Radiation measured at deadly 9.7 sieverts in Fukushima reactor

JIJI

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Monday that radiation in the primary containment vessel of the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 power station gets as high as 9.7 sieverts per hour — enough to kill a human within an hour.

The radiation levels at six locations in the western section of the first floor of the PCV ranged from 7.0 to 9.7 sieverts per hour, the beleaguered utility said in disclosing data collected by a remote-controlled robot on Friday.

By contrast, the temperatures at the six locations monitored were cool, ranging from 17.8 to 20.2 degrees.

Tepco sent the robot into the primary containment vessel on Friday, expecting it to stay alive for 10 hours. But the robot failed within three hours after completing about two-thirds of its planned route. Tepco has given up on recovering the robot.

The survey involved eight Tepco employees and 36 other workers who were hired by contractors. The maximum radiation dose logged was 1.73 millisieverts.

Tepco official Teruaki Kobayashi said the survey found no major obstacles around an opening leading to the underground part of the vessel, which is good news for future surveys needed to extricate the molten nuclear fuel.

The No. 1 reactor is one of the three damaged by core meltdowns during the Fukushima nuclear crisis in March 2011.

  • A Green Road

    Sounds pretty optimistic, when they don’t even know where even ONE of the melted down coria are.

    • Starviking

      A short distance from where they originally were.

      • Guest

        All over Japan melt-downs, melt-through, then melt out.

      • Starviking

        So, you’re saying that the Fukushima Dai-ichi site miraculously co-located itself with every part of Japan?

        I must say, I didn’t notice that.

      • Guest

        So what I have heard about the highly radioactive dust thoughout Japan was based from study from Marco
 Kaltofen

        And my sources for meltout are from Dr Helen Caldicott
        Sources for food contamination were from Takashi Hirose

      • Sam Gilman

        Helen Caldicott is a crank who spreads nonsense. Look at this elegant debunking of some outlandish claims she makes, for example. The comments below the video by “Azby Brown” go further.

        Takashi Hirose is (in Japan) a notorious anti-semitic writer who believes Chernobyl was caused by International Jewish financial interests. Do you really want to line up with him?

        Marco Kaltofen on the other hand is a new one to me. He hasn’t published anything peer-reviewed on Fukushima, so I need to do a credibility check – peer approval, publication record, no oddball stuff. The usual due diligence on sources. I mean, if someone is gong to start spraying all over the Internet the idea that lots of people are going to die horribly, one would want to check if that was based on something credible, wouldn’t one? Wouldn’t you, Guest?

        A quick google tells me this: Kaltofen only just got his PhD (last month) and not on Fukushima or the black dust in Japan. He has one co-authored peer-reviewed article to his name (with his supervisor), again, not about the black dust, and in his private work on Fukushima he heavily relies on something called “hot particle theory”, which I know to be rejected by mainstream science, and clearly outside his expertise, which isn’t health physics or radiology. His PhD supervisor has had no experience writing about radioactive particles – there’s nothing in his publication list. So I’m not seeing any kind of quality control going on.

        He also hangs out with someone I know to be a crank, the retired high school teacher Arnie Gundersen, who now makes a fair bit of money pretending to the anti-nuclear community that he’s a world expert in everything. In his videos with Gundersen, Kaltofen says things I know not to be true about radiation levels in the US, because there is a wealth of credible information on this, and he flatly contradicts it, with no credibility. There is an independent monitoring group operating in Japan called Safecast (mentioned in the debunking of Caldicott above), and they have found nothing of the sort that he claims.

        So given that what he claims runs counter to what many well-established scientists claim, and in doing so invokes a theory that time after time has been discredited, and has not had his work subject to much scrutiny, and makes highly implausible claims that contradict trusted sources, and allies himself with people considered cranks and purveyors of junk science, I don’t see why I should take him seriously.

        You see how it’s done? You see how easy it is to check up on sources?

        Why don’t you bother doing that?

  • Starviking

    Typical fear-mongering title… radiation inside a nuclear reactor will, of course be deadly on extended exposure.

    • douglas black

      ? The point is that it is still inaccessible, 4 years after a core meltdown. In fact, this article is lame in that it makes light of the true reality of the puzzling, complex, & dangerous future of the 3 nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima.

      • Starviking

        Sure its hard to access – but I don’t see any need to “sex” up the news reporting a radiation level which would be similar in any commercial reactor.

      • awake not asheep

        The issue here is that “similar in any commercial reactor” radiation level IS NOT CONTAINED!!!

      • Starviking

        I think you’ll find that the core radiation is largely contained in the core. What is out in the environment are the radioisotopes released in the hydrogen explosions of March 2011.

      • awake not asheep

        What do u mean “largely contained” – this is radiation. 4oo tons of water is being dumped into the Pacific DAILY by TEPCO’s own addmission—4 YEARS LATER!!! “Largely contained”–quite BSing.

      • KocksRcriminals

        What a huge and completely contradictory lie. The huge explosions ripped through the containment vessel, vaporizing a good amount of it and creating a lack of cooling for several hours that allowed the nuclear cores to heat to several thousand degrees and melt out the vessel and through the cement floors into the ground. Thats why there is still super high radiation readings but cool temperatures. Obviously the fuel is NOT there but the water is in contact with at least a portion of it that is in the ground.

      • Starviking

        The explosions were outside the containment vessels.

      • Michael Mann

        No, huge explosions did NOT rip through the containment vessel. No, no fuel was “vaporized” either. The fuel is cool because it cools down fairly quickly and it has been 4 years since it was critical. You seem to have several gross conceptual errors.

      • Guest

        Yea so don’t worry. He said so. Now go have you some 2011 Napa wine and a nice salmon steak.

      • Starviking

        Had some nice ます for lunch. No wine though.

      • douglas black

        What are you? A nuclear power maid?
        This article is about the radiation being so high that they don’t know WTF to do. It is too high for humans to be anywhere near and it is even too high to try to locate the melted core with a robot that took 4 years to conceive.
        The core of the nuclear industry is so corrupt & deceiving that I find this article lame, rather than ‘sexed’ up.

      • Sam Gilman

        There you go again, Douglas, with your conspiracy theory mentality.

        You reject the article not because it conflicts with any evidence, but because it conflicts with your fixed, never to be altered conclusions.

        Starviking, like me, instead asks questions like “what are the measured levels?” and “what do those levels mean?” and “what do well-respects and accredited experts say?”

        We ask these questions of the scientific literature, and the answers determine our conclusions.

        That, Douglas, is critical thinking. All you’re doing is indulging your own paranoia in public.

      • Guest

        Yea Douglas with your conspiracies and mentality. We’re smarter cause we know science and stuff. Plus we ask questions and we get concussions from literature and things.

      • Guest

        Sarcasm

      • Sir TuberKopf

        This reactor has already spewed more plutonium than a dirty hydrogen bomb, and it is still creating new isotopes and spewing them into the air and ocean.

        The reactor is out of control, still burning, wide open on top, and there is no existing technology that can stop it, control it or clean it up.

        The radiation is so high that any known robotics will fry and die within hours in this environment.

        And yes we see how many up votes you can swing being part of a government propaganda effort.

      • Starviking

        Hi Sir Tuberkopf,

        How can the reactor have “spewed more plutonium than a dirty hydrogen bomb” when the environmental readings show very little plutonium in the environment? FYI, the scientific paper “Plutonium isotopes as tracers for ocean processes: A review” by Lindahl et al gives 12 PBq of 239+240Pu deposited into the ocean by nuclear weapons tests, of 440 Mt total yield. We can estimate the Pu release of a dirty 1MT hydrogen bomb at around 0.03 PBq. Zheng et al in “Isotopic evidence of plutonium release into the environment from the Fukushima DNPP accident” give 239+240Pu release from Fukushima at around 2GBq.

        Now Giga means there are 9 zeroes after the first number: 1,000,000,000

        Peta has 15 zeroes: 1,000,000,000,000,000

        So Fukushima released around:
        2,000,000,000 Bq of Pu 239 +240

        One “dirty hydrogen bomb releases about: 30,000,000,000,000 Bq of Pu 239 +240

        That’s 15,000 times more than Fukushima. Your statement is wrong.

        How can the reactor be out of control? It no longer sustains a chain reaction. That means it cannot create new isotopes on a large scale.

        How can it be burning? It has no graphite moderation.

        How can it be “wide open on top”? If it were, they could just look in – rather than sending in a robot.

        How can the radiation level be “so high that any known robotics will fry and die within hours”? The robot was stopped by either by something fouling the control and power cabling, or by a track getting caught somewhere. It continued to transmit data until the cable was cut.

        And yes we see how many up votes you can swing being part of a government propaganda effort.

        I am part of a fact-propagating effort called “science”.

