Fukushima: how are things now?

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/0...math?CMP=twt_gu

A long article about the impact of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima 6 months on.

As is made clear, there is little or no information about the real risks of contamination: people are uncertain, and the focus is on the psychological impact of that. According to the writer's perception the Japanese people are conformist, and thus are particularly vulnerable to a lack of trust and direction. I do not know if that is true: I think that fear of disease, and distrust of the sources of information, affect all of us. We see regular "crises" reported here: everything gives you cancer, it seems; and scaremongering headlines abound. Most folk have learned to laugh at this: but then cancer-generating-cucumbers are not quite the same as cancer-generating-damaged-nuclear reactors, are they? I cannot forget that the Japanese are the only people with direct experience of major radiation contamination: it is likely that has informed their response to this, to some extent, and so they may worry more: but I cannot see there is no reason for that worry. When government abruptly changes the rules on safe levels of exposure to a hazard there are few who will believe that it just so happened that science showed higher levels were safe, at a time when contamination had increased the unavoidable exposure for many to above the previous threshold: coincidences do happen. But that is not one of them, IMO.

I recently had an x-ray. There are quite strict precautions in place to protect staff who work with the equipment all day, because the risk of exposure is recognised. I have heard people talk about the dangers of too many x-rays, and I have noticed that there are very few "luminous" watches and clocks despite a fashion for "retro" in many things here, at present. Don't know if that is just cos LED's are better at luminescence, or whether people rejected the technique because of its small radioactive component: but I do think folk are very cautious indeed about radioactivity in this country. So it is a bit rich to say that the Japanese are reacting differently than we would: though it might be true, I do not see us sitting back happily if we faced the problem they now face: if we were being asked to accept
as the ordinary fact of life.

I know that it is currently very fashionable to promote nuclear as the way to solve our energy problems, and those who take that view point to the safety of the industry: fewer deaths than in coal mining by a long way and such statistics. All true. But I am not convinced because I have not been able to get information about the hazard; which is different from the risk. The experience in Japan tends to indicate that the reason I cannot is because the we do not actually know: the article notes the UN findings, so the work is being done: but the results are not agreed. It is a matter of urgency if we are to be subjected to the pressure to agree to adopt nuclear power generation: how can we make an informed decison without a clear understanding of both risk AND hazard?

That is quite disturbing. I think that if Japan was going to have nuclear energy they pretty much had no choice but to put it in an earthquake zone: the whole place is prone to them. But I do not think that is true of the Netherlands, is it? I like to think that if the powers that be take these decisions they take them sensibly and look into all the risks and hazards before they do it. What you say rather suggests that is not true

I cannot see it is sensible to assess earthquake risk over one lifetime. I am sure they knew that long before the beginning of the last century - maybe not: just seems kind of obvious that intervals between natural disasters would often be longer than that.

www.nature.com/news/2011/110907/full/477139a.html

A report about the problems of finding out what the situation actually is 6 months after the disaster.

There are problems in doing proper research: some arising directly from the damage and some allegedly from bureaucracy which hampers the ability of scientist to get there and gather information. The picture remains unclear

What is easier to understand, and more immediately resonant, at least to me, is the tangential accounts of what the people are having to do to improve their safety. This is the kind of non-science information which brings the reality of such things home to me.

The article says that it is necessary to lift off a layer of soil and bury it. They are doing this in primary schools. That shocks me. I cannot see how I could be confident that matters were in hand if my child's primary school playground was contaminated with radiation and the response was to lift the top layer of soil. Even if they did not bury it, how does that help? Is the radiation not still falling? Apparently it is. Do the children not roll about on the earth in other places than their school? Like in parks? or the garden? Are they being dug over as well? Exposure to radiation is particularly dangerous for children, I gather. But what is the multiplier? Does the earth really have a level of contamination such that it is harmful to primary age children but ok for adults? Maybe it does.

They are removing a layer of soil from peach orchards as well: in the hope of producing useable fruit next year. It is not easy to remove soil from an orchard without killing the trees, I imagine. I know nothing about it but I don't think I would be confident that the depth of soil they can remove would ensure that the contamination was brought down to a safe level: testing will tell: but I do not hold out much hope for the growers if the fruit is labelled as to source: don't think many folk will buy it even if that is not rational.

But it is really the crudity of such action which struck me. No hi-tech solution at all: just folk digging. This is the reality of poisoned earth: we have no adequate response at all.

Those who scoff at the fear of the nuclear option do not seem to say why that is not just as chilling as I think it is: they just say it is quite rare. So it is. But when it happens we cannot deal with it. Or so it seems. And that is the hazard we must measure; and it is the hazard we do not seem to be able to measure. To me, expanding the use of nuclear plants is not a calculated risk in any meaningful sense: it is more in the nature of a gamble when the odds are not known.

I read somewhere that Germany has decided against further nuclear expansion: I cannot now find the reference so that might not be true. But if it is true it shows that that is not an indefensible decision. Germany is not known for sentiment when it comes to economics and if they have taken that position they have surely weighed the economic implications. It would be good to know what went into the scales and whether the same considerations produce different outcomes in different locations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/3...anup?CMP=twt_fd

A panel of experts says it could take 30 years to clean up the area after this nuclear disaster. There is an enormous amount of contaminated material and nowhere to put it. They intend to build storage facilities: but they won't be ready for three years. Meantime the stuff has to be stored locally: fair enough...no point in contaminating anywhere else, I suppose. But we are talking about 3 million tonnes of radioactive waste. All the soil scraped off to a depth of 4cms. And that, if achieved, will reduce the radioactivity by half in two years, according to this report

The cost is not known: so far the government has allocated £1.75 billion: but it is recognised that final cost will be far higher. And that is only money: what of the health of the people who live there: the disruption of their lives? Can we cost those things?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/0...sion?CMP=twt_fd

Evidence of localised nuclear fission reaction in one of the shut down reactors. It seems that the reaction is small and it is said not to pose any threat of a "major criticality incident" (I think that means a nuclear explosion: could be wrong). Seems they are monitoring it well but it is disturbing that this should happen 8 months after the disaster.

It is one of the ones where the core melted in the tsunami and earthquake, Vninect. Not one of the others closed since then

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/0...-sea?CMP=twt_fd

Contaminated water is increasing at the rate of 200-500 tonnes a day. They are going to run out of storage space in March and Tepco is seeking permission to dump it in the sea. There is not much information in this article about the impact of that: but it does not sound good and once again points up the fact that low risk is only one aspect we should take into account in thinking about nuclear power: the high hazard is evident and we don't know how to deal with the consequences

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/0...lans?CMP=twt_fd

Plan to put the contaminated water in the sea abandoned after protests from fishing groups. But there does not seem to be an effective alternative so far

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/1...cern?CMP=twt_fd

Some doubt about the state of one of the reactors: it appears that it is heating up and this is not good news. It is possible the thermometer is faulty, but they have to increase the cooling water in case it is not. Which will presumably make the problems of what to do with that water worse.

Well the gaffer says it was the thermometer, so that is ok


But then I saw this video

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/vide...ideo?CMP=twt_fd

Apparently it is difficult to safely remove the rods in this situation. The government has recognised this and is starting a research project. Funnily enough I had been led to believe that all safety research had been done and we knew what to do when things went wrong.

That is a lie: I never was led to believe it, even though it is what I was told ....