Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on February 22, 2015

Bookmark and Share

New Fukushima Leak Sees 70x Increase In Radiation

New Fukushima Leak Sees 70x Increase In Radiation thumbnail


It has been a disturbing week for Japan, not due to any recent economic calamity resulting from Abenomics, but because for the first time since the catastrophic 2011 earthquake, the nation has been rocked with a series of ever stronger tremors, with two 6.0+ stronger quakes recorded in just the past 2 days:

The quakes come at an awkward time, just a few short months before Japan’s government aims to restart its first nuclear reactor by around June, following the Fukushima devastation.

While it is unclear if it is directly related to the recent surge in tectonic activity, overnight another radioactive water leak in the sea was detected at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, the facility’s operator TEPCO announced. Contamination levels in the gutter reportedly spiked up 70 times over regular readings.

The levels of contamination were between 50 and 70 times higher than Fukushima’s already elevated radioactive status, and were detected at about 10 am local time (1.00 am GMT), AFP reported. After the discovery, the gutter was blocked to prevent leaks to the Pacific Ocean.

As RT adds, throughout Sunday, contamination levels fell, but still measured 10 to 20 times more than prior to the leak. “We are currently monitoring the sensors at the gutter and seeing the trend,” a company spokesman said.

He did not specify the cause of the leak.

Tepco being Tepco, it decided to be extra generous with the lives and safety of any citizens around the blast site, and in yet another attempt to avoid.

The euphemisms continue: “It has proved difficult for TEPCO to deal with plant decommissioning. Postponed deadlines and alarming incidents occur regularly at the facility. Earlier this week, the UN nuclear watchdog (IAEA) said Japan had made significant progress, but there is still a radioactive threat, and a “very complex” scenario at Fukushima.”

So while Tepco not only has no idea how to proceed with the toxic cleanup at the Fukushima site 4 years after the explosion having scrapped its idiotic “ice sarcophagus” idea a year ago, and continues to scramble to push the illusion that it is on top of the situation – one which any earthquake threatens to unravel with devastating results – Japan is already preparing for its next epic catastrophe, when it proceeds to launch even more nuclear power plants in the coming months. Then again, once Japan suffers the next and final Fukushima-type event and the endgame for doomed nation arrives, at least the government can “blame nature” for finally destroying the country, deflecting attention from years and decades of failed economic policies.


31 Comments on "New Fukushima Leak Sees 70x Increase In Radiation"

  1. gdubya on Sun, 22nd Feb 2015 10:50 pm 

    Oil glut

    Beat you, planet

  2. Go Speed Racer on Sun, 22nd Feb 2015 11:37 pm 

    Energy Shortage is solved. Buy cans of tuna fish. Put them downstairs. The warmth of their radioactivity will heat your house.

  3. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 6:48 am 

    Saw this yesterday on another site I follow. I haven’t found what the actual levels are yet (a 70% increase over a very low amount is still a very low amount).

    But perhaps this is significant. I’ll see what I can learn later today (after work).

  4. paulo1 on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 8:01 am 

    As someone who lives on the other side of the Pacific, “may there be onshore winds and currents”. Anybody stupid enough to build more of these plants deserves all the radiation they produce!!

    For Christs sake, the hubris in building something whose dangerous effects last longer than recorded civilization.

    You want a sick laugh? Here is the propaganda from the nuke industry re: waste.—Myths-and-Realities/

    “Today, safe management practices are implemented or planned for all categories of radioactive waste. Low-level waste (LLW) and most intermediate-level waste (ILW), which make up most of the volume of waste produced (97%), are being disposed of securely in near-surface repositories in many countries so as to cause no harm or risk in the long-term. This practice has been carried out for many years in many countries as a matter of routine.

    High-level waste (HLW) is currently safely contained and managed in interim storage facilities. The amount of HLW produced (including used fuel when this is considered a waste) is in fact small in relation to other industry sectors. HLW is currently increasing by about 12,000 tonnes worldwide every year, which is the equivalent of a two-storey structure built on a basketball court or about 100 double-decker buses and is modest compared with other industrial wastes. The use of interim storage facilities currently provides an appropriate environment in which to contain and manage this amount of waste. These facilities also allow for the heat and radioactivity of the waste to decay prior to long-term geological disposal. In fact, after 40 years there is only about one thousandth as much radioactivity as when the reactor is switched off to unload the used fuel. Interim storage provides an appropriate means of storing used fuel until a time when that country has sufficient fuel to make a repository development economic.”

    In the long-term however, appropriate disposal arrangements are required for HLW, due to its prolonged radioactivity. Disposal solutions are currently being developed for HLW that are safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable. The solution that is widely accepted as feasible is deep geological disposal, and repository projects are well advanced in some countries, such as Finland, Sweden and the USA. In fact, in the USA a deep geological waste repository (the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) is already in operation in New Mexico for the disposal of transuranic waste (long-lived ILW contaminated with military materials such as plutonium), although Nevada is showing classic Nimbya resistance to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. These countries have demonstrated that political and public acceptance issues at a community and national level can be met.

    The nuclear industry therefore has clearly defined waste disposal methods for all waste produced and is making progress in many countries to achieve public acceptance of the approved programmes. It is important that other governments in nuclear energy-producing countries now follow the lead set by these countries on the issue of long-term disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

  5. JuanP on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 9:01 am 

    Templar, It says 70 times more, not 70% more. That is 7000%. That is a lot. I call Fukushima “The gift that keeps on giving” in my mind. I expect that Fukushima will remain a mess for the rest of our lives.

    To infinity and beyond!

  6. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 9:20 am 

    Juan and Paulo,

    My bad on the percent. If this is an increase at the becquerel level it is still incredibly tiny. I haven’t had a chance to dig and won’t until this evening.

    Very quickly these isotopes do not last forever. They decay into non-radioactive ones on a predicable timetable. The overwhelming majority of them will decay within a hundred years. None of them last forever as opposed to other contaminants we’ve spewed into the environment, such as mercury or arsenic, which do not decay and are dangerous until the end of time.

    Also very quickly. If you eat bananas you are ingesting a tiny amount of potassium 40, the radioactive isotope of potassium. It has a half life of 1.248×109 years. I’m not aware of anyone recommending you stop eating bananas. The amount is just too small, but it is radioactive for millions of years.

    More later.

  7. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 9:21 am 

    That should be 1.248×10 to the 9th power years. Comments don’t like the superscript tag.

  8. JuanP on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 9:31 am 

    Darn Templar! Bananas are the basis of my diet. I must be quite radioactive then.

  9. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 9:41 am 

    LOL Juan! If you turn off the lights do you glow in the dark? 😉

    Oh. I didn’t think so. On a more serious note, the amount you would ingest eating a lifetime of banana would still not amount to much. The isotope is .012% of all potassium ions.

    None the less, you have radioactive elements in you that will take millions of years to decay.

    I have the strongest possible suspicion you haven’t noticed, nor will you, nor will any of the millions of other people who eat bananas.

    Gotta go back to work now. Will follow up later this evening.

  10. bobinget on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 11:32 am

    In two months Sao Paulo’s 20,000,000 people run out of water.

    Even worse, no one is doing anything effective to

    Realize of course in two months Brazil goes into
    its winter, rainy season.

    And if it doesn’t rain?

  11. Kenz300 on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 12:04 pm 

    When are the people of Japan going to wake up and require the permanent shut down of all nuclear power plans? Have they learned nothing from the disaster at Fukishima?

    There needs to be independent monitors at the Fukishima cleanup site. The government of Japan and TEPCO can not be trusted to provide accurate safety information…. we learned that from the information released during the first few days of the disaster.

    Seems like business interests are so powerful and profit hungry that they are willing to risk the destruction of the country. The disaster at Fukishima continues today with no end in sight.

    Nuclear —- Too costly and too dangerous………

    How much will it cost to clean up Fukishima and when will it be completed? When will the displaced people be able to move back home?

    How much will it cost to store nuclear waste FOREVER?

    There are safer, cleaner and cheaper ways to generate electricity.

    Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future. Japan needs to let go of the past, realize their mistakes and move forward with safer, cleaner and cheaper forms of energy generation.

    Utility-scale Solar Has Another Record Year in 2014

  12. penury on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 12:12 pm 

    For all the idiots who are advocates of the safety of nuclear contamination, I have a simple question. What do you consider a safe level of radiation for your family? Do you really think that there is a level of radiation above background which is beneficial to living organisms? Where and when did you receive your edumacation in the effects of constant exposure to elevated levels of radiation? People like TM pretend to know something, but always and all ways expose their bias not their knowledge.

  13. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 1:27 pm 


    Well, for what it’s worth, I’ve spent countless hours researching energy. It’s not my line of work. I do systems administration for a small company. But I developed an interest in energy and pursue it when I can.

