Shareholders pressure utilities to ditch nuclear power

Kyodo, Staff Report

Shareholders and politicians on Thursday urged the nation’s top utilities to exit nuclear power as the central government moves to restart reactors idled by public safety fears in the wake of the triple core meltdown in Fukushima Prefecture in 2011.

Despite a number of antinuclear proposals pushed at the shareholders’ meetings, however, officials from the utilities said this week they were eager to restart nuclear power plants as soon as possible after their businesses were staggered by the halt of all commercial nuclear reactors in the country after 3/11.

Nine utilities with nuclear plants, including the biggest, Tokyo Electric Power Co., which manages the meltdown-hit Fukushima No. 1 power station — held their general shareholders’ meetings at a time when a nuclear power plant in the southwest is preparing go back online this summer for the first time under tighter post-Fukushima safety requirements.

Japan, which relies heavily on imported energy, invested heavily in nuclear power for decades, making withdrawal from what some believe to be a cheaper, less-polluting power source a difficult proposition to swallow.

At Tepco’s meeting, Katsutaka Idogawa, former mayor of the town of Futaba — which has been rendered uninhabitable by radiation contamination — said pulling out of atomic power is “the only way for the company to survive.”

Tepco, as the utility is known, has “forced people who were living peacefully into a situation like hell . . . I propose that Tepco break away from nuclear power,” the mayor said. Futaba co-hosts the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

Officials from Kansai Electric Power Co., which held its shareholders meeting in Kobe for the first time in many years, faced a barrage of tough questions about nuclear power, its decision to raise prices, and its ¥148.3 billion net loss in fiscal 2014.

Kepco faced sharp criticism for hiking household rates 8.36 percent at the beginning of the month because, as it acknowledges, its 11 commercial reactors are still idle, forcing it to rely more on imported fossil fuels. That was a sore point Thursday with politicians representing cities that hold Kepco shares.

“It’s regrettable the rise in rates is putting strong pressure on people’s lifestyles. Kepco’s efforts at management efficiency are still lacking,” said Kobe Mayor Kizo Hisamoto. Kobe owns about 3 percent of Kepco’s stock.

Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, one of the utility’s harshest critics, was not present Thursday but submitted a motion together with the city of Kyoto calling on Kepco to get out of nuclear power. The motion was voted down. Osaka owns about 9.4 percent of Kepco’s stock.

Kepco’s heavy losses and its plans to restart reactor Nos. 3 and 4 at the Takahama plant in Fukui Prefecture — despite a provisional injunction from the Fukui District Court in April — prompted calls from many shareholders for management, especially Chairman Shosuke Mori and President Makoto Yagi, to resign. But they and 14 other senior executives were re-elected.

“Nuclear power is part of the national energy policy, an important baseload. For reasons of energy security, economics, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we need to restart the reactors,” Yagi said at a news conference in Osaka on Thursday afternoon.

Shareholders expressed worries about how Kepco will adjust to the full deregulation of the electricity market next year, which is expected bring new, more flexible competition for electricity service at a time when the company is financially strapped.

In Fukuoka, shareholders at Kyushu Electric Power Co., which is looking to restart its Sendai nuclear plant in Kagoshima Prefecture in August, proposed that the president be dismissed, saying his stance of continuing nuclear power has hurt earnings.

But President Michiaki Uriu told the meeting that the utility “aims to restart nuclear reactors as soon as possible on the premise that securing safety is the priority.”

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to reactivate reactors that meet safety regulations beefed-up by the new nuclear regulator that was set up after the Fukushima crisis. The majority of the public, however, remains opposed.

The government plans to make nuclear energy account for 20 percent to 22 percent of the country’s total electricity supply in 2030, compared with around 30 percent before.

  • forsetiboston

    Reads like minority shareholders with no real value lost at the cost of expensive imports are trying to cause a buzz. Sounds like all motions against nuclear were voted down. As I see it from right here in Tokyo – Japan can return to nuclear or flush that thing called Kyoto Protocol right down the toilet. Japan can’t afford to import oil and natgas and remain a competitive force.

    Just a thought.

    • Troy Kokoszka

      Ditto. This Makoto Yagi sounds like one of very few voices of reason right now. The country has been hysterical on the subject of nuclear power since 2011, but I don’t think they have come to terms yet with their limited options.

      Their place on the ring of fire does make nuclear accidents more likely, but simultaneously, other aspects of the country like low resources and large economy also make nuclear power necessary.

    • GRLCowan

      Japan can’t afford to import oil and natgas …

      But its public employees can totally afford that. According to this paper’s Sep. 29, 2012 article “Green tax to come into force in October”, they’ve been getting a little extra on LNG imports since then, including a scheduled increase in April of last year and one next April too.

      The initial rate, I estimate, was such that their post-Fukushima gas revenue windfall, on that tax by itself, was $140 million a month.

      Here’s an interesting question: was “green tax” supposed to mean “environmentally friendly tax”? Surely that would only be valid if the tax had the effect of reducing, rather than increasing, public servants’ conflict of interest in this matter?

