Fukushima - Unit 4 spent fuel removal >99% complete

[FBaggins]

It look like they may shift over to removing the remaining unused fuel before removing the final 11 assemblies of spent fuel since they have to retool the removal process to handle the three assemblies that were previously reported as damaged and/or leaking.



http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/index-e.html

Recommendation to the reader - Don't hold your breath waiting for Harvey Wasserman (or the usual suspects) to retract his nonsensical "Humankind's Most Dangerous Moment" BS.

[zappaman]

1. Too late.

Fukushima radiation is melting starfish and even hurting dolphins in the Atlantic!
I read it on DU!!!

[snooper2]

2. He will be here soon enough to educate us...

or, maybe not

[jeff47]

5. That's ok, the radiation went back in time and killed us all already.

after all, the northern hemisphere was rendered completely uninhabitable in 2012. So we must all be dead already.

[MineralMan]

7. No, we all died during the Y2K disaster.

We've been dead for over 14 years already. Can't tell? See, that's how it is.

[MineralMan]

3. Sounds like progress. It's good to have some actual information

about what's going on, instead of advocacy stuff from anti-nuclear sites. This happened, and has to be dealt with, and it appears that they are making progress toward getting all of the fuel rods removed and moved to a safer area.

Fukushima was a disaster of the first order. That's a fact. That it is finally moving well into a stage where things are being done to work toward a safer situation is good news.

Of course, this doesn't help the melting starfish, but they aren't melting because of Fukushima, anyhow.

Thanks for the informative post.

Nuclear power generation is not safe, and cannot be made to be safe.

[jeff47]

4. Safety is relative

Nuclear power generation is not safe, and cannot be made to be safe.

The small chance of a local disaster is a lot safer than a guaranteed global disaster.

[FBaggins]

8. Indeed

No source of power generation is 100% safe.

Heck... few things are 100% safe yet we live with them every day. Nuclear power is obviously much safer than living along the seafront in Japan, yet how many people there are debating whether or not to rebuild in the areas destroyed by the tsunami? The "big one" will eventually strike California and kill lots of people... yet how many question whether or not cities along those faults should continue to exist?

And, as you pointed out so correctly, there are sources of power that continue to kill millions of people (and will certainly end the lives of far more through climate change if they aren't stopped)... yet there are actually people who consider themselves sane who argue that we should end nuclear power now and get around to fossil fuels some time in the distant future.

[RobertEarl]

79. Very good, jeff

Just one problem tho. Fukushima and Chernobyl are global problems. So says the science anyway, that is if one cares to read all about it.

[jeff47]

81. Yes, the time traveling radiation has wiped out all life in the northern hemisphere

Or perhaps you're reading all about it places that are making shit up.

[RobertEarl]

82. Huh?

Explain yourself and this theory you have about time traveling radiation.

I'm sure everyone is wondering what you are saying. Tell us what you mean.

[jeff47]

83. It's your theory.

You are claiming starfish deaths are being caused by Fukushima.

This has a few problems.
1) Starfish off Japan aren't dying. If Fukushima is the cause, being closer to Fukushima should be a bigger problem. It's not. They're dying in the mid-Pacific and North American coast.

2) The scientist studying it, who you cited when you first started talking about it, pointed out the die-off started before the accident. And in fact an identical die-off occurred in the 1960s.

So either you are correct and the radiation can travel back through time, or you're not and something else is the cause.

Now, this was brought up when you started talking about starfish die-offs in January. Yet you're still making the claim.

[RobertEarl]

84. Not my theory

Just in your mind. You made it up to explain your confusion.

So lets un-confuse you. First, show your source about the sea stars near Japan.

Next, post your source claiming this is an identical die-off.

I know you imagine that Fukushima is the first time the Pacific has been irradiated. But everyone else knows that the Pacific has been irradiated for decades. I think that's where you are most confused.

Anyway, link or slink.

[jeff47]

85. Already posted a link. From your topic in January

Here it is again in case you happened to be replying while I was editing:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=82085

[RobertEarl]

86. Close

Best you've ever done.

But to quote:

The ultimate cause is not clear although such events are often associated with warmer than typical water temperatures as was the case for the major die off in southern California in 1983-1984 and again (on a lesser scale) in 1997-98. Following the 1983-1984 event, the ochre star, Pisaster ochraceus, was virtually absent along southern California shorelines for years.

Note the limited location as compared to the vast expanse of today, and that nearly all species are in trouble today, not just the one localized die-off of 1984.

You do know they have nuclear plants along the shore of S. California, right? And that nuclear plants are known for releasing polluted waters all the time, right? That in fact, they are actually permitted to pollute?

You do know every time they open up one for refueling, nuke gasses are released. Where do those gasses go, jeff?

So, you're still as confused as ever. It is obvious you haven't been studying this situation as much as I, so you are excused from not knowing much. But not excused for showing you don't know much. Really, you are just embarrassing yourself. Again.

Trying to keep from making things up about others would be the first step for curing this malady of yours.

[jeff47]

87. "The best I've ever done" being a thread I was in in January.

