Fukushima : "the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind"
June 16, 2011 3:45 PM   Subscribe

"It's much worse than you think" : Three months after he Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster, experts are unanimous in declaring the disaster now comparable to that of Chernobyl.

Initial reports from Tokyo Electric were confusing and contradictory and have now been proven to be widely inaccurate and understated the amount of radiation released by 100%.

The situation now is that the equivalent of twenty reactor cores are lying in a molten pool and in fact some are likely to have breached the containment structure setting the stage for an even more massive release of radioactivity into the ecosystem.

According to some sources more radiation has actually been currently released into the environment than Chernobyl and it predicted to only get worse.
posted by Poet_Lariat (42 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Feels like the framing here is not so great; I know that the Fukushima situation is a pretty crazy one, but to an extent we need to not just have a recurring "and here's another linkdump, let's argue about nuclear energy some more" thing going on. If there's something specifically new and notable with the situation, a focused post about that is probably a better way to go. -- cortex



 
Who wants to go grab a drink with me? This shit is getting depressing.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 3:46 PM on June 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


An NPR story from the early days of the catastrophe depicted the Japanese as trusting of the authorities' threat assessments.

If there's a silver lining to this, maybe it will be the shedding of that naivete.
posted by Trurl at 3:49 PM on June 16, 2011 [6 favorites]


This is so confusing. Weren't scientists and engineers saying just a little while ago that there is no physical way for this possibly to approach Chernobyl in magnitude?
posted by shivohum at 3:49 PM on June 16, 2011


History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men...GODZILLA!
posted by Renoroc at 3:50 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


Back when this was happening, on about day 3 or 4 everyone realised that they had about 14 years worth on spent fuel on site, sitting next to the reactors, in water pools that were boiling dry. Thats a lot of fuel.
posted by memebake at 3:51 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


TEPCO
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:51 PM on June 16, 2011


If you need me, I'll be in my Vault, charging my Pip-Boy.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:54 PM on June 16, 2011 [5 favorites]


First line of the story is clearly bullshit.
posted by smackfu at 3:54 PM on June 16, 2011


> Who wants to go grab a drink with me? This shit is getting depressing.

Might as well go for a soda. Nobody hurts and nobody cries.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:54 PM on June 16, 2011


From an MIT faculty report published June 3 (PDF):

The release of radioactivity from the plant has been large (with contributions also from containment venting and spent fuel pool overheating) and some workers have received significant radiation doses (>100 mSv whole-body equivalent), but health risks for them and the general population are expected to be negligible (see Appendix A).
...
The Fukushima accident has been rated at the maximum level (Level 7) on the IAEA nuclear event scale, indicating an accident with large release of radioactivity accompanied by “widespread health and environmental effects”, like Chernobyl. However, there are very significant differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl. Briefly, the amount of the release (~10% of Chernobyl), the presence of the containment structures, the radionuclides released (mostly iodine and cesium isotopes vs. the entire core inventory), the physical form of the releases (mostly aqueous vs. volatile), the favorable currents and winds at the site, and the timing of the release with respect to population evacuation resulted in vastly smaller overall consequences.


Does any of the new information contradict this?
posted by shivohum at 3:56 PM on June 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


The article linked "now comparable to that of Chernobyl" doesn't say that it's comparable to that of Chernobyl, at all. Just not even close.

And neither of the two leading articles remotely say that "experts are unanimous".

Very misleading post.
posted by Perplexity at 3:57 PM on June 16, 2011 [4 favorites]


The owners and shareholders of nuclear power should be forced to physically clean it up in the event of disaster, as part of their sentencing and redemption. Why should someone else die doing it?
posted by Brian B. at 3:57 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


"It's much worse than you think"

I don't know, I have a pretty active imagination
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:58 PM on June 16, 2011 [2 favorites]


Weren't scientists and engineers saying just a little while ago that there is no physical way for this possibly to approach Chernobyl in magnitude?

A large part of that denial was denial that it would be the same sort of disaster as Chernobyl, where a plume of radioactive material is shot up high into the atmosphere to be spread by the wind. That's still true--Fukushima's problem is the stuff that's pooled in the bottom of the reactors, and by the design of the plants, a fire that could distribute that material widely by wind is impossible.

However, an equally dangerous amount of radioactive material might now be spread in other ways--like the melted core contaminating groundwater for miles around. It might be Chernobyl scale, but it'll be an entirely different kind of nuclear disaster.
posted by fatbird at 3:59 PM on June 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


Weren't scientists and engineers saying just a little while ago that there is no physical way for this possibly to approach Chernobyl in magnitude?

They forgot a few decimal places. These things just happen. Mostly in the nuclear business, it seems, but hey, cesium and strontium isotopes build character.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:00 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


This magnitude of disaster could only happen under a failed system, like Communism.

Capitalism inherently creates checks on on this sort of malfeasance.

For example, you can sue after the fact, for money to compensate you for your lost years and even the pains of your terminal cnacers. Well, you could if we hadn't pushed through that tort reform, because liberal lawyers were using the judicial system to hobble pure capitalism.

