tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7956755108580388092024-03-13T11:21:44.666-07:00Tohoku Earthquake & Nuclear CrisisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-42886478811451964132015-02-22T16:42:00.002-08:002015-02-22T16:42:26.055-08:00New Documentary on FukushimaThis brief but informative documentary (the first third of a program called VICE) points out that the radioactive water and soil are piling up with no plan in sight for disposal. As Micho Kaku points out, we are 50 years into the nuclear power era, and we still don't know where to put the waste....<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYynn9B7uns">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYynn9B7uns</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-26777292741185435972014-08-16T19:01:00.000-07:002014-08-16T19:01:15.202-07:00ISIS has 40 kg of Uranium CompoundsAfter my last highly speculative post about ISIS, the terrorist group in Iraq, possibly acquiring Uranium, from used weapons, I researched breeder reactors more. I convinced myself that even possessing a large quantity of depleted (or natural) would not afford even a slight chance to the group to develop a nuclear weapon. The main reason is that while the breeder reactor can create fissile Plutonium from standard or depleted Uranium, the task of separating it from Uranium is chemically very challenging. <br />
<br />
Never-the-less I thought it quite odd that 2 days after my post, stories came out reporting that ISIS had successfully obtained about 40 kg of "Uranium Compounds" from a lab in Mosul University.<br />
<br />
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/09/us-iraq-security-nuclear-idUSKBN0FE2KT20140709<br />
<br />
Most reports (correctly, IMHO) dismissed the prospect of any fission weapon being made from this haul. Some commentators threatened that this made a dirty bomb possible. (Conventional explosives used to disperse somewhat radioactive compounds like U238). I don't see how this "dirty bomb" scenario, even at its worst represents a significant threat by ISIS beyond their current capabilities (explosives and guns). Since depleted uranium is scattered over the country, left over from the US-Iraq war, adding some more doesn't seem like such a scary change. Whatever harm scattering non-fissile Uranium around can cause, it has already happened. The conventional explosives can clearly kill more people...not to mention guns and what ever other horrific methods that group may be using.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-53777923063871916482014-07-06T02:19:00.000-07:002014-07-06T21:21:50.029-07:00Will ISIS use Depleted Uranium in Iraq?Greetings. I've decided to expand the purpose of this blog beyond scientific analysis of the nuclear issues associated with the Fukushima meltdowns to a general discussion of specific issues of public interest relating to nuclear physics.<br />
<br />
My inspiration for today's post is the book I am reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes...and excellent and very readable book. I just read how nuclear scientists like Leo Szilard tried desperately to make the US government aware of the importance of the discovery of nuclear fission by Lise Meitner & colleagues. A key factor is the difference in the way the two main isotopes of Uranium react: the rare U235, and the heavier (and more common) U238.<br />
<br />
This got me thinking about U238. It comprises ~99% of Natural Uranium, and to make bombs & reactors, natural Uranium is enriched until the ~1% of it that is U235 becomes 20% or even 99% (highly enriched, or weapons grade). Nuclear bomb makers thus remove most of the less reactive U238.....but that doesn't mean they can't use the leftovers for weapons. They can and they do.<br />
<br />
This leftover "Depleted Uranium" is shaped into high density and very hard bullets and anti-tank shells, which were used extensively both US-Iraq wars, and has, apparently caused <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html" target="_blank">serious health problems</a>, including reproductive harm. While U238 is not as radioactive is the U235 made for bombs, its radioactivity lasts a very long time. Some 400 tons of DU was dropped on Iraq, of which<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/06/iraq-depleted-uranium-clean-up-contamination-spreads" target="_blank"> most has not been cleaned up.</a><br />
<br />
My goal here is to determine, via a<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem#Examples" target="_blank"> back of the envelope calculation</a> if this reservoir of DU could be used by ISIS, to create a weapon that poses a general threat to human health. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant" target="_blank">ISIS</a> currently occupy what looks like about 1/3 of Iraq (and a portion of Syria which is not of interest here). So, with some rough assumptions, I calculate:<br />
<br />
A.) Of 400 tones of DU dropped on Iraq, 1/3 was in ISIS controlled territories. (I'll decrease this to 1/4 since much DU was concentrated in South Iraq...but a lot was used in Falluja as well)<br />
<br />
B.) Perhaps only 10% of DU is recoverable (eg. using Geiger counters). The rest would be vaporized, too broken up to trace, or otherwise already cleaned up. The figure could be lower than this.<br />
<br />
This leaves about 40 tones, or 40,000 kilograms of pure Uranium 238 possibly under ISIS control. What could they do w/ that amount? Fortunately, one answer is NOT "immediately build a nuclear weapon". While only 50 kg of U235 (a ball 4 inches in radius) is needed for a nuclear weapon, Depleted Uranium is pure U238 and has no critical mass, so cannot be "enriched" into U235.<br />
<br />
But it can be <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation" target="_blank">transmuted</a></i> into Plutonium 239 by means of what's called a breeder reactor. That Plutonium 239 can be made into nuclear weapons, like the one that destroyed Nagasaki. Basically a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source" target="_blank">neutron source</a> is required to add an extra neutron to U238 making Pu238 which Beta decays into Pu239. Building a full fledged breeder reactor seems implausible to me given the current state of affairs in Iraq.<br />
<br />
However, there are many types of neutron source, with different neutron fluxes, ranging from the old fashioned Radium+Beryllium sources used by fission pioneers such as Otto Hahn (Nobel Prize winner, not to be confused with David Hahn, the "Radioactive Boy Scout" who also used this same type of neutron source) to home made & commercially available "Fusors"......It is difficult to calculate what neutron flux is needed to transmute appreciable U into the required 10 kg of Pu, using neutron reflectors and neutron moderators (eg. Heavy Water) to improve the process.<br />
<br />
One <a href="http://aries.ucsd.edu/LIB/MEETINGS/0103-TRANSMUT/gohar/Gohar-present.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> makes such transmutations sound easy, given the right facilities; but according to this <a href="http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cannot-build-a-nuclear-fission-reactor-at-home/" target="_blank">website</a> its well nigh impossible (but it does not consider the prospect of a large quantity of free DU). I'll have to leave that calculation until later...if you have any thoughts feel free to chime in in the comments. How could we tell if ISIS were doing this: look out for large purchases of Geiger counters, Heavy Water, smoke detectors, etc.<br />
<br />
Ostensibly it is unlikely that any viable attempt at nuclear weapons will made by non-state entities, so there probably is nothing to worry about. ...After all, isn't it safe to assume that if the US military invades a country they will have thought through any of the adverse consequences like this?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-13795660717706323292014-06-19T10:58:00.000-07:002014-06-19T10:58:58.555-07:00Its been a long time since I posted any updates on Fukushima. I wanted to note two important recent stories. The first, in the NY Times:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/measuring-damage-at-fukushima-without-eyes-on-the-inside.html?ref=science">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/measuring-damage-at-fukushima-without-eyes-on-the-inside.html?ref=science</a><br />
<br />
Is ostensibly about an intriguing new technology, muon imaging, that may enable clean up crews to peer into the reactor buildings. But the most important part of the story comes in the first two paragraphs:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px;">Nobody really knows, because nobody has yet examined many of the most important parts of the wreckage. Though three and a half years have passed, it is still too dangerous to climb inside for a look, and sending in a camera would risk more leaks. </span></blockquote>
<br />
This has been the first point I make when people ask me about Fukushima: nobody has looked at the problem yet. Imagine if you had a massive leak in the pipes of your house. Your first goal might be to switch off the main water supply, and remove excess water. But if, after 3 years nobody had taken a look at the damage caused or the cause of the leak, where would that leave you? To clean something up, you need to look at it first. No one has done that, and until they do, we can say that there is currently no (credible) plan to clean up Fukushima.<br />
<br />
The other article shows the failure of the "Frozen Wall" plan...a dubious plan from the start in my mind.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-18/japans-plan-freeze-fukushima-ice-wall-melting-down">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-18/japans-plan-freeze-fukushima-ice-wall-melting-down</a><br />
<br />
Apparently its just not so easy to make a huge block of soil freeze solid. I remember in geology class learning that each kilometer down you dig, the temp. of the Earth increases by a certain amount (hence mines are very hot). I'm sure they are fighting this and many other factors. Since the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#China_Syndrome" target="_blank">China Syndrome</a>" has, effectively, happened, perhaps we should revisit the article, written by a Manhattan Project veteran, in which the term was coined. Actually, another blogger has already done so:<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1034201969"><br /></a>
<a href="http://fukushimadecoded.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/ralph-lapp-thoughts-on-nuclear-plumbing-1971-where-would-you-put-em-now-ralph/">http://fukushimadecoded.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/ralph-lapp-thoughts-on-nuclear-plumbing-1971-where-would-you-put-em-now-ralph/</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-82328046406545080632013-12-08T09:27:00.000-08:002013-12-08T09:27:17.736-08:0025 Sieverts/Hour! Highly Lethal radiation found OUTSIDE reactors.<br />
NKH Has reported detection of radiation in a duct outside the reactors at the level of 20 Sieverts per hour.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131207_01.html">http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131207_01.html</a><br />
<br />
This is typical of the radiation levels INSIDE a reactor! It can kill a human in about 20 minutes. One obvious, unasked question is: who made this measurement, and how close did he get to make the measurement? I would be concerned for the health of that worker.<br />
<br />
Speaking of workers, this article reports that the workers who built the tanks storing millions of tons of radioactive water were hired in very suspicious and possibly illegal ways.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/05/us-japan-nuclear-fukushima-labour-insigh-idUSBRE9B415P20131205">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/05/us-japan-nuclear-fukushima-labour-insigh-idUSBRE9B415P20131205</a><br />
<br />
Of greater importance to me are the reports that they tried to report the shoddy construction of the tanks but were ignored. One worker appears to have been payed hush money to keep the shoddy work secret. The tanks later failed and leaks thousands of gallons of radioactive water.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-22642627351945415512013-12-06T12:41:00.003-08:002013-12-06T12:41:38.135-08:00updateA few headlines from a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
NY Times: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/world/asia/with-a-plants-tainted-water-still-flowing-no-end-to-environmental-fears.html?src=recg&pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank">"Tainted water still flowing"</a><br />
<br />
<br />
It appears that TEPCO tore down a cliff that would have protected the reactors from the tsunami to build Fukushima:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1556204000"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-11-04/tepco-tore-down-natural-seawall-which-would-have-protected-fukushima-tsunami">http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-11-04/tepco-tore-down-natural-seawall-which-would-have-protected-fukushima-tsunami</a><br />
<br />
Fuel is being removed from Reactor 4. That this is possible is a good sign. However it could be a risky endeavor.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/07/world/asia/japan-tepco-fukushima-fuel-rods/index.html?hpt=hp_t3">http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/07/world/asia/japan-tepco-fukushima-fuel-rods/index.html?hpt=hp_t3</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-67365252305219204882013-10-22T13:21:00.001-07:002013-10-22T13:21:31.694-07:00Once again fission Nuclear power proves too expensive to insure. India refuses to buy US reactors unless they come with warrentees from manufacturers that include full liability. Of course the producers of nuclear plants (eg GE, Westinghouse) don't have to pay for defects in their products in the US per US Federal Law, so why should India want these US companies to be held accountable?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/the-impasse-over-liability-clause-in-indo-u-s-nuclear-deal/?src=recg">http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/the-impasse-over-liability-clause-in-indo-u-s-nuclear-deal/?src=recg</a><br />
<br />
There is, of course one obvious reason they may want US companies to agree to be accountable for their plants: Bhopal.<br />
<br />
<br />
In related news, the ex. PM of Japan just came out for completely eliminating nuclear plants form Japan calling nuclear power:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_2037686526"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/world/asia/former-prime-minister-declares-opposition-to-nuclear-power-in-japan.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/world/asia/former-prime-minister-declares-opposition-to-nuclear-power-in-japan.html</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-11060974092604720762013-09-13T08:50:00.001-07:002013-09-13T08:50:39.409-07:00Fukushima now officially out of controlJust one week after Japan won the 2020 Olympics, a TEPCO executive has now admitted that the disposal of radioactive water is <a href="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/fukushima-not-under/812662.html" target="_blank">"not under control".</a><br />
<br />
Its important to note here that nature (or as the Greeks called it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics" target="_blank">physics</a>) is not controllable. The so-called "Laws of Physics" are self-enforcing. A few of the laws that are coming into play now are: <br />
<br />
1. Radioactive decay. Nuclei will a certain half life will decay after a while. You can't control this.<br />
2. Gravity. Water deposited in the hills will flow to the ocean interminably. You can build a dam to stop it for a while...but eventually more water accumulates.<br />
<br />
All that can be done is to try to make the effects of these uncontrollable processes impact humans and the environment in the least harmful way. Unfortunately that is difficult to do when you have previously brought together a sufficient quantity of Uranium & Plutonium to create a radiation environment that kills any human within minutes (as is the case in the melted reactors) ...or hours (as may be the case in some of the outer areas).<br />
<br />
My prediction: the clean up of Fukushima's reactors will not have begun by the time the Olympic Flame reaches Tokyo.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-27420970494440112552013-09-04T07:53:00.001-07:002013-09-04T08:02:07.258-07:002.2 Sieverts per hour and climbingSo, new developments from yesterday. Note that we are now just talking about dealing with the tanks of water, not talking about the reactors themselves which nobody, not even a robot, has yet even looked at. (If they had, we would have a photo of the <a href="http://quakerad.blogspot.com/search?q=corium" target="_blank">corium</a> which we don't yet.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-radiation-deadly-new-high">http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-radiation-deadly-new-high</a><br />
<br />
The unanswered question here is: of the hundreds of drums of radioactive water, how many are leaking. TEPCO's official are obviously smart enough to have asked this question. Since they have not publicly answered it the answer is probably: "we don't know yet". They are probably right now sending people out amongst the tanks to check for leaks with Geiger counters (that go to 2000+ I hope). I don't envy those people.<br />
<br />
P.S. File this in the "Too Cheap To Meter" category. Care to guess how much energy 10 billion yen worth of nuclear reactor investment gets you per year?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130611p2a00m0na007000c.html">http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130611p2a00m0na007000c.html</a><br />
<br />
0 kWh.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-73908597615096219652013-09-03T12:29:00.000-07:002013-09-03T12:29:00.990-07:00"These (only) Go To 100 "At the end of August/Beginning of September <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/01/world/asia/japan-fukushima-radiation-spike/index.html?hpt=hp_t3" target="_blank">several reports</a> came out that radiation level at a few of the numerous vats of stored radioactive water "spiked" from 100 to 1800 millisieverts/hour. However, as this detailed article describes, the levels did not increase:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23918882">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23918882</a><br />
<br />
In fact these were at 1800 millisieverts/hour for an unknown amount of time. The reason for the 100 millisievert reading is that the detectors used only go to 100! That's one sure way to ensure that you won't get any high radiation readings. Why in the world even use a detector that can't detect truly dangerous levels of radiation?<br />
<br />
While 300 tons of water leaked from a storage tank into the Pacific a few weeks ago, this leak did not drain any of the tanks appreciably. That's good, but its also bad in that it means that just a few drops of leakage can cause a potentially deadly radiation level. 1.8 Seiverts/hour is enough to cause vomiting in 30 minutes, and in three hours give you more radiation that Harry Daughlian received in 1945 when he was<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Daghlian" target="_blank"> killed testing an atomic bomb</a>.<br />
<br />
A while back I suggested sardonically that Japan could host a radioactive Olympics, when the press reported they now have over 100 Olympic swimming pools full of contaminated water. Now it looks like Japan is seriously hoping to host the Olympics in Tokyo, within 200 miles of Fukushima. They recently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/09/03/world/asia/03reuters-japan-fukushima.html?ref=global-home&_r=0" target="_blank">committed half a billion dollars</a> to allay worries that the area may not be environmentally safe to host. Its nice to know that Japan's Abe government takes nuclear safety seriously...at least when putting in an Olympic bid.<br />
<br />
The real problem (at least one of them) is that the melted down reactors are now a permanent source of contamination to an underwater river of groundwater. Some 400 tons per day are pumped out of the reactor building to stem the flow. As this diagram in the BBC article above makes clear...<br />
<br />
<img alt="Graphic of water tank contamination at Fukushima" height="327" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69415000/gif/_69415268_fukushima_groundwater_v2.gif" width="624" /><br />
<br />
...the only possible solutions are to isolate the reactor from the groundwater, or to divert the river. Its not surprising that the underground steel dam TEPCO hoped would stop the flow has not worked. Meanwhile as much of the water as possible must be put into tanks, and a growing army of people are now required just to monitor the tanks for leaks.<br />
<br />
One can only imagine what would happen if these hundreds of tanks were subjected to, eg. another earthquake, a powerful tornado such as those that struck <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOTl6I87S-U" target="_blank">Koshigaya</a>, north of Tokyo yesterday (injuring dozens), or heaven forbid, a crazy nut with a machine gun.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-55022473909485039752013-08-21T00:59:00.004-07:002013-08-21T00:59:47.618-07:00New Disaster Level: 3TEPCO just declared that the ongoing release of highly radioactive water at Fukushima constitutes a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale" target="_blank">LEVEL 3</a> nuclear incident. For reference, this places the current situation one level below the SL-1 disaster, in which 4 people were killed and the Tokiamura criticality accident in which two people died. Its not clear if this incident the current incident could be upgraded. No one has died, but a team of workers were sprayed with radioactive water.<br />
<br />
It appears TEPCO is now admitting that they've been leaking 300 tons of radioactive water a day, every day, since the disaster began, something they denied for months.<br />
<br />
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-plant-leaking-300-tonnes-of-radioactive-water-from-storage-tank-8775962.html<br />
<br />
http://rt.com/news/fukushima-sea-radiation-highest-686/<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-29667963004089829002013-08-16T20:06:00.003-07:002013-08-16T20:06:52.767-07:00This article:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-15/nagasaki-bomb-maker-offers-lessons-for-japan-s-fukushima-cleanup.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.3em;" target="_blank">Nagasaki Bomb Maker Offers Lessons for Fukushima Cleanup</a><br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
Provides for the first time that I have seen a price tag for the Fukushima cleanup: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 24px;">$112 billion (</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 24px;">11 trillion yen)</span> . For reference this is about 1/60 of Japan's GDP. Of course the true cost of the disaster will be much more than this estimate, especially if you include the 100,000 people who were displaced and had their housed condemned, the cost of lost electrical power, etc. This is probably more expensive than all other tsunami cleanup/damage expenses...but I'd like to see a comparison.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-44230183567670850082013-08-05T20:32:00.002-07:002013-08-05T20:32:41.591-07:00Emergency DeclaredUnknown quantities of highly radioactive water are continuously entering the groundwater and ocean. <br />
<br />
Cs-137 levels increased by 1,500% in the last week.<br />
Strontium is not being tested for currently (why not?) but will be 'next'<br />
<br />
<a href="http://preview.reuters.com/2013/8/5/fukushima-radioactive-water-likely-breached">http://preview.reuters.com/2013/8/5/fukushima-radioactive-water-likely-breached</a><br />
<br />
The mitigation involves pumping and diverting 500 tons of ground water PER DAY. This is on top of storing the huge quantity of radioactive water being produced daily (see previous posts.)<br />
<br />
The amount of labor required to keep Fukushima from getting worse seems to be increasing linearly, or faster, with time. How long will it be before 20% of Japanese citizens will be required to keep this plant from getting worse... and how about how much effort it will take to make things better, and/or actually begin to look at then clean up the problem....(which hasn't been done yet.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-7983628693991227442013-07-19T14:01:00.001-07:002013-07-19T14:01:40.866-07:00More new reactions, more Boric AcidIt appears like the reactor(s) turned themselves on again, in a possible new "inadvertent criticality"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1290373866"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/world/asia/steam-detected-at-damaged-fukushima-reactor.html?_r=3&">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/world/asia/steam-detected-at-damaged-fukushima-reactor.html?_r=3&</a><br />
<br />
<br />
This looks like exactly the same problem (and short term solution) as discussed in this video, over 2 years ago:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-videos/newly-released-tepco-data-provides-evidence-of-periodic-chain-reaction-at-fukushima-unit-1">http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-videos/newly-released-tepco-data-provides-evidence-of-periodic-chain-reaction-at-fukushima-unit-1</a><br />
<br />
By the way the Fairewinds.com site continues to post useful videos about Fukushima and other nuclear issues. For continuing discussion of the crisis I've also found this blog: http://akiomatsumura.com<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-53160053753730719342013-07-16T10:53:00.000-07:002013-07-16T11:17:31.059-07:00Reactor #1 now leaking into the PacificThis article:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nationofchange.org/fukushima-spiking-1373728437">http://www.nationofchange.org/fukushima-spiking-1373728437</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Quotes Japan's Nuclear Regulatory Agency as saying that Reactor #1 is now probably leaking into the Pacific. The measured radioactivity is 90,000 times above the "safe" level.<br />
<br />
More than 60 different radioactive substances are being leaked, including Cs-137.<br />
<br />
Here's a little more info beyond what the article provides:<br />
<br />
--1 Becquerel (Bq) is just one radioactive decay per second. The article should have stated this. TEPCO measured Reactor #1's water this month (July 2013) to be 900,000 Bq/liter. If you held up a 1 liter bottle of this water, this would be "clicking" a Geiger Counter nearly a million times a second if the Geiger counter recorded all of these decays. (it wouldn't because of positioning and efficiency, but even 10,000 clicks/sec would make a pretty loud scream)<br />
<br />
