Skip to content

Month: April 2011

Day 33: What does INES 7 mean?


Not much newsworthy to report today. JAIF report as usual on the status of the reactors. No new NISA update on the reactor status in English but in Japanese, some values are taken from IAEA rather than NISA. Links to graphs are links to the blog #FNPP1 and Irradiation. Pressure is continuing to rise in the number one reactor but still quite low. Seems like there is some kind of leakage out of the containment in number one, otherwise one would have expected higher pressure due to the nitrogen injection. Pumping of water from the number 2 turbin building basement is ongoing but slow, TEPCO say the work can take weeks.


Reactor 1 Reactor 2 Reactor 3
Water level (meter)* -1.65 -1.5 -2.2
Flow rate(liters/min) 100 116.67 116.67
Core pressure (kPa) 1034 100*** 100***
Containment pressure (kPa) 190 100*** 100***
Wetwell pressure (kPa) 165 168
Feedwater nozzle temp (Celsius) 204.5 166.9 92.2 **
Bottom head temp (Celsius) 119.0 208.0 116.0
Containment dose rate (Sv/hour) 27.9 16.9
Wetwell dose rate (Sv/hour) 10.3 0.653 0.653
*Distance from top of assembly
– broken gauges or missing data
** Probably faulty reading
*** IAEA states atmospheric pressure

Yesterday NISA released this info about how much activity has escaped from the Fukushima reactors and compare it to Chernobyl.

Like I said yesterday its roughly 10%. The move from 5 to 7 on the INES scale has gotten a lot of media attention, but what does it really mean? Nothing became worse yesterday than it has been, no dramatic event changed the rating etc. What happened is that NISA estimated that the release of I-131 and Cs-137 is beyond a treshold of what is considered “Major release of radioactive material” acording to the level 7 definition:

Level 7.

  • Major release of radio active material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasures

That is all, NISA hasn’t made any statement about health impacts. They certainly don’t claim the effects will be as severe as the effects where from Chernobyl. One can at this point exclude the possibility that Fukushima will be as severe. So what are the differences?

  1. In Chernobyl 134 workers got exposed to high enough radiation(over 1 Sievert) to develop symptoms of acute radiation sickness, 28 of them died during the first year following the accident,  two others died from injuries not related to radiation. A lot of kids got exposed to I-131 due to no quick warnings not to drink milk and no supply of iodine pills. 4000 kids got thyroid cancer and 15 died due to it. 600 000 liquidators where exposed to doses around 100 mSv.

    In Fukushima so far 22 workers have been exposed to over 100 mSv, the highest getting 198 mSv, thus there where 30 000 times as many people exposed to 100 mSv or more in Chernobyl compared to Fukushima so far! The only two deaths at the power plant was direct deaths due to the tsunami. No one has died due to the nuclear accident itself, not from any of the explosions, not from radiation etc. Dose estimates for the people outside of the evacuation zone, especially the people within 30km, has not been given so far.

  2. In Chernobyl the radionuclide release was directly into the atmosphere and it was going on for several days driven by the graphite fire. Other radionuclides than I-131 and Cs-137 could easily escape and was spread (even though Cs-131 is the biggest issue). The areas around Chernobyl where not quickly evacuated. The core blew apart due to a runaway chain reaction(a inherent weakness to that design that was well know, but the Russians ignored it and built them anyway),

    In Fukushima it is still not entirely clear what caused the majority of release, it was either the venting of the containments or due to the breach in the number 2 wetwell. Regardless of the cause the atmospheric emissions was much smaller in magnitude, took place during a shorter time period, after the civilian population had already been evacuated! We are seeing pretty much only Iodine and Cesium(trace levels of other radionuclides have been detected, but no large release of them has been reported). The cores are largely intact, two of the containment vessels are likely breached but by far from cracked open like eggs. The cause of the emissions are partial meltdowns of the cores, a much slower process than the runaway explosion in Chernobyl. After the first few days of venting where over the majority of leakage goes into the sea, although that is not a “good” thing it is unlikely it will have any measurable impact on health. Anything going into the sea will get diluted fairly quickly. Even if the total release will increase to the same size as the ones from Chernobyl the different release path means it will have much less impact on public health or the environment.

Those two points alone mean that Fukushima is not another Chernobyl. The public health effects will not be as large and the environmental impact will be smaller. It remains to be seen how large surface areas have gotten high Cs-137 fallout, that will be the determining factor in how large areas will be unfit for farming or living on.



Reuters Japan struggles with nuke plan
World Nuclear News Fukushima workers start emptying trench water

Atomic Insights Rational Answer to Carl Pope’s Dismissal of Nuclear Technologies
Depleted Cranium Shameful Reporting From the New York Times
NEI Nuclear Notes Wednesday Update
Atomic Power Review Boiling Water Reactors Part 1 and Part 2
Atomic Power Review Fukushima Daiichi developments… Tuesday evening
Atomic Power Review A couple of afternoon updates….

Aftonbladet Tyvärr har jag fått rätt
SvD Fukushima inte lika allvarligt som Tjernobyl

Den blinde Argus
Kortsiktighet, instabilitet och populism
Begrundat och plitat Fukushima, risken för nya olyckor, och sanningens ögonblick
Tänkvärt? Eller inte Fukushima likvärdig med Tjernobyl.
SNF’s blog Fukishima kan vara värre än Tjernobyl
Nolow Kärnkraftverk
Hovbergs blog Nukleära utrymningsområden<
Röda Berget Skräcken för strålning skapar nya offer
Harald i Uppsala Reflektioner 13 april


“Mummy, mummy, there’s a nuclear monster!”

One of the frustrating parts about being a proponent of nuclear power is when people rag at you for showing them facts that nuclear accidents aren’t that big a deal. After all… “everyone knows” that a nuclear accident is a catastrophe unlike all others and that a “meltdown” means instant death to thousands of people, cancer to millions and huge tracts of land made uninhabitable for centuries… as told by various groups out there.

So when you point out to them that the TMI meltdown had zero casualties, that the Fukushima triple meltdown and explosion/fire in a fuel pool is presently holding the zero and that the prognosis is slowly starting to look hopeful, and that the current death toll from Chernobyl correspond to the number of people killed in US motor vehicle accidents in one day, people tend to take great offense at you questioning the supposed “truth” about nuclear power. I have been called quite a few unflattering things for this heinous crime of not being upset about nuclear accidents and – even more blasphemous – trying to calm other people about them as well.

Therefore it was with a great sense of recognition I read Lewis Page’s piece “Mummy, mummy, there’s a nuclear monster!” in “The Register today. I won’t steal his glory but I will point out two core pieces and quote them:

This is the problem that everyone faces, who describes nuclear incidents as they really are – that is: insignificant. You are accused of being heartless, of failing to care about or empathise with people who are terribly frightened. You have committed the same sin as bracingly telling a toddler that there is no monster under his bed and that he should go back to sleep.

Part of the problem here is that in the case of nuclear dangers it is rather as though the toddler had a mentally troubled aunt or uncle who, in addition to telling the kid fairytales at story time, insists that the monsters in the stories are real.

The people in charge of story time here are the media, and like many of us finding ourselves troubled by bizarro in-laws, the media fails – seldom really even tries, often enough – to prevent the mad aunt telling the kids rubbish.


Some of us at least are getting a bit sick of the idea that you simply aren’t allowed to tell frightened people quite bluntly to act their age – and we’re getting more than just a bit sick of irrational or unscrupulous fairytale-spinners making them frightened in the first place.

That is pretty much it: you are considered a villain for telling people “Oh stop whining you baby, it’s just a nuclear accident!”. You’re being painted as an arsehole for not playing along with paranoia and prejudice. They are calling you foul names and questioning your moral character for trying to make people less scared.

It’s one of those things that makes me want to bang my head against the desk and tell people to go overdose on their stress- and angst-hormones if they are so much in love with them. It feels like getting yelled at by a drunk relative for taking his/her bottle away. Why would I bother?

Well… I must, because it’s the right thing to do. If I didn’t, then I’d be an arsehole for real, wouldn’t I? If I firmly believe that someone is wrong in their actions and beliefs, and that they are hurting because of these beliefs, would you suggest I play along? Or should do as I would to the same human being if they had been 25-75 years years younger, by telling them that there is no monster waiting to eat their toes?

The worst part is – of course – that some people have a very strong self-interest in keeping others scared of the nuclear monster under the bed. Let me show you another example…

With “information” like that, is it any wonder that people are frightened? Those who made that video are the ones that should be called heartless, for using and abusing people’s fears simply to advance their position and get more influence.

But good news are no news. It’s easier to sell a story of Doom & Destruction than telling people that things are actually not very bad at all. You’re considered the weird one for not being a paranoid alarmist professing the impending end of life as we know it.

What can we do to break the trend? How can we make people stop being scared of things that are not scary, and focus on the real dangers out there, such as fossil fuels that are killing literary millions of people every year?

Facts… keep speaking the facts… that’s how you eradicate fear, prejudice and misconceptions. I have so far not met a single person who have learned the facts about nuclear power and who has since remained genuinely scared of it! Keep pushing the facts…

Let me close up this post with a video of a fellow swede that has opened up many people’s eyes and minds by showing the cold hard facts in a very funny and interesting manner: Hans Rosling. Enjoy… I did. 🙂

EDIT: as commented below… there is more on 😉


Miljöpartiets kärnkraftsutspel förkastlig populism

Världens kärnkraftsmotståndare har kastat sig över olyckan i Fukushima med ohöljd frenesi. Innan man ens lyckats få hejd på olyckan och börjat samla in fakta eller göra analyser börjar ropen skalla på avveckling. Miljöpartiets Maria Wetterstrand och Lise Nordin säger i Dagens Nyheter 2011-04-08 “Det är hög tid att även den svenska regeringen drar några slutsatser för den svenska energipolitiken”. Att dra förhastade slutsatser och komma med ogenomtänkta beslut är det som sänkt svensk kärnkraft. Och nu vill Miljöpartiet begå samma misstag igen.

Skillnaden mellan en kärnkraftsmotståndare och någon som arbetar med eller förespråkar kärnkraft är att för motståndaren är Fukushima slutet på diskussionen, medan för arbetaren och förespråkaren så är det början. Miljöpartiet vill redan nu, innan olyckan i Japan ens är till ända, kasta fram politiska beslut om kärnkraften i Sverige. Detta är inte bara förhastat, det är farligt. Det var exakt den typen av beslut som efter händelserna på Three Mile Island och i Tjernobyl gjort att svensk kärnkraft nu fungerar sämst i Europa.

Nordin och Wetterstrand säger att man “utan problem” kan stänga två reaktorer under mandatperioden. Inte en enda villaägare som nu svär över elräkningen efter att en (1) reaktor krånglade i vintras håller med om det. De ser att förslaget inte är “utan problem”.

I vintras gick den svenska effektreserven och importen för fullt för att täcka upp bortfallet av reaktorn. Smutsig olja och gas ökade i ett slag de svenska utsläppen av koldioxid med upp till 40 000% per kiloWatt-timme. Det är inte “utan problem”.

Tyskland har i panik efter Fukushima stängt åtta reaktorer i tre månader. Men varje TWh kolkraft och olja som ersätter kärnkraft dödar 25-35 personer på grund av luftföroreningar. Det tyska beslutet dödar alltså 5-7 personer per dag och upp till 450-650 totalt. Detta medan Fukushima, trots tre pågående härdsmältor och en explosion i en bränslepool, inte annat än lätt skadat några i räddningsstyrkan och ingen i allmänheten. Det förhastade tyska beslutet är allt annat än “utan problem”.

Ända sedan 1970-talet har vi i Sverige lyssnat på vackra löften ifrån politiker som Wetterstrand och Nordin; politiker som lovar stort i energifrågan men levererar lite. För 30 år sedan hette det att till 2010 kommer det förnybara att kunna ersätta kärnkraften och det fossila. Vi vet att det inte blev så. Men ingen av de politiker som tog detta verklighetsfrånvända beslut finns idag kvar att utkräva ansvar ifrån.

Nu säger det avgående språkröret Maria Wetterstrand att det “utan problem” går att stänga fler reaktorer, trots att den sortens löften havererat svensk kärnkraftsindustri. Det kan hon göra, för hon vet att inte ens under denna mandatperiod kommer hon att behöva ta ansvar för vad som händer om beslutet är dåligt.

Vi säger att det räcker nu. “Prognoser” är inte gott nog. “Potential” är inte gott nog. Att politiker i en debattartikel påstår att nedstänging är “utan problem” är inte gott nog.

Maria Wetterstrand och Lise Nordin, om ni vill stänga svensk kärnkraft kräver vi att ni tar personligt och fullt ansvar för att ersättare kommer på plats. Era vackra ord ger oss inte en enda kiloWatt-timme. Kraftverk är vad som ger oss energi, inget annat. Först när ni har sett till att dessa finns på plats och är i produktion är det tillfälle att kräva nedstängning av reaktorer i Sverige, inte en sekund tidigare.

Tvåhundra TWh fossil energi går in i den Svenska energibalansen varje år, energi som årligen dödar ca 5 000 svenskar och orsakar miljardkostnader i sjuk- och hälsovård. Det påstådda energiöverskottet på 23 TWh som Maria Wetterstrand och Lise Nordin utlovar kommer att lämna 90% av det fossila kvar. Trots detta vill de istället stänga ren svensk kärnkraft. Det är inte “utan problem”.

för det oberoende nätverket Nuclear Power Yes Please

Michael Karnerfors, civ. ing, Lund
Johan Kihlberg, fysikstuderande, Stanford
Mattias Lantz, forskare i fysik, Uppsala universitet
Johan Kreuger, ekonomistuderande, Handelshögskolan i Stockholm
Nils Rudqvist, doktorand i strålningsfysik, Göteborgs universitet
Klas Färd, Elektroingenjör Stockholm

Bloggar om artikeln:


Day 32: Fukushima raised to 7 on the INES scale


NISA has increased the level of the Fukushima accident to 7 on the INES scale, 7 is the highest level on the scale. Before Fukushima only Chernobyl was on that level,  the descriptions of levels 5, 6 and 7 are these

Level 7.

  • Major release of radio active material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasures

Level 6.

  • Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.

Level 5.

  • Limited release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of some planned countermeasures.
  • Several deaths from radiation.
  • Severe damage to reactor core.
  • Release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure. This could arise from a major criticality accident or fire.

The levels are as you can see quite loosely defined. We have been expecting it to be be increased from 5 but it has not been clear if it was gonna end as a 6 or a 7. Up until today Fukushima was a 5 on the scale due to the severe core damage(any one of the items on the list for INES 5 is enough by itself to classify it as a 5). Now NISA has upgraded it due to the large releases of radioactive material, even though there is yet no assumption that the release will lead to large scale health effect.

World Nuclear News has published a map from IAEA of the fallout from Fukushima (attached at the end) and writes this about how much radioactive materials has been released in total.

“As a result of re-evaluation, total amount of discharged iodine-131 is estimated at 1.3×1017 becquerels, and caesium-137 is estimated at 6.1×1015 becquerels. Hence the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has concluded that the rating of the accident would be equivalent of Level 7.”

One can see from the map that the majority of fallout has landed in a limited area, it remains to be seen how large parts of that area wont be fit for agriculture anymore.

Chernobyl released 17.6*1017 Bq of I-131 and 85*1015 Bq of Cs-137, so compared to Chernobyl we are looking at around 10% of release of the volatile fission products.

However TEPCO also announced today that the total amount of radioactive material released might exceed that of Chernobyl if they can not stop the leakage of radioactive water. It is good to keep in mind though that this release is going into the sea where it will quite quickly dilute, in Chernobyl everything went into the air and then could be spread over farmland, cities etc. Anything going into the sea will have very limited, if any, health impact.

Chief cabinet secretary Edano made this statement about the INES level.

“The change in the level reminds us the accident is very big. What’s different here from the Chernobyl accident is that we have not yet seen a direct impact on the health of the people as a result of the nuclear accident. The accident itself is big, but we will make, as our first priority, our utmost effort to avoid any health impact on the people.”

This statement is very important and it highlights a fact that media now seems to neglect, the raising of the INES level is due to the total amount of radioactivity released (most if it was released during the first week), not due to expected or already occurring health consequences. So far the Fukushima accident has not killed a single person and it seems unlikely the radiation dosages to the public have been so large that they can cause any significant(i.e detectable) increase in cancer rates. The increase on the INES scale doesn’t mean the situation has turned dramatically worse, it is just a raising of the level due to the high releases that occurred initially.

The Neutron Economy has a very good blog post, Fukushima Daiichi to INES Level 7 – Some Numbers on Why, about the INES rating, Fukushima and eventual consequences if one applies the Linear No Threshold model of the risk of radiation exposure.



CNBC Nuclear Power Fears at New Heights Despite Safety, Viability
World Nuclear News Fukushima moved to Level 7
CNN Japan nuclear disaster tops scale
BBC Fukushima: What happened – and what needs to be done
Reuters Japan raises nuclear crisis to same level as Chernobyl

NEI Nuclear Notes “Years of Unchallenged Mythology”
Depleted Cranium On the Ground Pictures of Fukushima
Atomic Insights As Fukushima gets moved from 5 to 7 remember that 0 (deaths) is still an applicable number
Idaho Samizdat Fukushima accident rating from 5 to 7 on INES?
Atomic Power Review Fukushima Accident: Level 7.
Atomic Power Review Level change note…
Atomic Power Review APRA Special: Observations on Fukushima Daiichi

SvD Fukushima inte lika allvarligt som Tjernobyl
Aftonbladet Lika allvarligt som Tjernobyl
Expressen Japan skakat av nya skalv idag
SvD Japan uppgraderar kärnkrafthaveriet
DN Fukushimaolyckan på Tjernobyl-nivå

Röda Malmö Vidden av katastrofen växer
APSO sverige Spridningen av Cesium 137
Blott sverige svenska preppers har Fukushima på samma nivå som Tjernobyl
Den svenska argus Sjuan kom


Day 31: New quake temporarily stops cooling of Fukushima Daiichi


World Nuclear News reports that the cooling was disabled for 50 minutes, probably to short to have caused any further problems. If power had been disabled for a longer time period they could have connected the fire truck pumps again or switched over to the portable emergency diesel generators that are on the site now. For days the current pumps where driven by the diesel generators before being switched to the grid. Still the incident shows that the situation is still quite fragile and I wonder how long it would take the to switch power source if the of site power is disabled for a longer time.


Listening to the NHK newscast right now, they report that external power is once again working and the pumps are running again!

Kyodo also confirms this

NEWS ADVISORY: Coolant water injection at Fukushima’s Nos. 1-3 reactors resumed: agency (18:11)


We just saw this news at Kyodo. No further information avaiable yet!

  • NEWS ADVISORY: Water pumping into 3 Fukushima Daiichi reactors stops: TEPCO (17:56)
  • NEWS ADVISORY: External power sources unavailable at Fukushima Daiichi reactors 1-2 (17:49)

Reuters No irregularities at Fukushima plant after quake: TEPCO

BBC Powerful earthquake rattles Japan
Reuters Japan expands nuclear evacuation zone as new quake hits
Kyodo News Japan to expand evacuation areas near crippled nuclear plant
NHK world One month since disaster hits nuclear plant

Atomic Power Review Sunday evening update.. Fukushima Daiichi

DN Nytt skalv i Japan
SvD Tsunamivarning efter nytt jordskalv i Japan

Ola Nordebo Ny kärnkraft är inget rationellt alternativ
The Climate ScamVäck med två reaktorer redan nu?


30 days after the tsunami


Not very much has happened this weekend, below is the status of the reactors. The first numbers are from JAIF, April 10th 18:00 and the numbers within () is from NISA, April 7th 12:00. If there is only one number given its from NISA and from the 7th of april.

A new blog has appeared, Info on #FNPP1 and Irradiation, that updates graphs of several relevant parameters. Very nicely done! I hope they will continuously be updated, very good resource to bookmark. I direct link to the parameter pictures in the table below(i.e click on water level (meter) and you will get directed to the water level graph on the FNPP1 blog).

Core parameters(water level, pressure, dose rates)
Ibaraki and Tokyo radioactivity


Reactor 1 Reactor 2 Reactor 3
Water level (meter)* -1.60 (-1.65) -1.45 (-1.5) -2.25 (-2.25)
Flow rate(liters/min) 100 133.33 116.67
Core pressure (kPa) 939 (859) 98 (101)**
Containment pressure (kPa) 195 (165) 95 (100) 106 (105.9)
Wetwell pressure (kPa) 150 172
Feedwater nozzle temp (Celsius) 227.7 (223.8) 159.4 (143.6) 91.7 (88.3)**
Bottom head temp (Celsius) 116.9 112.3
Containment dose rate (Sv/hour) 31.7 30.5 19.3
Wetwell dose rate (Sv/hour) 12.9 0.794 0.768
*Distance from top of assembly
– broken gauges
** Probably faulty reading

Pressure in the number 1 reactor pressure vessel is continuing to climb. It is now about one seventh of normal operating pressure. The containment pressure is also rising, due to the ongoing nitrogen injection. Work proceeds in moving the radioactive water from the turbine hall basements in order to be able to access pumps and other things located in the turbine halls that are necessary to get the internal core cooling working again. After they plugged the leak into the ocean through the cable pit water levels are rising in the tunnel connecting to the pit, so TEPCO is preparing to pump the water from the tunnel to the turbine condenser within the turbine building. Steel sheets and barriers has been put up in the ocean to contain water from flowing freely from leaks into the ocean.

IAEA as usually has written an excellent summary of the status of the Fukushima plant.

I have attached a drawing of the Oyster Creek reactor, it should be very similar to the Fukushima reactors. It shows more detail compared to earlier drawings. The control rod drive pipings sure looks like a candidate for the leakage out of the number 2 reactor!



LA Times Japan nuclear crisis ebbing, U.S. experts say
Bloomberg U.S. Will Build Five New Nuclear Reactors by 2020, New Energy Finance Says
Reuters Factbox Japans disaster in figures

Rod Adams Opportunities and challenges: Cleaning up Fukushima Daiichi
Info on Fukushima
NEI Nuclear Notes (Ir)responsible Speculations
Idaho Saimzdat Fukushima nuclear crisis news update for April 9, 2011
The Nuclear Green Revolution Avoiding nuclear safety
Atomic Power Review Higashidori: Very nearly SBO
Atomic Power Review Sunday Afternoon Update

Aftonbladet Här träffar vågen kärnkraftverket
Expressen Vågen träffar Fukushima
SvD Vilka reaktorer tänker Juholt stänga

Peter Linden Miljöpartiet vill släcka ner Sverige
Ringborgs blogg Var finns kärnkraftsmotståndet i en kärnkraftskommun?
Flute tankar Hänt i veckan 3-9 april, del 1
Ögonblick i norr Paralleller




När skall vi lära oss om energikällornas farlighet?

Efter att ha läst Maria Wetterstrands och Lise Nordins utspel i DN kan vi inte låta bli att fundera lite på det där med vissa energi-slags farlighet…

(Notera: nedanstående kan innehålla spår av ironi 😉 )

Efter den stora jordbävningen och tsunamin i Japan så har vi sett hur oerhört känsliga vissa energislag är när katastrofen sker. Återigen har både fossil energi och vattenkraft skördat åtskilliga liv och orsakat stor skada både omedelbart och långsiktigt.

Fujinuma dammen i Fukushima brast under jordbävningen och den efterföljande flodvågen dödade minst 4 personer. I Chiba exploderade och brann Cosmo Oils raffinaderi obehindrat i 10 dagar. Hur många liv som gick förlorade i den inledande explosionen är okänt och vilka långsiktiga effekter på hälsa och miljö den stora branden och dess giftiga utsläpp kommer få vet ingen ännu, men helt klart är konsekvenserna stora och utsläppen har vid det här laget spritts över hela norra halvklotet.

