Deadly 9.4 sieverts detected outside Fukushima reactor 2 containment vessel; checks stop

JIJI

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday that radiation levels of up to 9.4 sieverts per hour have been detected near a reactor containment vessel at the meltdown-hit Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

Sept. 4-25 checks found the extremely high radiation levels in a small building containing a pipe that is connected to the reactor 2 containment vessel at the plant, which was devastated in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Tepco said.

Exposure to such a dosage for some 45 minutes would result in death. Tepco said it expects decontamination work at the site to take at least one month.

Although details surrounding the high radiation levels remain scarce, the highest contamination was detected near the floor of the building, according to the company.

Tepco had planned to begin checking the inside of the containment vessel in August by using a remote-controlled robot, but high radiation levels have stalled the examination.

Extremely high radiation levels and the inability to grasp the details about melted nuclear fuel make it impossible for the utility to chart the course of its planned decommissioning of the reactors at the plant.


Correction, Nov. 1, 2015:

This article has been edited for clarity.

  • Ron Lane

    This makes absolutely no sense. Radiation levels are such that 45 minutes’ exposure results in death. Remote-controlled robot inspection was stopped in August due to the extraordinary radiation levels.

    So neither humans nor robots can get anywhere near the reactor, yet,Tepco assures us that decontamination is expected to take one month.

    Huh?

  • http://aamjanata.com vidyut

    This is a long standing scam by the nuclear lobby. Safe shut down my foot. What safe shutdown when the fuel status is known?

  • mokopit

    They can’t stop it . Can you say extinction level event. Teach that to the children. Explain to them there future is crap any way you look at it but because of Fukushima it’s going to really suck

  • http://SalaryNet30.com Marilyn Ewing

    My Uncle Evan got a new yellow Chevrolet Camaro Z28 only from working parttime off a macbook air.original site on my` prof1Ie`

    ^tTTTTTTEEEEEE

  • Patrick Boo

    The only way out to prevent more death cause by this nuclear plant is to Entomb it, but the Japanese have no fund to do it or no guts to do so. The Japanese never invented any thing as the second ‘richest’ and the second most advance BUT no one is able to repair NUCLEAR Plant, not even the Americans.

  • rupertmja

    The Japanese are pathetic in this case. In 1986 the Russians sacrificed themselves to sort out Chernobyl and sort it out they did. Not perfect by any means, but they did their best. The Japanese have done practically nothing, except to make a law that forbids its citizens talking about it. Wonder why? Docs are not allowed to report on who dies and why etc. Sooner or later, someone will leak something. They should have got those tunnelling machines and re-routed underwater flows around the nuke plant. Even, they could have dug under the reactors to catch the cores falling through their encasements in some kind of concrete train / vessel. They could do anything if they put their mind to it, but, the Japanese have no free thinking brains. That idea to freeze the waters surrounding the plant – year right – how stupid. You gonna freeze the surrounding waters for 500,000 years? They need to get the coriums into some vessel and chuck them into the deepest volcano.

  • ESteer

    Two of your sources are Fox news and a WORDPRESS SITE… ahahahaha you make me laugh so much right now XD

  • Sam Gilman

    Thanks for those links.

    First off, you haven’t actually linked to anything to do with Fukushima or doses received because of Fukushima. You seem to be trying to say that radiation can cause cancer. No one disputes this. The issue is whether the releases from Fukushima are as dangerous in that respect as you want people to believe.

    Your first two links refer to the same study, Richardson et al 2015. We can safely ignore the wordpress summary of it as the person writing it makes several errors. For example, it claims that the study “controlled for smoking” by excluding lung cancer. First off, that’s not how you control for smoking. The study did not formally control for smoking, which is where you look at how many workers smoked, which is data they didn’t have. Excluding lung cancer is a way of getting round the inability to control for smoking. Secondly, if you apply all the fixes for smoking that the study does, the ERR per Gray drops from 0.5 to 0.37, yet the blog writer continues to use the 0.5 number. Clearly the person is all at sea reading these articles. I’d stay clear of blogs as formal evidence.

    Your third link is to an article about scientists producing poor research. It’s not related to anything to do with research on radiation in particular. It could equally apply to the Richardson study. After all, there have been problems with their analyses in the past. These multi-country studies are fraught with problems, as any reading on the topic will show you. They don’t control for smoking, or for exposure to other known carcinogens such as benzene. Given that safety cultures have tended improve over time (and smoking has fallen) we need to have reservations.

    But going back to Richardson et al 2015, what would that 0.37 figure mean? It’s the ERR for death from cancer at 1 Gray dose. At 100mGrays that would be 0.037. 22.83% of deaths are from cancer. So the difference among people exposed to 100mSv would be 1.037 * 22.83 = 23.67. That’s 0.8 people in 100 of those exposed to 100mSv would die of cancer when they otherwise wouldn’t.

    How many people have received a 100mSv dose from Fukushima? In the general public, vanishingly few as far as we know. Some of the workers in the plant have received more than this.

    Your fourth link is to an English version of the so-called KiKK studies suggesting that there may be a link between civilian nuclear power and leukaemia clusters, based on data from Germany. This has been superseded by subsequent reanalyses and other evidence showing that the radiation hypothesis for leukaemia clusters isn’t plausible. These clusters appear to be caused by sudden population mixing in rural areas where there was previously little mixing – so you get clusters around many kinds of large scale construction in rural areas. Here’s a link from the journal Nature (you cited this journal yourself, so I hope it’s acceptable to you) entitled “Nuclear power plants cleared of leukaemia link”.

    Your final link has nothing to do with civiilian nuclear power.

    To return to your third link: you appear to be falling foul of a classic cognitive issue of motivated reasoning. You have decided on your conclusion and tried to get evidence to fit it – hence you posting links that are not about Fukushima, including those that have been superseded, and links which have no connection at all. You’re trying to assemble a case to support a prejudice rather than look at the evidence first. For those of us living in Japan, especially with young children, we couldn’t afford to do that. We had to find out what the truth was, rather than make a case this way or that.

  • paraducks

    Ironic that Hiroshima and Nagasaki may end up mere footnotes in history compared with what they have done to themselves. Poor attention to detail (tsunami’s and ground level back up generators) is so, not like, the Japanese culture and ethic.

  • paraducks

    Ironic that Hiroshima and Nagasaki may end up mere footnotes in history compared with what they have done to themselves. Poor attention to detail (tsunami’s and ground level back up generators) is so, not like, the Japanese culture and ethic.

  • Sam Gilman

    Err…

    You want to distract and control the issue by focusing on the minutia and sound superior by spouting arithmetic non-sense which could be debated endlessly. Yes, thumbs up for that.

    If the significant details don’t support your case, it means there’s something wrong with the general picture you’re trying to paint. You say I “spouted arithmetic non-sense”. However, you forgot to point out where the mistake in my arithmetic was. I’d like to know what it was, so I look forward to you explaining in your next post. In general “controlling the issue” by looking carefully at evidence and what it means is how I like to roll.

    For some reason you’ve decided that I’m lying about living in Japan (hey, thanks for that) and that I am a shill, ie, being paid to type by unnamed persons to talk to you on the Internet. At the same time you complain that I am too focused on the situation in Fukushima and not on what you want to discuss, which is mainly on the situation in the US. I don’t follow the logic there.

    As for humans having anything to do with the nuclear fuel cycle, when you add up all the numbers, I’d rather that than runaway global warming by a very long way. You may be too old to care about global warming. Your grandchildren won’t be.

  • Sam Gilman

    Err…

    You want to distract and control the issue by focusing on the minutia and sound superior by spouting arithmetic non-sense which could be debated endlessly. Yes, thumbs up for that.

    If the significant details don’t support your case, it means there’s something wrong with the general picture you’re trying to paint. You say I “spouted arithmetic non-sense”. However, you forgot to point out where the mistake in my arithmetic was. I’d like to know what it was, so I look forward to you explaining in your next post. In general “controlling the issue” by looking carefully at evidence and what it means is how I like to roll.

    For some reason you’ve decided that I’m lying about living in Japan (hey, thanks for that) and that I am a shill, ie, being paid to type by unnamed persons to talk to you on the Internet. At the same time you complain that I am too focused on the situation in Fukushima and not on what you want to discuss, which is mainly on the situation in the US. I don’t follow the logic there.

    As for humans having anything to do with the nuclear fuel cycle, when you add up all the numbers, I’d rather that than runaway global warming by a very long way. You may be too old to care about global warming. Your grandchildren won’t be.

  • Sam Gilman

    Err…

    You want to distract and control the issue by focusing on the minutia and sound superior by spouting arithmetic non-sense which could be debated endlessly. Yes, thumbs up for that.

    If the significant details don’t support your case, it means there’s something wrong with the general picture you’re trying to paint. You say I “spouted arithmetic non-sense”. However, you forgot to point out where the mistake in my arithmetic was. I’d like to know what it was, so I look forward to you explaining in your next post. In general “controlling the issue” by looking carefully at evidence and what it means is how I like to roll.

    For some reason you’ve decided that I’m lying about living in Japan (hey, thanks for that) and that I am a shill, ie, being paid to type by unnamed persons to talk to you on the Internet. At the same time you complain that I am too focused on the situation in Fukushima and not on what you want to discuss, which is mainly on the situation in the US. I don’t follow the logic there.

    As for humans having anything to do with the nuclear fuel cycle, when you add up all the numbers, I’d rather that than runaway global warming by a very long way. You may be too old to care about global warming. Your grandchildren won’t be.

  • Sam Gilman

    Err…

    You want to distract and control the issue by focusing on the minutia and sound superior by spouting arithmetic non-sense which could be debated endlessly. Yes, thumbs up for that.

    If the significant details don’t support your case, it means there’s something wrong with the general picture you’re trying to paint. You say I “spouted arithmetic non-sense”. However, you forgot to point out where the mistake in my arithmetic was. I’d like to know what it was, so I look forward to you explaining in your next post. In general “controlling the issue” by looking carefully at evidence and what it means is how I like to roll.

    For some reason you’ve decided that I’m lying about living in Japan (hey, thanks for that) and that I am a shill, ie, being paid to type by unnamed persons to talk to you on the Internet. At the same time you complain that I am too focused on the situation in Fukushima and not on what you want to discuss, which is mainly on the situation in the US. I don’t follow the logic there.

    As for humans having anything to do with the nuclear fuel cycle, when you add up all the numbers, I’d rather that than runaway global warming by a very long way. You may be too old to care about global warming. Your grandchildren won’t be.