Skip to main content

Evening Update

By
UPDATE AS OF 5:00 P.M. EDT, TUESDAY, MARCH 29:

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said that cooling water is being added to the spent storage fuel pools at reactor 2 and 3. Reactor 2 was using a temporary motor-driven pump and reactor 3 was using a truck to pump the freshwater into the fuel storage pools. The International Atomic Energy Agency said that plans are being made to begin pumping freshwater into the fuel storage pool at reactor 4 starting today.

IAEA said that 63 food samples taken March 24-29 in eight prefectures (Chiba, Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Miyagi, Niigata, Tochigi and Yamagata) were below regulatory limits set by the Japanese government for iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137.

New analyses of seawater about 1,000 feet from the discharge point of reactor 1 through 4 show “a significant decrease” in radiation levels from March 26, IAEA said.

Readings for iodine-131 went from 2,000,000 picocuries (1 picocurie is one-trillionth of a curie) per liter on March 26 to 297,300 picocuries per liter on March 27. Readings for cesium-137 went from 324,324 picocuries per liter on March 26 to 51,351 picocuries per liter on March 27. IAEA said that radiation readings in seawater “will be quite variable in the near future depending on water discharge levels.”

Japan’s National Research Institute of Fishery Research has analyzed five fish samples from the port of Choshi in Chiba prefecture and found concentrations in the fish to be “far below any concern for fish consumption.” Four of five samples showed cesium-137 concentrations below the limit of detection. In the remaining sample, cesium-137 was found to be slightly above detectable levels.

IAEA said the situation was evolving, but that concentrations of radionuclides in seawater would soon drop to lower values by dilution and that the levels in marine food would most likely not reach levels above regulatory limits set for consumption.

In the United States, EPA’s daily data summary from its RadNet radiation air monitors across the U.S show typical fluctuations in background radiation levels as of 8:30 A.M. EDT. “The levels detected are far below levels of concern,” EPA said.
Labels:

Comments

Meredith Angwin said…
Is this right? I have to sign in and give them my password in order to see the EPA data? There should be nothing secret about this data. And they seem to want my email password or something...when I gave them a fake password, just for the site, they weren't buying.

What don't I understand about getting this data?
March 30, 2011 at 7:58 AM
David Bradish said…
Meredith, we had a wrong link, it's fixed now and goes to EPA's home page. Thx.
March 30, 2011 at 8:05 AM
jimwg said…
NEI's "Myths & Facts About Nuclear Energy" page is well done. My sole problem is that it's all stuck HERE! This good work should be plastered out to every media outlet and newspaper whose perspective on this event has largely been anything but composed and even-handed. In fact, I'd like NEI to _challenge_ the media to quote or cite this material in lieu most of the implacable anti-nuclear anything advocates they're guesting these days who are going to strike the metal while it's red-hot to bend fear-softened politicians and public. Take the initiative NEI!
March 30, 2011 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said…
what stories are you reading? NEI has been quoted in almost every US story on this.

This BS about a media conspiracy against nuclear power is unsubstantiated and, frankly, getting old.
March 31, 2011 at 1:18 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more