Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

61 Comments

  1. Looks like Spitzbergen, I thought you would have cruised in those sunny climes during your submariner days. Central African Republic is full of French soldiers at the moment, but they might have more to worry about just now.
    Haven’t found your subscribe button yet, but figure your better value than Rupert Murdoch.

  2. Those islands are named Svalbard, they belong to Norway but i will make a wild guest and say that there is not many people there.
    Also interesting that no one in Turkmenistan visited your blog.
    Congratulations Sir Atomicrod you are a world wide celebrity.

  3. @JO, you have to go to the home page, not the story page. rod, looking a little skinny in Turkmenistan too, they must still think Cheney’s oil pipe is their energy solution (wink, wink)

    1. @mjd

      Thanks for the hint. I have updated the story page with the Subscribe button.

      The Contributing blogger designation applies to anyone who adds commentary. Many people tell me the threads are often more valuable and entertaining that the original post.

  4. Some of the four* pro-nukes left in Germany also visit this site regularly. You should zoom your scale in the lower for lost countries as ours to reflect this ….

    * O.K. this was exaggerated … The recently established grassroot pro-nuke asscociation “Nukleria e.V.” yesterday reached the number of 50 members!

  5. You reach almost global coverage! I’m impressed!

    Is there a way to see an active map, on which one can click and see how many visitors from each country you had, and when? The map as it is gives only a general impression.

  6. It would be good to have some kind of translation function and a way for google to search it. I don’t think goggle currently includes auto translated searches.

    Im also kinda surprised you haven’t done a speaking visit to japan yet rod however the anti nukes do appear as vultures for jumping into the political situation so quickly after the EQ and tsunami.

  7. “Im also kinda surprised you haven’t done a speaking visit to japan yet rod however the anti nukes do appear as vultures for jumping into the political situation so quickly after the EQ and tsunami”

    Just what Japan needs, another industry insider putting lipstick on a pig. I suggest you scroll back and examine Rod’s comments immediately following 3/11, then ask yourself why any Japanese citizen of even moderate intelligence would be interested in anything he had to say.

    1. hmmmmm. Seriously? You really want to discus what people said following 3/11??

      Now they probably need some honesty, after being ravaged by anti nuclear hysteria saying they were all going to die. That continuing ignorance and incompetence did and continues to do far more damage than the radiation.

      You are pissed because after it all, no one died, and very few if any are likely to die of radiation. In likely the worst circumstances possible, over a large geographic area, nuclear power proved itself reasonably safe.

      That cuts the anti nuker deep. Of course all the ridiculous claims and comments early on by the quacks leading the anti nuke parade dont do it any service.

    2. @PissedOffAmerican

      I gladly invite people to go back and reread my posts and comments from the period immediately after 3/11. I admit that I was a little off in asserting that no material would be released, but the quantity released was far closer to zero than to the wild numbers being bandied about by the fear mongers. The danger to people was also far closer to zero than to the assertions from people like the Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

      The reaction by the Japanese government to maintain exclusion areas, to scrape what amounts to clean top soil and to keep 50 operable reactors shut down are deeply disappointing. They are what is making the even so terrible for the public. If the political decisions were logical, the only real issue remaining at the plants would be the long term clean up effort, with little water being accumulated in tanks. It would be treated and then discharged into the ocean where dilution would be the solution to any low levels of radiation remaining.

  8. Solid proof that nothing rules like the internet for getting a message out to as many people as you can for an extremely low budget. Well done!

  9. Interesting the the ongoing problems at Fukushima are not a topic of discussion here. Almost three years later, and record levels of radiation are being recorded onsite. The spent fuel pools are still unsecured from the threat of another major quake or tsunami. Radioactive water is pouring into the Pacific in epic amounts. And now reports are alleging raised statistics about thyroid cancer incidence amongst japanese children.

    Of course Rod is perfectly willing to have his early commentaries reread, because many of them have been removed, such as his flowery defenses of how honorable and reputable TEPCO was thatr he waged when I raised the issue of industry malfeasance. Now we know much better, don’t we? TEPCO’s handling of Fukushima has been a litany of lies, obsfucations, and appalling unwillingness to level with the global community. And now, the Japanese government has resorted to fascism, legislating away the media’s right to report on conditions at Fukushima Daichi.

    Missing too from the archives, is the patronizing and demeaning manner in which people were treated here if they dared insinuate that the Fukushima disaster was anything more than the industrial bruised shin that Rod and his pro-nuke industry insiders claimed it was.

    One has to ponder at the manner this blog now ignores the unfolding Fukushima disaster. Like an ostrich with its head deeply buried in the sand, perhaps. If you don’t discuss it, you won’t draw attention to it, never mind that its the elephant in the room if one is going to have an HONEST debate about the wisdom of continuing to employ nuclear energy. PARTICULARLY as it applies to continuing to run plants such as Diablo. And surely, the integrity of the industry was underscored by PG&E’s behaviour in regards to San Onofre.

    Silence isn’t golden, Rod, when it comes to this ongoing disaster in Japan. It only insinuates that that you are hiding from the issue, that it damages your agenda. And dazzling the “uneducated” with science they are untrained to understand is no way to mitigate distrust. People like you, if its possible, need to reach out to the community outside your sphere of nuke buffs, and prove your case. As it stands now, Fukushima just paints you as being no better than the glib and smooth attorney telling us how wonderful BP is and how clean they’ve made the gulf, thank you very much. Fukushima is making jackasses out of you folks, and a bunch of incomprehensible technical braying ain’t gonna change that.

    One hopes, if Fukushima is the minor event you would have us believe it is, that you figure out a way to get that message out, because I’m beginning to hear alarm klaxons out here in the real world, and it ain’t your side thats honking them. If you don’t, your industry is on its deathbed.

    1. If there ever was a case to be made that anti-nukes are just a bunch of ignorant a-holes, I think that POA just made it.

      There’s no substance, there’s no discussion or even a willingness to discuss. It’s all just childish, mindless raving and puerile insults.

      Personally, I hope that many many people read POA’s comment so that they can get a feel of what these people really are like.

    2. @POA

      The world has moved on from Fuku. That’s why it isn’t discussed here and it isn’t greatly covered by media outlets.

      The alternative reality sphere of enenews and Edward Boyce’s Fukushima Diary just isn’t credible enough to have the sqeaky drivel they peddle be of interest to journalists, and further, to not be worthy of reply here and elsewhere in the noosphere.

      So go on peddling your unscientific, featmongering crap. I won’t bother dignifying it with either response on your sites or elsewhere, and I hope others will join me in so doing.

  10. “You are pissed because after it all, no one died, and very few if any are likely to die of radiation”

    That doesn’t even warrant a response. Rod would be well advised to tell people like you to shut up.

    1. If only the ranks of anti nukes were not filled with snake oil salesmen and litigation interests.

  11. “There’s no substance, there’s no discussion or even a willingness to discuss. It’s all just childish, mindless raving and puerile insults”

    I suggest you reread your own comment.

    1. This is a splendid example of what I mean. Notice the use of a variant of the old grade-school taunt, “I know you are, but what am I?”

      This is the level of dialogue that this person has chosen to use.

  12. “….the only real issue remaining at the plants would be the long term clean up effort, with little water being accumulated in tanks. It would be treated and then discharged into the ocean where dilution would be the solution to any low levels of radiation remaining”

    So, Rod, are you suggesting that this is what is currently happening within the Fukushima complex? Your solution, if viable, seems rather simple. If this is not, in fact. what is occurring, why not?

    Could it be that there is far too much radioactive water being generated, rendering storage and treatment impossible? And what about the cracks in the concrete at the bases of the storage tanks? TEPCO, reluctantly, admits to leakage problems, blaming the cracks on the cold weather. How do you propose that the contaminated ground water be “treated”? And its my understanding that areas are being deforested just to make room for more storage tanks because of the huge amounts of water necessary to maintain a cooling process. How long do you suppose they can continue to erect tanks in which to store the water prior to “treatment”?

    And why isn’t the NRA recieving the REQUIRED data about groundwater contamination from TEPCO? Its been two months, and the required data is not being submitted. Consequently, the working group meetings can’t be held.

    So, is it still your contention that TEPCO is a “credible” (your word) source of information? If so, why aren’t they being more forthcoming with data and information, and adhering to the REQUIREMENTS of the NRA??

    So, simply, all you need do is explain how the contaminated groundwater is going to be “treated” before it finds its way into the ocean, or into the supply of groundwater that supplies the surrounding population with its potable water.

    Surely, Rod, if the “solution” was as simple as you describe it, than this “credible” bastion of the nuclear energy industry, (TEPCO), would be employing that solution. And there would be no disaster, nor any need for subterfuge, media blackouts, or fishery closures.

    1. What a load of total crap. The water “issue” is under constant discussion here. They need to dump teated water. Everyone in the regular scientific community agrees on that. I even post off topic on issues involving the pacific basin and its wildlife all the time here.

      Whats more, recently:

      Video tour of Fukushima Daiichi as of September 2013 ( https://atomicinsights.com/video-tour-fukushima-daiichi-september-2013/#comments )

      First hand report from trained US Navy radiation worker about experience associated with Fukushima ( https://atomicinsights.com/first-hand-report-trained-navy-radiation-worker/#comments )

      Another update on “highly radioactive” water leaks at Fukushima ( https://atomicinsights.com/another-update-highly-radioactive-water-leaks-fukushima/#comments )

      So what is your specific grievance? Is there one or are you just really angry the anti nuke movement is falling into comical oblivion as more pressing matters are concerning reasonable people?

  13. “Missing too from the archives, is the patronizing and demeaning manner in which people were treated here if they dared insinuate that the Fukushima disaster was anything more than the industrial bruised shin that Rod and his pro-nuke industry insiders claimed it was”

    I guess it doesn’t matter that it was removed from the archives, because it is quite obvious that Rod’s contributors here are more than willing to substantiate my assertions about the nature of “debate” here. Do you guys, (Brian and John) REALLY think you are doing this blog any favors with the kind of comments you are offering in reponse to my own?

    If you don’t care for the “anti-nuke” crowd, I suggest you stop creating them. Since my first postings here, back in 2011, the assumption has been advanced that I’m sort of participant in a movement. Frankly, thats BS. I really had no opinion whatever about nuclear energy prior to 3/11. Nor have I joined any sort of organized movement since. But I can tell you, your demeanor here, coupled with Rod’s early assertions about the insignificance of this “event”, and TEPCO’s behaviour throughout this “event”, have gone a long ways towards forming my own opinion about the trustworthyness of your industry, or your opinions regarding the scale of this disaster. Then add the fact that I closely followed the fiasco surrounding PG&E’s retrofit of the San Onofre plant, and its subsequent shutdown, and it pretty well set the industry’s credibility meter at zero.

    You know, in the long run, history will out the truth. You guys are creating your own legacy here. You might wanna think about that.

    Me?? I’m just not very trusting of you, for the reasons stated above. I don’t have a dog in this hunt. My legacy will be written in a completely different field, and I’m pretty happy with with it thus far.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one watching to see who is right, the Caldicotts, or the Adams. One thing is for sure, when I comment at other sites dealing with this issue, (pro or anti), I certainly don’t receive the insulting responses I receive here.

    We shall see, eh?

    1. POA – You seem to be laboring under the delusion that someone here gives a damn about who you are or what you think.

      As for what your are offering, all that you have brought to this forum is empty accusations, raw ignorance, and a bad attitude. If you choose to continue to be an anonymous a–hole on this site, then that is simply a reflection of your personal problems, shortcomings, and egocentric sociopathy. It has nothing to do with John or me.

      With each comment, you make this clearer and clearer.

