Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Sunday, September 29, 2013

San Onofre Decommissioning Meeting

Full credit to Roger Johnson, who attended the San Onofre meeting and made these great interpretations of what was said and unsaid.     

I am storing this on my site for ease of reference and this will be helpful in preparing comments for NRC meetings.

The upcoming NRC meetings open to public are here, 8 of them


NRC Public Meeting on Decommissioning, 2013-09-26

Citizens Oversight  (2013-09-26) This Page:
Post this topic: Post to Facebook


About 7 minutes were omitted at the beginning of Part 1 and 3 minutes at the beginning of Part 2 which were facilitator remarks about logistics.

Part 1

Includes presentations by NRC staff and first questions from the public

Part 2

More questions. Don't miss statements by Peter Dietrich of Southern California Edison near the end, regarding the fact that they are not planning to return the site as "greenfield" level.

Summary by Roger Johnson

Notes on the NRC public meeting at the Costa Omni Resort in Carlsbad, Thursday Sept. 26 6-9 PM
This was a typical NRC meeting: a moderator, 4 featured speakers (one who made 2 presentations), and a dozen other NRC officials who occupied the entire center section of the front row (a number of them gave extensive comments during the public question phase). The NRC once again chose a plush resort and a huge banquet room which probably seated over 1000. The NRC claims to have selected this distant site because they could not find anything suitable in Orange County. Some said they wanted the meeting at this distant site to reduce public attendance. The AC was cranked up making the room frigid (perhaps 60 degrees) and uncomfortable. I am guessing that there were about 200 in attendance, perhaps 75 when the evening ended. Although this was a good crowd, it appeared small in this huge room. The NRC said they expected more, but perhaps they were delighted at a smaller crowd which they could interpret as a lack of public interest. The meeting reminded me of one of the 18 grievances against King George written into the Declaration of Independence, namely that inconvenient meetings were called by the Crown in distant and cold places in order to suppress attendance.

The NRC had a table in the lobby full of NRC documents about decommissioning. One color pamphlet is called the Decommissioning Process. There are before and after aerial photos on the cover (and inside) showing nuclear power plants before and after they were demolished. The “after” photos show a green field. The NRC now uses the term Greenfield to mean site restoration. They also made it a verb: Greenfielding. This term was used often during the evening apparently in a public relations/marketing effort to make it appear that former highly radioactive sites could be made pristine. Before the meeting started, the NRC had a slide show showing other before and after photos. One disturbing series of photos showed the Maine Yankee containment domes being blown up, reduced to rubble, and then planted over. The photos remind me of the contaminated and bulldozed town of Uravan, Colorado which is now a "Greenfield." One wonders why they would show that unless they planned to do the same thing at San Onofre.

The meeting began with happy talk and rules by the moderator, and the first half of the meeting was monopolized by the speakers and their power point presentations. As usual, the focus was on the bureaucratic procedures of the NRC rather than on the substance of decommissioning.

 Few details were given other than lengthy lists of NRC rulings which had to be followed in a particular order. During the public questions phase, speakers gave lengthy answers and often passed the microphone back and forth so that many NRC officials could respond to the same question.

The net result was that time ran out and many in the audience could never get recognized.

I was sitting in the second row center and waved my hand for an hour and was ignored the entire evening.

The first speaker was Larry Camper who boasted that the NRC decommissioning team had 300 years of cumulative experience in decommissioning. They have decommissioned 50 materials sites, 13 research reactors, 11 nuclear power plants (NPP), about 80 in total. He made it clear that the licensee (Edison) had the right to choose whether to decommission the site for unrestricted use (for any purpose) or restricted use (still partly contaminated).

He said that all decommissionings so far have been unrestricted. He said their goal was to end up with contamination levels no higher than 25 mrem AND as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). This was scary and unclear but not questioned. All their technospeak may boil down to the fact that they have a procedure which says that they don’t have to do what is safe, they only have to do whatever is practical and easy to achieve (for them)..

