Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plutonium detected in soil at Fukushima nuke plant
Kyodo News ^ | 03/29/11

Posted on 03/28/2011 9:10:33 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster

Plutonium detected in soil at Fukushima nuke plant

TOKYO, March 29, Kyodo

Plutonium has been detected in soil at five locations at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Monday.

The operator of the nuclear complex said that the plutonium is believed to have been discharged from nuclear fuel at the plant, which was damaged by the devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

While noting that the concentration level does not pose a risk to human health, the utility firm said it will strengthen monitoring on the environment in and around the nuclear plant.

Meanwhile, high levels of radiation exceeding 1,000 millisieverts per hour have been detected in water in a trench outside the No. 2 reactor's building at the nuclear plant, with the contaminated water suspected to have come from the reactor's core, where fuel rods have partially melted, authorities said Monday.

(Excerpt) Read more at english.kyodonews.jp ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Japan; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fukushima; plutonium; reactor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2011 9:10:39 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; sushiman; Ronin; AmericanInTokyo; gaijin; struggle; DTogo; GATOR NAVY; Iris7; ...

P!


2 posted on 03/28/2011 9:11:18 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster (The way to crush the bourgeois is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Nuclear accident bad. Plutonium not bad?????


3 posted on 03/28/2011 9:15:22 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I keep getting this unnerved perception that nobody is trained any more on how to assess nuclear engineering operations, and quite frankly, it’s annoying, because I know they exist.


4 posted on 03/28/2011 9:21:53 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Ann "Corponaziwhore" told us it's good for us!

Btw- now 1000x higher at & around site.

5 posted on 03/28/2011 9:23:39 AM PDT by de.rm ("Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, 3 times is enemy action.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

This is exactly what happens when they won’t let anyone safely contain nuke waste deep underground in a secure facility and re-process it and they have to “store” it onsite.

Instead you have an accident at a nuke power plant and it makes it 100X worse than it could have been.

Most of the spewing from the Fukashima plants has been from spent fuel.


6 posted on 03/28/2011 9:29:13 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: de.rm

Yeh...Just like xrays were good for us....which is why the tech stays behind a lead wall AND we NOW have to wear a gym mat for simple mouth xrays. Is our mouth near our brain???


7 posted on 03/28/2011 9:30:40 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

. . unless your in politics, . . . owwwwwww!


8 posted on 03/28/2011 9:34:08 AM PDT by de.rm ("Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, 3 times is enemy action.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
"I keep getting this unnerved perception that nobody is trained any more on how to assess nuclear engineering operations, and quite frankly, it’s annoying, because I know they exist."

Don't worry, 24,000 years will be over before you know it.

9 posted on 03/28/2011 9:39:07 AM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I think you could find quite a few respectable scientists who would say that the only safe level of plutonium is zero. Beyond that, it’s all a matter of luck.


10 posted on 03/28/2011 9:52:29 AM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: de.rm

“Ann “Corponaziwhore” told us it’s good for us!”

That’s not what she said. If you’re gonna accept what the libs cherrypicked,,,, And she tweaks their noses with outrageous statements all the time! Usually said with a smirk on her face. Read her actual article, and the facts nd studies she sights;

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347

I’m no big fan, but,,,,,,,


11 posted on 03/28/2011 9:52:38 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

12 posted on 03/28/2011 9:58:15 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
この記事を掲載していただきありがとうございます
13 posted on 03/28/2011 10:04:23 AM PDT by Moleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Easy for you to say...

;^)

14 posted on 03/28/2011 10:04:39 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama -- a phony and a prick, therefore a dildo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

All you need to see on that is the PU238, 239 and 240

Plutonium


15 posted on 03/28/2011 10:12:33 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

btw , notice the dates of that test. It is days old and they just now revealed the info.


16 posted on 03/28/2011 10:18:45 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
No, what I need to see is comparative tables of: 1) PU-238/PU-239/PU-240 levels for each day since 10 March at 2) distances of 10 meters from the core, 50 meters from the core, 100 meters from the core and 1000 meters from the core, 3) all these values stated in BEDs, not microcuries or milliSieverts.

