Official: Fukushima radiation release falling

[FBaggins]

Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission estimates the amount of radioactive release from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant at around 1 terabecquerels per hour as of Sunday. A government advisor says he thinks the amount is gradually falling. The commission announced its latest estimate on Monday, and compared the level to the 154 terabecquerels per day on April 5th.

...snip...

When Japan raised the severity rating of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on April 12th, the commission announced its estimate that 630,000 terabecquerels of radiation had been released into the atmosphere from March 11th till April 5th. At that time, the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency offered its own calculation of 370,000 terabecquerels.

The agency said its estimate is about one-tenth of what was released in the 10 days following the Chernobyl accident on April 26th, 1986, and the Nuclear Safety Commission's estimate is even higher.


http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_11.html

[CJvR]

1. So...

...if it leaked 154 TBq/day since then and continue to do so for the next six months it will be about 5% of what has all readdy been released?

Clearly Armageddon is around the corner, repent nuclear sinners!

[FBaggins]

2. Well... there's no question that 154 TBq/day is a serious amount of activity.

They're comparatively fortunate that almost all of that went into the ocean and/or straight up from the pools. If the same amount was being released into the atmosphere and falling out all over Japan, it would be even more serious (though still nothing like chernobyl).

They're also fortunate that it isn't 154 for the next six months. It's already fallen dramatically from there and will likely continue to do so.

[buddysmellgood]

3. I hope you're right, but I don't think we know what it's likely to do.

There are just too many unknowns, damaged reactor vessels, the number 4 spent fuel pool. This still had the potential to get much worse.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Less than 1% of other groups estimates of total radiation release from Chernobyl.

Up to 100 petabecquerels of cesium alone.

The Chernobyl disaster was staggering on levels that are simply hard to comprehend. The numbers are so enormous, the entire Fukushima Dai-ichi complex easily fits in it's shadow, for now at least.

Here's hoping they stay on top of it.

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7.html

[FBaggins]

5. Amen to that.

It's amazing that the same group of people who spent the last couple decades overestimating the damage from Chernobyl... have now shifted over to minimizing it.

[CJvR]

6. It is convenient...

...to be able to say "Just as bad as Chernobyl" for PR purposes.

Just how big was Chernobyl really? I have seen figures from 3000 PBq to about 300000 PBq and with all the political campaign crap on the web it is hard to find a trustworthy source.

[FBaggins]

8. I think that it's more than an issue of convenience. It's fear.

Fear that they'll wake up a year or so from now to the world wondering whether there were any radiation deaths from Fukushima.

They've spent decades dishonestly trying to spin Chernobyl into "it could happen to any reactor". Ignoring differences in design. If it's a reactor... it can "go Chernobyl" at any time.

Yet here we have six of them hit by an historic combination of natural disaster, and those differences in design have saved tens/hundreds of thousands of lives (and the newer designs are many times safer yet).

This is almost literally the worst case for western-style reactors. If they can't gin this up into a REALLY big threat... their argument may be gone forever.

This is why their voices become ever more shrill as the danger subsides.

[kristopher]

10. It wasn't Chernobyl's design, it wan't the earthquake/tsunami - it's human failure

From 2002
Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant Comes Close To Disaster As Lax Regulator Places Company Interests Ahead of Public Safety.

(Washington, DC) First Energy, an Ohio electric utility, drove its deteriorating Davis-Besse nuclear power station dangerously close to a catastrophic accident it was revealed today. Moreover, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) capitulated to First Energy pressure to delay inspections of a vital safety component beyond a requested December 31, 2001 deadline in order to accommodate the industry rather than force an early shutdown to conduct inspections on deteriorating equipment.