The second speaker was Bruce Watson who went into many of the rulings such as 10 CFRPart 20 Subpart? E He says that Edison will have 60 years to complete the process, up to 50 in SAFSTOR and 10 in DECOM. The radioactive waste has to be reduced only by 90%, not 100%. He made the incredible statement that they liked to go slow and stretch out the process in order to allow the decommissioning trust funds to remain invested so that interest would compound and generate more money over time.
Edison will produce a PSDAR report about costs and environmental impacts. This plan must be submitted, but it does not require any approval by the NRC. A final License Termination Plan LTP must be approved by the NRC. Edison has until June 7, 2015 to submit their plan but Edison says it hopes to submit it earlier.

The third speaker (and 5th speaker) was Dr. Blair Spitzberg whose specialty is fuel safety. He carelessly stated that spent fuel has to go into cooling pools for “several years.” Regular fuel needs to be cooled in pools for 5 years and the Hi Burn fuel that Edison has been using since 1996 requires 12-15 years. It was unclear whether Dr. Spitzberg’s goal was to deceive the public about this crucial issue or to trivialize it (or both). He stated that San Onofre has two types of dry casks which are certified for transport: 24PT1 and 24PT4. They also have another type not yet certified (but Edison has applied for transport certification). This is all mute because there is no where for any of it to go, at least during our lifetime. He said that the exact number of dry casks is secret information but it can be found on (if someone finds these data here please circulate). He said there were 55 cannisters at San Onofre as of Dec., 2012.

Here are 2 more alarming statements Dr. Spitzberg made:

First, he referred to a category called “High Risk Activities” with no explanation. If part of decommissioning involves high risk radiological activities, this should be disclosed to the public as to when they occur and what part of the public takes the risk if something goes wrong.

Second, when talking about contaminated waste, he mentioned that “MOST” contaminated waste is taken out of state, implying that some contaminated waste is taken to other parts of California. Since there are no radioactive contamination waste disposal sites in California, presumably he means that it is dumped in landfills?

Also discussed was Unit #1 which is not completely decommissioned because the reactor vessel remains on site. Attempts were made to barge it through the Panama Canal to a Class C (highly contaminated) site in South Carolina but there was political opposition by the countries involved plus the fact that the barge would move so slowly that it would tie up traffic. Attempts to route it around South America were blocked by Argentina. The “solution” is to leave it at San Onofre for the time being (meaning probably decades) which makes San Onofre a Class C radioactive waste storage facility. The “plan” is to wait until it is time to move reactor vessels (the largest component needing removal) for Units 2 and 3, and then deal with them all at the same time. Since these are too large and too dangerous to ship by truck or rail, they hope that many years from now a solution will someone become apparent. It looks like a long time before #1 will get a LTP.

Some other tidbits about #1 which came up (also in Q and A) include the fact that Edison never removed the large discharge pipe into the ocean. They decided that there would be more radioactive contamination to the ocean by removing it than leaving it there (presumably contaminated), not to mention the fact that doing nothing is always cheaper and easier.

If they knew before they built this pipe that it would be too dangerous ever to remove, why was it ever allowed to be built? This shows the same dangerous strategy of the NRC: build things first without concern for consequences and put off safety considerations as long as possible.