But what we'll do is create a fund which while not compensating you for all your lost years, or all your suffering, will give you almost enough to go on a nice vacation, if you're not already too ill to enjoy it. And because we're all one nation, in this together, everyone, TEPCO or not, will pay into the fund. In fact, it'll just come from the general tax revenue, because we wouldn't want to bankrupt TEPCO for one mistake, would we?

See, Capitalism, unlike evil godless Communism, works for everyone!
posted by orthogonality at 4:00 PM on June 16, 2011 [7 favorites]


Does any of the new information contradict this?

Yes, looking at the admittedly rather large number of links that I placed in the O.P., you find that the environmental radiation release is now aknowledged to be not 10% of Chernobyl (as the MIT quote states) but rather over 100% that of Chernobyl. Also the MIT report mentions the containment of the fuel. That containment is now acknowledged to have been most likely breached. There are now huge amounts (240 x the safe limit) of Strontium 90 in the surrounding groundwater.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:01 PM on June 16, 2011


And the phrase "It's much worse than you think" isn't even a quote from a single scientist, much less a unanimous group. It's just a headline.

Isn't that pretty blatantly not how FPPs should be constructed? Flagged.
posted by Perplexity at 4:01 PM on June 16, 2011


Just lovely. My ma and pa-in-law's farm is in the Ibaraki mountains about 70 km from that clusterf***.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 4:02 PM on June 16, 2011


Too many contradictions in those articles to form any conclusion beyond that journalists don't know shit about technology.
posted by Ardiril at 4:02 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


The handling of Tjernobyl and Fukushima are worlds apart, hell the Kremlin did not even address reports until two days after. What clean up work that was done in the dead zone was done improperly, retired workers have since said they they did not even install rubber liners when reburying earth.
posted by Virtblue at 4:03 PM on June 16, 2011


This is so confusing. Weren't scientists and engineers saying just a little while ago that there is no physical way for this possibly to approach Chernobyl in magnitude?

Scientists don't know everything, no matter how much they say or feel they do. I have an acquaintance that not long before this, went on a rant about how nothing bad can happen to reactors now, and they could be basically unmanned for decades without a problem. He now claims he never said it, and is being just as annoying. So yeah. Quit pretending you know everything, get off the high horse, and instead try to solve it, and prevent it from happening again.
posted by usagizero at 4:04 PM on June 16, 2011 [2 favorites]


And the phrase "It's much worse than you think" isn't even a quote from a single scientist, much less a unanimous group. It's just a headline.

No , if you actually read the links you find in the very first sentence of the very first link (ahem) that the phrase is a direct quote from Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president. Seriously, it's the very first sentence of the very first link.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:04 PM on June 16, 2011 [4 favorites]


I think the phrase "spent fuel rods" is meta-euphemistic...in other words, a lie. Spent?
posted by kozad at 4:04 PM on June 16, 2011


I think the phrase "spent fuel rods" is meta-euphemistic...in other words, a lie. Spent?

It may have been spent, but we still have to pay the bill.
posted by TwelveTwo at 4:06 PM on June 16, 2011


Poet_Lariat: "And the phrase "It's much worse than you think" isn't even a quote from a single scientist, much less a unanimous group. It's just a headline.

No , if you actually read the links you find in the very first sentence of the very first link (ahem) that the phrase is a direct quote from Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president. Seriously, it's the very first sentence of the very first link
"

Huh? The first sentence of the first link is the second pull quote. "It's much worse than you think" is just the headline. "much worse" doesn't appear anywhere else on the page.
posted by Perplexity at 4:07 PM on June 16, 2011


So far, this isn't even as big an "industrial catastrophe" as Minimata.
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:07 PM on June 16, 2011


I really hate it when the depressing voices in my head are right.
posted by The Whelk at 4:07 PM on June 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


I think I might have to call shenanigans. I'm not an expert in any of this by any means, but TFA is pretty strident, and includes this:
In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
I live in Portland, and I think I would've heard about a 35% spike in infant mortality. This appears to be the relevant article, and it lists CDC numbers in a misleading way:
4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011  - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)
37 to 125 looks like a lot, until you notice that 37 is for 4 weeks, and 125 is for 10 weeks. The average rate goes 9.25 to 12.5, which is indeed about 35%, but they're clearly shooting for readers thinking "OMG, 37 to 125 deaths!!1!?!"

There's no year-on-year comparison, just scary text suggesting that this is due to Fukushima. Maybe it is, but they're presenting it in a way that makes me wonder about their sources, motives and credentials, rather than the underlying issue.
posted by spacewrench at 4:12 PM on June 16, 2011 [5 favorites]


When you get one guy who is an "expert" who is willing to make grand pronouncements about stuff, I wonder which came first, the story or the guy.
posted by smackfu at 4:12 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


I have a pretty active imagination

I started taking a pessimistic view about nine hours into it. Since then, the official story has been getting progressively worse. The descent has been nearly monotonic.
posted by ryanrs at 4:13 PM on June 16, 2011


"Units one through three have nuclear waste on the floor, the melted core, that has plutonium in it, and that has to be removed from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."

...

:(
posted by Nattie at 4:13 PM on June 16, 2011


But hey, this video about the new containment building they are building over Chernobyl is kinda neat. Talk about large scale projects...
posted by smackfu at 4:13 PM on June 16, 2011


Japan has cleaned up worse radioactive situations before.

Do forgive my incredulity, governor, but when and where?
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 4:17 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this post framing too. Several of the links simply reference the one "expert", and the majority of the rest are old press pieces from when it started.

Look, it sucks, but it is not suddenly much worse or better due to one persons theory.
posted by cavalier at 4:18 PM on June 16, 2011


The Bad News:

Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds: Hot Particles From Japan to Seattle Virtually Undetectable when Inhaled or Swallowed

Dept. nuke engineering, Berkeley: Cancer causing 'Hot Particles' detected in Seattle

WSJ: Japan Plant Had Earlier Alert
Incident in 2010
Shows Vulnerabilities, Practices of an Aging Nuclear Facility


Slate: Monitoring the Monitors
Who's still tracking radiation from Fukushima? And who should we trust?


Reuters: Radiation "hotspots" hinder Japan response to nuclear crisis

carnegieendowment.org: The Fukushima Accident—Three Months In

WSJ: Japanese Nuclear Cleanup Workers Detail Lax Safety Practices at Plant

NYTimes: In Nuclear Crisis, Crippling Mistrust

en.trend.az/: Report: Radiation found in whales in Japan and Strontium found in groundwater near stricken Fukushima plant and Japanese green tea contaminated with radiation

yomiuri.co.jp: Fukushima farmer kills self over N-plant

[Whoa!] washingtonsblog.com/: The risks associated with iodine-131 contamination in Europe are no longer "negligible," according to CRIIRAD, a French research body on radioactivity. The NGO is advising pregnant women and infants against "risky behaviour," such as consuming fresh milk or vegetables with large leaves.

Ethan A. Huff / NaturalNews - June 11, 2011: Fukushima Now Ten Times Worse Than Chernobyl In Pacific Ocean

Anybody have science based thoughts about Zeolite and/or Bentonite as helpful treatment for radiation poisoning?

The Good News:
Japan's recovery process after the quake and tsunami is spectacularly inspiring
posted by nickyskye at 4:19 PM on June 16, 2011 [3 favorites]




Dept. nuke engineering, Berkeley: Cancer causing 'Hot Particles' detected in Seattle

That's actually just a forum they are hosting where anyone can post.
posted by smackfu at 4:23 PM on June 16, 2011


Some issues with the OP here:

"It's much worse than you think"

This link goes to the statement of some guy. Being a "senior vice president" doesn't make you an automatic expert on nuclear physics.

Initial reports from Tokyo Electric were confusing and contradictory and have now been proven to be widely inaccurate and understated the amount of radiation released by 100%.

The first link goes to a report that TEPCO has changed its mind about how fast they'll be able to repair the reactor, after they learned that the radioactive material has melted through the bottom of the core. That has nothing to do with the second bolded statement.

According to some sources more radiation has actually been currently released into the environment than Chernobyl

This link goes to the statement of some guy, who doesn't give a source for his information.
posted by shii at 4:26 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


New rule:

Whenever the representative of a corporation which has caused a disaster reports X damage has been done, it officially means that the actual damage done is 10X-100X.

Some example applications of the Salvor scale of corporate ass-covering:

Corporate statement:
We killed an endangered owl.
Meaning:
We killed 89 endangered owls and accidentally ground them up into baby food.

Corporate statement:
Our factory has been spilling 20 million gallons/year of deathane dioxide into your drinking supply.
Meaning:
Our factory has been spilling 1.4 billion gallons/year of megadeathane dioxide into your drinking water and also the sunscreen we sell causes melanomas.

Corporate statement:
We have been illegally logging in 100 sq miles of your rain forest.
Meaning:
We have clearcut 520 sq miles of your country, and we funded a fascist coup d'etat during which your family and your friends were all killed.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 4:27 PM on June 16, 2011 [6 favorites]


That's actually just a forum they are hosting where anyone can post.

No. Actually clicking on the link that nickyskye supplied in that incredible complication of articles (!) takes one to a link with a CNN interview of Arnie Gundersen( right after the fourth sentence that ) discussing the Hot Particle situation
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:27 PM on June 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


This link goes to the statement of some guy. Being a "senior vice president" doesn't make you an automatic expert on nuclear physics.

This is the "some guy":
Gundersen, a licensed reactor operator with 39 years of nuclear power engineering experience, managing and coordinating projects at 70 nuclear power plants around the US, says the Fukushima nuclear plant likely has more exposed reactor cores than commonly believed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:28 PM on June 16, 2011 [2 favorites]


« Older This post made with influences as diverse as...   |   Self Referential Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments