Declassified U.S. Government Report Prepared a Week After Fukushima Accident: “100% of The Total Spent Fuel Was Released to the Atmosphere from Unit 4”

We reported in 2011 that the International Atomic Energy Agency knew within weeks that Fukushima had melted down … but failed and refused to tell the public.

The same year, we reported that the U.S. knew within days of the Fukushima accident that Fukushima had melted down … but failed to tell the public.

We noted in 2012:

The fuel pools and rods at Fukushima appear to have “boiled”, caught fire and/or exploded soon after the earthquake knocked out power systems. See this, this, this, this and this.

Now, a declassified report written by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 18, 2011 – one week after the tidal wave hit Fukushima – states:

The source term provided to NARAC was: (1) 25% of the total fuel in unit 2 released to the atmosphere, (2) 50% of the total spent fuel from unit 3 was released to the atmosphere, and (3) 100% of the total spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from unit 4.

FukushimaNARAC is the the U.S. National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, located at the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. NARAC “provides tools and services that map the probable spread of hazardous material accidentally or intentionally released into the atmosphere“.

The fuel pools at Units 3 and 4 contained enormous amounts of radiation.

For example, there was “more cesium in that [Unit 4] fuel pool than in all 800 nuclear bombs exploded above ground.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • jadan

    Isn’t there grounds here for suing the government for dereliction of duty and betrayal of national security interests? Isn’t there a benevolent billionaire willing to bankroll such a project? Something has to be done!

  • diogenes

    How is it possible not to regard the officers and staff of the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, located at the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and their bureaucratic and executive superiors other than as traitors to the citizens of American and to all humankind, living and unborn?

    • Christopher Erario

      The people of California need to put together a mob and “remove” those traitors!

      • Greg Burton

        The entire world needs to put together mobs and “remove” the traitors killing us all, and stealing our stuff. Patriots of the world unite!

      • Marushka France

        NARAC is given question. This is NOT a report, it’s a question submitted to NARAC:
        what if this this and this were happening to x reactors (source) — what would be the result?
        Physics is how we knew all was not well. No power, no cooling, no containment.
        That’s everything we needed to know… within hours, it would be a nuclear disaster.
        That is what people need to understand. Blame the NRC for not giving better information to states. The NRC was tasked with providing appropriate data to states… but the NRC also did not know what was happening in Japan. because the NRC is a domestic regulatory agency and the nuclear accident was happening in Japan! It wasn’t until the radiation readings started becoming registered by US Embassy, other embassies, the US Naval base at Yokosuka (south of Tokyo) and on the USS Reagan off the Japanese coast. As those readings started coming in, that is when the NRC (and State Dept and President) began to get confirmation of the nuclear accident. However, any nuclear power plant without power, cannot be cooling and will therefore be headed toward an inevitable and swift criticality failure – that is the physics of nuclear.

        • Leslie Corrice

          You haven no idea of what you speak. No water equals no criticality. Why? No moderator! If you don’t understand this undeniable fact, then you need to keep quiet! Ignorance is NOT bliss.

    • Marushka France

      There were multiple scenarios sent to NARAC to determine several possible scenarios!
      Under the following conditions (source) what radioactive plume would we expect?

      “We reported in 2011 that the International Atomic Energy Agency knew within weeks that Fukushima had melted down … but failed and refused to tell the public.”

      We knew right away! It was on all the news! Explosions at nuclear reactors imply radioactive emergency!

      Proof is physics. No Power = No containment
      Within HOURS or DAYS
      Nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools without power and cooling go into criticality!
      That’s all the proof anyone needs.

      Credible verifiable information is what we need to learn, share and understand.
      check some of the documentation and it will also take you to the Simulation of what happens to a nuke and the fuel when there is no power… No power equals No containment!
      That’s all you need to understand… we’re talking hours

      https://www.facebook.com/marushka.france/posts/10153821307694533

      • Marushka France

        16 March 2011 NRC FOIA

        • Atoms4Peace1

          There was no criticality.

      • Atoms4Peace1

        There was no criticality. Neutrons were from subcritical fissions for decay heat that lessens as t^-1.5. Thats Way-Wigner and you can Google it and learn what I learned in freshman nuclear engineering some 40 years ago.

    • Nancy Ryer

      Looking at this through the Agenda 2030 paradigm, one has to wonder if it is was intentional.

      • Chronic Pain Coop

        It is well rumored that it was intentional and done by the Israeli’s. There was no 9.1 earthquake. Look at the videos of the tsumai rolling in. How come there is NO physical damage to ANY structures. A 9.1 should wipe out everything within a 1000 Kilometers. The theory is that Israel set off a nuke in the trenches while at the same time launching a Sutnex virus on the plant. You can read the full theory here. http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukureport1b.pdf

    • Joey Mango

      See “Marushka France” comment below.

      NARAC was given and assumed source term: “The source term provided to NARAC was: (1) 25% of the total fuel in unit 2 released to the atmosphere, (2) 50% of the total spent fuel from unit 3 was released to the atmosphere, and (3) 100% of the total spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from unit 4.”

      That source term was wildly conservative (=a worst case scenario) and even then didn’t predict a significant dose to anyone in the US.

  • David Whitlock

    This is a gross mischaracterization of what the report says. The “source term” is a value provided to people who model the flow of the atmosphere and things like rain and dispersion to model the transport of radioactive materials. They used the absolutely worst possible case (100% release), and their models showed that the radiation exposure levels were still modest.

    The question they were trying to answer is “do people in Alaska need to take actions to mitigate potential exposure”? From the worse case scenario (100% release), they concluded no, that even with worse case scenario exposures won’t be that bad, so we don’t need to throw everyone in Alaska and the US West Coast into a total panic and have people die from panic.

    • Joffan

      You are absolutely correct.

      Don’t expect Washingtonsblog to be sane on Fukushima. As all the avid self-linking shows, they have been doubling-down on their errors of understanding and attempts to pump up dramatic disaster for many years now.

      Meanwhile, back in June 2011, the NRC quietly admittedly that their chair, Greg Jaczko, had been talking nonsense three months earlier when he tried to shout down accurate Japanese reports, and that the spent fuel pool at Fukuishima Daiichi unit 4 had never run dry.

      http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/06/16/nrc_concedes_japan_fuel_pool_not_dry/

      • Marushka France

        That isn’t exactly correct either. Within hours three reactors and total of four spent fuel pools (minimum) were in very big trouble. Physics and no power means no cooling and rapid rise in heat, temperatures, criticality, and yes, spent fuel pools boiling off — especially the ones that sloshed some of their water out because of the force of the earthquake.

        16 March 2011 nothing can be done

        • Marushka France

          Tepco/regulatory agency had confirmed dry sfp4 and then changed their mind
          16 Mach 2011…. heating up, boiling, criticality happens swiftly!

          • Leslie Corrice

            This is a fabrication. Tepco NEVER confirmed an SFP #4 boil-off. In fact, the pool never boiled. It got warm enough for considerable evaporation, like an over-heated outdoor hot tube, which was visually exacerbated by the cold March temperatures in Northern Honshu Island. And the criticality myth is just as groundless. Water is mandatory for the moderation of neutrons. No water = no criticality.

          • David Whitlock

            I agree, there is no way there could have been a criticality event if the system boiled dry. Neutrons are lost too quickly in the absence of hydrogen as a moderator.

          • VooDude

            Radioiodine will be detected, world-wide, in just two days (or less) if a nuclear reaction takes place in an uncontained environment. Countries that monitor for radioiodine saw only the active core breach … nothing from the naked, melted cores. No criticality.

          • VooDude

            The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT):

            ”…. [In 2011,] the[International Monitoring System] is more than 80 percent complete. Currently, 254 of the [International Monitoring System] monitoring stations and 10 of the 16 radionuclide laboratories have been certified. These facilities are located all over the world.”

            http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/159267.htm

          • Atoms4Peace1

            In the above ground tests not all the uranium and plutonium was burned in fission. So there is uranium and plutonium that was aerosoled and put in the atmosphere from this activity, about 1000 weapons tests all together including below ground. So to say uranium and plutonium is from Fukushima would be factually innacurate. I would expect Cs, Sr,Kr, Xe, in the air from Fukushima as these are gaseous fission products.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            radioactive xenon and iodine are fission products that are airborne. The source term from Fukushima put into the atmosphere was many times less than all the weapons testing combined.

          • VooDude

            Yep. If the “corium” (the melted blob of a Fukushima reactor) had achieved criticality, then there would be airborne fission products emitted from it. World-wide, there are “nuclear test ban treaty” detectors, operating 24/7/365, that would have detected those radionuclides. They didn’t, so, the “corium” did not have any ongoing uranium or plutonium fission.

            As far as the stuff put in the atmosphere from the ‘bomb tests’, compared to Fukushima … these are drawn in rough proportion:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a80b1cbd7e7ca4a01a247eb4054e4309d90efb852c7d0cc2770acfe534edb84c.jpg

            From the source term published in

            Lin, W., et al. 2015 “Radioactivity impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on the atmosphere.” Atmospheric Environment

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wuhui_Lin/publication/269463321_Radioactivity_impacts_of_the_Fukushima_Nuclear_Accident_on_the_atmosphere/links/548c2f180cf2d1800d7dbf81.pdf

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/326a6da35235830d61983e1179f28944bd8e890bd316358cf01227b3ef978b1b.jpg

          • Atoms4Peace1

            That paper wasn’t very accurate and speculates. Where is the uranium and plutonium in the table? It’s just airborne fission products. Thus no criticality.

          • VooDude

            Uh, the paper was about Fukushima’s contribution to the atmosphere.. That’s in the title of the paper … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/346fa8b94fbb0a3073aeeda2e0b231668b46bb0c3cf9d188baf927c78ee3ecad.jpg

            Lin, W., et al. 2015 “Radioactivity impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on the atmosphere.” Atmospheric Environment

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wuhui_Lin/publication/269463321_Radioactivity_impacts_of_the_Fukushima_Nuclear_Accident_on_the_atmosphere/links/548c2f180cf2d1800d7dbf81.pdf

          • Atoms4Peace1

            There is no uranium in the atmosphere in your table. Many say it was vaporized. I disagree. The table tells it all. Only airborne fission products.

          • VooDude

            Though many say it was vaporized … in particular, “Frank Energy” … I disagree, too.
            Uranium is released to the atmosphere from reprocessing facilities (some in Japan)
            but atmospheric uranium is primarily from trace contaminants in coal burning. The sheer volume of coal burning – even though Uranium (and Thorium) are trace in coal … the volume makes up for it. I’ll bet the majority of airborne Uranium is from coal.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Yes I agree. Coal burning puts trace uranium and trace plutonium (from neutron capture in nature U) in the atmosphere. It is the greatest contributor. Antinukes don’t know that.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Corum always has delayed fission yet is subcritical. Laypeople don’t understand the difference.

          • VooDude

            Explain it to us. My studies were all about intact fuel elements.
            Corium is a mashup of melted cladding, lumped and distributed neutron absorbers, perhaps even control rods … and, of course, fuel (uranium, and some plutonium). What is this “delayed fission” you speak of?

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Delayed fission from delayed neutrons. Delayed neutrons represent 7/1000 of all neutrons born from fission. Delayed neutron emitters are fission products. Are you a nuclear engineer?

          • VooDude

            To me, a delayed neutron is delayed a fragment of a second … There are prompt neutrons, and delayed neutrons, from a fission event. The delayed ones are not delayed for hours… If you see one, hours later, it is likely from spontaneous fission, which is always happening in Uranium.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            I understand delayed neutrons. Usually they are grouped by 6 major lifetimes (ref. Keepin) The longest lifetime sets the reactor on -80 sec period when shutdown. Delayed fission is a fission event from a delayed neutron. Uranium does undergo spontaneous fission. Ref. Oklo for nature’s nuclear reactor.

          • Michael Mann

            Delayed neutrons are the reason that after initial start-up you do not need to place neutron sources in or around a reactor to startup again, it is also what is monitored by source range nuclear instrumentation. https://canteach.candu.org/Content%20Library/20030101.pdf http://nuclearpowertraining.tpub.com/h1013v2/css/h1013v2_87.htm

          • VooDude

            Nah, the terminology doesn’t match. A “Delayed” neutron (in my education) is fragments of a second … not something that would cause fission in “corium” hours after being scrammed.
            BTW, you do not need to place neutron sources in or around a virgin reactor, either. The occasional spontaneous fission is enough.

          • atomikrabbit

            That’s a good training manual, and I hope a number of readers here take the time to peruse it, but I think you mean “intrinsic” neutrons, i.e. those produced by spontaneous fission or photofission: http://www.tpub.com/doenuclearphys/nuclearphysics36.htm

            Their numbers are increased by the process of subcritical multiplication, the multiplication factor depending on the core K-eff. As you know from doing reactor startups, as M increases, the 1/M plot approaches zero. These multiplied intrinsic neutrons, plus any being supplied by an extrinsic source (like a Sb-Be secondary) are what the source range monitors detect during a startup.

            The longest-lived delayed neutron precursor (Br-87) has a half-life of only 56 seconds, so within 10 minutes (ten half-lives) of subcritical they are essentially all gone.

            It is easy to get all the varied classifications of neutrons mixed up. I once cringed when I saw a lecture by Dr. Richard Muller, UC Berkeley Physics Professor, and bestselling author of Physics for Future Presidents, conflate prompt and fast neutrons.

          • Michael Mann

            I thought intrinsic neutrons were like those found in nature only, I didn’t think I could use the term for fission products. Good to know. Terminology is important for proper understanding.

          • atomikrabbit

            Maybe, despite its wordiness, my previous comment wasn’t clear – intrinsic neutrons from spontaneous fission (Pu240 and U238 are especially important contributors) are natural in that the process is an inherent (“intrinsic”) property of the nuclide, even if some of those higher actinides no longer exist in nature due to having decayed off since their creation in ancient supernovae explosions.

            Photofission is also a process that relies on the inherent (“intrinsic”) characteristic of the nuclide when it is subjected to an artificially produced high gamma flux. Due to decay of the fission products providing the gamma flux, after a reactor has been shutdown for a few months this becomes only a minor contributor of intrinsic neutrons.

            Just don’t ask me what the white wire does vice the black wire on a BF3 detector. 😉

          • Michael Mann

            Stay out of the detector itself, BF3 is a toxin…… the wires are high voltage too…

          • James Baines

            Warning Atomic Rabbit with a Habit, Michael the Maniac Mann, Sam the Gimp Gilman and the rest of his Super Troll buddies take over all threads related the Fukushima on the internet and upvote each others comments. Just google any one of there names and add Fukushima and you will see what I’m talking about.

          • Frank Energy

            Yep the paid pimps from the nuke cartel are disruptive to real conversation.

            The cartel has a $1B a year budget to promote itself, with lies. This year they doubled down to try to save their dying industry.

          • Michael Mann

            Yep, NukePro is always disrupting any worthwhile discussion with those “click-bait” posts trying to lure people to his website, it sure does get old…

          • TimS

            google also frank energy, nukepro, brian and other antinuclear/pro-renewable paid $shill buddies financed by natural gas/fracking barons.

          • Michael Mann

            Isn’t James Baines the same person as “Chronic Pain Coop” ?

          • Chronic Pain Coop

            Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2012/acp-12-2313-2012.pdf

          • VooDude

            Pretty good read … though the authors suggest, if not flatly state, that emissions occurred from the #4 spent fuel pool, which has been shown to be false (later than this 2012 paper), and I did not find a retraction or correction for that grievous error in later publications of the lead author.

            What was your point in mentioning that paper?

          • Marushka France

            try reading it — low to zero water — major “shine”

          • Leslie Corrice

            You really don’t understand radiation and shielding. A foot of water reduces radiation levels by 90%. 2 feet reduces it by 99%, and so on. But, you’re missing the point. The pools were never uncovered, and at their minimum levels there were several meters of water covering the fuel bundles. No “shine”.

          • Marushka France

            No water, No power, No containment — 11 days! That sums up Fukushima.

          • Leslie Corrice

            You DON’T understand! The pools were NEVER empty. The tops of the bundles were NEVER uncovered. To believe otherwise is to believe in fantasy! The pools and containment are mixing apples and onions. Be real…

          • Steven Featherstone

            Let’s not forget the fact that TEPCO extracted all the spent fuel from Unit 4 in Dec. 2014. The fuel assemblies were intact. So there was no radioactive releases from damaged fuel in the Unit 4’s spent fuel pool, period. This “report” is just worst-case scenario conjecture from 5000 miles away as the disaster was unfolding.

          • Frank Energy

            LOL so they say, why the big cover? coverup visual?

          • Steven Featherstone

            you’re right, frank. for that matter, why not just say there’s an alien space ship inside the reactor building. now go take your pill before the little green men in your head tell you to do something really, really stupid.

          • Frank Energy

            So that is the argument the pro-nukist has been reduced to?

            Talk science, talk bio Concentration Factor. Facts, use facts, and intuition.

            http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/01/radiation-bioaccumulation-in-sea-life.html

          • Atoms4Peace1

            The science is that there was no criticality proven. Science says with a criticality spike, comes about 1e18-1e19 fissions. That is a very large burst of nuclear particles in about a millisecond. You can read all about this type of nuclear event. Oh Borax, yes that. It wasn’t a Borax. Go tell Gundersen to pound sand.

          • Frank Energy

            Yo troll, I am speaking of concentration factors in marine life. Pay attention to the subject at hand.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            You are the one that put forth the theory, and it is a theory (even Gundersen said it was a theory) without proving your theory. You just are not up to my level of knowledge on this subject. As I refuted you time and time again, the physics and nuclear forensics were not there to support your claim. If the forensics isn’t there, then how do you prove your claim?
            The onus is on you by Hitchens Razor since a very large criticality would have been a clear signal to the local workforce the nearest to the source. Two people received 25 rem from recovery operations. That’s not a criticality dose of any magnitude to people very close to the incident.
            Back to concentration factors in marine life. You keep spouting off about chitin. I think you are full of it. Its just not going to explain the fact that marine life fluctuates over the years. You need to look at simple ecology models before spouting off the sea is dying over Fukushima.
            Even experts in Canada and Woods Hole have spoken. Why should we believe your methods (which are very crude, and unproven) to those who make their living doing this sort of activity professionally.
            You really need to take a look at your moniker, you call yourself a “nuke pro” but that is an illusion, and a bold face lie. You have no experience in nuclear as a profession, so your claim as an authority is false. When real people like myself take you to task on your knowledge and methods, you call us “trolls”. That isn’t even the definition of a troll. And you do great harm to the discussion by fanning the fires every time one of us appears on your precious Enenews. If you really want credibility, you would see that site for what it is – a haven for rabid antinukes that are no better than the blind men touching the elephant.
            Five years after Fukushima, there are kids that were in high school at the time, that have now moved on to attend universities all over the world, and learn about nuclear engineering. Some of these kids have bachelors degrees in the subject and are now working on their graduate degrees. When I ask them why they went into nuclear, they say stuff like “Even after Fukushima we will need nuclear for my generation”. That tells me something. It also tells me that people like you who toil and flail in an effort for legitimacy will not be as knowledgeable as they are in this subject, today, 2016.
            In a way I feel bad for you because you claim to be a degreed materials scientist and I work with materials scientists on a daily basis. I often wonder why you would believe what you believe knowing that materials in a ceramic oxide form don’t blow up and aerosol in the atmosphere.
            You claim the prompt moderated criticality occurred outside the reactor, yet the reactor is where the most favorable geometry for criticality would occur. Once the reactor (and structure melted), it would not go critical because the corium is nowhere near the Mass vs Concentration curve (TID-7026) for an optimum shape. Somehow you might think it all levitated into a perfect sphere but we all know that didn’t happen.
            You see Frank, the right education can refute any of your fanciful theories. Rod is only the tip of the iceberg. His expertise is in SMRs, being he is an exNavy nuke. My expertise is in power reactor design and operation, criticality, and accident kinetics. I am well published in these fields. So I know what I am all about.
            You on the other hand, are like Oliver, wanting more, but receiving less.
            Open your mind.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Also, lets look at it logically. If 100% of the actual source term leaves the building, then why is the building being monitored for radiation and furthermore why would the fuel assemblies even need care and feeding because they are gone.
            The 100% is for a very conservative calculation, and not representative of any reality.
            A real nuke pro knows that.

          • Frank Energy

            Of course not 100% left the area, corium is sticky, its a thixotrophic fluid, if you knew anything about materials.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            There was no criticality. Else real professional people like me (not the Nuke Faux) would have been notified.

          • Frank Energy

            It was over in a millisecond,

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Then it wasn’t a criticality. Criticality spikes are 1e-6 to 1e-3 sec.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Actually with the initial spike, the residual energy would have been long lasting in its own right, with a decay about t-^.1.2 over time. Since we didn’t see any power spike with a long tail, then there was no evidence of a nuclear criticality. Plus the steel would have been activated (by secondary photon reaction of neutron capture) and we didn’t see this either. Its very common in a criticality to activate steel, concrete and if it were a criticality then there would be residual thermal imaging in its own right, which also was not observed.
            Everything points to a big H2 explosion as the most plausible and likely explanation.
            You see, this is what happens when a nuclear engineer (Gundersen) with no criticality experience sort of spitballs. You got caught up in hero worship. Its ok, but it doesn’t mean you have to continually dance with the (****) girl you brought to the party. Sooner or later, you will wise up.

          • Frank Energy

            Uh atoms, there was steel that was activated, over 10Sv/H
            The 5 lethal doses on same day at the MPC also confirms
            And yes elevated thermal imagery does exist.

            A real pro, like myself does his homework and pays attention to details

          • Atoms4Peace1

            5 lethal doses? Which 5 died?
            You are not a pro in this field. I refuted that from day 1.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            The steel that was activated was due to reactor fuel neutrons as a matter of simple decay heat fissions. If it were a 1e18-1e19 fission burst, the whole site would have lit up with prompt gamma signatures that any instrument could see. Don’t give me this “no power to the facilty” argument. People had hand-carried battery operated systems which would have pegged on a crit. There is plenty of evidence from past crit accidents to show that. In fact, at a process facility in Tennessee, in 1958, the fission spike from the prompt moderated criticality in a 55 gallon drum was seen by a neutron instrument some 400 ft away in another building and captured on a paper trace. (LA-13638)

          • Frank Energy

            show me the data then….5 took lethal doses, and then the cover up started in earnest. With the complete censoring of the Unit 4 explosion

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Lets go back 5 years to 3/11 when information was sketchy at best. As the fog of war situation lifted, it became clear that 3 reactors had melted. It also became clear that the radiological effects of Fukushima were not the world and humanity killer you and your acolytes make it out to be. To date, zero radiation deaths proven. You can hypothesize anything you want, but still 5 years later, you have yet to definitively prove your case. I think that is the one thing that makes people have more reliance to nuclear. If Fukushima was the absolute worst a Gen 1 vintage nuclear technology can withstand with humanity’s largest earthquake-tsunami combination thrown at it, with the little world wide effect, then your argument really doesn’t have merit. Now with better, more adaptive nuclear technology ready to take its place in the 21st century, you are failing to tag the latest technology with the shortcommings of previous generations. Technology evolves. Even nuclear. You aren’t using anything other than a smart phone right?

          • Marushka France

            sfp 3 empty

          • Leslie Corrice

            It seems you wish to believe in fantasy. Take your ridiculous notions elsewhere. Unit #3 SFP is, was, and will continue to be full of water. Period! Get real. Grow up!!

          • Marushka France

            that’s a quote from the NRC FOIA doc – ET transcript (Executive Team) March 2011
            no fantasy… Is 5’10’ grown up enough?
            good day!

          • Michael Mann

            No, not everybody, someone somewhere had to be right, just not the two people speculating in your e-mail. Jazcko was not even technically competent, he was a political appointee, with no experience. Does it really matter what these two people “agree”? Isn’t what actually happened more important?

          • Marushka France

            That wasn’t an opinion, Michael, that was a quote from the document. It’s only one example.
            There was visual confirmation that sfp 3 was ’empty’ as in ‘gone – no longer exists” — aerial photos, I’d have to double check to be sure Chuck Casto mentioned that, and ‘man on the ground’ visual confirmation, both documented in NRC FOIA docs.

