2013年5月10日金曜日

© GREENPEACE 2013 　A personal reflection on Fukushima, from a Greenpeace radiation expert

Greenpeace　Greenpeace International

Home
 

Nuclear

Safety

Accidents

Fukushima disaster

Radiation survey field work


A personal reflection on Fukushima, from a Greenpeace radiation expert

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/i-was-a-greenpeace-radiation-expert-in-fukush/blog/44297/

Blogpost by Rianne Teule - March 12, 2013 at 9:39


 
I remember the oppressive feeling around my heart when the first news came about the earthquake and tsunami that hit the Japan coast, including several nuclear power plants, on 11 March 2011.
Half a day later it was clear that this was serious; three days later I arrived in Amsterdam to join the Greenpeace team coordinating our response; two weeks later I arrived in Japan to help explore the environmental damage done by the radioactive releases from Fukushima.

I remember the surreal experience of driving into the high radiation areas around Fukushima City, 60km from the plant where the nuclear disaster had occurred. The winter landscape looked beautiful and untouched, but in the car we could see the radiation levels going up on our monitoring equipment.

I remember my first tweet: "Driving through the hills towards Iitate, 40 km from the Fukushima reactors - radiation is rising."
I remember our meeting with the mayor of Minamisoma, a coastal town hit hard by both the tsunami and the radiation. He had only been contacted by the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), 11 days after the nuclear accident started, to inform him about the radioactivity that had spread over his town.

I remember the uncertainty and unawareness of the people we spoke with. They didn’t know the risks they were exposed to.

I remember the emotional discussions of our team as we were trying to figure out what we could do to best help these people. Terrible discussions, as we realised that hundreds of thousands of people were being exposed to what in our eyes were unacceptable levels of radiation. We realised our worst fear, another Chernobyl, was happening ...

My heart goes out to all Japanese people who are still suffering the consequences of this terrible accident.

My heart also goes out to colleagues in Greenpeace Japan, who have had to suffer the uncertainties about their own families, but were brave enough to support our radiation monitoring work. Some got a crash course in radiation protection and went into the field with us.

It makes me angry every time someone downplays the Fukushima impacts; every time someone thinks 'two years later Fukushima' is not worth remembering.

Imagine you lost everything you had, and will never be able to return home. Imagine that your children cannot play outside because of the radiation in your garden. Imagine the stigma people in Fukushima are feeling, similar to the Hibakusha after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings.
We have to remember.

In support of the people in Japan. In support of the worldwide fight to end nuclear power. Because this time we can win that fight. Help win it: sign our petition.

-Rianne
Image above: Dr. Rianne Teule is a radiation expert and Greenpeace nuclear campaigner. She has conducted several radiation monitoring field trips around the Fukushima nuclear power plant since the disaster, to help keep the public informed of the risks.

You can see the results of Greenpeace radiation monitoring in Fukushima here.

See more images from Greenpeace radiation monitoring work in Fukushima:



April 7, 2011 - Greenpeace radiation expert Rianne Teule monitors contamination levels on the outskirts of Fukushima City, 60 km from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. She was part of a Greenpeace field team sent to monitor radioactive contamination of food and soil after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in order to estimate the health and safety risks for the local population.



April 6, 2011 - Greenpeace radiation team experts Rianne Teule (left) and Nikki Westwood check crops for contamination in a garden at Fukushima City, 60 km from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The vegetables showed radiation levels 50-60 times more then the limits for food.



May 4, 2011 - Crew from the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, including radiation safety advisor Jacob Namminga (right), collect sea water and seaweed samples to monitor radiation contamination levels in the waters near the Fukushima nuclear power plant.



August 18, 2011 - Greenpeace radiation expert Iryna Labunska checks radiation levels at the Minami Fukushima kindergarten. The kindergarten had been decontaminated with support from authorities, community groups and NGOs, and while it exhibited significantly decreased dose rates overall, a few spots with elevated contamination levels persisted.

Many areas surrounding the school had not been decontaminated, so the risk of re-contamination was also high. Greenpeace had been monitoring radioactive contamination of food, sea life and the environment in the region surrounding the crisis-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant since the disaster. During this time Greenpeace continually called for comprehensive screening and decontamination measures to be put in place, and that vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and children, still living in highly contaminated areas outside the mandatory 30km exclusion zone be relocated.



October 17, 2012 - A Greenpeace radiation team monitors the contamination levels near an empty sports field in Fukushima city, 60km from the site of the March 2011 triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Greenpeace will continue to conduct regular radiation monitoring field trips to the Fukushima area and keep the public informed of the risks.


4 Comments
Add comment
 
(Unregistered) Felicia Diana Pechtold
(Unregistered) Felicia Diana Pechtold says:
We all have to help and give our voice!!!!!
Posted March 12, 2013 at 13:07 Flag abuse Reply

Grateful Child
Grateful Child says:
Thank you Rianne...,
Because of you, this world is a safer place. I find your actions profound and heroic. God bless you for your Love and lig...
Posted March 12, 2013 at 14:15 Flag abuse Reply
Read more Read less

Kiryuu Hiroto
Kiryuu Hiroto says:
Many children live in the radioactive contamination area in Fukushima yet.What kind of damage happens in their future?
I want you to show a risk...
Posted March 13, 2013 at 5:31 Flag abuse Reply
Read more Read less
 
(Unregistered) DG_Late Lessons
(Unregistered) DG_Late Lessons says:
Heroic work-well done

See Chapter on Fukashima (and Chernobyl) in "Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovatio...
Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:26

© GREENPEACE 2013

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Greenpeace　Greenpeace International

Radiation surveys - Fukushima

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/Radiation-field-team/

On this page

Background - October 23, 2012

Monitoring in the Fukushima area by Greenpeace radiation experts has provided valuable information to residents, helping them understand the risks they continue to face from high levels of radioactive contamination.

Expert teams have taken hundreds of radiation measurements on many occasions in towns just outside the 20 km exclusion zone around the Fukushima disaster site and in Fukushima City and Koriyama, 60 km from the disaster. Greenpeace monitoring began shortly after the accident on 11 March 2011. The teams have also tested soil, vegetables, seafood, and sediment.

Compilation data of all radiation monitoring to date:
 


We have found radiation at levels high enough to raise health concerns for the people who continue to live daily with this contamination. We have also shown that the authorities have consistently underestimated both the risks and extent of radioactive contamination. Based on our results we called for a significant extension to the evacuation area, which was later implemented. We advised that until decontamination was completed, children should be held back from their schools to avoid high radiation levels. We have also found that official monitoring stations systematically underestimate the radiation risks for the population.

Our analysis of the threats to public health have given residents an alternative to the often contradictory information released by Japan’s authorities since the Fukushima disaster began.

The teams are made up of Greenpeace radiation experts who have been trained in radiation monitoring and the use of sophisticated measuring devices.

Locations and details of radiation levels to date are shown on the maps below. Click a flag for details on the levels of contamination found. Raw data as well as sample analyses can be found in spreadsheets further down the page.

 

Summary of field trips:

October 2012: Fukushima City & Iitate

Greenpeace found that more than 75% of the 40 checked monitoring posts showed lower radiation levels than their immediate surroundings, with levels within 25 metres up to six times higher than at the posts themselves. Also the team found that the cleanup in a trial decontamination area in Iitate has so far been insufficient, with radiation levels up to 5 uSv/h (at 1m) recorded in a residential area.

March 2012: Fukushima City

One year after the Fukushima disaster, Greenpeace found that radioactive contamination is concentrating in many places, creating hotspots that create serious threats to people’s health. For example, the team found hot spots of 70μSv/hr (at 10cm) in a parking garage 50 metres from the central train station, and 40μSv/hr in a water drain next to housing, representing up to 1,000 times normal background levels.

December 2011: Fukushima City

Greenpeace monitored the Watari and Onami neighbourhoods of Fukushima City and found hotspots of up to 37 μSv/hr (at 10cm) in a garden in Watari, and 10.1 μSv/hr in bags of dirt, seemingly abandoned, on a road in Onami.

April 2011: Fukushima prefecture

Less than 4 weeks after the disaster started, Greenpeace measured radiation levels and took samples at various places in Fukushima prefecture. The teams recorded radiation levels in Fukushima City and Koriyama, high enough to expose people to the maximum yearly dose of radiation allowable in a matter of weeks. The teams also found radiation levels above official limits in vegetables. Greenpeace called for full evacuation of several high radiation areas including Iitate and Namie that were later evacuated. We also called for the greater Fukushima area to be given official protective status and for children and pregnant women to be evacuated from high risk areas in Fukushima City and Koriyama.

Monitoring results - Data

We're posting raw data from our field teams here as we can. Our team's priority is updating the map (above), and informing local communities, so there may be delays in publishing the raw data. Our intention is to publish spreadsheets for all our monitoring work (though some may have to be published after the end of field work for logistical reasons). These will contain the same information as in the map. By posting these spreadsheets, we hope to make it easier for people/institutions who want to use our data as part of their own research efforts. (By combining it with government data for, example, or using it in ways we have not imagined.)

Use of this data

This data is released under an Open Data Commons Attribution license. Please DO: Re-publish, mash-up, re-mix, share and create new works from this data. Please DO: Cite us as the source and link to this page. Please DO NOT: Imply that Greenpeace endorses your product or interpretation (we're only an original data source).

Spreadsheets










Letter to National Government, August 2011 (pdf)

Fukushima/Watari/Onami results, December 2011 (xls)


GP Radiation Monitoring Iitate, October 2012 (xls)


© GREENPEACE 2013

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Greenpeace　Greenpeace International

Q&A on Fukushima

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/Fukushima-QA/

Background - February 27, 2012

Here's a living document with questions and answers from our nuclear communications team. Check back for updates as the situation continues to develop.

Fukushima Memorial Q and A
















Q: What happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant?
On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Japan, followed by a tsunami triggering the biggest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. The earthquake and tsunami caused a complete black out at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant leading to a failure of the cooling systems. As a result, although the reactors were stopped, it only took several hours for the fuel to overheat and melt in reactors #1, #2, #3. Glowing fuel formed hydrogen gas that exploded and damaged four reactor buildings (units #1 to #4), opening a pathway for a massive radiation release from both the reactors and ponds storing spent fuel next to the reactors. The accident was finally rated with the highest rating 7, on an international scale (INES), the same rating as Chernobyl.


Q: What are the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident?
The atmospheric releases of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster are estimated to be in the range of 10% to 40% of the quantity released by the Chernobyl disaster. Fortunately for the Japanese people, most of the fallout did not hit the land but ended up in the ocean, resulting in the largest ever discharge of radioelements into the Pacific Ocean. Marine life and sediments continue to be contaminated over large distances.

Although only 20% of the radioactive release fell on land, large portions of affected areas will remain highly contaminated for decades. Approximately 13,000 km2 of land is contaminated so heavily that the radiation doses there exceed the international limit of 1 millisievert per year.

It has been almost one year since the earthquake and tsunami claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people, however the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear disaster still continue to unfold for over 150 thousand people who had to evacuate their homes, and many more others who continue to live in contaminated areas. They have not been taken care of or compensated adequately. Japan is one of the most well-prepared countries in disaster management. However, the authorities have failed at every step in their response to the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster, demonstrating that no country can be effectively prepared to mitigate a large nuclear accident and a major release of radiation.


Q: What is happening at the site now?
The government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the owner of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, declared they had achieved a “cold-shutdown” like status in December 2011 even though they still cannot even determine the exact location or temperature of the melted reactor fuel. The declaration was made for political reasons to fulfil an earlier promise to achieve cold shutdown before the end of 2011. The reality is the four reactors in Fukushima are not in a stable state, and the release of radioactive materials continues to contaminate the ocean as well as ground water. Radiation levels remain too high for workers to enter the reactors. Workers continue to inject nitrogen into the reactors to prevent another hydrogen explosion.

Even today, the Fukushima nuclear power plant is still releasing radioactive materials to the air. In January 2012, the releases were at a rate of 70 million Becquerel (Bq) per hour. Furthermore, TEPCO has faced several small leaks, and a major leak to the ocean is still a possibility.

Currently, over 100,000 tonnes of contaminated water – used to cool the reactors - is stored at the plant, as the efforts to decontaminate highly radioactive water have failed. It may take 40 years, and billions of dollars, to fully decommission the Fukushima reactors.


Q: Why does Greenpeace claim that the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant was not caused by the tsunami and earthquake that hit the area?
The Fukushima nuclear disaster happened first of all because the Japanese authorities failed to make protection of people their highest priority; instead they were more concerned about protecting the nuclear industry and its profits. The tsunami and earthquake only played the role of a trigger. Due to the wrong system established by the government and regulators, an accident was inevitable: if it were not a tsunami and an earthquake, another factor, such as a different natural disaster, human error or technical failure, could have initiated a similar disaster.

The government, the regulators as well as TEPCO — the operator of the Fukushima reactors — knew of the threat of earthquakes and tsunamis beyond what the plant was design to withstand for years before the March 11, 2011 event. It is evident in numerous recorded warnings from university and independent experts since 1990, as well as evident in an internal study by TEPCO in 2007, and a report by Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) in 2008. Yet, the government, regulators and TEPCO did not act on this information and did not put in place the protective measures that could have avoided or limited the damage from the tsunami.


Q: Greenpeace says no reactor is safe, all are inherently unsafe. What are these inherent risks of nuclear reactors?
All commercial nuclear reactors contain massive amounts of radioactivity in their cores: if even a fraction of it is released to the environment, it is enough to cause a long-term, heavy contamination of vast geographical areas. This is not only a problem of peculiar reactor designs, such as the Chernobyl type, but a problem that applies to every reactor. The newest generation III reactor designs, such as the French EPR, are larger and contain even more radioactivity than existing reactor models.

Fukushima illustrates this risk pretty well: we have been lucky this time as only a small fraction of radiation escaped from the reactors, and most of it was blown out to the ocean. Yet, it seriously contaminated areas up to 80 kilometres from the Fukushima plant. The official worst-case scenario models, released to the public only later, show that even the Tokyo megapolis, 250 km away, would have to be evacuated.

In Fukushima, the multiple barriers that were supposed to keep radiation away from the environment and people quickly failed and it took only 24 hours for the first hydrogen explosion to blow open the last remaining barrier between radiation and atmosphere.

Fukushima is a reminder that "nuclear safety" does not exist in reality. There are only nuclear risks, inherent to every reactor, and these risks are unpredictable. At any time, an unforeseen combination of technological failures, human errors or natural disasters at any one of the world's reactors, could lead to a reactor quickly getting out of control.


Q: The nuclear industry says that the risk of a serious accident at a nuclear reactor is small, on the order of one in a million years. That's a pretty small risk.
The Fukushima disaster again proves that the claims from the nuclear industry that the probability of a major accident is very low are simply wrong.

More than 400 reactors operate worldwide now, so assuming the claimed one million years chance of heavy accident, the probability of a reactor core meltdown would be on the order of one in 2,500 years. But, an observed average frequency, since we have already seen five reactors suffering meltdowns in the last 50 years, is one in a decade. So while the nuclear industry makes wishful assumptions about extremely low probabilities, the empirical data show meltdowns are in fact happening 100 times more frequently than what we are asked to believe.


Q: But isn't the Fukushima situation just bad luck? Surely no one can expect an earthquake and a tsunami?Fukushima is not bad luck, it happened because of the failure of the authorities to make the safety of the public a priority. As early as 1997, seismologists were warning TEPCO about tsunami risks, however TEPCO chose to ignore these risks [1]. In an ironic twist of history, after several reports and warnings by in-house and independent experts, TEPCO informed the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) just four days before the accident happened that the power plant could be hit by a tsunami exceeding 10 meters, while the plant was designed to withstand a tsunami of up to 5.7 meters [2].

The nuclear industry cannot claim that nuclear power is safe, and then put a major crisis down to "bad luck." Not only should the Japanese industry have been prepared for a major earthquake followed by a tsunami, but this again shows the inherent risks of reactor technology.

All reactor designs also have their inherent vulnerabilities. The root problem causing the meltdown and hydrogen explosion in Fukushima was the fatal dependency of light water reactors (the most common type of reactor in the world, representing 80 % of the global fleet) on the active cooling that is required for many weeks even after the reactor is stopped. This cooling system in Fukushima reactors was knocked out by tsunami, but another event — or a combination of events — could also lead to a loss of cooling, reactor overheating and meltdown.

We have seen near misses in the past, for example, the 2006 nuclear accident at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden. There was no tsunami and no earthquake, yet the power plant suffered a station-wide blackout and its backup diesel generators failed to start. The Fukushima meltdown scenario was luckily avoided then by a narrow margin.


Q: But nobody has died of radiation yet in Fukushima. So why does Greenpeace talk about a disaster?
First, Fukushima already has its victims. As of February 2012, Japanese authorities have certified 573 deaths as related to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, with another 29 cases pending. Although these people were not directly killed by radiation, they would not have died if the reactor accident had not happened. This also doesn't take into account a major impact on the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens who were evacuated or who continue to live in areas contaminated with radiation.

The exposure to radiation at the levels that we observe in Fukushima prefecture is too low to have immediate impacts, but is sufficient to increase the risk of health problems and cancers in the future. Similar to smoking, lower doses of radiation do not kill you immediately, but have long-term impacts. Cancer and other diseases take several years or even decades to appear.

If you hand out cigarettes to children, you certainly would not be able to conclude after several months that no one had died yet, and therefore smoking is harmless. Yet, this is exactly what the nuclear power proponents try to suggest in the case of the Fukushima disaster and the radiation it released.

The radiation levels to which hundreds of thousands of people outside of the evacuation zone continue to be exposed are highly elevated, exceeding by many times the natural background level. The internationally accepted maximum dose from artificial radiation, set for members of the public, is one millisievert per year. Yet, Japanese authorities now permit citizens to receive 20 millisieverts per year, and that includes children and pregnant women who are much more vulnerable to radiation. Science says that both fatal and non-fatal health impacts can be expected in future.


Q: Greenpeace conducted radiation testing in Japan a number of times, what did you find?
Shortly after the disaster began, Greenpeace's extensive monitoring of radiation levels and food contamination in the area outside the 20km exclusion zone surrounding the Fukushima nuclear complex showed that further evacuation measures were necessary, including at radiation hotspots in several towns and the evacuation of pregnant women and children from high risk areas in Fukushima City and Koriyama. Significantly elevated levels of radiation were found as far as 60 or 70 kilometres away from the reactors.

Radiation levels above official limits were found in vegetables collected from gardens tested by the experts. It took more than one month for the government to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem and evacuate people in several radiation hotspots.

Later, in May, Greenpeace brought its flagship Rainbow Warrior II to the Fukushima coastline and urged the Japanese authorities to undertake comprehensive radiation testing of seaweed along the Fukushima coast after our initial tests of seaweed samples showed significantly high levels of radioactive contamination, far beyond allowable limits for food consumption. Seaweed is a staple of the Japanese diet. Yet, the government's monitoring of marine radiation remained very limited and insufficient to protect public health.

In August 2011, more than five months after the disaster, Greenpeace found radiation dose rates exceeding international safety standards at several schools and many public areas in Fukushima City and called on the Prime Minister to delay the opening of schools in the city after the summer break.

More than seven months after the disaster, Greenpeace found radioactive contamination in more than half the samples it tested of fish and shellfish from five supermarket chains in seven Japanese cities. The levels were below the official limit in Japan but close to the limit set in Ukraine following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. This contaminated seafood still represented a health risk, particularly for pregnant women and children.


Q: What are the qualifications of the people doing Greenpeace's radiation tests in Japan?
Greenpeace has a team of radiation specialists who successfully passed university courses and have their certificates. They also undergo regular practical trainings. Many of them have previous experience from field work in the Chernobyl region and from numerous other missions, including Iraq, to independently investigate radioactive contamination.

We have been using a wide range of radiation monitoring equipment during field trips, such as contamination monitors, Becquerel monitors and portable gammaspectrometers – that is of course apart from personal dosimeters. In cases where we have taken samples, they were sent for analysis to independent laboratories.

Measured results have been regularly published on the Greenpeace International website http://www.greenpeace.org/fukushima-data


Q: There may be risks from nuclear reactors, but the world needs the electricity from nuclear to keep our economies going and to fight climate change, don't we?
Nuclear power, which covers only few percent of the world’s total energy consumption, was in decline even before Fukushima, and it is feasible that it can be replaced with energy efficiency and renewable energy generation within a decade or two.

During the last five years, 22-times more new, power-generating capacity based on wind and solar was built (230,000 MW) compared to nuclear (10,600 MW). Even when we factor in their lower utilization rate, renewable power plants built in 2011 alone are capable of generating as much electricity as 16 large nuclear reactors.

We have also seen in the last year the examples of Japan and Germany where even a rapid nuclear phase out has not led to blackouts or economic collapse. Germany has permanently closed eight reactors — half of its fleet — yet, it even continues to export electricity. During a cold snap in February, solar-generated electricity from Germany helped nuclear France meet an extreme electricity demand.

Similarly, Japan is currently running only two reactors compared to 54 reactors a year ago, and it functions normally thanks to energy savings and better usage of other types of existing power plants. Available figures show that the country‘s greenhouse gas emissions did not increase in 2011, as higher thermal power generation was offset by efficiency measures in other parts of the energy sector. Japan can still meet its Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas reductions even if it does not restart any of its reactors.

Greenpeace has commissioned an Energy [R]evolution scenario that shows how the world can gradually phase out nuclear power by 2035, and avoid building any new reactors, by making smart investments in better efficiency and renewable power generation. These measures would not only help us avoid nuclear hazards, but would also meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, as well as improve energy security, keep energy costs under control, and generate millions of sustainable and quality jobs.


Q: Does Greenpeace think we should just turn off all of the nuclear stations right now?
We would love to but that would not be practical. In the Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution, a scenario describes a nuclear phase-out, where existing reactors would be closed at the end of their operational lifetime of 35 years and no new reactors would be built.


Q: What is the problem with the liability rules for nuclear reactors?
In almost every country with nuclear reactors, the government protects the owners of nuclear plants from paying the full costs of a disaster by putting a cap on the operator’s liability. Economic analysts have frequently said that putting significant limits on the liability of nuclear operators can be seen as a subsidy to the nuclear industry.

The system that's in place protects the profits of the nuclear industry and forces the public to pay the costs of disasters. As soon as something goes wrong, the nuclear industry throws the responsibility for dealing with losses and the costs of damages to the citizens affected by a nuclear disaster.

Instead of protecting nuclear industry profits, governments should make the industry, the suppliers of its equipment and the investors who bankroll new reactors liable for all the costs of a nuclear disaster. The industry also needs to arrange full insurance so that sufficient compensation funds are available even if a company goes bankrupt.


Q: Nuclear reactors generate baseload, wind and solar are intermittent - so how can you use them to replace nuclear reactors?
The national demand of countries fluctuates between day and night, and between seasons. Renewable energy sources are actually better suited to follow the demand with a mix of different technologies, management of the demand for electricity, and some storage of renewable energy, for example in hydro power stations. In contrast, nuclear reactors have to operate 24/7 both because they are not sufficiently flexible, and also to achieve low generation costs.

Most renewable energy sources are easy to turn on and off; they are flexible and can be used to meet varying energy demand. Solar photovoltaic and wind depend of course on how much sun and wind are available but they often balance each other over time and across larger geographical areas; also bio energy, hydro, geothermal (Japan has a large potential for geothermal) and concentrated solar power stations can be turned up or down depending on need.

Numerous expert studies have already shown that when properly planned and smartly integrated into the electricity grid, the supply of renewable electricity can be as reliable as conventional power. Detailed modelling and simulations of an energy system based on a mix of renewable energy supply have been performed for example for Europe, and confirm that the grid can function reliably 24/7 even under various weather extremes.

Renewable energies are the cheapest and technically best options for achieving a secure energy supply and for gaining energy independence for a country like Japan.

Q: How is Japan dealing with the gap in electricity production as it permanently lost some reactors and most of the rest of its nuclear fleet are currently not running? What are the implications to its energy security and carbon emissions?
Japan managed to avoid blackouts during last summer’s peak, when although consumers were encouraged to reduce energy consumption by 10%, mandatory restrictions on power usage for businesses, corporations and other large users of electricity were lifted in September 9, 2011, two weeks earlier than planned.

Much more interestingly, the country has not suffered from electricity shortages during this record cold and snowy winter when much of the economy has already recovered from the earthquake and tsunami while only three reactors were running, compared to the 54 operational reactors in the winter of 2010. Japan covered the gap of lost nuclear power supply roughly equally by energy savings and better efficiency, as well as by increased operation of its existing thermal power plants, without a need to build new power plants. This was done without increasing the country’s overall carbon emissions: CO₂ emissions from the energy sector in Japan remained the same in fiscal year 2011 compared to 2010, and for the period April to December 2011 were even slightly lower.

Electricity consumption dropped 5 %, down to 892 terrawatt hours (TWh), in 2011. Fossil fueled power generation for April to November 2011 increased by 57 TWh (16.5 %), but the additional emissions were offset by energy savings elsewhere in the economy. Fossil fuel imports to Japan have also remained about the same by volume, though their costs increased by 3 trillion Japanese yen due to higher commodity prices.

The next challenge will be during the electricity consumption peak in the summer of 2012, if none of the country’s reactors is allowed to be restarted, meaning Japan will be a nuclear-free country at that time. While the nuclear industry and its proponents have been trying to suggest that there is a risk of blackouts, previously concealed documents were leaked this January showing that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) predicts that even without any reactors running, there will be no energy shortages in the summer of 2012. Instead, METI projects a 6 % surplus in generation, including production from renewable energy sources equivalent to seven reactors.

The longer term dynamics, of course, depend very much on new policy decisions by the government. Should it go for nuclear phase out in 2012, it has realistic pathways to achieve it, while meeting its 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions commitments.

One possible scenario for achieving a nuclear phase out was published by Greenpeace in its Energy [R]evolution country scenario last year. The scenario combines efficiency gains and up scaled power generation from renewable energy to enable Japan to meet its target of a 25% GHG cut in 2020 compared to 1990 reference year entirely with domestic measures, without the use of offsets. This is a more ambitious domestic emission reduction than the government's plan before the disaster.

[1] Clenfield, J. 2011. Vindicated Seismologist Says Japan Still Underestimates Threat to Reactors, Bloomberg, 21 November 2011. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-21/nuclear-regulator-dismissed-seismologist-on-japan-quake-threat.html

[2] Nishikawa, J., Sasaki, E. 2011. TEPCO warned of big tsunami 4 days prior to March 11, The Asahi Shimbun, 25 August 2011. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/quake_tsunami/AJ201108257639

© GREENPEACE 2013

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Greenpeace　Greenpeace International

http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/ja/news/blog/staff/518/blog/45068/

【イベント 5/18】『調査報告　チェルノブイリ被害の全貌』刊行記念 アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会

投稿日 - 2013-05-09 12:25

グリーンピースは、下記の講演会（東京）を共催します。

盛岡・郡山・京都でも開催。
どうぞご参加ください。
●詳しくはこちら（主催団体のページに移動します）：
http://chernobyl25.blogspot.jp/2013/04/blog-post_29.html　

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
「フクシマ後」を生きるすべての人びとのために――
『調査報告　チェルノブイリ被害の全貌』刊行記念
主著者アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士 講演会
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
【 新刊案内 】
『調査報告　チェルノブイリ被害の全貌』
多年にわたる調査と5,000以上の文献に基づき、衝撃的な被害の全貌を報告した決定版データ集、待望の翻訳。
アレクセイ V ヤブロコフ、ヴァシリー B ネステレンコ、アレクセイ V ネステレンコ、ナタリヤ E プレオブラジェンスカヤ〈著〉
チェルノブイリ被害実態レポート翻訳チーム〈訳〉
崎山比早子　〈日本語版序〉
星川淳　〈監訳〉
●詳しくはこちら（主催団体のページに移動します）：
http://chernobyl25.blogspot.jp/2013/04/blog-post_29.html　

＜講演会　詳細＞
【東京】『調査報告　チェルノブイリ被害の全貌』刊行記念
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会
日時：　5月18日（土）午後6時30分～
会場：　星陵会館
主催：　チェルノブイリ被害実態レポート翻訳プロジェクト
共催：　ピースボート、グリーンピース・ジャパン、FoE Japan、グリーン・アクション
協賛：　岩波書店
解説：　崎山比早子
司会：　おしどりマコ
参加費：　1,000円（邦訳書持参の方は無料）

【盛岡】
公開講演会　「チェルノブイリからフクシマへ---原発事故の実情と教訓---」
日時：　5月19日（日）午後1時30分～
会場：　岩手大学工学部　テクノホール（工学部正門を入ってすぐ）
主催：　日本科学者会議岩手支部、原発からの早期撤退を求める岩手県学識者の会
（＊）参加無料

【郡山】
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会 「チェルノブイリ被害の全貌～福島への教訓」
日時：　5月20日（月）午後6時30分～
会場：　郡山市総合福祉センター
主催：　「ふくしま集団疎開裁判」の会

【京都】
『調査報告　チェルノブイリ被害の全貌』刊行記念
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会「チェルノブイリから学ぶ」
日時：　5月22日（水）午後6時15分～
会場：　キャンパスプラザ京都
主催：　京都精華大学人文学部細川研究室

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior 



アップロード日: 2010/09/16
Please make a donation today. http://www.greenpeace.org/donate

カテゴリ
非営利団体と社会活動

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Greenpeace New Zealand: Rainbow Warrior III tourt durch Neuseeland (2013) 



公開日: 2013/02/17
www.neuseeland-news.com Die 'neue' Rainbow Warrior III tourt Januar/Februar 2013 durch Neuseeland. Tausende Menschen kamen nach Wellington, Auckland, Lyttleston, um das legendäre Greenpeace-Schiff zu besichtigen. Immernoch kämpft Greenpeace unverdrossen gegen die geplanten Tiefsee-Ölborungen von Shell und Petrobras um Neuseelands Küsten. Einzigartige Naturgebiete und Tierarten sind bedroht und die Öffentlichkeit soll davon erfahren. Produced by Treetop Media Ltd

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

グリーンピース早わかり

1971年活動開始

船3隻
世界40か国に事務所
サポーターは世界中に

あなたも今すぐ世界のサポーターの仲間に！ >>
虹の戦士号（Rainbow Warrior）帆船・2011年就航

アークティック・サンライズ号
（Arctic Sunrise）砕氷船・1997年就航

エスペランサ号（Esperanza)
「希望」という意味・2002年就航

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/fukushima-disaster-holding-the-nuclear-indust/blog/44306/

Fukushima disaster: holding the nuclear industry liable


Blogpost by Kumi Naidoo - March 12, 2013 at 14:11

Fukushima disaster: holding the nuclear industry liable


Regulatory change is needed to hold reactor operators and their suppliers liable for paying the costs of a nuclear disaster and compensating victims
 
guardian.co.uk,
 
Japan Earthquake and Tsunami : Evacuees receive radiation scans: Fukushima nuclear power plant

Evacuees receive radiation scans in Nihonmatsu city in Fukushima prefecture on March 16, 2011. Photograph: Go Takayama/AFP/Getty Images
 
The social aftershocks and radiation fears from the tragic tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster that rocked Japan two years ago today continue to wreak havoc.

Adding insult to the social injury of dislocation, hardship and the mounting "atomic divorces" of families on the edge, the public is being forced to pay for the clean up – a clear failure of the law to hold the nuclear industry liable for its disasters.

In the US, a New Orleans court has the task of ruling whether BP, or its partners Transocean and Halliburton, were negligent in their work on the Macondo oil well, and how much money each company may have to pay for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

BP, which has said its partners shared responsibility for the rig safety, faces fines of more than US$17.5bn if found guilty. That's on top of compensation to claimants not part of an estimated $8.5bn settlement the company already reached last year.

But two years after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, victims are still awaiting full compensation from an industry that enjoys government protection.

Hundreds of thousands of victims, who fled their homes to escape the release of radiation from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant still live in limbo, unable to return home or rebuild their lives elsewhere. It is heart wrenching to witness the social toll of this avoidable industrial accident, doubly when you see public compensation being subordinated to private profit.

This is the reality of the Fukushima disaster, the result of a protection system that allows nuclear operators to pay only a tiny fraction of the costs of an accident, forcing the public to pay the rest.
Governments set up this protection 60 years ago to help get the nuclear power industry off the ground. Despite the unfairness of the system, governments have done nothing to rectify it. The Fukushima disaster highlights the need for change.

In law, Fukushima plant operator Tepco should pay the full costs of the accident. But there is a loophole: Tepco can't pay. So the government stepped in and nationalised the company, meaning Japanese taxpayers will pay for this disaster.

What's worse, is that this protection system works even better for the companies that supply reactors and other equipment to nuclear operators: they don't pay any of the costs of a disaster.

Big energy giants, such as General Electric, Toshiba and Hitachi, pay nothing if one of their reactors causes a disaster. At Fukushima, all three built reactors based on GE's flawed Mark I reactor design. Concerns that the reactor containment would fail during a major accident proved correct – this is exactly what happened.

The flaw was revealed decades earlier, but the problem wasn't fixed.

But the protection system means that GE, Hitachi and Toshiba and other big companies with enormous wealth are not held liable when their equipment contributes to a disaster.

Greenpeace is calling for the creation of a real nuclear liability system, one that makes both nuclear operators and their suppliers pay all the costs of their failures, not taxpayers.

If reactor suppliers knew they would be held liable in a disaster they would place more attention on the risks. They might even keep their flawed and unsafe products off the market.

India has a law that makes suppliers liable. And it frightens GE. John Flannery, chief executive, said on the 21st February that GE won't pursue the reactor business in India if the law isn't changed. "We are a private enterprise and we just can't take that kind of risk profiles," he said.

Last December, a senior US State Department official also said nuclear companies will "find it difficult" to take part in India's nuclear industry when they are exposed "to the risk of significant financial penalty."

Essentially, they are advocating for continued protection. And the costs of the Fukushima disaster make it crystal clear why nuclear operators and their reactor suppliers demand protection.
The full cost of the Fukushima disaster is estimated at US$250bn.

In a disaster, the protection system in most nuclear countries only requires a nuclear operator to pay a paltry $470m to $2bn and suppliers to pay nothing. Taxpayers pay the difference.

Of course, GE, Hitachi, Toshiba and other nuclear parts suppliers want to maintain the current system. Companies that supply reactors don't like financial risks, even if they don't design safe reactors.

But hundreds of millions of people live near the world's 436 reactors and a disaster at any one of these reactors could be catastrophic. People would suffer and taxpayers would pay almost all of the costs.

Absurdly, the powerful nuclear industry has greater protection and rights than the public – the ones at risk of radiation in a disaster. It's high time for that liability to be given back to the industry.

Kumi Naidoo is executive director at Greenpeace International

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
 
 
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
 
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

参考リンク：

MAJOR Nuclear Power Problems World Wide! & Fukushima update 10/4/12
 


公開日: 2012/10/04
Almost ALL EU nuclear reactors need improvement for safety. France in particular.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/2...
Bonus article below!
'Hundreds of problems' at EU nuclear plants - Hundreds of problems have been found at European nuclear plants that would cost 25bn euros (£20bn) to fix, says a leaked draft report. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...

http://youtu.be/5u6_92VVgYk
FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages/video may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, economic, DEMOCRACY, scientific, MORAL, ETHICAL, and SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information

New Giant active fault blamed on March 11, 2011 tsunami.

The newly appointed Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) said there needs to be an inspection of the Ohma plant for faults under that plant under construction. By the way, that plant they just resumed construction on is the first of it's kind to use reprocessed spent fuel as it's fuel source.

One MILLION Cancers predicted from Fukushima according to Arnie Gundersen.

Arnie Gundersen (again) says they should just cement the Fukushima plant and have workers return in about 100 years - to protect workers.

Reactor # 2 finally has a new thermometer after major Fails in the existing thermometers.

I had to reupload that AlJazerra video from yesterday. Hardly anyone watched it and it was a Major blow to the Nuclear Industry. (I guess the puppet presidential debates had the public distracted)...

http://enenews.com/ and the headlines
Latest Headlines:

Boat seen floating outside boundary of giant sinkhole (VIDEO)

Watch: New area nearby giant sinkhole saturated with water (VIDEO)

*Just In* Coast Guard: 4-mile stretch of oil has appeared near BP's Macondo well in Gulf

Victims of suspected radiological spraying in St. Louis suffer thyroid, other cancers — Helicopters covered children in powder — "Oh my God, if they did that there's no telling what else they're hiding"

Highest Yet: Pressure from cavern below giant sinkhole near 1,000 psi — Trying to extract 'hydrocarbon material' from well

Oil reported at BP's Macondo Well in Gulf could be coming from "fissures or cracks in sea floor" — NOAA covering up?

Gov't held secret meetings about human health impacts from Fukushima crisis

Asahi: Cesium levels spike in Fukushima primates — Radioactivity much higher in 2012 than in June 2011

Tokyo getting 5 times more radioactive fallout than prefectures closer to Fukushima

NHK: "Underground spring-water" a concern in Fukushima fallout study — Drone helicopter now measuring radiation around plant (VIDEOS)

Radio: "Every few days sinkhole gets bigger and gas bubbles spread out" — "My big fear is significant groundwater and aquifer contamination" for that area of Louisiana (AUDIO)

Top US Nuclear Official: Technologies don't exist yet to clean up Fukushima site... very difficult to overstate difficulty (VIDEO)

Nuclear Whistleblower: I was asked to leave my church — It's been a living hell (VIDEO)

Mother Tells Official: "Lick that soil! Please lick it! Children lick the soil — Please take the soil in your hand and lick it" after being told it doesn't need to be removed from Fukushima school (VIDEO)

Gundersen: Fill Fukushima reactors with cement and come back in 100 years — It's too radioactive (VIDEO)

Intelligence agency pressured researchers to withhold info on spread of Fukushima radiation

Radio: 1 million cancers coming from Fukushima? "We're seeing that already... Enormous increase in cancer precursor" (VIDEO)

Gundersen: They think "biological fouling" is causing temperature increase at Unit No. 1, organisms growing in pipes (VIDEO)

Legal Expert: They applied for permits to dispose of radioactive and other waste in cavern below giant sinkhole... and the material is leaking out (AUDIO)

White smoke coming out from Fukushima Daiichi radioactive waste storage facility

Radio: Geologists predict entire 3-mile-wide salt dome below sinkhole may collapse — "This is a really an ongoing disaster, it's going to continue to get worse" (AUDIO)

Mother/Farmer: We found 75% of Fukushima contaminated with high levels of radioactivity — This should be declared a 'radiation control area' (VIDEO)
 
 ==================================================================

Fukushima Never Again 



公開日: 2013/01/29
FUKUSHIMA Never Again - Japanese Version
福島第一原発の事故以来、その現状と人々の反原発への戦いの様子。
Mothers of Fukushima-Fighting For Their Children 17 min. 2013(Trailer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94h12...
For English version Fukushima Never Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU-Z4V...

====================

http://youtu.be/LU-Z4VLDGxU

リクエストによる埋め込み無効

公開日: 2012/10/02
"Fukushima, Never Again" tells the story of the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdowns in north east Japan in March of 2011 and exposes the cover-up by Tepco and the Japanese government.
This is the first film that interviews the Mothers Of Fukushima, nuclear power experts and trade unionists who are fighting for justice and the protection of the children and the people of Japan and the world. The residents and citizens were forced to buy their own geiger counters and radiation dosimeters in order to test their communities to find out if they were in danger.
The government said contaminated soil in children's school grounds was safe and then
when the people found out it was contaminated and removed the top soil, the government and TEPCO refused to remove it from the school grounds.
It also relays how the nuclear energy program for "peaceful atoms" was brought to Japan under the auspices of the US military occupation and also the criminal cover-up of the safety dangers of the plant by TEPCO and GE management which built the plant in Fukushima. It also interviews Kei Sugaoka, the GE nulcear plant inspector from the bay area who exposed cover-ups in the safety at the Fukushima plant and was retaliated against by GE. This documentary allows the voices of the people and workers to speak out about the reality of the disaster and what this means not only for the people of Japan but the people of the world as the US government and nuclear industry continue to push for more new plants and government subsidies. This film breaks
the information blockade story line of the corporate media in Japan, the US and around the world that Fukushima is over.
Mothers of Fukushima-Fighting For Their Children 17 min. 2013(Trailer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94h12...
Production Of Labor Video Project
P.O. Box 720027
San Francisco, CA 94172
www.laborvideo.org
lvpsf@laborvideo.org
For information on obtaining the video and background information and video go to:
www.fukushimaneveragain.com
(415)282-1908

==================================================================
投稿者 時刻:

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿

登録: コメントの投稿 (Atom)