Mountains of radioactive rubble pile up in Fukushima

[Barrett808]

Rubble, some of it potentially radioactive, continues to be a headache for municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture although the government has finally come up with standards to deal with it.

Rubble has piled up since May 2, when the Environment Ministry told municipalities in the Hamadori and Nakadori districts around the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to suspend burning or burying rubble from the disaster site. ...

The ministry told municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture that combustible rubble can be burned at a facility adequately equipped to treat exhaust gas.

Under ministry standards, ash from incinerated rubble can be buried if radioactivity levels are 8,000 becquerels or less per kilogram. If radioactivity levels exceed 8,000 becquerels, it should be stored until it is confirmed safe.

An Environment Ministry official said high concentrations of radioactivity are unlikely to be detected from ash if rubble is incinerated with ordinary waste.

But a city government official from Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, said the amount of rubble has overwhelmed its single incineration facility with a 40-ton-a-day capacity. ...

Mountains of radioactive rubble pile up in Fukushima

[JDPriestly]

1. This is the news I have been waiting for.

I should add -- because now where are they going to put this stuff?

[wtmusic]

2. "...some of it potentially radioactive" becomes "Mountains of radioactive rubble"...

:rofl:

Fail.

[JDPriestly]

3. wtmusic, shall we dump the radioactive trash in your back yard?

I can tell you want happens to children who play in a field in which radioactive trash has been buried, if you don't know enough about radioactivity to guess for yourself.

Do you remember what happened to Madame Curie? (Cancer)

Skłodowska–Curie visited Poland for the last time in the spring of 1934.<15> Only a few months later, on 4 July 1934, Skłodowska-Curie died at the Sancellemoz Sanatorium in Passy, in Haute-Savoie, eastern France, from aplastic anemia contracted from exposure to radiation.<33> The damaging effects of ionizing radiation were not then known, and much of her work had been carried out in a shed, without proper safety measures. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket and stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the pretty blue-green light that the substances gave off in the dark.<34>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

How about Oppenheimer? (Cancer)

http://www.nndb.com/people/808/000047667/

[madokie]

4. I really don't think he has the capacity to understand what you're saying

sad that a person who can put together his own EV can be so blind to the dangers of radiation as to make light of this disaster these people in Japan will have to live with the rest of their lives, their childrens lives and their grand childrens lives too. Not to mention what it is going to do to the animal and aquatic life. Life forms that have no clue as to what is going on with our failed attempt to boil water by splitting atoms so we can unsafely make our electricity. The effects from this disaster will and is being felt around the world whether some pro nuclear nuts wants to admit it or not, its happening and its happening today right here where I live and where they live too but are too 'stupid,' (for my lack of a better word to describe it,) to admit mistake when it hits them in the face.

[wtmusic]

5. The list goes on

Fermi, Feynman, others. A NMHD study more or less confirms it (although some types of cancer were actually lower):

"1. Los Alamos County experienced a modest elevation in brain and nervous system cancer incidence during the mid- to late-1980s. Incidence in the county during this time period was 70%- 80% greater than that observed in a New Mexico state and a national reference population. Due to the small number of cases, random fluctuation in the LAC incidence could not be ruled out as causing the observed elevated incidence.
...
6. Los Alamos County experienced a sudden and marked increase in thyroid cancer incidence in the mid-1980s. The 1986-1990 county thyroid cancer incidence rate was nearly four-fold higher than the rate for a New Mexico state reference population. For the preceding time period 1981-1985, thyroid cancer incidence in the county was roughly similar to the state incidence. The recent increase in the county thyroid cancer incidence was found to be unrelated to recent advances in high-frequency thyroid ultrasonography.
7. Breast cancer incidence in Los Alamos County women was elevated during the entire 21-year time period 1970-1990. County breast cancer incidence rates consistently were 10%-65% higher than state and national reference rates. Reproductive and demographic factors known to increase the risk of breast cancer, including urban residence, high socioeconomic status, and delayed age at first full-term pregnancy, have been prevalent in the county over the past two decades.
8. Ovarian cancer incidence in Los Alamos County women was elevated between the mid- 1970s and 1990. For the latest five-year time period 1986-1990, ovarian cancer incidence in the county was roughly two-fold higher than that observed in a New Mexico state reference population. The majority of the excess ovarian cancer incidence was confined to the census tract corresponding to the North Mesa and Barranca Mesa neighborhoods. Incidence in this census tract was four to six- fold higher than that observed in the remaining census tracts.
9. The incidence of melanoma in Los Alamos County was elevated over the entire 21-year time period 1970-1990. Peak elevations in the county incidence rates occurred during the mid- to late- 1980s. Melanoma incidence in the county during this time period was approximately two-fold greater than that observed in a New Mexico state reference population. The excess melanoma incidence observed in Los Alamos County may in part be related to the high ambient solar UV radiation intensity thought to exist in the county due to its high altitude.
10. The incidence of leukemia was comparable to or lower than that observed in a New Mexico state and national reference population. The incidence of other cancers of the lymphoreticular system (excluding non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) also was comparable to or lower than that observed in the reference populations. The incidence of non- Hodgkin's lymphoma consistently was elevated in Los Alamos County during 1970-1990. County incidence rates typically were 20%-60% greater than those observed in a New Mexico state and a national reference population."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doeal.gov%2FSWEIS%2FOtherDocuments%2F313%2520athas1993.pdf&rct=j&q=cancer%20los%20alamos%20new%20mexico%20health%20department%20study&ei=2mMHTsu-IqPhiAKdnP3DDQ&usg=AFQjCNGPVWLxPtQKyrtoaV5ShJqfRo9Krg&cad=rja

I don't argue a link between exposure to radiation and cancer, but the conclusion that the rubble "is" radioactive because it's "potentially" radioactive.

[Javaman]

6. okay, fine, then store it at your house. nt

[wtmusic]

7. Deal, and you take the coal ash. nt

[Javaman]

8. My electric comes from wind.

which as had zero down days.

Try again.

[wtmusic]

9. Ah, the wind always blows there.

Try again.

[Javaman]

10. I get a listing from my electric company that tells me how many down days

per year.

For the last 3, (which is how long I have had wind) it has had exaclty 3 down days.

Try again.

[wtmusic]

11. You apparently don't understand how wind power works.

The wind that your utility buys (and that you pay a premium for) might have been "down" for three days last year - producing no power at all.

Now...

google their power mix and see exactly how much wind actually contributes to the electrons coursing through your wiring. My bet is it's a tiny fraction of those from burning coal.

Paying for "100% wind power" (a disingenuous marketing ploy) only guarantees that the utility will buy a corresponding amount of wind power on the open market. Meanwhile, all of the less well-to-do and green-conscious customers are doing a wonderful job of offsetting your good intentions.

It helps (I pay for it too) but don't think for a minute you're actually using 100% wind power. It takes all the other ugly kinds of power generation, as well as some truly ludicrous subsidies, to make wind viable at all.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

13. IMO wind power is a dangerous distraction.

I would be ecstatic if it was viable, but it's not. It's backed up by CO2-spewing sources which could wreak more havoc than 1,000 Fukushimas in the next 50 years.

Meanwhile, I'll abstain from ad hominems and be 100% open to any factual disagreements you can present - that's healthy. Putting on blinders is not.

[SpoonFed]

14. Why not say 1,000,000 Fukushimas? n/t