Meltdown Likely Under Way At Japan Nuclear Reactor

[jfchandler]

NHK images showing a JSDF video of water spraying on Friday on Reactor No. 3. If you look closely, No. 3 looks like a pile of rubble.

NHK Graphic Showing the Setup for Today's Spraying by Tokyo Fire Department that is pumping water from the nearby ocean.

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[Chopperboy]

Tepco raised the limit of radiation for its' workers again. Now it's 150 msv per shift. Before, all the workers showed higher radiation than the previous 100 msv limit.

That means that workers are exposed on average to 12 times that of a nuclear bomb survivor!

Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have been found to face an increased risk of developing a fatal cancer, received on average a dose of between 5 and 20 mSv, with some as high as 50 mSv.

ref: http://www.lef.org/m...AT-Scans_01.htm

[jfchandler]

Here's an updated and somewhat more detailed report on the food issue from NHK:

Radiation detected in milk and spinach

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says the government was informed around 5:30 PM on Friday that higher levels of radiation than the legal standard were detected in fresh milk from cows at a dairy farm in Fukushima Prefecture.

He also said that at 11:00 AM on Saturday, the government received information that six samples of spinach tested at a research institute in Ibaraki Prefecture contained higher levels of radiation than the official standard.

Early on Saturday morning, the health ministry asked Ibaraki Prefecture to determine where the spinach samples came from and their distribution route.

The prefecture was also asked to take measures under the Food Sanitation Law if necessary, including a ban on sales.

Edano said the government will conduct further testing taking into consideration the possible links between the higher radiation levels and the accidents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

He said the test results will be thoroughly analyzed so the government can swiftly determine whether it should take measures, including restrictions on shipments and intakes of the products.

Edano said the level of radiation from the average yearly consumption of the milk in question would be the equivalent of a single CT scan, and around a fifth of this amount in the case of the spinach. [Considering the relatively high radiation levels in CT scans, I'm not sure the CT scan comparison is particularly reassuring.]

Saturday, March 19, 2011 17:39 +0900 (JST)

http://www3.nhk.or.j...lish/19_21.html

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[Crushdepth]

Edano said the level of radiation from the average yearly consumption of the milk in question would be the equivalent of a single CT scan

But that's quite a lot isn't it?

[jfchandler]

Chopper, I'm no scientist or expert on radiation impacts... But just be aware that long before Fukushima ever occurred, Japan had a standard maximum of 50 millisievert per year exposure for radiation workers, policemen and firemen. This past week, the government and TEPCO have raised that limit higher for those two respective groups of workers involved in the Fukushima incident.

Tepco raised the limit of radiation for its' workers again. Now it's 150 msv per shift. Before, all the workers showed higher radiation than the previous 100 msv limit.

That means that workers are exposed on average to 12 times that of a nuclear bomb survivor!

Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have been found to face an increased risk of developing a fatal cancer, received on average a dose of between 5 and 20 mSv, with some as high as 50 mSv.

ref: http://www.lef.org/m...AT-Scans_01.htm

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[jfchandler]

Edano said the level of radiation from the average yearly consumption of the milk in question would be the equivalent of a single CT scan

But that's quite a lot isn't it?

Here's one of the radiation exposure charts I've been using... It says about 7 millisievert for a CT scan...though from other versions I've seen, it depends of what kind of CT scan is being done and how much of the body is being radiated.

Here's another chart from the L.A. Times that shows the 50 MSv standard for public service workers, and says 8 mSv for an abdomen CT. This chart uses MICROsieverts, so divide by 1,000 to get Milli-sieverts.

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[jfchandler]

NHK:

Tokyo Fire Department to start spraying water [saturday afternoon]

The Tokyo Fire Department plans to use a temporarily unmanned fire engine to spray water into the No. 3 reactor's storage pool at the quake-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The operation is expected to last for 7 hours.

The fire engine has a foldable arm that can spray water from a height of 22 meters.

A vehicle equipped with a large pump is parked at a dock 300 meters from the fire engine to suck water from the ocean.

The sea water will be supplied to the fire engine by hose.

Firefighters laid the hose on the ground by hand on Friday night.

Firefighters will calculate distance and direction, and then leave the fire engine before starting to spray water into the storage pool.

The unmanned operation permits water to be sprayed for a long period of time without exposing firefighters to radiation.

The Tokyo Fire Department plans to spray water for 7 hours on Saturday, while refueling the vehicles.

Saturday, March 19, 2011 15:07 +0900 (JST)

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[Chopperboy]

Here's another chart from the L.A. Times that shows the 50 MSv standard for public service workers, and says 8 mSv for an abdomen CT.

