuke-fundamentalist, please.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Um, reactor 4 has UO2 rods, not MOX.

You're thinking of reactor 3. Either way, the USED rods always contain some amount of plutonium. I mentioned that earlier, as the reason why the MIC loves these reactors, they produce plutonium as a by-product of the process of using them.

Placing 22 rods in the same cask (wherein they are physically separated) is not a criticality risk. It is a FIRE HAZARD. Which is bad. Very bad. (See Windscale, that's the risk.)

It is not a criticality risk.

Edit: Begging pardon, I mentioned the plutonium issue in the OTHER fukushima thread this morning.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. I doubt you'll get truly unbiased news anywhere

But at least you can get an English news roundup from a (liberal-leaning) Japanese newspaper here:

http://ajw.asahi.com/category/0311disaster/fukushima/

[MH1]

25. Thanks, I appreciate that.

It looks like a good source to me, for updates anyway. Not so much for context in the couple articles I clicked on, but that's not necessarily a bias issue. It's probably due to their main target audience being people who have been following the issue, so the need for including context in every piece may not seem as important as cranking out the updates.

[reddread]

11. "only...in the worst light" omfg I really hoped you could provide a source

[FBaggins]

27. Outline of your errors

Everyday at least 300 tonnes of radiated water from the destruction flows into the Pacific. That's about 100,000 gallons a day. Times 900+ days.

So? Water flowing into the ocean isn't news. The amount of contamination (entirely ignored in your post) is what matters. And, so far, it hasn't been measurable outside of the area right next to the plant (and there has been quite low). All of the leaking over the last couple years combined doesn't add up to even a significant fraction of 1% of what was released in the initial meltdowns/releases.

Reactor #3 is so badly radiated that humans can't get near it and robots die in minutes when set there. It has at times seen to be smoking away, releasing more and more radiation into the air.

You continue to repeat that BS despite multiple corrections. You've been shown photos of people in unit 3... there's hours of video footage taken by robots... measurements all throughout the unit... yet you continue to repeat claims that people can't get near it and even robots die in minutes? How much more ridiculous do you hope to look?

It has at times seen to be smoking away, releasing more and more radiation into the air.

Untrue. After it rains (or dew condenses), something mislabeled as "steam" has been observed. Not smoke.

The fuel pools of all 4 reactors are pretty much the same: Sitting at least 50 feet from the ground. #4 tho, has some very hot nuclear waste in it that was, 3 years ago, going critical and boiling water.

That was relevant in the weeks immediately after the event... it ceased to be so quite some time ago. None of the fuel in any of the pools is "fresh" any longer.

That waste can still boil water and after 3/11 it has been said that waste caused pool #4 to boil away all its water.

It "has been said" in error. We know for certain that this was wrong (and the people who said it admitted so a long time ago).

Also, #3 and #4 have what they call MOX. Mixed OXide fuel. A Uranium and Plutonium mixture making the waste far more deadly than just Uranium by itself.

Nope. Only unit #3 had MOX... and it had switched to it so recently that there is no spent MOX in the pool.

More importantly... this continues to show ignorance of the fact that all spent fuel has plutonium in it. MOX was never really an issue.

Indeed, some experts have said that is why #3 blew up like it did

Nope. No experts have said anything of the sort... and the nutcases who did say it have (in doing so) proven that they are anything but experts.

and why #4 burned like it did: Because of the presence of highly volatile Plutonium.

See above. There was no MOX in unit 4.

Duke power in the US tried some MOX in its plants and those plants almost blew up. So they stopped doing that.

Yet another entirely invented "fact". You were corrected on that nonsense earlier this year (Feb?) and were never able to back it up.

[RobertEarl]

28. You doing ok, baggins?

Hadn't seen you post in a long time.

I get that because the nuke industry has taken an asteroid hit via Fukushima there is a lot of depression and soul-searching about any more support for using nukes to boil water. Hope you are hanging in there.

Appreciate your opinions, they certainly are contrary to established facts, but they do make one think, y'know?

[Katashi_itto]

29. +100000

[FBaggins]

30. Doing great... you?

Hadn't seen you post in a long time.

With a couple exceptions, I took a couple weeks off from message boards.

I get that because the nuke industry has taken an asteroid hit via Fukushima there is a lot of depression and soul-searching about any more support for using nukes to boil water. Hope you are hanging in there.

Lol! You get those delusions naturally? Or are they chemical induced?

Because if the later... don't forget to share with the rest of the group.

they certainly are contrary to established facts,

You might try backing up one or two of those claims of "established facts"... you know... just to look a little less foolish?

[RobertEarl]

32. Now that's the spirit

Not missed, but it's the same old baggins.

Personal attacks and you never do what you demand of others. IOW, you never back up your claims. Typical pro-nuke propaganda.

Did you hear that not only did our last head of the NRC call for closing down nuke plants in the US, two of the last three leaders of Japan have also called for ending the use of nukes to boil water? It's over. The free ride of nuke power is over. Now we just need to close all of those plants down safely before they go Fuku.

There is work to be done.

[FBaggins]

35. Lol! Do you expect people to believe you?

I never back up my claims?

I've given you scores of links/photos/etc over the months... and you just shift to another topic and then return a month or two later as if it never happened.

Did you hear that not only did our last head of the NRC call for closing down nuke plants in the US, two of the last three leaders of Japan have also called for ending the use of nukes to boil water? It's over.

That makes it "over"? A life-long anti-nuke (how do you think he GOT the job?) calls for closing down nukes and that ends it? I note that the two leaders of Japan do not include the CURRENT popular leader of Japan who is pushing forward with restarting nuclear plants (and construction continues on new units)... did you miss that?

Or the scores of new plants worldwide... several of which are quite close to you?

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. On Thursday, they said it would start later this month

Justin McCurry in Fukushima
The Guardian, Thursday 7 November 2013 19.09 GMT

Later this month the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), will begin removing more than 1,500 fuel assemblies from the pool, the first step in a decommissioning process expected to last at least three decades.

On Thursday, the Guardian witnessed Tepco's preparations for an unprecedented operation that the utility's critics claim has the potential to end in disaster.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/fukushima-nuclear-cleanup-spent-fuel

[RobertEarl]

12. That is interesting

"...the first step in a decommissioning process expected to last at least three decades." Claims the Guardian.

It has been 30 months and they consider this to be the first step taken?

And what is this?.. "...utility's critics claim has the potential to end in disaster."
The utility itself knows this has the potential to end in disaster.

That is some bad reporting, and am surprised someone as erudite as you, strangler, would offer up such.

Sad that after 30 months the mainstream press is still babbling incoherently about Fukushima.