Following the February shutdown for refueling outage and inspection at the Davis-Besse nuclear power station, 21 miles Southeast of Toledo, Ohio, operators discovered a cavity had eaten through 6-inches of carbon steel on the top of the 6½-inch thick reactor pressure vessel, the apparent result of corrosive coolant leakage from the reactor core. Less than a half inch of the reactor vessel's stainless steel liner remained in the bottom of the 4"X5"X6" cavity separating the reactor's highly radioactive and pressurized internal environment (2500psi) from blasting into the reactor containment building damaging safety equipment and possibly setting into motion a core melt accident. Initial company inspections additionally found cracks in the welds on five of the 69 nickel alloy sleeves that penetrate the reactor pressure vessel head to allow for control rod insertion to safely shutdown the reactor.

"First Energy pushed this reactor beyond all reasonable safety margins and the NRC basically allowed it," said Paul Gunter, Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for Washington, DC-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "This was a dangerous nuclear experiment on public safety that came damn close to exceeding the strength of a fundamental piece of reactor safety equipment, the reactor pressure vessel," he said.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had earlier granted operators at Davis-Besse a delay from a December 31, 2001 inspection report deadline on the same vessel head area of the reactor pressure vessel as was required of all other pressurized water reactor operators issued in a NRC industry bulletin on August 03, 2001. First Energy successfully fought NRC's request to shutdown early to inspect for damage to the region control rod drive mechanism vessel head penetrations for cracking and corrosive coolant leakage.

"Davis-Besse is a highly susceptible...

http://www.nirs.org/press/03-13-2002/1

http://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-nuclear-regulator-lets-industry-write-rules

[FBaggins]

12. Entirely irrational to claim that it wasn't the tsunami or bad design.

"Human failure" happens all the time. Designs need to account for that within a reasonble level of safety. Chernobyl didn't... Fukushima wasn't related to human failings. It was a natural disaster.

Shrill indeed.

[RC]

7. Because they have a new toy to play with.

The current disaster has to be made as bad as possible and that can't be done very well if Chernobyl is so much worse in comparison.

The real problem is we have way too many people on this planet for the energy resources available. The good stuff we have been depending on, are starting to get scarce. The only long term sustainable stuff on the horizon is nuclear in its various forms, and that is still in its infancy.
In the long term, with the current population, renewables, wind and solar will not be able to cut it for our energy needs. Only fill in the gaps.
The same goes for ethanol, which in reality is dependent on oil, which we are starting to run low on.

[jpak]

9. Yeah - that's why they keep jacking up the quantities released - no cred whatsoever

none

yup

[FBaggins]

11. "No cred whatsoever" really better describes...

...the folks who see a reported level reduced and claim that the source is lying... then see the same source increase a reported amount somewhere else and claim they were covering up but have now "admitted" the coverup... while continuing to cover up readings that would have proven the naysayers correct... but somehow never materialize.

An awfully "convenient" little world.

[Wilms]

13. No doubt it's falling all over the planet. n/t

[FBaggins]

14. Yep. And being measured all around the planet as well.

At the tiniest levels.... and levels that continue to decline.

[SpoonFed]

25. +1,000,000 awesome

It takes like 5 seconds now for FBags to be proven wrong by TEPCO of all sources... the situation certainly is worsening... for FBags cred! His every other day posting of "good news happy talk declining readings" certainly seem to have blown up like #3 in his face this time.

[jpak]

15. OOops!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x968575

[FBaggins]

17. Pretty dishonest title.

Hard to label something as "rising" that hadn't been previously measured.

When reporting levels that HAD been previously measured, there's no "oops". The same article reports that radiation levels in Tokyo's water were now at zero.

[jpak]

20. Looks like you were wrong - again

yup

[FBaggins]

22. If that's your standard for "wrong"-I have nothing to worry about.

Like saying that reports of falling temperatures in NY are proven wrong because someone measured their oven for the first time.

Surely you can do better than that?

Radiation levels all over the place HAVE been declining.

Why do I get the impression that that upsets you?

[SpoonFed]

26. puhhahaahahaah n/t

[Someguyinjapan]

16. Wow....

You cite as your reference an article by NHK, whose sources are Japanese governmental bodies? Two things:

1.) These agencies have completely destroyed their credibility with their bungled mismanagement of information in an attempt initially downplay the severity of the incident at Fukushima.
2.) Because it is an "official" release of information doesn't necessarily mean it is true or even accurate.

Yes, information released by TEPCO, the Japanese government and it's various nuclear agencies is completely trustworthy and we should disregard decades of scandals, unreported safety violations and a dithering, heel-dragging response time to Fukushima. Because it's an "official" release of information. And we know that there have been absolutely no errors or mistakes in releasng information about Fukushima to the world in the past five weeks by the Japanese government, TEPCO, NISA, etc, so their information is 100% trustworthy.

I feel relieved already-I think I'll change my Golden Week travel plans for a jaunt up north, since things are oh-so-much better.

[FBaggins]

18. They nevertheless remain a better source...

... than your imagination.

[Someguyinjapan]

19. I see

I guess I was imagining the numerous mistakes, delays, and contradictions that were issued in the first couple of weeks over here.

[FBaggins]

21. Nope...

... But those mistakes and errors were discovered when other data was released by thise same sources.

Saying "they're often wrong" doesn't support a particular position absent OTHER data.

IOW. Your lack of a source does not trump a source that you don't trust.

[Someguyinjapan]

23. Missing the point as usual

These very same organizations engaged in a pattern of mistakes, delays and errors not over a few hours or a couple of days but a couple of weeks. It is logical to assume that because of this, anything such organizations say must be treated with skepticism, based on the previously established pattern.

Now, if you want me to start cataloging every instance where TEPCO and the Japanese government have been inaccurate or wrong about what is going on up at Fukushima, I can do that. It will take me some time to do so. And then we'll revisit this chat and find out just how much faith should be placed in any pronouncement-good or bad-about Fukushima from these two.

[FBaggins]

29. Was that a claim or just the synopsis of your post?

The "point" is that you can't just ignore sources you don't like if that leaves you with no sources.

You can go on and on all day long about how the Japanese government and TEPCO are not to be trusted. That's fine... don't trust them. Presumably you also don't trust the local governments and/or universities that have produced data that is consistent with the other reports. Fine. Don't trust them.

That leaves you with no source at all. So on what basis would you post at all? Even the Arnie Gundersens of the world are using the (mis)reported data.

[Someguyinjapan]

30. .

.

[FBaggins]

31. I majored in the subject, yes.

I don't currently work in the field.

[SpoonFed]

27. can you look yourself in the mirror after writing this?

For 6 weeks you've posted happy talk (as jpak likes to put it) about non-existent and declining radiation levels. Besides the fact that these propositions are contradictory to one another, which is obvious to anyone with half a brain, you then go on to post on a regular schedule "radiation is declining" top threads, and then... wait for it...

usually with a day or two, some official, legitimate source of information (not YOUR imagination) invalidates your claim (much to the amusement of those of us watching your stupendous efforts at minimizing the situation and back pedaling).

So, what's the motive behind posting "the radiation is declining" if "the radiation levels are of no concern"? Seems to me that if the radiation levels were of no concern (delusional pro-nukes on here like to contend) then what does it matter if they are up, down or sideways from the last report?

Seems to me like you're selling your spin to two different markets and failing miserably at it.

[FBaggins]

28. If all you can debate is straw men... why go online at all?

You have all you need right there at home.

about non-existent and declining radiation levels. Besides the fact that these propositions are contradictory to one another, which is obvious to anyone with half a brain,

So you put contradictory words into my mouth and then point out that they contradict each other? What marvelous debating skills you have.

usually with a day or two, some official, legitimate source of information (not YOUR imagination) invalidates your claim

Really? Where?

You've been challenged several times to back up your claims... but all you do is ignore it and repeat them.

Radiation levels have been dropping for weeks all over Japan. I'm sorry if this disappoints you.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.