Uncategorized

English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft

On 7/12/2013, Fukushima Diary reported “Tepco admitted leakage from reactor2&3 to the trench,”150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137, 0.1 Sv/h” [URL]”

Tepco published the report in English one day after in Japanese. Because this is an important evidence, Fukushima Diary posts it here for reference.

English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft

 

2 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft

 

3 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft

 

4 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft

 

5 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft

 

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130711_04-e.pdf

 

 

Thank you for your support. Monthly donation is also very helpful !

See also

_____

Français :

Rapport en anglais sur les 150 milliards de Bq/m³ de césium 134/137 du déversoir de la tranchée du réacteur 3

 

Le 12 juillet 2013, le Fukushima Diary publiait Tepco reconnait la fuite des réacteurs 2 & 3 vers la tranchée : “150 milliards de Bq/m³ de Cs-134/137, 0,1 Sv/h”
Tepco publie la version anglaise de son rapport un jour après celle en japonais. Le Fukushima Diary le publie ici pour référence, parce que c’est une preuve importante.

English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft
2 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft
3 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft
4 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft
5 English report about 150,000,000,000Bq/m3 of Cs-134/137 in reactor3 trench shaft

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_130711_04-e.pdf

Merci de votre soutien. Les virements mensuels sont aussi très utiles !

Mochizuki
Mochizuki
The writer of Fukushima Diary.
Related
Previous [Column] The reason why Japanese are “generous” to Tepco
Next Highest level of all β measured from “empty” reservoir’s leakage detector hole

9 Comments

  1. FUKISHIMA: RADIOACTIVITY in SEAWATER

    An OPEN BRIEFING for general readership

    I’m a UK based Marine Radioactivity Consultant, Researcher and Campaigner whose been researching the subject since the 1980’s and working (on a freelance, independent basis) as a consultant to NGO’s, Green Groups, Citizens Campaign Groups and UK Local Authorities since the 1980’s.

    My field work experience and desk review research have been focussed on the behaviour and fate of man made radioactivity in UK and European marine, coastal and estuarine environments and the pathways by which doses of marine radioactivity may be delivered to maritime, coastal zone and island populations.

    In the context of the ongoing contamination of the marine environment following the multiple meltdowns and loss of coolant from the Fukushima site I note the ongoing near-site monitoring of the marine environment (sea water) and of some marine environmental media (principally fish, with some marine algae).

    However I am deeply concerned to note that a number of highly relevant issues and phenomena relating to the behaviour and fate of the Fukushima sea discharged radioactivity and its potential for delivering doses to human populations remain un-recorded, under researched and/or completely ignored.
    Thus it is evident that the true impacts of the radioactive contamination of the Japanese east coast are not being documented or acted upon.

    The short, informal briefing, set out in the following pages, identifies and comments on some of those issues and introduces the outcome of a number of UK observations and studies (principally carried out in one of the planets most radioactive sea areas: the Irish Sea and it’s adjacent waters) in order to provide some supporting background information in support of my concerns relating to the Fukushima case.

    Tim Deere-Jones:
    Marine Radioactivity Consultant
    July 2013
    timdj@talktalk.net

    N.B. Input of the search term “Tim Deere-Jones: Marine Radioactivity” to most of the popular search engines will upload links to a number of fully referenced, scientific and technical reports and studies, on the behaviour, fate and doses potential of marine discharged radioactive wastes in UK and European waters, that I have authored for a number of clients.

    Issue 1: The number of radio-nuclides entering the marine environment of the east coast of Japan.
    The currently operating marine environmental monitoring regimes in the relevant sea area are focussing on a very small number of radio-nuclides, principally Caesium, Iodine and Strontium which represent less than 10% of the total inventory of nuclides likely to be found in the reactor and cooling ponds of BWR nuclear power station (between 40 and 50)

    I’m pretty sure that this is happening because of the relatively high costs of radiological analysis of samples. Having been involved in a number of field work campaigns which have involved raising funds in order to pay for radiological analysis I can confirm that the cost of analysis for caesium (for instance) are much lower than those of analysis for plutonium or tritium.

    In the case of independent and self funding green groups and NGOs with limited resources this is both understandable and acceptable practice. However, in the case of national governments, government funded environmental protection agencies and nuclear industries, under whose watch a disaster of this magnitude has occurred, I can see no justification for refusing to investigate the concentrations of approximately 90% of the radioactive material (all of which are capable of contaminating environmental media and delivering doses of radioactivity to wildlife and human populations) that may have entered the marine environment

    Issue 2: The nature of the radio-nuclides derived from reactor and cooling pond outputs:
    Iodine is formed in fuel elements and would only be present in (coolant) discharges as a result of fuel cladding defects and or fuel pin failure.

    Caesium is a fission product and is also present in coolant as a result of fuel pin cladding defect or failure.

    The presence of both Iodine 131 and the two isotopes of Cs, demonstrates that fuel pin cladding defect and/or fuel pin failure has occurred.

    If this is the case then there can be little doubt that a range of other isotopes including actinides/ alpha emitters (probably 4 or 5 isotopes of Pu, 3 of Uranium, also Americium and Curium) will also have been released and entered the marine environment.

    NB as stated above, one would expect the total inventory of a BWR to consist of 40 to 50 isotopes of various nuclides.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………

    Fate and behaviour of marine radioactivity:
    Some nuclides tend to dissolve relatively easily and in seawater; Caesium, Tritium and Iodine are an example.

    Other nuclides have a low solubility and are preferentially adsorbed onto the surface of particulate matter suspended in the water column. These sediments will in time settle and accumulate in sedimentary deposits such as sub-tidal and inter tidal and estuarine mud flats: (fine sediments, with their larger surface area, will accumulate more than coarse sediments : thus muds will have far higher concentrations than sands).

    However finer sediment particles are more susceptible to suspension in the water column than larger/coarser sediment particles and subsequent longer term transport before becoming deposited in estuarine and coastal environments.

    Caesium, Iodine and Tritium :
    Highly soluble nuclides become well distributed through the water body and concentrations generally appear to dilute with distance from source. However, a number of mechanisms of re-concentration do exist. In marine, coastal and estuarine environments.

    UK studies in the Irish Sea have demonstrated that Caesium concentrations in marine sediments may be concentrated, relative to those in ambient seawater, and enriched by factors of two or three time in marine aerosols and sea sprays generated in both open water and at the surf line.

    Cs concentrations can be shown to be enhanced through marine food chains relative to sea water concentrations and indeed through coastal zone foodstuffs (impacted by sea spray and marine aerosols) relative to adjacent ambient sea water concentrations.

    Caesium and mainland coastal environments:
    Irish Sea Caesium, derived from Sellafield liquid discharges to sea, has been found up to 10 kms inland in (south west Wales) in pasture grass and hence available for dietary dose delivery to human consumers via the dairy and meat food chain pathways.

    Further implications of this study are
    1: that the Caesium must be similarly contaminating any arable of horticultural produce grown in the relevant area
    and
    2: that since the Caesium must be blown inland from the coast then it is available for inhalation doses to the populations living at least up to 10kms inland

    The south west Wales sample sites referred to above where not only 10 kms inland but also over 100kms distant by sea from the source of the Caesium.

    Caesium and island communities:
    Irish Sea Caesium from Sellafield liquid discharges has been found in the entirety of a Hebridean island local food production having transferred from the sea to the land in sea spray and marine aerosols generated in both the open sea and the coastal surf line by winds from many directions

    The highest, individual, dietary dose was received by a terrestrial produce eater who did not eat fish, but did eat island grown vegetables, dairy and meat and only a small volume of “off island” (imported) produce. This was a most important observation because it demonstrated that it was possible to receive a greater dietary dose of MARINE radioactivity through terrestrial foods than through sea foods.

    The average dietary dose of the sea borne Caesium alone, received by the island population was higher than the average dietary dose of sea borne radioactivity from multiple nuclides/isotopes (up to 10) received by some populations living adjacent to UK nuclear waste sea discharge points. The island in question was over 200 kms (by sea) from the source of the discharged Caesium.

    These two examples provide evidence of both sea to land transfer and dietary doses at DISTANCE from discharge point and point to the strong likelihood that other water soluble radioactive materials will behave in a similar fashion.

    I have found no evidence of any studies of this phenomenon for any soluble material other than Caesium, but the available evidence strongly implies the potential for doses of iodine and tritium (and others), because they too are soluble.

    In the context of these terrestrial doses it is evident that there’s a potential for inhalation doses of Caesium, Tritium and Iodine, both from sea spray, marine aerosols, evaporation from coastal mud flats etc.

    Non soluble (adsorbing) nuclides on the other hand are strongly susceptible to reconcentration mechanisms;
    1: Irish Sea Plutonium (Pu) and Americium (Am) are shown to become enriched in marine microlayers relative to bulk seawater by factors of about 4

    2: Pu and Am shown to become enriched in marine aerosols (generated by bursting bubbles) by factors ranging up to 600 relative to bulk seawater. These aerosols are airborne and readily cross the surf zone and penetrate inland

    3: such enrichment mechanisms are found in the context of relatively high sedimentary (fine) particle loadings of the ambient water column.

    4: “adsorbing” actinides such as Pu and Am are also highly susceptible to re concentration in fine sediment deposits, thus, even at distance from input source, they may be found (in mud flats etc ) at concentrations several hundred times higher than those observed in
    a: ambient sea water samples
    b: less fine coastal sediments found much closer to the source of the discharge

    5: inter tidal fine sediment deposits may provide a source of readily air mobile fine sediments (in drying conditions with effective winds) with adsorbed, and elevated concentrations, of actinides. Such conditions offer the potential for additional sea to land transfer of actinides.

    6: strontium is similarly insoluble and thus there is a strong possibility that it has the same behaviour/fate characteristics as the alpha actinides referred to above.
    ………………………………………………………….

    Coastal geomorphology and coastal inter-tidal and sub-tidal sediment deposits:
    I note that satellite imagery of the Pacific coast of Japan (Fukushima Prefecture) shows an area of relatively shallow and turbid (high suspended sediment load) water extending off shore for about 1 to 2 kms/ along the relevant stretch of coast

    I note the presence of a number of rivers running down off the high ground inland, across the relatively narrow coastal plain and into the sea. I postulate that (in the wet season) these rivers will make a fairly high fine sediment (clay and organic mineral) contribution to the coastal water sediment budget. Such sediments are particularly prone to the adsorbtion of actinides

    I’ve not yet accessed data about the local inshore currents along that stretch of coast. However I can confirm that the general offshore water body movement along the Pacific coast (Kuro Shio current) trends north during the northern hemisphere winter…

    Satellite imagery of the relevant coast also shows the presence of some significant embayments 50 kms + to the north of the Fukushima Daichii plant outfalls.
    Both Matsushima Bay and Ishinomaki Bay are extensive and characterised by high sediment loadings and sediment deposits.

    Such environments have the potential to be long term deposition sites for any actinide/alpha emitter present in “upstream” (ie northward moving) environments.

    ……………………………….
    It’s my conclusion that the official monitoring regime being carried out by TEPCO and other Japanese agencies is inadequate to the task of identifying the potential radiobiological threats to the public.

    They are under-measuring both in terms of nuclides and the number and type of samples they are investigating because they have failed to pursue the issue of Iodine and Caesium production to it’s logical conclusion, which is that fuel failure also leads to the production of alpha emitting actinides which must also be present in the environment (note the Pu found in “pools” adjacent to the NP station)

    As nuclear industries , pro nuclear governments and their nuclear regulators always have done, they over represent the issue of dilution and dispersion

    As nuclear industries, pro nuclear governments and their nuclear regulators always have done, they under represent the issues of re-concentration, transport, transfer from one environmental media to another and pathways of delivery to human populations

    Further to weaknesses in Japanese marine environmental monitoring:

    **Also relevant to note that a severe storm surge event in Liverpool Bay (UK) caused heavy flooding of coastal town during the course of which large quantities of marine sediments were carried into the town and deposited in the streets, gardens and houses. This material was heavily contaminated with actionable concentrations of man made radioactivity ( significant quantities of Americium were recorded).

    Has any one bothered to assess the baseline data such as the quantities of man made radioactivity that may have been present in the coastal muds of FUKUSHIMA prefecture as a result of historical discharges from Fukushima NPs prior to the tsunami?
    Has any body attempted to identify just how much of that (pre tsunami) radioactivity offshore of ALL the pacific facing Japanese NPS?came ashore with the Tsunami inundations?
    ……………………………………………………………………………………

    Some notes distributed to colleagues and fellow campaigners in July 2012 (but still relevant: especially in the context of the currentlt rising levels of radioactivity recorded at sea off the Fukushima plant)

    In the context of the existing Pu discoveries and the inevitability that Pu and other alpha emitters will now be entering the marine environment: I offer the following
    Comments

    · given the intense use of ad hoc, large volume inputs, of cooling water from a variety of sources, coupled with the inability to control/contain ad hoc cooling waters as a result of the Tsunami damage inflicted on the site infrastructure (drainage, bunding, pumps) it is inevitable that much of that ad hoc coolant will have entered unprotected soils and drainage channels and that there will be an extended time lag before all of it has drained into the sea.
    · Any future rain fall will wash any surface contamination (eg: undiscovered Pu puddles, deposits on buildings and other surfaces etc) into unprotected soils and drainage channels with similar extended time scales for marine contamination
    · The evidence to date suggest that the currently identified marine contamination is both the early stage and the tip of the future iceberg
    · It is inevitable that there will be transport (and subsequent deposition) of long lived in-soluble nuclides into intermediate and far field fine sediment deposits along the east coast of Japan, where significant degrees of re-concentration may be expected and reservoirs or “sinks” of in-soluble radioactivity will be created
    · It is inevitable that there will be sea to land transfer of both soluble and in-soluble forms of radioactivity, across Pacific coast surf lines and in to the Japanese terrestrial coastal zone, with subsequent potential; for deliveries of dose via dietary and inhalation pathways. Such mechanisms may well deliver doses to areas and populations which have not been in receipt of (Fukushima accident) doses delivered by atmospheric routes.

    (N.B. A recent desk review carried out by myself has demonstrated that
    a: the technologies used in attempts to quantify sea to land transfer are consensually agreed (by the authors of the relevant papers) to be unsuitable for quantitative analysis
    b: only about 10% of the component nuclides in liquid discharge streams from NPS and Reprocessors have actually been studied in the context of sea to land transfer mechanisms)

    Some Recommdenations for action:
    1: It’s important to establish a base line for Pu and other alpha/actinide data against which to measure future concentrations :
    2: Therefore those marine fine sediment depositionary environments (inter tidal and sub tidal) where actinide/alpha depositions will re-concentrate isotopes SHOULD BE MONITORED and ANALYSED NOW (local and regional estuarine mudflats and saltmarshes and “far field” Matushima Bay, Ishinomaki Bay) otherwise at a later date it could be claimed that any contamination was from another source (eg weapons test or even Sellafield!t)
    3: Similarly, coastal zone terrestrial zones (outside the known aerial fallout zones) should also be examined in order to generate data which could be used to provide baseline info against which to measure sea to land transfer and related phenomena ( terrestrial produce contamination, house dust contamination etc.
    4: Same could be said for Caesium, Tritium and Iodine
    5: A useful exercise re Pu and other alpha/actinides and Strontium might be to filter seawater and analyse clear water and sedimentary material seperately in order to assess
    a: potential sea surface microlayer and aerosol enrichment factors
    b: potential for future sedimentary deposit concentrations
    ………………………..

    There is a stated assumption that marine environmental concentrations will soon decline: and that concentrations will “soon be of no concern due to the short half lives of nuclides mentioned”. This is not true of the Caesium isotopes measured (half life approx 30 years). It is even less true of the alpha/actinides which will be present in the marine environment for very long time spans which must be measured in the hundreds of years (and in some cases the thousands of years).

    It’s imperative (for the slightly longer term) to initiate action to facilitate the identification of
    1: all possible post accident marine radioactivity exposure/dose pathways
    2: all potential, post-accident, marine radioactivity, near field, intermediate field and distant field Critical Groups

    I define Critical Groups as :
    those populations most likely to be exposed to the highest doses from these sources and pathways as a result of
    a: their habitation of particular areas and zones,
    b: their consumption of sea foods,
    c: their consumption of terrestrial foods contaminated by sea borne radioactivity as a result of sea to land transfer
    d: their inhalation of sea borne radioactivity suspended in and being transported through the coastal zone aerial environment as a result of sea to land transfer.
    ……………………

  2. Japan/Korea Sea contaminated as much as Tokyo bay
    http://fukushima-diary.com/?p=13902

    Some readers may not remember that the Japanese are also dumping the radioactive sludge left over from burning their radioactive debris, into Tokyo Bay so that when it later migrates out into the Pacific Ocean they cannot be “blamed” for dumping radioactive pollution (directly) into the Ocean, which is illegal…

    The Nuclear Mafia Derails Democracy In Japan
    http://www.japansubculture.com/?p=5435

    +

    New words to help describe what is happening at too many other places around the World:

    Nuclear Fix*
    * http://is.gd/DzSrY1

    The nuclear industries (aka nuclear fascists) policy of donating massive amounts of money to insure that all levels of Government support Nuclear Energy to protect their market share despite it’s enormous environmental RISK of yet another Fukushima, instead of supporting less expensive, NON RISKY Eco Friendly Solar energy.

    and

    Nuclear Conflict of Interest**

    ** http://is.gd/WiYZpz

    A Nuclear Conflict of Interest happens when elected Leaders give their support to the Nuclear Industry because they have received some form of Nuclear Payback without disclosing it to the public.

    and

    Energy Fascism***

    *** http://is.gd/8MKQs0
    The Big Energy Companies conspiring to limit their customers choice as to the source of lower cost Energy in order to maintain their market share and cash flow at record levels.

    +

    TEPCO saves huge YEN for every liter of radioactively polluted water that escapes. leaks or is simply allowed to run either onto the ground or directly into the Pacific Ocean.

    Once off site it is no longer TEPCO’s problem!

    The storage system has been designed to fail since the first tanks were built on site and those that think that TEPCO is doing everything they can to capture and hold onto this radioactive water is living in a fantasy world where TEPCO cares more about the people of Japan than they do about saving FACE and their own Profits!

  3. Impact to US West Coast from Fukushima disaster likely larger than anticipated, several reports indicate
    http://is.gd/q8aVy2

    Even Nuclear WASTE is a expensive and dangerous problem, that has not been figured out yet by the very Industry that PUSHES Nuclear upon us:

    Nuclear waste issues that makes people mad: Nuclear waste dumped at “SEA” Ocean disposal of radioactive waste: Status report: http://is.gd/tiugbX Maybe all that is now just part of “natural” Background readings! –> N☢T
    +
    Much more on the radioactive Ocean pollution problems in the comments here: Gundersen in Japan: Lawmakers told me they don’t believe Tepco or NISA — Crowd laughs out loud when Tepco responds to Unit 4 comments (VIDEO) http://enenews.com/?p=38550

    +

    Radioactive water is just the tip of this nuclear iceberg!

    Water has mass and can be seen so it is the visible part of this nuclear debacle that cannot be ignored like the unseen poisonous radionuclides that are now circling the Globe!

    Want to know how bad things really are, just do the simple math on the radioactive water; compare how much is “stored” and how much is missing because it has been disposed of by design or ignorance!

    Sea contamination of 3946 days later:
    http://fukushima-diary.com/?p=13743

  4. More on Ocean dumping:
    Nuclear waste dumped at “SEA”
    Ocean disposal of radioactive waste:
    Status report: http://is.gd/tiugbX

    and more on Dumping here:

    “Nightmare Nuclear Waste” NUKE DUMPING ! – YouTube http://youtu.be/cpxaJN0TT3U

    So maybe all that is now also part of our Background readings!

    ALL because of this:
    The Trial Of Minoru Tanaka: The high cost of investigative journalism in Japan & “the nuclear mafia http://www.japansubculture.com/?p=5397

    Why information about nuclear reactors does not appear in MSM, sounds familiar!

    So given the above, why should we expect Japan to start talking about how they are polluting the Pacific except to issue ever more “leak” reports that do nothing to describe the ever growing “TOTAL” amount they are dumping, allowing to leak and every other thing they can do to get rid of radioactive water…

    +

    More info here: Sea contamination of 3946 days later VIDEO
    http://fukushima-diary.com/?p=13743

    Look what is coming to the West Coast thanks to Fukushima’s radioactive pollution!

    See the great translation of this article written in German in the comments

    Why are we N☢T hearing anything about this in our own MSM…

    Japan is now radioactively polluting the Planet, adding more each and every day, since they are now burning radioactive debris 24/7.

  5. Why can’t the UN get involved in radioactive issues,
    Here is the answer: READ Nuclear Controversies
    http://is.gd/9wfPeU

    snip

    In 1995, the Director General of WHO Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, tried to inform on Chernobyl by organizing in Geneva an international conference with 700 experts and physicians. This tentative was blocked. The International Agency for Atomic Energy blocked the proceedings, which were never published. The truth on the consequences of Chernobyl would have been a disaster for the promotion of the atomic industry.

    This film shows the discussions at the following WHO- congress in Kiev in 2001, that lead to the fatal disregarding of internal radiation consequences throughout the nuclear world.

    The full transcript can be found here:
    vivretchernobyl.blogspot.com/2008/06/w-tchertkof-nuclear-controversies.html

    +

    Fukushima plant “to keep contaminating the Pacific Ocean for the rest of time” if fuel can’t be removed — No good solution, must constantly pump out water from under buildings (VIDEO)
    + Comments http://enenews.com/?p=38516

    +

    Water water everywhere but it is all radioactively polluted…

    The tank farm looks impressive but what about all the “other” water that has been leaking or dumped into the Pacific Ocean?

    The Japanese Gov’t. is playing a radioactive JOKE on the Planet by allowing ever more polluted water to find its way into the Pacific Ocean.

    More here:
    Fukushima plant “to keep contaminating the Pacific Ocean for the rest of time” if fuel can’t be removed — No good solution, must constantly pump out water from under buildings (VIDEO)
    http://enenews.com/?p=38516

  7. Nice write up by Deere-Jones.

    Wonder if fogs are included in transport mechanisms investigations?

    Doubt Japan has any intention of releasing test results for the other 90% of escaped fallout. No testing, I would consider criminal.

    If local fisherman anywhere near the Daiichi plant thinks this tradegy is over…it is just beginnning.

  8. IPPNW – Health Effects of Chernobyl 25 Years After The Reactor Catastrophe (69 million casualties); via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/07/ippnw-health-effects-of-chernobyl-25.html

    Chernobyl caused 69 million casualties just on the European Continent, how many victims will there be from Fukushima, assuming it is at least 10 times worse?

    3 + reactors melted down and through
    3 + spent fuel pools dried out, contents caught on fire multiple times, melted down
    1 prompt criticality nuclear explosion, spread high radioactive fuel into ocean, 2 kilometers out
    2 hydrogen explosions, exposed spent fuel pools to open air
    constant radiation releases since 3/11 into air, groundwater, ocean
    3 coriums burning out of control underground
    MOX Fuel went up in smoke from at least one, possible more reactors, spent fuel pools
    Nano bucky balls released, due to seawater interaction with melting fuels, first time in history of nuclear industry, unknown effects.

    How could Fukushima NOT be at least 10-100 times worse?

    It is amazing that no international action to investigate this accident has yet happened, but not surprising knowing that IAEA is a nuclear sales organization and WHO is their muzzled lap dog, unable to do anything with the permission of the IAEA..

    This situation is like asking your car salesman if insurance rep or lawyer can come out and investigate an accident caused by defective brakes.

    Of course, he will say NO, let us just do a computer model and call it done.

  9. It is almost certainly wrong to assume that neither Tepco or the Japanese government have not investigated the true extent of the radiation contamination from Fukishima. They MUST have done, and would have done so pretty soon after the accident.

    There is only one possible reason why that haven’t published the results; to prevent panic and pacify the people of Japan (and the rest of the world).

    If the true results of the contamination were known Japan would have had to have been evacvuated already. That was never going to happen.

    It seems that the Japanese government has consciouusly decided to poison the entire population rather than tell the truth. May god rest their souls.

Comments are closed.

All Rights Reserved, but do share.

About this site

This website updates the latest news about the Fukushima nuclear plant and also archives the past news from 2011. Because it's always updated and added live, articles, categories and the tags are not necessarily fitted in the latest format.
I am the writer of this website. About page remains in 2014. This is because my memory about 311 was clearer than now, 2023, and I think it can have a historical value. Now I'm living in Romania with 3 cats as an independent data scientist.
Actually, nothing has progressed in the plant since 2011. We still don't even know what is going on inside. They must keep cooling the crippled reactors by water, but additionally groundwater keeps flowing into the reactor buildings from the broken parts. This is why highly contaminated water is always produced more than it can circulate. Tepco is planning to officially discharge this water to the Pacific but Tritium is still remaining in it. They dilute this with seawater so that it is legally safe, but scientifically the same amount of radioactive tritium is contained. They say it is safe to discharge, but none of them have drunk it.

Categories