Has Our Gov't Learned NOTHING from the Japanese Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima?

[sparky]

Safety rules loosened for aging nuclear reactors

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. — Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are "unnecessarily conservative."

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.
"That's what they say for everything, whether that's the case or not," said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. "Every time you turn around, they say 'We have all this built-in conservatism.'"

The ongoing crisis at the stricken, decades-old Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan has focused attention on the safety of plants elsewhere in the world; it prompted the NRC to look at U.S. reactors, and a report is due in July.

But the factor of aging goes far beyond the issues posed by the disaster at Fukushima.

Commercial nuclear reactors in the United States were designed and licensed for 40 years. When the first ones were being built in the 1960s and 1970s, it was expected that they would be replaced with improved models long before those licenses expired.

Aging nuclear reactors get safety passes - US news - Environment - msnbc.com

I have a simple solution. Replace all the existing plants with new ones. In fact we should build two plants for every existing one and we could get 40% of our electric from them reducing our need for oil and coal. It would also boost the economy with thousands of high paid private sector jobs and tens of thousands of ancillary jobs.[/QUOTE]

a few rudimental q's then

how many nuke facilities are operating past thier decommish dates in the US?

what is the plan for replacement?

how many are owned by foriegn nationalists?

 

[sparky]

here's more evidence that moderate doses of radiation are not harmful:

Lawrence Solomon: Fears Over Fukushima Radiation Overblown

Those who survived the immediate atomic blasts but were near Ground Zero died at a high rate from excess exposure to radiation. The tens of thousands more distant from Ground Zero, and who received lower exposures to radiation, did not die in droves. To the contrary, and surprisingly, they outlived their counterparts in the general population who received no exposure to radiation from the blasts.

These findings come from the Atomic Bomb Disease Institute of the Nagasaki University School of Medicine, which has been analyzing the medical records of survivors continuously since 1968. The voluminous records — based in part on the free twice-a-year medical examinations that 83,050 registered Nagasaki survivors received — provided the researchers with a database of 2.5 million examination items to mine. To determine how the survivors fared, the researchers compared the survivors with Japanese men and women of the same age who had not been exposed to radiation.

“Among about 100,000 A-bomb survivors registered at Nagasaki University School of Medicine, male subjects exposed to 31-40 cGy [centigrays] showed significantly lower mortality from non-cancerous diseases than age-matched unexposed males,” the researchers found. “And the death rate for exposed male and female was smaller than that for unexposed.” The 31-40 cGy is a measure of radiation absorption higher than the general population in the vicinity of the plants is likely to have received.

no doubt 'ol Larry sprinkles plutonium on his cornflakes every morning too, eh?


jap whimps....

 

[sparky]

Something like 700 employees volunteered to stay and catch enough rads that they'll probably never see retirement

Another million are projected to die over a generation of exposure related incidents

so may i suggest you post with a clean pair of pampers lad....

I assume you're talking about Chernobyl, not Fukushima. Even so, that is still utter horseshit. There is no detectable increase in cancer rates in the immediately vicinity of the plant.

If you have evidence of these 700, produce it.

It was 50>
Fukushima 50 is the alias given by the media to a group of employees of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. Following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, a related series of nuclear accidents resulted in a serious fire at the plant's unit 4 on 15 March 2011, these 50 employees remained on-site after 750 other workers were evacuated.[1][2]

After TEPCO management proposed withdrawing all its employees from the plant on 14 March,[3] additional manpower was deployed from around Japan.[4] Some workers traveled on clear roads by convoy from Tokyo.[4] When they arrived, hundreds of firemen, SDF forces and employees of TEPCO, convened 20 km from the plant and debated how to best stabilize the plant.[4] On the night of the 15th of March, these workers joined the original Fukushima 50. In the following days, extra workers continued to be added, and the Fukushima 50 remained the name used by media to refer to the group of workers at Fukushima.

The number of the workers involved rose to 580 on the morning of 18 March[1] as staff from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant and workers installing the new power line joined in. More than 1,000 workers, firefighters and soldiers were toiling at the site on 23 March.[5][6] The Fukushima 50 were drawn from Toshiba, Hitachi, Kajima, firefighters from Tokyo, Osaka[7] , Yokohama,[8] Kawasaki, Nagoya and Kyoto, TEPCO and its subsidiaries such as Kandenko,[9] TEP Industry and TEP Environmental Engineering, and many small-to-mid-size companies that have contracts with these big companies.[1][10]

Over 20 workers had been injured by 18 March, including one who was exposed to a large amount of ionizing radiation when the worker tried to vent vapour from a valve of the containment building.[1] 3 more workers were exposed to radiation over 100 mSv, and 2 of them were sent to a hospital due to beta burns on 24 March.[11] Two other workers, Kazuhiko Kokubo, 24, and Yoshiki Terashima, 21, were killed by the tsunami while conducting emergency repairs immediately after the quake. Their bodies were found on March 30.

