Wed Feb 8, 2017, 05:19 PM

China urges Japan to explain its Fukushima plan amid reports of lethal levels of radiation

China on Monday urged the Japanese government to give a responsible explanation of how it will offset the impact of the Fukushima nuclear leakage amid reports the radiation at one Fukushima reactor has reached levels that are reportedly able to kill humans within seconds.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing on Monday that China has been closely watching the repercussions of the Fukushima nuclear accident and the ministry had issued the relevant safety alerts.


The radiation level in the containment vessel of Reactor 2 at the crippled Fukushima power plant has reached a maximum of 530 sieverts per hour, the highest since the triple core meltdown in March 2011, The Japan Times reported on Friday, citing Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco).

A person could die from even brief exposure to 530 sieverts of radiation, according to the Times'report.

Both TEPCO and the Japanese government have been lying about the severity of the continued radiation leak since the day this happened. There were so many 'mistakes' leading up to this disaster like going with the cheaper model reactor that wasn't engineered to withstand an earthquake, building them on fault lines, etc. It's been six years of continual radiation leaks. At least it's China asking now. The Japanese government and TEPCO won't sit still doing nothing but telling lies to drag this situation out for another six years. I've been wondering why China has been so quiet all along.

We don't question any of this because they were 'American' made.

Experts Had Long Criticized Potential Weakness in Design of Stricken Reactor

G.E. began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.

American regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on.

In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he said, that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”


In an e-mail on Tuesday, David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Program at the Union for Concerned
Several utilities and plant operators also threatened to sue G.E. in the late 1980s after the disclosure of internal company documents dating back to 1975 that suggested that the containment vessel designs were either insufficiently tested or had flaws that could compromise safety.

The Mark 1 reactors in the United States have undergone a variety of modifications since the initial concerns were raised. Among these, according to Mr. Lochbaum, were changes to the torus — a water-filled vessel encircling the primary containment vessel that is used to reduce pressure in the reactor. In early iterations, steam rushing from the primary vessel into the torus under high pressure could cause the vessel to jump off the floor.

It all comes down to money. They didn't want to spend it on safer reactors to begin with and now TEPCO and the Japanese government don't want to spend the money necessary to stop the radiation leaks..

13 replies, 749 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to AmandaCMatthews (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 05:37 PM

1. So what do you think should be done about it?

Like, right now? What would you do in the near term if you were in charge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fools_gold (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:36 PM

7. Cover it in concrete like Chernobyl. It worked. Not hard to figure out.

But it costs MONEY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AmandaCMatthews (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 05:53 PM

2. There is no leak

As in contaminating the environment. This is being contained by the containment vessel.

Woulda been nice if they had one at Chernobyl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to def_con5 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 06:28 PM

4. Right...

More than 80 percent of the radioactivity from the damaged reactors ended up in the Pacific — far more than reached the ocean from Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Of this, a small fraction is currently on the seafloor — the rest was swept up by the Kuroshio current, a western Pacific version of the Gulf Stream, and carried out to sea where it mixed with (and was diluted by) the vast volume of the North Pacific. These materials, primarily two isotopes of cesium, only recently began to appear in the eastern Pacific: In 2015 we detected signs of radioactive contamination from Fukushima along the coast near British Columbia and California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to def_con5 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:04 PM

5. That's not true.


The corium has left the building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to def_con5 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 08:06 PM

8. .........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AmandaCMatthews (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 06:09 PM

3. Might want to quietly put your West Coast oceanfront property on the market for sale and find...

... a nice spot to relocate one or two hundred miles east with a nice high mountain range to your west...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AmandaCMatthews (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:29 PM

6. This is so important! Notice how much our M$M is covering it.

Last edited Wed Feb 8, 2017, 08:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Here are two more sources of info. The first is from two men who have studied
Fukishima since 2011. One lives in Japan (or close by) his name Yoichi Shimatsu
and Dan Durnford (Brit. Canada) who has extensively made many trips on the west coast
of Canada and the US observing tide pools, radiation levels and wildlife.

2) From RT...5 min. video

Opps! Seems Fox News is reporting on the Fukishima leak:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AmandaCMatthews (Original post)

Sat Feb 18, 2017, 10:56 PM

9. You realize of course that what caused the demise of the plant (which survived the earthquake)

was that the fuel tanks for the backup generators that were supposed to power the cooling pumps were too low to survive the tsunami. Once the generators failed, the cooling pumps failed, and it was all over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 18, 2017, 11:52 PM

10. Yes. It was a problem with the design of the damn thing.

Why Fukushima Was Preventable

The Fukushima accident was, however, preventable. Had the plant’s owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), and Japan’s regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), followed international best practices and standards, it is conceivable that they would have predicted the possibility of the plant being struck by a massive tsunami. The plant would have withstood the tsunami had its design previously been upgraded in accordance with state-of-the-art safety approaches.