    I came to my conclusions about nuclear power after reading a tremendous amount of material about renewable energy first. If I had faith in Kenz300’s approach to the impact of peak oil I’d be totally cool with it. I mean who wouldn’t like wind, water, and sun? They look so green, so safe, so utterly cool.

    I thought I’d do a little research and discover everything could be done with it. Well, electricity-wise, anyway. That’s at least a start.

    I quickly ran into a huge problem. Germany, which is an acknowledged leader in renewable energy, is actually generating relatively small amounts from a massive investment in the tech. The Fraunhofer Institute publishes easy to read charts on Germany’s efforts. They are hugely pro-renewable. Please feel free to take a look.

    The main problem, brought up countless times on this site, is the intermittency and unpredictability. When everything is firing they get a good pull. When it isn’t though, they have to switch to fossils, not infrequently lignite coal is their case.

    So far as radioactivity, natural background radiation varies widely across the planet. My sources for this come from the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) and various other sites. I try very hard to find credible sources and then learn what I can from them.

    I personally live within two hours drive from two nuclear plants here in northern Illinois. And I’m under an hour away from a decommissioned one. After all I’ve read I don’t feel even slightly threatened by them.

    That is my background. I’m on lunch now, but will respond in greater depth later tonight. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work on this.

    I would love to be able to embrace renewable energy as a way to transition away from oil and gas. I just can’t see how the numbers add up.


  14. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 2:07 pm 

    Okay, I’ve got a bit more time than I thought.

    Here is my quick-reference source for radiation effects and measurements. From MIT:

    Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerels

    The NAS Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VI goes into much greater depth, but the MIT article is a good starting point. You need a (free) NAP account to download a PDF of their copy of the BEIR report, but a little effort will get you there. Or you can just read it online on the site.

  15. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 2:08 pm 

    Hmmm. The tag didn’t take on the NAS Study:

  16. penury on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 3:19 pm 

    None of those studies deal with the real world. Most of the information can be traced back to the government. These are the same experts who assured the downwinders at Hanford that no danger existed. That assured the naval personnel that the radiation doses they received in the tests in the Pacific were safe. The same government that assured the military in Desert Storm 1 and later that DU was harmless. Trust the studies? Then why do so many veterans have children with neurological damage? (i.e spinal bifida)Why did so many personnel involved in atmospheric tests contract cancers of various types? If ionizing radiation is so safe why does the VA provide3 medical treatment to personnel who were exposed to nuclear tests?

  17. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 5:43 pm 


    Well, uh, okay. If I can’t trust the National Academy of Sciences and MIT for scientifically valid information, who am I supposed to trust?

    I think there may be some disconnect between what a government and a panel of scientists are saying going on here, perhaps. With some libertarian tendencies I certainly am leery of government claims.

    However, I find science to be, by and large, the best way I know of to ascertain truths about the natural world. I don’t know who else to turn to.

    And sure, science can be corrupted in the pursuit of government policy or corporate greed. The behavior of many large energy companies alarms me to no end.

    But if I’m trying to figure out the actual dangers of low level radiation, who am I to turn to, if not the best scientists in the world?

    When it comes to the effects of radiation there is considerable controversy. A medical doctor, a pediatrician no less, than Helen Caldicott, tells me one thing. An entire group of credible scientists (of the NAS on the BEIR project) tell me another.

    Dr. Caldicott has claimed that up to 350,000 men would be rendered temporarily sterile in the wake of a major nuclear accident. That just doesn’t seem to be the case, nor does it seem likely in the future. So I have to make a choice on credibility at some point.

    So if you have an alternative recommendation on credibility within the context of the scientific process I’m all ears.

    To the particular items you raised, the BEIR and NAS (and WHO, and IAEA) all acknowledge the dangers of high levels of radioactivity. It’s the lower levels that have confounded scientific study. This conclusion has been a part of all of the above sited examples and policies, policies implemented by governments, not scientists. There are a very large number of cancers that occur spontaneously in nature. Trying to figure out which were caused by low level radiation has bedeviled every study I’ve read. It is just extremely difficult to sort out the ones caused by this particular source from those caused randomly or by some other source.

