Author Topic: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever  (Read 6657 times)

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
  • Gold 360
3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« on: June 17, 2012, 03:47:47 PM »
Over 15 months ago on 3/11, the world changed forever.

This is our post on that fateful day.


Permit me, if you will, a bit of old business that has taken center stage.

I am starting writing this Friday, 8:00 PM EST 11 March 2011.

Perhaps the current solar storms and increased earthquake activity are related. This post from 18 February 2011 postulates the correlation between geomagnetic storms and earthquake activity on Earth.

Dodged a Solar Bullet

When the ejection is directed towards the Earth and reaches it as an interplanetary CME (ICME), the shock wave of the traveling mass of Solar Energetic Particles causes a geomagnetic storm that may disrupt the Earth's magnetosphere, compressing it on the day side and extending the night-side magnetic tail.

When the magnetosphere reconnects on the nightside, it releases power on the order of terawatt scale, which is directed back toward the Earth's upper atmosphere.


The terawatt is equal to one trillion (10 to the 12th power) watts (1 TW). The total power used by humans worldwide (about 16 TW in 2006) is commonly measured in this unit. The most powerful lasers from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s produced power in terawatts, but only for nanosecond time frames. The average stroke of lightning peaks at 1 terawatt, but these strokes only last for 30 microseconds. Wiki

This site has space weather with Sun & Solar Wind, Magnetosphere, Ionosphere & Thermosphere real-time simulation data of the space environment, should one be interested in such things.

NiCT Space Weather Simulation

Here is another good site to track these things in case you don't already have it.


OK, on to new business.

One would be prudent to consider at this latest 8.9 earthquake and tsunami in Japan as wake-up call. The possibility of a similar scenario closer to mainland U.S. is all too real. The potentially affected regions in the homeland are showing increased signs of instability. There is a plethora of excellent threads here on ATS to keep one up to date on the latest earthquake info, so I needn't go there.

I am looking at another part of the story that perhaps needs focused attention. If such an earthquake event happened in Alaska, there might be only a couple hours notice of an impending tsunami, or less. Anyone living near coastal areas be advised. This is not a drill. If one waits until the moment one can see the wave, it might be too late. Just be aware.

In this discussion, we will be evaluating any relationships between the 8.9 quake in Japan and direct effects to our nuclear infrastructure on the West Coast. Not pointing any fingers or making specious claims, we will merely identify facilities and present facts and let the reader utilize said info for further investigation if one is so inclined.

Let's look at the nuclear power plant failure aspect that has been thrust into the forefront by todays news of the unfolding disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, one of 55 total in the country. Upon the 8.9 quake, power had been turned off at 11 units so far.

Japan authorities have announced they turned off 11 nuclear units without causing any damage. The country has 55 total such units.

An emergency situation had been declared at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The Japanese Economy Ministry announced power supply to one of the units has been stopped because its cooling system has failed.

There are no reported radiation leaks.

Electric power has been cut off in many regions of the country – over 4 million homes are reported to be without power in the capital Tokyo.

Many fires are burning, including one in an oil refinery near the capital.

22 aftershocks have been registered after the initial one with magnitude between 5.4 and 6.5 on the Richter scale, according to the US Geological Survey.

Perhaps the news that Japanese nuclear reactors have been damaged and that clouds of official deception are already rising above them will cool the revival of enthusiasm for building new nuclear plants here in the US, spearheaded politically by President Obama and okayed by major green groups using the cover of alleged AGW, as long ago planned by the nuclear industry.

How's this for timing? Another what if?

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, closed since Monday following the major earthquake in the north of Japan is now known to be placed directly above a significant geological fault line. This line was thought to be inactive until it caused Monday’s earthquake, measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale.

Pay attention here, folks. The fix is clearly already on.   :P

Let me get this straight. Up until the earthquake, they knew that the facility was situated on a fault line and they knew that it was, it caused the earthquake?

The world’s largest nuclear power plant has been closed indefinitely, as it was designed only to cope with earthquakes of a magnitude up to 6.5.

In Japan?

Even in the U.S., the nukes on the fault lines in California are said to be able to withstand 7.5 on the Richter scale.

The quake has caused a number of accidents at the plant, calling into question its safety. Mildly radioactive water leaked into the sea whilst four hundred barrels of radioactive waste toppled over, 40 of them spilling their contents. There were, in total, fifty malfunctions at the plant following the earthquake.

What is mildly radioactive?

And how much leaked into the sea?

Is it still leaking after the big one on Friday?

Where does one find this list of "50 malfunctions" so we here in America can learn from this disaster?

This may be extremely timely information.

Japan is the third largest user of nuclear energy in the world, using it for over 30% of their energy. However, it is also country that suffers from frequent tremors, and questions are now being asked about the suitability of such a power source for a geologically volatile country.

Does this mean that the U.S. is vulnerable
to potential fallout from this event?

Can we look at Chernobyl for any relative information?

Northern Africa was hit with “more than 5% of all Chernobyl releases.” The finding of  Cesium-137 and both Plutonium-239 and Plutonium-240 “in accumulated Nile River sediment is evidence of significant Chernobyl contamination,” it says.

“Areas of North America were contaminated from the first, most powerful explosion, which lifted a cloud of radionuclides to a height of more than 10 km. Some 1% of all Chernobyl nuclides,” says the book, “fell on North America.”

(Karl Grossman: The Consequences of Chernobyl) Source

Altogether, fallout from Chernobyl was registered in all of the Northern Hemisphere. The only places that were affected enough to affect human health was in Europe and the Soviet Union.

The US, Canada, and Japan all set up monitoring services to check Students and Tourists from USSR and Western and Eastern Europe. The Chernobyl accident, combined with the effects of the Three Mile Island incident, put an end to the development of nuclear power plants. Since 1979 no new nuclear power plants have been built, causing the eventual diminishing of nuclear power.

So what effect, if any, has the earthquake and subsequent tsunami had on West Coast America's U.S. nuclear power plants? 

The chart below displays the tsunami travel times and the approximate amount of time facilities have to prepare.

Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast, it could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States.

The two huge reactors each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are not designed to withstand such powerful shocks. All four are extremely close to major faults. All four reactors are located relatively low to the coast.

They are vulnerable to tsunamis like those that hit as many as fifty countries.

San Onofre sits between San Diego and Los Angeles. A radioactive cloud spewing from one or both reactors there would do incalculable damage to either or both urban areas before carrying over the rest of southern and central California.

It would also close Interstate 5, the (almost only) main artery between LA and SD.

What if Chernobyl Hit America?

Chernobyl Winds Over America


Then came the announcement from PG&E, the owner of Diablo Canyon, that it was shutting down operations as a direct result of the tsunami warning. Not a peep about possible earthquake preventive measures. Remember, the San Andreas fault is in close proximity and Diablo sits atop the Hosgri Fault.

Jim Becker, Site VP Diablo Canyon Power Plant speaks with KSBY

"...Diablo Canyon was built to withstand certain levels..." and when pressed, admitted to 7.5 relating (specifically) to the San Andreas Fault. He stumbles on, "...earthquakes relating to the Hosgri fault, (which runs directly under Diablo) is at a different level that I don't remember ..."

San Francisco, March 11, 2011 — In a move PG&E Corp. calls routine, the power producer shut down its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant due to a tsunami warning in California.

Much of the West Coast is under a tsunami warning following the 8.9 magnitude earthquake in Japan that has sent tsunami waves across the Pacific Ocean.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said there is nothing wrong with the plant, but a tsunami warning requires the plant to shut down as a precaution. The NRC said the plants are located in an area that the expected waves should not impact, and furthermore that the plants are designed to deal with the sort of waves heading for the California coast.

The U.S. Geological Survey also reported that a six-foot surge hit the Diablo Canyon area, where the nuclear-power plant is operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. But officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that all operations were normal there as well as at another nuclear plant on the coast at San Onofre, north of San Diego.

“The Diablo Canyon plant is well protected against tsunami conditions as required by NRC regulations,” the agency said in a press release. “The NRC has staff at the plant keeping track of the plant’s response.”

As of 21:00 EST, it appears that there has not been wholesale shutdowns of nuke facilities here in the United States, but there have been a couple anomalies that have been found to be of interest.

This one on 10 March 2011 at 16:49 EST.

Does this have anything to do with the Japan earthquake and geomagnetic instability?

NRC: Event Notification Report for March 11, 2011


"At 1549 (CST) on 03/10/2011 with the plant shut down and the reactor defueled, power was lost to Safeguards 4160 Volt Bus 6. Diesel Generator B started and re-energized Bus 6.

"At the time of the event, Bus 6 was energized from the Main Auxiliary Transformer (MAT) on backfeed. The event was caused by opening of substation breaker TA2066 as the result of an error by technicians working In the substation.

"All equipment operated as expected for the voltage restoration to Safeguards Bus 6. Safeguards Bus 5 remained energized from offsite power through the Tertiary Auxiliary Transformer during the event.

"Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Train A remained In operation during the event. Spent Fuel Cooling Train B was restarted following restoration of power to Bus 6.

"The loss of the MAT also resulted in the loss of non-safeguards 4160 V Buses 1-4. In response to the loss of power to Bus 4, the Technical Support Center (TSC) / Station Blackout (SBO) Diesel started and failed to load onto 480 Volt Bus 46. This resulted in a loss of power to the Technical Support Center. The loss of power to the TSC is being reported as a loss of Emergency Assessment Capability. At 1632, the TSC/SBO Diesel Generator tripped due to the failure of the output breaker to close and provide power to its support equipment. The cause of the failure of the TSC/SBO output breaker to close is unknown at this time."

The licensee is investigating the cause of the breaker being opened and failure of the TSC/SBO diesel to load. One Spent Fuel Pool cooling train was in service throughout the event and no pool heatup occurred.

The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector.

Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(3)(xiii) - LOSS COMM/ASMT/RESPONSE

This "Loss of Station Power" occurred at the Kewaunee Power Station near Green Bay, Wisconsin on Thursday, 10 March 2011.

Location: Kewaunee, WI (27 miles ESE of Green Bay, WI) in Region III
Operator: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
Operating License: Issued - 12/21/1973
License Expires: 12/21/2013
Docket Number: 05000305
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor
Electrical Output: 556 MW Reactor
Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Two-Loop
Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

A New York operating facility (power reactor) reported that their loss of power was attributed to "high winds"on 10 March 2011, 20:15 EST.

Notice that both the primary and backup equipment failed.

Where was that equipment made and by whom?   :P

Yup. Enquiring minds want to know if any were made in China. Korea or Japan.   :P


"Loss of power to radiological monitoring equipment (primary and backup). This constitutes a major loss of emergency assessment capability per Nine Mile Point procedures. The cause of the loss of monitoring equipment is a downed 13.2 kV power line. Monitoring capability was restored at 0100."

The loss of power was caused by high winds, and the grid operator was able to restore power at 0100 EST.

The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified.[/ex]
[ex]Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(3)(xiii) - LOSS COMM/ASMT/RESPONSE

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1

Location: Scriba, NY (6 miles NE of Oswego, NY) in Region I
Operator: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC
Operating License: Issued - 12/26/1974
Renewed License: Issued - 10/31/2006
License Expires: 08/22/2029
Docket Number: 05000220
Reactor Type: Boiling Water Reactor
Electrical Output: 621 MW
Reactor Vendor/Type: General Electric Type 2
Containment Type: Wet, Mark I

Nothing else was reported to be out of the ordinary to the NRC during this period.

Hmmmmm...BWR, Mark I, General Electric...:

Why does this sound eerily dangerous?


22 more just like Fukushima in America?   Morons.    ::)

Now, back to West Coast U.S. nuclear facilities.

Diablo Canyon is at Avila Beach, on the coast just west of San Luis Obispo, between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A radioactive eruption there would pour into central California and, depending on the winds, up to the Bay Area or southeast into Santa Barbara and then to Los Angeles.

The cloud would at very least permanently destroy much of the region on which most Americans rely for their winter supply of fresh vegetables.

Which makes this bit of trivia more interesting: In addition to two other 'malfunctions' at U.S. nukes perhaps attributable to the Japanese 8.9 Earthquake, we have a "state of emergency" at Diablo Canyon due to the earthquake/tsunami.

Notification Date: 03/11/2011
Notification Time: 04:40 [ET]
Event Date: 03/11/2011
Event Time: 01:23 [PST]
Last Update Date: 03/11/2011


The licensee declared a notice of unusual event as a result of a tsunami warning issued for the coastal areas of California. The tsunami warning is a result of a 8.9 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan. The licensee is in EAL HU1.5, 'Tsunami Affecting the Protected Area'. The NRC remains in the normal response mode.

The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified.

Emergency Class: UNUSUAL EVENT
10 CFR Section:
50.72(a) (1) (i) - EMERGENCY DECLARED

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1

Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA) in Region IV
Operator: Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Operating License: Issued - 11/02/1984
License Expires: 11/02/2024
Docket Number: 05000275
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor
Electrical Output: 1151 MW Reactor
Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop
Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2

Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles WSW of San Luis Obispo, CA) in Region IV
Operator: Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Operating License: Issued - 08/26/1985
License Expires: 08/26/2025
Docket Number: 05000323
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor
Electrical Output: 1149 MW Reactor
Vendor/Type: Westinghouse Four-Loop
Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

California also has four commercial nuclear power plants and an experimental plant that are no longer in operation. These include:

   •   The Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experimental (SRE) was a small sodium-cooled experimental reactor built by Southern California Edison and Atomics International at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, near Moorpark in Ventura County.

It came on line in April 1957, began feeding electricity to the grid on July 12, 1957, and closed February 1964. This reactor used sodium rather than water as a coolant and produced a maximum of about 7.5 to 20 megawatts (electric).

It was considered as the country's first civilian nuclear plant and the first "commmercial" nuclear power plant to provide electricity to the public by powering the near-by city of Moorpark in 1957.

On July 26, 1959, the SRE suffered a partial core meltdown.

Ten of 43 fuel assemblies were damaged due to lack of heat transfer and radioactive contamination was released. The plant has subsequently been dismantled.

For more, please visit the U.S. Dept. of Energy's website at:

   •   The Vallecitos Nuclear Power Plant near Pleasanton, California, was jointly built by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and General Electric Company and operated from 1957 to 1967.

This was a small, 30-megawatt power plant. On October 19, 1957, Vallecitos connected to the electrical grid and became the first privately funded plant to supply power in megawatt amounts to the electric utility grid.

The plant was shut down in December 1967. The plant is in SAFSTOR and there are no plans for any significant dismantlement in the foreseeable future. All nuclear fuel has been removed from the site.

   •   The 63 MW Boiling Water Reactor at the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant in Eureka was in operation by PG&E from August 1963 to July 1976. It was the seventh licensed nuclear plant in the United States.

It was closed because the economics of a required seismic retrofit could not be justified following a moderate earthquake from a previously unknown fault just off the coast. It was permanently shut down July 2, 1976, and retired in 1985.

The plant was then placed in SAFSTOR (with spent nuclear fuel rods stored in water pools on site) until anticipated full decommissioning in 2015.

This means that there is a significant amount of radioactive material stored at this site and succeptible to seismic events,

   •   The 913 MW Pressurized Water Reactor at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, located about 25 miles south of Sacramento, is owned by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in and was operation from April 1975 to June 7, 1989. It was closed by public referendum.

Where is the paperwork?

Decommissioning Report?

Final Survey?

Verification Surveys (Interim and Post)?

DOE Final Out Certification?

Was there any waste ever generated?

Where is it now?

   •   The 436 MW San Onofre Unit 1 Pressurized Water Reactor was in operation from January 1968 to November 30, 1992. It was closed by its owners rather than incur $125 million in required modifications.

Where is the paperwork?

Decommissioning Report?

Final Survey?

Verification Surveys (Interim and Post)?

DOE Final Out Certification?

Was there any waste ever generated?

Where is it now?

Just for those in the need to know .

SAFSTOR - A method of decommissioning in which a nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use. (NRC: Glossary -- SAFSTOR)

"Deferred decontamination" and "unrestricted use" are doublespeak for never having to face the situation with a workable plan, but spend an inordinate amount of money on "process."

And now, to sunny Southern California.

 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2

Location: San Clemente, CA (46 miles SE of Long Beach, CA) in Region IV
Operator: Southern California Edison Co.
Operating License: Issued - 02/16/1982
Expires - 02/16/2022
Docket Number: 05000361
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor
Electrical Output: 1070 MW Reactor
Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering
Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3

Location: San Clemente, CA (46 miles SE of Long Beach, CA) in Region IV
Operator: Southern California Edison Co.
Operating License: Issued - 11/15/1982
Expires - 11/15/2022
Docket Number: 05000362
Reactor Type: Pressurized Water Reactor
Electrical Output: 1080 MW Reactor
Vendor/Type: Combustion Engineering
Containment Type: Dry, Ambient Pressure

Out of a total of 108 operating nuclear power plants in the United States, in the coastal states of California (4), Oregon (0) and Washington (1) there appears to be a total of 5 operating sites... but, as usual, that is not the whole story. For example, Oregon is listed as having 'none.'

In Oregon alone, there are at least 3 more nuclear facilities that must be considered, one of which has been "decommissioned," and these plants still store nuclear materials on-site awaiting disposal. (Supposedly at Yucca!)

(1) Trojan Nuclear Power Plant

The iconic 499-foot-tall (152 m) cooling tower, visible from Interstate 5 in Washington, was demolished via
dynamite implosion at 7:00 a.m. on May 21, 2006. This event marked the first implosion of a cooling tower
at a nuclear plant in the United States.

The Trojan Nuclear Plant was Oregon’s only nuclear power plant. It operated for almost 17 years, from March 1976 to January 1993. Portland General Electric (PGE) owns the Trojan nuclear plant and is responsible for its decommissioning.

In 1978, the plant was closed for nine months while modifications were made to improve its resistance to earthquakes. This followed the discovery both of major building construction errors and of the close proximity of a previously unknown fault line.

The operators sued the builders, and an undisclosed out-of-court settlement was eventually reached. The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before premature cracking of the steam tubes was observed.

Trojan Nuclear Power Plant was a pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant in Rainier. The only nuclear power plant in Oregon was shut down twenty years early, after a cracked steam tube released radioactive gas into the plant in 1992.

It cost $450 million to build the plant, and it is expected to cost the same amount, at least, to make it go away.

In 2001, the 1,000-ton 1,130-megawatt reactor was encased in concrete foam, and coated in blue shrink-wrapped plastic, then shipped up the Columbia River on a barge to the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington, where it was placed in a 45 foot deep pit, and covered with six inches of gravel, making it the first commercial reactor to be moved and buried whole.

While operating, Trojan represented more than 12% of the electrical generation capacity of Oregon. For comparison, more than 80% of Oregon's electricity came from hydropower from dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, with the rest mainly from fossil fuels.

The spent fuel rods, however, are still stored on site, as they are at all the other 108 or so commercial reactors in the country. Almost 800 rods are in a pool, next to the Columbia River, awaiting the possible opening of the Yucca Mountain radioactive storage facility in Nevada.

Trojan has about 790 spent fuel assemblies stored in the Trojan Spent Fuel Pool. Each assembly is 12 feet long and about 10 inches square. The decommissioning plan calls for PGE to transfer the spent fuel from the pool to dry casks.

The dry casks would be located on a concrete pad located in the northeast corner of the Trojan site. Even after the rest of the site is decommissioned, the spent fuel storage area will remain under Council jurisdiction until the federal government can establish a national spent fuel respository. At this point, we do not know when that will happen.

That's one story that's been floated and apparently accepted by whomever is supposed to be watching these people.

Another facility "awaiting the possible opening of the Yucca Mountain radioactive storage facility in Nevada." This policy by itself has kept the nuclear energy industry in business for decades more than necessary, IMHO.

It is important to remember that no progress has been made for decades as to the 'final solution' for the disposal of waste from nuclear power generation.

Remember the Yucca Mountain scam?

Each of these facilities generates a poison that must be kept locked away from any contact with human interaction for thousands of years.

Who is responsible for this?

You might be surprised to find out how many nuclear reactors are situated on or near major fault lines...

like all of them in California.   :P

« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 12:52:02 PM by thorfourwinds »
EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
  • Gold 360
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2012, 04:32:12 PM »


It was the home of nine nuclear reactors used to produce plutonium, which was needed for atomic weapons.

The Hanford Site is a mostly decommissioned nuclear production complex on the Columbia River in the U.S. state of Washington, operated by the United States federal government.

The site has been known by many names, including Hanford Works, Hanford Engineer Works or HEW, Hanford Nuclear Reservation or HNR, and the Hanford Project.

Established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project in the town of Hanford in south-central Washington, the site was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world.

Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.
The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, but the manufacturing process left behind 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m³) of high-level radioactive waste that remains at the site.

This represents
of the nation's
high-level radioactive waste
by volume.

Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.

While most of the current activity at the site is related to the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the LIGO Hanford Observatory. Wiki

The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, where radioactivity was released from 1944 to 1971.

U.S. Government Poisons Americans in "Test"

The "Green Run" was a secret US Government release of radioactive materials on December 2–3, 1949, at the Hanford Site plutonium production facility. Radioisotopes released at that time were supposed to be detected by US Air Force reconnaissance. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the US government have revealed some of the details of the experiment. Sources cite 5,500 to 12,000 curies (200 to 440 TBq) of iodine-131 released.

There are some indications contained in the documents released by the FOIA requests that many other tests were conducted, although the Green Run was a particularly large test. Evidence suggest that filters to remove the iodine were disabled during the Green Run.

The project gets its name from the processing of uranium at Hanford. Due to the higher radioactivity involved, batch processing waited 90 to 100 days to allow the uranium isotopes to decay.

For the Green Run test, a batch was run with only a 16 day cooling period. The unfiltered exhaust from the production facility was therefore much more radioactive than during a normal batch.

That specifically indicates that unfiltered iodine was released on the public.

But, that was then, this is now; we're still dealing with the same group of people, doublespeak gobbledegook on how safe they are keeping us from the nasty stuff that is a necessary byproduct of power generation.

Still with the waste thing... 

The most significant challenge at Hanford is stabilizing the 53 million U.S. gallons of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. About a third of these tanks have leaked waste into the soil and groundwater.

As of 2008, most of the liquid waste has been transferred to more secure double-shelled tanks; however, 2.8 million U.S. gallons of liquid waste, together with 27 million U.S. gallons of salt cake and sludge, remains in the single-shelled tanks.

That waste was originally scheduled to be removed by 2018.


The revised deadline is 2040.

So what does this mean?

TPTB seem to think that nothing needs to be done because if it is put off so far in the future it will be non consequential for them...the same line that they have been spewing for decades.

Nearby aquifers contain an estimated 270 billion U.S. gallons of contaminated groundwater as a result of the leaks.

As of 2008, 1 million U.S. gallons of highly radioactive waste is traveling through the groundwater toward the Columbia River.

This waste is expected to reach the river in 12 to 50 years if cleanup does not proceed on schedule.

The site also includes 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste.

Grand opening of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF).

Under the Tri-Party Agreement, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that will be sealed and monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years.

Disposal of plutonium and other high-level wastes is a more difficult problem that continues to be a subject of intense debate.

As an example, plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years, and a decay of ten half-lives is required before a sample is considered to be safe.

The Department of Energy is currently building a vitrification plant on the Hanford Site.

Vitrification is a method designed to combine these dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable. Bechtel, the San Francisco based construction and engineering firm, has been hired to construct the vitrification plant, which is currently estimated to cost approximately $12 billion.

Construction began in 2001. After some delays, the plant is now scheduled to be operational in 2019, with vitrification completed in 2047. It was originally scheduled to be operational by 2011, with vitrification completed by 2028.

Again, put the problem off into the future, and it disappears from view today.

Here's a little-known gem that is in plain sight on our home-owners insurance policies and we (I did) just sign away our right to reimbursement in return for lower rates...???

By the federal Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the owners of the destroyed reactors---including Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison---would be covered by private insurance only up to $11 billion, a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars worth of damage that would be done.

The rest would become the responsibility of the federal taxpayer and the fallout victims. Virtually all homeowner insurance policies in the United States exempt the insurers from liability from a reactor disaster.

And here we have a 'closed' nuclear adjacent to an operating power plant.

Fromatome, Richland, Washington

Located in southeastern Washington near the Tri-Cites area of Walla Walla, Pasco and Richland.

This is the local EMA's take on the situation.

Prepared by Walla Walla County Emergency Page 2 
Management Department, October 2003

Hazard Overview
The nuclear facilities operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and
the Energy Northwest are located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Benton
County, which is about 16 miles to the closest point of Walla Walla County
(Burbank) and about 55 miles from the City of Walla Walla. 

The USDOE facilities include nuclear waste storage tanks and research laboratories.

The Columbia Generating Station is an 1180-megawatt boiling water reactor used to produce
electrical power, operated by Energy Northwest, a commercial power producer. 

It was formerly known as Washington Nuclear Power Plant #2.

A significant hazard requiring emergency planning stems from the presence of
large quantities of radioactive materials from the various separations, waste
store, research and power generating station.  These materials, although
contained, could affect public health and environment in the event of a release
during a major accident.

Even this plant seems beset with backup generator problems. This in from April, 2010.

RICHLAND -- A small fire prompted authorities to declare an alert Saturday at the Columbia Generating Station, the only commercial nuclear power plant in Washington.

No radioactivity was released, and the plant on the Hanford nuclear reservation remained operating.

The alert was declared at 1:44 p.m. when the plant's control room received an alert from a sensor of an electrical fire in a building adjacent to the reactor building, said Energy Northwest, which operates the plant.

The fire was in a backup transformer that supplies electricity to parts of the plant when needed.

And lastly the 'decontaminated' reactor at the University of Washington.

The skeleton of the nuclear reactor inside the More Hall Annex was once one of the main technological staples of the University of Washington. When deactivated in 1988, the room that held the reactor was stripped of paint for safety. (Photo by Jesse Barracoso)

The University of Washington Nuclear Reactor Building also known a More Hall Annex; opened in 1961, the reactor stopped operating in 1988, fuel rods were removed in the years that followed, decontamination continued in 2006. Added to Washington State list of historic places in 2008 and to the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.

From April 1961 to June 1988, the UW operated a 100-kilowatt Argonaut research reactor, one of about 10 built for research universities in the United States. Designed at the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago in the late 1950s and installed with funds from federal grants, the Argonaut reactor was at the center of the UW’s nuclear engineering department, an elite graduate-level program, for nearly 30 years.
The fuel took the form of approximately 60-100 enriched uranium-aluminum alloy plates about three feet long, four inches wide and 1/4 of an inch thick. Purified, recirculated tap water flowed in the half-inch spaces between the plates to absorb and take away the relatively low amount of heat produced.

Between 1989 and 1990, the uranium fuel was removed from the reactor’s core and shipped to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington for disposal. The reactor sat dormant through the ‘90s, partially dismantled and in “safe storage,” while the UW waited for funding from the Washington state Legislature. The building was used as offices, storage and a robotics laboratory for the College of Engineering.
The number of civilian research reactors at universities has declined from approximately 60-70 during the Cold War to about 30 today, including these still-functioning reactors at Oregon State University, Reed College and WSU.

So what about all the rest of the waste that has been / is stored all around the USA?

What happened to the idea of storing it in Yucca Mountain?

Is this yet another deception?

Which side of the fence is Obama and friends really on?

Double attack on US nuclear waste fees
10 March 2011

Funding for Yucca Mountain has come from a levy of 0.1 cents per kWh of nuclear power, which currently adds up to about $770 million per year. Nuclear utilities - and therefore their customers - have now paid a total of over $31 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund.

The government was supposed to use this money to create a permanent nuclear waste disposal site by 1998.

Around $7 billion was spent and much progress made, but Yucca was cut off from funding in May 2009 by President Barack Obama and energy secretary Stephen Chu.

Where, oh where is the waste going now? Is any of it being trucked around the country to a location different from the nuclear facility where the waste was generated?
Having submitted an 8600-page application to build Yucca Mountain under President George Bush and his energy secretary Sam Bodman, the DOE under direction from Chu and Obama moved to withdraw it in May.

Spending on Yucca is now set at the absolute minimum level, while the $24 billion balance of the fund remains with the US Treasury earning substantial compound interest of over $1 billion per year.

Let's see...that's a couple billion there should be about $26 billion available.

How does one actually verify that this is a correct and true amount and where is the entry on the ledger?

Is it really there?

Can I touch it?

Here is where O'Bama made sure the process is still in process with no real movement regarding the safe disposal of radioactive waste. Why are the power companies allowed to utilize this "to cheap to meter" power source?

This, however, was rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's independent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). The DoE had no right to substitute its own ideas in place of those legislated by Congress, said the ASLB, and is bound by law to complete its work at Yucca Mountain unless Congress acts to supercede the previous legislation.

"Completing the work" at Yucca Mountain means what?

Does that imply that the money is conveniently tied up by legalize and not available towhatever entity is charged with the work?

Data generated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) shows that the site is so porous that the mountain itself contributes almost nothing to waste isolation.

Instead, DOE relies almost completely on a system of engineering fixes, the most outlandish of which are waste disposal containers that must last for at least one million years combined with approximately sixty miles of tunnels lined with thousands of titanium drip shields that DOE does not plan to install for 100 to 300 years or more.

This is exactly the bravo sierra that portrays what is wrong in America.

What moron wrote that proposal, had somebody sign off on one million year containers and actually got it in print as something that DOE proposes?

And how much money has been spent already on Yucca?

There is a thread by itself - and probably a dangerous one. But, I'm afraid, this level of mentality runs deep in government service.

Nevada and independent scientists who have studied the composition of the proposed containers have shown they will corrode in a few hundred years or less.

In addition to the fundamental deficiencies of the site itself, Yucca Mountain is located thousands of miles from most of the accumulating waste, a factor which presents great risks to communities over the thousands of miles the waste would travel during the forty to fifty years such transportation would be required.

In short, Yucca Mountain cannot perform the function for which it is intended. Indeed, the project is fraught with a host of insurmountable technical, safety, environmental, and institutional problems that simply cannot be engineered around or ignored. Source

In the meantime, Obama has created a 'Blue Ribbon' commission on radioactive waste management. It is hearing evidence from a range of stakeholders on waste management methods including reprocessing, recycling and the use of burner reactors as well as the widely accepted geologic disposal method as proposed for Yucca Mountain. (World Nuclear News)

And now you have an idea what might be affected if there is a major seismic event on the West Coast. It is not only the operating plants put forth by the MSM, but the entire array of past facilities that must be factored into any type of response mechanism.

The bottom line is that an electrical power grid down due to an earthquake spells big trouble to our nuclear reactors. Perhaps these sites will aid in further research into what's in your back yard.

NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites

Nuclear Regulatory Commission List of Power Reactor Units

Radiation Network

BBC NEWS | In Depth | Chernobyl

Now, you have more of the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding proximity to nuclear-related facilities.

Also, if you can't live for at least a month with the water and power going off right now, please consider that the New Madrid is also "overdue" and maybe it is really time to do something about it...

May your 2011 see you embracing its highest potential.


American Red Cross

Dodged a Solar Bullet

Cometgate ! Elenin + 2005 YU55 + Nibiru

Surviving the American Food Crisis of 2011

The Domino Effect of February 2011 - I Had a Dream About America's Future

“In a time of universal deceit
telling the truth is considered a revolutionary act."

George Orwell


Fair Use has been an important part of Copyright Law for 170 years. The Supreme Court has erred on the side of Fair Use and Free Speech whenever challenged on this issue. 

This post to this website may contain copyrighted material - the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

We are making such material available in effort to illustrate, criticize, preserve and discuss a variety of humanitarian, political, human/animal/hybrid rights, economic, democratic, criminal justice, scientific, social justice and radiation rights issues.

All the works contained herein are transformative and do not negatively impact the original copyright holders' financial benefit in any substantive way.

This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 section 107 of the US Copyright Law and therefore requires NO prior authorization for its use.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 04:55:21 PM by thorfourwinds »
EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
  • Gold 360
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2012, 04:09:18 PM »


From our friend, Mochizuki, on 7 July 2012

Message from Fukushima

A photo grabbed my attention on Twitter.



Government sent us
the charm called
“Integrating Dosimeter”
instead of saving our future.


EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20016
  • Gold 880
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 04:53:26 PM »
Published: Sep 5, 11 References: blog.gessato and designyoutrust

Though this Radioactive Control installation looks ominous, it’s actually meant to be a humorous piece that exemplifies people’s paranoia towards Japan post-meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. With protective radiation suits filling up an open field and positioned to look as though they’re marching towards a power plant, the disturbing installation is sure to make viewers reflect on society’s use of nuclear technologies and power.

Radioactive Control was created by Spanish collective Luzinterruptus. My favorite part about these arranged suits is the fact that the group put lights into each protective gear, making each faux power plant worker illuminate in an extremely eerie manner.

Implications - Consumers often use humor as a coping mechanism for harsh events that occur in people's lives. Corporations may consider using humor in advertising campaigns for serious issues to alleviate the tension of talking about certain difficult topics.

Radioactive Control

« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 04:57:32 PM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20016
  • Gold 880
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 05:03:47 PM »
Well the future is here but fear not..

Kid size Radiation Suits and Air Lock Home Entry is the wave of the Future

Available in Vegas at your local Star Trek Outlet

Offline SarK0Y

  • Pegasus Alternate Energy Team
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 395
  • Gold 37
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2012, 07:07:11 AM »
Permit me, if you will, a bit of old business that has taken center stage.

I am starting writing this Friday, 8:00 PM EST 11 March 2011.

Perhaps the current solar storms and increased earthquake activity are related. This post from 18 February 2011 postulates the correlation between geomagnetic storms and earthquake activity on Earth.

some speculations of mine   Sun's Activity consists of two key moments: gravitational & electromagnetic emissions. So, Yea -- Earth's Seismic Activity has direct influence from the Solar Lifecycle. 
I do What Me'n'Universum  want :-)

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
  • Gold 360
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2012, 05:17:57 AM »

After Fukushima
Changed the World

Japanese doctors warn of public health problems caused by Fukushima radiation.

Residents of Ohkuma-cho attend a memorial service for the victims of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami on 24 July 2011 in Ohkuma-cho, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, 20 km from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant [EPA]

Scientists and doctors are calling for a new national policy in Japan that mandates the testing of food, soil, water, and the air for radioactivity still being emitted from Fukushima's heavily damaged Daiichi nuclear power plant.

"How much radioactive materials have been released from the plant?"

asked Dr Tatsuhiko Kodama, a professor at the Research Centre for Advanced Science and Technology and Director of the University of Tokyo's Radioisotope Centre, in a July 27 speech to the Committee of Health, Labour and Welfare at Japan's House of Representatives.

"The government and TEPCO have not reported the total amount of the released radioactivity yet,"

said Kodama, who believes things are far worse than even the recent detection of extremely high radiation levels at the plant.

There is widespread concern in Japan about a general lack of government monitoring for radiation, which has caused people to begin their own independent monitoring, which are also finding disturbingly high levels of radiation.

Kodama's centre, using 27 facilities to measure radiation across the country, has been closely monitoring the situation at Fukushima - and their findings are alarming.

According to Dr Kodama,

the total amount of radiation released over a period of more than five months from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster is the equivalent to more than 29 "Hiroshima-type atomic bombs" and the amount of uranium released "is equivalent to 20" Hiroshima bombs.

Kodama, along with other scientists, is concerned about the ongoing crisis resulting from the Fukushima situation, as well as what he believes to be inadequate government reaction, and believes the government needs to begin a large-scale response in order to begin decontaminating affected areas.

Distrust of the Japanese government's response to the nuclear disaster is now common among people living in the effected prefectures, and people are concerned about their health.

Recent readings taken at the plant are alarming.

When on

August 2nd readings of 10,000 millisieverts (10 sieverts) of radioactivity per hour were detected at the plant,

Japan's science ministry
said that level of dose
is fatal to humans,

and is enough radiation to kill a person within one to two weeks after the exposure.

10,000 millisieverts (mSv) is the equivalent of approximately 100,000 chest x-rays.

It is an amount 250 per cent higher than levels recorded at the plant in March after it was heavily damaged by the earthquake and ensuing tsunami.

The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), that took the reading, used equipment to measure radiation from a distance, and was unable to ascertain the exact level because the device's maximum reading is only 10,000 mSv.

TEPCO also detected 1,000 millisieverts (mSv) per hour in debris outside the plant, as well as finding 4,000 mSv per hour inside one of the reactor buildings.

The Fukushima disaster has been rated as a "level seven" on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). This level, the highest, is the same as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, and is defined by the scale as:

"[A] major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures."


Gundersen: Level 8 on INES Scale is needed for Fukushima-like disasters (VIDEO)

Arnie Gundersen: There is a citizen scientist in Pennsylvania who has suggested, and I think it is a great suggestion, that we add a level to the international nuclear scale to address the fact that when more than one nuclear plant is having an accident, the whole world needs to mobilize to solve the problem.

I am sure you know that Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl were both considered Level 7 accidents which is the worst that could happen.

it was a multi-unit accident and it also affected many sites. Well, that affects how many resources are brought in from outside and that is why Scott Portzline’s recommendation that we add a level to the nuclear accident scale is so important.

So Mr. Portzline is recommending, and I agree with him, that we really need one more rung on the international emergency scale.

We need a Level 8.

the International Atomic Energy Agency needs to admit that there are circumstances beyond a Level 7, a Level 8, where international co-operation is critical. 

If only the international community had had a Level 8 and recognized that it was not just a single plant or a single site that was in jeopardy, and that, in fact,

14 nuclear reactors at 4 different sites were in jeopardy.

The world might have been able to minimize the consequences at Fukushima Daiichi and minimize the exposure to the Japanese population if only the international community had acted faster.

The Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters are the only nuclear accidents to have been rated level seven on the scale, which is intended to be logarithmic, similar to the scale used to describe the comparative magnitude of earthquakes. Each increasing level represents an accident approximately ten times more severe than the previous level.

Doctors in Japan are already treating patients suffering health effects they attribute to radiation from the ongoing nuclear disaster.

"We have begun to see increased nosebleeds, stubborn cases of diarrhoea, and flu-like symptoms in children,"

Dr Yuko Yanagisawa, a physician at Funabashi Futawa Hospital in Chiba Prefecture, told Al Jazeera.

She attributes the symptoms to radiation exposure, and added:

"We are encountering new situations we cannot explain with the body of knowledge we have relied upon up until now."

"The situation at the Daiichi Nuclear facility in Fukushima has not yet been fully stabilised, and we can't yet see an end in sight," Yanagisawa said.

"Because the nuclear material
has not yet been encapsulated,
radiation continues to stream
into the environment."

Gee whiz, Wally,
where do you think it’s going?

Health concerns

Al Jazeera's Aela Callan, reporting from Japan's Ibaraki prefecture, said of the recently detected high radiation readings:

"It is now looking more likely that this area has been this radioactive since the earthquake and tsunami, but no one realised until now."

Workers at Fukushima are only allowed to be exposed to 250 mSv of ionising radiation per year.

Junichi Matsumoto, a TEPCO spokesman, said the high dose was discovered in an area that does not hamper recovery efforts at the stricken plant.

Yet radioactive cesium exceeding the government limit was detected in processed tea made in Tochigi City, about 160km from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, according to the Tochigi Prefectural Government, who said

radioactive cesium was detected in tea processed from leaves harvested in the city in early July.

The level is more than 3 times the provisional government limit.

Yanagisawa's hospital is located approximately 200km from Fukushima, so the health problems she is seeing that she attributes to radiation exposure causes her to be concerned by what she believes to be a grossly inadequate response from the government.

From her perspective, the only thing the government has done is to, on April 25, raise the acceptable radiation exposure limit for children from 1 mSv/year to 20 mSv/year.

"This has caused controversy, from the medical point of view," Yanagisawa told Al Jazeera. "This is certainly an issue that involves both personal internal exposures as well as low-dose exposures."

Junichi Sato, Greenpeace Japan Executive Director, said:

"It is utterly outrageous to raise the exposure levels for children to twenty times the maximum limit for adults."

"The Japanese government cannot simply increase safety limits for the sake of political convenience or to give the impression of normality."

But it will encourage
the little ones to go swimming
in Fukushima Prefecture.

Fukushima reopens beach after nuke crisis

FUKUSHIMA prefecture has opened its first beach to swimmers since last year's nuclear disaster after judging the water to be safe.

Not everyone agrees with the idea.

About 1000 people descended on Nakoso beach on Monday.

The beach is about 65 kilometres south of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, where three reactors melted down after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The opening was celebrated with beach volleyball games and hula dancers from a nearby spa.

Cheers returned to a beach in Fukushima Prefecture for the first time in two years Monday after all bathing beaches in the northeastern Japan prefecture were closed last year after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and resultant nuclear crisis.

Iwaki city official Joji Kimura says negligible radiation was detected in water at the beach. Airborne radiation was measured at 0.08 microsieverts per hour, far below dangerous levels.

Swimming had been banned at all beaches in Fukushima prefecture since March 2011.

On the Marine Day national holiday, the Nakoso beach in Iwaki was filled with families with children as well as young men and women.

While the prefecture has 17 bathing beaches, Nakoso is the only one that was reopened, because debris disposal and facility restoration have not proceeded well.

Beside the conventional water quality check, the Fukushima prefectural government measured radiation levels in late June. No radioactive cesium was detected in sea water, and air dose rates at the beach were low at up to 0.07 microsievert per hour.

Yosuke Shirado of Iwaki said he is concerned about radiation levels due to the nuclear crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s disaster-hit Fukushima No. 1 power plant.

Lest we forget:

Fukushima Daiichi Radioactive Seawater Update

Radioactivity levels in the seawater outside of the troubled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant continue to ignite concerns over the spread of highly radioactive material in the surrounding seawater.

From the Washington Post: “Samples taken 360 yards offshore from the plant Friday showed radioactive iodine levels 1,250 times the legal safety limit. The levels of iodine-131 in the water had been closer to 100 times the limit this past week.

Attention has turned to cleaning up stagnant, highly contaminated water found in turbine rooms outside the reactors. Pools of the radioactive water have been found at the plant’s units 1 and 3. Similar standing water at units 2 and 4 is being tested for radioactivity.

Japan’s Nuclear Crisis likened to Chernobyl. Asian Markets Dip in Response (image courtesy

"The unusually high rates of radiation found in the turbine rooms —

and now in the ocean

 — have fueled concerns that water may be seeping from at least one of the reactor cores, leaks that could release longer-lasting and much riskier forms of contamination.”

Government officials have stated that they are not sure whether the primary containment vessels have been breached. Experts say it could be from reactors or from cooling pools where used nuclear rods are stored.

Nuclear experts have also suggested that the high levels of radioactivity in the surrounding waters could also be attributed in part to emissions in the air.

Officials continue to stress that contaminants will become diluted as currents carry them farther offshore.

However, the elevated radiation levels in the water pose a serious concern for Japan’s large fishing industry, with the possibility that other countries could impose bans on imports.

Fishing has already been banned in the area around the plant.

“I don’t believe the levels we detected today would…cause a direct problem,” Nishiyama said.

ASR modeling of the radioactive seawater tells a different story, cause for serious alarm. While these models do not estimate levels of radioactivity in the surrounding waters, the assumption that nearby currents will quickly dilute the radioactive material does not appear to be accurate.

Instead our model shows radioactive sea water slowly drifting south at an average of 0.2 m/s in an low energy area between the Kuroshio Current, the Japan coastline and an large eddy formation further up in the north. 

Update on Thursday, March 31, 2011 by Nick Behunin

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that seawater collected roughly 300 yards from the Fukushima Daiichi station was found to contain iodine 131 at

3,355 times the safety standard,

the highest levels reported so far.

On Sunday, a test north of the plant showed 1,150 times the maximum level, while a test one day before showed 1,250 times the limit in seawater taken from a monitoring station at the plant.

Responding to these concerns, ASR Limited, a New-Zealand based marine consulting and research firm, has developed computer models able to accurately predict the spread of the contaminated material.

“We’ve based our simulations on daily updates of the local winds and currents.  This information is then fed in to our model to predict how fast and how far the radioactivity will spread, and what its concentrations will be” Says ASR Scientist Laurent Lebreton who developed the model.


Authoritative current estimates of the health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation are published in the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation VII (BEIR VII) report from the US National Academy of Sciences.

The report reflects the substantial weight of scientific evidence proving there is no exposure to ionizing radiation that is risk-free.

The BEIR VII estimates that each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of all forms of cancer other than leukemia of about 1-in-10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1-in-100,000; and a 1-in-17,500 increased risk of cancer death.

Dr Helen Caldicott, the founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, is equally concerned about the health effects from Japan's nuclear disaster.

"Radioactive elements get into the testicles and ovaries, and these cause genetic disease like diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and mental retardation,"

she told Al Jazeera.

"There are 2,600 of these diseases that get into our genes and are passed from generation to generation, forever."

So far, the only cases of acute radiation exposure have involved TEPCO workers at the stricken plant. Lower doses of radiation, particularly for children, are what many in the medical community are most concerned about, according to Dr Yanagisawa.

"Humans are not yet capable of accurately measuring the low dose exposure or internal exposure,"

she explained,

"Arguing 'it is safe because it is not yet scientifically proven [to be unsafe]' would be wrong.

That fact is that we are not yet collecting enough information to prove the situations scientifically. If that is the case, we can never say it is safe just by increasing the annual 1mSv level twenty fold."

Her concern is that the new exposure standards by the Japanese government do not take into account differences between adults and children, since children's sensitivity to radiation exposure is several times higher than that of adults.

Al Jazeera contacted Prime Minister Naoto Kan's office for comment on the situation.

Speaking on behalf of the Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Public Relations for the Prime Minister's office, Noriyuki Shikata said that the Japanese government

"refers to the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] recommendation in 2007, which says the reference levels of radiological protection in emergency exposure situations is 20-100 mSv per year.

The Government of Japan has set planned evacuation zones and specific spots recommended for evacuation where the radiation levels reach 20 mSv/year, in order to avoid excessive radiation exposure."

The prime minister's office explained that approximately 23bn yen ($300mn) is planned for decontamination efforts, and the government plans to have a decontamination policy

"by around the end of August",

with a secondary budget of about 97bn yen ($1.26bn) for health management and monitoring operations in the affected areas.

When questioned about the issue of "acute radiation exposure", Shikata pointed to the Japanese government having received a report from TEPCO about six of their workers having been exposed to more than 250 mSv, but did not mention any reports of civilian exposures.

Prime Minister Kan's office told Al Jazeera that, for their ongoing response to the Fukushima crisis, "the government of Japan has conducted all the possible countermeasures such as introduction of automatic dose management by ID codes for all workers and 24 hour allocation of doctors. The government of Japan will continue to tackle the issue of further improving the health management including medium and long term measures".

Shikata did not comment about Kodama's findings.

Kodama, who is also a doctor of internal medicine, has been working on decontamination of radioactive materials at radiation facilities in hospitals of the University of Tokyo for the past several decades.

"We had rain in Tokyo on March 21 and radiation increased to .2 micosieverts/hour and, since then, the level has been continuously high,"

said Kodama, who added that his reporting of radiation findings to the government has not been met an adequate reaction. "At that time, the chief cabinet secretary, Mr Edano, told the Japanese people that there would be no immediate harm to their health."

Kodama is an expert in internal exposure to radiation, and is concerned that the government has not implemented a strong response geared towards measuring radioactivity in food.

"Although three months have passed since the accident already, why have even such simple things have not been done yet?" he said.

"I get very angry and fly into a rage."

According to Kodama, the major problem caused by internal radiation exposure is the generation of cancer cells as  the radiation causes unnatural cellular mutation.

"Radiation has a high risk to embryos in pregnant women, juveniles, and highly proliferative cells of people of growing ages. Even for adults, highly proliferative cells, such as hairs, blood, and intestinal epithelium cells, are sensitive to radiation."

Children are at greater risk?

Early on in the disaster, Dr Makoto Kondo of the department of radiology of Keio University's School of Medicine warned of "a large difference in radiation effects on adults compared to children".

Kondo explained the chances of children developing cancer from radiation exposure was many times higher than adults.

"Children's bodies are underdeveloped and easily affected by radiation, which could cause cancer or slow body development. It can also affect their brain development,"

he said.

Yanagisawa assumes that the Japanese government's evacuation standards, as well as their raising the permissible exposure limit to 20mSv "can cause hazards to children's health," and therefore "children are at a greater risk".

Nishio Masamichi, director of Japan's Hakkaido Cancer Centre and a radiation treatment specialist, published an article on July 27 titled: "The Problem of Radiation Exposure Countermeasures for the Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Concerns for the Present Situation".

In the report, Masamichi said that such a dramatic increase in permitted radiation exposure was akin to

"taking the lives of the people lightly".

He believes that 20mSv is too high, especially for children who are far more susceptible to radiation.

"No level of radiation is acceptable,
for children or anyone else,"

Caldicott told Al Jazeera.

"Children are ten to 20 times more sensitive than adults. They must not be exposed to radiation of any level. At all."

In early July, officials with the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission announced that approximately 45 per cent of children in the Fukushima region had experienced thyroid exposure to radiation, according to a survey carried out in late March.

The commission has not carried out any surveys since then.

"Now the Japanese government is underestimating the effects of low dosage and/or internal exposures and not raising the evacuation level even to the same level adopted in Chernobyl," Yanagisawa said.

"People's lives are at stake, especially the lives of children, and it is obvious that the government is not placing top priority on the people's lives in their measures."

Caldicott feels the lack of a stronger response to safeguard the health of people in areas where radiation is found is "reprehensible".

"Millions of people
need to be evacuated
from those high radiation zones,
especially the children."

Dr Yanagisawa is concerned about what she calls "late onset disorders" from radiation exposure resulting from the Fukushima disaster, as well as increasing cases of infertility and miscarriages.??

"Incidence of cancer will undoubtedly increase," she said. "In the case of children, thyroid cancer and leukemia can start to appear after several years. In the case of adults, the incidence of various types of cancer will increase over the course of several decades."

Yanagisawa said it is "without doubt" that cancer rates among the Fukushima nuclear workers will increase, as will cases of lethargy, atherosclerosis, and other chronic diseases among the general population in the effected areas.

Yanagisawa believes it is time to listen to survivors of the atomic bombings. "To be exposed to radiation, to be told there is no immediate effect, and afterwards to be stricken with cancer - what it is like to suffer this way over a long period of time, only the survivors of the atomic bombings can truly understand," she told Al Jazeera.

Radioactive food and water?

An August 1 press release from Japan's MHLW said no radioactive materials have been detected in the tap water of Fukushima prefecture, according to a survey conducted by the Japanese government's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters.

The government defines no detection as "no results exceeding the 'Index values for infants (radioactive iodine)'," and says

"in case the level of radioactive iodine in tap water exceeds 100 Bq/kg, to refrain from giving infants formula milk dissolved by tap water, having them intake tap water … "

Yet, on June 27, results were published from a study that found 15 residents of Fukushima prefecture had tested positive for radiation in their urine.

Dr Nanao Kamada, professor emeritus of radiation biology at Hiroshima University, has been to Fukushima prefecture twice in order to take internal radiation exposure readings and facilitated the study.

"The risk of internal radiation is more dangerous than external radiation,"

Dr Kamada told Al Jazeera. "And internal radiation exposure does exist for Fukushima residents."

According to the MHLW, distribution of several food products in Fukushima Prefecture remain restricted. This includes raw milk, vegetables including spinach, kakina, and all other leafy vegetables, including cabbage, shiitake mushrooms, bamboo shoots, and beef.

The distribution of tealeaves remains restricted in several prefectures, including all of Ibaraki, and parts of Tochigi, Gunma, Chiba, Kanagawa Prefectures.

Iwate prefecture suspended all beef exports because of caesium contamination on August 1, making it the fourth prefecture to do so.

Due to caesium contaminated straw, beef exports have been banned in four Japanese prefectures [EPA]

Jyunichi Tokuyama, an expert with the Iwate Prefecture Agricultural and Fisheries Department, told Al Jazeera he did not know how to deal with the crisis. He was surprised because he did not expect radioactive hot spots in his prefecture, 300km from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

"The biggest cause of this contamination is the rice straw being fed to the cows, which was highly radioactive,"

Tokuyama told Al Jazeera.

Kamada feels the Japanese government is acting too slowly in response to the Fukushima disaster, and that the government needs to check radiation exposure levels "in each town and village" in Fukushima prefecture.

"They have to make a general map of radiation doses," he said. "Then they have to be concerned about human health levels, and radiation exposures to humans. They have to make the exposure dose map of Fukushima prefecture. Fukushima is not enough. Probably there are hot spots outside of Fukushima. So they also need to check ground exposure levels."

Caldicott said people around the world should be concerned about the ongoing nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Radiation that continues to be released has global consequences.

More than 11,000 tonnes of radioactive water has been released into the ocean from the stricken plant.

Scientists warn that tuna caught off the Pacific coastal prefecture in northern Japan are now at risk of being radioactive [EPA]

"Those radioactive elements bio-concentrate in the algae, then the crustaceans eat that, which are eaten by small then big fish," Caldicott said.

"That's why big fish have high concentrations of radioactivity and humans are at the top of the food chain, so we get the most radiation, ultimately."

On August 6, the 66th anniversary of the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said:

"Regarding nuclear energy, we will deeply reflect over the myth that nuclear energy is safe.

We will thoroughly look into the cause of the [Fukushima] accident, and to secure safety, we'll implement fundamental measures while also decreasing the degree of dependence on nuclear power generation, to aim for a society that does not rely on nuclear power."

But doctors, scientists, agricultural experts, and much of the general public in Japan feel that a much more aggressive response to the nuclear disaster is needed.

Kodama believes the government needs to begin a large-scale response in order to begin decontaminating affected areas. He cited Japan's itai itai disease, when cadmium poisoning from mining resulted in the government eventually having to spend 800 billion yen to decontaminate an area of 1,500 hectares.

"How much cost will be needed if the area is 1,000 times larger?"

Peace Love Light


Liberty & Equality or Revolution

“In a time of universal deceit
telling the truth is considered a revolutionary act."

George Orwell


Fair Use has been an important part of Copyright Law for 170 years. The Supreme Court has erred on the side of Fair Use and Free Speech whenever challenged on this issue. 

This post to this website may contain copyrighted material - the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

We are making such material available in effort to illustrate, criticize, preserve and discuss a variety of humanitarian, political, human/animal/hybrid rights, economic, democratic, criminal justice, scientific, social justice and radiation rights issues.

All the works contained herein are transformative and do not negatively impact the original copyright holders' financial benefit in any substantive way.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 section 107 of the US Copyright Law and therefore requires NO prior authorization for its use.

For more information go to:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this post for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 09:00:29 AM by thorfourwinds »
EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20016
  • Gold 880
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2013, 01:58:04 AM »
Radioactive leaks detected at waste site in northwest US
February 23, 2013 00:31

Hanford Nuclear Reservation (Jeff T. Green / Getty Images / AFP)

Six underground nuclear tanks in Washington State are leaking radioactive waste, the state’s government announced on Friday, describing the development as “disturbing.”

The leak at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation has so far not posed an immediate health risk to the public, Governor Jay Inslee’s office said. But it had not been stopped.

Established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, the facility holds millions of liters of a highly radioactive stew left from decades of plutonium production for nuclear weapons. The tanks are long past their intended 20-year lifespan.

The US Department of Energy had earlier said that liquid levels were decreasing in one of the 177 tanks at south-central Washington's Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Monitoring wells near the tank have not detected higher radiation levels, AP says.

The site, in the town of Hanford in south-central Washington, was home to the B Reactor, the world's first full-scale plutonium production reactor. Plutonium produced at the facility was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, as well as in the Fat Man, the 21-kt bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.

This March 21, 2011 file photo shows an aerial view of the Columbia Generating Station, a nuclear power plant inside the Hanford nuclear site beside the Columbia River in Hanford, Washington state. (AFP Photo/Mark Ralston)

55-gallon drums containing transuranic (TRU) waste are prepared for shipment at the Waste Receiving and Processing facility (WARP) on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, 30 June, 2005 near Richland, Washington. (Jeff T. Green/Getty Images/AFP)

Workers demolish a decommissioned nuclear reactor during the cleanup operations at the Western hemisphere's most contaminated nuclear site in Hanford, Washington state on March 21, 2011. (AFP Photo/Mark Ralston)

Uncapped fuel stored underwater in K-East Basin. This is spent nuclear fuel at the Hanford site. (Image from

A sign is seen as you enter the world's largest environmental cleanup project at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation 30 June, 2005 near Richland, Washington. ( Jeff T. Green/Getty Images/AFP)


« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 02:16:51 AM by zorgon »

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3946
  • Gold 360
Re: 3/11/11 - The Day The World Changed Forever
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2014, 07:37:44 PM »

Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Elapsed Time since March 11, 2011, 2:46 PM - Fukushima, Japan

The World Must Take Charge at Fukushima

“In a time of universal deceit
telling the truth is considered a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy. USA, LLC
Free Click Tracking USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by spacemaverick
[Today at 08:16:23 PM]

Re: Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by Shasta56
[Today at 07:05:17 PM]

Re: Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by Shasta56
[Today at 07:02:42 PM]

Re: Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by space otter
[Today at 07:01:01 PM]

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by space otter
[Today at 06:51:54 PM]

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by ArMaP
[Today at 02:54:19 PM]

Re: Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by A51Watcher
[Today at 02:31:01 PM]

Re: Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by Sgt.Rocknroll
[Today at 01:07:38 PM]

Re: Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by Shasta56
[Today at 12:37:35 PM]

Re: Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by Pimander
[Today at 12:21:27 PM]

Were Jesus and Mary actually ET's? by Shasta56
[Today at 10:22:05 AM]

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by spacemaverick
[Today at 09:18:15 AM]

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by space otter
[Today at 07:12:24 AM]

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by spacemaverick
[March 22, 2018, 08:44:30 PM]

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by petrus4
[March 22, 2018, 04:51:29 PM]

Re: Russia - Should We Be Alarmed Yet? :) by space otter
[March 22, 2018, 11:33:28 AM]

Re: The US Army is getting hoverbikes. by space otter
[March 22, 2018, 10:58:21 AM]

Re: The US Army is getting hoverbikes. by The Seeker
[March 22, 2018, 09:47:33 AM]

Re: The US Army is getting hoverbikes. by space otter
[March 22, 2018, 08:25:53 AM]

Re: The US Army is getting hoverbikes. by The Seeker
[March 22, 2018, 07:56:30 AM]