Kevin Lowe armada7@hotmail.co.uk http://Facebook

Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, wrote to Dr Mike Weightman, head of the HSE’s Nuclear Directorate, on March 12, asking for a report ‘on the implications of the situation and the lessons to be learned for the UK nuclear industry.[37] The report is to be delivered within 6 months, with an interim report by mid-May, ‘prepared in close cooperation with the International nuclear community and other nuclear safety regulators’.[37] On March 15, Huhne expressed regret that that some European politicians were ‘rushing to judgement’ before assessments had been carried out, and said that it was too early to determine whether the willingness of the private sector to invest in new nuclear plants would be affected.

In the wake of the accident the Government was criticised for having colluded with EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse in order to manage communications and maintain public support for nuclear power.[40]

As of 2011, the government’s programme to build new nuclear power stations in England will be “delayed by at least three months so that lessons can be learned from the accident at Fukushima in Japan”.[41][42]

Energy analysts from the UK Centre for Policy Studies claim that one in three households will be in fuel poverty by 2030 unless nuclear power plants are built. According to a report, Britain’s homes face higher bills and lower incomes, and the country “risks becoming yet more dependent on foreign gas and unmanageable renewable energy”.[43]

In January 2012, the campaign group Energy Fair, supported by a number of other organisations and environmentalists,[44] filed a formal complaint with the European Commission over alleged unlawful State aid in the form of subsidies for nuclear power industry, in breach of European Union competition law.[44][45] It claims that the subsidies arise from underwriting commercial risk and decommissioning costs, protection against terrorist attacks, the disposal of nuclear waste, and by providing ‘institutional support’ in the form of various government funded or subsidised bodies such as the National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Institute, and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority without providing corresponding levels of support for renewable technologies,[46] without which nuclear power would not be not be commercially viable, so distorting the energy market.[44][46] The group claims that the subsidies divert resources from renewable technologies that would ‘cut emissions more deeply, more quickly, more cheaply, and with none of the risks and other problems with nuclear power’.[47]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749112000024

Deposition of fission and activation products after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident

Katsumi Shozugawaa, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Norio Nogawab,
Motoyuki Matsuoa

a Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan
b Radioisotope Center, The University of Tokyo, 2-11-16 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0032, Japan

Received 22 August 2011. Revised 24 December 2011. Accepted 1 January 2012. Available online 20 January 2012.

Abstract

The Great Eastern Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, damaged reactor cooling systems at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. The subsequent venting operation and hydrogen explosion resulted in a large radioactive nuclide emission from reactor containers into the environment. Here, we collected environmental samples such as soil, plant species, and water on April 10, 2011, in front of the power plant main gate as well as 35 km away in Iitate village, and observed gamma-rays with a Ge(Li) semiconductor detector. We observed activation products (239Np and 59Fe) and fission products (131I, 134Cs (133Cs), 137Cs, 110mAg (109Ag), 132Te, 132I, 140Ba, 140La, 91Sr, 91Y, 95Zr, and 95Nb). 239Np is the parent nuclide of 239Pu; 59Fe are presumably activation products of 58Fe obtained by corrosion of cooling pipes. The results show that these activation and fission products, diffused within a month of the accident. end quote

I’m very sorry for SA: Broinowski

by: CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL Business Editor
From: AdelaideNow
February 14, 2012 12:12PM

FORMER Australian ambassador Richard Broinowski feels sorry for South Australia because of its uranium industry.

In a rowdy lecture at UniSA’s Hawke Centre, Mr Broinowski said the days of the industry were numbered following the Fukushima disaster.

This would directly affect SA with its three mines at Olympic Dam, Beverley and Honeymoon.

“I’m very sorry for SA,” he said.

“You’ve got a Premier who wants this, who sees dollar signs flashing before his eyes.”

Mr Broinowski, a former ambassador to South Korea and to Vietnam, is now an adjunct professor at the University of Sydney.

He declared himself to be a member of the anti-nuclear industry and in a lecture to about 150 people at the Hawke Centre on Monday night, gave a taste of a book he is writing on Fukushima and its political fallout.

He predicts the collapse of the nuclear industry in Japan within ten years.

The end was nigh even though Japanese prime minister Yoshihiko Noda did not have the same “fire in the belly” to close the nuclear industry as predecessor Naoto Kan who was in charge at the time of earthquake and tsunami disaster.

“The Japanese have turned the corner,” Mr Broinowski said.

“There’s going to be change.

“… The nuclear industry in Japan has a short life. I give it 10 years before there is a dimunition.

“A lot of reactors are not going to go back on-line, no new ones are going to be built and the ones which will be allowed to come back online will done grudgingly and simply as part of the mix to get over the interregnum until they go to renewables.”

Japan’s position, coupled with the stance of Germany where there is also a political decision to phase out the nuclear industry, would show the world the power source was unnecessary, he said.

However, South Korea, Britain and the US were among countries expanding their nuclear industries, he said.

In a question session following his speech, some audience members tried to shout down questions and comments which challenged Mr Broinowski over the accuracy of his statements on radiation-linked deaths and over criticisms he made of University of Adelaide researcher Barry Brook.

Greens Leader Mark Parnell asked whether Mr Broinowski’s research could confirm that South Australian-mined uranium would have been in the Fukushima reactors.

Mr Broinowski responded that as Japan was Australia’s second biggest uranium buyer and as the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company was Japan’s biggest electricity generator that SA uranium was “probably” in use.

Mr Broinowski is searching for a title for his book.

Japan Focus

Feb. 13, 2012

Matthew Penney

In April 2011, about a month after the 3.11 disasters, Japan’s Asahi Shimbun reported that opposition to nuclear power had changed fairly little. A 2007 poll established that 7% of Japanese wished to do away with nuclear power completely, 21% wished to decrease reliance, 53% wanted to maintain the current situation, and 13% wanted more nuclear power generation. April 2011 numbers were only marginally different: 11% desired elimination of nuclear power, 30% wanted a decrease, 51% wanted to maintain the current situation, and 5% wished for an increase. 56% however reported “much unease” at the Fukushima accident with a further 33% feeling “some unease”. While there was no immediate turnabout in public opinion, increasingly critical reporting in the second half of 2011 from the Asahi and Manichi Shimbun, weeklies like Kinyobi and Diamond, as well as the publication of dozens of books highlighting malfeasance in the nuclear industry, the safety oversights leading up to the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns, and decades of casual irradiation of temporary workers in the nuclear industry, a great shift seems to be underway.

In November of last year, national broadcaster NHK reported the results of an opinion poll that indicated 70% of Japanese wished to see nuclear power eliminated or reliance on it significantly reduced. The numbers of people feeling uneasy over the spread of radiation from Fukushima Daiichi declined little through the year, highlighting the fact that the government response, even with the shift from the Kan to Noda cabinets and accompanying promises of increased disclosure, has done little to alleviate public fears of contamination of the environment, food chain and health effects.

A Yomiuri Shimbun article released around the same time as the NHK report, however, suggested that the Japanese public is resigned to maintaining the use of nuclear power in the short term. When given the option, 57% of those polled indicated that they wish to see existing plants continue to operate, while believing that no new ones should be built. Japanese public opinion on this issue is complex and the phrasing of questions and the answer options that poll respondents can choose from can result in very different results. Taking the NHK and Yomiuri polls together, however, shows strong resistance to new plants being built, but also indicates a continued commitment to nuclear energy in the short to medium term.

What about the long term, however? Another Yomiuri poll, this time mainly focused on relations between Japan and its neighbours and also reported in November 2011, may shed some light on this crucial question. First, 87% of Japanese polled in the negative when asked if their government did an adequate job of providing information to the public after 3.11. When asked what type of energy Japan should rely on in the future, a great majority of 71% chose solar with only 6% picking nuclear and the balance going to oil and natural gas and other answers. When these numbers are taken into account, it seems that the Japanese public is solidly behind government plans to fund solar energy research and development, and no longer imagines nuclear to be a long term option.

Finally, a government survey on lifestyle released on January 30 reveals that nearly 60% of Japanese report that they have tried to cut down on energy use since 3.11. By comparison, only 28% report acting on feelings of unease about food safety by “taking care” in selecting food products. By this measure it appears that concern with energy policy as well as with individual energy use may be becoming a significant legacy of 3.11 for the public nationwide. Also important to note, however, is that far more Japanese want the government to address medical care, pensions, and the social safety net (67.1%) and economic recovery (66.3%) then recovery from the 3.11 disasters (51%). While the crisis of last year captured international attention and the attention of Japan watchers specifically, it is necessary to keep in mind that for many Japanese, lingering issues of economic decline, poverty, inequality, and the problems associated with ageing (a “problem” that 53.4% believe needs to be immediately addressed) remain at the forefront.

Matthew Penney is an Assistant Professor at Concordia University and a Japan Focus Coordinator.