Arnie Gundersen Interview: The Dangers of Fukushima Worse and Longer-lived Than We Think

[flamingdem]

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/exclusive-arnie-gundersen-interview-dangers-fukushima-are-worse-and-longer-lived-we-think/58689

"I have said it's worse than Chernobyl and I’ll stand by that. There was an enormous amount of radiation given out in the first two to three weeks of the event. And add the wind blowing in-land. It could very well have brought the nation of Japan to its knees. I mean, there is so much contamination that luckily wound up in the Pacific Ocean as compared to across the nation of Japan - it could have cut Japan in half. But now the winds have turned, so they are heading to the south toward Tokyo and now my concern and my advice to friends that if there is a severe aftershock and the Unit 4 building collapses, leave. We are well beyond where any science has ever gone at that point and nuclear fuel lying on the ground and getting hot is not a condition that anyone has ever analyzed."

So cautions Arnie Gundersen, widely-regarded to be the best nuclear analyst covering Japan's Fukushima disaster. The situation on the ground at the crippled reactors remains precarious and at a minimum it will be years before it can be hoped to be truly contained. In the near term, the reactors remain particularly vulnerable to sizable aftershocks, which still have decent probability of occuring. On top of this is a growing threat of 'hot particle' contamination risk to more populated areas as weather patterns shift with the typhoon season and groundwater seepage.

In Part 1 of this interview, Chris and Arnie recap the damage wrought to Fukushima's reactors by the tsunami, the steps TEPCO is taking to address it, and the biggest operational risks that remain at this time. In Part 2, they dive into the health risks still posed by the situation there and what individuals should do (including those on the US west coast) if it worsens.

Click the play button below to listen to Part 1 of Chris' interview with Arnie Gundersen (runtime 36m:31s):

[CJvR]

1. The best?

The the quality of the covering must be rather poor. Widely regarded as the best - by whom?

A runaway chain reaction in a reactor without containment that blew it's guts out and scattered some 10% of it's content (including fuel) all over half of Europa, and triggering a lingering radiocative fire and meltdown of the rest of the core, creating several no go zones that remains to this day vs - well what? Despite Fukushima releasing shitloads of radiation it is still only about 10% of Chernobyl, with another 10% traped in the contaminated water flooding the reactors. Now aftershocks are a problem, but there have been hundreds by now, some of them about as substantial as the Haiti quake and yet the sky still didn't fall.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Oh good grief.

Yes, a collapse of building 4 would suck. No doubt about that. But he seems to be going a little overboard.
In fact, there was a fire at a uranium depot in the former Soviet Republic, not Chelyabinsk.. the name escapes me at the moment...

but no, we are (sadly) not in uncharted territory at all.

I'll update when I remember the uranium depot fire. The list of atomic industrial accidents takes some time to dig through.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. The specifics of the sequence do not really matter.

The amount of radiation released, proximity to people, exposure, and the isotopes involved, do matter.

And no, we are not in uncharted territory. Ever hear of Kyshtym? Or the East Urals Radioactive Trace? People had skin sloughing off their bodies from it. Not seeing a lot of that at Fukushima, even though Kyshtym was a 6, to Fukushima's 7. Willing to bet you've never heard of it, or Chelyabinsk, or a dozen-odd other very, very bad disasters that have gone down already. Russia wouldn't even tell people at Kyshtym why they were being evacuated, as they suffered physically evident symptoms of radiation sickness.

Note I specifically stated that this is not a good thing. Fukushima IS bad. Charted/uncharted territory does not change whether Fukushima is 'ok' or not. I am quite skeptical of their timeline for A) halting releases of radiation into the environment, and B) getting the plant under control.

Reactor 1's drop in pressure is very concerning.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Nice try at misconstruing what I said.

Fail on the execution though.

"yes, and I've actually been to Russia and speak some Russian, too. So fail on being a condescending asshat."
I've been fairly patient with you so far. If you want to see condescension, by all means, review your posting history.

"Furthermore, am I to understand it that the pro-nukes goalposts are now at "skin has to be falling off bodies in chunks" for things to be considered bad?"
That is not what I said. In fact, I specifically just stated that Fukushima IS bad, without that attribute present.

"Or is there some attempt to mitigate the impression of seriousness in light of Russia's own radiological nightmares?"
Allow me to re-state what I already said: we are not in uncharted territory.

To elaborate, so your imagination doesn't run wild:

We have experienced fires and explosions of fuel in open-air, outside any sort of containment structures. (near population centers)
We have experienced full-fledged reactor explosions without the presence of so much as a damaged/leaking containment vessel. (near population centers)
We have experienced releases of particulate matter such as uranium, plutonium, and the worst shit imaginable into inhabited areas, with and without local populations being warned or evacuated, with and without honest, full disclosure from the relevant government.
We have experienced contained core meltdowns.
We have experienced un-contained core meltdowns.
We have lost hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive material at sea, including many entire operating reactors, hundreds of warheads, and some plutonium armed torpedoes.

And on and on.

Proximity of multiple reactors, and total fuel load is an issue, but all the major concepts are well within our experience. There will be some surprises, but few.

"I notice you also mention the whole pro-nuke "OMFG I can't believe it's butter, er, I can't believe it's INES Level 7!""
That is not what I said. Again, misconstrual fail. Fukushima is appropriately rated a 7. The incident I mentioned was rated a 6, and had immediate life threatening/ending effects on local populations.

"I'm sure all the citizens of Japan unite and bow in your direction for "specifically stated this is not a good thing"."
I do not post for the sake of the Japanese people. They can figure this problem out, as I am irrelevant.

"Still waiting with baited breath for an example of 4 reactors popping their cherries withing 1/2 km of each other in a densely populated western country happening before..."
This has what to do with the manner in which these reactors have failed? You think that makes this 'uncharted territory'? Please. Be serious.

"Glad you've reached "very concerning"... a lot of us have been at that point since around March 15th and have received a lot of misdirected grief as result. Your membership card is in the mail."
I disagree. The lions share of the excited hyperbole about Fukushima Dai-Ichi has yet to come to pass. Probably never will either.

[FBaggins]

9. Ever heard of shrub?

Furthermore, am I to understand it that the pro-nukes goalposts are now at "skin has to be falling off bodies in chunks" for things to be considered bad?

Nope. But you could start by understanding that "Nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl" does not mean that things aren't "bad" or even "extremely bad". It just means that things aren't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl.

[wtmusic]

4. "widely-regarded to be the best nuclear analyst..."

at what? Turning a dated, thin resume into hard cash?

You may have a point.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.