Sure thing, chief.

Note the limited location as compared to the vast expanse of today, and that nearly all species are in trouble today, not just the one localized die-off of 1984.

And if you'd bothered to re-read the rest of YOUR OWN THREAD FROM JANUARY, you'd find other situations where there were broad die-offs.

But hey, it's not saying billions of people will die, so it's not worth reading, right?

You do know they have nuclear plants along the shore of S. California, right? And that nuclear plants are known for releasing polluted waters all the time, right? That in fact, they are actually permitted to pollute?

You do know there's this thing called Google maps where you can locate those plants, right? And that you can also use it to locate the areas referred to by these studies, right? And notice that they're not the same area, right?

So, you're still as confused as ever. It is obvious you haven't been studying this situation as much as I

Yes, the guy who didn't know radiation detectors exist is the one to turn to for the best understanding.

Trying to keep from making things up about others would be the first step for curing this malady of yours.

Figured out how the Fukushima radiation got through the planet to kill Dolphins in the Atlantic yet?

In other words, if you're going to be claiming someone else is "making something up", you really best better not be doing so.

[RobertEarl]

89. Now you are just rambling

The Fukushima explosions sent radiation around the N. Hemisphere.

Do you deny that fact?

Easy to answer, yes, or no.

Your answer will determine whether or not it is beyond hope of ending your confusion.

Yes, or no.

[jeff47]

90. Nope. You're projecting, yet again.

The Fukushima explosions sent radiation around the N. Hemisphere.
Do you deny that fact?

Around the Northern hemisphere? Negligible quantities.

Hey, let's go back to your own Sea Stars thread from January and look!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=82122
Huh....doesn't look like there was a massive flood of radiation. Kinda odd when you're claiming a massive flood of radiation is killing everything.

[RobertEarl]

91. So that is a yes.

We're getting somewhere.

Ok.... you say negligible. Can you post a link backing that up?

Did you know plutonium from Fukushima was found in Europe?

Did you know that one small bit of plutonium in your lung can kill you?

And what does it do to a sea star?

It does not take a massive amount of radioactive particles to kill.

Did you know that? Yes, or no.

[jeff47]

93. I did post a link in that post.

Seriously, are you desperately hoping people 1) forget what you said months ago, and 2) get tired of you ignoring what they write while you attack them?

Did you know that one small bit of plutonium in your lung can kill you?

Or it can not kill you. Heck, that plutonium might never decay in your lifetime.

Radiation wasn't invented with nuclear power/nuclear weapons. Every species on Earth has mechanisms for countering damage caused by radiation.

For example, you've got a nice load of potassium-40 inside you, giving off radiation. And you aren't dead. If you want to define "one small bit" as an atom, the potassium-40 in you is giving off way more radiation than one plutonium atom.

Of course, we really should refrain from any technical definition and stick with terms like "one small bit" when such a learned person is discussing important matters like this.

And what does it do to a sea star?

Did you read the link showing that the level of plutonium had not risen in sea stars? Yes, or no. Or would you rather I just answer "No" for you?

[RobertEarl]

94. There was no link about

Plutonium and sea stars, except for mine.

When we talk about plutonium and it being found around the world, what we are really saying is that all the other radioactive isotopes that came out with the plutonium from Fukushima are also present.

But you knew that.

But then you go off on potassium 40, as if that were a killer particle emitter. Humans evolved with potassium 40. We did not evolve with plutonium, or cesium 134, or cesium 137, or a whole range of other radioactive isotopes. Yet you sit there and go off on potassium 40. Can you show one instance of k-40 killing someone?

I am not hoping anyone forgets anything I have written, so you are wrongly making things up again. Heck, my sea star theory is in my journal!! Anyone can read it. I hope they do.

[jeff47]

95. Yes, there was. But might as well skip it, since you don't like it.

Here it is again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=82122

When we talk about plutonium and it being found around the world, what we are really saying is that all the other radioactive isotopes that came out with the plutonium from Fukushima are also present.

Do you know what the decay products of plutonium are? Yes or no.

But then you go off on potassium 40, as if that were a killer particle emitter

Actually, it is. Potassium-40 decays by emitting either an electron or a positron. Antimatter is not exactly a nice thing to have in your body. And about 4,900 K-40 atoms in your body decay every second.

What does plutonium decay into? It emits a weak gamma ray. A positron is gonna do a lot more damage than a weak gamma ray. Now, plutonium does decays into other things that have other effects. Do you know what those are? Yes or no.

We did not evolve with plutonium, or cesium 134, or cesium 137, or a whole range of other radioactive isotopes.

Actually, we did. Plutonium is the only one in your list that is not naturally-occurring.

I am not hoping anyone forgets anything I have written

Then why are you repeating arguments that were dismantled in January? Why are you insisting I provide links doing so, when they were already provided in January?

[RobertEarl]

96. Your link, jeff, is about mussels

Last edited Fri Oct 24, 2014, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Not sea stars.

