Fukushima what the BBC reports and what it does not

The BBC love to report any negative news arising from the tsunami hitting the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. Search for Fukushima on the BBC news website and there are lots of articles many insinuating that the plant suffered more than has been admitted or just scaremongering. What you will not find is any mention of the IAEA's interim report on the Fukushima incident pdf here. Here are some extracts that I would have thought that an unbiased news organisation would want to report:

'The expert team made several preliminary findings and lessons learned, including:

* Japan's response to the nuclear accident has been exemplary, particularly illustrated by the dedicated, determined and expert staff working under exceptional circumstances;
* Japan's long-term response, including the evacuation of the area around stricken reactors, has been impressive and well organized. A suitable and timely follow-up programme on public and worker exposures and health monitoring would be beneficial;

...

To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident.'

It seems that the BBC are a little put out that despite a major earthquake and resultant tsunami that killed tens of thousands of Japanese people, the nuclear plant at Fukushima did not kill many more. In fact whilst the nuclear fuel rods did melt, the resultant radiation was largely contained in the reactors as it was designed to be. There were mass evacuations and the IAEA say that these were 'hard to justify on safety grounds'. They were easy to justify on the grounds that the word radiation causes panic amongst the unscientific majority.

The BBC are not alone in this love of disasters and reporting just bad news BUT they are meant to be unbiased, they are meant to report all the news not just that which fits their world view AND most importantly I am forced to pay for their news reporting so I should be able to hold them to account.

The most incredible piece of video footage of the recent post earthquake Japanes tsunami

I believe the footage is from Minami-Sanriku. The power of the earth's natural forces never ceases to amaze me.

The bravest man alive?

Hideaki Akaiwa may be the bravest man alive; for the story of how he dived into the tsunami waters to rescue his wife, then his mother and then others take a read of this bad ass of the week article, there is a language warning but the story is uplifting.

Hideaki Akaiwa I salute you.

Road repairs in Japan

According to The Mail those two photographs are of the Great Kanto Highway in Naka where repair work began on March 17 and six days later the cratered section was repaired and ready to re-open to traffic. I know of potholes that have been around since January's ice that have been marked in yellow for repair but not repaired yet. The A40 elevated section's lights were removed over a year ago and not yet replaced.

This is one of the differences between a hard-working workforce and motivated political class and what we have in the UK.

Radiation levels are scary but not as scary as stupidity

The BBC and much of the rest of the British media are scaring people with their 'radiation leak' stories. Radiation sounds scary and we have been conditioned to think any radiation is dangerous, but is it. Here's a chart that I found yesterday that I think puts the Fukushima radiation leak into perspective..

Many thanks to xcd.com for the chart and this explanation

'There’s a lot of discussion of radiation from the Fukushima plants, along with comparisons to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Radiation levels are often described as “ times the normal level” or “% over the legal limit,” which can be pretty confusing.

Ellen, a friend of mine who’s a student at Reed and Senior Reactor Operator at the Reed Research Reactor, has been spending the last few days answering questions about radiation dosage virtually nonstop (I’ve actually seen her interrupt them with “brb, reactor”). She suggested a chart might help put different amounts of radiation into perspective, and so with her help, I put one together. She also made one of her own; it has fewer colors, but contains more information about what radiation exposure consists of and how it affects the body.

I’m not an expert in radiation and I’m sure I’ve got a lot of mistakes in here, but there’s so much wild misinformation out there that I figured a broad comparison of different types of dosages might be good anyway. I don’t include too much about the Fukushima reactor because the situation seems to be changing by the hour, but I hope the chart provides some helpful context.

Note that there are different types of ionizing radiation; the “sievert” unit quantifies the degree to which each type (gamma rays, alpha particles, etc) affects the body. You can learn more from my sources list. If you’re looking for expert updates on the nuclear situation, try the MIT NSE Hub. Ellen’s page on radiation is here.

Lastly, remember that while there’s a lot of focus on possible worst-case scenarios involving the nuclear plants, the tsunami was an actual disaster that’s already killed thousands. Hundreds of thousands more, including my best friend from college, are in shelters with limited access to basic supplies and almost no ability to contact the outside world. If you’re not sure how to help, Google’s Japan Crisis Resource page is a good place to start.'

This was where I was going to end this piece but then I read George Monbiot's piece in today's Guardian and just had to quote him, especially as he picked up on the same chart that I have:

'You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.'

My worry is that this article is not actually by George Monbiot but is a joke because George Monbiot then goes onto to explain why free-energy solutions won't be able to replace fossil fuels and nuclear:

'Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50% or 70%, perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.

And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways – not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.'

Do read the rest of George Monbiot's article, the history leson is quite interesting and contains figures that are very interesting indeed for those of you  who think that industrialisation was a mistake! The end of George Monbiot's article is even more interesting and should be spread as when even a green like Monbiot realises this then the essential truth needs spreading:

'But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.'

Of course the truth is something that some, not all, Guardian readers do not like to be presented with when it contradicts their prejudices. Here are two who really don't like facing reality:

'

• dirkbruere
  

  21 March 2011 7:47PM
  George Monbiot has been kidnapped and replaced by a nuclear industry shill!
  Or some kind of weird clone.
  Or something.
  TINA

• Ruby4
  

  21 March 2011 7:48PM

  Grow up and do some real research about the dangers of nuclear fission George. These people supporting Nuclear Power do not really invest in or research the alternatives because profit is their main motive. It is true that they would say that it proves you are in perfect health if you manage to not drop dead after your third heart attack. The Japanese people were told their Nuclear Power plants were 'earthquake proof'!
  If you think they are safe I am sure you will prove it by living near one and having the waste buried in your garden.'

  
  

The last one is quite amusing in its deliberate misunderstanding and misstaement of what George Monbiot said and meant.

This fact that the Japanese nuclear industry as a whole has coped brilliantly with the earthquake and tsunami has not been said enough. Fukushima was the only plant damaged and despite experiencing a massive earthquake (far more powerful than the plant was designed to withstand) followed by an enormous tsuanmi that destroyed virtually every building in the area except the nuclear power station and severed all power supply, the plant did not start destructing. Yes the Fukushima plant has major issues but they it is not spewing radiation in any significant levels and not all radiation is dangerous.

This last point brings me to a piece of video I saw this morning, it's Ann Coulter being interviewed about radiation. Now watch the video, all of it and tink about what she actually said

Now read the hysterical comments underneath the video, here's a few examples:

'WTF?! This bitch has gone WAY past just being bad for the collective intelligence, she's now batshit dangerous. How did Bill O, as steeped in the Fox News koolaid as he is, allow her to blather this crap on his show? I'm not kidding, there's got to be a very real risk of liability if some education-challenged idiot goes off and swallows radium for his health.

And hormesis?! Is she fucking serious?! That snake oil crapola?

She needs to be shunned by the media -- completely shut down.
tgrigsby7 4 hours ago
#

@elementguy13 - whew - where does one start? How about if you had small children visiting granny in Japan, and actually thought Ann Coulter was speaking from a place of trying to spread information, because that is what tv journalists are supposed to do, so you say - "hey - no hurry ...".

Now multiply that by millions of panicked people, most of whom have no understanding of nuclear physics! Are you getting the picture why this is a bad thing? It's all about the benjamins.
javamanV3 5 hours ago
#

Radiation is good for you, if you're trying win a bet by getting cancer and dying the fastest. Respect to Bill'O because he's being reasonable and he knows it's irresponsible to let her say crazy shit without clarification.
Deepstarr7020 5 hours ago
#

This is brainwashing for the braindead at it's best. How retarded does she think the general public is?! Also note how she FAILS to mention what kind of radioactive particles are being blown airbourne in Japan. There are ZERO cases of radioactivity coming of particles being good for a human body.. . And she FAILS to mention the fact that it doesn't matter if it's caesium iodine plutonium or uranium if they get stuck in your body you WILL die of cancer, with the latter two very quickly... FAIL!
nixtc 5 hours ago
#

Instead of wasting my bandwidth on porn I had to watch this bulimic demagogue ..... I want my 20MB back.
faceplantpro0 5 hours ago
#

@DementedBeast - Chernobyl is way to clean for her. But since she is speaking of the reactors in Japan, perhaps they are looking for volunteers to help seal up the plants. I am pretty sure that every human being that did that at Chernobyl died within the year. I believe their problem was that they didn't have the theory in USSR that radiation is good for you.

PS Every one heros' of the highest order. They all knew they were to die before they went.

javamanV3 5 hours ago'

She's a fucking Nazi bitch. Maybe not a card-carrying Nazi, but a Nazi by any other name is still a Nazi.
rickschtick 4 hours ago'

Why are these people so angry, so abusive when faced with someone who doesn't agree with their world view? Why the recourse to calling someone a Nazi or a bitch, or indeed both?

Perspective people, perspective.

Life in north-east Japan post the earthquake and tsunami

Japanese residents forced to wash their dirty laundry in a river, can you imagine how you would feel if you were put in this situation.

The coastal town of Otsuchi has all but been reduced to nothing by the disaster, with more than half the 17,000 residents killed.


What has happened to this part of Japan is almost beyond belief and I really feel for them.

Was the Japanese earthquake predicted and what's coming next?

Real Agenda make some big claims, that I have no way of verifying and some worrying predictions.

'A couple of days ago, astrophysicist and meteorologist Piers Corbyn, who conducts weather, climate and tectonic plates studies based on solar activity supported the version on the video by saying not only that solar activity is part of the cause of the current ‘planetary unrest’, but also that the Super Full Moon (the moon is passing by closer to Earth in March) is also contributing to the such geological and magnetic activity.

“Christchurch, South Island New Zealand was struck by a damaging shallow level Earthquake on 21 Feb and is suffering severe aftershocks,” cites Weatheraction.com. “This event follows the world wide increase in volcanism and earthquakes in the last year or two and confirms the general statistical fact that more – and more serious – earthquakes, and volcanic activity, tend to occur around solar cycle minima.”

...

The tectonic events, says Earthquake Watch, are due to major solar activity, characterized by X class solar flares occurring both in the northern and southern hemispheres of the sun. According to the video, solar activity has been increasing and some of that activity has been more directly facing planet Earth (in the northern part of the Sun, 24-26 degrees north latitude), which makes its effects more meaningful. “Once the solar spot moves from the Earth-facing position, we’re gonna be receiving more solar winds”, said the author, who warned the most likely region on planet Earth to experience a serious earthquake would be the japanese islands.

...

Solar winds that currently blow at about 598 kilometers -up from 400km/sec- will decrease by about 200km/sec, which is the moment when Earth will more likely experience another major quake. Such event could also occur in the vicinity of Baja California, moving down to the Saint Andreas fault at latitudes 29-33 degrees north. Along with the pacific coast of the United States, the author southern Japan and southern Iran as well as Eastern China. A major event could also spark activity at the La Palma Volcano in the Canary Islands. This volcano has kept everyone’s attention due to the potential consequences an eruption there could have.'

I believe it is tha La Palma volcano that when it errupts will dislodge a massive part of the island that will fall into the Atlantic and create 200ft high waves that will sweep across the Atlantic and destroy the east coast of American as well as the Caribbean, parts of Central America and much of the eastern coast of South America. Worrying?

Japan earthquake update

Brave New Climate explains what's really happening in Japan's nuclear power plants and it's a tad more complex than the BBC make out! Here's an extract:

'Now, where does that leave us?

• The plant is safe now and will stay safe.
• Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.
• Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.
• There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not “dissolve” in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.
• The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the “main” nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.
• The seawater will then be replaced over time with the “normal” cooling water
• The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.
• Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.
• The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)
• I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of Japan’s nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected, reducing the nation’s power generating capacity by 15%. This will probably be covered by running gas power plants that are usually only used for peak loads to cover some of the base load as well. That will increase your electricity bill, as well as lead to potential power shortages during peak demand, in Japan.

If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites:

• http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html
• http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/
• http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclear-power-stations-in-japan/'

Here's a rather low-key piece of video showing how the earthquakeimpacted some way away from the epicentre; the moving earth from 1:28 is seriously weird.


Meanwhile this link takes you to some seriously scary video of the tsunami flooding through Kesennuma, in Miyagi Prefecture.

PicassaWeb has some interesting photos from Japan and Boing Boing has an interesting 'Nuclear energy 101: Inside the "black box" of power plants' for anyone whose knowledge of nuclear power begins and ends with Homer Simpson's workplace.

The most incredible photos post the Japanese earthquake and tsunami

ABC Australia have the most incredibly detailed photos of Sendai, Natori, the Fukushima nuclear plant and more. Just pull the divide left and right for the before and after shots. Beautiful and very scary; I am not sure that people realise the true extent of the devastation that north east Japan has experienced.

The Japanese tsunami

There are some seriously scary videos of what's happened in Japan today as a result of the earthquake, this one shows just part of the force that nature can unleash against us...


This one shows just the sheer amount of water involved...


And this one the tsunami at an airport...


However it would seem that tsunamis are not that unknown in Japan. Here's some footage of one from 1983 hitting the Japanese fishing harbour of Wajima on Noto Peninsula...


And from 1993 footage of the aftermath of a devastating tsunami wave along the coasts of Hokkaidō resulting from a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, 80 miles offshore...

Is the Super Moon to blame for the recent earthquakes in New Zealand and now Japan?

What's a Super Moon? How or why might it affect the Earth? AccuWeather explains in an article posted before the Japan earthqauke, here's a snippet:

'Coming up later this month (March 19 to be exact) the moon will make its closest approach to Earth (called lunar perigee) in 18 years. A new or full moon at 90% or greater of its closest perigee to Earth has been named a "SuperMoon" by astrologer Richard Nolle. This term has been recently picked up by astronomers. An extreme "SuperMoon" is when the moon is full or new as well as at its 100% greater mean perigee (closest) distance to earth. By this definition, last month's full moon, this month's and next month's will all be extreme "SuperMoons".

...

I have read several "new age" forecasts that go something like this: "Extreme SuperMoon this month (March 2011) will bring strong earthquakes and storms and/or unusual climate patterns." Google the term 'extreme SuperMoon March 2011' and see for yourself what comes up. The validity of these types of forecasts can be debated ad nauseum.

There were SuperMoons in 1955, 1974, 1992 and 2005. These years had their share of extreme weather and other natural events.

...

We obviously know that there are scientific laws that say the moon affects the Earth (i.e. tides). There are also less proven theories that propose that the moon affects the Earth in other ways (i.e. abnormal behavior during a full moon). Can the Super (full) Moon contribute to extreme weather and other natural phenomenon?

AccuWeather Facebook fanpage member Daniel Vogler adds, "The last extreme super moon occurred was on January 10th, 2005, right around the time of the 9.0 Indonesia earthquake. That extreme super moon was a new moon. So be forewarned. Something BIG could happen on or around this date. (+/- 3 Days is my guess)"

So what can we expect this time? Earthquakes? Volcanic eruptions? I guess we can only wait and see.'

Interesting?

Tsunami watch

Following the earthquake in Japan this morning I thought this tsunami waning chart might be of interest...

Meanwhile I hear from Tokyo that the metro is not running and that many telephone lines are out of action. Is the Super Moon to blame? More on that later...

Christchurch, New Zealand just after the earthquake hit

Thanks to here for the image.