Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

130 Comments

  1. Be warned, the show isn’t for everyone. But it will give you something to think about.

  2. Rod, its heartening seeing you finally recognize the need to counter criticism, scepticism, and distrust with an honest effort to provide the channels through which the uninformed and nuclear illiterate public can inform themselves.

    “The best advice I can give anyone that seeks information but is confused about whom to trust is to maintain a questioning attitude”

    This is key advice. But one must realize that this “questioning attitude” belongs on both sides of the fence, and when confronted with such an attitude, civil and understandable rebuttal will go far further to enhance your argument than sarcastic disdain or belittling insult. I laud your efforts here, and sincerely hope you can impress upon your fellows that the efforts need not be adversarial, and that sarcasm and insult are counter-productive to your efforts.

    1. @POA

      Thank you for your kind words, with one exception. I bristled a little at the “finally recognize” part. Atomic Insights has been around almost as long as the web; (using the royal we, here) we have always made an honest effort to provide accessible information to both formally and informally trained people who want to learn.

      1. ” I bristled a little at the “finally recognize” part. Atomic Insights has been around almost as long as the web; (using the royal we, here) we have always made an honest effort to provide accessible information to both formally and informally trained people who want to learn”

        Well, you seem to be reaching out in a manner thats very fresh, and a bit unprecedented for the site. Perhaps I’m wrong.

        Regardless, I hope you and your fellows devise a manner or system that can collectively raise your internet voices, because the other side’s shrill screaming is drowning you out.

        1. “Regardless, I hope you and your fellows devise a manner or system that can collectively raise your internet voices, because the other side’s shrill screaming is drowning you out.”

          I think Rod is doing everything he can and he’s doing it very well IMO. And his voice is certainly heard by a lot of people. Even in my country, the Netherlands, Rod Adams name pops up relatively frequently in blogs and articles about nuclear power in major news papers and popular magazines.

          Example blog from major Dutch serious newspaper:
          http://www.nrc.nl/stevendejong/2011/03/16/pro-kernenergie-activisten-in-het-geweer-tegen-negatieve-beeldvorming/

          Example article in popular engineering magazine:
          http://www.deingenieur.nl/nl/file/20110902114120/1653/index.html

  3. Rod, just had an interesting epiphany of sorts……

    Daily, I do a google search on “Fukushima”, with a last 24 hrs criteria. This morning, doing the search, a realization came over me. Despite hundreds, (thousands, actually) of hits, most not worth looking at, I have not once seen the sites you recommend come up on my searches. You and your compatriots might want to examine the reason behind this, and devise a manner in which your sites come to the forefront of google or bling searches. I would hazard to guess that those like myself, seeking answers, do similiar searches. Its a shame that the internet is so rife with readily accessable “the sky-is-falling” viewpoints, while sites like your own, and the Hiroshima Syndrome site, are almost virtually invisible when conducting the internet searches. How is it that ENE News gets such exposure, while the sites offering a counter message, like Hiroshima Syndrome, get little to none? I’m not suggesting a conspiracy. I tend to believe its a technical matter, that is surmountable. You might want to look into it.

    1. Daily, I do a google search on “Fukushima”, with a last 24 hrs criteria.

      Then you deserve most of the blame for the results that you get. You do know that Google adjusts its search results based on the links that you have clicked on in the past, don’t you? So if you have been visiting various Fukushima hysteria sites, then Google is going to serve up more of these sites and place them at the top of your search, because its algorithm thinks that this is what you want.

      It’s called being in a “filter bubble,” and your bubble appears to be stuck on “we’re all gonna die!” nonsense.

    2. POA, good observation. and it is a technical problem. the google search engine algorithm is a well guarded secret, and for good reason, if it never changed or was exactly understood what it was it is easy to exploit to get any subject content to move to the top of search results. the key is knowing what to put in the “meta data” html in the “head” section of the page code. a lot of web bloggers/info suppliers are well versed in their subject content, but not so much on html code if they are scratch building their web page. there are other “free content” web page advisers who provide this info to “amateur” web page builders (just like Atomic Rod provides advice on nukes). use them. i looked at the “source code” for Hiroshima Syndrome” site home page (right click blank spot on page, select “view source code”, a new window pops up… gives the page html). he is missing a set of meta data I always currently use; . my understanding currently is that the search engine “spiders” that crawl all web pages daily looking for changes that affect their search results only look at the “home” page, HS site FUKU updates are on a sub-page, so they are not seen. the above meta data code will tell the search engine algorithm to “follow” the sub page links of the “home” (index) page to look for changes (updates). this might help in this particular case. so it is a tech problem. mjd.

      1. i notice the “code” i copy/pasted into my comment got filtered (removed), Rod can hook me up with the Hiroshima Syndrome if desired, i’ll give him the meta data code directly. no guarantee, but it might help move his page up on searches.

        1. It might help the Googe results if Matt Drudge would stop linking to Fukushima hysteria sites near the top of his main page.

        1. I think it’s funny that way less plane and train crashes that killed lots of people are called “disasters” than Fukushima which hadn’t and so isn’t one!

          1. “I think it’s funny that way less plane and train crashes that killed lots of people are called “disasters” than Fukushima which hadn’t and so isn’t one!”

            Tell that to the people displaced by the event. You have to have widespread death to consider an event a disaster?

            Well…there’s tens of thousands of Japanese that would strongly disagree with you. And really, whether they were displaced by actual necessity, or by governmental over-reaction, has no bearing. Either way, I’m sure those living through losing thier homes and businesses consider this a true disaster, of epic proportions. To consider this less than a disaster, to those people, is unreasonably callous. Are you to blame them for what you consider an unnecessary displacement? Do you have to lose your home AND die to be considered the victim of a “disaster”?

          2. I don’t play games with words and terms, even though even the media abuses them. We don’t call accidental killings murder even if the result is the same. What happened to Fukushima evacuees was a great tragedy, but not a disaster as plane and tsunami victims — especially the dead ones — experienced.

          3. “I don’t play games with words and terms”

            Yes you do. You have created a definition of the word “disaster” that fits your personal agenda. Both you and Tucker seem to want to discount the real effect this Fukushima event has had upon the tens of thousands of Japanese citizens whose lives have been severely affected. When I mention “human costs”, Tucker responds with a comment about capitalizing on this event, as if the victims are imagined, simply a contrived tool through which to demonize nuclear energy. And you respond in a manner that implies that only through a finely focused lens are you willing to consider an event that inflicts extreme hardship and loss a true “disaster”. Death is seemingly a obligatory hardship for one to qualify as the victim of a “disaster” if one is to accept your definition. And Tucker’s?? Well, his comment speaks for itself.

            So, yes, Mitch, you do “:play games with words and terms”.

      2. MJD – Technically, Fukushima Updates and Commentaries are on site sub-pages, however each is fully SEOed, so they are essentially as search engine accessible as it gets. Google “Fukushima Updates” and, bingo, I’m at or near the top of the list. I’m considering updating the site’s main homepage topic-phrasing and keywords to get some Fukushima-and-related terms on the list.

        I should note…the H-S site was not built for blogging. It was initially intended as an educational, information-only venue. Then 3/11/11 happened…site activity literally skyrocketed…and the blogs evolved. The site’s web designer and I have taken some measures to make it as user-friendly as possible without doing a major shift to a true blogger’s system, like WordPress…literally, I don’t have the money for it at this point, and site donations barely pay for the site’s existence.

        However, your comments have illuminated my mental light-bulb. I will dive into the job later today. Les

        1. Leslie, a very useful thing you could do is to insert an HTMLanchor every time you add an update, in other words instead of [strong]January 6, 2013[/strong] on the page, have [a id=”jan_6_2013″][strong]January 6, 2013[/strong][/a].

          Also you could have a numbering scheme in which the fukushima-accident-updates page gets renamed to fukushima-xx at regular intervals.
          It would be better to directly create fukushima-xx, and redirect fukushima-accident-updates to the latest fukushima-xx. This would allow to immediately create permanent links to one specific information.

          1. Hum, actually the best version is :
            [a href=”fukushima-xx.htmtl#jan_6_2013″ id=”jan_6_2013″][strong]January 6, 2013[/strong][/a]

            If redirection are hard to do with you site, you could post new pages both as fukushima-accident-updates and fukushima-xx, and have made the permanent link easily discoverable.

        2. Leslie, thanks for all your good work. btw, i am a retired career nuke plant operator who has built several artist web and commercial sites as a hobby, so I know just enough to be dangerous about SEO. I see you added some fuku key words to your home page, can’t hurt but not sure google is even currently using them constantly. the safest course is to add the meta tag to tell the SE to drill down into your page links, then it won’t stop searching at your home page but will also look for fuku content any any sub-page. I also see, as of today, when I hover on your home page search results the “tool tip text” pop up still just has the 3 “energy” terms, not fuku. if you want it to show in the pop-up, it comes from the name of the home page, so add fuku to the home page name with your html editor. using your suggested search in google, my results have you 3rd! behind one paid ad. not bad! if it ain’t broke…
          i also appreciate your write-up on TMI. I was the shift supervisor during the TMI precursor event at Davis Besse (stuck PORV, HPI off) so I am sensitive to the use of “Operator Error”, You only used it once at the very end. And more important you identified the single most permanent damaging “error” for public confidence about Nuke Power ever made, the H explosion. To this day the NRC web site summary about TMI still currently calls it “NRC confusion”. I guess only operators can make “errors”; a true double standard. mjd.

        3. Leslie,

          I too agree with MJD on the need to have better SEO rankings for your wonderfully rich website.

          And thanks for reminding us that there is the possibility to donate some money to Hiroshima Syndrome, I will do that right away! I was a buyer of your great 5 days of Fukushima eBook, and I appreciate the quality of your work, and I thank you for your commitment to nuclear communication.

          Lastly, HS would definitely need a way to link to individual updates made on specific dates, so that it would always be possibile to link to a specific article, and maybe to an “anchor” inside a post, linking to a specific portion of an update.

          This is definitely possibile with platforms such as WordPress, and I appreciate that switching platfroms involves some cost, and definitely a lot of time. Rod did it a while ago, maybe he can share with you how he has successfully changed platform.

          Best regards, and a Happy Nuke Year!

          Luca Bertagnolio
          aka Futuro Nucleare
          Lausanne, Switzerland / Milan, Italy

    3. It’s likely that enenews is a very significant source of revenue for it’s owner. Every article has a big “in your face” AdSense advertising at the top, and they produce basically no content, just skimming the web for any nuclear scaring content they can find, to include it in the site with a link to the initial source, without any kind of analysis or any kind of filtering of claims that would be too wild to be credible. If it’s scary, it’s in !

      So they can afford to pay for a good optimization of their Google visibility.
      Additionally the fear sells very well, and there has been a huge number of people linking to them, so massively helping their page rank. It’s hard to fight against that.

      However I’ve sometimes found Atomic Insight is not too badly placed in researches. For example if you search for “Arnold Gundersen nuclear engineer”, the site appears in the first page of result about how Gundersen’s resume is inflated.

      1. Enenews is, I would say, easily a big enough cultural phenomenon to have a wikipedia page, but there’s virtually nothing there – it’s cited as a source on a measly six pages about other subjects. The site is solely about Fukushima. Hundreds and hundreds of pages about one single subject. It isn’t about the vast topic of energy production, it’s about one wrecked nuclear power plant (well two, it occasionally mentions Chernobyl).

        The commenters don’t seem worried, or panicked, or frightened – they seem gleeful and triumphant about the ongoing/approaching doomsday. If I thought Fukushima was likely to end life on earth or severely impact it (and I certainly did, and still fear somewhat that it might) then I wouldn’t be posting jokes and “bring it on”-style comments about it.

        I know very little about how to make money from the internet and find it hard to believe that such a site could be a viable business, but maybe it could. All the ads at the moment are for a company called keeply selling lead-lined blankets and the like. I guess it’s definitely in their interest to amp up stories about the west coast of the USA being “fried”.

        1. Perhaps I shouldn’t have named the company in question. Please redact my last post if you like.

    4. When I searched Google Adwords for the Fukushima Update and Commentary page’s SEOs two years ago, the singular term “Fukushima” was primarily for the Prefecture and the City…not the nuke plant or accident. That’s why I have avoided the singular term in my three main keywords…and will continue to keep it that way. More specific phrases like “Fukushima Accident” or “Fukushima Disaster” and etc. is a different kettle of fish. As for ENE…it’s highly popular among the antinuke demographic, which is a quite cyber-glib bunch of people. The higher the activity, word density, and a myriad of other Analytic data streams, results in Page rank, which is used to determine placement on search engines. The site is now at a Page rank of 4, which puts it on the first page of every search engine for inquiries on a variety of energy related topics. The antinuke netizens put it on the map because it fits their delusional agenda. The postings are a cherry-picking nightmare, with more “triple dot” excerpts from full reports than you can shake a stick at. Literally, damn the context, full speed ahead. FYI, Rod’s site has a Page rank of 6 (as good as it gets for sci/tech bloggers) and my site gets a 5 (as does Will Davis’ Atomic Power Review). Regardless, ENE has such a wide range in its subject matter that it can literally show up anywhere with respect to energy issues, not only nuclear. The site lacks SEO specificity. The bottom line is this: ENE does not, has not, and probably never will get the type of activity Rod and I experience.

  4. mjd…..

    Thanks for the enlightening response. Hopefully Rod will be receptive to allowing you to give him and his internet compatriots pointers on how to increase thier exposure,

    “Then you deserve most of the blame for the results that you get. You do know that Google adjusts its search results based on the links that you have clicked on in the past, don’t you?”

    Thats horsecrap. Although I will admit to perusing ENE News more than once, the other 99.9 % of the hits that come up I have NEVER visited, nor do I even recognize the site names. Perhaps you and Tucker should put down the boxing gloves and grow up.

    1. Ive found when Im “ignoring” people it helps not to be constantly fixated on them and mention their names. Especially in threads they are not even posting in.

      I think we should call you the personality cult Fuku hijacker. Because every one of your posts fixates on the personalties/tones of other posters and hyping fuku. Im sorry you’ve been so wronged. Why dont you get over it and post something of insight or value.

  5. If Leslie is listening in, how about adding a Twitter link widget on the Commentary page?
    #helpful

  6. off thread, but put “seo” into a search engine like google and hit go. it stands for search engine optimization. you will get pages of hits from sites, both free and paid, telling html code writers how to optimize their page code meta data, to both outsmart and help search engines find your page. and the tech moves so fast you can’t keep up with it. but a whole industry has developed for helping folks do this. most of it is not needed past a few simple meta tags, easily found with some review. also most good html editors, like WordPress or DreamWeaver will do it for you. also some Internet web hosting companies can not handle “(Java)script” or even “widgets”, you basically get what you pay for. my advice to folks who like to read and participate, on a site someone is financing out-of-pocket, is to help them out. it benefits everybody, the person can upgrade a bit, reaching more audience and adding some bells and whistles. in the long run everybody benefits.

  7. The ultimate indicator of hypocrisy and reminder that the anti nuclear movement (and concern trolls like at UCS) has gotten far removed from reality and out of hand was this story that they all completely missed/ignored (especially the German bunch) :

    Moscow confirms deployment of Iskander missiles on NATO borders ( http://rt.com/news/iskander-missile-deployment-russia-317/ )

    These are short range nuclear capable missiles recently deployed on European borders. The real thing. And its crickets out there. They are too busy making up misinformation.

    1. This is the very counter-FUD battle that nuclear professional organizations like ANS and NEI ought be vehemently waging in the media and court of public education and politics. Sorry, but to this outside bystander it looks like Greenpeace and FOE and UCS & Co. are running roughshod and amok over them in sowing misinformation and alarm — and winning. Why pay dues to wallflower nuclear “advocates” like these? Really?

      James Greenidge
      Queens NY

  8. Another Fuku Fud frenzy as of late involved elevated radiation readings at a Calf beach.

    Beach Radiation Not From Fukushima, Officials Say

    He found that the radioactive areas of the beach seem to be associated with dark sand below the high tide level. ( http://novato.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/beach-radiation-not-from-fukushima-officials-say )

    There is still some talk of it being related to settlement in a old oil pipeline that may have been there. But I imagine its just good ole wholesome natural dark mineral laden sand radiation. Either way it was never a safety concern. Of course.

  9. Manufacture associated with solar power has now likely killed more than the hydrogen explosions or radiation from the Fuku accident has or ever will in japan.

    At a chemical factory that produces raw silicon used in semiconductors and solar products, among other things , five people died yesterday in a hydrogen explosion. 12 people were injured.

    So for the “no one ever died in a solar accident” arguments we all see posted constantly – Yes they do. The manufacture of solar products involves toxic and explosive chemicals. ( rooftop installation safety issues and electrocution hazards as well).

    Japan plant explosion: at least 5 killed in Yokkaichi Mitsubishi Materials factory ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-09/japan-explosion/5192918 )

    1. @John Tucker

      I’m not sure why you have become the Pied Piper of recent stories from the news about every other technology but nuclear power? Do you think FUD is an effective strategy against competing alternative technologies, and thus the ends justify the means. Or do you have something else to suggest besides singing a catching tune, and distracting others from informative and objective discussions about energy choices and weighting important factors such as costs, market competition, risks, management and oversight, public values and attitudes, investor risk, technology maturity and innovation, pollution, policy, taxes and subsidies, economic outcomes and jobs, etc.

      If your point is to suggest that no energy alternative is perfect … I am entirely willing to conceded this point. What else do you wish to say by singing your catchy tune. What is your ransom (if the Pied Piper is a good analogy) … more nuclear power?

      1. Because you dont. You dont seem so concerned about environmentalism for that matter either. So many in media and environmentalism are now on the “renewable” bandwagon and payroll there is no real criticism or accounting of the technology.

        Ive also changed my philosophical approach to nuclear science a bit. I think it is and has been a scientific revolution and loosely follows Thomas Kuhn’s description and insights into such. ( http://stripe.colorado.edu/~yulsman/paradigms.pdf ).

        I think people in the nuclear industry are so beat down by those selling a competing older mixed philosophies as a new product they forget that.

      2. Do you think FUD is an effective strategy against competing alternative technologies.

        That really pisses me off to no end. I dont think you know what FUD means or realize how unethical you have been.

        Did I link to vague statistical studies linking possible leaking chemical to a cancer risk in the surrounding people? Did I even suggest these events were not isolated accidents and part of a vast threat and cover up? Do I suggest we abandon a whole are of science because of them?

        It bothers you, doesn’t it? When someone keeps it real and points out incongruence in your perspective. So much so you resort to dishonesty to reinforce your beliefs.

        1. Ive also changed my philosophical approach to nuclear science a bit. I think it is and has been a scientific revolution and loosely follows Thomas Kuhn’s description and insights into such.

          @John Tucker

          What’s “challenging to think” about nuclear, a technology that has been with us for some 60 years? It still produces lots of waste (from a fuel cycle that has not been closed), has very large non-competitive up front costs, narrow global enrichment potential, and is typically most cost effective when operated close to large demand centers at one power level (on a baseload basis). It’s done little to unseat the convenience of coal and oil (particularly in developing regions), it seems unsuited to environmental goals of conservation and efficiency, and costs are rising and not falling vis a vis alternatives.

          Disruptive paradigm shifts are coming almost entirely from outside of nuclear (not from inside an industry that is by and large conventional, well understood, and relatively unchanging in it’s 60 year history).

          It bothers you, doesn’t it? When someone keeps it real and points out incongruence in your perspective. So much so you resort to dishonesty to reinforce your beliefs.

          Are you talking to me?

          1. Obviously I was talking to myself again.

            And yes on that line of thought the “scientific revolution” of atomic theory and radiation science is slow and ongoing. As the plethora of ignorant anti nuclear examples and lack of knowledge in the general public wonderfully demonstrates.

            Anyway today with respect to environmental situations and media I am wondering about that spill in West Virginia. It occurred just one mile upstream from a water plant. No one seems to be that insightful regarding the toxicity of this chemical in mas media. Or even guesstimates on how much was spilled. People have been told not to even bathe in it.

            The headlines in Britain seem more severe than the headlines in the US. The Elk River is a tributary of the Mississippi.

            West Virginia chemical spill triggers nausea and vomiting among residents ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/10/west-virginia-chemical-spill-thousands-exposure-symptoms )

          2. Its an interesting situation. Some ~5000 gallons were reported spilled.

            The Material Safety Data Sheet, mandated by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and provided by the chemical’s manufacturer, says, “No specific information is available in our data base regarding the toxic effects of this material for humans.” ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/10/health/west-virginia-chemical/ )

            Its kinda an odd response.

            A website lists: “ELK RIVER BELOW WEBSTER SPRINGS, WV 560 cfs”. but that seems a bit low for a river.

            5000 gal equals 668 CF so if it all went in and that flow rate was realistic it would be a kinda concentrated flow.

            I dont know how to estimate the speed of the dissipation and it likely would be meaningless with so much uncertainty.

            There is not much reason to speculate on health effects at this point, even with the Guardian story as exposures were not confirmed as the cause of the symptoms.

          3. What’s “challenging to think” about nuclear, a technology that has been with us for some 60 years?

            Compared to what?  Wind and solar, which have been with us nearly from the dawn of history?

            It still produces lots of waste (from a fuel cycle that has not been closed)

            Who’s stopped the closure of the fuel cycle?  Anti-nukes.  John Kerry was the pivotal actor halting the IFR program, with its closed fuel cycle.

            has very large non-competitive up front costs

            Driven to the stratosphere by ridiculous regulations written by hostile regulators.  Until the NRC was created, nuclear power was cheaper than coal.  It easily could be again.

            narrow global enrichment potential

            Today’s bogeyman is a dictator with a clandestine centrifuge plant (like Kim Jong Un), not too little enrichment capability but too much.  There are also a number of technologies which need far less or none at all.

            and is typically most cost effective when operated close to large demand centers at one power level (on a baseload basis). It’s done little to unseat the convenience of coal and oil (particularly in developing regions), it seems unsuited to environmental goals of conservation and efficiency, and costs are rising and not falling vis a vis alternatives.

            [It] is typically most cost effective when operated close to large demand centers at one power level (on a baseload basis).

            As opposed to e.g. wind, which cannot be located close to large demand centers period because you need a quarter-mile standoff distance to be safe from thrown ice?

            It’s done little to unseat the convenience of coal and oil (particularly in developing regions)

            Bull—-.  Nuclear energy replaced essentially all oil-fired electric capacity in both the USA and France (with exceptions in small markets like Hawaii).  Nuclear is the ideal source of electricity for replacing oil using EVs.

            it seems unsuited to environmental goals of conservation and efficiency

            You use these as code-words for “energy poverty”.  Let me tell you something:  44 Earth Days later, your “goals of conservation and efficiency” have done ZERO to halt the meteoric rise of carbon emissions world-wide.

            Guess where grid carbon emissions are very low?  Where people have plenty of electricity from nuclear power.  If you push “conservation” instead of substitution, you are objectively preserving the market for FFs.

            costs are rising and not falling vis a vis alternatives.

            Costs are driven by regulation; they are quite low in China, and going down.  They were quite reasonable in France.  They’re far from unreasonable in Ontario.

            Disruptive paradigm shifts are coming almost entirely from outside of nuclear

            Despite the efforts of anti-nukes to regulate nuclear energy out of existence, disruptive paradigm shifts keep popping up.  IIUC, we have multiple molten-salt efforts going, fast-spectrum concepts returning, and wild card schemes like the TRISO-fueled, lead-cooled LEADIR concept.

            What stops these things from just going into test?  Having to spend a billion dollars to “train” the NRC “regulators” on new technology before they can write regulations to cover it!  No other technology “enjoys” such mountainous hurdles to leap before it’s allowed to make progress.

            If you were really an environmentalist, you’d demand that we bring back the old AEC.

          4. “Driven to the stratosphere by ridiculous regulations written by hostile regulators”

            Well, such “ridiculous regulations”, in Japan, (or here, if you consider Diablo and San Onofre) obviously did not prohibit building a nuclear power plant on the beach, in one of the most seismic active regions on the planet, prone to severe quakes and tsunamis. There was a severe quake, and a tsunami that affected the coast of Japan. Gee, who coulda predicted that?

            Also, what respect did SCE seemingly have for “regulations” when they skirted them in regards to the Mitsubishi steam generators?

          5. Also, what respect did SCE seemingly have for “regulations” when they skirted them in regards to the Mitsubishi steam generators?

            PissedOffAhole – When exactly did SCE “skirt” regulations when it comes to those steam generators?

          6. EL.

            There are several avenues of action in this situation. What is particularity disturbing here is the community smelled the leak and yet it was not reported until after inspectors arrived. So they may have known.

            Also I doubt the wisdom in placing a chemical storage facility a mile from a water intake and also using surface water for drinking is a bit sketchy IMHO.

            EP – good response, I tend to ignore a lot of that as its a repeat but I think thats a bad idea just to let it stand.

            This really has no direct parallel to Fuku which involved a record breaking natural disaster and afterwards extensive monitoring has been utilized. In a way its at the opposite end of the spectrum in a leak situation. There are parallels in the information delivery probably, although the major media is in the process of dropping the subject rather quickly here as it usually does with non nuclear energy related incidents.

            Meanwhile another pipeline has exploded Friday – this time a NG under a road in NC.

            Gas Line Explosion ( http://wlos.com/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/wlos_breaking-gas-line-explosion-14707.shtml )

            It really wasn’t even noticed in the press.

            And EL – Its not FUD to say that while these FF fires are relatively few and far in between considering the size and scope of the delivery infrastructure. They are locally extremely destructive and dangerous and seem to be occurring with disturbing frequency.

          7. Driven to the stratosphere by ridiculous regulations written by hostile regulators …

            @Engineer-Poet

            If it’s all the NRC’s fault … figure it out! You act as if the industry has no lobbying power, no engineers making a convincing case, no safety professionals, no developers who want to make money, no constituency in the general public who embraces this stuff, no utilities who want to best meet consumer demand and a path of least resistance, no history where the adverse impacts or benefits of regulations are very well documented, etc., but that it’s some irrational agency or politician who only stands in the way.

            If paradigm shift means a belief by industry proponents that things in the world should work differently (and that fewer people stand in your way), I think I understand what you mean. But “anything worth doing isn’t going to be easy,” as the motto says. For nuclear power, this seems to be par for the course and none of this is going to change anytime soon (with the environmental and financial cost of low standards and errors being so large … to a company, to the taxpayer, to the consumer, and to the industry seeking to win public acceptance and confidence in a technology).

            You use these as code-words for “energy poverty”

            Please look more closely at the many benefits of conservation and efficiency programs: at individual, sectoral, national, and international levels (IEA). Poverty is an unlikely term to describe benefits that broaden access to energy, improve quality of life, enhance competitiveness, add to jobs and reduces public energy expenditures, reduce emissions, enhance global security and development goals, etc.

            France and China don’t pay for their nuclear programs in any typical sense that may be easy to apply (or expand) here. If “paradigm shift” means a return to an older bureaucratic, government run, and socialized model of public expenditures and utility development, I’m not sure that is a shift worth taking (or is likely to win much favor here in the US or elsewhere).

            The way forward is pretty clear to me. Returning to older status quo approaches, and calling them a “paradigm shift,” doesn’t sound particularly interesting or engaging to me (and perhaps to others more attentive to evolving and changing consumer and development markets for energy).

  10. “Costs are driven by regulation; they are quite low in China, and going down”

    Great. All we gotta do is pay our tradesmen $2.00 a day, and build our scaffolds outta bamboo, and we can build ’em cheap too. ‘Course, we better encourage our womanfolk to have just male babies too, so we have a steady flow of cheap and despensable bodies to throw at the task!

    1. “There was a severe quake, and a tsunami that affected the coast of Japan. Gee, who coulda predicted that?” (In stream above)

      There was an extremely severe quake off the coast of Japan, and the nuclear plants at Fukushima survived without leaks or breaks. I’d say the designers (GE and Toshiba) should be congratulated.

      The failures in designing for tsunami survival are well documented and numerous.

      (Incidentally, Rod, I’ve been unable to get the No Agenda track to play long enough to get to the comments about the USS Reagan.)

      1. “There was an extremely severe quake off the coast of Japan, and the nuclear plants at Fukushima survived without leaks or breaks”

        You gotta be kidding.

        1. Read the info about the Onagawa nuclear plant, which sustained stronger shaking and a higher wave than Fukushima.  IIUC, it’s been examined top to bottom and confirmed ready for restart.

        2. I am an engineer, and I kid you not. The 3 operating reactors were safely shut down after the earthquake, and most plant workers were evacuated. You can see earthquake damage around the plant site in videos and photographs on the web. I am relying on posted timelines for the disaster. What is your source?

    2. All we gotta do is pay our tradesmen $2.00 a day, and build our scaffolds outta bamboo, and we can build ‘em cheap too.

      Au contraire.  All we need to do is show the lawyers the door, and let the engineers, pipefitters, electricians, etc. do their jobs.

      so we have a steady flow of cheap and despensable bodies to throw at the task!

      Nuclear plant construction doesn’t dispense with significant numbers of bodies, and the expertise is valuable for ramping up production.  Coal, on the other hand….

      1. “Au contraire. All we need to do is show the lawyers the door…….”

        Well….thats nice, but too easy on them. My suggestion is that we use them for fuel. Theres plenty of enough of ’em, and our universities will keep churning them out indefinitely. I’d suggest Congress would be a better fuel source, but same difference anyway. We’ll just catch ’em before they get there.

  11. “When exactly did SCE “skirt” regulations when it comes to those steam generators?”

    It is my understanding the actual generators different than the actual permitted designs.

    “PissedOffAhole”

    Nice, man. You’re really doing Rod a favor, aren’t you?

    1. It is my understanding the actual generators different than the actual permitted designs.

      Then you do not understand at all. I asked you for an “exact” explanation. Please give me something specific and concrete, not your shameful misunderstandings.

      Nice, man. You’re really doing Rod a favor, aren’t you?

      Not compared to the favor that you are doing Rod. Once again, you have graciously exhibited the brazen ignorance of these “pissed off” people who show up at Rod’s site full of piss and vinegar, but lacking any substantial knowledge whatsoever.

      Rod should be thanking you. With Bas recently gone MIA, you might have moved up to the dubiously honored position of “Exhibit A.”

      1. I am of the opinion now that the issues at San Onofre were completely manageable and fixable. The problems didn’t have a single cause but resulted from some mistakes (relatively minor) in deign/manufacture of parts for the steam turbine system and were exacerbated by the unique peculiarities of the steam generator size/configuration at that site.

        There were no real problems with the reactor itself.

        It is an total environmental nightmare that site is being decommissioned.

      2. I asked you for an “exact” explanation.

        @Brian Mays

        You sound unaware that Edison was aware of design problems with the generators (and Mitsubishi’s inexperience building generators this large), and was careful to avoid any changes on equipment that was already underperforming and may have triggered a license amendment and full review by NRC and public hearings.

        As it turns out, their concerns were not unwarranted, and their effort to sidestep regulatory oversight resulted in development of faulty equipment, shutdown of plant, run up of costs for Edison, local power supply issues, insufficient decommissioning funs, higher rates for consumers, etc. The fact they may have also misled the public (by suggesting this was a like for like replacement) is also something that should not be overlooked (and is currently being investigated and is a legal matter before the courts).

        1. It should have been put up for sale if E didn’t want to fix it. They used the cynical ignorance of the anti nukes to their complete advantage.

          1. And what??? Pass the costs of repair onto the customers? It was my understanding costs would once again run into the billions. Don’t you think the customers have paid more than enough already for SCE’s and Mitzubishi’s malfeasance?

          2. Do you get the environmental thing at all? Nuclear is the ONLY proven base load, small footprint means of producing clean electricity. Its not a way, its the only way out there.

        2. EL – The opinions of a nitwit like Barbara Boxer from seven months ago are hardly relevant. The NRC has looked into this and found no reason to accuse SCE of or to punish it for misleading anyone.

          Again, where is this “effort to sidestep regulatory oversight”? They screwed up, sure, and now they’ve lost an expensive asset because of it. Nevertheless, you’ve failed to demonstrate that it was done willfully.

          1. The NRC has looked into this and found no reason to accuse SCE of or to punish it for misleading anyone.

            @Brian Mays

            Has the NRC’s Inspector General’s report been issued yet (here)? I don’t see it (here). There are lots of investigations pending, and people busy suing each other over costs, negligence, mismanagement, engineering errors, deferral of responsibility, public costs, ratepayer refunds, risks to energy supply, etc. Give it time.

          2. “Again, where is this “effort to sidestep regulatory oversight”?”

            http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/feb/07/edison-denies-knowing-about-faulty-steam-generator/

            Excerpt….

            Southern California Edison and Mitsubishi put together an “Anti Vibration Bar Design Team” that held numerous meetings when it became apparent that the new design of the steam generators at San Onofre could lead to the tubes vibrating, causing damaging wear. But the companies decided not to make possible changes identified by the team.

            That’s according to information from Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. Markey joined California Senator Barbara Boxer in sending a letter to the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week, calling for a federal investigation after uncovering documents that she says suggest Edison and the manufacturer of the plant’s ailing steam generators were aware of design problems before the equipment was installed.

            Markey quotes from the document that the only specific reason for the decision not to implement the potential design modifications was the desire to avoid a more lengthy license amendment process that would have involved adjudicatory hearings.

    2. “It is my understanding the actual generators different than the actual permitted designs.”

      I don’t know what you have in mind here. The Code of Federal Regulations 10CFR Part 50 governs general design requirements for nuclear power plants, and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III provides specific design criteria for nuclear plant components. What would make the MTI manufactured steam generator deviate from “permitted designs?”

  12. Of course you could have simply pointed out the “correct” understanding, but instead you just resortred to the expectable ad hominem that you and a couple of other commenters here offer ad nauseum.

    If I am wrong, that there were no design changes that WERE NOT diosclosed to the NRC, than it should be simple matter for you to rebut my assertion.

    Have at it. Or, just keep braying. Perhaps you and Tucker can harmonize.

    1. Whoa there buddy. Where did that come from.

      Anyway since you mentioned my name Ill address something you said:

      (or here, if you consider Diablo and San Onofre) obviously did not prohibit building a nuclear power plant on the beach, in one of the most seismic active regions on the planet

      Actually NPPs are not intentionally built on known active faults. Those would be “the most seismically active regions on the planet.” Of course also people sheltered at the Onagawa Nuclear Facility campus during and after the tsunami. ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-japan-nuclear-tsunami-idUSTRE79J0B420111020 ).

      To be honest I think id rather be at a NPP than a coal or especially a gas power station during a EQ. The containment structure and EQ engineering would be preferable to the lose structure and piles of stuff around a coal facility and not wanting to be near the gas is a no brainer.

      As a matter of fact, reasonably I think the newer SMRs probably should become the preference for baseload power in seismically active regions.

    1. The notice of violation was “white” and of modest safety significance. It essentially said that SCE did not catch a modeling error and thus did not exhibit adequate oversight over its contractor. The relatively inconsequential nature of the “violation” can be illustrated by the fact that it carries no fines or penalties.

      1. Yes, I get that. But look at what the “white” violation wrought. San Onofre is history, and SCE is possibly facing huge reimbursement costs as it may be ordered to pay its customers back for the costs of the steam generators.

        And, is your explanation a defense of San Onofre’s actions, Rod? Do you think it was a good idea to ignore the anticipation of a problem due to a possible design and engineering flaw?

        Forget fines, and forget customer reimbursement costs. The real cost is not monetary. The real cost to the industry is that it hands the anti-nuke crowd a victory, and it nurtures an already established distrust from members of the public such as myself.

        One of your peanut gallery participants “said” to me, not long ago on another thread, “who cares what you think?”. Well, Rod, I’m John Q. Public. And the industry damned well better care what I think, because these debacles like unfolded at San Onofre paint the industry as just as self-serving, corrupt, and dishonest as big oil is. If you really wanna flag yourself as an attractive alternative, acting in the same loathsome manner as BP or Shell doesn’t really serve that end, does it?

        1. Well! Someone certainly thinks awfully highly of himself. 😉

          After you have come down from your ego trip of imagining yourself as the everyman, I should point out that the general public really doesn’t care. It’s pretty much local news at this point.

          A few politicians have tried to score a few points off it. The professional anti-nukes will add it to their list of irrelevant and meaningless “events” that the slobber and froth over. The rest of the public will soon forget about it.

          The details are too technical for many people to follow, so it really doesn’t make an interesting or impressionable story. Nobody was harmed, and nothing happened except that a power plant was shut down.

        2. You realize there is no singular “nuclear industry.” Energy industry players typically have multiple holdings of coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, and hydro.

          1. “You realize there is no singular “nuclear industry.” Energy industry players typically have multiple holdings of coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, and hydro”

            Yes…..I’m certainly aware of that.

            So, uh, I guess SCE acts admirably in regards to its nuclear holdings, but is less than stellar in its administration of its fossil fuel and renewable holdings, eh?

            You’re kinda making my point for me. Why should I trust the nuclear energy corporate stakeholders anymore than I trust the fossil fuel or renewable corporate stakeholders? These huge entities have been shown to be undeserving of the public trust, have they not? What makes the nuke end of the energy sector any more trustworthy or angelical?

          2. So, uh, I guess SCE acts admirably in regards to its nuclear holdings, but is less than stellar in its administration of its fossil fuel and renewable holdings, eh?

            Do you even know as there is no focus and hype regarding the most minuscule infractions in those other industries? Would you even know where to look? It was just revealed that gas companies managed to frack in the waters just off of LA and not a single “environmental” fool noticed while it was occurring or said a word.

          3. “It was just revealed that gas companies managed to frack in the waters just off of LA and not a single “environmental” fool noticed while it was occurring or said a word”

            And all the unreported violations and Infractions that occur at our nation’s nuclear energy facilities???? Surely you aren’t implying that these nuke facilities are completely open and straightforward with the public??

            “….not a single “environmental” fool noticed while it was occurring or said a word””

            “Fool”???

            Can’t resist, can you. Everbody is a fool or an idiot, except Brian, of course.

          4. Yes, yes. Thats what I was saying, I guess they all are, except me and brian of course. You win.

            Do you ever actually talk about any thing in any detail? Or do you just continuously critique the speakers and the conversation?

            How do you expect to get to any level of understanding fixating on that? Im even tired of talking about my argumentative technique. Its not insightful or even interesting.

            I dont even know the point is you are arguing. There are violations at nuke faculties ? Wow, you dont say. Thats so unique in industry. Obviously you have no perspective to place that in context. Its spoon fed to you and to worst of it doesn’t come close to comparing to standard practice with some of the alternatives. (the ones that actually work that is).

            Power Crazed ( http://www.monbiot.com/2013/12/16/power-crazed/ )

        3. @POA

          And, is your explanation a defense of San Onofre’s actions, Rod? Do you think it was a good idea to ignore the anticipation of a problem due to a possible design and engineering flaw?

          I don’t think SCE’s engineers “ignored” anything. I tend to think Mitsubishi engineers also did a reasonably good job of design and manufacturing. The final product was not perfect, but the fact that has been lost in all of the discussion is that the only leak associated with the decision to retire the two unit San Onofre nuclear power station was a single tube leak of approximately 75 gallons per day, which is about 1/2 of the allowable tech spec leak rate. That leak was immediately detected by the plant’s installed instrumentation, and allowed the operators to implement a safe shutdown. The maximum dose to any exposed person was 5.2E-5 millirem.

          The saga of how that tiny leak led to the decision to permanently shut a valuable asset initially purchased by electricity customers is long and complicated and has plenty of the same kinds of corporate villains and behaviors as many other multi-billion dollar miscues. You can find pieces of the story here on Atomic Insights with a search on “San Onofre”, but it is probably worth pulling those individual posts together into a more comprehensive piece.

          I care very deeply what the public thinks; that is part of the reason that I have put so much effort into Atomic Insights for so many years. There have been failures within the industry, but it is important to me to try to help the public understand that human failures should not be the basis for blanket condemnation of the basic technology of nuclear fission.

      2. POA – There’s a violation, sure. Nobody has claimed otherwise. But your accusation that SCE “skirted” regulations requires willfulness. There is nothing in the Notice of Violation that implies willfulness. On the contrary, one of the violations is issued as a “noncited violation,” a designation that cannot be used for willful violations.

        As Rod points out, these violations carry no fines or penalties. You can be sure that some penalty would have been imposed if SCE had willfully “skirted” NRC regulations.

        In the future, please try harder to avoid throwing around baseless accusations.

          1. Apparently, neither political critics, nor the public, exists on Brian’s planet. And I’m the one with an ego problem?

  13. “In the future, please try harder to avoid throwing around baseless accusations”

    The allegation that SCE was aware of possible design flaws, but went ahead with the installation anyway, is universally accepted within the industry, is it not? Thats willful, whether fines were imposed or not.

    OK…so perhaps we should go back in time and list SCE’s past violations in its operation of the San Onofre plant, eh? Is it your contention that SCE is squeaky clean, Brian?

  14. “I should point out that the general public really doesn’t care”

    Well, thats an attitude for success in your industry’s PR efforts, eh?

    You’re wrong. They do care, and events like Fukushima, or nuke plant closings, are speaking far louder to John Q. Public than advocates such as Rod and yourself are.

    I think the myriad of public forums held in the communities around San Onofre speak to the engagement of the “general public”. The fact that you choose to ignore that engagement does not bode well for your argument.

    And you are making a jackass of yourself with this constant ad hominem you offer as comment. It is not egotistical to point out that I am a member of John Q.Public. It is simply an assertion to underscore a point. Your consistent efforts to establish an adversarial interaction with anyone coming here with questions or criticisms is self defeating, and, in truth, damaging to this blog. If its your desire to contain conversation and debate here to conversation exclusively between decided advocates, you’re on the right track, because, frankly, I’m sick of your abrasive bullshit.

    1. Perhaps you should have read the draft of the enforcement action, which explains what the notice of violation is for.

      @Brian Mays

      I don’t understand why you think this is a trivial issue for SCE.

      http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Dec/24/nrc-serves-edison-violation/

      “If they are found to be imprudent then there are a whole host of costs that can be disallowed. That’s the trigger for a billion-plus dollars of pain for them.”

      And why do you continue to disregard other investigations and legal action against the company?

      Events like Fukushima? Oh really? Gallup doesn’t seem to think so: “Americans Still Favor Nuclear Power a Year After Fukushima”

      Ok … but fewer people want to pay for it.

      http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/030712release.cfm

      80% opposed to CWIP

      http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/042512release.cfm

      1. I don’t understand why you think this is a trivial issue for SCE.

        Governor … there you go again.

        You like to play the dumb blonde, but you understand perfectly, and you know exactly what you are doing. Having realized that you have lost the argument, you’ve once again decided to move the goalposts so as to have the last word. This type of tactic is endemic to your dishonest style of debating.

        Good god, man, SCE has had to write off a two-unit nuclear power plant. What in the hell makes you think that I consider that to be something “trivial”?! Do you have any idea what that asset is worth when it is operating?

        Once again, since you have the attention span of a three-year-old, I’m afraid that I must explain that the onus is on Pissed or you to explain how SCE willfully violated any regulations. I merely objected to the baseless accusations that the company somehow “skirted” NRC regulations. Since you’re clearly out of genuine arguments, I guess I have finally made my point and made it stick.

        1. I merely objected to the baseless accusations that the company somehow “skirted” NRC regulations.

          @Brian Mays.

          No. The goal posts remain the same. I’m not sure why you call these accusations baseless. The root cause analysis clearly suggests as much. And could we please see the unredacted version of the document.

          http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/92/5/2795/MHI_Root_Cause.pdf

          Design measures to reduce the steam quality (void
          fraction) by a greater amount were considered, but these changes had unacceptable consequences and MHI and SCE agreed not to implement them. It was concluded that the final design was optimal based on the overall RSG design requirements and constraints. These included physical and other constraints on the RSG design in order to assure compliance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. §50.59. Thus, MHI did compare the SONGs RSG design with previous steam generator designs, and in particular did a detailed evaluation of different options of the AVB design taking into account other large steam generator designs.

          1. @EL

            That is a good quote, but how does it support your contention that the company “skirted” NRC regulations?

            Engineering is a profession of constraints and tradeoffs to produce a design and a final product that meets requirements, including requirements imposed by adhering to the interpretation of numerous regulations. Cost and schedule are always part of the evaluation and tradeoff process. Designs are never perfect, they are “optimized” within the boundaries of the imposed constraints.

            Making a decision to comply with a regulation like 10 CFR 50.59 is not skirting regulations, it is following them and making use of their provisions.

          2. @Rod Adams.

            The quote is plain on it’s face. They looked at more extensive design features to reduce void fraction, but rejected them because they were outside of “physical and other constraints” (namely, self-imposed requirements of design process to avoid triggering a more formal license amendment beyond a “like for like” replacement with public hearings).

            They did not reject these options based on a design basis concern (“optimal” within self-imposed design constraints), but a regulatory one (seeking a lower and less onerous standard).

            Making a decision to comply with a regulation like 10 CFR 50.59 is not skirting regulations, it is following them and making use of their provisions.

            If that was the case, then they wouldn’t be in this debacle. Most people understand the application of this rule in this instance (most importantly those making the decision to pursue a like for like option, when they knew a more adequate design was not a like for like replacement). This is the very definition of “skirting.” Hindsight is one issue (and a fair one). But they made a bet here to seek a lower and less onerous standard, and they lost. It cost the ratepayer, the company, the industry, and many others. It was a poor decision (from a management perspective and otherwise), and will be spending a lot of time in court (and unnecessarily so) because of it.

          3. Rod: “Making a decision to comply with a regulation like 10 CFR 50.59 is not skirting regulations, it is following them and making use of their provisions.”

            EL: “This is the very definition of ‘skirting.'”

            War is Peace

            Freedom is Slavery

            Ignorance is Power

      2. @EL

        I hope you realize that the Civil Society Institute has a strong position against the use of nuclear energy and recently issued a joint statement with NIRS taking Hansen, Wigley, Caldeira, and Emanuel, four of the world’s leading climate scientists, to task. Their sin, in the eyes of the Civil Society Institute was suggesting that nuclear energy should be considered a primary tool, along with selected emission free renewables and conservation, to address the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion that are threatening the stability of the earth’s climate.

        Unsurprisingly, reports from the Civil Society Institute contain a detectable level of antinuclear bias.

        1. I had seen that letter in your twitter sidebar a few day ago Rod, and it made my jaw drop. I was thinking about it specifically too when I made my somewhat brash “environmental fools” comment above. They treat Hansen like some kind of opinionated blogger when in reality he was part of a study on the matter, that although was a bit conservative for my tastes (he included theoretical casualty projections from the handful of N accidents that I thought were not likely), still came up with a ridiculously huge benefit from nuclear power when real alternatives are weighted.

          Coal and Gas are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power ( http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ )

          As for the anti nuke letter and its 300 signers – they at least provide a list of groups that I would never contribute to or support any one involved with them in anything.

          Shame on you EL for posting from that bunch.

          1. Shame on you EL for posting from that bunch.

            They make their case in a letter, and Hanson made his case too (with numerous people signing on). I don’t see a problem with this. This is typically how public discussion of these issues begins (with interested stakeholders, experts, and interest groups making their case). Do you think we shouldn’t have an informed and fully engaged discussion about the merits, alternatives, costs, and tradeoffs of these approaches?

            It’s a public opinion poll conducted by ORC International (not Civil Society Institute). Margin of error is +/- 3% at 95% confidence level.

            Are you suggesting ORC International has an anti-nuclear bias as well? I don’t see a problem contracting an independent and highly regarded public opinion research firm to do objective and scientific public opinion research poll (and making the results of this survey available in a fully detailed and accountable way). Survey questions start on page 22. Are you suggesting they asked the wrong questions, or that the answers are not informative to issues pertaining to nuclear power (and public attitudes) more generally?

          2. @EL : If the poll said a vast majority of US people considers spending money on renewable was a waste, and that they were not ready to sacrifice anything out of their lifestyle for it, would you be just as enthusiastic ?

            The questions they were asked were horrendously loaded, nobody write a survey like that when they want a real result :
            Second question : “Thinking about the nuclear reactor crisis a year ago in Japan …”
            Third question : “Again, thinking about the nuclear reactor crisis in Japan …”
            Fourth question : “Do the reports in the U.S. during 2011 and so far in 2012 of nuclear reactors that had to be shut down due to hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, leaks or other emissions of radioactive materials, and/or equipment failure make you …”

            I’m ashamed for ORC International that they accepted to run a survey based on that kind of questions. So how would you feel if a survey about renewable started with “After the recent reports of massive eagles killings, and the delivery of special 30 years permits allowing them, do you think …”, “Knowing that DOE recently described wind power as a fully mature technology, and the PTC that was supposed to be a temporary measure has been extended for 20 years … “, that could be fun to write actually.

          3. @jmdesp

            “Horrendous” is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.

            They start out with a broad question about level of support or opposition to nuclear power (which can easily be compared to other neutral questions in previous years), and then seek to understand how information about reactor crisis (not health, clean-up, public cost, mismanagement, or evacuation crisis) in Japan have contributed to changing attitudes of support or opposition. 28% have become more supportive as a consequence, 12% unchanged, and 58% less. Is this a surprising result to you?

            And yes, I’d be fine asking questions “somewhat” along the lines you have suggested for renewables (but with a few less hyperbolic descriptors as you have provided).

            Knowing that DOE recently described onshore wind power as a fully mature technology, would you support or oppose a shift of federal subsidy support away from clean energy technologies such as wind and solar to nuclear power?

            That sounds fine (although I’d still want to tweak it some). Do you have a source for DOE describing onshore wind power as a fully mature technology?

            Thinking about a wind farm operator in Wyoming who recently plead guilty to killing 14 eagles, are you more or less supportive of expanding wind energy in the United States?

            This is fine too (although I think it may be a little silly to ask it this way). If you want to know the impact of a particular event (Fukushima or Wyoming Wind Farm Settlement), don’t you have to specifically ask that question? If you want to know a policy related question, don’t you have to ask that question too?
            What would be your wording on a question that specifically asks about whether Fukushima has contributed to changing public attitudes about nuclear power or not, whether it has contributed to rising support for renewables, and also asks very general questions at the same time?

          4. @EL : No, you never explicit mention an event in a survey when you want to evaluate how that event changed their mind, you just ask the exact same questions before and after the event to see what effect it had on answers to those unchanged questions.

            The most basic rule about a survey is that *you* *should* *not* *use* *loaded* *question*.
            http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Writing-Survey-Questions-Tips-for-effective-and-relevant-questions
            – steering clear of the following items : “Leading Questions”, “Loaded Questions”, “Built in Assumptions”, …
            http://survey.cvent.com/blog/cvent-web-surveys-blog/online-survey-pitfalls-avoid-loaded-survey-questions
            Online Survey Pitfalls: Avoid Loaded Survey Questions
            – Loaded questions are those that suggest a socially desirable answer or are emotionally charged.
            http://cavanagh.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/69515189/2.3%20Bad%20Questions%20Example.doc “Bad Question Examples – Cavanagh”
            A loaded question asks the respondent to rely on their emotions more than the facts

            Here if you want to know the impact of Fukushima has on people’s opinion about nuclear one year later, first thing is you should check if they actually still remember about it, therefore certainly not start by remembering them about the event, and *even* *less* emphazing the point by repeating it twice in two questions.

            For the wind operator you’d ask a succession of question :
            – what is your opinion of wind power ?
            – what are the positive impacts you associate about wind power ?
            – what are the negative impacts you associate about wind power ?
            – did your opinion of wind power change in recent time ? (this is already a loaded question, you’re starting to test if when asked to focuss on recent events with wind power, they will think of bird kills or not)

            And maybe at the end of the survey, you’d add some loaded questions about bird kills. First come the more important questions to verify if this is something that they spontaneously think about or not, but maybe later you can test how they react to *being told* about it.

            About the DOE and mature wind :
            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324481204578179373031924936
            — As Energy Secretary Steven Chu has observed on more than one occasion, wind energy is a “mature technology.” —
            And also here http://www.chattanoogan.com/2011/5/18/201565/Alexander-Pushes-Wind-Energy-Subsidies.aspx “U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu testified that he believes onshore wind “is a mature technology.” Chu said the Department of Energy’s wind research efforts have shifted to more innovative technologies, such as offshore wind …”
            It seems this is something he said in this hearing http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-energy.cfm?method=hearings.view&id=ead0e160-eb80-4d30-928e-e51094187f4d even if he was less explicit about wind being mature in other quotes.

  15. The allegation that SCE was aware of possible design flaws, but went ahead with the installation anyway, is universally accepted within the industry, is it not?

    Pissed – No. You obviously don’t understand the situation. Didn’t you even bother to read the article that you linked to? Perhaps you should have read the draft of the enforcement action, which explains what the notice of violation is for.

    SCE had a few concerns with the computer code that MHI was using for the design analysis of the new steam generators, but decided to go ahead and use the code anyway. That turned out to be a poor engineering decision, but it is not a willful violation of any regulation that I am aware of.

    Contrary to what you an EL seem to think, there is no regulation that requires the licensee to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time.

    You’re wrong. They do care, and events like Fukushima, or nuke plant closings, are speaking far louder to John Q. Public than advocates such as Rod and yourself are.

    Events like Fukushima? Oh really? Gallup doesn’t seem to think so: “Americans Still Favor Nuclear Power a Year After Fukushima”

    I guess John Q. didn’t get the memo.

    Has the NRC’s Inspector General’s report been issued yet? I don’t see it (here). There are lots of investigations pending, and people busy suing each other …

    EL – Ah … so you’re saying that Pissed’s accusations are wrong, or at least premature. In any case, they are unfounded at the moment. I agree.

    By the way, the only accusation that I’ve made is that Pissed is full of it. That’s an obvious conclusion once you consider that all that has been offered to support his position is the opinions of two well-known anti-nuclear politicians. I can usually tell you what either of those two will say without having to read news articles about it. Although, I admit that I didn’t know that Boxer was so into nutty conspiracy theories. Then again, she does like to grandstand.

  16. Hello folks. I am a concerned citizen of the U.S. West Coast who has been gripped by the hysteria surrounding supposed consequences from the Fukushima issue over here.

    I am no more than a layperson with no former knowledge in this field. I have spent a lot of time trying to find solid information and have been reading up both here at Atomic Insights and also at Hiroshima Syndrome.

    I am little more than an internet journalist but have gathered a rather extensive list of questions and concerns on the subject. I will post them here as HiroshimaSyndrome.com is one of the resources I’ve been using so it’s at least somewhat relevant to the article. My hope is that someone here might take the time to educate and inform me. Your time and attention is very much appreciated.

    Quick disclaimer: I’m sure some of the sources I mention won’t go down too well here, but please keep in mind I’m not looking for a confrontation, merely a balanced examination that will hopefully lead to my fears, and the fears of others, being put to rest. I realize this is lengthy. Again, your attention and time is highly appreciated.
    ———————————————————————————————
    Before we proceed I would like to express my frustration at the wildly varying “facts” and numbers being touted about. As a basic example, I’ve heard that what has been released from Fukushima pales in comparison to Chernoby to all the way up to it being millions, yes millions, times worse, and everything in between. I try to stay away from hysteria and hyperbole, but one reason why I allow myself to entertain even extreme claims is due to my understanding that Fukushima is continiously releasing radioactive substances.

    1. THE REAL NUMBERS
    1a) So, what numbers and facts are we really working with here? Is there a way to verify these things or are we doomed to forever take someone’s word for it?
    I don’t want to fall victim to unverified fear mongering, but I must admit I also share a distrust of authority and in this case, TEPCO. TEPCO is a private, for profit corporation.
    1b) Are any measures being taken to make sure they aren’t over their heads?

    2. THE REAL SUBSTANCES
    Let’s continue with the specifics of what has been released into the environment.
    2a) What substances have been released into the air/atmosphere?
    2b) What substances have been released into the ocean?
    2c) What substances have been released into the ground?
    2d) How much of these emissions end up in rain and snowfall that hit land?

    3. IODINE & MY PERCEIVED LACK OF COMPLETENESS
    Here’s a report that doesn’t appear to be sensationalist in nature:
    “Non-neglibile” levels of Iodine-131 have been detected in Europe. Levels up to 10 times higher here on the west coast.
    Source: http://www.euractiv.com/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-news-503947
    3a) This is originally from 2011. Is it accurate?
    I’m unable to find more recent updates.
    3b) Would conditions have improved or worsened since then?
    I’ve read that I-131 has a half life of 8 days but it’s difficult for me to assess what this means in regards to potential risks to human health, especially if it’s constantly being emitted. I don’t know that it is. I’d be grateful for any clarity on this.

    HiroshimaSyndrome.com states that nobody has been or will be hurt from Fukushima radiation.
    3c) How is that claim is consistent with the precuations advised for Europe as well as the reported consdierably higher risk in the U.S?
    3d) How have we come to the conclusion that inhaling and ingesting higher than normal levels of radioactive iodine (and other emissions) is harmless?

    Of course we are exposed to natural radiation everyday, but we do not breath and/or ingest that much radiation everyday. * I cite “For example, iodine-131 in precipitation reached 242 and 390 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in Boise, Idaho, on March 22, hundreds of times greater than the typical value of about 2.0 pCi/L.”
    *Related to Part 5

    My source for the above is that Mangano/Sherman study which claimed that Fukushima has already caused 14,000 deaths here in the United States. Before you jump on me for that, let me assure you that I agree that it presents shoddy and erreoneous conclusions. Nevertheless, those figures in of themselves don’t appear to be a lie as I haven’t seen them disputed.

    Then there’s purportedly ~300 other types of radioisotopes being released continuously. Most commonly, the information sources I’ve come across focus on Cesium isotopes and their distribution/dillution through the ocean.

    3e) Can we not make a more inclusive analysis? Or am I missing something?
    i.e. Is there a reason Plutonoum, Uranium and the rest are a non issue?

    4. DILLUTION
    4a) Does dillution mean that the radioactive particles dissolve and lose effect? Or do the particles spread out and remain dangerous if inhaled/ingested/exposed to the human organism? I.e. there may be only one dangerous molecule in a glass of water, but it would be enough to cause harm.
    4b) Does dillution apply to everything coming out of Japan? I have to wonder if these predictions of diluted and reduced exposure on the US West coast are factoring in the Plutonium Mixed Fuel in Fukushima Daiichi Reactor #3?
    I wouldn’t want to breathe ANY if it makes it this far. Too often I see the focus being exclusively on a few isotopes rather than commenting on the complete picture. What about Strontium, Tellurium and the other roughly 300 radioisotopes I can’t even name?

    Another topic that needs addressing in order to make the dillution explanation credible is biological magnification: I’ve read that pollutants such as certain radioactive substances become highly concentrated as they move up the food chain in a process called bioamplification or biological magnification.
    4c) I’m worried about the ingestion of the isotopes over time. Is this also a non-issue in regard to HiroshimaSyndrome.com’s claim that nobody will be hurt by Fukushima radiation?

    5. RELEVANCY OF DOSE, NATURAL EXPOSURE VS NUCLEAR PLANT EMISSION
    5a) Are comparisons between Fukushima emissions/leaks and naturally occuring radiation valid in terms of effects on human health?

    One of the most common ones I see is “the banana comparison,” where the emissions from Fukushima are compared to the radiation level of bananas. This might be one of the more silly ones, but my concern spans to the credibility of all comments that compare nuclear power plant leaks to naturally occurring radiation, including:

    “While 30 thousand-trillion (Fukushima’s number) is astonishing in-itself, when we compare it to the roughly billions-of-trillion number that occurs naturally, it takes the scare-factor out of the rhetorical equation. Opponents to nuclear energy like to use the Fukushima numbers in isolation from what we find in nature because it scares people and fulfills their antinuclear agenda. When placed in context, the scare-factor diminishes mightily.”
    Source: http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-commentary.html

    I fear that speaking in terms of “dose” here may be fallacious as well. A banana may have “more radiation” than a radioactive particle emitted from Fukushima, but the particle may still pose a far greater risk to humans. They may share the same system of measurement when it comes to measuring radioactivity, but that doesn’t make them the same thing.

    “Some types of radioactive substance, once embedded in body tissue, irradiate the few cells near them, threatening mutation, while the rest of the body gets no dose. Plutonium particles are the extreme example. The CERRIE Majority Report accepts that dose is sometimes meaningless.”

    I’m afraid that what is coming out of Fukushima is not dealt with in the same way by the environment and living organisms as naturally occurring radiation. Here is a quote from http://rense.com/general95/powerful-lies.html that may be pertinant. I realize that this source may be disdainful to some of you here, but as a layman who doesn’t know any better, I’m merely looking at all sides in an attempt to get answers. So if this is wrong please inform me. The passage discusses Uranium, but I extend the same concern to every type of substance coming out of Fukushima:

    “But there is a tricky linguistic distinction to be understood. The nuclear industry calls uranium that has been thoroughly processed into a purified form of uranium as “natural uranium.”
    While it is true that originally this uranium was found in nature, it is in fact a man-made uranium product with nothing really natural about it. Just like some food products on the shelves of grocery stores that say “all natural” or “natural flavors” on the label even though there are dozens of artificial food additives in the product.
    “Natural uranium — uranium that has been concentrated by human beings — represents an enhanced radiological hazard over the uranium found in nature. Since the 1940s, humankind has unearthed millions of tons of uranium-bearing ore, extracted the uranium and concentrated it. this man-made product is a new radiological pollutant that never before existed on the Earth’s surface” (p. 46).”
    The difference between uranium-bearing ore and uranium products that have been refined vary drastically in radioactive concentration. Weapons grade uranium is the most potent by far, but even yellow cake uranium that has undergone rudimentary refinement, and is used for nuclear reactors, is 300,000 times more radioactive than uranium found in nature when equal volumes are compared.
    Uranium found in nature is present in the food and water chain, is soluble, consists of about 2 millionths of a gram of daily intake. Since it is widespread throughout many organ systems and is then eliminated through bodily processes, no cluster of cells receives a concentrated dose of radiation. Therefore, Zimmerman notes that uranium from nature “presents an infinitely small hazard to the health of the organism as a whole” (p. 46).”
    Feel free to elaborate on or correct the information presented. My specific question from all this would be:
    5b) Is dosage a good way to measure risk?
    i.e. Is it not more important to focus on the type of substance one is exposed to/breathing/eating?

    6. HIROSHIMASYNDROME.COM’S TRUSTWORTHYNESS
    “Though competitive debaters may be taught to shy away from attacks on the credibility of their opponents, one of the primary tenants of scientific inquiry is that researchers must strive to maintain their credibility so that others can trust their work. It only takes one example of fudged data or bogus claims for a scientist to be relegated to the dustbin and able to publish their work only in marginal journals with little or no respect or impact.”
    – Rod Adams (https://atomicinsights.com/11317/)

    I agree, Rod. That’s why I’m having a little trouble with the following (again, possibly due to my own fear and ignorance):
    http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-commentary-8.html
    I’m having difficulty understanding the data on the health of the children. 56% and 40% with “thyroid anomolies” seems prepostrous to me. I’m also not sure if this data points to unlikelihood of radiation being the cause. Yes, the kids at Fukushima were deemed “healthier” (40% with anomolies) in relation to those from farther away (56% with anomolies). Both numbers seem absurdly high to me. Exposure to radiation seems the most likely explanation to me by far. The fact that these problems are occuring faster than after Chernobyl could mean that this contamination is more severe. As to why the percentage is higher farther away from Fukushima, there might be a host of variables responsible for this, such as typhoons or the tsunami itself spreading contamination in unexpected ways. Perhaps the most worrying is that Fukushima may not have been the only nuclear plant damaged… Bottom line, it doesn’t put my mind at ease at all and definitely calls into question the validity of the satement that “the Fukushima accident’s radiation will not harm anyone.”

    HiroshimaSyndrome’s failure to address any of these concerns is a worry. Even if the data are deemed “inconclusive” it seems strange to confidently state “Fukushima’s radiation won’t harm anyone.”

    7. RAISING LEVELS DEEMED “SAFE” AFTER THE ACCIDENT
    I don’t have the sources on hand but it seems the Japanese Government, EPA and other organizations have increased the levels of radiation deemed “safe” after the accident. Surely this is suspicious and raises questions about the validity of statements like “…within safe levels” and so forth that I see making the rounds.
    Anyone care to shed their thoughts on this?

    Thank you very much for your time, efforts and education. It is highly valued or I wouldn’t post this here.

      1. You should apologize for writing a list of questions that requires an essay, if not a book, to answer.

        Off the top of my head, I-131 from F. Dai’ichi isn’t an issue in the USA because it is only created during fission and has essentially vanished in the mean time, and the various isotopes of U, Pu and other transuranics are just not mobile enough to present a hazard in the harbor at the site, let alone across the Pacific.  There are detectable traces of certain cesium isotopes in ocean waters far away… detectable because they decay at very specific energies, and spectroscopy can detect those energies with exquisite precision against a vastly more intense background of others.  This does not mean squat for human health.

        1. Thanks for your reply Poet.
          Alright, forget about the book or even essay. How about just these questions:

          1) Are you saying then that the CRIIRAD findings and warnings are bogus?

          2) Was F. Dai’ichi the only emitter of I-131?

          1. 1) Are you saying then that the CRIIRAD findings and warnings are bogus?

            Their findings might be correct. Radioactive material is notoriously easy to detect in very minute quantities. That does not mean that these miniscule quantities pose any health risk.

            Their warnings are pure nonsense.

            2) Was F. Dai’ichi the only emitter of I-131?

            Yes.

          2. @ Brian Mays

            http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/who-behind-enenews.2011-06-14
            Even this article, which rightfully questions the shadiness of this “news source” doesn’t question the finding of 33 times higher than normal detection in the rainwater. There may be even higher detection in other places. Is this “minuscule” and inconsequential as well? I don’t mean to come off as presumptive, I’m asking sincerely.

          3. Is this “minuscule” and inconsequential as well?

            Michael – Yes, extremely.

            Let’s assume for a second that the “33 times” claim is true. First, I should point out that there is no “normal detection” of I-131 in rainwater. This nuclide is a very-short-lived fission product, and is never found in nature.

            The claim was that the concentration was 33 times the drinking water standard, which is a very very small amount. These standards, as established by the EPA and other regulatory bodies, are usually based on some very severe assumptions. For example, the level is often set by using the assumption that a 70 kg adult will drink 2 liters of the contaminated water per day, every day, for his entire life. Even then the level is low enough that all of this water results in a tiny (1 in 10,000) risk of developing cancer.

            Simply put, nobody could have drank enough of that rainwater to have anything to worry about.

            Nevertheless, if you’re still concerned, then don’t drink rainwater straight from the sky for a few days. By the time that this rainwater reached a normal source for drinking water, it had mixed with enough ground water or river water to dilute the I-131 to below the drinking water standard.

            In any case, the whole issue is moot now, since every single atom of that I-131 has decayed away by now and no longer exists.

        2. “…and the various isotopes of U, Pu and other transuranics are just not mobile enough to present a hazard in the harbor at the site, let alone across the Pacific.”

          Does that include Strontium?

          1. The NRC has this to say about the Fukushima harbor itself:

            For the last six months, radioactive Cesium levels where the Fukushima harbor meets the ocean have been below 10 Bq/L, which is the World Health Organization drinking water standard.

            They don’t give the strontium level, but do note that it is more mobile in soil than cesium.

            I found this table in my bookmarks, but it only shows negligible levels of radio-cesium, nothing about strontium.  I’m not a chemist and don’t know how mobile strontium is in ocean water.

          2. @Nikolas Radkov

            No, the statement you quoted cannot include strontium.

            Please do not take this the wrong way, but it might be helpful for your success as an “internet journalist” to develop your dictionary skills. Strontium, with an atomic number of 38, is 54 protons short of uranium at atomic number 92. Transuranic is another form of the word “transuranium”, which is defined as follows:

            “The transuranium elements are the chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 92. All of these elements are unstable and decay radioactively into other elements.”

            I apologize for any sense of me being smart alecky, but, after all, one of the goals of this site is to share nuclear knowledge. 🙂

          3. @ Rod Adams

            It was quite clear that I was asking whether or not Strontium is mobile enough to present a long distance hazard. Please answer that if you can.

            And there’s no need to continue referring to me as an “internet journalist” in quotation marks. I referred to myself as that only to downplay my own knowledge and experience in these matters, nothing more.

            1. @Nikolas Radkov

              I apologize.

              Strontium is reasonably mobile, but mobility or lack thereof is not really the issue with regard to being a long distance health hazard. I know it is unfashionable to say so, but the solution to pollution is often dilution. The quantities of all isotopes released from Fukushima Daiichi are small on the scale of the site and harbor inside the tsunami wall. When stirred into the Pacific Ocean, they become vanishingly tiny.

              As Engineer-Poet pointed out, the reason those incredibly tiny quantities have even a remote chance of being detected is that it is possible to detect many isotopes down to almost the level of counting atoms because they send out very specific signals.

              Sr-90 is almost a pure beta emitter, so unless it is ingested in significant quantities, it cannot cause harm.

          4. @Rod Adams

            Here is a potential issue with dilution being a solution:

            http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/west-coast-of-north-america-to-be-hit-hard-by-fukushima-radiation.html

            This article points to several studies which indicate that the radiation may not dilute but travel in concentrated pockets and streams through the ocean. It doesn’t address how this would work for the air, which is another concern.

            Re Strontium: Has anyone noticed how TEPCO have refused to release Sr monitoring results? And how Sr is strangely missing from most of the studies that have been put out claiming that effects of Fukushima will be localised only? Food testing also rarely seems to mention Strontium.
            Cesium appears to be much less of a concern in the marine environment for several reasons, such as a relatively low bioaccumulation factor. BUT for Strontium things don’t look as good.
            1. Sr does not adsorb on to silt particles. Instead remains hydroscopic and forms a weak ionic bond with silt particles, meaning it remains bioavailable over time.
            2. Sr has very high BCR (50,000 for fish).
            3. Sr has an estimated whole body biological half life of 50 years.
            Sr remains resident in the human body for over 400 times longer than Po210 and 200 times longer than Cs37.
            Longer biological half life is NOT included as a weighted factor when converting Grays to Sieverts, thus meaning that any measurement of Sr one sees Sieverts is potentially misleading, to the extent of 3 or more orders of magnitude.

      2. I forgot to say there was several measurement of the thyroid exposition of kids in the area near the reactor during the first fews weeks after the explosions. The total dose they received was estimated based on what the rate was at measurement, given the decay speed of I131, and the number of days since exposure.

        And this picture compares the result, percentage of childs in Fukushima receiving a given dose against the situation of childs around Tchernobyl :
        https://twitter.com/jm_desp/status/414590950674268160/photo/1
        55% of them had no detectable radiation at all, they were coming from the town of Iwaki, Kawamata and Iitate, nearest from the plants and most exposed, see http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/07/06/news/45-of-kids-sustained-thyroid-radiation/#.UtPX21dRdph

        Please considers that both OMS and UNSCEAR have validated that the dose child have been exposed too have been very low, even in the most exposed part of the Fukushima prefecture,

    1. @Nikolas Radkov

      Please refrain from posting such lengthy comments. If you are an “internet journalist” please produce your detailed posts elsewhere and then link to them here if you would like to reference them.

      1. Alright, sorry. It’s just that it’s been really difficult to find a place to discuss these things openly and rationally without being surrounded by maniacs. So I kinda let it all out at once.

    2. Radkov, about thyroid cancer, I propose that you read the writings of experts who more and more are concluding **outside of any connexion with radiation** the more you look for them the more you find, but the additional ones you find have no effect on health.

      Some reference :
      http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4706 “Thyroid cancer: zealous imaging has increased detection and treatment of low risk tumours”
      This rapid response to this study about the specific case of Korea where this has reached the most insane proportion : http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4706/rr/663420

      Some other reports about how autopsy in some countries can find a very high proportion of thyroid cancers amongst people who died of completely unrelated causes :
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(19850801%2956:3%3C531::AID-CNCR2820560321%3E3.0.CO;2-3/abstract “Occult papillary carcinoma of the thyroid. A “normal” finding in finland. A systematic autopsy study”
      – 52 foci of occult papillary carcinoma (OPC) were found
      – According to the study, OPC can be regarded as a normal finding which should not be treated when incidentally found

      The text of this lecture (2006 Hayes Martin Lecture at annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society see http://www.ahnsfoundation.info/accomplishment/hayes-martin/ ) is also interesting :
      http://archotol.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=484784 Do All Cancers Need to Be Treated? The Role of Thyroglobulin in the Management of Thyroid Cancer

      1. I’ll add that the populations of Japan and Finland have an unusually high rate of OPC — if I recall correctly, above 30%. Nobody knows why this is the case, but it will definitely impact the results that researchers see as increased screening detects these hidden carcinomas that were already there to begin with.

        These sensational news stories about thyroid cancer that we’re seeing these days, I predicted them back in March 2011.

    3. TEPCO is now being run by the Japanese government, they appointed the CEO. It is in their best interest now to highball everything, publicly speculate and theorize the worst, then discount it at a later date. It was after all the Japanese government that failed on the tsunami preparedness inspections. It is in their best interest to keep focus on TEPCO and the technology.

      I imagine too the engineering firms working on the contracted clean up and mitigation are posing substantial pressures as well on public officials.

      You have to keep up on who is what if you are going to comment on truth and motivations. The observations in the environment still largely show drastically dropping radiation levels and barely if at all detectable radiation just a few hundred meters off the plant.

      1. Verification:

        West Coast radiation from Fukushima disaster poses no risk, experts say

        Radiation detected off the U.S. West Coast from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan has declined since the 2011 tsunami disaster and never approached levels that could pose a risk to human health, seafood or wildlife, scientists say.

        …..Those assertions are false and the concerns largely unfounded, scientists and government officials said last week, because Fukushima radionuclides in ocean water and marine life are at trace levels and declining — so low that they are trivial compared with what already exists in nature. ( http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-west-coast-radiation-20140113,0,4048380.story#axzz2qIKAGSEB )

        1. Thanks John.
          What about my concern that dosage in relation to natural levels may not be an adequate assessment of risk? And does this apply also to airborne contaminants?

          1. If you go back and read some of the assessments many actually did filter intake readings as well; if you are worried about the menacing “hot particle” thing.

            Still whole body assessments didn’t seem to reveal ANY significant exposures:

            Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima
            7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident as measured by
            extensive whole-body-counter surveys ( https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjab/89/4/89_PJA8904B-01/_pdf )

          2. Now in the immediate area of the accident there is evidence of there being contaminated dusts, of course dispersed by the hydrogen explosions and possibly some water soluble/then insoluble type reactions occurring. Hot spots have reportedly been found in that environment near the accident and some at distance – Still high, or even worrisome levels of contamination in civilians has not been observed to the best of my knowledge.

            It just isn’t there that I have seen, perhaps these guys know more.

          3. @ John Tucker

            It would ease my mind a lot more if the assessments didn’t focus strictly on Cesium, but the array of potential pollutants. Especially Strontium.

            It also seems that sea water poured over Corium produces a particularly transportable result which just hangs in the air like the dust after cleaning your house.

            1500 ‘buckyballs’ per cubic meter of air…average human intake in California could be at least 5 ‘buckyballs’ per day.

            Study: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/6/1874.full

            Don’t get me wrong, I really want this to be nothing serious, but I need a little more info before I can put it to bed.

  17. lol – Some people keep posting that NOAA wave height map from the 2011 tsunami everywhere like it has anything to do with Fuku. Heres some of the original discussion in the correct context ( http://defensetech.org/2011/03/12/noaa-map-of-japanese-tsunami-wave-height/ )

    If you do a search for “fukushima radiation pacific” its like the most popular image. (The fallout map too is a total fake BTW “The map bore the logo of the Australian Radiation Services (ARS), an organization which has disclaimed any connection with it” – Snopes )

      1. No, of course not. I just kept running into it everywhere.

        Besides, there is a lot of misinformation out there and I can see how someone could have many questions. The search engines might not return even a hint of the correct information.

  18. U.S. Desire for Short Term Profit could Lead to Nuclear Power Implosion

    An American Physical Society group chaired by Roy Schwitters reports that if U.S. nuclear plants continue to shut down instead of extending operations the nation risks losing 60 percent of its clean electricity production starting as soon as 2030. ( http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/U.S.-Desire-for-Short-Term-Profit-could-Lead-to-Nuclear-Power-Implosion.html )

    The report :

    Renewing Licenses for the Nation’s Nuclear Power Plants ( http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/nuclear-power.pdf )

      1. Its a shame. That was our new technology and innovation. An American scientific revolution squandered.

  19. Japan fuel oil-fired power to halve if nuclear energy comes back strong

    Japan’s power utilities are expected to bring on 14 new gas-fired plants between April 2014 and July 2015, while two new coal-fired units with a combined capacity of 1,600 megawatts started commercial operations last month. ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/japan-power-fueloil-idUSL3N0K30WE20140114 )

    It looks like a “some slow restarts” scenario is most likely now. If so that poorly made decision will harm far, far more people than fukushima ever will.

Comments are closed.