I'm calling bullshit on this article. Despite misdeeds, wrongdoings, corruption and outright lies by TEPCO and IAEA this article poo-poos the long-term impact of this international disaster.
"No matter what happens in Fukushima, it's not going to be a problem over here." -- Eric Norman
NO MATTER WHAT?? That's a pretty big statement. Especially since that, when radiation levels were detected to increase, the EPA just raised the minimum level of harmful radiation to a higher level. See?? Not a problem anymore.
Your arguments of TEPCO links to the Japanese Mob is irrelevant, as the Snopes article discusses on whether or not the radiation levels are effecting the US.
Also, the link you gave on the US raising safe level markings is not a respected news source, and the article only links to other articles from the site as "sources". If's fine to call BS on an article on HN, but make sure you give proper backing to your claims, the post you just wrote doesn't.
No, the article still poo-poos the long-term impact of this disaster. If they're going to write an article about this topic, they should properly research it. So the TEPCO-mob connection is relevant and it still stands that it's a deceptive piece of propaganda.
Thank you for actually following a provided link. Despite the lack of coverage on this issue from so-called respected news sources, there are other articles.
You're calling me out on not making "proper" backing to my claims when the original article is a snopes propaganda piece? What sort of standard are you holding me to?
Conspiracy theorists think Snopes is either part of the conspiracy[1] or isn't a reliable source of information (as compared to anonymous, breathlessly apocalyptic Wordpress blogs, of course.)
It would be interesting to try to come up with some scenario that would maximize the damage caused by Fukushima, then model whether that would be a problem for any other county.
Explosion? Complete melt-down? Meteor strike? Super volcanic eruption?
Interestingly, worst-case might be to have the reactor limp along while continuing to cool it with water that's being pumped back into the ocean. Like they're doing now. Having it totally destroyed, or pushed under the sea, although perhaps creating an bad initial spike, probably wouldn't release as much radiation long-term.
This entire incident has become a test for how scientifically literate people are. And most folks aren't hitting on much.
> Having it totally destroyed, or pushed under the sea, although perhaps creating an bad initial spike, probably wouldn't release as much radiation long-term.
The reactor has generated as much radioactive contamination as it's going to make (note that contamination is not the same as radiation).
So in that regard the worst numerical damage Fukushima could realistically do is to eject all of the contaimination into the sea. But even assuming that it would be of negligible impact to radiation levels ocean wide (at least, assuming adequate dispersal).
Given that it's easier to assure adequate dispersal for a continuous low-level transfer to the sea than it is to assure dispersal for effectively dropping the cores into the ocean, I think that dropping the cores into the ocean at once would actually be the worst possible thing.
Of course there are real concerns with groundwater contamination too, which might make people think that getting the damaged cores as far away as possible into the ocean is preferable. But even that possibility is more of an annoyance than a health hazard, since if the potable water going is radioactive it's easy to detect and avoid drinking it, unlike other chemical and biological drinking water hazards.
The map is easily debunked, but, the fact is that the reactor(s) are not contained.
In addition to the needed nuclear materials for the reactor itself, there were/are at least 89 tons of used rods, "hot" enough that they need to be constantly cooled, stored on the Reactor 3 site.
> In addition to the needed nuclear materials for the reactor itself, there were/are at least 89 tons of used rods, "hot" enough that they need to be constantly cooled, stored on the Reactor 3 site.
There's no need to put "hot" in quotes, it's not a synonym for anything, it means the spent fuel is literally hot as in temperature.
It is true that the reason they are hot is because of ongoing heat generation from the fission fragment/decay products in the spent fuel. But that is an issue at literally every other uranium-fueled PWR or BWR reactor. They all need to be cooled until the decay heat finally dissipates.
Failing to cool the fuel rods would not turn them any more radioactive than they already are. Rather, the loss of physical fuel integrity once the fuel melts would release the existing radioactivity into the spent fuel pool (which essentially means the nearby air, since the fuel pool would not have water in it by definition in this scenario).
Luckily it's the easiest thing in the world to avert this; just keep water on the fuel rods, and there is no problem. You can even avoid circulating the water if you wish, the boiling water will remove heat just fine (but in this case you must still pour more water in to maintain the level).
The loss of full containment is certainly unfortunate, but it's nothing more than that. It's certainly better than having the entire reactor core assemblies dumped out straight into the ocean, but even that would not be the disaster implied by many if you run the numbers.
If you read the links I posted, you would know that a safe temperature for the surrounding water is up to 65C. Why don't you read the links to answer for yourself, what happens if the water goes above that temperature?
(BTW I did use hot in quotes, to make it clear I was referring to the fact that there is still low level fission occurring.)
> Why don't you read the links to answer for yourself, what happens if the water goes above that temperature?
Because I have already told you how water temperatures are safe from a heat transfer perspective.
I should hope I don't have to remind you not to immerse yourself in water that is too hot, but the fuel itself will be fine if it can be cooled, and it can be cooled by nothing more than water immersion.
This is, after all, how the fuel rods at Unit 4 were being cooled for a short time during the Fukushima meltdown.
The worst part is that most people don't want nor care to dig into the details, and accept whatever the calmly dispassionate talking head says at face value. I don't mean tinfoil hat but that which is being reported, especially in regional conflicts and political issues masks the multiple conflicting truths of the interests involved that seek to influence reporting to show their side as most legitimate. This is the type of power play people need to dig into most to get to any sort of "fair and balanced" appreciation for the complexities of situations behind the camera and when the camera leaves. Without an ability to see through the bullshit, the viewer remains a fool.
It goes both ways, current information is full of noise and reach for people who have neither time or knowledge to filter/integrate what come to them. History is sometimes made by dedicated people who try to deduce quite mathematically from very small pieces of different kind of information that cross check each other (when possible). In either cases, patience is needed.
Indeed, even today there are good historical books being written about events as far away as WWII. And I'm not talking about new books that restate old research, often they'll have unique insight to provide from detailed historical study on topics that had been incorrectly assumed to be fully fleshed-out.
Some people have suggested (I have not personally researched it enough to take a position) that a solicitation by the Department of Health and Human Services for 14 million Potassium Iodide pills to be delivered by February 1 is proof that the government believes that radiation is reaching the West Coast at harmful levels.
I'm guessing it's not happening and this solicitation is unrelated, although the time from the solicitation (December 6) to the delivery date is very compressed for it to be a normal US government order. It reflects an urgent desire to stock the pills for some reason.
Contaminated water is expected to reach the US west coast this year; it's just not dangerous. (So I agree the pill solicitation is likely incidental.) Here's a good writeup of the whole thing:
Any KI pills that would be delivered are about 2-3 years too late to help with the Fukushima disaster anyways. The radioiodine released by Fukushima during the event has a relatively short half-life (which means it's no longer a thyroid risk now) and is no longer being produced since the reactors are shutdown (which means the Fukushima won't be a thyroid risk in the future, at least due to iodine).
I can sort of respect not taking a position if you haven't researched it... but on the other hand, why even mention it if you haven't researched it enough to take a position? The claim smells like Grade A Bullshit, and while that's not necessarily enough to dismiss it outright, it does mean that you should check into it before spreading it around.
Some brief research indicates that there is a national stockpile of potassium iodide maintained for emergency response to domestic nuclear disasters. The tablets in this stockpile don't last forever, and have to be replenished. This is probably just a stockpile replenishment.
I mentioned it because the solicitation is a fact that may have a place in the discussion. Even if ultimately proven unrelated, I don't think it's irresponsible to bring up hard facts that can add to the discussion.
My dad keeps sending me links warning of the radiation that is hitting the west coast. I think it's a sign of how little we trust our government and media these days. Would the government tell us the truth if we were actually at risk or would they lie to avoid the mass panic that would undoubtedly ensue?
> Would the government tell us the truth if we were actually at risk or would they lie to avoid the mass panic that would undoubtedly ensue?
Another good question is, supposing that a mass panic would be elicited if there were honestly a wave of harmful contamination approaching, which answer should the government give?
One might reasonably assume that the government should give the answer which causes the least public disorder (and subsequent harm to the public).
But this doesn't mean you shouldn't trust the government per se, this means you should educate yourself so that you have some basic understanding of the likelihood of things like Fukushima affecting the West Coast. It does no good to say that you can't abdicate your rationality and trust to the government exclusively, if you then simply abdicate those to whoever is screeching the loudest.
I think it's a sign of how bad most people are at critical thinking, how willing they are to be led around by bad information wrapped up in an attractive way, and how technology has made it much easier for all involved to spread their opinions far and wide.
I seriously doubt that there's any more mistrust than there ever has been. But now, instead of churning out a few flyers about UFOs and distributing them to those who will take them, the nutcases can instead put up a web site and get a million readers.
Back of the envelope: If there are 100,000 gallons (400 tons) of radioactive water leaking into the pacific ocean in Japan per day, to be diluted by the 187 quintillion gallons of water already there (not hyperbole, a reasonable estimate based on 70 cubic million miles of water), than the ocean is 1 1,880,000,000,000,000th of a percent more radioactive per day. Or basically zero. It would be interesting to calculate how much more radioactive the water gets from alpha particles in sunlight shining on the water than from Fukushima, but I'm not feeling up to it at the moment.
Living near Tokyo, after 3/11 I rather compulsively monitored the various web-available radiation counters, and many of them also stored historical data. The readings were almost universally so close to normal background radiation levels that it was questionable whether there was any difference at all. There was, as I recall, one notable spike at some point, but it was only notable because it was above background level; it was way too small to have any health impact.
[Radiation levels were a little higher in places like Chiba that are closer to Fukushima, but still quite firmly in the "no possible effect" region.]
I was traveling in Tokyo on 3/11 and still have to fend off questions about my health when I tell people about it.
I did cut my trip short, flew out on 3/15. I wasn't worried about the radiation, I just didn't feel comfortable taking up resources in a country that had just suffered so much damage. In fact, I recently got back from a 3 week trip around Japan to finish my original trip.
Well a good start would be to figure out why are they dying? Or better yet, which starfish are dying? Where are they at? What is the death rate? What other factors have changed in the habitat? Etc. etc.
49 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] thread"No matter what happens in Fukushima, it's not going to be a problem over here." -- Eric Norman
NO MATTER WHAT?? That's a pretty big statement. Especially since that, when radiation levels were detected to increase, the EPA just raised the minimum level of harmful radiation to a higher level. See?? Not a problem anymore.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/governments-worldwide...
"With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here," said David Yogi
But it has been detected...
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/leaky-fukushima-nuclear-plant...
TEPCO is likely connected to the japanese mob:
http://rt.com/news/fukushima-workers-violations-yakuza-730/
The IAEA is there is promote nuclear power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISu7O47d1Ko
US sailors claim cancer from Fukushima assistance:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/20/sickened-by-service-mor...
Finally, the worst part of the cleanup is still yet to happen:
http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/mission-impossible-f...
The snopes article is a form of deceptive propaganda and is all-around bullshit.
Also, the link you gave on the US raising safe level markings is not a respected news source, and the article only links to other articles from the site as "sources". If's fine to call BS on an article on HN, but make sure you give proper backing to your claims, the post you just wrote doesn't.
Thank you for actually following a provided link. Despite the lack of coverage on this issue from so-called respected news sources, there are other articles.
You're calling me out on not making "proper" backing to my claims when the original article is a snopes propaganda piece? What sort of standard are you holding me to?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/10/epa-draft...
Happy?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7014214
Explosion? Complete melt-down? Meteor strike? Super volcanic eruption?
Interestingly, worst-case might be to have the reactor limp along while continuing to cool it with water that's being pumped back into the ocean. Like they're doing now. Having it totally destroyed, or pushed under the sea, although perhaps creating an bad initial spike, probably wouldn't release as much radiation long-term.
This entire incident has become a test for how scientifically literate people are. And most folks aren't hitting on much.
Once your scenario reaches that kind of scale, I think the effect of Fukushima itself is going to be fairly negligible... :)
The reactor has generated as much radioactive contamination as it's going to make (note that contamination is not the same as radiation).
So in that regard the worst numerical damage Fukushima could realistically do is to eject all of the contaimination into the sea. But even assuming that it would be of negligible impact to radiation levels ocean wide (at least, assuming adequate dispersal).
Given that it's easier to assure adequate dispersal for a continuous low-level transfer to the sea than it is to assure dispersal for effectively dropping the cores into the ocean, I think that dropping the cores into the ocean at once would actually be the worst possible thing.
Of course there are real concerns with groundwater contamination too, which might make people think that getting the damaged cores as far away as possible into the ocean is preferable. But even that possibility is more of an annoyance than a health hazard, since if the potable water going is radioactive it's easy to detect and avoid drinking it, unlike other chemical and biological drinking water hazards.
In addition to the needed nuclear materials for the reactor itself, there were/are at least 89 tons of used rods, "hot" enough that they need to be constantly cooled, stored on the Reactor 3 site.
You can read about the Reactor 4/5/6 spent fuel pools here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_units_4,_5_an...
Read this January 3, 2014 Tepco press release and notice the use of the word "assume" : http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2014/123333... ... it means "we don't know".
There's no need to put "hot" in quotes, it's not a synonym for anything, it means the spent fuel is literally hot as in temperature.
It is true that the reason they are hot is because of ongoing heat generation from the fission fragment/decay products in the spent fuel. But that is an issue at literally every other uranium-fueled PWR or BWR reactor. They all need to be cooled until the decay heat finally dissipates.
Failing to cool the fuel rods would not turn them any more radioactive than they already are. Rather, the loss of physical fuel integrity once the fuel melts would release the existing radioactivity into the spent fuel pool (which essentially means the nearby air, since the fuel pool would not have water in it by definition in this scenario).
Luckily it's the easiest thing in the world to avert this; just keep water on the fuel rods, and there is no problem. You can even avoid circulating the water if you wish, the boiling water will remove heat just fine (but in this case you must still pour more water in to maintain the level).
The loss of full containment is certainly unfortunate, but it's nothing more than that. It's certainly better than having the entire reactor core assemblies dumped out straight into the ocean, but even that would not be the disaster implied by many if you run the numbers.
(BTW I did use hot in quotes, to make it clear I was referring to the fact that there is still low level fission occurring.)
Because I have already told you how water temperatures are safe from a heat transfer perspective.
I should hope I don't have to remind you not to immerse yourself in water that is too hot, but the fuel itself will be fine if it can be cooled, and it can be cooled by nothing more than water immersion.
This is, after all, how the fuel rods at Unit 4 were being cooled for a short time during the Fukushima meltdown.
But the gist of the bullshit is that Fukushima poses a threat to Americans.
Contained or not, Fukushima never has and never will pose a threat to any Americans on the US mainland, or any other country for that matter.
You have absolutely no competence to determine that.
== 1 ==
"Nuclear Fallout Map
Claim: Message details effects of nuclear fallout from
Japan across the western United States." FALSE
http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp
== 2 ==
"Claim: Giant mutant killer hornets created by exposure
to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant have killed
several people in Nebraska. " FALSE
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/hornets.asp
"A numerical simulation of global transport of atmospheric particles emitted from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant"
http://www-aos.eps.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nakamura_lab/PDF/Takemura...
and
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422/F2.expansion.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422/F3.expansion.html
http://1.usa.gov/1eVKiQT
I'm guessing it's not happening and this solicitation is unrelated, although the time from the solicitation (December 6) to the delivery date is very compressed for it to be a normal US government order. It reflects an urgent desire to stock the pills for some reason.
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiat...
Some brief research indicates that there is a national stockpile of potassium iodide maintained for emergency response to domestic nuclear disasters. The tablets in this stockpile don't last forever, and have to be replenished. This is probably just a stockpile replenishment.
More info here:
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg-...
That doesn't sound researched .. why did you mention that if you haven't researched it enough to take a position?
Another good question is, supposing that a mass panic would be elicited if there were honestly a wave of harmful contamination approaching, which answer should the government give?
One might reasonably assume that the government should give the answer which causes the least public disorder (and subsequent harm to the public).
But this doesn't mean you shouldn't trust the government per se, this means you should educate yourself so that you have some basic understanding of the likelihood of things like Fukushima affecting the West Coast. It does no good to say that you can't abdicate your rationality and trust to the government exclusively, if you then simply abdicate those to whoever is screeching the loudest.
I seriously doubt that there's any more mistrust than there ever has been. But now, instead of churning out a few flyers about UFOs and distributing them to those who will take them, the nutcases can instead put up a web site and get a million readers.
https://xkcd.com/radiation/
The extra dose in Tokyo immediately after Fukushima was only twice a standard chest x-ray, or one NYC->LA flight.
So any excess radiation reaching the US West Coast will be diluted to negligibility.
Living near Tokyo, after 3/11 I rather compulsively monitored the various web-available radiation counters, and many of them also stored historical data. The readings were almost universally so close to normal background radiation levels that it was questionable whether there was any difference at all. There was, as I recall, one notable spike at some point, but it was only notable because it was above background level; it was way too small to have any health impact.
[Radiation levels were a little higher in places like Chiba that are closer to Fukushima, but still quite firmly in the "no possible effect" region.]
I did cut my trip short, flew out on 3/15. I wasn't worried about the radiation, I just didn't feel comfortable taking up resources in a country that had just suffered so much damage. In fact, I recently got back from a 3 week trip around Japan to finish my original trip.
Source: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/tuna-radioactive-mate...