http://www.globalresearch.ca/humankinds-most-dangerous-moment-fukushima-fuel-pool-pool-at-unit-4/5350779 Fukushima is on the brink of realising the worst environmental disaster this planet has ever seen. The Japanese culture of saving face and the West's pre-occupation with wars and financial woes,has now let this problem grow out of control.

In reactor 4 they have over 1300 spent fuel rods in damaged racks. Normally computer guided robots remove them but now the really dangerous task of removing them by Tokoyo Electric who have proven their past competence,sends shudders up the spines of those who know the real dangers.

It has been estimated that over one million people died from Chernobyl as a result of cancers. If reactor 4 goes up, this will be 80 times worse than Chernobyl. Dr Helen Cauldicott says that they will have to evacuate all of Tokoyo (30 million people) if reactor 4 fuel rods go into melt down. There are a total of 11,000 fuel rods on this site.

Please sign this petition asking for the global response to this impending disaster. http://www.nukefree.org/crisis-fukushima-4-petition-un-us-global-response

Arjay in all good faith I never could sign that.
The Japanese Government and the firm involved are totally responsible for this huge event.
That face saving never hid they fact from the very start of construction till the day it felt the effects of the Tusami, they cared little.
In fact no less than Russia and its Chenoble, this event did great harm to what we one day will see as the most intelligent way to get cleaner air.
Nothing can remove the crime both country,s by actions that should never have taken place greatly damaged their country and ours, to a lessor extent.
Japan did the crime to learn it most first stop lieing to the world and its own people.

Belly on another thread you posted this;

"Nuclear power will be the best way to reduce global warming.
Remember any such power here would be best practice.
And look no further that the far far less than that Japan used.
In fact no one could do worse than they did.
We must not let the pink left conservationists stop the best clean up the planet tool Nuclear power."
Above you are all for nuclear power but this line says it all:
"Japan did the crime to learn it most first stop lieing to the world and its own people."
Like in war the first causality of a nuclear accident is the truth. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The constant lies that safeguards are in place that prevent any possibility of an accident, nuclear accidents are real and catastrophic. There are sustainable renewable forms of energy that can replace coal burning power stations in Australia without the need to go down the nuclear road with all its inherent dangers.

Belly it is affecting the whole of the Pacific Ocean including the USA.

Nuclear pollution cannot be removed from the environment and concentrates in the food we eat.

It is not only the cancers that are a danger but the permanent damage to our genetic integrity.

If Tokoyo goes down,we are looking at millions of boat people and with this instability serious wars.

Cast your eyes across the globe to where the remnants of the Russian Navel Fleet is rusting away.
Part of the deal for Russia to close down the cold war was that America would assist in the decommission of their nuclear fleet.
It never happened.
Every couple of months another rusted ship sinks at their moorings and among them already are three nuclear subs and a cruiser.
It is estimated that by 2040 or earlier there will not be a fish alive in the north sea because of nuclear contamination.

Arjay,
I suggest that you are even further out of your depth than I am on this subject.

The initial Fukuyama problem was caused by a hydrogen explosion in a high pressure light water reactor due to a cooling water explosion. Provided the fuel rods are kept cool, preferably under water, there is no prospect of a meltdown.

In his book, "Thorium; Energy cheaper than coal" physicist Robert Hargraves disputes the Linear No Threshold theory (of radiation effects). He states;
1.that people living in places with five times normal background radiation exhibit no more cancer,
2. that the observed death rate for highly exposed Chernobyl heroes are not linear: 2% for 2.5 Sv exposure, 33% for 5 Sv.
3. that residents of a Taiwan building where residents were exposed to radiation from steel contaminated by radioactive cobalt-60 had fewer cancers. In that case, for the 8,000 people exposed, the normal cancer rate would be 186. LNT theory predicted 242 cancers but the observed rate was only 5 (five).

I don't know if you surf but, one cubic metre of sea water contains 3gm of uranium.

The thing to remember about radioactive materials is that the longer the half life the less the danger

Correction,
I wrote;
"The initial Fukuyama problem was caused by a hydrogen explosion in a high pressure light water reactor due to a cooling water explosion. Provided the fuel rods are kept cool, preferably under water, there is no prospect of a meltdown".

The 'a cooling water explosion' comment should have been "moderator/cooling water decomposition".

When the zirconium tubes, which contained the lightly enriched mix of uranium oxide fuel pellets, become overheated due to water shortage they react with overheated water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. They can recombine explosively.

This type of reactor operates at very high pressure (up to 160 atmospheres). The USA submarine fleet use such reactors and have operated safely for 5400 reactor years.

The IAEA estimate of the fatalities from Chernobyl were less than 100. Fukashima had 3 reactors melt down and produced about 1/10th the radiation of Chernobyl.

The 1 in 1000 yr Tsunami killed about 30 000 people, and yet from Fukashima, no one yet has died from radiation.