There was also discussion of a leak of radioactive liquid waste being shipped to Clive, Utah from #1. It was discovered at a truck stop in Utah. Teams went in and patched it up and the NRC claims that no one was hurt. Later I cornered the staff member who said that asked if he meant that the radioactivity didn’t harm anyone during the few days after the accident and he admitted that this is what he meant. I asked how they could possibly know if anyone was harmed since it would take at least 5 years for cancer to appear if someone inhaled radioactivity. He agreed that it was possible and they really don’t know if anyone was harmed even though they make claims to that effect.
Speaker #4 was Michael Dusaniwskyj, an economist. He said there was currently $1.7 billion in trust funds for unit #2 and $1.9 billion for #3. He said that $295 million remained earning interest for Unit 1 of which they expect to spend $206 million. No mention of where the unused $89 million will go. Back to the rate payers who have been paying for this since 1968?
Gene Stone opened the Q&A period with a request for having a citizen group called Coalition to Decommission San Onofre officially be a part of the decommissioning process. The NRC replied briefly that they would think about it.. Another question from this group was whether residents would be warned of any activities which might lead to environmental contamination. The answer was no, residents would not be warned. The NRC bureaucratic answer was that all such activities would be treated exactly the same way as the current procedures for low level radioactive waste disposal. It was asserted that all such waste disposal would be carefully documented and eventually appear in public records. The current procedure is to wait about a year and then make quarterly reports about radioactive waste disposal into the air and ocean. The waste discharges are averaged over 90 day periods. NRC regulations carefully state that these averages must not exceed permissible levels (it is always what is permitted, not what is safe). In this way, a large release on the beginning of a quarter could be averaged with 89 days of no releases and the records would clearly indicate a low permissible average dose. The public will never know before such releases occur and they will also never know the dates and concentrations of releases even a year later. The only way to know is to install real time publically accessible monitoring, a subject which never came up in spite of all the expressed concern for transparency and public safety. Supposedly there will be a lot of radioactive monitoring by Edison and the NRC, but it will all be secret information.
Much of the discussions involved the problems caused by the use of Hi Burn fuel which is much hotter, much more radioactive, and requires about triple the amount of time in cooling pools. The NRC could not answer exactly how decisions were made (and kept from the public) about the switch in fuels. They could not answer questions about the dangers of dry cask storage for this fuel. Dr. Spitzberg admitted that Hi Burn fuel required more time in cooling pools but he did not know how much longer. At one point he said it might be 7 years (half the time that other experts cite). The NRC was quick to blame the Dept. of Energy and national politics for the failure to have any permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. They were happy to talk at length about this problem involving other parties. They maintain that they are blameless and can do nothing about it.
Many people in the audience made articulate statements of concern coupled with questions which were often brushed aside. Some mayors and city council members weighed in. One interesting speaker was Patrick Christman, Assistant Chief of Staff at Camp Pendleton who was involved in environmental protection for the camp. He later told me that the marines were concerned about the radiological dangers but considered themselves mostly observers. He was not aware that San Onofre might be a major target for terrorists, and he was not aware of the newly funded cancer streak study which will be carried out by the National Academy of Sciences in the next 2 years (all of Camp Pendleton will be part of the study).
There was only one pro-nuclear comment from the audience. This came from a representative of the Chamber of Commerce who was outraged that the general public was allowed to weigh in at all. He suggested that the NRC should stop wasting its time listening to the public and make all the decisions on their own. The NRC gave him effusive thanks for his comments. I suppose everyone knows that Edison has contributed heavily to every Chamber of Commerce in most of Southern California.
I was disappointed that there were almost no questions or discussion of the disposal of low level waste (everything that is not the fuel rods). Will they blow up the containment domes as they did in Oregon and Maine (think of all the contaminated particulate blown into the air and settling in the ocean and on our rooftops). Will they bulldoze contamination and let it stay? Will they let everything underground stay, contaminated or not? If Class A waste goes to Clive, Utah, what will be the route for the thousands of trucks? What safety precautions will they take? We assume Class C waste will go to Texas (how?) but what falls into Class B and where will it go? Who makes these classifications and how can they be trusted? Will they try to classify contaminated waste as less than A so it can go into EPA designated hazwaste sites or into landfills? How much of San Onofre will end up at the landfill off Ortega Highway, and how much will somehow end up in the ocean? Will they leave forever the 18 ft diameter 1500 ft long into the ocean? This pipe has been carrying liquid radioactive waste for a third of a century. Will the public be notified on days of “high risk” demolition? They have hazmat suits but we don’t. What about the 3 upwind schools only 2 miles away? What about the surfers?
Two low points stuck out for me. First was the discussion about the safety of the spent fuel pools. The NRC went on and on about how it had a 5/8 inch steel lining, walls 4 feet thick, and a foundation 3 feet thick, and it was way above sea level (19.75 feet to be exact). Therefore it would be impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis. When asked about safety from above, perhaps by terrorist attacks, the question was cut off and never answered. When pressed about drone attacks and terrorism, Bruce Watson dragged out the old study claiming that an airplane could crash into the containment dome and not cause it to collapse. He would not respond to attacks on the fuel pools or dry cask storage and used the NRC line that San Onofre was just as safe as any other nuclear power plant in the country. (Which is true because all of them are unsafe.) I am familiar with the National Academy of Sciences special study about the vulnerability of NPP to terrorism and the research done by Sandia Labs about 9/ll type plane crashes. Privately he admitted that such crashes or missile attacks or any high explosives might lead to catastrophe if they targeted the pools or dry casks (which is why the NRC only takes about containment dome safety). I told them that the Sandia Labs also found that a truck bomb exploding at a NPP perimeter a few hundred feet from a fuel pool would likely cause a catastrophe. He did not know this. But he did know that the fuel pools and openly stored dry casks are about 200 feet from public road Old Pacific Highway and about 300 ft from Interstate 5. Everyone knows that NPP designed in the 1960s were never designed to protect against terrorism. The NRC pretends that no such attacks are likely and it is the Pentagon’s problem, not theirs.
The other low point was the last question from Pete Dietrich, Edison chief nuclear engineer. He complained about the continual reference to “Greenfield” status which suggested that Edison would have to make the site pretty when they leave. When pressed, the NRC said that the site would not have to be returned to a “Greenfield” which pleased the public. They only had to please the US Navy, the owner. The bottom line is that Edison has to do only what is acceptable to the Navy, perhaps what one might find at a military base used as an artillery range. This is a clue as to what we can expect from Edison.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Kill List - Midwest