      • Sir TuberKopf

        Plutonium at 1,000,000 Bq/m3 was detected in ocean off Fukushima — “Contaminated waters will be transported rapidly to east” across Pacific — This is “the most important direct liquid release of artificial radioactivity into sea ever known”

      • Starviking

        Scientific reference please!

      • Guest

        According to news sources, it has reached North America and this is just the beginning. Still dumping in the ocean over there. No real containment happened. Just shipped it over to west coast of North America.

      • Sir TuberKopf

        The worst of the three reactors was actually fueled with reprocessed nuclear fuel containing high levels of plutonium. It has melted through to the porous rock beneath the building. The fuel rods melted into a nuclear slag that is still runaway reacting, and producing new isotopes that are going right into the pacific.

        Ocean currents pick up the nuclear contamination and express it through the great fishing grounds of the North Pacific and then on down the US West Coast beaches.

        I have stopped eating any seafood that I suspect may have come from the pacific.

      • Michael Mann

        Fear mongering bunk, with no basis in fact, this kind of irresponsible post actually hurts people.

      • Starviking

        Actually, any fuel rod which had been used in a reactor has high levels of plutonium.

      • SA Kiteman

        “Melted thru the porous rock”… false. Simply false. Please provide one credible source for that statement.

        And I’m sure the seafood appreciates your stupidity!

      • SA Kiteman

        The “still dumping” is a miss-info campaign. The stuff that is now reaching the US was the seawater that they dumped onto the molten coreum to cool and solidify it, and which then drained directly out into the ocean. That was stopped a few months after the accident. Since that time, what has been “leaking” has been ground water. The estimate was ~300 tonnes per day of ground water with some residual rad-con. What is “leaking” now MIGHT be a few tons per day of groundwater with fairly low levels of residual rad-con being picked up from the soil. The ocean water right outside the plant, even with the addition of all the “leakage” is (ignoring the sea salt) clean enough for drinking water, even in the restrictive Japan.

      • ridingwaves

        the Japanese current flows right by US west coast…
        think of this as a weather changing, life changing event….

        soylent green possibilities..

      • SA Kiteman

        Sorry, best estimates for releases are in the low kg range for U and <1kg range for Pu.

      • Guest

        Man all this sex talk got me turned on… I wonder why THYROID CANCER is UP post 2011 Fukushima disaster. I got no sources, I just pulled that one out of my arse. Don’t look into it cause you won’t find any research from any creditable doctors online.

      • it are like 6 or 7 meltdowns, not 3…

      • Starviking

        Please list them.

    • Slipmatwax

      They don’t even know where the melted core is. The high level of radiation after 4 years is very significant as it proves this much radiation has been contaminating the area for this long. How exactly do they even start removing the melted down core if a robot can only last 3 hours? How long will it take to get to it?

      • KocksRcriminals

        They know where it is, in the ground. The only place for a 20 ton blob of nuclear fuel thats fissioning at 5,000 degrees is into the ground. Metals and cement become as soft as butter with that temp + super super high amounts of radiation. If they admitted its in the ground and tried to extract it the radiation readings could easily be 100 times what they are getting now in the “cool” primary containment vessel.

        And if a robot can’t survive at there then it definitely won’t last long near the actual melted down fuel. Of course admitting this would lead to admitting the nuclear fuel is in the ground fissioning and in contact with sea water – suddenly the water tanks seem like sugar water in comparison to the contamination going on.

      • Al

        So basically wouldn’t it best to flood completely the” area ” to make sure that the melted lava cools steadily because the contamination goes anyway into the pacific? I am not an expert, you seem to understand it better !

      • KocksRcriminals

        No because the water won’t even touch it it will flash into steam at those temperatures. I’m not sure maybe alot of boron and water but if that might work they probably would have done it.

      • Slipmatwax

        Hydrostatic explosion with nuclear materials

      • Starviking

        Right…there’s a 5000 degree blob burning through the ground, and there is, magically, no evidence of this? No heat-driven air convection, no steam from groundwater interacting with it, no smoke?

      • SA Kiteman

        You need to learn a bit more science and a bit less fantasy.

      • SA Kiteman

        They don’t claim to know precisely where the corium IS, but they know quite well where it ISN’T. It may or may not be outside the pressure vessel. It may or may not be hung up in the control rod mechanisms. It may or may not have reached the containment vessel catch pad. It is NOT outside the containment building.

    • Guest

      Really fear mongering. That’s a big word for you. How bout this one, 1,000,000 dead from Chernobyl…Fukushima worst nuclear disaster in history, how many will die from cancer due to leaking reactors. You probably eat too much fish from the Pacific Ocean. Keep doing that and let us know how it works out for you.

      • Starviking

        Got a scientific reference for your Chernobyl fatality figure?

      • Guest

        This forum is a joke

      • Guest

        After trying 5 times to post my resources, it is deleted. Free speech is not wanted here clearly. No creditable debate can happen. Research yourselves people. One source is By Dr Janet Sherman. another is by Dr Yury Bandazhevsky. 1,000,000 est deaths as a result of Chernobyl. Fukushima 12 times worse. Equal to 168 bombs dropped on Hiroshima

      • Starviking

        Dr Janette Sherman, who works with the quack scientist Joe Mangano? Who published the updated Greenpeace report “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” through the backdoor of the NYAS – a report which has been torn apart in the scientific literature?

        As for posting your resources, if you post hyperlinks, it takes some time for your post to appear.

      • Guest

        And the other doctor…quack too I guess. So easy to deny. So hard to accept. Look what is your point here. You seem hell bent on proving everyone wrong. Who do you work for and where are your sources? I exposed my sources so you could destroy one of them. How about yours… And no they deleted all of links.

      • Guest

        Who and what sources have torn apart their literature?? Where are your sources?

      • Sam Gilman

        Here you go:

        SciAm writer here and here.

        New York Times has described Mangano’s reputation as hovering a little above zero with professional scientists. He’s a junk science pedlar like Janette Sherman.

        You’re choosing these writers because they fit your politics, not because they’re any good. You’ve got your science backwards.

        Check the quality first and only then look at the conclusions.

      • Guest

        Are you a doctor? Where are your sources? You think you know a lot about radiation poisoning. Who do you work for???

      • Guest

        Nudge

      • Sam Gilman

        Hmm. I see you find people with a lil’ booklearnin’ suspicious.

        Look, you’ve come here to a Japanese website to tell people living in Japan all about Japan. Then when it turns out they might know more about the situation here than you, you start to get paranoid. I mean, what are the odds of someone living near a nuclear accident deciding to do some reading about it? Don’t they know they need keyboard jockeys Stateside to tell them everything? These goddamn uppity…

        By the way, I see in other comments that you’ve been making jokes about the suffering of people in Fukushima prefecture. Exactly how old are you?

      • Guest

        No sir don’t start calling names, maybe I hit a vein. I am not telling anyone how to live, I questenioned and challenged us all to do our share and reduce a carbon footprint so we can stop paying the mega corporations who have contaminated the earth. Also, I do believe it was you that I mocked when you said Japanese were obese and stressed. I respect all people and wish the best for all humanity. Furthermore, this may be a Japanese site but it as a world matter and effort. It was the good old US of A there risking the lives of its soldiers to aid in the relief of the poor people of Japan after this horrible accident. Additionally, last time I checked this is the World Wide Web, meaning someone wanted the world to know about this article and they left this board for people of the world to discuss. I am after you trolls attacking everyone that doesn’t agree with your politics. You are dirty calling people uneducated and say people are spreading fear. You guys like to come here and talk down to people to make yourself a feel bigger. So I will stay here and comment and make a joke of you after every comment you sound ridiculous treating others the way you do. Why don’t you try your tactics elsewhere. Who do you work for?? What is your agenda. Why does it anger you so much that the situation is not good. This is what you sound like…Yea Mercury can kill you, but take this vaccine it will help you. Sure it contains Mercury, but shut up and take it and don’t ask any questions. While people like me say. This is screwed up, we keep having the same mistakes with nuclear power plants. What can we do…well it is 2015 and there are new technological advances that create a safe alternative. Why doesn’t the world try something new instead of repeating the same problem every 20 yrs. Viva Japan!! Viva humanity!! Down with corporate bought out trolls!!

      • Michael Mann

        You’re funny, you criticize someone else for name calling and do it yourself. I guess if you really wanted to be believed you’d at least post under a name other than “guest” and berate someone living in Japan who chooses to listen to reputable sources instead of fear-mongering propaganda sites you seem fond of, your fear mongering hurts people.

      • Guest

        I think you mis understand my sarcasm/satire. Others who have been attacked and ridiculed for voicing their opinionswas the source of my statements. I was simply exaggerating the same comments that were thrown back at me and others by two specific individuals to show how ridiculous they actually are. See the reality is we are here to learn and understand from each other. So stop the attacking, and throwing the jabs at people who disagree with your beliefs and help others in a peaceful way, and I will stop with the sarcastic comments as well. It is not right. Let’s learn from each other.

      • Sam Gilman

        We are all eternally grateful for the help given by the US armed services during the tsunami and nuclear crisis.

        If they knew that you were trying to trade off that to give yourself the right to spread misinformation, I don’t think they’d be happy. Sharing a passport with them doesn’t make you the measure of them. You weren’t risking anything. In particular, your mockery of the suffering of people in Fukushima wouldn’t go down well. “Oh, I was making fun of you for mentioning their suffering” doesn’t wash as an excuse.

        If all you want to do is want people to reduce their carbon footprints, why are you spreading misinformation attacking nuclear power? It’s low CO2. I checked your Disqus feed, and there’s nothing there about climate change.

        This is important. I live in a country that’s just had a major nuclear accident. It would be so, so easy to say no to nuclear power and be done with it. Yet, I take climate change seriously. So it’s very important to get one’s facts right about what dangers nuclear power actually offers, rather than the fantasies you try to push onto people.

        Is the planet worth so little that you can’t be bothered to educate yourself on the topic?

      • Guest

        Not going to reply to your attack at me. Here is why I chimmed in. I have been trying to follow this incident from the beginning. I have followed the dinosaur media here as well as different online sources as much as I can. This is all I have to go off of. The left says one thing the right says the other. I can only assume that the truth is in the middle somewhere. No based off of the evidence that we all know about, radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere, also for the last 5 years there has been radioactive waste dumped into the Pacific Ocean. There have been plenty reports saying the fish off the west coast of the USA is higher than normal radiation. Even the dinosaur mainstream media just mentioned that radioactive waste as arrived to the west coast. My point about the carbon footprint as well as the solar was to say that there are alternatives that are safer (IMHO) for environment and for people. I am not really concerned with the past. We know that there was failure at the plant. Why is this disaster lingering on? Is it going to be another 5 years before the plants reactors are cleaned and gone. FYI, corporations and mega corporations lie all the time to protect their assets..Those soldiers that did help with the initial disaster are now involved in a lawsuit because none of them were given any protection from the radiation and were told that everything was okay. Well a lot of them now have cancer and they are suing the U.S. gov. This action should not go unpunished, and those peoples should be held accountable. They were either given false information from someone, or they were extremely stupid, or there was a coverup meaning they knew but risked the lives of its passengers anyways and lied to them.

  • Tim Johnston

    It’s way worse than they are leading on……Think Tepco would risk further damaging their already damaged image?
    The worse thing is,there might still be leakage into the ocean?
    Nothing worse than the second worse Nuclear accident leaking into the ocean.
    Wanna surf?
    some fish for dinner?
    Nuclear waste is washing up all over the world after this epic disaster!

    • Starviking

      No real evidence of major damage to sea life.

      • awake not asheep

        watch “the nuclear proctologist and BeautifulGirlByDana” and see the devastation and British Colombia coast scraped of life and almost devoid of sea life in the title zones. Dana has been on a journey up BC coast since November of LAST YEAR documenting the absolute collapse of sea life. Not, kinda-sorta either. His video and photographic evidence uploaded and streamed live every 3-4 days documents the devastation in the entire northern Pacific. Barren rocks void of mussels, starfish, kelp, flies, seabirds,ect ect ect, throughout the tidal zones of the islands over hundreds of miles. REAL LIFE EVIDENCE, not troll BS. Life is exterminated and idiots like you pompously say there is no real evidence.

      • Starviking

        “nuclear proctologist”? That’s one of your go-to sources for science?

        For the impacts of Fukushima-derived radioisotopes on the ocean, I go to peer-reviewed science, and experts like Prof Ken Buessler and Dr Jay Cullen.

        And Dana… so he has found life devastated in the entire northern Pacific. Why has this not been reported in the scientific literature? Why are the press silent?

      • Guest

        Where is your evidence supporting no major damage to sea life. Who do you work for???

      • Starviking

        Jay Cullen, Ken Buessler, and the rest of the scientific community.

      • Mike Carey

        FYI – Guest has started a new thread without replying to you or to Sam. It should be among the newest comments posted.
        Cheers.

      • Starviking

        Thanks Mike!

      • Guest

        Reposted:

        Okay, okay, I am done bickering back and forth with you two starviking, Sam Gillman. Let’s try this. Forget calling names, forget all the hate, and let’s just start again. But let’s just get some things out in the table so we can all learn something with this. With an open mind, sure there are things we can all learn from eachother. Let’s not downplay people’s openions, let’s not talk down to people, let’s stop insulting each other. How people come to believe what they believe is a result of their quest for truth and the path they take to get there. No matter the path we take, let’s agree that we can all arrive to the truth. Now my path and where I come from, is bent a skeptic. I question all mega corporate entities. I don’t see how they have the best interests of the general population in mind. Though I believe the majority of everyone is good in nature. That said I also believe that politics play a roll in any situation where money is involved. I’ll stop there and see where this angle goes. Can we be civilized and talk. Discuss, and learn from each other.

    • Sam Gilman

      Tim,

      You’re trying to tell the world that there’s an ongoing cover-up over marine products and the oceans and that people should be very scared.

      Have you thought this through? I would have thought someone living in Japan through the Fukushima disaster would have learnt by now that radiation is very straightforward to monitor, and that any kind of cover-up would be impossble to sustain.

      Have you not noticed this? Have you not noticed that there are loads of radiation detectors in private hands? Did you not bother – before you put your name to a very scary message – to go check to see if TEPCO actually controls all the research, or whether other agencies and individuals do too?

      For example, the work of Ken Buessler from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – you can explore the site from here, and a 2012 summary of ongoing work by Buessler and Todai researchers here. Or there is the summary of research from the Fisheries Agency here. Or for example, there is an article report in Nature Scientific Reports about fish within and outside of the enclosed port here.

      If there was a massive leak, it would have been picked up across on the west coast, but all they’re receiving are trace amounts. For example, the Canadian Fisheries agency document here.

      I don’t know about you, but I am very keen for people in Fukushima – including the fishing industry – to make the best recovery they can. We do that by focussing on the reality – what the monitoring says, what we can do to improve the situation – and not by expressing wild fears of conspiracy cover-ups.

      • http://Nexus7Forum.com/ Babyfacemagee

        They’re all lying. There’s radiation EVERYWHERE! Your sushi now glows in the dark!

      • Michael Mann

        Yes, there is radiation everywhere and always has been….

      • Tim Johnston

        No conspiracy and no cover up, just the plain truth.
        Don’t always believe what you read and keep an open mind.
        I feel deeply for the people affected.Do I want to move near the reactor hell no!

        Please don’t quote what other people tell you unless you truly know and are an expert.

        Keep an open mind and don’t be afraid!

      • Sam Gilman

        Tim, I’m afraid you’re not making sense.

        You say not to believe anyone unless you are an expert yourself. Trust no one, it seems, regardless of their scientific credentials.

        At the same time, you, who are not an expert, want to tell me what “the truth” is.

        The problem is that you have no idea what the truth is because you yourself are, by your own standards, not competent to judge what the truth is.

        Do you see the paranoid knot you’ve got yourself tied up in?

        All you’re actually doing is trying to set things up so you think people can’t hold you accountable for fearmongering.

        I’ll stick with the science, thank you very much.

      • go back to your nuclear lobby…

        >I’ll stick with the science, thank you very much.

        There will be no science left without life…

      • douglas black

        Anyone who knows the science would admit that it can take a couple decades or more to see the full effects of radiation 24/7, including accumulations through consumption, resulting in the formation of cancers.
        AND it is still ongoing, leaking with no foreseeable end.

      • Sam Gilman

        Anyone who knows the science knows that there is a dose-response pattern to radiogenic cancers. The levels in the oceans are too low to cause problems.

        Douglas, I’m relying on the best available scientific opinions. You have chosen to reject those opinions. I don’t understand people who do that. Is it because you have some psychological need to see cancers? Do you want to see people dying early? Is that why you don’t want to accept what researchers are saying?

      • douglas black

        You are ignoring honesty, or just careless.
        There are many scientific opinions, the data is ongoing, and care is necessary.
        I live here.
        It is not only about the ocean either. It is 24/7.

        If you indeed believe that it is so insignificant, please bring your family, your pregnant daughter, the grandchildren, and invite your friends to do the same. Show the people that they have nothing to fear by example and live it, eat it, everyday.
        It might help your endeavor.

      • Sam Gilman

        Which scientific opinions are you talking about, Douglas? Ones you’ve read? Ones you’ve checked the credibility of? Then by all means cite them. Otherwise you’re just engaging in Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

        I live here too, Douglas. My wife was pregnant when the tsunami struck. That’s why I studied scientific opinion. I chose to learn what the dangers were. Apparently, you chose to put a pregnant woman under stress instead. I’m sure you thought you were doing the right thing. But thank you for the implication that I don’t care about someone else’s unborn child.