      • forsetiboston

        What about a reliance on fuel from abroad are public employees able to afford? Before I address your conjecture I would like to understand where you are coming from.

        By windfall, are you talking about after production profits for the energy suppliers? As for the green tax, you asked a question with an answer why don’t you tell me what the green tax is for.

        I’m all ears on the subject. Importing fuel is
        costly and can introduce supply and demand issues. Judging how hot it is already in Tokyo this summer will be an interesting one from a my TEPCO bill perspective.

      • GRLCowan

        What about a reliance on fuel from abroad are public employees able to afford? Before I address your conjecture …

        When nuclear power reactors are shut down in Japan, the central government gets an immediate net income boost due to taxes on the fossil fuels burned instead.

        I’m not sure how anyone could consider that “conjecture”.

      • forsetiboston

        Disregard my last you are a global warming denier I guess. Clearly from your history you are interested in promoting fossil fuels under the guise of a “beneficial state tax!” Nicely done.

      • GRLCowan

        Pointing out that the Japanese government profits by footdragging on nuclear power plant restarts does not amount to approval of this behaviour.

      • forsetiboston

        if the Japanese government profits at the cost of her manufacturing and industry prowess who wins? In your other posts promoting fossil fuels your suggestions are similar.

      • GRLCowan

        Please give an example.

      • forsetiboston

        Would you like an example from Platts a world renown organization for energy and the energy industry? Perhaps a peer reviewed IEEJ article pointing out that Japanese energy costs since the nuclear shutdown are more than twice the US? Alternatively instead of me providing the information google is a great tool.

        Further if you are a book person this is a great one: “Handbook of Energy & Economic Statistics in Japan” by the IEEJ Energy Data and Modeling Center. If you are a WSJ guy, and judging from your fiercely pro-fossil fuel perspective I assume you are there is more than one article on prices going up in Japan on high energy costs.

      • GRLCowan

        In [GRLCowan’s, my] other posts promoting fossil fuels …

        Please give an example.

        Would you like an example from Platts a world renown organization for energy and the energy industry? Perhaps a peer reviewed IEEJ article

        No, Mr. Exegesis. An example of a me-ism of the kind that you assert exists.

  • Starviking

    The standard of English in the JT is sometimes very poor.

    Shareholders and politicians on Thursday urged the nation’s top utilities to exit nuclear power

    Let me correct that for you:

    Some shareholders and politicians on Thursday urged the nation’s top utilities to exit nuclear power.”

    See? More accurate, but sadly less sensational.

  • prothopectore

    Nuclear energy is not a civilian economic activity. It is an appendage of the nuclear weapons industry which is controlled by the so-called defense contractors. The powerful corporate interests behind nuclear energy and nuclear weapons overlap.

    In Japan at the height of the disaster, “the nuclear industry and government
    agencies [were] scrambling to prevent the discovery of atomic-bomb research facilities hidden inside Japan’s civilian nuclear power plants”.1 (See Yoichi
    Shimatsu, Secret Weapons Program Inside Fukushima Nuclear Plant? Global Research, April 12, 2011)

    It should be noted that the complacency of both the media and the governments to the hazards of nuclear radiation pertains to the nuclear energy industry as well as to to use of nuclear weapons. In both cases, the devastating health impacts of nuclear radiation are casually denied. Tactical nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity of up to six times a Hiroshima bomb are labelled by the Pentagon as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”.

    – Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War
    The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation

    Michel Chossudovsky (Editor)

    I-Book No. 3, January 25 2012

    • Starviking

      Seeing that Mr Chossudovsky’s “book” leads to a web-page with a mutliply-discredited map showing 1000-RAD fallout heading to the US, I think we can ignore it.

      As for your claim that nuclear energy is a part of the nuclear weapons industry – why do most power plants produce spent fuel of no use to the nuclear weapons industry? And actually, the link you provide for that claim is increibly weak: There might have been a fire, so maybe…nuclear enrichment!

      Wacky.

      • prothopectore

        In 1942, during World War II, the United States started the Manhattan Project, a project to develop the atomic bomb, under the eye of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After the war in 1946, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was created to control the future of the project.

        In 1974 the AEC gave way to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which was tasked with regulating the nuclear power industry, and the Energy Research and Development Administration, which was tasked to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs.

        The 1973 oil crisis called attention to the need to consolidate energy policy as a matter of National Security. On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, which created the Department of Energy (DOE).
        so sorry, but you can’t dismiss chossudovskys work by implying any map you may have seen is related in any way to chossudovskys research ;) we could talk about the nightly news and brian williams here, but i think you get my point.
        you may need to go back and do some more homework yourself on “spent fuel”. plutonium is deadly enough that you may want to read up on it a bit more;)
        who am i kidding though. your a pro nuke shill. and maybe you own a bit of shares of stock in a nuclear energy company. all your money wont make you unsick.

      • Starviking

        And what the hell has that got to do with Fukushima Daiichi?

      • prothopectore

        there never has been a civilian nuclear industry. that’s what it has to do with fukushima.
        it is for and by the nuclear weapons syndicate.

