Were the Nuclear Protesters Right?

[BigNick]

Where's the outrage over organic farming? It's certainly time to re-examine our fatal fascination with this technology. We now have good alternatives that are safer.

I'm not blaming organic (although it's a scam). I'm blaming whoever convinced those consumers that beansprouts are a salad vegetable. If your salad is lacking crunch, add croutons, or bacon.

 

[Tigger]

Do you have a real [-]pony[/-] question in that link, or are you just trolling for another exciting dissertation on reactor physics?

You're right, I should have been more precise. While reading the article, the following bits stood out and I'm wondering if they are exaggerating the problems or correct:

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

Gundersen pointed out that the units are still leaking radiation. “They are still emitting radioactive gases and an enormous amount of radioactive liquid," he said. "It will be at least a year before it stops boiling, and until it stops boiling, it's going to be cranking out radioactive steam and liquids.”

According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles". (BigNick earlier wrote that Gundersen's statements about "hot particles" was too vague and that the size of the particles would need to be known - the above statement is clearer about the source and size ("microns") though still a bit vague, but I suppose those who have the means to measure them, aren't inclined to publish more info than obligatory)

TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of. "The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"

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

"Units one through three have nuclear waste on the floor, the melted core, that has plutonium in it, and that has to be removed from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."

You might want to check these claims on your own to see what sort of peer-reviewed journal they're appearing in. Apparently they managed to sneak past whatever passes for editorial review.

Getting articles published in peer-reviewed journals can take ages, while information about ongoing events is most interesting while they're happening.

I'm calling hogwash on the credibility of a guy with four decades of nuclear engineering experience referring to it as a "Geiger counter".

I don't know how big a sin that is, but it seems normal to me to use popular terminology when writing articles for the general public.

 

[M Paquette]

A German organic farm appears to have killed 35 people and permantly destroyed the health of many more. The radiation from the damaged Japanese nuclear plants have killed no one (though it will admittedly take a lot of thorough epidemiological studies over decades to know for sure).

Where's the outrage over organic farming? It's certainly time to re-examine our fatal fascination with this technology. We now have good alternatives that are safer.

Amusingly enough, E Coli and similar contaminants in raw vegetables and fruits are readily controlled using food irradiation. This is, of course, not acceptable in our fear-based technophobe environment.

 

[M Paquette]

Getting articles published in peer-reviewed journals can take ages, while information about ongoing events is most interesting while they're happening.

Ah, yeah. And I could write all sorts of scary fear-mongering headline-grabbing stuff, too, and even enjoy a nice by-the-word remuneration while pursuing an agenda.

But I don't. (And yes, I have published in peer-reviewed journals.)

 

[Nords]

You're right, I should have been more precise. While reading the article, the following bits stood out and I'm wondering if they are exaggerating the problems or correct:
"Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively."

I'm not asking for precision, I'm just wondering what you're asking.

I'm a little confused on the difference between an "exposed nuclear reactor" and an "exposed fuel core". Let's say that three reactor pressure vessels have been breached and a cooling pond (holding some number of old used-up uranium cores) is having problems. I guess that would be correct, although I haven't been keeping a scorecard.

Gundersen pointed out that the units are still leaking radiation. “They are still emitting radioactive gases and an enormous amount of radioactive liquid," he said. "It will be at least a year before it stops boiling, and until it stops boiling, it's going to be cranking out radioactive steam and liquids.”

I suspect that's correct, although I doubt what's happening today is within two or three orders of magnitude of a couple months ago. I can't predict how long boiling will go on, either-- my experience is with tiny little high-density cores instead of big massive low-density industrial cores. But saying how much was leaking compared to how much is leaking would [-]be boring[/-] miss the point that leaking is still happening. Fair enough, but it lacks the context of the tremendous amount of work that's gone on during the last few months.

