Saturday, March 31, 2012
Former Japan Prime Minister Naoto Kan, other DPJ members to launch group to seek exit from nuclear power
Kan, other DPJ members to launch group to seek exit from nuclear power
(Mainichi Japan) March 29, 2012
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan and some other ruling Democratic Party of Japan lawmakers on Wednesday decided to start a group as early as next week that seeks to create a road map for ending the country's reliance on nuclear power.
''Thinking about the future of Japan...why don't we seek a society that does not rely on nuclear power? This group is intended to properly discuss the time frame for realizing that goal,'' Kan, who was the Japanese leader when the nuclear crisis erupted at the Fukushima Daiichi complex last March, told reporters after a gathering to prepare for the group's launch.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
The anti-nuclear activities led by Kan, whose efforts to end Japan's use of nuclear power date back to when he was still in office, come as the government moves closer to a decision on whether to allow the restart of some of the country's idled reactors, despite concerns among the public over their safety.
The reactors have passed safety checks that were newly introduced following the devastating nuclear accident.
Former Justice Minister Hideo Hiraoka, who also joined the gathering, told reporters, ''Edging toward restarting reactors is unacceptable to the public.''
Kan said he hopes to officially launch the group as early as next week, adding that it will try to make its views reflected in government policy.
Around 25 lawmakers, mainly those close to Kan such as former Justice Minister Satsuki Eda, attended the gathering.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Ex-officials Battle Plan to Build Nuclear Project
Ex-officials Battle Plan to Build Nuclear Project
By staff reporter Cui Zheng
3/09/2012
Caixin
Four retired minor officials concerned about Fukushima repeat vigorously battle a plan to build nuclear plant
Work on China's nuclear power plants has begun to pick up again a year after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. But the meltdown on March 11, 2011, is still fresh on the minds of four retired cadres in Province's Wangjiang County.
They petitioned against the Pengze nuclear power project in neighboring Jiangxi Province and ultimately convinced their local government to oppose the plan. This kind of official opposition to a nuclear undertaking is almost unheard of in China.
The Pengze plant would be China's first inland nuclear power facility. It is north of the Yangtze River, and only ten kilometers from the center of Wangjiang County. The nearest Wangjiang village is only three kilometers away.
Two months after the Fukushima mess, former Wangjiang County Party Committee deputy secretary Wang Jinzhou , former county people's court chief justice Fang Guangwen, former county people's congress deputy director Tao Guoxiang, and former urban-rural construction bureau director Wang Jize began collecting public materials on the Pengze plant. They then checked this information against national construction standards and regulations.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In July 2011, they completed an 11-page petition that called for the project to be halted and sent it to the State Council, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Anhui provincial government and the county government. The petition said the population data in application materials related to the Pengze facility was falsified, seismic data was unreliable and gifts were used to bribe villagers during a survey of public opinion.
The group first sent its petition to the county government. But it took no position until two organizations leading the project – the Jiangxi National Defense Science and Industry Office and China Power Investment Jiangxi – arrived in Wangjiang in August 2011 to undertake safety research and ask the county to provide geographic data. Fang said that it was at this juncture that the county for the first time expressed its opposition to building the plant in its vicinity. The county refused to provide the data.
Then, the Wangjiang government researched the plant more, and on November 15, 2011, it completed a report that requested the project be called off. The county government gave its report to the Anhui Energy Bureau. But several months later, the county government had not received a response. Only when the document was linked to on a microblog, causing widespread concern, did the bureau say the county's report had been forwarded to National Development and Reform Commission, the nation's top economic planner. The NDRC has not commented.
Wang speculated that the delay was connected to the development of nuclear power in the province. "Anhui is preparing four of its own nuclear power projects," he said.
The projects he referred to are the Wuhu Fanchang, Chizhou Jiyang, Anqing Congyang and Xuancheng nuclear power plants along the Yangtze River. The Jiyang site is less than 50 kilometers from the Pengze plant and less than 15 kilometers from a small town in Wangjiang County.
Before the Fukushima disaster, these projects met little resistance. The Chizhou prefectural government said in 2009 on its website that the public had input into the environmental impact assessment and a forum was held where 41 representatives of the public voiced their support for the project.
China temporarily slowed the pace of such construction following Fukushima. For instance, there have been no updated news releases about the projects in Anhui or the several dozen nationwide.
However, China is still determined to develop nuclear power. In November 2011, Anhui's latest energy development plan stated: "In accordance with the national strategic layout for nuclear power, at the same time as continuing to ensure work at the Wuhu and Chizhou nuclear power plant sites and the Anqing high-temperature gas-cooled reactor nuclear power project site, steadily push forward the preparatory work for nuclear power projects."
And in mid-February 2012, Li Ganjie, director of the National Nuclear Safety Administration, visited the Sanmen nuclear facility in coastal Zhejiang Province and said the nation should be confident about the development of nuclear power.
On February 23, 2012, the Hongyan River nuclear power plant in coastal Dalian, Liaoning Province, passed a preparatory safety assessment organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The plant's unit number one was the first Chinese nuclear power facility to apply for the installation of nuclear fuel since the Fukushima disaster.
As the pace of work on China's nuclear power projects picks up, there are differing attitudes toward the retiree's petition and the opposition by the Wangjiang County government.
He Zuoxiu, an academician at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who has long opposed inland nuclear plants, said the petition was "quite right" and would try to forward it to national leaders.
In a letter, the Yangtze River Water Resources Protection Bureau said that the Pengze project has yet to conduct necessary procedures relating to water assessments, intake permits and sewage discharge.
However, Zheng Mingguang, president of the official Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute, told China National Radio that the institute had recently conducted a second review of the Pengze site selection report and concluded that there were no environmental problems.
Feng Youcai, the Ministry of Environmental Protection's safety management division official in charge of overseeing the Pengze plant, said that "no problems were found" in the project's documents. However, he pointed out that the project had only passed the site selection phase of the environmental impact assessment and it had many more hurdles to overcome.
Many proponents of nuclear power say critics hold many misconceptions and communication needs to be enhanced. But many of the companies building nuclear power plants and the government have not held honest discussions with stakeholders and are unwilling to provide adequate information. The Ministry of Environmental Protection rejected Caixin's application for more information on documents related to the Pengze plant's environmental assessment.
The four retired officials in Wangjiang plan to continue opposing the Pengze plant and inland nuclear projects in general. Wang said that the discussion over whether to stop work on the Pengze facility was a referendum on inland plants.
Fang said that "Shanghai media have had the most intense reaction and they have sent the most reporters because building nuclear power plants on the Yangtze affects them the most," but almost no reporters from provinces with inland nuclear power programs have interviewed the men.
As might be expected, the four retired officials have a clear game plan for their opposition. "Our actions are divided into three phases: official, media and litigation," Wang said. Petitioning the government was the first step, and using the media to attract attention the second. "If this still doesn't work, we can only move to litigation. In the next step, we'll sue whichever departments approved construction of the Pengze nuclear plant, and we'll sue to the end."
By staff reporter Cui Zheng
3/09/2012
Caixin
Four retired minor officials concerned about Fukushima repeat vigorously battle a plan to build nuclear plant
Work on China's nuclear power plants has begun to pick up again a year after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. But the meltdown on March 11, 2011, is still fresh on the minds of four retired cadres in Province's Wangjiang County.
They petitioned against the Pengze nuclear power project in neighboring Jiangxi Province and ultimately convinced their local government to oppose the plan. This kind of official opposition to a nuclear undertaking is almost unheard of in China.
The Pengze plant would be China's first inland nuclear power facility. It is north of the Yangtze River, and only ten kilometers from the center of Wangjiang County. The nearest Wangjiang village is only three kilometers away.
Two months after the Fukushima mess, former Wangjiang County Party Committee deputy secretary Wang Jinzhou , former county people's court chief justice Fang Guangwen, former county people's congress deputy director Tao Guoxiang, and former urban-rural construction bureau director Wang Jize began collecting public materials on the Pengze plant. They then checked this information against national construction standards and regulations.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In July 2011, they completed an 11-page petition that called for the project to be halted and sent it to the State Council, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Anhui provincial government and the county government. The petition said the population data in application materials related to the Pengze facility was falsified, seismic data was unreliable and gifts were used to bribe villagers during a survey of public opinion.
The group first sent its petition to the county government. But it took no position until two organizations leading the project – the Jiangxi National Defense Science and Industry Office and China Power Investment Jiangxi – arrived in Wangjiang in August 2011 to undertake safety research and ask the county to provide geographic data. Fang said that it was at this juncture that the county for the first time expressed its opposition to building the plant in its vicinity. The county refused to provide the data.
Then, the Wangjiang government researched the plant more, and on November 15, 2011, it completed a report that requested the project be called off. The county government gave its report to the Anhui Energy Bureau. But several months later, the county government had not received a response. Only when the document was linked to on a microblog, causing widespread concern, did the bureau say the county's report had been forwarded to National Development and Reform Commission, the nation's top economic planner. The NDRC has not commented.
Wang speculated that the delay was connected to the development of nuclear power in the province. "Anhui is preparing four of its own nuclear power projects," he said.
The projects he referred to are the Wuhu Fanchang, Chizhou Jiyang, Anqing Congyang and Xuancheng nuclear power plants along the Yangtze River. The Jiyang site is less than 50 kilometers from the Pengze plant and less than 15 kilometers from a small town in Wangjiang County.
Before the Fukushima disaster, these projects met little resistance. The Chizhou prefectural government said in 2009 on its website that the public had input into the environmental impact assessment and a forum was held where 41 representatives of the public voiced their support for the project.
China temporarily slowed the pace of such construction following Fukushima. For instance, there have been no updated news releases about the projects in Anhui or the several dozen nationwide.
However, China is still determined to develop nuclear power. In November 2011, Anhui's latest energy development plan stated: "In accordance with the national strategic layout for nuclear power, at the same time as continuing to ensure work at the Wuhu and Chizhou nuclear power plant sites and the Anqing high-temperature gas-cooled reactor nuclear power project site, steadily push forward the preparatory work for nuclear power projects."
And in mid-February 2012, Li Ganjie, director of the National Nuclear Safety Administration, visited the Sanmen nuclear facility in coastal Zhejiang Province and said the nation should be confident about the development of nuclear power.
On February 23, 2012, the Hongyan River nuclear power plant in coastal Dalian, Liaoning Province, passed a preparatory safety assessment organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The plant's unit number one was the first Chinese nuclear power facility to apply for the installation of nuclear fuel since the Fukushima disaster.
As the pace of work on China's nuclear power projects picks up, there are differing attitudes toward the retiree's petition and the opposition by the Wangjiang County government.
He Zuoxiu, an academician at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who has long opposed inland nuclear plants, said the petition was "quite right" and would try to forward it to national leaders.
In a letter, the Yangtze River Water Resources Protection Bureau said that the Pengze project has yet to conduct necessary procedures relating to water assessments, intake permits and sewage discharge.
However, Zheng Mingguang, president of the official Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute, told China National Radio that the institute had recently conducted a second review of the Pengze site selection report and concluded that there were no environmental problems.
Feng Youcai, the Ministry of Environmental Protection's safety management division official in charge of overseeing the Pengze plant, said that "no problems were found" in the project's documents. However, he pointed out that the project had only passed the site selection phase of the environmental impact assessment and it had many more hurdles to overcome.
Many proponents of nuclear power say critics hold many misconceptions and communication needs to be enhanced. But many of the companies building nuclear power plants and the government have not held honest discussions with stakeholders and are unwilling to provide adequate information. The Ministry of Environmental Protection rejected Caixin's application for more information on documents related to the Pengze plant's environmental assessment.
The four retired officials in Wangjiang plan to continue opposing the Pengze plant and inland nuclear projects in general. Wang said that the discussion over whether to stop work on the Pengze facility was a referendum on inland plants.
Fang said that "Shanghai media have had the most intense reaction and they have sent the most reporters because building nuclear power plants on the Yangtze affects them the most," but almost no reporters from provinces with inland nuclear power programs have interviewed the men.
