Most Popular This Week
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
- Obama Offers to Cut Social Security, Medicare and Popular Programs (Again)
Popular content
Today's Top News
Japan's Nuclear Catastrophe Leaves Little to Celebrate on Children's Day
A recent government decision callously put thousands of kids in harm's way.
May 5 is Children’s Day, a Japanese national holiday that celebrates the happiness of childhood. This year, it will fall under a dark, radioactive shadow.
Japanese children in the path of radioactive plumes from the crippled nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi power station are likely to suffer health problems that a recent government action will only exacerbate.
On April 19, the Japanese government sharply ramped up its radiation exposure limit to 2,000 millirem per year (20 mSv/y) for schools and playgrounds in Fukushima prefecture. Japanese children are now permitted to be exposed to an hourly dose rate 165 times above normal background radiation and 133 times more than levels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows for the American public. Japanese school children will be allowed to be exposed to same level recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection for nuclear workers. Unlike workers, however, children won’t have a choice as to whether they can be so exposed.
This decision callously puts thousands of children in harm's way.
Experts consider children to be 10 to 20 times more vulnerable to contracting cancer from exposure to ionizing radiation than adults. This is because as they grow, their dividing cells are more easily damaged — allowing cancer cells to form. Routine fetal X-rays have ceased worldwide for this reason. Cancer remains a leading cause of death by disease for children in the United States.
On April 12, the Japanese government announced that the nuclear crisis in Fukushima was as severe as the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Within weeks of the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, the four ruined reactors at the Dai-Ichi power station released enormous quantities of radiation into the atmosphere.
According to the Daily Youmiri, Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) announced that between 10 and 17 million curies (270,000- 360,000 TBq) of radioactive materials were released to the atmosphere before early April, a great deal more than previous official estimates.
Even though atmospheric releases blew mostly out to sea and appear to have declined dramatically, NISA reports that Fukushima's nuclear ruins are discharging about 4,200 curies of iodine-131 and cesium-137 per day into the air (154 TBq). This is nearly 320,000 times more than d radiation the now de-commissioned Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant released over a year. NISA's estimate is likely to be the low end, given the numerous sources of unmeasured and unfiltered leaks into the environment amidst the four wrecked reactors. On April 27, Bloomberg News reported that radiation readings at the Dai-Ichi nuclear power station have risen to the highest levels since the earthquake.
With a half-life of 8.5 days, iodine-131 is rapidly absorbed in dairy products and in the human thyroid, particularly those of children. Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years and gives off potentially dangerous external radiation. It concentrates in various foods and is absorbed throughout the human body. Unlike iodine-131, which decays to a level considered safe after about three months, cesium-137 can pose risks for several hundred years.
Measurements taken at 1,600 nursery schools, kindergartens, and middle school playgrounds in early April indicate that children are regularly getting high radiation doses. Radiation levels one meter above the ground indicate that children at hundreds of schools received exposures 43- 200 times above background. And this is outside of the "exclusionary zone" around the Dai-Ichi reactors, where locals have been evacuated. Japan's Ministry of Education and Science has limited outdoor activities at 13 schools in the cities of Fukushima, Date, and Koriyama Cities.
Although the extent of long-term contamination is not yet fully known, disturbing evidence is emerging. Data collected 40 kilometers from the Fukushima's nuclear accident show cumulative levels as high as 9.5 rems (95 mSv) — nearly five times the international annual occupational dose. Soil beyond the 30-kilometer evacuation zone shows cesium-137 levels at 2,200 kBq per square meter — 67 percent greater than that requiring evacuation near Chernobyl.
Three-fourths of the monitored schools in Fukushima had radioactivity levels so high that human entry shouldn't be allowed, even though students began a new semester on April 5.
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...
16 Comments so far
Show AllHow long will we tolerate the lies and misinformation from the nuclear industry?
There were safety systems upon safety systems upon safety systems, and they said the chances of such an accident were essentially nonexistent.
Yet now the children of Japan and the people of the world will pay the price.
Rest assured that this could never happen with any of the 30 US plants of a similar design - or any of the other plants throughout the world. As long as there is money to be made, they will tell us that we are safe. And we will believe them because we need that electricity for our automatic bacon fryers.
"And we will believe them because we need that electricity for our automatic bacon fryers."
This is another big part of our problem(s). Power consumption has been linked with economic growth and general prosperity since forever. Planners invariably project the need for excessive capacity. Do we really need the electric stuff we use? Does it make our lives better?
Then there is the electricity that is generated that we simply don't use.
This graph is staggering:
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2011/usenergyuse.jpg
It shows that more than half of power generated is "rejected". This is mostly because of the daily cycle-- less power is used at night, but plants cannot be throttled on a 12-hour basis, so they keep consuming coal, etc. The graph in the link above is not from Greenpeace, or some left-leaning enviro group-- it's from Lawrence Livermore. It makes me want to scream.
Not only that, but the electricity we do use is not used well. Not only bystander's bacon fryers, but, you know-- inefficient heating, lighting, wasteful usage (like lighting our city centres at 2 in the morning).
The reason for all this is that there is big profits in it for utilities.
There are posters who have argued that nuclear is better than coal. I believe both coal and nuclear are a pox on our house. We need to wean ourselves off both of these dangers, and cut down on how much power we use.
Don't forget those electric pencil sharpeners, electric knife sharpeners, electric hedge trimmers, electric can openers, electric razors, electric egg slicers, electric facial tanners, electric carving knives, electric nail files, electric hair crimpers, electric ice cream makers, electric wine openers, electric single-serve gourmet coffee machines, electric pizza cutters, electric pasta machines, electric cheese graters, and on and on! It's the invisible hand of the radionuclide marketplace that now permeates the Northern Hemisphere. Time to fire up those Joe DiMaggio Mr. Coffee Makers.
HC,
The reject energy that is shown in the LLNL graph results from thermodynamics, not from throttling. A heat engine can only extract useful work from a fraction of the total energy released. The higher the operating temperature of the heat engine the larger the fraction that can be extracted.
Water cooled nuclear power plants are notoriously inefficient thermodynamically. They convert about 30% of the thermal energy released in fission into electricity. This is because the highest water temperature is only about 600F. (This is lower than the self cleaning temperature on a kitchen stove.)
A modern coal or gas fired power plant is more efficient. They convert between 50 and 60% of the heat of combustion into electricity (gas plants are more efficient partially because they do not have to operate as much parasitic environmental equipment). The peak temperature for a modern coal or gas fired steam plant is in the range of 1200F.
Solar thermal and geothermal plants, which are also heat engines, usually have lower thermodynamic efficiencies than nuclear plants. These, or course, are viewed differently because there is no fuel cost associated with them but the waste heat issues are the same.
Bill
Senior nuclear safety advisor to the current Japanese administration, Toshiso Kosako, delivered a tearful resignation Friday in protest of the government’s decision to raise the threshold limits for children living in close proximity to the leaking Fukushima reactors. He condemned the government’s response to the disaster as being reactive rather than proactive and in violation of laws designed to protect people’s health. Kosako, a Tokyo University professor, is far from being one of Japan’s lonely anti-nuclear voices in the wilderness and his resignation is a startling occurrence. The Japanese government has long been a steadfast champion of nuclear power and the resignation of someone within its ranks should put a considerable dent in its armor.
I saw that too, but think that they underplayed the results of the plants melting down...
From the article:
'On April 19, the Japanese government sharply ramped up its radiation exposure limit to 2,000 millirem per year (20 mSv/y) for schools and playgrounds in Fukushima prefecture. Japanese children are now permitted to be exposed to an hourly dose rate 165 times above normal background radiation and 133 times more than levels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows for the American public....'
John
Certainly not! The linked EPA document pertains to occupational exposure only. And the 15 mrem/yr EPA figure is in ADDITION to background (typically 60 mrem/yr in the US). So that number is more like "5" rather than "133".
John
Good catch, thanks for this.
One must wonder, though, about how much of the radioactivity from Fukushima will be ingested via lungs or digestive system. That would be different than normal background radiation, one would think.
Children, too, are more vulnerable than adults...
I would not want my child exposed as the children of Japan currently are, and will be in the future.
The case of the town of Ramsar, Iran, is fascinating. Very high background levels of radiation, but people seem to have adapted to chronic dosage. None of this has been definitively sorted out from a scientific standpoint, but some believe that people who are exposed to a single-term elevated dose of radiation may be more vulnerable than people at a place like Ramsar, even though the yearly total would be greater for the Ramsar residents.
I am hoping that the children of Japan will be monitored... There is much that is not known about radiation exposure.
(Inhaling) microscopic specks of cesium-137 will almost 100% insure cancer will develop within five to fifteen years at any body organ, from the brain to the liver or bone marrow. Just one single speck. It would be very unlikely a person would inhale only one speck.
That poison is circling the globe and only specially filtered maks can prevent inhaling airborne isotopes of radio-active poison.. The radio-active isotopes are microscopic, like oxygen isotopes. It enters a lung and then is absorbed into the blood stream just as oxygen does and travels throughout the body until it lodges someplace where it radiates continiously and alters body cells. The poison from the Fukushima plant will effect children world wide, __ and adults.
Is that depressing? Yes, it is. And there were four nuclear plants that luckily missed being struck by tornadoes last week. The one in Arkansas, which lost primary power, one in Alabama just missed and lost primary power, and two in Georgia. Someday! Are we really willing to gamble and trust to luck?
Geo-thermal, solar, wave and tidal power won't kill everyone. Coal, oil and uranium fueled power plants can.
Hymenaea courbaril:
You wrote:
'One must wonder, though, about how much of the radioactivity from Fukushima will be ingested via lungs or digestive system. That would be different than normal background radiation, one would think.'
Yes indeed! The radiation dose from the fallout is transient. If you're far enough from the cloud, the dose will be negligible. But the radioisotopes in that cloud deposit on the ground, and wind up in vegetable and animal products. The isotopes can also be directly inhaled and ingested due to winds and contact.
Once inside the body, the ionizing radiation from the isotopes is a serious health hazard, especially the beta rays. And the problem persists, limited only by the radiological and biological half-lives of the isotopes.
'The case of the town of Ramsar, Iran, is fascinating. Very high background levels of radiation, but people seem to have adapted to chronic dosage. None of this has been definitively sorted out from a scientific standpoint, but some believe that people who are exposed to a single-term elevated dose of radiation may be more vulnerable than people at a place like Ramsar, even though the yearly total would be greater for the Ramsar residents.'
Yes, in some parts of Ramsar, inhabitants receive about 30 times the background radiation that the mainland US population receives.
;I am hoping that the children of Japan will be monitored... There is much that is not known about radiation exposure.'
Let's hope that the monitoring process isn't politicized.
John
It has been well documented that radiation poison can cause cancer among the fetus and children. But it is not known what effect it has on the chemistry of the brain and the brain waves.I know children who were exposed to x-ray before birth who have mental impairments. One of them was unable to talk at 3 years of age and needed speech therapy. This child had an abnormal electroencephalogram in the speech area of the brain.
Genie,
My eldest child was exposed to x-rays before birth. She is 31 and in good health.
The abnormalities in the child you cite are, in all probability, not a result of medical radiation exposure. X-raying of pregnant women is only done when there are significant medical issues beyond normal pregnancy. If, as you say, this child was exposed before birth, the mother/fetus had a serious medical condition involved.
Bill
Bill,
You wrote:
'The abnormalities in the child you cite are, in all probability, not a result of medical radiation exposure. X-raying of pregnant women is only done when there are significant medical issues beyond normal pregnancy. If, as you say, this child was exposed before birth, the mother/fetus had a serious medical condition involved.'
That's certainly the accepted practice currently. But when I was a pup, pelvic exams of pubescent girls often included taking X-rays. If the girl's mother were present, the physician wouldn't dare ask whether her daughter might possibly be pregnant. But the dangers of ionizing radiation were not that well accepted then. Gee, in the 1960's shoe stores were still using fluoroscopes to fit shoes. Here in Philadelphia, on a trip to center-city to buy shoes, kids' feet could be exposed to many many roentgens of radiation.
John
The Japanese nuclear scientists stated last week they plan on having the Fukushima plant stable within six to nine months. Swell.
Two days ago they sent the two robots back into the inner reactor buildings of unit's one and three. The radiation levels were so high it will be impossible for any workers to ever enter to repair anything. They still haven't sent the robots into unit number 2. They say they are "investigating to determine where the radiation is coming from and the six to nine month plan may be in jeapordy" May be in jeapordy? .
Well, I'm not a nuclear scientist but I do believe I can assist them there. I'm pretty sure the radiation is coming from the melting down fuel rods. Since they can no longer pump any cooling water into the reactor's cores we can be pretty certain they will melt down all the way if they haven't already done so and the only thing anyone could do then is walk away and pretend it never happened, or start pouring in the sand and concrete as was done at Chernbyl. Then the melted down cores' will continue to radiate poison for years underground, which will at the very least enter their ground water and the ocean. It's very close to the ocean bay.
Meanwhile for the present and probably for many more months, radiation continues to emit into the atmosphere and circle the globe. We are advised those deadly radioactive isotopes are "heavy" and won't travel very far. Really? They are not anywhere near as heavy as volcanic ash which easily travels 24,000 miles and then of course we already have those radio-active isotopes, (which will be deadly for many years), here in the US and in Europe. So they do travel a long distance.
As the isotopes of poison travel through the air as they are doing, even if they aren't sent into the upper atmosphere from a massive explosion, (yet). The airborne isotopes spread out, many end up in the waters of the Pacific and so less are in the air, soil and water and on land than they are near Fukushima. However; they (arrive daily) and accumulate, or (build up) and winds blow them around and after months and years there will be a great deal of poison available all around the world for injestion or inhaling. __ The invisible specks of poison don't evaporate or go away.
Our EPA doesn't mention that, they say, "don't worry, be happy, no sweat". I'm not worried because there is nothing I can do about it, but I do wish they would start mixing concrete. The children of the world should be both worried and pissed off even if they cannot do anything about it either. They are not responsible for what the adults have done to the planet.
Bill, I am very happy that your daughter is in good health . One of the boys I talked about had been diagnosed with a brain chemical unbalance but is in good health for years now the other one is disabled with a serious mental illness. Neither have cancer . Some humans are more susceptible to toxin exposure such as radiation than others. Not all fetus , children or adults react the same. You are right it probably is not due to radiation for the two boys but who knows if the researchers have done any studies of the effect on the brain or if they focus on the cancer only. The medical profession has not done x-rays on pregnant women for many years. They do sonograms that they claim are safer.