Friday, December 18, 2015

Making Sense of Fukushima


Lucas Hixon of Enformable has a very interesting article up concerning his efforts with David Lochbaum to obtain through freedom of information access requests NRC records from the earliest days of the disaster. (See http://enformable.com/2015/12/nrc-management-of-foia-requests-puzzling-experts/).

The latest document to be released that I've seen is dated March 18 and is available here:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12122A949.pdf

The document indicates that the NRC was asked to come up with source terms for Fukushima in order to predict the radiation dose to exposed US populations. While making that prediction, the NRC assessed that:
1) 25% of the total fuel in unit 2 released to the atmosphere
2) 50% of the total spent fuel from unit 3 was released to atmosphere
3)100 percent of the spent fuel was released into the atmosphere from unit 4.
As I've mentioned previously on my blog, there was no word on the fuel in unit 1's reactor and pool, and no information about the fuel in reactor 3, nor the conditions at the common spent fuel pool.

Unit 3 appeared to suffer the greatest destruction and a fly-over in March 2011 showed green glowing material in either unit 3 or 4 (not sure which):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8389415/Japan-nuclear-plant-exposed-to-the-elements-nuclear-fuel-in-meltdown.html

Screenshots:https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxxjkgkpishyx72/Green%20Glow%20The%20Telegraph%202011%20Fukushima%20Unit%203.pdf?dl=0

So, the burning question (bad pun) is whether the NRC's March 18 assessment of the condition of spent fuel pool #4 was correct because TEPCO claimed to have successfully removed fuel from spent fuel building 4 a year or so ago AND webcam watchers viewed what appeared to be "fires" on the webcams in units 3 and 4 in the summer and fall of 2011.

Here is an example of what webcam watchers saw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sE6050Vhh0

My personal belief, based on webcam imagery and EPA Radnet data, has always been that there were fires in 3 and 4 throughout 2011, although its possible the fires were limited to unit 3 and simply affected building 4 because of the two units' close proximity:

http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/unit-4-is-there-intact-fuel-left.html

EPA radiation monitoring showed unprecedented beta level highs in the US beginning in the fall of 2011 and continuing on through January 2012 before dropping in February 2012.

Many people I knew developed odd and difficult to diagnose/treat illnesses in the spring of 2012. I lost tons and tons of hair and so did my hair-stylist. Many people I knew had inexplicable gastro-linked illnesses and sudden problems breathing but no diagnosable heart problems. Many people had unusually bad dental problems.

So, my personal interpretation is that much of what didn't burn in units 3 and 4 in March 2011 ended up in the atmosphere and ocean over the course of the rest of the year.

Emissions are still visible from these units so there is no doubt still some remaining fuel.

Everyday people like myself will probably never know the full truth of what transpired at Fukushima but we do know the following facts:

1. Source terms for Fukushima have been revised many times upwards and scientific studies have found evidence that unit 4 fuel ended up in the atmosphere.

2. TEPCO admits uncontained fuel is in direct contact with water coursing under the site and into the Pacific Ocean resulting in UNMITIGATED and DIRECT contamination of the Pacific and also of Japan's ground water.

3. TEPCO cannot locate melted reactor fuel for units 1 and 2 despite use of a muon test.

4. Radiation readings continue to rise in groundwater and in the port water at the Daiichi site.

5. Iodine-131 continues to be detected in city sludge in Japan, although it looks as if the government is halting municipal testing.

6. Reactor buildings are in danger of collapse due to an earthquake or liquefaction of the ground because of the volume of water that must be pumped into buildings to prevent fires.

7. Animal life in Fukushima prefecture is already experiencing adverse effects, as documented by many scientists, including Mousseau and Moller.

8. Pacific life is collapsing with possible links to Fukushima (albeit unproven and repeatedly denied by "experts" without supporting evidence)

9. Fukushima is an unprecedented event with unknown and potentially catastrophic regional impacts which will be forcefully denied by authorities wishing to preserve a nuclear complex based on death, destruction, and psychosis.



13 comments:

  1. Worst Case Scenario Around The Fukushima Mega Nuclear Disaster, Vs Best Case Scenario Presented By Nuclear Industry
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2015/10/worst-case-scenario-around-fukushima.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. You and majia are good people doc. So is Lucas and pia. too many spooks otherwise. im gointo belize soon. sayonara

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nick from enenews....completely hacked out.

    My love to us all. The Truth has been told.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have a design for a T Shirt with Unit #3 going kaboom in full color and the phrase
    Got Fukushima!

    This is no joke folks. If you have known about #3 all along, great, if not, start praying.

    Nothing else will work any way.

    Twilight Zone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I often think I've fallen down Alice's Rabbit Hole or into the "Twilight Zone."

      Delete
  6. There were multiple competing source term models in play as of March 15, 2011, with the NRC providing this particular 25/50/100 source term model to the NARAC as stated in the PDF document referenced above.

    Tepco did not agree with this source term model.

    You should note that all source term models were guesses as of March 15, as nobody could get close enough to the damaged reactors 3 and 4 to make an accurate assessment.

    If you were an engineer from the NRC, who just arrived on the scene, and you wanted the NARAC to come up with some advisories, you'd give them "worst case." IMHO, that is all we have here: the worst case among multiple competing source term models.

    Don't get me wrong, Unit 4 was plenty bad, and Unit 3 even worse, but the elephant in the room is the video documentation of SFP4 fuel removal. To dismiss these videos as elaborate hoaxes, as others have done, is to be intellectually lazy. Where is the evidence?

    If there is no evidence, we should be careful not to portray a source term model, generated by the NRC on March 15, as fact, or anything close to fact. This, when the Japanese--who were far more familiar with the plant--did not agree with the NRC's imagined loss of SFP4.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael Magyar is correct. Why would you accept conclusions made by people who were trying to makes guesses based on a little low-quality evidence, when there is now a lot of high-quality evidence available?

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is no definitive set of source terms available in the scientific literature, which I've reviewed in my many publications on Fukushima.

    So, all we have are educated guesses based on SNAPSHOT representations of fallout contamination.

    SNAPSHOTS: The xenon and krypton releases exceeded Chernobyl's and were detected around the world.

    Iodine 131 levels WEEKS AFTER DEPOSITION reported by the US geological survey indicate that fallout in some places exceeded IAEA standards of "contamination" for radioiodine alone.

    Safety assurances are being based on measurements of single radionuclides with no consideration of the 1000 radioactive elements said by TEPCO to have been emitted during Daiichi's early meltdowns.

    Maybe government officials at high ranks know the true source terms from March 11-15, but what about the ONGOING contamination of the ocean and atmosphere? Have ongoing contamination levels been factored into risk assessments?

    And then we have the problems with modeling dose. The NRC, EPA, FDA dose-models entirely lack ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY, as demonstrated by quite a bit of EMPIRICAL research on radiation-contaminated environments.

    So, what is your argument Michael? It seems to me that you are saying that without definitive source terms no arguments can be made about the catastrophic consequences of the disaster.

    Am I correctly representing your argument. Please clarify if I'm incorrect in my assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My scope for this comment is SFP4 only.

    My argument is that the existence of the 25/50/100 source term does not answer the question of whether SFP4 was lost.

    My purpose is to caution both you (Majia), and the reader, that the 25/50/100 source term should not grow legs and become a "fact."

    ReplyDelete
  10. If human error is involved, the responsible corporations should pay up out of their profits. There was criminal negligence. So the strategy is to dispute the nature and extent of harm and the causation thereof. Also, the legal team tries to hide behind immunities and the complexitiesof international law of nuclear liability. Unit #4 spent fuel pool or may not have burned off into the atmosphere. But massive amounts of radionuclides were released, worse than Chernobyl. Nuclear energy cannot be cheap if all steps are taken to make it safe. Absolute care is required which is impossible for profit-driven humans to deliver. Nature is also unpredictable. This accident scenario will be repeated. Every seven years on the average there has been a nuclear catastrophe, usually followed by a cover-up. Consumers and taxpayers pick up the tab.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If human error is involved, the responsible corporations should pay up out of their profits. There was criminal negligence. So the strategy is to dispute the nature and extent of harm and the causation thereof. Also, the legal team tries to hide behind immunities and the complexitiesof international law of nuclear liability. Unit #4 spent fuel pool or may not have burned off into the atmosphere. But massive amounts of radionuclides were released, worse than Chernobyl. Nuclear energy cannot be cheap if all steps are taken to make it safe. Absolute care is required which is impossible for profit-driven humans to deliver. Nature is also unpredictable. This accident scenario will be repeated. Every seven years on the average there has been a nuclear catastrophe, usually followed by a cover-up. Consumers and taxpayers pick up the tab.

    ReplyDelete