Fukushima still a Threat to Humanity?

[Gooders1002]

I am no expert on this but can anybody tell me what is the current situation of Fukushima and really how bad is it?

[Tonus]

According to my friend's conspiracy-theorist dad, we're a hair-trigger away from having Earth turn into a star to rival the Sun itself. I'm thinking he might be just a tiny bit carried away.

[Gooders1002]

According to my friend's conspiracy-theorist dad, we're a hair-trigger away from having Earth turn into a star to rival the Sun itself. I'm thinking he might be just a tiny bit carried away.

Lol, but in any case if Humanity is wiped out by Fukashima, it would be ironic, As The one country who specifity said there would not develop nuclear weapons would end up nuking the world.

[Anomalocaris]

I am no expert on this but can anybody tell me what is the current situation of Fukushima and really how bad is it?

Locally very bad. There are still places out in the open at Fukushima site where the ambient radiation will kill you in less than 4 hours.

Globally not significant at present. The amount being released into wider atmosphere or sea water is very small. But chance of a major accidental release of radiation into the wider atmosphere and sea water in the future is however still much higher than in an normal undamaged nuclear power plant.

[Creed of Heresy]

It's still got radiation that spewed into the atmosphere, and into the ocean and has reached the west coast, but honestly, we get exposed to radiation all the damn time. Not to mention, the human body is actually reasonably tolerant of exposure to radiation. Hell, our own bodies give it off to a small extent.

As you can see, absorbing this "catastrophic" amount of radiation that is being given off is all but harmless. 1 sievert all at once is when you will begin to experience radiation sickness; at 5, you will die. I stress; all at once. The Fukushima radiation exposure was clocked in at 3.6 microsieverts 50 miles NW of the stricken plant. That said, many other sites tested saw barely any elevation whatsoever.

So, as you can see, anyone whining and screaming about this whole thing being a colossal health hazard/disaster/pandemic/whateverthefuck are a bunch of fear-stricken panicking idiots, and that goes for anyone on this site, too.

And another reason why we really shouldn’t worry about it all that much. The radiation that fossil fuel plants spew into the environment each year is around 0.1 EBq. That’s ExaBecquerel, or 10 to the power of 18. Fukushima is pumping out 10 trillion becquerels a year at present. Or 10 TBq, or 10 of 10 to the power of 12. Or, if you prefer, one ten thousandth of the amount that the world’s coal plants are doing. Or even, given that there are only about 2,500 coal plants in the world, Fukushima is, in this disaster, pumping out around one quarter of the radiation that a coal plant does in normal operation.

So. Yeah. It's never been a threat to humanity, despite what all the morons think. It was only a threat when it was initially giving off so much radiation in close vicinity. It's the high-yield burst from the most rapidly-decaying radiation that is the most lethal. The stuff with much longer half-lives isn't NEARLY as dangerous. There's a reason why the area around Chernobyl is thriving with wildlife despite the lingering radiation; it just isn't all that harmful in the distance anymore. Nearby, of course, where there's just so damn much of the stuff, it's all concentrated. However, the material that is concentrated in Fukushima is secure.

---

Locally very bad. There are still places out in the open at Fukushima site where the ambient radiation will kill you in less than 4 hours.

You mean near the water-holding tanks for the contaminated coolant water? Not necessarily out in the open, but you pretty much nailed it either way. 2,200 microsieverts per hour, I believe, was the reading.

Globally not significant at present. The amount being released into wider atmosphere or sea water is very small. But chance of a major accidental release of radiation into the wider atmosphere and sea water in the future is however still much higher than in an normal undamaged nuclear power plant.

So small, in fact, it's not even worth mentioning. Honestly, the plant would have to have an outright catastrophic meltdown, a total failure of its systems, to really pose any significant global hazard at all. Friggin' Chernobyl didn't have that much of a globally significant impact; somewhere to the tune of the highly-exposed individuals (106) from near the site of the disaster saw only 11 deaths within a 15-year time span. Anyone further out? Yeah, somehow I don't really see that having affected them all that much, and I don't see Fukushima becoming Chernobyl 2.0 given that, while damaged, we're not exactly looking at a poorly-managed nuclear plant with underfunded safety checks, unmaintained safety systems, and without redundancies for their systems...all of which were problems that the Chernobyl plant suffered from.

Still. I would rather they just build another that isn't sitting on the damn coastline or something, that has more safety systems, say one of the more modern designs for example, decommission the entire facility, and lock its components into secure storage facilities to live out its thousand-year half-life without affecting anyone or anything.

In conclusion: Unless you're within 25 kilometers of the plant, you've never been at any significant health risk because of this "catastrophe." It's never been a threat, and it still isn't, and if you're really so scared of it, go and live in the woods and drink only boiled water and kill your own food and take only homeopathic remedies and also wear tinfoil hats.

Meanwhile I'll reserve my stress for more important matters. Like not having enough weed. Or stubbing my toe.

[Doubting Thomas]

Well, this guy hasn't been seen yet, so so far so good.

[Cato]

For now I am ignoring the apocalyptic hysteria that is easily found. I won't get excited until I read the full UNSCEAR assessment due by the end of the year.

[Anomalocaris]

Nothing apocalyptic about it. People's fear of the danger of radiation is not consistent with the level of danger from other sources they accept without any question whatsoever.

[Cato]

Locally very bad. There are still places out in the open at Fukushima site where the ambient radiation will kill you in less than 4 hours.

This is the article that I found with the 4 hour lethal data.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...lear-plant

TEPCO is reporting 1800mSv (millisieverts) at the joints of some of the tanks holding contaminated water. This certainly isn't good, but I want to give some perspective to the article's title:

Radiation spikes to lethal levels at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant

As alarming as an 1800mSv source is, one must consider distance from the source. An easy way to estimate dose rates at particular distances is to use the inverse square law. In this case, the dose rate at 100m would be 0.18mSv. A CT scan delivers about 9mSv.

Also, the article reported that it was beta radiation that was detected (electrons and positrons). A majority of beta radiation can be attenuated with about 6mm of aluminum.

Compared to many of the reports I've read regarding Fukushima, this article would only rate about a 2 (out of 10) on the hysteria meter. Fukushima is still a huge fucking mess and no doubt presents continued environmental risk until fully contained and cleaned; however, wild conjecture about global impact without the full UNSCEAR report is irresponsible.

I also think that UNSCEAR could do a lot better job of updating the general public about the progress of its investigation.

[Anomalocaris]

The level of radiation measured at Fukushima is only an indication of how poorly contained tha radioactive materials on the plant site continues to be. It is not the immediate level of radiation that presents a potential widespread threat. It is the amount of radioactive material that remains either poorly contained, or essentially uncontained, in the shabby riveted tanks of water, leached into soil, deposited onto various surfaces, that makes the potential of further major accidental release to the outside world much higher than in a normal undamaged nuclear power plant.

Will there be another INES level 7 accident there? Probably not, but not totally inconceivable.

But I would be amazed if more level 3 or level 4 accidents don't happen repeatedly at Fukushima during the course of clean up. If you ask me to guess where in the world the next level 5 nuclear accident will most likely happen? I will also say Fukushima.

I think Fukushima will remain by far the worst bleed sore in world's nuclear safety for some time. The risk of moderate to serious nuclear release at Fukushima now probably surpass the combined risk of a similar incident at all of the world's other nuclear power plants combined.

As to the risk of siting Fukushima near sea coast, please note Fukushima actually experienced very little physical damage from both the earth quake and the tsunami. This shows the concept of siting nuclear power plants near sea shore is not in itself fundamentally flawed. Rather it is a specific flaw in the actual execution that was at fault - namely the failure to locate the backup powersource at some place less likely to become waterlogged than literally the lowest point in the basement of the entire facility.