WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk

Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum™

You are not logged in. [Log In] ETS Forums » Forums » The Survival Forum » Natural Disasters & Large-Scale Emergencies » WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk

Page 4 of 4

Topic Options

#262836 - 08/25/13 10:43 AM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
Brangdon Veteran Registered: 12/12/04 Posts: 1204 Loc: Nottingham, UK	As usual, The Register has a contrary view. What has happened is that one of the holding tanks, containing water that had only been through one stage of purification, has sprung a leak and about 300,000 litres of water has got out. Almost all of this was contained by a backup dam which had been built around the tanks when they were set up (this is the nuclear industry, there is always a backup). However, "two shallow puddles" of the water got out of the dam via a rainwater drain valve which has since been sealed off. After some discussion of the difference between gamma and beta radiation: So this is a pretty minor industrial-waste spill; thousands of more serious accidents occur every single day. _________________________ Quality is addictive.
Top

#262837 - 08/25/13 10:54 AM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
jzmtl Addict Registered: 03/18/10 Posts: 530 Loc: Montreal Canada	They are completely ignoring the most serious part of the problem. The coolant water has been leaking directly into the underground water reservoir, and is about to flow into pacific ocean. Here's another view on the subject: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/08/23/fukushima-water.html Quote: Deep beneath Fukushima's crippled nuclear power station, a massive underground reservoir of contaminated water that began spilling from the plant's reactors after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami has been creeping slowly toward the Pacific. That 300-ton leak is the fifth and most serious from a tank since the March 2011 disaster, when three of the plant's reactors melted down after a huge earthquake and tsunami knocked out the plant's power and cooling functions. But experts believe the underground seepage from the reactor and turbine building area is much bigger and possibly more radioactive, To keep the melted nuclear fuel from overheating, TEPCO has rigged a makeshift system of pipes and hoses to funnel water into the broken reactors. The radioactive water is then treated and stored in the aboveground tanks that have now developed leaks. But far more leaks into the reactor basements during the cooling process — then through cracks into the surrounding earth and groundwater.
Top

#262873 - 08/26/13 03:12 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: jzmtl]
Arney Pooh-Bah Registered: 09/15/05 Posts: 2485 Loc: California	Originally Posted By: jzmtl They are completely ignoring the most serious part of the problem. Quite true. More than two years later and still no one knows exactly where the melted cores are, but many experts speculate that at least one of them have melted completely through all containment and is in contact with the ground. That scenario would be one explanation of observations about increases in groundwater contamination over time under the facility, although other hidden water leaks from within the reactor and turbine buildings, as well as the external storage tanks, could also be contributing to that, and there is little that TEPCO has been able to do to contain the groundwater. There are multiple leaks and groundwater contamination problems at the site. Not just this one specific leak.
Top

#263502 - 09/15/13 02:22 PM Re: WHO pronounces Fukushima cancer risk [Re: unimogbert]
Pete Veteran Registered: 02/20/09 Posts: 1372	Arney - it's hard to believe that this problem has simply got worse and worse over time. Yet it rarely appears in the media, and the American public are not getting factual updates at all. It seems plausible that the USA has resources (maybe Navy ships, submarines and drones) that are sampling the air and water over the Pacific Ocean near Japan. That would be the responsible thing to do. No doubt the President does get regular briefings on what these results are showing. But where the heck is the dissemination of this info to the American public? Is it safe for us to be eating fish caught from the northern Pacific? Is it safe to be eating crab and salmon from Alaska? Halloooooo Goverment - where are you? :-) Pete2 Edited by Pete (09/15/13 02:23 PM)
Top

Page 4 of 4

Moderator: MartinFocazio, Tyber