Fukushima Daiichi: the situation (one year) after (ASN and IRSN)

[Christophe]

The total annual production of Tritium for the French nuclear fleet is around 25 g (twenty five grams); oxidized in water, the volume would be about 150 mL, or one sixth of a liter (a can of beer).

Lost, the beer can is 25, 33 or 50 cl ... in 15 cl it does not exist ...
Sorry but such an error lapses all the credibility of the rest of your reasoning.

I +3 Leo so ...

[to be chafoin]

(...)
So stop trying to scare the kids with this bogeyman story, and go document it a bit. You have the right to be anti-nuk, even if it is due to your ignorance ... But ignorance cannot excuse everything.

NB In Fukushima, despite these millions of m3, there is still no victim of radioactivity (NO victim); despite a major disaster, which killed nearly 20 people due to the tsunami. Compassion sometimes has suspicious priorities.

I cannot personally judge the harmfulness of tritium, but I found the end of your message at least astonishing, even unreal ... I then wondered if the newspapers and current information did not tell me, too , stories of a bogeyman to scare me.

The victim, in his 2011s, developed lung cancer after participating in emergency work in Fukushima between March and December 11, after the terrible tsunami which devastated the power plant on March 2011, XNUMX.

https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2018/09/0 ... _23518800/

Statistics from the Japanese Ministry of Health suggest, for the time being, the figure of 1 fatal cancers directly linked to the nuclear disaster.

Tokyo health officials have acknowledged that 116 children have been diagnosed with an aggressive form of thyroid cancer in Fukushima Prefecture alone in the past 5 years.

https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/fukushima-5-ans-apres-l-effarant-bilan-11-03-2016-2024557_24.php

Reiko Hasegawa, research associate at Medialab at Sciences Po Paris, estimates that Fukushima is responsible for 1.979 deaths not officially counted since March 11, 2011. For this specialist in natural disasters, the outcome of the event is heavier than announced because multiple suicides and illnesses aggravated by the stress linked to the disaster.

https://www.nouvelobs.com/planete/20160310.OBS6136/catastrophe-nucleaire-de-fukushima-combien-de-cancers-et-de-morts.html

https://www.sudouest.fr/2017/03/11/fuku ... 3-4803.php

Was all this fable and by no means reality? Here I am very reassured.

[Bardal]

Well, here is a forum who wakes up a little…

@Christophe: this is argumentation! So, if I understand correctly, is it less than a can? Well then say ...

@Maximus Leo: the question is not the formula of tritiated water (despite my poor command of Japanese, I believe I recognize the one I knew), nor even the impact on DNA of the energy of electron emitted by tritium (no need to add that of the neutrino, it does not interact with matter and has no ionizing effect), that of the risk close to 0 linked to tritium, due to the very small quantities of this element and its equally weak activity. As a reminder (incidentally incidentally) the atmospheric atomic tests of the 50s and 60s had dispersed several hundred kg of tritium (around 650, if I remember correctly) into the atmosphere with no measurable effect; today, we rather measure in tens of grams… So, indeed, an atom of tritium (biologically bound, rather than in the form of water) inserted in a strand of DNA, will undoubtedly be able to break it; the cell will die and will be eliminated by the organism, like several thousands every second in any human body… We play above all to be afraid there… the risk is also statistically tiny… as for the risk of cancer…

@ to be chafoin: the debate is not on the health consequences of Fukushima (although it would be an interesting debate); that said, some corrections

- beware like the plague of what peddles the newspapers on the subjects touching with Fukushima; he says anything to himself, most often out of ignorance of the subject, sometimes out of a taste for the sensational; this is how we heard Claire Chazal announce, I don't remember which anniversary of Fukushima, 19 dead due to the nuclear power plant… Corinne Lepage, the semilliant lawyer, specializes in these shattering announcements, widely relayed by the press. As for Reiko Hasegawa, despite all the respect that I owe to this researcher, I do not know on which study she relies to give this figure of 000 deaths; to my knowledge, Sciences Po has not carried out any specific field study at Fukushima, this is not its vocation. I prefer to stick to studies, more serious and based on field surveys conducted by recognized experts, such as those of WHO or UNSCAER. Sorry for her, but her opinion is a non-event.

-Yes, there were cancers after Fukushima; as there have been before, and as there are all over the world; but for this 50-year-old victim who develops detectable lung cancer less than 6 months after exposure, it must be a textbook case… Incidentally, no one today is able to determine the cause of cancer other than using a statistical approach (this is what epidemiology does very well), comparing the incidence of cancer in an exposed population with that of an unexposed population. We are not there in this scenario, and for good reason ...

- Figures from the Japanese Ministry of Health do speak of around 1700 deaths linked to the Fukushima disaster, but it is not cancer; these are the deleterious effects due to the stress associated with the evacuation and the "refugee" situation of the displaced populations; this is moreover the main conclusion of the WHO study on the health consequences of the disaster: the radioactivity emitted by the plant had only non-measurable consequences, but the evacuation did have some. significant (this risk was also pointed out at Chernobyl, in addition to the very real health consequences due to radioactivity); this observation must henceforth be taken into account for the measures to be taken, an evacuation order being by no means trivial, and not necessarily justified.

- that 116 children were diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 6 years is undoubtedly true; what we forget to say is that in other regions of Japan, we find a comparable proportion, as each time we do a systematic screening; the same phenomenon had been noted in France during studies launched after the Chernobyl cloud; experts speak of "screening bias", which does not prevent epidemiological studies and comparisons of incidence ... You just have to be wary of raw figures. The Japanese authorities (unlike Chernobyl) had taken severe measures to prevent exposure to iodine-131 (distribution of iodine saturating the thyroid, close medical monitoring, early interventions, etc.), with significant results.


To conclude, I am not trying to minimize the Fukushima disaster, even less that of Chernobyl… I am simply asking that we stop scaring ourselves with mysterious things, and unknown to the general public, and brandishing "risks" which are in fact nothing but rags of paper without consistency; radioactivity is a natural phenomenon, ubiquitous, completely controllable and much less dangerous than most human activities; it can be approached with a rational and Cartesian mind, without irrational anguish and without taboos.
Tritium, very fashionable at the moment (I don't know why), is not part of the consequent risks that humanity runs and the beer drinkers dear to Christophe risk infinitely more a cirrhosis than a DNA break due with Fukushima tritium ..

NB To be happy being chafoin: in 50 years of operation of nuclear power plants, having produced millions of TWh, there has been no death (NONE) due to the radioactivity of these power plants in OECD countries. Conversely, deaths due to coal and hydrocarbons during the same period, for the same production, amount to millions ...

[Sylvester spiritus]

To conclude, I am not trying to minimize the Fukushima disaster, even less that of Chernobyl… I am simply asking that we stop scaring ourselves with mysterious things, and unknown to the general public, and brandishing "risks" which are in fact nothing but rags of paper without consistency; radioactivity is a natural phenomenon, ubiquitous, completely controllable and much less dangerous than most human activities; it can be approached with a rational and Cartesian mind, without irrational anguish and without taboos.
Tritium, very fashionable at the moment (I don't know why), is not part of the consequent risks that humanity runs and the beer drinkers dear to Christophe risk infinitely more a cirrhosis than a DNA break due with Fukushima tritium ..

NB To be happy being chafoin: in 50 years of operation of nuclear power plants, having produced millions of TWh, there has been no death (NONE) due to the radioactivity of these power plants in OECD countries. Conversely, deaths due to coal and hydrocarbons during the same period, for the same production, amount to millions ...

You may not know it, but only in France; we came close to "the big Cata" at the Blayais power station during the storm of 1999.
We were just lucky thanks to the ebb tide ...
https://www.dissident-media.org/infonuc ... ayais.html

In a world of over-information like ours; there is more manipulation and misinformation than anything else.
Civil nuclear derives from military nuclear (the big mute)
Even if there is a fire somewhere, you will be told that everything is fine.

Hi, Hi.

[Flytox]

NB To make it fun to be chafoin: in 50 years of operation of nuclear power plants, having produced millions of TWh, there were no deaths (NONE) due to the radioactivity of these plants in OECD countries. On the other hand, the deaths due to coal and hydrocarbons during the same period, for the same production, amount to millions ...

Just wait a few times and you come out that same bullshit / misinformation. Ukraine and Chernobyl are not part of the OECD. This choice of perimeter / geographical division is completely idiotic and only serves to misinform on the dangers of nuclear ... Takes a perimeter / neighborhood which holds the road and wants to say something, and recounts the dead ...... ( more hope ) That being said, carbon energy does not sag to kill more and more .....

[Bardal]

NB To make it fun to be chafoin: in 50 years of operation of nuclear power plants, having produced millions of TWh, there were no deaths (NONE) due to the radioactivity of these plants in OECD countries. On the other hand, the deaths due to coal and hydrocarbons during the same period, for the same production, amount to millions ...

Just wait a few times and you come out that same bullshit / misinformation. Ukraine and Chernobyl are not part of the OECD. This choice of perimeter / geographical division is completely idiotic and only serves to misinform on the dangers of nuclear ... Takes a perimeter / neighborhood which holds the road and wants to say something, and recounts the dead ...... ( more hope ) That being said, carbon energy does not sag to kill more and more .....

The OECD represents most of the developed countries and seems to me to be a fairly relevant criterion for judging the functioning of a high-tech industry. Indeed, the Chernobyl disaster is as much a nuclear disaster (with an obsolete power plant known for its dangerousness) as a disaster linked to a country in collapse at that time; it is difficult to do worse in terms of governance and inappropriate decisions. We compare only comparable things, except intellectual dishonesty and misinformation.

But even without this criterion, and therefore taking Chernobyl into account, studies by the WHO and the UNSCAER show that nuclear power is by far the least dangerous energy industry of all.

[moinsdewatt]

The residents of Okuma near Fukushima will be able to return.

Evacuation order lifted in Fukushima host town

10 April 2019

Some residents of Okuma, the closest town to the Fukushima Daiichi plant, have today been allowed to return home. The evacuation order issued in 2011 has been lifted for the more mountainous and less inhabited western area, where around 380 of the town's former population of 10,500 lived.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Artic ... -host-town

[to be chafoin]

The question is: will the people of the contaminated region of Fukushima want to return? For the moment it is not really won. Let's put ourselves in their shoes for a minute: do I come back 8 years after this disaster to a partially decontaminated area (the forest areas, ie 75% of the territory have not been treated and will remain a "dangerous" area for decades), where walls of radioactive waste pile up in the landscapes (millions of bags), where I will have to keep an eye on my dosimeter (any exposure to radioactivity, even extremely low, increases the probability of developing cancer), be wary of local products (particularly seafood, traditionally appreciated by the inhabitants of this country and all the more so in this coastal area), live in deserted towns (15% of evacuees have returned), an area where a strip of about 30km long is still closed to habitation, wait and see what solution Tepco will find to manage the millions of liters of radioactive water which will soon exceed the pre-storage capacity. view of the power station ...

No matter how much you tell me you have to be rational and not be afraid of paper scarecrows, that statistics prove that it is the least dangerous, the most virtuous energy, etc., that it must be approach without taboos, I know what would be my decision.
Old, poor, Japanese entrepreneurs have chosen to return near Fukushima. And you what would you do?

This is the situation 8 years later ... the cost of the disaster is around 200 billion euros and will cost much more when the monstrous project is completed, at best in ten years! These are the risks of nuclear energy.

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature- ... eux_132050
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/video/20 ... _3244.html
http://japanization.org/le-japon-renvoi ... ntaminees/
https://www.france24.com/fr/20190311-fu ... -mer-japon

[Bardal]

The question is: will the people of the contaminated region of Fukushima want to return? For the moment it is not really won. Let's put ourselves in their shoes for a minute: do I come back 8 years after this disaster to a partially decontaminated area (the forest areas, ie 75% of the territory have not been treated and will remain a "dangerous" area for decades), where walls of radioactive waste pile up in the landscapes (millions of bags), where I will have to keep an eye on my dosimeter (any exposure to radioactivity, even extremely low, increases the probability of developing cancer), be wary of local products (particularly seafood, traditionally appreciated by the inhabitants of this country and all the more so in this coastal area), live in deserted towns (15% of evacuees have returned), an area where a strip of about 30km long is still closed to habitation, wait and see what solution Tepco will find to manage the millions of liters of radioactive water which will soon exceed the pre-storage capacity. view of the power station ...

No matter how much you tell me you have to be rational and not be afraid of paper scarecrows, that statistics prove that it is the least dangerous, the most virtuous energy, etc., that it must be approach without taboos, I know what would be my decision.
Old, poor, Japanese entrepreneurs have chosen to return near Fukushima. And you what would you do?

