Nuclear Expert: Fukushima spent fuel has 85 times more cesium than released at Chernobyl — “It would destroy the world environment and our civilization… an issue of human survival” -Former UN adviser

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-04-07 09:39

[...] I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods.

I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:

In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.

Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival. [...]

Add new comment

No release of the Cs

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-11-05 11:16.

The fuel in the unit 4 spent fuel pool has been cooled for 2 years now. Due to the cooling this fuel can not cause a fire at this point. There is ongoing work on fires and spent fuel and it is not clear if a fire is ever credible but clearly not after two years of cooling. Dry storage casks often require only 5 years cooling. The cooling time limits are set from long term creep constraints certainly not fire and melting constraints.

If there were loss of water at the unit 4 pool now it would be a serious dose concern for the plant workers but not an event involving off-site populations. The radioactive material would be still contained in the fuel rod. It is very inappropriate to compare with the Chernobyl accident or nuclear weapons where the radioactive material was not contained.

Fukushima and Chernobyl

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-27 09:13.

There is all kinds of credible information from a number of different sources including UNSCEAR,
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html, posted on the web that shows the damaging effects of radioactivity released into the atmosphere and the oceans. UNSCEAR report clearly states that many of the effects are ongoing and will manifest over a long period of time. There is also the problem of the accumulation of increasingly greater amounts in the food chain. Most reasonable people would question why we have to be exposed to any incidental radiation at all, if its so safe then why are such costly procedures necessary to clean it up and handle it safely. There is an infinite source of energy in the sun which can be tapped by the appropriate technology and that is where we should applying our efforts, utility companies aren't interested because they can't monoplolize the source and governments want to develop nuclear energy so they can make bombs. Solar energy is the cleanest safest bet, there is always the possibility the human race will be wiped out by accident so we don't have to make it any more likely by developing nuclear energy, except maybe on a very small basis, till the technology is fully perfected and 100% safe. Its far too dangerous to develop on a large scale. Corporations have yet to show that they have the will or the finances to dispose of the huge sums of nuclear waste that have already been created and are leaking out into the environment. By the way there is also plenty of info available on the web about how American soldiers were used as test guinea pigs for the US atomic testing program so people should look it up and don't believe comments you read on this board about how safe nuclear power is.

Allright! Thanks!

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-06-05 16:57.

To who ever posted the below information. Thank you and right on! You really summarized why we need to wipe the guy from this site. See my post for this request.

The reason that the rude forum bully we all know as Mr. 'Demented Reality', 'Anti-Nuke', (who misrepresents himself as a Univ. Professor) so disgustingly engages in name calling and insults is because he is employed by the industry as a sock puppet in order to drive away any useful discussion regarding the ongoing disaster.
He is, unfortunately, very successful at driving away many people, who like myself tire of having to scan beyond his ugly comments in order to move to the other more useful comments posted by respected posters. I suppose he will continue to be with us much as the stink of an open outhouse is apparent to all those who find themselves downwind. Would it be that he was at least as useful as an open outhouse.
I'd like to thank those who are forced to slog around in the vomit of his diarrhea ridden mouth for continuing to supply useful information for the rest of us even under the harsh conditions he creates.
Thank you

More anti-nuke STUPIDITY and PROPAGANDA above.

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-27 11:24.

Again we have some manifestly stupid anti-nuke spreading a bunch of propaganda.

The above poster states that the Government is interested in nuclear energy so it can make nuclear bombs. HOGWASH NONE of the material in the US nuclear weapons came from commercial reactors. ALL the nuclear material in US nuclear weapons came from the USA's special production reactors located at Hanford, Washington and Savannah River, South Carolina. The reactors at both these sites have been shutdown since the late '80s because the USA has all the weapons material it needs. Another grossly stupid anti-nuke didn't do his homework to see where weapons material came from, and is just posting propaganda.

The above poster thinks that solar power is the total solution. Solar power doesn't give you power at night. In fact the bulk of solar power comes in a 6 hour window from 9 am to 3 pm. When I tell this to solar proponents, they tell me we don't need power at night. Sure we do. The number one user of electricity in the average home is the refrigerator and it needs power at night or what's the use; your food is spoiled. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences states in their report on energy that only 20% of our electrical energy can come from renewables. That's because renewables are intermittent. We don't have a throttle on Mother Nature. We can only take what she gives. It's not sufficient to have the amount of energy from renewables equal the demand in an "average" over the day. It has to meet the demand second to second, or the grid falls.

