5/14 and 13: Arnold Gundersen's Fairwind video discussed

3 discussions on Gundersen's claims on Fairwind videos.
Specifically, this post covers discussions on the following:

1. Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems (5/14)
2. Another video from the Fairewinds site this one regarding radioactive particles. Question for those of us in Tokyo: In the end of the video Mr. Kaltofen mentions the only way to know where the radioactive particles are is by using expensive monitoring systems not your average geiger counter. There is a site that lists the amount of fallout in Tokyo, I will add the link below the Fairewinds one. Isnt this helpful in knowing how much radioactive "dust" is in Tokyo? (5/13)
3. Gregory A Bournet posted links to two pdf files from Fairwinds. This is simply just another "what do you think about this" thing.

Alright, here it is.

5/14  Le Chef De Tokio

Any comments, objections, criticism or denials ?
Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems
Gundersen says Fukushima's gaseous and liquid releases continue unabated. With a meltdown at Unit 1, Unit 4 leaning and facing possible collapse, several units contaminating ground water, and area school children outside the exclusion zone receiving...

Antonio I think it's a good summary of the situation. I'm not so sure about underground water from the plant reaching the sewers of Fukushima city, like he seems to indicate. It's a pity that he has no access to Japanese sources.

Tokyo Radiation Levels I get the feeling he is throwing around predictions so he can be the "I told you so" guy, though I have a lot of respect for his credentials. What he says about unit 1 state is a good description. Anything else is educated guess. But an educated guess is still a guess and I'm waiting on the facts.

Frank Sanns Two weeks ago, I wrote this gent with some numbers that showed one of his pet theories of criticality in pool #4 was wrong. He has adjusted course and is no longer claiming that. NOW HE IS CLAIMING #3 pool went critical. I can not answer the latter for sure because I am not privy to important test information that could confirm or deny it but the evidence is against it. Look at the debris that was IN THE POOL. an explosion of the magnitude that he is claiming would have ejected or crushed what was in there. Instead there is debris from the roof in there. No matter, there is a leak in #3 reactor and just like the other reactors, the core has melted between 30% and 60% from the IAEA website. Nothing is really new with this. There is steam and continued air and water contamination that needs to be addressed. The volume of water they are dealing with is around 190,000 liters per day to treat. This is large but not outrageous amount of water.

Manuela Let see.....where there is smoke there is fire.....if it walk like a duck and, squaks like a duck.........I could go on and on. Why all the readings, denials reporting......... If it's all good. Something is wrong, if they are trying so hard to convince us it's all good.

Frank Sanns ‎@Manuela, There is smoke but no fire. It is steam into the humid air. When you see your breath on a cool day does that mean there is fire in your lungs? The situation is essentially the same as it has been since the last week in March. It is a serious accident with many challenges but as time passes the fuel cools and more corrective actions can be taken. Those are the facts.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Frank: You wrote to Arnold with some facts? Nice!

David I really do wish that nuclear accidents were treated as an international disaster with an international response and oversight. It highly disturbs me that children are going to school in a potentially dangerous area. During the war they got many of the children out of London, might not be a bad idea now.

Frank Sanns ‎@TRL, Yes, I sent him an email with the data I posted here on April 22nd that was a thread started by Roman Piquois. Mr. Gundersen did not reply to me but he quickly stopped claiming criticality in #4 so I think he realized he was in error.

Manuela OOOOOOOHHHHH ! okay I feel better now.

Romain Actually Frank, I am pretty deceived that he did not answer you. I mean, if people want to be accurate, it is a must that discussion occurs (= as bidirectional communication). By just saying things and NOT answering you, given his exposure in the media, I feel more that he is just trying to use it for his credit more than finding the truth and helping people.

5/ 13

Another video from the Fairewinds site this one regarding radioactive particles. Question for those of us in Tokyo: In the end of the video Mr. Kaltofen mentions the only way to know where the radioactive particles are is by using expensive monitoring systems not your average geiger counter. There is a site that lists the amount of fallout in Tokyo, I will add the link below the Fairewinds one. Isnt this helpful in knowing how much radioactive "dust" is in Tokyo?

