For those who want to dive a little deeper into radiation research, please visit the
"Rad Pro Calculator"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx
Site Navigation Menu
Home Page
Online Calculators
Freeware
Rad Pro Information
Documents
Help
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. What is the conversion formula from rad to rem or Gray to Sievert?
Rad and Gray are absorbed dose units. When we look at radiation being absorbed in tissue, the absorption varies with the energy of the radiation. With a higher energy deposition in tissue, there are more rads or more Grays deposited than a lower energy deposition at the same rate (particles or photons per second).
Now, what is a rem and what is a a Sievert? The term rem came from an acronym that means Roentgen Equivalent Man, in another words the equivalent biological damage done to human tissue. Some radiation emissions, when depositing the same energy as other radiation emissions, do more biological damage to the human organism than others. How does one convert? To go from rad to rem or from Gray to Sievert, you need a multiplication factor that represents the effective biological damage.
Most training texts call this a quality factor (QF) or a radiation weighting factor. Some training texts call it a biological damage conversion factor but what it truly represents is the the ratio of biological damage done by radiation types to the biological damage done by gamma radiation.
For gamma, x-ray and beta radiation, this factor is 1.
For alpha, it is 20. For neutrons it is between 3 and 10, and is generally conservatively taken as 10.
What this implies is that a rad or Gray of alpha energy absorbed by soft human tissue does 20 times more damage than a rad or Gray of gamma, x-ray or beta energy absorbed.
Since for gamma, x-ray and beta, the multiplication factor is 1, one rad equals one rem and one Gray equals one Sievert.
There is an excellent video animation on this subject by Ionactive Consulting of the United Kingdom on their website. View the video if you want a more detailed explanation these concepts.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Reality based reality.
Unless they can stop the water from getting to the molten masses of corium (about 100,000 pounds each), then they cant stop the water from eventually flowing to or overflowing the barrier whatever it is, or going into the community drinking water.
The coriums are mostly underground, and big, and hot anough, and under nuclear reactord with a hundred tons of highly dangerous spent fuel, 100 feet up in the spent fuel pools, precariously perched on the Ring of Fire.
Hmmmm....maybe we ought to devote $100B of worldwide resources to vacuum up this goo and put it into long storage, and then kill all nuke plants. This shite is absurd.
Palisades worker found drunk on the job. She has been fired.
Isn't it great when the employees running a dilapitated old nuke plant, which recently had large releases of radiation into Lake Michigan, are found drunk on the job, not fit for duty.
Funny, this same thing happened at Kewaunee, which was shut down last year. I guess, working at a decrepit dying plant probably makes one want to drink.
Its time for Palisades to go, shut down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event Text
VIOLATION OF THE FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM
A licensed employee had a confirmed positive for alcohol during a random fitness-for-duty test. The employee's access to the plant has been terminated.
The licensee informed the NRC Resident Inspector and will inform stakeholders at their scheduled meeting.
| Power Reactor | Event Number: 49298 | |||
|
Facility: PALISADES Region: 3 State: MI Unit: [1] [ ] [ ] RX Type: [1] CE NRC Notified By: TERRY DAVIS HQ OPS Officer: STEVE SANDIN |
Notification Date: 08/22/2013 Notification Time: 15:05 [ET] Event Date: 08/22/2013 Event Time: 10:48 [EDT] Last Update Date: 08/22/2013 |
|||
|
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY 10 CFR Section: 26.719 - FITNESS FOR DUTY |
Person (Organization): LAURA KOZAK (R3DO) |
| Unit | SCRAM Code | RX CRIT | Initial PWR | Initial RX Mode | Current PWR | Current RX Mode |
| 1 | N | Y | 100 | Power Operation | 100 | Power Operation |
VIOLATION OF THE FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM
A licensed employee had a confirmed positive for alcohol during a random fitness-for-duty test. The employee's access to the plant has been terminated.
The licensee informed the NRC Resident Inspector and will inform stakeholders at their scheduled meeting.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Denniger get it "mostly right"
I understand everything that Denniger is saying in his article below.
He writes a blog "Market Ticker".
One of the only sites I have been banned from, he has potential to be a rude hot head at times. A Nuke Pro reader asked me to debunk Denniger. I read it. Most is good, properly interpreted, background information and the right way to look at things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But he misses the boat on some major things-- partial debunk here.
1) He thinks no risk to seafood because no "hobby anti nuker" is buying fish, drying the bones, grinding up their bones, and posting strontium levels. None of the nukers want to talk about the real Bogeyman, Strontium.
And the scientists overall are lying, and of course, TEPCO is lying. But its a good idea to test the fish bones, and someone should. Strontium will bio accumulate very effectively.
Cesium has an 80 day half life in larger mammals, it doesn't stick.
Sorry, I am getting ready for multiple sketchy futures, I don't have the time to dry and grind and test.
But with fish measuring 150,000 Bq/Kg in Japan (HUGE) and with 95% of all the radiation staying in the upper 200 feet of ocean even halfway through the Pacific, the chance that we got some pretty hot fish is very likely, and it will get worse.
I did an article on Strontium, it has a wicked one two punch, and it sticks in your bones and gives you leukemia.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/03/strontium-bogeyman-exists-wicked-one.html
2) He is taking TEPCO data on tritium of all things, and then calculating a "Banana Equivalent", and then dismissing all reported data.
As if anyone should believe anything TEPCO is saying, what a joke. Do I need to say more? And if TEPCO is reporting on Tritium, it is obviously a feint, since Tritium is a very weak Beta radiation emitter. The only thing scary about tritium is that it is water with 1 radioactive hydrogen molecule. It is indistinguishable from water, and you cannot filter it or treat it with carbon or RO or anything, or remove it from your body if ingested at least with any urgency, it will eventually leave unless you continue to consume Tritium.
TEPCO and everyone have only been reporting on Cesium because that one leaves your body, in a year 95% will be gone, the biological half life is 80 days. Unless you continue ingestion, then your levels stay high. But the bottom line is that the experts don't want to mention the Strontium, the Uranium, and Plutonium which stick around in your body pretty much until you are dead....then they keep on giving to the next organism uses your cells.
3) He is stating that he has never measured any increase in background or radiation in his food at his house.
Without going into any detail on how he is measuring the food which is tough to do without extreme effort or cost. Clearly, "waves" of radiation have passed over the USA, mostly northerly, but some snows in St Louis at 10 times background. These occurs days and a week after a Fukushima earthquake shake or other event.
Here is a good website for monitoring USA radiation levels, when I first posted this a "wave" was passing over USA.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/08/great-radiation-monitoring-site.html
Here is my article on testing food and why it is difficult. http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/08/basic-information-on-testing-food-with.html
4) His statement---"The bottom line is that there's zero evidence of contamination in amounts that are biologically relevant thus far, despite the repeated claims of those who would like it to be otherwise and are peddling "we're all gonna die" scaremongering nonsense."
Obviously Denniger hasn't visited my site to review the EPA proof that 10's of thousands of pounds of uranium and plutonium were aerosolized into the jet stream. That stuff is nasty, it's not that radioactive in terms of disintegrations per second, but is unusually terrible as a heavy metal. But it also shows not just that much of the cores went sky high and were effectively distributed, but other more radiative nastiness went with it. There was strontium measured in Hawaii milk, etc.
But his comment "thus far" is laughable in it's resemblance to the Government outcry of "no immediate risk".
Of course there is no immediate risk, radiation kills and causes cancer, and causes weaknesses that let other disease take a shot at you, in 5 to 30 years. It is beyond obvious that TEPCO and Japan Gov and US Gov have been covering up information, and preventing others from taking data.
There is plenty of evidence that says you ought to be really concerned, and taking precautions like HEPA filters, anti-oxidants, own a geiger, and stay out of potentially hot rain unless you know its not hot.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html
Fukushima was immediately worse than Chernobyl, but Fukushima has continued and could be 3 times or 20 times worse than Chernobyl. Fukushima is 3 units melted down and blown up. Chernobyl was just one. Chernobyl has still to this day created wild boar too hot to eat. And maybe a million deaths in the works. To say that there is nothing to worry about unless the pools go on fire or you live next to the plant, is actually amazing and irresponsible. Coming from Denniger who obviously spent dozens or hundreds of hours boning up on radiation, it is amazing that he is missing the obvious big picture. Who knows, maybe after so much chaos since the financial meltdown, the BP fiasco, and the Fukushima nightmare, maybe he just needs to set one aside and not worry about it.
I am not worried, I am taking actions to prepare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Karl Dennigner Site
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223916
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OnFukushima
I'm going to say all this once, 'cause it's getting tiring.
