Radioactive leak into sea was 20,000 times above limit: TEPCO

[jpak]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/radioactive-leak-into-sea-was-20000-times-above-limit-tepco/articleshow/8056438.cms

Highly radioactive water that leaked into the Pacific Ocean from the crisis-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in early April contained an estimated 5,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances, 20,000 times the annual allowable limit for the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co has said, adding that the leak amounted to 520 tons.

It is the first time that the plant operator has issued data on the level of radioactive materials contained in the leak, which the utility estimated to have lasted for six days through April 6. But the actual scale of the leak may have been larger because a greater amount of contamination was detected in the sea from late March.

The country's worst nuclear crisis, triggered by the massive March 11 earthquake and tsunami, continued to affect residents near the plant in Fukushima Prefecture, with the government deciding the same day to legally enforce a no-entry zone within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant.

But the government said it would basically allow residents living in the 3 to 20 km-radius zone to return home for up to around two hours, given that many are hoping to collect belongings and inspect their homes after being forced to evacuate.

<more>

[caraher]

1. They might as well just say "gobs of radioactive material"

520 tons? Presumably almost entirely the mass of the water, which is fundamentally irrelevant since it's only the radioactive component that matters.

5,000 TBq? Of which nuclides?

Yeah, we know they've dumped far more radioactive stuff than any sane regulation would allow them to under normal circumstances. But these numbers don't give any sensible information about real threats. If that's mainly long-lived stuff like Cs-137 that's Very Bad; if it includes a lot of short-lived isotopes it's not nearly as bad (you still don't want to go swimming in it, of course!).

[Sirveri]

3. 135,135 Curies. For those who prefer Ci to Bq like me.

If they discharge that in 520 tons of water that's about 1 curie per gallon, which is kinda a lot. Then again that will also spread out over the course of 12 nautical miles of ocean water, which means it will dilute. Scan the beach with a counter, scoop up the hot spots and toss them in the trash. Ignore the rest it won't be much above background.

[kristopher]

12. I'd love to see you have that attitude if it was your food supply that was at risk.

[intheflow]

2. Multiply by 10, or maybe 110,

and you'll probably get a number closer to the truth. This is a business voluntarily disclosing information. Business tends to underplay news that reflects poorly on them.

[Sirveri]

4. Except that the numbers are independently verifiable.

So if they lie about it they have a good shot of getting caught and then horribly fined and they also get possible jail time.

[SpoonFed]

6. Yes, and I think...

that is why TEPCO and others have finally started releasing information about the disaster instead of keeping it in their pants. For the simple reason they cannot hide it from the international community permanently and for very long, they have to provide some data, even if it's underestimated.

[Someguyinjapan]

This is Japan...

If they get caught lying, what will happen is that TEPCO will hold a news conference where it's
President, resplendent in funeral black will formally apologise, bow deeply and resign to "take responsibility" and then retire into a well-paid, comfortable existence.

Read up on Minimata Bay and then tell me how confident you are that TEPCO's leadership will ever even be charged, let alone prosecuted.

[Someguyinjapan]

8. This is Japan...

If they get caught lying, what will happen is that TEPCO will hold a news conference where it's
President, resplendent in funeral black will formally apologise, bow deeply and resign to "take responsibility" and then retire into a well-paid, comfortable existence.

Read up on Minimata Bay and then tell me how confident you are that TEPCO's leadership will ever even be charged, let alone prosecuted.

[jpak]

10. By whom? When?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

13. Really? What magical mechanism is in place to do this "independent" sampling?

We can get to the mythical enforcement mechanism after that.

[Sirveri]

14. Any group on earth has the capacity to go out and take samples of seawater in the area.

You are free to get a boat and go out and sample it yourself. Just like there is a publicly available set of radiation monitors all over the US.

[kristopher]

15. In other words a system for independent verification and responsibility doesn't exist.

As you implied and you were just slinging bullpucky designed to mislead people.

[Sirveri]

16. There also isn't any evidence that they lied about anything either.

So who's misleading who here?

[kristopher]

17. Given the history of the fission reactor industry it is reasonable to doubt your/their veracity

Do you place similar faith in the petroleum industry to be forthcoming with damaging information?

Why is the fission industry any different?

[Sirveri]

18. Because people watch the nuclear industry like a hawk maybe?

Name another industry that has as much civilian public oversight? Screw the NRC, there are entire groups specifically designed to find damaging information about any nuclear site, and release that information. They already volunteered that they're thousands of times over limit, so why if they were going to lie, would they not minimize the numbers so that they were under limit?

[kristopher]

19. I see far more of the nuclear sales force than its critics.

What is your connection to the nuclear industry?

[Sirveri]

20. I don't have one.

I was a naval nuclear mechanical operator however. However I'm not in the industry and am back at school looking to get my degree. I haven't decided if I want to attempt to get back into the nuclear power game, or to pursue a different option.

[kristopher]

21. That is a direct vested interest in the nuclear industry

You may not be receiving a paycheck at the moment but your investment in training past and present clearly makes you part of the industry.

[Sirveri]

22. Lets say you're right, how does that make anything I said wrong?

Also I'm not currently training for a career in the nuclear field. I do however know what I'm talking about when it comes to nuclear physics and health concerns, unlike the majority of the doomers I see posting on DU lately.

But apparently since I happen to make up my own mind about the data I receive, I'm somehow a paid nuclear shill planted as some sort of conspiracy theory to prop up the nuclear industry. Despite that I have never been paid by the nuclear industry, nor have I decided to pursue a future with that industry.

Keep on trying to kill that messenger.

[kristopher]

23. Nuclear industry data has serious problems with credibility.

For example, the cost data used to justify the current set of policies was refuted by the CBO before the policy was written. That didn't stop the industry (including its presence in the government) from acting as if the CBO report didn't exist.

MIT was asked to write a report on the Future of Nuclear power as a competitive market solution for our energy needs. MIT grossly underestimated costs and failed to do the most basic economic analysis of nuclear within the energy markets. The study was clearly a case of "special interest science" that would have made the Koch brothers cheer.

The basic justification for nuclear is found in it's complete misrepresentation of the state and capabilities of existing renewable energy sources to meet our needs. Renewables are less expensive, more sustainable, deploy faster, have easier access to market capital, are more flexible, are cleaner and are not saddled with the waste, safety and proliferation problems that go along with fission. And if that isn't enough, renewables actually respond to incentives by delivering steady cost decreases that are now making them competitive with coal.

Since all of that is absolutely true, where is the justification for diverting precious resources to build nuclear?

[Sirveri]

24. If everything they do is for higher profit, and that is true, then why don't they do it?

I just saw three solar thermal plants scheduled to go up in SoCal shut down for a variety of reasons. I would have liked to see them go up, but for a variety of reasons they don't, maybe they're not as cost competitive as I'd like. I dunno.

[kristopher]

25. That doesn't address the point I made - twice now you've avoided it.

Why do we need nuclear power?

[Sirveri]

26. I never said we needed it.

Perhaps you should have actually made your point more clearly.

My personal favorite is thermal solar with a liquid salt thermal battery. Followed by developments in microwave solar electric transmission and He3 fusion.

Of course for whatever reason the bigwigs prefer coal and nuclear. If I have to pick I would prefer nuclear over coal. Perhaps they don't find your point of view as compelling on the cost benefit ratio. Perhaps they're just stupid and/or lazy? We've had Presidents telling us for the past 40 years that we need to be energy independent too.

[kristopher]

27. Do you understand the difference between a centralized grid and a distributed grid?

There are strong systemic economic disadvantages for renewables in a grid built around centralized generation. Since the natural evolution of technology led us to our present configuration it isn't surprising that the generating mix is what it is.

However, the present system isn't sustainable, and change involves evaluating the entire array of options that are present. When such an analysis is performed diligently, without fail it leads to the conclusions I stated earlier.

[SpoonFed]

5. I'm tend to agree with you...

If we take this 5petaBecquerel release they've admitted to and assume they are fudging it by and order or magnitude or two (let's say two)... then this would suggest 500 PBq of materials in this release alone... that would be approximately 1/3 or 1/4 of Chornobyl's total release.

Add to that whatever blew up, caught fire and was released in steam for 6 weeks and you might have a reasonable if not scientific picture that this is as bad if not worse than Chornobyl.

At the very least, we can stop pretending that Chornobyl's nightmarish release is somehow large order of magnitude greater than this so far, no?

This is a silly mathematical game to play but hey, if the kookie nookies can do it, why can't I?

[flamingdem]

7. With TEPCO one is truly "Lost in Translation" nt

[CJvR]

9. Cute little Chernobyl

To get Fukushima anywhere near Chernobyl you have to use the extreme low end of the Chernobyl release figures. 100MCi rather than the 1000-3000 MCi which seems to be the generally accepted figures or the 8000 MCi some claim (representing about 90% of the core). Either Chernobyl is the worst overreaction in nuclear history or Fukushima have a bit to go before reaching those levels.

[jpak]

11. I take this to be direct release into coastal waters - it may not include atmospheric deposition

from the airborne plume - which wafted over coastal Japanese waters for weeks.

[SpoonFed]

28. wow, within 24 hours of this post,

they've just come out saying that they were wrong by x150 on the emissions (that they're admitting to), so I think I'd deserve a gold star, if it wasn't so horrible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x290311