Then, I need to see the same tables for Cesium-137 (we can ignore Iodine-131 due to its short halflife).

Two tables, please, for each of the 6 reactors. Some of the reactors, I'm told, did not use PU as a fuel, and obviously the values for PU for these will be zero.

Sheesh, such a response to an obvious (if cheap) gag...

17 posted on 03/28/2011 10:32:20 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama -- a phony and a prick, therefore a dildo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Most of the spewing from the Fukashima plants has been from spent fuel.

How do you know that?

18 posted on 03/28/2011 10:35:32 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; All
Depends on *which* Plutonium. There are several isotopes, all of varying decay modes and energies. http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Plutonium.pdf http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/rad-properties.pdf Things to NB: 1. The amount released into the environment during nuke weapons testing: "Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which ceased worldwide by 1980, generated most environmental plutonium. About 10,000 kg were released to the atmosphere during these tests. Average plutonium levels in surface soil from fallout range from about 0.01 to 0.1 picocurie per gram (pCi/g). " 10,000 kg is a lot of Plutonium already spread in the environment. 2. Above-ground weapons tests consisted of either popping off a nuke at ground level (eg, on a tower), or an air drop from a plane, usually retarded by a chute. In either case, the resulting fallout was more widely distributed because the nuclides resulting from the explosion were pushed into the jet stream by the vertical thermal column resulting from the bomb. 3. The low specific activity of plutonium isotopes, coupled with the alpha emission as the typical activity, means that ingestion of Pu particles is the greatest danger to humans. OK, so what's the health outcomes of Plutonium ingestion (which is the most severe form of exposure to Pu, since the longest-lived isotopes give off alpha radiation)? Well, we have 37 Los Almos workers from the Manhattan Project who have been studied: From Google Docs: "Manhattan Project Plutonium Workers at Los Alamos," George L. Voelz. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:5GfzUFiKKiwJ:www.crcnetbase.com/doi/pdf/10.1201/9781420037197.ch36+A+42-y+medical+follow-up+of+Manhattan+Project+plutonium+workers&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiz1d12B8ahsDxZEciLP3VDeJbK-4mnxN8M2lze9WrNTy4LQuitB5tDpC1uuFJYq6_XrwmzEci-Yws2QNv2pl-yLafezNc16KgwVPRPCY-s0b7oytdgY7EN5XuOB0zjr1hehAmW&sig=AHIEtbRfwGHQmo89qcJpZjXaQISwZNobTQ What's the bottom line? "Data on 26 workers exposed to plutonium-239 in 1944 to 1945 and observed for a period of more than 50 years have consistently shown that the mortality rates for all causes of deaths and for all cancers are not elevated compared with either U.S. white males or unexposed Los Alamos male workers with comparable hire dates. This finding differs from some popular misperceptions that large health risks occur after any exposure to plutonium. The median effective dose to these men is 1.3 Sv (mean dose = 2.1 Sv). The incidence of specific cancers, especially lung cancer (4) and osteogenic sarcoma (1), is interesting, but additional data are needed to draw conclusions about the relationship between plutonium doses comparable to those in this study and the induction of excess cancers." Now, look at the median effective dose to those men: 1.3 Sv. Not "milli," not "micro." Full-on Sieverts. That comes from Pu lodged in their tissues from inhalation, ingestion, deposits into the flesh from cuts/wounds, etc. As I keep telling people: Go do your own homework. There is plenty of data out there. I've read it, and that's why I'm not running in circles, screaming and shouting. The data show that, at the *very* least, that the widely-perceived lethality of radionuclides isn't as high or certain as the popular press would like to portray. But some of you want to panic about something, so I guess that this is as good as any reason to panic. Go ahead, get it out of your system.
19 posted on 03/28/2011 10:57:45 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; All
Depends on *which* Plutonium. There are several isotopes, all of varying decay modes and energies. http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Plutonium.pdf http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/rad-properties.pdf Things to NB: 1. The amount released into the environment during nuke weapons testing: "Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which ceased worldwide by 1980, generated most environmental plutonium. About 10,000 kg were released to the atmosphere during these tests. Average plutonium levels in surface soil from fallout range from about 0.01 to 0.1 picocurie per gram (pCi/g). " 10,000 kg is a lot of Plutonium already spread in the environment. 2. Above-ground weapons tests consisted of either popping off a nuke at ground level (eg, on a tower), or an air drop from a plane, usually retarded by a chute. In either case, the resulting fallout was more widely distributed because the nuclides resulting from the explosion were pushed into the jet stream by the vertical thermal column resulting from the bomb. 3. The low specific activity of plutonium isotopes, coupled with the alpha emission as the typical activity, means that ingestion of Pu particles is the greatest danger to humans. OK, so what's the health outcomes of Plutonium ingestion (which is the most severe form of exposure to Pu, since the longest-lived isotopes give off alpha radiation)? Well, we have 37 Los Almos workers from the Manhattan Project who have been studied: From Google Docs: "Manhattan Project Plutonium Workers at Los Alamos," George L. Voelz. Google the title in quotes, and you should find the doc. I tried to include a URL and ended up with the solid mess of text above, so I removed the URL. What's the bottom line? "Data on 26 workers exposed to plutonium-239 in 1944 to 1945 and observed for a period of more than 50 years have consistently shown that the mortality rates for all causes of deaths and for all cancers are not elevated compared with either U.S. white males or unexposed Los Alamos male workers with comparable hire dates. This finding differs from some popular misperceptions that large health risks occur after any exposure to plutonium. The median effective dose to these men is 1.3 Sv (mean dose = 2.1 Sv). The incidence of specific cancers, especially lung cancer (4) and osteogenic sarcoma (1), is interesting, but additional data are needed to draw conclusions about the relationship between plutonium doses comparable to those in this study and the induction of excess cancers." Now, look at the median effective dose to those men: 1.3 Sv. Not "milli," not "micro." Full-on Sieverts. That comes from Pu lodged in their tissues from inhalation, ingestion, deposits into the flesh from cuts/wounds, etc. As I keep telling people: Go do your own homework. There is plenty of data out there. I've read it, and that's why I'm not running in circles, screaming and shouting. The data show that, at the *very* least, that the widely-perceived lethality of radionuclides isn't as high or certain as the popular press would like to portray. But some of you want to panic about something, so I guess that this is as good as any reason to panic. Go ahead, get it out of your system.
20 posted on 03/28/2011 10:59:27 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

