Melted Fuel Under Fukushima is radiating at 530 sieverts per hour

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 months, 1 week ago to Ask the Gulch
31 comments | Share | Flag

I've been reading stories over the past 6 years on this situation and each time more facts seem to be revealed and the articles are less and less considered "fake News".

I know some of you guys here have some experience in this field...please chime in and maybe put this in perspective.
SOURCE URL: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/why-the-melted-fuel-under-fukushima-could-poison-our-planet-with-nuclear-radiation-for-1000s-of-years


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 months, 1 week ago
    The radiation rate from Chernobyl is still higher than Fukushima ever was.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Technocracy 4 months, 1 week ago
      Yes JB, but that was too long ago for enough people to remember well enough to give the story legs
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 months, 1 week ago
        True enough. Last Friday I spoke at a public event at my campus on Colossal Engineering Disasters. One of the other speakers discussed Chernobyl, and compared it to Fukushima.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
        Yes, but that wasn't on an Island where it could contaminate an ocean...could this be worse in that respect?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Technocracy 4 months, 1 week ago
          Dilution within an ocean, especially one the size of the pacific is a huge mitigating factor for contamination. The further from the leak site, the more dilution occurs. Its a problem close in granted.

          Additionally the contaminants are universally heavier than water. Absent intake by sea life, they will settle to the bottom as they disperse from the site, partnering with the volume dilution to reduce contaminant levels over time..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
            It would infect crustacean's would it not? One would think that the radiation would be concentrated in the shell but I have read natural health articles that state the contamination would get into the meat.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 4 months, 1 week ago
              It is not radiation that would be concentrated in the shell but the radioactive elements that are possibly concentrated and will not affect you ever unless you want to go there and work to get near the damaged reactors.
              As for the article, pure propaganda with a lot of nonsense about its relationship to 'we' and the world beyond the local area with crap about radiation levels being highest ever measured as though that should scar everyone in the world. The reactors are not bombs or are even affecting the Japanese people with radiation any more than the natural background radiation. It is a mess and needs to be dealt with by eventual cleanup or quarantine for many thousands of years. Hard to say what future technology will be invented in even a few decades to handle such accidents which may possibly occur in the future as more nuclear power is needed and are overseen by the grandchildren of todays gentle snowflakes who need be overly protected in their mental lives.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
                Fukushima: Radiation now reported in West Coast Tuna

                http://newstarget.com/2017-02-16-fuku...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 4 months, 1 week ago
                  Besides being a quasi-scientific propaganda article, there is some questionable stuff there. E.g., the statement of thousands of tons of strontium 90 in pools. If in metric tons that would be about a gigawatt second of heat from the energy, at about 0.5 joule/gram, 500 joule/ kilogram, 500000 joule/metric ton, 1 gigajoule/ 2000 tons, 1 gigawatt seconds , of, say, 2000 tons of strontium 90 decay. I doubt that cooling pools would do a good job with that much power to dissipate each second. Sure would be a lot of wasted material for thermal electric generators.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 months, 1 week ago
    I have no experience in the field, but the article didn't strike me as very persuasive. I would want more details, such as how much radiation is showing up on the U.S. west coast, and what does the actual science say about safe levels (as opposed to government regulations). If the danger level were as high as the article suggests, I suspect the environmental movement would be up in arms screaming for government action to "combat this menace", much as they are doing about "climate change". Instead, the issue is mostly dormant and Tokyo is still set to host the 2020 Olympics. I'll become more concerned about Fukushima when Japan does.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 4 months, 1 week ago
      Except that the environmental movement is a farce. They don't really care about the environment - they want power and take a perverse pleasure in preventing the advancement of business and society while cloaked in the mantle of the righteous warrior.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
      Various articles over the past few years I've read have spoke about those things...radiation in the fish in the pacific etc. Just kept a ? about the info. This one seems to be very specific by comparison.

      It seems the Japanese People have been kept in the dark about this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 months, 1 week ago
        The article cites many specific numbers but does not present them in a manner that allows the reader to come to a reasonable conclusion regarding the overall level of contamination or the overall risk.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 months, 1 week ago
    So, here is one just in, somewhat a rehash of everything, but it clearly defines (if you do the math) why they call it at 520 Sieverts/hour. The cleaning robot was designed to withstand 10 hours in the containment, but lost one of it's eyes to radiation induced fogging, so in 2 hours hit the symptom of what they call 1000 Sieverts. So, that gives about 500 Sieverts an hour inside. Not too surprising, given they basically melted everything into an unstable goo inside. But, the real concern is of course, what happens to all that crap, and I have watched several reports over the last few years, and there is some measurable radiation, especially in the heavier isotopes, crawling along, towards the Left Coast. However, it gets diluted a lot going across, as well as reaching a half life of some of it.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wire...

    This is just a good example of what Trump rails against, Don't spike the headlines with "Worse than expected" (worse than what WHO expected?). Just report the damn facts, like "Robot detects 500 Sieverts per hour in Containment vessel of Reactor Number 2" If they would do facts, and quiet coloring things their way, then it would be a lot better.

    There is a lot of good information on 3 Mile Island, where basically the same thing happened for just as dumb a reason. It is worth looking into, but it was eventually cleaned up, even when they had no idea how they would do it. There are some pretty good videos as well on YT.

    https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 months, 1 week ago
    This is probably the best written description and analysis of the 3 Mile Island debacle, which was eerily like what they had in Fukushima (although x4) and was the result of a normal casualty (loss of power) that cascaded through a stuck valve, and then a couple hours of Laurel and Hardy science, before anyone actually figured out the real problem. But it has great analysis and easy to read explanations of everything, including how they actually got into it, and cleaned the mess up, despite many of the "can't be done" crowd.


    http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/ind...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 months, 1 week ago
    I had completely forgotten about this Japanese nuclear plant that a tsunami wrecked.
    I have a can of salmon I just contemplated with suspicion. The can does not say where the fish was caught.
    Too bad past scare tactic antics of the control freak left has created trust issues with articles about the environment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee 4 months, 1 week ago
    The article is fear mongering and click bait. Is the radiation in the hot zone dangerous? Yes. Of course it is. Are the Japanese preparing to establish guided walking tours of the hot zone? I seriously doubt it!

    Perspective: The meltdown isn't any hotter (radiologically) than a spent fuel rod ready for reprocessing. It's in a far less desirable physical condition; meaning it's in irregularly shaped mess of metal and slag.

    But for comparison, if a human took a swim in a expended fuel holding pool and was silly enough to dive down to take a look at the rods 40 ft below, the 530Sv/Hr of radiation that's making news would seem like a used-up tanning bulb by comparison!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
      It still is an undesirable environmental condition and it would seem the facts have been suppressed from the public...how much harm may be debatable but needless to say, this area is off limits for a long time and will likely have unintended consequences.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 4 months, 1 week ago
    Sounds like hysterics. Not one person has died from Fukushima. Of course that message doesn’t sell so this is what we get. Fake news on steroids.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 months, 1 week ago
      Hysterics? “The government prints the number of people who died as a result of the 2011 disaster in the newspapers every day. [In some other prefectures], the [death toll] amounts to 300-400 people in each prefecture, but in Fukushima it is over 8,000 people,” Jousan, a US director and producer who has been living and working in Japan since 1990, said.

      “It is very telling about the situation in Fukushima. It is hard for everyone who is affected by the tsunami, who lost their homes and lost their families. But [in Fukushima], people are not able to go back home, they are unable to work because people won’t buy food from Fukushima, farmers cannot farm anymore. It is affecting people, and more people are dying because of that.

      It is shocking… to see [how] many people have died in Fukushima,” the co-director of the documentary film ‘Alone in the Zone’ told RT.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
      Just because we haven't heard about anyone dying doesn't mean no one has...the info is just not release one way or the other.
      However, in this day and age, or all ages for that matter, must look to see if there is any value here; it wouldn't stand in the first place if there wasn't Anything to consider.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo