3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms

[stockholmer]

Source: CNN

Tokyo (CNN) -- Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant experienced full meltdowns at three reactors in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami in March, the country's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters said Monday.

The nuclear group's new evaluation, released Monday, goes further than previous statements in describing the extent of the damage caused by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

snip

Reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced a full meltdown, it said.

"On the basis of what they showed, if there's not fuel left in the core, I don't know what it is other than a complete meltdown," said Gary Was, a University of Michigan nuclear engineering professor and CNN consultant. And given the damage reported at the other units, "It's hard to imagine the scenarios can differ that much for those reactors."...........

snip







Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/japan.nuclear.meltdown/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+International

---

This is another smoking gun that shows the level of lies and disinfo we are being globally fed. If they blatantly lie about something as basic as the total meltdowns, imagine the spew coming about world-wide radiation levels and cancer risks, etc.

[suffragette]

1. K&R

[buddysmellgood]

5. CNN needs to better keep up with current events. This is old news.

[Yo_Mama]

6. Yes, it is

After they got into the reactors in late May, they released this information.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Large_scale_melt_predicted_at_units_2_and_3_2605111.html

[stockholmer]

7. I'm not defending CNN, & I've been very active posting on Fuku, but this official NERH report is new

The nuclear group's new evaluation, released Monday, goes further than previous statements in describing the extent of the damage

[buddysmellgood]

13. Yes, I agree. I should have put in a sarcasm tag or something. It's just sad

that so little is being reported about this.

[suffragette]

20. Agree with you on that

Just had a talk with a bus buddy today who thought the worst was over at Fukushima and had been for some time.

Discussed how that it far from the case.

[suffragette]

8. "nuclear group's new evaluation"

So , a new evaluation and the rest is likely news to those who have not followed this through other sources.

I think that's worth noting and recommending.

[Citizen Worker]

2. Drip, drip, drip. I think the US suspected total meltdown all along. That's why we ceased

monitoring radiation levels. Can't have people panic and not go to work. Isn't hope and change a wonderful thing?

[Raschel]

16. Remember, 'one' means more to follow, 'possibly' means positively.

[roxiejules]

3. 'Some of the reactors are more radioactive than ever'

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/japan-finally-admits-total-meltdowns-at.html


While it is tempting to believe that the worst of the crisis is over, some of the reactors are more radioactive than ever, and nuclear chain reactions may still be occurring. And it's not just the reactors themselves.

Remember that - when the spent fuel rods stored onsite within the reactor buildings are included - the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.

[defendandprotect]

63. Thank you --

[PearliePoo2]

4. I remember the Japanese Ambassador telling Blitzer on CNN...

"We don't need U.S. help, we have it handled".
What you have, Mr. Ambassador is global poisoning...ecological terrorism, if you will.

[Vinee]

53. better stock up on Radaway.

[craigmatic]

9. Have they said how many people died or got radiation poinsoning as a result of this?

I'm interested in seeing the numbers.

[stockholmer]

18. Christopher Busby: ’400000 to develop cancer in 200 km radius of Fukushima’ [RT]

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/anti-nuclear-scientist-expects-about-400000-people-will-get-cancer-from-fukushima-crisis/


Christopher Busby, a scientist and anti-nuclear activist, made a startling prediction this week: he claimed “about 400,000 people” within 200 kilometers of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors will develop cancerous growths due to the radioactive fallout.

Challenged by the host as to the data he’s based these claims on, Busby said that he’d been in Berlin compiling research about the Chernobyl disaster and the human toll going out years later. He claims to have based his prediction upon historical data from that last major meltdown.

Japanese officials recently raised the severity level of the Fukushima crisis to 7, the same level of Russia’s Chernobyl disaster.

Busby added that should this awful prediction come true, it will be due to the misinformation spread by government and TEPCO officials in the days following the massive quake and tsunami that devastated Japan last month. He called their actions “criminally irresponsible.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this was almost 2 months ago

[craigmatic]

99. Yes what their government did encouraging them to stay put was insane.

[ergot]

28. It's somewhere between half a dozen and several million.

Depends on the hysteria threshold of the estimator.

[JDPriestly]

10. And do you think we are now being told the whole truth?

I don't. I think that international authorities should investigate far more carefully and that every nuclear site in the world should be carefully critiqued for vulnerability to unexpected environmental events and terrorist attacks.

Why are we humans such fools?

[neoralme]

40. No. Three full meltdowns but way less radioactivity than Chenobyl. I

think the Japanese are lying. I think that millions will die as a result of this--or worse.

[boppers]

96. It's too hot to *know* the whole truth.

It'll take years to get close enough to have any real idea of what the whole truth is... we're still learning things about Chernobyl.

[leveymg]

11. The straightforward, official acknowledgement of triple meltdowns is new News

The statement about full core meltdowns quoted, while not part of the official announcement, is certainly a revelation, particularlyc coming from AP.

It seems we've all been lulled into complacency by the drip-drip information release strategy employed.

I find the shutdown of radiation monitoring by the US to be particularly egregious.

[Ready4Change]

12. Don't know which to be more outraged about:

3 meltdowns, indicating some seriously under-engineered designs,

Or

The slow trickle out of information indicating an intent to control damage done to corporate reputations.

Oh sure, I comprehend WHY those things happened. But comprehension <> acceptance.

[snagglepuss]

21. My sentiments exactly.

:mad:

[defendandprotect]

64. And very little discussion of the way OUT of this ...

What's the Pacific worth?

[zeemike]

14. Do we really know what this means?

They called it the China Syndrome way back before Three mile island....because they really did not know what would happen if they had a melt down...whould the very hot fuel just keep on burning down until it reached China?
We are now in unknown territory.

[boppers]

27. No scientist believes that nuclear fuel would melt through the earth's core.

"China syndrome" says more about scientific illiteracy than anything else.

[ergot]

35. It's right up there next to 'creationism'

:shrug:

[zeemike]

47. Well of course not

But they named it that because they had no idea how far it would go and when it would stop. It was not meant to be taken literally.