And anyone who fails to present facts to refute what I'm laying out and pops up on my Facebook page, on my comment area of this Ticker, or anywhere else that I have moderation privileges will find themselves facing this:
I'm happy to entertain a debate. I'm very tired of people running scaremongering crap without a scintilla of scientific evidence or facts behind their claims or thinly-veiled scaremongering.
Let's start with this:
Now let's quantify things.
First, the current risk of a catastrophic release of material. I will define that for you -- a rapid, aerosol release of radioactive isotopes that is sufficient to meaningfully increase the risk of health deterioration or death somewhere other than mainland Japan in the reasonably-immediate area of the reactors.
There is one place such a risk can reasonably arise today: The spent fuel pools.
There is bad news and good news in that regard. The bad news is that for all intents and purposes all of the fuel inventory in those pools is where it was at the time of the tsunami. Further, the damage done to the pools has not been repaired nor can it reasonably be in many cases; the pools will have to be emptied of spent fuel instead. That's bad because it's possible for the remaining integrity of the systems there to be lost.
Now the good news: The heat released from decay decreases at an exponential rate once the fuel is removed from the reactor and is not in active use. It has been two years, more or less, since the accident. A lot of the risk of a spent-fuel pool disaster has thus been taken off the table simply through the passage of time.
I do not have an inventory of the pools and as far as I know there has been no public release of that inventory, including when each of the fuel bundles in there was removed from active service, how many of them are new ("unburned") fuel assemblies that were slated to be into active service, etc. All of this matters -- a lot -- to the risk profile involved.
There are two risks with unloading the pools. First, it theoretically possible for a criticality event to take place in the pool during that operation. The pools and operating protocols normally preclude this, but the damage done during the accident means that the geometric protections built into the way the bundles are stored may or may not be entirely intact. We must assume that at least part of that protection is gone.
However, even with that protection gone it is pretty hard to get an accidental criticality, especially with spent fuel. It's not impossible by any means, but the reactivity of spent fuel is considerably lower than that of fresh fuel and water is necessary as a moderator. So paradoxically a loss of cooling actually reduces (to effectively zero) the risk of such an event.
Incidentally, "criticality" does not mean "boom" (as in "Atom Bomb"); it means a chain reaction as would take place in the reactor for power production. It is physically impossible to get a "prompt critical" (atom bomb) event with fuel enriched to the level used in this style of power reactors; the fuel is not "rich" enough.
The final point on an accidental criticality event in the pools is that if if happens it will leave exactly nothing to the imagination. There will be no hiding it and no question if it occurs. This sort of incident, if it happens, will truly "ring the bell" in a way that cannot be hidden or "un-rung."
Now the bad news: a loss of cooling capacity in those pools, if it goes on long enough or is of a catastrophic sort, will cause the bundles to overheat, and if they are "fresh" enough they can still violate the cladding and potentially have what amounts to a decay-heat fed fire. That's the "really awful" scenario. And the paradox is that eventually those bundles have to be unloaded from the pools.
But -- and this is important -- time is our friend in this regard. The longer you keep them cool under water, the more of that decay heat is dissipated and the lower the risk of an overheat incident. Eventually you can remove them to air-cooled casks, which would be the ideal situation. The challenge is doing it without taking a lethal dose of radiation in the process; the water in the pool is a good radiation shield but you have to get the fuel into a cask (made of lead or similar that provides adequate shielding) without delivering lethal radiation to the people operating the equipment.
Of course this risk has to be balanced against the possibility of a second earthquake that topples the structures, which must be presumed to be materially weakened. That would be a true catastrophic event.
Now on to the reactors and water leaks.
Nobody knows where the cores are in the reactors themselves that were operating at the time of the event. There are many who claim that they have violated not only the reactor vessel but also the secondary containment and are literally in the earth. There is no evidence to back up this claim at the present time and if this had happened and was leading to ridiculously high level releases of radioisotopes into groundwater where is the evidence of this in samples from both water on or near the site and surrounding sea?
The inside of the pressure vessels (what's left of them anyway) is an unholy mess with radiation levels high enough that even robotics cannot survive for any material amount of time, so this presents a serious challenge of verification -- at least for now. And that makes the claims that this has happened impossible to scientifically refute except by exclusion since nobody can take a picture and effectively "go look."
But exclusion is pretty-good science, and if in fact the cores were effectively eroding away en-masse into the groundwater there would be hard proof of this via isotopic analysis of the water in the vicinity.
So.... where is it?
Now let's look at the release of radioactive material that we know about -- I'll quote Forbes:
40 trillion is a lot, right?
Well....
A "bequerel" is a very small unit of radiation. It is one decay event per second.
One.
To put this in some perspective a single ordinary banana has about 15 Bequerels of activity. That is, if you measured all of the breaking down (and naturally-occurring) potassium in said banana, you'd count 15 decays per second.
Hmmm... you say, that's a hell of a lot of bananas.
Ok, I'll give you that.
But there are a hell of a lot of bananas that grow (and are eaten!) every year.
If you remember, in Leverage (look to the right) I talk about using coal as a feedstock for a sustainable energy paradigm. I put forward this path because coal naturally contains a small amount of Thorium, which is fertile. It is also (mildly) radioactive and in fact is where most of the radioactivity that comes from coal plant emissions is found.
Now those emissions cause lung cancer. We know this but we tolerate it because we want our lights to come on when we flip the switch. So the question becomes exactly how much radiation do those plants emit into the atmosphere?
There answer is about 0.1 ExaBequerel, or 1 x 10^17 Bequerels each and every year.
Fukushima is releasing less than 1/1000th of that amount.
Now that might sound like the end of the conversation, but it's not. See, not all radiation is equal. There are three rough categories and then one modifier when it comes to human exposure.
The three categories are the types of emission -- alpha, beta and gamma.
Alpha is the most hazardous when inhaled or eaten. Alpha radiation is an atomic nucleus (of mass 4; it is a helium nucleus in atomic composition) and is stopped by a single piece of ordinary paper -- or intact skin (the outer layers of which are dead, by the way), but because it's so large (comparatively) it has a high risk of damaging DNA in the body. As a result alpha emitters outside the body are almost completely harmless. Inside the body they are extremely dangerous because the first thing they are likely to contact is alive and they can and do cause cancer along with acute radiation poisoning (and death.) Thus, the risk from coal-fired power plants and their emissions when it comes to lung cancers. In relative terms Alpha has a risk factor (when consumed) of about 20. But outside the body, with intact skin, the risk from alpha approaches zero.
Beta is next. It is less-hazardous as it is basically electrons (or positrons.) Electrons are smaller (by a lot!) than alpha particles and thus are less-likely to cause a mutation. Note that "less-likely" doesn't mean not dangerous, however. Beta can be shielded against with a thin piece of aluminum or similar material. Note that beta emissions are intentionally used in a medical PET scanner (positrons.) The risk of Beta on a relative factor is about 2 and it will penetrate the skin, so it's dangerous unless there's something reasonably solid (e.g. a thin sheet of metal, etc) between you and it.
Finally there is gamma radiation. Gamma can be emitted when a decay event happens and the nucleus is left in an excited and unstable state. It behaves like all other forms of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio, infrared, etc) except that it is of much higher energy and frequency, and thus shorter wavelength. It is ionizing radiation, meaning that it is capable of knocking electrons out of an atom's orbit and thus does direct damage to tissue. However, being a photon they do not have charge. Gamma is difficult to shield against because it is a photon and a wave as opposed to a particle (Ed: Yes, I know, that's a simplification but close enough for this purpose); material thicknesses of lead, concrete or other dense materials (such as water) are required to provide material shielding against gamma. The relative risk of gamma is "1" (what the others are measured against) but no material help is provided by ordinary materials as it goes right through them (other than from things like concrete, lead and interestingly enough water, all in reasonable thickness.)
Ok, now let's look at the spectrum of risk materials at Fukushima and focus on a couple of particular interest.
First is Tritium. Much has been made of the fact that there's a lot of it over there, and there is. Tritium decays by beta emission, which is moderately dangerous. (It is that emission, incidentally, that makes "tritium weapon sights" and similar things work in conjunction with a phosphor.) Tritium is "heavy hydrogen" and thus can form any compound that hydrogen can, including water. It is that water that many people are freaked out about. The beta decay that comes from it is relatively-low energy and while dangerous, is not especially hazardous.
But water is water, and biologically Tritium does not bioaccumulate for this reason. It has a half-life after exposure of one to two weeks, depending on the species that ingests (or swims in) it. This isn't great but it also isn't catastrophic, and dilution of course cuts exposure.
Tritium is naturally produced in all water-cooled reactors. It is also intentionally produced for use in nuclear weapons.
Leaving that aside in 2003 56 pressurized water reactors in the US released approximately 1.5 x 10^15 Bequerels of Tritium.
Look up above. Fukushima has released 40 x 10^12, or 4 x 10^13 Bequerels total since the accident, or (given 2 years) 2 x 10^13 annually.