  14. But lets look around if there is anything new and different.

    Situation of Storage and Treatment of Accumulated Water including Highly Concentrated
    Radioactive Materials at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (131
    st Release) December 25, 2013 ( http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu13_e/images/131225e0101.pdf )

    Tuesday in the popular press:

    More water leaks detected at Fukushima No. 1

    Water samples collected Friday contained 20 becquerels of strontium-90 per liter in one of the two areas and 440 becquerels in the other ( http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/24/national/more-water-leaks-detected-at-fukushima-no-1/#.UrthVaEjulM )

    All I have to say about that is Its phenomenology lower than I would expect. Whats more its from the barrier area – not the storage tanks, and there seems to be lots of confusion in the press (intentionally including projected totals?) :

    The company estimated that a maximum of 1.6 tons and 1 ton of contaminated water leaked from two spots of a barrier at one storage tank area on Dec. 21 and Dec. 22, respectively. ( https://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201312230058 )

    I haven’t come across the official report on that and think probably since its so insignificant it was only released in Japanese.

    So whatever. Once again I had to do the anti nukes homework.

  15. Three links….

    One, a video tour that tells us NOTHING. When I walk outside with my camera, I choose what story I want to tell through my imagery. So too does a paid TEPCO cinematographer.

    Two, FACTS offered by someone known as “no-name no-country”. Wow. Now thats convincing. Think Rod would attach credibility to a “no name no country” contributer that claimed his left nut was glowing in the dark after eating a halibut caught off Fukushima?

    Three, a member of the United States Navy. I wonder, is he part of the lawsuit now being launched on behalf of the sailors claiming serious illness as a result of their exposure to radiation emanating from Fukushima Daichi? One sailor claims that the ship he was on was not allowed to enter port in Japan because of its level of contamination. I suppose this sailor and his shipmates are just lying, eh? Is Rod gonna thank them for thier service too?

    1. And so you rely totally on misinterpretations of TEPCO news releases, cases in litigation, and conspiracy theories for information? LOL! There we go. Mystery solved.

    2. And someone with the handle “PissedOffAmerican” probably shouldn’t be stalking or complaining about anonymity.

      Oh god is this the “paid nuclear cheerleader” thing again? If I had a friggen dime for every time I heard that in the last two years I wouldn’t be so poor!

      What makes it so funny is im technically a “freelance artist” too. They just let me post here. lol. There ain’t no place further from “paid” in this universe!

      Trust has nothing to do with it. I try to weigh sources and balance against what is known and scientifically believed.

      Incidentally, thats kinda funny too; anti nukes routinely “trust” negative information as gospel truth, even from TEPCO. There are many examples. Anything positive is met with denial and claims of conspiracy.

  16. Of, well, I guess I should rely on the kind of informative and constructive commentary YOU provide, eh, John? I’m a bit curious. How is it that TEPCO gained your trust. Surely trust must be earned. Care to tell us how TEPCO managed to earn yours?

  17. “(intentionally including projected totals?)”

    Uhhhm…spaeking about offering “conspiracy theory” as argument……

    1. As one story mentions hundreds of tons and one but a fraction of one, and the stated sources are confused ? Yes. Perhaps sensationalism at the very least. You are very astute.

      You know. Im probably going to get away with claiming a mass media sensationalism/scaremongering trend. As wild and unfair as that conspiracy theory may seem to some.

      1. “Im probably going to get away with claiming a mass media sensationalism/scaremongering trend”

        Really??? And what mass media outlet are you going to implicate in this conspiracy? Fox? MSNBC? The New York Times?

        How ’bout an example or two of a “sensationalized” account from one of these entities? Seems to me they’re pretty damned quiet about the Fukushima thing. Now, uh, if you wanna accuse them of sensationalizing Duck Dynasty, you might get some agreement from me.

        And this “sensationalizing” the media is doing….you must think thats why the Japanese government is now trying to muzzle the press, eh? They’re just trying to protect the “truth” by utilizing a little fascism, right?

        Yep, Fukushima is just a little ‘ol non-event, and if they’d just listen to Rod and institute his simple solution, the whole thing would just go away. Its the nasty ‘ol media that needs to be fixed.

        Yeah, the media is in league with fossil fuel, conspiring to take down those corporate nuclear industry white knights like TEPCO, the poster child of credibility.

        Uh huh.

        1. Do you even have a clue as to what we are discussing? The reason I posted the TWO DIFFERENT versions of the same story?? It is the example.

          As yet you cant find the real source, (not like you even attempted )???

          ALL of your information comes from a constructed perspective. a fear of anything nuclear; a derogatory view of anyone not presenting it in a negative perspective, and a wholly negative perception of TEPCO (even while depending on it for information). Thats not even a real thing. Its a belief system.

          Among many other logical disasters occurring simultaneously in your post, one at the core of such a belief system:

          Formal Fallacies – Illicit Negative – An Illicit Negative is an affirmative conclusion from negative premises.

          Form:

          No P are Q
          No Q are R
          P are R

          No pro nukes are wholly negative or honest. We are negative and oppose nuclear power. Therefore anti nukes are honest.

  18. “And someone with the handle “PissedOffAmerican” probably shouldn’t be stalking or complaining about anonymity”

    I am not claiming inside knowledge, or offering data under the mantle of anonymity.

    Nor am I the recipient of such anonomously offered data, presuming to offer the data as fact.

  19. “Oh god is this the “paid nuclear cheerleader” thing again?”

    Tell me, do you doubt thaty a TEPCO employee took the video? Isn’t that a reasonable assumption?

    “Trust has nothing to do with it. I try to weigh sources and balance against what is known and scientifically believed”

    When viewing a video, “trust” has EVERYTHING to do with it. And the same can be said about data. Particularly when that data comes from an entity that can be damaged by the data.

    Tell me, how trustworthy were the testimonies and data offered by Halliburton, BP, and the other involved parties in regards to the Gulf disaster? Or, the trustworthiness of PG&E in regards to their data, documentation, and testimonies in regards to San Onofre? We are to place TEPCO on a higher level of credibility when they are involved in an accident of this magnitude?

    And “trust has nothing to do with it”? You don’t need to trust the sources of the data by which you formulate an opinion as to whether or not an account isin accordance to what is “known and scientifically believed”?

    Well, thats sound science, eh? You needn’t trust the source of the data that you base your science on.

    OK.

    1. No that is incorrect, your stated assumption above was that Fuku was not being discussed enough. Then it was not being discussed negatively enough. Now we are on to negating the primary sources of information (for better or worse) on the matter.

      That kind of gallop falls within my definition of willful deception. You asked about trust? I think I am done.

    2. @POA

      I’m not sure why I am even bothering to engage with someone who anonymously accuses me of lying and censorship and of being some kind of paid industry shill who will do anything to excuse bad corporate behavior. As you point out, this is my forum; your behavior is roughly equivalent to entering a person’s and demanding the right to say whatever negative thing you want about that person without any repercussions, even if the accusations are false.

      For some odd reason, you chose to take that action here during a holiday season and to increase the intensity of the attacks on Christmas Day.

      You are being officially warned that you are within a few words of being permanently banned here. I don’t have any bouncers or security guards, but I do have tools that seem to work.

      Since I have not yet taken that action, I will address a few of your points. You wrote:

      Tell me, how trustworthy were the testimonies and data offered by Halliburton, BP, and the other involved parties in regards to the Gulf disaster? Or, the trustworthiness of PG&E in regards to their data, documentation, and testimonies in regards to San Onofre? We are to place TEPCO on a higher level of credibility when they are involved in an accident of this magnitude?

      Though I maintain a reasonably skeptical attitude about the possibility of individual malfeasance, even up to the very top of certain corporations and governments, I generally believe the written documents and testimonies offered by people who are under oath or in positions of responsibility. Until there has been some documented instances of egregious lying and organized actions to cover up, it is more logical to believe that people generally tell the truth, especially when they are facing serious consequences for being discovered in a lie.

      Perhaps that is one of the reasons I find people like Gundersen untrustworthy; I have found many examples of him not telling the whole truth, of purposely shading his information to scare people, and of being almost completely isolated from any responsibility for the consequences of the statements that he makes.

      I tend not to believe the “mass media” when it comes to information about nuclear energy. Though the documentation may be a bit incomplete so far, I have written numerous times about the way that the Establishment is motivated to do everything it can to slow the development of nuclear energy. It competes effectively enough with hydrocarbons to pose a serious threat to the profitability of that industry.

      Companies in the business of selling hydrocarbons have a huge influence in the ad supported media; there are few, if any, companies that are sufficiently focused in nuclear energy to overcome the inherent bias caused by having many advertisers that share a similar interest in bashing a certain technology.

      This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. The theories that explain the alignment of interests against nuclear energy are generally taught in Business 101, and in courses like Economic Geography or National Security Policy Since WWII.

      John D. Rockefeller himself recognized that oil was a very useful product that could produce immense wealth as long as the overall supply was controlled to be slightly less than the overall demand. He also recognized that oversupply (on local, national and international scales) and the subsequent price collapse were constant business risks if there was not some form of cooperation among suppliers. Standard Oil market discipline translated to Seven Sisters discipline and then to OPEC discipline.

      However, the hydrocarbon hegemony was threatened when a few curious and motivated people, including Chadwick, Hahn, Meitner, Fermi and Szilard, showed that carefully arranged metals and other materials could produce millions of times more heat per unit mass than burning oil. The whole Hydrocarbon Age paradigm got shifted because actinides were a new fuel source under the control of completely different types of people than those who controlled hydrocarbons. Traditional “cooperation” or cartel techniques would not work to control that supply, so different techniques had to be developed. One of the first ones that came to mind was a fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) campaign. That seems to have worked pretty well — since about 1930 — to slow the development of nuclear energy.

      If you believe that commercial media does not pay attention to the interests of its advertisers, you are FAR more gullible about the drivers of corporate behavior that anyone on this forum who believes that Tepco is mostly telling the truth about the conditions on its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant site. I’m not saying that everyone in the media is following the same script; I am saying that there is substantial agreement about the general tone of the stories and that part of the reason is that the story line being told supports the interests of some very wealthy and powerful entities — including, perhaps, some government agencies.

      Enough for now. Think hard before you post another comment.

      One more thing – I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to your accusation that I have deleted comment threads or posts here. I’m pretty sure that I have purposely deleted just one post in the last 20 years;and I regretted doing that within a week or so of taking the action. It turned out that I was not as far off base in my assertions about zircalloy fire risks as some of my colleagues had convinced me that I was – based on their conservative computer models.

  20. Rod, I have asked some very specific questions in my posts, that are right to point, and in direct rebuttal to reponses I’ve recieved.

    You offer a “solution” to the ongoing problems at Fukushima, yet you cannot demonstrate that this “solution” is being employed. Nor has anyone here bothered to address the question about how you propose to “treat” contaminated groundwater.

    I ask for examples of “sensationalized” mainstream media reporting, (in response to the assertion of such), and no example is forthcoming. Unfortunately, it seems the majority of the “reporting” is occuring on obscure websites. I have not seen ANY mainstream reportage in quite some time, and that I have seen was minimal in context, and a far cry from what I would deem “sensationalized”.

    I do search extensively for information about Fukushima Daichi, and I tend to avoid the “sky is falling” crapola that litters most search results. Most informative, to me, is not the scientific back and forth, but the very real human costs being paid by the victims who have been displaced, live in the shadow of fear about future illnesses and maladies, and see no light at the end of the tunnel. Lori Mochizuki’s site, “Fukushima Diary”, is probably the site I frequent the most, and it is impossible to follow his writings without realizing what a huge toll this event has wrought to a giant amount of people, no matter the actual science being debated. One does not need to be irradiated or sickened to be damaged by such an event as the Fukushima meltdowns.

    And you’re right about my accusation of you excising commentary. A subsequent search of your site managed to find those exchanges I accused you of removing, and I sincerely apologize.

    As to my poor timing, it is simply a matter of circumstance. I am currently working out of town from my residence, and do not engage in internet activity during the week due to the locale of the jobsite. Simply, I have this week off, and am catching up on internet activities. The revelations about statistical anomolies INRE to thyroid incidence in Fukushima Prefecture children, and the lawsuit involving the shipmates of the Ronald Reagan carrier prompted my to revisit your site to see what, if anythibng, is being discussed about the ongoing situation at Fukushima.

    So, anyway, if we remove the animous, (which, you must admit, is not entirely one sided), I have posed some reasonable questions. If you reread my comments, you will find them. I hope you will endeavor to answer them, partricularly the ones about your “solution”, and what is actually occurring at Fukushima. Regardless of what you may think of my delivery, these questions are seriously offered, and I am sincerely interested in the answers.

    Being told that I am dissappointed that no one has died is certainly as egregious an affront as any hostility I have offered, and I am willing to change the tone if you are.

    I hope you’ll attempt to answer my concerns (questions).

  21. For instance, Rod…

    Here is an article that I would consider “mainstream media” that deals with the groundwater problem at Fukushima.

    I would be interested in whether or not you consider this article an exercise in “sensationalism”, and, if so, in what manner has Reuters sensationalized the facts?

    Also, I would be interested in how your “solution” would deal with this contaminated groundwater, which seems to be an ongoing and burgeoning issue.

    Also, I’m interested in whether or not the contaminated cooling water that is being pumped into an ever increasing amount of storage tanks is in fact being “treated” and subsequently released into the bay.

    A more specific question would be whether or not, (if your “solution” is implemented), the treatment process could keep up with the storage problem, or will more and more tank farms have to be erected? Where does it end?

    And, while I’m at it, I’d like to ask if you believe there is full containment at all the reactor vessels?

      1. I’m dissappointed, Rod. Did you actually read my questions? The link you provided does not directly address my concerns. It provides no answers to my specific questions.

        1. @POA

          Read more carefully and follow the related post links as I suggested. The posts address media hype, reasons why coverage is incorrect, how to treat water, and why discharging it after treatment is safe and eliminates storage issue.

          If you want more personalized responses to specific questions you need to contribute something of value to the discussion.

          1. Sorry, pushed “submit” accidentally prior to finishing my response. But, yes, you dodged the issue of contaminated groundwater, which seems to be a growing problem at Fukushima.

            I have a had a few people read this exchange, curious if I was being unreasonable, or simply having my questions answered, being too uneducated about nuclear science to recognize the answers.

            Universally, the answer has been “no”. You aren’t doing your cause any favors, Rod.

            1. You apparently did not read the posts. They discussed the contaminated ground water in the detail deserved. However, I will indulge your silliness just one more time. Here is a sample quote from one of the linked posts I sent you to read as homework before continuing to accuse me of not answering your question.

              https://atomicinsights.com/fear-mongering-over-water-leaks-at-fukushima-dai-ichi/

              I’ll start with the bottom line first: despite all word to the contrary, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned that “contaminated” water from the damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is going to cause them any physical harm, now or in the future. The only way my bottom line statement could possibly be wrong is if some really nutty activists decide to occupy the site and drink directly from the water tanks that have been assumed to be leaking. Those nutty activists would have to be very patient people, because they would have to drink that water for many years before any negative effects might show up.

              Please read before posting or bug someone else with your questions.

  22. Sorry Rod….

    But I am curious about one more thing….

    How do you feel about the new “State Secrets Act” that has been passed in Japan? Is this the act of a country that has nothing to hide? Apparently, the focus of this legislation was media access, and reporting, about what is occurring at Fukushima. Do you feel that such legislation is necessary to put an end to the “sensationalistic” media reporting in regards to Fukushima? No news is good news?

      1. “Tee hee hee – we even discussed that”

        Hmmm….That was a “discussion”?

        “I knew it was going to resonate in Fuku conspiracy circles even though it probably has nothing to do with Fuku”

        Even if Fukushima IS NOT the target of this legislation, certainly it could easily be applied to the reporting on Fukushima, should MORE embarrassing facts come to light about TEPCO’s malfeasance and ineptitude, and anyfurther arising emergencies or accidents at Fukushima. You may be right, this law may not be directly aimed at Fukushima reportage. So, are you implying that the Japanese government would not use this law to protect against “embarrassing” facts being reported about Fukushima?

  23. Thanks for your indulgence, Rod.

    I will certainly send people here to take note of your willingness (ability?) to answer simple direct questions about the Fukushima situation.

  24. “The only way my bottom line statement could possibly be wrong is if some really nutty activists decide to occupy the site and drink directly from the water tanks that have been assumed to be leaking. Those nutty activists would have to be very patient people, because they would have to drink that water for many years before any negative effects might show up”

    http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2013/06/19/tepco-confirms-increased-levels-of-tritium-and-strontium-90-in-groundwater

    “19 Jun (NucNet): Higher concentrations of the radioactive isotopes tritium and strontium-90 have been found in the groundwater below units 1 to 4 of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant, operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) has confirmed”

    “The company said levels of tritium had been detected at 0.5 million becquerels per litre (Bq/ℓ) and of strontium-90 at 1,000 Bq/ℓ.”

    Further excerpt…….

    According to EPA guidelines, the maximum contaminant level of strontium-90 in drinking water is 0.3 Bq/ℓ,

    1. EPA guidelines are based on drinking a ridiculously large amount of water from the contaminated source every day for an entire lifetime and getting a statistically significant chance (not certainty) of a negative health effect.

      1. So, never mind that this reading is 3333 times the EPA guideline.

        OK. That certainly alleviates any concern.

        1. Are you drinking the water from below the nuclear power plants? What is the level that has been measured in any place where people have a remote possibility of being exposed? How much water was found at the elevated concentration and how do you know that the reported reading was not an anomaly caused by sample cross-contamination?

          http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1233005_5130.html

          Oops – I know, you completely discount anything that Tepco says, unless it happens to agree with your preexisting opinion.

        2. Sorry, but 3333 times a trivially meaningless number is still trivially meaningless. This is the Law of Very Small Numbers.

          To put it another way, 3333 fleas don’t weigh as much as an elephant, no matter how hard you wish, hope, and pray that they would.

      2. Specifically, for strontium, “EPA uses its Safe Drinking Water Act authority to establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for beta emitters, such as strontium-90, in public drinking water. The MCL for beta emitters is 4 millirem per year or 8 picoCuries per liter of water”.

  25. “Oops – I know, you completely discount anything that Tepco says, unless it happens to agree with your preexisting opinion”

    I would have to understand “everything TEPCO says” first, and as is obvious, I don’t. Thats why I’m here. To pose SIMPLE DIRECT QUESTIONS that can be answered SIMPLY AND DIRECTLY. Apparently thats too tough for you and your choir. Instead, even when offered the opportunity to discard the animous, you just can’t resist employing obnoxious sarcasm. You might as well just let the child Tucker speak for your blog, at least his obnoxious spew more directly illustrates the nature of “debate” here.

    But hey, at least I’m not discrediting data, (and basing arguments on the descredidation), on someone named “no-name no-country” when I’m unhappy with data that doesn’t fit my agenda.

    I give up. I’ll let history tell the truth.

    1. “Instead, even when offered the opportunity to discard the animous, you just can’t resist employing obnoxious sarcasm. “

      I guess I cant as you just provided a TEPCO source above. That was answered with another one. lol. Trust indeed. Why cant I just let it go.

      BTW I tried to make a profile here but cant get it to work. At least I have a name.

      And from your other post: “So, are you implying that the Japanese government would not use this law to protect against “embarrassing” facts being reported about Fukushima?”

      PR probably dictates it go the other way for a bit. They were blaming the technology, and now fostering a climate of openness and excessive caution. But beyond that there really probably isnt much they would be able to conceal. Its not black magic. Besides you didnt read my response to it. I dont believe excessive state secrecy benefits anyone in the long run.

Comments are closed.