As might be expected, the four retired officials have a clear game plan for their opposition. "Our actions are divided into three phases: official, media and litigation," Wang said. Petitioning the government was the first step, and using the media to attract attention the second. "If this still doesn't work, we can only move to litigation. In the next step, we'll sue whichever departments approved construction of the Pengze nuclear plant, and we'll sue to the end."
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Devangshu Datta: Why push nuclear power?
Devangshu Datta: Why push nuclear power?
New Delhi
March 24, 2012
Business Standard
The Kudankulam row encapsulates the tragicomedy of Indian governance. On one side, there’s the establishment determined to push through a nuclear agenda. On the other, there’s a bunch of activists determined to oppose it. To a dispassionate observer, it’s a huge misdirection of energy.
The nuclear power industry accounts for two to three per cent of India’s electricity generation with about 4,800 Mw in installed capacity. Even if opposition magically evaporates and the 2,000 Mw Kudankulam project goes ahead, it will not make a material difference to power shortages, for the next three years.
Instead of trying to bulldoze through the stalled project, the establishment’s energies could be more efficiently deployed in targeting other sectoral problems. There are many lower-hanging fruit visible.
http://easss.com/nuclear
For example, national transmission and distribution (T&D) losses are close to 30 per cent. China has a gross eight per cent T&D loss; the European Union averages around seven per cent.
If India cut T&D losses to, say, 10-15 per cent, it would be the equivalent of instantly adding five or six times nuclear capacity, while incurring zero environmental costs and risks.
There would be no protests about implementing improved T&D practices.
Many other issues can also be tackled with a little common sense and some managerial skill.
For example, Coal India’s lackadaisical performance results in significant fuel shortages and lower plant load factors. State power companies’ losses lead to unpaid bills for fuel suppliers and central utilities. The national grid is incomplete. Open access norms have been legislated but not adopted.
The above issues are long-standing. They have never been dealt with adequately. They mostly involve government-run organisations. There would be no protests if they were faced head-on. The pay-offs, for the sector and downstream for the entire economy, would be huge.
Also, there are more politically sensitive issues at hand in the country’s conventional sector. But even these are less explosive than nuclear and they offer larger pay-offs for viable solutions.
Captive coal blocks are allocated non-transparently, thus leading to scandals. Environmental clearances for projects are delayed and arbitrary. Captive blocks are awarded (never mind how), and then the environmental boffins point out that these blocks are in no-go areas. Would it hurt for “Power” to talk to “Coal” and “Environment” and work out transparent formulae for block awards, with clear timelines for clearances?
The focus on ramming through nuclear power is, therefore, misplaced. Long-term nuclear plans project a ramp-up to 45,000 Mw by 2020 (around nine per cent of 2020 capacity) and to 63,000 Mw by 2032.
It’s unlikely that those deadlines will be met, given the vehemence of protests at Jaitapur and Kudankulam.
Nuclear power has been centre stage since 2008, when the Indo-US rapprochement occurred during the first term of the United Progressive Alliance. It was the last time India’s prime minister displayed a spine. In theory, that cleared the way for the import of technology and fuel supply.
However, Fukushima put the nuclear industry on the back foot. It triggered a wave of NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) protests by locals at proposed plant locations.
Nuclear plants have to be near water sources and that makes them vulnerable to cyclones, tidal waves, floods, etc.
It’s a moot point if Indian plants will be designed, operated and maintained with such high standards as to allay fears of disaster. Even more troubling, the methods of disposal of spent fuel don’t inspire confidence.
Everyone who is anyone, from A P J Abdul Kalam to Jairam Ramesh, concurs that India will have to develop a nuclear power industry in the long run.
However, it would be far more efficient in terms of both time and pay-off to do simpler, less politically explosive things first, and thus put the conventional power industry on a more stable footing. But then, instead of beating up activists in Kudankulam, the establishment would need to take a long hard look in the mirror and get its own act together.
New Delhi
March 24, 2012
Business Standard
The Kudankulam row encapsulates the tragicomedy of Indian governance. On one side, there’s the establishment determined to push through a nuclear agenda. On the other, there’s a bunch of activists determined to oppose it. To a dispassionate observer, it’s a huge misdirection of energy.
The nuclear power industry accounts for two to three per cent of India’s electricity generation with about 4,800 Mw in installed capacity. Even if opposition magically evaporates and the 2,000 Mw Kudankulam project goes ahead, it will not make a material difference to power shortages, for the next three years.
Instead of trying to bulldoze through the stalled project, the establishment’s energies could be more efficiently deployed in targeting other sectoral problems. There are many lower-hanging fruit visible.
http://easss.com/nuclear
For example, national transmission and distribution (T&D) losses are close to 30 per cent. China has a gross eight per cent T&D loss; the European Union averages around seven per cent.
If India cut T&D losses to, say, 10-15 per cent, it would be the equivalent of instantly adding five or six times nuclear capacity, while incurring zero environmental costs and risks.
There would be no protests about implementing improved T&D practices.
Many other issues can also be tackled with a little common sense and some managerial skill.
For example, Coal India’s lackadaisical performance results in significant fuel shortages and lower plant load factors. State power companies’ losses lead to unpaid bills for fuel suppliers and central utilities. The national grid is incomplete. Open access norms have been legislated but not adopted.
The above issues are long-standing. They have never been dealt with adequately. They mostly involve government-run organisations. There would be no protests if they were faced head-on. The pay-offs, for the sector and downstream for the entire economy, would be huge.
Also, there are more politically sensitive issues at hand in the country’s conventional sector. But even these are less explosive than nuclear and they offer larger pay-offs for viable solutions.
Captive coal blocks are allocated non-transparently, thus leading to scandals. Environmental clearances for projects are delayed and arbitrary. Captive blocks are awarded (never mind how), and then the environmental boffins point out that these blocks are in no-go areas. Would it hurt for “Power” to talk to “Coal” and “Environment” and work out transparent formulae for block awards, with clear timelines for clearances?
The focus on ramming through nuclear power is, therefore, misplaced. Long-term nuclear plans project a ramp-up to 45,000 Mw by 2020 (around nine per cent of 2020 capacity) and to 63,000 Mw by 2032.
It’s unlikely that those deadlines will be met, given the vehemence of protests at Jaitapur and Kudankulam.
Nuclear power has been centre stage since 2008, when the Indo-US rapprochement occurred during the first term of the United Progressive Alliance. It was the last time India’s prime minister displayed a spine. In theory, that cleared the way for the import of technology and fuel supply.
However, Fukushima put the nuclear industry on the back foot. It triggered a wave of NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) protests by locals at proposed plant locations.
Nuclear plants have to be near water sources and that makes them vulnerable to cyclones, tidal waves, floods, etc.
It’s a moot point if Indian plants will be designed, operated and maintained with such high standards as to allay fears of disaster. Even more troubling, the methods of disposal of spent fuel don’t inspire confidence.
Everyone who is anyone, from A P J Abdul Kalam to Jairam Ramesh, concurs that India will have to develop a nuclear power industry in the long run.
However, it would be far more efficient in terms of both time and pay-off to do simpler, less politically explosive things first, and thus put the conventional power industry on a more stable footing. But then, instead of beating up activists in Kudankulam, the establishment would need to take a long hard look in the mirror and get its own act together.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Future cancers caused by Fukushima radiation may be hidden
Future cancers caused by Fukushima radiation may be hidden
By Malcolm Ritter
NOV. 21, 2011
Associated Press
In this Nov 12 photo, workers in protective suits and masks wait to enter the emergency operation center at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
AP
FUKUSHIMA —
Even if the worst nuclear accident in 25 years leads to many people developing cancer, we may never find out.
Looking back on those early days of radiation horror, that may sound implausible.
But the ordinary rate of cancer is so high, and our understanding of the effects of radiation exposure so limited, that any increase in cases from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster may be undetectable.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Several experts inside and outside Japan told The Associated Press that cancers caused by the radiation may be too few to show up in large population studies, like the long-term survey just getting under way in Fukushima.
That could mean thousands of cancers under the radar in a study of millions of people, or it could be virtually none. Some of the dozen experts the AP interviewed said they believe radiation doses most Japanese people have gotten fall in a “low-dose” range, where the effect on cancer remains unclear.
The cancer risk may be absent, or just too small to detect, said Dr. Fred Mettler, a radiologist who led an international study of health effects from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
That’s partly because cancer is one of the top killers of people in industrialized nations. Odds are high that if you live long enough, you will die of cancer. The average lifetime cancer risk is about 40%.
In any case, the 2 million residents of Fukushima Prefecture, targeted in the new, 30-year survey, probably got too little radiation to have a noticeable effect on cancer rates, said Seiji Yasumura of the state-run Fukushima Medical University. Yasumura is helping run the project.
“I think he’s right,” as long as authorities limit children’s future exposure to the radiation, said Richard Wakeford, a visiting epidemiology professor at the Dalton Nuclear Institute at the University of Manchester in England.
Wakeford, who is also editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection, said he’s assuming that the encouraging data he’s seen on the risk for thyroid cancer is correct.
The idea that Fukushima-related cancers may go undetected gives no comfort to Edwin Lyman, a physicist and senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that advocates for nuclear safety. He said that even if cancers don’t turn up in population studies, that “doesn’t mean the cancers aren’t there, and it doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.”
“I think that a prediction of thousands of cancer deaths as a result of the radiation from Fukushima is not out of line,” Lyman said. But he stressed that authorities can do a lot to limit the toll by reducing future exposure to the radiation. That could mean expensive decontamination projects, large areas of condemned land and people never returning home, he said. “There’s some difficult choices ahead.”
Japan’s cabinet this month endorsed a plan to cut contamination levels in half within the next two years. The government recently announced it plans to study the risk from long-term exposure to the low-dose radiation level used as a trigger for evacuations.
The plant was damaged March 11 by a tsunami triggered by a magnitude-9 earthquake. Japanese authorities estimate it leaked about one-sixth as much radiation as the Chernobyl accident. It spewed radioactive materials like iodine-131, cesium-137 and 29 others contaminating the water, soil, forests and crops for miles around. A recent study suggested that emissions of cesium-137, were in fact twice what the government has estimated.
So far, no radiation-linked death or sickness has been reported in either citizens or workers who are shutting down the plant.
And a preliminary survey of 3,373 evacuees from the 10 towns closest to the plant this summer showed their estimated internal exposure doses over the next several decades would be far below levels officials deem harmful.
Many don’t trust gov’t reassurances
But while the Fukushima disaster has faded from world headlines, many Japanese remain concerned about their long-term health. And many don’t trust reassurances from government scientists like Yasumura, of the Fukushima survey.
Many consumers worry about the safety of food from Fukushima and surrounding prefectures, although produce and fish found to be above government-set limits for contamination have been barred from the market. For example, mushrooms harvested in and around Fukushima are frequently found to be contaminated and barred from market. Controversy has also erupted around the government’s choice of a maximum allowed level for internal radiation exposure from food.
Fukushima has distributed radiation monitors to 280,000 children at its elementary and junior high schools. Many children are allowed to play outside only two or three hours a day. Schools have removed topsoil on the playgrounds to reduce the dose, and the Education Ministry provided radiation handbooks for teachers. Thousands of children have been moved out of Fukushima since the March disasters, mainly due to radiation fears.
Many parents and concerned citizens in and around Fukushima, some even as far as Tokyo, carry Geiger counters for daily measurement of radiation levels in their neighborhoods, especially near schools and kindergartens. The devices are probably one of the most popular electronics gadgets across Japan these days. People can rent them at DVD shops or drug stores in Fukushima, while many Internet rental businesses specializing in Geiger counters also have emerged.
Citizens groups are also setting up radiation measuring centers where people can submit vegetables, milk or other foods for tests. Some people are turning to traditional Japanese diet—pickled plum, miso soup and brown rice—based on a belief that it boosts the immune system.
“I try what I believe is the best, because I don’t trust the government any more,” says Chieko Shiina, who has turned to that diet. The 65-year-old Fukushima farmer had to close a small Japanese-style inn due to the nuclear crisis.
She thinks leaving Fukushima would be safer but says there is nowhere else to go.
“I know we continue to be irradiated, even right at this moment. I know it would be best just to leave Fukushima,” she said.
Yuka Saito, a mother of four who lives in a Fukushima neighborhood where the evacuation order was recently lifted, said she and her three youngest children spent the summer in Hokkaido to get away from the radiation. She tells her children, ages 6 to 15, to wear medical masks, long-sleeved shirts and a hat whenever they go out, and not to play outside.
She still avoids drinking tap water and keeps a daily log of her own radiation monitoring around the house, kindergarten and schools her children attend.
“We Fukushima people are exposed to radiation more than anyone else outside the prefecture, but we just have to do our best to cope,” she said. “We cannot stay inside the house forever.”
Mental health problems prevalent
Japanese officials say mental health problems caused by excessive fear of radiation are prevalent and posing a bigger concern than actual risk of cancer caused by radiation.
But what kind of cancer risks do the Japanese really face?
Information on actual radiation exposures for individuals is scarce, and some experts say they can’t draw any conclusions yet about risk to the population.
But Michiaki Kai, professor of environmental health at Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, said that based on tests he’s seen on people and their exposure levels, nobody in Fukushima except for some plant workers has been exposed to harmful levels of radiation.
Radiation generally raises cancer risk in proportion to its amount. At low-dose exposures, many experts and `regulators embrace the idea that this still holds true. But other experts say direct evidence for that is lacking, and that it’s not clear whether such small doses raise cancer risk at all.
“Nobody knows the answer to that question,” says Mettler, an emeritus professor of radiology at the University of New Mexico and the U.S. representative to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, or UNSCEAR. If such low doses do produce cancers, they’d be too few to be detected against the backdrop of normal cancer rates, he said.
To an individual the question may have little meaning, since it deals with the difference between no risk and small risk. For example, the general population was told to evacuate areas that would expose them to more than 20 millisieverts a year. A millisievert measures radiation dose and 20 mSv is about seven times the average dose of background radiation Americans get in a year. A child exposed to 20 mSv for a year would face a calculated risk of about 1 in 400 of getting cancer someday as a result, says David Brenner of Columbia University. So that would add 0.25% onto the typical lifetime cancer risk of about 40%, he said.
And the average dose among the 14,385 workers who worked on the plant through July was 8 mSv, according to the Japanese government. The average lifetime risk of cancer to an individual from that dose alone would be calculated at about 0.05%, or 1 in 2,000, Brenner said.
Brenner stresses that such calculations are uncertain because scientists know so little about the effects of such small doses of radiation.
But in assessing the Fukushima disaster’s effect on populations, the low-dose question leads to another: If a lot of people are each exposed to a low dose, can you basically multiply their individual calculated risks to forecast a number of cancers in the population?
Brenner thinks so, which is why he believes some cancers might even appear in Tokyo although each resident’s risk is “pretty minuscule.”
But Wolfgang Weiss, who chairs the UNSCEAR radiation committee, said the committee considers it inappropriate to predict a certain number of cancer cases from a low-dose exposure, because low-dose risk isn’t proven.
Nuclear accidents can cause cancer of the thyroid gland, which can absorb radioactive iodine and become cancerous. That disease is highly treatable and rarely fatal.
After the Chernobyl disaster, some 6,000 children exposed to radioactive fallout later developed thyroid cancer. Experts blame contaminated milk. But the thyroid threat was apparently reduced in Japan, where authorities closely monitored dairy radiation levels, and children are not big milk drinkers anyway.
Thyroids of 360,000 young people to be checked
Still, the new Fukushima survey will check the thyroids of some 360,000 young people under age 18, with follow-ups planned every five years throughout their lifetimes. It will also track women who were pregnant early in the crisis, do checkups focused on mental health and lifestyle-related illnesses for evacuees and others from around the evacuation zone, and ask residents to fill out a 12-page questionnaire to assess their radiation exposure during the first weeks of the crisis.
But the survey organizers are having trouble getting responses, partly because of address changes. As of mid-October, less than half the residents had responded to the health questionnaire.
Some residents are skeptical about the survey’s objectivity because of mistrust toward the government, which repeatedly delayed disclosing key data and which revised evacuation zones and safety standards after the accident. Also, the government’s nuclear safety commission recommended use of iodine tablets but none of the residents received them just before or during evacuation, when the preventive medicine would have been most effective.
Some wonder if the study is using them as human guinea pigs to examine the impact of radiation on humans.
Eisuke Matsui, a lung cancer specialist and a former associate professor at Gifu University School of Medicine, criticized the project. He said it appears to largely ignore potential radiation-induced health risks like diabetes, cataracts and heart problems that have been hinted at by some studies of Chernobyl.
“If thyroid cancer is virtually the only abnormality on which they are focusing, I must say there is a big question mark over the reliability of this survey,” he said.
He also suggested sampling hair, clipped nails and fallen baby teeth to test for radioactive isotopes such as strontium that are undetectable by the survey’s current approach.
“We should check as many potential problems as possible,” Matsui said.
Yasumura acknowledges the main purpose of his study is “to relieve radiation fears.” But Matsui says he has a problem with that.
“A health survey should be a start,” Matsui says, “not a goal.”
Tatsuhiko Kodama, head of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo, urged quick action to determine the cancer risks.
He said big population surveys and analysis will take so long that it would make more sense to run a careful simulation of radiation exposures and do anything possible to reduce the risks.
“Our responsibility is to tell the people now what possible risks may be to their health,” he said.
By Malcolm Ritter
NOV. 21, 2011
Associated Press
In this Nov 12 photo, workers in protective suits and masks wait to enter the emergency operation center at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
AP
FUKUSHIMA —
Even if the worst nuclear accident in 25 years leads to many people developing cancer, we may never find out.
Looking back on those early days of radiation horror, that may sound implausible.
But the ordinary rate of cancer is so high, and our understanding of the effects of radiation exposure so limited, that any increase in cases from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster may be undetectable.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Several experts inside and outside Japan told The Associated Press that cancers caused by the radiation may be too few to show up in large population studies, like the long-term survey just getting under way in Fukushima.
That could mean thousands of cancers under the radar in a study of millions of people, or it could be virtually none. Some of the dozen experts the AP interviewed said they believe radiation doses most Japanese people have gotten fall in a “low-dose” range, where the effect on cancer remains unclear.
The cancer risk may be absent, or just too small to detect, said Dr. Fred Mettler, a radiologist who led an international study of health effects from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
That’s partly because cancer is one of the top killers of people in industrialized nations. Odds are high that if you live long enough, you will die of cancer. The average lifetime cancer risk is about 40%.
In any case, the 2 million residents of Fukushima Prefecture, targeted in the new, 30-year survey, probably got too little radiation to have a noticeable effect on cancer rates, said Seiji Yasumura of the state-run Fukushima Medical University. Yasumura is helping run the project.
“I think he’s right,” as long as authorities limit children’s future exposure to the radiation, said Richard Wakeford, a visiting epidemiology professor at the Dalton Nuclear Institute at the University of Manchester in England.
Wakeford, who is also editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection, said he’s assuming that the encouraging data he’s seen on the risk for thyroid cancer is correct.
The idea that Fukushima-related cancers may go undetected gives no comfort to Edwin Lyman, a physicist and senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that advocates for nuclear safety. He said that even if cancers don’t turn up in population studies, that “doesn’t mean the cancers aren’t there, and it doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.”
“I think that a prediction of thousands of cancer deaths as a result of the radiation from Fukushima is not out of line,” Lyman said. But he stressed that authorities can do a lot to limit the toll by reducing future exposure to the radiation. That could mean expensive decontamination projects, large areas of condemned land and people never returning home, he said. “There’s some difficult choices ahead.”
Japan’s cabinet this month endorsed a plan to cut contamination levels in half within the next two years. The government recently announced it plans to study the risk from long-term exposure to the low-dose radiation level used as a trigger for evacuations.
The plant was damaged March 11 by a tsunami triggered by a magnitude-9 earthquake. Japanese authorities estimate it leaked about one-sixth as much radiation as the Chernobyl accident. It spewed radioactive materials like iodine-131, cesium-137 and 29 others contaminating the water, soil, forests and crops for miles around. A recent study suggested that emissions of cesium-137, were in fact twice what the government has estimated.
So far, no radiation-linked death or sickness has been reported in either citizens or workers who are shutting down the plant.
And a preliminary survey of 3,373 evacuees from the 10 towns closest to the plant this summer showed their estimated internal exposure doses over the next several decades would be far below levels officials deem harmful.
Many don’t trust gov’t reassurances
But while the Fukushima disaster has faded from world headlines, many Japanese remain concerned about their long-term health. And many don’t trust reassurances from government scientists like Yasumura, of the Fukushima survey.
Many consumers worry about the safety of food from Fukushima and surrounding prefectures, although produce and fish found to be above government-set limits for contamination have been barred from the market. For example, mushrooms harvested in and around Fukushima are frequently found to be contaminated and barred from market. Controversy has also erupted around the government’s choice of a maximum allowed level for internal radiation exposure from food.
Fukushima has distributed radiation monitors to 280,000 children at its elementary and junior high schools. Many children are allowed to play outside only two or three hours a day. Schools have removed topsoil on the playgrounds to reduce the dose, and the Education Ministry provided radiation handbooks for teachers. Thousands of children have been moved out of Fukushima since the March disasters, mainly due to radiation fears.
Many parents and concerned citizens in and around Fukushima, some even as far as Tokyo, carry Geiger counters for daily measurement of radiation levels in their neighborhoods, especially near schools and kindergartens. The devices are probably one of the most popular electronics gadgets across Japan these days. People can rent them at DVD shops or drug stores in Fukushima, while many Internet rental businesses specializing in Geiger counters also have emerged.
Citizens groups are also setting up radiation measuring centers where people can submit vegetables, milk or other foods for tests. Some people are turning to traditional Japanese diet—pickled plum, miso soup and brown rice—based on a belief that it boosts the immune system.
“I try what I believe is the best, because I don’t trust the government any more,” says Chieko Shiina, who has turned to that diet. The 65-year-old Fukushima farmer had to close a small Japanese-style inn due to the nuclear crisis.
She thinks leaving Fukushima would be safer but says there is nowhere else to go.
“I know we continue to be irradiated, even right at this moment. I know it would be best just to leave Fukushima,” she said.
Yuka Saito, a mother of four who lives in a Fukushima neighborhood where the evacuation order was recently lifted, said she and her three youngest children spent the summer in Hokkaido to get away from the radiation. She tells her children, ages 6 to 15, to wear medical masks, long-sleeved shirts and a hat whenever they go out, and not to play outside.
She still avoids drinking tap water and keeps a daily log of her own radiation monitoring around the house, kindergarten and schools her children attend.
“We Fukushima people are exposed to radiation more than anyone else outside the prefecture, but we just have to do our best to cope,” she said. “We cannot stay inside the house forever.”
Mental health problems prevalent
Japanese officials say mental health problems caused by excessive fear of radiation are prevalent and posing a bigger concern than actual risk of cancer caused by radiation.
But what kind of cancer risks do the Japanese really face?
Information on actual radiation exposures for individuals is scarce, and some experts say they can’t draw any conclusions yet about risk to the population.
But Michiaki Kai, professor of environmental health at Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, said that based on tests he’s seen on people and their exposure levels, nobody in Fukushima except for some plant workers has been exposed to harmful levels of radiation.
Radiation generally raises cancer risk in proportion to its amount. At low-dose exposures, many experts and `regulators embrace the idea that this still holds true. But other experts say direct evidence for that is lacking, and that it’s not clear whether such small doses raise cancer risk at all.
“Nobody knows the answer to that question,” says Mettler, an emeritus professor of radiology at the University of New Mexico and the U.S. representative to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, or UNSCEAR. If such low doses do produce cancers, they’d be too few to be detected against the backdrop of normal cancer rates, he said.
To an individual the question may have little meaning, since it deals with the difference between no risk and small risk. For example, the general population was told to evacuate areas that would expose them to more than 20 millisieverts a year. A millisievert measures radiation dose and 20 mSv is about seven times the average dose of background radiation Americans get in a year. A child exposed to 20 mSv for a year would face a calculated risk of about 1 in 400 of getting cancer someday as a result, says David Brenner of Columbia University. So that would add 0.25% onto the typical lifetime cancer risk of about 40%, he said.
And the average dose among the 14,385 workers who worked on the plant through July was 8 mSv, according to the Japanese government. The average lifetime risk of cancer to an individual from that dose alone would be calculated at about 0.05%, or 1 in 2,000, Brenner said.
Brenner stresses that such calculations are uncertain because scientists know so little about the effects of such small doses of radiation.
But in assessing the Fukushima disaster’s effect on populations, the low-dose question leads to another: If a lot of people are each exposed to a low dose, can you basically multiply their individual calculated risks to forecast a number of cancers in the population?
Brenner thinks so, which is why he believes some cancers might even appear in Tokyo although each resident’s risk is “pretty minuscule.”
But Wolfgang Weiss, who chairs the UNSCEAR radiation committee, said the committee considers it inappropriate to predict a certain number of cancer cases from a low-dose exposure, because low-dose risk isn’t proven.
Nuclear accidents can cause cancer of the thyroid gland, which can absorb radioactive iodine and become cancerous. That disease is highly treatable and rarely fatal.
After the Chernobyl disaster, some 6,000 children exposed to radioactive fallout later developed thyroid cancer. Experts blame contaminated milk. But the thyroid threat was apparently reduced in Japan, where authorities closely monitored dairy radiation levels, and children are not big milk drinkers anyway.
Thyroids of 360,000 young people to be checked
Still, the new Fukushima survey will check the thyroids of some 360,000 young people under age 18, with follow-ups planned every five years throughout their lifetimes. It will also track women who were pregnant early in the crisis, do checkups focused on mental health and lifestyle-related illnesses for evacuees and others from around the evacuation zone, and ask residents to fill out a 12-page questionnaire to assess their radiation exposure during the first weeks of the crisis.
But the survey organizers are having trouble getting responses, partly because of address changes. As of mid-October, less than half the residents had responded to the health questionnaire.
Some residents are skeptical about the survey’s objectivity because of mistrust toward the government, which repeatedly delayed disclosing key data and which revised evacuation zones and safety standards after the accident. Also, the government’s nuclear safety commission recommended use of iodine tablets but none of the residents received them just before or during evacuation, when the preventive medicine would have been most effective.
Some wonder if the study is using them as human guinea pigs to examine the impact of radiation on humans.
Eisuke Matsui, a lung cancer specialist and a former associate professor at Gifu University School of Medicine, criticized the project. He said it appears to largely ignore potential radiation-induced health risks like diabetes, cataracts and heart problems that have been hinted at by some studies of Chernobyl.
“If thyroid cancer is virtually the only abnormality on which they are focusing, I must say there is a big question mark over the reliability of this survey,” he said.
He also suggested sampling hair, clipped nails and fallen baby teeth to test for radioactive isotopes such as strontium that are undetectable by the survey’s current approach.
“We should check as many potential problems as possible,” Matsui said.
Yasumura acknowledges the main purpose of his study is “to relieve radiation fears.” But Matsui says he has a problem with that.
“A health survey should be a start,” Matsui says, “not a goal.”
Tatsuhiko Kodama, head of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo, urged quick action to determine the cancer risks.
He said big population surveys and analysis will take so long that it would make more sense to run a careful simulation of radiation exposures and do anything possible to reduce the risks.
“Our responsibility is to tell the people now what possible risks may be to their health,” he said.
Anti-nuclear activist sees commonalities between Minamata and Fukushima
Anti-nuclear activist sees commonalities between Minamata and Fukushima
(Mainichi Japan) March 4, 2012
Aileen Mioko Smith explains that she thought of "The 10 Strategies Taken by the State, Prefectural Governments, Academic Flunkies and Companies in the Cases of Minamata and Fukushima" during a sit-in in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
According to Aileen Mioko Smith, who together with her late husband, the photographer Eugene Smith, drew the world's attention to one of Japan's most far-reaching pollution-caused diseases, the ongoing Fukushima nuclear crisis and Minamata disease have many things in common.
"Inequality," said Smith, when asked what it is that both disasters have. It was not the government's inaction that she brought up first, but rather the unfairness of it all.
http://easss.com/nuclear
"Minamata disease emerged when major Japanese chemical manufacturer Chisso Corp. found itself lagging behind its competitors in the industry's switch to petrochemicals, decided to sacrifice Minamata (Kumamoto Prefecture), and made money from it.
While environmental contamination was forced onto Minamata, Chisso Corp.'s headquarters flourished," Smith said. "The same can be said of Fukushima. If the nuclear power plants had been built in Tokyo, no energy loss would have been incurred through electric power transmission. But the plants were built in Fukushima, and Tokyo enjoyed the electrical power. The structure of inequality, in which someone gains and someone loses, is the same."
In other words, the regional areas of Japan are sacrificed for the large cities.
"If we think about it in terms of 'damage times the number of residents,' you could say there'd be less total damage in the sparsely-populated countryside than in a major city. But doesn't such thinking ignore the value of each and every life? For each individual, sustaining any harm is already a 100-percent loss."
Smith's personal experiences began with her seeing the world from the inside of foreign-made cars. Born to an American father who was in the international trade business and a Japanese mother, it was through the windows of her father's cars that Smith saw the demonstrations against the U.S.-Japan security agreement in 1960 and poor children in Hong Kong and Vietnam leaping onto the very cars she was riding in. She felt guilt swelling up inside her, and longed to be on the outside.
After her parents divorced, the 11-year-old Smith went to stay with her grandparents in the U.S. She had been discriminated for being of mixed race while in Japan, but once she arrived in St. Louis, she was looked down upon for being Japanese. Her yearning for Japan building, Smith vowed never to tolerate those who looked condescendingly upon Japan and the rest of Asia.
At the root of Smith's disdain for inequality, then, was her wavering childhood status as victimizer and victim, the oppressor and the oppressed.
At age 20, Smith met the world-renowned photographer Eugene Smith, who was 52 years old at the time. They married and relocated to Minamata, where they took pictures. Smith served also as an interpreter for her husband, who spoke no Japanese. They accompanied Minamata disease patients to trials, and spent days and nights with them. Ever since she reported on the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the year after her husband's death, Smith has been an avid anti-nuclear advocate based in Kyoto.
After the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 triggered a nuclear disaster, Smith has visited Fukushima numerous times as the head of an environmental civic organization. She has also staged sit-ins in tents set up in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
"I've written out the things that Minamata disease and the Fukushima nuclear crisis have in common," Smith said, placing two sheets of paper on the table in front of her. The list was titled: "The 10 Strategies Taken by the State, Prefectural Governments, Academic Flunkies and Companies in the cases of Minamata and Fukushima."*
Smith explained: "No one has made it clear who is responsible for the nuclear disaster. It's not even clear who set the evacuation standard of '20 millisieverts of radiation per year.' Government bodies make use of their own sectionalism to pin the blame on each other, saying 'It's the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology' or 'No, it's under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Safety Commission.'
"Even though there's said to be no such thing as a 'safe' amount of exposure to radiation, authorities intentionally release the vague suggestion that 'being exposed to 100 millisieverts of radiation per year is all right,' further confusing victims. These are tactics that we saw the government and academics use all too much with the case of Minamata disease."
Smith is critical also of the Fukushima prefectural residents' health management survey conducted by the prefectural government, saying: "Its starting point is the conclusion that radiation exposure levels are not too bad, and is merely a strategy to minimize eligibility for compensation."
What pains Smith the most are the rifts appearing among disaster victims. "A teacher in Fukushima Prefecture who temporarily took time off from work immediately after the outbreak of the nuclear disaster to help evacuate family members was slammed as a 'coward' and 'traitor' from colleagues... Everyone's scared. And precisely because they so desperately want to overcome this together, people are unable to forgive those who leave Fukushima."
The people Smith sees in Fukushima look to her a lot like what she saw in Minamata. In both, things reach a reconciliation or go to trial.
"The Minamata victims also broke down into several factions, and were pushed into corners where they couldn't help hurting each other. The scars remain even today, some 50 years later," Smith said. And this is all the more reason she wants to offer this to the Fukushima victims: "To flee or not to flee. Whether one is even able to flee or not. Clashes are taking place in cities, places of work, and even families. But stop and think. It was the state and (Fukushima plant operator) Tokyo Electric Power Co. that pulled us apart. Who is going to gain from clashes among the victims?"
On March 11, 2011, Smith was in the U.S. with her daughter, enjoying some time off for the first time in a while. What went through her mind when she saw television footage of the Fukushima nuclear plant in crisis was that "many decades worth of suffering was about to begin." Just like the years of suffering that the Minamata disease had wrought.
Minamata disease, a neurological syndrome caused by mercury that was dumped into Minamata Bay by Chisso Corp., was officially recognized by the government in 1956. In 2004, the Supreme Court practically overturned Minamata certification standards set in 1977, saying they were "too narrow." In 2009, the government passed a law on special measures for compensation of Minamata disease patients, but has decided to close registration for compensation claims by the end of July 2012. This has patient advocacy groups, whose fight has continued for half a century, up in arms that the government continues to write off Minamata victims.
"The leaders of Minamata advocacy groups are now in their fifties. These are people who, as young children, ingested fish that were tainted with mercury. It makes me wonder every time I go to Fukushima. I don't want to create a reality where the only choice we have when those who are young children now ask us in the future: 'What were you adults doing at the time?' is to apologize."
As I went to stand up after speaking with Smith for three hours, she stopped me and said: "I want you to understand this much."
"Having been involved in both Minamata and Fukushima, there are times when I begin to fall under the illusion that I live in the same world as the victims, but that's not true. The suffering of the victims cannot be understood unless you are in their position. To be aware of the fact that I cannot understand how they feel, and yet advocate on behalf of and face the victims straight-on is a frightening thing to do.
"But still, I think I will keep using my voice. Because I want both the people who live in Fukushima and the people who fled Fukushima to realize that as with the Minamata victims, they, too, have been forced into opposition with each other. By re-examining this fact, perhaps they can find some measure of comfort or salvation."
"The 10 Strategies Taken by the State, Prefectural Governments, Academic Flunkies and Companies in the Cases of Minamata and Fukushima"
1. Do not take responsibility. Use sectionalism to pin blame on others.
2. Confuse victims and public opinion, creating the impression that there are pros and cons on each side.
3. Position victims in conflict with each other.
4. Do not record data or leave evidence.
5. Stall for time.
6. Conduct tests or surveys that will produce underestimated results on damage.
7. Wear victims down until they give up.
8. Create an official certification system that narrows down victim numbers.
9. Do not release information abroad.
10. Call on academic flunkies to hold international conferences.
(By Ayako Oguni, Evening Edition Department)
(Mainichi Japan) March 4, 2012
Aileen Mioko Smith explains that she thought of "The 10 Strategies Taken by the State, Prefectural Governments, Academic Flunkies and Companies in the Cases of Minamata and Fukushima" during a sit-in in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
According to Aileen Mioko Smith, who together with her late husband, the photographer Eugene Smith, drew the world's attention to one of Japan's most far-reaching pollution-caused diseases, the ongoing Fukushima nuclear crisis and Minamata disease have many things in common.
"Inequality," said Smith, when asked what it is that both disasters have. It was not the government's inaction that she brought up first, but rather the unfairness of it all.
http://easss.com/nuclear
"Minamata disease emerged when major Japanese chemical manufacturer Chisso Corp. found itself lagging behind its competitors in the industry's switch to petrochemicals, decided to sacrifice Minamata (Kumamoto Prefecture), and made money from it.
While environmental contamination was forced onto Minamata, Chisso Corp.'s headquarters flourished," Smith said. "The same can be said of Fukushima. If the nuclear power plants had been built in Tokyo, no energy loss would have been incurred through electric power transmission. But the plants were built in Fukushima, and Tokyo enjoyed the electrical power. The structure of inequality, in which someone gains and someone loses, is the same."
In other words, the regional areas of Japan are sacrificed for the large cities.
