E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAn anti-nuclear group in Japan said Saturday that it had warned of just the kind of emergency occurring at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.
"This could and should have been predicted," said a statement from spokesman Philip White of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center.
"It was predicted by scientists and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) such as CNIC. We warned that Japan's nuclear power plants could be subjected to much stronger earthquakes and much bigger tsunamis than they were designed to withstand."
The full statement is below. Note that the group uses the word "meltdown" to describe the situation at the Fukushima plant, although the International Atomic Energy Agency and Japanese officials are not using such provocative language.
Greenpeace also took the opportunity to call for a ban on nuclear plant construction. Its full statement is below.
For more on the seismic preparedness of nuclear facilities, see the previous post, 2007 Japan quake was a 'wake-up call' on nuclear safety.
The CNIC statement:
The Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) is deeply concerned for the health and safety of the people affected by the earthquakes and tsunamis that have struck Japan over the last two days. We are particularly concerned for the people in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, including workers who are trying to minimize the scope of the disaster.
Unit 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is in a state of meltdown. A nuclear disaster which the promoters of nuclear power in Japan said wouldn't happen is in progress. It is occurring as a result of an earthquake that they said would not happen.
This could and should have been predicted. It was predicted by scientists and NGOs such as CNIC. We warned that Japan's nuclear power plants could be subjected to much stronger earthquakes and much bigger tsunamis than they were designed to withstand.
Besides the question about how this accident will unfold, the big question now is, will the government and the nuclear industry acknowledge its mistakes and change track?
Last December the Japanese government began a review of its nuclear energy policy. The review was commenced in the spirit of essentially confirming the existing policy. That approach is no longer viable. The direction of the policy review must be completely reversed. It must be redirected towards developing a policy of phasing out nuclear energy as smoothly and swiftly as possible.
The Greenpeace statement:
Reacting to reports that radioactive materials including the isotope Cesium-137 have been released from the Fukushima power plant, and that increased levels of radiation have been detected in the immediate vicinity, Jan Beranek, Head of Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaign said:
“Our thoughts continue to be with the Japanese people as they face the threat of a nuclear disaster, following already devastating earthquake and tsunami. The authorities must focus on keeping people safe, and avoiding any further releases of radioactivity."
“The evolving situation at Fukushima remains far from clear, but what we do know is that contamination from the release of Cesium-137 poses a significant health risk to anyone exposed. Cesium-137 has been one if the isotopes causing the greatest health impacts following the Chernobyl disaster, because it can remain in the environment and food chain for 300 years.”
“Fukushima remains under threat of a serious reactor meltdown; this would potentially create an iodine cloud, which could spread high radiation levels to both the environment and population over many tens of kilometres. By simply communicating to local populations the importance of staying indoors, the government could limit potential radiation doses from this cloud by a factor 2 to 5.”
“How many more warnings do we before we finally grasp that nuclear reactors are inherently hazardous? The nuclear industry always tells us that situation like this cannot happen with modern reactors, yet Japan is currently in the middle of a potentially devastating nuclear crisis. Once again, we are reminded of the inherent risks of nuclear power, which will always be vulnerable to the potentially deadly combination of human error, design failure and natural disaster.”
“Greenpeace is calling for the phase out of existing reactors, and no construction of new commercial nuclear reactors. Governments should invest in renewable energy resources that are not only environmentally sound but also affordable and reliable."
What I would like at this point is solid journalism about what has actually happened, without factions on either side scrambling to spin. I mean, look at the MSNBC headline: Explosion/Less Radiation. Give me a break. Tastes Great/Less Filling. What the hell has happened, what is being done to contain it, and what are the repurcussions, both for the workers and Japanese citizens, and for those of us on the northwest coast of the U.S., who are downwind of any radioactive plume carried aloft? Of COURSE the things should never have been built in those locations -- but what happens NOW?
I agree. MSNBC is in the odd position of having an easy to read, well organized and rapidly updated news web site and a journalistic and editoral staff that can't grasp the real social responsibility of being an American news outlet. You don't spin your news to persuade your readers to some viewpoint when they are relying on you to inform them. Even Fox news, widely believed by many to be a direct mouthpiece for Satan, at least pretends to distinguish their shows about news from their shows about opinions about the news. MSNBC's policies (and ethics) apparently don't even rise this high. Try the PBS site: they are oriented more toward video than print but they seem to be more informational and less editoral.
I am wondering.... what sort of assistance (monetary and/or manpower) CNIC and GREENPEACE are offering Japan and it's people at this stage of the emergency?
Ornery dem, Our information at this point is the same as everyone else's: limited. We're in the position of telling you what we know, what information has been released. And sometimes information can be contradictory, such as an explosion and also a lower radiation level. The answer seems to be that the explosion didn't occur inside the reactor container.
Contrary information -- or two seemingly contrary pieces of information being true at once -- is to be expected in a fast-moving situation.
P.S. We're not MSNBC. That's a TV channel. We're msnbc.com. Surprisingly, these are separate companies, and always have been. A little-known fact.
well, GE built the reactor that's failing, and GE owns part of NBC. there's not going to be a lot of straight talk from msnbc, in terms of actual facts.
Raven, your skepticism is misplaced. See our story (msnbc.com) on the GE-designed reactors:
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us
I welcomed both of your articles with their links, Bill. I wanted to learn what the industry and the critics were saying, and you covered thoses bases well.
"Nuclear industry vows that lessons from Japan will make reactors 'even safer'"
"General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S."
I certainly do not expect the so-called mainstream media to tell the whole truth anyway, Just as we were lied to about the true severity about three mile island incident, I'm sure the governments of both the U.S. and Japan are scrambling to keep the lid on the truth. This is certain especially since there have been calls for and plans to build a multitude of (about 15) nuclear plants in the U.S. in the very near future. I do hope that the people of Japan are not exposed to this radiation but I put no faith in government to tell the unvarnished truth.
If it's a fact, it's not "provocative language." It is a fact. We don't dismiss reality when it doesn't comfort us.
This is an old style nuclear reactor. New reactors are not designed in the same fashion. There are drawings on the board for reactors which automatically shut themselves down if they get too hot without the need for water. (Self expanding nuclear fuel rods)
That being said there is not a large scale radiation leak yet. The damage to the environment is unknown at this point.
As I predicted, the whack jobs are coming out of the woodwork to condemn nuclear power plants. In the last 75 years, this will have been the third incident of nuclear plants going t*ts up. In this case, lots of things go t*ts up when there is an 8.9 earthquake followed by a tsunami. It's ridiculous to state that nuclear power is so dangerous considering the circumstances that led up to this. That would be like saying that building a house is completely dangerous and irresponsible because so many houses each year are destroyed by tornadoes. The idea is beyond stupid.
To compare the consequences of the failure of a house to the consequences of the failure of a nuclear reactor is, shall we say, "beyond stupid".
Pointing out exaggeration is not stupid. People fear what they do not understand. Nuclear power is safe and has an excellent track record. Maybe you should sit down and figure out how many people die from coal-related injury and illness. How about the other big problem--oil? Do you really believe that the oil spills in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico were less damaging than Three Mile Island?
People tend to fear what they don't understand.
Ah... so helpful. Was that Nietzsche or Confucous? Much like the Theory of Relativity. I don't understand it, so I am afraid of it. And why the sky is blue. I don't understand it, but lay awake at night, worried. Not.
Instead, perhaps people fear an industry they "understand" is protected by, say, a bodyguard of lies?
Hmm... What exactly is it that people don't understand... That nuclear power plants can go under and cause disasters..? As if it hasn't happened before: Chernobyl, Fukushima. It has happened before hasn't it? Here is the cost of it: Chernobyl caused elevated cancer levels throughout a huge radius around the plant. Do you not care about that? Some of us do.
Claiming that it doesn't happen is beyond stupid, when we are just witnessing it in Japan happening. It happened there and it can happen anywhere. The question is cost-benefit evaluation. For Greenpeace, CNIC, many other folks including yours truly the cost outweighs the benefit. It would be honest for you to say that in your opinion the benefits may outweigh the costs, or something along those lines. But don't tell us that it doesn't happen, while we are all watching it in real time happening!! For God's sake!
The problem though Philip is that Chernobyl is not the most common "incident" when it comes to nuclear power plants. The other problem it seems is that the threat posed so far by Fukushima seems to be exaggerated at least by CNIC and by you, why do I say it is being exaggerated because the containment structure is holding even after the earthquake, tsunami and the hydrogen gas explosion . Now I'm not saying that nuclear power plants can't cause enormous devastation if something goes wrong what I am saying though is that the chances of it, something similar to Chernobyl, happening are not as likely as Green Peace, CNIC are claiming it out to be.
Most nuclear accidents are employees at the facilities themselves and do not spread beyond the facility itself. If something in fact does happen like the Three Mile Island the health effects are surprisingly low to pretty much negligible on the general population.
Chernobyl was not destroyed by a natural disaster, it was a poorly designed reactor operated by the soviet union during a time when they didn't care about safety or the lives of their people. The incident at Chernobyl was caused by design flaws and large amounts of human error. Many of the reactor safety features were either not installed or not activated because the designers of the plant chose not to, because they felt that the incidents leading to the disaster were impossible.
Newer reactors are NOT BUILT THIS WAY and are, for the most part run by COMPETENT people and agencies.
The Japan reactor may have a meltdown (if it hasn't already started) but even if it does it will be nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl...
Chernobyl remains the one and only INES Level 7: Major Accident in history, The INES scale is a logarithmic scale, each level is exponentially worse than the level below it and it is on a scale of 0 to 7. For further perspective, Three Mile Island ranked a Level 5.
For more information on the INES Scale see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Events_Scale
For More information on Chernobyl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
nuc power is NOT safe...period! as attested by this incident plus 3 mile island and chernoble(that we know of). why was nuc testing in the atmosphere stopped? wind or solar are safe. how many people will die (or sickened) if a wind generator or a solar collector falls over? hundreds? thousands? millions?...I think not. how many people are sickened by coal/oil generator plants?............what happens to the environment from these oil/coal/nuc generating plants? ask youself these people friendly questions b4 you back big businesses anti- environment/life/moral interests. and yes I do use electricity but I'm lucky enough to live in a city where we get our power from hydro. every day is earth day
Wow earthrick, you're one of the leading lights of the environmental movement? Now I know the Earth really *is* doomed.
You need to understand that with these three catastrophes happening at one information is going to be hard to come by. Would you rather have some info coming your way or none. You can't wait several days to release a complete solid story. It's an evolving situation and it's being reported as info flows in.
I remember watching the old godzilla movies and how they said the radiation created him! I guess it was because of ww2 bombing!
I guess we will know more in the years to come?
Positive Developments:
There is a very positive nuclear safety and engineering success story developing here. The Japanese reactor containment structure has worked better than designed, here are the facts:
(1) The containment structure worked despite the 8.9 earthquake, which was almost 100 times more powerful than last year's Haiti earthquake
(2) The containment structure worked despite the tsunami
(3) The containment structure worked despite the later hydrogen gas explosion, which decimated the enclosure structure, but did not harm the containment structure.
Please report on what many competent, independent nuclear engineers around the world are saying, such as the nuclear expert from Russia, recently -- 2011 March -- quoted in the Canadian press.
Why am I writing this? Oil is becoming very expensive. Global warming is a fact. Nuclear power is important for a climate sensitive and prosperous future for all the people on earth. If we are to successfully manage our nuclear resources for centuries to come, our media needs to do two things, (1) point to the success stories such as this and (2) point to the lessons learned we are gathering, in order to build even better, safer reactor systems for the future of all our families.
Best Regards,
- Lee
"point to the sucess stories such as this"...? We don't know all the facts and probably never will but it appears that we dodged a very large bullet yesterday. There are a number of proven safe, renewable energy sources that (solar, wind, geothermal ... ) that are economically competive with the dangerous, dirty energy sources we rely on today. I suppose we could, theoretically, build a 99.9% safe nuclear reactor but at what cost? And then what about the nuclear waste generated? We can't safely dispose of or store the nuclear waste that we already have let alone what would be generated by the scores of new reactors that you envision. 10,000 years is a long time.
But to be fair those nonamenm environmentalists won't allow those renewable energy sources to be built because they either A: kill birds or B. They destroy too much of the local habitat because of the amount of land they take up just to meet demand.
Prestigious scientist today on news said "Any amount of radiation is dangerous". We need to start researching safe energy alternatives. Anyone who would be happy to have a nuclear power plant in their town is an idiot? We need to stop believeing propoganda, the government does not tell us the truth about radiation exposure or anything else. They make billions selling these nuclear power plants. When large money is at stake, no one is honest. The corporations and 1 % of the world get rich on the ignorance and sheep in the world.
If that is the case maybe you need to start a program to shut down the x-ray machines at your local hospitals -- and those at the airports....
Which scientist said that concerned? You do realize that TV's, computers, cellphones all emit radiation.
I really hate these activist! And I hate GreenPeace the most. Stop TELLING the Japanese People what to eat, why not to hunt and blah, blah, blah! Why don't you go tell the Europeans/ Americans/ Latin America what not to eat!!!
GO TO HELL GREENPEACE~!
Must be a Dolphin eater
As I predicted the unabashed Capitalist Powermongers will defend Capitalism's Environmental Disasters to the bitter end. And people like Michael152635 are so full of self-hatred they even bash Greenpeace and other activists for pointing out the obvious: NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS CANNOT BE DESIGNED TO BE SAFE, NEVER HAVE BEEN, NEVER WILL BE. How do so many societies of Western Culture (including Japan) turn out so many self-hating Sheeple that will be singing Capitalism's praises even as they drown in it's filth and radiation? Capitalism is the religion of Dinosaurs and we must end it as we know it, or it will end us!
Tell all the half-assed groups around the World who are against everything to give up there cars, cell phones, x-boxes, playstations, stoves, fans, tv's, and anything else that runs on electricity or gas or coal or nuclear power and go jump in the farking ocean. The only thing they ever predict is gloom and doom after a crisis. Tell them all to give us next week Megamillions numbers.
Right on
Uhhmmmm,,3, 17, 29, 33, 51,,,,,, and 7,,, There u go,,, Next,,, LOL
Thanks....If I win I'll send you a beer and GreenPeace $10.
I've been an odd duck most of my life--an environmentalist who believed in nuclear energy. I was married to a rad tech in the Navy who is now working in the civilian sector. Industry scuttlebut was that Three Mile Island was a mess, but the radiation released was less than you would get from most medical tests. It wasn't a clean-up my ex was willing to work on. He said Chernobyl couldn't happen here because they didn't even have a containment. I'm truly shocked by Fukushima, but then and 8.9 earthquake is pretty severe. And here we all are, arguing about this on our electrically-run computers. Do any of us know where our power comes from? Is it a clean energy source? I live in Illinois. We have pletny of nuke plants and strip mines, and a few wind farms. How about where you live?
"plenty of nukes... and a few wind farms"
That about sums up the problem. It SHOULD be PLENTY of wind farms and NO nukes.
THIS statement is "provocative" and "leading".
"Note that the group uses the word "meltdown" to describe the situation at the Fukushima plant, although the International Atomic Energy Agency and Japanese officials are not using such provocative language."
And, as far as "prediction" goes, here are some Japanese "predictors"
1923, Kanto (Kwanto), Japan, killed 142,800, magnitude 7.9
1927, Tango, Japan, killed 3,020, magnitude 7.6
1933, Sanriku, Japan, killed 3,000, magnitude 8.4
1995, Kobe, Japan, killed 5,502 magnitude 6.9
there are more, but you (hopefully) get the [continental] drift
THERE IS NO "SAFE NUCLEAR"!
My ex-husband is a nuclear tech. We always lived close to nuke plants and he had custody of our kids because of my bi-polar disorder. When Chernobyl happened, I gave him five minutes to convince me my kids were safe and he managed it with two sentences: “That design is not safe. It’s illegal to build plants like that in the US.” But to see a GE plant blow up—one designed like the ones he’s worked at all his life—one like the ones we lived next to… I’m so glad my kids no longer live with him. They’re saying people should be mostly OK from radiation exposure if they stay indoors, but how do you stay indoors when most of the buildings are destroyed by the earthquake? They're now saying some people have tested positive for radiation, but now how severe the exposure is. I'm sure this is a bad one.
As for the rest of us, we're sitting here watching the news on tv and debating this topic on our computers all run on electricity. Do we know what kind of fuel our power comes from? Unless we have our own alternatively-powered generator, it is most likely coming from a fossil-fuel or nuclear power plant. Are we willing to cut our energy use until our energy companies come up with cleaner fuels? I'm a writer. I live on my computer. How about you? Neither fossil fuels nor nuclear energy are all that "safe." Think about all the soldiers dying in Iraq. That's not about freedom--it's about oil.
You do realize Rochelle that even with that explosion the containment structure wasn't penetrated.
How do you stay inside when most of the buildings are destroyed? I'm starting to see why you lost your kids it wasn't because of your bipolar. The answer is you go into the ones that are not destroyed, see if you read your sentence/question you would notice that not all of the structures were destroyed nor were all the remaining standing structures condemned.
Well, the containment vessel shell is steel. The very best carbon steel has a melting pt of 2800 degrees. However, a meltdown's temps exceed 5000. You do the math. Somehow, I think that entire city is doomed!
I work in the nuclear feild. We built a place for nuclear waste at Yuca mountain. Spent billions of our dollars to make it. But because our gov't won't promise a million years of safe storage, we can't use it. Thank you tree huggers. Now we in South Carolina have to contend with 40+metric tons of weapons grade plutonium, and many other metric tons of nuclear waste from all over the world. And we get more all the time.
Thank you. I think you've helped prove our point for us - Nuclear energy is SAFE (ish) when it's 93 million miles away! I hope you money-huggers, or countless generations of your offspring, don't ever have to eat and breath that waste YOU have created. Maybe, soon, you won't have to turn any lights on at night.
Speaking of your nuclear-waste-ridden Carolinas, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "report shows that the risk of an SBO [Station Black Out, where power from outside the plant is lost/disrupted] at the Brunswick nuclear plant in North Carolina leading to reactor core damage is nearly twice the risk from all other causes combined. Brunswick’s batteries are sized to last only 4 hours—half the capacity of the batteries that failed to preserve safety at Fukushima."
concernednuke, I guess it's not just the waste that's a problem. But you knew that already, didn't you.
Nuclear has a much better track record than coal, natural gas, and oil refining/drilling industries. Nuclear provides much more power in a very land-dense area than any renewable at this time or in the near future ever could.
There is also a superior designed nuclear reactor that was developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee- United States of America 50+ years ago called Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor as part of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. It worked without any problems for several years and it operates at atmospheric pressure and passive safety controls- draining molten salt into salt tank stops reactor- no large thick containment domes necessary and you cannot make nuclear bomb proliferation material from the reactor. If you are interested in this technology go to the "Energy from Thorium" website and facebook page. These reactors can be made in a small modular reactor form (200 MWe) or a large form 1 GWe which is what America needs and the rest of the world needs along with a smart grid electric distribution infrastructure. Thorium is very plentiful - much more than uranium and can be found in rare earth mineral mines in the US and abroad. We need rare earth minerals for national security- but when refining the rare earth minerals thorium is a useless waste byproduct that we can readily use without enriching like we do with uranium. Get educated- read up and don't believe everything you hear from the mainstream media.......
"Track records" for nuclear power need to be measured in 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS! We haven't been around long enough to accurately measure their safety. Considering just TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, they've got a DISMAL track record, so far, that belies your statement.
I am not familiar with your thorium reactor BUT I am familiar with the chokehold China has on rare earth minerals, that China currently produces 97% of the world's rare earth metals, and the blood money (and gorilla's lives) it takes to get rare earth metals from Africa. It ain't pretty.
As a child have you ever played with "Firecrackers"? As children my brother and I sometimes played with firecrackers. We kept the firecrackers in a cigar box. Generally the procedure was to remove one firecracker close the lid and then lite the firecracker and then ultimately throw the lit firecracker. On more than one occasion we accidentaly dropped the lit firecracker into the open cigar box filled with firecrackers. You can guess the result. When the first firecracker went off, it caused the second to go off and pretty soon they were going off like machine guns. Japan is the open cigar box. Nuclear power plants are like nuclear bombs just waiting to go off. When one nuclear reactor goes off it can cause the others to go off. Can you imagine over twenty nuclear bombs going off one after another? Actually I can['t believe that when the idea first came up to build even one nuclear power plant was put to a vote, that it passed. Yeah, if everything is going well, there isn't much danger but this is a perfect example of what can happen and we aren't out of the woods yet. At least with the other alternatives to produce energy the dangers happen a lot slower. If a person is down in a mine breathing coal dust, he can at least begin noticing that he isn't breathing as good as he used to and he can make a decision right then to go do something else but when a nuclear bomb I mean power plant goes up millions can die that didn't even have a clue they were living next to a bomb. They didn't have years to begin to educate themselves on the dangers of nuclear power plants next door (next door being a relative term). Japan is next door to the United States in the ever smaller world. Nuclear power plants are like two children playing catch with a fully loaded revolver with the hammer back. Yeah, it might be fun to play catch with it for awhile but accidents do happen. The gun might go off and not even kill one of the people playing catch with it. It might kill someone just passively watching the stupidity.
I work in the Nuclear Power Industry and have a lifetime exposure of 2.3 REM to prove it, scary? Yes! I have worked in identical GE Boiling Water Reactors here in the US. My question is: Does anyone know for sure where the hydrogen explosions are occurring? If steam is being released through the Main Steam Reduction Valves, then it is headed to the turbine floor, completely outside of the containment structures. Yet they say the explosions were within the reactor building. Trivial point? Not really when you understand the plant construction with primary and secondary containment. The turbine floor is not in the reactor building in a GE BWR an explosion there would blow the outside walls and present a scary picture, but those walls are not the 4 foot thick ones enclosing the reactor building.
Here's a story a nuclear worker can relate to: the 105 rad con dude stepped into the Shop 51 nuclear electrician's work shack for a break. He placed his geiger counter - that was inadvertently left on - next to a dude's tool bag and it proceeded to peg the dial. Turns out there was a HIGHLY radioactive bolt in the tool bag -- and it was discovered by pure luck. God knows how long it had been in there. You want more? I got PLENTY of nightmare stories about people being exposed with no record of it
They should hang the idiot who said it was safe to build a nuclear reactor on the shores of a nation PRONE to both earthquakes and tsunamis by the balls as a lesson to FUTURE engineers with too much hubris
A can-do attitude in the mind of an idiot is a very dangerous thing. Take the Japanese nuclear engineers for instance---
Hari kari anyone?
Greenpeace is just a piece. They just tell of the scenario's that are virtually impossible to scare everyone, they say that this could possibly happen o and this could happen, yea well the news could start telling the full story, but we all know that both of those won't happen. Green energy is great but will never be able to sustain a growing populous with such a need for power. If you belive in all the man-made climate change crap, then nuke is the only logical choice. Of course there are dangers but its better than fossil fuel.