Despite the scaled-back coverage of the Fukushima crisis (both domestically, and internationally), last week was actually quite eventful, with three significant developments.
Meltdown Confirmed
Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant confirmed the meltdown of a ‘large part’ of the fuel in reactor number one. Their suspicions were aroused after a post-adjustment reading on water level gauges came back lower than expected. Fortunately, water in a reservoir at the bottom of the pressure vessel seems to have halted the meltdown. The situation remains precarious though, as the further meltdown of the fuel—past the pressure vessel and through the concrete base—remains highly possible.
What’s perhaps surprising is that this information was even released in the first place. Considering the delay between this official announcement and what people have purportedly known for weeks, the release of this information won’t help TEPCO's public image at all.
Entombment Planned?
In response to the continued release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere, TEPCO may soon erect steel scaffolding and cover the reactors buildings with giant polyester covers. The first reactor to be covered will be reactor number one, with similar units being installed over reactors three and four. Although not as complex as the concrete sarcophagus surrounding Chernobyl, the polyester ‘tents’ will still take some time to finish, with completion projected for the end of the year.
Given the fact that explosions have already dispersed debris and radioactive materials around the plant, this measure could be too little too late, though. Some commentators continue to push for full concrete entombment, and even the construction of a trench filled with zeolite to mitigate contamination of the groundwater beneath the plant. The fact that reactor three used MOX fuel has prompted a Russian Chernobyl expert to even assert that ‘(the) release of plutonium will contaminate that area forever and…is impossible to clean up.’ The worst may already have happened.
Worker at Fukushima Dies
The man, a contract worker in his 60s, was carrying equipment when he collapsed. He was later pronounced dead at a hospital. This isn’t the first death at the plant—two workers were found dead last month, trapped in a turbine room when the tsunami struck. But unlike the two priors, TEPCO said it doesn’t know the cause of the contract worker's death. Although they indicated that the man wore protective gear and a second worker nearby suffered no ill-effects, TEPCO's announcement has nonetheless opened the floodgates of speculation.
Clearly, TEPCO is trying to avoid concluding that radiation was the smoking gun here to avoid triggering undue panic. And admittedly, being in his 60s, the contract worker's death may quite plausibly be explained away by other factors. Still, the untimely and cryptic nature of TEPCO and government press releases, reports of slipping safety standards, ongoing radioactive leaks at the plant, and now this worker's death should all be a reminder that there’s no room for complacency. The nuclear crisis has been pushed aside by other news, but the crisis isn’t over yet.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Alex
Your very selective quoting makes Yablokov’s statement sound much worse than the article you reference. In it, he said:
“Its especially dangerous if plutonium is released as inhalation of plutonium results in a high probability of cancer. A release of plutonium will contaminate that area forever and it is impossible to clean up.”
Clearly, he is stating that, while he may not have any particular knowledge of Fukushima, atmospheric release of plutonium, if it were to occur, would be a bad thing.
Here in “The Diplomat”, you chose to shorten that to:
“release of plutonium will contaminate that area forever and…is impossible to clean up.”
This makes it sound as if he is claiming it will occur (or already has), and contamination is inevitable.
Why would you take a scientist’s quote so drastically out of context, except to mislead your readers?
Rufus
Alex, I can’t see how the quote is “drastically” out of context. It is clear from the linked article that Yablokov thinks that there is a risk that the plutonium release may have already happened. He makes no mention of lacking knowledge about Fukushima in that context–you’ve added that for your own purposes. The tenor of the article linked is even more dire than this post, which doesn’t say that the plutonium release has definitely occurred, just that it may have, which is clearly in line with the linked article (see “Fears persist that…may have had a breach of containment…” If you actually bother to read the linked article, you will find that it is claiming or intimating that Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl and that Tokyo is at risk. Those are matters for debate, but who is trying to mislead who here?
Tony
Clearly, Rufus, you are trying to mislead, not Alex. To date, there have been no readings of dangerous levels of plutonium being expelled at Fukushima. Tests around the area have shown 5 samples of plutonium, 3 are from decades old nuclear bomb testings while 2 are believed to be from Fukushima. However, they are at the same negligible levels as the other 3. While I agree that your quote is not “drastically out of context”, it out of context nonetheless and hardly a credible defense for writing that misinforms the public. However, you are right, the tenor of the article you linked to is “even more dire than this post” but that isn’t surprising when the article comes from “Beyond Nuclear”, which has a publicly stated purpose of educating people “about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future”. With such biased sources there is little fact checking to be done since there are so few facts.
Perhaps you can publish another article on proving the superiority of the Catholic church based upon opinions coming from the Holy See in Rome.
Jason
Tony: Thank you for taking the time to comment. However, your response suggests that the commenter you are responding to is also the writer of the blog. This isn’t the case. Neither the writer nor any member of The Diplomat’s editorial team has responded in this thread.
The Editor
robert shaw
First and foremost, this is NOT the picture of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Its misleading. Second, this article lacks many details and developments that have occurred in the last few days. With that being said, at least they are attempting to bring awareness to this largely “ignored” event that will affect the entire planet. As far as my research is concerned, there is no known “plan” to remove 1000’s of tons of molten nuclear materials when they have melted through the bottom of the facility. That IS what is happening to reactors 1, 2 and 3. God help us…
Jess
It is truly unfortunate that they were not more honest from the get go. Now it is dificult to trust anything that is said. Hoping we can still believe their current temperature reports, if it is true that the temperature is down to 200 degrees in the reactor the fission process has either halted or it is taking place in the neighborhood of 150′- 200′ below ground level. One thing I have not been able to understand through this entire crisis is the lack of steam. Seems like tons of water poured on a fissioning core should have been producing a steady and very visible flow of steam. Any thoughts?