|
09 April 2011 By Stephen
Lendman Measuring 7.1 (one or more other
reports said 7.4), rocked northeast Japan, causing
more damage and disruption to a devastated area. It
cut electricity to four million homes, disrupted power
at two nuclear facilities, and according to Kyodo
News: "Radioactive water spilled from
pools holding spent nuclear fuel rods at the Onagawa
power plant in Miyagi Prefecture," according to
Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). For up to 80 minutes, power was
lost at Onagawa and the Higashidori nuclear facility.
"A small amount of contaminated water spilled on the
floor (inside) all three (Onagawa) reactors....In all,
water spilled or leaked at eight sections of the
plant," also run by Tokyo Electric (TEPCO). In
addition, blowout panels designed to control pressure
were damaged in reactor number three's turbine
building, TEPCO saying a complete damage assessment
was ongoing. Moreover, a Rokkasho village
(Aomori Prefecture) spent nuclear fuel disposal
facility also lost power temporarily. The extent of
nuclear facility damage is unknown, except for sketchy
and unreliable official reports. As always, they say damage, new
or earlier, poses no dangers. Already, in fact,
Fukushima caused potentially apocalyptic ones, covered
up to conceal their gravity, extending far beyond
Japan and the Pacific rim. Other reports also downplay them,
including from The New York Times and Al Jazeera,
often indistinguishable from and as unreliable as BBC,
headlining (on April 8) "Japan quake causes
radioactive spill," saying: "A powerful earthquake in
northeast Japan rocked a nuclear plant, causing a
small amount of radioactive water to spill, but the
operator said there was no immediate danger," case
closed. On April 8, New York Times
writers Hiroko Tabuchi and Andrew Pollack were just as
deceptive, headlining, "Millions Without Power After
Japan Aftershock," saying: TEPCO said "it had found no new
damage (and no) increase in radiation levels" at any
plant affected. Instead of explaining the situation's
gravity, the report merely said concerns "remain
high." On the Progressive Radio News
Hour's April 7 broadcast, nuclear expert Karl Grossman
discussed worrisome issues raised by his mentor,
nuclear physicist Dr. Richard E. Webb, the world
expert on nuclear plant explosions. In his work,
writings and 1976 book titled, "The Accident Hazards
of Nuclear Power Plants," he explained the dangers,
saying in his introduction: "Nuclear power plants present a
hazard to the health and safety of the public because
they are subject to accident, such as an explosion, in
which harmful substances called radioactivity could be
released to the atmosphere as dust and expose a large
population to lethal or injurious radiation." His main conclusion was that "the
full accident hazard of each type nuclear power
reactor has not been scientifically established, even
for the most likely of serious accidents." Specifically, "the theory
underlying the industry's safety calculations has not
been experimentally verified, nor are the necessary
experiments planned....This shortcoming is one of the
two chief concerns of this book." "The other, and more important,
concern is that there are accident possibilities not
considered for licensing which are more severe than
the design basis accidents and that these have not
even been theoretically investigated for the course
they each could take...." In other words, reactor
containment systems aren't designed for the worst
potential accidents. As a result, each operating
reactor anywhere "appears to have an enormous
potential for public disaster." Thirty-five years later, little
has changed. Many American reactors are as vulnerable
as Fukushima's, and no plans are in place to handle
worst case scenarios, too potentially catastrophic to
imagine but are very real, likely, and sooner or
later, inevitable as long as nuclear plants keep
operating. Webb estimated the "theoretical
magnitude of the worst consequences of the worst
conceivable reactor accident," a disturbing
consideration but important. Moreover, he said it's
not as unlikely as might appear, given America's
passion with nuclear roulette - a ticking time bomb
technology, accidents waiting to happen. Widespread fallout depends on
rainfall, he explained. Without it, contamination is
better contained. Nonetheless, his worst possible
accident scenario is as follows: (1) a lethal radiation cloud a
mile wide, extending 75 miles; (2) evacuation or severely
restrictive living conditions for an area the size of
Illinois, Indiana and Ohio combined (120,000 square
miles), lasting a year or longer; and (3) severe long-term agricultural
restrictions because of strontium 90 fallout over a
land mass the size of half the land east of the
Mississippi River (500,000 square miles), lasting one
or more years, with dairy farming prohibited "for a
very long time" over a 150,000 square mile area. Other considerations involve
genetic damage and LMFBR (Liquid Metal Fast Breeder
Reactor) accident consequences, especially for
plutonium, the most toxic substance known by far. A
millionth of a gram ingested can kill. In addition, "the maximum
distance downwind from a reactor accident" related to
the above estimates is about 1,500 - 2,000 miles.
"Hence, a nuclear reactor accident can affect distant
communities as well as those nearby." Moreover, the above estimates
aren't maximum ones, as weather conditions can raise
them. As a result, disaster levels depend on the
amount of released radioactivity into the atmosphere
"in the form of a very fine, light dust (particles one
micron diameter in size) so that it can disperse over
a wide area before fallout." Also, the higher the fuel
temperature, the stronger the explosion and greater
fractional radioactivity release in the form of a
finer dust. Contingency plans don't take these factors
into consideration or the effects on food, water and
human health. On April 4, the web site
eyreinternational.com quoted Webb's analysis of a
spent fuel rod accident, what occurred disastrously at
Fukushima, saying: "160,000 square miles (is)
rendered uninhabitable (the size of California) by
Cesium-137 alone; 338,000 acres of land ruined
agriculturally because of Strontium-90 fallout;
200,000 square miles ruined by plutonium contamination
alone - a lung cancer dust hazard." The site says after making these
calculations, Webb concluded that radiation is much
more harmful than he assumed, believing that within 48
hours of a major reactor accident, 30 - 100 million
people potentially could be harmed by radioactive
atmospheric, water and soil contamination. In other
words, the most dire scenario is too frightening to
imagine. Possibly it's now unfolding in Japan, what
the fullness of time will reveal. Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the
Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/. |
Add Comments