[Peace-discuss] Japanese warning

[C. G. Estabrook]

Japan nuclear accident could be second Chernobyl
Explosion at Fukushima signals ‘significant’ nuclear event, says expert
By David Cairns
LAST UPDATED 1:33 PM, MARCH 13, 2011 Share

A British nuclear expert has told The First Post that the explosion at the 
Fukushima I nuclear plant looks likely to be a "significant nuclear event" with 
a bigger impact on public health than the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island.
John Large, who has been a nuclear analyst since the mid-1960s and is a Fellow 
of the Royal Society, says the Japanese government may be significantly 
downplaying the seriousness of the accident – and he believes it could have 
far-reaching consequences for the nuclear industry worldwide.
Fukushima I is just 40 miles from the epicentre of the closest of 248 separate 
seismic shocks which have taken place in the past week off the coast of Japan. A 
'boiling water' plant, it has six reactors.
Dramatic footage of an explosion at the plant's No 1 reactor on Saturday has 
commanded global attention. Now the Japanese government says it is fighting to 
prevent a second meltdown at No 3 reactor.
Meanwhile, sister plant Fukushima II, which is just 11km further away from the 
earthquake epicentre, is also in trouble. Cooling systems have broken at three 
of its four reactors – and at least one reactor has failed.
Efforts are underway to evacuate 210,000 people living within 20km of Fukushima 
I. Earlier, on Friday, 2,800 people were taken from their homes by coach.
Japan's nuclear agency says up to 160 people may have been exposed to radiation 
as they waited to be evacuated from the nearby town of Futaba. Twenty-two 
workers were exposed today and yesterday as they struggled to prevent a major 
leak at the plant.
However, the Japanese government has insisted that the accident is only a '4' on 
the International Nuclear Event Scale – an "accident with local consequences". 
Chernobyl is at the top of the scale with '7' while Three Mile Island was 
assigned a '5'.
Nuclear expert John Large today questioned Fukushima's '4' status, telling The 
First Post: "We're not getting the information out of the government but I would 
say this is a significant nuclear event. You don't blow the top off a building 
and say it's not."
Japanese Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said today that there was the possibility 
of an explosion at the No 3 reactor but he was confident the steel containing 
vessel around the core of the reactor would withstand the blast – as it did when 
No 1 reactor blew up on Saturday.
Large said he found this hard to believe. The "jellyfish" shape of Saturday's 
explosion and the decision to vent the reactor's secondary containment – 
releasing radioactive vapour and necessitating the evacuation of local people – 
all suggest fuel rods had melted and leaked from the primary containment.
Large suggested the Japanese government could be hiding the true severity of the 
accident from its people in order to avoid a large-scale panic in which citizens 
might put themselves in harm's way by self-evacuating, fleeing into the 
dispersal zone instead of out of it.
Nuclear radiation has deep resonance for Japan, as the only country to have had 
nuclear weapons used against it. Visiting Fukushima I, Large said he found the 
Japanese view of nuclear power to be "very polite, very rational but also very 
sensitive".
Large was told that young women from Hiroshima or Nagasaki would still move to 
the country to stay with relatives before trying to find a husband – in order to 
advertise themselves as being nuclear-free. He added: "Even if you pass through 
the immediate generations affected by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there's a generic 
memory of it."
Tokyo-based campaign group the Citizens' Nuclear Information Centre said 
yesterday: "A nuclear disaster which the promoters of nuclear power in Japan 
said wouldn't happen is in progress. It is occurring as a result of an 
earthquake that they said would not happen."
Large was critical of the response from the nuclear industry in the UK which he 
sees as trying to downplay the incident. He said: "The nuclear industry is 
crashing around trying to recover its position.
"It doesn't want this to become known as another Chernobyl. They can't say this 
was dodgy technology [as they did of Chernobyl] so they are downplaying it.
"I would say this is going to put back the British nuclear industry for some 
considerable time."
In the meantime, the biggest worry facing the Japanese authorities is that an 
explosion at No 3 reactor could have more dire consequences than a leak from No 
1 because the two devices run on different fuel. No 3 runs so-called MOX fuel, 
based on plutonium.
Large said MOX was "effectively an experimental fuel". In addition to having a 
more complex radiological footprint than uranium-based fuel, making it harder to 
deal with in the event of a leak, more fuel is usually released in a plutonium 
meltdown than when a uranium-based reactor fails.
There is another problem on the horizon: seismologists say there is a 70 per 
cent chance of another quake measuring at least 7.0 magnitude striking in the 
coming days.

Read more: 
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76297,news-comment,news-politics,japan-nuclear-accident-could-be-second-chernobyl-fukushima#ixzz1GXEayzJL

On 3/12/11 9:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Nuclear Experts Explain Worst-Case Scenario at Fukushima Power Plant
>
> The type of accident occurring now in Japan derives from a loss of offsite AC 
> power and then a subsequent failure of emergency power on site. Engineers 
> there are racing to restore AC power to prevent a core meltdown.
>
> By Steve Mirsky  | March 12, 2011 |
>
> <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-core>
>
>
> On 3/12/11 9:02 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Published on Saturday, March 12, 2011 by Agence France-Presse
>> US Experts: 'Chernobyl-Like' Crisis for Japan ‎
>>
>> WASHINGTON - US nuclear experts warned Saturday that pumping sea water to 
>> cool a quake-hit Japanese nuclear reactor was an "act of desperation" that 
>> may foreshadow a Chernobyl-like disaster.
>>
>> Several experts, in a conference call with reporters, also predicted that 
>> regardless of the outcome at the Fukushima No. 1 atomic plant crisis, the 
>> accident will seriously damage the nuclear power renaissance.
>>
>> "The situation has become desperate enough that they apparently don't have 
>> the capability to deliver fresh water or plain water to cool the reactor and
>> stabilize it, and now, in an act of desperation, are having to resort to 
>> diverting and using sea water," said Robert Alvarez, who works on nuclear 
>> disarmament at the Institute for Policy Studies.
>>
>> "I would describe this measure as a 'Hail Mary' pass," added Alvarez, using 
>> American football slang for a final effort to win the game as time expires.
>>
>> An 8.9 magnitude earthquake that struck Japan on Friday set off the emergency 
>> at the plant, which was then hit by an explosion Saturday that prompted an 
>> evacuation of the surrounding area.
>>
>> Workers doused the stricken reactor with sea water to try to avert 
>> catastrophe, after the quake knocked out power to the cooling system.
>>
>> What occurred at the plant was a "station blackout," which is the loss of 
>> offsite air-conditioning power combined with the failure of onsite power, in 
>> this case diesel generators.
>>
>> "It is considered to be extremely unlikely but the station blackout has been 
>> one of the great concerns for decades," said Ken Bergeron, a physicist who 
>> has worked on nuclear reactor accident simulation.
>>
>> "We're in uncharted territory," he said.
>>
>> The reactor has been shut down but the concern is the heat in the core, which 
>> can melt if it's not cooled. If the core melts through the reactor vessel, 
>> Bergeron explained, it could flow onto the floor of the containment building. 
>> If that happens, the structure likely will fail, the experts said.
>>
>> "The containment building at this plant is certainly stronger than that at 
>> Chernobyl but a lot less strong than at Three Mile Island, so time will 
>> tell," he said.
>>
>> Peter Bradford, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said 
>> that if the cooling attempts fail, "at that point it's a Chernobyl-like 
>> situation where you start dumping in sand and cement."
>>
>> The two worst nuclear accidents on record are the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in 
>> Ukraine and the partial core meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in the 
>> US state of Pennsylvania in 1979.
>>
>> Another expert said the Japanese accident will rank as one of the three worst 
>> in history.
>>
>> "If it continues, if they don't get control of this and... we go from a 
>> partial meltdown of the core to a full meltdown, this will be a complete 
>> disaster," Joseph Cirincione, the head of the Ploughshares Fund, said in an 
>> interview on CNN.
>>
>> Cirincione faulted Japanese authorities for providing partial and conflicting 
>> information about what was happening at the plant.
>>
>> Cirincione said the presence of radioactive cesium in the atmosphere after 
>> the plant was vented indicated that a partial meltdown was underway.
>>
>> "That told the operators that the fuel rods had been exposed, that the water 
>> level had dropped below the fuel rods and the fuel rods were starting to 
>> burn, releasing cesium," he said.
>>
>> Japan's nuclear safety agency rated the Fukushima accident at four on the 
>> International Nuclear Event Scale from 0 to 7, meaning an accident "with 
>> local consequences," an official said Sunday.
>>
>> The Three Mile Island accident was rated five while Chernobyl was a seven.
>>
>> The government declared an atomic emergency and said tens of thousands of 
>> people living within 12 miles (20 kilometers) of the plant should leave after 
>> an explosion at the nuclear plant Saturday.
>>
>> "This is obviously a significant setback for the so-called nuclear 
>> renaissance," said Bradford, the former NRC commissioner.
>>
>> "The image of a nuclear power plant blowing up before your eyes on the 
>> television screen is a first."
>>
>> But a spokesman for the World Nuclear Association said in an interview with 
>> CBS News that the threat of a full meltdown is minimal.
>>
>> "I think that possibility is remote at the best of times and is diminishing 
>> by the hour as the fuel gets cooler and generates less heat," said Ian 
>> Hore-Lacy, spokesman for the industry organization.
>>
>> © 2011 Agence France-Presse
>>
>>
>> On 3/12/11 8:58 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> Japan's nuclear power operator has chequered past
>>> The company at the centre of a nuclear reactor crisis following the biggest 
>>> earthquake in Japan's recorded history has had a rocky past in an industry 
>>> plagued by scandal.
>>> | March 12, 2011 |
>>>
>>> See 
>>> <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japans-nuclear-power-operator-has-c>.
>>>
>>> On 3/12/11 8:46 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> Published on Saturday, March 12, 2011 by the Associated Press
>>>> Huge Rally in Germany: 'Nuclear Power? No Thanks!'
>>>>
>>>> BERLIN - An explosion at a Japanese nuclear power plant has given new fuel 
>>>> to a
>>>> long-running dispute over the technology's future in Germany, where 
>>>> thousands on
>>>> Saturday demonstrated against plans to extend the life of the country's 
>>>> nuclear
>>>> power stations.
>>>>
>>>> Organizers said tens of thousands formed a human chain between the
>>>> Neckarwestheim nuclear plant and the southwestern city of Stuttgart, which are
>>>> 28 miles (45 kilometers) appart- some waving yellow flags with the slogan
>>>> "Nuclear power - no thanks." Police didn't immediately give a figure.
>>>>
>>>> The demonstration was planned long before the post-earthquake blast at Japan's
>>>> Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, but the fears of possible disaster gave an added 
>>>> focus
>>>> to opponents of the technology in Germany.
>>>>
>>>> Saturday's explosion destroyed a building housing the reactor, but a radiation
>>>> leak was decreasing despite fears of a meltdown from damage caused by a 
>>>> powerful
>>>> earthquake and tsunami, officials in Japan said.
>>>>
>>>> Germany's government last year decided to extend the life of its 17 nuclear
>>>> plans for an average 12 extra years. A previous government had said it wanted
>>>> them all shut by 2021.
>>>>
>>>> While Germany - unlike some of its European Union partners - has no plans to
>>>> build any new plants, the extension was divisive.
>>>>
>>>> The mishap in Japan, which comes two weeks before a closely fought state
>>>> election in the region where Saturday's protest was held, prompted new 
>>>> criticism
>>>> from the opposition.
>>>>
>>>> Events at Fukushima "show that, even in a high-tech country like Japan that is
>>>> equipped for all eventualities, nuclear power is an uncontrollable, highly
>>>> dangerous, risky technology," the leadership of the opposition Greens said 
>>>> in a
>>>> statement.
>>>>
>>>> Matthias Miersch, a lawmaker with the main opposition Social Democrats, urged
>>>> the government to scrap immediately the decision to extend German nuclear
>>>> plants' lives. The third opposition party, the Left Party, called for a
>>>> worldwide moratorium on expanding nuclear power capacity.
>>>>
>>>> Nuclear energy has been unpopular in Germany since an explosion at a nuclear
>>>> reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986, sent a cloud of radiation over much of
>>>> Europe.
>>>>
>>>> Chancellor Angela Merkel, however, has argued that Germany needs to keep 
>>>> nuclear
>>>> energy for now as a "bridging technology" until it has developed more 
>>>> renewable
>>>> power sources.
>>>>
>>>> Her deputy, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, on Saturday pushed aside
>>>> questions about the government's nuclear policy.
>>>>
>>>> With thousands likely dead or missing in Japan, "Germany's first answer 
>>>> can't be
>>>> that ... a political argument breaks out here because there are state election
>>>> campaigns going on," he said.
>>>>
>>>> Merkel's center-right coalition faces a tight battle to keep control of the
>>>> regional government in Baden-Wuerttemberg in a March 27 election, and two 
>>>> other
>>>> votes also are looming.
>>>>
>>>> © 2011 Associated Press
>>>>
>>>> On 3/12/11 6:41 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>> I'd say that there's a good chance they are. Have you been reading Bill 
>>>>> Keller
>>>>> recently?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Times regularly puts into practice the poet's advice:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell all the Truth but tell it slant —
>>>>> Success in Circuit lies
>>>>> Too bright for our infirm Delight
>>>>> The Truth's superb surprise...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/11 6:29 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>>>>> So what did Broad conclude about "Nuclear Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the 
>>>>>> Bomb?"?
>>>>>> He's not only written for the NYT, and moreover, not everyone who writes for
>>>>>> the Times is contaminated….
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2011, at 5:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the tie-ups between the NYT and the nuclear industry, I'd think we'd
>>>>>>> at least want a second opinion...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The author of this piece is a long-time Timesman who's written on and
>>>>>>> perhaps contributed to US science propaganda. In the run-up to the invasion
>>>>>>> of Iraq he published "Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War"
>>>>>>> (2001), and in 2007 he did a "Discovery Channel" program called "Nuclear
>>>>>>> Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the Bomb?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/12/11 5:17 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>>>>>>> A fair report by William Broad on the dangers of radioactivity from the
>>>>>>>> severely damaged Japanese reactor. We don't yet know the intensity of its
>>>>>>>> radiations, and so we don't know if they are a serious problem. We are
>>>>>>>> constantly exposed to nuclear radiations, and the safety limits imposed by
>>>>>>>> the responsible agencies are considered super safe; there could be very
>>>>>>>> high multiples of those limits and yet have no observed effects on human
>>>>>>>> health (despite the claims of someone like Wasserman).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/science/13radiation.html?hp
>>>>>>>>