Göteborg nästa? (Bildkälla: Twitter @odessey)
Göteborg nästa? (Bildkälla: Twitter @odessey)

Dessa händelser manar till eftertanke. Hur intelligent är det egentligen att ha samhällen som Boden, Luleå och Umeå utefter fördämda älvar? Vill vi verkligen ha ett raffinaderi ett stenkast från Göteborgs centrum? Mitt svar är nej! Vi måste omedelbart avveckla vattenkraften, till en början de dammar som är ett direkt hot mot svenska städer. Vad många vattenkraftsförespråkare försöker dölja för allmänheten är att utsläppen från detta kraftslag tenderar att följa vattendragen ut i havet och spridas till jordens alla hav. Avsevärda delar av utsläppen dunstar dessutom och sprids med moln över hela jordens yta, stora landarealer drabbas årligen av dessa nedfall, ibland med katastrofala följder. Förra veckans monsunregn i Thailand är ett skrämmande exempel.

Dessutom måste Preems raffinaderi med omedelbar verkan läggas ner. Tror någon på allvar att Preem kommer ta ansvar om raffinaderiet exploderar och Göteborgs stad blir obeboelig för oöverskådlig framtid med cancerepidemier och andra sjukdomar som följd?

Med kärnenergi och andra moderna hållbara energikällor kan vi med lätthet ersätta vattenkraften och oljan. Det är dags att vi tar itu med det nu, innan katastrofen är ett faktum! Ska vi låta olje- och vattenkraftslobbyn stå oemotsagd med sina lakejer inom Miljöpartiet när de propagerar mot de betydligt säkrare energikällorna som kärnkraft? Ska vi låta dom lägga ner säker energiproduktion för att kunna klämma några år till ur gamla förfallna dammar och petrokemiska anläggningar som kan haverera när som helst? Vill vi verkligen förlita oss på över 100 år gammal farlig och föråldrad teknik när det finns säkra och miljövänliga alternativ? Banqiao-katastrofen visade oss redan för över 35 år sedan att vattenkraften aldrig kan vara en säker källa till energi. Trots detta har Sverige ännu inte dragit några slutsatser av denna ofattbara katastrof där vi fortfarande inte vet det totala antalet offer, vi vet bara att det rör sig om hundratusentals oskyldiga som fick sätta livet till på grund av energigirigheten och likgiltigheten hos ett fåtal styrande.

När ska vi lära oss historiens läxor? Vattenkraft och olja är föråldrade kraftslag som tillhör en era som vi måste lämna bakom oss innan vi ser fler människoliv gå till spillo.

Damm-katastrofer är åtminstone vackra efteråt... dock dog 356 människor av detta. (Klicka för bildkälla)
Damm-katastrofer är åtminstone vackra efteråt... dock dog 356 människor av detta. (Klicka för bildkälla)

27 days after the tsunami


NISA has released a very well done summary of the events so far, I highly recommend reading it!

The event of today was that TEPCO started injecting nitrogen gas into the containment of reactor number 1. The nitrogen is injected in order to prevent the possibility of combustible mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen to appear. The nitrogen injection slightly raised the pressure of the containment as could be expected, the rise in pressure also shows that the containment is fairly tight and not leaking much, if anything at all.

The temperature of the feed water nozzle in reactor number one continues going down. Now it is down to 216.3 degrees Celsius, 4 degrees less than yesterday. Pressure continues to climb, now at 859 kPa, up from 733 kPa yesterday.

The other two reactors are pretty much unchanged, TEPCO is planning to fill those containments with nitrogen as well. Dose rates within containments are on a falling trend, probably consistent with I-131 decay.

In a press release today related to the nitrogen injection TEPCO confirms that they suspect that the pressure vessels of the 3 reactors might be leaking.  Which explains why they want to inject the nitrogen. They also write that there is some damage to the number 1 containment, something they haven’t stated before.

IAEA states that they see early signs of recovery at the Fukushima Daiichi plant:


”There are early signs of recovery in some functions such as electrical power and instrumentation,” Denis Flory, IAEA deputy director general and head of the department of nuclear safety and security, said at a press conference.

Nevertheless the situation at the plant ”remains very serious,” he added.

The new quake that occurred today did not have any reported impact on the Fukushima reactors. Overall another baby step towards control of the situation has been taken.


Reuters Major aftershock shakes Japan’s ruined northeast coast
World Nuclear News New earthquake disrupts grid power

Atomic Power Review Nitrogen inerting drywells..
All things nuclear How Many Cancers Did Chernobyl Really Cause?
NEI Nuclear Notes Here Comes Tomorrow
NEI Nuclear Notes Thursday Update

Expressen Arbetare på kärnkraftverket i Fukushima evakuerades
DN Tsunamivarning i Japan drogs tillbaka
SvD Kärnkraftverk utryms efter nytt skalv idag

Kunskapssamhället Glas stoppar läcka i Fukushima


26 days after the tsunami


Another rather uneventful day. The sodium silicate injection into the pit seems to have succeed in stopping the flow of water, like I mentioned yesterday this is not a permanent solution and eventually the water will find another path into the ocean until the source of the water is plugged. But it is a good development and every day the water is kept from going into the ocean it is another day with decaying I-131 levels.

TEPCO is pumping nitrogen into the containment of the number 1 reactor and is planning to do the same with number 2 and 3. They are afraid of new hydrogen explosions, this time the source of the hydrogen would be radiolysis of water. Simply put, radiation breaks the chains connecting the hydrogen and oxygen in water and creates free hydrogen. One could also suspect further steam and zirconium reactions might have taken place during the temperature peaks in the number one reactor if the flow of water was temporarily not sufficient. Regardless of the source of hydrogen, if the containment is filled with nitrogen it prevents a combustible mixture of oxygen and hydrogen to occur.

The temperature of the feed water nozzle in the number one reactor is creeping downwards. Now it is at 221.6 degrees Celsius, yesterday it was 233.5 and the day before 242.6. The pressure is showing the opposite trend and is slowly rising, hitting 733 kPa today, 720 kPa yesterday and 704 kPa the day before. Like I also mentioned yesterday this isn’t much of an issue because it is just one tenth of normal operating pressure. Only problem I could imagine is that if the pressure climbs to high the temporary pumps they are using might not be able to match it, but flow rate is steady so far. Containment pressure is steady at 150 kPa.

IAEA reports that instrumentation now has power in reactor number 3. I hope it means they will soon be able to give more detailed information about the status of the reactor. Perhaps my pessimism about the drenched switchboard was wrong, we will see!

There has been reports that detected levels of Tellurium-129 hints of re-criticality, due to the short half live of Te-129 (69.6 minutes). But that ignores that a excited state of Te-129 is also created as a fission product, the excited state has a half life of 33.6 days and of course decays into the ground state. So finding Te-129 now is not very strange at all.

Nothing new about the status of fallout in the prefectures around Fukushima.



Reuters Japan stop nuclear plant leak

Atomic Power Review Wednesday early afternoon update
Idaho Samizdat NRC threat assessment of Fukushima risks
NEI Nuclear Notes Wednesday Update

DN Flytande glas har lyckats täta läckan

Hög radioaktivitet i fisk
Tellurium 129 tyder på reaktion i Fukushima
Om miljökatastrofer som räddare av ekosystem
“Oberoende” kärnkraftsexperter avlönas av atomindustrin
Vad händer i Fukushima?
Fukushima news and explanations


George Monbiot: “…the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all”

George Monbiot, environmentalist and journalist… and once a strong opponent to nuclear power has faced an “unpalatable truth”: the anti-nuclear lobby lied to us.

The article is only about 30 years overdue… but I cannot stop smiling when I read this. Monbiot did what everyone should do: check the facts, think for yourself, dare to think you may have been either right or wrong.

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

I’ve discovered that when the facts don’t suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce

George Monbiot

Over the last fortnight I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

Thank yo so much for this George. Along with Mark Lynas and Patrick Moore, you have shown that “green” does not have to mean “unscientific zeal”.