The item in question is about is the Dept. of Energy's results of sampling of mussels in the Aleutians, where increased amounts of plutonium were found above the 2004 tests. It also found cesium 134 in increased amounts and that was described as being from Fukushima. But hey, you know that Fukushima is spread around the N. Hemisphere.

From my journal is this about that testing:

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/Sites.aspx

Title: Department of Energy: Biological Monitoring at Amchitka Appears to Show Impacts from Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office Legacy Management (LM) has a long-term stewardship mission to protect human health and the environment from the legacy of underground nuclear testing conducted at Amchitka Island, Alaska, from 1965 to 1971. Atmospheric monitoring in the United States showed elevated cesium activities shortly after the nuclear incident. LM scientists anticipated that atmospheric transport of cesium would potentially increase the cesium activities in the 2011 biological samples collected near Amchitka. Because cesium-134 has a relatively short half-life of 2 years and indicates leakage from a nuclear reactor, it is a clear indicator of a recent nuclear accident.

Because the Amchitka 2011 sampling event occurred soon after the Fukushima nuclear accident, the biota impacted by atmospheric precipitation showed the greatest impact (e.g., species that live in freshwater or shallow ocean waters) when compared to marine biota living in deeper water. This is because ocean currents are a slower transport process than wind currents. LM scientists anticipate that the marine biota will show the impacts of Fukushima during the next sampling event, currently scheduled to occur in 2016.

(One snip from report about the amounts found pg 226)

* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue

[RobertEarl]

98. Heh

Cesium of the 134 and 137 types are fission products. Cesium137 is man-made in nuclear reactors.

You just don't when to stop, do you?

You are always attacking me, while never attacking the nuke industry liars. And each time all you ever accomplish is to embarrass yourself with crap like this about how you think we evolved with cesium137.

[Orrex]

6. >99% <> 100%

Therefore, the remaining radiation will kill us all.

IT'S ALREADY HERE! IT'S ALREADY HERE!

[FSogol]

23. Listen to me. We've traced the radiation... it's coming from inside the house!

Now a squad car's coming over there right now, just get out of that house!

[gratuitous]

9. Well, if you can't believe Tepco, who can you believe?

I'm sure they have no interest in fudging numbers (like saying > 99% in the subject line when the linked page says "More than 75%&quot or downplaying any risks. Also, what does it mean, "2 leaking fuel assemblies and 1 deformed fuel assembly" that still need to be transported? Curiously, the Tepco web page doesn't have a whole lot of explanation.

I like soothing, reassuring words from corporate mouthpieces as much as the next fellow, but this page doesn't seem all that comforting for some reason.

[FBaggins]

10. A few corrections

They're the ones providing essentially all of the real data. the competing narrative (Gundersen, Wasserman, Caldicott, Busby, etc, etc, etc) literally make thing up out of whole cloth.

It's hard to be less believable than a corporation trying to protect its profits, but these guys make it look easy.

Like saying > 99% in the subject line when the linked page says "More than 75%"

Sorry. That's not "fudging"... that's poor reading comprehension on your part. The subject line clearly refers to the amount of spent fuel removed... the graphic's percentage (which hasn't been updated in some time) refers to all assemblies in the pool - but the 180 unused fuel assemblies were also mentioned in the next line of the post. That would take another month or so, but is of less relevance since they aren't particularly radioactive.

or downplaying any risks

Only "downplaying" so-called "risks" that Wasserman/Gundersen entirely invented. That's really not the same thing as downplaying actual risks.

Also, what does it mean, "2 leaking fuel assemblies and 1 deformed fuel assembly" that still need to be transported?

Just what it has meant since they first reported it. One assembly was damaged a couple decades ago and has been in the pool all along. It won't fit in the standard transfer device without modification. There are also two assemblies that were reported as "leaking" minute amounts of gas through pinholes (two in unit 4 and a few dozen in other units). This is an even older incident.

[gratuitous]

12. So, your information is outdated or bad, but my reading comprehension is poor?

Nowhere in your post is there any reference to anything other than the Tepco page, which you now say "hasn't been updated in some time." But it's my reading comprehension that's poor, huh? Yeah, that seems legit. Can't imagine why anyone would ever have even a shadow of a doubt about Tepco or its messengers, who seem to expend all their effort bad-mouthing their doubters rather than providing complete information.

[FBaggins]

13. Nope to the first... and yes to the second.

Last edited Mon Oct 20, 2014, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Nowhere did I say that the information is outdated. I said that they hadn't updated the percentage in some time. "More than 75%" is still correct. They've only changed that as milestone percentages pass.

The actual totals were updated today.,, as they have been every Monday over the last year or so except for the several-week period when they were doing the required annual inspections on the cranes.

But it's my reading comprehension that's poor, huh? Yeah, that seems legit.

Yes. You looked at a thread title that clearly referenced the amount of spent fuel that had been removed and compared it to a graphic that says the same thing... but somehow came away thinking the two contradicted each other.

But you're right. It's unfair of me to assume that your reading comprehension is to blame...

... it's also possible that your math skils are severely lacking. But then how would I explain your continued confusion?

[SidDithers]

11. DU rec...

A trip down memory lane:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023835242

Sid

[FBaggins]

14. Ah... the classics. nt

[NuclearDem]

15. So, in other words, a global catastrophe.

[FBaggins]

16. Hey now... don't go putting words in their mouths.

I think they limited the claimed threat to "all life in the northern hemisphere"

[RobertEarl]

17. ENENews

http://enenews.com/govt-report-reveals-fukushima-radioactive-release-larger-chernobyl-japan-reactors-could-emitted-four-times-cesium-137/comment-page-2#comments

Gov’t report reveals Fukushima radioactive release much larger than Chernobyl — Japan reactors could have emitted nearly four times as much cesium-137

Published: October 20th, 2014 at 9:16 pm ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
538 comments

Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, funded by the Korean government, July 2014:

The Fukushima accident [led to a] release of huge radioactivity
It is reported… 4 times more radioactivity was released to the sea than to the atmosphere
Best-estimate source term of 137Cs… released into the atmosphere, is about 4%
Best-estimate release fraction of the 137Cs inventory that flowed into the sea…about 16%
Of the 4% inventory of 137Cs released into the atmosphere, only 0.8% was deposited in the Japanese land and the other 3.2% was transported to the sea or other areas
The inventory… available for release in the units 1-3… the time of accident [was] 7.6 – 8.2 x 10^17 [760 - 820 quadrillion] Bq for 137Cs
Because of the geographic location of the nuclear power plant — at the beach of the Pacific Ocean… more than 80% of the radioactivity released from the crippled reactors flowed into the sea

[FBaggins]

21. An excellent example of how enenews twists reality in their reporting (sic)

The paper doesn't even compare total releases for the two events... yet enenews begins their title with "Gov’t report reveals Fukushima radioactive release much larger than Chernobyl"

Then they go on to make up their own conclusions. They don't take the actual report's estimated release and compare it to Chernobyl (nor do they take the DOE's estimate). Instead, they make up their own figure pulled from the upper estimate for inventory in one paper... and then apply it to the upper release percentage in the other... and compare that figure (which neither estimate contains) to an estimate for Chernobyl that is on the lower end of the range of possibilities.

Yet another proof that enenews is not "just a news aggregator pulling from reputable sources". There's nothing objectionable in any of the three reports... it's enenews' spin of the facts that shows their true colors.

Here's an easier example to understand. Two teens go for a drive and report back to their parents:

Teen1 - "We drove for an hour or two"
Teen2 - "We traveled somewhere between 100-200 miles"

ENENEWS Title for event "Teens admit to averaging 200 miles per hour! - One expert estimates that after including traffic and lights, they likely hit speeds over 300mph during their recklessness!"

[zappaman]

29. How do you explain how the entire pacific coast has been radiated and even dolphins in the Atlantic

suffering????

[FBaggins]

44. Active imagination?

At least... that's the least-insulting explanation I can think of.

[RobertEarl]

56. UN and Greenpeace say

"Chernobyl. All of us would like to cross this word out of our memory. But over seven million people who live beside us cannot afford it. Every day and every hour they continue suffering from what happened.”
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General

According to Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/chernobylhealthreport/

"Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

"The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl.

"The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000."

[zappaman]

24. ENENews!!!!

[longship]

31. As expected.

Run around!!!!

Ideology does not trump science. Or facts.

What about those sea stars?

[zappaman]

32. Took long enough

[longship]

33. Well, my friend. Sometimes the only appropriate response to ideology is ridicule.

Last edited Wed Oct 22, 2014, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Consider the responses here, including the ones anticipating a certain arrival in thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Good News.

[RobertEarl]

19. Fukushima butterflies

http://enenews.com/japan-scientist-butterflies-fed-leaves-fukushima-died-deformities-worse-generation-tv-doesnt-look-like-butterfly-anymore-especially-scary-photos-video

Japan Scientist: We gave butterflies food from Fukushima… then, they died; Deformities get worse with each generation — TV: “Truly horrifying… it doesn’t really even look like a butterfly anymore”

[FBaggins]

20. Not sure why you thought that was relevant to the thread...

Last edited Wed Oct 22, 2014, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

... but you should educate yourself on the facts in that case. It was debunked over two years ago (on the very site that enenews links to) by a molecular radiation biologist who is a professor in the health physics department at Georgetown. The"reserchers" who were apparently having trouble getting their "research" funded when they were looking at the impact of temperature on butterflies apparently decided to switch over to pretending that the impact was from Fukushima. They must have assumed that this woud bring in the governmnt funding... but alas, it was not to be.

EX-SKF's (a Japanese blogger acceptable to anti-nuclear posters on DU since 3/11) summary pretty much covers it:

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2013/06/university-of-ryukus-paper-on-butterfly.html

A major finding of the study is that forewing size was inversely correlated with distance from Fukushima, resulting in the conclusion that radiation from Fukushima had stunted forewing development. However, the more distant butterfly sampling sites were all progressively further south of Fukushima, so that latitude was also changing with the distance. This is a problem because it is well established that the forewing size of a number of insect species is dependent upon the latitude of their microhabitat. This has been extensively studied both in fruit flies (Drosophila subobscura) and butterflies (Pararge aeberia), and the magnitude of the forewing changes found in this study is comparable to these known latitudinal determinants on forewing anatomy (1, 2). The potential latitudinal influences on forewing size were completely ignored in this study. Had the data been adjusted for sampling site latitude, it is likely there would have been no significant forewing findings to report.

