It pains me to see large parts of the media still hyperventilating over the very modest amounts of radioactive material coming from the Fukushima Daiichi plant on the east coast of Japan.
Nothing has been made more plain that most journalists and editors have no ability to evaluate risk, especially when it comes to radioactive measurements in very unfamiliar units (millisieverts anyone?). Everything they appear to know about radioactivity appears to come from poorly understood science reports and 1950s era B-movies.
You wouldn’t know from the coverage that that very same reactor survived a truly massive earthquake and a towering tsunami with barely a scratch even though it was built around 40 years ago in the expectation of surviving much lesser events.
You wouldn’t know that Japanese people are struggling to survive in the bitter cold, while coming to terms with the loss of family members, friends and entire neighbourhoods. You won’t hear that some survivors are being housed in other nuclear plants, everything else having been washed away.
Witness the BBC reporting today:
Japan nuclear plant: Radioactivity rises in sea nearby
The BBC’s Chris Hogg in Tokyo says the Japanese government has tried to reassure people about the plant’s safety
Levels of radioactive iodine in the sea near the tsunami-stricken Fukushima nuclear plant are 1,250 times higher than the safety limit, officials say.
The readings were taken about 300m (984ft) offshore. It is feared the radiation could be seeping into groundwater from one of the reactors.
But the radiation will no longer be a risk after eight days, officials say.
There are areas of radioactive water in four of the reactors at the plant, and two workers are in hospital.
The plant’s operator says the core of one of the six reactors may have been damaged.
It has announced that fresh water rather than seawater will now be used to cool the damaged reactors, in the hope that this will be more effective.
Why eight days? Because that’s the half-life of radioactive iodine. But that’s not what you find out from the BBC.
What of those two workers in hospital? Sounds serious doesn’t it?
Not all of the media are so poorly informed. The Register’s Louis Page has produced some well-researched articles which go a long way to explaining what is really happening:
The situation at the quake- and tsunami-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant in Japan was brought under control days ago. It remains the case as this is written that there have been no measurable radiological health consequences among workers at the plant or anybody else, and all indications are that this will remain the case. And yet media outlets around the world continue with desperate, increasingly hysterical and unscrupulous attempts to frame the situation as a crisis.
Here’s a roundup of the latest facts, accompanied by highlights of the most egregious misreporting.
First up, three technicians working to restore electrical power in the plant’s No 3 reactor building stood in some water while doing so. Their personal dosimetry equipment later showed that they had sustained radiation doses up to 170 millisievert. Under normal rules when dealing with nuclear powerplant incidents, workers at the site are permitted to sustain up to 250 millisievert before being withdrawn. If necessary, this can be extended to 500 millisievert according to World Health Organisation guidance.
None of this involves significant health hazards: actual radiation sickness is not normally seen until a dose of 1,000 millisievert and is not common until 2,000. Additional cancer risk is tiny: huge numbers of people must be subjected to such doses in order to see any measurable health consequences. In decades to come, future investigators will almost certainly be unable to attribute any cases of cancer to service at Fukushima.
Nonetheless, in the hyper-cautious nuclear industry, any dose over 100 millisievert is likely to cause bosses to pull people out at least temporarily. Furthermore, the three workers had sustained slight burns to their legs as a result of standing in the radioactive water – much as one will burn one’s skin by exposing it to the rays of the sun (a tremendously powerful nuclear furnace). They didn’t even notice these burns until after completing their work. Just to be sure, however, the three were sent for medical checks.
So – basically nothing happened. Three people sustained injuries equivalent to a mild case of sunburn. But this was reported around the globe as front-page news under headlines such as “Japanese Workers Hospitalized for Excessive Radiation Exposure”. Just to reiterate: it was not excessive.
The entire article is well worth reading
But panic sells (as readers of WUWT are well aware), and sober analysis of scientific fact is nowhere near as exciting or is likely to spread like wildfire across the Internet.
No-one will die from radiation from Fukushima. No-one will mutate or develop super-powers. Godzilla will not rise from the sea and destroy Tokyo, except in cinemas.
It’s my view that the world deserves better than this. The real plight of the Japanese survivors of the earthquake and tsunami is being forgotten in the service of a bizarre fear about radiation that is more science fiction than science fact.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Roger unless there has been a new find that I have missed it looks like the plutonium they have found is in the same concentration that you can find plutonium anywhere in Japan. These reports without context do nothing but cause alarm. They can not say where the plutonium has come from, but for sure it is in minute quantities, and could just be a part of the natural background.
Ryan I suggest you read the science about low dose radiation posted in my posts above. Low dose radiation may just be beneficial, and those exposed to the Atomic bomb attacks in 1945 are outliving their fellow citizens that were not. All your preconceived ideas about radiation just like mine are based on unproven assumptions, and it is up to us as individuals to seek out the truth, something the media seem incapable of doing.
I’m not suggesting we all take a life extending holiday to Fukushima Daiichi, just that what we have assumed all these year just may not be true.
Every disaster and failure is an opportunity to extend our knowledge and understanding in a way we would never contemplate under normal circumstances.
http://www.majiroxnews.com/2011/03/29/update-high-level-discovered-in-trench-outside-fukushima-reactor/
Something on the plutonium, says the trace amounts are similar to those found in the past in other parts of Japan from airborne particles carried by atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s.
From Myrrh on March 29, 2011 at 6:09 pm:
Are you sure you read it? Radiation is still cited as a cause of cancer, up to 10%, thus as I stated it radiation is swamped by the other causes. That “up to 10%” includes skin cancers from ultraviolet light.
You want a real cause of an increasing rate in cancer? Look to modern medicine:
Good, you read up on ionizing radiation. Perhaps you can contemplate the significance of normal ionizing background radiation. Indeed, one can hope, that you could appreciate the decreasing chain of relevance. Up to 10% of cancer from radiation, which includes skin cancers from UV sources like natural sunlight, tanning beds, and these curly fluorescents we’re now plagued with instead of incandescent bulbs. Then comes radon:
The percentages keep shrinking. The numbers of possible additional cancer deaths due to radiation from power plants is a very small percentage of the total.
What rise? From the CDC:
Many decreases, a few remaining level. For the incidence trends, there are two related increases:
What “great rise in lung cancers” are you referring to? There are slight increases in incidence among women in general, white women specifically, with incidence rates level to decreasing among non-white women, and nothing but decreases among men.
Ah, so diabetes is now an autoimmune disease? By the National Institutes of Health listing, only Diabetes mellitus type 1, the type one is born with, qualifies. The well-reported “diabetes epidemic” is with Type 2, the “adult onset” version that is occurring very young these days, so young it’s being mistaken for Type 1. Here’s some info from the CDC about childhood diabetes.
Breakdown of DNA causing diabetes? Are you serious?
And the descent into nonsensical screeching concludes. You have cited a rise in autoimmune diseases, when autoimmunity is a relatively new research field in medicine with previously-known diseases now being ascribed to autoimmunity. You cite a rise in diabetes, when the “epidemic” is in Type 2 which relates to diet and matches the “obesity epidemic.” You have cited a non-existent “dramatic rise” in lung cancer. US Cancer statistics are available from the CDC here, select “top ten.” The greatest killer for both sexes is lung cancer, for which there is no dramatic rise. For incidence figures, among males prostate cancer is far and away the most prevalent, which BTW is treated with radiation, including implanted radioactive pellets. Among females, breast cancer dominates, note the increased rise in screening and detection. Also, there are other factors contributing to whatever rises in cancer that could be found, such as increased detection and better treatments of cardiovascular disease leading people to live longer, with cancers happening more frequently later in life, as well as the now-discouraged hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women.
You are citing all these diseases as “known effects” of radiation, when only cancer qualifies. You complain about “the tremendously extradordinarily huge amounts of nuclear ionizing radiation bombarding us for all the decades” when there has basically been little change for millenia. Indeed, one of the largest non-medical increases in modern times comes from our tightly-sealed energy-efficient houses causing increased radon exposure.
Moreover, the radiation as you specify it would be a continual year-round dosage, not a short-term exposure. At the Wikipedia “background radiation” entry, link supplied above, you can read the “natural background radiation” section. There are places on this globe where “normal” is hundreds of times the normal worldwide average dose, without ill effects.
Continue ranting if you wish. The science doesn’t support your claims. You may shout “nuclear industry cover-up!” if you insist, when faced with info from medical science, but really, your claims already are ludicrous enough as they stand.
=====
From Myrrh on March 29, 2011 at 9:34 pm:
Have you never heard of sunburn? Have you never been burnt by a black surface exposed to bright sunlight? You’re saying visible light, when concentrated artificially, can burn because of its high frequency? Infrared light, aka infrared electromagnetic radiation, has a lower frequency than visible light, and is “heat” that can burn you. As for penetration, haven’t you ever tried to “look” into your own flesh with a flashlight? With my pocket LED flashlight, I can see noticeable light penetrating through my fingers, through over 3/4″ of flesh. For instrumentation rather than human eyeballs, detectable penetration would be greater. What do you consider “any great depth”?
ryan says:
March 30, 2011 at 6:18 am
“Since the core of reactor 2 is now in meltdown. Looks like we might have a bit to worry about. Of course, we can sit here from our black rotating computer chairs in our offices or from our over sized fluffy couches, cracks stuffed full of change and remnants of football game snacks and declare that radiation isn’t so bad. Our media is more of an entertainment industry anyway, writing articles loosely based on facts full of assumptions, opinions and hyperbole. We are used to that.
So judge and squabble all you want. Would anyone of you set foot within 30km of that plant to test your theories. If given the option would you eat fish or produce from that prefecture.
Would you voluntarily take your kids into an area that has higher than normal amounts of radiation, if given the choice.”
It does appear that the core of reactor 2 has melted and sadly that is a turn for the worse, but it still does not make the situation anywhere as bad as Chernobyl, and it does not justify abandoning nuclear power.
According to IAEA from yesterday, for which there was no further update on this particular topic today, the plutonium concentrations are very small, barely distinguishable from the existing concentrations found elsewhere in Japan.
“Five soil samples, collected at distances between 500 and 1 000 metres from the exhaust stack of Unit 1 and 2 of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant on 21 and 22 March, were analysed for plutonium-238 and for the sum of plutonium-239 and plutonium-240. (Due to analytical reasons, the isotopes plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 cannot be measured separately). Plutonium-238 was detected in 2 of the 5 samples, while plutonium-239/240 was detected in all samples as expected.
Concentrations reported for both, plutonium-238 and plutonium-239/240 are similar to those deposited in Japan as a result of the testing of nuclear weapons. The ratio of the concentrations of plutonium-238 and plutonium-239/240 in two of the samples indicate that very small amounts of plutonium might have been released during the Fukushima accident, but this requires to be further clarified.”
The predominent radiation sources are Iodine and Cesium, both of which have relatively short half-lives.
As for your rhetorical questions about eating produce or fish from these prefectures or visiting the prefectures, what is the point of asking? If there was a forest fire and someone said “this fire is not as bad as such and such a fire” would you ask them if they would go there? I would have no hesitation to visit Japan and even travel to the gate of the plant, but that is gratuitous, because it would be stupid to fly all the way there just to prove a point. Obviously, while the radiation levels are still very small, there is no point in getting exposure for exposure’s sake.
You and others can harp about how dangerous nuclear power is, but the fact is, very few people have been injured from it. If it were possible to determine the aggregate shortening of life (measured in person-years) or health care costs due to coal power, people would be astounded, but that would pale in comparison to the greatest killer of them all which is automobile travel. Taking a drive in a car is by far the most dangerous activity that most people participate in, yet few sane people would suggest that we should ban cars.
The situation in Japan is tragic and unspeakably sad for the people there. I have business contacts there and they are experiencing great hardship. The reality is that 20-30 thousand people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami. To date, no one has been killed by radiation and I would be surprised that statistic changes.
From ryan on March 30, 2011 at 6:18 am:
Got a link for that? It’s not on the MIT site, nor the ANS Nuclear Cafe Fukushima page, not even the TV network news. When did the reactor 2 core suddenly enter meltdown?
I’m in central Pennsylvania, the land of coal and radon. I’m about fifty miles from TMI and even closer to the Berwick nuclear plant. I’m much closer to a coal-fired power plant, which would’ve been throwing out lots of radioactive fly ash during my younger years. Heck, we used to have an anthracite coal furnace for central heating. I’ve shoveled coal ashes, dumped them, breathed in a lot of coal ash dust.
If I could have someone cover for me here, and someone else pay for the trip, sure I’d go, it’d be great. Just one thing though, I want my fish cooked.
Parents take their kids on airplane flights, have kitchens with granite counter tops, even have granite tiles in their homes, which are built with bricks, cement blocks, etc… Parents willfully expose their kids to higher than normal amounts of radiation all the time!
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
March 30, 2011 at 8:06 pm
” “From ryan on March 30, 2011 at 6:18 am:
Since the core of reactor 2 is now in meltdown.”
Got a link for that? It’s not on the MIT site, nor the ANS Nuclear Cafe Fukushima page, not even the TV network news. When did the reactor 2 core suddenly enter meltdown?”
Last night I read a report that claimed the RPV of unit 2 was breeched, but I can’t find it today, nor can I find anything that substantiates it today on any of the official sites such as IAEA or NEI. It sounded accurate last night, but I’m not so sure anymore given it has not appeared on the official websites.
Anybody here do spectroscopy for a living?
I am told by one radiochemist that Cl38’s peaks look an awful lot like I134’s and, given the soup they have on that floor, it is almost certain the Cl38 was a mis-identification by software.
Most of the other short lived isotopes have precursors to explain their presence.
For me unintended criticalty is still on the unconfirmed rumor list.
It’s all over the net from just that one report.
I worked in a nuke power plant and have seen our radiochemistry guys tearing their hair out over mixed isotope spectra.
And, I think Criticality would have announced itself more boisterously.
old jim
Okay, I found the reference in my browser history. It is speculative and not official.
It was on the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor
Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor
[snip . . . clipping and pasting entire articles from newspapers etc. is discouraged because of potential copyright issues Anthony may encounter . . . posting the link is acceptable and effective . . . kb mod]
Has everyone seen this story?
The world’s largest concrete pump…… is being moved to Japan in a series of emergency measures to help stabilize the Fukushima reactors…….. “The bottom line is, the Japanese need this particular unit worse than we do……”
http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2011-03-31/srs-concrete-pump-heading-japan-nuclear-site
bad as it is i see progress.
personally i believe reports unit 2’s core on the floor are exaggerated.
has anyone seen a photograph from a robot?
if the reactor vessel is able to make steam when they pump in water then that’s where the core is.
and that’s what they are doing.
that 2 has lower pressure than others says there’s a leak someplace.
it is most likely a small pipe broken in two or a valve stuck open.
in simulation world we model leaks as just an open valve.
that the others can hold pressure is really good news. Great news.
the progress i see is for days now, approaching a week, is they have been pumping water through the vessels for cooling. And it’s fresh water.
And they are letting it all turn to steam. That’s why it’s such good news.
Steam carries away more heat than does warm water so you only need to pump in one-tenth as much if you make steam.
Water at 60 psi boils at 300 degF.
So, if you make that steam at 60 psi and hold the temperature higher maybe around 400F you know you’re boiling all the water. And the steam you make will be dry so there’s no water droplets in it to carry along little iodine friends.
most of your contamination will stay in the vessel that way.
Those are the two most fundamental things you do in a nuke power plant, move heat and contain radiation.
So i rejoiced at reports of steam and reactor temperatures in the 400 degree+ range.
The guys are real smart.
it is better to let the wind carry that water away in the form of significantly cleaned up steam than to let it keep running into the basement or ocean as horribly contaminated water.
By steaming they are keeping a LOT of nasty stuff in the reactor vessel.
Steam scares reporters but we old power plant guys love it.
