Archive for August, 2012

RERF’s most recent A bomb survivor study.

August 31, 2012

From Goddard’s Journal.

Threat from meltdown only minor: Ziggy Switkowski, fmr head, ANSTO

August 31, 2012

Comparing the bullshit at the time with the reality…..

Threat from meltdown only minor: Ziggy Switkowski

March 14, 2011

The impact of any meltdown in Japanese nuclear reactors damaged by the recent earthquake will be small compared to the devastation caused by the quake itself and the subsequent tsunami, Australia’s best-known nuclear power expert says.

Ziggy Switkowski, who was chairman of the the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) until a few months ago, says a significant build-up of radiation is unlikely.

“The contribution, if any, to this [disaster] from the nuclear fleet, I expect even under worst case scenarios is going to be small,” he told Fairfax Radio Network today.

“That’s not to deny that people are always concerned and justly concerned about the integrity of the nuclear reactor network,” Dr Switkowski said.

“The Japanese reactors are probably as good as you can find around the world, but this magnitude 9 earthquake may well have tested the limits of their design.”

Nonetheless, he said the nuclear situation in Japan was obviously very serious, ranking with the Three Mile Island disaster in the US in 1979 where a reactor was destroyed after the core melted.

“The Japanese reactors are not quite at that point. But there are obviously serious concerns about ensuring that the core of one of these reactors where the cooling isn’t working remains under control and does not melt and does not create radiation leaks.”

Describing this as the worst-case scenario, he said the melting would effectively destroy the core of the reactor.

“It could then over time just settle in and the reactor would be irreversibly damaged, or if there was an explosion – and it would be a chemical explosion, nuclear reactors can’t have atomic explosions – then there would be both physical damage and the release of radiation.”

The risk of an uncontrolled loss of containment of the core, releasing large amounts of radiation, was very, very small, and the radiation would probably not spread very far, he said.

Noting that people had been evacuated from a 20-kilometre exclusion zone around the reactors, he said, “I would think that the possibility that there would be significant build-up of radiation outside the zone would still remain low.”


Contrast with reality:

BBC 26 Dec 2011
Fukushima accident: disaster response failed – report

Bottom of page: Visual chronology of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.
Plate 2: Earthquake cuts power supply to reactors’ cooling systems. (Gov report finds quake knocked down a power pole on an embankment outside of the TEPCO site).
Plate 3: The cooling systems stopped working (Even though since the 1960s nuclear authorities have been denying that the Emergency Core Cooling Systems would fail to work, in fact the ECCS in the Fukushima Reactors did not work. The reactors are fitted with steam powered emergency coolant pumps. These did not work. (GE Website technical forum.)
Plate 5: Engineers believe that fuel rods in reactors 1, 2 and 3 melted down.
Plate 7 The explosion at reactor Number 2 damaged the suppression pool. Experts believe this caused a mass discharge of radioactive material.
Plate 8: In reactor 4 two major fires broke out after storage pools designed to cool used nuclear fuel rods ran out of water.

Fukushima reactors Worse off than admitted. Overheating remains a threat.

Published: March 29, 2012

PARTIAL QUOTE: “..The government has said that the plant’s three badly damaged reactors have been in a relatively stable state, called a cold shutdown, for months, and officials say that continues. But new tests suggest that the plant — which was ravaged last March when a powerful earthquake and tsunami hit the area — might not be as stable as the government or the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, had hoped. ….. The company announced this week that an examination of one reactor, No. 2, showed that the water level in an outer containment vessel was far lower than estimated, which could indicate that the already badly damaged uranium fuel might not be completely submerged and, therefore, is in danger of heating up.

Cooling water in that vessel, called the drywell, was just

two feet deep,
rather than the 33-foot level
estimated by Tepco officials
when the government declared the plant stable in December…

The high levels of radiation would complicate work to locate and remove the damaged fuel and decommission the plant’s six reactors — a process that is expected to take decades….

Throughout the nuclear crisis, both Tepco and the government were accused of playing down the dangers posed by the meltdowns at the plant. Subsequent disclosures that the event was indeed far more severe than they let on have badly damaged their credibility. ” end quotes.

Head of nuclear accident probe panel : Fukushima NPP remains a great risk

Fukushima Update, GreenAction, Japan citing Kyodo News:

Fukushima plant “great risk”: Head of nuclear accident probe panel
July 7, 2012
July 6, 2012
Kyodo News

The head of a Diet-appointed panel to investigate the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster said Friday that the crippled plant in northeastern Japan remains in a dangerous situation because of its fragile structure.

“Fukushima remains at a very high risk, not only because of the spent fuel issues, but also because of its fragile structure,” Kiyoshi Kurokawa, also professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, told a press conference at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan, noting that another huge earthquake like the one last year may occur off the coast of northeastern Japan again.

The panel compiled a report Thursday that the Fukushima complex was “incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami” that hit the plant on March 11, 2011. It also noted there is a possibility that the quake damaged safety equipment before the tsunami ravaged the plant and inundated power-supplying facilities needed to keep the nuclear reactors cool.


Fukushima Plutonium pollution fallout 200 times higher than nuclear authorities admit

The Japanese government seems to be very good at copying the nuclear bombers, imo.

Original Japanese article:

Alexander Higgins English Translation:

“Scientific Reports” published a report which cites and discusses Prof Yamamoto’s Pu findings here:

Quote: (Abstract) (Full paper pdf download at site)

Isotopic evidence of plutonium release into the environment from the Fukushima DNPP accident

Jian Zheng, Keiko Tagami, Yoshito Watanabe, Shigeo Uchida, Tatsuo Aono, Nobuyoshi Ishii, Satoshi Yoshida, Yoshihisa Kubota, Shoichi Fuma & Sadao Ihara
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Scientific Reports 2, Article number: 304 doi:10.1038/srep00304
Received 12 January 2012 Accepted 17 February 2012 Published 08 March 2012

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (DNPP) accident caused massive releases of radioactivity into the environment. The released highly volatile fission products, such as 129mTe, 131I, 134Cs, 136Cs and 137Cs were found to be widely distributed in Fukushima and its adjacent prefectures in eastern Japan. However, the release of non-volatile actinides, in particular, Pu isotopes remains uncertain almost one year after the accident. Here we report the isotopic evidence for the release of Pu into the atmosphere and deposition on the ground in northwest and south of the Fukushima DNPP in the 20–30 km zones. The high activity ratio of 241Pu/239+240Pu (> 100) from the Fukushima DNPP accident highlights the need for long-term 241Pu dose assessment, and the ingrowth of 241Am. The results are important for the estimation of reactor damage and have significant implication in the strategy of decontamination. end quote.

The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly – Nature science journal. Primary source.

Thanks to Fukushima Diary for reporting this paper.

Scientific Reports | Article Open
The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly

Scientific Reports
Article number:

06 June 2012
24 July 2012
09 August 2012

Asahi Shimbun

Video shows TEPCO’s hastiness in reporting cause of reactor explosion

August 08, 2012

By NAOYA KON/ Staff Writer

Tokyo Electric Power Co. announced, without verifying the cause, that a “hydrogen explosion” had occurred in its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on March 14, 2011, simply parroting what the government had reported.

The hasty announcement by TEPCO, the operator of the Fukushima plant, came following an explosion in the plant’s No. 3 reactor building, which occurred at 11:01 a.m. on March 14.

The sequence was among the 150 and a half hours of video conferencing recorded during the first days of the nuclear disaster, triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11.

The footage in question was not on the 1.5-hour version of the video TEPCO released to the media, but was among the more than 150 hours of footage the utility allowed journalists to view on weekdays through Sept. 7, on condition no video or audio recording be made of any segments.

The footage, recorded around 11:30 a.m. on March 14, showed then TEPCO President Masataka Shimizu and Akio Takahashi, a senior official, sitting in a room in the company’s main office, discussing the wording of a news release, which would be similar to one made after a previous explosion in another reactor.

Two days before, on March 12, a hydrogen explosion had occurred in the plant’s No. 1 reactor building.

“In short, the only change we have made was replacing ‘No. 1 reactor’ with the ‘No. 3 reactor’?” Takahashi said in the footage. “We do not know whether it was a hydrogen explosion, but since the government–the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency–is saying it is a hydrogen explosion, we can just say so–a hydrogen explosion, can’t we?”

Takahashi urged that TEPCO parrot the government announcement, without trying to confirm the cause.