      • greenthinker2012

        Your claim that civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inextricably linked is obviously disproven by all the countries that have developed civilian nuclear power but do not have weapons and by all the countries that have developed nuclear weapons without having a civilian nuclear power program.
        The two pursuits are distinct and separate.

      • prothopectore

        whatever you say…

      • greenthinker2012

        Thank you for admitting you are wrong.

      • Sparafucile

        So Japan has a deeply-secret nuclear weapons program? And so do Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Bangladesh?

      • Starviking

        So the “nuclear weapons syndicate” (a cookoo conspiracy theory term if ever I heard one) pushes the development of reactors which salt their spent fuel with pu-240, a plutonium isotope which inhibits the chain reaction needed for nuclear weapons?

        Crazy!

    • Sam Gilman

      What do you think about Yoichi Shimatsu’s view that the Fukushima disaster was caused by Jewish political interests? Are you into that sort of thing?

  • prothopectore

    dont forget all the fossil fuel burning needed to build the plants, make the raw materials to build the reactor, and mine the uranium. a nuke plant isnt carbon free until it operates for 10 years without any issues.
    and if your cute little nuclear reactor melts down, which one does on average of every 5 years FACT, then all the coal burning in the world can’t compare to the radiological releases of your super safe reactor.

    • prothopectore

      not to mention the waste.
      WIPP was built to last longer than 15 years. we can’t even keep the wastes we have now out of our environment for more than 15 years.

    • Sparafucile

      Your stupid meme applies equally to everything, and is therefore meaningless.

      Besides, with plentiful cheap power (only possible with nuclear), more and more of those things you list will be powered by electricity, or by electricity-generated hydrogen.

      • prothopectore

        nuclear power is the MOST EXPENSIVE form of electricity generation.
        …and its so 20th century technology….

        the amount of fresh water needed to operate a nuke plant conflicts with humans need for fresh water for drinking and agriculture needs. potable water is one of the most inelastic of life’s demands.

        we have no idea what to do with the spent fuel from nuclear power plants. we will have to safely store radioactive wastes for millennia without the possibility of breech of containment. W.I.P.P. (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) couldn’t even stay safe for 15 years…

        nuclear power costs an INFINITE amount of money…to operate and clean up after. without even going into the medical consequences nuclear presents…

      • Sparafucile

        “nuclear power is the MOST EXPENSIVE form of electricity generation”
        Measured how?

        “amount of fresh water needed”
        “needed” doesn’t mean “consumed”. Learn the difference.

        “we have no idea what to do with the spent fuel from nuclear power plants”
        Such a tired old, and abjectly false, talking point.

        “INFINITE”
        Citation? You plainly don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • prothopectore

    if chernobyl is a 7 on the international nuclear whoopsie scale then fukushima is at least a 21.

    but the reactors at fukushima are orders of magnitude more powerful, more toxic than chernobyl.

    how much MOX fuel was in chernobyl? = none.

    how much MOX was in the reactor vessels and spent fuel pools of fukushima daiichi site? = 10’s – 100’s of TONS.

    nuclear power plants are orders of magnitude worse than nuclear bombs.

    1300 radioactive isotopes……most top secret because that’s the way the department of defense likes it.

    all you know about are a few like;

    uranium-235 has a half-life of 703,800,000 years.

    plutonium -239, with a half-life of 24,110 years.

    americium-24, with a half-life of 432.7 years.

    strontium-90, with a half-life of 29.1 years.

    tritium, with a half-life of 12.3 years.

    cesium-137, with a half-life of 30.17 years.

    cesium-134 has a half-life of 2.0652 years.

    iodine-131 has a half-life of about 8 days.

    iodine-129 has a half-life of 15,700,000 years.

    …and there are about 1300 more (remember from earlier up) radioactive isotopes released from melting down reactors.

    • Starviking

      How foolish. Chernobyl had plenty of plutonium, as it is a fission product.

      • prothopectore

        at Chernobyl a total of 50 tons of the core melted. at Fukushima Daiichi there is at least 2000 tons of melted core unaccounted for.
        also, please read up on MOX fuel (mixed oxide) and then keep on telling me Chernobyl was burning MOX…please.
        :)

      • Starviking

        and then keep on telling me Chernobyl was burning MOX…please

        It seems not only your critical thinking skills are poor, but your reading skills too. I said NOTHING about Chernobyl using MOX. But…perhaps you could tell us where the plutonium in MOX comes from?

      • prothopectore

        MOX is short for “mixed oxide” plutonium fuel for nuclear power reactors…reactors that were designed for uranium fuel….MOX is also short for a new government program to make plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons less usable for future bombs by putting it in commercial power reactors. Tax dollars would pay the nuclear utility to irradiate the “bomb fuel.” There is an alternative. The alternative is called ‘plutonium immobilization’ and uses nuclear waste left over from making the bombs in the first place to secure weapons plutonium by making it lethally radioactive, just as the reactor would, at much lower risk.

        Plutonium bomb fuel increases the risk of a reactor accident and ages the reactor more rapidly than uranium fuel. Uranium and plutonium are different when it comes to how they split — which is what nuclear reactors do — split atoms. Plutonium is much harder to control. That is why the government used it to make nuclear bombs in the first place! It goes boom! Reactors run the risk of accidents even with the uranium fuel that they were designed for. Plutonium fuel increases this risk. No one has ever used weapons grade plutonium for reactor fuel, nor actual dismantled warheads, where the weapons grade plutonium was mixed with a host of other ingredients to make the bombs “go.” Bomb fuel will also wear out the reactor components more quickly. MOX is an experiment, and one with very high stakes.

        Plutonium fuel doubles the consequences if there is a major reactor accident. Chernobyl was the largest industrial accident in history. New reports say that the worst is yet to come in the toll of cancers. Chernobyl was the dumping of a reactor using uranium fuel into the atmosphere and the surrounding earth and water. Plutonium is so much more toxic and cancer causing that MOX fuel would double the number of cancers that a major reactor accident in South Carolina would cause over time.

        Plutonium fuel makes really bad nuclear waste worse. The waste that comes from the use of MOX fuel is hotter and more radioactive even than the high-level waste that uranium fuel produces. In addition, the so-called “low-level” waste that would be sent to the dump at Barnwell would have more plutonium in it than the reactor waste that is sent there now. Emissions to air and water that are a daily event at atomic reactors would also be more radioactive. This is simply because plutonium is a heavier element, and when it splits, more radiation is formed.

        Some people say that plutonium is super fuel and we shouldn’t waste it. For all the reasons above, it is a super bad fuel, and plutonium should be treated as a waste and handled carefully to prevent spreading it in our environment.

        Plutonium on the road is not only a health hazard, it is an invitation for attack. Until the weapons grade plutonium is immobilized or alternately used as fuel, it is high-grade, best-in-the-world bomb material and will be treated as such by all. Reactor site security guards will have “shoot to kill authority” to protect the “fresh fuel.” Where is the US commitment to nuclear non-proliferation? How can we criticize North Korea for merging their military and civilian nuclear programs?

        Plutonium is a commodity under the MOX program. At a time when corporations are beginning to move towards more benign materials and packaging, we should not use tax dollars to subsidize the nuclear industry to put the most deadly of elements into commerce. The alternative, immobilization, would treat plutonium as a waste and keep it within the boundaries of the DOE weapons complex.

        All of the MOX plutonium fuel program would impact the Carolinas. Plutonium –about 48 tons of weapons grade plutonium would be brought here from other locations in the nuclear weapons complex. The Savannah River Site is where this plutonium would be processed into a powder and cooked into fuel. MOX would be transported across South Carolina to the two reactors near Rock Hill called Catawba and two reactors on Lake Wylie near Charlotte called McGuire, all operated by Duke Power.

      • greenthinker2012

        WOW! Pretty much every statement you make is false.
        -Plutonium is not any harder to control than Uranium.
        The physics behind each is the same.
        -Plutonium does not wear out the reactor sooner. The physics behind its fissioning is the same as Uranium.
        -Chernobyl was not burning MOX fuel.
        -The waste from MOX fuel is identical in “heat” as spent Uranium fuel.
        -The Plutonium from weapons generates clean electricity and generates money so we get some benefit from the dollars spent making it in the first place.
        -Plutonium is a boogeyman used to scare people but in reality it is not as toxic as you claim.

      • Starviking

        Or alternatively, you could have posted the link to the NIRS webpage you got that infodump off and not passed it off as your own work.

      • prothopectore

        not trying to pass off anything as my own friend. but it’s good material for you to read and learn some facts about the nuclear weapons syndicate ;)
        like we talked about before….japan times doesn’t post hyperlinks.
        good try though.
        the nuclear industry is willing to do and say anything to try to pass nuclear off as anything other than a ticking time bomb….isn’t it?

      • Starviking

        Really? I suggest you append information like “This is from NIRS” if your hyperlinks are not coming through.

      • Sam Gilman

        When you judge a source for its reliability, what criteria do you use?

        For example:
        – educational qualifications
        – peer reviewed publications
        – employment by a respected research institute

        Details would help me judge whether to trust you.

      • prothopectore

        the information I’ve posted comes from industry insiders, re-tired industry professionals, credentialed educators, peer reviewed and published studies, legal findings, etc.
        I’m not here for you to judge me;)

      • Sam Gilman

        Could you give an example of a peer reviewed study?

      • prothopectore

        A Model of Cardiovascular Disease Giving a Plausible Mechanism for the Effect of Fractionated Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Exposure