This is the situation 8 years later ... the cost of the disaster is around 200 billion euros and will cost much more when the monstrous project is completed, at best in ten years! These are the risks of nuclear energy.

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature- ... eux_132050
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/video/20 ... _3244.html
http://japanization.org/le-japon-renvoi ... ntaminees/
https://www.france24.com/fr/20190311-fu ... -mer-japon

I hope, being chafoin, that you never go to Brittany, or Limousin, or Corsica; because you will find in these places a much more important radioactivity than that of the majority of the communes surrounding Fukushima ... Certainly, it is "natural" there, but its effects are the same as the fallout of Japan, and their dangerousness is measured with the same instruments and the same units ...

In more detail, your post takes up all the erroneous and confused formulations allowing to create an agonizing and dramatic atmosphere, on bottom of diabolical mystery; let's see this a bit:

- "walls of radioactive waste" are, fortunately, only earth contaminated by fallout, much less dangerous; We also see in your videos people handling these bags without special protection, and apparently without visible or measurable effect. I don't think you know what radioactive waste is, or how carefully it is treated ...

- "any exposure to radioactivity, even extremely weak, increases the probability of developing cancer" ... Uh, no ... The theory known as "linear without threshold" has long been abandoned; it is manifestly false, and it is only above a certain dose (approximately 100 mSv / year) that a deleterious effect of radioactive radiation can be measured; fortunately also for the Bretons and the Corsicans, who, otherwise should present a frightening death rate by cancer, which is not the case (and what to say besides of the inhabitants of certain corners of India, of Iran or Brazil, where the radioactivity is 70 to 100 times greater than the limit allowed for the European population). This "information" is totally wrong and is meant only to manipulate fears and worries.

- This is also the case for "radioactive water", which is only contaminated water (which is not the same thing!), moreover stored without special protection.

- as for the 200 billion euros, this is only a forecast, no need to turn this into a milestone (moreover, the thread you give does not do this).

In short, your "vision" of the situation in Fukushima is only a fictionalized vision, deliberately dramatized, most often erroneous, with the sole objective of distressing and reactivating infantile fears; everything is not wrong, but everything is distorted as in a children's tale (wolves do exist, but they have little to do with the big-bad-wolf), or an archaic myth (Troy a existed, but its real story is not that told by Homer). We are no longer in the realm of the rational ...

It would not be very serious if it were not to the detriment of a real study of the Fukushima disaster, in order to draw valid lessons from it for any activity implementing nuclear power which, like any industry, involves dangers and risks that can be limited.

[to be chafoin]

In short, your "vision" of the situation in Fukushima is only a fictionalized vision, deliberately dramatized, most often erroneous, with the sole objective of distressing and reactivating infantile fears; everything is not wrong, but everything is distorted as in a children's tale (wolves do exist, but they have little to do with the big-bad-wolf), or an archaic myth (Troy a existed, but its real story is not that told by Homer). We are no longer in the realm of the rational ...

There are surely children's tales that are scary and there are those who dream, the tales of princesses, where magic wands embellish or erase the darkness of the world, where the dead even disappear ...

You can take me right back to the terms, but the picture is there: the stockpiles of contaminated soil, the inhabitants who do not want to go home, the unresolved problem of water decontamination on the plant, the pollution induced in ecosystems (especially marine) are real and you do not answer the question: would you come back?

The information on the effects of radioactivity on the probabilities of developing cancer is perhaps "totally wrong" and yet it is Jean-René Jourdain, pharmacist and radiobiologist at IRSN who speaks about it in the Le Monde video. So, unless you're an expert in nuclear and radiological risk research and expertise, like him, to explain with him about abandoned theories, I think we can at least ask about this idea that you think I would seek to manipulate anyone ...

The cost estimate by the authorities had doubled between 2013 and 2016. In 2017 they were valued at 193 billion euros according to wikipedia. And in the France24 article:

But in 2015, Akira Ono,the head of the Fukushima power plant, for his part told the Times that these operations could take up to 200 years. The Japan Center of Economic Research is also considering that the decontamination bill could reach from 400 to 570 billion, according to the Washington Post.

You see that I had not voluntarily forced the line, contenting myself reasonably with the trend of low forecasts.