Meltdown.

[Agloco]

One of my favorite words.


HA!






(seriously though, it is)

This tends to be a thorn in my side professionally.

[Agloco]

It keeps getting "better"

High levels of radioactive strontium fund near Fukushima

More bad news from Japan – in the wake of last week’s revelation that 3 of the 4 reactors had gone into meltdown and beyond, we now learn that high levels of radioactivity – in particular, particles of strontium 89 and 90 – are being found in groundwater and sea water around the facility, and even further than 60 miles away.

Now that they’re finding levels of strontium up to 240 times the legal limit (via), it’s a whole other ball game. When you ingest strontium 90 into your body – either by breathing it, drinking it in water, or eating it in your food – it gravitates toward your bones. It remains there for years, irradiating your tissues and potentially causing bone cancer or leukemia. And stontium doesn’t decay quickly – it has a half-life of 29 years, keeping the danger level in the hundreds of years.

And now it’s in the soil, in the groundwater, and in the ocean. As it’s ingested by plants and animals up the food chain, it will get more and more concentrated, too. Seafood from the region will be too toxic to eat for years, and agriculture in the surrounding country will be completely out of the question.

Source: Red Green & Blue (http://s.tt/12Eon)

What's Japan's legal limit? Aye, consumption of goods from that region should be curtailed to a great degree for a long while.

Blue - I didn't have time to fully respond earlier but Sr89 we use for palliation of bone mets. It goes by the name Metastron. The real issue is Sr90. That along with I131 and Cs137 form the "big three" as far as the primary health threats are concerned. The good thing here is that it's present in trace amounts from what I can gather (30-300 becs/kg) and it would need to be ingested in order for it's hazardous potential to be fully realized. The fact that the levels are increasing now is worrisome to say the least. They shouldn't be.

[boutons_deux]

Full Meltdown: Fukushima Called the 'Biggest Industrial Catastrophe in the History of Mankind'

"Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively."

TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of.

"The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"

Even though the plant is now shut down, fission products such as uranium continue to generate heat, and therefore require cooling.

"The fuels are now a molten blob at the bottom of the reactor," Gundersen added. "TEPCO announced they had a melt through. A melt down is when the fuel collapses to the bottom of the reactor, and a melt through means it has melted through some layers. That blob is incredibly radioactive, and now you have water on top of it. The water picks up enormous amounts of radiation, so you add more water and you are generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water."

Independent scientists have been monitoring the locations of radioactive "hot spots" around Japan, and their findings are disconcerting.

"We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl," said Gundersen. "The data I'm seeing shows that we are finding hot spots further away than we had from Chernobyl, and the amount of radiation in many of them was the amount that caused areas to be declared no-man's-land for Chernobyl. We are seeing square kilometres being found 60 to 70 kilometres away from the reactor. You can't clean all this up. We still have radioactive wild boar in Germany, 30 years after Chernobyl."

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151328

[leemajors]

Any truth to this?

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-n...Plant-report/1

[boutons_deux]

A Paki ripoff of the The Nation's logo and name?

If you read the entire, very confused screed, it's as credible as Fox Repug Propaganda network "reporting" on Barry and the Dems.

[leemajors]

ya, there are hundreds of articles despite the "blackout"

[Agloco]

With a country that some scientists are now warning may soon become uninhabitable due to radiation damage, and with reports of mutant rabbits and radioactive whales now being reported, one wonders if in knowing the truth the American people would really want to follow Japan’s “example” instead of those people in Germany and Italy?
But, with an already do ented 35% increase in the infant mortality rate for American mothers living in the western coastal regions of the US caused by radiation blowing onto them from Japan being ignored by these people there doesn’t seem to be much hope for them. (The EU Times)

Eh? What was that? My pizzas here?

A Paki ripoff of the The Nation's logo and name?

If you read the entire, very confused screed, it's as credible as Fox Repug Propaganda network "reporting" on Barry and the Dems.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting article on the potential ultimate death toll.





























-----
As seen through the eyes of the Samuel L. Jacksonizer.

[RandomGuy]

Eh? What was that? My pizzas here?

A bit of digging and one can get to the ultimate source of the 35% increase claim with the originator of the article:


http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html

From a purely statistical standpoint, 4 weeks is waaaay too short of a period to draw any meaningful conclusion.

The authors didn't rule out that the 4 weeks they measured wasn't itself a statistical anomoly outside the normal bounds of expected results. The 4 week period they measured could have been a 4 week period for that area with an unusually low indicidence, so that any period following would have seemed like a e.

I can tell you from first hand experience with data regarding infant mortality (something very important to some HMO's), that it can be "lumpy", if one simply looks at one month of data, or even one year sometimes.

Seems like bad science to me. Important question to be sure, but it doesn't pass scientific muster, and definitely requires more fleshing out, before anyone should rely on it.

Unfortunately, bull can spread at the speed of light on the internet.

I will, of course, defer to your take on it, the above is just my understanding.

[Agloco]

A bit of digging and one can get to the ultimate source of the 35% increase claim with the originator of the article:


http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html

From a purely statistical standpoint, 4 weeks is waaaay too short of a period to draw any meaningful conclusion.

The authors didn't rule out that the 4 weeks they measured wasn't itself a statistical anomoly outside the normal bounds of expected results. The 4 week period they measured could have been a 4 week period for that area with an unusually low indicidence, so that any period following would have seemed like a e.

I can tell you from first hand experience with data regarding infant mortality (something very important to some HMO's), that it can be "lumpy", if one simply looks at one month of data, or even one year sometimes.

Seems like bad science to me. Important question to be sure, but it doesn't pass scientific muster, and definitely requires more fleshing out, before anyone should rely on it.

Unfortunately, bull can spread at the speed of light on the internet.

I will, of course, defer to your take on it, the above is just my understanding.

Yeah my issue was with the way the article and le was worded, as if to feed more fuel into the fire than putting the proper context to the findings. As with any such event, the ultimate toll won't be known for many decades, if ever.

The same kind of stuff could be found last year during the Russian wildfires. Then there were reports of "radioactive fires" and such with Cesium and Strontium being lifted into the air again. A little research (which could be done by anyone who bothered to trouble themselves with it) would have revealed this to not be a viable threat.

Much the same distribution exists over the Western US as it does over Western Russia. Very low amounts per square meter. It is definitely inconsequential insofar as teratogenic effects are concerned. I'll link Duke's page for some more info. This information can be found at any cancer centers website.

http://www.safety.duke.edu/radsafety/fdose/fdrisk.asp

One can clearly see two immediate facts: Radiation effects are linked to gestational age, and radiation effects are linked to dose. One can also see that the lower limit for known effects is 1 rem.

We do not have any ulative doses here in the US which remotely approach 1 rem over time. I'd bet that the general public in Japan might see .6-.8 rem in the near term which translates to tripling the normal background (provided the situation with the cores doesn't destabilize any more......this might not be a sound assumption though).

For context, this is a very good website which gives a synopsis of Chernobyl fallout readings over many countries with links to the papers which were written with the data.

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7b.html

[cheguevara]

it's the pregnant women this will affect most. Remeber back in the day many baby deaths were linked to mom's getting an Xray while pregnant.

The radioactivity in many places in Japan is surpassing a mere Xray. Thousands of poor unborn babies are doomed.

[Borat Sagyidev]

it's the pregnant women this will affect most. Remeber back in the day many baby deaths were linked to mom's getting an Xray while pregnant.

The radioactivity in many places in Japan is surpassing a mere Xray. Thousands of poor unborn babies are doomed.

not so much x-ray, but CT and Flouroscopy. A general x-ray is very little exposure, most people get much more naturally.

And yes, a fetus with its rapidly dividing stem cells will be most at risk. Depending on the location and situation, the concern for mercury, lead and other toxins may be greater.

Worldwide exposure from chemical toxins is without question a much more widespread and detrimental. Not that radiation exposure is good either, but we have a worldwide issue of birth defects and it seems like some people only care about radiation exposure.

Edumucate yourself for the love of god. priorities people

Priorities people.

[boutons_deux]

U.S. nuclear regulators weaken safety rules

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety -- and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...t_1/index.html

========

Just another example of UCA regulating the regulators. How many nuclear power executives lives within a couple miles of a nuclear plant?

[Winehole23]

recommends the AP article.

Thanks for posting, boutons.

[RandomGuy]

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed -- up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes -- all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Sounds alarmingly like the relationship between the regulator and companies before Deepwater Horizon, and the Massey incident.

Both of those have risks that pale in comparison to a major nuclear accident in a populated area.

[Agloco]

not so much x-ray, but CT and Flouroscopy. A general x-ray is very little exposure, most people get much more naturally.

This. X-rays are generally considered safe for pregnant women. The risk of not getting one is usually much greater.

[cheguevara]

I was referring to back in the day before ultrasound obys used to use xrays to monitor fetus development. That practice has stopped completely and now replaced by ultrasound.

Why? because many studies tracked back to the use of xrays to monitor fetus development and sick/dead fetus or children.

[Agloco]

U.S. nuclear regulators weaken safety rules

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

As an understanding of the dynamics involved in producing nuclear power became more clear during the 1950's and 60's, the governing bodies (NRC, etc) decided that a relaxing of standards was appropriate provided that there was no substantive evidence of safety compromises. Now, while that practice is appropriate to a degree, there's always the danger of tipping the see-saw so to speak.

I can vouch for the AP investigation. No industry can be left to it's own devices without dilligent oversight IMO. Purposeful lapses in enforcement for the sake of finance is inexcusable. It falls to each plant operator and his ethical standards to ensure that violations are appropriately do ented and rectified to prevent disasters.

All it will take is one mishap and the industry will come crashing down.

[boutons_deux]

"X-rays are generally considered safe for pregnant women"

holy ing .

[Agloco]

"X-rays are generally considered safe for pregnant women"

holy ing .

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safe...m?pg=sfty_xray

There's a risk for everything in medicine. Sorry if that's an inconvenient truth.

[mouse]

Agloco could wake up with a foot growing out of his neck and say that's great now i know what to do with that extra sock from the dryer.

The man is a heartless wannabee nuclear physicist expert.

[Agloco]

Agloco could wake up with a foot growing out of his neck and say that's great now i know what to do with that extra sock from the dryer.

The man is a heartless wannabee nuclear physicist expert.

Dunno about the heartless part though.

[RandomGuy]

Somebody pissed in my wheaties.

Sorry to hear that.

You ok? You seem a bit worked up.

[mouse]

Sorry to hear that.

You ok? You seem a bit worked up.

I will be ok your sister still has milk in her left for another bowl.

[Wild Cobra]

Agloco could wake up with a foot growing out of his neck and say that's great now i know what to do with that extra sock from the dryer.

The man is a heartless wannabee nuclear physicist expert.

LOL...

He knows far more than you!