[ergot]

50. But a lot of people DO take it sort of literally...not the China part but they think

it might result in a catastrophe approaching Toba or a Yellowstone mega-eruption........which it very definitely couldn't.

[tavalon]

61. Nope, just massive contamination of the water table

[defendandprotect]

69. Agree -- we don't know what is possible -- but unfortunately we may find out -- !!

Using nuclear reactors to boil water for steam is one of the dumbest

things US has ever done!

[defendandprotect]

67. Exactly ...

[Hubert Flottz]

129. Since this started so close to China I'm betting it will burn through

the Earth and emerge from the Cobalt Mine near Welch West Virginia, sometime before or during the second season of 'Coal' on Spike TV.

[madokie]

15. They lied,

Its the nuclear industries MO.

rec'd

[Rex]

17. So, all the reports coming from Japan on those first days were true.

Fuck you to all that laughed and mocked people that reported what we are now 'just learning'. I swear there are some people that want the human race to fail.

[Raschel]

19. I was just mocked the other day for saying this disaster is worse than ever.

It's those know-it-all types. They don't want you to say anything.

[liberation]

23. Most of these know-it-alls are examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect

I assume they have little to no background in physics, it is actually amusing to see people write with a straight face a case as to why a nuclear meltdown is not that big of a deal. Usually in posts which seem like copy and paste PR communiques from nuclear energy developers.

However, the hysterics of some of the people screaming about this being the end of times does not help... as they are equally (albeit in the opposite "direction") misinformed.

[boppers]

31. "why a nuclear meltdown is not that big of a deal"

It doesn't *have* to be, it's all a matter of scale, containment, rate of decay, etc.

Hence, people on both sides arguing extreme viewpoints, rather than actually trying to figure out *how* big of a deal it actually, truly, is.

[ergot]

41. There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between the Fukushima trainwreck and

the 2 atomic bombs that I heard somebody dropped on Japan way back when...
:eyes:

[boppers]

58. 2,056 events, so far.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/TestingChronology.shtml

If you count Hiroshima/Nagasaki as "non tests" (actually used in war), that's 2,058.

[defendandprotect]

74. Are you saying that the atomic bombs had no negative effects on the planet?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Though it is hugely ironic that a nation which suffered so as we introduced the

atomic age upon their heads would then move to ALL nuclear energy for their

earth-quake prone island -- !!


:eyes:

[ergot]

137. No long lasting negative effects...obviously not. How would you suggest they

produce the energy they need? Restrict production to imported oil? Good grief.
\

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

56. *How* serious is it?

I think that's where the dialog belongs.

[tavalon]

65. And that is unfortunately, firmly in the realm of speculation

because if TEPCO knows that it's worse, they aren't telling. If the US government, who, BTW, just made a deal with Japan to import their produce (really, I mean really?) is to be believed, no radiation danger exists and the reason they shut off all the west coast monitoring systems was for "maintenance". So, short of third parties, we have little intel. Heck, if there were any immediate deaths related to radiation poisoning, and there probably were, we haven't heard a peep.

Do I trust the Japanese and American government? As far as I can throw them.

[defendandprotect]

77. And.... where is the way OUT of this ... ???

[liberation]

79. It is a level 7 in the International Scale for Nuclear Incidents

which is the highest level, the only other incident ever registered at that level is Chernobyl.

So it is indeed pretty damned serious, and there is an actual quantitative metric behind it. And that has been established a while back, over a month ago in fact, regardless of where you want to deviate the dialog towards.

[boppers]

92. That's a rather subjective metric, without much data, though.

Since something "half as bad" at Chernobyl, and something "50 times worse" than Chernobyl, are both prospectively sevens, and Fukushima was rated as three fives and one three... with a 7 in aggregate, even though a five is 100 times less than Chernobyl...

Numbers from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13045341
... and that's *prior* to recent information about the cores, so, a seven stayed at a seven, even though it may now be three or four sevens.

[liberation]

113. "Subjective" LOL

Sorry, I'd go with the standardized metric used by nuclear experts worldwide over the narrative of an anonymous poster on an anonymous forum.


Anyhow, if it makes you feel better. No worries it is only a few concurrent meltdowns and a rating of "worst" as far as nuclear incidents go. So "not that bad"

Cheers.

[boppers]

120. I want sieverts, real data, not random "color coded alerts".

I found them, fortunately.

Two weeks in the zone = 1/8th of what people get from background every year.

So, it's hot, and unusual, but compared to Chernobyl, totally minor. See post #105.

[liberation]

121. As of yesterday, the radiation levels from the stricken reactors were over 4000 millisieverts

and rising. In case you were "really interested in the actual levels."

http://english.kyodonews.jp/photos/2011/06/95233.html
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110604p2g00m0dm040000c.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/06/06/radiation-at-highest-levels-since-tsunami/


That level of radiation produces serious injury within minutes, and it is lethal in under an hour. Good luck getting human operators anywhere that melting core to fix and control it in that environment.

I fail to see under which non-subjective narrative, an incident of category 7 in one of the world's larges nuclear plants can be construed as being "totally minor."

In any case, this is an ongoing incident, far from being resolved, thus claiming it is minor compared to Chernobyl is a tad subjective opinion tried to be passed as fact. What we do know is that Fukushima and Chernobyl are the only two civilian nuclear incidents which received the worst rating in the international scale. Nothing more nothing less. And regardless of whatever tangential hand waving you come up with, that is still a quantitative metric and frame of reference.



Cheers.

Edit: I really don't think you understand the magnitude difference in the potential which is why some consider this a worrisome event due to its classification, given than Chernobyl was a plant using 160 tons of fuel, and Fukushima employed over 4000 tons. I.e. 25 times more nuclear fuel. Also in Chernobyl only 1 reactor was involved, where as in this case there are multiple compromised cores. So I'd like to thank you for providing with your posts extra data points regarding my initial estimation of the Dunning-Kruger effect in this site. Thanks.

[boppers]

126. Kick.

Yes, multiple cores make it more complex.

[defendandprotect]

118. Interesting --- and certainly Fukushima reactors would exceed Chernobyl --

Did you happen to see the recent video of Helen Caldicott posted here at DU -- ?

With new info from Russia -- translations of the actual damage done at Cherenobyl --

and her observations on Fukushima --



:(

[defendandprotect]

75. Only "extinction" counts ....? $300 billion in damage, cancer, radioactive water in Pacific .... ?

None of that counts?

Given the shame of "physics" -- i.e., that after 300 years of males studying

physics what they have delivered is an atomic weapon --

perhaps you'll considere what the woman from the Bikini Islands had to say

just as we were nuking her homeland with atomic tests ....


"Americans are really smart about really stupid things" -


I couldn't agree more!

[intaglio]

110. Are you attempting to be nasty or just sarcastic?

after 300 years of males studying physics what they have delivered is an atomic weapon

Or are you just quoting someone seriously stupid?

The situation is terrible but attempting to score "gender war" points as a consequence makes me wonder at the values you hold.

[defendandprotect]

117. How about enlightened -- ?

Here's the actual quote --

It's abhorrent that the culmination of
three centuries of physics should be a weapon of mass destruction

and it's certainly by a male -- think it was Howard Zinn --

And here are two more quotes -- both by males --

Science has become a nightmare
that causes everyone to tremble – Einstein


Militarism depends upon men choosing to bond with one another
over the bond with women and children -- Prouty

Do you also think these males are "stupid" -- or engaged in trying to

"score gender war points" . . . ?

Are you questioning their "values" --

:rofl:



Now how about trying to apply some gray matter to my comments rather than trying

to defend patriarchy and the atomic era?


QUOTE --

Only "extinction" counts ....? $300 billion in damage, cancer, radioactive water in Pacific .... ?

None of that counts?

Given the shame of "physics" -- i.e., that after 300 years of males studying

physics what they have delivered is an atomic weapon --

perhaps you'll consider what the woman from the Bikini Islands had to say

just as we were nuking her homeland with atomic tests ....


"Americans are really smart about really stupid things" -


I couldn't agree more! UNQUOTE


Capitalism is suicidal --

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill!

[intaglio]

144. So you added the gender refences,

And then you try to palm it off onto someone else.

What a piece of work you are! Attempting to deceive and using a terrible disaster to further your own bigotry. You and others like you are tribalists who use the left wing for only to further an agenda of hate. It is this that poisons the well for those who wish to improve the world. Such behaviour is contemptible.

[defendandprotect]

70. Why would any species take any such chance ? For dollar bills - ??

[quarbis]

22. Those people would

be the "End Timers". The sooner the better they think.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

33. "Nuke porn"?

Would those be the folks who freak out about any form of nuclear power, but are more than willing to accept solar panels, or food grown with solar radiation?

[Downtown Hound]

34. No, those are the people that continue to call nuclear power not only safe

but adamantly insist that we have no viable alternatives.

And are you actually saying that food grown from the sun is more dangerous than the possibility of a meltdown? Because if you are, then maybe I should have said nuke morons.

[ergot]

37. Has anyone suggested there are no alternatives?

(I left out the word 'viable' because it prejudices the discussion...anything that isn't imaginary can be called viable if it suits the argument.)

I seem to recall our president saying nuclear power is one important link in the energy chain...which is exactly what most engineers and scientists say. Are you saying that anyone who supports it as a useful, necessary and practical component of the power grid is a moron? I think that's a pretty straightforward yes or no question :-)

[Downtown Hound]

45. Well, a recent report by the U.N.

stated that 80% of the world's energy could be renewable by 2050. And to answer your question, yes, there have been quite a few people on this board that have fiercely advocated that we have no other choice but to use nuclear power if we want to have electricity, basically saying that renewable energy is a pipe dream. There is pretty much zero doubt in my mind that we could get that 80% number up to 100%.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=renewables-could-be-80-percent

So while I understand that we can't just close down all nuclear plants tomorrow, anyone that contiues to advocate for further expansion of this type of power source, or isn't advocating that we go forward with an all out push to rid ourselves of it down the line, is yes, a moron. Worse than that, they are reckless, short-sighted, and stupid. Please stop shoving this bullshit power source down our throats before you get us all killed.

Thanks.

[ergot]

52. I'm not a bullshit shover, I'm just an engineer who cares about facts.

I have no skin in the energy game except peripherally, I have income from some very old oil wells that I worked my ass off drilling...as a small independent operator many years ago...as an adjunct to my college degrees. So my interest is scientific, not political, which position is abetted by the fact I'm a senior gay man with no progeny and not a whole lot interested in what happens to the world after around 2030 at which point I'll be either 93 or dead. I do, however, intend to maintain my academic and scientific integrity as long as I can operate a keyboard.

I know this much for a fact that nobody with any technical knowledge would or could deny: the total amount of solar energy that impinges on the planet is rarely more than a couple hundred watts per square meter...it varies greatly of course by latitude and climate but nevertheless without magic there is no way to extract more than that amount from direct insolation. All energy extracted from that source in real-time is limited to those figures. The reason hydrocarbons give us so much useful energy is that radiation from the sun was concentrated by millions of years
of slow chemical reactions and we are now spending that account at something like a billion to one ratio of deposit vs. withdrawal. edit: or the other way around, you see what I mean here, sorry

Even if there is a break-even point where all earth's energy wants (note I did not say 'needs') can be met by wind, water and air, it's so far in the future that getting there without massive outages, sacrifice, misery and the kind of global commitment that defies all human characteristics seems impossible to me. Perhaps you can see a feasible path to it...if so I would love to hear the details. I didn't mean to be confrontational, I just don't believe for one moment we can satisfy the demands of a 7 billion population planet without using one source that works, we know it works, and it has so far been safer overall than any other technology.

[Downtown Hound]

55. Well then, I guess you know more than the U.N.

A couple hundred watts per square meter? I get more than that from the solar panels on my roof. 3000 watts worth, and I have room for many more. One day I'm going to go completely off the grid by providing enough solar for the day and hydrogen backup at night.

If I can do it, why can't we as a nation and a people?

[ergot]

147. I really need to learn to not argue with scientifically illiterate folks.

Have a nice day.

[Downtown Hound]

152. And once again, the pro nuke faction likes to pretend that they're the only

ones that understand science. And once again, I guess you understand more than all the scientists that work for the U.N. and came up with this report. You're just so damn smart aren't you?

[tavalon]

68. Kind of a selfish attitude, there, ergot

That said, we will not escape your last paragraph, no matter what we do. Third world countries will have mass starvation and First world countries will get plenty of a taste of being third world.

[defendandprotect]

87. And all because of the exploitations of capitalism -- and elite greed and stupidity ....

[defendandprotect]

84. Nonsense ... only back a few years ago in Enron disaster, wind energy was erected in 4 months ...

and supplied 175,000 homes immediately!

We have had NOTHING but shunning of alternative energy --

that's after all why corporations and the oil industry have taken over our government!

[defendandprotect]

82. Unless we want more Chernobyl's, 3 Mile Islands and Fuku's ....

we should begin to close down nuclear reactors everywhere --

here in US they are aged and not properly maintained -- dangerous to communities.

Evacuation is a joke --

We can see what the possibilities are for evacuation and immediate help from what citizens

in Japan are experiencing -- combined with corporate lies and failure of governments to

take responsibility. There is NO private business which can take responsibility for or

be accountable for such disasters -- !! And like BP, Fuku is another Gramd Canyon sized

LANDMINE destroying nature and humanity in ways that we may not understand for years yet!!

[defendandprotect]

86. Thank you -- and agree with you and UN -- !!

And when we add in the "oil wars" and the bankrupting of our nation --

plus the destruction of Global Warming and what we have seen of it at Fuku --

it's time to RUN AWAY FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS as fast as we can!!



:)

[defendandprotect]

80. What's Obama suggesting when he wants to have taxpayers subsidize nuclear industry in

a new generation of reactors for US?

This is simply more corporate SPEAK coming out of the mouth of Obama -- !!

Let's remember what we were also going thru this time last year with BP and the Gulf --

and Obama's prior words on that .... "oil rigs don't leak anymore" -- followed by ...

"the Gulf will bounce back!" --

There is no future for nuclear reactors -- because they limit everyone's futures !!

[boppers]

57. Food grown from the sun is nuclear powered.

The "reactor" is at a fairly safe distance, but still causes massive amounts of cancer every year.

IOW, I'm pointing out that nuclear power is with us all the time, it's a matter of how we deal with it, how we collect that energy, how we store it, etc.

As to carbon-less alternatives, personally, I'm a big fan of wind (badump-bump!), but even that has NIMBY factions.

[liberation]

83. Fission, fusion....

... same difference.

Well, lead is also a naturally recurring element, so a gunshot is a perfectly natural way to die...

[boppers]

85. Lead/gunshot... I'll have to remember that.

Normally I go with cyanide, but yours is better.

[liberation]

114. The thing about sophistry is that you can never have enough variety

not that you need any help in that department given your posting record in this thread.

Cheers.


:hi:

[Downtown Hound]

97. Wow, your post ranks right up there with those idiots

a few years back that released an ad saying that CO2 emissions are good for us because plants breathe it in and create all life on Earth. Yes that's true, it's just that we're putting way more into the air that the planet can stand without warming up. The same basic principle is true with the sun and it's radiation. The amount we normally recieve is nothing compared to what happens when a nuke plant melts down. I would think that would be obvious to anybody that has an education beyond that of second grade, but okay, I'll explain it to you like you are a child, because apparently, you are incapable of grasping this rather simple fact.

First of all, most of the sun's harmful radiation is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere. That we are currently putting holes in it and weakining this natural protection is OUR OWN DOING, not nature's. The sun by itself doesn't cause human beings to have cancer. Cancer as a disease is relatively new in the human experience, and only in the last century or so have rates of it really skyrocketed. Our ancestors lived out in the sun, hunted under it, and rarely were inside. And yet they had almost no incidents of cancer.

Second of all, even if the sun was this great scary big death ray of cancer as you try and claim, well, since it's natural and the source of all life on Earth, I guess we'll just have to find a way to deal with it because we're stuck with it. WE ARE NOT STUCK WITH NUCLEAR POWER. There are alternatives. Why risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives and countless square miles of precious land in an effort to power our homes when there are other alternatives? It's stupid. I can't really say anything more than that. It's just plain fucking dumb.

Stop being so dumb. Please?

Thanks.

[boppers]

102. Jeez, where to start.... if you're going to insult somebody's intelligence, be accurate.

You are right about carbon emissions, and concentrations being the problem... the whole reason we're using them is because of the energy stored in molecules, resulting from millions of years of accumulated energy storage. (Guess where that energy came from?)

"most of the sun's harmful radiation is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere" ...yes and no. Lots of it is blocked, but light gets through. Light, FWIW, is radiation. Non-ionizing, but radiation. The greater the elevation, the greater the exposure is to ionizing radiation (which is why airline flights introduce ionizing radiation), but even at sea level, there's still ionizing radiation coming from the sun.

"That we are currently putting holes in it and weakining this natural protection is OUR OWN DOING, not nature's." Again, this is imprecise. Over the last 4.5 billion years, the atmosphere has been changed in many ways by man made and other natural causes. The severity varies depending on the cause, and humans have only been here briefly.

"The sun by itself doesn't cause human beings to have cancer." Correct. Having cells that get affected by ionizing radiation is part of it too. As soon as humans are not biological creatures, or do not respond to ionizing radiation, we'll be fine. Oh, and if we didn't have ionizing radiation, or naturally occurring radiation, coming from numerous sources (including the sun).

"Cancer as a disease is relatively new in the human experience, and only in the last century or so have rates of it really skyrocketed."

:facepalm:

Only in the last century or so have we been able to treat it, or keep humans alive for so long that many could even develop it. It was always around, but it was also known by many other names, for example, "Consumption". Have a link, which even explains the origin of the name (before you click, guess who named it "Cancer", and when it was named that way):
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/TheHistoryofCancer/the-history-of-cancer-what-is-cancer

"Our ancestors lived out in the sun, hunted under it, and rarely were inside." Which ancestors would those be? Did they wear clothes? Did they make structures? I'm trying to get a feel for what you're talking about, here, because we've been fighting cancer a long time.

"And yet they had almost no incidents of cancer." Laughably incorrect. Most mammals get cancer, always have. In some places, the cancer rates caused humans to avoid entire areas of land, because the land caused cancer (uranium does that). Of course, when the average life span was 35 years, chances are a person would die of other causes (TB, Malaria, War, Famine, Bears) before cancer could get much of a foothold. Oh, and the link above shows that cancer has been documented and treated for over 5,000 years.

"Second of all, even if the sun was this great scary big death ray of cancer as you try and claim, well, since it's natural and the source of all life on Earth, I guess we'll just have to find a way to deal with it because we're stuck with it." Yeah, we can wear sunscreen, don't "tan", avoid plane travel, etc.

"WE ARE NOT STUCK WITH NUCLEAR POWER." We are not stuck with crap reactors. We *are* stuck on a radioactive planet, bathed with more radiation daily, so *concentrating* that radiation into small spaces seems dangerous, causing the occasional accident... but people get killed by wind turbines, coal mines, etc. The smart thing would be to balance risks vs. rewards, and not freak out over any one thing, one incident, one issue.

[Downtown Hound]

103. I didn't say cancer hasn't always been around

but rates of it have skyrocketed in the last century. Did you know that a non-smoking woman today has a greater chance of getting breast cancer than a smoking woman in the 50's?

And you're still being absolutely ridiculous to compare the radiation that we are exposed to naturally to the dangers of nuclear meltdown. That's among the most retarded defenses of nuclear power that I've ever heard.

[boppers]

105. Rates of cancer rose with increased atmospheric smoke, and again with direct application of smoke...

Smoking causes cancer. So do cars, planes, televisions, smoke detectors (amusing irony, there), BBQ's, campfires, tanning, airplanes, dental care, nuclear testing, computer screens, bananas, living in Nevada, living at a high elevation, sleeping next to somebody, and just plain living longer.

Here's a chart to keep these things in perspective, from xkcd:

[Downtown Hound]

106. And even if true, so what?

What does that have to do with the dangers of nuclear power? It is patently ridiculous for you to keep comparing minor natural radiation with those of power plants. It's like comparing somebody's .22 rifle with a nuclear warhead.

[boppers]

109. I get the feeling you didn't read the chart.

To use your analogy, it's like comparing a .22 to a .45, and then claiming the .45 is thus equal to a nuclear warhead, because it's much more powerful.

[Downtown Hound]

122. I did read the chart

And what does it have to do with the dangers of nuclear power?

It's all a bunch of shit when a meltdown occurs. The radiation released devastates everything around it. And given that the Japanese government keeps changing its story and its data, you can't trust anything. We don't know how much radiation has been released or what the long term consequences will be. But I'll imagine that they'll be huge. But hey, just ignore that and talk about the sun. The sun sure is dangerous.

[boppers]

127. "The radiation released devastates everything around it."

That's the kind of anti-science thinking that worries me.

Chernobyl has become a wildlife preserve.

[Downtown Hound]

141. There is still a 30 kilometer exclusion zone around Chernobyl

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

And I find it downright disgusting that you just callously ignore the massive human toll that Chernobyl took on those living near it. You may be wiling to sacrifice thousands of lives but I'm not. And somehow, I seriously doubt you'd be willing to sacrifice your own.

[suffragette]

138. Ah, the chart again. Seen it before and find this point the most important one

Disclaimer from the bottom of the chart:

Chart by Randall Munroe, with help from Ellen, Senior Reactor Operator at the Reed Research Reactor, who suggested the idea and provided a lot of the sources. I’m sure I’ve added in lots of mistakes; it’s for general education only. If you’re basing radiation safety procedures on an internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[intaglio]

115. Do a simple web search, please.

You quote a press release from back in 2010 about cancer but ignore other evidences.

3000 BC Evidence of cancer found in Egyptian mummies from this period.

1600 BC Egyptian papyruses describe treatments for cancer including cutting out with a knife or burning with red-hot irons. Stomach cancer was treated with boiled barley mixed with dates, cancer of the uterus by a concoction of fresh dates mixed with pig's brain introduced into the vagina.

400 BC Evidence of cancer found in mummies of pre-Columbian Incas of Peru.

300 BC Hippocrates, the Greek 'Father of Medicine', named a range of tumours, lumps and bumps as carcinos and carcinoma. It was thought cancerous tumours had roots spreading out like the legs of a crab. Cancer was thought to be caused by too much black bile in the body.

50 AD Like the Greeks, the Romans found that some tumours could be removed by surgery and cauterised (burnt), but no medicine seemed to work. They found that surgery sometimes increased the spread of the cancer, or that tumours sometimes grew again.

500–1500 AD Little progress was made in understanding cancer. It was still believed to be caused by too much black bile. Surgery and cautery were used on smaller tumours. Caustic (burning) pastes, usually containing arsenic, were used for control of more extensive cancer. Phlebotomy (blood-letting), diet, herbal medicines, powder of crab and other symbolic charms were used.

Source

[Downtown Hound]

124. I did a web search

And all the data points to a dramatic increase in cancer rates over the last century. Yes it occurred in ancient times, but not anywhere even close to the rates that it does today. In the old days, it was something that happened here and there. Today it is an epidemic.

[boppers]

131. It increased with a rise in detection.

Alzheimer's increased, too.

[Downtown Hound]

142. No

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS424US424&q=cancer+rates+have+risen+throughout+history#q=cancer+rates+have+risen+throughout+history&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS424US424&prmd=ivnsb&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=iVruTbGaG8bSiAK0gbH1AQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CF4Q5wIwCg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d2da7bf6259b98f9&biw=1419&bih=572

We have had thourough and accurate medical data for the last century, and there has been an enormous increase in cancer during that time.

[intaglio]

145. Then why did you try to deceive?

Cancer as a disease is relatively new in the human experience ...

Never overstate your case, you will just do harm when you are revealed as using untruth. In addition radiation is not the only carcinogen:
sawdust, known to be linked to lung, esophageal and, possibly, pharangeal cancer;
spirit based paints and benzene (petrol) known links to lung cancer and heavily implicated in liver and gastric cancers;
UV from welding obviously skin cancers and also blastomas in and around the eye;
mineral oil/water emulsions famously for "engineers" cancer of the scrotum and genitals;
additionally biological agents are implicated in many cancers and infection with these has grown in concert with population mixing, think of heliobacter pylori.

These, far more than radiation, have played a part in the huge increase in cancer as has the wonderfully improved detection of cancers.

You might claim that I am trying to downplay the danger that radiation poses, far from it. Once released radiation cannot be banned and it cannot be cleaned up, all you can do is wait for it to go away - however many decades or centuries that takes. In addition you have the damage that even low levels of excess radiation can do. In reproduction miscarriages, re-absorption of pregnancies and gross genetic defects (usually appearing in the 2nd or third generation). Systemically immune systems are damaged (despite an apparent boost they receive early on at really low levels of excess) and cataracts will occur more frequently.

[Downtown Hound]

148. Didn't try and decieve

Just maybe didn't use the words correctly. how about this? Cancer as an epidemic is relatively new in the human experience. Happy now?

[ronnie624]

104. Good grief. n/t

[boppers]

107. Some folks seem to think "nuclear" is a bad word.

I wonder how many would support a ban on all things with a nucleus, the source of nuclear power?

(Hint: that would be a ban on all non-dark matter, which is all atoms... basically everything).

[Downtown Hound]

108. Right, that's what I'm proposing! A ban on all things with a nucleus!

How do you do it boppers? Once again you blow me away with your mastery of logic.

:sarcasm:

Seriously, do you just sit around and think of ridiculous things to say, or do they just come to you?

[boppers]

111. It's based on a sad, sad, awareness of the ignorance in the US of all things related to science.

Have you heard about DHMO? Yet another killer chemical the US (or uneducated citizens within) freak out about, every so often:
http://dhmo.org/

If people can't get their act together about DHMO, I don't expect them to understand nuclear power.

[Downtown Hound]

123. How is it us that need to get our act together on nuclear power?

My act is together. I don't want it. Period. End of story.

You nuke freaks are the ones who need to get your act together. In case you aren't aware, people like you have been saying for years that it's safe, and yet here we are in the midst of another meltdown. Where will you be when the next one occurs? Telling us we need to get our act together when if fact we've been telling you for years that we don't want it and yet you shoved it down our throats anyways?

[boppers]

128. When you live off the grid, I will listen.

Until then...

[Downtown Hound]

140. Oh I see, so that's what it will take?

You're perfectly willing to put whole cities and populations of people at risk until I save up enough money to buy the right amount of solar panels? Well, aren't you the responsible one?

:eyes:

For your information, I've only had my house for two years. And in that time I've put up 3,000 watts of solar on it. I have room for at least three and maybe even four times that, all on a small roof of a small urban home built within the last decade. I'm reasonably well off but far from rich, and it's going to take a little time to fully implement my dream. But don't think for a minute that it isn't possible, and I promise you I will achieve it one day. Why in the world would you base your opinion on whether or not nuclear power is a good idea because I'm still only in the early stages of my plan? At least I'm trying. I'm recognizing that there's a problem and doing something about it. You should try it some time.

[boppers]

134. A better response....

"people like you have been saying for years that it's safe"

Well, bullshit. It's storing a huge amount of energy, which is not safe.

By definition.

Coal explodes, as does gas, as do reactors.

Bulk energy production is not safe. Period.

The whole concept of "safe energy production" only works on a household level, because the risk is distributed to each house.

[Downtown Hound]

139. And again, you compare a .22 with a nuclear warhead

Coal explodes, and the amount of damage is minimal. We clean up, rebuild, and that's that. Nuclear meltdown? No so simple.

[defendandprotect]

78. Was Einstein freaking out as he questioned using nuclear reactors to boil water for steam?

or was he -- and are we all -- stunned at the stupidity involved in these ventures?

And according to you, solar panels and food grown in the open air are now the dangers?


:rofl:

[readmoreoften]

29. +1.

[boppers]

30. "all the reports"... "were true"?

Not even close.

There wasn't a total meltdown in all reactors, it wasn't a Chernobyl level explosion, it wasn't totally un-contained, it wasn't a run-away reaction with no way of mitigating it, the entire nation of Japan wasn't irradiated, the island wasn't rendered inhabitable, etc.

[ergot]

39. How DARE you pour cold facts on a perfectly good bonfire of hysteria???

:shrug:

[liberation]

48. Careful, them strawmen can be a fire hazard this time of the year...

if putting out bonfires is your goal that is, I recommend the more traditional bucket of water.

[boppers]

112. Hey, check this very OP/thread for examples.

'We're DOOOOMED' comes out on every thread involving science. This thread is no exception.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

89. Tell that to the Japanese -- to the Russians -- and to those near 3 Mile Island ....

Tell it to New Yorkers who understand the lies of "evacuation" --

[intaglio]

116. But surely there has been a complete meltdown

in 3 of the 4 plants. There have been gross, environmentally damaging and health damaging emissions of both radiation and radioactive compounds. In addition there is a massive amount of contaminated water that cannot be cleaned or cooled effectively and so cannot be re-used for cooling the reactors and their ,now homogenous, cores.

The containments in 3 of the 4 reactors are now thought to be breached and the very hazardous position of the fuel pool at 4, this will render a large part of Japan either uninhabitable or hazardous to habitation.

[boppers]

130. Nope.

A "complete meltdown" is not the same as "all the pellets dropped into cooling".

"this will render a large part of Japan either uninhabitable or hazardous to habitation."

Ever been to a nuclear test site?

Ever been to Japan?

I think I already know the answer.

[intaglio]

146. So you are now saying the "pellets" did not melt?

What a shame that Japan has now admitted to three meltdowns, that's 3 complete meltdowns, to the IAEA. Japan finally to admit nuclear ‘melt-throughs’ to UN

What a shame that at least part of the core from reactor 1 is known to have escaped the pressure vessel, the containment and, it is hoped is sitting on the concrete of the basement. And how frightful that in the same article, cited in the linked thread, the fuel is thought to have escape the PV in reactors 2 and 3. How lucky we are that in those cases it is still in containment - except containment in reactors 2 and 3 are know to be breached.

What a pity that the Japanese have doubled the estimated release of radiation to 770,000 terabecquerels http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4876007">Japan doubles plant radiation leak estimate

By the way have you ever been to Chernobyl? Lived near Windscale or Bradwell? Ever farmed sheep in Wales or Scotland or the Lake District? Been to Lapland and helped with the migratory herds of radioactive reindeer? Have you looked at a map of Japan and seen what a big slice even a 20 km exclusion zone takes? Do you know how the ground water travels in that area?

[boppers]

149. "that's 3 complete meltdowns"

I did not see "complete" in any of the official reports. I've seen official reports of partial meltdowns, and containment breaches, and random speculation about "complete" meltdowns. Part of the pellet/rod design is that when something horrible happens, if the pellets can be scattered, the reaction slows down, and the entire system doesn't go into a full chain reaction.

[intaglio]

150. The pellets did not "scatter"

Which would have been difficult with the Mk1 reactor design.

As to complete meltdowns, you ought to try reading something other than propaganda

[boppers]

151. Mk1 are supposed to drop the pellets in a coolled torus.

I read more than propaganda, which is why I *don't* trust reactionary reports.

Right now, there's too much guessing.

[Eagle Mall]

42. the Nuclear sycophants are still going to lie to us and tell us this isn't so bad.

They have no integrity whatsoever.

[boppers]

62. Extremists abound.

Some are saying this could be the end of life as we know it, some are saying this isn't so bad....

I guess we need to define "so bad".

[defendandprotect]

90. Well, remember Obama is forging ahead using taxpayer money to subsidize nuke industry .....

You remember Obama telling us pre-BP/Gulf that "oil rigs don't leak any more"?

Or after BP/Gulf that "the Gulf will bounce back"?

We don't even know the full extent of the damage done in the Gulf --

Oil is a national security issue -- and BP had full national security protection!

Our MIC uses 80% of the our oil --

I AGREE WITH YOU -- :)

[tavalon]

24. Arnie gunderson has been a source of reliable information

I follow him almost daily so I knew all of this quite a while ago. Now we're watching reactor four-if it melts down, we can pretty well close the shop on much of japan.

[boppers]

32. "close the shop on much of japan"?

You mean, a small number of miles on the coast will have higher levels of radiation than they already had for 20-200 more years?

[tavalon]

59. It's monsoon season

You really think the small number of miles on the coast are all that are going to be contaminated, massively contaminated?

[boppers]

66. Contamination is relative.

We got some of the Fukushima fallout up here (in Portland, Oregon) within a week of the event, but it's at trace/background levels... and as weather kicks it around, the effect is one of large scale dilution and small scale capture/containment.

For a sense of scale, we're still (on a global level) dealing with Cesium-137 from all the nuke testing that was done last century, so, in a sense, the whole planet is contaminated, but the freaking planet was radioactive to start with... we figured out how to make new radioactive stuff out the stuff we already had.

[tavalon]

73. The solution to pollution is dilution

Are you going to eat any of the progeny of this year's copper river salmon?

Bioaccumulation. Big word. Ugly consequences.

[boppers]

88. The trees help a lot.

Portland starts out with lower background amounts, so relatively speaking, we have much more wiggle room in our exposure levels... same with folks in swamplands.

[LaPera]

25. And people actually believed what the governments of Japan & the US when this was happening.....

The first few day after the quake I was saying don't believe a word you're being told....that it's obvious just by watching the panic by japanese officials, the raw video footage, the changing messages and the facts of what would happen in a scenario disaster like this and which was occurring.....that indeed to any thinking person, anybody thinking for themselves would of recognized this as the worst nuclear accident disaster in history, by far.

And seeing & hearing people who kept saying it's not as bad as Chernobyl - as they were listening and repeating verbatim what corporate media news reports were telling them - these people are no different than the people who watch Fox 'news" 24/7 and repeat the same shit that is spewed into them as if it's fact. - They are everywhere here on DU - Young and stupid and older and stupid!

We STILL have yet to be told how bad it actually is!!

[neoralme]

43. I never believed a word they were saying. But, then, I have friends who

worked with the Japanese and told me stores of their ways.

[defendandprotect]

91. Completely agree with you --

and with Helen Caldicott --

Government should be all over Fuku -- no private company can take responsibility

for this -- our world governments and world scientists should be dealing with this

crisis --

And almost a total absence of info as to how they are going to end this disaster!!

This time last year, we were trying to deal with BP/Gulf --

and it's still a mystery as to what the oil and COREXIT actually did to residents and

the Gulf and wildlife -- ocean life.


Capitalism is suicidal --

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill!

:)

[wundermaus]

36. life on this planet is so FUBARed...

maybe not in 5 years or 10 years... but wait for it... wait for it... all our great grandchildren are dead.

[ergot]

38. Yes, but eventually all descendants of 21st century humans (and probably all other species

with the possible exception of cockroaches and Republicans) will be too.

[neoralme]

44. Yep--or worse. I just wish my neighborhood would chip in on a

group geiger counter. Is it me, or are some of the posts on this board kind of unusual about this catastrophic event?

[boppers]

132. Well, we're all dead, so why bother.

We're DOOOOMED.

[neoralme]

136. Well, if the readings are high enough and still increasing, my wife

could retire and we could leave this unusual country and enjoy what time we have left. What's the matter with that? I no longer understand your posts.

[Avalux]

49. I knew it. n/t

[unkachuck]

51. "...I don't know what it is other than a complete meltdown,"

....all well and good....but in plain English, how much radiation have we been, or continue to be, exposed to in the United States and what are the risks?

....I don't know about you, but I've been feeling a little irradiated lately....

[boppers]

71. Have a map:

http://coupmedia.org/realtime-us-radiation-map-1503

[defendandprotect]

93. The story has disappeared ... and you can guess why ....

and no hard reporting on any of it -- damage done to citizens -- future

plans to evacuate -- reactors all over the planet -- the disastrous designs -

the increasing numbers of earthquakes and their severity --

Not even what the plans are for a way OUT of Fuku disaster --


:nuke:

[fascisthunter]

54. is there anyone left who thinks nuclear power plants is the way to go?

well, if this situation doesn't change your minds regarding nuclear power plants, I doubt anything will.

To think 400,000 people could get cancer because of 3 meltdowns makes me nauseous to still see people arguing in favor of it. And on top of it all, there are alternatives and always have been.

[harvey007]

60. President Obama still wants more nuclear power plants

And so does this scumbag senator....

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/164957-bingaman-germanys-decision-to-abandon-nuclear-power-is-a-mistake

[fascisthunter]

135. We need to weed them out

as for Obama, all we can do is try to penetrate whatever corporate bubble world he is in right now.

[defendandprotect]

94. Always thought it was insane -- a giant leap into nuclear madness --

People and the Pacific Ocean -- the entire island of Japan -- seem to mean nothing.

They are disappearing this story rather than applying any hard reporting to it --

Capitalism is deadly --

[AtheistCrusader]

119. You know humans have dumped a hell of a lot more radioactive shit into the smaller Atlantic.

Right? You DO know that right?

[Poll_Blind]

72. Glad to be the 100th rec!

:kick:

PB

[hulka38]

76. Your conclusion is spot on.

Why do people continue to believe governments' (especially ours) accounts of significant events when they are not only false but false in a way that always favors their narrative? In other words, you'd never hear Japan error by saying Fugushima is at least 10 times worse than Chernobyl while the crisis was ongoing. Likewise, you'd never hear the White House say that bin Laden was unarmed, put up no resistance, willingly surrendered and was executed later after being detained. The BP oil spill...you name it. It is a given that they'll try to control the message, protect their interests and lie to you.

[sce56]

81. Holes were reported in the containment vessels already now they said over the weekend

that steam is rising from under the reactor room floor seems like the boiling water is no longer in the vessel but under it with the fuel most likely turning into a China Syndrome event.


Source: Japan Times

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Saturday it has detected radiation of up to 4,000 millisieverts per hour in the building housing the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.


Where there's smoke: A video image from the Fukushima No. 1 power plant shows steam rising from an opening in the floor of the No. 1 reactor building Friday. TEPCO / AP

The radiation reading, which was taken when Tepco sent a robot into the No. 1 reactor building on Friday, is believed to be the highest detected in the air at the plant so far. On Friday, Tepco found steam spewing from the basement into the building's first floor. Nationally televised news Saturday showed blurry video of a steady stream of smoky gas curling up from an opening where a pipe rises through the floor.The radiation is so high now that any worker exposed to it would absorb the maximum permissible dose of 250 millisieverts in only about four minutes. Tepco said there is no plan to place workers in that area of the plant and said it will carefully monitor any developments.

The utility said it took the reading near the floor at the southeast corner of the building. The steam appears to be entering from a leaking rubber gasket that is supposed to seal the area where the pipe comes up through the first floor. No damage to the pipe was found, Tepco said. The reactor's suppression chamber is under the building, and highly radioactive water generated from cooling the reactor is believed to have accumulated there, Tepco said, adding that the steam is probably coming from there.

On Friday, nine workers who entered the building to attach a pressure gauge to the pressure vessel of reactor No. 1 were exposed to around 4 millisieverts of radiation, according to Tepco. The fuel rods are believed to have melted almost completely and sunk to the bottom of the containment vessels of reactors 1, 2 and 3. A complete meltdown would have seen the fuel melt entirely through the containment vessels and into the reactor floor.


Read more: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110605a3.html

[defendandprotect]

95. Sad -- but thank you for the info --

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

100. Thank you. We were told you get more radioactivity toasting a Pop Tart & we're all hysterical.

Idiots.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Alas those were aloud to stand

while pointing out we were right, not necessarily wanting to be right... is not.

Weird if you ask me.

Personal attacks galore, but pointing out we were right is seen as an attack

[boppers]

133. Remember the folks freaking out about microwave ovens?

Radio stations?
Televisions?

Yeah.

Same mindset.

[Rex]

155. I wish every single one of those idiots lived at ground zero in Japan

since it is soooo safe ya know!? :eyes:

It is embarrassing to have idiots like that on this forum...

[divvy]

125. There are actually 4 meltdowns ---- The spent fuel pool of #4 is toast

[Nossida]

156. vindication at last.

Some of us, have said since the large explosions,
that Meltdown had occurred. I have maintained a
Vlog on a different site since March 11. The US
Press knew the facts, and opted to be silenced.
Fukashima is a slow motion catastrophe. The US
Media would rather cover Weiner's Weiner, and
another murder trial. Disgusting Sellouts.