Last updated on March 1, 2013
13:00(CET)/11:00(UTC)/20:20(JST)
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.
11:20(CET)/09:20(UTC)/18:20(JST)
Listening to the NHK newscast right now, they report that external power is once again working and the pumps are running again!
NEWS ADVISORY: Coolant water injection at Fukushima’s Nos. 1-3 reactors resumed: agency (18:11)
11:10(CET)/09:10(UTC)/18:10(JST)
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)
Links(English)
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
Blogs(English)
Atomic Power Review Sunday evening update.. Fukushima Daiichi
Links(Swedish)
DN Nytt skalv i Japan
SvD Tsunamivarning efter nytt jordskalv i Japan
Blogs(Swedish)
Ola Nordebo Ny kärnkraft är inget rationellt alternativ
The Climate ScamVäck med två reaktorer redan nu?
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
Japan may raise nuke accident severity level to highest 7 from 5
According to an evaluation by the INES, level 7 accidents correspond with a release into the external environment radioactive materials equal to more than tens of thousands terabecquerels of radioactive iodine 131. One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.
Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission, which is a government panel, said it has estimated that the release of 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour continued for several hours.
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84721.html
I have never heard about anyone applying the INES like that.
Well… not that I mind that much. Go ahead… an INES 7 with a zero casualty count…. that should really poke a hole in the nay-sayers nonsense about doom and destruction in the wake of a nuclear accident. 🙂
You never give up being an optimist, good for you! But probably not for your followers.
You should be more concerned about how you are going to keep scaring people with tales of the Radiation Ghost™ and the Plutonium Dragon™ when you’ve got three meltdowns and a fire/explosion in a spent fuel pool happening… and still nothing but light injuries and not a single case among the public with significant elevated radiation exposure. People are even starting to look back at Chernobyl and seeing the actual outcome, which is nowhere close what anti-nukes have been trying to claim.
People are already starting to see Fukushima for what it is: a serious industrial accident, but nowhere near the nonsense you guys have been pushing down our throats for over three decades.
Here’s an example of how Fukushima even swayed someone over and made them take a good hard look at the bullshit that has been coming from the nay-sayer camp.
The only one talking about radiation ghosts and plutonium dragons here are you. I understand that you are more afraid about critique against nuclear power than you are afraid of serious accidents in nuclear plants. That is lunacy and one of the reasons that Fukushima became such a bad accident. Arrogance and a seriously missjudged feeling of superiority.
You guys have been trying to scare people with the supposed dangers of nuclear power for well over 30 years.
Well… here you have it: three melts in the same place and a fuel pool that been seems to haev ejected some fuel elements. And still the stories you have been telling… they just aren’t happening.
Way back – when I was in my teens – I fell for them. I was just as scared as you guys told me to be. Then I started reading up on the subject, and got immensely pissed off at seeing the cheap tricks you guys were using.
Trust me, when I first saw the images of the buildings exploding… I was starting to ask myself “Was I wrong?”. After a while, when the death toll remained at zero, the answer was “Hmmm… not yet”.
I’m willing to bet you never asked yourself that question in this issue… and you never will. Because the one thing you fear the most, is having to say “I was wrong… nuclear power isn’t that bad”.
Unfortunately for you, Fukushima seems to be slowly but steadily forcing you to do just that. Doesnt it just… suck? 🙂
Micke Karnerfors : “Trust me, when I first saw the images of the buildings exploding… I was starting to ask myself “Was I wrong?”. After a while, when the death toll remained at zero, the answer was “Hmmm… not yet”.
Well the time has come to own up as you obviously was wrong.
And stop playing the guiltgame I never told you or anyone else to be afraid. You on the other hand have told lots of fibs about Nuclear Power being supersafe and that accidents of the Fukushima caliber never could happen.
Well the time has come to own up as you obviously was wrong.
Oh really?
This should be interresting: what’s your argument for that? 🙂
And stop playing the guiltgame I never told you or anyone else to be afraid. You on the other hand have told lots of fibs about Nuclear Power being supersafe and that accidents of the Fukushima caliber never could happen.
No, that’s what you guys have being fibbing about us all this time. Us nuke-heads all along said “Sure… things can go sour”… with the addition that was always ignored by you: “…we’re ready for it”.
It’s one of the oldest lies in the debate on nuclear power – and the most successful one – that nuclear proponents supposedly said “it cannot happen”. But you have never heard one single serious proponent of nuclear power utter those words… you have only heard opponents claim “they said it can’t happen”.
The ultimate proof of that is standing right before you, in Fukushima…. because if noone ever believed that could happen, why are there containment structures there, hm? How do you explain that they put in a huge, expensive and alltogether obstructive safety feature if they never believed it would be used for anything?
Michael in which way should one interpret “we’re ready for it” For obviously neither you or TEPCO were ready for it.
And if you have not figured it out already most people find it absurd that hundreds of tons of fuel in Fukushima now has NO containment!
And don’t try to tell me that here haven’t been loads of statements from nuclear power lobbyists like yourself who have said that nuclear powerplants posed almost zero risk of accidents even though many of those plants are situated in countries where earthquakes happen regularly.
