The narrative that has been
presented in recent news reports is that the contaminated water was somehow
unexpected, and TEPCO were slow in revealing the truth of the situation simply
because they were overwhelmed and made errors in judgment recently under the
pressure of dealing with a series of surprising events.
In fact, there is nothing
surprising at all about this situation. In the early days of the crisis
anti-nuclear groups claimed that it was a certainty that reactors 1 to 3 had
melted down. TEPCO, the Japanese government and every knowledgeable expert
working in the nuclear field knew that they were correct, but in a global unified
voice they all refused to “speculate” on the condition of the reactor cores.
Two months later, there was official admission that the meltdowns had indeed occurred
and no one knew the condition or location of the melted cores. The apologies
were made for regrettably bad decisions made under pressure, but in fact the
delay was deliberate and pre-meditated. It was an instance of acting on the
proverbial wisdom of not asking for permission but rather doing what you want
to do now and asking for forgiveness later.
The water problem was well
understood at the time as well. Critics like nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen have
raised the issue repeatedly. In this video
from April 2011, nuclear industry critic Chris Busby stated the
inevitability of it “all going to the sea.” The cores melt, pieces of them stay
in the ruins of the reactor and/or some pieces of them melt into the ground,
but they are all fissioning and hot for a long, long time, so they have to be
constantly cooled by water, and that water has to go back to the ocean. TEPCO
has tried to filter out most of the contaminants, but it is not possible to
filter out radioactive isotopes of hydrogen (tritium) which has become
tritiated water. You can’t easily separate so much tritiated water from normal water. (Canadian nuclear operators have some expertise in this area, but they handle fresh water, and smaller volumes than what TEPCO has on its hands). So they tried
storing the water in hastily built tanks, but it has become obvious recently the number of
tanks needed will far exceed what is practically possible.
The regulatory limits, the
fear of angering fishermen and the public, and the need to save the reputation of
the nuclear industry have all prevented the Japanese government from taking the
action which will eventually be necessary. As Dr. Busby said two years ago, “It all goes into
the sea.” What we have had is two and half years of crisis management and
crafting of a narrative that the situation has been stabilized – put in “cold
shutdown” – but now we get the admission of an “unexpected” change in
circumstances and many bowed heads and deep apologies. What we are not being
told is that all of this is another piece of the pre-meditated theater, just
like the apology for not reporting the fact of the meltdowns when it was known.
From the beginning, every nuclear expert in the world knew that it all goes to
the sea.
Strangely enough, it turns out
that even Dr. Busby, who is well known for accusing the nuclear industry of
downplaying the health effects of radiation, agrees that the contamination that
is flowing out of Fukushima Daiichi is not going to present much risk for
people on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. In his recent article published
in Russia Today he wrote:
… the Pacific Ocean
is big enough for this level of release not to represent the global catastrophe
that some are predicting… So the people in California can relax. In fact,
the contamination of California and indeed the rest of the planet from the global
weapons test fallout of 1959-1962 [sic 1945-62? or 1954-62 if these dates
refer to only hydrogen megaton bombs?] was
far worse, and resulted in the cancer epidemic which began in 1980. The
atmospheric megaton explosions drove the radioactivity into the stratosphere
and the rain brought it back to earth to get into the milk, the food, the air,
and our children’s bones. Kennedy and Khrushchev called a halt in 1963,
saving millions.
So if this is the case, why
all the apparent guilt and regret now about having to dump contaminated water
into the sea? If it is inevitable, why not just get on with it. Delays are only
worsening the situation. For example, by trying to hold back the water behind a
constructed barrier, TEPCO has raised serious concerns that the ground will be
softened and structures will be less likely to withstand earthquakes. What is
to regret here is that the catastrophe ever happened at all. There is no use now
in worrying about offending fishermen or outraging the public. The outcome of it
all going to the sea was achieved the day the meltdowns happened.
The truly regrettable aspect
of the situation is the denial of reality and the creation of the distorted
narrative that was set up to protect the fortunes of the global nuclear
industry. TEPCO and the national government are presently uttering staged
apologies for a pre-meditated delayed release of information. They knew two
years ago that this day would come when they would have to talk about the water
problem, but they consciously planned to lie low and lie at that time, then confess and
ask for forgiveness later. It is all a part of the crisis management plan,
which is not so much to manage the crisis per
se but to manage the damage to the fortunes of the nuclear industry. For the past thirty months Japan has preferred to forget the catastrophe and carry on with plans to sell billions in nuclear technology to India, Turkey and Vietnam.
In his editorial, Dr. Busby
went on to discuss what he perceives to be the real danger that Japanese
officials should be talking about honestly with their citizens. Unfortunately,
the advice is to not breathe within one kilometer of the shoreline, 200
kilometers north and south of Fukushima Daiichi. The establishment of
such an exclusion zone would be an unacceptable blow to the reputation of
nuclear energy, and to the preferred narrative of Prime Minister Abe that the nation is fit to host the 2020 Olympics and "Japan is back" - back from what or to what, no one knows. So people who breathe the sea breeze on a daily basis are not
likely to get a warning. I finish with another excerpt from Dr. Busby's editorial:
What we have here
in Fukushima is more local, but still very deadly and certainly worse than
Chernobyl since the populations are so large. And this brings me to my
second point, and a warning to the Japanese people. The contamination of
the sea results in adsorption* of the radionuclides by the sand and silt on the
coast and river estuaries. The east coast of Japan, the sediment and sand
on the shores, will now be horribly radioactive. This material is
re-suspended into the air through a process called sea-to-land transfer. The
coastal air they inhale is laden with radioactive particles. I know about
this since I was asked in 1998 by the Irish State to carry out a two-year study
of the cancer effects of releases into the Irish Sea by the nuclear
reprocessing plant at Sellafield… Results showed a remarkable and sharp 30 per
cent increase in cancer rates in those living within 1km of the coast. The
effect was very local and dropped away sharply at 2km. In trying to
discover the cause, we came across measurements made by the UK Atomic Energy
Research Establishment. Using special cloth filters, they had measured
Plutonium in the air by distance from the contaminated coast. The trend
was the same as the cancer trend, increasing sharply in the 1km strip near the
coast… By 2003, we had found 20-fold excess risk of leukemia and brain tumors
in the population of children on the north Wales coast… the sea-to-land effect
is real. And anyone living within 1km of the coast to at least 200km north
or south of Fukushima should get out. They should evacuate inland. It is
not eating the fish and shellfish that gets you - it’s breathing.
Christopher Busby. “Pump and
pray: Tepco might have to pour water on Fukushima wreckage forever.” Russia Today, August 7, 2013.
* This is not a misspelling of absorption.
Adsorption is the adhesion of atoms, ions, or molecules from a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid to a surface. This process creates a film of the adsorbate on the surface of the adsorbent. This process differs from absorption, in which a fluid (the absorbate) permeates or is dissolved by a liquid or solid (the absorbent). Note that adsorption is a surface-based process while absorption involves the whole volume of the material. The term sorption encompasses both processes, while desorption is the reverse of adsorption. It is a surface phenomenon.
* This is not a misspelling of absorption.
Adsorption is the adhesion of atoms, ions, or molecules from a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid to a surface. This process creates a film of the adsorbate on the surface of the adsorbent. This process differs from absorption, in which a fluid (the absorbate) permeates or is dissolved by a liquid or solid (the absorbent). Note that adsorption is a surface-based process while absorption involves the whole volume of the material. The term sorption encompasses both processes, while desorption is the reverse of adsorption. It is a surface phenomenon.
No comments:
Post a Comment