Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Hundreds of Chicago Students Walk Out of Standardized Test
- The Same Motive for Anti-US 'Terrorism' Is Cited Over and Over
- What Does It Mean To Be An “American” Corporation?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fukushima Plant Leaks Radioactive Water
Radioactive water might have found its way into the Pacific ocean and experts believe it could contain strontium
TOKYO - Large quantities of highly radioactive water have leaked through a crack in the wall of a treatment facility at the Fukushima power plant, and some may have founds its way into the sea, the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], said.
Workers decontaminate the roof of an Okuma town office near the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. (Photograph: Kyodo/Reuters) The firm said as much as 45 tons of water had leaked through the concrete wall of a building being used to purify contaminated water that is then used to cool molten fuel in the plant's three damaged reactors.
The firm has piled up sandbags to prevent further leaks but fears some water may have already found its way into a gutter that connects to the Pacific ocean about 600 meters away.
Experts believe the water could contain high levels of strontium-90, a beta-emitting radioactive substance that, if ingested, can cause bone cancer.
Public broadcaster NHK reported that although cesium levels in the leaked water were low, it could contain up to 130,000 becquerels per cubic centimeter of strontium, which has a half-life of 29 years.
Workers temporarily halted the purification apparatus after spotting a puddle of water on Sunday. They later recorded 1.8 millisieverts [mSv] per hour of gamma radiation and 110mSv per hour of beta radiation on the surface of the puddle, the company said in a statement.
It said the leak appeared to have been stemmed, adding it already had enough purified water to continue cooling the reactors as scheduled.
The discovery underlines the difficulties facing Fukushima Daiichi workers as they struggle to contain and reuse large volumes of contaminated water.
In October, the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, a French government body, said the plant had been responsible for the biggest-ever discharge of radioactive material into the sea.
More details have emerged, meanwhile, of the workers' desperate struggle to save the power plant in the moments after it was struck by a tsunami of up to 14 meters in height on the afternoon of 11 March.
One of the unnamed employees, who was in charge of the main control room at the time of the disaster, recalled how, at one point, he had begged colleagues not to abandon the plant.
He realized that the tsunami had caused a disaster when the lights on the plant's control panels flickered, and then went out. "I came to realize that a tsunami had hit the site when one of the workers came rushing into the control room, shouting 'Sea water is gushing in!'" he said. "I felt at a complete loss after the power went down."
He said the plant's "anxious" employees argued over how to contain the crisis, with one suggesting they had no choice but to flee. "He said: 'Is there any point in staying when there is nothing we can do?'
"I bowed my head and begged them to stay."
Workers at the site in the aftermath of the accident – quickly nicknamed the Fukushima 50 because they initially worked in groups of around that number – have been hailed as heroes for remaining at their posts and preventing an even greater catastrophe.
One recalled how he had volunteered to enter a reactor building to manually open a ventilation valve in an attempt to ease the pressure building inside.
"We put on full protective gear, but we couldn't possibly let younger workers do that job as we were entering an area with high levels of radiation," he said.
"When I got there, I heard a strange, loud popping sound from below, and when I tried to start work, my black rubber boots melted [due to the heat]."
The workers echoed fears voiced recently by the plant's chief, Masao Yoshida, who has taken early retirement due to an unspecified illness, that there were moments when they believed they would die.
"We experienced big aftershocks and had to keep fleeing [from possible tsunami] up the hill still wearing our protective masks," said one worker.
Another recalled how he and his colleagues constantly worried about being electrocuted as they worked while standing in puddles of water.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
112 Comments so far
Show All~John~, calm down boy.. You are well aware that no one but a very few of us who are still arguing with you and ~Finny~,, the pick a pair,, are reading these comments and no one really gives a rip what any of us we may write anyway
The only reason I am bothering to respond to your nonsense, is because I'm bored.
Let's go with the bone marow for fun and a few laughs... In a reply to me, you stated bone marrow does not feed the bones...Well we aren't medical professors or surgeons Johnny, so we speak in layman's' terminology.
Actually the bone marrow does feed the bones.. In the bone marrow there are vessels called canaliculi, they are tube-like tunnels that transport nutrients to the osteocytes (bones) from the blood vessels.
Bone marrow is where our blood's platletes and the red and white blood cells are produced... Cancer of the bone marrow is not uncommon,, especially in children. One form of such cancer is called lukemia,, another is plasti anemia, the reverse of lukemia and usually fatal.
It is almost imossible to say such types of cancers were caused from injested radioactive poisons, such as cesium or strontium, but it is widely believed to be the reason by many of the world's leading medical doctors who specilize in cancer treatment.
Since TMI and Chernobyl,, such types of caners,, especially in children,, have skyrocketed world wide... Treatment is often successful if the disease is diagnosed soon enough and therfore death is often averted and so less deaths due to TMI or Chernoblyl have occurred... But when children develop cancer and it is in remmission or cured, it often returns at a later time in life.
Cancer cases soaring now has also caused health care costs and health insurance costs to go over the edge.. That in turn has enticed many large and small businesses to lay off full time employees and hire part time employees,, who aren't offered the health care benefits and so on,, and on,, and on... It's like a feedback loop to an economic mess,, caused from nuclear energy and nuclear accidents.. How ya like all of that Johnny boy? Should keep you busy for awhile.
The airborne gasious isotopes of radioactive poisons? Stop it Johnny, the record is stuck, we use discs now not record players... The deadly isotopes travel all around the world and you know it,,, everyone knows it Johnny and you are making a fool of yourself here,, which is actually alright, continue on John.
When it rains, or sleets, or hails, or snows, those deadly isotopes come right on down to the ground,, or on waters of the oceans and lakes, etc.
Let's see here, what else can you argue about??? How about these?... Whe you flush a toilet, 50,000 germs on average, are released into the air,,, and bears do shit in the woods... And ~Finny~ if your hand is tired and or you have recovered from the beating you took from Web, you reply to the highly exceptional comments I just posted here... Okay?
.
Yes, it is unfortunate that this item is stale now.
As to your major point, the 'skyrocketing' of childhood cancer rates world-wide, may we have a reference for that? Keep in mind also that statisticians warn that 'corelation does not prove causality'. Please take a look at data from the U.S.
which do not show such 'skyrocketing' to have occured:
"Is Childhood Cancer Becoming More Common? ... But rest assured, cancer rates are not skyrocketing (and skyrocketing is not causing huge jumps in cancer rates)."
stats.org/stories/2010/childhood_cancer_may28_10.html
Your comments were highly exceptional indeed...now if you can just let go of the last vestiges of smart alec-ing we might have some civil discussions.
A reference? Google or Bing it.
Half a million on average die from cancer in the United states every year... A high percentage are children and young adults up to the age of 22... Some years a bit less,, some a bit more than 500,000 die from cancer... That ma'boy is an epidemic.
Every year an average of 8 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed in the United States alone... Treatment for cancer is far better tha it was in the 1980s and prior.. So many do not die. they just often declare bankruptcy because of the high costs of treatment.
Cancer is now by far the leading cause of death in children due to medical reasons... Prior to 1952 childhood cancer was rather rare... All of those stats were prior to the Fuku disaster.
There are many other reasons now besides nuclear poisons in the atmosphere, but nuclear poisons, including DU are the worst... In addition; most children from age one month to 16 don't smoke cigarettes.
Most Americans up to the age of 105 by far don't smoke cigarettes anymore either. One reason is the federal tax on a pound of cigarette tobacco is over $25 bucks and many states add another $5 bucks or more a pound tax, plus sales tax on the product and the sin taxes... That sin tax money was supposed to go to health care, but the elected wizards cut health care benefits and bought smart bombs instead.
Wayne, you said that childhood cancer incidence was 'skyrocketing' world-wide. I tried to find (by Google) evidence for that statement and could find no reference for it. There is data that I cited to you for the U.S. cancer rates which shows it is NOT skyrocketing here. Because you based your arguments that nuclear power played a major role in the world-wide epidemic, should there not be evidence for such an epidemic? Otherwise, why did you say that?
The balance of your last posting is not relevant to your contention about nuclear power being a major contributor to an epidemic. Where is the data showing an epidemic world-wide? And where is the evidence that the radiation doses to children have been increased from nuclear power such as to be a plausible explanation for the epidemic, if there is one?
If you don't have the evidence then don't make the claims, please. This is important to effectively support the argument to stop nuclear plants from being run, much less built. I would like to have the evidence to add to my position against building any more plants..
There you go again ~~RFinston~~.. Playing your obtuse, obnoxious, ignorant (word games) and attepting to make a big deal of one's use of a WORD,,,, and you want fair and reasonable discussions.... Take a hike Finston.
I used the WORD (*skyrocketed*)... That is MY opinion and MY perogative to use it. When childhood cancer was relatively rare prior to the1950s and it is now advanced to be the greatest cause of childhood deaths from deieas and millions are being treated world wide for cancer every year,,,, in MY opinion,,, it has (*skyrocketed*).
YOU may think otherwise Finston,,,, that is YOUR opinion,,, and YOUR perogative.... But that does not mean MY opinion is not as valid as YOUR opinions.
My opinion is based upon the FACT that childhood cancer rates have risen (*dramatically*) since atomic energy has been developed and since testing of atomic weapons and since DU has been used in weaponry and since we have had 14 nuclear power plant core meltdowns in the past 60 years and many cases of radioactive poisons released from nuclear power plants around the world.
And I do not believe and have stated,, it is not just due to nuclear power, but nuclear power is the worst offender,,,, in MY and many cancer specialist's opinionss.
You ignored the facts that childhood cancer is now by far the highest cause of childhood deaths due to disease and that millions have been and are are being treated for cancer... Childhood deaths are topped only by accidental death. Anddddddd Finston,,,, cancer in children was quite rare in comparrison to now before the 1950s. YOu ignore those facts.
You do not want fair discussions ~RFinston~.. You want to attack others and then claim they are not being fair and are insulting you... Poor baby,, go suck your thumb and get under your blanket and sulk. ... Jerk... What Webwalk, CT and Siouxrose have written about you here are spot on.... I have zero respect and no use for you or your type of ilk.
And FINALLY ~~RFinston~~... You wrote,, > ("I would like to have the evidence to add to my position against building any more plants,").
Do you actually believe anyone here would believe that BS Finston?
The evidence is already self evident to have no more nukes... You do not need my advice or opinions, you have already well established to me and everyone else here that you already have all of the answers.
Rave on till doomsday , the floor is yours.
So it appears you have no evidence for your claim of a childhood cancer epidemic. That is all I wanted to know.
The evidence is self evident, a child could realize that the facts speak for themselves.
Hey folks, there's no one reading this except we stalwarts. Let's kick back and relax. Finny, did you really testify against nukes? What was that like?