-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/11/2016 03:24 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:

Is there relatively objective study about the damages Fukushima vs Chernobyl?

(What I read was flamewars or propaganda).

I haven't seen such a comparison, although from my reading it appears that the Russian government may have done a better job with their evacuation - understandable, because tsunami. And, after first exhausting every wrong answer (Russian military used conventional firefighting methods, greatly exacerbating the situation), they finally listened to the engineers and stabilized the remains of the melted reactor. Not so the Japanese; last I heard they have not even /located/ the fissionable material that's still cooking merrily along. According to a National Geographic article citing Japanese govt. sources, groundwater from under the Fukushima complex was entering the Pacific at a rate of 300 tons daily. Same article said strontium 90 was 100 times more abundant than cesium isotopes in collected waste water stored on-site. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukush ima-radioactive-water-leak/ Reuters article from 2012: "Small amounts of cesium-137 and cesium-134 were detected in 15 tuna caught near San Diego in August 2011, about four months after these chemicals were released into the water off Japan's east coast, scientists reported on Monday ." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-tuna-idUSBRE84R0MF20 120528 Strotium was not tested for, as that costs way more than looking for cesium isotopes. Fun fact: Strontium 90 mimics calcium and concentrates in food chains. The Japan Current runs north to the Aleutians and east to North America. But the Pacific based seafood industries can breathe easy: USDA has increases allowable levels of hot isotopes, and if you can't prove in Court that a particular environmental source caused your cancer, nobody is liable. So, how much /worse/ is Fukushima than Chernobyl? As Gully Foyle would say, "guesses for grabs." My guess is, in terms of long term environmental and human health, way worse. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW4x00AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LrbkQAKYA1+IKdoXvJhbBJipWrWYy pl1plcrbOv9da82jiAtCxBpFyzzA/W5tFEpSBZsTSvzGjmipOWbmE3dMUOT/HGx/ CkiN46qMlsX+p6T6AkgOsB0Yp/HvctHPlURVFAyGuqFkQP2XMYd1fe/hOCjszb0Y nIh419uuZ2D8Ck0vSwEwgTAzhuUqQlBVaN/p7y7XRHNDrE6v6DorfzDuwqMcEnKH k+JMXkQ/ZpX0vL1E3Y4sDYlWzEe2heMOindAQRl4zDRzIGcxR1oeCA5+AC7oyrez 0zp8LRpNQTvGg/XLIRRuTBQgCrbLaHpuFr4mApdPq4NXZglRld2L5rdD/bUHN5TR 1LP85csAhHmxDGHlTAO7omJZC/k1gCqzUawP271A3dwLagZ4ehQnCDm8xJglHe1o GqkI/Rg+obhu1dJWVIJ/4zalfa1gGVUmON0u/PODycWIUREk2wuURTMcOg6FF+V/ lPA4r8s8nY8ycAWCP9iY9x3K7HQWi/AswCC2a4pJF1qk+OMmyobAugNEmwz2yJla yLoB35Djn341bJN0Cnhn17PRZtV6/rj4oGg3rOeX0NwLlXepye82H/vz4mw9Qy7a sjD7g9r542rXfc+kh368oMWCcAS5XooymcgfqLekdL/5ABIdFZVjYy4r+jy5M+dA ZVxU1IMI5uwCxaDrRH+G =/WBq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:32:05PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

Aleutians and east to North America. But the Pacific based seafood industries can breathe easy: USDA has increases allowable levels of hot isotopes, and if you can't prove in Court that a particular environmental source caused your cancer, nobody is liable.

I can't find any evidence USDA did this, but I do recall reading that the Japanese health authorities had. But the old levels, much like FCC RF exposure limits, weren't based on any science showing harm, just on the levels they'd typically see. That doesn't mean the new levels aren't dangerous, but it also doesn't mean the old levels were safe. It's all about cost of compliance. We just need more research to know what levels are genuinely safe or dangerous. Though to some extent the Japanese are providing this by acting as a living experiment. If there isn't an increase of cancers from eating food at the higher levels, then hopefully the higher levels are fine.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:23:56AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:

are genuinely safe or dangerous. Though to some extent the Japanese are providing this by acting as a living experiment. If there isn't an increase of cancers from eating food at the higher levels, then hopefully the higher levels are fine.

Searching the web for "fukushima anomalies newborn" shows contradicting results, some mention the west coast of the usa. The damage need not be now, it may be in the future. As a living experiment, the Japanese might be more interesting for consequences of being nuked by the usa in WWII.

See www.transatomicpower.com --dan

juan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:34:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

From: Georgi Guninski

To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org

...

Remember the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the causes for it?

Sure, the fools put a nuclear reactor in a location susceptible to both earthquakes and tsunamis...and then they forgot to provide for cooling the core to prevent meltdown in case they had to 'scram' the reaction.

"The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi.

All six reactors were designed by General Electric."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Nuclear Radiation as a rational energy source for boiling water aside, it's a 'real estate problem' Location Location Location! Not that the design engineering is all that... Recently, within the last week or so in California a skin diver accidentally got into the cooling intake system for a nuclear power plant. I'd guess they can't really put screens on the inlets as trash would quickly clog it but you'd think, with all the millions of dollars spent on designing these things they would have come up with some way of keeping debris, and errant divers, out. It's been discussed, and has been hanging fire since 2010... So I'd guess keeping a tsunami from swamping a reactor after a major earthquake isn't water cooler talk at GE. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/01/local/la-me-cooling1-2010mar01 -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"

So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts should be paying damages?

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 19:49:30 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

From: juan To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org \>    So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the>  general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts

...

should be paying damages?

If a court were to address the issue, I think the Japanese would lose,

It, of course, dewpends on the court. It would be ridiculous to try this case in a state court, especially in a court of 'justice' owned by, say, general electric and the american state. Strictly speaking the guilty parties are the american and japanese government and the 'private' mafias that do 'engineering' for them.

primarily because it had been about 40 years before the earthquake/tsunami occurred.  

And that changes the fact that the general electric's design failed?

The question would be, "Could the Japanese have prevented or ameliorated the damages by modifying the equipment between 1970 and 2010?".   I think the answer is obviously "yes".  They should have anticipated that a tsunami would short out electrical lines outside the plant's walls, rendering them unuseable.

And what has that got to do with the fact that the containment that is supposed to contain material in case of a meltdown, does not contain anything?

 This was a fixable problem; they simply chose to continue to operate the plant containing a known defect.             Jim Bell

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 06:49:30 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

From: juan To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org  >   So after s quick search, seems that the containment of the >  general electric designed reactor(s) failed? Maybe americunts >  should be paying damages? How so?

Did you see my previous message? https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-March/012590.html

 It looks like it worked like it was designed to work.

The design was supposed to contain the melted suff in case of a 'melt-down' - but it didn't. So, no, I don't think it worked like it was designed to.

 The problem is, a decision had been made about making a seawall only a certain height, and putting the switching circuitry in the basement which could be flooded.  

Well, yes, more than a few things failed at once.

No doubt both these decisions had been approved by the Japanese involved. Now, if it had been determined later that they wanted to protect against much larger earthquakes and higher tsunamis, they could have increased the seawall height and sealed the basement of the reactor better.  They chose not to do so.                Jim Bell

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:49:30AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

How so?  It looks like it worked like it was designed to work.  The problem is, a decision had been made about making a seawall only a certain height, and putting the switching circuitry in the basement which could be flooded.  No doubt both these decisions had been approved by the Japanese involved. Now, if it had been determined later that they wanted to protect against much larger earthquakes and higher tsunamis, they could have increased the seawall height and sealed the basement of the reactor better.  They chose not to do so.                Jim Bell

I heard the Fukushima reactors were not secure compared to others, they are "single contour". Whether the Japanese would have blown better reactor is not clear to me. Do reactors have guarantee? For how long? Were the Fukushima reactors in guarantee?