Where is all the Radiation Coming from at Fukishima? asks Dr Michio Kaku

This has been a question I wanted asked as the levels being seen throughout the world do not make any sense as the plant operators say everything is under control. But Dr Kaku answers probably many of our questions succinctly in his blog:

bigthink.com...

Here is a mystery: where is all the radiation coming from at Fukushima? Since the site is too radioactive to make definitive analyses, physicists and engineers are making educated guesses, and the results are not optimistic. First, radiation continues to spread, even as the utility claimed that everything was under control. Radiation at unit 2 was recorded at 100,000 normal, so a worker spending 1 hour there would start to come down with radiation sickness. Also, radiation in the sea water 1,000 feet from the site up to a mile from the site have registered thousands of time normal reading. Now plutonium has been found in trace amounts. The situation gets worse every day. But is the reactor situation is stable, as the utility claims, then were is radiation coming from? Second, the radiation has both iodine and cesium. Since iodine only has a half life of 8 days, this casts doubt on the spent fuel rods, since iodine has had plenty of time to decay in those spent fuel ponds. Another possibility is a pipe leak. But most likely, it is a breach of containment. This is because radioactive iodine and cesium come from exposed fuel rods that have melted. Recently, the GE engineer who worked on the Mark I reactor has stated that the source is mostly a core meltdown in unit 2 that has eaten its right through the pressure vessel (which surrounds the super hot core.) This echoes what I have been saying. If he is right, then "corium" (a liquid mixture of melted uranium) has melted its way right through the reactor vessel and is now leaking into the water system below the reactor. So direct contact with melted uranium may be the most likely cause. Most likely, this means more radiation into the environment, since there is no way stop radioactive water from touching the corium. However, at worst, the molten fuel could plunge into a pool of water and explode, creating the nightmare of Chernobyl.

reply to post by kalenga


What people don't tell you is radiation is accumulative so even small amounts over time build in your system. That small percentage that blows over to the west coast of the united states can end up building up in our water supply and after about a month we are going to start getting sick. notice the sensors are not up ghee i wonder why.

Japan is in a lot of trouble.


www.youtube.com...

news.xinhuanet.com...

reply to post by kalenga
I think he's confused.

First he says they should be entombing it in concrete and then he describes a scenario where entombing it in concrete sounds like a very bad idea. If it's just about to melt through and hit the ground water and explode as he says, then the heat removed by the water may be all that's keeping it from exploding. Pour concrete on it and the concrete won't remove heat like the water does, so that may actually cause the explosion.

Pretty dumb advice from such a smart guy. I like and respect him usually, but when he makes dumb suggestions I find it annoying, especially since he should know better.

Thank heavens the experts DO know better as do I, and they are largely ignoring the very ill-conceived advice of Kaku:

www.japantoday.com...

It’s true that concrete tombs may someday stand at the troubled nuclear complex, one expert said, but only as a long-term strategy once the radiation has cooled.

The entombment idea has been touted on American television by Michio Kaku, a physics professor at the City College of New York and a television host on the Science Channel. He has talked about dumping a combination of boric acid to dampen the nuclear fission, sand and eventually concrete to seal off the nuclear material.

Such a massive effort would take days if not weeks to plan, so he argues preparation should start now in case it becomes necessary. He envisioned an armada of helicopters and workers to dump sand and then concrete to smother the spent-fuel pool and other damaged nuclear material.

But experts see risk. For one thing, the structures that confine the radioactivity now could be damaged if heavy loads of material are dumped on them, opening new avenues for the hazard to escape.

“When you drop tons of material from hundreds of feet in a helicopter, you’re going to do some damage,” said Alex Sich, a nuclear engineer at Franciscan University in Ohio. “It could be a bad idea. ... I would ask them to stop and think three times before they do any dumping of heavy materials.”

Sich, who has lived in Chernobyl and published research on the disaster there, noted that Russian authorities dumped some 5,000 tons of sand, clay and other materials from helicopters in an attempt to smother that dangerous reactor.

The Japanese situation is different, he said. The Japanese reactors are surrounded by multiple barriers designed to contain radiation from the reactor cores. If a heavy dumping cracked the inner vessels and exposed the reactor cores, “that would be absurdity,” he said.

Other risks focus on the spent fuel rods, which are a key source of concern. While pouring tons of sand on the rods would block radiation from escaping, it would also insulate them and make them heat up faster. The heat could decompose the concrete floor, allowing the rods to fall through, which could complicate efforts to contain the radiation, said Elmer Lewis of Northwestern University.

Not just the spent fuel rods, it would also insulate the corium and allow it to heat up faster and melt through the ground faster and cause an explosion faster.

reply to post by pcrobotwolf

What people don't tell you is radiation is accumulative so even small amounts over time build in your system. That small percentage that blows over to the west coast of the united states can end up building up in our water supply and after about a month we are going to start getting sick....

What people don't tell you is.....

There were over 900 atmospheric and underground nuclear test in the USA alone.

There were 12 high-altitude nuclear tests during the late 1950′s and early 1960′s off the coast of California at Johnston Island.

From 1945 until 2008, there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted worldwide.

From: www.atomicarchive.com...

How about a bit of perspective please. I LIVED through that time period in one of the higher "radiation belts" and I am out living my parents who both died of cancer. And my grandparents (heart & Cancer)

US radiation map: Per capita thyroid doses in the continental United States of Iodine-131 resulting from all exposure routes from all atmospheric nuclear tests conducted

Instead of reading the guys with an agenda (Papers OWNED by the Banksters who are trying to smash the USA) click

Try this site from the International Atomic Energy Agency: Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log

"Try this site from the International Atomic Energy Agency: Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log "

I am not sure of the point you are making even with the big writing.

The source you list above it IAEA site.

Do you know what the IAEA organisation is?

wikipedia describe it as this "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy"

They are the bloody PR leg of the nuclear industry. What the hell do you expect them to say about this whole mess?

Do you really think that the people in Japan are not in a dire and uncontrollable situation?

We may not be in too much trouble at the moment if we are a great distance away from Japan but when this site at Fukushima does eventually disintegrate don't be so naive to think there will not be consequences across the planet from an event like this.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Try this site from the International Atomic Energy Agency: Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log

Thanks for the link. It sounds hopeful for units 1 and 3 but unit 2 doesn't sound so good.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
Do you really think that the people in Japan are not in a dire and uncontrollable situation?

Not as dire as Chernobyl, that's why it's 5 on the scale whereas Chernobyl was a 7 out of 7. It's somewhere between controllable and uncontrollable. As long as they are still pumping water in, that's at least some measure of control. If they stop doing that then I'd say there's no control at all.

We may not be in too much trouble at the moment if we are a great distance away from Japan but when this site at Fukushima does eventually disintegrate don't be so naive to think there will not be consequences across the planet from an event like this.

Who can argue with that? I agree.
When they upgrade Fukushima to a 6, or a 7 like Chernobyl and it's having Chernobyl-like effects, which could still happen, then it will be terrible and more globally significant. But it's not there yet and there's some hope that can be avoided.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


have you watched this video?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


7 – Major Accident
6 – Serious Accident
5 – Accident With Wider Consequences

A question

level 5 was called 18 Mar 2011. It is now 01-03-11. How much wider does it need to go before level 6?

Then they were admitting to loss of coolent. Now we are being mentored to accept containment breach and dry spent rod pools not talked about then, well not officially.

Fallout zone inceases almost daily and that is from highly massaged figures.

We have workers who are sacrificing their health and lives to hold this back not regain control

Yet today we are still at level 5. Come on lets get real.

Edit

The clip above says Japan states the situation is serious and unpredictable. Does that mean 6.5 rather than 5?

reply to post by JohnySeagull
Thankyou JohnySeagull, this 5 minute news item with Professor Christopher Busby, proves what we all think? It is a massive cover up, The spent fuel rods were on top of the reactor as it blew up all those weeks ago. The north of Japan will be a no go zone. It is worse than Chernobyl now. The Chernobyl cover up, only now is it being divulged that over 1 million died from that fallout in 1986. He and Michio Kaku are the only ones I have seen who are being realistic in this situation?
Only good news is that there is no land mass nearby as the fallout goes over the Pacific Ocean.
He seemed very angry as to how this has been handled and commented that the Nuclear Reactor programme should be scrapped as the populations would not want to see this happen where they live?
We can only hope?

Wonder if the American government will scrap this project on Savannah River? Probably not, as over $ 4.86 billion of the taxpayers money has been spent on it already?:

The MOX complex, scheduled to open in 2016, is designed to dispose of 32 metric tons of plutonium from dismantled nuclear bombs by blending small amounts of the material with uranium to make nuclear fuel for commercial power reactors. Its design calls for 170,000 cubic yards of concrete strengthened with 35,000 tons of reinforcing steel bars.

chronicle.augusta.com...

Thread I started on the above article:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

have you watched this video?

I just watched it. A lot of what he says is true, we weren't told many things about TMI nor Chernobyl in the early stages that we found out eventually and the same thing could be happening here. But I haven't seen any evidence to support his claim that Fukushima is as bad as Chernobyl yet, though I don't doubt it could become that bad at some point.

Originally posted by colin42
The clip above says Japan states the situation is serious and unpredictable. Does that mean 6.5 rather than 5?

After Chernobyl there were pieces of nuclear fuel and other debris lying around with radiation levels of 200,000-300,000 millisieverts per hour, which justifies a 7. I haven't seen anything like that reported at Fukushima, so far I've seen reports of 1000 millisieverts per hour, have you seen any higher?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It is without a doubt worse than 3 mile Island so it may not be a 7 but is certainly not a 5

If classed as a 6 I would expect the exclussion zone to be enlarged and the population within it moved. Maintaining it at five is more about avoidance than describing the true magnitude of the emergency.

Originally posted by colin42
It is without a doubt worse than 3 mile Island so it may not be a 7 but is certainly not a 5

No argument that it's worse than TMI but that was only rated a 4, so 5 is worse than 4.

Regarding whether it should be rated a 6 instead of a 5, I don't know.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by colin42
It is without a doubt worse than 3 mile Island so it may not be a 7 but is certainly not a 5

No argument that it's worse than TMI but that was only rated a 4, so 5 is worse than 4.

Regarding whether it should be rated a 6 instead of a 5, I don't know.

Three Mile Island was a 5.

I too think the current situation if as 'advertised' is more dangerous than TMI should probably be rated higher. But I'm not as familiar with the nuclear disaster standards and what all goes into making that classification.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Three Mile Island was a 5.

I too think the current situation if as 'advertised' is more dangerous than TMI should probably be rated higher. But I'm not as familiar with the nuclear disaster standards and what all goes into making that classification.

You're right, I stand corrected, TMI was a 5.

And according to this Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of France’s nuclear safety authority. Fukushima's a 6, I wouldn't argue with that:

www.bloomberg.com...

What I didn't realize is that the scale is logarithmic like the earthquake scale so a 6 is 10 times as bad as a 5 and a 7 is 100 times as bad as a 5. Just the fact that there are so many reactors involved in Fukushima makes it at least several times as bad as TMI already and there does seem to be more leakage also, though nowhere near the Chernobyl level.