Approximately one hundred times as much Tritium was released to the environment in one year in normal operation by US pressurized water reactors as has been released by Fukushima.
Argue with the facts folks, because the facts are that while the radiation released is indeed a big number using Bequerels requires context as that's a really tiny unit of radioactivity -- and as such it's really easy to scare people by using "big" Bequerel counts.
From this you might conclude that I am not concerned at all with this incident.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let's first start with the basics -- the scaremongering that "there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation."
This may be technically true but it's also immaterial, because we're all surrounded by radiation. I have a geiger counter on my desk. Right now it says the local background radiation is 0.150 uSv/hr. I can't get around this fact and neither can you, so the premise that "there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation" is true but misleading because risk is non-linear and you can't avoid all radiation anyway.
Dose of course is a matter of concentration. If you took that entire 2003 Tritium release you'd be very dead, very fast. You're not because it's spread all over the place and thus has an inconsequential impact on your total body radiation dose.
So how could Fukushima "get" you in terms of real risk?
Two ways:
The reason is that radioactive Iodine of interest (I-131) is only produced in an environment of active fission and has a half-life of eight days. After 10 half-lives there is effectively none of whatever you started with left. This means that within three months after the accident it was all gone.
The bottom line is that there's zero evidence of contamination in amounts that are biologically relevant thus far, despite the repeated claims of those who would like it to be otherwise and are peddling "we're all gonna die" scaremongering nonsense.
If you claim that there is such evidence then let's see you produce it. It should not be difficult because the elements in question (Cesium and Strontium) both decay by beta emission (as does Tritium.)
One of the only sites I have been banned from, he has potential to be a rude hot head at times. A Nuke Pro reader asked me to debunk Denniger. I read it. Most is good, properly interpreted, background information and the right way to look at things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But he misses the boat on some major things-- partial debunk here.
1) He thinks no risk to seafood because no "hobby anti nuker" is buying fish, drying the bones, grinding up their bones, and posting strontium levels. None of the nukers want to talk about the real Bogeyman, Strontium.
And the scientists overall are lying, and of course, TEPCO is lying. But its a good idea to test the fish bones, and someone should. Strontium will bio accumulate very effectively.
Cesium has an 80 day half life in larger mammals, it doesn't stick.
Sorry, I am getting ready for multiple sketchy futures, I don't have the time to dry and grind and test.
But with fish measuring 150,000 Bq/Kg in Japan (HUGE) and with 95% of all the radiation staying in the upper 200 feet of ocean even halfway through the Pacific, the chance that we got some pretty hot fish is very likely, and it will get worse.
I did an article on Strontium, it has a wicked one two punch, and it sticks in your bones and gives you leukemia.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/03/strontium-bogeyman-exists-wicked-one.html
2) He is taking TEPCO data on tritium of all things, and then calculating a "Banana Equivalent", and then dismissing all reported data.
As if anyone should believe anything TEPCO is saying, what a joke. Do I need to say more? And if TEPCO is reporting on Tritium, it is obviously a feint, since Tritium is a very weak Beta radiation emitter. The only thing scary about tritium is that it is water with 1 radioactive hydrogen molecule. It is indistinguishable from water, and you cannot filter it or treat it with carbon or RO or anything, or remove it from your body if ingested at least with any urgency, it will eventually leave unless you continue to consume Tritium.
TEPCO and everyone have only been reporting on Cesium because that one leaves your body, in a year 95% will be gone, the biological half life is 80 days. Unless you continue ingestion, then your levels stay high. But the bottom line is that the experts don't want to mention the Strontium, the Uranium, and Plutonium which stick around in your body pretty much until you are dead....then they keep on giving to the next organism uses your cells.
3) He is stating that he has never measured any increase in background or radiation in his food at his house.
Without going into any detail on how he is measuring the food which is tough to do without extreme effort or cost. Clearly, "waves" of radiation have passed over the USA, mostly northerly, but some snows in St Louis at 10 times background. These occurs days and a week after a Fukushima earthquake shake or other event.
Here is a good website for monitoring USA radiation levels, when I first posted this a "wave" was passing over USA.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/08/great-radiation-monitoring-site.html
Here is my article on testing food and why it is difficult. http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/08/basic-information-on-testing-food-with.html
4) His statement---"The bottom line is that there's zero evidence of contamination in amounts that are biologically relevant thus far, despite the repeated claims of those who would like it to be otherwise and are peddling "we're all gonna die" scaremongering nonsense."
Obviously Denniger hasn't visited my site to review the EPA proof that 10's of thousands of pounds of uranium and plutonium were aerosolized into the jet stream. That stuff is nasty, it's not that radioactive in terms of disintegrations per second, but is unusually terrible as a heavy metal. But it also shows not just that much of the cores went sky high and were effectively distributed, but other more radiative nastiness went with it. There was strontium measured in Hawaii milk, etc.
But his comment "thus far" is laughable in it's resemblance to the Government outcry of "no immediate risk".
Of course there is no immediate risk, radiation kills and causes cancer, and causes weaknesses that let other disease take a shot at you, in 5 to 30 years. It is beyond obvious that TEPCO and Japan Gov and US Gov have been covering up information, and preventing others from taking data.
There is plenty of evidence that says you ought to be really concerned, and taking precautions like HEPA filters, anti-oxidants, own a geiger, and stay out of potentially hot rain unless you know its not hot.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html
Fukushima was immediately worse than Chernobyl, but Fukushima has continued and could be 3 times or 20 times worse than Chernobyl. Fukushima is 3 units melted down and blown up. Chernobyl was just one. Chernobyl has still to this day created wild boar too hot to eat. And maybe a million deaths in the works. To say that there is nothing to worry about unless the pools go on fire or you live next to the plant, is actually amazing and irresponsible. Coming from Denniger who obviously spent dozens or hundreds of hours boning up on radiation, it is amazing that he is missing the obvious big picture. Who knows, maybe after so much chaos since the financial meltdown, the BP fiasco, and the Fukushima nightmare, maybe he just needs to set one aside and not worry about it.
I am not worried, I am taking actions to prepare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Karl Dennigner Site
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223916
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OnFukushima
I'm going to say all this once, 'cause it's getting tiring.
And anyone who fails to present facts to refute what I'm laying out and pops up on my Facebook page, on my comment area of this Ticker, or anywhere else that I have moderation privileges will find themselves facing this:
I'm happy to entertain a debate. I'm very tired of people running scaremongering crap without a scintilla of scientific evidence or facts behind their claims or thinly-veiled scaremongering.
Let's start with this:
Japan’s government will lead “emergency measures” to tackle radioactive water spills at the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, wresting control of the disaster recovery from the plant’s heavily criticized operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)Yes, radioactive materials are all over that site. Yes, the water contains radioactive isotopes. Yes, this is bad.
Now let's quantify things.
First, the current risk of a catastrophic release of material. I will define that for you -- a rapid, aerosol release of radioactive isotopes that is sufficient to meaningfully increase the risk of health deterioration or death somewhere other than mainland Japan in the reasonably-immediate area of the reactors.
There is one place such a risk can reasonably arise today: The spent fuel pools.
There is bad news and good news in that regard. The bad news is that for all intents and purposes all of the fuel inventory in those pools is where it was at the time of the tsunami. Further, the damage done to the pools has not been repaired nor can it reasonably be in many cases; the pools will have to be emptied of spent fuel instead. That's bad because it's possible for the remaining integrity of the systems there to be lost.
Now the good news: The heat released from decay decreases at an exponential rate once the fuel is removed from the reactor and is not in active use. It has been two years, more or less, since the accident. A lot of the risk of a spent-fuel pool disaster has thus been taken off the table simply through the passage of time.
I do not have an inventory of the pools and as far as I know there has been no public release of that inventory, including when each of the fuel bundles in there was removed from active service, how many of them are new ("unburned") fuel assemblies that were slated to be into active service, etc. All of this matters -- a lot -- to the risk profile involved.
There are two risks with unloading the pools. First, it theoretically possible for a criticality event to take place in the pool during that operation. The pools and operating protocols normally preclude this, but the damage done during the accident means that the geometric protections built into the way the bundles are stored may or may not be entirely intact. We must assume that at least part of that protection is gone.
However, even with that protection gone it is pretty hard to get an accidental criticality, especially with spent fuel. It's not impossible by any means, but the reactivity of spent fuel is considerably lower than that of fresh fuel and water is necessary as a moderator. So paradoxically a loss of cooling actually reduces (to effectively zero) the risk of such an event.
Incidentally, "criticality" does not mean "boom" (as in "Atom Bomb"); it means a chain reaction as would take place in the reactor for power production. It is physically impossible to get a "prompt critical" (atom bomb) event with fuel enriched to the level used in this style of power reactors; the fuel is not "rich" enough.
The final point on an accidental criticality event in the pools is that if if happens it will leave exactly nothing to the imagination. There will be no hiding it and no question if it occurs. This sort of incident, if it happens, will truly "ring the bell" in a way that cannot be hidden or "un-rung."
Now the bad news: a loss of cooling capacity in those pools, if it goes on long enough or is of a catastrophic sort, will cause the bundles to overheat, and if they are "fresh" enough they can still violate the cladding and potentially have what amounts to a decay-heat fed fire. That's the "really awful" scenario. And the paradox is that eventually those bundles have to be unloaded from the pools.
But -- and this is important -- time is our friend in this regard. The longer you keep them cool under water, the more of that decay heat is dissipated and the lower the risk of an overheat incident. Eventually you can remove them to air-cooled casks, which would be the ideal situation. The challenge is doing it without taking a lethal dose of radiation in the process; the water in the pool is a good radiation shield but you have to get the fuel into a cask (made of lead or similar that provides adequate shielding) without delivering lethal radiation to the people operating the equipment.
Of course this risk has to be balanced against the possibility of a second earthquake that topples the structures, which must be presumed to be materially weakened. That would be a true catastrophic event.
Now on to the reactors and water leaks.
Nobody knows where the cores are in the reactors themselves that were operating at the time of the event. There are many who claim that they have violated not only the reactor vessel but also the secondary containment and are literally in the earth. There is no evidence to back up this claim at the present time and if this had happened and was leading to ridiculously high level releases of radioisotopes into groundwater where is the evidence of this in samples from both water on or near the site and surrounding sea?
The inside of the pressure vessels (what's left of them anyway) is an unholy mess with radiation levels high enough that even robotics cannot survive for any material amount of time, so this presents a serious challenge of verification -- at least for now. And that makes the claims that this has happened impossible to scientifically refute except by exclusion since nobody can take a picture and effectively "go look."
But exclusion is pretty-good science, and if in fact the cores were effectively eroding away en-masse into the groundwater there would be hard proof of this via isotopic analysis of the water in the vicinity.
So.... where is it?
Now let's look at the release of radioactive material that we know about -- I'll quote Forbes:
Tepco admitted on Friday that a cumulative 20 trillion to 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium may have leaked into the sea since the disaster.Let's use the higher number.
40 trillion is a lot, right?
Well....
A "bequerel" is a very small unit of radiation. It is one decay event per second.
One.
To put this in some perspective a single ordinary banana has about 15 Bequerels of activity. That is, if you measured all of the breaking down (and naturally-occurring) potassium in said banana, you'd count 15 decays per second.
Hmmm... you say, that's a hell of a lot of bananas.
Ok, I'll give you that.
But there are a hell of a lot of bananas that grow (and are eaten!) every year.
If you remember, in Leverage (look to the right) I talk about using coal as a feedstock for a sustainable energy paradigm. I put forward this path because coal naturally contains a small amount of Thorium, which is fertile. It is also (mildly) radioactive and in fact is where most of the radioactivity that comes from coal plant emissions is found.
Now those emissions cause lung cancer. We know this but we tolerate it because we want our lights to come on when we flip the switch. So the question becomes exactly how much radiation do those plants emit into the atmosphere?
There answer is about 0.1 ExaBequerel, or 1 x 10^17 Bequerels each and every year.
Fukushima is releasing less than 1/1000th of that amount.
Now that might sound like the end of the conversation, but it's not. See, not all radiation is equal. There are three rough categories and then one modifier when it comes to human exposure.
The three categories are the types of emission -- alpha, beta and gamma.
Alpha is the most hazardous when inhaled or eaten. Alpha radiation is an atomic nucleus (of mass 4; it is a helium nucleus in atomic composition) and is stopped by a single piece of ordinary paper -- or intact skin (the outer layers of which are dead, by the way), but because it's so large (comparatively) it has a high risk of damaging DNA in the body. As a result alpha emitters outside the body are almost completely harmless. Inside the body they are extremely dangerous because the first thing they are likely to contact is alive and they can and do cause cancer along with acute radiation poisoning (and death.) Thus, the risk from coal-fired power plants and their emissions when it comes to lung cancers. In relative terms Alpha has a risk factor (when consumed) of about 20. But outside the body, with intact skin, the risk from alpha approaches zero.
Beta is next. It is less-hazardous as it is basically electrons (or positrons.) Electrons are smaller (by a lot!) than alpha particles and thus are less-likely to cause a mutation. Note that "less-likely" doesn't mean not dangerous, however. Beta can be shielded against with a thin piece of aluminum or similar material. Note that beta emissions are intentionally used in a medical PET scanner (positrons.) The risk of Beta on a relative factor is about 2 and it will penetrate the skin, so it's dangerous unless there's something reasonably solid (e.g. a thin sheet of metal, etc) between you and it.
Finally there is gamma radiation. Gamma can be emitted when a decay event happens and the nucleus is left in an excited and unstable state. It behaves like all other forms of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio, infrared, etc) except that it is of much higher energy and frequency, and thus shorter wavelength. It is ionizing radiation, meaning that it is capable of knocking electrons out of an atom's orbit and thus does direct damage to tissue. However, being a photon they do not have charge. Gamma is difficult to shield against because it is a photon and a wave as opposed to a particle (Ed: Yes, I know, that's a simplification but close enough for this purpose); material thicknesses of lead, concrete or other dense materials (such as water) are required to provide material shielding against gamma. The relative risk of gamma is "1" (what the others are measured against) but no material help is provided by ordinary materials as it goes right through them (other than from things like concrete, lead and interestingly enough water, all in reasonable thickness.)
Ok, now let's look at the spectrum of risk materials at Fukushima and focus on a couple of particular interest.
First is Tritium. Much has been made of the fact that there's a lot of it over there, and there is. Tritium decays by beta emission, which is moderately dangerous. (It is that emission, incidentally, that makes "tritium weapon sights" and similar things work in conjunction with a phosphor.) Tritium is "heavy hydrogen" and thus can form any compound that hydrogen can, including water. It is that water that many people are freaked out about. The beta decay that comes from it is relatively-low energy and while dangerous, is not especially hazardous.
But water is water, and biologically Tritium does not bioaccumulate for this reason. It has a half-life after exposure of one to two weeks, depending on the species that ingests (or swims in) it. This isn't great but it also isn't catastrophic, and dilution of course cuts exposure.
Tritium is naturally produced in all water-cooled reactors. It is also intentionally produced for use in nuclear weapons.
Leaving that aside in 2003 56 pressurized water reactors in the US released approximately 1.5 x 10^15 Bequerels of Tritium.
Look up above. Fukushima has released 40 x 10^12, or 4 x 10^13 Bequerels total since the accident, or (given 2 years) 2 x 10^13 annually.
Approximately one hundred times as much Tritium was released to the environment in one year in normal operation by US pressurized water reactors as has been released by Fukushima.
Argue with the facts folks, because the facts are that while the radiation released is indeed a big number using Bequerels requires context as that's a really tiny unit of radioactivity -- and as such it's really easy to scare people by using "big" Bequerel counts.
From this you might conclude that I am not concerned at all with this incident.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let's first start with the basics -- the scaremongering that "there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation."
This may be technically true but it's also immaterial, because we're all surrounded by radiation. I have a geiger counter on my desk. Right now it says the local background radiation is 0.150 uSv/hr. I can't get around this fact and neither can you, so the premise that "there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation" is true but misleading because risk is non-linear and you can't avoid all radiation anyway.
Dose of course is a matter of concentration. If you took that entire 2003 Tritium release you'd be very dead, very fast. You're not because it's spread all over the place and thus has an inconsequential impact on your total body radiation dose.
So how could Fukushima "get" you in terms of real risk?
Two ways:
- If there was a concentration point that "focused" that radiation such that you took it up in quantity. It is extremely unlikely that anything like that is going to happen en-mass in terms of a release even in a nightmare scenario such as a spent fuel fire at Fukushima that would have a material impact on the United States. But in terms of ongoing release there is one element
that poses a material risk of this happening (without such a
catastrophe), and that's Strontium. The reason for that is that
Strontium has a relatively long half-life (~29 years) and behaves in the
body as does calcium, which means it
accumulates in the bones. In sea life small fish are eaten by bigger
fish, and so on until we eat the bigger fish. Strontium has the potential to bioaccumulate in fish and thus wind up in you.
The good news is that you don't (usually) eat the bones, at least
intentionally. The better news is that Strontium decays by beta
emission and thus is pretty easy to detect (unlike an alpha emitter
which is tougher to detect.) Now here's the gotcha: Nobody
is reporting any material amount of accumulated Strontium in fish -- if
it's there where are the scaremongers with geiger counters lighting up
like christmas trees on top of pacific tuna? Missing, that's where.
- If you're sitting on top of, or near, the reactors. If you're close to them then your risk of being dosed goes up -- a lot. If there is a further release incident that risk becomes very material (e.g. a spent fuel pool problem.) Therefore, if you live in the general area of the crippled plant there's a materially-elevated risk that you will need to be mindful of for a very long time.
The reason is that radioactive Iodine of interest (I-131) is only produced in an environment of active fission and has a half-life of eight days. After 10 half-lives there is effectively none of whatever you started with left. This means that within three months after the accident it was all gone.
The bottom line is that there's zero evidence of contamination in amounts that are biologically relevant thus far, despite the repeated claims of those who would like it to be otherwise and are peddling "we're all gonna die" scaremongering nonsense.
If you claim that there is such evidence then let's see you produce it. It should not be difficult because the elements in question (Cesium and Strontium) both decay by beta emission (as does Tritium.)
Friday, August 30, 2013
Basic information on testing food with a Geiger counter
http://www.how-to-diy.org/4Ue6sFiX3orKIB/Testing-food-with-a-Geiger-counter-overview.html
This guy does a good job of explaining some difficulties of testing food for radiation.
One big point that he doesn't emphasize, is that the water in the food will block MUCH of the radiation, as our prime focus is measuring Beta radiation which is mostly blocked with 1 to 2 CM of wet material (be it fruit or flesh). Alpha is stopped by air and paper, so you won't detect much Alpha (but don't get a false sense of security, if Alpha gets inside your body it stops quickly but packs a punch about 20 time stronger than Beta or Gamma. Gamma can travel quite some distance through flesh or fruits, but is less common.
The water blocking effects on Beta are therefore the most important factor in making food difficult to test.
Also, no offense to the video guy, as he did an overall fine job, but he let his geiger come into contact with the food item. That could contaminate and make the Geiger useless.
Long term testing (the only way to have a chance of testing food) requires a 10 minute sample time or more. So you need to McGyver up a little standoff mechanism to get close but not touch.
A better way to test foods and liquids is to dehydrate the material completely. This could aerosolize some radiation, but you were going to eat the item anyway, right? Well be careful, maybe use and outdoor solar dehydrator or ventilation.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Fukushima with huge radiation releases
Folks it time to recheck your "Shelter in Place" boxes and make sure the supplies are good, batteries ready to go, cycle in some fresh tape and take the old tape out for "normal use". Get your HEPA filters going, and start dosing up on anti-oxidants.
The melted cores are huge, around 100 tons, and they are hell on earth. If they are cooled or separated they won't "go off", but if they are jostled by an earthquake, or the cooling water stops, they can start an uncontained nuclear reaction, which could be happening now. Most of 3 cores (now called corium) are deep under the buildings, impossible to get to.
This is not good. 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.
Japan is now saying "every minute counts" we need international advice. When they are starting to fess up and ask for help, rest assured the reality is 10 times worse than they are stating.
The melted cores are huge, around 100 tons, and they are hell on earth. If they are cooled or separated they won't "go off", but if they are jostled by an earthquake, or the cooling water stops, they can start an uncontained nuclear reaction, which could be happening now. Most of 3 cores (now called corium) are deep under the buildings, impossible to get to.
This is not good. 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.
Japan is now saying "every minute counts" we need international advice. When they are starting to fess up and ask for help, rest assured the reality is 10 times worse than they are stating.
Great Radiation Monitoring Site
This site shows radiation levels in the USA
They also have a pay site which shows historical data of individual Geigers. Some are inside houses, some are outside. Some are pancake tube, some are traditional tube, some may be influenced by local radon. The benefit of the historical data is that you can see variations in a particular site, thus knowing whether a wave of radiation is truly passing by an area.
I have contacted the site owners to put my radiation data on their site. Will advise when it is set up.
http://www.netc.com/
They also have a pay site which shows historical data of individual Geigers. Some are inside houses, some are outside. Some are pancake tube, some are traditional tube, some may be influenced by local radon. The benefit of the historical data is that you can see variations in a particular site, thus knowing whether a wave of radiation is truly passing by an area.
I have contacted the site owners to put my radiation data on their site. Will advise when it is set up.
http://www.netc.com/
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Slumlord Entergy is closing Vermont Yankee, YES! Another confirmed kill
Entergy is the slumlord of nuclear. The fights at Yankee tired them out, and they are throwing in the towel! Huuwah!
Not financially viable. Sheesh, and that is even without the out years costs built in.
Entergy also operates Palisades on lake Michigan, which is a great lake, I mean literally. And they leak radiation into lake Michigan. They are on my midwest kill list, see here.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/05/kill-list-midwest.html
Not financially viable. Sheesh, and that is even without the out years costs built in.
The company’s wholesale commodities president, Bill Mohl, who oversees six Entergy nuclear plants in the Northeast, said at a news conference at company offices in Brattleboro that the shut-down decision was based on economic performance, not the risk of litigation or political pressure.Mohl called the 41-year-old plant no longer financially viable, and said the closure announcement gives employees and customers more certainty. He pledged that the company will ensure the plant will be kept properly staffed for decommissioning.3 down and 101 more to go. Nuke is a failed experiment, fueled by greed, ignorance, and denial.
Entergy also operates Palisades on lake Michigan, which is a great lake, I mean literally. And they leak radiation into lake Michigan. They are on my midwest kill list, see here.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/05/kill-list-midwest.html
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Changes in Our Solar System, Magentic Pole Racing Away is just one of them.
Doesn't it seem obvious that things are not right? Well at least, not normal.
And its not just our planet, the earth. In fact, the earth is getting off lightly compared to the other planets. Earthquakes on Mars, massive weather changes on Jupiter, huge storms on Saturn lasting so far 8 times longer than usual, and more. And sun appears to be the main driver of solar system events, but maybe there are external forces that are acting on the sun and the planets and causing a complex chain reaction.
I have previously wrote about the Magnetic Pole Shift, and the possibility of another Carrington Event that could knock us back to the stone age in seconds....hint....we might get a few days warning. But the gov won't panic the sheeples, so don't expect any broad annoucments. Even so, if your preparations consist of only a few days, you are probably going to be in a world of hurt.
Seeing that we have been 150 years since the last Carrington type event (1859), our annual risk of another is at least 1%. That's not much but consider the consequences of being knocked back to the stone age....the thin shroud of civilization would peel away pretty quickly. And coupled with the very strange acting of the sun lately (the super solar spot minimum) and now an extended maximum, I think the odds are higher than 1% in any given year.
Now you know what happens when you take Utility power away from nuclear plants? They run on backup for a while, unless their circuits and controllers are also damaged, in which case they start melting down and blowing up immediately. The used fuel is actually more dangerous than the reactor fuel, and that need continuous cooling for around 5 years. If power is lost and the circ pumps go down, the spent fuel pools will boil off the water, and then release massive radioactivity in a nuclear fire.
Apparently much of the power grid in the US could be protected or at least mitigate damage from a Carrington for the cost of several billion dollars, but no individual party wants to invest against a 100 to 1 scenario, even though the scenario involves a Mad Max complete societal collapse. And the Government....don't even get me going on the Government, which is telling us that "we are to blame" for the massive weather changes that are challenging our world. And they want a Carbon tax to solve the problem....wow. All the carbon tax does is let strong wealthy corporations continue to do business and increase market share as weaker corporations are forced to give their money to the stronger corporations, another transfer of wealth. The weaker companies with older equipment have to pay a penalty, they have to buy carbon credits from the stronger companies. A real consolidation of power.
To get the ball rolling even faster, I made a Midwest Kill List. If you have gumption, make a similar kill list for nukes in your area. I will publish it. We get around 1000 hits per day, so your voice will be heard.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-05-15T11:02:00-07:00&max-results=7
And no Noctilucent clouds (glowing clouds) are a common sight at mid latitudes, they are normally a rare sight at high latitudes.
Check out Suspicious Observers, this is a special "newsletter" which includes a review of changes in our solar system.
And its not just our planet, the earth. In fact, the earth is getting off lightly compared to the other planets. Earthquakes on Mars, massive weather changes on Jupiter, huge storms on Saturn lasting so far 8 times longer than usual, and more. And sun appears to be the main driver of solar system events, but maybe there are external forces that are acting on the sun and the planets and causing a complex chain reaction.
I have previously wrote about the Magnetic Pole Shift, and the possibility of another Carrington Event that could knock us back to the stone age in seconds....hint....we might get a few days warning. But the gov won't panic the sheeples, so don't expect any broad annoucments. Even so, if your preparations consist of only a few days, you are probably going to be in a world of hurt.
Seeing that we have been 150 years since the last Carrington type event (1859), our annual risk of another is at least 1%. That's not much but consider the consequences of being knocked back to the stone age....the thin shroud of civilization would peel away pretty quickly. And coupled with the very strange acting of the sun lately (the super solar spot minimum) and now an extended maximum, I think the odds are higher than 1% in any given year.
Now you know what happens when you take Utility power away from nuclear plants? They run on backup for a while, unless their circuits and controllers are also damaged, in which case they start melting down and blowing up immediately. The used fuel is actually more dangerous than the reactor fuel, and that need continuous cooling for around 5 years. If power is lost and the circ pumps go down, the spent fuel pools will boil off the water, and then release massive radioactivity in a nuclear fire.
Apparently much of the power grid in the US could be protected or at least mitigate damage from a Carrington for the cost of several billion dollars, but no individual party wants to invest against a 100 to 1 scenario, even though the scenario involves a Mad Max complete societal collapse. And the Government....don't even get me going on the Government, which is telling us that "we are to blame" for the massive weather changes that are challenging our world. And they want a Carbon tax to solve the problem....wow. All the carbon tax does is let strong wealthy corporations continue to do business and increase market share as weaker corporations are forced to give their money to the stronger corporations, another transfer of wealth. The weaker companies with older equipment have to pay a penalty, they have to buy carbon credits from the stronger companies. A real consolidation of power.
To get the ball rolling even faster, I made a Midwest Kill List. If you have gumption, make a similar kill list for nukes in your area. I will publish it. We get around 1000 hits per day, so your voice will be heard.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-05-15T11:02:00-07:00&max-results=7
And no Noctilucent clouds (glowing clouds) are a common sight at mid latitudes, they are normally a rare sight at high latitudes.
Check out Suspicious Observers, this is a special "newsletter" which includes a review of changes in our solar system.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Palisade Nuclear Plant, Run By Slumlord Entergy -- SHUT IT DOWN
Palisades Nuclear Plant - Direct Leak of Radiation into Lake Michigan
Just in 6-10-13, Entergy uses a $20 tarp to prevent radioactive liquid from leaking, and the tarp fails. Any guess where the leakage went? Into the control room....this is not a joke. Shut it Down. They won't even protect themselves, do you think they will protect you. No way, Shut It Down.
http://enenews.com/u-s-nuclear-plant-leaks-into-control-room-bed-of-sand-that-tank-was-supposedly-resting-on-did-not-exist
Michigan Article on Direct Leak into Lake
Also amazingly coincidental, is that Kewaunee nuclear plant on Lake Michigan also, was permanently shut down just last week. It was also old, and was deemed non-economical to operate anymore. Solar energy from Madison, Wisconsin strong solar program and natural gas made nuclear "too costly to compete". They say it will cost $1B to decommission that plant, so that means $2B to $3B. Unless of course the company just goes bankrupt and then they saddle the government with the cost. Simple enough...sell off the Corporate assets that are performing well, leave the dead wood behind, and then declare bankruptcy. There was a long term cost when the nuclear boondoggle was started, now we have to start paying the cost to get rid of them. No doubt, the nuclear magicians have already disappeared the profits. And there is a Federal cleanup fund that nuclear has contributed to throughout time. Of course those funds are not segregated, and they can easily just be "captured" for some other program to offset the sequester, you know the game. At any rate, those funds, are only about 10% of the real cost of the cleanup (and that is just a 50 year perspective), we have to babysit these spent fuel materials for thousands of years.
NYT Kewaunee Article
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palisades is from 1971, that's too old. And the operators, Entergy, have a history of abusive operation of these clunkers. They can't make enough money, so they cut corners.
Why not write to
Anthony Vitale who is VP of operations:
Palisades Nuclear Plant
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Covert, MI 49043-9530
Look at these serious violations. Plant electricians performing the wrong work and causing a complete failure of the emergency backup systems.
Here in 2012 the Palisades Design Engineering Manager gets arrested, and then fired. Makes you say hmmmmmm.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1229/ML12291A877.pdf
Here are more VIOLATIONS
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML113540744.pdf
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML120450037.pdf
Uh, Mr. Vitale....after you had been put on notice that pump maintenance was necessary, you still IGNORED IT?
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1200/ML120030406.pdf
Here is some plant info and a broader list of violations
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear-power-plants/p/palisades-nuclear-power-plant.aspx
After multiple radioactive leaks, the NRC says "it's up to the plant to improve"
Chandrathil says the NRC is doing everything it can. "We have a questioning attitude. We look at very specific areas and we have gone ahead and identified deficiencies at the plant. It’s up to the plant to improve their performance," she said.
This also in 2012, more leaks and lies
The purchase also included receipt of the used fuel at Consumers' decommissioned Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, located in Charlevoix in northwestern Lower Michigan.Entergy owns --- the worst of the worst
- Indian Point
- Palisades
- Pilgrim
- Vermont Yankee
ABC News--Palisades is one of the 3 most dangerous plants in the US
http://www.abc57.com/news/NRC-upgrades-Palisades-Nuclear-Plants-safety-status-but-adds-more-inspection-time-183100331.html
How would this look on the Great Lakes? Wipe out the Midwest, the last bastion of manufacturing in the USA.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
The NSA says the Bill of Rights is alive and thriving
Illegal search and seizure is against the Bill of Rights.
Using illegal search and seizure to put a chill on free speech and freedom of the press is against the Bill of Rights
Illegal detainment is against the Bill of Rights
Torture is against the Bill of Rights
Taking away the right to be secure in your person and your papers (i.e. all your communications) is against the Bill of Rights
Droning people without Due Process of Law is against the Bill of Rights
Taking rights away from the States and the Peoples, and "capturing" these rights to be restricted under Federal law, is against the Bill of Rights.
Changing "You have all the right that aren't mentioned" into "you should be grateful for the privileges that Big Gov allows you to have" is against the Bill of Rights.
Having soldiers and militarized police occupy houses in Boston without warrant much less even probably cause is against the Bill of Rights.
Being found guilty without a jury trial, and being forced to prove your innocence, is against the Bill of Rights
OK so ALL of the Bill of Rights have been violated by the Powers that Be. Well except that "Right to Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed".......
hmmmmmm
Using illegal search and seizure to put a chill on free speech and freedom of the press is against the Bill of Rights
Illegal detainment is against the Bill of Rights
Torture is against the Bill of Rights
Taking away the right to be secure in your person and your papers (i.e. all your communications) is against the Bill of Rights
Droning people without Due Process of Law is against the Bill of Rights
Taking rights away from the States and the Peoples, and "capturing" these rights to be restricted under Federal law, is against the Bill of Rights.
Changing "You have all the right that aren't mentioned" into "you should be grateful for the privileges that Big Gov allows you to have" is against the Bill of Rights.
Having soldiers and militarized police occupy houses in Boston without warrant much less even probably cause is against the Bill of Rights.
Being found guilty without a jury trial, and being forced to prove your innocence, is against the Bill of Rights
OK so ALL of the Bill of Rights have been violated by the Powers that Be. Well except that "Right to Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed".......
hmmmmmm
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Kill San Onofre Nuke Plant
Quite a lively discussion, nukers don't stand a chance. Their lies ring hollow.
Check out this new Farcebook page and let them know what you think, really.
https://www.facebook.com/SaveSanOnofreNuclearPlant
Check out this new Farcebook page and let them know what you think, really.
https://www.facebook.com/SaveSanOnofreNuclearPlant
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Fukushima Response -- A Great Website
About Us
Check them out!
http://fukushimaresponse.org/
Mission
Fukushima Response is a regional network of concerned individuals working together to demand action and information about the immediate threat of catastrophic global radiation contamination emanating from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan.Fukushima Responders are mobilizing horizontally: to call for an immediate international intervention to avert an even greater global catastrophe. In this urgent campaign, we demand that the United States initiate and contribute to an global effort to stabilize Fukushima, starting with the spent fuel pool on top of Unit 4.
Contact
You can write to us at info@FukushimaResponse.org
If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you can find other responders at Fukushima Response Bay Area
Please contact us to tell us about an event or send us important and relevant information on this topic.
Tell everyone...
Summary of the Bill of Rights on Memorial Day
I have wanted for several months to compare the Bill of Rights to what is really going on in America
I knew it was bad, but this makes it clear how bad. Here is the summary, and in the below links are the full texts of the amendments and the supporting information on how the amendments are being raped.
Summary of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10)
Amendment 1, Freedom of Speech
Amendment 2, Guns shall not be Infringed
Amendment 3, Soldiers in Houses
Amendment 4, Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Amendment 5, Without Due Process of Law
Amendment 6, Criminal Prosecutions
Amendment 7, Right to Jury Trial
Amendment 8, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9, You have all the rights that aren’t mentioned
Amendment 10, States and the People Hold all Power Except that Specifically Granted to Feds
1 Already Gone
2 In process of being taken away
3 Doesn't really apply, although the Boston illegal search of citizen's houses does put up warning lights
4 Already Gone
5 Already Gone
6 Already Gone
7 Already Gone
8 Already Gone, its been droned.
9 Already Gone
10 Already Gone
You can download this as a Word Document here
https://www.box.com/s/m1m8znek6slezx37jmsm
Monday, May 20, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The Nuke Normal, psst, its a joke, let the NRC know that you know
Tell The EPA:
Its "Protective Action Guidelines" Are Not Protective And Must be Abandoned
Strengthen Radiation Protection Standards Instead!
May 15, 2013
Dear Friends,
The threat of terrorism, nuclear power reactor disaster and other nuclear accidents looms large in the world. Governments need to plan for disaster but should also work to prevent disasters that cannot be adequately cleaned up and remediated. We should not run the risk of sacrificing enormous areas if and when nuclear contamination--deliberate, accidental or otherwise--strikes.
The Environmental Protection Agency has recently revised its "Protective Action Guidelines" (PAGs) that would be used during and following a nuclear disaster. These PAGs are basically admitting that contamination levels could be so high from such an event that they may not be able to be cleaned up to existing standards such as the drinking water contamination levels. Thus, EPA would permit unacceptably high radiation risks at each of the stages after nuclear disaster without even suggesting any steps to prevent or minimize the potential disasters.
These PAGs already have caused a public outcry. Check out this article to get an idea of what EPA officials really think about you and your safety: "Speaking at a March 12 symposium hosted by the Defense Strategies Institute, Paul Kudarauskas, of the EPA Consequence Management Advisory Team, said events like Fukushima would cause a “fundamental shift” to cleanup. U.S. residents are used to having “cleanup to perfection,” but will have to abandon their “not in my backyard” mentality in such cases, Kudarauskas said. “People are going to have to put their big boy pants on and suck it up.”
Tell the EPA to strengthen, not weaken, its PAGs and radiation protection standards generally. Act here.
EPA is, in a sense, “pre-approving” exorbitant allowable contamination levels, first for unusual and rarer events like a nuclear power reactor meltdown and explosion, but also for other more routine and potentially frequent disaster such as transport accidents, which will be more common if the major campaign to move irradiated nuclear power fuel (high level radioactive waste) from nuclear reactors to consolidated interim storage sites begins. High “acceptable” contamination and exposures for dirty bomb scenarios are being morphed into regular allowable levels with the nation’s drinking water protection first on the chopping block. Next, the EPA PAGs are shoe-horning in the publicly rejected plan to allow radioactive waste to go to regular trash and be sent to contaminate recycling supplies.
Comments on the EPA PAGs are being accepted through July 15, 2013. So there is plenty of time for you to act, and to encourage your friends, colleagues, family members, social networks and the like to comment as well.
There are two ways to comment:
1) Send an e-mail directly to EPA through NIRS site here. You will be able to edit the sample letter (which is also shown below). However, as is the case with all government rulemaking comments, your e-mail address becomes part of your comment and can be viewed.
2) Comment at the regulations.gov website here. However, you will have to write your own comments, or copy and paste the sample letter shown below.
Note: NIRS is working with other groups and will be preparing much more comprehensive comments for organizational sign-on before July 15. We will let groups know when these are ready for sign-on. In the meantime, we encourage and hope everyone will take a moment to weigh in personally!
Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
www.nirs.org
nirsnet@nirs.org
P.S. Your activism and financial support are what make our work possible. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation here, or after you take action, and receive the gifts of both our undying gratitude and a stronger movement for a nuclear-free carbon-free future. Contributors of $35 or more will also receive a one-year subscription to our international publication, The Nuclear Monitor, delivered via e-mail.
Sample comment letter to EPA:
Docket ID No. EPA HQ-OAR-2007-0268
I oppose the EPA Protective Action Guides (PAGS) because they threaten the public with unacceptably high “allowable” radiation levels that simply do not protect us.
The PAGS admit that the amount of radioactive waste from a nuclear power disaster could be much greater than the nuclear disposal capacity in the county! So prevent the disaster instead of permitting much of that waste to be sent to regular trash, setting the precedent for doing this routinely.
Don’t use the threat of nuclear power and terrorists to justify increasing drinking water contamination thousands of times or more! Maintain or strengthen the drinking water standards. Don’t even consider reducing them so that less cleanup would be needed.
Keep, or make more protective, the action levels for doses to the thyroid (a highly radio-sensitive organ) and the skin that are already in place. The 2013 EPA PAGs do away with this protection.
Remove the automatic acceptance of very high food and water contamination levels (higher than being used in Japan after Fukushima) incorporated from 1998 Food and Drug Administration and 2008 Homeland Security PAGs.
Sincerely,
your name
Stay Informed:
NIRS on the web (stay up-to-date with the Nuclear Newsreel section on the front page, featuring the day's most interesting news on nuclear power and other energy issues): http://www.nirs.org
NIRS on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nuclear-Information-and-Resource-Service/26490791479?sk=wall&filter=12
http://www.facebook.com/nonukesnirs
http://www.causes.com/causes/49098-no-nukes-nuclear-information-and-resource-service
NIRS on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/nirsnet
Please note: NIRS never sells, rents, trades, or otherwise makes our e-mail lists available to other organizations or individuals for any reason. If you would like to unsubscribe to NIRS list, click here to unsubscribe.
Its "Protective Action Guidelines" Are Not Protective And Must be Abandoned
Strengthen Radiation Protection Standards Instead!
May 15, 2013
Dear Friends,
The threat of terrorism, nuclear power reactor disaster and other nuclear accidents looms large in the world. Governments need to plan for disaster but should also work to prevent disasters that cannot be adequately cleaned up and remediated. We should not run the risk of sacrificing enormous areas if and when nuclear contamination--deliberate, accidental or otherwise--strikes.
The Environmental Protection Agency has recently revised its "Protective Action Guidelines" (PAGs) that would be used during and following a nuclear disaster. These PAGs are basically admitting that contamination levels could be so high from such an event that they may not be able to be cleaned up to existing standards such as the drinking water contamination levels. Thus, EPA would permit unacceptably high radiation risks at each of the stages after nuclear disaster without even suggesting any steps to prevent or minimize the potential disasters.
These PAGs already have caused a public outcry. Check out this article to get an idea of what EPA officials really think about you and your safety: "Speaking at a March 12 symposium hosted by the Defense Strategies Institute, Paul Kudarauskas, of the EPA Consequence Management Advisory Team, said events like Fukushima would cause a “fundamental shift” to cleanup. U.S. residents are used to having “cleanup to perfection,” but will have to abandon their “not in my backyard” mentality in such cases, Kudarauskas said. “People are going to have to put their big boy pants on and suck it up.”
Tell the EPA to strengthen, not weaken, its PAGs and radiation protection standards generally. Act here.
EPA is, in a sense, “pre-approving” exorbitant allowable contamination levels, first for unusual and rarer events like a nuclear power reactor meltdown and explosion, but also for other more routine and potentially frequent disaster such as transport accidents, which will be more common if the major campaign to move irradiated nuclear power fuel (high level radioactive waste) from nuclear reactors to consolidated interim storage sites begins. High “acceptable” contamination and exposures for dirty bomb scenarios are being morphed into regular allowable levels with the nation’s drinking water protection first on the chopping block. Next, the EPA PAGs are shoe-horning in the publicly rejected plan to allow radioactive waste to go to regular trash and be sent to contaminate recycling supplies.
Comments on the EPA PAGs are being accepted through July 15, 2013. So there is plenty of time for you to act, and to encourage your friends, colleagues, family members, social networks and the like to comment as well.
There are two ways to comment:
1) Send an e-mail directly to EPA through NIRS site here. You will be able to edit the sample letter (which is also shown below). However, as is the case with all government rulemaking comments, your e-mail address becomes part of your comment and can be viewed.
2) Comment at the regulations.gov website here. However, you will have to write your own comments, or copy and paste the sample letter shown below.
Note: NIRS is working with other groups and will be preparing much more comprehensive comments for organizational sign-on before July 15. We will let groups know when these are ready for sign-on. In the meantime, we encourage and hope everyone will take a moment to weigh in personally!
Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
www.nirs.org
nirsnet@nirs.org
P.S. Your activism and financial support are what make our work possible. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation here, or after you take action, and receive the gifts of both our undying gratitude and a stronger movement for a nuclear-free carbon-free future. Contributors of $35 or more will also receive a one-year subscription to our international publication, The Nuclear Monitor, delivered via e-mail.
Sample comment letter to EPA:
Docket ID No. EPA HQ-OAR-2007-0268
I oppose the EPA Protective Action Guides (PAGS) because they threaten the public with unacceptably high “allowable” radiation levels that simply do not protect us.
The PAGS admit that the amount of radioactive waste from a nuclear power disaster could be much greater than the nuclear disposal capacity in the county! So prevent the disaster instead of permitting much of that waste to be sent to regular trash, setting the precedent for doing this routinely.
Don’t use the threat of nuclear power and terrorists to justify increasing drinking water contamination thousands of times or more! Maintain or strengthen the drinking water standards. Don’t even consider reducing them so that less cleanup would be needed.
Keep, or make more protective, the action levels for doses to the thyroid (a highly radio-sensitive organ) and the skin that are already in place. The 2013 EPA PAGs do away with this protection.
Remove the automatic acceptance of very high food and water contamination levels (higher than being used in Japan after Fukushima) incorporated from 1998 Food and Drug Administration and 2008 Homeland Security PAGs.
Sincerely,
your name
Stay Informed:
NIRS on the web (stay up-to-date with the Nuclear Newsreel section on the front page, featuring the day's most interesting news on nuclear power and other energy issues): http://www.nirs.org
NIRS on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nuclear-Information-and-Resource-Service/26490791479?sk=wall&filter=12
http://www.facebook.com/nonukesnirs
http://www.causes.com/causes/49098-no-nukes-nuclear-information-and-resource-service
NIRS on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/nirsnet
Please note: NIRS never sells, rents, trades, or otherwise makes our e-mail lists available to other organizations or individuals for any reason. If you would like to unsubscribe to NIRS list, click here to unsubscribe.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Email contact for NRC members
From Nuclear Hotseat
---------------------------------------------------
In light of yesterday's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board action on behalf of the NRC it is important to remember that the five NRC commissioners can reverse that decision, and they have a record of doing so.
I believe it is time to start a letter, email, phone campaign to all five NRC commissioners letting them know that we are in agreement with the
Atomic Safety Board's decision and demand nothing less, and we expect this to happen here in California without the NRC commissioners reversing this decision. We should continue this campaign everyday until the NRC commissioners have made a statement to the effect that they are not going to reverse this decision.
Email address and Phone #'s of the NRC commission below.
Chairman@nrc.gov Tel: 301-415-1750
CMRSVINICKI@nrc.gov Tel: 301-415-1855
CMRAPOSTOLAKIS@nrc.gov Tel: 301-415-1810
CMRMAGWOOD@nrc.gov Tel: 301-415-8420
CMROSTENDORFF@nrc.gov Tel: 301-415-1800
Sample letter to the commission, or please feel free to write your own letter:
Dear Commissioners,
Yesterday's decision by Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is exactly what the people of California have been calling for these many months. We want to express our gratitude for this decision, and at the same time, let you know what we expect to happen as this process moves forward.
1. No reversal of this decision by the five NRC Commissioners. That would be seen as a breach of your oath of office and your motto "protecting people and the environment"
2. For this adjudicated public hearing under oath to happen here in Southern California.
3. Clarity and transparency in this process.
Hoping to work through this process with the NRC for a safer future for all Californians, especially our children.
Sincerely,
your name
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Palisades Nuclear Plant - Direct Leak of Radiation into Lake Michigan
Palisades nuclear plant on Lake Michigan is too old, too dangerous, it has too many NRC violation, changes are needed. I have been writing about Palisades for some time. And then yesterday, Palisades fessed up to an uncontained leak of radiactive water right into Lake Michigan, but they said "it was small" although they presented no Bq/gallon, or mSv per gallon actual radiation measurements.
Michigan Article on Direct Leak into Lake
Also amazingly coincidental, is that Kewaunee nuclear plant on Lake Michigan also, was permanently shut down just last week. It was also old, and was deemed non-economical to operate anymore. Solar energy from Madison, Wisconsin strong solar program and natural gas made nuclear "too costly to compete". They say it will cost $1B to decommission that plant, so that means $2B to $3B. Unless of course the company just goes bankrupt and then they saddle the government with the cost. Simple enough...sell off the Corporate assets that are performing well, leave the dead wood behind, and then declare bankruptcy. There was a long term cost when the nuclear boondoggle was started, now we have to start paying the cost to get rid of them. No doubt, the nuclear magicians have already disappeared the profits. And there is a Federal cleanup fund that nuclear has contributed to throughout time. Of course those funds are not segregated, and they can easily just be "captured" for some other program to offset the sequester, you know the game. At any rate, those funds, are only about 10% of the real cost of the cleanup (and that is just a 50 year perspective), we have to babysit these spent fuel materials for thousands of years.
NYT Kewaunee Article
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palisades is from 1971, that's too old. And the operators, Entergy, have a history of abusive operation of these clunkers. They can't make enough money, so they cut corners.
Why not write to
Anthony Vitale who is VP of operations:
Palisades Nuclear Plant
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Covert, MI 49043-9530
Look at these serious violations. Plant electricians performing the wrong work and causing a complete failure of the emergency backup systems.
Here in 2012 the Palisades Design Engineering Manager gets arrested, and then fired. Makes you say hmmmmmm.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1229/ML12291A877.pdf
Here are more VIOLATIONS
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML113540744.pdf
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML120450037.pdf
Uh, Mr. Vitale....after you had been put on notice that pump maintenance was necessary, you still IGNORED IT?
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1200/ML120030406.pdf
Here is some plant info and a broader list of violations
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear-power-plants/p/palisades-nuclear-power-plant.aspx
After multiple radioactive leaks, the NRC says "it's up to the plant to improve"
Chandrathil says the NRC is doing everything it can. "We have a questioning attitude. We look at very specific areas and we have gone ahead and identified deficiencies at the plant. It’s up to the plant to improve their performance," she said.
This also in 2012, more leaks and lies
Entergy bought this clunker for $360M in 2007, AND they got saddled with used fuel pools
ABC News--Palisades is one of the 3 most dangerous plants in the US
http://www.abc57.com/news/NRC-upgrades-Palisades-Nuclear-Plants-safety-status-but-adds-more-inspection-time-183100331.html
How would this look on the Great Lakes? Wipe out the Midwest, the last bastion of manufacturing in the USA.
Michigan Article on Direct Leak into Lake
Also amazingly coincidental, is that Kewaunee nuclear plant on Lake Michigan also, was permanently shut down just last week. It was also old, and was deemed non-economical to operate anymore. Solar energy from Madison, Wisconsin strong solar program and natural gas made nuclear "too costly to compete". They say it will cost $1B to decommission that plant, so that means $2B to $3B. Unless of course the company just goes bankrupt and then they saddle the government with the cost. Simple enough...sell off the Corporate assets that are performing well, leave the dead wood behind, and then declare bankruptcy. There was a long term cost when the nuclear boondoggle was started, now we have to start paying the cost to get rid of them. No doubt, the nuclear magicians have already disappeared the profits. And there is a Federal cleanup fund that nuclear has contributed to throughout time. Of course those funds are not segregated, and they can easily just be "captured" for some other program to offset the sequester, you know the game. At any rate, those funds, are only about 10% of the real cost of the cleanup (and that is just a 50 year perspective), we have to babysit these spent fuel materials for thousands of years.
NYT Kewaunee Article
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palisades is from 1971, that's too old. And the operators, Entergy, have a history of abusive operation of these clunkers. They can't make enough money, so they cut corners.
Why not write to
Anthony Vitale who is VP of operations:
Palisades Nuclear Plant
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Covert, MI 49043-9530
Look at these serious violations. Plant electricians performing the wrong work and causing a complete failure of the emergency backup systems.
Here in 2012 the Palisades Design Engineering Manager gets arrested, and then fired. Makes you say hmmmmmm.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1229/ML12291A877.pdf
Here are more VIOLATIONS
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML113540744.pdf
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML120450037.pdf
Uh, Mr. Vitale....after you had been put on notice that pump maintenance was necessary, you still IGNORED IT?
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1200/ML120030406.pdf
Here is some plant info and a broader list of violations
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear-power-plants/p/palisades-nuclear-power-plant.aspx
After multiple radioactive leaks, the NRC says "it's up to the plant to improve"
Chandrathil says the NRC is doing everything it can. "We have a questioning attitude. We look at very specific areas and we have gone ahead and identified deficiencies at the plant. It’s up to the plant to improve their performance," she said.
This also in 2012, more leaks and lies
The purchase also included receipt of the used fuel at Consumers' decommissioned Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, located in Charlevoix in northwestern Lower Michigan.Entergy owns --- the worst of the worst
- Indian Point
- Palisades
- Pilgrim
- Vermont Yankee
ABC News--Palisades is one of the 3 most dangerous plants in the US
http://www.abc57.com/news/NRC-upgrades-Palisades-Nuclear-Plants-safety-status-but-adds-more-inspection-time-183100331.html
How would this look on the Great Lakes? Wipe out the Midwest, the last bastion of manufacturing in the USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)