Tepco “It takes 2 months to build welded type of the tank”
Posted by Mochizuki on September 5th, 2013 · No Comments
Following up this article..Tepco’s data shows they’re to run out of tanks in the 3rd week of November [URL]
In the press conference of 9/4/2013, Tepco stated they take 2 months to build welded type of the tank.
They didn’t comment how many tanks they can build at once.
There are two types of tanks in Fukushima plant – Welded and Unwelded.
Unwelded tanks are called Flange type. They are provisional and vulnerable, all the tanks that leaked this time are those unwelded tanks.
There are 350 unwelded tanks in the plant area. It takes only 1 week to build the unwelded tank but Tepco shouldn’t be making them now that more and more tanks are leaking.
However based on Tepco’s own data, it can be estimated that Tepco may run out of the tanks in nearly 2 months from now.
Tepco may have to keep building the vulnerable tanks to increase the potential risk of leakage.
[What's going on?] Cesium-134/137 level jumped up in the drain “upstream” of the leaking tanks
Posted by Mochizuki on September 5th, 2013 · No Comments
Following up this article..[Backward flow of contaminated groundwater ?] High level of radiation detected in drain upstream of any tanks [URL]
From Tepco’s data, Not only all β (including Strontium-90) but also Cs-134/137 level jumped up in the same location on 9/4/2013.
It was over 8 times much of the day before the day.
The measurement point is located upstream of any tanks areas. Something might be on-going with the groundwater.
![[What's going on?] Cesium-134/137 level jumped up in the drain "upstream" of the leaking tanks](http://fukushima-diary.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/%E3%82%B9%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A7%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%EF%BC%882013-09-05-16.13.47%EF%BC%89-450x249.png "[What's going on?] Cesium-134/137 level jumped up in the drain \"upstream\" of the leaking tanks")
[Direct leakage of coolant water ?] High level of radiation in groundwater beside reactor2 building
Posted by Mochizuki on September 5th, 2013 · No Comments
According to Tepco, significant level of radioactive material was detected in the groundwater beside reactor2.
Groundwater is highly contaminated on the seaside of the buildings. However, this measurement point is on the mountain side of reactor2 building, which suggests the possibility that the coolant water is directly leaking from the reactor building to underground.
The readings ware 970 Bq/m3 of Cs-137, 36,000 Bq/m3 of all β (including Strontium-90) and 31,000 Bq/m3 of Tritium.
Tepco admitted the Cs-137 and all β readings are approx. 10 times much as the bypass water, which are further from the buildings.
However, they claim this is due to the fallout.
550,000 Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 measured outside of the impervious wall / Contaminated water overflowing the wall
Posted by Mochizuki on September 5th, 2013 · No Comments
According to Tepco, high level of Cesium-134/137 was detected outside of the impervious wall, where is only 2m from the sea.
Tepco built the underground wall on the coastal line of reactor2 in order to stop contaminated groundwater flowing to the Pacific.
It caused the unexpected side effect as the rising groundwater level inside of the wall, so Tepco also had to pump up the water.
Regardless of all the costs and the exposure of the workers, it turned out that the wall doesn’t stop the contaminated groundwater that they detected high level of Cs-134/137 outside of the wall.
The readings were 170,000 Bq/m3 of Cs-134 and 380,000 Bq/m3 of Cs-137. This is 7~15 times much as the near seawater.
Tepco filtered the water because “impurities were found in the sample”, but Cs-134/137 reading was still 186,000 Bq/m3.
650,000 Bq/m3 of all β detected from groundwater around leaking tank / Leaked water possibly reached groundwater
Posted by Mochizuki on September 5th, 2013 · No Comments
About 300m3 leakage, Tepco measured 650,000 Bq/m3 of all β (including Strontium-90) in the groundwater beside the leakage area according to Tepco.
In order to check if the leaked water reached groundwater, Tepco made 5 observation holes around the leakage area and analyzed the groundwater.
650,000 Bq/m3 of all β was detected from one of the borings, which strongly suggests the possibility that the leaked water was already mixed with the groundwater. This boring is located on the opposite side of where the leaked water is assumed to have flowed.
A part of the leaked water is likely to have flowed to the Pacific, but also another part sank underground and was possibly mixed with groundwater. (cf, [Photo] Leaking tank drain goes to outside of Fukushima plant port [URL])
The analysis results of other 4 borings haven’t been published.
the beat goes on.....
[Video] Crane leaned down at Reactor3
Posted by Mochizuki on September 5th, 2013 · No Comments
According to Tepco, the remote controlling 600 tones crawler crane leaned down beside reactor3.
Tepco reports it didn’t cause any damage on reactor3 building, data shows no abnormality.
The cause is not verified.
At 8:35 AM of 9/5/2013, the operator observed the crane gradually leaned. It is located on the west side of reactor3 building.
A crack was found on the joint part for the main mast and jib.
↓ Video of the moment when the crane leaned. (1:33~)
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
Woods Hole Q&A on #Fukushima Radiation and Fish
Ken Buesseler at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has been researching the marine life and how it is affected by the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident that has released significant amount of radioactive materials into the Pacific Ocean.
He has a page with questions that he gets from people concerned about the radiation in marine life and his answers.
From Q&A by Ken Buesseler at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (emphasis in the answers is mine):
What is the state of fisheries off Japan and along U.S. West Coast?
The coastal fisheries remain closed in Japan near Fukushima, where there is a concern for some species, especially the bottom dwelling ones, which are being tested and many have been found to be above the Japanese government's strict limits for cesium in seafood. These contaminated fish are not being sold internally in Japan or exported. Because of the dilution that occurs even a short distance from Fukushima, we do not have a concern about the levels of cesium and other radionuclides in fish off the West Coast of the U.S.
More about the state of Japanese fisheries (pdf).
Are fish such as tuna that might have been exposed to radiation from Fukushima safe to eat?
Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from home, which is why fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, can swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan. However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. Moreover, the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays.
More about the dose and associated risk (pdf) of radiation from Fukushima to marine life and humans.
Is there concern about other radionuclides, such as strontium-90?
The continued release of radionuclides from groundwater and leaking tanks at Fukushima nuclear power plants site needs to be watched closely, as the character or mix of radionuclides is changing. One example is the higher levels of strontium-90 contained in groundwater and storage tanks that are leaking into the ocean. Because strontium-90 mimics calcium, it is taken up by and concentrated in bones, where it remains for long periods of time (it has a half-life of 30 years and calcium/strontium is not replaced as quickly in the body as cesium). If leaks of strontium-90 continue, this radionuclide could become a larger concern in small fish such as sardines, which are often eaten whole. So far, however, evidence suggests that levels in fish of strontium-90 remains much lower than that of cesium-137.
Is radiation exposure still a concern?
I stood on a ship two miles from the Fukushima reactors in June 2011 and as recently as May 2013, and it was safe to be there (I carry radiation detectors with me) and collect samples of all kinds (water, sediment, biota). Although radioactive isotopes in the samples and on the ship were measurable back in our lab, it was low enough to be safe to handle samples without any precautions. In fact, our biggest problem is filtering out natural radionuclides in our samples so we can measure the trace levels of cesium and other radionuclides that we know came from Fukushima.
Where does radiation from Fukushima go once it enters the ocean?
The spread of cesium once it enters the ocean can be understood by the analogy of mixing cream into coffee. At first, they are separate and distinguishable, but just as we start to stir the cream forms long, narrow filaments or streaks in the water. The streaks became longer and narrower as they moved off shore, where diffusive processes began to homogenize and dilute the radionuclides. In the ocean, diffusion is helped along by ocean eddies, squirts, and jets that broaden, mix, and continue to dilute the cesium as it travels across the ocean. With distance and time, radionuclide concentrations become much lower in the ocean, something that our measurements confirm.
More information about our oceanographic studies off Fukushima (pdf).
Are the continued sources of radiation from the nuclear power plants of concern?
The site of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant is an ongoing source of radionuclides (pdf) in to the ocean—something I've seen evidence of in my data and published about since 2011. Although the numbers sound large (300,000 gallons of water leaked or 20 trillion bequerels [sic] per liter), we calculated in 2011 when radiation levels were much higher than today that the dose to someone on a ship or in the ocean was not of concern. For the workers at the site, direct exposure from leaking storage tanks is of greater health concern because exposure from these concentrated sources is much higher. For the general public, it is not our direct exposure, but uptake by the food web and, hence, the potential for human consumption of contaminated fish that is the main health concern.
Will radiation be of concern along U.S. and Canadian coasts?
Levels of any Fukushima contaminants in the ocean will be many thousands of times lower after they mix across the Pacific and arrive on the West Coast of North America some time in late 2013 or 2014. This is not to say that we should not be concerned about additional sources of radioactivity in the ocean above the natural sources, but at the levels expected even short distances from Japan, the Pacific will be safe for boating, swimming, etc.
Is debris washing ashore on the US/Canadian West Coast of concern?
Debris washed out to sea by the tsunami does not carry Fukushima radioactive contamination—I’ve measured several samples in my lab. It does, however, carry invasive species, which will be of serious concern to coastal ecosystems on the West Coast.
Have there been increased deaths as a result of radiation from Fukushima?
Reports of increased deaths are simply not true. Read this reasoned response in Scientific American to the most often-cited "scientific" paper about erroneously linking deaths to radiation from Fukushima. That article ends “This is not to say that the radiation from Fukushima is not dangerous (it is), nor that we shouldn’t closely monitor its potential to spread (we should).” I agree with that statement.
Where can people go for reliable information?
Here are some other links I have passed to others.
Fukushima's Radioactive Water Leak: What You Should Knowhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/
Latest Radioactive Leak at Fukushima: How Is It Different?http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130821-fukushima-latest-leak-how-is-it-different/
See also following article from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (w/ links to many others)
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=167749§ionid=1000
From the special issue of Oceanus Magazine devoted to the cause and impacts of Fukushima:
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/series/fukushima
Consider supporting our new Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity and check out CMER public education links, such as ABCs of radioactivity
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=119836
(I wish he didn't mention the dental x-rays...)
Title: Hawaii Scientists Seek To Calm U.S. Fears About Fukushima Radiation
Source: Huffington Post
Author: Sophie Cocke
Date: Sept. 3, 2013
Source: Huffington Post
Author: Sophie Cocke
Date: Sept. 3, 2013
University of Hawaii scientists are seeking to lessen anxieties about the potential health risks from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster in the wake of recent international reports warning that dangerous levels of radiation could hit the west coast of the United States next year.
The distribution of the impact strength of Cesium-137 at year 1.5 (a), year 3.5 (b) and year 4 (c). (SOURCE: Han G J, et al. Sci China Earth Sci August (2013) Vol.56 No.8)Earlier this month, a study published in Science Chinawarned that radiation leaking from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is becoming more concentrated as it crosses the Pacific Ocean, rather than dispersing, and that it is making a beeline for the west coast of the United States. The study, coupled with recent disclosures by Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, that radiation-contaminated water continues to leak into the ocean, has rekindled public concerns about health dangers.But local scientists at the International Pacific Research Center who have been tracking the nuclear disaster caused by Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011 say that the findings published in the Chinese scientific journal are simply wrong and that the health risks to residents on the West Coast and Hawaii are somewhere between minuscule and non-existent.“This is a bad disaster,” said Henrieta Dulaiova, an assistant professor in UH’s Department of Geology and Geophysics. “But I don’t like scientists causing panic in the public.”
Title: Errors Cast Doubt on Japan’s Cleanup of Nuclear Accident Site
Source: New York Times
Author: Martin Fackler
Date: Sept. 3, 2013
Source: New York Times
Author: Martin Fackler
Date: Sept. 3, 2013
[...] some experts dismiss the current cleanup plans as just a way of defending the status quo by convincing the public that the damage can be undone [...]Harutoshi Funabashi, a sociologist at Hosei University who led a critical examination of the recovery efforts by the Science Council of Japan [...] and other critics say Japan should consider other options, including the tactic adopted by the former Soviet Union at Chernobyl of essentially capping the shattered reactors in concrete and declaring the most contaminated towns off limits for a generation.Japanese officials said the large amounts of groundwater under the plant mean that just covering the reactors with concrete would fail to contain the spread of radiation. They also said giving up on a large portion of Fukushima was not an option in a densely populated country where land remains a scarce commodity.But they also suggested that the reason for eschewing a Soviet-style option may be the fear that failure could turn a wary public even more decisively against Japan’s nuclear industry.“If we just buried the reactors, no one would want to see the face of another nuclear power plant for years,” said Shunsuke Kondo, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, an advisory body in the Cabinet Office. [...]
No comments:
Post a Comment