stock here, flying cuttlefish found my original article after Fukushima, this was 3AM, so I pulled the story together pretty well.
Submitted by NukePro
Nuclear Japan, Stock market “holding up”, Pictures of ‘Reactor’ 3 and 4
I have continued amazement that very few photos from “on the ground” have been released from day 1. It seems that the plants would have many cameras built in, and those systems destroyed by the quake or blast could be replaced with quickly set up cameras and/or robots.
This picture says volumes….”Reactor 3 and 4″ are not really facilities anymore, as opposed to smouldering masses of twisted metal.
From my continuing research, Chernobyl radiation release was pretty bad, and resulted from direct fire on the uranium and by-products. Now they say that has already happened in Japan (perhaps). See below for “Spent Fuel on Fire?!” which is still not 100% clear in my mind.
WORST CASE #1
A scenario in which molten reactor materials -uranium–“perfectly” wraps around a pool of water, causing a super-heated explosion of steam launching radioactive materials in a massive blast is the “worst” case scenario, but what are the odds of this perfectly happening, perfectly wrong? Very small is the general consensus and I believe that one. Maybe in the range of 1%, NOT 10%.
WORST CASE #2A
What about a 5000 degF mass of molten reactor materials (let’s just say uranium, although stuff morphs into other stuff that can be worse) melting it’s way through a damaged concrete floor, into a pocket of water or sea water below the plant, or rolling right into the ocean? Purely conjecture, but these are the mostly likely worst case scenarios IMHO.
WORST CASE #2B
And the Chernobyl type scenario, direct fire on the nuclear materials or, even worse, on the “used” nuclear waste that was being stored at reactors 4, 5, AND 6. Prior to last night, we never even heard of 5 or 6, now we find that rather than store the waste materials underneath a big mountain like in western united states, that they decided last fall to store all the old materials in the facilities next to the working nuclear plants, on the ocean, on the ring of fire.
From a Russia Expert on Chernobyl, and the storing of nuclear spent materials–
Chernobyl Expert slams storage methods
“Spent Fuel on Fire?!” –this is not clear, but seems quite possible.
Link below is from UN Nuclear Agency saying that indeed a spent fuel pool was in a fire at Reactor 4, review the picture above. Indeed that article below is very clear that the fire was at the spent fuel pool, and that is what caused a huge release of radioactivity.
Spent Fuel Pool in a Fire
Corrections, further misinformation, and Pot Shots—
So someone says the fire was at the spent fuel (that would be very bad), and then someone else says…No, that fire was from an oil leak from a pump–and then points to a link—of which when you check the link, says nothing about the location of the fire, just that it was put out in 2 hours. The second link also states how they tried to add water to the #4 spent fuel pool–and failed. These spent fuel pools have 16 feet deep water over the top of the used fuel stored in them. FOR CONVENIENCE, these pools are located at the roof level of the containment buildings! What is there was a massive earthquake and the building was cracked, and the water leaked out! What if the containment building also blew up due to hydrogen explosion.
Here is a direct download described how the used fuel is stored at Fukushima – very scary and enlightening READ IT
http://www.box.net/shared/3kmi4xgqv1
Here are the links to the “Corrections” comment — the Pot shot part
http://www.chron.com/disp/discuss.mpl/ap/top/all/7474227.html
http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/
Here is the problem: The Authorities are very concerned with all out panic. The Japanese people have strong morale values, and do not just “lose it” like would happen in most places already. But at some point, if they reach the breaking point, it could be a very strong social reaction.
The governor of Fukushima prefecture, Yuhei Sato, criticised official handling of the crisis, telling Japan’s NHK TV: “The anxiety and anger being felt by people in Fukushima have reached a boiling point.”
So-the authorities want calmness, they don’t want to instill panic. And thus they feel it necessary to withhold information, which has obviously been withheld from the very beginning. Also the classic example of “Denial”….maybe it is not as bad as we think it is…example….”maybe it is just a coincidence that 4 airplane are off course and not communicating on 9-11-01”. Denial, and hoping to avoid being “chicken little” should the situation not be as bad as you think it may be. Very closely related to Denial is “Hope”. Hope is a double edged sword, without hope –the will to take effective action can be curtailed, but the wrong hope, the ability to see the need for action can be blocked.
From the Emperor of Japan who rarely speaks in public, but is highly respected.
“I am deeply concerned about the nuclear situation because it is unpredictable,” he said. “With the help of those involved I hope things will not get worse.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-in/8385058/Japans-Emperor-Akihito-expresses-deep-concern-over-Fukushima-nuclear-plant-crisis.html
Please read this quote below and then look at the picture at the top of this post.
Nuclear experts have repeatedly stressed that radiation releases on the scale of Chernobyl are unlikely or even impossible, given the Japanese plant’s heavier engineering and additional layers of containment. Still, Tokyo Electric said radiation briefly rose to dangerous levels at the plant Tuesday morning and again on Wednesday.
Above from the Washington Post
But people have to make real decisions. Do we encourage our family in Tokyo to leave at any cost, whatever it takes? Transportation is difficult, most trains are running, there are blackouts on a regular basis. Just how bad is it, how bad could it become? Yesterday the winds were blowing the radioactive steam and such across the mainland of Japan, today the winds are blowing westerly across the Pacific.
And therein lies the dilemma, all based on poorly provided information, does one recommend drastic action? Indeed, I would flee…the cost of fleeing may be fairly dear, but the cost of staying and have the worst or second worst or third worst scenario play out may be a very very high cost.
Finally, something to think about, here is one that appears to be a few days old, from and MIT nuclear “expert” stating in these excerpts–
Well, first off, we can’t have a Chernobyl-like situation. The system is designed so that as long as we keep water in there to keep it cool, nothing will happen.
Hypothetically, if the water all boils and evaporates, then the fuel will stay molten and eventually melt through the steel vessel. But that’s already beyond a hypothetical worst-case scenario for me.
Then you have the other containment vessel, with a concrete faceplate underneath that’s between four and 10 feet thick. But melting through that is hypothetical beyond normal reasoning.
And then, worst comes to worst, there are pumps that can take water from the local cooling water supply, in this case the ocean, and just pump water in there. As long as there’s water in there, it might be expensive for the utility to get it cleaned up, but everything is going to be fine.
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It might be a financial disaster, but no member of the public has been hurt, and I doubt anybody will be.
Here is a link to that MIT “Expert” — he is already proven wrong at many levels.
Expert describes how bad could it get
This type of thinking reminds me of how our US security “experts” could not imagine an airliner being used as a weapon. When will we demand better?
SEE NO EVIL
Chernobyl was attempted to be covered up 100% at the beginning, even though eventually 600,000 people used as “liquidators” were eventually brought in to cleanup, the first 200,000 were exposed to heavy radiation. Some pictures (still in my mind from 1986) showed workers in normal street clothes shovelling radioactive materials into wheelbarrows.
Tokyo Electric Power tried to cover up their problems at the start, the Prime Minister was reportedly extremely mad when they finally fessed up a little bit 3 hours after it had already become a real problem.
GOOD NEWS
Apparently they are bringing in “Firm Power” meaning a new power line from other utilities so at least the brave workers at the site have some real power to help in whatever tasks they are doing while wearing full suits and humping around huge air tanks on their backs.
I will be out in training all day Wed
One reply on “The Original Fukushima Expose from 2011”
s
File No: 167020-2-C
Registry: Victoria
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
REGINA
v.
DANA RYAN DURNFORD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF
THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. SUTTON
COPY
Crown Counsel: P. Weir
Appearing on his own behalf: R. Durnford
Place of Hearing: Victoria, B.C.
Date of Judgment: September 22, 2016
[1] THE COURT: These are my oral reasons with respect to this matter. Given they are oral reasons, I do reserve the right to edit them for aesthetics, if necessary.
[2] If you cannot hear me very well, Mr. Durnford, please indicate, stand up, raise your arm or something, all right?
[3] THE ACCUSED: Yeah, yes, sir. Yes, sir.
[4] THE COURT: But if I speak too softly for you.
[5] THE ACCUSED: Yes, sir.
[6] THE COURT: All right.
[7] THE ACCUSED: Yes, sir.
[8] THE COURT: The accused, Dana Ryan Durnford, who I will refer to as Mr. Durnford, is before the court on two counts of harassment between July 24, 2015, and October 1, 2015, of Jay Cullen and Kenneth Buesseler, contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code.
[9] Conduct amounting to harassment is codified in s. 264(2)(a) to (d) of the Criminal Code. Subsection (d) provides as follows:
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
[10] Section 264 provides that:
264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
[11] The Crown proceeded summarily. On conviction, a person is subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. There is no minimum sentence.
[12] The accused describes himself as a nuclear activist and has a website under the heading “Nuclear Proctologist.Org”. He was anti the nuclear industry and science, and used his website to publicly get out what he called his message and raise funds for that message.
[13] The complainant in Count 1 is a professor of oceanography at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and has been at the university for 13 years. The complainant in Count 2 is an oceanographer with Woods Hole Oceanographic in Massachusetts, U.S.A. Both complainants were involved with an international monitoring project of the repercussions, if any, from the 2011 Fukushima, Japan, nuclear plant meltdown.
[14] The Crown led evidence through Constable Kruk, a member of the Municipality of Saanich Police Force, who was contacted by Mr. Cullen as a result of concerns and threats raised against him that appeared on Mr. Durnford’s website as YouTube videos. As the investigating officer, he downloaded a number of videos which, in total, were numerous in number, which contained the complained about comments and are before the court as exhibits. The court also heard from both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Buesseler.
[15] Mr. Durnford was self represented, except for appointment of counsel for purposes of cross-examining the two complainants and, as is his right, he chose to give evidence in his defence.
[16] As in all criminal trials, the burden is on the Crown to prove each essential element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite Mr. Durnford’s view to the contrary, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
[17] For purposes of convicting Mr. Durnford of criminal harassment, the Crown must prove each essential element of the offence, being as follows:
1) date and time;
2) jurisdiction;
3) identity of the accused;
4) relationship, if any, with the complainants;
5) in this case, Mr. Durnford engaged in threatening conduct directed at the complainants or any members of their families, “the actus reus”;
6) the harassment caused the complainants to fear for their safety or a person known to them, and that fear was reasonable in all the circumstances;
7) the accused knew or should have known that his conduct harassed the victim(s) or, put another way, an intention to engage in the prohibited conduct with knowledge, recklessness, or wilful blindness, that the conduct causes the complainant or complainants to be harassed, “the mens rea or mental element”.
[18] Mr. Durnford is clearly passionate and committed to his cause against such events as the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown and the nuclear industry. I wish to make clear that this case is not about freedom of speech or the muzzling of criticism as expressed by Mr. Durnford to the industry or to scientists involved in the industry, or reporting with respect to these events and following up on the reasons why, in both his evidence, comments, and submissions.
[19] It is not about any conspiracy by the investigating officer. It is not about a conspiracy of the complainants. It is not about a conspiracy by the Crown or the nuclear industry, as Mr. Durnford seems to present to the court.
[20] This case is not much ado about nothing. This case is about criminal harassment charges against Mr. Durnford.
[21] On the whole of the evidence, including the evidence by the accused, I find there is no issue as to the date and time of the offences, the jurisdiction of the offences, or the identity of the accused, which he has admitted.
[22] The audio/videos from January 24 and September 16, 2015, were before the court and show Mr. Durnford in the video making threats against both complainants. The accused first came to Mr. Cullen’s attention in or around January 2014 after he and Mr. Buesseler had given a radio interview in the San Francisco Bay area.
[23] An email came to Mr. Cullen indicating that Dana, being Mr. Durnford, was going live on his YouTube video. The video was under the channel name, “Beautiful Girl by Dana” and questioned whether Mr. Cullen and Mr. Buesseler were real scientists or nuclear wackos.
[24] The YouTube videos were readily available and accessible by anyone without restriction. Neither Mr. Cullen nor Mr. Buesseler knew of or had any prior dealings with Mr. Durnford prior to that and knew nothing about him.
[25] It was not until about January of 2015 that both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Buesseler became concerned. They were both involved in studying the effects of the Fukushima disaster on the environment. The YouTube videos started to contain dehumanizing comments about them, calling them monsters and mass murderers and progressed from there, as evident in the July 24, 2015, video.
[26] He, being Mr. Durnford, referred to Mr. Cullen as a piece of shit and a maggot, that they should die and be hung. That he wants to hang onto the rope and feel their last twitches of their life. That he did not give a f^*k about them, he has no issues with them dying. If he saw Mr. Buesseler in the supermarket, he would be bouncing a can of soup off his f^*king head. He guarantees he will not miss him. He says he does not care if he has to go to jail. If he knocks out a bunch of teeth out of his f^*king head, he does not give a f^*k. He referred to Mr. Cullen being hunted down and hung.