Well if the President can have a Kill List, why can't the good guys have a Kill List.

Here are the biggest nuclear threats in the Midwest.    They are some of the oldest, growing up around Chicago and the famous Argonne National Lab who did open air experiments to intentionally make reactors go critical and explode.   Seriously, Mr. Gunderson pointed that one out to me.   See the video at the bottom for documentation of this "Experiment".       Nuke plants can blow up like minor nuclear bombs, the proof is in the video.    The pro-nukers hate this one.

Here is the Midwest map and explanation.

My kill list is, in order of priority, but will take any opportunistic weaknesses that present.


Palisades (Clunker with lots of problems run by Slumlord Entergy, on Lake Michigan)
Lasalle (2 Boiling Water like Fuku, even a lightning strike just took them down)
Cook (On Lake Michigan, 37 YO)
Point Beach (on Lake Michigan, 41 YO, and huge uprate to 118%)
Dresden (2 Boiling Water like Fuku, 41YO and huge uprate to 117%)
Quad Cities (2 Boiling Water like Fuku, 39 YO and huge uprate to 117%)
Monticello (Boiling Water like Fuku, 42 YO)

For a checklist on an easy to execute "Shelter in Place" box which also makes a great "Bug Out box", check it out here.

I promised some videos, and checked my own links, funny, they don't exist anymore.   4 out of 5 videos.   Imagine that.    I will ask Gunderson if he has an archived version.

Chicago Oct 24 Rad Waste Storage

Here is a list of all locations and schedules of meetings
Download sample press releases, Alerts, and more for each meeting for use by grassroots groups. Note: these are in Word format so you can edit, add your group's information and customize how you wish:
Rockville, MD. Oct. 1 and Nov. 14
Denver, CO. Oct. 3
San Luis Obispo, CA, Oct. 7
Carlsbad, CA, Oct. 9
Perrysburg, OH, Oct. 15
Minnetonka, MN, Oct. 17
Oak Brook, IL, Oct. 24
Chelmsford, MA, Oct. 28
Tarrytown, NY, Oct. 30
Charlotte, NC, Nov. 4
Orlando, FL, Nov. 6

 Information from here.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding public meetings to collect comments on a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GEIS--see link below) on the extended storage of highly radioactive irradiated fuel rods currently stored at nuclear power reactor sites in Washington DC, and 10 other cities between October 1 and November 14, 2013. 

This file is specific to NRC's public meeting on Thursday, October 24 in Chicago-Oak Brook, Illinois Chicago Marriott Oak Brook  1401 West 22nd Street  Oak Brook, IL 60523 Link to google map:

NRC will hold an "Open House" at 6 pm, and the meeting 7--10 pm (local time). If you are planning your own events, be sure to insert the times you want people to arrive.

We encourage local groups to use their own materials -- these draft organizing documents are offered simply as a starting point or aid. Edit / insert your own info + quotes / revise / reject freely!

This WORD file contains the following DRAFT documents for the CHICAGO meeting:
·       Media Advisory
·       Outreach email to your allied groups
·       Outreach email to members/ individuals
·       Press release
·       Flyer

We will be posting separately:
·       Talking points
·       Several different drafts of short comments for oral presentation
·       JPG for possible paid advertisement

If there are other document drafts that would be helpful for you, please contact Mary Olson, NIRS -- or 828-252-8409 (cell 828-242-5621).

The Waste Confidence Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) is publicly available at

Please scroll down to Draft Document 1

DRAFT Document 1 -- Media Advisory  (put out about 2 weeks prior to the meeting -- be sure you contact "Day Books" for your area and send it to the Day Books again 48 hours in advance."

[Letterhead or list of organizations working together]

For Immediate Post
Contact: [include one or more names, phone and email]

Media Advisory
Chicago to have Major Role in U.S. High-Level Radioactive Waste Regulation
Thursday October 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Hear Public

What: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has produced a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the first time on the extended storage of highly radioactive irradiated fuel rods currently stored at nuclear power reactor sites. The NRC is seeking public comment on the document, and will hold 2 meetings in the Washington DC area and 10 field meetings outside of DC, including [City name]. [City name] is the only location in [region].

When: Thursday October 24, 6 pm Open House; Meeting 7--10 pm [change time if you have your own plan]

Where: Chicago Marriott Oak Brook  1401 West 22nd Street  Oak Brook, IL 60523
Link to google map:

Who: Any member of the public, their advocates and representatives [list any VIP or organizations planning to comment] may comment. Both oral and written comments will be accepted.

Why: A federal court ordered the NRC to study the impact of storing high-level radioactive waste ("spent" fuel rods) at reactor sites, including a look specifically at dangers from fuel pools such as those seen at the Fukushima Daiichi Japanese nuclear disaster site. Prior to that the NRC simply asserted that the storage of the waste was no problem, would have no impact and that since federal law mandates a different federal agency, the Department of Energy, to take this most concentrated of all the types of radioactive waste, an impact statement was not needed. The federal court order is historic since it additionally removed the NRC's authority to license expanded production of the waste (new nuclear power reactors, or license renewals). The public is invited to comment on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, particularly any site-specific aspects of waste storage since the document is intended to address every reactor site in the United States, past, present and future.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 useful formulas

I was making up these formulas from scratch last week, actually easier to just find someone else's!   LOL

Great site, you have to register.   They have some smart moderators too (and I don't mean Boron, get it:-)).    However the moderators are "part of the system" meaning they are deeply involved in nuke and have an inherit conflict of interest.

Hi Clancy688 - more or less the same question occurred to me - this is how I did it:

the Bq number gives you the activity of a quantity raqdioactive material where one nucleus decays per second and is tied into atomic mass and half life by following equation:

Bq = (m / ma) * Na * (ln(2) / t1/2)

m=mass in grams, ma = atomic mass, Na = avogadro constant, t1/2=half life in seconds

if you had Cs137 at 10,000TBq and half life is 30.17 yrs

then m= Bq / (Na * (ln(2) / t1/2)) * ma => m = 10E15 / (6.02E23 * (ln(2) / 9.51E8))

m = 0.166 grams 

Monday, September 23, 2013

Full Credit to Yoichi Shimatsu On Fukushima Nuclear Criticality.

Fukushima Blasts Caused By
Nuclear Plasma Not Hydrogen Gas

By Yoichi Shimatsu
Showing all the stubbornness of a cross-eyed mule, the Tokyo Electric Power Company sticks to the untenable argument that hydrogen gas caused the blasts at two nuclear reactors at its Fukushima No.1 plant as well as the raging fires in the spent fuel pool of Reactor 4. This preposterous claim has recently gained credence from a memo by Spain’s nuclear authority (posted at ENE News, October 17).