What a coincidence.

Who would have figured that they would have built a nuke plant on top of a plutonium deposit?


21 posted on 03/28/2011 11:02:28 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; All
OK, I gave up on the default formatting and put in the HTML formatting to make this readable. Depends on which Plutonium. There are several isotopes, all of varying decay modes and energies.

Plutonium Properties

Radioactive Properties, Internal Distribution and Risk Coefficients

Things to NB:

1. The amount released into the environment during nuke weapons testing:

"Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which ceased worldwide by 1980, generated most environmental plutonium. About 10,000 kg were released to the atmosphere during these tests. Average plutonium levels in surface soil from fallout range from about 0.01 to 0.1 picocurie per gram (pCi/g). "

10,000 kg is a lot of Plutonium already spread in the environment.

2. Above-ground weapons tests consisted of either popping off a nuke at ground level (eg, on a tower), or an air drop from a plane, usually retarded by a chute.

In either case, the resulting fallout was more widely distributed because the nuclides resulting from the explosion were pushed into the jet stream by the vertical thermal column resulting from the bomb.

3. The low specific activity of plutonium isotopes, coupled with the alpha emission as the typical activity, means that ingestion of Pu particles is the greatest danger to humans.
OK, so what's the health outcomes of Plutonium ingestion (which is the most severe form of exposure to Pu, since the longest-lived isotopes give off alpha radiation)?

Well, we have 37 Los Almos workers from the Manhattan Project who have been studied:

From Google Docs:

"Manhattan Project Plutonium Workers at Los Alamos," George L. Voelz.

Google the title in quotes, and you should find the doc. I tried to include a URL and ended up with the solid mess of text above, so I removed the URL.

What's the bottom line?

"Data on 26 workers exposed to plutonium-239 in 1944 to 1945 and observed for a period of more than 50 years have consistently shown that the mortality rates for all causes of deaths and for all cancers are not elevated compared with either U.S. white males or unexposed Los Alamos male workers with comparable hire dates. This finding differs from some popular misperceptions that large health risks occur after any exposure to plutonium. The median effective dose to these men is 1.3 Sv (mean dose = 2.1 Sv). The incidence of specific cancers, especially lung cancer (4) and osteogenic sarcoma (1), is interesting, but additional data are needed to draw conclusions about the relationship between plutonium doses comparable to those in this study and the induction of excess cancers."

Now, look at the median effective dose to those men: 1.3 Sv. Not "milli," not "micro." Full-on Sieverts of exposure over their lifetimes since Los Almos. That comes from Pu lodged in their tissues from inhalation, ingestion, deposits into the flesh from cuts/wounds, etc.

As I keep telling people: Go do your own homework. There is plenty of data out there. I've read it, and that's why I'm not running in circles, screaming and shouting. The data show that, at the *very* least, that the widely-perceived lethality of radionuclides isn't as high or certain as the popular press would like to portray.
But some of you want to panic about something, so I guess that this is as good as any reason to panic. Go ahead, get it out of your system.

22 posted on 03/28/2011 11:15:55 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
Depends on *which* Plutonium...

<P>aragraphs are our friends...

Is it really all that complicated to begin each <p>aragraph with an html <p>aragraph tag?

23 posted on 03/28/2011 11:18:58 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

No, but then I’m lazy when posting. I’ve put up a formatted version which works.


24 posted on 03/28/2011 11:20:28 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
OK, I gave up on the default formatting and put in the HTML formatting to make this readable.

Thank you.

25 posted on 03/28/2011 11:21:59 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
No, but then I’m lazy when posting.

Fair enough. I'm lazy when it comes to reading others' posts. Large blocks of text are hard to read, so when I see them, I simply skip on down the page.

26 posted on 03/28/2011 11:27:00 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Yes, I understand. It was formatted with para’s in the plain text, but some character sequence caused the default posting sw to just jam it together into a solid block.

I don’t ordinarily task people with solid lumps of text.


27 posted on 03/28/2011 11:29:02 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

“This is exactly what happens when they won’t let anyone safely contain nuke waste deep underground in a secure facility and re-process it and they have to “store” it onsite.
Instead you have an accident at a nuke power plant and it makes it 100X worse than it could have been.
Most of the spewing from the Fukashima plants has been from spent fuel.”

You can’t permanently store used fuel rods until they’ve quit producing heat from residual reaction. As best I can tell, this takes several years of temporary storage in cooling pools.


28 posted on 03/28/2011 11:34:06 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from the right stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
1.) It doesn't strike me that 1 Bq per kilogram of dirt is a whole lot of plutonium. If my calculations are correct, it works out to about 0.5 parts per quadrillion.

2.) My Japanese is a little less than rudimentary, but it appears that the dates and times are when the samples were taken. If so, the turnaround of a week to do the analysis is not unreasonable.

What is your opinion?

29 posted on 03/28/2011 11:48:14 AM PDT by sima_yi ( Reporting live from the People's Republic of Boulder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Some of the reactors, I'm told, did not use PU as a fuel, and obviously the values for PU for these will be zero.

Actually, that's not true.

U-235, which is the "enriched" in "enriched uranium," will split promptly when hit by a neutron, and thus add a bit of heat to the reactor's core.

U-238, on the other hand, which makes up over 90% of the uranium in ordinary nuclear fuel, turns into plutonium when it's hit by a neutron of the proper energy.

This newly-created plutonium can then subsequently be split by another neutron, adding another bit of heat to the nuclear reactor's core. In fact the fission of new plutonium contributes a significant amount of heat to the total produced by the core by the time the fuel is swapped out.

So in other words, every nuclear reactor that's been running for any amount of time has a considerable amount of plutonium in its core, which is created and then "burned up" as the fuel ages.

30 posted on 03/28/2011 11:56:31 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sima_yi
1.) It doesn't strike me that 1 Bq per kilogram of dirt is a whole lot of plutonium. If my calculations are correct, it works out to about 0.5 parts per quadrillion.

The trouble is that radiation is so easy to detect. If we could see, smell, and taste all the toxic and alarming contaminants in our water and food, we'd probably all starve to death.

Radiation is everywhere, all the time, and always has been.

When it comes to radiation, folks out there are starting to sound like the "homeopathic medicine" adherents, who try to pass off a bottle of water with a few molecules (if any) of "active" ingredients in it as a "remedy."

31 posted on 03/28/2011 12:13:31 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

As I pointed out on another thread last week, the “fallout” or whatever contamination from Fukushima doesn’t concern me in the least. Really.

But that doesn’t mean that I ignore all risks from radiation. Our house has a radon venting system under the concrete pad. It runs all the time. And, after examining the lung cancer stats on non-smokers who live in houses in states with elevated levels of radon in the soil, it is clear to me that absent a nuke weapon being popped off within two miles of me, the radon risk outweighs all other radioactivity risks in my life.

By *far*.


32 posted on 03/28/2011 12:42:49 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sima_yi
Sorry, I have absolutely no knowledge of Japanese. In discussing radiation, though, particularly as to how it may or may not be affecting humans or the ambient environment, it is **necessary** to discuss dosage, duration, and type. AND, it is necessary to start with existing natural levels of background radiation.

This has not only NOT been done, these subtopics in the discussion have been uniformly either ignored or distorted by the sensationalist cretins in the alleged "media".

My opinion? My opinion is that anyone who lacks both a degree in nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry and a US Navy certification in nuclear operation should be barred -- by law -- from "journalising" on the subject. Most of the (very few) qualified commentators I've seen/read in the past two weeks are VERY clear in their explanations and VERY deliberate in their comparisons and evaluations.

FReegards!

33 posted on 03/28/2011 1:15:54 PM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama -- a phony and a prick, therefore a dildo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Looks like water with highly radioactive particles is making its way out of the turbine building. Now in the trench located between the turbine building and the ocean. Includes video report.

Radioactive water in external tunnels

34 posted on 03/28/2011 2:19:11 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

Well why don’t you ask why Tepco hasn’t release all of that ...


35 posted on 03/28/2011 2:53:10 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3QJ8mxZOxA

Yes, it is now in the trenches


36 posted on 03/28/2011 2:55:40 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sima_yi

NEI: UPDATE AS OF 1:30 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 28:
Tokyo Electric Power Co. has detected isolated, low concentrations of plutonium in the soil at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The density of plutonium is equivalent to the fallout that reached Japan from nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War, the company said.

TEPCO conducted analysis of plutonium contained in the soil collected on March 21 and 22 at five locations at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Plutonium 238, 239 and 240 were detected, however just two of the samples may be the direct result of the recent incident, considering the ratio of the plutonium isotopes.

“The density detected in the plutonium is equivalent to the density in the soil under normal environmental conditions and therefore poses no major impact on human health,” TEPCO said. The company said it plans to strengthen environmental monitoring inside the station and surrounding areas.



37 posted on 03/28/2011 2:57:42 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110328e14.pdf

In english.

and locations
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110328e15.pdf

And in the physics forum here is what one poster said

At sampling spots 1 and 5 the ratio of Pu-238 to total Pu activity is of the order of 1..2, which means the Pu originates from fuel with burnups > 10 MWd/kgU, i.e. reactor fuel. So, even though the absolute value of the Pu activity is not significantly higher than that resulting from the atmospheric nuclear testing, its composition implies that some fuel damages have occurred in such a way that small amounts of fuel have been dispersed to the vicinity of the plant.


38 posted on 03/28/2011 3:00:49 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

man found dead

did radiation kill him or did he die from something else and is now too “hot” to remove

5 kilometers from the plant

http://www.majiroxnews.com/2011/03/28/body-containing-high-levels-of-radiation-found-near-fukushima-plant/

Nuclear Seaweed

A research team has detected an increased level of radiation in seaweed and rainwater samples gathered in B.C., and attribute the rise to the crippled Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan.

Nuclear physicist Kris Starosta of Simon Fraser University said… “As of now, the levels we’re seeing are not harmful to humans. … [W]e have not reached levels of elevated risk [of cancer].”


39 posted on 03/28/2011 3:12:01 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Thanks for that video link. Wonder if those trenches got filled by the Tsunami ? At any rate, it doesn’t matter how thick the concrete is around a nuclear reactor. A chain is unfortunately only as strong as its weakest link.


40 posted on 03/28/2011 3:19:35 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Plutonium in soil near NYC:
Officials Alter Removal Plan For Plutonium The Material At Fort Dix Spilled From A Nuclear Warhead In 1960.
Since 1960. In 1960 a missile containing a plutonium warhead caught fire. A Fire! Melting! Soil! Air! Plutonium! Less than 50 miles from Manhattan!

Panicked yet? People dying all over? FIFTY ONE YEARS AGO WE HAD A PLUTONIUM INCIDENT -- where's all the dead? Where's a single dead person?

41 posted on 03/28/2011 3:20:47 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Thanks for the sanity.


42 posted on 03/28/2011 3:23:42 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

TEPCO CANNOT BE TRUSTED
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/power-company-failed-to-maintain-safety-checks-20110320-1c2fr.html

The revelation raises more questions about the scandal-tainted past of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) and the government’s perceived soft regulation of the industry.

The operator of the Fukushima No. 1 plant submitted a report to the country’s nuclear watchdog 10 days before the quake hit on March 11, admitting it had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment in its six reactors.

A power board distributing electricity to a reactor’s temperature control valves was not examined for 11 years, and inspectors faked records, pretending to make thorough inspections when in fact they were only cursory, Tepco said.

It also said that inspections, which are voluntary, did not cover other devices related to cooling systems, including water pump motors and diesel generators.


43 posted on 03/28/2011 3:24:37 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Do not want to be an alarmist, but you might want to start stocking up on potable water. That seaweed report off the BC coast is troubling. Can store well over 1,000 gallons myself with just my existing infrastructure. Our genius government civil engineering planners decided to leave our water supply here in the southwest wide open to the atmosphere.


44 posted on 03/28/2011 3:27:15 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
That explains the way this situation has been poorly managed and why the Sky Is Not Falling crowd has been proven wrong, again and again. Which is unfortunate, because I was hoping they got this one right.
45 posted on 03/28/2011 3:32:03 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Plutonium not a problem and everything is A-OK,..is that your story?

Those in Japan surely know by now that TEPCO can’t be trusted. Just a very short time before the earthquake hit they admitted they hadn’t done safety checks on equipment. It is documented they have lied about the safety of their equipment.

Those people in Japan darn well better be worried about what kind and how much Plutonium they might be subjected to when they inhale.

http://www.hss.energy.gov/HealthSafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap5_1.html

Deadly exposure: Plutonium-related cancers plague children of the Manhattan Project

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Deadly-exposure


46 posted on 03/28/2011 3:45:28 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

I have to say I’m extremely suspicious of newbies spewing disingenuous hyperbole.


47 posted on 03/28/2011 3:48:17 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Ping.


48 posted on 03/28/2011 3:50:04 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Hi, how are you? I will be glad when we get some really warm weather that will stick around for more than a day.


49 posted on 03/28/2011 3:55:34 PM PDT by MamaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Yes! There are idiots posting this anti-Anne stuff. Read her column, and anyone can see that she’s right on the money. And I’m not that big a fan of hers,,,, but I’d like to get my hands on her!


50 posted on 03/28/2011 4:00:47 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson