nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Potentially ‘Apocalyptic’ consequences in removing Fukushima nuclear reactor’s spent fuel rods

spent-fuel-rodsFuel Removal From Fukushima’s Reactor 4 Threatens ‘Apocalyptic’ Scenario. Radiation Fuel Rods Matches Fallout of 14,000 Hiroshima Bombs By Common Dreams Global Research, October 25, 2013 by Andrea Germanos

An operation with potentially “apocalyptic” consequences is expected to begin in a little over two weeks from now – “as early as November 8″ – at Fukushima’s damaged and sinking Reactor 4, when plant operator TEPCO will attempt to remove over 1300 spent fuel rods holding the radiation equivalent of 14,000 Hiroshima bombs from a spent fuel storage tank perched on the reactor’s upper floor……

The potential radiation releases in this situation can only be described as apocalyptic.  The cesium alone would match the fallout of 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.  If the job is botched, radiation releases could force the evacuation of all humans from the site, and could cause electronic equipment to fail.  Humankind would be forced to stand helplessly by as billions of curies of deadly radiation pour into the air and the ocean.

As dire as Wasserman’s warning sounds, it is echoed by fallout researcher Christina Consolo, whotold RT that the worst case scenario could be “a true apocalypse.” Gunter’s warning was dire as well.

“Time is of the essence as we remain concerned that another earthquake could still topple the damaged reactor building and the nuclear waste storage pond up in its attic,” he continued. “This could literally re-ignite the nuclear accident in the open atmosphere and inflame it into hemispheric proportions,” said Gunter.

Wasserman says that given the gravity of the situation, the eyes of the world should be upon Fukushima:

This is a question that transcends being anti-nuclear.  The fate of the earth is at stake here and the whole world must be watching every move at that site from now on.  With 11,000 fuel rods scattered around the place, as a ceaseless flow of contaminated water poisoning our oceans, our very survival is on the line.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fuel-removal-from-fukushimas-reactor-4-threatens-apocalyptic-scenario-radiation-fuel-rods-matches-fallout-of-14000-hiroshima-bombs/5355508?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fuel-removal-from-fukushimas-reactor-4-threatens-apocalyptic-scenario-radiation-fuel-rods-matches-fallout-of-14000-hiroshima-bombs

October 26, 2013 - Posted by | Fukushima 2013, Japan, safety

9 Comments »

  1. This is yet another “doom and gloom” example of dramatic overexageration. The spent fuel rods in the pool above Reactor #4 are almost three years into the decay cycle and cool enough for dry cask storage. Global Research has always specialized in spreading lies. They are neither global nor a research organization and they seldom believe in facts since they get in the way of their lies!

    Comment by Roger | October 26, 2013 | Reply

  2. When you want to cure a cold, do you consult a historian? Then, why do you think that a sociologist knows anything about nuclear power. I hope that Common Dreams comes to realize that they have been had. Unlike Christina, ENENews and Sean, they have a reputation to protect. They usually try to get it right or at least I certainly hope that they will begin having that ethic and code of practice.

    Comment by Roger | October 26, 2013 | Reply

  3. Roger, your willful ignorance won’t keep the Fukushima-induced cancer from killing you and your family.

    Comment by Gereald | October 29, 2013 | Reply

    • You are the one who is the ignorant bully who chooses to refuse to look at the facts and realize that professional liars have spun you up for their own reasons. Have you ever donated any money to any of them like Arnold Gundersen’s Fairewinds (all goes to his and his wife’s pocket!). There will be no Fukushima induced cancer in California or probably even in most of (if not all) of Japan!

      Comment by Roger | October 30, 2013 | Reply

  4. PS – you all should apply your own questions and then provide answers – 1. Does this make sense to you? – if so, why? Bullying me is not providing any kind of answer. Explain why you believe as you do? 2. What do the world reputable science bodies say? Arnold Gundersen is not even a scientist, let alone a reputable science body. Suggest that you start at your local college or university and ask a professor. Unless they are some sort of fanatic advocate and most genuine professors are not, especially in science because they use the scientific method and do not jump to conclusions just because that is what they think that you want to hear, they will give you the straight facts and explain them to you. Do yourself a favor, don’t rely on this website for facts. They seldom are found here. This is trying to be the heart of the anti-nuclear propaganda service! They do not use the scientific method. They first decide what the answer should be and then cherry pick the articles to fit. They ignore any articles that do not fit the predrawn conclusions. The scientific method does not do this.

    Comment by Roger | October 30, 2013 | Reply

    • Your a complete idiot Roger… Why am I even wasting my time, I’m not sure. If only there was a face to such stupidity…. Come on Roger.. Show us your ugly mug, so we can all laugh and yet feel sorry for you. Douche

      Comment by JP | November 1, 2013 | Reply

      • Sorry to make your comment somewhat meaningless,JPt – but I have sent Roger Helbig’s comment to the trash, where it belongs. Just can’t have Helbig using this website as a platform for his Pentagon-adoring views

        Comment by Christina MacPherson | November 1, 2013

      • JP, YOU ARE THE COMPLETE MORON HERE. ROGER IS DEAD ON! GROW A BRAIN!

        Comment by Conservative Mark | November 9, 2013

  5. Thanks Mark. I don’t view this as a political issue, but I do appreciate someone who actually appreciates the science and is not trying to bamboozle the world with false science. Note the way that Christina accuses anyone who disagrees with her preconceived position of being something that they are not. I have no Pentagon position. I have informed positions based on my education, experience and research. I read the Brookhaven report and then took it a step further by determining what isotopes are still present and what contribution their decay contributed to the heating up of the spent fuel elements. Far as I know, no one else has taken this step. I did it because Arnold Gundersen falsely claimed that the Brookhaven report showed that his claims about a potential catastrophe were true. I already knew that his claims about Sky Shine made in the same radio interview with Pat Thurston of KGO in San Francisco were not. He claimed that Sky Shine, the reflectance of gamma radiation by particles in the air, would kill workers. That was not in the least bit true. DUStory dash owner at yahoo groups dot com.

    Comment by Roger | November 10, 2013 | Reply


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

« Previous | Next »