“On television a short while ago, NISA was saying it was a hydrogen explosion,” he said. “I guess we’d better keep pace.”

The footage also showed someone saying, “the prime minister’s office has also been using the term hydrogen explosion. Perhaps we should do the same,” but the person was not identifiable.

Shimizu approved Takahashi’s recommendation, saying, “All right. I agree. This is fine.”

Then followed two seconds of bleeped-out footage. Shimizu then said, “Speediness is the key.”

At a later news conference, a public relations official of the utility announced, “It was a hydrogen explosion.”

The cause of the explosion in the No. 3 reactor building has yet to be determined.
By NAOYA KON/ Staff Writer

Michiyuki Matsuzaki, M.D. Fukagawa Municipal Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan, on the Children of Fukushima.

Position Statement: What Is Currently Happening to Fukushima Children?
Consideration of thyroid disorders, pulmonary function, bone marrow function based on the studies from the Chernobyl nuclear accident, etc.

Michiyuki Matsuzaki, M.D.
Internal Medicine Department
Fukagawa Municipal Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan

May 19, 2012

1. Brief biography of author

Name: Michiyuki Matsuzaki DOB: June 26, 1950
March 1975 M.D.(provisional), School of Medicine, Hokkaido University
April 1975 Internship and Residency, Internal Medicine 1, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University
June 1986 Executive Board Member of Hokkaido Physicians and Dentists Against Nuclear War
September 1986 Doctoral thesis for M.D. accepted, School of Medicine, Hokkaido University
April 2010 Head of Internal Medicine Department, Fukagawa Municipal Hospital, Hokkaido
April 2012 Professor of Clinical Administration, Asahikawa Medical University, Hokkaido
May 2012 Special member of Cancer Policy Board, Hokkaido Prefecture

Fukushima school children ABC TV

Radiation covers 8pc of Japan – ABC

“Japan ‘betrayed citizens’ over radiation danger” ABC

“Misguided, Arrogant Faith in Nuclear Safety Myth”

“The Australian” Newspaper, Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Page 9 (print ed)
Fukushima crushed by ‘myth’, says panel

by: Rick Wallace, Tokyo correspondent
From: The Australian
July 24, 2012 12:00AM

The government panel, led by University of Tokyo academic Yotaro Hatamura, said it was unable to make a ruling on claims from Mr Kan and others that TEPCO considered withdrawing staff and abandoning the stricken plant. Mr Kan said he ordered TEPCO to ditch plans for the evacuation of all staff.

Similarly, the report is silent on the role played by Fukushima Daiichi plant manager Masao Yoshida, who disregarded orders to wait and unilaterally injected seawater into the reactors.

Nearly 36pc of Fukushima children diagnosed with abnormal thyroid growths. Anxiety main focus of government.

This post consists of multiple articles in order to provide the response sequence of government which results in the shifting of focus from thyroid abnormalities to anxiety. ie government induced denial and blame shifting.
The need for civil protest in the face of deceptive leadership is obvious.

The Telegraph (UK)

By Julian Ryall in Tokyo

6:14AM BST 19 Jul 2012

Nearly 36pc of Fukushima children diagnosed with abnormal thyroid growths
Nearly 36 percent of children in Fukushima Prefecture have been disgnosed with abnormal growths on their thyroids, although doctors insist there is no link between the “cluster” of incidents and the disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in March of last year.

Journal of Radiological Protection
Volume 32
Number 1
Epidemiological studies of Fukushima residents exposed to ionising radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant prefecture—a preliminary review of current plans

Suminori Akiba 2012 J. Radiol. Prot. 32 1
Received 26 August 2011, accepted for publication 2 December 2011, in final form 10 November 2011
Published 10 February 2012

Japan Witheld Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril

Japan Government Covers Up Children’s Radiation Doses, Again

In a long list of bad actions by the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, that has been in charge of radiation dose information, yet another cover up has come out.

The government announced the levels to be “zero” but the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) says that is not the case.

“The government measured the hourly thyroid doses of 1,080 children under 16 years old in Fukushima Prefecture from March 24 to 30 last year, shortly after a disaster began to unfold at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on March 11. Five months later, the government’s Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters told the parents of 55 percent of the children that they had zero internal thyroid doses, which included doses below the detection limit of the testing equipment. A team of researchers led by Toshikazu Suzuki, a section head at the NIRS Research Center for Radiation Emergency Medicine, conducted an independent study of the same measurement data. The team estimated the lifetime thyroid doses of the 1,080 children at 12 millisieverts on average and 42 millisieverts at the maximum. The dose estimates were 30 millisieverts or more for four of the subjects. The children tested were from at least 10 municipalities, and the dose estimates tended to be higher for those from Iitate and Iwaki.”

Fukushima kids cop ‘lifetime’ radiation dose

Japan’s Fukushima Child Victims’ Law

Japan’s Fukushima Child Victims’ Law – Why Allow Chlidren to Live in Hot Zones?

Mainichi Daily News, Japan

Editorial: Diet should pass Fukushima child victims’ law and hold gov’t responsible

Lawmakers in both the ruling and opposition parties are in the final stages of composing a draft bill supporting victims of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, with an emphasis on providing support for children and pregnant women, who are said to be especially sensitive to radiation.

One of the pillars of the proposed legislation is the reduction or exemption of medical expenses for children and expecting mothers living in areas where radiation levels exceed a certain standard.

Many lives, especially those of Fukushima prefectural residents, have been turned upside down due to the nuclear disaster. A large number of people not under government orders to evacuate have done so anyway on their own volition, with many families being torn apart. The anguish of parents with young children, in particular, is immeasurable.

As local residents agonize over the lack of progress in decontamination efforts and any guarantees of health and food safety in the coming years, they face a basic question: will the national government continually enforce the measures and policies they seek?

On the Cesium Road by Toshio Nishi Hoover Institute

April 6, 2012
hoover digest » 2012 no. 2 » japan
On the Cesium Road
by Toshio Nishi

ABC Australia : Fukushima radiation kills fishing industry

Fallout Maps withheld and scientists Subtract Fukushima fallout in a village too hot to live in surrounded by farms now dead for decades

Isotopic evidence of plutonium release into the environment from the Fukushima DNPP accident

Scientific Reports | Article Open
Isotopic evidence of plutonium release into the environment from the Fukushima DNPP accident

Jian Zheng, Keiko Tagami, Yoshito Watanabe, Shigeo Uchida, Tatsuo Aono, Nobuyoshi Ishii, Satoshi Yoshida, Yoshihisa Kubota, Shoichi Fuma & Sadao Ihara
Article number: 304 doi:10.1038/srep00304
Received 12 January 2012 Accepted 17 February 2012 Published 08 March 2012

Radiation measurements in the Chiba Metropolitan Area and radiological aspects of fallout from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plants accident.

J Environ Radioact. 2011 Nov 25. [Epub ahead of print]
Radiation measurements in the Chiba Metropolitan Area and radiological aspects of fallout from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plants accident.
United States Geological Survey

Fission Products in National Atmospheric Deposition Program—Wet Deposition Samples Prior to and Following the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant Incident, March 8–April 5, 2011
By Gregory A. Wetherbee, Timothy M. Debey, Mark A. Nilles, Christopher M.B. Lehmann, and David A. Gay

Radioactive isotopes I-131, Cs-134, or Cs-137, products of uranium fission, were measured at approximately 20 percent of 167 sampled National Atmospheric Deposition Program monitoring sites in North America (primarily in the contiguous United States and Alaska) after the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant incident on March 12, 2011…”

Radioactive fallout in the United States due to the Fukushima nuclear plant accident

Radioactive fallout in the United States due to the Fukushima nuclear plant accident
P. Thakur , S. Ballard and R. Nelson
J. Environ. Monit., 2012,14, 1317-1324

DOI: 10.1039/C2EM11011C
Received 17 Dec 2011, Accepted 20 Feb 2012
First published on the web 29 Mar 2012

Journal of Environmental Monitoring
Issue 5, 2012


Fitz F. Carty1, Laura Comes1, Joel B. Forrester2, Harry S. Miley2, George (Bob) Shipman1, and Peter Van Davelaar1

General Dynamics-Advanced Information Systems1 and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory2

Sponsored by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command

Award Nos. W9113M-08-C-01731 and MIPROF089TGASF2

2011 Monitoring Research Review: Ground-Based Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Technologies

Link to source pdf:
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2313–2343, 2012
© Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the
source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition
A. Stohl1, P. Seibert2, G. Wotawa3, D. Arnold2,4, J. F. Burkhart1, S. Eckhardt1, C. Tapia5, A. Vargas4, and
T. J. Yasunari6

“Ziggy Switkowski, who was chairman of the the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) until a few months ago, says a significant build-up of radiation is unlikely.

“The contribution, if any, to this [disaster] from the nuclear fleet, I expect even under worst case scenarios is going to be small,” he told Fairfax Radio Network today.

“That’s not to deny that people are always concerned and justly concerned about the integrity of the nuclear reactor network,” Dr Switkowski said.


“The Japanese reactors are probably as good as you can find around the world, but this magnitude 9 earthquake may well have tested the limits of their design.” The only thing he got right. And the ECCS vulnerablity to quakes has been known since the 1960s Ergen report by the AEC. Ziggy is one chilling dude.

Japan orders more geologic surveys of nuclear reactors.

August 31, 2012

The Asahi Shimbun Japan
August 25 2012.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency plans to order geological fault surveys at two additional nuclear power facilities, which could lead to a decommissioning of both facilities.

The nuclear watchdog said Aug. 24 that surveys, including excavations, are necessary at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Mihama nuclear plant and Japan Atomic Energy Agency’s Monju prototype fast breeder reactor, both in Fukui Prefecture.

The two companies have said that faults running directly below their reactor buildings are not active, but NISA concluded that more information is needed.

“We need to take into account earthquakes that are not normally expected,” said Shinji Toda, a NISA panel member and Kyoto University associate professor, referring to the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. “Past documents provide only insufficient data.”

A nuclear reactor cannot be installed above an active fault under the government’s quake-resistance standards for nuclear power plants.

NISA had already ordered fault re-examinations at four nuclear power plants: Japan Atomic Power Co.’s Tsuruga plant; Hokuriku Electric Power Co.’s Shika plant; Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Oi plant; and Tohoku Electric Power Co.’s Higashidori plant.

NISA has inspected faults at 18 nuclear power facilities in Japan since its expert panel said in April that a fault running directly below a reactor building at the Tsuruga plant in Fukui Prefecture may be active.

The agency concluded that additional geological surveys are necessary at the six facilities, saying faults under the premises may be active.

Experts say a fault running directly below a reactor building at the Shika plant in Ishikawa Prefecture may be active.

Kansai Electric and Tohoku Electric have said faults at the Oi plant in Fukui Prefecture and the Higashidori plant in Aomori Prefecture are not active, but NISA ordered follow-up surveys.

NISA said further fault studies are necessary for three nuclear power plants–Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, Chubu Electric Power Co.’s Hamaoka plant and Kansai Electric’s Takahama plant–but said additional geological surveys are not required at present.

TEPCO, operator of the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, plans to conduct a voluntary geological survey at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata Prefecture in an attempt to reactivate it at an early date.

NISA said no problems have been found at the remaining nine nuclear facilities.
end quote.

The risk posed by the fault running beneath Monju has been raised in Japan by local residents and others for many years. The official response has been, up to now, to treat such people with disrespect.

“On May 30, 2005 the Supreme Court reversed the Nagoya High Court decision on the narrow grounds that NSC’s safety assessment was “not unreasonable” and that it did not “contain flaws that could not be overlooked”. However, the Supreme Court did not say that Monju was safe to operate.

Shortly before the Supreme Court verdict, on February 7, 2005, Fukui Governor, Issei Nishikawa, granted approval for the start of modifications to Monju. The modifications began on September 1, 2005 after the reactor had been shut down for nearly ten years and were completed on August 30, 2007. Modifications included the following: removal and replacement of the temperature gauge that was the cause of the accident; modification of the sodium drainage system; installation of insulation on walls and ceilings, nitrogen gas infusion apparatus, and a comprehensive video monitoring system; and measures to deal with a water-sodium reaction accident arising from a water leak from the steam generator heat transfer tubes. These measures mainly relate to sodium, but other dangers inherent to the Monju design, including the possibility of a run-away chain reaction and problems related to seismic safety, remain unchanged.

The danger of a loss of control over reactivity leading to collapse of the reactor core is much greater in FBRs than in light water reactors (LWR). FBR fuel assemblies are packed much more densely than in LWRs. If the fuel assemblies bend for any reason, the distance between them is reduced even further, increasing core reactivity and creating the risk of a runaway chain reaction and core melt down. FBRs of Monju class and larger have the additional weakness of a “positive void”, meaning that if bubbles form in the coolant, core reactivity tends to increase. Although not an FBR, a positive void was instrumental in causing the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Both these weaknesses could come into play if a loss of electric power caused the primary coolant pumps to stop working.

In regard to seismic safety, there are problems with the design of Monju’s piping system. To cope with sudden temperature changes due to the high heat conductivity of sodium, Monju’s piping is much thinner than in light water reactors. Also, it is not fixed and it is not straight. Instead, it winds around above the reactor. This represents a very real danger in earthquake-prone Japan, especially given that the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion discovered a previously unknown active fault. The Urasoko fault connects with the Yanagaseyama fault on the ocean floor of Tsuruga Bay, with the latter extending to Shiga Prefecture. The seismic safety assessment is now being redone by a subcommittee of the Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency (NISA).

The original target date for restart was February 2008, but this date has been delayed on four occasions. The main reasons for the delay are JAEA’s inability to rectify problems with its sodium leak detectors, corrosion in the exhaust duct and the need to replace degraded fuel. The leak detectors have gone off repeatedly in various locations, even though there was no sodium leak. The exhaust duct had not been inspected for ten years, because no inspection plan had been prepared. The problem with the fuel was that since it was first fabricated over half of the original “fissile” plutonium-241 had decayed into americium-241. In order for Monju to reach criticality, new fuel assemblies had to be fabricated….Conclusions
Monju shares the same problems of nuclear proliferation, safety and cost that have plagued fast breeder reactors in other countries. There is no sign that the benefits that are supposed to compensate for these dangers, namely breeding of plutonium as an inexhaustible civilian energy source and transmutation of radioactive waste, will ever be viable. The Japanese government will try to trumpet the value of Monju for international transmutation research, but it is highly unlikely that Monju will be used as a breeder reactor.

Japan’s fuel cycle program, of which Monju is a key part, represents a serious nuclear proliferation problem. The rationale for Japan separating plutonium from spent nuclear fuel was to supply its FBR program, but there were warnings from all around the world about the massive stockpile of surplus plutonium that Japan would accumulate in the process. (See for example an article in NIT 20, Nov./Dec. 1990 by Jinzaburo Takagi entitled “Plutonium: 50 Years on”.) These warnings were proved correct. Japan now has about 47 tons of separated plutonium, nearly 10 tons of which is stockpiled in Japan. The rest is held in France and the UK. Regardless of Japan’s own intentions, this plutonium stockpile sets a bad example for other would-be nuclear proliferators.

From a safety perspective, if anything the danger of operating Monju is even greater than it was before the sodium accident. During the fourteen years that Monju has been sitting idle, pipes and equipment would have degraded. However, it is impossible to check for cracks and holes throughout the whole plant, especially where sodium prevents visual inspection. Furthermore, JAEA’s attitude has not changed. Its instinct is still to cover up problems, as evidenced by its proposal not to report false alarms of sodium leaks. The condition of the plant and the nature of the operator bot” CNIC, Japan. Restarting Monju – Like Playing Russian Roulette, circa 2010.

Dozens of nuke plants near fault lines – Sydney Morning Herald.

August 31, 2012
March 19, 2011

THE confident assertion by the head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that safety and security at nuclear plants is monitored by the minute did little to quell speculation about which of the nation’s reactors were more at risk from a natural disaster.

Its chairman, Gregory Jaczko, assured a congressional committee all local facilities were safe and vowed “we will continue to work to maintain that level of protection”.

President Barack Obama ordered a safety audit of the 104 reactors, which are spread across 31 states, as the focus switched to the potential impact of a disaster.

Many Californians sought assurances that radiation escaping the Japanese reactors would not reach across the Pacific to contaminate the west coast, while experts totted up the number of US nuclear facilities on – or near – major fault lines where “worst-case” fears mirror events unfolding in Japan.

Unsurprisingly, of the 65 reactors that fell into that category, California’s San Onofre plant, 70 kilometres south-east of Long Beach, and the facility at Diablo Canyon, 100 kilometres north of Santa Barbara, were prominent, both resting on the fault-laden Pacific coast.

Both 1980s-era constructions, the plants are located within reach of significant populations. More than 9 million people live within 80 kilometres of the former, a distance noted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as particularly vulnerable in the event of mishap.

The 35-year-old Indian Point reactor, not quite 80 kilometres north of New York, scored top billing. Sitting just a few kilometres from the less-forbidding Pampano Fault, it has 17 million people within moderate range. While industry figures make light of their facilities’ proximity to tremor-prone geography, doubts were being raised over the safety of US nuclear sites.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said just 5 per cent of all safety lapses were investigated by the regulator. “Many of these significant events occurred because reactor owners, and often the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission], tolerated known safety problems,” it said in a report.

Japan’s misfortune has cast a pall over the Obama administration’s push for renewed investment in the nuclear sector.

The US has not commissioned a new plant for 15 years. But one reactor is destined for Tennessee in 2013, two are under construction in Georgia and another 20 are on the drawing board.

Azores-gibraltar Transform Fault Subduction Zone

August 31, 2012

Cascadia Fault Line has lain dormant for 300 years.

August 31, 2012

Earthquake Phobia? No, reasonable fear says JGov.

August 31, 2012

The Asahi Shimbun August 30 2012, Japan.

An offshore Pacific earthquake of the scale that hit Japan last year would trigger 34-meter tsunami, resulting in at least 323,000 deaths and devastating much of the coastline from Honshu to Kyushu, experts say.

This grim scenario is the result of a radical reappraisal of a possible magnitude-9.1 earthquake in the Nankai Trough in light of the Great East Japan Earthquake that left 20,000 people dead or missing.

The estimate of fatalities in a Nankai Trough earthquake is 13 times higher than the figure offered by the central government in 2003.

Until the March 11 disaster, experts had assumed that no quake greater than magnitude-8.0 would hit the region off Miyagi Prefecture in northern Japan. Last year’s earthquake was magnitude-9.0, putting it among the top five of the world’s biggest quakes.

Two expert panels were commissioned by the government to offer a realistic assessment of what Japan can expect if a Nankai Trough earthquake strikes.

At the same time, the panels cautioned that the possibility of such a major disaster occurring was low. However, they called on the public to be “properly fearful” of what may lie ahead……


The appraisal said the Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, would be under nine meters of water if work to build an 18-meter-high breakwater wall and higher embankment walls is not taken into account.

The work is expected to be completed in December.

The plant stopped operations in May 2011, two months after the Great East Japan Earthquake, at the request of Prime Minister Naoto Kan because it lies within the epicenter of a predicted major quake.

The maximum tsunami height in Omaezaki was put at 19 meters.

Chubu Electric Power Co., which operates the Hamaoka plant, has installed water-proof doors for the reactors and moved emergency generators to elevated ground 40 meters above sea level.

The utility will likely have to implement further measures because flooding in nuclear reactors would result in an automatic shutdown.

Estimates of fatalities and damage to infrastructure and buildings were based on a number of factors: the focus of the earthquake, the time it occurs, the season and wind speed. Four locations were cited as likely to experience the greatest damage: the Tokai and Kinki regions, Shikoku and Kyushu…….” partial quote.

That nuclear reactor cooling systems a vulnerable to earthquake was noted by the Atomic Energy Commission before any reactors were built in Japan.
In the 1960s and 1970s the nuclear bloc within the US maintained the risk was technical and not a realistic fear. On the other hand, individuals within the nuclear bloc, including regulatory and licensing staff, reactor designers and scientists both within the industry and outside it, disagreed.

The construction of reactors in Japan went ahead regardless. The Japanese industry, originated by the strategic interests of the USA, was thoroughly inculcated by the US industry credos. Immutably perfectly safe. So safe that today in Japan, some people in agreement with the nuclear rose rapidly through the ranks at Japanese universities. Such people were wheeled out in March 2011 and since, and were used to mouth the industry line that it is safe for babies to eat plutonium.

Now is the time to gather all the lies and false claims told to the people since March 2011 and fling it all back into faces of the authorities which uttered the nonsense, in contrast with the emergent truth.


August 31, 2012



August 30, 2012

Great news today! The NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing the Calvert Cliffs-3 licensing proceeding agreed with NIRS and DENIED a construction/operating license for that reactor.

This is the culmination of a five-year battle that started in 2007 when Calvert Cliffs-3 became the first new reactor application in some 30 years–the flagship of the “nuclear renaissance.”

Since then, NIRS has fought this project–which is on our doorstep–at every possible venue. We intervened before the Maryland Public Service Commission–twice. We helped form a grassroots alliance to oppose the reactor–the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition, which lives on through Baltimore’s Crabshell Alliance. And with our partners at Public Citizen, Beyond Nuclear, and Southern Maryland CARES, we intervened in the NRC licensing process.

NIRS was the lead intervenor in this case; the contention–that the Calvert Cliffs-3 project violates the Atomic Energy Act’s prohibition against “foreign ownership, control or domination” of a U.S. reactor was written by NIRS and litigated by NIRS.

And we did it pro se–we couldn’t afford a lawyer so we did it ourselves. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of legal work and research and writing briefs and appearances before the Board.

Today, we won! We beat one of the nation’s biggest nuclear law firms, Winston and Strawn. We beat Electricite de France (EDF), Areva, and the French government–the real power behind the Calvert Cliffs-3 project. We beat the entire Maryland political establishment, which in 2007 was lined up solidly behind this project (though many have been backing off their support in recent times).

The ASLB not only denied the license application, it said that EDF is not even eligible to apply for a license.

You can find much more information on this on the front page of our website, including the ASLB decisions, our press statement, a timeline and more.

We want to thank attorney Diane Curran for her invaluable advice, our fellow intervenors for their support and encouragement, and everyone who has supported NIRS in any and every way.

We raised no money whatsoever for the legal portion of this case. A lot of organizations would have dropped the case for that reason alone. But we were confident we could win–no way were we going to stop.

We used your money–the money you donate online or by mail–to pay our costs. So this is your victory too. We couldn’t have done it without your support.

We hope this encourages you to dig deep and give more now. This is what we can accomplish. This is what your donations pay for: Victory. With your support, we CAN build a nuclear-free, carbon-free future.

Thank you so much for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Stay Informed:
NIRS on the web (stay up-to-date with the Nuclear Newsreel section on the front page, featuring the day’s most interesting news on nuclear power and other energy issues):
NIRS on Facebook:

NIRS on Twitter:!/nirsnet

end quote.


Nukers promoting contaminated food – the falsehoods of the Potassium excuse

August 30, 2012

I have blogged about this before. Attempts at selling contaminated food in the market of people’s lives by nuclear advocates has to stop in Japan and everywhere.

It will take me the weekend to finish this post as I gather the historic and current sources which show the Potassium equivalent dose (which the industry calls the banana equivalent dose) is a false, incorrect, wrong and deceptive fallacy.

In the interim, this wiki article explains the fallacy in brief:

In brief: radio potassium (K40) is much a very small proportion of all potassium. It is far less radioactive per unit weight (amount, physical dose) than any biologically active fission product.

Potassium in any form is dangerous to the heart in excess, but potassium is a needed nutrient.
The body maintains a potassium balance therefore. This danger to the heart is a bio-chemical effect. The radiological nature of radio cesium (a potassium analogue) poses an additional threat to the heart and other soft tissue. The body maintains the appropriate its potassium balance by excreting potassium. Eating potassium rich food results in excretion of potassium, maintaining the body’s appropriate potassium balance. Eating a banana in fact results in cytokine release, and other biological responses. This is due to the chemical composition of the banana which contain precursors which, according to some people, are radio-protective.

On the other hand, cesium and strontium are not needed by the body in any form. In fact, strontium mimics calcium even though its bio chemistry is not exactly the same (analogue = similar to but not the same as the original). There are about half a dozen different isotopes of radio-strontium. The body is able to discriminate between strontium and calcium at the gut wall and prefers calcium. If the dietary calcium is adequate, the body is able to preferentially absorb calcium over strontium in a ratio of about 4 : 1.

Once absorbed, strontium moves to bone and other places which have a biological demand for calcium. In bone, strontium, which has a large crystal structure than calcium, binds more loosely to bone than calcium. It tends to deposit on the outside of bone structure. (Pecher, 1942)

During pregnancy strontium moves from bone to fetus with the bulk of movement occurring later in pregnancy.

During breast feeding, strontium moves from bone to breast tissue and is excreted into the milk.(Erf and Pecher, 1940).

When uncontaminated orphaned baby mice were given to strontium contaminated mother mice to suckle, the previously uncontaminated mice “became more radioactive than the (surrogate) mothers” Pecher, 1941.

The potassium cycle in humans is no excuse for nuclear authorities anywhere on the planet to claim any benefit or natural precedent for the marketing of nuclear industry emissions contaminated food.

The fission products are not nutrients. Do not eat them. Nuclear industry promises to keep its radioactive sources sealed. When nuclear industry invariably fails in this undertaking, it turns around and claims the residue of its pollution is like a banana.

Crap. The residue is like the residue of a rad weapon. Fact. Its the same stuff. Terrorists do not attempt to arm themselves with bananas. They are not dangerous.

Radio Strontium, Radio Iodine, Radio cesium have NO PLACE in food. Nuke is not clean, it is not green and it relies on lies it has concocted over decades. Despite the fact that nuclear industry has been a beneficiary of fundamental research into these matters, conducted at taxpayers expense, over many decades. It is as if nuclear industry is blind to the actual findings of Projects Gabriel, Sunshine and the Manhattan Project’s Health Division Findings even though these things were participated in by private nuclear corporations at the time.)

“Equilibrium Dose” – in a constantly radiologically contaminated environment, the equilibrium dose of a given fission product is the maximum amount of the substance which remains in the body as a result of the uptake/excretion cycle. Risk increases as a function of time as well as uptake. If the shit is quickly cleaned up, if the source of emissions is stopped then risk is reduced. The reactors at Fukushima continue to vent, previous deposition is washed down from the mountains of Fukusihma Prefecture. (see previous post).

The equilibrium dose of the fission products are all dangerous.

Bio-accumulation is a fact which confounds official attempts at “diluting” radio-contamination by spreading them around.

The more nuclear industry claims eating plutonium, strontium, cesium, iodine and other fuel and fission products is ok because bananas exist and because the potassium is a needed nutrient, the more I consider them to be blatant liars.

The experience and reports of Livermore National Labs in its attempts to remove radio cesium from food grown in the Bikini Atoll further reveal the nuclear lie. The main means of reducing radio cesium from food there involves the use of potassium fertilizer to displace cesium in the crops. It is of some, but limited success. As less than 1% of potassium is the radioactive isotopes of potassium and as the radioactive isotopes of potassium are much less radioactive per unit weight than radio cesium, there is an obvious radiological importance in using potassium to displace cesium from food.
see If there is no benefit in using potassium in an attempt to displace radio cesium from food in the Bikini Atoll, why has the American taxpayer spent untold billions attempting to do just that?

If nuclear industry tempts you with the idea that radio cesium is nutrient, dont believe them. They are asking you to take on an internal radio cesium dose in addition to your natural radio potassium dose, to take on an addition radio strontium dose where one does not exist in nature (no form of radio strontium exists in nature, there are about 6 radio strontium fission isotopes), strontium is not a nutrient and baby mice fed stable strontium instead of calcium die (Pecher `1941), There is no natural radio iodine dose. Eating radio Iodine damages the thyroid and consequently the rest of the endocrine system. The endocrine system is needed by the body for many reasons, including it’s important role in fighting the effects of radiation exposure.

There is no natural equilibrium doses of radio strontium, radio cesium, or radio iodine. (and so on, I aint writing a book here). The nuclear industry talks in absolutes to main its propaganda points. Let’s test that.

If radio cesium is ok because, as they say, radio potassium (which makes up 1% of the needed daily uptake of potassium), is in food, well what would happen if all the potassium in the world’s diet was turned to cesium? All mammalian life on the planet would die firstly because CESIUM IS NOT A NUTRIENT and secondly all mammalian life would die due to the radiation dose.

See Comar et al.

The whole of the history of nuclear has been dominated by the fact that the biologically active fission products contaminate the food supply after they enter the biosphere.

This fact has been known for a very long time. Realizing that nuclear devices – in the first instance, bombs and reactors – emitted both photon radiation – gamma and x rays, and particulate radiation – alpha, beta and neutrons – the first job of the Health Division of the Manhattan Project was to study the nature of the threats posed. Workers located close into a reactor core were exposed to gamma, x and neutron rays. These are very penetrating. They were also exposed to the physical rods – or slugs as they were called then. The hazards of extracting plutonium from fission uranium slugs included the possibility of breathing in or ingesting etc plutonium and fission product dust.

Hamilton was contracted to study the metabolism of the fission products. He was contracted to find the “radiations” which were “effective against the enemy”. He was contracted to find protective methods for US troops and the US population should the enemy attack the US with nuclear weapons. (The contract resulted from the aims defined by the report “Metallurgical Project, A.H. Compton, Project Leader, Health, Radiation
and Protection, R.S. Stone, M.D., Division Director, Health Division Program, May 10, 1943”, document number 717325, Report CH-63255-A, Originally Secret, pp. 2, gives the following additional very significant Scope:
“4. Evaluation of Effectiveness of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon. A) Defense -Tolerance of and protection of troops and civilians’. B) Offense – Radiations needed to be effective.”)

In 1943, Hamilton reported to Stone, Groves and Oppenheimer and reported that radio strontium obtained from reactor pile fuel rods (slugs as they were then called) could be used as a weapon. The proposal called for a bomb loaded with radio strontium, which was “violently radioactive”, and packed with explosive. Such bombs, Hamilton wrote, could be used to contaminate enemy food and water supplies. (Source: Advisory
Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, ACHRE, Final Report, Chapter 11.
United States Department of Energy, 1995. Date of memos: 1943.)

Under the terms of his first contract, Hamilton regularly published reports entitled ““Metabolism of the Fission Products, Progress Report for Period Ending…” In the report for the Period Ending April 15 1944, Hamilton reported the following: “The most effective means of reducing the absorption of Sr* (any radio active isotope of strontium) from the intestinal tract is the maintenance of an adequate or high calcium intake. This may be accomplished by increased use of milk and dairy products, by taking medicinal calcium regularly or by use of bread fortified with calcium. The important factor is apparently the general
level of calcium intake rather than the amount present in the intestinal tract at the

This finding was actually implied from data first published in the Sr/Ca ratio studies data and conclusions by Charles Pecher, 1940. (Source: Pecher, C. “Biological Investigations with Radioactive Calcium and Strontium,
Preliminary Report on the Use of Radioactive Strontium in the Treatment of
Metastatic Bone Cancer”, Contributed from the Radiation Laboratory of the
University of California, Berkeley University of California Publications in
Pharmacology. Editor: C. D. Leake, G.A. Alles, T.C. Daniels, M.H. Soley. Volume 2
No 11, pp. 117-150, plates 6-9, 3 figures in text. Submitted by Editors July 21, 1942,
Issued October 23, 1942, University of California Press, Berkeley, Cambridge
University Press, London, England. Prefatory note by C.D. Leake, editor.) pp 133.)

If Doctor Hamilton had been snatched from 1944 and had been transported to NHK TV studios in March 2011
and forced to watch the Fukushima explode and as a result of containment breach deposit portions of their
core contents over Japan and the hemisphere, he would have surely said, “Yea, that’s pretty much what I mean. What are you doing to protect the “friendlies”?”

Japanese authorities have not learnt the lessons of history. Nuclear industry knows the full facts, and yet prefers to justify its nuclear pollution on the grounds that bananas contain a lot of potassium (in dietary terms) and have a proportion of radioactive potassium. How much radioactive potassium is present naturally in all potassium and which therefore is taken up by plants and animals and consumed by humans? 0.0117%. The equilibrium dose in humans is constant, that is, eating some dietary potassium does not result in a greater amount in the body, for the body maintains an equilibrium of potassium and the excess amount is excreted. However, in the long decades following a reactor accident which results in proportions of core contents being spewed out into the country side, the biologically active fission products, including the isotopes of cesium (a potassium analogue) enter the foodchain.

This is results in an additional burden to the radio potassium normally present in food and the body. The presence of potassium in the body is not a valid excuse for nuclear industry and its shareholders to use in order to justify or minimise the consequences of their actions – actions which resulted in the contamination of the biosphere and foodchain.

Cesium is not a nutrient. Why eat it? TEPCO says so? What is TEPCO and its apologists motivation?

The hazards of non radioactive, stable, normal, ordinary, natural, non fission related cesium:

“In September 2009, after three such cases, the Canadian government warned Canadian consumers against taking cesium chloride because of the risk of potentially life-threatening heart arrhythmias. Patients who experience irregular heartbeat or a decrease in consciousness after taking cesium chloride should seek emergency medical treatment. There may also be a risk of heart attack associated with cesium chloride supplements.
Side Effects
Some other potential side effects of cesium chloride are seizures, loss of consciousness and electrolyte imbalances, which is a potentially dangerous condition in which the body’s chemistry is disrupted. Consuming large amounts of cesium chloride may also cause decreased appetite, nausea and diarrhea. Some researchers have reported that their laboratory mice died after taking large doses of cesium chloride, according to a 2004 report on cesium toxicity by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.” end quote, the cesium chloride is the soluble form.

The hazards of radioactive cesium:

“Among the many fission product nuclides, cesium 137 deserves attention because it possesses a unique combination of physical properties and historical notoriety. It is readily produced in large quantities during fission, has an intermediate half-life, decays by high-energy pathways, and is chemically reactive and highly soluble. These physical properties have made cesium 137 a dangerous legacy of major nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, but it has also caused relatively small incidents as well….Fission of various isotopes of thorium, uranium, and plutonium all yield about 6% cesium-137. [1] This high fission yield results in an abundance of cesium-137 in spent nuclear fuel, as well as in regions contaminated by fission byproducts after nuclear accidents. [2] The large quantities of cesium-137 produced during fission events pose a persistent hazard. Its half-life of about 30 years is long enough that objects and regions contaminated by cesium-137 remain dangerous to humans for a generation or more, but it is short enough to ensure that even relatively small quantities of cesium-137 release dangerous doses of radiation (its specific radioactivity is 3.2 × 10^12 Bq/g (10 to the 12th power)). [2-4]

What is the rate of radioactivity of potassium 40, the isotope which makes up 0.012% of all potassium, both environmentally and in food? How much less that cesium 137?

Argonne National Laboratory, rate of radioactivity of Potassium isotopes:

Potassium 40 (K40) Half life : 1.3 billion years. Natural abundance: 0.012% of all potassium is K40.
Radioactivity in Curies: 0.0000071 curies (per gram). Type of radiation emitted: Beta (energy 0.52 MEV), gamma energy 0.16 MeV).

Argonne National Laboratory: Rate of radioactivity of the radioactive cesium isotopes:
Quote “There are 11 major radioactive isotopes of cesium. (Isotopes are different forms of an element that have the same number of protons in the nucleus but a different number of neutrons.) Only three have half-lives long
enough to warrant concern: cesium-134, cesium-135 and cesium-137. Each of these decays by emitting a
beta particle, and their half-lives range from about 2 to 2 million years. The half-lives of the other cesium isotopes are less than two weeks. Of these three, the isotope of most concern for Department of Energy (DOE)
environmental management sites and other areas is cesium-137 which has a half- life of 30 years. Its decay product, barium-137m (the “m” means metastable) stabilizes itself by emitting an energetic gamma ray with
a half-life of about 2.6 minutes. It is this decay product that makes cesium an external hazard (that is, a hazard without being taken into the body).isotope of most concern for Department of Energy (DOE) environmental management sites and other areas is cesium-137 which has a half- life of 30 years. Its decay
product, barium-137m (the “m” means metastable) stabilizes itself by emitting an energetic gamma ray with
a half-life of about 2.6 minutes. It is this decay product that makes cesium an external hazard (that is, a
hazard without being taken into the body). Cesium-135 and cesium-134 are typically of less concern because of their radiological decay characteristics. The very long half-life of cesium-135 means it has a very low specific activity, and the slow decay rate combined with its low decay energy contribute to its low hazard. Cesium-134 has a half-life of 2.1 years and decays by emitting a beta particle. The relatively small amount of cesium-134 produced more than 20 years ago would essentially all be gone today due to radioactive decay.

Where Does It Come From? Cesium is naturally present as the isotope 133 (stable) in various ores and to a lesser extent in soil. The three radioactive cesium isotopes identified above are produced by nuclear fission. When an atom of uranium-235 (or other fissile nuclide) fissions, it generally splits asymmetrically into two large fragments – fission products with mass numbers in the range of about 90 and 140 – and two or three
neutrons. (The mass number is the sum of the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom.)
Cesium radionuclides are such fission products, with cesium-135 and cesium-137 being produced with
relatively high yields of about 7% and 6%, respectively. That is, about 7 atoms of cesium-135 and 6 atoms
of cesium-137 are produced per 100 fissions. Cesium-137 is a major radionuclide in spent nuclear fuel, high-
level radioactive wastes resulting from the processing of spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive wastes associated
with the operation of nuclear reactors and fuel reprocessing plants.

Isotope: Cs-134 half life: 2.1 yr radioactivity in curies 1,300 (per gram) Beta (energy 0.16MeV), gamma (energy 1.6 MeV).
Isotope: Cs-135 half life: 2.3 million yr radioactivity in Curies 0.0012 (per gram) Beta (energy 0.067 MeV)
Isotope: Cs-137 half life: 30 years radioactivity in Curies: 88 (per gram) Beta (energy 0.19MeV)
Ba-137m (95%) Half life: 2.6 min radioactivity in Curies: 540 million (per gram) IT Beta (energy 0.065) gamma (energy 0.60 MeV)
IT = isomeric transition, Ci = curie, g = gram, and MeV = million electron
volts; a dash indicates that the entry is not applicable. (See the companion fact
sheet on Radioactive Properties, Internal Distribution, and Risk Coefficients for
an explanation of terms and interpretation of radiation energies.) Certain
properties of barium-137m are included here because this radionuclide
accompanies the cesium decays. Values are given to two significant figures

Direct comparison of the K40 and Cs137 data:

Potassium 40 (K40) Half life : 1.3 billion years. Natural abundance: 0.012% of all potassium is K40.
Radioactivity in Curies: 0.0000071 curies (per gram). Type of radiation emitted: Beta (energy 0.52 MEV), gamma energy 0.16 MeV).

Isotope: Cs-137 half life: 30 years, natural abundance: zero. (fission product) radioactivity in Curies: 88 (per gram) Beta (energy 0.19MeV)

As potassium and cesium end up in the same tissues, the radiation energy absorbed by those tissues from both Cs** and K40 must be ADDED TOGETHER.

Is Cesium in any form needed for life? No
Is potassium needed for life? Yes

Can cesium substitute for potassium in the body ? No. It is merely an analogue (this means it is similar but not exactly the same as potassium. (If it was exactly the same, it would be called potassium, but it isnt. Cesium is not potassium. It cannot do the same job as potassium, although it “tricks” the body into reacting to it as if it were potassium, hence it goes to the same tissues as potassium does. Thus those tissues now have the two burdens: that of the radioactivity burden of potassium k40 plus the burden of Cs137, 134 etc.

What’s a curie a measure of ?

“The Curie (symbol Ci) is a non-SI unit of radioactivity, named after Marie and Pierre Curie. It is defined as
1 Curie = 3.7 × 10^10 (10 to the 10th power) decays per second.
The SI derived unit of radioactivity is the becquerel (Bq), which equates to one decay per second. Therefore:
1 Ci = 3.7 × 10^10 Bq = 37 GBq
1 Bq ≅ 2.703 × 10^−11 Ci
Another commonly used measure of radioactivity is the microcurie:
1 μCi = 3.7 × 10^4 disintegrations per second = 2.22 × 10^6 disintegrations per minute”

It is the mode of decay which determines whether for each decay a track of gamma, beta or alpha is produced. In the case of cesium and potassium, decay is by beta and gamma.

State again, Potassium 40 (K40) has a radioactivity of 0.0000071 curies (per gram)
Cesium 137 has a radioactivity of 88 curies per gram.

Yet nuclear industry justifies the safety of its pollution and alleges the presence of its pollution in food on the basis of the fact that naturally occurring isotope of potassium (K40) is present in bananas, when compared to Cesium 137, this K40, which makes up 0.012% of the potassium in food (and everything other source of potassium) is barely radioactive at all!!!!

100 percent of the radio cesium in food is radioactive. It is not a substitute for potassium. It is not a nutrient, and governments warn against the consumption of stable, naturally occurring cesium on the basis of its toxic effects. The radioactive fission cesiums have the same chemical toxicity as well as being many many many more time radioactive than potassium 40. The nutrient nuclear industry allege justifies the presence of its pollutant, radio cesium, in food.

On top of this, nuclear industry claims that radiation exposure from its pollution conveys a benefit. How many of the radiation tracks produced by cesium 137 in this example are beneficial? What makes the allegedly “good” radiation tracks any different from the “bad” ones? Ionisation of tissue by any given track of radiation can produce thousands of different outcomes. The case for benefit from multiple explosions and core breaches is, to say the least, unproven, and in my opinion, patently in error.

People have recently said to me that I should have discussed this matter earlier, I have.

This blog actually focussed on Radio Strontium in fair detail and over a large amount of time.

In my view, the biochemistry of strontium 89 is most interesting due to its fission creation abundance, its nature as a calsium analogue, and its very great rate of radioactivity. 1 gram of strontium has a radioactivity of 27,800 curies. That is a huge number of high energy (specific to Sr89) beta.

The rate of radioactivity of deadly radium is 1 (one) curie per gram.

The assurances of safety which rest upon the fallacy of the banana dose are like those assurances issued by Groves to the plutonium workers. It took until 1990s for the US government to admit those assurances were false.

How much radio cesium of any isotope or radio strontium of any isotope would you choose to eat?

There is no choice about potassium. It is needed for life.

How far down the road toward a command economy and a controlled market does nuclear industry want the Western nations to travel when it dictates to us that we must eat the foods it contaminates with the fission substance it claims to be “like vitamins” (Sykes)?

Taking the huge curie rate of a gram of strontium 89 as an example, what fraction of a gram is a safe amount to have in my tissue? Can anyone tell me? Give me an answer and I won’t believe you.

Ditto for the rest. So, even though radio cesium may be the main hazard, it is not the only one. For a mere slither, a fraction of gram, of it is still dangerous to my tissue.

And in terms of imposition, it is risk, not benefit, which is imparted by contaminated food. No matter how much bananas mathematics has been performed in the government regulatory offices which adjoined the corridors of TEPCO’s HQ.

“33 out of 40 rats injected with Sr89Cl developed bone cancer within a nine month window” Source: General Electric, datasheet for Metastron, Strontium 89 Chloride, the injectable form. (from:

Metastron Prescribing Information
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View

The relevant quote is :

“Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
Data from a repetitive dose animal study suggests that
Strontium-89 Chloride is a potential carcinogen. Thirty-three of
40 rats injected with Strontium-89 Chloride in ten consecutive
monthly doses of either 250 or 350 μCi/kg developed
malignant bone tumors after a latency period of approximately
9 months. No neoplasia was observed in the control animals.
Treatment with Strontium-89 Chloride should be restricted to
patients with well documented metastatic bone disease.
Adequate studies with Strontium-89 Chloride have not been
performed to evaluate mutagenic potential or effects on fertility.
Pregnancy: Teratogenic effects.
Pregnancy Category D. See Warnings section.”) . They say “no much Sr89 has been emitted from the TEPCO reactors.” It does not take much. A slither of a speck to create a major hazard. It is chance as to who takes it in. Random chance. A hazard to an unknown individual might be a hazard to everyone. It is only significant to the individual who actually ingests it. It does not have to be a “significant amount”.)

I point out the potent carcinogenic and mutagenic nature of Sr89 was established by Pecher in the 1940s. And this knowledged was suppressed.

The curie figure is directly related to the number of radiation tracks which pass through tissue in an internalised radioactive substance. 1 curie produces 3.7 × 10^10 such radiation tracks per second.

As Linus Pauling would say, that’s some little machine gun. In my opinion only an idiot would choose to eat nuclear emissions incorporated with their food and drink. Cesium is not a banana, it is nuclear pollution.

This fact has been since 1942. Hamilton saw it as a weapon of value if the atomic bomb didn’t work. E.O. Lawrence proposed it as such to the S1 committee as a result. Nuclear industry is not in the food additive business and cannot claim any benefit at all to its effluent. The converse is true. Noone should be forced or induced to eat its tainted food and water.


“The curie is the unit of radioactivity. It is defined as the quantity of radioactive material in which 37,000,000,000 atomic nuclei disintegrate each second. One gram of radium has the activity of one curie….in the discussion of fallout we shall make use of the “strontium unit” and the “cesium unit” The “Strontium Unit” is a measure of the amount of radioactive strontium in human bone or milk or other material containing calcium. One strontium unit is one micro-microcurie of strontium 90 per gram of calcium. One cesium unit is one micro-microcurie of cesium 137 per gram of potassium.” (Source: “No More War”, Linus Pauling, Dodd, Mead & Company, 1958, ISBN 0-396-08157-6, pp 45-46.

Clearly, nuclear authorities know and have long known that radio cesium in food does not replace the dose from K40, but adds to it. And that a small amount of radio cesium is much more radioactive than a larger amount of K40. The “Cesium Unit” and “Strontium Unit” enabled nuclear authorities to compare one piece of secretly obtained human bone tissue to another to see which was the more contaminated. The secret survey was conducted world wide. The prized bones were those of still born babies. This legacy will no doubt be repeated in years to come and fudged data will be presented to show the amounts of Fukushima core material resident in human tissue. The results will be presented with the claim that such amounts are “harmless”. Nuclear veterans and civilians have long disagreed with such past assurances and will surely disagree with future ones too. For example:

Source: AWTSC (Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committe) Report Number 5, Strontium 90 and Caesium 137
in the Australian Environment during 1969 with some results for 1970”.

The above results were obtained by the government theft of human tissue from the bodies of deceased Australians from public hospitals. No kin permission was ever sought. Pathologists around Australia received secret payments from the Federal government. The bone samples were taken firstly to Columbia University, USA for analysis, then the UK, and finally analysis was conducted in Australia. (Source: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Report “AUSTRALIAN STRONTIUM 90 TESTINGPROGRAM 1957-1978”, 2001.) The program was commenced at the behest of the United States and its Atomic Energy Commission. Dr Libby had pondered the legality of such tissue theft, and found willing partners in the Australian authorities. In 2001 the press again revealed the situation (it had been revealed by nuclear veterans years earlier). As a result in 2001 Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Michael Wooldridge, admitted that nuclear pollution from weapons testing had “harmed people”. (Source: Media Release, Dr Michael Wooldridge, Minister for Health and Aged Care, MW82/01, 5 September 2001). Today, in the wake of the Fukushima, the Japanese government has stated that the nuclear emissions from nuclear weapons testing was safe. It was not and is not. It adds to the emissions from the broken reactors.

No doubt the Japanese government will be interested in studying the human tissue methods by Columbia University, UK’s HASL and the Australian Government in the era of global human tissue radiological contamination survey known as Project Sunshine. I would hope that Japan, rather than conducting its Fukushima contamination of human tissue survey over the next 50 years in secret using slush funds for pathologists, consider earnestly doing it in the open. Not the Sr90 contamination for still born babies (age 0). How did the Sr90 get into the babies’ bones? Via the mothers’ soft tissue and across the placenta, into the fetus. Radio Strontium only goes only to bones in males. How did it get in the bones of babies who had only breast fed? Via the mothers’ milk. The mothers’ soft tissue is subject to mobilized radio isotopes during pregnancy and nursing.

This has been long known:









See also : The transfer of calcium and strontium across biological membranes. 1963 pp. xvii+443 pp.
WASHERMAN, R. H.Editor WASHERMAN, R. H. Papers given at a conference on Ca and Sr at Cornell in May 1962 are presented in sections on the fundamentals of ion transfer across membranes, physiological aspects of intestinal absorption, nutritional considerations of intestinal absorption, vitamin D and the intestinal absorption of Ca and Sr, other factors influencing the absorption of Ca and Sr, considerations of Sr metabolism, and transfer of Ca and Sr across kidney, mammary gland, nerve and muscle. The papers include “Phosphopeptldes: chemical properties and their possible role in the intestinal absorption of metals”, by O. MELLANDER (pp. 265-76); “Lactose and the absorption of Ca and Sr”, by Y. DUPUIS & P. FOURNIER (pp. 277-93); “Studies on the movement of Ca and Sr across the bovine mammary gland”, by A. R. TWARDOCK (pp. 327-39); and “Ca-vitamin Z)-parathyroid interrelationships in lactating rats”, by S. U. TOVERUD (pp. 341-58). J.M.D.

They knew and continue to know. This salient conference, held immediately prior to the cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, clearly identifies the sound reasons for the imposition of the limited test ban treaty. It also explains why any radiological release should be banned.

Let us be very clear. The reason for the presence of fission products in human tissue in the examples given above is because the fission products had contaminated the food supply. As much as Japanese authorities might seek to dilute these by burning, the facts of the biology of life are that all creatures concentrate the fission products in their tissue. Bio Accumulation will occur despite attempts at dilution. As a result of attempts of dilution, more and more people will be forced to become bio-accumulators of TEPCO’s and the Japanese Government’s emitted fission products. There is no safe disposal method for nuclear pollution.

Consequences in Japan? I have no idea of how many people will be adversely affected by their internal doses. But I sure as hell do not believe any authority of government such as the one who front in March 2011 in Japan to claim that plutonium was safe for children to eat and that only unhappy or mentally weak people get sick from radiation contamination. What an insult to every Australian nuclear veteran and every nuclear around the world and in Japan!!!

Can Med Assoc J. 1963 January 19; 88(3): 136–139.
PMCID: PMC1921007

Strontium-89 and Strontium-90 Levels in Breast Milk and in Mineral-Supplement Preparations

Anita A. Jarvis, John R. Brown, and Bella Tiefenbach
Copyright and License information ►

Strontium-90, strontium-89 and S.U. values were determined in human milk before and after the resumption of atmospheric nuclear testings in 1961, and the levels were compared to cows’ milk values reported during the same time. S.U.90 levels in human milk were approximately one-fifth of those found in cows’ milk. Assuming an average dietary intake of 11-13 S.U.90 during the period tested, the mean strontium/calcium ratio of 1.78 found in human milk represents an Observed Ratio milk-diet of approximately 0.14-0.16. Although strontium-89 was present in cows’ milk already in September 1961, it did not appear in human milk until November 1961. It seems, therefore, that there was a two-month lag period between the appearance of fresh fallout in cows’ milk and human milk. Calcium-supplement mineral preparations used by pregnant and lactating women were tested to find their strontium-89, strontium-90 and S.U. levels, because strontium isotopes, if present in these products, will be transferred to the fetus and to breast-fed infants. The compounds tested had S.U.90 levels of 0.13-2.62; in none of the preparations was Sr89 present. end quote.

FDA rules state that the administration of Strontium 89 to healthy people is illegal at any dose. Full Stop Mr Noda.

The Big Mistake of investing in Nuke in the First Place

August 30, 2012

New York Times

Published: August 29, 2012

Japan Strives to go Nuclear Free

TOKYO — As Japan moves to cut back on nuclear power after last year’s disaster in Fukushima, it is running into a harsh economic reality: the cost of immediately abandoning its nuclear reactors may be too high for some big utilities to shoulder.

If the country’s 50 nuclear reactors were permanently closed this year, power companies would be hit with losses totaling 4.4 trillion yen ($55.9 billion), rendering at least four of them insolvent, according to calculations this summer by the government’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.

The extraordinary costs of an immediate shutdown have emerged as a major concern for the Japanese government, which has struggled to balance the desire for improved nuclear safety with the bottom-line realities of the big utilities. Nuclear plants generated about one-third of Japan’s electricity before the Fukushima accident, but most remain at least temporarily offline.

“People talk easily about shutting down Japan’s nuclear power plants, but the economic and financial consequences are severe,” said Reiji Takeishi, professor in environmental economics at Tokyo International University.

The government is now considering at least three options to reduce the country’s dependence on nuclear power — and all of them would give the power companies until 2030 to shut their reactors permanently, allowing them to largely recoup their plant investments. By 2030 the majority of reactors would be older than 40 years and would face decommissioning anyway under Japanese guidelines.

But a series of fresh safety concerns, including possibly active fault lines beneath nuclear sites, have raised doubts about whether the nuclear reactors should be restarted at all. And the proposed 18-year timetable has angered the country’s growing antinuclear movement, which complained that the government had its priorities wrong.

“How can you put the economy above safety, above human life?” Masanori Oda, a contemporary artist and a representative of the movement, said after a meeting with Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda last week.

One option being considered by the government would reduce the country’s dependence on nuclear power to 20 to 25 percent of electrical needs by 2030. A second option would cut the segment to 15 percent, and a third would eliminate nuclear power entirely.

Though the 15 percent proposal initially gained traction, public hearings and opinion polls have shown overwhelming support for a complete phaseout. All of the proposals could involve progressively restarting the country’s reactors.

In recent days, a string of governing party lawmakers and government ministers have also expressed support for the so-called zero option, with an eye on nationwide elections that could be called within months. The fate of the nuclear reactors is part of a larger and highly charged discussion over the costs and benefits of nuclear energy and its alternatives.

Much of the argument has tended to focus on the wider economic costs of turning away from nuclear power.

Japan’s biggest and most influential business lobby, the Keidanren, warns of disaster. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost, the group says, and energy alternatives would be hampered by problems.

Already Japan’s fuel imports have surged since the Fukushima disaster, driving the country’s trade deficit to record highs. Though Japan has so far avoided blackouts this summer, power shortages are weighing on businesses. Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions are also surging, and renewable energies such as wind and solar power remain small-scale, expensive and unreliable, the lobbying group says.

“If we do not have a stable supply of energy at economically viable prices, Japan’s economy cannot grow,” the group said earlier this month.

The economic stakes for the utilities could be even higher in the shorter term.

A government-appointed panel of experts warned this year that there is a possibly active fault line under the Shika Nuclear Power Plant, 170 miles north of Kyoto, raising the possibility that the location could be declared unfit for a nuclear facility. The plant’s operator, the Hokuriku Electric Power Company, would be pushed to near-insolvency with losses of at least 313 billion yen ($3.97 billion) if it were forced to shut the two reactors, the government calculations show.

The losses would stem from extra costs of early decommissioning, write-downs on other nuclear assets, as well as the costs of offloading the plant’s nuclear waste and fuel, according to those calculations.

Another troubled utility is Chubu Electric, which is desperate to save the No. 5 reactor at its Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant, the newest unit at the site and the country’s largest. The unit opened in 2005 but has been offline since last May, when Naoto Kan, then prime minister, effectively ordered it closed on fears that it lies on a particularly tsunami-prone coastline.

During the shutdown, however, about 1,300 gallons of seawater entered the reactor because of a burst pipe, and it is thought to be corroding the reactor core.

Two smaller utilities, Hokkaido Electric and Tohoku Electric, would fare even worse: the cost of writing off their reactors would drive them into insolvency, the government estimates. Both utilities face concerns that their reactors also face bigger quake risks than previously thought.

And Tokyo Electric — Japan’s largest utility, and the operator of the ravaged Fukushima Daiichi plant — would be forced to take additional write-downs of 1.15 trillion yen ($14.6 billion) if it were unable to reopen its 13 remaining reactors, including two at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Daiichi site, and four more at a sister site just 10 miles away.

The local Fukushima government is calling for all of the utility’s reactors to remain permanently closed. But that would be disastrous for a company effectively nationalized last month because of the exorbitant costs of the accident and compensation payments.

“I really don’t see a scenario that the power companies will be made to go to zero in the near term,” said Penn Bowers, a research analyst who covers Japan’s power companies at CLSA Japanese Equities. “You would go into negative equity for some of those companies,” he said. “I don’t think that’s a choice, because there are not alternative suppliers. You need these companies to remain going concerns.”

Those who favor phasing out nuclear power argue that the costs of another disaster would easily outweigh other considerations. They are optimistic about developing renewable energy, especially with heavy public investment, and say new technologies in that field could cut down on emissions and create new jobs.

“The assumptions underlying the economics of nuclear power no longer hold up,” said Terumitsu Honma, a professor in economics and insurance at Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo. “The biggest assumption was that accidents don’t happen.”

The utility companies have a strong incentive to push the government for permission to restart their reactors, even with the risks. Because the cost of another disaster would most likely be greater than the value of the companies, private insurers have been unwilling to insure the utilities — putting the government on the hook for any damages.

As such, the risks of restarting Japan’s reactors, both financially and in terms of safety, would be borne by the Japanese taxpayers, while any benefits would go to the utilities and their shareholders, said J. Mark Ramseyer, a professor at Harvard Law School who wrote an article about the Japanese nuclear industry this month in an academic journal, Theoretical Inquiries in Law.

“They capture all the returns, but bear less than all of the costs,” he said in an e-mail.