Did i express clearly why i think it’s good news?
Reports yesterday of plans to – Oh My God – inject nitrogen into the vessels to inert the hydrogen!!!! Press is screaming catastrophe.
Actually that is GREAT news,
Think about it…………………….
IF you inject nitrogen now it’d just come right out with the steam. That’s awful silly.
Plans to inject nitrogen can only mean they are planning two things:
1. close the valves and stop blowing steam
2. switch to a recirculating system to cool the vessels with their cores in them.
Recirculating is what they would have been doing all along had the tidal wave not wrecked all their electric equipment. That they can think about switching back to it means they’ve got heat exchangers and pumps almost back together.
So they are restoring their ability to move heat and contain contamination by heat exchangers and pumps instead of fire trucks and steam..
With those two alligators off their but they can resume draining the swamp.
I worked thirty years in a plant and would love to be over there helping out.
the radiation fields are high in places but this is not Chernobyl.
All I can do is honestly praise those plant workers for the progress i see.
Hoooo- RaaaHHH, you plant guys. Three cheers and twenty one gun salutes to the sky !
Human beings are at their best when things are at their worst.
Those poor guys have a VERY long way to go.
Godspeed, gentlemen.
And thank you.
old jim hardy, a retired n-plant workingstiff.
jim hardy says:
April 3, 2011 at 8:38 am
“bad as it is i see progress.”
Great post Jim. Thanks for adding the perspective of someone who’s been there done that, unlike the reporters and activists who obviously don’t have a clue. If you look at the temperature and pressure measurements, they are all coming down. Unit 2 is the only one that isn’t holding pressure so clearly that’s the one to wonder about. Hopefully the workers will be able to continue to make progress until the reason for the leak is sorted out. They are heros.
From: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84721.htm
It is likely that opponents of nuclear power will use this, if confirmed, to further their aims of opposing nuclear power in all forms. I would suggest a more sober assessment, based on the assumption that engineering shortcomings at one site should not be used to cast blame on an entire industry, especially when other sites do not suffer from the same shortcomings.
For example, Fukushima Dai-Ni has many similarities with Fukushima Dai-Ishi, including being located very close (within about 10km), on the sea shore, being exposed to the same earthquake and tsunami with relatively small differences in amplitude, of similar age and with similarly designed facilities. I believe Fukushima Dai-Ni is a little newer. So why did Fukushima Dai-Ishi turn into a catastrophe* and Fukushima Dai-Ni didn’t? Apparently, although both facilities were flooded, Fukushima Dai-Ni had redundant electrical installations that permitted them to continue to provide power to the cooling pumps, whereas Fukushima Dai-Ishi’s only electrical installations were in the basement of the turbine buildings (next to the reactors but closer to the sea). Whereas Fukushima Dai-Ni’s electrical installations were also in the basement of its turbine buildings, it had a redundant connection elsewhere (not really sure where).
*It is clear now that Fukushima Dai-Ishi is a catastrophe. Whether this catastrophe should be classified as a nuclear catastrophe or as an economic catastrophe is a distinction without much of a practical difference to Japan. Clean up will take decades and the economic cost will be huge. Furthermore, the site has not yet been secured and is still leaking radiation as mentioned above. The human cost will probably be relatively minor (when compared to the total population-it obviously will not be minor at an individual level) due to the Japanese government’s evacuations and assuming continued monitoring and restrictions on food and water. Agricultural loss (land area) remains to be determined, but will most likely be significant assuming the contaminated areas will be similar in shape to the two plumes referenced as follows (quoting from the same source above):
In summary, this is not “Chernobyl on steroids” nor will it be as bad as Chernobyl IMO, notwithstanding that both may end up with the same INES rating of 7. In this regard, I would distrust any data about the Chernobyl accident, no matter which side of the issue of nuclear power one may be on. There is no question there was, to put it mildly, a “lack of transparency” then that cannot be remedied after the fact. Therefore, it would be unfair to compare Fukushima Dai-Ichi, where there has already been and will continue to be a great deal more transparency, to Chernobyl, where the true scope of the disaster will probably never be known.