      • douglas black

        I have implied nothing. I simply state that a person claiming all worries are completely unnecessary because they have been cleared by factual science is careless and dishonest.. The data is certainly not all in and there is well informed opposition regardless of your pretense.
        If I were to imply anything I would begin by pointing towards your pompous nature.
        BTW, you are the insinuator in all of your replies.

      • Guest

        Yea Tim your flip floppy. Your truth is not cool. Your to trusting. Let the experts tell you what to believe. Don’t question anyone. Your not smart like us. We’re cool guys and when we say its all good, it’s all good. We do science and things. Besides you don’t listen to anyone……you don’t know what truth is. Blah blah blah——sarcasm

      • Tim Johnston

        Pmsl
        Love the sarcasm!

      • Starviking

        “Marine Chemist” on DailyKos, AKA Dr Jay Cullen, is also a good source of science on radioisotopes and the ocean.

      • Guest

        Dr Jay Cullen is a nuclear lobbyist!!! Screw nuclear. Renewable energy will change the world as we know it!!!!

      • Starviking

        Really?

    • Guest

      Yea Tim. Don’t believe they are still dumping contaminated water into the ocean. I mean did you eat the fish? Did you breath the air in Fukushima before posting your comments? I mean have you not noticed thyroid cancer up post 2011. I mean you should read about how the radiation washing up in North America is not good by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute just this year 2015. Your crazy man. Nuclear power is cool and stuff. Besides companies and governments don’t lie to people. Geez

  • Slipmatwax

    Reactor #4 is the only “safe” building right now. Reactors 1, 2 and 3 are in melt down

    • KocksRcriminals

      Reactor #4 had a spent fuel pool fire releasing much of it. Far from safe but its core didn’t melt into the ground so they don’t have to deal with a fissioning flooded well below the building, like the other 3. There is a reason many in tokyo have thyroid nodules, a precursor to thyroid cancer. In 10-20 years their cancer rates are going to be astronomical.

      • Sam Gilman

        As with another poster, everything you say is false. There was no spent fuel pool fire, there is no increase in nodules in Tokyo (not even in Fukushima). It’s all made up.

        People like you who go around telling people they’re going to get cancer when they’re not – you’re not one of the good guys, no matter how much you think you are in your own head.

      • Tim Johnston

        Sam,
        is it really all made up??!

      • Sam Gilman

        Yes. Made up.

        There was no fuel pool fire – that was spread by anti-nuclear activists capitalising on an error made by someone in Washington talking out of his poorly qualified fundament in the first few days. (Do you remember the sudden expansion of the exclusion zone by the U.S. for its citizens that got everyone talking about how the Japanese were playing things down? It turns out it was based on this error, which was something of a scandal within the NRC, to add to the other scandals (withholding info from colleagues, harassment) that got him fired later). This was the fuel pool, after all, that was recently successfully emptied. It never went dry in the first place.

        Tokyo did not receive an iodine dose big enough to even make screening necessary.

        Parallel baseline screening in other prefectures far from Fukushima shows children in Fukushima have a lower rate of nodules (as it happens), and all the evidence, as the researchers keep trying to tell the press, is that thyroid cancers discovered so far in the mass screening in Fukushima prefecture, are almost certainly not connected to the leaks from Fukushima. Some of the most compelling evidence from biopsies (the tumours do not look radiogenic, but instead look like regular adult ones discovered early by aggressive screening) has simply been ignored by the Japan Times. The JT has its own very clear agenda here.

        The truth is, the only people in any meaningful danger are workers at the plant.

      • Guest

        Try eating the fish for a year and let us know how it works out.

      • Sam Gilman

        It’s been working out fine for me and the other 127 million people here. We get through a lot of fish.

        Seriously – What’s your motivation for saying all this stuff that you have no idea about? Do you think knowledge just magically turns up in your head when you touch your keyboard?

      • Guest

        I’m crazy conspiracy man, I think that knowledge just magically turns up in my head when I touch my keyboard. Dude, chill out. I’m on your side. I want everyone to know there is no danger from the nuclear waste being dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the last 5 years. Nobody needs to know that radioactive plume shot into the atmosphere shortly after power failure. Nobody needs to know that the west coast of North America was directly down wind. It’s all good man!!

      • Michael Mann

        Someone may actually believe those things happened and be stressed and have real negative health consequences, yet you think it is a game? So you try to mock someone who actually takes the time to do the research and tries to help people?

      • Guest

        Dude it did happen. There was melt out. There was plums of radioactive material released by the explosions into the atmosphere. They have been dumping radioactive waste into the ocean for 5 yrs now. The main stream media now admits it has reached California. Of corse the media says its low background radiation. These are the facts. Any amount of radiation is bad. We already get enough. Why do you think doctors don’t over expose clients to x-ray unless they have a need to. Studies show it can be bad. I personally don’t want any more in our environment. I have put solar on my home. We don’t need nuclear energy. We don’t need coal. Don’t be a slave to the mega power corporations distroying our world. I hear speculation of power plants in the USA that are in dire need of upgrades. We don’t need them. We need clean renewable energy. This is 2015. Not 1965. When will we grow as a civilization into our next chapter in history. We are capable of doing amazing things. Nuclear power plants hold us back. Let’s move on.

      • Michael Mann

        Nuclear power plants are the cleanest, safest way to produce electricity ever invented, new designs are even safer. The way forward is education and science over propaganda and fear. New nuclear power can improve the standard of living while reducing impact on the environment.
        Which is newer solar and wind or nuclear? Do some research, the first man-made nuclear self sustaining chain reaction happened in 1942, when was the first photo voltaic cell made? in the 1800’s How about the first wind powered generator also the 1800’s let’s give nuclear energy the same time to develop, it already provides more energy than solar and wind combined, has a better safety record, takes less material for the same amount of energy and is dispatchable as well as more reliable. No, nuclear power doesn’t hold us back, irrational fear is what holds us back.

      • Guest

        I strongly disagree with you. Logic clearly says otherwise. How many people have died from nuclear power. Even one is to many in my book. Let’s ask anyone from Chernobyl to chime in here, or anyone from Fukushima, or anyone from Three Mile Island. I see that apx 72 metric tons of waste is produced in the USA alone. How much waste does solar/wind/water renewable energy sources produce. Now I am not saying we should throw this technology away. However, everyday general power needs do not need nuclear. Solar energy is completely adequate and makes purfect sense. Furthermore, the nuclear industry has made clams that nuclear power is the cleanest safest power available forever, the evidence or history is clearly showing otherwise. It doesn’t matter how old or new a technology is. This logic seems like all the software companies that release their software to meet deadlines, to later provide update after update until the software is fully developed. The only difference is that people don’t die from those mistakes. If your playing with fire, you will surly get burned eventually. That’s just the risk you tak. When dealing with the general public all lives matter in my opinion. I don’t know of anyone dying from renewable solar. Please understand this is not attacking you or anyone here. This is discussion. I respectfully disagree that nuclear is the cleanest, safest source of power. Used elsewhere in society this may be different. Who knows maybe nuclear energy can someday take man to other parts of our solar system. But why expose our children and families to the risks involved.

      • Michael Mann

        No-one died from TMI, no-one died from Fukushima radiation and most likely no-one will, estimates of 4000 may have shorter life span due to Chernobyl, actual deaths number around 50 of the heroic people attempting to mitigate the Chernobyl disaster. Chernobyl was an abomination of poor design, operation and oversight. It’s like saying all aircraft should be grounded because the Hindenburg was unsafe. Nuclear energy is the only feasible way to improve the standard of living while cleaning up the environment.

      • Guest

        I will say that I hope you are right that nobody will die from Fukushima. I am aware that nobody in the plant during the failure of the back up generators, and this is a win in comparison to Chernobyl. But I still disagree that nuclear power is the only feasible way to improve the standard of living while cleaning up the environment. I do agree that nuclear power is a cleaner, safer standard than carbon emitting plants, however, the risk of lives and the environment is not worth it now that solar powered plants are now a feasible option. With solar their is no risk of human life or environmental damages. I can see that we will not agree on what is the better source of power in 2015 and forward. I have my opinion and you are certainly entitled to have yours and that’s beautiful. What I do know and what others have said is that any amount of radiation is bad. Sure there is radiation from natural sources as well as from past nuclear tests which were preformed above ground as well as WWII. There is also b.g. radiation from Chernobyl. Now from Fukushima. We are also exposed to radiation through x-rays and there are many many more. Thats just become the way of life. What really concerns me is what exactly is being done over there to stop the dumping in the ocean, and getting this mess cleaned up. I don’t understand why other countries are not involved in the effort. Well I do but this could be on the conspiring side, so I won’t bother to mention. Where are the reactors that are missing and what does this mean. If i recall this was the big fear of Chernobyl and The China Syndrome was made about this scenario. Is it really okay that there is still radioactive waste being dumped into the ocean everyday 5 years later. Tepco said this was happening. Is there any effort to stop doing this in the near future?