The hydrogen “theory” - which should be preceded by “conspiracy” - is part of an official cover-up by the European Union, the U.S. Department of Energy and the toothless watchdog IAEA in cooperation with Japan’s Economy Ministry that aims to trivialize the dangers posed by nuclear reactors and planned fusion-energy plants.

In contrast to the spotless corridors of the pro-nuclear bureaucracy, on the grimy factory floor hydrogen gas (H2) is of no use to welders against metal, since it burns at a mere 300 degrees Celsius. Other gases catch fire at far higher temperatures: Acetylene (C2H2) used in cutting torches flames at 3,300 C and plasma arc welding starts at 20,000 C. High heat is what it takes to cut through steel alloys and to pierce the shrouds of reactors.

Simply put, hydrogen gas, even under high pressure, lacks the combustion potential to blow the lid off Reactor 1. Nor can flaming hydrogen jump, as claimed by TEPCO, from Reactor 3 over a wide distance to ignite the R4 spent fuel pool. Who are these clowns trying to fool? Obviously, those government bureaucrats who cheated on their science exams.

Giving Away the Game

The memo from the Spanish Science Ministry’s CIEMAT (Centro de Investigaciones Energ√©ticas, Medioambientales y Tecnol√≥gicas) states that H2, or hydrogen gas, accumulated inside the drywell head, which “could lose its hermicity” under high internal pressure, and thereby escaped into the concrete building around the reactor.

A hermetic barrier is airtight, and the top of the reactor is covered by a double set of steel domes. Reactor 1 was operating at the time of the March 11 earthquake, so its drywell covers could not have been inadvertently left ajar by human error. Whatever broke through the reactor shield had immensely greater energy potential than hydrogen gas.

A clue for an alternate and more plausible explanation can be gained from examining the professional backgrounds of the memo writers, Enrique Gonzales and Luis Enrique Herranz, with the CIEMAT Nuclear Fission Division. Senor Herranz works at the nuclear security division, fair enough, since it is in charge of crisis response.

The co-writer Gonzales, however, has served as the Spanish representative to the planning committee for the Jules Horowitz Research Reactor, under construction in Cadarance, France, near Nice. The vast facility also produces fast-flux neutron reactors for the French Navy’s nuclear fleet. The research project is formally titled International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), slated for completion within this decade.

Japan’s Atomic Energy Agency is one of several non-European sponsors of the ITER reactor. Its namesake is the late Jules Horowiz, a Polish-French physicist who provided key support for the start-up of Israeli warhead production at Dimona. (source: the journal of Israel Studies) Horowitz’s work at Dimona and his other illegal acts of nuclear proliferation were coordinated under the late nuclear chemist Bernard Goldschmidt, husband of heiress Naomi Nina Rothschild.

Star Power

One of the objectives at Cadarance will be to test new materials against extreme temperatures and chemical damage inside reactors. This research is especially important toward selecting the metal cladding for curved fuel rods in the next-generation of plasma fusion reactors.

Fusion is achieved by the bonding, under extreme temperatures, of two types of heavy water: deuterium (water in which the hydrogen proton contains an extra neutron) and tritium (hydrogen proton with two additional neutrons). The end products are helium gas and a free neutron, the latter providing the desired heat energy for power production. Artificial fusion is achieved inside nuclear plasma, a gas-like cloud of ions, at a temperature of 100 million Celsius, which is hotter than the interior of a star.

The fusion process is obviously dangerous since the plasma can instantaneously vaporize the steel, molybdenum and other materials of a reactor, leaving only a large hole in the ground. To control the high-energy plasma, rings of magnets encase the donut-shaped reactor, known as a torus or tokamak. The plasma, separated from the chamber walls by magnetic repulsion, races around in a circular path, generating more heat energy as deuterium and tritium are added.

Accidental  releases of plasma can be catastrophic, but the few suspected incidents have gone unreported under a total cover-up by the scientific establishment and intelligence agencies. The devastating effects of free-flowing plasma can be surmised from the quick work done by a relatively puny plasma torch in demolishing the upper levels of the Reactor 4 building.