            Bye, Bye Michael.

          • Michael Mann

            No matter who said what.. the pool was not “empty” it did not boil dry and the once used fuel did not melt, those are the facts. Bye Bye

          • Marushka France

            sorry, that was a quote from the document, referring to people at the NRC ‘everybody agreed.’
            Enough now, Michael. Good day. Be seeing you another day.

          • VooDude

            ”The spent fuel pools in Fukushimawere not damaged by the accident. The spent fuel pools of units 1 and 3 do not show any significant change in the measured nuclide ratio compared with the theoretical curve. …. spent fuel pool of unit 4 only very low activities were measured …”

            Jäckel, Bernd S. 2015 “Status of the spent fuel in the reactor buildings of Fukushima Daiichi 1–4.” Nuclear Engineering and Design

            http://djs.si/proc/nene2013/pdf/NENE2013_1203.pdf

            ”…important conclusion was drawn that the Pu isotopes were released from the damaged reactors, but not from the spent fuel pools in the FDNPP.…”

            Zheng, Jian, Keiko Tagami, and Shigeo Uchida 2013. “Release of plutonium isotopes into the environment from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident: what is known and what needs to be known.” Environmental science & technology

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jian_Zheng6/publication/253647254_Release_of_plutonium_isotopes_into_the_environment_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_power_plant_accident_what_is_known_and_what_needs_to_be_known/links/02e7e536ae0b13773c000000.pdf

            ”… the isotopic compositions of the [spent fuel pools] were completely different from those observed in the heavily contaminated forest litter samples (levels of 137Cs ranging from 0.12 to 4.65 MBq/kg), eliminating the possibility of significant release of [fission products] from the [spent fuel pool] sources.”

            Zheng, Jian, et al. 2014 “135Cs/137Cs isotopic ratio as a new tracer of radiocesium released from the Fukushima nuclear accident.” Environmental science & technology

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jian_Zheng6/publication/261996567_135Cs137Cs_isotopic_ratio_as_a_new_tracer_of_radiocesium_released_from_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accident/links/02e7e536ae02d9b198000000.pdf

            ”… The lowest water level in [Unit #4 spent fuel pool], about 1.5 m above the fuel racks, was reached around April 20, 2011. There was no evidence of bulk boiling in any of the pools; measured peak water temperatures ranged from 62 to 92 °C. Eventually, pool water cooling by the alternative cooling system was started for all [spent fuel pools], and the water temperature has thereafter been maintained below 40 °C.”

            ”Overflow water from the pool to the skimmer surge tank was sampled on 22 June and 19 August, and nuclide analysis of the water was conducted. Analysis results are shown in Table 8 [38]. Analysis results are as follows:”

            ”The concentration of caesium in the pool water was about one order of magnitude lower than that of the stagnant water in the building basement. In addition, iodine-131, which is a short-half-life radionuclide (8 days), was detected. It exists very little in the spent fuel stored for a long time.”

            ”Analysis results indicated that detected radioactive nuclides in the pool were likely to have been generated in the reactor during the accident, and that fuel damage in the pool was unlikely.”

            NEA, Nuclear Safety 2015. “Status Report on Spent Fuel Pools under Loss-of-Cooling and Loss-of-Coolant Accident Conditions.”

            http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/46/066/46066604.pdf

          • Marushka France

            read the NRC FOIA docs! first several days.
            No water, No power, no controls or monitors – 11 days = no containment.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            It was definitely a “fog of war” situation the first several days. No one had 100% accurate information. So the FOIA shows the documentation of a US regulatory agency discussions some 10,000 miles away from the accident. Some of these discussions were educated guesses, some were spitballs. In the absence of any definitive information, the source term they used assumed 100% release. Yet a 100% release means nothing is left behind. So we know Unit 4 SFP had 100% of the fuel assemblies still in the pool. So the estimate of the material release, for calculation purposes, assumed the entire SFT inventory is vaporized in a fire. In reality the actual source term may have been 1e-9 that estimated for calculation purposes.
            Nuclear safety calculations are always overly conservative on source term estimates. By source term, I am talking about the amount of curies released.

          • Marushka France

            No power, no containment — 11 days without power! Progression in SECONDS

            Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
            Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 209420, 11 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/209420
            Research Article
            Severe Accident Simulation of the Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Plant

            “Table 1:

            Main sequence of events in a LOCA without cooling effects.

            Time (SECONDS)__Event

            0.0___The reactor operates to power uprate conditions (2027MWt).

            30.0__Loss of external power, loss of coolant in a recirculation loop, closing of the turbine control valves, and trip of the reactor and recirculation pumps.

            34.3__Low level in the reactor vessel (L2), before high pressure occurs in the drywell. The emergency core cooling systems (HPCS* and RCIC*) are active without injecting. Starts closing insolation valves (MSIV*).

            37.4__Low-low level (L1) is reached.40.0Level in the BAF*.

            200.0_Level below the core support plate.

            324.0_Hydrogen generation starts.

            370.0_Maximum temperature at the core surface of 1073K.

            458.0_Core damage stage starts with release of fission products.

            ______Maximum Temperature at the core surface of 1185K.

            936.0_Control rod damage starts

            ______Maximum temperature at control rod of 2136K.

            1800.0_Core damage de 19%.

            3600.0_Core damage of 78%

            .*HPCS: high pressure core spray system; RCIC: reactor core isolation cooling; MISV: main steam insolation valves; BAF: bottom of active fuel.”

          • Marushka France

            BTW I’ve said the document is a model simulation. That’s not the issue with me; I don’t know who here think it’s actual.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            I dont think the NRC had the accurate picture the first couple weeks. Fission products in the air is a sign of a melt of some sorts. It’s not a sign of complete vaporization. There was no uranium or plutonium in the air from Fukushima. There are specific signatures that were not there. Oh the reactors melted sure. But they didn’t explode Ala nuclear. In fact all the fuel assemblies are still in the pools where they started. No water means no criticality. You need water to slow down fast neutrons for a sustained chain reaction in a thermal neutron reactor. If my explanation is too technical for you I’ll dumb it down. A neutron chain reaction is like a population. What was fact is sort of like we’ll established older populations where the population doesn’t change from generation to generation. A nuclear chain reaction leading to a criticality is like India or China’s population.

          • Marushka France

            the reactors were vented! besides having no power, and no control. confirmed both in NRC FOIA docs (USA) and by IRSN agency (France)

          • Atoms4Peace1

            The reactors were not “vented”. The off gas occurred as a result of breaches in piping from the EQ. You cant connect the dots with the NRC FOIA and IRSN documents. You have to have some knowledge of reactor design and operations.

          • Marushka France
          • Marushka France

            “Progression of core damage.

            The overheating in the fuel due to lack of cooling, the decay heat, and the chemical reaction between the zirconium and steam, in about an hour, start to discover the fuel, causing the temperature in the center of the core can reach high values, such as 2000 at 2600°C, so the core begins to melt. With the LOCA scenario, these processes are observed and analyzed in this work.

            The molten material will flow slowly down by gravity effects into the lower regions, and colder of the core region, where it resolidifies and blocks the channels between the fuel rods. By this mechanism, a block of solidified material (basin-shaped) of the core (corium) is formed, which collects the molten material. When a sufficient amount of molten material is collected, it will flow to the bottom of the reactor vessel. After a certain time (greater than 30 minutes), the amount of molten corium has flowed to the bottom of the vessel which may correspond to about two thirds of the fuel material from the core region. The rest of the combustible material overheats more slowly and may take several hours to melt. Finally, if the molten material of the core cannot cool due to the loss of geometric and failure of the cooling systems, the wall of the reactor vessel will fail. If at that time the pressure in the reactor coolant system is low, the corium will flow down the cavity of the container. If the pressure is high, the corium is violently eject and dispersed. The impacts on the containment due to these two scenarios are completely different, but in both cases, the containment can fail early or late or even may remain intact.”

            Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
            Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 209420, 11 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/209420
            Research Article
            Severe Accident Simulation of the Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Plant

          • Marushka France

            NRC and IRSN reported that the Japanese confirmed the units were vented.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/285b0fe134776dce72ddbea7f0a83aad388cfe0e8987c3c63a7c28b8cb038022.jpg

          • Marushka France
          • Atoms4Peace1

            We know all that. Tell me something I don’t know. Tell me the source term values.

          • Marushka France

            according to IRSN, it was comparable to the 60’s atmospheric bomb tests era. There prelimiary assessment dates to 22 March 2011.

            “IRSN publishes assessment of radioactivity released by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Fukushima I) through 22 March 2011”

            http://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/Pages/overview.aspx

          • Atoms4Peace1

            You read it wrong. My colleagues at IRSN disagree with your interpretation.

          • Marushka France

            it’s in their video presentations

          • Marushka France

            They spoke about the atmospheric contamination measured – ‘first pass’ — Champion and Vidal I think.
            Images I have: 500,000 becquerls per kg Cesium 137; 400,000 Bq/kg of Cesium 134. Japanese surface up to 15 mln Bq per sq m Cs137

          • Marushka France

            “Progression of core damage.

            The overheating in the fuel due to lack of cooling, the decay heat, and the chemical reaction between the zirconium and steam, in about an hour, start to discover the fuel, causing the temperature in the center of the core can reach high values, such as 2000 at 2600°C, so the core begins to melt. With the LOCA scenario, these processes are observed and analyzed in this work.

            The molten material will flow slowly down by gravity effects into the lower regions, and colder of the core region, where it resolidifies and blocks the channels between the fuel rods. By this mechanism, a block of solidified material (basin-shaped) of the core (corium) is formed, which collects the molten material. When a sufficient amount of molten material is collected, it will flow to the bottom of the reactor vessel. After a certain time (greater than 30 minutes), the amount of molten corium has flowed to the bottom of the vessel which may correspond to about two thirds of the fuel material from the core region. The rest of the combustible material overheats more slowly and may take several hours to melt. Finally, if the molten material of the core cannot cool due to the loss of geometric and failure of the cooling systems, the wall of the reactor vessel will fail. If at that time the pressure in the reactor coolant system is low, the corium will flow down the cavity of the container. If the pressure is high, the corium is violently eject and dispersed. The impacts on the containment due to these two scenarios are completely different, but in both cases, the containment can fail early or late or even may remain intact.”

            Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
            Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 209420, 11 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/209420
            Research Article
            Severe Accident Simulation of the Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Plant

          • Atoms4Peace1

            That’s all well and good, but it wasn’t 100% released. If ir were there would be no need to staff the site, build the ice wall, use robots. No, it’s not 100%. Furthermore, outside the site boundary, there is more cause for alarm.

          • Marushka France

            It is well known that a major release from accident would leave a sticky, gooey mess all over everything, which it has and which is why even a tiny amount at the Daiichi site is why they have to keep pouring water over it — and the ‘ice wall’ makes no sense at all, robots computer boards melt, it is so radioactive.
            Evidence of it spewing all over every single prefecture in Japan, came from the government. over 1700 km spread apart.
            CBTBO.org tracked it over the entire northern hemisphere by 14 days and into the southern hemisphere within 30 days.
            It’s a hot mess in Japan and it’s a global catastrophe.

          • Marushka France

            I never said it was 100% – that’s just a simulation number – to estimate worst case scenario, possible radiation levels.

          • Marushka France

            Tests have shown that there is considerable nuclear fuel – plutonium – far and wide in Japan post Fukushima. A great deal of Americium 241, indicating decay from plutonium too, as I recall. Greenpeace International had done testing and was alarmed at vast areas being equivalent to what had demanded evacuation post-Chernobyl in the former USSR region.

            Frankly, I question just how much information we have (or have not) been given and how accurate it is. It’s clear the Japanese were hiding a lot, that they withheld actual levels of contamination, falsified readings, claimed stable temperatures when there were no working instruments, no ability to even approach the reactors and fuel pools and no power, therefore, no control rooms.
            For example, spent fuel pool 3 was repeatedly confirmed as empty, as in gone, no longer in existence, and verified by aerial view and from views on the ground. And yet that is not normally ever in the news. How can there be stable temperatures in a fuel pool that no longer exists?
            And clearly 11 days without power does not make for cool and stable nuclear material.

            We cannot make informed decisions when reality is withheld from us.

            “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” ~ John F. Kennedy

          • James Baines

            There is a strong possibility that Michael the ManiacMann, Sam the Gimp Gilman, Atomic Rabbit with a Habit, Arron Oakley the Dopey and the rest of there Troll Crew are advanced NSA/ or Japanese Governmental Chat Bots.

          • Michael Mann

            LOL James (AKA Chronic Pain Coop) is a marijuana dispenser, my profile is open, all my history is easily accessed by clicking on my avatar. I am who I say I am, no bot, no spy.. I do however get annoyed having to respond to FLOBS whose tin foil hats are too tight or have done too many drugs to think straight. I’m just an ex-submariner with over 35 years experience working with nuclear power, who is sick and tired of the campaign to create fear and anxiety which hurts people now and in the future with false allegations that do not fit with my experience and knowledge. ET1 (SS) Mann

          • James Baines

            Send your kids to this High School Michael the Maniac Mann and how us how much you love nuclear power.
            FUKUSHIMA–Highly radioactive soil that should by law be removed by the central government has been left dumped in the corner of a schoolyard here because the construction of a local storage site for waste has been stalled.

            Students at the school were not given an official warning that the radioactive soil was potentially hazardous to their health.

            When a teacher scooped up soil samples at the site and had their radiation levels measured by two nonprofit monitoring entities–one in Fukushima and another in Tokyo–the results showed 27,000-33,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram.

          • Aaron Oakley

            You cant even spell my name correctly, let alone accurately convey information about me. And unlike you, “chronic pain coop”, I post under my real name.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            The reactor vessel itself contained the majority of nuclides. There are 4 barriers from the oxide fuel out to the,steel containment of the General 1 bwr. The fuel pins are barriers as is the fuel assemblies, the reactor, and rcs. The most likely escape path for gaseous fission products would be a breach in the torus.

          • Marushka France
          • Marushka France

            no power, no containment.

            11 days, no power.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Still, the majority of source term contained. Question: if 100% of the fuel is off site as antinukes contend, then why all the people on site? To greet the wayward isotopes as they come back home? Get real.

          • Marushka France

            I agree there is not 100% fuel gone. What blew up and was vented also left behind enough sticky, gooey, radioactive disaster to continue polluting the Pacific for decades, and it needs to be dealt with.
            NRC FOIA docs – they actually physically confirmed that spent fuel pool 3 was gone as in ‘nothing left’ after the explosion, no contained fuel pool.

            I return to what I said before: no power for 11 days, no containment. Without power to run instruments, how could anyone confirm that spent fuel pools that were unapproachable were all ‘stable with consistent temperatures.’?

          • Michael Mann

            The fact that post event inspections found all the fuel in the pools intact is pretty convincing proof. It doesn’t reconfigure itself into complete undamaged fuel assemblies. Anti-nuclear apocalyptic fantasies and conspiracy theories are only able to frighten those who don’t know any better and have trouble with logic and deductive reasoning….

          • Marushka France

            TEPCO inspections — what I recall is that unit 2, no fuel found

            from ET transcripts

          • Michael Mann

            What is your point? So, they had limited information at the time of the event, so what? Haven’t you seen the detailed timeline and accident report? http://hps.org/documents/INPO_Fukushima_Special_Report.pdf

          • Marushka France

            Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

            “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” ~ John F. Kennedy

            I wish more people actually read documents about nuclear, radiation, the catastrophic accidents and safety issues and decided for themselves whether or not it is as safe as some propose. I’ve taken the time to form my own opinions.

            Nuclear is far too dangerous to perpetuate and has been proven to be a detriment to life for many decades. Government – corporate arrangements have cost the taxpayers many millions in construction, making literal weapons of mass destruction that are not at all about peace — they are about power and profit. They are not benign they are lethal, they are bomb factories, they are the destroyers of genetic stability. So I care, I care a lot.

            Life is too precious, too magnificent to allow it to be destroyed by those who seek power and personal profit over truly cost-efficient, safe and actually much less costly – in term of dollars and cents and in terms of health costs and lives.

            “… there is no amount of radiation so small that it has no ill effects at all on anybody. There is actually no such thing as a minimum permissible dose. Perhaps we are talking about only a very small number of individual tragedies – the number of atomic age children with cancer, the new victims of leukemia, the damage to skin tissues here and reproductive systems there – perhaps these are too small to measure with statistics. But they nevertheless loom very large indeed in human and moral terms.

            Radiation, in its simplest terms – figuratively, literally and chemically – is poison. Nuclear explosions in the atmosphere are slowly but progressively poisoning our air, our earth, our water and our food. And it falls, let us remember, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, on all peoples of all lands, regardless of their political ideology, their way of life, their religion or the color of their skin. Beneath this bombardment of radiation which man has created, all men are indeed equal.”
            ~ John F. Kennedy (US President, Jan ’61 – Nov ’63) 1960
            http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/Milwaukee-WI_19600402-Wisconsin-Assoc-of-Student-Councils.aspx

            “… If you pollute when you do know there is no safe dose with respect to causing extra cases of deadly cancers or heritable effects, you are committing premeditated random murder.”
            – John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D. (1918-2007), associate director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1963-1969) — Comments on a Petition for Rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 21, 1994.”

          • Michael Mann

            We must hasten the development of low-cost atomic power. I think we should lead the world in this. By 1967, 1968, 1970, in the Northeast United States, where power rates are nearly double yours, we are going to find atomic power increasingly competitive, and by the end of this century this is going to be a tremendous source. Our experts estimate that half of all electric energy generated in the United States will come from nuclear sources. ~ John F. Kennedy Sept 1963

          • Marushka France

            Now, the cost of nuclear is far greater than solar, wind— and 100% renewable energy is viable and necessary, to combat climate change.
            (but the danger of nuclear hasn’t changed – in fact, we know it’s just as bad as Herman Joseph Muller indicated- 1927 paper, 1946 Nobel – low level radiation damages cell lines, increases genetic INstability, leading to extinction!)

          • Michael Mann

            I doth protest because you are spewing false, misleading information which increases fear and anxiety, which hurts people and society. I dislike misinformation and the consequences of that false information. I care, I care a lot, that’s why I take the time to post. Your inflammatory language is damaging to anyone naïve enough to believe it. Clean, safe nuclear energy has the potential to improve the standard of living while cleaning up the environment and minimizing carbon di-oxide

          • Marushka France

            Oh boy, do I dislike misinformation! I think that anyone that proposes nuclear is safe is spreading very dangerous, false information. Nuclear is lethal, short-term at high dose, and long-term, over generations it destroys the essence of life. It unravels cellular, genetic stability.
            Nuclear is not clean nor safe — it’s a killer of all species — extinction.

            ” When you are talking about constant low radiation exposure, what you are doing is introducing mistakes into the gene-pool. And those mistakes will eventually turn up by killing that line, that cell line, that species line. The amount of damage determines whether this happens in two generations or in seven generations or 10 generations. So what we are doing by introducing more mistakes into the DNA or the gene pool is we are shortening the number of generations that will be viable on the planet. ”

            Dr. Rosalie Bertell 2010 Interview

          • Michael Mann

            Your hyperbole and fantasy do nothing for your credibility, are you trying to tell me I died years ago, but was too stupid to know it? You do realize every human being who ever walked the Earth is exposed to radiation? I shared an enclosed tube with an operating nuclear power plant, for months at a time, where it kept me alive under extreme conditions. I have been working as a qualified radiation worker for over 35 years…Nuclear workers do not have higher incidences of cancer or shorter lifespans. There has been little of the genetic problems from radiation exposure that were predicted. http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr139/pdf/furitsu.pdf

          • Marushka France

            I would never call someone names or try to degrade their intelligence:
            it’s science, not fantasy…. nuclear/radiation destroys cells lines leading to extinction. it’s fact.
            Over millions of years radiation subsided enough to allow for genetic stability and many species arose, including humans. Taking these materials out of the ground (which protected genetic stability in the ground, and destroys genetic stability out of the ground) is causing increases of genetic INstability.

            The damage to our cell lines occurs more in subsequent generations. Global increases in cancers and heart diseases (#1 and #2 causes of death) since the dawn of the Atomic Age, and increases in genetic diseases and in new diseases, has been the subject of United Nations conferences. Rates of cancer among all of us — all people, especially those exposed — keeps increasing. This is what was predicted decades ago and it’s happening. We have to stop poisoning us!

            Better said by expert>>>>

            The Health Effects of Radiation

            “There is no safe threshold”

            John Gofman Interview / Synapse v.38, n.16, 20jun94

            Synapse is a publication of the University of California, San Francisco

            The Health Effects of Radiation:

            “There is no safe threshold”

            – John Gofman Interview / Synapse v.38, n.16, 20jun94

            John William Gofman is professor emeritus of Medical Physics at UC Berkeley, and lecturer for the Department of Medicine, UCSF. While getting As PhD in physics at Berkeley in the 1940s, Gofman proved the slow and fast neutron fissionability of uranium-233. At the request of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Gofman helped produce plutonium (not even a quarter-milligram existed at the time) for the Manhattan Project. He got his MD from UCSF in 1946 (winning the Gold-Headed Cane Award, presented to the senior who most fully personifies a “true physician”) and began his research on coronary heart disease. In 1963 the Atomic Energy Commission asked him to establish a Biomedical Research Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to evaluate the health effects of all types of nuclear radiation. By 1969, however, the AEC and the “radiation community” were downplaying his warnings about the risks of radiation . Gofman returned to full-time teaching at Berkeley, switching to emeritus status in 1973.

            This interview was conducted by Shobhit Arora and Fred Gardner. It began with discussion of a recent item from the Wall St. Journal that read, “The White House was surprised and chagrined — by Energy Secretary O’Leary’s comment about paying compensation to atomic-testing victims. With a super-tight budget, the White House is now scrambling to head off a costly new entitlement.”
            http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Radiation-Threshold-Gofman20jun94.htm

          • Michael Mann

            If you do indeed dislike misinformation, why do you spread it? Compared to the alternatives, nuclear power is safe, or at least safer than coal, oil, explosive natural gas, solar PV, solar thermal, burning wood, burning corn, hydroelectric, wind power…. It has the smallest environmental footprint and produces the most reliable energy.

          • Marushka France

            We both agree – the other person is spreading misinformation.
            So we know where we stand.
            No point in continuing the merry go round. Good day!

          • Marushka France

            We disagree. This is an impasse, surely. Good day, Michael.

          • Michael Mann

            Good day! I for one am glad the initial interpretations and fears of whoever wrote these e-mails was wrong.

          • Marushka France

            Misdirection is your weapon. I get that. Aloha.

          • Marushka France

            _____

          • Michael Mann

            Do you know the difference between a fuel pool and a reactor pressure vessel? How about a containment vessel and a reactor pressure vessel? Maybe your poor understanding of basic terminology is your biggest difficulty. Knowledge is better than fear!

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Incorrect.

          • Marushka France

            great discourse – awesome! nrc foia docs- japanese confirmed it – IRSN confirmed it

          • Marushka France

            i did not contend
            that 100% is off site…. explosions there, vented… it’s a big mess
            what might be left in a fuel pool that went up, I’d have to have the time to consider several factors, none of which I care to do… this is getting to be very old topic bye!

          • Michael Mann

            No spent fuel pool “went up” it just did not happen. Good Day!

          • Marushka France

            Misdirection is your way of combat, isn’t it.
            I never said a spent fuel pool ‘went up’… the 3 reactors were vented.
            Confirmed by Japan, acknowledge by IRSN and published.
            It’s been fun, but you’ll be happy to hear, I’m done playing.
            Aloha

          • Michael Mann

            This wasn’t your comment? “Marushka France Atoms4Peace1 • a day ago
            i did not contend that 100% is off site…. explosions there, vented… it’s a big mess what might be left in a fuel pool that went up, I’d have to have the time to consider several factors, none of which I care to do.” Sorry it had your name attached so I thought you posted it. Cheers.

          • Marushka France

            there’s that misdirection again, you must be a professional .
            I did not contend [these many things listed] [because] [ I do not have the time and don’t wish to.]

          • Michael Mann

            I block and copied your post.. now you claim not to have made.. very strange …You do realize people can click on your avatar and look at your previous posts, don’t you?