    For example, the Downwinders. A quick scan of a simple Wikipedia article (and no, that’s not cutting edge science but it is at least publicly reviewed) reveals:

    “In 1980, People magazine reported that of some 220 cast and crew who filmed a 1956 film, The Conqueror, on location near St. George, Utah, ninety-one had come down with cancer, and 50 had died of cancer. Of these, forty-six had died of cancer by 1980. Among the cancer deatha were John Wayne and Susan Hayward, the stars of the film. However, the lifetime odds of developing cancer for men in the U.S. population are 43 percent and the odds of dying of cancer are 23 percent (38 percent and 19 percent, respectively, for women). This places the cancer mortality rate for the 220 primary cast and crew quite near the expected average.”

    So the group (People Magazine? Really?) showed about average rates.

    As I dug through the stats on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Nevada Test Site, etc I essentially found the same thing. Where there were elevated levels (generally termed “excess” cancers) they tended to be leukemia, and their numbers, as part of a cohort, were small when compared to the larger population.

    I have not claimed, nor do I now claim, low doses of radiation are harmless. I’ve simply tried to determine how harmful they are. So far I’ve found the evidence to indicate they minimally harmful. If they were much more doctors would not recommend X Rays, CT Scans, or radiomedical procedures where radioactive elements are deliberately injected into the patient for diagnostic purposes.

    Incidentally, the veterans with neurological damage (spinal bifida) are from a cohort of vets exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and Korea. The science seems clear on that – Agent Orange is beyond a simple risk factor, it shows positive causality.

    So again, I try to look at scientific sources. Given how controversial radioactivity is, I have to make judgements about credibility. It’s the only way I know how to make this sort of assessment.

  18. Makati1 on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 6:48 pm 

    Penury, there are NO safe reliable sources of info these days on anything important. Not being negative, just realistic. ALL info that the government considers a “need to know” is spun into an acceptable form before it is allowed to be made public. ALL of it. And the “need to know” now covers most everything really important in the US.

    If you think that is not so, then consider that 99% of the info sources are owned/controlled by the US government or supported by government research ‘grants’, MIT, included.

    Certainly the nuclear industry never publishes anything that would be negative to their business of supplying materials for nuclear weapons. They haven’t been honest for 70+ years. Why would they start now?

    It is the perfect cover-up. It usually takes years to show signs of nuclear exposure effects. Sometimes, not until the next generation is born and grows up. But the effects are there. It took 10 years for the Hiroshima ans Nagasaki bomb exposures to kill off another 200,000+ Japanese slowly and painfully, with cancers. Radiation is accumulative. You can ingest a microgram of poison and live. But ingest it everyday and …

  19. TemplarMyst on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 7:11 pm 


    Was that directed at penury or myself?

    If at myself, where are you getting your information from then?

  20. Apneaman on Mon, 23rd Feb 2015 8:25 pm 

    “there are NO safe reliable sources of info these days”

    Why have newspapers become so bad? There is a reason: it is another case of the “Seneca effect”

  21. SilentRunning on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 12:33 am 

    Um – the article said there was a 70x increase in radiation in *a gutter*.

    That sounds like something less than a global calamity.

    Without some sense of how much radioactive material we are talking about, this type of report is just sensationalism.

    I have a quantity of transuranic radioactive material in my house. If I put a gieger counter right next to it, I’m sure it would record a scary number – MUCH MUCH higher levels of radioactivity than background levels (WAY MORE than 70x). It’s fairly seething with alpha particles.

    Do I run screaming from my house, trembling in fear? No – actually I am glad it’s there, helping to keep me safe from a horrible death.

    (It’s Americium-241, and it’s in my smoke detector. The quantity of material is miniscule, but it is quite radioactive).

  22. Beery on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 3:55 am 

    I think if TemplarMyst was one of the cleanup crew at Fukushima, it might give him a new perspective on the “safety” of nuclear power.

  23. TemplarMyst on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 8:50 am 

    Well, that’d depend on the pay, eh?

    If I were to believe the other side of the argument here Beery I should be running terrified of the two live nukes and one decommissioned nuke within a couple hours drive of me. I’m downwind of one of em on most days, and downwind on the others depending on how the winds shift.

  24. Davy on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 9:07 am 

    The reality of the situation is we need to be as worried with decommissioning of NUK plants without replacement as much as continued operations. BAUtopia is a riddle of catch 22’s. BAU cannot afford lower energy intensity. These anti-NUK folks are fine but please quit being delusional with your thinking. NUK energy is too significant to remove from BAU. The end of BAU will be horrific. Anti-NUK folks call a spade a spade please.

  25. GregT on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 11:31 am 


    “BAU cannot afford lower energy intensity.”