"If we think about it in terms of 'damage times the number of residents,' you could say there'd be less total damage in the sparsely-populated countryside than in a major city. But doesn't such thinking ignore the value of each and every life? For each individual, sustaining any harm is already a 100-percent loss."
Smith's personal experiences began with her seeing the world from the inside of foreign-made cars. Born to an American father who was in the international trade business and a Japanese mother, it was through the windows of her father's cars that Smith saw the demonstrations against the U.S.-Japan security agreement in 1960 and poor children in Hong Kong and Vietnam leaping onto the very cars she was riding in. She felt guilt swelling up inside her, and longed to be on the outside.
After her parents divorced, the 11-year-old Smith went to stay with her grandparents in the U.S. She had been discriminated for being of mixed race while in Japan, but once she arrived in St. Louis, she was looked down upon for being Japanese. Her yearning for Japan building, Smith vowed never to tolerate those who looked condescendingly upon Japan and the rest of Asia.
At the root of Smith's disdain for inequality, then, was her wavering childhood status as victimizer and victim, the oppressor and the oppressed.
At age 20, Smith met the world-renowned photographer Eugene Smith, who was 52 years old at the time. They married and relocated to Minamata, where they took pictures. Smith served also as an interpreter for her husband, who spoke no Japanese. They accompanied Minamata disease patients to trials, and spent days and nights with them. Ever since she reported on the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the year after her husband's death, Smith has been an avid anti-nuclear advocate based in Kyoto.
After the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 triggered a nuclear disaster, Smith has visited Fukushima numerous times as the head of an environmental civic organization. She has also staged sit-ins in tents set up in front of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
"I've written out the things that Minamata disease and the Fukushima nuclear crisis have in common," Smith said, placing two sheets of paper on the table in front of her. The list was titled: "The 10 Strategies Taken by the State, Prefectural Governments, Academic Flunkies and Companies in the cases of Minamata and Fukushima."*
Smith explained: "No one has made it clear who is responsible for the nuclear disaster. It's not even clear who set the evacuation standard of '20 millisieverts of radiation per year.' Government bodies make use of their own sectionalism to pin the blame on each other, saying 'It's the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology' or 'No, it's under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Safety Commission.'
"Even though there's said to be no such thing as a 'safe' amount of exposure to radiation, authorities intentionally release the vague suggestion that 'being exposed to 100 millisieverts of radiation per year is all right,' further confusing victims. These are tactics that we saw the government and academics use all too much with the case of Minamata disease."
Smith is critical also of the Fukushima prefectural residents' health management survey conducted by the prefectural government, saying: "Its starting point is the conclusion that radiation exposure levels are not too bad, and is merely a strategy to minimize eligibility for compensation."
What pains Smith the most are the rifts appearing among disaster victims. "A teacher in Fukushima Prefecture who temporarily took time off from work immediately after the outbreak of the nuclear disaster to help evacuate family members was slammed as a 'coward' and 'traitor' from colleagues... Everyone's scared. And precisely because they so desperately want to overcome this together, people are unable to forgive those who leave Fukushima."
The people Smith sees in Fukushima look to her a lot like what she saw in Minamata. In both, things reach a reconciliation or go to trial.
"The Minamata victims also broke down into several factions, and were pushed into corners where they couldn't help hurting each other. The scars remain even today, some 50 years later," Smith said. And this is all the more reason she wants to offer this to the Fukushima victims: "To flee or not to flee. Whether one is even able to flee or not. Clashes are taking place in cities, places of work, and even families. But stop and think. It was the state and (Fukushima plant operator) Tokyo Electric Power Co. that pulled us apart. Who is going to gain from clashes among the victims?"
On March 11, 2011, Smith was in the U.S. with her daughter, enjoying some time off for the first time in a while. What went through her mind when she saw television footage of the Fukushima nuclear plant in crisis was that "many decades worth of suffering was about to begin." Just like the years of suffering that the Minamata disease had wrought.
Minamata disease, a neurological syndrome caused by mercury that was dumped into Minamata Bay by Chisso Corp., was officially recognized by the government in 1956. In 2004, the Supreme Court practically overturned Minamata certification standards set in 1977, saying they were "too narrow." In 2009, the government passed a law on special measures for compensation of Minamata disease patients, but has decided to close registration for compensation claims by the end of July 2012. This has patient advocacy groups, whose fight has continued for half a century, up in arms that the government continues to write off Minamata victims.
"The leaders of Minamata advocacy groups are now in their fifties. These are people who, as young children, ingested fish that were tainted with mercury. It makes me wonder every time I go to Fukushima. I don't want to create a reality where the only choice we have when those who are young children now ask us in the future: 'What were you adults doing at the time?' is to apologize."
As I went to stand up after speaking with Smith for three hours, she stopped me and said: "I want you to understand this much."
"Having been involved in both Minamata and Fukushima, there are times when I begin to fall under the illusion that I live in the same world as the victims, but that's not true. The suffering of the victims cannot be understood unless you are in their position. To be aware of the fact that I cannot understand how they feel, and yet advocate on behalf of and face the victims straight-on is a frightening thing to do.
"But still, I think I will keep using my voice. Because I want both the people who live in Fukushima and the people who fled Fukushima to realize that as with the Minamata victims, they, too, have been forced into opposition with each other. By re-examining this fact, perhaps they can find some measure of comfort or salvation."
"The 10 Strategies Taken by the State, Prefectural Governments, Academic Flunkies and Companies in the Cases of Minamata and Fukushima"
1. Do not take responsibility. Use sectionalism to pin blame on others.
2. Confuse victims and public opinion, creating the impression that there are pros and cons on each side.
3. Position victims in conflict with each other.
4. Do not record data or leave evidence.
5. Stall for time.
6. Conduct tests or surveys that will produce underestimated results on damage.
7. Wear victims down until they give up.
8. Create an official certification system that narrows down victim numbers.
9. Do not release information abroad.
10. Call on academic flunkies to hold international conferences.
(By Ayako Oguni, Evening Edition Department)
The World is Powerless Against Fukushima Fallout
The World is Powerless Against Fukushima Fallout
New America Media, News Analysis,
Yoichi Shimatsu,
Mar 5, 2012
A year on, the Fukushima nuclear disaster has reached far beyond Japan as an encroaching threat to human health everywhere and to the very existence of life on Earth. As the fallout goes global, there’s nowhere to run or hide since even tiny dosages in rainwater and the food chain have a cumulative effect.
In high-tech societies under constant exposure to radiation from medical scanners, security systems, telecom devices and consumer electronics, nearly everyone is teetering at the brink of the cancer abyss. The slightest exposure to dust from Fukushima is a ticket to an early exit.
Despite new admissions of a cover-up from high officials and an independent investigation in Japan, governments and the nuclear establishment continue to deny or downplay the immense dangers posed by atmospheric fallout and sea dumping from the Fukushima meltdowns. An accurate reckoning of the danger to public health worldwide is not being discussed because governments are powerless against the nuclear monstrosity they created.
http://digcan.com/computer
Decades of assurances about nuclear safety have been blown away by the unexpected global effects of the March meltdowns. The past year’s crisis yanked open a Pandora’s Box of bizarre science that staggers the imagination of corporate scientists and bureaucrat engineers, from whom there comes only dumfounded silence.
These include:
-- Previously unknown types of explosive nuclear reactions occurring midair or underground, which have been misrepresented as “hydrogen blasts”
-- Expansion of a vast ozone hole over the Arctic Circle, now equal in area to the damaged upper atmosphere over the Antarctic, caused by radioactive iodine and xenon gas caught in the jet stream, leaving the Earth’s air supply unprotected and heightening the threat of skin carcinoma
-- High-energy interactions of xenon gas (which decays into cesium) with incoming solar flares and artificial electromagnetic belts created by U.S., NATO and Russian missile-defense shields (this synergy is visible in the northern lights that emit a deep green color due to the excitation of xenon, and it is no coincidence that three American nuclear power plants were incapacitated during the recent solar flare)
-- The growing possibility of mass extinction of marine life in the Pacific Ocean due to the nuclear contamination of major spawning waters for plankton and fish, the bottom of the food chain for higher life-forms, including whales and humans
-- A rising threat to human reproductive health from ingestion of radioactive isotopes through food, drinking water and respiration, resulting in mass abortions and population decline for Japan, a trend that will extend worldwide
-- Mutations of contagious pathogens, such as bird flu, due to genetic disorders in both microorganism and host species, including domesticated animals and wildlife.
Public at Risk From Official Silence
At the molecular level inside a biological cell, gamma-ray bombardment rewrites the genetic code contained in the chromosomes, scrambling the elegant poetry of life into gibberish. Since leukemia, cancers and birth defects can be falsely attributed to other disorders, the governments of North America, Europe and Asia along with international agencies can be counted on to remain silent or mount campaigns of misdiagnosis to protect their nuclear power and weapons programs, along with their food and travel industries. Bureaucrats, at heart and out of self-interest, are cowards.
While the World Health Organization imposed a strict travel ban on Hong Kong during the much less risky SARS outbreak of 1992, the WHO and governments accept those devious ads from the Japanese travel bureau luring tourists with the false claim that the country and its food are safe.
With rising numbers of naive tourists returning with serious health problems, residents and travel agents in Singapore and Hong Kong have finally become wary of sending anyone to Japan. Business as usual is death abnormal.
Warhead Recycling Worsened the Crisis
Whatever his timid admissions about the official cover-up so far, former Prime Minister Naoto Kan has yet to disclose the truth behind his more disturbing decisions: first, the absence of stenographers and voice recordings at his emergency Cabinet meetings; and why the government had to order the Tokyo Electric Power Company not to abandon Fukushima No.1 plant after the March 15 mini-nuclear explosions.
The high-level cover-up and lab analysis of cesium-isotope ratios indicate the Japanese nuclear establishment was illegally involved in the reprocessing of weapons-grade uranium at Fukushima No. 1 and probably two other civilian nuclear plants in northern Japan.
The U.S. Department of Energy dares not address Tokyo’s violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty because much of the enriched nuclear material at Fukushima was covertly supplied from the American military arsenal under a suspected 2006 secret accord between the Bush and Abe administrations.
According to whistleblowers in the U.S. non-proliferation agency, highly reactive uranium from dismantled U.S. warheads stored in the Fukushima spent-fuel pools readily ignited after the quake knocked out the water pumps.
A transport casket of elongated shape resembling a missile was sky-hooked out of a pool by helicopter soon after the tsunami, but the remainder of the weapons-grade stock was too heavy to remove. The series of detonations prevented repair crews from accessing controls of the reactor cores, which eventually melted through the containment chambers and into the subsurface soil.
When the quake and tsunami hit on March 11, only three reactors out of a total six at Fukushima were scheduled to produce electricity yet in actuality five were operational.
Since then plant workers disclosed that the supposedly empty Reactor 4 had been refitted with a new steel shroud in secret by GE and that it was fully loaded with new fuel rods.
The two extra reactors were running clandestine operations, the likeliest purpose being the enrichment of uranium prior to extraction. By no coincidence, Hitachi Electric and Honeywell are partners in developing a laser-plasma system to extract highly pure plutonium and uranium
The collaboration between Washington and Tokyo in a covert nuclear-weapons program was a violation of international law that in its hypocrisy and duplicity towers above Iran’s suspected program or North Korea’s puny attempts at bomb-making. Weapons production at Fukushima also violates the foundations of the U.S.-Japan Security treaty, which stipulates that Japan provide military bases in exchange for protection under the American nuclear umbrella. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s selective enforcement of the counter-proliferation treaty only spurs smaller nations to invest in nuclear deterrence against the real possibility of a covert build-up by Japan, Israel, India and other U.S. allies.
Now, to make an optimistic prediction: Considering the 33-year half-life of cesium, far more people worldwide can be expected to die horribly due to the fallout of Fukushima rather than in any nuclear war with Iran or North Korea.
Proliferation begins at home; not only inside faulty nuclear plants but whenever we switch on a television set or open the refrigerator door. Our consumerist demand for convenience leads to docile acceptance of mass suicide. Laziness – both physical and mental - is thus the greatest of the seven deadly sins of this nuclear era.