The methods used by TEPCO and NISA to assess the risk from tsunamis lagged behind international standards in at least three important respects:

Insufficient attention was paid to evidence of large tsunamis inundating the region surrounding the plant about once every thousand years.

Computer modeling of the tsunami threat was inadequate. Most importantly, preliminary simulations conducted in 2008 that suggested the tsunami risk to the plant had been seriously underestimated were not followed up and were only reported to NISA on March 7, 2011.

NISA failed to review simulations conducted by TEPCO and to foster the development of appropriate computer modeling tools.

Fukushima Could Have Been Prevented

Yet, despite Japan’s history of tsunamis, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Japan’s nuclear regulator, did not apply those standards. It failed to review studies of tsunami risks performed by the plant’s owner, Tokyo Electric Power, known as Tepco. It also failed to ensure the development of tsunami-modeling tools compliant with international standards.

Tepco was also negligent. It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant. Yet it did not adequately follow up on either of these leads.

The biggest risk that tsunamis pose to nuclear plants is the destruction of their power supplies. Without electricity, a reactor cannot be cooled and a meltdown can result. This is exactly what happened at Fukushima. A similar event might have been triggered in France in December 1999, when the Blayais nuclear power plant was flooded.

Recognizing this risk, European states examined their nuclear plant designs for vulnerabilities. They then equipped their plants with more emergency electricity supplies and protected them to better withstand a whole range of hard-to-predict extreme hazards.

Tepco and Japan’s nuclear safety agency were well aware of the European experience. Fukushima would have survived if they followed Europe’s lead and improved the plant’s design.

In short, had Tepco and the nuclear safety agency followed international standards and best practice, the Fukushima accident would have been prevented.

Why did the Fukushima Daiichi plant not resist to the earthquake and the tsunami?

In the planning and construction of the power plant, external hazards such as tsunamis were evaluated mainly on the basis of historical seismic records and evidence of recent tsunamis in Japan. However, the methodological method applied was not fully appropriate and did not fully explore the possible scenarios that could lead to severe reactor core damage
The flooding created by the tsunami simultaneously challenged the key protective levels of plant equipment and systems resulting in common cause failures that were not anticipated in the design.

By consequence, the complete loss of power led to the failure of the three fundamental functions important for ensuring the safety of a nuclear plant :

The control of reactivity in the nuclear fuel;
The removal of heat from the reactor core and spent fuel pool;
The confinement of radioactive material.

Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants.

Personnel at the Fukushima Daiichi plant responded with courage and resilience during the accident in the face of harsh circumstances; their actions likely reduced the severity of the accident and the magnitude of offsite radioactive material releases. Several factors prevented plant personnel from achieving greater success—in particular, averting reactor core damage—and contributed to the overall severity of the accident:

Failure of the plant owner (Tokyo Electric Power Company) and the principal regulator (Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency) to protect critical safety equipment at the plant from flooding in spite of mounting evidence that the plant's current design basis for tsunamis was inadequate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AmandaCMatthews (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 19, 2017, 03:36 AM

11. The real shame was the plant survived an earthquake of a greater magnitude than it was rated for

only to have the fuel tanks for the emergency generators get taken out by the tsunami.

Terrible design and a lack of forethought.

I recently was involved in the construction of an emergency operations center for a local government. Its use was to include housing and subsequent coordination for fire, police, search and rescue, and other first responders during and after disasters. It also was to be a backup 911 call center.

I asked the government's construction coordinator where was the water well to supply the facility with water in case of a loss of city water pressure. His response? "Why do we need a well?"

"Well, for starters, to flush toilets," I said. "And what do you plan to use in that nice commercial kitchen after you lose water pressure?"

He promptly proceeded to have a well installed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 19, 2017, 04:31 AM

12. Ah geeze. But as a doctor who save my life once told me after another one almost

killed me "Someone has to graduate at the bottom of the class." And that phrase has haunted me ever since. For a number of reasons. It sounds like you ran into one of those guys.

I reason knew about this was because I read about this particular reactor and one of the guys who worked on its design.. He quit because he said the reactor wasn't safe. But GE went with it because it was cheaper. This isn't the same article but I can use it to back up my statement..

Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.

Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

"The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. "The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."

The situation on the ground at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is so fluid, and the details of what is unfolding are so murky, that it may be days or even weeks before anyone knows how the Mark 1 containment system performed in the face of a devastating combination of natural disasters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AmandaCMatthews (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 19, 2017, 06:32 AM

13. I experienced similar situations in other government construction projects where poor planning

was involved which would have resulted in catastrophic failures when the right conditions occurred. In an eerily similar situation, I called attention to the location of a refueling station to be used for rescue boats. The station would have been underwater in the aftermath of a hurricane and would have severely hampered the functionally of those rescue vehicles at the very time they were needed the most! Fortunately, they heeded my advice and the use of those rescue vehicles was conducted without interruption during Katrina.

I'm not going to reveal another flaw in the operation of a critical link in the chain of essential services in the aftermath of a hurricane in New Orleans because they did not take my advice. I just hope the flaw is never exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink