ABE (no) FOX NEWS from The Devious contaminated Japanese Government
ABE's lie is burning now by the Fukushima Nuclear Radiation.
Fukushima Nuclear power plant,
ABEnoMOX is explosing over the World.
We do not worry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster at all.
ABE (no) FOX NEWS
The End
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
fukushima plant news update MOX FUEL EXPLODED AND MORE
アップロード日: 2011/04/24
Looks like the MOX reactor, the one containing the most plutonium has already exploded, see links ;
Hi-Res Photos PROVE (MOX) Reactor Core EXPLODED In Bldg 3
Daily Fukushima Radiation Emissions VASTLY HIGHER Than Said
Fukushima Plutonium, Strontium Are HERE In The US Since March 18
Deadly Radioactive Concrete Pieces Found Near #3
Helen Caldicott On The Japan Radiation Disaster - Vid
High Rad Levels In Enlarged Evac Zone - No Isotope ID
Wide Radiation Variations In Zone - No Isotopes Identified
TEPCO Slows Water Pouring Into #4 Spent Fuel Poo
Hi-Res Photos PROVE (MOX) Reactor Core EXPLODED In Bldg 3
Daily Fukushima Radiation Emissions VASTLY HIGHER Than Said
Fukushima Plutonium, Strontium Are HERE In The US Since March 18
Deadly Radioactive Concrete Pieces Found Near #3
Helen Caldicott On The Japan Radiation Disaster - Vid
High Rad Levels In Enlarged Evac Zone - No Isotope ID
Wide Radiation Variations In Zone - No Isotopes Identified
TEPCO Slows Water Pouring Into #4 Spent Fuel Poo
=====================================================================
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX%E7%87%83%E6%96%99
English : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
MOX燃料
MOX燃料(モックスねんりょう)とは混合酸化物燃料の略称であり、原子炉の使用済み核燃料中に1%程度含まれるプルトニウムを再処理により取り出し、二酸化プルトニウム(PuO2)と二酸化ウラン(UO2)とを混ぜてプルトニウム濃度を4~9%に高めたものである[1]。
主として高速増殖炉の燃料に用いられるが、既存の軽水炉用燃料ペレットと同一の形状に加工し、核設計を行ったうえで適正な位置に配置することにより、軽水炉のウラン燃料の代替として用いることができる。これをプルサーマル利用と呼ぶ。
MOXとは(Mixed OXide)の頭文字を採ったものである。
プルサーマル用に加工することにより、既存の原子力発電所にそのまま搭載でき、普通の燃料と比べ、高出力である。クリープ速度が速いため、PCMI(核燃料と被覆管の間の相互作用)の影響が緩和される。
また、使用済み核燃料からプルトニウムを抜かずに埋めるワンススルーだと、プルトニウムを垂れ流したも同然となり、「今まで何のためにプルトニウムを封じ込めてきたのか判らない状態」になる。そのため、半減期数万年のプルトニウムを、使用済み核燃料から抽出除去し、普通の原子炉である軽水炉で焼却(核分裂)させて、半減期30年前後の灰(核分裂生成物)に変換し、プルトニウム消滅させる手段として、プルトニウムと劣化ウランの混合焼結燃料が考案された。
ウラン新燃料に比べ放射能が高い(特にアルファ線、中性子線が著しく高い)ため、燃料の製造については遠隔操作化を行い、作業員の不要な被曝に十分配慮して行う必要がある。二酸化ウラン中に二酸化プルトニウムを混ぜることにより、燃料の融点が上がるが、熱伝導率が下がり、電気抵抗率が上がり、これにより燃料温度が高くなり溶けやすくなる。(尚、酸化物燃料ではなくプルトニウム・ウラン窒化物燃料にすると、ウラン酸化物燃料より熱伝導は大幅に改善する)核分裂生成物が貴金属側により、またプルトニウム自体もウランよりも硝酸に溶解しにくいため、再処理が難しい。FPガスとアルファ線(ヘリウム、ガス状)の放出が多いため、燃料棒内の圧力が高くなる。性質の違うウランとプルトニウムをできる限り均一に混ぜるべきであるが、どうしてもプルトニウムスポット(プルトニウムの塊)が生じてしまう。国は基準を設けて制限しているが、使用するペレット自体を検査して確認することはできない。
最終更新 2013年7月12日 (金) 20:20
=====================================================================
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Mixed-Oxide-Fuel-MOX/#.Uj1YSb6Ch9A
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
(Updated May 2013)
- Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel provides about 2% of the new nuclear fuel used today.
- MOX fuel is manufactured from plutonium recovered from used reactor fuel.
- MOX fuel also provides a means of burning weapons-grade plutonium (from military sources) to produce electricity.
Normally, with the fuel being changed every three years or so, about half of the Pu-239 is 'burned' in the reactor, providing about one third of the total energy. It behaves like U-235 and its fission releases a similar amount of energy. The higher the burn-up, the less fissile plutonium remains in the used fuel. Typically about one percent of the used fuel discharged from a reactor is plutonium, and some two thirds of this is fissile (c. 50% Pu-239, 15% Pu-241). Worldwide, some 70 tonnes of plutonium contained in used fuel is removed when refuelling reactors each year.
The plutonium (and uranium) in used fuel can be recovered through reprocessing. The plutonium could then be used in the manufacture mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel, to provide energy through electricity generation. A single recycle of plutonium in the form of MOX fuel increases the energy derived from the original uranium by some 12%, and if the uranium is also recycled this becomes about 22% (based on light water reactor fuel with burn-up of 45 GWd/tU).
Quantity (tonnes) | Natural U equivalent (tonnes) | |
Plutonium from reprocessed fuel | 320 | 60,000 |
---|---|---|
Uranium from reprocessed fuel | 45,000 | 50,000 |
Ex-military plutonium | 70 | 15,000 |
Ex-military high-enriched uranium | 230 | 70,000 |
In addition, there is about 1.6 million tonnes of enrichment tails, with recoverable fissile uranium.
MOX use
MOX fuel was first used in a thermal reactor in 1963, but did not come into commercial use until the 1980s. So far about 2000 tonnes of MOX fuel has been fabricated and loaded into power reactors. In 2006 about 180 tonnes of MOX fuel was loaded into over 30 reactors (mostly PWR) in Europe.Today MOX is widely used in Europe and in Japan. Currently about 40 reactors in Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and France) are licensed to use MOX, and over 30 are doing so. In Japan about ten reactors are licensed to use it and several do so. These reactors generally use MOX fuel as about one third of their core, but some will accept up to 50% MOX assemblies. France aims to have all its 900 MWe series of reactors running with at least one third MOX. Japan also plans to use MOX in one third of its reactors in the near future and expects to start up a 1383 MWe (gross) reactor with a complete fuel loading of MOX at the Ohma plant in late 2014.2 Other advanced light water reactors such as the EPR or AP1000 are able to accept complete fuel loadings of MOX if required.
In the USA there was significant development work in 1960s and 19790s, and MOX fuel was used in several demonstration projects (San Onofre, Ginna PWRs, Dresden, Quad Cities and Big Rock Point). It performed acceptably and similar to uranium oxide fuel. In 2005 four MOX test assemblies made by Melox in France were tested successfully at the Catawba power station.
The use of up to 50% of MOX does not change the operating characteristics of a reactor, though the plant must be designed or adapted slightly to take it. More control rods are needed. For more than 50% MOX loading, significant changes are necessary and a reactor needs to be designed accordingly, as several new designs are. Burn-up of MOX fuel is about the same as that for UOX fuel.
An advantage of MOX is that the fissile concentration of the fuel can be increased easily by adding a bit more plutonium, whereas enriching uranium to higher levels of U-235 is relatively expensive. As reactor operators seek to burn fuel harder and longer, increasing burnup from around 30,000 MW days per tonne a few years ago to over 50,000 MWd/t now, MOX use becomes more attractive.
Reprocessing to separate plutonium for recycle as MOX becomes more economic as uranium prices rise. MOX use also becomes more attractive as the need to reduce the volume of spent fuel increase. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.
Recycling normal used fuel
If used fuel is to be recycled, the first step is separating the plutonium and the remaining uranium (about 96% of the spent fuel) from the fission products with other wastes (together about 3%). The plutonium then needs to be separated from most or all of the uranium. All this is undertaken at a reprocessing plant (see information page on Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel).The plutonium, as an oxide, is then mixed with depleted uranium left over from an enrichment plant to form fresh mixed oxide fuel (MOX, which is UO2+PuO2). MOX fuel, consisting of about 7-10% plutonium mixed with depleted uranium, is equivalent to uranium oxide fuel enriched to about 4.5% U-235, assuming that the plutonium has about two thirds fissile isotopes. If weapons plutonium is used (>90% Pu-239), only about 5% plutonium is needed in the mix. The plutonium content of commercial MOX fuel varies up to 10.8% depending on the design of the fuel, and averages about 9.5%. Fuel in an EPR with 30% MOX having less than 10.8% Pu is equivalent to 4.2% enriched uranium fuel. An EPR with 100% MOX fuel can use a wider variety of used fuel material (burnup, initial enrichment, Pu quality) than with only 30% MOX.
Fast neutron reactors allow multiple recycling of plutonium, since all transuranic isotopes there are fissionable, but in thermal reactors isotopic degradation limits the plutonium recycle potential and most spent MOX fuel is stored pending the greater deployment of fast reactors. (The plutonium isotopic composition of used MOX fuel at 45 GWd/tU burnup is about 37% Pu-239, 32% Pu-240, 16% Pu-241, 12% Pu-242 and 4% Pu-238.)
Recovered uranium from a reprocessing plant may be re-enriched on its own for use as fresh fuel. Because it contains some neutron-absorbing U-234 and U-236, reprocessed uranium must be enriched significantly (e.g. one-tenth) more than is required for natural uranium. Thus reprocessed uranium from low-burn-up fuel is more likely to be suitable for re-enrichment, while that from high burn-up fuel is best used for blending or MOX fabrication.
Reprocessing of 850 tonnes of French used fuel per year (about 15 years after discharge) produces 8.5 tonnes of plutonium (immediately recycled as 100 tonnes of MOX) and 810 tonnes of reprocessed uranium (RepU). Of this about two-thirds is converted into stable oxide form for storage. One-third of the RepU is re-enriched and EdF has demonstrated its use in 900 MWe power reactors.
MOX production
Two plants currently produce commercial quantities of MOX fuel – in France and UK. In 2006 a 40 t/yr Belgian plant closed3 and in April 2007 the French Melox plant was licensed for an increase in production from 145 to 195 t/yr. Also the Sellafield MOX Plant in UK was downrated from 128 to 40 t/yr, and in August 2011 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority announced that it had reassessed the plant's prospects and would close it.Japan is planning to start up a 130 t/yr J-MOX plant at Rokkasho in 2015. Meanwhile, construction on a MOX fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site in the USA is underway for 2016 start-up – see section below on MOX and disposition of weapons plutonium.
World mixed oxide fuel fabrication capacities (t/yr)
2009 | 2015 | |
France, Melox | 195 | 195 |
---|---|---|
Japan, Tokai | 10 | 10 |
Japan, Rokkasho | 0 | 130 |
Russia, Mayak, Ozersk | 5 | 5 |
Russia, Zheleznogorsk | 0 | 60? |
UK, Sellafield | 40 | 0 |
Total for LWR | 250 | 400 |
At present the output of reprocessing plants exceeds the rate of plutonium usage in MOX, resulting in inventories of (civil) plutonium in several countries. These stocks are expected to exceed 250 tonnes before they start to decline after 2010 as MOX use increases, with MOX then expected to supply about 5% of world reactor fuel requirements.
The UK is investigating the incorporation of its 120 tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium into CANMOX fuel which would be used in four Candu EC6 reactors. The fuel would have 2% plutonium and four UK units (2800 MWe) would require about 400 t/yr of it. The used fuel would be stored for a hundred years and then sent to a repository.
MOX and disposition of weapons plutonium
Under the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, Russia and the USA agreed in 2000 to each dispose of (or immobilise) 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium deemed surplus to requirements (see page on Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel).The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina began construction in August 2007 and will convert the US plutonium to MOX fuel. Expected to begin operations in 2016, the MFFF is designed to turn 3.5 t/yr of weapons-grade plutonium into about 150 MOX fuel assemblies, both PWR and BWR. The contract to design, build and operate the MFFF was awarded to the Shaw AREVA MOX Services consortium in 1999, with the $2.7 billion construction option being exercised in May 2008.4 Four MOX fuel lead test assemblies manufactured from US weapons plutonium and fabricated at the Melox plant in France were successfully burned on a trial basis at the Catawba plant.
Meanwhile, following several years of dispute, in November 2007 the USA and Russia agreed that Russia would dispose of its 34 t of weapons-grade plutonium by conversion to MOX fuel, which would be burned in the BN-600 reactor at the Beloyarsk nuclear plant, and in the BN-800 under construction at the same site.5 Under this plan, Russia would begin disposition in the BN-600 reactor in the 2012 timeframe. Disposition in the BN-800 would follow soon thereafter. Once disposition begins, the two reactors could dispose of approximately 1.5 t of Russian weapons plutonium per year. The USA agreed to contribute $400 million to the project. A 60 t/yr commercial MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is scheduled to start up at Zheleznogorsk by 2014, operated by the Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC). It will make MOX granules and pelletised MOX for 400 fuel assemblies per year for the BN-800 and future fast reactors. The capacity is designed to supply five BN-800 units. This is likely to use ex-weapons plutonium. Another MOX plant for military plutonium was planned for Seversk, Siberia, but this appears to have been displaced by the MCC one.
MOX reprocessing and further use
Used MOX fuel reprocessing has been demonstrated since 1992 in France, at the La Hague plant. In 2004 the first reprocessing of used MOX fuel was undertaken on a larger scale with continuous process. Ten tonnes of MOX irradiated to about 35,000 MWd/t and with Pu content of about 4% was involved. The main problem of fully dissolving PuO2 was overcome. Since 2004 an increasing amount of MOX from German and Swiss reactors has been reprocessed, totaling about 70 tonnes, with a wide range of composition. As MOX is repeatedly recycled it is mixed with substantial proportions (70-80%) of plutonium from UOX fuel.At present the French policy is not to reprocess used MOX fuel, but to store it and await the advent of fuel cycle developments related to Generation IV fast neutron reactor designs.
Plutonium-thorium fuel
Since the early 1990s Russia has had a programme to develop a thorium-uranium fuel, which more recently has moved to have a particular emphasis on utilisation of weapons-grade plutonium in a thorium-plutonium fuel. The programme is described in the information page on Thorium. With an estimated 150 tonnes of surplus weapons plutonium in Russia, the thorium-plutonium project would not necessarily cut across existing plans to make MOX fuel.Further information
References
1. OECD/NEA 2007, Management of Recyclable Fissile and Fertile Materials, NEA #6107 (ISBN: 9789264032552). [Back]2. J-Power reschedules Ohma start-up, World Nuclear News, 11 November 2008. [Back]
3. Belgonucleaire's decision to close its MOX plant was explained in its 2005 Annual Report – see http://www.belgonucleaire.be/files/JAARVERSLAG2005EN.pdf [Back]
4. Final contract for US MOX, World Nuclear News, 27 May 2008. [Back]
5. Russia and USA confirm plutonium plan, World Nuclear News, 20 November 2007. [Back]
General sources
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, Annual Report 1999NATO 1994, Managing the Plutonium Surplus: Applications and Technical Options (ISBN 9780792331247)
OECD NEA 1997, Management of Separated Plutonium, the technical options (ISBN 9264154108)
Nuclear Europe Worldscan, European Nuclear Society, March/April 1997 (several articles)
Nuclear Engineering International, Europeans & MOX , July 1997
D Albright and K Kramer, Tracking Plutonium Inventories, Plutonium Watch, July (revised August) 2005 – see http://www.isis-online.org/global_stocks/end2003/plutonium_watch2005.pdf
International Atomic Energy Agency, Status and Advances in MOX Fuel Technology, Technical Review Series # 415 (2003)
www.moxproject.com, the website for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at the Savannah River Site
Marc Arslan, 2012, Fuel Cycle Strategies to Optimise the use of MOX Fuels, WNFC Helsinki.
Related information pages
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Plutonium
Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel
Japanese Waste and MOX Shipments From Europe
© 2013 World Nuclear Association, registered in England and Wales, number 01215741.
Registered office: 22a St James's Square London SW1Y 4JH United Kingdom
=====================================================================
Fukushima Update
Nuclear News from Japan
OP-ED: #Fukushima Forever
September 21, 2013
via Huffington Post / Sep 20, 2013 / Charles B. Perrow is an emeritus professor of sociology at Yale University and visiting professor at Stanford University.
Recent disclosures of tons of radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima reactors spilling into the ocean are just the latest evidence of the continuing incompetence of the Japanese utility, TEPCO. The announcement that the Japanese government will step in is also not reassuring since it was the Japanese government that failed to regulate the utility for decades. But, bad as it is, the current contamination of the ocean should be the least of our worries. The radioactive poisons are expected to form a plume that will be carried by currents to coast of North America. But the effects will be small, adding an unfortunate bit to our background radiation. Fish swimming through the plume will be affected, but we can avoid eating them.
Much more serious is the danger that the spent fuel rod pool at the top of the nuclear plant number four will collapse in a storm or an earthquake, or in a failed attempt to carefully remove each of the 1,535 rods and safely transport them to the common storage pool 50 meters away. Conditions in the unit 4 pool, 100 feet from the ground, are perilous, and if any two of the rods touch it could cause a nuclear reaction that would be uncontrollable. The radiation emitted from all these rods, if they are not continually cool and kept separate, would require the evacuation of surrounding areas including Tokyo. Because of the radiation at the site the 6,375 rods in the common storage pool could not be continuously cooled; they would fission and all of humanity will be threatened, for thousands of years.
Fukushima is just the latest episode in a dangerous dance with radiation that has been going on for 68 years. Since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 we have repeatedly let loose plutonium and other radioactive substances on our planet, and authorities have repeatedly denied or trivialized their dangers. The authorities include national governments (the U.S., Japan, the Soviet Union/ Russia, England, France and Germany); the worldwide nuclear power industry; and some scientists both in and outside of these governments and the nuclear power industry. Denials and trivialization have continued with Fukushima. (Documentation of the following observations can be found in my piece in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, upon which this article is based.) (Perrow 2013)
In 1945, shortly after the bombing of two Japanese cities, the New York Times headline read: “Survey Rules Out Nagasaki Dangers”; soon after the 2011 Fukushima disaster it read “Experts Foresee No Detectable Health Impact from Fukushima Radiation.” In between these two we had experts reassuring us about the nuclear bomb tests, plutonium plant disasters at Windscale in northern England and Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine, as well as the normal operation of nuclear power plants.
Initially the U.S. Government denied that low-level radiation experienced by thousands of Japanese people in and near the two cities was dangerous. In 1953, the newly formed Atomic Energy Commission insisted that low-level exposure to radiation “can be continued indefinitely without any detectable bodily change.” Biologists and other scientists took exception to this, and a 1956 report by the National Academy of Scientists, examining data from Japan and from residents of the Marshall Islands exposed to nuclear test fallout, successfully established that all radiation was harmful. The Atomic Energy Commission then promoted a statistical or population approach that minimized the danger: the damage would be so small that it would hardly be detectable in a large population and could be due to any number of other causes. Nevertheless, the Radiation Research Foundation detected it in 1,900 excess deaths among the Japanese exposed to the two bombs. (The Department of Homeland Security estimated only 430 cancer deaths).
Besides the uproar about the worldwide fallout from testing nuclear weapons, another problem with nuclear fission soon emerged: a fire in a British plant making plutonium for nuclear weapons sent radioactive material over a large area of Cumbria, resulting in an estimated 240 premature cancer deaths, though the link is still disputed. The event was not made public and no evacuations were ordered. Also kept secret, for over 25 years, was a much larger explosion and fire, also in 1957, at the Chelyabinsk nuclear weapons processing plant in the eastern Ural Mountains of the Soviet Union. One estimate is that 272,000 people were irradiated; lakes and streams were contaminated; 7,500 people were evacuated; and some areas still are uninhabitable. The CIA knew of it immediately, but they too kept it secret. If a plutonium plant could do that much damage it would be a powerful argument for not building nuclear weapons.
Powerful arguments were needed, due to the fallout from the fallout from bombs and tests. Peaceful use became the mantra. Project Plowshares, initiated in 1958, conducted 27 “peaceful nuclear explosions” from 1961 until the costs as well as public pressure from unforeseen consequences ended the program in 1975. The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission indicated Plowshares’ close relationship to the increasing opposition to nuclear weapons, saying that peaceful applications of nuclear explosives would “create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests” (emphasis supplied). A Pentagon official was equally blunt, saying in 1953, “The atomic bomb will be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends.” The minutes of a National Security Council in 1953 spoke of destroying the taboo associated with nuclear weapons and “dissipating” the feeling that we could not use an A-bomb.
More useful than peaceful nuclear explosions were nuclear power plants, which would produce the plutonium necessary for atomic weapons as well as legitimating them. Nuclear power plants, the daughter of the weapons program — actually its “bad seed” –f was born and soon saw first fruit with the 1979 Three Mile Island accident (pictured). Increases in cancer were found but the Columbia University study declared that the level of radiation from TMI was too low to have caused them, and the “stress” hypothesis made its first appearance as the explanation for rises in cancer. Another university study disputed this, arguing that radiation caused the increase, and since a victim suit was involved, it went to a Federal judge who ruled in favor of stress. A third, larger study found “slight” increases in cancer mortality and increased risk breast and other cancers, but found “no consistent evidence” of a “significant impact.” Indeed, it would be hard to find such an impact when so many other things can cause cancer, and it is so widespread. Indeed, since stress can cause it, there is ample ambiguity that can be mobilized to defend nuclear power plants.
Ambiguity was mobilized by the Soviet Union after the 1987 Chernobyl disaster. Medical studies by Russian scientists were suppressed, and doctors were told not to use the designation of leukemia in health reports. Only after a few years had elapsed did any serious studies acknowledge that the radiation was serious. The Soviet Union forcefully argued that the large drops in life expectancy in the affected areas were due to not just stress, but lifestyle changes. The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), charged with both promoting nuclear power and helping make it safe, agreed, and mentioned such things as obesity, smoking, and even unprotected sex, arguing that the affected population should not be treated as “victims” but as “survivors.” The count of premature deaths has varied widely, ranging from 4,000 in the contaminated areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia from UN agencies, while Greenpeace puts it at 200,000. We also have the controversial worldwide estimate of 985,000 from Russian scientists with access to thousands of publications from the affected regions.
Even when nuclear power plants are running normally they are expected to release some radiation, but so little as to be harmless. Numerous studies have now challenged that. When eight U.S. nuclear plants in the U.S. were closed in 1987 they provided the opportunity for a field test. Two years later strontium-90 levels in local milk declined sharply, as did birth defects and death rates of infants within 40 miles of the plants. A 2007 study of all German nuclear power plants saw childhood leukemia for children living less than 3 miles from the plants more than double, but the researchers held that the plants could not cause it because their radiation levels were so low. Similar results were found for a French study, with a similar conclusion; it could not be low-level radiation, though they had no other explanation. A meta-study published in 2007 of 136 reactor sites in seven countries, extended to include children up to age 9, found childhood leukemia increases of 14 percent to 21 percent.
Epidemiological studies of children and adults living near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will face the same obstacles as earlier studies. About 40 percent of the aging population of Japan will die of some form of cancer; how can one be sure it was not caused by one of the multiple other causes? It took decades for the effects of the atomic bombs and Chernobyl to clearly emblazon the word “CANCER” on these events. Almost all scientists finally agree that the dose effects are linear, that is, any radiation added to natural background radiation, even low-levels of radiation, is harmful. But how harmful?
University professors have declared that the health effects of Fukushima are “negligible,” will cause “close to no deaths,” and that much of the damage was “really psychological.” Extensive and expensive follow-up on citizens from the Fukushima area, the experts say, is not worth it. There is doubt a direct link will ever be definitively made, one expert said. The head of the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said: “There’s no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance of success….The doses are just too low.” We have heard this in 1945, at TMi, at Chernobyl, and for normally running power plants. It is surprising that respected scientists refuse to make another test of such an important null hypothesis: that there are no discernible effects of low-level radiation.
Not surprisingly, a nuclear power trade group announced shortly after the March, 2011 meltdown at Fukushima (the meltdown started with the earthquake, well before the tsunami hit), that “no health effects are expected” as a result of the events. UN agencies agree with them and the U.S. Council. The leading UN organization on the effects of radiation concluded “Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.” The World Health Organization stated that while people in the United States receive about 6.5 millisieverts per year from sources including background radiation and medical procedures, only two Japanese communities had effective dose rates of 10 to 50 millisieverts, a bit more than normal.
However, other data contradicts the WHO and other UN agencies. The Japanese science and technology ministry (MEXT) indicated that a child in one community would have an exposure 100 times the natural background radiation in Japan, rather than a bit more than normal. A hospital reported that more than half of the 527 children examined six months after the disaster had internal exposure to cesium-137, an isotope that poses great risk to human health. A French radiological institute found ambient dose rates 20 to 40 times that of background radiation and in the most contaminated areas the rates were even 10 times those elevated dose rates. The Institute predicts and excess cancer rate of 2 percent in the first year alone. Experts not associated with the nuclear industry or the UN agencies currently have estimated from 1,000 to 3,000 cancer deaths. Nearly two years after the disaster the WHO was still declaring that any increase in human disease “is likely to remain below detectable levels.” (It is worth noting that the WHO still only releases reports on radiation impacts in consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.)
In March 2013, the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey reported examining 133,000 children using new, highly sensitive ultrasound equipment. The survey found that 41 percent of the children examined had cysts of up to 2 centimeters in size and lumps measuring up to 5 millimeters on their thyroid glands, presumably from inhaled and ingested radioactive iodine. However, as we might expect from our chronicle, the survey found no cause for alarm because the cysts and lumps were too small to warrant further examination. The defense ministry also conducted an ultrasound examination of children from three other prefectures distant from Fukushima and found somewhat higher percentages of small cysts and lumps, adding to the argument that radiation was not the cause. But others point out that radiation effects would not be expected to be limited to what is designated as the contaminated area; that these cysts and lumps, signs of possible thyroid cancer, have appeared alarmingly soon after exposure; that they should be followed up since it takes a few years for cancer to show up and thyroid cancer is rare in children; and that a control group far from Japan should be tested with the same ultrasound technics.
The denial that Fukushima has any significant health impacts echoes the denials of the atomic bomb effects in 1945; the secrecy surrounding Windscale and Chelyabinsk; the studies suggesting that the fallout from Three Mile Island was, in fact, serious; and the multiple denials regarding Chernobyl (that it happened, that it was serious, and that it is still serious).
As of June, 2013, according to a report in The Japan Times, 12 of 175,499 children tested had tested positive for possible thyroid cancer, and 15 more were deemed at high risk of developing the disease. For a disease that is rare, this is high number. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is still trying to get us to ignore the bad seed. June 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy granted $1.7 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to address the “difficulties in gaining the broad social acceptance” of nuclear power.
SOURCE: The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-perrow/fukushima-forever_b_3941589.html?utm_hp_ref=science&ir=Science
Perrow, Charles. 2013. “Nuclear denial: From Hiroshima to Nagasaki.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 69(5):56-67.
=====================================================================
Atomic bomb nearly exploded over North Carolina in 1961, report says
公開日: 2013/09/21
The U.S. Air Force nearly detonated an atomic bomb over North Carolina in 1961 that would have been 260 times more powerful than the device that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a declassified report published Friday in The Guardian.
The 1969 document, obtained by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser under the Freedom of Information Act, details the Jan. 23, 1961, B-52 crash near Goldsboro, North Carolina, that saw two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs break up in mid-air.
The 1969 document, obtained by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser under the Freedom of Information Act, details the Jan. 23, 1961, B-52 crash near Goldsboro, North Carolina, that saw two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs break up in mid-air.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/atom-bomb-nearly-exploded_n_3964784.html
Atom Bomb Almost Exploded Over North Carolina In 1961, The Guardian Reports
Reuters | Posted: 09/20/2013 7:06 pm EDT | Updated: 09/21/2013 10:09 am EDT
LONDON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. atom bomb nearly exploded in 1961 over North Carolina that would have been 260 times more powerful than the device that devastated Hiroshima, according to a declassified document published in a British newspaper on Friday.
The Guardian newspaper said the document, obtained by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser under the Freedom of Information Act, gave the first conclusive evidence that the United States came close to a disaster in January 1961.
The incident happened when two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs were accidentally dropped over Goldsboro, North Carolina, after a B-52 bomber broke up in midair.
There has been persistent speculation about how serious the incident was and the U.S. government has repeatedly denied its nuclear arsenal put Americans' lives at risk through safety flaws, the newspaper said.
But the newly published document said one of the two bombs behaved exactly in the manner of a nuclear weapon in wartime, with its parachute opening and its trigger mechanisms engaged. Only one low-voltage switch prevented a cataclysm.
Fallout could have spread over Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and even New York City, the paper said, threatening the lives of millions of people.
In the document, Parker Jones, a senior engineer in the Sandia National Laboratories responsible for the mechanical safety of nuclear weapons, concluded that "one simple, dynamo-technology, low-voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe."
Jones' report, titled "Goldsboro Revisited or: How I Learned to Mistrust the H-Bomb," was written eight years after the accident in which one hydrogen bomb fell into a field near Faro, North Carolina, and the other into a meadow.
He found that three of four safety mechanisms designed to prevent unintended detonation failed to operate properly in the Faro bomb.
When the bomb hit the ground, a firing signal was sent to the nuclear core of the device and it was only the final, highly vulnerable switch that averted a disaster.
"The MK 39 Mod 2 bomb did not possess adequate safety for the airborne alert role in the B-52," Jones concluded.
The Guardian said the document was found by Schlosser as he was researching a new book on the nuclear arms race, "Command and Control." (Reporting by Belinda Goldsmith; Editing by Xavier Briand)
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. |
"The Huffington Post" is a registered trademark of TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
=====================================================================
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20130921/k10014718221000.html
史上最悪の核爆発 かろうじて免れる
9月21日 17時57分
1961年にアメリカ南部で爆撃機から水爆が落下した際に安全装置の1つがかろうじて機能したため史上最悪の核爆発を免れていたことが分かったとイギリスの主要なメディアが伝えました。
冷戦のさなかの1961年1月、当時のソビエトによる核攻撃の警戒に当たっていたアメリカ軍のB52戦略爆撃機が南部ノースカロライナ州で墜落し、その際、2個の水爆が落下しました。
2個はいずれも広島に落とされた原爆およそ260個分の破壊力がありましたが、当時発足したばかりのケネディ政権は安全装置が機能したため爆発せず深刻な事故ではなかったと説明していました。
これについてイギリスの新聞ガーディアンと公共放送BBCは20日、機密指定が解除され公開されたアメリカの公文書から実は史上最悪の核爆発をかろうじて免れていたことが分かったと伝えました。
それによりますと2個の水爆のうち1個で起爆装置が作動し、4つある安全装置も3つまでが解除されましたが、最後に残った最も単純な仕組みの安全装置が機能したため、爆発に至らずに済んだということです。
イギリスのメディアは落下した水爆が爆発していたら首都ワシントンやニューヨークなどにも影響が及ぶ史上最悪の核爆発になっていたとしてアメリカの核兵器の管理はずさんだったと指摘しています。
2個はいずれも広島に落とされた原爆およそ260個分の破壊力がありましたが、当時発足したばかりのケネディ政権は安全装置が機能したため爆発せず深刻な事故ではなかったと説明していました。
これについてイギリスの新聞ガーディアンと公共放送BBCは20日、機密指定が解除され公開されたアメリカの公文書から実は史上最悪の核爆発をかろうじて免れていたことが分かったと伝えました。
それによりますと2個の水爆のうち1個で起爆装置が作動し、4つある安全装置も3つまでが解除されましたが、最後に残った最も単純な仕組みの安全装置が機能したため、爆発に至らずに済んだということです。
イギリスのメディアは落下した水爆が爆発していたら首都ワシントンやニューヨークなどにも影響が及ぶ史上最悪の核爆発になっていたとしてアメリカの核兵器の管理はずさんだったと指摘しています。
=====================================================================
======================================================================
Radiation: How Bad is the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima? (What they
公開日: 2013/07/10
Cesium, iodine and tritium in NW Pacific waters -- a comparison of the Fukushima impact with global fallout
http://tinyurl.com/bnfwcnr
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net...
Impacts of the Fukushima nuclear power plant discharges on the ocean
(MULTIPLE studies found here)
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net...
http://tinyurl.com/k925vhs
THE 20 STUDIES IN LINK ABOVE INCLUDE:
1~ Inverse estimation of source parameters of oceanic radioactivity dispersion models associated with the Fukushima accident
2~ Surface pathway of radioactive plume of TEPCO Fukushima NPP1 released 134Cs and 137Cs
3~ Determination of plutonium isotopes in marine sediments off the Fukushima coast following the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
4~ Iodine-129 concentration in seawater near Fukushima before and after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
5~ Short-term dispersal of Fukushima-derived radionuclides off Japan: modeling efforts and model-data intercomparison
6~ Initial Spread of 137Cs over the shelf of Japan: a study using the high-resolution global-coastal nesting ocean model
7~ Direct observation of 134Cs and 137Cs in surface seawater in the western and central North Pacific after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident
8~ 90Sr and 89Sr in seawater off Japan as a consequence of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident
9~ Fukushima-derived radiocesium in western North Pacific sediment traps
10~ Natural and Fukushima-derived radioactivity in macroalgae and mussels along the Japanese shoreline
11~ Export of 134Cs and 137Cs in the Fukushima river systems at heavy rains by Typhoon Roke in September 2011
12~ Continuing 137Cs release to the sea from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant through 2012
13~ The impact of oceanic circulation and phase transfer on the dispersion of radionuclides released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant
14~ Does the Fukushima NPP disaster affect the caesium activity of North Atlantic Ocean fish?
15~ Spatiotemporal distributions of Fukushima-derived radionuclides in surface sediments in the waters off Miyagi, Fukushima, and Ibaraki Prefectures, Japan
16~ Distribution of the Fukushima-derived radionuclides in seawater in the Pacific off the coast of Miyagi, Fukushima, and Ibaraki Prefectures, Japan
17~ Cesium-134 and 137 activities in the central North Pacific Ocean after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident
18~ Horizontal distribution of Fukushima-derived radiocesium in zooplankton in the northwestern Pacific Ocean
19~ One-year, regional-scale simulation of 137Cs radioactivity in the ocean following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
20~ Cesium, iodine and tritium in NW Pacific waters -- a comparison of the Fukushima impact with global fallout
WSJ: Soaring radioactivity levels on coast of Fukushima plant — Nuclear material may have leeched from melted fuel cores and into environment:
http://tinyurl.com/n8vj52o
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2013: Fukushima Watch: Tritium Levels Soar on Coast at Fukushima Plant [...] More than two years after the devastating accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, operator [Tepco] is seeing levels soar of a radioactive element called tritium. The problem spot is on the coastal side of the plant's heavily damaged No. 2 reactor, one of the areas where Tepco regularly monitors groundwater to check for radioactive elements that may have leeched from the plant's partly melted fuel cores and into the environment. [...]
http://tinyurl.com/lrb26kp
Jiji Press, July 8, 2013: Tokyo Electric Power Co. says 2,300 becquerels per liter of tritium was found in seawater sampled off its crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station Wednesday, the highest level recorded since the March 2011 accident. [...] It is feared that groundwater containing high levels of tritium may be leaking into the sea from the plant's No. 2 reactor building.
http://tinyurl.com/knwwmzt
Officials report "troubling discovery" at Fukushima nuclear plant: Cesium levels rocket 9,000% over 3 days in groundwater — TEPCO "can't explain it"
http://tinyurl.com/lb2uxks
NHK World
http://tinyurl.com/lb2uxks
Asahi Shimbun:
http://tinyurl.com/khzxcuf
AFP: Toxic radioactive substances in groundwater at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plan have rocketed over the past three days,
http://tinyurl.com/kvp9naqt
Wall Street Journal: Cesium tends to bind with dirt, so it's less likely it would seep distances along with groundwater. [...]
http://tinyurl.com/kh5wqdv
Uncovering Plume-Gate: http://plumegate.wordpress.com/
hatrickpenryunbound: http://hatrickpenryunbound.com/
IMPORTANT:
Plume-Gate PROOF Cover-up of Fukushima via the NRC Documents Playlist (35 videos 26 hours)
http://tinyurl.com/luvc5dx
original upload here: (thank you HatrickPenry) Good Job!
http://youtu.be/P9SilFcYVg4
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REUPLOAD TO YOUR CHANNEL. NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION.
http://tinyurl.com/bnfwcnr
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net...
Impacts of the Fukushima nuclear power plant discharges on the ocean
(MULTIPLE studies found here)
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net...
http://tinyurl.com/k925vhs
THE 20 STUDIES IN LINK ABOVE INCLUDE:
1~ Inverse estimation of source parameters of oceanic radioactivity dispersion models associated with the Fukushima accident
2~ Surface pathway of radioactive plume of TEPCO Fukushima NPP1 released 134Cs and 137Cs
3~ Determination of plutonium isotopes in marine sediments off the Fukushima coast following the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
4~ Iodine-129 concentration in seawater near Fukushima before and after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
5~ Short-term dispersal of Fukushima-derived radionuclides off Japan: modeling efforts and model-data intercomparison
6~ Initial Spread of 137Cs over the shelf of Japan: a study using the high-resolution global-coastal nesting ocean model
7~ Direct observation of 134Cs and 137Cs in surface seawater in the western and central North Pacific after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident
8~ 90Sr and 89Sr in seawater off Japan as a consequence of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident
9~ Fukushima-derived radiocesium in western North Pacific sediment traps
10~ Natural and Fukushima-derived radioactivity in macroalgae and mussels along the Japanese shoreline
11~ Export of 134Cs and 137Cs in the Fukushima river systems at heavy rains by Typhoon Roke in September 2011
12~ Continuing 137Cs release to the sea from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant through 2012
13~ The impact of oceanic circulation and phase transfer on the dispersion of radionuclides released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant
14~ Does the Fukushima NPP disaster affect the caesium activity of North Atlantic Ocean fish?
15~ Spatiotemporal distributions of Fukushima-derived radionuclides in surface sediments in the waters off Miyagi, Fukushima, and Ibaraki Prefectures, Japan
16~ Distribution of the Fukushima-derived radionuclides in seawater in the Pacific off the coast of Miyagi, Fukushima, and Ibaraki Prefectures, Japan
17~ Cesium-134 and 137 activities in the central North Pacific Ocean after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident
18~ Horizontal distribution of Fukushima-derived radiocesium in zooplankton in the northwestern Pacific Ocean
19~ One-year, regional-scale simulation of 137Cs radioactivity in the ocean following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
20~ Cesium, iodine and tritium in NW Pacific waters -- a comparison of the Fukushima impact with global fallout
WSJ: Soaring radioactivity levels on coast of Fukushima plant — Nuclear material may have leeched from melted fuel cores and into environment:
http://tinyurl.com/n8vj52o
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2013: Fukushima Watch: Tritium Levels Soar on Coast at Fukushima Plant [...] More than two years after the devastating accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, operator [Tepco] is seeing levels soar of a radioactive element called tritium. The problem spot is on the coastal side of the plant's heavily damaged No. 2 reactor, one of the areas where Tepco regularly monitors groundwater to check for radioactive elements that may have leeched from the plant's partly melted fuel cores and into the environment. [...]
http://tinyurl.com/lrb26kp
Jiji Press, July 8, 2013: Tokyo Electric Power Co. says 2,300 becquerels per liter of tritium was found in seawater sampled off its crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station Wednesday, the highest level recorded since the March 2011 accident. [...] It is feared that groundwater containing high levels of tritium may be leaking into the sea from the plant's No. 2 reactor building.
http://tinyurl.com/knwwmzt
Officials report "troubling discovery" at Fukushima nuclear plant: Cesium levels rocket 9,000% over 3 days in groundwater — TEPCO "can't explain it"
http://tinyurl.com/lb2uxks
NHK World
http://tinyurl.com/lb2uxks
Asahi Shimbun:
http://tinyurl.com/khzxcuf
AFP: Toxic radioactive substances in groundwater at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plan have rocketed over the past three days,
http://tinyurl.com/kvp9naqt
Wall Street Journal: Cesium tends to bind with dirt, so it's less likely it would seep distances along with groundwater. [...]
http://tinyurl.com/kh5wqdv
Uncovering Plume-Gate: http://plumegate.wordpress.com/
hatrickpenryunbound: http://hatrickpenryunbound.com/
IMPORTANT:
Plume-Gate PROOF Cover-up of Fukushima via the NRC Documents Playlist (35 videos 26 hours)
http://tinyurl.com/luvc5dx
original upload here: (thank you HatrickPenry) Good Job!
http://youtu.be/P9SilFcYVg4
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REUPLOAD TO YOUR CHANNEL. NO NEED TO ASK PERMISSION.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