--Cs-137 has a half life of 30 years, meaning that once it gets into the environment it will be over 100 years before it is 90% gone. It is also chemically reactive and the "salts" that it forms dissolve in water, making it difficult to remove. From Wikipedia<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Caesium-137 is not widely-used for </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_radiography" style="background-color: white; background-image: none; color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; text-decoration: none;" title="Industrial radiography">industrial radiography</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"> because it is quite chemically reactive, and hence, difficult to handle. Also the salts of caesium are very soluble in water, and this complicates the safe handling of caesium.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
I wish the article provided links to each of the TEPCO and NRA reports. Hopefully these can be found at TEPCO's English website: <a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html">http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-39410866866206166522013-06-09T09:01:00.000-07:002013-06-09T09:01:38.947-07:00<div>
<h1 class="articleHeadline" itemprop="headline" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.083em; margin: 0px 0px 8px; text-align: left;">
<nyt_headline type=" " version="1.0"><span style="font-size: small;">From the NYT:</span></nyt_headline></h1>
<h1 class="articleHeadline" itemprop="headline" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.083em; margin: 0px 0px 8px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; line-height: 1.083em;">Leak Found in Steel Tank for Water at Fukushima</span></h1>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/world/asia/tepco-says-water-at-fukushima-is-contaminated.html?src=rechp">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/world/asia/tepco-says-water-at-fukushima-is-contaminated.html?src=rechp</a></div>
<div>
<br />This problem seems pretty minor, but it does raise the question: do we really think TEPCO can store hundreds of olympic-swimming pools full of radioactive water for decades w/o any spills into the groundwater? The fact that they are considering the expense of freezing some of the water indicates that they know that liquid water is hard to contain.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-72616868276687049882013-04-29T23:48:00.000-07:002013-07-16T11:31:49.089-07:00Radioactive Olympics Anyone?Japan hosted the Olympics in 1998. If there's ever a "radioactive" Olympics, northern Japan could play host. They now have 112 Olympic-size swimming pools full of radioactive Strontium- and Tritium-laced water. That would be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90" target="_blank">Sr-90 </a>, a bone seeker with a half life of 29 years, and HTO instead of H2O (T= Tritium, and isotope of Hydrogen). They are producing more than a gallon of new radioactive water every second, day and night. This according to a report in the NYT:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/asia/radioactive-water-imperils-fukushima-plant.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/asia/radioactive-water-imperils-fukushima-plant.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all</a><br />
<br />
One question is: where did the tritium come from? After the Tohoku Earthquake, the reactors shut down using their control rods. We know that they restarted themselves, producing fission reactions that caused the multiple meltdowns. These fission reactions can create the neutrons needed to produce Tritium (which is 1 proton + 2 neutrons) , but this is rare (0.01 % of fusions produce it). Another possibility, as suggested by Wikipedia's page on Tritium, is that the Tritium could be coming from the spent nuclear fuel. Some experts implied they thought the fuel pool in Reactor #4 went prompt-critical and exploded. It would be interesting to see if the water coming from Reactor #4 has a higher level of Tritium.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Speaking of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water" target="_blank">Heavy water </a>, yesterday I calculated how much of a 1 liter bottle of normal sea water NOT H2O. Answer was that 6 drops of water per liter are HDO, where D = Deuterium. This Deuterium comes to us from .... the Big Bang! When we get fusion power working this Deuterium will be an important source to tap into. I also calculated that none of the water in your water bottle contains tritium (unless you got your water from somewhere near Fukushima)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-47675461531742992792013-04-09T09:45:00.002-07:002013-04-09T09:45:38.953-07:00Rats! We're leaking againFukushima bedeviled by leaks and rats:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/world/asia/rat-chase-again-bedevils-fukushima-nuclear-plant.html?src=recg">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/world/asia/rat-chase-again-bedevils-fukushima-nuclear-plant.html?src=recg</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/world/asia/small-toxic-leak-is-reported-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant.html?src=recg">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/world/asia/small-toxic-leak-is-reported-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant.html?src=recg</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-63476262182726879022012-10-04T23:06:00.000-07:002012-10-04T23:06:25.939-07:00Still no cleanup: Radiation lethal for people *and robots*<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; line-height: 17px;">“</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; line-height: 17px;"><strong>There is no technology which may be directly applied</strong></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; line-height: 17px;">,”</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; line-height: 17px;"> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span>
That's what the company in charge of cleaning up Fukushima said according to this story.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-04/fixing-fukushima-beyond-current-technology">http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-04/fixing-fukushima-beyond-current-technology</a><br />
<br />
In other words no one has even looked at the problem(s) yet, not even a robot.<br />
<br />
<br />
Robots are getting fried by 71 sieverts/hour (From March):<br />
<br />
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120329a1.htmlUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-9659823659671275342012-10-04T22:52:00.001-07:002012-10-04T22:52:02.498-07:00Fukushima: Sept. 2012Briefly, here's a story from Sept.<br />
<br />
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-19/fukushima-radiation-japan-irradiates-west-coast-north-america<br />
<br />
It has quite a few good links.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-42757153599001164562012-09-14T23:49:00.001-07:002012-09-14T23:49:51.899-07:00US Nuke Plants at higher risk of flooding: EngineersWhen Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in the US flooded within months of the Fukushima meltdowns, it looked like a serious situation to me, especially when the barrier they set up around the reactors burst. But "authorities said there's nothing to be concerned about".<br />
<br />
Now it appears that whistleblowers in the plant say the risks of flooding at this and other plants are higher than is being reported. In particular they are concerned with catastrophic dam failures:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/flood-threat-nuclear-plants-nrc_n_1885598.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/flood-threat-nuclear-plants-nrc_n_1885598.html</a><br />
<br />
Such failures are quite rare. But the point is if hundreds of nuclear plants operating over many decades, some of them are going to experience rare events like tsunamis. Hence they must be designed w/ such events in mind.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-58841120556897285932012-01-27T22:26:00.000-08:002012-01-27T22:26:26.431-08:00One Man in the ZoneI think I'll try to send this guy some money. However the postman will never deliver it because he's not allowed into the Zone.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/27/world/asia/japan-zone-resident/index.html?hpt=hp_c1">http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/27/world/asia/japan-zone-resident/index.html?hpt=hp_c1</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-55632951579238386162011-11-01T15:06:00.000-07:002011-11-01T15:06:39.381-07:00No cleanup 'til 2022From CNN:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/world/asia/japan-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t2">http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/world/asia/japan-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t2</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Japan's Atomic Energy Commission of the Cabinet Office on Friday, said the removal of debris -- or nuclear fuel -- should begin by the end of 2021.</span></blockquote>That's for the reactors themselves....but in the meantime what about what's already been released?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">But the timetable doesn't address plans for dealing with the radiation released into the wider environment from the Fukushima disaster,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"> said Timothy Mousseau, a radiation ecologist at the University of South Carolina.</span></blockquote><div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Oh, nevermind.</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-41206988299406784192011-08-02T23:58:00.000-07:002011-08-02T23:58:23.040-07:00More Deadly that EverWhile Fukushima has managed to keep mostly out of the (mainstream US) headlines for a while, and I've been unable to blog, there has of late been some startling developments, most importantly:<br />
<br />
<b>The radiation levels at Fukushima are higher than ever, and now could kill crews working there.</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=2&ref=global-home">NYT reports</a> readings of 10 Sieverts/hour (10,000 miliSeiverts/hour). <br />
But wait that reading was the max. the instrument could record. So the real reading must be higher (how much, we don't know.) Recall that doses <b>below</b> this hourly reading (6-10 Sv) cause death...and not just "you'll get cancer in a few years" type death but immediate death in a few days or a week (Some media outlets reported that the exposure could cause death in "a few weeks" as if you'd need to be exposed for that long to 10 Sv radiation. Not true. Once exposed to a 10 Sv dose, you are walking dead. As I mentioned on this blog before this happened twice during/after the Manhattan project, and also a few years ago at a Japanese Plutonium reprocessing plant. If the true reading was say 15-20 Sv/hour then it means that everybody standing at this location for more than about 15 minutes would die within days. (fortunately the unlucky person to take this reading was wearing protective clothing).<br />
<br />
This reading was taken outside the ruined buildings between reactors 1 and 2, and implies that people can no longer go near this location to conduct repairs. It'll have to be robot for what that's worth. This still leave open the question of how they are going to get inside the buildings to plug leaks and rebuild the cooling system and finally remove the now-melted Uranium/Plutonium/Zirconium mixture from the floor.<br />
<br />
And tonight a second lethal reading has been reported, along with a gamma-ray photograph:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/tepco-reports-second-deadly-radiation-reading-at-fukushima-plant.html">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/tepco-reports-second-deadly-radiation-reading-at-fukushima-plant.html</a><br />
<br />
This reading of 5 Sv is also off scale meaning it could be above 5 even 10 Sv/ hour. What strikes me as odd is that TEPCO is claiming this might be due to venting just after the March 11 accident (this would make sense due to the location: right at a one of the venting "smokestacks"). However if this is true then it implies that we've had lethal levels around here for months as workers scrambled around the grounds of the plant trying to repair stuff.<br />
<br />
I think that's all I can post tonight except to cite this useful link for Fukushima related news:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://enenews.com/">http://enenews.com/</a><br />
<br />
(You might have to click through to the stories.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795675510858038809.post-84996259584433804682011-06-30T13:18:00.000-07:002011-06-30T13:18:17.202-07:00100% of Fukushima Kids tested have internal Cs-137Hello to anybody who is still reading this blog out there. I stopped posting during final exams, and then went on vacation. So here is a quick summary of two new stories about Fukushima.<br />
<br />
The first has to do with a concern I've been trying raise here, (following the experts at fairewinds.com and others): There's a big difference between external radiation dose (eg from an X-ray) and internal exposure, say from eating something radioactive which stays in your body. The latter is much more dangerous (see <a href="http://quakerad.blogspot.com/2011/04/nights-plutonian-shore.html">this</a> earlier post)<br />
<br />
The Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/30/fukushima-children-radiation-tests-caesium">reports</a> that of 10 kids tested all 10 have radioactive urine. What's most disturbing is that this test was NOT carried out for the first 3 months! Specifically, Cesium-137 was detected. Cs-137 doesn't occur naturally: it is only found after Uranium and Plutonium atoms split in a reactor (or in a bomb). The level is about 1 radioactive decay per second per liter (1 Bq/l), and doesn't seem to concern the people interviewed in this article (understandable: the Potassium in our bodies naturally produces more decays than this) However the article makes no assessment of the health risks. My main concern is: how radioactive were these kids in the weeks right after the disaster?<br />
<br />
They probably had a lot more Cesium, Strontium and Iodine in their bodies then which has naturally flushed out. People were advising internal vs. external radiation doses early on...why has this taken so long? The radioactive Iodine from the initial explosions has now decayed away, but Cs-137 has a a half life of 30 years meaning it takes 100 years for it to be 90% "gone".<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/30/fukushima-children-radiation-tests-caesium">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/30/fukushima-children-radiation-tests-caesium</a><br />
<br />
The other story is that 1 Sv or 1,000 milliSeivert/hour water is now leaking out of reactor 2.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8411193/Highly-radioactive-water-leaks-outside-Japans-nuclear-plant-building.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8411193/Highly-radioactive-water-leaks-outside-Japans-nuclear-plant-building.html</a><br />
<br />
This water is so radioactive that exposure for 6 minutes is enough to measurably increase your cancer risk, and exposure for more than an hour would cause illness or death. Two people have already been burned by the water last week. We can presume that TEPCO is just going to dump this water into the ocean, since they again made the statement that the radioactive water would "quickly dissipate" in the sea. I don't know about quickly but it will disperse far and wide into the ocean, where it will be consumed by fish seaweed and other life forms. Probably only the fish within a few miles will get heavy enough doses to cause mutations, etc. but who's to say they won't then swim far away?<br />
<br />
One final story from the NY Times:<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_875315318"><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_875315318">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/world/asia/28fukushima.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=fukushima%20older&st=cse</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/world/asia/28fukushima.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=fukushima%20older&st=cse"><br />
</a><br />
It seems like the ideal people to send into a radioactive environment are the elderly: their cells divide more slowly so are less susceptible. Plus, if they get cancer in 10 - 20 years, who cares? Remarkably some brave volunteers have signed up. My hat's off to them!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0