Our idiot anti-nuke also didn't do his homework checking on how the disposal of nuclear waste is financed. The Government collects a special tax on nuclear generated electricity from the nuclear utilities as a condition of their license, and it is that money that is used to finance nuclear waste disposal. Google "Nuclear Waste Fund" or read the following:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-sued-over-nuclear-waste-fund-89826842.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/nuclear-waste-fund-us-24-billio...

We have above more proof that the anti-nukes are self-righteous, stupid, ignorant idiots that have no interest in providing the public and the readers of this forum with accurate information. They only want to spew their propaganda.

Mr. Anti-Nuke, Demented Reality Forum Bully

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-06-03 20:33.

The anti-nukes get so angry when their propaganda is exposed!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 07:53.

The anti-nukes get so angry when their propaganda is exposed.

Anyone interested in good information isn't driven away by good information.

Only closed-minded anti-nukes that don't want to hear the truth are driven away; and that's no big loss. Their minds are made up regardless of the facts.

The PRO NO NUKES do not resort to your tactics of bullying

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-06-06 12:55.

Talk about reverse psy-ops folks? This guy, right here. Don't you fall for it. The propaganda is from the NUKE INDUSTRY and their handlers and their hit men, such as this one right here. NO nuclear is the only SAFE nuclear! Shut them all down NOW!

You shot yourself in the foot

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-06-07 07:10.

You want us to believe that the "no nukes" crowd tells us the truth and is being logical and rational; but you provide the counterexample right here. Where's your evidence that your opponent is from the "nuke industry"? We are all anonymous, so you don't know who he / she is and what industry he / she works for.

Last I read, the percentage of scientists and engineers that supported nuclear power was in the high 90s percentile; 98% or 99% Not all of these people work for the nuclear industry, in fact only a small fraction. So your opponent could very well be one of those, yet you are claiming a connection with the "nuke industry" based on what?

Where's the logic and critical thinking that goes into drafting your conclusion that he / she is a member of the nuclear industry? Self-righteous indignation and warmed over leftist dogma is a poor substitute for logical reasoning and critical thinking.

In essence, you are proving your opponent's contention about the anti-nuclear community. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Another Reminder Why I Don't Come Here Much Anymore

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-06-01 20:12.

Tell you what. When you start to address the actual questions posed, and stop screaming and yelling about how "stupid" people are who post questions about the safety of this very controversial way to produce steam, then maybe I'll come back. I last about five minutes here at BRAWM specifically because of douchebags like you.

I'll tell you what's really frickin' dumb. Using energy from plants that can't be insured and leave taxpayers on the hook. That's F'n DUMB. Want to know what else is dumb?
San Onofre. Backup electrical system not separated from the main electrical system for TWO DECADES. The work-around? Someone checks once an hour. If they bother to do it.
THAT'S the reality of what's going on in nuclear plants today. I mean, HELLO. That's really basic stuff.....SEPARATE THE BACKUP WIRING.
But we're dumbasses for asking about this in the wake of the worst industrial accident in decades?

You nukers are smart enough to split atoms but not smart enough to see that when the companies that run these joints are blinded by dollar signs, safety goes by the wayside.

You didn't answer one bloody thing the OP posted. All you did was scream and yell and rant and rave and froth and bleed from the eyeballs about how dumb people because they ask questions.

And this is a university forum. Unbelievable. If I had the time, if I didn't have to work for a living, I'd write to every god damn administrator in your department and complain about the horrible, disgusting, pathetic way that the public's questions are being treated on this forum. But why should I? It's your funeral.

Who's really paying for nuclear power, anyhow?

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-11-09 13:53.

I think this is a very good point. If capitalism really is all about competition, then let The Marketplace decide if nuclear power is so attractive. Pull out all the taxpayer supports for nuclear energy and let nuclear power compete with all other forms of energy. (And, BTW, end "oil depletion allowances" for fossil fuel companies, too, which is more porkbarrel corruption.)

If the insurance industry won't guarantee nuclear power plants, that should tell us something. Why should the taxpayer pay to be irradiated with unsafe nuclear power? Let the CEO's of the power companies live next to nuclear power plants, instead of the poor and blacks.

More MISINFORMATION from the anti-nukes

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 07:51.

The above misinformed anti-nuke tells us that nuclear plants can't be insured. This gullible person fell for the anti-nuclear propaganda without checking the facts.

The fact is that nuclear power plants are required by the Price-Anderson Act to obtain commercial insurance from an underwriter like American Nuclear Insurers:

http://www.amnucins.com/

American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.

Beyond this first tier of protection, the Price-Anderson Act provides a second tier administered by the Government; but paid for by the nuclear industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_I...

Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference.

Once again, the anti-nukes have been caught red handed passing propaganda instead of giving the public good, accurate information.

"And this is a university

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-06-02 06:32.

"And this is a university forum."

No. This is a public forum, hosted on a university website. A university that was the home of the "free speech" movement.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but unfortunately not every opinion is equally valuable or presented in a non-confrontational manner.

PC translation

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-27 21:52.

Again we have someone that really does not understand nuclear energy.

The above poster states that the Government is interested in nuclear energy so it can make nuclear bombs. Hogwash! None of the material in the US nuclear weapons came from commercial reactors. All the nuclear material in US nuclear weapons came from the USA's special production reactors located at Hanford, Washington and Savannah River, South Carolina. The reactors at both these sites have been shutdown since the late '80s because the USA has all the weapons material it needs.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/renewable-sources/

The above poster also didn't do his homework checking on how the disposal of nuclear waste is financed. The Government collects a special tax on nuclear generated electricity from the nuclear utilities as a condition of their license, and it is that money that is used to finance nuclear waste disposal. Google "Nuclear Waste Fund" or read the following:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-sued-over-nuclear-waste-fund-89826842.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/nuclear-waste-fund-us-24-billio...

IMHO self-righteous, stupid, ignorant posters that have no interest in providing the public and the readers of this forum with accurate information should check their sources first. Otherwise it would appear that they only want to spew their propaganda...

pro academia

You're Why I Don't Come Here Anymore

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-06-01 20:22.

Rude as hell. And you ignore the questions the OP asked.
Pathetic for a university forum.

How should people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES be dealt with?

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 08:04.

How should people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES be dealt with? Do we let their LIES go unchallenged; so that the public is not properly informed?

That's what the anti-nukes would like.

If you disdain so-called Global Warming deniers…

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-05-12 16:12.

I'd be grateful if a few of the UCB Engineers would chime in on this claim.

If you disdain so-called Global Warming deniers, as having no credentials, or having an agenda of their own, please take a look at Mr. Alvarez' background. He's a music major that dropped out of school, he's never published a scholarly paper on nuclear ANYTHING, and he somehow wangled a job in the Clinton administration. He lost a government job, after being busted, when his daughter turned him and his wife in for growing their own Ganja at home.

So, we're not talking about Dr. Robert Alvarez, well-published scholar and Professor of Nuclear Physics at Harvard, here.

We're talking about Bob Alvarez, music-major dropout, busted for growing weed, who managed to get hired somewhere and write some hand-waving, attention getting, donation driving silliness that those of us in the environmental community seem to buy, as if anything that's anti-nuclear is religiously-based.

We can't do that and call ourselves scientists, period.

Fukshima Spent Fuel Pool #4

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-13 19:58.

No, this is Robert Alvarez who was formerly with the DoE. He is a spent fuel pool expert.

Robert Alvarez has no credibility

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-05-17 14:40.

Yes, he worked for the DOE, in a politically appointed position having nothing to do with nuclear power. He got canned after his teenage daughter turned him and his anti-nuke wife in to the police for growing pot for sale.

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/06/why-does-anyone-trust-robert-alvarezs-...

Why no one trusts Atomic Insights

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-05-17 20:54.

Because it is a pro nuclear ad hominem blog where Rod Adams give his personal opinions, long on wind short on fact. Rod has this to say about his scientific credentials "I never claimed to be a science person. If anything, I claim to be a practically trained engineer. (My undergraduate degree is a BS in English, but I also graduated from the US Navy’s nuclear power school, served as the Engineer Officer on a submarine."
The vial he spews on Robt Alvarez is tripe typical to the smear campaigns of the AI pro nuke agenda.

VITRIOL, the word is VITRIOL!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-05-18 07:21.

The word you wanted was not "vial", which is like a test tube.

The word you want is VITRIOL

Don't try to impress people with your vocabulary, when you don't have command of it, yourself.

A "vial" is a long, thin

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-05-17 23:20.

A "vial" is a long, thin container, like a bottle. "Vile", the word you Armageddon-hyping disaster monkeys are attempting so pitifully to employ, is something else entirely. For one thing, it's an adjective, whereas "vial", like "idiot", is a noun.

Way to display, once again, your knowledge, erudition and education. Or, you know, lack thereof.

Calm down

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 01:12.

Calm down and don't listen to fear mongers:

a) this guy is no Authority
http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/05/07/fukushima-doomsday-predictions-from...

b) Is it bad? Yes. Is it catastrophic? Hardly... read the references at the base of this article re Chernobyl:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2988/is-nuclear-power-safe

Nuclear was a horrible idea, dirty, dangerous... but it's too late. There's 400+ NPP's in the world & another 60+ under construction. It would take many decades to shut them down, dismantle them & store (not exactly safely and only once cool enough) the spent & remaining fuel. Not that the world could ever decide to do it in unison, or ever!

AND despite being horrible, it was and is necessary IF we want to live the way we do (as if we had a choice to stop 'the world' from evolving the way it has). Read another from Straightdope - incredible logic, undeniable: Why don't we ditch nukes and coal?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-ditch...

Living "The Way We Do"

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-06-01 20:21.

What if the choice is between "living the way we do" and polluting the planet to the extent that our species cannot survive any longer?

Are we so addicted to electricity that conservation can't even come up as a topic?

And I mean, addicted----all day every day. Every single thing we humans do is centered around machines.

The people who think the human species is somehow exempt from the possibility of extinction on this finite planet with its closed system, those are the people that scare me.
No I don't need a bloody blow drier, no I don't need a TV, no I don't need a CAR, no I don't need a refrigerator to LIVE. We do not need these things to live, we WANT them because they're convenient and we are uniquely spoiled in all the history of the world.

No one here has respect for that. OK, so what if we had to conserve? So what if every house can't have a megawatt-sucking refrigerator? Are we all gonna die? Of course not.
What if we had to stop our endless consumption? What if we had to entertain ourselves by reading books instead of watching TV or going to the movies or being entertained by our little gadgets?

If sustainability means I have to share a fridge with some other people on the block, so be it. If it means I will have to use a candle or oil lamp at night, SO BE IT.

Good luck with that!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 17:26.

Well at least we have someone who is honest.

We have someone willing to tell the people that if we forgo nuclear power, then we have to give up a lot of things that make our lives comfortable; like the refrigerator to have healthy food at hand when we want it. We have to give up the car, so we have to live close to work even if it means we can't afford to, or we won't have much living space...

Most people like the entertainment that they get from their TV and stereo, and watching movies with the family. We are so fortunate to be able to live the life we do in the USA.

However, we have those among us that want us to live like we lived in some 3rd world country. For what reason? Because they can't handle a trivially small chance that something could go wrong.

The Fukushima accident was totally preventable if the Japanese Government insisted on US-style regulations; like burying the diesel fuel tank, and making sure the backup generators were someplace water-tight.

The US nuclear plants have these features, and we didn't need to experience an accident in order to realize that. The Japanese can easily fix these deficiencies that visited this unfortunate circumstance on them. In the USA, the situation is already fixed.

We can have the lifestyle we have in the USA and we don't have to adopt the lifestyle of a 3rd world nation, because we know how to handle nuclear technology responsibly.

Just like we handle jet air travel. At the first airliner crash, do we say "Jet airliners are a BAD idea. We just have to give up the vacations to far away places and just live out our lives in our own neighborhoods like they do in 3rd world nations because we can't have jet air travel even if we know how to prevent the last crash".

There are those that live out their pathetic lives in fear because they won't risk a one in a billion chance of something going wrong.

