Skip to main content

Monday Evening Update

From NEI's Japan Earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 7 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 28:
The International Atomic Energy Agency said that Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency is planning a meeting with Tokyo Electric Power Co. to determine the origin of contaminated water in the turbine buildings at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Contaminated water from the basement floor of the reactor 1 turbine building is being pumped into its main condenser. At reactor 2 that process has not begun because the steam condenser is full, IAEA said. Pumping contaminated water is being considered at reactors 3 and 4.

Three workers who received radiation exposure from standing in contaminated water were released today from the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, where they had been under observation. The level of localized exposure received by two of the workers is between 200 to 300 rem, lower than the previous estimate of 200 to 600 rem, IAEA said.

Radiation Monitoring Continues

Results from ocean monitoring stations up to 18 miles off the shoreline from the Fukushima Daiichi plant showed levels of iodine-131 at most locations were below federal limits. IAEA said results from four monitoring stations on March 26 showed iodine-131 concentrations were between 162 and 486 picocuries (1 picocurie is one-trillionth of a curie) per liter. Cesium-137 concentrations ranged from below the level of detection up to 432 picocuries per liter.
IAEA said that it is still too early to draw conclusions for expected concentrations in marine food, because the situation can change rapidly.

The latest sampling shows that drinking water in Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures remain below the Japanese limits for the ingestion of drinking water by infants. Iodine-131 was reported in food samples taken from March 26 to March 27 in six prefectures (Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Niigata, Tochigi and Yamagata) in vegetables, strawberries and watermelon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified trace amounts of radioactive isotopes at its 12 RadNet air monitor locations across the nation. The levels are extremely low and are far below levels that would be a public health concern. EPA's samples were captured by monitors in Alaska, Alabama, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada and Washington state over the past week and sent to EPA scientists for detailed laboratory analysis.

For more information about radiation, see NEI's Web page on health and radiation safety. For detailed information on EPA's RadNet air monitor locations, click here.

Comments

netudiant said…
The Austrians report massive emissions from the plant equivalent to 10% of the Chernobyl total every day, mostly iodine 131 but also about 10% cesium 137.
They base this on the CNTBT monitoring network.
The web site http://www.zamg.ac.at/ is in German but the tables and dispersion maps are self explanatory.
These emissions have been blown to sea almost continuously since the accident, but are not reported anywhere else.
If the wind shifts, they will come as a severe shock to the Japanese people.
Could someone knowledgeable explain how long these emissions are projected to continue, where they come from and what is their likely impact.
jimwg said…
"No Threat From Japanese Radiation Spread Across U.S."
Published March 28, 2011
Associated Press

It'd help further dispell radioation's eternally virulent "creeping glowing fog" perception if the AP put into contrast how weak these traces are; that such are found in volcanic eruptions, and that were there detectors so designed one could detect particulates from Chinese coal-fired plants in the U.S. or sand from Sahara sandstorms.

Already cable busuness shows are inviting more and more biased "consultants" announcing that this is the "final nail in the coffin for nuclear energy" and Greenpeace has started to "review" even thermonuclear fusion on their anything nuclear exorcism list.

Where is the nuclear industry's demand to have the media fair and balanced?
David Bradish said…
netudiant, there are not massive emissions coming out of the plant. That implies the reactor cores are exposed like Chernobyl and that's not the case. A piece in the BBC news explains that the "radioactive fallout at Fukushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl."

jimwg, the whole nuclear industry is mobilized and talking with the media as much as possible. Of course, it would be easier if the media only listened to us (ha ha), but that's simply not the case. We just have to continue to present the facts and help folks under the situation and put it into perspective. I'd have to say not all is bad with the media, there are quite a number of good pieces out there which we've tried to highlight. If you have ideas on how the industry could be more effective, please share them.
Atomikrabbit said…
“If you have ideas on how the industry could be more effective, please share them.”

The only way the media is going to give equal treatment to nuclear is when you are spending as much on daily advertising as the oil/gas/coal industry. In the meantime, for every reactor-year of delay, postponement, or premature cancellation they can create, the fossil energy interests make an extra $365 million in revenue. Tilting the media is a pay-to-play game.

Nuclear was an industry created by scientific geniuses, and destroyed (in the democracies anyway) by media executives, politicians, and lawyers.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...