The radiation dose depends on the type of scan and also on the settings on the CT machine - which often can be left set higher than required to ensure a good scan.

Good chart! I notice that the chernobyl workers come out at 33MSv.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Chopperboy

[jfchandler]

NHK reporting on the measured radiation levels at the Fukushima plant gate this morning...

8 am -- 0.830 mSv (milli-sievert) per hour

9 am -- 0.364 mSv per hour

Jfc note -

That means, the 8 am figure is equivalent to a person receiving almost the full year standard of 1 mSv from non-natural sources in just one hour.

And the 9 am figure is equivalent to a person receiving more than the full year standard of 1 mSv from non-natural sources every 3 hours.

Earlier in the day, NHK was reporting that radiation levels at the reactors were in the 10 to 15 mSv per hour range.

BTW, I've seen in Reuters reports and elsewhere the statements by "radiation experts" saying that human cancer risks are not considered to be elevated until exposure in a year exceeds 100 mSv per year.

That doesn't address the issue that others here have raised above about a variety of potential other heath impacts besides cancer that can be linked to radiation exposure.

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[Jdietz]

From midnight's press release http://www.tepco.co....11031905-e.html

- At Units 5 and 6, in order to prevent hydrogen gas from accumulating within the buildings, we have made three holes on the roof of the reactor building for each unit

It looks like they finally went from reactive to pro-active.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Jdietz

[jfchandler]

NHK reporting that, after hopefully restoring electricity to Reactors No. 1 and 2 today, TEPCO on Sunday plans to begin inspecting and checking the pumps and other operating equipment in those reactors before making any decision on attempting to re-activate their internal cooling systems.

[vont]

NHK reporting on the measured radiation levels at the Fukushima plant gate this morning...

8 am -- 0.830 mSv (milli-sievert) per hour

9 am -- 0.364 mSv per hour

Jfc note -

That means, the 8 am figure is equivalent to a person receiving almost the full year standard of 1 mSv from non-natural sources in just one hour.

And the 9 am figure is equivalent to a person receiving more than the full year standard of 1 mSv from non-natural sources every 3 hours.

If you were the Emperor and the Empress of Japan....

would you continue to allow those govt rep to drag on, without Euro and/or U.S. volunteer assistance, to bring sort of acceptable standards into this almost close to unmanageable situation?

Hiroshima and Nag were bad enough in Japanese history, and now this? I am certain knowing the Japanese cultures and practices, the Emperor and the Empress would grieve in private more than anybody else would ever ever imagine.

[jfchandler]

It does seem, particularly in the past day or two, that there's been a noticeable upswing in activity aimed at dealing with the reactors..

One might argue the Japanese are finally beginning to get their act together... But if I were a betting man, I'd equally think it's a result of the heavy pressure they've been getting from the U.S., and probably the IAEA behind the scenes, to get going, along with the involvement of the groups of U.S. NRC and Energy Department nuclear experts who've been arriving in Japan mid-late this week.

As one sign of that, there was the report posted here earlier today from one of the main Japanese newspapers saying that the Japanese began the reactor water spraying on Thursday "under heavy pressure" from the U.S.

Likewise, the Japanese only raised the incident level to 5 on the international scale (from their original 4) on the same day that the IAEA chief came to Tokyo to meet with PM Kan and announce the IAEA would be doing their own independent radiation monitoring in Tokyo and around Fukushima. Hardly a coincidence.

Personally, I'm not a nuclear advocate or opponent. But if I were one of the NRC or Energy Department folks who earn my living off the nuclear industry, I might be thinking that I sure as H don't want the Japanese incompetence to kill the goose that lays the nuclear egg... by having the Fukushima reactors go BOOM!

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[jfchandler]

NHK:

GE denies Fukushima power plants had design flaws

The accident at the quake-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has triggered a debate over the safety of nuclear power in the United States.

An explosion occurred near the suppression pool of the Number 2 reactor on Tuesday, which is likely to have damaged the facility, and another explosion occurred at the building of the Number 1 reactor.

Some US media have quoted experts who point out that the design flaws by the US-based General Electric Company, which manufactured the 2 reactors, made the problem more serious.

Dale Bridenbaugh, who designed and developed nuclear reactors for GE, told NHK that the facilities to house the reactors at the Fukushima plant were made smaller to cut costs, making them structurally vulnerable.

GE, in response, released a statement on Friday, saying that its products meet the US government's safety standards.

The company says its products are designed appropriately in accordance with official guidelines, and improvements have been made.

More than 20 nuclear power plants of the same type as the Number 1 and Number 2 reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi plant are being used in the United States.

The accident has triggered a debate over the safety of nuclear power, and some residents living near the plants want them to be suspended.

Saturday, March 19, 2011 18:58 +0900 (JST)

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[jfchandler]

Speaking of IAEA radiation monitoring...

IAEA: Radiation assessment begins Friday night

The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said a team will begin an assessment of radiation levels at multiple points of Tokyo as early as Friday night.

Yukio Amano spoke to reporters at a news conference in Tokyo on Friday. He is visiting Japan to address trouble at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following a major quake one week earlier.

Amano said he is discussing how to evaluate the levels with an IAEA expert team. He said that once he and his team finishes the discussion, they will begin to gauge the radiation levels in Tokyo.

He said the IAEA had already set up a radiation monitoring device on Friday afternoon on the roof of the building where its Tokyo office is located.

Amano said many countries are concerned about the radiation levels in Japan. He also said he thinks it is significant that not only the Japanese government but also an international organization will evaluate the levels.

His remarks came after some countries issued evacuation advisories to their citizens in Japan, setting a much wider zone than the Japanese government has declared.

Amano said the IAEA will promptly make public the data it obtains and respond to the concerns of the international community.

Saturday, March 19, 2011 08:04 +0900 (JST)

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[elcent]

The German govt has shut down 7 reactors out of a total of 19. They say by 2020 to able to fully exit nuclear power.

The nuclear lobby is suing now.

The Chinese have stopped further approval for new reactors.

Confidence is graoming elsewhere in so many countries.

add to the list you know. I'm sure that there are other countries on the way out ... just forgot them now.

[jfchandler]

Ohhh.... NOOOOOO!!!!! Another science geek term to learn....

NHK just finished reporting on the actual iodine-131 radiation elements detected in the milk and spinach... I think I caught this right...

They said the government standard is 300 BECQUERELS (Bq) per kilogram.

The milk samples from Fukushima measured at 932 to 1510 Bq per Kg.

The spinach from Ibaraki prefecture measured at 6100 to 15,020 Bq per Kg

NHK quoted the governor of Ibaraki as saying he'd ordered a halt to spinach shipments pending further analysis and testing, and a health expert saying people shouldn't eat spinach/milk at those levels...although he said cooking would reduce the radiation levels present.

[elcent]

... and there's no storage solution for used fuel rods worldwide!!! This alone is reason enough to stop them all. No eventuallities considered. Political stability can't be guaranteed either.

The skins of protection walls on most reactors are so thin that a small missile could crack it iopen and hit the core so to and unleash full radiation.

[JulianLS]

Here's another chart from the L.A. Times that shows the 50 MSv standard for public service workers, and says 8 mSv for an abdomen CT.

The radiation dose depends on the type of scan and also on the settings on the CT machine - which often can be left set higher than required to ensure a good scan.

Good chart! I notice that the chernobyl workers come out at 33MSv.

The Chernobyl figure is for people evacuated from the Chernobyl area, not the Chernobyl plant workers. Some of those rec'd lethal doses.

[Crushdepth]

There's been several attempts to nominate remote bits of Australia as a 'safe storage site' for other countries spent nuclear materials over the years. Fortunately, even the more stupid members of the public totally hate this idea.

[elcent]

Ohhh.... NOOOOOO!!!!! Another science geek term to learn....

NHK just finished reporting on the actual iodine-131 radiation elements detected in the milk and spinach... I think I caught this right...

They said the government standard is 300 BECQUERELS (Bq) per kilogram.

The milk samples from Fukushima measured at 932 to 1510 Bq per Kg.

The spinach from Ibaraki prefecture measured at 6100 to 15,020 Bq per Kg

NHK quoted the governor of Ibaraki as saying he'd ordered a halt to spinach shipments pending further analysis and testing, and a health expert saying people shouldn't eat spinach/milk at those levels...although he said cooking would reduce the radiation levels present.

I wanted to withhold this, but it is pretty clear this is all on purpose to confuse the masses.

Conversion Table

Canada and much of the world uses units from the Système International (SI) to measure radiation. The SI is based on the metric system. These units include the:

• becquerel
• gray
• sievert
• coulomb/kg

From the early 1900s, through to the 30s, until the 1960s, another set of units were used. They were called the:

• curie
• rad
• rem
• Roentgen

The United States still uses these units. You may also find them in older documents.

This table shows a simple comparison between the words used in the SI and the old system.

Old system to

Système InternationalSystème International

to Old systemThe becquerel (Bq) replaces the curie (Ci).*The becquerel (Bq)* replaces the curie (Ci).

• 1 kilocurie (kCi) = 37 terabecquerel (TBq)
• 1 curie (Ci) = 37 gigabecquerel (GBq)
• 1 millicurie (mCi) = 37 megabecquerel (MBq)
• 1 microcurie (µCi) = 37 kilobecquerel (kBq)
• 1 nanocurie (nCi) = 37 becquerel (Bq)
• 1 picocurie (pCi) = 37 millibecquerel (mBq)

• 1 terabecquerel (TBq) ~ 27 curie (Ci)
• 1 gigabecquerel (GBq) ~ 27 millicurie (mCi)
• 1 megabecquerel (MBq) ~ 27 microcurie (µCi)
• 1 kilobecquerel (kBq) ~ 27 nanocurie (nCi)
• 1 becquerel (Bq) ~ 27 picocurie (pCi)

* 1 Bq = 1s-1The gray (Gy) replaces the rad (rad).The gray (Gy) replaces the rad (rad).

• 1 kilorad (krad) = 10 gray (Gy)
• 1 rad (rad) = 10 milligray (mGy)
• 1 millirad (mrad) = 10 microgray (µGy)
• 1 microrad (µrad) = 10 nanogray (nGy)

• 1 gray (Gy) =100 rad (rad)
• 1 milligray (mGy) = 100 millirad (mrad)
• 1 microgray (µGy) = 100 microrad (µrad)
• 1 nanogray (nGy) = 100 nanorad (nrad)

The coulomb/kg (C/kg) replaces the roentgen ®.The coulomb/kg (C/kg) replaces the roentgen ®.

• 1 kiloroentgen (kR) ~ 258 millicoulomb/kg (mC/kg)
• 1 roentgen ® ~ 258 microcoulomb/kg (µC/kg)
• 1 milliroentgen (mR) ~ 258 nanocoulomb/kg (nC/kg)
• 1 microroentgen (µR) ~ 258 picocoulomb/kg (pC/kg)

• 1 coulomb/kg (C/kg) ~ 3876 roentgen ®
• 1 millicoulomb/kg (mC/kg) ~ 3876 milliroentgen (mR)
• 1 microcoulomb/kg (µC/kg) ~ 3876 microroentgen (µR)
• 1 nanocoulomb/kg (nC/kg) ~ 3876 nanoroentgen (nR)

The sievert (Sv) replaces the rem (rem). The sievert (Sv) replaces the rem (rem).

• 1 kilorem (krem) = 10 sievert (Sv)
• 1 rem (rem) = 10 millisievert (mSv)
• 1 millirem (mrem) = 10 microsievert (µSv)
• 1 microrem (µrem) = 10 nanosievert (nSv)

• 1 sievert (Sv) = 100 rem (rem)
• 1 millisievert (mSv) = 100 millirem (mrem)
• 1 microsievert (µSv) = 100 microrem (µrem)
• 1 nanosievert (nSv) = 100 nanorem (nrem)

About the becquerel

The becquerel (Bq) is named after the French physicist A.H. Becquerel. This unit measures radioactivity in a substance. It doesn't consider the type of radiation emitted or what its effects may be. One becquerel equals one nuclear disintegration per second. This is a very small unit, so multiples are often used. These include the:

• kilobecquerel (kBq: thousand Bq);
• megabecquerel (MBq: million Bq); and
• gigabecquerel (GBq: thousand million or billion Bq).

About the gray

The gray (Gy) was defined in 1975 in honor of English radiobiologist Louis H. Gray (1905-1965). This unit describes how much energy is absorbed by a substance from the radiation passing through it, or the absorbed dose. One gray corresponds to one joule of radiation energy absorbed by one kilogram of matter. Measuring how many grays a substance receives in one hour tells us what the rate is. The gray is a very large dose of radiation. A more useful unit is the milligray (mGv). This is one-thousandth of a gray.

About the sievert

The sievert (Sv) is named after the Swedish physicist Rolf M. Sievert. The unit reflects the biological effects of the ionizing radiation absorbed. It is used to express both the equivalent dose and the effective dose. The sievert is a very large dose of radiation. A more useful unit is the millisievert (mSv). This is one-thousandth of a sievert.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/radiation/dosim/res-centre/conversion-eng.php Edited March 19, 2011 by elcent

[Crushdepth]

Amano said the IAEA will promptly make public the data it obtains and respond to the concerns of the international community.

Hopefully this will add some consistency and transparency in reporting. For a change.

[jfchandler]

It looks like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may well have the same 300 Bq per Kg standard for Iodine 131 in food...

The chart comes from this 2004 FDA document, which I am struggling to understand.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/ChemicalContaminants/Radionuclides/UCM078341#guides

[elcent]

There's been several attempts to nominate remote bits of Australia as a 'safe storage site' for other countries spent nuclear materials over the years. Fortunately, even the more stupid members of the public totally hate this idea.

There were so many problems revealed recently that I think it is and will be impossible to store it savely. All what they call is temporary storage. In the case of Germans temporary storage, which was fiercly attacked by thousands of demonstrators recently, it was found that the material needs to be stored in the open for 30 years before it can be transported underground for another temporary storage. Some of the containers underground are leaking and it is not clear what damage that will cause in the near future or even tomorrow. Nobody can go inside there.

Open storage means no protection at all, just leave them in a kind of warehouse with lots of air to breath because of the heat.

[elcent]

this crew survived the tsunami they filmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fqyOpqnJyw

Latest Breaking News

Afterquake in Tokyo 6.1 - no tsunami expected

[jfchandler]

NHK just did a report on the Japan Govt's radiation monitoring results for today (Saturday) from 28 locations around the Fukushima plan in a 30 to 60 Kilometer radius...

At least one of the results -- the highest -- is surprisingly bad... The town of Namie northwest of the plant measured at 0.136 micro-sievert per hour...

With 720 hours in a month, if someone was staying outside continuously, that works out to an exposure of 98 mSv per month, or more than 3 mSv per day... which would be a cause for health concern.

(136 microsievert X 720 hours in a month = about 98,000 microsievert, or 98 millisievert per month)

That reading was taken at 10:20 am Saturday...and was lower than a 140 microsievert measurement taken at the same location the day before (Friday).

[JetsetBkk]

Radiation-contaminated farm products pose no immediate health risk: Edano16:18 19 March

It's probably true. But unfortunately it is difficult to trust the word of the authorities any more.

Or anybody else.

From the BBC:

0933: Outside the exclusion zone around Fukushima nuclear plant, radiation levels are absolutely miniscule [sic] and nothing to worry about, points out the BBC's Tim Willcox in Tokyo.

That's interesting, he says, given how many foreign nationals have left Tokyo and other parts of the country.

I think they must have cut his last sentence:

"..which has nothing to do with the amount of scaremongering end-of-the-world bullshit I've been spouting."

[jfchandler]

Just to correct, expand and clarify on this...

Ohhh.... NOOOOOO!!!!! Another science geek term to learn....

NHK just finished reporting on the actual iodine-131 radiation elements detected in the milk and spinach... I think I caught this right...

They said the government standard [FOR MILK] is 300 BECQUERELS (Bq) per kilogram.

The milk samples from Fukushima measured at 932 to 1190 Bq per Kg., 3 to 4 times the standard.

They said the government standard [FOR VEGGIES] is 2,000 BECQUERELS (Bq) per kilogram.

The spinach, in six samples, from Ibaraki prefecture measured at 6100 to 15,020 Bq per Kg, 3 to 7 times the standard.

NHK quoted the governor of Ibaraki as saying he'd ordered a halt to spinach shipments pending further analysis and testing, and a health expert saying people shouldn't eat spinach/milk at those levels...although he said cooking would reduce the radiation levels present.

Edano said a person eating normal amounts of those substances for ONE YEAR, with radiation at those levels, would receive radiation doses equivalent to a single CT scan for the milk, and 1/5th of a CT scan for the spinach.

Edited March 19, 2011 by jfchandler

[brahmburgers]

Interesting to see people worried about trace amounts of radiation in food, when much food is irradiated already - to lengthen its shelf life. Plus, look at what the average Joe and Jane eat and drink normally, and it's even more nutzoid. Fermented sugar (alcohol), fermented fish (fish sauce), fermented dairy (cheese), fake oils (trans-fats) which fool the body in to thinking it's ingesting real fats, when later the body finds it can't digest the trans-fats, so has to eject them or store them somewhere - which results in a bloated sickly populace.

When looking at the entire picture of what the average person ingests, a tiny bit of radiation doesn't look so bad after all.

[Jdietz]

Irradiated food is not the same as food contaminated with radioactive particles, the former doesn't re-radiate anything after treatment, it's just sterile. The latter will

radiate you from the inside while it passes your body, and you may even incorporate some of the radioactive isotopes.

True, at these levels it won't be much, but I'd prefer irradiated food over this stuff