The second major problem is that the decreased butterfly survival rates reported to be associated with proximity to Fukushima are claimed to be reproducible in the laboratory with external beam irradiation. This claim stretches credulity since it has long been established that insects, including butterflies (Order: Lepidoptera), are resistant to radiation effects. It takes an average dose of 10,000 mSv to kill a Lepidoptera cell (3), and it requires an average dose of 1,300 mSv to Lepidoptera eggs to reduce their hatch rate by 50% (4). Larval, pupal, and adult forms of Lepidoptera are even more radioresistant (5). The concept that the low environmental radiation exposures (<15 mSv per year) that are being attributed to the Fukushima accident could be killing off butterflies, or any other insect species, is simply not credible. It should further be noted the external radiation doses that were used to reproduce the results from field-collected individuals were 100 times higher (coprrection and emphasis mine FB) than any radiation doses in the field that could possibly be attributed to Fukushima. Thus, it can even be seen from the investigators' own laboratory experimental data that no measurable killing would be expected at the radiation doses that were encountered in the field.

The third major problem regards the time to eclosion (emergence of an adult insect from a pupa). Eclosion times were claimed to be associated with proximity to Fukushima. Yet irradiation has been employed as a pest control measure for a number of insect species for decades (6), and the effects of radiation on various insect biological endpoints have already been well characterized. It typically takes as much as 30,000 mSv of Lepidoptera egg irradiation to extend eclosion times by the 4 to 5 days reported in this study, and similarly high doses are required when irradiation is done in the larval stage (5). It is, therefore, astounding that effects on eclosion of a similar magnitude can be seen at radiation doses that are just a few fold above natural background doses. So the claim that eclosion times were extended due to these environmental radiation exposures is also incredible when compared to the literature. Perhaps it is more plausible that eclosion time of the pale grass blue butterfly, like forewing size, might also be related to microhabitat latitude or temperature. [Average daily temperatures differ by as much as 9 degrees Celsius between Fukushima and Tokyo during April (hatching season).]

There are other inferences from this study's findings that counter established radiation biology tenets,..

...snip...

In conclusion, the results reported in this study should be considered highly suspect due to both their internal inconsistencies and their incompatibility with earlier and more comprehensive radiation biology research on insects. The study's central assertion is that 'artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused physiological and genetic damage to [the pale grass blue butterfly]'. This statement is incredulous and goes well beyond anything that the study data can actually substantiate....

Particularly useful in the comments was the comparison of their relative qualifications

Dr. Jorgensen is a radiation biologist, cancer epidemiologist, and public health professional. He has formal training in radiation health sciences and radiation biology (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins); cancer molecular biology (postdoctoral fellowship; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School); risk assessment (graduate certificate; Center for Risk Science and Public Policy, Johns Hopkins); and epidemiology (MPH, Johns Hopkins). He is board certified in Public Health (CPH), and a Member of Council on the National Council for Radiation Protection. He is Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee at Georgetown University. He teach graduate courses in radiation biology, radiation protection, and radiation risk assessment in the Health Physics Program, and he trains radiation oncology residents at Georgetown University Hospital. In addition to his regular appointment in the Department of Radiation Medicine at Georgetown, he also holds an adjunct faculty appointment in the Department of Epidemiology at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Jorgensen's research interests include the genetic factors that determine cellular radioresistance, and genetic variants that may modify the risk of radiation-induced cancer.

Joji Otaki, the original paper's corresponding author, is a marine biologist. Hardly an expert in radiation and in butterflies.

[RobertEarl]

22. It was debunked two years ago?

It was just posted this year. How could it be debunked before it was even written?

The article about the butterflies being killed by radiation from Fukushima was posted in May of 2014, and you claim it was debunked in 2012, two years before it was even written?

[zappaman]

26. Because it was written before and ENENews just decided to rerun it again for the gullible.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

[Generic Other]

38. Actually there has been a new study

From the American Assoc. for Advancement of Science article dated Sept. 2014:

The new study shows that radiation can damage larvae even at much lower concentrations. Otaki and colleagues collected leaves 16 to 20 months after the accident, after short-lived radioactive contamination had decayed, but this time from locations ranging from 59 to 1760 kilometers from the power plant; contamination levels ranged from 161 to 0.2 Bq/kg. They found that as contamination increased, mortality rates and incidences of abnormalities increased. "These results suggest that low-dose ingestion of approximately 100 Bq/kg may be seriously toxic to certain organisms," the team writes in a paper published today in BMC Evolutionary Biology.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/09/fukushima-radiation-still-poisoning-insects

But this is off topic. I thought this thread was about the highly enriched uranium rods stockpiled at Fukushima. We should all heave a large sigh of relief they have been removed. One small headache out of the way.

[RobertEarl]

41. Topic is removal of fuel rods

From most indications removal of the fuel rods from #4 spent fuel pool began about March 15, 2011, when the fuel pool was drained dry and the pool caught fire destroying the building and sending particles into the air which the butterflies are now eating.

Too bad they couldn't keep water in that spent fuel pool, eh?

[FBaggins]

42. Correction

But this is off topic. I thought this thread was about the highly enriched uranium rods stockpiled at Fukushima.

There is no highly enriched uranium at Fukushima (or any other nuclear power plant). Reactor-grade enrichment is much lower than that.

We should all heave a large sigh of relief they have been removed.

To be fair... it was always supreme hyperbole to try to sell people on a threat from Unit 4's spent fuel pool (that is... after it was clear in 2011 that the pool wasn't leaking badly). This was just the standard Wasserman schtick caused by a need to sensationalize.

In reality, the efforts to remove similar spent fuel from pool #3 will be much more challenging (1&2 should be a bit easier)... then, of course, removal of the damaged fuel within reactors 1/2/3 will be far more challenging. But that's years down the road and Wasserman couldn't wait to predict impending doom.

Actually there has been a new study

And it's every bit as faulty. Just take a look at some of the posts in the link you provided.

[FBaggins]

36. It was just posted this year?

That's strange... it sure looks like it was posted multiple other times (including this piece from 2012)

The closest enenews comes to being "green" is how efficiently they recycle their BS.

[Orrex]

25. It's worse than you realize.

In another study, scientists fed Fukushima food to over a dozen caterpillars. Most of these were eventually encased in a rigid shell of some kind, after which they mutated into bizarre winged creatures.


And you want to dismiss his fears? You're a monster.

[zappaman]

27. LOL!

[RobertEarl]

28. Why do you hate science?

Because it disagrees with your notions and emotions?

Sadly, too many share your denial of scientific findings.

[zappaman]

30. Ironic post of the year!

Unless you can somehow top yourself in the next 2 months, this will not be beat!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

53. this one is indeed fabulous

and will set the irony standard for a long time to come...

holy shit... it burns!

sP

[RobertEarl]

63. Here's a fabulous link

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/caterpillars-eat-even-small-amount-radioactive-plant-material-might-develop-abnormal-butterflies-die-young-180951466/?no-ist

Note the date of the report.

Thanks for joining in. Birds of a feather flock together?

[Orrex]

35. My notions and emotions?

Let's not forget my magical potions and deepest devotions contributing slowly to psychic erosion.

[FBaggins]

37. They will fall for just about anything, won't they?

That same researcher is reportedly also pretty big in the homeopathy circles.

Likely feeding off the same audience.

[longship]

46. OMFG! First the sea stars, and now the butterflies!

I am skeered! Let me know when I should build a bunker, or something.

Of course you cite enenews! The anti-nuke lunatic fringe. Who's next? That self-promoting kook Arnie Gundersen? I am waiting for an Alex Jones, Mike Adams, or maybe Silvia Browne citation. Sadly, the latter died. Maybe you could substitute John Edward.

Any one of them would be as good as the prognostications posted here under your user name.

[Logical]

65. I was waiting for a post from you. LOL. nt

[zappaman]

68. As we all were.

[Generic Other]

34. First good Fukushima news we've heard

Where will they store all those rods? Can they be safely disposed of in any way?

[FBaggins]

39. That's really the first you've heard?

Then you haven't been listening very much.

Where will they store all those rods?

The plant has a larger in-ground pool where they will sit for now. Presumably they'll be moved to dry storage at some point in the future.

Can they be safely disposed of in any way?

Certainly. Or just recycled.

[Generic Other]

40. You really think there has been "good news" coming out of Fukushima?

Ongoing deadly leak, contamination, inept industry response, government cover-up -- you seem an expert at making lemonade out of lemons!!

[FBaggins]

43. Certainly

Ongoing deadly leak

That's certainly what the usual suspects told us 3+ years ago. Including predictions of a million or more deaths.

You don't think, for instance, the lack of a single radiation-related death in that time is good news?

Unit #4 was supposedly sinking and on the verge of collapse. It isn't good news that that was ridiculously wrong?

That "ongoing leak" (hardly "deadly&quot is many orders of magnitude below what it once was. That's not "good"?

Need we go on?

[Generic Other]

52. You can't determine the magnitude of the problem

until you get to the end of the emergency period. It is premature to suggest we are over the worst of it.

[RobertEarl]

60. They have already come to a conclusion

"Nothing to worry about. They moved some fuel rods around, so it's all safe now"

The hubris is astounding.

[Generic Other]

74. I have to agree with you here, Robert

I am certain that there are whole legions of people in the industry ready to downplay the dangers. I totally get how job security helps some jump to defend their endangered jobs, but to act as if there has been any light at the end of the tunnel on Fukushima is beyond hubris. Ignoring the problems will not make them go away. IMO, anyone who tells me that things are fine in Fukushima is either a fool or willfully lying to advance their own agendas.