          • Michael Mann

            I just post the truth, you don’t have to remember as much, I leave the lying to others.

          • Michael Mann

            What does steel and concrete need power for? Containment is a passive system. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/66170df1b8bec39389a65281b61610a98cf259f5509d1709a01f9e85695fe7d3.jpg

          • Marushka France

            “In the case of severe accidents, where it is anticipated that the safety engineering systems (IS) functions incorrectly, to the extent that the core loses its cooling, the core will be damaged by overheating and release radioactive elements, mainly the primary system reactor.”The overheating in the fuel due to lack of cooling, the decay heat, and the chemical reaction between the zirconium and steam, in about an hour, start to discover the fuel, causing the temperature in the center of the core can reach high values, such as 2000 at 2600°C, so the core begins to melt. With the LOCA scenario, these processes are observed and analyzed in this work.

            “The molten material will flow slowly down by gravity effects into the lower regions, and colder of the core region, where it resolidifies and blocks the channels between the fuel rods. By this mechanism, a block of solidified material (basin-shaped) of the core (corium) is formed, which collects the molten material. When a sufficient amount of molten material is collected, it will flow to the bottom of the reactor vessel. After a certain time (greater than 30 minutes), the amount of molten corium has flowed to the bottom of the vessel which may correspond to about two thirds of the fuel material from the core region. The rest of the combustible material overheats more slowly and may take several hours to melt. Finally, if the molten material of the core cannot cool due to the loss of geometric and failure of the cooling systems, the wall of the reactor vessel will fail. If at that time the pressure in the reactor coolant system is low, the corium will flow down the cavity of the container. If the pressure is high, the corium is violently eject and dispersed. ”

            Loss of Cooling Accident = LOCA
            No power, No cooling, No containment
            http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/209420

            Bon nuit!

          • Michael Mann

            Containment is designed to “contain” the core in such an event.. nothing in your scenario even mentions containment, it only talks about the reactor vessel.. they are two different things. The LOCA described is still inside containment even with no power and no cooling other than natural conduction and convection. Containment is still functional. http://dukenuclear.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/containmen2t1.png

          • Marushka France

            NO power, no containment…. as in ‘violently ejected’
            [– apparently you cut my comment and the link to the research.]
            Laguna Verde> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/stni/2012/209420/

          • Michael Mann

            NO, you misunderstand, apparently you have difficulty understanding the paper you linked. “The primary containment is part of the overall containment system, which provides the capability to reliably limit the release of radioactive materials to the environs subsequent to the occurrence of the postulated Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) so that offsite doses are below the reference values stated in Title 10 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. The design employs the drywell/pressure-suppression features of the BWR/Mark II containment concept “.

          • Marushka France

            timeline is pretty good… mostly ET transcripts tall ones are 16 March 2011 ET transcript.. one with pictures is from IRSN…

            have a group of docs from Office of Public Affairs…. also confirming the venting of reactors… had to to release pressure, but they still exploded because without power and cooling, nuclear heats up super fast, and it builds pressure…
            it was obvious reading the NRC FOIA documents that people like Jaczko and Chuck Casto and Tony Ulysses knew what they were doing, knew the meltdowns and release of materials was inevitable without power.

            Casto said that Fukushima Daiichi was playing out exactly as simulation, Nureg 1150 I think was the title… It’s clear that it’s a sticky, gooey mess, that it was all over buildings, which is why they powerwashed buildings— ‘rubbilized’ materials between units 3 and 4 were bulldozed and buried, they covered it with dirt, areas were covered with steel plates, sometimes also concrete…. all to try to hold down radiation levels for people to move around. But it’s obvious, what with robots frying their circuits, that there’s a lot of nuclear fuel that’s all over the place. The site, Japan, and sent east over Northern Hemisphere, starting with North Pacific. Japanese confirmed that every single prefecture registered fallout — even though most had only one receptacle with which to monitor such accidents — prefectures spread out over 1,700km! And yet, as bad as Japan experienced fallout, estimated to be small compared to the total released.

            Sure, I understand the government and industry wants to contain information and deny what a disaster Daiichi is but the ethics are really obvious to me. Perpetuating nuclear when it is so disastrous and lethal is unacceptable, to put it mildly.

          • Michael Mann

            Not really accurate, you use worst case assumptions at the time, which were shown to be in error. Why would anyone repeat conjecture and estimates from a time where there was little information when more accurate information from post accident analysis is available? Could it be to mislead people? To scare people? When the fear you create is more dangerous than the radiation, you are bordering on criminal. The fear you create is to put it mildly, unacceptable.

          • Michael Mann

            You don’t have even a basic understanding, take some time and study before you post.

          • Michael Mann

            Why do you post the reports from a time when conditions were uncertain? The reports have since been updated with more correct information. Is there some reason you want people to know the estimates at the time were over conservative?

          • Michael Mann

            Didn’t I already reply to this once? Containment is basically a 3.5 foot thick re-enforced concrete structure with a stainless steel liner, designed to contain the aftermath of a design basis accident, without external power.

          • Marushka France

            I realize this is more a ‘damage control’ or ‘damage control of ‘perceived’ untruthful Tepco’ piece more than anything…. but we keep getting closer to openly admitting what’s been obviously true. Loss of Containment due to loss of power for 11 days…. less than 72 hours would have done it or even less. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/02/24/national/tepco-admits-initial-assessments-fukushima-meltdowns-wrong/
            You get paid much for this?

          • Michael Mann

            You know you’ve lost the argument when you post BS “shill gambit” posts when you know already that I am not paid to post. You obviously don’t understand that containment is concrete and steel and does not require power to function. You keep repeating this meme when you know it is false,, what motivation could you possibly have for taking up peoples time with this garbage?

          • James Baines

            If your not paid your stupid, Because you have about 10,000 plus post all over the internet about Fukushima. Google Michael Mann Fukushima and watch google break trying to find all his comments. Or google Michael the Maniac Mann

          • Michael Mann

            Use your commas Coop…

          • Michael Mann

            Where in the article you linked was there anything about containment failing? Is this some sort of misdirection ploy? Link to a story which has nothing to do with your claim and say it corroborates your story? You do know that “containment failure” and “meltdown” are two very different things?

          • Brian

            Right, we can trust TEPCO! Hilarious.

          • greenthinker2012

            Heating up would have zero effect on criticality.
            Boiling the water would reduce criticality.
            You could actually learn some science.
            It would help you look less silly.

          • VooDude

            ”The Takasaki iodine and tellurium detections didn’t happen. It was a data entry error [in an excel spreadsheet] that they corrected in the next report (http://www.cpdnp.jp/pdf/disarmament/CTBT-2015.04.28.pdf). ) Murata patently didn’t bother to follow up or contact anyone in the scientific community about this supposed revelation of renewed fission activity.”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/japantimes/time_has_come_for_an_8216honorable_retreat8217_from_tokyo_2020_over_fukushima/#comment-2344138004

        • greenthinker2012

          No Marushka.

          • Michael Mann

            He just doesn’t get that it did not happen.. When people try to understand the extent of a problem, one of the first things they do is try to calculate the “worst case scenario” if they can mitigate that then it follows they can minimize the effect of any lesser case scenario or even prevent that worst case from actually occurring.

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            Speculative modeling. Though, I think worse source terms were actually used in making calculations….

          • Atoms4Peace1

            They always are that way for calculations. That’s conservative. Yet in this case, it resulted in needless widespread evacuation.

    • anna miller

      Well how do you explain the collapse of the sardine population and other sea life populations? The washing up ashore of dead sea life? This is increasing, not subsiding. There is no known method for stopping the spillage of radiation into the Pacific from Fukushima. It is ongoing, yet people such as yourself continue to remain in a state of denial. Not only that, you attack those who bring Fukushima awareness to the public, something mainstream media has definitely avoided. And WHY would mainstream be avoiding this topic. Because Fukushima, if left alone with no stoppage, is a species extinction level of event. Radiation accumulates in physical systems, death does not come suddenly, although it can, observe the surge in thyroid cancer in Japanese children.

      • David Whitlock

        Fukushima is not the only bad thing that is happening to the ocean. Over fishing is the usual explanation of fishery collapse (and has been documented dozens of times). Sea water already contains ~12,000 Bk of potassium per m^3. Cesium levels need to be a lot higher than they have been measured to become more important than naturally occurring potassium.

        • anna miller

          Over fishing is causing massive die-offs of fish, washing ashore? dead seals, whales, starfish community? complete collapse of sardines? Dead birds en mass on the shores, due to starvation? I think people such as yourself are foolish to continue to believe the mainstream narrative. The continuous flow of radiation into the Pacific for 4 years without ceasing. Here is the latest: NHK World, Dec 9, 2015: Radiation spikes in Fukushima underground ducts
          — The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says levels
          of radioactivity in underground tunnels have sharply risen. Tokyo
          Electric Power Company has detected 482,000 becquerels per liter of
          radioactive cesium in water samples taken from the tunnels on December
          3rd. That’s 4000 times higher than data taken in December last year. The
          samples also contained 500,000 becquerels of a beta-ray-emitting
          substance, up 4,100 times from the same period… They plan to investigate
          what caused the spike in radiation.
          But just keep on telling yourself the “usual explanation”.

          • Leslie Corrice

            Once again, the fictitious radioactive bogeyman is evoked! The oldest phenomena in the universe, with natural concentrations of reactive emissions in concentrations thousands of times greater than Fukushima Cesium, is cavalierly blamed for an assumed calamity! All fiction…

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Considering that 18 grams of water contains 6.02e23 atoms, 500k becqs really isn’t much.

        • Bob_Kerns

          Let’s not forget that there was a massive tsunami, that disrupted the environment near the shore, as well as the estuaries where fish breed.

        • Frank Energy

          Ah the old “banana lie”

          • greenthinker2012

            Ah the old “FrankEnergy” lie.

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            Ah, the old man made radiation is harmful but natural radiation is not harmful lie…

            It its natural, it cant be harmful, right?

        • VooDude

          Considering 11,000 mBq/litre of 40K, and 2000 mBq/l 210Po, and “generously” saying that 30mBq/litre has been detected in the upper layers of the North Pacific between the International Date Line and the west coast of North America … that is roughly ¼% increase of the normal radioactivity of the ocean – and only in the top 500m. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30f9245b07e8ac1727a0ac0a0ece2088e19699402c4ef1563f1b2129546ebc4f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/acf7aba186a8f0904037936388de8e7e998c479db308cb7be5991b4b6e250d11.jpg

          The radiocaesium from the atomic bomb tests of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s has not yet reached the 1000m zone. So the Fukushima stuff is much shallower than that.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8991eaaae77b80ab0c1989831a06db565a814491fa12af13b1954b6882ece631.jpg

        • Atoms4Peace1

          Im operating under the premise that Fukushima was not a good thing nor a bad thing. People running around in little dingys and calling for the murder of nuclear scientists are the bad thing that resulted. Mass hysteria from a YouTube generation.

      • greenthinker2012

        I would guess that sea life is suffering because of climate change and warming waters and ocean acidification caused by fossil fuel burning.
        It is tragic that you oppose one of our best tools to stop the climate change that is causing this havoc.

      • Chelsei Bradbury

        MSM is avoiding linking the ocean problems to Fukushima for the simple reason that there is no link.

        Fukushima had no impact on these events, and you cant get one credible scientist to say it did.

        • anna miller

          The reason the corporate control mainstream media does not report on the ongoing leakage of radiation into the ocean and atmosphere is the same reason Obama raised the safe radiation levels in the soil and atmosphere in 2013, and the same reason the US controlled country of Japan placed a gag-order on all Japanese journalists from reporting on Fukushima, in 2013.

          And this is most likely why corporate mainstream media did not report the ongoing Alsio Canyon CA. methane leak,for 2 solid months. You know, the gas well that had not been inspected since 1976, and had its safety valve removed and never replaced since 1979?
          And we are supposed to trust the government, makes me wonder about the safety inspections of nuclear energy plants. Ummm. Fukushima and its faulty construction…wonder how many other similar faulty or aging constructions are out there….

          I honestly don’t know how people such as yourself can sleep at night.Maybe you made a lucrative living on the nuclear industry, or know someone who does. But karma is real. Ignorance is no excuse. Your behavior is on your soul. You might think you are right. But thinking you are right has nothing to do with the truth. You could be paid for your efforts to spead disinformation. It really makes no difference why you continue to pursue this back and forth effort to convince me or perhaps others who might read this far. The bottom line is that nuclear energy is not cost-effective, highly dangerous to biological life, andthere is no known safe method for storing radioactive waste, which is gathering daily. Renewable energies are expanding in many countries and will continue to expand further. And renewable energies would greatly expand exponentially if not for the likes of pathologically greedy energy corporations such as the nuclear energy magnates and their paid shills.

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            I sleep quite well, at night, thank you, because I know that the science and the data do not support your fearmongering lies.

            No one is trying to convince YOU, because you have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in the truth. You are a true believer, you have faith, and as we all know faith beats information, education, and reason every time.

            No, the corporate media doesn’t want to report on your lies because intelligent people can easily see through them, and the media doesn’t want to appear stupid. (Something you apparently don’t have a problem with.)

            (And the pact that you repeat the lie about “Obama raised the safe radiation levels” is really funny to those of us who know better…)

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            I sleep quite well, at night, thank you, because I know that the
            science and the data do not support your fearmongering lies. Fortunately
            for all of us, you have no proof to back up your absurd fantasies. They just don’t how up to scrutiny.

            No one is trying to convince YOU, because you have shown repeatedly that
            you have no interest in the truth. You are a true believer, you have
            faith, and as we all know faith beats information, education, and reason
            every time.

            No, the corporate media doesn’t want to report on
            your lies because intelligent people can easily see through them, and
            the media doesn’t want to appear stupid. (Something you apparently don’t
            have a problem with.)

            (And the pact that you repeat the lie about
            “Obama raised the safe radiation levels” is really funny to those of us
            who know better…)

          • anna miller

            “EPA Relaxes Public Health Guidelines For Radiological Attacks, Accidents”

            and by the way, I got this link from Forbes Magazine, can’t get much more into corporate media than Forbes. April 9, 2013

            “After years of internal deliberation and controversy, the Obama
            administration has issued a document suggesting that when dealing with
            the aftermath of an accident or attack involving radioactive materials,
            public health guidelines can be made thousands of times less stringent
            than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would normally allow.

            The EPA document, called a protective action guide for radiological incidents, (ie Fukushima/WIPP etc) was quietly posted on a page on the agency’s website Friday evening. The White House had
            privately agreed to back relaxed radiological cleanup standards in
            certain circumstances and had cleared the path for the new EPA guide.

            http://www.nextgov.com/health/2013/04/epa-relaxes-public-health-guidelines-radiological-attacks-accidents/62381/?oref=ng-dropdown

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            So? That’s talking about minor changed to short term limits after a radiological accident. It’s not a change in the general limits, though I can certainly understand how it may be misunderstood by those not really well versed with the facts

            EPA has not changed any non emergency limits, and the limits that have been changed are serving to limited emergency situations.

            BTW, those minor changes were in the works well before 2011.

            I really appreciate the was the farmers have spun it though. Great job of misleading the public on that one!

          • Atoms4Peace1

            The EPA Guide as written was grossly overly conservative and caused more risk than benefit. Everything is weighed as risk-benefit. You enjoy the modern technology and creature comforts it brings. Tell that to a Third World child who resorts to defecating in his own drinking water. No wonder that part of the world is wanting to go nuclear. You see, human beings will continue to grow in population, as will their need for electricity and the benefits of modern society that nuclear brings to millions. You going to deny them their destiny of happiness by mandating they get their energy from wind and solar? Might as well throw in biomass or power plants that run from the feces collected from their water supply (the nearest river).

          • James Baines

            All of you people who claim that there was no disaster in Japan. Please do us a favor and send your kids to this high school for a year and have them test out your theories. BTW cesium was measured in the soil at 32,000 bequerels per Kilogram.

            FUKUSHIMA–Highly radioactive soil that should by law be removed by the central government has been left dumped in the corner of a schoolyard here because the construction of a local storage site for waste has been stalled.

            Students at the school were not given an official warning that the radioactive soil was potentially hazardous to their health.

            When a teacher scooped up soil samples at the site and had their radiation levels measured by two nonprofit monitoring entities–one in Fukushima and another in Tokyo–the results showed 27,000-33,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram.

            http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201606150009.html

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            What? Are you so hard up for something to do that you have to make up shit to argue about? No one is saying that there was no disaster in Japan.

            Twenty thousand people got killed by a tsunami and 3 reactors melted down.

            Thousands of people in communities within 30km of the plant were evacuated, lost their homes, and many will probably never return.

            That is not a theory.

            No one disputes those facts.

          • Frank Energy
          • anna miller

            Thanks Frank! It just boggles my mind how so many can ignore the obvious.
            I am familiar with enenews, it is a very good site. I did not know of nukeprofessional blog, thanks for the tip!

          • Frank Energy

            Indeed, we have been abusing the oceans for decades, but Fukushima was the last straw….check this one out, 61 pages showing the decline of the Pacific since Fukushima

            http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/09/61-pages-of-stories-of-death-of-pacific.html

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            Total bullshit, Frank. There is absolutely no evidence that Fukushima is responsible for the Pacific’s problems, and repeating that lie just distracts from the real issues.

          • anna miller

            Thanks Frank, will read this for sure.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            enenews is awful. It rots your brain. Don’t go there if you want to be objective.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Enenews (the Ratfarm) for antinuclear hysterics is hardly anything worth noting. People there are pretty much on the fringe and make up their own brand of science. Stock, G, others, all hacks.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Nuke Faux is pretty much a hack site. The author resorts to crude overly simplistic Excel spreadsheet methods and misses the mark by many orders of magnitude. And when he rolls out his numbers, he claims a million chickens will die at the WIPP boundary. Good thing he really isn’t in any professional position of any importance in nuclear.

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            I sleep very well knowing that the anti-nuclear scaremongering bullshit you spew is mostly lies.

        • Frank Energy

          BS, 14 BQ/M3 bioaccumulates in fishes to around 14 Bq/kG dry weight. But that calculation is spread through the whole body, so that could easily be 100 Bq/kG in organs such as the heart, liver.

          So yeah, it is a big thing. And one reason Kenny Buessler isn’t finding much radiation in the water, is that the plants and animals are filtering it out.

          Its like taking a billy club and giving a good solid hit to every critter and plant in the ocean. That hit won’t kill many directly, but what of the effect on the overall health of the ocean? We are seeing the results, a massive die off in the Pacific.

          Here is how the Concentration Factor works.

          http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/01/radiation-bioaccumulation-in-sea-life.html

          • Chelsei Bradbury

            Damn. Now I have to eliminate those fried baby harp seal hearts from my diet.

          • Frank Energy

            Nicely played

          • Atoms4Peace1

            You are incorrect. You need to run Argonne’s RESRAD program and not rely on crude Excel spread sheet analysis. Its a dynamic time dependent, coupled ODE (and PDE for spatial effects) phenomena that clearly your spitballing numbers just don’t hold up. Oh a million chickens at WIPP cant be wrong.

          • Frank Energy

            troll, you need to pay attention to detail.

            Conca himself admitted that “they got stuff in WIPP way hotter than anything at Hanford, up to 7 Curies per liter. I caught him bragging on a pro nuke blog (Rod Adams).

            7 Curies is quite a bit….enough to bring 1 Billion Chickens up to illegal levels.

            1Billion, pay attention to details.

            http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-radiation-still-to-go-into-wipp-can.html

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Yes they got stuff at WIPP on the INSIDE way hotter, but on the outside, at the plant boundary, it was benign. You need to understand that a million chickens wont die at the boundary from 1 rem exposure. The rem is for humans not chickens as you falsely put forth. So who needs to pay attention to detail?
            TMI released 10 Curies. That’s a lot. WIPP didn’t release squat. A billion chickens are not underground at WIPP.
            I pay attention to details. Underground vs the plant boundary is a very big detail. Apparently you do not pay attention to details. Else you would have understood that Conca was not talking about the plant boundary above ground.

          • Frank Energy

            I am exposing the lie about what claimed low level radiation is…..very high level.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Frank, you’ve been tooting this horn for 5 years with no avail. Its not working.

            http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/ni2050/

            Nuclear will be with us in 2050 and beyond. I probably wont be here but my efforts and legacy will be here.

      • Atoms4Peace1

        There are many explanations for the changes in marine life. Ecosystems are largely prey-predator and food chain driven. You haven’t proven it from Fukushima and the onus is on you by Hitchens Razor to prove your case, not to just put out a hypothesis without scientific evidence removing all other possibilities. Its highly remote Fukushima had anything to do with any ecosystem change, since the total radiation contribution from Fukushima was about 0.0001% of the total ocean natural radiation.
        That’s like you saying “I am a million dollars in debt, and you give me a dollar. So how does one dollar change my debt in the grand scheme of things?”

    • Joey Mango

      So, a critical question: how many cows do you think are grazing in Alaska in March?

      (Milk is the primary exposure pathway for I131, which is what they were reporting…)

      • David Whitlock

        Pretty sure there isn’t much grazing in March in Alaska, plants aren’t going to be growing then.

        Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days. It doesn’t get warm enough until June, then that is ~3 months before cows would be grazing. Typical dairy practice would be to be feeding them on stored feed, silage, hay or haylage. If it is 12 weeks before the cows hit the range, that is a reduction in I-31 by a factor of ~1500.

        Any decent model of exposure to radioactivity would take growing seasons and farm practices into account.

      • VooDude

        There isn’t any … well, there is very, very little 131Iodine in the spent fuel.
        131I has a half-life of 8 days … Unit #4 shut down, 2010Nov29, about 4 months before the quake … had the #4 rods totally vented (which did not happen) the 131I would be 99.997% gone … but none of the fission products encased in the fuel rods of #4 were released. None.

        • Chelsei Bradbury

          Well, sure if you are talking only about the fuel in the spent fuel pools. No radioiodine there. But they were also assuming that one recently operating reactor (Unit 2) had melted down.

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      In the US, the fearmonger-fed panic has caused more harm to the population that the radiation from Fukushima ever will. Not only by increased stress levels (which have led to at least one suicide), but also by uneducated and ignorant people overdosing on things like potassium iodide they think are necessary to protect them from imaginary clouds of massive radiation.

      In Japan, its far worse – more stress with people dying due to unnecessary evacuation of population and (more important) hospital patients, unwarranted fears of contaminated food supply, reports of increased thyroid cancers in their children (primarily as a result of improved and increased monitoring for thyroid cancers).

      Of course the US, in setting an arbitrary 50 mile evacuation limit for AMCITS (separate from the GOJ protective actions out to 30km), did not to help the situation. (The Japanese government has themselves to blame on that one; had they given US the information on plant conditions, the NRC recommendations would have been much different and more in-line with their own protective actions.

  • Sam Di Gangi

    If anyone on this site see’s this, please reply. HOW MANY of you know about the cancer in sharks now and WHY that matters so VERY much? ANYONE? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxLIRSmffic

  • basho

    Living easy, living free

    Season ticket on a one-way ride

    Asking nothing, leave me be

    Taking everything in my stride

    Don’t need reason, don’t need rhyme

    Ain’t nothing I’d rather do

    Going down, party time

    My friends are gonna be there too, yeah

    I’m on the highway to hell

    on the highway to hell

    highway to hell

    I’m on the highway to hell

    Read more: AC/DC – Highway To Hell Lyrics | MetroLyrics

  • Greg Burton

    And the real news will be: if we are ever told how all those spent fuel rods ended up being moved and stored in Units #3, and #4.

    Meanwhile, the lack of US and international response, the suppression of the Japanese people by its corrupt leadership indicates that the eventual undeniable poisoning of our planet was planned, before and after, the HAARP/Stuxnet earthquake and tsunami March 11, 2011.

    What did Rahm Emanuel say? “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

    Fukushima helps depopulate the planet, fulfilling the Club of Rome’s, Agenda 21 societal control. It destroys the Buddhist based, homogeneous Japanese culture that would resist the Satanic oligarchy’s Luciferian doctrines. Destroys Japanese innovation and independence. It will create the crisis needed to depopulate Christian America’s west coast, help reorganize the United States into more controllable FEMA zones; and when the entirety of the diffusable radioactive particles from the spent rods have dispersed, it will still leave Mackinder’s central Asia heartland most unaffected.

    • diogenes

      Maybe this is true and maybe it’s fantasy, but we KNOW AS A FACT that the officers and staff of the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, located at the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and their bureaucratic and executive superiors are TRAITORS AGAINST EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN OF PLANET EARTH LIVING AND UNBORN.

      • Marushka France

        They are researchers, they didn’t write this document, this is a submission TO the NARAC that IF these things are true, what would be the result in our atmosphere.
        This is the question posed to NARAC

      • Leslie Corrice

        The traitors are those that believe this antinuclear rubbish.

        • On the topic of radiation hysteria, if you haven’t seen this document before, I think you will find it of interest: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf

          At the end, note the credentials of author Zbigniew Jaworowski, (M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.), and the extensive list of references.

        • Nancy Ryer

          Rubbish? The truth will always be truth. You cant kill an idea. No matter who you hire to confuse the massive sheep population. Step off! Seriously?

          • Leslie Corrice

            Ever heard of the Hiroshima Syndrome?

          • Atoms4Peace1

            You believe nuclear is killing the planet? Show your inconclusive evidence. Hitchens Razor.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            You still have to prove your idea as valid before it can be truth. You say the earth is flat. I say prove it. I have scientific evidence to the contrary.

      • Atoms4Peace1

        Why are they what you say they are? They have done nothing wrong. Just because you disagree with them doesnt mean they are guilty of wrong doing. Were you reincarnated from the McCarthy era? Or were you born a little girl during the Salem Witch trials. I read sonething interesting about delusional psychology. People with black/white thinking are more prone to believe extreme ideology. Frankly, there just is no incontrovertable evidence to dismiss their educated expertise. NARAC is highly technical, highly specialized. To work there you have to be extremely knowledgeable and without bias. How can they be traitors to themselves, because they live here too. Your reply shows a very strong reason for science education not science fiction. Antinuclear propaganda has had a tight grip on your core being. Its a sad indictment of a Liberal extremism. You probably follow all the causes with such zeal and intolerance.

        I can be that way too. I’m a Catholic whore currently enjoying congress with my black jewish boyfriend who works at the military abortion clinic. So hail Satan and have a lovely afterboon madam.

    • Leslie Corrice

      Wow! Abject, groundless conspiracy theory abounds.

      • Wow and double-wow!

        I stumbled onto this conspiratorial website following another link, and am now having to pour a gallon of hydrogen peroxide into my ear to disinfect my brain from this radiophobic fantasist rubbish. Some of these loons not only belong on a no-fly list, but on a no-Internet list, to protect the general sanity of the population from their ravings. (I’m sure y’all will self-identify in a few minutes – will be easier to tattoo you for the FEMA camps that way, thanks!)

        *waits for tinfoil eruption*

        • Nancy Ryer

          Idiot! Why do you think the US and Canada raised the acceptable limits and then shut up entirely. Are you ignorant? Seems common sense isnt common anymore. SMH

          • anna miller

            Common sense seems to be gradually deserted in exchange for finding sanction within the herd of sheep.

          • Leslie Corrice

            Common sense? You vomit propaganda and call it common sense. Deplorable. These things only happened in the warped minds of antinuclear zealots.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Back to the ratfarm.

        • anna miller

          Take your ignorant mass media believing ass on out of here then. Oh no, there have never been any conspiracies. Et tu Brute? Or if there were, they happened in those other times, long past, when humans were less educated. People like you are either trolls come to disrupt free exchange of info, or freaking mind-controlled pseudo intellectuals, parroting what you have absorbed from mass consciousness, not one single original thought in their minds. But I can always spot a troll, due to their immature use of ad-hominem attacks on information too threatening for their fragile egos, or the dime they receive for being total assholes.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Nuclear proponents are not trolls. By your very definition people with a differing opinion have a right to share their knowledge and experience. If this were the Middle Ages and people were talking about modern medicine being of the devil yada, then I, as a surgeon, have the right to call them out.

          • anna miller

            Quite the contrary, I responded to the arrogant comment of “Atomikrabbit”. But since you, Atoms4Peace1, have decided to weigh in with yet another attempt to establish arrogant superiority by claiming to be a surgeon, let us analyze your comment.

            To compare legitimate concerns over nuclear energy, with the religious community distrusting practicing physicians of the Middle Ages, is illogical.

            Weren’t practicing physicians of the Middle Ages bleeding people to death in order to cure them? Likewise is it not probable that medicine of today is likely to be perceived in the future as primitive? Thyroid cancer is linked with radiation exposure. In fact, it is the most rapidly
            increasing cancer diagnosis in the United States. A new University of California, Los Angeles study has found that in
            parts of California the rate of thyroid cancer patients with an advanced
            stage of the disease is well above the national average, prompting
            research into possible links to radiation.

            We didn’t learn our lesson from 3 Mile Island, nor Chernobyl, and now we have the ongoing spillage of radiation into the Pacific Ocean. And there is no known method for control. And by the way, do some research into the formation of the AMA, especially “Dr.” Fishbein.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            I never claimed to be a surgeon. I used the analogy of the education, skill, and training a surgeon goes through to make him/her an expert at what they do. So in nuclear science and engineering, I have about the same level of education, skill, training, and experience in my field as a surgeon has in his/her field. So you don’t tell him/her that their technology/techniques is fubar until your lips swell the size of grapefruits from your latest botox injection right? Sure its your right to complain about stuff and demand perfection however in the latter, it never occurs. We just don’t live in a world of zero defects. That being the case, the issue is consequence mitigation and real facts.
            Nuclear has been vilified because of the way the technology was introduced to society. It did end WWII. That saved lives. We lived in constant worry of being nuked by the Soviet Union and China etc. Then Vietnam came along and society said enough. Watergate forged our distrust in government and the walls came tumbling down. Nuclear was seen as a solution to the oil crisis and I remember those long gas lines in the 70s. Yet nuclear was on the way out when Carter became president because he nixed “reprocessing” or recycling and the used nuclear fuel, only 5% used, had to be stored somewhere. When Nixon was president, he agreed to stop the MSR project at ORNL which really didn’t agree with the AEC and US Navy paradigm of light water reactors.
            When TMI hit, it was too little too late. Society didn’t have the proper knowledge of nuclear only fear. People like Sternglass and Gofman were the Chicken Littles of their day, moving their arguments from banning above ground testing to nuclear power. Then the post TMI regulatory racheting occurred while interest rates went sky high. The capital costs of nuclear didn’t have a chance. That’s the situation we faced yet all the while we burned a lot of coal and oil. Antinukes like yourself were active replacing planned and constructed nuclear plants like Zimmer Ohio with more fossil to pollute the air. All the while, the existing fleet of nuclear kept plugging along quietly.
            When you say something like “thyroid cancer has been linked to radiation exposure” you have to be careful since we are all exposed to radiation as a matter of living on this planet and you have to then quantify how much radiation would it take for a cancer to manifest. The courts have been very lenient in compensation cases, but compensation does not equal to causation.
            The accident at Three Mile Island killed no one and there was no conclusive evidence some 4 decades later of any cancer clusters. People went to work at TMI-1 next to the crippled Unit 2 for the past 40 years and the cancer rates of that work force was no larger than the cancer rates of any large population, say Walmart employees or any other workplace. So your argument of TMI being some doom and gloom situation was just not founded in fact. Chernobyl was a Soviet style design which was a Cold War relic and improperly designed and operated. You are arguing once again by association which is not logical. Mercedes Benz doesn’t rely on the sales of the Yugo, which is now out of business, yet every year many more people die in these “safe cars”.
            The medical community is the largest user of industrial radiation sources. You should know that. They also generate the most radwaste by volume. And where is the outrage by PSR? No where. Because they know they don’t bite the hand that feeds them.

          • anna miller

            Half of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors are over 30 years old,
            according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Most of the
            remaining reactors are at least 20 years old.

            Originally granted licenses to operate for 40 years, most of the country’s
            reactors have applied for a 20-year extension. Sixty-two extensions have
            been granted so far, and 20 are still pending, according to the industry
            group the Nuclear Energy Institute. . The US has 75,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste—spent reactor
            fuel and the byproducts of processing it—that now sit in pools or dry
            casks at nuclear power plants, facilities never intended for long-term
            storage. The risk of leaks is high. Because the stuff stays radioactive
            for millennia.

            A yearlong investigation by government scientists has concluded that a
            major accident at a nuclear waste dump was caused by the wrong brand
            of….cat litter.

            The U.S. Department of Energy has released a 277-page report into an explosion that occurred on Feb. 14, 2014, at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. According to a summary of the report, the incident occurred when a single drum of nuclear waste, burst open. WIPP has come under intense scrutiny since the accident for what critics say was a lax culture of safety and oversight. (similar to Chernobyl-radiation-not a good substance when the inevitable human error is taken into account)

            In May of 2014, wildfires came very close to the San Onofre nuclear power plant, prompting evacuations. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation produced nearly all of the plutonium
            that went into the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. Then, it
            was decommissioned. Now, it is the site of the largest environmental
            cleanup project in the country.

            Fifty-six million gallons of radioactive waste sit in 177 steel tanks
            buried underground. The waste ranges from soupy to sludgy, and it has
            the unfortunate habit of leaking out of the aging tanks into the
            groundwater.
            And please do further research into WW2 and the propaganda (written by the winners) that we “had to” drop 2 atomic bombs on civilians, in order to “end the war”. Now who was responsible for starting the cold war?

            Quite ironic, and perfect justice, that the radiation spilling 300 tons-plus of radiation into the Pacific 24/7, is now flowing over to the country causing cancer in the people who dropped radiation blasts on Japan. There is NO known method of stopping or controlling this ongoing disaster. The efforts are almost comical, freezing the ground, building an ice wall. That is why there was NO mention of Fukushima at COP21. The mass media completely ignores the situation. But if the lastest figures on the increase of thyroid cancers et al continues or increases, how long can it be ignored? And there is a massive die-off of marine life on the CA coast. Are we next? Radiation accumulates in the food chain.

            And finally, there is a difference between naturally occurring radiation, and atoms that are manipulated by man.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Wow where do I start. It would appear you cut and paste your response from the standard antinuclear playbook.
            Lets start from the last sentence, which really shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of nuclear reactions at an organic level. By organic I mean its deeply rooted in your core being of a skewed misrepresentation of physics. Nuclear reactions are innate in nature. Every reaction type that occurs in a nuclear reactor occurs in nature. Fission occurs in nature through spontaneous fission, neutron induced fission, and cosmic ray muon induced fission. Neutron capture in natural uranium that produces plutonium in reactors also occurs in nature. Many reactions in nature give off the same characteristic energy and particles as in reactors. The KAPL Chart of the Nuclides will show this. The sheer massive amout of uranium and thorium in the earth has yet to be mined. We really dont know the number of atoms reacting in nature but it is many many times larger than the amount of material man has utilized. Nuclear reactions result in energy deposition. The amount of energy deposited depends on the reactions. Fission produces about 200 MeV whether it is in a reactor or in nature. It is immutable. The K40 decay in our own bones releases a 1 MeV gamma ray. That gamma ray hits our cells and deposits energy in our cells. It is very faint and our bodies have evolved over generations to handle it. K40 in nature or K40 in our bodies is still K40. There is no “natural brand” or man made brand. Its the same nuclear reaction. Nuclear reactions are universal.

            Now with respect to your “gallons of radioactive water” comnent. Radioactivity is not measured ib units of gallons. If one radioactive atom is contained in millions of gallons of water would you not call it radioactive? Afterall, there is natural radioactivity in water as well. What you and other antinuclear types fail to grasp is the radioactivity in that water is about 0.0001% of the radioactivity in the ocean already from natural and cold war testing. Most from natural. There is a vast amount of natural uranium in seawater and we agree that uranium whether in nature or reactors exhibits the same physics. So when natural uranium fissuons in the ocean as well it will produce the same distribution of fission products.

            Man didnt invent fission or isotopes or radiation or radioactivity. You would know this if you studied nuclear reactions in great detail and the physics of these reactions as I have.

            You made wide sweepibg general statements such as radiation xauses cancer yet you offer no concrete evidence that low low levels of radiation have resulted ib defibitive cancers. Raduoactive material and radiatiion ib very large quantities over a short time is deadky. This is why there is an entire discipline of radiation protection. You see this blithely when you get a dental xray. Yet somehow you give this a free pass which gives you more radiant energy deposited ib your cells than any iperating nuclear plants.

            Mankinds efforts to harbess and utilize tge atom has scared a great many people. They fear what they dont understand. Every comnent you made substantiates that you are very afraid of some nuclear technology yet give others and even nature a frer pass

            As for what you call nulkear waste, again looking at tgese reactions holistically one can see that 95% of used fuel goes unused. Thus it makes sense to recycle, not reprocess this unused material. You would not want to bury gold so why bury actinides when you can recover 200 MeV per fission from every atom as well.

            You can surmise from my reply I have left explaining any business model to those that are more adept at business than I. Airline pilots really just like to fly. I am steeped in the technology. No business pays me for posting here. I hope you come away with a more enlightened view of our naturalky radioactive eorld and what radioactivity means. There is no difference in radioactive processes. Man makes oxygen in chemical processing plants. Its still oxygen, with atomic number 8. Man makes nuclear energy in reactors. Its the same fission process in nature just at a higher concentration in one location. Uranium is still uranium. There is no difference in the nuclear reactions that occur in reactors than in nature.

            Nuclear reactions should not be under indictment. For to indict these reactions would indict nature itself. Further it denies our very real radioactive nature as well.

            You have somehow relied on some other physics which is not accurate. This has clouded your perception of both the natural world and nans efforts to utilize nature and these reactions for the greater good.

            All antinuclear efforts have done is produce more fossil in the world that has caused real harm to mankind, as opposed to very little real impact in the world.

            Antinuclearism is a fear and smear campaign whose outlived its usefulness. When you study its origins and evolution its very clear that there will always be a segment of our society that distrusts structure, order, authority, centralization. This segment of our population is not ibterested in learning and even a holistic approach. They are irrational, fear driven, “against” by nature. Even the use of “anti” carries an opposition and negative mindset.

            I am an environmentalist and every bit of my core being says nuclear technoligy priperly conducted can heal the environment.

            Silent Spring, Soft energy paths, these books twisted facts to smear nuclear into something it is not. Antinuclear types bought ibto it hook line and sinker.

            Just ask yourself one question – is your life directed to moving mankind forward? I believe my life and life work is in fact doing that. Only I am qualified to answer that question for myself. My children live in a safer world because of my efforts. I sleep very well at night.

            Tell me how antinuclear efforts are going to help the Third World where people still live in ubder cobditions where they are texting from their smart phones as well. Yet they are standing in disease ibfested river water defecating and uribating as people downstream collect tgat same water to take back to tgeir homes. That is what antinuclearism has to offer. A world where suffering disease and misery reigns supreme. This is a reality not some academic exercise of doom and gloom scenarios.

          • anna miller

            All the examples you listed, are happening NATURALLY. They are NOT the results of MANIPULATION. As the situation in Fukushima continues to worsen, and the results become even more tangible, then people such as yourself will be forced to acknowledge the truth. It is a very sad fact, that humans with their egos, will hold on to their BELIEFS, to the bitter end. Using the plea for help in the undeveloped regions of the world, is illogical. It is like saying, nuclear energy is dangerous, and we have no known method for long-term storage or containment, but it will give you electricity to find a bathroom.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            I think anything can be dangerous and your ranking is skewed by ideology and belief and not fact. If Fukushima added an additional 0.0001% radioactivity then why are you quibbling. Sv is SI unit of rem and all radiation is normalized to human effects regardless of organ and energy deposition. Your reply suggests you make generalization of what is dangerous without defining the level at which its dangerous. Adding a 0.0001% to an existing amount isnt dangerous.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Your bathroom is more dangerous than working at a nuclear plant. Statistically speaking.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Excusr me. Fission reactions similar to those reactions in man made machines have also occured in the earth. Refer to Okl .

            Fukushima added an additional 0.0001% radioactivity to the environment – same radiation – gamma from fission products.

            This is the same as if you had a million dollar debt and added one dollar to that debt.

            A little perspective for you so you can see the light.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Plants can last 80+ years. Youre just a dumb broad antinuke. Shave those pits too.

          • anna miller

            When all else fails, resort to derogatory language.
            Your assessment of me is so far off, it is truly laughable. So thanks for the laughs. Wow what a surprise, the pro-nuclear scientists now say aging nuclear plants can last 80 even 100 years before becoming so brittle from radiation, they are hopelessly flawed. It reminds me of the response to Fukushima, raise the “safe” levels for exposure to radiation.:

            A nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90;
            A 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and
            An almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63.
            Is this why thyroid cancer is now the fastest growing diagnosis in US?
            more to come, perhaps? But I guess, too many people in the world, they should just die, and decrease the surplus population, eh Dr. Strangelove?

            And we better hope the grid never goes down past 8 hours, near a plant.
            Long before the nuclear emergency in Japan, U.S. regulators knew that a
            power failure lasting for days at an American nuclear plant, whatever
            the cause, could lead to radiation melt-down. Even so, they have only
            required the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors to develop plans for dealing
            with much shorter blackouts on the assumption that power would be
            restored quickly.

            http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/09/15/indias_nuclear_nightmare_the_village_of_birth_defects.html

          • anna miller

            How much does it cost to run and repair these aging plants? Are they cost-effective? There are now 19 power plants undergoing decommissioning in the US, due to cost.
            I am neither dumb nor have hairy arm pits, you just get sore when someone disagrees with you. It’s OK, it happens to us all from time to time.
            Merry Christmas and take care.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Their economics are driven by really cheap natural gas a day no credit for zero carbon emissions.

          • Leslie Corrice

            And, there are 99 nukes producing clean, non-polluting electricity around-the clock. Grow up and learn the truth.

          • anna miller

            Scientific reasons why nuclear energy is impracticable for further use.
            http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
            “Grow up and learn the truth”.
            Please refrain from using derogatory language. It is a thinly-veiled attempt at establishing the upper hand, in a free exchange of information. It indicates an immature mind. The existing radiation level numbers are high in our nation, even after the US gov. raised the safety level for radiation exposure. Associated Press, Dec 15, 2015 (emphasis added): Fukushima decommission chief [Naohiro Masuda] warns with surprising candor: Nothing can be promised… not even robots have been able to enter the main fuel-debris areas so far… “This is something that has never been experienced. A textbook doesn’t exist for something like this,” Masuda told The Associated Press… “Before, it was a war zone,” Masuda said quietly… [E]ven the most optimistic projections estimate the work will take about half a century. Masuda said without hesitation that more delays could be in order. No
            one knows exactly where the melted nuclear debris is sitting in the
            reactors, let alone how exactly the debris might be taken out… New
            science will have to be invented for the plant to be cleaned up… The March 2011 catastrophe is unprecedented… [T]he containment, where the morass of fuel lies, has been breached… And as devastating as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster was in what is now Ukraine, that involved one reactor, not three.

            A startling new report says in no uncertain terms that the Pacific
            Ocean off the California coast is turning into a desert. Once full of
            life, it is now becoming barren, and marine mammals, seabirds and fish
            are starving as a result. According to Ocean Health:

            The waters of the Pacific off the coast of California are
            a clear, shimmering blue today, so transparent it’s possible to see the
            sandy bottom below […] clear water is a sign that the ocean is
            turning into a desert, and the chain reaction that causes that bitter
            clarity is perhaps most obvious on the beaches of the Golden State,
            where thousands of emaciated sea lion pups are stranded.
            And yet, you still support such an industry? Your argument, that nuclear energy supplies, “clean, non-polluting energy” is the same rhetoric when “atomic energy” was sold to the sheep back in the 1950’s. Oh but they also used the word “cheap” energy back then, can’t use that adjective anymore

          • Jag_Levak

            “Scientific reasons why nuclear energy is impracticable for further use.”

            Those are not even remotely scientific reasons. They are unfounded agenda-driven assumptions. He assumes to meet 15,000 gigawatts capacity, we’d need 15,000 of today’s cumbersome site-built gigawatt-scale reactors. This disregards the many projects working to develop small mass-produced reactors. It would actually be easier to produce a much larger number of smaller factory-built reactors.

            He says nuclear is resource hungry, but for the energy it produces, it is far less resource hungry than wind and solar. His land demand assumptions are already bogus. One mine and one enrichment plant can serve many plants, and the most productive uranium mine on the planet occupies less than one square kilometer. The land area demands for solar farms and hydro reservoirs are much worse for the power produced than nuclear plants. The nuclear footprint is also vanishingly small for the power produced compared to the surface mining footprint of coal, and yet that hasn’t in the least prevented coal from becoming the dominant source of electrical generation, He also assumes land siting, and there’s no inherent reason nuclear plants can’t operate offshore. Cooling is an issue for today’s large, low-temperature land-based plants. Smaller plants, hotter plants, and offshore plants would be much easier to cool.

            Neutron bombardment does cause surface embrittlement, but a bit of shallow surface cracking doesn’t automatically destroy structural integrity, especially in cases such as molten salt reactors, where the vessels are not operating under pressure. If surface degradation made long service life impossible, the Eiffel Tower could not have stood as long as it has. If you go to the tower, you’ll see capture nets for the tons of rust which have flaked off, but there is still a large margin of remaining core element strength to keep it standing for many years to come. And he assumes decommissioning will have to be done as it is done now with present day reactors. With modular reactors, it will be more a matter of sending them back for recycling.

            We may not have agreed on a waste disposal technology yet, but that doesn’t mean one cannot be developed, and in fact several teams are developing reactors for the express purpose of consuming today’s spent fuel. The accident rate really should be counted as an argument in favor of nuclear power. Even with reactors almost all of which had the potential to melt down or experience fuel fires, the safety record and death rate is among the best of any energy source. New kinds of reactors could entirely eliminate all possibility of meltdowns or fuel fires (or pressure ruptures, or loss of cooling accidents, or loss of control rod excursions, or hydrogen explosions), so what little validity the safety argument has now could completely vanish with future reactors.

            The proliferation argument only applies to a few select forms of nuclear power. Many forms are useless for making bombs, and many forms have been and could be very useful for getting rid of bombs. In fact, no alternative could get rid of bomb fuel as effectively and permanently as nuclear reactors, so the anti-proliferation argument counts the most heavily in favor of nuclear power.

            Limitations on uranium abundance is a totally bogus argument. There is currently about 4.5 million terawatt years worth of uranium in seawater. Divide by 15 terawatts, and it would only last 300,000 years–except that rivers are constantly replenishing the supply of uranium in the oceans. And that’s disregarding the much larger supply of terrestrial uranium, and the fact that thorium has 4 times the abundance of uranium, and that beyond fission, there are the abundant fusion fuels. But even if the nuclear fuel supply was only good enough to last 10,000 years, that would be a ridiculous reason not to go ahead and make use of it now, particularly given how badly we need it now.

            Regarding exotic metals, these are not rare, none of them are irreplaceable, and nuclear power doesn’t need them in large amounts. Materials shortages for more basic metals, like copper, would be a greater likelihood in the event of a massive rollout of solar power. And did Abbott ever get around to detailing what the storage solutions for intermittent sources was going to be, and what kind of resource demands they will have (on top of the resource demands of the intermittents themselves)?

            “A startling new report says in no uncertain terms that the Pacific Ocean off the California coast is turning into a desert. Once full of life, it is now becoming barren, and marine mammals, seabirds and fish are starving as a result. According to Ocean Health:”

            And does that report present any evidence to implicate any aspect of present day nuclear power? (much less implicate all possible forms of nuclear power) My bet is that it doesn’t.

          • anna miller

            “We may not have agreed on a waste disposal technology yet, but that doesn’t mean one cannot be developed.”
            Yes, well when that “tiny” little bug of nuclear radiation waste, which lasts for thousands of years, has been worked out, the greedy, psychopathic nuclear energy industrialists and its paid shills can return and make another pitch to the gullible.
            “The nuclear footprint is also astonishingly small.”
            Is that so? Tell that to the victims of Chernobyl, and the 350,000 people forced to relocate. Over 7 million people were effected.There are now over 148,274 invalids on the Chernobyl registry in
            Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. There is widespread agreement regarding a
            rise in thyroid cancer in those who were exposed to the radiation when
            they
            were very young. There are reported rises in
            other thyroid diseases, immune system disorders, and learning problems
            in children. There are extensive reports of high rates of heart and
            blood problems and lung and
            gastrointestinal disorders.Over 63,000 square miles of land have been affected. Much land should no
            longer be used for agriculture. However, 4.5 million children and
            adults are still living on contaminated land, growing food on
            contaminated land,
            and as a consequence the food they are eating is
            also contaminated. Rural areas have been severely devastated. The international community is funding construction of another
            “sarcophagus” which will help prevent further deterioration of the one
            built in the year
            following the disaster; 200 tons of radioactive
            material still sit within the reactor.
            And of course, nuclear proponents completely ignore the ongoing disaster of FUKUSHIMA. There is no known way to stop the continuous flow of RADIATION into the Pacific Ocean and our atmosphere. It is unprecedented, and apparently, there are NO textbook answers on how to prevent the fission and subsequent outflow.
            Fukushima was unprecedented, and could very well be a species level extinction event. But the insane and the greedy are in control of our planet.
            Presently, nuclear energy provides approximately 6% of nuclear energy to the world. Germany is reaching up to 50% of its electricity from solar, a much safer and cleaner method of energy.

          • Jag_Levak

            “Yes, well when that “tiny” little bug of nuclear radiation waste, which lasts for thousands of years, has been worked out, the greedy, psychopathic nuclear energy industrialists and its paid shills can return and make another pitch to the gullible.”

            Toxic waste from solar PV production will last a lot longer than nuclear spent fuel, so are you going to reject solar PV until a permanent storage solution is perfected for that? And burning spent fuel in reactors built for that purpose will convert it into fission products with shorter decay chains and shorter half lives. Most of it will drop to cold in about ten years.

            [The nuclear footprint is also astonishingly small…]
            “Is that so? Tell that to the victims of Chernobyl, and the 350,000 people forced to relocate.”

            That number is a fraction of the number of people forced to relocate by the Three Gorges dam, so are you going to use that as an argument against all hydropower? There are better ways of doing hydropower, but by the same token, Chernobyl was an exceptionally bad way to do nuclear power (it was basically an upscaled bomb-making reactor) and nobody is advocating doing nuclear power that way in the future.

            “Over 7 million people were effected.”

            I’m guessing you are including psychological, economic, and political effects.

            “There are now over 148,274 invalids on the Chernobyl registry in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.”

            Does that registry exclude invalids if they are determined not to have been caused by Chernobyl, or does it simply amass all invalids in the region? I assume that region had invalids before Chernobyl, no?

            “There is widespread agreement regarding a rise in thyroid cancer in those who were exposed to the radiation when they were very young.”

            Indeed. Several thousand excess cases, a few of which have resulted in death. But even if you stretch the definition of civilian or commercial nuclear power to include a disaster from a discontinued, obsolete, badly designed, badly operated, Soviet Era military reactor, that pumps up the aggregate global death toll from nuclear power over 50+ years to something that’s still way short of the death toll from hydropower, and it doesn’t even equal one day’s death toll from coal. Even assuming no improvements in safety, nuclear power still saves lives relative to the leading alternatives.

            “Over 63,000 square miles of land have been affected.”

            If the measure is based on area “affected” that would pretty much include the whole surface of the planet for coal use.

            “Much land should no longer be used for agriculture.”

            I would agree–especially now that it has become a wildlife preserve.

            “Rural areas have been severely devastated.”

            Another way of looking at them is that they have become thriving ecosystems with greatly increased biodiversity.

            “And of course, nuclear proponents completely ignore the ongoing disaster of FUKUSHIMA.”

            Not at all. I think Fukushima helped to spur the drive for better forms of nuclear power.

            “There is no known way to stop the continuous flow of RADIATION into the Pacific Ocean and our atmosphere.”

            Maybe no way to stop it completely, but the groundwater outflow is down to less than a tenth what it was a year ago, and the proportional reduction this year could be even greater. It can definitely be constrained to the point that the contamination radiation levels are less than natural radiation beyond the harbor.

            “there are NO textbook answers on how to prevent the fission and subsequent outflow.”

            The fission that is taking place is ordinary decay fission, occurring at negligible rates. This is not a significant source of contamination.

            “Fukushima was unprecedented”

            Why does that matter?

            “and could very well be a species level extinction event.”

            What species do you think it could make extinct?

            “Presently, nuclear energy provides approximately 6% of nuclear energy to the world.”

            Nuclear power is clearly not performing to the levels we need–hence all the research into better forms of nuclear power.

            “Germany is reaching up to 50% of its electricity from solar, a much safer and cleaner method of energy.”

            Germany is heavily reliant on coal, a much more dangerous and dirty method of energy. Germany lags way behind nuclear France when it comes to clean energy.

          • Michael Mann

            Excellent factual rebuttal of every point, without name calling…well done!

          • anna miller

            It is amazing to what depths some people will sink, to promote a dying industry. The truth is, and let’s face it, money rules on this planet, nuclear energy is not cost-effective, and for many reasons. I am sure you are aware of them.But let’s go overseas, in the second half of next year France will be sending nuclear waste to Australia
            for permanent storage. The waste comes from uranium and plutonium
            exported to France between 1999 and 2004 to run its nuclear power
            plants. It’s coming home because of an international agreement that
            states that Australia — as the nation of origin — must take the spent
            fuel back. This same agreement means we’ll also be taking waste back
            from the UK sometime before 2020.
            Despite having known about this arrangement since the ’90s, Canberra now
            has just 17 months to build something deep, strong, and stable enough
            to house 14 tons of radioactive rubble. And to make matters worse, no
            one even knows where to put it.
            In the end, it will be the problems arising from high costs involved, which will spell the end of nuclear energy.
            http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power#.Vp6AglIqjkQ

          • Jag_Levak

            “It is amazing to what depths some people will sink, to promote a dying industry.”

            I’m in favor of the development of better ways to do nuclear power to replace the ways we have now. If that also means the replacement of the companies which currently dominate, I really don’t have a problem with that.

            “The truth is, and let’s face it, money rules on this planet,”

            Quite so.

            “nuclear energy is not cost-effective, and for many reasons.”

            Do you think the Chinese don’t understand the concept of cost-effectiveness?
            And even if the economics of current nuclear power are not good, that’s no argument against developing forms which could have much better economics.

            “in the second half of next year France will be sending nuclear waste to Australia for permanent storage.”

            I doubt it will turn out to be permanent. I would call it indefinite storage.

            “The waste comes from uranium and plutonium exported to France between 1999 and 2004 to run its nuclear power plants. It’s coming home because of an international agreement that states that Australia — as the nation of origin — must take the spent fuel back.”

            I’m not familiar with that agreement. If there is such an agreement, I don’t think I agree with it. Repository siting should be based on the best geological attributes. A country which has good uranium resources might have no good repository sites. That said, Australia actually has some very favorable geological attributes.

            “Despite having known about this arrangement since the ’90s, Canberra now has just 17 months to build something deep, strong, and stable enough to house 14 tons of radioactive rubble.”

            Why? Once a country has accepted the returning fuel, surely how to deal with it then becomes a domestic matter. Just stick the fuel in interim casks, and then take as long as needed to build a repository.

            “In the end, it will be the problems arising from high costs involved, which will spell the end of nuclear energy.”

            Have you ever seen what very early trains, tractors, automobiles and planes looked like? Scary machines. They were all very unreliable, and dangerous, and messy and noisy and quite expensive for the times. And not surprisingly, many people looked at these newfangled ways of doing things, saw the all the problems and dangers, and dismissed them. For every one of them, there were prominent people confidently predicting their imminent demise. The reason that didn’t happen was because those technologies could do things in ways or at scales that other technologies couldn’t. So we did what we always do when we find something useful that has a lot of untapped potential. We made them better.

            Are there large problems with the way we do nuclear power right now? You bet. There wouldn’t be dozens of teams around the world scrambling to develop better reactors if the ones we had were good enough. Are the reactors we have today doomed to become obsolete? Of course. Is humankind going to walk away from an energy source which has the potential to be denser, more abundant, and cleaner than any energy source we’ve had before, just because our earliest attempts at harnessing it turned out to be highly imperfect? It’s not impossible, but that would be extremely unusual for us.

          • anna miller

            I think the Chinese and Indians are enamored with big money, and their current controllers are pressured by outside influences. One can observe their record on pollution from other industries, and it is plain they place emphasis on money, rather than safety and awareness of potential disaster, and the good for all.
            Perhaps it will take another Fukushima, before the world wakes up big time. But by then it could be too late. Anyway, I’m finished with this debate.
            It has devolved into differences of observations.

          • Leslie Corrice

            More out-of-context cherry-picking. Blaming what’s going on in the Pacific on Fukushima is absurd.

          • anna miller

            No way that 3-400 tons of radiation flowing into the Pacific everyday since 2011 could affect the ocean. Why that’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. You don’t think that just maybe, could be, Fukushima could be playing a role?

          • Jag_Levak

            It isn’t “tons of radiation”. Presumably you meant 400 tons of water containing radioactive contaminants. But the water portion of that is harmless, so the daily outflow mass that matters with respect to radiation is that of the radionuclide contaminants. A year ago, that would have been about 0.00037 grams of Cs 137 and 0.0049 grams of Sr 90 per day. But then they closed up the seaside impermeable wall, so the groundwater outflow today is around 4% of what it was, and presumably the daily outflow mass of the contaminants has dropped by a similar amount. After the ice wall is operational, I expect there will be another large reduction in flow rate.

            And no, even at it’s worst, the effect on the ocean would have been trivial. The average for worst six months was around 12 gigabecquerels per day. By the time a day’s worth of outflow diluted out to just one cubic kilometer of seawater, the contaminant radiation levels would have averaged one thousandth of the natural radioactivity of seawater. There have been many days of outflow, but then, the pacific also has many cubic kilometers into which it can dilute (about 660 million in fact).

          • anna miller

            Each day, about 300 tons of groundwater still seeps into the basements
            of the reactor buildings, where it mixes with melted nuclear fuel and
            becomes highly contaminated, Fukushima utility officials report.This water contains plutonium 239 and its release into the Ocean has both local as well as global repercussions. Certain isotopes of radioactive plutonium are known as some of the deadliest poisons on the face of the earth.

            And what are they doing with all the radioactive water stored in the holding tanks? As of this past September that would be 700,000 tons of radioactive contaminants. if a radionuclide reacts with other molecules or gets deposited on
            existing particulates — bits of minerals, for example — they can be
            suspended in the water or, if larger, may drop to the sea floor.

            “If particulates in the water column are very small they will move with
            the current,” he explained. “If bigger or denser, they can settle in
            sediment.”

            If iodine-131, for example, is taken up by seaweed or plankton, it can
            be transferred to fish, which are in turn eaten by larger fish, as has
            been seen in the Irish Sea. Fish can also take in radionuclides in the
            water through their gills, and radionuclides can be ingested by
            mollusks.

            Radioactive iodine is taken up by the thyroid in humans and marine
            mammals — or in the case of fish, thyroid tissue — and is also readily
            absorbed by seaweed and kelp.

            The chance of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer has risen in recent years and it the most rapidly increasing cancer in the US.

            So says the American Cancer Society.

            Cesium acts like potassium and is taken up
            by muscle. Cesium would tend to stay in solution and can eventually end
            up in marine sediment where, because of its long half life, it will
            persist for years. Because marine organisms use potassium they can also
            take up cesium. “Cesium behaves like potassium, so would end up in all
            marine life,” said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for
            Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland. “It certainly will have
            an effect.”

            You mentioned the “Ice Wall” Oh the desperation of “freezing” the radiation spillage. There is no science known to safely store nuclear waste, and there is no science to contain Fukushima.

            August 19. 2014, TEPCO officials told Japanese nuclear regulators that
            the section of ice wall between the unit #2 turbine building and the cable
            tunnel—-estimated to hold 5-6,000 tons of highly radioactive water was not working. August 19. TEPCO officials told Japanese nuclear regulators that the
            section of ice wall between the unit #2 turbine building and the cable
            tunnel—-estimated to hold 5-6,000 tons of highly radioactive water—-was
            not working. A Tepco spokesman added that “We have yet to form an ice plug because we can’t get the temperature low enough to freeze the water.”

          • Jag_Levak

            “Each day, about 300 tons of groundwater still seeps into the basements
            of the reactor buildings, where it mixes with melted nuclear fuel and
            becomes highly contaminated,”

            Depends on one’s definition of basement, but basically correct. And that’s deliberate. Tepco keeps the inside water level slightly lower than the outside groundwater table so that the water only flows inward.

            “This water contains plutonium 239”

            Correct.

            “and its release into the Ocean has both local as well as global repercussions.”

            The water that is pumped out of the reactors goes through a water treatment facility which can remove every kind of radionuclide except tritium. Almost all the water stored in the tanks on site has been through this water treatment. There are a couple of proposals for how to remove even the tritium, and demonstrations of those technologies are supposed to take place later this year. When the water from the tanks is eventually released into the Pacific, it will be less radioactive than the water it is going into.

            “Certain isotopes of radioactive plutonium are known as some of the deadliest poisons on the face of the earth.”

            The treated water will not contain significant amounts of plutonium. And the worst plutonium isotopes from reactors are less deadly by mass than the natural polonium 210 we have always lived with.

            “And what are they doing with all the radioactive water stored in the holding tanks?”

            The main treatment has been completed, and I gather they are now waiting to see what their options are for tritium removal before deciding what to do next. Ultimately, the water will go into the Pacific, but there will be lots of negotiations with regional groups and officials before it is worked out how and when that will take place. I expect this will take years.

            “As of this past September that would be 700,000 tons of radioactive contaminants.”

            Virtually all the contaminants have been removed. What remains is water with some tritium.

            “If iodine-131, for example, is taken up by seaweed or plankton, it can
            be transferred to fish”

            There will be no iodine 131 in the water when it is released. Iodine 131 has a short half life, so it is already just a trace contaminant. Medical procedures would be a larger source of I 131 in the area by now.

            “Cesium acts like potassium and is taken up
            by muscle.”

            Potassium also acts like potassium, and potassium includes potassium 40, which has decay modes and energies similar to cesium. So long as the cesium levels are kept low, the health effects should be no more serious than those from K40.

            “You mentioned the “Ice Wall” Oh the desperation of “freezing” the radiation spillage.”

            That isn’t the function of the ice wall. It’s function is basically to create an underground bathtub around the reactors. Groundwater coming down from the hills will flow around it, and treated water will be pumped into injection wells on the inside to replace the inflow of groundwater. That way, the water is just recirculated through the treatment plant instead of adding 300 tons a day to the amount of water that needs storage.

            “there is no science to contain Fukushima.”

            I’m pretty sure there is nothing about the ice wall plan that violates any aspect of science.

            August 19. 2014, TEPCO officials told Japanese nuclear regulators that the section of ice wall between the unit #2 turbine building and the cable
            tunnel—-estimated to hold 5-6,000 tons of highly radioactive water was not working.”

            That was an experiment to see if they could create an ice dam in flowing water. They were ultimately not able to extract heat fast enough to make it work. That has nothing to do with the subterranean ice wall project.

          • Michael Mann

            Excellent explanation, thank you!

          • anna miller

            Yes I agree, the massive die-off of marine life is absurd. And so is the insane support of building nuclear energy plants on fault lines, and near major water bodies, such as the Pacific Ocean. And so is placing one’s faith that Mother Nature never delivers a blow to the larger electric grid, as it is known fact that nuclear energy plants have 4-8 hour protection plans. And so is it insane that hoping a safe, long-term solution for containing radioactive waste is developed while in the meantime, radioactive waste materials continue to rise, with no place for storage. And so is, the continuance in promoting a dangerous, potentially extinction level event, which is NOT cost effective. How much has Fukushima repair already cost, and still not solved, because NO ONE knows how to stop it.
            Update: Interestingly, this article didn’t go big on Reddit yet
            still somehow attracted a huge swarm of nuclear-obsessed commenters. How
            would that be possible if such people weren’t coordinating in order to
            swarm any major anti-nuclear posts? The amount of old, repeatedly
            debunked misinformation posted in the comments of this article swelled
            tremendously as a result. So, rather than wasting my time dealing with
            it all yet again, I’m going to recommend a handful of articles not
            previously included in this piece. If you genuinely want to learn more
            about the energy sector and how it relates to nuclear, I recommend these
            pieces:
            http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/27/many-redditors-obsessed-uncompetitive-nuclear-energy/

          • Leslie Corrice

            What is absurd is blaming the supposed die-off on Fukushima. There’s 150,000 times more natural radioactivity in the Pacific than the sum-total released at Fukushima. Yeah…that’s causing the alleged die-off! Get real! (I guess you failed to comprehend the links on this I posted here.) Further, the insanity is believing doomsday prophecies concerning nuke plants. One member of the public died as a result of Chernobyl (thyroid cancer in Belarus), but that’s it! No-one died due to TMI and no-one has died (or ever will die) due to Fukushima. Of course, your precious prophets of nuclear energy doom preach death…death…death, based on the non-scientific no-safe-level of radiation myth. It’s what minions like you WANT them to say, and it provides a very comfortable living for them. Wake up and smell the propaganda!

          • greenthinker2012

            When a person reads doomsday prophecy their brain releases a cascade of fear chemicals at its most primitive centre.
            I believe people who are drawn to conspiracy and doomsday prophecy are addicted to this rush of chemicals.
            No matter how much rationality you expose them to they want to return to their fear rush.

          • greenthinker2012

            How were you coordinated to come here and comment?

            I agree that the amount of old, repeatedly debunked misinformation posted in the comments of this article swelled, but I would say the misinformation is coming from you.

            For example…
            ……………
            -nuclear energy plants have 4-8 hour protection plans…

            No every plant in the USA has multiple off site power connections to supply power, if all of them are lost then they have multiple diesel generators each capable of running all safety equipment, they also have a turbine powered pump to provide cooling as well as passive cooling systems. If those fail there are back up portable systems put in place after 9-11 called B.5.b equipment, if those are unable to function we have onsite FLEX equipment put in place after Fukushima, if the onsite equipment is damaged or fails there is offsite FLEX equipment stored in regional locations which can be transported and connected to systems to provide back-up. If all of those back-ups to back-ups to back-ups fail the containment is designed to prevent the release of radioactive material without any power available. New designs are more passive in nature and use convection flow for cooling which does not require electrical power.
            But you have been shown this information before and yet continue to spread misinformation.
            ………………
            -insane that hoping a safe, long-term solution for containing radioactive waste is developed….

            Already developed. This is only a political problem, not a technical one.
            The fuel can be safely stored in dry casks for the next century if we choose. It can then be reprocessed and burned in the newest reactors to produce more electricity or it can be vitrified into glass and buried in deep stable geological formations.
            …………….
            -extinction level event…..

            Giant eye roll. Learn some science and stop being so silly.
            Even if the entire reactors at Fukushima were ground up into a powder and dumped into the ocean they would only add a tiny fraction of a percent more radiation to the oceans than is already naturally present.
            ………
            Come on Anna, learn some facts, then form your opinions, not the other way around.

          • Michael Mann

            Even if the ocean were in trouble, why would you assume it’s from the infinitesimal increase in radiation from Fukushima and not the acidification caused by burning fossil fuels? In any case.if the ocean is dead, where do these fish come from?

            Dec. 31, 4:25 PM, Rockfish season will be closed starting January 1st 2016 until it reopens in March. – Breaking News / Reports

            Rockfish season will be closed starting January 1st 2016 until it reopens in March.

            Dec. 4, 12:14 PM, It’s still game on in December! There are still reports of guys getting quality yft (15-30lbs) on the troll and with anchovies off the 9. – Breaking News / ReportsIt’s still game on in December! There are still reports of guys getting quality yft (15-30lbs) on the troll and with anchovies off the 9.

            Nov. 29, 12:02 PM, Over the weekend there’s been several yellowfin caught up & down the coast line. There’s been a few taken off Avalon Bank & the 182. 16 miles below Mission Bay they found a nice size school underneath a paddy. They brailed some chovies and it went wide op – Breaking News / ReportsOver the weekend there’s been several yellowfin caught up & down the coast line. There’s been a few taken off Avalon Bank & the 182. 16 miles below Mission Bay they found a nice size school underneath a paddy. They brailed some chovies and it went wide open, until they ran out of bait. They’re still around!

            Nov. 19, 4:51 PM, 3/4 day boat out of San Diego just called in from their offshore trip with 80+ yellowfin on the boat! The fish are in the 15-40 pound range. I guess the season is on! – Breaking News / Reports

            3/4 day boat out of San Diego just called in from their offshore trip with 80+ yellowfin on the boat! The fish are in the 15-40 pound range. I guess the season is on! http://pcsportfishing.com/reports

          • anna miller

            Fishing was already in trouble of the west coast. Now the sardine population is collapsed. You know, big fish eat little fish.

            “The fish populations in the California Current have declined for four decades with no signs of reversal.”

            http://phys.org/news/2015-11-california-fish-populations-declining.html
            Now add 3-400 tons per day of radiation into the Pacific since 3/11.

            Times, Apr 15, 2015 (emphasis added): [Regulators] approved an emergency closure of commercial sardine fishing off Oregon, Washington and California…
            Earlier this week, the council shut down the next sardine season…
            [R]evised estimates of sardine populations… found the fish were declining in numbers faster than earlier believed… [Stocks are] much lower than estimated last year… The reasons are not well-understood.

            But you get while the gettins good big boy. And don’t you worry about a thing. Your day will come.

          • Michael Mann

            A total of about 4Kg of radioactive material, 3-400 gallons a day of water. I doubt it will change the total amount of water in the ocean. I am not that big, 5’8″ about 165lbs I could stand to lose a few. I hope it’s the lottery you’re talking about I could use a few million$. I like to think karma works, do good things like educating people on this forum and good things will happen in return. Thank you for the sentiment!

          • anna miller

            Yes…karma….promoting nuclear energy…highly dangerous under given circumstances…such as the unpredictability of Mother Nature and building nuclear plants near fault lines and major water ways, such as the Pacific Ocean and the San Madrid fault line. Karma such as promoting nuclear energy when there is no safe method of prolonged safety storage of radioactive waste by-products, that last for millennia. Bad karma- especially if one is on the nuclear dime for doing so…

          • Michael Mann

            Actually there are many proven safe methods, nuclear power is the safest and cleanest way ever invented to provide the energy required by our society.

          • anna miller

            Yes…karma….promoting nuclear energy…highly dangerous under given circumstances…such as the unpredictability of Mother Nature and building nuclear plants near fault lines and major water ways, such as the Pacific Ocean and the San Madrid fault line. Karma such as promoting nuclear energy when there is no safe method of prolonged safety storage of radioactive waste by-products, that last for millennia. Bad karma- especially if one is on the nuclear dime for doing so…

          • Leslie Corrice

            The only differences between natural radiation and man-made are fabrications (e.g. fantasies) in the minds of antinuclear fanatics. Reality is not changed by ignorant assumptions.

          • anna miller

            Your comment is nonsensical. There is a difference between radiation occurring naturally, and radiation which is manipulated by man. It is a characteristic of arrogance to assume, that anyone who disagrees with you, must be less intelligent.

          • greenthinker2012

            I am curious about how the radiation is different between natural radiation and manmade radiation?

          • Leslie Corrice

            Not less intelligent. Ignorance is not a measure of intelligence.

          • anna miller

            And what say you, if the electric grid, for whatever reason(s) for longer than 8 hours?

            A complete loss of electrical power, generally speaking, poses a
            major problem for a nuclear power plant because the reactor core must be
            kept cool, and back-up cooling systems — mostly pumps that replenish
            the core with water— require massive amounts of power to work.

            Without
            the electrical grid, or diesel generators, batteries can be used for a
            time, but they will not last long with the power demands. And when the
            batteries die, the systems that control and monitor the plant can also
            go dark, making it difficult to ascertain water levels and the condition
            of the core. Eleven U.S. reactors are designed to cope with a station
            blackout lasting eight hours, while 93 are designed for four-hour
            blackouts.
            But that could never happen, now could it?

          • Michael Mann

            Yes, the possibility of a station blackout lasting more than 4 hours is very small, every plant has multiple off site power connections to supply power, if all of them are lost then they have multiple diesel generators each capable of running all safety equipment, they also have a turbine powered pump to provide cooling as well as passive cooling systems. If those fail there are back up portable systems put in place after 9-11 called B.5.b equipment, if those are unable to function we have onsite FLEX equipment put in place after Fukushima, if the onsite equipment is damaged or fails there is offsite FLEX equipment stored in regional locations which can be transported and connected to systems to provide back-up. If all of those back-ups to back-ups to back-ups fail the containment is designed to prevent the release of radioactive material without any power available. New designs are more passive in nature and use convection flow for cooling which does not require electrical power. Yes, your neighborhood nuclear power plant is safer than the gas station on the corner, much safer than the gas powered plant that would replace it.

          • anna miller

            Sadly there will be some who defend nuclear power, claiming that
            the reactors would have been safe had it not been for the tsunami, but they
            would be remiss in failing to recognize that there is no safe place on the
            earth when it comes to mother nature. Whether it be a category five
            tornado,hurricane, floods or earthquakes, there is always the possibility for disaster. Nuclear plants are built near waterways. California, the land of earthquakes, has a major nuclear reactors
            built near fault lines, Diablo Canyon. The alarming prospect is
            that the

            Diablo Canyon plant was only designed with a maximum stress level of 7.5. And then we have potentially the most dangerous earthquake fault
            in America, the New Madrid fault in southern Missouri and southeast U.S. There
            are no less than 15 nuclear reactors built within this dangerous quake zone.
            Generators only work for so long, if the larger electrical grid goes down, and that is a definite possibility, then the melt-downs will occur. That is sadly, the reality of the situation. Nuclear energy should be retired. We have existing viable alternative energies, and ongoing research and development of far safer energies. However, GREED over common sense prevails in those who worship money and ego.

          • Michael Mann

            So since there is no safe place on Earth, are you leaving? It seems buildings were less safe than the nuclear power plants, should we not build anymore until they are totally safe?

            On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,893 deaths,[36] 6,152 injured,[37] and 2,572 people missing[38] across twenty prefectures, as well as 228,863 people living away from their home in either temporary housing or due to permanent relocation.[39] A 10 February 2014 agency report listed 127,290 buildings totally collapsed, with a further 272,788 buildings ‘half collapsed’, and another 747,989 buildings partially damaged

          • anna miller

            I wonder sometimes about the level of sanity in certain people.You are comparing the safety of buildings now, with nuclear energy plants. You have gotten desperate. This is no longer an exchange of logic.

          • anna miller

            Is it a fantasy, that Fukushima is raging as I write these words?

          • Jag_Levak

            In what sense is it “raging”?

          • anna miller

            NHK World, Dec 9, 2015: Radiation spikes in Fukushima underground ducts
            — The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says levels
            of radioactivity in underground tunnels have sharply risen. Tokyo
            Electric Power Company has detected 482,000 becquerels per liter of
            radioactive cesium in water samples taken from the tunnels on December
            3rd. That’s 4000 times higher than data taken in December last year. The
            samples also contained 500,000 becquerels of a beta-ray-emitting
            substance, up 4,100 times from the same period… They plan to investigate
            what caused the spike in radiation.
            “In March 2012, less than one percent of the seafloor beneath Station M was covered in dead sea salps,” writes Carrie Arnold for National Geographic.
            “By July 1, more than 98 percent of it was covered in the decomposing
            organisms. … The major increase in activity of deep-sea life in 2011
            and 2012 weren’t limit to Station M, though: Other ocean-research
            stations reported similar data.”
            They don’t like to use the R word though, because the big, bad, and very evil greedy representatives of the nuclear industry have big bucks.
            “[An unusually large number of sea lions stranding in 2013 was a
            red flag] there was a food availability problem even before the ocean
            got warm.”Johnson: This has never happened before… It’s
            incredible. It’s so unusual, and there’s no really good explanation for
            it. There’s also a good chance that the problem will continue, said a NOAA research scientist in climatology, Nate Mantua.
            “[An unusually large number of sea lions stranding in 2013 was a
            red flag] there was a food availability problem even before the ocean
            got warm.”Johnson: This has never happened before… It’s
            incredible. It’s so unusual, and there’s no really good explanation for
            it. There’s also a good chance that the problem will continue, said a NOAA research scientist in climatology, Nate Mantua.Starfish are dying by the millions up and down the West Coast, leading
            scientists to warn of the possibility of localized extinction of some
            species. As the disease spreads, researchers may be zeroing in on a link
            between warming waters and the rising starfish body count. (source)
            Thyroid cancer, known to be connected with radiation exposure is now the fastest growing diagnosed cancer in males and females in the United States.
            Since Obama raised the normal radiation levels in 2012, and the US refuses to release radiation levels to the public, (I wonder why?) intelligent humans, using expensive radiation monitors, have taken it upon themselves to post the numbers to the public:
            YOUR Radiation levels for this past week:
            http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/09/your-radiation-this-week-no-38/

          • Leslie Corrice

            Just keep right on cherry-picking citations out of context to try and further support your belief in a Fukushima bogeyman.

          • Jag_Levak

            “Dec 9, 2015: Radiation spikes in Fukushima underground ducts
            — The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says levels
            of radioactivity in underground tunnels have sharply risen. Tokyo
            Electric Power Company has detected 482,000 becquerels per liter of
            radioactive cesium in water samples taken from the tunnels on December
            3rd.”

            And the cesium levels measured on Dec. 11 were 121 Bq per liter. What you have there is one brief anomalous reading in standing water in a ditch near the processing plant (which might have leaked). Surrounding readings showed normal. Seems a bit hyperbolic to call that “raging”.

            “In March 2012, less than one percent of the seafloor beneath Station M was covered in dead sea salps,” writes Carrie Arnold for National Geographic. “By July 1, more than 98 percent of it was covered in the decomposing
            organisms. … ”

            Reality check:
            http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-the-sea-floor-littered-with-dead-animals-due-to-radiation-no/

            “[An unusually large number of sea lions stranding in 2013 was a
            red flag]”

            The Marine Mammal Center has had no diagnoses which would indicate a radiation effect, and their view is that Fukushima is not a causal factor.

            [As the disease spreads, researchers may be zeroing in on a link between warming waters and the rising starfish body count. (source)]

            Sounds to me like we need a high capacity replacement for fossil fuels.

            “Thyroid cancer, known to be connected with radiation exposure is now the fastest growing diagnosed cancer in males and females in the United States.”

            A trend which began long before Fukushima.

            “Since Obama raised the normal radiation levels in 2012, and the US refuses to release radiation levels to the public,”

            Strange, then, that they would put real time results on an easy to navigate web page that anybody can access for free:
            http://www.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-time-and-laboratory-data-state

            “YOUR Radiation levels for this past week:”

            Different detectors have different ranges. To compare against a baseline set by a different detector, you need to be sure they have the same sensitivity and calibration. A raw count is not very informative regarding intensity. On that page from your link, the highest decay event count (1787 CPM) is about the level of activity you’d find in 2 liters of sea water. And the decay event rate taking place in your body could easily be more than 350,000 CPM. And there is nothing in any of this that suggests nuclear power is the source of this radiation. Our planet and all life on it has always been radioactive.

          • Leslie Corrice

            Absolutely. To believe otherwise is ridiculous.

          • Michael Mann

            Yes, it is fantasy! I hope this relieves your fear and anxiety. The physics is very clear, the cores no longer generate enough heat to be in liquid form.

          • anna miller

            M&M’s, Is that so? And where did you get your info, as you left no source.
            The robots fry every time they are sent down.

            Dec

            18

            2015 – Fukushima Getting Worse And Worse, Multiple Molten Cores Still
            Fissioning, Iodine 131, Cesium, Strontium Levels Spiking Up

            2015 –
            Fukushima Getting Worse And Worse, Multiple Molten Cores Still
            Fissioning, Iodine 131, Cesium, Strontium Levels Spiking Up

            STRONTIUM LEVELS GOING UP DUE TO MULTIPLE MOLTEN 100 TON RADIOACTIVE LAVA BLOBS UNDERGROUND

            Michio Kaku, “Note that the lethality of radioactive reactor cores goes up the first 250,000 years they are out of the reactor – not down.”

            http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is-it/

            There are at least three and possibly more molten 100 ton liquid lava
            highly radioactive and poisonous gas and water producing nuclear reactor
            cores that left Fukushima, and are now in parts unknown. No one wants
            to go looking for them, but many experts are saying that they are
            outside of containment, down in the ground.

            January 14, 2015 Huge
            radiation spike detected at Fukushima plant — Multiple records set near
            workers trying to stop nuclear waste flowing into ocean — Cesium
            http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/radioactive-rain-falling-downwind-of.html

          • Michael Mann

            Nuclear physics doesn’t change because you want to make a scary story. Decay heat falls off very quickly at first then levels out. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Decay_heat_illustration.PNG http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub31857.pdf

          • anna miller

            And where are we storing the nuclear waste by-products? The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, is closed due to a fire. The US has 75,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste—spent reactor
            fuel and the byproducts of processing it—that now sit in pools or dry
            casks at nuclear power plants, facilities never intended for long-term
            storage. The risk of leaks is high. Because the the radioactive waste stays radioactive
            for millennia. WIPP now holds more than 171,000 waste containers containing approximately 4.9 metric tons of plutonium.
            Currently, At least 66,200 cubic meters of transuranic waste sit at Energy Department sites, awaiting shipment to WIPP. At least 66,200 cubic meters of transuranic waste sit at Energy
            Department sites, awaiting shipment to WIPP. The Energy Department is
            also considering disposal of 5 tons of excess plutonium now at the Savannah River Site in WIPP. Over the past decade, the department has also been seeking to use WIPP to dispose of the contents of several high-level radioactive waste tanks at Hanford
            by reclassifying those contents as transuranic waste. WIPP is being
            eyed as a final resting place for tens of tons of plutonium from
            dismantled weapons as well, because the Energy Department is backing
            away from the $30 billion price tag now attached to a plan for mixing
            the plutonium with uranium and using that mixed-oxide to fuel nuclear power plants.
            Is it worth it? Simply put, nuclear energy is NOT cost effective. There is no known way to store nuclear waste long-term. We now have viable energy alternatives that should be implemented and pursued.

          • Michael Mann

            WIPP was never intended for storage of once used commercial nuclear fuel.

          • anna miller

            Transuranic waste consists of waste that is contaminated with
            man-made radioactive elements which are heavier than uranium (meaning
            the elements have higher atomic numbers than uranium on the Periodic
            Table of the Elements). Because they come after uranium on the periodic
            table, they are referred to as “transuranic”. The concentration of these
            transuranic elements in the waste determines whether it is transuranic
            (TRU) waste or low-level waste.

            More than 70,000 containers of this waste (sometimes referred to as
            suspect TRU waste) were stored under a layer of dirt in the in the
            1970s and 1980s, in the 200 Area Low-Level Burial Grounds of the Hanford
            Site. The intention was to retrieve the waste (which is why sometimes
            it is also referred to as retrievably-stored waste) at a later date when
            a national repository was established to accept transuranic waste.
            But then one of the drums at WIPP went BOOM!

          • Michael Mann

            Yes, you are correct, no commercial fuel only military waste.

          • greenthinker2012

            Of course you love to exaggerate but the drum at WIPP popped its lid off because the packing material had organics in it that reacted and caused pressure to build.
            The lid popped off and the rest of the drum remained fully intact.
            Hardly a “BOOM”
            Do you know how much radiation escaped from WIPP?
            Give us a number.
            You will be surprised how small the number is.

          • anna miller

            Anytime nuclear waste is released would be considered a “boom”, no?

            The end of the Cold War and the downsizing of the US nuclear weapons
            complex expanded WIPP’s mission to include excess plutonium. Instead of
            just contaminated rags, clothing and equipment, in 1998 the Energy
            Department decided to dispose of plutonium, originally part of the US
            strategic stockpile, from the now-closed Rocky Flats site. Some 3.5
            tons, or more than 70 percent of the plutonium stored in WIPP, was originally meant to be used in nuclear weapons. The toxicity of plutonium and other transuranics was known to be very
            high in the early days of nuclear weapons production. But official
            recognition of the waste hazards they pose did not come until the early
            1970’s, when the governor of Idaho threatened to halt waste shipments
            from the Rocky Flats plutonium-component plant in Colorado to what was
            then known as the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for
            disposal—effectively disrupting weapons production. Citizens and
            political leaders of the state, fearful that the wastes could reach the
            state’s largest fresh water aquifer, became alarmed when, after a major
            fire at Rocky Flats in 1969, an unprecedented amount of transuranic waste was sent to Idaho for shallow land burial. By 1973, Atomic Energy Commission chair Dixie Lee Ray promised to dispose of these wastes in a geological repository.

            WIPP now holds more than 171,000 waste containers containing approximately 4.9 metric tons of plutonium. With a total cost that the Energy Department estimates at $7.2 billion,
            WIPP employs some 800 workers. The site involves an ongoing mining
            operation in which salt is loaded on trucks and conveyed to the surface,
            to other trucks that dump it in a disposal area. The floor space of the
            mine is designed to be substantially larger than the Pentagon’s.
            Waste packages are disposed in a 100-acre area that includes seven
            “rooms—each with a footprint as large as three football fields—carved out of the salt formation in the deep mine.At least 66,200 cubic meters of transuranic waste sit at Energy
            Department sites, awaiting shipment to WIPP. The Energy Department is
            also considering disposal of 5 tons of excess plutonium now at the Savannah River Site in WIPP. Over the past decade, the department has also been seeking to use WIPP to dispose of the contents of several high-level radioactive waste tanks at Hanford
            by reclassifying those contents as transuranic waste. WIPP is being
            eyed as a final resting place for tens of tons of plutonium from
            dismantled weapons as well, because the Energy Department is backing
            away from the $30 billion price tag now attached to a plan for mixing
            the plutonium with uranium and using that mixed-oxide to fuel nuclear power plants

            We already know what happens when we put exothermic materials in salt:
            Thermal plumes of slow convection currents draw water to the site,
            dissolving the radioactive components, and carrying them to the surface
            to be carried away by the wind.
            out of sight,out of mind.

          • greenthinker2012

            Hi Anna,
            Humanity is facing a climate crisis of unprecedented scale and severity.
            As a species we must figure out how to decarbonize our power production quickly and in a manner that is acceptable to the majority.
            A vital part of forming this acceptance is rational discussion on the relative merits and problems associated with each low carbon power source.
            There is a problem with people using biased language and exaggeration in this discussion.
            For example:
            Some say that solar power can provide all of our power needs. (false)
            Some say that renewable are pointless and cannot make a meaningful contribution. (false)
            Some say that nuclear power can solve the whole problem. (false)
            Some say that nuclear power can wipe out all life on the planet. (false)

            The problem with these false positions is that they are polemic and drive their believers away from finding what will be a complex and difficult solution to the challenge of decarbonization.

            So to answer your question…
            No, I would not characterize the release of any amount of radioactive waste as a “Boom”.
            What I would do is try and use numbers, science and rationality to put any such release into perspective.
            The truth is that the WIPP release does not pose a danger to anyone or anything.
            The amounts released were minuscule compared to natural background levels of radiation.

            I urge you to examine your commenting style.
            You are obviously a passionate person who cares about our future.
            Please fight against the forces that cause polarization when discussing complex issues.
            Cheers

          • anna miller

            Global warming…I mean..climate change is a socially engineered design by the controllers designed to harness growing awareness of humans regarding corporate greed and exploitation of natural resources.
            The true goal is to usher in Agenda 21, the plan those who have been converted to the Church of Climate Change never hear about.
            That is why there is talk of even making it a crime for dissenters to address the CO2 human induced climate change. No dissent allowed you heretics, the gov. funded scientists say so! Never mind the Royal Academy of Astronomers now state an incoming Maunder Minimum or mini-ice-age, or that Earth’s magnetic field is shifting as 10 times the previous noted speed.
            I don’t trust anything pushed hard by corporate controlled mainstream media. And especially by the likes of Al Gore, who first presented global warming info in the early 80’s at congressional hearings, and then later pushed NAFTA in the 90’s. NAFTA opened the door for corporations to sue sovereign nations/states for “lost profits”. Now we have TransCanada suing the US for 15 billion dollars for refusing the Keystone Pipeline, and Monsanto suing Vermont for requiring a GMO food label. Social engineering is real. Thanks Al Gore.

          • greenthinker2012

            The sad thing about your rejection of science is that it is the one tool that would allow you to sort through your stated concerns to find out what is real and what is not real.
            Science is verifiable and not subject to politics.
            Your rejection of science leaves you vulnerable to manipulation by whomever spins the best story to back their agenda.
            I wish you the best of luck in sorting through what seems like a very scary/cynical view of the world.
            A better understanding of science can help you.

          • anna miller

            Those who worship science as their savior, apparently believe that scientists are above all bias, and that scientists (their new priests) are above fraud or above deliberate manipulations of data. How non-objective can one be, to think in such a naive manner? Dr. Richard Horton, the current
            editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well
            respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

            Dr. Horton recently published a
            statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact
            unreliable at best, if not completely false.

            “The case against science is
            straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may
            simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny
            effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of
            interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of
            dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

            Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and
            longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ),
            which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed
            medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite
            plain:

            “It is simply no longer possible
            to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely
            on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
            guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
            slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New
            England Journal of Medicine” (source)
            Now please stop resorting to insulting me, in your efforts to escape intelligent discourse. Google: Scholarly Articles for Fraud in Science.

          • Michael Mann

            Science is truth…pseudo-science is dangerous. The trick is to recognize the difference. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a10329/what-can-we-do-about-junk-science-16674140/

          • anna miller

            Yes that is why I advised you to research fraud in science. and it appears you are going to dismiss the disturbing admissions of the science directors at both the New England Journal of Medicine, and it’s British equivilent, The Lancet. Now I am done with you. And of course you never googled “Scholarly Articles for Fraud in Science. Your mind has been succesfully shaped by the professional social engineers. Research that SCIENCE:Social Engineering. Your response is insulting, as if you know the difference in “pseudo-science” and I do not.
            I’m bored with this discussion. If you and your “buds” post anymore comments, I won’t respond.

          • Michael Mann

            Your welcome to take it however you want, but don’t blame your lack of understanding on me, I was sincere, it seems you were not. I’m sorry you are bored, but the subject of clean energy is the most important for the future of humankind and the environment.

          • Sam Gilman

            I think she may be beyond reason. She appears to be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/russiainsider/why_i_use_the_039term_anglozionist039_and_why_it039s_important/#comment-2488211402

            This is unfortunately the path down which some people often go when their politics leads them to begin science denialism.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Im not a social engineer. Im a real engineer. There is a difference.

          • Sam Gilman

            There are certainly such issues in science which is why one must avoid “single paper syndrome” and try to gauge the general scientific consensus as it emerges over time.

            Your approach – just to make stuff up and pretend it’s true – is much worse.

          • greenthinker2012

            Anna, Science is a methodology for determining reality. It does not mean that people are infallible.

            You use some examples of people who have discovered fraud or mistakes in publications.
            How is it possible that these instances were discovered? Science!
            This is because science is verifiable.
            If a scientist fabricates data it can be shown that objective reality does not agree with the fabricated data.
            Reality does not care what your political leanings are or what experimental outcome you want.

            ALL human endeavour is complicated by our imperfections and biases.
            Science is the best of all of our endeavours for being able to function despite human nature.

            If you don’t use science to evaluate what to believe, how do you tell if a claim is credible?

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Your rejection of science means you reject technology. How do you get from point A to point B these days? Drive? More risky than nuclear. Fly? More risky than nuclear. BIke? Walk? All more risky than nuclear.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            I worked at Rocky and Savannah. You don’t know what you are talking about. Just parroting what you read in the paper, which is wrong.

          • Atoms4Peace1

            WIPP was designed for federal nuclear material, not commercial.
            Oh and the “boom” as you state – resulted in less than a millirem at the site boundary. But your friend Frank Energy did a calculation that said a million chickens would die. First off, the radiation to a chicken isn’t measured in units pertainent to man (rem or Sv). Thus Frank showed his ass once again. Go ahead and follow him and be a groupie. He needs more blind leading the blind.

          • Mike Carey

            Anna, the WIPP is not “closed”. Here is a current activity update. Cheers.
            ——–
            WIPP Update
            December 10, 2015

WIPP Workers Perform Filter Replacement
            As recovery operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant continue, increased work activity in the underground results in higher levels of airborne salt dust, increasing the frequency with which filters are replaced. Last week, workers performed a filter replacement on WIPP’s Underground Ventilation System.

            WIPP’s ventilation system has two filter units. Each unit has 84 separate filters arranges in four layers— moderate efficiency filters, high efficiency filters, and two layers of HEPA filters. Last week, teams replaced high efficiency filters from both units. Frequent replacement is necessary because of reduced airflow due to buildup of salt dust.

            During the filter change out, operations in the underground are temporarily suspended because of the reduction in airflow that is necessary while the filters were being replaced. Once removed, the filters – 21 from each unit – were surveyed for radioactive contamination. Filters exhibiting contamination are placed in thick plastic bags which are then sealed and packaged for disposal at an off-site low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

            All air exiting the WIPP underground facility continues to pass through HEPA filters prior to being released to the environment. WIPP will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the filters and replace them as necessary.
            ———

          • anna miller

            WIPP is closed as in receiving any more nuclear waste. In a recent Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board Editorial: Another WIPP delay spells more tax dollars wasted, we are reminded of the delays affecting the reopening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which HAS NOT
            been disposing radioactive waste since February 2014 when an improperly
            packed drum from Los Alamos exploded. But yes, WIPP is open, as in workers attempting to insure safety repairs.

            Almost two years after the explosion, the WIPP contractor struggles to
            figure out how to clean and reopen the underground repository. Serious
            concerns revolve around the ventilation system, which cannot supply the
            required amount of air now because it must be operated in filter mode
            ever since WIPP was contaminated.

          • Mike Carey

            Come on Anna, let’s be more accurate when describing the situation at WIPP:

            — WIPP is *temporarily* closed to receiving more remotely handled nuclear waste.
            — Tax dollars *are* being spent to improve the systems to safely store waste that obviously cannot indefinitely remain where it is now.
            — Workers *are* implementing the approved recovery plan.
            — Interim filtration systems *are* in place to continue underground recovery operations and maintenance activities. Additional filtration equipment has been identified to allow the return to routine operations in the future.
            — Ongoing recovery operations *are* isolating the contaminated areas.

            Others might want to know what WIPP stands for: Waste Isolation PILOT Plant.

            It is a first-of-its-kind operation that is taking all the time necessary to continually improve the processes and procedures for the safe storage of the materials generated during our Cold War weapons programs. Getting it right, at whatever cost, makes us all safer.
            Cheers.

          • greenthinker2012

            The lid of a drum cracked because some of the packing material inside the drum was flammable. It hurts your argument when you exaggerate. Calling this an “explosion” is just silly.

            Here is a photo of the drum.

            http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2014/05/20/cracked-lid-found-on-wipp-waste-container-052002

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30a6adae789943266af4580795615ce617843df66287dec58b3bc506acf78b83.jpg

          • Atoms4Peace1

            Its not waste if you don’t waste resources. The actual meters of transuranic waste is much less than 66,200 cubic meters. That value includes all containers and structure to house the actinides which are much much lower. This they don’t tell you as you digest what a journalist (who has little actual nuclear knowledge) writes to prop up fear.
            Its been going on like this for some time now. You realize we can pretty much rid the world of actinides from used fuel, yet our political leaders here in the US have pretty much relegated us to a status behind other countries that actually reclaim 95% of the fissionable isotopes for further burning in reactors. You know when you fission these atoms in reactors, they are gone forever. So there is really no need to bury them and monitor for millions of years if actinide recycle were allowed to move forward.
            Nuclear energy is very cost effective when you consider the majority of the costs are up front, and thus you get your sticker shock in the beginning. However if they are allowed to run as designed they will pay back immensely. You just don’t see that.
            Electrorefining was worth it, and Clinton made political payback. You really don’t know how the world works.
            We technical people work on solutions and the politicians muck it up.

      • Nancy Ryer

        How much do they pay you to spread disinformation? Large corporations and the US government hire people to lie to the public. Since the repeal of the Smith Mundt act in 2011, it is legal. We are all becoming wise to your gig. What Walmart wasnt hiring? If you are a paid troll? I hope you burn in hell for helping to hide these crimes against humanity. Truly!

        • Leslie Corrice

          The truth hurts that much, eh? Fantasy and fabrication makes more sense to you than reality, it seems.

        • Atoms4Peace1

          Im not paid for my educated and qualified opinion. Antinuclear trolls hit me up on twitter all the time. Why do you think its a crime to pursue university degrees in nuclear engineering? If thats a crime you might as well indict all technology and go live in a cave. Nuclear hasnt and wont kill humanity. I live on this planet too. What you believe makes no sense.

  • Emerson
  • Jun 5, 2015 California’s Sea Lion Die-Off

    Thousands of sick sea lion pups are washing up ashore and dying along the California coast, with over 3,100 pups reportedly becoming stranded in 2015 so far — an amount greater than the reported strandings from 2004 to 2012 combined.

    https://youtu.be/TP6L5QPT2Z8

    June 22nd, 2015 TV: Emergency survey underway along West Coast, marine life being affected “in ways never seen before”

    CBS: “Unusual increase in dolphin, sea lion, and seabird deaths” — Thought to be largest toxic bloom “anywhere, ever” — Worry that impacts on fish to last several years (VIDEO)

    http://enenews.com/tv-emergency-survey-underway-along-west-coast-marine-life-being-affected-ways-never-before-cbs-unusual-increase-dolphin-sea-lion-seabird-deaths-largest-toxic-bloom-anywhere-could-be-happening?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29

    • Atoms4Peace1

      Yet how specifically have these sea lion deaths be attributed to Fukushima exclusively?

      Hitchens Razor say you have to prove your case.

      • Do you require hand holding when crossing a street?

    • Joey Mango

      Mass of warm water off the coast “the blob’ Oceanographers have been watching it and predicting significant impacts on sea life for a couple of years.

      Cold water fish are migrating north, leaving the sea lions without their primary food source.

      It has nothing to do with radiation. (Well, other than the solar kind raising the ocean temps.)

  • diogenes

    America’s profession hired liars in action poisoning all life on planet earth. Thank you UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you GENERAL ELECTRIC. Thank you WALL STREET. Murdering whores and hired liars.

    • Atoms4Peace1

      Such anger from someone who is supposed to profess peace, love, dope. Well at least you have the last one covered. You say they poison all life on earth. Why would they do that to themselves? Your position is as ridiculous as untenable. True environmentalists are ecomodernists that understand addressing climate change, overpopulation, and exponential energy demand effects doesnt happen without nuclear.

      So very kindly, piss off.

  • Janine Baldwin

    I AGREE WITH THE EFFORTS OF ALL FELLOW TRAVLERS WITH HOW CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH IT , THE iaea AND MEMBERS NEED TO BE CHARGED WITH CRIMES AGAINST humanity , THE QUEENS FORTUNE CONFISCATED TO BABYSIT HER ISOTOPES FOR 100,000 OF YRS , wE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A BINDING PLAN TO SECURE SOVERNTY OF OUR WATER AND HUMAN RIGHTS

  • overit

    so your govt then removed rad sensors all over the coastal areas where it was drifting across…how “helpful of them”

    • Leslie Corrice

      Never happened. There are just as many operating monitoring stations now as before Fukushima ever happened. They were not shut down. However, since nothing of negative consequence was being detected, the Press stopped covering it. Get your facts straight!

  • Chronic Pain Coop

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/20/national/all-spent-fuel-removed-from-reactor-4-pool-at-fukushima-no-1-tepco-says/

    But that can’t be possible. CNN and Japanese TImes reported everything was Honky Dory.

    • Atoms4Peace1

      Hunky dory. Yes it is outside the industrial site. Inside there are challenges for the workforce.

  • Marushka France

    This is not a ‘newly declassified’ document. A request for plume remodeling is not based on known data at the time — many simulations were run based on guesses of conditions because the Japanese were not forthcoming.
    For more information please see my post
    https://www.facebook.com/marushka.france/posts/10153821307694533

    The bottom line: Conditions at Fukushima Daiichi are not based on requests for plume modeling but on physics. NO POWER = NO CONTAINMENT.

    There was NO POWER at Fukushima Daiichi for 11 days!! Ergo, NO CONTAINMENT. I provided a link to what that would look like in facebook note. You can also find it here:

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/209420

  • Marushka France

    WASHINGTON BLOG — A REQUEST FOR PLUME MODELING IS NOT PROOF of conditions:

    https://www.facebook.com/marushka.france/posts/10153821307694533

    for more information — I can’t find any other way to contact Washington blog

    Proof of conditions is this: Physics >> NO POWER = NO CONTAINMENT

    No power at Fukushima Daiichi for 11 days — there was no control.

  • Leslie Corrice

    If the declassified document was true, then how did Tepco remove all of the undamaged fuel bundles from unit #4, without a hitch? The document was, and still is, a false piece of trash. There is no truth to it…just like the bigoted antinuclear agenda of Washington’s Blog.

    • Leslie, where have you been?

      Obviously, Japanese neo-fascists within TEPCO hired the same professionals who faked the moon landings to produce hours of video simulating the safe and complete transfer of Fukushima unit 4 fuel into fake cardboard transfer casks, while actually spiriting it to their lair within a hollowed-out Mt. Fuji. Via an underground tunnel leading to the sea, their fleet of lead-lined nuclear submarines spread radiation all over the Pacific, saving the worst for the coast of California as long overdue retribution for the 1945 atomic bombings.

      If you had been paying attention to the Washington blog, you would already know this. Oh, also… Bilderberg.

      • PublicCrier

        That made me lauch hahaha nice rant !!

      • Atoms4Peace1

        Too funny. I peed myself laughing.

  • Matthew Chen

    If 100% of spent fuel from unit 4 were released to the atmosphere then why report that ” Fukushima readies for dangerous operation to remove 400 tons of spent fuel” from unit 4 on Oct 23, 2013?

    • Atoms4Peace1

      You caught these antinuke bastards in a lie.

      • Chelsei Bradbury

        Not really that hard to do!

    • Leslie Corrice

      All of the unit #4 fuel bundles were removed from the pool by the end of 2014. None of them had any damage. None of them were leaking. The quote you use was dripping with fantasy-laden what-if-scenarios that defied all realistic understanding. The only thing that was actually dangerous was Press and internet bombast saying it was dangerous. Scaring people over nothing was the real danger.

    • Atoms4Peace1

      Because the media is inconsistent. Its not really 400 tons either. The entire weight of all fuel assemblies only contain a small fraction of actinides.

  • Joey Mango

    Uhh – it wasn’t ever classified.

    Uhhh – if you read the rest of the FOIAed material its pretty clear that “100% of the total spent fuel” was the source term ASSUMPTION that was given to NARAC for calculation, not that it was the actual source term. It was nothing but a guess; a “worst case scenario” that we now know as completely incorrect.

    They do those sort of “worst case” calculations to “bound” the accident.

    And even with the worst case assumption, the west coast was never in any danger.

  • Joey Mango

    The fact that we know the Pool 4 fuel was NOT released doesn’t keep fearmongers like Blanch and Dana Dumturd from using reports like this to prop up their lies and scams…

  • Rick

    Anna Miller: I sympathize with your concerns. Consider these points in your future arguments:

    1. The mass animal deaths are occuring in large groups, nearly instantaneously, world-wide, even in areas that are essentially untouched by Fukushima. This definitely means poisons/hunger can’t be the sole or main reason, for in such cases, they would generally be dying more haphazardly, individually, in a staggered manner, according to size/metabolism/amounts/etc. Entire flocks of birds don’t fall from the sky at once due to poison or hunger. Dozens of whales don’t die at once because of minute radiation or hunger or a slight change in water temperature.

    2. Did you ever see anyone stick some uranium rods in a bucket and make water boil? No. Nobody has ever seen nuclear energy demonstrated, despite the trillions spent on it. Nobody has any direct evidence of nuclear energy, other than to say they see buildings, and heard/read things. Nobody is allowed into “reactors” to actually witness “power generation”, without any good reason. A split atom doesn’t lose much mass to be converted into energy, it just splits. E=mc2 was 1905:

    There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable — Albert Einstein, 1932.

    Anyone who expects a source of energy from the transformation of atoms is talking moonshine — Ernest Rutherford, 1933

    3. According to the nuclear theory, water is REQUIRED to slow down neutrons in order to make them split the nuclei of other atoms. Supposedly, if they are too fast, they don’t work. Now, if this is the case, why would anyone be spraying water on Fukushima, when a dry surrounding kills all critical nuclear reactions? It makes no sense, it’s nonsense. People have no idea or capacity to understand the immensity of the delusions they live under. Look up “slow neutrons” and you won’t find any scientific references.

    4. A nuclear chain reaction requires that most of the 2 neutrons that are supposedly released by each split nucleus continue to split more nuclei – any less, and obviously there can be no chain reaction (criticality). A nucleus in an atom is like comparing a little marble to an entire football stadium. When trying to check the math to see what amount of energy could be released even if this was possible, a dead-end was quickly reached because such calculations rely completely on “constants” that only the US govt put forth, with no independent private verification. That is not science (independent verification). Anyone that researches nuclear weapon photos/events will find they are all fake.

    5. There is very serious power that is available and utilized, and scientifically demonstrated, and demonstrated by 9-11 (dustification of the buildings, burned metal, but not paper and rubber, etc), far greater than nuclear power (3 pages, need to skip over the shill comments):

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2824918/pg1

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2824918/pg5

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2824918/pg6

    No, we didn’t go to the moon either – the lies are immense.

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      Spit take!

      • Joey Mango

        Yeah, he’s pretty funny.

  • Michael Mann

    Someone misread an official document and now it’s “proof” of a conspiracy? It’s hard not to laugh, but it seems some people think this is what really happened at Fukushima. This was a hypothetical invented to estimate the worst case scenario, not what actually happened. The fear and anxiety created by a mistake like this could cause health problems. What you have to realize is this is 2016 and if any of this had actually occurred it would have been very evident. In actual fact TEPCO has removed the fuel from unit 4 pool and put it in a different pool, the fuel was intact, with this information we know for certain that there was no “spent fuel” pool melting or fire.

    • Sam Gilman

      One has to wonder whether this was deliberate on the part of the blog just to get clicks. It’s hard to believe that the author could misread the document, especially given the Internet gnashing of teeth over the spent fuel pools over the past four years.

  • Frank Energy

    How is that Muon scan working out for the pronuclear lies?

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      I don’t know about that, but it is working out rather well for finding the truth. The cores haven’t left their respective PCVs, no mater what Bullshit you may read from the idiot fearmongers.

      • Frank Energy

        TEPCO admitted the melt out already, how lame is your lies.

        • Chelsei Bradbury

          Clearly not nearly as lame as you grasp of science and truth.

      • Frank Energy

        Uh, shithead, TEPCO admitted they melted out. Everything points to at least 2 and probably 3 meltouts, maybe also a melt of used fuel or fuel waiting to be loaded.

        Being a denier without having any knowledge is a sad way to go through life.

  • Frank Energy

    The only way that the tens of tons of uranium and plutonium shown by US
    EPA air samples could occur was if the explosion came from within the
    reactor vessel, and/or spent fuel pool. So clearly the explosion was a
    nuclear type of explosion from within. Nuclear promoters have long
    stated that nuclear plants can’t blow up in a nuclear explosion. We
    know this to be a lie. In fact Chicago’s own Argonne National Lab has
    video from back in the day when it was “cool” to perform open air tests
    to blow up reactors to prove the nuclear chain reaction can blow up the
    reactors. The special type of Nuclear Explosion is called a “prompt
    moderated criticality”.

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-was-nuclear-explosion-here-is.html

    • Michael Mann

      Frank Energy alias PacE alias SteveO alias NukPro is back trying to lure people to his personal website again with ridiculous claims, according to nuclear physics, it is impossible for the fuel at Fukushima to go prompt critical. 1. It had too low a concentration of fissionable material 2. It had control rods inserted adding more negative reactivity (more shutdown) 3 an increase in temperature decreases density adding more negative reactivity (more shutdown) simply put Frank Energy is an anti-science liar out to make a buck on peoples’ fear.

      • PacE

        How is that adhominem working out for you nukist?

        • Michael Mann

          What? Do you deny that you’re using multiple aliases and directing people to your own web site? I am not calling you names, you are… PacE/Frank Energy/NukePro trying to deceive everyone, people deserve to know so they can judge the validity of your posts. Please explain how that is an ad-hominem?

        • Michael Mann

          FYI “Nukist” is anexample of ad-hominem attack. (in case you were wondering what one looks like)

          • Jag_Levak

            Is it? It hadn’t occurred to me to ask before, but now that I’m on this side of the fence what *do* we call ourselves? I remember when I was on the other side running across someone who called himself a fissionary, and I had to admit it was a good pun, but it seemed a bit pompous. Afissionado is less so, but leaves out fusion. I’ve been loosely calling myself a pro-nuke or nuclear advocate, even though there are forms of nuclear power I’m opposed to and the forms I think hold the most promise haven’t even been developed yet.

            Do we have a naming committee?

          • Michael Mann

            We should actually get together and come up with a good name.. Elementalist? Atomic Advocate? Elemental Environmentalist?

          • Jag_Levak

            So I take it we don’t have a naming committee.

            I rather liked the sound of the labels eco-modernist and eco-pragmatist, but I don’t agree with all the tenets which seem to be aggregating around them. I don’t know if eco-realist is taken. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard elementalist in a couple of contexts. Atomist is definitely taken. Not sure about atomicist. I’d be fine with nuclear realist, but I’m sure that would just get shortened to nukist (which I actually don’t find insulting, but I guess if others do, that’s something to be avoided). Nuclear humanist would be fun, just to watch the humanists’ heads explode.

            I guess if nobody has come up with a word for us yet, this isn’t something urgent. I doubt I’ll think of anything short, catchy and descriptive, but I’ll let the idea rattle around for a while and see if anything materializes. Maybe our side should generate lots of labels and let usage popularity decide the winners.

          • Sam Gilman

            I think “environmentalist” is pretty good for me. “Mainstream-science-based” if you need a qualifier.

          • Michael Mann

            Unfortunately, “our side” is pretty poor at organizing and public relations and tends to think science, facts, and truth are enough. Image and public relations are an afterthought.

          • kimyo

            how ’bout ‘morons advocating nuclear nonsense’?

          • Michael Mann

            L.O.L. How about environmentalists for nuclear power?

          • You could probably improve their website: http://ecolo.org/

          • Michael Mann

            I should have searched before suggesting the name…..

          • No worries – the name makes perfect sense.

          • Joey Mango

            How about “scientist”. Or “realist”. Or “Environmentalists”. Or “critical thinkers”…

            How does “League of Extraordinary Anti-Scaremongers” sound?

          • Michael Mann

            I think it depends upon it’s usage like the term “buddy” in one usage a term of endearment in another usage an insult. I probably just took n”nukist” the wrong way….

          • PacE

            I like nukist as a descriptor, I think it has a bit of a cool swagger to it, as well as being non-offensive.

          • Jag_Levak

            I’d be fine with it. At least it’s short. Others may feel differently. The test will be whether it catches on.

          • Mike Carey

            Be careful with the dissembling PacE and his other aliases, Jag.

            A google search for “nukist” leads back to NukePro’s blog.
            “Affisssionado” works for me at the moment. Cheers.

          • Michael Mann

            I hate to give NukePro any extra traffic….

      • atomikrabbit

        “NukePro”, “SteveO”, “Frank Energy”, “PacE”, “steveo77″,”Richard Martin” or whatever he is calling himself these days lifted this term “moderated prompt criticality” directly from Arnie Gundersen, who in 2012 attempted to popularize it on his numerous YouTube videos and on the scurrilous enenews site run by the failed Florida personal injury lawyer out of his home office in Palm Bay. “NukePro” would like people to add clicks to his crappy website, but I will save them the trouble.

        Here is Arnie (in terms seemingly plausible to someone with no background in nuclear engineering) attempting to explain his theory to “NukePimp”:
        http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/gundersen-email-and-theories.html

        Here are details of the BORAX II test in 1954 that “Frank” alludes to. It was intentionally and specially designed to rapidly introduce a very large amount of reactivity into an already critical core. Other than the fact that both were Boiling Water Reactors, there is no similarity between the BORAX II setup and conditions at Fukushima Unit 3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BORAX_experiments#BORAX-I_Destructive_Test_and_Cleanup

        Here is a memoir from a participant at the BORAX test:
        http://www.ne.anl.gov/pdfs/reactors/Story-of-BORAX-Reactor-by-Ray-Haroldsen-v2.pdf

        I have a theory that actually makes more sense than “moderated prompt criticality”. Given the similarity of their blogspot sites, (all the way down to a ludicrous “manifesto”) it looks to me like “NukePimp” (who Gundersen calls “Steve”) and “NukePro” (AKA “SteveO”, or “steveo77”) are the same person. So add one more Internet alias to the long list.

        Regardless of the alias chosen, one thing is constant – his promotion of his crappy website is endless, and shameless: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-04/when-mother-market-force-takes-over-central-banking-watch-rates-rise-even-though-fed#comment-7147000

        • Michael Mann

          You are probably right, I see many similarities between Nukepimp and NukePro, I did find an interesting link at NukPimp about underhanded tricks to use in a debate, which he was falsely accusing nuclear advocates of using, http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#weasel It’s interesting because it details many of the techniques he uses under his various aliases…..

          • atomikrabbit

            I’m no psychologist, but I studied enough in college to understand the concept of Projection – where someone attributes to others their own faults and flaws: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
            Their worldview reflects their own psychological makeup more than it does objective reality.

            Thus steveo (for convenience I’ll just use the alias he prefers for his financial trading activities) constantly attributes, without evidence or basis, to others:
            1) ad hominem attacks when his use of same is abundant;
            2) “shilling” or “pimping” when he constantly solicits hits to his own blog;
            3) conspiracies among people who simply disagree with his conclusions.

            Steveo probably has many positive qualities – he appreciates astronomy and nature (but calls those fighting AGW “Warmists”), is probably nice to his family and dogs, has a sense of humor (to his own taste), and apparently has been successful enough at either financial trading (or perhaps just maintaining a sponsored website on that topic: http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/p/japan-nuclear-information.html) to have 99 followers and live in beautiful but expensive Oahu, Hawaii.

            Unfortunately also he seems to enjoy disaster porn, especially when nuclear energy is part of the script. But it’s nothing that a few sessions of psychological counseling (or a few years of nuclear engineering studies) can’t remedy.

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      Uh, “tens of tons of uranium and plutonium shown by US
      EPA air samples”? Now where did that little lie come from? Surely you don’t think that we’re stupid enough to believe that make that kind of shit up on your own…

      • Michael Mann

        Frank Energy/PacE/NukePro he will say anything he thinks will get people to click on a link to his personal website.

        • Joey Mango

          Well, and that “tens of tons” comment is simple bullshit, given the environmental monitoring data.

      • Frank Energy

        It comes from the EPA data, but I know you either didn’t look at it, or ignored it.

        Asshat

      • Frank Energy

        Why don’t you review the actual EPA data?

  • PacE

    MOX Fuel can blow up in a moderated prompt criticality. It has far more fissionable material than normal uranium fuel. MOX is enriched with plutonium.

    The nuke cartel pulls out all the stops to try to hide this fact, because MOX is their only hope of “getting rid of” Plutonium spent fuel waste. If they lose MOX they lose their precious industry.

    Shame Shame on the nukist.

    • Michael Mann

      You can see PacE and Frank Energy are both commenting on the same discussion thread, be advised they are both the same person, trying to make you think he is 2 different people. His main goal is to get you to click on his personal web-blog under another alias “NukePro”

    • Michael Mann

      MOX fuel cannot “blow up” it still doesn’t have a high enough concentration of fissionable material, as you can see from these charts MOX fuel is very similar to non-MOX fuel. PacE/Frank/Steve/NukePro or whatever he wants you to believe he is today doesn’t have a clue. see the facts about MOX fuel http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub31857.pdf

  • Frank Energy

    LOL pro nuke trolls are so stupid they say things like “the reactor couldn’t go critical because the control rods were inserted”. LOL inserted into a molten mess of corium….nice.

    • Michael Mann

      Ad-hominem attack, The rods all were inserted 45 minutes before the tsunami hit, March 11:

      A 9.0-magnitude earthquake (originally estimated at 8.9) struck off the coast of Honshu, Japan, and an enormous tsunami followed shortly after. Eleven nuclear reactors at the four nearest power plants automatically shut down upon sensing ground accelerations, stopping the nuclear fission of uranium in their cores. http://www.livescience.com/13294-timeline-events-japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactors.html Frank Energy alias NukePro alias PacE doesn’t let facts get in the way of his rants.

      • PacE

        Yo bonehead, that is not an ad hominem attack, it is a simple insult. Got it?

        • Michael Mann

          An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. What ever you call it, it’s a worthless comment, meant to obfuscate the truth and derail the discussion.

          • Joey Mango

            Ad hominem or not, Either way – he’s just perpetuating another lie…

            Focus on that fact instead of his misdirection by personal attack.

  • PacE

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html

    Solar PV at 3 cents. Now tell me how nuclear makes any cents?

    • Michael Mann

      PacE is Frank Energy and he’s sending you to his personal website.. where he calls himself NukePro

  • Timbo Slice

    David Whitlock, Joffan, Greenthinker 2012, Leslie corrice, Michael Mann Steven Featherstone and voodude YOU ARE WRONG!!! Ann miller and Marushka France ARE RIGHT!! So LISTEN UP!!

    • Michael Mann

      Timbo, your lack of substance and insight is disappointing. I have 35+ years of hands on experience. many hours of nuclear training and nuclear physics education at an accredited college You expect me to throw away all that on the advice of an anonymous commenter, with no history, because he posts in CAPITAL letters? I’m sorry YOU are WRONG and have been taken in by snake oil salesmen and FEAR MONGERS .I do feel sorry for you, because you are the victim.

  • Chelsei Bradbury

    Wow. A very catchy and misleading title.

    Seven days after the tsunami, the NRC asked for calculations based on assumptions that have now been proven to be completely incorrect.

    I too think this is just a tactic by washingtonblog to get more clicks.

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      I’m sure they have also FOIAed the e-mail traffic from NARAC on this. Either they have not read it all or they are just hiding the “exculpatory” evidence.

  • Michael Mann

    This article is pure fear mongering, it tries to take a worst case scenario simulation, used to model bounds and pretend it actually happened. Don’t be fooled,

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      Yes, that’s all they were doing.

      But the fearmongers are trying to get people to believe a different story, for fun and profit.

  • Frank Energy

    Isnt it hilarious how the nukist pimps lumps together wind and solar
    as both being “bird killers”. ya right, my PV sure killed a lot of
    birds.

    And then neglects that nuclear is an “ocean killer”, check
    out my easy to calculate bio Concentration Factors to see how what
    appears to be “low level man made radiation” is a deadly killer once
    concentrated in living things.

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/01/radiation-bioaccumulation-in-sea-life.html

    • Michael Mann

      Frank Energy is an alias of NukePro and is sending you to his personal web blog.

  • Frank Energy

    after oldster posted up cryptome pictures again, I revisted them and
    had an epiphany. The damage pattern to adjacent buildings shows
    clearly that the explosive sources were point sources MPC and not volume
    sources (hydrogen explosions). This is very clear for reactor 3.

    And the sources appear to be…..get this…reactor core and spent fuel pool

    Annotated pictures here, sheesh, wish I had some Youtube skilz, someday.
    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/fukushima-proof-it-was-not-hydrogen.html

    • Joey Mango

      Wow. AN epiphany from you means – nothing…

  • Brian

    The nuclear power industry spend billions per year on pr and influence.
    Nuclear power hold captive the nuclear 5 that control the UN.
    Obama called the PM of Japan to implore him not to give up nuclear power right after Fukushima.

    Wake up.

    Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years,

    (really, try and comprehend the ramifications ot that. Ten years, short of fuel. ( http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf “As we look to the future, presently known resources fall short of demand.” Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050 fig 20 also show shortfall. ) costs 4 times available solar and wind, takes 12 years to install average, with 11 reactors over 10 years and counting, kill millions when calculated using LNT and hot particles, has no solution to the million years spent fuel rods, will incur negative EROI and monetary return on investment when we are done dealing with the wastes, producing billion of tons of radioactive heavy meal and contaminated water system in mining, and the reactors hat the throttle, so they are useless in the future energy mix.

  • Frank Energy

    Simply we are doing our best to shut down this lying dangerous nukist cartel

    • Joey Mango

      …By telling whatever lie is necessary!

  • Frank Energy

    Chelsei Bradbury is a nuke pimp

    • Michael Mann

      Frank Energy alias PacE alias NukePro, alias SteveO alias confirmer and who knows how many other aliases seems to be the last person you should believe when it comes to character references. The article that is being commented on takes the “what if” “worst case” simulation that was done at the time and tries to make it lok like it actually happened, years after it was proven that it did not actually happen, in an attempt to create fear and anxiety, which has been proven to hurt people.

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      So then, what do you call a liar that used shitty pseudo-scientific analysis to scare people into visiting his web site?

      • Joey Mango

        Frank Energy?

    • BeeDear

      and a paid misinformation shill.

      • Michael Mann

        The only shill that I know is Frank Energy alias PacE alias NukePro he makes money by tricking people into going to his personal webpage …..

  • Frank Energy

    Clinton caused American deaths by kowtowing to the nuclear industry to coverup the Fukushima disaster which is ongoing. Proof is here, after grinding through a few thousand emails, this is a compelling story!

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/hilary-clintons-emails-about-fukushima.html

    • Michael Mann

      Another attempt to lure people to his poor excuse for a webpage, by NukePro alias Frank Energy alias PacE

      • Frank Energy

        Mikey, you are working for a company convicted of $225M of fraud against the people that pay your salary, the rate payer, yet you won’t own up to it. How sad, sad little Mann

        • Michael Mann

          I still don’t have any idea what fraud you’re talking about, the only reference I could find was your personal website, not really a reliable source. I had never heard of it and I’ve been a ratepayer here since 1988. Maybe you are the only person who ever heard of this? Does everyone notice that Frank Energy is using every underhanded trick he can? 1. Make a de-humanizing or funny name for the person you’re debating… check. 2. Ignore the subject and distract people with some obscure hard to verify accusation…. check 3. Pretend to have sympathy for the person you;re accusing… check. It says a lot about the integrity of Frank Energy alias NukePro, alias PacE alias SteveO alias whatever other names he uses.. that he tries to manipulate the people who read these comments with cheap tricks to get them to click on his personal website… these people are smarter than you think, checkmate!

    • Chelsei Bradbury

      No American deaths have been or will be caused by Fukushima.

      If you were not at the pant at the time of the accident, don’t worry about it.

      Do not believe the lying fearmongers.

  • Frank Energy

    Owner’s of Ginna Nuclear Plant Convicted of Serious Fraud Against Their Customers

    Constellation Energy used to own Ginna Nuclear. They were bought out by Exelon.

    Constellation Agrees to Pay Record $245 Million Penalty
    – See more at: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/owners-of-ginna-nuclear-plant-convicted.html#sthash.tPZnMN6c.dpuf

    • Michael Mann

      It was the parent company and had nothing to do with Ginna… seems a bit misleading, It had nothing to do with Ginna not even the Generation side of the company. Here is a real link, not a NukePro click bait http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-12/business/bs-bz-constellation-merger-completed-20120312_1_ferc-energy-transfer-partners-market-manipulation What on Earth does it have to do with me?

      • Frank Energy

        NO Mikey, reality does not support your attempted deflection. Ginna is in New York, your owners were convicted of manipulating energy rate in New York

        from your link……
        Constellation $245M settlement for trading is largest ever

        FERC alleged company sought to manipulate N.Y. wholesale energy markets

        shame shame

        • Michael Mann

          I can always tell when you know you’ve lost, you try the lame “Mikey” gambit. Thank you for admitting you were trying to mislead people.

  • Frank Energy

    Interesting that a nukist will pretend that because it was a “parent company” that committed fraud, in New York, and that his plant is in New York and owned lock stock and barrel by that company, that somehow those 2 facts are completely separate. They aren’t, it is a corrupt company that you are working for.

    Sociopaths blame the victim. Nuclear owners will rip off their customers if they think they can get away with it.

    • Michael Mann

      What are you talking about? Generation and delivery were separated by law years ago, people at Ginna not only had nothing to do with wholesale trading of electricity, by law they couldn’t even communicate with them… You do realize NY is a big state, generating and distributing electricity are two very different things. Ginna generates clean, safe, reliable electricity where it goes is a different company. Do you really not understand that simple fact or are you intentionally misleading people?

      • Frank Energy

        Same ownership, same corruption rampant throughout the system

        Cognitive dissonance, look it up

        • Michael Mann

          Steve, I thought you were some kind of investment consultant, don’t you know how things work? Totally independent by law…

          • Frank Energy

            I see, they gave you the dossier…..lol.

            One company, one corrupt attitude. Even now Ginna is screwing the ratepayer for extra money.

  • Frank Energy

    http://caravantomidnight.com/clintons-emails-released-clearly-show-she-knew-the-dangers-to-usa-from-fukushima-and-covered-it-up/

    I reviewed several thousand Hillary Clinton emails that were released after court order, with an emphasis on Fukushima:

    1) She was immediately informed of the dangers of Fukushima, and the
    actions that people should take to mitigate radiation damage, Mar 12th
    USA time.

    2) She was participating daily in the discussion of Fukushima, until…..

    3) They were mostly concerned with economic effects to countries, and to protect the US nuclear industry.

    4) Clinton advisers pushed her hard to go to Japan as PR move.

    5) At that point one of two things happened a) she stopped sending
    AND receiving any emails related to Fukushima, or b) she intentionally
    did not hand over those emails and they were systematically eliminated
    from her files.

    In light of 5a above, what are the chances they everyone in the government stopped sending her updates on Fukushima? Exactly.

    • greenthinker2012

      Yup…To Frank/Steve/whoever he is pretending to be, a lack of evidence is the most convincing evidence of all.
      Well…..that and the evidence he fabricates for his crappy “nukepro” website.

      • Frank Energy

        Indeed, the things not said are the most important of all

  • Chelsei Bradbury

    Realizing that he had completely failed to convince anyone intelligent of his bizarre fantasies, Frank decides to change the subject to another unrelated baseless theory…

  • Brian

    At least 200,000 people will die from 400,000 cancers in japan caused by Fukushima.
    http://llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.pdf

    The USA gov and other are the insurer of last resort for the nuclear power industry thanks to bill like the Price Anderson act. They are thus motivated to cover up the damage as much as possible. Japan is a big nuclear exporter, and their gov is heavy invested in nuclear.

    Here’ how the nuclear military folks mishandled nuclear wastes, you think the commercial and civil sector will be any better?
    http://thebulletin.org/treasure-island-cleanup-exposes-navy%E2%80%99s-mishandling-its-nuclear-past incredible story of the mishandling and cover ups that a daily part of the nuclear folks, Treasure Island and military, but it’s the same thing that will happen in the commercial sector. It’s the same sort of thing the nuclear folks will do to CYA, save money and keep the money flowing in.

    Nothing to see here folks, it’s as safe as tobacco.

    • greenthinker2012

      The international scientists at the WHO and UNSCEAR disagree with you.
      They have both released reports that predict no increase in cancers.

      • Brian

        WHO’s report was written by the IAEA, and UNSCEAR use it too. They are political agencies. They are obvious cover ups. The various gov are the inrurese of last resort as the USA is, they want to minimize the reported damage and death. The Nuclear 5 that run the UN security councils want to hide the damage done by the nuclear bomb programs and all make money selling nuclear power.

        Why do you believe politicians?

        Fall on your head when you were young?

        • greenthinker2012

          The reports are well documented. The source materials and studies used to reach their conclusions are all listed and available to study.
          Show me anything specific that is scientifically incorrect.
          The beauty of science is that it is refutable.
          Refute the WHO and UNSCEAR reports. (even a single refutation backed by science would be a refreshing thing to see from you.)

          • Brian

            No they aren’t well documented. They cherry picked the reports, and actually claimed the increase in cancers in the Ukraine was caused by a student uptick and smoking. Sure.

            The Russians and Ukrainian scientists disagree.

            But you believe politicians, I’,m sorry, but there is little anyone could do to convince the world they are fools than to believe politicians.

          • greenthinker2012

            Uh….Brian…scientists and science are different than politicians.
            You have not managed to refute any of the science.
            All you can manage is trying to smear the science with baseless attacks.
            Pretty lame.

          • Brian

            WHO is under the pro nuclear pr IAEA.
            Scientist are easily swapped out by politicians till they find one who’s results and agenda they like.

            You really do believe politicians and all they have to do is a little puppet show with “independent” agencies and you believe again like a child.

          • greenthinker2012

            Show us how the science is wrong.
            If their are credible scientists with opposing views who have been “swapped out” surely there must be credible scientific papers that disprove the WHO and UNSCEAR reports.
            Show us, using science and logic, how the reports are wrong.
            Show us the flaw.

          • Brian

            Already did. You don’t even have the test of the WHO doc, you have never read it.
            Folks search WHO IAEA agreement. stop believing politicians and pr people.

          • greenthinker2012

            I imagine you didn’t actually read to the bottom of the agreement.
            It is quite clear in the document that the WHO has complete autonomy regarding health effects.
            You have not shown any science to be wrong Brian.
            All you have done is sling mud.
            Judging from the quality of your comments you probably can’t even manage to read a proper scientific study.

          • Brian

            The WHO transferred their files to the IAEA after the agreement.

            But don’t believe you lying eyes.

            WHO is vetted at the very least, by THE pro nuclear agencies in the world for all reports on the effects of radiation.

            How naive are you folks?

          • Brian

            The WHO transferred their files to the IAEA after the agreement.

            But don’t believe you lying eyes.

            WHO is vetted at the very least, by THE pro nuclear agencies in the world for all reports on the effects of radiation.

            How naive are you folks?

          • greenthinker2012

            You have yet to disprove any science.
            Are you incapable?

          • Brian

            You lose one argument an move to one you have already lost to me.

          • greenthinker2012

            You claim that the WHO and UNSCEAR studies are flawed yet cannot make an actual argument other than trying to cast suspicion upon the integrity of the scientists.
            You have not shown a single scientific flaw.
            Not one.
            Zero.
            Then you claim to have won the argument.
            I will leave it for others to judge how credible you are.

    • Starviking

      Oh, a report from Chris Busby, the fear-mongering tool who tried to sell us health supplements at inflated prices to ‘flush’ radiation from our bodies.

      • Brian

        Better than selling us billion dollar death machines.

        • Starviking

          What? You’re talking about the Arms Trade now?

          • Brian

            Nuclear power silly.

          • Starviking

            Oh! It was the “death machines” that got me.

            Zero fatalities from 3 meltdowns – not very good death machines. The government response however, prompted by anti-nuclear FUD, certainly was good at killing people.

          • greenthinker2012

            If numbers of deaths is an indication of a “death machine” then cantaloupes are more of a “death machine” than Fukushima.
            In 2011 while Fukushima was busy not killing anybody, 30 people died in the USA from cantaloupes.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_listeriosis_outbreak

          • atomikrabbit

            That’s nothing. Last year SUNSHINE killed 10,000 people in America alone – and that was with the Earth shielding them for half the day.
            http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts

            Let’s not even mention mosquitos…

      • greenthinker2012

        Chris Busby is even embarrassing to the greens who have distanced themselves from him, but Brian loves him because Busby says what Brian wants to hear.
        “Post-Fukushima ‘anti-radiation’ pills condemned by scientists”
        “Green party distances itself from Dr Christopher Busby, a former spokesman promoting products following Japanese nuclear disaster.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima

    • Brian

      Amazing how people don’t understand why attack on the person are logical fallacies.

      You think all great people who make great contribution to science. and the world are perfect in all things?

      Is DNA not double helix because Watson is a despicable racist with dumb theories why blacks are inferior?

      Do Josephson junctions not work because Josephson believes in telepathy?

      Do the planets not revolve around the sun because Kepler believed they were determined by concentric perfect solids?

      Does PCR not work because Mullis believes HIV does not cause aids?

      Did Cathode ray tubes not work because Phillipp Lenard believed that science could be German or Jewish, and he was N.zi?

      Do transistors not work because William Shockley black hating eugenics. Racist?

      Do I believe Busby or the trillion dollar industry that must cover up the deaths and danger to protect that trillion dollar investment?

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/22/nuclear-power-kills-the-real-reason-the-nrc-canceled-its-nuclear-site-cancer-study/

      http://www.euradcom.org/publications/ecrruraniumrept.pdf Busby

    • Brian

      Let’s go into the conflicts of interest of the pro nuclear big sources: gov and nuclear PR.

      WHO and the UN are under the control of the nuclear 5 countries in the security council. They all have a vested interest in covering up the deaths caused by their nuclear bomb programs, and they all have a big financial interest in nuclear power.
      They have all made their gov the insurer of last resorts, because private insurance WILL NOT INSURE NUCLEAR POWER. That means they have a vested interest in minimizing reports of deaths and damage from nuclear power. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/iaeawhoagreement.htm

      The USA goes on further. The USA DOE is made from the old atomic Energy Commission and is still over 90% nuclear related work and workers, with a nuclear physicist running the agency. No conflict there right? The DOE and it’s sub agencies have gotten projections of nuclear versus solar and wind so wrong it’s laughable, and smells like corruption. Obama personally sold nuclear power around the world, and called the pm of Japan in the days after Fukushima to implore the pm not to abandon nuclear power. Japan is big into nuclear power. The Japanese NP industries spends billions of dollar on pr and influence. Like the rest of the nuclear power industry does.

      But some pro nuclear people think we should trust politicians, and corrupt agencies, and nuclear promotional agencies.

      • Brian

        Nuclear power facts are horrific: nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years according to the IAEA,cost 4 times available solar and wind according to Lazard (an independent private respect and older investment research firm, not a gov agencies or a NP PR firm). Nuclear power creates 27 tons of spent fuel, and up to 2M tons of toxic mining waste plus entire water source contaminated essential forever, per year, per reactor. It’s not clean. Nuclear takes 12 years to install by which times solar and wind will be available for 16 times less cost per KWH. Search uranium birth defects.

        • Mike Carey

          Brian, you seem to be continually talking to yourself, and saying the same incorrect things over and over again.

          It sounds like you should see someone about that. It would worry me if someone I cared for had those problems. But, *that* is not my problem.

          Take care.

    • Brian

      Oh wait folks, we have a winner. Starviking claims zero deaths from the three big nuclear power disasters! Really, he claims ZERO. What more do you kneed to know about Starviking? He will lie outrageously to support nuclear power.
      His claim of zero even undercuts his desire for us to accept the corrupt WHO figure of 4000, for Chernobyl and Fukushima. Any shred of believably should not be gone for Starviking.

      Good job: Starviking.

      Anyone other fools believe ZERO?

      • Brian

        Over a million deaths from Chernobyl:
        http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf Chernobyl
        Consequences of the Catastrophe for
        People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published at one time by The New York Academy of Sciences

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/?tool=pubmedTMI
        “Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI.
        http://www.albionmonitor.com/9703a/3milecancer.html

        Not zero. not even close. But those who claim zero have absolutely revealed themselves as corporate liars. That’s a fact.

        • Aaron Oakley

          Brian relies on the discredited Yablokov book to spread fear of Chernobyl. George Monbiot exposes that work better than I can:

          http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

        • Brian

          Isn’t it amazing the pro nuclear folks want us to believe the Pro nuclear pr agency numbers?

          You all do know the UN is pro nuclear power, right? The IAEA was chartered to promote nuclear power, look it up. All the other UN agencies that deal with radiation effects report to IAEA. The IAEA has the sole authority to set regulations and vet reports. UNSCEAR was chartered to calmed fears of radiation from bomb tests, and the first thing they did was point out radon and cosmic rays. See the pattern? The same pro nuclear folks move around the UN agencies. The UN security council rule the UN and they are the Nuclear Club. They all make money selling nuclear stuff. They don’t want to scare the people by letting them know how bad nuclear radiation is.

          Even our own DOE is actually the old Atomic Energy Commission and still 90% nuclear related work and workers.

          So go ahead and be foolish and believe the nuclear power pr agencies. God help us.

          The complaints against other studies are smears and hand waving. Read the reports. That’s the one thing they pro nuclear folks want you NOT TO DO.

  • TimS

    “Nope—There’s No Thyroid Cancer Epidemic in Fukushima”
    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/nopetheres-no-thyroid-cancer-epidemic-in-fukushima
    “No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable”
    http://journal.avdi.org/2015/09/25/no-one-has-been-killed-by-fukushima-radiation-1600-were-killed-by-the-panic-over-it/
    ” not have caused any increase in the cancer rate.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html

  • Brian

    Gov are the insurers of last resort for nuclear power, thus they are motivated to minimizes and cover up deaths and epidemics. for instance measuring for thyroid cancer before they would be expected after radiation exposure. Works every time.

  • Frank Energy

    Finally, a scientific link between radiation and the mass sea life
    die offs. It has to do with the bonds within the chitin, this also
    partly explains the mass bee die off due to easier infection due to
    chitin damage.

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-scientific-basis-for-destruction-of.html

    • Michael Mann

      Frank Energy is an alias of NukPro this is a poorly designed click-bait post to lure people to his personal website, beware that clicking on his link gives him access to your IP location and he may be gathering data for some other purpose.

      • Frank Energy

        What a sad example of the nuclear cartel, taking pot shots at those coming up with the real answers that we need.

      • Frank Energy

        Fukushima U Mann

      • Brian

        Mann worked most of his life for the nuclear power industry. So?

        • Michael Mann

          So, you are saying I have experience and know what I’m talking about? Thank you for the vote of confidence!

        • Michael Mann

          Like Brian says, I have over 35 years of experience and know what I’m talking about, I live less than 5 miles from the longest running nuclear power plant in the USA, if I didn’t think it was safe, would I live here?

    • Brian

      Notice Mann is proud to do it for money he made from a giant industry, but attacks Frank for his site. I don’t even always agree with Frank. His latest idea on how radiation could be effecting the entire Pacific ocean and more is interesting. It’s worth a read. Not proven, but very interesting and possible.

      Mann can’t let us prove that nuclear power, his life’s work, was deadly, expensive, and cursed us and our descendants for a million years.

      Who could?

      He’s a true believer.

      • Michael Mann

        Brian Knows I do not post for pay, yet he lies like this? How can anyone take him seriously? If he lies about me, how can you believe anything he says? Nuclear power is demonstrably the safest way to produce electricity. http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/04/27/death-rate-by-various-sources-of-energy/.

      • Brian

        I know he says he doesn’t post for money. I know he got his money working for the nuclear power industry, or so he says. He thinks there’s a big difference between those two. Then he want to ignore the millions of deaths from nuclear power and deny LNT. He has too. His mind would shatter if he ever accepted that his life’s works will hurt and kill millions of people for generations to come.

        The EIA is under the Atomic Energy commission, now called the DOE. Their numbers are ancient and were political numbers even then.. He’s getting desperate.

        Nuclear will be short of fuels in just ten years according to the IAEA after only 40 years or so of providing 2% of the worlds energy demand, costs 4 times available solar and wind according to Lazard(energy version 8 or 9), takes 12 years to install at which time solar and wind will be available for 16 times less. Each nuclear power plant generates 27 tons of deadly million years, billion dollar to store in dry casks for 100,000 years, spent fuel rod waste. Each year, each plant produces up to 2M tons of toxic mining wastes.

        https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf
        Solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and 4 times cheaper than nuclear before gov breaks.

        Nuclear can’t run one second without gov protection. period.
        http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
        “As we look to the future, presently known resources
        fall short of demand.”
        Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
        fig 20 also show shortfall.

        • Mike Carey

          Gosh, Brian, you *really* should see someone about that short term memory problem of yours!
          Remember this?:

          “By the year 2035, world nuclear electricity generating capacity is projected to grow from 372 GWe net (at the end of 2013) to between 399 GWe net in the low demand case and 678 GWe net in the high demand case, increases of 7% and 82% respectively. Accordingly, world annual reactor-related uranium requirements are projected to rise from 59 170 tonnes of uranium metal (tU) at the end of 2013 to between 72 205 tU and 122 150 tU by 2035. The currently defined uranium resource base is more than adequate to meet high-case requirements through 2035 and well into the foreseeable future.”

          Take care.

          • Brian

            Not in the report. Please, tell us what page it’s on.

        • Brian

          Notice the pro nuclear pr folks, don’t even reference where they get their links. Let’s take the 2014 red book.
          http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf

          “The deficits are even more dramatic in the high
          demand case. For example, known resources fall short of
          market based production requirements by 2 394 000 t U in
          the high demand case. A shortfall of 2 950 350 t U is
          projected between production from known resources and
          market based production requirements in the high demand
          case. The first deficit between production from known
          resources and requirements is projected to occur in 2026
          in the high demand case”

          and it’s not just the IAEA: “In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out is in order. “
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713004579

      • Frank Energy

        Kind of a stupid true believer too at that.

        • TimS

          antinuclear/pro-renewable paid $shils are in fact natural gas/fracking supporters. LOL.
          “The fracking revolution in energy production has unleashed such a glut of cheap natural gas that nuclear power can’t compete on a cost basis”
          http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/23/diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-climate-change/

          • Brian

            Nuclear reactors all meltdown and blow up, right?

          • TimS

            It is necessary to back up every gigawatt of wind and solar average capacity with another gigawatt of natural gas/fracking because batteries are quite expensive.
            “Attempting to salvage energetically cheap power (e.g., wind) using energetically expensive batteries is wasteful from a societal perspective.”
            http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2013/ee/c3ee41973h

            Carbon-free nuclear power is the safest source of energy.
            No one has died from radiation from commercial nuclear power production in Western Europe or the Western hemisphere because of nuclear power. No one has died from Fukushima radiation. On the other side, wind/solar kills much more than nuclear per unit of energy generated.
            http://talknuclear.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Deaths-per-TWh-of-power-produced-vs.2.png

          • Brian

            Notice the pretty picture some of the pro nuclear folks love to show that deny LNT, and blame coal deaths on solar and wind?

            Every GW of nuclear has to be backed up with a GW of load following and peak, because nuclear power plants hate the throttle.

            Solar and wind will use less reserve generation fuel than nuclear needs.

    • Michael Mann

      Beware “Frank Energy” is one of several aliases that “NukePro” uses to direct people to his personal website, for undisclosed reasons, I do know he has threatened to contact my employer because he didn’t care for my opinion and has told others that he gets their IP address when they visit his site.

  • Frank Energy

    stock here:

    A reader brought to my attention this “CODEX” of International Food Standards.

    Note that they were formed in 1963 by the World Health Organization, which is controlled by the International Atomic Energy Association.

    They are also controlled by the United Nations.

    Thus, this organization was formed by the WHO, and controlled by the nuclear cartel, the IAEA. It is also controlled by the UN which is now just basically a tool of the “Globalists”. Even Obama is openly and often using the term “Globalist”. The term “New World Order” which Soros mistakenly, in his doddering old age, trotted out a bit too directly and too soon and scared a lot of people. So they backed off a bit, and then came back if force, now openly operating under the “Globalist” theme, and the “inclusive” meme.

    1963 was the year of the height of the open air testing of nuclear bombs, it was also the year that
    Kennedy was famously filmed trying to expose the puppet string pullers behind the scenes, the “secret societies” that try to control our world. It was also the year that I was born, and that Kennedy was murdered.

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-nwo-effort-has-been-around-since_30.html