I think most of us want to have more enriched lives that comes from using technology responsibly.

Urgent Petition to UN Secretary General for International Help t

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-05-01 21:50.

http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2012/05/01/an-urgent-request-on-u...

An Urgent Request to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to organize a UN coalition for UN Intervention to Stabilize the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Nuclear Fuel

Signed by former Japanese Ambassadors and 72 Japanese organizations.

Perspective

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-04-10 08:51.

From above:

The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel)

The total amount at Fukushima is half what was released as fallout from all atmospheric nuclear tests. How much is the fallout from atmospheric tests affecting us? See:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

We see that the fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests accounts for <0.03% of the average person's yearly exposure.

Since the inventory of Fukushima is 50% of the weapons testing fallout; the potential release of the Fukushima fallout would increase our exposure by 50% of the amount that is represented by weapons testing fallout which is <0.03%

So Fukushima has the potential to increase our radiation exposure by <0.015%

Uhmm , wait a minute.

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 16:54.

The atmospheric tests were conducted over a period of decades. A Fukushima-Daichi site release from another earthquake would release it all at once.

Not the whole picture

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-04-11 10:32.

Yeah, I saw that. But what you are missing is that the majority of the Cs-137 from atmospheric testing was somewhat evenly distributed. The H-bombs in the Pacific and at Russia's test site blew their contamination very high into the atmosphere and this stuff took years to rain out. Thus when it did rain out, the distribution was all over the hemisphere.

In the current situation, should Fukushima have another large release, it will likely be deposited much more according to an area's proximity of the plant. This would be very bad for whoever is directly downwind.

BC 4/11/12

Fukushima

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-06 17:23.

If you're making all these accusations and inciting fear, why are you Anonymous? Why are you not willing to say who you are and where did the initial quote from Mitsuhei Murata come from? "It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on No.4 reactor." - Mitsuhei Murata, Former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland and Senegal, Executive Director, the Japan Society for Global System and Ethics.

I've seen this quote being tossed around with no reference to date, place or whom he said it to. I'm all for being informed, but it's VERY important to use sources.
Thank you.
MMPetrich

Eventually....

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-04-12 08:03.

The releases from Fukushima so far have been both atmospheric and dumped in the ocean.

Those atmospheric releases plumes look almost exactly like the plumes of radiation released in nuclear tests. In the nuclear tests, the areas around the Nevada Test Site or the Marshall Islands got more heavily irradiated in the early times after the test, and the radioisotopes have over the years diffused to a more even distribution.

Likewise with the releases from Fukushima. The early "downwinders" will get more for a period of time; but over time the atmospheric releases from Fukushima are going to diffuse into a more even global distribution.

The releases in the sea will similarly diffuse in the waters of the oceans.

The releases from Fukushima look very much like the releases from nuclear tests and will similarly diffuse into more globally uniform distributions.

Testimony of eminent

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-04-07 14:38.

Testimony of eminent radiation expert Robert Alvarez:

http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be major.

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligent and existing.

This from someone that can't spell

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-04-08 12:17.

Above, the heath consequences are..."negligent".

Is that the word you wanted; "negligent"???

Perhaps the word you want is "negligible"????

You appear to be attempting to parody the posts with the testimony of Dr. John Boice to the US Congress. However, the last lines of those posts are QUOTES from Dr. Boice's testimony.

The last two lines in the above, are NOT quotes from the cited reference; and hence the atrocious spelling; a hallmark of very poor scholarship.

Hey a-hole, you forgot!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-04-08 18:25.

Hey a-hole, you forgot!!! It's "THE EMINENT DR. JOHN BOICE".
So eminent that his special interests are far and wide...

Don't ya just love these forum bullies? They always get all stick up the butt about spelling and think that equates to logic and reasoning.
Meanwhile, Fukushima happened and is happening.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

What I love to see...

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 12:19.

What I love to see is the anti-nukes squealing like stuck pigs when their self-serving LIES and fear mongering are exposed.

SQUEAL PIG SQUEAL

What I love to see....

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 21:24.

Sir,

Are you here to simply attack the messenger or do you have a rational rebuttal to the very bad news relating to the spent fuel pool at reactor #4 in Fukushima?

Oh yes....

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-04-11 08:55.

Oh yes, the possibility of a 0.015% increase in background radiation is such a catastrophe.

Run for the hills!!...

0.015%

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 05:48.

Do you have some science to show what a 0.015% increase in exposure will do to rates of cancer?

What are you talking about?

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 21:00.

What lies are you referring to? The spent fuel pool in Reactor 4 in Fukushima represents a real doomsday scenario and isn't readily solvable apparently. Do you care to refute the testimony or are you simply here to attack the messanger.

trustworthy, objective info needed

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-04-11 14:57.

I live in Japan, about 125 miles south of the reactor. As a lay person it is very difficult to sift through Internet information - which is the only way I can get info - to find info that seems likely to be reliable. I know there must be
people associated with this forum who have the knowledge and experience to help me understand the probable danger that those of us who live here face. Please, if you are a scholar with expertise in this field and you can help me understand the severity of the situation at Fukushima, I would be most grateful for your comments. The US Embassy in Tokyo is not much help. They simply refer one to Japanese government websites, but the Japanese government has proven to be something less than trustworthy I think. Please, UC scholars, help us understand what we are facing here.

The problem...

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-04-12 08:10.

The problem is how to distinguish between the real scholars, and the anti-nukes that are just out to scare you so they can get their way.

Certainly anything you see posted by BRAWM members can be trusted.

The other thing you can do is read what the real experts have to say. One of those experts was summoned by the US Congress to give testimony. So you can also believe what he says. Courtesy of the scientists at the Health Physics Society:

http://hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent

The problem...

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 11:33.

Testifying in front of Congress makes someone trustworthy and gives them credibility? What planet are you from? This is what we have to look forward to with up and coming Berkeley graduates? Wow, this is scary. Also, citing a source from over a year ago? Wow, there's some solid information right there!!

So you can believe what he

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 05:49.

So you can believe what he says because he testified in front of congress?

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Congress demands the best advice

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-13 11:27.

Congress demands the best advice from the scientific community.

Congress doesn't have to "make do" with advice from questionable sources.

When there is an issue of national importance that hinges on Congress gaining access to the best scientific advice; then they can get it.

The type of person that you need advising Congress on radiation releases would be a radiation epidemiologist. That's the business of a radiation epidemiologist; to determine what effect radiation has on the environment and organisms.

The professional society that sets the standards for radiation epidemiologists, analogous to how the American Medical Association sets standards for medical doctors, is the Health Physics Society. Dr. Boice is a past President of the Health Physics Society and a distinguished leading member.

So it's as if Congress had a question on a medical issue and they got a distinguished past President of the American Medical Association to testify.
That means the person testifying in such a circumstances is one of the leaders of the field.

Health Physics

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-13 20:04.

Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

This is one sick puppy.

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 14:48.

This is one sick puppy.

No kidding he is a sick old dog!

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-04-13 22:17.

So lame honestly.

Folks, you clearly have some

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-04-14 15:46.

Folks, you clearly have some tensions here on this forum, but could you please put that on hold? Please?

Consider, for example, my colleague, who has a four year old child. We live 125 miles south of Fukushima. If you had a young child and lived so close to Fukushima, would you move to back to Europe, as my colleague could do?

Study Up On Chernobyl

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-04-27 20:15.

If you came here looking for objectivity you came to the wrong place. BRAWM gets it's funding (as does most of UCB 'Science') from industry sources and the US Dept of Energy. As you might imagine- that creates a 'bit of conflict' whereas the science is concerned.

If children are involved- then it is YOU who must decide as to whether your stance is to 'err on the side of caution' or otherwise.

If you live close to the site then YOU must decide as to whether it makes more sense to watch this unfold from a greater distance or not- and I presume that resources will play a great role in your decision.

Research Chernobyl and decide for yourself. It's the closest realistic example to this current unfolding tragedy that we have- although ultimately I believe Fukushima will eclipse Chernobyl in a way not easily described.

In the meantime- if you believe that you are being exposed- you will find that the following was utilized in Chernobyl as well as other nuclear pollution sites in removing heavy metal toxins from the body: http://www.etszeolite.com/

This is offered IMHO. (No I'm not affiliated with the site or product)

Best of outcomes to you and yours.