        Mark P. Little , Anna Gola, Ioanna Tzoulaki

        Published: October 23, 2009

        DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000539

        Abstract

        Atherosclerosis is the main cause of coronary heart disease and stroke, the two major causes of death in developed society. There is emerging evidence of excess risk of cardiovascular disease at low radiation doses in various occupationally exposed groups receiving small daily radiation doses. Assuming that they are causal, the mechanisms for effects of chronic fractionated radiation exposures on cardiovascular disease are unclear. We outline a spatial reaction-diffusion model for atherosclerosis and perform stability analysis, based wherever possible on human data. We show that a predicted consequence of multiple small radiation doses is to cause mean chemo-attractant (MCP-1) concentration to increase linearly with cumulative dose. The main driver for the increase in MCP-1 is monocyte death, and consequent reduction in MCP-1 degradation. The radiation-induced risks predicted by the model are quantitatively consistent with those observed in a number of occupationally-exposed groups. The changes in equilibrium MCP-1 concentrations with low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration are also consistent with experimental and epidemiologic data. This proposed mechanism would be experimentally testable. If true, it also has substantive implications for radiological protection, which at present does not take cardiovascular disease into account. The Japanese A-bomb survivor data implies that cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality contribute similarly to radiogenic risk. The major uncertainty in assessing the low-dose risk of cardiovascular disease is the shape of the dose response relationship, which is unclear in the Japanese data. The analysis of the present paper suggests that linear extrapolation would be appropriate for this endpoint.

      • Sam Gilman

        How does the dose level in this paper relate to the dose levels at Chernobyl and Fukushima? Presumbaly, if this is one of the sources you’re relying on, you’ll have done this assessment already and won’t have trouble answering.

      • prothopectore

        normally it would depend on the proximity to ground zero. but we get to deal with external and internal emmitters here….. hot particles. we know the government gets all its “health data” regarding radiation from external sources, the government does NOT use internal emitter data to establish exposure guidelines…
        :)

      • Sam Gilman

        No, you havent’t answered my question. I asked a very simple question that people how understand the study you cited should understand.

      • prothopectore

        COBALT RADIATION CAUSING LEUKEMIA STUDY

        Am J Pathol. 1977 June; 87(3): 499–510.
        PMCID: PMC2032130
        Radiation-induced erythroleukemia in the beagle dog. A hematologic summary of five cases.
        D. V. Tolle, T. E. Fritz, and W. P. Norris

        Abstract
        Eleven cases of myeloproliferative disease occurred in a group of 24 beagle dogs placed in a 60Co gamma-ray field at about 13 months of age and irradiated at an exposure rate of 5 R/22-hour day for duratior of life. Of these 11 dogs, 5 (described in this paper) were diagnosed as having erythroleukemia. The bone marrow showed marked erythroblastic hyperplasia, with maturation arrest of the erythroid elements, and increased numbers of myeloblasts and promyelocytes. The terminal peripheral blood was characterized by marked anemia and thrombocytopenia, with circulating erythrocytic precursors and abnormal erythrocyte morphology. Splenomegaly and hepatomegaly occurred in 4 of the 5 animals. In the spleens and livers of all 5, there was extensive leukemic infiltration and proliferation. The extent of leukemic involvement in other tissues and organs varied in individual dogs.

      • Sam Gilman

        Again, you’ve copypasta-ed from a study without showing what conncetion it has from dose rates in nuclear accidents.

        Why are you finding it so difficult to provide evidence? This is the fourth or fifth reply I’ve written having to restate the need for proper evidence.

      • prothopectore

        Title : LONG-TERM STUDY OF INHALED PLUTONIUM IN DOGS.

        Descriptive Note : Technical rept., 1 Sep 59-30 Apr 65,

        Corporate Author : BATTELLE MEMORIAL INST RICHLAND WASH

        Personal Author(s) : Bair,William J. ; Park,James F. ; Clarke,William J.

        Report Date : MAR 1966

        Abstract : To determine the long-term translocation and biological effects of inhaled plutonium, 40 beagle dogs were given a single 10- to 30-min exposure to (Pu(239)02 aerosols. Thirteen dogs died or were sacrificed when clinical signs indicated death was imminent 29 to 66 months postexposure. The body burdens at death ranged from 0.5 to 3 micro Ci with 40 to 75 per cent of the body burden in the lungs, and 20 to 50 per cent in the bronchial and mediastinal lymph nodes. The liver contained 2 to 21 per cent, and the skeleton, 1 to 7 per cent. Cardiopulmonary insufficiency and lymphopenia were the primary clinical signs. Pathology in the lungs consisted of severe fibrosis followed by alveolar cell hyperplasia, and bronchiolar and squamous types of metaplasia. Seven of the 13 animals showed bronchiolo-alveolar carcinomas, an incidence of 18 per cent as compared to a reported canine primary lung-tumor incidence of 0.2 per cent. The bronchial lymph nodes were composed of dense sclerotic connective tissue devoid of any lymphoid element. Metastases of the pulmonary tumor to the bronchial lymph nodes were seen in three animals. Twenty-three dogs with body burden of 0.3 to 1 micro Ci survived 4 to 6 yr after exposure. (Author)

      • Sam Gilman

        Your contribution here has been to shamelessly promote the work of anti-Semites and to mechanically copy/paste large chunks from journal articles that you don’t understand.

        The anti-nuclear movement is getting weirder each year.

      • prothopectore

        I consider our liner threshold relationship mirrors that of the radioactivity contamination relationship in that with every one of your replies I read I get dumber and dumber ;)
        nuclear power is dead as a viable technology and so 20th century anyhow.
        you should step into the 21st century. hurry up and sell all you shares in tepco and kepco because they are about to crash and burn.