      • Michael Mann

        There is no power source with no risk to human life that I know of, definitely not today’s versions of solar or wind power.

      • Michael Mann

        Estimates of 1.8 million lives have been saved through the use of nuclear energy.

      • Guest

        Yea your a really really bad person. How dare you warn the public that the entire northern hemisphere is radiates from all the nuclear testing and explosions.

      • Rappy

        Scaring the public is not the same as warning the public

      • Guest

        Scaring the public. Scaring the publc really. The public must be really stupid. So stupid they can not handle good and bad news. So stupid they won’t investigate and alleged information for themselves. It’s just best the public gets cancer from fallout but as long as they are not scared its all okay. For the record…nobody should criticize media, and nobody should be a skeptic anymore. We don’t want to scare the people.

      • Michael Mann

        Reactor #4 did NOT have a spent fuel pool fire, that is confirmed fact as they have removed all the once used fuel from that pool and it was intact. The other 3 units did meltdown, but the cores were contained in the containment vessels. The fear you are attempting to create is harmful and based on the negative consequences should be thought of as criminal, especially if it continues after you have been corrected. Do you have no conscience? Do you enjoy causing stress and anxiety?

      • Slipmatwax

        we can just hope the Japanese will come up with the prevention

      • Michael Mann

        No reactor #4 at Fukushima did NOT have a spent fuel pool fire, and to repeat this after it has been proven false is irresponsible shows a complete lack of understanding or integrity. No thyroid cancer rates are not expected to increase, but the fear and anxiety created from these false reports is expected to have many negative effects.

      • greenthinker2012

        Riffing off of your Internet screen name, what is really criminal is you spewing lies and causing people fear.
        You are as irresponsible as a person screaming fire in a crowded theater because you like to see people being afraid.
        If you are an adult you have a responsibility to fact-check before you open your mouth and cause harm to people.
        You are either too stupid to know the truth, too lazy to find the truth, or too evil to speak the truth, or some combination thereof.

    • Starviking

      Not “in meltdown”, “have suffered meltdowns”.

      • Guest

        Correction They were melt outs. They found the cores…scattered all over Japan. Know it all Troll

      • Starviking

        “Know it all”

        A common response from those not interested in having their preconceptions challenged.

      • Guest

        So explain differently. Stop attacking and educate. This is why were here. Enough…let’s learn now from each other.

      • Michael Mann

        Guest, you make obviously false claims then get upset and call people names when they correct you? Do you parents know you’re on the internet? You should be over 12 years old to be commenting.

    • greenthinker2012

      Google “radioactive decay heat”.
      You will find that decay heat decreases quickly after reactor shutdown.
      The reactor cores (after four years) are now putting out less heat per tonne than a hair dryer.
      The cores are not melted…they are not even hot.
      I challenge you to melt a tonne of metal with a hairdryer. Let’s make it even simpler…I challenge you to melt a single ceramic coffee cup with a hair dryer.
      Of course you can’t.
      Anyone with a functioning brain can see this as obvious.
      How you think you can get away with spewing such obvious BS is amazing.

    • Michael Mann

      Right now reactors 1,2, and 3 are too cool to melt anything, except maybe ice, and have been for over 3 years. They are still highly radioactive making entry difficult and dangerous.

  • Al

    The nuclear lobby releases the info bit by bit. During the catastrophe if they disclosed all the risks about the direction of the breeze blowing towards the pacific and not on Tokyo ( which would otherwise have rendered Tokyo uninhabitable unless I am mistaken), there would h&ve been a panic. We’ll probably learn in 40 years that Fukushima had a lasting deadly impact on the environment with something on the line like sorry we brought cancer to you 40yrs ago but don’t be too concerned you’ll be dead in less than 10yrs…

    • Sam Gilman

      I’m afraid you are indeed mistaken.

      Tokyo wasn’t in danger. Modelling done at the time by the UK/US to ask if Tokyo was in any danger found that it would have taken all six reactor cores to be blown into the air, and with gale force winds to blow consistently for three days in a direction thy don’t usually go for Tokyo to have had any problems at all.

      The World Health Organisation and the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation have both conducted studies of exposure and concluded any rises in cancer, if they occur, will be too low to be detectable.

      Out of interest, before you posted your message, did you try to check any of your facts, or did you just decide it would be fun to tell people they were going to get cancer? It may all be a joke to you, but for people living in Japan, such uninformed fearmongering can cause people real harm.

      • Al

        I don’t think the whole people of Japan are reading me. But my comment reflects the level of trust that I have in the nuclear industry in releasing the information. The second part of my comment was wity if you can’t understand it then I can’t do anything for you. No I am afraid I don’t engage in a thesis research before any comment made. So please do continue to defend the nuclear industry freely

      • Sam Gilman

        So you genuinely do just turn up and tell people they’re going to get cancer for the kick of it? You don’t care if what you’re saying is true, it just suits your politics?

        Gosh. What kind of person does that make you?

        You’re just one voice, that’s true. But there’s a whole horde of you – conspiracy theorists in the main – spreading this kind of nonsense, both Japanese and foreign. What’s the biggest health problem in Fukushima? The stress. Obesity in children whose parents are lied to by all these voices that they can’t play outside. Bullying of evacuees for being radioactive because of all these voices. Alcoholism.

        Respected international researchers and doctors who have nothing to do with any nuclear industry, who spent years looking at Chernobyl, visiting, helping to save children’s lives have been pleading with the media and others to stop spreading fear. They know what did and did not happen at Chernobyl, and they can see what won’t happen at Fukushima.

        Alas, for some people such as yourself, spending a few minutes checking the science and checking their consciences gets in the way of their fun telling people they’re going to die.

      • Guest

        Yea you bad person of false realities. Fukushima people are just drunk and need sun. They are fat. Nuclear is good. I know cause I just do. Crazy conspiracy theoriest talking bad.

      • Guest

        And you believe the W.H.O. And the UN. Show me someone who is not collecting a paycheck from a governing body and I might consider.

      • Sam Gilman

        Yes, I trust the WHO. They’re a highly respected organsiation whose work is considered sound by scientists publishing in the fields the WHO works in. They represent mainstream scientific opinion as a matter of course, as do UNSCEAR.

        But if you want other names of publishing scientists with appropriate expertise who have been consulted by the media, here are a few:

        Ken Buessler (Wood Holes Oceanographic Institute)
        James Conca (Los Alamos, now in environmental monitoring)
        Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London, head of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank
        Jay Cullen University of Victoria
        Kim Martini, University of Washington
        David Measday and Marcello Pavan, University of British Columbia
        Kenneth Nollett, Fukushima Medical University

        You’re welcome to see mainstream science as a conspiracy, but that just makes you a conspiracy theorist.

    • Guest

      Crazy talk nuclear power is so safe. Let’s close down all the coal plants and get rid of roof top solar so we can build nuclear plants on fault lines.

  • KocksRcriminals

    The most important thing here is they discovered COOL temperatures in the primary containment vessel. That means the nuclear cores are not in it. They have melted through the floors as many have suspected. The very high radiation readings indicate the melted down cores are still giving off huge amounts of radiation. Their is no chance of them recovering the cores whatsoever.

    • greenthinker2012

      Here is some homework for you.
      How thick is the concrete floor of the containment?
      The fuel leaked out the bottom of the steel vessel and onto the concrete floor of the containment building.
      The fuel is now solid and is only putting out the heat equivalent of a hair dryer per tonne of fuel.
      This can be calculated with certainty.

      • awake not asheep

        Oh do please show that equation! Looks like the special shape shifting robot was toasted in the containment vessel in less than three hours was adversely affected by only the heat of a mere hair dryer. I can see i am in here way over my head, just can’t wrap my mind around that. Oh do please show your calculations.

      • greenthinker2012

        Why not Google it yourself?
        Look up ” nuclear decay heat”

      • awake not asheep

        You are the one who statement, u claim it can be calculated with certainty, show me. Obviously. the brains at TEPCO are challenged by it, I just am calling u out for your BS statement.

      • greenthinker2012

        Oh..I thought you were interested in learning something.

      • awake not asheep

        You made a claim which u didn’t support, and then u go onto respond to me about decay heat, which u claim would amount to a mere hair dryer.The article clearly says they don’t know where the hell the fuel is or in what condition it is in. Your assumption, that the fuel is solid, is something TEPCO doesn’t even know. Oh well, I’ll take your assumption, even if it is irrelevant, and go with your decay heat reduces to a hair dryer, and refer you to MIT’s Nuclear Info Hub, (trust me it is not good for your argument), and that is all i was pointing out. No big deal, it is/ was just BS.
        MIT:
        “Radioactive isotopes, also called fission products, continue to produce various types of radiation as they decay, such as gamma rays, beta particles, and alpha particles. The decay radiation then deposits most of its energy in the fuel, and this is what is referred to as decay heat. The decay heat must be removed at the same rate it is produced or the reactor core will begin to heat up. The removal of this heat is the function of the various reactor core cooling systems that provide water flow through the reactor core and then reject the heat elsewhere. However, at the Fukushima site the integrity of these systems were compromised by the large tsunami that resulted from the earthquake, and made it difficult for the operators to keep up with removing the decay heat.
        If the decay heat is not removed then the reactor fuel begins to heat up and undesirable consequences begin as the temperature rises such as rapid oxidation of the zircaloy cladding (~1200C), melting of the cladding (~1850C), and then the fuel (~2400-2860C).”

        Relate

  • Das Karl

    That rock really looks like a bag of some sort, almost like a life vest. Note the rounded edge.

  • Starviking

    Do you have a link to the scientific report on the “black dust”?

    • Guest

      Do you have the link to the scientific report that there is no black dust?

  • Sam Gilman

    One question:

    Who owns ENEnews?

    • Guest

      Who actually does own enenews? And what makes their sources bunk?

      • Starviking

        A lawyer in Florida, if I recall correctly.

      • Michael Mann

        One of the things that makes their sources bunk is their attempt to twist the meaning of sited research. In an e-mail from Dr. Bruesseler at Woods Hole Oceanographic: “ENENews is often a source of mis-information according to Dr. Buesseler at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. By selecting words and mixing up the message from various scientists and media stories they distort many of their reports on Fukushima. Each word may have been said, but not with that meaning.”

      • Sam Gilman

        Let the record show that “Guest” doesn’t bother checking where his information comes from.

        ENEnews – which takes news stories and then creatively “reinterprets” them, is held in the name of a mysterious off-grid lawyer – possibly in Utah, possibly in Florida – who does not appear to advertise his services anywhere; his only recorded court appearance I could find was to do with an oil spill. He’s passed his bar exams – that much confirms his existence. The site started fully formed and with a corporate-design-style logo, able to take the masses amount of traffic it received almost immediately that the Fukushima crisis began, and certainly seemed to have full-time staff keeping it running.

        So, nothing suspicious there at all. I mean, it’s not as if energy companies ever, ever get up to any kinds of dirty tricks or misinformation campaigns ever.

        It’s amusing the way that people who cite ENEnews think the rest of us are “sheeple”.

      • Guest

        Let the record be shown that after several attempts to be civil and start over conversation, you still attack me. This makes me think that there is an agenda here. You call me a conspiracy theorist yet you say that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is debunked and the sources are no good. You my friend are a conspiracy theorist too. Saying a report is no good because a lawyer produced it is a conspiracy too. I will ask you again who do you work for? Are you paid by Tepco to be here and insult those seeking information. Even if the sources were bunk and the scientist producing the reports are quacks, isn’t it equally important to talk about them so that people can become educated and learn to discern between factual and speculative information. I can see that we can not discuss. You have your opinions and I have mine. This is great. I am done being insulted even after taking the higher road and trying to start new with you. I was childish in my satire with you. You are childish calling people names and labeling them conspiracy theorists for having different views than yours. This also makes you closed minded. See even with my beliefs, I still tried to sit at the table and understand you to hopefully change my perspective about the situation. Let it be known that you did not do the same!!

      • atomikrabbit

        A personal injury lawyer in Palm City FL named Grant Grand. He started it specifically to capitalize on the Fukushima events in midMarch 2012 – look it up.

  • Guest

    Hey everyone. Who cares we will all die eventually. Besides its only radiation. Bananas have radiation. Oh boy. Let’s see where can I find me some Pacific salmon and shrimp…they say it’s okay.

  • Guest

    One question:

    Who owns Sam Gillman?

  • Days_of_Noe

    What happened to the fuel rods? After it happened, I remember reading about the rods being strewn about like pixie sticks and how removal would be difficult, if not impossible. One story suggested the rods may cause a huge explosion if they contacted one another during extrication.

    The early reports were very alarming. However, a friend and former nuclear engineer said the accident (while tragic) was being way overblown by anti-nuclear activists. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between with information from those making a living in the industry versus those trying to shut it all down.

    It would be nice is we could find any credible source without an agenda. It was once called honesty and integrity. Not much of that around anymore. Certainly not here in the US.

    • Sam Gilman

      They were removed from fuel pool four at the end of last year.

      Your friend is correct.

      I would strongly advise against taking a midway view in a public discussion of “science”. That is what has gotten the U.S. in such a political mess over climate change and vaccines.

      Instead, look at your sources. Throw out the ones that don’t pass muster: the people are not specialists in the right area, they don’t publish in peer reviewed journals (or in completely the wrong kind of journal – such as a sociology journal with no scientific expertise), they have been accused by their credentialled peers of research malpractice, their financing is not independent of political organisations or corporations – that is, their income is dependent on reaching predetermined conclusions.

      Do that and what you have left is the science. There may be disputes within mainstream science, so accept them. But cut out the cranks, the shills and the professional activists, and you’ll start to get a clearer, more consistent picture.

      • Days_of_Noe

        Point taken. I am not a scientist and make no pretentions. However, I have taken graduate level statistics and know just enough of data analysis to hurt myself. It seems both sides are flawed, seemingly, making absolutes where there are none. The usual political mudslinging and agenda-driven demagoguery.

        I scratched the surface and find infant mortality rates a thin argument since the references (I read in one report) did not list the cause of infant death. The debate seemed to strain itself on city inclusion/exclusion and timeframe analysis instead.

        As for public discussion of “science;” it seems most “scientists” think they are simply too intelligent to ever answer a question from anyone. If the other person happens to be another “scientist” who disagrees, then that person is somewhat of a Neanderthal and their “science” background is garbage.

        Seems to me “scientists” today are more like fascists seeking to control the narrative than anything else. I suspect government grants, think-tank salaries, etc… have as much to do with it as “science.”

        The peers doing the review are often too quick to agree with one another. This is what can lead to the kind of “consensus science” that no one should ever accept.

      • Sam Gilman

        If the debate were between bona fide scientists, I think you would have a point about the tone. However, I think it’s important to consider the converse of those principles I laid out previously about what passes muster as good science: what does junk science look like.

        Follwing the rise of the climate change denial movement (which itself grew out of the movement to deny the link between tobacco and cancer), there have been academic studies of the phenomenon of science denialism. Science denialism isn’t simply pseudoscience, it’s an effort to convince the public that there is controversy and dispute in science where there isn’t.

        It’s notable for being conducted by people who are typically not experts, or the wrong kind of experts, producing the impression of science for public consumption. They produce reports and form think tank front groups that try to debate science through the media rather than through the appropriate scientific journals.

        Let’s look at those Mangano Sherman infant mortality studies. They started off publishing in a non-radiation science journal (a social science journal with no expertise in the area) and then in a bogus open access journal with literally no actual peer review (the sort where if you pay the editing fee they will literally publish junk. One academic recently got a paper in one of these journals called “Take me off your f***ing mailing list” (with that sentence repeated ad nauseam as the text) accepted for publication.)

        Mangano and Sherman blatantly fix the stats. If you tweak the key parameters in ways that should not matter – notably the time frame forward or back, and the “random” city selection, etc. all the effect goes away. It is absolutely clear that they cherry picked data. It is without question. You don’t need grad level stats to see what they’ve done.

        The claim they made was extraordinary anyway. Nothing in the scientific literature could ever explain such huge rises in infant mortality, and such a huge rise would have been noticed. A scientist would have stopped and said – hold on, that looks really unlikely, let’s examine the stats.

        And that’s the point – they do not publish to persuade other scientists, and they do not expose their work to the scrutiny of scientists. The act of publication is instead a public performance for media consumption. That is what Mangano and Sherman have been doing for years.

        How should a scientist respond to this? How should anyone respond to this? Should we say “well, you know, they might have a point” and thus legitimate their false claims to be doing science? Should one ignore them, and leave the media floor to them, presuming that everyone else will understand that they’re charlatans?

        What’s important to grasp is that the strength of condemnation of these kinds of people is not the same has having absolute certainty in one’s own particular view. There are a range of scientific views which are reasonable, and respectable, and good scientists, in public, typically acknowledge this.

  • Michael Mann

    Total bunk from ENENEWS not a credible source, I have yet to find any truth on that site.

  • Sam Gilman

    You’re mixing up two entirely different things, Douglas.

    Is the decommissioning and local clean-up of Fukushima daiichi a hugely difficult and dangerous task?

    Yes.

    Does it constitute a large existential threat to the general population, such that your family are at risk?

    No. Not unless you or they work at the plant.

    I and Starviking here have offered evidence after evidence about this.

    You can be as angry as you like at TEPCO. But if you let your anger slip over into spreading false public health messages, you’re just adding to the damage they have done.

    • douglas black

      Um, yeah. I was discussing 2 different things because I replied to 2 different persons bent posts.

      I have shown no ‘anger’, nor have I spread any ‘false public health messages’, not to mention ‘adding to the damage ‘ of any sort.

      The technology to decommission Fukushima simply doesn’t exist.
      PERIOD.
      This article fails to clarify this point while discussing their latest failure. It is not fear mongering. It is a shallow attempt to explain the impossible conditions of any progress.

      It is also careless to claim that affects are too minute to affect anyone of the population through exposure, digestion and inhalation as scientific fact.

      • Sam Gilman

        It is fearmongering to say that “other opinions exist” to the best estimates we have of the risk when you cannot produce a single one of these opinions so that we can inspect it for quality.

      • douglas black

        You are the one mixing things up Mr. DJ.

  • Rufus

    There is no “safe” level of man-made radioactivity.
    These elements do not exist in Nature, and no one knows what the effects are on the planet.
    The Pacific Ocean, as big as it is, is now dead.

  • Sam Gilman

    Ah, the Yablokov million deaths from Chernobyl book. Have you read it?

    Following an internal investigation, the book was withdrawn and repudiated by its publishers, who stated quite clearly it had not been peer reviewed prior to publication and had no scientific standing. To quote one of the reviews the Academy ordered that led to the book being withdrawn, its value as a scientific work was “not zero, but negative”.

    Why don’t you look at proper science in proper science journals?

    It would be a lot better than scouring the Internet for something to support your predetermined conclusion.

  • Starviking

    “We’ve actually seen, I’d say a trace amount of plutonium”

    A Trace Amount.

    How does that mesh with “Plutonium at 1,000,000 Bq/m3″?

  • Starviking

    Idiots like Starviking are part of that obfuscation.

    I would say that conspiracy theorists like yourself who never engage their brains to ask:

    “Can this be true?”
    “Why is this not in the media?”
    “Why aren’t folks on the coast complaining about this?”
    “Why aren’t scientists reporting on this?”
    “Why should I trust Nuclear Proctologist or Dana?”
    “What are their qualifications?”

    …are the problem.

    • awake not asheep

      Now that was a strong rebuttal! I retract all of the sources I outlined because starviking scared me so. LOL

      • Starviking

        LOL indeed.

  • Guest

    Okay, okay, I am done bickering back and forth with you two starviking, Sam Gillman. Let’s try this. Forget calling names, forget all the hate, and let’s just start again. But let’s just get some things out in the table so we can all learn something with this. With an open mind, sure there are things we can all learn from eachother. Let’s not downplay people’s openions, let’s not talk down to people, let’s stop insulting each other. How people come to believe what they believe is a result of their quest for truth and the path they take to get there. No matter the path we take, let’s agree that we can all arrive to the truth. Now my path and where I come from, is bent a skeptic. I question all mega corporate entities. I don’t see how they have the best interests of the general population in mind. Though I believe the majority of everyone is good in nature. That said I also believe that politics play a roll in any situation where money is involved. I’ll stop there and see where this angle goes. Can we be civilized and talk. Discuss, and learn from each other.

    • Mike Carey

      You didn’t reply to anyone so no one has been notified that you have started a new thread.
      Cheers.

    • Starviking

      Well from the start I’m happy to use references, do calculations, and give general scientific interpretations of things.

      However, if things get blown off without a second thought, or references and experts in the field get dismissed as lobbyists – then there is not much point continuing.

      I also have an aversion to hype, and will call people out on that no matter what.

      Scepticism is grand, I follow it myself – but it needs to be universally applied. Looking at both sides of the argument, and I’m talking generally, not about this thread, I see one side using hype, poor science and stats, and fearmongering. I don’t see much of that on the pro-nuclear side, though there is some hype in places.

  • Starviking

    From the book The 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident: How and Why It Happened pages 76-77, it is stated that Unit 1’s fifth floor walls were just panels on steel frames. That meant they could blow out sideways to release the pressure from the explosion. Unit 3’s fifth floor walls were reinforced concrete, continued from the lower floors. In Unit 3, the only way for the explosion to go was up.

  • Sir TuberKopf

    I never said it was a nuclear explosion, it was a steam explosion. I linked a video so people could see for themselves what really happened.

    Don’t be so foolish as to put words in my mouth that I did not say and then invent insult for the words you attribute to me.

    We are done, when you resort to insults everyone knows you have nothing to contribute to an adult conversation.

    • Michael Mann

      Ok, so you don’t think fuel was dispersed in the air because it was MOX fuel which exploded? Sorry, I must have been reading a different Sir TuberKopf’s comments, my apologies. I thought this was the gullible Sir TuberKopf who gets his information from the fictional website ENENEWS, you could see how I could be confused.

    • Michael Mann

      You do realize people can go back and read your comments don’t you?

      • Sir TuberKopf

        You should, I likened the explosion to a MOAB, which is a “massive ordinance air burst” bomb. It is one the the largest non-nuclear bombs in the US arsenal.

        When reactor three went up it created a huge black dirty mushroom cloud. Lots of fallout! The meltdown was hot enough to melt the fuel rods into slag, including the high temperature stainless their casings were made from.

        By the way there has been a massive die off of pacific sea life. US government has announced major bans on fishing in US controlled pacific waters. This is a major hit to the world food supply.

      • SA Kiteman

        “Massive die off”, none of which has anything to do with Fukushima. Indeed, if nuclear power has anything to do with it it is to REDUCE te effect by reducing the CO2 in the air and ocean that would have been there if the nuclear plants had been coal.

    • SA Kiteman

      No, it was a hydrogen explosion.

      • atomikrabbit

        Yep – Zr (cladding) + H2O (superheated steam) > ZrO2 (weakened cladding) + H2 (boom)

    • Michael Mann

      Please point out where I was the one insulting someone else, then look at how many times I was insulted, I believe you will find a pretty good ratio. While I am passionate about this important subject, ti’s because fear mongering hurts the people the purveyors of this fear are claiming that they are trying to help.

  • greenthinker2012

    Ha Ha! ENENEWS!
    The lurid tabloid! What does it say about the world leaders being alien reptilian shape shifters?

    • Sir TuberKopf

      The article I linked has complete footnotes to peer reviewed papers, articles and research. Laugh it up, it doesn’t matter anyway, Fukushima has already killed the North Pacific Ocean, which is on its death bed as we speak.

      The North Pacific Ocean used to have one of the worlds largest fisheries, it is in total collapse. Many sources are of course blaming it on global warming. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/08/21/21greenwire-us-bans-commercial-fishing-in-warming-arctic-33236.html

      • greenthinker2012

        Yes….Global warming caused by fossil fuel burning which you support with your opposition to one of the most effective tools we have for replacing fossil fuels.
        Did you know that France managed to decarbonize their electricity production in a decade by using nuclear power?

      • Enkidu

        Hi Sir TuberKopf,

        I note your NYTimes story is from 2009. Can you explain how Fukushima could have caused that? (Or was your point that Fukushima isn’t causing this?)

  • Starviking

    Jeanette Sherman again.

  • Michael Mann

    Here is what Dr. Ken Buesseler wrote to me in an e-mail: “ENENews is often a source of mis-information according to Dr. Buesseler at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. By selecting words and mixing up the message from various scientists and media stories they distort many of their reports on Fukushima. Each word may have been said, but not with that meaning.”

    • Sir TuberKopf

      Thanks for clearing that up…. The radioactive sludge is still pouring into the ocean and the Pacific Ocean is still dying!

      • Michael Mann

        You are still spewing your misinformation, you do realize most people can do the research and see that your statements are not true. The whole its a conspiracy and all the engineers, technicians, scientists, regulatory bodies, workers, family members, colleges and anyone with any experience are in on it, wears pretty thin, pretty quickly for most people. When people take the time to debunk your fear mongering, you just generate more? Please remember there are people who may actually take you seriously and they could suffer adverse health effects from the anxiety you create. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Sir TuberKopf

        And here’s an article reporting that the highest levels yet of radiactive contaminants are being found in Fukashima ground water.

        http://www.nationofchange.org/fukushima-update-highest-radiation-levels-found-date-1387812498

        The article is dated Ap 17, 2015

        You do know the geology under Fukushima? it’s sandstone and mud stone, which neither filters nor contains anything, it just flows on into the Pacific.

      • Enkidu

        Hi Sir TuberKopf, That article is actually dated December 2013.

      • SA Kiteman

        There are two aquifers with impermiable rock between and below. The shore line barricade blocks them both.

      • Sir TuberKopf

        The chief of the Fukushima nuclear power station has admitted that the technology needed to decommission three melted-down reactors does not exist, and he has no idea how it will be developed.

        They also admit radiation is leaking into the Pacific and they don’t know how to stop it. The great ice wall they tried to build has failed to stop the flow.

        Since when is reality, fear mongering?

        Your biggest fear is someone might be frightened and go off half cocked and not eat Pacific Tuna or something? Wow!

      • Michael Mann

        A far cry from “sludge” and the Pacific is not even sick let alone dying from Fukushima radiation.. do you even read the garbage you post?

      • SA Kiteman

        Sheesh, dude, can you get NOTHING right? They haven’t even started the ice wall intended to stop the flow. They just received permission to start the first section. What they were not successful at doing was creating an ice dam in an open cross-section of free water. Totally different purpose and technology.

        Actually, there does not appear to be much if any radiation “leaking” into the Pacific. They have done quite a good job of stopping it. Every once in a while a heavy rain will wash some off the buildings and surrounding grounds and then the anti-nuke press will hve a field day castigating TEPCO for nothing.

        Since when is fear-mongering “reality”?

        I suspect his issue is that folks will respond to your fear mongering with a stressresponse and thus become ill and peraps die. So far, about 1700 deaths have come from fear-mongery in Fukushima Prefecture while none have come from radiation.

  • Sam Gilman

    The WHO report on Chernobyl actually estimates up to 4000 shortened lives.

    Of the 130 who developed acute radiation sickness, 28 people died soon after in 1986, and 19 others who had developed ARS died over the following two decades, although their deaths are not necessarily connected to the radiation exposure. This may be the “30” you heard.

    Of the the 6000 children who contracted thyroid cancer (most likely as a result of Chernobyl), only 11 had died. Thyroid cancer is – fortunately – one of the few easily cured cancers.

    Apart from that, the WHO estimates that over the course of the next few decades, there will be an extra 4000 cancers in from among the liquidators, evacuees, and residents of certain zones – that’s 4000 extra to the regular total of around 120,000 cancers, an increase of 3-4%. This estimate is based on the use of a conservative model of how much radiation exposure will lead to how many cancers, not on actual observations.

    That the prediction is based on a model is important to understand, because follow-up studies of the liquidators and population are struggling to find evidence of actual elevated levels. The head of the Chernobyl tissue bank in London, where they collect and examine tissue samples from people in the area to assess the effects, is basically saying that they’re seeing very little if anything (a possible small rise in leukaemia in first responders), and she’s also on record as saying no radiation-related health effects have been found outside a thirty mile radius of the plant. (She’s been very firm that she expects to see more or less no ill health effects from Fukushima radiation.) So this 4,000 is possibly high end (the predictive model – known as LNT – is thought by many in the field (but not all) to overstate the effects of low level radiation), although they are clear that they might still see something.

    In Fukushima, where there there was no core blowing open, but a hydrogen explosion blowing much less radioactive material much lower into the air, there was much, much less exposure, and food was controlled immediately. The average exposure in the most exposed few settlements is more than ten times lower than the average exposure at Chernobyl over a much wider population. Fukushima Daiichi is 180 miles away from Tokyo. Tokyo simply isn’t at any risk, and never was.

    Everything scientific experts are saying about there being no detectable health effects from Fukushima is based in the best data and evidence from Chernobyl and the atom bomb victims. It turns out you actually need a fairly big dose of radiation for there to be a meaningful risk to health.

    However>/b>, that is the radiation effects of Chernobyl. The effects of the fear of radiation were far worse. Depression, alcoholism, suicide. In many areas, there was a peak in the number of women choosing abortions – that’s thousands and thousands of people who would otherwise have lived, even into western Europe, even though doctors were able to explain to them their lack of risk. People’s hugely exaggerated fears were killing and harming far, far more than the radiation itself. That may sound incredible, but this is not just the WHO; the WHO reflects mainstream opinion.

    When the Fukushima disaster struck, members of the scientific community were very clear that fear could be the biggest killer if we allowed people to run away with their fantasies. However, the media found that fear sells and willingly gave airtime to apocalyptic cranks predicting that you would have people in Tokyo dropping like flies. The cranks claim that the Pacific has no fish left in it. One of the most popular cranks is still claiming that Canada received doses that would have killed over half the population immediately. Absolutely wild and crazy stuff. I can’t wait for the Tokyo Olympics to come round to see what these nutjobs will say when live pictures of the place with people not dead in it are broadcast around the world.

    They won’t admit they are wrong, though. They actually don’t care. You can see how “Guest” here makes jokes about the effects of fear and stress. You can read about those effects here in one of the world’s leading scientific journals. “Guest” thinks all that’s funny.

    I genuinely struggle to understand why people like him behave like they do.

    • Al

      Thank you for taking the time of answering. I can perfectly understand your point on the effect of fear and its appeal for the media. What I don’t understand though is why they do not disclose all of the data available right now so that well informed people like you can allay the fears of the public because the situation is allegedly under some control. The data will widely establish on what assumptions they relied and what actions was taken (it would help to reject perhaps all of the alternatives explanation on reactor 3 detonations or similar theories), so why not be completely transparent on a public health safety issue such as this, in some point in time they are bound to do so but why not now. Transparency could help rebuild the confidence more than anything else – unless the situation is in my opinion not fully controlled to say the least and acknowledgment of its extent -could trigger more fears and damage than anything else as you suggest. It is a unprecedented scientific phenomenon so there will always be discussions and contradictions but matters like the secrecy law enacted in Japan are not elements that tend to make the case that the situation is fully under control by TEPCO. I still can’t figure out why there is not a joint global effort to deal with Fukushima, the Japanese people should not be alone in dealing with that mess

      • Michael Mann

        I believe there is a global effort to deal with Fukushima, the IAEA, WHO, WANO are just some of the international organizations which are part of that effort. Transparency and timeliness of information are at odds with the need for accuracy and conservative decision making, it’s not as easy as it looks, and it doesn’t look easy….

      • Al

        I know it is a matter of Japanese sovereignty and also financing but what I meant goes more on the line of a joint binding scientific and operational decision making power, not just TEPCO final decision making considering its own risk. For instance, the ability to use the most adequate and rapidly available technology whether Japanese or foreign – joint R&D.. I know there was some contracts with areva or us firms but I also understood (perhaps mistakenly) that they tried to keep the main contracts with Japanese firms. That disaster is not a matter of protectionism but dealing with a pressing safety issue. I think it conditions the whole future of nuclear energy because if the industry cannot come up within a reasonable amount time with solutions that address an emergency issue, then they cannot market worldwide the “safe and reliable” energy standard that I once believed it was before fukushima.

      • Al

        Transparency and conservative decision making are unrelated in my opinion because you can always make the most conservative decision even if you disclose everything. Disclosure only affects the opportunity of a decision when it is taken. During the weeks and months of the catastrophe I can understand some retention of information because of the urgency but 4 years later, there is hardly any justification

      • Michael Mann

        When you come up with worst case scenario for conservative decision making , it gets translated into this happened, why didn’t you tell us and then, wow, you told us that happened, now you say it didn’t really happen? Were you lying before or are you lying now? Instead of that was our conservative worst case estimate, now we have more data and know that didn’t really happen.. people expect the complete correct answer immediately and many times it just isn’t available. Case in point when the WIPP had a tiny release of airborne contamination, the levels were so low it took days to count the samples, when the actual readings were released even the politicians in charge were outraged that the data wasn’t released immediately when the alarms sounded but instead “withheld” until days after the event.

    • Michael Mann

      Sam, Thank you for that well written,well researched, accurate, plain language explanation. I agree completely, May I use a copy of your comment to help explain to others the true dangers of Fukushima fear?

      • Sam Gilman

        Hi Michael,

        Sorry for not getting back to you earlier: of course, that’s fine. (It’s not my data!). Thank you for your kind words.

  • Sir TuberKopf

    Clearly you are half right. When high energy radiation is the only environmental issue it’s affects are not that great.

    You may have very controlled radiation exposure at work, have you also thoroughly checked you home for radon. When you work with radiation in industry, you wear protective clothing and respirators, mainly to prevent ingestion and inhalation. All your safety information is based on high energy particle exposure. Your data is meaningless when radioactive material gets into the food chain, or you are inhaling radioactive dust.

    Studies show low level radon does increase cancer. Smoke cigarettes too, and and the rate skyrockets higher than with cigarettes or radon alone. In this case 1+1=8!

    When combined with pesticides, chemicals and pollutants it’s affects are multiplied. So now we have China pumping chemical waste into the Pacific, combined with Fukushima radiation, and the Pacific is dying.

    Your logic is like the doctor that says this vaccine has been fully tested, and he’s right. Then he rolls your baby over and sticks them with 8 vaccines, none of which have been tested together for interaction or in this quantity.