Risk versus Concern: Public Health Messaging of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NP

Dated presentation

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 00:15.

That CDPH presentation was dated April, 2011. Early in the game.

I had a 1.5 hour conversation with presentation co-author, James Thomas, on May 13, of this year. He returned my phone call when I requested further information about the CDPH monitoring of Fukushima fall-out.

Emphasized points made by James Thomas in our conversation:
-Tried to keep focus on I131. Emphasized that to reach level of concern, needed to be exposed to 100 mrem continuously for 1 year (consistent with NRC)
-Said the initial steam cloud (that caused the detection peaks) contained primarily X133, I131, T132, I132
-When I asked him about the recently publicized MIT report (at that time) about plutonium being found throughout the site, he said that MIT was wrong and that since no fission produced during the event, there was absolutely no plutonium in the releases.
-Ditto for strontium... none in the releases.
-Said he was avoiding the word, "meltdown," because it was a misnomer... "a nonsensical word coined by a ridiculous movie." He said that fuel doesn't melt into a puddle, but that rather it "looks like coffee grounds that they literally have to sweep all that stuff."
-Said the #3 holding pond was not blown up, that the shed was blown up and again, that no Pu was released.
-He said that all the holding ponds were intact but that the fuel was obviously exposed.
-Re: fuel pool #4's structural integrity, he said that although it was leaning it would not topple because the dry well and footings went all the way to the bedrock.
-When asked about the ocean contamination, he said not to worry because there was a lot of ocean and that the level of contamination was less than an atom/liter
-When asked about the long term implications, he said the biggest problem was "news hype." He said that Tepco was in the recovery process and that this was not a worldwide public health issue. He said there was no need to take any protective action and that there was effectively no risk.

Anyhoo... given the fact that pretty much all of his facts have turned out to be inaccurate, it's clear that his conversation with me was focused on managing the information and the public, consistent with the mission that his .pdf presentation presents.

My question is, what business does our California public health agency have minimizing and downplaying the actual events/facts surrounding an ongoing nuclear catastrophe? California taxpayers fund this agency to provide a line of defense against these situations, but clearly the CDPH is not primarily concerned with protecting the health of Californians, rather with preserving the reputation of the nuclear industry. Hideous.

MadMama

Almost all of his facts are

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 22:13.

Almost all of his facts are true.
I131 health is not an issue until 100 mrem, true.
Initial cloud had all of that, just missing the Cs.
No Sr in cloud, that is mostly true.
Meltdown is a misnomer and it does turn into solid blobs, that's true.
#3 holding pond didn't blow up, true.
The fuel was exposed, true.
#4, would not topple, true.
Ocean contamination is minimal due to volume, true.

Can you show me how they are inaccurate? I prefer scientific answers. Do you ever wonder why out of the thousands of physicists around the world, only a few freak out? Because there is no problem.

Speaking of #4, what is going

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2011-12-10 13:41.

Speaking of #4,
what is going on there at the moment?
The South end of the building now differs substantially from earlier video and photos taken a few months ago.
Has what remained of the South wall collapsed,
or is this TEPCO doing construction?

http://news.tbs.co.jp/newsi_sp/youtube_live/

Fukushima-Diary has some good

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2011-12-12 10:17.

Fukushima-Diary has some good close-up video from the tbs news camera showing clearly the newly missing sections in Reactor Unit #4's walls, the tops of the South side corners at the fuel-pool end are now missing, they were there a couple of months ago. This is a very big building. TEPCO are keeping quiet, which is a bad sign.

http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/12/reactor-4-is-falling-apart/

A crane is visible there

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2011-12-12 20:44.

A crane is visible there working on unit 4 .since sept tepco roadmap

"There Is no problem " understatment of century lol funny

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2011-12-09 12:18.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111208p2a00m0na016000c.html

Long and tough road ahead for work to decommission Fukushima nuclear reactors

Fukushima nuclear plant considers dumping treated water into ocean
"We would like to increase the number of tanks to accommodate the water but it will be difficult to do so indefinitely," Tepco representative Junichi Matsumoto said.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fukushima+nuclear+plant+considers+dumpi...

"...about 254 tons of uranium

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2011-12-09 14:25.

"...about 254 tons of uranium in the reactors alone must be recovered."

"...more than 30 years to decommission" the cancer-causing hell-holes, eh

What an industry...................................

Meltdown is not a misnomer

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2011-12-09 10:24.

Meltdown is not a misnomer for the Fukushima disaster.
Meltdown is a term used in the industry and academia to refer to this type of accident. The core overheats to the point at which the materials melt (approximately 2900C in the case of Fukushima Unit 1), the core then melts and slumps to the base of the pressure vessel.
This is what Tepco themselves state must have happened at Fukushima.
Tepco even published a document "Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1
May 15th, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power Company" describing their modeling of what had occurred in Reactor Unit 1 stating:
"Melting starts from the central part of the core.
In 16 hours after scram (around March 12th 6:50),
most part of the core fell down to the RPV bottom."
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110515e...

For the term meltdown refer for example to this paper from
Oak Ridge National Laboratory describing this type of incident:
"BWR CONTAINMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS
DURING DEGRADED-CORE ACCIDENTS*
CONF-8 206 09—55
DE82 017432
D. D. Yue
Oak Ridge National Laboratory"
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/5338909-FPWlHy/5338909.pdf

The author uses the term 'meltdown' on the first page:
"...CEFA overtemperature during the
postulated core meltdown was identified as the dominant failure mode."

So the do the authors work

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 11:13.

So the do the authors work for cdhp(if so they should be fired)?i really wonder how closely brawm agrees with this pr memo they sure followed it .it seems the daiichi tragedy could have been far worse say a fuel pool collapsed and plant has to be abandoned well here we have cdhp spouting utter nonsense! So i ask would there ever be a time to warn citizens of nuclear contamination ever? Even if the magnitude was 100 times worse we would have received the same message why even have public safety agency's .i agree it's hideous

Yes. James Thomas, California

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 13:42.

Yes.
James Thomas, California Department of Public Health, Radiologic Health Branch.
916-445-3566

MM