[27] The videos contain further comments that one should pick up a chair and break his f^*king head. By doing so, you would be doing the whole world a favour, because all we are left with is violence. That we should stop Fukushima by sending Mr. Cullen and Mr. Buesseler in there and strap cameras on them as they die. That they should be dropped out of a plane on the reactors, which are referred to as good. He would like to do that and tell them to get out of his plane and throw them right down on top of the reactor. He has no problem with that. Or we should give them to ISIS and let them chop their heads off.
[28] Mr. Buesseler testified that he heard evidence that he should be hanged, to putting a bullet to his head, to take him down like a rabid animal. He had never experienced repeated physical harm threats and was afraid of what might happen.
[29] As a result of Mr. Durnford’s escalating comments, both expressed fear for their safety and took steps to contact campus authorities, campus security, as well as eventually the police. Neither of them had ever experienced anything like this before and found it disturbing and were afraid, not knowing the individual and what might happen or what he was capable of.
[30] In considering all the evidence and viewing the audio/video, it is clear, in my view, that Mr. Durnford engaged in threatening conduct which was directed at both Mr. Cullen and Buesseler, and involved the threat of serious harm and amounted to being harassed, which has been found to be synonymous with such things as tormented, troubled, worried, continually or chronically.
[31] The subsequent steps taken for their security, contacting security, notifying campus authorities and outside law enforcements, in my view is evidence of their concern for their safety and fear for their own well-beings.
[32] Mr. Durnford’s comments or conduct on the YouTube video from Bamfield, British Columbia, on September 16, 2015, put together with his other comments, would cause, in my view, any reasonable person to fear for their safety. In that YouTube video, Mr. Durnford refers to both of them and says it is time for them to stop lying; that they are the most despicable people on the planet, and when he comes ashore in two weeks or soon, there will be no mercy for these people. That he has had it with those people and their time, being Jay Cullen and K. Buesseler, is here now. We have to put an end to their lies, deceptions and mass murders.
[33] While dehumanizing rhetoric and argument, ad hominin, being a verbal attack of the person, is of itself not unlawful, at least criminally, when considered with all the other comments and evidence, it goes well beyond just hyperbole or jokes which Mr. Durnford referred to them as being. I do not accept his evidence in this regard. This was not just an isolated rant. The evidence from the videos and from Mr. Cullen and Mr. Buesseler is uncontradicted.
[34] In the videos viewed, he is both vehement and advocates violence in denunciation of Mr. Cullen and Mr. Buesseler. His comments could be described as vitriolic, being full of bitter criticism and malice. He says all we are left with is violence, vigilantes, we may as well get on with it.
[35] A single incident of threatening conduct may be harassment. However, here, on the evidence of the complainants, there are a number of threats of death at different times between January and December 2015. I note repetition is not a required element of the threatening conduct covered by s. 264(2)(d): see R. v. Hawkins, 2006 BCCA 498.
[36] In accordance with well established principles for the determination of criminal liability, recklessness, to form a part of the criminal mens rea, must have an element of the subjective. It is found in the attitude of one who, aware that there is danger that his conduct would bring about the result prohibited by criminal law, nevertheless persists, despite the risk. It is, in other words, the conduct of one who sees risk and takes the chance. It is in this sense that the term “recklessness” in the criminal law is used and is clearly distinct from the concept of civil negligence: see Sansregret v. The Queen (1985), 18 C.C.C. (3d) 223 at 233 (Supreme Court of Canada).
[37] The requisite intent or knowledge may be inferred directly from what the accused said or says about his or her mental state or directly from the circumstances.
[38] Mr. Durnford was, I find, at a minimum reckless in his conduct and his comments.
[39] In his own words, Mr. Durnford knew what he was doing, was clear, as he said, if he has to go to jail, he does not care. He does not give a f^*k. “If you want to take me to court by calling for their deaths, go ahead.” This was not someone being careless, and his evidence that he was just having fun is pure nonsense.
[40] On cross-examination, he was non apologetic and said he was not out of control.
[41] I conclude, on all of the evidence, that Mr. Durnford had the requisite mens rea and was reckless whether the complainants were harassed. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
[42] Mr. Durnford, would you please stand, sir, if you are able. I find you guilty of both charges as laid.
(REASONS CONCLUDED)