Monday, November 19, 2018

Fukushima Daiichi Webcam 4: Last Image


I noted in my last post that Fukushima Daiichi webcam 4, trained on the Unit 4 building, has not been working for several days.

Below find my last screenshot of Fukushima Daiichi unit 4's webcam dated November 15 00:08:


For comparison, here is an earlier, daytime screenshot from October 27, 2018 15:09:


It's possible the unit 4 webcam simply died from high radiation at the site and hasn't been replaced yet.

If I had to speculate about anything TEPCO might want to keep out of view by deliberately not replacing the unit 4 webcam, I would focus on the common spent fuel pool building, which is partly visible in the bottom, left hand corner. TEPCO has unloaded fuel from other buildings here.

Alternatively, perhaps the decision was made to take unit 4 out of view given plans this spring to cut water injections into reactors at Daiichi (see IAEA Urges Quick Plan The Asahi Shimbun) to help reduce the hundreds of tons of contaminated water that are still produced daily at the site as TEPCO injects cooling water into very damaged containment facilities.






8 comments:

  1. The raioactive water situation, at fukushima is an international scandal now. You are probably right Majia.
    More than a few countries do not want the accumulated tritiated and strontiated water dumped in to the ocean.

    Meanwhile, discussing radionuclide contamination in most of Japan is taboo.

    There are small groups of crackpots in the streets like the Bannon and Mercer Spnsored 》Proud BoY-Brown Shirts《 parading in cities around Japan now, with Swastika flags. Gee I wonder who is funding them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found the article that mentions reducing water injections but it does NOT specify unit 4:

    IAEA urges quick plan to clean up Fukushima radioactive water
    THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    November 14, 2018
    http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201811140010.html



    It said the water problem has improved recently because of measures such as an underground frozen wall installed around the reactor buildings to keep the radioactive water from mixing with groundwater. It suggested that TEPCO could further reduce the amount of contaminated water by cutting back on the use of cooling water injected into the reactors because the temperature of the melted fuel has fallen significantly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cambridge analytica backed propaganda and extreme conspriacy ideations get more outragepus with time. The violence , racist rhetoric will tonedown, we can only hope

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The conspiracy ideations in the case of the woolsey fire are the energy beam stuff. Like all fires in the USA are from energy beams.  The woolsey fire is awful. Many people recognize that. It disperse radioactive particulates and smoke. There have been sharp upticks above 20msv in that area. I do not know what enviroreporter is saying.

      https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/16/wolsey-fire-burns-toxic-santa-susana-reactor-site/

      WOOLSEY  FIRE BURNS TOXIC SANTA SUSANA SITE


      A common denominator, in every single nuclear accident … is that before the specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’ They do this before they themselves know what has happened…”

      — Jacque Cousteau

      The Woolsey fire in California began Nov. 8 near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), site of a partial reactor meltdown, the consequences of which have never been cleaned up. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control released a statement early Nov. 9 saying its scientists “don’t believe that the fire has caused any releases of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to people exposed to the smoke.”

      The fire’s progress through to Oak Park indicates that much of the toxic site burned, according to the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility which has investigated SSFL radiation risks for 30 years.

      Use of the phrase “don’t believe” [the fire caused risk] by the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) had to stand in for a clear denial of radiation risk because none of the site’s air monitors had yet been seen by the department. The following words of DTSC’s Nov. 9 announcement were: “There is an air monitoring network around the perimeter of the SSFL site. As soon as access is open we will evaluate the air monitoring stations.” The department seemed to be reading from a script identified by the oceanographer Jacque Cousteau who said, “…before specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’”

      Delete
    2. The dodgy DTSC language caused outrage and alarm among watchdog groups concerned with cleanup of the SSFL site. University of California-Los Angeles climate scientist and distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Glen MacDonald, told Democracy Now, Nov. 13: “I would want to see … some monitoring of what was kicked up.”

      “We can’t trust anything that DTSC says,” said West Hills resident Melissa Bumstead, whose young daughter twice survived leukemia that Bumstead blames on the SSFL and who has mapped 50 other cases of rare pediatric cancers near the site. Bumstead organized a group called “Parents vs. SSFL” and launched a Change.org petition, now signed by over 410,000 people, demanding full cleanup of SSFL. “DTSC repeatedly minimizes risk from Santa Susana and has broken every promise it ever made about the cleanup. The public has no confidence in this troubled agency,” said Bumstead.

      Bumstead told Nukewatch Nov. 13, that DTSC has a history of promoting the financial advantage of the polluters — Boeing, NASA and the Energy Department — rather than the protection of public health.”

      The Physicians for Social Responsibility press advisory notes that nuclear reactor accidents, including a famous partial meltdown, tens of thousands of rocket engine tests, and sloppy environmental practices have left SSFL polluted with widespread radioactive and chemical contamination. Government-funded studies indicate increased cancers for offsite populations associated with proximity to the site. In 2010, DTSC signed agreements with the Department of Energy and NASA that committed them to clean up all detectable contamination in their operational areas by 2017. DTSC also in 2010 committed to require Boeing, which owns most of the site, to cleanup to comparable standards. But the cleanup has not yet begun, and DTSC is currently considering proposals that will leave much, if not all, of SSFL’s contamination on site permanently.

      Dr. Robert Dodge, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, shares the community’s concerns. “We know what substances are on the site and how hazardous they are. We’re talking about incredibly dangerous radionuclides and toxic chemicals … These toxic materials are in SSFL’s soil and vegetation, and when it burns and becomes airborne in smoke and ash, there is real possibility of heightened exposure for area residents.”

      The SSFL, 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, was burned over by the Wolsey fire which by Nov. 13 had consumed 96,000 acres or about 150 square miles.

      The July 12, 1959 partial meltdown of the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) was especially dangerous, because, as an experimental reactor, it was built without a “containment structure” — the large concrete and steel dome the covers most nuclear reactors. The SRE loss of control was “the third largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power,” according to Arjun Makhajani, President of the Institute for Energy & Environmental Research.

      Like today’s uncontrolled dispersal of contaminants by the Wolsey wildfire, the amount of radioactive materials dispersed by the 1959 accident was never thoroughly measured. The lab’s radiation “monitors went clear off the scale,” according to an employee of Rocketdyne which operated the site. That meltdown was kept secret for 20 years until 1979.


      John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin


      Delete
  4. Somewhat off the current topic but not off the drift: a brilliant critique of postmoderism and its side kick Marxism---

    "Jordan Peterson Speaks on Political Correctness" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAXT_lI1PJM

    Warning: might be unsettling to sensitive minds and those suffering from neurastenia.

    Personally I have trouble grasping why educated persons still cling to Marxism, e.g. Macron's parroting Marx and Stalin in his differentiating between patriotism and nationalism. The lingering influence of Satre?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Majia, Cam4 is available but its tricky.
    http://caferadlab.com/thread-2834-post-6661.html#pid6661

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.