Earthquakes and volcano eruptions are becoming more frequent in Japan as well as the entire Ring of Fire. Nearly every nuclear plant in the Pacific region has reached the limit of its spent fuel rod capacity, meaning these time bombs are fully loaded and ready to blow.
Even when the cesium and strontium threats diminish, the possibility of mass extinction will remain for as long as humankind can muddle along. The chunks of uranium blasted into seawater around Fukushima have a half-life of 700,000 years. Many more quakes, tsunamis and lava eruptions are coming – Fukushima was only the first such crisis and it’s still not over.
Yoichi Shimatsu, former associate editor with Pacific News Service and general editor at the Japan Times Weekly, has reported from Fukushima and served as an environmental consultant on countering radiation effects.
New America Media, News Analysis,
Yoichi Shimatsu,
Mar 5, 2012
A year on, the Fukushima nuclear disaster has reached far beyond Japan as an encroaching threat to human health everywhere and to the very existence of life on Earth. As the fallout goes global, there’s nowhere to run or hide since even tiny dosages in rainwater and the food chain have a cumulative effect.
In high-tech societies under constant exposure to radiation from medical scanners, security systems, telecom devices and consumer electronics, nearly everyone is teetering at the brink of the cancer abyss. The slightest exposure to dust from Fukushima is a ticket to an early exit.
Despite new admissions of a cover-up from high officials and an independent investigation in Japan, governments and the nuclear establishment continue to deny or downplay the immense dangers posed by atmospheric fallout and sea dumping from the Fukushima meltdowns. An accurate reckoning of the danger to public health worldwide is not being discussed because governments are powerless against the nuclear monstrosity they created.
http://digcan.com/computer
Decades of assurances about nuclear safety have been blown away by the unexpected global effects of the March meltdowns. The past year’s crisis yanked open a Pandora’s Box of bizarre science that staggers the imagination of corporate scientists and bureaucrat engineers, from whom there comes only dumfounded silence.
These include:
-- Previously unknown types of explosive nuclear reactions occurring midair or underground, which have been misrepresented as “hydrogen blasts”
-- Expansion of a vast ozone hole over the Arctic Circle, now equal in area to the damaged upper atmosphere over the Antarctic, caused by radioactive iodine and xenon gas caught in the jet stream, leaving the Earth’s air supply unprotected and heightening the threat of skin carcinoma
-- High-energy interactions of xenon gas (which decays into cesium) with incoming solar flares and artificial electromagnetic belts created by U.S., NATO and Russian missile-defense shields (this synergy is visible in the northern lights that emit a deep green color due to the excitation of xenon, and it is no coincidence that three American nuclear power plants were incapacitated during the recent solar flare)
-- The growing possibility of mass extinction of marine life in the Pacific Ocean due to the nuclear contamination of major spawning waters for plankton and fish, the bottom of the food chain for higher life-forms, including whales and humans
-- A rising threat to human reproductive health from ingestion of radioactive isotopes through food, drinking water and respiration, resulting in mass abortions and population decline for Japan, a trend that will extend worldwide
-- Mutations of contagious pathogens, such as bird flu, due to genetic disorders in both microorganism and host species, including domesticated animals and wildlife.
Public at Risk From Official Silence
At the molecular level inside a biological cell, gamma-ray bombardment rewrites the genetic code contained in the chromosomes, scrambling the elegant poetry of life into gibberish. Since leukemia, cancers and birth defects can be falsely attributed to other disorders, the governments of North America, Europe and Asia along with international agencies can be counted on to remain silent or mount campaigns of misdiagnosis to protect their nuclear power and weapons programs, along with their food and travel industries. Bureaucrats, at heart and out of self-interest, are cowards.
While the World Health Organization imposed a strict travel ban on Hong Kong during the much less risky SARS outbreak of 1992, the WHO and governments accept those devious ads from the Japanese travel bureau luring tourists with the false claim that the country and its food are safe.
With rising numbers of naive tourists returning with serious health problems, residents and travel agents in Singapore and Hong Kong have finally become wary of sending anyone to Japan. Business as usual is death abnormal.
Warhead Recycling Worsened the Crisis
Whatever his timid admissions about the official cover-up so far, former Prime Minister Naoto Kan has yet to disclose the truth behind his more disturbing decisions: first, the absence of stenographers and voice recordings at his emergency Cabinet meetings; and why the government had to order the Tokyo Electric Power Company not to abandon Fukushima No.1 plant after the March 15 mini-nuclear explosions.
The high-level cover-up and lab analysis of cesium-isotope ratios indicate the Japanese nuclear establishment was illegally involved in the reprocessing of weapons-grade uranium at Fukushima No. 1 and probably two other civilian nuclear plants in northern Japan.
The U.S. Department of Energy dares not address Tokyo’s violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty because much of the enriched nuclear material at Fukushima was covertly supplied from the American military arsenal under a suspected 2006 secret accord between the Bush and Abe administrations.
According to whistleblowers in the U.S. non-proliferation agency, highly reactive uranium from dismantled U.S. warheads stored in the Fukushima spent-fuel pools readily ignited after the quake knocked out the water pumps.
A transport casket of elongated shape resembling a missile was sky-hooked out of a pool by helicopter soon after the tsunami, but the remainder of the weapons-grade stock was too heavy to remove. The series of detonations prevented repair crews from accessing controls of the reactor cores, which eventually melted through the containment chambers and into the subsurface soil.
When the quake and tsunami hit on March 11, only three reactors out of a total six at Fukushima were scheduled to produce electricity yet in actuality five were operational.
Since then plant workers disclosed that the supposedly empty Reactor 4 had been refitted with a new steel shroud in secret by GE and that it was fully loaded with new fuel rods.
The two extra reactors were running clandestine operations, the likeliest purpose being the enrichment of uranium prior to extraction. By no coincidence, Hitachi Electric and Honeywell are partners in developing a laser-plasma system to extract highly pure plutonium and uranium
The collaboration between Washington and Tokyo in a covert nuclear-weapons program was a violation of international law that in its hypocrisy and duplicity towers above Iran’s suspected program or North Korea’s puny attempts at bomb-making. Weapons production at Fukushima also violates the foundations of the U.S.-Japan Security treaty, which stipulates that Japan provide military bases in exchange for protection under the American nuclear umbrella. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s selective enforcement of the counter-proliferation treaty only spurs smaller nations to invest in nuclear deterrence against the real possibility of a covert build-up by Japan, Israel, India and other U.S. allies.
Now, to make an optimistic prediction: Considering the 33-year half-life of cesium, far more people worldwide can be expected to die horribly due to the fallout of Fukushima rather than in any nuclear war with Iran or North Korea.
Proliferation begins at home; not only inside faulty nuclear plants but whenever we switch on a television set or open the refrigerator door. Our consumerist demand for convenience leads to docile acceptance of mass suicide. Laziness – both physical and mental - is thus the greatest of the seven deadly sins of this nuclear era.
Earthquakes and volcano eruptions are becoming more frequent in Japan as well as the entire Ring of Fire. Nearly every nuclear plant in the Pacific region has reached the limit of its spent fuel rod capacity, meaning these time bombs are fully loaded and ready to blow.
Even when the cesium and strontium threats diminish, the possibility of mass extinction will remain for as long as humankind can muddle along. The chunks of uranium blasted into seawater around Fukushima have a half-life of 700,000 years. Many more quakes, tsunamis and lava eruptions are coming – Fukushima was only the first such crisis and it’s still not over.
Yoichi Shimatsu, former associate editor with Pacific News Service and general editor at the Japan Times Weekly, has reported from Fukushima and served as an environmental consultant on countering radiation effects.
Peer reviewed independent study points to increased U.S. deaths since Fukushima
Peer reviewed independent study points to increased U.S. deaths since Fukushima
Monday, December 26, 2011 by: PF Louis
(NaturalNews) A recent article published in the December 2011 peer reviewed International Journal of Health Services (IJHS) examines the excess death rate reported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) during the fourteen weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns.
The death rates reported from 122 USA cities with populations over 100,000 during the 14 weeks after Fukushima exceeded the deaths in 2010 during the same time period. The authors of the report point to this excess death data as a red flag to motivate further study. They have not established a direct link to excess deaths and Fukushima.
However, toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, who co-authored the report did point out that most excess deaths were among those under age one. They are the most susceptible to radioactive isotopes. She explains that fetuses and newborns have cells that are multiplying rapidly without normal detox enzymes. Their immune systems are not yet developed. She also said that increased pneumonia related deaths among older people may bring the excess death number to 18,000.
Dr. Sherman has been involved with radioactive toxicology for decades. She was a contributing editor for Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment and author of Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer.
Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA also co-authored the peer reviewed report published in the December 2011 IJHS. MPH stands for Master of Public Health. Mr. Mangano has directed is the founder and director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP).
Government agency reports don't match radioactive fallout danger reality
The RPHP has also created the "Tooth Fairy Project", which asks for parents to donate a baby tooth that has recently fallen away for strontium 90 analysis. Strontium 90 makes its way into bone matter. This type of approach is necessary because, according to both authors, government agencies aren't doing their jobs.
Shortly after the Fukushima meltdowns, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported high readings, hundreds of times beyond normal, of cesium 137, strontium 90, and iodine 137 radioactive isotopes in water supplies and milk in the United States. Though iodine isotopes have relatively short half-lives, the other two isotopes hang around much longer.
Yet, the media reported that the EPA claimed those readings were nothing to worry about. The EPA then changed their weekly reading to quarterly readings. It seems the standard for nothing to worry about is if you don't drop dead in a week, everything's fine. Both authors of this latest report, the first of its kind to be published in a peer reviewed journal, point to long term studies throughout the world.
Chenobyl's impact affected the long term health and reproduction rate of several species from bacteria to birds to humans. Increased still births, increased cancer rates, and decreased general health and intelligence were observed among many as far away from Chernobyl as Scandinavia. Yet the real effects were minimized or unpublished until recently.
When nuclear reactor plants closed down or families moved away from them throughout the world, family health conditions improved. Military personnel involved with the Nevada atomic bomb tests experienced increased cancer rates. Nuclear weapons factory workers are even receiving compensation from work related health problems.
Joseph Mangano created the RPHP to provide scientific data demonstrating why the human race should reconsider using nuclear power and not create new reactor plants while shutting down old ones.
This requires a privately funded group since the nuclear, military industrial complex, atomic energy commissions, and government agencies have had their way protecting the nuclear power industries regardless of human endangerment.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-journal-article--14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-135859288.html
The IJHS published RPHP Fukushima link to excess deaths actual report
http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
RPHP site for Tooth Fairy project(contains streaming radio interview of both authors)
http://www.radiation.org
Monday, December 26, 2011 by: PF Louis
(NaturalNews) A recent article published in the December 2011 peer reviewed International Journal of Health Services (IJHS) examines the excess death rate reported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) during the fourteen weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns.
The death rates reported from 122 USA cities with populations over 100,000 during the 14 weeks after Fukushima exceeded the deaths in 2010 during the same time period. The authors of the report point to this excess death data as a red flag to motivate further study. They have not established a direct link to excess deaths and Fukushima.
However, toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, who co-authored the report did point out that most excess deaths were among those under age one. They are the most susceptible to radioactive isotopes. She explains that fetuses and newborns have cells that are multiplying rapidly without normal detox enzymes. Their immune systems are not yet developed. She also said that increased pneumonia related deaths among older people may bring the excess death number to 18,000.
Dr. Sherman has been involved with radioactive toxicology for decades. She was a contributing editor for Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment and author of Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer.
Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA also co-authored the peer reviewed report published in the December 2011 IJHS. MPH stands for Master of Public Health. Mr. Mangano has directed is the founder and director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP).
Government agency reports don't match radioactive fallout danger reality
The RPHP has also created the "Tooth Fairy Project", which asks for parents to donate a baby tooth that has recently fallen away for strontium 90 analysis. Strontium 90 makes its way into bone matter. This type of approach is necessary because, according to both authors, government agencies aren't doing their jobs.
Shortly after the Fukushima meltdowns, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported high readings, hundreds of times beyond normal, of cesium 137, strontium 90, and iodine 137 radioactive isotopes in water supplies and milk in the United States. Though iodine isotopes have relatively short half-lives, the other two isotopes hang around much longer.
Yet, the media reported that the EPA claimed those readings were nothing to worry about. The EPA then changed their weekly reading to quarterly readings. It seems the standard for nothing to worry about is if you don't drop dead in a week, everything's fine. Both authors of this latest report, the first of its kind to be published in a peer reviewed journal, point to long term studies throughout the world.
Chenobyl's impact affected the long term health and reproduction rate of several species from bacteria to birds to humans. Increased still births, increased cancer rates, and decreased general health and intelligence were observed among many as far away from Chernobyl as Scandinavia. Yet the real effects were minimized or unpublished until recently.
When nuclear reactor plants closed down or families moved away from them throughout the world, family health conditions improved. Military personnel involved with the Nevada atomic bomb tests experienced increased cancer rates. Nuclear weapons factory workers are even receiving compensation from work related health problems.
Joseph Mangano created the RPHP to provide scientific data demonstrating why the human race should reconsider using nuclear power and not create new reactor plants while shutting down old ones.
This requires a privately funded group since the nuclear, military industrial complex, atomic energy commissions, and government agencies have had their way protecting the nuclear power industries regardless of human endangerment.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-journal-article--14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-135859288.html
The IJHS published RPHP Fukushima link to excess deaths actual report
http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
RPHP site for Tooth Fairy project(contains streaming radio interview of both authors)
http://www.radiation.org
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Hong Kong SAR Government steps up nuclear precautions
Government steps up nuclear precautions
BY ANDREA DENG
Mar 7 2012
China Daily
The SAR government has taken further steps to improve contingency plans in the event of a nuclear accident at Daya Bay Nuclear Plant in Shenzhen.
Two more real-time radiation monitoring stations have been set up in Chek Lap Kok in the western part of Hong Kong and Cape D’Aguilar in the southern part, aside from the 10 existing stations.
The government also plans to purchase a number of mobile radiation detection apparatuses, which will be used at cross-border checkpoints in the event of a nuclear accident.
An independent website for Daya Bay Contingency Plan — www.dbcp.gov.hk — was launched on Tuesday, aiming to increase public knowledge about procedures during a nuclear emergency.
The website also updates information relating to Daya Bay, enhanced safety measures, and any natural disaster occurring near Hong Kong.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Meanwhile, an exercise to simulate a nuclear accident will be held in the second quarter of this year, possibly in Tung Ping Chau — the nearest locale to the Daya Bay.
But a scenario has yet to be designed in the attempt to best examine the capability of dealing with the emergency by various government departments, such as notification and alerting procedures of the Security Bureau, radiation monitoring and assessment by the Hong Kong Observatory and Water Supplies Department, communication with the public and handling of the panic, among many other aspects.
The latest steps, announced on Tuesday, come just ahead of the anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster started on March 3, 2011. The accident, at the same level as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, was triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, aggravated by equipment failures inside the aging facility.
It eventually produced serious nuclear reactor meltdown and subsequent radioactive releases. Local officials say they are fully confident that the Daya Bay Nuclear Station has very little chance of suffering a calamity similar to the incidents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, or Chernobyl.
The Hong Kong government maintains that the facilities and equipment at Daya Bay are much more technically advanced and have a much lower chance of meltdown than the Fukushima No1 nuclear plant.
The environmental group Greenpeace, has expressed concern over possible handling of a nuclear incident by the SAR government. The NGO issued a brief report just a few days ago about how the Japanese government failed to address various problems that arose during last year’s emergency, due to the inadequate contingency plan that did not match the level of the disaster, adding there was insufficient preparation.
A government source from the Security Bureau said that the Fukushima case cannot be fully applied in Hong Kong,
because crisis should be assessed case by case and require different handling accordingly. Officials, however, did read through Greenpeace’s report and accepted some of the views.
BY ANDREA DENG
Mar 7 2012
China Daily
The SAR government has taken further steps to improve contingency plans in the event of a nuclear accident at Daya Bay Nuclear Plant in Shenzhen.
Two more real-time radiation monitoring stations have been set up in Chek Lap Kok in the western part of Hong Kong and Cape D’Aguilar in the southern part, aside from the 10 existing stations.
The government also plans to purchase a number of mobile radiation detection apparatuses, which will be used at cross-border checkpoints in the event of a nuclear accident.
An independent website for Daya Bay Contingency Plan — www.dbcp.gov.hk — was launched on Tuesday, aiming to increase public knowledge about procedures during a nuclear emergency.
The website also updates information relating to Daya Bay, enhanced safety measures, and any natural disaster occurring near Hong Kong.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
Meanwhile, an exercise to simulate a nuclear accident will be held in the second quarter of this year, possibly in Tung Ping Chau — the nearest locale to the Daya Bay.
But a scenario has yet to be designed in the attempt to best examine the capability of dealing with the emergency by various government departments, such as notification and alerting procedures of the Security Bureau, radiation monitoring and assessment by the Hong Kong Observatory and Water Supplies Department, communication with the public and handling of the panic, among many other aspects.
The latest steps, announced on Tuesday, come just ahead of the anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster started on March 3, 2011. The accident, at the same level as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, was triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, aggravated by equipment failures inside the aging facility.
It eventually produced serious nuclear reactor meltdown and subsequent radioactive releases. Local officials say they are fully confident that the Daya Bay Nuclear Station has very little chance of suffering a calamity similar to the incidents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, or Chernobyl.
The Hong Kong government maintains that the facilities and equipment at Daya Bay are much more technically advanced and have a much lower chance of meltdown than the Fukushima No1 nuclear plant.
The environmental group Greenpeace, has expressed concern over possible handling of a nuclear incident by the SAR government. The NGO issued a brief report just a few days ago about how the Japanese government failed to address various problems that arose during last year’s emergency, due to the inadequate contingency plan that did not match the level of the disaster, adding there was insufficient preparation.
A government source from the Security Bureau said that the Fukushima case cannot be fully applied in Hong Kong,
because crisis should be assessed case by case and require different handling accordingly. Officials, however, did read through Greenpeace’s report and accepted some of the views.
Nuclear power important to China's energy strategy: expert
Nuclear power important to China's energy strategy: expert
(Xinhua)
March 11, 2012
HONG KONG, March 10 (Xinhua)-- Nuclear power remains important to China's energy development strategy because of its quest for clean energy and climate change mitigation, Ren Junsheng, nuclear safety expert commission of China's Ministry of Environment Protection, said Saturday.
During a speech entitled "One year after the Fukushima nuclear accident -- the way forward with safety and risk engineering" in City University of Hong Kong, Ren said after the devastating Fukushima accident, China conducted safety inspections of its nuclear plants, the scope of which included appropriateness of site selection, ability to withstand earthquakes and floods, robustness of measures to address various extreme natural events and effectiveness of monitoring and emergency preparedness.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
"The Chinese nuclear industry still feels confident to meet the installed capacity targets of 40 million and 70 million kilowatts by 2015 and 2020 respectively," he added.
Experts from Japan, Chinese mainland, China's Taiwan, France and the United States gathered in the university to share their insights on the Fukushima nuclear accident at the symposium jointly organized by the university's department of mechanical and biomedical engineering and the newly formed Hong Kong Nuclear Society.
Local and overseas experts agreed that the Fukushima accident had sparked off a global debate on how the world can meet growing demand and the role of nuclear energy. They pointed out that as the governments and regulators of nuclear nations are responding to public concerns about nuclear safety, whether the issue can be adequately addressed depends on how they act and what measures they take.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Pressing the Nuclear Restart Button - China
Pressing the Nuclear Restart Button
China will continue to safely develop nuclear power after a one-year construction hiatus
By Lan Xinzhen
UPDATED: February 27, 2012
NO.9 MARCH 1, 2012
NUCLEAR COOPERATION: Technicians work at the neutrino experiment facility of the Dayawan reactor in Guangdong Province. Since 2006, an international research team from 39 institutes in six countries are involved in the facility (LI MINGFANG)
After a year long suspension, construction of nuclear power facilities across China may be starting up again, signaling the resumption of a 1-trillion-yuan ($158.73 billion) nuclear investment across the country.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In February, Harbin Electric Corp., one of China's major nuclear power equipment producers, received an order for the main components required in nuclear power generation from Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, located in Lianyungang, east China's Jiangsu Province. This was the first order since the country suspended nuclear power projects last March following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan.
Although nothing official has been announced, industry insiders say the suspension has been lifted, as the construction of the No.1 generating unit of Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Zhejiang Province restarted, and three nuclear power-related planning reports were recently submitted to the State Council for review. The reports are expected to be officially released later this year.
Safety check
After the nuclear accident at Fukushima on March 11, 2011, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao chaired a State Council meeting on March 16 and made four decisions on China's nuclear power development: A complete safety check was required immediately on all nuclear facilities; approval of newly built nuclear power projects will be tightened; formulation of a nuclear safety plan will be accelerated; middle and long-term development plan of nuclear power will be readjusted, and before the plan is approved, approval of nuclear power projects, including preliminary work of the projects, should be suspended.
Following the meeting, a nation-wide safety screening on all operational and under-construction nuclear power facilities was put into effect, with approval of some construction projects suspended outright. From April 15 to August 5, the comprehensive check group on national civil nuclear facilities jointly organized by the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), the National Energy Administration (NEA) and some other departments checked all the country's power plants.
The safety check drew lessons from the Fukushima accident, forcing many nuclear power operators to take a more aggressive approach to nuclear power safety.
On January 21, the generating units at the Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant in South China's Guangdong Province were upgraded, which ended on February 10. The overhaul showed that the plant was in good condition. Starting on February 12, the generators at Tianwan began a 50-day overhaul, including 8,436 checks on individual components and technological upgrades.
Wang Binghua, Chairman of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corp., said besides safety check of nuclear power facilities in operation, designing, equipment manufacturing and construction of projects with third-generation AP1000 technology have been slowed down.
In fact, the AP1000 projects in Sanmen and Haiyang, east China's Shandong Province are safer than second-generation technology used at Fukushima. But China still places safety, not just technology upgrading, as its top priority in the construction of the third-generation nuclear power technology.
Capacity expanded
According to NEA's Readjustment Plan of Middle and Long-Term Development of Nuclear Power, which has been submitted to the State Council for approval, China plans to install a total nuclear power capacity of 80 million kilowatts (kw) by 2020.
Donghai Securities Co. Ltd. estimated that at least 60 million kw of nuclear power installed capacity will be added by 2020, excluding the capacity under construction now, which will drive up investment by 1.2 trillion yuan ($190.48 billion).
A plan previously issued by the National Development and Reform Commission says by 2020 the proportion of renewable energy among primary energy consumption will reach 15 percent, but in 2011, the proportion was only 8.9 percent, and nuclear power only accounted for 1.038 percent of the country's primary energy consumption.
Pan Ziqiang, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and an expert of nuclear radiation protection and environmental protection, said the disparity will be made up for mainly through development of nuclear power, because most exploitable hydropower resources have been developed, leaving little potential for future development. Also, restricted by technologies and natural conditions, wind power, solar energy and biomass energy are unlikely to see rapid development. Compared with other clean energies, only nuclear power can be developed in a large enough scale to meet China's energy needs.
An MEP news release showed that in the future China's safety standards for nuclear power will be raised. The Nuclear Safety Plan completed by the MEP and submitted to the State Council mainly focuses on supervision so as to improve the safety of nuclear power facilities and nuclear power utilization, reduce risks of radiation, ensure operation safety and safety to the environment and public health, and push forward safe, sound and sustainable development of nuclear energy and technology.
China has also made changes to its supervision mechanism for nuclear safety. The NEA will set up a nuclear power department, the NNSA will increase from one department to three and the number of nuclear safety supervision personnel will increase by 1,000, the State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense will also set up a department of nuclear emergencies.
Doubts remain
As China gears up to resume approval of nuclear power projects, arguments against construction of new nuclear power plants abound.
On February 7, a government document requiring the cessation of the nuclear power project construction in Pengze, Jiangxi Province attracted widespread attention on the Internet. The document was issued by the government of Wangjiang County, Anhui Province, as the project in Pengze sits along the Yangtze River, on the opposite shore from Wangjiang.
This report says Pengze nuclear power project will have hidden dangers if completed.
Establishment of Pengze nuclear power plant was approved two years ago, but was suspended by the State Council after the Fukushima accident last year.
The opposition of Wangjiang County Government is also supported by He Zuoxiu, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He published articles opposing construction of nuclear power plants in the inland areas of the country, mentioning that problems such as construction of Pengze nuclear power plant will be blocked by drought and nuclear power plants in inland areas will pollute rivers.
Pan said this reflects the fact that people are still concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants.
"From the safety and nuclear safety standards, there is no difference between inland and coastal nuclear power plants. The site of Pengze nuclear power project is good, and in principle its safety is ensured," Pan said.
According to Pan, China's provisions on preventing and protecting against environmental radiation in nuclear-powered factories impose detailed requirements on site selection and safety standards of nuclear-powered factories. Pengze nuclear power project is located along the Yangtze River, which has plenty of water and is highly capable of diluting and diffusing pollutants.
At present, China has approved a total of 43 nuclear power plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million kw. These plants are located in 16 provinces, including eight inland provinces such as Jiangxi and Anhui.
It is unknown whether opposition from Wangjiang can successfully stop construction of the Pengze project, but according to information from the environmental protection authority, since there are still big disputes on the safety of building nuclear power plants in inland areas, China will temporarily suspend approval of building nuclear power plants inland.
The voice of opposition against nuclear power has always existed in China. An organization named Ocean Protection Commune once organized a signature campaign from March 2006 to January 2008 opposing construction of nuclear power plants, and sent the signatures in written and electronic forms to the MEP and the State Oceanic Administration.
According to a media release from the Ocean Protection Commune, labeling nuclear power as "clean energy" is a total lie.
The commune thinks that there are risks of leaks during the transportation of nuclear fuels. It is also hard to ensure safety in disposal of nuclear waste.
If war breaks out, the enemy state will be able to cause serious nuclear radiation by targeting nuclear power plants, said the release.
The organization says these are problems faced by all nuclear power countries and as of now there is no safe solution.
China's Nuclear Power Plants in Operation
Ling'ao Plant Phase I
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong, Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the second large-scale commercial nuclear power plant built in Guangdong. It has two 990-megawatt PWR generating units, which came into commercial operation in May 2002 and January 2003, respectively.
Ling'ao Plant Phase II
Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is part of China's efforts to propel indigenous innovation as a majority of its technologies were domestically created. It has two 1,080-megawatt PWR generating units. The No.1 unit came into commercial operation in September 2010. The No. 2 unit came into commercial operation in August 2011.
Dayawan Plant
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, Dayawan Nuclear Power Plant is the country's first large-scale commercial nuclear power plant that introduced foreign capital, equipment and technology. Its two 984-megawatt PWR generating units came into commercial operation in February and May 1994, respectively.
Tianwan Plant
Located in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant introduced nuclear power technologies from Russia. Its two 1,060-megawatt pressurized water reactor (PWR) generating units were put into commercial operation in May 2007 and August 2007, respectively.
Qinshan Plant Phase I
Located in Haiyan, Zhejiang Province, Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the first 300-megawatt PWR nuclear power plant independently designed, constructed, operated and managed by China. The plant came into commercial operation in April 1994.
Qinshan Plant Phase II
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is also a PWR plant. Its first two 650-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in April 2002 and May 2004, respectively.
Its third generating unit, also with an installed capacity of 650-megawatt, came into commercial operation in October 2010.
Qinshan Plant Phase III
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase III adopts nuclear power technologies from Canada and is the first commercial heavy water nuclear reactor project. Its two 728-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in December 2002 and July 2003, respectively.
China will continue to safely develop nuclear power after a one-year construction hiatus
By Lan Xinzhen
UPDATED: February 27, 2012
NO.9 MARCH 1, 2012
NUCLEAR COOPERATION: Technicians work at the neutrino experiment facility of the Dayawan reactor in Guangdong Province. Since 2006, an international research team from 39 institutes in six countries are involved in the facility (LI MINGFANG)
After a year long suspension, construction of nuclear power facilities across China may be starting up again, signaling the resumption of a 1-trillion-yuan ($158.73 billion) nuclear investment across the country.
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree
http://www.facebook.com/nukefree
In February, Harbin Electric Corp., one of China's major nuclear power equipment producers, received an order for the main components required in nuclear power generation from Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, located in Lianyungang, east China's Jiangsu Province. This was the first order since the country suspended nuclear power projects last March following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan.
Although nothing official has been announced, industry insiders say the suspension has been lifted, as the construction of the No.1 generating unit of Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Zhejiang Province restarted, and three nuclear power-related planning reports were recently submitted to the State Council for review. The reports are expected to be officially released later this year.
Safety check
After the nuclear accident at Fukushima on March 11, 2011, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao chaired a State Council meeting on March 16 and made four decisions on China's nuclear power development: A complete safety check was required immediately on all nuclear facilities; approval of newly built nuclear power projects will be tightened; formulation of a nuclear safety plan will be accelerated; middle and long-term development plan of nuclear power will be readjusted, and before the plan is approved, approval of nuclear power projects, including preliminary work of the projects, should be suspended.
Following the meeting, a nation-wide safety screening on all operational and under-construction nuclear power facilities was put into effect, with approval of some construction projects suspended outright. From April 15 to August 5, the comprehensive check group on national civil nuclear facilities jointly organized by the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), the National Energy Administration (NEA) and some other departments checked all the country's power plants.
The safety check drew lessons from the Fukushima accident, forcing many nuclear power operators to take a more aggressive approach to nuclear power safety.
On January 21, the generating units at the Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant in South China's Guangdong Province were upgraded, which ended on February 10. The overhaul showed that the plant was in good condition. Starting on February 12, the generators at Tianwan began a 50-day overhaul, including 8,436 checks on individual components and technological upgrades.
Wang Binghua, Chairman of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corp., said besides safety check of nuclear power facilities in operation, designing, equipment manufacturing and construction of projects with third-generation AP1000 technology have been slowed down.
In fact, the AP1000 projects in Sanmen and Haiyang, east China's Shandong Province are safer than second-generation technology used at Fukushima. But China still places safety, not just technology upgrading, as its top priority in the construction of the third-generation nuclear power technology.
Capacity expanded
According to NEA's Readjustment Plan of Middle and Long-Term Development of Nuclear Power, which has been submitted to the State Council for approval, China plans to install a total nuclear power capacity of 80 million kilowatts (kw) by 2020.
Donghai Securities Co. Ltd. estimated that at least 60 million kw of nuclear power installed capacity will be added by 2020, excluding the capacity under construction now, which will drive up investment by 1.2 trillion yuan ($190.48 billion).
A plan previously issued by the National Development and Reform Commission says by 2020 the proportion of renewable energy among primary energy consumption will reach 15 percent, but in 2011, the proportion was only 8.9 percent, and nuclear power only accounted for 1.038 percent of the country's primary energy consumption.
Pan Ziqiang, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and an expert of nuclear radiation protection and environmental protection, said the disparity will be made up for mainly through development of nuclear power, because most exploitable hydropower resources have been developed, leaving little potential for future development. Also, restricted by technologies and natural conditions, wind power, solar energy and biomass energy are unlikely to see rapid development. Compared with other clean energies, only nuclear power can be developed in a large enough scale to meet China's energy needs.
An MEP news release showed that in the future China's safety standards for nuclear power will be raised. The Nuclear Safety Plan completed by the MEP and submitted to the State Council mainly focuses on supervision so as to improve the safety of nuclear power facilities and nuclear power utilization, reduce risks of radiation, ensure operation safety and safety to the environment and public health, and push forward safe, sound and sustainable development of nuclear energy and technology.
China has also made changes to its supervision mechanism for nuclear safety. The NEA will set up a nuclear power department, the NNSA will increase from one department to three and the number of nuclear safety supervision personnel will increase by 1,000, the State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense will also set up a department of nuclear emergencies.
Doubts remain
As China gears up to resume approval of nuclear power projects, arguments against construction of new nuclear power plants abound.
On February 7, a government document requiring the cessation of the nuclear power project construction in Pengze, Jiangxi Province attracted widespread attention on the Internet. The document was issued by the government of Wangjiang County, Anhui Province, as the project in Pengze sits along the Yangtze River, on the opposite shore from Wangjiang.
This report says Pengze nuclear power project will have hidden dangers if completed.
Establishment of Pengze nuclear power plant was approved two years ago, but was suspended by the State Council after the Fukushima accident last year.
The opposition of Wangjiang County Government is also supported by He Zuoxiu, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He published articles opposing construction of nuclear power plants in the inland areas of the country, mentioning that problems such as construction of Pengze nuclear power plant will be blocked by drought and nuclear power plants in inland areas will pollute rivers.
Pan said this reflects the fact that people are still concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants.
"From the safety and nuclear safety standards, there is no difference between inland and coastal nuclear power plants. The site of Pengze nuclear power project is good, and in principle its safety is ensured," Pan said.
According to Pan, China's provisions on preventing and protecting against environmental radiation in nuclear-powered factories impose detailed requirements on site selection and safety standards of nuclear-powered factories. Pengze nuclear power project is located along the Yangtze River, which has plenty of water and is highly capable of diluting and diffusing pollutants.
At present, China has approved a total of 43 nuclear power plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million kw. These plants are located in 16 provinces, including eight inland provinces such as Jiangxi and Anhui.
It is unknown whether opposition from Wangjiang can successfully stop construction of the Pengze project, but according to information from the environmental protection authority, since there are still big disputes on the safety of building nuclear power plants in inland areas, China will temporarily suspend approval of building nuclear power plants inland.
The voice of opposition against nuclear power has always existed in China. An organization named Ocean Protection Commune once organized a signature campaign from March 2006 to January 2008 opposing construction of nuclear power plants, and sent the signatures in written and electronic forms to the MEP and the State Oceanic Administration.
According to a media release from the Ocean Protection Commune, labeling nuclear power as "clean energy" is a total lie.
The commune thinks that there are risks of leaks during the transportation of nuclear fuels. It is also hard to ensure safety in disposal of nuclear waste.
If war breaks out, the enemy state will be able to cause serious nuclear radiation by targeting nuclear power plants, said the release.
The organization says these are problems faced by all nuclear power countries and as of now there is no safe solution.
China's Nuclear Power Plants in Operation
Ling'ao Plant Phase I
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong, Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the second large-scale commercial nuclear power plant built in Guangdong. It has two 990-megawatt PWR generating units, which came into commercial operation in May 2002 and January 2003, respectively.
Ling'ao Plant Phase II
Ling'ao Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is part of China's efforts to propel indigenous innovation as a majority of its technologies were domestically created. It has two 1,080-megawatt PWR generating units. The No.1 unit came into commercial operation in September 2010. The No. 2 unit came into commercial operation in August 2011.
Dayawan Plant
Located in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, Dayawan Nuclear Power Plant is the country's first large-scale commercial nuclear power plant that introduced foreign capital, equipment and technology. Its two 984-megawatt PWR generating units came into commercial operation in February and May 1994, respectively.
Tianwan Plant
Located in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant introduced nuclear power technologies from Russia. Its two 1,060-megawatt pressurized water reactor (PWR) generating units were put into commercial operation in May 2007 and August 2007, respectively.
Qinshan Plant Phase I
Located in Haiyan, Zhejiang Province, Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase I is the first 300-megawatt PWR nuclear power plant independently designed, constructed, operated and managed by China. The plant came into commercial operation in April 1994.
Qinshan Plant Phase II
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase II is also a PWR plant. Its first two 650-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in April 2002 and May 2004, respectively.
Its third generating unit, also with an installed capacity of 650-megawatt, came into commercial operation in October 2010.
Qinshan Plant Phase III
Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant Phase III adopts nuclear power technologies from Canada and is the first commercial heavy water nuclear reactor project. Its two 728-megawatt generating units came into commercial operation in December 2002 and July 2003, respectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)