The Mystery Plume Rising Over Fukushima’s Reactor 3

[villager]

Fukushima’s Reactor Building 3 exploded on 13th March 2011 as a result of a hydrogen buildup, breaching the building’s containment and emitting a huge plume of radiation. The reactor itself is in meltdown.

And now fresh plumes of steam have been seen coming out the structure. These have now been confirmed by Tepco, the owner of the nuclear plant, from 19th December onwards. The company believes the steam is coming from the fifth floor of the building.

<snip>

Possibility 1: a meltdown is taking place

<snip>

One possibility is that this process may now be taking place. In the event of water loss from the pond, the water would begin to overheat and produce clouds of steam, prior to a complete meltdown. If this is the case then a second major nuclear disaster at Fukushima is in the making.

This explanation appears to be relatively improbable, however, and no official warnings have been released on either side of the Pacific.

Possibility 2: ‘corium’ has reached groundwater

<snip>

Possibility 3: rainwater on stray fuel elements / Reactor

An alternative explanation is that the steam plumes could be caused by stray fuel pellets and reactor rod fragments – which themselves produce significant amounts of heat – coming into contact with rainwater percolating through the damaged and roofless structure.

<snip>

This would provide the least worrying explanation for the steam, in that as the radioactivity continues decline so will the heat production and the volume of steam produced. If this explanation is correct, there is no reason expect any catastrophic outcome.

However the steam is carrying considerable amounts of radiation into the atmosphere and represents an ongoing radiation hazard.

<snip>

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/01/the-mystery-plume-rising-over-fukushimas-reactor-3/

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

Thanks for this!

[NYC_SKP]

24. Oh, dear me. There is no plume, there are a lot of CT sites however.

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Lord knows that I've recommended posts with articles without looking into the details.

I would prefer to think that your reply is based on a general disgust with nuclear power and transparency of the industry, or lack thereof, and not a more careful investigation of the article and source.

Admittedly, I haven't investigated every news source that's been delivering headlines, but I have seen enough poorly informed and clearly misleading reports to derive concern with this particular article.

Lacking time for a more comprehensive reply, let me pleas just point to several recent Internet claims that describe a "plume" of radioactivity, and that use a NOAA image "supportive" of that claim, that are wholly false, the image actually representing wave heights, not radiation levels.

Below please find the image that has been so inappropriately used.

And Happy New Year!

Picture below: Commonly purported to indicate radioactive fallout from Fukushima, actually represents wave heights resultant from tsunami.

[kristopher]

35. This happened in July 2013

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201307180037
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201307240036

[NYC_SKP]

39. Yeah. Heat, water, steam, whoda thunk? But at least please get the timeframe right.

Again, good grief.

[RobertEarl]

79. Tepco link about the steam rising recently

http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu-news/2013/1233248_5304.html

Trust me. Tepco admits to the steam.

If you don't trust me and you can read Japanese click on link and you're there. What I had to do, since I can't read Japanese, is take the link to bing > translate.

So the basis for the OP is totally correct and factual.

[questionseverything]

98. i went back to bradblog coverage at the time

saw this....http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8393

The Times also notes: "The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that the Japanese government had formally asked for assistance as it responds to the crisis in Fukushima."

And, as to Unit 3, they say:

But the situation a reactor No. 3 was being closely watched for another reason. That reactor uses a special mix of nuclear fuel known as MOX fuel. MOX is considered contentious because it is made with reprocessed plutonium and uranium oxides. Any radioactive plume from that fuel would be more dangerous than ordinary nuclear fuel, experts say, because inhaling plutonium even in very small quantities is considered lethal.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

do you know if that statement about the mox fuel is accurate?

bradblog has lots of before and after pics of the units...looking at the after pics it is hard to believe containment was not compromised

thanks for keeping us updated!

[RobertEarl]

104. Yes, reactor #3 has MOX fuel

There has been some talk about reactor #4 also having MOX fuel. But Tepco has not copped to that.

Not only is the plutonium more deadly than uranium, it is also more reactive, meaning it gets hotter faster. There was a report from a few years ago about an American NPP operator who tried some MOX fuel at the request of the US government. Seems a lot of plutonium from old weapons has been building up and the Department of Energy folks needed to find a way to make use of that excess plutonium.

So, they stuck it in a reactor as an experiment. The operator soon discovered that - the story goes - the MOX fuel got too hot, too fast, expanding considerably, almost making it impossible to remove or control. End of experiment, in the US. Seems Tepco gave it a go?

Given that reactor #3 blew up like it did, it could be that its MOX got too hot, too fast, and BOOM!

There are a couple of plutonium recycling reactors being built. One in Japan that I'm sure of. That Japanese plant is way past the budget and time frame and still not open for recycling. Frankly, the plutonium is very hard to handle. Our US plant, in Hanford, Washington State, is a money pit full of plutonium filled tanks that are leaking.

Each reactor using uranium produces plutonium, so every day more and more plutonium is being produced and we have yet to figure out a way to safely contain it for its thousands of years life span.

Kinda crazy, ain't it?

[truedelphi]

105. Sarcasm alert - you left out the part about nuclear power being a

"Clean energy" source. None of those nasty hydrocarbons, right?

Anyway thank you for all the info regarding MOX fuel.

[darkangel218]

2. I just hope and pray that there wont be another severe earthquake in the area

Before they finish removing the rods.

[longship]

3. Note: source for article is Arnie Gundersen.

Not the most credible of sources.

[SidDithers]

6. +1...nt

Sid

[BelgianMadCow]

7. Where did you see Arnie Gundersen as "the source" for this article?

The OP is a repost of an article by the same author, Oliver Tickell, at the ecologist.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2217953/fukushima_meltdown_mystery_steam_rising_over_reactor_3.html

Fukushima's Reactor Building 3 exploded on 13th March 2011 as a result of a hydrogen buildup, breaching the building's containment and emitting a huge plume of radiation. The reactor itself is in meltdown.

And now fresh plumes of steam have been seen coming out the structure. These have now been confirmed by Tepco, the owner of the nuclear plant, from 19th December onwards. The company believes the steam is coming from the fifth floor of the building.

However it does not know the cause of the steam. Lethal levels of radiation and the physical damage to the structure have so far made entry and inspection impossible.

Source for the plumes supposedly is TEPCO, not Arnie Gundersen. He is mentioned if you will near the end of the article, but I don't see how that makes him "the source".

Also, why do you consider him not credible? Honest question here. It's a good habit to question any source.

[SidDithers]

8. The "Possibility 3" point of the Ecologist article links to Fairewinds...

that's Arnie Gunderson.

Even worse, their "Possibility 1" point links to Hal fucking Turner, noted anti-Semite and Holocaust denier.

Sid

[longship]

9. Thanks, Sid. I was about to post about Fairewinds

I'll add that Arnie Gundersen is to Fairewinds what Bill Donahue is to the Catholic League.

Both organizations are the creation of their founders, who are effectively their only employees and deal purely with ideology, Donahue in support of Catholicism, Gundersen to oppose nuclear energy. The problem is when one takes ideology to the point where facts are meaningless and one starts making up their own.

That's another thing these two douchebags do.

Again, thanks, Sid.

on edit: for other readers. Gundersen is big on inflating his resume and his qualifications. He claims to be a nuclear reactor operator when the only reactor he's apparently operated was a 100 watt research reactor at university.

[SidDithers]

10. The link to Hal Turner is more problematic, IMO...

That guy is poison.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hal_Turner



Sid

[BelgianMadCow]

14. You're rather quick to dismiss Arnie Gundersen

"Arnold "Arnie" Gundersen (born 4 January 1949, Elizabeth, New Jersey[1]) is a former nuclear industry executive and engineer with over 30 years of experience who became a whistleblower in 1990.[2]

Gundersen questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000, a proposed third-generation nuclear reactor[3] and has expressed concerns about the operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. He served as an expert witness in the investigation of the Three Mile Island accident[4] and has provided commentary on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.[5][6][7][8]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen

and he has a company that advocates against nuclear energy now, and that should make him a douchebag and some kind of zealot that makes up facts? I'd like further info before reaching such a strong conclusion.

[longship]

25. I don't have to take anybody like Gundersen seriously.

His company is for profit. His sole job is to make nuclear power seem as bad as possible. (Admittedly not a difficult job.) however, he makes up stuff and states things without any data sources, or at least not any credible sources, like actual scientists. He has conflated his resume -- a fact! Many of his claims are mere speculation based on no data -- he certainly cites none -- and are expressed with hyperbolic language. Hyperbole - data = ideological bullpucky.

My question is: Why would anybody in their right mind want Fukushima to appear worse than it is?

But, then there's Arnie Gundersen doing precisely that.

That's not science. That's why I feel strongly that he is a very bad dude and why citations to him here are likewise a bad thing.

[WillyT]

43. LOL !!! - Try Reversing That Thought, For A Moment...

"Why would anybody in their right mind want Fukushima to appear worse than it is?

"Why would anybody in their right mind want Fukushima to appear BETTER than it is?"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

And "face-saving" pride.

I live on the West Coast... I want to know the TRUTH!

Too much money, and politics, involved for that I'm afraid.

[longship]

48. WillyT

Well, my friend. I get your point and agree. People have the right to know what's really going on.

But understand also, that I consider what TEPCO has been doing --withholding -- and what Gundersen (and Energy News) have been doing -- hyperbolic made up stuff -- as equally evil. They are all making people ignorant of what is happening. That is never a good thing. Never!

And in the vacuum of actual information there's always somebody like Gundersen to fill the vacuum for their own profit, even if they have to make it up.

Who does that help?

[WillyT]

67. It Challenges The "Official Narrative"...

And until they can definitively PROVE Gunderson wrong...

I will continue to listen.

[longship]

68. The burden of proof is on people like Gundersen.

That's the way science works. And some of the stuff being written about Fukushima is patently ridiculous, including some from Mr. Gundersen.

No. Fukushima is not worse than Chernobyl. It's bad, but not even close to what happened at Chernobyl. Why would anybody say that? Why would anybody want Fukushima to be worse than it is? The answer is because they care more about opposing nuclear power than the facts. I care about both.

AFAIK, there is no indication that reactor cores have been exposed. If they had been there's pretty much no way to hide that fact. It wouldn't be just a few anti-nuke people saying it. TEPCO and their helpers certainly would not be pulling fuel rods from the spent fuel pool of #4. So far, the releases -- which are bad enough on their own -- are consistent with the narrative and the data gathered by independent sources.

And then there's the claims of the entire Pacific being poisoned by radioactivity. Not close to being credible. And one notable chart published backing up these claims was traced to a projection of the tsunami and predates the Fukushima Daiichi problems. So people are just making things up and using easily falsified data to back up their claims. Why would they do that?

That's why some of us are very concerned but take the hyperbolic headlines with a grain of salt, especially from some sources which have shown themselves to publish unreliable stuff.

Thanks for your response. I hope I have clarified my position.

[WillyT]

69. No... The Burden Of Proof Is On The Industry, The Regulators, And Our Elected Officials...

The rest of us are nor necessairly sohisticated enough to know the down-sides of this industry...

And we do want our lights to turn on when we flip the switch at night...

But we'd also like a way to do all those things without sickening, or killing, our fellow human-beings in the process.

[longship]

71. I have to agree with that as well, WillyT.

Transparency is the solution, to all the problems. Plus, a hefty oversight by independent scientists, with no conflict of interest. That defuses both the industry wanting to hide things and the doomsayers who just want to make things up. Neither one does anybody any good. I despise them both equally.

An informed public is the best solution.

But I have to hold firm on where the burden of proof lies, with the one making the claim. That's the way science works.

Best Regards.

[WillyT]

73. Best Regards Back Attcha...

Sincerely...

But is it not the history of monied/political obfuscation...

That leads to our current position of cynicism, no ???

I DON'T BELIEVE, ANY OF THEM, ANYMORE !!!

Not when money is involved.

[BelgianMadCow]

12. Yes, I was aware of that. But the OP is about the steam plumes, and they are fact, not conjecture.

Which indeed, the rest of the article is.

It's noteworthy that Fairewinds seems to play down the "catastrophic" nature of these plumes - in the sense that they've likely been there all the time, but not visible due to weather conditions. Makes sense to me.

Since you responded - what's the beef with Arnie Gunderson's credentials? On edit: I see longship answered the question above, so nevermind!

[SidDithers]

41. Sorry, getting back after dinner...

My problem with Gunderson is that he's purely an advocate, who twists every bit of data to fit his pre-determined conclusion.

YMMV.

Sid

[BelgianMadCow]

96. thanks for your perspective

I'll keep watching him, and we can wonder whether it's acceptable to arrive at right conclusions via twisted ways.

[Cooley Hurd]

23. How is he not credible, longship?

I've Googled the hell out of his name and have seen nothing but credibility.

[longship]

29. So he and his followers claim.

Fairewinds is Gundersen, his wife and whatever resources they use. They are for profit, never a good sign for an advocacy organization. Their largest product is hyperbole aimed against nuclear energy.

I am against nuclear energy. But the type of bullshit Gundersen shovels out hurts any rational argument. When his rubbish is documented to be just that by either actual data or evolving events showing he was somehow mistaken, will he provide an appropriate mea culpa?

I doubt it.

We've seen this stuff before in many pseudoscientific claims based purely on ideology. So too with Fairewinds and Gundersen.

[Cooley Hurd]

50. So, because his organization if for-profit, he's not credible?

Not following this...

[longship]

59. He's not credible because he writes things without any data to back it up.

And many of his claims are frankly incredible.

Once he goes down that road one can properly ask, who is this guy?
One properly should question if he might have some motivation.

Apparently he does, as even a cursory dip into the Google will attest.

What's most important is that he does not support his claims with sources or data. He makes certain claims by posting an online photo. Huh? That does not fly. The photo needs to be sourced and the associated data needs to go with it. It's like a certain physician US Senator diagnosing Terri Schiavo by video tape. Nobody should take either cases seriously.

But here's the bottom line. Fukushima is a scary deal. So why not listen to the guy writing scary things? My answer is simple. If he's not right, which looks probable, people who are more directly effected might take actions that would be uncalled for. Gundersen is being reckless, IMHO.

Equally bad is TEPCO and the Japanese government for not releasing all the information from the beginning. Thus, helping giving rise to people with these agendas, giving them a foothold.

The situation stinks all around.

[rhett o rick]

28. So you would simply dismiss it because you dont like Gundersen?

Did you read the article? It doesnt sound far fetched to me, and we know we cant get the truth from Tepco.

[longship]

31. The problem is that you're not getting the facts from him either.

And he's getting paid to do that.

I read the article.

[SidDithers]

47. The article thinks Hal Turner is a credible source of information...

You don't think Hal Turner is far fetched?

Sid

[rhett o rick]

53. It seems that Tepco admits that "mysterious steam" is coming from the plant.

They dont know (or wont tell us) what is causing the steam. The OP article speculates on possible sources of the steam. To my limited knowledge these possibilities appear reasonable. Without anyone to refute this speculation, then I say it does no harm. Just because you dont like Turner doesnt make the article woo. I wish we had more people interested in speculating on what is going on over there.

By the way, the article was written by Oliver Tickell. Is he on your black list also?

I say take a chance on transparency.

[SidDithers]

57. Hal Turner. Credible or not?...

You'll notice that Tickell's article at The Ecologist contains this paragraph:

This explanation appears to be relatively improbable, however the Turner Radio Network is advising people on the West Coast of North America to "prepare for the worst" in case a meltdown of the waste fuel is in fact commencing.

No official warnings have been released on either side of the Pacific.

with the link to Hal Turner.


The same article posted at counterpunch is missing that paragraph.

Why do you think that is?



I look forward to your views on Hal Turner.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

60. Are you trying to argue your case by asking questions?

Tepco admits there is steam that they cant, or wont explain. The article speculates on what might be causing the steam. I find that reasonable. I dont completely agree with the explanations but dont see how anyone can off-hand call it woo. If it is woo, it should be easy to prove. Why are you afraid to us discuss this article?

[SidDithers]

61. No, I'm trying to ask you if you think Hal Turner is a credible source...

I'm discussing the article. It's right here:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2217953/fukushima_meltdown_mystery_steam_rising_over_reactor_3.html

You're a GD Host. Surely you know how to evaluate a source to determine whether it's credible. That's part of what Hosts do.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

63. You seem to be focused on controlling what is seen by the rest of us. I appreciate

your concern but we are able to make the determinations without you. I believe politically liberal people error on the side of openness and not censorship.

[SidDithers]

64. Not willing to take a stand on Hal Turner, eh?...

Shocked. Shocked I am.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

77. What I am not going to do is follow your attempt at deflection. Have a good evening. nm

[Aerows]

84. You are attempting to have a conversation with a poster

that has as his main response, and sports a loon with a tinfoil hat on as his signature. Opinions vary, but that should tell you what you are dealing with.

[SidDithers]

91. And I was attempting a discussion with a GD Host...

Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 09:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Who said an article linking to Hal Turner "doesn't seem far-fetched to me".

I find that disturbing.

Sid

[Aerows]

93. Well, opinions vary

and people get disturbed by all sorts of things. I hope 2014 is a good year for you Sid.

[darkangel218]

81. +1

What rhet o rick said

[Aerows]

82. I'm with you

Hope the ranch is doing well, my friend, and you have a great 2014

[darkangel218]

85. Thanks Aerows!!

Same to you. I just hope this new year will be better for everyone. 2013 its been a struggle, and I'm really glad its gone and over with.

[Aerows]

86. I hope that with 2014 we are all blessed

with a much better year, being better friends is a good place to start - being better family, and being better stewards of the places we inhabit.

[Aerows]

83. Your signature is a loon with a tin foil hat

I'm wondering what kind of message you are trying to send, because it isn't exactly positive.

[SidDithers]

90. I'm wondering why I should care what you're wondering...

Sid

[Aerows]

94. You shouldn't n/t

[SidDithers]

95. I don't...nt

Sid

[Aerows]

103. Kindness isn't weakness

it elevates us all.

I hope you have a Merry and blessed 2014.

[wildbilln864]

4. k & r! nt

[pa28]

5. The Japanese gov't admits TEPCO can't handle this crisis alone.

We need an international effort as well as transparency. TEPCO doesn't have a shred of credibility left.

[Vashta Nerada]

11. I didn't know GD was supposed to be a forum for woo.

Shouldn't this be in Creative Speculation?

[MyNameGoesHere]

21. Do you like road kill?

I mean your screen name seems to suggest it.

[Vashta Nerada]

26. What?

My screen name is based on a Doctor Who villain in the episodes "Silence in the Library" and "Forest of the Dead".

[MyNameGoesHere]

38. Exactly

the Earth version was known to prefer road kill.

[rhett o rick]

22. How do you know it's woo? Can you refute any of it? nm

[Vashta Nerada]

27. Sid Dithers and longship covered that upthread.

[rhett o rick]

30. Sid Dithers told you it was woo and that's all you need? Why not do some research and

see if you can refute any of it before you censor it for the rest of us? If Tepco came out and told you that there was nothing to worry about, would you call it woo? Why is it woo if a scientist calls out a corporation? I am not saying he isnt exagerating to promote his agenda but I recommend further research before we jump to conclusions.

[Vashta Nerada]

33. Oh good grief.

Arnie Gundersen.

Need I explain more?

[rhett o rick]

45. Yes. I dont know any thing about him. Is he on some list and is forbidden to be discussed

in GD? I read the article and didnt turn into a pumpkin or any such thing. I dont claim to believe it any more than I believe the crap that CNN puts out. But I dont see the danger of letting it be posted.

[KoKo]

51. Agree...this poster says some other posters have implied something wrong

with the information and...how are we supposed to know what they are talking about?



I think I'd ignore this and focus on the OP and do my own research before believing something that's just a refute without information that is counter.

[rhett o rick]

62. I have some problems with the explanations provided by the article but do

not like it when others think they should tell us what we can or can not discuss. The article provides speculation about the source of the mysterious steam. The speculation has some problems but is not woo. Interesting that those that would lock this thread will believe whatever comes from Tepco, which is almost guaranteed to be woo. Seems that some here believe the corporations and not those that try to speak truth to power, like whistle-blowers, investigative journalists and anyone that dares to speculate against corporate power.

[truedelphi]

100. But if someone on DU says it is woo,

Then really - must it not be woo?!?

[KoKo]

101. Yes...if "someone on DU says it's WOO" it seems to be that way...

For those of us who've been around here for awhile...it's hard not to notice.

Nuff Said. but...yeah..... And, thanks for your post..because some of us notice more than others. I guess that means we need to be put on "meds" for speaking out about what we notice. Sigh.........

[longship]

42. No, that's not how it works.

It is Gundersen who is making claims. It is not up to me (or anybody else) to refute his claims, it is up to him to support them with data. But he's not doing that.

That's just not the way science works. If it were, science would be chaos with all sorts of kooky ideas spewed into the science journals. (There's enough of it leaking through already.)

You want to make a statement about Fukushima? Fine. But you better damned well have the data to back it up.

Hell, has Gundersen ever even been to Fukushima? I don't think he has. So where is he getting his information?

Something smells about this whole deal.

And don't get me wrong. I don't like nuclear energy. I think Fukushima is a huge disaster. But I also think that hiding stuff about it (TEPCO) and making up stuff to make it seem worse than it is (Energy News and people like Gundersen) are both equally evil. They both make people ignorant of the actual situation. That is ALWAYS bad.

[rhett o rick]

49. So if Tepco came out and made a statement about the status of the plant, would you call that woo?

I doubt it. Believe the corporation and calling what an anti-nuc engineer says as woo is not very open-minded. He indicates that he is speculating. Pundits get away with speculating every night on the news without providing any proof.
And if you dont like it, then trash the thread and move on.

[longship]

54. I would expect them to also publish their data.

Just as I would ask for Gundersen or anybody else.

I would not give anybody a pass on that as it is important on this issue especially that people be informed of the facts. I would also require that all data be published publicly so that world scientists can review it. Gundersen, too, if he wants it. Yes, there will be still people who will twist the data to serve their ideological agendas. But that's happening anyway, especially with Energy News which seems to have been created merely to publish anti-nuclear claptrap about Fukushima. They like Gundersen a lot, along with a few other shady sources.

I do not trash threads, nor ignore DU users.

I prefer to engage in discussions using reason and logic to the best of my knowledge and abilities, however limited that may be.

On this topic I have some experience, though. I studied physics and have worked at a Dept of Energy national laboratory where they had a lot of radioactive stuff. One didn't work there unless one knew about it.

What Gundersen is writing is substantially hyperbolic poppycock.

And again, I am anti-nuclear power. I just prefer people not be lied to, by either side in this. Again, Fukushima is bad enough. Why would anybody want it to be worse than it is?

My motives are for people to know what's really happening. That isn't happening, from anybody.
Especially Energy News and people like Gundersen.

[rhett o rick]

58. I am glad that you seem to believe in discussing issues instead of locking them or hiding them.

If "What Gundersen is writing is substantially hyperbolic poppycock. " then please explain why you believe that. That's what open discussion is all about. I understand that the author is probably heavily biased but then so is Tepco and the nuclear industry and most likely our media. So let's get this in the open and discuss it. What do you think is causing the steam?
Couldnt the spent fuel stored in the pool get hot enough to "melt down"? Is it possible for the fuel inside the reactor to get hot enough to melt thru the bottow of the vessel? I cant say I understand the third possibility.

[longship]

66. He writes things that are untrue.

For instance, that Fukushima is many times -- I forget how many he said exactly -- worse than Chernobyl. Well, that not only isn't true, it is not even credible. There is no evidence I've seen that the Fukushima reactor vessels have been breached. Not saying they haven't, just that I've seen no credible source or data say they are. In the lack of such data, it is irresponsible to make that claim. Fukushima cannot be worse than Chernobyl because there is no evidence that the cores have been exposed (another Gundersen claim with no data), something that did happen at Chernobyl.

Science proceeds step by step, drawing conclusions based on verifiable facts, not on wild speculations.

It looks like the spent fuel pool is being slowly but safely emptied, as far as reported. It will take years. Water levels in the reactors are reported to be sufficient. They are not bloody likely to let that go bad. And if it did there would be clear and unmistakeable evidence that it happened, evidence not able to be hid by TEPCO or anybody else. We'd all know, and not just from Arnie Gundersen and Energy News. Radioactivity has unique signatures. One can identify the type of source with certain measurements. If containment were breached they certainly wouldn't be emptying the spent fuel pools. I guarantee that. And they are making those measurements. Just wish that they would publish them.

I appreciate your polite responses. I hope I have helped you understand my position.

[RobertEarl]

80. My gawd, where to begin?

LS writes: "There is no evidence I've seen that the Fukushima reactor vessels have been breached."

There are at least two unique signatures of core reactions in the atmosphere and the water. Iodine and cesium. Both are by law meant to be contained in the reactors, meaning the reactors are not breached. Both cesium and Iodine were found in the US by the EPA. The reactors were breached.

LS writes: "Water levels in the reactors are reported to be sufficient"

No. There is no such report. Instead they have to keep dumping water on the cores. That water has been found in the groundwater under the cores, with high levels of both cesium and strontium, those being two signatures of reactor breaching into the ground waters.

You, LS, keep saying Arnie has no credibility, and lo and behold, it is you that has none.

[longship]

87. Well.

Concerning breach. I stand corrected. I used a poor description. What I meant was that the fuel rods in the containment vessels are still intact. I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

Concerning the water level, if it were not sufficient and the core was exposed we would all know soon enough, as would the rest of the world.

The water running off is from leaks in the systems supporting the reactor. Yup! It's bad, very bad.

But when Energy News spews crap about sea stars melting (a syndrome which has been tracked by marine biologists since the 1990's) as being a result of Fukushima, I have to do a palm face.

Likewise the eagle deaths in Utah. And the herring. And the salmon -- people do know that salmon have been in trouble for decades don't they? Nope! Not according to Energy News. Correlation must be causation. These things happened after Fukushima (again, even if they didn't) therefore they must be caused by Fukushima. Well, for those keeping score, that's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

It doesn't stop Energy News from posting articles that fallaciously connect these events. What's next? The arctic ice cap decrease caused by Fukushima?

What will fix this is international oversight and transparency. Unfortunately, that's apparently not likely to happen, at least not right away. But if that were to happen we'd know what was happening there and there would be no withheld data and science could quickly respond to the lunatic scare mongering.

Could you get on board with that robertEarl?

[RobertEarl]

88. The discussion is about you

And your lack of credibility.

Is good to see you admit the cores are breached. As far as anybody knows the cores have burned down thru the basements, which is the most likely scenario, as happened at Chernobyl.

Being that the basements are at sea level, unlike Chernobyl which was on high ground, the cores are now being transported bit by bit into the ocean. At Chernobyl dry ground allowed for no such similar transport and were subject only to air dispersal, which a cap is containing. Fukushima is still being dispersed as there is NO containment. Not under ground and not being kept from the air.

Fukushima is three times worse than Chernobyl and getting worse everyday. More and more it is in the ocean and in the air every day.

[longship]

89. Sorry you want to make this personal.

Apparently that is your methodology.
Bye

[Logical]

44. The proof is the responsibility of the claimer. Real proof. n-t

[rhett o rick]

97. He is speculating. It's done all the time. Every tv pundit speculates.

I remember when we had a number of threads speculating about what Snowden gave to China, Japan and Russia.

I cant understand what you guys are afraid of.

[bvar22]

13. "Relax. They're just venting a little steam."

"These modern reactors are perfectly safe because they have redundant back up systems.
I know SCIENCE and you are just a stupid HennyPenny fuck up for even worrying about these plants.
They are so safe, we can build them on known Earth Quake faults and Tsunami regions
without any concerns.
Did I mention that I know SCIENCE... and YOU don't?
So please stop scaring the other sheep with your "concerns" LOL.
Leave that up to MEEEEEE, because I know Science, and YOU don't!
Remember, I know SCIENCE, and I'm not worried."

What ever happened to that gang that infested DU right after the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster?
They actually drove more than a handful of DUers off the board with their swarming and badgering.
I don't recall seeing a single retraction, revision, update, apology, or MeaCulpa from any of them.


The Fukushima Lesson
As long as we operate Nuclear Plants,
Fukushima (and worse) will happen again,
...and again,
...and again.

Man has never produced a Fail Safe machine.

[villager]

16. +1

Word, Bvar!

And... happy new year!

[bvar22]

20. Same to ya.

So far, so good.

[madokie]

32. One is still with us

and just as obnoxious as ever.
Start a thread in EE opposing nuclear and you'll see her pretty soon.

There is no such thing as a fail safe machine. Thats just one of the reasons that nuclear is a bad idea. When nuclear goes bad it has the potential to go bad in a big way.

[suffragette]

46. I think I've encountered her

And received the rudest PM as well.

And absolutely agree with all in your post.

[RobertEarl]

70. This is why I am banned from E&E

Here is a verbatim email from the host telling me why I was banned. Because I would not ignore said poster.

XemaSab
Re: What did I do now?

Mail Message
I asked you to put PamW on ignore.

You did not do this.

You are now blocked.

-XS

[suffragette]

74. Wow. That's messed up.

[zappaman]

75. That and you posted nonsense.

Yup.

[XemaSab]

76. I asked her to put you on ignore too

n/t

[RobertEarl]

78. So, now everyone knows the Truth

And that person who has been saying something not the Truth will STFU?

[chervilant]

72. I won't see her, thankfully.

She's on my IL for good reason.

[heaven05]

34. bravo

needs to be repeated over and over again. I got responses from people like one described regarding my query as to whether worry should be part of my understanding of this fiasco.

[malaise]

36. That simple

Wish I could rec

[KoKo]

52. Indeed...one has to hold head in hands to keep from the outrage

of memes that float around in dispute that Fukushima is a DISASTER for the WORLD...and little is being done except to give TEPCO the Authority to FIX It! Just like BP fixed the Gulf after the HUGE SPILL they covered up..

[Agony]

65. 10-4

[spanone]

15. k&r...

[onwardsand upwards]

17. Many thanks for this!

Unfortunately Tepco has no credibility, whatsoever, on Fukushima.

We, the citizens of the world, watch aghast as they bumble around -- seemingly concerned primarily with covering their behinds.

[seveneyes]

18. Why no pictures of the steam?

None of the links show any steam pictures.

[rhett o rick]

92. My guess is that Tepco wont let anyone near. What do you think? nm

[blackspade]

19. Nuclear power needs to be abandoned

It is not safe or viable over the long term.

[WillyT]

37. K & R !!!

[flamingdem]

40. The lies come from Tepco

Not from Gundersen. He is transpRent about his background and is one of the few who rightly warns of Fuku dangers

[Aerows]

56. Tepco has lied from the get go.

Asking to believe them is like asking to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Great Pumpkin. They haven't told the truth since day one, yet still say "Trust us." About as far as I can throw you.

Now we have US Navy sailors cropping up with cancer because they were on the outside of this horrible mess. I feel so badly for their families. What a nightmare.

[Berlum]

99. Deliberate, systematic lying (R) is diabolical

[KoKo]

102. What I don't understand is why BP, TEPCO ...STILL HAVE THIS POWER?

Can anyone help me out here as to WHY...THEY control the conversation...

I know it's the MIC and "Total Awareness Programs" and the rest...but, we've had HOW LONG to REFUTE their CRAP?

What is Wrong?...and HOW can we FIX IT?

[Aerows]

55. The fukushima disaster has seriously lead me to doubt the safety of nuclear power

At least with sun, solar and hydro-electric, we know what we are getting.