According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles".[/I] (BigNick earlier wrote that Gundersen's statements about "hot particles" was too vague and that the size of the particles would need to be known - the above statement is clearer about the source and size ("microns") though still a bit vague, but I suppose those who have the means to measure them, aren't inclined to publish more info than obligatory)

Yep, the fuel and the fission products are still decaying. I don't know if the fission products are still being released to the atmosphere, nor how much. However I don't feel compelled to change my car's air filter.

TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of. "The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"

No pleasing the critics, is there? TEPCO should've let it all melt down in a gigantic China Syndrome that would've completely avoided steamy radiation and contaminated seawater.

The Fukushima water is probably going to be treated the way the rest of the industry treats it-- store as much as you can, filter it, dilute the rest, and either re-use it for cooling or (when it's below the legal limits) discharge it.

U.S. Navy submarines routinely discharge ~100 gallons of steamin' hot primary coolant overboard a few times a year, and do the same with a thousand or so gallons of room-temperature primary coolant that's been sitting in a storage tank for a month or two. The difference is that they do this dozens of miles out at sea, and there's no discernible effect on the environment.

Fukushima has pretty well fouled their own back yard for now. I'd be interested in a biological survey of their area compared with, say, the area covered by the Exxon Valdez spill or the BP's Gulf spill. I bet Fukushima's locale recovers a lot faster than Prince William Sound or the Gulf.

"The fuels are now a molten blob at the bottom of the reactor," Gundersen added. "TEPCO announced they had a melt through. A melt down is when the fuel collapses to the bottom of the reactor, and a melt through means it has melted through some layers. That blob is incredibly radioactive, and now you have water on top of it. The water picks up enormous amounts of radiation, so you add more water and you are generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water."
"Units one through three have nuclear waste on the floor, the melted core, that has plutonium in it, and that has to be removed from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."

Maybe it's a problem that doesn't need solving. I'm not sure there's a reason to pick it up in the first place. TEPCO could choose the Chernobyl approach of a gazillion tons of wet concrete, slap a plaque on the outside, and start bringing in tour groups.

There's far more radioactive waste (and radioactivity) at Hanford in Washington state, but apparently that's [-]also boring[/-] not leaking enough to be newsworthy. Yet Hanford has been dealing with these problems for literally generations (it's where retired U.S. Navy submariners start their bridge careers), and I'm sure that the industry can figure out how to do the same with Fukushima.

Getting articles published in peer-reviewed journals can take ages, while information about ongoing events is most interesting while they're happening.

Yeah, and the facts have a discouraging habit of ruining the most entertaining breaking news stories too.

I think we're both exaggerating the reality. I suspect a credible physicist, even a slightly wild-eyed activist, would be able to engage the editorial review boards of Nature or Scientific American within weeks of the event. There's a reason these guys are showing up on the fringes instead of in the mainstream media, and it's because they're either desperate for publicity or just... not credible.

I don't know how big a sin that is, but it seems normal to me to use popular terminology when writing articles for the general public.

If by "popular terminology" you mean references to "Howdy Doody", "the Vietnam War" and maybe passing comment on the "Disco Era", then yeah, that'd be popular terminology. Heck, my 1980s-90s "radiac" terminology is probably also quaintly out of date. I would've expected an expert to be able to use terminology that's an industry standard like "radiation detector".

Look, Tigger, this has been fun while it lasted, but I think my work here is about done. I might jump back into this thread if [-]it reminds me of a sea story[/-] there's some actual substantive news to interpret, but I'm not going to keep debunking the fringe theories. This article has about equal amounts of credibility and reactor physics, and if there's not much of the former then let's not waste our time on the latter.

I'm blaming whoever convinced those consumers that beansprouts are a salad vegetable. If your salad is lacking crunch, add croutons, or bacon.

CFB has always been trying to call America's attention to the conspiracy surrounding the Warren Commission's suppression of that ground-breaking documentary "Broccoli: The Silent Killer"...

 

[kumquat]

According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles". (BigNick earlier wrote that Gundersen's statements about "hot particles" was too vague and that the size of the particles would need to be known - the above statement is clearer about the source and size ("microns") though still a bit vague, but I suppose those who have the means to measure them, aren't inclined to publish more info than obligatory)

My bold.

Well, I'm not a nuclear physicist or a nuclear submariner or a nuclear anything, but I do have a scientific background (Chemistry). I have no idea what of micron of any element would be (since micron is a measure of length, ie. one dimension) and atoms tend to be a bit smaller than that as well as three dimensional. I'd understand micro-gram (a measure of [-]weight [/-]mass), millicurie (a measure of radioactivity) but microns of something?

Unless Gundersen was misquoted, that alone would make me question his credibility.

 

[GregLee]

I have no idea what of micron of any element would be (since micron is a measure of length, ie. one dimension) and atoms tend to be a bit smaller than that as well as three dimensional.

It refers to the size of the particles referred to in the very next sentence, not atoms -- not so hard to understand, I think, even for a chemist.

 

[kumquat]

It's extremely hard for a chemist to understand what the actual amount of matter in a "microns" particle is, a one dimensional particle?. Please enlighten me.

I am not a chemist. I simply have a degree in Chemistry.

 

[ERD50]

It refers to the size of the particles referred to in the very next sentence, not atoms -- not so hard to understand, I think, even for a chemist.

No, especially for a [-]chemist[/-] someone with a degree in Chemistry. He's looking for technically meaningful words. After all, this whole nuclear thing is quite technical.

So, saying that you have 'microns' of something, would be like saying you have 'meters' of water. What would that mean exactly? You could say you have a liter of water, or a kilogram of water, or a cubic centimeter of water. Those would all have meaning. To get more precise, you would need to specify temperature, but you'd be close as long as it was 'water' (not ice or steam).

But a meter of water? What does that tell me?

More importantly - I wonder if Tigger is 'getting it' as this thread goes on? We have people on this forum who are well versed in this area, and they aren't sending up doomsday scenarios. Sure there are concerns, but if we were on the edge of the collapse of civilization as we know it (OK, a little hyperbole from me), I would expect Nords, M Paquette and Gumby to be the first ones to be getting their families into fall-out shelters. But we don't hear that kind of talk from them. That speaks volumes to me.

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

...I would expect Nords, M Paquette and Gumby to be the first ones to be getting their families into fall-out shelters. But we don't hear that kind of talk from them. That speaks volumes to me.

I'm too busy enjoying my deadly carcinogenic espresso to bother with that.

I'll worry about much higher probability accidents, like getting smooshed by an asteroid, or being poisoned by all the radioactive fallout downwind of a coal-fired power plant. (Yeah. Radioactive fallout. From a coal plant. Look it up.)

 

[GregLee]

So, saying that you have 'microns' of something, would be like saying you have 'meters' of water. What would that mean exactly?

In context, "micron" obviously refers to the linear dimension of the "hot particles" of the next sentence. Didn't I just say that? The particles are evidently small bits of matter, dust, and they were discussed earlier in the thread. I myself gave a reference to an interview with a scientist (a grad student) currently engaged in collecting and measuring them. A small particle of dust, around a micron in size, which has some radioactive material in it, is not a terribly difficult concept to grasp. Come on, guys. Do you really think that all that needs to be done to discredit Gundersen is to pretend you can't understand what he's saying?

 

[kumquat]

If your wife told you she wanted to buy a particle a couple of million microns long, nearly a million microns wide and several thousand microns deep that contained uranium, was radioactive and potentially gave off radon gas would you know what she was talking about. Should be simple, right?

What I've described is a granite counter top. Other than the number of microns, how does that description differ from:

A small particle of dust, around a micron in size, which has some radioactive material in it

Is either dangerous? The answer is, "it depends" and the things it depends on need a better description than "hot particles", after all the counter top is just a big honkin "hot particle". Gundersen, as someone with a scientific background, would know that. Unless he was misquoted, that would make me question his credibility.

 

[growing_older]

A German organic farm appears to have killed 35 people and permanently destroyed the health of many more.

If you are only judging the safety of something based on fatalities, these kinds of comparisons are intriguing. Or compare to deaths by automobile. But as far as I know nuclear power plants stand alone in their ability to contaminate wide areas in case of catastrophic failure. Last I heard all inhabitants for 20km in all directions from the plant were evacuated. There is no timeline yet for their return (if ever) and there is talk about extending the zone. Also as I understand it, radioactive contamination can spread over wide areas and potentially impact many more people over an extended period of time than chemical spills. I don't think it's an accurate comparison to just count direct fatalities.

 

[GregLee]

The answer is, "it depends" and the things it depends on need a better description than "hot particles", after all the counter top is just a big honkin "hot particle". Gundersen, as someone with a scientific background, would know that.

Well, it's easier to breathe in a dust particle than a counter top, I reckon, and easier for the dust particle to be transported by the wind from Japan than it is for a counter top to be. Do I need a scientific background to figure that out?

 

[BigNick]

A small particle of dust, around a micron in size, which has some radioactive material in it, is not a terribly difficult concept to grasp.

Indeed. But what we were told is:

According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes.

That clearly implies that the "microns" are solid bits of (presumably the nastier radioactive) isotopes of those elements. Had he said "micron-sized dust particles containing radioactive Cs/Sr/Pu", and perhaps given us an idea of the percentage of each speck which was thus contaminated, we might have something to go on. But all this conveys to me is "tiny package of pure evil", which might go down well at a hustings but is not how science works.

Come on, guys. Do you really think that all that needs to be done to discredit Gundersen is to pretend you can't understand what he's saying?

If he is literally saying "microns of isotopes" then he immediately discredits himself absolutely. You can't just throw science-y sounding words like "microns" and "isotopes" around and hope that they make sense. I hope for his reputation's sake that he's being misquoted.

 

[samclem]

But as far as I know nuclear power plants stand alone in their ability to contaminate wide areas in case of catastrophic failure.

A coal-fired plant doesn't need to wait for a catastrophic failure, it's busily contaminating the atmosphere whenever it is running. They build the smokestacks tall on those things just so they spread the contaminants over a wider area: it produces fewer numbers of serious/acute problems, but a larger number of people are impacted. 24/7, no need for a tsunami.

And when a hydroelectric dam catastrophically fails, it can kill many folks. Heck, 75 folks died two years ago when a turbine failed at in a Russian hydroelectric plant and the dam was barely affected. Between 90,000 and 230,000 Chinese died from a failure of the Banqiao dam. I guess folks can quibble about the term "contaminate" but I'd bet those scores of thousands of people killed would consider H2O every bit as deadly as Cs. And if given a choice to live downstream of a dam or downwind of a nuclear plant, I think I know how they'd vote. If they could.

 

[clifp]

Hey can we talk about how vaccines are causing autism.

At least it would give us an excuse to post pictures of this hottie

 

[M Paquette]

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
The eight cities included in the report are San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise, and the time frame of the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster.

You might want to check these claims on your own to see what sort of peer-reviewed journal they're appearing in. Apparently they managed to sneak past whatever passes for editorial review.

I tracked down this publication. It is more of a 'games with statistics and small samples' than anything real. The 'pre-Fukushima accident' sample of morbidity and mortality in infants was drawn from a 4 week period ending March 19, 2011. The 'post-Fukushima' sample was drawn from a 10 week period ending May 28, 2011. Mortality and morbidity were reported by Dr. Sherman to 4 significant places. [1]

Note that while Dr. Sherman reports the variation as being statistically significant, the CDC data[2] the numbers are drawn from routinely shows similar levels of variability. Further, when equal lengths of time are reviewed, 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the contamination reached the West Coast, infant mortality in the West Coast cities are effectively the same for both periods, 129 deaths in the 10 weeks prior and 125 deaths in the 10 weeks after.

One might as well ask what there is in the contamination that lowered the infant mortality rate 'significantly' from the mean in the four weeks prior to it's arrival.

1. Janette Sherman / Joseph Mangano: Is the Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?, published June 10-12 2011, sampled June 17, 2011.

2. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, data for Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley. CDC WONDER

 

[kumquat]

You can't just throw science-y sounding words like "microns" and "isotopes" around and hope that they make sense.

It seems you can, even if you shouldn't be able to. Read the previous posts and see if anyone drinks the cool-aid.

 

[M Paquette]

"tiny package of pure evil"

Whaaaat? Tiny packages of pure evil! This sounds like a job for some sort of evil delivery company. I really ought to do something, but I am already in my pajamas.

 

[samclem]

I tracked down this publication. It is more of a 'games with statistics and small samples' than anything real. The 'pre-Fukushima accident' sample of morbidity and mortality in infants was drawn from a 4 week period ending March 19, 2011. The 'post-Fukushima' sample was drawn from a 10 week period ending May 28, 2011. Mortality and morbidity were reported by Dr. Sherman to 4 significant places. [1]

Note that while Dr. Sherman reports the variation as being statistically significant, the CDC data[2] the numbers are drawn from routinely shows similar levels of variability. Further, when equal lengths of time are reviewed, 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the contamination reached the West Coast, infant mortality in the West Coast cities are effectively the same for both periods, 129 deaths in the 10 weeks prior and 125 deaths in the 10 weeks after.

One might as well ask what there is in the contamination that lowered the infant mortality rate 'significantly' from the mean in the four weeks prior to it's arrival.

1. Janette Sherman / Joseph Mangano: Is the Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?, published June 10-12 2011, sampled June 17, 2011.

2. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, data for Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley. CDC WONDER

Checkmate. Well done. Maybe Tigger will kindly re-post your observations at the same place the original snippet was found.

 

[Tigger]

I wonder if Tigger is 'getting it' as this thread goes on? We have people on this forum who are well versed in this area, and they aren't sending up doomsday scenarios. Sure there are concerns, but if we were on the edge of the collapse of civilization as we know it (OK, a little hyperbole from me), I would expect Nords, M Paquette and Gumby to be the first ones to be getting their families into fall-out shelters. But we don't hear that kind of talk from them. That speaks volumes to me.

Bill Gates is well versed in all things Microsoft and yet we don't hear him criticise their business practices. That speaks volumes to me.

 

[Tigger]

Note that while Dr. Sherman reports the variation as being statistically significant, the CDC data[2] the numbers are drawn from routinely shows similar levels of variability. Further, when equal lengths of time are reviewed, 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the contamination reached the West Coast, infant mortality in the West Coast cities are effectively the same for both periods, 129 deaths in the 10 weeks prior and 125 deaths in the 10 weeks after.

Thank you, very interesting! So much for that alarming "fact".

Maybe Tigger will kindly re-post your observations at the same place the original snippet was found.

I have nothing against doing that and this time I highly appreciate M Paquette's observations.

P.S. I'm now wrestling with the CDC site...

 

[Gumby]

Bill Gates is well versed in all things Microsoft and yet we don't hear him criticise their business practices. That speaks volumes to me.

Bill Gates owes his current fortune to his ownership interest in Microsoft. My nuclear days are 22 years in the past and I have not had any vested interest in the industry since. Early in the course of the Fukushima incident, to help people understand the situation, I posted here to the best of my ability to interpret the information being reported. You should not draw any conclusions from the fact either that I did or did not post in response to any of yours. I may agree with you, I may not. I may have been too busy. To assume that I or anyone else would whitewash the situation is unwarranted.

 

[M Paquette]

P.S. I'm now wrestling with the CDC site...

Yeah. They don't make it easy, do they?

At least you don't have to work up a request list, mail it to them, wait for the estimated cost, cut a check, and in a few months sign for the delivery of what turns out to be an incorrect and useless data set.

These days we have computers to help us mess up in real time.