[RobertEarl]

45. Never heard of so much sickness & death in such a short period

http://enenews.com/never-heard-sickness-death-short-period-fukushima-evacuee-writes-about-strange-diseases-young-people-deadly-tumors-hemorrhages-pets-missing-hair-child-losing-all-fingernails-polydactyl-baby


“Never heard of so much sickness & death in such a short period” says Fukushima evacuee — Writes about strange diseases in young people, deadly tumors and hemorrhages, pets missing hair, child losing all their fingernails, polydactyl baby — Doctor: My friends are dying of cancer, one after another

Published: October 21st, 2014 at 2:26 pm ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
329 comments Tweet

Excerpts from message by a Fukushima evacuee, translated by World Network for Saving Children from Radiation, Oct. 15, 2014: Mrs. Junko Honda… was a successful beauty salon owner who ran two salons… She recently [compiled the] unusual symptoms that she had heard about over the past three years… whose veracity she has been able to ascertain.

“I had never heard of so much sickness and death in such a short period of time” -Honda

Babies, Children, Young Adults
Sep ’11: Child… had nosebleeds very often… many others at school who had nose bleeding
Jun ’12: Child had headaches and nausea since the accident
Apr ’13: Friend of an evacuee gave birth to a polydactyl child [birth defect, extra fingers/toes]
Jul ’13: Younger friend of an evacuee… got ill with cancer
Mar ’14: Relative [in] middle school… got ill with rheumatism [and] medicine doesn’t work

[FBaggins]

47. Please keep that FDS nonsense in creative speculation where it belongs.

Anecdotal stories of someone getting sick and someone else deciding to blame it on radiation are not helpful (let along scientifically valid). Nor are they on topic for this thread. This is yet another example of the nonsense that passes for "news/reporting" at enenews.

There were millions of nosebleeds each year in Japan long before there was any nuclear power or fallout... Just as there were hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer. There is no plausible connection to radiation exposure here.

This is no different than the people who see aircraft contrails in the sky and blame government "chemtrails" for the headache they got the next day.

The headaches that the rest of us get from having to read this nonsense... are far more plausibly connected.

[longship]

48. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Plus, enenews is an anti-nuke hack site.

But, like all ideological opposition, you choose to ignore the facts and cite only those who agree with your ideology that the world is going to be destroyed by Fukushima. (Hint: it isn't.)

If I believed half of what is posted under your user name here, I would be building a bunker to hide in.

[zappaman]

49. "I would be building a bunker to hide in"

Like this guy?
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday-preppers/videos/prepper-profile-robert-earl/

[longship]

50. Heh heh heh!

[longship]

51. The same. Always spewing the same crap.

Go figure. At least it's the correct reality show for his position.

[RobertEarl]

55. You are in violation of the TOS -- za

Respect people's privacy.

Do not post or link to any private/personal information about any person, even if it is publicly available elsewhere on the Internet.

[zappaman]

57. Uh huh.

[RobertEarl]

69. And another: Libel

Definition of libel: Posting something in order to ridicule another.

You've posted this 5 times at least, just to ridicule me. That is the definition of libel, which is a violation of the TOS. How do you get away with it all this time?

TOS states:
Don't do anything illegal.

Do not post messages which violate any U.S. laws (eg. linking to illegally-shared files, attempting to organize hacking or DOS attacks, libel/slander, etc.). Organizing civil disobedience with a legitimate political purpose is permitted.

[zappaman]

70. Time to lawyer up I guess.

[LeftyMom]

59. So you've stopped denying that's you?

We all knew it was and you weren't fooling anybody at all, but I'm glad you've embraced honesty.

[zappaman]

62. It is?

Who knew?

[LeftyMom]

64. Xema and I were playing the Doomsday Preppers drinking game and saw him.

I have to say, having a travel trailer on some dry moonscape in what appears to be the shittiest place in Texas is the lamest emergency plan ever.

[RobertEarl]

54. Heh

The science says that radiation is deadly.

The fact is that an unprecedented amount of radiation has been released upon the environment, from Fukushima, Chernobyl, and other places.

The science says that it is killing butterflies. That it can kill people in minute amounts and children are the most susceptible to radiation.

You can sit there and deny the science, refuse to read it, and scream all you want that the science says radiation does not kill, but the facts are you are just absolutely, plainly, undeniably, wrong.

The fact that all you and your cohorts can do is make stupid jokes about it, and me, proves you are wrong and way off base.

Anyway, these report items are words for the wise. The rest of you, well, you're on your own.

[zappaman]

58. " Anyway, these report items are words for the wise. The rest of you, well, you're on your own."

You're on a roll.

[RobertEarl]

61. UN and Grenpeace say

"Chernobyl. All of us would like to cross this word out of our memory. But over seven million people who live beside us cannot afford it. Every day and every hour they continue suffering from what happened.”
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General

According to Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/chernobylhealthreport/

"Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

"The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl.

"The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000."

[LeftyMom]

66. Please don't copypasta stupid crap all over the thread.

We count on you for ORIGINAL nonsense.

[Generic Other]

77. Please share your credentials with us

so we can ascertain whether you are a credible scientist capable of deciding what is and is not crap.

[Generic Other]

75. I prefer an anti-nuke "hack" site

to a bunch of know-nothing apologists for the industry jumping into every Fukushima thread to insist that everything is hunky dory! Must be nice to live in that rose colored bubble where every student is above average and the world is just ducky. No worries about climate change, pollution, radiation levels, fracking....No racism, no unjust wars, no danger from pandemics, no need to worry about anything. Go shopping. American exceptionalism. rah rah wooo.

No need to wonder whether people are paid to post such drivel.

[longship]

92. Who said everything's hunky dory?

But some people are saying things about the situation that just are not true, like that sea star melting in the Pacific Northwest is from Fukushima radiation, which it is decidedly not, since the sea star melting syndrome predates the Fukushima disaster by years. That's just an example.

Some here think it is important to get the information correct and not spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I happen to be one of them.

If you disagree, that is fine with me. But I would hope you would want accurate assessments of the situation instead of fear mongering.

And enenews is not a good source for that.

[Logical]

67. LOL, your usual source. nt

[RobertEarl]

71. Source is

World Network for Saving Children from Radiation

Gawd, it seems radiation is creeping in. People are now making fun of the
World Network for Saving Children from Radiation?

[Logical]

72. Enenews nt

[RobertEarl]

78. Post your sources

ENEnews.com is a news aggregator with a discussion forum following the news pieces. Sometimes the views hit close to 10,000. It is widely read and has hundreds of comments about many news articles.

If you have any sources that you use to educate yourself, you should share them with us.

[RobertEarl]

73. Here's the thing

What I want is a healthy world full of the rich life that I enjoyed as a kid, wandering the fields and swimming the waters.

In my lifetime that world has changed. Vastly. I look for answers of why the change has occurred and see a few reasons. Chief among those it the release of the nuclear genie. The more I study, the more it becomes clear that the nuclear genie has changed this world via its radioactive pollution.

I want a world that is safe for kids to grow up and live rich full lives. That can not happen with a loose nuclear genie roaming the planet radiating the whole environment. The science says life as we know it can't survive what we have unleashed.

It is my consideration that those who oppose this view do not care as I do for this planet and/or are just ignorant and the facts scare them half to death, and so they are frozen and reduced to dumbass comments and denial. There is evidence of that in this thread.

Have a good night.

[Generic Other]

76. Robert you don't have to defend yourself for caring

about Fukushima's impact on the environment. Anyone who ridicules your concerns (and it seems always to be the same three or four people) only want to mock you into silence. I ended up not agreeing with your conclusions on the cause of the starfish melt, but I do not for a moment believe it wasn't a legitimate question to ask whether it could be traced to Fukushima. Making fun of people for asking questions is not how real scientists work. It is how arrogant fools (like Republicans) act. Some DUers sound exactly like Republicans pooh poohing climate change whenever the topic of corporate polluters impact on the environment comes up.

If people want to be honest, they need to let us know why they feel as they do. If they work for the industry, transparency is crucial. If they simply enjoy acting like sharks in a feeding frenzy, they should admit it. Tell us how anyone they deem worthy of ridicule must be driven from DU as Nadine was. Targeting DUers by continuously swarming their threads to bully them is not behavior I admire.

And it distracts us from the real emergency. This happens when talking about fracking, the BP oil spill, nukes, climate change, NSA, etc. Clearly industry shills downplay every disaster that threatens their livelihood and our environment.

I think we should have a moratorium on attacking other people's views on these subjects. Why not instead try acting like progressives who care about finding answers rather than stifling discussion?

[RobertEarl]

97. Thank you, Generic Other

In my sea star theory posts I apologize if it seems I came to a conclusion, because that would be impossible given my limited knowledge and testing of the theory.

I used to let those who objected to my reports about Fukushima get to me. Anymore I just appreciate them kicking the threads so that others can read more and more.

Often tho, i do find it weird that they respond like they do with nonsense and deceptive wording.

The story of Fukushima is evolving and it interests me greatly because of its possible impact on life as we know it. I do believe that our release of these fission products has tremendously impacted wildlife already.

The numbers of birds has dropped since Chernobyl, and again since Fukushima. The numbers of insects also dropped since Fukushima, but has recovered a bit in the last year as some of the fission products have decayed and been washed away into the ocean and river bottoms.

Friend told me the other day that in the last year his fishing hole has no fish in it because he caught them all. And that in a 20 mile long lake. I didn't have the heart to tell him about Fukushima and he had no clue, so....

My goal is to have all the nuke plants closed down, asap. Educating other readers is of most importance because only by mass public action will that happen. We can accomplish that partly, via DU.

Thanks again for your comments.

[librechik]

80. our eternal problem n/t

[brentspeak]

88. In short, nuclear power plants are too dangerous

And need to be limited as much as possible.