Nuclear Disaster Unfolding In Fukushima Options

[bill]

This getting worse every day


http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear

[lunk]

How radioactive?
there seems to be only 3 levels of radiation in the news,
high-levels, traceable-levels, and dropping-levels.

BBC Philharmonic Orchestra instruments were so radioactive following a tour of Japan that they triggered off an airport alarm when they arrived back in Britain.

The cargo was stopped for inspection by radiation protection officers at Manchester airport.

When the earthquake struck the orchestra was on a coach crossing a suspension bridge 200 miles from the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Radiation contaminated the instruments which were seized on Thursday and have been held for inspection at a secure underground location at the airport.

But the 90 members of the orchestra passed through the airport without incident.

It was initially feared that their instruments were so contaminated they would have to be destroyed. But a Home Office spokesman said last night that the radiation is now believed to be harmless.

The alarm system, called Cyclamen, is used at British airports to detect nuclear ‘dirty bombs’ or materials that terrorists may try to smuggle in.

A source at the airport said it
is ‘rare’ for the alarm to activate there, even though it handles millions of tons of cargo each year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz1H8b5eTkY

[tumetuestumefais...]

How radioactive?

Maybe you've missed it but I was repeatedly posting the measurements from the Fukushima plant, so in the linked files are the values from around the plant.
Here are measurements from four sites in Japan, which help to put the measurements at the plant into a perspective of wider areas. This measurements clearly show the expected spikes (look at the 7 days graphs), from the quite steep down slopes - which are clearly mostly the result of short half-life isotops (like the infamous I-131) fast decay - I've assessed (it is not trivial task - but if you're really interested how it is done feel free to ask questions) the values would come close to normal in orders of weeks so the cummulative dose for the population will not be harmful or dangerous. The relatively steep slope shows the decay speed signature which to me absolutely clearly rules-out a significant contamination with Sr-90, Cs-137 or Pu-241. And yes, the measurements clearly make possible the baggage and instruments of the musicians could be contaminated to measurable values (by very sensitive airport detectors), but quite certainly the level could not be harmful or even dangerous, because as such is not measured even in the Japan, and will quickly decay to practically unmeasurable values.

[maturin42]

Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

The sun and wind will be around as long as we are. A large-scale commitment to it will result in increases in efficiency and lowering prices. Continuing the folly of nuclear generation will result in the enrichment of the few and risks borne by many.

In the case of the U. S., the fact that no underwriter has agreed to insure against the risks of developing new nuclear power plants should tell us something. Only with the federal government - meaning the taxpayer - standing behind them, will new nuclear plants go forward. I am willing to take the risk of sun and wind spills - not trusting everything to go right in the entire nuclear life-cycle.

[tumetuestumefais...]

Just imagine if, instead of nuclear power, the power generation in that area had been by rooftop solar and wind power. The survivors of the tsunami would still be dealing with a disaster, but complicated only by a massive sun and wind-spill. Distributed local generation using the most appropriate and efficient renewable sources should be the first choice. Even when everything goes right, nuclear produces waste products that remain dangerous for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Point to any examples you can think of in which any human endeavor, such as protecting and safeguarding a repositary lasts for even hundreds of years.

With all the respect I think this misinterpretation of reality for several reasons.

First, globally the solar and wind not even remotely have the cappacity to substitute for coal and gas used for electricity generating given the human population and the energy needs projected, yet we must substitute coal and gas already in first half of this century, before fossil peak, otherwise a global economical and subsequent malthusian catastrophe would quicky occur.

Second, there is nothing like "nuclear waste" if we proceed to 4th generation nuclear technologies.


Third, frankly, whether you want or not the nuclear energy, at least the China and possibly other developing countries too, will build the nuclear plants like hundreds of them next decades, to achieve their national energetic security and independence, so only what the countries with enough activistic pundits to persuade gullible public to politically interfere with markets and stop the nuclear energy development argumenting with irrational fears would achieve is to stay behind and that this "green" countries - in the wake of everrising fossil resources prices - will become relatively very quickly a dependent "third world" - as is already happening at the large scale in the USA, making it most dangerous nation in the world, waging illegal wars to steal the last fossil resouces in Middle East (to meet everrising energy demand there which is the highest per capita in the world) and desperately staging so repugniant pretenses to it as 9/11 - just ~20 years after they decided there to stop nuclear energy development under the pressure of the professional activists. The promoted "renewables" besides not having needed potential also cannot economically compete even with the nuclear power of the present 3rd generation, not speaking about the 4th generation nuclear power (burning btw the so called "waste"). So it's your choice, don't wonder when "the bill" will arrive to you and especially to your children and grandchildren if you join proceeding this way - paradoxicly it would end that USA will have the old gradually more and more unstable plants posing considerable risk, which USA then couldn't shut down, because not having an alternative, while the others will have new, relatively very cheap and very safe energy resources which are essential to maintain a stable economics...

[p.w.rapp]

With all the respect I think this misinterpretation of reality for several reasons.

First, globally the solar and wind not even remotely have the cappacity to substitute for coal and gas used for electricity generating given the human population and the energy needs projected, yet we must substitute coal and gas already in first half of this century, before fossil peak, otherwise a global economical and subsequent malthusian catastrophe would quicky occur.

Second, there is nothing like "nuclear waste" if we proceed to 4th generation nuclear technologies.

Third, frankly, whether you want or not the nuclear energy, at least the China and possibly other developing countries too, will build the nuclear plants like hundreds of them next decades, to achieve their national energetic security and independence, so only what the countries with enough activistic pundits to persuade gullible public to politically interfere with markets and stop the nuclear energy development argumenting with irrational fears would achieve is to stay behind and that this "green" countries - in the wake of everrising fossil resources prices - will become relatively very quickly a dependent "third world" - as is already happening at the large scale in the USA, making it most dangerous nation in the world, waging illegal wars to steal the last fossil resouces in Middle East (to meet everrising energy demand there which is the highest per capita in the world) and desperately staging so repugniant pretenses to it as 9/11 - just ~20 years after they decided there to stop nuclear energy development under the pressure of the professional activists. The promoted "renewables" besides not having needed potential also cannot economically compete even with the nuclear power of the present 3rd generation, not speaking about the 4th generation nuclear power (burning btw the so called "waste"). So it's your choice, don't wonder when "the bill" will arrive to you and especially to your children and grandchildren if you join proceeding this way - paradoxicly it would end that USA will have the old gradually more and more unstable plants posing considerable risk, which USA then couldn't shut down, because not having an alternative, while the others will have new, relatively very cheap and very safe energy resources which are essential to maintain a stable economics...

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

I agree with most of what you say, Tume, and I wonder why some P4T members, who (although they have proved to be able to see the big picture and see through most of the facets of the 9/11 scam) can't wrap their heads around other strategies of the global oligarchy i.e. their grab for the control of the global energy-supply.

They™ have been crude oil mongers for decades, controlling nearly 100% of the world's business with energy based on mineral oil (fuel etc.)

Nuclear power has always been a thorn in their flesh, which is the main reason why developement of the 4th generation nuclear technology was not funded and blocked, why dangers and threats of nuclear power and radiation have been widely exagerated if not invented, why Iran must not have their own nuclear plants... etc...

So why are they™ not changing their strategy and 'globalize' (=control) nuclear power, especially if they will allegedly run out of 'fossil' energy in a few years???

Because mineral-oil is not 'fossil' !!!

And it is not 'peaking' because there is plenty of it in the earth's shell and it is being generated by a geological process like natural gas.
Also the Russians know that, but they would be crazy to uncover the scam as long as they profit from an everrising oil price too.

So it is easyer to defend their (nearly) perfect global oil-monopoly on the commercial side and continue their efforts (and wars) to get a 100% grip on all the sources and the mining side of the business (see Irak...Libya...)


I perfectly agree with Tume on renewable energies.

I'm not against the renewables where it is suitable, even not against minor subsidies to it (not like in EU where the taxpayers effectively pay substantial part of the whole thing and profits to the renewables company) but I'm after studying facts extremely skeptical it can ever cover the power needs of the future mankind (not speaking it is beyond the available resources including financial to make it possible and sustainable)

In Europe many countries are now paddling back for the simple reason, that wind- and solar based equipment on a large scale is unable to supply power, when power is needed, which should have been obvious from the beginning, looking at the statistics (hours of sunshine or wind per week).
Electric power is needed on a constant level, which can only be assured by hydraulic and nuclear power-stations.
Gas and coal stations are being used for peak-hours and are known for their adverse effects on ecology!


Seems as if it is getting more and more difficult to fight against their 'reality' in the corporate media.
Earthquake, tsunami AND "nuclear desaster"
- what a perfect combination for the fear mongers.
Far better than "Chernobyl".

Hard times for factual arguments pro nuclear power. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by p.w.rapp: Mar 21 2011, 06:38 AM