      • prothopectore

        who am I kidding. TEPCO has already crashed and burned and taken the northern half of Japan with it…

      • Sam Gilman

        Er, “Our linear threshold relationship” is gibberish.

        I think if you can’t get even the most basic terms of radiation science correct, you’re probably not someone to trust when it comes to copy/pasting large chunks from random science articles.

        That and the whole “the Jews ordered Fukushima” thing.

      • prothopectore

        never said a thing about a jewish anything friend.
        I’ve reached my maximum allowable exposure to radioactive bullschit for this week already, and it’s not even Monday!
        they say radiation attacks the eyes. your posts are proof positive of that.
        :)
        discussion is over.
        goodnight everyone. sweet fukushima dreams!

      • Sam Gilman

        Ah, but you were promoting Yoichi Shimatsu as an expert in all this. That’s his big thing on Fukushima. The Israeli government ordered the safety systems shut down as an act of revenge. He can also be found writing about what he perceives as the innate problems of the Jewish character, including a tendency to promote paedophilia and date rape drugs. We’re not talking any kind of subtle dogwhistle antisemitism here. He’s a regular on Rense-dot-com, for pity’s sake.

        This is who you promote, and it’s an indication of the kinds of websites you normally hang out on. People should bear that in mind when they think about where you’re coming from and what your actual agenda might be.

        You are of course welcome to admit to a big mistake and that you failed to check your sources properly.

      • greenthinker2012

        Well you have certainly shown us how dumb you are.

      • greenthinker2012

        How does this 3 uCi dose compare with the exposures to the public at Fukushima?

      • prothopectore

        I can think and comprehend just fine thank you very much. I’m not the one here trying to play pseudointellectual word games:)

      • Starviking

        Of course you play word games… It’s the only was to defend the rubbish you post.

      • Michael Mann

        No, you are just trying to spread misinformation and FUD….

      • greenthinker2012

        Please define what you mean by “unaccounted for”.

      • prothopectore

        where are the three corium’s at fukushima daiichi?
        we know exactly where they are, so why isn’t TEPCO and the government of japan being truthful? or has everyone forgot about satellite based thermal imaging?
        ;)
        “unaccounted for” definition; missing, lost, misplaced, not where it should be, etc.
        later everyone. this isn’t my job. I have things to do with the rest of my day. think for yourself. educate yourself people. come to your own conclusions.
        one last thing;
        THEY DON”T CARE ABOUT YOU.

      • greenthinker2012

        The cores are in the concrete containment vessels.
        How are they “unaccounted for if we know where they are?

      • Michael Mann

        Plutonium is not normally considered a “fission product” it is activated material from neutron capture, neutrons created by the fission process. So while it is a product of fission, fission products are normally thought of as the smaller atoms and particles which are left after an atom splits.

      • Starviking

        Thanks for the correction Michael! Is there any specific terminology for elements created by the neuton-capture?

      • Michael Mann

        Other than activated material or Actinides
        Elements with atomic number of 90 through 103; includes uranium and plutonium.
        I haven’t heard of a specific term.

      • Starviking

        Cheers!

      • atomikrabbit

        “Fertile” elements such as thorium-232, uranium-238, and plutonium-240 will not fission at the thermal (slow) neutron energies produced (after moderation) in light water reactors. They do have a significant probability of absorbing a neutron and then, via beta decay, transmuting into an element one step higher in the periodic scale. Starting with neptunium at atomic number 93, they are called transuranics.

      • Michael Mann

        Thank you!

      • Starviking

        Thanks!

  • prothopectore

    Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

    The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe …. “Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation.”

    Mousseau and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.

    The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Down’s Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.

    The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

    “When you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects.”

    “It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation,” he added. “A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold — radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand.”

    • Sparafucile

      It’s rather interesting, and telling, that you would state the “study’s” conclusion, but fail to link to it. That’s the usual hallmark of fraud.

      • prothopectore

        japan times won’t let links be posted. I’ve tried a few times. I get a message saying “need moderation”.
        ;)
        but it won’t be so hard for you to find the source for yourself.
        just search for a few sentences verbatim in your favorite browser…

      • Sparafucile

        replace the dots with (dot) — as in www (dot) google (dot) com.

  • prothopectore

    “…there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation…”

    “…there is no threshold — radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand.”

    just trying to make it a bit more expedient for ya all;)

    • Sparafucile

      What kind of “effects”?

      If the “effect” you’re talking about is moving the needle on a radiation detector, then sure.

      If the “effect” is a deleterious health reaction, then your assertion has been epidemiologically proven to be utterly false.

      • prothopectore

        explain fukushima prefectures’ skyrocketing childhood thyroid abnormalities and why are doctors being silenced from telling the truth about the situation?

      • Sparafucile

        If the doctors are “silenced’, then from where is your “silenced” data coming?

        Source????

      • prothopectore

        you’re just TOO funny sometimes :)
        L.O.L.
        the internet is vast and infinite.
        …shouldn’t take ya but under 60 seconds or so to search it up for yourself.
        I can’t hold your hand forever…

      • prothopectore

        sure am glad I’m not a kid living around fukushima…
        you have any family there?
        any connection with the area?

      • greenthinker2012

        It is disgusting that you pretend to care about the children living near Fukushima.
        You are too lazy or stupid to do due diligence on your “facts” and thus you cause real harm to these people you supposedly care about by spreading fear and anxiety through falsehoods.
        Shame on you for using peoples’ natural concern for children to promote your fear-based lies.

      • Michael Mann

        Your fear mongering hurts the very children you claim to care about.

      • Sparafucile

        I cannot locate any official or reputable source — only other speculating propagandists (generally referencing each other as a circle-jerk of sources), like yourself. Have you got a credible source, or not?

      • prothopectore

        interesting how those state sponsored media blackout censorship campaigns work, ya know?
        japan enacted the state secrets law, remember? that’s probably why you have issues fining out my sources ;)
        just look harder. I don’t know how else to give you encouragement over the internet …
        be like a choo choo train and chug along :) you want answers and that’s the first step. I have no doubt you can find it.

      • Sparafucile

        So you really have nothing — just like for the rest of your nonsensical assertions.

        Why am I not surprised?

      • prothopectore

        because you’re either in bed with the nuclear industry or you believe the fable.
        the things I’ve posted here aren’t “nothing”.
        :)

      • Sparafucile

        Still nothing, eh? Just some unfounded personal attacks? How convincing.

      • greenthinker2012

        The things you posted here are untrue.

      • greenthinker2012

        This vast internet tells us the moon landings were faked, the leaders of the world are reptilian alien shape shifters and that satellites don’t exist as well as how to make copper pipes and crystals neutralize the bad energy from chemtrails.
        The key to getting information from the internet is having the ability to judge the quality of the information sources.
        Are they peer reviewed scientific articles corroborated by other independent researchers following different lines of research or are they from conspiracy websites that link endlessly to one another to recycle lurid information tailored to appeal to one’s fears?
        Try holding your own hand to be skeptical while researching your facts.
        And try being honest enough to change your mind if new facts show your previous facts are wrong.

      • greenthinker2012

        Here is my comment with the link spelled out to make it through moderation…

        There are no “skyrocketing” diseases of any sort from Fukushima.

        That is what doctors and scientists and epidemiologists say.

        Here is a link where those findings are explained in an accessible way.

        www(dot)hiroshimasyndrome(dot)com/fukushima-child-thyroid-issue(dot)html

        Here are some quotes…

        “The Prefecture’s experts pointed out that papillary thyroid cancer develops at a very slow pace and not enough time has passed to link the newly discovered cancers to the Fukushima accident.”

        “Results showed that the Fukushima child thyroid cancer frequencies were relatively consistent with the other three Prefectures. In fact, the other three Prefectures had child thyroid anomaly rates slightly higher than with Fukushima.”

        “By the end of December, 2013, the consensus of Fukushima medical experts were agreed that the apparently-elevated child thyroid cancer rate in the prefecture was probably not due to the accident.”

  • Sparafucile

    The disgusting thing is it is these same activist loons who drive up the cost of nuclear power by increasing the political risk and legal expense, and then bleat about how ‘expensive” the technology is to deploy.

    • prothopectore

      “genomic instability”
      …look it up.

      • Sparafucile

        There’s moving the goalposts — what most of you loons usually do. Then there’s the complete non-sequitur, which seems to be your chosen option.

      • prothopectore

        Radiation-induced genomic instability is characterized by an increased rate of genetic alterations including cytogenetic rearrangements, mutations, gene amplifications, transformation and cell death in the progeny of irradiated cells multiple generations after the initial insult. Chromosomal rearrangements are the best-characterized end point of radiation-induced genomic instability, and many of the rearrangements described are similar to those found in human cancers. Chromosome breakage syndromes are defined by chromosome instability, and individuals with these diseases are cancer prone. Consequently, chromosomal instability as a phenotype may underlie some fraction of those changes leading to cancer. Here we attempt to relate current knowledge regarding radiation-induced chromosome instability with the emerging molecular information on the chromosome breakage syndromes. The goal is to understand how genetic and epigenetic factors might influence the onset of chromosome instability and the role of chromosomal instability in carcinogenesis.

        ….sure hope that doesn’t drive up the costs of health care….
        it’s funny you think this is a game. do you really think there’s such a thing as a radiation resistant human?

      • Sam Gilman

        The study you’ve copied and pasted from (without attribution – seriously? You think that’s OK to do that?) is: Huang, L., Snyder, A. R., & Morgan, W. F. (2003). Radiation-induced genomic instability and its implications for radiation carcinogenesis. Oncogene, 22(37), 5848-5854.

        What level of exposure are they talking about that produces such results? This is an important question because you need to show that these results from radiation are applicable at the level of exposure that has happened at nuclear accidents that have happened at Fukushima or Chernobyl..

      • prothopectore

        CESIUM, RADIOACTIVE
        Human Health Effects:

        Toxicity Summary:
        TOXICITY SUMMARY: The element cesium exists in several forms known as isotopes. In nature, cesium exists only as a non-radioactive (or stable) isotope known as cesium-133 (Cs-133); however, there exist several cesium isotopes that are radioactive. The radioactive isotopes of cesium are formed during nuclear fission, in commercial applications such as the generation of electricity at nuclear power plants. The most important cesium isotopes in terms of their potential effects on human health are cesium-134 (Cs-134) and cesium-137 (Cs-137). In this summary, the most pertinent information on the radiation toxicity of Cs-134 and Cs-137 are presented. Both Cs-137 and Cs-134 emit beta radiation and gamma radiation. Beta radiation travels short distances and can penetrate the skin and superficial body tissues while gamma radiation can travel great distances and penetrate the entire body. The radiation dose from these radionuclides can be classified as either external (if the radiation source is outside the body) or internal (if the radiation source is inside the body). Beta radiation emitted outside the body is normally of little health concern unless the radioactive material contacts the skin. Skin contact can allow the beta radiation to pass through the epidermis to live dermal tissue where it becomes a major contributor to the radiation dose to the skin. Beta and gamma radiation may induce tissue damage and disruption of cellular function. The half-lives of Cs-134 and Cs-137 are approximately 2 years and 30 years, respectively. Because of the continual emission of radiation, people could be exposed to radiation from Cs-137 or Cs-134 released to the environment. High levels of Cs-134 and Cs-137 have been released to the environment from nuclear weapons testing and incidents such as the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine. In these cases, cesium was one of many radionuclides present in the release. It is, thus, not possible to ascribe any of the observed health effects to radioactive cesium specifically. There are, however, documented reports of health effects in humans exposed to radioactive cesium. These reports arise from the accidental exposure of civilians to Cs-137 sources in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987 and Tammiku, Estonia, in 1994 and from the exposure of military personnel to Cs-137 during 1996 and 1997 in Lilo, Republic of Georgia. External and internal exposures of humans to radiocesium have resulted in a spectrum of adverse health effects that range from nausea to death. In 1987, approximately 250 persons, including children, were exposed externally and internally to radiation from a scavenged medical source with an activity of 50.9 TBq (1,375 Ci) 137-CsCl. Some of the exposed individuals showed signs of acute radiation syndrome, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. A large number of the individuals with acute radiation syndrome developed bone marrow failure and 4 of these died. Dermal injuries observed among the exposed individuals ranged from radiation dermatitis to severe radiation injuries leading to an amputation. Ocular and reproductive effects were also reported. Two incidents of external exposure to radiation from Cs-137 have demonstrated that serious adverse effects may also be expected when individuals are exposed only externally to high levels of radiation from Cs-137. In 1997 it was discovered that military recruits had been accidentally exposed to several sealed Cs-137 radioactive sources at a training facility in Lilo, Republic of Georgia. Nausea, weakness, headaches, and loss of appetite were the most commonly reported symptoms among the exposed recruits. Vomiting was reported by three of the patients, two of whom received the highest estimated doses. The exposures of the recruits occurred over several months. Although accurate information on the duration of the exposure was not available, doses were estimated by scoring unstable chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes and by electron spin resonance dosimetry of teeth of the exposed individuals. The estimated mean doses ranged from 0.2 to 5.9 Gy (The radiological event at Lilo. International Atomic Energy Agency (2000). Vienna). In 1994, several individuals (aged 13 to 78) were exposed to a sealed Cs-137 source stolen from a waste repository in Tammiku, Estonia. The observed health effects in the exposed individuals ranged from a relatively mild case of radiation sickness to death. Solid state dosimetry techniques were applied for reconstruction of the doses of several individuals exposed in the house where the stolen Cs-137 source was kept. The estimated whole body radiation doses ranged from 0.1 Gy to 4 Gy. The individual with the highest estimated whole body dose also had an estimated localized radiation exposure to the thigh of 1,830 Gy. The latter individual died 12 days after the initial exposure event. The survivors showed dermal effects and effects in blood. A 13-year old male was the most exposed among the survivors (estimated whole-body dose of 1.5-5.5 Gy). He suffered severe and prolonged bone marrow aplasia and radiation burns. (The Radiological Accident in Tammiku (1998). The International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. 4 November 1998). (SRC)

      • Sam Gilman

        I asked you a direct question about the study you cited (or rather: that you copy-pasted from)

        Your answer was a copy paste from a completely different webpage unconnected from the study you secretly copied from. People who do stuff like that are just trying to hide the fact that they don’t understand what they’re copying from. It’s a deceitful bluff. Are you a b*llsh*tter or a serious person?

        Could you please address my question about the original study you plagiarised? What exposure levels is that study talking about?

      • Sparafucile

        Imbecile … You’re off topic.

      • prothopectore

        nope. still the deadly after effects of nuclear reactor meltdowns. same topic. :)

      • Sparafucile

        Ok … You look just like the imbecile you are. I’ll leave your off topicvrant for others to laugh.

  • greenthinker2012

    Japan is currently spending over $30 million per day on fossil fuel imports.
    Thats a $Billion per month times 50 months and counting.
    Their economy cannot afford to keep this up.

    • Sparafucile

      That’s really not very much, all told. It’s a shame, and wholly unnecessary. But it’s not very much money.