Fukushima: Water pouring down from hills

[Fledermaus]

23 August 2013 Last updated at 02:23 ET Help

Japan's nuclear watchdog has said the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is facing a new "emergency" caused by a build-up of radioactive groundwater.

In the mountains above the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, rainfall collects and flows down to the Pacific - through highly contaminated ground.

The Nuclear Regulatory Authority says a barrier built to prevent that water reaching the ocean has already been breached, while tanks built to contain it are nearly full.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23807453

[jimlup]

1. This is progressing from catastrophic to ...

We need international collaboration here. The best in the whole world need to now be working together to minimize this ongoing disaster. TEPCO can't be trusted with this.

[reusrename]

3. The first step is admitting we are powerless over radioactivity;

and that the site has become unmanageable.

[jimlup]

4. Sort of but ...

I have a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. I would say that we are in deep trouble but as one who educates engineers I wouldn't say "powerless". As a species we do actually have a solid understanding of this situation (not saying we know how to fix it but we "get" what is going wrong.) It is because we understand radiation that we may yet have the scientific and engineering knowledge to contain this. In many ways I think this is more serious than Chernobyl. Chernobyl was one reactor gone totally bad. This is 4 reactors tettering on the edge of containment breach (this may have already happened regarding the groundwater) and a big pool of radioactively hot used fuel rods sitting in leaky pool above reactor 4. All of this sitting unfortunately perched so that any screw-ups will leak into the Pacific. A real shit storm from an engineering perspective but not necessarily hopeless if we throw the world's resources at it.

We do need TEPCO though to admit that they have a problem that they alone can't handle. They need the world's best brains working on containing this.

[reusrename]

6. The second step...

is when we come to believe that a Power greater than ourselves can restore us to sanity.

But yeah, this is waaaaaaaay worse than Chernobyl. At one point they had readings on radioactive dust in Tokyo that were much hotter than the evacuation zone in Belarus.

This plant has a radioactive inventory that has been accumulating for 40 years. Reactor 4 at Chernobyl was only three years old. It is already much worse than anything ever contemplated. We were always assured that we needn't worry about anything like this ever happening.

[jimlup]

7. Yes I recall taking a philosophy course as an undergrad

before Chernobyl (Science and Society) and one of the topics was nuclear power. I recall taking the position that nuclear power was a bad idea because any chance of an accident (which I considered to be perhaps to small to actually argue) was too much of a risk to take. I remember thinking that it was all a theoretical argument. I could not have dreamed of either Chernobyl or Fukushima then.

Don't get me wrong I continue to consider modern nuclear reactors (not the type at Fukushima nor the ones on the drawing boards in the current proposals) to be a viable bridge to renewable energy. As a scientist I can also observe that we have to quit carbon. So this is a real shit trip. I don't know how we will ever convince the public that nuclear energy could (with the key word being "could" mind you) be a good thing if thought through more carefully. Sigh...

[Hydra]

15. Risks and costs should always be assessed before doing something

Nuclear power was promised to be clean(not so far) and inexpensive(fail on that too). If it were our only choice? Maybe...but it's not our only choice, best choice or even a good one. I was fascinated by fission as a kid. Once I grew up, I became more fascinated by safe renewables.

I think we can't afford the environmental costs of dirty energy. It has to go.

[jimlup]

17. But remember - we have to supply energy for 9 billion human beings

who all want the standard of living which we currently enjoy. I'm not saying that nuclear power in some form is inevitable but I'm saying that it isn't a trivial economic problem to weigh the costs. But yes nothing vaguely like the Fukushima design should ever be built ever again.

[Hydra]

18. It may all be academic soon

Climate change will probably affect earth's carry capacity. Even if it didn't, I do advocacy for population reduction. The will is there- almost as soon as there is birth control and a good level of education, you get negative population growth.

Our biggest hurdle is the culture of growth. Capitalism can't work without it, but we don't have infinite growth space. We need a better system that gets us what we need/want without going to excess and without the environmental impact of "profit motive."

Greed may very well kill us in the end. We'll just have to see if our survival instinct as a species overcomes that.

[jtuck004]

13. So are they being somewhat hysterical in this article, or...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-17/radioactive-water-leaking-fukushima-what-we-know

It does seem the odds of their getting those fuel rods out without incident is pretty unlikely, as well as the odds that they will get it done before another earthquake complicates things.

And it really sounds like the core containment might be broken, but it's too hot to find out, so many seem to be assuming it is intact, and just blaming it on the stored fuel rods. What do you think?

But you are right, I think. It is a failure in managing this, and has been for some time.

[jimlup]

16. No unfortunately they are not being "hysterical" at all

I have reason to suspect that one of the reactor vessels has been breached and that there is molten core seeping into the groundwater. Even if the containment vessels are intact they are in trouble because they can't keep the radioactive water they are using to cool partially melted cores from leaking into the sea.

This is may actually be the most underreported story of the decade if not the century. While we are not in nightmare scenario yet we're really on the verge and nobody in the mainstream media seems to notice. If this goes badly we are talking about the displacement of a billion people at a minimum.

[jtuck004]

19. Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. I try to be sceptical, but dang reality and facts

keep finding their way in.

I don't mean to drag it out, but how do you count a billion? What geographical boundaries are included, roughly?

And is it because the radiation would simply be too great, incompatible with life as it spreads, contaminating water and air?

I'm just curious...

[wtmusic]

8. In one week American coal kills more people than Fukushima ever will

so I'm wondering why you're not clamoring for international collaboration on the coal catastrophe.

"A report by the World Health Organization (WHO) published in February 2013 anticipated that there would be no noticeable increases in cancer rates for the overall population, but somewhat elevated rates for particular sub-groups. For example infants of Namie Town and Iitate Village were estimated to have a 6% relative increase in female breast cancer risk and a 7% relative increase in male leukemia risk. A third of emergency workers involved in the accident would have increased cancer risks.

With the WHO communicating that the values stated in that section of the report were relative increases, and not representative of the absolute increase of developing cancer:

These percentages represent estimated relative increases over the baseline rates and are not absolute risks for developing such cancers. Due to the low baseline rates of thyroid cancer, even a large relative increase represents a small absolute increase in risks. For example, the baseline lifetime risk of thyroid cancer for females is just (0.75%)three-quarters of one percent and the additional lifetime risk estimated in this assessment for a female infant exposed in the most affected location is (0.5%)one-half of one percent.

In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable. They indicated that for those infants in the most affected areas, the lifetime cancer risk would increase by about 1%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

The catastrophe is that we're not building new nuclear as fast as possible.

[mbperrin]

2. This is why nuclear can never be considered green.

Ever.

[Mnemosyne]

5. K&R nt

[jtuck004]

9. And 40 million people live downstream. That's gonna be a hell of a moving project. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. Worse case scenario is a never ending radioactive geyser.

[DeSwiss]

12. Meanwhile......

...Abe is demanding that the other nuclear plants be turned back on so his economic recovery can work! The question is, work for whom?

- There is no need for a economic recovery in a graveyard......

K&R

[wtmusic]

14. That's easy - they would work for the senior citizens who are dying during Japan's heat wave

because they've been asked to turn of their air conditioning. 70+ so far this summer. Because apparently Japan's windmills aren't generating squat.

That's 70 more than have died from radiation at Fukushima, and maybe more than ever will.

[joshcryer]

20. This is how the mechs get built.

[pscot]

21. Could Fukushima be entombed in concrete?

That's essentially what was done at Chernobyl, wasn't it?

[Nihil]

22. Nuke the entire site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.

Oh ... wait ...

[Kolesar]

23. Wasn't that a line from Aliens? eom

[Nihil]

24. Yup.

After a session catching up with both E/E & LBN from an extended weekend away,
the future was looking pretty dismal & bleak so flippancy seemed an appropriate
response.

I really have to break down my "catch-up" sessions into smaller chunks so that
the blows are slightly more spaced out ...