January 1, 2015

Jan 1, 2015 | Fukushima Accident Updates

  • A Canadian ocean monitoring network says the risk from Fukushima is “insignificant”. The Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring (InFORM) Network involves academic, government & non-governmental organizations, and citizen scientists to acquire data and assess radiological risks to Canada’s oceans from Fukushima’s radioactive contaminants. Samples supplied by Canadian citizens and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada group show that the levels on the Pacific coast of Canada are “so low they pose almost zero risk to human or ecosystem health. Salmon remain safe to eat and the ocean is clean enough to swim in.” The Bedford Institute of Oceanography says that detectible levels of Fukushima radioactivity have reached the continental waters. Bedford’s Dr. John Smith reports, “The resulting large ocean plume of radioactivity dissipated rapidly … but a significant remnant was transported eastward. By June 2013, the Fukushima signal had spread onto the Canadian continental shelf, and by February 2014 it had increased … resulting in an overall doubling of the fallout background from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.” He adds that even at the worst-possible peak, the concentrations will be hundreds of times less than Canadian drinking water standards. As for fish, Smith says “predicted exposure level is many orders of magnitude less” than the baseline safe levels.” University of Victoria’s Dr. Jay Cullen, head of the InFORM project, says radiation levels are actually lower than in the 1960s when nuclear weapon’s tests in the Pacific drove Cesium concentrations up to 80 Becquerels per ton (cubic meter) of seawater. The Fukushima levels are not expected to go above three to five Bq/ton. https://fukushimainform.wordpress.com/ [Comment – the conclusion of very low risk is due to the researchers using the Linear/No Threshold assumption (LNT), which is used world-wide to set radiation standards. Even at its projected worst-case peak, and further if someone were stupid enough to drink raw seawater, the internal exposure would be but a small fraction of one millisievert per year. Considerable scientific evidence over the past 3+ decades shows that exposures below 700 millisieverts/year cause no actual observable negative biological effects. In other words, if InForm and Bedford Institute used science instead of the LNT assumption, they could confidently conclude that there is no risk whatsoever.]
  • Japan’s post-Fukushima “coal binge” fuels international criticism. Once a paradigm of lowering Carbon-Dioxide releases, Japan’s nuclear moratorium has caused a huge increase in using coal as a power plant heat source. As a result, the island nation is now the fifth-largest emitter of CO2, behind China, the United States, India, and Russia. Japan’s Industry and Environment Ministries deny any regressing on climate policies, but international confidence in the claim is low. The nuke moratorium resulted in relaxing pollution standards for coal burning plants in order to increase output by 40%. The lead Chinese delegate at Friday’s climate talks in Lima, Peru, expressed a modicum of optimism once Japan gets their nukes back in operation, “We expect Japan would certainly come up with an ambitious target for the post-2020 period. That is not just China’s expectation I think it is the expectation of the world.” But, from Japan we find pessimism. Nobuo Tanaka of the  Institute of Energy Economics said, “Japan cannot excuse itself in Paris [at the 2015 climate summit] by saying ‘sorry we don’t have nuclear power so we can’t reduce CO2 emissions.’” Japan’s CO2 releases rose 1.6% through March, 2014, to a new record. Regardless of the emission record, Japanese utilities plan to install 14.8 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity over the next few years since the fuel is cheaper than gas or oil. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/12/12/environment/japans-coal-binge-stirs-international-climate-fears/#.VKLOP3Dw
  • Most Minamisoma decontaminated “hot spot” residents say they will not return home. On Sunday, Tokyo lifted all restrictions on the 152 residences evacuated more than 2 years ago because estimated radiation exposures were greater than 20 millisieverts per year. Decontamination efforts and radioactive decay have dropped the measured exposure levels to well-below the standard, so everyone is allowed to go home. However, city officials say 80% of the residents will not repopulate because they fear the low levels of radiation. http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/110828.php
  • The Asahi Shimbun accuses Tepco of “sloppy handling” of dust suppressants in 2013. The suppressant was used to keep radioactive dust from wafting into the air and off the station’s property during debris removal from units #3&4. The suppressant was purchased in concentrated form and was supposed to be diluted with water by one part in ten. For unit #4 prior to erecting the outer building for transfer of used fuel, the suppressant was either sprayed undiluted or to the specified 10% dilution level. But, for dust suppression with unit #3 rubble, the dilution factor being used was about one part per hundred. The Nuclear Regulation Authority Secretariat says the under-specified 1% solution probably had reduced effectiveness and “likely led to the spewing of radioactive materials in the summer of 2013.” An official at the suppressant supply company says a 1% solution is about as effective as using only water and, “Because work should, in principle, only be conducted when the dust has been moistened with the suppressant, not using the suppressant for several days will naturally lead to the spewing of radioactive dust.” In August of 2013, some airborne monitors alarmed and 12 workers were found to have detectible levels of radioactive dust on their protective coveralls. One monitor 3 kilometers away showed a small increase during the August 12-19 period. Tepco says these incidents might possibly have been due to over-diluting the dust suppressant. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201412310025