I would like to see an explanation of why water flowing thru/from Fukushima is bad

[phantom power]

Or, more accurately, how bad it is, and why. I mean an explanation involving measurements, and numbers. For example, rough order of causation:

How much radioactive material is being picked up by this water? What kinds of radioactive material?

When it reaches the sea, how fast does it diffuse? What concentrations are being measured in the region, at various distances from the point of entry?

How much of this material is being picked up by organisms, particularly fish being harvested?

What concentrations of radioactive substances are being measured in fish caught in the region?

What is the expected human health impact of ingesting said radioactive substances, in the measured concentrations?

Even some measurements on the last two would be really useful. The world isn't at the mercy of Tepco to obtain this data. I assume somebody, somewhere is actually collecting data on seafood.

Because otherwise, the entire world is just making shit up. My wife would call it "grab-ass chemistry"

[niyad]

1. and I am sure that if you are really interested, you can find the answers to all those questions.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Google is never the friend to an ideologue...

[phantom power]

5. Google is actually why I ended up writing this post.

Google showed me a big pantload of articles that all looked essentially like this:

"ground water" + "fukushima" ==> ???? ==> "unprecedented nuclear apocalypse"

[Xipe Totec]

15. Whereas your post...

[niyad]

16. wow--NOT ONE actual, scientific article giving the information you specifically requested? that is

truly amazing, considering how much information is out there, including the articles referenced downthread.

[Xipe Totec]

2. In other words if they didn't measure it, it didn't happen? How convenient.

All it takes to fix the problem, in your mind, is to turn a blind eye.

Well, here's an eye opener:

Japan says Fukushima leak worse than thought, government joins clean-up

TOKYO (Reuters) - Highly radioactive water from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is pouring out at a rate of 300 tonnes a day, officials said on Wednesday, as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered the government to step in and help in the clean-up.

The revelation amounted to an acknowledgement that plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) has yet to come to grips with the scale of the catastrophe, 2 1/2 years after the plant was hit by a huge earthquake and tsunami. Tepco only recently admitted water had leaked at all.

(snip)

As early as January this year, Tepco found fish contaminated with high levels of radiation inside a port at the plant. Local fishermen and independent researchers had already suspected a leak of radioactive water, but Tepco denied the claims.

Tetsu Nozaki, the chairman of the Fukushima fisheries federation said he had only heard of the latest estimates of the magnitude of the seepage from media reports.

Environmental group Greenpeace said Tepco had "anxiously hid the leaks" and urged Japan to seek international expertise


http://news.yahoo.com/japan-government-joining-efforts-contain-fukushima-toxic-water-033418884.html

Now that they finally admit to the leaks, the argument switches to: "Well, it is leaking, but we don't know how radioactive the leaks are"

That's called "argument in the alternative"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

[phantom power]

8. If you don't measure it, you don't know what's happening.

In the absence of measurements, it's facile to let one's imagination run wild. People who write good horror know this. The unknown and hinted-at is always way way scarier than making the mistake of actually showing the monster.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Willful Ignorance. nt

[NickB79]

20. Are you fucking kidding?

A long-time DU'er ASKS FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION regarding the Fukushima disaster, and you accuse him of willful ignorance? You do know what "willful ignorance" means, right?

My god

[kristopher]

13. Your approach sounds an awful lot like the way BP defends the Gulf Spill

And the consequent use of dispersants.

Thanks to bananas for posting this in Good Reads.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101671784

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130821124556.htm

Viewing Fukushima in the Cold Light of Chernobyl

Aug. 21, 2013 — The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster spread significant radioactive contamination over more than 3500 square miles of the Japanese mainland in the spring of 2011. Now several recently published studies of Chernobyl, directed by Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina and Anders Møller of the Université Paris-Sud, are bringing a new focus on just how extensive the long-term effects on Japanese wildlife might be.

<snip>

Mousseau and Møller have with their collaborators just published three studies detailing the effects of ionizing radiation on pine trees and birds in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. "When you look for these effects, you find them," said Mousseau, a biologist in USC's College of Arts and Sciences.

In the journal Mutation Research, they showed that birds in Chernobyl had high frequencies of albino feathering and tumors. In PlosOne, they demonstrated that birds there had significant rates of cataracts, which likely impacted their fitness in the wild. And in the journal Trees, they showed that tree growth was suppressed by radiation near Chernobyl, particularly in smaller trees, even decades after the original accident.

Given previous work by scientists in former Soviet bloc nations, the results were not unexpected to Mousseau and Møller. "There's extensive literature from Eastern Europe about the effects of the release of radionuclides in Chernobyl," Mousseau said. "Unfortunately, very little of it was translated into English, and many of the papers -- which were printed on paper, not centrally stored, and never digitized -- became very hard to find because many of the publishers went belly up in the 1990s with the economic recession that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union."

A large body of this work finally came to the attention of Western scientists in 2009 with the publication of "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" as a monograph in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

<snip>

[phantom power]

27. the thing is, I'm not asking anybody to take Tepco's (or BP's) word for anything.

This crap has been released out into the environment. We aren't at the mercy of Tepco, or BP, or anybody else, to measure what's happening.

I object that Bad Science Reporters(tm) feel free to say "radioactive stuff is being released into the environment" without (a) providing numbers and/or (b) providing numbers, but without any context.

Take this as an example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3530126

So, they're measuring 64 Bq/L, which is unambiguously well above normal. And points for providing actual measurements! But it's less than 10% of the concentration allowed by the EPA for tap water.

In my opinion that kind of context is a big deal. Because if you take these measurements, and put them in context, maybe you don't have to shut down whole fisheries and put people out of work because of Fukushima. And maybe you don't have to immediately shut down 50 Gigawatts of nuke generators, burning extra fossil fuels and putting a big monkey-wrench into an economy that's already handicapped from the tsunami damage.

As we all know, I'm pro nuke. But consider this scenario: what if they kept their reactors running, and then embarked on a program to build some wind and solar, shut down a nuke plant. Build some more, shut down another, etc... What would have been wrong with that?

I don't think what Japan and Germany did was driven by data or practicality. It was driven by panic. It didn't have to be that way. It was a choice.

[kristopher]

29. Just who the hell do you think is OBSTRUCTING comprehensive and effective monitoring...

...of contamination and discharges?

GreenPeace?

Or the FUCKING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY????

It has been a solid and unwavering method of operations since day one. It epitomizes one of the central problems that by its nature THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF CREATES.

[FBaggins]

32. Hillarious

Here's a recent one that's relevant to the current conversation:

Must have escaped the NIOT (nuclear industry obstruction team).

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20130822_01.pdf

[kristopher]

33. The OP is complaining about a lack of data

Are you saying that the study you are citing is addressing the lack of data the OP is complaining about?

We've seen this type of behavior from every polluting industry that ever came down the pike - the oil industry, the coal industry, the tobacco industry, the fracking industry - ALL of them renowned for obstructing the study of things they do wrong.

Why on earth would any rational human with an IQ above 80 think that the nuclear is any different?

Especially when, by its nature, it is more secretive, more centrally controlled and more apt to be plagued with the ills of bureaucracy than any other industry.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130821124556.htm

Viewing Fukushima in the Cold Light of Chernobyl

Aug. 21, 2013 — The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster spread significant radioactive contamination over more than 3500 square miles of the Japanese mainland in the spring of 2011. Now several recently published studies of Chernobyl, directed by Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina and Anders Møller of the Université Paris-Sud, are bringing a new focus on just how extensive the long-term effects on Japanese wildlife might be.

<snip>

Mousseau and Møller have with their collaborators just published three studies detailing the effects of ionizing radiation on pine trees and birds in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. "When you look for these effects, you find them," said Mousseau, a biologist in USC's College of Arts and Sciences.

In the journal Mutation Research, they showed that birds in Chernobyl had high frequencies of albino feathering and tumors. In PlosOne, they demonstrated that birds there had significant rates of cataracts, which likely impacted their fitness in the wild. And in the journal Trees, they showed that tree growth was suppressed by radiation near Chernobyl, particularly in smaller trees, even decades after the original accident.

Given previous work by scientists in former Soviet bloc nations, the results were not unexpected to Mousseau and Møller. "There's extensive literature from Eastern Europe about the effects of the release of radionuclides in Chernobyl," Mousseau said. "Unfortunately, very little of it was translated into English, and many of the papers -- which were printed on paper, not centrally stored, and never digitized -- became very hard to find because many of the publishers went belly up in the 1990s with the economic recession that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union."

A large body of this work finally came to the attention of Western scientists in 2009 with the publication of "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" as a monograph in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

<snip>

[FBaggins]

35. So?

Complaining that you aren't seeing something is not the same thing as that thing not existing.

METI hosted ongoing radiation readings from hundreds/thousands of sources over many months (including scores of ongoing readings from the ocean right around the plant out to many miles offshore). I used to post them regularly in reply to these nonsensical claims that the data was being "hidden".

So you can skip over the "are they hiding the data?" question and press right on to WHY they're hiding it if you like... but it doesn't change reality. Everything you've seen reported has been the result of ongoing reporting that they've made. It isn't as if Greenpeace crept into the plant and took their own readings and "outed" the lying industry.

Yep... every profit-seeking industry (renewables included) tends to look out for their own interests, but just because they often "capture" their regulators, doesn't mean that they aren't heavily regulated and the government has a public opinion demand that they need to meet. TEPCO doesn't have the option of hiding the readings. We can agree that they might WANT to... but that's irrelevant.

The answers to many of the OP's questions are in that document.

In the journal Mutation Research, they showed that birds in Chernobyl

Yep. As mentioned previously... that's to be expected. Insects, plants, and oviparous animals can be exposed to environmental radiation during their most vulnerable developmental period and are thus much more likely to be impacted by radiation acidents and/or intentional releases.

Luckily... we humans develop inside an effective radiation shield and internal doses from Fukushima have been far smaller than the natural internal radiation that we all developed around. So yeah... I feel for the poor moths... but it's not going to influence my thoughts on infrastructure planning any more than a few dead birds would cause me to think that wind power should be restricted or that we should restrain the solar expansion in the most ideal locations because there are turtles there.

[CreekDog]

34. why haven't people simply walked up to the facility and started sampling?

can't anyone just walk right up and start samplilng? surely NOTHING is stopping them, is it?

[bananas]

14. Tepco lied for months about this to get right-wingers elected

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-25/abe-s-nuclear-imperative-starts-at-fukushima.html

<snip>

After denying for months that radioactive groundwater was leaking into the ocean, for instance, it switched gears and fessed up the day after Abe’s pro-nuclear Liberal Democratic Party cemented its legislative majority in upper house elections.

<snip>

[NickB79]

21. So, what's the alternative? Don't measure it at all?

Honestly, what do you suggest we do? Not do any studies at all? Do studies, but don't let the public see them?

[Xipe Totec]

24. Are you being deliberately dense?

Where do you get the idea that I'm advocating no studies? I am not advocating; I am accusing Tepco of failing in its duty to conduct such studies; of deliberately stalling such studies so that no evidence is collected so that people such as the OP can simply say: Well, there's no evidence that harm has been done, so no harm has been done.

[pscot]

4. Have you seen this?

Five things you should know about Fukushima

More at the link

http://www.livescience.com/39067-fukushima-radiation-5-things-to-know.html

Immediately after the June 2011 meltdown, scientists measured that 5,000 to 15,000 terabecquerels of radioactive material was reaching the ocean. The biggest threat at that time was from the radionuclide cesium. But for leaks that enter the ground, the radionuclides strontium and tritium pose more of a threat, because cesium is absorbed by the soil while the other two are not.

The Tokyo Electric Power Plant (TEPCO) estimated that since the March 2011 disaster, between 20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium have leaked into the ocean, the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun reported.

The damaged plant is still leaking about 300 tons of water containing these radionuclides into the ocean every day, Japanese government officials say. An additional 300 tons have leaked into the ground from the latest storage tank leak.

[phantom power]

7. There are 1.3x10^22 Becquerels of tritium in the ocean. 13 billion trillion.

So, 40 trillion bequerels of tritium sounds like a big scary lot of bequerels, but it's like adding 40 to 13 billion. Or:

13,000,000,000 compared to 13,000,000,040.

Even if you restricted that to the volume of ocean nearby Japan, it's miniscule.

Tritium is harmless to organisms outside the body. Inside the body it's not totally harmless, however each of us has about 1.7 Bq/Kg in our bodies. For me, that'd be around 140 Bq.

The global average for earth is 10Bq/liter. The actual concentration varies considerably by location and depth, or freshwater vs sea water vs water vapor in the atmosphere. Concentrations tend to be higher in surface water and the atmosphere.

[phantom power]

9. The EPA limit on tritium in drinking water is 740 Bq/L.

So if my bodily concentration of tritium rose to, say, 17 Bq/Kg, I could write an article on how I experienced a "huge 10x spike in tritium," even though I was in fact still well under EPA limits.

The EPA limit of 740 Bq/L was set in the 70s, and has been kept although the measurements for what a human can safely ingest have been refined since then to about 3x that concentration.

[GliderGuider]

25. 40 trilliion Bq of tritium diluted in 10 cubic kilometers of sea water gives an increase of 4 Bq/L.

And I daresay the dilution volume is a lot greater than 10 cubic kilometers, so the real increase is far less than that.

I'm putting my panic and outrage back to bed until there's a sufficient reason to get them aroused. IMO tritium in seawater doesn't look like it. Now, an explosion in the cooling pond of Reactor #4 might just qualify...

[oldhippie]

6. Silly person .....

Nobody cares about that stuff.
It's all about the OUTRAGE and FEAR! OMG!

[Downwinder]

11. Nothing to worry about. it won't bother you for thirty years.

If it is a problem then, you can get more radiation to treat it.

[mbperrin]

10. Well, yes, corporations do make shit up and have been for a long time.

For instance, let's use the law of averages to solve poverty. Let's get the 100,000 poorest people in Michigan to sit in the stands of the stadium at the University of Michigan. Perhaps their average income per capita is $14,000, a good bit under the federal standard of $18,500.

Now let's have Bill Gates take a seat there. His $60 billion will raise the average income by $600,000, putting them all into the wealthy class!

Except of course, in reality, what you have is one very rich guy sitting in a stadium with hundred thousand poor people.



And so, when I think of the DDT spraying that was done in our county for decades growing up with the mist being chased by neighborhood kids, and when I think of us being downwind from White Sands, and I see that we have one of the highest rates of thyroid cancer, brain lesions, glaucoma, and melanoma in the entire US, well, I really don't care that we don't have an exact measure on that - I'm glad we quit nuclear testing aboveground and quit spraying DDT on little kids.


Similarly, I never thought it was a good idea to make ethanol - burning your food in a car seems stupid on the face of it.


And when oil companies tell me don't worry about fracking chemicals, and when people put melamine in our food, I'm against all that.


But what do I know? I didn't let my kids eat rat poison to establish some baseline for death, either. If there's shit on the floor, clean it up.

The good part is that if there really is an extinction event for humans, the bastards that caused it will die, too, and I will laugh and make fun of their suffering until the end. Because the one real fact we need - everything is connected, and sooner or later, effects will set in.

[GliderGuider]

17. I've been wondering the same thing, but never had the balls to ask the question in this place.

Thanks for going first.

[joshcryer]

19. Sad a simple question like that elicits such responses.

There was a day, a very long time ago, when DU was more civilized.

[GliderGuider]

23. I never thought that asking for scientific data would be such a big deal

on a reality-based board.

[phantom power]

28. I aint afraid to go back to prison

[quadrature]

18. is seawater being pumped thru the reactors?

perhaps someone in the know could write a
few words about how things are kept cool

[NickB79]

22. I did find this lately regarding tuna radioactivity

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/08/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-caught-off-california-coast/

Radioactive cesium doesn’t sink to the sea floor, so fish swim through it and ingest it through their gills or by eating organisms that have already ingested it. It is a compound that does occur naturally in nature, however, the levels of cesium found in the tuna in 2012 had levels 3 percent higher than is usual. Measurements for this year haven’t been made available, or at least none that I have been able to find.

The article at the Wall Street Journal the author relies upon is behind a pay wall, though, so I couldn't access the original material.

[GliderGuider]

26. 3% higher? We're doomed, I tells ya!

Oh wait, we are doomed. But not from eating glow-in-the-dark sashimi.

[Nihil]

30. Don't forget this one ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112752698

The fact that it's got a really long half-life probably means that
it's so safe that no-one around here needs to bother about it though.

[GliderGuider]

31. We'll eat them anyway - there just aren't that many ocean fish left... nt

[CreekDog]

36. why should tuna on the west coast have higher concentrations at all?

[FBaggins]

37. Obviously... it shouldn't.

But the just-as-relevant question is why we should care. The natural variability in the radiation of those fish was many times larger than the amount of additional radiation from Fukushima. IOW... if you could magically "see" the Fukushima radiation and select only tuna with zero Fukushima contamination... you would still stand about a 50/50 chance of getting a fish with a higher dose rate than the one you rejected (and that ignores mercury and other issues)

And none of those doses (existing or existing plus Fukushima) were anything close to levels that could present a health risk.

[GliderGuider]

38. From what I've read so far, I agree.

There's a lot of hysteria about "radioactive fish" but precious little hard info. Reminds me of the problems we've had getting people to understand that coal slag/fly ash is radioactive to a much more serious level.

Humans have a problem with risk assessment, especially in a technological setting. Our brains evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to deal adequately with Paleolithic risks. That puts them way behind the curve today. So we get a bipolar distribution with lots of minimizers on one end and lots of hyper-vigilant hysterics on the other - and precious few in the middle. Of course it's human nature to redefine that situation as "The folks at my end of the spectrum are the rational ones, but those other people are all defective in some way."

[Nihil]

39. We're seeing that here too (unfortunately)

> So we get a bipolar distribution with lots of minimizers on one end and lots
> of hyper-vigilant hysterics on the other - and precious few in the middle.
> Of course it's human nature to redefine that situation as "The folks at my end
> of the spectrum are the rational ones, but those other people are all defective
> in some way."