    No matter how you look at it, lower energy intensity is where we are heading. So no BAU. No BAU=much reduced ability to clean these sites up. Even with BAU, TEPCO is saying that Fukushima clean up could take 60 years. I suspect those estimates to be very conservative. Chernobyl, they hope to have decommissioned inside of a century IF they manage to complete the 1.5 billion dollar NEW containment structure.

    Every single Nuc plant in existence today will eventually need to be decommissioned. Many Nucs are already beyond their intended useful lifespans. We don’t know how to safeguard nuclear waste today with BAU. How do we expect future generations to deal with these time bombs centuries from now? What are the costs associated with safeguarding this stuff for hundreds of years? Are we leaving a contingency for our children to deal with these sites? Or are we merely passing the expenses on to future generations, while we enjoy the benefits electricity today? Not only that, but if we build hundreds more of these plants, how will we deal with aging electric grid infrastructure, and what will we use the electricity for once BAU comes to a grinding halt and modern industrialism with it?

    I’m all for AltE, but it seems to me that the answer lies in more localized power generation (IE, stand alone solar, wind, and micro hydro), as opposed to more of the same that we have now which requires greater societal complexity.

  26. TemplarMyst on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 10:46 pm 


    It think this just brings out more of the chicken and egg side of the downslope of peak oil. If you really want to shut down all nuke plants, as Davy says, let’s plan for the 20% reduction in electricity. That’s about what nukes supply now. 402 plants supply 20% of the world’s electricity.

    Decommissioning is a long process mostly because, unlike any other form of energy, nukes have to account for every nut, bolt, and washer. Every part is assumed to be dangerous and deadly, and every micron release has to be avoided.

    Well, by the book anyway. We all know our illustrious, pubicly traded, crony capitalist energy companies are wont to cut corners. But in most parts of the world the decommissioning costs and timefames are built into the fees charged to customers, and set aside in funds for that purpose.

    Here in the states the funds for disposal are so huge the companies took the government to court so they could stop charging that fee. Not because they would be able to pocket the difference, but because at this stage the government has yet to implement a plan for the “waste”. Yucca Mountain, which is not ideal but is serviceable, is not in play so long as Reid holds sway. The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) had a fire not long ago. It’ll probably be back up and running some time in 2016, but in the mean time individual plants have to store their waste onsite.

    Once the waste has cooled sufficiently and is moved out of the holding pools it is placed in large casks. These are seriously overengineered, and should last well over a century. By which time the bulk of the material will have cooled even more, and just sit there. Should a cask bust open in a hundred years ain’t much gonna happen. No explosion, no melt, just some material which decreases in potency, as you pointed out in another post, in proportion to the inverse square of the distance from it.

    The “waste” is really available fuel, if your grandkids wanna use it, but if they don’t they can just let it sit there. Or alternatively they can bury it in a number of places. The safest and most permanent is actually in particular parts of the deep ocean. See Power to Save the World by Gwenyth Cravens for an extended discussion of this option.

    The byproducts of nuclear reactors are actually pretty well accounted for and a path to their final disposition fairly well known. It’s the leftovers from nuclear weapons production that is far more problematic, and I’d personally favor diverting some of the plant funds to help with that mess. The fuel rods from nuke plants are actually fuel and useful. The leftovers from weapons production are a mixed mess of gunk and equipment, and we ought to prioritize that cleanup over the fuel bundles, IMHO.

    All of which is a diversion from the point Davy, and now I, are trying to make. Small localized power is fine for small, localized populations. You can do a lot with small, localized populations. But if BAU comes down we ain’t gonna be dealing with small, localized populations, so far as I can tell.

    Thus I advocate having plenty of juice, and transitioning away from fossil BAU to a new paradigm. Your milage may vary, of course.

  27. GregT on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 11:18 pm 


    “But if BAU comes down we ain’t gonna be dealing with small, localized populations, so far as I can tell.”

    If BAU comes down, keeping the lights on at night will be the very least of our concerns. I also advocate ‘having plenty of juice’, but the current infrastructure is already failing, and in need of trillions of dollars in upgrades. Besides, building out enough Nucs in the timeframe that it appears that we are talking about here, is most likely no longer an option.

    I don’t see any large scale attempt at solving these issues at a national/global level. Therefore, I am going to take responsibility for my own future. Seeing as I can’t build a nuclear plant on my own, I have opted for solar and micro-hydro. I am transitioning away from fossil fuels on my own. I am not waiting for them, to come up with energy solutions for me.

    Your milage may vary, of course.

  28. TemplarMyst on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 11:50 pm 


    And that’s fine. We’ve had the conversation about whether a prep and isolation approach will buy one much time. I mean, really, who knows? Maybe it’s the way to go, or maybe it’ll just prolong the misery for a relatively short period of time. If either of us had that crystal ball we’d both know what to do, eh?

    I personally don’t see how the reduce and isolate approach will work. If manufacturing fails where will the spare parts come from to keep the solar and small hydro running? Or is the idea that those two techs can be maintained with some sort of small manufacturing capability? Which again begs that old chicken and egg – how does the small manufacturing capability get built out and maintained?

    If you’re really talking about taking that as long as it lasts and then going to an 18th century form of living, that seems at least plausible. But it’s a hard living, to be sure. Now granted, ghung extolled the virtues of that sort of lifestyle in a comment on another post recently.

    So far as a rapid rollout of nukes as the prime AltE, of all places France has demonstrated how to do it. Standardized designs and assembly line manufacture and construction. Took them a little over ten years to get to the point of obtaining 80% of their electricity from nuclear. They still do. And they reprocess their waste. All of what remains sits in a single warehouse, in the casks I described earlier.

    So far as the economics, I don’t think too many folks on this site, yourself included, are fooling themselves about the ridiculous state of the central bank inspired debt fiasco waiting to happen. It will happen. If cooler heads prevail the write-downs will proceed and money will revert to a commodity, most likely gold. If it does that’s keep the crazies in government from waging more of their ridiculous wars and we might be able to do something productive with society. Like maintain infrastructure.

    The book I’d recommend on the economics of the current mess is David Stockman’s The Great Deformation. Several regulars here have quoted Stockman, ghung fairly recently amongst them.

  29. TemplarMyst on Tue, 24th Feb 2015 11:55 pm 

    Oops. Forgot to close the italics tag.

  30. Davy on Wed, 25th Feb 2015 6:44 am 

    Temple, like I do with others here with profound knowledge for our future and my personal doom and prep I save comments in my notes. I am not an expert with NUK power. I am hostage to one plant that is very close to where I have two houses and one of which my kids live in. This town is Hermann, MO which other than the NUK plant is an ideal transition community. My farm further to the south where I live is less exposed.

    Hermann is within the 30 mi danger zone I presume. My farm is 100 mi to the south and less subject to the prevailing winds. So, as you can see it is a vital issue for me. I am in agreement with your comment but since I am not a NUK expert I will have to continue to listen to both sides here but I feel your comment is dead on with its conclusion. Let us hope the top gets with the spent fuel decommissioning. If we want to use BAU to transition out of BAU we have no choice but to continue to use NUK energy. BAU will collapse without that 20% of power.

    My actual bigger concern is WWIII and a NUK strike on an army base 40 mi away. Not sure of the dynamics of 40mi and a NUK blast but I am sure a devastating heat and shock wave could be in my future. It is amazing when the conditions are right I can hear the artillery there. It is a constant thud. The A10 attack planes and B-TWO’s of Whiteman target practice in my area. My biggest worry is WWIII. The second concern is the end of BAU with a collapse and what results from an offline NUK plant in MO.

  31. TemplarMyst on Thu, 26th Feb 2015 9:41 am 


    Sorry, had to work there and couldn’t post for a bit. Looks like there’s a new scare item on the PO front page too.

    Ironically, I think Hermann, MO is an ideal transition location because of the Callaway plant, but I get it. Folks just don’t want to do nuclear.

    I’ll see if I can’t put together a brief summary of what the shortest period of time would be to put a plant into a reasonably cooled state. Basically drop the moderator rods and keep the circulation pumps flowing until the core is cool enough to avoid melt. 18 months comes to mind, but I’ll take a look.

    So far as WWIII, in my opinion we just kiss it good-bye at that point. The warheads we and the Russians (and Brits, and Isrealis, etc) have make Nagasaki look like a summer campfire.

    If two or more hit Whiteman AFB fugettaboutit. The blast will level everything nearby and the heat and EMP will sizzle what the blast don’t get. And since those two will be just a small representation of what will be hitting everywhere else, anyone left alive will be in the stone age.

    It’s nuclear war that I think clouds the thinking of folks like Caldicott. She equates nuclear war with nuclear power, and they are quite different.

    In fact, the best way to avoid nuclear war is to burn up the warheads in a nuclear power plant. It’s the only way to do it, and we’ve been doing it for a while now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *