Subsidized economic time bombs stunning in relation to anything else

 

When disaster strikes, the public is cajoled and coddled with reassuring statements that it could “never happen here”, “not with ours”.  Yet, I have yet to find a majority in any room that can identify 25 reactors of similar design from various countries without having incorrectly guessed on one or more.  Even more in my arguments favor, when disaster struck in Japan, did they not request US studies on BWR reactors of the like?

 

The uncertainty leads to a multitude of unrealistic over assurances from officials, experts, and even the press, I’ve been darkly intrigued by the sadly desperate line added to every article regarding the Fukushima meltdowns – “Not threatening to Human Health.” It seems the public is repeatedly advised “do as I say, not as I do”.

Among the plethora of samples available, I’ve been collecting a few; thought I would share:

“There is no question of a Chernobyl situation or of anything like the same threat to human health and safety,” Rafael Arutyunyan, deputy head of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Nuclear Energy Development Security, told Russian NTV News. “An accident like Chernobyl cannot happen again—this is a reactor of a different generation. Even in the worst-case scenario of a total coolant failure, the radiation released will be hundreds of times less than from Chernobyl.” Thedailybeast – Why Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown Is No Chernobyl Mar 13, 2011

 

Satellite photos taken Monday show steam rising from the damaged unit 3 building. The amount of radioactivity carried by the plume is unknown, but small increases in radiation — not enough to impact human health — were reported Tuesday in Tokyo, about 150 miles to the southwest of the stricken facility. The Washington Post – New fire reported at nuclear plant as Japan races to avert catastrophe March 14th, 2011

 

Roughly nine hours after the explosion, radiation levels just outside the plant — at dangerous levels in the morning — had fallen to 496 micro sieverts per hour, a concentration “much higher than the normal level … but one that causes no harm to human health,” government spokesman Yukio Edano said. At 9 a.m. (8 p.m. Monday in Washington), the radiation level at the plant had been 11,930 micro sieverts per hour, several times the amount a human should receive in one year. The Washington Post – New fire reported at nuclear plant as Japan races to avert catastrophe March 14th, 2011

 

Higher-than-normal radiation levels were detected in Tokyo, roughly 150 miles from Fukushima. Kanagawa, a prefecture south of Tokyo, recorded radiation at nine times the usual level. In Ibaraki, roughly 70 miles from Tokyo, levels were briefly 100 times the normal measure, according to the Kyodo news agency.

In each case, officials said that exposure to those levels of radiation would not pose an immediate danger to human health. The Washington Post – New fire reported at nuclear plant as Japan races to avert catastrophe March 14th, 2011

 

A diplomat who has access to radiation tracking by the U.N.’s Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization told The Associated Press in Vienna that initial readings show tiny amounts of radiation have reached California. But it’s not dangerous in any way — “about a billion times beneath levels that would be health threatening,” the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the organization does not make its findings public. FL Times Diplomat says minuscule fallout reaches Calif.
March 18th, 2011

 

Earlier this week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deployed extra radiation detectors throughout the country to allay public concerns. On Thursday, President Barack Obama said “harmful levels” of radiation from the damaged Japanese nuclear plant are not expected to reach the U.S. FL Times Diplomat says minuscule fallout reaches Calif.  March 18th, 2011

 

“The plutonium – used in the fuel mix in the No 3 reactor – is not at levels that threaten human health, officials said.” BBC News – Japan to scrap stricken nuclear reactors 30 March 2011

 

“The Japanese Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said: “Even if these foods are temporarily eaten, there is no health hazard.” BBC News – Tokyo water ‘unfit for babies’ due to high radiation 23 March 2011

 

“Three plutonium isotopes — Pu-238, -239 and -240 — were found in soil at five different points inside the plant grounds, Tokyo Electric reported. The element can be a serious health hazard if inhaled or ingested, but external exposure poses little health risk, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” Damaged reactor may be leaking radioactive water, Japan says – CNN.com By the CNN Wire Staff March 28, 2011

 

“Mr. Edano also noted that radiation above the acceptable limit had been found in beef from Fukushima prefecture, and he said the government was repeating the tests to confirm them. In any case, he said, “the radiation is not of a level sufficient to be harmful to human health if someone eats it once or twice.”” Radiation Levels Rise Again at Nuclear Plant – NYTimes.com

 

“Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Banri Kaieda maintained that contamination of the sea to be caused by the disposal will pose no major health risk, while apologizing for raising concerns among the public, especially fishermen.” Removal of 60,000 tons of radioactive water eyed at Fukushima plant – The Mainichi Daily News

Continued on Page 4…

Useful news and research on the energy and electricity industries.
About author
Read More About , , ,
6 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. captddd@hotmail.com'

    This is such a RIP OFF!

    The Folks in the Deep South are enslaved to the Nuclear Fascists* and the rest of the USA is on the hook for any accidents from any of these nuclear turkeys since the Price Waterhouse limits the Industry Liability to about 12 Billion Dollars…

    How much is South Carolina or LA-San Diego worth?

    More here:

    NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief
    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

    In short, if there is more that $12 Billion in damages, we are SOL!
    This is only a tiny fraction of what it will cost in Fukushima,
    … Which is about a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster!

    Where would the US Government get the REST,
    … Social Security and or Medicare?

    This question needs answering ASAP,
    … From both Congress and the Nuclear Industry!

    CALL your Leaders and ask them where this money would from!

    Then ALL Americans can determine if Nuclear is worth the RISK!

  2. captddd@hotmail.com'

    Sorry for the missing definition:
    *Nuclear Fascism
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuclear+fascism

    And thats for the well written article…

  3. captddd@hotmail.com'

    What could possible go wrong?

    THE NPP’s RISK GAME:

    ~ Tornado strike?
    ~ Earthquake?
    ~ Human error?
    ~ Tsunami?
    ~ Power outage?
    ~ Pipe break?
    ~ Test gone wrong?
    ~ Old fuel issues?
    ~ Terrorist attack?
    ~ Hurricane?
    ~ Plane crash?
    ~ Heavy rains/River floods?
    ~ Metal Fatigue?
    ~ Nuclear Ransom?
    ~ Solar Flair?
    ~ EMP?
    ~ Lightning?
    ~ Dam Failure?
    ~ Fire?
    ~ Operator suicide?
    ~ Jihadist?
    ~ CME?
    ~ Carrington Effect?
    ~ Cyber-warfare
    ~ Meteror
    ~ Aliens

    … Just to name a few possibilities how NPP’s can crap out.

  4. captddd@hotmail.com'

    Here is yet another RIP OFF, the unknown cost to decommission:

    GAO ==>N.R.C. Skimps on Financial Oversight, Audit Says
    http://is.gd/k5sNpE
    snip
    For a study it plans to issue on Monday, the Government Accountability Office scrutinized 12 of the nation’s 104 power reactors and found that for 5 of them, the decommissioning cost calculated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was 76 percent or less of what the reactor’s owner thought would be needed.
    The most striking example was Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, N.Y., which could be forced to close by 2015 because of a licensing dispute . The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated the cost of decommissioning the reactor at $474.2 million, just 57 percent of the “site-specific” estimate made by Entergy, the owner, which put the figure at $836.45 million.

    Guess who is on the HOOK for all this money…
    US, N☢T the Industry

    Think Too BIG TO Meltdown — N☢T

  5. joybusey@gmail.com'

    Excellent analysis, Lucas. If all the ‘hidden’ and direct excess consumer costs were included, nukes would be even more fiscally outlandish.

  6. newstome@hswmail.com'

    Great reporting!

    Remember how complicit the U.S. media was in downplaying the radiation from Japan?

    I’ve never seen so many synonyms of the word “small” (in describing the radiation).

    Here are just some of the synonyms the U.S. media used:

    wee, tiny, teeny-tiny, very low levels, minute levels, miniscule, very small, extremely small, within acceptable levels, barely measurable………… and my all-time favorite >>>

    “LIKE A BANANA”

    One article had the audacity to criticize anyone concerned about the radiation from Japan like this:

    “unless you are the most irrational worrier”

    Sadly, not one article in the main-stream media made the truthful statement that THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION.

    Many of us are glad we were concerned; we’re glad we learned how dangerous nuclear energy is; we’re glad we educated ourselves on radiation mitigation; and we’re glad we found excellent sources like Enformable to keep us “enformed.”

Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Your name is required

Please enter a valid email address

An email address is required

Please enter your message

*

Enformable © 2014 All Rights Reserved

More in Editorials, Featured, Nuclear News
498223420
An Audacious Nuclear Hypocrisy

Related articles Japan can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions without relying on nuclear energy(enformable.com) Memorializing the "Non-Catastrophic" Fukushima nuclear disaster(enformable.com) Yokota Air Base received equivalent of chest x-ray to thyroid in 72 hours...

Close