 

[Too Tall]

The problem in Japan was because of the proximity of the nuclear plants to the ocean. If the backup system to cool them had not been destroyed by the tsunami, I suggest that there would have been a non-problem.

I will agree with anyone who argues to not build a nuclear plant close to the ocean. Building one on the San Andreas fault would not be very bright either.

For what it's worth (not very much) I built experimental nuclear reactors many years ago in San Ramon, California. We had a rest reactor at a facility in Idaho and sent some instrumented components to the Livermore Radiation Lab for testing.

Nuclear plants are built on the coast because they need lots of water for cooling. Building them on small streams or rivers will get the environmentalists after you because the waste heat can be bad for fish life.

No matter where they are built, someone will complain.

Point taken on the coastal plants. I will restate that a nuclear plant should not be built TOO close the the ocean or it should be protected from the worst case tsunami possibility if it is.

There is a Nuclear plant on the Savannah river that was built in the early 1950's that had 5 reactors. The last one was shut down in 1992 and I don't remember if the environmentalist had a save the fish campaign at the time.

 

[sparky]

Rutt roo.....
Atmospheric radiation leak underestimatedThe Yomiuri Shimbun

Data released by the government indicates radioactive material was leaking into the atmosphere from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in early April in greater quantities than previously estimated.

Radioactive material was being released into the atmosphere from the plant at an estimated rate of 154 terabecquerels per day as of April 5, according to data released by the Cabinet Office's Nuclear Safety Commission on Saturday.

The NSC previously estimated radiation leakage on April 5 at "less than 1 terabecquerel per hour."

Iodine-131 and cesium-137 were released into the atmosphere that day at the estimated rates of 0.69 terabecquerel per hour and 0.14 terabecquerel per hour, respectively, the NSC said.

Emissions are converted into iodine-131 equivalents for assessment on the international nuclear event scale (INES), to arrive at the total 154 terabecquerels per day, the nuclear safety watchdog said.

One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.
Atmospheric radiation leak underestimated : National : DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE (The Daily Yomiuri)

 

[bripat9643]

Over 20 workers had been injured by 18 March, including one who was exposed to a large amount of ionizing radiation when the worker tried to vent vapour from a valve of the containment building.[1] 3 more workers were exposed to radiation over 100 mSv, and 2 of them were sent to a hospital due to beta burns on 24 March.[11] Two other workers, Kazuhiko Kokubo, 24, and Yoshiki Terashima, 21, were killed by the tsunami while conducting emergency repairs immediately after the quake. Their bodies were found on March 30.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

The allowable dose is 250 mSv, so 100mSv is well within safety limits. Two of the workers were killed by the tsunami, not radiation. Your article lists only 5 workers who were actually exposed to above normal doses of radiation, and the worst consequence that any of them suffered was a "beta burn," whatever that is. The seriousness of the condition is not discussed.

 

[bripat9643]

Your data is meaningless without context.

Rutt roo.....
Atmospheric radiation leak underestimatedThe Yomiuri Shimbun

Data released by the government indicates radioactive material was leaking into the atmosphere from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in early April in greater quantities than previously estimated.

Radioactive material was being released into the atmosphere from the plant at an estimated rate of 154 terabecquerels per day as of April 5, according to data released by the Cabinet Office's Nuclear Safety Commission on Saturday.

The NSC previously estimated radiation leakage on April 5 at "less than 1 terabecquerel per hour."

Iodine-131 and cesium-137 were released into the atmosphere that day at the estimated rates of 0.69 terabecquerel per hour and 0.14 terabecquerel per hour, respectively, the NSC said.

Emissions are converted into iodine-131 equivalents for assessment on the international nuclear event scale (INES), to arrive at the total 154 terabecquerels per day, the nuclear safety watchdog said.

One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.
Atmospheric radiation leak underestimated : National : DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE (The Daily Yomiuri)

 

[sparky]

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/16-4

 

[sparky]

Your data is meaningless without context.

as are you.....

 

[bripat9643]

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/16-4

ROFL!

You're joking, right?

 

[martybegan]

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/16-4

ROFL!

You're joking, right?

So there is some special form of radiation that ONLY causes infant mortality, and no other signs of radiation exposure?

 

[Old Rocks]

After the first plane crash, the government should have outlawed air travel.

Really fucking dumb! The potential for harm that a full meltdown carries is far beyond that of a plane crash. And the harm extends for generations.

 

[Old Rocks]

Over 20 workers had been injured by 18 March, including one who was exposed to a large amount of ionizing radiation when the worker tried to vent vapour from a valve of the containment building.[1] 3 more workers were exposed to radiation over 100 mSv, and 2 of them were sent to a hospital due to beta burns on 24 March.[11] Two other workers, Kazuhiko Kokubo, 24, and Yoshiki Terashima, 21, were killed by the tsunami while conducting emergency repairs immediately after the quake. Their bodies were found on March 30.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

The allowable dose is 250 mSv, so 100mSv is well within safety limits. Two of the workers were killed by the tsunami, not radiation. Your article lists only 5 workers who were actually exposed to above normal doses of radiation, and the worst consequence that any of them suffered was a "beta burn," whatever that is. The seriousness of the condition is not discussed.

How are you in the position to make judgements when you are this ignorant?

 

[Old Rocks]

So far we have had 3 big nuclear accidents. Lets look at what caused them, in ascending order of clusterfuckery.

3. TMI. Crappy operator attention and a lack of emergency training resulted in a partial meltdown after around 2 days of the operators doing the wrong thing to fix the problem. Result, No containment breach, but reactor destroyed.

2. Fukishima. a 9+ earthquake followed by a 40 ft wall of water (they designed to resist a 20 footer) resulted in 3-4 possible meltdowns, significant release of nucleotides, and possible local contamination. This is still up in the air because we havent seen the report yet, and Japan is still reeling from the other results of the earthquake.

1. Chernobyl. A combination of a poor design (high void coefficent, postive power feedback response, bad control rod design, lack of containment) and dumbfuck operational procedures (running an emergency test in less than ideal conditions with people not trained in the procedure) resulted in a graphite fire and explosion that destroyed the reactor and hurtled parts of it out of the building, as well as a fire that made radioactive soot.)

Meanwhile there are hundreds to thousands of reactors that run just fine, well regulated and watched, that function every day without a peep. Hell in this country a plant in Nebraska had to turn on a backup pump 90 min after another one failed, resulting in ZERO problems, yet had to report it as an incident. That is how regulation should work, yet people jumped on it going ZOMG LEVEL 4 ALERT WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIEZ

So what is the sum total of deaths from these three incidents?

The answer is: 31.

There were no deaths caused by TMI, no deaths cause by Fukushima and only 31 confirmed deaths caused by the worst nuclear catastrophe in history, Chernobyl.

The empirical evidence gives us no reason to be concerned.

I know one cannot confirm cancer deaths due to increased radiation long term, but to be fair, we have to assume some people in the area had to have gotten a healthy dose due to the radioactive graphite smoke, as well as cancers in people in the response teams and the operating staff.

I know you cant 100% link it, but in Chernobyl's case I would give it a strong possibility.

Do We Know The Chernobyl Death Toll? | newmatilda.com

A number of studies apply that basic methodology — based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates — and come up with results varying from 9000 to 93,000 deaths. While that tenfold difference seems significant, it is explained by the differing approaches and assumptions used in the various studies. For example, whether or not they consider radiation exposure across Europe or just in the most heavily contaminated countries of Eastern Europe. (And of course that tenfold difference is peanuts compared to the many orders of magnitude separating Monbiot’s 43 and Caldicott’s 985,000.)

Monbiot says he asked Helen Caldicott for sources about the Chernobyl death toll. Here are some of the most important studies which he didn’t mention in his article. Firstly, reports by the UN Chernobyl Forum (pdf) and the World Health Organisation in 2005-06 estimated up to 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations and an additional 5,000 deaths among populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

A study by Elizabeth Cardis and her colleagues published in 2006 in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths. Research published in 2006 by UK radiation scientists Ian Fairlie and David Sumner estimated 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. And finally, a 2006 report commissioned by Greenpeace estimates a death toll of about 93,000.

So where do Monbiot and Caldicott fit in the context of these scientific studies of the Chernobyl death toll? They don’t fit anywhere at all. Caldicott relies on a Russian report titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Suffice it here to note that the study uses a loose methodology to arrive at an unlikely conclusion.

Monbiot sides with the marginal scientists in arguing that low-level radiation is harmless. He cites a report from the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) to claim that the "official death toll" from Chernobyl is 43. But the UNSCEAR report made no effort to assess the effects of widespread low-level radiation exposure. Specifically, the report states:

"The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low radiation doses from the Chernobyl accident, because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. It should be stressed that the approach outlined in no way contradicts the application of the LNT model for the purposes of radiation protection, where a cautious approach is conventionally and consciously applied."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The recent oil spill in the gulf and the nuclear disaster in Japan has given us proof positive that these companies don't know how to handle disasters of ANY magnitude. They have no contingency plans and no plan for cleaning up a mess once its made. God forbid we try to actually regulate these dangerous companies.

How many people have been killed in solar panel or wind turbine disasters?

How many solar panels are onyour roof? How big is your wind turbine? Got a car that runs on rubber bands? I'm sure you don't have any plastic products in your house do you? Are the tires on your bicycle made from rubber? And of course you don't write on real paper or read books made with paper do you? You only pay for synthetic oil in your rubber band car right? Did you use an ATM any time in your life? I'm sure your credit cards are plastic like mine. Know where plastic comes from? NOT the wind or sun
Get off your horse before reality knocks you off

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/16-4

Well, that's conclusive.

 

[martybegan]

After the first plane crash, the government should have outlawed air travel.

Really fucking dumb! The potential for harm that a full meltdown carries is far beyond that of a plane crash. And the harm extends for generations.

Except for the people on the plane, and to be fair if we regulated planes like we regulated nuclear plants the flight would be terminated by a passenger leaving the seat during the seatbelts on sign, every time.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

After the first plane crash, the government should have outlawed air travel.

Really fucking dumb! The potential for harm that a full meltdown carries is far beyond that of a plane crash. And the harm extends for generations.

Except for the people on the plane, and to be fair if we regulated planes like we regulated nuclear plants the flight would be terminated by a passenger leaving the seat during the seatbelts on sign, every time.

Liberals are the kings of knee-jerk reactions.. except to their own policies which they are all to happy to watch fail for decades and their reaction? Give us more!!!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So what is the sum total of deaths from these three incidents?

The answer is: 31.

There were no deaths caused by TMI, no deaths cause by Fukushima and only 31 confirmed deaths caused by the worst nuclear catastrophe in history, Chernobyl.

The empirical evidence gives us no reason to be concerned.

I know one cannot confirm cancer deaths due to increased radiation long term, but to be fair, we have to assume some people in the area had to have gotten a healthy dose due to the radioactive graphite smoke, as well as cancers in people in the response teams and the operating staff.

I know you cant 100% link it, but in Chernobyl's case I would give it a strong possibility.

Do We Know The Chernobyl Death Toll? | newmatilda.com

A number of studies apply that basic methodology — based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates — and come up with results varying from 9000 to 93,000 deaths. While that tenfold difference seems significant, it is explained by the differing approaches and assumptions used in the various studies. For example, whether or not they consider radiation exposure across Europe or just in the most heavily contaminated countries of Eastern Europe. (And of course that tenfold difference is peanuts compared to the many orders of magnitude separating Monbiot’s 43 and Caldicott’s 985,000.)

Monbiot says he asked Helen Caldicott for sources about the Chernobyl death toll. Here are some of the most important studies which he didn’t mention in his article. Firstly, reports by the UN Chernobyl Forum (pdf) and the World Health Organisation in 2005-06 estimated up to 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations and an additional 5,000 deaths among populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

A study by Elizabeth Cardis and her colleagues published in 2006 in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths. Research published in 2006 by UK radiation scientists Ian Fairlie and David Sumner estimated 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. And finally, a 2006 report commissioned by Greenpeace estimates a death toll of about 93,000.

So where do Monbiot and Caldicott fit in the context of these scientific studies of the Chernobyl death toll? They don’t fit anywhere at all. Caldicott relies on a Russian report titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Suffice it here to note that the study uses a loose methodology to arrive at an unlikely conclusion.

Monbiot sides with the marginal scientists in arguing that low-level radiation is harmless. He cites a report from the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) to claim that the "official death toll" from Chernobyl is 43. But the UNSCEAR report made no effort to assess the effects of widespread low-level radiation exposure. Specifically, the report states:

"The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low radiation doses from the Chernobyl accident, because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. It should be stressed that the approach outlined in no way contradicts the application of the LNT model for the purposes of radiation protection, where a cautious approach is conventionally and consciously applied."

Did you seriously waste your time typing All that speculative Nonsense? What a sad boring life you must have. Id give you bad rep but im not as bored as you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mustang:

Nuclear accidents aren't the same as other accidents when it comes to energy production. Gas explosions and mine disaster are over in a pretty short period of time, and any affects are short in duration. Even the Gulf oil spill seems to have had limited damage. Nuclear disasters are not like that. The damage lasts for decades. Hell, the area around Chernobyl is still abandoned as is not safe for human or animal habitation.

Do yourself a favor. Take your head out of your ass long enough to learn something.

Hey good point. What's the 1/2 life of all the waste stream from the battery farms in these hybrids or electric cars? Well -- it's for f'in FOREVER. As usual, the eco-frauds will come up with solutions where THEY are not required to play by the same rules. Nothing dirtier and longer lasting in the waste stream than giving every living being in this country an electric car and MAYBE even another TON of batteries for their "off-grid" solar installation. But hey -- asses ARE a convienient place to store your head.

The entire waste stream for powering your home from a nuclear power plant is 0.7 ounces per household per year. Can you do better than that? Think we could handle that?