but a strong earthquake near Fukushima could cause a world wide catastrophe beyond our imagination.

The US cannot be seen as criticizing too much on the world stage.

Somebody better put the pressure on however. With all the nuke supporters, including some close to Obama, my sense is that the threat is being downplayed.

to which many here claimed could not possiblly happen, or be true.

1. In reactors 1, 2 and 3, complete core meltdowns have occurred. Japanese authorities have admitted the possibility that the fuel may have melted through the bottom of the reactor core vessels. It is speculated that this might lead to unintended criticality (resumption of the chain reaction) or a powerful steam explosion – either event could lead to major new releases of radioactivity into the environment.

2. Reactors 1 and 3 are sites of particularly intense penetrating radiation, making those areas unapproachable. As a result, reinforcement repairs have not yet been done since the Fukushima accident. The ability of these structures to withstand a strong aftershock earthquake is uncertain.

3. The temporary cooling pipes installed in each of the crippled reactors pass through rubble and debris.
They are unprotected and highly vulnerable to damage. This could lead to a failure of some cooling systems, causing overheating of the fuel, further fuel damage with radioactive releases, additional hydrogen gas explosions, possibly even a zirconium fire and fuel melting within the spent fuel pools.

4. Reactor No. 4 building and its frame are serious damaged. The spent fuel pool in Unit 4, with a total weight of 1,670 tons, is suspended 100 feet (30 meters) above ground, beside a wall which is bulging outward.

If this pool collapses or drains, the resulting blast of penetrating radiation will shut down the entire area. At the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station, the spent fuel pools alone contain an amount of cesium-137 that is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl.

Any of these occurrences could have major consequences for the entire Fukushima Dai-ichi area.

Thanks for laying this out in an easy to consume format. I have to absorb it in doses, just as I suppose I'll be - or already am - absorbing cesium via food, drink and air.

that is affecting all of us to some unknown degree, and not be able to actually to change it.
sort of a slow motion On the Beach, moment by moment.
What is there to do , except wake up each morning and do the best you can?
and to marvel at the cowardly denial of those responsible in Japan.

So true.

But they have not melted through the containment. Nor are they likely to, even if cooling was turned off for an extended period of time.


This is phrased as just another tired reference to the debunked hydrovolcanic explosions bullshit.

Seems they have disappeared or something.
This is going to be the undoing of nuclear energy as we know it today and I'm sad to say that this is what its going to take. Any thinking person could see where the use of nuclear energy would ultimately lead. Greed got in the mix and from that point on its been full steam ahead. So Sad but so True

Let's begin with the ridiculous title:

Nuclear expert??? He's no "expert" (nor even a "scholar" as they occasionally try to pitch him). It doesn't appear that he even has a college degree (and if he does, it's in music). Why would anyone try to sell him as an "expert"???

Oh right... it's because he's saying what they want him to say. I keep forgetting that actual expertise is the antithesis of credibility with this crowd.

And if he's saying that the estimate on the amount of cesium might be off by a factor of five, he's admitting that he doesn't have a clue. There are physical constants involved here. They know how long each fuel assembly was in the core and how long ago it was removed. They know how much cesium would have been in each assembly at that point and how much of that is now barium. They might not know down to the gram, but they know to within a few percent if anyone cares to estimate it (and there's no reason that they should). Anyone who pretends to make an estimate and then says that he might be off by a factor of five... simply doesn't have a clue.

Why on earth would it be relevant to compare the amount of cesium in a pool to the amount released by the worst accident in nuclear history? Even imagining an (almost impossible) collapse of unit 4 followed by the worst possible fire... it isn't as if that's the amount that would be released (or anything close to it). This spin relies on people being ignorant of how Chernobyl progressed. There's no water on that core to this day and yet it isn't burning. The vast majority of the core that wasn't ejected in the explosion is sitting right where it has been for decades. Why would anyone believe the paranoia that a fuel fire in Japan (involving far less active fuel) would spew all of itself into the air?

He makes similar ridiculous comparisons, like comparing the amount of cesium in the pool (without any rational basis for how it would all escape) to the amount released by Hiroshima (and then goes on to remind people how awful Hiroshima was). How stupid does he really expect people to be? (the question can be ignored by those who answer the question by falling for the pitch). Cesium wasn't one tenth of one percent of why Hiroshima was a big deal (and that's likely high by far more than a factor of five)... so why make the comparison?

Oh yeah... because actual relevant facts don't support what you desperately want them to say. So this crowd promotes idiocy to "expertise". Problem solved!

I noticed it listed in the article from allgov I just posted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112717805

He has neither the educational nor professional background to be called an expert (or anything close to one).

and co-authored at least one paper with Allison Macfarlane

Not really. His advocacy group organized the group that wrote the paper (largely debunked, despite what their response pretends), so he got his name on it, but he was the "former government official" in "including experts from from academia, the nuclear industry, former government officials, and non-profit research groups"... he wasn't in any way an expert. His recent attempts to use a similar approach post-Fukushima prove that he didn't understand (and therefore couldn't have been involved in) any of the limited science presented in that paper. He's been trading on that "former DOE official" nonsense for years (a appointed position that he had no qualifications for and was fired from)... it doesn't add credibility.

Macfarlane is a scholar who elected to become an expert on nuclear waste storage, but if anything, her association with him damages her credibility... it doesn't aide his. In her defense, however, she was just beginning to study the subject at the time.

Find something else to do. It's a nice day, go shoot some hoops. Be happy

This time.