Specter of Destruction

It can be argued that the Fukushima facilities are light-water reactors, cooled by normal water instead of deuterium, and therefore safe from fusion reactions and plasma formation. During a meltdown, however, deuterium and tritium can be readily produced through neutron bombardment of water by overheated fuel rods.  Neutron penetration of the hydrogen atom in water can transform that water into deuterium, and a second neutron strike will result in the creation of tritium.

Whenever a threshold quantity of deuterium and tritium build up inside a damaged reactor, the possible scenarios include the rupture of a reactor, a mushroom cloud blast and unstoppable fires inside spent fuel pools.

At the time of these shocking events, witnesses reported seeing blue flashes in the vapors escaping Reactor 3. These bright filaments, similar to wavy rays from a Tesla coil, are a type of birkeland current, caused when plasma starts to cool and interact with ions in the atmosphere.

Inside every nuclear reactor lurks the specter of plasma that can trigger its destruction. Given the grim precedent of fusion-driven, plasma-powered events at the TEPCO reactors, it is no wonder that the CIEMAT staffers went on a “fishing expedition,” under the cover of researching “hydrogen gas” releases at Fukushima. Unfortunately for CIEMAT security official Harranz, water pumps and firefighting equipment will be just as helpless against future plasma blasts as they were at Fukushima No.1. Plasma cannot be quenched, it just runs out of stuff to burn.

The Spanish science ministry has cause for worry because much of the European research in fusion energy is being conducted at its TJ-2 Stellarator at the National Fusion Laboratory in Madrid. While fusion accidents are less dangerous to the general population than the radioactive fallout from nuclear plants, the entire staff of engineers and workers on site will simply vanish into thin air along with the structure.

In the now-lengthy time span since 311, not a single nuclear physicist has acted on ethical principle to expose the hydrogen fraud and disclose the truth behind the Fukushima blasts. (Only a notable brave few nuclear engineers have tried to disclose the truth.) The collective cowardice and pro-industry hucksterism of the physicists have served to encourage the continuance and future development of a fundamentally flawed and fatally risky technology.

The unforgettable catastrophe at Fukushima shows, in contrast, that every nuclear reactor across the planet must be shut down and relegated to history as man’s greatest folly. The booming silence exposes the fact that nuclear physics is a discredited field, an accessory to mass murder and war, and therefore unworthy to be deemed a science.  With its bigoted mumbo-jumbo about cosmological origins and sanctimonious justification of the terror and death inflicted upon its victims, nuclear physics stands as a crime against humanity.

Yoichi Shimatsu is a science writer based in Hong Kong and former editor of The Japan Times Weekly.

Why the good Ol' USA is not stepping up, stepping in to help Japan with nuclear.

 At ENENEWS--Wemadethis said
Abe doesn't know what's going on!
Why are Americans so resistant to make any noise about this? I'm over in Europe and the whole thing stinks to high heaven from over here. Get active yanks!

Here is the low down as I watched it in real time.

Japan was reacting to the Tsunami and the nuke emergency.   They were releasing real information and evacuating people.  In that first week I noticed one day...the real information was cut in half, and the next day cut in half again, and OBummer came out emphasizing "no risk to USA".    After about 4 day of the rollout of the BP playbook by the US Government, forcing Japan to start the coverup, there was effectively only a few percent of truth coming out of Japan.

In other words, under the New World Order Disaster Playbook (NWODP TM) the half life of truth is about 1 day.   

Japan Gov and TEPCO have been colluding for years to cover up the real situation.    And the USA who pushed them into nuclear 50 years ago, now see China as a real threat to "our buddies" in Japan if Japan cannot compete in manufacturing because they can't use the "cheap electricity" that their 50 nuke plant can provide.    USA has stated, this year that Japan's shut down nuke plants are a security threat to the USA.    So don't expect the corrupt bloated government of the USA to do anything smart here.

Nuclear and Education were the largest contributors to the Obummer regime.   Do not expect any smart action by USA.   They want Japan to restart reactors and have gone on record as saying not just that, but that the lack of restart was a security threat to the USA.     I guess that mean Obummer can drone some anti-nuclear protesters, only half kidding.


Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Bureau of Sewerage Tokyo Area

This is the English Page

Funny how some samples can be detected at 17 CPM but then others say <50 (none detected, but 50 is the minimum we can detect today.   Hmmm maybe the reading is 48)

Keep in mind, this is Tokyo, pretty far away from the nuclear plant meltdowns.

Keep in Mind the Half Lives

I-131                  8       Days           Beta Decay, mutation and death of cells even several mm away
                                                       10% Gamma, so can be seen with Gamma Camera
Cesium-134     2.065  Years           Beta Decay, and 1.6MeV Gamma
Cesium-137      30      Years           Strong Gamma

You just got to love the nuclear industry--

"The isotope I-131 is still occasionally used for purely diagnostic (i.e., imaging) work, due to its low expense compared to other iodine radioisotopes"

The other important thing to know about I-131 is that the small and moderate exposures are what causes the cancers, and it is very effective at that.     The large exposures just flat out kill the nearby cells, which in a sick way is "better" because then the cells are just dead, and they do not become cancerous.

Protection--Potassium Iodide (use during a known risk).     7000 times the amount needed for daily nutrition.    Also from the Wikipedia article.

The most common method of treatment is to give potassium iodide to those at risk. The dosage for adults is 130 mg potassium iodide per day, given in one dose, or divided into portions of 65 mg twice a day. This is equivalent to 100 mg of iodide, and is about 7000 times bigger than the nutritional dose of iodide, which is 0.015 mg per day (150 micrograms per day). See potassium iodide for more information on prevention of radioiodine absorption by the thyroid during nuclear accident, or for nuclear medical reasons. The FDA-approved dosing of potassium iodide for this purpose are as follows: infants less than 1 month old, 16 mg; children 1 month to 3 years, 32 mg; children 3 years to 18 years, 65 mg; adults 130 mg.[18] However, some sources recommend alternative dosing regimens.[19]

Friday, September 13, 2013

Charts showing lots of I131 which can only mean 1 thing -- Criticality -- Fresh nuclear reactions

I have asked the author for the source data.    If true, this is huge.   Maybe all 3 underground coriums rolled into the same underground hard rock valley and are now having a "party".

Nice Clean Air Today, Except for Pacific Northwest

Pretty clean.    I have been seeing waves of radiation wash over the USA these last few weeks with Fukushima admissions also on the rise.   

Its pretty much a "duh" moment for TEPCO and Japan Gov.     As long as they let ground water flow into the plant area, it will pick up radiation from the coriums, whether the coriums are under the buildings or just in the basements.    This valley used to be a river, they raised the land to make the plant and divert the water.     Now the earthquake dropped it 3 to 6 feet.     

They have to pump the ground water out before it ever hits the plants area.  They have to lower the elevation of the ground water.    What part of "Duh" does it take a nuclear scientist to understand.  

Back to the Pacific Northwest....those poor folks have been getting pounded with rads for 2.5 years now.      And it will last AT LEAST another decade.   

Seriously, I would just move.

Nuclear is Dying, Please Help (it Die)

The chart says it all.   But keep in mind the chart is even more compelling granted that nukers have been ramrodding through "uprates", which is like taking an clunker car and throwing a nitrous system on it in order to get more speed until it just fully blows up.    many plants are 30 years old and running 10% to 18% above their original increase profits.    And risk.

But the Nukers externalize the risk.    They put the risk on us.   So they can make more money.   

They still have nuclear promoters on the blogosphere trying to pimp the idea that Fukushima is insignificant, that it will be measurable but not harmful.    The shame.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Discussion on I131 I 129 and Fukushima

I made this chart to better understand the "zaps being put out for Rad Iodines.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Radiation Monitoring Sites

The top map is from

They state "readings not equalized" meaning that pancake type Geigers will pick up about 3 time the amount that a smaller tube type Mueller will pick up.

The Radiation Alert Inspector is a pancake type Geiger. 

 The bottom map is from

I haven't exactly figured out NETC yet.   Sometimes they are reporting Beta and sometimes they have Gamma (in a 600 to 800  keV range)

Check it out,

Sept 10, it sucks to be in Corvalis OR right now, currently 98 CPM Beta, high of 216 Beta.


Lies being told on Hawaii TV, disgusting really.    Keep the sheeple calm!