Why would reactor 4 (if it should melt down) produce 80 times the radiation of 1,2,and 3 together when they melted down?

This is pure Bulldung

Out of every reply it is yours Paul I feel the need to answer.
Are you questioning my claim known poor design and construction played a big roll in the Japan event?
That the Russian one too was never safe from doing just what did?
I happen to think Nuclear energy is the cleanest way to mass produce power we currently know of.
Now the harsh truth.
Maybe Paul I am wrong, in part I may well be, but I truly and honestly think.
Greens and the very best conservations, have by crying wolf earned the publics distrust in any if not all issues they get involved in.
I recommend you read the story behind an ex green piece activist who has swapped sides.

I recommend you all do some research from this site http://fairewinds.org/ Arnie Gunderson has been decommissioning nuke reactors for 30yrs and he says TEPCO are embarking on a really dangerous exercise.

IAEA have a vested interest in keeping nuke energy going. The waste from nuke energy is refined for the weapons industry and the USA has been using Depleted Uranium in its wars of imperialism.

Dr Helen Cauldicott has evidence that over 1 million people have died of cancers from Chernobyl. The nuke industry would not want the truth to emerge and will down play the dangers of Fukushima to the bitter end.

As George Carlin said believe nothing your Govt tells you. They are all compulsive liars and even more so when controlled by big corporate interests.

Arjay,
The Fukuyama disaster was man made in that the reactors were built behind sea (bund) walls that were far too low for a country on the "Rim of Fire". Also a catalyst, recommended to minimize the risk of an hydrogen explosion, was not included.

If you have any evidence of Helen Caldicott's view why haven't you provided a reference? She makes some extraordinary claims about cell damage when other people have noted that every cell in our body repairs damage about once per second.

Caldicott has claimed that one radioactive dust particle can cause cancer yet statistically, while we are all subject to about 2mSv of radiation per year from natural causes, there is no increased incidence of cancer at 10mSv per annum and for the atom bomb survivors no increased incidence at 100mSv.

Foyle none of us are the font of all wisdom but it pays to have an open mind.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer-/20908 Prof Karl Grossman previews a book by 3 eminent Russian scientists. Chenrobyl; 'Consequences of the Castastrophe for the People and Environment'.

In this era of lies about the GFC, climate change, Western wars of imperialism etc, it pays to have an open mind.

The problem with nuclear power is primarily the cost, historically nuclear power worked out about 7 times more expensive than conventional coal plants, and despite improvements in the cost, I am convinced that it is still not competitive with either wind, solar, hydro, or geothermal power.
It is fact that of all the nuclear plants actually started only half of them have been completed. The cost of nuclear accidents is astronomical and the risk factor is normally born by the government. There are only one or two countries that have the facilities to store the nuclear waste, basically 99% of the nuclear waste is in storage at the nuclear plants and often under less than ideal conditions.
The bottom line is it is silly idea.

Unless there are huge advances in technology nuke power should be on the back burner. There is plenty of energy coming from the sun but that is free and the our Corporate elites cannot own it.

Funny how this most important thread attracts so little comment.

chrisgaff1000.This story is not on the front page of the Telegraph, hence,it can't be important.

Get it right Arjay, I think you mean to say if it's not on the front page it has not happened.

According to historians, in the years immediately
after World War II, nuclear power was seen as the
energy resource of the future - one that would
provide electricity "too cheap to meter."

Today, nuclear reactors seem monuments to a god that
failed. Many of them are managerial, financial, or
engineering disasters.

The principal public fear according to the experts is
that a "meltdown" at a nuclear reactor could release a
plume of deadly radiation into the atmosphere, perhaps
before people in surrounding communities could be
warned and evacuated. Despite consistent assurances from
the industry that nuclear reactors are safe, opinion polls
show that the public is unconvinced - especially since
the serious nuclear accidents at places like Chernobyl
and others. (Actually, a nuclear accident of much
greater magnitude seems to have occurred near Kyshtym in
Russia in 1957, spreading radioactive debris over a wide area
which is now believed to be uninhabitable for centuries.
The full story of the disaster has never been told, but the
names of about 30 small towns in the region have disappeared from
Russian maps, and an elaborate system of canals has been
built, presumably to carry rivers and other water systems around
the contaminated areas).

Nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous wastes.
What is needed is a place that will safely contain the waste for
at least 10,000 years, which is long enough for most of it
to decay. The location of such a site is a ticklish political
problem, for the obvious reason that people are generally
unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive dump in
their own neighbourhood. The disposal problem seems to be one
that has no technological fix.

I suspect that this problem will be with us for suite some
time yet.

>>Despite consistent assurances from
the industry that nuclear reactors are safe, opinion polls
show that the public is unconvinced<<

What those polls show, Foxy, is the appallingly low levels of scientific literacy in this country. One can not critically evaluate arguments about nuclear power generation without a reasonable grasp of nuclear physics: a grasp that a lot of people lack because they don't take the opportunity to study physics or chemistry past junior high school. Despite their ignorance these people think that they are just as well qualified to assess the risks of nuclear power as somebody with a PhD in the field. Very much like all the armchair climate skeptics who rubbish the work of qualified climatologists.

Because most people lack the scientific knowledge required to evaluate the scientific and technical arguments they can only really decide between the two opposing sides on the strength of rhetoric.

And if there is anything we have learnt from the climate change debate it is that political groups, think-tanks and other vested interests who can spin a nice line in rhetoric can have a greater sway on public opinion than scientists and other technical professionals who are more at home with logic than rhetoric. Similar to climate change, the opposition doesn't come from the ranks of professionals trained in the field (if you don't believe me ask a nuclear physicist - just email any Uni with a decent physics faculty); it comes from political lobby groups and a small handful of dissenting scientists in the pocket of aforesaid lobby groups.

And from all the non-scientists who throw their hands up in confusion at all the numbers and the Greek letters and say 'phuck it, it's all too confusing for me but Greenpeace present a more emotionally persuasive case than some boring cardigan-wearing greybeard reeling off a bunch of boring numbers so I'll believe Greenpeace instead of the greybeards' (like they do with climate change, although in that case they believe Alan Jones instead of the greybeards).

>>The location of such a site is a ticklish political
problem<<

It sure is. But it shouldn't be.

>>for the obvious reason that people are generally
unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive dump in
their own neighbourhood<<

Because they grew up watching The Simpsons: a great show but it has a lot to answer for when it comes to nuclear paranoia. People who are generally unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive dump in their own neighborhood are unenthused because they think that they're going to start catching three-eyed fish and glowing in the dark.

They're not. Radiation won't make you phosphorescent; the three-eyed fish is closer to the mark but highly unlikely. There's laws about this sort of thing: a nuclear waste dump that is hazardous to the environment breaches all sorts of laws, laws that even the Government is not above. And you can be sure that there'll be A LOT of people checking that they're compliant.

>>The disposal problem seems to be one
that has no technological fix.<<

I disagree. The most intractable problems of waste disposal are neither physical nor technical: they are legal, political and sociological. The legal can be fixed by act of parliament if it is statutory law; things get more complicated in the common law. The political and sociological problems are a little harder to fix.

But a little more respect for the wisdom of the greybeards and a little less for lobby groups might be a good place to start.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

Thank You for your posts on this subject.
You have raised some valid points.
However, may I also suggest that you do
Google, "Kyshtym disaster" in Russia.
For your own information.

My family were part of an organisation that brought
out some children from Chernobyl
a few years ago to Australia for a holiday.
They stayed with us for a time.

Also, a relative who is a scientist worked for
many years at the nuclear facility of Lucas Heights.
He later went on and got his doctorate and now
teaches at Sydney University.

Family discussions on this subject abound at our place.
And will continue to do so well into the future, I
dare say.

All nations with relative ability should help Japan.

I saw a nuclear scientist warning of the danger of cesium and how one tiny particle trapped in flesh can cause cancer.

For a long time I have researched world fish depletion including the 1920 commercial collapse of the Hokkaido herring fishery off northern Japan.

Hokkaido herring are dependent on seagrass that is dependent on coastal alongshore currents that flow with tides into estuary and bay seagrass food web nurseries, including those northwards from Fukushima.

Herring feed on coastal and offshore plankton. Migratory tuna feed on herring.

I do not presently see how some herring and tuna would avoid contact with at least one particle of deadly cesium.

Folks I know this might hurt but I believe we should be concentrating on this disaster rather than climate change and.or boat people. This crap will kill us all.

The single biggest problem for these anti nuke activists, is that in spite of the high profile of nuclear accidents, the safety record of nuclear is the safest of any generation system with injuries and fatalities per kWhr generated at less than half of any other technique incl renewables.

Tony I do not agree that it is only the the ill-informed that are anti nuclear power. There are plenty of scientists who dispute the need or the wisdom of going down the nuclear power path. There is also large an influential lobby who would love to develop nuclear power but like any industry it is their interests to tout for more business. I would recommend the union of concerned scientists as a fair representation of the main problems associated with nuclear power.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

These TEPCO guys have balls, that's for sure.

"The operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plant has asked the Japanese government for permission to reopen two reactors at a different location."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-28/fukushima/4986614

And it seems to be getting a realistic hearing:

"...the request for approval to have the nuclear plant undergo safety inspections was not granted, at least for the mean time. 'I will keep this issue on hold,' Gov. Izumida told TEPCO Pres. Hirose."

http://japandailypress.com/niigata-prefecture-puts-tepcos-request-for-nuclear-reactor-safety-inspections-on-hold-2636633/

Both pragmatic and sensitive. Nice.