James

Here is the video about the particles: http://vimeo.com/23186557

Here are the radioactive material readings for Tokyo: http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/emergency/monitoring.tokyo-eiken.go.jp/monitoring/f-past_data.html

And throughout all the mild panic they create, does Fairewinds give any advice for the millions of people who live in Tokyo?

Charles I see the plan is to cover reactor 1, so hopefully that will help reduce the airborne radioactive leaks. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/14_02.html

Antonio I wrote a mail to Marco Kaltofen (the guy in the fairewinds interview) a while ago asking if he could compare his data to the one being made public by MEXT or KEK at Tsukuba. I specified that I was living in Tokyo. His reply was that they were measuring different things (indoor dust Vs outdoor dust). That's all. He didn't recommend evacuation. So either he doesn't care or the situation is not very dangerous.

Speaking of which, KEK released a new report on air monitoring: http://www.kek.jp/quake/radmonitor/GeMonitor8-e.html

Frank Sanns

The good news and the bad news. The bad news first. On or about March 21 a less than insignificant amount of radioactive particles from the innards of the reactors found its way to the air of Tokyo. By the end of March, the levels quickly decreased to essentially negligible levels. The good news is, the human body does a good job of filtering out dust from getting to the lungs. Big particles are trapped by the nose and the small particles go in and go right back out. Everything on the outside of the body will wash off with time and is a trivial dose and can be ignored. I am and have been concerned for the food in the fallout areas of the DOE maps (north of Tokyo but in a mostly elliptical and sometimes sporadic pattern). Chances are very high that there are bad materials in food coming from there or from the ocean in the vicinity of the plant. If possible, I would avoid it.

To assess what MIGHT have the potential to become airborne in Tokyo, it would be interesting to use a broom to sweep up an area of sidewalk or road of around 20 or 30 square meters. Then take the geiger counter and scintillator to it and see if anything is concentrated over background. If nothing is really concentrating then the rain has already washed the loose particles away.

James Ill help sweep if TRL measures it ;) To be honest its been a real pain trying to evaluate the dangers here in Tokyo. The levels are all down or Not Detectable, but this boogeyman of radioactive particles on the ground has been the last thing Ive been stressed over.

Alessandra I was under the impression that basically if after the rain there is no trace of those isotopes it means that maybe for the past days we've been free of those in Tokyo? Is this only a wishful hope?

Frank Sanns ‎@Alessandra, I think there is no problem in Tokyo but the experiment that I propose would give the firm answer especially with the reading from the geiger counter (no plastic bag) and the scintillator.

Charles ‎@James - That's where I'm at as well with this issue. Plus, I stress that what is there is mostly Cesium which has a half-life of 30 years (I believe), and will be with us for quite some time blowing in the wind.

Daniel There was a report today about an isotope found in incinerator ashes in a Tokyo sewage plant today. Apparently, it was discovered in late March and has already been recycled.

Jamie That would be this story, fyi. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110514a2.html

Frank Sanns None of this should be surprising. The rain washes everything to lower levels and to the drains and to the sea so it is not blowing around. Of course it does not help if it finds its way to the sanitary sewer and then get incinerated and made airborne again.

James ‎@Charles Yes Im right with you. As Frank mentioned, the more rain and time passes, the more everything gets washed away. The particle situation is more confusing that the other things that are easy to get readings on. I do think that the actual percentage of these things being dangerous to human health in Tokyo is pretty low. That is the only conclusion I have come to after studying about them.

Charles ‎@James, yes, I'm hoping that is the case - that being that the levels aren't dangerous to human health. But dang, it would help if TEPCO could cap those loose cannons and stop the emissions.

Gregory A Bournet

http://www.fairewinds.com/sites/default/files/fukuhealthrept.pdf

http://fairewinds.com/sites/default/files/fukuhealthrept.pdf

David Extrapolations from extrapolations are by their very nature v hypothetical hoewver I can't see this figure in this report being ignored for long "This is an extremely conservative set of assumptions...103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures."

James They don't really discuss the predictions for Tokyo (250km outside) maybe I missed it though. Anyone else get a sense of their assessment of the big city?

David PS Chris Busby who authored that report appears to be a fringe scientist of minority reports - i'm not saying he's necessarily wrong - but clearly he's not mainstream http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/

James I thought I recognized that name before... he has been on Alex Jones prison planet before as well.  Here he is on BBC: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhlgks_radiation-risk-from-nuclear-power-station-in-japan_news

Antonio It would have been nice if he had used the data on beta contaminants (Radioactive Iodine and Cesium) by prefecture also published by MEXT, instead of deducing it by the increase of gamma radiation. I mean, the data is on the same website a couple of clicks away and it's being updated regularly.

Frank Sanns From the radiation that TRL has shown on this site, it is ridiculous to talk about cancer risks. So far, Tokyo is around 3% above its normal background for the year. The rain soon will wash away what is there in the urban environment. For very specific areas that are not necessarily the closest to the reactor, the levels there will be problematic and some living and farming exclusions zones will be mandated. Cancer statistics will be applied to those regions but it is way premature to see how expansive those areas are and to what extent.

Carlo ‎@Frank, some reported the "normal" background radiation in Tokyo to be 0.04μSv/h prior the accident so can you please develop how did you calculate your 3% above "normal" (TRL today's pic is showing 0.238μSv/h ) ?

Warren Frank, I saw another article in NHK World yesterday saying that it will take months for them stop the release of radioactivity from the plant. Last time we saw readings increase after it rained (both in air and especially tap water). With constant emissions from the plant, can't we deduce that instead of washing it away, the rainy season will actually cause spikes in radioactivity again? What are your thoughts?

Tokyo Radiation Levels

Carlo: The normal background in Roppongi hills is 0.14 uSv/h and 0.12 uSv/h in Kita-ku and Yoyogi Koen. 0.04 is probably taken higher up in the air or over cement. I've only even seen 0.04 uSv/h in the train (above ground).

Warren: It could. I wouldn't deduce it though. I'd speculate. The radiation emissions from the plant were massive around the last rain. The emissions are continuing on a smaller scaler now. Though we will likely have depositional contamination like we did before if they don't stop the emissions by June. The Rainy Season here is essentially a stationary front though so if it rains it's likely to be a problem around the Fukushima, Ibaraki and Tochigi. And it could find it's way to Tokyo if the wind blows it this way. It really depends on wind and emission quantity.

Frank Sanns @Carlo, the correct way to calculate is to integrate all of the individual measurements for each day. I do not have that data and it would be beyond what many in this group would easily grasp so let's use an easy to do estimation. Suppose the radiation level for two weeks were 6 times over normal background. That would mean that for each day of living in Tokyo, you would be getting 6 days of radiation in 1 day. That happened for 14 days so that means you had radiation equal to 84 more days than you actually had so 365 + 84 = 449 days of radiation in 365 days. So 449/365= 1.23 times or 23% more radiation than you normally would have. This is a far over estimation based on TRL numbers and the background number of 0.04 uSv is exceptionally low. Still, 23 % over a very low background and is far below what many people's normal background yearly dose would be.

‎@Warren, I find it unacceptable for TEPCO to let the reactors in their current state for months. There are options that should have be already done but many bad decisions were being made. I do not know why efforts to reuse the water are not underway. Pumping that water back over the reactors would be the normal scheme of cooling the reactor so why pump into barges and then take it away? I know there is a leak at an underground tunnel around #2 but pouring wet concrete over something flowing at that rate is really futile. I also do not know why a remote crane has not been brought in and some of the fuel removed to reduce cooling loads. I do not know why the radioactive water can not be diverted or pumped from above or below the leak and before it goes into the ocean. Gravity flow out of an 8" pipe is not that much volume of water to deal with. I do not know why the source of the radioactivity from uncovered fuel rods is not being covered. I do not know why many decisions are being made but much like the BP oil well spill in the Gulf of Mexico, this is new ground and the engineers are learning as they go. My biggest complaint is that time if of the essence then a one at a time approach is not acceptable. Multiple sound approaches need to be in the works simultaneously. The rate that this problem is fixed will be directly related to the amount of permanently contaminated area and health impact on the population. High stakes need parallel solutions.