Radioactve Iodine linked to Japan found in Glasgow

[Lollybrolly]

Sky news reporting now!

I've been reading some interesting stats, from various sources around the world, about how the Lukemia rates are higher among children who live in towns next to a nuclear power plant.
However, companies and "independant" researchers say there is no evidence to show that it is connected to the nuclear plant

The fact is that windfarms have been put up in areas of great rural beauty, where nobody would site a coal fired power station. I cannot understand why this is considered sensible. The amounts of power generated are small and erratic. The people who benefit are the landowners who make £££>

yes windfarms are shit as well.

Turn the vending machines off I say.

"I've heard it may be a few years before they can entomb the place in concrete and know things are finalised?"

They've now decided to scrap the plants but, as far as I know, haven't decided on exactly what they're going to do.

"What about dangers from the spent fuel rod pools? I thought that further radioactivity could 'leak' from the plant now and in the future? In short I've read we're not out of the woods yet."

That is a "danger" at any plant and is historically not much of a risk.

"What about other earthquakes etc in Japan at other sites? If there are unforeseen events at other nuclear plants do we have the know how to remedy the problem? It seemed that no one knew how to deal with the events at the Japanese plant, helicopters picking up buckets of water spring to mind."

Those plants had a lot go wrong with them.

They got hit by a massive earth quake, the area got hit by a Tsunami, the power failed, then the backup power failed and then the failures kept on for a period that the design couldn't quite cope with.

And that's a pretty unlikely set of events, and more modern plants are far better equipped to deal with it if it were to happen again. The Japanese are also now ordering that plans be put in place that will explicitly specify what will happen if those incredibly unlikely chain of events were to happen again.

"Oh, there most definitely is a health risk and even TEPCO, the company itself, has announced that babies should on no account drink the water in Tokyo"

No there's not.

You have to drink the water for a year to exceed the limit.

The warnings are a precaution and also the Government wanting to be seen to be doing something. They're in a no win situation over this.

There's more detail here:
www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/tokyo_tapwater_fukushima

Yup. Sounds like a good plan.

ANd if you're in the UK, turn off your tumble driers and stick your washing on the line to use wind power in one way that does makes perfect sense.

BadgerPaws, it's really obvious by your answers that you've got some sort of stake in this, that you're not just some random mum with an opinion

I can't believe that nuclear power plants don't have contingency plans for when things go wrong. The attempts to sort out Fukushima have been completely hapless - as someone else said, the sight of helicopters with tiny buckets of sea water has been laughable. Even now, no-one seems to have a clue what to do about continuing disasters at that plant. And no-one knows, still, what to do with the radioactive leaks from Chernobyl. Does no-one bother to plan ahead in that industry?

you'll be telling me next that despite the greater amount of lukemia cases in children living in towns next to power plants, there's "no evidence" to show there's a link

"BadgerPaws, it's really obvious by your answers that you've got some sort of stake in this, that you're not just some random mum with an opinion"

Actually no, not at all.

And that a more reasoned consideration of the problems has to be dismissed as some sort of self interest rather than actually properly responded to.

I do have a personal interest in how science is portrayed in the media and also of how politicians use the psychology of fear in order to achieve their own goals. And this topic ticks both of those boxes.

no, they don't plan ahead grafenstol they just pocket the backhanders and it's tally ho

"I can't believe that nuclear power plants don't have contingency plans for when things go wrong."

They do.

But they probably didn't plan for this exact chain of events. The power should have stayed on. If it didn't the back up generators should have functioned. If they didn't the problems should have been resolved with the self cooling time of the reactors.

A lot failed there.

And in newer designs those failures would probably not have caused the problems that they did as they are built to even higher standards. So even before the problems with the older designs had been illustrated the industry had considered them and improved upon what they could deal with.

BadgerPaws,
Honestly, I have been scouring the scientist's words for evidence that this isn't as bad as it looks.

I live in japan. I've bought a home here. I do. not. want. to. leave. So I have a vested interest in believing that things aren't bad. I've been searching for evidence saying as much.

But when I read through the lines of what the companies/governments/ scientists are actually saying, I only find fob offs.

Like the scientist that came on here and told me his scientist friends in Tokyo were more bothered about death from future earthquakes than from radiation. Well, yes, but death by earthquake does not cancel out radiation concerns

The way the fob offs are phrased are very clever indeed.

Babies in Tokyo cannot drink water. The sea must be abso-fuckin-lutely polluted with all the sea water they've been washing back into the sea from the plant.

"no, they don't plan ahead grafenstol they just pocket the backhanders and it's tally ho"

And once again if that's the sort of thing that has to be thrown around to discredit the nuclear industry, well that says a lot for how good the counter arguments really are.

If at first you don't succeed just throw some mud around and hope some of it sticks seems to be the tactic.

In every other industry and area of human activity, you have a contingency plan for the worst case scenario. You think the unthinkable, and you plan for it, so that the least possible harm is caused to humans.

No that's not the "tactic" at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear power is not a big business? Making lots of money for an elite few?
That local councils in Japan don't get backhanders for accepting a nuclear plant in their area, when we have evidence to show that this is exactly what happens?

These are facts. The Japanese are angry about it, that's why they're marching in Tokyo (and let me tell you,the Japanese NEVER run street protests)

"Honestly, I have been scouring the scientist's words for evidence that this isn't as bad as it looks."

Well start here:
www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/

Lots of links and numbers rather than just scare stories being lobbed about.

"Babies in Tokyo cannot drink water."

As already said it would take drinking a years worth of water at the current levels of radioactive iodine for the limits to be broken.

And the iodine hasn't been produced since the reactors were turned off.

And what was produced has a half life of 8 days.

So we've either seen the peak or are very close to it.

The levels cannot continue at that high level.

So having the water at a dangerous level for a year in an impossibility.

The health warning is a precaution from a Government that wants to be seen to be doing something, or if you're less cynical just a standard operating procedure kicking off.

Basically the facts are not juicy enough for the press so they're cleverly making stuff up to fill headlines they want.

Sadly, whilst this is happening, noone is reporting on all the Japanese who are now homeless and lost everything during the disaster.

"No that's not the 'tactic' at all."

So when you said "they don't plan ahead grafenstol they just pocket the backhanders and it's tally ho" you didn't actually mean it?

The nuclear industry does plan ahead (possibly not enough) and to claim that they don't do it at all is clearly fiction and actually hurts the cause of those who do have genuine and serious concerns about the industry.

"Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear power is not a big business?"

No, and I'm not saying it's a squeaky clean business either.

However it the nuclear industry was as shoddy and uninterested in forward planning as some people make out we'd have Chernobyls all over the planet. We don't.

Yes it could do better but the way to make that happen is to give clear and rational arguments and not to help the industry by making the opponents look like a bunch of hyperbole flinging loons.

Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear power development doesn't make a lot of money for investors, stakeholders, city councils and hangers on?

That the money involved in this industry is the carrot that cancels out everything else, especially environmental and health concerns?

Are you going to tell me that despite there being an increased amount of kids with leukemia in cities next to a power plant there is "no connection" to the plants?

You've misunderstood how the Japanese gove operates. It would never mention health risks unless there actually were health risks/ IT's been minimizing the risks all the way

Tokyo is miles away from Fukushima BTW

Understand what you say & see the sense. Surely though very unlikely events are possible and other 'unprecedented events' could occur at other plants, sabotage, attack, missile strike, asteroid strike etc? These might cause a not anticipated chain of events? Do they consider all scenarios when they built existing plants? When the consequences are so grave all these events, however unlikely, surely need to be considered.

Surely a tsunami in an earthquake zone shouldn't have caused such catastrophe. Back up systems that might fail in the situation etc, well you'd imagine that someone might have thought of that? You say plants today could cope with this unlikely scenario. How many 'old' plants are still in operation?

If what I've read is correct the current issues in Japan are a very much an ongoing 'risk' and there could also be meltdowns that whilst they won't be 'doomsday' scenarios will cause further radiation leaks etc. So the current situation with 'spent fuel' pools and dangers posed are far greater than at other plants you mention.

Locally it is clear that this is a disaster. For the thousands of people ho have been displaced with no hope of returning in the foreseeable future. Also for fisherman up and down coasts local to the area - the industry will be devastated, with radioactive water (containing not just iodine but other particles) still escaping. Ridiculous Badgerspaws to suppose that the plutonium particles might have been around the plant for years. Because that would suggest that TEPCO haven't been monitoring as they should.

However, we still don't need to worry about radioactive iodine here. Levels are very very low. In a way its pretty cool how sensitive these detectors are and it (from a personal point of view) would be pretty interesting to use this data to further our understanding of atmospheric modelling.

As for those farmers still affected. :( I can't imagine how pointless it must seem for them.

Wrong again Niceguy.

As I said, I've been aware from the get-go that this has been a juicy story, hence me searching desperately for all kinds of info from various sources and NOT relying on the mainstream news channels,

And I have found nothing reassuring, despite wanting to be reassured

Thinking about it, the nuclear industry must surely plan for terrorist attacks, which would be totally unpredictable in their outcomes?

OUr city is on the same side as Fukushima, on the sea. Who in their right mind would let their kids swim in an ocean has been swilling a nuclear reactor for months?