Commons votes for Trident renewal by majority of 355 Over half Labour MPs but not Jeremy Corbyn back motion after Theresa May says she would order nuclear strike, Guardian, Rowena Mason, Anushka Asthana,
July 19 Energy News
Science and Technology:
¶ The co-pilots and founders of Solar Impulse, the remarkable solar powered plane that is making a ground-breaking flight around the world, have made a stunning prediction: There will be short-haul electric planes for up to 50 people operating within 10 years. Charging the planes would be on the ground, however. [CleanTechnica]
Solar Impulse 2 above the clouds.
¶ Scientists have found yet another issue with fracking. Asthma patients are 1.5 to four times more likely to have asthma attacks if they live near bigger or a larger number of unconventional natural gas development wells, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine. [CNN]
¶ Trials of wind assisted propulsion are going on, but there is not enough information on the real-life performance of different systems and hull variations. All of today’s experiments still see…
View original post 754 more words
Does the US EPA Not Know the Difference Between a US Gallon and a Liter? Radioactive Water Comment Deadline 25 July 2016
Comment on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice: [Nonprotective Inaction ] “Guide for Drinking Water after a Radiological Incident” here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268 by 11.59 pm on 25 July 2016.
When it comes to the estimating the hazard associated with radiation in drinking water after a nuclear disaster the US EPA says that adults need around 1.6 liters of drinking water, whereas when it comes to recommendations for drinking water systems to consider buying bottled water, diluting water to be less radioactive, etc., after a nuclear accident, the US EPA proposes one or more gallons per person. One US liquid gallon is 3.785 liters. There is a big difference. (See charts below).
The USDA puts adult average water needs at 3.7 liters, of which 3 liters would be as beverages (e.g. water, coffee, tea – note that water is required to make coffee and tea). However, the USDA adds that…
View original post 720 more words
The Genetic Killer – Ionising Radiation
Christopher Busby exposes the fallacy behind the current accepted model of exposure hazard adopted by governments and the nuclear industry since the ‘50s and which he will be challenging in a major legal case in London in June on behalf of nuclear test veterans. This is one of the rare times that I publish someone else’s work to the IMVA.
March saw the publication, in the influential scientific journal Environmental Health and Toxicology, of a landmark analysis of the effects of internal radioactive contamination on the genetic integrity of life.
My German colleagues and I used published data from Chernobyl effects in Europe to dismiss the radiation risk model that is currently employed by governments to limit discharges and exposures.1 This is the model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which bases its analysis on a different scenario to the fallout from Chernobyl: the survivors of the Hiroshima bomb.
It is claimed that there were no cases of found in those who were there. So the ICRP uses data from mice to give a risk of a doubling of heritable effects after an exposure dose of 1,000 milliSieverts (mSv). To put this in perspective, natural background radiation’s annual dose is about 2mSv so ICRP says you need to have 500 times this dose to risk having a child with a birth defect.
However, our paper shows this is wildly incorrect: that the tiniest doses from ingested or inhaled radioactive materials released by accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, produced by the 1960s atmospheric bomb tests, and emitted routinely under licence from nuclear sites like Sellafield and Hinkley Point, kill and deform babies at doses of less than 1mSv.
The Government and the nuclear industry defend the ICRP position by referring to natural background radiation. But, though it is true that life has been exposed to natural background radiation, including radon, throughout evolution, there has never been on Earth, prior to 1945, the new Uranium fission and activation products like Strontium-90, Caesium-137, Tritium, Carbon-14, Plutonium-239 and their nasty ‘daughters’ and relations. These substances and the entirely new, airborne, radioactive, pure particles of uranium and radium only appeared about 70 years ago. Already we can see the terrible damage they have caused to the human genome.
The fallout generation
The first evidence of harm was identified by the late Prof Ernest Sternglass.2 He pointed out that the period of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons had caused increases in infant mortality in the USA and the UK. Fig 1 shows a graph of this effect re-plotted by me from a later paper in by a Canadian paediatrician, Robin Whyte.3 The figure also displays the increases in Strontium-90 in milk and in the bones of children aged 0-1 over the fallout period, as measured in autopsies by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency.
The sensitivity of the unborn child to radiation had been demonstrated by Alice Stewart at Birmingham University in 1958, but the authorities could not believe that the 10mSv X-ray doses to mothers could cause the 40% increases in childhood cancer that Stewart demonstrated.4 Nuclear weapons development was in full swing, fallout in the rain everywhere was causing increased measured levels of Strontium-90 in milk and children’s bones and teeth (see Fig 1).
The Cold War needed thermonuclear bombs: so research into the health effects of radiation was rapidly taken from the doctors and given to the nuclear physicists. The Japanese Hiroshima genetic data was manipulated.5 In 1959 an agreement was signed between the medics at the World Health Organisation and the physicists at the International Atomic Energy Agency, leaving all studies of radiation and health to the IAEA; thus the cover-up was sealed. This is why there has been no proper study of the health outcome of Chernobyl.
Fig 1. This graph shows first-day neonatal mortality rate per 1,000 births in the USA from 1936 to 1987. The black diamonds line shows the expected background fall in mortality rate based on the period either side of the atmospheric nuclear tests’ fallout. The red line shows the build-up of Strontium-90 in milk in the UK and the blue line, the build-up of Strontium-90 in bones of children in the UK aged 0-1. Mortality data from Robin Whyte’s paper.3 Note: different scales for milk and bone; Strontium-90 in milk (red: Bq/gCa++ x 10) and bone (blue: pCi/gm Ca++, sunshine units) from UK Atomic Energy Authority. 1pCi = 0.037Bq.
Radiation has its effects by causing mutations in the DNA, the material in the cell that carries all the information. If this is germ cell DNA (sperms and eggs), depending on the amount of damage, you get sterility, miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital effects, which can show as malformations at birth, or more silent malformations (eg. heart defects) or cancer later on.
If it is chromosomal DNA in a cell in the body then it can lead to cancer. The lag time between initial DNA damage and cancer is about 20 years. In my 1995 book, Wings of Death, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, I discussed all this and compared cancer rate trends in Wales with those in England.6 Because of the high rainfall, the cancer rates in Wales, which had been slightly higher than England, suddenly and alarmingly increased about 20 years after the fallout. The correlation was persuasive. Even the effect of the 1959 partial test ban was reflected in the cancer rate trend. The effect was particularly obvious for breast cancer, one of the sites most sensitive to radiation exposures, and I made such a suggestion in a letter published in the BMJ in 1994.7
Of course, the contamination of the planet did not stop with the 1963 Kennedy/Krushchev test ban. Where the testing stopped, the nuclear power contamination began, with releases under licence to the air and the sea. This was followed by the accidents, Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the most infamous of many others. The world has been increasingly bathed with radioactivity since 1945 in a femtosecond of evolutionary time and there seems no sign of governments stopping this unless it can be proved that the radiation risk model is wildly incorrect and is killing people. But we can, as you will see.
Everyone now knows that the age-standardised cancer rates have been increasing alarmingly. Everyone has been touched by this epidemic. What is the cause? In the ‘50s, one in nine people developed cancer. In the 1990s it was one in five. In the last few years it is one in three and according to the WHO (who are not allowed to assess radiation) in 2020 it will be one in two.
None of the big cancer charities nor the Government health departments address the chief cause. Why? Because the main cause is ionising radiation. It is not smoking, nor lifestyle, nor obesity nor even the many chemicals now polluting the environment. The UK’s cancer epidemic began on the west coast in Wales and the west of Scotland with the rain and the fallout, not in the east, where the agrochemicals and insecticides are in greater concentration. This is the first thing I checked. As the late Dr John Gofman, of the US Atomic Energy Commission, wrote: ‘The nuclear industry is waging a war on humanity’.
The highest cancer rates are in those born at the peak of the fallout, from 1959 and 1963, now aged 52-56. The incidence of most cancers increases exponentially with age, but the ages when it is diagnosed are falling fast because everyone born after 1959 has been drinking contaminated milk, water and food as a baby, and building up Strontium-90 in their bones.
Strontium-90 (and uranium) binds chemically to DNA, the target for genetic damage. The effects are most easily seen in breast cancer and the proof that the breast cancer epidemic is caused by radioactive contamination can be seen in the studies of breast cancer near nuclear sites. We have carried out epidemiological studies of three nuclear sites in the UK: Bradwell in Essex, Trawsfynydd in Wales and Hinkley Point in Somerset. All three papers were published in a peer-reviewed journal.8-11 Two used official government mortality data to show there was a 100% excess risk of dying of breast cancer if you lived near the contamination; the other used a questionnaire organised by a TV company making a documentary.
Our new genetic paper, the subject of this article, reviewed all the evidence available from populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout. Increased congenital effects, heart defects, organ defects, limb defects, neurological effects like spina bifida and hydrocephalus, cleft palate, Downs syndrome and those appalling images that have been seen in Iraq after the use of depleted uranium weapons. All were found to increase immediately after the Chernobyl contamination.
Effects were reported from Belarus and Ukraine, but also from Croatia, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the UK, places where the doses from the fallout were less than 1mSv. We also reviewed effects found in radiographers, surgeons using radiation, uranium miners, uranium nuclear workers in France and the UK and, finally, the children of the nuclear test veterans. I draw attention to this latter group because of what I am involved with in the High Court in London in June.
The nuclear test veterans’ case
Since 2004 I have been working with the nuclear test veterans as an expert witness in their cases against the UK Ministry of Defence, in the High Court action (which was lost on appeal) but, most successfully, in the Pensions Appeals. This has been in and out of Tribunals all over the country. I was successful in five cases in reversing the decisions by the Secretary of State for Defence not to grant pensions in cases of cancer, lymphoma and leukemia in veterans of the atmospheric weapons tests in Australia and Christmas Island in the 1950s.
Then the veterans’ solicitors, Rosenblatts, suddenly and unexpectedly dropped the case, a new group of solicitors, Hogan Lovells, took over, and threw me out just before the case was heard in February, 2013. The veterans appealed successfully and the case was remitted for a new hearing, which will occur over three weeks in Court 25 of the Royal Courts of Justice starting on June 14th.
Meanwhile, a proportion of the vets have died (of cancer). In the appeal in 2014, the MoD brought a successful motion to have me dismissed as a witness because they argued that, as an activist, I could not be unbiased. At this point the veterans appointed me as their Representative, so I am still there and the position is more effective than being an expert witness because I can cross-examine the MoD’s experts, something I am looking forward to.
I have already argued successfully in two hearings before a new judge, Sir Nicholas Blake, that we want access to secret material held by the MoD that shows the amounts of radioactivity, particularly uranium, in the bomb fallout. Uranium was not measured at the time, or at least the MoD will not give us any data, but we now know, from the effects of depleted uranium in Iraq and the Balkans, and also a huge amount of new research, that uranium is thousands of times more dangerous than is modelled by ICRP.
One of the effects it has (in uranium miners, workers, battlefield victims and populations, and nuclear test veterans) is that it causes huge amounts of genetic damage, shown as chromosome damage and congenital malformations. And, like Strontium-90, uranium binds to DNA.
The new judge has figured out that this is an issue. He ordered the release of some secret data showing the levels of congenital malformations in children and grandchildren of the veterans. Among his reasons for doing this, he wrote:
Dr Busby, who now represents the appellants Battersby and Smith, raises a number of new points not previously determined. . . The international Radiation Protection Authority’s guidance on the safe maxima in insufficient to screen out all risks to human health arising from explosions of the kind undertaken at Maralinga and Christmas Island.
Biggest public health scandal ever
We can use the secret birth defect data together with the new genetic paper to show that the radiation risk model of the ICRP is in error by about 1,000 times or more. This mistake, which was made in 1952 and has been promulgated ever since through the power and influence of the nuclear industry and the military, is, in the main, responsible for the deaths and agonies of all the people that you yourselves know have developed cancer – from the little, bald children, to the beautiful women suffering the cutting, burning and worse that is now orthodox treatment, to your parents, your own children and, indeed, yourselves.
This exposure is at the base of the loss of fertility and the increased real rates of heritable diseases (in advanced countries detected and aborted). Winning this case will put this issue firmly in front of the legislators. Accepting this combined chess move, the peer-reviewed study and the court case, should, in any unbiased court, result in the shutting down of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, including the nuclear submarines that deliver them. It is a Big Deal. But the prize is continued life on Earth.
About the author
Professor Christopher Busby is an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation. He qualified in Chemical Physics at the Universities of London and Kent, and worked on the molecular physical chemistry of living cells for the Wellcome Foundation. He is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk based in Brussels and has edited many of its publications since its founding in 1998. His various honorary university positions include Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Health at the University of Ulster. He currently lives in Devon in the UK. See also: chrisbusbyexposed.org; http://www.greenaudit.org and http://www.llrc.org .
James Fisher Nuclear Awarded Fukushima Daiichi Sampling Contract
British decommissioning and remote handling company James Fisher Nuclear announced Monday that it had been awarded a “high-value” contract from Japanese engineering company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that involves developing technology to be used at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma, Japan.
JFN will be responsible for developing the latest technology to sample radioactive debris sitting below reactor cores at the power plant that suffered a triple reactor meltdown after backup power failed due to a massive tidal wave event in March 2011.
The specific value of the contract was not announced. JFN said it beat out the competition for the contract. Business director at JFN Bertie Williams said the expertise required for this kind of assignment was rare. “Few businesses in the nuclear arena realistically have the experience and personnel with the capabilities to take on such a challenging task,” Williams said.
The work involves taking samples of a variety of materials both above and below the water line at the damaged plant. JFN said it had been successful in demonstrating its technical design was “capable of addressing some of the most challenging conditions on Earth.” The goal is to evaluate the extent of the clean-up and decommissioning work needed at the plant.
Fukushima residents need time in deciding on their futures
The central government lifted an evacuation order for the southern part of Minami-Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, on July 12 for the first time since the massive earthquake and tsunami triggered a devastating accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March 2011.
It marks the sixth time that evacuation orders have been lifted for locales in Fukushima Prefecture, following such municipalities as Naraha and Katsurao. The number of local residents affected by the latest move is more than 10,000, higher than in any previous instance.
Residents of such municipalities in the prefecture as Iitate, Tomioka and Namie have yet to be allowed to return to their homes. But the central government plans to lift evacuation orders on all areas of the prefecture excluding “difficult-to-return zones,” where levels of radiation remain dangerously high, by March 2017.
The longer people in disaster-affected areas live as evacuees, the more difficult it becomes for them to rebuild their lives.
The lifting of an evacuation order based on the progress that has been made in decontaminating polluted areas and restoring damaged infrastructure will give local residents an opportunity for a fresh start. In Minami-Soma, residents who have been hoping to restart their former lives have already returned to their homes. Various organizations are expanding their activities in the city to help rebuild the local communities.
In previous cases, however, only 10 to 20 percent of the residents said they would immediately return to where they lived before the catastrophic accident occurred.
In addition to residents who have decided to move to other parts of the nation, there are also many people who find it difficult to return home for the time being due to reasons related to employment, education, nursing care and other factors. Some people want to wait a while longer to see how their communities will be revived.
Sooner or later, all evacuees will face the choice of returning or migrating.
For both groups, measures to support their efforts to rebuild their livelihoods should be worked out. But support should also be provided to people who cannot make up their minds yet.
A situation where evacuees are under strong pressure to make their decisions quickly should be avoided.
Take the issue of compensation paid to local residents in affected areas, for example. Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, is paying 100,000 yen ($945) of compensation per month to each of the people affected. But the utility’s cash payments are scheduled to be terminated in March 2018.
A time limit has also been set for the company’s compensation to people who have seen their incomes fall or disappear in the aftermath of the disaster.
Excessive dependence on compensation could hamper the efforts of evacuees to restart their lives.
But there are people who have no prospects of returning to their lives before the accident and therefore have no choice but to depend entirely on a monthly payment from the utility.
A way should be found to keep compensating those who really need the money for a certain period after evacuation orders are lifted, according to the circumstances of individual evacuees.
One idea worth serious consideration is the establishment by lawyers and other experts of a neutral organization to assess the circumstances of evacuees for this purpose. This is an approach modeled on the standard procedures for out-of-court dispute settlements.
The concept of “residents” should also be reconsidered. There are many evacuees who have decided to move to other areas but still wish to maintain their hometown ties. These people say they want to return home someday or to get involved in rebuilding their communities in some way.
Scholars have offered ideas to respect their wishes. One would allow them to have a dual certificate of residence for both their previous and current addresses. Another would permit them to become involved in the efforts to rebuild their hometowns while living in other areas.
These ideas can be useful not just for the reconstruction of disaster-stricken areas but also for the revitalization of depopulated rural areas around the nation.
Reviving communities that have been ravaged by the nuclear disaster will inevitably be an unprecedented and long-term process, which requires flexible thinking.
TEPCO Urged to Cut Radioactive Water inside Fukushima N-Plant
Tokyo, July 19 (Jiji Press)–Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority on Tuesday instructed Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. to reduce the amount of highly radioactive water inside reactor buildings at its disaster-crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The nuclear watchdog also demanded TEPCO lower the water’s radiation levels and consider substantially boosting the number of water storage tanks at the plant in order to lower the risk of the contaminated water leaking out.
Currently, there are tanks only enough to store contaminated water being generated every day mainly due to inflows of groundwater.
Meanwhile, the highly radioactive water inside the No. 1 to No. 4 reactor buildings totaled some 61,600 tons as of Thursday. A lot of tanks would need to be built in order to remove the contaminated water from the buildings.
The highly radioactive water may leak out if tsunami hits the plant again, Toyoshi Fuketa, acting head of the NRA, said, demanding cuts in the amount of the water.
Ex-NRA bigwig demands recalculation of Oi nuclear plant quake estimate
A former deputy chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) sent the organization a letter of protest on July 14 demanding that an earthquake estimate for Kansai Electric Power Co. (KEPCO)’s Oi Nuclear Power Plant be recalculated, on the grounds that the official NRA estimate is well below that of KEPCO.
The former deputy chairman, Kunihiko Shimazaki, is a professor emeritus of seismology at the University of Tokyo. He had criticized the NRA’s estimate of the largest possible earthquake at the Oi plant in Fukui Prefecture as possibly being too low, and the NRA recalculated the estimate in a different manner but still deemed the projected earthquake as not posing a problem to the plant’s safety. In his letter of protest he wrote that he “could not accept the conclusion” of the NRA, and he called for another recalculation. He said he would hold a press conference on July 15 about the issue.
The NRA’s recalculated estimate was 644 gals, “gal” being a unit of acceleration. The estimate was below a KEPCO estimate of 856 gals. Shimazaki, in response to the figures, argues that the NRA’s calculation method is different from KEPCO’s and so produced a smaller number, and notes that the utility finalizes its estimate with additional calculation under stricter conditions, but the NRA has not done so. Shimazaki says that if the calculation was carried out in the same way as KEPCO has performed its estimate, the figure would come out to roughly up to 1,550 gals.
On July 13, a representative for the NRA’s secretariat acknowledged in a Mainichi Shimbun interview that the NRA’s calculation method differed from KEPCO’s, saying, “It’s only natural that there is a difference (in the calculation results).” The representative avoided giving a clear answer about whether it was right for the NRA to green light the plant by comparing results calculated in different methods.
Shinji Kinjo, the head of the agency’s public relations department, said, “If there is a request (for a recalculation), we will consider it sincerely.”
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160715/p2a/00m/0na/001000c
No Chernobyl type Sarcophagus for Fukushima Daiichi?
Chernobyl new safe confinement construction
After news inadvertently leaked via NHK that the decommissioning authority (NDF) for Fukushima Daiichi was considering a Chernobyl type sarcophagus for the plant, there is now an effort by the authority to back it down.
At the same time the government is rushing to reopen as much of the evacuation zone as possible so they can terminate evacuation compensation for the roughly 100,000 evacuees of the disaster.
Minamisoma reopened closed parts of the district this week and there is now consideration for opening highly radioactive zones in Okuma near the plant in a few years.
Mayors for the impacted towns near the plant expressed obvious outrage to the media after hearing the news.
The media reports and public concern are due to it even being on the table and that alone raises some obvious concerns.
NDF calls the media reports that they are considering a sarcophagus to be “untruthful” but go on to admit that it is now among the considered options.
Obviously such a structure would not be a medium term effort unless it involved some significant new design and long term plan.
NDF also tries to frame a sarcophagus as a more “medium term” solution.
They did confirm that this isn’t a done deal, but is an option they are considering.
Following that news Japan’s state minister for industry has ruled out the option of sealing off disabled reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant with a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus.
Takagi said the government’s policy is to stand by the people of Fukushima, and that his ministry has told the decommissioning body to rewrite its technical report.
Responding to Uchibori, Takagi said the government has no intention of using such an option, and that completing the decommissioning process is the top priority.
The body said it remained committed to removing fuel debris from the reactors that suffered meltdowns in the March 2011 accident.
But it presented a technical report that left room for entombing the reactors in a massive metal and concrete structure.
Yosuke Takagi met Fukushima Governor Masao Uchibori in Tokyo on Friday.
Uchibori said he was shocked to hear the word “sarcophagus” and called the option unacceptable.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20160715_27/
https://dunrenard.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/state-minister-rules-out-sarcophagus-option/
Fukushima Radioactive Feces of Mouse
Feces of the mouse: Tomioka city, near crippled Fukushima Nuclear power station.
Cs-134:11917 Bq/kg
Cs-137:63557 Bq/kg
Total:75474 Bq/kg
Britain’s Parliament votes to renew Trident nuclear missile system
Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 people, as the House of Commons voted overwhelming to replaceBritain’s Trident programme.
The prime minister confirmed she would be prepared to press the nuclear button if necessary as she opened a debate about whether the UK should spend up to £40bn replacing four submarines that carry nuclear warheads.
After more than five hours of discussion, parliament voted in favour of Tridentrenewal by a majority of 355 in a motion backed by almost the entire Conservative party and more than half of Labour MPs.
It was opposed by all Scottish National party (SNP) MPs, the Lib Dems and Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong unilateralist who spoke out strongly against the plans during the debate.
Other members of Corbyn’s frontbench team, including the shadow defence secretary, Clive Lewis, and the shadow foreign affairs secretary, Emily Thornberry, abstained after claiming in a Guardian article that the government was turning an issue of “national security into a political game”.
However, around 140 of his MPs – including leadership challengers Angela Eagle and Owen Smith – voted in favour of renewing Trident, with many highlighting Labour’s historic position in support of a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. Forty-seven Labour MPs joined Corbyn in voting against Trident, while another 41 were absent or abstained.
While Labour were split on the issue, the Conservatives have been hoping the Trident issue could help unify their party after a fractious EU referendum campaign.
However, May attracted gasps during the debate when she made clear she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people, when challenged by the SNP about whether she would ever approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life……. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/mps-vote-in-favour-of-trident-renewal-nuclear-deterrent
Teresa May would approve a nuclear weapon strike on a population
Theresa May would authorise nuclear strike causing mass loss of life Asked in Trident debate if she would approve attack that could kill 100,000 people, PM answers with a decisive ‘yes’,Guardian, Rowena Mason, Anushka Asthana, and Rajeev Syal, 19 July 16. Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people as she made the case for replacing Britain’s Trident submarines ahead of a House of Commons vote on the matter.
The prime minister answered decisively when challenged by the Scottish National party about whether she would ever approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life.
Intervening in her opening speech, the SNP MP George Kerevan asked: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”
May responded: “Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.”
Her statement was met by gasps from some MPs on the opposition benches, as the chamber debated whether or not to renew Trident.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, responded to May by making the case for nuclear disarmament, pointing out that the party’s pro-Trident position was under review.
He has given his MPs a free vote during Labour’s ongoing defence review, which the Guardian understands involves at least five options ranging from complete replacement to disarmament by the 2030s. The three other options are reduced patrols and fewer submarines, missiles carried by aircraft, and adapted submarines to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.
Speaking in the Commons, Corbyn said there were currently 40 warheads, which are each eight times as powerful at the atomic bomb that killed 140,000 people at Hiroshima in Japan in 1945.
“What is the threat we are facing that one million people’s deaths would actually deter?” he said, adding it did not stop Islamic State, Saddam Hussein’s atrocities, war crimes in the Balkans or genocide in Rwanda.
“I make it clear today I would not take a decision that kills millions of innocent people,” Corbyn told MPs. “I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to deal with international relations.”
May said it would be a “dereliction of duty” to give up Britain’s nuclear deterrent and pledged to keep to the Nato target of spending 2% of national income on defence while she is prime minister.
Addressing the idea of downgrading the deterrent to a cheaper option, she said: “I am not prepared to settle for something that does not do the job.”……https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-takes-aim-at-jeremy-corbyn-over-trident-renewal
Japan: Returning home after Fukushima nuclear disaster
Minamisoma returnees keen to rebuild lives after lifting of evacuation order for first time since 2011 nuclear disaster.
Around 20 percent of Minamisoma’s residents decided to come back
Fukushima, Japan – This week, authorities lifted an evacuation order for nearly all parts of Minamisoma city, Fukushima prefecture, allowing more than 10,000 people to return to their homes for the first time since 2011’s nuclear disaster.
Tens of thousands of people across the prefecture had to abruptly leave their homes five years ago after a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan’s northeast wrecked the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
The lifting of the evacuation order marked the largest number of people allowed back into their hometown – yet only around an estimated 20 percent of Minamisoma’s 10,807 residents in 3,487 households decided to come back.
Since 2014, the government has been gradually lifting up evacuation orders within a 20km radius of the nuclear power plant, following the progress of some clean-up efforts.
Our team drove to Minamisoma from Tokyo along the country’s northeastern coast.
It was not difficult to spot the on-going clean-up efforts.
A great number of big contaminated waste disposal bags were piled up at temporary holding areas on fields across Fukushima prefecture.
Some holding areas were massive in size, occupying huge chunk of the fields, with a string of trucks constantly dropping off black bags.
Roads into contaminated towns were still blocked by big barricades, and checkpoints were put in place to only allow people with a special permit to enter.
As we drove past contaminated areas, the reading on our Geiger counter, which measures the level of radiation, would from time to time jump above usual levels, reaching as high as 3μSv/h – the government’s long-term reduction goal for areas within a 20km radius of the nuclear power plant stands at 0.23μSv/h.
Passing through the still largely empty, yet seemingly peaceful streets of Minamisoma, we arrived at the Odaka station in the city’s Odaka district.
Although the train service had been resumed for the first time in more than five years on the 9.4km stretch between Odaka and Haranomachi station, only a handful of passengers were seen during the day.
 |
Trains arrived and departed, largely empty.
What caught my attention was a large screen in front of the station, showing radiation levels in real time.
The reading was 0.142μSv/h, which was higher than 0.06μSv/h in Tokyo – but still below the 0.23μSv/h government goal.
Such screens were set up across the city to assuage the public’s lingering concerns over radiation contamination.
Over the past few years, a growing number of Minamisoma residents settled somewhere else, worried over the potential long-term health effects of a return back home.
However, people who did decide to come back were trying their best to ensure that life in their hometown, albeit slowly, returned to normal.
About a three-minute walk distance from the station, we spotted around 30 young students and residents.
Preparations were under way by a number of local organisations to celebrate the opening of a community centre in a makeshift building, where residents could freely come and talk about their life back in hometown.
An old lady asked passers-by to take a seat as she served local food. Young students were hanging out withtheir friends, doing hula hoop and blowing bubbles.
Many of the returnees told us that despite the uncertainties and doubts, they hoped to restore a sense of community – and thus prove to friends and families who were having second thoughts about coming back that it was worth returning home.
“Although we cannot bring back Odaka to what it used to be before the disaster, as residents here, we want to bring back its spirit and the community,” Yoshiki Konno, a local resident and the head of an NGO, told.
“That is the most important thing we must do.”
Data reveals leading edge of Fukushima plume is in BC’s coastal waters
Current status:
Coastal monitoring: Seventeen more samples are in the books. Mostly from March and a few from April; no coastal samples contained any of the Fukushima fingerprint isotope, 134Cs (2 year half-life). Low levels of 137Cs (~30 year half-life) were present in all of the samples. These new data continue to lie along the increasing trend which indicates that the leading edge of the Fukushima plume is in BC’s coastal waters.
Monthly averaged 137Cs data from the BC coast collected by the InFORM citizen science network between October 2014 and March 2016. The dashed linear trendline shows that levels of 137Cs have been increasing over this period. Error bars indicate one standard deviation. Large error bars in Februray and May 2015 were months when Ucluelet samples tested positive for 134Cs. Colors are the same as used in the spatial map of the data.
The above trend is clear and shows a steady rise that would predict that the average sample will have double the initial background concentrations of 137Cs sometime this summer. While still far below the 10,000 Bq m-3 level of concern for cesium radionuclides in drinking water, these more contaminated samples should also more regularly contain the Fukushima fingerprint isotope, 134Cs.
While the increasing 137Cs trend is clear for the whole coast, it is also evident that each region is telling the story of how ocean waters circulate in coastal British Columbia.
Analysis as above, but with data grouped into regions as follows: Haida Gwaii / North Coast: Lax Kw’alaams, Prince Rupert, Masset, Hartley Bay, Sandspit, North Van Is / Central Coast: Bella Bella, Port Hardy, Winter Harbour, West Coast Van Is: Tofino, Ucluelet, Bamfield, Strait of Georgia: Powell River, Vancouver, Salt Spring Island, South Van Is: Port Renfrew, Victoria.
Looking at this regional graph and focusing on the period from August 2015 – March 2016, we see the highest concentrations of 137Cs shift from appearing on the west coast of Vancouver Island northward to Haida Gwaii. As explored last month, this could indicate a northward shift of the North Pacific Current bifurcation.
Biotic Monitoring:
Summer sampling season is back! We’re coordinating with many of the same First Nations as in 2015 for repeat sampling of the same salmon populations. In addition to salmon, this year we are joined by Dr. Helen Gurney-Smith from Vancouver Island University who specializes in marine invertebrates. She is coordinating the collection of mussels, clams, oysters, and scallops from all of the major shellfish beds in BC waters including Baynes Sound, Quadra Island, and Haida Gwaii. These samples will be new species in our sampling repertoire and will help us see how sessile organisms take up Fukushima radionuclides along the coast. The resulting data will be valuable to invertebrate scientists like Dr. Gurney-Smith and reassure consumers of the the $33 million BC shellfish industry.
Oceanic Monitoring:
Three research cruises will collect InFORM samples this summer. Two out to Ocean Station Papa in the central NE Pacific, and currently, undergrad Saskia Kowallik is aboard the CCGS Sir Wilfred Laurier enroute from Sidney, BC to Dutch Harbor, then onto Barrow, AK. She will be reporting in a few times while away and you can read her first dispatch here.
Additionally, Dr. John Smith says that initial results from the February 2016 Line P cruise indicate that the concentrations of 134-Cs may have plateaued at Ocean Station Papa and possibly slightly decreasing. This isn’t so much a true decline as it is a smearing of the signal as the radionuclides are dispersing throughout the rest of the NE Pacific. In other interesting news, Dr. Smith just returned from a meeting in China where a colleague used a highly specialized gamma spectrometer and a very large volume of water sampled in the Chuckchi Sea to detect the trace level of 134-Cs that is ~5 times lower than the detection threshold (0.2 – 0.4 Bq m-3) for the instrumentation used at the University of Ottawa where the coastal samples are processed. This means that minute amounts of Fukushima contamination are entering the Arctic Ocean and that that it only takes ~5 years for waters to transit from coastal Japan to the Arctic. With the ability to detect such low levels of contamination, it will be interesting to see what else we can learn about oceanic transport times as monitoring continues into the future.
*Note: Results are preliminary and may be slightly adjusted pending results from further chemical analysis.
Fukushima System Failure Case Study ( NASA )
“the NAIIC concluded that “the disaster was man-made and the result of collusion between government, the regulators and TEPCO, and a lack of governance by said parties,” citing that the organizational and regulatory systems supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions. Regulators served TEPCO’s business interests through tailored regulation and weak enforcement.“(NASA)
NASA Failure Studies [Comments added in brackets]:
“October 2015 Volume 8 Issue 7
PROXIMATE CAUSE
• Loss of electricity and backup power left the Fukushima complex crippled and unable to adequately cool the reactors
UNDERLYING ISSUES
• Disregard of Regulations
• Poor Safety History
• Lack of Response to Natural Disaster Concerns
AFTERMATH
• Recommendation pertaining to the creation of a permanent committee to deal with issues regarding nuclear power in order to supervise regulators and provide security to the public.
The Great Wave of Reform The Prophetic Fallacy of the Fukushima Daiichi Meltdown
March 11, 2011, off the Pacific coast of Tohoku, Japan: At 14:46 (2:46 p.m.) Japan Standard Time (JST) a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred 43 miles east of the Oshika Peninsula. The undersea megathrust earthquake shifted the mainland of Japan an estimated 8 feet east and deviated Earth’s axis by estimates between 4 to 10 inches. The Great East Japan Earthquake generated massive tsunami waves that peaked at heights of 133 feet and travelled up to 6 miles into areas of mainland Japan… The disaster also triggered the second Level 7 International Nuclear Event (after Chernobyl) in history — the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
Background
The Fukushima Daiichi Catastrophe
Analysis of the safety history of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex reveals a catastrophic failure of prediction on behalf of the plant’s Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) management. How could planners overlook the tsunami?
Hazards of Predicting the Future
In 1958, Arthur C. Clarke, already recognized for major contributions to the fields of rocketry and space flight, began writing a series of magazine essays that were later combined and published in 1962 as Profiles of the Future; a lexicon of universal scientific possibilities.
The book’s introductory essay, “Hazards of Prophecy, ” concerned itself with the two traps of assumptions: “failures of nerve” and “failures of imagination. ”
Failure of the imagination manifests when presently known facts are respected but vital truths are still unknown, and the possibility of the unknown (the unknown unknowns) is not confessed.
Failure of nerve, the more common fallacy (noted by Clarke), “occurs when given all the relevant facts the would-be prophet cannot see that they point to an inescapable conclusion. ”
What happened
The seismic activity of the Great East Japan Earthquake forced the emergency shut-down feature on reactors 1, 2 and 3. Off-site electricity to the power plant was also disrupted by the tremors and backup power was tapped from a 66kV transmission line from the Tohoku Electric Power Company Network. However, the back-up line failed to power reactor 1 due to a mismatched circuit connection.
Beginning at 15:37 (3:17 p.m.) JST, the peak tsunami waves broke upon Japan and flooded and destroyed the emergency diesel generators at the Fukushima complex. Seawater cooling pumps and electric wiring system for the DC power supply for reactors 1, 2 and 4 failed shortly after. All power was effectively lost except for emergency diesel generator power to reactor 6. The tsunami also destroyed vehicles, heavy equipment and many installations.
Without power, the operators at the complex worked tirelessly to monitor and cool the overheating reactors, at one point salvaging car batteries from destroyed vehicles to power necessary equipment. Hydrogen explosions from emptying coolant reservoirs led to interruptions in the recovery operations, which failed when the Unit 2 reactor suppression chamber failed and discharged radioactive material.
Proximate cause
The loss of electric power after flooding made it difficult to effectively cool down the reactors in a timely manner. Cooling operations and observing reactor temperatures were heavily dependent on electricity for coolant injection and depressurization of the reactor and reactor containers, and removal of decay heat at the final heat sink. Lack of access due to the disaster obstructed the delivery of necessities like alternative seawater injection via fire trucks“.
[Note: Loss of cooling made it impossible to cool the reactors, not difficult.]
“Underlying issues
The Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC), formed on Oct. 30, 2011 to investigate the direct and indirect causes of the Fukushima accident, was the first independent commission created in the history of Japan’s constitutional government. In its legal investigation, the NAIIC concluded that “the disaster was man-made and the result of collusion between government, the regulators and TEPCO, and a lack of governance by said parties,” citing that the organizational and regulatory systems supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions. Regulators served TEPCO’s business interests through tailored regulation and weak enforcement.
Disregard of Regulations
The 1967 constructions plans for the Fukushima Daiichi isolation condenser deviated from the original reactor plans submitted to the government in 1966. The changes were not reported in violation of regulation. TEPCO’s configuration control was scrutinized in February 2012 by Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). NISA requested explanation by March 12, 2012; however, TEPCO, unable to supply an official explanation, only speculated on why the change occurred.” [1966 to 2012 is how many years? FORTY-SIX YEARS.]
“In 2002, employees of General Electric (GE), the contractor responsible for designing the reactor, reported to the Japanese government that TEPCO injected air into the containment vessel of Fukushima reactor Number 1 to artificially lower the rate of a leak. The resulting scandal, in addition to a fuel leak at Fukushima Daini, forced TEPCO to temporarily shut down all 17 reactors. Falsified safety records and inspections in conjunction with the number 1 unit dating back to 1989 were revealed by other GE employees. Contractors admitted to falsifying reports at the request of TEPCO. The exposure led to numerous resignations of senior TEPCO executives and more disclosures of previously unreported issues, some of which imply that GE ignored warnings of major design failings from members of its contract staff (who later resigned in protest of negligence) in 1976.
Poor Safety History
On Dec. 29, 2011, TEPCO officials admitted to events occurring in 1991” [TEN YEARS LATER AND AFTER THE START OF THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER IN MARCH], “where one of two backup generators for Number 1 failed after it was flooded with seawater leaking into the turbine building from a corroded seawater cooling pipe. Superiors were informed about the accident, and of the possibility that a tsunami could inflict similar damage to the generators in the turbine-buildings near the sea. In lieu of moving the generators to higher ground, TEPCO installed leak-proof doors in the generator rooms. After the event, the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission stated its intent to enforce the installation of additional power supplies and that it would modify safety guidelines for future nuclear plant designs.
According to the NAIIC, regulators and TEPCO were aware of the risk that a total loss of electricity at Fukushima Daiichi would occur if flooding from a tsunami were to reach the level of the site since 2006, and that they were doubly aware of a risk of reactor core damage from loss of seawater pumps in the case of tsunami waves over 10 meters high. The NISA understood the TEPCO had not taken any protective or mitigating measures, but did not provide instructions to TEPCO to do so.
Lack of Response to Natural Disaster Concerns
A 2008 study performed by TEPCO’s nuclear supervisory department concluded that there was an immediate need for improved seawater flooding protection. The study additionally mentioned the possible threat of tsunami waves over 10 meters tall. TEPCO headquarters officials dismissed the perceived risk as unrealistic; concluding that, even when presented with historical data, there was a failure to imagine that such conditions would recur.
Concerns from outside of Japan came from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the abilities of Japan’s nuclear plants to withstand seismic activity; citing that an earthquake of a 7.0 or higher magnitude posed a serious threat at a 2008 G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group assembly.”
[They pose the biggest risk to the Pacific,where Japan has continued to dump or let leak large amounts of the radioactive water.]
“On Oct. 2, 2011, the Japanese government released a report from TEPCO to NISA that proved TEPCO was aware of the possibility that the plant could be hit by a tsunami with waves far higher than the 5.7 meters which the plant was designed to withstand. The 2008 simulations based on the destruction caused by the 1896 earthquake in this area, revealed the likelihood of waves between 8.4 and 10.2 meters capable of flooding the site.
Further studies by scientists and an examination of the plant’s tsunami resistance measures were not planned by TEPCO before April 2011, and no mitigation was planned before October 2012“.
[THIS IS WHAT THE US NRC DOES – THEY ALLOW THE UTILITIES TO PUT OFF IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY MEASURES FOR MONTHS OR SOMETIMES YEARS, EVEN POST FUKUSHIMA. AND THEY ACTIVELY FIND WAYS TO HELP UTILITIES AVOID HAVING TO EVER IMPLEMENT THEM.]
“TEPCO stated that the company did not feel the need to take prompt action on the estimates, which were still tentative calculations in the research stage. An official of NISA said that these results should have been made public by TEPCO, and that the firm should have taken measures right away; however, NISA believed these actions should have been taken on by the operator and not demanded by regulators. NAIIC viewed this a tacit consent on behalf of NISA to allow for a delay in TEPCO’s planned work. After the tsunami, a TEPCO spokesman conceded that TEPCO would have been better prepared if it had taken the study seriously and reinforcement of its reactor houses.
In contrast, the Tokai Nuclear Power Plant protective dike was raised to 6.1 meters after simulations showed the possibility of higher than expected tsunami waves. Even unfinished at the time of the March 11, 2011, tsunami, the dike protected two seawater pumps and emergency diesel generators and allowed for the reactor to be kept in cold shutdown even though external power was lost.
Aftermath
The Nuclear Safety Commission Chairman told a parliamentary inquiry in February 2012 that, “Japan’s atomic safety rules are inferior to global standards and left the country unprepared for the Fukushima nuclear disaster last March.” There were flaws in, and lax enforcement of, the safety rules governing Japanese nuclear power companies, and this included insufficient protection against tsunamis.
The NAIIC made a recommendation pertaining to the creation of a permanent committee to deal with issues regarding nuclear power in order to supervise regulators and provide security to the public. The committee should be responsible for conducting regular investigations and explanatory hearings of regulatory agencies, academics and stakeholders and for establishing an advisory body to stay abreast of industry and government dealings.
The new regulatory body must be independent from the chain of command of the government, operators, and politics; transparent in decision making processes to the national government and exclude involvement of stakeholders in decision making; and technically proficient in nuclear technology.
The NAIIC also made recommendations pertaining to the reforming of nuclear energy laws to adhere to global standards, including the monitoring of operators and backfit of outdated reactors.
Many other organizations and think tanks have suggested possible corrective actions and future improvements after the disaster. Some of the actions relate to failure management such as having at least one diesel generator, fuel, and related switch gear isolated at high elevation or in a waterproof room (or both) to preserve onsite AC power in an emergency. Emergency response organizations could also maintain diesel generators or gas turbine generators that could be rapidly transported to a site to restore power.”
[This doesn’t work if the diesel generator fails to start. Whereas Waterford Nuclear Power Station near New Orleans ran off of generators for a week post-Katrina, it appears to have had one or both diesel generators inoperable (2013, 2015) or potentially so (2014: in the event of heavy rain) for at least 3 years (2013, 2014, 2015) in a row, including 2014 and 2015 hurricane seasons. At least one of the defective parts was from Japanese Toshiba-owned Westinghouse. See more below. The US backup response allows 24 hrs for backup equipment to arrive, which may be too late. For Katrina they brought in extra generators and fuel ahead of time.]
“Regulators could demand more on-site personnel to have independent and timely sources of information and the ability to influence the owner/ operator behavior during the accident. Current spent fuel pools could be retrofitted with passive cooling systems that can survive the initiating external event.
Relevance to Nasa
Fukushima-Daiichi planners used of a narrow slice of historical environmental data when estimating the risk of external initiating event which contributed to a failure of imagination that a tsunami beyond the design basis of the Fukushima-Daiichi break wall could happen again. Beyond the multiple failures on behalf of TEPCO and Japanese nuclear regulatory agencies, the critical question remains of when to draw the line — when safe is safe enough — in the design basis process.
Teams with diverse viewpoints and broad, deep experience can overcome individual cognitive biases that can carve a path toward failure of imagination from the very beginning. Additionally, policy checks and balances on teams, such as NASA technical and safety requirements, are only as effective as the accountability behind them and depend upon how well both operators and regulators understand the technical basis behind such requirements.
Sometimes the rationale behind a requirement stems from the context surrounding a failure. If the rationale (the context) is lost to history, it can rob a team of the technical argument (and nerve) to defend safety margins…
… harder to overcome is the instance when a regulator itself places public safety below the business interests of a powerful industry. Safety hazards needing thorough mitigation can be perceived instead as business problems that demand efficiencies …” (By NASA-Steve Lilley – See References below info on Waterford, etc.; emphasis and comments in brackets added; things which made the point less clear; and seriously dim-witted or BS statements by Mr. Lilley were removed and replaced with …. Original found here: https://nsc.nasa.gov/SFCS/SystemFailureCaseStudyFile/Download/606 )
Re Waterford Nuclear Power Station backup generator; Toshiba owns Westinghouse:
PART 21 – WESTINGHOUSE TYPE KIR-60 CURRENT TRANSFORMER
The following is excerpted from LER 2015-007 submitted by the licensee:
“On October 9, 2015, Waterford 3 received information from the external evaluation concerning the Generator Differential Current Transformer. The evaluation concluded that a manufacturing defect internal to the current transformer was the cause of the failure. On October 22, 2015, engineering evaluation determined the manufacturing defect could create a substantial safety hazard, as defined in 10 CFR 21, and provided the site vice president information of the defect the same day. Additional information identified in the report is as follows:
“Constructor – Westinghouse Type KIR-60 current transformer, style 7524A01 Gi6, serial number 28218571; Defect and safety hazard – There were voids found in the insulation, and the thickness of the insulation material around the fault area appeared reduced when compared to the other areas of the current transformer. There is only one transformer of this type remaining installed in the plant. Scheduled replacement is no later than November 15, 2015.” http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1530/ML15303A004.pdf
Another Diesel Generator failure: “General Electric CR1 05X300 auxiliary contactor. The auxiliary contactor was manufactured by General Electric Company and supplied by Nuclear Logistic, Incorporated, as an auxiliary part of a General Electric CR305 contactor.”
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1219/ML12199A222.pdf GE is approximately half owned by Japan’s Hitachi. (In the US it’s GE-Hitachi at 60/40 and in Japan it’s Hitachi GE at 60/40 ownership.)
Both Emergency Diesel Generators at Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) were declared inoperable in the peak of Hurricane Season
“On August 26, 2015, both Emergency Diesel Generators at Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) were declared inoperable, causing entry into Technical Specification 3.8.1.1 action f.”
https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/view?AccessionNumber=ML15296A464
“Waterford 3… is receiving additional NRC oversight based on … a violation issued March 31, 2014, for failing to ensure the operability of an exhaust fan in a room housing the plant’s emergency diesel generators.” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2014/14-019.iv.pdf (Found here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/nuclear-safety-failure-open-house-re-killona-waterford-nuclear-reactor-in-louisiana/ ) See: http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1325/ML13254A168.pdf
Yet another problem found in late Hurricane Season: “During a walkdown of the Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tank A and B vent lines on October 22, 2014, an NRC Component Design Basis Inspection inspector identified corrosion on the Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tank A and B vent lines where the vent lines pass through the roof. A visual inspection was performed and revealed that the corrosion had created through wall holes that could allow water into both the train A and B Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tanks.
Follow up analysis has determined that some rainfall amount less than the postulated Probable Maximum Precipitation event could have resulted in water intrusion into the Emergency Diesel Generator A and B Feed Tanks that exceeds the 0.1 percent water content allowed by the vendor technical manual. This could have potentially affected the operability of both the A and B Train Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tanks and subsequently both trains of the Emergency Diesel Generators. It is unknown how long this corrosion has existed. Compensatory measures were put in place to prevent water ingress should a large rainfall event occur.
This condition is reportable under the following criteria: 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B), 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D), and 10 CFR 50.73(a)(vii)“.http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1435/ML14352A449.pdf
During and After Hurricane Katrina Waterford Nuclear Reactor ran for a week or more on diesel generators. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/nuclear-safety-failure-open-house-re-killona-waterford-nuclear-reactor-in-louisiana/
Another example at another nuclear power station: “For instance, although the reactors were supposed to have back-up electric power in case the main electricity source was disrupted, there were many occasions in which both the emergency diesel generator and the emergency gas turbine were down, but officials kept operating the reactor. That meant a critical safety measure needed to insure that the reactor would be kept cool and not suffer a meltdown was not in place in the event of an emergency, officials of the regulatory agency said. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/11/nyregion/government-fine-on-nuclear-plant-is-largest-ever.html
NASA References:
“References
Acton, James M.; Mark Hibbs. Why Fukushima Was Preventable. The Carnegie Papers, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. March 2012.
Buongiorno, J.; R. Ballinger; M. Driscoll; B. Forget; C. Forsberg; M. Golay; M. Kazimi; N. Todreas; J. Yanch. Technical Lessons Learned from the Fukushima- Daichii Accident and Possible Corrective Actions for the Nuclear Industry: An Initial Evaluation. Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. July 26, 2011.
Caldwell, Cindy. Reflections on Sensemaking at Fukushima Daiichi. Highly Reliable Performance: Office of C o rporate S a fety A n alysis, D e partment of Energy. September 10, 2012. http://hsshpi.wordpress. com/2012/09/10/ reflections-on-sensemaking-at-fukushima-daiichi/, accessed June 5, 2013.
Fukushima Daiichi: Two Years On: Photo Essay. IAEA. March 11, 2013. https://www.iaea. org/newscenter/multimedia/photoessays/fukushima-daiichi-two-years, accessed May 5, 2015.
Hultman, Nathan. Fukushima and he Global “Nuclear Renaissance. ” Brookings Institute March. March 14, 2011. http://www.brookings. edu/ research/opinions/2011/03/14-japan-nuclear-hultman, accessed July 1, 2013.
Kuroda, Hiroyuki. Lessons Learned from the TEPCO Nuclear Power Scandal. Tokyo Electric Power Company. March 27, 2004.
TEPCO, Reports on the reflection of the changes in the connection method of the drain pipe in Isolation Condenser in Unit 1at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station to the re-circulating system, March 12, 2012.
SYSTEM FAILURE CASE STUDY
Responsible NASA Official: Steve Lilley steve.k.lilley@nasa.gov
This is an internal NASA safety awareness training document based on information available in the public domain. The findings, proximate causes, and contributing factors identified in this case study do not necessarily represent those of the Agency. Sections of this case study were derived from multiple sources listed under Ref-erences. Any misrepresentation or improper use of source material is unintentional. Visit nsc.nasa.gov/SFCS to read this and other case studies online or to subscribe to the Monthly Safety e-Message. https://nsc.nasa.gov/SFCS/SystemFailureCaseStudyFile/Download/606
In the original but excluded because it doesn’t add much: “Figure 2. Workers in protective clothing and masks outside the Emergency Response Centre, the main control hub at the Fukushima Dai-ichi site. Source: IAEA“
Interactive Map of Cesium in Japan by citizen’s monitoring project.
As you may see the contamination is well spread all along the eastern coast of Japan, the highest contamination found of course in the Fukushima prefecture.
But also numerous hot spots are found in the two prefectures above Fukushima prefecture, the Iwate and Miyagi prefectures, and also near Tokyo in the Ibaraki, Saitama, Kanagawa and Chiba prefectures.
The contamination is concentrated in the two eastern regions of Japan: the Tohoku region in the north-east, and the Kanto region in the east. It is less pronounced once you leave the eastern part of Japan going towards the central regions of nearby Chubu and distant Kansai.
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (114)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 