What?! Are you saying people have died from radiation poisoning in Japan? No?
So, what is your point exactly?
No I am saying that Mr. Karnerfors is an incurable optimist regarding Fukushima.Which might be good for him but not för his followers.
But as för radiation poisoning. Who knows? Huge fallouts from wrecked nuclear plants ain’t nothing to play with.
Well noone is asking anyone to play with it. As I said: Fukushima is a serious industrial accident. If you call that being “an incurable optimist”, then that is probably a better indication about your stance than mine… a stane which I would dare claim is slightly slanted towards the aformentioned position “Peddler Of Scary Stories”.
Who knows how many will be killed? Well… pretty much everyone that has the least bit of knowledge how fallout and radioactive contamination works.
I know you anti-nukes love to FUD around with the tire ol’ “Oh we can never know…the consequences won’t be measurable for years to come! We cannot know for sure!!!”
…which is a load of horse manure because these are things that are very well known, and even more importantly so: how to avoid injury from it. In short “don’t eat the yellow snow”… or in this case: put your dosimeter/scintillator against the food. If the instrument beeps, don’t eat the food… get something else. It’s that simple.
“In short “don’t eat the yellow snow”… or in this case: put your dosimeter/scintillator against the food. If the instrument beeps, don’t eat the food… get something else. It’s that simple..”
I think that speaks for itself.
It does… doesn’t it.
While you anti-nukes have been trying to scare people with the stupid old “You can’t see radiation… it’s invisibe… without taste or smell”, the reality of it is that radiation is the “noisiest” kind of pollution known to mankind. If you could detect for instance dioxins, or mercury, or any carcinogen at the levels you can detection radiation, trust me, noone would bother to even flinch about radiation any more.
Radiation is incredibly easy to detect. You can stick a scintillometer into a bag of bananas, kitty litter or brazil nuts, and it’ll go off. We even managed to detect I-131 from Fukushima in the air over Sweden – 8 timezones out – on an inventory that is less than 0.5 kg spread out over the atmosphere.
So yeah… it does speak for itself… because fallout is stupidly easy to avoid.
It’s both funny and tragic that “you people” on this site and countless other sites have been screaming and shouting that in no way can Fukushima be compared to such a serious accident as Chernobyl. But now we see that the consequences of the two accidents are getting to be more and more similar.
Uhm… tell you what, when you have managed to get back to this reality from whatever mysterious alternate universe you are calling from, let me know and I’ll be glad to have a discussion with you.
In Chernobyl, in just a few seconds the reactor exploded from the inside out, became completely exposed to the atmosphere and burned for 10 days. The Soviet authorities didn’t start evacuating until people had already spend hours in the plume. And then they did not screen for fallout in food and milk, but instead let people drink and eat it.
Tell me in what way this is similar to Fukushima and Japan… oh, and the Fukushima in this reality please… not whatever fantasy you are stuck in at the moment.
Going to bed now… looking forward to your exciting comparison in the morning.
Michael your habit of degrading and foulmouthing everyone who dares to criticize your beloved nuclear power is actually getting to be really tiresome now. Can’t you discuss sensible without hating on everyone who disagrees with you?
As for your Chernobyl-story, sure the accidents were different but the consequences to the environment have become more and more similar.
I’m not chewing at you because you opposer nuclear power. I’m chewing at you because your argument for your stance – or rather lack thereof – is stupid, and because you have no interrest or respect for this debate beyond trying to pick a fight and go “You’re wrong, so there, nyah!!!”
It’s in queue right now… and hopefully tomorrow I and a few others in NPYP will have it publiched: an opnion article in one of Sweden’s biggest newspapers… an article which we have co-authored and co-signed with one of Sweden’s most prolific opponents of nuclear power.
Why?
Because he’s not arguing like a zealot. We can talk to him… discuss the arguments… examine the vailidity of them together and come to a consensus on what arguments work and which ones don’t. Plus he has a great deal of respect for the debate about nuclear power and the huge importance of it being carried out in a sensible and productive matter.
In short: he displays every trait that you do not.
To brutally be honest I’m sick to death of people like you who don’t care one bit about the discussion being handled in a maner that leads to something productive. I’m fed to the teeth of smiling and pretending I want to carry a discussion with you when you make it perfectly clear that the only thing that matters to you is to never budge an inch in the direction of you maybe, possibly, with some measure of probablilty slightly greater than zero-point-zero, may have gotten a few things wrong about nuclear power.
How long do you expect me to extend you the kind of courtesy that is completely absent from your entire presense here?
If you are going to disagree with me because you believe you have proper arguments for it, I welcome it.
But if you’re gonna do it just for the sake of being spiteful and obnoxious, and nothing else, you will get the an answer in kind.
Now admittedly I’m very tired and extremely grouchy at the moment which colors my statements here. So my suggestion to you is that you drop the ‘tude and start presenting some kind of argument that can be examined, analyzed and discussed… and then tomorrow will be another day.
It’s up to you…
Bravo!
The above comment from you Michael is brutally honest in some ways and it shows just how hypocritical you are, you expect your opponents to budge in their beliefs but you yourself ain’t gonna move at all not ever. Not even after such a big disaster as Fukushima.
Michael it might be hard for you to see but I believe most people including lots of friends of nuclear power find your and some of your NPYP friends debating techniques very dishonest and downright ugly. You constantly throw old tricks like guilt by association and keep on badmouthing even those who actually are interested in the subject and even those who are pro-nuke, but who don’t share your 199% optimism for it.
Ever since the crisis began – and before that – I as a scientific skeptic have always been open for the possibilty that I may have to change opinion.
So in short you’re just strawman arguing against me now.
Michael calling yourself a scientific sceptic does not make you one. Especially not after what you have written and how you have preached on this site about the superiority of nuclear power.
The results are in, Fukushima is a disgrace, a monument of greed and the failure of man’s wish to tame nature which has gone terribly wrong. And you still believe in nuclear power built and run by companies just as greedy and corrupt as Tepco who owns the politicians who are supposed to regulate them.
I believe that you are not so knowledgeable about the links between large companies and politicians in Japan. Go check that out and you just might be a true sceptic one day.
You are not even trying now… just pouring out tonnes of ad hominem nonsense completely irrelevant to the subject.
So you want – dearly – too hate nuclear power and all those that in one way or another represent it? Well… fine, go ahead. It’s just that you are lousy at arguing for it, so insted you attack the person, not the argument.
I don’t hate nuclear power but I am not so fond of it as you obviously are. Speaking of ad hominem nonsense do you ever read your own comments? Believe me, your constant spewing of vitriol in them is doing neither you or your cause any good.
Ah… the wonders of a good night’s rest. 🙂
*reading some of my own comments*
Yeah… I was pretty grouchy yesterday. Not gonna delete anything or try to cover it up though. I stand by every word.
So far you have not contributed one inkling to a fruitful discussion of the subject. Instead, all your statements so far have been along the lines of trying to say “you’re wrong and you are doing it wrong”.
Why should I treat that with anything but disdain when that is all you came here to offer?
The consequences are very different.
In Chernobyl all the escaped fission products was carried into the air and settled on farmland etc. In Fukushima a big part of it has been leaking into the sea.
In Chernobyl they didn’t evacuate promptly and didn’t give iodine pills as quickly as they should. In Fukushima both things have been done(and thus so far, no screened kids have shown any dangerous levels of I-131 in their thyroids).
In Chernobyl lots of people died when working to contain the accident, in Fukushima there hasn’t been any death except for the two that died due to the tsunami. Nobody so far has been reported to exceed 250 mSv in cumulative dose.
Does the accident call for revising opinions? Sure! If you had asked me two months ago if a light water reactor could cause a INES 7 accident I would have said “theoretically yes, but its incredibly implausible”. Now the implausible did happen in the form of one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history followed by a 14 meter tsunami.
Does that show nuclear is not safe? Well in that case it also shows we should not dam rivers since dams collapsed and actually killed people due to the quake. In that case it shows we should not use oil, because oil refineries where exploding and burning for 10 days, we shouldn’t use trains because two packed trains simply vanished after the tsunami etc etc.
What it means however is that one can certainly make reactors safer, look for instance at Fukushima Daini, they handled the crisis much better due to being more modern designs. Same with Fukushima Daiichi unit 5 and 6. This accident has highlighted the need for securing emergency diesels even more and have called into question the safety of spent fuel pools.
Your claim that:
The results are in, Fukushima is a disgrace, a monument of greed and the failure of man’s wish to tame nature which has gone terribly wrong.
Is just silly and frankly absurd.
Is the two washed away trains a monument of mans failure to tame speed? Is the burning refineries a monument to mans failure to tame chemical energy? Was the first exploding steam engines a monument to mans inability to understand thermodynamics? Was the first caveman to injury himself with fire a monument to mans inability to tame fire?
Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst
The Japanese government’s nuclear safety agency has decided to raise the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency made the decision on Monday. It says the damaged facilities have been releasing a massive amount of radioactive substances, which are posing a threat to human health and the environment over a wide area.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html
And still: zero deaths… no injuries reported among the public… not even elevated radiation counts.
Looking back at the other INES 7: Chernobyl… what killed people?
1) The explosion(s) killed a few.
2) The majority died because they ran into – or remained in – the area despite it being “glowing hot”, because they simply didn’t know.
3) A helicopter with crew crashed when they flew into crane wires.
4) The rest is from thyroid cancers because the soviet authorities did not screen and prevent contaminated food from reaching the citizens… however the death-toll from that is less than 20-30.
In the mean time, Germany is killing 5-7 people per day with their decision to shut down 8 reactors.
The worst nuclear accidents is not the worst risk that happen to us… fossil fuels are still, even when all the chicks have been counted, worse.
Oh… and while we’re at it… 160 000 dead…
Aha… nu fattar jag: hej Per, välkommen tillbaks. Trodde nästan du hade tröttnat. 🙂